A little lttp, but I say Colts vs. Saints for the repeat in the superbowl

This was an extremely sloppy game for the Browns, as they gave the lead away with all of the fumbles that let the Rams start a few drives in their own territory. Besides the first drive, the Rams only scores have been the result of fumbles, so they need to work more on holding onto the wet ball well.

They had some good drives once they settled down as both Delhomme and Wallace played well against the weak St. Louis defense they faced. Peyton Hillis played extremely well with Vickers blocking for him as he ran through and around the Rams defense like they were nothing and he made some great catches, as well. He could be a very good third down/passing back, which Denver would probably like to have back right about now.

The defense played very well after the first drive as they shut down Bradford and the running game consistently and the secondary did well to limit big receptions despite some more PI calls that kept the Rams offense on the field. If the Rams were a better team, this game would've been a big blowout.

The Packers game aired on NFL Network tonight, so I didn't have to watch a stream, and I got to see the game in HD. The offense looked great again, but just like last week, the defense was pretty shaky. then again, it's only the preseason, and the defense was great last year and should be this year. Still, it's a bit disconcerting to see the team give up so many points against teams like the Seahawks tonight and the Browns last weekend.

I'll be checking out the Vikings/Niners game tomorrow to see Brett Favre. The Packers play again on Thursday night against the Colts on ESPN.

Originally Posted by Matt Young The Packers game aired on NFL Network tonight, so I didn't have to watch a stream, and I got to see the game in HD. The offense looked great again, but just like last week, the defense was pretty shaky. then again, it's only the preseason, and the defense was great last year and should be this year. Still, it's a bit disconcerting to see the team give up so many points against teams like the Seahawks tonight and the Browns last weekend. I'll be checking out the Vikings/Niners game tomorrow to see Brett Favre. The Packers play again on Thursday night against the Colts on ESPN.

Brandon Jackson looked good tonight, at least his stats did. (I don't have NFL network so I couldn't watch the game)

For future reference, ATDHE.net usually has links to streams of most games. That's what I use when the games aren't televised here.

Suck a dick Favre. Hope you enjoyed getting your ass laid out.

Yup, loved that he was supposed to play two series but instead he went out with just one because of that hit.

Hope no one had money on the Vikings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10cAzmGPxSw

The spread was Niners -3.5.

Who bets on pre-season games?

Originally Posted by FriskyTanuki Who bets on pre-season games?

People addicted to betting/gambling?

Originally Posted by SEH People addicted to betting/gambling?

^This

I guess, but you'd have to be an idiot to bet on who has the better second and third stringers.

Brett Favre is such a pussy, diva, and all of the above. Did you guys hear that he plays dumb about whether to come back or not just to skip the 'hard work' aka training camp? He plays dumb and is MIA until the time training camp is over and he decides to pop in just so he can play the games and not practice. I feel sorry for the guys on his team doing two-a-days and working their asses off... like Tarvaris Jackson for example. I hope the Vikings will wake the up and move on already... I'm tired of his antics, and definitely tired of seeing him in the headlines all the time.

Originally Posted by Matt Young For future reference, ATDHE.net usually has links to streams of most games. That's what I use when the games aren't televised here.

I use this too, it's awesome.

I actually agree. Tarvaris Jackson's QB rating his improved significantly every year he's been a professional QB (not even counting last year's 124, which doesn't really count since it's based on 15 attempts). He's not great by any means, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the Vikings would suck without Favre. Is he a better option at this point? Probably. But I'm not sure the difference is big enough to justify the expense or bother.

I don't think there's a team in the league, that doesn't already have a great QB, that wouldn't take Brett Favre if they had the option, especially after seeing the season the Vikings had last season.

Originally Posted by FriskyTanuki I don't think there's a team in the league, that doesn't already have a great QB, that wouldn't take Brett Favre if they had the option, especially after seeing the season the Vikings had last season.

While your point is well taken, and mostly true, I think teams which are so bad that they wouldn't even be good if they had Favre (take the Lions or Rams) would prefer to develop their young QBs than put up with the Favre circus. I've got no doubt that teams on the cusp or close to it like the 49ers or Cardinals would be happy to have him though, as you said.

Originally Posted by bvharris While your point is well taken, and mostly true, I think teams which are so bad that they wouldn't even be good if they had Favre (take the Lions or Rams) would prefer to develop their young QBs than put up with the Favre circus. I've got no doubt that teams on the cusp or close to it like the 49ers or Cardinals would be happy to have him though, as you said.

Even then, those quarterbacks could learn a lot by watching him play in person. He can't make a bad team great by just being there since a QB needs at least a decent group of receivers to be effective.

I'm sure Minnesota could do just fine with Tarvaris Jackson, but Favre immediately gave a boost to that offense due to his experience and ability to run an offense that Jackson couldn't even dream of doing up to that point.

Originally Posted by FriskyTanuki He can't make a bad team great by just being there since a QB needs at least a decent group of receivers to be effective.

I disagree. You can have a great quaterback make good receivers. Good receivers do not make a good quarterback (or at least, a lot less often).

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

So he could make the five worst receivers in the league good? I'd think that they would need a base level of competency to be able to become a good group of receivers with him.