(05-16-2016, 12:40 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Sportsline predicts the Bengals win the AFCN and says they're a great value with Vegas favoring the Steelers.

http://www.sportsline.com/insiders/25588719/steelers-are-favored-but-not-the-value-play/

As for Wheaton vs LaFell, I think it's too close to call. Sure, LaFell has something to prove after last year, but what exactly has Wheaton done for anyone to act like he's way better? His best season is 749 yards and 5 scores. Jerome Simpson put up similar numbers with a rookie Dalton.

That is actually better than every year of LaFell's career with the exception of one.  Except for 2014, LaFell has never hit 50 receptions or 700 yards in a season.  I'm hoping for the best, but I think many of here have too high expectations for him.  There is usually a reason that New England lets guys go.

I am somewhat dubious that Bert will be all that this year since it's his first year back from ACL surgery. Ravens falter....

(05-16-2016, 04:13 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: That is actually better than every year of LaFell's career with the exception of one.  Except for 2014, LaFell has never hit 50 receptions or 700 yards in a season.  I'm hoping for the best, but I think many of here have too high expectations for him.  There is usually a reason that New England lets guys go.

Wheaton has only had one year hitting 50 receptions or over 700 yards too, and he's in a pass happy offense unlike the majority of LaFells career being the 3rd receiver under Steve Smith and Greg Olsen in a mostly run oriented offense.

LaFell was an utter bust in an offense that passed the 2nd most times in the NFL last year and who had numerous injuries to their WR's. Therefore, I'm tempering expectations for LaFell. To the contrary, the Bengals ran the 4th most in the NFL last year and are expected to increase that percentage in 2016.

(05-16-2016, 05:12 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: LaFell was an utter bust in an offense that passed the 2nd most times in the NFL last year and who had numerous injuries to their WR's.  Therefore, I'm tempering expectations for LaFell.  To the contrary, the Bengals ran the 4th most in the NFL last year and are expected to increase that percentage in 2016.

LaFell was one of the people injured last year. The only other receiver the Patriots had who got injured last year was Edelman in week 13. The year before LaFell had better stats than ANY #2 Bengals receiver since Houshmandzadeh in 2007, and that's including TEs. Even last year when you considered LaFell a "bust" he only averaged 4 yards a game less than Marvin Jones. The Patriots offense was 5th in pass attempts, not 2nd last year too.

(05-16-2016, 09:26 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: The Redskins barley won a division that was horrible last year. They still have a shitty defense, and they don't have THAT great of an offense.

lol the Giants. They're not even close to being scary.

Dallas still has a bad defense. Tony Romo is injury prone, and they don't have a run game. People are waaaay too hyped about Elliot.

The whole NFC east is a bunch of teams with no defenses, and alright offenses. Plus the Bengals always beats the shit out of the NFC. Since 2011 we have only lost 4 games against the NFC, so it's pretty easy to see why I'm not worried about them.

No they aren't. Dallas' offense has enough weapons for defenses to overlook Elliott.
Elliott will have a better rookie year than Jeremy Hill.

Bengals 11-5
Steelers 10-6
Ravens 9-7
Browns...5-11

(05-16-2016, 04:09 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Picking Pittsburgh is the safe and smart pick to more analysts.  Whether we like it or not, they have the pedigree that this team lacks.

This team has more division titles and wins over the last 5 years. What's more relevant when making a prediction? Super Bowls from the distant past or actual recent results? Looking at recent history, the Bengals are far more consistent. The Steelers are as likely (if not more so) to go 8-8 as they are 12-4. 

Especially with Bryant out, Heath gone, Bell coming off yet another serious injury, and no string of 6 consecutive backup QBs on their schedule. I'd argue that the Bengals are a more logical choice to win the division. 

(05-16-2016, 04:29 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Wheaton has only had one year hitting 50 receptions or over 700 yards too, and he's in a pass happy offense unlike the majority of LaFells career being the 3rd receiver under Steve Smith and Greg Olsen in a mostly run oriented offense.

Wheaton has had one year hitting those numbers out of three in the league and he was behind both Brown and Bryant.  LaFell has done so one year out of six.

(05-16-2016, 04:13 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: That is actually better than every year of LaFell's career with the exception of one.  Except for 2014, LaFell has never hit 50 receptions or 700 yards in a season.  I'm hoping for the best, but I think many of here have too high expectations for him.  There is usually a reason that New England lets guys go.

The perception that the Pats never let go of good players is false. Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Ben Watson, BJGE, Danny Woodhead, Shane Vereen, Deion Branch, Adam Vinatieri, Wes Welker, Chandler Jones, etc etc.

Also, I'm not seeing the high expectations. I predicted 700+ yards which I think is very reasonable in this offense. 

(05-16-2016, 05:12 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: LaFell was an utter bust in an offense that passed the 2nd most times in the NFL last year and who had numerous injuries to their WR's.  Therefore, I'm tempering expectations for LaFell.  To the contrary, the Bengals ran the 4th most in the NFL last year and are expected to increase that percentage in 2016.

"Utter bust"? Every Pats fan I've talked to said that they wouldn't have won the SB in 2014 without LaFell. He had key TD catches in the playoffs and in the SB that year. In addition, he had nearly 1k yards and 7 TDs in regular season. I'm not expecting that type of production in this offense, but I think 700 yards is a safe bet.

(05-17-2016, 12:48 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Wheaton has had one year hitting those numbers out of three in the league and he was behind both Brown and Bryant.  LaFell has done so one year out of six.

Wheaton started more games than Bryant last season, and saying he was "behind Brown" is silly.

By that logic, LaFell was behind Steve Smith in Carolina.

And as it was pointed out, LaFell was in a run first offense. Is 650 yards in a run first offense much worse than 750 in a pass first offense?

(05-17-2016, 01:21 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Wheaton started more games than Bryant last season, and saying he was "behind Brown" is silly.

By that logic, LaFell was behind Steve Smith in Carolina.

And as it was pointed out, LaFell was in a run first offense. Is 650 yards in a run first offense much worse than 750 in a pass first offense?

You don't think Antonio Brown is the overwhelming primary target for that offense??

(05-17-2016, 01:40 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: You don't think Antonio Brown is the overwhelming primary target for that offense??

You don't think Steve Smith was the overwhelming primary target in Carolina's offense - that featured far fewer passes?

I'm just not seeing why you think there was fewer opportunities for the 2nd/3rd option in a high volume pass offense than the 2nd/3rd option in a run first offense.

(05-17-2016, 01:54 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You don't think Steve Smith was the overwhelming primary target in Carolina's offense - that featured far fewer passes?

I'm just not seeing why you think there was fewer opportunities for the 2nd/3rd option in a high volume pass offense than the 2nd/3rd option in a run first offense.

I definitely think Steve Smith was the primary target.  I hope you're right and I am completely wrong, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on LaFell.  I am not holding out much expectation for him.

(05-17-2016, 02:39 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: No they aren't. Dallas' offense has enough weapons for defenses to overlook Elliott.
Elliott will have a better rookie year than Jeremy Hill.

I bet Hill will have a better YPC his rookie year than what Elliott will have. Elliott might have better overall stats since he's going to be the day 1 starter with no other competition while Hill had to fight Gio for snaps. Elliott is waaaay over hyped. I watched all of his games in college, and I never thought that he was as good as what people are trying to make him out to be.

(05-17-2016, 02:33 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I bet Hill will have a better YPC his rookie year than what Elliott will have. Elliott might have better overall stats since he's going to be the day 1 starter with no other competition while Hill had to fight Gio for snaps. Elliott is waaaay over hyped. I watched all of his games in college, and I never thought that he was as good as what people are trying to make him out to be.

Doesn't Dallas have a super-good o-line though?  Elliot is over-hyped, sure, but he's pretty good and if the o-line holds he could seem as good as hyped.

(05-17-2016, 03:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Doesn't Dallas have a super-good o-line though?  Elliot is over-hyped, sure, but he's pretty good and if the o-line holds he could seem as good as hyped.

Dallas has an extremely good offensive line.

(05-17-2016, 03:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Doesn't Dallas have a super-good o-line though?  Elliot is over-hyped, sure, but he's pretty good and if the o-line holds he could seem as good as hyped.

With Romo back they're not going to run the ball nearly as much, and their RB only got 1k yards last season. I don't think he will get much more than 1200 yards (when Hill had over 1100 yards and 9 TDs in 2014 while fighting for snaps from Gio).

(05-17-2016, 04:43 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: With Romo back they're not going to run the ball nearly as much, and their RB only got 1k yards last season. I don't think he will get much more than 1200 yards (when Hill had over 1100 yards and 9 TDs in 2014 while fighting for snaps from Gio).

Yes, but that RB was an over-the-hill Darren McFadden who averaged 4.6 YPC behind that line while the QB's were a legitimate non-threat and the best WR was out.  We shall see what happens, but unless Elliot is a total bust I imagine the Cowboys could very well lean on him and that line in an attempt to keep Tony Romo from breaking his back again.

(05-17-2016, 02:00 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I definitely think Steve Smith was the primary target.  I hope you're right and I am completely wrong, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on LaFell.  I am not holding out much expectation for him.

That's fine. You're definitely not alone in feeling pessimistic about the guy. I don't have sky high expectations or anything, I just think he'll fit right in and produce somewhere around 50-700-5. Unless Boyd somehow takes on a bigger role than expected.