[Bryan88]

Wow, only one of the four have the Vikings winning the division and The Sporting News has us 3rd behind the 11-5 Packers and 10-6 Bears. I am quite surprised by these ranking (even though they mean nothing). I would think that the Pack and Bears would be anywhere from 6 to 9 win teams, but not division winners. What do you all think of these pre-season rankings?

Access Vikings: » Blog Archive » The early line

The NFL preview magazines have started to hit the shelves and if you’re thinking the Vikings are the trendy pick to win the NFC North think again. Only one of the four magazines I picked up has the Vikings finishing first. Here’s a look at some of the predictions for the division.

THE SPORTING NEWS

1. Green Bay 11-5 predicted finish

2. Chicago 10-6

3. Vikings 9-7

4. Detroit 3-13

PRO FOOTBALL WEEKLY

1. Green Bay 9-7

2. Vikings 8-8

3. Chicago 7-9

4. Detroit 5-11

ATHLON SPORTS

1. Green Bay

2. Vikings

3. Chicago

4. Detroit

LINDY’S

1. Vikings

2. Green Bay

3. Chicago

4. Detroit

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Bryan88

Wow, only one of the four have the Vikings winning the division and The Sporting News has us 3rd behind the 11-5 Packers and 10-6 Bears. I am quite surprised by these ranking (even though they mean nothing). I would think that the Pack and Bears would be anywhere from 6 to 9 win teams, but not division winners. What do you all think of these pre-season rankings?

Access Vikings: » Blog Archive » The early line

I am assuming you think the Vikings will be the division winners?
The Bears 10-6 is a huge joke. They and the Lions will be fighting for the basement.
The Vikings and the Packers will be fighting for the top. Sorry Bryan, but I think the Packers might have an edge. If Rodgers stays healthy.

[Bryan88]

Originally Posted by Bette

I am assuming you think the Vikings will be the division winners?
The Bears 10-6 is a huge joke. They and the Lions will be fighting for the basement.
The Vikings and the Packers will be fighting for the top. Sorry Bryan, but I think the Packers might have an edge. If Rodgers stays healthy.

I think the Packers will miss Farve more than you think and I would be very surprised if they got to 10 wins, let alone 11 that The Sporting News predicted. I would be interested in hearing why you think the Packers might have an edge.

[Weird harold]

I'm also expecting the Bears, and Lions to fight it out for 3rd, and 4th. If Jackson plays much better than last year, Viking will be 1st with out a doubt. With teams putting 8 in the box, and a couple more close to the box, to try to stop Adrian Peterson, he doesn't have to be Tom Brady, just greatly improved over last year. Packers do have a good defense. They also have very good offensive line, wide receivers, the ability to find running backs that can play football, all things the Bears don't have. I think it all depends on what Aaron Rodgers does with it.

[Lefty Noob]

I think Lindy's has it closet to right. For the life of me, I don't know why everyone's so high on the Favre-less Packers this year. Minnesota will win the division, Green Bay will be second and the Bears and Lions, like Bette suggests, will be battling over the basement.

[Bette]

I'm not sure why everyone is high on the Favreless Packers. If you think about it, the Packers have two big question marks. Rodgers and Grant. Rodgers healthwise, and whether or not Grant was a big fluke.
On the Vikings side, Jackson is the big question mark. Then will Jared Allen stay out of trouble. I am not real sold on the coach either.
Last year McCarthy had put together a great blend of veterans and young players. I think they are still like what, the second or third youngest team in the league. That team should grow and get better.
Not real solid reasons why I think the Packers have an edge. A slight edge mind you, but still an edge.

[Bryan88]

Originally Posted by Bette

I'm not sure why everyone is high on the Favreless Packers. If you think about it, the Packers have two big question marks. Rodgers and Grant. Rodgers healthwise, and whether or not Grant was a big fluke.
On the Vikings side, Jackson is the big question mark. Then will Jared Allen stay out of trouble. I am not real sold on the coach either.
Last year McCarthy had put together a great blend of veterans and young players. I think they are still like what, the second or third youngest team in the league. That team should grow and get better.
Not real solid reasons why I think the Packers have an edge. A slight edge mind you, but still an edge.

I don't think you have to worry much about Jared Allen, part of the problem was that he owned a bar in KC and obviously went there quite often. He has now sold it and is out of that environment, obviously not a guarantee that he will be perfect, but a good start.
Jackson is obviously the big question mark on the Vikings, but then why isn't Rodgers just as big, if not bigger question mark (for play, not health) considering he has next to no experience and you have no idea what kind of QB he could be. I just don't get why people assume that Rodgers will be a better QB.

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Bryan88

I don't think you have to worry much about Jared Allen, part of the problem was that he owned a bar in KC and obviously went there quite often. He has now sold it and is out of that environment, obviously not a guarantee that he will be perfect, but a good start.
Jackson is obviously the big question mark on the Vikings, but then why isn't Rodgers just as big, if not bigger question mark (for play, not health) considering he has next to no experience and you have no idea what kind of QB he could be. I just don't get why people assume that Rodgers will be a better QB.

Because the times he did play, he looked better than Jackson who has more experience.

[Bryan88]

Originally Posted by Bette

Because the times he did play, he looked better than Jackson who has more experience.

Actually he looked terrible the two years before last year, having QB ratings of 39.8 and 48.2... that is really really bad! This year he had one good game, the only game he played any kind of significance in. I can go back to last year and find a few games where Jackson played just as good. So you are saying that he will indeed be a good QB based on one game? I still don't know how people can say for sure that Rodgers will be the better QB. He is a huge question mark, bigger than Jackson IMO.

[Bleedin Purple]

Just like movie reviews, I dont listen to football predictions. Especially from sources that put the Bears over the Vikings. Now thats a joke.

I agree that the Packers and Vikings will be fighting for first. But it really comes down to the QB play, and I will take Jackson over Rogers just because he has more play time. With the Vikings juiced up roster, I expect them to take the NFC North.

Vikings 11-5
Packers 10-6
Bears 7-9
Lions 6-10

[Dusty]

For arguments sake lets say Rodgers and Jackson are equal. Then ok we have to give the running attack to the Vikes but the defense to the Pack. I'll give the Packers the edge because of their strong defense and I see a lot of Ryan Grant this year to take the pressure off Aaron Rodgers, same with Peterson to take the pressure off Jackson.

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Bryan88

Actually he looked terrible the two years before last year, having QB ratings of 39.8 and 48.2... that is really really bad! This year he had one good game, the only game he played any kind of significance in. I can go back to last year and find a few games where Jackson played just as good. So you are saying that he will indeed be a good QB based on one game? I still don't know how people can say for sure that Rodgers will be the better QB. He is a huge question mark, bigger than Jackson IMO.

Right, his first year he had 39.8 with 2 fumbles and 2 lost, not good
the second year he had a 48.2 with 1 fumble, 1 lost, not great but better than the first
Last year he had a 106 with no fumbles, and no lost pretty darn good
He kept getting better. It seems Jackson is still struggling. I'll let you dig up his numbers.
The one game he was in was against Dallas last year and he looked pretty darn good to me, good enough that I was thinking if he would have had more time he might have won that game(and I would have been hiding my head in shame instead of laughing with glee)Dallas had a pretty good D last year in October so its not like he didnt get backed up against the wall.
Mind you the edge I am giving him is very very slight, because as you say he just hasnt had much experience.

[bears9]

My heart tells me to pick the Bears, but my head says take the Vikings.

Vikings 10-6
Packers 8-8
Bears 8-8
Lions 3-13

[Seahawker 562]

I think Athlon made the right prediction. A lot of people think the pack are going to have a terrible season bacause they lost favre. I dont think its true at all.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Seahawker 562

I think Athlon made the right prediction. A lot of people think the pack are going to have a terrible season bacause they lost favre. I dont think its true at all.

Why not? See, that's what I keep asking people, but I haven't heard a good answer yet. Why such faith in the Packers sans Favre?