SI mockdraft for next year

[Oannes]

Having the 9th and 12th pick would be sweet in the context of picking in '08. It was pretty sweet for the Raiders to choose first this year.

Regress? What progress did we really make? Squeaking past the Vikes, AT HOME, while a Division II QB makes his first start? Struggling with a Lions team only to win 17-9 AT HOME? Beating a Bears team that had NOTHING to play for despite what some might say. I guess it's slight progress from 4-12 but not as much as you think finishing 8-8 over 4-12 would lead you to believe. Now, we have no proven RB, a QB who is a year older, and a LT who has a bad knee. With all the "progress" don't overlook what went in the other direction. That's balance. We also added nothing but Frank Walker in free agency. Rookies generally don't add much in their first years outside of first rounders.

Explain to me why we're ready to progress to better than a8-8 record that was inflated with a win over the Bears? Schedule appears pretty tough this season. We don't play well vs. a lot of the teams on this schedule. I would be THRILLED with 8-8 for this season.

 

[warhawk]

Maybe we are ready to progress because we have all the players except Green back, who IMO is replaceable, and many of those players had never played in an NFL game, let alone together, before.

Maybe we are ready to progress because the six to eight rookies in the lineup at any one time last year might just produce a little more this year.

Maybe we are ready to progress because we might just have actually been BETTER than our record showed even though your view is the opposite.

Let's say the Bears layed down even though they said it was important to play the starters and they learned from sitting guys the year before to play hard the last game. They did, after all, start all of the starters and did want that game but because we kicked their *** they weren't really trying.

We STILL gave away the Buffalo, St. Louis, and Saints games. Now don't tell me it doesn't work both ways. IF you can say the BEARS GAME was inflated don't tell me those other games weren't the same only with opposite results.

We inflatedely kicked those teams butts but, like in the Bears game, apparantly the better team that day didn't win.

I think we are also ready to progress because I think our defense is going to kick some serious *** and I doubt it will take six or seven weeks this year to get a DB to guard somebody.

Despite published rumors BF can, in fact complete a pass to someone other than a Pro-Bowl receiver. How do I know this? Because he has his whole career. He also won't be behind as many as four players who had never started before last year and we just might do a few more things better this time around.

We might just progress because that's what young teams do vs. old teams that eventually go the other way. Ask Tampa Bay what it's like to wait to long before realizing every body on the roster is beyond their best years.

 

[warhawk]

I think you drastically underestimate Las Vegas line making. If they can predict a point spread accurately they keep ALL the money. There is HUGE incentive for them to be REALISTIC. Now, when a line moves, some of the reality is lost.

The last line you wrote is what kicks your ***. The line moves all the time. It's inaccurate to state they have incentive to predict the spread because it's only true if exactly 50% of the money is bet on every line move. If the final line only collected 30% of the total money they did not win the other 70% of the juice unless they got the money even at every line move.

The initial line has only to do with predicting the closeset number the Bookie feels with split the bet. Period. From there the line moves to make sure the money stays evenly split. The only reality about Vegas is it's all about the money.

 

[BangTheDrum]

Even if this were correct, Im sure at 12 TT will pick an OL from sayyyy Hofstra...

 

[Oannes]

Of course Vegas is about money and it serves their purpose to set lines to achieve that end. Not all lines move, and the one's that do, move very slightly. I've spent time in sports books, not gambling, and know a little about the industry.

The last line didn't kick my ***. If Vegas says the Packers are -4 vs. the Vikings and the line doesn't move and the Packers win by 4 who gets ALL the money. VEGAS. It IS in their best interest to set a line that hits right on the screws.

Warhawk... I love your passion. The situation in the final game vs. the Bears isn't comparable to what happened in the Saints, Rams, or Bills game. In the examples of our losses both teams were going balls out to win. In the Bears game that we won, the Bears were not playing balls out.

The loss to New Orleans is not a game we should've won. It is a game we should've won if we were a better team. We only lost that game because we weren't a good team. We had a GIFT of 14 points right off the bat due to Saints turnovers. Once the Saints stopped making stupid mistakes they crushed us. It was a 27 point swing on our home field. The Bills game I tend to agree with you. That is a game we certainly could've won. The St. Louis game is not a game I consider that we should've won. We were driving for a TYING score. I should comment on how I really feel about why we lost that game, but don't want to fight. Anyway, we were in FG range to tie. That is a game that should've gone into OT. It's anybody's guess what happens then.

If you're saying we should've/could've won those 3 games... Both Detroit games as well as both Minnesota games coulda been losses for us. The only two big wins all year were at Miami and at SF. I'd count Arizona as big win, but I can't do it with a straight face.

We beat NO good team all year long with the exception of a toned down Bears team. That is not reason for excitement. Being outscored 99-10 by Chicago, NE, and the Jets AT HOME is more of the thing to be looking at IMO than banking on beating Minnesota, Det, SF, and the Bears at the end of the season as a predictor of going in the right direction.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Having the 9th and 12th pick would be sweet in the context of picking in '08. It was pretty sweet for the Raiders to choose first this year.

Regress? What progress did we really make? Squeaking past the Vikes, AT HOME, while a Division II QB makes his first start? Struggling with a Lions team only to win 17-9 AT HOME? Beating a Bears team that had NOTHING to play for despite what some might say. I guess it's slight progress from 4-12 but not as much as you think finishing 8-8 over 4-12 would lead you to believe. Now, we have no proven RB, a QB who is a year older, and a LT who has a bad knee. With all the "progress" don't overlook what went in the other direction. That's balance. We also added nothing but Frank Walker in free agency. Rookies generally don't add much in their first years outside of first rounders.

Explain to me why we're ready to progress to better than a8-8 record that was inflated with a win over the Bears? Schedule appears pretty tough this season. We don't play well vs. a lot of the teams on this schedule. I would be THRILLED with 8-8 for this season.

not an objective view here


edit, ok the instructor stopped lecturing for a second here

this isn't objective one bit here. The bears had NOTHING to play for? You said you were in broadcasting or something right? what team wants to go into the playoffs losing the last regular season game to their arch rival during PRIME TIME? Rex also needed a game to get on track.

I'm not saying the Bears gave 110%, I'm just saying it's not objective to say they had NOTHING to play for.
Beating the vikes was squeaking past? I thought our defense held them to like a handful of first downs, that's remarkable.

 

[Oannes]

Okay Z2C, they did have something to play for. I was wrong. They were playing the game, like a pre-season game, trying not to get injured.

Do you remember when we beat the Broncos at Lambeau to put us into the playoffs on the day the Vikes choked in Arizona. How hard was Denver trying that game? They tanked that game big time. Our win wasn't the least bit impressive.

I do wish you'd answer how you would feel if the roles had been reversed. I would bet that you would say that the reason the Bears beat the Pack is because we had nothing to play for.

If the Bears were really trying to win to go in with momentum, why did they pull Grossman and play Griese for most of the 2nd half? The Bears had NO intention of playing Griese in the playoffs. The Bears treated this liek a preseason game and we played like it might be Favre's last game on earth. I think the incentive arrows were pointing in profoundly differing directions that night and NOTHING can be taken from that game.

 

[warhawk]

Oannes wrote:

I think you drastically underestimate Las Vegas line making. If they can predict a point spread accurately they keep ALL the money. There is HUGE incentive for them to be REALISTIC.

This is absolutely 100% wrong. Period. Not one word of this is accurate.

Why? The answer is quit simple. C'mon now, you know you are a smart man so show us your stuff here. We'll find out what your made of right here and now by simple admission.

 

[Green_Bay_Packers]

Pats and Saints in the Superbowl what planet are you on?

Saints wont make the SB

 

[Green_Bay_Packers]

12. Packers: DeSean Jackson, WR, California - Finally a playmaker for Favre. Just a year too late.

Favre might not retire why assume things?

 

[Zero2Cool]

Okay Z2C, they did have something to play for. I was wrong. They were playing the game, like a pre-season game, trying not to get injured.

Do you remember when we beat the Broncos at Lambeau to put us into the playoffs on the day the Vikes choked in Arizona. How hard was Denver trying that game? They tanked that game big time. Our win wasn't the least bit impressive.

I do wish you'd answer how you would feel if the roles had been reversed. I would bet that you would say that the reason the Bears beat the Pack is because we had nothing to play for.

If the Bears were really trying to win to go in with momentum, why did they pull Grossman and play Griese for most of the 2nd half? The Bears had NO intention of playing Griese in the playoffs. The Bears treated this liek a preseason game and we played like it might be Favre's last game on earth. I think the incentive arrows were pointing in profoundly differing directions that night and NOTHING can be taken from that game.

That's the thing, with me, the roles reversed would be the same. If you'd been here awhile you'd know I'm pretty straight forward.

You mention the Bronco's game. That's fine, bring up comparisons, but what rivalry is there between the two teams? Was it on national TV?

I see your point, but your are consistently comparing something with something else thats not on the same base. Like Hawk vs Urlacher. One is MLB and other is OLB. Not to mention the years of experience difference which comes into play when saying you'd rather someone over someone else because you've got more seasons to evaluate.

 

[Oannes]

You think National TV is a motivating factor? Look at a lot of our performances on National TV lately. Not good.

The Bronco comparison is dead on. SAME SITUATION for the Broncos that the Bears were in. That is why that comparison is valid. The reason you want to discredit is because it doesn't fit with how you've built up in your mind that the Bears had to be trying to validate that it was a big win for the Pack. As for a rivalry...of course it ain't like the Bears, but they did beat us in a pretty important game played in San Diego. The Broncos didn't give full effort and we spanked them. That would not have happened if Denver had been trying. Same exact type of situation.

There is no way I would believe that you honestly think if the roles were reversed (Chicago beat us with us having nothing to play for) that you wouldn't take a thing out of that. Should we ask some Bears fans what they thought of that game? I would assume you'd say NO because their answer would be biased. It would be no more biased than a Packer fans answer to the same question. What we need then is a detached objective voice. That's where I'd be looking to determine whether that win meant anything or not. I would grant you that if we lost that would've said a lot. Not being able to beat a rival who had nothing to play for on a night that might have been Favre's last game would've spoken volumes about this team.

 

[all about da packers]

The Bronco comparison is dead on. SAME SITUATION for the Broncos that the Bears were in. That is why that comparison is valid.

In same situations, different people react differently. Broncos and Bears are run by two different people, different power structures, coaching mindsets, etc.

Just because they were in the same situation, you can't say they reacted the same way. If you provide a breakdown of playing time for starters, etc. then that would lead more credence to you opinion.

 

[Zero2Cool]

You think National TV is a motivating factor? Look at a lot of our performances on National TV lately. Not good.

The Bronco comparison is dead on. SAME SITUATION for the Broncos that the Bears were in. That is why that comparison is valid. The reason you want to discredit is because it doesn't fit with how you've built up in your mind that the Bears had to be trying to validate that it was a big win for the Pack. As for a rivalry...of course it ain't like the Bears, but they did beat us in a pretty important game played in San Diego. The Broncos didn't give full effort and we spanked them. That would not have happened if Denver had been trying. Same exact type of situation.

There is no way I would believe that you honestly think if the roles were reversed (Chicago beat us with us having nothing to play for) that you wouldn't take a thing out of that. Should we ask some Bears fans what they thought of that game? I would assume you'd say NO because their answer would be biased. It would be no more biased than a Packer fans answer to the same question. What we need then is a detached objective voice. That's where I'd be looking to determine whether that win meant anything or not. I would grant you that if we lost that would've said a lot. Not being able to beat a rival who had nothing to play for on a night that might have been Favre's last game would've spoken volumes about this team.

You are wrong. It is not dead on. The Bronco's are not a rival of the Packers. Know some Packer history here bubba. During the years when the Bears were bad or the Packers were bad, the only game that each team cared about was the one against eachother.

I'll buy into the national TV audience doesn't matter (even though you knwo it gets some players geeked up) but to dismiss the rivalry all together, give me a break.

 

[all about da packers]

Just to add to zero's point, wasn't it coach Lovie that said one of his 3 goals was to beat the Packers.

To me, that says he places an importance on beating their division rivals, so I don't think Lovie would decide to tank it in that game completely. Perhaps he played more conservatively, but he still didn't tank the game.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Just to add to zero's point, wasn't it coach Lovie that said one of his 3 goals was to beat the Packers.

To me, that says he places an importance on beating their division rivals, so I don't think Lovie would decide to tank it in that game completely. Perhaps he played more conservatively, but he still didn't tank the game.

Good point that I overlooked.

I'm not saying they were ya know going 110%, but to discredit the Packers entirely for the win I think is wrong. That day, that game, they were the better team. Overall, the Bears are a better team, I wouldn't dispute that, but it happens all the time when a lesser team beats a better team, heck thats why NFL is so popular. You just never know whos going to win.

 

[Oannes]

Since you're so big on saying my comparisons aren't entirely accurate...

Why don't we look at what the Bears did in 2005? The Bears were in the same situation as they were last year. The Bears were 11-4 going into the last week of the season and were going to be the number 2 seed overall regardless of what happened in their final game of the regular season.

Who was their opponent? The Minnesota Vikings. A rival.

What happened in that game? First, lets look at what happened when they played at Chicago early in the season....

Bears 28 Vikings 3 Sound familiar?


Now, lets look at what happened the final week of the season when the Bears had nothing to play for just like they did against us...


Vikings 34 Bears 10 Sound familiar?


Did the Vikings thrashing of the Bears mean much for them heading into 2006? Absolutely not. The Vikes finished with the 7th overall pick in the draft last season. Crushing Chicago the last week of the season was MEANINGLESS to everyone but probably Viking fans who are acting just like you are about our victory over the Bears.


One more time for emphasis....


2005 1st meeting.... Bears 28 Vikes 3
2nd meeting w/Bears having nothing to play for Vikes 34 Bears 10

2006 1st meeting Bears 26 Packers 0
2nd meeting w/Bears having nothing to play for... Pack 26 Bears 7


Please, don't tell me you can't see it now.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Dude, are you SERIOUS? Lovie Smith said they made the mistake of not finishing strong and he wasn't going to do that again!

You just reinforced the point!!!


Acting like me? Check your PM.

 

[Oannes]

Unfortunately for Lovie, they did exactly what they did the year before.

What a coach wants and his players want, are often two different things. Ask Clinton Portis.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Unfortunately for Lovie, they did exactly what they did the year before.

What a coach wants and his players want, are often two different things. Ask Clinton Portis.

Yeah, hopefully that trend continues though lol

 

[Oannes]

I don't think the Bears are that good especially after their off-season. If any of the top teams took a step back it's them.

The Vikes are horrid. Tarvaris Jackson starting along with bust Ryan Cook?

No defensive pressure and no one to stop you in the secondary.

Lions might finally be going the right direction.

I would expect Minnesota to finish as bad, or worse, than last year. Detroit will be around where we were last year.

We should be around where we were last year, and I have no idea where the Bears are going to go. Down...but how far down? I don't think quite enough but lots of things can happen between now and then. I just hope they don't play any games in SAFE mode next season. :0

 

[Obi1]

Oannes,

Why do you even WATCH the games? Or follow the Pack?

It's a good thing you don't PLAY for the Packers.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Oannes,

Why do you even WATCH the games? Or follow the Pack?

It's a good thing you don't PLAY for the Packers.

He doesn't watch them, he only gets the highlights of them. (jus my assumption based off his posts and location)

 

[Oannes]

I watch and follow to enlighten those who drink the kool aid. That's why.

Everyone wants to be blind to things they love. You almost have to in life. My wife is going to grow old and won't be as "hot" as she is now, but I'll always think she's beautiful. Will she be? No. Someone else with no attachment to her would look at her in her old age and think nothing of her, but since I love her, I won't see what someone with no emotional attachment would see.

I've followed this team in the same way you have. I used to be a green and gold glasser just like you guys. I'm not like that anymore. I can look at something I "care" about and see it as if I didn't have a feeling about it one way or the other.

My views will never be in the majority of Packer fans, but that's one of the reasons you should consider my posts. I see it differently. That is one of the reasons I read yours...because you see it differently. You put me in touch with the type of fan I used to be. One that was more fun quite frankly.

 

[Zero2Cool]

I watch and follow to enlighten those who drink the kool aid. That's why.

Everyone wants to be blind to things they love. You almost have to in life. My wife is going to grow old and won't be as "hot" as she is now, but I'll always think she's beautiful. Will she be? No. Someone else with no attachment to her would look at her in her old age and think nothing of her, but since I love her, I won't see what someone with no emotional attachment would see.

I've followed this team in the same way you have. I used to be a green and gold glasser just like you guys. I'm not like that anymore. I can look at something I "care" about and see it as if I didn't have a feeling about it one way or the other.

My views will never be in the majority of Packer fans, but that's one of the reasons you should consider my posts. I see it differently. That is one of the reasons I read yours...because you see it differently. You put me in touch with the type of fan I used to be. One that was more fun quite frankly.

Can you stop generalizing? You are wrong. A lot of people can be objective, but when you have sorry *** tarts on the forum who find everything possible to ***** about, some tend to push the issue stronger to equal out the asstards.