NFC NORTH PREDICITONS... (not record wise)

[packers11]

Since its to early to predict the record, I want to see what people think of these few questions ...

Surprise team of the NFCN :
Disappointment of the NFCN:
Division Leader :
Bottom of Division :

Here I go:

Lions
Bears
Packers
Vikings

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings

[MJZiggy]

Surprise = Lions
Disappointment = Bears
Leader = Packers
Bottom = Vikings

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Surprise = Packers
Disappointment = Bears
Leader = Packers
Bottom = Vikings

[BallHawk]

Packers- 10-6
Bears- 10-6
Lions- 7-9
Vikings- 5-11

Packers win on tiebreakers.

[Fritz]

Lions and Tigers and Bears.

Oh my.

By the way, is it just me or every year do people seem to pick the Lions as the hot "sleeper" pick?

[Scott Campbell]

Lions and Tigers and Bears.

Oh my.

By the way, is it just me or every year do people seem to pick the Lions as the hot "sleeper" pick?


They don't get Calvin Russell every year.

[Scott Campbell]

Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings


Traitor!

[Bretsky]

Lions and Tigers and Bears.

Oh my.

By the way, is it just me or every year do people seem to pick the Lions as the hot "sleeper" pick?


They don't get Calvin Russell every year.

lol:
Who is Calvin Russell ?

[Scott Campbell]

Lions and Tigers and Bears.

Oh my.

By the way, is it just me or every year do people seem to pick the Lions as the hot "sleeper" pick?


They don't get Calvin Russell every year.

lol:
Who is Calvin Russell ?


He's a cross between Calvin Johnson and JaMarcus Russell. Dude throws Hail Mary TD's to himself.

[RashanGary]

Surprise: Packers
Disappointment: Lions
Division Leader: Packers
Bottom of Division: Lions

Bears: 10-6
Packers: 9-7 (wildcard)
Vikings: 7-9
Lions: 6-10

[Bretsky]

Surprise: Packers
Disappointment: Lions
Division Leader: Packers
Bottom of Division: Lions

Bears: 10-6
Packers: 9-7 (wildcard)
Vikings: 7-9
Lions: 6-10

confused; how can the Packers be the Division leader in first point and then the wilcard on your second point

[Bretsky]

I'll start by saying I hope I'm wrong and my expectation for Snapper Success is for him to improve on last year's record.

With that being said

Division Winner- Bears
Surprise - Vikings
Disappointment- Packers

[BallHawk]

B, I don't see how the Packers can disappoint. They're not like the Bears or the Panthers that have high expectations, the Packers have a chance to be in the 8 or 9 win area, as they also have a chance to be in the 6 or 7 win area.

Personally, I don't see how the Vikings can be good this year. Their passing game is just to shaky, IMO. The only way I see them getting 8 or more wins is if Tavaris Jackson does a good Vince Young impersonation. That's hard enough, but when you look at Jackson's weapons, it really makes you shake your head. Bobby Wade as a #1? That alone is cause for concern. Their RBs could be great and their success on offense will rest on their shoulders. However, if Taylor and AP don't get the running game going, the Vikes don't have a shot. Lucky for the Vikes, they have a fantastic DL. However, I do worry about how they will be in the secondary. The St. Louis game last year for the Vikes was a bit of a "mail-in" game, but they looked bad in that game. The Vikes are another team that could go either way.

The Lions, on the other hand, have arguably the best offense in the NFC North. One already great WR and another WR that looks to be great. Add in Mike Furrey and you have yourself a fantastic group of WRs. Jon Kitna is a solid QB and is probably the 2nd best QB in the division. The Lions added a 1,000 yard back and have another good back in Kevin Jones. Their OL is questionable, but if they are at least average then the Lions could be dangerous on offense. Detroit's defense is their big weakness. They lose Dre Bly, who was the big man in the secondary. Add the fact they're starting Paris Lenon at MLB and that's a cause for concern.

Nonetheless, the NFC North will be a very interesting division in 2007.

[Bretsky]

B, I don't see how the Packers can disappoint. They're not like the Bears or the Panthers that have high expectations, the Packers have a chance to be in the 8 or 9 win area, as they also have a chance to be in the 6 or 7 win area.


BH,

This is the type of mentality that is a bit frustrating to me. Why do so many of the supporters of Ted Thompson have such low expectations ? Is that how far down we've become ? Just accept whatever we are.

We were .500 in a poor conference last year. We're in that same poor conference next year. We're still in that same division as we were last year. If our expectation is 4 wins in the division next year, wouldn't it be a disappointment if we hit that and only won 2-3 games the rest of the season. And I'd think it would be equally disappointing if we only won 2 or 3 division games.

We had 25 Million to spend, which was more than anybody in our division.

How our GM chooses to spend it is up to him; I'm no longer questioning his free agency hibernation; my views on that have been far too clear.

But IMO it's his still his job to get us on track to improving faster than the other teams. And he's accountable for that.

IMO six or seven wins would be a disappointment; IMO we should consider it a disappointment.

It's time to start raising the bar for success again. It's way too low for too many people IMO.

[BallHawk]

As a Packer fan, I expect that every year we put out a team that is capable of making the playoffs. If you're going to put out a team with no expectations of making the playoffs, then why play? If the Packers did not finish above .500 this season I would be disappointed. Unless you win the Super Bowl, you do not look out to do the same as you did the year before. You always strive for something better. However, in the eyes of the public, if the Packer don't finish above .500 they will not be considered a disappointment. They are somewhat considered to have a shot, but they do not have expectations like the Bears or the Panthers.

TT has fielded a team that for this year, and years in the future, will be competitive. In my mind, you can't ask for more then that.

[Bretsky]

As a Packer fan, I expect that every year we put out a team that is capable of making the playoffs. If you're going to put out a team with no expectations of making the playoffs, then why play? If the Packers did not finish above .500 this season I would be disappointed. Unless you win the Super Bowl, you do not look out to do the same as you did the year before. You always strive for something better. However, in the eyes of the public, if the Packer don't finish above .500 they will not be considered a disappointment. They are somewhat considered to have a shot, but they do not have expectations like the Bears or the Panthers.

TT has fielded a team that for this year, and years in the future, will be competitive. In my mind, you can't ask for more then that.

Some good points on capability. I'm not sure the eyes of the public are going to give TT the free pass at .500 that you think they will.

I'd agree we have no contending aspirations this year; but I think at least half of the Packer fans want to see a measurable improvement in our record, which means 9 wins.

Regarding what I ask for, I'm with Wist on this one.

Titles; that is why I ask for. Ron Wolf has been the only successful GM in Green Bay since my birth. Either TT will be the second or he'll go into the litter box with Tom Braatz, Bart Starr, and Sherman.

Here's to hoping TT joins the likes of Ron Wolf :glug:

[The Shadow]

As a Packer fan, I expect that every year we put out a team that is capable of making the playoffs. If you're going to put out a team with no expectations of making the playoffs, then why play? If the Packers did not finish above .500 this season I would be disappointed. Unless you win the Super Bowl, you do not look out to do the same as you did the year before. You always strive for something better. However, in the eyes of the public, if the Packer don't finish above .500 they will not be considered a disappointment. They are somewhat considered to have a shot, but they do not have expectations like the Bears or the Panthers.

TT has fielded a team that for this year, and years in the future, will be competitive. In my mind, you can't ask for more then that.

Nicely stated.

[GBRulz]

I think the Lions will be the surprise team of the division. Hey, it's only a matter of time before they actually ARE competitive, right?

For the bottom feeders....that will be between us and the Queens to decide. I hope I'm totally wrong and that TT found some young guys who will surprise everyone, but well.... I guess I need something else in this glass as the kool-aid is empty. :huh:

[Bretsky]

I think the Lions will be the surprise team of the division. Hey, it's only a matter of time before they actually ARE competitive, right?

For the bottom feeders....that will be between us and the Queens to decide. I hope I'm totally wrong and that TT found some young guys who will surprise everyone, but well.... I guess I need something else in this glass as the kool-aid is empty. :huh:


My glass has been full of White Russians lately. Not sure what that does to my homerism though; there's more than enough of that to go around in here anyways.

[GrnBay007]

Surprise -- Packers!! :glug:

Disappointment -- Bears :twisted:

Leader -- Packers :glug:

Bottom -- Lions :lol:

[BallHawk]

I think the Lions will be the surprise team of the division. Hey, it's only a matter of time before they actually ARE competitive, right?

They're the Detroit Lions. The laws of probability don't affect them.

[Willard]

Surprise: Bears
Disappointment: Bears (surprisingly disappointing as a matter of fact)
Leader: Packers
Bottom: Bears

[Scott Campbell]

Surprise: Bears
Disappointment: Bears (surprisingly disappointing as a matter of fact)
Leader: Packers
Bottom: Bears


Excellent choices.

[woodbuck27]

Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings

You're picking the Lions to win the NFCN.

WOW !!

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings

You're picking the Lions to win the NFCN.

WOW !!

No. I didn't follow directions. That's my predicted order of finish. Nothing would surprise me.

[woodbuck27]

Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings

You're picking the Lions to win the NFCN.

WOW !!

No. I didn't follow directions. That's my predicted order of finish. Nothing would surprise me.

OK. . . so for you the Bears win the NFCN.

That apppears to be the logical conclusion.

2nd through 4th (I agree) is anyone's guess.

The surprize (-ve) certainly could be da Bears if they fall. The surprize (+ve) could be the Lions if they finally step up (again LOL, a ton of potential before the season begins) yet I believe that they are suspect on the 'D' overall.

The Vikings still need a QB and some offensive punch. They had a pretty decent draft.

The Packers have alot of ?'s on the 'O' and significantly, no proven depth there. The Packers 'D' may hold up and keep us in games but we lack playmakers on 'O'. Still with 6 or 7 wins we could fall into second in the NFCN.

[Bretsky]

Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings

You're picking the Lions to win the NFCN.

WOW !!

No. I didn't follow directions. That's my predicted order of finish. Nothing would surprise me.

OK. . . so for you the Bears win the NFCN.

That apppears to be the logical conclusion.

2nd through 4th (I agree) is anyone's guess.

The surprize (-ve) certainly could be da Bears if they fall. The surprize (+ve) could be the Lions if they finally step up but they are suspect on the 'D' overall.

The Vikings still need a QB.

The Packers have alot of ?'s on the 'O' and significantly, no proven depth there. The Packers 'D' may hold up and keep us in games but we lack playmakers on 'O'.


All the homerism Bear feel good bashing aside, they are one of the top 7 teams in the NFL right now.

IMO the Bears may even be in the top 5 teams in the NFL.

[Rastak]

[quote="woodbuck27"]
The Vikings still need a QB.

[\quote]


We don't know that. They've got a young guy wiith a great arm and quick feet. How good will he be...I have no idea. Better to say there is a major question mark there.....

[woodbuck27]

[quote=woodbuck27]
The Vikings still need a QB.

[\quote]


We don't know that. They've got a young guy wiith a great arm and quick feet. How good will he be...I have no idea. Better to say there is a major question mark there.....

I'll bow to that assessment Rastak. :)

[Bretsky]

[quote=woodbuck27]
The Vikings still need a QB.

[\quote]


We don't know that. They've got a young guy wiith a great arm and quick feet. How good will he be...I have no idea. Better to say there is a major question mark there.....


Stop getting so nitpicky :wink: :lol:

I say the Packers need a legit #3 WR, a receiving TE, and a second starting S all the time.............your post makes me think you are TT supporter :lol:

[BallHawk]

I'm not worried about the 2nd safety. Out of Manuel, Culver, Rouse, and Underwood, one of them is bound to step up.

[woodbuck27]

[quote=woodbuck27]
The Vikings still need a QB.

[\quote]


We don't know that. They've got a young guy wiith a great arm and quick feet. How good will he be...I have no idea. Better to say there is a major question mark there.....


Stop getting so nitpicky :wink: :lol:

I say the Packers need a legit #3 WR, a receiving TE, and a second starting S all the time.............your post makes me think you are TT supporter :lol:

Big time TT supporter. :)

[Bretsky]

[quote=woodbuck27]
The Vikings still need a QB.

[\quote]


We don't know that. They've got a young guy wiith a great arm and quick feet. How good will he be...I have no idea. Better to say there is a major question mark there.....


Stop getting so nitpicky :wink: :lol:

I say the Packers need a legit #3 WR, a receiving TE, and a second starting S all the time.............your post makes me think you are TT supporter :lol:

Big time TT supporter. :)


Yes, Busted

I bet Rastak loves the Snappper :lol:

[Fritz]

Injury always plays such a huge role. If one or two major guys goes down - for any team - it can cause a tumble. Of course, if you're the Bungles, you worry more about arrests than injuries.

[Bretsky]

Injury always plays such a huge role. If one or two major guys goes down - for any team - it can cause a tumble. Of course, if you're the Bungles, you worry more about arrests than injuries.

And that's why you use free agency to supplement the roster as well. :lol:

[BEARMAN]

I am saving this post so I can repost it at the end of this season, when you all will have to eat your words of wisdom.... :evil:

Silly packers, the NFCN belongs to Da BEARS !

Da BEARS win the NFCN (again) and the packers are at the bottom (again). Who cares who's in the middle, the kitties or the vqueens are both better then the pack ! :twisted:

[The Shadow]

It is heartwarming to see the Bears so quickly self-destructing.
And who, exactly, will be quarterbacking for them this season?
(tee hee hee)

[packers11]

I am saving this post so I can repost it at the end of this season, when you all will have to eat your words of wisdom.... :evil:

Silly packers, the NFCN belongs to Da BEARS !

Da BEARS win the NFCN (again) and the packers are at the bottom (again). Who cares who's in the middle, the kitties or the vqueens are both better then the pack ! :twisted:

Damn... packers were on the bottom this year???

Get hooked on phonics maybe you can learn to read... :)

[mngolf19]

Surprise -- Packers!! :glug:

Disappointment -- Bears :twisted:

Leader -- Packers :glug:

Bottom -- Lions :lol:

007 is that kool-aid in your glass? Just kidding. I have to qualify my picks. Surprise is-Lions having more than 5 wins. Disappointment is-Bears as they will struggle all year but I think they may pull out a 10 win year. Leader is-Vikes. Yes, I am drinking the kool-aid. I think the OL needed a year to gel and Jackson won't have to win games for them. And Bottom is-Packers. Hard for me to say that as the Lions are usually a very safe pick here but I just think the Packers depth is hurting a little along with lack of playmakers on the O.

[Zool]

Surprise -- Packers!! :glug:

Disappointment -- Bears :twisted:

Leader -- Packers :glug:

Bottom -- Lions :lol:

007 is that kool-aid in your glass? Just kidding. I have to qualify my picks. Surprise is-Lions having more than 5 wins. Disappointment is-Bears as they will struggle all year but I think they may pull out a 10 win year. Leader is-Vikes. Yes, I am drinking the kool-aid. I think the OL needed a year to gel and Jackson won't have to win games for them. And Bottom is-Packers. Hard for me to say that as the Lions are usually a very safe pick here but I just think the Packers depth is hurting a little along with lack of playmakers on the O.Other than RB, which spot on the Vikings is dramatically better than the Packers?

O-line-Maybe, but they weren't lights out last year by any means.
D-Tackles-Maybe depending on Harrell, but I'll take our ends any day of the week.

Im pretty damned sure I'd take our QB and WR's first. LB's theres no question in my mind. Safety is a wash, and I will take our CB's for the next 2 years as well.

Bears D will carry them to 10-11 wins, but they will miss Thomas Jones alot more than they realize right now. They simply shouldn't draft RB's anymore.

Packers will hit 9-7. Surprise, the O-line will be average or better.

Vikes will disappoint because T-Jax will struggle.

Lions will attempt to outscore people with no running game. It wont happen. The lions will be a 4-5 win team.

[GrnBay007]

Surprise -- Packers!! :glug:

Disappointment -- Bears :twisted:

Leader -- Packers :glug:

Bottom -- Lions :lol:

007 is that kool-aid in your glass? Just kidding. I have to qualify my picks. Surprise is-Lions having more than 5 wins. Disappointment is-Bears as they will struggle all year but I think they may pull out a 10 win year. Leader is-Vikes. Yes, I am drinking the kool-aid. I think the OL needed a year to gel and Jackson won't have to win games for them. And Bottom is-Packers. Hard for me to say that as the Lions are usually a very safe pick here but I just think the Packers depth is hurting a little along with lack of playmakers on the O.

It appears I shared my kool-aid with you. You silly Viking fan!! :P

[Bretsky]

Surprise -- Packers!! :glug:

Disappointment -- Bears :twisted:

Leader -- Packers :glug:

Bottom -- Lions :lol:

007 is that kool-aid in your glass? Just kidding. I have to qualify my picks. Surprise is-Lions having more than 5 wins. Disappointment is-Bears as they will struggle all year but I think they may pull out a 10 win year. Leader is-Vikes. Yes, I am drinking the kool-aid. I think the OL needed a year to gel and Jackson won't have to win games for them. And Bottom is-Packers. Hard for me to say that as the Lions are usually a very safe pick here but I just think the Packers depth is hurting a little along with lack of playmakers on the O.Other than RB, which spot on the Vikings is dramatically better than the Packers?

O-line-Maybe, but they weren't lights out last year by any means.
D-Tackles-Maybe depending on Harrell, but I'll take our ends any day of the week.

Im pretty damned sure I'd take our QB and WR's first. LB's theres no question in my mind. Safety is a wash, and I will take our CB's for the next 2 years as well.

Bears D will carry them to 10-11 wins, but they will miss Thomas Jones alot more than they realize right now. They simply shouldn't draft RB's anymore.

Packers will hit 9-7. Surprise, the O-line will be average or better.

Vikes will disappoint because T-Jax will struggle.

Lions will attempt to outscore people with no running game. It wont happen. The lions will be a 4-5 win team.


The Vikings DL is slightly better than Green Bay's IMO
The Vikings OL is better than Green Bay's
The Vikings RB's are better than Green Bay's

TE's for both teams suck

The Packers have the advantage at QB, WR, LB, and CB

Safeties could go either way.

[oregonpackfan]

Surprise = Packers
Disappointment = Bears
Leader = Packers
Bottom = Lions

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Vikings OL is better than Green Bay's

You don't watch many Viking games, do you? They have three big names. One played well last year. Two were average. The other two spots played poorly. It was reminiscent of Green Bay in 2005. We had three good OL in Clifton, Tauscher, and Flanagan/Wells--and yet our OL was pathetic because of two huge sore spots.

I don't know what to make of Birk this year, but I didn't think he played any better than Wells last year. Hutchinson is the best OL on either team. I'd take Clifton over McKinnie. I'd take Tauscher at RT, and I'd probably take Spitz over Hicks.

[cpk1994]

The Vikings OL is better than Green Bay's

You don't watch many Viking games, do you? They have three big names. One played well last year. Two were average. The other two spots played poorly. It was reminiscent of Green Bay in 2005. We had three good OL in Clifton, Tauscher, and Flanagan/Wells--and yet our OL was pathetic because of two huge sore spots.

I don't know what to make of Birk this year, but I didn't think he played any better than Wells last year. Hutchinson is the best OL on either team. I'd take Clifton over McKinnie. I'd take Tauscher at RT, and I'd probably take Spitz over Hicks.

For $100 Million, the Vikes OL is nowhere as good as it should be.