PDA

View Full Version : Rank the NFC North and their likely records


neko4
03-11-2007, 06:06 PM
Everybody else is doing it,why not NFCN

etk
03-11-2007, 06:15 PM
Enough is enough, this division sucks anyway.

princefielder28
03-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Chicago 10-6
Green Bay 10-6
Detroit 6-10
Minnesota 5-11

Don Vito
03-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Bears 12-4
Pack 8-8
Minny 8-8
Lions 6-10

neko4
03-11-2007, 06:20 PM
Chicago 10-6
Green Bay 10-6
Detroit 6-10
Minnesota 5-11
Agreed GB is that good

VoteLynnSwan
03-11-2007, 06:20 PM
Chicago 10-6
Green Bay 10-6
Detroit 6-10
Minnesota 5-11

wrong.

Chicago 11-5
Packers 8-8
Minnesota 6-10
Detroit 3-13

neko4
03-11-2007, 06:20 PM
Enough is enough, this division sucks anyway.

it is getting annoying

Windy
03-11-2007, 06:21 PM
Chicago-11-5
Detroit-9-7*
Green Bay-8-8
Minnesota-5-11

*yes i know i am crazy.

etk
03-11-2007, 06:23 PM
Chicago 10-6
Detroit 9-7
Green Bay 7-9
Minnesota 4-12

princefielder28
03-11-2007, 06:23 PM
Chicago-11-5
Detroit-9-7*
Green Bay-8-8
Minnesota-5-11

*yes i know i am crazy.

yeah you are crazy :)

NIN1984
03-11-2007, 06:26 PM
Chicago 11-5
Packers 8-8
Detroit 6-10
Minnesota 5-11

Hurricane Ditka
03-11-2007, 06:26 PM
Chicago 12-4
Green Bay 7-9
Minnesota 6-10
Detroit 3-13

Eaglez.Fan
03-11-2007, 06:26 PM
1. Chicago 13-3
2. Vikes 10-6
3. Packers 6-10
4. Lions 5-11

Jensen
03-11-2007, 06:29 PM
1. Bears (12-4)
2. Packers (9-7)
3. Vikings (7-9)
4. Lions (3-13)

neko4
03-11-2007, 06:31 PM
1. Chicago 13-3
2. Vikes 10-6
3. Packers 6-10
4. Lions 5-11

Whose playing QB and whose catching the ball? Also whose the #2 corner?

SuperMcGee
03-11-2007, 06:35 PM
Chicago 11-5
Green Bay 9-7 (Morency4MVP)
Detroit 5-11
Minnesota 4-12

bearsfan_51
03-11-2007, 06:47 PM
The Bears are going to win, the Packers are going to compete, the Vikings and Lions are going to be terrible. I don't care what the records are.

Smooth Criminal
03-11-2007, 07:03 PM
Chicago - 12-4
Green Bay - 8-8
Detroit - 7-9
Minnesota - 6-10

Vikes99ej
03-11-2007, 07:07 PM
Whose playing QB and whose catching the ball? Also whose the #2 corner?

I believe our #2 corner is Cedric Griffin.

Bears: 13-3
Packers: 8-8
Vikings: 7-9
Lions: 5-11

jetsfan3
03-11-2007, 07:10 PM
The Chicago Bears are who I thought they were

Bears-14-2
Packers-8-8
Vikings-6-10
Lions-5-11 (MAKING IMPROVEMENTS!)

The Dynasty
03-11-2007, 07:12 PM
Bears: 12-4
Packers: 9-7
Vikings: 6-10
Lions: 5-11

Man_Of_Steel
03-11-2007, 07:13 PM
Bears- 11-4
Lions- 8-8
Viks- 7-9
Packers- 2-14

Vikes99ej
03-11-2007, 07:18 PM
Bears- 11-4
Lions- 8-8
Viks- 7-9
Packers- 2-14

Wow. That's gonna piss Packers fans off.

Hurricane Ditka
03-11-2007, 07:22 PM
Wow. That's gonna piss Packers fans off. News Flash, the Packers aren't very good.

Vikes99ej
03-11-2007, 07:24 PM
News Flash, the Packers aren't very good.

Packers' fans don't seem to be of that opinion.


Brett Favre's return = at least .500

The Legend
03-11-2007, 07:25 PM
Bears: 11-5
Packers: 10-6
Lions: 4-12
Vikings: 4-12

The Legend
03-11-2007, 07:26 PM
Wow. That's gonna piss Packers fans off.

dont make me that made hes a rookie

TacticaLion
03-11-2007, 07:32 PM
dont make me that made hes a rookieHis involvement on this site has nothing to do with his overall knowledge of football.

ny10804
03-11-2007, 07:33 PM
Chicago Bears 12-4
Green Bay Packers 9-7
Minnetonka Vikings 7-9
Detroit Lions 4-12

TitleTown088
03-11-2007, 07:34 PM
The Bears are going to win, the Packers are going to compete, the Vikings and Lions are going to be terrible. I don't care what the records are.
The Packers better find a RB if they plan to compete.

Vikings Fan
03-11-2007, 07:36 PM
Vikings: 4-12
Bears: 11-5
Packers: 8-8
Lions: 7-9

GB12
03-11-2007, 07:36 PM
Bears-11-5
Packers-9-7
Vikings-6-10
Lions-5-11

Draft King
03-11-2007, 07:40 PM
Bears - 9-7
Lions - 8-8
Packers - 8-8
Vikings - 7-9

The Dynasty
03-11-2007, 07:43 PM
The Packers better find a RB if they plan to compete.

Im just wondering but who is gonna be ur FB also?

ny10804
03-11-2007, 07:45 PM
Im just wondering but who is gonna be ur FB also?


Our same starting FB from last year: Brandon Miree.

TitleTown088
03-11-2007, 07:53 PM
Our same starting FB from last year: Brandon Miree.

Yeah that and all of our TE's can play FB too.
I just came across a very interesting stat on Miree. When he started the backs averaged 5 YPC when he played. When he did not play they averaged 3.3YPC. hmm...

Did the pack really need Griffith?

neko4
03-11-2007, 07:54 PM
Yeah that and all of our TE's can play FB too.
I just came across a very interesting stat on Miree. When he started the backs averaged 5 YPC when he played. When he did not play they averaged 3.3YPC. hmm...

Did the pack really need Griffith?

Bubba can? Thats great he does something

neko4
03-11-2007, 07:55 PM
Bears- 11-4
Lions- 8-8
Viks- 7-9
Packers- 2-14

News Flash, the Packers aren't very good.

How so? Seriously what on god's green earth makes you think that?

eaglesalltheway
03-11-2007, 07:56 PM
1.Bears: 10-6
2.Packers: 10-6
3.Vikings: 6-10
4.Lions: 5-11

TitleTown088
03-11-2007, 08:06 PM
Bubba can? Thats great he does something Yeah, MM makes sure all his TE can play FB too.

TitleTown088
03-11-2007, 08:07 PM
How do you people have the Packers with a winning record right now with Noah Herron and Morency as their RBs??

neko4
03-11-2007, 08:09 PM
How do you people have the Packers with a winning record right now with Noah Herron and Morency as their RBs??

Herron is a powerful runner and Morency is quicker guy.
Thunder Lighting

Ewing
03-11-2007, 08:14 PM
1. Green Bay Packers 10-6
2. Chicago Bears 8-8
3. Detriot Lions 6-10
4. Minnesota Vikings 2-14

Favre is going to turn it way up for his last season in the league and make the playoffs. Bears are going to be plagued by injuries and underpreforming like every other Super Bowl loser this decade. Lions will improve a bit and the Vikings will have fun drafting Brian Brohm.

TitleTown088
03-11-2007, 08:16 PM
1. Green Bay Packers 10-16
2. Chicago Bears 8-8
3. Detriot Lions 6-10
4. Minnesota Vikings 2-14

Favre is going to turn it way up for his last season in the league and make the playoffs. Bears are going to be plagued by injuries and underpreforming like every other Super Bowl loser this decade. Lions will improve a bit and the Vikings will have fun drafting Brian Brohm.

10-16? Wow, this is great news i get to see the Packer play 26 times next year. Nice.

Agian, Favre can't turn anything around without a solid running attack.

Ewing
03-11-2007, 08:21 PM
10-16? Wow, this is great news i get to see the Packer play 26 times next year. Nice.

Agian, Favre can't turn anything around without a solid running attack.

It's a typo, asshat.

TitleTown088
03-11-2007, 08:51 PM
It's a typo, asshat.
Asshat? I like that.

princefielder28
03-11-2007, 08:54 PM
10-16? Wow, this is great news i get to see the Packer play 26 times next year. Nice.

Agian, Favre can't turn anything around without a solid running attack.

That's funny! :)

toonsterwu
03-11-2007, 08:54 PM
1. Bears
2. Lions
3. Packers
4. Vikings

TitleTown088
03-11-2007, 09:18 PM
1. Bears
2. Lions
3. Packers
4. Vikings

Really? I'm not doubting you, but would you explain your reasoning for Lions at number 2?

Vikes99ej
03-11-2007, 09:21 PM
1. Green Bay Packers 10-6
2. Chicago Bears 8-8
3. Detriot Lions 6-10
4. Minnesota Vikings 2-14

Favre is going to turn it way up for his last season in the league and make the playoffs. Bears are going to be plagued by injuries and underpreforming like every other Super Bowl loser this decade. Lions will improve a bit and the Vikings will have fun drafting Brian Brohm.

If we don't get Brady Quinn this year. I'll bet everything we have that we win more than 2 ******* games next year.

Hurricane Ditka
03-11-2007, 09:51 PM
How so? Seriously what on god's green earth makes you think that?
They aren't 2-14 bad, but they aren't very good

RaiderNation
03-11-2007, 09:55 PM
packers (with moss)-11-5
bears 10-6
lions 5-11
min 4-12

bears 12-4
packers (without moss)9-7
lions 5-11
min4-12

neko4
03-11-2007, 09:56 PM
They aren't 2-14 bad, but they aren't very good

And what makes them so bad? That they have a bunch of unknowns?

Hurricane Ditka
03-11-2007, 09:58 PM
And what makes them so bad? That they have a bunch of unknowns?
Where did I say they were bad? I just said they weren't very good.

neko4
03-11-2007, 10:00 PM
Where did I say they were bad? I just said they weren't very good.

And how much of a diference does the phrase "not very good" and "bad" have?

KWill93
03-11-2007, 10:01 PM
Bears 11-5
Vikes 8-8
Packers 7-9
Detroit 6-10

Crazy_Chris
03-11-2007, 10:22 PM
First off it is wayyyyy too early to be predicting next year...still have the draft, june cuts/free agency, and mini-camps, training camps, and pre-season a lot can change in that time... atleast should wait untill the draft is over to start these predictions that being said as of right now heres where i think it stands

1.bears 10-6
2.vikings 8-8
3.Packers 6-10
4. lions 6-10

1. The bears will still be on top of the division do to that MONSTER defense but Rex is going to start off the year bad and than get injured once again leading to his own demise in Chicago. Brian griese will come in and lead them to 10-6 and the second round of the playoffs... but even though the superbowl loser curse seems to have broken this year with seahawks, it could come back to get the bears lol(doubt it) 2.The Vikings were underachievers this year lost a lot of games that should have been won, with ANY kind of offense we are competing with the bears for the NFC North title, although next year T-Jack will still be dealing with the growing pains of being a young qb but with our good defense he will have enough to lead us to .500. 3. The packers a young talented team, which with more experience will be good but this year they simply overachieved due to the outstanding play of Brett farve, next year he will be solid but with the tougher oppents with the NFC east, and AFC west they will not have an easy time repating this years results. 4. the lions, I kind of want to Put them above the packers because this orginization seems to be finally moving in the right direction but its to early and the jury is still out on them, the draft will ultimately decide whether they move up from the bottom next year good luck Matt Millen

Microphon200
03-11-2007, 11:06 PM
Chicago 10-6
Green Bay 10-6
Detroit 6-10
Minnesota 5-11

I think Green Bay and Chicago are fine, but I think Detroit won't win more than 5 games and Minnesota will win at least 6 games.

PACKmanN
03-12-2007, 12:52 AM
Dika if u cant explain ur reason for saying the Packers will suck this year then ur just being a homer.

Shiver
03-12-2007, 01:16 AM
I'm going to be honest, I am on the Rod Marinelli band-wagon. (Gary Kubiak as well, but that's the AFC South.) I like the direction the Lions are going in. I think the Lions are a few immediate impact O/D-Lineman away from surprising people.

The Bears I like. They have a few offensive problems of note. That said, their defense will return to the levels we expect when Harris comes back. I am a little worried about the O-Line, and Cedric Benson is definitely unproven. But they will address the O-Line in the draft. Not to mention moving to a unproven RB didn't do the Colts any significant damage last year.

The Vikings are a mess of an organization. They've dished out big money for Bobby Wade and Visanthe Shianco. Their '06 draft class was a giant catastrophe, which will be even worse if they give up on Tavaris Jackson. I like the Defensive Tackles, Antonie Winfield, Steve Hutchinson. Other than that, I am not thrilled in the least.

The Packers are the vogue pick. I would agree, had they actually done anything at this point with the bevy of free cap space they had. People are acting as if Favre will carry the team on his back, in his final season. My question, where have these people been for the past couple of years. This isn't the M.V.P, superstar, one of the greats of all time, we all remember from the mid-90s. Al Harris is aging a bit, which isn't good for a man-to-man cover corner who's somehow staved off typical age struggles, he may be due for a fall in performance. They don't have a reliable RB or TE. I am lukewarm about the Packers. I don't think they will take over the division, win one for Favre kind of a deal, like some do.

johbur
03-12-2007, 01:22 AM
Records are hard to predict, but it is easier to rank the division.

1) Chicago - Could be better if some guys come back 100% healthy, but with Briggs not happy and an unknown on which Grossman shows up, could be like last season when AZ smacked them around and they won by fluke. They still won, though, and they'll likely repeat as the best in the NFC.

2) GB - Favre still the best QB option for the Packers. With three all-rookie selections last year, 3 rookie linemen that started at least ten games, and a defense that improved greatly to close out the season, the Packers should be more competitive after GM Ted Thompson brings in a couple reasonably priced free agents and has another draft to build the team. Considering the shape of the NFC, the Packers could contend for the playoffs.

3) Detroit - Kitna had a lot of yards. Offense could be the most balanced in the division. If Millen doesn't bone his draft again, Lions might have enough firepower to overtake Packers. I didn't like what they got in return for Dre Bly, who I was very glad to see leave the division.

4) Vikings - If they are really going with Tavaris Jackson, I don't see all that many wins for them. They do have a good line, a good back and a good run defense, but the pass defense was totally exposed and a bad QB usually means a lot of losses.

Crazy_Chris
03-12-2007, 01:56 AM
Their '06 draft class was a giant catastrophe, which will be even worse if they give up on Tavaris Jackson.

I dont see where that setiment Comes from our 06 draft class was anything but a catatrophe, Cedric Griffin, Greg Blue, Ray edwards all made good contributions this season on defense and special teams and will all see increased playing time next year, than we have our first rounder that had an unfortunate season ending injury in the preseason, so he will have his chance to show his worth this year. our two bad picks last year where ryan cook(huge reach) who started late in the season, and Tarvaris Jackson and hes only bad because we could have had him in the third, and the jury is still out on T-Jack(and no drafting quinn isnt giving up on Jackson). Im sorry but i dont see where you get catastrophe from that

jackalope
03-12-2007, 07:24 AM
How do you people have the Packers with a winning record right now with Noah Herron and Morency as their RBs??i'm, pretty sure we'll find someone (hopefully Lynch) before the season. also we run the ZBS so we don't need a great running back to have a great running game.

Bears 11-5
Packers 9-7
Detroit 6-10
Minnesota 5-11

toonsterwu
03-12-2007, 09:38 AM
I dont see where that setiment Comes from our 06 draft class was anything but a catatrophe, Cedric Griffin, Greg Blue, Ray edwards all made good contributions this season on defense and special teams and will all see increased playing time next year, than we have our first rounder that had an unfortunate season ending injury in the preseason, so he will have his chance to show his worth this year. our two bad picks last year where ryan cook(huge reach) who started late in the season, and Tarvaris Jackson and hes only bad because we could have had him in the third, and the jury is still out on T-Jack(and no drafting quinn isnt giving up on Jackson). Im sorry but i dont see where you get catastrophe from that

I think the Vikings 06 draft is an incomplete. At the end of the day, Chad Greenway was going to make or break that draft because he was drafted with the aim of being the centerpiece of that defensive scheme at the weakside spot. The rest of the class was okay. Griffin showed enough promise, and should fit fine within the scheme. Ray Edwards was a nice gamble who always had athletic ability but the off-field issues probably hurt him some last year.

toonsterwu
03-12-2007, 09:53 AM
Really? I'm not doubting you, but would you explain your reasoning for Lions at number 2?

It's early, but as of right now I'd place the Lions ahead. Could certainly change post draft. It'd be awful close (if I had forecasted a win range, it probably would've been 6-8 for both teams).

I like what they've done this offseason. Actually, first off, I like Rod Marinelli as a coach and I hope he gets the time. I like the fact that he's not taking crap from any players and putting guys on there that work for his scheme. Heck, I even like Matt Millen's doings this offseason, with the Bly trade, and not overpaying for Kevin Curtis. Martz has always been a good gameplanner who creates good offenses, and there's decent personnel there. Foster, while nothing special, should help the OL, either inside, or out. It's almost hard for them to be that bad with the run again, and sure, a case can be made that "It's Martz", but the larger case would revolve around personnel, and Tatum Bell, as of now (in case he gets dealt, which seems less likely now), should be a good backup. Improved run game (doesn't mean a great run game ... after all, "it's martz"), improved protection, and this offense, provided that Kitna doesn't have a precipitous decline, should be much better.

Defensively, while they overpaid for Dewayne White, they did get an end that knew the scheme. Keeping Redding inside with Rogers should give them a fairly lethal combo. I still think another DE is needed, although Rod has talked up the ability to coach up Kalimba Edwards. The secondary has some holes in it, but it is a tampa 2 base scheme, and Stanley Wilson played well down the stretch. They have the key piece for the LB spot with Ernie Sims. If they could just get Boss Bailey or Teddy Lehman healthy, they would have another piece (Lehman in particular, as I think he has the potential to be a stellar tampa 2 mike backer). But those linebacking spots, relatively speaking, shouldn't be that difficult to address with personnel.

But that doesn't really address the question so far. I think these teams are fairly close talent wise, but it's the concerns with Green Bay as of now that gives me the lean on Detroit. Namely, the running game. For all the talk about scheme (and I join into it at times as well), they do need a lead back. They need someone to be Terrell Davis to Brett Favre's John Elway. Also, the receiving options on paper are still a bit thin. Defensively, while I like the personnel overall, I am still a bit concerned about the defensive line overall. It's going to be a surprise if Aaron Kampman can duplicate a 15.5 sack season again (nothing against Aaron of course, it's just the odds are long). On paper, it looks to be a very 2-gap base personnel, with pass rushers like KGB in pass situations. While it looks very good on paper, can they bring consistent pressure with the base D that can not only protect against the run while not allowing their back 7 to be chewed up. It's a concern for me as of now. I do really like the linebackers, and am a fan of Brady Poppinga (btw, someone refresh me, did they use Poppinga at end in pass rushing situations last year? because that's what I'd do, pair Poppinga and KGB outside as ends in pass rushing situations). The secondary worries me somewhat, but I'm not as concerned about the safeties as I am about the age of the corners and the eventual slowdown.

At the end ... tis early, and these were only early picks, and tis close anyways.

Vikes99ej
03-12-2007, 10:06 AM
The only reason people assume our '06 draft was a mess is because they just look at the Cook and Jackson picks. The rest of them were pretty solid.

bearsfan_51
03-12-2007, 10:08 AM
And how much of a diference does the phrase "not very good" and "bad" have?
Actually quite a bit.

bearsfan_51
03-12-2007, 10:10 AM
The only reason people assume our '06 draft was a mess is because they just look at the Cook and Jackson picks. The rest of them were pretty solid.
Three of your first four picks, all of them in the 1st or 2nd round, contributed next to nothing. That's pretty significant.

The Vikings have had some of the worst drafts of anybody in the last 2-3 years.

bigbluedefense
03-12-2007, 10:14 AM
Chicago will be the class of the division again. They have minimal holes to fill, great coaching, and a good football philosophy. If they can stay healthy, I see no reason why they won't win the division again next year.

The only team who can give them a fight is GB. They have promising young talent developing. They have a solid front 7, good enough secondary. With some good drafting, they can improve their offense by acquiring a RB and some WRs. Favre will be decent. They can give Chicago a run.

Minnesota will struggle with what is essentially a rookie qb. They have no WRs, they have aging players in the 2ndary, and they need a pass rush. And players could revolt against their HC at any moment and give up on the season. It could be an ugly year for Minny.

Detroit...they need a qb. Kitna is serviceable, but thats it. Maybe with Quinn they have hope, but thats investing alot of hope in a rookie qb. Their offense on paper is solid, they could bulk up the oline however. Their defense is the Cover 2, they can easily find later round talent to accomodate it. Detroit may do better than some of would imagine.

DeathbyStat
03-12-2007, 10:40 AM
Bears 10-6
Packers 9-7
Lions 7-9
Vikings 5-11

wogitalia
03-12-2007, 11:41 AM
Depends on the draft for the Vikes. If they draft well they can win 10 games. If they draft poorly they may struggle to win 4. They are good defenisvely and in the same league as the Raiders offensively. If the defense falls even slightly from last years lofty standard, 4 wins will be tough.

bearsfan_51
03-12-2007, 12:03 PM
Depends on the draft for the Vikes. If they draft well they can win 10 games. If they draft poorly they may struggle to win 4. They are good defenisvely and in the same league as the Raiders offensively. If the defense falls even slightly from last years lofty standard, 4 wins will be tough.
Rookies will never win you 6 games by themselves, I don't care how good of a draft it is.

TacticaLion
03-12-2007, 12:11 PM
Rookies will never win you 6 games by themselves, I don't care how good of a draft it is.A rookie doesn't have to win you 6 games by himself... adding a rookie to an experienced but struggling team can get you many more than 6 games.

A good draft can easily improve a teams record.

bearsfan_51
03-12-2007, 12:15 PM
A rookie doesn't have to win you 6 games by himself... adding a rookie to an experienced but struggling team can get you many more than 6 games.

A good draft can easily improve a teams record.

Any team that relies on numerous rookies to be key players isn't a very good team. One or two positions, especially say a runningback, I can understand. There are very few cases in which numerous rookies came in and played a significant role and the team became much better. The best example of this may be New Orleans this year, but Drew Brees, a new coaching staff, and a plethora of other extraneous factors had more to do with that.

frogstomp
03-12-2007, 12:16 PM
Rookies will never win you 6 games by themselves, I don't care how good of a draft it is.

I think the Titans with Collins would have won 2 or 3 games tops.

Now, Young didn't carry his team on his own, and this is an extreme example, because most teams wouldn't start someone as horrible as Collins... but still.

P-L
03-12-2007, 12:25 PM
I see a lot of people predicting the same order as last year, which is typical. However, it's not going to happen. It's very rare that the four teams in the division finish in the same order two years in a row.

bearsfan_51
03-12-2007, 12:26 PM
I see a lot of people predicting the same order as last year, which is typical. However, it's not going to happen. It's very rare that the four teams in the division finish in the same order two years in a row.

The only difference from this year and last was Green Bay.

Chicago is entrenched at the top. Beyond that you could make some arguments.

frogstomp
03-12-2007, 12:34 PM
The only difference from this year and last was Green Bay.

Chicago is entrenched at the top. Beyond that you could make some arguments.

Barring injuries, anyways.

bearsfan_51
03-12-2007, 12:42 PM
Barring injuries, anyways.

Of course. Nobody is going to predict injuries.

frogstomp
03-12-2007, 12:44 PM
Of course. Nobody is going to predict injuries.

After the last two years, Green Bay probably should... same with the Giants.

Vikes99ej
03-12-2007, 12:47 PM
I hate this. The Lions, Packers, and Bears fans can all get optimistic, but everyone would shoot down any Vikings fan that gets excited. This disgusts me.

the_legend_killer
03-12-2007, 02:12 PM
I hate this. The Lions, Packers, and Bears fans can all get optimistic, but everyone would shoot down any Vikings fan that gets excited. This disgusts me.

WE'VE GOT TEH BRETT FARVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND DORSE THE HORSE!!!

bearsfan_51
03-12-2007, 03:12 PM
I hate this. The Lions, Packers, and Bears fans can all get optimistic, but everyone would shoot down any Vikings fan that gets excited. This disgusts me.
Anyone can be optomistic. What's your reasoning though? I've asked the same thing to Lions fans (the very few that are optomistic) and can't say I buy that reasoning.

In fact, I think toonster just made the best pro-Lions argument I've ever heard. 7-8 wins doesn't seem quite as insane as it once did.

Ewing
03-12-2007, 04:05 PM
If we don't get Brady Quinn this year. I'll bet everything we have that we win more than 2 ******* games next year.

Who's your offense? Jackson, Taylor, McMullen, and that bust Williamson? The chance of them winning anymore than four is slim with that group.

NFLBOY
03-12-2007, 04:07 PM
Without seeing the schedules of the teams, I would predict something on this order:
1 Bears at 11-5
2 Packers 10-6
3 vikings 9-7
4 lions 2-14 Just don't see any hope in this franchise at all.

Xiomera
03-12-2007, 04:08 PM
1. Chicago (11-5)
2. Green Bay (10-6)
3. Detroit (6-10)
4. Minnesota (6-10)

Vikes99ej
03-12-2007, 04:14 PM
Anyone can be optomistic. What's your reasoning though? I've asked the same thing to Lions fans (the very few that are optomistic) and can't say I buy that reasoning.

In fact, I think toonster just made the best pro-Lions argument I've ever heard. 7-8 wins doesn't seem quite as insane as it once did.

I'm just saying if I tried to be hopeful about the Vikings and post a record around .500, people would kill me. I'm pretty sure there's no way the Bears, Lions, and Packers will all be over .500. I won't say we'lll be .500 or over, just because I'm pessimestic and semi-realistic, but if I were to, I'd just point to some of the losses last year we gave up in the last minutes. But I'm sure the other people would just say "Look at all the wins you got lucky with". I don't know why I see these people saying that we're going to go 2-14 or 3-13. We didn't lose that much this offseason. There's no reason we can't be 5-11 or 6-10 at least.

TacticaLion
03-12-2007, 05:07 PM
I see a lot of people predicting the same order as last year, which is typical. However, it's not going to happen. It's very rare that the four teams in the division finish in the same order two years in a row.QFT.

Most people take the prior season and expect the teams to play the same. It just wont happen. The Bears could struggle, the Vikings could explode, and the Lions could finish 8-8. ANYTHING can happen each year.

Which is why this thread is pointless.

Vikes99ej
03-12-2007, 05:36 PM
QFT.

Most people take the prior season and expect the teams to play the same. It just wont happen. The Bears could struggle, the Vikings could explode, and the Lions could finish 8-8. ANYTHING can happen each year.

Which is why this thread is pointless.

Thank you. No one could have predicted that the Saints and Redskins would have the season that they did. Everyone also thought last year would be the Cardinals "breakout year".

Crazy_Chris
03-12-2007, 05:49 PM
I think the Vikings 06 draft is an incomplete. At the end of the day, Chad Greenway was going to make or break that draft because he was drafted with the aim of being the centerpiece of that defensive scheme at the weakside spot. The rest of the class was okay. Griffin showed enough promise, and should fit fine within the scheme. Ray Edwards was a nice gamble who always had athletic ability but the off-field issues probably hurt him some last year.


I think thats right i think If greenway comes in and plays well there is no doubt we had a good draft, but i also believe it depnds on T-Jack if he stinks it up the draft will be written off as horrid(unjustly) but everyone else seems to focus in on the pick of Jackson. For that reason he will make or break our draft far more than Greenway.

Crazy_Chris
03-12-2007, 06:02 PM
I'm just saying if I tried to be hopeful about the Vikings and post a record around .500, people would kill me. I'm pretty sure there's no way the Bears, Lions, and Packers will all be over .500. I won't say we'lll be .500 or over, just because I'm pessimestic and semi-realistic, but if I were to, I'd just point to some of the losses last year we gave up in the last minutes. But I'm sure the other people would just say "Look at all the wins you got lucky with". I don't know why I see these people saying that we're going to go 2-14 or 3-13. We didn't lose that much this offseason. There's no reason we can't be 5-11 or 6-10 at least.



yea i dont get all the 2-14, 3-13's and so on this team is not that bad. With any semi-decent offense we would have been a 12 win team this year, a lot of the reasons we didnt have a good offense are due to 1.offensive penaties i dont know just who all to put the blame on for this but penalties are always drive killers 2. Bad Play calling, there is a reason andy reid didnt let childress call plays in philly and ill just leave it at that 3. Recievers, the reason they are three is that they may not have been as bad as it seems, due to the first two things on the list, when put in bad situations by offensive line geting penalized that makes it all the more important to call the right play to get the yards needed, the recievers have to still make the play but its a team game and when you have a mediocre corp. of recievers they have to be put in a good situation to be any good. and also i know there was a few times one of the recievers make a great play but than its called back by penalty like in the game aginst the packers at Lambeau travis taylor made a great catch that could of broke it wide open but it was called back from a penalty... But what i can say with one Realiable wide reciever on last years team thats at least 3 more wins right there

johbur
03-14-2007, 03:13 AM
Who's your offense? Jackson, Taylor, McMullen, and that bust Williamson? The chance of them winning anymore than four is slim with that group.

No, they brought in Bobby Wade for something around $15 million and he'll likely be starting for them.

T-Jack<<<VY

Bearsfan123
03-14-2007, 08:54 AM
The fact is you reached for Jackson and now he *should* struggle mightily. Not only due to inexperience but lack of reliable options. Honestly the only thing he has going for him is his running attack and o-line. Now a couple years down the road could this team be good? Yes, but as of right now unless Jackson and your receivers are in perfect sync and he is far more advanced then I see him being, your team will struggle. On the positive, this year you should see your D growing by leaps and bounds with Greenway back.