How do you see the AFC West turning out? - Page 2

DenverDex · 05-24-2009, 09:24 PM

So let me get this straight because I find a lot of these opinions comical.

Denver has one of the best O-lines in the league, a great WR tandem, a solid TE group, and a talented yet partially unproven group of running backs. We traded Cutler, but still got Orton a capable system QB. Nothing special, nothing too awful either. We also are running a proven offensive system.

But the departure of one player is going to make us worse than the Raiders? Are you serious?

The Raiders have: No O-line, an unproven WR group, a decent TE, and a decent group of running backs. But they have a bust for a #1 overall pick QB, and a really old veteran.

So Just because Denver doesn't have a QB with Cutler's talent, we're not going to be able to move the ball but the Raiders can? If you're going to criticize a team based soley off the QB position, at least be consistent on it, because I'm sorry to tell you our Oaklands QB situation is equal or worse than ours. The rest of Denver's offensive talent is leaps and bounds better than what they have in Oakland. That's going to be the difference.

Oh and Oakland has no defensive line either. They have an above average secondary.

For my own rankings. With the departure of Tony Gonzalez the chiefs will be hurt a little, but I see them on the rise. They have a good LT and a decent line.. Their defense is okay if they can get some pressure on the QB. For me its too close to call with Denver and KC. It'd be a crime if the Chargers didn't get first in this division with the talent they have on that team, and the amount of players they have in a contract year.

The AFC west has a brutal schedule this year.

1) Chargers 10-6
2/3) Broncos 8-8
2/3) Chiefs 7-9
4) Raiders. 5-11

619 · 05-24-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverDex

The Raiders have: No O-line, an unproven WR group, a decent TE, and a decent group of running backs. But they have a bust for a #1 overall pick QB, and a really old veteran.

So Just because Denver doesn't have a QB with Cutler's talent, we're not going to be able to move the ball but the Raiders can? If you're going to criticize a team based soley off the QB position, at least be consistent on it, because I'm sorry to tell you our Oaklands QB situation is equal or worse than ours. The rest of Denver's offensive talent is leaps and bounds better than what they have in Oakland. That's going to be the difference.

Oh and Oakland has no defensive line either. They have an above average secondary.

I understand you were trying to make a point, but you completely undervalued a good portion of our team.

Since when is Zach Miller a 'decent' TE?

Together, our group of RBs is very solid and should hit the top 10 in team rushing this season. That's a bit more than I can expect from the Broncos’ group, this year at least.

Let's not even compare the QB situations, we have a QBofTF, you do not. Our backup is arguably better than your starter, so let’s stop there.

You trash our DL, yet what exactly do you have?

Oh, and ‘above average’ secondary. LOL.

Aso/CJ > Bailey/Goodman/Smith
I’ll give you a major edge with the safeties, though.

But other than that, you’re about right.

SubNoize · 05-24-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverDex

So let me get this straight because I find a lot of these opinions comical.

Denver has one of the best O-lines in the league, a great WR tandem, a solid TE group, and a talented yet partially unproven group of running backs. We traded Cutler, but still got Orton a capable system QB. Nothing special, nothing too awful either. We also are running a proven offensive system.

But the departure of one player is going to make us worse than the Raiders? Are you serious?

I'd like to know what drugs some of you guys are on.

The Raiders have: No O-line, an unproven WR group, a decent TE, and a decent group of running backs. But they have a bust for a #1 overall pick QB, and a really old veteran.

So Just because Denver doesn't have a QB with Cutler's talent, we're not going to be able to move the ball but the Raiders can? If you're going to criticize a team based soley off the QB position, at least be consistent on it, because I'm sorry to tell you our Oaklands QB situation is equal or worse than ours. The rest of Denver's offensive talent is leaps and bounds better than what they have in Oakland. That's going to be the difference.

Oh and Oakland has no defensive line either. They have an above average secondary.

Okay, so Zach Miller is much better than decent, he's been the only consistent threat in our passing game over the past 2 years, and the guy is blocking over half the plays, and still caught 50 passes.

Our secondary had 3 players statistically ranked in the top 12 last year based on forced incompletion stats and yards allowed in Nnamdi, Chris Johnson and Stanford Routt. Much more than above average even though the S situation is unknown at this point.

Oakland's offensive line has improved based on the personnel changes made this off-season. Barnes is better than Kwame, Satele was a capable starter for Miami and adding Pears and Johnson to push out Green is huge. Robert Gallery is a great LG, yes he busted at tackle but he's a pro bowl caliber G. Obviously Denver has a better line, but it's untrue to say Oakland has no line.

Russell had over a 90 pass rating in our last 3 games, and an 85 for the last 6 with young unproven weapons at wideout, that's pretty impressive, and he's much more talented than Orton.

And the run game for Oakland is decent? Seriously? Bush proved his worth the last game of the year, he's a starter in this league. McFadden showed glimpses of being a great #1 back despite having 2 turf toes and a shoulder that was hurt week 2, he has the size/speed combo that is almost unmatched. Fargas is one of the hrdest runners in the league and never quits, he's a starter in this league as well. You have a collection of lifetime backups, and a rookie...

I'm by no means predicting where the teams will fall, but you act as if Denver is a playoff bound team and Oakland is the 2008 Lions, you're just an extremely misinformed hater.

Timbathia · 05-24-2009, 10:45 PM

Short answer to the topic is that SD win the division by at least 3 games.

KC won 2 games last year and have lost their best offensive weapon to the Falcons. They are not 6 games better than last year despite improving in other areas.

Oakland is heading in the right direction, despite Al Davis's best efforts, but still have a few seasons to go. They dont win 8 games.

There is a lot of "denver on the road to disaster" talk going around that is a bit overstated. The defense is considerably better personnel-wise than last year despite the front 7 still being below par. Special teams this year are also much better (thanks Josh - this was always Shanny's weak point). Denver has more talented personnel on the roster this year than last despite losing Cutler if you average across the defense, offense and special teams.

The loss of Cutler is not actually as important to the performance of the offense as is the installation of a new offense. Orton's physical skills are more than adequate to run this new system, but Denver's record this year will be heavily tied to how he mentally handles it and how quickly the offense as a whole figure out what to do and when to do it.

Denver was lucky to win 8 games last year, and with the new offensive scheme (and defensive), it is highly unlikely they get close to winning 8 this year (despite the better personnel).

I predict that KC, Den and Oak pretty much split their divisional games, and each maybe win 1 or 2 others. There is every possibility none of them win 6 games.

Iamcanadian · 05-25-2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverDex

So let me get this straight because I find a lot of these opinions comical.

Denver has one of the best O-lines in the league, a great WR tandem, a solid TE group, and a talented yet partially unproven group of running backs. We traded Cutler, but still got Orton a capable system QB. Nothing special, nothing too awful either. We also are running a proven offensive system.

But the departure of one player is going to make us worse than the Raiders? Are you serious?

I'd like to know what drugs some of you guys are on.

The Raiders have: No O-line, an unproven WR group, a decent TE, and a decent group of running backs. But they have a bust for a #1 overall pick QB, and a really old veteran.

So Just because Denver doesn't have a QB with Cutler's talent, we're not going to be able to move the ball but the Raiders can? If you're going to criticize a team based soley off the QB position, at least be consistent on it, because I'm sorry to tell you our Oaklands QB situation is equal or worse than ours. The rest of Denver's offensive talent is leaps and bounds better than what they have in Oakland. That's going to be the difference.

Oh and Oakland has no defensive line either. They have an above average secondary.

For my own rankings. With the departure of Tony Gonzalez the chiefs will be hurt a little, but I see them on the rise. They have a good LT and a decent line.. Their defense is okay if they can get some pressure on the QB. For me its too close to call with Denver and KC. It'd be a crime if the Chargers didn't get first in this division with the talent they have on that team, and the amount of players they have in a contract year.

The AFC west has a brutal schedule this year.

1) Chargers 10-6
2/3) Broncos 8-8
2/3) Chiefs 7-9
4) Raiders. 5-11

Like all homer fans, you just don't want to see the writing on the wall. Denver's defense was the equal of Detroit's last year and I'm not seeing where it was significantly improved in what is considered a very weak draft year. They are still going to give up huge amounts of yardage and points. At least last year, they had an offense that could keep them off the field occasionally, but without Cutler, the offense is very suspect.
Orton isn't close to being a solid NFL starting QB, he far closer to a career backup QB. Orton cannot win by throwing the ball, he must have a solid running attack to be anything close to effective. Teams are going to take away the run and force Orton to beat them through the air. The OL had it easy with Cutler escapability, let's see how they function with a statue at QB. The WR's only had to get half a step for Cutler's arm to get them the ball, they are going to have to get a lot more separation with Orton throwing them the ball.
Then there is the coaching. Will the players accept their new HC or look at him like he is some idiot who couldn't keep a good thing going. BB coordinators don't actually have a great track record for success, ask Cleveland and Notre Dame??? NE doesn't use Shanahan's blocking schemes so the OL may have to make quite a few adjustments to their new blocking assignments and there is no guarantee they all will adjust well.
What's comical to me is that a lot of Denver fans are living in the past, so used to success that they cannot fathom that a disaster could be occurring right before their eyes but I'd have to set the odds at 70 to 30 that Denver has at least a top 10 pick and maybe even a top 5 pick after this coming season. Too bad your HC traded your 1st rounder for a nickle back, he going to add it to his lists of total blunders and I'll be shocked if he still has the job after this season. I mean, how many blunders can one man make???

DenverDex · 05-25-2009, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 619

I understand you were trying to make a point, but you completely undervalued a good portion of our team.

Since when is Zach Miller a 'decent' TE?

Together, our group of RBs is very solid and should hit the top 10 in team rushing this season. That's a bit more than I can expect from the Broncos’ group, this year at least.

Let's not even compare the QB situations, we have a QBofTF, you do not. Our backup is arguably better than your starter, so let’s stop there.

You trash our DL, yet what exactly do you have?

Oh, and ‘above average’ secondary. LOL.

Aso/CJ > Bailey/Goodman/Smith
I’ll give you a major edge with the safeties, though.

But other than that, you’re about right.

Haha, Russel, QB of the future? Good luck with that

Somebody that has all the physical talent in the world, but has no brains to play in today's NFL. I'll give you that I might have undervalued your TE. But my point is, everyone putting the Raiders over the Broncos based on soley the QB position is a JOKE.

Denvers overall offensive talent > Oaklands overall offensive talent. Even if Russell and DHB did pan out, how the heck is he going to throw the ball with that offensive line? I'd say it couldn't get any worse after Kwame Harris, but its the raiders we're talking about.

Orton > Russel and Old man
Garcia who will be on the bench > Russell/Simms

McFadden is a Reggie Bush type player in this league, he's soft after contact. Fargas is the only reason I'd call your running back group solid.

Oaklands Defense isn't going to be much better than Denver's. That's my point. Niether Team has a D-line worth anything, but they have a good secondary.

Oakland gets hyped every year by Raider Nation and they're always disappointed. Oh well, a lot more fun that way I guess.

DenverDex · 05-25-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamcanadian

Like all homer fans, you just don't want to see the writing on the wall. Denver's defense was the equal of Detroit's last year and I'm not seeing where it was significantly improved in what is considered a very weak draft year. They are still going to give up huge amounts of yardage and points. At least last year, they had an offense that could keep them off the field occasionally, but without Cutler, the offense is very suspect.
Orton isn't close to being a solid NFL starting QB, he far closer to a career backup QB. Orton cannot win by throwing the ball, he must have a solid running attack to be anything close to effective. Teams are going to take away the run and force Orton to beat them through the air. The OL had it easy with Cutler escapability, let's see how they function with a statue at QB. The WR's only had to get half a step for Cutler's arm to get them the ball, they are going to have to get a lot more separation with Orton throwing them the ball.
Then there is the coaching. Will the players accept their new HC or look at him like he is some idiot who couldn't keep a good thing going. BB coordinators don't actually have a great track record for success, ask Cleveland and Notre Dame??? NE doesn't use Shanahan's blocking schemes so the OL may have to make quite a few adjustments to their new blocking assignments and there is no guarantee they all will adjust well.
What's comical to me is that a lot of Denver fans are living in the past, so used to success that they cannot fathom that a disaster could be occurring right before their eyes but I'd have to set the odds at 70 to 30 that Denver has at least a top 10 pick and maybe even a top 5 pick after this coming season. Too bad your HC traded your 1st rounder for a nickle back, he going to add it to his lists of total blunders and I'll be shocked if he still has the job after this season. I mean, how many blunders can one man make???

I can see realistically. I will openly state right now that Denvers defense of 2008 was the worst defense I've ever seen put on a field in the NFL. We fired the worst defensive coordinator of all time however, and that in itself is a huge upgrade for our defense. Playing a safety 30 yards down the field and giving wide recievers 10 yard cushions every game is the definition of fail. Bob "I'll be happy if we hold them to field goals" Slowik is the worst coach in a coordinator position of all time.

Factor in we had two of our better players in DJ Williams and Champ bailey injured for a good portion of the season, and that'll help if they come back healthy next year. I'm sorry but there is no way our defense can be that bad next year. Nolan should do a solid job, and we did get some more talent, but I'm not expecting anything big from the defense considering we still don't have a line with a lot of potential.

Cutler did make Denver's o-line better, but not by as much as you'd like to believe. Clady was one of the best LT's in the game last year, and Harris, his counterpart at RT is underrated and played lights out as well. If there's any weakness its that our center is aging, and our LG is undersized.

As far as Josh McDaniels is concerned, yeah he's made some pretty big mistakes, but its not all on him. Cutler could have played this year with a chip on his shoulder, and for a huge contract but what did he do? He demanded a trade and decided not to be a leader of this team. I don't care how much talent he has, if he doesn't want to play for the team I love, I don't want him to.

McDaniels made some questionable moves in the draft. All the players we got in round 1-2 are good football players, but did we reach on a couple namely Quinn and Smith? Probably.

I'm realistic, and people that can't see that the raiders have no O-line, unproven WR's and a pretty boneheaded "QBotF" aren't.

Also: Orton is a capable QB in this league. He isn't flashy, and probably won't ever be elite, but that "statue" will have better weapons and better protection than he ever had in Chicago. We'll see how he does, but I don't think he's as bad as everyone is making him out to be.

SubNoize · 05-25-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverDex

Haha, Russel, QB of the future? Good luck with that

Somebody that has all the physical talent in the world, but has no brains to play in today's NFL. I'll give you that I might have undervalued your TE. But my point is, everyone putting the Raiders over the Broncos based on soley the QB position is a JOKE.

Denvers overall offensive talent > Oaklands overall offensive talent. Even if Russell and DHB did pan out, how the heck is he going to throw the ball with that offensive line? I'd say it couldn't get any worse after Kwame Harris, but its the raiders we're talking about.

Orton > Russel and Old man
Garcia who will be on the bench > Russell/Simms

McFadden is a Reggie Bush type player in this league, he's soft after contact. Fargas is the only reason I'd call your running back group solid.

Oaklands Defense isn't going to be much better than Denver's. That's my point. Niether Team has a D-line worth anything, but they have good secondary's.

Oakland gets hyped every year by Raider Nation and they're always disappointed. Oh well, a lot more fun that way I guess.

Why Orton over Rusell? Because you say so or what? You offer nothing to back that up, if you wanted to compare their first 2 seasons, which would be the only fair way to do so, they played nearly an equal amount of games, and yet Russell has better stats through their first 2, with a worse line and equally as bad receiving corp.

Orton
18GP 66.8 QB Rating 233 completions 448 attempts 52% completion 2347 yards 12 TD 15 INTS sacked 32 times

Russell
19GP 73.9 QB Rating 234 completions 434 attempts 54% completion 2796 yards 15 TD 12 INTS sacked 37 times

and McFadden is nothing like Bush, besides their speed, McFadden is much better after contact, he also offers more as a blocker.

Again Khalif Barnes is obviously much better than Kwame Harris, They allowsed the same # of sacks last year, but Kwame played 11 and Khalif played all 16. If we could shave 7 sacks off the left side that's more opportunity for Russell to air it out.

Stop hating on the Raiders beause you're bitter about people blasting Denver because of their dysfunctional offseason, I hate to break it to you but there's a chance you finish worse than Oakland, get used to the idea bro or you may have a tough year ahead.

CC.SD · 05-25-2009, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverDex

So let me get this straight because I find a lot of these opinions comical.

Denver has one of the best O-lines in the league, a great WR tandem, a solid TE group, and a talented yet partially unproven group of running backs. We traded Cutler, but still got Orton a capable system QB. Nothing special, nothing too awful either. We also are running a proven offensive system.

But the departure of one player is going to make us worse than the Raiders? Are you serious?

I'd like to know what drugs some of you guys are on.

The Raiders have: No O-line, an unproven WR group, a decent TE, and a decent group of running backs. But they have a bust for a #1 overall pick QB, and a really old veteran.

So Just because Denver doesn't have a QB with Cutler's talent, we're not going to be able to move the ball but the Raiders can? If you're going to criticize a team based soley off the QB position, at least be consistent on it, because I'm sorry to tell you our Oaklands QB situation is equal or worse than ours. The rest of Denver's offensive talent is leaps and bounds better than what they have in Oakland. That's going to be the difference.

Oh and Oakland has no defensive line either. They have an above average secondary.

For my own rankings. With the departure of Tony Gonzalez the chiefs will be hurt a little, but I see them on the rise. They have a good LT and a decent line.. Their defense is okay if they can get some pressure on the QB. For me its too close to call with Denver and KC. It'd be a crime if the Chargers didn't get first in this division with the talent they have on that team, and the amount of players they have in a contract year.

The AFC west has a brutal schedule this year.

1) Chargers 10-6
2/3) Broncos 8-8
2/3) Chiefs 7-9
4) Raiders. 5-11

Do you really have to accuse other users of being on drugs for being down on the team that traded away Jay Cutler?

All those amazing things you listed that Denver still has...well throw in an exponentially better QB and you still have a team that struggled to 8 wins. That's including some out of the ordinary business against San Diego and New Orleans.

In my humble opinion, they didn't do enough to fix their D, which was a sieve last year. Certainly not enough to offset the loss of Cutler. Orton struggles more as more is asked of him, and a lot is going to be on his shoulders, given how bad the D is. Transitions to a new defense are never as easy or simple as they seem, especially when you're starting from scratch like Denver is. Scratch is too harsh, they've got some building blocks in Bailey and Ayers. But I still think the point is valid.

DenverDex · 05-25-2009, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubNoize

Why Orton over Rusell? Because you say so or what? You offer nothing to back that up, if you wanted to compare their first 2 seasons, which would be the only fair way to do so, they played nearly an equal amount of games, and yet Russell has better stats through their first 2, with a worse line and equally as bad receiving corp.

Orton
18GP 66.8 QB Rating 233 completions 448 attempts 52% completion 2347 yards 12 TD 15 INTS sacked 32 times

Russell
19GP 73.9 QB Rating 234 completions 434 attempts 54% completion 2796 yards 15 TD 12 INTS sacked 37 times

and McFadden is nothing like Bush, besides their speed, McFadden is much better after contact, he also offers more as a blocker.

Again Khalif Barnes is obviously much better than Kwame Harris, They allowsed the same # of sacks last year, but Kwame played 11 and Khalif played all 16. If we could shave 7 sacks off the left side that's more opportunity for Russell to air it out.

Stop hating on the Raiders beause you're bitter about people blasting Denver because of their dysfunctional offseason, I hate to break it to you but there's a chance you finish worse than Oakland, get used to the idea bro or you may have a tough year ahead.

You're right a Bush comparison to McFadden is a bad one. Bush doesn't get chased down from behind. Oh, but McFadden is a capable blocker! Awesome so is Fargas and a lot of other running backs that are on the FA market. McFadden doesn't run with toughness or power, and runs high. He's going to be a decent player but won't ever be worth the spot he was drafted at.

Same with Russell. He might end up being a capable backup, but he's not a "QBotF" based on how he's performed on the field and has looked in the off-season. Reports are that he's performed pretty poorly in the off-season and some proof of that is in the Garcia signing. Maybe Garcia can teach him how to study the game, but I find that unlikely as Garcia is probably going to want the starting QB spot all to himself.

Khalif Barnes is nothing special but yeah he'll be better than Harris. He'd be a pretty good RT. My main gripe with the Raiders O-line is that it played AWFUL last year, and they had the chance to pickup the steal of a lifetime in Eugene Monroe, but didn't. If the Raiders would have picked up Monroe, I'd be more willing to put Oakland in a 3 way tie with KC and Denver. Al Davis has no idea what he's doing however, and passed up on a chance to have a good off season.

I don't hate on the Raiders because I'm bitter. I'm not bitter, Denver has had a rough off season, and I expect people to think we're going to suck. I ju st can't see how anyone can call Oakland "A team on the rise" who has gone 24-72 in the last 6 years, with really no improvement in sight.

Orton over Russell based purely off of how Orton played last season. Orton played pretty well before his injury, and will have more tools around him than he's ever had in a more QB friendly system. He's also a hard worker according to reports and got praise by his old teammates for being a hard worker and team leader when he was traded from Chicago. Orton has at the very least proved he won't lose a game for his team, if called upon. The same can't be said for Russell.

Again Denver's overall Offensive talent > Oakland's.

Don't mistake me saying that I actually think Denver is going to play well enough to make the playoffs, but Oakland will be lucky to win 6 games next year. They'll split with Denver and KC, get swept by SD yet again, then beat Cleveland, Cincinnati, and maybe Houston. I'd give the Raiders credit if they deserved any but for the last 6 years its been the same story in the offseason:

Raiders fans "OMG we're a team on the rise! The Raiders are going to be halfway decent next year"

Season: Raiders 5-11

Raiders fans GG T_T

DenverDex · 05-25-2009, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC.SD

Do you really have to accuse other users of being on drugs for being down on the team that traded away Jay Cutler?

All those amazing things you listed that Denver still has...well throw in an exponentially better QB and you still have a team that struggled to 8 wins. That's including some out of the ordinary business against San Diego and New Orleans.

In my humble opinion, they didn't do enough to fix their D, which was a sieve last year. Certainly not enough to offset the loss of Cutler. Orton struggles more as more is asked of him, and a lot is going to be on his shoulders, given how bad the D is. Transitions to a new defense are never as easy or simple as they seem, especially when you're starting from scratch like Denver is. Scratch is too harsh, they've got some building blocks in Bailey and Ayers. But I still think the point is valid.

There was no way our defense could have been fixed in one off season, and if you read my posts you will see that I never said they'll be good. I know for a fact though they can't be as bad as last years because that will probably be the worst defense ever put on a field.

The drugs phrase was merely used as a figure of speech and it isn't my intention to offend people. So I'll watch what I say in the future if that's the case and I'll edit that out of my post.

As far as asking more out of Orton - Yeah he might be asked to do more than he did in Chicago. However, we should have a capable ground and short passing attack if he cant handle some of the bigger throws. Orton also successfully operated the no huddle really well in Chicago, if you ever get a chance watch some of the Vikings @ Chicago game from last year. Orton is a smart player, but I won't believe he'll amount to anything close to what Cutler brought this team until I see it.

Me Likey Rookies · 05-25-2009, 03:18 AM

The Jamarcus Russell as QBOTF talk should hold off for a lil while. I just dont think he cares enough to be anything good in this league. I actually thought the Raiders were going in the right direction (especially after steam rolling the Bucs on the ground) but then they went and drafted DHB at #7.

So that was a good reminder that Al Davis is indeed still owning the team and that OAK prolly wont be good untill he is dead. I dont want to sound like a Jamarcus-hater but I just dont think he wants it mentally. I think this team can win 8 games with Garcia. That might even mean playoffs in the AFC.

And then for the people ragging on Orton, you probably havent seen him play last year and are thinking of his rookie year. He was putting up numbers before he got hurt last year. Look at what Cassel did with Moss and Welker, that is what Orton has to do with Marshall and Royal.

Sveen · 05-25-2009, 04:46 AM

1. San Diego Chargers (9-7)
Wins: @OAK, MIA, DEN, OAK, KC, @CLE, @DAL, CIN, WAS
Losses: BAL, @PIT, @KC, @NYG, PHI, @DEN, @TEN

2. Kansas City Chiefs (7-9)
Wins: OAK, DAL, SD, DEN, BUF, CLE, @CIN
Losses: @BAL, @PHI, NYG, @WAS, @JAC, @OAK, PIT, @SD, @DEN

3. Denver Broncos (5-11)
Wins: CLE, @OAK, SD, OAK, KC
Losses: @CIN, DAL, NE, @SD, @BAL, PIT, @WAS, NYG, @KC, @IND, @PHI

4. Oakland Raiders (4-12)
Wins: NYJ, KC, CIN, BAL
Losses: SD, @KC, DEN, @HOU, @NYG, PHI, @SD, @DAL, @PIT, WAS, @DEN, @CLE

JFLO · 05-25-2009, 07:19 AM

Didn't Russell show up at voluntary mini-camps at like 280?

I mean, I heard the guy looked like he was pregnant

vidae · 05-25-2009, 12:30 PM

I appreciate the Chiefs love but I think people are failing to really look at the bigger picture.

Over the first 8 games we could potentially be 0-8. I know every team COULD be, theoretically, but we realistically could be. This is how our first 8 games go:

@Ravens, Raiders, @Eagles, Giants, Cowboys, @Redskins, @Chargers, @Jags.

Between weeks 3 and 6 we play the entire NFC East. This is a TOUGH schedule. Don't get me wrong, I'd be ecstatic if we won 7 games, but anything more than 4 wins this year seems unlikely. Not that I don't like what we've done in the offseason/free agency/draft, for the most part I do, but with anyone would have a tough time with a schedule like ours, and I'm not sure our defense is ready for these teams.

awfullyquiet · 05-25-2009, 12:33 PM

vidae. i think you give too much credit to the nfc east.

CC.SD · 05-25-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae-KC

I appreciate the Chiefs love but I think people are failing to really look at the bigger picture.

Over the first 8 games we could potentially be 0-8. I know every team COULD be, theoretically, but we realistically could be. This is how our first 8 games go:

@Ravens, Raiders, @Eagles, Giants, Cowboys, @Redskins, @Chargers, @Jags.

Between weeks 3 and 6 we play the entire NFC East. This is a TOUGH schedule. Don't get me wrong, I'd be ecstatic if we won 7 games, but anything more than 4 wins this year seems unlikely. Not that I don't like what we've done in the offseason/free agency/draft, for the most part I do, but with anyone would have a tough time with a schedule like ours, and I'm not sure our defense is ready for these teams.

In this division, starting 0-8 does not necessarily mean coming in last. or third. Or even potentially second.

BamaFalcon59 · 05-25-2009, 12:57 PM

People are failing to realize that the Broncos have Eddie Royal.

vidae · 05-25-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

vidae. i think you give too much credit to the nfc east.

Maybe, but I don't think so. It's hard to argue against the fact that every team in the NFC East is better than the Chiefs right now, is it? Some divisions have a team (or two!) that seems to match up well against us on paper, except the NFC East imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC.SD

In this division, starting 0-8 does not necessarily mean coming in last. or third. Or even potentially second.

Fair enough. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BamaFalcon59

People are failing to realize that the Broncos have Eddie Royal.

But the Chiefs have Brandon Flowers! Who wins in this epic contest?!

jkpigskin · 05-25-2009, 02:02 PM

I think a lot of people are underestimating the broncos. Despite the huge loss of Cutler, I still feel that they will still finish 2nd in this division. The broncos will def have a change of offensive philosophy but i like the skill position players they have. I believe that Moreno will be a good runner in this league and the broncos have 2 very skilled recievers. The key is the D

Also, i feel that the chiefs will be better this season.

my standings
1. Chargers
2. Broncos
3. Chiefs
4. Raiders

with only the chargers going to the playoffs

Seamus2602 · 05-25-2009, 02:18 PM

Personally, I think the AFC West teams are better than they are given credit for.

San Diego are one of the most talented teams in the NFL, with a top quality Quarterback, Hall of Fame Running Back, good Wide Receivers, Elite Tight End, strong Offensive Line, strong Defensive Line, top quality Linebackers and a good secondary. It is only natural that they are most peoples pick for this division.

I'm not as down on Denver and Kansas City as some people. Denver have a Quarterback who will manage games. He won't win any games, but he won't throw crazy passes either. They have talented Running Backs, and if McDaniels can retain Shanahan's run system then they have a system that will allow Running Backs to overproduce. They have top quality Wide Receivers, a very good Tight End and a very good Offensive Line. The less said about their Defensive Line the better, but their Linebackers are good and their Secondary, while old, is very talented. I don't feel that Denver are going to get to the playoffs but there are much worse teams in the NFL than the Broncos.

Kansas are also in a better situation than people give them credit for. They have a good Quarterback, decent Running Backs, good Receivers, decent Tight Ends, a Offensive Line that they are retooling with some very talented people, a Defensive Line with top talent, good Linebackers and a decent Secondary. Again, they aren't gonna blow teams away and they will almost certainly not make playoffs but there still better than people are claiming.

Oakland are an enigma. The have a talented, but under developed, Quarterback, a top quality Running Back committee, one of the best blocking FB in the NFL (which is worth more than people give credit for), one of the best young Tight Ends in the NFL, good Athletes at WR, a decent Offensive Line, maybe lacking a bit in quality, a decent D-Line and Linebacker corp and a very good Secondary. The major difficulty with Oakland is that they seem to be the worst run team in the NFL. Oakland, in terms of talent, should be challenging for playoffs this year, while in reality, could struggle for 3rd.

The way I see it is

1 - San Diego Chargers
2 - Denver Broncos
3 - Kansas City Cheifs
4 - Oakland Raiders

with only San D getting playoffs.

NIN1984 · 05-25-2009, 02:51 PM

I'm actually pretty high on the Chargers right now, they will make a serious run this season. We all blast Norv Turner but so far he got his team to the AFC Championship game and than got an injury plagued team that got off to an awful start to turn it around and make the playoffs. Year 3 could be the year for Norv Turner...

bernbabybern820 · 05-25-2009, 03:09 PM

Jeez you know the AFC West is bad when you have arguments about which team is less sucky.

bantx · 05-25-2009, 03:30 PM

chargers
chiefs
broncos
raiders

Iamcanadian · 05-26-2009, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverDex

I can see realistically. I will openly state right now that Denvers defense of 2008 was the worst defense I've ever seen put on a field in the NFL. We fired the worst defensive coordinator of all time however, and that in itself is a huge upgrade for our defense. Playing a safety 30 yards down the field and giving wide recievers 10 yard cushions every game is the definition of fail. Bob "I'll be happy if we hold them to field goals" Slowik is the worst coach in a coordinator position of all time.

Factor in we had two of our better players in DJ Williams and Champ bailey injured for a good portion of the season, and that'll help if they come back healthy next year. I'm sorry but there is no way our defense can be that bad next year. Nolan should do a solid job, and we did get some more talent, but I'm not expecting anything big from the defense considering we still don't have a line with a lot of potential.

Cutler did make Denver's o-line better, but not by as much as you'd like to believe. Clady was one of the best LT's in the game last year, and Harris, his counterpart at RT is underrated and played lights out as well. If there's any weakness its that our center is aging, and our LG is undersized.

As far as Josh McDaniels is concerned, yeah he's made some pretty big mistakes, but its not all on him. Cutler could have played this year with a chip on his shoulder, and for a huge contract but what did he do? He demanded a trade and decided not to be a leader of this team. I don't care how much talent he has, if he doesn't want to play for the team I love, I don't want him to.

McDaniels made some questionable moves in the draft. All the players we got in round 1-2 are good football players, but did we reach on a couple namely Quinn and Smith? Probably.

I'm realistic, and people that can't see that the raiders have no O-line, unproven WR's and a pretty boneheaded "QBotF" aren't.

Also: Orton is a capable QB in this league. He isn't flashy, and probably won't ever be elite, but that "statue" will have better weapons and better protection than he ever had in Chicago. We'll see how he does, but I don't think he's as bad as everyone is making him out to be.

Great comeback, this reasoning is solid but I still think Denver is in serious trouble and I'm not sold on McDanials delivering the goods. I think his inexperience is too obvious to ignore and I don't think he is ready yet to deliver. I'll be very surprised if his inexperience doesn't sell well to his players and they leave him hanging out to dry once they realize he is in way over his head. Sometimes hiring exceptionally young HC's has serious drawbacks and I think it will soon be obvious that McDanials was a bad hire.