Bill Simmons NFL Preview

Post #1 » by **paulpressey25** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 5:57 pm

Here's his preview.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ortCat=nfl

He doesn't have any love for Brett. The photo of Brett with caption is amusing.

"....Old quarterbacks are like old strippers, old rappers and older bottles of white wine -- with the exception of Don Strock and that's really it, they get dramatically worse with age. Most people think Brett Favre is just about washed-up; actually, he is washed up. According to Pro Football Prospectus, Green Bay led the league in overthrown passes last season. In 2005 and 2006, Favre turned the ball over 64 times. Heading into Week 14 last season, the Packers were 4-8 and lost to four teams with good defenses (the Bears, Pats, Eagles and Jets) by a combined 130-19 margin. What else do you need to know?..."

Post #2 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 6:17 pm

*crickets...*

LUKE23 · Post #3 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 6:37 pm

The next time I take anything Simmons says about sports seriously will be my first. Anyone going by last season to make blanket statements about this season in the NFL, where things change very quickly, doesn't need my attention. He didn't mention any of our improvements, which are several, or mention the fact that we were the youngest team in the NFL last year playing in the first year of a new scheme.

Post #4 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 6:46 pm

We made improvements, yes.

Jenkins is now the full-time DE.
Bigby is now the starter in place of Manuel.
Our CB and WR depth seems to be improved.
The young, inexperienced starters are now a year older.

You don't think other teams made similar, if not greater improvements? Especially to offset a lack of any running game whatsoever?

For the record, he had the Packers 7th in the NFC, behind:

Seattle
Philly
Dallas
Atlanta
New Orleans
Chicago

and ahead of:

Arizona
St. Louis
San Fran
Carolina
Washington
NY Giants
Minnesota
Detroit
Tampa

I'd say that's pretty optimistic.

LUKE23 · Post #5 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 6:50 pm

DrugBust wrote:We made improvements, yes.

Jenkins is now the full-time DE.
Bigby is now the starter in place of Manuel.
Our CB and WR depth seems to be improved.
The young, inexperienced starters are now a year older.

You don't think other teams made similar, if not greater improvements? Especially to offset a lack of any running game whatsoever?

For the record, he had the Packers 7th in the NFC, behind:

Seattle
Philly
Dallas
Atlanta
New Orleans
Chicago

and ahead of:

Arizona
St. Louis
San Fran
Carolina
Washington
NY Giants
Minnesota
Detroit
Tampa

I'd say that's pretty optimistic.

Younger teams improve more on a year to year basis than older teams. Considering the amount of youth we have paired with the fact that we were in the first year of a new coach, I expect a big improvement this season. I'd say the only spot on the entire team we are worse than last year is starting RB, and I think that difference will be marginal as the season plays out. There are personnel and just player improvement (Collins, Hawk, Poppinga, Jennings, Spitz, Colledge, Barnett, Jenkins all figure to be better than last year) across the board.

Instead he just rags on Favre in his piece. Weak as hell and completely predictable from Simmons. Regarding the teams he has us behind, I'd say that's REALISTIC, not OPTIMISTIC. We were 7th best record in the NFC last year, and the NFC as a whole didn't improve much.

mbucks22 · Post #6 » by **mbucks22** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 7:39 pm

Let him gloat. By the end of the first month of the season with the failed Randy Moss experiment, and then the Celtics fizzle out quickly cause they have zero depth, he'll be back to reality.

Meanwhile, we'll be in the thick of the playoff race with the Packers, and the Bucks will be off and running.

mbucks22 · Post #7 » by **mbucks22** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 7:44 pm

DrugBust wrote:*crickets...*

Wow, you waited a whole 20 minutes after this was posted to post that. Might've worked if after a few hours there were no responses, but not a pathetic 20 minutes in the middle of the day on a Thursday.

Post #8 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 7:48 pm

mbucks22 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Wow, you waited a whole 20 minutes after this was posted to post that. Might've worked if after a few hours there were no responses, but not a pathetic 20 minutes in the middle of the day on a Thursday.

He ragged on Favre. Want to put up a counter argument to what he said? It's been two hours. You can be the first...

LUKE23 · Post #9 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:37 pm

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

He ragged on Favre. Want to put up a counter argument to what he said? It's been two hours. You can be the first...

There is no need to debate something a sarcastic columnist like Simmons says. Are there any Packer fans that think Favre is still a top 5 QB? No. He's still in the top third of the league though, and that's good enough to win with this team. Tons of people hate on him because they think he has an agenda.

I'm pretty sure Favre is going to be making that Simmons comment look moronic by the end of the year.

Ayt · Post #10 » by **Ayt** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:39 pm

I think Favre is going to have a very solid year. The pass blocking looked much improved in the preseason, and Favre has some nice weaponry at WR with DD, GJ, and JJ. Franks also looks rejuvinated. The improved D will also take pressure off of him.

Post #11 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:43 pm

I think statistically Favre will have a good year. Lots of yards and TDs. But I think that's also because we'll be throwing more this season than at any point in his career and because we won't be able to run in the end-zone.

KeyRabbit · Post #12 » by **KeyRabbit** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:43 pm

Simmons is, and always has been, a very entertaining writer who is passionate about all things Sports. His knowledge base is very wide, but not always incredibly deep when it comes to current matters. That's probably to be expected from a national writer, though. He's not afraid to call himself an idiot when he's wrong, and that sets him apart from most others.

For what it's worth, I still think he has one of his gambling rules as "Never, ever bet against Favre"

LUKE23 · Post #13 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:46 pm

DrugBust wrote:I think statistically Favre will have a good year. Lots of yards and TDs. But I think that's also because we'll be throwing more this season than at any point in his career and because we won't be able to run in the end-zone.

I think the D will put us in better field position this year, and Favre has already said that he knows the D can carry the team at times this year. I see him making less risky throws than last year, even if we are throwing more overall.

The running game was 23rd in the league last year but we were 9th in total yardage. Where we really struggled is the red zone. That is going to have to improve. I think field position will help in that regard.

Ayt · Post #14 » by **Ayt** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:56 pm

DrugBust wrote:I think statistically Favre will have a good year. Lots of yards and TDs. But I think that's also because we'll be throwing more this season than at any point in his career and because we won't be able to run in the end-zone.

He did lead the NFL in attempts last year and we threw 60% of the time. I doubt we or he matches the numbers from last year.

Post #15 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 9:59 pm

I think he has a career high in attempts. We'll be down more and we won't have Ahman back there. Regardless of how effective he was last season, what he gave is probably going to be better than what we see out of Jackson, Morency and Wynn.

Ayt · Post #16 » by **Ayt** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 10:01 pm

DrugBust wrote:I think he has a career high in attempts. We'll be down more and we won't have Ahman back there. Regardless of how effective he was last season, what he gave is probably going to be better than what we see out of Jackson, Morency and Wynn.

For me, its not so much about the HB's as it is the people blocking in front of them. They will be light years ahead of where they were last year at this time and should improve throughout the year, just as they did last year.

Post #17 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 10:03 pm

Ayt wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

For me, its not so much about the HB's as it is the people blocking in front of them. They will be light years ahead of where they were last year at this time and should improve throughout the year, just as they did last year.

I really hope so. I think Jackson could be a good one if there are holes to run through. I just didn't see any vs the #1s this past preseason.

xTitan · Post #18 » by **xTitan** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 11:15 pm

My point all along with the RB's is the offensive line will dictate there running success and I feel Jackson will eventually be an excellent receiver out of the backfield. My biggest concern with all the young RB's is there ability to pick-up the blitzes.......the running game will end up being average like last year....but the ability to pick up blitz protection and not fumbling are my major concerns with young backs.

Post #19 » by **paulpressey25** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 11:20 pm

LUKE23 wrote:-= Are there any Packer fans that think Favre is still a top 5 QB? No. He's still in the top third of the league though.

This debate has overtones of the Mo Williams debates we've all had on here. I see Favre at the 18-20 ranking of QB's and not top third.

But, he might be effective this year if MM continues to limit Brett to conservative 5-7 yard passes and that works to get us an acceptable level of points to win games. I'm just hoping the offensive line is strong enough to hold off the opposing team given that we will not have much of a passing game beyond 10-15 yards.

Post #20 » by **MickeyDavis** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 11:32 pm

DrugBust wrote:I think statistically Favre will have a good year. Lots of yards and TDs. But I think that's also because we'll be throwing more this season than at any point in his career and because we won't be able to run in the end-zone.

We were 23rd in rushing last year and 30th in 2005. While our running back situation is a concern we probably won't be any worse than the last 2 years.