NFL Thread: Bengals win the Super Bowl

[Mexal]

I just wanted to start the thread. I have nothing to add at the moment :)

[Maithanet]

So I got into a discussion with one of my friends about the weakest division in football. Obviously, we were between the AFC and NFC West. However, I contend that the AFC West is far inferior to the NFC West, and that really there was no comparison. I went further to say that three of the five worst teams in the NFL are located in the AFC West.

The Five worst teams in the NFL, (2009 preseason, no order):

Oakland Raiders - Dysfunction, thy name is Al. It takes a pretty terrible organization to make the Redskins look normal. The offense is quite possibly the worst in the NFL. Their defense gave up more than 350 yards to the Saints in the first half of the most meaningful preseason game.

Denver Broncos - At the end of the 2008 season, I would say their best players were a young Cutler, a young Marshall and an aging Bailey. Cutler is gone. Marshall may get traded, and may continue being a whiny bitch if he doesn't. Bailey isn't getting any younger. The defense looked atrocious last year, and the offense has taken a big step backwards.

Kansas City Chiefs - Traded the face of the franchise for a second round pick. Is in full rebuilding mode. Cassel is already showing injury problems. In addition, I suspect he will suck anyway.

St. Louis - They were bad last year, and may not improve much. Holt is gone. Their division looks to be getting a little stronger, which won't help.

Detroit - They're on their way back up. Gotta be.

Do you think I'm off base in claiming that the AFC West is 3 for 5? If not, who on that list is actually decentish?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

So I got into a discussion with one of my friends about the weakest division in football. Obviously, we were between the AFC and NFC West. However, I contend that the AFC West is far inferior to the NFC West, and that really there was no comparison. I went further to say that three of the five worst teams in the NFL are located in the AFC West.

The Five worst teams in the NFL, (2009 preseason, no order):

Oakland Raiders - Dysfunction, thy name is Al. It takes a pretty terrible organization to make the Redskins look normal. The offense is quite possibly the worst in the NFL. Their defense gave up more than 350 yards to the Saints in the first half of the most meaningful preseason game.

Denver Broncos - At the end of the 2008 season, I would say their best players were a young Cutler, a young Marshall and an aging Bailey. Cutler is gone. Marshall may get traded, and may continue being a whiny bitch if he doesn't. Bailey isn't getting any younger. The defense looked atrocious last year, and the offense has taken a big step backwards.

Kansas City Chiefs - Traded the face of the franchise for a second round pick. Is in full rebuilding mode. Cassel is already showing injury problems. In addition, I suspect he will suck anyway.

St. Louis - They were bad last year, and may not improve much. Holt is gone. Their division looks to be getting a little stronger, which won't help.

Detroit - They're on their way back up. Gotta be.

Do you think I'm off base in claiming that the AFC West is 3 for 5? If not, who on that list is actually decentish?

I think San Francisco sucks just as much as Denver. Sure, there's a stud on defense and on offense, but outside of that, they've got has-beens at key positions the results of years of bad drafting and salary cap cheapness clogging their depth chart.

Not to mentions they have a coach that's pushing for a pound-the-ball offense that's not only aesthetically unpleasing, but counter to spirit that made the 49ers of the 80's and early 90's.

While the AFC west may have more dreadful teams, but the team at the top, San Diego, is much better than the Cardinals or Seahawks and would be a legitmate Superbowl contender if it weren't for their head coach.

[Rhom]

While the AFC west may have more dreadful teams, but the team at the top, San Diego, is much better than the Cardinals or Seahawks and would be a legitmate Superbowl contender if it weren't for their head coach.

And yet that very same San Diego team went 8-8 last year. I don't disagree with your overall statement, and was actually my initial kneejerk reaction to the question as well... but I think overall it has to be the AFC West.

The putrid depths that are the Chiefs and Raiders really can't be overcome. Although, I must admit... the more verbal diarrhea I hear spewing from Lane Kiffin in Knoxville; I begin to wonder if Al isn't quite as crazy as he would appear.

[Maithanet]

While the AFC west may have more dreadful teams, but the team at the top, San Diego, is much better than the Cardinals or Seahawks and would be a legitmate Superbowl contender if it weren't for their head coach.

Well, the Cardinals were (to my shock and delight) quite close to winning the Super Bowl last year. And the Chargers didn't just go 8-8, they went 8-8 IN THE AFC WEST. That's really not good. I agree they should be a super bowl contender, but lets admit it, they aren't. Norv Turner may be partly to blame, but it's only a piece in the larger puzzle of disappointments.

The Chargers are still pretty good, it's just they aren't as good as the best team in any of the other three divisions in the AFC.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Well, the Cardinals were (to my shock and delight) quite close to winning the Super Bowl last year. And the Chargers didn't just go 8-8, they went 8-8 IN THE AFC WEST. That's really not good. I agree they should be a super bowl contender, but lets admit it, they aren't. Norv Turner may be partly to blame, but it's only a piece in the larger puzzle of disappointments.

The Chargers are still pretty good, it's just they aren't as good as the best team in any of the other three divisions in the AFC.

They did have a bad start, and shitty defense, but their offense was one of the best. Their defense should improve significantly with Shawn Merriman coming back and Antonio Cromartie back to 100%. And the Broncos were half decent last year.

The Cardinals went 3-7 against the league outside of the NFC west and on aggregate outscored their opponents by one point. Sure they seemed to have quit around week 11 or 12 and then turned it on again during the playoffs, but that doesn't change the fact that they were a shitty in the regular season.

This year Kurt Warner is one year and 40 some sacks older. I doubt he'll last the season.

[Rockroi]

Sorry I have not been on more (not that anyone missed me), but been busy lately.

I just wanted to give a belated shout out to Tedy Bruschi, one of the most dedicated players in the NFL who retired on Monday. I always remember Bruschi intercepting the ball against the Dolphins that sealed the deal at Foxboro that lead thousands of fans to spontaneously throw snow in the air all at once in celebration. The Pats went on to win the SB that season. Tedy was such an outstanding part of the team that we just assumed that others who played NEAR him would get better (that did not always work - I'm looking at you Monte Biesel). He played with enthusiasm, dedication, passion and intelligence.

Additionally there was the whole "come-back-from-a-stroke" thing that was extraordinary and, admittedly, frightening,a nd the fact that he was virtually indispensable in the 3 SB victories. All in all, I just admire the guy and I am very happy that he can now get fat on his sofa as he watches his boys talk back to him (I mean that in the nicest way possible).

[Week]

Bengals rookie RT Andre Smith (foot) reported this week at 364 pounds -- 30 above his normal playing weight.

Smith has lost six pounds, and must lose at least eight more to keep his full Week 1 game check. Aside from starvation, that'll be hard to do when Smith can't move on his stress fracture. The Bengals can't be surprised that a player with a reputation as the laziest prospect in the draft showed up heavy with an extra month away from the team. It's not just bad luck in Cincy.

Guess he really worked at staying in shape while holding out.

[Mexal]

Guess he really worked at staying in shape while holding out.

Yea, his season is pretty much done.

[King James]

The Chargers are still pretty good, it's just they aren't as good as the best team in any of the other three divisions in the AFC.

Tell that to the Colts...

[Andrik the Unsmiling]

I think San Francisco sucks just as much as Denver. Sure, there's a stud on defense and on offense, but outside of that, they've got has-beens at key positions the results of years of bad drafting and salary cap cheapness clogging their depth chart.

Not to mentions they have a coach that's pushing for a pound-the-ball offense that's not only aesthetically unpleasing, but counter to spirit that made the 49ers of the 80's and early 90's.

While the AFC west may have more dreadful teams, but the team at the top, San Diego, is much better than the Cardinals or Seahawks and would be a legitmate Superbowl contender if it weren't for their head coach.

Unsurprisingly, given my allegiances, I would argue that San Fran is nowhere near the worst five teams in the league at this point. Now, I'm certainly not convinced they're playoff caliber, but they've got what looks to be the makings of a tough, physical defense that's one pass-rusher away from being truly dominant. Offensively, you're right, they probably won't win any style points, but at least Jimmy Raye seems like a guy who knows how to involve the TE in the passing attack. I'm looking forward to seeing what Vernon Davis can do this year-- if he puts it all together and starts getting more passes thrown his way he still has the ability to be scary-good. But more than that, I think offensively they're going to be at least solid. They're not making any bones about the fact that they plan to run it down the other team's throat, and they've been doing a pretty good job of that in preseason, despite some problems at RT.

And I'll take the bottom-five list a step further-- here's my bottom 10 (from worst to best)

32. Oakland

31. Denver

30. Detroit

29. St. Louis

28. Cleveland

27. Tampa Bay

26. Kansas City

25. Seattle

24. Cincinnati (sorry Mex)

23. Buffalo (sorry Rots)

[Rhom]

Unsurprisingly, given my allegiances, I would argue that San Fran is nowhere near the worst five teams in the league at this point. Now, I'm certainly not convinced they're playoff caliber, but they've got what looks to be the makings of a tough, physical defense that's one pass-rusher away from being truly dominant. Offensively, you're right, they probably won't win any style points, but at least Jimmy Raye seems like a guy who knows how to involve the TE in the passing attack. I'm looking forward to seeing what Vernon Davis can do this year-- if he puts it all together and starts getting more passes thrown his way he still has the ability to be scary-good. But more than that, I think offensively they're going to be at least solid. They're not making any bones about the fact that they plan to run it down the other team's throat, and they've been doing a pretty good job of that in preseason, despite some problems at RT.

As a Niner fan who rarely sees the team from way out here in Kentucky, what's your opinion on Nate Davis? Is he worth all the fanboy man-love I see on Niner boards? Or is he your typical "everyone loves the back-up quarterback" kind of guy?

[Andrik the Unsmiling]

As a Niner fan who rarely sees the team from way out here in Kentucky, what's your opinion on Nate Davis? Is he worth all the fanboy man-love I see on Niner boards? Or is he your typical "everyone loves the back-up quarterback" kind of guy?

So far I'd think more of the latter. He's got a strong arm though, which is a good start. But I think it's important to remember the level of competition he was up against late in preseason games.

Overall, I'd say he looks like he might be a bright possibility down the road. But if he starts at all this season it should only because something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.

[the silent speaker]

Seattle is not as bad as their record was last year. Their 10-6 days are over for the near future IMO, but they aren't as bad as that. SF was as bad as their record, but they were mediocre last year; mediocre, by definition, is not that bad. I think they will be slightly better than mediocre this year. Arizona overachieved but shouldn't fall too far from their record -- maybe slightly worse than mediocre -- and St. Louis of course has no football team, but the NFC west as a whole despite being clearly the worst division in the NFC (particularly with the record Seattle had last year) is nowhere near a division with Denver nad Oakland and KC. The Chargers can cancel out the Cards and Niners but that's about it.

[Maithanet]

Tell that to the Colts...

The Colts didn't win the South last year. Their opinion on the subject, while potentially amusing, has little merit.

[Young Wolf]

And while it makes me throw up a bit in my mouth to defend the Chargers, they did get jobbed out of at least one game in Denver last year.

And really? Raiders worse than Detroit? Worse than St Louis? I know the owner's batshit crazy, but I think the team can win 4 maybe 5 games this year.

[Kalbear]

Winning games in my mind doesn't mean you're necessarily better. Detroit plays in the NFC North, meaning that they're the only team in the division that has the hard schedule and doesn't get the advantage of playing...Detroit. And as odd as it sounds, Minnesota, Chicago and GB are becoming something of heavyweights in the league now.

Detroit was a basketcase last season, but they had highlights. I wouldn't have been surprised if they had won a couple games and Oakland lost a couple more. Mostly, I think there's no light at the end of the tunnel for Oakland while Davis is alive; Detroit just has to get lucky with a couple good picks and be at least somewhat competitive. I can't see that happening even if Oakland gets Tom Brady; they had Randy Moss, and we saw how that went.

[BLU-RAY]

I pretty much agree with Andrik (unfortunately even with the Bills being ranked where they are), though i think Denver are better than Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Tampa, and I rate KC a little worse than him. The AFC West might be the worst conference, but they definitely don't have three of the bottom five. Cleveland is going to be terrible, and Tampa not much better. And FWIW, I think the Chargers are going to be really, really good this year. It remains to be seen if the whole can be more than the sum of the parts, but the parts are pretty much better than anybody else's parts (except maybe the Patriots).

[Andrik the Unsmiling]

Seattle is not as bad as their record was last year. Their 10-6 days are over for the near future IMO, but they aren't as bad as that. SF was as bad as their record, but they were mediocre last year; mediocre, by definition, is not that bad. I think they will be slightly better than mediocre this year. Arizona overachieved but shouldn't fall too far from their record -- maybe slightly worse than mediocre -- and St. Louis of course has no football team, but the NFC west as a whole despite being clearly the worst division in the NFC (particularly with the record Seattle had last year) is nowhere near a division with Denver nad Oakland and KC. The Chargers can cancel out the Cards and Niners but that's about it.

On SF, I pretty much agree. They were as bad as their record last year, but I think they'll be a bit better this year (more depth at RB, more of a commitment to the run (which is what they are good at anyway), less of an identity crisis on D, no coach on the hotseat)... Seattle though I disagree on. Housh was a really nice addition to their passing attack, but I'm not sure if he's the kind of receiver who singlehandedly transforms an offense... their RBs are basically unimpressive and a lot of the rest of that offense is old and creaky. Can we really assume that Jones is going to be their on the left side protecting Hasselbeck's blindside? And (especially if Jones isn't there) can we really expect Hasselbeck will stay healthy? Too many question marks for me and guys on the wrong side of 30 in key roles. Meanwhile, the Rams are probably on the right path, but they're going to suck for a while yet.

I see it as Arizona's division again this year... probably. I'd peg the order of finish to be something like:

1) 'Zona-- 9-7

2) SF-- 8-8

3) Seattle-- 6-10

4) St. Louis-- 4-12

I hope I'm wrong and SF really steps up and takes this thing, but then again I've hoped for that for the past 4 years to no avail.

[awesome possum]

I think Denver may surprise this year if the defense can play anywhere near average. McDaniels' offensive game plan is a dink and dunk style offense... and he just happens to have possibly the best dink and dunk QB in the game not named Tom Brady. Yes, Orton is that good at managing the ball and throwing for 3 to 5 yards. If Marshall is traded or bitches out, Eddie Royal will have a breakout year. Hell, Eddie Royal will likely have a breakout year anyways and Denver has a ridiculous amount of RBs who can put in a good run every few series. It all hinges on their defense, which isn't that impressive even with Brian Dawkins and Champ Bailey together.