Peter King lists his best-to-worst teams for the 2008 season (hey, at least he’s not doing a 2009 mock draft), motivates Rodney Harrison with his disrespect, keeps the Favre streak alive, and postulates that “a guard is a guard” — this, of course, is news to football lovers in Seattle.
posted
5-5-2008 at 10:07 AM by
Doug Farrar
||
Extra Points
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Your names and email address are required --- it's part of an effort to reduce comment spam -- but your email address won't be displayed.
If you create a comment, but it doesn't display, that's probably because it didn't pass through our spam filter (make any references to erectile dysfunction medication?), and is living in Comment Limbo Land. Please don't try to post it 14 more times -- try again once, and if it doesn't go through, then send an email to webmaster-at-footballoutsiders.com and let us know. Mentions of ED drugs, poker games, and anything you get email spam about will likely cause your comment to be held for moderation.
Please respect our discussion threads by refraining from the following:
- comments about politics
- ad hominem attacks on other commenters
- posts designed to promote another website
- thread-hijacking, particularly by turning threads that are not about Tom Brady or Peyton Manning into arguments about Brady vs. Manning
- discussing Spygate except in the Irrational Spygate Argument Thread.
Such comments may be deleted.
If you want to reference a link, put it in the URI field (go Rams!). Please don't put the 'less than' sign in the comment text -- it's seen as the beginning of an HTML tag, and that just messes everything up.
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that PK took an unnecessary shot at Jay Cutler?
:: Flounder — 5/5/2008 @ 10:23 am
grrrr.
“think” is the word missing between “else” and “that”
:: Flounder — 5/5/2008 @ 10:23 am
nevermind, I couldn’t even read my own post correctly. no words were missing. And now I’ve wasted 3 posts!
How appropriate that doofus in the anti-spam word.
:: Flounder — 5/5/2008 @ 10:25 am
PK drops the Bears to 25 in his team rankings based upon the lack of a proven QB, if that is how he sees it then fine. I think I would rather he thought they were bad considering that I think I have a yoghurt in my fridge that knows more about football. What I don’t get is putting Green Bay and Minnesota well into his top ten despite both teams suffering from exactly the same problem.
:: Jimmy — 5/5/2008 @ 10:57 am
I don’t think King’s trying to take a shot at Cutler. It just comes out really weird, because he’s trying to take shots at Denver’s talent level at the same time he’s trying to call Jay Cutler an inspiration.
King’s a guy that loves to highlight players’ struggles to overcome adversity. So I think it’s fair to assume he was just tripping over his words, here. I’m guessing that he thinks that Cutler isn’t capable of carrying the Broncos, and that opinion doesn’t have anything to do with last Friday’s announcement.
:: Tracy — 5/5/2008 @ 10:59 am
Re: 1-3
I didn’t read the Cutler thing as sarcasm, just typical King overstatement.
:: mawbrew — 5/5/2008 @ 11:05 am
Farrar, I’ve seen you say similar statements a lot lately and I’d like to know whether you really think that the loss of Hutchinson has really had that big of an effect on Seattle’s offense. Alexander was old and ineffective regardless and the receivers were frequently injured. It just doesn’t seem that it was so important to Seattle’s struggles that it merits a mention any time someone says that guards aren’t that important. I mean, I can’t think of a single team who lost a guard and immediately sucked.
:: mactbone — 5/5/2008 @ 11:21 am
Am I alone in thinking that King has the Cowboys overrated? I’ve got little faith in Wade as Head Coach and none in Jones as GM. I think they’ll start declining this year and continue until Jones gets another strong coach to ‘help’ him in putting together their roster.
:: mawbrew — 5/5/2008 @ 11:22 am
#7 - The Jets looked pretty terrible without Pete Kendall last year. Not that they ever look very good, but they would have been better had they not lost him to Washington.
:: Chad — 5/5/2008 @ 11:25 am
The Jets are going to sack the QB 48 times this season? Highly doubtful.
I don’t see why Chicago’s QB issue is any different than any other season. The Bears are using a different model to win games. We should be celebrating this instead of castigating them for refusing to accept the “traditional” approach.
Seriously. If you think about all the energy teams put into QB and the incredibly low return on the investment why not go a different route? Guys who can play special teams are in more abundance than quarterbacks. Guys who can play defense are more plentiful.
A team has determined to use their resources in a different fashion. Good for them.
This approach certainly makes more sense than Minnesota who clearly believe QB IS worth then energy but the head coach is so stuck in 1966 he can’t make it work.
And I mean every word of this post.
:: BadgerT1000 — 5/5/2008 @ 11:34 am
There’s no excuse for the porn that adorns a billboard near Times Square with the initials OMFG and a 20ish man and woman in an obvious amorous state. Who decides the standards for Times Square advertising? Larry Flynt?
Man, I can’t wait for the meltdown when somebody explains to Peter that it’s an ad for a TV show about teenagers.
:: Devin McCullen — 5/5/2008 @ 11:44 am
#8, Wade Phillips, overall, didn’t do too badly last year. And the roster is filled with talent overall with good players at linebacker, depth along the defensive line, and now even depth at defensive back. Barber, Jones, and Choice look like they should be an effective mix at runningback. Reciever is fine as long as there isn’t a serious injury to Owens (he’s the one guy there that isn’t easily replacable by a guy behind him). Decent offensive line. It’s ultimately going to depend on Romo. If he cut’s down on the interceptions, the Cowboys will be very good. Otherwise, they’ll just be pretty good.
:: Arson55 — 5/5/2008 @ 11:48 am
Peter King-”Julius Jones is not a top-10 back, he’s a hard runner who won’t take 15 seconds to pick a hole the way Shaun Alexander did last year.”
True enough. Julius won’t pick a hole. He’ll run straight into the back of his guards repeatedly.
But more seriously, I hope the Seahawks are planning a lot of delays next year. Julius doesn’t do well unless the play has had a chance to develop before he gets the ball. Otherwise, well, he really will run into the back of his guards repeatedly.
:: Arson55 — 5/5/2008 @ 11:52 am
8
I think so too. I think the Cowboys will start deteriorating over the next 2-3 seasons
:: Crushinator — 5/5/2008 @ 12:02 pm
Re: 10
Grossman was a first round pick, right? So it’s not like the Bears are reluctant to use their resources on QBs. I’m not convinced their model is significantly different than lots of other teams.
Re: 12
They’ve got loads of talent, just like they did when Johnson left. And they didn’t start declining immediately when Johnson left either. But after a few years the drop began and it was considerable.
I could be way off, but I think Philips is going to have a harder time controlling and motivating this group than he did last year.
:: mawbrew — 5/5/2008 @ 12:04 pm
That’s some interesting logic PK uses in the Patriots section:
1. The Patriots usually address their glaring weaknesses.
2. Their offensive line is their most glaring weakness.
3. They didn’t make any moves to address the OL.
4. Therefore, they addressed it.
:: Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabbadu — 5/5/2008 @ 12:31 pm
Re 8 (& 14)
I’m not sure King points in the right places for his problem with the Cowboys - as if Crayton in the clutch is their biggest problem.
I do think the Cowboys are in an astoundingly similar place as the Chargers this season, as in a great nucleus of talent, coaches with question marks, and young-ish quarterbacks who need to prove themselves big-game worthy. For both teams, this year is put up or shut up. A Chargers / Cowboys Superbowl is possible and would be great (assuming our teams don’t make it).
:: Herm? — 5/5/2008 @ 12:33 pm
#16
I’m with you Joey Jo-Jo, that is exactly what I was thinking (though not quite as succinctly).
:: jebmak — 5/5/2008 @ 12:41 pm
“And what sticks with me from last season is how porous the offensive line was against the Giants in the Super Bowl, ”
It probably didn’t help that a probowl quality guard (stephen neal) got hurt in the first quarter, and was replaced with Russ “replacement level” hochstein.
Maybe the patriots feel that they don’t have a problem on the line.
:: Rich Conley — 5/5/2008 @ 12:50 pm
17. Tampa Bay. The Bucs might be the only team to open training camp with more quarterbacks than it will have wins at the end of the year Soooo…. Let me get this straight. The Bucs have 6 QB’s on the roster, correct? And King thinks that it is likely enough that they will have 5 or fewer wins that he felt like mentioning it right off the bat in his analysis. And they are his 17th ranked team? He thinks a team that he seems to believe will be in the neighborhood of three games under .500 is the best team of the lower half of the league?
Also, Niko Koutouvides doesn’t actually seem to be the Broncos biggest offseason acquisition. I’d probably give that award to ol’ “bone on bone knees” Dewayne Robertson. I understand that it makes his point stronger if he only mentions bringing in a career backup as a possible fix for the Broncos defense, but we’ve also brought in some injury concerns (Robertson) and career underachievers (Boss Bailey). We’ve really got the trifecta for potential free-agent busts all figured out.
:: The Hypno-Toad — 5/5/2008 @ 12:52 pm
17 - Yeah, wasn’t Crayton actually very good for most of last year? I don’t really watch all that many NFC games, but it seems like he was quite effective while Glenn was out.
:: The Hypno-Toad — 5/5/2008 @ 12:55 pm
Re; #4: What I don’t get is putting Green Bay and Minnesota well into his top ten despite both teams suffering from exactly the same problem.
The difference is that the Vikings and Green Bay quarterbacks have yet to prove they are good, and the Bears quarterbacks have proven that they are bad.
:: Duane — 5/5/2008 @ 1:04 pm
I definitely think Hutchinson gets more credit for the success and then collapse of the Seahawks than is warranted.
The success was the amalgamation of talent. Playing next to an all-pro tackl and a crafty center made him better. He made them better. They offensive backfield made them better. And so on.
If you measure his impact simply by the team going equation, from would-be champs to stumbling chumps in one year, in his absence, you are not doing justice to the tremendous blocking that Joe Jurevicious and Ryan Hannam provided on the perimeter. Joe’s size and savvy also provided stability and productivity in the WR corps not seen since. We also saw Mack Strong age 10 years, that year, and that was no product of Hutchinson’s absense: it was painful all over the field.
Hutch was a great guard, and a key cog. But it’s easy to overstate his significance.
:: Jacob Stevens — 5/5/2008 @ 1:09 pm
Wait, the Falcons can get worse?
:: widderslainte — 5/5/2008 @ 1:48 pm
Jake Scott migrating to Tennessee is a loss, as was the defection of second tight end Ben Utecht to Cincinnati. But a guard’s a guard and a backup tight end is replaceable. The Colts did re-sign guard Ryan Lilja and starting tight end Dallas Clark.
If Jake Scott leaving is not important because he’s just a guard, then why is retaining Lilja a good thing? Why not let both of them go? Maybe because one was better than the other? Or at least better for the money?
This team has five prime-time games for the first time since Paul Brown prowled the sidelines and Jim Brown was a runner, not a protester.
PK lets drops some names to show he knows his history, but apparently has forgotten that there were no prime time games when Brown and Brown were Browns.
:: mrh — 5/5/2008 @ 1:49 pm
#20- Crayton is very mediocre. He’s a pretty good number 3. But as a number two reciever, he’s nothing exceptional. As a Cowboys fan, I wouldn’t care if Sam Hurd were playing in his place.
:: Arson55 — 5/5/2008 @ 2:04 pm
8: I think they’re ranked about right. I agree w/you about Wade and Jones and in the LONG TERM the Cowboys’ future is pretty miserable. But that roster Parcells built is still really strong and should continue to be so for another season or two.
:: langsty — 5/5/2008 @ 2:17 pm
25- well, then. I’m glad I added the caveat about not watching much NFC football. I wish I had also added one about being too lazy to do even the most rudimentary research before I chime in on a subject that I know nothing about. I just checked Crayton’s numbers for last year, and I cannot figure out how I got the impression that he did well as a number 2 receiver. Thanks for setting me straight.
:: The Hypno-Toad — 5/5/2008 @ 2:25 pm
The difference is that the Vikings and Green Bay quarterbacks have yet to prove they are good, and the Bears quarterbacks have proven that they are bad.
Or the difference could be that unlike Green Bay and Minnesota, Chicago has proven that they can win and get to the playoffs (nary, even to the Superbowl) with the QBs they have. The Bears are 31-17 during the Orton/Grossman/Greise/Grossman/Orton era, that’s .646 record. The QBs can’t be any worse than that next year, yet PK declares that they are in the bottom quartile, seemingly just because they should have taken Henne.
:: Jimmy — 5/5/2008 @ 2:30 pm
“There’s no ‘I’ in team. There is an ‘I’ in ‘win’ and what that ‘I’ stands for is individual responsibility.”
I do believe my brain just exploded.
:: TomC — 5/5/2008 @ 2:39 pm
#10, Badger
I don’t think the Bears deliberately avoid getting a decent QB, as someone else pointed out they have spent a first rounder on a guy during Angelo’s tenure. I don’t get to watch much college ball so I have no idea how good or bad a pick Grossman looked at the time, but time hasn’t exactly made it look like a doozy. Maybe it shows that Angelo has at least learned his lesson on reaching for QBs at the end of round one when the talent isn’t there.
I think you are right about their approach to this year. The Bears seemingly thought the QBs available in the draft were of questionable quality after Ryan, and the talent available at other positions better than most years. If Angelo and his staff only projected Brohm, Henne and others to be marginal starters or backups then why spend high picks on those players when you already have two such QBs on your roster. Better to re-stock the cupboard elsewhere with the good players available than waste a draft pick. If a bona fide starting QB were to be available in free agency, or for reasonable value relative to the picks needed to trade for him, I think the Bears would try to bring a QB in.
:: Jimmy — 5/5/2008 @ 2:47 pm
RE: 16
-That’s some interesting logic PK uses in the Patriots section:
1. The Patriots usually address their glaring weaknesses.
2. Their offensive line is their most glaring weakness.
3. They didn’t make any moves to address the OL.
4. Therefore, they addressed it.
************
His logic doesn’t make sense at all. But I am really hoping it makes sense to him, so he can stop talking about it. The Offensive line was the biggest strength of the team until the Super Bowl. Seriously, people were saying “Brady sucks. You could put Grossman back there and he would be amazing too!”
I’ve never thought they would draft an OL this year– they have the entire line locked up for 2-3 more years as it is, and they are made out of mostly second day picks who are coached well, so why would they switch it up and draft someone high and play him without proper coaching?
He had a strong point had he continued talking about the way they repair holes– last year, it was WR, so they signed Welker, Moss, Stallworth and Washington. This year, its LB/CB, so they drafted 3 LB’s and 2 CB’s and signed 3 more DB’s. In terms of sheer quantity, they fixed the problem.
I’m just hoping Crable and Mayo stick at LB and 2 of the 5 DB’s develop into at least nickel corners.
:: Cyrus — 5/5/2008 @ 2:59 pm
well, another difference is that Chicago’s offense isn’t just a quarterback away from being good - it’s miserable from top to bottom. bad o-line, bad running back, bad receivers, bad everything. minnesota has a great running game and, well… a great running game. green bay has pro-bowl receivers, a promising (if unproven) young QB, a solid line, and a solid running game. so there you go.
:: langsty — 5/5/2008 @ 3:02 pm
“The Vikings do have a totally unproven passing game, but they still outscored Philly, Washington and Denver last year with the best running game in the league for about half the season.”
Except the Vikings lost to Philadelphia by 7 points, Washington by 11, and Denver by 3. What the hell is he talking about? Anyone know?
:: Derek (Brooklyn) — 5/5/2008 @ 3:35 pm
langsty, #32
Minnesota’s offense may depend on how much (if any) of the season McKinnie is able to play pending his assault charges in Miami. Put it this way, if he did hit the guy over the head with a metal pole and it got caught on the club’s CCTV footage, I would be very concerned if I were a Vikings fan. As for bringing in Berrian, he couldn’t help elevate any of the Bears QBs’ play, even when the running game was working; what guarantee is there that he will be any better with T Jack throwing him the ball. Certainly their WRs are no great shakes and I don’t even know who there TE is (unless they still think Shiancoe is about to break out). Yes they have some good linemen and good running backs, but that doesn’t equal a balanced offense.
The Pack had Pro Bowl receivers when Favre was throwing his thunderbolts to them, but how many quality receivers found their production spiralling down when they left Green Bay. They do probably still have good receivers, but I would expect a drop off in play as the Hall of Fame QB has left the building. Grant was a revelation at the end of last year, I suspect the first game of next year he will meet his first safety in the box. This will be new to him as last year (and for every other since about 1994) no one in their right mind decided to test and see if Favre was as good at advertised at picking apart their secondary. Similarly the line may find it more difficult to block for a QB who doesn’t posses all of Favre’s skills at moving in the pocket and hurting teams who blitzed him.
As for the Bears, I am not going to make any wild claims about a great offense being unveiled in a few months, but the greatest area of weakness last year was RT and LG. They have taken steps to resolve this for the most part, but I will concede that they are one poorly timed injury away from exactly the same problem again (but then again, so are most other teams). They should get good production from their TEs and I would expect Forte to fill the void created by Thomas Jones’ departure. Whilst not hoping for the ‘89 Niners offense, a repeat of the 2006 Bears offense should be good enough to get the Bears into playoff contention. The WRs and QB weren’t all that good then either.
:: Jimmy — 5/5/2008 @ 3:39 pm
“Dwight Freeney should come back healthy from his Lisfranc injury.”
Really? Doesn’t that injury usually end the career of a running back or receiver? Isn’t Freeney much heavier, and doesn’t he require just as much out of his first step? Is it likley that he’ll return to his dominant old form?
:: The Original Sam (formerly sam!) — 5/5/2008 @ 3:59 pm
#34:
Which players on the Bears’ offense would start on either MIN or GB? I count 2, maybe 3. Woody in GB, and [QB Chicago] on the Vikings. Garza would probably have a shot in GB, too. Outside of those guys, the TEs are close, but the Vikings like Shiancoe as a run blocker, if nothing else, so I think he’d hold on.
Sure, the Packers and Vikings offenses have their warts (and I agree that King has them both a bit too high), but the Bears offense projects to be a whole new level of pitiful. Even 2006’s modest levels of production looks like a pipe dream: the team has lost Lewis, Muhammed, and Berrian without reasonable replacements and all the vets on the OL have aged another 2 years.
:: JasonK — 5/5/2008 @ 4:17 pm
#35:
Freeney’s mileage may vary, but if you want DE comparisons, both Michael Strahan and Justin Tuck were returning from lisfranc injuries in 2007.
:: JasonK — 5/5/2008 @ 4:21 pm
Re 35. It took Kevin Jones (an RB) about a year to come back from it. The recovery time is 6-12 months so Freeney would be in that range if he was ready for the opener. He hurt it about 3 months into the season so the opener the next year would be 9 months recovery time.
According to the reports I’ve heard, he’s ahead of schedule and spending his offseason golfing and rehabbing. Or just rehabbing since Freeney said the golf is part of the rehab.
:: shake n bake — 5/5/2008 @ 4:32 pm
33 - I think he’s referring to total points for the season? It’s a crappily written sentence, but I think he chose those three teams because the Vikings lost to them, but wound up outscoring them for the season. You could also throw KC and Detroit in on those criteria. Unfortunately, what that indicates is that 5 of the Vikings’ 8 losses were to “inferior” teams, just looking at their total score (which is a painfully stupid way to look at things). Why losing to a bunch of “bad” teams last year leads PK to believe that this is their year is simply beyond me.
:: The Hypno-Toad — 5/5/2008 @ 4:36 pm
My above comment is intended to be a critique of PK, not the Vikings. Just wanted to make that clear, don’t want to piss off the twin cities.
:: The Hypno-Toad — 5/5/2008 @ 4:45 pm
#36
Firstly, who is Lewis? Do you mean Thomas Jones? If so he hardly lit up New York last year. The reason for the drop in offensive production was down to the failure of the offensive line, not any sudden lack of talent at RB (Benson was in 10th in dvoa the previous season). Unless you watched the Bears a lot last year, you probably don’t appreciate how badly Fred Miller played. Replacing bad players should improve things, not make them worse.
Booker is no worse than Muhammed has been in Bears colours (last year he dropped an embarrassing number of simple catches), and Berrian’s lapses in concentration probably cost the Bears three games last season, and that was when he was playing for a contract. The Bears probably have plenty of other WRs who can cost their team the game, so where is the drop off?
How does losing mediocre or below replacement level players make a team any worse. I would be more concerned if I were a fan of a team who had ‘raided’ the Bears’ offensive talent larder by opening up the cheque book.
:: Jimmy — 5/5/2008 @ 4:55 pm
Sorry to post yet again, but I just found an even weirder reference to Jay Cutler’s diabetes than PK threw down. Randy Hill of Foxsports wrote an article (link in name)about which teams could surprisingly make the playoffs this year. From the Broncos section: Most of my faith is lobbed at QB Jay Cutler, whose history of playing for Vanderbilt should prepare him for life with diabetes. Ummm, what?
:: The Hypno-Toad — 5/5/2008 @ 5:03 pm
I just want to congratulate 29 on his bold use of the word nary.
:: Matt — 5/5/2008 @ 5:28 pm
If the gratuitous reference to Papelbon in the Jaguars’ section isn’t enough to cure me from ever clicking on a King link again, I don’t know what would.
:: Matt — 5/5/2008 @ 6:03 pm
#44 It would have been better if he would have used “nary” correctly.
:: Fan in Exile — 5/5/2008 @ 6:33 pm
“Maybe the patriots feel that they don’t have a problem on the line.”
Or that the number of teams that have the capability of doing that to them is very small; perhaps as low as one. And that one team is flawed to the degree that their chances of getting back to the big game are small.
If so, I would agree with their assessment.
PK seems to think Giants fans like me are likely to feel disrespected. Au contraire! It has been a long time since I have seen anyone rank us that highly (not counting mid-playoffs power-rankings). I even suspect that ranking might be a tad high, although probably in the ballpark.
I also bet that it is significantly higher than FO will have them ranked in the coming Prospectus.
Which, I have to say– write, by Gods, write! I am already very anxious for the tome.
:: Dales — 5/5/2008 @ 7:09 pm
“and [QB Chicago] on the Vikings”
Were I the Vikes’ coaches, I would give TJ more of a chance, and then give Booty a chance, before wanting to turn to any of the current Bears’ quarterbacks.
:: Dales — 5/5/2008 @ 7:14 pm
How is it that everyone was so hyped on Tony Romo before he barely played a down, but everyone at SI is so sure Brodie Croyle is a complete bust, even though he played decent last year with no protection?
:: Matt S — 5/5/2008 @ 7:16 pm
49: who was high on Romo before he played a down? There were rumors that Romo was threatening Bledsoe’s job, but I don’t remember anybody expecting him to be as good as he turned out to be.
As far as the Cowboys’s fate in the years to come goes, I’m unsure what will happen. Jerry Jones drafts well when he has a good scouting department and good coaches to tell him what fits their schemes. I’m not prepared to say that he doesn’t have the people in place to keep the team good for the forseable future. I’m also not prepared to say that Jerry is not about to destroy the whole team with stupid decisions. He’s really capable of doing both.
:: Staubach12 — 5/5/2008 @ 7:43 pm
no way are Raiders 30th best team. all you have to do is look at roster to fuigure that out.
Raiders going to make playoffs.
Raiders will comptet with Panthers, Eagles, seahawks, 49ers, and Colts and ChargersBrowns for Super Bowl title.
Panthers- go all around
49ers- laugh if you want but defense is going to be great and offense will be better. I hate 49ers but have to admit they are good
:: Raiderjoe — 5/5/2008 @ 8:24 pm
#42:
Point taken about Jones. My mind somehow came up with a different former Bears RB named “Thomas.”
Anyhow, getting rid of “replacement-level” players only helps if you replace them with guys who are better. C. Williams should be a moderate step up, but he is a rookie and will certainly have some struggles. The other guys you’ve mentioned are a “push” at best (and most likely less than that).
And you didn’t answer my main question– what Bears offensive players would actually be good enough to start on one of their non-Detroit division rivals? It ain’t a long list.
:: JasonK — 5/5/2008 @ 10:01 pm
Enough with the Wade-Phillips-is-a-bad-head-coach thing already. Plenty of people had that to say going into last year and the Cowboys did alright. So they lost in the playoffs (to the eventual Super Bowl champs), but we know anything can happen in a one-and-done scenario.
And enough already with the questions about Romo being able to win a big game. Don’t tell me beating the undefeated Colts in 2006 wasn’t a big game. He wasn’t the reason they didn’t beat the Pats last year, and, though he had a shaky game, he wasn’t the reason they lost to the Giants.
And let’s not discard Patrick Crayton as any old replacement-level receiver. Sam Hurd his equal? Please. Crayton was 16th in DVOA last year. He has great hands and has made clutch catches all throughout his time in Dallas. His conventional numbers for a number two receiver are going to be down because there are only so many balls to go around: TO demands his share, Witten deserves a big share as well, and the team has a pretty nasty red-zone weapon known as The Barbarian.
As far as Dallas “deteriorating” any time soon, although there will be some issues to eventually deal with on the offensive side of the ball (TO’s ability to remain a number one receiver, Flozell Adams’s age), the defense is about as solid and young as you can get: DeMarcus Ware and Anthony Spencer will be anchoring the pass rush for years to come. Bradie James is more than solid in the middle (except when he plays against the Lions), and the d-line is both good and young (with Ratliff, Canty, Tank Johnson, Hatcher, and, if he ever comes around, Spears). And if Pacman’s reinstated they’ll have the deepest group of corners in the leauge; if not, they still are above average.
:: BlueStarDude — 5/5/2008 @ 10:14 pm
How is it that everyone was so hyped on Tony Romo before he barely played a down, but everyone at SI is so sure Brodie Croyle is a complete bust, even though he played decent last year with no protection?
All right, first off, nobody was so hyped on Tony Romo before his first season as a starter, and in that season, he was 10th in DPAR and 9th in DVOA.
In contrast, Brodie Croyle was 36th in DPAR and 33rd in DVOA, which doesn’t really count as being decent, even when his poor supporting cast is considered.
:: Alex — 5/5/2008 @ 10:27 pm
Tony Romo is overrated and the coach Wade Phillips is not good. He is just not good, stop trying to fool us Cowboys fan from above post. He sucks. Just face it and stop writing he is good. he is not good. He never even won a plauoff game.
:: Raiderjoe — 5/5/2008 @ 10:54 pm
“And if Pacman’s reinstated they’ll have the deepest group of corners in the leauge; if not, they still are above average.”
that is just totally wrong again. Raiders have much better cornerback corps. Raider c ornerback coprse so good that team trade F Washington to Batlimore Ravens. Lets see Routt, asomugha (best cover coner in league), and Hall form best trio of cornecbacks in league. Thou shall not pass is motto for Raiders opponents. They just won’t be able to pass on Raiders d, only way to score on them is to run, but Raiders will be good against run too with their good and improvd front 7
:: Raiderjoe — 5/5/2008 @ 10:57 pm
#53– no kidding. The notion that somehow, Dallas’ long-term future is suddenly very grim seems odd. While it may ultimately happen, I see no obvious indicators. It’s not like Dallas is a team with over-the-hill talent, no cap room, and that has traded away too many future draft picks! Did PK rate them too high? Perhaps. But if so, it’s just a few spots.
:: Lance — 5/5/2008 @ 11:09 pm
Skins are 2-14 this season, ranked waaaaaaaay too high. Sad but true.
:: Dice — 5/5/2008 @ 11:16 pm
I haven’t read a word of the PK article (I never do).
But I did read almost all the comments here.
Here’s my conclusion:
In PK’s world, we still live in 1994.
The NFC is still the dominant conference with the Cowboys as a very good team. Because, you know, Troy Aikman is still playing QB there - but his name is now Tony Romo.
.
In Packerland, Brett Favre is still a hero - so they must be good.
The Pats are genuisses. So whatever they do - they did it right, even if they didn’t.
.
The rest of the AFC is too complicated with all those new teams with players I don’t know.
:: Theo, Netherlands — 5/6/2008 @ 6:33 am
I generally think most of the criticism of PK is puerille and unsubstantiated emotion, but I’m going to go ahead and add some more stupid homerism to the pile:
I understand that PIT’s schedule is much harder, but PK’s main concern with the Patriots? O-line. PK’s main concern with the Steelers? O-line. Neither drafted to correct their line.
Yet he thinks that NE’s line will be peachy-keen while PIT’s will banish the team to the middle of nowhere. Just because they’re the patriots, I suppose. It seems like an expansion of the magic beans theorem.
:: Fnor — 5/6/2008 @ 8:28 am
I think the Broncos did ok with the Robertson pick-up.. call him “bone on bone” if you want to .. but I have watched him play at great length, and he’s very good. I dont remember him missing games because of the knee issue, and if he were better managed/utilized perceptions would be different.
And I just don’t agree with the Pennington attitude. If the Jets are built to “win now”, (and it does seem to be the case) — I think it’s pretty clear that Pennington gives the team the best shot to win “now”, not Kellen Clemens.
Anyhow, whats it matter? It’s pretty obvious the Raiders are going to win it all, isn’t that right Raiderjoe?
:: jetsfan — 5/6/2008 @ 8:39 am
I don’t know why I waste my time reading PK’s columns. Generally they are long on unsubstantiated opinions and short on analysis, with a heaping dose of annoying, irrelevant, self-centered Rush Limbaugh-style personal anecdotes.
Cowboys, Jets, Packers, Vikings are ranked too high. Chargers, Dolphins too low. The Cardinals would be higher if they would play Kurt Warner instead of the scrub Leinart they play instead.
:: smashmouth football — 5/6/2008 @ 9:18 am
To the obvious criticism that my opinions in 62 are likewise “unsubstantiated,” I’m not in the business of writing columns for a living. In any event, some bases for my opinions:
The Jets overpaid for their free agent acquisitions, and they absolutely sucked last year. Thus they aren’t that much better. Besides, their QB situation is still a little unsettled. (If you could only graft Kyle Boller’s arm onto Chad Pennington’s head, you’d have a good NFL QB.)
I agree with the posters who are predicting the decline of the Cowboys. I think last year was the result of Parcell’s work, and with him gone another year, the effects of Jerry Jones’s egomaniacal moves will become more evident. This is a team on the brink of bad locker room karma.
The Vikings don’t have a decent QB.
The Packers will miss Lord Favre. A lot.
The Dolphins had a DVOA and points differential that predicted a lot better than their 1-15 record, and I think Parcells is already making his impact felt.
The Chargers finished last season looking like the 2nd best team in the entire NFL.
The Cardinals have a lot of talent, and one of these years are going to make the playoffs in spite of their front office. And I saw Warner several games last year–he can still play. He was very effective against the Ravens and the Steelers, for instance.
:: smashmouth football — 5/6/2008 @ 9:31 am
I for one, believe in Chad Pennington… after all, I saw Trent Dilfer win a superbowl. You give Pennington some offensive weapons -just a few, and I think he would win. A couple of good receivers (just one over 5′ 10″ would be kinda nice) and an upgraded front line could make Pennington look really good. I just don’t believe that Tony Romo can do anything Pennington can’t do. If Pennington could throw to guys like Randy Moss, Marvin Harrison, T.O. or Ocho Cinco and boy would he look good, and I don’t think he would have any problems completing passes over 50 yards. In fact, Pennington’s completion percentage for pases over 50 yards is none too shabby.
:: jetsfan — 5/6/2008 @ 9:52 am
#52, Jason
One of my original points was that the Bears have been winning games for the last three years with crappy QBs, how is it that they are suddenly in the bottom quartile of teams in the league. Poor QB play may be holding the team back but they have still been one of the league’s more successful franchises over the Grossman/Orton era. The difference between ‘05/06 (avg 12 wins) and ‘07 wasn’t the QBs, it was that the offensive line fell apart. More specifically Fred Miller was rendered totally inneffectual by niggling injuries and Ruben Brown was unable to lift his arm above his shoulder. It was particularly amusing to see people who’s team had just played the Bears declare that their left end should go to the Pro Bowl after a big day against the Bears (especially Kerney). If destroying Miller last year was the neccessary qualification for the Pro Bowl then there would have been about a dozen contenders.
In response to your question about which Bears offensive starters could play for other teams in the division. I would say Tait (at RT), Kreutz, Garza, Olsen/Clark would start for either the Pack or the Vikes. I would rather have Orton/Grossman than Jackson. If McKinnie gets sent down/suspended I would rather have Williams. I might start Booker for the Vikings as well. I suspect some people would disagree with the list I have given, but all I can provide is my honest assessment. In addition the Bears do have Hester, who has as much physical talent than any reciever in football. At the end of last year teams were putting their top corner on him every time he stepped on the field, which if nothing else should open up things for other players. What it does indicate is how worried opposing defensive coordinators are about Hester getting the ball.
Another side to your question would be how many players from the rest of the division would start for the Bears on defense? Allen is a definite, after that things get a bit more debatable. Obviously Pat Williams should be considered, but I don’t think he fits the Bears’ scheme (which isn’t the same as the one Minnesota have been playing the last two years), if you are simply comparing the quality of the player he gets in though. The only other spot I can come up with is Kampman or Ogunleye. I think most people would opt for Kampman, but Ogunleye had a great season last year along a Bears front decimated by injury, easily his best as a Bear and he should have been strongly considered for the Pro Bowl. Both Kampman and Oguleye are excellent players and while Kampman is younger going into next year I would anticipate similar levels of production from the two of them.
After that I would take Tommie Harris over any other DT in football, and the entire Bears back seven over any player you might want to throw in there. Even if you did take Allen, Williams and Kampman it isn’t as though the Bears players you would be replacing aren’t excellent players.
All this is before you start to weigh in the Bears special teams.
I am not saying the Bears are going to walk their division. Rather that it is going to be a competitive division which the Bears have a chance at winning.
:: Jimmy — 5/6/2008 @ 10:24 am
Again, I felt PK doesn’t seem to realize how the Patriots D works, or 3-4s in general. He pinned the lack of pressure on Richard Seymour, but Seymour is a 3-4 End. His job isn’t to get pressure, it’s to tie up a bunch of guys and let the LBs get pressure. The real problem last year was that after Colvin went down, the only time I saw the Pats get pressure was blitzing Rodney Harrison.
:: Crushinator — 5/6/2008 @ 11:05 am
RE: 60
I understand that PIT’s schedule is much harder, but PK’s main concern with the Patriots? O-line. PK’s main concern with the Steelers? O-line. Neither drafted to correct their line.
Yet he thinks that NE’s line will be peachy-keen while PIT’s will banish the team to the middle of nowhere. Just because they’re the patriots, I suppose. It seems like an expansion of the magic beans theorem.
************
Except, you’re ignoring that the Patriots had a great offensive line, except for one game. The Steelers had a horrible offensive line, every single game.
Again, I think people who are saying the Patriots need an offensive line are the knee-jerk reaction types who can’t think past the Super Bowl. Their offensive line has been consistent and great the past 4 years. They don’t need to change it up. The Steelers do.
:: Cyrus — 5/6/2008 @ 11:46 am
I don’t understand the thinking of the Cowboys going to an inevitable decline that leads to total suckitude. But it seems that only my fellow Cowboys fans and I don’t think that way.
What about the current roster leads you to think we’re on our way down? This is a young team with depth. Jerry Jones would have to intentionally go out of his way to screw this team up over the next few years. Even if he does nothing for a few years, the team should compete in the NFC.
:: Arson55 — 5/6/2008 @ 1:08 pm
On the Patriots’ line:
I remember Mike Tanier? (or one of the Outsiders) making a comment on how the Giants D-line had the capability of presenting a center with a different set of challenges than centers normally face. I think it was something along the lines of how centers usually are up against DT or NT type guys–strong, agile, and big, but not particularly fast–and that Tuck and company all had basically the skills to be DE’s regardless of where they line up. I think there was even some wondering if Koppen would be able to adapt for the SB.
Apparently the answer was “No”. Losing Neal early on hurt, but it looked to me like a lot of trouble was coming on the left side of the Pats interior line–Mankins’ side, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of that was due to the fact that Koppen was having issues in the middle. This is just speculation based on my impression from watching the game the one time–I don’t have the heart to re-watch that game–but it jives with what I’ve heard a lot of other folks, both on FO and in other places, saying.
Which raises an interesting question. Yes, the Giants right now may be the only team with the particular personnell to give the Patriots’ O-line trouble. But:
(1) Have they hit on something that they can use against ALL teams? Dan Koppen, although probably not worthy of his Pro-bowl last year, is an above average center. Have they now figured out a way to terrorize O-lines around the league, until some line coach figures out how to counter it (and how long will that take–one more game, or an entire season)? Analogous to how LT suddenly was terrorizing lines all over the place until Walsh figured out how to counter and turned him from an ungodly player to just an exceptionally good player…
(2) Can other teams imitate what the Giants did against the Patriots? I.e. re-shuffle their linemen to get four athletic, DE-type guys across the board? Yes it weakens you against the inside running game, but there are ways to live with that, or counter that…
:: MJK — 5/6/2008 @ 1:24 pm
68: I can understand why some people think that the Cowboys could decline pretty rapidly. It’s possible to take the view that the only truly special players on their roster are Newman, Owens, Witten and Ware, and that only Ware and Witten are very young out of that group. Personally I think that offense would regress very badly without Owens. Jerry Jones might be good at making free agent moves to help his team but he’s going to be back in charge of the draft again and he really sucks at that.
I guess it all comes down to how good you think Romo is, if he’s an elite talent or a lucky, mediocre qb who’s brilliantly elusive. (I vote for the latter, I’ve never seen a qb make so many horrendous throws and get away with it, including Grossman and Kordell Stewart)
:: Karl Cuba — 5/6/2008 @ 1:29 pm
re 69: There is a perfectly good way to counter what the Pats did, it’s called running the ball. I spent the two weeks before the superbowl telling anyone who’d listen that the Pats would be too smart for the Giants defense (which was perfectly set up for the Pats’ style of offense) and would switch to more conventional personnel and pound the Giants, keeping their very deep group of corners off the field and forcing the Giants to play their bobbins linebackers. However, the Pats decided to keep their offense despite being faced with 3 DEs and 3 or 4 CBs on most plays. I still can’t work that one out.
As for Tuck in the game there were at lest two plays where Mankins got beaten with no possible blame on Koppen (on one play Tuck was actually knocked over by Mankins but then bounced back to his feet and pressured Brady, Mankins assumed that he’s dealt with Tuck for the play when he could have fallen on him to make sure. As far as I can see Mankins only went up against two decent DTs all year (Tuck and Ngata, the rest were either awful or missing due to injury) and was destroyed by both of them (in his defence, so are most guards).
:: Karl Cuba — 5/6/2008 @ 1:39 pm
Re: 68
The Cowboys have a ton of talent, though not as much as they did when Johnson left after the 1993 Superbowl. After Johnson left, the Cowboys were fine for a few years with Switzer. They even won the SB again in 1995 after they signed Deion (gotta give Jones credit for that one). But after that (and despite having talent superior to what Parcells left behind) they started downhill becoming essentially a .500 team despite a handful of HOF players on the roster. As those guys left, the results got even worse until Parcells.
I guessing the Cowboys will start to decline a little sooner this time because:
1. The talent level isn’t quite as good as what Johnson left and
2. It’s unlikely they will be able to sign someone as talented as Deion to help prop things up. (I don’t think Pacman plays this year).
And I’m not imagining that the Cowboys will be terrible this year (I’d guess 11 wins), just not as good as last year (top seed in NFC)and not the 4th best team in the league (as King projects).
:: mawbrew — 5/6/2008 @ 2:45 pm
(2) Can other teams imitate what the Giants did against the Patriots? I.e. re-shuffle their linemen to get four athletic, DE-type guys across the board? Yes it weakens you against the inside running game, but there are ways to live with that, or counter that…
Isn’t this basically what the Colts do?
:: CaffeineMan — 5/6/2008 @ 2:54 pm
The Pats woes on the offensive line weren’t just limited to the Superbowl. As far as I could tell every time Mankins went up against a top quality lineman (ie Tuck, Ngata) he got thoroughly abused. I have never seen a lineman declared to be an All Pro league wide get treated like that before. It isn’t Mankins’ fault, it is all the idiots who have only heard of the Pats lineman who was a first round pick. The Pats didn’t really play against any superior interior linemen other than Ngata and Tuck (Hampton was hurt for the Steelers, Jamal Williams getting hurt was the catalyst for the Pats running game getting itself together in the Championship game). The Pats line was probably also helped by Moss scaring people out of blitzing.
Why would the Pats overly worry about their line? They won three Superbowls with lines worse than the one they currently have.
:: Jimmy — 5/6/2008 @ 3:21 pm
I loved this– on the Patriots website, people asked questions about the Patriots OL.
This was the reply:
Nick clearly read Peter King this week with his reference to 23 pressures, next you’ll be joining King’s campaign telling everyone that Richard Seymour didn’t get any sacks or pressures in the postseason. But that’s a different anti-Peter King rant for a different day.
:: Cyrus — 5/6/2008 @ 3:27 pm
re: 4
Well, if you look at the rest of the teams, it’s pretty clear right now that GB > MN > CHI. The QB problems that Chicago has only is a small part of their problems.
I think one has reason to be optimistic about Aaron Rodgers. As for the Vikings, well…they do have great RBs, don’t they? I see no reason to be optimistic about the Viking passing game, but Chicago is weak not only at the pass but also running the ball.
Chicago’s Super Bowl run was a bit flukish. They were never as good as that record would indicate.
:: RickD — 5/6/2008 @ 4:13 pm
76: I think you’re underestimating the Bears, that defense is still one of the elite units in the league, perhaps still the best. That superbowl team was the best team that year, apart from the moron under centre. If Rex hadn’t Grossmanned away the big game then they’d probably have won it. They were still ahead in the 3rd quarter even after Rex had worked his magic in the first half. The current Bears D might be better than that unit.
:: Karl Cuba — 5/6/2008 @ 4:24 pm
As for the Pats’ O-Line, well, they apparently did work well enough last season to set an NFL record for points scored.
OTOH, their LB corps is aging and their secondary corps was completely bereft of talent. Sure it would have been nice to add to the OL, too, but the Pats did the right thing by focusing on LB and the secondary (for a change).
I also think too much of the blame for the Super Bowl loss has been laid at the feet of the O-Line. Most of their weak play occurred after Neal left and before they made adjustments in the second half. All sorts of things went wrong for the Pats that day, including poor play, bad play-calling, stupid penalties, and a healthy fill of simple bad luck.
:: RickD — 5/6/2008 @ 4:27 pm
Put any lineman under intense scrutiny, and you’ll see him struggle sometimes. The Patriots had the best pass blocking in football, hands down. Watch another team sometime and you’ll see that even their best linemen will have difficulty in at least a couple of bad games.
:: Yaguar — 5/6/2008 @ 4:38 pm
74 (RickD): Chicago’s Super Bowl run was a bit flukish. They were never as good as that record would indicate.
Isn’t revisionist history grand? In 2006, the Bears finished 13-3, tied for second best record in the league. They finished 3 games ahead of the NFC’s #2 seed. They were coming off of an 11-5 season in which they won their division and had a first-round bye in the playoffs.
The 2006 team finished 4th in DVOA (24.0%) and 2nd in Pythagorean Wins (12.4). How is that a fluke?
:: Eddo — 5/6/2008 @ 4:45 pm
re77
yes, Beas were very good in 2006 Superbowl season. Abny poster who says they were not all that great is out of his mind.
Bears of 2006 and Raiders of 2002 were best teams in 2000s to lose Super Bowl. 2002 Raiders were better than all the Patriots teamds that won Superbowls. Just had bad luck of facing Buccaneers who were maybe best team of this decade.
2006 Colts and 2002 Buccaneers were best teams. Not 2001 Patriots, 2003 Patriots, 2004 Patriots, 2005 Steelers or 2007 team.
2000 Ravens were 34d best winner. 2000 Raiders were third best team to not win Superbowl. Just look it up and look at the rosters.
:: Raiderjoe — 5/6/2008 @ 6:42 pm
A lot of the last Cowboys decline had to do with Jerry Jones trying too hard to keep what he had. It led to stupid moves trying to add weapons (trading for Joey Galloway…worst trade ever…from a Cowboys fan’s perspective). Add signing formerly great players to contracts well above what they should recieve because of what they’d done for the team in the past. Add in some really bad drafts and yes, it was a horrible, horrible decline for the team.
I can’t imagine it will be the same this time. There will be no desperate attempt to hold onto a Super Bowl team. And I have to imagine, that Jerry’s drafting has to be better than it was after Jimmy left. It couldn’t possibly be worse. And if these first couple drafts are any indication, I’d guess that they should be okay. Overall, I thought these two drafts have been pretty good, and Jerry is actually listening to his scouts instead of Jerry just drafting based on his own hunches (I always go back to that horrible Q-Car pick. Man, I hated Quincy Carter).
:: Arson55 — 5/6/2008 @ 7:13 pm
44/46, Nary is an excellent word to work in on this relatively erudite forum. But maybe it was a typo–could he have meant Ron Yary, a minnesota OL from the 70s? The N and Y are both in the middle of the QWERTYboard….
:: Bobman — 5/7/2008 @ 2:13 am
The Cowboys and the Chargers are the two most talented teams, but I’m not sure they should be the favorites. The Patriots might have a terrible defense, and their offense is predicated on Moss staying healthy, which has happened once in the last three years. From weeks 1-9 last years, the Pats were the most dominant team I’ve ever seen, but it seems like maybe the league figured them out a little after that. King has Jacksonville way too high- their d-line is completely unproven, and they’re relying on rookies to contribute immediately
:: t.d. — 5/7/2008 @ 2:53 am
Is it bad when Raiderjoe is defending your team?
:: brasilbear — 5/7/2008 @ 5:57 am
Only if your team is owned by Al Davis.
:: ammek — 5/7/2008 @ 6:58 am
I’m still trying to recover from the Buccaneers “maybe the best team of the decade” comment. Ugh
:: jeesh! — 5/7/2008 @ 7:19 am
84
You might not think of the Bucs as the best team of the decade, but what do you think of Ray Lewis’s rack?
:: Herm? — 5/7/2008 @ 9:33 am
84: According to DVOA, aren’t they 3rd (behind only the 2001 Rams and 2007 Patriots)? And if (and this is a biiiiig if) Raiderjoe was referring to the “best team that won a Super Bowl,” then he’s correct, at least in DVOA terms.
:: Eddo — 5/7/2008 @ 9:48 am
How in the hell is Green Bay’s QB situation better than the Vikings or Bears?
Small sample sizes for the fucking WIN.
Jesus, this is like beggars fighting over scraps.
Go look at Rex Grossman’s stats heading into 2004 if you think Aaron Rodgers past is in any way indicative of success
He’s thrown 60 passes with a QB rating of 73.3 and 1 touchdown to go with 1 interception. Rex Grossman heading into 2004 had thrown 72 passes with 2 touchdowns and an interception with a QB rating of 74.8….seems pretty close to me.
Without getting DVOA into an argument involving a total of less than 150 NFL passes, how can anyone say Aaron Rodgers will amount to anything more than Rex Grossman at this point with a straight face?
I may be a pretty big Bears homer, but this is ridiculous.
Also, as for receivers. As someone who’s watched them both for every game of their professional careers, Hester’s first season as a receiver was MUCH better than Berrian’s first season and baring injury there’s no reason he can’t put up 500 yards and a 6 pack of touchdowns. Oh, and although Booker isn’t that good,neither was Moose for us either, so saying our receiving corps is any worse than it was when we won 11 and 13 games is utterly without merit. The only difference was that we had a Rb who could catch passes and a decent O-Line.
Oh and our draft kicked ass.
Fuck you guys I’m going to go drink with raiderjoe.
Not that it’s been mentioned much in this particular
:: SocioJoe — 5/7/2008 @ 12:57 pm
I’m a little late to the party, but I just want to add on to some of the things Jimmy has said. I think his list of Bear’s players who would start in their division is good. I think there is good chance that Matt Forte is better than Ryan Grant too. On the defensive side, I think Darren Sharper would start, but other than that I think his list is accurate.
However, in his earlier posts, I think he sells Berrian and Thomas Jones a little short. Jones in particular, who I’m convinced is a very good running back. It’s just that the Jets offense was total mess last year.
Berrian last year was a weird situation. After blocking hard for us (probably the best blocking receiver I’ve seen who with his type of build), and making tough catches all the time. Last year, his blocking became terrible, and he seemed perfectly content to let the defender’s have the ball instead of fighting for it. I think it may have been a case of trying to save his body for free agency, but if I was a Vikings fan, I would hope that he didn’t get too used to it.
Finally, on the Tarvaris Jackson/Rex Grossman comparison, I would bet a large sum of money that Jackson never has 5 consecutive games as good as Grossman did at the beginning of the 2006 season.
:: Tom D — 5/7/2008 @ 1:12 pm
You know what else pisses me off about Peter King’s bitching about the Bears QB situation? Not bitching about the vikings.
Anyone can go look at the stats. T-Jack is honestly pretty damn close to Kyle “Neckbeard” Orton. If he has even ONE bad game to start the season they’d be virtually identical, yet one gets rated as “solid” because they drafted Booty?
WHAT AM I MISSING PEOPLE? I AM HONESTLY CONFUSED
Seriously though, I wish the bears had drafted Brohm so I could sleep even a little better at night.
:: SocioJoe — 5/7/2008 @ 1:23 pm
87, etc on the 2002 Bucs:
Actually look back at the stats, and you’ll see, probably to your surprise, that raiderjoe is more or less completely right. They were the greatest defense of the salary cap era - yes, better than the 2000 Ravens. And needless to say, they had a much better offense, too. Their pass defense managed a 10:31 touchdown:interception ratio, which I think might be the best in the modern era.
Consider things this way:
Average QB Rating against the 2002 Bucs: 46.0
Career QB Rating for Ryan Leaf: 50.0.
Think about that.
:: Yaguar — 5/7/2008 @ 3:14 pm
I think the argument is that Aaron Rodgers could still be better than Rex Grossman, whereas almost everyone agrees that Kyle Orton and Grossman himself will never be anything more than [Bears QB].
I’m not convinced it’s a good argument; just saying.
:: ammek — 5/7/2008 @ 4:18 pm
Re: 93
Probably the reason many people think the Ravens’ 2000 D was better than the 2002 Bucs is because the Ravens had a better VOA. They presumably faced an easier schedule of opponent offenses.
On the other hand, in the playoffs the Ravens obliterated some very good offenses (allowing 23 points in 4 games. That’s 5.75 points per game!), while the Bucs played 2 good defensive games but somehow allowed 21 points to the Raiders in the Super Bowl, despite totally dominating as I recall. In their other 2 games the Bucs allowed 8 points per game, so still higher than the Ravens. So maybe (maybe!) the Ravens’ D was better in the playoffs.
:: The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly (aka SJM) — 5/7/2008 @ 8:35 pm
RE: 94
Of course Rodgers could be better than Grossman, in fact I think personally there’s about a 75-80% chance he will be.
Right now though I can think of no discernible reason why people think he will be better than Grossman next season.
p.s: If someone says supporting cast I will LOL
:: SocioJoe — 5/7/2008 @ 10:02 pm
95:
The Raiders did indeed score 21 points on the Bucs, but little of that was actually attributable to the Bucs defense. Furthermore, the Bucs defense scored 21 points itself.
Do you remember how the Raiders scored their points? 3 came from a field goal off of an interception in the game’s first series. The other 18 were in garbage time. 6 of those were on a punt block.
Effectively, the Bucs defense allowed negative points in that Superbowl, and it was never even close.
As to why many people erroneously believe that the 2000 Ravens defense was better: the Ravens played a slower-paced game, running the ball as much as they possibly could. They set their games up to be low-scoring.
:: Yaguar — 5/8/2008 @ 1:10 am
Re: 93, 97
Although I don’t deny the 2002 Bucs D was outstanding, I think you neglect to point out just how dominant the Ravens D was in the 2000 Playoffs. The Ravens absolutely crushed the most dominant rush offense of that season (Oakland–who only gained roughly 150 total yards the entire game, much of it in garbage time, playing at home), and in the Super Bowl the ONLY points allowed came on a kickoff return for a touchdown.
:: smashmouth football — 5/8/2008 @ 8:41 am
#89 - I think the apocalypse may be coming. Raiderjoe made a comment that can actually stand up to a bit of logical rigor.
Now…if Peter King starts writing well-edited, logically consistent, and factually-based articles during the 2008 season, then we are all definitely screwed.
:: M — 5/8/2008 @ 9:07 am
While I agree with the general sentiment about the 2002 Bucs being largely forgotten (mainly because it’s in the middle of the Patriot dynasty) as a great team, let’s not shortchange the 2000 Ravens defense. In the last 9 games (regular and post-season) of the 2000 season the Ravens gave up the following point totals:
0,7,3,7,20,3,10,3,and 0
And yes, they shortened their games, but they did what they had to do in order to win. Their run defense was dramatically better than the 2002 Bucs and some of their “deficiency” in pass defense was garbage yardage by teams attempting to catch up. I don’t believe they had as good a pass defense as the Bucs, but I also don’t think looking at total DVOA tells the entire story here.
:: DoubleB — 5/8/2008 @ 9:26 am
All comparisons between the Ravens defense and the Bucs will be rendered irrelevant when the FO guys get around to generating the DVOA for the ‘85/86 season. Samurai Mike & Co will blow anyone else clean out of the water.
:: Jimmy — 5/8/2008 @ 9:44 am
100: Their run defense was dramatically better than the 2002 Bucs and some of their “deficiency” in pass defense was garbage yardage by teams attempting to catch up.
That’s kind of what made the Bucs so scary. You couldn’t get garbage passing stats on them. Once you had to pass, you ended up digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.
Essentially, the debate is about run defense vs pass defense. The Bucs had -55.8% DVOA pass defense and the Ravens were -41.6% against the run.
I prefer pass defense, especially on a dominant team.
:: Yaguar — 5/8/2008 @ 10:22 am
Of course Rodgers could be better than Grossman, in fact I think personally there’s about a 75-80% chance he will be.
Right now though I can think of no discernible reason why people think he will be better than Grossman next season.
I don’t think anyone’s saying Rodgers definitely will be better than Grossman next season, or ever. They’re just saying that since he’s probably going to be better than Grossman, the QB situation in GB is better than that in Chicago. After all, it’s better to have a QB that might or might not suck than it is to have one that almost certainly sucks.
:: Alex — 5/8/2008 @ 12:07 pm
The thing that has driven me nuts about the “the Bears will be bad because they didn’t draft a QB” and ranking them low as a result — does anybody seriously think that Brian Brohm or Chad Henne actually would have been better than the Rex/Neckbeard combo this season? Because I sure as hell don’t.
Rank them low because their o-line is a question after last year’s performance and that affects the entire offense, and because Urlacher might deteriorate/be injured. But to say “they didn’t fix their QB problem in the draft” for this season just seems silly to me, because I can’t imagine statues like Brohm or Henne doing any better for this season than what the Bears have already.
It’s really too bad the Vikings are starting such a lousy QB. I know Vikings fans like to blame drops for his low completion percentage, but Berrian isn’t really going to be a huge improvement in that department, and with as great as their running game is and the defensive changes it effects on other teams, 58% completion is pretty friggin poor considering their offensive scheme.
:: Yinka Double Dare — 5/8/2008 @ 5:36 pm
does anybody seriously think that Brian Brohm or Chad Henne actually would have been better than the Rex/Neckbeard combo this season?
Maybe not, but in 2009, they’d likely be significantly better. But fair point, it makes no sense to downgrade their ranking this season for something that probably won’t affect them until 2009.
:: Alex — 5/8/2008 @ 7:30 pm
Re: Bucs vs. Ravens.
The Bucs’ dominant pass defense was better for them because they had a good offense. Therefore, they could take the lead in a game, and the opposition couldn’t mount a comeback with the passing game.
The Ravens’ dominant rush defense was better for them because their offense was less effective, so opponents could stay with the running game farther into contests.
:: Eddo — 5/9/2008 @ 8:46 am
re:105
I might be willing to play devil’s advocate and argue that assumption too.
Either way, too late for the Bears to grab anyone now anyways
:: Sociojoe — 5/9/2008 @ 4:53 pm
I imagine that a trade for Rosenfels could still be swung. If I was Rick Smith, I’d take a second, and if the Bears see themselves (quite possibly rightly) as a team with a great but ageing defense and therefore a closing window, that would probably make sense for them too.
:: Mr Shush — 5/13/2008 @ 9:24 am