DimeBrothers.com
We are now taking donations... 

2009 NFL Season Preview - 5 Cents
Posted by: Mark Nichols

13 Sep 2009


It's time for the most uninformed predictions for the 2009 NFL season. These predictions are based on:

 

1) Never watching an NFL game last year at all, including the Super Bowl

2) Not doing a lick of research beyond just reading headlines on ESPN.com

3) Gut feelings and gut reactions to predictions I've read on Yahoo or ESPN.com

 

First a random thought: remember in the paper when the AFC was always placed on top, followed by the NFC? That was when the NFC ruled. Now that the AFC has dominated over the last few years the NFC information always comes first. Even online. Annoying. It confuses me in the same way as political colors changing so that Republicans are now red and Democrats are blue.

 

AFC East: Miami was great last year - an 11-5 record, but had an easy schedule as I remember. There is bound to be a let down. 7-9. New England wins the division. Not a leap, I understand.

 

AFC North: Baltimore went 11-5 last year with a rookie quarterback, Joe Flacco. There is bound to be a let down here, too. 8-8. Pittsburgh rules the division. Also, not a leap, I understand.

 

AFC South: Tennessee, unlucky to no end. I already heard the result of the first game this season, and their luck continued. Although they should be good enough to win the division again. Will Indy heat up through the season like they seem to do now? 10-6. I'd like to think Jacksonville is better than their 5-11 record from last year. Have they made a coaching change or something that will motivate this team? I don't know. I haven't researched it. But I hope so. 9-7 for them.

 

AFC West: Denver will stink to no end. San Diego will win the division. Not a stretch. Hopefully a statistical comeback for Tomlinson. 11-5.

 

AFC Playoffs: New England, Pittsburgh, Tennessee, San Diego, Indianapolis, and random pick Jacksonville. Tennessee becomes the boring AFC Super Bowl entrant, when everyone was hoping for Pittsburgh or New England.

 

NFC East: People seem down on Dallas. I like them. Although they tend to fade down the stretch, I think they have it in them to make the playoffs. Hard to predict records here. Washington should be the worst of these 4 teams, and the order of finish should be NY Giants, Dallas Cowboys, Philadelphia Eagles, and the Redskins.

 

NFC North: I don't know why Green Bay is everyone's go-to team. I remember them being better than their 6-10 record last year, but I like Minnesota. They've got a runner (Peterson) and a passer (Favre) that evoke fear. Green Bay could finish second in the division, with Chicago 3rd and Detroit last again. Only Minny is makin' the playoffs.

 

NFC South: Atlanta was 11-5. Feels like a let down year for them. 8-8. New Orleans will come out of that division the winners. People say they have an explosive offense. I guess I believe them.

 

NFC West: Arizona was 9-7 last year. Kurt Warner had a breakout year, part II. I'm thinking something doesn't hold and they miss out on the playoffs this year. It's like they were the Tampa Bay Rays of football. Except the entire division kind of stinks... I'd like to think St. Louis can regain its glory. But after looking over the 4 teams (Arizona, San Francisco, Seattle, and St. Louis), I'm left to still pick the Cardinals, at 9-7 again.

 

NFC Playoffs: NY Giants, Minnesota, New Orleans, Arizona, Dallas, and Philadelphia. Dallas, Philly, and Minnesota fade in the playoffs, and Arizona's luck doesn't last. The Giants beat New Orleans, and represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.

 

Super Bowl: An over hyped Super Bowl with barely a story angle is extremely boring, but Eli gets his second ring in 3 years with the Giants winning 20-13.

 

© 2009 Dime Brothers
Category: Sports    

Reader Comments:

Predictions Part II
 
Do I think Atlanta will still be good? Yup. 10-6. Second round of playoffs.

The effectiveness of the Wildcat was already diminishing by the end of last year, even for Miami, who had perfected it. Teams that run it often will have losing records. Teams that do it about twice a game will have winning records.

Carolina? This is the team that befuddles most people most years. Like Seattle. I never like either to do good. This year's the same. Except most are not on Carolina's bandwagon, so look for a 10-6 finish from them. Seattle should be sufficiently mediocre.

Arizona will be bad--they were bad last year; it's just that people don't remember. A lot of their points were from special teams and defensive returns. Absent that luck they'll do worse than last year. This still means a 9-7 record, though no playoffs for them.

Concur on Philadelphia. Why would they do better than previous years? I like the Redskins in the NFC East. 10-6.

Kansas City will win the AFC West. No one has 'em. I do. Eat it.

Super Bowl? Pittsburgh is still the best team in the NFL, 4th year running. They'll win it again, this time against Chicago.
13 Sep 2009
Paul 
Stupid NFL Rules
 
What's with this crap they're still ruling on about "a football move" or to maintain possession when you hit the ground even though you already had possession and two feet down? Stupidest rule ever. If you catch the ball, get two feet down, and step out of bounds, it's still a catch. Now the ground seems able to cause a fumble, whereas in the past it couldn't.
14 Sep 2009
Paul 
Wow
 
You beat me to the post. I was just watching the Monday-night game... how stupid could the refs be? When a catch is so obvious yet the refs find a way to mess it up. Good work guys. And for those who care, the Raiders were robbed of a touchdown versus San Diego. And on a side note, I believe I've now watched more football this year than all of last year combined. I've watched 5 minutes.
14 Sep 2009
Mark 
futhermore...
 
The logical extension of the call against the Raiders is that you can catch the ball standing up in the end zone. Sit there for 20 minutes, and they won't call a touchdown. You apparently need to move or have some part of your body hit the ground for a touchdown to be called. Because catching the ball, obviously having possession, and being in the end zone with two feet on the ground isn't enough for some reason.
15 Sep 2009
Mark 

Leave a Comment:

Name: 

Subject: 

Code: 

 

Message:  Bold Italics Underline Insert Hyperlink


Web Development by Steve Black