NFL Rankings

[Spiff]

Are you saying you don't believe in Gary Brackett and Donald Stickland?

[hammerhead johnson]

Are you saying you don't believe in Gary Brackett and Donald Stickland?

 

Those two would absolutely wreck shop in NFL Europe.

 

It's not that the Colts haven't tried to accumulate some talent on defense. It's just that most of their draft picks in recent years have been duds. Just look at their LB and DB depth charts. In retrospect, letting go of Mike Peterson was retarded.

 

Although, in fairness, they can't go out and sign many impact players on defense because all of their money is tied up in that offense.

 

If I'm looking for super bowl contenders, I'll go with the most balanced, deepest teams on both sides of the ball. Right now, you have New England. Nobody else even comes close.

[Goober]

If I'm looking for super bowl contenders, I'll go with the most balanced, deepest teams on both sides of the ball.  Right now, you have New England.  Nobody else even comes close.

but but but the bears have kyle orton!

[ZoomSlowik]

The Ravens are the one example of a team in recent history that had a very good team with a sub-par QB (the 2001 Bears were very close to being 10-6 and lost in the playoffs, so I'm not counting them). However, their defense was stellar, and Jamal Lewis had a very good season. Our D is not as good as that Ravens unit, and we don't have a RB as reliable as Lewis. I fail to see how Jones, who has never rushed for 1,000 (a feat that 18 backs accomplished last year) and a rookie equates to a good running game. If he stays healthy (something he hasn't done) Jones might get that this year, but he is still nowhere near a top 10 back. Muhammad isn't a top 10 receiver either, especially not with our QB situation. He's only been over 1000 yards 3 times in 9 seasons, and only has 44 career TD's, even with that 16 spot last year. We've still got a long way to go on offense.

 

As for the Colts, maybe I am a little optomistic about their D, but they finished 29 last year, added a Pro-Bowl calibur defensive tackle, get Bob Sanders back, and used their first two picks in the secondary. I could buy number 20, which is I guess lower than I said. Either way, they still made the playoffs with that horrendous D and I doubt the results change much. Hammer, some of the D's on that list don't thrill me much, like the Browns, St. Louis, and Tennessee, and the Vikings have some brutal LB's with only Williams impressing me on the line. Granted the Colts might not be better, but I don't think they're that far behind some of them.

 

Edit- guess I did forget Tampa. Considering that Derrick Brooks scored more TD's than our #1 receiver last year, that D was obviously more impressive than ours. Plus Warrick Dunn and Mike Alstott gave them a better running game than we have.

Edited September 2, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[hammerhead johnson]

Didnt the Ravens win the superbowl with Dilfer who than lost his job the next season and tell me again who Tampa won the superbowl with who has also lost his job..... Both those teams won with defense and mostly a solid running game something we are trying to do.

 

I hear that. However, both Baltimore and Tampa Bay had what I would call legendary defensive squads that you could mention in the same sentence as the 85 Bears, 70s Steelers, 70s Raiders, etc.

[ZoomSlowik]

Those two would absolutely wreck shop in NFL Europe.

 

It's not that the Colts haven't tried to accumulate some talent on defense.  It's just that most of their draft picks in recent years have been duds.  Just look at their LB and DB depth charts.  In retrospect, letting go of Mike Peterson was retarded.

 

Although, in fairness, they can't go out and sign many impact players on defense because all of their money is tied up in that offense. 

 

If I'm looking for super bowl contenders, I'll go with the most balanced, deepest teams on both sides of the ball.  Right now, you have New England.  Nobody else even comes close.

 

I can't really argue with New England, although it seems that they'll struggle against the run more than in the past without Johnson and Bruschi. They still have Seymour, McGinest, Colvin, Vrabel, and Harrison though, and that offense is impressive with Dillon and Brady. I like the Ravens if Boller can be anywhere near decent. Their defense has all kinds of Pro-Bowl caliber players, and they have a couple of guys that can make some plays on offense. I also like Carolina because of that ridiculous defensive line and an offense that looks like it will do enough. The Jets look decent too if Pennington's shoulder holds up. It's hard to argue against the Steelers with their defense too. Even the Chiefs look to have an improved D. The Pats definitely seem to have better balance between their O/D than pretty much anyone.

Edited September 2, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[hammerhead johnson]

As for the Colts, maybe I am a little optomistic about their D, but they finished 29 last year, added a Pro-Bowl calibur defensive tackle, get Bob Sanders back, and used their first two picks in the secondary. I could buy number 20, which is I guess lower than I said. Either way, they still made the playoffs with that horrendous D and I doubt the results change much. Hammer, some of the D's on that list don't thrill me much, like the Browns, St. Louis, and Tennessee, and the Vikings have some brutal LB's with only Williams impressing me on the line. Granted the Colts might not be better, but I don't think they're that far behind some of them.

 

I agree, the Vikings LB core is going to be terrible because they lack brains as a unit, but their defense overall:

 

DE: Kenechi Udeze (Solid), Lance Johnstone (Solid)

DT: Kevin Williams (Monster)

DT: Pat Williams (All-Pro Caliber)

DE: Erasmus Jones (Solid)

OLB: HOLE

MLB: HOLE

OLB: HOLE

CB: Antoine Winfield (All-Pro Caliber)

SS: Corey Chavous (Solid)

FS: Darren Sharper (Solid)

CB: Fred Smoot (All-Pro Caliber), Brian Williams (Solid)

 

They have a Top 10 D-Line (arguably) and a Top 8 secondary (obviously) in the NFL. I'd say that they are much, much, much better than the Colts.

 

Tennessee ain't nowhere near as bad on D as I've been reading in all of my football preview mags. They have no good pass-rushing defensive ends, which is going to put a s***load of pressure on the young CBs, but overall, I'd give them a major edge over the Colts. They have proven over the years (and then some) that they know how to draft quality defenders.

 

DE: HOLE

DT: Albert Haynesworth (All-Pro Caliber)

DT: Rien Long (Solid), Randy Starks (Solid)

DE: HOLE

OLB: Peter Sirmon (Solid), Rocky Boiman (Solid)

MLB: Brad Kassell (Solid), Rocky Calmus (Solid)

OLB: Keith Bullock (All-Pro Caliber)

CB: ???

SS: Tank Williams (All-Pro Caliber)

FS: Lamont Thompson (Solid)

CB: ???

 

I'll put question marks next to the CB slots because I don't know what Pacman and Woolfork are going to do this year.

 

While you can certainly expose the Titans through the air, they should be awfully good against the run.

 

Next up, we've got St. Louis. They're not as bad as people think. While the only true defensive playmaker that they have is Leonard Little (some would argue Archuletta), they are not terrible in any one facet of defense.

 

DE: Leonard Little (All-Pro Caliber)

DT: Ryan Pickett (Solid)

DT: HOLE

DE: Tyoka Jackson (Solid)

OLB: Dexter Coakley (Solid)

MLB: Chris Claiborne (Solid)

OLB: Pisa Tinoisamoa (Solid)

CB: Jerametrius Butler (Solid)

SS: Adam Archuletta (Solid)

FS: HOLE

CB: Travis Fisher (Solid)

 

However, they will be on the field a s***load, much like Cleveland:

 

DE: Orpheus Roye (Solid)

DT: Jason Fisk (Solid)

DT: Alvin McKinley (Solid), Kenard Lang (Solid)

OLB: Matt Stewart (Solid)

ILB: Andra Davis (All-Pro Caliber)

ILB: HOLE

OLB: Chaun Thompson (Solid)

CB: Gary Baxter (All-Pro Caliber)

SS: Sean Jones (Solid)

FS: Brian Russell (Solid), Brodney Pool (Solid)

CB: Daylon McCutcheon (Solid)

 

The Browns are surprisingly deep on defense, and trust me, I won't be surprised if they're waaaay down there in the rankings because they're gonna be an extremely exhausted unit in the latter stages of games. But they are Top 20 IMO, and much better than the Colts.

[ZoomSlowik]

God, looking at the Colts again I don't see much in the back 7. A couple guys look passable but that's about it. Still, with their pass rush I have a hard time seeing them being as bad as last year.

[DukeNukeEm]

I think Cato June could be a top 10 LB....

 

I also think he wont stay on the Colts much longer.

[hammerhead johnson]

God, looking at the Colts again I don't see much in the back 7. A couple guys look passable but that's about it. Still, with their pass rush I have a hard time seeing them being as bad as last year.

 

That's what I'm saying. That back 7 is horrendous. The only team that is worse in that regard IMO:

 

Green Bay

OLB: Nail Diggs (Solid)

MLB: Nick Barnett (All-Pro Caliber)

OLB: HOLE

CB: Al Harris (Solid)

SS: HOLE

FS: HOLE

CB: HOLE

 

If the Bears don't smash the Packers this year, then we're a sorry-ass team. You have to beat up on the worst of the worst.

 

LOL at Vegas or anybody who has the Packers down for better odds to win the SB than the Bears. It's like, wow, they have Brett Favre. We'll just assume that they're better than so and so on the strength of that alone. Never mind that they just lost two of the Top 20 guards in all of football, or that their defense is putrid.

[GoodAsGould]

The Browns rush defense looked pretty good against us although even with the int. their pass defense didnt look all that good... a course i take that from a very small sample size.

[hammerhead johnson]

The Browns rush defense looked pretty good against us although even with the int. their pass defense didnt look all that good... a course i take that from a very small sample size.

 

Their pass defense should be pretty mediocre this year, but bringing in Baxter and Pool were very good moves/choices. Overall, they're a borderline Top 20 defense. They need to go like 2-14 to land the #1 overall pick and grab a QB. Tim Couch revisited.

[GoodAsGould]

I really liked that Brodney Poole pick 2... although I dont think he will be 2 great this season but next year and year afters he can be good.

[ZoomSlowik]

I still think there are at least a couple of other defenses that are worse. The Raiders don't impress me at all. Sapp and Washington could be good run stoppers, but neither can play end in a 3-4. The rest of the D looks brutal, except for maybe Danny Clark and Charles Woodson, although the latter plays well under his abilities. I'm still trying to figure out how Cleveland wasn't worse against the pass, but it's hard to argue against the numbers. I don't see much there outside of Baxter. The only thing I can think of is that they were so brutal against the run people didn't bother to throw. As I said, I don't buy the Rams' D at all. Little and Archuleta are the only ones I like, maybe Coakley and Tinoiasamoa. The rest of them look below average to me, except for Kennedy if he lives up to potential.

 

The Colts are not stellar, but some of their guys aren't that bad. Freeney and Simon are excellent; June, Brock, and Mathis are all decent, and Doss, Sanders, and Jackson have potential. They're not world beaters, but they should slow teams down enough for the Colts to win (at least until Peyton starts looking like Rick Mirer against the Pats again).

Edited September 2, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[hammerhead johnson]

I still think there are at least a couple of other defenses that are worse. The Raiders don't impress me at all. Sapp and Washington could be good run stoppers, but neither can play end in a 3-4. The rest of the D looks brutal, except for maybe Danny Clark and Charles Woodson, although the latter plays well under his abilities. I'm still trying to figure out how Cleveland wasn't worse against the pass, but it's hard to argue against the numbers. I don't see much there outside of Baxter. The only thing I can think of is that they were so brutal against the run people didn't bother to throw. As I said, I don't buy the Rams' D at all. Little and Archuleta are the only ones I like, maybe Coakley and Tinoiasamoa. The rest of them look below average to me, except for Kennedy if he lives up to potential.

 

The Raiders defense doesn't impress me at all either. They aren't above average in any one facet.

 

I've got this "Fantasy Insider" mag that I just received in the mail for free the other day. They're predicting that the Raiders finish second in the AFC West, ahead of the Chargers and Broncos. It also says that if they were in the NFC West, they'd be the favorite to win the division.

 

That is pure comedy.

[GoodAsGould]

I really like the Chargers.... they are very balanced on both sides of the ball which I think is what makes a good football team... Although they going to have trouble week 1 without Gates.

[Spiff]

Pretty sure the Raiders are going back to a 4-3. They have bad linebackers but I really like the way Schweigert plays.

[hammerhead johnson]

Pretty sure the Raiders are going back to a 4-3.  They have bad linebackers but I really like the way Schweigert plays.

 

Schweigert...now there's a guy who could bust out this year.

 

Looking at their schedule, there is a good chance that they can go 1-7 or 0-8 on the road this year.

 

@ New England

@ Philadelphia

@ Tennessee

@ Kansas City

@ Washington

@ San Diego

@ New York Jets

@ Denver

 

As if the road games within their division weren't difficult enough, they have to go into New England, Philadelphia, and NY. Brutal.

[Spiff]

Schweigert...now there's a guy who could bust out this year. 

 

Looking at their schedule, there is a good chance that they can go 1-7 or 0-8 on the road this year.

 

@ New England

@ Philadelphia

@ Tennessee

@ Kansas City

@ Washington

@ San Diego

@ New York Jets

@ Denver

 

As if the road games within their division weren't difficult enough, they have to go into New England, Philadelphia, and NY.  Brutal.

 

They'll probably repeat last year's 2-6 road record. I think Washington is a win, and Tennessee is beatable. But it doesn't look good for them. On the plus side they do get teams like Dallas, Miami, Cleveland and the Giants at home.

[Dam8610]

I don't know if NE will have a dropoff or not with some of the losses they've had.  However, Indy's season basically = November 7th.  Indy's @ NE for the MNF game.  I see that game's winner getting home field in the AFC.  If Indy can get home field, I think they can get into the Super Bowl with no problems.

 

I disagree with this. New England might not even be in the top tier of playoff teams this year. The loss of Bruschi, Crennel, and Weis will go a LONG way toward that. Besides, if the Colts would've just CAUGHT the ball instead of letting fall to the ground so often both on offense and on defense in last year's playoffs, this wouldn't even be an issue

 

ha  look at the link http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-...ar?sort_col_1=4

 

So you actually put stock into the NFL's Total Sham...err...Total Defense ranking? Personally I wouldn't consider a ranking system that considers a 40 yard TD drive better than an 80 yard drive that ends in an INT very efficient, which is why I don't use it. Defenses that are successful get a lot of turnovers, a lot of sacks, and don't allow too many points. The Colts were 3rd in turnovers, 3rd in sacks and 19th in Points Allowed last year. While that's not the best, that's not exactly chopped liver either. Add a ton of talent that either didn't start or wasn't there last year (Jackson, Sanders, Simon, Brackett), and you've got the makings of a good defense.

 

The bears also had key injuries to half their defense last year.    What would Indys offense be without any 2  of the following: Manning, James, Harrison, wayne , stokley,

 

Injuries are a part of the game. Manning goes down, the Colts' season is over, but fortunately he's one of the most durable QBs in the NFL.

 

I do not disagree.  I'm just tired of everyone Saying you can't win without O. I guess you can win without D huh? Not really. If the ultimate goal for any franchise was just to get to the AFC championship game every year , then I guess you don need a decent D.

 

You can't win without offense. Your defense can be the 2000 Baltimore Ravens defense, but if your offense can't put up any points, it won't matter, because no game in NFL history has ever been won by a team that put up no points. Conversely, if you have a great offense and no defense, it won't matter either, because if a team can score at will on you, you'll rarely be able to outscore them.

 

No way, Zoom.

 

While I like the D-Line, their LB core is atrocious, and their secondary is incredibly raw. 

 

They're in the 27-32 bracket with these teams IMO:

 

Indianapolis

Detroit

New Orleans

San Francisco

Green Bay

Kansas City

 

And a major lack of depth at LB and in the secondary is going to mean insanely awful coverage on special teams, which is absolutely huge.

 

I agree with most of this, but again, the NFL's Total Sham rankings don't really matter. The defensive line is going to put MASSIVE amounts of pressure on opposing QBs, and that will lead to mistakes. That and better tackling in 3rd and long situations should improve the defense a lot. Maybe they'll even be in the top 15 in Points Allowed.

 

Are you saying you don't believe in Gary Brackett and Donald Stickland?

 

Brackett has better coverage skills than Morris, and can play the run about equally well. As for Donald Strickland, not only is he not a starter, he's not even playing, because he's injured. I expect that Marlin Jackson and Jason David will be the starters come Sept. 11th.

[Spiff]

I disagree with this. New England might not even be in the top tier of playoff teams this year.

 

Well there goes your credibility.

[Dam8610]

Well there goes your credibility.

 

Really? Show me the last team that was built around defense and lost it's leader on defense, and both of it's coordinators, and still succeeded in the following years. Going by the history of the NFL, they're going to slip into mediocrity, and likely even worse.

[GoodAsGould]

Really? Show me the last team that was built around defense and lost it's leader on defense, and both of it's coordinators, and still succeeded in the following years. Going by the history of the NFL, they're going to slip into mediocrity, and likely even worse.

 

Their winning the division and one of the elite teams in the NFL...... The team that was amazing last year and i can see out of the playoffs this year is the steelers.

[Rowand44]

they're going to slip into mediocrity, and likely even worse.

Does this mean you don't think they'll make the playoffs?

[Dam8610]

Their winning the division and one of the elite teams in the NFL...... The team that was amazing last year and i can see out of the playoffs this year is the steelers.

 

Yeah, so were the last teams that were in the situations that they're in.

 

Does this mean you don't think they'll make the playoffs?

 

Not neccessarily. The last 2 teams to do the things the Patriots have done recently enjoyed some success (i.e. making the playoffs) after their runs were over, but just kept slipping and slipping in talent level and eventually the win column. In fact, one of those teams recently had the #1 pick in the draft.