Burning Questions; Vikings, Packers, Lions & Bears (oh my)

Agreed that our Defense is finally the bigger question mark compared to the offense, although I still don't think we did enough to improve the offensive line. I think we are an 8-8 team at best this year and miss the playoffs even with the extra Wild Card Team added this season. Zimmer will have to dumb down his scheme for the rookies they are counting on to contribute right away. 

For Bears fan Tribisky reminds of Ponder and the Vikings. 

Vikings fans had hope but deep down knew Ponder wasn't "the guy".

@"Mattyman" said: For Bears fan Tribisky reminds of Ponder and the Vikings. 

Vikings fans had hope but deep down knew Ponder wasn't "the guy".

Y'all know those Bears fans are hoping Rogers finishes his career a Chicago Bear. Add him to that team and they're pretty damn potent. 

That is if Fowles doesn't pan-out...

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"Mattyman" said: For Bears fan Tribisky reminds of Ponder and the Vikings. 

Vikings fans had hope but deep down knew Ponder wasn't "the guy".

Y'all know those Bears fans are hoping Rogers finishes his career a Chicago Bear. Add him to that team and they're pretty damn potent. 

That is if Fowles doesn't pan-out...

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"Mattyman" said: For Bears fan Tribisky reminds of Ponder and the Vikings. 

Vikings fans had hope but deep down knew Ponder wasn't "the guy".

Y'all know those Bears fans are hoping Rogers finishes his career a Chicago Bear. Add him to that team and they're pretty damn potent. 

That is if Fowles doesn't pan-out...

Would Roger's ego allow him to play for less than market?  I dont think that bears team is nearly as potent if they are paying 35 million a year for a QB.

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"Mattyman" said: For Bears fan Tribisky reminds of Ponder and the Vikings. 

Vikings fans had hope but deep down knew Ponder wasn't "the guy".

Y'all know those Bears fans are hoping Rogers finishes his career a Chicago Bear. Add him to that team and they're pretty damn potent. 

That is if Fowles doesn't pan-out...

Would Roger's ego allow him to play for less than market?  I dont think that bears team is nearly as potent if they are paying 35 million a year for a QB.

Well they certainly don't scare anyone without a QB. 

If Fowles is even 1/2 way decent?

Bears are going to make some noise this year...

@"purplefaithful" said: If Fowles is even 1/2 way decent?

Bears are going to make some noise this year...

and Rogers will be playing with a chip on his shoulder again so he will be bringing what he can...... Zim will be coaching for his job... all I can say is poor lions.

@"purplefaithful" said: If Fowles is even 1/2 way decent?

Bears are going to make some noise this year...

I'm not buying the Bears, just like I didn't going into last season.  In Nagy's first year (when they went 13-3 or 12-4 or whatever they were),  I think it was a bit of smoke and mirrors.
Their defense was really good, but their offense was predicated on a lot of misdirection and designed plays to get the ball out of Trubisky's hands quickly.  

This past season, they lost that running game that helped set up everything they wanted to do in the passing game and Trubisky couldn't deliver when asked to take on more responsibility in the offense.  Add in the fact that their turnover reliant defense came back to earth the following season (always does), and it put them exactly where I thought it would.

Even if Foles plays well, the Bears seem like a fringe playoff team.  Probably fall somewhere between 7-10 wins if everything goes well for them.  I don't see them as a contender, but good enough to give the Vikings some competition in the division.

@"TBro" said: Agreed that our Defense is finally the bigger question mark compared to the offense, although I still don't think we did enough to improve the offensive line. I think we are an 8-8 team at best this year and miss the playoffs even with the extra Wild Card Team added this season. Zimmer will have to dumb down his scheme for the rookies they are counting on to contribute right away. 

I'm a bit more optimistic that all that. The team had 10 wins and only two of those were within one score, both of which were still more than a field goal.  That to me implies that they essentially 'earned' all of their wins as opposed to getting a handful just barely and sort of inflating their record.  Beyond that, they gave the Bears the final game by sitting everyone yet still nearly won.  There were also two games that I believe they outplayed the opponent and should have won.  (i.e. That first Packers game and the booth taking a td off the board for a penalty called away from the ball still pisses me off. Ten times out of ten that wouldn't have been called if the teams were reversed.) The defense was not that stellar at times and much of the problem most would agree was with the cornerback play.  People may want to point at them losing their veteran corners as a huge downside, but is it reeealy?  I'm not sure the other guys and the rookies can't perform at least THAT well. 

The offense was severely handcuffed the second half of the season.  Many people call Diggs "elite," but I continue to put him as "good" and not irreplaceable.  He only managed around 4 catches/game and had just 1 td in all those games Thielen missed.  They had 10 tds from Thielen & Diggs through the first 6.5 games... and just 2 over that final 9.5.  Cook's production also declined while he played hurt and ultimately had to sit down entirely.  Mattison was also injured at the end. 

Having written all that, I'm basically saying that I believe the team was better than their record and finish last season.  I also believe they have taken good steps in improving areas of need, or maintaining the same level in some with hopes of improvement.  I'm personally pretty confident Jefferson is going to actually be one of those first rounders that produces immediately and will cover the loss of Diggs.  To match his 4 receptions/game and 6 tds of last season isn't very much to ask out of a first round rookie if he quickly earns a starting spot. 
They have some additional WR depth/talent, a promising sophomore season for Irv, better O & D line depth, a new athletic LB, a young and healthy Def backfield (Hughes)...  With the hope that the team doesn't have to rely on 2nd and 3rd string players so much at primary positions I think they can be a better team than last season.  I'm not guessing on record but I'm certainly not knocking them down to a .500 level team...

so no super bowl this year? 

@"NorthernCalVike" said: so no super bowl this year? 

I've had an ironic though about that lately...

Wouldn't it be so "Viking like" to get to the SB again for the 1st time since 1977, and nobody could attend live?

@"CLOBIMON" said:

@"TBro" said: Agreed that our Defense is finally the bigger question mark compared to the offense, although I still don't think we did enough to improve the offensive line. I think we are an 8-8 team at best this year and miss the playoffs even with the extra Wild Card Team added this season. Zimmer will have to dumb down his scheme for the rookies they are counting on to contribute right away. 

I'm a bit more optimistic that all that. The team had 10 wins and only two of those were within one score, both of which were still more than a field goal.  That to me implies that they essentially 'earned' all of their wins as opposed to getting a handful just barely and sort of inflating their record.  Beyond that, they gave the Bears the final game by sitting everyone yet still nearly won.  There were also two games that I believe they outplayed the opponent and should have won.  (i.e. That first Packers game and the booth taking a td off the board for a penalty called away from the ball still pisses me off. Ten times out of ten that wouldn't have been called if the teams were reversed.) The defense was not that stellar at times and much of the problem most would agree was with the cornerback play.  People may want to point at them losing their veteran corners as a huge downside, but is it reeealy?  I'm not sure the other guys and the rookies can't perform at least THAT well. 

The offense was severely handcuffed the second half of the season.  Many people call Diggs "elite," but I continue to put him as "good" and not irreplaceable.  He only managed around 4 catches/game and had just 1 td in all those games Thielen missed.  They had 10 tds from Thielen & Diggs through the first 6.5 games... and just 2 over that final 9.5.  Cook's production also declined while he played hurt and ultimately had to sit down entirely.  Mattison was also injured at the end. 

Having written all that, I'm basically saying that I believe the team was better than their record and finish last season.  I also believe they have taken good steps in improving areas of need, or maintaining the same level in some with hopes of improvement.  I'm personally pretty confident Jefferson is going to actually be one of those first rounders that produces immediately and will cover the loss of Diggs.  To match his 4 receptions/game and 6 tds of last season isn't very much to ask out of a first round rookie if he quickly earns a starting spot. 
They have some additional WR depth/talent, a promising sophomore season for Irv, better O & D line depth, a new athletic LB, a young and healthy Def backfield (Hughes)...  With the hope that the team doesn't have to rely on 2nd and 3rd string players so much at primary positions I think they can be a better team than last season.  I'm not guessing on record but I'm certainly not knocking them down to a .500 level team...

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"CLOBIMON" said:

@"TBro" said: Agreed that our Defense is finally the bigger question mark compared to the offense, although I still don't think we did enough to improve the offensive line. I think we are an 8-8 team at best this year and miss the playoffs even with the extra Wild Card Team added this season. Zimmer will have to dumb down his scheme for the rookies they are counting on to contribute right away. 

I'm a bit more optimistic that all that. The team had 10 wins and only two of those were within one score, both of which were still more than a field goal.  That to me implies that they essentially 'earned' all of their wins as opposed to getting a handful just barely and sort of inflating their record.  Beyond that, they gave the Bears the final game by sitting everyone yet still nearly won.  There were also two games that I believe they outplayed the opponent and should have won.  (i.e. That first Packers game and the booth taking a td off the board for a penalty called away from the ball still pisses me off. Ten times out of ten that wouldn't have been called if the teams were reversed.) The defense was not that stellar at times and much of the problem most would agree was with the cornerback play.  People may want to point at them losing their veteran corners as a huge downside, but is it reeealy?  I'm not sure the other guys and the rookies can't perform at least THAT well. 

The offense was severely handcuffed the second half of the season.  Many people call Diggs "elite," but I continue to put him as "good" and not irreplaceable.  He only managed around 4 catches/game and had just 1 td in all those games Thielen missed.  They had 10 tds from Thielen & Diggs through the first 6.5 games... and just 2 over that final 9.5.  Cook's production also declined while he played hurt and ultimately had to sit down entirely.  Mattison was also injured at the end. 

Having written all that, I'm basically saying that I believe the team was better than their record and finish last season.  I also believe they have taken good steps in improving areas of need, or maintaining the same level in some with hopes of improvement.  I'm personally pretty confident Jefferson is going to actually be one of those first rounders that produces immediately and will cover the loss of Diggs.  To match his 4 receptions/game and 6 tds of last season isn't very much to ask out of a first round rookie if he quickly earns a starting spot. 
They have some additional WR depth/talent, a promising sophomore season for Irv, better O & D line depth, a new athletic LB, a young and healthy Def backfield (Hughes)...  With the hope that the team doesn't have to rely on 2nd and 3rd string players so much at primary positions I think they can be a better team than last season.  I'm not guessing on record but I'm certainly not knocking them down to a .500 level team...

Except for the Diggs part, I agree with everything you say here.

I think too much is made of turnover. I don't really understand why so many of those who went on and on about how awful Rhodes was were the same folks who cautioned about turnover. Are we going to be playing a couple rookie corners this year? Yep, almost certainly. And will there be growing pains? Yep. But are they going to play better than Rhodes and Waynes? That's not a tall order. They just might. Safeties are the same, linebackers are the same. And the DL will be more of a rotation to mitigate the loss of Griffen. But I think some don't appreciate just how good of a player MIchael Pierce is. PFF called him "elite." This could be our Pat Williams move. 

JJ is no Diggs. Probably never will be, but we got damn lucky when he fell to us. I like our OL in '20. It's young but promising. With Reiff likely at guard, Bradbury in his 2nd season, and pass blocking standout Samia at RG, I think the improvement in pass blocking on the interior will be significant. Can they run block as well? We'll see. 

I see it like this. There are about 1600 players in the NFL. About 200 of them are elite and 200 will never start. But there's not a lot of difference between player, say, 400 and 800. With the exception of Diggs and Griffen (who I think are elite), that's the level on which our turnover is happening. Rhodes, Waynes, Mac, Stephen, Elflein, Kline...it's why teams who lose a lot of players don't do as poorly as everyone feared, and why teams who add a bunch in free agency don't do as well as everyone expects. 

@"TBro" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"CLOBIMON" said:

@"TBro" said: Agreed that our Defense is finally the bigger question mark compared to the offense, although I still don't think we did enough to improve the offensive line. I think we are an 8-8 team at best this year and miss the playoffs even with the extra Wild Card Team added this season. Zimmer will have to dumb down his scheme for the rookies they are counting on to contribute right away. 

I'm a bit more optimistic that all that. The team had 10 wins and only two of those were within one score, both of which were still more than a field goal.  That to me implies that they essentially 'earned' all of their wins as opposed to getting a handful just barely and sort of inflating their record.  Beyond that, they gave the Bears the final game by sitting everyone yet still nearly won.  There were also two games that I believe they outplayed the opponent and should have won.  (i.e. That first Packers game and the booth taking a td off the board for a penalty called away from the ball still pisses me off. Ten times out of ten that wouldn't have been called if the teams were reversed.) The defense was not that stellar at times and much of the problem most would agree was with the cornerback play.  People may want to point at them losing their veteran corners as a huge downside, but is it reeealy?  I'm not sure the other guys and the rookies can't perform at least THAT well. 

The offense was severely handcuffed the second half of the season.  Many people call Diggs "elite," but I continue to put him as "good" and not irreplaceable.  He only managed around 4 catches/game and had just 1 td in all those games Thielen missed.  They had 10 tds from Thielen & Diggs through the first 6.5 games... and just 2 over that final 9.5.  Cook's production also declined while he played hurt and ultimately had to sit down entirely.  Mattison was also injured at the end. 

Having written all that, I'm basically saying that I believe the team was better than their record and finish last season.  I also believe they have taken good steps in improving areas of need, or maintaining the same level in some with hopes of improvement.  I'm personally pretty confident Jefferson is going to actually be one of those first rounders that produces immediately and will cover the loss of Diggs.  To match his 4 receptions/game and 6 tds of last season isn't very much to ask out of a first round rookie if he quickly earns a starting spot. 
They have some additional WR depth/talent, a promising sophomore season for Irv, better O & D line depth, a new athletic LB, a young and healthy Def backfield (Hughes)...  With the hope that the team doesn't have to rely on 2nd and 3rd string players so much at primary positions I think they can be a better team than last season.  I'm not guessing on record but I'm certainly not knocking them down to a .500 level team...

Except for the Diggs part, I agree with everything you say here.

I think too much is made of turnover. I don't really understand why so many of those who went on and on about how awful Rhodes was were the same folks who cautioned about turnover. Are we going to be playing a couple rookie corners this year? Yep, almost certainly. And will there be growing pains? Yep. But are they going to play better than Rhodes and Waynes? That's not a tall order. They just might. Safeties are the same, linebackers are the same. And the DL will be more of a rotation to mitigate the loss of Griffen. But I think some don't appreciate just how good of a player MIchael Pierce is. PFF called him "elite." This could be our Pat Williams move. 

JJ is no Diggs. Probably never will be, but we got damn lucky when he fell to us. I like our OL in '20. It's young but promising. With Reiff likely at guard, Bradbury in his 2nd season, and pass blocking standout Samia at RG, I think the improvement in pass blocking on the interior will be significant. Can they run block as well? We'll see. 

I see it like this. There are about 1600 players in the NFL. About 200 of them are elite and 200 will never start. But there's not a lot of difference between player, say, 400 and 800. With the exception of Diggs and Griffen (who I think are elite), that's the level on which our turnover is happening. Rhodes, Waynes, Mac, Stephen, Elflein, Kline...it's why teams who lose a lot of players don't do as poorly as everyone feared, and why teams who add a bunch in free agency don't do as well as everyone expects. 

Are you predicting Playoffs with this roster and difficult schedule? If that's the case, you are way more optimistic than I am. With all of these changes and a lack of OTA's, I think this will be a development year for this team.