Sports Illustrated - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Sports Illustrated

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:19 pm

TheRawDAWG wrote:Only a Pats fan could take the hits you've taken this offseason and actually say you got better. Thats classic.



I have to agree - that is pretty funny.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby s0meguy » Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:42 pm

The Eagles depend on TO so much...I think whether or not he plays makes a 2-4 game difference in record.
Ragin Cajuns on year #4
s0meguy
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 473
Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby eaglesrule » Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:59 pm

s0meguy wrote:The Eagles depend on TO so much...I think whether or not he plays makes a 2-4 game difference in record.


do you pay attention? He clearly didn't make a 2-4 game difference, the math doesn't support it, given that the eagles won 12 games the previous two seasons without him.

Last I checked, they made the NFC championship three years prior to Owens, and made the Super Bowl without him. It is a fallacy that gets repeated around sports media that is frankly, getting annoying. Owens makes the team more explosive, and is definitely an asset. But they would still win a lot of games without him, just not by the margins that they have.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby TheRawDAWG » Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:21 pm

eaglesrule wrote:
s0meguy wrote:The Eagles depend on TO so much...I think whether or not he plays makes a 2-4 game difference in record.


do you pay attention? He clearly didn't make a 2-4 game difference, the math doesn't support it, given that the eagles won 12 games the previous two seasons without him.

Last I checked, they made the NFC championship three years prior to Owens, and made the Super Bowl without him. It is a fallacy that gets repeated around sports media that is frankly, getting annoying. Owens makes the team more explosive, and is definitely an asset. But they would still win a lot of games without him, just not by the margins that they have.


I would have to say this year is a little different. Without Owens they don't have any WRs. Now I know Thrash, Pinkston and Mitchell weren't great but they would have to be better than the guys they would trot out there if TO wasn't there. Greg Lewis is a decent WR but as a #1? Come on, no way. Without TO this team would be in alot of trouble on Offence. Without TO Greg Lewis was a 3rd WRs last year. this year he'd be #1. Thats saying something.

I agree the Eagles would still win alot of games maybe 10....maybe, without TO. But with him they could easily win 12. Which is a 2 game swing at least IMO. I don't think he would make a 4 game swing, but 2 is defiantely possible.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
TheRawDAWG
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1599
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Up in Canada

Postby eaglesrule » Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:26 pm

fair points, and I understand why poeple felt that way. But at the same time, the front office has been pretty damn good when identifying young talent. And of course, the true number two is westbrook anyway.

you do realize EVERYONE was making this very point when they let taylor and vincent go right?

And the eagles have been making the plyoffs forever without good wr's. The defense alone is good enough (second in the nfl in points allowed) to make it.

fair points though, I just think 10-6 is ridiculous, and the reasoning for it is ridiculous.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby RubeRiot » Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:43 pm

No offense guys, but I think Dr. Z probably knows more that most of you about predicting football games. Any of you getting paid to write for the nations biggest sports publication?

It sounds like half of you are pulling numbers out of your butts without even breaking down team schedules. If you think a team is going to win more games that SI predicted, then post their season opponents, and indicate which games you think will be Wins or Losses...this should be hilarious!!!

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but COME ON!!!
RubeRiot
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 651
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby ironman » Fri Sep 02, 2005 4:03 pm

The only thing more absurd than Dr. Z's predictions is Dr. Z's fantasy advice.
Image
ironman
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
Cafe RankerPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 805
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dubuque

Postby 34=Sweetness » Fri Sep 02, 2005 4:15 pm

OToddWalker wrote:
giantdogs92 wrote:i think its reasonable to say the bears could be anywhere from 6-10 to 8-8



'fraid not giantdog. i'm not sure what 6-8 teams they are going to beat... look for 3-13 to 5-11


Regular season record is not important, just get in the playoffs and go from there. The PATS will do it again, and I'm not just being a foolish Boston fan. Eaglefan, or whoever, argued that the Eagles didn't change much... but, the Patriots got better, somehow. We're loaded (Brady doesn't need much, Branch was injured half of last season) at receiver now, and we don't have a WR in our defense. "Last time I checked, they still have Tom Brady. Quite frankly, that's all you need" --- the muppet Stephen A. Smith.

Washington, Detroit once-twice, Cleveland, maybe Cincy, New Orleans, San Fran, probably Green Bay once. Tampa Bay ain't too amazing either. I don't think they will win all of those, but I think anyone who thinks they will be worse than last year really is fooling themselves. The defense and offense improved, and somehow they get worse?
ImageImage
34=Sweetness
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 4738
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: AKA CubsFan7724

Postby UtopianHopes » Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:21 pm

BigMusky wrote:
34=Sweetness wrote:
Sixxgunn wrote:The Bears 32 under SF? Gimme a freakin break. Our defense alone will keep us from finishing that low. SI writers must be gay.

Yeah, thats ridiculous. They'll be better than SF, Miami, and Cleveland for sure at least.



I think if Orton can be somewhat a decent QB then the bears will be around 500...and 9-7 with a playoff game is not out of the question. If he sucks it up, or gets hurt and we see anyone else start this year then it will be bad season and they might finish last.


Thinking rationally. I would rank the division as 1. vikings, 2. packers, 3. lions, and 4. bears. Now let say they actually beat the lions and move up to 3rd in the division. That by itself still wouldn't equal playoffs. As the odds are against you in 3 teams from the same division making the playoffs.

If you want to compare bottom teams of each division then yeah bears got a chance to go 5-10 and be better then sf, miami, and cleveland.
UtopianHopes
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 361
Joined: 29 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby tpetty6320 » Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:34 pm

eaglesrule wrote:fair points, and I understand why poeple felt that way. But at the same time, the front office has been pretty damn good when identifying young talent. And of course, the true number two is westbrook anyway.

you do realize EVERYONE was making this very point when they let taylor and vincent go right?

And the eagles have been making the plyoffs forever without good wr's. The defense alone is good enough (second in the nfl in points allowed) to make it.

fair points though, I just think 10-6 is ridiculous, and the reasoning for it is ridiculous.


the eagles took advantage of a bunch of weak teams last year and were lucky that the falcons played their second worst game of the year against them for the NFC (i am sticking to my guns on that one..lol). there is no way they are winning 12 games this year and i put them at about 10 also considering the fact almost everyone will be better this year. Actually i predict either the falcons or panthers winning the NFC, but i am a falcons fan so it doesnt really count. i have already bought tickets for MNF to watch the dirty birds kick the hell out of the gay green birds of philly............
tpetty6320
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 299
Joined: 25 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: altanta

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 10:55 hours
(and 44 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact