Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    pack93z's Avatar
    pack93z is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,465

    Ranking the NFC North by position groups...

    We have done similar rankings like this in the near past, however this was started yesterday on the Packershome board... and one of the members is asking for some Viking fans take... so here it is...

    The Post over yonder.. http://www.packershome.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=4881&fin ish=15&start=0

    Okay... you have been promoted to the scouting directory level of a NFC team.. you job today, rank the NFC north teams in a 1 to 4 ranking in the following categories..

    Example...

    K - Packers, Bears, Lions, Vikings.

    Packers are rated first.. Vikings last.. Bears in this fictional example are ranked second.

    BTW... drop your green and gold glasses for a couple of moments during this little exercise.. thanks in advance.

    Also, please select three positions that have the greatest importance on the division as it currently sits.

    QB-
    RB-
    FB-
    WR-
    TE-
    OT-
    OG-
    OC-
    DT/NT-
    DE-
    OLB-
    MLB/ILB-
    CB-
    S-
    K-
    P-

  2. #2
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Ranking the NFC North by position groups...

    Looks fun.

    as it currently sits
    I wonder how many will follow that golden rule?
    :
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,061

    Re: Ranking the NFC North by position groups...

    I think I've done my best to stay objective here, hard as it sometimes was. Start the butchering my purple friends.

    QB - Packers/Bears, Lions, Vikings - The Packers and Bears are tied here, because Rodgers has been the starter for one year, while Cutler has shown he can perform well over multiple years. Based sololy on last year, it'd be Rodgers though. As for the Lions and Vikes. Culpepper can still get it done with some talent around him and the Vikings really have no good players at that position. Not counting Favre in here yet.

    RB - Vikings, Bears, Lions, Packers - This'll change if Grant can perform up to his 2007 standard or we'll find a good balance between our RBs. Vikings first, there's no competition. Bears second, mainly because Forté can do it all and Lions third because Kevin Smith was very impressive in his rookie season and should improve with a decent passing game and a decent O-line.

    FB - Packers, Bears, Lions, Vikings - Packers and Bears both have good FBs. Our stable is a bit bigger though. The Lions and Vikings don't. The Lions drafted Jerome Felton just last year though and he has room for improvement, I'll give them the upper hand on this one.

    WR - Packers, Lions, Vikings, Bears - We might (arguably) not have the best WR in the division, but we do have the best stable of good ones. The Lions have Calvin Johnson and a big drop-off after that. Berrian is ok, but too much for a one-trick pony for my taste and the Bears only have TEs.

    TE - Bears, Lions, Packers/Vikings - The Bears obviously have the best two TEs in the division in Olsen and Clark. The Bears drafted a great blocking TE with receiving ability and both the Packers and Vikings have an one-year wonder as starters.

    OT - Vikings, Bears/Packers, Lions - The Vikings have McKinnie on the left side and a promising mauler on the right side. The Bears signed Pace, bumping them up to 2 with a big gap at the right side. The Packers have a declining player and a new guy on the line and the Lions' OTs pretty much suck, untill Cherilus is going to show something.

    OG - Vikings, Packers, Bears, Lions - The Vikings have Hutchinson, arguably the best guard in the game, and a gap at the right side. We have a revolving door, if Spitz plays at guard, we're at second though, and the Bears and Lions really have no one.

    OC - Bears, Packers/Lions, Vikings - Olin Kreutz can still play. I'm going with Wells at center for the Packers, I think in that case, we're equal to the Lions. The Vikings have a big question mark with Birk gone.

    For DT, DE and OLB, I'm asuming that we're talking about a 4-3 formation.

    DT - Vikings, Bears, Packers, Lions - The Vikings hve the most dominant pair of DTs in the league. The Bears have an elite DT in Tommie Harris and the Packers now have two big guys in Pickett and Raji. Raji still has to prove himself, though. The Lions traded their only good DT away in Cory Redding.

    DE - Packers, Vikings, Bears, Lions - The Packers had the most dominant DE stable in the league. With KGB falling away, we still have the best one in the division when Kampman and Jenkins both line up at DE. The Vikings have Jared Allen with Edwards/Udeze playing LE and the Bears and Vikings really don't have that bad of a DE group either.

    OLB - Bears/Lions, Packers/Vikings - From a 4-3 stance, this is a dominating position. The Bears have Briggs and Tinoisamoa. The Lions now have Simms and Julian Peterson. The Packers would have Matthews and Hawk. The Vikings would have Greenway and Leber. I've given the Bears and Lions the edge because they both have one really dominating guy at that position.

    MLB - Bears/Vikings/Packers, Lions - Really, who is the best when you look at Barnett, Henderson and Urlacher. The most overhyped one is Urlacher, but I think that this is a pretty even match. The Lions aren't even close.

    CB - Packers, Vikings/Bears, Lions - Our corners might be aging, but they're still both some of the best in the business. The Lions have an amazing player in Winfield, but an average guy on the other side in Griffin. The Bears have two very good corners in Tillman and Vasher. It evens eachother out. The Lions, once again, keep left behind.

    S - Packers, Vikings, Lions, Bears - Although I'm still not that big a fan of Bigby, we do have a great player in Collins. The Vikings let Sharper go and now have a big hole there, but Williams is still a pretty solid player. The Lions have a good young player in Alexander and upgraded the other spot by getting Delmas early in the draft. The Bears let Mike Brown go and have nothing but gaping holes at that position. Overall, a very weak safety class.

    K - Lions, Bears, Vikings, Packers - It might look weird, since Crosby is quite a good kicker, but the division is filled with studs at this position. Hason has been a great kicked since he joined the league in 1992. Gould is great. Longwell still has the edge over Crosby.

    P - Bears/Lions/Vikings, Packers - I have to admit that I'm not to well educated on the punters in our division, but from what I've seen, they're all average. Except for Kapinos, who still has to prove himself and really had a below average statistical season.
    "You can look pretty smart if you have a knack for planning ahead. That's Ted. The Packers are in good hands." - Ron Wolf


  4. #4
    Tad7's Avatar
    Tad7 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,451

    Re: Ranking the NFC North by position groups...

    QB- Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit (we have/may get 3 QB's that could be our starter and 3 that COULD be good but for now I'll just go with this)
    RB- Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay
    FB- Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota
    WR-Green Bay, Detroit, Minnesota, Chicago (tough call to put still put the Vikings behind the Lions but again just going by what's for sure as of right now)
    TE- Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit, Green Bay
    OT- Minnesota, Chicago, Green Bay, Detroit
    OG- Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit
    OC- Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota (for now)
    DT/NT- Minnesota, Chicago, Green Bay, Detroit
    DE- Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit
    OLB- too equal to call imo
    MLB/ILB- Green Bay, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit
    CB- Green Bay, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit
    S- Green Bay, Minnesota, Detroit, Chicago
    K- Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, Green Bay
    P- Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Green Bay
    Skol Vikings! Go Cubs!

    X MARKS THE SPOT

  5. #5
    pack93z's Avatar
    pack93z is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,465

    Re: Ranking the NFC North by position groups...

    On the Running Back rankings.. why is everyone so high on Chicago's running back Forte?

    Ryan Grant 312 carries, 3.9 ypc, 1203 yards and 4 TD's..
    Matt Forte 316 Carries, 3.9 ypc, 1238 yards and 8 TD's...
    Kevin Smith 238Carries, 4.1 ypc, 976 yards and 8 TD's..

    The only real variance is the 4 TD's.. but once you take in account that Rodgers ran in 4 TD's inside the 5 and the numbers are a virtual identical.. Will some point to the fumbles as the reason to downgrade Grant to last.. he had 4.. Forte had 1.. so that is 1.3 % of the time Grant coughed it up, .3% the Forte coughed it up.. is that really a reason to kick Grant to the end of the line? Because if that 1% is that huge, we need to take into consideration that AP fumbles at a 2.5% clip... BTW.. Kevin Smith of Det fumbles at a .8% clip.


    Then take a look at the depth on the respective teams.. Kevin Jones as a Backup or Brandon Jackson? The numbers support Jackson over Jones.. but lets call it a push..

    So clearly, Taylor and Peterson headline the charts hands down.. but is Chicago really superior to the Packers.. and do the Packers really warrant a last place standing?
    I think a strong argument can be made to placing the Packers last in the division.. especially when you consider Grant played hurt for the beginning of the season through the mid part nursing an hamstring..


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,061

    Re: Ranking the NFC North by position groups...

    The big things I can think of is him being a rookie and exploding onto the scene and his receiving ability.

    He wasn't expected to be the starter, run for 1200 yards and receive another 500. Grant had expectations going as high as a 1500 yard, 5.0+ season. For one, this season was a coming out party and they're expecting him to get better. For the other, it was a let down and a digression from last year. Also, when you take the receiving TDs in account, it's Forte 12 and Grant 5. That's a big difference. Especially since Orton ran for 3 TDs as well.

    And I have the Lions over the Packers because Kevin Smith can get it done if he has a decent supporting cast. I think they're on the right track with him.
    "You can look pretty smart if you have a knack for planning ahead. That's Ted. The Packers are in good hands." - Ron Wolf


  7. #7
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,778
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ranking the NFC North by position groups...

    "Rockmolder" wrote:
    The big things I can think of is him being a rookie and exploding onto the scene and his receiving ability.

    He wasn't expected to be the starter, run for 1200 yards and receive another 500. Grant had expectations going as high as a 1500 yard, 5.0+ season. For one, this season was a coming out party and they're expecting him to get better. For the other, it was a let down and a digression from last year. Also, when you take the receiving TDs in account, it's Forte 12 and Grant 5. That's a big difference. Especially since Orton ran for 3 TDs as well.

    And I have the Lions over the Packers because Kevin Smith can get it done if he has a decent supporting cast. I think they're on the right track with him.
    I agree with him.
    The reason for People liking Forte, is he exploded on the scene.
    Grant was a disappointment.
    Plus, rushing stats only tell half the story, like he said, Forte did much better receiving also.
    I do think Forte is a bit overhyped, but I don't think Grant is better than any of the starters in the NFCN, and a season without Favre showed that (Gosh, who coudl image that Favre woudl open up the run, and losing him would make teams key in on it?
    Nobody here, thats for sure)

  8. #8
    pack93z's Avatar
    pack93z is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,465

    Re: Ranking the NFC North by position groups...

    So the Packers having a better set of receivers and a much better vertical passing game don't affect the number of opportunities that Packers backs get at receptions?

    Grant exploded on the scene in 2007... then battled through an injury plagued season.. and gets degraded for it.

    But you both make very solid points and to be very honest, I am not convinced in Grant as being above either the Bears Forte or the Lions Smith.. just find it interesting that so many rank Grant so lowly.. I might have to investigate it further.

  9. #9
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,916

    Re: Ranking the NFC North by position groups...

    "pack93z" wrote:
    So the Packers having a better set of receivers and a much better vertical passing game don't affect the number of opportunities that Packers backs get at receptions?

    Grant exploded on the scene in 2007... then battled through an injury plagued season.. and gets degraded for it.

    But you both make very solid points and to be very honest, I am not convinced in Grant as being above either the Bears Forte or the Lions Smith.. just find it interesting that so many rank Grant so lowly.. I might have to investigate it further.
    I agree with you some. He is the third best back in this division. I don't think smith is better. The reason I put Forte ahead of him is because Forte runs harder and is has great feet and hands. He is really a special back.

  10. #10
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,281

    Re: Ranking the NFC North by position groups...

    QB: Chic, MN, GB, det, I'm assuming Favre is a Viking. GB should be better if Rodgers stays healthy all year, but they have no back up whatsoever, and Rodgers has only played 1 season.
    RB: MN, CHic, GB, det
    WR: GB, MN, chic, det(detroit is probably better but I thought it would be funny if they were last in every category.
    OL: mn, gb, chic, det
    DL: MN, gb, chic, det
    LB: MN, chic, gb, det
    CB/S: GB, CHIC, MN, DET
    ST: CHIC, GB, MN DET
    Coach: Chic, mn, gb, det

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2009 Analysis of NFC North (By position)
    By oaklandzoo24 in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 10:02 AM
  2. NFC North: Ranking the Running Game
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 02:25 PM
  3. Ranking the BCS-conference players by position
    By marstc09 in forum College Ball
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-02-2008, 10:44 PM
  4. Ranking top free agents at each position - FOX Sports
    By Zeus in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-28-2008, 04:08 PM
  5. 2007 draft prospects by position and ranking.
    By Prophet in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-30-2007, 11:48 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •