PDA

View Full Version : Gosselin's Off Season Rankings


Texans_Chick
06-03-2007, 11:19 AM
Link (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/nfl/stories/060307dnspogosselin.3041c19.html)

He has the Texans rated 31st:

31. Houston Texans

The decision to pass up offensive playmakers Reggie Bush and Vince Young in the 2006 draft will haunt the Texans for years to come. After finishing 28th in offense, Houston canned QB David Carr and traded for untested Matt Schaub.

Final 2006 rank: 25

Though a new QB means hope for many, the reality is that the Texans have a:

1. New untested QB.

2. A absolutely new offensive hybrid scheme that has never been tested and is new to the players.

3. Lots of really young players and then some oldish players and few in their career primes.

4. Few established playmakers.

I have some optimism for the uncoming season but realize that nobody's preseason evaluations of the Texans are likely to be very positive given the team's track record and the question marks for the team.

I do hope that with the new offensive scheme that the regular season doesn't end up looking like a protracted training camp like it seemed to last year. For most of the season, the offense looked like they were experimenting with different stuff each week. I don't want another experimental season. I want a team that has an offensive philosophy, that looks like they know what they are doing, and doesn't only look competent with their first rehearsed drive.

I hope this is the year where we get to watch more entertaining football than ugly football.

Second Honeymoon
06-03-2007, 11:23 AM
Link (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/nfl/stories/060307dnspogosselin.3041c19.html)

He has the Texans rated 31st:



Though a new QB means hope for many, the reality is that the Texans have a:

1. New untested QB.

2. A absolutely new offensive hybrid scheme that has never been tested and is new to the players.

3. Lots of really young players and then some oldish players and few in their career primes.

4. Few established playmakers.

I have some optimism for the uncoming season but realize that nobody's preseason evaluations of the Texans are likely to be very positive given the team's track record and the question marks for the team.

I do hope that with the new offensive scheme that the regular season doesn't end up looking like a protracted training camp like it seemed to last year. For most of the season, the offense looked like they were experimenting with different stuff each week. I don't want another experimental season. I want a team that has an offensive philosophy, that looks like they know what they are doing, and doesn't only look competent with their first rehearsed drive.

I hope this is the year where we get to watch more entertaining football than ugly football.

that guy's an *****. we have greatly improved this offseason. this guy must be from the Rod Woodson school of NFL research.

Texans_Chick
06-03-2007, 11:55 AM
that guy's an *****. we have greatly improved this offseason. this guy must be from the Rod Woodson school of NFL research.

To be fair, we don't know how much the Texans have improved. You can guess, but there are a lot of untested parts of both the offense and defense.

For example, the teams he has at the top of his list are teams that have proven schemes and key playmakers.

We can guess that Schaub is going to be a much better player than Carr, but given we haven't seen him play extensively as a starter for the Texans.

We can guess that Green is going to be the Green of old, but we don't know that.

We can guess that having a lot of money invested on the defensive line will pay off eventually, but we haven't seen that yet.

Etc with all parts of the team.

Until the Texans actually play better and more consistently, most off season rankings are going to look like this.

nunusguy
06-03-2007, 12:01 PM
Dang ! Why do I have the feeling that Gosselin is now on ESPNs payroll ?
Could it be because he's still dwelling on the 2006 Draft after its been more than a month since we've completed the 2007 Draft ? And we may regret passing on VY for years, but 2006 2nd round pick/running back Maurice Jones-Drew had a better rookie season than Bush. Lamenting on not drafting Bush sure sounds like one of ESPNs favorite refrains to me.
I like your take much better than Gosselins, TC. Smith & Kubiak have brought a lot of new people in, some young and some not so young. And I'm also a little anxious about another learning curve, maybe just a mini-curve, but still some differences with the offense under new OC Sherman.
But its all about Schaub. We really don't know what we've got here. We've got some clues, but not much beyond that considering Matts very limited experience of regular season play in the league the last 3 years. Having said that, I still totally approve of stepping up the way they did, making the trade, and taking the chance.

Brando
06-03-2007, 12:03 PM
If we ranked 25th with David Carr last year we should only IMPROVE with Matt Schaub.

OzzO
06-03-2007, 12:04 PM
I think after his 9th selection, the rest was just filler. Besides, to drop us from his 25th to his 31st after this offseason acquisitions, then talk about the '06 draft? Yep, filler.

HJam72
06-03-2007, 12:19 PM
For example, the teams he has at the top of his list are teams that have proven schemes and key playmakers.

That makes it awfully elementary and trivial to make his decisions, just ignoring what happens in the off-season and focusing on past win/loss records. How good can you be at grading the off-season if you are ignoring the off-season? Why not just give us the win/loss record for every team over the last 4 or 5 years?

Seems to me that he would be better at grading offseasons from 5 years ago, since he's so big on speaking the obvious and not big on predicting something a 2nd grader couldn't do for themselves.

Porky
06-03-2007, 12:23 PM
I am not one normally given to delusions of grandeur or pie in the sky unbridled enthusiasm. I think anyone who knows me, or has read my ramblings for the past few years knows that.

It's in that context that I wish to say - this guy is full of ****. He sounds just like these other talking heads who all copy each other. http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4237/copycat0iq.gif

Ya, it's true we passed on Bush and VY. But, so what? 30 other teams don't have them either, and somehow I think those other 30 teams will probably be allright. At this point, we should be judged on who we did take, and who we signed as FA, rather than on who is not here.

Is Schaub unproven? Sure, but you can see that the pieces are there for him to be an above average starter. I mean, we could ask that to a dozen teams each year? Why wasn't Tennessee asked is Vince unproven? Or Denver asked is Cutler unproven? Or Green Bay asked is Favre unproven? It's a fallacious argument to just single out the Texans on this one.

In the case of both Green and Schaub, it's hard to imagine a scenario where they are not better than their predecessors. They don't have to be all-pro to meet that modest goal. Simply be better than what we had, and that makes the team better. How adding these two (just to single those two out) somehow makes us worse is delusional at best, and frankly just plain ignorant.

To sum up, I am more excited about the upcoming season than any since the first (for obvious reasons). I don't think it is likely we make the playoffs, but I think it's at least 50/50 we have a non-losing season, and for the first time, I honestly cannot rule out the playoffs. Sure, it's a longshot, but it sure beats a no shot, which has been my feeling for the first 5 years of this teams existence.

infantrycak
06-03-2007, 12:31 PM
To be fair, we don't know how much the Texans have improved.

True, on the other hand I think it is fair to ask why he actually demoted us from last year. We were the 8th worst team last year. Maybe we shouldn't move up on speculation but it seems like he moved us pretty far down based on ... ?

TD
06-03-2007, 01:02 PM
True, on the other hand I think it is fair to ask why he actually demoted us from last year. We were the 8th worst team last year. Maybe we shouldn't move up on speculation but it seems like he moved us pretty far down based on ... ?

It almost reads like he's penalizing us yet again for 2006 since waiving DC makes our decisions then appear even worse now.

ATX
06-03-2007, 01:39 PM
I don't even want to say anything......but he will be eating some crow and that's all I will say.

TK_Gamer
06-03-2007, 02:14 PM
What it seems to me is he is rating us based on some fantasy football idea. and in that respect he is probably right, using a combination of fantasy and vegas odds we are pretty close to the bottom because we have so so many unknown elements. would you bet your life savings on a winning record? no, and that appears to be what alot of people are gauging us by. once we have some tangible elements the story will change accordingly IMHO. I think we will be fine and improve substantially from last year personally. but alot of things are up in the air, then throw in a new hybrid offense like he said and you just cant bank on it. I feel positive though. GO TEXANS!

Lucky
06-03-2007, 03:42 PM
Why wasn't Tennessee asked is Vince unproven? Or Denver asked is Cutler unproven? Or Green Bay asked is Favre unproven?
Favre?

Forget it, he's rolling.

RTP2110
06-03-2007, 03:51 PM
So he is basing the 2007 season off of the 2006 draft, and players who aren't even on the team? Yeah, that'll earn him a lot of credibility.

Overalls
06-03-2007, 07:03 PM
Not that I think we should be ranked in the top 20 or anything, but this guy writes for a DALLAS newspaper.

Texans Horror
06-03-2007, 07:30 PM
No way are the Texans anything less than a top-10 team this year. They have Salaam (who is easily in his prime) and Flanagan (a pro-bowl center) anchoring what will be proven to be one of the greatest lines in the NFL now that Carr is gone. Add to that Walter/Jones backing up AJ and being serviced by an unproven QB who won't go running off the field, and how can anyone expect anything less? This analyst is clearly an id10t.

Texans_Chick
06-03-2007, 07:33 PM
True, on the other hand I think it is fair to ask why he actually demoted us from last year. We were the 8th worst team last year. Maybe we shouldn't move up on speculation but it seems like he moved us pretty far down based on ... ?

Good point.

Though I'm guess that he cared more for the top of his rankings, and then for the bottom gave his list a big WGAS.

maddogmrb
06-03-2007, 08:00 PM
No way are the Texans anything less than a top-10 team this year. They have Salaam (who is easily in his prime) and Flanagan (a pro-bowl center) anchoring what will be proven to be one of the greatest lines in the NFL now that Carr is gone. Add to that Walter/Jones backing up AJ and being serviced by an unproven QB who won't go running off the field, and how can anyone expect anything less? This analyst is clearly an id10t.

Top 10!! Are u kidding? More like top 2!! The Colts, Pats, & really anybody else will have a hard time staying on the field with us this year .........:winky:

Double Barrel
06-03-2007, 09:06 PM
Link (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/nfl/stories/060307dnspogosselin.3041c19.html)

He has the Texans rated 31st:



Though a new QB means hope for many, the reality is that the Texans have a:

1. New untested QB.

2. A absolutely new offensive hybrid scheme that has never been tested and is new to the players.

3. Lots of really young players and then some oldish players and few in their career primes.

4. Few established playmakers.

He's got a point and I can understand his perspective. But I've got a little more optimism for the team, just as a chosen perspective. We've got a lot of untested parts and systems, so I don't blame anyone for uncertainty. (Negativity is a different story, though.)

Texans Horror
06-04-2007, 09:55 AM
Top 10!! Are u kidding? More like top 2!! The Colts, Pats, & really anybody else will have a hard time staying on the field with us this year .........:winky:

What can I say? You're probably right. I guess my lack of exuberance is due to the old regime. Top 2. Why aren't we asking the real question: which team will be competing with the Texans this year? I know the Pats are a popular pick and that it's easy to think the Chargers won't be there because of new coaching, but what about Pittsburgh and the Jets? Will they be able to contend with the Texans this year?

beerlover
06-04-2007, 12:24 PM
Gosselin is way off base if he is ranking teams based on what they've done to address needs & improve in 07. the team ranked dead last (32) bit the bullet & drafted a franchise QB, fired a losing underachieving coaching staff hiring young Lane Kiffin with more control, plus releasing that cancer known as Moss & Gosselins going to say all the rest of the league clearly did more to improve than Oakland? just an absolute joke. don't even get me started on the Texans and the first full year for new GM Rick Smith given the difficult decisioins he's been forced to make with little cap room hamstrung by enept Casserly regime mistakes :potkettle:

Double Barrel
06-04-2007, 12:30 PM
I think we, as Texans fans, just have to endure the negative press. We are nothing until our team proves otherwise. And while I am optimistic about 2007, I temper it with a realistic perspective that we have many areas of concern and many new players that have not yet been tested in battle.

There is just too much uncertainty right now for many fish hacks to put there necks on the line for us. The herd follows, not leads, so I expect no better from the national media to pile on.

Leahmic223
06-04-2007, 02:46 PM
I'd bet a pretty penny that we don't finish 30th, 31st, or 32nd.

Yeah or Offense is unproven, yet or defens is proven, and has made strides to get better.

Did he mention the Dline, how good the Dline looks. Did he mention the depth at LB, pluss DROY Dmeco?

Yes the offense is unproven. But if the Defense is good, then a lot of pressure is taken off the offense.

Texans Horror
06-04-2007, 03:06 PM
The last few years, the Astros have done well without a good batting (i.e., offensive) front, and this season the Dynamo are struggling. They keep losing 1-0. So while I see where a good defense is fantastic, I also see the folly of not having a good offense. If the team only needs to score one touchdown to win, we won't be any closer to a SB than before.

TexanAddict
06-04-2007, 03:19 PM
I disregarded this article the moment I saw the Titans ranked #16. For what, doing absolutely nothing to improve their team? If there is a team with unproven players at the skill positions, it's the Titans.

HJam72
06-04-2007, 06:23 PM
What it seems to me is he is rating us based on some fantasy football idea. and in that respect he is probably right, using a combination of fantasy and vegas odds we are pretty close to the bottom because we have so so many unknown elements. would you bet your life savings on a winning record? no, and that appears to be what alot of people are gauging us by. once we have some tangible elements the story will change accordingly IMHO. I think we will be fine and improve substantially from last year personally. but alot of things are up in the air, then throw in a new hybrid offense like he said and you just cant bank on it. I feel positive though. GO TEXANS!

No, and you're right about that, but I might bet it on the idea that we aren't the second worse team in the entire league on in terms of this year's off-season moves, which is what he supposedly was grading us on. Again, I don't see how you (he, I mean) can grade our off-season moves while the main thing you completely ignore in doing so is in fact OUR FREAKING OFF-SEASON MOVES, lol. The category he really graded was "what has been your win/loss record over the last 4 or 5 years?" so why not just call it that? He also threw in a little "I'm grading your potential for this year on the fact that you ticked me off and didn't take the guy I predicted you'd take with the #1 last year." He may have also threw in who knows how many factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the category he SUPPOSEDLY was grading us on.

We got an F in math this year, because we couldn't spell something last year.

maddogmrb
06-04-2007, 07:02 PM
I'd bet a pretty penny that we don't finish 30th, 31st, or 32nd.

Yeah or Offense is unproven, yet or defens is proven, and has made strides to get better.

Did he mention the Dline, how good the Dline looks. Did he mention the depth at LB, pluss DROY Dmeco?

Yes the offense is unproven. But if the Defense is good, then a lot of pressure is taken off the offense.


You are probably right, we won't be in the bottom 3 but, to say our defense is proven is a BIG stretch. The dline has potential but, has yet to show it. Depth at LB ........ well outside of DROY we don't have one player who would definitely start on any other team. So, yes we have alot of players, but they are cast offs and mediocre players. And our secondary is well known to be a sieve, so it is a stretch, IMO, to say our defense is proven. The potential is there but, it has yet to play out on the field.

The Pencil Neck
06-04-2007, 07:08 PM
You are probably right, we won't be in the bottom 3 but, to say our defense is proven is a BIG stretch. The dline has potential but, has yet to show it. Depth at LB ........ well outside of DROY we don't have one player who would definitely start on any other team. So, yes we have alot of players, but they are cast offs and mediocre players. And our secondary is well known to be a sieve, so it is a stretch, IMO, to say our defense is proven. The potential is there but, it has yet to play out on the field.


How many yards per game did we give up the last 13 games of last season? Where would that have ranked us if we had done that for 16 instead of 13 games?

Double Barrel
06-04-2007, 10:23 PM
The category he really graded was "what has been your win/loss record over the last 4 or 5 years?" so why not just call it that? He also threw in a little "I'm grading your potential for this year on the fact that you ticked me off and didn't take the guy I predicted you'd take with the #1 last year." He may have also threw in who knows how many factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the category he SUPPOSEDLY was grading us on.

Exactly. And I'd bet that a lot of the national media has that same mentality, especially when VY had a good year and their hindsight is always 20/20.

How many yards per game did we give up the last 13 games of last season? Where would that have ranked us if we had done that for 16 instead of 13 games?

If you disregard the stats from the first six games, we were a top 10 defense our last 10 games, IIRC. It seems reasonable to believe that we can get better.

Leahmic223
06-04-2007, 11:15 PM
The last few years, the Astros have done well without a good batting (i.e., offensive) front, and this season the Dynamo are struggling. They keep losing 1-0. So while I see where a good defense is fantastic, I also see the folly of not having a good offense. If the team only needs to score one touchdown to win, we won't be any closer to a SB than before.


YEah, but football is a sport where the defense can score directly. Or you defense can put your offense in positions where they will walk away with at least 3 points.

Also, Our defense has gotten better over the weeks of last season. You look at our Dline, and they COULD do some major damage. We will rank over the Titans...because

1.) Titans have lost more than they have gained.
2.) VY is cursed...seriously.

Call me optimistic, but we are going to win more than 6 games. Whether that is one or two games more, whatever. What did we lose last year? Besides a shellshocked QB, who cost us a game or two. (Titans game)

A QB that was just happy to walk out with a win. A QB that never seemed motivated to rise to the next level.

dalemurphy
06-04-2007, 11:24 PM
Well, I think we're going to finish with a winning record. Regardless of that optimism, however, I don't know how anyone can objectively look at our team and the rest of the NFL and not have it ranked ahead of these:

Oakland
Cleveland
Miami
Washington
Detroit
Minnesota
Tampa Bay
Atlanta

edo783
06-05-2007, 02:31 AM
IIRC, this years over/under is 6.5. Just like last year at 5.5, it's a pretty good bet on the over.

Historyhorn
06-05-2007, 07:17 AM
Well, I think we're going to finish with a winning record. Regardless of that optimism, however, I don't know how anyone can objectively look at our team and the rest of the NFL and not have it ranked ahead of these:

Oakland
Cleveland
Miami
Washington
Detroit
Minnesota
Tampa Bay
Atlanta

Of the teams you listed, I think we'll definately be better than Miami, Detroit, and Tampa. I'm not sure about the others.

Oakland with a new coach, a monster D returning, a new franchise QB, and a new offense will make big strides and probably won't finish last in the AFC West (Chiefs).

Cleveland finally has some pieces that are starting to come together. I'm not high on Quinn, but he is an upgrade over Frye. Edwards, Winslow Jr., and their new OT should be players if they remain healthy. Add Jamal Lewis to that mix with an improved O-line (signed Steinbach) and a pretty good D. They might still be last in the AFC North, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Steelers in the cellar of that division.

Washington will be mediocre. I don't think they'll light anything up this year and they play in a tough NFC East, but looking at their holes and our holes, I can't tell whose are bigger, so I can't make a calll here.

Minnesota still has a VERY good O-line. Add Adrian Peterson to that mix and you have a recipe for a great rushing attack which will serve to allow some growing room for their new young QB with the big arm. Their D is still salty. I think they'll be far better than Detroit and Green Bay. Maybe not good enough to be Chicago but second in the weakest division in football.

Atlanta will only be one of those doormat teams if the dog scandal gets hotter and really begins to either affect Vick's playing time or his focus on the field. The Falcon D is still good. The rushing attack is still there. The receivers still suck. They'll be a middling team with Vick. Absolutely awful without him.

The other three I expect to be complete cellar dwellars. Miami will implode. I expect nothing from them this year even if they do eventually get Trent Green. Their D is aging but still solid, but they have no passing attack and their O-line is porous so their rushing will be suspect as well.

Detroit is in shambles. They'll probably get the first pick in the draft. Maybe they can use it on another WR. Aside from Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson, I don't think they have much of anything to show for their years of picking high.

I have no idea what has happened to Tampa. Chucky seems to have lost it. They have more QB's than they can shake a stick at. I think Chris Simms might do them a decent job, but he and Garcia will probably do a rotation thing. They've got Cadillac, but their O-line is not good and their D has really aged. The Tampa 2 aint what it used to be in the Super Bowl days. I just see them really falling of the map next year.

Go Texans

Maddict5
06-05-2007, 09:06 AM
Well, I think we're going to finish with a winning record. Regardless of that optimism, however, I don't know how anyone can objectively look at our team and the rest of the NFL and not have it ranked ahead of these:

Oakland
Cleveland
Miami
Washington
Detroit
Minnesota
Tampa Bay
Atlanta

Buffalo?
KC?
Packers?

and we're pretty similiar to the titans imo

Texans Horror
06-05-2007, 06:05 PM
Well, I think we're going to finish with a winning record. Regardless of that optimism, however, I don't know how anyone can objectively look at our team and the rest of the NFL and not have it ranked ahead of these:

Oakland
Cleveland
Miami
Washington
Detroit
Minnesota
Tampa Bay
Atlanta

We're definitely better than Washington. We kicked their butts the last time we played them!

One of the problems the Texans have is they play to the potential of the team they're up against. So when everybody said Washington was great, the Texans got smeared. As it turns out, the Skins had nothing. Same thing happened with Buffalo the year before that. The Bills were play-off material, and they looked solid in their thrashing of Houston. Too bad they couldn't succeed after that game...

So a good question is what team looks good this year, will throttle the Texans, but in the end is one of the weakest teams in the NFL? My guess is KC.

MorKnolle
06-05-2007, 06:07 PM
Of the teams you listed, I think we'll definately be better than Miami, Detroit, and Tampa. I'm not sure about the others.

Oakland with a new coach, a monster D returning, a new franchise QB, and a new offense will make big strides and probably won't finish last in the AFC West (Chiefs).

I see Oakland at the bottom of the league again. Until I see what Kiffin brings to the table as a coach I'm not going to be too optimistic about his impact. I doubt JaMarcus Russell sees the field at all until the end of this season at the earliest, so I don't see him making any positive impact on their team. They do have a nice defense though, I think their offense will do just enough to keep them in a lot of games this year, but they are still one of the worst 3 teams in the league IMO for this year. They are one of our 4-5 games this upcoming season that I absolutely expect us to win.

Cleveland finally has some pieces that are starting to come together. I'm not high on Quinn, but he is an upgrade over Frye. Edwards, Winslow Jr., and their new OT should be players if they remain healthy. Add Jamal Lewis to that mix with an improved O-line (signed Steinbach) and a pretty good D. They might still be last in the AFC North, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Steelers in the cellar of that division.

Cleveland is similar to Oakland IMO. I think they are putting a lot of good pieces in place, but they are really young right now and have turned over a lot of the roster yet again, so I don't see a big improvement from them this year. Crennel is a very good defensive mind but I think they still have too many holes on that side of the ball, their OLine should be much improved but the rest of their offense won't see much improvement this season IMO, and they seem to have a lot of people that get hurt every year (not to mention half of their injured players end up getting staph infections and missing extended periods of time). Cleveland is another game I expect us to win this year, and I think they'll be in the bottom 3-5 teams in the league this year.

Washington will be mediocre. I don't think they'll light anything up this year and they play in a tough NFC East, but looking at their holes and our holes, I can't tell whose are bigger, so I can't make a calll here.

Washington fell off bad last year due to a couple key injuries and overall offensive ineptitude, plus a defense that uncharacteristically could not generate any kind of pressure. Gregg Williams is reportedly reworking the defense some to bring more pressure like many of his past units have done, we'll see if they have the pieces to accomplish that. I think their offense will go as Jason Campbell goes. Everyone knows they have a solid running game with Portis and Betts, it will be up to Campbell to make their offense more than one-dimensional. I agree with you that I don't entirely know what to think about the Redskins this year, I don't expect much improvement.

Minnesota still has a VERY good O-line. Add Adrian Peterson to that mix and you have a recipe for a great rushing attack which will serve to allow some growing room for their new young QB with the big arm. Their D is still salty. I think they'll be far better than Detroit and Green Bay. Maybe not good enough to be Chicago but second in the weakest division in football.

I agree with you, I think the Vikings will improve a good deal this year. They have a stud OLine and two stud RBs so their running game should be excellent, and their defense should still be solid as well. We'll see if Tarvaris Jackson is ready to take the reins on offense and if he has the receiving threats to help move the ball, but I think they could push for a wild card this year.

Atlanta will only be one of those doormat teams if the dog scandal gets hotter and really begins to either affect Vick's playing time or his focus on the field. The Falcon D is still good. The rushing attack is still there. The receivers still suck. They'll be a middling team with Vick. Absolutely awful without him.

I agree, if Vick can play then they have a chance to be pretty mediocre, depending on how well their offense adapts to another new system. If Vick is suspended, released, or distracted/worn out from his legal ordeal then they will be in the hands of Joey Harrington and will be headed for another top-10 draft pick. They have solid pieces on defense although they will need some big contributions from rookies and players who were injured last season, but that unit should be able to do their part.

The other three I expect to be complete cellar dwellars. Miami will implode. I expect nothing from them this year even if they do eventually get Trent Green. Their D is aging but still solid, but they have no passing attack and their O-line is porous so their rushing will be suspect as well.

I think Miami will probably struggle again this year. They still have a lot of talent on defense although several of those pieces are getting pretty old, so durability could be a concern later in the year. Their offense could very likely struggle again this year as they haven't added many pieces and their QB situation is still in shambles. However, I think Cam Cameron will be able to bring out the best in these guys, whatever that's worth. I expect that we will beat them this year and that they will finish in the bottom 1/4 of the league.

Detroit is in shambles. They'll probably get the first pick in the draft. Maybe they can use it on another WR. Aside from Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson, I don't think they have much of anything to show for their years of picking high.

I think the Lions offense will be pretty impressive this year. They put up a lot of yards last year in Martz's scheme and they added a dynamite WR prospect to the mix plus another solid RB and did a little work on the line. Their defense is what should concern their fans, they did add some pieces but I don't think they're good enough yet, but they could have enough of an offense to win a few more games this year, but they'll still be in the bottom 1/4 of the league.

I have no idea what has happened to Tampa. Chucky seems to have lost it. They have more QB's than they can shake a stick at. I think Chris Simms might do them a decent job, but he and Garcia will probably do a rotation thing. They've got Cadillac, but their O-line is not good and their D has really aged. The Tampa 2 aint what it used to be in the Super Bowl days. I just see them really falling of the map next year.

I also don't know what happened to Tampa other than they got old. I don't think they've done a whole lot to improve their team and they've lost a few players over the last couple years. I don't expect much of an improvement at all from them and I could definitely see them having a top-3 draft pick next year. They should be another win on our schedule this year.

I would also add Tennessee and Buffalo to that list. I don't think Tennessee was better than us last year, they just got one or two enough plays in each game to beat us, had those gone the other way we would have been sitting at 8-8 and they'd be at 6-10. I think they also hurt themselves this offseason. They lost half of their offensive production from last year, they lost their best defensive and special teams player for the whole season unless Roger Goodell suddenly has a change of heart, and they didn't add much to replace any of those lost players or their other holes.

Buffalo was another team that I think was pretty much only better than us in the wins column, I think we were as good of a team last year. They also lost a bunch this offseason, they lost a shutdown CB, a very good RB, and other pieces to their team, I could see them being a bottom 3 team this year.

Runner
06-05-2007, 06:24 PM
2.) VY is cursed...seriously.


Cursed!? With what - success?

Leahmic223
06-05-2007, 08:22 PM
Cursed!? With what - success?

Cursed...by Madden 08 of course.

Kaiser Toro
06-05-2007, 08:47 PM
Cursed...by Madden 08 of course.

Please excuse our resident Unfrozen Cave Man Litterateur and Tippler as he is unfamilar with your modern Gamer ways. Please view exhibit A in his Tippler Manifesto:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! When I see my image on the security camera at the country club, I wonder, are they stealing my soul? I get so upset, I hop out of my Range Rover, and run across the fairway to the clubhouse, where I get Carlos to make me one of those martini cocktails he's so famous for, to soothe my primitive caveman brain. But whatever world you're from, I do know one thing: in the 12 months from January 6, 2006, when he first showed he was super human in the BCS Championship game, until December 10, 2006 when he crushed Houston fans everywhere, my client was legally insane."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfrozen_Caveman_Lawyer

Texans Horror
06-05-2007, 09:33 PM
[QUOTE=Leahmic223;676311]YEah, but football is a sport where the defense can score directly. Or you defense can put your offense in positions where they will walk away with at least 3 points.

Call me optimistic, but we are going to win more than 6 games. Whether that is one or two games more, whatever. QUOTE]

You must be remembering that fabled game when the Texans defense did the scoring for the team. That was back in aught-two or aught-three. I can't remember much about back then cause it was so long ago...

Unless we expect Mario, Demeco, Amobi, and Dunta to be doing all the scoring, then the Texans need at least a decent offense. Unless of course we are expecting the kicker to be making a lot of three's, which has also worked really well in the Texans' history...

Runner
06-05-2007, 09:42 PM
Please excuse our resident Unfrozen Cave Man Litterateur and Tippler as he is unfamilar with your modern Gamer ways. Please view exhibit A in his Tippler Manifesto:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! When I see my image on the security camera at the country club, I wonder, are they stealing my soul? I get so upset, I hop out of my Range Rover, and run across the fairway to the clubhouse, where I get Carlos to make me one of those martini cocktails he's so famous for, to soothe my primitive caveman brain. But whatever world you're from, I do know one thing: in the 12 months from January 6, 2006, when he first showed he was super human in the BCS Championship game, until December 10, 2006 when he crushed Houston fans everywhere, my client was legally insane."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfrozen_Caveman_Lawyer

Excellent. Well, except for:

I'm not a caveman.
I'm not a lawyer.
I don't golf.
I don't drive a Range Rover - the opposite end of the spectrum, in fact.
I am familiar with the so called "Madden Curse".However:

I will take that martini.
I'm not a gamer. I go outside and participate - it's almost like reality TV.That puts you right around 28.5%. About what I would expect.

Kaiser Toro
06-05-2007, 10:00 PM
Excellent. Well, except for:

I'm not a caveman.
I'm not a lawyer.
I don't golf.
I don't drive a Range Rover - the opposite end of the spectrum, in fact.
I am familiar with the so called "Madden Curse".However:

I will take that martini.
I'm not a gamer. I go outside and participate - it's almost like reality TV.That puts you right around 28.5%. About what I would expect.

I never took you to be a caveman hater Runner.