PDA

View Full Version : Rate the NFC



BroncoFanBoy
06-24-2013, 04:59 PM
We have a thread on rating the AFC, so now let's rank the other league.

Here's my ranking:

1. 49ers
2. Seahawks
3. Packers
4. Falcons
5. Giants
6. Saints
7. Bears
8. Vikings
9. Redskins
10. Cowboys
11. Panthers
12. Rams
13. Buccaneers
14. Lions
15. Eagles
16. Cardinals

InsaneBlaze23
06-24-2013, 05:14 PM
1. 49ers
2. Packers
3. Falcons
4. Seahawks
5. Saints
6. Giants
7. Redskins
8. Bears
9. Lions
10. Rams
11. Cowboys
12. Vikings
13. Buccaneers
14. Eagles
15. Panthers
16. Cardinals

bronx_2003
06-25-2013, 01:07 PM
1. Packers

2. Falcons

3. Saints

4. 49ers

5. Giants

6. Cowboys

7. Seahawks

8. Bears

9. Lions

10. Redskins

11. Panthers

12. Buccaneers

13. Rams

14. Vikings

15. Eagles

16. Cardinals

InsaneBlaze23
06-25-2013, 01:14 PM
1. Packers


I'm curious as to why you think the Packers are the top team in the NFC.
Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be Packers-Broncos in the super bowl. But that's because I'm a fan of both teams. Wonder what an outside opinion is...

bronx_2003
06-25-2013, 01:26 PM
I'm curious as to why you think the Packers are the top team in the NFC.
Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be Packers-Broncos in the super bowl. But that's because I'm a fan of both teams. Wonder what an outside opinion is...

It all starts with Rodgers. I think he's the best QB in the conference and that should win them a lot of games.

Randall Cobb could have a break out year. The D looks promising now everyone is back healthy, and Datonte Jones and Matthews could provide a fearsome tandem off the edge.

The biggest thing is the running game. A couple of times I think it cost them, especially against SF both times, it just didn't always keep D's honest and against top D's that's a huge problem. Getting Lacy and Franklin could pay huge dividends.

I also think they have fewer question marks then other teams.

I think the Saints could make some noise but how good will the D be, although I like the Vaccaro pick.

I'm not as high on the Seahawks as some.

I think the 49'ers losing Crabtree gives them major question marks on D, plus 2nd year QB's can struggle quite often.

I like the Falcons, just rate GB higher.

InsaneBlaze23
06-25-2013, 01:49 PM
It all starts with Rodgers. I think he's the best QB in the conference and that should win them a lot of games.

Randall Cobb could have a break out year. The D looks promising now everyone is back healthy, and Datonte Jones and Matthews could provide a fearsome tandem off the edge.

The biggest thing is the running game. A couple of times I think it cost them, especially against SF both times, it just didn't always keep D's honest and against top D's that's a huge problem. Getting Lacy and Franklin could pay huge dividends.

I also think they have fewer question marks then other teams.

I think the Saints could make some noise but how good will the D be, although I like the Vaccaro pick.

I'm not as high on the Seahawks as some.

I think the 49'ers losing Crabtree gives them major question marks on D, plus 2nd year QB's can struggle quite often.

I like the Falcons, just rate GB higher.

I would have put them at number 1 for the same reasons. But for me the downside is the OL is very bad, probably the worst OL in the NFC. Don Capers is doing a bad job with that defense, GB has a lot of talent on defense but they can't play at their full potential.

For me there is just too many questions, how will those new RB's play with this OL? How long can key players on defense stay healthy? Will Jordy Nelson bounce back? Is James Jones really as good as he looked last season?

I also agree with the Seahawks, I don't think they'll be as good as they was last season. I think teams have figured out the offense now and the refs won't help them this season. But I still have them as my preseason number 4 because of Lynch, because of the defense. And not seeing enough over the off season from the rest of the conference to put them ahead of the Hawks.

fallforward3y+
06-25-2013, 03:32 PM
1. Niners 2. Seahawks 3. Bears 4. Falcons 5. Giants 6. Panthers 7. Packers 8. Saints 9. Redskins 10. Bucs 11. Cowboys 12. Lions 13. Rams 14. Eagles 15. Vikings 16. Cardinals

fallforward3y+
06-25-2013, 03:40 PM
I would have put them at number 1 for the same reasons. But for me the downside is the OL is very bad, probably the worst OL in the NFC. Don Capers is doing a bad job with that defense, GB has a lot of talent on defense but they can't play at their full potential.

For me there is just too many questions, how will those new RB's play with this OL? How long can key players on defense stay healthy? Will Jordy Nelson bounce back? Is James Jones really as good as he looked last season?

I also agree with the Seahawks, I don't think they'll be as good as they was last season. I think teams have figured out the offense now and the refs won't help them this season. But I still have them as my preseason number 4 because of Lynch, because of the defense. And not seeing enough over the off season from the rest of the conference to put them ahead of the Hawks.

Teams haven't figured out the option offense. Although, with Seattle it's easier because Wilson is more of the type that only takes off if he can get 15 yards without being touched. With that, it can be stopped easier unlike someone like Newton who actually can run like a real RB.

I don't think it will be though, the threat to run or throw is still tough to handle. The refs helping them was one game, one play. A game they should have lost, but still just one. Plus, it was earlier in the season before they got on a role. They probably beat GB handily if they play them late in the season at home.

Plus, they added Harvin....Wilson's threat to run and throw, that monster offensive line with Lynch, Sidney Rice and some big play receivers, adding Harvin in to get another deep threat as well as a big element added in the short passing game. That on top of the top defense arguably, they'll be good.

TheSheriff
06-25-2013, 03:40 PM
1. 49ers
2. Falcons
3. Seahawks
4. Packers
5. Saints
6. Giants
7. Cowboys
8. Bears
9. Vikings
10. Redskins
11. Lions
12. Eagles
13. Bucanneers
14. Rams
15. Panthers
16. Cardinals

bears6385
06-25-2013, 04:20 PM
1) Seahawks.......NFC's best combination of O and D.

2) Falcons........With the addition of Jackson, Falcons could be the NFC's best offense.

3) 49ers.........Loss of Crabtree and Goldson drops them somewhat.

4) Packers......Outstanding offense, but OL and defense are still a big ?.

5) Giants........Everytime you count them out, they find a way to bounce back.

6) Bears.........Upgraded offense talent to a 10-6 team.

7) Redskins.....Don't sleep on the Skins if RG111 and Orakpo are back to full health.

8) Vikings.......Best runner on the planet, but QB still brings them down.

9) Rams.........A lot of young talent, very well coached, but still a year away.

10) Saints......Great O, horrible D = average team.

11) Cowboys....A talented team, that lacks leadership, starting at the top.

12) Buccaneers...Counting on a healthy OL and new secondary to make a run in the South.

13) Lions.........Too many questions on OL and defense.

14) Eagles......College coach plus new schemes on both sides of the ball.

15) Panthers....Newton still does not have enough talent around him.

16) Cardinals...OL still looks to be a major problem, and at 33 how much does Palmer have left.

dsmith275
06-25-2013, 10:16 PM
The NFC has a lot of great teams I think a case can be made for my first 4 teams being the best NFC teams

1. 49ers
2. Seahawks
3. Falcons
4. Packers
5. Giants
6. Redskins
7. Bears
8. Saints
9. Vikings
10. Rams
11. Buccaneers
12. Cowboys
13. Lions
14. Panthers
15. Eagles
16. Cardinals

#01BroncoFan
06-25-2013, 10:29 PM
#1-http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/images/49ers_fan.jpg
#2-http://postmediaprovince.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/sad-seahawks-fan.jpg
#3-http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_le5g7h4m9j1qe5jh8o1_500.jpg
#4-http://www.benchwarmersunited.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/saints-fan.jpg
#5-http://www.lobshots.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/alf-redskins.jpg
MORE TO COME ON NEXT POST!!!

#01BroncoFan
06-25-2013, 10:38 PM
#6-http://jerseyal.com/GBP/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/packers-fan-sad.jpg
#7-http://cdn.wl.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/giants-fans-storytime.jpg
#8-http://frankthetank.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/sad-bears-fans.jpg
#9-http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/rev967.com/files/2011/10/Sad-Fans-300x216.jpg
#10-http://cdn2.sbnation.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/4581035/20121202_jrc_sm8_184.0_standard_352.0.jpg
AGAIN MORE TO COME ON NEXT POST!!!

#01BroncoFan
06-25-2013, 10:46 PM
#11-http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/sNfGwxwrLmDi.QWXkSpAkw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptusfantasyexperts/Dont-be-such-sad-clowns-Bucs-fans-US-Presswire.jpg
#12-http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1_ctYi-sUI4/TFDzeYf6zlI/AAAAAAAAADM/07YAX8sumc0/s1600/Apathetic.gif
#13-http://jsportsblogger.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/sad-lions-fan.jpg
#14-http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/sad-eagles-fans-gossipsports.com_.jpeg
#15-http://www.azinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/BagHead.jpg
MORE TO COME ON THE NEXT POST!!!!!!

#01BroncoFan
06-25-2013, 10:46 PM
#16-http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/1006/grant_a_vikings_fans_b1_576.jpg
THANKS FOR VIEWING!!!

BroncoFanBoy
06-25-2013, 10:48 PM
You have the Vikings as the worst team in the NFC? They just made the playoffs, and still have AP.

fallforward3y+
06-28-2013, 11:17 PM
You have the Vikings as the worst team in the NFC? They just made the playoffs, and still have AP.

The Vikings making the playoffs was a gigantic fluke. They also had AP in 2011, when the were the worst team in the NFC other than the Rams. They also lost Harvin. They added Jennings, but that alone won't give them a good passing game. The odds of AP having those kinds of stats again is very low. There simply aren't too many seasons where you get the amount of big runs that he had. Just about every team has good players on it somewhere.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them have a down year.

BroncoFanBoy
06-28-2013, 11:31 PM
The Vikings making the playoffs was a gigantic fluke. They also had AP in 2011, when the were the worst team in the NFC other than the Rams. They also lost Harvin. They added Jennings, but that alone won't give them a good passing game. The odds of AP having those kinds of stats again is very low. There simply aren't too many seasons where you get the amount of big runs that he had. Just about every team has good players on it somewhere.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them have a down year.

AP had his problems in 2011. I know he missed the game when we played the Vikings, and he got badly hurt at the end of that season.

They had a good draft, and that should help. I don't see them as the best, but they're better than teams like Arizona.

fallforward3y+
06-29-2013, 10:21 PM
AP had his problems in 2011. I know he missed the game when we played the Vikings, and he got badly hurt at the end of that season.

They had a good draft, and that should help. I don't see them as the best, but they're better than teams like Arizona.

He did, but they weren't any better even when he was on the field. He is a very good player, but that year he was also proof that a team can lose despite a very good player. They're better than AZ, but who isn't.

BroncoFanBoy
06-30-2013, 09:46 AM
He did, but they weren't any better even when he was on the field. He is a very good player, but that year he was also proof that a team can lose despite a very good player. They're better than AZ, but who isn't.

The person who I responded to thought they are worse than AZ.

Can the Vikings be a fluke? Definetly, but they aren't the worst in the NFC.

bears6385
06-30-2013, 02:25 PM
The person who I responded to thought they are worse than AZ.

Can the Vikings be a fluke? Definetly, but they aren't the worst in the NFC.Vikings are not the worst team in the NFC...........They are not even the worst team in the NFCN, that honor goes to to the Lions.

bears6385
06-30-2013, 02:31 PM
1. Niners 2. Seahawks 3. Bears 4. Falcons 5. Giants 6. Panthers 7. Packers 8. Saints 9. Redskins 10. Bucs 11. Cowboys 12. Lions 13. Rams 14. Eagles 15. Vikings 16. Cardinals I see you have the Bears at #3 in the NFC. Though I hope you are right, I would have to rate them a bit lower due to a new HC with a new O scheme.

InsaneBlaze23
06-30-2013, 02:43 PM
1. Niners 2. Seahawks 3. Bears 4. Falcons 5. Giants 6. Panthers 7. Packers 8. Saints 9. Redskins 10. Bucs 11. Cowboys 12. Lions 13. Rams 14. Eagles 15. Vikings 16. Cardinals

You seriously have the Packers as the 8th team? I wanna know what you're smoking.

samparnell
06-30-2013, 03:41 PM
The Four Divisions of the NFC will each have at least two legitimate contenders with the possibility of a third team as dark horse.

Added to that is the NFCE plays the NFCN, and the NFCW plays the NFCS: plus the NFCE plays the AFCW; NFCW plays AFCS; NFCN plays AFCN; and, NFCS plays the AFCE.

Which is the toughest NFC division? Seems like the West. Could San Francisco and Seattle pick up four wins against the NFCS, and four more against the AFCS? Seems possible; not likely, maybe, but possible. Clouding the picture is that the Rams did not lose to the Niners in the division last year (1W & 1T). Niners or Seattle with second place in the division WC.

The North looks like it might be the second best NFC division, but must play the toughest AFC division (i.e., North) in 2013. Green Bay is favored by some because of Aaron Rodgers, but they must fix their run D and OL ASAP. We'll see how Cutler does with a new O and if Minnesota can build on 2012 and if Detroit can bounce back from it. Packers.

The Giants have some problems on D, the Eagles have new O & D, the Cowboys will try not to get in their own way, and the Redskins have question marks, but perhaps fewer than any of their division rivals. "Skins.

Atlanta is the best team in the South. NO is a factor with Brees, but held back by their D; maybe Rob Ryan will fire them up. Tampa Bay has stocked up in the right places to cure their problems; their D should be very good, but have ? at QB. Carolina is a ? Falcons.

The second place team in the West is one WC, but there will be teams from each division vying for the other right up to the last game with tie breakers confusing us all. It will depend on who gets hot at the end.

ERoyal248
06-30-2013, 04:10 PM
You seriously have the Packers as the 8th team? I wanna know what you're smoking.

7th but yeah.

As long as they have 12, still a top 3-4 team in the NFC.

InsaneBlaze23
06-30-2013, 05:23 PM
7th but yeah.

As long as they have 12, still a top 3-4 team in the NFC.

Not even just that, like they've improved since the 15-1 season. They finally have a running back, they have defensive talent. Don Capers just gotta execute or leave, he's the real issue on defense.

I hope people don't think losing Greg Jennings and Bishop knocks them out of the top 5. Bishop is average and Jennings wasn't really a factor...besides him being hurt last season.

BroncoFanBoy
06-30-2013, 06:30 PM
GB has Aaron Rodgers. He alone gets them 8 wins minimum.

Losing Jennings won't hurt. They still have Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, and James Jones.

Their running game is likely improved too.

Top 5 team.

bears6385
06-30-2013, 07:10 PM
GB has Aaron Rodgers. He alone gets them 8 wins minimum.

Losing Jennings won't hurt. They still have Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, and James Jones.

Their running game is likely improved too.

Top 5 team.As much as it pains me I have the Packers rated at #4 in the NFC. They do deserve much respect for dominating the NFCN the last few seasons. Starting with Rodgers who is one of the NFL's top 5 QB's and a very good set of receivers. I disagree though that losing Jennings won't hurt. If healthy he is still one of the better wr's in the NFC, and it always hurts to lose talent. As for the running game it is always risky at this time of year to be counting on rookies, and any running game is dependent on a good OL, which in GB is still subpar.

InsaneBlaze23
06-30-2013, 07:18 PM
As much as it pains me I have the Packers rated at #4 in the NFC. They do deserve much respect for dominating the NFCN the last few seasons. Starting with Rodgers who is one of the NFL's top 5 QB's and a very good set of receivers. I disagree though that losing Jennings won't hurt. If healthy he is still one of the better wr's in the NFC, and it always hurts to lose talent. As for the running game it is always risky at this time of year to be counting on rookies, and any running game is dependent on a good OL, which in GB is still subpar.

Some agreeable things there and disagreeable.

Rodgers isn't just top 5, he's top 2.

Losing Jennings really doesn't hurt them, Jordy Nelson is the face of the WR corp. James Jones emerged last season as a good replace for Jennings and a bigger threat in the endzone than Jennings.

The OL is the worst OL in the NFL, can they improve? Sure anyone can, got some new guys in the draft and the others are healthy. As for the running game with the OL, it has been proven that a good RB can make a bad OL not look terrible.

Matt Forte and Michael Bush both did well, the Bears OL last season was terrible. The Vikings OL is below average yet AP ran for over 2K yards.

Even the Lions had a decent run game with Jahvid Best before he got hurt.

fallforward3y+
06-30-2013, 10:54 PM
I think Bushrod will help improve their O-Line which helps Cutler. Particularly though, it's actually based on thinking it's finally they're year to beat the Packers once.

Lately, the Packers owning the Bears has been the cause of a lot of their woe. They missed out on a Super Bowl, and they would have been the #3 seed last year if they had just beaten the Packers once.

The Bears have 2 victories against the Pack in the last 5 years, so occasionally they pull one out. I think this year, they will finally get 1, with the ball bouncing their way a few times. The Bears schedule looks very favorable, I think if they can split with GB they will win enough to be the 2 seed. Hawks of course, by my prediction would be 5th seed being in the division with SFO.

fallforward3y+
06-30-2013, 11:04 PM
Not even just that, like they've improved since the 15-1 season. They finally have a running back, they have defensive talent. Don Capers just gotta execute or leave, he's the real issue on defense.

I hope people don't think losing Greg Jennings and Bishop knocks them out of the top 5. Bishop is average and Jennings wasn't really a factor...besides him being hurt last season.

It's not the loss of Jennings or Bishop, the Pack have a truckload of good receivers. I have them about 10-6, it's just based on looking at their schedule, and the finally taking 1 loss to the Bears thing I mentioned.

The Pack are overrated, especially with the perception of their improved running game. For one, I doubt that McCarthy is actually going to start using a balanced attack, their among the most pass happy teams in the league. You hear Aaron Rodgers make complaints about not staying aggressive enough when they have a big lead(even when they still pretty much throw all game long) it's not a sign they're looking for balance. Plus, I'm not sure their RBs they drafted really are that great. I'd have to see how they fare against NFL level defenders to know.

fallforward3y+
06-30-2013, 11:22 PM
Some agreeable things there and disagreeable.

Rodgers isn't just top 5, he's top 2.

Losing Jennings really doesn't hurt them, Jordy Nelson is the face of the WR corp. James Jones emerged last season as a good replace for Jennings and a bigger threat in the endzone than Jennings.

The OL is the worst OL in the NFL, can they improve? Sure anyone can, got some new guys in the draft and the others are healthy. As for the running game with the OL, it has been proven that a good RB can make a bad OL not look terrible.

Matt Forte and Michael Bush both did well, the Bears OL last season was terrible. The Vikings OL is below average yet AP ran for over 2K yards.

Even the Lions had a decent run game with Jahvid Best before he got hurt.

That is not even close to true. The Vikings line is not below average in run blocking, they're one of the best. The Bears are not a bad run blocking team, they're a bad pass blocking one. The only time a back puts up good stats behind a bad line, is if they're heavily inflated by big runs. Even bad lines are bound to open up a crease or 2 sometimes, sometimes a back takes advantage of the defense over pursuing by bouncing it outside as well.

But, you can't rely on that to do what a run game is meant to do. You need consistency, regardless of what the stats are. If you don't sustain a consistent running game, it doesn't help to put you in decent down and distance or pick up key first downs. It also won't help you eat the clock or limit possessions. You need to have at least a good enough line(or a well designed scheme) to put your backs in 1 on 1 situations, otherwise your running game is not going to be very good and you best use short passes as the run game instead.

Stats often tell lies, a line is needed for a consistent running game.

Br0nc0Buster
07-01-2013, 12:40 PM
1.49ers
2.Packers
3.Seahawks
4.Falcons
5.Giants
6.Redskins
7.Saints
8.Rams
9.Bears
10.Cowboys
11.Vikings
12.Buccaneers
13.Cardinals
14.Eagles
15.Panthers
16.Lions

Br0nc0Buster
07-01-2013, 12:45 PM
NFC is pretty stacked
There at least 9 teams that have legit playoff chances of not only getting in but doing damage once in the tournament

I also think the Cards will be better than a lot think
Palmer is nothing special at all, but he is better than the garbage they trotted out last year and their defense should still be solid

InsaneBlaze23
07-01-2013, 12:56 PM
So the Packers can't have a good run blocking team? Seems like you're making excuses for the other teams but trying to bury the Packers. If it's true that the other teams in the NFC North have good run blocking lines, then why is it that only Best, AP, Bush, and Forte can be successful with them? To me a good line should be able to make an average back look good.

The Packers haven't had a good running back since Ahmed Green and even then he was pretty average.

Maybe the reason Mike doesn't run the ball is because his backs are unreliable. Don't know if you ever watch Packers games. But last season and the end of the season before they tried running the ball. But failed because their backs just aren't good enough.

It really looks like you're just making excuse for everyone else. All of a sudden Eddie Lacy isn't a good back? Majority of the people of this site and those involved with football thought/think Lacy is pretty good. But now that he is a Packer he is below average?

Johnathan Franklin is also a pretty good running back, is he now below average just simply because?

Looking at the Packers opponents this year they could win 11-12 games if Rodgers stay healthy.
San Francisco
Cincinnati
Atlanta
Chicago

Are the only teams that I see that can beat the Packers.

InsaneBlaze23
07-01-2013, 01:03 PM
NFC is pretty stacked
There at least 9 teams that have legit playoff chances of not only getting in but doing damage once in the tournament

I also think the Cards will be better than a lot think
Palmer is nothing special at all, but he is better than the garbage they trotted out last year and their defense should still be solid

I think the Cardinals could be the dark horse team to make the playoffs if that OL can protect Carson.
Carson isn't great but he also isn't garbage.

Lets not forget that still have Larry Fitzgerald for him to throw it to, also Michael Floyd isn't bad either. And if Ryan Swope is healthy that can be a third target for him.

Rashard Mendenhall is no McFadden, he also isn't garbarge. If he is healthy and if the OL can block for him, they will have a decent at best RB.

The defense isn't looking too bad either.

Patrick Peterson, Darnell Dockett, Karlos Dansby, and if they play up to their talent and potential Jamell Fleming and Tyrann Mathieu will be beast.

ERoyal248
07-01-2013, 01:51 PM
It's not the loss of Jennings or Bishop, the Pack have a truckload of good receivers. I have them about 10-6, it's just based on looking at their schedule, and the finally taking 1 loss to the Bears thing I mentioned.

The Pack are overrated, especially with the perception of their improved running game. For one, I doubt that McCarthy is actually going to start using a balanced attack, their among the most pass happy teams in the league. You hear Aaron Rodgers make complaints about not staying aggressive enough when they have a big lead(even when they still pretty much throw all game long) it's not a sign they're looking for balance. Plus, I'm not sure their RBs they drafted really are that great. I'd have to see how they fare against NFL level defenders to know.

I'll believe it when I see it on the Bears beating the Packers.

Hasn't happened in awhile and don't see it happening this year either. Sounds like more wishful thinking if anything.

Bushrod is overrated, Brees' quick release made him better than he really is. He's not much better than Webb if you go by PFF. Bears should of just got Long who didn't sign for all that much, hell didnt Bushrod get more than Long or close?

ERoyal248
07-01-2013, 01:56 PM
So the Packers can't have a good run blocking team? Seems like you're making excuses for the other teams but trying to bury the Packers. If it's true that the other teams in the NFC North have good run blocking lines, then why is it that only Best, AP, Bush, and Forte can be successful with them? To me a good line should be able to make an average back look good.

The Packers haven't had a good running back since Ahmed Green and even then he was pretty average.

Maybe the reason Mike doesn't run the ball is because his backs are unreliable. Don't know if you ever watch Packers games. But last season and the end of the season before they tried running the ball. But failed because their backs just aren't good enough.

It really looks like you're just making excuse for everyone else. All of a sudden Eddie Lacy isn't a good back? Majority of the people of this site and those involved with football thought/think Lacy is pretty good. But now that he is a Packer he is below average?

Johnathan Franklin is also a pretty good running back, is he now below average just simply because?

Looking at the Packers opponents this year they could win 11-12 games if Rodgers stay healthy.
San Francisco
Cincinnati
Atlanta
Chicago

Are the only teams that I see that can beat the Packers.

Baltimore?

I like the two backs they got, seem to compliment each other well. And GB's line is decent at run-blocking. Especially since teams won't stack the line.

I would agree 11-12 wins as long as Rodgers is healthy, he's too good and covers up some of the holes on their team.

The defense isn't awful but get some guys back from injury and younger guys into bigger roles. And Bishop didn't play a snap last year, so I dont see where falls coming from there. I would of kept Bishop however.

InsaneBlaze23
07-01-2013, 02:13 PM
Baltimore?

I like the two backs they got, seem to compliment each other well. And GB's line is decent at run-blocking. Especially since teams won't stack the line.

I would agree 11-12 wins as long as Rodgers is healthy, he's too good and covers up some of the holes on their team.

The defense isn't awful but get some guys back from injury and younger guys into bigger roles. And Bishop didn't play a snap last year, so I dont see where falls coming from there. I would of kept Bishop however.

I didn't count them because I don't think they can beat Green Bay. The teams I listed are teams that I think can actually win. Bears could on win on Soldier field.

Baltimore to me doesn't have the secondary to handle Randall Cobb, Finley, Jones, Boykins, and Nelson. Add to that the running game which won't be near as bad as it has been the last few years.

The only thing they do have that'd give them a chance is Dumervil man handling the OL and smacking Rodgers around.

But this is just my opinion and my views on potential out comes and the potential of the players. Since nobody has played yet, can't really guarantee much.

fallforward3y+
07-01-2013, 05:36 PM
So the Packers can't have a good run blocking team? Seems like you're making excuses for the other teams but trying to bury the Packers. If it's true that the other teams in the NFC North have good run blocking lines, then why is it that only Best, AP, Bush, and Forte can be successful with them? To me a good line should be able to make an average back look good.

The Packers haven't had a good running back since Ahmed Green and even then he was pretty average.

Maybe the reason Mike doesn't run the ball is because his backs are unreliable. Don't know if you ever watch Packers games. But last season and the end of the season before they tried running the ball. But failed because their backs just aren't good enough.

It really looks like you're just making excuse for everyone else. All of a sudden Eddie Lacy isn't a good back? Majority of the people of this site and those involved with football thought/think Lacy is pretty good. But now that he is a Packer he is below average?

Johnathan Franklin is also a pretty good running back, is he now below average just simply because?

Looking at the Packers opponents this year they could win 11-12 games if Rodgers stay healthy.
San Francisco
Cincinnati
Atlanta
Chicago

Are the only teams that I see that can beat the Packers.

Was it the 38-10 loss last year, or the 37-20 loss in the 2011 playoffs that lead you to believe the Giants can't beat the Packers? That's my point about them being overrated on paper. Ravens at home, Redskins may have a shot as well. Plus you never know what divisional upsets may happen.

Lacy is a rookie RB who I haven't seen against NFL level defenders. Thus, I don't know if he really will be that great of an NFL RB. I don't buy that a RB will be great in the NFL just because they're high profile in the draft. Plus, like I mentioned before run blocking has a lot to do with it.

The Packers actually ran the ball fairly well, in the games where they did run it more often. Ryan Grant is actually a fairly good RB, there's just no reason to believe that their running game is going to improve so strongly with Lacy, or that they'll be a balanced attack this year. Most of the time, McCarthy is not interested in a balanced attack.

bears6385
07-07-2013, 01:56 PM
I'll believe it when I see it on the Bears beating the Packers.

Hasn't happened in awhile and don't see it happening this year either. Sounds like more wishful thinking if anything.

Bushrod is overrated, Brees' quick release made him better than he really is. He's not much better than Webb if you go by PFF. Bears should of just got Long who didn't sign for all that much, hell didnt Bushrod get more than Long or close?1) I can see a Bears Pack split this year. Hell it would have happened last year if the Bears had just an efficient offense.

2) It's a new era for Chicago offense, an offense very close to what Cutler ran in Denver under Shanny. Better OL play, huge upgrade at TE healthy WR's other than Marshall,plus fully using Forte's abilities will go along way in making this a consistant, efficient offense.

3) Bushrod is much better than Webb at LT. Here is something that PFF does not talk about, in 2012 Webb needed help on most passing plays, while Bushrod was on an island over 80% of the time. It is true though that Bushrod took a step back last year as did almost every other Saint not named Brees, but what you also have remember is that from 2009 to being named to the 2011 pro bowl Bushrod improved every season. Jake Long got a bigger contract, and has had health issues the last two years ending his season on IR.

bears6385
07-07-2013, 02:06 PM
I think Bushrod will help improve their O-Line which helps Cutler. Particularly though, it's actually based on thinking it's finally they're year to beat the Packers once.

Lately, the Packers owning the Bears has been the cause of a lot of their woe. They missed out on a Super Bowl, and they would have been the #3 seed last year if they had just beaten the Packers once.

The Bears have 2 victories against the Pack in the last 5 years, so occasionally they pull one out. I think this year, they will finally get 1, with the ball bouncing their way a few times. The Bears schedule looks very favorable, I think if they can split with GB they will win enough to be the 2 seed. Hawks of course, by my prediction would be 5th seed being in the division with SFO.Just a split with the Pack would be nice. Just a consistant offense this year plus a defense that actually could be better than last year, and I would be good with that.

ERoyal248
07-09-2013, 10:48 AM
1) I can see a Bears Pack split this year. Hell it would have happened last year if the Bears had just an efficient offense.

2) It's a new era for Chicago offense, an offense very close to what Cutler ran in Denver under Shanny. Better OL play, huge upgrade at TE healthy WR's other than Marshall,plus fully using Forte's abilities will go along way in making this a consistant, efficient offense.

3) Bushrod is much better than Webb at LT. Here is something that PFF does not talk about, in 2012 Webb needed help on most passing plays, while Bushrod was on an island over 80% of the time. It is true though that Bushrod took a step back last year as did almost every other Saint not named Brees, but what you also have remember is that from 2009 to being named to the 2011 pro bowl Bushrod improved every season. Jake Long got a bigger contract, and has had health issues the last two years ending his season on IR.

Well, the problem is Cutler plays like crap vs GB. He has some atrocious games that are the main reason they lose. Has been since he's been in Chicago.

Your last 2 points are true but as pointed above, I'll believe it when I see it. Cutler just struggles vs GB. Not sure why, maybe it changes this season.

samparnell
07-09-2013, 12:22 PM
Besides improving their rushing attack, the Packers need to do a better job of stopping the run in order to return to being a serious Super Bowl contender. Aaron Rodgers makes them almost dominant in their division, but the NFC in general is quite competitive with at least eight legitimate contenders.

Thrasher
07-09-2013, 03:12 PM
Tough one but I'll give it a try.

1. 49ers
2. Seahawks
3. Falcons
4. Packers
5. Redskins
6. Giants
7. Bears
8. Saints
9. Cowboys
10. Vikings
11. Lions
12. Buccaneers
13. Panthers
14. Rams
15. Eagles
16. Cardinals


Top 4 was pretty easy while the teams between 5 and 8 can win against everyone, but also can lose to almost everyone. Don't really want to pin them down to any specific spots right there. The teams between 9 and 11 have chances to reach the playoffs imo and the rest is just the rest.

fallforward3y+
07-10-2013, 03:59 AM
Well, the problem is Cutler plays like crap vs GB. He has some atrocious games that are the main reason they lose. Has been since he's been in Chicago.

Your last 2 points are true but as pointed above, I'll believe it when I see it. Cutler just struggles vs GB. Not sure why, maybe it changes this season.

Yeah, he really does play awful against GB sometimes. He personally needs to improve his play or they aren't beating the Packers either time. In the 1 game where they beat GB with him, he played half-decent, and the Bears had some luck with 18 Packer penalties.

fallforward3y+
07-10-2013, 04:03 AM
Besides improving their rushing attack, the Packers need to do a better job of stopping the run in order to return to being a serious Super Bowl contender. Aaron Rodgers makes them almost dominant in their division, but the NFC in general is quite competitive with at least eight legitimate contenders.

If they can return to the level of defense they had in 2010, they have a good shot. They do need a run attack though, to help with beating the top teams. They can torch mediocre defenses without it, but when they play defenses like the Niners and Giants they struggle more because those teams can make stops easier with knowing they are only a threat to pass.

assassin216
07-11-2013, 09:14 AM
1.49ers
2.Seahawks
3.Green Bay
4.NY Giants
5.New Orleans
6.Chicago
7.Washington
8.Carolina
9.St Louis
10.Atlanta
11.Dallas
12.Tampa Bay
13.Detroit
14.Minnesota
15.Philadelphia
16.Arizona


Alot of people are overrating the Falcons and underrating the Saints and Rams

InsaneBlaze23
07-11-2013, 09:50 AM
1.49ers
2.Seahawks
3.Green Bay
4.NY Giants
5.New Orleans
6.Chicago
7.Washington
8.Carolina
9.St Louis
10.Atlanta
11.Dallas
12.Tampa Bay
13.Detroit
14.Minnesota
15.Philadelphia
16.Arizona


Alot of people are overrating the Falcons and underrating the Saints and Rams

Until the Rams get a better QB they won't be going anywhere anytime soon. I don't think they're good enough to be better than Detroit, Tampa, and Atlanta. To I do think they are a decent team, just don't think Bradford is that good of a QB to get them over the hump.

Saints are the Saints, it all depends on Brees, to me they are a lesser version of the Packers as in they have a good offense but not much going for them on defense. And just like Green Bay, if the Saints fix their defensive issues they could easily be top 3.

fallforward3y+
07-20-2013, 12:50 AM
1.49ers
2.Seahawks
3.Green Bay
4.NY Giants
5.New Orleans
6.Chicago
7.Washington
8.Carolina
9.St Louis
10.Atlanta
11.Dallas
12.Tampa Bay
13.Detroit
14.Minnesota
15.Philadelphia
16.Arizona


Alot of people are overrating the Falcons and underrating the Saints and Rams

Atlanta 10th? Atlanta hasn't been any worse than 7th in the NFC in the last 5 years, went 13-3 last year, and for some reason you think they will drop to 10th this year?

fallforward3y+
07-20-2013, 12:52 AM
Until the Rams get a better QB they won't be going anywhere anytime soon. I don't think they're good enough to be better than Detroit, Tampa, and Atlanta. To I do think they are a decent team, just don't think Bradford is that good of a QB to get them over the hump.

Saints are the Saints, it all depends on Brees, to me they are a lesser version of the Packers as in they have a good offense but not much going for them on defense. And just like Green Bay, if the Saints fix their defensive issues they could easily be top 3.

Rams could beat the Bucs or Lions, they showed that last year by beating TB and coming close to winning in DET. If it all depends on Brees, the Saints are safe pretty much every year, he always plays top notch. However, unless their defense improves they likely miss the playoffs.

BroncoFanBoy
07-20-2013, 06:34 PM
The Rams have some talent, but Bradford staying healthy will be key for them. Losing Jackson hurts though.

BroncoFanBoy
07-20-2013, 06:37 PM
Alot of people are overrating the Falcons and underrating the Saints and Rams

How are the Falcons overrated? They were just nearly in the Super Bowl.