Surprising preseason rankings from Peter King

[Partial]

Bears: 4
Packers: 14
Vikings: 15

view the whole article here.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/05/10/may11/index.html

[hoosier]

Peter King clearly didn't watch the Bears defense last year.

[LL2]

Peter King clearly didn't watch the Bears defense last year.

For real..I was thinking GB should've been higher.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I really don't get the Bears at #4. Sure they got Cutler but they still have poor WRs and an OL that isn't that great. I think the defense is fairly overrated and no way they are a 12 win team.

[Scott Campbell]

Let them hype the Bears. They deserve the additional pressure having gambled away so many picks this year.

[Bossman641]

Wow, and here I thought only Bear fans were that delusional about their team.

The Bear defense did 2 things well last year: stop the run and force turnovers, but they could be passed on all day. They didn't give up big plays as much as teams were able to dink and dunk down the field.

This is a team with far better talent than six wins, and I expect Aaron Rodgers to be better in the fourth quarter this year than last, by the sheer experience factor.

Noooo. That couldn't be.

[Dabaddestbear]

I really don't get the Bears at #4. Sure they got Cutler but they still have poor WRs and an OL that isn't that great. I think the defense is fairly overrated and no way they are a 12 win team.

Umm, their offensive line was better than the Packers last year. And they improved that. And who knows how poor the WR's will be since their will be new starters outside of Hester.

[Dabaddestbear]

Let them hype the Bears. They deserve the additional pressure having gambled away so many picks this year.

They gave up two picks over 3 years. Yep thats really a whole lot.

[cheesner]

Although I think that Peter King is one of the best writers covering football, I think he ranks pretty low on the football knowledge scale. His opinions and analysis sometimes leaves me scratching my head.

He also puts out incorrect information:

I don't trust Clay Matthews, but we'll see. Why? He walked onto the USC campus weighing 161 pounds. Is his frame fine, adding 80 pounds in such a short time?

[hoosier]

Let them hype the Bears. They deserve the additional pressure having gambled away so many picks this year.

They gave up two picks over 3 years. Yep thats really a whole lot.

The Bears gave up three picks in two years: first rounders in 2009 and 2010, and a third 2009. They also got back a five from Denver in 2009. Given how the Bears first round picks have turned out lately, you could argue they didn't lose very much in giving those picks to Denver.

[Deputy Nutz]

Clay Mathews addressed the weight issue and said he certainly didn't walk on at USC weighing 161 pounds. When he was a junior in high school he weighed 161 pounds and his father wouldn't play him because he was too small. He hit a small growth spurt between his junior and senior year, he got taller and put on a little weight. He said he showed up at USC barely under 200 pounds.

the Guy grew 6 inches in his late teens. He worked out quite a bit. It is pretty explainable when you factor in the gains he made with his height. Certainly there hasn't been a proven drug out there to add gains in height. If so I would have been all over it.

Looking at Mathews he still looks a little lean. I would like to see another 15 pounds added to his frame in the next year or so.

[Dabaddestbear]

Let them hype the Bears. They deserve the additional pressure having gambled away so many picks this year.

They gave up two picks over 3 years. Yep thats really a whole lot.

The Bears gave up three picks in two years: first rounders in 2009 and 2010, and a third 2009. They also got back a five from Denver in 2009. Given how the Bears first round picks have turned out lately, you could argue they didn't lose very much in giving those picks to Denver.

Well the third doesnt count since it was actually traded for their 5th.

And I agree the Bears draft picks up that high has not been impressive, but overall as a drafter he has done much better than the Packers GM TT.

[pasquale]

I really don't get the Bears at #4. Sure they got Cutler but they still have poor WRs and an OL that isn't that great. I think the defense is fairly overrated and no way they are a 12 win team.

Umm, their offensive line was better than the Packers last year. And they improved that. And who knows how poor the WR's will be since their will be new starters outside of Hester.

i agree with craig. i don't argue with putting them ahead of the pack and vikes in the rankings, but at 4? that's a joke.

[Dabaddestbear]

I really don't get the Bears at #4. Sure they got Cutler but they still have poor WRs and an OL that isn't that great. I think the defense is fairly overrated and no way they are a 12 win team.

Umm, their offensive line was better than the Packers last year. And they improved that. And who knows how poor the WR's will be since their will be new starters outside of Hester.

i agree with craig. i don't argue with putting them ahead of the pack and vikes in the rankings, but at 4? that's a joke.

hey, I never said they justified being at #4....lol.
Call it a joke would mean its too far fetched of thought. But one could debate the position they are placed. I predict at least 12 wins, with a surprise from Hester for all to watch.

[run pMc]

I like reading Peter King for his access to the players and some of his insights, but he's terrible as a prognosticator or scout. He's too fanboyish and a little too much East Coast bias for me.

Oh, and King's man crush on Fav_e is a little annoying.

I have trouble imagining 12 wins for CHI. Cutler is a great talent, but he hasn't been much of a winner in college or the pros thus far. He upgrades the offense, but he had a stronger supporting cast in DEN than he does now. When Urlacher tells him to STFU, will he? Does he cry to his agent?

Meh. MIN and GB aren't gonna roll over and give them 4 wins, and I think at #4 they're overrated. At the very least the games will be hard fought and entertaining.

Whatever, I think these ratings will be far, far off from reality.