Name the worst 4 teams in the NFC.....

[Carmon1274]

Why aren't the Eagles on any list? Chip Kelly hasn't done anything yet. Yes he won one game ... so ?

They destroyed Washington in Washington. The score only looked close at the end because the Eagles played the entire 2nd half in prevent and had to slow down their hurry up offense to kill the clock.

The Eagles offense is legit, and their defense can get to the QB. Michael Vick fits Chip Kelly's offense like a glove. Him and LeSean McCoy are in for a monster season. The only caveat is Vick's health, but his backup (Foles) looked pretty good in the new offense too during the preseason.

Agreed, but plenty of people will make the same comments about our squad. I agree that they over-achieved last year and I expect a step back, but I don't expect a free fall.

According to Football Outsiders, Seattle was the NFL's #2 most under-achieving team last season. Only Detroit won fewer games than they deserved to. According to them, Seattle should have won 13 games last season but only won 11.

I think the only guys on this team I expect a step back from is Lynch and Sherman. They played at such a high level last season, it's hard to maintain that year to year. I think most of the rest of the team still has room for improvement though. Our schedule (10am starts against good teams left and right, 10 games vs. NFC South + NFC West) will bone us and mask those improvements, but I would expect at least 11 wins this season.

Yes they destroyed Washington, guess what Washington sucks. Look how much points they gave out to Packers/Eagles and now Giving Lions 27 points. The Eagles offense are not legit. Vick was terrible in both games I saw Skins and KC. He threw a backward pass, that resulted in a TD. Also at how much Picks he threw to KC, that game was horrible.

Vick isn't the problem also, the other problem is the HC Kelly. Going for 2 against KC in week 3 right after you get a TD? Also what's with the fast tempo offense? When the score is tied and 7min left on the clock are you gonna go fast tempo and score a FG and give your opponent, 4min+ to get a TD and win?

Lol Preseason is preseason who the hell cares if someone looks good in preseason. One QB in mind that I remembered looked way good in preseason back in 2008 which he didn't even take a snap in regular season because he was terrible.

 

[MANUNITED23]

Bucs, Giants, Redskins, and Vikings

 

[kearly]

I almost nailed it after week one. My four teams are a combined 1-11, with the one win coming against one of the teams in the group, so 1-11 is the worst possible record. That said, Cam Newton might have finally snapped out of it and the Redskins defense caught the random suckititis virus that was swirling around New Orleans last year. So the Redskins take the spot of the Panthers. Bucs, Giants, Redskins, Vikings.

I think Philly is going to be alright. There were very competitive in weeks 2 and 3 against the Chargers and Chiefs. In the Chiefs game, I thought they clearly outplayed the other team but when you have half a dozen random turnovers (most of them fumbles), it's really hard to win.

The two-point decision was good coaching ruined by an outstanding defensive play. Usually, when you whip out a play people aren't prepared for, it usually works. Had they converted, it's possible that their next TD would have given them a 1 point lead. And even though they missed, they could have just gone for 2 again on the next TD to potentially make up for it. Statisticians have been arguing for decades that teams in two TD situations should always go for 2 on the first TD.

 

[HawkWow]

Unsure why they'd be arguing, Kearly. Down by 14, you kick the extra point. Twice. Going for 2 (down by 14, down by 7) might put you in position to win, it is more likely to position you to lose. At least a tie extends the game and worse case, a tie is better than a loss. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see the math.

Chip is going to pull some whacky stuff now and again. He wants to generate the excitement the guy before him didn't. Once he gets it together as an NFL coach (learning the rules is a good start), I'd expect to see less shenanigans from Chip.

IMO, if he wants to be truly innovative, he should go for it on 4th and short to mid, when going downhill. He should also spend time with his ST, working exhaustively on *onside kick drills. I'd bust an onside kick out every time my offense just scored after a drive of 10 + plays. The kicking team defense would be rested and would just have to stiffen up should the kick not be recovered.

With our defense, we should too. Especially with the new kickoff spot. And for Christ's sake, why do we NOT *onside kick when awarded a 15 yd penalty prior to kicking-off? To me, it's absolute insanity that we don't. We'd be kicking from mid-field. The ball (in theory) would travel at least 10 yards. You either get the ball back in their territory (with their tired D left on the field) or the opposition gets the ball on the 35-40. Well worth the gamble, thinks me.

* I do understand odds are against the recovery of onside kicks. That could be explained by the fact they are not practiced enough. I recall some HS coach that has 12 different formations for onside kicks and his recovery % excellent. A U Chicago math professor did extensive studies on both going on 4th down and onside kicks. He concluded such practice greatly increased the odds of winning. That HS coach won mutli state championships in doing so. Really interesting stuff, it was.