ESPN NFC East Poll

.

and Archuleta was a complete and udder waste.

?? How is that? He is a complete upgrade and a great compliment to Taylor.

...and Archuleta was a complete and udder waste.

I'll give him a chance to prove himself. Maybe he'll flourish under Williams. Of course if he can't cover for shit I'll be pretty pissed.

I'm kind of curious to see how TO plays in a non-West Coast offense for the first time in his career. I'm sure he'll still do fine, but still I am a bit curious

how the hell do you delete a post?????

how the hell do you delete a post?????

Which post would you like deleted?

TO and Glenn is definitely a dangerous duo. While people want to take a lot away from TO, he's a very, very, very dangerous receiver. The Cowboys added some really good defensive players (Akin Ayodele is a player I used to really like.)

Randel El, until I see otherwise is pretty situational, and B Lloyd is a bit inconsistant. I feel the Carter pickup was good, and Archuleta was a complete and udder waste.

While Saunders is great, Im curious how he uses WRs. His WRs in KC never did much.
I can agree to an extent about A.R.E., I think Lloyd will suprise you. I'll reserve judgement on Archuleta until I see how Williams uses him. While it's true Saunders WR never put up big individual numbers they were always productive and who are we talking about here? Johnnie Morton, Eddie Kennison, Marc Borighter, Sammie Parker? Not exactly the cream of the crop.

Saunders was receivers coach for the Rams in 1999 and 2000. Those receivers put up some pretty good numbers. Plus Eddie Kennison was a 1,000 yard/season receiver the past few years. I think what stands out with Saunders' offense is the relatively equal distribution of wealth among several players.

I'm going to take this time now to point out one of my main gripes with the offseason. When it comes time to predict results for the upcoming season, experts tend to look at teams who filled holes with explosive talent. Well that's all well and good, but the idea of roster building isn't really to fill holes. No matter how many holes a team fills, they will still exist. There are a few tried and true methods I use when it comes time to pick divisions:

Rather than look at key additions, I think the focus should be on player improvement. For example, last year I took the G-Men to make the playoffs because I figured Eli would take a big step foward as a QB, and took Washington to win the division because I figured we would get consistent QB play from Ramsey. At least we got consistent QB play. I think Houston is a team that could see big production increases from Carr and Davis, and should have a good deal of success in Kubiak's first season.

The other thing I look at is if any team lost games the previous year that they should have won. We lost to TB, OAK, and SD in three games that should have been won. Kansas City lost a bunch of games last year they should have won. These teams I believe will finish better this year because they had a better team a year ago then their record shows. Oakland is in the same boat, but they won't be a playoff team.

I apoligize for the essay, but I felt I needed to point out one of the flaws in accepted 'expert' logic. If one believes that Washington has an improved roster, not neccessarily great additions, then they should pick them to win a division.

The other thing I look at is if any team lost games the previous year that they should have won. We lost to TB, OAK, and SD in three games that should have been won. Kansas City lost a bunch of games last year they should have won. These teams I believe will finish better this year because they had a better team a year ago then their record shows. Oakland is in the same boat, but they won't be a playoff team.


we also won games we should have lost...the seatle game was the biggest one