Teams that are overhyped/underhyped

[MrOaktown_56]

28 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

No ill will to the Raiders, but I'd love to see Goff come out and rip your defense to shreds. I'm tired of the disrespect he still gets from too many people.

No offense taken. I want to see Carr play well against the Rams defense so all the garbage comments ("oh he only plays well with elite receivers and OL") stop. Easier said than done.

[megatechpc]

16 hours ago, Stafford4Pres said:

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.

You could be right about the Lions.  I ranked Stafford as the #9 best QB in the NFL in my recent QB rankings and I think he is generally very underrated as a player.  I just don't know about all the other pieces of that team that AREN'T Stafford, like Patricia (no idea how he'll do as a HC), Blount (he should be an upgrade at RB, but I don't know if he will necessarily be a game-changer for them at the position), the receivers (Tate's a great possession guy but doesn't really stretch the field, their TE's are average at best and their RB's won't be big threats in the passing game), the defense is still pretty suspect overall (not bad, but not great either), and like the Browns they simply struggle with that "losing-team" jinx seemingly every year.  But you made some good points and perhaps this is the year they really put it all together.  And they did finish with 9 wins last season.

The Colts will go as Luck goes this season, so hype doesn't really matter.  If he is back to pre-injury form they will be a 10-win team and challenge for the South title; if he is still not 100% physically, or he is hesitant and constantly worrying about cutting it loose then they could be in for a long season.  I get the feeling that Indy moreso than any other team this year will be totally at the mercy of psychology and that is impossible to predict until we see real games (though for what its worth, he has showed troubling signs in preseason).

The Falcons will go as far as Sark's schemes take them this year, plain and simple.  Defensively they will be top-10 (possibly top-5) so I have no worries at all on that side of the ball, but if they can't get guys open downfield like they did in 2016 they will probably perform about the same as last year; good but not great.  Matt Ryan suffered through an inordinate amount of horrible luck last year with drop-INT's and you have to figure that won't happen again, and Sark can't really be any worse than he was last year so having a full season under his belt should make him at least a little better, but I still don't expect anything like Kyle's system's success this season.  

The Dolphins are going to be absolutely awful, I'm sticking by that one.

Russell Wilson will win a few games this year single-handedly because he is just great, but I still think the Seahawks are easily the worst team in the West this year (yes, even worse than the Cardinals and 49ers) and I could see them having a losing record for the first time in Russ' career.

The Saints are a great team this year if (and its a big if) all of the rookie sensations from last year play at the same level they did a year ago.  I personally think Kamara will take a step back this year, especially having to carry the full load for the first 3 games due to Ingram's suspension, Lattimore will probably not be as dominating again just because the WR's in his division have enough experience against him now and will adjust, and Marcus Williams probably won't have as many INT's this year as he did last year.  I think Ramczyk is the real deal on the OL though, and for all I know ALL of those young players will play even better this year, so its still safe to rank the Saints in the top-5 of teams this year.

[megatechpc]

14 hours ago, Cheesehawk said:

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. 

Sanu is one of the better #2 WR's in the league, Ridley was graded as the #1 WR in the draft (and I qualified that statement with a "possibly"), Alford makes plays all over the field (see pick-6 vs TB12 in SB for example) and his only issue is getting too handsy at times, Neal is a young Cam Chancellor, and Allen might be a bit of a stretch as a "star" but he is more than solid at S and continually makes change-of-momentum plays.

Don't be salty just because the Falcons have absolutely OWNED your Packers for the last two seasons.  What was the result of their game a year ago again?

[Shady Slim]

3 hours ago, megatechpc said:

Sanu is one of the better #2 WR's in the league, Ridley was graded as the #1 WR in the draft (and I qualified that statement with a "possibly"), Alford makes plays all over the field (see pick-6 vs TB12 in SB for example) and his only issue is getting too handsy at times, Neal is a young Cam Chancellor, and Allen might be a bit of a stretch as a "star" but he is more than solid at S and continually makes change-of-momentum plays.

Don't be salty just because the Falcons have absolutely OWNED your Packers for the last two seasons.  What was the result of their game a year ago again?

bro this is a quality post and then you shoot your credibility in the dique with that last mini paragraph

[Stafford4Pres]

16 hours ago, Danger said:

Did I stutter? You referenced the most garbage stat ever.

Carson Wentz had the 5th most passing attempts in 2016. Despite all of his attempts he was 18th in yards, tied for 28th in yards per attempt with Blake Bortles, 25th in touchdown passes, and he was tied for 9th in interceptions thrown with Matt Barkley, Carson Palmer, and Cam Newton. Carson Wentz is good but I expect some regression from his 2017 stats.

[jvmillion83]

20 hours 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.

Every team has different circumstances depending on whether they dial it up or scale it back in the preseason.

Fans of the Pats, Steelers and Packers won't feel good at times, mainly because there's no initiative to play their starters each game.  However there are new teams each year that bring in different personnel, coaching etc and need to have these dress rehearsals to get comfortable with new schemes so you can't just throw everything out the window.   The Pats & Bills have both looked bad but we know which team will be fine by Week 8.  Meanwhile there are teams like Cincy and Denver dialing it up a little bit more with new personnel and players back from injury and you need that to get a little confidence back in those teams that had down years. 

 

 

[jvmillion83]

21 hours ago, jrry32 said:

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.

And besides Jacksonville and a Titans team that just squeaked into the playoffs, those were the only teams that made the playoffs, so let's not pretend they had to climb the highest of mountains last year. 

[Danger]

14 minutes ago, Stafford4Pres said:

Carson Wentz had the 5th most passing attempts in 2016. Despite all of his attempts he was 18th in yards, tied for 28th in yards per attempt with Blake Bortles, 25th in touchdown passes, and he was tied for 9th in interceptions thrown with Matt Barkley, Carson Palmer, and Cam Newton. Carson Wentz is good but I expect some regression from his 2017 stats.

And still you're bringing up his 2016 season. Like it wasn't his Rookie season and he progressed considerably. Will he perform to the level of 2017? It's unlikely, but he's not going to be as bad as his 2016 season, so stop using that as a metric.

[Stafford4Pres]

Just now, Danger said:

And still you're bringing up his 2016 season. Like it wasn't his Rookie season and he progressed considerably. Will he perform to the level of 2017? It's unlikely, but he's not going to be as bad as his 2016 season, so stop using that as a metric.

I never said that he was going to return to his 2016 form. I said that he will probably regress from his 2017 form, which means he will still probably be a top 10 quarterback just not an MVP-level quarterback. 

[jrry32]

2 minutes ago, jvmillion83 said:

And besides Jacksonville and a Titans team that just squeaked into the playoffs, those were the only teams that made the playoffs, so let's not pretend they had to climb the highest of mountains last year. 

They played five playoff teams, three of which made the CCG, and one of which won the Super Bowl. As I stated before, they had to climb a higher mountain than every other playoff team except for the ones in the NFCS. Knocking the Rams for their SOS last year isn't supported by facts or logic.

[jvmillion83]

22 hours ago, stl4life07 said:

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. 

And before the season, nobody thought Jacksonville, Philly, Minnesota and the Saints were going to be anything.  Injuries and parody happens where different teams rise and fall each year.

The Rams had a great season but you have to admit they faced some teams at a great time.  We knew Luck was out but they were the only team that drew Scott Tolzein last season instead of Jacoby Brissett (which is a huge difference).  They had the Texans later in the season after everyone got injured unlike the Seahawks that had to expend a lot in a shootout against Deshaun Watson.  They also got the Niners before the Garappolo trade and the other one in week 17 when it didn't even matter unlike getting them once in like Week 12-16.  They got Arizona twice with just like one combined quarter from Palmer.  The game in Seattle after the Seahawks just had their team go down the previous few weeks with injuries on defense.  Not to mention the Giants and their situation when it could've been Week 1 instead. 

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, jvmillion83 said:

The Rams had a great season but you have to admit they faced some teams at a great time.  We knew Luck was out but they were the only team that drew Scott Tolzein last season instead of Jacoby Brissett (which is a huge difference).  They had the Texans later in the season after everyone got injured unlike the Seahawks that had to expend a lot in a shootout against Deshaun Watson.  They also got the Niners before the Garappolo trade and the other one in week 17 when it didn't even matter unlike getting them once in like Week 12-16.  They got Arizona twice with just like one combined quarter from Palmer.  The game in Seattle after the Seahawks just had their team go down the previous few weeks with injuries on defense.  Not to mention the Giants and their situation when it could've been Week 1 instead. 

We stomped the ever loving crap out of the Texans, Seahawks, Cardinals, Giants, and Colts. I don't care to hear about the injury excuses. Those games weren't even close. The week after we beat the Texans 33-7, they beat the Cardinals 31-21. The week after we beat the Seahawks 42-7, they beat the Cowboys 21-12. The week before we beat the Cardinals 32-16, they beat the Jaguars 27-24. As for the Colts, we beat them 46-9. Lol at Jacoby freaking Brissett making any difference in that game's outcome.

Every single NFL team played other teams with injuries. In the games where you claimed we benefitted the most, we mopped the floor with our opponents. We didn't win close games against beat-up teams. We embarrassed them. It's a hollow criticism. You don't see me crying foul right now about other teams benefitting from our injuries. Injuries are part of the game.

[jvmillion83]

Just now, jrry32 said:

We stomped the ever loving crap out of the Texans, Seahawks, Cardinals, Giants, and Colts. I don't care to hear about the injury excuses. Those games weren't even close. The week after we beat the Texans 33-7, they beat the Cardinals 31-21. The week after we beat the Seahawks 42-7, they beat the Cowboys 21-12. The week before we beat the Cardinals 32-16, they beat the Jaguars 27-24. As for the Colts, we beat them 46-9. Lol at Jacoby freaking Brissett making any difference in that game's outcome.

Every single NFL team played other teams with injuries. In the games where you claimed we benefitted the most, we mopped the floor with our opponents. We didn't win close games against beat-up teams. We embarrassed them. It's a hollow criticism. You don't see me crying foul right now about other teams benefitting from our injuries. Injuries are part of the game.

Correct injuries are part of the game and the losing teams of 2016 (Rams) did not have the target on their back like Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle etc did in '17 and also stayed healthy.   Even if the Texans, Cardinals etc were at full strength, the Rams maybe could've sniffed 10 wins.  They did a great job performing but '18 won't be a cakewalk.  The target on their back will be much bigger and injuries change hands. 

[Stafford4Pres]

14 hours ago, jrry32 said:

None of this even remotely disputes my point. The Rams played 8 games against teams with winning records, 2 games against a team with a .500 records, and 6 games against teams with losing records. In fact, we played 3 of the 4 teams that ended up in the conference championship games. And it's ridiculous to bring up injuries. The other 31 teams all played teams with injuries. Hell, the injured Seahawks were good enough to beat the Eagles and Cowboys. The injured Cardinals were good enough to beat the Jaguars and Seahawks. Fact is that there were only 3 NFL teams that made the playoffs that had a tougher SOS than the Rams in 2017, the 3 NFCS playoff teams. We played a difficult schedule last year. Odds are that our schedule this year won't be much more difficult.

And if WalterFootball thinks we're overrated, I will wear that as a badge of honor. He's a fool. He called us garbage last year and wrote off Jared Goff. Enjoy his 3-13 prediction from last year:

http://walterfootball.com/offseason2017lar.php

To put it bluntly, the Rams have everybody returning from the #1 scoring offense in the NFL last year, except for Sammy Watkins (who was replaced by a better WR). The Rams gave one of the best DCs in football exactly what he needed to run a scheme and now have one of the best defenses in the NFL on paper. And the Rams have consistently had one of the best special teams units in football over the past 5 or so years. We're stacked. Barring some ridiculously bad injury luck, we're going to have more than a "decent year."

The Rams have a very good roster. They were the number 1 in scoring offense and 5th in turnovers generated on defense last year. They have added a plethora of big-name players this offseason. All of these things are why the  public is so high on the Rams They are expected to win at least 10 games this year (based on their win total projections). If I were a betting man I would feel confident in taking the under on that. This entire topic is based on how I view those teams I listed as overhyped and underhyped compared to their projected win totals from Vegas. That represents how the public perceives those teams and how many games they will win. I disagree with the average person on their perception of the Rams because I think that it is very possible they win less than 10 games this year. We won't know until December 30th but I believe the Rams will under perform this year.

The quarterbacks they played last year were: Scott Tolzien, Kirk Cousins, Brian Hoyer, Dak Prescott, Blake Bortles, Eli Manning, Tom Savage, Case Keenum, Drew Brees, Carson Wentz, Marcus Mariota, Jimmy Garoppolo, Blaine Gabbert, Carson Palmer, Drew Stanton, and Russell Wilson. 

I won't list all of the quarterbacks they're slated to face this year but they're a much more formidable cast than the aforementioned ones with more complete rosters. It's going to be close, like I said, but I wouldn't feel confident putting my money into the Rams going over 10 wins this year. That is asking an awful lot from Jared Goff and a second year head coach who had quite a lot of success in his first season.

[stl4life07]

30 minutes ago, jvmillion83 said:

And before the season, nobody thought Jacksonville, Philly, Minnesota and the Saints were going to be anything.  Injuries and parody happens where different teams rise and fall each year.

The Rams had a great season but you have to admit they faced some teams at a great time.  We knew Luck was out but they were the only team that drew Scott Tolzein last season instead of Jacoby Brissett (which is a huge difference).  They had the Texans later in the season after everyone got injured unlike the Seahawks that had to expend a lot in a shootout against Deshaun Watson.  They also got the Niners before the Garappolo trade and the other one in week 17 when it didn't even matter unlike getting them once in like Week 12-16.  They got Arizona twice with just like one combined quarter from Palmer.  The game in Seattle after the Seahawks just had their team go down the previous few weeks with injuries on defense.  Not to mention the Giants and their situation when it could've been Week 1 instead. 

I hear you. Well we will see how this season goes. One thing I know right away is reports are saying Raider stud pass rusher Mack could miss regular season games due to holding out. Well the Rams play the Raiders Week 1. We are going to look back and say if the Rams beat the Raiders that they didnt have their best pass rusher out there to help what is already a poor Raiders defense. Like all I am saying is things happen. The schedule is what the schedule is and things change. Thats why I dont put too much stock on the schedule. Again before last season the Rams schedule did look tough. This season the schedule does look tough but thats as of today. We dont know how the schedule will look Week 5 into the season.