UNDERACHIEVERS OF THE NFL

[Bretsky]

Kind of stealing this idea from ESPN Mike Florico today

Time to call a spade a spade

GO AHEAD AND NOMINATE YOUR TOP NFL UNDERACHIEVERS IN THE AFC AND NFC

Feel free to give explanations; Here comes mine

[Bretsky]

AFC

San Diego Superchargers are no longer super

Have a QB playing at MVP levels
Have one of the best RB's of all time
A capable OL
Top TE in the NFL
Adequate WR's
What was suppose to be a very talented defense minus an injured Shawn Merriman

Yet, somehow this team is 4-7

I keep thinking they have playoff talent

Yet they look up record wise to

Buffalo, Miami, New England, Baltimore, Indy, Denver, JETS, Steelers, and Titans


BEFORE THE SEASON, How many of those teams did you think would be sitting better than the good ole SuperChargers


Time to say bye bye Norv

[denverYooper]

San Diego Chargers.

Preseason fave pick. They have a good QB and receiving corps. I don't know why they can't get Sproles the ball more and split his time more evenly with LT. I know LT used to be a beast but maybe they'd be better off in more of a time share sitch at RB. Their D is missing some key guys but is still hanging in there. They've had a lot of close games that could go either way but that they've lost. Last but not least, they're in a weak division that they should at least on paper be able to dominate.

Jeebus. They're not too different from another team I know of.

[Bretsky]

Time to call a spade a spade

And at this point in the season, the Green Bay Packers are the biggest underachiever in the NFL

13-3 to 5-6

Let's cut the Jenkins excuses; reality is last year he was hurt for much of the year and because of it we complained about him more than we praised him

We chose to let Corey Williams go; right or wrong we're still responsible to replace him
We knew KGB was aging and banged up
We took a step down at QB but we have the same RB's and a young OL
We gave some young DL another year to develop into better players
We still have one of the best CB tandems in football
Our safety play of Nick Collins has greatly improved

We had a first round pick and TWO second round picks

The Following NFC teams have better records

New Orleans Saints, Dallas Cowboys, Minnesota Vikings, Atlanta Falcons, Washington Redskins, Carolina Panthers, Chicago Bears, Arizona Cardinals, New York Giants, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Philadelphia Eagles

12th best record out of 16 teams; at this point we'd be in last place in 2 NFC divisions

[Freak Out]

Time to call a spade a spade

And at this point in the season, the Green Bay Packers are the biggest underachiever in the NFL

13-3 to 5-6

Let's cut the Jenkins excuses; reality is last year he was hurt for much of the year and because of it we complained about him more than we praised him

We chose to let Corey Williams go; right or wrong we're still responsible to replace him
We knew KGB was aging and banged up
We took a step down at QB but we have the same RB's and a young OL
We gave some young DL another year to develop into better players
We still have one of the best CB tandems in football
Our safety play of Nick Collins has greatly improved

We had a first round pick and TWO second round picks

The Following NFC teams have better records

New Orleans Saints, Dallas Cowboys, Minnesota Vikings, Atlanta Falcons, Washington Redskins, Carolina Panthers, Chicago Bears, Arizona Cardinals, New York Giants, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Philadelphia Eagles

12th best record out of 16 teams; at this point we'd be in last place in 2 NFC divisions

:cry:

[Bretsky]

Every game I wait for the dam Chargers and dam Packers to break out. Against the Vikings, Bears, and Saints, I declared the Packers will win because the Packers are clearly the better team.

At this point I do wonder if coaches are not putting this team in the best positions to win. I also wonder if TT will dip back in free agency next year a bit more; I laugh at those who use terms like "overpay". It's about hitting on the right players; its alright to overpay if it's for the right person.
If every draft pick turns out as it should maybe FA may not be important. But if they underachieve gaps can be left.

Make no mistake about it; I had no Super Bowl Aspirations whatsoever for this team. But every time they come out and start looking like the up and coming team they should be they follow up that performance by looking like crap. I still think the Packers are definitely more talented and balanced than the Chicago Bears and Minnesota Vikings.

I look at the Chargers roster and I think playoff team
I look at the Packers team and I think playoff team


They remain a mirrored image of each other

Maybe they both just have me fooled

[TravisWilliams23]

What Bresky said.

Both Green Bay and San Diego.

I really wanted TT to go after Greg Williams last year after the Redskins let him go. Our defense is so underachieving I can't stand to watch them.
Say what you want about Belichick but he has the coaching ability to change his defense every week to confuse the opposition. I don't remotely see any such ability on this staff.

I was hoping to see improvement throughout this season but it sure looks as if the team is regressing. That's on the coaching staff.

Can they turn it around? It's possible but they're running out of time fast.

[Bretsky]

What Bresky said.

Both Green Bay and San Diego.

I really wanted TT to go after Greg Williams last year after the Redskins let him go. Our defense is so underachieving I can't stand to watch them.
Say what you want about Belichick but he has the coaching ability to change his defense every week to confuse the opposition. I don't remotely see any such ability on this staff.

I was hoping to see improvement throughout this season but it sure looks as if the team is regressing. That's on the coaching staff.

Can they turn it around? It's possible but they're running out of time fast.


Good calls

Greg Williams...........plenty of us wanted him to replace the Vanilla Man

Bellichek- Best coach in the NFL; that hasn't changed in a while

This team may run the show from here; who knows. They are like Jekyll and Hyde. But we don't have a lot of recent evidence showing they can be consistent

[Patler]

I agree the Packers are underachieving this year, but be honest with yourself. Did you really think the Packers were a 13-3 team last year? Or were they a good team for which things just really went their way? Some years things fall your way, and last year was that for the Packers. Philly fumbling two punts, playing SD when they were at their worst, even winning the coin toss in overtime which vastly improves your chances to win. Avoiding injuries. Nothing went wrong for them last year to speak of. It was not a performance I expected to see repeated this year, although I was expecting something in the 10-6 or 11-5 area.

Seattle has to be up there in the list of disappointing teams, although they have very good reasons for their downfall.

[Bretsky]

I agree the Packers are underachieving this year, but be honest with yourself. Did you really think the Packers were a 13-3 team last year? Or were they a good team for which things just really went their way? Some years things fall your way, and last year was that for the Packers. Philly fumbling two punts, playing SD when they were at their worst, even winning the coin toss in overtime which vastly improves your chances to win. Avoiding injuries. Nothing went wrong for them last year to speak of. It was not a performance I expected to see repeated this year, although I was expecting something in the 10-6 or 11-5 area.

Seattle has to be up there in the list of disappointing teams, although they have very good reasons for their downfall.


ON the other hands, be honest. What NFC teams were better than Green Bay last year ? Maybe the Giants and Cowboys. So record aside, we're underachievers so far.

Indy had some injuries so you could argue we played them at the right time...like maybe SD last year.

We were probably fortunate to beat MN with a Will Blackmond punt return and one could compare that win to Phily last year.

Most thought hands down GB was top 5 in NFC; some top 2-4.

[red]

i'm with ya B

[bobblehead]

I agree the Packers are underachieving this year, but be honest with yourself. Did you really think the Packers were a 13-3 team last year? Or were they a good team for which things just really went their way? Some years things fall your way, and last year was that for the Packers. Philly fumbling two punts, playing SD when they were at their worst, even winning the coin toss in overtime which vastly improves your chances to win. Avoiding injuries. Nothing went wrong for them last year to speak of. It was not a performance I expected to see repeated this year, although I was expecting something in the 10-6 or 11-5 area.

Seattle has to be up there in the list of disappointing teams, although they have very good reasons for their downfall.

Bedard had a great point in his chat. He said that according to some site he had a lot of faith in the packers played the 29th weakest schedule last year, and are playing the 16th this year. He then said that they had a healthy KGB early last year, and a healthy Jenkins later in the year...basically that we were healthy all year. He didn't even point out that clifton has dropped off the map. This team is probably not as good as they looked in going 13-3, but not as bad as they look at 5-6 right now.

I am still optimistic as I'm pretty happy with MOST of the positions. We got a great future at all the skill positions, the dbacks, and I even think the LB's are solid. We need a healthy jenkins, and emergent harrell and we need our maturing linemen to take the next step. If some of this happens we probably are an 11-5 team, if it all happens we challenge for a superbowl next season. If none of it happens we are a .500 team. Oh yea, for god's sake get a new punter.

edit: I picked San Diego in the superbowl thread, so I obviously think they are the underacheivers of the NFL.

[Rastak]

I agree the Packers are underachieving this year, but be honest with yourself. Did you really think the Packers were a 13-3 team last year? Or were they a good team for which things just really went their way? Some years things fall your way, and last year was that for the Packers. Philly fumbling two punts, playing SD when they were at their worst, even winning the coin toss in overtime which vastly improves your chances to win. Avoiding injuries. Nothing went wrong for them last year to speak of. It was not a performance I expected to see repeated this year, although I was expecting something in the 10-6 or 11-5 area.

Seattle has to be up there in the list of disappointing teams, although they have very good reasons for their downfall.


ON the other hands, be honest. What NFC teams were better than Green Bay last year ? Maybe the Giants and Cowboys. So record aside, we're underachievers so far.

Indy had some injuries so you could argue we played them at the right time...like maybe SD last year.

We were probably fortunate to beat MN with a Will Blackmond punt return and one could compare that win to Phily last year.

Most thought hands down GB was top 5 in NFC; some top 2-4.


It is a sensitive subject but a guy who was in the running for MVP did leave. Anyone who thought they wouldn't miss a beat was probably fooling themselves.

In addition, more injuries this year slowed down the defense.

I disagree with your assement that the Packers are CLEARLY better than the Vikings. I thought they were marginally better, but now as we factor in everything else, I think it's very close.

[Bretsky]

I agree the Packers are underachieving this year, but be honest with yourself. Did you really think the Packers were a 13-3 team last year? Or were they a good team for which things just really went their way? Some years things fall your way, and last year was that for the Packers. Philly fumbling two punts, playing SD when they were at their worst, even winning the coin toss in overtime which vastly improves your chances to win. Avoiding injuries. Nothing went wrong for them last year to speak of. It was not a performance I expected to see repeated this year, although I was expecting something in the 10-6 or 11-5 area.

Seattle has to be up there in the list of disappointing teams, although they have very good reasons for their downfall.


ON the other hands, be honest. What NFC teams were better than Green Bay last year ? Maybe the Giants and Cowboys. So record aside, we're underachievers so far.

Indy had some injuries so you could argue we played them at the right time...like maybe SD last year.

We were probably fortunate to beat MN with a Will Blackmond punt return and one could compare that win to Phily last year.

Most thought hands down GB was top 5 in NFC; some top 2-4.


It is a sensitive subject but a guy who was in the running for MVP did leave. Anyone who thought they wouldn't miss a beat was probably fooling themselves.

In addition, more injuries this year slowed down the defense.

I disagree with your assement that the Packers are CLEARLY better than the Vikings. I thought they were marginally better, but now as we factor in everything else, I think it's very close.

Agree on first point
Jenkins was not effective until late last year and Jolly was out the second half last year; I think it's comparable...a bit worse this year

I really think GB has a much more balanced team and more talent than MN

I can't figure out what I think of your offensive playcalling and coaches

But I think we have very subpar on the defensive side coaching while MN is strong there

[GrnBay007]

It is a sensitive subject but a guy who was in the running for MVP did leave. Anyone who thought they wouldn't miss a beat was probably fooling themselves.


:tup:


Underachievers, overachievers....it's fun to guess and watch. It's the NFL! And like they say, on any given Sunday...and that's why they play the games!

[KYPack]

Kind of stealing this idea from ESPN Mike Florico today

Time to call a spade a spade

GO AHEAD AND NOMINATE YOUR TOP NFL UNDERACHIEVERS IN THE AFC AND NFC

Feel free to give explanations; Here comes mine

This could be a PM, but, dept....

Bman, you mean Mike Torico or Mike Florio of PFT?

You kinda of morphed the two names there.

[Bretsky]

Kind of stealing this idea from ESPN Mike Florico today

Time to call a spade a spade

GO AHEAD AND NOMINATE YOUR TOP NFL UNDERACHIEVERS IN THE AFC AND NFC

Feel free to give explanations; Here comes mine

This could be a PM, but, dept....

Bman, you mean Mike Torico or Mike Florio of PFT?

You kinda of morphed the two names there.

OH CRAP

It was Mike Torico....

[TravisWilliams23]

This season kind of reminds me of the 2006 season.

In 06 the Pack had a 4-8 record and just got smoked 35-0 by the Pats and two weeks later blew chunks in a 38-10 loss to the Jets.
It was MM's 1st year and I wasn't really pissed - just more disappointed.

Then they went on to win the last 4 games with the Bears New Year's Eve
beauty ending the season and I felt they were headed in the right direction.

If they could duplicate that finish this year and win out from here, I'd be
ecstatic. It will be a very tall order with the defense banged up as it is.

[KYPack]

OH CRAP

It was Mike Torico....

I dunno, let's keep Mike Florico around. We can attribute phony quotes to him & shit.

The Cleveland Browns has to be on the list. The Browns were 10-6 and getting all kinds of Super Bowl hype for their FA signings & trade (Corey Williams among 'em.)

Now they suck and everyone's screaming for the GM & Coach's head.
That's worse than us, I think.

[Jimx29]

My preseason 6-10 record prediction is probably a bit overachieving :?

[SnakeLH2006]

Underwhelmers....Well hey I agree with Bretsky...The Chargers are terrible. Is Peyton Manning still an elite QB. Nope. I made 2 threads on it and regardless of stats 2 weeks ago. Ryan Grant is not a top 10 RB regardless of his pay (give any RB 30 carries a game, he'll have an occasional good stat game, but he's on my shit list yet as he is not explosive at all or elusive for a top-paid dude)....Flame on, yet beyond stats anyone can produce, he HAS NOT been close to the same player we all saw last year breaking crazy runs for TD's. I fucking cringe EVERY time he gets the ball for a loss or 2 yard gain. Grant is way overpaid/overhyped and I knew it when they caved (TT said hey, he's our exclusive rights FA for 3 years, but fuck let's buy out 1 year and give him top 10 money)....for what...??? Even in the Bear game he looked slow and lucky. Fuck Ryan Grant......underfuckingwhelming.....if he did the 5.1 yards a carry with breakaway speed like last year, we'd be 6-5 or prob. 7-4..not 5-6. So give up on the stats Grant lovers.....dude has no burst at all this year, but then again don't blame him (I would not wanna get hurt when I'm guaranteed a fortune for no reason other than they gave me the money when I coulda ran hard and earned it over 3 years)...WTF?

[Patler]

I agree the Packers are underachieving this year, but be honest with yourself. Did you really think the Packers were a 13-3 team last year? Or were they a good team for which things just really went their way? Some years things fall your way, and last year was that for the Packers. Philly fumbling two punts, playing SD when they were at their worst, even winning the coin toss in overtime which vastly improves your chances to win. Avoiding injuries. Nothing went wrong for them last year to speak of. It was not a performance I expected to see repeated this year, although I was expecting something in the 10-6 or 11-5 area.

Seattle has to be up there in the list of disappointing teams, although they have very good reasons for their downfall.


ON the other hands, be honest. What NFC teams were better than Green Bay last year ? Maybe the Giants and Cowboys. So record aside, we're underachievers so far.

Indy had some injuries so you could argue we played them at the right time...like maybe SD last year.

We were probably fortunate to beat MN with a Will Blackmond punt return and one could compare that win to Phily last year.

Most thought hands down GB was top 5 in NFC; some top 2-4.

Well, I said I agreed they were underachievers, so we have no argument there. But I do not consider them to be "the biggest underachiever in the NFL" as you characterized them. I would reserve that for either Detroit, who some felt were on their way back with a 7-9 record in 2007, but is now 0-11 and virtually uncompetitive in most of their games; or maybe the Seahawks, a 10-6 playoff team in 2007 to 2-9 and all but eliminated already.

There were a lot of people who felt the Packers were a 9-7 or 10-6 team this year, and they still can be that.

[Patler]

I disagree with your assement that the Packers are CLEARLY better than the Vikings. I thought they were marginally better, but now as we factor in everything else, I think it's very close.

I think that's where a lot of Packer fans overestimate their team, is in comparison to teams like the Vikings, Bears, Philadelphia, Washington, Carolina, New Orleans, etc. The so-called "middle of the league" teams. The Packers of 2007 had a much better record than those teams, but I never felt they were clearly superior to many of them then, and certainly not in 2008. The Packers had a big advantage over the Bears and Vikings for several years because of better overall team balance, good defense and good offense. Even if the Viking or Bear defenses were better, their offenses held them back. Orton's play this year has helped the Bears and Peterson last year changed the equation for the Vikings. Frerotte has changed it even more this year. Suddenly there is a lot of competition within the division.

The thrashing from the Cowboys late in the season and the loss to the Giants in the Championship game when the Packers should have had everything going there way should have been reality checks on the season for the fans. The Packers of 2007 were not an elite team, like most 13-3 teams would be. They were one of the better teams, but those are the teams that can drop a lot in the standing from one year to the next. In any given year the strength of schedule, when you play certain teams, injuries and just plain luck can make a lot of difference.

Most everything went very right for the Packers in 2007. This year somethings have gone wrong, some injuries have occurred and quite a few players just are not playing nearly as well in 2008 as they did in 2007. A difference of 2 wins would be huge. If Crosby made the kick against the Vikings would Bretsky or others still consider the Packers the most underachieving team in the league with a record of 6-5? I doubt it. If another game had fallen the Packers way, certainly not.

Even if the Packers finish 8-8, I won't see them as the most underachieving team in the league. I will look at them as one of the better middle of the league teams who overachieved in 2007 and underachieved in 2008, but not dramatically.

[Rastak]

Patler, good call on the Hawks and the Lions.

I'd have to give the nod to the Seahawks. I expected a playoff team and instead got a bottom feeder. The Lions are as bad as any team I've seen in recent years and I really did expect them to complete in the North.


Chargers is a good call in the AFC.

[Iron Mike]

San Diego Chargers.


Yep.

[Bretsky]

Patler, good call on the Hawks and the Lions.

I'd have to give the nod to the Seahawks. I expected a playoff team and instead got a bottom feeder. The Lions are as bad as any team I've seen in recent years and I really did expect them to complete in the North.


Chargers is a good call in the AFC.


Looking beyond the record I have a hard time with Seattle

They have been decimated with injuries. Their top 3 WR's were out for a while and they were minus their starting QB as well. Imagine the Packers w/o AROD to start. Take away Driver and Jennings. They don't fare well at all. Now Branch limps back in and Hasslebeck is at less than 100%. Their fall can be compared to Green Bay's 4-12 season.

[Patler]

Looking beyond the record I have a hard time with Seattle

They have been decimated with injuries. Their top 3 WR's were out for a while and they were minus their starting QB as well. Imagine the Packers w/o AROD to start. Take away Driver and Jennings. They don't fare well at all. Now Branch limps back in and Hasslebeck is at less than 100%. Their fall can be compared to Green Bay's 4-12 season.

Sure, there are reasons for Seattle's situation; but which excuses are acceptable for "underachieving" and which ones aren't? You seem dismissive of any factors for the Packers decline, but forgiving for others.

Face it, you are just more critical of the Packers because you are more passionate about them! :lol:

[Bretsky]

Looking beyond the record I have a hard time with Seattle

They have been decimated with injuries. Their top 3 WR's were out for a while and they were minus their starting QB as well. Imagine the Packers w/o AROD to start. Take away Driver and Jennings. They don't fare well at all. Now Branch limps back in and Hasslebeck is at less than 100%. Their fall can be compared to Green Bay's 4-12 season.

Sure, there are reasons for Seattle's situation; but which excuses are acceptable for "underachieving" and which ones aren't? You seem dismissive of any factors for the Packers decline, but forgiving for others.

Face it, you are just more critical of the Packers because you are more passionate about them! :lol:

Seattle has some extreme factors; I'm ok with criticism for ignoring them. They still should be better.

I think I'm more critical of GB because I understand the situation better

I wonder what our record would be with a top tier defensive coordinator ?

oops.........wrong thread :lol:

[Patler]

I wonder what our record would be with a top tier defensive coordinator ?

oops.........wrong thread :lol:

No different without top tier defensive players to go with it! :lol:
The Packers have a few such players, but not enough who consistently win the one-on-one battles that football boils down too, especially in line play.

Ah, a defense that can take over a game, exert its will on the other team's offense; how long has it been since we have seen that in GB? When will we ever see it again?

[texaspackerbacker]

AFC

San Diego Superchargers are no longer super

Have a QB playing at MVP levels
Have one of the best RB's of all time
A capable OL
Top TE in the NFL
Adequate WR's
What was suppose to be a very talented defense minus an injured Shawn Merriman

Yet, somehow this team is 4-7

I keep thinking they have playoff talent

Yet they look up record wise to

Buffalo, Miami, New England, Baltimore, Indy, Denver, JETS, Steelers, and Titans


BEFORE THE SEASON, How many of those teams did you think would be sitting better than the good ole SuperChargers


Time to say bye bye Norv

Their Top-in-the-NFL TE has been playing hurt; LT is on the downside of his career--or else playing hurt too; As you said, their best D player is out for the season; And they probably got lucky to make it as far as they did last season. Rivers I don't know about. I think his main problem is having to carry a lot more of the load himself this season.

All that being said, the "bye bye Norv" thing is legitimate. He has been a pretty lousy head coach for a couple of teams now.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Packers certainly are under-achieving this season, but as others have pointed out, they have a helluva lot of company.

The Cowboys and Eagles have to be near the top of the list. Cleveland and Seattle also could be considered under-achievers, but only in comparison to recent past achievements. Neither of those teams has that much talent. I would put San Diego into that category. The Colts, on the other hand, really do have super talent, and are not achieving up to what they should.

Three others I'd throw in that I don't think have been mentioned are the Jaguars, the Bengals, and the Vikings. The Jags have talent just a half notch below top level, and they have failed miserably. The Bengals SEEM to have excellent talent, but have not even risen to the mediocre level. And the Vikings are keeping up their tradition of having great talent, and choking/stinking it up--although like the Packers, the jury is still out on their season.

[Fritz]

I wonder what our record would be with a top tier defensive coordinator ?

oops.........wrong thread :lol:

No different without top tier defensive players to go with it! :lol:
The Packers have a few such players, but not enough who consistently win the one-on-one battles that football boils down too, especially in line play.

Ah, a defense that can take over a game, exert its will on the other team's offense; how long has it been since we have seen that in GB? When will we ever see it again?

I sure do like that kind of defense. I'd prefer it, in fact, to an offense that can seemingly score at will.

Does anyone here consider the Packers' Reggie White-led defenses dominating defenses? I'm not sure why, but I don't. They seemed...good enough. But maybe I was simply spoiled.

[Patler]

Does anyone here consider the Packers' Reggie White-led defenses dominating defenses? I'm not sure why, but I don't. They seemed...good enough. But maybe I was simply spoiled.

I think they led the league in defense in 1996.

[mngolf19]

The Packers certainly are under-achieving this season, but as others have pointed out, they have a helluva lot of company.

The Cowboys and Eagles have to be near the top of the list. Cleveland and Seattle also could be considered under-achievers, but only in comparison to recent past achievements. Neither of those teams has that much talent. I would put San Diego into that category. The Colts, on the other hand, really do have super talent, and are not achieving up to what they should.

Three others I'd throw in that I don't think have been mentioned are the Jaguars, the Bengals, and the Vikings. The Jags have talent just a half notch below top level, and they have failed miserably. The Bengals SEEM to have excellent talent, but have not even risen to the mediocre level. And the Vikings are keeping up their tradition of having great talent, and choking/stinking it up--although like the Packers, the jury is still out on their season.

The Cowboys are 8-4 and are an underachiever? The Vikings are tied for first in their division and are an underachiever? Wow, now tell me what you had them pegged for at the top of the season because that's the only way for you to call them underachieving.

[SnakeLH2006]

The Packers certainly are under-achieving this season, but as others have pointed out, they have a helluva lot of company.

The Cowboys and Eagles have to be near the top of the list. Cleveland and Seattle also could be considered under-achievers, but only in comparison to recent past achievements. Neither of those teams has that much talent. I would put San Diego into that category. The Colts, on the other hand, really do have super talent, and are not achieving up to what they should.

Three others I'd throw in that I don't think have been mentioned are the Jaguars, the Bengals, and the Vikings. The Jags have talent just a half notch below top level, and they have failed miserably. The Bengals SEEM to have excellent talent, but have not even risen to the mediocre level. And the Vikings are keeping up their tradition of having great talent, and choking/stinking it up--although like the Packers, the jury is still out on their season.

The Cowboys are 8-4 and are an underachiever? The Vikings are tied for first in their division and are an underachiever? Wow, now tell me what you had them pegged for at the top of the season because that's the only way for you to call them underachieving.

I agree to a point..The Cowboys were 11-1 at one point last year and WERE supposed to be better this year. Romo's injury sucked, but it looks like they are struggling to get a hold of their division even at a good 8-4. At this point they are easily better than the Pack though, so I have nothing to say other than that.