NFC North Preview

[Philtration]

What's the success rate of the 3rd rounders? 4th rounders? 7th rounders???
43% success rate of that year. But 70% of last years top 10 receivers were picked in the first 2 rounds...

This draft was heavy in WRs.

One of the deepest in many years so I am ok with the Bears picking up Iglesias where they drafted. He was projected to go higher and they got him anyway. They drafted a 2nd round talent with a 3rd round pick.
Knox was worth a 4th round pick easy.
They did well considering they did not have any picks on the first day and when you throw in Jay Cutler they did extremely well.
They gave up their fist round pick for a QB that will not have to sit and learn for a few years.
He has thrown for 8,023 yards and 45 TDS as a starter over the last two seasons.
He is ready right now and he is only 26 years old.
The Broncos did the dirty work by taking the chance in drafting him and then getting him ready for the NFL and the Bears are going to reap the rewards. I am more than happy that the Bears did not have a 1st round pick this year.

What they received in return was worth giving up two 1st round picks and a back up QB whose contract expires after this season.:happy0005:

 

[Packerlifer]

Packers had 20th ranked defense in league last year, Bears were 22nd. Not much diference, to be sure, but those were the rankings.
The Packers brought in a new defense and coaching staff plus players B.J. Raji, Clay Matthews to staff their starting lineup.
What have the Bears done? Safety Mike Brown retired. They have an interesting prospect in lineman Jarron Gilbert, third round pick, but he's one of those "high risk, high reward" guys. Otherwise they're rolling the dice with the same personnel as last year. A lot of the same guys that did go to the Super Bowl but getting older.

 

[Schmitty327]

I agree lifer. They key words are getting older. The Bears are so used to depending on thier D to win games but they are not getting any good youth in there. The Packers have a mess of young players and once they get this 3-4 D down they are gonna be damn good. Yeah the Bears got Cutler who is a very good QB, but with few targets. They are still gonna have to count on the D to win games.

 

[Rodgers2Jennings]

My Prediction

Vikes (With Favre) 11-5
Packers 10-6
Bears 8-8
Lions 3-13

 

[Raptorman]

Whats wrong with Lee Evans, I think he's a pretty food wide receiver. Michael Jenkins has played decent in Atlanta, and Terrence Murphy career was stopped by injuries, not his fault.

Nothing wrong with them. I included them in my discussion because PackerrRS was cherry picking players in the WR position claiming Jennings had no impact on the Packers his rookie

 

[PackersRS]

Nothing wrong with them. I included them in my discussion because PackerrRS was cherry picking players in the WR position claiming Jennings had no impact on the Packers his rookie

Wow wow wow. No impact ON THE PACKERS??? I never said that. He made an impact as a 2nd receiver. A 2nd that gets those numbers is very good, but it's not enough for a 1st receiver. If those are the numbers of the best Chicago receiver, then they aren't a good corps. But if those are the 3rd stringer, or the 2nd receiver, then they're pretty good. and I wasn't cherry picking receivers. I listed the top 10. And I've said that there were only 3 rookie receivers in the TOP 50, and only one in the top 25. How's that cherry picking????

 

[Raptorman]

Wow wow wow. No impact ON THE PACKERS??? I never said that. He made an impact as a 2nd receiver. A 2nd that gets those numbers is very good, but it's not enough for a 1st receiver. If those are the numbers of the best Chicago receiver, then they aren't a good corps. But if those are the 3rd stringer, or the 2nd receiver, then they're pretty good. and I wasn't cherry picking receivers. I listed the top 10. And I've said that there were only 3 rookie receivers in the TOP 50, and only one in the top 25. How's that cherry picking????

Ummmm.....Ok, maybe I read the following the wrong way then

Those Jennings numbers don't demonstrate any impact.

Pick just about any year and you will find very few rookie WR's in the top 50 or top 25. You also have to remember that the NFL rates WR's by number of balls caught. Very few rookies will ever get the most balls thrown to them. Look at Moss. His rookie year he only caught 69 balls and was tied for 16th according to the NFL. However, 17 of those were TD's. If you went by TD's he would be first.

 

[Philtration]

I agree lifer. They key words are getting older. The Bears are so used to depending on thier D to win games but they are not getting any good youth in there. The Packers have a mess of young players and once they get this 3-4 D down they are gonna be damn good. Yeah the Bears got Cutler who is a very good QB, but with few targets. They are still gonna have to count on the D to win games.

Yeah... the Bears D is really old.
Never mind that the fact that the average age of the Packers defensive players is 25.37 while the average age of the Bears defensive players is 25.35
Just gloss over the facts and follow what ever sounds comforting to you.

Is there an older pair of corners in the NFL than Woodson and Harris?
Nick Barnett being 28 makes him younger than Lance Briggs at 28?
Ryan Pickett being 29 makes him younger than Tommie Harris who is 26?

By the way... I believe that the Packers will have to count on their D to win games too and how did that turn out for them last year?

 

[Schmitty327]

Yeah... the Bears D is really old.
Never mind that the fact that the average age of the Packers defensive players is 25.37 while the average age of the Bears defensive players is 25.35
Just gloss over the facts and follow what ever sounds comforting to you.

Is there an older pair of corners in the NFL than Woodson and Harris?
Nick Barnett being 28 makes him younger than Lance Briggs at 28?
Ryan Pickett being 29 makes him younger than Tommie Harris who is 26?

By the way... I believe that the Packers will have to count on their D to win games too and how did that turn out for them last year?

The Packers only have 2 staters on D that are 30 or over and thats our corners who are 2 of the best in the league. And as far as depending on our D to win games, thats crap. Our offense is better then our D which is why we overhauled the defense this year. We just need to score in the red zone instead of settling for 3 all the time. Should be an intersting season this year. All the NFC North teams made a lot of big changes, asuming that Favre is gonna be a Viking.

 

[PackersRS]

Ummmm.....Ok, maybe I read the following the wrong way then

Yes, you read that wrong. Where's PACKERS in there???
And how is 3 tds for impact???

Pick just about any year and you will find very few rookie WR's in the top 50 or top 25. You also have to remember that the NFL rates WR's by number of balls caught. Very few rookies will ever get the most balls thrown to them. Look at Moss. His rookie year he only caught 69 balls and was tied for 16th according to the NFL. However, 17 of those were TD's. If you went by TD's he would be first.

NFL rates by 3 standands. It's a feat when a WR goes 1st in all of them, like Steve Smith did once. But the most valued is yards. If you rated by catch, Eddie Royal would be top 10.
You agreeing that very few rookies don't get in the top 50 just goes to defend my point that it's very likely that the bears won't have a good WR corps. And saying that Cutler is gonna make them better is BS. Unless you think Troy Brown was a great WR.

 

[Philtration]

The Packers only have 2 staters on D that are 30 or over and thats our corners who are 2 of the best in the league. And as far as depending on our D to win games, thats crap. Our offense is better then our D which is why we overhauled the defense this year. We just need to score in the red zone instead of settling for 3 all the time. Should be an intersting season this year. All the NFC North teams made a lot of big changes, asuming that Favre is gonna be a Viking.

And the Bears only have two starters on D that are over 30 and both of them have been to the pro-bowl.
So how is the Bears defense old while the Packer's is not?
This is just more buying into myths and not looking up the facts first.

I really don't understand how you believe that ANY team in the NFL does not have to depend on it's defense to win games.
It is easy to say that you just have to score more points but don't you think that every other team in the league is also trying to score points?
You still have to stop the other team.

Look up the top rated defenses from 2008 and tell me what you see.
4 of the top 5 defensive team were in the playoffs while only one of the top 5 offensive teams made it.
"Defense wins championships" is more than a catchy saying you know.

Putting up 21 points while giving up 28 will get you a lose every time.

 

[PackersRS]

And the Bears only have two starters on D that are over 30 and both of them have been to the pro-bowl.
So how is the Bears defense old while the Packer's is not?
This is just more buying into myths and not looking up the facts first.

I really don't understand how you believe that ANY team in the NFL does not have to depend on it's defense to win games.
It is easy to say that you just have to score more points but don't you think that every other team in the league is also trying to score points?
You still have to stop the other team.

Look up the top rated defenses from 2008 and tell me what you see.
4 of the top 5 defensive team were in the playoffs while only one of the top 5 offensive teams made it.
"Defense wins championships" is more than a catchy saying you know.

Putting up 21 points while giving up 28 will get you a lose every time.

I think his point was that we don't need to DOMINATE on D to win. And that is true. Yes, defense wins championship, but Payton Manning has a ring, doesn't he? The Rams won one too. Going back we can look at the 49ers (although their D was very good, underrated).

I agree that it's easier for a top 10 D with a mid range attack to win it than a top 10 offense with a mid range D. But if we get a top 10 Offense, which we have, and a top 15 D, we can win the SB.

 

[Raptorman]

Yes, you read that wrong. Where's PACKERS in there???
And how is 3 tds for impact???

NFL rates by 3 standands. It's a feat when a WR goes 1st in all of them, like Steve Smith did once. But the most valued is yards. If you rated by catch, Eddie Royal would be top 10.
You agreeing that very few rookies don't get in the top 50 just goes to defend my point that it's very likely that the bears won't have a good WR corps. And saying that Cutler is gonna make them better is BS. Unless you think Troy Brown was a great WR.

If you go to NFL.com and check who the top WR's are they are listed by number of catches. There is no such thing as as WR rating.

 

[PackersRS]

If you go to NFL.com and check who the top WR's are they are listed by number of catches. There is no such thing as as WR rating.

I get my numbers from that same site. And they allways list first the yards. But that's not why I said it's the most important atribute. Check the debates that goes on that same site. And furthermore, Receptions are a better indication that the QB throws the ball more to that receiver. Of course, it's an important statistic, cause if the WR has hands of stone, he won't catch those. Also, the QB usually throws to the most reliable receiver. But yards are a better indication of the WR quality. It's a mix of his ablity to move the chains (REC), gain advantage (YAC), and his effectiveness (TDS), IMO.

 

[Raptorman]

I get my numbers from that same site. And they allways list first the yards. But that's not why I said it's the most important atribute. Check the debates that goes on that same site. And furthermore, Receptions are a better indication that the QB throws the ball more to that receiver. Of course, it's an important statistic, cause if the WR has hands of stone, he won't catch those. Also, the QB usually throws to the most reliable receiver. But yards are a better indication of the WR quality. It's a mix of his ablity to move the chains (REC), gain advantage (YAC), and his effectiveness (TDS), IMO.

Really, then why is Brandon Marshall listed behind Wes Welker. And why is Fitgerald behind him?

Johnson, 115, 1575 yards, 8 tds.
Welker 111, 1165 yards, 3 tds.
Marshall 104, 1265yards, 6 ts
Fitzgerald 96, 1431 yards, 12 tds

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...rience=null&tabSeq=1&qualified=true&Submit=Go

 

[Philtration]

I think his point was that we don't need to DOMINATE on D to win. And that is true. Yes, defense wins championship, but Payton Manning has a ring, doesn't he? The Rams won one too. Going back we can look at the 49ers (although their D was very good, underrated).

I agree that it's easier for a top 10 D with a mid range attack to win it than a top 10 offense with a mid range D. But if we get a top 10 Offense, which we have, and a top 15 D, we can win the SB.

Peyton Manning did not win anything until the Colts got their defensive act together in the post season.
They gave up 8 points to the Chiefs, 6 points to the Ravens and 17 to the Bears with one high scoring game against the Patriots.
That is pretty damn good defensive play right there.

I would never compare the Packers current offense or defense to the Rams team that won the Super Bowl.
Not only was their offense far better (526 points, 32.9 pg) than the Packers but they also gave up only 242 points (15.1 pg) that season.
Anyone that believes that they were a shootout team who just outscored everyone else was not paying attention back then.

You brought up the 49ers and then admitted that their D was very good so how do they fit into this?
They don't.

If you are expecting the Packers to come out and score 500 points this season and win games 34-33 than you are going to be disappointed.

 

[PackersRS]

All those teams had solid D, but not dominant. They did NOT depend on their D to win the games, unlike Steelers, Ravens, Giants. The D complemented their potent offense. We can achieve that.

 

[Philtration]

All those teams had solid D, but not dominant. They did NOT depend on their D to win the games, unlike Steelers, Ravens, Giants. The D complemented their potent offense. We can achieve that.

And that is what I have been saying about the Bears receivers.
They don't have to have Larry Fitzgerald or Randy Moss to go to the playoffs.
Look at the last two Super Bowl winners.
The Steelers finished 17th in the NFL in passing in 2008 and the Giants were 21st in 2007.

When the New England Patriots won back-to-back titles in the 2003 and 2004 seasons, their top WRs failed to crack the NFL's top 30 in receiving those seasons.
Deion Branch finished 42nd in 2003 and David Givens 40th in 2004. Baltimore's top wideout in its 2000 championship season was Qadry Ismail, who finished 68th in the NFL.
Yes it is great to have a game breaker at WR but you don't have to have one to win.
It is not that kind of league.

My point was that the Bears and Vikings both have talented defensive players and the Packers are going to have to deal with the fact that they are not going to go out and score 30 points every week.
Anyone saying that they can just outscore everyone else is overrating the Packers offense and ignoring what really wins games in the NFL.
They have the Steelers and Ravens on their schedule this year and I don't see anyone running up a lot of points on either one of those teams.
The Packers will play 7 teams this season that had a higher ranked defense than their own last year.

The Packers also struggled against the run and there are three good young RBs that they have to stop in the division 6 times a year.
If Stafford plays well and Cutler puts up the kind of numbers that he has shown in Denver then the Packers will have to rely on their defense more then ever.
They had better be prepared to stop someone or they are going to have another losing season.

 

[longtimefan]

The Packers will play 7 teams this season that had a higher ranked defense than their own last year.

Considering how bad their D was, that isn't saying much lol

 

[Philtration]

Considering how bad their D was, that isn't saying much lol

Maybe.... but they do play 4 of the top 10 defenses this year.
Steelers, Ravens, Cowboys, Vikings (x2).

 

[PackersRS]

And that is what I have been saying about the Bears receivers.
They don't have to have Larry Fitzgerald or Randy Moss to go to the playoffs.
Look at the last two Super Bowl winners.
The Steelers finished 17th in the NFL in passing in 2008 and the Giants were 21st in 2007.

When the New England Patriots won back-to-back titles in the 2003 and 2004 seasons, their top WRs failed to crack the NFL's top 30 in receiving those seasons.
Deion Branch finished 42nd in 2003 and David Givens 40th in 2004. Baltimore's top wideout in its 2000 championship season was Qadry Ismail, who finished 68th in the NFL.
Yes it is great to have a game breaker at WR but you don't have to have one to win.
It is not that kind of league.

True, true. But those Ds are miles better than what the Bears have. And they need to at least have solid receivers. Deion Branch wasn't great but was solid. And Baltimore had a HoF in Shannon Sharpe. He was their Wr. As good as Olsen can be, he'll never be a Shannon Sharpe, Tony Gonzales type. He can't play wideout. And the Bears D can't be compared to the Ravens D back then... Right now, looking at their corps, I say they have the worst in the NFL. Who has a worse WR corps than the Bears, in all honesty? Maybe Miami, but Ginn is a better receiver than Hester...
-
If the Bears had one solid receiver, one solid DE, and if Pace can play, they would be contenders. If the vikes had one very good QB (which I don't think Favre can be anymore), they would be contenders. If Pickett and Jenkins can perform like they did in 2007, if Raji can live up to the hype, and if our OL can be productive, we will be contenders.

 

[Philtration]

-
If the Bears had one solid receiver, one solid DE, and if Pace can play, they would be contenders. If the vikes had one very good QB (which I don't think Favre can be anymore), they would be contenders. If Pickett and Jenkins can perform like they did in 2007, if Raji can live up to the hype, and if our OL can be productive, we will be contenders.

I agree with that.

I am really looking forward to this upcoming season.
I have been watching the Bears since the 60s and this is the first time in my life that there is no talk about who is going to play QB and how bad he will be. Refreshing!
I am not one of the people who have elevated Jim McMahon to a great QB. He was not.

I am hoping that the Bears receivers can be decent because their TEs and RBs can all catch the ball. If you throw them into the mix then they are definitely better than teams like the Raiders, Rams, Giants and Dolphins.
It is going to be tight between the Bears, Packers and Vikings and while the Lions will not be a contender, I don't think that they were as bad as their record last season.
While their defense was absolutely putrid they lost 8 games by 10 points or less.
If Stafford is capable of pulling a Matt Ryan then they can win 5 games this year.
I personally thought that they should have traded down and went with defensive picks.
Aaron Curry is going to be a beast and that is exactly the kind of player you can build a defense around.
I am glad that he is not in our division for the next 10 years.

 

[PackersRS]

I personally thought that they should have traded down and went with defensive picks.
Aaron Curry is going to be a beast and that is exactly the kind of player you can build a defense around.
I am glad that he is not in our division for the next 10 years.

The Lions had no choice but to draft Matthew Stafford or Mark Sanchez. They needed to sell tickets, and what's better for a decadent franchise to create hope than a new face of the franchise? Especially after the year that Flacco and Ryan had. I would've builded through the lines. Saying that Pettitgrew will be part of the OL and boost their running game is BS. If they had a good OL that would be true, but not with what they have. But they had no other choice, not with William Clay Ford Sr. running the show. They won't win 8 games, not with their lines. But they have right now one of the best linebacker corps IN THE NFL with Peterson, Foote and Sims. They have a monster in Johnson. A good RB (nothing more than that). They can be contenders in 3-4 years...
Oh, and they tried to move down, but noone wanted the 1st pick. I'm even considering that they would settle for a top 10 and a 3rd, but I don't think they even got any offers. Just look at the guaranteed money Stafford got...

 

[Philtration]

The Lions had no choice but to draft Matthew Stafford or Mark Sanchez. They needed to sell tickets, and what's better for a decadent franchise to create hope than a new face of the franchise? Especially after the year that Flacco and Ryan had. I would've builded through the lines. Saying that Pettitgrew will be part of the OL and boost their running game is BS. If they had a good OL that would be true, but not with what they have. But they had no other choice, not with William Clay Ford Sr. running the show. They won't win 8 games, not with their lines. But they have right now one of the best linebacker corps IN THE NFL with Peterson, Foote and Sims. They have a monster in Johnson. A good RB (nothing more than that). They can be contenders in 3-4 years...
Oh, and they tried to move down, but noone wanted the 1st pick. I'm even considering that they would settle for a top 10 and a 3rd, but I don't think they even got any offers. Just look at the guaranteed money Stafford got...

They had better hope that he is as good as all that. I personally did not see him as a can't miss type of QB but you never know.
For a while I though that they were going to make a deal with Denver and get Cutler.
I thought the Lions drafting Pettitgrew was a dumb move.
Kevin Smith actually did well for the amount of carries he had but he looks like he is better suited for running on grass and the Lions play at least 9 games a year on turf. He was a 3rd round pick so he is good for that but they did pass on Steve Slaton in the same round.
That would have been a much better pick.

I expected Ryan and Flacco to be good and I was really wanting the Bears to go after Flacco at the time.
Things have obviously changed for them at the QB position since then and it all worked out (especially if Chris Williams comes back from his injury this year at OT)

You are right about no one wanting that first pick.
Teams are afraid of it now and that is part of the reason that they have to make some changes in the draft as far as money goes.
It has gotten out of hand and that was way too much money for a guy who has not played a single down in the NFL.

 

[PackersRS]

They had better hope that he is as good as all that. I personally did not see him as a can't miss type of QB but you never know.

Reminded me of Alex Smith and ARod...