Projected order of finish... okay put down the crack pipe ESPN.
1. Chicago Bears (11-5)
Even with Jay Cutler's arrival, the offense is average at best. But that's enough to make the Bears Super Bowl contenders, as long as the special teams stays excellent and the 22nd-ranked pass rush improves (new defensive line coach Rod Marinelli should help there).
2. Minnesota Vikings (9-7)
No matter who starts at QB, the Vikings are contenders, thanks to a stout offensive line and a guy nicknamed "All Day." The defense can dominate (24.3 yards allowed per drive in 2008, ranked No. 4 in the NFL) but winning the NFC North hinges on when or if the four-game suspensions of the Williams Wall (Pat and Kevin) go into effect.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/new...%3fid%3d4433532
Full Version: ESPN The Magazine: NFC North preview... a good laugh
GB is in the subscriber section, but they predict the Pack will go 7-9, in no small part because GB was good on third down last year and history shows that their success rate will come down from there.
QUOTE (rpiotr01 @ Sep 1 2009, 10:10 PM) 
GB is in the subscriber section, but they predict the Pack will go 7-9, in no small part because GB was good on third down last year and history shows that their success rate will come down from there.
Football outsiders used the same stat to say that GB would not be good this year and ignored many other statistical areas the Pack were weak in that they are bound to be better in this year. Obviously you have to play the games, but think even before the preseason success there was a lot to get excited about this team if you looked with an unbiased eye...
So the depth of analysis for this magazine is to read Football Outsiders and pull out a statistic that jives with your prediction?
Great job guys!
And if the Packers finished 6-10 a year ago despite great success on third down and that is expected to regress, shouldn't that equate to a prediction worse than 6-10?
Great job guys!
And if the Packers finished 6-10 a year ago despite great success on third down and that is expected to regress, shouldn't that equate to a prediction worse than 6-10?
The offense needs only to be average at best!? With a defensive pass rush ranked 22nd and a porous injury riddled defensive back field... people actually pay to read this amateur analysis?
Super Bowl contenders!!!! I'm serious they need to fire whoever wrote this article.
Super Bowl contenders!!!! I'm serious they need to fire whoever wrote this article.
Its offical ESPN hates the Packers this year...
Green Bay: The Packers got off to a decent start in 2008, then lost seven of eight, ending the season 6-10 despite facing only four teams that made the playoffs. So should they be taken seriously in 2009? 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.
Now take a gander at Green Bay's 2009 schedule. Everyone's talking about the Oct. 5 "Monday Night Football" contest against the Vikings and Brett Favre, an obvious candidate for highest-rated "Monday Night Football" game ever. But what jumps out at me about the sked is what doesn't happen: Until December, Green Bay does not face a team that made the playoffs last year. By Thanksgiving, Green Bay will have played the Lions twice, plus played the Rams, Bengals and Browns -- all awful teams. This is a cupcake schedule that would make Auburn jealous. If the Packers can't arrive at December with a winning record, they'll have only themselves to blame.
How the mighty have fallen! At one point, Green Bay and Buffalo were a combined 22-0 at home in the playoffs; since then, they are a combined 2-4 at home in the playoffs.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...clearspring.com
Green Bay: The Packers got off to a decent start in 2008, then lost seven of eight, ending the season 6-10 despite facing only four teams that made the playoffs. So should they be taken seriously in 2009? 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.
Now take a gander at Green Bay's 2009 schedule. Everyone's talking about the Oct. 5 "Monday Night Football" contest against the Vikings and Brett Favre, an obvious candidate for highest-rated "Monday Night Football" game ever. But what jumps out at me about the sked is what doesn't happen: Until December, Green Bay does not face a team that made the playoffs last year. By Thanksgiving, Green Bay will have played the Lions twice, plus played the Rams, Bengals and Browns -- all awful teams. This is a cupcake schedule that would make Auburn jealous. If the Packers can't arrive at December with a winning record, they'll have only themselves to blame.
How the mighty have fallen! At one point, Green Bay and Buffalo were a combined 22-0 at home in the playoffs; since then, they are a combined 2-4 at home in the playoffs.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...clearspring.com
Print it out, put it on the bulletin board.
In fairness to the predictors they are covering all the teams, and statistically speaking it is safe to say that a 6-10 team will go 8-8, basically it it s regression to the mean. You can pick one or two teams as possible break outs, but it looks like you are cheating if you pick more. Still the tide is definitely turning in the Pack's favor. In a chat an hour ago Gil Brandt is now picking the Pack to win the North(sorry can't find the link). Also in NFL.com's NFC North preview everyone except Pat Kirwan is picking the pack and even Pat is leaving plenty of room to back track later.
http://www.nfl.com/kickoff/story?id=09000d...mp;confirm=true
Since the draft I have tried to reconcile what I believed would be a very good Packer team in 2009 with what the so called experts were saying. It seems many have gotten on board. Let's hope the team delivers!!!
http://www.nfl.com/kickoff/story?id=09000d...mp;confirm=true
Since the draft I have tried to reconcile what I believed would be a very good Packer team in 2009 with what the so called experts were saying. It seems many have gotten on board. Let's hope the team delivers!!!
QUOTE (ChicagoPackerFan @ Sep 1 2009, 05:37 PM)
But what jumps out at me about the sked is what doesn't happen: Until December, Green Bay does not face a team that made the playoffs last year.
So the Vikings' 2008 division title has been eradicated from history already?
QUOTE (ChicagoPackerFan @ Sep 1 2009, 11:37 AM)
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.
I do wish we had some playmakers at WR and more Pro Bowlers in the secondary...
QUOTE (Packfan_Euro_Trash @ Sep 1 2009, 11:26 PM)
In fairness to the predictors they are covering all the teams
Yes they are covering all teams but they do this for a living unlike you or me.
QUOTE (ChicagoPackerFan @ Sep 2 2009, 12:52 AM)
Yes they are covering all teams but they do this for a living unlike you or me.
Hey let's face it not everyone is good at their jobs, and ESPN is much more about entertainment now than serious sport analysis. Think they make predictions and say sensational things because they get ratings. So really is their motivation to offer true insight or something else?
Remember that ESPN sensationalizes everything. The Bears and the Vikings both made a big splash by adding big name QBs. The Packers added a new defensive coaching staff, got healthy, and got some guys through the draft. Not very sexy moves, so ESPN doesn't weight those as heavily. Since hyperbole comes so naturally to them, it makes sense they would overrate the importance of these moves.
And they have 32 teams to cover, and I doubt they took the effort to become an expert on all of them.
And they have 32 teams to cover, and I doubt they took the effort to become an expert on all of them.
QUOTE (ChicagoPackerFan @ Sep 1 2009, 12:37 PM)
Its offical ESPN hates the Packers this year...
Green Bay: The Packers got off to a decent start in 2008, then lost seven of eight, ending the season 6-10 despite facing only four teams that made the playoffs. So should they be taken seriously in 2009? 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.
Now take a gander at Green Bay's 2009 schedule. Everyone's talking about the Oct. 5 "Monday Night Football" contest against the Vikings and Brett Favre, an obvious candidate for highest-rated "Monday Night Football" game ever. But what jumps out at me about the sked is what doesn't happen: Until December, Green Bay does not face a team that made the playoffs last year. By Thanksgiving, Green Bay will have played the Lions twice, plus played the Rams, Bengals and Browns -- all awful teams. This is a cupcake schedule that would make Auburn jealous. If the Packers can't arrive at December with a winning record, they'll have only themselves to blame.
How the mighty have fallen! At one point, Green Bay and Buffalo were a combined 22-0 at home in the playoffs; since then, they are a combined 2-4 at home in the playoffs.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...clearspring.com
Green Bay: The Packers got off to a decent start in 2008, then lost seven of eight, ending the season 6-10 despite facing only four teams that made the playoffs. So should they be taken seriously in 2009? 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.
Now take a gander at Green Bay's 2009 schedule. Everyone's talking about the Oct. 5 "Monday Night Football" contest against the Vikings and Brett Favre, an obvious candidate for highest-rated "Monday Night Football" game ever. But what jumps out at me about the sked is what doesn't happen: Until December, Green Bay does not face a team that made the playoffs last year. By Thanksgiving, Green Bay will have played the Lions twice, plus played the Rams, Bengals and Browns -- all awful teams. This is a cupcake schedule that would make Auburn jealous. If the Packers can't arrive at December with a winning record, they'll have only themselves to blame.
How the mighty have fallen! At one point, Green Bay and Buffalo were a combined 22-0 at home in the playoffs; since then, they are a combined 2-4 at home in the playoffs.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...clearspring.com
Disappointed to learn that's Gregg Easterbrook's take. I like him and I love his writing, TMQ is a treat for me. All I can say is that I think he's dead wrong on that one.
No doubt he's wrong on the schedule part. Besides the two games with Minnesota already mentioned, there is also a game with Chicago, very much expected to be in the playoff hunt, and Dallas. Throw in a SF team whose D will no doubt be improved and I don't think that's a cupcake schedule.
And the starved for talent part I just don't get. Where? WR, where they go 4 deep with arguably the best 5 in the league? QB? DB? Our OL isn't the greatest but it's a group that got to the NFCC two years ago and has been fairly productive despite being much maligned.
Sorry, but I think he's way off here.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.