NFL Week 9

[jersey cubs fan]

STL has played nobody this year and they are 4-4. The Bears have played two top teams in NYG and GB, are 1-1 against them and have 5 wins. STL beat two mediocre teams the Bears lost to, they also got their asses kicked by DET. Yet you are claiming STL might be the 6th best team in the conference.

 

Your logic is outstanding. The Bears are better because they beat Green Bay? Sure.

 

And have a better record and better players. It's the only impressive victory on either team's schedule. Regardless, my argument is more about the fact that calling them bad in the preseason was not dumb and is not nearly as big a mistake as calling Dallas good. They are 4-4 and in the bottom half of the NFL.

[SpongeWorthy]

The Bears are better because they have better football players.

 

Well that makes me feel better about Super Bowl 36.

 

That was Mike Martz's fault.

[bukie]

I still think the Seahawks are the best team in that division, despite Sunday's result.

 

If I had to do a completely subjective ranking of the NFC, it'd probably look like:

 

1. Giants

2. Saints

3. Packers

4. Falcons

5. Eagles

 

--- huge gap ---

 

6. Bucs

7. Seahawks

 

-- another gap --

 

8. Lions

9. Vikings

10. Bears

11. Redskins

 

-- gap --

 

12. Cowboys

13. 49ers

14. Rams

15. Cardinals

16. Panthers

[jersey cubs fan]

The Bears are better because they have better football players.

 

Well that makes me feel better about Super Bowl 36.

 

That was Mike Martz's fault.

 

What the hell does the coach of the 2005 version of that team have to do with the 2010 team? That would be like blaming Jauron for the Bears disappointing 2009.

[UMFan83]

Perhaps, but the Rams are still at least even with the Bucs and Bears.

 

Why? They have 4 losses, none of them to good teams. It's not that hard to make a top 8 list of NFC teams anyway. There may be 12 AFC teams in that discussion.

 

The Bears lost to the Seahawks and Redskins at home. The Rams beat those two teams by a combined 30 points.

 

The Bears are 27th in points scored and fourth in points allowed. The Rams are 29th in points scored and seventh in points allowed.

 

Looks pretty even to me.

 

The Bears beat the Lions, and you lost to them by 38 points. The Bears have 5 wins in 8 games, the Rams have 4 wins in 8 games. The Rams play in the worst division in football and are matched up against the worst division in the AFC. The Bears are in a middle of the road division with no true cupcakes, and are matched up against arguably the best divsion in the NFL.

[SpongeWorthy]

The Bears are better because they have better football players.

 

Well that makes me feel better about Super Bowl 36.

 

That was Mike Martz's fault.

 

What the hell does the coach of the 2005 version of that team have to do with the 2010 team? That would be like blaming Jauron for the Bears disappointing 2009.

 

He's referring to the Martz led Rams losing to Brady/Belichick in the Super Bowl in what was considered a fairly huge upset at the time (Rams were giving 14 points). Players wise, those Rams teams outgunned the Pats for sure.

[erik316wttn]

Jason Garrett. That name rings a bell.

 

I'm too lazy to look it up, but was he the backup that replaced Aikman one game on Thanksgiving and beat the Packers?

[UMFan83]

STL has played nobody this year and they are 4-4. The Bears have played two top teams in NYG and GB, are 1-1 against them and have 5 wins. STL beat two mediocre teams the Bears lost to, they also got their asses kicked by DET. Yet you are claiming STL might be the 6th best team in the conference.

 

Your logic is outstanding. The Bears are better because they beat Green Bay? Sure.

 

And have a better record and better players. It's the only impressive victory on either team's schedule. Regardless, my argument is more about the fact that calling them bad in the preseason was not dumb and is not nearly as big a mistake as calling Dallas good. They are 4-4 and in the bottom half of the NFL.

 

I just wanted to point out that the Rams did beat the Chargers in San Diego. IMO that's more impressive than the Bears beating a Packers team penalized 18 times at home. The Chargers may be 4-5 and may have been in the middle of their annual early season malise, but according to DVOA team rankings the Chargers have been a better overall team this year (7th overall vs. GB's 10th), and I believe the Chargers had the gained the most yards and allowed the least yards in football up until this week.

 

Just wanted to point that out, although that doesn't mean the Rams are better than the Bears by any means. I think there is a small but clear division between the Bears and the Rams at this point.

[UMFan83]

The Bears are better because they have better football players.

 

Well that makes me feel better about Super Bowl 36.

 

That was Mike Martz's fault.

 

What the hell does the coach of the 2005 version of that team have to do with the 2010 team? That would be like blaming Jauron for the Bears disappointing 2009.

 

He's referring to the Martz led Rams losing to Brady/Belichick in the Super Bowl in what was considered a fairly huge upset at the time (Rams were giving 14 points). Players wise, those Rams teams outgunned the Pats for sure.

 

Yes but they didn't have Tom 'sex pistol' Brady at the helm. I've got a friend that I met 2-3 years after that game who is a huge Rams fan (seriously bigger than any Bears fan I know), and he's never been able to talk to me about that game because he's still pissed about it.

[cardinalsfan]

STL has played nobody this year and they are 4-4. The Bears have played two top teams in NYG and GB, are 1-1 against them and have 5 wins. STL beat two mediocre teams the Bears lost to, they also got their asses kicked by DET. Yet you are claiming STL might be the 6th best team in the conference.

 

Your logic is outstanding. The Bears are better because they beat Green Bay? Sure.

 

And have a better record and better players. It's the only impressive victory on either team's schedule. Regardless, my argument is more about the fact that calling them bad in the preseason was not dumb and is not nearly as big a mistake as calling Dallas good. They are 4-4 and in the bottom half of the NFL.

 

I just wanted to point out that the Rams did beat the Chargers in San Diego. IMO that's more impressive than the Bears beating a Packers team penalized 18 times at home. The Chargers may be 4-5 and may have been in the middle of their annual early season malise, but according to DVOA team rankings the Chargers have been a better overall team this year (7th overall vs. GB's 10th), and I believe the Chargers had the gained the most yards and allowed the least yards in football up until this week.

 

Just wanted to point that out, although that doesn't mean the Rams are better than the Bears by any means. I think there is a small but clear division between the Bears and the Rams at this point.

Rams beat Chargers in St.Louis.

Edited November 8, 2010 by cardinalsfan

[sneakypower]

in the power rankings i sent to elcaballo last week, i had the bears 23rd and the rams 21st, and i don't see much reason for either to have moved very far

 

so there's your outsider perspective, they both blow

[Guest]

I still think the Seahawks are the best team in that division, despite Sunday's result.

 

They might be the best team in that division but I have a hard time believing they're the seventh best in the NFC. Don't forget they also gave up 545 yards and lost 33-3 to the Raiders the week before also.

[SpongeWorthy]

Yes but they didn't have Tom 'sex pistol' Brady at the helm. I've got a friend that I met 2-3 years after that game who is a huge Rams fan (seriously bigger than any Bears fan I know), and he's never been able to talk to me about that game because he's still pissed about it.

 

Brady was pretty much the epitome of a game manager at that point.

[dew1679666265]

I still think the Seahawks are the best team in that division, despite Sunday's result.

 

If I had to do a completely subjective ranking of the NFC, it'd probably look like:

 

1. Giants

2. Saints

3. Packers

4. Falcons

5. Eagles

 

--- huge gap ---

 

6. Bucs

7. Seahawks

 

-- another gap --

 

8. Lions

9. Vikings

10. Bears

11. Redskins

 

-- gap --

 

12. Cowboys

13. 49ers

14. Rams

15. Cardinals

16. Panthers

 

Why do you have the Lions so far behind the Bucs and Seahawks?

[dew1679666265]

in the power rankings i sent to elcaballo last week, i had the bears 23rd and the rams 21st, and i don't see much reason for either to have moved very far

 

so there's your outsider perspective, they both blow

 

Good to see I wasn't the only one to send a full 32 teams to ElCaballo.

 

I had the Bears 15 and the Rams 19. Lions were 18, Bucs 20 and Seahawks 23 as well. The Detroit, Chicago, St Louis, Tampa, Washington and Seattle group is pretty close to me, though, and I could see any of them rated a little higher than the other.

[sneakypower]

seriously, the Lions just outplayed the Jets for 58 minutes until our mentally [expletive] 3rd string QB came in to sabotage the game

 

we'd obliterate the Bucs and Hawks like we did the Rams, let's be serious here

[bukie]

I still think the Seahawks are the best team in that division, despite Sunday's result.

 

If I had to do a completely subjective ranking of the NFC, it'd probably look like:

 

1. Giants

2. Saints

3. Packers

4. Falcons

5. Eagles

 

--- huge gap ---

 

6. Bucs

7. Seahawks

 

-- another gap --

 

8. Lions

9. Vikings

10. Bears

11. Redskins

 

-- gap --

 

12. Cowboys

13. 49ers

14. Rams

15. Cardinals

16. Panthers

 

Why do you have the Lions so far behind the Bucs and Seahawks?

 

I think there's clear separation there, not as big as the separation between the top 5 and everyone else, but clear enough to me where there wasn't any question of where they'd be ranked. There are probably 10-12 teams in the AFC I'd put before the 6th best NFC team, though.

 

The bottom 3 teams in the NFC North are pretty interchangeable, to me. Along with the bottom 3 in the NFC West. At this point the only team I could see stealing a wildcard spot from the Atlanta/NO loser and the NY Giants/Philly loser would be the Bucs, who aren't a good team but play an easier schedule than the NFC North. Other than that, I think the 6 playoff teams in the NFC are pretty cut and dry as long as Philly plays to their capability.

[dew1679666265]

seriously, the Lions just outplayed the Jets for 58 minutes until our mentally [expletive] 3rd string QB came in to sabotage the game

 

we'd obliterate the Bucs and Hawks like we did the Rams, let's be serious here

 

With Stafford in there, I really like the Lions. With Shaun Hill, I still like them. With Drew Stanton, I'm not as crazy about them. That said, I still like them better than the Bucs or Seahawks.

 

They have a +15 point differential, better than any of the teams being discussed here – and significantly so.

[dew1679666265]

I think there's clear separation there, not as big as the separation between the top 5 and everyone else, but clear enough to me where there wasn't any question of where they'd be ranked. There are probably 10-12 teams in the AFC I'd put before the 6th best NFC team, though.

 

The bottom 3 teams in the NFC North are pretty interchangeable, to me. Along with the bottom 3 in the NFC West. At this point the only team I could see stealing a wildcard spot from the Atlanta/NO loser and the NY Giants/Philly loser would be the Bucs, who aren't a good team but play an easier schedule than the NFC North. Other than that, I think the 6 playoff teams in the NFC are pretty cut and dry as long as Philly plays to their capability.

 

To me, the only reason the Lions have a worse record than the Bucs or Seahawks is that the latter two have closed out their close games a little bit better. The Lions lost in OT to the Jets and nearly beat the Bears. Had they won those two, with Stafford missing most of the year, I don't think there's the slightest question the Lions are seen as better than both the Bucs and Seahawks.

 

You can argue the Bucs and Seahaws are better because they've closed out those games, but I don't see any way you can argue both are significantly better than Detroit.

[UMFan83]

seriously, the Lions just outplayed the Jets for 58 minutes until our mentally [expletive] 3rd string QB came in to sabotage the game

 

we'd obliterate the Bucs and Hawks like we did the Rams, let's be serious here

 

Then you'd probably really destroy the 23rd ranked Bears if you had a chance to play them.

 

oh wait.

[bukie]

The Seahawks are coming off two awful weeks, but they've been able to dominate at home for the most part to the extent that if they win the NFC West, there's a decent chance they're favored against the wildcard team they'd play.

 

The Bucs had a much better showing in Atlanta than I expected them to have, to the point where they might just be able to steal a wildcard spot.

 

The Lions have to be the most feel-good 2-6 team in NFL history, having played a single blowout win against a bad Rams team and not having won a road game in 3 years. Blame the refs for the CJ "catch" all you will, that team was badly outplayed by a Bears team that hasn't been able to mount much of anything offensively since.

[bukie]

Also, for the record, here are the AFC teams I would consider better than the Bucs and Seahawks:

 

1. Steelers

2. Patriots

3. Colts

4. Titans

5. Ravens

6. Jets

7. Chiefs

8. Chargers

9. Raiders

10. Texans

11. Browns

12. Dolphins

[Guest]

The Seahawks are coming off two awful weeks, but they've been able to dominate at home for the most part to the extent that if they win the NFC West, there's a decent chance they're favored against the wildcard team they'd play.

 

There's no way the Seahawks (or whoever wins the NFC West) would be favored over NYG/PHI/ATL/NO in the wildcard round. The only dominating they've done at home has been against other crappy NFC West teams (beat SF 31-6 and Arizona 22-10), who they aren't going to face in the playoffs. San Diego gained 518 yards and only lost because they turned the ball over five times and gave up two kick returns for a touchdown. Then there was the loss to the Giants.

 

They rank 30th in total offense (29th in both pypg and rypg), 27th in total defense (30th pass, 19th rush) and Hasselbeck is one of the worst QBs in the league (30th out of 32 in QB rating, 29th in completion percentage and 31st in yard per attempt. All of this while playing one of the weakest schedules in the NFL.

 

They might win a playoff game, but they shouldn't be favored.

[UMFan83]

The Seahawks are coming off two awful weeks, but they've been able to dominate at home for the most part to the extent that if they win the NFC West, there's a decent chance they're favored against the wildcard team they'd play.

 

There's no way the Seahawks (or whoever wins the NFC West) would be favored over NYG/PHI/ATL/NO in the wildcard round. The only dominating they've done at home has been against other crappy NFC West teams (beat SF 31-6 and Arizona 22-10), who they aren't going to face in the playoffs. San Diego gained 518 yards and only lost because they turned the ball over five times and gave up two kick returns for a touchdown. Then there was the loss to the Giants.

 

They rank 30th in total offense (29th in both pypg and rypg), 27th in total defense (30th pass, 19th rush) and Hasselbeck is one of the worst QBs in the league (30th out of 32 in QB rating, 29th in completion percentage and 31st in yard per attempt. All of this while playing one of the weakest schedules in the NFL.

 

They might win a playoff game, but they shouldn't be favored.

 

Thanks for making me depressed about the Bears loss to them again.

 

I'm dumbfounded at how that happened.

 

Edit: Also, your post reminds me of this article I was reading yesterday about the Worst playoff teams of all time. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=53 The 1998 Arizona Cardinals were #1

[Flames24Rulz]

seriously, the Lions just outplayed the Jets for 58 minutes until our mentally [expletive] 3rd string QB came in to sabotage the game

 

we'd obliterate the Bucs and Hawks like we did the Rams, let's be serious here

 

Seahawks, yeah. I'm not sure about Tampa Bay. With their remaining schedule, I definitely think they could sneak into the playoffs.