2008 NFL Mini Camps and Offseason Thread

The Game Room
121

There are 64 inter-conference games each season. Before considering the fact that I’m bothering to ask you this question, what would you guess the AFC’s record in those games was in 2007? Be honest.

Answer: 32-32

That said, the AFC comes out slightly better according to DVOA and is probably the better of the two conferences, but perception is clearly lagging behind reality to some degree on this issue.

The NFC West was the worst division last year, and it wasn’t very close. The two worst teams according to DVOA reside there (SF and StL). Don’t be fooled by Miami’s 1-15 record: for most of the season, they weren’t historically inept, just a run-of-the-mill bad team that happened to lose all of its close games.

The Texans were absolutely mediocre. They played like a .500 team and finished with a .500 record. The loss to the Falcons doesn’t have much bearing on this fact – most good teams (and pretty much all mediocre teams) will lose one or more games to a bad team during the course of a football season.

If you discount the AFC’s advantage at the top of the conference (NE & IND vs. DAL & GB) the difference between the conferences shrinks quite a bit, but I don’t think the above statements are accurate. The bad teams in 2007 were: DET, NYJ, KC, CAR, ATL, MIA, OAK, StL, and SF. That’s five NFC and four AFC teams. If you want, you can throw in ARI and BAL, bringing us to six NFC and five AFC.

122

[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
The NFC West was the worst division last year, and it wasn’t very close. The two worst teams according to DVOA reside there (SF and StL). Don’t be fooled by Miami’s 1-15 record: for most of the season, they weren’t historically inept, just a run-of-the-mill bad team that happened to lose all of its close games.
[/quote]

I’m not so sure about that, your memory might be a little fuzzy after nearly a year. Miami was absolutely historically bad last season. There was constant talk about how awful they were and how they were a near lock for not winning a single game all year. This is very clearly a case where statistics tend to blur what actually happened. After Ronnie Brown went down with injury, this team was miserable. They compare to the worst teams to have ever played, though I admit, a lot of that is because of the record. DVOA is nice (and remarkably accurate), but it’s only one way of evaluating performance.

And speaking of Miami, using your own link, Miami had by FAR the worst performance against their expected wins total, at -3. St. Louis performed exactly as expected, at 3 wins, and San Francisco was actually better than expected, at +1. The other poor team in the AFC East, the New York Jets? -1. This leads me to believe that yes, the AFC East was the worst in football. It took an historic season by one of their teams to even salvage that conference, so just as you claim I “underrate” the AFC East because of Miami, you overrate it because of New England.

Not to hammer the point home, but…
Buffalo (AFC East) -1 wins to expectation.
Arizona (NFC West) +2.

The AFC East was the worst in football.

[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
The Texans were absolutely mediocre.
[/quote]

Yes, the Texans were mediocre. But did you notice how the Eagles (a vastly, incomparably better team than the Texans) were “terrible” when he needed to prove a point that the NFC East wasn’t very good, but the Texans (vastly, incomparably worse than the Eagles) were “mediocre?” That’s my point.

[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
If you discount the AFC’s advantage at the top of the conference (NE & IND vs. DAL & GB) the difference between the conferences shrinks quite a bit, but I don’t think the above statements are accurate. The bad teams in 2007 were: DET, NYJ, KC, CAR, ATL, MIA, OAK, StL, and SF. That’s five NFC and four AFC teams. If you want, you can throw in ARI and BAL, bringing us to six NFC and five AFC.
[/QUOTE]

Combined record of the listed NFC teams:
26-54 (.325)
Combined record of the listed AFC teams:
13-51 (.203)
Keep in mind that of your listed teams, there was an EXTRA NFC team.

The worst of the AFC (according to your link) lost only 3 games fewer than the worst of the NFC, despite playing in 16 fewer games! The next two teams on your list? Arizona (8-8), and Baltimore (5-11), so the disparity becomes even worse.

I’m a sporting fellow though. I can see how this might be because the best of the AFC was good enough that the bad teams in that league couldn’t compete, whereas the skill level difference between the best and the worst of the NFC wasn’t as large. This seems to be a chicken and egg scenario though. Were the best amongst the AFC that good that the worst in that league couldn’t compete, or was it that the best of the AFC was made that much better by the stomping of the worst? Was the best of the NFC not good enough to consistently beat the worst of the NFC? Or was the worst of the NFC good enough to steal a few from the best?

123

The Panthers’ camp made a little news yesterday, and not in a good way. By the accounts told on WFNZ, Steve Smith sucker-punched Ken Lucas without his helmet on, when he was down on one knee on the sidelines. Offense and Defense go at it hard and things get tense, but this was out of line. We’ll see what the brass does to Smith, their best weapon. Smith has matured a lot since the infamous incident years back with Anthony Bright, so I’m not sure what set him off. These guys reportedly don’t like each other much. They were having a positive camp too, with things looking like they might turn around this year. Hope this doesn’t linger.

124

[QUOTE=VarlosZ]

If you want, you can throw in ARI and BAL, bringing us to six NFC and five AFC.
[/QUOTE]

Now why would you say a fool thing like that. Arizona managed to preform above their historical average and climbed into the ranks of Mediocre with a nice 8-8 record.

Otherwise, a nice spot on arguement

Osip

125

The Panthers are crazy. Benching Steve Smith for a game, a half, even a quarter is like the Colts benching Manning.

I like that they’re (presumably) being even-handed, but Smith* is* the Panthers’ offense.

126

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
I told you a while back that I wasn’t enthusiastic about Rogers, but he’s been growing on me.

He may just dissapear, but I have to wonder how much of his apparent sudden lack of motivation was simply getting worn out. He was the centerpiece of the defense and took a huge portion of the snaps. The pit of suck that is Detroit football (sorry) also can be demotivating I guess.

The Browns actually have decent depth at NT - Shaun Smith is a competant run stopper. He won’t get worn down as much hopefully.

Unfortunately I worry that some of his talent will be squandered running the cowardly ass “bend then break then bend some more” defense that Romeo employs. Rogers will be doing too much gap control, not enough going all out to stick his nutsack in an unconcious Roethlisburger’s mouth. With a new defensive coordinator and a better defense all around I hope that changes, but I have my doubts - part of the reason behind the last DC getting fired was apparently that he wanted to be too aggressive. If what we’ve seen for the last 3 years is too aggressive by Crennel’s standards…

He’s been catching balls out of the jugs machine at camp. Maybe he’ll play a vrabel-like tight end role. :stuck_out_tongue:
[/QUOTE]

The Lions have Cory Redding, who’s also a very good and beefy nose tackle playing alongside Shawn.
No offense taken. I think I’d put the over/under for wins and the Lions at 5.5 It’s going to be a long season and I think Marinelli will get canned if it’s a crappy year and we get to blow it up and start over again.

127

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
No offense taken. I think I’d put the over/under for wins and the Lions at 5.5 It’s going to be a long season and I think Marinelli will get canned if it’s a crappy year and we get to blow it up and start over again.
[/QUOTE]

If the team managed to win 6 games with Kitna practically being ordered to go out and turn the ball over three times a game, and certainly didn’t get worse in the offseason, I think 8-8 should be your baseline.

Don’t sleep on Kevin Smith. :smiley:

128

Well, it’s official, Brett Favre has been traded to the Jets for supposedly a 4th round pick in 2009 that can escalate based on the Jets overall record in 2008. Seems like a pretty meager haul for the Pack, I wonder what the Bucs and Vikes were willing to offer.

I suppose this means that it’s the beginning of the end of the Green Bay Soap Opera. Presumably media focus can now adjust to the rest of the league as the first preseason games get going. The Jets don’t play the Packers so I suppose the story will lose steam soon.

You have to like what this does for the Jets. They’ve spent a ton of money this off season, I’m a bit curious how they are managing to stay under the cap, and have put together a veteran team. Their O-Line should be very good and they have a pretty good starting group of WRs and TEs. Pennington is probably done, and he should have been done years ago. Do you think that the Jets WRs will have a rash of dropped balls and jammed fingers while adjusting to one of the strongest arms ever after catching marshmallows and lollipops from Chaz for a decade?

I was quietly hoping Brett would find his way to the Vikings. That would have infuriated the Packer fans and organization and I think Favre’s season last year was an abberation, so I’m not convinced the Vikes would have been moved into the elite. I think the drama and distraction would have helped the Bears more than you can measure, it would have undermined both teams. Plus, Bernard Berrian’s FF value would have skyrocketed in my keeper league.

I wonder why the Jets were the choice above the Bucs.

ETA: As I posted this ESPN broke in with a clarification of the trade escalators. It’s not linked to the teams fortunes but instead linked to Favre’s percentage of snaps.

If he takes 50% of the snaps it increases to a 3rd round pick.
If he takes 70% of the snaps it increases to a 2nd round pick.
If he takes 80% of the snaps it increases to a 1st round pick.

Considering Favre’s past you have to assume that this will mean that the Pack get a 1st round pick, that was probably more than the Bucs and Vikes were willing to offer.

129

ESPN and the NFL Network have changed their reporting for the trade compensation for Favre. It’s now supposedly:

A 4th round pick that escalates this way:
If he takes 50% of the snaps it increases to a 3rd round pick.
If he takes 70% of the snaps and the Jets make the playoffs it increases to a 2nd round pick.
If he takes 80% of the snaps and the Jets make it to the Super Bowl it increases to a 1st round pick.

I’m inclined to think that the Jets are indeed a playoff caliber team with Favre, but a Super Bowl appearance would be a shock. Getting a 2nd round pick is probably a fair value, but as a Bears fan I hope they miss the playoffs and only get a 3rd.

The Jets have reported that Kellen Clemens will start in their preseason game this weekend and Chad Pennington will be traded or released no later than Thursday.

130

[QUOTE=Osip]
Now why would you say a fool thing like that. Arizona managed to perform above their historical average and climbed into the ranks of Mediocre with a nice 8-8 record.
[/QUOTE]

Schedule strength, basically. When it comes to evaluating teams’ fundamental quality, Wins and Losses are just stats like any other, not the Alpha and Omega of analysis. The Cardinals went 8-8 against a very weak schedule (St. Louis and San Fran were really putrid), and in the process were somewhat below average on a per-play basis.

That said, I would also classify them as “mediocre.” I just think they were a lot closer to “bad” than to “good.”
Crazy stuff about Favre. Quick and dirty analysis.

131

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
If the team managed to win 6 games with Kitna practically being ordered to go out and turn the ball over three times a game, and certainly didn’t get worse in the offseason, I think 8-8 should be your baseline.

Don’t sleep on Kevin Smith. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

Tatum Bell is the starter. The Lions need Kevin Smith to play like a stud. The Lions don’t have a good offensive line, however.

I smell disaster this year.

132

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Tatum Bell is the starter. The Lions need Kevin Smith to play like a stud. The Lions don’t have a good offensive line, however.
[/QUOTE]

Bell couldn’t beat out anyone in Denver and couldn’t beat out a one-legged Kevin Jones in Detroit. Smith is the sort of back who thrives on lots of carries, while Bell is the sort of back who prefers to spend most of the game moping on the sideline and coming in for one or two big gains. Smith will be the starter by the end of the preseason, I predict- not because he’s that good, but because Bell is that worthless.

133

In just a few hours, the Cardinals begin their preseason schedule. Obviously, most fans are going to want to see Leinart and Warner. I’m also looking forward to seeing Edge. 30 years old now and I want to make sure he’s still got something left. Boldin won’t be playing, but it would be nice to see Fitz get a TD catch. I also want to check out two rookies: Tim Hightower and Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie.

I DON’T want to hear ESPN blabbering about Favre the whole game. Favre doesn’t play for the Saints or Cardinals.

134

[QUOTE=dalej42]
I DON’T want to hear ESPN blabbering about Favre the whole game. Favre doesn’t play for the Saints or Cardinals.
[/QUOTE]

You best plan to have the volume off then. :smiley:

135

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
You best plan to have the volume off then. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

The Cardinals do have the best radio broadcasters in the NFL, so I’ll just stream the radio feed.

Hey! Maybe ESPN can interview Michael Vick from prison and ask him his take on the Favre situation. That way they can cover both of their favorite people. :smiley: I just wonder how they’d work the Red Sox and Yankees into it as well…

136

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Bell couldn’t beat out anyone in Denver and couldn’t beat out a one-legged Kevin Jones in Detroit. Smith is the sort of back who thrives on lots of carries, while Bell is the sort of back who prefers to spend most of the game moping on the sideline and coming in for one or two big gains. Smith will be the starter by the end of the preseason, I predict- not because he’s that good, but because Bell is that worthless.
[/QUOTE]

Right, but I pointed out that Bell is the starter because he was in street clothes last season and if’s that worthless, you’d think Kevin Smith would have had the job.

Bah. I hate football already.

137

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Right, but I pointed out that Bell is the starter because he was in street clothes last season and if’s that worthless, you’d think Kevin Smith would have had the job.

Bah. I hate football already.
[/QUOTE]

Well, not necessarily. Looking at the Lions’ preliminary depth chart, it looks like the rookies are still working out separately, so Bell currently being “the starter” may not mean anything at all.

138

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Well, not necessarily. Looking at the Lions’ preliminary depth chart, it looks like the rookies are still working out separately, so Bell currently being “the starter” may not mean anything at all.
[/QUOTE]

Tonight is the first preseason game against the Giants. Woo!

139

Well, we’re two weeks into the preseason games, and my first FF draft is this Saturday, so I’m going to bore you with some of my random thoughts.

  1. The Bears named Orton their starting QB. Heh. Do they even have starting WR’s? Or Offensive Linemen?

  2. Two things I thought were strengths for the Packers, the O Line and the receiving corps, have looked … troubling, especially in the most recent game. Giving up sacks and dropped passes can kill a team. I feel bad for Rodgers.

  3. PPPhhhheewwwww! What is that stink? Oh, that’s just the Brownies. Ugh.

  4. Is that a Ricky Williams I see?

  5. I don’t think any one player is more important to their team right now that Tom Brady.

  6. Is JT O’Sullivan Kurt Warner ver. 1.2?

  7. Is it too early to jump on the Justin Forsett bandwagon?

140

  1. The Bears named Orton their starting QB. Heh. Do they even have starting WR’s? Or Offensive Linemen?
    Well, Hester might make some noise, but given that his primary value is theoretically as a deep threat, I don’t see much happening on that front. If Forte isn’t the second coming of Walter Payton, the Bears won’t make it out of the bottom 5 offenses.

  2. Two things I thought were strengths for the Packers, the O Line and the receiving corps, have looked … troubling, especially in the most recent game. Giving up sacks and dropped passes can kill a team. I feel bad for Rodgers.
    Feh. Preseason. I see very Philip Rivers’ first season-y numbers coming for Rodgers this year, minus an appropriate number of touchdowns (6-10) for the lack of an Antonio Gates. Plus, perhaps, a few more sacks and fumbles for the lack of defenses respecting the run quite the same as they would for LT.

  3. Is JT O’Sullivan Kurt Warner ver. 1.2?
    **Warner stepped into an offense that featured the best all-around back in the league and the best wideout pairing in the league. And a terrific line. And a turnover-happy defense that gave the offense lots and lots of possessions. I’m looking at the Niners and I’m not seeing any of the above, with the possible exception of the defense creating turnovers. Sure, he gets Martz as his coordinator, but that just means he’ll throw more picks as well as touchdowns. If he even starts.

I’m not saying that the Rams could have stuck just anyone under center and been the Greatest Show on Turf, just that he fell into as ideal a situation as could be imagined.*

  1. Is it too early to jump on the Justin Forsett bandwagon?
    Yes. Even if he wins a roster spot, and then gets some carries in the 'Hawks already crowded backfield, he’ll be a Quentin Griffin - a spectacular player for three games who disappears shortly afterward and is never heard from again.