2008 NFL Season Thread- The Road to Super Bowl XLIII

Dark Flame · Post by **Dark Flame** » 2008-08-29 10:55pm

Speaking of injuries... Derek Anderson, out for who knows how long. Braylon, moron, out. 2 right tackles, 2 safeties, 2 other recievers. We just might be fucked for a few weeks until they all come back.

However, unlike the Ravens, even with a Pro Bowl QB out we still have a starting-quality QB!! Bwahahahaha! Also, I've heard Cincinatti has defense? I'm curious to see how that goes.

Edit: Has anybody seen ESPN.com's Fan Rankings? Any opinions? I think they did pretty well, in all honesty.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2008-08-30 01:41am

I thought the rankings were pretty accurate.

Arizona coming in at #32 seems appropriate. Playing so long and so poorly in Sun Devil stadium certainly didn't help them pick up a strong following but I think they really made a mistake in not renaming the team to something more regional when they moved them to Arizona. Lets face it, Cardinals is just not a cool football name or look. Plus they made the error of letting everyone think the team was going to be the Arizona Cardinals and instead went with the Phoenix Cardinals for many years. I don't think they realized how much the rest of the state dislikes Phoenix.

ESPN is right on the money about fans having grown attached to other teams. The Cowboys are still really big here with the Broncos, Chargers and the Raiders being the other teams the people who grew up here are attached to.

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2008-08-30 03:34pm

Tsyroc wrote:I thought the rankings were pretty accurate.

Arizona coming in at #32 seems appropriate. Playing so long and so poorly in Sun Devil stadium certainly didn't help them pick up a strong following but I think they really made a mistake in not renaming the team to something more regional when they moved them to Arizona. Lets face it, Cardinals is just not a cool football name or look. Plus they made the error of letting everyone think the team was going to be the Arizona Cardinals and instead went with the Phoenix Cardinals for many years. I don't think they realized how much the rest of the state dislikes Phoenix.

ESPN is right on the money about fans having grown attached to other teams. The Cowboys are still really big here with the Broncos, Chargers and the Raiders being the other teams the people who grew up here are attached to.

I was surprised Buffalo was at 11. The best since 94 or not, the team is in deep trouble because the fans deserted when Jim Kelly did. The passion of some fans notwithstanding, the Jaguars and Buffalo constantly field some of the worst attendance percentages in football. Are they on the upswing? Sure. But the franchise isn't looking north for no reason.

As far as the Cardinals go, they probably could have picked a better name. I was half expecting the Arizona Phoenixes, personally. But, there's a lot of nostalgia attached to the name: it is, after all, the only franchise name to have survived for the entirety of the league. If Warner gets them into the wild card, or better yet the division penthouse, I think everyone will be quite rosy about them for the next season.

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2008-08-31 10:56pm

A couple notes as Week One approaches:

- Warner is going to be the Arizona starter. Cool. As I said, I really like Kurt Warner.
- Since Strahan doesn't want in, and Umenyiora is out, the Giants picked up a defensive end from the Eagles, former first round pick Jerome McDougle. Philadelphia types are complaining about this cut, but the Eagles already have six defensive ends. Would McDougle have been a better choice than, say, Darren Howard? It's hard to say. But with Chris Clemons playing as well as he did last year, it's hard to justify keeping a seventh end around. They just need to hope that McDougle doesn't put McNabb on the ground this year.
- Will Tom Brady or Peyton Manning be ready for Week One?

Block · Post by **Block** » 2008-08-31 11:04pm

I think Arizona is ruining Leinart. They're not really giving him much of a chance, they're telling him that half a Kurt Warner is better than putting him in and letting him develop, and they're just going to kill his confidence. He was never going to be a superstar, but I could've seen him being a several time pro-bowl selection, now I'm not so sure.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-09-01 01:33am

You put the best player on the field, period. Warner is better than Leinert. If anything, Dennis Green screwed the pooch by throwing Leinert in before he was ready in a vain effort to suck up to management and save his job -complete failure all around.

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2008-09-01 03:10am

Elfdart wrote:You put the best player on the field, period. Warner is better than Leinert. If anything, Dennis Green screwed the pooch by throwing Leinert in before he was ready in a vain effort to suck up to management and save his job -complete failure all around.

ESPECIALLY when you're talking about the quarterback. It might be acceptable to put in inferior West Coast-receivers if your passer doesn't have an arm, but it is not acceptable to put in an inferior deep-bomb quarterback to adjust for fast receivers.

Block · Post by **Block** » 2008-09-01 07:51am

That's simply not true with Qb's, not if you're trying to build a team for the future. Besides the fact that the current difference is negligible, and it really is, you have to give the guy a chance to settle in, know that it's his job, and get comfortable playing in the system. It worked pretty well with Farve and the Mannings, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Leinart. He's got great touch, always has, and while he doesn't have the worlds strongest arm, he has more than enough to hit Boldin and Fitzgerald on the deep routes. It's just a confidence thing with him at this point, which isn't fixed by benching him for a guy at the end of his career.

Dark Flame · Post by **Dark Flame** » 2008-09-01 11:49pm

ESPN.com has Brady starting in the opener.

In local news, Derek Anderson and Braylon Edwards will be back for the opener. Cribbs might be back. Ryan Tucker was at practice after his hip surgery. Good news for once!

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2008-09-02 12:54am

Block wrote:That's simply not true with Qb's, not if you're trying to build a team for the future. Besides the fact that the current difference is negligible, and it really is, you have to give the guy a chance to settle in, know that it's his job, and get comfortable playing in the system. It worked pretty well with Farve and the Mannings, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Leinart. He's got great touch, always has, and while he doesn't have the worlds strongest arm, he has more than enough to hit Boldin and Fitzgerald on the deep routes. It's just a confidence thing with him at this point, which isn't fixed by benching him for a guy at the end of his career.

On the other hand, it worked not at all for players like Alex Smith. Granted, Alex Smith was likely a total loss no matter what they had done with him.

I think they're right to put their best player on the field. Supposedly, QB's take time to develop, and while the Mannings and Favre may have benefited from being thrown into it (although Eli's still kind of questionable), guys like Palmer have reportedly benefited greatly by being allowed to sit in the League for a little while before being thrown in as the starting QB.

Block · Post by **Block** » 2008-09-02 04:36am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Block wrote:That's simply not true with Qb's, not if you're trying to build a team for the future. Besides the fact that the current difference is negligible, and it really is, you have to give the guy a chance to settle in, know that it's his job, and get comfortable playing in the system. It worked pretty well with Farve and the Mannings, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Leinart. He's got great touch, always has, and while he doesn't have the worlds strongest arm, he has more than enough to hit Boldin and Fitzgerald on the deep routes. It's just a confidence thing with him at this point, which isn't fixed by benching him for a guy at the end of his career.
On the other hand, it worked not at all for players like Alex Smith. Granted, Alex Smith was likely a total loss no matter what they had done with him.

I think they're right to put their best player on the field. Supposedly, QB's take time to develop, and while the Mannings and Favre may have benefited from being thrown into it (although Eli's still kind of questionable), guys like Palmer have reportedly benefited greatly by being allowed to sit in the League for a little while before being thrown in as the starting QB.

Oh I agree, but Palmer sat one year, not three as far as I remember. Smith I do think was a lost cause from the beginning, I remember him in college and I never really saw what the scouts raved over. Same thing with Campbell for the Redskins, they just don't seem to look good against talent that's of an equal or greater skill level. Leinart did sit out his first year as far as I know, this should be his third year, he should be ready to sink or swim at this point. That's just my opinion, but how long do you let that much money sit on the bench?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-09-02 12:11pm

Master of Ossus wrote:On the other hand, it worked not at all for players like Alex Smith. Granted, Alex Smith was likely a total loss no matter what they had done with him.

I think they're right to put their best player on the field. Supposedly, QB's take time to develop, and while the Mannings and Favre may have benefited from being thrown into it (although Eli's still kind of questionable), guys like Palmer have reportedly benefited greatly by being allowed to sit in the League for a little while before being thrown in as the starting QB.

Looks like you had it right regarding Alex Smith. If Mike Martz can't make you into a QB, then you truly suck.

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2008-09-03 06:21pm

Since the opener's tomorrow, I'm going to log predictions. Like last year, this will be based solely upon which team I like more.

Washington at New York Giants
Detroit at Atlanta
Cincinnati at Baltimore
Seattle at Buffalo
New York Jets at Miami
Kansas City at New England
Tampa Bay at New Orleans
St. Louis at Philadelphia
Houston at Pittsburgh
Jacksonville at Tennessee
Dallas at Cleveland
Carolina at San Diego
Arizona at San Francisco
Chicago at Indianapolis
Minnesota at Green Bay
Denver at Oakland

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2008-09-03 09:47pm

I also will make predictions in a similar fashion, but will be based on which team's logo I like better.

Washington at New York Giants
Detroit at Atlanta
Cincinnati at Baltimore
Seattle at Buffalo
New York Jets at Miami
Kansas City at New England
Tampa Bay at New Orleans
St. Louis at Philadelphia
Houston at Pittsburgh
Jacksonville at Tennessee
Dallas at Cleveland
Carolina at San Diego
Arizona at San Francisco
Chicago at Indianapolis
Minnesota at Green Bay
Denver at Oakland

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2008-09-05 12:07am

Comments on New York's win tonight:

Neither team looked very good. As much as the Giants dominated the whole game, they still struggled to punch in against a suspect defense. An offense like that won't compete with a fireworks-display like Dallas or a defensive front like Philadelphia's.

Washington, of course, has cause to worry. That they seemed all but incapable of pulling off the hurry-up could be related to the new offense, but you'd have to have thought they would have gotten something together by opening night.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2008-09-05 11:55am

It was weird. I thought NY looked like they were going to crush Washington early on and then things kind of sputtered out. After that both teams kind of sort of moved the ball but didn't do any scoring.

Cos Dashit · Post by **Cos Dashit** » 2008-09-05 11:39pm

Picks for this week:

The opener's been played, but I had the 'skins to win anyway.

WAS @ NYG
DET @ ATL
CIN @ BAL
SEA @ BUF
NYJ @ MIA
KC @ NE
TB @ NO
STL @ PHI
HOU @ PIT
JAC @ TEN
DAL @ CLE
CAR @ SD
ARI @ SF
CHI @ IND
MIN @ GB
DEN @ OAK

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2008-09-07 05:18pm

1. Buffalo made Mike Holmgren look like a fool.
2. Tom Brady's injured.
3. Brett Favre won
4. David Garrard was sacked seven times.
5. Michael Turner rushed for 221 yards.
6. Drew Brees threw for 343 and 3 scores

Quite an opening day.

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2008-09-07 05:31pm

I'm pretty impressed with the Eagles' new punt and kick returner - I think his name is DeSean Jackson. He's a rookie and had a good day today - no touchdowns, but a lot of long returns, including one that he ran down to the 9-yard line.

Also, as a UDel student, I was very happy to see that Joe Flacco did great as a starting quarterback for the Ravens.

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2008-09-07 07:41pm

Fuck.

starslayer · Post by **starslayer** » 2008-09-07 07:52pm

Seconding Hav; fuck. Five turnovers does not win you games. At least the defense held up alright. But jesus, five motherfucking fumbles and an interception. The 9ers are probably going nowhere this season.

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2008-09-07 08:04pm

Rumors are circulating around ESPN that Brady is gone for the year.

If true, that would leave a huge power vacuum in the AFC East, because I don't know that Matt Cassel can fill in as well as Brady would.

Miami is still rebuilding, and even with Pennington, I think today shows that they're still looking up at the rest of the division.

That leaves Buffalo and the Jets. Favre or no Favre, Buffalo's defense made Seattle look helpless. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a game in upstate New York come January.

Assuming, of course, it is true.

Dark Flame · Post by **Dark Flame** » 2008-09-07 08:09pm

Shit. Hopefully Cleveland will pick it up next week, because this sucked.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2008-09-07 08:10pm

LMSx wrote:OK: The New England Patriots. IIRC, had one of (or the) toughest schedules in the league last year. They go 16-0, 18-1. This year? One of (or the) easiest schedules in the league. Virtually by definition the Patriots will do worse this year, but is it really implausible expecting 15-1 or maybe another undefeated season? Just saying.

Speaking of Strength of Schedule, as a Seahawks fan I'm wondering if this is the year the rest of the NFC West finally wakes up. C'mon Arizona!

I ran calculations on Strength of Schedule at the end of last season. Thanks in part to the Dolphins, the Patriots had the easiest schedule last year based on end-of-year SoS. The hardest schedules were the Eagles and the Redskins, with the Giants in the top 5.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2008-09-07 08:23pm

Metatwaddle wrote:I'm pretty impressed with the Eagles' new punt and kick returner - I think his name is DeSean Jackson. He's a rookie and had a good day today - no touchdowns, but a lot of long returns, including one that he ran down to the 9-yard line.

Jax is also a wideout - he had 6 receptions for 106 yards today. Not bad for a rookie who wasn't supposed to have any impact this year (which is what some of the analysts were saying during the preseason). He's just the punt returner, though - Quintin Demps is the kick returner (and a back-up safety).

I also love Hank Baskett's game. He's a 6'4" receiver with good speed. He's starting his third year, and has four career touchdowns. Three of them are over 85 yards, including today's 90-yard TD reception.

The surest sign of the receiving corps being decent is that even with Curtis and Brown (our #1 and #2 receivers) out, Westbrook only had two receptions.