thisotherkingdom Wrote:
cmanhatan4 Wrote:
Do not bank on the Bears. They will definitely not be good. They won't make the playoffs even in the perilously shitty NFC. Even if their defense is God and Ditka gets resurrected the Bears will find a way to choke.
The Lions will be good again sooner than the Bears...it's surging offenses that are more quickly rewarded in today's NFL. Yes, defense wins championships, but some quick offensive firepower puts you back on the map.
Quote:
Okay, so let me get this straight. You'd rather be put back on the map"with a little offensive flash than actually win a championship?
No, I'm just saying that b/c the Lions have more quick potential in their offense they have more of an ability to have a good record sooner than the Bears. A team with a better defense has better long term prospects, and therefore better eventual championship prospects, but it takes a longer time to really get a good defense together and humming.
A lot of teams (Colts, Packers, Vikings, Chiefs) have proven that with just a solid offense you can win and play exciting games and end up in a playoff hunt. I'm not saying this is what I want for teams that I love, just this is what happens in today's NFL.
Quote:
And what do the Lions have exactly? And inconsistant, nearly ready to be proclaimed bust in Joey Harrington. A #1 pick in Charles Rogers, who's been in the league two years and has only managed to not be injured for what? Two games? Then you have Roy Williams who has a lot of promise, but is probably a year or two off from developing fully. What'd he have, 3 dropped passes yesterday? And we're talking about balls that were hitting him in the numbers, not all-pro catches.
Then you have Kevin Jones who looks like he's going to be a pretty good back in this league. So out of your four offensive "stars," looks like only one is going to pan out. It'll take 2 - 4 years to solidify a defense, so I don't know where your high hopes for the Lions is coming from.
Well when you put it that way, sure it sounds bad. I think it would be very easy for the Lions to have a year or two when all four of these guys manage to put together a decent year and they finish above 500, especially in the near future after Favre retires. They have that flash-in-the-pan potential that won't translate into championships, but maybe a year or two of respectability.
Quote:
As far as the Bears, their offense was ranked 10th in total yards and 11th in first downs before Rex Grossman went down. And their D is already in place, and signed through 2008. The Bears will be play-off bound next year, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Well that's bold talk which I don't think can be right. Let's just agree that they are not going to win that division...no matter how bad it is. Either the Packers or Vikings will win it next year and if any two teams from that division are going to be in the playoffs it will be those two teams. The Bears would have to squeak in as a wild card (which yes, wouldn't be hard in the NFC) but they won't be able to do that. 3 teams from the NFC North will not be in the playoffs next year.
So far you've offered up exactly no real analysis as to
why you don't think a completely healthy Bears team can compete. They have a top two-three defense in the conference when they are completely healthy (which they have not been all season). Even without Brown or Tillman, when Urlacher started, they didn't lose for four straight games, just because of his presence in the middle. And he's not even the best linebacker on that team.
Why would the Packers or Vikings win next year, necessarily? Both return TERRIBLE defenses and both will do little to address them this offseason. The Vikings SUCK on defense. Additionally, they self-destruct year after year because they lack leadership on or off the field and because they lack a winning, team attitude. As long as it's Culpepper to Moss, the Vikings will never even sniff the super bowl. Culpepper is a great player, and so is Moss, but they lack diversity in their playbook and they also lack the ability to play in real weather.
The Packers have Favre and Green and NO DEFENSE WHATSOEVER and they will probably lose early in the playoffs, just like they did last year. The Pack fattened up on bad teams during the middle part of their schedule and they are tremendously overvalued.
Last year Carolina went to the Superbowl with a functional offense and a dominating, ferocious defense. 4 years ago the Ravens set that blueprint. Remember when the Bucs won? It was a dominating DEFENSE that won them the superbowl too. The Patriots DEFENSE has always been their anchor, especially in both of their super bowl wins. Only this year, with the addition of a real back in Dillon can you argue that they actually have acheived balance as far as offense vs. defense goes.
The only team to have a flashy offense and no real defense that won the superbowl recently was the 1999 Rams, and that was a total fluke. Look back every year for the past 20 and I'll bet that 15 or more of the super bowl victors had top 7-8 defenses.
Sorry, but your theory about flashy offenses being a benchmark for contending teams is pretty far off as far as the data goes. Having a suspect defense is exactly why the Kansas City Chiefs will never make the Super Bowl, much less a Conference Championship (much less the playoffs this year for that matter). Lack of defense is what keeps teams like the Colts from ever reaching the promised land. Manning will NEVER EVER WIN A SUPER BOWL with that defensive 11. Defense wins championships. It's not just a cliche.
