Pre-Season Power Rankings

[baltimore_hokie]

off espn.com, we are at 6 and the stoolers are at 1:

Please always remember to include a link when taking information from an article. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking?season=2009&week=0)


"On Tuesday, ESPN.com posted its first NFL power rankings of the 2009 season.

Here is a breakdown of how things shook out in the AFC North:

Pittsburgh Steelers

Walker's vote: No. 1
Cumulative vote: No. 1
Analysis: No surprises here. The Steelers received an almost unanimous vote this week as the NFL's top team. After winning the Super Bowl in February, not much has changed in Pittsburgh. The team returned 20 of 22 starters and there is no reason to believe the Steelers won't be title contenders once again in 2009. By the way, ESPN.com senior writer Len Pasquarelli was the only person on the panel not to vote Pittsburgh in the top slot. He has the Steelers rated ninth, and Pasquarelli will check in with the AFC North blog Wednesday to debate this topic (hint, hint).
Baltimore Ravens

Walker's vote: No. 7
Cumulative vote: No. 6
Analysis: I received a lot of heat in our AFC North inbox last week for not putting Baltimore in the top 5, but it turns out the overall panel didn't rate the Ravens in the top 5, either. By the way, everyone had good guesses Tuesday on the six teams I rated ahead of Baltimore. While a few people got the teams correct, I didn't notice anyone nailing the exact order. It was Pittsburgh (No. 1), the New England Patriots (No. 2), Philadelphia Eagles (No. 3), New York Giants (No. 4), Indianapolis Colts (No. 5) and Arizona Cardinals (No. 6).
Cincinnati Bengals

Walker's vote: No. 19
Cumulative vote: No. 23
Analysis: As expected, I had Cincinnati rated higher than anyone on the panel. For instance, NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert had Cincinnati rated the lowest at No. 29, one spot below the Cleveland Browns in his ballot at No. 28. Sure, I'm pegging the Bengals as a potential sleeper this season. But as I explained last week, No. 19 is a good starting point where it recognizes the Bengals' improvements on paper yet doesn't go overboard without them first earning respect on the field.
Cleveland Browns

Walker's vote: No. 29
Cumulative vote: No. 28
Analysis: My individual vote with Cleveland was pretty much in line with the cumulative vote. If the Browns are as efficient and smart as new head coach Eric Mangini expects, they could be in a lot of close games. But the talent gap on most weeks will favor the opponent and could hurt Cleveland throughout the regular season. For now, I expect Cleveland to remain toward the bottom of ESPN.com's power rankings until it answers some key questions, particularly at quarterback."


i think the rankings are pretty good, but the following answer from james walker to a question did not sit right with me:

"AJ (MD): How good will the Ravens D be this year and do you think Flacco will go through a sophomore slump?

James Walker: The Ravens defense will be fine. They may not be top five, but good enough. And with Joe Flacco improving, it should balance things out a bit. I don't believe Flacco will have a slump in his second year."


i really don't see how our D will be worse than last year at all. our secondary has gotten far far younger and far better than it was last year. we return half of our DL rotation. we get back our starting SS that was looking to break out before getting hurt last year. yeah, we lost bart but we have capable young guys that will be able to blow up blockers for ray (pretty much all bart did in our system). jimmy leonard was a liability in coverage and frank walker should not be on the field nearly as much this year. if anything, i see us getting closer to number one across the board rather than moving down. thoughts?

[ravenjoe]

I believe our D will be more solid chiefly because our secondary, imo, will be speedier and have more depth than last year. Also, I think our new defensive HC will surprise many this year - I see our D in the top 5 once again.

[Jeremiah W]

I am not happy with the first power rankings. If the Steelers are still #1, we are still #3.

The reasons the Ravens seem to be picked to finish lower than last year do not add up. They say we lost too much on D but have Philly ranked above us, even though we smashed them, made them bench McNabb and almost knocked them out of contention all together.

Indy and NY beat us pretty easy last year, but that was an early injured version, not the team we finished the season with.

The fact that the Ravens finished the last 10 weeks over 30 ppg is overshadowed by the questions at WR.

The loss of Bart Scott, Leonard and Jason Brown is getting much more attention than getting Matt Birk, or getting Kelly Gregg and Landry back on D. They also list C Mac as a major loss when he has not played nearly as well as Foxworth over the last 2 years.

The improvement of Flacco and the O line, as well as the return of all the injured guys we were counting on should be enough to make us better than we finished last year going in, but we also got as many depth free agents as any of the other contenders, and in the draft Oz always gets impact players.

There is also the schedule issue that is brought up when talking Steelers but not Ravens. Not only did we not get a bye, they got 2 and we had to play them 3 times twice on the road. We also had th AFC S and NFC E but had to play a rookie Qb in all of those games without his top RB, TE or WR healthy and available all at the same time. This year the Ravens get much softer non divison games and should be much closer to the team that finished 9-2 than the one that started 2-3.


The Pats had a softer schedule last year, had a lot of roster turnover this off season, and did not get bad Qb play. Brady will be an upgrade, but how much better numbers will he put up coming off the knee injury than what they did last year? The QB spot was not the one getting them beat in big games as much as it was suspect defense and not much running game.

[RavenScallywag]

I think I'm beyond getting annoyed with this. We've seen time and time again, the league will constantly find some reason to predict failure for us. Let them! We play better with a chip on our shoulder!

To that end, we should also discuss The Sporting News ranking Urlacher, Willis, and Karlos Dansby ahaead of Ray Lewis in the Best MLBs in the NFL...yup, Ray is 4TH!!!!! While I'm slightly pissed at that, it also should be just the kind of motivation we need for Ray...come in playing pissed off that people still refuse to recognize his talent!

The Steelers will be #1 in everyone's book, that's a given. #6 I think is a bit of a reach, but I'm guessing everyone is banking that Tom Brady returns the Pats to Golden Boy status, the Giants and Colts continue to kick our ass, and the Eagles and Cardinals represent the NFC Championship from last year. We'll show them...

[baltimore_hokie]

i can see the pats getting brady back and the giants (even though their offense is less than average without eli's patented plax bailout third down throw), but the eagles do kind of surprise me. they had a pretty good offseason, but i am just not that sold on their D, especially without Jim Johnson at the helm. the colts will be ahead of us, but i think we are a better team. whatever, these really don't mean shit and all they can do is give us bulletin board material to start the season.

[Jeremiah W]

I think I'm beyond getting annoyed with this. We've seen time and time again, the league will constantly find some reason to predict failure for us. Let them! We play better with a chip on our shoulder!

To that end, we should also discuss The Sporting News ranking Urlacher, Willis, and Karlos Dansby ahaead of Ray Lewis in the Best MLBs in the NFL...yup, Ray is 4TH!!!!! While I'm slightly pissed at that, it also should be just the kind of motivation we need for Ray...come in playing pissed off that people still refuse to recognize his talent!

The Steelers will be #1 in everyone's book, that's a given. #6 I think is a bit of a reach, but I'm guessing everyone is banking that Tom Brady returns the Pats to Golden Boy status, the Giants and Colts continue to kick our ass, and the Eagles and Cardinals represent the NFC Championship from last year. We'll show them...

Ray Lewis is still far better than Urlacher. Too many tackles for a middle linebacker mean you did not get enough 3 and outs. That is what Ray Lewis does better than anyone. No one runs the ball on the Ravens when he is out there, and if they try they are going to get beat. Ask LT. Ask Mendenhall to text message you. Winslow will flip out if you ask him about the Ray Lewis hit.

Ray Lewis is the Jim Brown of defense. He is the best, and you can argue that he is not but u are wrong. His numbers are impossible to match. No other middle linebacker in the NFL is going to lead more top 10 ranked defenses or play more games without giving up a 100 yard rusher. Ray Lewis takes out the other teams running back no matter who it is, 52 is going to be on them all day and will make them want to retire or get out of town like Corey Dillon and Eddie George, all the way back to when Ray would bottle up Barry Sanders to when he knocked out the Titans runners last year, Ray has been the best in the buis by any measure (other than pure number of tackles, because like I said he gets 3 and outs so there are a lot less tackles to go around.)

How has Baltimore always been a high time of possesion team with bad offense most of the time? Becasue Ray nakes it impossible to run the ball, so the only option to close us out has been to throw it, more often to our guys than your guys in the endzone, but that is the only viable option most of the time no matter how good your run game is.

There have been a few backs that almost got 100 yards on a Ray Lewis led defense in a single game, but like Rex Ryan once said, something must have happend to them because they never quite got there, and you would think if someone could do it they would.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?p=4637880#start_comments

I have to wonder what they were watching if they think Urlacher was better than Ray last year. Urlacher gets blocked a lot and teams run on the Bears right up the middle. I do not know what else a MB is supposed to do other than not let that happen ever. Ray Lewis does not get run at or blocked very often. Sometimes he will over pursue or someone will get outside, but 999 times out of 1,000 Ray is going to be where he is supposed to be, not blocked, and hitting who ever has the football.

[psuasskicker]

These rankings are predictable. They aren't going to take the top teams through the playoff rounds and rank them accordingly. For God's sake, the Titans were the #1 seed and lost to us by a hair, and they're 8th behind two teams that didn't win ten games. The Cardinals went to the Superbowl and they're #9. The Dolphins won their division and are 15th.

It all makes sense on paper in some ways, and doesn't in others. Who really cares? Fortunately, this isn't college football, and these power rankings won't determine who gets to play in the Superbowl. In last year's ESPN preseason power rankings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking?season=2008&week=0), the Superbowl teams were ranked #7 and #17. The Falcons were dead last place. The Cowboys and Jags - who didn't make the playoffs - were fourth and fifth.

Are we really the sixth best team in the NFL? Who knows. If everyone stays healthy and plays to their potential, we could wind up Superbowl champions. If half our defensive starters get injured and Flacco has a sophomore slump or blows out his arm or whatever, we could be drafting in the top five next year.

But no one's showing us disrespect by putting us #6 overall. It is AT MOST three slots behind where you could argue us to be.

- C -

[JimZipCode]

i really don't see how our D will be worse than last year at all. our secondary has gotten far far younger and far better than it was last year. ... if anything, i see us getting closer to number one across the board rather than moving down. thoughts?
I see us as having patched some holes in the D over the offseason. But I think it's very reasonable for a national writer to project the D as not being as good this coming season as it was this past season.

• For one thing, the Ravens were one of the top 2 or 3 D's last season, so it's natural to expect them to fall off a bit. If they only fell to #6 or #7, that would still make Walker's comment ("The Ravens defense will be fine. They may not be top five, but good enough") a fair comment.

• For another thing, Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are getting older, not better.

• Suggs is not working out with the team, and the Ravens lost a Pro Bowl linebacker and are replacing him with a guy who may or may not turn out to be good. (Plus Jim Leonhard was a real good player, I don't know why you'd call him a liability in coverage.)

• The Ravens are counting on a couple guys coming back from injury at 100% (Gregg and Landry); but what if they aren't 100%?

• Finally, the Ravens have added some speed to the secondary, but they have lost size with the departure of MacAllister, and don't have an obvious #1 corner.

Oh yeah, and they lost their prize defensive coordinator.

If I'm a national writer, the signs point to the Ravens D still being good, but not quite as good as last year. It just makes sense.

As a fan, that's not what I see. Looks to me like the Ravens have added a bunch of speed to the defense (the new corners and Tavares Gooden), a young pass rusher in Paul Kruger, and they get Kelly Gregg back. Score! Plus if Ed Reed is healthy all season, that's another big add.

But I think the other viewpoint has merit too.

[RockyMRaven]

I see us as having patched some holes in the D over the offseason. But I think it's very reasonable for a national writer to project the D as not being as good this coming season as it was this past season.

• For one thing, the Ravens were one of the top 2 or 3 D's last season, so it's natural to expect them to fall off a bit. If they only fell to #6 or #7, that would still make Walker's comment ("The Ravens defense will be fine. They may not be top five, but good enough") a fair comment.

• For another thing, Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are getting older, not better.

• Suggs is not working out with the team, and the Ravens lost a Pro Bowl linebacker and are replacing him with a guy who may or may not turn out to be good. (Plus Jim Leonhard was a real good player, I don't know why you'd call him a liability in coverage.)

• The Ravens are counting on a couple guys coming back from injury at 100% (Gregg and Landry); but what if they aren't 100%?

• Finally, the Ravens have added some speed to the secondary, but they have lost size with the departure of MacAllister, and don't have an obvious #1 corner.

Oh yeah, and they lost their prize defensive coordinator.

If I'm a national writer, the signs point to the Ravens D still being good, but not quite as good as last year. It just makes sense.

As a fan, that's not what I see. Looks to me like the Ravens have added a bunch of speed to the defense (the new corners and Tavares Gooden), a young pass rusher in Paul Kruger, and they get Kelly Gregg back. Score! Plus if Ed Reed is healthy all season, that's another big add.

But I think the other viewpoint has merit too.

You make some very good points. One thing, though. McAlister, size and all was not a positive factor at all last season, so I think that the cornerback situation has definitely improved. If McAlister was playing to anywhere near his potential, that point would be more valid.

[jonboy79]

• The Ravens are counting on a couple guys coming back from injury at 100% (Gregg and Landry); but what if they aren't 100%?

• Finally, the Ravens have added some speed to the secondary, but they have lost size with the departure of MacAllister, and don't have an obvious #1 corner.

Oh yeah, and they lost their prize defensive coordinator.

.


They are counting on them sure, but they didn't have them last year... so if they come back, they are expecting IMPROVEMENT.

CMAC played very little.

[Jeremiah W]

I see us as having patched some holes in the D over the offseason. But I think it's very reasonable for a national writer to project the D as not being as good this coming season as it was this past season.

• For one thing, the Ravens were one of the top 2 or 3 D's last season, so it's natural to expect them to fall off a bit. If they only fell to #6 or #7, that would still make Walker's comment ("The Ravens defense will be fine. They may not be top five, but good enough") a fair comment.

• For another thing, Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are getting older, not better.

• Suggs is not working out with the team, and the Ravens lost a Pro Bowl linebacker and are replacing him with a guy who may or may not turn out to be good. (Plus Jim Leonhard was a real good player, I don't know why you'd call him a liability in coverage.)

• The Ravens are counting on a couple guys coming back from injury at 100% (Gregg and Landry); but what if they aren't 100%?

• Finally, the Ravens have added some speed to the secondary, but they have lost size with the departure of MacAllister, and don't have an obvious #1 corner.

Oh yeah, and they lost their prize defensive coordinator.

If I'm a national writer, the signs point to the Ravens D still being good, but not quite as good as last year. It just makes sense.

As a fan, that's not what I see. Looks to me like the Ravens have added a bunch of speed to the defense (the new corners and Tavares Gooden), a young pass rusher in Paul Kruger, and they get Kelly Gregg back. Score! Plus if Ed Reed is healthy all season, that's another big add.

But I think the other viewpoint has merit too.

I think there are always questions on any good team, but it would seem much more likley the Ravens would improve and not decline based on the normal indicators. Ray and some of the guys may be getting older, but last year played at a very high level. Reed was much better at the end of the year than he was at the start and Ray was very consistant. Pryce and Rolle have been very good when healthy so age does not seem like an issue.

The Bart Scott thing reminds me a lot of the AD thing all over again from a national media standpoint, but from a player standpoint he should be as easy to replace as Ed Hartwell was because there are a lot more good ILBs than OLBs. It is not a reach to think that Gooden will be better than Scott before long, or the guy Phillips could be the next Bart Scott or Hartwell.

Leonard was just a camp body this time last year and Landry was a very solid young player that had been proven for 2 years in our scheme.

C Mac has not been healthy for a long time so can not be counted as a loss since we have not had him, we are getting Foxworth instead of Oglesby and Carr instead of an extra saftey or kicker.

From a national perspective I could buy the injury issues if we were counting on guys to be what we were last year, but since we did what we did wihtout them, they all should be extra, and guys like Rolle, Gregg, Gooden and Landry can be difference makers not just role players. The guys that filled in for them are back for the most part as well.

Rex Ryan was a great DC, but I highly doubt it was him drawing up plays that made our defense good. I think the in game play calling could be better under a less creative DC. I felt like we should have just lined up and played press man coverage without blitzing but maybe did not have the CBs to do it. Now we should be able to have the matchups to line up bump and run or press and zone up whenever we want, and can mix the blitz in less often but more effective.

[RavensInBrazil]

Losing Scott might be a big deal with the media, and while he played fantastic football while he was here, I don't think we'll miss him. I just need to look at AD and Hartwell to realise that whoever we put next to Ray will be just as good. Not so much because they don't play well, but because they feed off Ray physically and mentally

Also, it was a shame to see Leonhard go, but who would we get rid of in the secondary to make room for him? Reed and Landry are starters, Zbikowski and Nakamura are very young and show a lot of promise. So I won't miss him either (except in case of injury of course)

CMac, I don't even need to comment on that

[purplepoe]

These rankings are predictable. They aren't going to take the top teams through the playoff rounds and rank them accordingly. For God's sake, the Titans were the #1 seed and lost to us by a hair, and they're 8th behind two teams that didn't win ten games. The Cardinals went to the Superbowl and they're #9. The Dolphins won their division and are 15th.

It all makes sense on paper in some ways, and doesn't in others. Who really cares? Fortunately, this isn't college football, and these power rankings won't determine who gets to play in the Superbowl. In last year's ESPN preseason power rankings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking?season=2008&week=0), the Superbowl teams were ranked #7 and #17. The Falcons were dead last place. The Cowboys and Jags - who didn't make the playoffs - were fourth and fifth.

Are we really the sixth best team in the NFL? Who knows. If everyone stays healthy and plays to their potential, we could wind up Superbowl champions. If half our defensive starters get injured and Flacco has a sophomore slump or blows out his arm or whatever, we could be drafting in the top five next year.

But no one's showing us disrespect by putting us #6 overall. It is AT MOST three slots behind where you could argue us to be.

- C -

What he said.

PP

[psuasskicker]

I think some of you guys are completely underestimating how hard it is for a defense to be the #2 defense in the NFL in one season, and then IMPROVE the following season.

I'm happy to offer anyone as much money as they want on +100 that the Ravens are worse than the #2 overall defense next season.

- C -

[Greg]

This guy says Ray showed he was surprisingly good in coverage in 2008.

LOL, whoever wrote this article apparently hasn't watched much Ray Lewis, the guy has always been good in coverage.

I don't know where to rank Ray honestly because I don't watch film and know these other LBs enough to rate them, but I do know he has always been good in coverage and any nit-wit professionally writing about LBs in the NFL shouldn't be surprised by that.

[JimZipCode]

This guy says Ray showed he was surprisingly good in coverage in 2008.
LOL, whoever wrote this article apparently hasn't watched much Ray Lewis, the guy has always been good in coverage. ... any nit-wit professionally writing about LBs in the NFL shouldn't be surprised by that.
I think the "surprise" has to do with Lewis's age. It's surprising that Ray is still that good in coverage.

[JimZipCode]

I think some of you guys are completely underestimating how hard it is for a defense to be the #2 defense in the NFL in one season, and then IMPROVE the following season.
Exactly. There just isn't room for the Ravens D to be much better than last season. They didn't add a key difference-maker like a Jared Allen or an Albert Haynesworth; plus they lost some guys, including a Pro Bowl linebacker, and they got a new coordinator. There's a lot of room for them to slide.

Personally, I think they'll be a little "sounder", less likely to give up the big play where Santonio Holmes runs thru the entire defense completely untouched, because of the extra speed on the field. But they might be a little less dominant in regular situations, because of being a bit smaller. I think it'll balance out, to where they're about as good as last season: a little better in some situations, not quite as good in other situations, similar overall.

If Ngata keeps getting better, they could be scary good. Esp if Tavares Gooden turns out to be as explosive as advertised, and Jameel McClain takes some steps forward. McClain last year looked like a young James Harrison to me.

[Jeremiah W]

I feel like last year we gave up a lot more big plays and late drives than normal, and did not get the kind of sack numbers we should have or did in 2006.

As far as where I see improvement in personel over last year, I expect Gregg to contribute more than Douglass did in the Dl line rotation and Dwan Edwards to be a total bonus, as well as improvement in Mckinley, Nagta and Bannan from last years reps and extra depth.

The DB situation last year was tough to over come even though the #2 ranking vs the pass may not indicate it. 3/4 of the starters went down by week 5 and reserves like Frank Walker and Fabian Washington, cory Ivy had to step up and did. This year we should be much deeper and prepared in the secondary with a ton of young guys in year 2 like Washington, Nakamura, Zibs and getting to use Frank Walker as the 4th or 5th guy instead of the #2 should be a huge upgrade and change everything about what we have to do on pass defense. If we have guys to match up accross the board at Cb, the front 7 can really be unleashed, we can use more press coverage with all kinds of coverga traps and blitz less often but more effectivly.

We were so thin at DL and DB last year, it was not suprising it was tough to get pressure and stops late in the game and late in the year. If we can get back up to the 40-50 sack range, we will also drop down to the 10 ppg allowed range.

There is also the expected improvement in the O line and QB that should allow the D to play with more leads and have more predictable situations to exploit.

It would not take many more big plays on O and a few less big plays allowed on D to improve statisticly by a solid chunk. I also do not see many defensive units out there that have the players to compare. I think the only edge the Steelers have/ had on D last year was the pass rush, and if we improved that and the coverage a little, along with the softer schedule, I expect to see a better defense than last year and ge the #1 ranking back from the Burgh.

[psuasskicker]

The EXACT same thing could have been said going into the '07 season, and we wound up #22 in points and #6 in yards.

Comparing this unit to the '06 unit is ridiculous. That team had 60 sacks that season. It's one of two units that had more than 60 sacks in the past five years...out of 160 possible units. To suggest we "should have" gotten the numbers we got in '06 is simply not realistic.

#2 in yards allowed
#3 in points allowed
#3 in YPP

It's fine to look at this roster and say "Oh man, we should be even better this year!" But it's just not realistic to expect it to happen. COULD we be better? Sure. But we lost a Pro Bowl ILB and a fantastic defensive coordinator. Signing a couple mediocre guys in the secondary (admittedly upgrades) and getting back an injured and aging DT are not particularly likely to off-set those losses. Injection of youth from Gooden and McKinnley and some of the other guys are likely to be off-set by Lewis and Reed and Pryce aging.

It's more likely this defense is worse next year than it is better. Much worse? No, probably not. But if we are allowing only 275 yards per game and 16 points per game, we're still worse than we were last year.

- C -

[Jeremiah W]

The EXACT same thing could have been said going into the '07 season, and we wound up #22 in points and #6 in yards.

Comparing this unit to the '06 unit is ridiculous. That team had 60 sacks that season. It's one of two units that had more than 60 sacks in the past five years...out of 160 possible units. To suggest we "should have" gotten the numbers we got in '06 is simply not realistic.

#2 in yards allowed
#3 in points allowed
#3 in YPP

It's fine to look at this roster and say "Oh man, we should be even better this year!" But it's just not realistic to expect it to happen. COULD we be better? Sure. But we lost a Pro Bowl ILB and a fantastic defensive coordinator. Signing a couple mediocre guys in the secondary (admittedly upgrades) and getting back an injured and aging DT are not particularly likely to off-set those losses. Injection of youth from Gooden and McKinnley and some of the other guys are likely to be off-set by Lewis and Reed and Pryce aging.

It's more likely this defense is worse next year than it is better. Much worse? No, probably not. But if we are allowing only 275 yards per game and 16 points per game, we're still worse than we were last year.

- C -

Maybe it is not more likley we improve than not defensivly, but it is certianly quite possible based on my view of what happened last year.

I think the 2006 defensive numbers are reachable with this group if they stay as healthy as we did in 2006, and do not have the injury issues we dealt with the last 2 seasons in the secondary. Getting Foxworth, Carr and Webb to replace C Mac, Ivy and Oglesby should be a major upgrade, even over the 2006 secondary that had no quality back ups.

The offense should be at least as productive as it was in 2006, and while age may have taken some of the players from that unit down, it has also built some of them up like Nagta and Landry should be much better than they were as rookies. Jarret Johnson, Suggs and guys that were young starters should be even better and enough to offset any decline in Reed, Ray, Rolle or Pryce (which does not appear to be happening fast). I also think the situational players and backups are stronger on this defense than the 2006 one. Guys like Barnes, McClain, Zibs, Nakamura and even guyls like Burgess and ayanbedejo should offer more than the guys in those special teams and reserve roles have over the last 2 years.

The schedule is the other area where I see much more hope than in the past few years. Last year the schedule was sick on paper and it played out that way. This year it appears much softer, there are more teams that we "should beat" and last year we blew most of those teams out.

Indy, NE and SD may put up some points on us, but the rest of the schedule should be shut down most of the day by our defense. Oak, Det, and KC could be shut outs or close to it. The Steelers, Browns and Bungles are not as tough on offense as they have been over the last few years.

I like the chances there is improvement and the best numbers since 2000. Maybe slim, but I really like the talent, depth and coaching this team has especially on O which could be at an all time high.