2013 NFC North/NFL Thread

[wadesworld]

Um....do you care that GB was shutout in their preseason opener?  Probably not. Cutler finished 6-7 on the rest of his throws with 2 of his starting WR sitting out. (Marshall and Bennett)

It's a new offense and the first play of preseason...but thanks for the concern.

Your point is well taken and honestly I couldn't care less about the preseason (you can take a few things away from it or just get the feel for whether newer players are ready to contribute or not, but it really doesn't mean much), but the Packers' starting offense played 1 possession without its top 2 receivers and marched 80 yards down field to the 1/2 yard line.  Jermichael Finley was Jermichael Finley and dropped a touchdown, so really when DJ Williams takes his place the Packers offense puts up 7 points in their 1 series.  As it was, the Packers would've still put 3 points on the board in the regular season, but in the preseason why not go for it on 4th and goal at the 2?  So really no worries about the shutout.  The only time the starting offense took the field (again without their top 2 receivers) they marched down the field with absolutely no problem.

Hard to take much away from the starting defense.  But I do know that Palmer and Stanton sure had no trouble shredding the 2nd team defense.

[MU B2002]

You don't care when your Starting QB throws a INT? Preseason or not. Sounds like you're cool playing second fiddle to Green Bay.

No, I don't care at all about Jay throwing an INT in the preseason. 

Frankly, I don't get widely bent out of shape over occasional INTs in the regular season, crap happens. Cutler takes risks, just like many QBs.  I enjoy him taking some risk, and I understand the consequences. I am not sure how that translates into me being "cool playing second fiddle to Green Bay."

[MerrittsMustache]

No, I don't care at all about Jay throwing an INT in the preseason.  

Frankly, I don't get widely bent out of shape over occasional INTs in the regular season, crap happens. Cutler takes risks, just like many QBs.  I enjoy him taking some risk, and I understand the consequences. I am not sure how that translates into me being "cool playing second fiddle to Green Bay."

Rodgers doesn't take a lot of risks. That's part of the reason why GB allowed 50+ sacks last season. For better or worse, Cutler is more likely to force something and try to make a play, while Rodgers is more likely to take a sack and move on. As a fan, both approaches can be equally frustrating. Obviously there are times when Cutler needs to eat the ball (but, IMO, he's too confident/stubborn) and there are times Rodgers needs to get rid of the ball (but, IMO, he likes his stats too much).

Rodgers' approach limits TOs but also misses some opportunities. Cutler's approach can make big plays but can also get OCs fired.

[jmayer1]

Rodgers doesn't take a lot of risks. That's part of the reason why GB allowed 50+ sacks last season. For better or worse, Cutler is more likely to force something and try to make a play, while Rodgers is more likely to take a sack and move on. As a fan, both approaches can be equally frustrating. Obviously there are times when Cutler needs to eat the ball (but, IMO, he's too confident/stubborn) and there are times Rodgers needs to get rid of the ball (but, IMO, he likes his stats too much).

Rodgers' approach limits TOs but also misses some opportunities. Cutler's approach can make big plays but can also get OCs fired.

Actually, Rodgers often holds on to the ball too long because he's trying to wait to see if a big play develops, not because he's risk averse. It's very clear which approach works best. As a Packers fan, I really cannot get too frustrated when the best QB in the league chooses to hold the ball for a second longer to see if routes open up rather than forcing a throw that isn't there. He still certainly makes more big plays than Cutler.

[MU82]

In 6 1/2 seasons as an NFL starter, Jay Cutler has won one playoff game.

He's also 1-7 against the Packers.

He also choked like a dog down the stretch in his last season with the Broncos (2008), turning an almost certain playoff berth into dust.

Obviously, he should be nicknamed "Mr. Big Game."

[hairy worthen]

Rodgers doesn't take a lot of risks. That's part of the reason why GB allowed 50+ sacks last season. For better or worse, Cutler is more likely to force something and try to make a play, while Rodgers is more likely to take a sack and move on. As a fan, both approaches can be equally frustrating. Obviously there are times when Cutler needs to eat the ball (but, IMO, he's too confident/stubborn) and there are times Rodgers needs to get rid of the ball (but, IMO, he likes his stats too much).

Rodgers' approach limits TOs but also misses some opportunities. Cutler's approach can make big plays but can also get OCs fired.

I have closely watched both approaches, Favre and Rodgers.  The risk taking approach is by far more frustrating. The most decisive stat is turnovers. I would much rather have the QB take a sack versus throw a pick. You can't argue with the team's success with Rodgers approach. Ask Viking fans if they would rather have Favre take a chance on that intercepted pass in the Championship game or just take a knee.

[Hards Alumni]

I have closely watched both approaches, Favre and Rodgers.  The risk taking approach is by far more frustrating. The most decisive stat is turnovers. I would much rather have the QB take a sack versus throw a pick. You can't argue with the team's success with Rodgers approach. Ask Viking fans if they would rather have Favre take a chance on that intercepted pass in the Championship game or just take a knee.

Exactly!  Sacks still allow you to punt the ball if you have to... and if its not 3rd down, you still have a (small) chance to make those yards back.  Rodgers is also a far better runner than Favre, so if he can dodge or get away from that sack and keep the play alive he can be deadly with his feet or his arm.

[MerrittsMustache]

Actually, Rodgers often holds on to the ball too long because he's trying to wait to see if a big play develops, not because he's risk averse. It's very clear which approach works best. As a Packers fan, I really cannot get too frustrated when the best QB in the league chooses to hold the ball for a second longer to see if routes open up rather than forcing a throw that isn't there. He still certainly makes more big plays than Cutler.

It's semantics. Holding the ball while waiting for a big play to develop really isn't all that different than being risk averse. If the big play hasn't developed, he's not trying to force something in there, instead he's potentially taking a sack. Obviously, I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just an observation.

[setyoursightsnorth]

Yeah, but if your quarterback is getting sacked 50+ times a year, odds are, he might not bounce back up eventually. QBs are very fragile, unless it's Big Ben. So which is better, throwing INTs or possibly having your QB take one hit too many and get injured? Both carry risk. I prefer the health of the player. Some of the hits they take are bone crushing, especially after they release. So I would rather not have him take anymore punishment than he has to. I love Jay. I'm happy he's our QB and I hope they resign him.

[hairy worthen]

Yeah, but if your quarterback is getting sacked 50+ times a year, odds are, he might not bounce back up eventually. QBs are very fragile, unless it's Big Ben. So which is better, throwing INTs or possibly having your QB take one hit too many and get injured? Both carry risk. I prefer the health of the player. Some of the hits they take are bone crushing, especially after they release. So I would rather not have him take anymore punishment than he has to. I love Jay. I'm happy he's our QB and I hope they resign him.

I am happy he is the Bears QB too!

BTW who has been injured more and missed more games the last 2 or 3 seasons, Rodgers or Cutler?

[MerrittsMustache]

In 6 1/2 seasons as an NFL starter, Jay Cutler has won one playoff game.

He's also 1-7 against the Packers.

He also choked like a dog down the stretch in his last season with the Broncos (2008), turning an almost certain playoff berth into dust.

Obviously, he should be nicknamed "Mr. Big Game."

What does your post have to do with anything?

You realize the Broncos' D gave up 37 ppg during their 2008 collapse, right? Sure, Cutler wasn't great but he didn't exactly "choke like a dog"...or even like Rodgers in the last 2 playoffs  

Also, if the Giants' punter kicks the ball out of bounds against Philly in 2010, there's a 50/50 chance that Rodgers is sitting one playoff win as well...with that win being against a team playing a WR at QB.  

What does my post have to do with anything? Nothing, but it'll be fun to watch people get all riled up.

[jmayer1]

It's semantics. Holding the ball while waiting for a big play to develop really isn't all that different than being risk averse. If the big play hasn't developed, he's not trying to force something in there, instead he's potentially taking a sack. Obviously, I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just an observation.

I don't think its semantics, but we can agree to disagree. I think if Rodgers was really risk adverse, you'd see him throw to more checkdowns rather than hanging in there looking downfield. I much prefer Rodgers style to that of Cutler (or Favre--who had somewhat of a similar style although much better at it) as winning the turnover battle is absolutely huge in the NFL. If you think that is risk averse, so be it, but trying to force something to possibly make a play can be really stupid, especially when it still doesn't result in as many big plays. The big thing, obviously, is that it doesn't matter what style a QB has if he isn't playing and, up to this point, Rodgers has also shown to be better at that than Cutler, despite the fact that you believe Rodgers has a penchant for taking sacks.

For better or worse, Cutler is more likely to force something and try to make a play, while Rodgers is more likely to take a sack and move on.

FIFY 

As a fan, both approaches can be equally frustrating.

I think there are a lot more Bears fan frustrated with Cutler than Packers fans with Rodgers.

This is an interesting discussion, though. Definitely more than one way to skin a cat as a QB, especially considering the recent successes of the read-option or "athletic" quarterbacks, which isn't even part of this discussion.

[MarsupialMadness]

I would rather my QB take a sack than throw an interception.  Throwing the ball away is another option.

Field position is huge, especially if you have a good defense.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I have closely watched both approaches, Favre and Rodgers.  The risk taking approach is by far more frustrating. The most decisive stat is turnovers. I would much rather have the QB take a sack versus throw a pick. You can't argue with the team's success with Rodgers approach. Ask Viking fans if they would rather have Favre take a chance on that intercepted pass in the Championship game or just take a knee.

The knife cuts both ways with Favre. You hated the INTs he threw because a lot of them were ego-driven. But, it's his ego that made him so tough and allowed him to make so many great plays.

No joke, Favre might be the toughest SOB to ever play the game... and it's his large ego (and drugs) that enabled him to do that.

[wadesworld]

What does your post have to do with anything?

You realize the Broncos' D gave up 37 ppg during their 2008 collapse, right? Sure, Cutler wasn't great but he didn't exactly "choke like a dog"...or even like Rodgers in the last 2 playoffs  

Also, if the Giants' punter kicks the ball out of bounds against Philly in 2010, there's a 50/50 chance that Rodgers is sitting one playoff win as well...with that win being against a team playing a WR at QB.  

What does my post have to do with anything? Nothing, but it'll be fun to watch people get all riled up.

It's funny because that's all hypothetical. The fact of the matter is the Giants didn't kick the ball out of bounds, Rodgers did win the Super Bowl, and Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL. Cutler is, at best, an average quarterback who has the talent to be a very good quarterback but doesn't have the right mindset to reach his potential.

Anybody who would rather have a quarterback who throws more interceptions but takes less sacks than one who takes more sacks but throws less interceptions knows nothing about football.

[wadesworld]

The knife cuts both ways with Favre. You hated the INTs he threw because a lot of them were ego-driven. But, it's his ego that made him so tough and allowed him to make so many great plays.

No joke, Favre might be the toughest SOB to ever play the game... and it's his large ego (and drugs) that enabled him to do that.

All very true

[MerrittsMustache]

It's funny because that's all hypothetical. The fact of the matter is the Giants didn't kick the ball out of bounds, Rodgers did win the Super Bowl, and Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL. Cutler is, at best, an average quarterback who has the talent to be a very good quarterback but doesn't have the right mindset to reach his potential.

Anybody who would rather have a quarterback who throws more interceptions but takes less sacks than one who takes more sacks but throws less interceptions knows nothing about football.

First bold: Not a fact.

Second bold: When did anyone say that?

[MerrittsMustache]

I think there are a lot more Bears fan frustrated with Cutler than Packers fans with Rodgers.

This is an interesting discussion, though. Definitely more than one way to skin a cat as a QB, especially considering the recent successes of the read-option or "athletic" quarterbacks, which isn't even part of this discussion.

I agree completely. Cutler can be an incredibly frustrating QB to watch. As a fan it's tough because as soon as Cutler put on a Bears' uniform, he became the best QB ever to wear a Bears' uniform (same goes for Marshall at WR), which can lead to unrealistic expectations. Cutler is one of the most talented QBs in the NFL but he has had bad OCs, a bad receiving corp and a bad o-line. At the same time, he hasn't really done a whole lot to help any of those situations.

I would rather my QB take a sack than throw an interception.  Throwing the ball away is another option.

Anyone would rather have a sack than an INT.

Cutler doesn't like to throw the ball away because of his ego (trying to make a play - leads to INTs) and Rodgers doesn't like to throw the ball away because of his ego (likes his stats - leads to sacks).

[wadesworld]

First bold: Not a fact.

Second bold: When did anyone say that?

Of course it's not a fact, it's an opinion. There's no way to prove someone is the best quarterback as a fact. But look at the statistics and results and it's pretty clear. I haven't seen one "expert" list anyone other than Rodgers as the best quarterback going into 2013. I'm sure they're out there, but the majority say Rodgers. That's not to say Rodgers's career or at his peek are better than Brady or Manning and their career or peek. But going into 2013 Rodgers is the best quarterback in the NFL.

[MerrittsMustache]

Of course it's not a fact, it's an opinion. There's no way to prove someone is the best quarterback as a fact. But look at the statistics and results and it's pretty clear. I haven't seen one "expert" list anyone other than Rodgers as the best quarterback going into 2013. I'm sure they're out there, but the majority say Rodgers. That's not to say Rodgers's career or at his peek are better than Brady or Manning and their career or peek. But going into 2013 Rodgers is the best quarterback in the NFL.

You said it was a fact.

Also...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1724598-doug-pederson-believes-alex-smith-is-nfls-best-qb

[Spotcheck Billy]

apologies to Jaybee - I guess Longwell got the brainwashing thing in GB too   
Longwell says it's great to be a Packer again

"It's great to be back and be a Green Bay Packer again," Longwell said.

Longwell said that he never had hard feelings after the Packers all but let him walk in free agency after the 2005 season and went to Minnesota because it was the next phase of his career.

"I'm proud of what I accomplished here," he said. "I felt I had a great run in Minnesota. I was blessed to live the Packers experience for nine years. This my first team and Sara (his wife) and I grew up here. We were so blessed to see this whole operation from the other side, the other sideline, the other locker room, from across the border. We saw how special this place was."

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/219421581.html

[Jay Bee]

Yeah, he's a packer again..

The guy got cut from the Vikings a year ago and hasn't played since and never will. Grean bay gave the guy an opportunity to do something cute / as a tribute. Of course he's thankful for that.

But he was still in a Vikings jersey when he went down south to get our QB, the Silver Fox, up to Minnesota.

Longwell is just being a classy guy.

Greem bay has their kicker - mason crosby. lol

[hairy worthen]

The knife cuts both ways with Favre. You hated the INTs he threw because a lot of them were ego-driven. But, it's his ego that made him so tough and allowed him to make so many great plays.

No joke, Favre might be the toughest SOB to ever play the game... and it's his large ego (and drugs) that enabled him to do that.

Sure it cuts both ways with Favre but, throwing a pick is more frustrating for the fan and damaging to the team than taking a sack.  I hated his interceptions because they hurt the team, not because they were ego driven. Favre definitely had an ego as do most professional athletes, but he also had an incredible will to win and was ultra-competitive. That was probably more significant in the reason he played the way he did. There was more to it than just ego. If a large ego makes a great QB then why isn't Ryan Leaf or Jeff George in the hall of fame?

[wadesworld]

You said it was a fact.

Also...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1724598-doug-pederson-believes-alex-smith-is-nfls-best-qb

You're right, didn't mean to word it that way. Shouldn't have lumped that in with the Giants keeping the ball in bounds and the Packers winning the Super Bowl Rodgers being the best is an opinion and Rodgers having only 1 Playoff win if not for...is a hypothetical.

Yeah, he's a packer again..

The guy got cut from the Vikings a year ago and hasn't played since and never will. Grean bay gave the guy an opportunity to do something cute / as a tribute. Of course he's thankful for that.

But he was still in a Vikings jersey when he went down south to get our QB, the Silver Fox, up to Minnesota.

Longwell is just being a classy guy.

Greem bay has their kicker - mason crosby. lol

Vikings fans trying to rip on the Packers is hilarious. At least when it's a Bears fan their team has actually won something at some point and are consistently competitive. Vikings fans are a joke. There is nothing they can say. Falling back on ripping on a kicker? Haha cute.

But hey, I'll give the Vikings credit, I wish the Brewers would take an approach like they have. Take all the washed up old players from the Cardinals that they no longer want and you can actually make a team of professionals who can compete to make the Playoffs despite being washed up, like the Vikings have done to former Packer players. The Vikings now have their star side receiver they've missed since Moss left! He was the FOURTH best receiver for the Packers last year! Yay!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Sure it cuts both ways with Favre but, throwing a pick is more frustrating for the fan and damaging to the team than taking a sack.  I hated his interceptions because they hurt the team, not because they were ego driven. Favre definitely had an ego as do most professional athletes, but he also had an incredible will to win and was ultra-competitive. That was probably more significant in the reason he played the way he did. There was more to it than just ego. If a large ego makes a great QB then why isn't Ryan Leaf or Jeff George in the hall of fame?

Well, I think this is a semantics issue. I'm using "ego" as all encompassing (competitive, drive, leadership, prima donna, etc.)

As far as interceptions vs sack, you are 100% correct... but part of made #4 great was his ability to take a chance and make a great play. If he just "takes the sack" in those situations, he makes less mistakes, but also less great plays.