Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports Programming and Events' started by JACKIEGAGA, Aug 8, 2010.
I like the Rams I still think they are beter than their record
You know... I hear that... and I've said it before... but I think someone (maybe Coach Ditka?) once said... No, you're not. You're not better than your record. IF you were, then you would have a better record.
I try to feel that way about teams I root for... but it's hard to argue a team is better than their record unless they actually are winning.
The Bears are not as good as their 2-0 record.
Dont let Marty hear you say that. He is going to be upset when the Giants beat up on the Bears Sunday night. Im glad he dosent check this thread :lol:
I'm not sure that a team has any boasting rights that has 3 wins consisting of a catch overturned on a technicality to survive in one game, beating another team that played its worst game in 3 years, and then another against a team that matched a 1945 record in penalities called on them and the Bears still only managed a win with 4 seconds left on a field goal.
Having listened to the Bears radio programming last week while traveling, they are talking Super Bowl.... what a joke.
The way they are playing, they could lose the rest of their games and finish 3-13...oh no wait....4-12.....they play the Lions again. :lol:
Maybe not... but it's a much easier argument to make that a 3-0 now team might not be as good as their record (i.e. they got lucky) than it is to say an 0-3 team is better than their record.
It's like taking a test...
IF I get an "A" on a test then it doesn't mean I'm omniscient! It just means I knew the questions I was asked.
BUT if I get an "F" on a test, that is more likely to indicate that I need to study more.
The old adage, about learning more from failure than success, holds true here.
In the 0-3 team we can see lots of flaws and you can't argue they "should" be better, because if they "should" then they would... while the 3-0 team might also show flaws, they at least have overcome those flaws.
OK 3-0 now....4-12 later...
It should be noted that while the Bears are 3-0 and now the only undefeated team in the NFC... in watching them I don't feel like they are the best team. Of course in a 1-game scenario, anything can happen... but I still feel like New Orleans is better.
I would have said Green Bay was better, but Chicago just beat them so it's hard to continue making that argument unless Green Bay wins the rematch.
Philadelphia might also be better, if Vick can keep his performance going the way he has in 2.5 games of play so far.
IF I were ranking my gut on the NFC right now...
And yes, I know Atlanta just beat New Orleans... but New Orleans really should have made that short field goal to win that game.
Things can change and we've only had 3 game so far... but I'd say it's a "pick'em" at the moment between those 5 teams in the NFC, and it is splitting hairs to say 3-0 is better than 2-1 by a wide margin.
So I'm mostly picking those 5 at the top and assuming they will keep performing, but that over the course of the season the cream will rise to the top.
The AFC is a little harder for me to even begin picking at this point because I don't know if Kansas City at 3-0 is real or just smoke & mirrors... Remember Denver was 6-0 last season before nosediving the rest of the season.
In a guess between Kansas City & Chicago being 3-0 having a shot at ending 4-12, I'd be MUCH closer to thinking KC could pull that off if the cards fall in just the wrong way.
Indy at 2-1 is a mystery to me because it has been noted that Peyton Manning is having statistically his best start to a season ever... and yet, watching the games I haven't felt like Indy was in control of games like recent years.
New England and the Jets are similar mysteries as they are 2-1, but the "1" loss for each of them they kind of looked bad.
And Pittsburgh at 3-0 with great defense but QB-of-the-minute at the helm of the offense? I don't know what to make of that when Rothlesberger comes back.. will he step in and make the offense click and they become unbeatable? Or will it actually screw with the timing and chemistry since it will have been nearly 2 months since he has had any meaningful time with the team?
...and Green Bay beat Philadelphia as well...
My take is that in another 2 weeks...we'll have a better idea of the contenders and pretenders.
Yeah... I was taking into account that Vick almost came back in that game and has stayed strong, whereas Green Bay has looked a little worse in the weeks since that game.
But yeah, it's really next to impossible to form too many meaningful opinions until probably at least 6 games (and as noted last season Denver at 6-0 didn't hold up the rest of the way and it wasn't due to losing players through injury).
The Minnesota Vikings have acquired New England Patriots WR Randy Moss in exchange for a third-round draft choice, sources told Ian Rapoport, of the Boston Herald.
He always wanted to be playing with Favre some day...
Now they can sit in their rocking chairs side-by-side in Minnesota.
Gee think there's any chance that the Patriots noticed that the Vikings next game was against their division rivals the Jets and thought if they could make the Vikings a better team it might give them a better chance to beat the Jets and therefore help out Patriots? :sure:
On the other hand, Vikings @ Patriots 10/31/2010.
Injuries are starting to mount this week on several teams....
Yeah I noticed that after I made that post. It certainly makes for better conspiracy theory w/out the Vikes/Pats game a couple weeks later. :lol: Oh well. Actually you'd think that Moss would be in a position to have a better game against the Pats in the sense that he would've had more time working with Favre by then, plus your always motivated to want to try to perform against your former team. It actually does seem a little odd that the Pats would trade him to a team they were facing in a few weeks, but hey what do I know?
Has a player ever been traded and then traded back to the original team in the same season?
I know in the NBA they have trades where a player buys out his contract and then re-signs with the team that traded him... but I can't recall if the NFL allows anything like this.
I ask because... could the Pats trade to Vikings for the Jets game... then get Moss back after that?
I'm being partially silly, I know... but also wondering if the contract/rules allow it in the NFL.
I'm guessing that's never happened, interesting idea though.
Unfortunately for the salivating media, I think the Moss trade was just the Patriots being the Patriots. They simply traded away a player they felt wasn't necessary to meet their goals with while he still had value.
Reports of him being unhappy coming off of his first 0 catch game in 3 years with the Patriots I doubt influenced the trade, the media is just digging and trying to create a better story than it probably is. Even when he was voicing his opinion that it's probably his final year in NE there were reports that it was one of his best offseasons and he's looked great in practice, giving 100% every play, etc.
Wow the Raiders are whooping it up on Denver
This is turning into one of the strangest NFL seasons (so far) in many years - its getting to the point that no team is more than 50% predicable in their performance from week to week.
Between the new helmet-to-helmet enforcement (and fines/suspensions), one of the most inconsistent officiating performances, as well as "upsets" each week...the odds makers must be going nuts.