Who's gonna win the NFC?

[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". [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[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". [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ 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...