Realistic Look at the Season

[packrulz]

Better then last year isn't saying much boys, ANYthing is better then last year !


GO BEARS !

Yes, getting beat in the first round of the playoffs must suck.

[Willard]

Better then last year isn't saying much boys, ANYthing is better then last year !

Bear, finally we can agree on something.
At least I hope it can't get worse...

[Astonishment]

The reality is...

…there is no way to predict how this team will do!!! There are so many variables that it is almost impossible anything outside of them not going 16-0. With numerous variables it is usually a safe assumption that there will be struggles while those things get worked out. So I believe there is a realistic basis for some pessimism. However, because we don't have any history with this team (with as much youth as they have) it is impossible to even predict if the pessimism is truly warranted. In the end the only true "Realistic Look" is that we really have no idea, and even the Packers themselves don't know. We can all make assumptions with things we think we have seen, but in the end that is all we have. Going into next season we will have allot more answers even if the Packers have a new QB.

[mngolf19]

Rastak aside, most of the Twin Cities fans are fair weathered whiners and a slow start by the Vikes (who still haven't sold out any of their home games) should shut them up nicely.

Nice.

[packrulz]

The reality is...

…there is no way to predict how this team will do!!! There are so many variables that it is almost impossible anything outside of them not going 16-0. With numerous variables it is usually a safe assumption that there will be struggles while those things get worked out. So I believe there is a realistic basis for some pessimism. However, because we don't have any history with this team (with as much youth as they have) it is impossible to even predict if the pessimism is truly warranted. In the end the only true "Realistic Look" is that we really have no idea, and even the Packers themselves don't know. We can all make assumptions with things we think we have seen, but in the end that is all we have. Going into next season we will have allot more answers even if the Packers have a new QB.

I look at the stats and most of the time rookie players don't have much of an impact their first year. So to expect all the rooks to jell is unrealistic. However, the other teams (queens, Lions), have new coaches and players too. That helps the Packers odds. I still expect they will be competative.

[Zool]

Rastak aside, most of the Twin Cities fans are fair weathered whiners and a slow start by the Vikes (who still haven't sold out any of their home games) should shut them up nicely.

Nice.

He's right. I've lived in enemy territory since 1980 and its always the same thing. When the Vikes are winning there's purple everywhere. When they are having a down year or 2, you dont see an ounce of it.

When they are winning the fans say "we are having a great season". When they are losing "they suck". Obviously this isnt all of them, but its a majority.

[mngolf19]

Rastak aside, most of the Twin Cities fans are fair weathered whiners and a slow start by the Vikes (who still haven't sold out any of their home games) should shut them up nicely.

Nice.

He's right. I've lived in enemy territory since 1980 and its always the same thing. When the Vikes are winning there's purple everywhere. When they are having a down year or 2, you dont see an ounce of it.

When they are winning the fans say "we are having a great season". When they are losing "they suck". Obviously this isnt all of them, but its a majority.

And this makes them fair weathered? I follow the team as much as anyone, and grew up in MN. I have no problem saying they suck when they do. But that doesn't change my allegiance to the team.

[Green Bud Packer]

Better then last year isn't saying much boys, ANYthing is better then last year !


GO BEARS !

tell me that story about how the bears sucked that year following their last division title.you know it so well.

[Dabaddestbear]

....

As far as the Bears, while good, they are given too much respect. They played poor offensive teams last year, similar to the Pack, thus their ranking was elevated. Jesus, look at what Carolina did to them. So I think it is a little far-fetched to call them best in the league.

And I guess we will see this weekend.

If you are using the loss to Carolina as a measuring stick to how good the Bears were last year, then I wonder were you giving them credit for being great after they beat the crap out of them in the regular season. Since that win came well before the PLAYOFF loss as well as other wins. And like I have said before having one player destroy you in a game do not mean your team is no good. When Jordan destroyed the Lakers, Pistons, Suns, Jazz etc... in the playoffs did that make them teams overrated? No. It just Highlighted the skill level and hunger of one player that could not be matched. Once again since there is only one Steve Smith out of 32 teams the Bears will be ok.

[Dabaddestbear]

Better then last year isn't saying much boys, ANYthing is better then last year !


GO BEARS !

tell me that story about how the bears sucked that year following their last division title.you know it so well.

1979: The Packers went 5-11 then in 1980: They went 5-10-1. So if you want to keep basing stuff on how the Bears record was good in 2001 and how they failed to repeat such success the following season(although alot of you guys fail to mention how key players was no longer on that team from 2001, and how injuries made it impossible) then just look at the Packers and how they faired during the 16 game after a losing season.

1986....4-12. the season in which Charles Martin took the cheap shot on the Punky QB to make it that much more difficult to win the SB that season.
----followed by---
1987...5-9-1 strike shortened season that saved the Packers from even more losing and the last sign of Mister Gregg.
----followed by----
1988...another 4-12 season in which they actually started off 0-5!

So you see if history is any indicator the Packers have a just a good a chance of sucking even more for years to come as the Bears have a chance of taking a step back.

[RIPackerFan]

DBB,

It is not that simple - and you should read my post again.

1) I said Bears D numbers were helped by playing poor offensive team. When you look at the stats, they only played 4 teams in the top half of the offensive teams (Cincy at 6, Washington at 11, Atlanta at 12, and Pitt at 15). The rest of the teams were in the bottom half - 8 games were played by teams in the lowest third of offensive production. Also, out of the 4 best offensive teams they played, they lost to three of them.

2) It wasn't just Steve Smith - they ran over 123 yards, with a 4.0 average on you. Also, Delhomme played pretty good - 434 yards they put up against you.

The best defense in the league does not allow that to happen. Now I am not saying the D is not good, but looking at the above trends, you can see why one could believe they were overrated.

By the way, for that reason (along with being in a constant state of coming from behind), I also think the Pack's D was overrated.