Predict the order of finish and records in the NFC North

[Mothman]

I think you guys are underestimating the Lions. It is entirely reasonable to think all 4 teams in the division will have winning records.

It's reasonable but I don't think it's likely. It rarely works out that way. but I think all 4 teams are capable of finishing with winning records so I know what you mean. I picked Detroit last because someone has to finish last and they're usually a good bet to get the job done. Plus, they seem to be a mess in one way or another almost every year and I'm not convinced Reggie Bush is going to give them the running game they need. They lost some talent along the d-line too and I still question their pass defense.

I think the Bears are more likely the bottom dweller this season. Their defense is still aging and they’ve lost Lovie Smith. No indication so far on how well Cutler is taking to Trestman’s offense. They do have decent WR though… Still, their offense depended on the defense’s horseshoe a lot last year, so hard to say they’ll suddenly turn it around.

From what I hear, Cutler's adjusting fine and Trestman has been please with the QB play thus far in camp. I don't think their defense is that old. They just have a few name players that are getting up there in age. If they stay healthy, I suspect they'll be in the mix to win the division rather than finish last but with a new coach, you never know...

GB is all the buzz with the new RB, and they will have a winning record, but what have they done on defense? They drafted a new DT, but past that the unit is mostly the same sans Charles Woodson. That to me adds up to another year of the same on that side of the ball. On Offense I wonder if losing GJ will impact them to some extent. I’ve often though their WR corps lacked a true #1, but had 4 or 5 #2s. Thus,in addition to Roger’s elite throwing, you had mismatches. I think losing GJ negates some of that. (not all.)

I agree but they have enough talent that it might not show up much unless injuries make them dig deeper into the depth chart. It's probably wishful thinking but I have a feeling GB is going to take another step back this year.

I think it is very possible that the NFC North winner goes 4-2 in the division this year. Who that is, I do not know. For us it really comes down to Ponder turning the corner and how well the young CBs can do sans Winfield.

I'd say "the passing game turning a corner" but essentially I agree. I say that because I think changes/health at WR are going to have an enormous impact on whether or not Ponder himself turns a corner this year.

[jackal]

Packers 12-4

Vikings 10-6

Bears 9-7

Lions 7-9

[Mothman]

Well, for what it's worth, Mike and Mike don't have much confidence in the 2013 Vikings ability to build on their 10-6 record from last year. They made their predictions this morning. Mike Greenberg has the Vikings finishing 6-10. Mike Golic predicted 7-9.

[mansquatch]

The Vikings are always going to be dragged down in media predictions because no one in the National Media is sold on Ponder. I don't blame them for this, he hasn't made the sale, I just think they really do not look for the next big thing, which is annoying.

I think talent wise Detroit has enough warm bodies to make a difference. IMO, the biggest issue is the head coach being a headcase and really not up to the task. However, like GB, they've got an amazing passing offense and that can offset a lot of mediocrity on the rest of the roster. Keep in mind that they had WR injuries last year, Megatron was basically a one man show.

I doubt Chicago every year. Most of the time they start off proving me wrong and then the injury bug catches up and they prove me right in the end. LOL! Age is an issue, but last year their offense didn't carry them, it was their defense. A media type made a great comment "The key to beating Chicago is making them score their own points." Until proven otherwise, I think this is still the truth, but now the Defense doesn't have Lovie Smith at the helm. That to me adds up to what could be a significant step back on that side of the football. So the question is do we think Trestman can bring enough improvement to the offense in year 1 to offset the drop on D? I think the answer is no.

GB is interesting. Rogers' greatness offsets a lot of issues. I don't see why we should think their defense will be better just because they drafted a DT. The big question is how much does it sting for them to lose Jennings? I still think their passing game will be great, but I wonder if it will be as great as 2010/2011? I'm not sold here. Adding a good RB might help some, but are they really going to take away passing attemps from Aaron Rogers? I doubt it.

Interesting tidbit on the Packers. In 2011 we got focused on how terrbile our secondary was. (and it was bad.) However, over looked was that the GB secondary actually was statistically worse. It just got overshadowed by Rogers' record season and their ability to produce INTs. That unit has not really improved all that much since 2011. Now they've lost Charles Woodson.

Rogers' will win them 7 to 9 games all by himself in my opinion. So they are still a force. But I have to wonder if they've got 12 wins in them? Definitely some chinks in the armor.

[Mothman]

The Vikings are always going to be dragged down in media predictions because no one in the National Media is sold on Ponder. I don't blame them for this, he hasn't made the sale, I just think they really do not look for the next big thing, which is annoying.

I think talent wise Detroit has enough warm bodies to make a difference. IMO, the biggest issue is the head coach being a headcase and really not up to the task. However, like GB, they've got an amazing passing offense and that can offset a lot of mediocrity on the rest of the roster. Keep in mind that they had WR injuries last year, Megatron was basically a one man show.

I doubt Chicago every year. Most of the time they start off proving me wrong and then the injury bug catches up and they prove me right in the end. LOL! Age is an issue, but last year their offense didn't carry them, it was their defense. A media type made a great comment "The key to beating Chicago is making them score their own points." Until proven otherwise, I think this is still the truth, but now the Defense doesn't have Lovie Smith at the helm. That to me adds up to what could be a significant step back on that side of the football. So the question is do we think Trestman can bring enough improvement to the offense in year 1 to offset the drop on D? I think the answer is no.

You may be right but I'm not convinced the defense will take a big step back since they hired a very good defensive coordinator in Mel Tucker (who, you might recall, was Frazier's first choice last year). I agree that a lot is riding on Trestman's ability to transform the offense into a much more effective unit.

You touched on one of the reasons I lack confidence in the Lions: the Schwartz! As long as he's there, i think the Lions will remain an undisciplined, inconsistent team.

GB is interesting. Rogers' greatness offsets a lot of issues. I don't see why we should think their defense will be better just because they drafted a DT. The big question is how much does it sting for them to lose Jennings? I still think their passing game will be great, but I wonder if it will be as great as 2010/2011? I'm not sold here. Adding a good RB might help some, but are they really going to take away passing attemps from Aaron Rogers? I doubt it.

I doubt it too. I'm also wondering if Rodgers will maintain the pace he's been on the last two years or if he'll slide back a little. He's probably too good to slide dramatically but if his production even slips to where it was in 2009-2010, the Packers could lose a few more games this season because like you, I question their defense.

Interesting tidbit on the Packers. In 2011 we got focused on how terrbile our secondary was. (and it was bad.) However, over looked was that the GB secondary actually was statistically worse. It just got overshadowed by Rogers' record season and their ability to produce INTs. That unit has not really improved all that much since 2011. Now they've lost Charles Woodson.

Rogers' will win them 7 to 9 games all by himself in my opinion. So they are still a force. But I have to wonder if they've got 12 wins in them? Definitely some chinks in the armor.

Definitely!

I would love to see them just have a really "off" year with Rodgers throwing 15+ INTs and the team falling to .500 or below. It's unlikely but it would sure be satisfying, especially if the Vikes were the team to step up and seize control of the division.

[mansquatch]

I do not deny that Rogers is a truly great QB. However, you look at the games they lose and you see common themes. One is the opposing team doesn’t commit turnovers. Another is the utter dependence on Rogers. We’ve seen him the past few season have an off game in the playoffs and then they fall apart. The lowly Chiefs beat them during 2011 when Rogers had an off day and the Chiefs protected the football. It is hard not to call the Packers a one man show.

Of course I doubt the Vikings will see Rogers have an off game since we are divisional rivals, but it shows overall that the team has issues. Quite simply, who on the team can come up with the big play on offense when Rogers is in the dumps? Right now there isn’t anybody to do that. On defense they have Mathews, but that is about it.

The funny thing about all of this is Ted Thompson. I think he is the Bill Polian of this decade. Everybody talks about how smart he is, but just how successful has he been in recent drafts since making the move to grab Rogers? When Rogers inevitably has an injury that costs him a chunk of a season the house of cards will come tumbling down.

[vikeinmontana]

Vikings - 15-1
lions - 7-9
bears - 5-11
packers - 0-16

[NextQuestion]

Vikings - 15-1
lions - 7-9
bears - 5-11
packers - 0-16

lol

[Ohjay]

Vikings - 15-1
lions - 7-9
bears - 5-11
packers - 0-16

Gimme a sip of whatever you're drinking!