Teams that are overhyped/underhyped

[Stafford4Pres]

9 hours ago, megatechpc said:

Your underhyped teams are a little off though.  Stafford is still a top-10 QB IMO, but the Lions haven't really done enough for me to consider them legit threats in their own division, the Colts are being hyped a bunch because Luck is back but we still need to see him actually perform for real first, the Falcons have the best roster talent in the entire NFL IMO, but they still have a gigantic question mark with Sark because I think he might be one of the worst OC's in the league, the Dolphins won't win 5 games this year, the Seahawks are ALWAYS hyped to the heavens because of Wilson but there is literally no team surrounding him, and the Saints can't be UNDERhyped because they have been so massively OVERhyped this offseason.

Those are just my opinions though, could be totally wrong about some of them.

One of the reasons I like for the Lions to outperform their vegas line (7.5) is because they won 9 games last year despite being ranked 32nd in rushing, Stafford playing hurt in multiple games upon being one of the most sacked and hurried quarterbacks in the league, and they added some nice pieces and returned some starters (Deshawn Shead, Devon Kennard, Legarrette Blount, Sylvester Williams, Frank Ragnow, Kerryon Johnson, and their starting left tackle returns from a season in which he was injured for half the year)  while losing very little to free agency. I disagree with the colts because vegas has them at 6.5 which indicates that the public views them as the worst team in their division but I think they have a chance to win or place second. I agree with your view of the Falcons and I think, since the OC was so bad last year, there's really nowhere to go but up, especially with all of the talent on the offense. I like the Dolphins because of their division, young talent, and because Ryan Tannehill is an upgrade over Cutler. The public is also low on them after losing star players like Suh and Landry but I don't think it will be a big enough factor to keep the from going over their line of 6.5. The seahawks are underhyped in my opinion because they lost Kam Chancellor, Michael Bennett, and Richard Sherman and it's to be expected that losing 3 players of that caliber would mean regression but I think they could duplicate their win total from last year or even surpass it mainly because if their o-line can do even marginally better then Russell Wilson will find a way to win 9-10 games. The saints are hyped but I just think that they are a top 3 team rather than a top 8-10 team like their vegas line indicates.

[Stafford4Pres]

9 hours ago, jrry32 said:

That actually sounds quite accurate.

Remember that this is my opinion compared to the betting public. The saints are perceived as a top 8 team, while I view them as a top 3 team, and the best team in the NFC. The public believes that the eagles, vikings, packers, steelers, rams, and patriots will win more games than the saints. The patriots or steelers may achieve that due to being in the weaker conference and having top 5 rosters but I don't believe that will be the case with the rest of those teams.

The Vikings maintained an unusually healthy roster last year and suffered almost no major injuries to their starters with the exception of Dalvin Cook, Sharrif Floyd, and Sam Bradford. That will likely change this year due to the nature of the NFL. They are also in the strongest division and conference in the NFL and will have a 1st place schedule this year. The Rams had a much easier schedule last year than they will have this year and are relying on the additions of big name players to help them get to the playoffs (they won't get that far) and advance past the first round. The Steelers, along with having a weak draft, lost Martavis Bryant and their defense was one of the weaker units in the NFL during the second half of the season. They still have a great roster and a great offense but I see them repressing a bit this year. The eagles have a lot of hype after winning the superbowl and, as expected, the public is very high on them and they are expected to win the division again. I don't see them performing as well as they did last year and I don't expect Carson Wentz to have an MVP-Caliber season again. Remember in his rookie season he threw only 16 touchdowns to 14 interceptions and had a total qbr of 46.7 on the year which was 26th out of 30 lower than Osweiler, Siemian, Dalton, Flacco, Tannehill, Kaepernick, Palmer, and many others. The Packers are the one team most I view as most likely to prove me wrong because of Aaron Rodgers, but they are relying on a very young roster around him. 

[TENINCH]

52 minutes ago, Stafford4Pres said:

Remember that this is my opinion compared to the betting public. The saints are perceived as a top 8 team, while I view them as a top 3 team, and the best team in the NFC. The public believes that the eagles, vikings, packers, steelers, rams, and patriots will win more games than the saints. The patriots or steelers may achieve that due to being in the weaker conference and having top 5 rosters but I don't believe that will be the case with the rest of those teams.

The Vikings maintained an unusually healthy roster last year and suffered almost no major injuries to their starters with the exception of Dalvin Cook, Sharrif Floyd, and Sam Bradford. That will likely change this year due to the nature of the NFL.

We still get the Lions and Bears twice. That's 4 wins!

[jrry32]

57 minutes ago, Stafford4Pres said:

The Rams had a much easier schedule last year than they will have this year  

Uhhh, what? The Rams played only 6 games against teams with losing records last year while playing 8 games against teams with winning records. The Rams had a pretty tough schedule last year. It's possible the Rams play a tougher schedule this year, but it's also possible that they play an easier schedule.

1 hour ago, Stafford4Pres said:

and are relying on the additions of big name players to help them get to the playoffs (they won't get that far) and advance past the first round.

The Rams made the playoffs last year without the big name additions, so this is a weak point. They're relying on the big name additions to help them get over the hump in the playoffs (as well as experience). I don't see three All Pro defenders hurting them in that regard. We shall see how far they get. I haven't seen you make a single decent argument as to why they won't get far.

[Cheesehawk]

10 hours ago, megatechpc said:

With Atlanta, you can't only consider Freeman when discussing their RB talent.  The "star" of that position is the Freeman/Coleman combination.  They are both individually good, but as a tandem they are among the best in the league.  I also didn't mean stars at each individual OL position; Mack is the only "star" on the OL, but the unit as a whole has been rated very highly for two years now.  I also consider the DL as a unit, with Beasley (as a total sack leader in 2016) a star and Grady Jarrett as well, but the whole line is very good, if a little under-sized.  But individually there are legit stars at WR (Julio, Sanu, possibly Ridley), CB (Trufant and Alford), S (Neal and Allen), LB (Jones and Campbell), and obviously QB (Matt Ryan, who I rank as the #6 QB in football).  As I said, we are young at TE but I think Hooper will find a lot of space this year and have a breakout season.

I agree with you about Sarkisian for sure.  DQ has proven he knows how to construct a roster, how to spot talent, how to motivate his players, and how to navigate his team to AND through the post season.  But Sark was borderline incompetent at times last year and will really need to show he can construct an imaginitive and coherent scheme week-to-week to prove to me the Falcons didn't make a huge mistake in not changing directions at OC this offseason.  His play-calling (particularly vs the Eagles in the playoffs) was simply baffling to me and it legitimately cost us at least 2 games during the regular season.  

But as far as the overall talent on the roster goes, I stand by my statement that the Falcons have the best one in the NFL (and I know that's a homer opinion but its not a crazy one).

Seems like we need a solid revisit to what defines a star because you are reaching so hard, this is ridiculous. You have a better argument that there are no stars on the Falcons than arguing all of those guys you listed. 

[stl4life07]

10 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Uhhh, what? The Rams played only 6 games against teams with losing records last year while playing 8 games against teams with winning records. The Rams had a pretty tough schedule last year. It's possible the Rams play a tougher schedule this year, but it's also possible that they play an easier schedule.

The Rams made the playoffs last year without the big name additions, so this is a weak point. They're relying on the big name additions to help them get over the hump in the playoffs (as well as experience). I don't see three All Pro defenders hurting them in that regard. We shall see how far they get. I haven't seen you make a single decent argument as to why they won't get far.

Ill take it one step forward, people questioned the Rams offseason last year. Hiring the youngest coach in the NFL history. Most thought it wouldnt work because history wasnt good when it comes to youngest coaches becoming the head coach. Most thought McVay couldnt handle the locker room full of guys that were closest to his age. Then people said the Rams overpaid for Woods who hasnt done anything. People questioned why would a rebuilding team sign a 35yr old left tackle in Whitworth. People questioned the Rams trading for Watkins who hasnt been able to stay healthy. People questioned the Rams draft which they took Everett 2nd round after already having Higbee. So its not like people thought last offseason was perfect and this offseason is full of questions. People dont want to talk about last offseason because hindsight is 20/20 and the Rams proved that they knew what they were doing when they made those moves last offseason. I think they deserve some benefit of the doubt but for some they still get none for this offseason.

As for the schedules, I agree, last season was tough. People forget the Rams had a stretch where they went to Jacksonville, traveled to London to play the Cards, went to the Giants, before coming back home to play the Texans. They were away from home for an entire month. They were the most traveled team in the NFL last season. At least this season they wont leave the west coast until Week 9 when they travel to New Orleans. Thats great for a west coast time. Most of the Rams tougher games will be at home. I will take that.

[jvmillion83]

30 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

As for the schedules, I agree, last season was tough. People forget the Rams had a stretch where they went to Jacksonville, traveled to London to play the Cards, went to the Giants, before coming back home to play the Texans. They were away from home for an entire month. They were the most traveled team in the NFL last season. At least this season they wont leave the west coast until Week 9 when they travel to New Orleans. Thats great for a west coast time. Most of the Rams tougher games will be at home. I will take that.

A lot of travel but how difficult was the competition really against a Cards team already without David Johnson and Palmer gets knocked out of that game and then facing a Giants team that already completely gave up on the season and then facing a decimated Texans team at the right time with no Watson, Watt etc

[Danger]

2 hours ago, Stafford4Pres said:

Remember in his rookie season he threw only 16 touchdowns to 14 interceptions and had a total qbr of 46.7 on the year

All of your credibility is now lost.

[Danger]

Underhyped: Lions, Bears, Falcons, Browns

Overhyped: 49ers, Chiefs, Packers, Patriots

[stl4life07]

16 minutes ago, jvmillion83 said:

A lot of travel but how difficult was the competition really against a Cards team already without David Johnson and Palmer gets knocked out of that game and then facing a Giants team that already completely gave up on the season and then facing a decimated Texans team at the right time with no Watson, Watt etc

Again you are looking at hindsight. I am talking about before the season started and people looking at the schedule. The only thing we knew for certain before the season started was Luck wasnt going to be ready for Week 1. Outside of that nobody knew any of those things you are mentioning that happened. 

[jrry32]

41 minutes ago, jvmillion83 said:

A lot of travel but how difficult was the competition really against a Cards team already without David Johnson and Palmer gets knocked out of that game and then facing a Giants team that already completely gave up on the season and then facing a decimated Texans team at the right time with no Watson, Watt etc

They also had the stretch where they played NO, Minnesota, and Philly over a four game period. And Arizona went 8-8 last year, so let's not pretend that they were a cupcake.

[TENINCH]

Some people watch too much preseason and start feeling good about where their team or another team is at. Just throw it out the window and wait until week 8 to decide where you're team is at.

[Spartacus]

9 minutes ago, TENINCH said:

Some people watch too much preseason and start feeling good about where their team or another team is at. Just throw it out the window and wait until week 8 to decide where you're team is at.

I generally agree with this but it does give you some insight into the rookies that are important for the team. Josh Jackson and Jaire Alexander have both flashed in preseason consistently. That's important to see because they will be playing some major minutes for the Packers this year. 

[stl4life07]

58 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I generally agree with this but it does give you some insight into the rookies that are important for the team. Josh Jackson and Jaire Alexander have both flashed in preseason consistently. That's important to see because they will be playing some major minutes for the Packers this year. 

I agree. I feel the same way about John Kelly. He is as advertised. As great as Gurley is, what Kelly is showing me is if something was to happen to Gurley or just if he needs a breather, the Rams have someone to go too. If not for nothing, the Rams have themselves another weapon on offense for defenses to have to deal with. Kelly looks like the real deal and I see why people are so high on him and crushed he went to the Rams and not go to a running back needy team to be their starter. 

[Leoric]

Surprised how many times I saw the Chargers mentioned as over hyped being as though the announcers, EA Games and probably most fans still think they are playing in San Diego. I expect the homeless Chargers to be a middle of the road team. That could change if the soccer stadium team continues to struggle to find someone that can kick a ball. For a team that plays 16 away games a year being middle of the road should be considered a success.