Teams that will Dissapoint National Expectations

by TJBOLT on Jul 2, 2009 12:50 AM PDT Comment 10 comments

Every year we have several teams move up and surprise us (Falcons, Dolphins, Ravens in '08) and teams that come way below expectations (Jaguars, Cowboys, Chargers); Here my list for teams that will dissapoint for '09, please share your thoughts:

Below Expectations: Normally a team has high potential for dissapointment when some of these factor coincide: Pumped Up Shedule, Loss of Diference making star players, Loss of Key coaches, complacency.

1) Tenneesee Titans: Lets start with the Loss of Albert Haynesworth, the titans played almost exclusively a 4 man rush, leaving them the luxury of 7 coverage/pursuit personel; the loss of Haynesworth means that gameplan gets scrapped. Add the fact you have a new DC in Blaine Bishop so you have a major loss of talent and add a steep learning curve for the entire defense. Add a first place schedule that includes: Indianapolis (2), Pittsburgh, San Diego, Miami, Arizona and the improving Texans. To many factors against a team that will not have a good offense and defense may give up 5-6 points more per game. Ask the chargers how much a dominant player can affect a defense.

2) Miami Dolphins: Keep it simple stupid!!!, The Schedule is brutal: New England (2), Pittsburgh, San Diego, Tennessee, Carolina, Atlanta, New Orleans, New York Jets (2), Houston. That means that the 2 games with Buffalo are the only 2 games versus a team with a losing record in '08.

3) New York Giants: Simple reality: 9-1 with Plaxico / 3-4 without Plaxico, they have the most inexperienced WR core in the NFL and that is position with probably the second highest learning curve to QB in the NFL. Add the fact of a nasty schedule (Philly (2), Dallas (2), Washington (2), Carolina, Arizona & San Diego) and a new DC to replace the brilliant Steve Spagnuolo sounds like to many factors against the G-men. Simply said Eli Manning must prove he can carry below par talent and I'm not buying.

4) Carolina Panthers: Same as the Dolphins the schedule is a meat grinder: Atlanta (2), New Orleans (2), Arizona, New York Giants, New England, Miami, New York Jets. Add the fact that Jake Delhomme appears to be hitting the downside of his career and the pass coverage got exposed when facing good QB's and they sure a lot more teams with good QB's in '09 than '08.

5) Baltimore Ravens: Once again the schedule just doesn't look at favorable 5 games versus the AFC Elite (Pittsburgh (2), Indy, New England, San Diego) leaves very little room for mistakes for the rest of the schedule. Add the loss of Bart Scott and DC Rex Ryan it should be enough to push the Ravens into 8-9 win category.

These are my five dissapointing, I'll add my five surprises later, please give me your thougts.

This FanPost was written by a member of the Bolts From The Blue community and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Bolts From The Blue editors or SB Nation.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hmmmm

Not bad at all. The only one I don’t agree with is the Giants. I think that 3-4 record without him had a lot to do with the media and controversy that surrounded the team during that time. Their WR group is young, but bursting with talent. With Burress and Toomer gone, they may have some growing pains, but I think by the end of the season they’ll be solid.

Also, the same way the Chargers are improving by Merriman coming back, the Giants will be improving with the return of Osi Umenyora (which probably moves Tuck back to DT and makes their entire defense better).

Here’s two more disappointing teams of 2009:

1. Eagles – Lost their defensive coordinator (one of the best in the league) and their defensive leader (Dawkins). A team that’s built around the D. They’ll be dangerous in 2010.
2. Jets – First year head coach and probably a rookie starting QB. That could work if the coach was formerly a QB coach or even an offensive coordinator. Thomas Jones is going to be a thorn in their side somehow.

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John (obviousman) on Jul 2, 2009 5:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I understand the philly choice and totally agree with Jets choice

I was torn between choosing the eagles and the giants the tiebreaker was the dominant playoff win by the eagles. But I sure can make a case for philly; Westbrook seems to be in the downward slope of his career, Jim Johnson will miss some games if not all the season, and in general they’re inconsistent and soft on offense. Their short yardage and goal line has been bad for about a decade and there is no reason to think it will change. If they can avoid losing momentum without Jim Johnson this is still a team with a Top 10 offense and defense. Big if but the talent is there.

On the giants, until I see real production from the WR’s in regular season action, there is no real proof they will get enough production from the passing game to get enough offense to be elite. 9 wins sure but the 12-13 wins I hear from the media not buying that stock, its a passing league.

by TJBOLT on Jul 2, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I absolutely agree with the Eagle stuff

I don’t see howcome everyone thinks they’re gonna have a great season just because they drafted a WR
they had an OK offseason, but like John said, losing Dawkins is quite a big loss even if he’s old. He’s the motivator. like TJBOLT said in the OP: ‘Ask the chargers how much a dominant player can affect a defense.’
And the Johnson and Westbrook stuff recently

Well, his name is LT
A true MVP
You know he'd love to lift up that Lombardi Trophy
A touchdown machine
You know what I mean?
Put him in the redzone, TD guaranteed

by LAZBOYxBE on Jul 2, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Their offense got better

McNabb will play better with more money (just trust me on that), Maclin was a great pick as was LeSean McCoy. I just think their defense is going to take a step back.

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John (obviousman) on Jul 2, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't trust the offense

they just don’t seem consistent
and I agree with some people that McNabb, when playing well, can be a top 5 QB in this league, but he can really stink too, sometimes.
I’ve seen them win big games against big teams (the blowout vs Dallas in week 17 and the playoff win against NYG for instance), but I’ve seen them suck big time (13-13 against Cinci? Any given sunday, I know, but still… If they played that game up to their potential, they would’ve won 41-6 or something)
To me, there are a couple of teams that have underachieved the last few seasons. Most notably the Chargers, Eagles, Seahawks, Cowboys and (maybe small surprise to some) the Texans.
But they didn’t all underachieve because of the same reasons.
-Texans and Seahawks: first of all, the Seahawks should have never gotten rid of Hutchinson. It destroyed Alexander’s post-MVP season along with the main reason these two teams underachieve: injuries. Every year people think the Texans could be a surprise wildcard team, but somehow Shaub gets hurt again and they don’t make it. Right now they have the playmakers on offense and they have some pretty good dudes on defense. And the seahawks had to have Wallace fill in for an injured Hasselbeck more than you’d like if you’re a Seahawks fan, too.
-Cowboys: they just seem to play great football and totally show that, along with the Chargers, they have the most talented roster in football. But then as soon as december comes, they crumble like a cookie.
-Chargers and Eagles: they kinda seem to play worse than needed early in the year and turn it up come playoff-time. I know, you could argue that the Chargers have an injury bug too and they do. But I’m pretty sure we lost some games early in 07 and 08 against worse teams. If the Eagles or Chargers lose, a lot of the times it’s because of poor play. I kinda don’t trust the consistency of both teams sometimes. This year, for some reason, though, I feel like the Chargers have pretty much no weaknesses coming into the season and the only thing that could stop us is poor play or injuries. Lets hope I’m right (and lets hope there are no injuries or poor play).

In reply to your post, the overall consensus in the league is that all the Eagles needed (or primarily), was some weapons for Mcnabb and now they picked up some toys for him to play with in the draft, right? First of all, they haven’t had the crappiest receivers in the world. I did like the addition of DeSean Jackson last year. And I do like the addition of Maclin this year. McCoy too. However, I would’ve preferred it if they’d picked up a free agent at WR. Someone who has proven in the NFL that he can do it. Like Houshmoundzadeh or Boldin or something. Ofcourse, if Maclin turns out to be as good then it’s even better that way, but right now, you just can’t tell for sure. So, the weapons problem for Mcnabb isn’t solved yet to me. But it might be. they did lose TE LJ Smith, which I thought sucked for them. To me, offensively, they still have a chance as great as before to lose because of inconsistency. Second of all, the defense lost Dawkins, which really sucked for them like I said before. And third of all post-draft they found out Westbrook isn’t quite right and Jim Johnson might miss some or all games. So, they might have a great year. An absolute great year. But they could just as well have a disappointing year to me.

sorry about the chaotic nature of my post btw; I’m not always the best in getting my point across.

Well, his name is LT
A true MVP
You know he'd love to lift up that Lombardi Trophy
A touchdown machine
You know what I mean?
Put him in the redzone, TD guaranteed

by LAZBOYxBE on Jul 3, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only one I don’t agree with is the Giants. I think that 3-4 record without him had a lot to do with the media and controversy that surrounded the team during that time.

I think it was their defense that fell down at the end of the season. Some put it on their line getting tired. That won’t happen next year when Umenyiora is back. The Giants are going to be tough next year in my opinion.

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Jul 2, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Preempting your surprise list

Not that this would be a huge shock, and it’s a well-known historical quirk – since the NFC South began in 2002, the team that finishes last in the division wins it the next year. Meaning the Saints will return to the playoffs. I say 12 wins as their defense improves to a top-half unit.

by Lenny Suckerpunch on Jul 2, 2009 9:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Which also makes Atlanta something of a disappointment pick for me

since everyone thinks they’re the new cock of the walk. I’ll say they compete for a WC spot up to the last week.

by Lenny Suckerpunch on Jul 2, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see no reason

why the Saints defense would get better. Sure, Malcolm Jenkins is probably an improvement over Mike McKenzie (released). Jabari Greer shouldn’t be starting. Darren Sharper has been done for two seasons. Paul Spicer too.

OK, it may be slightly better just because they’re replacing some guys that don’t deserve to be backups with over-the-hill veterans that still have a little bit left. They’re certainly going to struggle, I think.

I was going to pick Atlanta to be the disappointing team. Then I remembered watching Matt Ryan for the last few weeks of 2008 and thinking that he already looked like a top 5 QB. I think Atlanta is going to take that division again. The trend can’t last forever.

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John (obviousman) on Jul 2, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, the trend is: there is no repetition at the top of the NFCS. Last year, the winner (Car) was 3rd place the year before. So if the Falcons win the division the trend stays alive, as the Falcons were 2nd place last year.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Jul 3, 2009 7:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs