NFL Thread: Bengals win the Super Bowl

[Centrist Simon Steele]

31. Denver

What? No sorry to me? It's not even accurate to list Denver there. They are much closer to 30 or 29. Duh.

And I'm picking the Bears to win it all.

[Jaxom 1974]

What's this I hear that Orton's looking at being out 4 weeks or so? That the cut on his hand fromt he game the other night was actually a form of compound fracture...? Didn't see anything on line (not that I looked hard), but it was being discussed on the radio on my way home tonight...

[Centrist Simon Steele]

What's this I hear that Orton's looking at being out 4 weeks or so? That the cut on his hand fromt he game the other night was actually a form of compound fracture...? Didn't see anything on line (not that I looked hard), but it was being discussed on the radio on my way home tonight...

Hard to say. As far as I know it's only been classified as an "upper extremity" injury. Which means hand or arm. Of course the dumbass journalists in Denver think "upper extremity" means anything above the waist and they keep making jokes about brain injuries or severed heads.

Four weeks or not, Orton will never be the answer in Denver.

[King James]

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

As amusing as you might find them, their "opinion" on the matter is relevant. They won the South for a good number of years in a row. Just because Tennessee got uppity and peaked for one season does not make the Titans the best team in the South. Their resume is too short.

By your logic, the Dolphins are the pre-eminent team in the AFC East, not the Patriots...

[Maithanet]

As amusing as you might find them, their "opinion" on the matter is relevant. They won the South for a good number of years in a row. Just because Tennessee got uppity and peaked for one season does not make the Titans the best team in the South. Their resume is too short.

By your logic, the Dolphins are the pre-eminent team in the AFC East, not the Patriots...

The Titans had the best record in football last year. Your dismissal of them as is transparently self-serving.

It's possible that the Colts might be the best team in the South this year, but then the Chargers haven't beaten the Colts this year either.

Odd that this particular side-discussion has developed, since I have no problems whatsoever with the the Chargers. In fact, among the upper-echelon of the AFC, the Chargers are always my favorite.

[Rockroi]

John Stephens, the 1988 Rookie of the Year and punishing fullback for the Pats in their "pre-Bledsoe" era, was killed in a car accident on Tuesday. He was 43. I remember that Stephens was hailed as one of the major reasons we were going to rebound from the 1986 Superbowl drubbing; his 1988 season was sensational, but he never lived up to that standard again as a running back. What most people forget was that he was a tough, tough fullback who made great blocks for Leonard Russell (who nobody remembers anyway).

Here is the article:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...rookie_of_year/

[Jaime L]

Found this interesting:

From PFT:

For Marshall, Broncos wanted David Harris

Posted by Mike Florio on September 3, 2009 9:20 AM ET

After rumors surfaced that the Jets were seriously considering a trade for Broncos receiver Brandon Marshall, a report surfaced suggesting that the Jets called the Broncos, the Broncos politely said "no," and the discussion ended.

But it now appears that the talks were more detailed than that. According to Adam Schefter of ESPN, the Broncos asked for linebacker David Harris in exchange for Marshall.

The request makes sense. If the Broncos are only going to get draft picks in 2010 for Marshall, then they should keep him for the 2009 season and trade him in March, while he is wearing either the franchise tag or (if there's no CBA extension) the highest possible restricted free agency tender.

To trade him now, the Broncos should be looking for something that will help them in 2009.

The Broncos likely aren't pleased that word of the request for Harris has gotten out. It shows that (despite coach Josh McDaniels' denials) there's a real willingness to move Marshall if the price is right, and that could embolden Marshall and agent Kennard McGuire to continue to push for the Broncos to take the best offer they can get.

David Harris is the Jets' tackling machine; think he had a 20 tackle game at one point last year. Real nice player, though IMO, nowhere the difference-maker that Marshall is.

Found this interesting for two reasons:

1) It would've been one of those super-rare player for player NFL trades, and moreso, would occur literally a week before the season begins.

2) It represents the second time this summer that McDaniel got caught in a lie about his intentions. Saying Marshall "will absolutely not be traded" turned out to be as true as "Cutler absolutely will not be traded". Also furthers the sense that all players have to do to get out of town is create a big enough ruckus and they can get traded. Not a good precedent, that. Not to say Marshall and Cutler didn't act like asses...but has a new coach ever alienated his best two players this quickly? Or ever come off so full of shit in the process? How does anyone believe anything he says publicly anymore? The only way this will have any chance of being spun positively is if the Broncos get off to a strong start, though their schedule from week 3 on is brutal.

Y'know, I almost think Bowlen will be forced to give McDaniels another year even if this team goes 4-12 or 5-11 because it'll mean he allowed McDaniels to blow the whole thing up without requiring him to put it back together. Will highlight the mistake of his hiring in neon. Really the only way out of this ever-deepening morass is winning.

[Rockroi]

My completely unwarranted and probably wrong predictions for 2009:

AFC East:

1. Pats: Back on top after a disappointing 11-5 season. We are the only team in football that has ever applied to. Though, the fact that our D is stacked with players who used to be on the Lions, Raiders and Bengals does not exactly inspire me.

2. Miami: You limped into the playoffs last season; now limp back into mediocrity.

3. Jets- I know, I know, who would have ever guessed the Brett Favre experiment would have backfired on you? What were the odds?

4. Bills- Its gonna be great watching TO complain in a market that nobody cares about.

SOUTH

1. Titans: I just do not see enough drop off. They had a few departures, but everything seems in place for a solid, but not spectacular 2009.

2. Jags: Here is my theory- the Jags are hungrier than the Colts.

3. Colts: With no Dungee and a withering O-capability, the Colts miss the playoffs.

4. Texans: I find it odd that a team with this much offensive capability is this bad. I shouldn’t be though.

NORTH

1. Pittsburgh: I think their D is still the class of the AFC

2. Baltimore: Or they are the class of the AFC; not sure on this.

3. Browns: New blood, better record;

4. Bengals: The bottom finally falls out. I see disaster for several reasons 1) horrid O-Line, 2) injury-prone QB, 3) bad, bad coach who has escaped criticism for no valid reason.

WEST

1. Chargers: This is a guess. Its perfectly possible that the team finally implodes under the strain of having to satisfy the egos of so many under-performing players.

2. KC: I am at a loss here because I cannot envision any team of the remaining 3 finishing second. Is that bad? My theory is that getting rid of Herm Edwards was a better improvement than getting rid of Mike Shanahan. I know, I know- who can argue with THAT logic, huh? Lets say I am impressed with their O. I’m not, but lets say that.

3. Denver: I see disaster. A very poor QB to inherit a coaching change. Their running game will suffer because nobody will respect the pass. Their D is aging and nobody is excited by Orton (except opposing DBs). Remeber, Kyle Orton was so bad once that there was a meeting involving head coaches and staffs where the sentence, "Than that settles it: Rex Grossman is our starter!" was uttered. Ladies and Gentlemen, Your 2009 DENVER BRONCOS!!!!

4. Raiders: Worst team in football.

NFC EAST:

1. Eagles: I’m completely losing my crap here. I think the Giants may steal it at the end, but I just like what I see in Philly.

2. Giants: I think their only saving grace is that nobody is talking about what a serious loss Plaxico was to this O. Nobody is mentioning it and its because Plax was such a dirtbag and nobody wants to give him that much credit. He was Eli's security blanket. I think the Running game will be very good, but its not enough.

3. Skins: This is by default; they got some good off-season signings but I trust nothing on this team, including Clinton Portis' knees.

4. Cowboys: What do you get when you combine a crazy owner, a bad head coach and a QB who has issues under pressure? I think we call that Oakland.

SOUTH

1. Saints: I’m bucking the trend. I think that because their running game will be on E most of 2009 (due to overuse in 08) I think the Falcons will have a misstep. I also really like that the Saints seem to be looking past Bush.

2. Bucs: Why not?

3. Falcons: I think that there will be a sophomore slump at QB and I think their RBs will be unable to duplicate last season’s workload.

4. Carolina: The wheels finally come off. I think their QB is headed for a final disaster and their D is creaking with age.

NORTH

1. Green Bay: Oh how the mighty have… returned. I like them all around on O (okay, can we all now agree that the Pack did the right thing by holding Rodgers and dumping Favre? Is this even a discussion?) and I think they have enough on the D side.

2. Chicago: They finally seemed to have their QB house in order (after having a set of players at QB who ACTIVELY made their team worse); I am a little concerned on D.

3. Vikings: I am probably wrong on this one, but my blind hatred of Favre and the terribly run Vikings make me want them to be terrible.

4. Lions: My favorite discussion so far in the off season on these boards has been “The Lions were not THAT bad!†Like 0-16 teams have some type of upside. Like I said way back when, from now until eternity, the 2008 Detroit Lions will at least be in the discussion of worst team ever. And that is a deserved honor. Things not much better in 09.

WEST

1. Arizona: I have no idea why, but my theory is that Seattle is a team that always limps into the playoffs, and thankfully that trend is coming to an end. I think Zona’s running game is fantastic and even when Warner goes down (note I did not say “ifâ€), I think Liener will be strong. Their WRs are stupefying.

2. 49’ers: This is a hope more than anything else. I hope their QB woes end and that Smith can pull it all together; I hope Gore stays healthy; I hope they win on the East Coast.

3. Seattle: I just feel this team is the clinical definition of mediocre.

4. Rams: This could be their season to finish “Not Last in the NFC Westâ€, but I digress.

Because I may not even be around for the playoffs (due to a bet with kal) my playoffs look like this: Pats and Titans with 1st round byes, Chargers def. Jags, Balt. Def. Pitt, then Pats CRUSH the Bolts and Balt upsets the Titans, leaving the Ravens to be defeated by the Pats in the AFC Championship game.

NFC: Eagles and Saints with the buys; GB defeats the Giants; Chicago upsets Zona; Eagles defeat GB, Saints crush Chicago; Saints over Eagles in NFC Championship game.

Do I even need to say who I like in that SB?

[Jaime L]

NFC EAST:

1. Eagles: I’m completely losing my crap here. I think the Giants may steal it at the end, but I just like what I see in Philly.

2. Giants: I think their only saving grace is that nobody is talking about what a serious loss Plaxico was to this O. Nobody is mentioning it and its because Plax was such a dirtbag and nobody wants to give him that much credit. He was Eli's security blanket. I think the Running game will be very good, but its not enough.

3. Skins: This is by default; they got some good off-season signings but I trust nothing on this team, including Clinton Portis' knees.

4. Cowboys: What do you get when you combine a crazy owner, a bad head coach and a QB who has issues under pressure? I think we call that Oakland.

Even though the Skins write up features the phrase: "I trust nothing on this team", is it odd that I still feel refreshed by an analysis that doesn't have the Skins finishing 4th in the division?

I mean I understand it, I'm not at all sure the Skins finish any higher than 4th (though I think it shouldn't be all that big of a stretch of the imagination)....but it's nice to see one prediction escape from groupthink.

[Rockroi]

Jaime:

I don't mean to burst your bubble here, but my analysis is 1) traditionally bad (I think I had the Lions finishing second in the NFC North last season) and 2) its more an indictment of the Cowboys than it is a praise of the Skins. Not that you should think I do not like the skins (I kinda do), but more that I really think the Cowboys will suck. Suck hard. Suck long. Suck fast.

[Maithanet]

Vick suspended for only two games. This is lighter than I expected (four games), although the difference is pretty negligible. I admit the justice system that Goodell is handing out is not exactly the most consistent. I feel like there hasn't been too much complaining about that yet, but it seems like only a matter of time.

[Kalbear]

Vick's punishment, while disappointing, is very consistent. Vick has made all the right contrite public statements, he's enlisted one of the most respected people in the NFL to be his advocate, has not made any real missteps, and has shown in general a real desire to be better (even if I think that's entirely motivated by the $20 million he owes).

He also came totally clean. He admitted guilt.

Pacman didn't do any of these things. Hence his hosing. He also publicly embarrassed the NFL and the commissioner. So yeah...not surprising.

[Kalbear]

On an unrelated note, this article at FO is just a thing of beauty talking about the chicago offense and how it's been improved via Cutler, walking through play by play and showing what it does well - and what it did better than before.

[Chuck Klingbeil]

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).

How many Teddie's can Boston fans lose in a month. It's fackin' criminal.

[DanteGabriel]

On an unrelated note, this article at FO is just a thing of beauty talking about the chicago offense and how it's been improved via Cutler, walking through play by play and showing what it does well - and what it did better than before.

I'm becoming a big fan of Mike Tanier specifically because of great breakdowns like that.

Also, another FO writer posted a nice tribute to Jim Johnson, the recently departed Eagles' D-Coordinator -- diagramming some of Johnson's most noteworthy battle plans.

[Jaime L]

Jaime:

I don't mean to burst your bubble here, but my analysis is 1) traditionally bad (I think I had the Lions finishing second in the NFC North last season) and 2) its more an indictment of the Cowboys than it is a praise of the Skins. Not that you should think I do not like the skins (I kinda do), but more that I really think the Cowboys will suck. Suck hard. Suck long. Suck fast.

No, I totally got that from your original post. I didn't care what the reason was, I was just excited to see the Redskins listed anywhere but 4th.

[Trebla]

Jaime:

I don't mean to burst your bubble here, but my analysis is 1) traditionally bad (I think I had the Lions finishing second in the NFC North last season) and 2) its more an indictment of the Cowboys than it is a praise of the Skins. Not that you should think I do not like the skins (I kinda do), but more that I really think the Cowboys will suck. Suck hard. Suck long. Suck fast.

lol. Well I think they are going to prove you wrong. Wrong hard. Wrong suck. Wrong fast. Your whole basis seems to be you don't like Jerry Jones, you don't like Wade Phillips, and you don't like Tony Romo.

But from football sense, Jerry rid the team of jackasses and added talent in Keith Brooking, Igor Olshansky, and a good backup QB in Jon Kitna.

Wade is a jellyfish but his record in Dallas is 21-10.

Tony Romo does struggle in December and the playoffs and will deserve that rep until he does otherwise. But his career stats: 81 TD's, 46 int's, 63.6 % completion rate and a QB rating of 94.7.

The people who say they can't make up the big plays of TO haven't seen enough of Felix Jones and TE Martellus Bennett. Jones will be used more in the passing game. They will use a two TE set and take advantage of the linebackers and/or safeties trying to cover two big fast TE's. The defense should be better with a safety who can cover in Gerald Sensabaugh and the maturation of corners Orlando Scandrick and Mike Jenkins

I don't know if they will the division. But I think they will win 10 games and get into the playoffs

[awesome possum]

3. Denver: I see disaster. A very poor QB to inherit a coaching change. Their running game will suffer because nobody will respect the pass. Their D is aging and nobody is excited by Orton (except opposing DBs). Remeber, Kyle Orton was so bad once that there was a meeting involving head coaches and staffs where the sentence, "Than that settles it: Rex Grossman is our starter!" was uttered. Ladies and Gentlemen, Your 2009 DENVER BRONCOS!!!!

I don't know whether this is revisionist history or, rather than trying to think originally, you decided to rely on cliches.

Rex Grossman was a QB of Pro Bowl caliber. It was only for half a season, sure, but for that half a season (in which he led the Bears to the Super Bowl - nevermind what he did in that game, he was the QB who led the team there) he was everything the Bears upper management thought he would be.

Kyle Orton was never supposed to be anything more than a game manager. And even then, before his ankle injury last year, the guy showed some flashes of goodness. Not greatness, but he played very well. He was comfortable and confident and he led the team competently.

McDaniels did not trade Cutler to the Bears because Cutler bitched and moan too much. The Broncos OK'ed that trade because McDaniels was satisfied that Orton would mesh with the offensive system being put in place. Yes, his pre-season started off horribly, and Orton will never be a stud QB who wins games on his own, but to pretend he's a joke of a player shows a decided ignorance.

[Jaime L]

I don't know whether this is revisionist history or, rather than trying to think originally, you decided to rely on cliches.

Rex Grossman was a QB of Pro Bowl caliber. It was only for half a season, sure, but for that half a season (in which he led the Bears to the Super Bowl - nevermind what he did in that game, he was the QB who led the team there) he was everything the Bears upper management thought he would be.

Before you make the accusation of revisionist history, I would recommend not indulging in the same.

I agree insomuch as Rex Grossman played very well for almost half a season. Then defenses adjusted to him. From that point on, he was one of the worst QBs in football...all the way up to the Superbowl. I was going to say absolute worst QB, but I admit I don't remember everyone's performance in 2006. I can say he set a new, almost comic level of turnover frenzied football. To say he led the Bears to the Superbowl is just flat wrong. It may even be charitable to say the Bears made the Superbowl in spite of Grossman. The defense and the running game literally dragged Grossman's smoking cadaver to the title game. Even at the time, I remember both saying and thinking often that Rex Grossman was the worst QB ever to be on a Superbowl team. The only way they even made it there was by turning him into a poor man's Kyle Orton..exhorting him to just not "lose games" so that the defense and special teams could win it for him. It wasn't close to ideal, but at least it allowed everyone else to do their thing to actually win the games.

Even with that great first half these were his final numbers in 2006: 54.6% completion percentage, 3,193 yards passing. 23 TDs, 20 INTs. 8 fumbles. 73.9 rating. Even his best season, the season he supposedly took his team to a Superbowl, he was firmly below average. And considering he had something like a 110 QB rating after week 5, it goes without saying how awful he was in the second half of the season on.

McDaniels did not trade Cutler to the Bears because Cutler bitched and moan too much. The Broncos OK'ed that trade because McDaniels was satisfied that Orton would mesh with the offensive system being put in place.

The only reason they did trade him was because he bitched and moaned too much. Once McDaniels realized he was dealing with scorched earth, he chose Orton as the best of what was available. Not because he wanted Orton...but because he felt he was the best game-manager he could on short notice considering the immediate and unexpected need to trade Cutler. He wanted Cassel all along. This wasn't a careful, measured rationale move. This was a desperate attempt to staunch the bleeding.

[Dodgesta]

The only reason they did trade him was because he bitched and moaned too much. Once McDaniels realized he was dealing with scorched earth, he chose Orton as the best of what was available. Not because he wanted Orton...but because he felt he was the best game-manager he could on short notice considering the immediate and unexpected need to trade Cutler. He wanted Cassel all along. This wasn't a careful, measured rationale move. This was a desperate attempt to staunch the bleeding.

Completely agree. Cutler had the tools and setting to be a franchise qb for the next decade...only the increased level of bitching and whining that Cutler did was what forced the Bronco's hands. Orton was not, and will not be on Cutler's level but the Broncos did think , at the moment, that Orton's skills combined with their system would combine to make him a decent replacement.