Pick your 10 win minimum teams for 2016

[Broncos6482]

That is true. They also have some prime time games this year. The pressure of the entire nation watching just your game could get interesting. I mean we have seen the Bengals year in and year out while having some of the most talent in the league struggle when the lights were brightest.

I've also said that with Del Rio he is a much better coach with less talent than he is with more. He gets lazy as a coach the more talent they have. He gets the mentality that my 11 are better than your 11 and I will just keep doing the same thing over and over and see if you can beat our talent. Well we have seen plenty that superior game planning can still beat talent in this league.

I think the same thing about del Rio as I do John Fox: if you give them an average team, they'll make them good. If you give them a great team, they'll make them good.

 

[Money]

Good point. I just noticed the 3, 10 win teams in the AFC north, which was obviously over-the-top homerism.

A. The only possible "homerism" would be predicting a bounce back year for the Ravens.

B. It's certainly not "over the top". The AFCN had 3 10-win teams 2 years ago. They play the AFCE and NFCE this year and there are no west coast trips.

 

[megalodon30]

I think the same thing about del Rio as I do John Fox: if you give them an average team, they'll make them good. If you give them a great team, they'll make them good.

Well put.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

That is true. They also have some prime time games this year. The pressure of the entire nation watching just your game could get interesting. I mean we have seen the Bengals year in and year out while having some of the most talent in the league struggle when the lights were brightest.

I've also said that with Del Rio he is a much better coach with less talent than he is with more. He gets lazy as a coach the more talent they have. He gets the mentality that my 11 are better than your 11 and I will just keep doing the same thing over and over and see if you can beat our talent. Well we have seen plenty that superior game planning can still beat talent in this league.

I'm curious to see how it all works out in OAK and JAX...both have some expectations they haven't had in decades.

Interesting that Del Rio has connections with both of these franchises.

It's tough to get out of loserville and stay out for a while...I saw it here in ATL, of course NO.

IMO

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Well put.

Well...Bronco's post is what I was trying to like, but you get my point...he was spot on.

 

[megalodon30]

Well...Bronco's post is what I was trying to like, but you get my point...he was spot on.

Is it not allowing you to like his post?

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Is it not allowing you to like his post?

Just too quick with the mouse.

 

[cdumler7]

I'm curious to see how it all works out in OAK and JAX...both have some expectations they haven't had in decades.

Interesting that Del Rio has connections with both of these franchises.

It's tough to get out of loserville and stay out for a while...I saw it here in ATL, of course NO.

IMO

Yup...winning goes beyond just having talent. I mean the Raiders have been picking top-10 for how many years now? There is an entire culture change that has to take place from top to bottom. We have seen plenty of teams spend huge money on talent in FA and yet fall flat on their face. Chemistry on the field and in the locker room are huge parts of what it takes to be successful. Just need to see that actual culture change before I actually believe it to be true. I would say another team that has been in that position is that of St.Louis/LA. They have plenty of talent and are always thought as that team that will break out and finally put it all together and yet every year they come up short.

 

[megalodon30]

Just too quick with the mouse.

There's time limit on liking posts. You should still be allowed to like his post.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Yup...winning goes beyond just having talent. I mean the Raiders have been picking top-10 for how many years now? There is an entire culture change that has to take place from top to bottom. We have seen plenty of teams spend huge money on talent in FA and yet fall flat on their face. Chemistry on the field and in the locker room are huge parts of what it takes to be successful. Just need to see that actual culture change before I actually believe it to be true. I would say another team that has been in that position is that of St.Louis/LA. They have plenty of talent and are always thought as that team that will break out and finally put it all together and yet every year they come up short.

For the most part it starts with some level of consistency from the QB position and that's really what undermined STL/LA...if RW didn't bring that to SEA, more than likely they would not have climbed to the heights they have.

 

[cdumler7]

For the most part it starts with some level of consistency from the QB position and that's really what undermined STL/LA...if RW didn't bring that to SEA, more than likely they would not have climbed to the heights they have.

While I do believe Wilson is what helped them get over the top to win a Super Bowl I still think they would have found some success even without Wilson with having a strong running game with Lynch and of course an incredible defense. Maybe not Super Bowl Champ good but I still think playoff good.

For me LA boils down to 2 things. Yes QB play is one of them as they have had bottom-5 production from that position for quite some time but I also believe coaching just hasn't been up to par. I think a good coach has that team with a winning record at least once in the last few years.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

While I do believe Wilson is what helped them get over the top to win a Super Bowl I still think they would have found some success even without Wilson with having a strong running game with Lynch and of course an incredible defense. Maybe not Super Bowl Champ good but I still think playoff good.

For me LA boils down to 2 things. Yes QB play is one of them as they have had bottom-5 production from that position for quite some time but I also believe coaching just hasn't been up to par. I think a good coach has that team with a winning record at least once in the last few years.

SEA...idk about playoff good unless Jackson elevated his game...but 9-7 is playoff good sometimes so maybe you're right...I didn't see him as any more than a 9-7 QB.

Fisher...not a fan of his work, and I mostly agree with you, but I think if Bradford had been able to stay healthy they would've been a 9-10 win team at least...his track record makes me think that anyway...he won with McNair, who turned into a pretty decent QB, Young, who didn't, and a retread in Collins. What he's not is a HC that is innovative...he's a DEF minded guy that somehow endeared himself to Bud Adams.

 

[Clayton]

For me LA boils down to 2 things. Yes QB play is one of them as they have had bottom-5 production from that position for quite some time but I also believe coaching just hasn't been up to par. I think a good coach has that team with a winning record at least once in the last few years.

I had LA as one of my 4 teams 'with a chance' at 10 wins but not one of the teams I think is likely. That chance comes directly from how badly the QB spot has been for the Rams but thats also what I said last year when Foles came into town and he looked the part for exactly one game. The reality is that teams are playing the Rams to stop Gurley which means that Goff is going to come in seeing defensive fronts like Sam Bradford saw when he came in and went 7-9 albeit against an easy schedule. The Rams OC, OL, RB, Special Teams and Defensive line are all better than that 7-9 team and Goff surely will be as good or better than Bradford. Tavon Austin is basically in a now or never season and Ogletree is back healthy replacing Laurinaitis who was washed up and cost the Rams at least 1 game last year (Redskins).

The big giant elephant with the Rams is depth. They lose just about anybody at any position outside of DL and they have a massive dropoff. Fisher is also likely to cost them at least 1 game.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

SEA...idk about playoff good unless Jackson elevated his game...but 9-7 is playoff good sometimes so maybe you're right...I didn't see him as any more than a 9-7 QB.

He was 8-4 playing about the same in Minny that one year and got them to the playoffs. They were 8-8 that year but only because his backups were 0-4. I think Minny that year had a better run game and O-line, but Seattle had the better passing weapons (Bobby Wade was by far his best weapon that year), a much better D, and coaching staff IMO.

I wouldn't call Seattle every year playoff team with him, but I could see them in that 8-11 win range from year to year.

 

[fastforward]

I had LA as one of my 4 teams 'with a chance' at 10 wins but not one of the teams I think is likely. That chance comes directly from how badly the QB spot has been for the Rams but thats also what I said last year when Foles came into town and he looked the part for exactly one game. The reality is that teams are playing the Rams to stop Gurley which means that Goff is going to come in seeing defensive fronts like Sam Bradford saw when he came in and went 7-9 albeit against an easy schedule. The Rams OC, OL, RB, Special Teams and Defensive line are all better than that 7-9 team and Goff surely will be as good or better than Bradford. Tavon Austin is basically in a now or never season and Ogletree is back healthy replacing Laurinaitis who was washed up and cost the Rams at least 1 game last year (Redskins).

The big giant elephant with the Rams is depth. They lose just about anybody at any position outside of DL and they have a massive dropoff. Fisher is also likely to cost them at least 1 game.

The Rams don't have the defensive depth we had last year but the passing game is really where our season will stand or fall. We have a rookie QB and 6 rookie WRs in camp. The Rams need at least 2 of those WRs to step forward almost straight away. We'll probably keep 2 of the others on the practice squad. The offense could be dangerous late in the year but it'll probably be too late to save the 2016 season.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

He was 8-4 playing about the same in Minny that one year and got them to the playoffs. They were 8-8 that year but only because his backups were 0-4. I think Minny that year had a better run game and O-line, but Seattle had the better passing weapons (Bobby Wade was by far his best weapon that year), a much better D, and coaching staff IMO.

I wouldn't call Seattle every year playoff team with him, but I could see them in that 8-11 win range from year to year.

Fair, but he seemed to regress in SEA.

 

[Clayton]

The Rams don't have the defensive depth we had last year but the passing game is really where our season will stand or fall. We have a rookie QB and 6 rookie WRs in camp. The Rams need at least 2 of those WRs to step forward almost straight away. We'll probably keep 2 of the others on the practice squad. The offense could be dangerous late in the year but it'll probably be too late to save the 2016 season.

I'd expect Marquez to beat out most of those rookie WRs. He flashed some potential last year. They probably do need one of the WRs to be at least competent and they need a TE to step up, too. I don't know if that TE is on their roster.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Fair, but he seemed to regress in SEA.

I never thought he looked any better in Minny except when backing up Frerotte and Favre.

Wow... weird random fact.. Tarvaris Jackson has 2 seasons where he's started most of his teams games. In those two years he made the playoffs both times. He's never led a winning team to the playoffs though.

 

[fastforward]

I'd expect Marquez to beat out most of those rookie WRs. He flashed some potential last year. They probably do need one of the WRs to be at least competent and they need a TE to step up, too. I don't know if that TE is on their roster.

I don't. I run the Sportsbook on another Rams site and I have Marquez at +160 to make the initial 53-man roster. I liked his play last year. He was clearly improving throughout the year and he deserves a roster spot purely as a special teams player. In any other year the Rams would carry 5 WRs and he'd find be a #6/ST player. However, his ceiling as a WR is low and with 6 rookies with higher ceilings for competition he'll be 1 of several players competing for the 53rd spot on the roster. I figure the Rams will keep 6 WRs this year with at least 2 rookies who will play STs. I can't see him making it as a #7/ST player this year. If we keep another ST player that player will have to provide depth at another position such as RB.

 

[Clayton]

I don't. I run the Sportsbook on another Rams site and I have Marquez at +160 to make the initial 53-man roster. I liked his play last year. He was clearly improving throughout the year and he deserves a roster spot purely as a special teams player. In any other year the Rams would carry 5 WRs and he'd find be a #6/ST player. However, his ceiling as a WR is low and with 6 rookies with higher ceilings for competition he'll be 1 of several players competing for the 53rd spot on the roster. I figure the Rams will keep 6 WRs this year with at least 2 rookies who will play STs. I can't see him making it as a #7/ST player this year. If we keep another ST player that player will have to provide depth at another position such as RB.

Its probably relative to how much job security Snead and Fisher have. If they think they 100% need to win this year, I'd expect Brian Quick and Marquez to make the roster. The normal thing to do would be to do as you say and go purely youth movement but thats the type of behavior that you do with job security and the Rams have been the youngest or 2nd youngest team in football for like 4 or 5 years now and are only getting younger. I'd imagine thats rather unprecedented.