NFL Predictions

[Lanky Livingston]

Here's my predictions. Feel free to share your own!

NFC Division winners:
North - Lions
East - Eagles
South - Saints
West - Rams
Wild Cards - Packers, Falcons

AFC Division winners:
North - Ravens
East - Patriots
South - Texans
West - Chargers
Wild Cards - Steelers, Jets

Superbowl: Saints over Ravens
League MVP: Drew Brees
OROY: AJ Green
DROY: Ryan Kerrigan

[MikeSr619]

NFC

North - Packers
East - Redskins
South - Saints
West - Rams

AFC
North - Steelers
East - Pats
South - Texans
West - Chargers

NFC wildcards: Iggles and Lions
AFC wildcards: Ravens and Colts

[Lanky Livingston]

I'm really liking the Lions this year. If Stafford can stay healthy, they will shock a lot of people. They went 1-1 against the Packers last year, winning 7-3 & losing 26-28. They should have swept the Bears last year, but they got jobbed by the refs twice. They lost by 3 points or less to the Eagles, Jets, & Bills. Win those 5 games, and all of a sudden they are 11-5. This team is a lot closer than people think.

Plus, I think the Vikings & Bears will struggle a lot this season.

[MikeSr619]

thats the reason I cant pick the Lions; Stafford's health. he hasnt made it a year yet and I dont think his line is that much better. Plus the Packers are a machine right now..

I think the Steelers are going to take the div again and I think Antonio Brown will be a main reason. That kid is FAST! He is a good compliment to Ward's possession ability and if Big Ben has time he can get that ball to him.

[Extreme]

NFC
East: Philadelphia Eagles
West: Seattle Seahawks
North: Green Bay Packers
South: Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Wild Cards: Washington Redskins & New Orleans Saints

AFC
East: New York Jets
West: Kansas City Chiefs
North: Baltimore Ravens
South: Houston Texans

Wild Cards: New England Patriots & Indianapolis Colts

Super Bowl: New York Jets Over Green Bay Packers

Yes, I am aware that I have the Steelers and Chargers both missing the playoffs. **** em, they aren't going.

[MikeSr619]

you really think the Chargers lose to the likes of KC, Den or Oakland?

that is something for the bold predictions right there.

[Extreme]

you really think the Chargers lose to the likes of KC, Den or Oakland?

that is something for the bold predictions right there.KC, yes. I do expect Denver and Oakland to go down in flames though. I just can't have any confidence in a team prone to slow starts or late season collapses, especially one that has the misfortune of being cached by The Norv. Poor guys, they never had a chance :laugh:

[MikeSr619]

you think Matt Cassel has a chance to lead them over Rivers?

I bet they win 10 games.

[Extreme]

It's hard to say. I base everything on SD's history under Norv Turner, and Norv Turner's history under the head coach title :D

[Chris]

I predict that Mike Florio will be gloriously incorrect. Again.

Skins @ 31? Classic.

[Elephant]

NFC:

North - Green Bay

Sorry Lanky, the Lions just aren't there yet. And Mike, Shaun Hill is a very capable back up. That team wins because of their defense, but it won't be enough to get past the Packers.

East - Eagles

Hate to say it, but they have the best team in our division

South - Atlanta

Solid team all around.

West - Arizona

While I don't think Kolb is the Super Star everyone thinks he is, he should be a far cry better than they had last year.

AFC:

North - Baltimore

The Steelers D will get banged up early and they win only 10 games this year. Baltimore will struggle early while their O-Line gets some time together, but I think Flacco takes them past the Steelers this year.

East - New England

The Jets aren't there and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Miami gain some ground on the Jets this year.

South - Houston

West - San Diego

They have all the talent in the world, but will still only win like 10 games because of Norv Turner. They need Marty back!

[MikeSr619]

shaun hill? hahaha

and marty never won a single playoff game with SD and thats when they had LT, Rivers and Gates all on the same team. They need an entirely new coaching staff.

[Lanky Livingston]

Not sure why everyone automatically assumes the Pack will roll this year. Every team this decade outside of the Saints, Colts & Patriots (twice) have experienced a superbowl hangover and not made the playoffs the following season. And of those three, only the Pats in 2005 was able to win a playoff game the following year.

[Goaldeje]

I think it's because the Packers were decimated by injuries last year and still won. They are getting Grant, Finley, etc back.

[Lanky Livingston]

That is a fair point - I heard they had something like 16 guys on IR last year. But, does that mean they will get better? Not necessarily. Not all 16 guys will come back as good as they were before. Its just the nature of the IR injury; sometimes it just takes a step away from a guy.

[Extreme]

They have a slacker schedule than the rest of their division other than Chicago (barely), they have all of their guys coming back healthy, and they've proven they can roll with half their team on the DL.

Not sure why you base your assertion that they won't roll on statistical anomalies of other teams. I completely get what you're saying, I just don't think you can compare what's happened to other teams to them.

The situations were all different. The Packers are also the only team in the last decade to win the Super Bowl and not have a top 5 schedule the next season, and they didn't lose a lot of players like previous winners did.

[Lanky Livingston]

I don't understand your logic, Extreme. The Lions can't win the North because of the Packers, but the Buccaneers can win the South despite having two excellent teams ahead of them? And make no mistake, the Saints and Falcons are ahead of the Bucs.

[Extreme]

I don't understand your logic, Extreme. The Lions can't win the North because of the Packers, but the Buccaneers can win the South despite having two excellent teams ahead of them? And make no mistake, the Saints and Falcons are ahead of the Bucs.The Lions will not even finish second in their division, let alone win it. I look at all the factors, not just what they did in some close games last year.

Last season, the Lions had a middle of the pack strength of schedule. This year, they have been saddled with the third toughest. That alone, will likely cost them wins, not give them a shot at winning the division. They are still too young and inexperienced to make that big of a leap any time in the near future.

You also point out all the close games the Lions had against good teams last year. If you want to use that as a basis for what they will do this year, look at what our guys did last year. Not only did we beat good teams, including the eventual champion, but 6 of our losses were by 4 points or less, we had the lead in all but 1 of the games we lost, and we had the 8th toughest schedule in the league. This year, we have better players, better chemistry, and the 27th toughest schedule in the league. By your logic, we're a lock to win the division.

I will give it to you that the Falcons have the best chance at winning their division, but the Saints are done. Call me crazy, but you'll see. They aren't getting any younger, they aren't building their team for the future - the same mistake we made for decades that has cost us dearly, and they don't have refs giving them wins anymore. It will be an uphill climb for the Saints this year. They will not win more than 8 or 9 games, I assure you.

[Lanky Livingston]

Please, stop it with the strength of schedule. Its a meaningless stat. What teams did last year has little to no bearing on what they will do this year!

You also point out all the close games the Lions had against good teams last year. If you want to use that as a basis for what they will do this year, look at what our guys did last year. Not only did we beat good teams, including the eventual champion, but 6 of our losses were by 4 points or less, we had the lead in all but 1 of the games we lost, and we had the 8th toughest schedule in the league. This year, we have better players, better chemistry, and the 27th toughest schedule in the league. By your logic, we're a lock to win the division.

Umm, no. In order for your comparison to work, I would have to think the Eagles, Cowboys and Giants were all due for a down season, which I never said. Bears & Vikings will be bad this year, and the Packers are going to have a Superbowl hangover, leaving the division up for grabs. Lions will take advantage.

In our case, we may be in a battle for second place, but I don't think we're anywhere near a wild card.

[Elephant]

It's been discussed. I should have read through the whole thread...


continue on...

[Extreme]

Please, stop it with the strength of schedule. Its a meaningless stat.Meaningless stat? How so? If a team goes 6-10 against a weak schedule, how do you expect them to improve against one of the toughest schedules in the league?

What teams did last year has little to no bearing on what they will do this year!I really hope this was a sarcastic remark, considering you're entirely basing your pro-Lions stance on what they did last year.

Umm, no. In order for your comparison to work, I would have to think the Eagles, Cowboys and Giants were all due for a down season, which I never said. Bears & Vikings will be bad this year, and the Packers are going to have a Superbowl hangover, leaving the division up for grabs. Lions will take advantage.So strength of schedule is a meaningless stat, but what previous Super Bowl winners over the last ten years did isn't? I just see no justification in your argument against the Packers. They finished the season with something like 16 of their starters on the DL and still steamrolled their way through the playoffs. How then, do you expect them to do worse with all their guys healthy again? You're basically saying you think their second string is better than their starters.

In our case, we may be in a battle for second place, but I don't think we're anywhere near a wild card.Yet you think the Lions will win their division? There's no rationale behind this line of thinking. The Lions have not improved since last year, and they have to play better opponents. The Redskins have added depth and improved greatly over where we were week 17 last season. We might not get a wild card, but whether we do or not, there's no way in hell that the Lions are winning their division. Not for 3 or 4 more years minimum. Their front office makes the Danny & Vinny duo look like geniuses.

In the past 3 years alone, the Lions are 2-30 against teams with a winning record. That is not a misprint. On this year's schedule, they have 9 games against opponents that made the playoffs last year. There's a very high likelihood that they will lose almost all of those. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and say they win 5, that would make them 5-4 against those teams, because every one of those teams has improved or stayed the same since last season, which means they likely will not be worse. So that leaves 7 other games. To win their division, the Lions would probably have to win all 7 of their other games, again a very unlikely scenario. Say you give them the benefit of the doubt and they might be better than those teams, so say they win 5 of the 2. Best case scenario, they finish 10-6. While it is possible, it is very unlikely they are winning 10 games against their schedule, and even if they do, it isn't likely for a 10-6 record to win that division.

[Lanky Livingston]

Meaningless stat? How so? If a team goes 6-10 against a weak schedule, how do you expect them to improve against one of the toughest schedules in the league?

Teams trend up & down every year, making "strength of schedule" stats based on the previous year's results meaningless. I can give you as many examples of teams going from good to bad or bad to good from year to year as you'd like.

I really hope this was a sarcastic remark, considering you're entirely basing your pro-Lions stance on what they did last year.

You make a living of restating someone's argument completely differently than it was originally stated. My pro-Lions stance is based entirely on what they did last year? Pay attention!

Plus, I think the Vikings & Bears will struggle a lot this season.

Not to mention, they drafted Nick Fairley, who will complement their interior DLine very nicely. Suh & Fairley have the potential to be unblockable. Stafford is healthy (THIS SEASON), Best is healthy (THIS SEASON), and Calvin Johnson is a man among boys.

So strength of schedule is a meaningless stat, but what previous Super Bowl winners over the last ten years did isn't? I just see no justification in your argument against the Packers. They finished the season with something like 16 of their starters on the DL and still steamrolled their way through the playoffs. How then, do you expect them to do worse with all their guys healthy again? You're basically saying you think their second string is better than their starters.

Over the last 10 years is called a trend, not a single number pulled from last season. I do not think their second-string is better than their starters, however there is something to be said about players returning from injury not at 100%, or players losing a step due to their injuries. There's also an argument to be made about chemistry and continuity. Not to mention the Packers have targets on their backs this season, as every SB winning team does. Teams don't repeat very often for a reason! Its extremely hard to do.

Yet you think the Lions will win their division? There's no rationale behind this line of thinking.

My goodness man, you argue just to argue. Of course there is rationale behind it.

The Lions have not improved since last year,

False.

and they have to play better opponents.

False.

The Redskins have added depth and improved greatly over where we were week 17 last season. We might not get a wild card, but whether we do or not, there's no way in hell that the Lions are winning their division. Not for 3 or 4 more years minimum. Their front office makes the Danny & Vinny duo look like geniuses.

Again, False. You haven't been paying attention if you think this is the case. Matt Millen was fired years ago.

In the past 3 years alone, the Lions are 2-30 against teams with a winning record. That is not a misprint. On this year's schedule, they have 9 games against opponents that made the playoffs last year. There's a very high likelihood that they will lose almost all of those. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and say they win 5, that would make them 5-4 against those teams, because every one of those teams has improved or stayed the same since last season, which means they likely will not be worse. So that leaves 7 other games. To win their division, the Lions would probably have to win all 7 of their other games, again a very unlikely scenario. Say you give them the benefit of the doubt and they might be better than those teams, so say they win 5 of the 2. Best case scenario, they finish 10-6. While it is possible, it is very unlikely they are winning 10 games against their schedule, and even if they do, it isn't likely for a 10-6 record to win that division.

Well, you are finally starting to make a decent argument. I never said it would be easy, and I never said it was a lock. Yes, they will probably have to win at least 10 games. But, you are wrong about 9 games against playoff opponents - count again:

Tampa
Kanas City*
Minnesota
Dallas
Chicago*
San Francisco
Atlanta*
Denver
Chicago*
Carolina
Green Bay*
New Orleans*
Minnesota
Oakland
San Diego
Green Bay*

Looks like 7 to me. I think Chicago is going to go downhill this season (I believe they were a total fluke last season; refs gave them 2 of their victories), Kansas City has not looked great in preseason, and even though I disagree YOU said New Orleans was going to suck this year.

Lions sweep Chicago & Minnesota, beat Tampa, San Francisco, KC, Denver, Carolina, Oakland and they have 10 wins. That leaves 6 games; Green Bay twice, San Diego, New Orleans, Atlanta, Dallas. They only need to win one or two of those games to be in division contention.

[Extreme]

Teams trend up & down every year, making "strength of schedule" stats based on the previous year's results meaningless. I can give you as many examples of teams going from good to bad or bad to good from year to year as you'd like.And I can give you more examples of teams doing good the year after winning a Super Bowl than you can of teams going downhill after a Super Bowl.

Do you not realize that you're only applying trending to make your argument, but using it as an example of why my argument is wrong? There are two things I am fairly certain we can agree on here......Trends, let's face it, mean nothing. The Dolphins once went from 1-15 to 11-5 in a season. Secondly, we are both stating opinions. There is just as good a chance that the Lions, or any other team, can go 0-16 as there is they can go 16-0. We're starting to argue like our argument is fact and not opinion, we can't let it keep heading that way. We don't know what will happen, we can only assume.

You make a living of restating someone's argument completely differently than it was originally stated. My pro-Lions stance is based entirely on what they did last year? Pay attention!You have to excuse me for laughing when I read this, but this entire debate started when you made the assertion that because the Lions had so many very close losses last season, they were a lot closer to being contenders than people think, and that is why you believed they would win their division this year.

You seem to be extremely forgetful about words you say, when you have the ability to scroll back a few posts and read your own words again. You get upset when someone doesn't agree with you, then you put words in their mouth and act like you didn't say what you said. It's right there for you to see, it didn't go anywhere. I am debating you based on an opinion you stated, and now you say you never had that opinion? You do the same thing with political arguments, that's why I don't debate you in the asylum, it would be too confusing.

No need for smoke and mirrors buddy, just defend your point. There's no hostility here, I just like to debate :D

Here, I saved you the trouble of looking for what you said in post #3....
I'm really liking the Lions this year. If Stafford can stay healthy, they will shock a lot of people. They went 1-1 against the Packers last year, winning 7-3 & losing 26-28. They should have swept the Bears last year, but they got jobbed by the refs twice. They lost by 3 points or less to the Eagles, Jets, & Bills. Win those 5 games, and all of a sudden they are 11-5. This team is a lot closer than people tink.You base your entire prediction of the Lions success this year, based off of what they did last year. But I made a living off of restating your argument as something you didn't say? Did someone steal your keyboard and post this?

Not to mention, they drafted Nick Fairley, who will complement their interior DLine very nicely. Suh & Fairley have the potential to be unblockable. Stafford is healthy (THIS SEASON), Best is healthy (THIS SEASON), and Calvin Johnson is a man among boys.Clinton Portis also has the potential to lead the league in rushing yards, and break the TD record. He won't do it, but he has the potential to.

My goodness man, you argue just to argue. Of course there is rationale behind it.Oh, that's just because I'm an asshole :laugh:

I think Chicago is going to go downhill this season (I believe they were a total fluke last season; refs gave them 2 of their victories), Kansas City has not looked great in preseason, and even though I disagree YOU said New Orleans was going to suck this year.What if Chicago wasn't a fluke? You have to account for that too. I agree and believe they were, but what if they weren't? It's not a given that they, or the Packers will be good. But they both have a whole lot more potential to win the division than the Lions.

Lions sweep Chicago & Minnesota, beat Tampa, San Francisco, KC, Denver, Carolina, Oakland and they have 10 wins. That leaves 6 games; Green Bay twice, San Diego, New Orleans, Atlanta, Dallas. They only need to win one or two of those games to be in division contention.No way the Lions sweep the Bears, no way they beat Tampa Bay. No wins are guaranteed, but you think it's a lock for them to beat strong teams, and it's never a lock.

[Lanky Livingston]

And I can give you more examples of teams doing good the year after winning a Super Bowl than you can of teams going downhill after a Super Bowl.

Its a recent trend, which gives it more weight to use towards current teams. If you go back to the 1983 Washington Redskins to predict the 2011 season, you've got more problems than just one argument. ;)

Do you not realize that you're only applying trending to make your argument, but using it as an example of why my argument is wrong?

No, this is a false statement. I'm saying one season of data, namely strength of schedule data, cannot accurately predict how a team will do. One season is not a trend, my man.

There are two things I am fairly certain we can agree on here......Trends, let's face it, mean nothing. The Dolphins once went from 1-15 to 11-5 in a season.

The Dolphins going from 1-15 to 11-5 in one season shows why strength of schedule stats aren't helpful. A team facing the Dolphins the following year would have a lower SOS, but end up facing a much better team! This is also not an example of a "trend." Now if in the past 10 years, every team that went 1-15 ended up winning 8-10 more games the following year then yes, that would be a trend. That is not usually the case.

Secondly, we are both stating opinions. There is just as good a chance that the Lions, or any other team, can go 0-16 as there is they can go 16-0. We're starting to argue like our argument is fact and not opinion, we can't let it keep heading that way. We don't know what will happen, we can only assume.

If I was stating facts, and I knew how the NFL season would turn out every year, I'd be retired on a South Pacific island somewhere. :) Yes, its opinion.

You have to excuse me for laughing when I read this, but this entire debate started when you made the assertion that because the Lions had so many very close losses last season, they were a lot closer to being contenders than people think, and that is why you believed they would win their division this year.

You seem to be extremely forgetful about words you say, when you have the ability to scroll back a few posts and read your own words again. You get upset when someone doesn't agree with you, then you put words in their mouth and act like you didn't say what you said. It's right there for you to see, it didn't go anywhere. I am debating you based on an opinion you stated, and now you say you never had that opinion? You do the same thing with political arguments, that's why I don't debate you in the asylum, it would be too confusing.

No need for smoke and mirrors buddy, just defend your point. There's no hostility here, I just like to debate :D

Here, I saved you the trouble of looking for what you said in post #3....
You base your entire prediction of the Lions success this year, based off of what they did last year. But I made a living off of restating your argument as something you didn't say? Did someone steal your keyboard and post this?

Again, you are blatantly stating falsehoods. I said I think Minnesota and Chicago will not be good THIS SEASON. That has nothing to do with what happened last season. Also, not stated in my original post (but stated later on), was that the Lions are returning several key starters from injury - the same reason you feel the Packers will be better. Why not the Lions? Jahvid Best was a lighting the field on fire until his injury. Finally, the addition of a dominant DT to an already very good DL will make them better this season. All of these things have nothing to do with last season.

Clinton Portis also has the potential to lead the league in rushing yards, and break the TD record. He won't do it, but he has the potential to.

No, no he doesn't. :)

What if Chicago wasn't a fluke? You have to account for that too. I agree and believe they were, but what if they weren't? It's not a given that they, or the Packers will be good. But they both have a whole lot more potential to win the division than the Lions.

No, I don't have to account for that. Its my prediction! I can account for anything I want! If I want to predict the division winners by the total number of vowels in the players' names, I can do that also! As you said, its opinion.

No way the Lions sweep the Bears, no way they beat Tampa Bay. No wins are guaranteed, but you think it's a lock for them to beat strong teams, and it's never a lock.

Nice that you conveniently skipped over your schedule error. I'll take that as an admission of guilt. Again, these are my opinions. And since I included Detroit +1 in a parlay this weekend, I think they're pretty good ones. :)

[Matt]

My only prediction is that the Eagles won't win the Super Bowl again this year. 52 years and counting.

[Extreme]

No, this is a false statement. I'm saying one season of data, namely strength of schedule data, cannot accurately predict how a team will do. One season is not a trend, my man.But you are betting that the Lions will produce based on one season. You can't be basing it off of anything prior, because let's face it, they haven't done anything in a very long time.

Again, you are blatantly stating falsehoods. I said I think Minnesota and Chicago will not be good THIS SEASON. That has nothing to do with what happened last season.But you keep conveniently leaving out the part where you harped on what the Lions did last season. You know good and well that you are not thinking the Lions will win the division because you think the Packers and Bears will suck. You said for yourself, as I quoted in your own words that the Lions had a bunch of close games last season. That they were so close to being an 11-5 team last season. If you're saying I'm stating falsehoods, I'm only stating your own falsehoods. I didn't make up what you said, it's in the third post, and I quoted it in my last post.

If you were really basing them winning the division on the idea that the Packers and Bears will fail this year, then please do me a favor and explain to me how two teams playing bad shuffles an inferior team to a division title. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, I'm just curious as to the logic behind a team having success based off of another team's failures. Green Bay and Chicago losses to not translate to Detroit wins. If Philadelphia and New York suck this year, it doesn't mean we win the division, it means they had a bad season. That has no bearing on us, just like Green bay and Chicago have no bearing on Detroit.

As for this trend of Super Bowl winners following their title season with a bad season, where does that even come from? There is no trend. 7 of the last 10 champions won their division or made it to the playoffs and won a playoff game the following year. Not sure how 3 out of 10 champions failing to make the playoffs is a trend.

My only prediction is that the Eagles won't win the Super Bowl again this year. 52 years and counting.That's a given :laugh:

[Lanky Livingston]

But you are betting that the Lions will produce based on one season. You can't be basing it off of anything prior, because let's face it, they haven't done anything in a very long time.

But you keep conveniently leaving out the part where you harped on what the Lions did last season. You know good and well that you are not thinking the Lions will win the division because you think the Packers and Bears will suck. You said for yourself, as I quoted in your own words that the Lions had a bunch of close games last season. That they were so close to being an 11-5 team last season. If you're saying I'm stating falsehoods, I'm only stating your own falsehoods. I didn't make up what you said, it's in the third post, and I quoted it in my last post.

If you were really basing them winning the division on the idea that the Packers and Bears will fail this year, then please do me a favor and explain to me how two teams playing bad shuffles an inferior team to a division title. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, I'm just curious as to the logic behind a team having success based off of another team's failures. Green Bay and Chicago losses to not translate to Detroit wins. If Philadelphia and New York suck this year, it doesn't mean we win the division, it means they had a bad season. That has no bearing on us, just like Green bay and Chicago have no bearing on Detroit.

Extreme, I can't tell if you're doing this on purpose or not, but you continuously said I was basing my predictiond entirely on what happened last season, which is clearly not the case. Of course you have to base a prediction partially on what happened last season, it would be foolish not to. I think you're getting confused; I said SOS stats were meaningless when you say "Detroit has a tough SOS, so they will suck this year." It only tells part of the story, and a very small part of it at that.

But when predicting what a team will do, of course you look at their play the season before, look at their injuries and who is returning. You also look at the preseason (Matt Stafford's numbers are pretty impressive, especially a 200-yard, 2TD performance against New England):

I also never said Green Bay would suck, not sure where you're getting that from.

As for this trend of Super Bowl winners following their title season with a bad season, where does that even come from? There is no trend. 7 of the last 10 champions won their division or made it to the playoffs and won a playoff game the following year. Not sure how 3 out of 10 champions failing to make the playoffs is a trend.

We are both wrong here - I misspoke & was thinking no team but the Patriots (twice) has won a playoff game since 2002 after winning the superbowl.

2010 Saints: lost first game
2009 Steelers: missed playoffs
2008 Giants: lost first game
2007 Colts: lost first game
2006 Steelers: missed playoffs
2005 Patriots: won first game*
2004 Patriots: won superbowl*
2003 Buccaneers: missed playoffs
2002 Patriots: missed playoffs

[Elephant]

My only prediction is that the Eagles won't win the Super Bowl again this year. 52 years and counting.

And I am thankful for that! :betterwink:

[Extreme]

Watching the game right now, and it's looking like I may be right about two things. The Saints aren't going anywhere, and the Packers are going to be better than last year. One of the two has to be true, even if it is the first game. They all count now.

[Lanky Livingston]

Packers did look good, and Saints did look sluggish, but neither HAS to be true. Saints will improve with the return of Will Smith. And you're kidding yourself if you think the Pack will play that well every week.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

[Extreme]

Packers did look good, and Saints did look sluggish, but neither HAS to be true. Saints will improve with the return of Will Smith. And you're kidding yourself if you think the Pack will play that well every week.
Posted via BGO Mobile DeviceIf they stay healthy, I am positive the Packers will win 14 games this season. If they don't stay healthy, they win no less than 12.

As far as the Saints go, they are not getting better any time soon. Colston is gone for a while. Early reports are optimistic and saying he may only miss a month, while others say it depends on how he heals and that he could miss two months. They will lose at least half the games that he misses, no doubt in my mind.

If the Packers hadn't played so wretchedly bad on defense, the Saints would have done nothing. They were sluggish and mediocre, and still put up 34 points. As you know from watching it, they did not play as well as the stats and score would lead you to believe.

[Lanky Livingston]

To borrow a phrase from my buddy Mike: and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

[Lanky Livingston]

Some random observations from this weekend -

Chicago: looked pretty dominant, I may have been a bit hasty in predicting their downfall this season. It was only game one, however, against an overrated Falcons team.

Detroit: looked dominant as well. Stafford - Johnson is going to be very money this season.

Minnesota: Looked terrible, as expected. McNabb's first pass a pick-6 is effing CLASSIC.

New Orleans: Got shell-shocked in the first quarter, but came back nicely and almost got it done. Without some questionable short-yardage play calling, they might have. Brees looks fantastic.

Indianapolis: yikes, life without Peyton is gonna be turrible for these guys.

[Extreme]

New Orleans: Got shell-shocked in the first quarter, but came back nicely and almost got it done. Without some questionable short-yardage play calling, they might have. Brees looks fantastic.And some equally questionable horrible calls by the refs who have been on their nuts the past few years.