namelesstavern.net

by **Tadpole** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:47 pm

Bledsoe got it done when he was with Parcell's before, he will do it again.

Pats are thin at WR, LB, and CB. Yes, they will do good, but I don't think they are the best team anymore. Eagles are better than the Colts and Steelers and the other teams you mentioned besides the Pats imo.

Give the Vikings another game, it will get better. They just needed to gel together and get the feel of it.

by **vonkaar** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:47 pm

Tikker wrote:Dallas won't win a playoff game with Bledsoe at quarterback, and their Dbacks are less than intimidating

In one post you blast the NFC and the next... you make no sense.

I agree with your opinion of the sad state of the NFC... but... wouldn't that make Dallas' chances a 'bit' better? I mean... what NFC team would beat Dallas in the first round?

Don't take this as if I'm all singing the praises of our team after 1 game... but, based on how a 'lot' of people see them doing... and the pretty sad competition... how can you say we'll not even advance past round 1?

by **Tadpole** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:19 pm

Roy Williams SURE IS NOT intimidating. :eyecrazy:

by **Lyion** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:45 pm

It's the frickin NFC. Dallas can make it all the way to the big dance, with a bit of luck. None of the top five teams in the league are in the NFC.

by **Tadpole** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:54 pm

Atlanta and the Eagles are two top five teams, maybe even Dallas rounding out at the number 5 spot.

by **Lyion** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:59 pm

No, they aren't.

Vick cannot beat the Pats, Colts, Steelers, Ravens, or even some of the mediocre teams in the AFC. Go watch what the Chiefs did to Atlanta. 56-10.

After watching Vick tonight make misread after misread and not able to see a blind side blitz when 10 guys are on the line, I get the feeling he's on borrowed time and a mediocre QB whose sole claim to the starting lineup is his speed.

The Eagles are arguably a top 5 team, but again they most certainly are not a top 3 one.

The NFC is weak.

But damn, is Vick a fast mofo...

by **Tadpole** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:17 pm

Vick is a proven winner. When Vick plays, the Falcon's record is very good. When Vick was out, they played poorly (don't have the wins-loses on me, but it is very significant). It doesn't matter if Vick "can't throw" or "isn't a pocket passer", he gets it done on the ground. The man ran for nearly 1,000 yards last season. He is the best play-maker in the game, period. He wins a majority of the games he plays. He brings to the table what no other QB can do and can change the game in a snap of a finger. The Falcons also have one of the best balanced running games, having Warrick Dunn and TJ Ducket (a finesse runner and a bruiser, which is very helpful to have two of those kinds of their talent). Their defense is among the best in the league also.

All the teams are in my opinion. I guess we will see when the season is over with. I'm not going to sit here and put out fact after fact and reason why. :dunno:

by **Lyion** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:37 pm

Trent Dilfer was a proven winner in Baltimore, too. That doesn't mean he was a great QB.

Vick is an awesome athlete, but his passing and quarterback skills are mediocre. In his 5th season he should be able to read better. There is no arguing the speed, and arm strength, but again he had three turnovers and numerous very bad reads and throws tonight against a D arguably missing its two best defenders. Atlanta won today because of their D.

Atlanta has a good team, but on neutral ground they don't beat any of the top tier AFC teams. Again, watch them play some tough AFC teams with speed on the road.

We'll definitely see as the season goes on.

I still believe the NFC is weak.

The AFC is twice as strong, top to bottom.

by **Arlos** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:29 am

Steve Young was exactly the same kind of player as Michael Vick is. Every team considered him the 49ers' biggest rushing threat, over any of their RBs. But, they also knew, he was always thinking run first, so he'd get antsy in the pocket, and wouldn't be anywhere near as efficient in the passing game as he should have been. It wasn't until he learned that his job was to PASS, not to be a extra RB that he really took off, and coincidentally, the 9ers won the Super Bowl with him at the helm.

Is Vick a better runner than Young was? Probably. Is Vick a better QUARTERBACK than Young? Oh hell no.

-Arlos

by **Lyion** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:57 am

Good analogy, Arlos. Young didn't really shine until he was over 30 and Vick is 25 so he has a lot of time.

Really, though after five years you need to be able to read the field better than Vick does. He is way too reliant on his legs and that won't work against a good team.

by **Mop** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:17 am

the past couple years I have overly stuck up for Billick

near the end of last season I noticed Ravens would have a great first half and a poor secon half - every week - same thing this year he is not making adjustments at half time... wtf.

by **Reynaldo** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:19 am

My Chiefs played well but got a ton of help from Pennington sucking.

Final should have been about 30-21 Chiefs winning, which is still great, but the defense shouldn't be getting hype like it is. It really wasn't that good.

Will be a bunch tougher against the Raiders who have a QB that can actually throw the ball.

by **Lyion** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:02 am

Yeah, but the Raiders D is nowhere near as good as the Jets.

I think KC will continue roll, as long as they don't have many turnovers.

Billicks problem is he wants a team built for running to throw the football. They should mainly feed Jamal the rock, have their QB occasionally throw a deep ball to tthat 7'4 reciever, and throw slants occasionally to Mason.

He's a good coach, but believes he's more clever than he actually is.

by **Malluas** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:04 am

Arlos wrote:Steve Young was exactly the same kind of player as Michael Vick is. Every team considered him the 49ers' biggest rushing threat, over any of their RBs. But, they also knew, he was always thinking run first, so he'd get antsy in the pocket, and wouldn't be anywhere near as efficient in the passing game as he should have been. It wasn't until he learned that his job was to PASS, not to be a extra RB that he really took off, and coincidentally, the 9ers won the Super Bowl with him at the helm.

Is Vick a better runner than Young was? Probably. Is Vick a better QUARTERBACK than Young? Oh hell no.

-Arlos

just in the sense he could run.. much smarter player.. more accurate more of a grasp of the game itself.

Vick is a nice QB if you don't wanna win the big one.. just like Peyton.

Vick and McNabb are overrated imo. Culpepper also is in that overrated list. Guys that can play good but aren't consistant. Look at the Vikings offense last weekend no Moss worthless.. McNabb withhout TO sucks.

Who does Brady have? who did Montana have his first 2 superbowls? Who did marino have?

Culpepper i think the best out of those 3 if he doesn't fumble thats if.

by **Tikker** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:13 am

Tadpole wrote:Roy Williams SURE IS NOT intimidating.

I'd match any WR in the league against Roy Williams and throw the ball deep on him all night long

I don't give a shit if he can hit a RB, he can't cover 4.6s WR's, let alone anyone with real speed

and Vonk, I don't see what's confusing about saying the NFC sucks, and even if Dallas is a better NFC team, that they still won't win a playoff game

by **Tikker** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:14 am

Tadpole wrote:Atlanta and the Eagles are two top five teams, maybe even Dallas rounding out at the number 5 spot.

You're kidding right?

neither Atlanta nor the Eagles would beat the Pats, Steelers, Colts, and it'd be a toss up against Baltimore, San Diego, and maybe KC and or Buffalo

Dallas, top 5?

lay off the crack

by **Tadpole** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:20 am

That is why I said it is imo. :dunno:

That is also why Roy Williams plays Safety, not Cornerback.

by **Phlegm** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:25 am

Cowboys vs. 49ers in the NFC championship like the good old days.

by **mofish** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:37 am

no saints love, after beating nfc darlings the carolina pussies on the road. oh well, underdogs we have always been, underdogs we remain.

cowboys and niners are roadkill. Only nfc teams im scared of are the Eagles and Falcons.

edit : Giants could be really good this year too depending on Eli.

by **Lyion** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Tikker wrote:
Tadpole wrote:Roy Williams SURE IS NOT intimidating.

I'd match any WR in the league against Roy Williams and throw the ball deep on him all night long

I don't give a shit if he can hit a RB, he can't cover 4.6s WR's, let alone anyone with real speed

Note the teams winning run the ball successfully and throw short passes. The bomb teams are not the threats. This is where a Roy Williams shines, and is valuable.

Williams is a safety. He is a big hitter, like Rodney in New England, not a cover corner.

The real question isn't will he cover a burner, but ask any WR if they want to go across the middle with him there, Tikker. Amazingly many seem to get alligator arms after a few trips there.

by **Tikker** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:11 pm

Tadpole wrote:That is why I said it is imo.

That is also why Roy Williams plays Safety, not Cornerback.

there's probably 10-12 tight ends in the game that eat him alive too

by **Tadpole** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:20 pm

Like?

by **Lyion** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:24 pm

Good thing tight ends are usually covered by linebackers, then, eh?
You keep equating football wrongly to 1v1. I'd argue he could easily cover most tight ends, but that's a different discussion.

You don't compare safeties to Tight Ends or WRs. You compare them to.. Safeties. He's one of the best in the league.

by **Tikker** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:33 pm

lyion wrote:Good thing tight ends are usually covered by linebackers, then, eh?
You keep equating football wrongly to 1v1. I'd argue he could easily cover most tight ends, but that's a different discussion.

You don't compare safeties to Tight Ends or WRs. You compare them to.. Safeties. He's one of the best in the league.

we must watch different games a fair amount then, it's rare for teams to match LB's in 1 on 1 coverage with a TE.

safeties better than Roy Williams?

Harrison, Reed, Polamalu, Dawkins off the top of my head

by **Tikker** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:35 pm

lyion wrote:
Tikker wrote:
Tadpole wrote:Roy Williams SURE IS NOT intimidating.

I'd match any WR in the league against Roy Williams and throw the ball deep on him all night long

I don't give a shit if he can hit a RB, he can't cover 4.6s WR's, let alone anyone with real speed

Note the teams winning run the ball successfully and throw short passes. The bomb teams are not the threats. This is where a Roy Williams shines, and is valuable.

Williams is a safety. He is a big hitter, like Rodney in New England, not a cover corner.

The real question isn't will he cover a burner, but ask any WR if they want to go across the middle with him there, Tikker. Amazingly many seem to get alligator arms after a few trips there.

Don't get me wrong, I love a big hitting safety that can stop the run, and make receivers and TE's think twice about coming over the middle

When I think of great safeties I think of guys like Ronnie Lott, and Carnell Lake

guys who could blow people up AND cover deep if need be

1 dimensional players, even if they're amazing at that 1 thing get picked on

namelesstavern.net

WEEK ONE -- how'd your team do?

Who is online