Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Green Bay will bounce back from the let down in the playoffs and have a Super Season

1. Green Bay
2. Detroit
3. Chicago
4. Minnesota

I don't see it happening for the Pack in 2012. 2011 was a good year but the Chiefs and Giants exposed them for what they are:

1. Unbalanced/A one-trick pony- I don't care if they can't run the ball or won't, it's a joke that they have never fixed this problem.
2. Poor on defense- a problem they still have not fixed. They have only have 3 impact defenders- Matthews, Woodson, and Raji. Teams like San Fran, the Giants, Eagles, and Bears have far more than them. Packers' next 8 defenders are just guys. Mostly average, as much as it hurts to say about AJ Hawk.
3. Not suited for cold weather. Which is of course inexcusable for a team that plays in Green Bay. They should have an advantage every time they play there in January, but they're 0-for their last two home playoff games. If GB wins their division, they aren't going to the Super Bowl. Teams like Philly, SF, the Giants, etc. who can rush the passer and run the ball will stomp them every time at Lambeau. If GB really thinks they can win playoffs playing like they do, they should just trade stadiums with the Vikings. They'd still draw and both teams would be better for it.

1. Bears
2. Packers
3. Lions
4. Vikings

I like the Bears' roster, coaching staff, and balance a lot going into this year.

WOW I almost fell off my chair reading that! So you are going to base the Packers off of 2 whole games? LOL
Funny how you mention they are not suited for the cold, but have only lost 2 home games in 2 years and BEAT da bears in chicago in 2010 where they WON THE SUPERBOWL! So they go from winning the SB to a 15-1 season and they still aren't the team to beat in 2013? Then we can go to the poor defense stuff. How good was the Pats D last year? Where did they finish again? Obviously, something has to be going right if two teams so similar to each other have great seasons and are again favorites in their conferences. And I didn't even mention that the Packers BEAT the Giants last year in the regular season.

Lol, Philly and super bowl in the same sentence?

Brett Favre lost his cold weather ability at the end of his Packer playing days. Hawk has been a bust for the spot he was drafted, and injuries hurt the Pack's defense last year, especially Collins. The Bears are old and over the hill, specifically their defense. On offense, Cutler.................nuff said. Detroit is the team to look out for.

Gil, you had it right on until that last statement. Detroit?

Where do you have Tampa ranked?

andy7171 wrote:Where do you have Tampa ranked?

They won't even be a factor in the NFC Central.

SuperHornet wrote:Gil, you had it right on until that last statement. Detroit?

They are pretty good right now. I don't see how it's funny?

89Hen wrote:

andy7171 wrote:Where do you have Tampa ranked?

They won't even be a factor in the NFC Central.

No one will.

Vidav wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Gil, you had it right on until that last statement. Detroit?

They are pretty good right now. I don't see how it's funny?

1. Detroit has a history of failure.

2. Their one legitimate star is injured.

Seahawks08 wrote:WOW I almost fell off my chair reading that! So you are going to base the Packers off of 2 whole games? LOL
Funny how you mention they are not suited for the cold, but have only lost 2 home games in 2 years and BEAT da bears in chicago in 2010 where they WON THE SUPERBOWL! So they go from winning the SB to a 15-1 season and they still aren't the team to beat in 2013? Then we can go to the poor defense stuff. How good was the Pats D last year? Where did they finish again? Obviously, something has to be going right if two teams so similar to each other have great seasons and are again favorites in their conferences. And I didn't even mention that the Packers BEAT the Giants last year in the regular season.

The Green Bay Super Bowl run was built on the backs of two dome games. They certainly didn't tear it up in Philly or Chicago during that run. Simply put, Green Bay is a better fit for the Metrodome than they are for Lambeau, at least once winter hits. I don't care if they're 6-0, if they play a team that's better suited for cold weather, be it the 49ers, Giants, Bears, or Eagles for example, they'll be in for a rough game. They'll be favored, but not deservedly so.

Maybe the Pats' defense wasn't that good, but they certainly played better than Green Bay's as the year went along. I have zero doubt that their defense will be better in 2012. They added a bunch of high-impact rookies and Belichick is of course no slouch when it comes to defensive scheming.
Green Bay has their own style when it comes to drafting- they like to take developmental guys. Some play earlier but few are counted on as early-impact guys. They still don't have a pass rusher to complement Matthews.
That's the difference between New England and Green Bay. The Patriots have more good players and aren't crippled by cold weather nearly as much as the Packers are. And the AFC is not nearly as difficult as it was a few years ago. Who's the 2nd-best team in the AFC? Baltimore? Pittsburgh? Houston?

Green Bay might be the trendy pick according to Vegas, but it's fool's gold when you actually look at the rosters. The Packers will still make the playoffs, they just should not be the overwhelming favorite considering that they probably won't be nearly as fortunate this year as they were last year.

Green Bay played a pretty basic offense the first couple games. Not sure why they are not rotating players in like they used to, to keep the defense guessing. Chicago is bad, Detroit is still the second best.