[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Philly isnt below Average, they are an underachieving team with a very good amount of talent on their roster. Same goes for Dallas which should have beaten the Ravens. Your line of thinking is devoid of the any given Sunday mantra which is true. The Niners for instance have been the one of the concensus picks to go to the Superbowl yet lost to the Vikings, which should be considered an average team from your line of thinking, does that now make them a below average team? [/quote]
So Philly has been an underachieving team for 2 straight years? Doesn’t that make them average? At what point do they stop being underachievers and start being average?
Dallas should not have beaten the Ravens. They COULD have beaten the Ravens, but they didn’t. It isn’t as if a touchdown was taken away from the Cowboys due to a poor call from the officials. They allowed a kick off return for a TD, a TD pass Flacco, and I believe 2 TDs from Rice. They had to score a 2 pt conversion to tie the game and didn’t. They had to kick a field goal to win it, they didn’t.
The Vikings might be a better team thus far than the Giants and maybe the Niners. They beat the Niners (4-2), but are way lower in the rankings. Why didn’t they get the boost the Giants got? They also beat Tennesse (2-4) who has had arguably the hardest schedule thus far having played the Pats, Steelers, Texans, Vikings, Chargers, and Lions. Vikings are too low imo and by my line of thinking they should be higher than the Giants.
[quote]
The pats have a mediocre record, yet I still consider them a very good team, The Packers have a mediocre record do you really consider the Arizona Cardinals a better team then the Packers or Saints for that matter. The Ravens have a stellar record yet in some of those wins they have shown that they may not be as good as their record suggests. The Pats again have the same record as the Dolphins, Bills and Jets…Im a Jet fan FTR there is no way the Pats are in that class of mediocre teams. I look at Talent and its way too early to look at record as the be all end all.
You cannot in one breath call the Giants an average team and in the next breath say they have a legit shot of winning in the playoffs, average teams generally do not win in the playoffs.[/quote]
You can very easily call a team mediocre and also say they have a shot. Giants last year barely made the playoffs. That to me is average maybe slightly above average. They got hot and won the SB. Same thing happened with the Packers.
I’m not saying they are a bad team just that they are average.
My line of thinking is that a single win against a quality team has to be weighed against the rest of the season. I’m not a “what have you done for me lately,” kind of fan. I look a the whole body of work.
You are doing the same thing I am. In one breath you are saying the Ravens have a good record, but their play has indicated they may not be as good as their record suggests (I agree), but in the same sentence say the Eagles are a good team (at least 1 of their 3 wins was given to them and the rest have been very very close).
All of this is just my opinion, as the league stands today, it could easily change. I expect to see teams like the Pats come out and have 9-10 wins, while I think Arizona will fall off. Thatâ??s based on history though.