porky88
15 years ago

I think the Bears could win the division because of Cutler and Forte, but No. 4 is obsurb.

"porky88" wrote:



Quoting myself here because I re-read this.

I'd also add Lovie Smith to one of the reasons why Chicago could win the North this year.

Beyond that though not big on a team that overachieved a year ago.
http://www.row12.com/ 
UserPostedImage
Rockmolder
15 years ago

I agree with the article but I wouldn't expect it would go over well on a Packers site

"Cheesey" wrote:


"Negative Nelly" strikes again!!!

Just when we thought it was safe to enter a thread........."NEGATIVE NELLY is there to SAVE THE DAY! Peeing on our charcoal, so we NEVER have to worry about wild fires!
Raining on our parade, just to make SURE we don't get sun burned!!!

"Who WAS that masked man???? And WHY did he pee all over my charcoal???"

"Don't you KNOW!?!? That was "NEGATIVE NELLY!" He comes out to make SURE that NO positive thoughts might enter your Packer fan brain! THANK YOU NEGATIVE NELLY FOR MAKING US PROPERLY DREAD THE UPCOMING PACKER SEASON!!!"

(just messin' with ya DD80!!! All in jest!) :thumbleft:

"dd80forever" wrote:



This is one of the funnier things I've read since joining the forum. +1
Dulak
15 years ago
I agree with most rankings of the teams except for a few ... ravens I would of ranked higher ... chicago (obviously) was ranked too high.

They give too much weight to their previous SB run and the fact they got cutler. The bears is alot different then denver; receivers and Oline ... I think cutler is going to have a harder time there.

IMO GB's # is fine where it's at but I have a feeling that we will give the NFC a run for their money. With all the additions and changes.

oh I would of dropped dallas down a bit and houstan is up too high GB shoulder be higher then them. I also have a feeling well beat out atlanta this year. So GB shoulder of been rated 11 or 12 on this chart IMO.
Pack93z
  • Pack93z
  • Select Member Topic Starter
15 years ago
Check out page 7 of this thread...

Page 7 

You have to respect fans that can objectively look at a question, beyond the color of team shades and seek out the truth. Mr. Anderson argued the point to a tee on the Cutler vs Rodgers discussion, far better than I could have. Props.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Zero2Cool
15 years ago
So, I can go to that website, but I can't download free fonts for our Zebra printer. Interesting.
UserPostedImage
Dulak
15 years ago

Check out page 7 of this thread...

Page 7 

You have to respect fans that can objectively look at a question, beyond the color of team shades and seek out the truth. Mr. Anderson argued the point to a tee on the Cutler vs Rodgers discussion, far better than I could have. Props.

"pack93z" wrote:



"Cutler out-threw Rodgers by 500 yards on 80 more attempts.
Rodgers yardage per completion was higher.
Rodgers completion percentage was higher.
Rodgers threw more touchdowns.
Rodgers threw less interceptions.
Rodgers had a higher passer rating.
Rodgers out-performed him in these ways all while being sacked three times as much, so presumably, he faced greater defensive pressure.

What exactly defines prolificacy?"

haha ya I remember seeing these #'s before ... I especially like the stat of how much more rodgers got sacked then cutler (well I dont like it for our QB) but it just shows you. I woudl really like our Oline to improve this year.

I can dream about much bigger #'s then 🙂
porky88
15 years ago
Cutler and Rodgers are actually back to back in my QB rankings.

I actually prefer Rodgers slightly more because I think he's got a better attitude and a "moxy" about him that a lot of the great ones have. A quiet cool so to speak.

I never saw that in Cutler.

I think people overestimate Chicago quite a bit.

For example, Matt Forte who has become a very big time back in many people's eyes put up basically the same numbers as Ryan Grant did last year. Both averaged about 3.9 yards a carry. Forte is a little more versatile, but when it came to running, both were about equal.

Yet Grant is viewed as a disappointment by many people including Packer fans and Forte is being touted as the next great Chicago back. The best one since arguably Walter Payton.

I don't get that and I bet if you look at a lot of rankings for backs in the game today, Forte is ahead of Grant by a lot. No way does catching the ball out of the backfield justify that in my view.

Much like some people put Cutler between 5 and 10 in the best QB's in the game today and Rodgers is quite away behind.

It makes little sense and it wreaks of big city bias if you ask me.
http://www.row12.com/ 
UserPostedImage
dd80forever
15 years ago

Cutler and Rodgers are actually back to back in my QB rankings.

I actually prefer Rodgers slightly more because I think he's got a better attitude and a "moxy" about him that a lot of the great ones have. A quiet cool so to speak.

I never saw that in Cutler.

I think people overestimate Chicago quite a bit.

For example, Matt Forte who has become a very big time back in many people's eyes put up basically the same numbers as Ryan Grant did last year. Both averaged about 3.9 yards a carry. Forte is a little more versatile, but when it came to running, both were about equal.

Yet Grant is viewed as a disappointment by many people including Packer fans and Forte is being touted as the next great Chicago back. The best one since arguably Walter Payton.

I don't get that and I bet if you look at a lot of rankings for backs in the game today, Forte is ahead of Grant by a lot. No way does catching the ball out of the backfield justify that in my view.

Much like some people put Cutler between 5 and 10 in the best QB's in the game today and Rodgers is quite away behind.

It makes little sense and it wreaks of big city bias if you ask me.

"porky88" wrote:



You also might want to factor in that Forte was basically placed in a one dimensional offense because of terrible QB play whereas GB has a good set of WR's. Grant should put Forte to shame in this scenario.
blank
ILikeThePackers39
15 years ago

Cutler and Rodgers are actually back to back in my QB rankings.

I actually prefer Rodgers slightly more because I think he's got a better attitude and a "moxy" about him that a lot of the great ones have. A quiet cool so to speak.

I never saw that in Cutler.

I think people overestimate Chicago quite a bit.

For example, Matt Forte who has become a very big time back in many people's eyes put up basically the same numbers as Ryan Grant did last year. Both averaged about 3.9 yards a carry. Forte is a little more versatile, but when it came to running, both were about equal.

Yet Grant is viewed as a disappointment by many people including Packer fans and Forte is being touted as the next great Chicago back. The best one since arguably Walter Payton.

I don't get that and I bet if you look at a lot of rankings for backs in the game today, Forte is ahead of Grant by a lot. No way does catching the ball out of the backfield justify that in my view.

Much like some people put Cutler between 5 and 10 in the best QB's in the game today and Rodgers is quite away behind.

It makes little sense and it wreaks of big city bias if you ask me.

"porky88" wrote:




Agreed 100% on Forte, at least to this point. Part of it is that Chicago fans are almost more hungry for the next Payton than they are for a real QB - they've gone through a LONG list of backs trying to find another Sweetness.

But while I do like the kid and his upside, I think it's interesting how much run he gets after one reasonably good year. If we were praising a similar player on the Pack's roster (perhaps the QB?), those same people would start with the "You can't say anything after only one year!" objections.

It would appear that those same folks who are so sour on our own roster are a bit overly-appreciative of the players on our competitors' squads. Interesting.
blank
ILikeThePackers39
15 years ago

Cutler and Rodgers are actually back to back in my QB rankings.

I actually prefer Rodgers slightly more because I think he's got a better attitude and a "moxy" about him that a lot of the great ones have. A quiet cool so to speak.

I never saw that in Cutler.

I think people overestimate Chicago quite a bit.

For example, Matt Forte who has become a very big time back in many people's eyes put up basically the same numbers as Ryan Grant did last year. Both averaged about 3.9 yards a carry. Forte is a little more versatile, but when it came to running, both were about equal.

Yet Grant is viewed as a disappointment by many people including Packer fans and Forte is being touted as the next great Chicago back. The best one since arguably Walter Payton.

I don't get that and I bet if you look at a lot of rankings for backs in the game today, Forte is ahead of Grant by a lot. No way does catching the ball out of the backfield justify that in my view.

Much like some people put Cutler between 5 and 10 in the best QB's in the game today and Rodgers is quite away behind.

It makes little sense and it wreaks of big city bias if you ask me.

"dd80forever" wrote:



You also might want to factor in that Forte was basically placed in a one dimensional offense because of terrible QB play whereas GB has a good set of WR's. Grant should put Forte to shame in this scenario.

"porky88" wrote:




Out of nothing but simple curiosity (stick a needle in my eye, honest), is there a reason you'll bend over backwards to defend a rookie RB for the Bears but don't seem nearly as inclined to give some players on the Packers' roster the same consideration?

You couldn't even give Rodgers a wee prop, up there - it's our "good set of WRs" that accounts for the balance that Grant should have been feasting on.
blank
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (15h) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
    beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
    beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
    wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
    wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
    wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
    beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
    beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
    beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
    beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
    beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
    wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
    wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
    wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
    beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
    beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
    beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
    packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome
    Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.
    Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    30 - 17
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    31 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    30 - 13
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    34 - 0
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    25 - 27
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    22 - 24
    Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
    Eagles
    10 - 22
    Recent Topics
    22-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

    21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.