2013 NFC North/NFL Thread

[ChuckyChip]

They can, they'll decide end of next Sunday night. Have to figure either Bears/Pack or Pokes/Eagles.

There is no Sunday night or Monday night game in week 17 - so no games can be flexed.

[GGGG]

There are definitely Sunday night games in week 17.

[ChuckyChip]

There are definitely Sunday night games in week 17.

Oh, sorry, you are correct.  There is not a Sunday night game on the schedule, but reading more closely I see that NBC has the right to pick their game six days in advance.

[wadesworld]

Interesting stat. After the pick-six (mid-way thru Q2), Cutler went 14-19 for 161 yards, 3 TD and 0 INT. The Bears' offense scored 28 points, had a FG nullified by penalty, which led to 1 of just 2 punts from that point on. Cutler's day may not have started off very well (which many will focus on), but he certainly got it together and finished the last 2.5 quarters about as well as a QB could.

That's a nice half no doubt.  But you can do that for any quarterback at some point in their career.  "If you take away the first half of this game (enter quarterback name here) threw 3 touchdowns and 0 interceptions.  Well done."

Heck, after a first half that went like this:
- 6 plays, 41 yards, field goal
- 3 plays, -3 yards, punt
- 3 plays, 26 yards, punt
- 5 plays, 15 yards, punt
- 3 plays, 2 yards, interception
- 4 plays, 20 yards, punt
- 4 plays, 58 yards, end of half
Matt Flynn turned it around to lead the Packers to a second half of:
- 4 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 12 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 5 plays, 22 yards, touchdown
- 10 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 7 plays, 50 yards, touchdown
(- 2 plays, 2 kneels for -2 yards, end of game)
After totaling 160 yards and having 3 points in the first half, Flynn led the Packers to touchdowns on every 2nd half possession.

In the first half Flynn was 11/18 for 111 yards with 0 touchdowns and 1 interception and was sacked twice for -16 yards.  In the 2nd half Flynn was 16/22 for 177 yards and 4 touchdowns without throwing an interception or a sack.

The problem with a lot of arguments are that fans say, "If you take away this game and that game (or this half) this player's numbers are incredible this year (or game)!"  Well, those games/halves still happened.  If I wanted to prove Eddie Lacy was a top 5 back I could've said "Take away the Lions and Giants game where he had a combined 43 yards and he's averaging well over 100 yards/game since returning from concussion in October."  Well, you can't take those 2 games away because those 2 games happened.  If you take away the 13 games the Packers have played outside of yesterday and Lacy is averaging 141 yards and a touchdown every game!  The man's the best running back in the history of the NFL!  No.

[wadesworld]

Just saw the QB that has the highest 4th quarter QBR on the season, begins with Cut ends with Ler.

Ahh, if only they could play just 1 quarter in the NFL.  Wouldn't it be nice?

[hairy worthen]

That's a nice half no doubt.  But you can do that for any quarterback at some point in their career.  "If you take away the first half of this game (enter quarterback name here) threw 3 touchdowns and 0 interceptions.  Well done."

Heck, after a first half that went like this:
- 6 plays, 41 yards, field goal
- 3 plays, -3 yards, punt
- 3 plays, 26 yards, punt
- 5 plays, 15 yards, punt
- 3 plays, 2 yards, interception
- 4 plays, 20 yards, punt
- 4 plays, 58 yards, end of half
Matt Flynn turned it around to lead the Packers to a second half of:
- 4 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 12 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 5 plays, 22 yards, touchdown
- 10 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 7 plays, 50 yards, touchdown
(- 2 plays, 2 kneels for -2 yards, end of game)
After totaling 160 yards and having 3 points in the first half, Flynn led the Packers to touchdowns on every 2nd half possession.

In the first half Flynn was 11/18 for 111 yards with 0 touchdowns and 1 interception and was sacked twice for -16 yards.  In the 2nd half Flynn was 16/22 for 177 yards and 4 touchdowns without throwing an interception or a sack.

The problem with a lot of arguments are that fans say, "If you take away this game and that game (or this half) this player's numbers are incredible this year (or game)!"  Well, those games/halves still happened.  If I wanted to prove Eddie Lacy was a top 5 back I could've said "Take away the Lions and Giants game where he had a combined 26 yards and he's averaging well over 100 yards/game since returning from concussion in October."  Well, you can't take those 2 games away because those 2 games happened.  If you take away the 13 games the Packers have played outside of yesterday and Lacy is averaging 141 yards and a touchdown every game!  The man's the best running back in the history of the NFL!  No.

Yes, this is one of my pet peeves. Cherry pick the parts that fit your argument and leave out the rest. It happens quite a bit here and elsewhere.

[wadesworld]

Yes, this is one of my pet peeves. Cherry pick the parts that fit your argument and leave out the rest. It happens quite a bit here and elsewhere.

I'm not saying that I'm immune to doing so myself, and I don't mean to pick out 1 example.  It happens all the time everywhere, but it's not realistic.

[DegenerateDish]

Ahh, if only they could play just 1 quarter in the NFL.  Wouldn't it be nice?

It's really hard to discount that stat, especially the most important quarter of the game.

[wadesworld]

It's really hard to discount that stat, especially the most important quarter of the game.

If you want one quarter to be your quarterback's best quarter of course you want it to be the 4th quarter, that is a fair point.

[MerrittsMustache]

That's a nice half no doubt.  But you can do that for any quarterback at some point in their career.  "If you take away the first half of this game (enter quarterback name here) threw 3 touchdowns and 0 interceptions.  Well done."

Heck, after a first half that went like this:
- 6 plays, 41 yards, field goal
- 3 plays, -3 yards, punt
- 3 plays, 26 yards, punt
- 5 plays, 15 yards, punt
- 3 plays, 2 yards, interception
- 4 plays, 20 yards, punt
- 4 plays, 58 yards, end of half
Matt Flynn turned it around to lead the Packers to a second half of:
- 4 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 12 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 5 plays, 22 yards, touchdown
- 10 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 7 plays, 50 yards, touchdown
(- 2 plays, 2 kneels for -2 yards, end of game)
After totaling 160 yards and having 3 points in the first half, Flynn led the Packers to touchdowns on every 2nd half possession.

In the first half Flynn was 11/18 for 111 yards with 0 touchdowns and 1 interception and was sacked twice for -16 yards.  In the 2nd half Flynn was 16/22 for 177 yards and 4 touchdowns without throwing an interception or a sack.

The problem with a lot of arguments are that fans say, "If you take away this game and that game (or this half) this player's numbers are incredible this year (or game)!"  Well, those games/halves still happened.  If I wanted to prove Eddie Lacy was a top 5 back I could've said "Take away the Lions and Giants game where he had a combined 43 yards and he's averaging well over 100 yards/game since returning from concussion in October."  Well, you can't take those 2 games away because those 2 games happened.  If you take away the 13 games the Packers have played outside of yesterday and Lacy is averaging 141 yards and a touchdown every game!  The man's the best running back in the history of the NFL!  No.

Cutler hadn't played in over a month and was coming back from an injury that he clearly hasn't fully recovered from. He looked rusty at first, had some passes sail on him and forced a few things that weren't there. As the game went on, he took what was there, shook the rust off, played very well and most importantly, got the win. I never said that the ugly plays didn't happen nor did I say to take away anything. I said that from a specific point on, he played very well and much more under control, which is a very positive sign. Hopefully he continues to do that because if he does, the offense will be tough to stop.

[wadesworld]

Look out packers... Vikes are comin!!! SKOL Vikings!

Oops.

[NavinRJohnson]

Ahh, if only they could play just 1 quarter in the NFL.  Wouldn't it be nice?

Cleveland would be happy with 3.

[NavinRJohnson]

Matt Flynn turned it around to lead the Packers to a second half of:
- 4 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 12 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 5 plays, 22 yards, touchdown
- 10 plays, 80 yards, touchdown
- 7 plays, 50 yards, touchdown
(- 2 plays, 2 kneels for -2 yards, end of game)
After totaling 160 yards and having 3 points in the first half, Flynn led the Packers to touchdowns on every 2nd half possession.

I don't care who you are, or who you root for, that's pretty incredible. Between that and the 6 TD performance a couple years ago, the guy has his own little Packer legend Niche. He could easily settle into a very comfortable Doug Pederson roll for the next several years, and have a very nice NFL career.

[wadesworld]

I dont consider what he did before the Bears on 2 mediocre Broncos teams, despite being a Pro Bowler one of those years.

Of the 4 years in Chicago, his first was on a bad team, his second they made the playoffs, third he hurt his hand, last year they finished 10-6 which gets you in 75% of the time.  

So he's batting .333 in Chicago if you don't factor in quality of teams played on.  I don't get why QB assessment is always so black and white.

Now this is funny to me.  You say the Broncos were mediocre.  The Broncos went to the Playoffs each of the 3 years before Cutler came to the Broncos, and then did not go to the Playoffs the 2 years Cutler was in Denver.  They averaged 11 wins per game the 3 years prior to Cutler being in Denver, and went 13-3 in 2005.  That's mediocre?  That was good for the #1 seed in the AFC.  In 2006 the Broncos started out 7-4 with Jake Plummer under center before handing it over (maybe Plummer got injured?) to Cutler  where they finished 2-3.  Can you blame that on Cutler?  No, he had never started before week 13 of that year.  But then in 2007 the Broncos go 7-9 and 2008 they go 8-8.  The Broncos were not mediocre when Cutler came in at all.  Is Cutler the only thing that changed to make the Broncos mediocre?  Of course not.  But you can't say there weren't pieces there to get into the Playoffs.  There were.

Then in 2008 (the year before Cutler came to the Bears) you look at the Bears and they were 9-7 with Kyle Orton as their quarterback.  Clearly, there were some decent pieces in place if Kyle Orton is winning 9 games.  Cutler's first year in Chicago one year later?  7-9.

I know people love to point out Cutler has had X amount of offensive coordinators and so many different head coaches and his receivers have sucked and just got hot for McCown and there were no pieces in place when he came into the situations he was coming into and blah blah blah.  But at some point you have to realize the one consistent variable is that Jay Cutler has been under center for all of those things and has made the Playoffs once in 8 years.

[NavinRJohnson]

I know people love to point out Cutler has had X amount of offensive coordinators and so many different head coaches and his receivers have sucked and just got hot for McCown and there were no pieces in place when he came into the situations he was coming into and blah blah blah.  

I think Cutler is actually pretty good, but I do also think the multiple OC thing is a bit overplayed. A QB can certainly make an offensive coordinator look good or, and can also get them fired. I don't think we need any more evidence than Tont Romo yesterday, and the fate he undoubtedly delivered Jason Garrett (who is certainly also to blame). Point is, it is not usually just one or the other. Coordinators are the hitting and pitching coaches of the NFL, When a QB plays well, they look good. When they play poorly the look bad. Talent is everything. see Dom Capers in 2010...the Packers had a top 5 defense and he received all kinds of credit. The last couple years, they stink, and he's a bum.

[MerrittsMustache]

Now this is funny to me.  You say the Broncos were mediocre.  The Broncos went to the Playoffs each of the 3 years before Cutler came to the Broncos, and then did not go to the Playoffs the 2 years Cutler was in Denver.  They averaged 11 wins per game the 3 years prior to Cutler being in Denver, and went 13-3 in 2005.  That's mediocre?  That was good for the #1 seed in the AFC.  In 2006 the Broncos started out 7-4 with Jake Plummer under center before handing it over (maybe Plummer got injured?) to Cutler  where they finished 2-3.  Can you blame that on Cutler?  No, he had never started before week 13 of that year.  But then in 2007 the Broncos go 7-9 and 2008 they go 8-8.  The Broncos were not mediocre when Cutler came in at all.  Is Cutler the only thing that changed to make the Broncos mediocre?  Of course not.  But you can't say there weren't pieces there to get into the Playoffs.  There were.

Then in 2008 (the year before Cutler came to the Bears) you look at the Bears and they were 9-7 with Kyle Orton as their quarterback.  Clearly, there were some decent pieces in place if Kyle Orton is winning 9 games.  Cutler's first year in Chicago one year later?  7-9.

I know people love to point out Cutler has had X amount of offensive coordinators and so many different head coaches and his receivers have sucked and just got hot for McCown and there were no pieces in place when he came into the situations he was coming into and blah blah blah.  But at some point you have to realize the one consistent variable is that Jay Cutler has been under center for all of those things and has made the Playoffs once in 8 years.

You can spin numbers however you want.

In 2006, Cutler put up significantly better numbers than Plummer but Jake went 7-4 and Jay went 2-3. Is that on Cutler?

In 2007, the Broncos' offense went from Ranking 21st to ranking 11th while the D went from 14th to 19th. Is that on Cutler?

In 2008, the Broncos' offense was ranked 2nd and the D slipped to 29th.  Is that on Cutler?

In 2010, the Bears went to the NFC title game. Does Cutler get credit for that?

In 2011, the Bears would have made the playoffs if Marion Barber stayed in-bounds against Denver. Is that on Cutler?

GB was 13-3 in 2007 but went 6-10 with Rodgers the next season. Is that on Rodgers?

In 2009, GB went 11-5 but were one-and-done in the playoffs. Is that on Rodgers?

In 2010, GB went 10-6 and needed a blown special teams play by the Giants just to get into the playoffs. Does Rodgers get credit for that?

In 2011, GB went 15-1 but lost a home playoff game. Is that on Rodgers?

In 2012, GB got embarrassed by SF in the playoffs. Is that on Rodgers?

In SB 32, the Packers were 14-point favorites yet lost. Is that on Favre?

Like I said, you can use numbers to see whatever you want to see. You choose to see any and all negatives that you can find on Jay Cutler. That's your prerogative.

[wadesworld]

You can spin numbers however you want.

In 2006, Cutler put up significantly better numbers than Plummer but Jake went 7-4 and Jay went 2-3. Is that on Cutler?

In 2007, the Broncos' offense went from Ranking 21st to ranking 11th while the D went from 14th to 19th. Is that on Cutler?

In 2008, the Broncos' offense was ranked 2nd and the D slipped to 29th.  Is that on Cutler?

In 2010, the Bears went to the NFC title game. Does Cutler get credit for that?

In 2011, the Bears would have made the playoffs if Marion Barber stayed in-bounds against Denver. Is that on Cutler?

GB was 13-3 in 2007 but went 6-10 with Rodgers the next season. Is that on Rodgers?

In 2009, GB went 11-5 but were one-and-done in the playoffs. Is that on Rodgers?

In 2010, GB went 10-6 and needed a blown special teams play by the Giants just to get into the playoffs. Does Rodgers get credit for that?

In 2011, GB went 15-1 but lost a home playoff game. Is that on Rodgers?

In 2012, GB got embarrassed by SF in the playoffs. Is that on Rodgers?

In SB 32, the Packers were 14-point favorites yet lost. Is that on Favre?

Like I said, you can use numbers to see whatever you want to see. You choose to see any and all negatives that you can find on Jay Cutler. That's your prerogative.

Or I just choose to point out that it's easy to say the Broncos were "mediocre" and the Bears were "mediocre" for Cutler.  Look at the post I quoted.  The guy literally says he doesn't count any of Cutler's career except the last 4 years because the teams he played on were mediocre.  One, that's an absurd thing to say.  Two, that's simply not true.

[MerrittsMustache]

Or I just choose to point out that it's easy to say the Broncos were "mediocre" and the Bears were "mediocre" for Cutler.  Look at the post I quoted.  The guy literally says he doesn't count any of Cutler's career except the last 4 years because the teams he played on were mediocre.  One, that's an absurd thing to say.  Two, that's simply not true.

Not saying that I agree with him, but how can you prove that it's simply not true?

[JWags85]

Not saying that I agree with him, but how can you prove that it's simply not true?

I phrased my statement terribly.  I more meant it to say that I don't consider what Cutler did in Denver when I assess his tenure in Chicago.  He played on borderline teams there, so its not as if he had the reigns of a thriving team and didn't deliver.  That's what I meant.  It was a bit too overgeneralized.  Mike Shanahan was fired just before Cutler was traded.  After a season in which Cutler made a Pro Bowl.  I would say there were things slightly outside of his sphere of influence that contributed to that team not making the playoffs.

[jsglow]

What I find interesting about this thread lately is that we have a whole bunch of Packer talk and we have a whole bunch of Bear talk but I don't see a single example of the two fan bases turning on each other.    

I suggest we all go over and solve the Middle East problems.  Carry on.

[hairy worthen]

What I find interesting about this thread lately is that we have a whole bunch of Packer talk and we have a whole bunch of Bear talk but I don't see a single example of the two fan bases turning on each other.    

I suggest we all go over and solve the Middle East problems.  Carry on.

Even though the Bears are intense rivals of the Packers, I actually respect the Bears organization.   Some of their fans are delusional, but that goes for all fan bases.

I couldn't say I respect the Vikings and Lions, especially the Vikings. I may find myself in the awkward position of rooting for the Vikings to beat the lions the last game of the season.

[tower912]

As a Lion's fan, I could find myself in the awkward position of CARING about the last game of the season. 

[NavinRJohnson]

What I find interesting about this thread lately is that we have a whole bunch of Packer talk and we have a whole bunch of Bear talk but I don't see a single example of the two fan bases turning on each other.    

I suggest we all go over and solve the Middle East problems.  Carry on.

I guess that's what happens when both sides understand that neither team is any good. Playoff contenders, but nothing more. Not God awful like the Vikings, and not pretenders like the Lions.

[NavinRJohnson]

Hub says Peanut will not be back this year. Was that already known?

With Rodgers and Briggs seemingly both expected soon, would leave Cobb as the only significant unknown.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Hub says Peanut will not be back this year. Was that already known?

With Rodgers and Briggs seemingly both expected soon, would leave Cobb as the only significant unknown.

I thought I remember hearing that Peanut would be back for the playoffs if the Bears made it. You couldbe right though. Havent heard anything on him in a while.