PDA

View Full Version : Who's the best team in the NFL?


Valuist
10-20-2006, 10:31 AM
The consensus has been the Bears but last Monday night showed some real weaknesses. 5 games does not make Rex Grossman a Hall of Famer, and he played about as poorly as a QB could play. Arizona also showed that the Bears might be a little vulnerable to the short pass. Also, SS Mike Brown is now out for the year. I think the Bears took Ariz too lightly but this team is NOT in the same league as the 1985 team.

San Diego has to be one of the top teams but they've beaten up on some shaky opposition in Oakland, Tenn and SF. In a close game, they blew a lead to lose to the Ravens. Like Grossman, 5 games doesn't mean Philip Rivers is ticketed for the Pro Bowl.

Colts? No way. This team cannot stop the run. They may win 11-12 games, possibly even 13 during the season. But until they learn to stop the run, they will get knocked out in the playoffs. The run game had been weak early but has shown improvement the past 2 games. Have to think The Edge going to Arizona wasn't good for him or the Colts.


There's some other decent teams, like Jax, Carolina, NE, Philly and Dallas but I don't think any of them are in the running for top team.

cj
10-20-2006, 10:36 AM
I wouldn't underestimate NE. Maroney is really good, and of course there is always Brady. It is tough to argue for Pittsburgh now, but come the end of the year, they will be one of the teams to beat.

Both are proven road teams as well. I would say the Super Bowl goes through those two in the AFC.

Valuist
10-20-2006, 10:47 AM
While I respect Brady and Belichek, I think NE has lost too much talent, both players and coaches (no less than three former coordinators are now coaches in the NFL & at Notre Dame). Its a good thing Maroney is good because Dillon is over the hill. Not sure which is the real NE: the one that struggled (and should've lost) the opener at home to Buffalo or the one that pounded the Bengals in Cincinnati. I think they will go further than the Colts in the playoffs. Probably between them and SD.

I think Rothlesberger still isn't 100%. He supposedly lost 20-25 pounds and his arm strength looked down as he was continually underthrowing receivers. Bettis didn't gain a lot of yards last year but he was great at the goal line and a team leader. I also think any defending SB champ always gets the opponents "A" game. I don't like their chances this year.

banacek
10-20-2006, 11:19 AM
The consensus has been the Bears but last Monday night showed some real weaknesses. 5 games does not make Rex Grossman a Hall of Famer, and he played about as poorly as a QB could play.

Anyone know what Grossman's QB rating was for Monday night's game?

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 11:31 AM
Anyone know what Grossman's QB rating was for Monday night's game?

10.2

That game should put to rest any talk about grossman for mvp. He played as awful as you can play and they still won because of their defense so how valuable can he be?

Valuist
10-20-2006, 11:33 AM
10.2

That game should put to rest any talk about grossman for mvp. He played as awful as you can play and they still won because of their defense so how valuable can he be?

Even before the game, Grossman's numbers were considerably below McNabb's. There's no RB or WR really tearing it up this year. I'd have to say McNabb is the leader by open lengths at this point.

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 11:35 AM
Even before the game, Grossman's numbers were considerably below McNabb's. There's no RB or WR really tearing it up this year. I'd have to say McNabb is the leader by open lengths at this point.

Well just cause his numbers were lower than mcnabbs doesn't mean he wasn't as good a candidate. He wasn't as good a candidate because he's not as important to his team as mcnabb.

I agree mcnabb is the leader right now but that schedule gets much tougher and if they wind up 8-8 or 9-7 he's out.

I'd say hasselback is putting himself into the mix with the way he's playing.

SAL
10-20-2006, 11:45 AM
I wouldn't say any team is a dominant clear cut "best", but I do like 3 teams for the top spot.

Chicago
Denver
New England

Especially the top 2. The Chicago/Arizona game shows you that a strong defense can take you a long way. Denver's defense has been impressive all year, they've only scored 12 points more than the winless Raiders. And New England is still one of the top teams IMO, because they play decent D and have a strong running game.

Valuist
10-20-2006, 11:54 AM
I'd say hasselback is putting himself into the mix with the way he's playing.

Did you see the game against the Bears? He was absolutely horrible.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20061001003

The two players most important to their team are McNabb and Steve Smith.

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 12:06 PM
Did you see the game against the Bears? He was absolutely horrible.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20061001003

The two players most important to their team are McNabb and Steve Smith.

Yes he was horrible and his team lost. When he plays great, his team wins ie mvp candidate

cj
10-20-2006, 12:31 PM
I usually agree with SAL, but I don't give Denver any chance with Plummer playing.

Valuist
10-20-2006, 12:32 PM
There's got to be at least 20-30 better candidates than Hasselbeck.

week 1: His Seahawks manage 9 pts against a terrible Lion defense
week 2: 12 of 27 passing, 2 picks 55 QB rating. bad game
week 3: 5 TD passes, 24 of 33 but lets Giants back into game with 3 picks
week 4: debacle against Bears
week 5: finally an all around good game: 3 TD 0 int 268 yards in a win.

You must really be a die hard Seattle fan to think that warrants MVP consideration. 82 QB rating says enough.

cj
10-20-2006, 12:33 PM
The two players most important to their team are McNabb and Steve Smith.

I would put Tom Brady ahead of Smith and on par with McNabb in the team importance category.

banacek
10-20-2006, 12:34 PM
10.2
?

Does the QB rating include the 2 fumbles that he personally made?

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 12:53 PM
There's got to be at least 20-30 better candidates than Hasselbeck.

week 1: His Seahawks manage 9 pts against a terrible Lion defense
week 2: 12 of 27 passing, 2 picks 55 QB rating. bad game
week 3: 5 TD passes, 24 of 33 but lets Giants back into game with 3 picks
week 4: debacle against Bears
week 5: finally an all around good game: 3 TD 0 int 268 yards in a win.

You must really be a die hard Seattle fan to think that warrants MVP consideration. 82 QB rating says enough.

No I'm not a seattle or hasselback fan. Alexander was average when he played and has missed the last 2 games and seattle is 4-1 and in first place.

He won them the rams game on the road, a tougher win than anything mcnabb has faced thus far.

Like I said its still early but you're crazy if you think there are 20-30 players more important to their team than hasselback is right now

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 12:54 PM
Does the QB rating include the 2 fumbles that he personally made?

No the qb rating does not factor in fumbles, only the interceptions.

Valuist
10-20-2006, 12:56 PM
The award is actually about who is having the best season, not who is the most important player to their team. Awards aren't supposed to be based on talent or expectations; they're about results.

As for Hasselbeck, he's a good QB but he's got a good supporting cast. Alexander will be back soon and the WR corps of Branch/Jackson/Burleson/Engram (who's now out) is as deep as any.

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 02:00 PM
The award is actually about who is having the best season, not who is the most important player to their team. Awards aren't supposed to be based on talent or expectations; they're about results.

As for Hasselbeck, he's a good QB but he's got a good supporting cast. Alexander will be back soon and the WR corps of Branch/Jackson/Burleson/Engram (who's now out) is as deep as any.

No the award is not supposed to be about who is having the best season. Its called the Most Valuable Player award, not the most outstanding player award.

ponyplayerdotca
10-20-2006, 03:57 PM
GHOSTYAPPER wrote the following 2 posts:

GROSSMAN: "That game should put to rest any talk about Grossman for MVP. He played as awful as you can play and they still won because of their defense so how valuable can he be?"

HASSELBECK: "Yes he was horrible and his team lost. When he plays great, his team wins ie mvp candidate."

====

Lifelong BEARS fan here. Also, lifelong NFL fan. I respect all teams and opinions. (and that includes your opinion too).

But I have to ask: How is it Grossman has one horrendous game and is no longer an MVP candidate, but Hasselbeck has one horrendous game and he still is?

Arizona may have displayed some serious flaws in the BEARS as a team. But Grossman was the reason they won their previous 5 games, 4 of them handily. How does one terrible game erase all of that?

The astonishing thing to me on all the message boards and in the media after the BEARS shocking comeback was the abuse they've had to take for being undefeated.

They won a game they trailed by 20 points without scoring on offense. That's quite remarkable. They won as a TEAM. One guy falls down, the others pick him up. Why was the BEARS win so awful for everyone? I don't know of any other team who could be trailing by that much and muster any kind of comeback, let alone without any offensive contributions.

But, it's also the first points of any kind the defense has scored all year.
26-0, 38-7, 19-16, 37-6, 40-7 >>> All of those points, except one punt return in the opener, were put up by Grossman and the offense. He had 10 TD passes in those 5 games. That's where the premature "MVP" media stories were born.

Grossman has played all of about 13-15 pro NFL games in his 3-4 years in the league. In horse racing parlance, he still has "plenty of upside" that will come with experience (just like Hasselbeck, and Delhomme, and Brees, and Eli Manning - all of whom have played much more than Rex).

Personally, I care about the team and not about the individual awards. I don't think Grossman is MVP material either (yet). But I'm not closing the book on him because of one sorry game that just happened to be on national TV.

So, let's calm it with the "that should put to rest" posts about Grossman for about another year or so. He's still on the way up in the learning curve. And that's just my opinion. :ThmbUp:

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 04:10 PM
But I have to ask: How is it Grossman has one horrendous game and is no longer an MVP candidate, but Hasselbeck has one horrendous game and he still is?


Very simple. Grossman played horrible, his team still wins, hasselback plays horrible his team gets blown out.

Again its the Most Valuable Player award, not the best player award. Remember this same bears team went 11-5 with kyle orton at qb last year so exactly how valuable is rex grossman?

Valuist
10-20-2006, 04:14 PM
Very simple. Grossman played horrible, his team still wins, hasselback plays horrible his team gets blown out.

Again its the Most Valuable Player award, not the best player award. Remember this same bears team went 11-5 with kyle orton at qb last year so exactly how valuable is rex grossman?

Since 6-0 does NOT equate to 11-5, I would say pretty valuable.

You check over the years in MLB and NFL history. The player who had the best season would win the MVP. Andre Dawson did it on a last place team. It wasn't until the NBA picked up popularity did winning become associated with the award. But the NBA is a bit different; only 5 players on a team playing at one time means each person makes a bigger difference.

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 04:16 PM
But Grossman was the reason they won their previous 5 games, 4 of them handily. How does one terrible game erase all of that?



The defense gave up less than 10 points in 4 of their wins and grossman is the reason they won?

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 04:26 PM
You check over the years in MLB and NFL history. The player who had the best season would win the MVP. Andre Dawson did it on a last place team. It wasn't until the NBA picked up popularity did winning become associated with the award. But the NBA is a bit different; only 5 players on a team playing at one time means each person makes a bigger difference.

O I agree that some times the mvp award doesn't necessarily go to the most valuable player but that doesn't make it right.

And you missed the point about the bears record last year. They went 11-5 with, at the time, the worst starting qb in the league. 6-0 also does not equate to 16-0.

Since 6-0 does NOT equate to 11-5, I would say pretty valuable.

First you said Grossman was not a candidate but this statement means he is?

Valuist
10-20-2006, 04:27 PM
Very simple. Grossman played horrible, his team still wins, hasselback plays horrible his team gets blown out.

Again its the Most Valuable Player award, not the best player award. Remember this same bears team went 11-5 with kyle orton at qb last year so exactly how valuable is rex grossman?

Hasselbeck played horrible in week 2 against the Cardinals (is there a theme here?) and Seattle still won.

Valuist
10-20-2006, 04:29 PM
O I agree that some times the mvp award doesn't necessarily go to the most valuable player but that doesn't make it right.

And you missed the point about the bears record last year. They went 11-5 with, at the time, the worst starting qb in the league. 6-0 also does not equate to 16-0.


First you said Grossman was not a candidate but this statement means he is?

No, he makes a difference but he isn't having as good a year as McNabb. Philly could be 6-0 if their defense showed up in their two losses. Re: Grossman all you had to do was see the Atlanta game last year in which Orton played the first half and Grossman came in for the 2nd half. The difference was night and day.

6-0 may not equate 16-0, which I don't see them doing but they'd have to go 5-5 the rest of the way to be at last years 11-5.

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 04:30 PM
Hasselbeck played horrible in week 2 against the Cardinals (is there a theme here?) and Seattle still won.

Hasselback had 1 tds and 2 turnovers

Grossman had 0 tds and 6 turnovers

I think there are differing levels of "horrible" play

Valuist
10-20-2006, 04:32 PM
Hasselback had 1 tds and 2 turnovers

Grossman had 0 tds and 6 turnovers

I think there are differing levels of "horrible" play

Grossman's horrible was one of the worst performances I've ever seen. But its still was only one game.

Kind of like the pitcher who makes 5 solid quality starts then goes out and gets shelled for 7 runs in the first inning. His season ERA may be wrecked, but the majority of efforts were solid.

ghostyapper
10-20-2006, 04:35 PM
No, he makes a difference but he isn't having as good a year as McNabb. Philly could be 6-0 if their defense showed up in their two losses. Re: Grossman all you had to do was see the Atlanta game last year in which Orton played the first half and Grossman came in for the 2nd half. The difference was night and day.

6-0 may not equate 16-0, which I don't see them doing but they'd have to go 5-5 the rest of the way to be at last years 11-5.

No doubt grossman is a better qb than orton and will win the bears some games but I don't think he's as valuable as hasselback.

As far as mcnabb and the eagles, its kind of a double edged sword when talking about what record a team "could" have. If not for the philly defense (scoring a td, while offense gives up a td on turnover) they might lose the dallas game. In the giant loss mcnabb could not get first downs to ice the game, and also had the ball first in OT but couldn't get it done.