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
    Mucky Tundra (18h) : @AaronNagler · 2m Both Jordan Love and Malik Willis were Limited participants at Packers practice today.
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Johnson didn't make it until 2020. Ring 2023. 🤷 Personally, he should have been in years prior to Hall.
    Zero2Cool (21h) : HUMP DAY
    beast (21h) : Guys that have a good shot at making the NFL Hall of Fame usually get into their teams pretty fast
    beast (21h) : Yeah, but is Kampman and the others in the NFL Hall of Fame?
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Johnson was Hall of Fame, 2020. Should haev been in Ring a year later, not three years.
    Zero2Cool (21h) : I could be wrong there though
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Guys like Kampman, Tim Harris, Al Harris, etc all over 15 years. Hall of Fame is 5 year wait
    Zero2Cool (21h) : I guess I see players in Packers Hall come way later
    beast (21h) : Yeah, usually teams hall of fames are a much lower bar than the NFL
    Zero2Cool (21h) : is it uncommon for Hall before Ring?
    Zero2Cool (21h) : S Xavier McKinney named first-team All-Pro by NFLPA
    beast (23h) : I missed it, sorry, but he got into the NFL Hall of Fame years before that
    Zero2Cool (23h) : Jones took his sweet ole time!
    Zero2Cool (23h) : Yeah, he's in the ring of honor, just saw video and his name is up there
    Zero2Cool (23h) : Didn't they have a thing in 2023 for Jimmy's ring of honor? I swear I saw it
    beast (23h) : Though if they're legitimately trying to re-sign MM, then it makes sense.
    beast (23h) : Jerry Jones still hasn't put Jimmy Johnson in the Ring of Honor, but he's in the NFL's Hall of Fame, Jones is petty
    Mucky Tundra (8-Jan) : Unless the Cowboys are planning an extension, seems kinda petty
    beast (8-Jan) : Cowboys denied Bears request
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : From what I'm reading, MM is under contract through the 14th of January; after that he's free game
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : McCarthy let go or not extended??
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Chicago Bears have asked the Dallas Cowboys permission to interview Mike McCarthy for head coaching vacancy
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : The winners page that is
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : I was not hoping for that. It messes up the page lol
    beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3.
    beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3.
    beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : congrats beast on 2024 !
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : congrats porky on winning 2023 pick'em! (oops sorry)
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : Packers have $60M+ of 2025 cap space on paper TODAY.
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Missed FG into a Lions TD; that'll do pig, that'll do
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : That might be it for the Vikings
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Oh so the refs do know what intentional grounding is
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : what the hell was that Goff?! Not much pressure and he just air mails it to Harrison
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : They really need to to get rid of the auto first down for illegal contact
    Martha Careful (6-Jan) : watching the Vikings and Lions it's understandable why they swept the Packers. So much better product
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Even when GB got pressure he was throwing darts; vs no pressure on that last pass he just air mails an open guy
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : didn't have guys in his face ... pressure makes difference
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Where was this Darnold vs GB?
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : BALL DON'T LIE
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : how was that not a safety? Goff throws it at an offensive lineman
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Zero, I thought that was a given! ;)
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Zero I looked through earlier and noticed the same thing. Bonkers year. I just wonder if beast put any money on games
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : I'm hoping for BLOODBATH. Pummel one another.
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : 8 people in pick'em would have won any year with their total lol
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : I'm rooting for the Lions to lose.
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : God help me but I'm rooting for the Vikings to...Vikings to...Christ I can't say it
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : 4 td for Rodgers
    Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : Chiefs got shutout
    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
    Recent Topics
    11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    8-Jan / Around The NFL / beast

    7-Jan / Fantasy Sports Talk / wpr

    7-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    7-Jan / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

    6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    6-Jan / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    5-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    3-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

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