Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The NFC West, Once Laughing Stock of the NFL...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Malaka View Post
    I clearly wrote that I don't think they'll change much next year... I said in a year or two they will be one of the better divisions in the league. I never said this upcoming season they will no longer be in the bottom two, I still believe that there are many divisions better than the NFC West, but I see it on the rise, and no longer as bad as it once was.
    You have three teams .500 or better. That is a huge change.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by GB12 View Post
      You have three teams .500 or better. That is a huge change.
      There were two teams 500. or better in that division last year. I feel the Seahawks will improve, if they are not hampered by injuries to at least 500. I only have one of those 3 teams making the playoffs.

      Bone Krusher, the best

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Malaka View Post
        There were two teams 500. or better in that division last year. I feel the Seahawks will improve, if they are not hampered by injuries to at least 500. I only have one of those 3 teams making the playoffs.
        No, there was only one.

        And you have the division getting 32 wins compared to 22 last year. That's a pretty significant change.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by GB12 View Post
          No, there was only one.

          And you have the division getting 32 wins compared to 22 last year. That's a pretty significant change.
          Sorry 49ers were 7-9 my bad, but still quite close

          I only have one team improving significantly, the rise in wins is drastic, but only because the two bottom teams improved very much so, while the top 2 pretty much got a little better.

          My predictions are not what matters, no one can predict what can happen in an NFL season, I thought the Falcons were locks to have the #1 overall pick, that didn't work out like I planned, what I am thinking right now is it seems, to me the Cardinals, Rams, Seahawks and 49ers are all on the right track right now, and a few years down the road that division won't be as pathetic as it has been.

          Bone Krusher, the best

          Comment


          • #20
            I wouldn't even put NFC west in the top half of divisions. The only divisions you might be better than are the NFC North, maybe the NFC south (cards beat panthers and falcolns, but 2 playoff teams in a division is a strong case against NFC west), and maybe the AFC west (similar division in terms of being able to win with an 8-8 record haha).


            Your argument is heavily based on each team drafting well and getting good starters but we all know there are plenty of losers every draft year and most draft picks don't contribute right away. You could do this, "each team is on the right track" for anybody: when a team needs an OT and they draft one, you can say, "look they addressed their need, great draft!" but in reality that player might not pan out so it's silly to evaluate drafts that day. Everyone is trying to get better, even the lions. No team is making moves that they think are gonna make the team worse off. Obviously teams make bad decisions in hindsight, but at the time people don't intentionally make bad decisions with 100% certainty unless ur a complete ****** a la Matt Millen


            Sorry, still think it's the laughing stock of NFL.
            Last edited by cdf_2108; 04-19-2009, 08:38 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by cdf_2108 View Post
              I wouldn't even put NFC west in the top half of divisions. The only divisions you might be better than are the NFC North, maybe the NFC south (cards beat panthers and falcolns, but 2 playoff teams in a division is a strong case against NFC west), and maybe the AFC west (similar division in terms of being able to win with an 8-8 record haha).
              The NFC North and South would stomp the **** out of the AFC West.


              Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                The NFC North and South would stomp the **** out of the AFC West.
                I wasn't making a relative statement about the NFC North, NFC South, and AFC West--just that they are the only divisions close to the shittiness of the NFC west.

                But now that we're talking about it, I think NFC South is way better than NFC North and AFC West. But NFC North and AFC west is closer than you would think, I'd take the Chiefs over the Lions and the Raiders were a couple close games away from being as good as the Packers. SD has an elite roster, more elite than the Vikings, and Denver and Chicago are not that far off although the Cutler trade will shake things up. Depends on how good Denver's 1st rounders turn out. Nonetheless, I think it's way closer than NFC South vs AFC West/NFC North

                Each team in the NFC south has made the playoffs at least once the last 2years

                Comment


                • #23
                  I think the NFC West is better than the AFC West...

                  Cardinals and Chargers are closer than you think...

                  49ers and Broncos, with Cutler Broncos all the way but now... no

                  Seahawks and Raiders, Seahawks they had a really bad injury riddled year, I think they'll be much better this year.

                  Rams and Chiefs, I'll give it to the Chiefs.

                  Bone Krusher, the best

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by cdf_2108 View Post
                    the Raiders were a couple close games away from being as good as the Packers.
                    The Raiders are no where close to the Packers.

                    And that is not a homer statement.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GB12 View Post
                      The Raiders are no where close to the Packers.

                      And that is not a homer statement.
                      I would take the Packers over the Raiders 6 times out of 10, but 60/40 is pretty close is all i'm saying. "on any given sunday" would be very appropriate for this matchup

                      Raiders' defense is statistically better and I would argue their offensive players have way higher of a ceiling.

                      Aaron rodgers may be better than Jamarcus now, but you can't argue against Jamarcus' potential. And Michael Bush > Ryan Grant , and DMC hasn't even touched his potential.

                      You have better receivers though, but you're probably going defense in round 1 and raiders will probably get maclin/crabtree, which would make it closer.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I don't know why anyone would think it weird for the 49ers to go 8-8 in 2009. They went 7-9 last year with the Mike Nolan/J.T. O'Sullivan for the first half of the season. That alone proves that the rest of the team is better than some believe.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by cdf_2108 View Post
                          I wasn't making a relative statement about the NFC North, NFC South, and AFC West--just that they are the only divisions close to the shittiness of the NFC west.

                          But now that we're talking about it, I think NFC South is way better than NFC North and AFC West. But NFC North and AFC west is closer than you would think, I'd take the Chiefs over the Lions and the Raiders were a couple close games away from being as good as the Packers. SD has an elite roster, more elite than the Vikings, and Denver and Chicago are not that far off although the Cutler trade will shake things up. Depends on how good Denver's 1st rounders turn out. Nonetheless, I think it's way closer than NFC South vs AFC West/NFC North

                          Each team in the NFC south has made the playoffs at least once the last 2years
                          The Bears would beat the Broncos by 3 touchdowns. The Broncos could be one of the 2-3 worst teams in the NFL next year. Ditto the Packers over the Raiders.


                          Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Ya we are only the best team in the NFC(can't argue that until next year)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                              The Bears would beat the Broncos by 3 touchdowns. The Broncos could be one of the 2-3 worst teams in the NFL next year. Ditto the Packers over the Raiders.
                              The bears will be lucky to score 3 TDs against the broncos. Their best receiver is a TE, I don't care if they got Jay "most over hyped QB" Cutler, the Broncos are a talented team with a lot of draft picks and the Bears have one pick in the first 100. At the very worst, the Broncos lose by a TD to the Bears.

                              And SD could beat every team in the NFC North 8 times out of 10. Packers were 7-9 last year, don't think that's very convincing and their defense got worse and it was already too old. I'm not saying they're worse than the raiders but it's close.

                              As long as the Vikings have Brad Childress and Tarvaris Jackson at the helm, they're going NOWHERE fast. The AFC west and NFC NOrth both SUCK.

                              And come on, your division has the LIONS, GG no RE.
                              Last edited by cdf_2108; 04-19-2009, 09:18 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by cdf_2108 View Post
                                The bears will be lucky to score 3 TDs against the broncos. Their best receiver is a TE, I don't care if they got Jay "most over hyped QB" Cutler, the Broncos are a talented team with a lot of draft picks and the Bears have one pick in the first 100. At the very worst, the Broncos lose by a TD to the Bears.
                                As much as I hate the Bears they would destroy the Broncos if they played next year. So would the Packers and Vikings.

                                And SD could beat every team in the NFC North 8 times out of 10.
                                Really? Because they lost 2 out of 4 in 2007 and have only gotten worse since then.

                                Packers were 7-9 last year, don't think that's very convincing and their defense got worse and it was already too old. I'm not saying they're worse than the raiders but it's close.
                                We were 6-10 not 7-9, but it's really not close. The Packers would win easily over Oakland. And your previous post about that was very wrong.
                                Raiders' defense is statistically better
                                Actually statistically the Packers defense is better. They were better in points allowed, yards allowed, and run defense. The Raiders were better in pass defense by 1.6 yards per game.
                                and I would argue their offensive players have way higher of a ceiling.
                                Well you'd be wrong. Also unless all their players are going to all of a sudden magically reach their potential next year that doesn't mean ****. The Packers already have a top 10 QB and top 10 WR on the roster. The Raiders don't have players that are capable of doing either.

                                Aaron rodgers may be better than Jamarcus now, but you can't argue against Jamarcus' potential.
                                I absolutely can argue against Russell's potential. I doubt Russell ever has a season as good as Rodgers had last year. Also, week 1 Rodgers will be 25, Russell will be 24. Rodgers might not have hit his potential yet either. And if Russell ever does reach the level of Rodgers it looks like it's not going to be for a few years judging on how he's progressing so far.

                                And Michael Bush > Ryan Grant
                                How the **** do you figure that? I know it's the popular thing to hate on Grant, but seriously?

                                As long as the Vikings have Brad Childress and Tarvaris Jackson at the helm, they're going NOWHERE fast. The AFC west and NFC NOrth both SUCK.
                                Even so they are easily better than 3/4ths of the AFC West and probably better than San Diego too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information