Page 130 of 260 FirstFirst ... 3080120126127128129130131132133134140180230 ... LastLast
Results 3,226 to 3,250 of 6489

Thread: NFL/NCAAF Thread

  1. #3226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deathseer View Post
    With New Orleans and Atlanta, I would suggest throwing the records out the window. The Saints always give them their best game, no matter what the record indicates. Despite being unbeaten, the Falcons aren't exactly world beaters. They've had to squeak out wins against some not so good teams. Again, I see this as either a closer game, or a blowout like last years home game.

    As for me, I'm hoping Ivory stays active. He's the brusier that the Saints' running game has desperately needed lately. Move Sproles to KR/WR (He gets better yardage in both anyways) and keep a rotation of Thomas/Ingram/Ivory at RB.
    I agree. It'll be close. And like every other game in the NFL, you never know for sure who the winner will be.

    I think they should utilize sets w/ Thomas/Ingram/Ivory in the FB spot and Sproles @ RB and run some quick hand off and/or PA screens. That's what I think would make their backfield more effective. That way the committee is out there more.

  2. #3227
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mikasa (Ha get it? :3)
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sAv1Or) View Post
    I've gotten into some big disputes over ATL vs. NO. A lot of people are picking NO.

    If you are picking HOU over your own team, I should probably switch to HOU as well O_O

    And thanks for picking MIN ^^
    The Saints haven't played amazingly this year, and the Falcons have played well enough to win against better teams than NO.

    Meh. If Peanut plays it should be really really close, as I think he should be able to shut down AJ just as well as he shut down CJ vs the Lions. Foster shouldn't have a big night, as the Bears have a great run D. Our front four should cause quite a bit of pressure aswell. But I don't really see Chicago scoring alot either. We have a pretty one-dimensional passing game without Jeffery, as our TE's and all of our WR's but B-Marsh and Bennett have major dropsies. If Peanut DOESN'T play our defense will be signifacantly worse (READ: Four forced fumbles last week. Pretty sure that's an NFL record.?)
    All in all I think the Bears lose a really close game, and come out strong vs. the 9ers.

    Minny won in Ford Field, seems likely they can do it again at home. Should be fairly close though.

  3. #3228
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Impel Down
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    And exactly what teams would those be? Oakland? Carolina? Dallas?

    Not exactly a murder's row of teams
    My deviantArt




    U mad bro?

  4. #3229
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    3,572

    Default

    But the Vikings played the Lions when the Lions offense was in a funk, and their ST was about as good as a high school football team. Both are playing much better now. And even without the ST touchdowns, the Lions only gave up 6 points to the Vikings.

    But whatever. Maybe I'm biased, especially since I don't think home field advantage matters that much.

    The only good team the Falcons have beaten is Denver, and they've barely beaten most of their opponents. They're not untouchable.

  5. #3230
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mikasa (Ha get it? :3)
    Posts
    262

    Default

    First of all, Carolina beat NO so shh. Atlanta has also beaten Denver, who NO lost to, Washington, who NO lost to... Oh yeah, and let's not forget NO lost to KC aswell. (Atlanta hasn't played them but still relevant.) The Saints haven't played well at all this year. They're ranked dead last in opp rushing yards per game, 29th in opp passing yards per game, 30th in rushing yards per game... Their only impressive stat is in passing yards. They have a +/-0 turnover difference, whereas Atlanta has +10. The Saints D won't be able to hold Atlanta back whatsoever, and their 1-dimensional offense shouldn't do much either.
    Carolina and Dallas are both better imo, as are Denver, and Washington.

    And until proven otherwise Minny > Detroit. There's no proof Minny wouldn't have scored just as much w/o the ST TD's. (Y'know, on those drives that didn't exist because of the touchdowns?) Removing points from a team because one part of it played well is unfair. Also, if Detroit's offense didn't score any they'd have scored a wopping 0 points. (Counting FG's as offense, as they didn't magically apppear far enough down the field for a FG) Guess the Vikes still win.
    Last edited by HoboJak; 8th November 2012 at 9:11 PM.

  6. #3231
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    3,572

    Default

    There's no proof Detroit wouldn't have scored more TDs, either. But forget it. You're just another Chicago fan looking down on the Lions, because they're the Lions. Nobody respects the Lions, and nobody ever will, until they win a Super Bowl and/or until another team goes 0-16.

    You know what? It's the Tigers all over again. After a couple months of baseball, the Tigers had a record below .500 and were the most overrated team in baseball, yet they bounced back and made it to the World Series. Not saying the same thing will happen to the Lions, but after their 1-3 start, I'm sure people had the same view of the Lions as they did the Tigers during the baseball season.

    And it's not a case of "Beat a good team, and then we'll talk," either. Is Seattle not a good team? They beat Chicago last year before Cutler and Forte went down. They absolutely destroyed the Broncos last year, and the Broncos made the playoffs. Just because they're not going out and blowing out good teams every week doesn't mean they're not a good team.

  7. #3232
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mikasa (Ha get it? :3)
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Erm, even you admitted it earlier in the thread - The Seahawks at home >>>>>>>>x1000 The Seahwaks away. And Seattle beat Chicago week 15.... That was long after most our players were injured. Cutler was injured week 11. Forte went out week 13. Lets add to that Knox was injured during the first quarter of that game, and we have all 3 of our key offensive players injured. Can't remember exactly who on our defense was injured though, so won't go into details on that as I don't want to get it wrong.
    The Lions lost to the Vikes at home already this year. So logic states the Vikes can beat them again this time. I'm not saying the Lions will never beat anyone (READ: I picked them 3 of the last 4 games) I'm saying I don't think they will beat Minnesota. So whatever And a little fun fact, since we're bringing last year into this: Seattle lost to the Browns last year. :O
    Last edited by HoboJak; 8th November 2012 at 9:50 PM.

  8. #3233
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    3,572

    Default

    But how do you know the Lions would have lost to the Seahawks in Seattle? They're good at home, but they're not untouchable. And they beat Chicago before Cutler and Forte went down, though, so their injuries later on don't matter to them. That has to count for something.

    I'm sorry. I just think the Lions are an underrated team. Most people seem to see them as some below-average doormat and think there really hasn't been that much progress between the 0-16 year and now, but there has. I think they're average at worst and just a notch below the elite teams of the NFL at best.
    You know, I know there are some conspiracy theorist Lions fans that think that the vast majority of NFL fans (and especially NFC North fans) and the media want to see the Lions fail, partially because people are so used to the Lions being the doormat of the NFL that nobody can fathom the idea of a good Lions team and partially because a good Lions team is more competition for whatever team they root for their own team. I'm not one of those people, but I can see where they're coming from.

  9. #3234
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Melior, Crimea
    Posts
    1,344

    Default

    I don't think the Lions are bad at all. So they had one terrible season a few years ago. They've gotten much better since then, and they even made the playoffs last year. Every team is going to go through periods where they suck balls, it's just Detroit took it one step further with 0-16, and they have implanted themselves as a bad team to lots of people, especially Vikings, Packers, and Bears fans.
    Eagerly waiting for: Monolith Soft Wii U game

  10. #3235
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mikasa (Ha get it? :3)
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden_Latias View Post
    But how do you know the Lions would have lost to the Seahawks in Seattle? They're good at home, but they're not untouchable.
    Detroit barely scraped by at home. Unlikely they win it in Seattle.
    And they beat Chicago before Cutler and Forte went down, though, so their injuries later on don't matter to them. That has to count for something.
    Detroit or Seattle did? I'm a bit confused. If Seattle: No they didn't. If Detroit: They split, and Detroit hasn't improved a whole lot from last year, whereas almost every other team has taken a sizable step forward.

    I'm sorry. I just think the Lions are an underrated team. Most people seem to see them as some below-average doormat and think there really hasn't been that much progress between the 0-16 year and now, but there has. I think they're average at worst and just a notch below the elite teams of the NFL at best.
    Yes, Detroit is underrated. So is Minnesota, though.
    You know, I know there are some conspiracy theorist Lions fans that think that the vast majority of NFL fans (and especially NFC North fans) and the media want to see the Lions fail, partially because people are so used to the Lions being the doormat of the NFL that nobody can fathom the idea of a good Lions team and partially because a good Lions team is more competition for whatever team they root for their own team. I'm not one of those people, but I can see where they're coming from.
    The Lions are doomed to fail this year, they are in easily the toughest division. If they were in any other they'd have a bit of success, but they aren't. They'll be stuck as the "doormat" of the NFC North for a while. Not because the Lions are a bad team, but they are stuck against the Vikings (Who will keep improving) the Packers, and the Bears (Both of which are top 5-10 teams, and will be for quite a while imo) Twice a year each. Unlucky they aren't in the AFC but that's just how it is.

  11. #3236
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    3,572

    Default

    A lot of NFC North fans would probably agree with the anonymous GM who bashed the heck out of the Lions earlier in the season. Called their offense one-dimensional (though at the time, I would have agreed with that notion, but I think that's starting to change) and their d-line overrated. Also called Schwartz and Mayhew overrated.

    The Lions are doomed to fail this year, they are in easily the toughest division. If they were in any other they'd have a bit of success, but they aren't. They'll be stuck as the "doormat" of the NFC North for a while. Not because the Lions are a bad team, but they are stuck against the Vikings (Who will keep improving) the Packers, and the Bears (Both of which are top 5-10 teams, and will be for quite a while imo) Twice a year each. Unlucky they aren't in the AFC but that's just how it is.
    And this pretty much confirms that notion.

    You're assuming the Lions won't do anything to improve themselves to they can compete in the NFC North. Schwartz and Mayhew aren't stupid, you know. They've come a long way since the 0-16 year, and they're at least an above average team. You're just like all the other Bears fans I've ever seen: stuck in the past and thinking the Lions will be the same 0-16 doormat until Ford sells the team and gets another Bill Belicheck or something to coach the Lions.

    And no, the Vikings aren't that good. They're better than they were last year, but I still see them as a 7-9 team, at best.
    Last edited by Golden_Latias; 9th November 2012 at 12:29 AM.

  12. #3237
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mikasa (Ha get it? :3)
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Yes, and next year when their rookie QB is atleast slightly better, then what? The only thing holding the Vikings back is Ponder. Whereas the only thing holding the Lions back is about half of their defense, their ST, their fumble-happy TE's, their average-at-best running game... The rest of the North are all better than the Lions. The fact is this year the Lions sit at the bottom of the NFC North, and they are free to prove me wrong. So far they haven't.

  13. #3238
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    3,572

    Default

    Whereas the only thing holding the Lions back is about half of their defense
    The Lions have the 7th best defense in the NFL, and they have yet to get blown out this year. If their defense was so horrible, your Bears and probably the 49ers would have had no problem blowing them out.

    their ST
    Except for Stefan Logan, their ST has been fine since the last Vikings game. Granted, there could be some improvement, but that's nothing the draft can't solve.

    their fumble-happy TE's
    Scheff is fine and should be played more. Pettigrew, I agree with to an extent, but he's been better since the Bears game. But of course, you weren't watching the Lions, so what do you know about them since then?

    their average-at-best running game
    I'll give you this one, too, but again. Nothing the draft can't solve.

    As for the Vikings... well, sAv1Or) listed several things the Vikings still need several pages ago.

    You know what? Forget it. A Bears fan is a Bears fan. You'll never acknowledge the Lions. Their history and the 0-16 season have made too much of an impression on you.

  14. #3239
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mikasa (Ha get it? :3)
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Whatever. Anyways, not long now before the Colts-Jags game, guess I'll stop arguing and go play Madden till then >.>

  15. #3240
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Melior, Crimea
    Posts
    1,344

    Default

    What a lovely exchange. Makes me glad there aren't any Falcons fans here that I know of.
    Eagerly waiting for: Monolith Soft Wii U game

  16. #3241
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mikasa (Ha get it? :3)
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Don't say it! When Golden Latias said it I suddenly appeared, you're gonna attract one over here X_X
    Also, so it isn't completely off topic - Colts looking good so far.

  17. #3242
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    3,572

    Default

    Lions and Bears can't live together in the wild, why should the fans be able to? This reminds me of a conversation my boss at my old job (U-M graduate) and one of my co-workers (MSU graduate) had once. This rivalry is very much like the Michigan-Michigan State rivalry, where Michigan State considers Michigan its biggest rival, but Michigan sees MSU as the "inferior little brother" and considers Ohio State a bigger rival than MSU.

    MSU proved itself (though not this year), so the Lions will have to do the same.

  18. #3243
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mikasa (Ha get it? :3)
    Posts
    262

    Default

    They can prove they're the secondary rival? The Packers will be the biggest rival for a long time to come. Just so much more history to it. Though I agree, the Lions will have to prove themselves.

  19. #3244
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    3,572

    Default

    Just prove that they're a worthy enough rival, not just a secondary rival. The Lions might not have been around as long as the Bears, but they're still an older team. If the Bears aren't their rival, who is?

    And please don't say the Browns, just because Cleveland teams are usually rivals for Detroit teams. The Lions never get to play them.

  20. #3245
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mikasa (Ha get it? :3)
    Posts
    262

    Default

    I dunno, go make the Vikings your rival. Or the division's need realligned. And I wouldn't say the Browns, they don't deserve to have any rivalry. :P
    EDIT: By 'your rival' I mean like a rivalry anybody acknowledges. Perhaps I should say improve the rivalry, I don't know.
    Last edited by HoboJak; 9th November 2012 at 4:35 AM.

  21. #3246

    Default

    As far as I'm concerned, anyone in the NFC North is MIN's rival ^^

  22. #3247
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    3,572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sAv1Or) View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, anyone in the NFC North is MIN's rival ^^
    Pretty much this, I guess. I doubt the Lions are drawing ire from any team outside the NFC North, except maybe the 49ers.

    Also whoever the cowardly GM that was responsible for these comments: http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2012/1...ager-overrated. Unless it happens to be the Bears, Packers, or Vikings GM. If it's a NFC North GM, this guy's team is officially a Lions rival. I doubt we'll ever know, though.

  23. #3248

    Default

    I would probably consider Lions and 49ers rivals.

  24. #3249
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Mikasa (Ha get it? :3)
    Posts
    262

    Default

    I guess sort of, but some get more attention than others... I have never heard anybody refer to the Lions as rivals of either the Pack or Vikes. The Bears-Lions rivalry exists but I don't see alot of Bears fans caring about it, the only reason it exists at all anymore is because 1. They're in the same division and 2. Bears/Lions fans don't like eachother much, the Lions have won once anytime recently, not really much of a rivalry... EDIT: I hadn't heard about that. I'd say it's probably either the Packers or Bears GM, the Bears GM is new, (And awesome >.>) so could be him being a bully to his new rival. And Pack idk, they seem more likely than the Vikings, as they have been good the last few years, so seem like they'd have more room to talk. I'd lol if it was the 9ers though.
    Last edited by HoboJak; 9th November 2012 at 5:30 AM.

  25. #3250
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    3,572

    Default

    I actually thought it might be the Vikings GM. At the time, the Lions were 1-3, and the Vikings were rolling and looking like playoff contenders. Not long after that, Lions C Dominic Raiola responded to the article, though I won't repeat what he said. xD Now, the tables have turned, the Lions are rolling, and the Vikings are in quite a slump. That GM recently replied to what Raiola said and pretty much called him a fraud. Why reply after this much time, especially with the Lions and Vikings playing this weekend?

    But what you say about the Bears and Packers makes sense. To be honest, I doubt we'll ever know, but if his identity is revealed, I'll post it, just for curiosity's sake. Whoever it is is a coward, though.

Page 130 of 260 FirstFirst ... 3080120126127128129130131132133134140180230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •