Espn scouts list Bears as 24th rbs

Post #1 » by **Darth Celtic** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:34 pm

the lions are rated above us. Even though we were 15th in rushing last year, we go to 24 because of jones? wow. They overrate jones big time. We'll rank higher in rushing this year. Count on that.

Espn is just so bad.

Post #2 » by **emperorjones** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:13 pm

Agreed. It always stuns me how football prognosticators predict the dumbest crap in the off season. How many times have they predicted the Vikings to be division winners over the last few years. I mean. The Vikes lose Moss & Culpepper & many commentators actually thought they would be better. I follow other teams in football much less than I do basketball. But my son is 7 and he could tell you thats not gonna happen.

The Bears will be a dominant running team this year. Jones was a hard worker & an over achiever. But there was more talent on the bench behind him.

SportsWorld · Post #3 » by **SportsWorld** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:43 am

Let me guess, the Saints are #1?

Post #4 » by **Darth Celtic** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:44 pm

chargers
chiefs
skins
Jags
vikes (? because of a rookie, yet benson is unkown to them?)
saints
Seahawks
Broncos???
49ers
cowboys (???)
Falcons (?)
Bengals
Raiders (freakin raiders?)
Rams
Ravens
Steelers
Jets (did you see that benson had better stats per carry?)
Fins
Eagles
Lions(biggest wtf here)
Panthers
Pats
Bucs
Bears
Colts
Cards
Giants
Texans
Titans
Browns
Bills
Packers

what a bunch of hogwash. Scouts inc has no clue, I never look at what they say about the draft or anything else.

Post #5 » by **emperorjones** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:13 pm

Oh thats just a joke.

SportsWorld · Post #6 » by **SportsWorld** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:46 pm

The Bears never get any respect from BSPN.
Remember when all the "experts" picked the Saints last year over us and they picked the Seahawks as well.
ESPN is a joke.

Post #7 » by **Darth Celtic** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:08 am

and they picked the vikings to win the division.

I wonder if they pick us to go to the playoffs this year, because losing jones hurt us too much.

SportsWorld · Post #8 » by **SportsWorld** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:51 am

Remember when Sports Illustrated had us finishing last overall in the 2005-2006 season and we finished 13-3?

Post #9 » by **Darth Celtic** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:47 am

I think we were like 14 or 18 in recievers. Not as bad I guess, yet i'd rate our rb's better then our wr's.

chibearsfan · Post #10 » by **chibearsfan** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:27 am

chargers ok
chiefs ok
skins clinton coming back from injury so ?
Jags ok with taylor and jones
vikes did these guys even run the ball last year?
saints ok
Seahawks alexander getting up there in age
Broncos ok: always be great running team
49ers ok: gore is up and coming
cowboys ??????????????????
Falcons ok with vick and co.
Bengals ? not sold on rudi johnson but maybe...
Raiders ? no comment
Rams ok (maybe higher)
Ravens ok with willis
Steelers ok
Jets ???? doubt t. jones will make them that much better
Fins ok ronnie brown is very solid
Eagles ???? these guys aint gonna run with donovan back
Lions :rofl:

Panthers ok
Pats ok
Bucs ok
Bears i trust our 3-headed attack over most of these crappy running teams
Colts ok
Cards ok
Giants ok
Texans ok
Titans higher with VY
Browns ok
Bills ok
Packers ok

NoSkyy · Post #11 » by **NoSkyy** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:47 am

Man that sucks. I don't trust ESPN for rating anything though, I'm pretty sure I can make better sports predictions than most of them.

I honestly think Colts/Pats are pretty low. Maroney/Addai are pretty good imo.

Post #12 » by **Darth Celtic** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:48 pm

well, TE's got 8th.

IVSKIN · Post #13 » by **IVSKIN** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:47 pm

We got a bad rating because we no longer have a proven running back. Benson was pretty solid last year, but after that, we are pretty thin. I know some of you are high on our rookie RB, but he has yet to prove anything. I think we will be better then 24th in the league for running, but I do understand why ESPN rated us so low.

And don't sleep on the Cowboys. They are VERY deep at RB. Julius Jones, and Marion Barber make a very strong one-two punch duo. Throw in Tyson Thomas, and you have three guys who can run through most defenses.

Post #14 » by **Darth Celtic** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:13 am

with running backs, sure, it's good to have 2, but if you have a horse, who is 3rd makes no difference. And these guys haven't watched enough football if they think AP is a horrble backup to benson.

IVSKIN · Post #15 » by **IVSKIN** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:46 am

Darth Celtic wrote:with running backs, sure, it's good to have 2, but if you have a horse, who is 3rd makes no difference. And these guys haven't watched enough football if they think AP is a horrble backup to benson.

I didnt mean to say that AP was a bad backup, he averaged close to 5 yards a carry last year. But, if Benson does go down, we are screwed. Peterson is not a full time running back.

With this being said, I think the Bears will have a very solid running game.

tclg · Post #16 » by **tclg** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:03 pm

We dont really have proven guys or guys with alot of hype around them, I wouldnt be surprised if we are in the top half of the league again in rushing

livestrong4ever · Post #17 » by **livestrong4ever** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:22 pm

Lions got tatem bell to go along with kevin jones so they are right where they belong.

Post #18 » by **Darth Celtic** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:29 pm

DL we are second behind the ravens.........That is a close call. I'd say first, but the other tackle position is a ? to them.

SLCceltic · Post #19 » by **SLCceltic** » Wed Aug 1, 2007 2:23 am

garrett wolfe anyone???

peterson will be third again and a special teamer

NoSkyy · Post #20 » by **NoSkyy** » Wed Aug 1, 2007 2:31 am

Now that I look at it, we're no. 2 in most defensive categories behind Baltimore.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/ ... %3d2922525

You need insider to view the entire list, but you can see the first 10.

I like our ranking for Special teams but that's about it.