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/ 
reggie
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/ 
reggie
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 (3h) : He hasn't been too bad when healthy but I don't feel like I ever heard much about when he is
    Zero2Cool (4h) : Felt like he was more interested in his body, than football. He flashed more than I expected
    Zero2Cool (4h) : When he was coming out, I thought he'd be flash in pan.
    Mucky Tundra (5h) : Joey seems so forgettable compared to his brother for some reason
    Zero2Cool (5h) : NFL informed teams today that the 2025 salary cap will be roughly $277.5M-$281.5M
    Zero2Cool (9h) : Los Angeles Chargers are likely to release DE Joey Bosa this off-season as a cap casualty, per league source.
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : If the exploit is not fixed, we'll see tons of "50 top free agents, 50 perfect NFL team fits: We picked where each should sign in March" lo
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Issue should be solved, database cleaned and held strong working / meeting. Boom!
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : It should be halted now.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : usually spambots are trying to get traffic to shady websites filled with spyware; the two links being spammed were to the Packers website
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : you know when you put it that way combined with the links it was spamming (to the official Packers website)
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yep. You can do that with holding down ENTER on a command in Console of browser
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : even with the rapid fire posts?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I'm not certain it's a bot.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I've got to go to work soon which is a pity because I'm enthralled by this battle between the bot and Zero
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, I see what that did. Kind of funny.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : now it's a link to Wes Hodkiezwicz mailbag
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Now they're back with another topic
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : oh lol
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I have a script that purges them now.
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : 118 Topics with Message.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : what's 118 (besides a number)?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : They got 118 slapped in there.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : that's why it confused the hell out of me
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, but this is taking a headline and slapping it into the Packers Talk
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Wasnt there a time guests could post in the help forum?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : lol good question, kind of impressed!
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : So how is a guest posting?
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Tell them its an emergency
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Working. Meetings.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Lots of fun; the spam goes back 4 or 5 pages by this point
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought you'd look for yourself and put 2 and 2 together lol. I overestimated ya ;)
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought Guests couldnt post?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : And gosh that's gonna be fun to clean up! hahaa
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Oh. Why not just say that then? Geez.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : check the main forum, seems a spam bot is running amok
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : What?
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Is the Packers online game "Packers Predict" now available for 2024? I can't tell
    Zero2Cool (17-Feb) : Bengals planning to Franchise Tag Tamaurice Higgins
    Zero2Cool (14-Feb) : Packers are hiring Luke Getsy as senior offensive assistant.
    Martha Careful (12-Feb) : I would love to have them both, esp. Crosby, but either might be too expensive.
    Zero2Cool (12-Feb) : Keisean Nixon is trying to get Maxx Crosby and Davante Adams lol
    Mucky Tundra (11-Feb) : Yeah where did it go?
    packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : or did you resctrict access to that topic?
    packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : why did you remove the Playoff topic?
    Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Tua’s old DC won a Super Bowl Year 1 with Tua’s former backup
    Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : *winning MVP
    Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : Funny observation I've heard: Carson Wentz was on the sideline for both Eagles Super Bowl wins w/guys supposed to be his back up winning
    Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : NFL thought it would get more attention week preceding Super Bowl.
    Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Yes, the Pro Bowl. It was played Sunday before Super Bowl from 2010-2022
    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
    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    16-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

    16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    15-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

    15-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    14-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

    14-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    13-Feb / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

    10-Feb / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

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