Give me 5 predictions for 2010 NFL season

[Tymaster]

I HATE THE STEELERS, but your logic is flawed. 9 and 7. 8 and 8. ARE NOT LOSING SEASONS.

Did they win their division or a Wild Card spot? 8 and 8 might not be a losing season for the Lions, Browns, Chiefs etc. But For Pissburgh it is.

8 and 8 is a non losing season. Sorry to burst your mathematical bubble.

[Tymaster]

8 and 8 is a non losing season. Sorry to burst your mathematical bubble.[/quote]

So it's a good record after just winning A Super Bowl, that's what you are trying to say.[/quote]
No but they are arguably the most successful franchise of the Super Bowl era. Keep in mind, I am not a fan, but the numbers don't lie. What are you trying to say? That going 8 and 8 after winning the Super Bowl negates the Super Bowl? WTF!?

Also, when I listed their losing seasons you said "you forgot '06 and '09" Neither was a LOSING season. I'm not back pedaling, you are.

[Tymaster]

8 and 8 is a non losing season. Sorry to burst your mathematical bubble.

So it's a good record after just winning A Super Bowl, that's what you are trying to say.

No but they are arguably the most successful franchise of the Super Bowl era. Keep in mind, I am not a fan, but the numbers don't lie. What are you trying to say? That going 8 and 8 after winning the Super Bowl negates the Super Bowl? WTF!?

Also, when I listed their losing seasons you said "you forgot '06 and '09" Neither was a LOSING season. I'm not back pedaling, you are.[/quote]

As far as I'm concerned they are losing seasons for a team who Pissburgher's and hicks think are so great and perfect.[/quote]

I agree with your sentiments, I think they have some of the most awful fans in football, but you were trying to say that 8-8 and 9-7 were "losing" seasons. Look back in the thread.

[Tymaster]

Are you P13 or George W. Bush?

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

Are you P13 or George W. Bush?

Neither I refuse to admit the Steelers had a good season last year.

GypsyDog is the one who already convicted Big Ben of that ridiculous rape charge.

[The Cusack]

They didn't win a Super Bowl for 26 years. And it will be almost as long before they go back again.

From the '80 season until '95 they didn't go to a Super Bowl but they never fielded a truly bad team during that stretch. I think their worst record since 1972 was 5-11, which occurred during that '80-'95 stretch. In fact if I'm not mistaken they are the only team to have three head coaches to win Super Bowls. Historically they've been no worse than mediocre in almost 40 years.

Now as for my prediction about next season; the Steelers seemed to get their act together towards the end of the season despite all the injuries they were still dealing with. Couple that experience with those key injured players coming back healthy and I see another NFC North Title in the Steelers future for 2010. Remember they still have the nucleus of a two time Super Bowl winner in tact and most of them are young players that are going to be great for a long time.

[thejuggernaut]

The Pittsburgh Steelers will win the NFC North again followed closely by the Ravens and making the Bengals a non-playoff team again.

You think ?

Pittsburgh never stays down long. They are my arch rival, but they get uber respect from me. The worst stretch for them in my lifetime was the mid 80's - early 90's. Mark Malone, Bubby Brister, not good days for the team.

The Steelers are a model franchise, no doubt.

I just don't think they'll be so dominant that the NFL will award an NFC title to an AFC team.

[Crazy Levi]

Are you P13 or George W. Bush?

Neither I refuse to admit the Steelers had a good season last year.

You are a retard. 8-8 is not a losing season. 9-7 is not a losing season.

You are a retard. It bears repeating.

[bane]

They are as far as I'm concerned. If it was the Browns or someone of the like I'd say it wasn't a losing season.

Doesn't matter if you're The Saints or the Rams, 8-8 is still not a losing season. You can argue that it was below expectations for them, sure, but .500 isn't a losing record no matter who you are.

[Tymaster]

They are as far as I'm concerned. If it was the Browns or someone of the like I'd say it wasn't a losing season.

Doesn't matter if you're The Saints or the Rams, 8-8 is still not a losing season. You can argue that it was below expectations for them, sure, but .500 isn't a losing record no matter who you are.

I think you are closer to my point. Not a losing record. But if you are a team coming after winning a Super Bowl 8-8 is piss poor and unnacceptable and way below expectations.

I listed all of their losing seasons. ALL OF THEM.
You actually typed "you forgot '06 and '09."
8-8 and 9-7 were the records for those years.
Neither is below .500
You deserve the P13 treatment for such a statement.
Suck it up.

[Tymaster]

I think you are closer to my point. Not a losing record. But if you are a team coming after winning a Super Bowl 8-8 is piss poor and unnacceptable and way below expectations.

I listed all of their losing seasons. ALL OF THEM.
You actually typed "you forgot '06 and '09."
8-8 and 9-7 were the records for those years.
Neither is below .500
You deserve the P13 treatment for such a statement.
Suck it up.

In my book that's a losing season. If you don't win a division or get a Wildcard spot, you lost. The season was worthless.[/quote]

So even if you don't lose more games than you win, it's a "losing" season.

[The Cusack]

In my opinion 0-4 wins is a bad season, 5-8 is mediocre and over 9-11 wins is a good season and over 12 is great in general. Now if a perennial winner all of a sudden misses the playoffs then it's not a good season no matter how many wins you have and if you're the Detroit Lions then 5 wins is worthy of setting stuff on fire.

[bane]

In my opinion 0-4 wins is a bad season, 5-8 is mediocre and over 9-11 wins is a good season and over 12 is great in general. Now if a perennial winner all of a sudden misses the playoffs then it's not a good season no matter how many wins you have and if you're the Detroit Lions then 5 wins is worthy of setting stuff on fire.

Yep. Gauging how good their year was depends on where they started from and what their expectations were. If your team is a franchise that's rebuilding, then 8-8 or 9-7 might be considered a pretty good year. If your the Colts of the Pats, it probably isn't.

[Tymaster]

In my opinion 0-4 wins is a bad season, 5-8 is mediocre and over 9-11 wins is a good season and over 12 is great in general. Now if a perennial winner all of a sudden misses the playoffs then it's not a good season no matter how many wins you have and if you're the Detroit Lions then 5 wins is worthy of setting stuff on fire.

Yep. Gauging how good their year was depends on where they started from and what their expectations were. If your team is a franchise that's rebuilding, then 8-8 or 9-7 might be considered a pretty good year. If your the Colts of the Pats, it probably isn't.

Doesn't change the basic FACT that 8 and 8 or 9 and 7 IS NOT A LOSING SEASON. The idiocy I see on Sludge is unreal sometimes.....

[bane]

In my opinion 0-4 wins is a bad season, 5-8 is mediocre and over 9-11 wins is a good season and over 12 is great in general. Now if a perennial winner all of a sudden misses the playoffs then it's not a good season no matter how many wins you have and if you're the Detroit Lions then 5 wins is worthy of setting stuff on fire.

Yep. Gauging how good their year was depends on where they started from and what their expectations were. If your team is a franchise that's rebuilding, then 8-8 or 9-7 might be considered a pretty good year. If your the Colts of the Pats, it probably isn't.

Doesn't change the basic FACT that 8 and 8 or 9 and 7 IS NOT A LOSING SEASON. The idiocy I see on Sludge is unreal sometimes.....

Well yeah, but that was never in question in the first place. The guy was obviously exagerrating to make a point.

[Tymaster]

I realize that.
I will say this, I am one Browns fan who will be upset if Mike Holmgren decides to cut bait with Brady Quinn. Too much upside. The kid deserves a full season surrounded with some talent, to prove his worth. Holmgren has a tough decision to make. Getting rid of Quinn won't sit well with the fan base if his replacement doesn't show immediate results. And don't kid yourselves, Lerner brought Holmgren in to keep the fan base happy and put butts in seats.

[bane]

I'd hate to be a Browns fan. That franchise has been one disaster after another lately. When was the last time they were really good? 1992 or so? The Oilers and Browns had a pretty good rivalry going there for a little while and I remember thinking that the Dog Pound was a hella tough place to play, but man, the wheels really fell off that truck.

[Tymaster]

I'd hate to be a Browns fan. That franchise has been one disaster after another lately. When was the last time they were really good? 1992 or so? The Oilers and Browns had a pretty good rivalry going there for a little while and I remember thinking that the Dog Pound was a hella tough place to play, but man, the wheels really fell off that truck.

The 1994 team won a playoff game. 1995 was a disaster b/c the team knew it was leaving. The "expansion" Browns have only had two good seasons. A playoff season in 2002, and a 10-6 season in 2007.

[Punk]

Edit: my apologies for confusing Skydog with Gypsydog.

Gypsydog is one dumb son of a bitch, that's for sure.

[Facedown]

I think you may have done what I constantly do and that is confuse SkyDog (Lickety) and GypsyDog.

[Machado]

Informative breakdown on just how the uncapped 2010 NFL season works


The NFL kicks off the unsalary-capped version of the free-agency season tonight, though it may as well kick the free out of free agency.

Under the new rules, a supersized batch of restricted free agents aren't really free to leave at all. As for the actual unrestricted free agents, they may discover the uncapped year isn't exactly the mother lode as previously assumed.

Still got questions? Here are some answers as the NFL takes the path into unfamiliar territory.

Q: Why will 2010 not have a salary cap?

A: Because the owners don't want one.

The league opted out of the collective bargaining agreement with the players before it expires after the 2010 season. Per collective bargaining agreement terms, that makes the final year of the deal an uncapped year.

That means teams can spend as much as they want on players who they say make too much money. No, really.

Q: If the owners think players eat too much of the pie chart, why ditch the cap?

A: Yes, there is no ceiling on what teams can spend on players in 2010. But an uncapped year means there is also no longer a floor.

In the collective bargaining agreement, teams must spend X amount of dollars in salary. Now, they are free to spend as little as they want.

Q: Are players aware of the glass half-empty side of all this?

A: They are now.

When word first spread in 2008 about a potential uncapped years, many future free agents saw nothing but dollar signs. Only recently have most realized the NFL is filled with owners bent on pinching dollars in a tough economic climate.

For every Dan Snyder overpaying his Redskins, you have a Glazer family in Tampa Bay trying to see how low they can go.

Q: So how is that uncapped year working out for those future free agents?

A: Terribly, so far.

Under the old rules, players needed four years of service to become unrestricted free agents, the kind that are free to leave as they please.

In an uncapped year, that gets bumped to six years of service. That means more than 200 players who expected to be unrestricted ... just got restricted.

Q: And this is terrible because ...?

A: Restricted free agents are just that - restricted to go free.

Their previous team holds the right of first refusal. If the team tenders them a contract offer by 1 p.m. today (PST), they can't just up and sign with another team when the free-agency market opens at 9 p.m. PST.

Q: What's a restricted free-agent tender?

A: The team makes a one-year offer to one of its players with less than six years of experience whose contract has expired.

The tender constitutes a draft pick attached to a predetermined dollar amount based on years of service.

Team A gives a player, say, a second-round tender worth X amount of dollars. The player can sign that one-year contract, though the contract is not guaranteed, and that's that. He's the free agent who never was.

The low end is original pick compensation, where the team can get a draft pick from the round it once picked the player. The high end is a first- and third-round pick worth up to $3.268 million for one year.

Q: So the player has to sign with his previous team?

A: Not necessarily.

The player can also negotiate with other teams, but there's a catch. If Team B signs the player to a contract offer sheet, his original team has seven days to match the contract. Tie goes to the original team, which keeps the player.

If the original team declines to match the offer, they get the tendered draft pick in return for the lost player. In this case, a second-round pick.

[SpecialSauce]

1- Packers win division but again lose first PO game.

2- Saints win 10 games but miss playoffs.

3- Super Bowl: Eagles over Dolphins 16-13 after 2 overtimes. New Eagle Aaron Kampman has 7 sacks in the game and is MVP.

4- Favre returns and suffers a 3 week injury that ends the streak. Vikings go 3-0 w/ TJack and Favre leaves the team. Fully healed come June of 2011 Favre flirts with coming back...again....with the Rams and Browns but ultimately decides to retire for good on eve of camp.

5- The 0-5 Patriots trade Randy Moss to Baltimore at trade deadline for a 3rd round pick.

[Mutley Brew]

1. Rams will still be the worst team in football after a 2-14 season.
2. Cowboy will get to the playoffs but will turn into the cubs and choke.
3. Colts will win the Superbowl.
4. Favre will retire for good and be on Monday Night Football
5. John Gruden will coach again

[johnk5150]

3. Colts will win the Superbowl.

Chicago media is reporting the Bears and Colts are in serious discussions about the Colts sending a pick for Greg Olsen.

[kng1994]

1- Aaron Rogers will throw for 4,000 yards & 33 TD's
2- The Bears only win 8 games and Lovie is fired, along with the whole front office, and possibly Mike Martz as well, because Jay Cutler only threw 19 TD's with 21 INT's.
3- The Cardinals or 'Niners will win the NFC west with a 9-7 record.
4- The Colts will go 11-5, ending their streak of 12-win seasons.
5- Brett Favre will play the yes-no-yes-no retirememt game again (that one was easy!)
6- T.O. signs with The Raiders and retired after they go 6-10.
7- The Ravens will go 12-4 and the Bengals slide (again) to a 8-win season.
8- Tim Tebow will get drafted in the 2nd round and will NOT start a game in the '10 season.
9- Jake Delhomme will throw a pick before his 10th pass as a Brown, Senaca Wallace will start by week 13 when the Browns fall to 4-9, and Mike Holmgren will kick himseld in the a** for paying Jake all that money.
10- The Rams go 4-12, getting steve Spagnola canned.

[johnk5150]

Holy hell I just read the Bears on had 6 rushing TDs last season. I felt like Harry Doyle when he realized the Indians only had one goddamn hit when I read that.

[The Cusack]

Matt Moore will lead the Carolina Panthers to an NFC South Divisional title despite the loss of Julius Peppers.

Despite having another great season and fielding another solid team in 2010, Philadelphia fans will call for Donovan McNabb to be replaced.

The Pittsburgh Steelers will win the NFC North again followed closely by the Ravens and making the Bengals a non-playoff team again.

Mark Sanchez will make the Pro-Bowl as he leads the Jets to the #2 seed.

Brett Favre will be a distraction in Minnesota whether he plays or not.

The Raiders will still suck. The Browns will upgrade to mediocrity but will suck in spirit.

The 49ers will win the NFC West largely by default as they mature and the Cardinals suck for at least the first half of the season with Matt Leinhart.

Mike Shanahan will only be slightly more successful than Jim Zorn but not still fall short of a winning season. Maybe 7 wins.

The Green Bay Packers will win the Super Bowl.

So far the league changed over the Summer so much that a couple of these predictions are outdated. McNabb is in Washington and Matt Leinart is in Houston. So scratch those already.

As for what's left: Matt Moore is on the bench in favor of Jimmy Clausen. I hope this changes but the Panthers are already 4 games behind in the division and won't win it unless there's a monumental collapse by the Falcons and some slightly less monumental collapses by the Bucs and Saints.

Ditto that for the Niners. Their division is weak but the 49ers have already dug themselves a pretty deep hole. I'm now interested to see how Max Hall is going to do with the Cardinals, how long Sam Bradford can play well with his targets getting injured and whether Pete Carroll can really make Seattle into a winner again despite not doing well with his first two NFL head coaching jobs.

My AFC North prediction looks fairly accurate though the Ravens are in the lead right now. The Steelers/Ravens rivalry is the best one in the NFL right now as far as I'm concerned and it looks like they're going to be neck and neck all season.

Mike Shanahan has the Redskins looking better than I expected right away but it appears that the Redskins may be a victim of attrition and end up finishing slowly. That being said, they have as much of a chance as any other NFC East team of winning the division.

The Packers have had a rash of injuries from the start but if they can get healthy and stay that way, they can still win the NFC North and win the Super Bowl.

Mark Sanchez is looking good and could be an All-Pro and lead the Jets to a divisional title, Brett Favre is a distraction with his new scandal and elbow, the Raiders suck slightly less than I expected and the Browns have improved a bit but in fact do still suck in spirit.

[The Cusack]

I realize that.
I will say this, I am one Browns fan who will be upset if Mike Holmgren decides to cut bait with Brady Quinn. Too much upside. The kid deserves a full season surrounded with some talent, to prove his worth. Holmgren has a tough decision to make. Getting rid of Quinn won't sit well with the fan base if his replacement doesn't show immediate results. And don't kid yourselves, Lerner brought Holmgren in to keep the fan base happy and put butts in seats.

I can't honestly say that I understand getting rid of Brady Quinn and drafting Colt McCoy. There seems to be no real upgrade there and McCoy has no NFL experience.

[Tymaster]

I realize that.
I will say this, I am one Browns fan who will be upset if Mike Holmgren decides to cut bait with Brady Quinn. Too much upside. The kid deserves a full season surrounded with some talent, to prove his worth. Holmgren has a tough decision to make. Getting rid of Quinn won't sit well with the fan base if his replacement doesn't show immediate results. And don't kid yourselves, Lerner brought Holmgren in to keep the fan base happy and put butts in seats.

I can't honestly say that I understand getting rid of Brady Quinn and drafting Colt McCoy. There seems to be no real upgrade there and McCoy has no NFL experience.

Quinn started the Browns surprising season ending 4 game win streak last time the Browns played the Steelers. Colt McCoy starts his career in Pittsburgh this week. We'll find out very quickly what the future holds for Colt and Mangini. Worst. Possible. Scenario. Starting QB down, 2nd stringer down, 1 win so far, going into Blitzburgh for Big Ben's Homecoming. Head to the unemployment office now Mangini, Delhomme will probably be willing to tag along.

[The Cusack]

The Green Bay Packers will win the Super Bowl.