The NFC's Top Three

[skywindO2]

I think the top two teams, at least in the standings will be the Eagles and the Rams. Mostly because of lack of competition in their divisions. 

Saints, Falcons, Packers, and of course Vikings are all strong contenders for the 3rd spot and the teams I expect to be in the NFC playoffs. 

[SemperFeist]

I really don’t get the Packer love. Without Rodgers, they have a very uninspiring roster, and while Rodgers is great, he’s also working with one of the worst supporting casts of his career. 

[swede700]

1 hour ago, SemperFeist said:

I really don’t get the Packer love. Without Rodgers, they have a very uninspiring roster, and while Rodgers is great, he’s also working with one of the worst supporting casts of his career. 

I just look at the entire scope of the NFC, and I see enough weaknesses in its depth that the Packers, even with all their flaws, can still have some success.  As I said, I'm not sold on the Eagles or the Rams...and their divisions could go any number of ways.  The Cowboys and Giants will be better in the East, and the 49ers will be better in the West, and surprisingly, if Bradford can stay healthy, the Cardinals may still have 1 good run in them, but even so, I don't trust any of those teams come playoff time.  I trust Rodgers moreso...at least enough to win 1 game.  I can't say the same for either the Cowboys/Giants or Cardinals/49ers...nor can I even say it for the Rams or Eagles.

[SteelKing728]

Even with a lackluster roster, the Packer have managed to get to 10 wins with Rodgers healthy, so that shouldn't be an issue this year.

I just don't see them getting more than 1 playoff win given their schedule and the roster. Plus the amount of injuries that team faces on a yearly basis is concerning. 

[Robb_K]

I'd say that The Eagles are #1, Rams #2 and Falcons/healthy Packers #3/4, and maybe Giants weak #5, along with Saints.  A lot will have to do with which teams are hit with injuries to key players.  I hope The Vikings will have NO long-term injuries to any key players.  We are due that good luck for a change.

[Guest]

The Eagles are #1 in book also, mainly for two reasons...excellent offensive line...excellent defensive line.  Neither are the best units in the Conference, but together with their other players they will win plenty games and make a run in the playoffs.  Whoever said that they were a .500 team must be counting on a massive amount of injuries, because they are solid on both sides of the ball.

[swede700]

8 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

The Eagles are #1 in book also, mainly for two reasons...excellent offensive line...excellent defensive line.  Neither are the best units in the Conference, but together with their other players they will win plenty games and make a run in the playoffs.  Whoever said that they were a .500 team must be counting on a massive amount of injuries, because they are solid on both sides of the ball.

I didn't say they were a .500 team, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened because I don't trust them.  

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I didn't say they were a .500 team, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened because I don't trust them.  

Their starters are excellent...they have quality back ups in key positions...and they have a creative head coach...I don't see them falling apart.  I sure hope I'm wrong, because I'd rather not face them again in the playoffs. 

[VikeManDan]

Aren't the Eagles returning a few key players, aside from Wentz, from injury as well?

Right now I'm going Eagles, Saints, Falcons.

[SemperFeist]

I’m curious to see how much of an impact, if any, losing both Frank Reich and John DeFilippo will have on the Eagles offense.

Both coaches held important roles and responsibilities on that team, especially on game day. It’ll be interesting if Pederson has the same level of trust in their replacements, or if he’s taking on some of those responsibilities.  

[Uncle Buck]

Falcons, Rams, and Eagles. 

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the Falcons lasted the longest.  While the Rams have added some big names to the roster, that doesn't always equate to success.  I could see that backfiring on them with low character guys like Suh and Peters.  As far as the Eagles, they obviously have a great team, but history tells us that it's very tough to repeat as Super Bowl champions.

[Uncle Buck]

10 hours ago, SteelKing728 said:

Even with a lackluster roster, the Packer have managed to get to 10 wins with Rodgers healthy, so that shouldn't be an issue this year.

I just don't see them getting more than 1 playoff win given their schedule and the roster. Plus the amount of injuries that team faces on a yearly basis is concerning. 

I agree.  They have an easy regular season schedule, so they should be among the media darlings going into the playoffs, but we've seen how they do when they have to play against elite defensive teams in the playoffs.  I see a one and done in their future.