sports0230
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
1. Packers 10-6
2. Vikes 9-7-1
3. Bears 8-8
4. Lions 3-12-1
The ties are from an interception-laden contest betwixt the Vikes and Lions in which Favre out-interceptions Dante Culpepper/Matt Stafford 5-4 and no TDs are thrown while each team's kicker breaks the record for field goals made in a game.
The Vikings have a tough schedule this coming season with 17 games.
It' good to see so many pundits overlooking and underestimating the Packers. The tune sounds similar to the 2007 preseason wags.
Saying the Bears are the same team that went to the Super Bowl 3 years ago plus Jay Cutler is ludicrous. Yeah, a lot of the names are the same but they're not the same team. Their defense was worse than the Packers' last season and they didn't do anything notable to improve it going in to this year.
The Vikings look like last year's Jacksonville Jags. A playoff team in '07 many thought they could take the next step in '08 with their run defense and rushing game and a game managing qb in Garrard. They ended up falling from 11-5 to 5-11 in just one year.
The free agency loss of Matt Birk, the looming suspensions of dt's Kevin Williams and Pat Williams, the unsettled qb situation, the coaching among other things about this club could easily put them in the half of one year's playoff teams that don't make it back the next.
A healthier Green Bay team, with more discipline and fewer critical mistakes could well be poised for a surprise rebound similar to '07; when nobody saw them coming then.
These numbers appear very similar to me. And that's not a good thing, since we were a terrible D last year. You're better at stopping the run, but then again, we're better at stopping the pass...Who is saying that this is the same Bears team from the Super Bowl?
This is based on what they did last year when they finished one game behind the Vikings at 9-7 and just missed the playoffs and that was with Kyle Orton as their QB.
So how is adding Jay Cutler, improving their O line and WR corps and having two of their best defensive players healthy again make them a worse team while the 6-10 Packers will be playing a totally new defense and they will be the team to beat?
Saying that they will be more disciplined and make fewer critical mistakes is based on what?
Wishes?
With a new D in place chances are that they are going to make even more mistakes.
You don't want to compare the current Bears team to the one in 2006 yet you want to compare the current Packers team to the one in 2007.
You can't have it both ways..... unless you are Angelina Jolie!
By the way.... you claim that the Bears D was worse than the Packers last year.
Really?
The Packers gave up an average of 334.3 yards per game.
The Bears gave up an average of 334.7 yards per game.
The Packers gave 380 total points.
The Bears gave 350 total points.
The Packers gave up an average of 23.8 points per game.
The Bears gave up an average of 21.9 points per game.
The Packers gave up an average of 5.3 yards per play.
The Bears gave up an average of 4.9 yards per play.
The Packers gave up 3,244 passing yards for a 6.5 yards per pass average.
The Bears gave up 3,859 passing yards for a 6.6 yards per pass average.
The Packers gave up 2,105 rushing yards for a 4.6 yards per run average.
The Bears gave up 1,496 rushing yards for a 3.4 yards per run average.
The Packers intercepted 22 passes.
The Bears intercepted 22 passes.
The Packers recovered 6 fumbles.
The Bears recovered 10 fumbles.
The Packers had 27 sacks.
The Bears had 28 sacks.
The Bears were the better defense last year.
These are facts. Not just hopeful thinking or some comment that was thrown out on a blog somewhere and taken as gospel because it sounds like what you want to hear.
Look this stuff up before making a statement that has nothing at all to back it up.:read:
Saying that the Packers will have a better defense because they are changing to the 3-4 while the Bears are sticking with the same D that made them one of the top units in the NFL over the last 5 years is just wishful thinking until they prove otherwise.:crazy:
These numbers appear very similar to me. And that's not a good thing, since we were a terrible D last year. You're better at stopping the run, but then again, we're better at stopping the pass...
And just one thing... Improved the WR corps? With players that never caught a pass in the NFL or with a KR that was a CB in college? I'm not seeing where's the improvement...
And you're partially right about the wishfyl thinking. Yes, they need to prove themselves. But it's not just the change of scheme. It's the proven coaches that were hired. It's the return to health of half of the defense. It's the all-americans we drafted (although that's not by any means a sure thing. Even picked so high and playing so well in college, they need to prove themselves in the NFL).
Yes, drafting 2 WRs who have never caught an NFL pass has to be an upgrade over what they had last year.
It is the same as adding any other rookie to your team in an area that you need help.
It's not the same. Like I said early, any rookies can't be considered an improvement before they step on the field, but a guy taken 9th overall and another taken 26th are more likely to be great players than some guys taken on 3rd round. And not only that, there're more examples of DT and OLB rookies that made and impact than at WR. Don't have the numbers right now, but after QB, the WR position is the hardest for a rookie to make an impact. RB and OL are the easiest, if I'm not mistaken also.That is why the Packers drafted Raji.
I guess when you're at the bottom you can only go up... Doesn't mean they'll be good. You gotta agree with me that there's more chance that they won't be a great corps than that they'll be. It's no coincidence that a lot of teams passed on them more than once, right?
It's not the same. Like I said early, any rookies can't be considered an improvement before they step on the field, but a guy taken 9th overall and another taken 26th are more likely to be great players than some guys taken on 3rd round. And not only that, there're more examples of DT and OLB rookies that made and impact than at WR. Don't have the numbers right now, but after QB, the WR position is the hardest for a rookie to make an impact. RB and OL are the easiest, if I'm not mistaken also.
Wow, I can't read... Jennings didn't make an impact as a rookie. Of course there are exceptions. Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson... But those guys are the cream of the crop.Kinda like Johnny Jolly and Greg Jennings.
I guess when you're at the bottom you can only go up... Doesn't mean they'll be good. You gotta agree with me that there's more chance that they won't be a great corps than that they'll be. It's no coincidence that a lot of teams passed on them more than once, right?
It's not the same. Like I said early, any rookies can't be considered an improvement before they step on the field, but a guy taken 9th overall and another taken 26th are more likely to be great players than some guys taken on 3rd round. And not only that, there're more examples of DT and OLB rookies that made and impact than at WR. Don't have the numbers right now, but after QB, the WR position is the hardest for a rookie to make an impact. RB and OL are the easiest, if I'm not mistaken also.
Yeah, Jennings had no impact as a rookie. Jolly sure did. Let's compareWow, I can't read... Jennings didn't make an impact as a rookie. Of course there are exceptions. Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson... But those guys are the cream of the crop.
You forgot about Troy "Stone hands" Williamson, Mike Williams, Ted Ginn Jr., Lee Evans, Rashaun Woods, Michael Jenkins. All first round pick. Darius Watts, Keary Colbert, Terrence Murphy, Chad Jackson, Second round stars, NOT. Several are not even playing anymore. Most have never lived up to expectations.You guys are picking exceptions. Those Jennings numbers don't demonstrate any impact. 51 catches for 665 yds and 3 tds are Hester's last year numbers... About Jolly, he was a bad pick. There are tons of that. Why not compare Troy Williamson and Kevin Williams' numbers then?
-
Philtration, so you're saying teams can make the wrong pick? Looking at my own team, you'll see that the best Def player was a 5th rounder. That doesn't mean much.
Last year's top 10 wr: Andre Johnson, 1st round; Larry Fitzgerald, 1st round; Steve Smith, 3rd round; Roddy White, 1st round; Calvin Johnson, 1st round; Greg Jennings, 2nd round; Brandon Marshall, 4th round; Antonio Bryant, 2nd round; Wes Welker, undrafted; Reggie Wayne, 1st round.
So half of them were 1st round picks, and only 2 of them were picked in the 2nd day of the draft (being one undrafted). You see what I meant with the higher the round the greater the chances???
-
And my whole point was about next year. Rookies (Wr, Te, Rb) in the top 50 catchers. Eddie Royal, 23rd, DeSean Jackson, 28th, Donnie Avery, 48th. That's it. 3 rookies.
So, can your receivers be great next season? Of course. Is it probable? Not at all...
What's the success rate of the 3rd rounders? 4th rounders? 7th rounders???You forgot about Troy "Stone hands" Williamson, Mike Williams, Ted Ginn Jr., Lee Evans, Rashaun Woods, Michael Jenkins. All first round pick. Darius Watts, Keary Colbert, Terrence Murphy, Chad Jackson, Second round stars, NOT. Several are not even playing anymore. Most have never lived up to expectations.
Your going to the list and seeing the ones that made it. For every one that makes it there are two or more that don't. Take one year. The year of Andre Johnson. The WR's picked in the first two rounds.
Charles Rodgers. 2nd Out of football
Andre Johnson. 3rd
Bryant Johnson 17th. currently playing for the 49ers, 12 tds in 6 years
Taylor Jacobs 44th. Out of football
Bethal Johnson 45th. Out of football
Anquan Boldan 54th
Tyrone Calico 60th Out of football.
So that's 3 out of 7 still playing. That's a 43% success rate of just staying in the NFL and that's for one year draft in the first 2 rounds.
As it should be. What good would the draft be if only 10% of the top 2 rounds made it in the NFL. I am looking for the article someone wrote on it a while back. It went something like 45-50% of first two rounds make it and then the number go down from there for each round thereafter.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...
You forgot about Troy "Stone hands" Williamson, Mike Williams, Ted Ginn Jr., Lee Evans, Rashaun Woods, Michael Jenkins. All first round pick. Darius Watts, Keary Colbert, Terrence Murphy, Chad Jackson, Second round stars, NOT. Several are not even playing anymore. Most have never lived up to expectations.