azbearsfan Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Interesting... Very interesting indeed. I did a search to see if I could find other rankings posted after the draft that were reflecting moves the Bears have made. They were tough to find. Prisco of CBS (what a jerk, IMO) has us as 14th. CBS Power Rankings WalterFootball.com (a site I really like) has us at 7th. Walterfootball.com Power Rankings The thing I love about these 2 sets of rankings as well as the one you posted is that all 3 have us above MIN & GBP and of course, DET. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Peter King hit on the point that the Bears had some pretty good underlying stats, and if I remember correctly we lost 3 early games by 3 points or less. So that 9-7 could've easily been 12-4. I think that 11 wins is probably around the target for this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Very interesting indeed. I did a search to see if I could find other rankings posted after the draft that were reflecting moves the Bears have made. They were tough to find. Prisco of CBS (what a jerk, IMO) has us as 14th. CBS Power Rankings WalterFootball.com (a site I really like) has us at 7th. Walterfootball.com Power Rankings The thing I love about these 2 sets of rankings as well as the one you posted is that all 3 have us above MIN & GBP and of course, DET. I saw King's rankings this morning, and I think 4th is a little nuts. In his take on the Giants, he points out that "no team ever rides the backs of one or two rookie receivers to the Super Bowl" - yet the Bears are going to be doing exactly that with Iglesias, Knox, and Bennett (who's functionally a rookie after his zero catches in '08.) If his rankings are supposed to correspond to eventual standings, he's putting the Bears and the Giants in the NFC championship game: both teams will be leaning heavily on rookie receivers and one of those two has to make it to the Super Bowl. If that's true, he's contradicting himself. Also, he says the Titans are good enough to win the AFC South, but he's got the Colts ranked above them. Either he's counting on a bunch of upsets or somebody isn't proofreading very well. Seriously, I love the Bears, but he's got us ranked above Arizona, Philly, and Atlanta? Those are all dangerous teams, and every one of them has an elite passing attack; I'm very hesitant to rank us above three teams that can throw the ball like the Cards, Eagles, and Falcons can. I'm not saying we won't finish better than one of them, but I'd be surprised if we did better than all three. If it were me, I'd probably put us ahead of Atlanta (given their problems on defense,) but behind Arizona and Philly. I think the Walter Football rankings are a little more realistic - I could see the Bears at #7, although I would probably switch the Eagles and the Ravens. Philly had a fantastic offseason: they got another bona fide receiver in Maclin, a short-yardage back in Leonard Weaver, a receiving tight end in Ingram, and a capable backup for Westbrook in McCoy. On top of that, they rebuilt their o-line, getting younger and more talented at the same time. On paper, the line they've got now has the potential to be one of the top 3 in the league. McNabb has to be happy: every weak spot in their offense from last year has been shored up admirably. Baltimore, meanwhile, lost Rex Ryan and some key defenders, not to mention that they failed to upgrade at receiver opposite Derrick Mason. They're still good, but I don't think they're better than Philly or Chicago. Anyway, even if #4 is a stretch, I can see us at #7. Either way, I think we're winning the NFC North and making it to the playoffs this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Peter King hit on the point that the Bears had some pretty good underlying stats, and if I remember correctly we lost 3 early games by 3 points or less. So that 9-7 could've easily been 12-4. I think that 11 wins is probably around the target for this year. I was actually thinking that those stats were kind of misleading. Our yards-per-pass-play was low, but we allowed an average of over 241 passing yards a game, 30th in the league. The average play was short because we were consistently allowing short completions all game, every game. Since Babich was stacking all three linebackers in the box (which is why our yards-per-rush was low) and playing the corners 10 yards deep, we left short passing zones completely undefended. The fact that the individual gains were so small and the total yards were so high is a testament to how often the Bears allowed completions and how completely Babich failed to adjust. Opposing teams in 2008 attempted 622 passes against Chicago, that's a league-high figure. Only one other team, the Chargers, got thrown on more than 600 times. The 2008 Bears were stacking the box nearly every down and blitzing more than any other team in the league while still ranking close to the bottom in sacks and QB pressures. Opposing teams could attempt short-to-intermediate passes at will, because we never adjusted to defend against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I saw King's rankings this morning, and I think 4th is a little nuts. In his take on the Giants, he points out that "no team ever rides the backs of one or two rookie receivers to the Super Bowl" - yet the Bears are going to be doing exactly that with Iglesias, Knox, and Bennett (who's functionally a rookie after his zero catches in '08.) If his rankings are supposed to correspond to eventual standings, he's putting the Bears and the Giants in the NFC championship game: both teams will be leaning heavily on rookie receivers and one of those two has to make it to the Super Bowl. If that's true, he's contradicting himself. Also, he says the Titans are good enough to win the AFC South, but he's got the Colts ranked above them. Either he's counting on a bunch of upsets or somebody isn't proofreading very well. Seriously, I love the Bears, but he's got us ranked above Arizona, Philly, and Atlanta? Those are all dangerous teams, and every one of them has an elite passing attack; I'm very hesitant to rank us above three teams that can throw the ball like the Cards, Eagles, and Falcons can. I'm not saying we won't finish better than one of them, but I'd be surprised if we did better than all three. If it were me, I'd probably put us ahead of Atlanta (given their problems on defense,) but behind Arizona and Philly. I think the Walter Football rankings are a little more realistic - I could see the Bears at #7, although I would probably switch the Eagles and the Ravens. Philly had a fantastic offseason: they got another bona fide receiver in Maclin, a short-yardage back in Leonard Weaver, a receiving tight end in Ingram, and a capable backup for Westbrook in McCoy. On top of that, they rebuilt their o-line, getting younger and more talented at the same time. On paper, the line they've got now has the potential to be one of the top 3 in the league. McNabb has to be happy: every weak spot in their offense from last year has been shored up admirably. Baltimore, meanwhile, lost Rex Ryan and some key defenders, not to mention that they failed to upgrade at receiver opposite Derrick Mason. They're still good, but I don't think they're better than Philly or Chicago. Anyway, even if #4 is a stretch, I can see us at #7. Either way, I think we're winning the NFC North and making it to the playoffs this year. King is just saying if we win 12 games, then we will be 4th best in the league, which is about right. We won 9 last year with 3 losses by 3 or less; we upgraded the most important position on the field by a lot, and we have a easy schedule. Sounds about right to me. King also doesn't say the Titans WILL win the South, he just says that they can, so not really contradictory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butkusrules Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Seriously, I love the Bears, but he's got us ranked above Arizona, Philly, and Atlanta? I think we are better then Arizona and Philly. I dont think either one of those QB's get through the season w/o missing multiple games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I think we are better then Arizona and Philly. I dont think either one of those QB's get through the season w/o missing multiple games. I don't think you can downgrade a team based on the possibility that their QB might get hurt. If you can do that, then let's take the Pats out of the #1 spot: Tom Brady missed 15 more games last season than either McNabb or Warner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 For ARZ, PHI, and ATL, I think the questions will be more on the defensive side of the ball. Atlanta was gutted losing several starters and ARZ wasn't that good to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butkusrules Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I don't think you can downgrade a team based on the possibility that their QB might get hurt. If you can do that, then let's take the Pats out of the #1 spot: Tom Brady missed 15 more games last season than either McNabb or Warner. Well no, some QB's are more disposed to getting hurt in the upcoming year. McNabb has a history of injury and Warner is in the twilight of his career as well as suffering through his own major injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Well no, some QB's are more disposed to getting hurt in the upcoming year. McNabb has a history of injury and Warner is in the twilight of his career as well as suffering through his own major injuries. These power rankings are week to week, so they can upgrade and downgrade as the season progresses. As of now, AZ and Philly are OK, as their respective QB's are not injured. On the other hand, you may be onto something when it comes to Vegas odds for the Super Bowl. Lastly, I love to see we are getting kudos in the press. Hopefully it does not have the same effect as the year following the Super Bowl, as our team seemed to have lost some of the hunger. If I had to bet, it would be that the team will come in motivated for another run at glory. FS, WR and coaching are the only concerns at this time. The team seems stacked otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.