NFL Football 2010/2011 Season

[63dot]

You've said that a few times, but it doesn't tell the whole truth. There were two dropped passes in the end zone and one down the sideline. Without Vick changing a thing, he could have thrown 3 TDs if his receivers held on to the ball. Don't distort the facts.

When many QBs throw for no passes in the zone or one or several, there are often those bad calls and dropped balls.

Vick can run and he can get the ball to the receivers and this pattern, maybe new to him in his last two years at Atlanta, and more recently with Philly, shows he is a weapon.

Almost getting a touchdown does not count, so I am not saying Vick was terrible, but only he is a streak player. If he was terrible, of course, he would have passed for less than 100 yards and never got in the red zone. He he, but that sounds more like my Niners of late. Oh well.

There was no game like the huge one Vick had. I can't remember the last time a team was up 28-0 in the first! I didn't expect him, nor would I expect anybody else, to follow such a great performance.

However, back a few years ago, Kurt Warner was flying around a 116 QB rating and he was on fire. Unfortunately, he couldn't remain that way forever but settled into retirement at a 93.7 career average. In the end, after Vick's career is over, he may end up having had a better career than Warner. If Vick puts together a lot of incredible games, then he will be on Warner's hall of fame level. It would help to win a Super Bowl but that's not always necessary as many great HoF players never won the championship.

Let's see how Philly does this season first before we start saying Vick is the best QB in the NFL. He may very well be, but again let's see if he can run, in this case, about 700 yards and get 17 TDs to match his great 2006 year (game for game). His current QB rating is a very high 108.7 with an overall 79.1 career rating. But with more strong games, and more seasons in the high 90s and even 100s, his career rating is going to skyrocket well past 85. If for some reason he plays as long as Elway or Favre, he could retire in the 90s.

Back when I was really excited with a Raiders 8-0 start many years ago, they were unstoppable and then to everyone's shock in the Bay Area, they went on to lose the next 8 and missed the playoffs. Of course, it's the biggest choke I could remember.

But ol Hoss had a ring with the Giants while an injured Phil Simms sat on the sidelines, but many thought Hoss would get a second championship with the Raiders. It wasn't to be.

 

[grapes911]

When many QBs throw for no passes in the zone or one or several, there are often those bad calls and dropped balls.
. . .
Almost getting a touchdown does not count, so I am not saying Vick was terrible, but only he is a streak player.

True, but you can't say he had an off game because dropped passes are out of his control. You have yet to provide evidence that he is a "streak player." Even his worst game this year has been very good. Andy Reid and company are excellent at coaching QBs. Plus, this is the first time that Vick has ever had stability in this coaching staff. Vick really is a new player this year and what he did an Atlanta has little bearing on him now.

Let's see how Philly does this season first before we start saying Vick is the best QB in the NFL.

No one is saying that. He never was and he probably never will be. He's probably not even a top 5 QB right now. But this isn't the argument. The argument is you've called him a "streak player" and the only evidence you've provided is that his receivers dropped a few would-be TDs so his stats look low.

 

[63dot]

True, but you can't say he had an off game because dropped passes are out of his control. You have yet to provide evidence that he is a "streak player." Even his worst game this year has been very good. Andy Reid and company are excellent at coaching QBs. Plus, this is the first time that Vick has ever had stability in this coaching staff. Vick really is a new player this year and what he did an Atlanta has little bearing on him now.

No one is saying that. He never was and he probably never will be. He's probably not even a top 5 QB right now. But this isn't the argument. The argument is you've called him a "streak player" and the only evidence you've provided is that his receivers dropped a few would-be TDs so his stats look low.

If there is any year Vick can prove he's the best, it's this year. I think he is a streak player, but I will address that below.

To be honest, if you look back at the NFL posts from the early 2000s when I was the user jefhatfield, I thought Vick was the next big thing. Even with some really good performances in Atlanta from the get to, he had some really bad ones. He was, imho, a streak player back then.

One thing I noticed about Vick was he was either great or terrible, no in between. As 2005 and 2006 came along, he started becoming more consistent. If there is any argument that he wasn't a streak player then 2006 is the best evidence for him being rock solid in consistency.

I think we will see a pattern like this from now until the end of the season where he will throw for 3 or 4 touchdowns or 0 or 1 touchdown. He will find yardage in the 200 yard range and in the over 400 range with little in between. That would be ample evidence of being a streak player.

I think part of the reason is this guy has two great weapons which are his accuracy (no interceptions this season) and of course his running game.

I think a QB who was able to harness both great passing and running was Steve Young. He went over 20 games without an interception at one point and on some games, he had the best rushing numbers (and this was when SF had a deep cadre of running backs). He could throw on the run, but usually he hit numerous targets without running since he had good protection, but if he had to run he could make something out of nothing.

His predecessor Joe Montana, while not a very fast runner, made his signature making a pass while on the move, even when he didn't have to move. It confused the defense and Montana got great numbers.

One thing Vick has is if the Eagles are third and 10, Vick is one of the few I think a coach would tell to just run the ball. If any QB can get the ball and run like Emmett Smith, it's Michael Vick.

So to answer your question, we will see if Vick is a streak player or a consistent player only after the regular season is over. Your Eagle's D and running game are enough, if Vick does not toss any TDs, to win most or all of the remaining games.

Personally, I think the Eagles had a better chance at a SB ring when #5 Donovan McNabb (35,000 yards to date/226 TDs) was there, or back in the old days with Cunningham (just shy of 30,000 yards/207 TDs). To this day, I think Cunningham was the most perfect QB machine out there and he would have been devastating had he been on the 49ers or Cowboys in the 1990s.

 

[Apple OC]

Are we ready for some Football? ... just getting pumped for today's games

my picks today ... New England by 30 ... Cowboys by a field goal ... and lol Jets in overtime.

Happy Thanksgiving to Everyone

 

[MacDawg]

my picks today ... New England by 30 ... Cowboys by a field goal ... and lol Jets in overtime.

Ha, Ha... sounds about right!

Looking forward to the Packers visit to the Dome v. the Falcons

 

[rhett7660]

Are we ready for some Football? ... just getting pumped for today's games

my picks today ... New England by 30 ... Cowboys by a field goal ... and lol Jets in overtime.

Happy Thanksgiving to Everyone

I like this~!

 

[Apple OC]

I like this~!

rhett ... very nice thread you started

and a Cowboys fan to boot

 

[coolwater]

Every time I watch Brady, I feel sorry for Drew Bledsoe. Bledsoe unselfishly taught Brady every trick in the book when Bledsoe was injured and that certainly helped Brady tremendously in quickly becoming a good QB at the time, but that unselfish act also cursed Bledsoe's career.

 

[rhett7660]

I know it is early but Detroit is leading the Pats. Who would of thought!

 

[Apple OC]

I know it is early but Detroit is leading the Pats. Who would of thought!

The Lions seem to do this every year ... lead in the first 1/2 ... then tank

 

[rhett7660]

The Lions seem to do this every year ... lead in the first 1/2 ... then tank

And it looks like the egg laying has begun!

 

[Apple OC]

And it looks like the egg laying has begun!

Looks like the Lions layed a couple dozen eggs ... hope the Boys are playing a nice comeback here

 

[MacDawg]

'Boys just went up 27-23
Saints blowing a 17 point lead

Helps my Falcons out

Edit: That strip of Williams was huge... cost the 'Boys the game

Oh well, my Birds need to just keep winning anyway

 

[rhett7660]

Dang it. You called it by a field goal, just the wrong team!

 

[Apple OC]

Dang it. You called it by a field goal, just the wrong team!

I hear ya ... we had that game there and bang it is gone

 

[63dot]

'Boys just went up 27-23
Saints blowing a 17 point lead

Helps my Falcons out

Edit: That strip of Williams was huge... cost the 'Boys the game

Oh well, my Birds need to just keep winning anyway

Hey dawg, you guys are at .800 but the aints are the next best NFC team at .727. I say there's little wiggle room for the rest of the season. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. I know the players on the Saints as we all do since the Super Bowl, but like much of America, I have not seen a lot of the Falcons so this is a great late season stretch to see who takes the south.

 

[zioxide]

all I have to say is Tom Brady won that game for the Patriots. the defense played like ****.

21/27, 341 yards, 4 touchdowns, 0 interceptions: a perfect 158.3 rating, the first put up by any QB in the nfl this season.

pretty ****in good.

 

[rhett7660]

all I have to say is Tom Brady won that game for the Patriots. the defense played like ****.

21/27, 341 yards, 4 touchdowns, 0 interceptions: a perfect 158.3 rating, the first put up by any QB in the nfl this season.

pretty ****in good.

He started out pretty lack luster. As the game progressed he started to catch some serious heat and fire!!!! If he stays like this, they are going to be really freaking tough down the stretch.

 

[MacDawg]

Hey dawg, you guys are at .800 but the aints are the next best NFC team at .727. I say there's little wiggle room for the rest of the season. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. I know the players on the Saints as we all do since the Super Bowl, but like much of America, I have not seen a lot of the Falcons so this is a great late season stretch to see who takes the south.

Yep, it is going to be a race to the finish, and the Green Bay game is big

The Saints still have Baltimore on the road as well as Atlanta in our Dome on a Monday night
And they get Tampa Bay again

 

[zioxide]

He started out pretty lack luster. As the game progressed he started to catch some serious heat and fire!!!! If he stays like this, they are going to be really freaking tough down the stretch.

He started out fine, the rest of the guys on the offense made a couple stupid penalties (chop block) and had a couple dropped balls that killed some drives in the first half.

 

[63dot]

Yep, it is going to be a race to the finish, and the Green Bay game is big

The Saints still have Baltimore on the road as well as Atlanta in our Dome on a Monday night
And they get Tampa Bay again

You know it's possible that along with New England, the other three teams in the NFL who have beaten tough teams all reside in your NFC South. Along with NE, I think it's possible the other teams who one can consider the best in the NFL are you, the Saints (back to Super Bowl form), and Tampa Bay. I have only seen it a few times in the old days where the top three teams in the NFL were all in one division, namely the NFC East.

It is interesting that it's a possibility that New Orleans and Tampa Bay can potentially be put at the top of the Vegas odds chart right next to Atlanta if they put up three more wins, and NE and the Jets suffer two losses each. It's all numbers speculation and while the pundits who think that TB, NO, and Atlanta are all now within the top six to win it all (as of last week), does not mean any of you will go all the way.

I have to take a good, long look at Tampa Bay before I can picture them with the Lombardi trophy, but my guess is that either you or the Saints are going to represent the NFC. With the games you both have had, I don't see good odds for whoever represents the AFC though I secretly like the Jets a lot.

The other early season top two contenders for the AFC crown according to most football pundits lost the big game in the last three years (Indy and NE). I think part of the problem is that age was catching up to them and the teams made the mistake of thinking just because it had stars produce well five or more years ago, it was safe to play them the same.

Are the Patriots who last had a Super Bowl winning season in 2004 just going to reboot and shake off the dust and win the big game? I don't think so. Is a 34 year old Peyton Manning going to handle Atlanta or NOs young strong fast D? I don't think so. Get real!

To me, this leaves the Jets as the AFCs best chance, assuming injuries are kept to a minimum.

That all being said, the real Super Bowl could be who is on top in the NFC South. In 1992, 1993, and 1994, the real Super Bowl according to many sports writers was who was the top dog in the NFC. It was a given that whoever won the NFC (Cowboys or Niners) was going to easily win the Super Bowl. In the end, the Cowboys won the Super Bowl in 1992 and 1993 by first getting past the Niners in the NFC, and the Niners won the Super Bowl in 1994 by first getting past the Cowboys. This was "the" rivalry in those three years.

I smell a similar rivalry for the next few years to come but just within the NFC South. If for some reason, five or six of the Super Bowl winners from 2009-2018 come from the NFC South, don't consider me stunned or surprised.

It will be like those great years when there was a strong likelihood of having the NFC East post the champion. Between the early 1980s to just the mid 1990s, the Redskins (SB 17, 22, 26), Cowboys (SB 27, 28 ,30), or Giants (SB 21 and 25) won the Super Bowl. That's 8 out of 14 Super Bowls coming from one division. Overall since the Super Bowl, the NFC East holds a nearly 2-1 edge over any division in the NFL in Super Bowl wins.

I will be with you cheering on the NFC South as they overtake the NFC East in overall Super Bowls...that is only on the years that all California teams are not in the running.

 

[zioxide]

Are the Patriots who last had a Super Bowl winning season in 2004 just going to reboot and shake off the dust and win the big game? I don't think so. Is a 34 year old Peyton Manning going to handle Atlanta or NOs young strong fast D? I don't think so. Get real!

Tom Brady and Matt Light are the only two Patriots on the active roster who were on all three superbowl teams, and there's only Brady, Light, Koppen, Neal, Wilfork, Branch, and Banta-Cain (the last two who just returned this year) who were on the 2004 team.

This is a brand new team. Belichick has completely rebuilt it in the past few years. The only constant is Tom Brady (2703 yards, 23td, 4int, 105.8 rating: 2nd best in his career after 2007). Other than that, it's an extremely young team, not even close to the teams from a few years ago.

The other early season top two contenders for the AFC crown according to most football pundits lost the big game in the last three years (Indy and NE). I think part of the problem is that age was catching up to them and the teams made the mistake of thinking just because it had stars produce well five or more years ago, it was safe to play them the same.

Most of the analysts picked the Jets, Ravens, and Steelers as tops in the AFC before the season started. People didn't even mention the Pats or Colts.

To me, this leaves the Jets as the AFCs best chance, assuming injuries are kept to a minimum.

MNF next week is going to decide this.

 

[63dot]

Tom Brady and Matt Light are the only two Patriots on the active roster who were on all three superbowl teams, and there's only Brady, Light, Koppen, Neal, Wilfork, Branch, and Banta-Cain (the last two who just returned this year) who were on the 2004 team.

This is a brand new team. An extremely young team, not even close to the teams from a few years ago.

The issue is Brady. He's great and all, just like Brett Favre, but he's not the same guy who dominated in the early to mid-2000s. I just don't see it. Every time that guy takes a hit, it's not as if he's the same 22 year old QB he was when he could take a hit, even with his thin frame.

Even big guys like Big Ben (tall and filled out) cannot withstand 300+ pound guys canning them every week. Being the key target of the opposing team's 300 pound guys, who are also very fast, takes its toll. And too many of the hits happen after the play and the NFL has to really clamp down on this.

I so wanted a Steve Young or Joe Montana go on into their mid/late-30s and win more. And why did the legendary Troy Aikman announce retirement at just age 33, the same age as Brady now and a year younger than Peyton Manning?

Brady, if he doesn't get hurt between now and the postseason (and that's a big if with somebody with a decade in this brutal sport), has to deal with a lot and maybe this year or next is his last reliable chance at a Super Bowl run. And as for the even older Peyton Manning, he's tougher than anybody but I wouldn't be surprised if he never went to another Super Bowl again.

If age was no issue, Montana would have picked up a couple of rings with Kansas City in his and same with Aikman and the Cowboys. Brady isn't 35, but he already suffered an entire season out from just one injury, and that's something neither Montana, Young, nor Aikman have endured.

As for early season picks, it was logical for sportswriters to pick, from the AFC, the teams that most recently represented them. I would also add the Steelers but I couldn't find any pundits taking them seriously enough to lead the AFC. The Jets are my favorite for the AFC but pundits had some issues other than their great QB. It takes a whole team to win. If QB was everything, then the Pats would be 10-0, easily!

Could you imagine the Pats going against NO in the Super Bowl? I can't. Now if we are talking about a mid-2000s Pats when they went 3 for 4 and the current, complete NO team, then I picture a fair fight. The Pats are 31st overall in stopping someone like Drew Brees.

I do like the hypothetical matchups of the great dynasties or football going against each other (80s Niners, mid-90s Cowboys, mid-2000 Patriots, 70s Steeler and Cowboys). There could be an argument for calling the mid-2000s Pats the best of all time, but I have my doubts about the 2010 Patriots and some of their losses.

If the Pats somehow repair their current defense and make it like the mid-2000s Pats and their own version of a steel curtain, then I give kudos, as I always have, to their excellent coaching.

 

[furcalchick]

Yep, it is going to be a race to the finish, and the Green Bay game is big

The Saints still have Baltimore on the road as well as Atlanta in our Dome on a Monday night
And they get Tampa Bay again

i think the falcons are partly running on luck. we'll see who's who come the end of the season, as the saints are going to take back the south. no dirty bird hands are going to touch that.

btw, who else thinks that the NFC West is nothing but a complete joke? MNF actually has playoff implications this week. sad.

 

[63dot]

i think the falcons are partly running on luck. we'll see who's who come the end of the season, as the saints are going to take back the south. no dirty bird hands are going to touch that.

btw, who else thinks that the NFC West is nothing but a complete joke? MNF actually has playoff implications this week. sad.

The west, both NFC and AFC, are a joke.

There is always next year.

As far as the NFC South, your division (if that's your favorite) is completely at the top of their game and have three teams all doing better than any of the eight west teams. Even third place Tampa Bay (7-3) would easily destroy my Raiders or 49ers and is better than many first place teams in other divisions.

I don't think anybody in the AFC could touch NO (8-3) or Atlanta (8-2) right now. The domination of the NFC South in 2010 is akin to years in the sport when the best teams in the NFL were in a single division (namely all-time best NFC East with Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins, and Giants ... count those Super Bowl championships and/or appearances!). In the NFC South right now, your top three teams have 8 wins (I bet on 9 for dirty birds), 8 wins, and 7 wins, respectively and only one west team in either conference is over .500.

It will be interesting to see what happens if three NFC South teams all finish with great records. Gambling sites still prefer Atl over NO (or anybody) to win it all, but it's still early yet. We can go purely by record and say the Jets are as good as the NFC South but the NFC South has each other to worry about.

Though I like the Jets as my team to root for this year, I don't know how good I would feel if they had to face any of the 3 top teams in the NFC South in the Super Bowl if it were held today.