PDA

View Full Version : Who wins the north in 2008?


Pages : [1] 2

BcLion
03-04-2008, 08:58 AM
This will be a interesting year for the North.

Brothgar
03-04-2008, 09:52 AM
This will be a interesting year for the North.

LIONS!!! psych.

a mini writeup


Packers - While the offense is built on the arm of grandpa Favre the young D is what really takes the cake.they had a great season last year and will likely be the media favorites to win the North again this season. With Favre 40% chance of winning the division. W/O Favre 10% chance of winning the Division.

Vikings - The strength of the Vikings is in the trenches with by far the best O Line in the division.
What they need is a pass rush which they will likely draft for in the draft then pretty much cementing the best D Line in the division. A pass rush will make the CBs look alot better than they are. That said the passing game is now on the arm of Tavaris Jackson who did show some sparks at the end of the season but isn't the answer at QB so the success of this team fully relies on the running game. But what a running game that is.
Chances of winning 45% - 65% chance of winning the division. My personal favorites.

Detroit Lions - The Lions overperformed last season and now seem to be falling strait back into rebuilding mode. The strength of this team is clearly the WR corps. But this strength is rendered useless when you see the ineptitude of the OLine. If anything can good can be said about the Defense last year is that even with the complete lack of talent they still one of the league leaders in turnovers. Which speaks loads about the scheme.
Even if Millen does something he's never done in his life and that is a SB draft (SB draft is 7 starters
in one draft) they still probobally won't win thet division. Chances of winning the Division
5% - ~13%

Chicago Bears - Though it is true that Defense wins championships but you have to score first. The D is back I think all starters are still on the team. On offense was bad last year as it always is.
Now it has gotten worse The O Line is average at best as a unit despite having a probowl center. Bot h starting WRs are now in different zip codes and the QB is also no good. So I wouldn't be shocked to see two WRs and a QB in the first 3 rounds of the draft this year. (Ha ha I just had a thought of the bears drafting Manningham, Henne and Arrington)

Gay Ork Wang
03-04-2008, 09:59 AM
We will draft an OL a Qb and a RB ;)

personally i think it will be the vikes

princefielder28
03-04-2008, 10:03 AM
Even with Brett retiring I think the Packers can still make the argument that they have the best QB in the division. Go Pack Go!

regoob2
03-04-2008, 07:56 PM
I'd say the packers. Vikes are overrated and Jackson hasn't proven he can lead that team to victory. Bears are rebuilding the O, and the lions are the lions.

awfullyquiet
03-04-2008, 08:03 PM
favre is coming back.

pack 2:1.

oh? he's not?

vikes will take a bit more heat this year (with a rapidly deteriorating defense), and basically its a 3-way tie between the bears (who, barring draft day tragedies will good for at least 8 wins, and an even tighter defense), the pack (who will not have the same power on offense, but, will, again, dominate defensively, also good for 9 wins), and the vikes (who will have 8 and 8).

The NFC north is shaping up to be the NFC version of the the AFC south (with the lions playing houston, only worse). Pack = Indy, Chi = Jax, Vikes = Ten, Det = Hou (although that's not fair to houston).

neko4
03-04-2008, 08:08 PM
I still think we take it, Vikes will give us some pressure. I think the divison will look like it did in 2004, except the Bears and Lions will compete for a playoff spot, until about week 13-15

Crazy_Chris
03-04-2008, 08:24 PM
Putting Chicago over the Vikes is exagerating right now, I want to see how the draft goes before im ready to even consider it.

Seriously though I think 9-7 will be all it takes to win the division this year.

my guess would be
Vikings 9-7
Packers 8-8
Bears 8-8
Lions 6-10

awfullyquiet
03-04-2008, 10:22 PM
Putting Chicago over the Vikes is exagerating right now, I want to see how the draft goes before im ready to even consider it.

Seriously though I think 9-7 will be all it takes to win the division this year.

my guess would be
Vikings 9-7
Packers 8-8
Bears 8-8
Lions 6-10

but it'll be a hard 9-7. for sure.
to win the NFCN means you actually have to be pretty decent this year.

BeerBaron
03-04-2008, 10:35 PM
well think of the wierd triangle last year. bears over packers both times, packers over vikings both times, vikings over bears both times.

so out of that crew, id say whoever wins more out of the division has the best shot.

and the lions....well......itll be a cold day in hell before, yadda yadda......lions arent going to win it.....

until we see anything more on rodgers, i give a slight lead to the vikings

crazyisme
03-05-2008, 06:19 PM
I'd say the packers. Vikes are overrated and Jackson hasn't proven he can lead that team to victory. Bears are rebuilding the O, and the lions are the lions.


lol how are the vikes overrated, everyone hates the Vikes....

the Vikes have the best player in the division, keep that in mind

regoob2
03-05-2008, 10:39 PM
lol how are the vikes overrated, everyone hates the Vikes....

the Vikes have the best player in the division, keep that in mind
Probably cause of all the hype of having the "Best player in the division".

bearfan
03-05-2008, 10:44 PM
I think the Vikes do, they have a pretty decent defense, and they just added a weapon who can actually catch the ball at WR. Add the fact that they have one of the best OLs, and probably the best RB Dou in the NFL, I think they have a good chance to win it.

bearsfan_51
03-05-2008, 10:49 PM
Yeah I think it could really go anyway.

I'd probably rank the teams

Vikings
Packers
Bears
Lions

but it could really go anyway. I wonder if the Lions will allow Stanton to compete for the starting job. Probably not, but I think they should.

Cunningham
03-07-2008, 12:36 AM
favre is coming back.

pack 2:1.

oh? he's not?

vikes will take a bit more heat this year (with a rapidly deteriorating defense), and basically its a 3-way tie between the bears (who, barring draft day tragedies will good for at least 8 wins, and an even tighter defense), the pack (who will not have the same power on offense, but, will, again, dominate defensively, also good for 9 wins), and the vikes (who will have 8 and 8).

The NFC north is shaping up to be the NFC version of the the AFC south (with the lions playing houston, only worse). Pack = Indy, Chi = Jax, Vikes = Ten, Det = Hou (although that's not fair to houston).
????????????

Yatta!
03-07-2008, 09:35 AM
It'll come down to which QB plays best - if Rodgers lives up to expectations then the Packers will win the division, if T-Jackson performs then the Vikings, if the Bears can find a QB who doesn't constantly turn the ball over, they ll have a shot too. But not Detroit, never Detroit...

roidrunner
03-07-2008, 03:44 PM
the NFC north is just going to be a random cluster **** this year. it could go anywhere. I think it will all depend on the rookie sensation for our division this year. who ever might that be. or a player that comes out of no where. cause there is no way to tell who will win the division this year.

Turtlepower
03-07-2008, 03:47 PM
Isn't the better question, "Who Will Lose the North?"

Though I think if the Packers defense has a similar season to last, they should win. AD's injuries I can see catching up to the Vikes and the Bears need to build an o-line or else nothing will get done.

Oh yeah, forgot about the Lions.

neko4
03-07-2008, 03:56 PM
I dont think this decides who wins the divison but...
QB's
1-Detroit
2-WHO?

RB's
1-Minny
2-Green Bay
3a-Chicago
3b-Detroit

WR's
1a-Detroit
1b-Green Bay
3-Minnesota
4-Chicago

OL
1-Green Bay
2-Minny
3-Chicago
4-Detroit

DL (Top 2 are close, if Minny had a DE they would be just as close)
1-Green Bay
2-Chicago
3-Minny
4-Detroit

LB's
1a-Chicago
1b-Green Bay
3-Minny
4-Detroit

DB
1-Chicago
2-Green Bay
3-Minnesota
4-Detroit

Special Teams
1-Chicago
2-Green Bay?
3-Minny
4-Detroit

Crazy_Chris
03-07-2008, 09:08 PM
Isn't the better question, "Who Will Lose the North?"

Though I think if the Packers defense has a similar season to last, they should win. AD's injuries I can see catching up to the Vikes and the Bears need to build an o-line or else nothing will get done.

Oh yeah, forgot about the Lions.

Chester Taylor says "Hello don't forget about me."

I dont think this decides who wins the divison but...
QB's
1-Detroit
2-WHO?

RB's
1-Minny
2-Green Bay
3a-Chicago
3b-Detroit

WR's
1-Detroit
1-Green Bay
3-Minnesota
4-Chicago

OL
1-Minnesota
2-Green Bay
3-Chicago
4-Detroit

DL (Top 2 are close, if Minny had a DE they would be just as close)
1-Green Bay
2-Chicago
3-Minny
4-Detroit

LB's
1a-Chicago
2-Minnesota
3-Green Bay
4-Detroit

DB
1-Chicago
2-Green Bay
3-Minnesota
4-Detroit

Special Teams
1-Chicago
2-Green Bay?
3-Minny
4-Detroit

There it's fixed now.

GB12
03-07-2008, 09:32 PM
I agree for OL, but not LBs. Barnett is better than Henderson and Hawk is better than Greenway. I'd rather have Leber than Poppinga, but that's it.

Crazy_Chris
03-07-2008, 09:57 PM
It's very arguable who is better of Greenway/Hawk and Henderson/Barnett so for the sake of cutting out the huge homer fest arguement I have them equal. However, Leber is a better SOLB than Poppinga which is what made me put the Vikings above the packers.

vikes_28
03-13-2008, 08:52 AM
im thinkin the pack will win the division. tavaris jackson isnt very good, and we obviously cant hand the ball off to peterson all the time.

Twiddler
03-13-2008, 12:51 PM
I really don't think this question can be discussed very heavily until the draft takes place. All of the teams have opportunities to bring in some great playmakers (even the Packers since we acquired the extra second rounder) and depending on how they use those picks the division is close enough that it could go a few different ways.

bearsfan_51
03-13-2008, 11:40 PM
I dont think this decides who wins the divison but...
QB's
1-Detroit
2-WHO?

RB's
1-Minny
2-Green Bay
3a-Chicago
3b-Detroit

WR's
1a-Detroit
1b-Green Bay
3-Minnesota
4-Chicago

OL
1-Green Bay
2-Minny
3-Chicago
4-Detroit

DL (Top 2 are close, if Minny had a DE they would be just as close)
1-Green Bay
2-Chicago
3-Minny
4-Detroit

LB's
1a-Chicago
1b-Green Bay
3-Minny
4-Detroit

DB
1-Chicago
2-Green Bay
3-Minnesota
4-Detroit

Special Teams
1-Chicago
2-Green Bay?
3-Minny
4-Detroit
Your linebackers aren't even close to justify having a 1 in front of them. There isn't a single position of the three you're stronger at.

I'd take our defensive line as well. Secondary is a position I would actually consider Green Bay probably equal to, if not maybe better.

P-L
03-13-2008, 11:44 PM
Well, I can already tell you which team won't win the division...

toonsterwu
03-13-2008, 11:54 PM
This is way too early to be discussing, but hey, that's the fun of it. My early guess would go with Minnesota, but it's awfully close. Early guess has Detroit last, with probably Green Bay 2nd.

Positionally, obviously, a lot of changes will happen, and it is WAY Too early, but what the hell

QB: Eh, by default, it's Kitna for now, although I expect someone to play better. I wouldn't rule out Jackson at the end of the day, but a lot of time.

RB: Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit

WR: Green Bay, Detroit, Minnesota, Chicago

TE: Chicago, Green Bay, Minnesota, Detroit

OL: Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit

DL: Green Bay, Chicago (although strong NT play would push us ahead), Minnesota, Detroit

LB: Chicago (edge for me is Hillenmeyer's consistency), Green Bay, Detroit (1 stud gets the edge over Minny), Minnesota

DB: Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit

K/P: I'd take it Chicago, and uh ... screw it, it's kickers and punters

and um, it's pretty clear where the return award goes

roidrunner
03-13-2008, 11:58 PM
GB 24
CHI 19
DET 10
MIN 15

thats if 1st=4 points 4th=1 point

i excluded K/P and Qb. so add them the way you believe they should be. makes it look rather interesting, i guess i am kinda bored

Geo
03-14-2008, 12:00 AM
K/P: I'd take it Chicago, and uh ... screw it, it's kickers and punters
Not just any kicker, Robbie "Worth his Weight in" Gould!

I'll take the hit and say the Chicago Bears win the division.

bearsfan_51
03-14-2008, 12:02 AM
Kyle Orton better turn into Sid Luckman for that to happen.

Or Sexy Rexy into "first five games of 2006" and not "first five games of 2007".

toonsterwu
03-14-2008, 12:06 AM
GB 24
CHI 19
DET 10
MIN 15

thats if 1st=4 points 4th=1 point

i excluded K/P and Qb. so add them the way you believe they should be. makes it look rather interesting, i guess i am kinda bored

Hmm ... interesting ...

That said, uh, and I'm too lazy to do it ...

what's the offensive and defensive splits? ah maybe i'll do it anyways.

Offense - Minnesota 12, Chicago 9, Green Bay 13, Detroit 6 (without QB)

I'll include QB in. For now, I'll go Detroit/Minnesota/Green Bay/Chicago.

Thus, final offensive tallies for me: Minnesota 15, Green Bay 15, Chicago 10, Detroit 10

Defense - Minnesota 5, Green Bay 11, Chicago 10, Detroit 4

Obviously, this is ridiculous (suggests a huge gap between Vikings defense versus Packers, but Vikings could very well have the better defense if things pan out), but what the heck.

PackerLegend
03-14-2008, 12:06 AM
ill be a homer and say the Packers. If Aaron Rodgers produces then there shouldnt be a huge dropoff from Favre as QB. Yes I said it Favre had a good year one of his better ones but he was out of his prime. Aaron Rodgers adds a running dimension to ou QB spot because unlike Favre he can atleast run. If Aaron Rodgers sucks our D should hold us in the games. It should be a good race to the top every team has its share of question marks and injurys will play a big role.

Geo
03-14-2008, 12:07 AM
Honestly, it's a bit sad to say with no vote of confidence for the offense, but the defense will get the job done. We'll see if Hester can continue to make stupid good plays and score six touchdowns, lol.

But Minnesota and Green Bay are very good picks. As the Vikes defense improves with Frazier, and they've got the running game to limit the bad plays from the quarterback position. The Packers are still a very talented team on both sides of the ball, they've got other veterans besides Favre to direct the team.

bearsfan_51
03-14-2008, 12:09 AM
ill be a homer and say the Packers. If Aaron Rodgers produces then there shouldnt be a huge dropoff from Favre as QB. Yes I said it Favre had a good year one of his better ones but he was out of his prime. Aaron Rodgers adds a running dimension to ou QB spot because unlike Favre he can atleast run. If Aaron Rodgers sucks our D should hold us in the games. It should be a good race to the top every team has its share of question marks and injurys will play a big role.
The Packers should let Rodgers scramble in the pocket, but if they've got him running like Steve Young he's going to get his brains mangled. He's way too slightly built to be taking hits from defenders.

I wouldn't underestimate Favre's ability to avoid sacks either. I've been rather critical on a lot of aspects of his game, but he's always made his offensive lineman look a lot better than they really were.

roidrunner
03-14-2008, 12:10 AM
Chi
Off 9
Def 10

GB
Off 13
Def 11

Det
Off 6
Def 4

Min
Off 12
Def 5

sorry i guess i did minny wrong 17 points for them

PackerLegend
03-14-2008, 12:17 AM
The Packers should let Rodgers scramble in the pocket, but if they've got him running like Steve Young he's going to get his brains mangled. He's way too slightly built to be taking hits from defenders.

I wouldn't underestimate Favre's ability to avoid sacks either. I've been rather critical on a lot of aspects of his game, but he's always made his offensive lineman look a lot better than they really were.

Yes ill agree with that Favre was great at getting the ball out and avoiding sacks. Favre only got sacked12 or 13 times this season which is pretty darn good when u compare it to som teams that had 50. On the flip side when Favre was about to be sacked he would throw it up into 5 people or do something boneheaded. Sometimes it worked which was a major thing he was known for doing magic but also ints. I guess we will find out how our line is with Rodgers at QB.

bearsfan_51
03-14-2008, 12:21 AM
Oh completely, that's why Favre struggled against Lovie Smith's defensive. Pass rush from the front 4 and a bunch of zone coverage from the back 7. I actually wanted him to stick around another year or two so we could try and make that win-loss differential against him look a little less pitiful.

Addict
03-14-2008, 07:34 AM
Well, I can already tell you which team won't win the division...

It's like the four GM's sat at a table when the offseason started, and went like
"who wants to win the division?" and Millen just went "not it!"

GB12
03-15-2008, 12:17 AM
But Minnesota and Green Bay are very good picks. As the Vikes defense improves with Frazier.
I've seen you bring that up a couple times when talking about the Vikings defense and I think you're severly overating Frazier. Not that he's a bad DC, but he's nothing special. There is a good number of guys that could replace him and get the same results. They have a great DT combo along with some good run stopping linebackers which gives them a top run defense. Let's take a look at some of the numbers

In 2006 pre Frazier
8th in total yards| 14th in points| 1st in rush defense| Last in pass defense

2007 with Frazier
21st in total yards| 12th in points|1st in rush defense (up 13 yards a game from 2006 though)| Last in pass defense

Geo
03-15-2008, 02:53 AM
#1. The pass defense has nowhere to go but up, amirite? :p

#2. Give him time to coach up the secondary, especially the young guys like Cedric Griffin and Marcus McCauley. We saw signs of improvement last year imo. Plus now he has a safety he really likes in Madieu (sp?) Williams, to build into his defense.

Also, they had more sacks this year than last, 38 vs. 30. Then again, the team had a ridiculous average of attempts this year, 40.4 attempts per game. 2nd highest was Detroit and Washington at 37.6 ... similar to what the Vikings had in 06 with 37.4 attempts per game, which was the league lead then.

Apparently teams got it figured this season that going in, passing was the way to go. And maybe the Minny offense with the quarterback situation had something to do with it, but I'm too lazy to check.

umphrey
03-15-2008, 05:30 AM
The Bears offense just projects horribly for 08 so I can rule them out. Need an OL, RB, WR, QB. Only thing they have going for them is TE which is far from locked up since it's a rookie who had an average season.

Detroit is just too far away from doing anything. Their WR's scare me but CJ needs to fix the drops and they need an OL to get the offense working, otherwise a pass rush kills anything they get going. Their defense has always been a weakness and since they got rid of some of their better players on that side they should consider themselves lucky to be as good as last year.

The division is between the Vikings and Packers.

Vikings have a good team. Their running game works with elite OL and RB play. However they will get nowhere if TJack and the receivers don't get going. They are young and showed progress, they just need to take the next step forward. Similar situation on defense. Great against the run and average secondary but need a pass rush or they can be exploited.

GB is solid all over with good depth. Disastrous consequences if they get injuries at Rodgers, Harris, Woodson, otherwise it is their division to lose. Also need good play out of Rodgers but he looks solid, still another possible weakness. You have to expect something to go wrong, hopefully it's where they have depth.

If it clicks for the Vikings they could be unstoppable, and if things go wrong for GB they will be in a bad spot.

GB > MN >>>>> CHI > DET

I expect Chicago's defense to be really good next year but you can't run a team on a defense and Hester. Maybe they have a trick up their sleeve on offense but right now it looks like a train wreck. Detroit is missing a good core talent base, if they could fortify the trenches they could be good, but they haven't been able to do that for a long time.

Iamcanadian
03-15-2008, 08:04 AM
My instinct tells me that Minny will win in a walk. Jackson who evertbody laughs at will take a huge step forward in his second year as a starter and lead the Viking to the Div. title. The rider I add to this is that Peterson must stay healthy for the whole season and be productive down the stretch, something he didn't come close to doing last year.

CHI/GB, it should be a tossup if Rodgers is a real NFL starting QB which I'm not yet sold on. I give GB a slight edge.

Detroit, SAD FRANCHISE, head back towards a 2 or 3 season win total. This team has so many holes 'all the king's men couldn't put it back together again'.

bearsfan_51
03-15-2008, 02:30 PM
I expect Chicago's defense to be really good next year but you can't run a team on a defense and Hester. Maybe they have a trick up their sleeve on offense but right now it looks like a train wreck. Detroit is missing a good core talent base, if they could fortify the trenches they could be good, but they haven't been able to do that for a long time.
It's really not that complicated. We need to re-establish the running game. It's not like we haven't seen the forumula work before. We had a pretty solid offense in 2006 with Jones and Benson.

That said, I am unconvinced we can turn it all around with two rookies on the offensive line and probably a rookie runningback as well.

We'll spend 5 of our first 6 picks on offense, so what may look like a "train wreck" will at least start to come together by the start of the season. There will very likely be growing pains though.

neko4
03-15-2008, 02:44 PM
It's really not that complicated. We need to re-establish the running game. It's not like we haven't seen the forumula work before. We had a pretty solid offense in 2006 with Jones and Benson.

That said, I am unconvinced we can turn it all around with two rookies on the offensive line and probably a rookie runningback as well.

We'll spend 5 of our first 6 picks on offense, so what may look like a "train wreck" will at least start to come together by the start of the season. There will very likely be growing pains though.

So compare it to the 2006 Packers?

GB12
03-15-2008, 03:07 PM
So compare it to the 2006 Packers?
They aren't at all comparable.

neko4
03-15-2008, 03:28 PM
They aren't at all comparable.
im not talking about style of play

GB12
03-15-2008, 03:54 PM
im not talking about style of play
What exactly are you talking about?

bearsfan_51
03-15-2008, 04:09 PM
What exactly are you talking about?
I'm guessing the fact that the Packers were starting a lot of rookies, especially on the offensive line.

neko4
03-15-2008, 04:36 PM
I'm guessing the fact that the Packers were starting a lot of rookies, especially on the offensive line.
yeah, sorry if i wasnt clear
young offense
strong defense

Addict
03-16-2008, 07:42 PM
Just our of curiosity, are the Packers gonna start Harrell next year?

princefielder28
03-16-2008, 07:43 PM
Just our of curiosity, are the Packers gonna start Harrell next year?

I would expect Pickett and a healthy Johnny Jolly to start

Addict
03-16-2008, 07:46 PM
I would expect Pickett and a healthy Johnny Jolly to start

oh joy! what a happy event.

Never heard of the guy, any good?

GB12
03-16-2008, 07:47 PM
oh joy! what a happy event.

Never heard of the guy, any good?
He was our starter last year...

Addict
03-16-2008, 07:51 PM
He was our starter last year...

hey unless they're in the news I don't see-em

mqtirishfan
03-16-2008, 08:53 PM
Obviously, this is ridiculous (suggests a huge gap between Vikings defense versus Packers, but Vikings could very well have the better defense if things pan out), but what the heck.

If what all works out, the Vikings improving or the Packers getting worse?

awfullyquiet
03-27-2008, 11:18 AM
The more i look at this.

The more i think the lions will win the NFCN.

Okay. Maybe not. But, everyone is slightly better than average now. Vikings had possibly the best running game of the decade. I mean. Better than eddie george and the titans, better than priest holmes, lj, and lt. Because they consistantly did what they needed to do. Hold onto the ball as long as possible and keep down the turnovers. If they have a marginally better defense next year. They're the team to beat. I can seem them picking up the pieces they need next year.

The packers are sound, but i think they have defensively come close to the ceiling (and that's calling them solid and dominant, which they are, i don't think that they can look much better than they do. which, dear cheeseheads, is great). I DO THINK ryan grant will have a sophomore year. Without favre, no one's gonna respect the pass as much with aaron rodgers, even though i was really high on him a few years ago, he doesn't CAUSE defenses to miss and to make mistakes, he might be as proficient of a passer, but, he doesn't command the same line of respect.

If the bears get their line together this year... Oh, who am i kidding. they'll draft two Linemen, and next year they'll actually compete... Wait. In reality, it's not looking that great for them. I sense a real rebuild.

ChezPower4
03-27-2008, 12:10 PM
I would expect Pickett and a healthy Johnny Jolly to start

I think with Harell being healthy for all of the OTAs and if he stays healthy throughout training camp will win the stating job.

1.) Packers
2.) Vikings
3.) Lions
4.) Bears

Geo
03-27-2008, 12:23 PM
Really? Didn't Jolly look really good last year?

I like that the Packers have built such a strong rotation and core of defensive tackles, taking a mid-round pick (big guy) year after year and then they took a guy I really liked in Harrell last year.

umphrey
03-28-2008, 03:05 PM
I think it will work out like this
Pickett: 90% of snaps
Jolly: 65% of snaps
Harrell: 45% of snaps

I think this year there is a big gap between the Vikings/Packers and Bears/Lions.

Packers are solid all over. Vikings have great run defense/offense but they need a passing game and a pass rush to win the division.

Lions just have too many holes. Even though Chicago's defense will probably play a lot better next year, I can't even think of a single serviceable offensive player.

mqtirishfan
03-28-2008, 04:49 PM
The packers are sound, but i think they have defensively come close to the ceiling (and that's calling them solid and dominant, which they are, i don't think that they can look much better than they do. which, dear cheeseheads, is great). I DO THINK ryan grant will have a sophomore year. Without favre, no one's gonna respect the pass as much with aaron rodgers, even though i was really high on him a few years ago, he doesn't CAUSE defenses to miss and to make mistakes, he might be as proficient of a passer, but, he doesn't command the same line of respect.


Glad to see we're on the same page about Grant. The nerve of those people who think he'll be out of the league after last year. ;)

As for Rodgers, duh. However, it all comes down to what he can do, not what he can't do in comparison to a HoF QB. And the defense doesn't really need to improve all that much. I'd like to see a better 3rd CB, but that's it.

Packman1957
04-11-2008, 03:14 PM
IMO it all depends on whether Aaron Rodgers stays healthy. I really think he will be solid for the Pack. If he stays healthy we will win the division. If he doesn't UTOOOO!! I guess that is one reason why I don't mind us going QB in the first round (Brohm). It's a good insurance policy. If Aaron Rodgers can't stay healthy. Give the division to the Vikings.

GB12
04-11-2008, 05:00 PM
IMO it all depends on whether Aaron Rodgers stays healthy. I really think he will be solid for the Pack. If he stays healthy we will win the division. If he doesn't UTOOOO!! I guess that is one reason why I don't mind us going QB in the first round (Brohm). It's a good insurance policy. If Aaron Rodgers can't stay healthy. Give the division to the Vikings.
Do you not realize how insanely stupid taht would be

Packman1957
04-11-2008, 06:14 PM
Do you not realize how insanely stupid taht would be

I'm not saying its the best move, but its an option. But I don't think it's stupid by any means.

I'll back up my reasoning.

Aaron Rodgers has gotten hurt almost every season he played so far. So why can't it happen again. Right now we really don't have a quality backup plan. The only thing I can think of is a trade or drafting one high. Now here are my real reasons

-If Aaron Rodgers gets hurt (which is somewhat likely), having a polished QB like Brohm would be a nice insurance policy.

-Although I believe in Aaron Rodgers given what I have seen, if he turns out to flop having Brohm behind him gives us an insurance policy.

-If Aaron Rodgers does work well for us, Brohm can be used as trading bait sometime in the future and I believe we could get a fair amount back (1st rounder) if teams are in need of a QB and are looking to get one through trade.

-Finding an elite (or at least solid) QB is so important in today's game, it can really make or break your whole team.

-The Packers don't really have any pressing needs that need to be addressed in this draft. Actually a backup QB is one of them.

-It also promotes competition, which is good for Aaron Rodgers. It pushes him to be better.

-Brohm could very well be the BPA at pick #30 especially after he posted a 4.6 40. He also is very polished and ready to step in even as a rookie if need be.


Now I want this to be understood, we are not drafting Brohm to really take over Rodgers job. Its Rodgers job to lose, anyways I am not sure TT is really going to just throw a rookie in there right away. We are drafting Brohm as an insurance policy and I think that's smart considering Rodgers injury history. We are not trying to send a message to Aaron Rodgers by making this pick. Competition is healthy. Also we don't have a backup QB right now. Don't say Favre or Nall either. I don't want to hear it.

But like I said its not neccessarily the best move, its a possibility. It's an idea. And personally I think its reasonable.

umphrey
04-11-2008, 06:48 PM
Bottom line is the last thing we want is a QB controversy. But there are other holes in your argument as well.

Gay Ork Wang
04-11-2008, 06:48 PM
haha that would be sth new in Green Bay :D

PackerLegend
04-11-2008, 06:57 PM
I will stab ever single person in the front office if we draft Brohm at 30. I think a more likely scenario would be TT trading back with someone who wants Brohm if there really isnt any1 we want at 30, I know TT goes BPA but I still think this is going to happen and he will trade back a few spots. Then taking a CB, TE and T in round 2. Or another position if a players slips down.

GB12
04-11-2008, 06:59 PM
-If Aaron Rodgers gets hurt (which is somewhat likely), having a polished QB like Brohm would be a nice insurance policy. Polished QB and rookie don't go together.

-Although I believe in Aaron Rodgers given what I have seen, if he turns out to flop having Brohm behind him gives us an insurance policy.
That doesn't make anysense. First if you believe in him why would we draft his replacement? You don't draft a first round QB as an insurance policy, and certainly not for another first round QB.

-If Aaron Rodgers does work well for us, Brohm can be used as trading bait sometime in the future and I believe we could get a fair amount back (1st rounder) if teams are in need of a QB and are looking to get one through trade.You would not get a first rounder for him through a trade. The best you could hope for is a mid second. Instead of doing that you could get the first round pick we have and get someone who'd actually help our team.


-It also promotes competition, which is good for Aaron Rodgers. It pushes him to be better.
Competition is good. Having two first round QBs competing against each other is just dumb. Actually in this situation competition shouldn't even be an issue. Whether you like it or not it's Rodgers' job.

-Brohm could very well be the BPA at pick #30 especially after he posted a 4.6 40. He also is very polished and ready to step in even as a rookie if need be.So? And if you want to go the BPA route QBs are not included into that. There are way to many factors in that position to justify picking a QB just because he was the "best player available". In our situation there's absolutely no way to justify it.


Now I want this to be understood, we are not drafting Brohm to really take over Rodgers job. Its Rodgers job to lose, anyways I am not sure TT is really going to just throw a rookie in there right away. We are drafting Brohm as an insurance policy and I think that's smart considering Rodgers injury history. We are not trying to send a message to Aaron Rodgers by making this pick. Competition is healthy. Also we don't have a backup QB right now. Don't say Favre or Nall either. I don't want to hear it.
If Thompson's not going to throw a rookie in there right away you just killed your argument yourself. You don't draft insurance policies in the first roun. I adressed the competition thing earlier, but again this is not the right situation for that. Rodgers has been sitting for 3 years behind Favre waiting patiently for his chance. He doesn't need competition. It's his job. Bringing in Chillar is a good example of what you're saying about competition, this is not.

But like I said its not neccessarily the best move, its a possibility. It's an idea. And personally I think its reasonable.
No, it's not a possibility. Now I know that might sound stupid to completely dismiss a pick, but it's true. There is no way we will draft a QB in the first. Technically there's a small fraction of a percent that we draft one, but realistically there is no chance what so ever.

Packman1957
04-11-2008, 07:03 PM
Bottom line is the last thing we want is a QB controversy. But there are other holes in your argument as well.

Please explain what the holes are in my argument.

And if we did take Brohm, TT and MM would have a discussion with Rodgers after they take him. I told you the pick is not to threaten Rodgers. And personally I think Rodgers has a good enough self-esteem about himself that he won't take it in a bad way.

Gay Ork Wang
04-11-2008, 07:04 PM
yea cause a 1st round pick is always for depth
btw GB12 just had a long nice post explaining ur holes

GB12
04-11-2008, 07:07 PM
yea cause a 1st round pick is always for depth
btw GB12 just had a long nice post explaining ur holes
I could have gone on and made better arguments, but I don't feel like wasting the time to do it. It's not a topic that's worth getting that in depth about.

umphrey
04-11-2008, 07:44 PM
Please explain what the holes are in my argument.

And if we did take Brohm, TT and MM would have a discussion with Rodgers after they take him. I told you the pick is not to threaten Rodgers. And personally I think Rodgers has a good enough self-esteem about himself that he won't take it in a bad way.

GB said everything I would have and then some. Plus I also feel this issue is not worth my time. I like Brohm but he's not for us.

Packman1957
04-11-2008, 07:56 PM
First of all you would be surprised that there is a long thread on this on the packerchatters website. Here is the link:

http://www.packerchatters.com/4ums/index.php?showtopic=10266&st=0

Polished QB and rookie don't go together.

Why not, Brohm is about as good as were going to get as a backup plan right now. And he is as polished as a rookie QB could be.

That doesn't make anysense. First if you believe in him why would we draft his replacement?

I already said we aren't drafting his replacement. We are drafting this guy as insurance policy to Aaron Rodgers injury history. Which if you are a packer fan you should be well aware of.

You don't draft a first round QB as an insurance policy, and certainly not for another first round QB.

See thats a matter of opinion. In the NFL you have to put a premium on the QB position because it is ultimately what will make or break your team most of the time. What happens if Aaron Rodgers goes down (which seems somewhat likely), what do we do, put Craig Nall in there, and settle with the inevitable 6-10 or possibly worse.


You would not get a first rounder for him through a trade. The best you could hope for is a mid second.[/qoute]

Honestly how would you know that? That is complete BS IMO, if a team believes he can start for there team, they will offer a 1st rounder. The Falcons got two 2nd rounders in the trade for Schaub which is about equivalent to a mid-late first rounder.

Instead of doing that you could get the first round pick we have and get someone who'd actually help our team.

Yeah and I am all for that. I really think a guy like Brohm would improve our team though, maybe you're right he wouldn't neccessarily contribute right away. But if Rodgers goes down, Brohm would be ready to step in.

Competition is good. Having two first round QBs competing against each other is just dumb. Actually in this situation competition shouldn't even be an issue. Whether you like it or not it's Rodgers' job.

Do I need to go over this again? Its Rodgers job to lose. If Rodgers goes down (which seems somewhat likely given his injury history) Brohm will take over. If your talking about this upcoming year you'd be right its Rodgers job. This is an insurance policy for this year.

So? And if you want to go the BPA route QBs are not included into that. There are way to many factors in that position to justify picking a QB just because he was the "best player available". In our situation there's absolutely no way to justify it.

QB's are not included in the BPA route, how is that. Is Rodgers already a franchise QB, IS HE BRETT FAVRE!?!? I am all for giving the guy a chance, and I do have confidence in him, but the way you mention this you act as if we have a sure thing here. Which isn't the case at all. I am not saying Rodgers is not the man right now...because he is, its his time to shine. But bringing in a good backup plan won't hurt.

[qoute]If Thompson's not going to throw a rookie in there right away you just killed your argument yourself. You don't draft insurance policies in the first round.

Again a matter of opinion, with an injury history like Aaron Rodgers and considering we have no proven veteran behind him. Does that make you feel comfortable? What is your suggestion than, for a backup QB plan. Please don't say Brett Favre or Craig Nall. The only possibility I see is a trade for A.J. Feeley or J.P. Losman, and I think Brohm is better than both.

I adressed the competition thing earlier, but again this is not the right situation for that. Rodgers has been sitting for 3 years behind Favre waiting patiently for his chance. He doesn't need competition. It's his job. Bringing in Chillar is a good example of what you're saying about competition, this is not.

As I said before we are not bringing in anyone to take over Aaron Rodgers job, not right away if at all. We are bringing in a QB as an insurance policy and maybe he could compete in a year or two, that is if Aaron Rodgers is not doing well of course. If Aaron Rodgers is doing well and he has proven to be durable than we could trade Brohm away.

No, it's not a possibility. Now I know that might sound stupid to completely dismiss a pick, but it's true. There is no way we will draft a QB in the first. Technically there's a small fraction of a percent that we draft one, but realistically there is no chance what so ever.

I am not saying it will happen either, its a possibility, an idea as I said before. But it could happen and I think it makes sense. You obviously disagree and that is fine. Just don't get too serious, or bang your head against a wall because I suggested it. Its not worth the hassle...LOL. I'm j/k of course.

The Legend
04-11-2008, 07:58 PM
i think Bears will surprise some people
no to be a homer but i think the Packers will win it
Lions and Vikings will fight the Bears for the wildcard
i think its going to be a hard year

Whistler6
04-11-2008, 08:00 PM
we don't need a back up to A-rodger...We have Favre ;)

mqtirishfan
04-11-2008, 11:43 PM
Packman, you have heard of this special thing called a salary cap, right? First round QBs are not something you keep as backups, because by the time they develop, you either pay them a crapload of money to warm a bench while the franchise QB takes the field, or you let them go for either nothing in FA or way less in a trade. It's just not economically sound, espeically when a veteran FA is a much safer choice to produce in the short term for what we need.

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 05:29 AM
Schaub actually showed sth promising before u got sth for it. U wanna tell me anyone would go out there and just throw a First Round pick at the packers for Brohm who is ranked as a 2nd rounder?

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 05:38 AM
Packman, you have heard of this special thing called a salary cap, right? First round QBs are not something you keep as backups, because by the time they develop, you either pay them a crapload of money to warm a bench while the franchise QB takes the field, or you let them go for either nothing in FA or way less in a trade. It's just not economically sound, espeically when a veteran FA is a much safer choice to produce in the short term for what we need.

See I disagree with you, I don't think you're right. Our QB is not your average QB though, Aaron Rodgers is not durable what so ever. Every time he has entered the game for the past two seasons he has gotten hurt. As a GM you would be nuts to just ignore the problem and move on, or sign some below average backup because the past tells us that it is likely this could happen again.

And what veteran FA do you suggest than. I would like to hear, because there is no one available right now that would help our team significantly if Aaron Rodgers goes down. Brohm is leaps ahead of all the FA's available right now.

All I am saying is I think it makes sense, it doesn't mean its going to happen. I guess I wouldn't mind if we traded for a proven backup who has legit NFL experience. But I tell you right now there are no FA's that are going to help this team if Aaron Rodgers goes down. We will have to settle with inevitable 6-10 or worse if that happens.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 05:41 AM
Schaub actually showed sth promising before u got sth for it. U wanna tell me anyone would go out there and just throw a First Round pick at the packers for Brohm who is ranked as a 2nd rounder?


Did I ever say any team would go out and throw a first rounder in there? No I didn't but if they see what they like out of Brohm, and they don't have a QB on there team I don't see why we could at least get something like a mid-late 1st for him.

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 05:51 AM
See I disagree with you, I don't think you're right. Our QB is not your average QB though, Aaron Rodgers is not durable what so ever. Every time he has entered the game for the past two seasons he has gotten hurt. As a GM you would be nuts to just ignore the problem and move on, or sign some below average backup because the past tells us that it is likely this could happen again.

And what veteran FA do you suggest than. I would like to hear, because there is no one available right now that would help our team significantly if Aaron Rodgers goes down. Brohm is leaps ahead of all the FA's available right now.

All I am saying is I think it makes sense, it doesn't mean its going to happen. I guess I wouldn't mind if we traded for a proven backup who has legit NFL experience. But I tell you right now there are no FA's that are going to help this team if Aaron Rodgers goes down. We will have to settle with inevitable 6-10 or worse if that happens.
yea, so after Drafting Manning, the Colts shouldve drafted someone else in the first round, just for insurance policy. I mean seriously, its not like ur team is perfect. And get off ARod's (:D) nuts. He hasnt started 1 single game yet. So why draft a QB in the first if u have other wholes?

Btw, u wont see a team giving u a first rounder for a rookie QB that hasnt started a game yet. U just simply wont.

GB12
04-12-2008, 03:57 PM
See I disagree with you, I don't think you're right. Our QB is not your average QB though, Aaron Rodgers is not durable what so ever. Every time he has entered the game for the past two seasons he has gotten hurt. He's had some bad luck with injuries. They weren't avoidable injuries. Saying "Our QB is not your average QB" is dumb becuase anyone in those situations would have had the same thing. Not even Brett Favre could have made it through the ankle injury against the Patriots. Aaron's a pretty tough guy himself too. Both of those injuries he had he finished out the game. Last year he was out the rest of the year after the Dallas game, but he could have easily come back two weeks after. He was the backup and would have only played in garbage time anyway so we didn't bother bringing him back and risking our future franchise QB in a meaningless game.

And what veteran FA do you suggest than. I would like to hear, because there is no one available right now that would help our team significantly if Aaron Rodgers goes down. Brohm is leaps ahead of all the FA's available right now. Huge difference. To get Brohm we'd spend a first, to get a FA wouldn't take any pick.

All I am saying is I think it makes sense
No it doesn't.
it doesn't mean its going to happen.
Right, because there's no way in hell it does.


But I tell you right now there are no FA's that are going to help this team if Aaron Rodgers goes down. We will have to settle with inevitable 6-10 or worse if that happens.

So? What's your point? That's how it works. Lose your starting QB and that's what happens. If Peyton Manning goes down the Colts are in the same situation same with New England, Dallas, New York, New Orleans, San Diego, Pittsburgh, etc.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 05:54 PM
yea, so after Drafting Manning, the Colts shouldve drafted someone else in the first round, just for insurance policy. I mean seriously, its not like ur team is perfect. And get off ARod's (:D) nuts. He hasnt started 1 single game yet. So why draft a QB in the first if u have other wholes?

Btw, u wont see a team giving u a first rounder for a rookie QB that hasnt started a game yet. U just simply wont.

And what is Mannings starting streak at...I forgot wasn't it going over 100? Very good point...not! Manning's one of the most durable QB's in the league right now...hence why he doesn't really need a great backup.

Rodgers got injured his rookie year in the Baltimore game, got injured in against New England Patriots last year, got injured against Dallas. And this is all in very limited action, and you want to compare to this to Peyton Manning....you gotta be kidding me.

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 06:05 PM
Yea, whats with Brees? Or Brady? Or Garrard? Or Romo? Or Hasselbeck? Or Bulger? Does anyone have a 1st Round pick behind him?

When u usually have a 1st Round Pick QB, u should let him start a game before u think about drafting the next 1st Round QB.
Way to avoid GB12s argument too ;)

Besides what i was referring to was that u dont draft a 1st Round QB as an insurance. I never said the Colts should draft one today. I said, that after ur logic, the Colts shouldve drafted another 1st Round QB cause u never know what couldve happened to him after the 1st season...

Nice try though.....not

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 06:52 PM
He's had some bad luck with injuries. They weren't avoidable injuries.

Bad Luck. Right, so you're going to take that route aren't you...bad luck...LOL. Yup I guess bad luck is getting injured 3 times in each season in limited action. Yup thats bad luck alright.

Saying "Our QB is not your average QB" is dumb becuase anyone in those situations would have had the same thing

Anyone would have had the same thing three times in a row. That is such a weak response, I am not going even respond too that. So I guess we blame this on bad luck. Well you better start praying nightly than that Aaron Rodgers gets some good luck. Please do that for us will you...

Not even Brett Favre could have made it through the ankle injury against the Patriots.

Yup you know it all.

Aaron's a pretty tough guy himself too.

I don't doubt Aaron Rodgers toughness at all actually, not all injuries can be toughed out though. Even if he's got Favre's Toughness which is probably tops in all of sports. Does not mean you can come in and play with a broken leg, its impossible.

Both of those injuries he had he finished out the game. Last year he was out the rest of the year after the Dallas game, but he could have easily come back two weeks after.

He didn't injure himself in the Dallas game, what are you talking about? He injured himself in the 2-minute drill in the practice that following week. So again you're wrong. God I don't remember the New England game, he finished out that game, but the Packers were getting smoked, and its not like New England was going to balls to the wall anyway.

He was the backup and would have only played in garbage time anyway so we didn't bother bringing him back and risking our future franchise QB in a meaningless game.[/qoute]

But what happens now that he is the starter. He's no longer Favre's backup we need him to play every game possible. And I am afraid to say I doubt the fact that he can, its not a knock on him. It's just his injury history. If he didn't have any injury history, believe me we wouldn't be debating this right now.

[qoute]Huge difference. To get Brohm we'd spend a first, to get a FA wouldn't take any pick.

OK than what Free Agent do you suggest than? I would love to hear it, and I will be ready to debate any player you mention on that list. Brohm is way better than any FA we could get.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does, but you can pretend it doesn't if you want.

Right, because there's no way in hell it does.

Yes it actually could happen, I am not saying it will but it could...so your open your mind up a little. Instead of being so narrow minded.

So? What's your point? That's how it works. Lose your starting QB and that's what happens.

LOL now your not making any sense. You're contradicting your whole argument which is we don't need a good backup QB (because there aren't any in FA). So if Aaron Rodgers goes down which is quite likely, we go down with him. Good point.

If Peyton Manning goes down the Colts are in the same situation

How long is Peyton Manning's starting streak....oh yeah 157 games. But yeah you'd be right otherwise. Way to put the most durable QB in the league as an example, that makes a lot of sense.

New England

Here we go again. Tom Brady, another very very durable QB. How many games has he missed?

Dallas

How many games has Tony Romo missed? Oh yeah none. Also who is his backup. Brad Johnson is a better backup than anyone in FA top that off.

New York

Jets or Giants? Fine i'll do both.

Jets have both Pennington and a reliable guy Kellen Clemens. That's pretty good IMO.

Giants have Manning who has missed a few games. But still pretty durable. They were smart though and they went out and picked up David Carr in FA. So they did address there need with a guy who has quite a bit of NFL experience.


New Orleans

How many games has Brees missed lately. Absolutely none. Plus he's got at least an adequate NFL backup in Mark Brunell. But again Brees hasn't missed any game as a Saint so what is your point?

San Diego

Phillip Rivers has been pretty durable, but he even when he is gone Billy Volek is one of the best backups in the league.


Pittsburgh

Big Ben misses a few games here and there, not many though. He missed two games in the last two seasons, whoop de ding.



So what is your point. You proved absolutely nothing there at all to help your case. Nice Argument.

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 06:56 PM
seriously, change all the qoutes to quotes, id would make it easier to read that crap


btw u make it sound like Aaron Rodgers is going down with a serious injury everytime he is hit. And Brohm is not better than any veteran, as far as i know he could turn out to be the next Leaf or Kyle Boller...
He hasnt started a game yet, so why would u think he is better than any veteran?

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 07:03 PM
Yea, whats with Brees? Or Brady? Or Garrard? Or Romo? Or Hasselbeck? Or Bulger? Does anyone have a 1st Round pick behind him?

When u usually have a 1st Round Pick QB, u should let him start a game before u think about drafting the next 1st Round QB.
Way to avoid GB12s argument too ;)

Besides what i was referring to was that u dont draft a 1st Round QB as an insurance. I never said the Colts should draft one today. I said, that after ur logic, the Colts shouldve drafted another 1st Round QB cause u never know what couldve happened to him after the 1st season...

Nice try though.....not

You just don't get it do you. Did I avoid GB12's argument....oh yeah I didn't.

As for Brees, Brady, Garrard, Romo, Hasselbeck, and Bulger almost every one of them at least has a proven backup behind them (Bulger has Trent Green behind him now, Jaguars picked up a legit backup in Cleo Lemon)...I don't whether you figured it out or not but who do the Packers have...no one. The one's that don't have a good backup are very durable (Brady, Romo, Brees). So again what is your argument.

Did Manning ever have injury histories at all that the Colts had to worry about? No not at all...Aaron Rodgers has had an injury history ever since college (not sure about high school). You keep digging yourself in a deeper hole. You should of just stuck to NFL Europe league, because you don't know much about NFL football (and i'm being nice when I say that too).

Next time do some research before opening your yap, instead of making me respond to your dumb posts.

Wootylicous
04-12-2008, 07:07 PM
You just don't get it do you. Did I avoid GB12's argument....oh yeah I didn't.

As for Brees, Brady, Garrard, Romo, Hasselbeck, and Bulger almost every one of them at least has a proven backup behind them (Bulger has Trent Green behind him now, Jaguars picked up a legit backup in Cleo Lemon)...I don't whether you figured it out or not but who do the Packers have...no one. The one's that don't have a good backup are very durable (Brady, Romo, Brees). So again what is your argument.

Did Manning ever have injury histories at all that the Colts had to worry about? No not at all...Aaron Rodgers has had an injury history ever since college (not sure about high school). You keep digging yourself in a deeper hole. You should of just stuck to NFL Europe league, because you don't know much about NFL football (and i'm being nice when I say that too).

Next time do some research before opening your yap, instead of making me respond to your dumb posts.

You should just not follow football sir. NFL europe doesn't exist anymore ;)

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 07:08 PM
Wow, u do realize they are all human and every human is mortal? No but Manning and Brady will never get injured sure, they dont need Backups ;)

BrownsTown
04-12-2008, 07:11 PM
You just don't get it do you. Did I avoid GB12's argument....oh yeah I didn't.

As for Brees, Brady, Garrard, Romo, Hasselbeck, and Bulger almost every one of them at least has a proven backup behind them (Bulger has Trent Green behind him now, Jaguars picked up a legit backup in Cleo Lemon)...I don't whether you figured it out or not but who do the Packers have...no one. The one's that don't have a good backup are very durable (Brady, Romo, Brees). So again what is your argument.

Did Manning ever have injury histories at all that the Colts had to worry about? No not at all...Aaron Rodgers has had an injury history ever since college (not sure about high school). You keep digging yourself in a deeper hole. You should of just stuck to NFL Europe league, because you don't know much about NFL football (and i'm being nice when I say that too).

Next time do some research before opening your yap, instead of making me respond to your dumb posts.

Maybe you should do some research, as Woot said, NFL Europe doesn't exist anymore.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 07:13 PM
btw u make it sound like Aaron Rodgers is going down with a serious injury everytime he is hit.

Well thats pretty much what has happened unfortunately. Why do you think he fell to the Packers at no. 24, it was injury concerns. I don't quesiton his talent at all. I question his durability.

And Brohm is not better than any veteran, as far as i know he could turn out to be the next Leaf or Kyle Boller...

Any pick is capable of busting so what is your point, and yeah I think Brohm will be good at the next level, and if he was there at #30 he would most likely be the BPA IMO.

Brohm not better than veteran? I disagree completely. IMO no veterans that are available even touch Brohm.

He hasnt started a game yet, so why would u think he is better than any veteran?

Did you even bother looking at the current FA list? There is no one that will help our team if Aaron Rodgers goes down. The only way we can pick up a legit backup is through trade. And I am not sure any team is looking to just toss there QB away for a cheap price. J.P. Losman is the exception, but even than he has a cocky attitude that I don't really care for, so I am not sure he would fit in GB. As for A.J. Feeley, I wouldn't mind him, but his play in Miami was very average, and I am not sure how good he is. He has played pretty well in Philly though.


P.S. if you wanna give me -REP which I can tell you are doing, that is fine. I'll take it as a complement because that is a sign you're losing the argument, and you are bothered by my comments.

Tampa 2 4 life
04-12-2008, 07:13 PM
The Packers should trade for Chris Simms.

Dr. Gonzo
04-12-2008, 07:15 PM
The only way the Vikings lose the NFC North is if the Packers trade for the immortal Sage Rosenfels.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 07:17 PM
Maybe you should do some research, as Woot said, NFL Europe doesn't exist anymore.

Duhhhhhhhh. I was saying it as a joke. I hope you figured that out.

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 07:19 PM
My point is that u guys dont need to spent a first rounder on a QB. Why the hell would u do that?
No veteran there? **** happens, draft a QB later.
The Problem with the bust is that QBs bust a lot more, they demand alot more money, why the **** would u pay for 2 QBs when u basically have alot bigger holes at say OT or CB. They whole thing is that u try to defend urself with really bad arguments about drafting another first round QB. Should the Cardinals draft another one? Seems like Leinart couldnt stay healthy. Maybe the Titans too, VY was injured for a couple of games. OMGZZZZZ!!!

BTW learn how to spell qUOte...Its UO

neko4
04-12-2008, 07:20 PM
Theres a few FA's id rather spend a little bit of money on than Brian Brohm who i would have to spend 1st or 2nd round money on.

Aaron Brooks- Mike McCarthy coached the guy for a year (Aaron's rookie) so while its only one year, its one more year than hes coached Brohm. Apparently Brooks did workout for us, but wasnt signed so we may not go with him, but Brooks was at one point a proven starter.

Daunte Culpepper- I believe he's still out there. Injury prone, but whats the chance they both get hurt.

Tim Rattay- Would be a nice fit in our offense. I believe he was also coached for a year by McCarthy.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 07:22 PM
The Packers should trade for Chris Simms.

I actually am OK with a trade, but not Chris Simms. Another injury prone guy who hasn't done much.

neko4
04-12-2008, 07:23 PM
My point is that u guys dont need to spent a first rounder on a QB. Why the hell would u do that?
No veteran there? **** happens, draft a QB later.
The Problem with the bust is that QBs bust a lot more, they demand alot more money, why the **** would u pay for 2 QBs when u basically have alot bigger holes at say OT or CB. They whole thing is that u try to defend urself with really bad arguments about drafting another first round QB. Should the Cardinals draft another one? Seems like Leinart couldnt stay healthy. Maybe the Titans too, VY was injured for a couple of games. OMGZZZZZ!!!

BTW learn how to spell qUOte...Its UO


Yeah, and while ive become a bit of a fan for Jarrett Bush, he ceraintly didnt play good this year and Al and Charles are in their 30's. Atari Bigby looked average until the playoffs. Tauscher and Clifton are getting older, and while we have alot of young linemen, we cant tell if any are getting better. KGB is getting older and we could use someone to take his place one day. Poppinga and Chillar will have to fight for a job but i dont know about either of them

Tampa 2 4 life
04-12-2008, 07:25 PM
I actually am OK with a trade, but not Chris Simms. Another injury prone guy who hasn't done much.

....

Okay, First of all Injury Prone? A fluke injury where a guy has to get his Spleen Removed with no other health problems doesn't make a guy Injury Prone. He basically led us to a Playoff Birth after Griese went down in '06, so yes, he has done much, plus he's young enough where if Rodgers goes down he can start for a year or two.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 07:30 PM
My point is that u guys dont need to spent a first rounder on a QB. Why the hell would u do that?
No veteran there? **** happens, draft a QB later.
The Problem with the bust is that QBs bust a lot more, they demand alot more money, why the **** would u pay for 2 QBs when u basically have alot bigger holes at say OT or CB. OMGZZZZZ!!!

Big holes at OT and CB? Those are not BIG holes by any means. We are not looking for a starter this year. True we need depth I won't deny that. But for CB, i'd be happy with a guy like Antwuan Molden in the 2nd. We can get OT, in the 2nd or 3rd as well. Clifton and Tauscher still have a few years left in them, but yeah we need a developmental guy for sure.


They whole thing is that u try to defend urself with really bad arguments about drafting another first round QB. Should the Cardinals draft another one? Seems like Leinart couldnt stay healthy. Maybe the Titans too, VY was injured for a couple of games.

Really bad arguments. Yup ok. Comment back on each one of them please. As for the Cardinals, who does Leinart have behind him. Oh yeah Kurt Warner.

Man, its not that I want a 1st round QB, there is nothing left to pick away at in free agency. If there were a legit free agent QB available, I would say sign him in a heartbeat. So trading for one and drafting one high seems like the only other option. As for the idea of a mid-late round prospect, do you really think he is going to be able contribute immediately, guys like Colt Brennan, Josh Johnson, etc... are not going to be able to do that unfortunately.

Dr. Gonzo
04-12-2008, 07:32 PM
Kurt Warner is is injury prone. I guess according to you they should but him because he could get injured.

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 07:34 PM
JDB?

Seriously dont be so cocky and think because the team stays the same at the other positions they r set. There is a reason why noone besides u thinks about getting a first round QB. But what u r saying is the truth right? Everything u say is right!

Concerning Warner, u really think he is the Franchise QB the Cardinals have been waiting for....

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 07:39 PM
Theres a few FA's id rather spend a little bit of money on than Brian Brohm who i would have to spend 1st or 2nd round money on.

Aaron Brooks- Mike McCarthy coached the guy for a year (Aaron's rookie) so while its only one year, its one more year than hes coached Brohm. Apparently Brooks did workout for us, but wasnt signed so we may not go with him, but Brooks was at one point a proven starter.

Daunte Culpepper- I believe he's still out there. Injury prone, but whats the chance they both get hurt.

Tim Rattay- Would be a nice fit in our offense. I believe he was also coached for a year by McCarthy.


I don't know...maybe there just alright at best. But I'm sorry I just don't see them helping us that much. Top that off TT hasn't tried pursuing one of these guys yet from what I know. I mean he might...as I know he likes to wait it out in FA. But I think by now he would at least have given them an interview.

I actually did forget about Rattay being available...

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 07:41 PM
Yea Shame On U! Go Watch Nfl Europe! Or Better Nfl Asia!

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 07:53 PM
Seriously dont be so cocky and think because the team stays the same at the other positions they r set. There is a reason why noone besides u thinks about getting a first round QB. But what u r saying is the truth right? Everything u say is right!

I never said they were set, are you listening? I said they can address that it in the 2nd-3rd round.

And no everything I say isn't right...not all the time. I originally expressed this as an idea for the pack, to take a first round QB. You guys blew it way out of proportion, and are calling me out all day. I'm just saying why it makes sense.

Concerning Warner, u really think he is the Franchise QB the Cardinals have been waiting for....

How many times have I told you man. Please listen to what I have to say....please.

The reason I mentioned Warner is because he is a good backup behind Matt Leinart. The Packers don't have a good backup, I am not looking for another franchise QB. If we had a good backup like Warner, we wouldn't have this debate.

I just want someone who is fairly good behind Rodgers, it doesn't have to be a first rounder, it could be someone we pickup through trade, it could be a Free Agent (but there are no good ones available really). Its an idea to take a QB early, a suggestion, so take it for what its worth.

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 07:55 PM
well dont insist on a first rounder than. That would be a waste.

The difference between picking a QB or i.e. a CB is, that there are several CBs at once out there. So even if the other CBs are still great, he can get some experience.


And again: No 1st Round QB is drafted to be a backup. That is where u are getting cocky. Cause u think u have the luxury to be a backup with ur first pick. U simply dont.

GB12
04-12-2008, 07:56 PM
Bad Luck. Right, so you're going to take that route aren't you...bad luck...LOL. Yup I guess bad luck is getting injured 3 times in each season in limited action. Yup thats bad luck alright.
Most injuries are bad luck. As great as Favre's streak is he needed a lot of luck to keep it alive. It's nothing that he could have avoided.

Yup you know it all.
If that had been Favre he wouldn't have been able to finish out the season. It required surgery and wasn't something you could play through. That would have ended anyone's season.


OK than what Free Agent do you suggest than? I would love to hear it, and I will be ready to debate any player you mention on that list. Brohm is way better than any FA we could get.
Sure Brohm is better than any free agent, never said he wasn't. Again you don't spend a first round pick on a quarterback when you already have a first round QB that hasn't started a game. We can get a free agent or latter round QB.


Yes it does, but you can pretend it doesn't if you want.
No it doesn't, not at all. Keep telling yourself that though.


Yes it actually could happen, I am not saying it will but it could...so your open your mind up a little. Instead of being so narrow minded.
No it couldn't. There's no point in being open minded on this because there's no way it would happen.


LOL now your not making any sense. You're contradicting your whole argument which is we don't need a good backup QB (because there aren't any in FA). So if Aaron Rodgers goes down which is quite likely, we go down with him. Good point.
Did you not read the rest of my post? (I'm assuming you did because you responded to it, but you must not have gotten it through your head) If Peyton Manning goes down the Colts go down with him, if Tom Brady goes down the Patriots go down with him, if Roethlisberger goes down Pitt goes down with him, if Palmer gets injured the Bengals have no one decent to fill in. That's simply how it goes. In this league you can't really keep more than one good QB on your roster. There are teams without any good QBs on their rosters.

How long is Peyton Manning's starting streak....oh yeah 157 games. But yeah you'd be right otherwise. Way to put the most durable QB in the league as an example, that makes a lot of sense.
How long is Rodgers starting streak...oh yeah 0. Give him a ******* chance before drafting his replacement. It's an example because if he gets hurt they don't have a good backup QB either.

Here we go again. Tom Brady, another very very durable QB. How many games has he missed? Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have just as good of a chance of getting injured as Rodgers. It's not like RB where their playing styles make the injury risks differ.

Jets or Giants? Fine i'll do both.

Giants have Manning who has missed a few games. But still pretty durable. They were smart though and they went out and picked up David Carr in FA. So they did address there need with a guy who has quite a bit of NFL experience.

Please, your using David Carr as a good backup. How'd he do when he was with Carolina as a backup? He got beat out by 42 year old Vinny Testaverde. And when he was in he blew balls.


How many games has Brees missed lately. Absolutely none. Plus he's got at least an adequate NFL backup in Mark Brunell. Forgot they signed Brunell. However they didn't have anyone the past two years. Back to Brees, he had some nasty shoulder problems, if you're going to say anything about Rodgers you should say it about Brees too then. And he has missed 6 starts.


But again Brees hasn't missed any game as a Saint so what is your point?
Exactly! He hasn't missed any since then. It's not like if you get injured a couple times you'll always be injured. Rodgers could easily go on to do the same thing. There's a much better chance he'll make it through the season than getting injured.


Big Ben misses a few games here and there, not many though. He missed two games in the last two seasons, whoop de ding.
Again, exactly! If Rodgers misses a couple games here and there we'll make do. Whoop de ding


And for the love of God try to quote right next time, that's a pain in the ass to shift through.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 08:40 PM
Most injuries are bad luck. As great as Favre's streak is he needed a lot of luck to keep it alive. It's nothing that he could have avoided.

Sorry but I disagree, injuries are going to happen more frequently with some human beings rather than others. Yes i'll admit a little luck is involved. But you can't deny some human beings have a harder time staying healthier than others. I won't pretend to be a doctor, but from what I have seen throughout playing football in high school, into college, and watching the NFL, it works different with different people.


If that had been Favre he wouldn't have been able to finish out the season. It required surgery and wasn't something you could play through. That would have ended anyone's season.

Maybe so...maybe not. How would you know? Thats impossible.

Is it possible that Favre would have gotten hurt in that situation. Yes. But IMO a lot less of a chance than Rodgers. Favre just has stronger bones, I know that sounds riddicilious and you're ready to rape this quote but its the truth. Rodgers is a lot more fragile than Favre. I don't question his toughness though.

Sure Brohm is better than any free agent, never said he wasn't. Again you don't spend a first round pick on a quarterback when you already have a first round QB that hasn't started a game. We can get a free agent or latter round QB.

I have expressed my opinion on this before. I disagree for reasons I mentioned before.

No it doesn't, not at all. Keep telling yourself that though.

OK whatever believe what you want. You obviously have your mind set on your point of view, but so do I so...

No it couldn't. There's no point in being open minded on this because there's no way it would happen.

no you just can't open you're mind, but thats fine. It's natural most people can't.

Did you not read the rest of my post? (I'm assuming you did because you responded to it, but you must not have gotten it through your head) If Peyton Manning goes down the Colts go down with him, if Tom Brady goes down the Patriots go down with him, if Roethlisberger goes down Pitt goes down with him, if Palmer gets injured the Bengals have no one decent to fill in. That's simply how it goes. In this league you can't really keep more than one good QB on your roster. There are teams without any good QBs on their rosters.

Yeah I read it and you obviously aren't understanding me.

Peyton Manning has a significantly less chance of going down because he is naturally more durable, same goes for Tom Brady. Aaron Rodgers has a greater chance because that's just how it is. Sure a little luck is involved but you can't tell me Rodgers went down 3 times in 3 seasons due to all of it being bad luck. That is just riddicilious. Some human beings are more durable than others.


How long is Rodgers starting streak...oh yeah 0. Give him a ******* chance before drafting his replacement. It's an example because if he gets hurt they don't have a good backup QB either.

See and that's the problem, he hasn't even started a game and he has gotten injured 3 times in 3 seasons. That's the problem in itself.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have just as good of a chance of getting injured as Rodgers.

Now this is where you got it completely and I mean completely wrong. You are way off, you are not even in the same ballpark as me. You could consult any doctor and find out that some human beings are more durable than others.

Please, your using David Carr as a good backup. How'd he do when he was with Carolina as a backup? He got beat out by 42 year old Vinny Testaverde.

My opinion here is that David Carr was rushed into an offense he wasn't familar with. I am not making excuses for Carr as you are right he did play quite bad. But I don't think he was ready to step into that offense. At least he has a legit amount of NFL experience, but I am not saying he is the greatest backup. But he is serviceable and has experience, for the Texans he was ok.

Back to Brees, he had some nasty shoulder problems, if you're going to say anything about Rodgers you should say it about Brees too then. And he has missed 6 starts.

Brees is the exception, all I can do is base my opinion on what I have seen in the past, but do you think its worth the gamble in the future given what we know. You can't just mention one case, because there have been numerous QB's who never really recover from injury problems. Its haunts them for the rest of there career.




With all that said, I am not playing Aaron Rodgers down, I think he will be good if he can stay healthy. And maybe he will, but if he does get injured we are in trouble. And you seem to agree with me in that regard. But I think you are under the belief that every QB has a similar chance of getting injured, and I disagree very much in that regard.

Also please realize I am not trying to piss anyone off, I just want a good discussion. Sure I called out Renji a little, but I guess he kept repeating himself and I was getting sick of it.

Remember we are still rooting for the same team. I want whats best for the Packers as much as you do. Its ok if we disagree in opinions.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 08:54 PM
well dont insist on a first rounder than. That would be a waste.

The difference between picking a QB or i.e. a CB is, that there are several CBs at once out there. So even if the other CBs are still great, he can get some experience.


And again: No 1st Round QB is drafted to be a backup. That is where u are getting cocky. Cause u think u have the luxury to be a backup with ur first pick. U simply dont.

Renji you have such a one-sided mindset its not even funny. You think your way is the only way. Read that first sentence again, that is a matter of opinion. The QB position has more precedence than the CB position. And I am getting cocky, you think I am the only one who suggested this. Go to nfl.com and look at Pat Kirwan's mock (the same guy who had us taking Justin Harrell last year) he has us taking Brohm.

And remember its an idea, if you look at my mock draft I don't even have us taking Brohm. And what made you the GM of the Pack to make that last comment.

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 08:58 PM
seriously who is one sided? U r the one who is alone representing ur site. There are alot of others that think the idea of drafting QB in the first for the packers is incredibly stupid.

Btw i couldnt care less what Pat Kirwan has in his mocks. He could put Jordy Nelson up there. It doesnt make it any better or smarter. If the Packers draft a QB with the first pick it would just be plain stupid. Hell even fans from the Packers are telling me how stupid ur arguments are


anyways, it is really not worth it to argue with u.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 09:06 PM
seriously who is one sided? U r the one who is alone representing ur site. There are alot of others that think the idea of drafting QB in the first for the packers is incredibly stupid.

Btw i couldnt care less what Pat Kirwan has in his mocks. He could put Jordy Nelson up there. It doesnt make it any better or smarter. If the Packers draft a QB with the first pick it would just be plain stupid. Hell even fans from the Packers are telling me how stupid ur arguments are

Really? You think I am the only one representing my idea, on this site...maybe. But there is life outside this forum. Some people on this site agree with the idea(link).

http://www.packerchatters.com/4ums/index.php?showtopic=10266

Gay Ork Wang
04-12-2008, 09:08 PM
yay other Packer fans want to tell me and promise me that the GB Packers are deff gonna take QB in the 1st Pick. now i know i was wrong!

btw is the life outside this forum u mean another packers forum? fun fun

btw: I have never said u shouldnt draft a Qb. Just not in the first round, maybe not even in the second

GB12
04-12-2008, 09:39 PM
Really? You think I am the only one representing my idea, on this site...maybe. But there is life outside this forum. Some people on this site agree with the idea(link).

http://www.packerchatters.com/4ums/index.php?showtopic=10266
Packerchatters is an awful site with an even worse forum. Maybe, maybe 4% of the posters there are decent.

mqtirishfan
04-12-2008, 09:40 PM
Maybe so...maybe not. How would you know? Thats impossible.
How would we know? Because that's an injury that it is damn near medically impossible to get through a season on.

Is it possible that Favre would have gotten hurt in that situation. Yes. But IMO a lot less of a chance than Rodgers. Favre just has stronger bones, I know that sounds riddicilious and you're ready to rape this quote but its the truth. Rodgers is a lot more fragile than Favre. I don't question his toughness though.
You know why it sounds ridiculous? Because it's complete and total nonsense.



no you just can't open you're mind, but thats fine. It's natural most people can't.

Please, in the sake of argument, name me one time this has ever happened in the history of the NFL draft: A team using a first round pick on a QB they never, ever, ever intend to start.

Really, I mean it. I want to know if this has ever happened before, and if it has, how long that GM stuck around.



Peyton Manning has a significantly less chance of going down because he is naturally more durable, same goes for Tom Brady. Aaron Rodgers has a greater chance because that's just how it is. Sure a little luck is involved but you can't tell me Rodgers went down 3 times in 3 seasons due to all of it being bad luck. That is just riddicilious. Some human beings are more durable than others.
Do you know how the human body works? I'm pretty sure you don't.




Now this is where you got it completely and I mean completely wrong. You are way off, you are not even in the same ballpark as me. You could consult any doctor and find out that some human beings are more durable than others.
Sure, you could. However, you're only going to be able to make that point if the person in question has a genetic defect, a disease, or if it's an injury to the same, weakened spot of the body. I will happily admit that A-Rod has a slightly higher chance of getting an ankle injury than the average NFL QB. However, it's not so significantly high that we have to hold our breath every time he gets hit.


My opinion here is that David Carr was rushed into an offense he wasn't familar with. I am not making excuses for Carr as you are right he did play quite bad. But I don't think he was ready to step into that offense. At least he has a legit amount of NFL experience, but I am not saying he is the greatest backup. But he is serviceable and has experience, for the Texans he was ok.
And this furthers the argument that we should take a guy with no NFL experience with our first round pick to fill this role?


Brees is the exception, all I can do is base my opinion on what I have seen in the past, but do you think its worth the gamble in the future given what we know. You can't just mention one case, because there have been numerous QB's who never really recover from injury problems. Its haunts them for the rest of there career.
Oh, no you don't. Do you have a magical crystal ball that tells you which players will get hurt in the future, and which ones are special exceptions? The injury to Brees was horrible; probably worse than any injury Rodgers has had. You can't just shrug off examples that hurt your point like this.



Also please realize I am not trying to piss anyone off, I just want a good discussion. Sure I called out Renji a little, but I guess he kept repeating himself and I was getting sick of it.
You mean like you're simply repeating yourself?

Remember we are still rooting for the same team. I want whats best for the Packers as much as you do. Its ok if we disagree in opinions.
So act like it. If you want what's best for the Packers, you don't want them to take their best opportunity for a top talent and waste it on an emergency plan.

Hawk
04-12-2008, 10:00 PM
Don't forget that the Almighty Lord Favre had injury concerns coming out of college. He had the same degenerative hip disorder that Bo Jackson had and was involved in a serious car accident in his senior year. That said, he started 250 + games in a row for us.

Give Rodgers a chance before you say we need another QB. All QB's seem injury prone when you have the same QB started for your team over the last 15 years.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 10:40 PM
Well Alright I have proved my point, I really don't got anything else to say.

I think my case is clear, and regardless of whether or not fans disagree with me I will hold true to my point. So further discussion is no longer neccessary.

And remember it was just a thought...in the end Brohm probably won't be there at #30 anyways so this whole discussion might not even be worth my time. And I am not sure that they would go after a project like Flacco, i'll admit I don't see that happening. Henne, I doubt it as well, i'm not high on him. Brohm or Ryan would be the only ones and only one has a chance of being there.

It's just thought, and its obvious people disagree with me, and thats fine. I respect everything people have to say. But IMO it makes sense based on a cost/benefit ratio.

Its just a shame that some people on this forum can't at least open there mind a little, because after all no one saw the Justin Harrell pick coming last year. But whatever, your viewpoint is your viewpoint and my viewpoint is my viewpoint. So take it for what it's worth.

By the way just curious, who is ready to rape this quote...LOL? It seems everything I say is under scrutiny word for word. I give up I got better things to do in life, i'll just wait for the draft in two weeks.

mqtirishfan
04-12-2008, 10:49 PM
Hold on a minute. Before you leave, I want you to please show me an example in the history of the NFL of a team drafting a QB in the first round for the sole purpose of sitting him on a bench for the entire time he's on the team.

GB12
04-12-2008, 10:53 PM
It's just thought, and its obvious people disagree with me, and thats fine. I respect everything people have to say. But IMO it makes sense based on a cost/benefit ratio.I don't understand at all how you can say that. A first round pick and big money for a backup QB is terrible cost/benefit.


Its just a shame that some people on this forum can't at least open there mind a little, because after all no one saw the Justin Harrell pick coming last year. But whatever, your viewpoint is your viewpoint and my viewpoint is my viewpoint. So take it for what it's worth.
I can open my mind, but not on something this ridiculous. Last year I did peg DT as our pick. I even put Okoye as our pick over Lynch in a January mock that I made. I had turned back to Lynch as my #1 target after a while, but still had DT up there. Once Lynch went to Buffalo I was hoping for a DT. I was thinking it'd be Branch though.

By the way just curious, who is ready to rape this quote...LOL? It seems everything I say is under scrutiny word for word. I give up I got better things to do in life, i'll just wait for the draft in two weeks.
I guess that'd be me. I was going to leave it alone, but I felt the need to respond to those things. You're a decent poster, you just couldn't be any more wrong on this subject.

Packman1957
04-12-2008, 10:57 PM
Hold on a minute. Before you leave, I want you to please show me an example in the history of the NFL of a team drafting a QB in the first round for the sole purpose of sitting him on a bench for the entire time he's on the team.

Sorry man I am tired out and quite honestly I have better things to do. Its impossible, me being a college student, competing against all of you guys in this debate. Its kind of hard for me to win....you know what I mean. Its kind of like going to war with 500 soldiers against 20,000 and unless I represent the Spartan Army I lose....LOL. You guys are digging up whatever you can find, to prove me wrong. And I gotta try an keep up with all of you guys...its possible but its also time consuming...I will throw in the towel.

I told you my stance and you're not going to get me to change my opinion so I would just say don't bother. This is officially my last post on this thread when it comes to the first round QB debate (well at least until after the draft).

So you guys win congratulations....LOL!

mqtirishfan
04-12-2008, 11:49 PM
Sorry man I am tired out and quite honestly I have better things to do. Its impossible, me being a college student, competing against all of you guys in this debate. Its kind of hard for me to win....you know what I mean. Its kind of like going to war with 500 soldiers against 20,000 and unless I represent the Spartan Army I lose....LOL. You guys are digging up whatever you can find, to prove me wrong. And I gotta try an keep up with all of you guys...its possible but its also time consuming...I will throw in the towel.

I told you my stance and you're not going to get me to change my opinion so I would just say don't bother. This is officially my last post on this thread when it comes to the first round QB debate (well at least until after the draft).

So you guys win congratulations....LOL!

Translation: "this has never happened in the NFL draft, and instead of admitting that, a much longer cop-out will be my choice. Nevermind the fact that I'm wrong, because I'm a martyr, dammit. All of these guys who clearly have less strain on them than do I because I go to college are proving me wrong because of their enormous collective free-time. Ignore that I will likely be spending the exact same amount of time here as I would if I continued to post in this thread, because I was ganged up on. I'm still totally right; the Packers might be the first team in history to do what I am proposing, but my time is simply too important to be used up in this particular debate."

umphrey
04-13-2008, 01:32 AM
Why do you take this so personally? I really don't understand why you are so offended about being on one side of a debate.

Gay Ork Wang
04-13-2008, 05:38 AM
I told you my stance and you're not going to get me to change my opinion so I would just say don't bother. This is officially my last post on this thread when it comes to the first round QB debate (well at least until after the draft).


seriously and u call us single minded....

btw i couldnt care less if the Packers draft a QB. Would be awesome to see the Packers spent so much money on backups

Packman1957
04-13-2008, 05:38 AM
Translation: "this has never happened in the NFL draft, and instead of admitting that, a much longer cop-out will be my choice. Nevermind the fact that I'm wrong, because I'm a martyr, dammit. All of these guys who clearly have less strain on them than do I because I go to college are proving me wrong because of their enormous collective free-time. Ignore that I will likely be spending the exact same amount of time here as I would if I continued to post in this thread, because I was ganged up on. I'm still totally right; the Packers might be the first team in history to do what I am proposing, but my time is simply too important to be used up in this particular debate."

Lets just rub it in...right. Do you feel better now. I felt that was unneccesary.

Actually the only reason I didn't answer your question is because if I do answer that question, than you are going to keep raping my quotes and telling me I am wrong. And the process is going to keep repeating itself until draft day. So, what is the point? I am obviously not going to change anyone's mind. Everyone's mind is completely and I mean completely set on one side of the story.

Why do you take this so personally? I really don't understand why you are so offended about being on one side of a debate.

I am not taking it personally, I just happen to realize I am wasting my time because everyone's mind is set on one side of the story. I am not going to change anyone's mind. And you know its the truth so why should I bother.

And quite honestly I already said everything I needed to say. Why should I continue?

mqtirishfan
04-13-2008, 07:32 AM
First of all, I apologize for being a dick, but the whole "my time is too valuable for this" thing irritates me to no end.

As for the QB thing, if you give me just one example, I'll concede that there is a possibility it could happen. The thing is, you won't be able to.

Dr. Gonzo
04-13-2008, 03:17 PM
You heard it here first, the Packers will trade their whole draft to get Matt Ryan because apparently they have no weaknesses besides backup QB.

Vikes99ej
04-13-2008, 03:24 PM
The Bears!!!!

regoob2
04-13-2008, 08:19 PM
The Bears!!!!I wish you weren't joking. :(

Packman1957
04-13-2008, 08:46 PM
First of all, I apologize for being a dick, but the whole "my time is too valuable for this" thing irritates me to no end.

First of all I appreciate your apology, and please everyone accept mine (as I re-read some my posts I see that I get a little arrogant too) And its not that my time is too valuable. The biggest reason I kind of stopped arguing was because I said pretty much all I can say. But I will answer your question.

As for the QB thing, if you give me just one example, I'll concede that there is a possibility it could happen. The thing is, you won't be able to.

Alright I'll answer the question but its not the kind of answer you are looking for I think....

Please, in the sake of argument, name me one time this has ever happened in the history of the NFL draft: A team using a first round pick on a QB they never, ever, ever intend to start.

Really, I mean it. I want to know if this has ever happened before, and if it has, how long that GM stuck around.

See I don't think thats how they intend on using him though unless Rodgers stays completely healthy. And I guess I believe thats not likely IMO. I would be very surprised if Aaron Rodgers made it through every season, without getting injured. That's why I think Brohm will play. And I personally believe TT has been quoted to saying every team should have 2 starting caliber QB's on there roster. And if you notice, the first year he took over in '05 he took Aaron Rodgers with the 24th selection to further prove his theory. You could say this was pure coincidence since Rodgers was the BPA, but he still did take Rodgers. And that left us with Favre and Rodgers, two starting caliber QB's. Now back to the injury situation with Rodgers. I think TT sees that if Aaron Rodgers runs this team we are going to need a competent backup behind him, due to his history with injuries. I think its just a little alarming that he has had 3 injuries in the past 3 seasons and he only played in one meaningful contest. And maybe I am going a little paranoid over it. Obviously most people disagree with what I have to say regarding some athletes are more durable than others...but that is a big part of my argument of why we could consider taking Brohm. Rodgers has proved to be very fragile so far and like I said its kind of alarming...especially considering we have no competent backup at QB on our roster right now.

But this isn't the only reason why I think the idea of taking Brohm makes sense. I don't plan on taking him just to backup Rodgers. Brohm can determine his own fate. By taking Brohm, you are enhancing the competition and allowing one to emerge as the starter (this was said by a Packerchatter poster for quoting purposes). I think every Packer fan will say by doing this we are sending the wrong message to Aaron Rodgers. I really don't think Aaron Rodgers is going to be sad if we took a QB, if anything it should motivate him to do well. I think he has a good self-esteem and believes he is the starter and it's his job to lose IMO. So I guess I don't see how competition will hurt him. If he really is as good as Brohm (which as of now I believe he is), he will win the starting job. I know people will say this is Aaron Rodgers first year as starter, we haven't given him a chance. The fact is he will get his chance, and lets face it if he is good enough and remains healthy he will remain the starter. But if he is not good, or he cannot stay healthy for an extended period of time which IMO doesn't seem out of the question (the injury part of course), than we have our insurance policy in place with Brohm.

Which leads me to my last point....the QB position is probably the single most important position on the football field and it takes precedence over other positions. Of course you want guys who can contribute, I agree whole heartedly. But the QB position is just that important IMO. I mean look at the franchises who struggled with QB play after drafting one, Joey Harrington for the Lions, Kyle Boller for the Ravens, Ryan Leaf for the Chargers, Akili Smith for the Bengals, Tim Couch for the Browns, and so on and so forth. The only team that got by was the Ravens solely based on there defense. I am not saying its a bad idea to expect big things from your QB, and tell him you're our guy but look at all of theose teams that struggled for the next 4-5 years because they had no backup plan. By taking a QB here you're increasing your chances of success at the position. And the bottom line is IMO there is not one position that is more important to hit on than QB. Sometimes its powerful enough to gurantee your franchise decades of playoff appearances and superbowl contention (most notably when you hit it big). But the key thing is, you have to look at the teams that miss on QB in the draft. As I explained above it sets them in a deep hole that is hard to dig out of (and those mentioned above are just a few examples). Although I have the utmost confidence in Rodgers, and I believe he is our guy...the jury is still out on him. I just like the idea of having a backup plan in place if this doesn't work out.

Now even I admit there are flaws to my plan, most notably the money we pay to Brohm as a first round pick. But on a positive note we are picking at #30, which is pretty far down the list, so in that case we don't got to pay an arm and a leg. Believe me if we were picking in the top 15 I wouldn't be debating this...but since we are at 30 its a little different story. According to how I rate Brohm, if he is there at #30 he would probably be my BPA as I got him rated pretty high. But I guess we never know who will be there at #30 though.

Another flaw could be we don't have the luxury? Maybe...but we do have two 2nd rounders, a 3rd rounder, two 4th rounders (one being the comp pick), and so on. I think we still can find some quality players in those rounds.

Now if everything goes well over the next couple of years for Rodgers both on the field and durability wise, than we can look at the possibility of trading Brohm. Some will say, well at that point we are not going to be getting good return on investment and essentially we wasted the first rounder. Maybe...but I still think we can get something good in return as long as Brohm doesn't have the makings of a bust.

So basically my whole philisophy boils down too I would rather have a backup plan in place ahead of time rather than later on. I know Aaron Rodgers deserve his shot, I won't disagree. But I would rather be safe than sorry.

I just want too add if we can add a good backup through trade I am all for it.

mqtirishfan
04-13-2008, 09:06 PM
I see your point, but in order for us to take a first round QB, it would only be with the intent of replacing A-Rod. That's why we took A-Rod in the first place, to replace Favre. Your idea is still to have a guy that until A-Rod is gone will never start, but you even admit that you're assuming A-Rod to be our franchise guy. In this case, you're either suggesting that we take a guy to sit behind A-Rod for the 10 or so years he's going to play, or you're saying A-Rod is too injury prone to be a franchise guy, in which case we should take a QB to replace him.

You're missing that major flaw: A-Rod figures to be our franchise guy. Brohm, if we took him in the first and spent the eventual money on him, would also have to figure to be our franchise guy. It would simply be a bad choice, and no GM would ever make it. Can you imagine TT going up to the podium and explaining how the Packers are very excited to get a game-breaking clipboard holder? That's how he'd have to spin it if he made that pick, because the only other way he could spin it is to say that he isn't confident in Rodgers, which is a bad thing to say as you tell the fan base that you're still intending for him to be the guy you build your franchise around.

Still, the biggest problem is the opportunity cost. You're missing out on a guy that you would expect to start for your franchise for years. At the end of the first, you're still picking from guys who figure to be major factors in the future, and we have major holes at CB and OT going into the future. Clifton, Tauscher, Harris and Woodson will start this year, making one of those two picks backups for the year. However, they're all in their 30s, and they won't be around for very long. Having an impact player in their place is something that is very important to the future of the Packers. Your competition theory with Rodgers would be a great idea in the third round.

Packman1957
04-13-2008, 10:01 PM
I see your point, but in order for us to take a first round QB, it would only be with the intent of replacing A-Rod. That's why we took A-Rod in the first place, to replace Favre. Your idea is still to have a guy that until A-Rod is gone will never start, but you even admit that you're assuming A-Rod to be our franchise guy. In this case, you're either suggesting that we take a guy to sit behind A-Rod for the 10 or so years he's going to play, or you're saying A-Rod is too injury prone to be a franchise guy, in which case we should take a QB to replace him.

You're missing that major flaw: A-Rod figures to be our franchise guy. Brohm, if we took him in the first and spent the eventual money on him, would also have to figure to be our franchise guy. It would simply be a bad choice, and no GM would ever make it. Can you imagine TT going up to the podium and explaining how the Packers are very excited to get a game-breaking clipboard holder? That's how he'd have to spin it if he made that pick, because the only other way he could spin it is to say that he isn't confident in Rodgers, which is a bad thing to say as you tell the fan base that you're still intending for him to be the guy you build your franchise around.

Still, the biggest problem is the opportunity cost. You're missing out on a guy that you would expect to start for your franchise for years. At the end of the first, you're still picking from guys who figure to be major factors in the future, and we have major holes at CB and OT going into the future. Clifton, Tauscher, Harris and Woodson will start this year, making one of those two picks backups for the year. However, they're all in their 30s, and they won't be around for very long. Having an impact player in their place is something that is very important to the future of the Packers. Your competition theory with Rodgers would be a great idea in the third round.

See I figured that was coming, and I admit its an excellent point in your second paragraph. What would TT say to the fans? That one is hard to make a comeback on. In fact its very hard to make a comeback on. And you honestly probably got the best on me on that one The message is definitely shady no matter how you want to look at it. I would just hope that TT & MM would have a discussion with Rodgers about the pick, and explain why they chose him, but yet still reiterate that Rodgers is still there guy. I think Rodgers is a tough kid too, I really don't think he would personally be bothered that much, as he is pretty laid back. I think he would rise up to the challenge. But as for the fans...you got me there.

Still I don't think TT is trying to please the fans with his picks as I don't think many approved of his Justin Harrell pick, I think he is making the pick that he thinks is best for the franchise (and I know you hate me for just saying that sentence). I know CB, OT, TE, and everything else we need has to be addressed in this draft and I really believe we can find some guys in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. But again I am going to repeat myself in what I said in my previous post. I think the QB position holds more precedence than any other position on the football field.

And I am just curious as you mentioned a 3rd round QB. Who do you have in mind? And I don't mean this in a negative way when I ask what is your plan for a backup QB this season?

But let me tell ya, you just just made a very valid argument.

GB12
04-13-2008, 10:24 PM
Still I don't think TT is trying to please the fans with his picks as I don't think many approved of his Justin Harrell pick, I think he is making the pick that he thinks is best for the franchise (and I know you hate me for just saying that sentence). I know CB, OT, TE, and everything else we need has to be addressed in this draft and I really believe we can find some guys in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. But again I am going to repeat myself in what I said in my previous post. I think the QB position holds more precedence than any other position on the football field.

And I am just curious as you mentioned a 3rd round QB. Who do you have in mind? And I don't mean this in a negative way when I ask what is your plan for a backup QB this season?

But let me tell ya, you just just made a very valid argument.
You're 100% right about Thompson not trying to please the fans with his picks. He makes the pick that's best for the team, like you said. QB definitely is not the best pick for the team.

You say that we can address the other positions later in the draft, but why are you so against taking a QB later instead? That'd make much more sense. Then we can take a corner in the first who we'll know will contribute for sure, as well as a TE with a second who will play immediately as the #2 tightend. A QB we don't know if he would ever play, and we'd hope that he never would. The QB position may be more important than those other positions, but we already have a franchise QB for the future in Rodgers.

I actually would prefer to wait until the 4th for a QB, but here are some that should be available in the third-fifth range in order of how I like them for us: Class 1 Andre' Woodson, John David Booty, Class 2 Josh Johnson, Class 3 Erik Ainge, Kevin O'Connell

Also I'd like to ask you this. Do you think it would make sense for the Raiders to draft Matt Ryan for an insurance policy and competition with Russell?

mqtirishfan
04-13-2008, 10:51 PM
See I figured that was coming, and I admit its an excellent point in your second paragraph. What would TT say to the fans? That one is hard to make a comeback on. In fact its very hard to make a comeback on. And you honestly probably got the best on me on that one The message is definitely shady no matter how you want to look at it. I would just hope that TT & MM would have a discussion with Rodgers about the pick, and explain why they chose him, but yet still reiterate that Rodgers is still there guy. I think Rodgers is a tough kid too, I really don't think he would personally be bothered that much, as he is pretty laid back. I think he would rise up to the challenge. But as for the fans...you got me there.

Still I don't think TT is trying to please the fans with his picks as I don't think many approved of his Justin Harrell pick, I think he is making the pick that he thinks is best for the franchise (and I know you hate me for just saying that sentence). I know CB, OT, TE, and everything else we need has to be addressed in this draft and I really believe we can find some guys in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. But again I am going to repeat myself in what I said in my previous post. I think the QB position holds more precedence than any other position on the football field.

And I am just curious as you mentioned a 3rd round QB. Who do you have in mind? And I don't mean this in a negative way when I ask what is your plan for a backup QB this season?

But let me tell ya, you just just made a very valid argument.


As for this year, it's almost got to be Rodgers or bust, because even if we took a first round QB, there's no way he'd be ready this year. The learning curve for an NFL QB is simply too high for us to compete in the playoffs with a rookie QB unless he's one of the most prepared QBs in recent history. If we took a QB, I'd want it to be a developmental guy in the mid-rounds who can be an emergency plan if A-Rod doesn't pan out, but if all goes well, and both show their worth, we have the 2 good QBs and we can get some trade value for him. That's the problem with the first round pick: you can't possibly get a first round value out of the pick unless things go south with Rodgers. I'd love to give a guy like Booty a shot, because I think he fits the system fairly well, and might be a guy that can stick with the team as a backup, simply because he might not have starting potential. I completely agree that we need a quality backup. It's insane to prefer a poor backup to a good one, but it's all about the value and opportunity cost.

Packman1957
04-13-2008, 11:12 PM
Also I'd like to ask you this. Do you think it would make sense for the Raiders to draft Matt Ryan for an insurance policy and competition with Russell?


I think when you bring up the Raiders you are bringing up a whole different situation. And no I wouldn't touch Matt Ryan if I were the Raiders. In a previous post I had mentioned that if the Packers were picking in the top 15, I wouldn't touch a QB simply based on how much money I would be paying a backup. Top that off the Raiders don't have nearly as much luxury with there pick as we do with ours. They have pressing needs that have to be addressed (starting spots), plus they can land a high impact player at that spot. I know the draft hasn't happened yet, but chances are we are probably not going to be able to get a high impact guy. I mean there are some solid players out there dont get me wrong, but not high impact players like Darren McFadden, Glenn Dorsey, etc.... Top that off I don't think JaMarcus Russell really has much of an injury histroy on him...maybe a little I think but nothing serious.

So to answer your question, absolutely not.

But I see where you guys are coming from...but my question who would backup Rodgers this year. I don't think a John David Booty would be able step in right away. Which leads me to one conclusion we would still have to pick one up right? Who would you guys suggest? Or are you guys suggesting John David Booty be the backup for this year. Just curious.

Gay Ork Wang
04-14-2008, 07:43 AM
U dont want him to step in right away right?
Even if he is so injury prone he will last about 4 in the worst case. Thats enough for such a guy to pick the Game up. U dont want a guy that can contribute right away and possibly start a QB Controversy.

Imagine the Giants last year. If they wouldve had say Brady Quinn, what wouldve happened? Starters, especially first year starters, tend to play weak. And u dont want a fan base to start screaming for his head and wanting another QB to start. I mean if the giants took out Eli and put in Quinn, would they have ever won the SB?

A Qb Controversy is nothing pretty, let a bears fan tell u that

AtariBigby
04-14-2008, 07:54 AM
Packers
Vikings
Bears
Lions

Records predicted AFTER the draft and post-training camp rosters are set.
Bears could surpass the Vikings with a better draft.....

Iamcanadian
04-14-2008, 08:18 AM
Packers are a huge question mark with Rodgers at QB but this division stinks at QB anyways and the Pack have a very solid D. It will be interesting to see if Ryan Grant can repeat his performance without Favre loosing up defenses for him.
Minnesota - Actually I believe they will win the Division as Jackson progresses in his 2nd year of starting, but Jackson is still a question mark as is Peterson's ability to stay healthy. Peterson just wasn't the same the last 7 games of the season after getting injured and missing 2 games.
Chicago could still win the Division even with Grossman starting, he is as good as Rodgers or Jackson right now but Benson will have to have a breakout season behind an aging OL. They still have a very solid defense.
Detroit just plain stinks(Thanks Matt Millen), and right now for a team that wants to pound the ball on offense, they have no RB and on defense, they have so many holes, they'll remain the sieve they were last year.
Face it folks, this division is weak, weak and more weak and 8 wins could get the job done.

BcLion
04-16-2008, 08:32 AM
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Check out the 2008 NFC North schedules here
Detroit Lions

Sept. 7, at Atlanta Falcons, 1 p.m.

Sept. 14, Green Bay Packers, 1 p.m.

Sept. 21, at San Francisco 49ers, 4 p.m.

Sept. 28, bye

Oct. 5, Chicago Bears, 1 p.m.

Oct. 12, at Minnesota Vikings, 1 p.m.

Oct. 19, at Houston Texans, 4 p.m.

Oct. 26, Washington Redskins, 1 p.m.

Nov. 2, at Chicago Bears, 1 p.m.

Nov. 9, Jacksonville Jaguars, 1 p.m.

Nov. 16, at Carolina Panthers, 1 p.m.

Nov. 23, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 1 p.m.

Nov. 27 (Thursday), Tennessee Titans, 12:30 p.m.

Dec. 7, Minnesota Vikings, 1 p.m.

Dec. 14, at Indianapolis Colts, 1 p.m.

Dec. 21, New Orleans Saints, 1 p.m.

Dec. 28, at Green Bay Packers, 1 p.m.

Chicago Bears

Sept. 7, at Indianapolis Colts, 8:15 p.m.

Sept. 14, at Carolina Panthers, 1 p.m.

Sept. 21, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 1 p.m.

Sept. 28, Philadelphia Eagles, 8:15 p.m.

Oct. 5, at Detroit Lions, 1 p.m.

Oct. 12, at Atlanta Falcons, 1 p.m.

Oct. 19, Minnesota Vikings, 1 p.m.

Oct. 26, bye

Nov. 2, Detroit Lions, 1 p.m.

Nov. 9, Tennessee Titans, 1 p.m.

Nov. 16, at Green Bay Packers, 1 p.m.

Nov. 23, at St. Louis Rams, 1 p.m.

Nov. 30, at Minnesota Vikings, 8:15 p.m.

Dec. 7, Jacksonville Jaguars, 1 p.m.

Dec. 11 (Thursday), New Orleans Saints, 8:15 p.m.

Dec. 22 (Monday), Green Bay Packers, 8:30 p.m.

Dec. 28, at Houston Texans, 1 p.m.

Green Bay Packers

Sept. 8 (Monday), Minnesota Vikings, 7 p.m.

Sept. 14, at Detroit Lions. 1 p.m.

Sept. 21, Dallas Cowboys. 8:15 p.m.

Sept. 28, at Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 1 p.m.

Oct. 5, Atlanta Falcons, 1 p.m.

Oct. 12, at Seattle Seahawks, 4:15 p.m.

Oct. 19, Indianapolis Colts, 4:15 p.m.

Oct. 26, bye

Nov. 2, at Tennessee Titans, 1 p.m.

Nov. 9, at Minnesota Vikings, 1 p.m.

Nov. 16, Chicago Bears, 1 p.m.

Nov. 24 (Monday), at New Orleans Saints, 8:30 p.m.

Nov. 30, Carolina Panthers, 1 p.m.

Dec. 7, Houston Texans, 1 p.m.

Dec. 14, at Jacksonville Jaguars, 1 p.m.

Dec. 22 (Monday), at Chicago Bears, 8:30 p.m.

Dec. 28, Detroit Lions, 1 p.m.

Minnesota Vikings

Sept. 8 (Monday), at Green Bay Packers, 7 p.m.

Sept. 14, Indianapolis Colts, 1 p.m.

Sept. 21, Carolina Panthers, 1 p.m.

Sept. 28, at Tennessee Titans, 1 p.m.

Oct. 6 (Monday), at New Orleans Saints, 8:30 p.m.

Oct. 12, Detroit Lions, 1 p.m.

Oct. 19, at Chicago Bears, 1 p.m.

Oct. 26, bye

Nov. 2, Houston Texans, 1 p.m.

Nov. 9, Green Bay Packers, 1 p.m.

Nov. 16, at Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 1 p.m.

Nov. 23, at Jacksonville Jaguars, 1 p.m.

Nov. 30, Chicago Bears, 8:15 p.m.

Dec. 7, at Detroit Lions, 1 p.m.

Dec. 14, at Arizona Cardinals, 4:05 p.m.

Dec. 21, Atlanta Falcons, 1 p.m.

Dec. 28, New York Giants, 1 p.m.


Looking at the schedules I would say Minny has the toughest road and by strength of schedule it appears I am right.

I do not think there is any clear cut favorite to win it at this point.

Chi town has ? on offense
GB is A-Rod the man?
Minny QB? and tough schedule.
Det We are the Lions anything is possable.

I guess I will make my prediction after the draft and preseason.

Bclion

vikesrock28
04-17-2008, 02:22 AM
The Vikings should win it straight out.

Even with Jackson at QB.

They have everything but a QB.

Like the Bears a few years back.

The Lions stink, the Bears are on the downfall, the Packers will face a huge adjustment to life after Favre. Rodgers can't come in and replace Favre from the get go. He was a VERY special quarterback who made everyone around him better.

After the draft, the Vikes may damn well be a team without a weakness.

If they can get a legitimate defensive end and young stud QB, they'll be ready to rock. TE, offensive line, and other depth should be addressed as well.

Gay Ork Wang
04-17-2008, 10:26 AM
wow, can u say homer?

vikesrock28
04-17-2008, 01:59 PM
Homer? Beyond the Cowboys and maybe the Giants who the Vikings killed by the way, no team looks better than the Vikings right now in the NFC.

The NFC is weak as hell.

Part of the reason why most were shocked that the Giants won the Super Bowl. The AFC is loaded with top teams. Much better competition.

mqtirishfan
04-17-2008, 02:02 PM
Homer? Beyond the Cowboys and maybe the Giants who the Vikings killed by the way, no team looks better than the Vikings right now in the NFC.

The NFC is weak as hell.

Part of the reason why most were shocked that the Giants won the Super Bowl. The AFC is loaded with top teams. Much better competition.

Yeah, I mean the Vikings obviously have no questions at QB, WR, TE, the whole right side of the O-Line, DE, LB, CB and S, not to mention the coaching staff. What have the Vikings done to leap frog every team that did better than them last year?

Sportsfan486
04-19-2008, 02:03 PM
Yeah, I mean the Vikings obviously have no questions at QB, WR, TE, the whole right side of the O-Line, DE, LB, CB and S, not to mention the coaching staff. What have the Vikings done to leap frog every team that did better than them last year?

Or a RB who has yet to prove, in College OR the pros, that he can actually stay healthy.

AD is a FANTASTIC BACK. Surreal, even. Until he gets injured. How many years has it been since he HASN'T gotten injured? I'm sorry, but really... you can't count on him. From week 10 on last season, THE PLAYOFF RACE, he was mediocre. Some weeks downright pitiful. 14 FOR 3 YARDS PITIFUL.

Behind him you have a decent back, yes, but a backfield of Chester Taylor and (wait, what's your QBs name again..? I mean, why bother remembering.. really) TARVARIS JACKSON, is a little less than intimidating. In fact, I'd put it among the bottom 5 in the league.

So the Vikings amongst the best in the NFC? LOL. Not so much.

It is STILL the Packer's division to win. Our offense is still the best in the division, even if Rodgers is only mediocre and so is our defense.

You can argue that the Bears or Vikings are better at certain spots, but the Packers are top 10, maybe top 5, in the entire league at every defensive area. Dline, linebackers, dbacks.

If you say "well, what if Rodgers gets injured AGAIN?" I'll cry. It is a valid arguement and I don't have a great answer. We need a decent/mediocre backup. Even that would give us a MUCH better offense than the Vikings, though, with Ryan Grant and a much better receiving core.

neko4
04-19-2008, 02:17 PM
The Vikings should win it straight out.

Even with Jackson at QB.

They have everything but a QB.

HAHAHAHAHHAH WHAT??!?!??!?!?!?!

Like the Bears a few years back.

The Lions stink, the Bears are on the downfall, the Packers will face a huge adjustment to life after Favre. Rodgers can't come in and replace Favre from the get go. He was a VERY special quarterback who made everyone around him better.

After the draft, the Vikes may damn well be a team without a weakness.

If they can get a legitimate defensive end and young stud QB, they'll be ready to rock. TE, offensive line, and other depth should be addressed as well.


Last time I checked Green Bay is still better despite losing Favre. Plus we'll probably draft a CB and we have such a young team that didnt even reach its full potential last year. We have better WR's than MIN, better OL, better TE's, better DE's, more depth at DT, better MLB, better WLB, better CB's, and our safties are getting better. Plus despite not starting yet, Rodgers is probably gonna be better than Jackson. Plus Grant isnt that far off from AD.

If any team is gonna take our title it will be Chicago.

Dr. Gonzo
04-19-2008, 02:20 PM
Yeah, I mean the Vikings obviously have no questions at QB, WR, TE, the whole right side of the O-Line, DE, LB, CB and S, not to mention the coaching staff. What have the Vikings done to leap frog every team that did better than them last year?

Do you say these things just for the sake of being a giant homer?

QB is a question mark for sure but it is a question mark for every team in the division.

WR is no longer a question mark with the signing of Berrian. Rice should develop from his first year into a very good 2nd WR and Wade is great in the slot.

TE is for sure a question mark depending on how the draft goes.

You are completly wrong about the whole right side of the line. Herrera is an excellent RG and as much as I do not like Cook he is a pretty damn good run blocking RT. I still think we need an upgrade at RT so that for sure is a question mark.

DE is our biggest position of need but if we trade for Allen we will have one of the best D-Lines in the NFL. From everything I have heard this will be our biggest priority come draft day.

I have no clue where you get LB as a need. Last year we had a very solid LB corp. LB was one of our strong points all of last year. Saying LB is a question mark for our team is a stupid statement.

Saying CB is a question mark is another incredibly stupid statement. We have 4 very capable starters. Winfield and Griffin are a very strong starting two.

S is a question mark for sure as far a depth. We still have no replacement for Sharper for when he retires. Other then that I just have no clue how you can see it is a question. Sharper and Williams are very capable and IMO pretty damn good starters.

So it seems to me that you just threw some ridiculous statements out there with no real prove at all.

As for as RB being a question mark we have Taylor and Peterson, two damn good RB's. I would argue that Peterson was injured because around mid season teams realized they could just stack the box every play and we could not capitilize. Do you really expect a rookie RB to continue to dominate every game with 9 guys in the box every play? It is stupid to say that RB is a question coming into next season. As far as injuries we have a very capable backup in Taylor, I guess time will tell is AD gets injured or not but either way RB is not a concern at all.

neko4
04-19-2008, 02:23 PM
Matt Birk will be 32, though C's do have good lifespans i think
Hutch will be 31, so who knows there
McKinnie will be 29 so he still has some left

(Hope my math isnt wrong)

Dr. Gonzo
04-19-2008, 02:32 PM
Matt Birk will be 32, though C's do have good lifespans i think
Hutch will be 31, so who knows there
McKinnie will be 29 so he still has some left

(Hope my math isnt wrong)

Are you trying to argue that the left side of our line is a need? That is just wrong.

The statement "Plus Grant isnt that far off from AD" shoud have gotten you banned on the spot Neko, that is just wrong. If you make statements, back them up.

Sportsfan486
04-19-2008, 02:45 PM
Oh I forgot, if Rodgers gets injured Favre is going to come back. Win/win!

Dr. Gonzo
04-19-2008, 02:47 PM
Oh I forgot, if Rodgers gets injured Favre is going to come back. Win/win!

So you only response to everything I just said is if Rodgers is injured Favre is coming back, which is based on a rumour that in all likelyhood is just Favre missing the game and talking out of his ass?

mqtirishfan
04-19-2008, 02:51 PM
Do you say these things just for the sake of being a giant homer?

QB is a question mark for sure but it is a question mark for every team in the division.

WR is no longer a question mark with the signing of Berrian. Rice should develop from his first year into a very good 2nd WR and Wade is great in the slot.

TE is for sure a question mark depending on how the draft goes.

You are completly wrong about the whole right side of the line. Herrera is an excellent RG and as much as I do not like Cook he is a pretty damn good run blocking RT. I still think we need an upgrade at RT so that for sure is a question mark.

DE is our biggest position of need but if we trade for Allen we will have one of the best D-Lines in the NFL. From everything I have heard this will be our biggest priority come draft day.

I have no clue where you get LB as a need. Last year we had a very solid LB corp. LB was one of our strong points all of last year. Saying LB is a question mark for our team is a stupid statement.

Saying CB is a question mark is another incredibly stupid statement. We have 4 very capable starters. Winfield and Griffin are a very strong starting two.

S is a question mark for sure as far a depth. We still have no replacement for Sharper for when he retires. Other then that I just have no clue how you can see it is a question. Sharper and Williams are very capable and IMO pretty damn good starters.

So it seems to me that you just threw some ridiculous statements out there with no real prove at all.

As for as RB being a question mark we have Taylor and Peterson, two damn good RB's. I would argue that Peterson was injured because around mid season teams realized they could just stack the box every play and we could not capitilize. Do you really expect a rookie RB to continue to dominate every game with 9 guys in the box every play? It is stupid to say that RB is a question coming into next season. As far as injuries we have a very capable backup in Taylor, I guess time will tell is AD gets injured or not but either way RB is not a concern at all.

QB is a definite question mark, regardless of the other teams. Unfortunately, your QB does not do better if the other QB sucks just as much.

WR is still a question mark. Overpaying for Berrian doesn't remove the question mark.

I understand that your o-line can run block. They simply aren't good at pass blocking.

Last I checked, you don't have Jared Allen, so your DEs still suck.

I should have specified. I don't think your LB group is complete. Obviously Henderson is very good, and Greenway made some serious steps last year coming off an injury, but I don't think Leber is that great.

Griffen has yet to really prove himself. He has great potential, but he has not broken out yet. Oh, and please tell me all 4 of your capable NFL starters on the roster. I'd love to hear this.

neko4
04-19-2008, 02:59 PM
Are you trying to argue that the left side of our line is a need? That is just wrong.

The statement "Plus Grant isnt that far off from AD" shoud have gotten you banned on the spot Neko, that is just wrong. If you make statements, back them up.
Grant was the leading rusher during the 2nd half of the year. Granted he didnt have to go through an entire season, but that is still very impressive. Do you honestly think Grant is just some pedestrian back?


THere I backed it up

Im not saying your left side is in need, its just a bit old, so are out OT's but we have a ton of young linemen

Dr. Gonzo
04-19-2008, 03:02 PM
QB is a definite question mark, regardless of the other teams. Unfortunately, your QB does not do better if the other QB sucks just as much.

WR is still a question mark. Overpaying for Berrian doesn't remove the question mark.

I understand that your o-line can run block. They simply aren't good at pass blocking.

Last I checked, you don't have Jared Allen, so your DEs still suck.

I should have specified. I don't think your LB group is complete. Obviously Henderson is very good, and Greenway made some serious steps last year coming off an injury, but I don't think Leber is that great.

Griffen has yet to really prove himself. He has great potential, but he has not broken out yet. Oh, and please tell me all 4 of your capable NFL starters on the roster. I'd love to hear this.

I never said QB wasn't a question mark. I just pointed out it is that way for every other team in the division and this is about who wins the North.

What does overpaying have to do with anything? That was the market and that is the kind of contract a guy like Berrian commands. He gives us a deep threat to pair with a very good young WR in Rice and a proven slot WR in Wade. Our WR should improve tenfold from last year. Sure, it is not a good and the Packers WR corp but that does not make WR a question mark.

We will be addressing the O-Line come draft day because of their pass blocking deficiencies.

Our DE's suck at pass rush yes, but I was merely pointing out that the draft is still to come.

The LB corp is complete. Sure, you don't like Leber but either way I am sure everyone on the forum can agree we have a solid line. Leber is very underated and not a question mark.

We have Winfield, Griffin, McCauley, Gordon. The former two have proven they are good starters in the league, especially in the Tampa 2 system. The later two are less proven but have made the most out of the playing time they have been given and should improve even more this year.

I really believe the only big question marks on the team are QB, TE, RT, DE and of course some depth.

Crazy_Chris
04-19-2008, 03:31 PM
Grant was the leading rusher during the 2nd half of the year. Granted he didnt have to go through an entire season, but that is still very impressive. Do you honestly think Grant is just some pedestrian back?


THere I backed it up

Im not saying your left side is in need, its just a bit old, so are out OT's but we have a ton of young linemen

Grant also had the luxury of having one of the NFL's top passing attacks led by Brett Favre to open up the running lanes for him. Teams weren't game planning to stop Ryan Grant they were focused on stopping Favre. This year with Rodgers at the helm Ryan Grant should become more of the focus point for the opposing defenses we will see how good he really is.

When Grant is averaging 5.6 yards per carry over an entire season against constantly stacked boxes than maybe you can say he is in AD's league until then it's an absolutly absurd statement.

neko4
04-19-2008, 03:36 PM
Grant also had the luxury of having one of the NFL's top passing attacks led by Brett Favre to open up the running lanes for him. Teams weren't game planning to stop Ryan Grant they were focused on stopping Favre. This year with Rodgers at the helm Ryan Grant should become more of the focus point for the opposing defenses we will see how good he really is.

When Grant is averaging 5.6 yards per carry over an entire season against constantly stacked boxes than maybe you can say he is in AD's league until then it's an absolutly absurd statement.

True but late in the season teams stacked the box on AD and his numbers went down. I just feel yall are underating Grant and making it seem like he is a worthless piece of crap.

Dr. Gonzo
04-19-2008, 03:39 PM
You just said it right there, teams had to stack the box to stop AD. If Grant was getting the kind of attention AD was during the end of the year his numbers would have been horrendous. I think Grant is a pretty good back but he is nowhere near Peterson's level.

Crazy_Chris
04-19-2008, 03:41 PM
True but late in the season teams stacked the box on AD and his numbers went down. I just feel yall are underating Grant and making it seem like he is a worthless piece of crap.

I don't who is that wasn't my intention to make grant sound like a worthless piece of crap. You are slightly over rating he had a very nice season but he did not accomplish what AD did even with him slowing down late in the season.

PackerLegend
04-19-2008, 03:47 PM
Last year the Packers won 23-16 at Minny and 34-0 at Lambeau. Right now I would say Rodgers is as much of a question mark as Jackson. I will wait to see how the draft plays out to get a better comparison. If you think either team is going to dominant the other team your stupid. They should be great games.

Dr. Gonzo
04-19-2008, 03:55 PM
Last year the Packers won 23-16 at Minny and 34-0 at Lambeau. Right now I would say Rodgers is as much of a question mark as Jackson. I will wait to see how the draft plays out to get a better comparison. If you think either team is going to dominant the other team your stupid. They should be great games.

I think we can all agree that the Packer/Viking games will be close.

mqtirishfan
04-19-2008, 04:09 PM
Last year the Packers won 23-16 at Minny and 34-0 at Lambeau. Right now I would say Rodgers is as much of a question mark as Jackson. I will wait to see how the draft plays out to get a better comparison. If you think either team is going to dominant the other team your stupid. They should be great games.

Dominate, not dominant.

The Dynasty
04-19-2008, 09:58 PM
Last year the Packers won 23-16 at Minny and 34-0 at Lambeau. Right now I would say Rodgers is as much of a question mark as Jackson. I will wait to see how the draft plays out to get a better comparison. If you think either team is going to dominant the other team your stupid. They should be great games.

Well those games were played by Holcomb and Bollinger so Im not surprised at all that we lost those games.

GB12
04-19-2008, 10:35 PM
Well those games were played by Holcomb and Bollinger so Im not surprised at all that we lost those games.
Wait, are you saying Jackson would have won those?

The Dynasty
04-19-2008, 11:02 PM
Wait, are you saying Jackson would have won those?

No, Im saying that our Backups Suck.

Sportsfan486
04-20-2008, 04:12 AM
So you only response to everything I just said is if Rodgers is injured Favre is coming back, which is based on a rumour that in all likelyhood is just Favre missing the game and talking out of his ass?

Actually your post was way too long for me to pay attention to. I mean honestly, you expect me to read THAT MUCH regarding the VIKINGS? WTF?

No offense.. maybe if you guys got a QB that was good, somehow someway, and improved your receiving core and the numerous other holes on your team.. you could be decent!

lod01
04-27-2008, 02:00 PM
The Packers are the odds on favorite, as I stated they were last year. Minnesota has closed the gap but won't win it unless they give up on the Tavaris Jackson turd and get Booty in there. The lions are still spinning their wheels. The Bears have it in full reverse. Man, they totally suck. I grabbed Olsen last year in my fantasy draft in the hopes they would get Brohm, Henne or Flacco but they were asleep at the wheel. Top 5 pick in 2009.

Gay Ork Wang
04-27-2008, 02:38 PM
lol, the bears made it to the SB without a QB, why do u think they gonna be top5 just because their QB sucks?

Packman1957
04-27-2008, 11:41 PM
Here are my thoughts on how the division will play out.

I can't believe the Bears didn't go QB in the draft. Very surprising. I tell ya they aren't going to make it far with who they have right now. Sure they managed to make it deep before with Grossman. But this time around they got two unproven commodities at WR, they no longer have Thomas Jones, there O-line has taken a step down. I like some of the selections by the Bears but the fact that they didn't take a QB leaves me scratching my head. I just can't see them being good this year. Sorry Bear fans.

Bears final record (my projection): 5-11

The Lions draft day featured a lot of reaches. This is another team that is probably going to struggle. They took Cherilus in the first, which is ok. But it was a reach IMO. They still need help in lots of different areas. If there offense wants to take a step up than they to start protecting Kitna, if that doesn't happen look for a dreadful season. Personally I think this team has two many holes to be a contender.

Lions final record (my projection): 5-11

When you look at the Vikings you see a team that looks pretty good on the outside. But are they? With Jared Allen entering the picture the Vikings should have a good D-line and continue improving as a defense. Still some questions at CB. On the offensive side of the ball, I still question the QB Tavarius Jackson. There WR core is ok, I don't think anyone could call it solid though because IMO it isn't. Berrian will help but he isn't a true no. 1. He is a deep threat however who will allow the Vikings to stretch the field. Rice might improve off his rookie campaign as well. But I don't see anything special. I think all of this talk of the Vikings being NFC North Champs will be contingent on how Jackson plays. Frankly, without going into details I just don't see it. It's now or never for Jackson. Than again with Adrian Peterson killing opposing defenses look for the Vikings to give everyone a run for there money. They better hope he can stay healthy throughout the year because he could be there ticket to the playoffs.

Vikings final record (my projection): 9-7

The Packers biggest question mark right now and the determinate in how successful they will be is very dependent on how Aaron Rodgers plays this year. I liked what I saw in the Dallas game last year. But my main concern is his durability, can he stay healthy. Three years without starting a game and he has been injured in all three, that is a cause for concern. Adding Brohm should at least put an insurance policy in place. Still if Rodgers stays healthy and plays how I think he will play I am looking for a lot of success out of the Pack. There offensive is solid, I think the OT's still got a few good years left in them (Tauscher and Clifton). The interior is just average, and I am surprised that they didn't do much on draft day to increase competition at OG where Colledge could be upgraded. I'm loving the WR core this year. Donald Driver, Greg Jennings, James Jones, Jordy Nelson, Koren Robinson, and Ruvell Martin. Sounds pretty good, but can Rodgers get them the ball. That is a question that has to be answered, I personally believe he will. I am a little dissapointed the Packers didn't add a complement to Ryan Grant, maybe they still have faith in Jackson but I don't. Grant should be solid and showed he can carry the load, but I still am not feeling too great about this area. A until that will come through for the Packers I think is the defense. The D-line should be solid, especially if Jolly and Harrell can show progress. Also if they can stay healthy. The LB corps should be fantastic this year, Barnett is entering his prime, AJ Hawk is solid (and may take a step up), Poppinga and Chillar should battle it out. I'm loving the LB corps this year, I expect good things from them. CB's are good. Can Woodson and Harris play at the same level they did last year (minus the Giants game). If so than expect good things. Patrick Lee should upgrade the CB position. The Safeties are a question mark. Collins has been merely average over the past couple of years, and Bigby showed promise in the playoffs. I think Aaron Rodgers will play well, and that is why I am going to be a homer here and say the Packers will win the division.

Packers final record (my projection): 10-6

VikeFanatic
04-30-2008, 04:26 AM
The Vikings will present a serious challenge to the Pack this year. Bernard Berrian doesn't have to be Jerry Rice & Tarvaris Jackson doesn't have to be Joe Montana. That's because they only have to connect often enough to keep opposing defenses honest.

Defensively, I think they've improved alot. Jared Allen is certainly teh biggest piece to their improving pass defense but Tyrell Johnson & Madieu Williams are better cover safeties than Dwight Smith was.

Watch for Ray Edwards to put up big numbers this season, too.

Sportsfan486
04-30-2008, 05:46 AM
I have to give the Vikings props for making some good draft-time decisions. Their defense suddenly looks rather scary.

Still, that offense is nowhere near as good as Viking fans pretend. Nothing at QB, questionable receiving core and parts of that OLine. Not to mention their one offensive weapon is extremely injury prone and was mediocre at the end of last year.

Luckily the Bears and Lions are both even worse and the NFC lacks depth so they do have a shot as a wild card team.

The Packers are definitely the cream of the crop, however, with the best offense by far (even if Rodgers is only average) and, at worst, arguably the best defense in the division.

bearsfan_51
04-30-2008, 08:54 AM
You Packers fans are so ******* ridiculous.

umphrey
04-30-2008, 11:27 AM
You Packers fans are so ******* ridiculous.

Whatever, we think it's ridiculous that we go 13-3, only lose Favre but have 1-2 starting caliber quarterbacks, and still most people think we lose the division.

The Vikings do scare me with Allen now though. They still don't have a QB and it kind of seems like they are in win now mode for some reason, selling their future a bit.

Brothgar
04-30-2008, 11:50 AM
Whatever, we think it's ridiculous that we go 13-3, only lose Favre but have 1-2 starting caliber quarterbacks, and still most people think we lose the division.

The Vikings do scare me with Allen now though. They still don't have a QB and it kind of seems like they are in win now mode for some reason, selling their future a bit.


You ONLY lost a hall of fame QB. They fall off trees these days. You essentially have two rookie QBs neither has started a game in the NFL. I'm going Vikings FTW with Alllen Unless Brohm or Rogers really steps up yhen I can't see the Pack winning the Division.

Gay Ork Wang
04-30-2008, 12:16 PM
Its like saying the Lakers Only Lost Bryant...
Favre was the guy who lead the Team. Just like Sfrisco after Montana/Young, Broncos after Elway, Dolphins after Marino. U cant lose a HoF QB and say "Just"

princefielder28
04-30-2008, 12:18 PM
You Packers fans are so ******* ridiculous.

Thanks for the input

Maybe Next Year Millen2
04-30-2008, 12:19 PM
You ONLY lost a hall of fame QB. They fall off trees these days. You essentially have two rookie QBs neither has started a game in the NFL. I'm going Vikings FTW with Alllen Unless Brohm or Rogers really steps up yhen I can't see the Pack winning the Division.


Agreed I think the Packer fans take the Qb position for granted. When you have 17 years of HOF QB play you probably will take that for granted. Rodgers has a good team built around him so the Packers will still contend, but to expect good decisions, miraculous throws to win ball games and the same close to the same efficiency on offense as last year is ridiculous. The NFL games are so competitive and closely contested its not even funny. Little things in QB play which turn out to be big things can change W/L results.

Rodgers very well could do all those things and McCarthy is a great QB coach, but I think the Vikings/Bears/Lions deserve to have a break. Obviously Packer fans think differently and Thompson has got 2 "potential" successful QBs but right now they as unproven as Stanton/David Booty with Rodgers having the edge in the film room/training camp. All 3 of those teams deserve good QB play for a change. Finding a QB is not an exact science. The majority of the time its having a the 1st pick in the draft(in a good QB year) or just great coaching with some luck in finding the QB that can use that great coaching.

Right now some players need to do a complete 180 in Jackson/Grossman and others to exceed expectations Stanton/Booty. Kitna is only average and won't change from that. If Rodgers is anywhere close to as good as Favre I'm going to be pulling my hair out. I don't hate to say this at all, but I hope he's worse than Joey Harrington and Pack fames wake up from the dream of having great QB play every week. Its obviously tough to find one if 3 teams in the division have had problems for so long finding a good QB.

roidrunner
04-30-2008, 12:22 PM
well if rodgers sucks, we atleast have a good back up plan in Brohm.

Pacific
04-30-2008, 12:51 PM
Its obviously tough to find one if 3 teams in the division have had problems for so long finding a good QB.

That shouldn't have anything to do with it. Just because they haven't found a QB yet doesn't mean Rodgers or Brohm won't be good. Neither of our guys will be Favre, but they shouldn't have to be. Everyone was complaining about Favre during our poor seasons, then we got good and he got all the credit. We have a talented young team and if Rodgers can step in and be smart, I don't see us having much of a drop off.

Gay Ork Wang
04-30-2008, 12:56 PM
i guess we have to let them see for theirselves

Brothgar
04-30-2008, 01:13 PM
That shouldn't have anything to do with it. Just because they haven't found a QB yet doesn't mean Rodgers or Brohm won't be good. Neither of our guys will be Favre, but they shouldn't have to be. Everyone was complaining about Favre during our poor seasons, then we got good and he got all the credit. We have a talented young team and if Rodgers can step in and be smart, I don't see us having much of a drop off.

That's the nature of the beast whenever a team wins (with exception of teams with prolific D's like Baltimore and ... Baltimore) The QB always gets the credit and the blame (except for in Detroit where Millen and the O-Line takes the blame) When the Colts kept losing in the playoffs who was to blame? Peyton. "Oh Peyton can't win in the Playoffs". Really I can't think of a team where the QB doesn't get the Credit and at least part of the blame.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
04-30-2008, 01:24 PM
That shouldn't have anything to do with it. Just because they haven't found a QB yet doesn't mean Rodgers or Brohm won't be good. Neither of our guys will be Favre, but they shouldn't have to be. Everyone was complaining about Favre during our poor seasons, then we got good and he got all the credit. We have a talented young team and if Rodgers can step in and be smart, I don't see us having much of a drop off.

I agree it doesn't mean that Rodgers and Brohm won't defintiely be good because we've struggled. It means its tough to find a good QB and Rodgers/Brohm may or may not be the answer. If its tough to find a QB, there is a chance that they both of them might not be the answer despite their "potential". If Rodgers and Brohm are the answer then good for the Packers. But right now we don't know.

A 1st year starter and 17 year HOF vet there will be a drop off.

1) quickness of decison making. Favre always made quick decisions. The West Coast helps this but in the West Coast you have to make the right decision. If you make the wrong decision on short slant or wheel route, it very well could be a pick 6 going the other way. Much like Peyton Manning in Indy. Tony Ugoh is not some all world tackle. Mannings/Favres quick/majority of the time correct decisions is a very big thing in the NFL. There will be a drop off there in terms both the correctness of the decisions and the speed. The speed of the decison has a lot to do with sacks. Rodgers in his limited action was sacked a couple of times. I'm not going to extrapolate that out because it was limited action, but Rodgers will have an effect on both Clifton/Tauscher.
2) arm strength. Nobody has the arm of Favre, not even close. There will be completions that Rodgers just can't flat out make that could/should be completed.
3) gunslinger. Good and bad thing here. Favre made some bad decisions at times but that doesn't mean Rodgers will make good ones. He may make bad decisons though. I think the offense will be a little more vanilla which is a big thing for opposing defenses to defend. They don't have to worry about Favre making the big play that they didn't expect. Many times those big plays on improvised throws by Favre won ballgames. Rodgers at this point has to prove he can make those throws. Probaby won't get the go ahead from McCarthy to even attempt those throws. It may save on interceptions but it will decrease big game changing completions.
4) leadership/the dreaded I word. Favre just flat out found ways to win. It didn't matter, he would make the crucial play on 3rd down or lead the game winning drive late. We'll see how Rodgers is in crucial situations. You don't know until they are in them. He did well in the Dallas game but there is nothing to lose at that point down by so many. And one time does not equate to many times. And not to discredit Rodgers, but I've seen Jon Kitna torch that Dallas secondary the last 2 times we played them and Kitna is merely average.
5) fear of Favre. Nobody fears Aaron Rodgers right now. Teams will have no problem putting 8 in the box if Grant is having a good start to a game. When he did it last year, you couldn't put 8 in the box because everyone knew that Favre would just burn you. Rodgers you can until he proves otherwise on several occasions that he can beat you himself.
6) chemistry with receivers. Favre has a chemistry with Driver and Jennings. Rodgers will have to create that same chemistry and Driver/Jennings will have to adjust.
7) iron man. Rodgers injuries were fluke injuries. Dont' want him to get hurt at all, but the guy isn't as tough as Favre. A broken thumb should sideline Rodgers until he proves otherwise. Luckily you have Brohm, but again he's a rookie. His learning curve is much bigger than Rodgers at this point.

Rodgers may prove us all wrong. He has a good coach and good team built around him but QB play is so crucial for success of ateam. Rodgers will have a big effect on the Packers offense. Some good, some bad. He should get better overtime but this year it may not be enough to win the division. The Packers have been fairly healthy these last 2 years so hopefully that continues too.

Brothgar
04-30-2008, 03:50 PM
Just since we are on the subject ... You know what the chances are of a QB being a probowler?

Based solely on every QB drafted from 1989 - 2006

If you are drafted in the first round you have a 33.8% chance of being a Pro Bowl QB (some are still in the league but yeah) .

When you are drafted in the second round you have a 23.5% chance on being a pro bowler at some point in your career.

When drafted in the 3-5th round you have 0% chance to be in a Pro Bowl (Did David Gerrard make it? if so then 1 in the 4th round)

When drafted in the 6th round you have an 8% chance of being a pro bowler (note that two of these pro bowlers were taken in the same year.)

PACKmanN
04-30-2008, 10:06 PM
That's the nature of the beast whenever a team wins (with exception of teams with prolific D's like Baltimore and ... Baltimore) The QB always gets the credit and the blame (except for in Detroit where Millen and the O-Line takes the blame) When the Colts kept losing in the playoffs who was to blame? Peyton. "Oh Peyton can't win in the Playoffs". Really I can't think of a team where the QB doesn't get the Credit and at least part of the blame.

Ok, but when there defense WON them that Superbowl Manning still got the credit for the wins.... Its just the media and outsiders giving the QB the blame and credit because they don't truly want to care who was at fault or who truly was to give credit to for the wins.

Our offense won these games was because of 3 simple reasons.

1. Ryan Grant had a great second half season.
2. Brett Favre played WITHIN the system.
3. Our WR led the league with YAC.

Our system is built for Rodgers, we don't expect him to make the Favre throws, better yet MM doesn't want him making them. He wants him to get the ball into the WRs hands and let them get the yards.

Gay Ork Wang
05-01-2008, 04:33 AM
ur kiddin me? Grossman won the colts that superbowl...

and u seriously wanna tell me that Brett Favre is a system guy? GTFO

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-01-2008, 08:51 AM
Ok, but when there defense WON them that Superbowl Manning still got the credit for the wins.... Its just the media and outsiders giving the QB the blame and credit because they don't truly want to care who was at fault or who truly was to give credit to for the wins.

Because that is how important the QB is so they are most tied in with credit/blame. Eli Manning played pretty well throughout the playoffs and made some big plays in the Super Bowl. The team as a whole beat the Patriots, not just the D-line. The Giants D-line was a big factor but Eli made some big plays.

Our offense won these games was because of 3 simple reasons.

1. Ryan Grant had a great second half season.
Again the fear of Favre will play a factor in Ryan Grant. 8 in the box is much tougher to run. Plus defenses expecting him instead of being suprised. Plus Grant has to prove he can carry the load the entire season. He had a great second half but now he has to prove he can do it consistently without Favre, hope the line stays healthy and continues to improve.
2. Brett Favre played WITHIN the system.
Brett Favre usually makes good decisions, but he's not a system QB. He's had 17 years of reading defenses at a high level on Sunday. Can Rodgers make the same decisions? System QBs can still make bad decisions
3. Our WR led the league with YAC.
This will help Rodgers. But quick decisions by Favre before the defense reacts, Favre knowing where to put the ball and how to lead a receiver will be a factor. Can Rodgers do the same?

Our system is built for Rodgers, we don't expect him to make the Favre throws, better yet MM doesn't want him making them. He wants him to get the ball into the WRs hands and let them get the yards.

Not making the Favre throws is a good and bad thing. Sometimes it wins you games(Denver game) sometimes it costs you games if he is throwing a ton of ints. But more times than not, the "Favre' throws were a good thing resulting in a big completion or td. McCarthy won't allow Rodgers to make those throws which might save on ints but will limit explosive plays. Defenses would rather play against a vanilla offense like that than worry about a HOF take a calculated risk for a big gain

Football Fan
05-03-2008, 02:29 AM
Speaking as a packer fan, I want to thank the non-packer fans (or just fans of other teams) for pointing out the many positive ways Favre has effected the team year after year bringing a miraculous 15 winning seasons of sixteen played. It seems that way to many of my fellow packer backers have been disgustingly eager to dissmiss these not so unimportant facts and have dwelled far to much on his imperfections (such as his his interception in the championship game last year (as though they would have ever gotten there without him). Over the last few years there have been an amazing amount of people in wisconsin, fans from elsewhere or radio shock jocks screaming for his retirement. It has been unsettling to say the least to witness the foolishness and down right stupidity of such large numbers of people.
Kind of a shame that it takes outsiders to point out what Greenbay has had leading there team. Not that most fans didnt realise this, but its kinda shocking seeing things like "only losing Favre" beeing written. I think Favre was worth 3-5 extra wins each year over an average QB. This, to me means Rodgers is going to have to be pretty damn good if the packers are going to take the division. I think he has a chance, but so does every QB starting there first season.

Sportsfan486
05-03-2008, 07:21 AM
I think Favre was worth 3-5 extra wins each year over an average QB. This, to me means Rodgers is going to have to be pretty damn good if the packers are going to take the division. I think he has a chance, but so does every QB starting there first season.

I was going to argue with 3-5 wins over an average QB but I guess the key word is "average." He definitely was worth 3-5 wins over an average QB.

HOWEVER. He did throw games away, at LEAST 1-2 each year and maybe more. Now that can be said about any QB but his throwaways tended to be especially spectacular.

Rodgers should be better than average. I'm expecting a 10-11 win season. If we still had Favre I'd be betting on a 13-14 win season, though.

neko4
05-03-2008, 10:32 AM
Again the fear of Favre will play a factor in Ryan Grant. 8 in the box is much tougher to run. Plus defenses expecting him instead of being suprised. Plus Grant has to prove he can carry the load the entire season. He had a great second half but now he has to prove he can do it consistently without Favre, hope the line stays healthy and continues to improve.

Id love to see a team but 8 in the box against a 3 WR set, which is probably what we are gonna do most of the time conisdering the talent at WR

regoob2
05-03-2008, 11:29 AM
Id love to see a team but 8 in the box against a 3 WR set, which is probably what we are gonna do most of the time conisdering the talent at WRThen you have to consider how injury prone your QB is. I think you'll need more guys in blocking.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-03-2008, 03:25 PM
Id love to see a team but 8 in the box against a 3 WR set, which is probably what we are gonna do most of the time conisdering the talent at WR


Obviously then you play nickel defense. But if you have a 3 WR set, you are most likely going to pass, meaning that Rodgers will have to make a good decision. Driver is a good receiver and Jennings had a terrific year last year and has talent no question about that, but again thats with Favre. We'll see the true talent of these receivers this year. I'm not saying they will become bad, but they will have to adjust to a new QB and will have to step up their game even more. If their timing is off a little, a Favre bullet throw isn't going to save them. Also 3 WR set means one less good blocker(FB or TE) will be on the field, meaning it will be tougher for Grant to run.

I'm not saying your team will be terrible. I think they still will COMPETE for the North title. But I wouldn't consider them the favorites, sure thing slam dunk as I would if Favre would have returned this year. QB play is so important. Don't take a HOF QB for granted.

sweetness34
05-03-2008, 09:55 PM
Well look at guys like Deion Branch who shined in New England and hasn't done **** since he went to Seattle.

I think both Driver and Jennings are good WR's, but guys like James Jones I have questions about.

GB12
05-03-2008, 10:12 PM
Well look at guys like Deion Branch who shined in New England and hasn't done **** since he went to Seattle.

I think both Driver and Jennings are good WR's, but guys like James Jones I have questions about.
What the hell does Deion Branch have to do with anything?

neko4
05-03-2008, 10:31 PM
I'm not saying your team will be terrible. I think they still will COMPETE for the North title. But I wouldn't consider them the favorites, sure thing slam dunk as I would if Favre would have returned this year. QB play is so important. Don't take a HOF QB for granted.

Why shouldnt we be the faves? Or atleast slightly above the next team.

neko4
05-03-2008, 10:31 PM
What the hell does Deion Branch have to do with anything?
Because he was good with a HOF QB, but then crappy with a good QB. But he was also injury prone

GB12
05-03-2008, 10:37 PM
Because he was good with a HOF QB, but then crappy with a good QB. But he was also injury prone
I still don't think that's a valid point. Even if he thinks it is Branch was a terrible example. Branch was mediocre with New England and is mediocre in Seattle. Nothing changed, in fact he actually has been a bit better in Seattle

awfullyquiet
05-03-2008, 10:40 PM
Why shouldnt we be the faves? Or atleast slightly above the next team.

because.
just because you win out last year doesn't mean you should be the favorite.

you got turnover. aging. all sorts of stuff.

neko4
05-03-2008, 10:53 PM
we lost 2 players. Yes, Favre was a big loss, but we have been grooming his backup for THREE YEARS. ANd we did lose Corey Williams, but we drafted a DT in the first last year and we have a whole stable of good lineman, and we got a 2nd round pick out of the deal.

And how are we aging, even with Favre on the team we were the youngest team in the NFL. And we have replacements for Driver, Tauscher, Clifton, Harris and Woodson.

PACKmanN
05-03-2008, 10:58 PM
because.
just because you win out last year doesn't mean you should be the favorite.

you got turnover. aging. all sorts of stuff.

Our team is aging, what? we are the youngest team in the NFL, we are built for the future, and with the talent added for depth, I wouldn't worry about injuries as much.

toonsterwu
05-03-2008, 11:01 PM
If the division is mediocre, I do think the Lions have a shot. The run game should be better by virtue of playcalling and health. The OL could be better (although Woody did finish strong at RT). They have the most stable QB situation (which, admittedly, isn't saying much) and still have passing weapons. They have added defensive pieces that should fit.

That said, I don't see a team that can be better than average. If it requires a top season to pull out the division, then I wouldn't bet on the Lions. I just don't see a dominant DL to key that defense up to take them to the next level, and teams should be able to pressure Kitna.

neko4
05-03-2008, 11:04 PM
If the division is mediocre, I do think the Lions have a shot. The run game should be better by virtue of playcalling and health. The OL could be better (although Woody did finish strong at RT). They have the most stable QB situation (which, admittedly, isn't saying much) and still have passing weapons. They have added defensive pieces that should fit.

That said, I don't see a team that can be better than average. If it requires a top season to pull out the division, then I wouldn't bet on the Lions. I just don't see a dominant DL to key that defense up to take them to the next level, and teams should be able to pressure Kitna.

They have some talent in the secondary, but lost a huge (but lazy) piece to their Dline. Im certainly not betting on them.

awfullyquiet
05-03-2008, 11:21 PM
They have some talent in the secondary, but lost a huge (but lazy) piece to their Dline. Im certainly not betting on them.

overoptimism.

still. tons of unproven players. harris and woodson are getting old. donald driver is getting old. sure you have replacements.

but. in fantasy baseball terms. the VORP for (Driver, Tauscher, Clifton, Harris and Woodson) is WAY higher at their 2007 level than any player you could put in their position.

sweetness34
05-03-2008, 11:34 PM
I still don't think that's a valid point. Even if he thinks it is Branch was a terrible example. Branch was mediocre with New England and is mediocre in Seattle. Nothing changed, in fact he actually has been a bit better in Seattle

Mediocre with New England? He was one of Tom Brady's top targets, he won Super Bowl MVP, and he up some some pretty good numbers (apart from one season) with New England.

And your opinion that he's done better with Seattle is a little off base considering he had his best years in New England, but yeah don't let stats get in the way of your argument.

http://www.nfl.com/players/deionbranch/careerstats?id=BRA490549

And why are you getting so damn defensive about it? A QB change for a WR can be a negative thing as well.

Btw, if you don't think you'll be missing Favre next year you're kidding yourselves. Rodgers may have a good year but he's not the leader or the catalyst Brett was for your team.

GB12
05-03-2008, 11:56 PM
Mediocre with New England? He was one of Tom Brady's top targets, he won Super Bowl MVP, and he up some some pretty good numbers (apart from one season) with New England.

And your opinion that he's done better with Seattle is a little off base considering he had his best years in New England, but yeah don't let stats get in the way of your argument.

http://www.nfl.com/players/deionbranch/careerstats?id=BRA490549

And why are you getting so damn defensive about it? A QB change for a WR can be a negative thing as well.

Btw, if you don't think you'll be missing Favre next year you're kidding yourselves. Rodgers may have a good year but he's not the leader or the catalyst Brett was for your team.
Yes mediocre with New England. He was only their #1 because they didn't have anyone good until recently. Superbowl MVP doesn't mean much, Dexter Jackson and Desmond Howard were superbowl MVPs. His numbers in New England weren't that great. He had one year that he almost reached 1000 yards one that he had 800 yards. The other two he didn't even reach 500. His TDs were 2, 3, 4, and 5. That is very mediocre. "but yeah don't let stats get in the way of your argument." No, thank you, they actually greatly help my argument.

And he has been just as good as he was in New England. I think he's been even better, but I can see the disagreement there. However you couldn't be more off from your original statement of "Deion Branch who shined in New England and hasn't done **** since he went to Seattle."

When have I ever said that a QB change can't be a negative thing? And I never said I don't think we'll be missing Favre.

And finally fix your damn sig.

awfullyquiet
05-04-2008, 12:04 AM
it's not that you don't think it's a negative thing, you just think it's going to be peachy keen without favre.

well. get this. it's not. you can't replace what favre had with driver. not with rodgers. if anything it will be a negative effect by the qb change in the production of wide recievers. if you can't see that, then, well. shucks.

the VORP of favre is still huge... and the effect on his ability to produce points (yes. produce. he manufactured points over the last decade), is not something to tread lightly. aaron rodgers isn't capable of carrying a team. especially without an identity on offense. donald driver? nope. ryan grant? he's good, but not great. they're not going to be able to do things on offense that made the packers offense the packers offense. i expect more running. less throwing. less pressure throwing. run to set the pass, not pass to set the run. don't even mention 5 wide. conventionality will be the only way for success, and mediocraty is prevelant. it's okay. because, barring injuries, the pack has a defense that can win the division.

GB12
05-04-2008, 12:17 AM
it's not that you don't think it's a negative thing, you just think it's going to be peachy keen without favre.

well. get this. it's not. you can't replace what favre had with driver. not with rodgers. if anything it will be a negative effect by the qb change in the production of wide recievers. if you can't see that, then, well. shucks.

the VORP of favre is still huge... and the effect on his ability to produce points (yes. produce. he manufactured points over the last decade), is not something to tread lightly. aaron rodgers isn't capable of carrying a team. especially without an identity on offense. donald driver? nope. ryan grant? he's good, but not great. they're not going to be able to do things on offense that made the packers offense the packers offense. i expect more running. less throwing. less pressure throwing. run to set the pass, not pass to set the run. don't even mention 5 wide. conventionality will be the only way for success, and mediocraty is prevelant. it's okay. because, barring injuries, the pack has a defense that can win the division.
I haven't even said anything in this thread about the effect not having Favre would have, or how our offense would be fine, or even "Who wins the north in 2008? (http://nfldraftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1054859#post1054859)" for that matter.

Of course if anything it will have a negative effect. I don't think you'll find anyone who'd say otherwise.

What exactly do you mean by without an identity on offense? I'm not going to respond to that until I know what you're trying to say.

As for this idea you have for dumbing down the offense, Rodgers has been in the system for 3 freaking years already. There should be know reason to greatly alter the play calling. Yes there are things that only Favre could do, but the majority will still be in play. "don't even mention 5 wide" We used it in the Dallas game, I think it's safe to say we'll use it next year especially with drafting another WR.

Zbikowski_9
05-04-2008, 12:34 AM
Although I think the Bears will do better than expected, I like most others think it is a two horse race and we will get a good indication of who is the favourite after week one when the Vikes and Pack meet in Green Bay.

I dont think either are favourites yet. The Vikings have not lost any starters other than Richardson, Dwight Smith and Udeze --> who have all been replaced. On top of that they have added some great talent.

The Packers were the better team last year and young players will also progress. They lost Williams who can be replaced in house with out any dramas - but the QB change is enough to bring them level with the Vikings.
A new QB can not come in without scrutiny and although he is coming into a good situation with 3 years of learning behind the best - it is the mental factors that decide the Packs fate.

The Packers will face some great pass rushers this year:
Allen + Kevin Williams x 2
Bears whole D-Line x 2
Dwight Freeney
Julius Peppers
John Abraham
Gains Adams (not great yet, but could be by the time they play)
Vanden Bosch and Kearse (if he shows up he can still bring the heat)
Mario Williams
ect...

One thing Farve did so well is handle pressure in the pocket and if Rodgers gets rattled it could destroy his confidence --> and if you have no confidence you loose the creativity that Farve brought to the table. Also with all of these great pass rushers he is bound to take some hits so we will have to see how he holds up.

I have Vikes and Pack both sitting in the 10-6 -- 12-4 range but if Rodgers makes a good transition and Grant proves he is not a one year wonder i have the Pack move up as favourites

sweetness34
05-04-2008, 02:54 AM
Yes mediocre with New England. He was only their #1 because they didn't have anyone good until recently. Superbowl MVP doesn't mean much, Dexter Jackson and Desmond Howard were superbowl MVPs. His numbers in New England weren't that great. He had one year that he almost reached 1000 yards one that he had 800 yards. The other two he didn't even reach 500. His TDs were 2, 3, 4, and 5. That is very mediocre. "but yeah don't let stats get in the way of your argument." No, thank you, they actually greatly help my argument.

And he has been just as good as he was in New England. I think he's been even better, but I can see the disagreement there. However you couldn't be more off from your original statement of "Deion Branch who shined in New England and hasn't done **** since he went to Seattle."

When have I ever said that a QB change can't be a negative thing? And I never said I don't think we'll be missing Favre.

And finally fix your damn sig.

Fix my damn sig?

If the mods think it's too big, they can come and tell me....But it's been here since Monday.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-04-2008, 05:52 PM
Why shouldnt we be the faves? Or atleast slightly above the next team.

Because you lost Favre. The one thing that separated you from the Vikings and Bears is Brett Favre. Strong D, strong running game. You have the right to assume Aaron Rodgers(who you've never seen) can come and be better than Jackson/Grossman, but I have every right to say, let's see about that.

Jackson and Grossman can improve. Some players progress, some players regress(Grossman from the beginining of 2006). Jackson with a year of experience might get it this year or manage the game enough to win games, plus Adrian Peterson is a nightmare to face twice a year. Throw in the Vikings run D,improved pass rush, improvements in the secondary Madieu Williams/another year for Griffin/McCauley and they should be incredibly tough.

Heck the Bears with Grossman made it to the Super Bowl not very long ago and swept the Pack last year. Not saying Grossman will play like he did in 2006, but the Bears D should definitley rebound especially with health. Aaron Rodgers has to play the Vikes Week 1 and at Detroit Week 2(Ford Field we are usually competive.) Plus the Lions secondary is not the same as you faced last year at all, Bodden/Brian Kelly with young second round non-rookie safeties is at least respectable. If Rodgers isn't ready right away you could be sitting at 0-2 in the divsion and staring at your fathead of Favre on your wall praying for a time machine.

Sportsfan486
05-05-2008, 03:18 AM
You have the right to assume Aaron Rodgers(who you've never seen) can come and be better than Jackson/Grossman, but I have every right to say, let's see about that.

And I would tell you that the ONE game I SAW Rodgers play (so I have seen him) was a significantly better performance than ANY game Jackson has played. So one game versus, what, 18 by Jackson? Yeah. I'll take Rodgers.

Dr. Gonzo
05-05-2008, 04:23 AM
And I would tell you that the ONE game I SAW Rodgers play (so I have seen him) was a significantly better performance than ANY game Jackson has played. So one game versus, what, 18 by Jackson? Yeah. I'll take Rodgers.

First off Jackson hasn't played close to 18 games. Second, even Ryan Leaf had one good game. I am not saying Rodgers won't be any good, just stop assuming that one good game automatically makes him a good QB. We can argue all we want about who is better between the two but the fact remains that Jackson was seen as a project when he was drafted and he was thrust into the starter way before he should have been. Rodgers has had time ti learn behind one of the greats. Either way with JDB now waiting in the wings Jackson will have one more shot to prove himself and it just may be the same with Brohm waiting behind Rodgers. Any way you look at it the season opener will be a very telling game.I don't think any fan of the Packers or the Vikings can argue this will be are hard faught battle for the NFC North title and if they do they are a fool.

Zbikowski_9
05-05-2008, 05:03 AM
I just cant wait till week 1 where we will see is Rodgers is as good as the Pack think (hope). He will win my respect when he is able to cope with the pass rush of Ray Edwards, Leber, Kevin Williams and Allen, and get up after taking some big hits. But i supose if he gets man handled, it would be time for the Brohm bandwaggon.

Gay Ork Wang
05-05-2008, 06:33 AM
And I would tell you that the ONE game I SAW Rodgers play (so I have seen him) was a significantly better performance than ANY game Jackson has played. So one game versus, what, 18 by Jackson? Yeah. I'll take Rodgers.
Rodgers has yet to start a game....

Brothgar
05-05-2008, 06:43 AM
I know I was guilty of it too BUT since the draft and I take a step back and look at it. I think the Lions could be thrown into the conversation.

I know I know HA HA HA HA but seriously though.

The Lions have made improvements across the board except for WR and QB this off season (and got worse at DT) Starting at a 7-9 season (yeah there was an epic fail at the end) but still the secondary has a completely new look only Keith coming back from that pitiful squad. IF Dizon puts on the weight he is the starting MLB moving Paris to SAM (Maybe Caleb Campbell or Clif Avril?) instantly making that position better than Boss Bailey. I wouldn't say that IAF will be better than Kalimba but can't be much worse. Redding is the same and we have a nice replacement for Rogers (not nearly as good but there you go)

Zbikowski_9
05-05-2008, 08:05 AM
I know I was guilty of it too BUT since the draft and I take a step back and look at it. I think the Lions could be thrown into the conversation.

I know I know HA HA HA HA but seriously though.

The Lions have made improvements across the board except for WR and QB this off season (and got worse at DT) Starting at a 7-9 season (yeah there was an epic fail at the end) but still the secondary has a completely new look only Keith coming back from that pitiful squad. IF Dizon puts on the weight he is the starting MLB moving Paris to SAM (Maybe Caleb Campbell or Clif Avril?) instantly making that position better than Boss Bailey. I wouldn't say that IAF will be better than Kalimba but can't be much worse. Redding is the same and we have a nice replacement for Rogers (not nearly as good but there you go)

People would be stupid to write-off any team, and the Bears and Lions are no exception. The NFC North is no second rate division.

The Lions season, IMO, rest on the shoulders of their rookie RB. If they are going to focus on establishing the run he will need to lead the way and open up the pass, if not i don't like their chances.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-05-2008, 08:40 AM
And I would tell you that the ONE game I SAW Rodgers play (so I have seen him) was a significantly better performance than ANY game Jackson has played. So one game versus, what, 18 by Jackson? Yeah. I'll take Rodgers.

Well Jackson did improve as the season went on. Basically what you should expect from a first year starter(struggling early and then some improvement)

Look at his box scores from the begining of the season versus the end. I personally saw it vs the Lions. Week 2 he was picked 4 times, but in Week 14 he played great.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/teams/schedule?team=min&year=2007

And Packer fans didn't even see Jackson last year against Green Bay. He was hurt both times the Pack played Minnesota.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-05-2008, 08:43 AM
People would be stupid to write-off any team, and the Bears and Lions are no exception. The NFC North is no second rate division.

The Lions season, IMO, rest on the shoulders of their rookie RB. If they are going to focus on establishing the run he will need to lead the way and open up the pass, if not i don't like their chances.

Ehhh. I write off the Lions until their defense can prove that are at least average. Every other team in the division has a very good defense which gives them the edge. The Lions have made some improvements on D especially in the secondary, but with the Tampa 2 the entire unit has to play well to get the defense to work. Some young guys have to step up big time for the lions. The Lions will be competive and could be .500 suprising teams especialy at Ford Field.

Zbikowski_9
05-05-2008, 09:27 AM
Ehhh. I write off the Lions until their defense can prove that are at least average. Every other team in the division has a very good defense which gives them the edge. The Lions have made some improvements on D especially in the secondary, but with the Tampa 2 the entire unit has to play well to get the defense to work. Some young guys have to step up big time for the lions. The Lions will be competive and could be .500 suprising teams especialy at Ford Field.

I made them beasts in Madden lol. I was the Vikes and after a playoff run i switched to the lions and signed Leslie Frazier as my head coach. Brought in a few sleepers from the bucs, Vike and Colts on D signed Jason Wright of the Browns to be my Chester Taylor and had a good draft.

So it can be done Lions fans lol

Iamcanadian
05-07-2008, 07:11 AM
I definitely think Minny and the Pack look to be on top although they both have question marks at QB. If either team's QB comes through, they will win the Division.
Chicago and the Lions should bring up the rear. The Lion's are the Lions and Chicago just doesn't look solid on offense.
If both Minny's and the Pack's QB's both struggle then it is very likely 8 wins could take the Division. I also don't see any scenario where any team in this Division is a serious SB contender for next season.

BcLion
07-04-2008, 09:05 AM
Minny has all the hype this offseason and on paper made some serious solid moves to improve. I love you Dline and your running game will be solid with or without AP. Time to live up to the hype and prove you got all the pieces in place for a playoff season. I think it all comes down to T-jack and if he can be your future at QB. This will be fun year to watch for you Minny fans as your Dline will really create havoc for opposing teams.

Gbay seams to be the most proven overall team in the division. If A-rod can handle the starting job Titletown will have anouther solid team in the race for the next few years. As a Lions fan its scary to think you could still be on top of the division even after losing one of the Goat qb.

Chitown had a quite offseason and the D is always a threat. I dont know what to make of them yet and I dont think anyone really does. I never would have predicted their run to SB and they still have a solid core left over from that team.

Detroit is entering year three of the tampa2 system. year three of Hotrod getting all the pieces in place. He has his guys now and there can be no more excuses. We have drafted players that fit his mold and brought in Fa's that play his tampa2. I as a Lion's fan question the release of some of our most talanted players over the past two years and replacing them with some aging veterans and players who have injury historys.

I dont really know what to make of this years team as there is no hype surrounding them and yet we have quietly improved every year Hotrod has been headcoach. Year 3 is supposed to be the biggest leap for players learning the tampa2 system and our secondary is completely overhauled from last year. They gave away SR and replaced him with darby and a lower round draft pick. Kalimba was sent packing as well and they are counting on IAF to really step it up this year and make a name for himself. Our Lb core has changed as well with the departure of oft injured boss bailey leaving and the addition of Dizon. I think the starting lineup will be Sims Lewis Paris until dizon learns under Paris for awile.

The offense is going to be interesting as they are preaching a more balanced attack thru the run game this year and changing to zone blocking scheme that both Tatum Bell and our rookie Kevin Smith excelled at in their pasts. If we can get even a mediocre run game established to take the heat off Kitna I think both Roy and CJ have stellar years. Kitna also is going to have more options at the line of scimage. Under martz he threw to spot martz told him to. Whether the WR was there or not, open or not. no option out under martz. that is why Int average for Martz system is so high and why the WR take most the blame if a play doesnt work. The return of Dan Cambell from IR is also going to be a huge factor for both the run game and pass. I really like what he bringsto the table and he was sorely missed last year.

So to sum it up I think the North is wide open this year. I dont see any clear cut favorite to win the division and its anybodys year.

Bclion

bearsfan_51
07-05-2008, 10:14 PM
The Bears are reliant are far too many unknowns to be considered a favorite for anything. I think Williams and Forte will both play well as rookies, as those two positions are the easiest for rookies to come in and start, but the prospects of Hester replacing Berrian, as well as the defense returning to top 10 form after so many injuries last year, make it way too much of an unknown.

As for the Lions, I just don't see that much talent. I mean, honestly, how many players on the Lions would you consider to be near the top at their position? One? Maybe two? The team is built around wide receivers, untill that changes I can't see them being serious contenders for anything.

The Vikings are ******* scary on defense, but Tavaris Jackson is a walking punch line. He's way worse than Grossman ever was. I've seen him make plays that literally make my head explode out of sheer amazement. For that reason they could easily be a .500 team yet again.

And the Packers? Eh. I'm sticking to the premise that they overacheived last year. Particularly on offense. I'm inclined to place them as the favorites, but it wouldn't suprise me if they are around .500, maybe even a losing team next year.

And this Favre stuff is just ridiculous. Even the Wisconsin media is starting to turn on him, and they've been sucking him off for decades.

holt_bruce81
07-05-2008, 10:22 PM
Packers have the talent to run away with the Division But Aaron Rodgers doesn't have the experience you would like in a Quarterback. Minnesota has a Superbowl caliber Defense and a terrific Running game and I think this is the season Tavaris Jackson makes that necessary jump needed to lead his team to a division crown.

Twiddler
07-13-2008, 06:01 PM
I have to give it to the Vikings at this point but I have the Packers a notch below them. Either team could go either way this year.

StrongSide97
07-16-2008, 09:49 PM
Depending on what happens with the Favre situation:

Either way the Bears will finish dead last, they still have no consistent play at the most important position offense, quarterback. Nor, do they have a impact player on offense. Hester isn't a wide receiver and the Bears will have to come to grips with that. They still have a good defense, the question of health is another story though.

I'm calling the Bears at a 3-13 record this year.

The Lions are improving, but it won't happen this season. I think Jon Kitna is a underrated QB in the NFL. He has never really had a great line protecting him, at least I don't think so. Kevin Smith is my pick for the Offensive Rookie of the Year, and this year Calvin Johnson will emerge as one of the better receivers in the league. They still need help on defense, especially on that line. I have the Lions going 8-8 at seasons end, no playoffs.

Here is where it gets twisted a bit...

If Favre comesback as the Pack's starter, then they will win the division. He is still the old gunslinger that he was last season, and he still has the weapons around him to be productive. The defense is somewhat getting older, especially in the secondary, but I'm having a feeling that won't be a big factor throughout the season.

If Favre doesn't comeback as the Pack's starter, then the Vikings will win the division. Tarvaris Jackson isn't the right QB, but the running offense and defense will do enough for the VIkings to finish at least 9-7 to win the divison....if Favre doesn't return.

Gay Ork Wang
07-16-2008, 10:18 PM
why would the bears finish last if they have improved from last year. They were plagued by injury and we still managed a 7-9 season. The last 2 games didnt look to bad althought one was against the Saints D. I dont see a 3-13 and def not dead last.

GB12
07-16-2008, 10:29 PM
I have a very hard time seeing the Bears finish last particularly becuase the Lions are in the division. I think the Lions are headed for a 4-6 win season. Also a lot would have to go wrong for the Bears to go 3-13.

StrongSide97
07-16-2008, 10:33 PM
How did they improve from last season?

They don't have a quarterback, they are starting a rookie at RB at the beginning of the season(granted he is just as good as Cedric Benson at this point). Forte is bound for a bad season with the offensive line that they have right now. They lost Bernard Berrian to an division opponent. Marty Booker and Brandon Lloyd aren't exactly what I call a decent replacement. Their offensive line is getting older, not to mention the loss of Fred Miller and Reuben Brown. C'mon that is not an improvement.

But I want to put the spotlight on that quarterback situation. We all know, including you, that Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton will both start more than 5 games each this season, whether one of them starts 11 and the other 5. If you dream of any success in the NFL, you cannot have that in your team. They should have drafted a QB when they had the chance in April, and they will regret it when they are called up to the podium within the first three picks next April.

They may not go 3-13 with the first pick overall, but they won't escape the top 3.

Now, don't get me wrong that defense is good. But what are the chances of it staying healthy all year long like 2002 and 2006. It's not very good. Mike Brown has played about five games in the last four seasons. Urlacher has missed at least two games each of the past three seasons, while someone on the defensive line is bound to be hurt. I'm no psychic, but with the way the rain has fallen the past few years in Chicago, then they are bound for a few injuries this season.

Gay Ork Wang
07-17-2008, 07:06 AM
seriously we had that QB Situation since idk ever. Where is the difference of picking up a QB? if we wouldve picked up Hanle or Hill in the last round, would that have been better? Seriously this is one of the dumbest arguments why we would be one of the worst teams. We picked up two UDFA QBs. One of them is supposed to have the second strongest arm in this years draft.
We never had a great QB. The OL is getting better, if uve seen the OL ud now Fred Miller was a liability and Ruben brown was getting old, he didnt even play the last few games. With Chris williams at LT we will move Tait to RT this will give us at least at RT and prolly LT. Berrian hurts, but we brought in a couple of new guys and we hope Hester can step up. There is no way Forte can we just as good as CB. Cedric Benson was as bad as it gets. Id say im on the level of benson.


Urlacher missed 7 games in his career, he played all 16 games in the last 3 season so idk where u got that from. Mike Brown obviously is no one to depend on, and we are not. Our DL depth is prolly one of the best in the league so is our CB Depth and LB Depth. We have some nice sophomores who can and need to step up.

I mean i dont expect them to make the superbowl, but to say they wont escape the Top 3 is just foolish.

StrongSide97
07-17-2008, 08:12 AM
Why do you think the Bears have had one of the worst offenses in the NFL for the past five seasons or so? For a lot of reasons, but it is mainly because they haven't had a consistent starting QB. I laugh every time I hear Lovie Smith say a new name when he announces a new starting QB, because it's just another sign that they are going down hill. It happens to every team that goes through this. Look at Miami, San Francisco, Atlanta. With the exception of Jacksonville a year ago, the chances of a team winning to the playoffs with a QB situation is slim. Washington doesn't count because Campbell was injured

You shouldn't expect Bears to do anything this year offensively this year, mainly because of that season. Not to mention, they have one of the worst looking offenses in recent years.

Remember the Raiders when they had the first overall choice of Jamarcus Russell. Think worse than that. They will see after this year that they need a QB with more potential than Grossman and Orton combined. This opinion will turn fact when they choose a QB with their Top 5 pick in April.

Gay Ork Wang
07-17-2008, 08:39 AM
seriously i never said the QB position is great. But Kyle Orton can manage a game. And thats all we need at the moment. We need to win 2 out of 3 phases. We can win ST against anyone. If the offense can run the ball score 1-2 TDs, the Defense wont be to tired and we can win. Surely we wont be any contenders. but what u r saying is really idiotic. the only reason we gonna pick that high cause of the QB position? seriously we had the same guys the last few years and didnt pick that high.

StrongSide97
07-17-2008, 09:13 AM
You actually think the running game is going to be able to march down the field and get them a touchdown every game? That's ridiculous. With the slightly revamped offensive line they have and the totally inexperienced running game, the Bears will be lucky to get 10 rushing touchdowns this season, let alone march down the field a couple times a game.

Don't get me wrong, Devin Hester is unbelievable, but he's not going to return one every game, let alone every other game. I'll give you Robbie Gould.

I'm going to end it at this:

The Bears have been a great defensive team for the past couple seasons, and they have done so through some injuries. The defense has been so good some seasons where it has literally picked up the offense and carried it on its shoulders. This year is where it stops though. The offense is god awful, and the defense won't be able to do it this year. Mainly because of the talent of the offense, but I feel the defense won't be as good this year as well, or at least as good as it was in 06-07 or previous years.

Gay Ork Wang
07-17-2008, 09:35 AM
so how do u know its gonna stop now?

StrongSide97
07-17-2008, 10:14 AM
I didn't say I was Miss Cleo...I'm predicting the Bears defense won't be as productive as before.
One reason is the teams morale. You think guys like Briggs, Urlacher, Tillman feel good when they realize that they have to carry the team on their shoulders this season? I doubt it. They already know that the offense isn't the least bit good, they know what lies ahead of them.

Another one is injuries. The Bears always seem to have at least one or two devastating injuries every year. Last year they were without Vasher, Mike Brown and Tommie Harris' performance was plagued by injuries all last season. You say the Bears don't rely on Mike Brown anymore, yet he is still listed as the starter, though Manning will likely get a lot of playing time.

Listen, I'm not saying they are going to be a horrible defense, I'm saying that they are not going to be able to carry that horrible offense on its shoulders because they won't be as good as previous seasons. They won't be the worst defense in the NFL, but they certainly won't be the best.

Iamcanadian
07-17-2008, 10:25 AM
I have to agree that the Division is wide open. There isn't one team in the Division that is solid unless Favre returns to Green Bay.

Minnesota will have to have Jackson make a significant improvement at QB. He's probably a year away from being a solid starter but if he can do just enough, Minny might win it all. Of course Peterson hasn't had a healthy season for 3 years running and if he goes down again for any significant time, they'll be in trouble.

Green Bay could finish 1st in the Division if Rodgers can get the job done. If he flops, last place could loom. The question also remains that if Rodgers struggles how good will Grant be if teams don't fear GB's passing attack. It's a lot easier for a RB to look good when defenses are far more scared of the pass and defend it foremost. Believe me if Rodgers struggles, GB could easily finish last.

Chicago has a chance to compete but simply must get its running game going for that to happen. It amazes me how home town fans both in Chicago and Detroit both think that their RB problems will be solved by RB's drafted after round 1. That is hardly a sure thing and rarely happens so Chicago will have a huge question mark until Forte proves he can get the job done. Grossman or Orton may be okay if Chicago has a running attack but if the running attack turns out to be mediocre, Chicago will be in for a long season.

Detroit is going nowhere. They will try to pound the ball on offense using a 3rd round rookie, if he can do thje job their offense could be tough as teams will have to defend the run which will leave Williams and Johnson single teamed on the outside. But that is uncertain until Smith proves to be effective.
On defense, Detroit is by far one of the worst teams in the NFL. On a defense that depends solely on a strong pass rush, they are lacking everywhere and teams that have a solid QB will destroy them. Fortunately no NFC North team may have that QB so their record in the NFC North may be OK. However they aren't going to be in any game where a team has a decent QB. He'll ripe that defense to pieces.

In truth, this is a very mediocre Division and any team winning more than 8 or 9 games will clearly be champion. The team that dominates the Division will be champion as wins from outside the Division will be hard to come by. The Super Bowl is totally out of the question.

bearsfan_51
07-21-2008, 05:45 PM
Anyone that actually thinks the Bears will only win 3 games isn't even worth arguing with. We would have to suffer so many injuries on defense far beyond the one or two that tend to happen.

The rest of your arguments are ridiculous, by the way. I don't think morale is going to go down any more on defense considering they've been carrying the team for the last 70 years.

Carry on.

bearsfan_51
07-21-2008, 05:46 PM
By the way, outside of the receiver position the Lions aren't better anywhere else on offense. The only reason people don't make fun of the Lions offense more is because their defense is equally terrible.

Iamcanadian
07-30-2008, 08:11 PM
By the way, outside of the receiver position the Lions aren't better anywhere else on offense. The only reason people don't make fun of the Lions offense more is because their defense is equally terrible.

Like Chicago Detroit's offensive performance rests on their rookie RB's shoulders. If he is effective, they can have the best offense in the Division.

ChezPower4
07-31-2008, 02:51 PM
Green Bay could finish 1st in the Division if Rodgers can get the job done. If he flops, last place could loom. The question also remains that if Rodgers struggles how good will Grant be if teams don't fear GB's passing attack. It's a lot easier for a RB to look good when defenses are far more scared of the pass and defend it foremost. Believe me if Rodgers struggles, GB could easily finish last.




Even if Rodgers does Struggle I see no way that we would finish behind the Bears and the Lions. We have a running game that was much improved down the strech and a defense that was 6th in the NFL in points allowed last year. Not to mention we are returning 20 of our 22 starters from last year. Our defense is also going to much more aggresive this year with much more blitzing and pressure packages. I fully expect Aaron Rouse to beat out Nick Collins for our one of our saftey spots and he will add more playmaking abilty to our D.

The Vikes could finish first but they can't throw the ball consistantly and teams are going to be loading up the box all year and if Jackson can't show that he can beat teams with his arm the Vikes will never take the next step as a team.

BSD
08-04-2008, 08:59 AM
By the way, outside of the receiver position the Lions aren't better anywhere else on offense. The only reason people don't make fun of the Lions offense more is because their defense is equally terrible.

They are better at quarterback and the whole passing game is significantly better than the Bears. Both run games are very weak.

Gay Ork Wang
08-04-2008, 09:24 AM
The Passing game was better, especially statistically cause of the better WRs and cause Martz threw the ball 3930202109 trillion times

Maybe Next Year Millen2
08-04-2008, 09:47 AM
The Passing game was better, especially statistically cause of the better WRs and cause Martz threw the ball 3930202109 trillion times

Kitna is a better QB than Rex Grossman/Kyle Orton. The Lions had only 18 more pass attempts than the Bears. 587 compared to 569. So you're wrong there with the trillion number LOL. And yet Kitna has a great completion percentage at 63% with a high number of attempts. Grossman/Orton are 53/54% passers. All 3 QBs have costly interceptions under pressure(making Kitna average), but Kitna can at least move the chains and has a command of his offense. And Kitna didn't lose his weapons. Grossman/Orton pretty much lost Berrian. Griese statistically was your best QB last year but again he had the interception problem too.

On the other hand, it's not that the Lions couldn't run the ball. Its that they ran the ball significantly less. Why do I say this?

Lions attempts 324.

Bears attempts 423.

The Bears had 99 more carries and yet only 42 more total yards rushing. Lions averaged 4.0 per carry, the Bears averaged (3.1 YPC).

Lions ran the ball rarely and were average when they did run the ball(19th at 4.0 YPC). The Bears ran the ball an average amount of time(423 attempt is 19th) but they were absolutely terrible when they did run the ball (3.1 YPC).

I would rather have an average running game that is seldom used(Lions) than a running game that is terrible and used way more often(Bears).

Whats changed? Rookie talented RBs for each team. Bears have Lions RB(who after his second major injury may be shelved for half the season. Lions changed philsophy with zone blocking, get best blocking tight end back(Campbell), added another decent blocking tight end (Gaines) and added a Right Tackle who is very good at run blocking. Lions will run the ball more and have the capability to be average at least. The Bears added a LT and Tait has to adjust as a run blocker just like Cherilus has to adjust. Bears have a longer way to go from awful instead of average.


http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=62FF83574A0F64CE1088A9CB1 6D88AF5?offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_ATTEMPTS&d-447263-n=1&season=2007&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1
http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=89A0DBA71E55F775B22E41198 E1A4AE1?offensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=PASSING_ATTEMPTS&d-447263-n=1&season=2007&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

Lions running game> Bears running game
Lions passing game>Bears passing game
Bears Defense(not dominant but good)>Lions Defense(many changes on D) which makes it interesting

djp
08-25-2008, 02:11 AM
1. Minnesota
2. Green Bay
3. Detroit
4. Chicago

princefielder28
08-25-2008, 06:24 AM
1. Minnesota
2. Green Bay
3. Detroit
4. Chicago

homer!!! :)

I agree though

djp
08-26-2008, 01:47 PM
homer!!! :)

I agree though

One main reason is that I think Ryan Grant is going to struggle this year. He doesn't have great physical tools and I think if Rodgers shows any signs of struggle at all, teams are going to play for the run so much more than they did last year. I think it will be hard for GB to run the football at times, something they just did last year to keep defenses off balance.

I also just don't think the DL for Green Bay is all that great either.

While I'm certainly not sold on my Vikings either, I think they have less question marks than the Packers do and are just an overall better team this year. It will be close, and we'll probably split the season series.

mqtirishfan
09-08-2008, 10:25 PM
Could it be that the Packers still have the best QB in the division?

GB12
09-08-2008, 10:30 PM
Could it be that the Packers still have the best QB in the division?
Yes, but it'll take at least 6 weeks until any other teams' fans will admit it.

The Dynasty
09-08-2008, 10:41 PM
Yes, but it'll take at least 6 weeks until any other teams' fans will admit it.

Right now I would have to say right now after watching the games from this past week.

1a. Kitna
1b. Rodgers
3. Orton
4. Jackson

I Put Orton over Jackson for the reason he was Consistent and he managed the game to give the Bears the Chance to win, If Tarvaris didnt throw the INT at the end I might have put him over Orton for the reason of his gameplay on running the ball and 1 TD pass. Kitna and Rodgers showed they are good but I went with experience over 1 game.

But the rankings might go from week to week.

GB12
09-08-2008, 10:44 PM
Are there any Vikings fans here that still have hope for Jackson?

Vikes99ej
09-08-2008, 10:50 PM
Are there any Vikings fans here that still have hope for Jackson?

Not this guy.

PackerLegend
09-08-2008, 10:54 PM
Because Tony Moll runs down the field Rodgers loses about 70 yards and a TD. Stats aren't everything but Rodgers played extremely well and was more then a game manager which he obviously should be. His added dimension of running to get 1sts at times and QB sneaks is nice to have... something Favre rarely did anymore. Still to early to tell who will be the best, time will tell.... likely Rodgers or Kitna.

The Dynasty
09-08-2008, 10:54 PM
Are there any Vikings fans here that still have hope for Jackson?

I like his running ability and his arm but His accuracy and reading the defense's are not there. Which is a major part of a QB and idk...Im sort of starting not too. He looked good in the 2nd half but 1st half was just a nightmare.

johbur
09-08-2008, 10:54 PM
Right now I would have to say right now after watching the games from this past week.

1a. Kitna
1b. Rodgers
3. Orton
4. Jackson

I Put Orton over Jackson for the reason he was Consistent and he managed the game to give the Bears the Chance to win, If Tarvaris didnt throw the INT at the end I might have put him over Orton for the reason of his gameplay on running the ball and 1 TD pass. Kitna and Rodgers showed they are good but I went with experience over 1 game.

But the rankings might go from week to week.

Solid rationale and I concur.

Something to think about is the O-Line and Receivers of each QB, along with run support. Having a defense that can get you more opportunities valuable too. Kitna was pummeled and his defense got ground up for 300+ yards. When you get run on like that, hard to come in when the other team is teeing off for pass rush due to getting up so early. Orton received solid effort from his teammates. Jackson was not good, IMO. His 6 yards in the first half was pathetic. He had some plays in the second half, but he faced more pressure from the GB defense than Rodgers faced from the Vikings D-Line, which says a little bit about both O-lines and D-lines. His 81.3% throwing percentage in his starting game was the second best ever.

After six games we'll be able to see exactly who has the RB support (Grant had 94 yards on 12 carries against the 3 bowler line of the Vikings), the pass blocking and the Receivers to make the plays. Rodgers wasn't sacked even though Jared Allen and Kevin Williams were on the other side of a line with a new center and a new RG and Jennings and Driver made some nice plays with tight coverage.

Forte was impressive for a rookie. AD could have likely had more yards if GB was scared at all of him, which they weren't. Detroit has to fire Millen. Or don't, and the Bears, Packers and Vikings will continue to fight for the division whilst they fight for the #1 overall draft pick.

Bears defense was tough on the Colts. That scoring defense cost me my fantasy FB game as I had the Colts defense going against the Bears defense.

I still think Bears, Packers and Vikings will be tough games for other teams, though the QB position for Bears and Jackson seems to be unable to win games and are little more than game managers for their defenses.

bearsfan_51
09-09-2008, 07:50 PM
I find it incredibly hard to believe that our line will play as well this year as it did on Sunday.

That said, I'll say this for the Bears, this is a formula that has been proven to be very successful. It seems like eons ago since they made the Superbowl, but the conservative offense + good defense was a golden ticket for two seasons with injuries wrecking a lot of things last year.

Again, not sure we'll be able to sustain it to win the division, but I'm not so sure last week was flukey either.

Prince 561
09-10-2008, 11:27 AM
I find it incredibly hard to believe that our line will play as well this year as it did on Sunday.

That said, I'll say this for the Bears, this is a formula that has been proven to be very successful. It seems like eons ago since they made the Superbowl, but the conservative offense + good defense was a golden ticket for two seasons with injuries wrecking a lot of things last year.

Again, not sure we'll be able to sustain it to win the division, but I'm not so sure last week was flukey either.

The only problem I have with the Bears strategy is what do they do when they can't generate turnovers or special teams points? You simply need to be able to move the ball through the air some games because you won't always be playing with a lead.

bearsfan_51
09-10-2008, 01:07 PM
The only problem I have with the Bears strategy is what do they do when they can't generate turnovers or special teams points? You simply need to be able to move the ball through the air some games because you won't always be playing with a lead.
We scored 20 non-defense/return points against the Colts.

I'm not refuting the fact that our offense is mediocre at best, but this strategy has worked well in the past, and is generally the same model used by the Jaguars (though they rely less on turnovers and more on pure defensive dominance).

I agree though, it's not a locktight strategy by any means, though I'm not sure what is. The Packers have the ability to come from behind better (although we've actually had a pretty good history of that in the past), but I would argue the Bears have a better ability to maintain 4th quarter leads and apply pressure, create turnovers as well. For example, what happens when Al Harris and/or Charles Woodson fail in man-on-man coverage, or when the run game shuts down? Every team has things they rely on that aren't full-proof.

TitleTown088
09-10-2008, 01:58 PM
For example, what happens when Al Harris and/or Charles Woodson fail in man-on-man coverage
Plexiglass is what happens.