re: i'd rather be lucky than good any day....

since this is a total crapshoot i'm just gonna go with what i've read/seen/feel in my gut

i have this unshakable feeling that the pats, broncos, and steelers, are all going to have very, very disappointing seasons. i can't explain it intelligently. and even though i'd like to see the colts go i definitely think they'll choke...or rather, he'll choke. all that leaves is the bengals, who i don't think are a mature enough team, but i don't know what i'm talking about so i'm sticking with them.

i don't know anything at all about seattle but the hype is starting to get to me. i can't see them living up to it. the eagles have a shot, but i think their division is going to be one of the roughest this year and we all know they can't win when their starters are hurt. IF dallas gets their shit together they will be unbeatable but that's a big, big, really big if. a month ago i would have said it was a given, now i really doubt it. who does that leave....carolina?? who knows. with no one in their way, maybe.

then again
maybe i'm just being difficult

re: thanks for being an ass...

...and picking basically my exact AFC. nevertheless...

AFC East: Pats (Miami, Buffalo, Jets)
AFC North: Bengals (Steelers, Ravens, Browns)
AFC South: Colts (Jags, Titans, Texans)
AFC West: Broncos (Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders)
AFC Wildcards: Steelers, Chargers

Broncos over Chargers, Bengals over Steelers.
Colts over Bengals, Pats over Broncos.
Pats over Colts.


NFC East: Cowboys (Giants, Eagles, Redskins)
NFC North: Bears (Vikings, Packers, Lions)
NFC South: Panthers (Bucs, Falcons, Saints)
NFC West: Seahawks (Cardinals, Rams, 49ers)
NFC Wildcards: Giants, Bucs

Panthers over Giants, Bucs over Cowboys.
Panthers over Bears, Seahawks over Bucs.
Seahawks over Panthers.

Pats over Seahawks. Mark it down.


MVP: LaDainian Tomlinson
DPOY: Ed Reed
OROY: Reggie Bush
DROY: AJ Hawk

re: also...

as i said in the other post, last year i got 4/8 division winners and 7/12 playoff teams. on the surface this doesn't really seem all that great, until you compare it with "expert" picks from last year. i looked up the 2005 predictions from all the espn.com football guys... their best score was 3/8 and 5/12 and the rest were worse from there, though generally in the same ballpark (joe theismann only got 1 division winner but 5 playoff teams, michael smith only got 3 playoff teams).

so probably a little over 50% accuracy is what we're shooting for.

re: cowboys?

what makes you think the cowboys will put together a good year?

also why did i decide to completely dismiss the bucs?

re: bengals > steelers

ok, here are my picks

AFC E - Pats (Dolphins WC)
AFC N - Bengals
AFC S - Colts
AFC W - Broncos (Chargers WC)
Tough teams to omit were the Chiefs and Jags. I dont think the Steelers were good last year and I dont think they're good this year.

Playoffs
Bengals over Dolphins
Chargers over Broncos (LT dominates)
Bengals over Colts (peyton blows another playoff game...plus they have no RB)
Chargers over Pats
Bengals over Chargers (rematch of 1982 AFC Championship game in Cincy....Phillip Rivers gets picked off 3 times...he's no Dan Fouts)

NFC E - Giants (Cowboys WC)
NFC N - Bears
NFC S - Panthers (Bucs WC)
NFC W - Seahawks

I had a really tough time picking between the Cowboys, Eagles, Bucs, and Cardinals for the WC spots, so it wouldn't surprise me if any of those teams made it. it will surprise me if the Redskins make it, but i hope they go winless. god i hate the redskins.

Playoffs
Bears over Bucs
Panthers over Cowboys
Giants over Bears
Panthers over Seahawks
Giants over Panthers

Title game - Bengals over Giants (my team over my dad's team...and i get cut out of the will and disowned)

re: only phil

would say something absurd like "the steelers weren't good last year (WHEN THEY WON THE SUPER BOWL)"

:)

re: they weren't

they weren't good. i mean they played well down the stretch and in any type of playoff system that's what counts, right? i guess they were good in the sense that they kept themselves in playoff contention through the roethlisberger injury and through the slump they went through in october and november and then they got hot at the right time.

but does anyone believe that they were going to beat cincy with a healthy carson palmer? indy was so much better and just didn't play...like indy alwasy does in the playoffs...the true measure of those 2 teams was that monday night game when indy blew them out. and then the steelers got plenty of referee help in the SB.

they were a fine team, but not a good team and not a great team. god, we dont even have great teams in the nfl anymore...what happened to teams like the 80's 49ers and their 5 SB championships? jon?

re: dear phil,

hate you

re: a more formal argument in favor of the steelers

let me preface this by saying I HATE DOING THIS because i dislike the steelers. however, they were a good team last year, and trivializing their accomplishments is kind of a joke.

Creating this list brought up an interesting fact about one of the most impressive postseason performances in recent memory. Entering the playoffs as the AFC's sixth seed, the 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers defense went through the top four offensive lines on this list on their way to the Lombardi Trophy ... and they did so without a postseason home game. You can talk about Carson Palmer's injury and Super Bowl officiating, but that Steelers defense accomplished something pretty special. Ask the Colts, whose rep as a line-led team took a decent hit against Pittsburgh in the divisional round.

re: "what happened to teams like the 80's 49ers and their 5 SB championships?"

salary cap enforcement, the rise of free agency, arbitration, holdouts, expansion, more good players, more good coaches... should i go on?

niv, i took the cowboys because somebody has to win the nfc east and they just seem like the best team to me. i think the giants took a lot of teams by surprise last year, which won't happen this year, and their schedule is probably the hardest in the NFL. plus they hate their coach, eli and plax are overrated, tiki is a year older, and i don't like their defense. does anyone really trust a mark brunell-led redskins team to make the playoffs again, especially with portis not 100%? i sure don't. after reading the sports guy's article, i think i may have underrated philly a bit, but i just don't think their defense is quite as good as it was all the years they made it to the playoffs(they were #4, 2, 2, 7, and 3 in scoring defense those years... #27 last year). i think it'll be better than last year for sure, but not elite. and honestly, no one on their offense but mcnabb scares me.

which leaves dallas. obviously, their defense should be pretty good. and while i'm not a fan of bledsoe, he did perform pretty well last year. they have two very capable RBs in jones and barber, a great TE in witten, an ostensible upgrade in kicker with the idiot kicker, and a big potential upgrade in TO over Keyshawn, alongside the 1136 yards of Terry Glenn from last year. just seems to me like they squeak out a 10-6 or 11-5 season and take that division by a game or by tiebreaker.

re: god the nfl sucks

"salary cap enforcement, free agency, arbitration, holdouts, expansion, good players, good coaches"...thad, your explanation reinforces the facts that the nfl sucks. god its awful. i miss the old nfl...when i would proudly memorize superbowl winners....not that i dont still do that, but it was easier when 1 team won lots of titles.

you're quoting fox sports niv. the steelers D was good....the team was ok though, not good, not great. and yeah, they did have a nice little postseason run, but in reality it would've been a 1 game run with an unscathed carson.

saying that a good postseason run makes a team really good is ridiculous, the occurance of one isn't a specific indicator of the other. the steelers were a fine team, but even bill cowher said after the SB that he didn't know if he had the best team in the nfl, but they were the champs. very true..joey porter was pissed about him saying that, but cowher was right. in reality the pats, colts and bengals were all probably 'better' than the steelers, but the steelers came through in the playoffs. that's all.

oh, i have an nfl idea...it would equalize schedules and make it easier to figure out who should be in the playoffs for each conference.

16 nfc teams, 16 afc teams.

each team plays every other team in its conference 1 time per season...15 week season. no nonconference games and no divisions. you rotate who you play at home and road each year. top 6 teams from each division make playoffs, top 2 get byes and tied records decided by head to head matchup, or if tie in that game then you go to season point differential.

i also like the idea of AFC/NFC championship games being decided in a home and home manner on aggregate score and then a one off superbowl, like the champion's league.

any thoughts?

re: comment

i was quoting fox sports quoting football outsiders. and that was a terrible straw-man argument, phil.

thad, i think eli manning is underrated (i told phil this yesterday) - he's going to improve, a lot, and i think that will compensate for any decline in tiki's production. if the giants band together AGAINST their coach, they could still turn in a hell of a performance.

and i'm with you on the redskins. on paper they look good, but i don't see how they score points without portis (or really, even with portis).

finally, a home and home in the nfl is absurd. the season is tolling enough as it is, and i don't see why anyone would agree to the playoffs being extended one extra week. it's a different kind of toll than playing endless soccer, so modeling the nfl after a soccer 'league' is apples-oranges.

re: so

i understand that its tolling. my response though is: so what. these guys are paid their millions, let it be tolling. and like i said, we're reducing the regular season by one week, so in essence they'll be playing the same number of games as they would be now.

a home and home is a great idea because both teams are worthy conference champs (unless you're the 2005 steelers), so why shouldn't both organizations get rewarded with a home game.

re: comment

oh right, reducing the season by one game

well, i have nothing really to say about it, other than financially its not feasible.

re: sure it is

sure it is. you're thinking inside the box. you just add another pre season game..which is exactly what everyone wants! season ticket holders can't do anything about it execpt pay for this extra pre-season game.

you know, that or talk the players into reducing their contracts by 1/16th to reimburse owners for the loss of the game.

re: comment

it's more than just the one game, you also have the same schedules from year to year, which generates complacency in ... well, you name it. ratings, people who go to games, everything. the rotating schedule brings new teams in to town and new matchups to the tv every year, which wouldn't happen in your system.

adding a preseason game is not what anyone except owners want, and no union worth anything will allow contracts to be reduced by 1/16th.

also, i don't see any real benefit to your system. either say things like "one and done playoffs are stupid, we should just do a long season like the premiership" or admit that the current system is good. the half-assed solution doesn't really add anything. at least if you go ahead and SAY that you hate one-and-done, then we can all agree.

re: i'll go ahead and say it

ok, i hate one and done, its so arbitrary and doesn't at all decide who the better team is. really, lets just do a 31 game schedule. it would accomplish so much 1) it would give people more football, which they would seem to enjoy. 2) it would get rid of all of the kinks in the system as i currently see it and you would just tally up records and then break ties with head to head matchups or point differential to decide your champion.

my system isn't awful though. i mean i kinda through in the home and home conference title scenarios on a whim, but the rest of it isn't awful at all...it at least reduces the problems inherent in the rotating regular season schedules...where some divisions are put at a disadvantage compared to the others because of the strength of schedule of the in conference and out of conference divisions they're to play against. and then you have those random games on the schedule that aren't within the in conference or out of conference divisional rotation that happen every year. really, how can it be justified that the colts play at new england like 5 years in a row when they aren't even in the same division now?

2 solutions to deal with the problem of 15 v. 16 games. 1, negotiate with the players that for reducing the reg. season length and therefore reducing their salaries by 1/16th that you'll negotiate for guaranteed contracts and better pension plans, something the nfl has been unwilling to negotiate. or, schedule one regular season game against a non-conference geographical rival...and this can rotate somewhat. so the giants/jets game could become a yearly thing or 49ers/Raiders.

also, fans like traditional matchups...and its not like it would get stale because players turn over so often. seeing matchups like texas/osu (i'm using a college example here, so stay with me) are great, but i'd much rather see matchups like michigan/osu and florida/tennessee that are rivalries with actual hate between the two sides. i think this would breed more rivalries within the conferences and a greater afc vs. nfc rivarly because they'd only really see each other in the SB.

i'm not saying its perfect, but its interesting at least.