NFC North: Who wins it this year?

[SteelKing728]

3 hours ago, ReadyToThump said:

Somebody just make a Bears vs. Vikings roster thread already lol. 

With Aaron Rodgers at QB, that'd be a wild team to watch.

I'm taking Chicago because i don't trust Minnesota beating up on winning teams or GB in a transition season, although I could see all 3 making the playoffs.

Detroit looks like a 6-10 team to me. Meh.

[Fl0nkerton]

13 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Ehh, Cousins is what he is, and Tru has a lot of potential for growth, and looks to have big things ahead of him.  But the original post I quoted specified not including QB

Gotcha, I didn't catch that. 

8 hours ago, Pool said:

Absolutely. Kirk is being massively overpaid for what he is and Tru has shown the Bears can win with him behind center. 

Uh, so....you would or wouldn't take Kirk over Tru? lol

You answered in the affirmative to the original question but the sentence right after sounds contradictory.

Either way, if we're disregarding contracts, Kirk's the better QB at the moment.

[Superman(DH23)]

2 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Gotcha, I didn't catch that. 

Uh, so....you would or wouldn't take Kirk over Tru? lol

You answered in the affirmative to the original question but the sentence right after sounds contradictory.

Either way, if we're disregarding contracts, Kirk's the better QB at the moment.

Cousins is throwing to Thielen and Diggs, and barely had better #s than Tru in 4 more games.  Cousins is also a 7 year vet.  And that PT record is a very real thing.  Sure we're biased, but I dont think you'd find too many Bears fans who would rather have Cousins.

[Fl0nkerton]

2 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Cousins is throwing to Thielen and Diggs, and barely had better #s than Tru in 4 more games.  Cousins is also a 7 year vet.  And that PT record is a very real thing.  Sure we're biased, but I dont think you'd find too many Bears fans who would rather have Cousins.

 

[FrantikRam]

19 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

I honestly have no clue how you can make an argument that the Vikes roster is better than the Bears, hence my laughter above.  The Vikes are better at WR, that's it.  The Bears are better everywhere else on the field, like seriously.  The few positions where the Vikes could MAYBE have a better player, the Bears depth just makes it a no contest.  If you want to argue that the Vikes may be the better team this year, fine, whatever, but if you want to go down the roster, The Bears have one of the best in the entire league.

 

I have no horse in this race. I dislike both teams evenly. But here is where I think the Vikings are better:

QB - Cousins is not the best and is overpaid - but he's better than Trubisky

RB - Cook has proven that he is capable of being a top 10 RB - Cohen is a nice player, but not that level - both teams have rookies that will look to make an impact

WR/TE - biggest disparity on the teams - Vikings have one of the best while Bears are, at best, middle of the pack

CB - Rhodes struggled last year - as did most of the Vikings - but I'll take the Vikings CBs for next year without much hesitation - the Bears letting Callahan go was a mistake IMO

K - relevant considering..

 

Here's where the Bears are better:

OL - but in terms of talent, I prefer the Vikings - giving the Bears the nod here because of how they performed last year

Front 7 - Mack is listed as an OLB - giving this to the Bears, but whichever unit Mack is not a part of (DL or LB), I prefer the Vikings

S

 

 

People have a bad tendency to go off of the previous year - but the Bears from last year are the perfect example for why not to do that. I thought the Vikings were more talented last year, they just had a weird season. It happens. I don't think the Bears really got better this year - their defense is a near lock to be worse in some capacity, and Cordarelle Patterson doesn't move the needle much on offense.

I do believe that their run game will be much improved - but I don't think there's enough around Trubisky for him to show marked improvement, and with the defense unable to uphold the standard from last year, I see a 10-6 team. On the flip side, the Vikings are right there with the most talented in the NFL.

[Arthur Penske]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 1:16 PM, TENINCH said:

Vikings also went through 2 offensive coordinators and had a terrible offensive line. Going to have some issues playing football at the end of the year dealing with that. 

Then promoted a guy from that offensive staff to be the OC and added supremely proven vet talent to fix the Oline? Sounds like the issue is undoubtedly resolved.

[Arthur Penske]

22 hours ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Surely you'd take Kirk Cousins over Tru, right?

Kirk>Turdbisky, but wouldn't want either.

1. Rodgers

 

2. Staff

3 Kirk

4. Tur

Edited June 19, 2019 by Arthur Penske

[vikingsrule]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

Then promoted a guy from that offensive staff to be the OC and added supremely proven vet talent to fix the Oline? Sounds like the issue is undoubtedly resolved.

The new OC didn't get a chance to even implement his own offense last year, plus they brought in Kubiak to help the run game.

[Arthur Penske]

10 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

The new OC didn't get a chance to even implement his own offense last year, plus they brought in Kubiak to help the run game.

Oh never mind then. Problem solved.

[Superman(DH23)]

4 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

 

I have no horse in this race. I dislike both teams evenly. But here is where I think the Vikings are better:

QB - Cousins is not the best and is overpaid - but he's better than Trubisky

RB - Cook has proven that he is capable of being a top 10 RB - Cohen is a nice player, but not that level - both teams have rookies that will look to make an impact

WR/TE - biggest disparity on the teams - Vikings have one of the best while Bears are, at best, middle of the pack

CB - Rhodes struggled last year - as did most of the Vikings - but I'll take the Vikings CBs for next year without much hesitation - the Bears letting Callahan go was a mistake IMO

K - relevant considering..

 

Here's where the Bears are better:

OL - but in terms of talent, I prefer the Vikings - giving the Bears the nod here because of how they performed last year

Front 7 - Mack is listed as an OLB - giving this to the Bears, but whichever unit Mack is not a part of (DL or LB), I prefer the Vikings

S

 

 

People have a bad tendency to go off of the previous year - but the Bears from last year are the perfect example for why not to do that. I thought the Vikings were more talented last year, they just had a weird season. It happens. I don't think the Bears really got better this year - their defense is a near lock to be worse in some capacity, and Cordarelle Patterson doesn't move the needle much on offense.

I do believe that their run game will be much improved - but I don't think there's enough around Trubisky for him to show marked improvement, and with the defense unable to uphold the standard from last year, I see a 10-6 team. On the flip side, the Vikings are right there with the most talented in the NFL.

Holy Moly, so much crap wrong here.  Let's go

QB- original premise you proposed was not factoring QB, but whatever you like Cousins, I like Tru, dont care either way.

RB - lmao at Cook proven to be a top 10 RB.  In 2 years he has 969 yards and 4 TDs, you dismiss Cohen who has 814 yards and 5 TDs.  Gimme a break.  I'll give you Cook > Montgomery, since hes a rookie and I happen to like Cook.  After that it's all Bears as Cohen > #2 Vikes RB, Davis > #3 Vikes RB.  

I'm glad you acknowledge that the Bears OL is better, bc it EASILY, as for your qualifier that the Vikes OL is more talented, that's hogwash.  If they were more talented they would be better.  They arent.  

WR Obviously Thielen and Diggs are at the top of the pecking order here and I dont dispute it.  The problem is after those 2 it's all Bears from there

Thielen

Diggs

Robinson

Miller

Gabriel

Ridley

Patterson

Wims

Treadwell

Beebe

Davis

Bc Theilen and Diggs are the best of the bunch, I give the WR position to the Vikes, but the Bears depth makes it pretty damn close.

TE- I see that you want to lump in TE with WR bc you dont want to address the position on it's own.  I'd argue Burton/Shaheen/Braunecker is better than Rudolph/Smith/Morgan but we'll just call it a wash and say this is a toss up.  

I'll be back to do the defense later, which, news flash, ISNT. CLOSE.

[Pool]

53 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

Turdbisky

 

What are you 11? Sheesh

[Duluther]

I think our roster is being sold short in this thread (by many). We had a poor year last year relative to our expectations. It happens. Simmer and players have said they weren’t hungry after getting to the NFC championship the prior year. But we were a good team before that slump and we should be a good team again this year.  

We simply don’t have any poor starters outside of three positions (LG, RG, UT). That’s pretty absurd. Our only other noticeable flaws are QB clutchness and WR depth (the latter isn’t very important in our scheme).

Along with that, we have a couple pro bowl level players at every level on defense and also at receiver.

I don’t know if our roster will be better than the Bears this year. I know it’s idiotic to laugh it off like DH23 has done. If anything, I’d give the nod to the Bears because of precedence, but we’ll have to see.

 

Really, criticism of roster quality should be aimed at the Packers before anyone else. Besides QB (which was the original premise) and LT, I can’t think of a single position where they are inarguably better than the Vikings and Bears.

[dll2000]

On 6/17/2019 at 8:27 AM, ET80 said:

I don't see the Bears as a team that's regressing. The defense is probably #1 in the league and more Tarik Cohen would usually mean a winning record.

A lot of people on here saying Bears will regress.

My case: 

*MT practiced with 1's and got actual reps for first time ever in off season last year with a brand new system his coach said would take 3-5 years to master.  This season they aren't doing install through training camp like last year.  They are practicing execution and nuance.  

*Whole team had to learn that system which was a 180 from what they knew save one TE and the back up QB.  There were growing pains as expected.  

*Number 1 receiver was coming off ACL.

*Number 1 draft pick and top 10 pick missed training camp and quietly came into his own late without media attention. 

*Second round pick played whole season with a separated shoulder.

*Mack missed all of offseason in a contract dispute before being traded.

*Adding HHCD made secondary faster, better in coverage and better hands.  

*TE AS missed most of season with busted leg/ankle and played hurt when he came back causing many to dismiss him.  

*Floyd played 3/4 of year with a broken hand.  

*Virtually every key player is 25 or younger now, being a year younger last year obviously, and those that aren't are around 27-28.  Most of team hasn't even hit prime of athletic life yet, but there should be massive improvement for really young guys like Daniels, Nichols and Roquan Smith who were 20, 21 and 21 last year.   

*DC is new.  Principals are the same.  Defense will not have this steep drop off people are predicting.  They are better on paper talent wise with Nichols and Roquan having a year of experience and adding HHCD.  

*Rookies look good (But whatever, everyone says that right now.  Don't count that one).

They could get injury bug that takes them down.  That could happen to any team no matter how good.  But on paper considering experience and cohesion they are practicing at right now without key injuries there is no way this is a team that is regressing.   Everyone who is anyone is back and is saying all the right things from a 12-5 team that is hungry.  

Other teams are good too.  MN and GB can win games.  Cowboys and Eagles can be good.  NO and Atl have a ton of scary players.  Rams, Seahawks and still good and 49ers had injury bug last year and could surprise.  

But Bears have as good a shot as any in my mind and I haven't said that since '85 so that isn't just being a homer.

 

 

 

[vikingsrule]

1 hour ago, Arthur Penske said:

Oh never mind then. Problem solved.

Well, obviously that remains to be seen. Can Cousins and the OL improve? The point is, trying to compare what last year's Vikings offense accomplished, even though Stefanski was retained, seems irrelevant. He needs a chance to implement his own system and not run the system of a failed and terrible OC.

[Spartacus]

24 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

A lot of people on here saying Bears will regress.

My case: 

*MT practiced with 1's and got actual reps for first time ever in off season last year with a brand new system his coach said would take 3-5 years to master.  This season they aren't doing install through training camp like last year.  They are practicing execution and nuance.  

*Whole team had to learn that system which was a 180 from what they knew save one TE and the back up QB.  There were growing pains as expected.  

*Number 1 receiver was coming off ACL.

*Number 1 draft pick and top 10 pick missed training camp and quietly came into his own late without media attention. 

*Second round pick played whole season with a separated shoulder.

*Mack missed all of offseason in a contract dispute before being traded.

*Adding HHCD made secondary faster, better in coverage and better hands.  

*TE AS missed most of season with busted leg/ankle and played hurt when he came back causing many to dismiss him.  

*Floyd played 3/4 of year with a broken hand.  

*Virtually every key player is 25 or younger now, being a year younger last year obviously, and those that aren't are around 27-28.  Most of team hasn't even hit prime of athletic life yet, but there should be massive improvement for really young guys like Daniels, Nichols and Roquan Smith who were 20, 21 and 21 last year.   

*DC is new.  Principals are the same.  Defense will not have this steep drop off people are predicting.  They are better on paper talent wise with Nichols and Roquan having a year of experience and adding HHCD.  

*Rookies look good (But whatever, everyone says that right now.  Don't count that one).

They could get injury bug that takes them down.  That could happen to any team no matter how good.  But on paper considering experience and cohesion they are practicing at right now without key injuries there is no way this is a team that is regressing.   Everyone who is anyone is back and is saying all the right things from a 12-5 team that is hungry.  

Other teams are good too.  MN and GB can win games.  Cowboys and Eagles can be good.  NO and Atl have a ton of scary players.  Rams, Seahawks and still good and 49ers had injury bug last year and could surprise.  

But Bears have as good a shot as any in my mind and I haven't said that since '85 so that isn't just being a homer.

 

 

 

Using HHCD as a reason the secondary is going to get better is pretty deceiving. He has been trash for multiple seasons now. There is a reason he is only making 3 M on a 1 year deal. Also using injuries missed by the starters is deceiving as well considering the Bears were one of the healthiest teams in the league last year. Both the Vikings & Packers didn't fair nearly as well with the Packers having their classic Pack IR season and the Vikings having an average to maybe slightly above average injury year. 

I do agree with your final sentence however even though I think some of your points are flawed.