Post your NFC East predictions here!

[sandtrapjack]

The Giants have the schedule to put them in control of the division early on in the season.

6 of thier first 10 games of the season are at home (thats sick)(in contrast 6 of Dallas's for 10 games are on the road). Of those 6 Giants home games 3 are against playoff teams from 2007, but only 2 of those 3 teams had winning road records in 2007. The other 3 teams they play are all sub-500 for 2007, and are not projected to improve dramtically in 2008.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

The Giants have the schedule to put them in control of the division early on in the season.

6 of thier first 10 games of the season are at home (thats sick)(in contrast 6 of Dallas's for 10 games are on the road). Of those 6 Giants home games 3 are against playoff teams from 2007, but only 2 of those 3 teams had winning road records in 2007. The other 3 teams they play are all sub-500 for 2007, and are not projected to improve dramtically in 2008.

So it's easy to see how they might start the season strong & then falter at the end, which is actually how Coughlin teams usually play, last year being a great exception to that.

[skinsfan69]

Cowboys 11-5
Giants 10-6
Redskins 9-7
Eagles 8-8

[70Chip]

Redskins 12-4
Dallas 10-6
Giants 6-10
Philly 4-12

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

So it's easy to see how they might start the season strong & then falter at the end, which is actually how Coughlin teams usually play, last year being a great exception to that.

I hear you, but 11 straight road wins including the playoffs at Dallas, at Green Bay and at New England (Giants were the visiting team at the SB). Not to mention that the Giants were 0-4 against those teams in the regular season. Until they prove otherwise, I humbly give them the benefit of the doubt.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think the Giants could have a bad year mostly because of the typical SB hangover that most teams have. Otherwise, they are a question mark since last year they got their act together at the right time.

I'm not sure about that hangover theory. I think that usually applies to the team that loses the Super Bowl. Since 2000:

• Rams (won SB in 1999 season), 2000 = 10-6 (opened season with six straight wins
• Ravens (SB 2000), 2001 = 10-6
• Patriots (SB 2001), 2002 = 11-5
• Bucs (SB 2002), 2003 = 7-9
• Patriots (SB 2003), 2004 = 14-2 won Super Bowl
• Patriots (SB 2004), 2005 = 10-6
• Steelers (SB 2005), 2006 = 8-8
• Colts (SB 2006), 2007 = 13-3

So the average win total of the past eight Super Bowl Champions in the following year is 10.4. That is the kind of hangover I'd like the Redskins to suffer from.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

The last question is it for me, and I would answer 'no way!'

With all due respect, the rest of your post is kinda pointless. The Giants were the best team in the nfl because they won the super bowl, that's the ONLY measure we have of who's best. If what you're saying is they weren't the most talented, then I agree fully, but talent alone doesn't make a team.

I just don't think it's much worth it to point out a team's flaws after they just won the biggest game of all. It actually kinda reminds me of the 88 Skins. I remember so many fans talking about how that team wasn't that good, could only win in a strike year, etc. Fact is they won & won big. The Giants didn't win w/that kind of margin but they beat arguably one of the greatest teams the league has seen in many years. No need to debate whether they "deserved" to win or not.

First of all, I never said they didn't deserve to win. I merely pointed out that they weren't the best team last season. Disagree all you want, in my opinion, the best team doesn't win the Super Bowl every season. It takes a lot: peak at the right time, make the plays when you need to make them, etc. I'm not trying to take the trophy away from the Giants, but if they play 10 times, the Patriots probably win 9. The Giants were better on that day and fortunately for them that's the one that counts. That's the one that won the trophy and that's the one that put them in the history books, but they IMO the better team lost the Super Bowl this year.

NOTE: I have to qualms about saying that the Patriots beat the Rams when the Rams were better them the year that the Pats won their first title. This isn't all a shot at the Giants, I just don't buy that they're going to be that great this season.

EDIT: To add to that, I don't feel like single elimination can ever measure "who is the best." However, single elimination is by far the most entertaining form of tournament so the best playoffs are single elimination tournaments. Most of the time, the best team will win the majority of games that they play a lesser team, the best way to measure the best team would be to have them play a series IMO.

[CRedskinsRule]

This is all based on our offense gelling and the NFC EAST truly being the best division.
(and my Skins bias of course!)

Skins 13-3, losing to New Orleans early, Dallas at Dallas, and New York at home after 2 emotional wins

Dallas 11-5 with losses to Cleveland on opening day and Green Bay, NYG at NY, THE SKINS AT FEDEX, and Pittsburgh

Giants and Phi both at 10-6 with the Giants getting in when Phi loses to Dallas and the Giants beating Minnesota on the last weekend.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

I hear you, but 11 straight road wins including the playoffs at Dallas, at Green Bay and at New England (Giants were the visiting team at the SB). Not to mention that the Giants were 0-4 against those teams in the regular season. Until they prove otherwise, I humbly give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'll preface this comment by saying that I still think the Giants are a better team than they were in the regular season last year, and they are more talented than the Redskins.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compliment them on a 7-1 regular season road record, when their home record was only 3-5. Obviously, that's a fluke. Good teams can win consistently on the road, and the Giants are certainly a good team, but universally, it is considered easier to win games at home than on the road. 5 losses at home is a lot for any team that wants to make the playoffs, and it certainly wasn't a good trend.

The 10 game road winning streak also comes with a small asterisk. First of all, the second win in that streak was played at "Giants Stadium," which is hardly a road game at all. 4 weeks later, they got a win over the Dolphins at a neutral field, at Wembley Stadium in London. Sure, they're on the road, but so is their opponent, and there is no HFA.

When you look at how poorly that team was playing in December, it's a minor miracle they won ten games and made the playoffs. Then to go on that type of mistake free offense, dominant defense playoff run? We've never seen anything like it, and IMO, those road wins in the playoffs gave credence to a fluky trend because the team looked really good on a national stage. NFC East fans do know otherwise.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'll preface this comment by saying that I still think the Giants are a better team than they were in the regular season last year, and they are more talented than the Redskins.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compliment them on a 7-1 regular season road record, when their home record was only 3-5. Obviously, that's a fluke. Good teams can win consistently on the road, and the Giants are certainly a good team, but universally, it is considered easier to win games at home than on the road. 5 losses at home is a lot for any team that wants to make the playoffs, and it certainly wasn't a good trend.

The 10 game road winning streak also comes with a small asterisk. First of all, the second win in that streak was played at "Giants Stadium," which is hardly a road game at all. 4 weeks later, they got a win over the Dolphins at a neutral field, at Wembley Stadium in London. Sure, they're on the road, but so is their opponent, and there is no HFA.

When you look at how poorly that team was playing in December, it's a minor miracle they won ten games and made the playoffs. Then to go on that type of mistake free offense, dominant defense playoff run? We've never seen anything like it, and IMO, those road wins in the playoffs gave credence to a fluky trend because the team looked really good on a national stage. NFC East fans do know otherwise.

Awesome post! Well said.

[RedskinFanForever]

Redskins:16-0
Giants:2-14
Eagles:1-15
Cowpokes:0-16

This isn't going to happen(except for the Redskins hopefully) but it would be nice to see it happen, wouldn't it?

[memphisskin]

Cowboys 10-6 *Camp Marshmallow strikes early, Boys rebound late (4 of last 6 at home)
Eagles 10-6 *McNabb back fully, plus they get the Falcons at the link
Giants 8-8 *They will be the hunted this year
Redskins 6-10 *Growing pains

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by RedskinFanForever

Redskins:16-0
Giants:2-14
Eagles:1-15
Cowpokes:0-16

This isn't going to happen(except for the Redskins hopefully) but it would be nice to see it happen, wouldn't it?

Actually, I don't want our team to go 16-0...I mean look at the Patriots, they went 16-0, their goal was to go undefeated. But that came back and bit them in the @$$ when they lost the superbowl. Had they lost some games and won the Superbowl, they would be without a doubt one of the elite teams. Instead they are 18-1 and kicking themselves about it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by RedskinFanForever

Redskins:16-0
Giants:2-14
Eagles:1-15
Cowpokes:0-16

This isn't going to happen(except for the Redskins hopefully) but it would be nice to see it happen, wouldn't it?

I don't think it can. In two contests between the Eagles and Cowboys, you have 1 win, and 3 losses.

I agree that when the Cowboys and Eagles get together, no one wins, but this is probably a little too literal

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think it can. In two contests between the Eagles and Cowboys, you have 1 win, and 3 losses.

I agree that when the Cowboys and Eagles get together, no one wins, but this is probably a little too literal

Maybe there will be a tie. LOL.