Preseason NFC Rankings: Trailing the Giants and Cowboys?

"you might have the best wr corps in our division not based on talent (moss and cooley are great) but more of the system your team employs wich is more pass oriented than ours wich is more run/ clock manegment. "

Then i bet you wish you had our line and Portis :D

you say you base on paper but you still also at the end go down to scenarios saying you don't know what TO will do ok let's say paper wise ok just plain talent.
not counting what iff ok

TO > MOSS
Glenn > Randall
Crayton/ Fasano < Lloyd
Witten = Cooley
JJ/Barber < Portis
Bledsoe = Brunell ( I'm giving = because they both close bad the season even thought I prefer Bledsoe any day of the week but here we can agree to disagree)

So on Paper is this accurate?

HAHAHA What?! I'm glad you pointed that out BSB. Our team is more pass-oriented?!?!?! Come on now. You were presenting a decent argument until that.

you say you base on paper but you still also at the end go down to scenarios saying you don't know what TO will do ok let's say paper wise ok just plain talent.
not counting what iff ok

TO > MOSS
Glenn > Randall
Crayton/ Fasano < Lloyd
Witten = Cooley
JJ/Barber < Portis
Bledsoe = Brunell ( I'm giving = because they both close bad the season even thought I prefer Bledsoe any day of the week but here we can agree to disagree)

So on Paper is this accurate?

Hmmmmm. I would give you that. Honestly though, I still think Moss brings more to the table. It's just TOs past dominance. I think Moss is just now beginning to dominate, but I'll give you that.

Actually I checked the stats on the whole rush-pass thing. I retract my previous statement, HOWEVER the Skins without a doubt had a more prolific running attack and Dallas had a few more attempts than the Skins but without getting near the yardage per game the Skins had.

The good thing is, the Cowboys were right behind the Skins in rushes for the year, but the Skins averaged more than half a yard more.

Not everyone in the NFC will go or can go to the playoffs (or could they?) so it is only logical that at least two teams in the NFC won't make it and therefore there is really no point in placing all the teams at the top of the NFC.

It's hard to predict right now who can win the division but we certainly say Philly is the underdog in the division. The Cowboys are a good team and to discount them would be a big mistake. Remember, the last server really close games last year. The loss of the aging Larry Allen isn't as significant as some might think. The Giants overachieved last year. I'm not sure if the same can be expected from them this year, especially if their DB situation doesn't improve. Plaxico and Shockey taking plays off doesn't help either. Getting Sam Madison should help and if Arrington can get back to form, they'll have a very solid LB corp.

I'll rank em:

1. Washington
2. Chicago
3. Carolina
4. Tampa Bay
5. Seattle
6. Dallas
7. Arizona
8. Giants
9. Falcons
10. Vikings
11. Eagles
12. Saints
13. 49ers
14. Lions
15. Rams
16. Packers

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection]


I don't like to quote the hole thing so about this matter you say that you based it on last year production of every receiver and you say you've the best WR corps in the division. But if we really go for production man your way off and to say "maybe" Glenn that's lame you know he was the 9th best receiver in the NFC and the #1 in yard per catch right.

So let's see.

WAS
Moss 1483 yds 9td
Randall El 558 1 td
Lloyd 733yds 5td
Cooley 774yds 7td
3548 yards 22td

DAL
TO 763 6td (in 7 games on pace for 1744ydss and 14td ) the TD more of a reallity than the yards being that the year before he posted 14td in 14 games and 1200yards so lets say 1500 yards for the fun of it.
Glenn 1136 7td
Witten 757 4td
Crayton/Fasano ?

3393 yards and 25 td without counting crayton or Fasano who are going to be our fourth receiver

But I agree you, that you might have the best wr corps in our division not based on talent (moss and cooley are great) but more of the system your team employs wich is more pass oriented than ours wich is more run/ clock manegment.

And I'm not playing what if scenarios I'm playing facts games with FG of no more than 30+ yards that every kicker with no wind should make that resulted in a loss the denver game shouldn't had gone to OT if the FG was made with less then 3 min to end the game, made any of the 2 missed field goals you don't go to OT, seattle game make the FG at least you push for OT even with the stupid play DB made at the end of the game or he wouldn't had been force to do it and won the game and Was leading 16 -0 even if you made your 2 miracle late td in the last 4 minutes you should had been force to make both 2 point convertion to force OT and I'm sayin 11-5 that's 2 out of 3 with a good kicker I'm not counting fumbles or other plays like the Ron dayne run that should hed been a holding.

I'm calling makable plays, not ferry land where you say if he hand't fumble or catch a pass I'm talking FG that weren't block that should be made easy not 50 yarder type 30 freaking yards. that's how close that team was for going 2 the playoffs

Trying to guess what TO WOULD have done had he played the entire season is just retarded. TO racked up the stats that he got, nothing more, nothing less. Like Malcom said, he's a complete wildcard, so arguing that he'll produce what he produced last year for the first 7 games and the continue that pace for the rest of the season is just dumb. It's dumb with any player, let alone TO.

Arguing that you would have had such-and-such a record if this play had gone that way or that one went this way is just as equally pointless. Often times football is a game of chance, inches, and which way the ball bounces. Every single team in the NFL could argue that "Well, had we just gotten that play right or had this field goal go this way, then we would've made it." You're blinded by your love for the Cowboys and your line of reasoning would lead to justifying all 32 teams as Super Bowl winners last year.

A Super Bowl champion team is one that is talented, of course. But they're also the one that can overcome the missed field goal, busted play, etc. That's what the game is really about - how is your team going to overcome the adversity, not what excuses can we make to justify whatever random record you pull out of your ass.

[quote=D'BOYZ]

Trying to guess what TO WOULD have done had he played the entire season is just retarded. TO racked up the stats that he got, nothing more, nothing less. Like Malcom said, he's a complete wildcard, so arguing that he'll produce what he produced last year for the first 7 games and the continue that pace for the rest of the season is just dumb. It's dumb with any player, let alone TO.

Arguing that you would have had such-and-such a record if this play had gone that way or that one went this way is just as equally pointless. Often times football is a game of chance, inches, and which way the ball bounces. Every single team in the NFL could argue that "Well, had we just gotten that play right or had this field goal go this way, then we would've made it." You're blinded by your love for the Cowboys and your line of reasoning would lead to justifying all 32 teams as Super Bowl winners last year.

A Super Bowl champion team is one that is talented, of course. But they're also the one that can overcome the missed field goal, busted play, etc. That's what the game is really about - how is your team going to overcome the adversity, not what excuses can we make to justify whatever random record you pull out of your ass.It reminds me of my friend who projected Larry Johnson's stats over 16 games...leaving his numbers from the first 7 games where he backed up Holmes. That's pretty retarded.