OT: Who will be 2011's NFL worst-to-first?
Every year for a decade or so, a team went from last in its division one year to winning its division the follow year. In 2010, Kansas City did it, keeping the streak alive. Most years, the NFC Southeast had one of them -- New Orleans, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Atlanta were like a revolving door, taking turns winning the division.
So -- who will it be this year?
Last year's WORST were:
NFC:
East - Washington, 6-10
North - Lions & Minnesota, both 6-10
South - Carolina, 2-14
West - Arizona, 5-11
AFC:
East - Buffalo, 4-12
North - Cincinnati, 4-12
South - Tennessee & Houston, both 6-10
West - Denver, 4-12
This being a forum mostly frequented by people in Michigan, I'm going to assume most posters here will say the Lions are most likely to win. But they have to climb over Green Bay and Chicago. That's a tall order, even assuming the QB stays healthy (which has, like, never happened). The "worst to first" usually happens in divisions without one (much less two) dominant teams.
I'll guess Arizona -- maybe Kolb is the guy, but importantly, that division STILL STINKS. Houston would be my other guess, but that assumes the Colts have an off-year.
They arent really as bad as the 6-10 record last year. They should field a real good squad this year.
Lions are NFC North. There is no central divison, that's the Tigers.
grew up in Chicago. it'll always be the Central to me.
So that's why you referred to the Bears as a dominant team.
I don't like the texans but I think they are due plus they had bad luck last year.
I'll agree with the OP on Arizona. I'm afraid if I say anything positive about the Lions Stafford's arm will break or Suh will injure his ACL.
but expect the Cardinals to make some noise in their division. It is weak and they have made some moves that will likely better their team. Also, lets not forget this team isnt that far removed from the SB.
Agree on Arizona. Trade for Kolb was big, eventhough they had to give up Cromartie. QB in the NFL is important.
Seattle and San Francisco have suspect QBs, but St. Louis has a solid QB in Bradford. But Arizona has the best WR corps in the NFC West.
it's gotta be the Lions. The Texans and Cardinals are the only other teams that I could see even taking any better than 3rd in their division.
Keep in mind, the thread is worst to first. That means the Lions would have to finish ahead of the Packers. Do you think the Lions can sweep the Bears and Vikings and at least split with Green Bay? Because that is what it will probably take.
I'm a Bears fan, to be honest. Detroit is much improved, and I see them as a playoff team this year. I just dont see them finishing ahead of Green Bay, but I do see them as a respectable second in a pretty balanced division.
Other than them Arizona is the only team that has a shot. If Aaron Rodgers ever has to miss extended time due to injury, the Packers will fall apart. The Bears overachieved last season and are due for a regression. Minnesota is in an obvious rebuilding situation. So, barring a bunch more catastrophic injuries like that of LeShoure, I think that the Lions have increased the level of talent enough to make a serious run at a playoff spot, if not the division title.
Obviously, you didn't see the Packers play at NE last year without Rodgers. Matt Flynn had a drive at the end to win that game. While the Packers' win total without Rodgers would suffer, I really don't think they would "fall apart." They probably have the best WR, OL, LB, and DB position groups in the division. Unless they have a repeat of the injury plague of 2010, the Packers could still win 9-10 games with Flynn starting all year. The schedule just isn't that tough.
Tight Ends, too. The offensive weapons the Packers have put together are pretty incredible. Their 4th WR would start for every other team in the division.
Without Rodgers, they'd lose a lot of the pinpoint vertical stuff that makes Rodgers so tough, but Flynn showed well against NE (after admittedly playing pretty badly against the Lions). Small sample size, I'd put them around 9 wins with Flynn.
Obviously you don't remember that we were the last team to beat you guys. Rodgers was injured in that game and you promptly failed to score a touchdown. I might also add that we were very close to beating you guys in Green Bay as well, but couldn't get it into the endzone ourselves and couldn't come up with that last field goal.
The Lions are the Lions, and we've alreay lost someone we were hoping would really help our running game, but one thing we definitely have is a D-line, and they love them some pass-happy teams. If we stay healthy and can finally overcome, well, being the Lions, winning the NFC North isn't so far-fetched. On paper its very possible, but again, it relies on breaking out of being the Lions, which we are hoping will finally happen given the nice run to end last year.
I know GB just won the Super Bowl, but that doesn't make them the team to beat because they put together a good playoff run. They had to win their last game of the season to even get into the playoffs, so there are weaknesses to be exploited.
I do recall the Lions beating the Packers, but it's a whole different situation when the backup QB has to come into a game because of an injury vs having a whole week to gameplan around the backup being the starter. I think that is why there was such a stark contrast between Flynn against the Lions and Flynn against NE.
I do think the Lions are the second best team in the NFC North this year if 1) Stafford stays healthy and 2) McNabb doesn't play out of his mind. As a former Michigan resident, I'd actually like to see the Lions return to decency (while still consistently losing to the Pack).
had to start their 3rd string QB, Drew Stanton against the Packers. Packers can't use backup QB/injured Rodgers excuses since they lost to them with a 3rd string QB starting in that game.
The Lions were without two of the starting CBs, a gimpy Delmas/Levy and KVB on defense.
and my opinionis going to be slanted. I do think there is a difference in allowing a backup to get a weeks worth of reps and gameplan in..but there is also a huge difference when the defense has a few weeks worth of game film on your backup to know his tendencies. New England had 1 crap half of film on Flynn. Stuff happens..I was at the game aganst the Jets when we were up 20-7 late in the 4th and Stafford went down...the Lions had dominated 3 and 1/2 quarters and still lost that game when their #1 went down..so that works both ways.
Of course Jason Hanson also got injured in the game and I got to watch Ndomikong Suh doink 1 off the crossbar...how the hell Suh was our backup extra point kicker I have no clue. That shit still baffles me today.
maybe "fall apart" was a tad strong, but I do believe that the success of the Packers is more strongly tied to Rodgers than most would like to believe. The Packers don't really have much of a running game to offset an injury to Rodgers, and that would likely be detrimental to their offense in that case. It doesn't matter how good your WRs and TEs are if you can't get them the ball consistently, and Flynn would likely be exposed if he had to fill in for any length of time.
I will say this though: My prediction about Green Bay was entirely based on "if" Rodgers got injured. With him healthy, the Packers are the team to beat in the division, until proven otherwise.
This is pretty much correct. I don't think Flynn's as good as he showed against NE, and he dumped a lot of passes off in that game. My belief that the Packers could get to 9 wins with flynn is largely based on the strength of the Packer's defense and the meh quality of the rest of the division.
1. Lions are up and coming but have significant CB and OL, and now RB, issues, especially if Backus can't make it back. Megatron's amazing, but will see bracket coverage until they find someone to play across from him.
2. Bears were lucky to be where they were last year, are aging on defense, have a mess at OL, and a gambling, mistake-prone QB they're tied to for at least two more years.
3. Minnesota's a disaster defensively, its WRs, other than Harvin, are non-existant, they just cut their LT and will probably be breaking in a rookie QB by the latter half of the season.
The Packers, by comparison, have two minor question marks:
1. The left side of their line. Replacing their LG (College), who was the worst player on offense last year, and an aging Clifton at LT.
2. Replacing Jenkins on the DL.
They just have a much deeper talent pool than any other team in the division. Without Rodgers, they'd still contend for the division, but wouldn't have much potential in the playoffs.
Houston would have to overcome Indy, which is a tough task, but not as tough as overcoming GB in the North, so I think that Houston has a better shot at going worst to first than the Lions.
Honestly, the only team I think has a legit shot is Arizona. I think the Lions are still a year away from being a legit contender. I could maybe see Denver, just based on that division as well, but San Diego seems a pretty good lock again out there!
They lost more WTF games than any team in the League last year, blowing big leads left and right. They made some good off-season acquisitions. And their division isn't that scary. Jags have been treading water, the Colts seems like they're on the downswing, and the Titans are rebuilding. True, the Cardinals division blows, but that would be a 1st in name only.
I'll say Cardinals becaue their dvision in weak. I could see Houston, but they'd still have to beat the Colts and Jags. Lions will finish second in their division. Don't think they can overtake the Packers this year.
Chicago is a giant fraud. They lost Olin Kreutz they did little to nothing to improve that woeful offensive line from last year and their big FA splash at wideout (which they deeply needed) was....Roy Williams. WOOF. They're my pick to fight Minnesota to the bottom of the division. Packers are far and away the best in the division, the Lions need some time to gel and have a healthy Stafford and learn how to win and the Vikes and Bears just plain stink.
but they have been the perverbial team that you expect to make the leap from 7-9ish to 10-6 for the last 3-4 years. I'm beggining to think it just wont happen for them.
The lions are the next team I'd expect to show improvement. The Packers are almost a lock in the division I think, but if the "touchdown that wasn't a touchdown" against the Bears early in the season is reversed I think the Lions would have built some good momentum and end closer to .500. And this is comming from a Bears fan if that means anything.
RRRRRRaiders....afc champs to be....damn Im off by a decade
The only two I see having a shot are Houston and Arizona.
Houston has a tough road because Indy stands in their way, but maybe Peyton Manning's neck injury might slow him down a little this year.
As such, and also because they play in a weak division I would have to go with Arizona. That all depends on whether Kolb can actually play and turn the team around.
Outside of that...I don't see the streak continuing.
Last year the Cowboys were also 6-10, and tied for last with Washington, so they are my pick. I think they can be a good team, if Romo is healthy and the defense can only improve. The D was atrocious last year, allowing the second most points in the NFL. So I can only hope it will get better. If not for them, I could see Houston doing a lot better, and I have a lot of faith in Schaub, Andre Johnson, and Arian Foster, to keeping that offense alive. I just realized that the top 3 running backs in the NFL (Foster, Peterson, Johnson) all are on teams that were worst in their Division. Hopefully those teams improve their Defense or passing game this season. Good Luck to the Lions!
Houston or Arizona. Sadly, the Lions are stuck behind the Pack but they WILL come in 2nd
are three teams that has the best shot of going from worst to first. For Arizona, it depends on the QB play of Kevin Kolb. If he does well, they can win a weak division. For Houston, as long as they learn how to hold leads, they have a shot but still have the Colts to contend with. For Lions, it obviously depends on the health of Matt Stafford which I think will happen(stay healthy for all 16 games).
The Lions have it tough, but only because they are surrounded by tough teams. Ill go with Arizona as well.
However, if Stafford can stay healthy the whole season, I think the Lions are capable of grabbing first as well.
Arizona for obvious reasons: the trainwreck at QB is officially cleaned up with Kolb and they've got a ton of talent at key positions, also the problem areas at OL are addressed.
Detroit: because IF the New Orleans freaking Saints can get to a Super Bowl in my lifetime, then why not the Detroit Lions?
OK, maybe not worst to first, but Detroit should be a better team this fall.
OK I take the "should" back. I want them to be a better team this fall.
Just win, will you, goddammit!??
August 9th, 2011 at 10:02 PM ^
that Arizona QB situation is cleared up because of Kolb. Kolb hasn't proven that he can play as a starting QB, nor his production warrants a big contract. If Kolb doesn't play well, the Cardinals will have wasted a trade and lose their 1st round pick in the process. The biggest problem with Kolb is he has not responded to pressure in his face.
This statistical quirk is the best news I've heard about the Redskins' chances all offseason.
Can't they all just go back out on strike?
Houston seems to be the only "worst" team that finishes first, at least according to those standings. Lot of talk that the Colts might not even win the AFC South this year.
August 9th, 2011 at 10:03 PM ^
is the QB, Colts are still legitimate Super Bowl Contender.