It is almost expected that an MLB manager has a decent playing resume under his belt before he adds a few pounds and people start calling him 'Skip'. Lou Pinella, Dusty Baker, Joe Torre, Joe Girardi... the list goes on. In the NFL, it's not quite as likely that you'll find a head coach with a ton of NFL experience between the white lines. Here's a look at the current head coaches and how their playing careers went.
*This is roughly in order of how 'well' they did, taking into consideration both their achievements, and where they played.
Mike Singletary is a Hall of Fame linebacker. In 12 seasons as a Chicago Bear he missed only 13 games, and was named AP Defensive Player of the Year twice.
Jack Del Rio saw significant playing time as a rookie inside linebacker for the Saints in 1985, but made his name as a Cowboy ('89-'91) and Viking ('92-'95). He was a second team UPI All-Pro in 1995.
Dick Jauron played eight years for the Lions and Bengals. After rushing for almost 3,000 yards at Yale, he racked up 25 career interceptions as a free safety before a knee injury forced him to retire.
Jim Zorn was Seattle's starting quarterback from his rookie year in 1976 (also the franchise's rookie season) until 1984, when he was replaced by Dave Krieg. Zorn finished 18 games under .500 and had an unsightly 111-141 TD-INT ratio, but was known for his connections with wide receiver Steve Largent and even made some all-pro lists in 1978.
Ken Whisenhunt played in seven seasons as an NFL tight end, three of those as a starter in Atlanta. Known as a blocker, he managed 62 grabs and five touchdowns.
Gary Kubiak is a really well-known career backup. He spent all of his nine seasons as the second stringer in Denver; he was drafted the same year that the Broncos traded for the rights to John Elway.
Jeff Fisher was a career special teamer in his four season with the Bears. He took a punt return for a touchdown in 1981 as a rookie, and nabbed five interceptions as a backup defensive back.
Sean Payton, Mike Smith, and Tom Cable all had extremely brief brushes with professional football. Payton filled in with the Bears for a couple games during the 1987 strike, Smith spent a season in the CFL, and Cable was on the Colts roster as a guard in the mid-'80s.
These guys had very nice college careers, at pretty big name schools:
Jim Mora Jr. was a defensive back at Washington from 1980-'83.
Lovie Smith was a two-time All-American at linebacker and safety at Tulsa in the late-1970s.
Andy Reid was an offensive lineman at BYU at the beginning of their hayday in the 1980s.
Wade Phillips was a three-year starter at Houston, where he set the school's mark for most career tackles (still standing) as a linebacker.
Norv Turner spent a couple years as Dan Fouts's backup at Oregon, and started during his senior year in 1974.
Mike Tomlin was a wide receiver and tight end at William and Mary, where he caught 20 touchdown passes.
John Harbaugh was a defensive back at Miami (Ohio).
These guys had decent college careers at somewhat smaller schools:
Rex Ryan and his brother Rob Ryan played on the Southwestern Oklahoma St. defensive line.
At Idaho St. Marvin Lewis was an All-Big Sky linebacker.
Jim Caldwell started all four years as a defensive back for Iowa in the 1970s.
Tom Coughlin set a single-season receiving record at Syracuse in 1967, where he was a wingback.
Raheem Morris spent time as a starting safety and cornerback at Hofstra.
Jim Schwartz was a linebacker for Georgetown for four years in the mid-1980s.
Mike McCarthy and John Fox both had pretty nice college experiences, though McCarthy was at NAIA Baker University as a tight end, while Fox spent just two years as a defensive back for San Diego St.
Steve Spagnuolo, Josh McDaniels, Eric Mangini, Bill Belichick, and Tony Sporano all played at even smaller schools, while Brad Childress spent a season at Illinois, where he couldn't catch on as a quarterback or wide receiver.
Todd Haley is dead last in this list. Although he has some family connections to the NFL (his dad, Dick Haley, played in the NFL for five seasons and has worked for the Dolphins, Steelers, and Jets), he played golf in college before becoming an assistant with the Jets in 1995.
Friday, August 21, 2009
The only answer
There are a lot of reasons why I didn't want Brett Favre to sign with the Vikings. I don't really need to go over them again, as much as I would like to. But, I do understand that there are a couple of reasons why the Vikings did make this move.
The fact of the matter is that this was a decision that came from years of ineptitude in the front office, in the coaching staff, and on the field. The Vikings have become a team that a lot of people either don't like or don't care much about. And that is true in Minnesota. Everybody knows about the loyalty and conviction of Kansas City Chiefs fans, Pittsburgh Steelers fans, and Denver Broncos fans. It takes a lot to get them down. This is not, and never really has been the case in Minnesota. Many people in Minnesota feel one or a couple of the following things about the Vikings: that they are unwilling to spend money or spend it wisely; that they are chokers; that they, until recently, were a team full of thugs; and, most importantly, that they will never win a Super Bowl.
Because this viewpoint has been born of years of arrests, playoff losses, and interceptions, something big had to happen to regain the support of Viking nation. Adding to the urgency, the Vikings play in arguably the worst stadium in professional football. The Metrodome, now nearing 30 years old, is finished. The lease is up in 2011, and at one point there was hope that a new stadium would be available by then. But it is too late for that now. The Minnesota Twins will move into a brand-new downtown stadium next spring, and the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers football team will begin playing at their new field on campus this September. The Vikings couldn't manage to work out a deal to continue to share a space with the University (the Gophers played their home games at the Metrodome until this year), so now they are left trying to find funding for a stadium in a community where a lot of money was just spent to build two new fields.
Attendance has been down the last two season, with blackouts being avoided only when local television stations have ponied up to buy remaining tickets--they have no choice, since a blackout would result in their losing a lot of cash from advertisers. Since Zigi Wilf took over as owner of the team, a slow and steady change has occurred. Wilf brought in Brad Childress as head coach, and the two helped clean up the locker room, getting rid of players with 'histories', and replacing them with guys like Chester Taylor and Steve Hutchinson. The team hit the jackpot with Adrian Peterson, and has managed to make some pretty big moves through free agency and trades, bringing in big name and big production guys like Hutchinson, Bernard Berrian, and Jared Allen.
All of this has been nice, and I'm sure it's appreciated by Vikings fans. But support is still waning. Why? Because the team does not win. Last year they made their first playoff appearance of the Wilf/Childress era, but it has become clear that until the team addresses the quarterback position, the rest is for naught.
Enter Brett Favre.
Today I become a card-carrying conspiracy theorist. Well, what I'm about to propose isn't exactly a conspiracy; it's more of a marketing/publicity plan. Here goes: The signing of Brett Favre by the Minnesota Vikings is not, in fact, a desperate move to try to squeeze a Super Bowl victory out of a talented team in 2009; rather, it is a measured attempt to bring back some credibility and excitement to a team that hasn't had either of those things in years, and a shot at making the Vikings "the team" during first few seasons of the next decade.
What am I talking about? At first glance, signing Favre this year didn't seem to me like enough to help with future ticket sales or a bid for a stadium. But after mulling it over, it starts to make sense. A lot of people are up in arms about the timing of the deal, and the effect it will have in the locker room. Surely, allowing Favre to skip training camp and then come in and be named the starting quarterback on his first day--at a cool $12 million--is going to rile up some distrust and some jealousy. But that is OK for the final purpose this move is trying to serve.
This is more about winning over the fans, the media, the NFL, and future free agents than it is about the 2009 team. I mean to suggest that the Vikings are not trying to win a Super Bowl this year. In fact, it would be better if they didn't win the Super Bowl. What the Vikings have done is put people in the seats, put themselves in the position to sell a bunch of purple #4 jerseys, and prepared themselves to make some big moves in the 2010 offseason.
With Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels, the Vikings could very realistically have expected to win the division, maybe win a home playoff game, and have a decent season. Unfortunately, everybody 'knew' that there was no chance for them to actually win the Super Bowl with those quarterbacks. Signing Favre is a debatable football move; many think he makes them the best team in the NFC, and most of the critics of the move admit that he at least makes them better off than they were without him. If all goes to plan, they will win 10 or 11 or maybe even 12 games, and make a little playoff run. Either way, with Favre in the mix, the perception is that there is at least a chance they can go all the way. But if all goes to plan, they will not reach the Super Bowl.
How could that be? Because in 2010, neither Brett Favre or Brad Childress will be in town. Essentially, they are being used as pawns. Childress is the out front in the Favre recruitment because he is the head coach; he even picked him up from the airport. But in the best case scenario, Childress is not the Vikings head coach in 2010. There are too many qualified and proven guys available, and if the Vikings land one of those guys, coming off of two straight playoff appearances, they will have gained more than anybody expected they could have from signing Favre.
Bill Cowher, Mike Shanahan, Tony Dungy, Mike Holmgren, Brian Billick, and Jon Gruden are all without jobs this season. Surely Shanahan and Billick will be ready to take a job soon, and Cowher seems to be waiting for the perfect situation. Dungy and Holmgren will insist that they are done for good, but if the right offer came along, do we really believe they would pass? Let's consider two 'positive' outcomes to the Favre signing:
One possibility is that Favre proves to be exactly what the Vikings needed; they have a successful regular season, make it through the NFC playoffs, and make their first Super Bowl appearance in over 30 thirty years. Yes, many people would be very excited about this. Here's the problem: this option leaves the Vikings with no future. Brett Favre cannot play again in 2010, unless the level of desperation (from both parties) reaches absurdity unimaginable. And, frankly, if the team makes it that far, they have to re-up with Childress, and that is nothing but bad news.
On the other hand, say the Vikings go 10-6, win a playoff game, then bow out. Favre retires, and the Vikings land Cowher or Shanahan or Dungy. Suddenly, in February of 2010, they still have this incredibly talented roster, Sage Rosenfels has learned the offense and watched a future Hall of Famer run it, and if they really want to, they have a few months to look for a better quarterback, if there is one available. Let's face it, risky or not, if this roster was caoched by one of those guys mentioned above, making a big trade for a quarterback like Donovan McNabb or even Carson Palmer or Marc Bulger would be worth whatever they had to give up. Or stick with Rosenfels, and use that first round pick to add even more talent to this stacked roster. Oh, and all the distrust and animosity towards the head coach? He'll be gone, and in his place somebody who demands respect, and deserves it.
Can anybody honestly say that the Vikings would not be scary with a proven, elite head coach? Given their roster, a serviceable quarterback, and free reign over the team, would it not be reasonable to expect one or two Super Bowl appearances from a coach like Cowher? I think it very reasonable. Conspiracy theory or not, as a Vikings fan I almost have to hope that this is the outcome. How else will I make it through this year?
The fact of the matter is that this was a decision that came from years of ineptitude in the front office, in the coaching staff, and on the field. The Vikings have become a team that a lot of people either don't like or don't care much about. And that is true in Minnesota. Everybody knows about the loyalty and conviction of Kansas City Chiefs fans, Pittsburgh Steelers fans, and Denver Broncos fans. It takes a lot to get them down. This is not, and never really has been the case in Minnesota. Many people in Minnesota feel one or a couple of the following things about the Vikings: that they are unwilling to spend money or spend it wisely; that they are chokers; that they, until recently, were a team full of thugs; and, most importantly, that they will never win a Super Bowl.
Because this viewpoint has been born of years of arrests, playoff losses, and interceptions, something big had to happen to regain the support of Viking nation. Adding to the urgency, the Vikings play in arguably the worst stadium in professional football. The Metrodome, now nearing 30 years old, is finished. The lease is up in 2011, and at one point there was hope that a new stadium would be available by then. But it is too late for that now. The Minnesota Twins will move into a brand-new downtown stadium next spring, and the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers football team will begin playing at their new field on campus this September. The Vikings couldn't manage to work out a deal to continue to share a space with the University (the Gophers played their home games at the Metrodome until this year), so now they are left trying to find funding for a stadium in a community where a lot of money was just spent to build two new fields.
Attendance has been down the last two season, with blackouts being avoided only when local television stations have ponied up to buy remaining tickets--they have no choice, since a blackout would result in their losing a lot of cash from advertisers. Since Zigi Wilf took over as owner of the team, a slow and steady change has occurred. Wilf brought in Brad Childress as head coach, and the two helped clean up the locker room, getting rid of players with 'histories', and replacing them with guys like Chester Taylor and Steve Hutchinson. The team hit the jackpot with Adrian Peterson, and has managed to make some pretty big moves through free agency and trades, bringing in big name and big production guys like Hutchinson, Bernard Berrian, and Jared Allen.
All of this has been nice, and I'm sure it's appreciated by Vikings fans. But support is still waning. Why? Because the team does not win. Last year they made their first playoff appearance of the Wilf/Childress era, but it has become clear that until the team addresses the quarterback position, the rest is for naught.
Enter Brett Favre.
Today I become a card-carrying conspiracy theorist. Well, what I'm about to propose isn't exactly a conspiracy; it's more of a marketing/publicity plan. Here goes: The signing of Brett Favre by the Minnesota Vikings is not, in fact, a desperate move to try to squeeze a Super Bowl victory out of a talented team in 2009; rather, it is a measured attempt to bring back some credibility and excitement to a team that hasn't had either of those things in years, and a shot at making the Vikings "the team" during first few seasons of the next decade.
What am I talking about? At first glance, signing Favre this year didn't seem to me like enough to help with future ticket sales or a bid for a stadium. But after mulling it over, it starts to make sense. A lot of people are up in arms about the timing of the deal, and the effect it will have in the locker room. Surely, allowing Favre to skip training camp and then come in and be named the starting quarterback on his first day--at a cool $12 million--is going to rile up some distrust and some jealousy. But that is OK for the final purpose this move is trying to serve.
This is more about winning over the fans, the media, the NFL, and future free agents than it is about the 2009 team. I mean to suggest that the Vikings are not trying to win a Super Bowl this year. In fact, it would be better if they didn't win the Super Bowl. What the Vikings have done is put people in the seats, put themselves in the position to sell a bunch of purple #4 jerseys, and prepared themselves to make some big moves in the 2010 offseason.
With Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels, the Vikings could very realistically have expected to win the division, maybe win a home playoff game, and have a decent season. Unfortunately, everybody 'knew' that there was no chance for them to actually win the Super Bowl with those quarterbacks. Signing Favre is a debatable football move; many think he makes them the best team in the NFC, and most of the critics of the move admit that he at least makes them better off than they were without him. If all goes to plan, they will win 10 or 11 or maybe even 12 games, and make a little playoff run. Either way, with Favre in the mix, the perception is that there is at least a chance they can go all the way. But if all goes to plan, they will not reach the Super Bowl.
How could that be? Because in 2010, neither Brett Favre or Brad Childress will be in town. Essentially, they are being used as pawns. Childress is the out front in the Favre recruitment because he is the head coach; he even picked him up from the airport. But in the best case scenario, Childress is not the Vikings head coach in 2010. There are too many qualified and proven guys available, and if the Vikings land one of those guys, coming off of two straight playoff appearances, they will have gained more than anybody expected they could have from signing Favre.
Bill Cowher, Mike Shanahan, Tony Dungy, Mike Holmgren, Brian Billick, and Jon Gruden are all without jobs this season. Surely Shanahan and Billick will be ready to take a job soon, and Cowher seems to be waiting for the perfect situation. Dungy and Holmgren will insist that they are done for good, but if the right offer came along, do we really believe they would pass? Let's consider two 'positive' outcomes to the Favre signing:
One possibility is that Favre proves to be exactly what the Vikings needed; they have a successful regular season, make it through the NFC playoffs, and make their first Super Bowl appearance in over 30 thirty years. Yes, many people would be very excited about this. Here's the problem: this option leaves the Vikings with no future. Brett Favre cannot play again in 2010, unless the level of desperation (from both parties) reaches absurdity unimaginable. And, frankly, if the team makes it that far, they have to re-up with Childress, and that is nothing but bad news.
On the other hand, say the Vikings go 10-6, win a playoff game, then bow out. Favre retires, and the Vikings land Cowher or Shanahan or Dungy. Suddenly, in February of 2010, they still have this incredibly talented roster, Sage Rosenfels has learned the offense and watched a future Hall of Famer run it, and if they really want to, they have a few months to look for a better quarterback, if there is one available. Let's face it, risky or not, if this roster was caoched by one of those guys mentioned above, making a big trade for a quarterback like Donovan McNabb or even Carson Palmer or Marc Bulger would be worth whatever they had to give up. Or stick with Rosenfels, and use that first round pick to add even more talent to this stacked roster. Oh, and all the distrust and animosity towards the head coach? He'll be gone, and in his place somebody who demands respect, and deserves it.
Can anybody honestly say that the Vikings would not be scary with a proven, elite head coach? Given their roster, a serviceable quarterback, and free reign over the team, would it not be reasonable to expect one or two Super Bowl appearances from a coach like Cowher? I think it very reasonable. Conspiracy theory or not, as a Vikings fan I almost have to hope that this is the outcome. How else will I make it through this year?
Friday, August 7, 2009
Pre- Pre-season 'Predictions'
AFC East:
New England Patriots
Why this might be right: The Patriots have the NFL's best coach, best quarterback, and Randy Moss (I guess he isn't the best anything anymore, but he is still Randy Moss). They managed an 11-5 record last season with Matt Cassell at the helm, and added some solid veterans to the roster, as they usually do. Plus, they should get at least five wins in the division.
Why this might be wrong: Tom Brady could get hurt again, and the Pats don't have Cassell anymore (he bolted to Kansas City).
Miami Dolphins
Why this might be right: Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams should continue to run well, and Chad Pennington is at least steady enough to keep them around through the regular season.
Why this might be wrong: Pennington. I don't trust him. He is indeed a steady quarterback, but his arm is gone (if it was ever there), and I don't see him winning any big games.
Buffalo Bills
Why this might be right: The Bills offensive line is a mess. Well, it's not a mess, they just don't have a lot of experience here. Head coach Dick Jauron says he likes the group he has, but they have a major challenge on their hands.
Why this might be wrong: The Bills have a ton of weapons on offense. If the run-and-gun, no-huddle offense that offensive coordinator Turk Schonert is working on at training camp goes well, they might be able to win a few shootouts, and their defense and special teams aren't terrible.
New York Jets
Why this might be right: A new coach, and the team is back to square one at quarterback after the failed Favre Project. I ddin't like the Jets much before the signed Favre last year, and it's hard to imagine that they would have been very successful without him.
Why this might be wrong: Maybe Rex Ryan will instill some toughness and urgency in this team and get the best out of them. This is a team that I'm really unsure about.
AFC North:
Pittsburgh Steelers
Why this might be right: The defending Super Bowl champs are basically intact, and their formula will always work: good defense and a solid quarterback.
Why this might be wrong: Every once in a while defending champs fall flat the next year. I don't think Mike Tomlin will allow that to happen.
Baltimore Ravens
Why this might be right: With rookie quarterback Joe Flacco the Ravens made it all the way to the AFC Championship. If he can avoid a sophomore slump and Ray Rice takes over as the number one running back, they should be able to win 10-plus again.
Why this might be wrong: Their defense looked old at times last year, and they are all one year older now. They retained Terrell Suggs, but lost Bart Scott to the Jets. And what happens if Flacco takes a step back?
Cincinnati Bengals
Why this might be right: There are a number of reasons why this probably is right. The Bengals defense looks improved, and Carson Palmer will play at least one game, but it's tough to imagine Cincinnati winning more than six games.
Why this might be wrong: Maybe the Browns will win seven games.
Cleveland Browns
Why this might be right: The Browns were awful last year after an off season of high expectations. They didn't improve in many places, unless Brady Quinn can start completing more passes.
Why this might be wrong: Maybe the Bengals won't win any games at all.
AFC South:
Tennessee Titans
Why this might be right: The Titans built their 2008 success around good defense and a solid running attack. If Kerry Collins continues to play well, they should win 10-plus.
Why this might be wrong: Collins is 37 entering the season. If Vince Young has to step in, it's not realistic to assume they will play as well as last year.
Indianapolis Colts
Why this might be right: Even without all their coaches and Marvin Harrison, the Colts still have Payton Manning. Their offense will still be in the top half of the league.
Why this might be wrong: The Colts could win the division, depending on how Tennessee goes. If it turns out that they really miss Tony Dungy and Tom Moore, they could miss the playoffs.
Houston Texans
Why this might be right: With Matt Schaub in the lineup, Houston's offense is almost unstoppable. But that hasn't really resulted in a lot of wins for them.
Why this might be wrong: If the defense steps up, Houston could win nine or 10 games. If the offense falters, they could lose nine or 10 games.
Jacksonville Jaguars
Why this might be right: There's not a lot to be excited about with the Jaguars. Two years ago they were a young and hungry team that kept beating the league's best. Last year they were awful. They are even further from that exciting 2007 team, in everyway.
Why this might be wrong: I am pretty sure the Jaguars will finish last in the AFC South.
AFC West:
San Diego Chargers
New Orleans Saints
Why this might be right: Basically they are a stats team. Not a lot of reasons to believe they will win.
Why this might be wrong: Drew Brees does provide stability at quarterback, and if they score like last season, they will stay in most games.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Why this might be right: No quarterback, a new coach, and constant running back injuries.
Why this might be wrong: I can't think of any reasons.
NFC West:
Arizona Cardinals
Why this might be right: Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin...
Why this might be wrong: Kurt Warner is a year older and coming off a hip surgery. Matt Leinert is not capable of sustained success.
Seattle Seahawks
Why this might be right: Matt Hasselbeck won't let this team stay so far down, and their receiving corps is very good when healthy.
Why this might be wrong: They lost a lot last year, they could repeat that performance.
St. Louis Rams
Why this might be right: The Rams do have some good players and when Mark Bulger is on, he is a top quarterback in the NFC.
Why this might be wrong: They have shown over the last two years that they can play some really ugly football.
San Francisco 49ers
Why this might be right: Mike Singletary means well, but his heavy hand will steer the 49ers into the ground early.
Why this might be wrong: I do expect a relatively quick start, and maybe that will be enough to keep their hopes a live into December.
New England Patriots
Why this might be right: The Patriots have the NFL's best coach, best quarterback, and Randy Moss (I guess he isn't the best anything anymore, but he is still Randy Moss). They managed an 11-5 record last season with Matt Cassell at the helm, and added some solid veterans to the roster, as they usually do. Plus, they should get at least five wins in the division.
Why this might be wrong: Tom Brady could get hurt again, and the Pats don't have Cassell anymore (he bolted to Kansas City).
Miami Dolphins
Why this might be right: Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams should continue to run well, and Chad Pennington is at least steady enough to keep them around through the regular season.
Why this might be wrong: Pennington. I don't trust him. He is indeed a steady quarterback, but his arm is gone (if it was ever there), and I don't see him winning any big games.
Buffalo Bills
Why this might be right: The Bills offensive line is a mess. Well, it's not a mess, they just don't have a lot of experience here. Head coach Dick Jauron says he likes the group he has, but they have a major challenge on their hands.
Why this might be wrong: The Bills have a ton of weapons on offense. If the run-and-gun, no-huddle offense that offensive coordinator Turk Schonert is working on at training camp goes well, they might be able to win a few shootouts, and their defense and special teams aren't terrible.
New York Jets
Why this might be right: A new coach, and the team is back to square one at quarterback after the failed Favre Project. I ddin't like the Jets much before the signed Favre last year, and it's hard to imagine that they would have been very successful without him.
Why this might be wrong: Maybe Rex Ryan will instill some toughness and urgency in this team and get the best out of them. This is a team that I'm really unsure about.
AFC North:
Pittsburgh Steelers
Why this might be right: The defending Super Bowl champs are basically intact, and their formula will always work: good defense and a solid quarterback.
Why this might be wrong: Every once in a while defending champs fall flat the next year. I don't think Mike Tomlin will allow that to happen.
Baltimore Ravens
Why this might be right: With rookie quarterback Joe Flacco the Ravens made it all the way to the AFC Championship. If he can avoid a sophomore slump and Ray Rice takes over as the number one running back, they should be able to win 10-plus again.
Why this might be wrong: Their defense looked old at times last year, and they are all one year older now. They retained Terrell Suggs, but lost Bart Scott to the Jets. And what happens if Flacco takes a step back?
Cincinnati Bengals
Why this might be right: There are a number of reasons why this probably is right. The Bengals defense looks improved, and Carson Palmer will play at least one game, but it's tough to imagine Cincinnati winning more than six games.
Why this might be wrong: Maybe the Browns will win seven games.
Cleveland Browns
Why this might be right: The Browns were awful last year after an off season of high expectations. They didn't improve in many places, unless Brady Quinn can start completing more passes.
Why this might be wrong: Maybe the Bengals won't win any games at all.
AFC South:
Tennessee Titans
Why this might be right: The Titans built their 2008 success around good defense and a solid running attack. If Kerry Collins continues to play well, they should win 10-plus.
Why this might be wrong: Collins is 37 entering the season. If Vince Young has to step in, it's not realistic to assume they will play as well as last year.
Indianapolis Colts
Why this might be right: Even without all their coaches and Marvin Harrison, the Colts still have Payton Manning. Their offense will still be in the top half of the league.
Why this might be wrong: The Colts could win the division, depending on how Tennessee goes. If it turns out that they really miss Tony Dungy and Tom Moore, they could miss the playoffs.
Houston Texans
Why this might be right: With Matt Schaub in the lineup, Houston's offense is almost unstoppable. But that hasn't really resulted in a lot of wins for them.
Why this might be wrong: If the defense steps up, Houston could win nine or 10 games. If the offense falters, they could lose nine or 10 games.
Jacksonville Jaguars
Why this might be right: There's not a lot to be excited about with the Jaguars. Two years ago they were a young and hungry team that kept beating the league's best. Last year they were awful. They are even further from that exciting 2007 team, in everyway.
Why this might be wrong: I am pretty sure the Jaguars will finish last in the AFC South.
AFC West:
San Diego Chargers
Why this might be right: Everybody calls San Diego "the most talented team in the NFL." Whatever. They are surely the most talented team in the awful AFC West, and it would be inexplicable if they didn't win this division.
Why this might be wrong: The Chargers would have to mess up almost everything to not finish in first place. Or one of the AFC West's awful teams would have to shock the entire league and overtake San Diego.
Kansas City Chiefs
Why this might be right: Matt Cassell should bring some stability to the Chiefs offense. Last year they were in most games through the first three quarters, but couldn't finish anybody off. It wouldn't be a complete shock if they won eight games.
Why this might be wrong: If they have not improved from last year at all on defense.
Oakland Raiders
Why this might be right: The only thing that Oakland has going for them is that Denver is in complete rebuilding mode; that will keep Oakland out of last place.
Why this might be wrong: Oakland's defense has been very stingy the last few years, so if JaMarcus Russell (or Jeff Garcia) starts to figure things out, they might win some games.
Denver Broncos
Why this might be right: Mike Shanahan is gone. Jay Cutler is gone. They have one of the worst defenses in recent history.
Why this might be wrong: The Broncos might be the worst team in the NFL this season. Maybe the Raiders will be worse?
NFC East:
New York Giants
Why this might be right: The Giants defensive line is frighteningly good. And that is a great place to start. I believe that Eli Manning is a bit overrated, but he is a very good quarterback, and thats another nice jumping-off point.
Why this might be wrong: The Eagles will be right on their heels, and Washington and Dallas will both be challenges, at home and on the road.
Philadelphia Eagles
Why this might be right: Donovan McNabb looked great at the end of last season, and if he carries that over, the Eagles are a playoff team.
Why this might be wrong: With the death of Jim Johnson, the Eagles defense will fall off a little. If they lose their edge, there might be some shootouts in their future.
Dallas Cowboys
Why this might be right: The Cowboys are inconsistent. They never seem to take that final step towards being an elite team.
Why this might be wrong: If the pieces ever do come together, they are as 'talented' as any NFC team.
Washington
Why this might be right: Washington is not a bad team, but there are three teams in their division that are better.
Why this might be wrong: Jason Campbell is capable of being a top tier quarterback. If he brings it, they will challenge any team in the league.
NFC North:
Minnesota Vikings
Why this might be right: The Vikings are stacked at every position except quarterback. Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor will rush for a combined 2,000 yards, and rookie Percy Harvin looks great according to all reports.
Why this might be wrong: The Vikings are stacked at every position except quarterback. If Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels can't stay out of the way, they could be looking at another wildcard loss.
Chicago Bears
Why this might be right: Jay Cutler.
Why this might be wrong: The Bears defense looked a little old and slow last year, and had trouble stopping the run. They are older and likely slower this year. Cutler proved last year that he can't carry a poor defense on his own.
Green Bay Packers
Why this might be right: The Packers have a solid quarterback and a solid defense, but they are not outstanding anywhere. Ryan Grant will get worn down, and Aaron Rodgers will have to carry the load.
Why this might be wrong: If the switch to a 3-4 defense works, they can certainly go 10-6 and win this division.
Detroit Lions
Why this might be right: 0-16
Why this might be wrong: If the Packers switch to a 3-4 defense is a massive failure, which is possible, the Lions might be able to sneak into third place.
NFC South:
Carolina Panthers
Why this might be right: The Panthers are like the Titans and Giants. They run the ball well and play good enough defense.
Why this might be wrong: I hate Jake Delhomme as a starting quarterback in the NFL. He will eventually sink this ship, whether it is early or in the playoffs.
Atlanta Falcons
Why this might be right: A lot of talent here already, and they added future hall-of-famer Tony Gonzalez.
Why this might be wrong: Matt Ryan might hit a sophomore slump, though I doubt it. If they go anywhere, it will be up.
Why this might be wrong: The Chargers would have to mess up almost everything to not finish in first place. Or one of the AFC West's awful teams would have to shock the entire league and overtake San Diego.
Kansas City Chiefs
Why this might be right: Matt Cassell should bring some stability to the Chiefs offense. Last year they were in most games through the first three quarters, but couldn't finish anybody off. It wouldn't be a complete shock if they won eight games.
Why this might be wrong: If they have not improved from last year at all on defense.
Oakland Raiders
Why this might be right: The only thing that Oakland has going for them is that Denver is in complete rebuilding mode; that will keep Oakland out of last place.
Why this might be wrong: Oakland's defense has been very stingy the last few years, so if JaMarcus Russell (or Jeff Garcia) starts to figure things out, they might win some games.
Denver Broncos
Why this might be right: Mike Shanahan is gone. Jay Cutler is gone. They have one of the worst defenses in recent history.
Why this might be wrong: The Broncos might be the worst team in the NFL this season. Maybe the Raiders will be worse?
NFC East:
New York Giants
Why this might be right: The Giants defensive line is frighteningly good. And that is a great place to start. I believe that Eli Manning is a bit overrated, but he is a very good quarterback, and thats another nice jumping-off point.
Why this might be wrong: The Eagles will be right on their heels, and Washington and Dallas will both be challenges, at home and on the road.
Philadelphia Eagles
Why this might be right: Donovan McNabb looked great at the end of last season, and if he carries that over, the Eagles are a playoff team.
Why this might be wrong: With the death of Jim Johnson, the Eagles defense will fall off a little. If they lose their edge, there might be some shootouts in their future.
Dallas Cowboys
Why this might be right: The Cowboys are inconsistent. They never seem to take that final step towards being an elite team.
Why this might be wrong: If the pieces ever do come together, they are as 'talented' as any NFC team.
Washington
Why this might be right: Washington is not a bad team, but there are three teams in their division that are better.
Why this might be wrong: Jason Campbell is capable of being a top tier quarterback. If he brings it, they will challenge any team in the league.
NFC North:
Minnesota Vikings
Why this might be right: The Vikings are stacked at every position except quarterback. Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor will rush for a combined 2,000 yards, and rookie Percy Harvin looks great according to all reports.
Why this might be wrong: The Vikings are stacked at every position except quarterback. If Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels can't stay out of the way, they could be looking at another wildcard loss.
Chicago Bears
Why this might be right: Jay Cutler.
Why this might be wrong: The Bears defense looked a little old and slow last year, and had trouble stopping the run. They are older and likely slower this year. Cutler proved last year that he can't carry a poor defense on his own.
Green Bay Packers
Why this might be right: The Packers have a solid quarterback and a solid defense, but they are not outstanding anywhere. Ryan Grant will get worn down, and Aaron Rodgers will have to carry the load.
Why this might be wrong: If the switch to a 3-4 defense works, they can certainly go 10-6 and win this division.
Detroit Lions
Why this might be right: 0-16
Why this might be wrong: If the Packers switch to a 3-4 defense is a massive failure, which is possible, the Lions might be able to sneak into third place.
NFC South:
Carolina Panthers
Why this might be right: The Panthers are like the Titans and Giants. They run the ball well and play good enough defense.
Why this might be wrong: I hate Jake Delhomme as a starting quarterback in the NFL. He will eventually sink this ship, whether it is early or in the playoffs.
Atlanta Falcons
Why this might be right: A lot of talent here already, and they added future hall-of-famer Tony Gonzalez.
Why this might be wrong: Matt Ryan might hit a sophomore slump, though I doubt it. If they go anywhere, it will be up.
New Orleans Saints
Why this might be right: Basically they are a stats team. Not a lot of reasons to believe they will win.
Why this might be wrong: Drew Brees does provide stability at quarterback, and if they score like last season, they will stay in most games.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Why this might be right: No quarterback, a new coach, and constant running back injuries.
Why this might be wrong: I can't think of any reasons.
NFC West:
Arizona Cardinals
Why this might be right: Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin...
Why this might be wrong: Kurt Warner is a year older and coming off a hip surgery. Matt Leinert is not capable of sustained success.
Seattle Seahawks
Why this might be right: Matt Hasselbeck won't let this team stay so far down, and their receiving corps is very good when healthy.
Why this might be wrong: They lost a lot last year, they could repeat that performance.
St. Louis Rams
Why this might be right: The Rams do have some good players and when Mark Bulger is on, he is a top quarterback in the NFC.
Why this might be wrong: They have shown over the last two years that they can play some really ugly football.
San Francisco 49ers
Why this might be right: Mike Singletary means well, but his heavy hand will steer the 49ers into the ground early.
Why this might be wrong: I do expect a relatively quick start, and maybe that will be enough to keep their hopes a live into December.
The End.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)