NFL Darkhorse

[yankovic fan 0]

 

NFC I would like to see the Bengals do well.

Um...kay

I dunno how the NFC would feel about the Bengals.....maybe the AFC that they play in would have something to say about it.

Ugh!

 

My bad. Total brain fart.

 

Posted while working, my night job, half asleep, not thinking clearly, in between phone calls.

 

I'm rooting for Jacksonville in the AFC for the purpose of a former class mate being there. I also look for the Bengals to do well.

 

As far as an NFC team goes, I think Detroit will surprise some people, though not anyone here as there seems to be a reoccuring theme of Lions support here.

[the pinjockey 0]

Bills? Saints? Seahawks? Jets?

 

Those aren't darkhorses...those are teams people know are talented, but have underacheived. It's like calling the Colts darkhorses after that poor season they had a few years ago.

 

I don't think Jacksonville can be considered one either, due to so many experts saying they will be a team to watch this year. You can't be a darkhorse after everyone says you will be.

That is my problem with the dark horse bit. In the last couple of years every analyst and their mother try to spot them. So any team with young, up and coming players (Houston, Jax, Detroit) is going to be picked by a bunch of people to be a dark horse.

 

The only teams that seem to be underrated are the previous year's underachievers, when they are the ones who are one or two breaks away from doing serious damage.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I don't consider the Jets or Falcons darkhorses since they were lousy largely due to injuries. The Seahawks went to OT on the road against the hottest team in the NFC last year in the WildCard playoffs, despite a severe case of butterfingers by the WRs. I consider them the best team in the NFC, and I'm not alone. They aren't a darkhorse.

 

There is no denying though that Buffalo & New Orleans were bad teams last year, and didn't significantly improve in the off-season (unlike Washington). They are true darkhorses.

[sfaJack 0]

I'm curious to know why everyone thinks Houston is going to be so good. Their defense should be mostly healthy and thus better, but I think their offense still has a ways to go.

 

They don't have much receiving depth outside of Andre Johnson (Gaffney? Bradford? Anyone?), Domanick Davis isn't going to stay healthy, Tony Hollings can't hold onto the football, and they have an unproven left tackle. David Carr HAS to show that he's growing as a quarterback.

 

Add in the fact that they're in a brutal division and I think they finish fourth with a no more than 6, maybe 7, wins.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Losing Staley is hardly a blow...he did just about nothing for the Eagles. Buckwalter going down does hurt, but it doesn't take them out of the playoffs.

Staley was the Eagles most consistant RB. To say he did "just about nothing" is ridiculous. Buckhalter going down hurts only because it leaves Westbrook as the only RB. Had Staley stayed, losing Buckhalter wouldn't really hurt the team.

 

The Eagles are going to miss Staley more than people think.

[cabbageboy 0]

I haven't heard anyone mention them, but I'll take the Vikings out of the NFC. They just have way too much talent to go 6-10 and 9-7 forever. I always like to look at teams that go about 7-9 to 9-7 and miss the playoffs. Ravens were 8-8 and next year won the SB. Pats missed the playoff and went 9-7, then won the SB. Panthers were 7-9 and then made it there.

 

Based on this, I'll go with the Vikings in the NFC and I can't believe I'm saying this, but the Bengals in the AFC.

[Guest El Satanico]

There is no denying though that Buffalo & New Orleans were bad teams last year, and didn't significantly improve in the off-season (unlike Washington). They are true darkhorses.

Like usual the Saints were fine until their late season slide. Buffalo's biggest problem last year was the play of Bledsoe and the offense should play better with the new offensive coordinator. Losing Losman hurts, because now they have no one to push Drew.

[Red Baron 0]

In the AFC I'd say the Browns. With Garcia at the helm and Shruggs at the running back, they are going to have a solid offence. All they need now is to stop the run.

 

NFC, I'd say the Bears.

[Guest MikeSC]

There is no denying though that Buffalo & New Orleans were bad teams last year, and didn't significantly improve in the off-season (unlike Washington).  They are true darkhorses.

Like usual the Saints were fine until their late season slide. Buffalo's biggest problem last year was the play of Bledsoe and the offense should play better with the new offensive coordinator. Losing Losman hurts, because now they have no one to push Drew.

Also, after watching him in college, Lee Evans could be damned good. He could be the 2nd WR the Bills need --- something Josh Reed, likely, will never become.

-=Mike

[King Kamala 0]

AFC: I'll say the Texans, this seems to be do or die time for them, they'll be around 9-7.

 

NFC: Cardinals, why? Because no one else will say them as darkhorses and I'll look like a fuckin genius if they do well. But seriously, I think with the coaching of Denny Green they could go 6-10 or 7-9 which is great for the Cardinals.

[Guest MikeSC]

AFC: I'll say the Texans, this seems to be do or die time for them, they'll be around 9-7.

 

NFC: Cardinals, why? Because no one else will say them as darkhorses and I'll look like a fuckin genius if they do well. But seriously, I think with the coaching of Denny Green they could go 6-10 or 7-9 which is great for the Cardinals.

I would've considered AZ --- but the Boldin injury is a REAL problem.

-=Mike

[The Niggardly King 0]

AFC: San Diego Chargers

 

NFC: Detroitt Lions

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

AFC: I'll say the Texans, this seems to be do or die time for them, they'll be around 9-7.

 

NFC: Cardinals, why? Because no one else will say them as darkhorses and I'll look like a fuckin genius if they do well. But seriously, I think with the coaching of Denny Green they could go 6-10 or 7-9 which is great for the Cardinals.

I would've considered AZ --- but the Boldin injury is a REAL problem.

-=Mike

Not to mention Shipp possibly being out for the year, as well as Larry Fitzgerald being hurt.

[alfdogg 0]

Right now sportsbook.com has NE at 6-1 as the favorite to win the Super Bowl. SD is the longest shot, at 150-1.

[Guest Vitamin X]

So what's wrong with picking the Pats and Eagles?

 

Sounds intelligent to me. The two best winning percentages in the past 4 (or is it 5?) years.

That honor actually belongs to the Rams and Titans. Eagles and Pats are in the top 5, as are the Packers and Colts and up until last year's slide the Raiders.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Losing Staley is hardly a blow...he did just about nothing for the Eagles. Buckwalter going down does hurt, but it doesn't take them out of the playoffs.

Staley was the Eagles most consistant RB. To say he did "just about nothing" is ridiculous. Buckhalter going down hurts only because it leaves Westbrook as the only RB. Had Staley stayed, losing Buckhalter wouldn't really hurt the team.

 

The Eagles are going to miss Staley more than people think.

I think they'll miss Carlos Emmons even more to be honest. Everyone seems to completely overlook that their defense got gutted and the only good addition they got was an aging Jevon Kearse.

[alfdogg 0]

So what's wrong with picking the Pats and Eagles?

 

Sounds intelligent to me.  The two best winning percentages in the past 4 (or is it 5?) years.

That honor actually belongs to the Rams and Titans. Eagles and Pats are in the top 5, as are the Packers and Colts and up until last year's slide the Raiders.

All 7 of those teams are in the top 5?

[Guest MikeSC]

So what's wrong with picking the Pats and Eagles?

 

Sounds intelligent to me.  The two best winning percentages in the past 4 (or is it 5?) years.

That honor actually belongs to the Rams and Titans. Eagles and Pats are in the top 5, as are the Packers and Colts and up until last year's slide the Raiders.

All 7 of those teams are in the top 5?

It's a very generous top 5.

-=Mike

[Guest Vitamin X]

So what's wrong with picking the Pats and Eagles?

 

Sounds intelligent to me.  The two best winning percentages in the past 4 (or is it 5?) years.

That honor actually belongs to the Rams and Titans. Eagles and Pats are in the top 5, as are the Packers and Colts and up until last year's slide the Raiders.

All 7 of those teams are in the top 5?

Err I meant in their respective conferences, my mistake.