Larry Foote signs with Detroit

[defiantgiant]

Can't say I go that far. While I want, in theory, our division to be solid, I just can not root for the other division teams. When they play Dallas, it is close, but still can't do it.

 

Some around here have asked me who I root for when two teams like GB and Minny play. My response is Al-Quada.

 

I should amend that, I guess. I really never root for the Vikings, but I don't mind if the Packers win, so long as it doesn't impact the Bears' chances at the postseason. Definitely if it's Packers-Vikings, I'm rooting for the Packers - I don't think I hate any other team as much as Minnesota.

[defiantgiant]

Saying things are "possible" is saying virtually nothing. Barring the laws of nature, anything is possible. Tell me it's probable or improbable, and the argument has room for discussion.

 

Well, for what it's worth, I think it's probable that the Lions will make a significant turnaround. If you look at the Falcons' and Dolphins' 2007 rosters, they had more talent than the 2008 Lions, but not by a whole lot. Starting the next offseason, both teams added some solid contributors in the draft and free agency (Matt Ryan and Michael Turner on the Falcons, Chad Pennington and Jake Long on the Dolphins.) Basically, they were adding guys who would be good, dependable starters, if unspectacular. Pennington's not going to light up defenses, but he makes very few mistakes. Turner's not a real home-run threat, but he's a reliable power runner who can get you first downs. You need reliable, consistent, predictable starters for a winning team, and that's what Parcells and Dimitroff targeted. That's exactly what turned them into decent teams, and (on defense, at least,) Jim Schwartz is doing the same thing for the Lions. He's put together a veteran defense that will get it done; even if it's not spectacular, he's brought in guys who proved with their previous teams that they can be depended on.

 

The offense, though, makes me think the Lions are further away than either the Dolphins or the Falcons. Both the Falcons and the Dolphins ran conservative, run-heavy offenses. That's a great way to win some games without high-priced offensive talent: get a pretty good running back like Turner or Ronnie Brown, build the o-line up, and just ask your QB not to make mistakes. Rely on your defense to get it done, like the Bears did when Orton was starting in 2005. They stripped the playbook down, ran the ball a huge amount, played tight defense, and they got 10 wins out of a rookie QB. But the Bears, Dolphins, and Falcons had productive, consistent offensive lines to make that possible.

 

I'm not convinced that the Lions have a solid o-line yet. They're at LEAST a left tackle away. And they don't have a caretaker at QB, since Stafford's unproven and Culpepper is hardly mistake-free. Until they get their offensive line together and have a dependable passer, I'm not going to be that worried about them as a threat.

 

I think, however, that based on what Schwartz has done for the defense, it's very probable that they'll be a decent, six- to eight-win team this year; for that to happen, they'll only need one or two positions solidified on offense. Even if the line doesn't gel and nobody steps up at QB, I think it's almost certain that they win 3 or 4 games. Right now they look good enough to beat the Rams, Browns, Niners, and maybe the Bengals. None of those teams have a corner good enough to contain Calvin Johnson, and none of them except the Bengals have a settled QB-receiver connection. The Niners and Rams do have good running backs, but the Lions' linebackers should be able to stack the box, since neither team looks like a major threat in the passing game. The Rams have a good QB, but no real proven wideouts. The Niners have a couple of very good receivers, but a major question mark under center. The Browns, meanwhile, have a dropsy Braylon Edwards, a question mark at QB, and an aging Jamal Lewis running the ball. The Bengals have Carson Palmer-to-Ocho Cinco, but they've got Cedric Benson as their starting RB. I'd bet on the Lions defense to contain all those offenses pretty well.

 

Now, if Detroit can get their offense together, I can see them going anywhere from 6-10 to 8-8. If they can get the ball to Calvin Johnson consistently, they could steal one from the Skins or the Packers, maybe from a couple of the other teams on their schedule. I mean, Johnson put up 1300 yards and 12 touchdowns last season while the Lions went through like four QBs and traded Roy Williams midseason. If they can solidify things to the point where they can execute consistently, Johnson alone makes that a pretty good offense.

 

Anyway, I'm just glad they're improving for the sake of the NFC North. It's no fun having a three-team division, and I always like to watch teams turn it around. I was hardly watching the Bears-Lions games last year, because they were such a foregone conclusion. If the Lions are decent, we get two exciting games instead of two boring ones.

[madlithuanian]

Now we have room for discussion!

 

I guess, my first question to you is...what is "significant"? a 6-10 season from a winless one could be significant. That's a 600% increase in wins. (At least I htink unless there's a statistician out there that says you can't determinte that feom zero!)

 

I've stated earlier that I expect improvement, just not a drastic one. Other than a few names on D, there's not much on O other than Calvin that makes me have any fear of them. You basically state that as well. Some like pointing out Atlanta and Miami. And the excpetions make the news. But in the meantime, a vast majority of poor teams continue to do poorly.

 

Personally, I don't want any of our division foes to be good. If they all went 3-13, I'd be stoked. But I also realize that the better they are, in turn the better the Bears will be. But as the old ancient Chinese curse (not directed at you, just as a point of reference) implies, "May you live in interesting times." I'd rather have a boring game we win than an exciting one we lose.

 

 

 

Well, for what it's worth, I think it's probable that the Lions will make a significant turnaround. If you look at the Falcons' and Dolphins' 2007 rosters, they had more talent than the 2008 Lions, but not by a whole lot. Starting the next offseason, both teams added some solid contributors in the draft and free agency (Matt Ryan and Michael Turner on the Falcons, Chad Pennington and Jake Long on the Dolphins.) Basically, they were adding guys who would be good, dependable starters, if unspectacular. Pennington's not going to light up defenses, but he makes very few mistakes. Turner's not a real home-run threat, but he's a reliable power runner who can get you first downs. You need reliable, consistent, predictable starters for a winning team, and that's what Parcells and Dimitroff targeted. That's exactly what turned them into decent teams, and (on defense, at least,) Jim Schwartz is doing the same thing for the Lions. He's put together a veteran defense that will get it done; even if it's not spectacular, he's brought in guys who proved with their previous teams that they can be depended on.

 

The offense, though, makes me think the Lions are further away than either the Dolphins or the Falcons. Both the Falcons and the Dolphins ran conservative, run-heavy offenses. That's a great way to win some games without high-priced offensive talent: get a pretty good running back like Turner or Ronnie Brown, build the o-line up, and just ask your QB not to make mistakes. Rely on your defense to get it done, like the Bears did when Orton was starting in 2005. They stripped the playbook down, ran the ball a huge amount, played tight defense, and they got 10 wins out of a rookie QB. But the Bears, Dolphins, and Falcons had productive, consistent offensive lines to make that possible.

 

I'm not convinced that the Lions have a solid o-line yet. They're at LEAST a left tackle away. And they don't have a caretaker at QB, since Stafford's unproven and Culpepper is hardly mistake-free. Until they get their offensive line together and have a dependable passer, I'm not going to be that worried about them as a threat.

 

I think, however, that based on what Schwartz has done for the defense, it's very probable that they'll be a decent, six- to eight-win team this year; for that to happen, they'll only need one or two positions solidified on offense. Even if the line doesn't gel and nobody steps up at QB, I think it's almost certain that they win 3 or 4 games. Right now they look good enough to beat the Rams, Browns, Niners, and maybe the Bengals. None of those teams have a corner good enough to contain Calvin Johnson, and none of them except the Bengals have a settled QB-receiver connection. The Niners and Rams do have good running backs, but the Lions' linebackers should be able to stack the box, since neither team looks like a major threat in the passing game. The Rams have a good QB, but no real proven wideouts. The Niners have a couple of very good receivers, but a major question mark under center. The Browns, meanwhile, have a dropsy Braylon Edwards, a question mark at QB, and an aging Jamal Lewis running the ball. The Bengals have Carson Palmer-to-Ocho Cinco, but they've got Cedric Benson as their starting RB. I'd bet on the Lions defense to contain all those offenses pretty well.

 

Now, if Detroit can get their offense together, I can see them going anywhere from 6-10 to 8-8. If they can get the ball to Calvin Johnson consistently, they could steal one from the Skins or the Packers, maybe from a couple of the other teams on their schedule. I mean, Johnson put up 1300 yards and 12 touchdowns last season while the Lions went through like four QBs and traded Roy Williams midseason. If they can solidify things to the point where they can execute consistently, Johnson alone makes that a pretty good offense.

 

Anyway, I'm just glad they're improving for the sake of the NFC North. It's no fun having a three-team division, and I always like to watch teams turn it around. I was hardly watching the Bears-Lions games last year, because they were such a foregone conclusion. If the Lions are decent, we get two exciting games instead of two boring ones.

[defiantgiant]

Now we have room for discussion!

 

I guess, my first question to you is...what is "significant"? a 6-10 season from a winless one could be significant. That's a 600% increase in wins. (At least I htink unless there's a statistician out there that says you can't determinte that feom zero!)

 

Yeah, that's along the lines of what I was thinking: If the Lions win six or seven games, that's a significant improvement. The Falcons went from 4-12 to 11-5 between 2007 and 2008; I'd call that 'significant' as well. The Lions are starting lower, so 6-10 or 7-9 is a comparable jump. Really, I would be VERY impressed with Jim Schwartz if they made it to .500 in 2009.

 

I've stated earlier that I expect improvement, just not a drastic one. Other than a few names on D, there's not much on O other than Calvin that makes me have any fear of them. You basically state that as well. Some like pointing out Atlanta and Miami. And the excpetions make the news. But in the meantime, a vast majority of poor teams continue to do poorly.

 

I agree, for the most part. I think their receiving corps took a step backward with the Roy Williams trade (although they robbed the Cowboys for him) and Stafford probably won't be a threat until 2010. Pettigrew gives a giant boost to their running game, though, and should help Cherilus perform much better, too. Kevin Smith was already doing well, he could really break out running behind Cherilus and Pettigrew.

 

I know that there are a lot of bad teams that continue to perform badly, but most bad teams don't undergo the sort of wholesale regime and roster changes that the Falcons, Dolphins, and Lions did. All three of them got new head coaches, new coordinators, new general managers, and had a large amount of roster turnover. There aren't a lot of perennial losers doing that every single offseason.

 

Personally, I don't want any of our division foes to be good. If they all went 3-13, I'd be stoked. But I also realize that the better they are, in turn the better the Bears will be. But as the old ancient Chinese curse (not directed at you, just as a point of reference) implies, "May you live in interesting times." I'd rather have a boring game we win than an exciting one we lose.

 

Difference of opinion, I suppose. Obviously I don't want the Bears to lose any games, but I'd WAY rather come up with a win against a great team than stomp on a crappy one. Seems more significant. I can understand the opposing view, though.

[lemonej]

C'mon...are you saying that Parcells had no impact on those teams and that you didn't expect him to trranslate well into management?

 

Parcells took both the Cowboys and Jets into the playoffs. Both were abyssmal when he came into town. I give Sporano mass credit, but unless you know otherwise for certain, I think credit deserves to go to Parcells as well. Who hired Sporano? Who helped bring in the players? And let's not forget that he turned NE into a contender from being a laughing stock.

 

Atlanta is the exception that makes the rule.

 

Saying things are "possible" is saying virtually nothing. Barring the laws of nature, anything is possible. Tell me it's probable or improbable, and the argument has room for discussion.

 

All I'm saying is that Parcells has a winning way to him and turns horrid situations into good to decent ones. Name one guy on the Lions management or coaching staff that has done the same? (Their GM, Mayhew is from the previous regime and no experience elsewhere & Schwatrz has a good pedigree but hasn't really done anything yet.) Until they prove otherwise, I have no reason to expect them to turn it around, and especially fast. In 2 years, depending on what we see this season, maybe. But I do not expect a miracle turnaround for the Detroit Lions.

Just so you know where I stand I hope you are absolutely right. I hope that the whole division sucks but I know with the talent that the Vikings have and "May" acquire they are a playoff caliber team. Parcells aside what I'm saying is that this team could rise up since it seems everyone in our division has what is deemed an easy schedule. I also think the Lions have acquired some decent talent that can compete if the games are not shoot outs. History tells us otherwise but this new mediocre NFL tells me they could make the playoffs with the right bounce of the ball.

 

Now lets talk about Parcells, his rise to prominence came in the mid to late 80's as the coach of the New York Giants who had George Young as his GM. That is who acquired talent for him in his successful years there. He also had a certain young defensive coordinator named Belechick who handled that championship caliber defense. His next stop was at New England where he got his first shot at "Buying the Groceries" and coaching he picked some nice players but made it to the Super Bowl only to lose to the Packers. He leaves that franchise and goes to New York but this time his safety net doesn't go with him and he names Al Groh his coach and he bolted after a short tenure for Virginia where he seems to be producing some decent NFL talent. He leaves that job in a huff and does the analyst thing for a year and then joins Dallas with the idea that he was going to be running the show but we all know that Jimmy Johnson showed us that isn't the case with the Cowboys. He leaves that job in a huff and now he is with the Dolphins and in their first year they had big success just like the Cowboys did their first year under his tenure and now is when we will know if he can sustain some success. Bill Parcells is following the same path that a lot of the former Super Bowl winning coaches have gone down moderate success as talent evaluators but nothing sustained enough to win Super Bowls. Guys like him, Holmgren,Ditka and Shanahan all seem to think they are directly responsible for team success and we all know that the players decide things and that acquiring players takes some skill but a lot of luck. No matter how hyped up Parcells is as a talent evaluator, the talent he has acquire over the years have made it to one Super Bowl the same as Jerry Angelo.

[madlithuanian]

I hear you...

 

Bottom line, I don't view them as a legit threat this coming season.

[madlithuanian]

I just don't see the Lions as a legit threat to make the playoffs. They'd basically have to win the division. And with us and the great Favre returning sometime in June or July to Minny, I just don't see it. Not this year at least. Atlanta had help be being in a lousy division. The NFC north is not all that lousy. I think they've made huge steps in the right direction to improve. But history has tuaght me one thing w/ the Lions, don't believe it until you see it.

 

Sounds like youmight have a bit of a dislike for Parcells! We all really know that it takes the entire program to make teams great. Management, coaching, and players. However, certain ones of those 3 can make poorer teams the better. I think Parcells is one of those. He's never relpicated what he did in NYG...but what coach has? Reeves went to the SB w/ Denver then w/ Atl. Everytime getting his ass kicked. Holmgren is closer having gone to 2 and won one. He's also another good one. These guys get more out of less. Keep in mind, I'm judgin Parcells on everything, coach and talent evaluator. I'm sure he had some input while in NYG... For me, I see a coach and manager that had vastly improved the team he was brought on board to improve. I fully expect him to leave Miami sometime soon, and do it again elsewhere.

 

Just so you know where I stand I hope you are absolutely right. I hope that the whole division sucks but I know with the talent that the Vikings have and "May" acquire they are a playoff caliber team. Parcells aside what I'm saying is that this team could rise up since it seems everyone in our division has what is deemed an easy schedule. I also think the Lions have acquired some decent talent that can compete if the games are not shoot outs. History tells us otherwise but this new mediocre NFL tells me they could make the playoffs with the right bounce of the ball.

 

Now lets talk about Parcells, his rise to prominence came in the mid to late 80's as the coach of the New York Giants who had George Young as his GM. That is who acquired talent for him in his successful years there. He also had a certain young defensive coordinator named Belechick who handled that championship caliber defense. His next stop was at New England where he got his first shot at "Buying the Groceries" and coaching he picked some nice players but made it to the Super Bowl only to lose to the Packers. He leaves that franchise and goes to New York but this time his safety net doesn't go with him and he names Al Groh his coach and he bolted after a short tenure for Virginia where he seems to be producing some decent NFL talent. He leaves that job in a huff and does the analyst thing for a year and then joins Dallas with the idea that he was going to be running the show but we all know that Jimmy Johnson showed us that isn't the case with the Cowboys. He leaves that job in a huff and now he is with the Dolphins and in their first year they had big success just like the Cowboys did their first year under his tenure and now is when we will know if he can sustain some success. Bill Parcells is following the same path that a lot of the former Super Bowl winning coaches have gone down moderate success as talent evaluators but nothing sustained enough to win Super Bowls. Guys like him, Holmgren,Ditka and Shanahan all seem to think they are directly responsible for team success and we all know that the players decide things and that acquiring players takes some skill but a lot of luck. No matter how hyped up Parcells is as a talent evaluator, the talent he has acquire over the years have made it to one Super Bowl the same as Jerry Angelo.

[defiantgiant]

I just don't see the Lions as a legit threat to make the playoffs. They'd basically have to win the division. And with us and the great Favre returning sometime in June or July to Minny, I just don't see it. Not this year at least. Atlanta had help be being in a lousy division. The NFC north is not all that lousy. I think they've made huge steps in the right direction to improve. But history has tuaght me one thing w/ the Lions, don't believe it until you see it.

 

Are you serious? The NFC South was a war zone in 2008. They were miles better than the North. The worst team in the division, the Saints, went 8-8. Two teams from that division went to the playoffs, and the team that knocked them both out (the Cards) went to the Super Bowl. Check out the 2008 NFC South season:

 

1st Place: Carolina Panthers, 12-4 (8-2 out-of-division), playoff appearance, eliminated by Arizona

2nd Place: Atlanta Falcons, 11-5, (8-2 OOD), playoff appearance, eliminated by Arizona

3rd Place: Tampa Bay Bucs, 9-7 (6-4 OOD), missed playoffs

4th Place: New Orleans Saints, 8-8 (6-4 OOD), missed playoffs

 

Put together, the NFC South went 28-12 against the rest of the NFL. That's ridiculous. Compare that to our NFC North:

 

1st Place: Minnesota Vikings, 10-6 (6-4 OOD), playoff appearance, eliminated by Philadelphia

2nd Place: Chicago Bears, 9-7 (5-5 OOD), missed playoffs

3rd Place: Green Bay Packers, 6-10 (2-8 OOD), missed playoffs

4th Place: Detroit Lions, 0-16 (0-10 OOD), missed playoffs

 

Our division went 13-27 against the rest of the NFL. Even if you don't take Detroit into account, we weren't even close to the NFC South.

 

Now compare the NFC South to the NFC East, which we all know is a powerhouse division:

 

1st Place: New York Giants, 12-4 (8-2 OOD), playoff appearance, eliminated by Philadelphia

2nd Place: Philadelphia Eagles, 9-6-1 (7-2-1 OOD), two playoff wins, eliminated by Arizona

3rd Place: Dallas Cowboys, 9-7 (6-4 OOD), missed playoffs

4th Place: Washington Redskins, 8-8 (5-5 OOD), missed playoffs

 

The East's record and the South's are EXTREMELY close. The NFC East actually had a worse record (26-13-1) against out-of-division opponents, and their teams had marginally worse regular season records overall. The two divisions each sent two teams to the playoffs, but the Eagles got a couple of wins before they lost to the Cards, who also took out both NFC South teams.

 

You could argue that the NFC South did better than the NFC East in 2008; even if you don't think that's totally true, there's no way you can say they're a lousy division. They were the second-best division in football, if not the best, this year. As much as I love the NFC North, there's no way we were a stronger division than the South in 2008. Not even close.

[madlithuanian]

Points well made. I stand corrected that Atlanta was in a lousy division. My memory of the Bucs choking was a bit too accentuated in my twisted mind. But right now, as it stands, our division is not that lousy. I think it's a stronger division than last season easily given Rogers' continued experience, the addition of Cutler, the defensive moves by the Lions and the eventual addition of Favre. Sure Atlanta won a lot, but again, I submit that the exception makes the rule.

 

Botton line, you will never sell me that the Lions, this season as their team stands right now, are a threat for the division. Like I mentioned earlier, anything within the laws of nature is possible, just not probable. Vegas usually isn't horrifically off... And the Lions are dirt bottom, as Atlanta was too. But something tells me you won't bet your life savings on that.

 

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/futures/

 

ODDS TO WIN THE 2009-10 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP

Team Open Current

New York Giants 4/1 4/1

Dallas Cowboys 5/1 5/1

Minnesota Vikings 11/1 6/1

Carolina Panthers 11/2 6/1

Philadelphia Eagles 6/1 6/1

Chicago Bears 14/1 7/1

Arizona Cardinals 15/2 15/2

Atlanta Falcons 8/1 8/1

Green Bay Packers 10/1 8/1

Washington Redskins 12/1 8/1

New Orleans Saints 10/1 10/1

Seattle Seahawks 30/1 15/1

San Francisco 49ers 22/1 16/1

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 17/1 16/1

St. Louis Rams 50/1 40/1

Detroit Lions 75/1 50/1

 

 

 

 

 

Are you serious? The NFC South was a war zone in 2008. They were miles better than the North. The worst team in the division, the Saints, went 8-8. Two teams from that division went to the playoffs, and the team that knocked them both out (the Cards) went to the Super Bowl. Check out the 2008 NFC South season:

 

1st Place: Carolina Panthers, 12-4 (8-2 out-of-division), playoff appearance, eliminated by Arizona

2nd Place: Atlanta Falcons, 11-5, (8-2 OOD), playoff appearance, eliminated by Arizona

3rd Place: Tampa Bay Bucs, 9-7 (6-4 OOD), missed playoffs

4th Place: New Orleans Saints, 8-8 (6-4 OOD), missed playoffs

 

Put together, the NFC South went 28-12 against the rest of the NFL. That's ridiculous. Compare that to our NFC North:

 

1st Place: Minnesota Vikings, 10-6 (6-4 OOD), playoff appearance, eliminated by Philadelphia

2nd Place: Chicago Bears, 9-7 (5-5 OOD), missed playoffs

3rd Place: Green Bay Packers, 6-10 (2-8 OOD), missed playoffs

4th Place: Detroit Lions, 0-16 (0-10 OOD), missed playoffs

 

Our division went 13-27 against the rest of the NFL. Even if you don't take Detroit into account, we weren't even close to the NFC South.

 

Now compare the NFC South to the NFC East, which we all know is a powerhouse division:

 

1st Place: New York Giants, 12-4 (8-2 OOD), playoff appearance, eliminated by Philadelphia

2nd Place: Philadelphia Eagles, 9-6-1 (7-2-1 OOD), two playoff wins, eliminated by Arizona

3rd Place: Dallas Cowboys, 9-7 (6-4 OOD), missed playoffs

4th Place: Washington Redskins, 8-8 (5-5 OOD), missed playoffs

 

The East's record and the South's are EXTREMELY close. The NFC East actually had a worse record (26-13-1) against out-of-division opponents, and their teams had marginally worse regular season records overall. The two divisions each sent two teams to the playoffs, but the Eagles got a couple of wins before they lost to the Cards, who also took out both NFC South teams.

 

You could argue that the NFC South did better than the NFC East in 2008; even if you don't think that's totally true, there's no way you can say they're a lousy division. They were the second-best division in football, if not the best, this year. As much as I love the NFC North, there's no way we were a stronger division than the South in 2008. Not even close.

['TD']

Points well made. I stand corrected that Atlanta was in a lousy division. My memory of the Bucs choking was a bit too accentuated in my twisted mind. But right now, as it stands, our division is not that lousy. I think it's a stronger division than last season easily given Rogers' continued experience, the addition of Cutler, the defensive moves by the Lions and the eventual addition of Favre. Sure Atlanta won a lot, but again, I submit that the exception makes the rule.

 

Botton line, you will never sell me that the Lions, this season as their team stands right now, are a threat for the division. Like I mentioned earlier, anything within the laws of nature is possible, just not probable. Vegas usually isn't horrifically off... And the Lions are dirt bottom, as Atlanta was too. But something tells me you won't bet your life savings on that.

 

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/futures/

 

ODDS TO WIN THE 2009-10 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP

Team Open Current

New York Giants 4/1 4/1

Dallas Cowboys 5/1 5/1

Minnesota Vikings 11/1 6/1

Carolina Panthers 11/2 6/1

Philadelphia Eagles 6/1 6/1

Chicago Bears 14/1 7/1

Arizona Cardinals 15/2 15/2

Atlanta Falcons 8/1 8/1

Green Bay Packers 10/1 8/1

Washington Redskins 12/1 8/1

New Orleans Saints 10/1 10/1

Seattle Seahawks 30/1 15/1

San Francisco 49ers 22/1 16/1

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 17/1 16/1

St. Louis Rams 50/1 40/1

Detroit Lions 75/1 50/1

I agree whith alot of what you said, but you can't really go on vegas odds on anything. They just go on how people will bet. Bigger markets such as new york or dallas "america's team" will have more faith in their team, and more likely bet on them then say green bay. Atleast they have more fans to. I'd hate to see what the Bills odds are but they are probably a lot better team then other teams with better odds.

 

The Bears chances all lay on Lovie this year. I'm not saying that because he is the head coach, but because he took over the DC job this year. If he can get out of this defense what Rivera did, then this team will be a threat. If no, the addition of Cutler will not matter, atleast for this year.

[madlithuanian]

I hear ya. Vegas is just what you say. But I used it as just another point that Detroit isn't all that. At least yet.

 

Yeah, I agree. Lovie will be the reason we win or lose this season. We'll see if he's worth his price.

 

I agree whith alot of what you said, but you can't really go on vegas odds on anything. They just go on how people will bet. Bigger markets such as new york or dallas "america's team" will have more faith in their team, and more likely bet on them then say green bay. Atleast they have more fans to. I'd hate to see what the Bills odds are but they are probably a lot better team then other teams with better odds.

 

The Bears chances all lay on Lovie this year. I'm not saying that because he is the head coach, but because he took over the DC job this year. If he can get out of this defense what Rivera did, then this team will be a threat. If no, the addition of Cutler will not matter, atleast for this year.

[lemonej]

I hear ya. Vegas is just what you say. But I used it as just another point that Detroit isn't all that. At least yet.

 

Yeah, I agree. Lovie will be the reason we win or lose this season. We'll see if he's worth his price.

Mad L I got to say I like how you stick to your guns but using your Vegas analogy, what do you think the odds were for Arizona winning the NFC and the Dolphins winning the AFC East last season? I would guess that they were similar to what Detroits odds are for winning the Super Bowl.

 

Add Turner to Lovie and we can agree they both are on display. We just added to this team the best QB that he has ever coached.

 

For the record I don't like Parcells or anyone from his tree because they all seem to think they are genuises.

[madlithuanian]

 

Quite true! My freind actually had picked Atlanta as a lark on a Vegas trip and was rooting like crazy in the playoffs for his $5 to turn into $1,000! I made a little loot myself in 2000 when I picked the Ravens. It does happen...just not that often I don't think.

 

I really didn't think of Turner...and you are 100% correct. Heck, this entrie coaching staff got the keys to the new car, now if they can't win the race w/ s supdr-up Porsche, it's time to bring in a better driving team!

 

I can understand your dislike of the Parcells tree. I'm not a big fan...I just respect what they've done for the most part. And somewhat jelous that we've never had a coaching tree come from the Bears. The wrong branches broke off...

 

Mad L I got to say I like how you stick to your guns but using your Vegas analogy, what do you think the odds were for Arizona winning the NFC and the Dolphins winning the AFC East last season? I would guess that they were similar to what Detroits odds are for winning the Super Bowl.

 

Add Turner to Lovie and we can agree they both are on display. We just added to this team the best QB that he has ever coached.

 

For the record I don't like Parcells or anyone from his tree because they all seem to think they are genuises.