Packer487

Just a few things: Tennessee hasn't lost less than 3 games since 2001 and they've gone 8-5, 10-3, 10-3, 5-6(!!), 9-4 in that span. West Virginia has had two good seasons in a row. Before that they were consistently losing 4, 5, 8(!) games a season. Auburn had their one special year, but they have only had one other season with 2 or less losses going back a decade (though I guess we've only had 3), and they aren't so far removed from having teams that were well under .500 Cal's been a better program lately but even since their resurgence from pitifulness, they've gone 5, 6, 2, 4, 3 in terms of losses. Georgia has consistently been a 3-4 loss team for awhile. Louisville is one of the sexy teams right now, but (as much as I love them) they still haven't proven it against any of the big boys (Wake Forest doesn't count). If you're looking at a snapshot in time, right now, I can see comparing Michigan to some of these programs...but if you truly want to rank the PROGRAMS (as opposed to looking at the past year or two) some of those teams have a ways to go before they can be put alongside a team like Michigan. Auburn and Georgia are actually fairly good comparisons--though like I said, Auburn isn't that far removed from really sucking. Louisville and WVA are kind of the flavors of the month, but they've got a long way to go in consistency before they can be mentioned as truly elite teams. The thing about Michigan, compared to almost all of those teams you mentioned is that Michigan hasn't even fallen off the cliff that the others have. Cal was a 1 win program. Louisville was irrelevant for a good long while, same with WVA. Tennessee was 5-6 one year. Even Auburn has only gotten going in the relatively recent past. Even one of your "big boys" in Florida had 3 straight 5 loss seasons in 02, 03, 04 and then a 3 loss season before they finally broke through last year. I think it's a stretch to call them an elite program at this point. They could certainly get there, but one great year after a half-decade of being very, very mediocre doesn't make a program elite IMO. And I think you could make a case that even last year's team wasn't elite. They smoked Ohio State, but they won in pretty ugly fashion a lot of the games last year. They were the best college football had to offer last year, but that doesn't necessarily make them all that special. I can't argue with having OSU, USC, Texas, or even Oklahoma in that mix. And I don't mean to suggest that Michigan should be that fifth team....I wouldn't argue too much about LSU being in there. But I do think in terms of ranking the programs, you'd have to put Michigan ahead of most everyone that you put them on that next tier with. Auburn and Georgia would be pretty comparable, but not the others. If this was a reality show, Michigan would be that contestant that just flies under the radar....never really wins challenges, but never ends up at judge's table either. They haven't risen to the level of success as some of these programs, but they also have only had one truly BAD season (7-5) in the last 20+ years (going back to that 6-6 year in 1984 when Harbaugh broke his arm). Sure I wish they had more of those "high end" seasons, but there's also something to be said for being consistently good year after year. And there are a LOT of programs out there who would kill for a track record like that. Just some food for thought....

Maybe the city was founded 250 years ago? That'd be about right for a city out East, wouldn't it?

That guy has been dead to me since he reported that the NHL lockout was over and the season was salvaged. I was heading out the door when I heard it, and I was excited the entire day. Then I get home and Oops! We were wrong. Not only is the lockout not over, they've officially cancelled the season. Sorry bout that one, guys. f*****.

Has the penguin on skates always been that big? It looks HUGE on those jerseys. I still love their color scheme...but I liked the old jerseys better. I think the ones without a stripe across the bottom just look goofy.

I think a big reason that the Big Ten as a whole fares so poorly in bowls has a lot to do with the fact that they set themselves up for failure with the tie-ins. Look at the potential bowls: -Rose Bowl in California against a Pac-10 opponent -Citrus Bowl in Florida against an SEC opponent -Outback Bowl in Florida against an SEC opponent -Alamo Bowl in Texas against a Big 12 opponent -Champs Sports Bowl in Florida against an ACC opponent -Insight Bowl in Arizona against a Big 12 opponent -Motor City Bowl in Detroit against a MAC opponent. The top 5 Big Ten bowl games are essentially road games with #6 being more of a neutral site, but still much more feasible for the Big 12 fans to travel to. I don't doubt for a second that that plays a major role in the lack of success in bowl games. I don't think a Michigan fan on the planet would try to claim that they're the top program in the Big Ten at the moment. Pretty clear that everyone is chasing Ohio State. ::cough:: Phil Fulmer ::cough:: Because they weren't bitter about Woodson getting the Heisman, no sir.

I love the "Well MSU sells out their stadium even when their team is awful" argument. Your stadium seats like 25,000 less people. It's like how Avs fans loved to thump their chest about the sell-out streak when half of those came at McNichols. Absolutely Crisler would be packed every night if Michigan had MSU's record and reputation in basketball. But by the same token, I'm fairly confident that if MSU's basketball team embarassed their university to that extent, followed it up with the disaster that was Brian Ellerbe, and then got kicked in the throat every time something good happened (Jamal Crawford getting suspended, our entire team getting hurt which derailed a couple of good seasons, choking when it looked like we had the tournament made, etc.) the Breslin probably wouldn't be packed to the gills every night either. When good things happen, the fans start coming out again. We saw it a few years ago when Michigan ran off 13 straight wins, and we saw it when they were in contention to win the Big Ten a few years ago. The place was packed. But it's hard to keep going out when every time they take one step forward, they take two steps back. I had season tickets for 3 years in school (didn't get them as a freshman because I swore I wouldn't support a Brian Ellerbe coached team). But the only time I can really get into college basketball is during the tournament. And it's hard to get that excited about the sport when your team is never there. Every team has bandwagoners. Example: Your MSU hockey team has had a few down years in there, got shut out if they happened to make the tournament, and there were large parts of Munn that were empty. A national championship later, and I'm guessing it will be a fairly tough ticket next year. It's not a "typical Wolverine" thing to say you like college football more than college basketball. Just the fact that your football team has struggled as much as it has, your basketball team has had as much success as it has, and MSU is still "a football school" should tell you something about how the general public feels about the respective sports. And it's not all that hard to figure out why. In college football, every game matters. Michigan's national title hopes are over because they lost the first game of the season. Moreso, a pretty fair percentage of games that don't even involve your opponent matter. I can sit down and watch pretty much any televised college football game and it will have some impact on Michigan, so I'll have some rooting interest in the game. It's not the case with college basketball. I have trouble watching a college basketball game that doesn't either a) involve Michigan or b) involve a pair of highly ranked teams. I'll sit down and watch Iowa play Northwestern in football. I'm not sitting down to watch that same pairing play basketball. And it's always been that way. Even when Michigan was good at the sport. Football is more popular than basketball in this country. Football is king. Yup, and that game against NC State was 16-10 in the late third quarter and ASU wasn't playing Edwards, who was the guy who tore Michigan up and also led ASU to the championship last year. The other guy was 4-14 in that game. I don't think that anyone is trying to deny that this is a colossal loss. But it wouldn't have been any better if we had lost to Central when they were down or EMU or something. It's a big deal because App State has the Division I-AA label, but they ARE better than quite a few teams in I-A. If we lost to EMU it'd be a big story, but not this big...but ASU is probably the better team. Like I said, Michigan's been playing with fire for a long time and hopefully this is finally the thing that wakes them up when they play teams like this. They should be embarassed as hell. And I hope everyone involved in the program remembers this the next time they've got EMU before Ohio State or something. Also, hopefully this loss kills any support for hiring within the program when Carr leaves. It probably has...

They beat New Mexico last year, but Glanville wasn't the coach yet: http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_i...s.php?year=2005 Cal-Davis beat Stanford two years ago as well. It happens...this one was just a big deal because the best Division I-AA team in years beat a Michigan team that was in the top 5, and probably shouldn't have been. Whatever...it was bound to happen sooner or later. The only real shocker is that no one (myself included) saw this coming. This is 7 times in 7 years that Michigan has screwed around with one of the cupcakes on their schedule. -App State this year...actually lost. -Ball State last year had 5 cracks inside the 10 yard line with a chance to tie the game late. -Northwestern had us in a 10-3 game late in the third quarter last year, granted the weather was awful. -Vanderbilt had us in a 13-7 game late in the third quarter last year. -In 2004, San Diego State missed two field goals that would've tied the game (and we trailed at halftime). -In 2002, Utah had the ball on their own 32 needing just a field goal to tie in the closing minutes. -In 2001, Miami (OH) trailed just 17-6 in the third quarter and had a pass picked off in the endzone--which could've made it a 3 or 4 point game. Miami was the only one of those teams that ended the season with a winning record. So an average of once a year we dick around with a team we should slaughter...and in 4 of those 7 games (counting App State) we could've/did lose. When you factor in the tendancy to take cupcake opponents lightly and add in the fact that they run a spread offense and have a running QB (the two things that have given Michigan fits over the years), and consider that App State likely had this game circled as the chance to do for their program what Boise State did in beating Oklahoma, and that Michigan was probably just trying to get through the game without showing anything to Oregon, Notre Dame, or Penn State, it's a wonder we didn't see this coming.....

Absolutely it's a success. I'm fairly sure that fans of pretty much every NCAA football team (save for maybe USC) would gladly take 12-1 with a BCS bowl win, but it would be strangely unsatisfying because of the huge "If only" out there. The warning signs for this loss were there. App State--while Division I-AA--is better than probably at least 30 teams in I-A, and Michigan has played nail-biters against "creampuffs" in the recent past: (24-21 against San Diego State in 2004, 10-7 against Utah in 2002, 34-26 against Ball State last year). Add in the perfect storm of a team without ANYTHING to lose, pointing to it as their Super Bowl, focusing on it for a good six months or so, and the fact that they've got some talented players, have a running quarterback and a spread offense, and it's no wonder Michigan ended up in a dogfight. It's been clear for awhile that Michigan doesn't take these teams seriously, they don't focus on them, they just try to get through the game without showing anything to their next opponent. Well this time it bit them. It's a lesson they should've learned 3 or 4 times over by now, and that falls onto the coach.

Gotta believe he's Falcons-bound if the Jags do in fact cut him. I can't imagine they're real excited about going into the season with Harrington under center. Leftwich isn't that good though....I thought Garrard should be starting all along. This is weird though, because I could swear they named Leftwich the starter for the first game a couple weeks ago....hmm.

Oh I know, I wasn't criticizing you for putting it on there. I like looking at the spreads and O/U as much as anyone. I just think it's funny that there are people out there who will bet on preseason football. Might as well just throw down on red in roulette. The odds are probably better than trying to make money betting on backup (or third-string) football players. If I'm putting money on a football game, it's going to be on guys who are somewhat predicatable. Crosby is going to win the job. He's been more accurate (though not significantly...86% vs. 81%...both pretty damn good) throughout camp, he's got the bigger leg on field goals (though Rayner has him on kickoffs), and he's signed for 5 years vs. the one-year contract Rayner is on. Rayner is a good kicker, but Crosby has a chance to be special. Here's hoping that the Giants and Cowboys both have kicking problems in their last preseason game so we can finagle a draft pick out of someone for Rayner. I'm back in Michigan so I can't see the game tonight. There's a couple battles I wish I could see. I'm really curious who the #5 CB is going to be. Bush and Blackmon have made the team already, but Walker, Dendy and Williams are all gunning for that 5th CB slot. Walker's really started to play pretty well, but he's expensive for a #5 corner and if they keep him that might hurt the compensatory pick they'll eventually get for losing Ahman Green and David Martin. Dendy was decent last year and Williams has shown some flashes of potential. I feel like he's more likely to end up on the practice squad though. I also want to get a look at Wynn, because I'm pretty sure he's playing. They've praised him when he's been on the field, but the kid hasn't stayed healthy for more than a week in all of camp. It'd be nice if he would show something tonight, especially with Jackson and Morency out.

What I want to know is how much of a degenerate do you have to be to bet on preseason football? It would be nice to get another win, but the starters are going to play like 1 series and then get out. Give me no injuries and another good outing out of Aaron Rodgers, James Jones, Mason Crosby, Jarrett Bush, Will Blackmon, and hopefully show some semblance of a running game and I'm happy. That game against the Jags was fine. They did nothing against GB's first string defense, the offense moved the ball even if the running game stalled again, and they led 10-0 when all the important players came out. And thank God Driver is supposedly ok....

Are players allowed to take paycuts? I'm fairly certain that contracts can't be renegotiated either up or down...

This should be a good one tonight. Jacksonville's defense was really good last year and supposedly their starters are going to play well into the third quarter. Mike McCarthy has said that he's not going to play his starters that long because there are so many battles for the backup positions, he wants to get a better look at some of those guys. So I don't really expect a win tonight since JVille's starters are going to play longer (Possibly significantly longer) but it'll still be a really nice test for the team. And if tonight goes well, I think we've definitely got a reason to be excited about this season. And for God's sake, no major injuries! I'm hoping the fact that they cut Underwood and Ferguson to give them time to hook on with another team will buy them some karma from the football Gods this year....

Here's a few of me: Playin' hockey at the Joe in the CCHA Media Game. We won something like 9-2...I had an assist. Driving a mother f***ing nascar! Tailgating before the Michigan/PSU game from a couple years ago. Me and Harvick's car

I don't like the logo as much as the other one, but those jerseys are really, really nice looking. That's one where I'm glad they don't have a horizontal stripe along the bottom, unlike the Kings ones which look horrible. The contrast in colors looks really sharp. The only thing I don't really like is the white on the elbow of the red jersey.

That game was AWESOME! I'm glad you had a good time...preseason or not, there's nothing like seeing a game at Lambeau. I watched the game on the DVR last night once I got back from my trip and it was hysterical to watch Holmgren. He wanted out of there by the end of the first quarter. He looked like he wanted to throw up the entire game. That was an impressive performance. Again, I can't help but think back to last year's preseason when it looked like the Packers didn't belong on the same field as San Diego. Now they're playing quality teams and Seattle was the one that looked like a high school team. The Packers left a lot of points on the field in that game, with Thompson throwing 2 bad picks inside the 10 and giving back 2 takeaways on penalties. They could've been in the mid-60s really easily. I'm trying to temper my enthusiasm, because it was preseason and the Seahawks weren't playing their QB, LT, or RT. But from the start of the game on, it was an impressive performance. Good things: -Cullen Jenkins dominated once again. He's looking to be an impact player at DE, what with the way he finished off last year and the way this preseason is going. -I love the depth on the defensive line. They've got 8-10 guys in the mix, and a lot of them can play multiple positions. Not only is that good for in-game rotations, but it's good in case of injury. -Atari Bigby is a mad man. I don't know that it's the best idea in the world to leave your feet to try and hurdle a blocker like he did, but it worked. That guy can really lay the wood. I don't know that he's the coverage safety that we need, but he looks to be a pretty solid "in the box" safety. -Will Blackmon. How long has it been since the Packers have actually had a threat in the return game? Probably since Rossum was here? I loved the pick when they drafted him and it's nice to see him making an impact. Hopefully he stays healthy, because he's got some talent. -The battle for the 3-4-5 CB slots is going to get interesting. Bush and Blackmon had great games, Williams played pretty well. Dendy and Walker didn't (though I thought Walker's PI penalty could've been called uncatchable). -James Jones. Geezus. This is one of the few times that the beej the GMs give all their draft picks to the media actually seems to have been legit. Those "He never drops a pass" "Anytime he goes up in traffic, he comes down with the ball" comments look to have been pretty accurate. That catch he had over Trufant was just ridiculous. And I like that it was against a solid player and not a 3rd string scrub. Great hands, good instincts, seems to be a fairly smart player, strong, runs good routes, and he's not scared to work the middle. -Brandon Jackson looked really solid. He was fast making his one cut...wasn't dancing in the backfield. And once he made his decision he got through the hole in a hurry. I think we'll be ok with him and Morency back there. -I'm not sold that "he's back", but it was really nice to see Bubba Franks have a nice game. I wonder if Favre made a concerted effort to get him the ball. -Both our kickers were spot on again. I think that job is Crosby's to lose though. Hopefully we can get a late round pick for whichever kicker they decide to dump. -Aaron Rodgers played really well again. I said last week that it looks like he's been paying attention to Favre and he showed it again with that "shot put" pass that should've been caught for a TD. It's nice to see him pull the Mr. August routine that Hass used to. If he's going to be a starter in this league, he should be able to dominate any team's backups and he is. -No major injuries, though I'm bummed that Bodiford got hurt. Blackmon won that KR job anyway though. The not so good: -Penalties gave back a couple of takeaways. -Paul Thompson showed that he's not ready to be the #3 QB just yet. The good thing is that there's no reason they shouldn't be able to get him on the practice squad. -Strangely, nothing out of Greg Jennings. -I would've liked to have seen something out of Aaron Rouse. He's had a really quiet preseason. Don't know if I've heard his name one time. Overall though, that stuff is just nit-picking. They dominated that game start to finish. Got to the QB, took the ball away, put points on the board, got impact plays out of the defense and ST, and only gave up something like 2 "explosive plays" of their own: Bishop took on the blocker with the wrong shoulder and it opened a lane for that TD run and Collins had a WR wrapped up, Barnett tried to finish him off and took Collins out instead, leading to a big gain. Neither are anything to get worried about. The safeties were really solid last night. And I love how physical this team is. It doesn't mean Super Bowl or anything, but it's clear how much the depth on this team has improved, and how much a year has helped some of these guys. It's night and day from last preseason. Next week's game against Jacksonville should be a good one. The 3rd preseason game is the one that the starters will play the most in and I'd guess the most game planning will go on. And the Jags are a solid team. You gonna get to any games in the regular season, NFM25? I'm going to try to get up there for 2 or 3, but I'm not sure when...

Quick reply then I'm out for the weekend. I can't pull myself away from this, it's like watching a train wreck. Leftwich has never thrown more than 15 TDs in a year. He's never thrown for 3,000 yards in a season. He's completed 60% of his passes one time. He's not better than Favre. "He's still young" shouldn't factor into any of this. We're talking 2007. Most GM's would take Trent Green over Brett Favre? He just got dumped in favor of Damon effing Huard. Pennington has had one good season. I don't disagree that injuries derailed what was a pretty promising career. But he hasn't done anything since 2002. I'm takin' Favre. I do like Pennington though. And there's the credibility flush we knew was coming. He's been nothing without Randy Moss. Blew out his knee in Minnesota but he was having a TERRIBLE year before that happened (6 TDs, 12 INTs in 7 games). As for Russell being better than Favre. My God. The guy hasn't signed an NFL contract, let alone worn an NFL uniform, or thrown a touchdown pass. But we're going to put him ahead of the guy who's about to break every passing record in the book? C'mon. Roethlisberger is a good QB. But again, we're talking about someone who has never hit 20 touchdowns in a season. And last year was horrible for him. I'd go 50-50 because you can't discount him winning a SB already....even if I'm confident Favre would've done the same thing on that team. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll return to pre-accident form. And we'll see if he does. Umm....NFM#25 was saying that Rivers was better. And "despite SD's lack of weapons"? Most teams would kind of like to have LaDanian Tomlinson, Antonio Gates and that defense giving them great field position. Just sayin'. Vince Young won some games last year and that's what matters. But let's be realistic here. The guy barely completed 50% of his passes, he threw more picks than touchdowns, and even when you add in his rushing yards he didn't crack 200 yards/game of production. I don't deny he's going to be a great quarterback, but again....let's not get ahead of ourselves. God...you're one of those people who actually thought Michael Vick was a good quarterback aren't you. Ugh. He's never playing in the NFL again, though, so he's pretty irrelevant in this discussion. Delhomme is a good player. I won't take issue with that one, even if I disagree. Again, let's not get ahead of ourselves. He had a very up and down year with one great game against Tampa Bay (5 TDs, 0 INTs). I can see it. I don't know about "definitely" but I can see it. And I went back and recounted, and even with all the changes you made, you had him better than 14 of the QBs in the league (not 12). Losman, Frye, Cutler, Schaub, Huard, McCown, Leinart, Joey Ballgame, Grossman, Kitna, Jackson, Garcia, Campbell, Smith. And you were pretty generous with some of the QBs that you were taking. As it is, you've got: Favre-Better than 14 50-50s-4 Qbs QBs Better than Favre-13 So umm....even you have Favre better than more QBs than he's not better than. Yeah I'd say so. Since 4-5 years ago he finished 2nd in the MVP voting to Gannon and all.

One quick note: I don't think Kevin Jones has to miss the first six games of the season. He's on the PUP list, but I think it works differently in the preseason...all it means is that he hasn't passed his physical yet. If he passes it, they can remove him from the list. But if you start the regular season on PUP, then you have to miss the first six games and the team has like 3 weeks after that to activate the player or put him on IR. I actually saw an article today that said they think Jones could be back for the opener.

The funny thing is that I wasn't talking trash to the one poster when I posted that picture! That's the thing. The one guy said he hates GB because they kept the Lions from winning a playoff game. I posted a picture of it. Thought I'd get a laugh, since Lions fans DO sometimes joke about how s***ty they've been and how they've screwed up in the past. Hence all the "smiley faces and s***". Ian then proceeded to go buck, started making comments he couldn't back up, and in some cases showing a complete lack of awareness of anything to do with the Packers, and I told him why he was wrong. If I wanted to talk s*** about the Lions, I'd go to the Lions thread and then back up what I say. But there's no point. They've sucked in recent years, and all their fans know that. Thus, the only time I bring it up is when someone's being a dick. Honestly, I'd prefer to not have the argument. I was having a perfectly good time talking Packers football with other Packers fans. I don't mind debate, but if I went to the Lions board and started hammering on how James Stewart isn't a good running back, I don't expect it'd go very well for me. GB is on the up-swing though. I don't expect people who don't follow the team religiously to realize it. You have no reason to. The Packers haven't gotten a ton of coverage since they sucked 2 years ago and they were 4-8 at one point last year. Thanks to the wonders of Sopcast, though, I was able to see most of their games last year. The improvement in those young guys was amazing. It was night and day from the start of the year. The biggest problem with the Packers the last 2 or 3 seasons has been that they don't have any veterans just entering the prime of their careers because Mike Sherman kept busting almost entire drafts. Those guys should make up the core of the team and there just wasn't anyone. Ted Thompson came in and has turned over--a guess--70% of the roster in the last 3 years. They've been the youngest team in the league the last two years if I'm not mistaken. The benefit to all those young guys getting starting experience is going to start paying off. The defense ended up 12th in the league in ypg allowed. They were 2nd in takeaways and 4th in sacks, which was a HUGE turnaround from recent past where they couldn't get takeaways against anyone. Aaron Kampman was 2nd in the league in sacks, Pickett is great at clogging the middle, Corey Williams put up very comparable numbers to Corey Redding (who is now the highest paid DT in the game), and Cullen Jenkins was an absolute beast after he moved outside. They're very good and very deep on the defensive line (KGB doesn't have to worry about playing the run anymore....he can just do what he's best at and get after the passer). They're just not household names like Julius Peppers. Kampman outperformed him last year though. More sacks and he set a franchise record for tackles by a DL. The LBs are very solid as well with AJ Hawk and Nick Barnett. Brady Poppinga sucked against the pass early last season and was a big reason they gave up as many yards/TDs as they did in the early going to TEs. But he improved by leaps and bounds. He was coming off an ACL tear from 2005, so I don't doubt it took some time to shake the rust off. Woodson and Harris are about as good of a duo of corners as you'll find in the league. Denver's duo of Bly and Bailey is obviously the top, but apart from that I'm not sure who else you'd point to (though I may be forgetting one or two). Woodson had picks in 6 straight games to close the season and was playing hurt most of the year. Nick Collins was great as a rookie, struggled for most of the year last year, but found his form late. The only real big problem on that defense is the other safety position. Marquand Manuel was terrible last year, but he had injury problems as well. We'll see if someone in the mix there can step up. You might not call them dominant, but they were a top 10 defense by the end of the season last year, which took the ball away more than almost everyone, and was right up there in sacks as well. And a couple of the very effective changes (playing Williams, moving Jenkins outside) they made didn't happen until late in the year. Denver's a good team. But I think you overrate them somewhat. I don't deny that the AFC is better than the NFC, and the Broncos are in a pretty tough division. But they were 1-3 against NFC teams last year and the only win was against Arizona. So I wouldn't go giving them the conference crown.... I think the Packers screwed up by not trading for Moss, too. I was livid when I heard he was a Pat. But the Packers still have a chance to have a pretty good season. And quite honestly, if they don't, I don't think it'll be the WR position that hurts them. They've got a pretty nice group...It'll be either RB, TE, OL, or SS that gets em. But I feel pretty good about the running game if Morency gets healthy (if you compare him to Benson--as I may have done in this thread already--Morency's got him pretty good and no one talks about the Bears needing a RB) and I think the OL will be pretty good as well now that they've got a year in the system and a year of playing together (and for the younger guys, a year in the weight room). The TE position was a disaster last year and they haven't really upgraded it. I'm hoping that with the improvement in the OL, the TEs will be able to actually go out for passes more and that'll help the redzone problems. But that doesn't cure Bubba Franks's dropsies....so we'll see if anything changes. I don't doubt that the Pats can/probably should win it all this year. But they've got big-time problems in their secondary if Samuel doesn't sign. If something bites em, that'll be it. Otherwise, they did a really nice job this offseason. I don't think their receiving corps is as great as Bill Simmons thinks it is, but it's far and away better than what they've had in years past. Brady's Brady. The only other thing is that with Dillon gone, Maroney has to show he can handle being the feature back. I think he'll be fine, but they obviously don't have the depth at that position they've had before. Adalius Thomas was a huge pickup for them. That DL is fantastic as it is and adding a guy like him to the 3-4 should make for a pretty scary front seven. The Pats are the favorite, clearly. But it's a long season and a lot can happen.... BTW, the one thing I will admit that Ian was sort-of right about is me signing my name after each post. On certain boards I post on, the way my signature is laid out, it makes it look stupid if I DON'T give a definitive end to each post. This board isn't like that...the signature is very well set-off, so it's probably not necessary. Force of habit from 11 years of posting on these damn things....

The OL is going to be key for them. If they can block like an NFL team, then the offense will be really fun to watch. The Lions are going to be the most exciting team in the league this year. Because they're going to score a lot of points (though Kitna is not hitting 50 TDs, no matter how many times he says it...and he's not throwing for 5,000 yards like that nfl.com writer said this week) and they're going to give up a lot of points. It honestly wouldn't shock me if the Lions were decent this year. I don't think they're a playoff team, just because their defense is going to be really, really awful against the pass. But they won't be a laughing stock like they have been for the last 6 years. I've got them around 6-10, 7-9. Truth be told, I went through their schedule the other day and had them at 8-8....I docked em a couple games because, well, it's the Lions...and you know they're good for losing to a couple teams like Oakland or Arizona. Without putting too much work into it, I'd guess it'll be something like this in the NFC North: Chicago 10-6 Green Bay 9-7/8-8 Detroit 6-10/7-9 Minnesota 4-12 (I can't see them winning games with Jackson at QB. That guy is absolutely brutal.) But the NFL changes so much year to year, the schedules that look tough could end up being really easy and vice-versa. Then you've got injuries, unexpected improvement, etc. to factor in. So I could be completely off. -Tim

Alright. I said I was done. But I can't let idiocy like this go. He's lost a significant amount of accuracy? Last year he did struggle with that, yes. But he was also hurt by something like 43 dropped passes last year, which led the NFL. Add in even HALF of those (which would put him back closer to an average amount of drops) and his completion percentage would've been right where it was in 96 and 97 when he was winning MVPs. In fact, in the past 5 seasons before last year he had a higher completion percentage than he did in two of those MVP years. I had to quote this just because it's so funny. "With grin faces and s***." That might be my favorite line in any post ever. "I'll say it again, GB is way better than the Lions, even during their roughest period." Seems pretty clear cut to me. IF Kevin Jones comes back 100% then you've got the same mediocre, injury-prone running back that you've had for years. And no Denver running back has ever done anything outside of their zone-blocking scheme (save for Portis, as I mentioned before....but he's still been a disappointment). You could have pretty much anyone, save for Barry, back there and it wouldn't matter if the line can't block. The defense would have a chance to be decent if they had anyone in the secondary. But they don't. It was hard enough for them when they had Bly. Now their only good corner is gone. "We will definitely improve over last year's record." You mean they won't be the second worst team in the league again? Poo. That's not a record that's real hard to improve on. And by the way, Gado got traded for Morency. He hasn't been on the team in about a year. The other RB would be Brandon Jackson, their second round pick. I had 6-10 as the low point (meaning the OL hasn't improved, they have a rash of injuries, etc.) I didn't say they could "easily" lose 10 games, but it's possible. There are very few teams in the league that couldn't lose 10 games. If you've paid attention to the NFL at all, you should know that things get shuffled all the time. Teams like St. Louis go from last place to the Super Bowl. New Orleans goes from the #2 pick to the NFC Championship. And teams fall from grace. Oh you were being sarcastic....how'd I miss that one. And it's pretty much a given that anytime someone insults another person's intelligence on a message board, they'll spell something wrong in the process. This one is for you, Ian: No, you're a troll because I get dumber every time I read one of your posts. Debate is fine. If you think the Packers are going to suck this year, tell me why and back it up. Don't just say things like "Favre has lost accuracy and they've done nothing but loose [sic] talent, LOL!!!!!!!111!" that can be easily proven wrong. And it'd help if you didn't do things like mention Samkon Gado's name. Unless you want me to start talking about how I'd take the Packers kicker over Eddie Murray. Also, it'd be kind of hard for me to troll a Packers thread since I'm the one that actually belongs here. Yeah, you're a fountain of NFL knowledge. Just a geyser. Howie Schwab has nothing on you. Next time maybe you can tell me about how Sterling Sharpe is past his prime, how Roell Preston isn't going to make the Pro Bowl this year, and how Mark D'Onofrio won't help their defensive line....I look forward to it. Ahhh right you are! The loss of Rivera and Wahle combined with the failure to replace them adequately by using guys like Adrian Klemm, Will Whittacker and Matt O'Dwyer was the single biggest cause of that disaster of a season two years ago. And to be fair, they had to let Rivera go. There was no way he was worth the money Dallas threw at him (and that's proven to be true). Fortunately, they drafted Darryn Colledge and Jason Spitz last year, who both started 14 or 15 games. Colledge was on the all-rookie team and they were both pretty solid down the stretch. I think the OL will actually be pretty good this year. -Tim

My team is "By far" superior and "way better" than your team (your words, not mine). But I look pathetic talking trash "considering the team I'm a fan of"? That doesn't even make sense. [/Gaffigan] I've been on record several times as saying I think the Packers could be anywhere from 6-10 to 10-6 this year, depending on the development of the OL, if they can find a safety opposite Collins, and if they stay relatively healthy. The only one I've "talked trash" to is you, because you pulled the Internet Tough Guy routine on me when I wasn't talking smack in the first place. Oh, and I doubt our teams will be golfing, since when the playoffs begin it'll be January. Those Wisconsin winters aren't really conducive to golf... I'm done with you. It's one thing to debate, it's another to be a complete troll in this thread. I've wasted enough time responding to your inane ramblings. -Tim

That seems to be a trend amongst the Lions fans in this thread..... -Tim

But why would their smack mean something? Both those teams were 1 game better than GB last year. The Broncos didn't make the playoffs (despite Javon Walker's "We have a chance to win the Super Bowl. They have a chance to win 4 games" comment) and the Cowboys bowed out in the first round. So basically, if the Packers opponents had done just a little bit better last year (which would've put the Packers in the playoffs), the "smack might mean something" but now it doesn't. It's just funny. The Broncos and Cowboys have "Way better squads" with "tons of talent" compared to the Packers' "jack-s***" and the Packers ended up with a very similar record to both of them. My "s***ty team" has finished under .500 once in 15 seasons. Last year they made a four game improvement over the year before, despite putting in a new defensive system, starting a bunch of rookies, putting in a new blocking scheme, and having the youngest team in the league. I didn't say they haven't lost any talent. I said that saying that they've "done nothing but lose talent" is a completely ignorant opinion. And it is. You mistake "young and inexperienced" for "not being talented". The Packers had more players on the All-Rookie team last year than anybody else. The Dallas Morning News's respected draft guy gave the Packers the ONLY A+ in his "Draft in Review" at the end of the 2006 season. As for Favre "literally getting worse from year to year", he threw 29 picks in 2005. 18 last year. Yup. He really got worse. But I'd ask that before making comments like that you go back through and look at how many of those picks occurred when they were trailing by two or more scores. Because it was a LOT. The guy plays to win, even when they're down by 20. You can't come back in a game like that by throwing 5 yard outs. So, however unlikely it is that they'll come back, he airs it out. And passes get picked off because, let's face it, it's pretty easy to play defense when you're up by 20. And for the record, he had something like 8 picks through 7 games in 2005, then everyone on the team got hurt. Suddenly Taco Wallace is his receiver, Troy Humphrey is his fullback, and he's got a running back who played in the Big Ten but I had never heard of him. And shocker! The interceptions went way up. Why could that be? Because I said "it may not happen this year" I made your point. Do you have any idea how to formulate an argument? I can't talk trash to you because my team didn't make the playoffs. But fans of Denver and Carolina (two non-playoff teams last year....and oh by the way, Carolina had the same record as GB) along with Dallas (a team that made the playoffs but went 1-3 down the stretch, including a loss to the ******* Lions) are allowed to talk smack? Good thing we cleared that one up. As for the Lions being "more talented"...how do you figure? Because they got Calvin Johnson? They've got good talent at WRs. But their QB sucks (even though he's going to throw for 50 TDs and lead the Lions to 12 wins this year apparently), the offensive line sucks, and as a whole the defense sucks. And Tatum Bell put up good numbers in Denver, but none of those Denver RBs have done anything anywhere else (Portis would be the closest, but I think every Washington fan would say he's been a disappointment). The Giants? Seriously? You do realize that they lost Tiki Barber, they hate their head coach, they lost their Left Tackle, and Michael Strahan might not play this year right? I can't deny those other teams will be right in the mix (except I don't think Washington is very good either). But I believe the Packers play seven of them (no New Orleans or Seattle). So they'll get their chance against almost all of them. And they don't have to beat out all of them to make the playoffs. Just 2 (since I'm not giving you the Giants or Redskins). I didn't say that they've got one now. I said that having one will help Aaron Rodgers get acclimated. And it could very well happen. Give those young guys a couple more years, add in the fact that Favre's retirement will free up a ton of cap room (like $12-13 million), and it's well within the realm of possibility. I said earlier that they'll be solidly in the top 10 this year, and if everything goes well (meaning someone steps up at safety, and no major injuries) they could be top 5. Which is perfectly reasonable since they were 12th last year and didn't have a clue what they were doing for the first half of the season. And they were second in the league in takeaways and 4th in sacks. Good God, I wasn't even talking trash to the other poster. He commented that the Packers kept the Lions from winning more than 1 playoff game...I posted a picture from one of those games. Then I get Mr. Internet Tough Guy trying to "put me in my place" even though you can't form a coherent thought. And it's kind of telling that my team has been "a joke" lately, but there's not a Lions fan in the world that wouldn't gladly have them trade places with the Packers. And that's just during GB's rebuilding time...it doesn't even take into account the years they were winning divisions, conference championships, and the Super Bowl. My team's been through their rebuilding. They're on the way back up. Your team has lost 10+ games for 6 straight years and they'd still need a minor miracle just to get back to the level they were at in 2000. That's gotta blow. -Tim

Really? You're going to use the Broncos and Cowboys as examples? I mean, you're talking about the Packers being crappy lately...the Cowboys have had 4 10+ loss seasons in the last seven years. And it's not like Denver made the playoffs last year. You couldn't say something like "If it was a New England fan, or a Colts fan"? You're busting out the Broncos and the Cowboys? What is this, 1999? I mean, the Packers have the longest current winning streak in the NFC and they missed the playoffs on a strength of schedule tie-breaker. It's not like they were a doormat last year. It just took some time to get going since they were installing a new blocking scheme, starting 3 rookies (and an additional first year starter) on the offensive line for a time, and learning the new defensive coordinator's system (not to mention integrating something like 6 new starters on defense and up to 6 on offense as well). By the end of the season, they were a completely different team. And the fact that your team has lost more than ten games 6 years in a row does in fact mean that I can talk smack. Especially considering that the 4-12 record the Packers posted two years ago would've been better than 3 of the last 6 years for Detroit. And that was the only sub .500 season the Packers have had since 1991. And then there's the fact that your team hasn't won a playoff game since 1991 and before that it was what? 1957? And that the Packers have beaten them at least one time every season since 1991. And the fact that our fanbase doesn't have people becoming grandfathers who have never seen their team win a Super Bowl, let alone multiple playoff games.... Saying that the Packers have done nothing but lose talent is a completely ignorant opinion. Sure they finally hit rock bottom (4-12) in a season that they were killed by injuries, and at one point late in the year were statistically the unluckiest team in the history of the league (based on # of wins that they had vs. how many wins they should have had based on points for/points allowed). As it was, they were the last team in the league to have a season below .500 in the salary cap era. It happens.... But that team is on its way back up. It might not happen this year, but they're getting there. They've got a Top 10 defense as it is, and if the offensive line has improved the way one would expect after a year of starting together, there's no reason they can't be a playoff team. The defense played like hell for the first half of last season and still ended up 2nd in the league in takeaways and ranked pretty decently overall. No reason that shouldn't improve too. And they get to play Dallas and Carolina, so if they miss out, it's their own fault. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. But they're well past the stage when Favre's retirement would hurt them against the cap (as it stands, when it happens they'll probably free up $12-13 million or so) and having a dominant defense will go a long ways toward helping Rodgers get acclimated. Or it frees up the money to go get a QB if they decide Rodgers isn't the guy. -Tim