NFC WEST RESULTS & RANKINGS AFTER WEEK 2

[Marvin49]

49ers having issues at RB as well.

Mitchell was out for a bit and returned and Sermon got a head injury on his first career carry.

Ugly win for SF, but I gotta say Philly is no joke on the DL. Disrupted the Niner O for a long time before finally getting going on last drive of first half.

I'm not crowing anyone, but I'd probably put the Cards at #1 right now.

As for Seattle, losing sucks, but its a 17 game season and at least it was an out of conference loss so wouldn't have impact on tie-breakers.

Why would you put the Cardinals first?

A case can certainly be made for the Rams, so don't take it as an insult.

With the Cards its about Kyler and the way he moves. I'm probably biased because mobile QBs have been the bane of Niner existence for a long time. First it was Russ and now Kyler.

Stafford tho is a huge upgrade over Goff. Rams are no joke.

It's funny how that colors our perspective. Under McVay we've never lost to the Cardinals and the games are rarely been competitive. While their week one win was the most impressive, I felt their week 2 performance was the least impressive among the three 2-0 teams. By far.

And while their beat down of Tennessee was more impressive, the Niners thrashing Detroit (before the backups came in) and the Rams beating Chicago by 20 were both impressive too.

The problem I have with their near loss to Minnesota is that it aligned with what I thought their defense would be.

So for me it's:

1A. Rams - our win against the Colts was a game that ended up closer than it should have been.

1B. Niners - they dominated Detroit and then beat an underrated Eagles team. Two Eastern time zone games.

3. Cardinals - in my book they basically lost to the Vikings. Needing a kicker to miss a chip shot FG is as lucky as it gets in the NFL. Huge issues on defense, worst CBs in the league.

4. Seahawks - I still think they finish 3rd and make the playoffs, but losing to the team Arizona beat down AND having the worst record puts them at 4th for now.




I don't take it offensively at all - I'm guessing you think AZ is closer to the team in week 1 and I think they're closer to the team from yeaterday

Fair.

Its funny tho....in my head I always think of SF and the Rams as similar because their coaches are off the same tree and run essentially offshoots of the same offense. I then kinda lump Seattle and the Cards together by their QBs who can absolutely kill you off script.

I can't argue with the list, but I'd probably still put the Niners 4th on that list only because I'm much harder on them than anyone in the forum realizes. They won 2 games on the road in the Eastern Timezone, but neither one was particularly pretty. They looked great in Detroit before backups and the prevent, but it never should have gotten that close. Philly shut them down offensively in the first half. Their D-Line dominated.

 

[Ramfan128]

Why would you put the Cardinals first?

A case can certainly be made for the Rams, so don't take it as an insult.

With the Cards its about Kyler and the way he moves. I'm probably biased because mobile QBs have been the bane of Niner existence for a long time. First it was Russ and now Kyler.

Stafford tho is a huge upgrade over Goff. Rams are no joke.

It's funny how that colors our perspective. Under McVay we've never lost to the Cardinals and the games are rarely been competitive. While their week one win was the most impressive, I felt their week 2 performance was the least impressive among the three 2-0 teams. By far.

And while their beat down of Tennessee was more impressive, the Niners thrashing Detroit (before the backups came in) and the Rams beating Chicago by 20 were both impressive too.

The problem I have with their near loss to Minnesota is that it aligned with what I thought their defense would be.

So for me it's:

1A. Rams - our win against the Colts was a game that ended up closer than it should have been.

1B. Niners - they dominated Detroit and then beat an underrated Eagles team. Two Eastern time zone games.

3. Cardinals - in my book they basically lost to the Vikings. Needing a kicker to miss a chip shot FG is as lucky as it gets in the NFL. Huge issues on defense, worst CBs in the league.

4. Seahawks - I still think they finish 3rd and make the playoffs, but losing to the team Arizona beat down AND having the worst record puts them at 4th for now.




I don't take it offensively at all - I'm guessing you think AZ is closer to the team in week 1 and I think they're closer to the team from yeaterday

Fair.

Its funny tho....in my head I always think of SF and the Rams as similar because their coaches are off the same tree and run essentially offshoots of the same offense. I then kinda lump Seattle and the Cards together by their QBs who can absolutely kill you off script.

I can't argue with the list, but I'd probably still put the Niners 4th on that list only because I'm much harder on them than anyone in the forum realizes. They won 2 games on the road in the Eastern Timezone, but neither one was particularly pretty. They looked great in Detroit before backups and the prevent, but it never should have gotten that close. Philly shut them down offensively in the first half. Their D-Line dominated.

I'm not sure if it's because we've played Murray late both years and he's been banged up? Never been impressed with him and then he left the last game injured.

Probably started because off bad because in our first game against him we were up 34-0 late and that was our worst year under McVay.

We play them here in two weeks so should be interesting.

The only reason why I would be down on the Niners is projecting more injuries, which I'm not doing. If you told me that they'll stay relatively healthy all year, with the two advantages over the Rams on the schedule (Bengals/Falcons instead of Ravens/Bucs), I think week 18 will decide the division.

But - that's also me projecting our defense to get a little better. Bears and the Colts offenses didn't score a ton, but they moved up and down the field which is a bit concerning.

Although - what I keep coming back to, is if our OL is going to pass protect this well.....Niners, Seahawks and Cardinals all present a similar challenge defensively - good front 7s and average to below average secondaries, with awful CBs (after Verretts injury). We have already played two teams like that in the Bears and Colts, each with an elite pass rusher and LB but bad CBs.

 

[HawkOG70’]

Air yards per game thru Week 2:
1. Raiders (429)
2. Jaguars (409)
3. Bills (401)
4. Bucs (397)
---
28. Falcons (183)
29. Patriots (180)
30. Bears (172)
31. Saints (156)
32. 49ers (142)

 

[ClutchDJ]

49ers having issues at RB as well.

Mitchell was out for a bit and returned and Sermon got a head injury on his first career carry.

Ugly win for SF, but I gotta say Philly is no joke on the DL. Disrupted the Niner O for a long time before finally getting going on last drive of first half.

I'm not crowing anyone, but I'd probably put the Cards at #1 right now.

As for Seattle, losing sucks, but its a 17 game season and at least it was an out of conference loss so wouldn't have impact on tie-breakers.

Why would you put the Cardinals first?

A case can certainly be made for the Rams, so don't take it as an insult.

With the Cards its about Kyler and the way he moves. I'm probably biased because mobile QBs have been the bane of Niner existence for a long time. First it was Russ and now Kyler.

Stafford tho is a huge upgrade over Goff. Rams are no joke.

It's funny how that colors our perspective. Under McVay we've never lost to the Cardinals and the games are rarely been competitive. While their week one win was the most impressive, I felt their week 2 performance was the least impressive among the three 2-0 teams. By far.

And while their beat down of Tennessee was more impressive, the Niners thrashing Detroit (before the backups came in) and the Rams beating Chicago by 20 were both impressive too.

The problem I have with their near loss to Minnesota is that it aligned with what I thought their defense would be.

So for me it's:

1A. Rams - our win against the Colts was a game that ended up closer than it should have been.

1B. Niners - they dominated Detroit and then beat an underrated Eagles team. Two Eastern time zone games.

3. Cardinals - in my book they basically lost to the Vikings. Needing a kicker to miss a chip shot FG is as lucky as it gets in the NFL. Huge issues on defense, worst CBs in the league.

4. Seahawks - I still think they finish 3rd and make the playoffs, but losing to the team Arizona beat down AND having the worst record puts them at 4th for now.




I don't take it offensively at all - I'm guessing you think AZ is closer to the team in week 1 and I think they're closer to the team from yeaterday

The Vikings & easily the Titans are better than the Eagles & Lions. You can think AZ is closer to how they played Minnesota than they played Tennessee, but they have easily been more impressive than the Niners so far. For now, AZ definitely belongs in 2nd place.

I think the Rams win the division regardless.

 

[Marvin49]

Air yards per game thru Week 2:
1. Raiders (429)
2. Jaguars (409)
3. Bills (401)
4. Bucs (397)
---
28. Falcons (183)
29. Patriots (180)
30. Bears (172)
31. Saints (156)
32. 49ers (142)

1) I say again, who cares?

2) Didn’t stop Deebo Samuel from having 283 yards receiving to lead the NFL through 2 weeks.

3) 2-0

Should also be noted the one of the ways the 49ers started getting the ball moving against The pass rush was to start using the rush against them….IE outside toss runs and screens.

 

[94Smith]

One thing for the 49ers that is much more improved this year is pass protection. Jimmy is more mobile this year 3 years removed from his ACL and with a healthy ankle. The addition of Alex Mack and Trent Williams second year on the line is helping. Only one sack through 2 weeks and leading the league in pressures allowed I believe. Eagles pass rush is no slouch either,

 

[Washington49er]

Air yards per game thru Week 2:
1. Raiders (429)
2. Jaguars (409)
3. Bills (401)
4. Bucs (397)
---
28. Falcons (183)
29. Patriots (180)
30. Bears (172)
31. Saints (156)
32. 49ers (142)

Someone needs a binki

 

[nutluck]

Me personally I am rating the teams a little different. I only seen the highlights of the Cards and 9er's games, watched the Rams and got to see most of the 4th quarter and OT of the Hawks games and highlights of the rest.

1) Cards - Yes I know they nearly lost, but they still won and every team has bad games. This is still mostly based on how badly they mauled the Titans weak one, which is a team I still think will win their division and make a playoff push.

2) Rams - The have beat two teams that I think will compete for wild card spots, it wasn't a pretty win over the colts, but the offense stepped up when it really had to and so did the defense. That is what good teams do, player step up and make plays.

3) 49ers - They still have not faced a team that I think is a true playoff contender, sure the Eagles might win their division but I am still not sold on any of the NFC East teams being all that good. With that said though they are winning games I think they should win.

4) Seahawks - This isn't because they lost to the Titans, had they just lost I would have put them 3rd, because I think the Titans are a very good team. No I am putting them here because of just how badly they played near the end of that game. Bad plays, bad play calling, penalties, etc. I honestly don't know how they lost, it took a complete team effort to lose that one.

 

[94Smith]

Indianapolis is likely not going to be a wild card team this year. Wentz is injured now and their defense has looked really bad the first two games. I would argue that Philadelphia has been the better team this year. You can't always evaluate a team based on their records the year before. I guess we have to see how their defense performs when they face easier competition.

 

[nutluck]

Indianapolis is likely not going to be a wild card team this year. Wentz is injured now and their defense has looked really bad the first two games. I would argue that Philadelphia has been the better team this year. You can't always evaluate a team based on their records the year before. I guess we have to see how their defense performs when they face easier competition.

Yes it can change, right now all we can rate is things based on last year, off season and how they have looked so far this year. Yes the colts without Wentz likely won't be a wild card team but the first two games had him and I based it on how well I thought they would do with him at QB. Only time will tell, as I said in the week one thread. If the Titans go on to be 4-13 then that win by the cards doesn't look so impressive anymore.

 

[HawkOG70’]

Air yards per game thru Week 2:
1. Raiders (429)
2. Jaguars (409)
3. Bills (401)
4. Bucs (397)
---
28. Falcons (183)
29. Patriots (180)
30. Bears (172)
31. Saints (156)
32. 49ers (142)

Someone needs a binki

That would be Grant Cohn I pasted his tweet guy lol

 

[Marvin49]

Air yards per game thru Week 2:
1. Raiders (429)
2. Jaguars (409)
3. Bills (401)
4. Bucs (397)
---
28. Falcons (183)
29. Patriots (180)
30. Bears (172)
31. Saints (156)
32. 49ers (142)

Someone needs a binki

That would be Grant Cohn I pasted his tweet guy lol

For what purpose? What point are you trying to make? Stats without context are useless.

Want an example?

QB DVOA through 2 games…

1. Matt Stafford: 55.2%
2. Patrick Mahomes: 53.5%
3. Tyrod Taylor: 48.3%
4. Jimmy Garoppolo: 42.1%
5. Russell Wilson: 40.4%

Should I then assume that Garoppolo is better than Wilson?

Of course not.

How about this:

Deebo Samuel - 282 Yards.
D.K. Metcalf - 113 yards.

Deebo>DK. Right?

Stats don't lie...except they do...all the time.

 

[Washington49er]

Air yards per game thru Week 2:
1. Raiders (429)
2. Jaguars (409)
3. Bills (401)
4. Bucs (397)
---
28. Falcons (183)
29. Patriots (180)
30. Bears (172)
31. Saints (156)
32. 49ers (142)

Someone needs a binki

That would be Grant Cohn I pasted his tweet guy lol

For what purpose? What point are you trying to make? Stats without context are useless.

Want an example?

QB DVOA through 2 games…

1. Matt Stafford: 55.2%
2. Patrick Mahomes: 53.5%
3. Tyrod Taylor: 48.3%
4. Jimmy Garoppolo: 42.1%
5. Russell Wilson: 40.4%

Should I then assume that Garoppolo is better than Wilson?

Of course not.

How about this:

Deebo Samuel - 282 Yards.
D.K. Metcalf - 113 yards.

Deebo>DK. Right?

Stats don't lie...except they do...all the time.

Wilson win % .677

Garopollo win % .787

Now we know currently Wilson is the better QB.

Starting to wonder if this guy knows football at all?

He should work in Vegas because apparently he can predict the winners and losers after week 2 of a 17 week season.

 

[Ramfan128]

Indianapolis is likely not going to be a wild card team this year. Wentz is injured now and their defense has looked really bad the first two games. I would argue that Philadelphia has been the better team this year. You can't always evaluate a team based on their records the year before. I guess we have to see how their defense performs when they face easier competition.

They also faced the Rams and Seahawks who have better offenses than the Falcons, and both at least have better QBs than the Niners.

They play Houston and Jacksonville four times and usually play the Titans well too.

Depends on Wentzs injury but I wouldn't count them out yet.

 

[Ramfan128]

Why would you put the Cardinals first?

A case can certainly be made for the Rams, so don't take it as an insult.

With the Cards its about Kyler and the way he moves. I'm probably biased because mobile QBs have been the bane of Niner existence for a long time. First it was Russ and now Kyler.

Stafford tho is a huge upgrade over Goff. Rams are no joke.

It's funny how that colors our perspective. Under McVay we've never lost to the Cardinals and the games are rarely been competitive. While their week one win was the most impressive, I felt their week 2 performance was the least impressive among the three 2-0 teams. By far.

And while their beat down of Tennessee was more impressive, the Niners thrashing Detroit (before the backups came in) and the Rams beating Chicago by 20 were both impressive too.

The problem I have with their near loss to Minnesota is that it aligned with what I thought their defense would be.

So for me it's:

1A. Rams - our win against the Colts was a game that ended up closer than it should have been.

1B. Niners - they dominated Detroit and then beat an underrated Eagles team. Two Eastern time zone games.

3. Cardinals - in my book they basically lost to the Vikings. Needing a kicker to miss a chip shot FG is as lucky as it gets in the NFL. Huge issues on defense, worst CBs in the league.

4. Seahawks - I still think they finish 3rd and make the playoffs, but losing to the team Arizona beat down AND having the worst record puts them at 4th for now.




I don't take it offensively at all - I'm guessing you think AZ is closer to the team in week 1 and I think they're closer to the team from yeaterday

The Vikings & easily the Titans are better than the Eagles & Lions. You can think AZ is closer to how they played Minnesota than they played Tennessee, but they have easily been more impressive than the Niners so far. For now, AZ definitely belongs in 2nd place.

I think the Rams win the division regardless.

That's probably fair.

Despite Jefferson/Thielen/Cook - I just think factoring in coaches, QBs and defenses - LA/SF/SEA are all much better than the Vikings. And the Cardinals had to get just about as lucky as can be to beat them, at home.

This is the problem with going off of results and trying to compare:

The Rams blew out the Bears who beat the Bengals who beat the Vikings who the Cardinals needed extreme luck to beat.

Conversely the Cardinals blew out the Titans who beat the Seahawks who beat down the Colts who the Rams narrowly defeated.

So going off of the comparison game the Cardinals have the most impressive game and the least impressive game among the 2-0 teams in the NFCW. But that's also factoring in our opinions of those teams.

The Eagles showed me enough in week one to make me think they're on par with the Vikings - and the Niners played both games in the east. They also blew Detroit out before pulling starters.

 

[ClutchDJ]

A case can certainly be made for the Rams, so don't take it as an insult.

With the Cards its about Kyler and the way he moves. I'm probably biased because mobile QBs have been the bane of Niner existence for a long time. First it was Russ and now Kyler.

Stafford tho is a huge upgrade over Goff. Rams are no joke.

It's funny how that colors our perspective. Under McVay we've never lost to the Cardinals and the games are rarely been competitive. While their week one win was the most impressive, I felt their week 2 performance was the least impressive among the three 2-0 teams. By far.

And while their beat down of Tennessee was more impressive, the Niners thrashing Detroit (before the backups came in) and the Rams beating Chicago by 20 were both impressive too.

The problem I have with their near loss to Minnesota is that it aligned with what I thought their defense would be.

So for me it's:

1A. Rams - our win against the Colts was a game that ended up closer than it should have been.

1B. Niners - they dominated Detroit and then beat an underrated Eagles team. Two Eastern time zone games.

3. Cardinals - in my book they basically lost to the Vikings. Needing a kicker to miss a chip shot FG is as lucky as it gets in the NFL. Huge issues on defense, worst CBs in the league.

4. Seahawks - I still think they finish 3rd and make the playoffs, but losing to the team Arizona beat down AND having the worst record puts them at 4th for now.




I don't take it offensively at all - I'm guessing you think AZ is closer to the team in week 1 and I think they're closer to the team from yeaterday

The Vikings & easily the Titans are better than the Eagles & Lions. You can think AZ is closer to how they played Minnesota than they played Tennessee, but they have easily been more impressive than the Niners so far. For now, AZ definitely belongs in 2nd place.

I think the Rams win the division regardless.

That's probably fair.

Despite Jefferson/Thielen/Cook - I just think factoring in coaches, QBs and defenses - LA/SF/SEA are all much better than the Vikings. And the Cardinals had to get just about as lucky as can be to beat them, at home.

This is the problem with going off of results and trying to compare:

The Rams blew out the Bears who beat the Bengals who beat the Vikings who the Cardinals needed extreme luck to beat.

Conversely the Cardinals blew out the Titans who beat the Seahawks who beat down the Colts who the Rams narrowly defeated.

So going off of the comparison game the Cardinals have the most impressive game and the least impressive game among the 2-0 teams in the NFCW. But that's also factoring in our opinions of those teams.

The Eagles showed me enough in week one to make me think they're on par with the Vikings - and the Niners played both games in the east. They also blew Detroit out before pulling starters.

The Eagles showed you enough after beating a team that’s most likely picking in the top 5 in Atlanta? Meh, I’m pretty positive Minnesota would also thrash Atlanta & about 25 other teams. Hot take, but I don’t think the coaching & defenses between Minnesota & Seattle is that wide, at least this season, but I guess we’ll see this Sunday.

Luck is apart of the game. That’s like me saying “The Rams got lucky cause the Colts couldn’t score inside the 5, twice”. It’s moot.

All in all, AZ thrashed a team who in the East who I think will win their division & beat another team who might finish 2nd in their division? While SF beat a team who I believe will finish 3rd in their division behind DAL & WFT -&- a team who will finish last in their division & might also be picking top 5.

The division will be a slobber knocker for sure.

 

[HawkOG70’]

Someone needs a binki

That would be Grant Cohn I pasted his tweet guy lol

For what purpose? What point are you trying to make? Stats without context are useless.

Want an example?

QB DVOA through 2 games…

1. Matt Stafford: 55.2%
2. Patrick Mahomes: 53.5%
3. Tyrod Taylor: 48.3%
4. Jimmy Garoppolo: 42.1%
5. Russell Wilson: 40.4%

Should I then assume that Garoppolo is better than Wilson?

Of course not.

How about this:

Deebo Samuel - 282 Yards.
D.K. Metcalf - 113 yards.

Deebo>DK. Right?

Stats don't lie...except they do...all the time.

Wilson win % .677

Garopollo win % .787

Now we know currently Wilson is the better QB.

Starting to wonder if this guy knows football at all?

He should work in Vegas because apparently he can predict the winners and losers after week 2 of a 17 week season.

Jimmy is the worst starter in the league in terms of arm talent. If I go out and complete 20 out of 20 shovel passes it doesn't mean I have talent it means my coach knows I can't throw downfield. I'm surprised you don't know this.

 

[Washington49er]

That would be Grant Cohn I pasted his tweet guy lol

For what purpose? What point are you trying to make? Stats without context are useless.

Want an example?

QB DVOA through 2 games…

1. Matt Stafford: 55.2%
2. Patrick Mahomes: 53.5%
3. Tyrod Taylor: 48.3%
4. Jimmy Garoppolo: 42.1%
5. Russell Wilson: 40.4%

Should I then assume that Garoppolo is better than Wilson?

Of course not.

How about this:

Deebo Samuel - 282 Yards.
D.K. Metcalf - 113 yards.

Deebo>DK. Right?

Stats don't lie...except they do...all the time.

Wilson win % .677

Garopollo win % .787

Now we know currently Wilson is the better QB.

Starting to wonder if this guy knows football at all?

He should work in Vegas because apparently he can predict the winners and losers after week 2 of a 17 week season.

Jimmy is the worst starter in the league in terms of arm talent. If I go out and complete 20 out of 20 shovel passes it doesn't mean I have talent it means my coach knows I can't throw downfield. I'm surprised you don't know this.

Yep you're clueless.

Just an fyi after week 2 RW has 597 passing yrds JG has 503.

 

[Ramfan128]

It's funny how that colors our perspective. Under McVay we've never lost to the Cardinals and the games are rarely been competitive. While their week one win was the most impressive, I felt their week 2 performance was the least impressive among the three 2-0 teams. By far.

And while their beat down of Tennessee was more impressive, the Niners thrashing Detroit (before the backups came in) and the Rams beating Chicago by 20 were both impressive too.

The problem I have with their near loss to Minnesota is that it aligned with what I thought their defense would be.

So for me it's:

1A. Rams - our win against the Colts was a game that ended up closer than it should have been.

1B. Niners - they dominated Detroit and then beat an underrated Eagles team. Two Eastern time zone games.

3. Cardinals - in my book they basically lost to the Vikings. Needing a kicker to miss a chip shot FG is as lucky as it gets in the NFL. Huge issues on defense, worst CBs in the league.

4. Seahawks - I still think they finish 3rd and make the playoffs, but losing to the team Arizona beat down AND having the worst record puts them at 4th for now.




I don't take it offensively at all - I'm guessing you think AZ is closer to the team in week 1 and I think they're closer to the team from yeaterday

The Vikings & easily the Titans are better than the Eagles & Lions. You can think AZ is closer to how they played Minnesota than they played Tennessee, but they have easily been more impressive than the Niners so far. For now, AZ definitely belongs in 2nd place.

I think the Rams win the division regardless.

That's probably fair.

Despite Jefferson/Thielen/Cook - I just think factoring in coaches, QBs and defenses - LA/SF/SEA are all much better than the Vikings. And the Cardinals had to get just about as lucky as can be to beat them, at home.

This is the problem with going off of results and trying to compare:

The Rams blew out the Bears who beat the Bengals who beat the Vikings who the Cardinals needed extreme luck to beat.

Conversely the Cardinals blew out the Titans who beat the Seahawks who beat down the Colts who the Rams narrowly defeated.

So going off of the comparison game the Cardinals have the most impressive game and the least impressive game among the 2-0 teams in the NFCW. But that's also factoring in our opinions of those teams.

The Eagles showed me enough in week one to make me think they're on par with the Vikings - and the Niners played both games in the east. They also blew Detroit out before pulling starters.

The Eagles showed you enough after beating a team that’s most likely picking in the top 5 in Atlanta? Meh, I’m pretty positive Minnesota would also thrash Atlanta & about 25 other teams. Hot take, but I don’t think the coaching & defenses between Minnesota & Seattle is that wide, at least this season, but I guess we’ll see this Sunday.

Luck is apart of the game. That’s like me saying “The Rams got lucky cause the Colts couldn’t score inside the 5, twice”. It’s moot.

All in all, AZ thrashed a team who in the East who I think will win their division & beat another team who might finish 2nd in their division? While SF beat a team who I believe will finish 3rd in their division behind DAL & WFT -&- a team who will finish last in their division & might also be picking top 5.

The division will be a slobber knocker for sure.

It's not like saying that at all. The Colts didn't score inside the 5 because we stopped them both times. AD knocked Doyle off his route which led to the INT, and then we stopped them from the 1 four times.

The Cardinals needed an NFL kickers to miss a 30-something yard FG with no weather, from the middle of the field.

And again, you're applying week one logic to the Cardinals but not the Eagles and Vikings. The Vikings lost to the Bengals while the Eagles demolished a team that was favored to beat them.

 

[nutluck]

It's not like saying that at all. The Colts didn't score inside the 5 because we stopped them both times. AD knocked Doyle off his route which led to the INT, and then we stopped them from the 1 four times.

The Cardinals needed an NFL kickers to miss a 30-something yard FG with no weather, from the middle of the field.

And again, you're applying week one logic to the Cardinals but not the Eagles and Vikings. The Vikings lost to the Bengals while the Eagles demolished a team that was favored to beat them.

Yeah but had the colts not been dumb honestly and just kicked a FG on 4th down it could have gone differently as well.

This is the problem with debating this early in the year it is all subjective because none of us know enough about the teams to be able to judge just how good they are yet. So it is all speculation. While I agree with you the Rams beat the colts better than the cards beat the vikings,but the cards smacked down the the titans harder than the Rams beat the bears.