NFL Regular Season

[Mack Kilimaro]

Is there anyone out there who actually feels good about their team right now? Everything looks sloppy as hell for the Ravens, and the offensive line is close to total disaster territory. One of the projected starters has been nicknamed "Turnstile" by one of the columnists.

[Rhom]

Is there anyone out there who actually feels good about their team right now? Everything looks sloppy as hell for the Ravens, and the offensive line is close to total disaster territory. One of the projected starters has been nicknamed "Turnstile" by one of the columnists.

So what you're saying is that maybe the replacement players back in the day weren't so terrible... they just didn't have enough OTA's?

[Kalbear]

Sorry, but the Colts ran up the score against Detroit. And they weren't worried about it enough to keep Manning in the whole game either, after it was like 42-3.

And don't get me started on Manning's 'passes' in that 2004. In the video you linked the 48th TD was a shovel pass! Come on.

Brady's line wasn't exactly amazing, either, in 2007. As the superbowl indicated. Their defense was fairly meh as well. It's funny; the 2007 Pats (and really, every iteration of the Pats since) has been very similar to early-era Colts teams: great offense, hope they score more points than the defense lets go. Both had very similar sack and fumble rates.

If you want to make an argument that Manning is better than Brady with me, the best course would be to indicate how well each team could do without the QB. We know how well the Pats can do without Brady; it's not pretty, but it can work. But Manning? It's tough. Having people like Painter or Orlovsky isn't comparable to having Cassel (who was groomed for a while to be the backup), and Sorgi is no Cassel either. Collins might give us a better idea but I doubt it. That all being said, my impression is that a Manningless Colt team doesn't win more than 3 games in a season unless they happen to get Andrew Luck as QB or something. Even with a great QB behind the helm the whole system is built around the pseudo-stretch run and the hurry up read. No other QB plays like this in the league.

But statistically? Brady has the best single year record. Brady looked amazing that year and that team was (rightfully) fearsome. They looked unstoppable. The Colts didn't by comparison.

[Sivin]

And don't get me started on Manning's 'passes' in that 2004. In the video you linked the 48th TD was a shovel pass! Come on.

I was talking specifically about the record breaker to Stokely. It's beautiful.

And if we're talking about ugly touchdown passes, how many push-offs did Moss commit in order to pull down some of the Brady Bombs?

But statistically? Brady has the best single year record. Brady looked amazing that year and that team was (rightfully) fearsome. They looked unstoppable. The Colts didn't by comparison.

The Patriots looked indestructible, its true, but so did Peyton.

So, are we talking about the better player, or the better team?

And the Patriots had the 4th best defense in the league in 2007. In terms of points scored, yardage, and third down conversion %.

[Jaime L]

Is there anyone out there who actually feels good about their team right now? Everything looks sloppy as hell for the Ravens, and the offensive line is close to total disaster territory. One of the projected starters has been nicknamed "Turnstile" by one of the columnists.

I do. But such is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

But hey, cheer up Mack. One of your rookies prevented a knife fight at Five Guys prior to the game:

Ravens rookie receiver Tandon Doss stopped for a burger at Five Guys before playing in Thursday night’s preseason game against the Redskins. He ended up playing hero to a man who was getting attacked inside the restaurant.

Doss wrote about the incident on Twitter, saying, “Jus had to break up a fight at five guys. Baltimore is too ratchet!!!”

After the game against the Redskins, reporters asked Doss about his Twitter posts, and Doss expanded on what happened.

“I saw somebody start fighting, and I broke it up,” Doss said. “That’s all it was to me. . . . I mean, it was two dudes on one. I was trying to help the situation out. I broke it up.”

Doss may have saved the man’s life: According to Baltimore police, two former Five Guys employees attacked the manager with a knife, and the manager had to be treated for a cut on his chin.

[kingkiller]

Is there anyone out there who actually feels good about their team right now? Everything looks sloppy as hell for the Ravens, and the offensive line is close to total disaster territory. One of the projected starters has been nicknamed "Turnstile" by one of the columnists.

Well my Redskins don't look like they're going to be a completely futile team this year so that's good. I liked the effort we gave VS the Ravens starters last night.

[Kalbear]

Right - I was talking about the pass before that, which was ugly.

So, are we talking about the better player, or the better team?

You tell me. You're the one that brought up the OLine as an example. As far as the Pats having the 4th-best defense that year - sorry, don't buy it. THose are interesting stats but ultimately skewed heavily by a very down AFC East that year and that they never called off the dogs in games. When you measure by who they played, they ranked 12th. Which is significantly better than the 19th that the Colts ranked in 2004, but not a stellar value.

Now, where they had the Colts beat? In running. The Pats in 2007 were the second best running team in the league by FO stats. The colts during their big year? 19th. That's another reason that the Brady-led Pats seemed so unstoppable; if you sold out to stop the pass they'd beat you with effective running.

But again, we're talking apparently about a better player and ignoring all the team stuff - which is bullshit, but whatever. Again, Brady had the best performance by a QB in the history of the league. He had it by conventional stats, by FO stats, by wins, by anything you'd care to measure. You can hem and haw and wonder about whether or not Manning would have had more had he not sat as much as he did, but that doesn't matter. Brady holds the records and was phenomenal. Now I will say that Manning is on another level compared to Brady in that the team really is about him. Brady's gone through a lot of offensive coordinators and coaching changes and the Pats have changed dramatically in their offensive schemes in the last 10 years; Brady winning the superbowl in 2001 and that run-first team (similar to Benson in 2004, but not quite) is nothing like 2007's spread-themed team and isn't much like the pass-to-set-up-the-run offense they have now. Brady's excelled in all of these systems, but they're not truly his systems. By comparison, the Manning offense is really his offense. They get players that will fit that system well, they rely on those reads and those plans, they revolve entirely around him. He is nothing like any QB we've seen, and Brady doesn't compare that way - no QB ever has. Brady's had Belichick and some stellar OCoords along the way. Montana had Walsh. Marino had Shula. Can anyone outside of Indy even name who the OCoord is for Indy?

Their offense hasn't fundamentally changed in 12 years, and that's basically all Manning.

[Sivin]

Is there anyone out there who actually feels good about their team right now? Everything looks sloppy as hell for the Ravens, and the offensive line is close to total disaster territory. One of the projected starters has been nicknamed "Turnstile" by one of the columnists.

Well. I kind of like the Jets (because of Rex, and the fact that they play the Pats), and I'm feeling good about them... Does that count?

My other "favored teams" besides my Colts are: The Bears, and The Broncos...

[Mack Kilimaro]

I do. But such is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

But hey, cheer up Mack. One of your rookies prevented a knife fight at Five Guys prior to the game:

What constitutes feeling good about the Redskins? Being reasonably confident that you won't pull a Lions and go 0-16?

I read about the Five Guys knife fight thing. I'm not sure what "ratchet" is supposed to mean in that context, but whatever it is, I'm not surprised that Baltimore is too that.

My other "favored teams" besides my Colts are: The Bears, and The Broncos...

How can you have three favored teams? This does not compute.

[awesome possum]

Eh. While I can see a point that they called off the dogs with Manning before they did Brady, there were plenty of games where Manning just feasted on inept teams as well.

Do you not recall some of the scores that season for the Pats? It was complete and utter run-up-the-score-every-game-you-can territory. Wait, wait, sorry. I meant, it was complete and utter, "We're just trying to play football. Teams might be insulted if we started playing soft after being up by 30+ points with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter" territory.

Is there anyone out there who actually feels good about their team right now? Everything looks sloppy as hell for the Ravens, and the offensive line is close to total disaster territory. One of the projected starters has been nicknamed "Turnstile" by one of the columnists.

Yes and no. It's been a very bipolar shortened off-season. The Bears D looked great against the Bills (not difficult to do) but horrendous against the Giants. The offensive line and offense in general looked inept against the Bills but decent (though unable to score an actual TD) against the Giants.

Pretty much everyone but Bears fans (and even some of them) have written this season off already, which is fine by me. The Packers are good, but they're one or two more Aaron Rodgers concussions away from being without their star QB. The Lions should be decent, but are way over-hyped. Minnesota may actually surprise some people.

And pretty much everyone but Bears fans (and even some of them) wrote the team off in 2010... so much so that they needed to come up with excuses for why other teams lost instead of admitting that Chicago might be good.

The defense plays much better when they're pissed off and being continuously dissed by everyone will ensure they play pissed off every game.

[Kosciuszko]

I feel decent about the Rams chance in the NFC West. That's not saying much though.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Is there anyone out there who actually feels good about their team right now? Everything looks sloppy as hell for the Ravens, and the offensive line is close to total disaster territory. One of the projected starters has been nicknamed "Turnstile" by one of the columnists.

No.

[Sivin]

How can you have three favored teams? This does not compute.

I am a Colts fan. But there are other teams around the league that I like to see have success. The Jets, The Bears, and The Broncos are the big three examples.

[Kalbear]

Do you not recall some of the scores that season for the Pats? It was complete and utter run-up-the-score-every-game-you-can territory. Wait, wait, sorry. I meant, it was complete and utter, "We're just trying to play football. Teams might be insulted if we started playing soft after being up by 30+ points with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter" territory.

That's why I said as well. Sivin was claiming that all Brady was doing was running up the score to get his record and Manning was 'playing competitive because the defense sucked". Which frankly was bullshit. Both played soft schedules that year, both drank deep upon the sorrows of the dregs, and both stayed in games longer than they really needed to.

[Deaf Dick]

Is there anyone out there who actually feels good about their team right now? Everything looks sloppy as hell for the Ravens, and the offensive line is close to total disaster territory. One of the projected starters has been nicknamed "Turnstile" by one of the columnists.

No, because my team is the Lions. There's too much history of feeling good about them after a good preseason only to be crushed by inept play, inept coaching, and I'm not going to get all foamy at the mouth anymore at the mention of Matt Millen, no I won't. (Note that the Lions were 4-0 in the preseason then went 0-16 a few years ago)

That said, I think they've turned a corner and are at least competitive. I think they'll go 8-8 this year if Stafford stays healthy. He's got a lot to prove yet and I think this is his make or break year. If he gets (seriously) hurt again, then they have to either take a high draft pick or expensive free agent next year on a QB where the money should be better spent on the secondary or offensive line. This talk about them going to the playoffs...well, I want what those people are drinking.

I can't see them taking the division because of how good (I think) the Packers are, and the Bears really surprised me last year, but I think they overachieved and won't be so good this time around. I think we split the series with them. I don't think Minnesota is that bad either. I see another split there.

[Jaime L]

What constitutes feeling good about the Redskins? Being reasonably confident that you won't pull a Lions and go 0-16?

Y'know, being reasonably confident the starters have already outplayed those of the Colts, the Steelers and, yes, the Ravens. :P

Besides this team was being talked about as potentially being the worst in the league. At the time, I was like "well, maybe" - now I'm convinced there's no way. Anything is feeling good compared to that.

But moreso, unless the team I've watched in preseason bears no relation to their regular season incarnation, I think they are on track to surprise.

[Rockroi]

Alright so, apparently once you have the greatest QB season in NFL history, you are in decline. Even if you have extraordinarily comparable seasons (Brady has, arguably, two of the top 5 seasons in NFL history – 2010 and 2007). But he’s in decline.

Here is what I am actually saying, kal: everytime you say "Brady is in decline" AND THEN say "Brady is the best QB in the NFL" what you are really saying is ... nothing. Because you want to say both things so that in the future you can say "See, I told you I was right."

By this logic, had Brady NEVER accomplished what he did in 2007… NOBODY would be saying he was in decline. Why? Because the outlier is not there to show us. Let that simmer in your brain for a second. Had Tom Brady’s 2007 line looked like this: 4200 yards, 35 TDs, 12 INTs… EVERYONE would be saying “He’s just as good as ever.” But because he had the greatest season by a QB EVER he’s no in “decline.” That's not the proper use of an outlier season; its a bastardization of it because it creates as the BASIS of the opinion the outlier- and its not just the outlier for Brady; it’s the outlier for modern QB greatness. Seriously, that’s not just strange, its disingenuous. It calls for us all to use a skewed metric that only ends us at once place: you have to continue to repeat UNGODLY performances in order to avoid being called in decline.

NOBODY thinks this way. The reason Tom Brady will not repeat 2007 is not because he is in decline; it will be because that sort of season is a once-in-a-lifetime sort of thing. It’s the exception that proves the rule. Case-in-point, Brady’s 2010 season which was extraordinary. Better than anyone else in football for the last several seasons, and its again, not close. When was the last time the best QB had that few INTs? And against some really good defenses (Jets, Bears, Packers, Ravens, Steelers, Indy, all made the playoffs, one even won the Superbowl).

But somehow, someway this is seen as a mark of his “decline?” That’s palpably insane; it puts reverence of statistics over the reality of the game. How else did the Pats win all those games unless Brady had a great season? And if he had a great season is that somehow proof of decline? To think otherwise basically says that we really are all just Fantasy Football Nerds who just want to look at stats and not actually watch the games.

Why is using the best season of a QB's career as a peak absurd? I honestly don't get this. By that token all of Brady's seasons since 2007 are also outliers, including last year's; he has significantly more seasons where he didn't do as well as 2007 or 2010, so presumably by that logic we should throw all of that out and then just use the median? Or the average? Come on. That's idiocy.

This only proves my point, by the way: Brady is actually getting better. He has had his BEST seasons AFTER 2005; 2006 (statistically a “meh” season for Brady) was maybe his most remarkable: we had NOBODY at WR- Caldwell and Gaffney or at TE (to catch; Watson was a beast in other areas). Hooray. No running game. And he was within one bad route by Troy Brown of winning a Superbowl. 2007- greatest season by a QB ever. No need to continue. 2008- N/A; 2009, Brady, obviously still injured, drives the Pats on pure will, and we get KO’d from the playoffs because our D is bad and Wes Welker suffers a season-ending injury on the last game (I love, btw, how kal just ignores all my points when he addresses this). 2009: 36 TDs, 4 INTs, longest streak in pro-football history without an INT; lost his deep-threat WR in week 4 (who promptly fell off the face of the Earth – remember when we used to argue who helped who more: Brady or Moss? I love obsolete arguments!) still put together a Top Ten All Time QB performance. Amazing.

FO says that his apex was 2700 DYAR. Then in 2009 it was 2170. Then it's 2137. Those numbers...are decreasing.

Still better than all other QBs; still at around the same level; 2007 is an outlier which you want to use as the mean. I don’t know why I have to repeat myself.

Would it help you freak out less, Rock, if I said unequivocally that Brady was by far the best regular season QB in the NFL in 2007, 2009 and 2010? That there is no contest there? That no other QB can touch him in the regular season?

But while I can say that, I can also say that he is in decline. And both statements can be right, can be backed by the same facts, and are perfectly reasonable to state.

And this is what angers me the most: you want your cake and to eat it too; you want to say that Brady is great, but in decline; you want to say that he’s awesome, but not as good; he’s declining, but incredible. That way NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS THIS SEASON you can say SEE!!!! I was right all along!” Its why you said its sad “thinking” that Manning was at the end of his greatness and will never be the same, and then YOU BACK PEDDLE and said you were not quite predicting it, just contemplating it- once again, so that no matter what happens, you can say “See…”

That actually angers me. Because even in your own posts, you say things that conflict openly to SOME of your prior posts, but dovetail with others. Its disingenuous is all. Not dishonest, not idiocy; not foolish or crass. Just disingenuous. And that, legitimately, angers me.

Actually, no. I'm saying their running game - with BJE, Morris, Faulk, and Woodhead - was very good.

Faulk had a total of 8 carries last season (and 6 receptions, in case you were going to fall back on that); Morris carried the ball 20 whole times for a whopping 2.8 yards a carry. Real difference maker there. Woodhead didn’t carry the ball enough to really get into FO stats; BJGE was a very effective ball carrier (as I stated) who rushed for only a hair over 1000 yards. I am baffled we have to have this discussion, because according to you, it means that the Pats are a running team. Not sure what that means except anyone can look good on a Brady-lead offense. He makes everyone around him better.

Or not. Because ultimately you are not actually saying anything; you are merely trying to obfuscate and distort the record. Because MARK MY WORDS- at some point this season you will say that the Pass actually opens up the running game. And that will contradict the Spirit of what you are TRYING to say here. And then you can say “See…”

But hey, at least you didn’t try to convince me that Laurence Maroney helped the running game. Way to show restraint.

From FO: their passing offense was #1 as you indicated - but their running offense was #2 in the NFL last year. And it's funny that you use DYAR to point out how good Brady was but use one player's rushing yards as an indicator that they weren't as good.

I didn’t try to say the Running game was not that good, just that it did not have the overall impact you assessed. But that’s fine. Because, AGAIN, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. Because within a paragraph you say "I don't use FO entirely any more. It's certainly better than basic stats to measure quality, but it has some glaring holes in how valuable drives and field position are that are coming more to life.." AND THEN YOU USE FO STATS TO BACK UP YOUR POINT! So, in other words, you rely on FO except when it doesn’t back your point. Got it. So, on the one hand, when FO backs what you are saying, you use it, and when it doesn’t you ignore it. Yup…

(You then spend a paragraph using FO to explain what a bad week Brady had in the playoffs… thanks I really like how you don’t use FO anymore).

It's funny; the 2007 Pats (and really, every iteration of the Pats since) has been very similar to early-era Colts teams: great offense, hope they score more points than the defense lets go. Both had very similar sack and fumble rates.

Yeah… don’t remind me…

Both played soft schedules that year, both drank deep upon the sorrows of the dregs, and both stayed in games longer than they really needed to.

When you look back on 2007, its easy to say the Pats played a “soft schedule.” They went 16-0 and ran up the score against everyone. Hence, their opponents must have been the “dregs.” Except that they weren’t. Don't mistake me- some teams were GAWD AWFUL. BUT... 11 teams, besides the Pats, that made it to the Playoffs in 2007. The Patriots played 6 of them in the regular season (Steelers, Colts, San Diego, NYG, Cowboys, Redskins - that’s over half). They went onto beat the Jags in the divisional round, meaning that the Pats beat 7 of those teams at some time during the season and post-season. Their most notorious blow-out was against the Redskins, a playoff team. Yes, the Pats DID play terrible teams (Cleveland, Buffalo, Cinci), but they also played almost every single good team that regular season (that they could- they were estopped from playing any division OTHER than the NFC East; and yet the NFC East had the most playoff teams- Pats beat them all in the regular season... and lost to one in the SB... I need a drink).

Anyway, I just wanted to get all that out there. I do understand how … laborious … this debate is for some people, but at the same time it will help get me back into form.

And this thread pretty much guarantees the Pats go 1-4 to start the season and Brady goes 3 TDs v. 7 INTs...

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Because MARK MY WORDS- at some point this season you will say that the Pass actually opens up the running game. And that will contradict the Spirit of what you are TRYING to say here. And then you can say “See…”

But...but, it does, beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt. It's a symbiotic relationship, to be sure. A good passing game can make a mediocre RB look good. The opposite is equally true.

[Kalbear]

By this logic, had Brady NEVER accomplished what he did in 2007… NOBODY would be saying he was in decline.

But he did, so I am. I mean, you can say lots of things like that. But yes, by the logic of 'since his best season he has not been as good' I can say that 'since his best season he has not been as good'.

Heck, my wife notices this about Brady. She thinks that he doesn't hang in the pocket as long, is willing to fold faster, gets flustered a bit more easily and looks more gun-shy. She doesn't have a dog in the hunt, mind you - she just thinks that since the injury he's lost a step. She also stated that he's still amazing and great. But not as great as he was. I don't see why this is that controversial.

NOBODY thinks this way. The reason Tom Brady will not repeat 2007 is not because he is in decline; it will be because that sort of season is a once-in-a-lifetime sort of thing.

So why didn't Brady do as well in 2010 as he did in 2009? How do you explain that?

Because I'm not just using the point that he had a great year in 2007 and then didn't later; I'm stating that he'll be likely to get worse and worse as the seasons go on. Now, there's an easy way to prove me wrong here - and it's even something I predict this year - that if Brady does better in 2011 than he did in 2010 or 2009, he's clearly not in decline. I would even bet that that'll be the case. So why do I think he's in decline even if I think he'll be great this year? Because I think this year will be a weird year for the game in general and teams that have had strong coaching and veteran continuity will just roll over those who don't, and there's been no better set of that in the league than the Pats. So I think despite him personally not being as great, from all measurables you'll probably see an uptick. I realize that's contradictory, so you're welcome to call me on it when it happens. Of course, if I'm right, it means that when we get to 2012 Brady will look significantly worse.

drives the Pats on pure will, and we get KO’d from the playoffs because our D is bad and Wes Welker suffers a season-ending injury on the last game (I love, btw, how kal just ignores all my points when he addresses this).

Uh...okay. Sorry; you're a very verbose guy. Welker's injury was very significant. So was Dallas Clark's injury. I would think a very good quarterback would be able to deal with the loss of one player - even one that fits the offense as well as Welker's. It certainly hurt them. It's still the case that Brady looked fairly horrible in that game, no? That Baltimore looked just brutal against him. I just don't think losing Welker really explains 154 yards passing and 4 turnovers. Do you really?

This only proves my point, by the way: Brady is actually getting better. He has had his BEST seasons AFTER 2005; 2006 (statistically a “meh” season for Brady) was maybe his most remarkable: we had NOBODY at WR- Caldwell and Gaffney or at TE (to catch; Watson was a beast in other areas). Hooray. No running game. And he was within one bad route by Troy Brown of winning a Superbowl. 2007- greatest season by a QB ever. No need to continue. 2008- N/A; 2009, Brady, obviously still injured, drives the Pats on pure will, and we get KO’d from the playoffs because our D is bad and Wes Welker suffers a season-ending injury on the last game (I love, btw, how kal just ignores all my points when he addresses this). 2009: 36 TDs, 4 INTs, longest streak in pro-football history without an INT; lost his deep-threat WR in week 4 (who promptly fell off the face of the Earth – remember when we used to argue who helped who more: Brady or Moss? I love obsolete arguments!) still put together a Top Ten All Time QB performance. Amazing.

I guess I don't see how he's getting better when he's statistically getting worse. How are you determining that? That because he had a strong standard statistical value in 2010 (even though 2009 was actually better by FO marks) that that's all that matters? That the 4 Ints are the primary thing that push him over the top there? I'm genuinely curious.

Better than anyone else in football for the last several seasons, and its again, not close. When was the last time the best QB had that few INTs? And against some really good defenses (Jets, Bears, Packers, Ravens, Steelers, Indy, all made the playoffs, one even won the Superbowl).

Except by the numbers you're choosing to use, 2009 was a better year for Brady than 2010 was.

And this is what angers me the most: you want your cake and to eat it too; you want to say that Brady is great, but in decline; you want to say that he’s awesome, but not as good; he’s declining, but incredible. That way NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS THIS SEASON you can say SEE!!!! I was right all along!” Its why you said its sad “thinking” that Manning was at the end of his greatness and will never be the same, and then YOU BACK PEDDLE and said you were not quite predicting it, just contemplating it- once again, so that no matter what happens, you can say “See…”

I'd like to think that I don't go back and point out the places I was right all that often. (whether that's because there aren't that many is another issue, but...). But here, I'll clarify.

I was thinking about how much it'd suck without Manning in the NFL, or a Manning performing like Favre did last year. And it bummed me out. That was it. I also stated right then that I really hope that we've got him for another few years. I wasn't trying to be right or wrong here. There really isn't a right thing to think in this case. If I had to put money on it I'd say that Manning misses a couple of starts but comes back at roughly the same level he was at last year, and probably performs better than last year because he'll have Clark to throw to. That's what I think will happen.

But the possibility is that Manning doesn't come back like he was, at all. That he takes multiple weeks to recover and doesn't fully recover until...never. That he ends up getting carted off on a stretcher looking sad like Favre. And that possibility really makes me sad. Manning's one of my favorite players ever and I think he's been hugely beneficial for the game. I think he's a talent like no other QB that's ever played. And it makes me sad to think about that coming to an end. I do apologize for not making that more clear in the original comment, but that was always my intent as far as that statement goes.

Now, if you're really wanting to take me to task that I'm trying to hedge my bets and not take a strong stand, so be it. If you like, I'll make some predictions right now:

1. The Pats will be 8-0. And most of the games won't be close.

2. The Packers will also be 8-0. Closer games, but still easy wins. ESPN will run lots of 'is Rodgers better than Brady' while Manning makes his sad face in a neck brace.

3. The Eagles will not. They will not look great at times, especially on offense for the first few weeks. By around Week 5 Vick will look better but it's clear that folks will have schemed against him more.

4. The Rams will be the best team in the NFC West and in addition be a legitimately decent team.

5. The Seahawks will be an even bigger mess than we thought they'd be and start no better than 1-4.

6. The Colts will lose their first 2 games with Manning gone, then will tear things up a bit and finish the midseason at 5-3. They won't win the division; Houston will because of tiebreakers.

7. Cam Newton will really suck, but will run fairly well. And then get injured.

8. Atlanta will be better offensively but will be even worse defensively and start off slow.

9. The Saints will look much better early on.

10. The Jets will look very strong early on. They'll still lose to the Pats, but they'll do well against most other teams. On Defense at least. On Offense, the insane luck Sanchez had in opponents dropping passes will have caught up and he'll be hurting a lot. But their defense will be great. Probably 5-3 by midseason, end up getting the WC but losing to Houston.

11. The Ravens will be meh. Defense will be weaker and offense won't have noticeably improved from last year.

12. The Steelers will be in very good shape. THey won't dominate all the time but will be 6-2 or so.

13. The Bears will be at best an 8-8 looking team, with some ugly, ugly blowouts. They won't be Cutler's fault, exactly; it'll be a combination of him not having any line to speak of, no running game, the defense getting older and him making occasional bad choices. I think Cutler statistically will look better than prior years with fewer ints. But he won't have success.

14. None of the rookie quarterbacks will be particularly great, but the best of the lot will be Andy Dalton.

Any other things you want me to put in print so you can nail me on now? I think those are mostly solid, specific predictions that don't have a lot of waffle room. Do you feel better?

I didn’t try to say the Running game was not that good, just that it did not have the overall impact you assessed. But that’s fine. Because, AGAIN, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. Because within a paragraph you say "I don't use FO entirely any more. It's certainly better than basic stats to measure quality, but it has some glaring holes in how valuable drives and field position are that are coming more to life.." AND THEN YOU USE FO STATS TO BACK UP YOUR POINT! So, in other words, you rely on FO except when it doesn’t back your point. Got it. So, on the one hand, when FO backs what you are saying, you use it, and when it doesn’t you ignore it. Yup…

(You then spend a paragraph using FO to explain what a bad week Brady had in the playoffs… thanks I really like how you don’t use FO anymore).

Sigh. I used FO exclusively in that conversation because it's what you were using. And no, I don't use FO exclusively. It's a lot more handy to do things like pull up values real quick though, and when you're using them for your arguments it makes sense to use them back. I try to not use FO stats when other folks aren't because it confuses things. Similarly, I won't bring in other analysis if that's not part of the conversation. FO is very good at one thing: using opponent adjustments. Sagarin is better at drive stuff.

That being said, I'm really confused how FO hasn't backed up any of my points or that you've done something with it that I didn't. Brady's DYAR has declined from 2007 and 2009. The Pats have had a very good running game in both 2007 and 2010, at least as far as success rate goes (they don't have much rushing DYAR, but that's a counting metric and not a percentage metric. Basically what it means is that they don't rely on the run but when they do run it's very, very effective). Brady had the best statistical performance by a QB ever in 2007. The Pats' defense wasn't super strong but wasn't horrible. The Pats have not had offensive success in the playoffs in either game, and this goes beyond playing a good defense; Brady played the same defense and did significantly better in prior games. Brady has simply not done well in the playoffs in the last 2 years by most measurements.

What have you used to contradict that that came from FO?

Faulk had a total of 8 carries last season (and 6 receptions, in case you were going to fall back on that); Morris carried the ball 20 whole times for a whopping 2.8 yards a carry. Real difference maker there. Woodhead didn’t carry the ball enough to really get into FO stats; BJGE was a very effective ball carrier (as I stated) who rushed for only a hair over 1000 yards. I am baffled we have to have this discussion, because according to you, it means that the Pats are a running team. Not sure what that means except anyone can look good on a Brady-lead offense. He makes everyone around him better.

According to me what? Ninja please.

There is a difference between having a good running game and being a running team. The 2000 Rams had a very good running game - but they were primarily a passing offense. The 2004 Colts did not have a particularly good running game and were a passing offense. The 2007 and 2010 Pats were certainly a passing offense, but they also had the second-most successful running offense in the league each year.

Here, I'll say it point blank: the pats are not a run-oriented team. They use the pass as their primary weapon and audible to runs or run in successful down/distance areas to capitalize on people focusing on the pass. Is that clearer? Because I honestly think at this point you're trying to make points on me that I didn't say and that largely we agree. The main reason I said the four RBs was because I didn't have the exact breakdown of who did what. It was shorthand. They still had a very good running attack.

Also, Woodhead's line was 550 yards of rushing and a 5.6 average along with 300+ yards of receiving. Combine both BJE and Woodhead and you get a very strong running attack.

[Starkess]

Ah, NFL thread deja vu. It's that time of year again. :love: