Thread: Are the Packers Now the Favorite in the NFC North?

Are the Packers Now the Favorite in the NFC North?

I think that we can all agree that the Vikings have been deeply hurt by free agency and that this will mark the first time in Brad Childress's career with the Vikings that he has failed to make this team better than the year before.

singersp wrote:

Are the Packers Now the Favorite in the NFC North?

I think that we can all agree that the Vikings have been deeply hurt by free agency and that this will mark the first time in Brad Childress's career with the Vikings that he has failed to make this team better than the year before.

By Chad Lundberg (Packers Featured Columnist)Bleacher Report

Bleacher Report by a Pucker Fan... worthless read.

Favre makes good receivers great and average good.


Preseason stats are pretty useless.
One I find interesting is pts scored.
GB scored 110 and gave up 75
Vikes scored 52 and gave up 35
So I would see a Great O and a poor D vs and avg O and above average D.

Given Vikes starting QB not being there for 1.8 games, I think it's GAME ON.

Either could win it and the heads up matches will probably tell the tale.

It was actually well written for a Bleacher Report column. Unfortunately it was obvious that he didn't do his due research before writing it. He knows about as much about Minnesota football as I do about, well, Packer football.

His assumption is that Favre will be severly limited in his passing offense because Rice is out for 6 months and Taylor is gone. That assumption only works if there is nobody to replace them. We will see others flourish in their absence. An elite QB can help that happen.

He also fails to address Green Bay's defensive issues. Sure, their defense stepped up a little in the playoffs, but they are looking like their old selves again so far this year.

I think it will be a tight race for the NFC North, at least at first. But I don't think Green Bay are the favorites at all.

NodakPaul wrote:

It was actually well written for a Bleacher Report column. Unfortunately it was obvious that he didn't do his due research before writing it. He knows about as much about Minnesota football as I do about, well, Packer football.

His assumption is that Favre will be severly limited in his passing offense because Rice is out for 6 months and Taylor is gone. That assumption only works if there is nobody to replace them. We will see others flourish in their absence. An elite QB can help that happen.

He also fails to address Green Bay's defensive issues. Sure, their defense stepped up a little in the playoffs, but they are looking like their old selves again so far this year.

I think it will be a tight race for the NFC North, at least at first. But I don't think Green Bay are the favorites at all.

I saw a interview with Woodson who basically, in media talk, trashed his D and said they can't expect the Off. to win their games. Well they are going to have to because the D surely isn't.

BTW, of the 75 pts GB's D has given up 31 were in the first quarter when the starters played. So it really isn't the backups screwing up.

Parts of the article weren't bad, but so much of it was awful, as others pointed out.

He won't have the same year... -1300 yards
Chester left - 400 yards (no mention of other running backs who take those snaps)
Hicks was our starting guard? Pretty sure that was AH.

We weren't "deeply hurt" by FA; as good as those backups were, they were backups. Other teams lose starters... We've been deeply hurt by injuries; Sidney, Griffin, Sully...

ThorSPL wrote:

Parts of the article weren't bad, but so much of it was awful, as others pointed out.

He won't have the same year... -1300 yards
Chester left - 400 yards (no mention of other running backs who take those snaps)
Hicks was our starting guard? Pretty sure that was AH.

We weren't "deeply hurt" by FA; as good as those backups were, they were backups. Other teams lose starters... We've been deeply hurt by injuries; Sidney, Griffin, Sully...

What is good is we have seemed to mitigate Sid's injury by bringing in Walker and Camarillo, rather than staying pat.

Cook was a pleasant surprise and has gone a long way to helping the CB situation.

Sully's injury is the worse as moving AH to center and a rookie to RG is a serious down grade to 2 positions not just one. Why isn't Cooper the replacement so AH can stay at RG?

Overall the injuries won't have as much a impact as I thought a couple weeks ago.

I think the Packers are going to give the Vikings a run for their money this year. The scary thing about the Packers is they finished about as well as we did last year, only with one of the youngest teams in the NFL. No where to go but up.

It will be interesting to see how these younger guys match up against a much tougher schedule this year, and how our aging but skilfull vets can hold up 16 games against said tough schedule.

NodakPaul wrote:

He also fails to address Green Bay's defensive issues. Sure, their defense stepped up a little in the playoffs, but they are looking like their old selves again so far this year.
.

Did we watch a different game? The one i watched saw Arizona rack up 51 points on the Pack.

now dont get me wrong we as viking fans know how well a season can go with All O and no D just look at the late 90s early 2000s. you can win the division and make a good run in the playoffs. but will be beaten by teams with good Ds and Avg.O

the pack have a Good O and a terrible D, if they get turn overs they win. but without them they lose really badly. and now that there secondary looks like ours did for the last few yrs im laughing.

so No with no purple glasses on i still take the Vikes as the Division Champs for the 3rd yr in a row and a deep playoff run and superbowl victory.

Guess that early Bye week kinda helps this time we should get griffin and Rice back and still have 9-10 games to play.