Jump to content
MrOaktown_56

NFC North: Who wins it this year?

Who wins the NFC North?  

90 members have voted

  1. 1. Who wins the AFC North?



Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

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. 

That's fair.  Injuries are a hard thing to predict other than that there will be some to someone and Bears were relatively healthy.  

As for as HHCD I went back and watched and I believe what HHCD was asked to do last two seasons and how and who with lowered his value and his perception in the minds of fans and GMs  Much of football is situational with many variables, why PFF and analytical data is inherently flawed.   I think bottom line he is a more talented athlete than the player he is replacing in terms of making plays on balls in air which is most important.  

I think he will get a much larger contract next year with someone after a fine season, though it may be a short termer again.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 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.

I mean, every team can run through their roster and point to circumstances for each player with regards to last year lol. Doesn't mean much.

But yes, the bolded is very true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SteelKing728 said:

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.

The Bears don't even need an offense and they'd still be tough as hell to beat. Minnesota had a very disappointing year last year and one has to imagine they'll be really hungry in '19. Packers are the biggest question mark with a new coach and offensive system, albeit Rodgers is at the helm, and the defense could really surprise this year. Barring anything too crazy, I expect a 3-team race for the title. I'm just happy I'll get to watch a lot of 'top level' football games for the majority of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Duluther said:

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.

Tbf, I wasnt laughing off the Vikings roster.  It's a very good team talent wise.  I was laughing off the idea that sans QB the Vikings had a DRAMATICALLY better roster than the Bears.  If someone wants to say it's close in one direction or another I'm not going to fight them on it, but to just poo poo the talent level of the Bears as if they were some great overachieving team last year (pythagorean wins was 11.7, meaning they finished right in line), that I'll stand up and fight about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dll2000 said:

A lot of people on here saying Bears will regress.

My case: 

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

 

 

 

HHCD is slower, less athletic, and worse in coverage than Amos if that's what you're referring too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

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.

I agree with everything, but Vikings have a very good defense because of like 6 or 7 uber talented guys.  I wouldn't say it isn't close, but Bears are decent, good or very, very good at every position on defense next year.   There are no holes if healthy save for possibly NCB of which we have a decent veteran and a rookie who is standing out in OTAs.  

I'd also agree that combo of Theilen and Diggs is best 1-2 punch in the league.  Basically two number 1 receivers on one team.  Advantage Vikings.  They have that same advantage over every one.  

But I think Bears WRs are being sold short based on 2018.  Obviously offensive play is interdependent.  For WRs to look good unless they are Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson or Hopkins they need other aspects of offense to be good.  Good QB play, decent blocking and a run game.

Because it was basically MT's first year he was rudimentary at best so you didn't have a ton of good QB play (seemingly most every one outside of Chicago assumes MT is what he is last year and has basically reached his ceiling or near his ceiling which is really a weird way of looking at things).

Blocking was okay, but we were playing a 20 year old at guard and our other guard got hurt.  20 year old is 21 now and uber talented and our hurt guard is healthiest he has been in about 5 years.

Our best WR was coming off an ACL couldn't practice in off season and it was a brand new system for him as well.  Our second best WR was a rookie and played with a separated shoulder most of season.   Our #1 RB didn't fit the system and couldn't run from the gun.

All of that, on paper, is better or different or healthier now.  I think given that WRs and QB and RBs will look better in 2019.

NFC North is one of toughest divisions in football this season.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how true is this statement from Andy Benoit?

"The Bears look like this fancy, upscale, high-tech offense because of all the shifting, pre-snap motions and different formations, but once the ball is snapped they are a pretty rudimentary passing game, in fact probably the NFLs most rudimentary passing game, and coaches tell you how they feel about their players with the way they use them. Matt Nagy is telling us, indirectly how he feels about Trubisky by running that type of passing game."

"They scaled it back last year as the season went on and that is what was troubling, what we don't know is if them scaling it back had to do with their defense just being far and away the best defense in the NFL, but that is not is going to be the case this year, if their defense goes from great to just very good, then we will learn how the Bears really feel about Trubisky"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

So how true is this statement from Andy Benoit?

"The Bears look like this fancy, upscale, high-tech offense because of all the shifting, pre-snap motions and different formations, but once the ball is snapped they are a pretty rudimentary passing game, in fact probably the NFLs most rudimentary passing game, and coaches tell you how they feel about their players with the way they use them. Matt Nagy is telling us, indirectly how he feels about Trubisky by running that type of passing game."

"They scaled it back last year as the season went on and that is what was troubling, what we don't know is if them scaling it back had to do with their defense just being far and away the best defense in the NFL, but that is not is going to be the case this year, if their defense goes from great to just very good, then we will learn how the Bears really feel about Trubisky"

TBH, this is almost identical to what everyone said about every single Andy Reid coached team ever before Mahomes arrived on the scene in 2018. Many even said that's why historically, Reid's 2 minute offense and end of game situations was/were average at best.

People, for the record, are saying/implying the same with Goff in Los Angeles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

HHCD is slower, less athletic, and worse in coverage than Amos if that's what you're referring too?

Image result for angry elaine benesWas that the opposite of what you wanted to say George?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

So how true is this statement from Andy Benoit?

"The Bears look like this fancy, upscale, high-tech offense because of all the shifting, pre-snap motions and different formations, but once the ball is snapped they are a pretty rudimentary passing game, in fact probably the NFLs most rudimentary passing game, and coaches tell you how they feel about their players with the way they use them. Matt Nagy is telling us, indirectly how he feels about Trubisky by running that type of passing game."

"They scaled it back last year as the season went on and that is what was troubling, what we don't know is if them scaling it back had to do with their defense just being far and away the best defense in the NFL, but that is not is going to be the case this year, if their defense goes from great to just very good, then we will learn how the Bears really feel about Trubisky"

Most everyone in NFL runs same downfield passing concepts with some variation - most of them from Don Coryell.  Some reads within a concept are harder and some are easier depending on concept.  You start adding options within the routes and it gets harder as you go as both WR and QB have to be on same page.  But something like stick isn't really hard.  If something is new and works it is quickly copied and added to every play book.   

Simpler does not mean worse.  Watch film study on Game Center or You Tube with Andrew Luck to get what I mean.  Simpler is often better.  You just need 3 plays that look same to start and can be something else.    

There is an old coaching adage that a good fake is worth 2 blocks.  What NFL got away from in 90s through 2000s was fakes and misdirections.   One reason why scoring aside from a hand full of great teams kind of sucked for a number of years.

Chip Kelly brought a bunch of college concepts (zone read/RPO) that have been run for 20 years at lower levels into NFL and showed they could work conceptually.  Andy Reid seized on it best and fastest and made it better and his tree and other coaches who have copied it since have had a lot of success.  It brings misdirection and option football back to NFL to keep defenses off balance.

You still need straight downfield concepts that a QB has to master and that takes time, but the extra quiver of RPOs and zone reads has really helped to keep defenses off balance.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Was that the opposite of what you wanted to say George?

HaHa : 40 yd - 4.58s
             Vert - 33 in
              Broad - 119 in
             3 cone - 7.16s
             20 yd shut - 4.16s
             60 yd shut - 11.63s

Amos:  40 yd - 4.56s
             Vert - 35.5 in
              Broad - 122 in
             3 cone - 7.09s
             20 yd shut - 4.03s
             60 yd shut - 11.33s
              

They are similar, but to say HaHa is a better athlete is factually incorrect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HaHa grew weary of Capers' defense in Green Bay(as everyone close to the situation did) and basically gave up on the Packers sparing any opportunity where he could make a splash play. GB jettisoned him at the right time and used the pick Washington gave up to trade up for Savage.

I think HaHa will be a bit better in the Bears' defense unless his attitude goes south again. On the other hand, his lack of aggressiveness will get him in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Joe said:

HaHa grew weary of Capers' defense in Green Bay(as everyone close to the situation did) and basically gave up on the Packers sparing any opportunity where he could make a splash play. GB jettisoned him at the right time and used the pick Washington gave up to trade up for Savage.

I think HaHa will be a bit better in the Bears' defense unless his attitude goes south again. On the other hand, his lack of aggressiveness will get him in trouble.

Wishful thinking. HaHa was overrated in his first couple years with the Packers by excited fans trying to come away with something after having atrocious safeties since Nick Collins injury.  He has never really grown since. He lacks aggressiveness and takes poor angles in the run game and doesn't cover very well either. The only talent I would say he truly posses is very good hands and ability to track the ball in the air. If a QB does throw to him he will almost always come away with the INT. That being said if the Bears don't ask him to do much he may have a good year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Wishful thinking. HaHa was overrated in his first couple years with the Packers by excited fans trying to come away with something after having atrocious safeties since Nick Collins injury.  He has never really grown since. He lacks aggressiveness and takes poor angles in the run game and doesn't cover very well either. The only talent I would say he truly posses is very good hands and ability to track the ball in the air. If a QB does throw to him he will almost always come away with the INT. That being said if the Bears don't ask him to do much he may have a good year. 

That was essentially my entire point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×