Sleeping Lions and Paper Tigers

[dbn]

Which teams are really good this year, and which are really bad? Of course it's hard to tell yet, because we have very little data so far. In a few weeks, however, it'll be less fun to speculate based on preconceived ideas and early results. 
 
Sleeping Lion = team that's going to be good, but either underperforming right now or flying under the radar for whatever reason.
 
Paper Tiger = a team that's going to be bad, but either have had a good 3-game start, or are just generally overrated. 
 
I feel confident that NE and GB are going to be good, but most people do so they don't count (for me). Also, CHI, CLE, TB, and maybe even NO are expected to be bad and I think they will be, so they don't count (for me).
 
GB's two opponents so far, it can be noted, have only one win combined. Then again, one of those teams is SEA, who are a good Sleeping Lion candidate. BAL isn't a terrible team, but I don't consider them a Sleeping Lion; I think they're just a mediocre team off to a bad start. I think JAC and OAK are truly improved, but nowhere near Lions yet.
 
Which team is going to surprise people?
 
Who are the Paper Tigers? Is ATL real? CIN? CAR?
 
AZ is 3-0, but their opponents are 1-5 in other games (i.e., 1-8 overall) - perhaps a Paper Tiger?

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

SEA seems like the easy "sleeping lion" answer.  I consider them a Top 3 team in the league that just happened to play two really tough games early on.  If the Chiefs lose tonight and go to 1-2, I think they qualify as well.
 
Panthers, Falcons, and Jets are all paper tigers in my book.  I'm not sure yet about the Bengals or Cardinals.  Both of those teams could be pretty good (not necessarily winning the Super Bowl good, but not being a true SB contender shouldn't make you a paper tiger).

 

[Super Nomario]

Panthers, Falcons, and Jets are all paper tigers in my book. 

The Falcons might be a paper tiger, but their remaining schedule is an absolute joke: Houston, Washington, @ (maybe a Brees-less) Saints, @ Tenn, Tampa, @SF, BYE, Indy, Minny, @ TB, @ Car, @Jax, Car, NO. They might not be very good but still could go 12-4.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

The Falcons might be a paper tiger, but their remaining schedule is an absolute joke: Houston, Washington, @ (maybe a Brees-less) Saints, @ Tenn, Tampa, @SF, BYE, Indy, Minny, @ TB, @ Car, @Jax, Car, NO. They might not be very good but still could go 12-4.

Yup, that schedule is absurd. I could see them as one of the worst 12-4 teams in recent memory.

 

[ipol]

Right now, I'm looking at Carolina as more of a tissue tiger.
 
But could Atlanta actually be good? Like, win the wild card round and put up a good fight / eke out a win in the divisional round good?

 

[tims4wins]

Why is everyone so down on Carolina? Final 8 team last year with a nasty D and an easy schedule. They should get a home game maybe even a bye. They will be a tough out IMO

 

[nattysez]

 
But could Atlanta actually be good? Like, win the wild card round and put up a good fight / eke out a win in the divisional round good?

Let's see how they look once Julio Jones gets hurt, which is pretty much inevitable.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

I'm down on Carolina because I view their skill position players to be among the worst in the league.

I think the Eagles are a sleeping lion. Yes, Bradford looks terrible but I think he'll improve as the season progresses and I think the Eagle defense is nasty.

 

[ipol]

Shitty reason but I'm down on Carolina because I live here. Tough for me to buy into it until I see them play a decent team. They get the Wutcaneers next but then they'll be tested.
 
Edit because I'm a slooooow typist.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

I think the Cardinals are pretty good.  Their defense is terrific and Carson Palmer is playing at a very high level -- I think Barnwell mentioned that in all of the games he's started for the Cards the last two years, they're now 9-0.  And they're 19-6 in total with him at QB.  That's not a fluke.

 

[tims4wins]

Shitty reason but I'm down on Carolina because I live here. Tough for me to buy into it until I see them play a decent team. They get the Wutcaneers next but then they'll be tested.
 
Edit because I'm a slooooow typist.

I hear you - I live here too (well not Charlotte) - but that D is legit

 

[dbn]

Which teams are really good this year, and which are really bad? Of course it's hard to tell yet, because we have very little data so far. In a few weeks, however, it'll be less fun to speculate based on preconceived ideas and early results. 
 
(snip)

 
 
It's not reflected in the thread title, but I think we can also discuss the bolded in this thread. It's a bit of a different question than SL and PT.
 
The AFC teams that have been good over the past few seasons or so are NE, DEN, IND, and CIN/PIT/BAL sort of rotating in and out. KC and HOU have had a good season, too.
 
NE is looking very good so far. DEN has its doubters, but I think they'll be fighting for the AFC. IND and BAL have started slow, but (as Patriots fans certainly know) a team can look bad through ~1/4 season then turn it on. I think PIT is a legitimately good team with a healthy Roesthlisberger, but he isn't healthy. So I really don't have a good sense of who will be good other than NE and probably DEN and likely CIN.
 
In the NFC: with Romo and Bryant out, DAL may be in trouble, and unless PHI is a Sleeping Lion, that division could be bad from top to bottom; in the north, I think GB will be very good, but DET and MIN are hard to predict; the south is a mystery; the west an enigma.  

 

[SoxinSeattle]

Palmer plays a full season = Arizona is a lion. Palmer gets hurt = Papel tigre. Simple as that. They have a really good team and have an excellent chance of winning the division. The Seahawks smoke and mirrors offense has to fail eventually right?

 

[Phil Plantier]

This really should be titled sleeping Lions and paper Bengals.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Why is everyone so down on Carolina? Final 8 team last year with a nasty D and an easy schedule. They should get a home game maybe even a bye. They will be a tough out IMO

Like ATL they could wind up with a very good record due to the schedule, but I think this is a mediocre team. Their offensive talent is really bad and I'm not sold on their secondary holding up against top tier passing offenses. I could see them making the playoffs then getting their doors blown off by GB, SEA, or maybe ARI.

 

[wibi]

I think the Cardinals are pretty good.  Their defense is terrific and Carson Palmer is playing at a very high level -- I think Barnwell mentioned that in all of the games he's started for the Cards the last two years, they're now 9-0.  And they're 19-6 in total with him at QB.  That's not a fluke.

 
Arizona scares the hell out of me as a Seattle fan.  They could have easily kept Seattle from advancing last year if Palmer and Ellington hadnt gotten hurt.  

 

[wibi]

Palmer plays a full season = Arizona is a lion. Palmer gets hurt = Papel tigre. Simple as that. They have a really good team and have an excellent chance of winning the division. The Seahawks smoke and mirrors offense has to fail eventually right?

 
Smoke and mirrors?  You mean the system that plays to the QB's strength while also pounding the run game?  

 

[mauf]

But could Atlanta actually be good? Like, win the wild card round and put up a good fight / eke out a win in the divisional round good?

Forget the wild card round -- the Falcons could snag a first-round bye. They are much better than last year, and as others have noted, they have a ridiculously easy schedule.

Seattle is the obvious "sleeping lion" pick. I'd also put the Chiefs in that category, tonight's debacle notwithstanding -- if they hadn't choked away the DEN game, they'd be 2-1 with a loss at Lambeau. I still see them as a likely playoff team.

Oakland is my paper tiger. They're not a threat to get the #1 overall pick, but they're still the worst team in that division. You could make a case for Cincy, but I'm not sure the "paper tiger" tag fits a team that's likely to win their division.

 

[Super Nomario]

Why is everyone so down on Carolina? Final 8 team last year with a nasty D and an easy schedule. They should get a home game maybe even a bye. They will be a tough out IMO

I'm with you. I wrote about Carolina for ITP and was really impressed with their D. They run a ton of zone but it's a really aggressive zone D, not a soft zone like we typically think of. They have a ridiculously athletic group of linebacker (Kuechly, Thomas Davis, and first-rounder / ex-failed Red Sox farmhand Shaq Thompson). They run zone defenses on insane downs that not many teams run zone, like 4th-and-5 or 3rd-and 6. Normally it's too easy to just dump the ball off and pick up five yards on YAC, but Carolina is happy to let you try that with the LBs they have:
 

 

I'm down on Carolina because I view their skill position players to be among the worst in the league.

Their receivers are pretty bad. Olsen's a good TE, and their RBs are alright. Cam is kind of the perfect QB for that offense, though. He's not a refined enough passer to be take advantage of a system like New England's or Denver's, but he can make something out of nothing and they're not afraid to use his legs. They use a ton of read-option, whether actually doing the zone read, or running package plays with a pass option, or just faking it to misdirect the D. I don't see them scoring 35 points per game or anything, but can Newton make enough plays for them to score 20-25? So far the answer is yes. I don't think it'll be yes every week, but it might be yes enough for them to make the playoffs.
 
The problem with the "paper tiger" discussion is: some of these teams have be good. The East looks like garbage right now with Romo hurt and Bradford looking even worse than he looked in St. Louis. Green Bay looks like the only real team in the North. The South was the worst division in football last year. In the West, only Arizona is playing well. I think Seattle will come around, but I kinda think that a) Atlanta and Carolina aren't really that good and b) they might still be two of the four or five best teams in the NFC.

 

[nothumb]

I think SEA is a paper tiger because I don't see how they can lock up HFA or even a home playoff game if Palmer stays healthy. They are going to be ok on offense and still be beastly at home, but they remain a very beatable road team and are probably going to need to win two or three road games to come out of the NFC again.

KC doesn't even qualify as a paper tiger anymore. They could still win 8 or 9 games but they aren't beating anyone good. They could easily lose 7 of 8 road games this year.

IND is a paper tiger for sure. Prob go 10-6 and win the worst division in the AFC, then bow out in the wild card round to the fucking Jets or something.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I'm with you. I wrote about Carolina for ITP and was really impressed with their D. They run a ton of zone but it's a really aggressive zone D, not a soft zone like we typically think of. They have a ridiculously athletic group of linebacker (Kuechly, Thomas Davis, and first-rounder / ex-failed Red Sox farmhand Shaq Thompson). They run zone defenses on insane downs that not many teams run zone, like 4th-and-5 or 3rd-and 6. Normally it's too easy to just dump the ball off and pick up five yards on YAC, but Carolina is happy to let you try that with the LBs they have:
 

 
Their receivers are pretty bad. Olsen's a good TE, and their RBs are alright. Cam is kind of the perfect QB for that offense, though. He's not a refined enough passer to be take advantage of a system like New England's or Denver's, but he can make something out of nothing and they're not afraid to use his legs. They use a ton of read-option, whether actually doing the zone read, or running package plays with a pass option, or just faking it to misdirect the D. I don't see them scoring 35 points per game or anything, but can Newton make enough plays for them to score 20-25? So far the answer is yes. I don't think it'll be yes every week, but it might be yes enough for them to make the playoffs.
 
The problem with the "paper tiger" discussion is: some of these teams have be good. The East looks like garbage right now with Romo hurt and Bradford looking even worse than he looked in St. Louis. Green Bay looks like the only real team in the North. The South was the worst division in football last year. In the West, only Arizona is playing well. I think Seattle will come around, but I kinda think that a) Atlanta and Carolina aren't really that good and b) they might still be two of the four or five best teams in the NFC.

I don't really see why some of these teams have to be good. Maybe it's a situation in which 2-3 NFC teams are way ahead of the pack, then you have 7-8 teams that are pretty indistinguishable in terms of ability (ATL, CAR, MIN, DET, DAL, NYG, PHL, etc) but a few of them happen to get the right combination of in game luck and fortuitous scheduling to end up with impressive looking records. "Good" is obviously a subjective term but the distribution of team quality could easily be shaped in a way that the seemingly 4th best team in the conference isn't significantly better than the 10th best team.

 

[dbn]

I don't really see why some of these teams have to be good. Maybe it's a situation in which 2-3 NFC teams are way ahead of the pack, then you have 7-8 teams that are pretty indistinguishable in terms of ability (ATL, CAR, MIN, DET, DAL, NYG, PHL, etc) but a few of them happen to get the right combination of in game luck and fortuitous scheduling to end up with impressive looking records. "Good" is obviously a subjective term but the distribution of team quality could easily be shaped in a way that the seemingly 4th best team in the conference isn't significantly better than the 10th best team.

 
Well, what is "good", then? If it turns out that there are many more good teams in the AFC compared to the NFC (like the conference imbalance in the NBA, (I think, I haven't been following the NBA much lately)), then I think I see what you mean.
 
I think an interesting thing to the start of this NFL season is that it seems (at least to me) harder this year, at this early point, compared to most years, to figure out which teams are going to be relatively good. 
 
Regarding the latter bolded, I wonder how often that is true. Perhaps many years are like that? I have no idea, but it's an interesting thought.

 

[SumnerH]

 
Smoke and mirrors?  You mean the system that plays to the QB's strength while also pounding the run game?  

 
Yeah, that's the weirdest thing I've read in the football forum since someone in the Dolphins thread said they definitely ought to be making the postseason given their level of talent compared to the rest of the conference.  Lynch, Graham, Wilson may not be the Pats or Packers, but it's not smoke and mirrors by any stretch.
 
Now, I wouldn't pick Seattle as a "sleeping lion" just because I don't think anyone's sleeping on them--pretty much everyone I talk to still considers them at least a potential threat and solid team that happens to have had a slow start.  They have one bad loss against the Rams, but the other loss is to a Green Bay team that a lot of people are positing is one of the top 2 teams in the NFL this year.  Tough to read too much into that.
 
They certainly might lose out to a rising Arizona team if Palmer stays healthy, but at the moment I can't imagine anyone would be shocked if they won the division. That's enough to disqualify them as a sleeping lion, IMO.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Yeah, that's the weirdest thing I've read in the football forum since someone in the Dolphins thread said they definitely ought to be making the postseason given their level of talent compared to the rest of the conference.  Lynch, Graham, Wilson may not be the Pats or Packers, but it's not smoke and mirrors by any stretch.
 
Now, I wouldn't pick Seattle as a "sleeping lion" just because I don't think anyone's sleeping on them--pretty much everyone I talk to still considers them at least a potential threat and solid team that happens to have had a slow start.  They have one bad loss against the Rams, but the other loss is to a Green Bay team that a lot of people are positing is one of the top 2 teams in the NFL this year.  Tough to read too much into that.
 
They certainly might lose out to a rising Arizona team if Palmer stays healthy, but at the moment I can't imagine anyone would be shocked if they won the division. That's enough to disqualify them as a sleeping lion, IMO.

SEA is tough to get a read on, they looked terrible in the STL loss, and their only win was against CHI who were a bad team even with Cutler and Jefferey. Without those two it is almost certainly the worst in football.
They get a bad Lions team this week, then Bengals/Panthers. If they come out of that three game stretch with less than 2 wins I think it is fair to wonder about them as a contender.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

What I simply have never understood is why Arizona refuses to get a competent backup QB.  Carson Palmer is the difference between 6 wins and 11 with that team, and Drew Stanton / Matt Barkley are not the answer.  I'm not saying they can get another Carson Palmer, but is it insane for them to overspend at the backup QB spot and get someone like Luke McCown or Ryan Fitzpatrick, someone you know you could rely on to get you through a 3 or 4 game stretch?

 

[Super Nomario]

What I simply have never understood is why Arizona refuses to get a competent backup QB.  Carson Palmer is the difference between 6 wins and 11 with that team, and Drew Stanton / Matt Barkley are not the answer.  I'm not saying they can get another Carson Palmer, but is it insane for them to overspend at the backup QB spot and get someone like Luke McCown or Ryan Fitzpatrick, someone you know you could rely on to get you through a 3 or 4 game stretch?

Stanton is the ninth-highest-paid backup QB, believe it or not:

 
The other factor here is that Arians' offense features the vertical passing game and demands a quarterback who can push the ball downfield. That makes a lot of these guys on the list, like Fitzpatrick, poor fits. And they actually were OK when they turned to Stanton last year (5-3 in 8 games); the problem was when he get hurt, too, and they had to turn to Ryan Lindley.
 
EDIT: I forgot about Barkley, though. I don't really get that one. Seems like a bad fit, but maybe there's something they think they can fix.

 

[Silverdude2167]

Probably not a true Paper Tiger, but I think Denver is bad.
 
They have barely beaten some bad teams and should have lost to KC. Their opponents so far are 1-8.
 
The defence is very good, but the Offense is very bad. And I think when they run into average or above teams they will be exposed.

 

[tims4wins]

Looking at schedules again, Carolina may have a hard time beating out Atlanta in the South. They play @ Tampa this week, which should be a win, but then their next 4 is pretty brutal: @ Seattle, vs. Philly, vs. Indy, vs. GB. Good news is 3 of those 4 are at home, but still, 2-2 would have to be considered a good outcome in that stretch.
 
The back half of the schedule is somewhat favorable from an opponents perspective, but includes 5 road games.
 
Atlanta may very well win that division.

 

[amarshal2]

Probably not a true Paper Tiger, but I think Denver is bad.
 
They have barely beaten some bad teams and should have lost to KC. Their opponents so far are 1-8.
 
The defence is very good, but the Offense is very bad. And I think when they run into average or above teams they will be exposed.

I think we'll find out about two teams this coming week in the Vikings -who could be a sleeping lion - and the Broncos who, as you point out, have beaten nobody. If this was a home game for Minnesota it would be easier to pick for me but I still think this one has the makings of a game that flips the script. If Bridgewater an consistently be average they're a playoff team.

 

[tims4wins]

Wow, you think Minny is going into Denver and winning this weekend? Bold prediction. I can't see Bridgewater having much success against that D, so I see another lowish scoring Denver win similar to the 19-13, 24-12 type of games they have had so far.

 

[rodderick]

What I simply have never understood is why Arizona refuses to get a competent backup QB.  Carson Palmer is the difference between 6 wins and 11 with that team, and Drew Stanton / Matt Barkley are not the answer.  I'm not saying they can get another Carson Palmer, but is it insane for them to overspend at the backup QB spot and get someone like Luke McCown or Ryan Fitzpatrick, someone you know you could rely on to get you through a 3 or 4 game stretch?

 
I think Stanton is fine as a backup. They went 5-3 with him as a starter last year and he had a 2% INT%, which is what you want out of a backup QB in an otherwise talented and well coached team.

 

[amarshal2]

Wow, you think Minny is going into Denver and winning this weekend? Bold prediction. I can't see Bridgewater having much success against that D, so I see another lowish scoring Denver win similar to the 19-13, 24-12 type of games they have had so far.

I honestly don't know what to think about Minny and so I think this week will be telling. Every analyst will rave about their roster. They made the playoffs a few years ago with AP and like Ponder playing QB. People liked Bridgewater last year and their roster has only gotten better. Add in a fresh AP and they'd be my pick for Sleeping Lion. Obviously their shot on prime time they looked drunk against SF but it was week 1 and they handled their next two opponents easily. I think they're probably underrated and would take them against the spread in Denver but straight up is a tougher call.

 

[nothumb]

DENs offense has looked bad but they are going to figure out a way to get comfortable. Very good teams can still game plan against Peyton and stop him but they will be an above-average O and a very good D if healthy. MIN should be an interesting game for them because a good power running opponent might be able to move it against their relatively light front.

I still like DEN to win next week and probably do well enough to get a bye if Peyton doesn't fall apart. Big thing for them is health on both sides of the ball.

 

[Silverdude2167]

DENs offense has looked bad but they are going to figure out a way to get comfortable. Very good teams can still game plan against Peyton and stop him but they will be an above-average O and a very good D if healthy. MIN should be an interesting game for them because a good power running opponent might be able to move it against their relatively light front.

I still like DEN to win next week and probably do well enough to get a bye if Peyton doesn't fall apart. Big thing for them is health on both sides of the ball.

What makes you say this? They have played three bad defenses and done very little. Peyton can not throw deep and can not put anything on the ball without stepping into the throw with his whole body.
 
They also can't run the ball.

 

[amarshal2]

What makes you say this? They have played three bad defenses and done very little. Peyton can not throw deep and can not put anything on the ball without stepping into the throw with his whole body.
 
They also can't run the ball.

 
Peyton has played much better in the shotgun and pistol than he did under center.  Basically they tried to run Kubiak's offense -- it didn't work -- and now they're back in a modified version of Peyton's offense since the middle of the Chiefes game.  They've looked much better in Peyton's offense presumably because of his comfort level.  They're probably going to be an above average offense going forward because D. Thomas and Sanders are ridiculous and Peyton is smart enough to run the O reasonably well even with his arm hanging by a thread.  

 

[nothumb]

Manning hasn't been able to throw deep for a while. They are still figuring out how to balance shotgun / pistol / under center and convince Kubiak to let Peyton run things his way. When they mixed in more pistol and shotgun this week they were more able to move the ball. Don't get me wrong, they will still have their limitations, especially as weather worsens and Peyton gets fatigued. I just don't take the first two weeks as any indication of typical play calling or execution for them from here on out.

 

[twothousandone]

Palmer plays a full season = Arizona is a lion. Palmer gets hurt = Papel tigre. Simple as that.

Isn't that pretty much every team? Their aren't 32 good enough QBs.

I suppose if a team can go to a McCown, Stanton or Orton (now retired) for aseveral games, they can win a few. Romo, Roethlisberger, Rodgers -- anyone gets hurt, the team is in trouble. There is occasional lightning in a bottle (Flynn, Cassel) but eventually, the luck runs out.

I'd like to say Denver is a paper tiger, but I'd be much more comfortable saying that if they had actually lost a game.

 

[GregHarris]

It might not be until November until we see what Denver really is.  The GB, @Indy, KC stretch should test them. Yes, Indy matches up with them well.  Then they get a break with the Bears but then get the Pats, Chargers, Raiders, and Steelers (with Ben back).

 

[dcmissle]

Isn't that pretty much every team? Their aren't 32 good enough QBs.

I suppose if a team can go to a McCown, Stanton or Orton (now retired) for aseveral games, they can win a few. Romo, Roethlisberger, Rodgers -- anyone gets hurt, the team is in trouble. There is occasional lightning in a bottle (Flynn, Cassel) but eventually, the luck runs out.

I'd like to say Denver is a paper tiger, but I'd be much more comfortable saying that if they had actually lost a game.

It's not every team. Excellent QBs are necessary but not sufficient. As QB heavy as this League is right now, you need other ingredients. Arizona has them, had them last year and even more now, and it has an excellent HC IMO.

 

[SoxinSeattle]

 
Smoke and mirrors?  You mean the system that plays to the QB's strength while also pounding the run game?  

Smoke and mirrors was a bad choice of words. Maybe the problem is that it's too obvious. Their game plan is exactly as you stated. Rely on defense, run Lynch and play to Russell strengths. That and what I call chuck for luck. A la the Super Bowl where they we're being outplayed until Russell closed his eyes and chucked it to the tall guy. That and I think Bevell is an awful coordinator. Maybe he is just working with what he has but he is FAR too conservative.
Good coaches try to shut down Lynch and make Seattle's weak passing attack beat them. Just as the Pats did in the SB. All that said they are this close to winning back to back SB so what do I know. I just see Baldwin and Kearse as the attack (last two years) and wonder how they win at the rate they do. Defense wins championships I guess. First half of the Bears game was the ugliest shit I have ever seen from both teams. All that said I root for the Hawks when they are not playing the Pats. Hopefully lynch is healthy and the second half of the Bears game was them getting on track.

 

[SoxinSeattle]

Isn't that pretty much every team? Their aren't 32 good enough QBs.

I suppose if a team can go to a McCown, Stanton or Orton (now retired) for aseveral games, they can win a few. Romo, Roethlisberger, Rodgers -- anyone gets hurt, the team is in trouble. There is occasional lightning in a bottle (Flynn, Cassel) but eventually, the luck runs out.

I'd like to say Denver is a paper tiger, but I'd be much more comfortable saying that if they had actually lost a game.

It is most teams. I only emphasized it because of Palmer's injury history.

 

[Stitch01]

It actually seems like don't need that many other ingredients to at least be pretty good if you have a true elite QB. Palmer isn't that, so Arizona needs more, but if you have Brady, Rodgers, or Manning (before this year) and they stay healthy they're team is going to win ten games plus.

I disagree that Denver is a paper tiger. Manning isn't what used to be, but even throwing moonballs to Thomas and Sanders I bet they end up with an above average passing offense to go with a very good defense. They are the team id least want to face in the playoffs in the AFC right now.

 

[Tony C]

It's a tough question because I'm unclear who fits into what category and even if some paper tigers do well -- see discussion of teams with easy schedules -- they may still be paper tigers.  But Denver v Minnesota is a rubber meets the road type of game: I'll call Denver the paper tiger and Minny the sleeping lion. On Denver, love the defense, but you can only go so far on it....and count me as believing my eyes when I watch that offense: it's not good. Minnesota on the other hand has a resurgent AP, my binkie Teddy Bridgewater, and a ton of talent on the defensive side of the ball (ignore the OL problems for now, though obviously it may be the achilles heel). 

 

[Devizier]

How about going out on a limb guys?
 
Sleeping lions... Titans
Paper tiger... Bengals
 
Reason: Quarterback

 

[Rudy's Curve]

How about going out on a limb guys?
 
Sleeping lions... Titans
Paper tiger... Bengals
 
Reason: Quarterback

 
Yes, the team that's made the playoffs the last four years, is 31-14-1 in their last 46 games and has their best roster in that time period is a paper tiger. I'm not trying to argue they're better than New England or even Denver, but come on.

 

[GregHarris]

 
Taken from Reddit.  Luck morphing into Jeff George got a laugh.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Those are all amazing, except for bens knee.

 

[ElcaballitoMVP]

 
Yes, the team that's made the playoffs the last four years, is 31-14-1 in their last 46 games and has their best roster in that time period is a paper tiger. I'm not trying to argue they're better than New England or even Denver, but come on.

 
Just as a reminder, this is playoff Andy Dalton we're talking about: 
 
'11: Lost 31-10 to HOU. 27 for 42 (64%), 257 yds, 0 TD, 3 INT
'12: Lost 19-13 to HOU. 14 for 30 (47%), 127 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
'13: Lost 27-10 to SD.  29 for 51 (57%), 334 yds, 1 TD, 2 INT
'14: Lost 26-10 to IND. 18 for 35 (51%), 155 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
 
The Bengals may be a better team than any of those previous 4, but I'm not putting my money behind 1 TD and 6 INT Andy Dalton with their season on the line. 

 

[Rudy's Curve]

 
Just as a reminder, this is playoff Andy Dalton we're talking about: 
 
'11: Lost 31-10 to HOU. 27 for 42 (64%), 257 yds, 0 TD, 3 INT
'12: Lost 19-13 to HOU. 14 for 30 (47%), 127 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
'13: Lost 27-10 to SD.  29 for 51 (57%), 334 yds, 1 TD, 2 INT
'14: Lost 26-10 to IND. 18 for 35 (51%), 155 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
 
The Bengals may be a better team than any of those previous 4, but I'm not putting my money behind 1 TD and 6 INT Andy Dalton with their season on the line. 

 
I'm not even a Dalton guy (although he's certainly been very good so far this year), but he's never had the supporting cast he does now. They started Mohamed Sanu, Rex Burkhead and Kevin Brock in the playoffs last year. If everyone stays healthy, those guys will be replaced by A.J. Green, Marvin Jones and Tyler Eifert. That's kind of significant.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Joe Flacco had 1 TD, 6 INTs, and a completion percentage below 50% in his first five playoff games.  The Ravens won three of those games, but that was still a putrid track record.  He has thrown 24 TDs and 4 INTs in the playoffs since then.
 
I'm not really backing Dalton but I think slamming him based on a small sample of four playoff games is pretty off base.  He is not a great QB by any stretch of the imagination - at least that's what his regular season numbers show - but he's not awful and the Bengals could easily win playoff games if the team as a whole comes together and stays healthy.