The problem with thinking the Bears will have a top offense is no one is mentioning their aging and so-so O line. Pace is not even close to the T he once was and williams hasn't played a down yet if I'm remembering correctly. Cutler will not come near to his #'s from last year IMO.

---

Bears had a whopping #16 D last year and it's on the decline. Our D sucked because of injuries and lack of depth on the DL. If Ted Thompson can fix the DL, our D will do circles around their D. If he doesn't, he may be out of a job.

Forte vs Grant is a wash. Our WR core is superior. They got a better TE. As much as I complained about our OL last year, ours is at least better than da Bears' OL.

Their STs took a big hit last year with Hester become a full-time WR. Heck, WE had more TDs on our STs than they did.

Why are you worried about da Bears again? Like I've said before, if the Vikings get a QB, I'd be worried. But da Bears? No.

---

Because I think you are dismissing them a little to easy.

First off Pace may be getting up thier in age but he still has game. The truth is Pace allowed a whopping 2 Sacks last year which was tied for 3rd in the league amongst LT's. Chad Clifton ranked 23 out of 31.

Shaffer will help the run game. Tait and St. Clair were turnstyles and are both gone. The Chicago O-Line is going to be much improved. They made some nice moves to fix what ails them.

There are also rumors floating around that Hester is trying to lure Torry Holt to the Bears.

Cutler elusiveness combined with Forte and Olson receiving ability as checkdowns is going to make the Bears offense a whole lot better than it was last year.

Defensively it's about a wash bewtween the GB and Chicago. I can't comment on the new 3-4 as we've yet to see anything of it. I'm undecided on Capers.

This team was 3 games better than us last year. Whether we didn't get the breaks or whatever doesn't really mean anything to me. Cutler, Shaffer, and Pace are nice additions while we just kind of sit idle.

---

in case you missed it that was our biggest area of issue imo and to a lot of other people

So while you say the Bears addressed an area of need, how can you say the Pack sat idle?

GB sat idle and passed Chicago once before. Why not try again?

You're overrating Jay Cutler as much as some overrate Aaron Rodgers on here.

Jay Cutler is 17-20 as a starter. He is a great QB with a lot of potential, but he doesn't elevate a team like a Brett Favre did once upon a time or even what Matt Ryan did with a very average talented Atlanta Falcon team. He's not the player you're making him out to be.

Orlando Pace is average right now. Chad Clifton vs. Orlando Pace is wash. I really wouldn't take neither and I'm huge Pace fan back in his prime. Pace is not as good as last years best rookie offensive lineman, Ryan Clady whom was protecting Cutler.

Chicago's interior line needs help. They're about as good as the Packers.

I do like Olsen.

Matt Forte and Ryan Grant averaged the same amount of yards per carry last year. Their numbers are very close.

Defensively, Chicago has very little pass rush. Alex Brown, Mark Anderson, and Adewale Ogunleye combined for 12 sacks last year.

So did Aaron Kampman and Cullen Jenkins and Jenkins played in only 4 games.

Their tackles are solid with Tommie Harris and Anthony Adams should start, but I don't know what's going on there. None the less they need depth.

Their linebackers are solid. I like Briggs a lot. Urlacher isn't a big time player anymore, but he's still above average at what he does.

Secondary is awful in Chicago. Their safeties stink. They'd be wise to start Daniel Manning at free safety and I think they will so that's a big upgrade for them.

Charles Tillman struggled last year. Nathan Vasher is actually on thin ice. I read he was almost release. They lack depth behind them. No real true SS.

That team was overachieving last year. Yeah they won 9 games, but GB won 13 in 07. Were the Pack a 13 win team? You and I both know that's probably not the case. They came back down to earth this past year even without injuries.

Before this deal Chicago was probably a 6 or 7 win football team. Now they could get to 10, but they aren't far away better than Green Bay and I still don't get how people seem to be dismissing Minnesota. The Vikings are still top to bottom the best built team in my opinion. Chicago is better, but they won't that good to begin with.

---

I don't understand why you think Matt Ryan elevated the Falcons. His numbers were dismal. If anything, it was Michael Turner who elevated the Falcons.

---

Turner was nearly NFL MVP last year. Ryan will be a team elevator though. The dude is sweet.

---

Matt Ryan was a rookie. I looked at him as a rookie and not as a three or four year player. For what he did as a rookie was most impressive and he and yes Michael Turner elevated Atlanta last year, but Turner didn't do it himself. Ryan was clutch and crucial in big game situations.

Does anyone remember Aaron Rodgers as rookie in training camp? He was terrible. He was bad in his second one too. That's not a knock on Rodgers. He's turned out to be pretty well, but that should put a emphasis on just how good Matt Ryan was last year.

Ryan's rookie season was amazing. His QB rating was right on par with Jay Cutler's. He completed over 60% of his passes which is another great statistic and he was clutch. He was clutch against the Packers and the Bears. That's kind of ironic.

Atlanta doesn't sniff the playoffs with Joey Harrington or Chris Redman. You can't overlook Matt Ryan's rookie season.

---

Please pass the kool-aid.

---

What, a Green Bay gazette writer pumping up the Packers for doing next to nothing and ripping the other rivals for making improvements, say it isn't true? :thumbleft:

---