2012 NFC North/NFL Thread

[GGGG]

McCarthey is a damn good coach in more ways than just play calling.  This team will rebound and they will fix the problems to the extent they can. He is a master at knowing the psyche of his team and adjusting accordingly.

 Having said that, last night was not his best game plan and play calling.  For me the turning point was when he opted to kick a 55 yard field goal instead of punting or going for it on fourth down.  Yes, I realize that there was plenty of game left, but if they get points there, they are playing with a lead and it may end up a different type of game.  At the very least punt and make the giants go the length of the field to score.

I agree completely with this.  I don't think he had a good game yesterday, but I don't think there are more than two or three coaches I would rather have than McCarthy.  Belicheck....Harbaugh...and????

[GGGG]

I guess Joe Philbin (Who is coaching the Dolphins to a decent season) had nothing to do with last year.  Come on. 

I think he clearly played a role, but at the end of the day, McCarthy was calling plays last year too.

[GGGG]

The Packers don't suck by any means, but last night exposed everything that is wrong with them right now.

Defensively, outside of Matthews and to a lesser extent Woodson, they have no playmakers, no one you need to game plan against. Matthews allows Capers to do stunts, blitz from the opposite side of Matthews, bring a safety up. Without him, overall it's at best an avergage unit.

On offense, against a team that can get after the passer like the Giants, the injury/talent gap on the offensive line has caught up to Green Bay. As the season progresses, the lack of running game is killing them. No threat for a screen, play action, things the Packers offense is typically really good at. Last night was the first time I could recall seeing Rodgers body language say "screw this".  What further hurts the Pack is that going max protect goes against their offensive plan. I trust McCarthy will figure a few things out.

If both the Bears and Pack take care of business this coming week (I think both will), it just about wraps up playoff spots for both.

There is not a single sentence in this post that I disagree with.

[🏀]

Here's my question...  Is Jennings their best receiver? I know historically and statistically speaking yes, but what does he bring to the table that the current guys don't?

Jennings is the best route runner out of the receivers. Jordy has the best forward speed (Cobb may disagree). Cobb is the best all-around athlete. Jones is a poor man's Jennings.

[hairy worthen]

This isn't anti Jennings, I actually think he's a very good receiver. But the Pack is going to let him walk at the end of the year, no questions asked.

A lot has been made of the Bears schedule on this board. I saw the comment that it's remarkable the Packer are 7-4 missing all those guys. Let's look at the combined record of their opponents from their last 4 victories.

14-29-1

I like this Pack team, I still think they are a playoff team. But this whole schedule argument against the Bears has been a joke to no end.

If it has been a joke for the bears, why do you bring it up for the packers.

The Packers may or may not let Jennings go, probably, but it will have to play out. Thompson doesn't like paying guys on the wrong side of 30 and they have Cobb improving to eventually take that role. I do not think he is quite there yet. The Packers have some other high priced free agents that are younger that they would rather sign first in my opinion. matthews, Raji and Rodgers

[wadesworld]

This isn't anti Jennings, I actually think he's a very good receiver. But the Pack is going to let him walk at the end of the year, no questions asked.

A lot has been made of the Bears schedule on this board. I saw the comment that it's remarkable the Packer are 7-4 missing all those guys. Let's look at the combined record of their opponents from their last 4 victories.

14-29-1

I like this Pack team, I still think they are a playoff team. But this whole schedule argument against the Bears has been a joke to no end.

So you think the strength of schedule argument is a joke (which I completely agree with), but then go and use it against the Packers?  And not only do you use it against the Packers, but you choose to leave out the first win in their winning streak, which happened to be an absolutely dominating performance AT the team with the best record in the NFL.  That is certainly interesting.  Talk about picking and choosing...

[DegenerateDish]

If it has been a joke for the bears, why do you bring it up for the packers.

The Packers may or may not let Jennings go, probably, but it will have to play out. Thompson doesn't like paying guys on the wrong side of 30 and they have Cobb improving to eventually take that role. I do not think he is quite there yet. The Packers have some other high priced free agents that are younger that they would rather sign first in my opinion. matthews, Raji and Rodgers

Argument can't be made that the Bears only have a good record because of their weak schedule. I don't think it's remarkable that the Pack are 7-4, and they've played nearly an identical schedule to the Bears. Pack are 7-4 because they have the best QB in the league, one of the best (in my opinion) young receivers in football (Cobb), and an absolute beast on defense in Matthews. They're very, very well coached, disciplined and will be in the playoffs, inspite of injuries. At full strength, and they'll get Matthews/Woodson back soon, they'll be a tough out come January.


There isn't a chance in hell Jennings is back next year. Pure business decision, and it will be the right one.

[DegenerateDish]

So you think the strength of schedule argument is a joke (which I completely agree with), but then go and use it against the Packers?  And not only do you use it against the Packers, but you choose to leave out the first win in their winning streak, which happened to be an absolutely dominating performance AT the team with the best record in the NFL.  That is certainly interesting.  Talk about picking and choosing...

I'm not using it against the Packers, I'm using it to make a point about the Bears. It's been brought up over and over against the Bears. I'm not picking and choosing by any means. Read it within it's context, and the point is against the Bears. Again, Bears and Packers play nearly an identical schedule.

Packers did what they should have done, beat down inferior opponents, just like the Bears did. That's the point.

[Hards Alumni]

There isn't a chance in hell Jennings is back next year. Pure business decision, and it will be the right one.

Totally agree.  There is no reason to be pay him.  Cobb was meant to replace him.

[wadesworld]

I'm not using it against the Packers, I'm using it to make a point about the Bears. It's been brought up over and over against the Bears. I'm not picking and choosing by any means. Read it within it's context, and the point is against the Bears. Again, Bears and Packers play nearly an identical schedule.

Packers did what they should have done, beat down inferior opponents, just like the Bears did. That's the point.

Fair enough.  Like I said, I agree.  Beat the teams on your schedule.  8-3 is 8-3 whether it is against all 3-8 teams or all 9-1 teams.

I just think it kind of takes away from your argument when you say that the schedule point about the Bears is a joke, and then go and talk about the Packers weak schedule during their winning streak (conveniently minus the win against the 9-1 Texans).

[GGGG]

Totally agree.  There is no reason to be pay him.  Cobb was meant to replace him.

Depends on the price.  Driver will be gone next year too.  Do they feel confident that Boykin can make that next step to be the fourth receiver that they clearly need?  Jones contract ends after next year...has he lived up to that or can they spend more on Jennings and lock up an undoubtedly superior receiver?

I am not willing to completely close that door on Jennings...and I don't think the Packers are either.

[MerrittsMustache]

Fair enough.  Like I said, I agree.  Beat the teams on your schedule.  8-3 is 8-3 whether it is against all 3-8 teams or all 9-1 teams.

I just think it kind of takes away from your argument when you say that the schedule point about the Bears is a joke, and then go and talk about the Packers weak schedule during their winning streak (conveniently minus the win against the 9-1 Texans).

His point is that Packer fans harping on the Bears' "easy" schedule is a joke because the Packers have basically the same one. What's so hard to understand?

[wadesworld]

His point is that Packer fans harping on the Bears' "easy" schedule is a joke because the Packers have basically the same one. What's so hard to understand?

What's hard to understand is how you expect to make the point that the strength of schedule argument is a joke when you just made the argument that, forget the Packers first win in their winning streak, the Packers strength of schedule during their winning streak is a joke. Hard to make the point that pointing out strength or schedule is a joke when you just did exactly that.

[DegenerateDish]

Fair enough.  Like I said, I agree.  Beat the teams on your schedule.  8-3 is 8-3 whether it is against all 3-8 teams or all 9-1 teams.

I just think it kind of takes away from your argument when you say that the schedule point about the Bears is a joke, and then go and talk about the Packers weak schedule during their winning streak (conveniently minus the win against the 9-1 Texans).

Even if you throw the Texans in there, the combined record is still 24-30-1. That Texans win was one of the most impressive by a team all season. I'm not taking that away from GB by any means.

[hairy worthen]

Argument can't be made that the Bears only have a good record because of their weak schedule. I don't think it's remarkable that the Pack are 7-4, and they've played nearly an identical schedule to the Bears. Pack are 7-4 because they have the best QB in the league, one of the best (in my opinion) young receivers in football (Cobb), and an absolute beast on defense in Matthews. They're very, very well coached, disciplined and will be in the playoffs, inspite of injuries. At full strength, and they'll get Matthews/Woodson back soon, they'll be a tough out come January.


There isn't a chance in hell Jennings is back next year. Pure business decision, and it will be the right one.

7-4 is remarkable given all that the packers have been through. If the bears were to lose Briggs, Tillman, Peppers, Forte, Marshall, and Carimi I bet they wouldn’t be 7-4. That is equivalent to losing Bishop, Woodson, Matthews, Benson, Jennings, and Bulaga. Not to mention Nick Perry, and DJ Smith. Your Bear bias is shining through again, that’s fine my packer bias comes through as well.

Losing Jennings is not a 100% sure thing. Are you best buds with Ted Thompson or have inside info? If Jennings does not come back and do well after injury or gets injured again, he will not command the contract he is looking for. In that scenario, he may be better taking a one year deal or the packers can sign him on the cheap. Yes, he is probably gone but things will need to play out first.

As for the schedules, of course the packers and bears have similar schedules except the packers are playing a first place schedule. That means Carolina instead of New Orleans, and Dallas instead of Giants. The one game that you can certainly use as a comparison, the packers won and the bears lost.

[hairy worthen]

His point is that Packer fans harping on the Bears' "easy" schedule is a joke because the Packers have basically the same one. What's so hard to understand?

the schedules were not the same three or four weeks ago when the arguements were being made. Packers played new orleans, san fran, seattle and houston, none of those were on the bears schedule at that point. Yes over the course of a 16 game schedule two teams in the same divison will have similar schedules not hard to figure out.

[DegenerateDish]

On a different note, looking around the NFC (and what scares me as a Bears fan), I want no part of the sixth seed, whoever winds up winning that. I think it'll come down to the Redskins and Bucs in the end. Vikes schedule is too brutal, and without Harvin, their offense struggled yesterday. Seahawks (as much as I loved them preseason) are coming up on a brutal stretch (@ Mia, @ Chi, AZ, @ Buf in Toronto). Three cross country flights in 4 weeks towards the back end of the season is really tough.

I think whoever wins that sixth seed could go to the NFC title game. If Wash/TB beat the Bears or Pack in round 1, I'd take either of them to go into Atlanta and knock off the Falcons. It may end up that being the 5th seed could be the best spot to be in, if it somehow turns into trips to NY and Atl.

[MU B2002]

. Seahawks (as much as I loved them preseason) are coming up on a brutal stretch (@ Mia, @ Chi, AZ, @ Buf in Toronto). Three cross country flights in 4 weeks towards the back end of the season is really tough.

And aren't they about to lose 2 of their top  DBs for 4 games?

[DegenerateDish]

Hairyworthen, relax a bit there bro. I'm one of the least biased fans out there. This is a message board and my resume doesn't mean a thing, but yes, sometimes I am privy to inside info.

Your argument is silly to no end. The Packers are one of the best coached teams in the league, have the best QB in the game. They have one of the best defensive players in football. They lost Woodson and Matthews during a weak point in their schedule. Injuries are apart of the game.

One might argue Carimi getting benched was a blessing. The Bears lost Forte, they have a very capable back up in Bush. Yesterday the Bears lost Tillman, Forte, Hester, were down to literally five offensive lineman dressed, and Briggs got hurt at the end of the game. Their QB was coming back from a concussion. Was it remarkable to me that the Bears won? Not at all.

[hairy worthen]

Hairyworthen, relax a bit there bro. I'm one of the least biased fans out there. This is a message board and my resume doesn't mean a thing, but yes, sometimes I am privy to inside info.

Your argument is silly to no end. The Packers are one of the best coached teams in the league, have the best QB in the game. They have one of the best defensive players in football. They lost Woodson and Matthews during a weak point in their schedule. Injuries are apart of the game.

One might argue Carimi getting benched was a blessing. The Bears lost Forte, they have a very capable back up in Bush. Yesterday the Bears lost Tillman, Forte, Hester, were down to literally five offensive lineman dressed, and Briggs got hurt at the end of the game. Their QB was coming back from a concussion. Was it remarkable to me that the Bears won? Not at all.

I am relaxed, I enjoy countering a knowledgeable fan. I just think your opinion is skewed a bit.
 
I guess we will agree to disagree. The bear’s injuries or any other teams have not been to the extent or, number or length as the packer’s injuries, they just haven’t. How can you compare the injuries the bears had in yesterday’s game, after the game was decided,  to what the packers have been having all year. Yes injuries a part of the game, but the teams that succeed particularly in the playoffs are usually the teams that can minimize the injuries.  I heard a lot of talk last year about how the bears tanked after cutler went down. Injuries do matter.
 
And yes the packers won because they have a great coach, and QB. But that is the point, the fact that they have great and deep talent a great coach and QB are remarkable to me.   Losing Matthews and Woodson during a weak part of their schedule??  You said earlier that the weak part of the schedule doesn’t matter, they were games on the schedule and they still count, remember.

[DegenerateDish]

Sigh.

Hester, Tillman went out in the 2nd qtr, Forte went out in the 3rd qtr. Let me repeat, they were down to five dressed offensive lineman. Their line is bad enough, their QB just came back from a concussion, and they patchworked that line like no other in the second half. On top of that, they were playing a division opponent, with one of the best rushing ends in the game. Actually, the more I think about it, it was kinda remarkable that they won.

Of course injuries matter, that's where depth comes into play.

I'm not going to re-explain the schedule argument again. The Packers took advantage of their schedule like GOOD teams do. It so happens Woodson/Matthews were out then, and if you're going to lose those guys, much rather have them out vs the Little Sisters of the Poor than against the Giants. If you don't understand that, re-watch last night's game.

[hairy worthen]

dish,

We can go round and round on this but i won't. The injuries you are talking about are from one game and yes that game was over very early, I am talking about an entire season of injuries.

You are using the schedule arguement to your advantage. When the bears win it dosen't matter who is on the schedule, when the packers win without matthews and woodson it is because they played a weak schedule when they went down. You are contradicting yourself. 

[DegenerateDish]

My lord.

Let me say this for the last time. The Packers beat bad teams BECAUSE THEY ARE A GOOD TEAM. Comprehension and context should be simple here. If. You. Are. Going. To. Lose. Matthews. And. Woodson. Best. To. Lose. Them. Against. Bad. Teams.

Packers beat bad teams because they are a good, perhaps very good team. Christ, this isn't hard to understand, and you're a Packer fan!

Also, if the Forte fumble (ruled down by contact) returned for a TD stands, it's a one score game in the third qtr. Hardly over "very early".

[hairy worthen]

Let me say this for the last time. The Packers beat bad teams BECAUSE THEY ARE A GOOD TEAM. Comprehension and context should be simple here. If. You. Are. Going. To. Lose. Matthews. And. Woodson. Best. To. Lose. Them. Against. Bad. Teams.

Ok, agreed, but that is not what you initially said or implied. You were initially responding to my arguement that the packers wins were remarkable given the injuries, Your arguement was matthews and woodson went downduring a weak part of their schedule contradicting your earlier arguements about schedule.

[jesmu84]

More of a general football topic, but still interesting.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/31/is-adderall-becoming-the-new-excuse-for-steroids-users/

It does seem as though there has been a huge uptick in suspensions due to adderall lately. As well, you don't hear nearly as much about actual PED suspensions or even supplements.