Who's gonna win the NFC?

[Ken_AA]

Dallas?
Atlanta has looked iffy..... TB has some tough games in the second half of their schedule.... Philly can;t be counted out....

If you had to guess who would you take. I would take Dallas but without much confidence.

Ken

[Clarkmeister]

da Bears.

Actually, I like the Falcons.

[lastchance]

The Seahawks. /images/graemlins/smile.gif (yeah, it's completely homerish, but it's as good a guess as any right now)

[lastsamurai]

i think the giants are going to do it.

[imported_CaseClosed326]

You were correct with the first answer. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

im going with the eagles only because they absolutely are the most talented team in the weak nfc. They looked horrible in their last game but having said that they are not usually a team that makes nearly that many mistakes. I only pick the Eagles because of the lack of good teams in the nfc.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
The Seahawks.)

[/ QUOTE ]

They appear to be the safest pick to earn a first round bye.

[lastchance]

That kind of astounds me. The Seahawks haven't won a playoff game in 20 years, I've only seen them go to the playoffs 3 times, but the NFC is bad enough this year where they have a legit chance to go to the SB.

Well, that's what happens when you get handed a playoff spot from your division.

[crookedhat99]

The Eagles, because of Andy Reid.

[RacersEdge]

If Vick could just step it up a bit , I think ATL wouldbe the favorite. Its hard to go with them when they can't take advantage of a mediocre pass defense of the Saints today, where Vick only throws for a little over 100 yards. Still, they have a pretty good record with MV as the starter.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
If Vick could just step it up a bit , I think ATL wouldbe the favorite. Its hard to go with them when they can't take advantage of a mediocre pass defense of the Saints today, where Vick only throws for a little over 100 yards. Still, they have a pretty good record with MV as the starter.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing. They have a very defense and a great running game. As the only team in the NFC that has that playoff-type resume, I think they have to be considered the favorites at this time.

[brettbrettr]

Philly. Unless they lose McNabb, then, I don't know, Carolina maybe.

[AngryCola]

Just to be different, I'll pick Tampa Bay.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
They have a very defense and a great running game. As the only team in the NFC that has that playoff-type resume, I think they have to be considered the favorites at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Falcons have a pretty bad defense this year, and it's only going to get worse with Ed Hartwell out. Did you see the way Antowain Smith and Aaron Stecker ran all over the Falcons? Did you see the way Aaron Brooks passed all over them?

Watching Vick this week compared to watching Schaub last week, I can honestly say I think the Falcons would have a better chance of winning with Matt Schaub at QB.

I think the favorite *has* to be Seattle. They're almost guaranteed a first round bye this year, and historically, if you win your conference, you had a bye.

I'd rank the NFC Teams:

SEA
TB
DAL
PHI
ATL
CHI

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They have a very defense and a great running game. As the only team in the NFC that has that playoff-type resume, I think they have to be considered the favorites at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Falcons have a pretty bad defense this year, and it's only going to get worse with Ed Hartwell out. Did you see the way Antowain Smith and Aaron Stecker ran all over the Falcons? Did you see the way Aaron Brooks passed all over them?

Watching Vick this week compared to watching Schaub last week, I can honestly say I think the Falcons would have a better chance of winning with Matt Schaub at QB.

I think the favorite *has* to be Seattle. They're almost guaranteed a first round bye this year, and historically, if you win your conference, you had a bye.

I'd rank the NFC Teams:

SEA
TB
DAL
PHI
ATL
CHI

[/ QUOTE ]

They win with Vick. They lose with everyone else. It's really, really simple. Saying Schaub should be QB is really silly.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]

They win with Vick. They lose with everyone else. It's really, really simple. Saying Schaub should be QB is really silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, I was thinking maybe because Matt Schaub provided more offense than Vick has this season would be a good reason to start him, but I guess since the Atlanta Defense allowed New England to march downfield unopposed with less than a minute left to kick a field goal, Matt Schaub's a loser.

Brian Finneran, Week 5: 5 catches for 103 yads.
Brian Finneran, Week 1-4, 6: 14 catches for 135 yards.

As a Saints fan, if Matt Schaub had started at QB yesterday, it wouldn't have been even close.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They win with Vick. They lose with everyone else. It's really, really simple. Saying Schaub should be QB is really silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, I was thinking maybe because Matt Schaub provided more offense than Vick has this season would be a good reason to start him, but I guess since the Atlanta Defense allowed New England to march downfield unopposed with less than a minute left to kick a field goal, Matt Schaub's a loser.

Brian Finneran, Week 5: 5 catches for 103 yads.
Brian Finneran, Week 1-4, 6: 14 catches for 135 yards.

As a Saints fan, if Matt Schaub had started at QB yesterday, it wouldn't have been even close.

[/ QUOTE ]


So being a Saints fan makes you all-knowing, all-seeing?

Since Vick has been an NFL QB, the team winning % with him is about .680, and without him, .200.

[tolbiny]

God dman it- why don't all NFL head coaches put their all pro players on a the bench after their backups have 1 good game in their absence!

Where the hell is sample size man when you need him?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
So being a Saints fan makes you all-knowing, all-seeing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here, let me list the two QBs that haven't torched the Saints this year.

Mike Vick
J.P. Losman

[ QUOTE ]
Since Vick has been an NFL QB, the team winning % with him is about .680, and without him, .200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's because this is the first year where they have a backup QB worth a damn. Last year, they had the beta version of Matt Schaub (42.0 passer rating). When your backup is a rookie QB you drafted at the end of the third round, perhaps you need a little more insurance, and in 2003 they started Doug Johnson, who had a 67.5 QB rating that year.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So being a Saints fan makes you all-knowing, all-seeing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here, let me list the two QBs that haven't torched the Saints this year.

Mike Vick
J.P. Losman

[ QUOTE ]
Since Vick has been an NFL QB, the team winning % with him is about .680, and without him, .200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's because this is the first year where they have a backup QB worth a damn. Last year, they had the beta version of Matt Schaub (42.0 passer rating). When your backup is a rookie QB you drafted at the end of the third round, perhaps you need a little more insurance, and in 2003 they started Doug Johnson, who had a 67.5 QB rating that year.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. So we'll just look at games that Matt started vs. games Vick started.

0.000 vs 0.680

[Jack of Arcades]

Sidenote: Does anyone else notice Atlanta's ridiculously easy schedule? So far they've only faced one team with a winning record (Seattle, they lost). It looks like they might not face another team with a winning record until Tampa Bay - in week 11.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Sidenote: Does anyone else notice Atlanta's ridiculously easy schedule? So far they've only faced one team with a winning record (Seattle, they lost). It looks like they might not face another team with a winning record until Tampa Bay - in week 11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about blatant trolling. Their schedule includes the Eagles, At Seattle, At Buffalo (a very tough place to play), and vs. New England. Yeah, cakewalk schedule there. Of course, rather than have an honest debate, you'd rather say "they haven't even played anyone above .500 - what a joke". /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[SCfuji]

hey jack

are you saying that you would rather have shaub than vick leading your team? matt shaub played awesome but vick is the better qb, at least right now.

[holeplug]

I think now there are 4 teams that have about an equal chance at this point in the season.

1)Atlanta - They have beaten Philly which could be big in the tiebreaker dept. Their defense has given up 62 pts the last two weeks though and their division will be a dogfight the entire season. Vick has to stay healthy the entire season though b/c they have no shot without him.

2)Philly - Still have the most talent in the NFC. Division will be a lot harder this year since everyteam is better. McNabb's health worries me. I don't think he will make it through the season but even if he does he will be so exhausted mentally/physically from playing in pain everyweek that he may cost them a playoff game.

3)Seattle - probably the only team in their division that will finish over .500. Should just cakewalk to 10,11 wins just by beating up NFC West teams.

4)Tampa Bay - I like how they are built (2 good RB, good defense). I think Gruden will be smart enough to not run Cadillac into the ground anymore. Their divison is a problem though since only 1 of the 3 (Carolina,Tampa,Atlanta) is even getting a home playoff game.

[brettbrettr]

Your favorite retort to Vick bashers is his winning % and I don't have anything to say to that. I'm not a very big Vick fan at all but I have nothing to say to that.

There's zero chance in hell that Schaub (or anyone) will take over for the Falcons franchise player. But I liked what I saw from him in the pre-season and I think he will be a very good qb, after 2007, somewhere else. Better than Vick? Quite possibly.

So, Jack, while I semi-agree with you on the Schaub thing I do not agree with you on the Seahawks. They don't win big games. They won't win big games. They will not go to the Super Bowl.

The NFC sucks and I'm pulling for the Bears.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Your favorite retort to Vick bashers is his winning % and I don't have anything to say to that. I'm not a very big Vick fan at all but I have nothing to say to that.

There's zero chance in hell that Schaub (or anyone) will take over for the Falcons franchise player. But I liked what I saw from him in the pre-season and I think he will be a very good qb, after 2007, somewhere else. Better than Vick? Quite possibly.

So, Jack, while I semi-agree with you on the Schaub thing I do not agree with you on the Seahawks. They don't win big games. They won't win big games. They will not go to the Super Bowl.

The NFC sucks and I'm pulling for the Bears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they beat Atlanta and they beat the Rams on the road. Big accomplishment, whoo, I know, but really, for some reason, NFC West teams tend to lose on the road...

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sidenote: Does anyone else notice Atlanta's ridiculously easy schedule? So far they've only faced one team with a winning record (Seattle, they lost). It looks like they might not face another team with a winning record until Tampa Bay - in week 11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about blatant trolling. Their schedule includes the Eagles, At Seattle, At Buffalo (a very tough place to play), and vs. New England. Yeah, cakewalk schedule there. Of course, rather than have an honest debate, you'd rather say "they haven't even played anyone above .500 - what a joke". /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, looking at it at the beginning of the season it looked very tough, I'm sure. But they caught the J.P. Losman show and the travelling injury squad of New England. I'll give them props for beating the Eagles (in philly?) even though McNabb looked like he'd never played professional football before. (After that sternum injury, he probably felt like it).

[mmbt0ne]

Stick to baseball.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
hey jack

are you saying that you would rather have shaub than vick leading your team? matt shaub played awesome but vick is the better qb, at least right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt Schaub Michael Vick have very different skill sets. Matt Schaub is a more valuable offensive player than Vick, in my opinion, but tht doesnt make him the better choice to be at quarterback. Vick brings other things, both on the field (leadership, experience, game clock management, what have you) and off the field (being the most popular player in the league) that you'd be crazy to replace him.

So no, I'm not saying I'd rather have Schaub than Vick. However, as a Saints fan, I'd rather face Vick than Schaub. Schaub probably would've picked apart the Saints secondary...

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Stick to baseball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my latest post. Nowhere did I say I'd bench Schaub for Vick, but I do think Schaub's in all actuality a better passer, and, if given the chance, would outperform Vick...

[mmbt0ne]

Of course Schaub's a better passer. That will never be in question.

Vick is a better offensive player, and will result in more wins than Schaub though. Bar none. Let's pretend it's baseball. Farnsworth is a better fastball pitcher than, say, John Thompson. However, I would never in my wildest dreams want to call Farnsworth a better pitcher than Thompson, or play him over Thompson.

Also, you can't say that ATL has an easy schedule when they get to play "the travelling injury squad of New England," and then fall all over Matt Schaub for his performance over the same "travelling injury squad" who had been prepping all week for a matchup against Mike Vick.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The Seahawks. /images/graemlins/smile.gif (yeah, it's completely homerish, but it's as good a guess as any right now)

[/ QUOTE ]

If they ever learn to play 4 full quarters, maybe...

God they're painful to watch.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
3)Seattle - probably the only team in their division that will finish over .500. Should just cakewalk to 10,11 wins just by beating up NFC West teams

[/ QUOTE ]

One would think it's a cakewalk. But this is Seattle. They tend to make it as tough as possible on themselves to win.

b

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course Schaub's a better passer. That will never be in question.

Vick is a better offensive player, and will result in more wins than Schaub though. Bar none. Let's pretend it's baseball. Farnsworth is a better fastball pitcher than, say, John Thompson. However, I would never in my wildest dreams want to call Farnsworth a better pitcher than Thompson, or play him over Thompson.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this analogy is that quarterbacks are much more valuable than running backs. I know it's cliche to call Mike Vick a running back, there's no question most of Mike's value comes from his running. The most valuable running back is never, ever more valuable than the most valuable quarterback.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you can't say that ATL has an easy schedule when they get to play "the travelling injury squad of New England," and then fall all over Matt Schaub for his performance over the same "travelling injury squad" who had been prepping all week for a matchup against Mike Vick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sure, but I think we can all agree that the New England secondary is about equal to or better than the Saints secondary, right?

Vick hasn't thrown for 200 yards at all this year. Schaub nearly dropped 300 on New England.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
The problem with this analogy is that quarterbacks are much more valuable than running backs. I know it's cliche to call Mike Vick a running back, there's no question most of Mike's value comes from his running. The most valuable running back is never, ever more valuable than the most valuable quarterback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Well, sure, but I think we can all agree that the New England secondary is about equal to or better than the Saints secondary, right?

Vick hasn't thrown for 200 yards at all this year. Schaub nearly dropped 300 on New England.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough again.


I still want Vick under center for ever and always, but Schaub's not bad to have on the bench in case Vick gets injured. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DangerGoodson]

[ QUOTE ]
da Bears.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is too far off, there D PWNS.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

Well... it's looking now like Minnesota's going to be 12-4 and I'm not sure anyone else can beat 12-4...

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this analogy is that quarterbacks are much more valuable than running backs. I know it's cliche to call Mike Vick a running back, there's no question most of Mike's value comes from his running. The most valuable running back is never, ever more valuable than the most valuable quarterback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, sure, but I think we can all agree that the New England secondary is about equal to or better than the Saints secondary, right?

Vick hasn't thrown for 200 yards at all this year. Schaub nearly dropped 300 on New England.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough again.


I still want Vick under center for ever and always, but Schaub's not bad to have on the bench in case Vick gets injured. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, there are so many other reasons why you start Vick over Schaub. Of course, if Vick starts losing (and since they almost ALWAYS play close games, that will probably come sooner or later), I think there's a chance that Vick stops being the most popular player in the game...

philly. shockingly i might put washington 2. extremely good defense. gibbs is finding alot of passing o this yr. bledsoe will fold down the stretch and glenn will get hurt.