Teams That Did & Did Not Show In 2017

[2006Coltsbestever]

21 hours ago, coltsfeva said:

   Eagles without Wentz = mediocre

  Packers without Rogers = mediocre

 Saints without Brees = mediocre

Seahawks without Wilson = mediocre

etc, etc

 

 

 

Actually it should read:

Eagles without Wentz = Bad

Packers without Rodgers = a dumpster fire  

Saints without Brees = Bad

Seahawks without Wilson = Bad

[crestmount]

6 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Actually it should read:

Eagles without Wentz = Bad

Packers without Rodgers = a dumpster fire  

Saints without Brees = Bad

Seahawks without Wilson = Bad

Add to that list:

Cowboys without Elliot = Bad

[buffalo34]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 6:18 PM, King Colt said:

The AFC is loaded with major disappointments for 2017 while the NFC has several teams that may face New England or Pittsburgh in February. The Raiders are the biggest disappointment while the Rams are the biggest surprise winners. Who gets fired and hired in the coming weeks? This could get brutal and fun to watch.

 

I kind of had the Rams as a sleeper (didn't think they'd be this good) once they got Watkins in the preseason. While he hasn't had a huge impact on the team (coming from someone who owns him in fantasy), it gave the Rams another potent weapon, behind Gurley, Kupp, and even ex-Bill Robert Woods (who was a decent WR in Buffalo, was a good security blanket for Manuel/Taylor and constantly kept the chains moving). I thought their offense would be an improvement over last year, and that their defense would remain a decent unit. Plus the weak division they play in gave them an opening too.

 

Obviously the disappointments are across the AFC. Shaping up to be another year of "Which NFC Team will cough up a Lombardi to the Patriots in the Super Bowl?"

[JaguarsWoman]

8 hours ago, buffalo34 said:

Obviously the disappointments are across the AFC. Shaping up to be another year of "Which NFC Team will cough up a Lombardi to the Patriots in the Super Bowl?"

 

Not at all. New England is #2 in the AFC and only won in Tampa because the Buccaneers can't coach kickers or find a good one. The Patriots will not even be the first team to win its division this year. Book it.

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, JaguarsWoman said:

 

Not at all. New England is #2 in the AFC and only won in Tampa because the Buccaneers can't coach kickers or find a good one. The Patriots will not even be the first team to win its division this year. Book it.

They always win when they have too unfortunately unless they play Peyton or Eli. Eli is out of it and Peyton is drinking Budweiser on a boat somewhere enjoying retirement. I am not buying the Steelers as a threat to the Pats. Pats usually beat them by 20 points everytime they play them.

[JaguarsWoman]

9 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

They always win when they have too unfortunately unless they play Peyton or Eli. Eli is out of it and Peyton is drinking Budweiser on a boat somewhere enjoying retirement. I am not buying the Steelers as a threat to the Pats. Pats usually beat them by 20 points everytime they play them.

 

They had Peyton's number for years. Doesn't he have a losing record against Tom Brady?

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 hours ago, JaguarsWoman said:

 

They had Peyton's number for years. Doesn't he have a losing record against Tom Brady?

Not in the Playoffs he doesn't. He is 3-2 vs Brady in the Playoffs. Brady had Peyton's number basically from 2001-2004 only, really since 2005 it's been even and like I said Peyton has the better Playoff record headtohead. The Steelers led by Roethlisberger are 0-2 all-time in the Playoffs vs Brady. Both times they got destroyed in the AFC Title Game.

[coltsva]

On 11/24/2017 at 4:51 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Actually it should read:

Eagles without Wentz = Bad

Packers without Rodgers = a dumpster fire  

Saints without Brees = Bad

Seahawks without Wilson = Bad

Patriots without Brady = Still good

 

Which means in the NFL there are plenty of average and below average coaches, and very few great coaches. You either stick with average for fear of hiring below average, or you move on from average in search of great. IMO, you keep searching for great.

[JaguarsWoman]

7 hours ago, coltsva said:

Patriots without Brady = Still good

 

Which means in the NFL there are plenty of average and below average coaches, and very few great coaches. You either stick with average for fear of hiring below average, or you move on from average in search of great. IMO, you keep searching for great.

 

CBE didn't say anything about coaches. Pete Carroll is still a good coach without Russell Wilson. Doug Pederson and Carson Wentz were rookies last year, so we don't know what the Eagles would be without #11. Mike McCarthy was not a bad coach when Aaron Rodgers missed seven games in 2013, when he had better backup QBs than Brett Hundley.

[coltsva]

1 hour ago, JaguarsWoman said:

 

CBE didn't say anything about coaches. Pete Carroll is still a good coach without Russell Wilson. Doug Pederson and Carson Wentz were rookies last year, so we don't know what the Eagles would be without #11. Mike McCarthy was not a bad coach when Aaron Rodgers missed seven games in 2013, when he had better backup QBs than Brett Hundley.

True, CBE did not mention coaches. Also true that I never said Carroll or McCarthy were bad coaches.