2007 NFC East Predictions

[GTripp0012]

This season will pretty much be decided by our record vs. Philadelphia. Hope I'm not oversimplifing too much.

I'm going to error on the side of pessimism (that way I can't dissapoint myself):

Eagles 12-4
Redskins 9-7
Cowboys 7-9
Giants 6-10

That's with two losses to Philly (3-3 in the division overall). One win over them and we are in good position to get a WC. Sweep them and we can take this division easily.

[freddyg12]

Looking at the division there are SO many questions.

At this point the only unit in the division that can be counted on is Dallas' D, and they fell apart at the end of last year.

I expect them to be good again though. Other than that the Giants O may be pretty good.
I think our O will be awesome this year, but that's pending my expected development of JC. That's why I'm predicting us to win the division.

[Crat92]

Skins' 12-4. Campbell and Offense have a break out year.
Eagles 9-7. McNabb struggles coming back from knee injury.
Cowboys 5-11 Romo goes down. Brad Johnson and T.O., are you serious?
Giants 4-12 Can't replace Tiki's production. Eli stinks up the joint.

[GMScud]

I think Philly, Wash, and Dallas could all win 9 games. I think the Skins could max out at 11 wins. And I am happy to say I think the Giants are going to stink out loud to the tune of 4 or 5 wins. Coughlin will end up getting fired, and then Cowher will take over for 2008 and beyond.

[GusFrerotte]

10-6 is what we should end up, but then again we should have ended up 10-6 last season if JC ended up starting 5-6 weeks earlier than when he actually did. Have to say 10-6 with a grain of salt this season. Why? I always say 11-5 or 10-6 and they end up with the reciprocal record. These past 4 seasons we have been awesome on paper only to lay eggs on the field

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

10-6 is what we should end up, but then again we should have ended up 10-6 last season if JC ended up starting 5-6 weeks earlier than when he actually did. Have to say 10-6 with a grain of salt this season. Why? I always say 11-5 or 10-6 and they end up with the reciprocal record. These past 4 seasons we have been awesome on paper only to lay eggs on the field

I don't think Campbell had any control over the 32nd ranked defense.

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think Campbell had any control over the 32nd ranked defense.

No JC didn't have control over the D, but you have to ask yourself why was the D so horrible from the previous season? Brunell was absolutely horrid himself at QB. 3 and outs were quite common, leaving the D on the field for 2/3 of the game in many instances. Of course a D is going to falter when out on the field for that long. If JC would have started 5-6 weeks earlier than what Coach put him in we could have at least won 3 of those games. IF JC was the qb, our scoring would have increased probably 10-14 points a game, given the D a nice rest, and at 9-7 gotten us a wildcard berth.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

No JC didn't have control over the D, but you have to ask yourself why was the D so horrible from the previous season? Brunell was absolutely horrid himself at QB. 3 and outs were quite common, leaving the D on the field for 2/3 of the game in many instances. Of course a D is going to falter when out on the field for that long. If JC would have started 5-6 weeks earlier than what Coach put him in we could have at least won 3 of those games. IF JC was the qb, our scoring would have increased probably 10-14 points a game, given the D a nice rest, and at 9-7 gotten us a wildcard berth.

This analysis seems to be based in weak self serving evidence.

The starting field position for our offense was No. 32 in the league. Both of our return units ranked pretty well. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the common denominator.

I really can't believe you'd come to this conclusion AFTER we played Campbell and scoring and yardage both decreased. It's like, the projections proved your theory wrong, and then it was proved wrong on the field, and yet you still stand by it.

One thing that I do agree with you on is that had Campbell gotten more starts, he also would have gotten more quality starts near the end of the year. But there was no way to avoid those first 5 games of Campbell's tenure when our passing game was a black hole. The plan was to have a decent defense, and let Brunell play the way he did for us en route to 11 or 12 wins and a deep playoff run. If Brunell had gotten injured late in the season, we might have needed Collins to play instead of Campbell. He gonna be good, but like every other QB to ever play, theres an adjustment period.

You couldn't have actually watched last season and thought that we had a passing game in between Weeks 11 and 15. That's just not possible.

[djnemo65]

Redskins 15-1
Eagles 10-6
Giants 7-9
Cowboys 2-14

[rvd420]

SKINS WIN IT ALL!!! yea right! just kiddin.HAIL SKINS!!!!

[charlielyons]

eagles 11-5
redskins 10-6
cowboys 8-8
giants 7-9

[KLHJ2]

Giants 11-5
Eagles 10-6
Redskins 7-8-1
Cowboys 5-10-1

It would be just our luck that we couldnt even go .500 because of the damn Cowgirls

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by angryssg

Giants 11-5
Eagles 10-6
Redskins 7-8-1
Cowboys 5-10-1

It would be just our luck that we couldnt even go .500 because of the damn Cowgirls

Week 17, and Patrick Crayton and Todd Collins are dueling QBs in overtime! The battle for .500 on FOX!

I like the picking of the tie though.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by angryssg

Giants 11-5
Eagles 10-6
Redskins 7-8-1
Cowboys 5-10-1

It would be just our luck that we couldnt even go .500 because of the damn Cowgirls

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Get back to the Giants board.

[djnemo65]

I cant wait to dig up these old threads next season to show you grumpy gusses how wrong you were.