See Red

It's in their history? How so? The loss to Pittsburgh in the AFC Championship game a few years back was at home. The '97 team won in Kansas City in the second round and then Pittsburgh in the AFC Championship game on their way to the Super Bowl. The drive happened in Cleveland. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to see what makes you say that. This Broncos team isn't going to win the AFC regardless. Even if this defense gets better, I don't see it happening. But the core of that offense is very young -- Cutler, Scheffler, Marshall, and Royal (plus, plug in whatever RB over time) -- and if they can improve the defense they have a shot in the next few years.

Yeah, we'll see. I hope the defense gets a bit better. If they can win 2 of 3 out of Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, and New England -- which is a realistic possibility, they'll be 6-1 heading into their bye (with a win next week against KC assumed, that is). After the bye, they have Miami, Cleveland, Atlanta, Oakland, the Jets, and Kansas City -- all very winnable games. So they could win 11 or 12 games pretty easily since their schedule is pretty weak. edit: Speaking of the Broncos defense -- on ESPN it mentions how they're trying to implement a 3-4, and how they have the type of players that can be successful, it's just a matter of the players getting more comfortable in their roles.

That's pretty crazy. When was the last time the Sox lost 6 straight games?

Great start for the Jets... a pick six. edit: Brett Favre sucks. edit again: Brett Favre really sucks.

The Broncos sold out every game over a 36 year stretch. That was as of 2006... I'm not sure if that streak is still active -- I would assume it is considering I haven't seen a single Broncos home game blacked out and there's such a long wait for season tickets. The point is, it's not that impressive in the NFL. Teams sellout every week -- it's more notable when a team doesn't sell out. In fact, well over 90% of NFL games are sold out. I would guess there may have been a dozen non sellouts last season -- with the majority of them belonging to the Jaguars.

If Big Ben is out for an extended period of time, Pittsburgh is done. The Statuesque Byron Leftwich (slow release and all) + That terrible Steelers O-Line = Disaster for the Steelers.

Equally impressive. Green Bay because it spans over more time -- bad seasons included, and it's a larger stadium. The Red Sox because there's 81 home games in a season -- and the fact that so few teams have proven capable of doing it.

That punt by McBriar was incredible. On Fox this morning they were ranking the top young QB's, and everybody had Romo ahead of Cutler. I understand Romo's had the better stats, and more wins, but would anybody in their right mind really take Romo ahead of Cutler?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the LSU go three and out on the drive following the onside kick? I didn't like the idea of playing the two QB's by Les Miles -- especially since the difference between the two is one is marginally more mobile than the other. I think the idea of two QB's is really only a good idea when the two have differing skill sets. Then again, the backup did come up big in that second half. :dunno:

I don't know how much this had to do with anything -- but I think it's interesting how the Brewers were rolling up through C.C.'s non no-no, and then the Brewers made such a big stink about it, kind of bringing negatives into what should've been a very positive atmosphere, and since then the Brewers are, like, 3-11. Personally, I kind of like the move. It really can go either way in regards to the affect it has on the team, but really, I think they needed to do something to light a fire under them.

What a play by McNabb on that ten yard scramble. And as for Desean Jackson, yeah, he's an idiot. But this kid looks to have the makings of a very good NFL player -- right up to the "look at me" attitude you'd expect from a WR.

They'll be fine when Rodriguez gets his athletes in there. Nobody in the Big Elev... err, Ten... can stop the spread. Speaking of the Big Ten... USC - 35 Ohio State - 3 I figured USC would win relatively easily, but I figured Ohio State would keep it somewhat interesting.

That's like the new Colts stadium... http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BG&Date=20080716&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=80716028&Ref=AR&MaxW=320 Gotta imagine the guy bolting those seats down might've noticed the obstructed view.

The consensus? They would be one of the worst in the league. And given the goings on in the league, week one doesn't look like a particularly great job of how good any team is going to be. But if you want to use that to decide who'll be good and who'll be bad, well, needing a goalline stand to beat a very bad team hardly suggests a 10-6 team -- I'd advise you not to look so deep into week one. And Crunchy, yeah, it's tougher to stop the run when you're not playing to stop the run. Is it not also easier to stop the pass when every play becomes a passing down? Aren't those stats skewed too? Or does that only work one way?

Because last years Redskins defense was a whopping 17 yards and 2 points per game worse than last years Patriots without the benefit of knowing the other team had to throw the ball damn near every play after the second quarter -- keep in mind the Patriots were one of the worst in the league in terms of Yards Per Carry against and they very obviously struggled against the run in games in which the opponents didn't have to abandon it before the second half. And while I'm sure you'll throw at me some insane scenario in which losing one of the best CB's in the league is a good thing, they DID lose one of the best CB's in the league in Asante Samuel. His replacement? A rookie. Or Deltha O'Neal... but I'm a Broncos fan who already suffered through Deltha O'Neal... I'd take the rookie. As far as the Todd Collins point goes, it's kind of moot, isn't it? Matt Cassel isn't going to throw 16 TD's and 0 picks this year... and more importantly, he doesn't get to play the Chiefs every game. 9 cupcakes on the schedule... ALL of them better than the team the Patriots needed a goal line stand to squeak by. At home. Against THEIR backup QB. He's good enough to be the backup on the best team in football based on, what, practice? Please. Or was it the sterling 56.6 QB rating he had against first string offenses running vanilla defensive schemes in the preseason? I don't bring that up as a stat to prove anything... I bring that up to ask what has this guy proven?

I think the Skins defense from last year will be better than the Patriots this year, there really wasn't that much difference between the two last year, even, and the Pats had the benefit of knowing their opponents had to pass quite a bit more. And to be fair, if Dallas isn't resting their guys in week 17 the Skins are probably 8-8. With the wins against the Vikings, Giants, and Bears coming with Todd Collins at the helm, which while not spectacular, he gave them 5 TD's and 0 INT's in the game's he played, so he did play pretty well for them. He gave them a little better, imo, in three of those four games than than what Cassell gave the Pats in the game in which they barely scraped by against the Chiefs. And I also don't think Seattle will be as bad as they looked in week one, so they could give the Pats trouble.

Besides, one of the "millions of things" going through Wilfork's mind on that play was undoubtedly 'get to, and hit, the QB' because, well, that was his job on that play. Maybe no intent to injure, but I do think there was an attempt to get his elbow in there.

Never saw those guys play, unfortunately (or fortunately?)... And should they? The "should loses" seem pretty automatic... Indy, SD, and Pittsburgh. San Diego's a favorite because, well, they've won, like, 7 straight against the Broncos and the last time they hung up about 50 on the Broncos. Although Denver really did impress against Oakland, even when you consider how much Oakland sucks. DeAngelo Hall's a good CB and his attempt at covering Eddie Royal was laughable. Should be fun with him opposite of Brandon Marshall.

But you know what? All those guys are better than Matt Cassell, who hasn't started a football game since his Senior year of High School. But he'll be alright, because of, what, pregame action against second stringers and vanilla defensive schemes? They struggled against the run last year, which became apparent in games where their opponents didn't have to abandon the run in the second quarter, at times they struggled to run the ball, which will only be harder to do when the secondary doesn't have to put so much attention into stopping the pass. When their defense had to play honest for an entire game, they didn't look great. You say 11-5 but I can find five losses in my opinion on their schedule easily -- at least one against Buffalo, at least one against the Jets, San Diego, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis, and that's suggesting they win all the games they should, which is near impossible in the NFL. And if you really want to discount Indy and San Diego after week one losses, you have to look at the fact that the Patriots barely beat the worst team in football at home. And really, even though Denver's only going to be an 8-8, 9-7 team, that's still a very tough matchup for the Patriots. This is the NFL... Belichick isn't the only guy with a clue... teams are going to make Cassell beat them until he proves they can. And yeah, ORS, Tom Brady was *only* a 25/15 guy before last year... but if Cassell goes 15/15 or worse, that's 70 points right there alone, and there's a lot of reason to suspect defense really isn't near as good as it was on those 14-2 teams. Cassell can't read a defense or control a game like Tom Brady. I would ask Patriots fans the same question you asked me... either Tom Brady is one of the all-time greats, better than Peyton and all that jazz or he's replaceable by one of the worst QB's in the league. Which is it? They don't go from being a great to a good team... 10-6 is entirely possible... but that doesn't mean they'll be a good team. Just a decent team with an easy schedule.