2007 NFL Thread

[Immortalfire]

The New York Titans throwbacks. They're awful.

Gahhh...it is a rule now that every week, some team has to wear the old uniforms that look like something that was crapped out, stomped on and doused with paint?

 

[kane9321]

the pats..wow just wow. I f they dont win the superbowl..i'm gonna be depressed.go pats go

 

[Kelly]

Gahhh...it is a rule now that every week, some team has to wear the old uniforms that look like something that was crapped out, stomped on and doused with paint?

Yes.....

 

[Immortalfire]

 

[FaT_tONle]

Pats aren't going 16-0 as we already know... @Indy, Philli... @ NYG ,Wash @ Balt, PITT... can't be done...

As for the Cardinals... they need to swing a deal for Chad Suckington... yea its not an upgrade of the sort but its better than what they have right now... they should give up a fifth. That offense fits a Pennington mold. Isn't really anyone else out there right now. Unless I am not thinking of someone.

 

[Showtime]

Washington? Giants? Philly? Baltimore?

The only argument you have against them going 16-0 is Indy & Pitt. That being said, I don't think any team is going to go 16-0, it's ridiculous.

 

[Dark Donnie]

I ideal QB for them to get would be Brunell...granted he's 100 but he still has an arm for the deep ball and he would fit perfectly in that offense. Pennington is not a NFL QB anymore....his arm is to weak. If you can't throw the ball deep or an out route...then what? What are you going to throw crossing routes all day?

 

[Dark Donnie]

Washington? Giants? Philly? Baltimore?

The only argument you have against them going 16-0 is Indy & Pitt. That being said, I don't think any team is going to go 16-0, it's ridiculous.

I bet those three games are better then you think...Baltimore has no offense so they shouldn't be a problem.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Washington? Giants? Philly? Baltimore?

The only argument you have against them going 16-0 is Indy & Pitt. That being said, I don't think any team is going to go 16-0, it's ridiculous.

Yeah and the chances that team plays like they did on SUnday for all 16 games is as good as nil... at some point you get beat. You always lose to the team that no one expects you to lose against... albeit I don't think PITT will be good enough to be playing for a bye by the time the Patriot game rolls around... but even if the Pats get through those two... those NFC East games are very tricky. And Baltimore will still be playing for a division or wild card spot at that time.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I ideal QB for them to get would be Brunell...granted he's 100 but he still has an arm for the deep ball and he would fit perfectly in that offense. Pennington is not a NFL QB anymore....his arm is to weak. If you can't throw the ball deep or an out route...then what? What are you going to throw crossing routes all day?

They should swing a deal with the Raiders... ship a 6th rounder for Mccown... or is he with the Lions? I forget.... thats the best guy out there probably... I hope Warner gets back soon though. Tired of Seattle making the playoffs.

 

[Excel]

No, we talked about him last page. Excel fails to see that he is a better back than Bush.

Ive been saying hed do well since before week one; all these fools saying his god after week 6 are a little late

excels breakout picks...

QB
1. Philip Rivers, San Diego
2. Alex Smith, San Fran

RB
1. Reggie Bush, New Orleans
2. Adrian Peterson, Minnesota

WR
1. Santonio Holmes, Pitttsbuirg
2. Calvin Johnson, Detroit

Thats from before week 1

 

[kane9321]

damn

 

[Mister J]

That Bengals cheerleader has one mighty fine, toned heiney.

 

[Excel]

And for the 1,000th time, where's the quote where I said he wouldn't be a good running back? My beef with you is you're outlandinsh claims that he's going to be "better than Marshall Faulk". That's ridiculous.

No it isn't. Bush WILL break 1000 rushing yards this year & 500 recieving yards; which would be right inline with Faulks 2nd year.

And yall are vastly over rating Faulk. Best all around back ever? He maybe had the best 4 years run in 1998-2001; but prior to that he was a good running back at best. After 4 years in the NFL his career carry average was 3.7; and averaged roughly 1000 rushing yards and 460-470 recieving yards a season for his first 4 years; marks will Bush will pass.

 

[Dark Donnie]

Ive been saying hed do well since before week one; all these fools saying his god after week 6 are a little late



Thats from before week 1

To say the top RB in the draft on a running oriented team is going to break out wasn't a big stretch.

AD did look sick yesterday though

 

[FaT_tONle]

No it isn't. Bush WILL break 1000 rushing yards this year & 500 recieving yards; which would be right inline with Faulks 2nd year.

And yall are vastly over rating Faulk. Best all around back ever? He maybe had the best 4 years run in 1998-2001; but prior to that he was a good running back at best. After 4 years in the NFL his career carry average was 3.7; and averaged roughly 1000 rushing yards and 460-470 recieving yards a season for his first 4 years; marks will Bush will pass.

So wait... now Faulk was just Gale Seyers with a few more decent years? How long has Bush done it for? 1 Game and a couple of highlight reels from last year? You can not put Bush in a Marshall Faulk category at this stage... it is just ignorant and disrespectful. You like Bush... we get it. The bottom line is he doesn't have the numbers... not yet.

 

[Showtime]

Yeah and the chances that team plays like they did on SUnday for all 16 games is as good as nil... at some point you get beat. You always lose to the team that no one expects you to lose against... albeit I don't think PITT will be good enough to be playing for a bye by the time the Patriot game rolls around... but even if the Pats get through those two... those NFC East games are very tricky. And Baltimore will still be playing for a division or wild card spot at that time.

Sure, the Patriots could lose to Miami or any team, "any given Sunday" but losing to Baltimore, NYG, Philly or Washington is very very unlikely. The NFC East is far from a tough division.

 

[Dark Donnie]

No it isn't. Bush WILL break 1000 rushing yards this year & 500 recieving yards; which would be right inline with Faulks 2nd year.

And yall are vastly over rating Faulk. Best all around back ever? He maybe had the best 4 years run in 1998-2001; but prior to that he was a good running back at best. After 4 years in the NFL his career carry average was 3.7; and averaged roughly 1000 rushing yards and 460-470 recieving yards a season for his first 4 years; marks will Bush will pass.

This is hilarious...Faulk overrated??? He regarded by EVERYONE as a top 7-8 RB of All-Time...
Career Stats

Rushing Yards 12279
Yards per Carry 4.3
Rushing TDs 100

Catches 767
Received Yards 6875
Yards per Catch 9.0
Receiving TDs 36

Thats more catches then most WR's

The guy was amazing...if Bush is anywhere close to the player he was I would be amazed.

 

[Excel]

So wait... now Faulk was just Gale Seyers with a few more decent years? How long has Bush done it for? 1 Game and a couple of highlight reels from last year? You can not put Bush in a Marshall Faulk category at this stage... it is just ignorant and disrespectful. You like Bush... we get it. The bottom line is he doesn't have the numbers... not yet.

Dude I never said Bush is at Faulks prime level yet. My statement was he will be a better version of Marshall Faulk; and Faulk didnt begin his reign till his 5th season. Reggies in his 2nd. I wont be posting here by the time Bush hits that level; it wont be till earliest next season; but if he splits time then itll have to wait. Now that he is by himself his numbers will blossom (and are blossoming).

Thats the end of my defense; I will let his numbers speak for themselves at the end of the year. He wont be at Faulks level yet; but he is getting there.

 

[Excel]

This is hilarious...Faulk overrated??? He regarded by EVERYONE as a top 7-8 RB of All-Time...
Career Stats

Rushing Yards 12279
Yards per Carry 4.3
Rushing TDs 100

Catches 767
Received Yards 6875
Yards per Catch 9.0
Receiving TDs 36

Faulk in 2000 & 2001 was dominating as any player ever was; however his entire career was not like that. As I already said; this why I am comparing him to Faulk. I KNOW how got Faulk became and I am NOT saying Bush is there yet.

Faulks 2nd season statistics from 26 games:

Rushing Yards: 1078
Yards per game: 67.4
Yards per carry: 3.7

Recieving Yards: 475
Yards per game: 29.7
Yards per carry: 8.5

Those are literally the exact same numbers Bush is headed for; if not slightly below where he'll finish.

watch this

[YT]xjKFHZapDo8[/YT]

Bush's style is more Marshall Faulk than anybody. The stop and go's; endless cutbacks; constant dancing; instant acceleration; all his stats come from big plays...Reggie Bush SCREAMS Marshall Faulk 2.0; how does noone else see it? He's not Barry Sanders or LT where he can run you over.

Bush sig. play was Faulks specialty: the stop in the back field and cutting back the other way before he reaches the line of the scrimage and running around the defense.

 

[Mister J]

How do you vastly overrate a guy with 12000+ rushing yards and near 7000 receiving yards?
The only guys who I'd consider being better than Faulk all-around are Thurman Thomas and Marcus Allen (Tiki has the numbers for the discussion, but I'd take the other guys, no doubt). You could throw Roger Craig in there, but he didn't have the longevity at it. How is he overrated all-around?

We're talking about what Marshall has done and you're trying to say a guy who didn't break 600 rushing yards last year is going to outdo him. If anybody in the discussion is overrated, it's Bush. Marshall ran for almost 2400 yards his first two years. He proved he could shoulder the rushing load of an every-down back from the jump and you want to equate him with a guy that's been the featured back for one game?

That four year timespan where Faulk averaged about 1350 rushing, 900 receiving and about 18 TDs per game, is probably the best all-around RB run of all-time. You're patronizing Marshall by saying he's going to be bettered by a guy, who for all intents and purposes, hasn't done jack squat. Bush has ran for over 100 yards exactly once in his career and you have the man in Canton. Just because he might break 1000/500 this year, that's hardly the tell-tale sign that he's going to place himself in the rarefied air you're talking about. Nobody's saying the man doesn't have talent or that he's not versatile, but this a ridiculously (and at this point, largely unsubstantiated) leap in logic.

 

[Cmill216]

and Faulk didnt begin his reign till his 5th season.

Faulk ran for over 1,000 yards in 4 of his first 5 seasons, and went to the Pro Bowl while winning Offensive Rookie of the Year in the same season.

 

[Excel]

How do you vastly overrate a guy with 12000+ rushing yards and near 7000 receiving yards?
The only guys who I'd consider being better than Faulk all-around are Thurman Thomas and Marcus Allen (maybe Tiki). You could throw Roger Craig in there, but he didn't have the longevity at it. Explain how he's overrated all-around.

Ok; stepping aside for a moment; you guys talk **** bout Bush for not being able to be a between the tackles running back and talk down about how hell be a good running back who is also a good reciever.

That is what Faulk was; the combo makes them great. Faulk broke the top 10 leading rushers 4 times in his 12 year career; hardly remarkable let alone "top 7-8 all time". What made him great; or one of the best all around backs ever; was his reciveing statistics.

But yall criticize Bush for playing the same way.

We're talking about what Marshall has done and you're trying to say a guy who didn't break 600 rushing yards last year is going to outdo him. If anybody in the discussion is overrated, it's Bush. Marshall ran for almost 2400 yards his first two years. He proved he could shoulder the rushing load of an every-down back from the jump and you want to equate him with a guy that's been the featured back for one game?

Bush split time his rookie year; you cant compare the 2 there. I'm comparing what you can compare; and thats their 2nd seasons which so far and very similar though I dont think Bush drability has ever been questioned.

That four year timespan where Faulk averaged about 1350 rushing, 900 receiving and about 18 TDs per game, is probably the best all-around RB run of all-time. You're patronizing Marshall by saying he's going to be bettered by a guy, who for all intents and purposes, hasn't done jack squat. Bush has ran for over 100 yards exactly once in his career and you have the man in Canton. Just because he might break 1000/500 this year, that's hardly the tell-tale sign that he's going to place himself in the rarefied air you're talking about. Nobody's saying the man doesn't have talent or that he's not versatile, but this a ridiculously (and at this point, largely unsubstantiated) leap in logic.

Here is the most telling stat thus far. Forget season totals because there are too many possible variables.

Yards per game average Year 1

Bush: 81.7 (while splitting time at running back)
Faulk: 112.7

Year 2 (as starter)
Bush: 130
Faulk: 97.2

Faulk then avareged in years 78, 98, and 139 in years 3,4, and 5; not fully turning it on till he got to St. Louis.

Yeah nothing is set in stone; but I dont see how you cant see where I am coming from.

 

[Excel]

Faulk ran for over 1,000 yards in 4 of his first 5 seasons, and went to the Pro Bowl while winning Offensive Rookie of the Year in the same season.

Bush is getting 1000 yards (baring injury) this season; willevery year he is the lone back like Faulk was; and he clearly woulda done it last year had he not split time with Deuce McCalister. If Marshall Faulk split time like Bush you think he would have gotten 1000 years? Of course not.

Faulk did it his rookie year on friggin 315 carries. Bush got less than half of that. With that many carries and his same ypc; he would rushed for 1134; about 150 less yards than Faulk did on the season (or 9 yards a game); so that point is pointless.

 

[Mister J]

Ok; stepping aside for a moment; you guys talk **** bout Bush for not being able to be a between the tackles running back and talk down about how hell be a good running back who is also a good reciever.

That is what Faulk was; the combo makes them great. Faulk broke the top 10 leading rushers 4 times in his 12 year career; hardly remarkable let alone "top 7-8 all time". What made him great; or one of the best all around backs ever; was his reciveing statistics.


But yall criticize Bush for playing the same way.

Faulk was in the top 10 rushers 5 times in his career and at the end of the day, he's the 9th overall leading rusher in NFL history. That's not remarkable? His receiving stats are what practically guarantee him a spot in Canton, but his rushing yards alone are more than sufficient to make him one of the greats.
Bush has one game over 100 rushing yards. It's his receiving stats that have gotten him what acclaim he has a pro. He hasn't proven anything as a runner. It's not even close at this point.

Yeah nothing is set in stone; but I dont see how you cant see where I am coming from.

People can see he'll likely be a productive back over the long term, but can you wait until he's actually accomplished something before you for him for his HOF jacket? You're talking about a level of achievement that requires several years of elite play and you're basing it on some averages from 19 games of split time and and two games as a starter. Adrian Peterson is averaging over 100/game and 6.3 ypc for his career, but that doesn't mean that he'll be better than Jim Brown. Comparisons like that take years of established results before they merit being taken seriously.