2012 NFC North/NFL Thread

[jmayer1]

I can appreciate you guys supporting your team and thinking they'll right the ship, I just don't see it. Both the statistical analysis and the eye test, they're just missing something this year. When you look at their 2 wins this year, both were kinda ugly. The first half against the Bears wasn't great by any means, the held on to beat a bad Saints team at home. I understand the Seahawk loss shouldn't have been, but they still got pounded in the first half offensively. Blowing a 21-3 lead to the worst team in football from a year ago, that just shouldn't happen.

I know there is 11 games to go, but I've got a lot of concerns about that Pack team this year. Doesn't get much easier this Sunday, and the week after going to St. Louis could be rough.

I'll take my chances with the best QB in the league and an improving pass rush. They are playing awful right now, but are still just a whisker away from being 4-1. Last year they were catching those breaks--getting timely turnovers when they needed them despite giving up yards, exposing miscues by the defense. I think in certain areas they might have tried to get a little too cute this year or expected those breaks instead of creating them.

I'm not predicting a win on Sunday on the road, but for some reason I think they'll play much better against Houston and go 3-1 up to the bye. Again, all you have to do is point to 2 years ago. 3-3 with 2 straight ugly losses to Wash and Miami (right up there with the Ind loss), before finishing on a 7-3 roll to end the reg season and going through the playoffs.

[GGGG]

OK, you just pointed out stats that the 2010 team had a better record, gained more net yards, and scored more points than the 2012 team.  Not sure what else I can say that would prove my point better than you just did.

[Benny B]

OK, you just pointed out stats that the 2010 team had a better record, gained more net yards, and scored more points than the 2012 team.  Not sure what else I can say that would prove my point better than you just did.

Interesting.  Using statistically insignificant margins to prove a point of "much more significant weaknesses."

[wadesworld]

We look horrible so far and I agree that something seems to be missing.  Maybe I'm naive, but I think that something may be Greg Jennings.  Do I think we'll all of a sudden become a team that wins 21 out of the next 22 games when he gets back?  No.  But I think we'll be a much, much better football team offensively.  Rodgers will look much better than he has.  The offense will open up.  I can remember very few plays where Packers receivers have gained significant yards after the catch.  Jennings brings that big time.  That will also free up Nelson to get those YAC like he always has, but has not this season being the #1 receiver.

By the middle of the season I would expect to see a fully healthy Jennings, which will allow him and Nelson to both be the receivers that they were last year, and Cobb and Jones can hopefully continue their improved production, giving the Packers once again the best wide receiving core in the NFL, to go with the best quarterback in the NFL.  The running game will be the same running game we've seen out of the Packers for quite a while.  Non-existent, but the "running" plays will come from quick throws.

My biggest concern is defensive back.  Williams is hot and cold, overall a good but not great cornerback.  Beyond that Shields is god awful.  I truly think the rookie Hayward should see more snaps than Shields does.  That is the one area that I do not see the Packers fixing this season.  The linebackers and line will not be strengths, but they won't be weaknesses either.  The O-line will figure it out enough (everyone talked about how horrible the O-line was to start 2010 and they became a strength by the end of the year).

Everyone seems to be praising the Bears as a legitimate contender while saying the Packers just don't have "it" this year, yet the Packers flat out embarrassed the Bears (at least the Bears' offense), all while playing a pretty poor game themselves.

[jmayer1]

OK, you just pointed out stats that the 2010 team had a better record, gained more net yards, and scored more points than the 2012 team.  Not sure what else I can say that would prove my point better than you just did.

The 2010 team gained 35 more net yards per game (20th this year, the 2010 mark would rank them 15th this year) and had a worse turnover margin by 1 through 5 games (with another stinker coming up against Miami the next week). If you think that is "much more impressive", not sure what else I can say.

[DegenerateDish]

We look horrible so far and I agree that something seems to be missing.  Maybe I'm naive, but I think that something may be Greg Jennings.  Do I think we'll all of a sudden become a team that wins 21 out of the next 22 games when he gets back?  No.  But I think we'll be a much, much better football team offensively.  Rodgers will look much better than he has.  The offense will open up.  I can remember very few plays where Packers receivers have gained significant yards after the catch.  Jennings brings that big time.  That will also free up Nelson to get those YAC like he always has, but has not this season being the #1 receiver.

By the middle of the season I would expect to see a fully healthy Jennings, which will allow him and Nelson to both be the receivers that they were last year, and Cobb and Jones can hopefully continue their improved production, giving the Packers once again the best wide receiving core in the NFL, to go with the best quarterback in the NFL.  The running game will be the same running game we've seen out of the Packers for quite a while.  Non-existent, but the "running" plays will come from quick throws.

My biggest concern is defensive back.  Williams is hot and cold, overall a good but not great cornerback.  Beyond that Shields is god awful.  I truly think the rookie Hayward should see more snaps than Shields does.  That is the one area that I do not see the Packers fixing this season.  The linebackers and line will not be strengths, but they won't be weaknesses either.  The O-line will figure it out enough (everyone talked about how horrible the O-line was to start 2010 and they became a strength by the end of the year).

Everyone seems to be praising the Bears as a legitimate contender while saying the Packers just don't have "it" this year, yet the Packers flat out embarrassed the Bears (at least the Bears' offense), all while playing a pretty poor game themselves.

I'd suggest the Bears offensive line embarassed themselves, and the poor mechanics and decision making of Jay Cutler helped out an otherwise lethargic Green Bay offense that night. I'm not hearing much praise for the Bears, at least on this site. They did their job and whipped up on a far inferior Jags team like they should have on Sunday. Bears are playing much better last 2 weeks, but still ways to go.

[GGGG]

Interesting.  Using statistically insignificant margins to prove a point of "much more significant weaknesses."

Are they statistically insignificant?

[GGGG]

My biggest concern is defensive back.  Williams is hot and cold, overall a good but not great cornerback.  Beyond that Shields is god awful.  I truly think the rookie Hayward should see more snaps than Shields does.  That is the one area that I do not see the Packers fixing this season.  The linebackers and line will not be strengths, but they won't be weaknesses either.  The O-line will figure it out enough (everyone talked about how horrible the O-line was to start 2010 and they became a strength by the end of the year).

I completely agree about the defensive backfield.  Nick Collins was so much better than any people thought.  The pass defense hasn't been the same since he left.

And as much as I hate to say it, Charles Woodson is on the downside of his career.  He was stellar the year before the Super Bowl...very good during the Super Bowl year...but the last two have been pretty average.

[Benny B]

Are they statistically insignificant?

1 win, 74 passing yards, 21 net yards, +1TO, after 5 games... I don't think we need SPSS to tell us that those are insignificant.  155 opp net yards, perhaps there's something there, but certainly not enough to draw a conclusion.

Point margin in NFL is great for breaking ties... using it to compare two teams, not so much.  In fact, of the team statistics most often cited, point margin has to be the worst predictor of a team's ability.  The Eagles and Giants are both atop the NFCE right now at 3-2, the former with -19, the latter with +41.  The two highest margins belong to the 4-1 49ers and Bears... one of which embarrassed and the other who was embarrassed by the same team within a period of 4 days.  Last year's Super Bowl Champion ended the year -9, while the >+200 Packers and Saints were bounced from the playoffs early.

[Sir Lawrence]

I'm not hearing much praise for the Bears, at least on this site.

(cough, cough, from a Packers Fan):


re: 2012 NFC North/NFL Thread
« Reply #175 on: October 02, 2012, 09:57:22 AM »
   
Cutler looked good last night.
Lots of Bears fans in Jerryland.  

EDIT to add:

And, your pre-game analysis of the Colts/Packers game was rather prescient.  Well played.

[DegenerateDish]

(cough, cough, from a Packers Fan):


re: 2012 NFC North/NFL Thread
« Reply #175 on: October 02, 2012, 09:57:22 AM »
   
Cutler looked good last night.
Lots of Bears fans in Jerryland.  

EDIT to add:

And, your pre-game analysis of the Colts/Packers game was rather prescient.  Well played.

Touche, can't argue with that. I was more or less saying people weren't going too overboard with beating down a terrible Jags team. Bears still have a long way to go (o-line, next poor Cutler game, not great depth in certain areas).

[Spotcheck Billy]

a little late getting here but - Hitler reacts to Seattle-Green Bay game   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA2wKCmzwR0

[wadesworld]

Well then...

I see no reason the Packers cannot win all 5 of their remaining division games and win the NFC North again.  When they are bringing it they are clearly the most dangerous team in the NFL.  I cannot wait to see what the offense looks like with Greg Jennings back.

Just hope none of tonight's injuries were serious...

[🏀]

Is Houston this bad? I didn't they were this bad.

Back to the GMen and Packers for the NFC title game.

[jmayer1]

 

[MerrittsMustache]

Is Houston this bad? I didn't they were this bad.

Back to the GMen and Packers for the NFC title game.

Houston isn't as bad as they looked but they're overrated. They got to 5-0 by playing Miami, Jax, Denver, Tennessee and the Jets. Not exactly the NFL's elite. They also start Danieal Manning at safety which is eventually going to be a problem because it means they have no safety better than Danieal Manning.

[Hards Alumni]

Houston isn't as bad as they looked but they're overrated. They got to 5-0 by playing Miami, Jax, Denver, Tennessee and the Jets. Not exactly the NFL's elite. They also start Danieal Manning at safety which is eventually going to be a problem because it means they have no safety better than Danieal Manning.

http://instantrimshot.com/

[jesmu84]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8506988/the-top-teams-game-rest-week-6-news

[MerrittsMustache]

What did people think of Suh's hit on Cutler? Was it dirty? Apparently, a lot of people are all riled up about it.

Personally, I didn't think it was a dirty play. Violent? Yes. Awkward? Yes. Suh has a reputation as a dirty player which is likely the only reason it's even being talked about. If Peppers sacked Stafford in that same fashion, it'd be a non-issue.

[GGGG]

I thought the hit was fine. 

Honestly though, I don't think I have seen a 13-6 game where the team with 6 has *three* redzone turnovers.  I'd like to give credit to the Bears' defense, but cmon...

[🏀]

Not a dirty hit at all. The game was actually rather tame for the expectations.

Honestly though, I don't think I have seen a 13-6 game where the team with 6 has *three* redzone turnovers.  I'd like to give credit to the Bears' defense, but cmon...

Bears still can't put points on the board like they need to. Chicago will blame Cutler for being hurt though. Game should have been 31-0.

[DegenerateDish]

I thought the hit was fine. 

Honestly though, I don't think I have seen a 13-6 game where the team with 6 has *three* redzone turnovers.  I'd like to give credit to the Bears' defense, but cmon...

I'll give credit to them then, that was another outstanding defensive effort last night. They've given up 6 defensive TD's all season, while scoring 5 (amazing stat). That final score was not indicative of how that game was.

I had no problem with the hit, wasn't dirty at all. Later in the game Suh had a free shot at Cutler and stopped short.

Last 11 games, Cutler is 10-1, best record of any QB in the NFL over that timeframe. Thought last night was Cutler's best game of the season, he was outstanding. Also as I've said, he's one of the toughest QB's in the NFL, proved it last night.

[MerrittsMustache]

Not a dirty hit at all. The game was actually rather tame for the expectations.

Bears still can't put points on the board like they need to. Chicago will blame Cutler for being hurt though. Game should have been 31-0.

The Bears' O has been struggling in the red zone (mainly because their goal line strategy seems to be "force it to Marshall") but the offense is averaging 21.2 ppg (27 ppg overall) which is plenty when the D is allowing 13 points and forcing 3.5 TOs/game. In other words, they haven't needed to put up big points yet. Eventually, there's going to be a game where the D doesn't force TOs but the O or ST turn it over and give away some easy points. Hopefully the offense is ready to respond at that point. So far, they've just needed to take care of the football and in 5 of 6 games, they've done that.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I have ripped Cutler and the coaching staff, and now I have to give them credit.  They are now rolling him out, employing 3 step plays, mixing in the ground game, dumping the ball,  and lo and behold his technique and performance has improved.  Most amazing stat was that was only his 6th TD on a roll out while with the Bears vs. 20 odd at Denver.  Why it took that long to make adjustments over three OC's is another question.

Legal hit, even Cutler said so afterwards.  Agree on the Red Zone assessment.

[JWags85]

Last 11 games, Cutler is 10-1, best record of any QB in the NFL over that timeframe. Thought last night was Cutler's best game of the season, he was outstanding. Also as I've said, he's one of the toughest QB's in the NFL, proved it last night.

That was one of the best games I've ever seen from Cutler in terms of getting rid of the ball quickly, moving smartly in the pocket, and choosing the best times to run.  His numbers may not have been gaudy, but he was doing exactly what he needed to.

Tice still worries me with his playcalling.  He did a great job with Cutler, but the Red Zone offense is bad when you have 2 great backs, and I still feel like he doesn't know how to use Forte.  Forte is one of the best backs in the league in space, yet Tice seemingly runs him up the middle and off tackle too often.  I'd like a few more tosses, RB screens, and the like.  After the Bears went up early, the playcalling felt too predictable.  Like they were perfectly happy being up 10 and playing D.