The fact of the matter is, we made changes. We rebuilt our entire OL. We brought in the best QB in history. We have made changes that will make us leaps and bounds better on the field this year. The most noteworthy addition in Miami is an aging former coach in the front office. He won't make as big a difference in Miami as he did elsewhere. He has no tools to work with.
You realize that GB had a lot more receivers last year than Driver & Jennings right? James Jones, Ruvell Martin come to mind. It was commonly stated last year that GB had the deepest receiver corps in the NFL, by far. That is why Driver & Jennings total receptions are a lot lower than Coles and Cotch. The Packers had the #2 rated passing offense in the entire NFL last year, second only to Patsies. That's right, ahead of Indy, ahead of the Cowboys. There are obviously a lot more receptions caught by (and passes thrown to) players other than Driver and Jennings. p.s. oh yeah, and Jennings was a rookie (and hurt) in 2006. II think he was actually their #3 receiver that year. So, in summation, you're comparing apples and oranges here. "Lies, d@mn lies, and statistics" -- Mark Twain.
Personally, I prefer to look at this ESPN note instead. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview08/news/story?id=3552727 Jeffri Chadiha,ESPN.com John Clayton,ESPN.com Tim Graham,ESPN.com Jeremy Green,Scouts Inc. AFC East New England New England New England New England AFC North Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Cleveland Cleveland AFC South Indianapolis Indianapolis Jacksonville Indianapolis AFC West San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego AFC wild cards Cleveland, Jacksonville Tennessee, N.Y. Jets Indianapolis, N.Y. Jets Jacksonville, Pittsburgh
Interesting read. If I count right, 12 of 16 are picking Dallas to win NFC, and maybe only 5 of 16 are picking Patsies, there's maybe a majority (8 or more) picking the Bolts? Interesting. No one is picking Jets to win AFC (goes without saying), it's all either Patsies, Bolts, Colts, or Jags. I was curious, so I jiggered the URL and went to look at their 2007 predictions (sorry this blasted board won't let me post it). Of the two teams that played for the NFC championship, only one of 16 predictors had Green Bay making playoffs (as a wild card), and NONE of them picked the eventual Superbowl champs to even be in the playoffs. So, so much for that.
Wow Chadiha, Sando and Siefert gave Gholston the DROY. That is a huge mistake. The kid won't see the field enough. I am maybe one of the biggest Gholston supporters, but he's not getting rookie of the year.
Last time I checked there is a bunch of old guys on your team as well!!!!!! - I am telling you, this is going to catch up to you.
In fact I would bet they are older on defense all around and older on the OL. At least among the starters.
Cute. His point was that the two Jets receivers were equal to or better than the two Packer receivers, because they have more total yards. My point was that it was on fewer receptions, reflecting the fact that there were much more viable #3-4-5 options in GB, and so he was comparing apples to oranges, they got less yards because they got less balls thrown to them. The proof of this is that GB had team 4,334 passing yards last year, and Jets had 3,014. That's about 40% more total yards passing. This discrepancy is not really addressed by an observation that "all teams have #3 receivers." GreenMachine can post mocking retorts all he wants, but it still isn't going to change that 4,334 does not equal 3,014 (should I smugly add little ROFL emoticons to my post too?)
This "arguement" ... - Can easily be "rounded up" ... if anyone would do some "research" into the diff. games (yes this will be a rather tedious task), and check how many different WR had "this and this many receptions" pr. game ... Regardless, though, I think that you would find that there are several more different receivers when No. 4 is behind center than most other QB in NFL, sides Brady and Manning, and of those 2, I think only Brady can "Boast" of having more throws to different receivers than No. 4 ... But when all is said and done, I think by week 4 we'll all be a lot more informed as to how this season is going down ... As for myself I am most anxious (sp?) to see the match-up against NE, as I don't see them being as dominant as last season ... - As for the Colts, I have a feeling that this season is going to be a rather huge disappointment for them ... - But what do I know, I'm just "a Dane" that knows nothing about "American Football" .... hah
yeah, amazing how they did that with such crappy receivers, not even as good as the ones on the 25th ranked NFL passing offense. Of course Jets were too busy tearing up the field on the ground to bother to throw to those grat recievers. That's why they were getting 106 yards per game on ground, vs. 100 for Packers. Though Packers oddly had more than twice as many rushing touchdowns as Jets, and more than four times as many runs of > 20 yards, those 6 fewer yards DEFINITELY qualify Packers as a team that didn't run Could you just back off your insistance that receiver A > receiver B iff receiver A's yards > receiver B yards, without regard to how many attempts he has? That's all I'm trying to get you to stop doing. It seems obvious to me that it's not that simple, I can't imagine why a thinking football fan can't agree.
Also ... - As the AFC (also in my opponion) has almost always been the "Better Division", I'm thrilled to get to see No. 4 in "Direct" competition against both Brady and Manning - After this season and possible (I hope) the next one we'll all know if "Old No. 4" really is among "The Greatest of all Time" ... Having said that, it also puts a huge load on the Line Backers to be able to protect him ... One Player can "only do so much", - he will have to rely heavily on the Offence to succeed ... - But regardless of what anyone says, this Year is going to be extremely fascinating to watch, win or loose, I plan to spend most my nights watching the games "live" instead of having to wait till the next day to see them on disc ...
