Predict The Packers Record (Pre-Season Edition)

[Newz]

The Bears in the NFC title game? Really?

If I had to put money on who would win the division today I would say the Vikings, with the Packers coming in second... I think the Bears are pretty far behind those teams, honestly.

Forte is a great young RB and Cutler is a very good QB... However, their offensive line is less than stellar from what I've seen and their WRs are just straight garbage. They are good at TE though, that counts for something I guess.

Their defense is overrated and I believe that for years Urlacher has been overrated... He is a very good player who got the reputation for being great because he played with a lot of other very good players. Their defense is aging and was bad last season... And they have done nothing his offseason to make me believe that the D is going to get significantly better.

[aaprigs311]

10 wins should be the goal. No reason this team can't achieve 10 wins IF we keep our nucleus healthy. I'll go with 11-5, NFC North champs in a close race.

[LUKE23]

I consider National Football Post the best NFL site there is, so I like to see this:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Tav ... kings.html

Ranks "blue" players. Blue chippers and almost blue chippers, with the general theory a team is as good as its best players. Here are the "blue" ranking points:

THE BLUE POWER RANKINGS

1. New England 97
2. Pittsburgh 82
3. New York Giants 77.5
4. Philadelphia 72.5
Minnesota 72.5
Carolina 72.5
7. Green Bay 71
8. San Diego 70
9. Indy 65.5
10. Dallas 64.5
Tennessee 64.5
12. Arizona 58.5
13. Washington 56
14. Houston 51.5
New York Jets 51.5
16. Buffalo 50
17. Atlanta 49
18. Chicago 48
19. Baltimore 46
20. Tampa Bay 36
21. Jacksonville 35.5
22. Seattle 34.5
23. New Orleans 33
24. Miami 32
25. Cleveland 31.5
San Francisco 31.5
27. Oakland 25.5
28. Cincinnati 24
29. Denver 21.5
30. Detroit 20
31. Kansas City 11
32. St Louis 10

Blurb about GB:

Green Bay — 71

BLUE CHIP: QB, Rodgers (13); WR, Jennings (10); DE, C. Jenkins (11); OLB, Kampman (11); CB, Woodson (10.5).

ALMOST BLUE: WR, Driver (5); ILB, Barnett (5); CB, Harris (5.5).

Green Bay is one of the youngest teams in the NFL and has more than 70 blue points. The future looks very bright on the frozen tundra.

[ReasonablySober]

I liked that as well. My only quibble would be Nick Collins. Young, 2nd team All-Pro last season and didn't get an 'Almost Blue'.

[MikeIsGood]

And:

John Harbaugh, Tony Sparano, Ken Whisenhunt and Mike McCarthy might become the next group of blue coaches after the season.

[rilamann]

Wow Peter King has the Bears in the super bowl? That pretty much backs up what I have been saying for awhile and that is that the Bears in my opinion are the most overrated team in the nfc going into this season.

In my opinion both the Bears & Vikings (especially since Favre joined the team) are being overrated by a lot of people going into this season.

Now when I say overrated I don't think either will be bad and go 4-12 or anything but I think if the Bears and Vikings have great seasons in 2009 they are wild card teams.

For some reason I see the Bears as an up and down team that might look great one week and could lose to the Lions the next week,I get that feeling about them and I see them as a 7-9 or 8-8 type team.

I kinda see the Vikings in that same boat (no not the love boat) but where I put the Bears in the 7-9/8-8 range i'd put the Vikes in the 9-7/10-6 range.

[ReasonablySober]

Because of Peterson and their front seven I could at least buy the Vikes being a contender in the North. But nothing about Chicago makes me think they'll be anything but average.

[Ayt]

The Bears still have issues with pass rush and pass defense. Ogunleye is old his production has dropped dramatically, Alex Brown isn't that great, and Mark Anderson has fallen off a cliff. Dusty Dvoracek was decent at collapsing the pocket up the middle and he's out for the year. Tommie Harris is still very good.

Their secondary is a mess. They just signed Rod Hood and he might actually have to play a big role for them, perhaps even starting since Tillman's injury status is up in the air, McBride is apparently terrible, and Vasher may not be close to the player he once was. There is even talk of waiving Vasher.

[MikeIsGood]

There is even talk of waiving Vasher.

Huh, I hadn't heard that. I knew he wasn't playing well, and that he's been injured the past two seasons obviously, but I didn't realize he was performing that poorly.

[bucks59]

Don Banks, via SI

NFC North

• First place: Green Bay (12-4) -- I've got a feeling about these Packers, especially when I survey the rest of a wide-open NFC field and try to divine if there's an out-of-nowhere team with a legitimate shot to represent the conference in Miami next February. Green Bay is my NFC Super Bowl pick, and last year's dismal 6-10 finish is but a memory now that Aaron Rodgers looks like a man playing possessed and the Packers' new-look 3-4 defense appears ready to work as planned from day one.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... z0Q8so7oLL

[Ayt]

There is even talk of waiving Vasher.

Huh, I hadn't heard that. I knew he wasn't playing well, and that he's been injured the past two seasons obviously, but I didn't realize he was performing that poorly.

Could be mainly fan talk, but I've seen it on a couple different Bears boards I've looked at when reading about their secondary. Regardless, he's not anywhere close to the player he was 2 years ago.

[LUKE23]

Bump just for fun.

[Newz]

The Bears in the NFC title game? Really?

If I had to put money on who would win the division today I would say the Vikings, with the Packers coming in second... I think the Bears are pretty far behind those teams, honestly.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

The Bears in the NFC title game? Really?

If I had to put money on who would win the division today I would say the Vikings, with the Packers coming in second... I think the Bears are pretty far behind those teams, honestly.

I don't think we should consider post made under a different screenname. Totally different situation than posting under the same screen name.

[rilamann]

For some reason I see the Bears as an up and down team that might look great one week and could lose to the Lions the next week,I get that feeling about them and I see them as a 7-9 or 8-8 type team.

I kinda see the Vikings in that same boat (no not the love boat) but where I put the Bears in the 7-9/8-8 range i'd put the Vikes in the 9-7/10-6 range.

Damn I was spot on about my feeling on the Bears.



I woulda been spot on about the Vikes too if not for that lucky last second TD vs the 49ers and that missed FG by the Ravens.

I also blame the pre-season for messing up my Packers prediction.I had the Pack 11-5 before preseason then changed it to 12-4/13-3 after preseason.



Then again if we show up vs one of the worst teams in the league (Bucs) and Bell defends at a high school level on the final play it Pitt we are 13-3.

I don't even wanna look but had we won those 2 games and went 13-3,I wonder if we would have won the tie breaker with NO for home field.

[Ayt]

Easterman's comments on page 4 are funny. What a non-talented team. I wonder what he thinks of our defense now. We are also very talent starved at the skill positions on offense, at QB, and in the secondary.

Check the depth chart: This team just isn't particularly talented. The Packers have spent five of their last seven first-round draft choices on two positions: linebacker and defensive tackle. Seven of their last 12 first-round choices were invested in linebackers and defensive linemen. That means other positions on the team are starved for talent -- and it's not even clear the front seven will be particularly good.

I first predicted 10 wins then changed it to 12 so I basically got that right (heh), but I was pretty far off on the homefield thing.