MontanaBronco Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Not sure how the Broncos are considered the obvious choice. Getting rid of Russ was addition by subtraction and losing Jeudy was meh. Justin Simmons is really the only impact player we lost and you could also make an argument for Lloyd Cushenberry(center is a bit of a question mark, but forsyth could pan out). Now I don't think we will be good, but have a hard time seeing worst in the league. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pf9 Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Bears again as I predict Caleb Williams will be so big a flop that the Bears fail to win any games in 2024. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leoric Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 7 hours ago, PossibleCabbage said: The basic ways a team ends up getting the #1 pick (before trades are either): - They don' t have a QB or the QB they thought they had was unavailable due to injury or was an older player who just couldn't play as well anymore. (e.g. 2011 Colts, 2017 Browns, etc.) - An absolutely terrible job by the coaches (e.g. Urban Meyer with the Jags) - The roster overall wasn't good enough to win games (e.g. Carolina last year) I think the first one is the most common, so the question of "who doesn't have a useful quarterback" or "which team is going to be absolutely terrible if their preferred QB misses a significant amount of time." Because it's easy enough to see which teams are bad, but even bad teams with one thing that works well for them (a decent defense, a running game, a couple of playmakers, etc.) can win enough games to keep them out of the top spot. Like here's a thought experiment- for every team, if their preferred QB doesn't play a single game this season, how many of them aren't winning at least 4 because of the rest of the roster? San Francisco and Kansas City are the only teams in the league I expect to win more than 4 games without their starting QB being available. Solely based on the body of work Shanahan and Reid have with getting QB’s into wining situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 6 minutes ago, Leoric said: San Francisco and Kansas City are the only teams in the league I expect to win more than 4 games without their starting QB being available. Solely based on the body of work Shanahan and Reid have with getting QB’s into wining situations. That seems entirely too pessimistic since we just saw Jake Browning win 4 games for the Bengals and the Browns made the playoffs in a season where Deshaun Watson only played in six games. Hell, the Vikings won 3 games last season after Cousins tore his Achilles following a 4-4 start. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugashane Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 22 hours ago, PossibleCabbage said: That seems entirely too pessimistic since we just saw Jake Browning win 4 games for the Bengals and the Browns made the playoffs in a season where Deshaun Watson only played in six games. Hell, the Vikings won 3 games last season after Cousins tore his Achilles following a 4-4 start. Especially when the Bears with their offense and (and only 2 games with Sweat) went 2-2 with Tyson Bagent lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 On 5/3/2024 at 4:47 AM, pf9 said: Bears again as I predict Caleb Williams will be so big a flop that the Bears fail to win any games in 2024. 😂 wow I’m in a juxtaposition of liking the Bears but hating Caleb. Hopefully he flops and they get a better QB next time. But I think hell freezes over before Bears go winless next season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vike daddy Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 On 4/29/2024 at 9:24 AM, AkronsWitness said: Dark horse: Minnesota. I still dont understand the JJ McCarthy draft hype and that defense could take a nosedive now without Hunter, especially in that division. I don't think it would be out of the question to see Jefferson request a trade mid-season if things don't get off to a great start with a rookie QB (if he chooses not to sign a longterm deal). there is just ZERO data to back that up, if we look at public statements Jefferson has made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkronsWitness Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 Just now, vike daddy said: there is just ZERO data to back that up, if we look at public statements Jefferson has made. I mean Tee Higgins wanted to play in Cincinnati until he didn't....and he requested a trade from a far better situation than what Jefferson is in, albeit over contract negotiations. Its not probable, but certainly not impossible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 In no way am I saying the Raiders have a Super Bowl roster, and I think QB will be what ultimately holds us back from even making the playoffs, but Vegas' roster is too talented to land the #1 pick imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vike daddy Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 22 minutes ago, AkronsWitness said: Its not probable, but certainly not impossible. then why not envision what IS more probable to happen? why not assume the most likely outcome will occur, as opposed to the least? i mean, i follow Viking related news on an hourly basis. there just isn't anything out there, from the Vikings or from Jefferson's camp, that they won't eventually reach an agreement and sign their names to it. zilch. and Tee Higgins is not the face of the Bengals franchise, so the comparison isn't a good one. more to the point of the thread, i don't think the Vikings will be in the bottom five of teams at the end of this season, i'd say from what little we have right now to work with that they're a 6-9 win team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Reed Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 I’m going to say the Saints for some reason finally bottom out and win like 2-3 games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armbar Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 22 minutes ago, Ray Reed said: I’m going to say the Saints for some reason finally bottom out and win like 2-3 games I feel like they need that. They keep making half measures and have to scratch and claw to remain above .500. It’s time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 15 minutes ago, Armbar said: I feel like they need that. They keep making half measures and have to scratch and claw to remain above .500. It’s time. The Derek Carr effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 13 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said: In no way am I saying the Raiders have a Super Bowl roster, and I think QB will be what ultimately holds us back from even making the playoffs, but Vegas' roster is too talented to land the #1 pick imo. [Insert team name] has too much talent to be picking #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawgX Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 I want to say Carolina, but it feels like almost every year it's a team that no one really expected. I'll go with New England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.