PDA

View Full Version : Mike and Mike predictions



Lonestar
09-06-2007, 11:20 AM
Just heard this am that once again Golic and greenie have no love for DEN.

They are calling for IND, NE, CIN/BAL mostly 14-2 to 10-6 and last but not least SAN as division winners. With JAX and KC 9-7 as the wild card. I did not hear the NFC if someone did please add it to the thread.

Food for thought gang.

topscribe
09-06-2007, 11:38 AM
I don't know what those guys are thinking . . . or drinking.

Frankly, I can understand "no love" for Denver. Too many question marks
remain to put us in the elite, or even the playoffs, for sure, at the moment.

But KC? Before KC can even become a playoff contender, they need to have a
team over there. I have them in the AFCW cellar this year . . . even behind
Oakland.

-----

anton...
09-06-2007, 11:39 AM
better question:

who the heck is mike and mike??

:foilhat:
________
Pattaya Heights Condos Prathumnak (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

topscribe
09-06-2007, 11:40 AM
better question:

who the heck is mike and mike??

:foilhat:
Maybe a couple guys off the street?

They gave them a shot because they liked the fonts in the "Will work for food" signs. :coffee:

-----

Lonestar
09-06-2007, 11:45 AM
better question:

who the heck is mike and mike??

:foilhat:.

Mike Golic and Mike Greenberg? they have a morning show on the ESPN radio and I believe on ESPN 2 simulcast.

In-com-plete
09-06-2007, 11:54 AM
I listen to those guys most mornings but didn't catch it this morning.

I do think SD will win our division. But there's no way KC finishes 2nd. No freakin' way! Just look at their offense:
- Their QBs are weak.
- LJ got his money (meaning he will not run as hard).
- Their O-line is not even close to what it used to be.
- WR's? Who's their recievers anyway?
- Tony G is on his last step. He's still better than 80% of the TEs in the league, but nowhere near where he was.

I think NE, Indy, SD, and Bal/Cin are gonna be the division winners. With Bal/Cin and us, the Jets, and the Jaguars fighting it out for the 2 wild card spots.

In-com-plete
09-06-2007, 12:00 PM
I don't know what those guys are thinking . . . or drinking.

Frankly, I can understand "no love" for Denver. Too many question marks
remain to put us in the elite, or even the playoffs, for sure, at the moment.

But KC? Before KC can even become a playoff contender, they need to have a
team over there. I have them in the AFCW cellar this year . . . even behind
Oakland.

-----
That wouldn't surprise me one bit. If people are thinking they're contenders, they're mistaken. Big time.

I used to think Herman Edwards was a good coach. Him...plus age is turning that team into junk.

lex
09-06-2007, 12:23 PM
Mike and Mike are all about teams in the east. Greenberg a week or so ago was saying that Belichick is clearly the best head coach in the NFL. Belichick is 1-5 vs Shanahan during the time that Brady has been his QB plus, on top of that, the last time Shanahan had an elite QB, Denver was winning back-to-back Super Bowls. So someone please explain what makes Belichick better than Shanahan.

TXBRONC
09-06-2007, 09:27 PM
Even K.C. fans will tell you things don't look so good for them.

SR
09-06-2007, 09:40 PM
Mike and Mike are all about teams in the east. Greenberg a week or so ago was saying that Belichick is clearly the best head coach in the NFL. Belichick is 1-5 vs Shanahan during the time that Brady has been his QB plus, on top of that, the last time Shanahan had an elite QB, Denver was winning back-to-back Super Bowls. So someone please explain what makes Belichick better than Shanahan.

Not many people outside of Denver or Denver's fans think Shananananaramjam is the best coach in the league...

Simple Jaded
09-06-2007, 10:38 PM
Mike and Mike are all about teams in the east. Greenberg a week or so ago was saying that Belichick is clearly the best head coach in the NFL. Belichick is 1-5 vs Shanahan during the time that Brady has been his QB plus, on top of that, the last time Shanahan had an elite QB, Denver was winning back-to-back Super Bowls. So someone please explain what makes Belichick better than Shanahan.


3 superbowls.

Another thing I like about Belichick is that his assistant coaches go onto HC jobs somewhere, while Shanahan's assistant coaches go under the bus!

Belichick is better.....

TXBRONC
09-06-2007, 10:41 PM
3 superbowls.

Another thing I like about Belichick is that his assistant coaches go onto HC jobs somewhere, while Shanahan's assistant coaches go under the bus!

Belichick is better.....


Kubiak hasn't gone under the bus, and doubt, Dinger and Bates will go under the bus.

Simple Jaded
09-06-2007, 10:45 PM
Kubiak hasn't gone under the bus, and doubt, Dinger and Bates will go under the bus.


And offensive coaches don't go under the bus, they get reassigned.

And if Bates doesn't produce, he be right behind Coyer, Rhodes and Robinson, imo.....

Lonestar
09-06-2007, 10:58 PM
I listen to those guys most mornings but didn't catch it this morning.

I do think SD will win our division. But there's no way KC finishes 2nd. No freakin' way! Just look at their offense:
- Their QBs are weak.
- LJ got his money (meaning he will not run as hard).
- Their O-line is not even close to what it used to be.
- WR's? Who's their recievers anyway?
- Tony G is on his last step. He's still better than 80% of the TEs in the league, but nowhere near where he was.

I think NE, Indy, SD, and Bal/Cin are gonna be the division winners. With Bal/Cin and us, the Jets, and the Jaguars fighting it out for the 2 wild card spots.



I think your correct unless all the moons and stars line up just right for us this year.

lex
09-07-2007, 12:45 AM
3 superbowls.

Another thing I like about Belichick is that his assistant coaches go onto HC jobs somewhere, while Shanahan's assistant coaches go under the bus!

Belichick is better.....


Sorry dude, but if Elway would have played one more year, Denver would have likely won the SB one more year. Again, the last time there was an elite QB in Denver, Shanahan was hoisting the SB trophy for the second time. The reason Belichick has one more is because his tenure in New England intersected Tom Brady earlier in his career whereas Shanahan was more limited since Elway was at the end of his career. And btw, 8 of the 11 Broncos on offense on the 1998 team were not drafted before the 6th round...and this was an offense that scored 500 pts in a season as a running team. Sorry but Belichick is not a better coach than Shanahan. And the assistants thing is a complete red herring. Who cares what happens to the assistants. Thats not even relevant. Its more of a tidbit, but its not really relevant.

Simple Jaded
09-07-2007, 07:54 PM
Sorry dude, but if Elway would have played one more year, Denver would have likely won the SB one more year. Again, the last time there was an elite QB in Denver, Shanahan was hoisting the SB trophy for the second time. The reason Belichick has one more is because his tenure in New England intersected Tom Brady earlier in his career whereas Shanahan was more limited since Elway was at the end of his career. And btw, 8 of the 11 Broncos on offense on the 1998 team were not drafted before the 6th round...and this was an offense that scored 500 pts in a season as a running team. Sorry but Belichick is not a better coach than Shanahan. And the assistants thing is a complete red herring. Who cares what happens to the assistants. Thats not even relevant. Its more of a tidbit, but its not really relevant.

Um hmm! And if the Queen had bal.....


Lex you just asked for one reason Belichick is better, and I gave you a legitimate one....But that's my opinion.

To me, Shanahan and Belichick are clearly the two best coaches in the league right now, but Belichick is better.

He's won more SB's with less talent and with all the injuries that team has each and every year, he's done a better coaching job in a few of the years where neither team won the SB.

Plus, Belichicks teams rarely fade at the end of the season like so many Broncos teams have. If I'm not mistaken, they've had one bad season since they won the 1st SB......

TXBRONC
09-07-2007, 07:56 PM
Sorry dude, but if Elway would have played one more year, Denver would have likely won the SB one more year. Again, the last time there was an elite QB in Denver, Shanahan was hoisting the SB trophy for the second time. The reason Belichick has one more is because his tenure in New England intersected Tom Brady earlier in his career whereas Shanahan was more limited since Elway was at the end of his career. And btw, 8 of the 11 Broncos on offense on the 1998 team were not drafted before the 6th round...and this was an offense that scored 500 pts in a season as a running team. Sorry but Belichick is not a better coach than Shanahan. And the assistants thing is a complete red herring. Who cares what happens to the assistants. Thats not even relevant. Its more of a tidbit, but its not really relevant.



ONLY one was a number one pick and that was John Elway.

Rick
09-07-2007, 08:45 PM
LJ I don't think will take anything off due to money. Even back when he was a backup I thought this guy was a superstar to be.

That being said he is going to be in hard times this season.

A weakened OLine will already make for a tougher task but if you can judge the QBS preseason performances this year by what they may offer this season I can certainly see the lines being stacked against LJ and teams daring the QBS to throw to the sub par receivers on the team.

Now I still think that Huard could be a solid QB as he proved last season, but if his 29 rating for the preseason is any indication it will be a pitiful season for both LJ and the chiefs.

It will be hard to really place judgement on him though with only 9 attempts in preseason.

omac
09-08-2007, 11:49 AM
The reason Belichick has one more is because his tenure in New England intersected Tom Brady earlier in his career whereas Shanahan was more limited since Elway was at the end of his career.

This rings true; with Belichick as the head coach, the Patriots without Brady starting was 5-13 (5-11 from the previous season, and the first 2 games of the regular season the next year, before Bledsoe was injured). Forget superbowls and playoffs, Belichick as a head coach has not proven that he can have a winning regular season record without Tom Brady. I'm pretty sure that he can, though, but what I'm saying is Brady is a huge part of the formula for Belicheck's success in the playoffs and the Superbowl, just as Peyton is for the Colts, and Elway was for the Broncos.


He's won more SB's with less talent and with all the injuries that team has each and every year, he's done a better coaching job in a few of the years where neither team won the SB.

Plus, Belichicks teams rarely fade at the end of the season like so many Broncos teams have. If I'm not mistaken, they've had one bad season since they won the 1st SB......

True, but again, he's always had Brady for those playoff and superbowl runs, and even for the years he didn't make the playoffs and had a good record. Shanny's had to make due with Griese, Frerotte, Miller, Beuerlein, Kannell, and Plummer. And in Plummer's 1st year with the Broncos, he only played 11 games, yet the Broncos were still able to get 10 wins. Bledsoe was easily a more highly rated QB than any of those guys.

Belichick's had one bad season since he's been coaching the Pats, so that's 1 in 7 seasons. Shanny's had one bad season since coaching the Broncos, so that's 1 in 12 seasons. Which was Belichick's losing season? ... the one Tom Brady didn't start.

On winning with less talent to win the Superbowl, well, the Broncos needed that talent to beat the Packers, who were considered the best team from the stronger division; the AFC was considered the weak division, and the NFC had dominated, having a string of about 12 consecutive superbowl wins. I doubt that the weaker NE superbowl teams would be able to compete with that Packer team.

Just my opinions, I believe you're both right, but lex's point about importance of having Elway and Brady is too big a part of the equation. :cool:

lex
09-08-2007, 11:16 PM
Um hmm! And if the Queen had bal.....


Lex you just asked for one reason Belichick is better, and I gave you a legitimate one....But that's my opinion.

To me, Shanahan and Belichick are clearly the two best coaches in the league right now, but Belichick is better.

He's won more SB's with less talent and with all the injuries that team has each and every year, he's done a better coaching job in a few of the years where neither team won the SB.

Plus, Belichicks teams rarely fade at the end of the season like so many Broncos teams have. If I'm not mistaken, they've had one bad season since they won the 1st SB......

What does less talent have to do with anything? Allow me to explain something to you. There were more elite QBs in the 90s than there have been during this decade. Teams were also more balanced and therefore you had to have a more talented ( as in better...not draft position) team to win super bowls. So in effect, one could say he did more with less where the offense is concerned. It was more of an arms race in the 1990s. People talk about free agency but thats a red herring. Most of the teams who were contending for Super Bowls were adding talent rather than losing it. When the Ravens won the Super Bowl in 2000 and then did a firesell, a lot of teams across the league adopted this lean operations mentality. It presented a period of time where there were fewer teams looking to accumulate talent and therefore having an elite QB was an even greater advantage than it was in the 90s...plus, again, there have been fewer elite QBs. Shanahan won with more talent because the other teams contending had more talent than the teams Belichick coached against. You can also drill down even further if you want and see that the AFC West has typically had 3 competitive teams whereas the AFC East have generally had 2 at most...and, of course, this affects playoff seeding. And like someone else said, you could actually say Shanahan has done more with less than has Belichick. Earlier I pointed out how the SB teams didnt have a lot of highly drafted talent...but additionally, they have had a revolving door at RB and have gone from one QB to the next that was made to look better than he actually was. Griese has never looked better than he did when with Denver, nor had Plummer,...or even Frerotte. And yet theyve been competitive. Who makes that work? And again, when there are fewer elite QBs having one becomes a greater advantage. This fact kind of makes your observation about Shanahan having more talent not so relevant aside from being untrue (if you go by draft position). In short, you the point you make is not valid because its a red herring and the idea is to make it apples to apples. Along those lines, its perfectly fair to look at what each has done with an elite QB and without. Plus again, Belichicks strength is that he is supposed to be a code cracker...an expert strategist...but since he has such a poor record against Shanahan even with an elite QB, you could say that Belichicks alleged greatest strength is actually a stronger point for Shanahan.

lex
09-08-2007, 11:23 PM
ONLY one was a number one pick and that was John Elway.


Willie McGinest, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy and Richard Seymour were all #1s, no and I dont think any of them were 37 when they won their last SB.

Simple Jaded
09-09-2007, 04:00 PM
What does less talent have to do with anything? Allow me to explain something to you. There were more elite QBs in the 90s than there have been during this decade. Teams were also more balanced and therefore you had to have a more talented ( as in better...not draft position) team to win super bowls. So in effect, one could say he did more with less where the offense is concerned. It was more of an arms race in the 1990s. People talk about free agency but thats a red herring. Most of the teams who were contending for Super Bowls were adding talent rather than losing it. When the Ravens won the Super Bowl in 2000 and then did a firesell, a lot of teams across the league adopted this lean operations mentality. It presented a period of time where there were fewer teams looking to accumulate talent and therefore having an elite QB was an even greater advantage than it was in the 90s...plus, again, there have been fewer elite QBs. Shanahan won with more talent because the other teams contending had more talent than the teams Belichick coached against. You can also drill down even further if you want and see that the AFC West has typically had 3 competitive teams whereas the AFC East have generally had 2 at most...and, of course, this affects playoff seeding. And like someone else said, you could actually say Shanahan has done more with less than has Belichick. Earlier I pointed out how the SB teams didnt have a lot of highly drafted talent...but additionally, they have had a revolving door at RB and have gone from one QB to the next that was made to look better than he actually was. Griese has never looked better than he did when with Denver, nor had Plummer,...or even Frerotte. And yet theyve been competitive. Who makes that work? And again, when there are fewer elite QBs having one becomes a greater advantage. This fact kind of makes your observation about Shanahan having more talent not so relevant aside from being untrue (if you go by draft position). In short, you the point you make is not valid because its a red herring and the idea is to make it apples to apples. Along those lines, its perfectly fair to look at what each has done with an elite QB and without. Plus again, Belichicks strength is that he is supposed to be a code cracker...an expert strategist...but since he has such a poor record against Shanahan even with an elite QB, you could say that Belichicks alleged greatest strength is actually a stronger point for Shanahan.


Lex, do us a favor and hit the "Enter" key a few times! :D

I'm just saying that I have more repect for the talent that Shanahan had on those SB teams than I do the Patriots players. :salute:

lex
09-09-2007, 04:28 PM
Lex, do us a favor and hit the "Enter" key a few times! :D

I'm just saying that I have more repect for the talent that Shanahan had on those SB teams than I do the Patriots players. :salute:

And Im just saying that the other teams of that time also had more talent. Again, since the Ravens won in 2000 you dont really see THAT many teams that can run, pass, and play defense. They're usually doing well to have 2 out of the 3. Since teams arent as well balanced as they once were, the bar was lowered in terms of degree of difficulty when it comes to winning championships. So your "less talent" observation is offset by the fact that a lot of the other teams contending during NEs run havent been as good.

Simple Jaded
09-09-2007, 04:32 PM
And Im just saying that the other teams of that time also had more talent. Again, since the Ravens won in 2000 you dont really see THAT many teams that can run, pass, and play defense. They're usually doing well to have 2 out of the 3. Since teams arent as well balanced as they once were, the bar was lowered in terms of degree of difficulty when it comes to winning championships. So your "less talent" observation is offset by the fact that a lot of the other teams contending during NEs run havent been as good.



The Indianapolis Colts????

lex
09-09-2007, 04:39 PM
The Indianapolis Colts????

What about them?