It is. But it’s just football. It’s nice to watch good football, so I can only hope for a good Super Bowl and playoffs. I’ll root for the NFC North during the playoffs, because I hate it when folks say that the NFC North is the worst division in all of football, and due, in large part, to the ineptitude of the Lions.
They’re one game better than the Lions.
I feel kind of sorry for Calvin Johnson, in that he’s so talented, but stuck on a persistently luckless team.
I will say their offense showed more life today than I’ve seen in a long time, and the team does show signs of actually being able to dig itself out eventually. It’s probably going to take another season or two to completely recover from Millen, but I think there is some genuine reason to hope for Lions fans, especially if Stafford can pan out.
Two plays stood out to me in regards to quarterback play yesterday.
Matthew Stafford rolls to his right, throws against is body, interception, Vikings Ball. Announcers(Paraphrase): “That’s one thing you gotta learn in the NFL is you can’t throw back across the field against your body”.
Brett Favre rolls to his right, throws a rope off his back foot, against his body, back across the field. Touchdown.
Announcers(Paraphrase): “Brett Favre has been making that play his entire career”.
Some guys have the arm, and some don’t. Not saying Stafford isn’t a good quarterback, but I didn’t see any outstanding plays from him yesterday at all. I think he’s just another Joey Harrington.
He’s a rookie. Troy Aikman was 0-14 as a rookie, and looked hopeless. Peyton Manning was 3-13, and looked bad despite having the best statistical season of any rookie ever.
The greatest predictor for success as an NFL quarterback is whether you go to a good team or a shitty one, and Stafford went to a shitty one, so he probably will fail- but it’s not his fault.
For the record, I wouldn’t have drafted him at all; the Lions had a serviceable quarterback but have glaring holes all over the defense- but then I’m generally not a fan of drafting quarterbacks at the top of the first round anyway.
The Lions played inspired defense in the first half. They were following the ball well. gang tackling and pressuring Farve. But in the second half they fumbled and it took the starch out of them. It is hard not to think 'OK it’s happening again", when a bad break happens.
Stafford played poorly, 2 games in a row. Daunte might have been able to win. Stafford playing is a confession that the management is giving up on this year. He shows no spark. Yet the players are supposed to bust their asses feeling they could compete better with Daunte in. There have beeen rumblings of discontent already.Stafford has been anointed, but he has not earned his position. He showed no improvement from the first week. Rookies can catch on quickly sometimes, I do not see it in Stafford yet.
One of the cnn.com guys says the Packers are one of most over-hyped teams. After thier 1st two games I have to agree (well, maybe not the MOST over-hyped) . They looked great in pre-season but not so hot now. Ever the win over the Bears was a last minute good play.
So many missed passes (looks like a lot of them were the recievers fault), protection isn’t good, and the defense, while better than last year, still needs improvement.
They’ll probably do better than last year, but playoffs look iffy.
Brian
Hyped by who? They were 6-10 last year and I haven’t seen anyone predicting a better finish from them than 10-6. Their offense is generating a lot of hype I suppose.
This is the problem with being everybody’s “dark horse” pick. I still think they’re a 10-6, maybe 11-5 team with a decent shot of winning a competitive division. Everyone on Fox NFL Sunday picked them to go to the Super Bowl. I couldn’t believe it. I’d be pleased as punch, but if I had to bet on one team with even odds, they wouldn’t be my pick. But now if they go 10-6 and get a wildcard, everyone is going to be talking about how they underperformed 
Actually, it’s really not that competitive a division. None of the teams have improved their personnel substantially over last season, and none of them were very good last season. Everyone is expecting big things from the Vikings, of course, but given what we’ve seen from Favre so far he doesn’t appear to be much of an upgrade over Frerotte or Jackson. Cutler more or less singlehandedly won a game for the Bears yesterday, but he also more or less singlehandedly lost won last week, so on balance he might not be much of an upgrade over Orton either.
That was disappointing, but it is just one week. Hell I remember the year the Packers won the Super Bowl they LOST to any Indy team that had one win that year…against the Packers.
No need to panic or anything, but geez they need to do better at protecting Rodgers, this is just ridiculous. And the victory over the BEars doesn’t look so bad given the BEars win over the Steelers.
BTW, my vote for most overhyped…the Patriots. They could and should be 0-2.
By “competitive”, I mean that it’s a three-horse race. I agree that there are divisions that are stronger at the top, but I still think at this point that it’s a pick 'em between GB, CHI, and MIN. I know DtC will beg to differ.
I think both the AFC East and NFC East could be more competitive by virtue of all four teams could be in it through the first half of the season.
If you only need three teams to be in the hunt to be competitive, which divisions don’t qualify? If Hasselback is out for a while the NFC West only has two teams. You’d think the AFC West is only a one-horse race but after opening day in Oakland who knows. Other than those two, doesn’t every division have at least three teams with aspirations?
The Packers won the Super Bowl after the 1996 season, during which they did not play the Colts. They made it to the Super Bowl and lost during the 1997 season, during which they did play the Colts. However, that Colts team won 3 games, not 1.
The NFC South is looking very much like a two-horse race right now. I give the Buccaneers and Panthers roughly a 25% chance each of making it to .500 or better at this point, but given their ridiculously tough schedules that might be generous.
On the other hand, New Orleans and Atlanta also have tough schedules, although New Orleans’ is the easier.
Are you telling me that a 12-year old memory I have is wrong? That’s unpossible!
Hey, man, fighting [del]early-onset memory loss[/del] ignorance and all that…
So after the Lions lose two games to a pair of very good teams the organization and media seem to be panicking. They are already talking about benching Stafford and the pressure to break the losing skid. Bad planning that seems to me. Of course they need to get a win and another protracted losing streak could be bad for morale but I’m not sure now’s the time to start jerking around your rookie QB. Play a few teams further down the ladder of talent, teams that don’t have guys named Brees and Peterson, before you start the Chinese fire drill.
Well, Week 1 wasn’t the time to start their shiny new rookie, and he’s clearly not ready to win games. There’s no reason for them to compound their error.
I know the talking heads always natter about how benching a rookie quarterback will ruin his confidence or somesuch, but he’s thrown five interceptions in two games so I doubt his confidence level is any higher than it was before Week 1… and if his ego is fragile enough that getting benched will damage his development somehow then he has no business being an NFL quarterback.
I don’t think the argument is that his ego will be damaged by a benching, it’s that they made a decision to have him learn on the job in Week 1. If they were planning on that you need to take your lumps and let him learn. He won’t learn a thing watching from the bench. If they were really worried about the losing streak they should have started Culpepper from the get go. They didn’t and flip-flopping now would just delay his learning process. They need to be decisive.