NFL - Week 2: Comments and Observations

[jdcord]

1.    Looks like the Patriots are gonna be just fine with Matt Cassell under center.  Just like with Brady's first year back in 2001, as long as he stays within the system he can remain relatively mistake-free, and just allow that system to produce the drives and plays that will win the majority of games.  It sounds too simple to be true, but in New England it really does work.


2.    As I said last week, it appears that The Curse of "Norv" has finally taken hold in San Diego.  They can complain all they want to about that blown call in the last minute, but it wasn't Ed Hochuli that allowed Denver to score on 4th down, and then to come right back with the exact same play (thrown to the exact same player, running the exact same rout, in the exact same spot!) for a 2-point conversion to win the game.  San Diego lost that game, Not Ed Hochuli:  they lost because of their inability to put the game away when they had the chance (another classic trademark of all Norv Turner coached teams), and because of their suddenly (and surprisingly) porous defense.  They have the most talented roster in the league, by far, but as long as Norv Turner is their head coach they might as well get used to massive doses of disappointment. 


3.    At first glance, the idea that Gus Frerotte will come in and somehow be the savior of the Vikings is downright laughable.  But if you really think about it, Frerotte would have to really self-disintegrate to mess up this gig.  The Vikings have the most dominant Offensive Line in the league, the most dominant Running Back in the league, and arguably the best run defense in the league.  I mean, on play-action fakes Frerotte should be able to pretty much pull up a Barcalounger and take a short nap before having to decide where to go with the ball.  If he can't morph into a football god in this situation, then he should just go ahead and hang up the cleats ('cause any QB that can't become a stud behind AP and that awesome O-line has no business holding down a roster spot in the NFL).   


4.    Are the Browns really as bad as everyone is making them out to be??  I mean, sure, they lost their first 2 games, and both of them were at home, but Jiminy Crickets look at who they had to play in those games!  First Dallas and then Pittsburgh?  Yikes!  Talk about a buzz-saw.  There are probably only a handful of teams in the league that could have come away from those two games with even just one win, so let's not go consigning the Browns to the NFL junkyard just yet;  let's give them a few more games to see if we can't get a clearer picture of how good (or bad) this team really is.

..... Oh, and BTW, the same could be said for the Vikings as well:  they had the daunting task of having to open up on a Monday night against Green Bay, at Green Bay, then deal with the post-Monday-night, quick-turnaround "hangover" to face the Colts at home last Sunday.  And don't kid yourselves, any advantage the Vikings might have gained by playing that game at home was totally negated by both the well known post-Monday-night "hangover", as well as the fact that they had to play the Colts inside a dome.  And even the best teams in the league are hard put to come out with a victory against the Colts inside of a dome - regardless of where the game is played.  Nine times out ten they're going to come away from such game with, at best, a bitter and disappointing loss, and at worst with their tail between their legs from the humiliation of being taken out to the proverbial "woodshed".  ... all things considered, then, the Vikings have represented themselves pretty well in both of those games (both were close), and have nothing to hang their heads about.