[QUOTE="frostybanana"]Bills, Bengals, Redskins, Dolphins, Panthers, Lions, Seahawks, Cardinals, Browns, Rams.rawsavonSince we are focused on the Lions atm, I will list the teams I think are worse and we can go from there -keep in mind that record =/= how good a team is (part of it but not all of it) b/c there is not a balanced schedule in the NFL #32 Panthers #31 Seattle #30 Bungles #29 Broncos #28 Dolphins #27 Bills #26 49ers #25 Redskins #24 Titans #23 Vikings #22 Browns #21 Raiders #20 Arizona ...then the lions *the order might be a little off, but not much difference in 29 and 31 IMO...would require that I put in lots of though Since there is no point in discussing the ones we agree on, do tell why you rank the ones I have below the lions above them Fair enough.
I would agree about Seattle had they not won against the Rams and then against the Saints the following week. It wasn't a fluke, they were playing with an intensity. I actually watched them beat the Rams fully expecting the Rams to win, but I saw every player on the team get up and perform at another level, much like the Cardinals did a few years ago to make it to the Super Bowl. It's a testament to impressive gameplanning, preparation and coaching and the Seahawks brought it when it mattered. I don't see them as a MUCH worse team now despite not having Hasselbeck because they've added weapons in Zach Miller and Sidney Rice.
Broncos are a team that has a lot of veteran talent that has shown in the past they can play at a very high level. Guys like Bailey, Dawkins, Dumervil, D.J. Williams to name a few. They also have, in addition to those guys, a nice group of young talent in Tebow, Demaryius Thomas, Knowshon Moreno, Eddie Royal, etc and while they've only shown flashes, the team as a whole has shown they can play at a high level. Last year was a down year with the SAME guys they've had in seasons past. I don't think they're great, I do think they're better than the Lions.
49ers are guilty of the same thing the Lions are. The only difference is they lost because of piss poor coaching and gameplanning. They still have some of the best players in the league in Patrick Willis, Frank Gore and Vernon Davis and now they've brought in a competent head coach. They drafted big needs on the defense and got their QB in Kaepernick. That along with the great talent they have on defense already tells me they're on the right track. Now, they DO have holes on their defense, particularly in the secondary. But so do the Lions and the Lions' holes don't stop there.
The Titans are nowhere near as bad as they seem. They have two good corners (verner, finnegan), a first rounder to replace babin (derrick morgan), TWO good defensive tackles, (Jones, Haye) and two good safeties. Obviously they're not all all-pros but they're starters. The only hole they have is their linebacking corps, which isn't great, but it's better than the Lions. And on offense, they have guys like Chris Johnson and Kenny Britt, they'll be OK because they're a running team.
The Vikings biggest problem is that they're old. But they're not worst than the Lions. They've been able to push their offense on AP's back before, they can do it again and defensively they have proven veterans that can step up. The biggest loss is Ray Edwards, but they have plenty of talent on the lines anyways. Their secondary IS questionable and I have no redeeming qualities for it at all. Their back end is awful and it's their biggest hole. But they have solid LBs and a solid line and that's what they've thrived on in the past. With AP on offense, they're still a better team than the Lions.
The Browns are a much better team than you might think. You claim the Lions division is hard (if not the hardest), I don't think there's a tougher division in football than the AFC North. The Browns have good players, they need a more consistent gameplan. They have Hillis in the backfield, who won't have to carry a full load with the returning Montario Hardesty. McCoy played in an offense with no weapons and still played decently for a rookie. They drafted Greg Little and shored up their defensive line. They have a good young secondary, although the free spot is a question mark. Their linebackers aren't great, and that's probably their biggest weakness. I still see them as a better team than the Lions because they have a solid running game and a hard hitting defensive mindset.
The Raiders? I'm a little confused you think the Lions are better than them to be frank. They don't have the best offense, but they have a GOOD defense. Yes, they lost Nnamdi, and their corners are a poor as a result, but they have two solid safeties, a great linebacking corps and a fantastic line to boot. They are a dangerous team. Their offense can kill you with it's speed and they can control the clock at the same time with their phenomenal running game.
Arizona is not that much different from the team that went to the Super Bowl a few years ago. The only difference is no quarterback this time around. Even so, going into the year I thought they'd have the best secondary in football (Patrick Peterson, Adrian Wilson, Kerry Rhodes and DRC) but then they decided to be stupid and trade DRC. So while their secondary will be OK because they have Toler and picked up Marshall, they might not be the best in the league as I thought. Even so, they have a GREAT defensive line with Dockett, Dan Williams and Campbell and that coupled with their secondary will make them dangerous and make up for their less the stellar linebackers. A healthy Beanie Wells a new QB and Larry FItz will mean they're on the right track on offense. All in all, I don't see THAT big a difference from a talent perspective in their team from a few years ago other than Kurt Warner and their linebackers. But I think they've improved enough in areas that matter that they can overcome that.
Sorry that took so long.
Log in to comment