Healthy Jennings, Newcomer Jones Should Boost Passing Game

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Hey, what are you predicting for this season? I think you projected 4 victories last year, and we got 8. I projected 8 (maybe it was 7), and we got 8.

[woodbuck27]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Hey, what are you predicting for this season? I think you projected 4 victories last year, and we got 8. I projected 8 (maybe it was 7), and we got 8.

You as I did, projected 7 wins last season Harvey.

[woodbuck27]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Hey, what are you predicting for this season? I think you projected 4 victories last year, and we got 8. I projected 8 (maybe it was 7), and we got 8.

I believe that it's too soon to really project how we'll do in regards to number of wins.

Our SOS is alot harder than in 2006. We need to learn more on our teams real capability on 'O'.

[wist43]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Hey, what are you predicting for this season? I think you projected 4 victories last year, and we got 8. I projected 8 (maybe it was 7), and we got 8.

It's still early... but I'll come in at about 7-9 at this point.

If Favre weren't there, I'd be looking at 3-13/4-12.

As for last year, they may have finished 8-8, but they were a 4-12 team IMO. Those last 4 games were deceiving... and I know you're familiar with the arguments against Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago. SF is just one of those teams that GB has their number.

So I severely discount those last 4 games. When they played good teams, they got absolutely hammered.

[packinpatland]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Weak sisters,

[The Leaper]

I suspect our running game isn't going to be as bad as people project. We did spend a 2nd round pick on a RB that I like. Also, Morency flashed some ability last year (over 200 yards in 2 starts). While I don't think he was as good as Ahman was last year (mainly because of who he got his carries against), he's a young guy that should get better.

If our running game fails, it won't be because of the RBs. It will be due to a weak OL that can't open holes effectively. Our RBs aren't Pro Bowlers...but they have the talent and desire to put up good numbers if given a fair chance at it.

[Fritz]

I think the defense can be ok against the weak sisters of the NFC North, and other offensively challenged teams; but against better teams, they'll be exposed.

Hey, what are you predicting for this season? I think you projected 4 victories last year, and we got 8. I projected 8 (maybe it was 7), and we got 8.

It's still early... but I'll come in at about 7-9 at this point.

If Favre weren't there, I'd be looking at 3-13/4-12.

As for last year, they may have finished 8-8, but they were a 4-12 team IMO. Those last 4 games were deceiving... and I know you're familiar with the arguments against Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago. SF is just one of those teams that GB has their number.

So I severely discount those last 4 games. When they played good teams, they got absolutely hammered.

WTF??? I love ya, Wist old buddy, but how can you "discount" any win? Had they lost, you and everybody would have wiped the floor with the Pack, saying they really should have won...but when they do win those games, you "discolunt" the win. Not sure what you want, then.

Should New England "discount" their win against Green Bay last year? Should everybody get credit for only half a victory when they beat Arizona or Detroit?

[Merlin]

I don't think Chicago was a "weak" team. Pundits say that they didn't bring their "A" game which is complete bullshit. They brought it, and we played better, then and only then did they concede the loss. Lovie Smith didn't take the loss lightly and he stated before the game that he may not rest anyone because they needed the practice.

[HarveyWallbangers]

As for last year, they may have finished 8-8, but they were a 4-12 team IMO. Those last 4 games were deceiving... and I know you're familiar with the arguments against Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago. SF is just one of those teams that GB has their number.

So I severely discount those last 4 games. When they played good teams, they got absolutely hammered.

You can't discount any win, but I agree it was a very soft 8-8. However, we all knew Detroit and San Francisco would be terrible. We also knew that Minnesota likely wouldn't be that good, and that was at home in December. Most should have predicted a victory in those 3 games, so in that respect you can't discount those when determining how good your prediction was. You should have predicted victory in those 3 games. Thus, Nostradamus you are not. On the other hand, I predicted 7 wins. Minus the Bears gift, I was spot on. Predicting who will be able to sit their starters in the final game is a little tougher.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think Chicago was a "weak" team. Pundits say that they didn't bring their "A" game which is complete bullshit. They brought it, and we played better, then and only then did they concede the loss. Lovie Smith didn't take the loss lightly and he stated before the game that he may not rest anyone because they needed the practice.

I tend to agree with you. Chicago was certainly above average, and they certainly played their starters for 3 quarters. Then again, it's hard to predict how they game would have gone if Chicago had something to play for. Actually, of the final 3 victories, this ranks as the top one. Chicago didn't want to sit their starters, they played for 3 quarters, and the only reason they sat in the 4th quarter is because they were getting stomped. I also think beating San Fran when we did was more impressive than people think. It was at San Fran, and San Fran was playing some good ball (won 3 of 5 and one of the losses was a last second loss at St. Louis). They also had a better record than us. They went on to win 2 of their final 3 games--including a victory at Denver when Denver was playing for a playoff spot. San Fran finishes 8-8 if they beat us, so beating them at their place when they were playing their best ball isn't a bad win at all.

[The Leaper]

I tend to agree with you. Chicago was certainly above average, and they certainly played their starters for 3 quarters.

Who cares if they "played"...it was very evident those guys were simply out there going through the motions. They had nothing to play for...and Green Bay had everything to play for (Favre's potential last game, getting shut out by the Bears earlier in the year)...and it showed.

Make no mistake people...if Chicago had something to play for in that game, our chances of winning would have been fairly slim. Hell...we beat the Bears just as convincingly as the Colts did in the Super Bowl, so are you going to suggest we are as good as the Colts?

I put very little stock in the win over Chicago to close out last year. I thought the win over SF was more impressive...but they still weren't a winning ballclub.

[Merlin]

I don't think Chicago was a "weak" team. Pundits say that they didn't bring their "A" game which is complete bullshit. They brought it, and we played better, then and only then did they concede the loss. Lovie Smith didn't take the loss lightly and he stated before the game that he may not rest anyone because they needed the practice.

I tend to agree with you. Chicago was certainly above average, and they certainly played their starters for 3 quarters. Then again, it's hard to predict how they game would have gone if Chicago had something to play for. Actually, of the final 3 victories, this ranks as the top one. Chicago didn't want to sit their starters, they played for 3 quarters, and the only reason they sat in the 4th quarter is because they were getting stomped. I also think beating San Fran when we did was more impressive than people think. It was at San Fran, and San Fran was playing some good ball (won 3 of 5 and one of the losses was a last second loss at St. Louis). They also had a better record than us. They went on to win 2 of their final 3 games--including a victory at Denver when Denver was playing for a playoff spot. San Fran finishes 8-8 if they beat us, so beating them at their place when they were playing their best ball isn't a bad win at all.

I agree about the San Fran game. People forget that they were in the hunt for the NFC West Division right up until the end.

[Merlin]

I tend to agree with you. Chicago was certainly above average, and they certainly played their starters for 3 quarters.

Who cares if they "played"...it was very evident those guys were simply out there going through the motions. They had nothing to play for...and Green Bay had everything to play for (Favre's potential last game, getting shut out by the Bears earlier in the year)...and it showed.

Make no mistake people...if Chicago had something to play for in that game, our chances of winning would have been fairly slim. Hell...we beat the Bears just as convincingly as the Colts did in the Super Bowl, so are you going to suggest we are as good as the Colts?

I put very little stock in the win over Chicago to close out last year. I thought the win over SF was more impressive...but they still weren't a winning ballclub.

I couldn't disagree more. It was NOT evident that they were going through the motions. I think you need to watch that game again. We took it to them and it was only after that did they start playing like that. Are you a Packer fan or just another bandwagoner pundit?

[The Leaper]

I couldn't disagree more. It was NOT evident that they were going through the motions. I think you need to watch that game again. We took it to them and it was only after that did they start playing like that. Are you a Packer fan or just another bandwagoner pundit?

I did watch the game. The Bears had nothing to play for...and it showed. Grossman PUBLICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED after the game that he didn't prepare properly for the game. What the hell else do you need to convince you? A signed letter on Bears letterhead? Or are you claiming that YOU know better about how the Bears prepared and played the game than Grossman did?

You can sit here all you want and pretend to believe Green Bay is a better team than Chicago. The fact of the matter is that they are not. Maybe you need to go back and rewatch their first meeting and watch how bad the Bears whipped our ass when they had as much at stake in the game as we did. As I pointed out...this was an EMOTIONAL game for Green Bay with it being on prime time and with the potential for it being Favre's final game. It isn't surprising Green Bay came out far more inspired...and it showed.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Bears had nothing to play for...and it showed. Grossman PUBLICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED after the game that he didn't prepare properly for the game.

As for Grossman's public acknowledgement, I think that was a dude that was taking serious heat for several weeks trying to excuse his poor play. How much preparation could he have needed. They know Green Bay's defense well. The defense didn't change that much, scheme-wise, from week one. I don't blame his poor throws on not being prepared.

On the other hand, there is something to a team not having something to play. I just don't think it's a given that on that day, the Bears would have won if they had something to play for. That's not a given in the NFL. If you want to take public statements, then take the fact that the Bears players said they wanted to win that game--mainly because of the rivalry.