MVP Through week 2:
1: Alex Smith
2: Derek Carr
3: Hunt
4: Matt Stafford
5: Trevor Siemen
HM: Matt Ryan
DPOY:
1: Campbell
2: Keuchly
3: Geno
4: Demarcus Lawrence
5: Terrell Suggs (flashback!)
Printable View
MVP Through week 2:
1: Alex Smith
2: Derek Carr
3: Hunt
4: Matt Stafford
5: Trevor Siemen
HM: Matt Ryan
DPOY:
1: Campbell
2: Keuchly
3: Geno
4: Demarcus Lawrence
5: Terrell Suggs (flashback!)
Hunt is number 1
Smith's numbers look good but it's obvious Hunt was the MVP in games 1 and 2.
Alex was the same Happy foot mother ****er against the Eagles front line and could only muster up 6 points in the first half... if not for the KC D and Hunt in the second half, it would've been a bad loss. Kelce was a monster too
lol @ the thought of Alex ****ing Smith winning an MVP. So ridiculous. Carr will probably win
And how is Justin Houston not on your DPOY list? Are you retarded?
I was very impressed with the way Stafford played in those first two games. The betting odds for Stafford for MVP are currently around 50/1... I might have to put a couple bucks on that.
Tom Brady
I told y'all on here than Trevor siemian is dope, A poor mans A Rod a long time ago.
:blackfist
[QUOTE=Nanners]I was very impressed with the way Stafford played in those first two games. The betting odds for Stafford for MVP are currently around 50/1... I might have to put a couple bucks on that.[/QUOTE]
I would not recommend that lol
the lions have a tough schedule and should drop at least 5-6 games.
[QUOTE=TheSilentKiller]I would not recommend that lol
the lions have a tough schedule and should drop at least 5-6 games.[/QUOTE]
yeah the schedule doesnt exactly look friendly, but stafford has already played well against 2 teams that both seem to be pretty solid defensively.
anyway at 50/1 its kinda supposed to be a longshot :oldlol:
[QUOTE=Nanners]yeah the schedule doesnt exactly look friendly, but stafford has already played well against 2 teams that both seem to be pretty solid defensively.
anyway at 50/1 its kinda supposed to be a longshot :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
word. his odds opened at 90/1 iirc, i actually did consider betting on it then lol
Strength of schedule at the start of the season based on last years records is almost meaningless.
Some "bad" teams will be good and vice versa. QBs get injured...things change and go in unexpected ways.
[QUOTE=~primetime~]Strength of schedule at the start of the season based on last years records is almost meaningless.
Some "bad" teams will be good and vice versa. QBs get injured...things change and go in unexpected ways.[/QUOTE]
The packers 2x, falcons, bucs, steelers, and ravens all look good right now, this has nothing to do with last year
[QUOTE=TheSilentKiller]The packers 2x, falcons, bucs, steelers, and ravens all look good right now, this has nothing to do with last year[/QUOTE]
With the Packers it must be based on last year, they just got crushed. Bucs have played one game.
I mean maybe the Lions will end up with an extremely difficult schedule, or maybe not...it's just too early to know that imo.
[QUOTE=~primetime~]With the Packers it must be based on last year, they just got crushed. Bucs have played one game.
I mean maybe the Lions will end up with an extremely difficult schedule, or maybe not...it's just too early to know that imo.[/QUOTE]
You really think the Packers aren't a good team? Are you serious?
[QUOTE=TheSilentKiller]You really think the Packers aren't a good team? Are you serious?[/QUOTE]
You said it has "nothing to do with last year"
I was telling you if you think the Packers are good it has to be based on last year, because the last we saw them this year was getting their asses kicked.
what are you guys even arguing about? the packers are pretty much always good.
[quote]The packers 2x, falcons, bucs, steelers, and ravens all look good right now, this has nothing to do with last year[/quote]
also 2x vikings
[url]http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/234722/2017-nfl-strength-of-schedule[/url]
Lions are ranked 21 in SoS
But we won't know their actual SoS until the year plays out and all injuries have happened.
My point is it shouldn't really factor into a wager on Matt Stafford