NFL Power Rankings

by GallopingGhost on May 12, 2008 6:07 PM CDT

I know it's May and that doesn't mean anything but if that were the case we wouldn't be on here every day would we? So here is ESPN's May Power Rankings, the Bears are 24th. Too high? Too low? Who's overrated, who's underrated? And what about the other NFC North teams?

Personally I think that switching the Vikings (12) rank and the Packers (10) rank isn't out of the question, it just all depends on QB play. But the same can be said for us.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

The homer in me says

that’s too low. They have the Jets and Ravens ahead of them, even though they finished last year with 4 and 5 wins respectively. The Bears improved the O-line, RB, DT, and S positions this offseason. WR took a step back and QB….well, who the F knows. The Packers lost Favre (for now) and the Vikings still have Tavaris Jackson, so the division title is in play. That’s something.

by MuleTrain on May 12, 2008 9:28 PM CDT 0 recs

The thing about it is

most experts tell you can’t win without a QB, it doesn’t matter that we went to the Super Bowl without one or that the Ravens won without one or the Bucs, so by default unstable or bad QB situation equals low ranking.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by WCG on May 13, 2008 7:38 AM CDT up 0 recs

Umm...

... the bears went to the super bowl without a quarterback?

Since when?

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on May 15, 2008 8:19 AM CDT up 0 recs

Don't forget this about Ravens & Bucs Championship years......

The Ravens just pounded the ball with their stud Jamal Lewis, their defense controlled the game and Trent did enough if anyone stopped Jamal.
Tampa’s Brad Johnson managed the game offensively for them with a 92.9 rating, 281/451 3049, 22/6.

by Monsterofthemidway on May 29, 2008 12:56 PM CDT up 0 recs

so that worked

twice out of the last…...

by mike b on May 29, 2008 3:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

Jon Kitna

is the best QB in our division….thats sad. lol

by SuperBowlXX on May 13, 2008 4:59 AM CDT 0 recs

That rank is RIDICULOUS

The Bears will not be one of the 8 worst teams in football next year. ESPN did a pretty poor job in this preseason ranking from top to bottom.

by gillrowdy on May 13, 2008 10:28 AM CDT 0 recs

do you think they are considerably

better than last year?

i think most of the football world sees basically the same thing, with rookies filling in spots held by vets.

we had no running game, no pass protection, and one of the worstt defenses in the league. it’s the same defense, maybe healthier. one or two rookies on the oline but otherwise the same oline. rookie in the backfield backing up a guy who showed nothing. pitiful wr receiver core. don’t kick to hester and they’ll never score. same crappy qbs.

now, people who follow the team could say that williams in a line upgrade, as well as tait moving to the side he is allegedly better at, which will make all the offense better. you could also say the loss of berrian is huge but our wide receivers youthful talent. you can hope for better health will make the defense much better, along with drafted depth at dt and safety. grossman or orton will be better with a better line, as will benson, with forte providing insurance for benson’s leg.

the truth is somewhere in between, but the fact is this team showed little to nothing last year and made no big name draft or FA signings. it hard for me to be too optimistic for this team, and i can certainly understand the msm shitting all over us.

besides, espn is full of morons.

by mike b on May 13, 2008 10:40 AM CDT up 0 recs

Also let me throw this out

this matches what I saw on TV and if it is the same list it is a fan poll and not an official list.

Not positive about that though.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by WCG on May 13, 2008 10:45 AM CDT up 0 recs

I don't I understood this to be the official writers list.

Read the paragraphs at the beginning it explains it all.

by GallopingGhost on May 13, 2008 11:12 AM CDT up 0 recs

I'm not saying it is not

but this morning on SC they had this list and they said it was as voted on by fans. It might have been different, but I am not sure just wanted to put it out there.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by WCG on May 13, 2008 12:56 PM CDT up 0 recs

You may be right that we are somewhere in the middle, but

last year’s defense was completely an enigma. Look at how that defense has played the last four years. With a better secondary we would have seen more 3 and outs and had more energy at the end of games. It seemed like every 3rd and 15 plus yards teams had ended up being converted. That probably happened 10 times last year. We are deeper, more talented, and have more experienced guys (because of the injuries) than ever before.

We are not old on defense. Urlacher and Brown are the only old guys and we never play with Brown anyway. We will not send that many to IR this year. We will not have the number of injuries. If Urlacher gets hurt I have a lot of faith in Jamar Williams. The defense should be better. We have more depth and experienced starters on that defense than ever before. Look for the D to be dominate. My only concern on defense is the health of Tommy Harris.

We will make the playoffs folks.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on May 13, 2008 12:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

i never said they were old

defense is only a third of the game by the way, and them having to carry a team and be out there longer will lead to more injuries.

everyone assumes the defense will be good if its healthy, that’s a big if.

so the defense was great in 05 and good enough in 06, what of the other 4 years are worth looking at?

by mike b on May 13, 2008 2:44 PM CDT up 0 recs

I didn't say

you said they were old, but a lot of people do believe our defense is almost finished on its run because of age. They factor that as part of our defensive slide. We are not old on defense at all.

I was counting 2007 and 2004. 2007 was the enigma and 2004 we were pretty good. We were decent. We were ranked 13 for points which is our key stat, but that is more average so we were really good 2 years in a row and bad last year when very injured. So I was wrong on 4 years.

We were great in 06. Not in the playoffs but in the regular season. A lot of it did have to do with how we played when Brown was healthy in the first 6 games. Really we play the best when we have a playmaker at safety. I’m not sure it is all Mike Brown, but more of a product of the system. If you play well at safety you will be a star in cover 2. We have had some bad play at safety lately.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on May 13, 2008 2:58 PM CDT up 0 recs

Our Defense is still good, we need the following.....

Doesn’t matter how good your defense is, you can draft, sign or trade to make it better. But if your offense either goes three & out, or turns the ball over repeated. Your Defense never gets to rest, even if you have depth and injuries happen to. Now if we had a QB to manage the game, put together long drives and a running back that runs like Thomas Jones did. Then you’ll see our defense play better. Last year even being on the field way too much they still kept us in game, it’s just offensively we stunk. At least Lovie & Angelo got a RB, but crazy not to get a QB to and hate using free-agent after the draft signings. I know everyones like what about Romo. Look how long it took him to start, figure in he’s got Witten, had Jones, Barber running and T.O, etc receiving who won’t be good. Plus resigned for 36 million, you could drafted Brian Brohme give them a three year deal for less and he’d start mid-season as a Rookie.

by Monsterofthemidway on May 29, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up 0 recs

I want to think we're improved

But at the same time I can see why someone might think we aren’t. I think this is more bulletin board material for the team. However I think that we could surprise some people and I really think a lot of the teams rank assume they get good QB play:
-The Packers could be 10-6 if Rodgers does well and their defense plays good again or they could be 7-9 or worse if Rodgers struggles
-The Vikes have the same thing, AP is going to see 9 in the box all the time until Traviaris Jackson beats somebody with his arm.
-The Ravens, oh man HOW ARE WE WORSE THAN THE RAVENS? Kyle Boller, a rookie from a DI-AA school or a Heisman winner who is a shrimp? Their D is old and last year their corners sucked, I know some were injured but man they’re pretty bad. Not what they used to be and with a new coach.
-The Redskins – a new coach, somewhat of an unimpressive QB in Campbell
-The Panthers are always overrated IMO, Delhomme had Tommy John and Steve Smith is good but man I don’t that team seems to disappoint more than live up to the preseason hype every year.

by GallopingGhost on May 13, 2008 11:19 AM CDT 0 recs

The Ravens defense?

hahahahhaahhaha

Check your facts on that one, buddy.

Okay, okay. I guess their defense is “old”, but the implication that they sucked is absurd.

by tyger1147 on May 13, 2008 9:11 PM CDT up 0 recs

You are right on that. I was mistaken.

I thought they were worse and I just checked they were 6th in the league.

by GallopingGhost on May 13, 2008 9:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

I read your post, and had to post the following.......

The Packes got insurance with drafting two QB’s: Brohme & Flynn.
The Vikings drafted QB Josh David Booty, so if Traviaris doesn’t move the ball they’ll bring in Booty.
- The Ravens drafted QB Flacco, even traded up to do it.
- The Redskins got a former QB in Jim Zorn to Coach and will help Campbell.
Let me stop here, image you made this post and 4/5 went out did something to improve their QB situation and all we did was sign 2 free-agent after draft QB’s. Heck at least we could have drafted Nick Hill in the 7th Round. Let me add we drafted Rex 1st Round, #22 pick and signed him for a entry level salary at $240,000 and I don’t want to hear anything about free-agent after draft signings are cheaper.

by Monsterofthemidway on May 29, 2008 1:39 PM CDT up 0 recs

I stopped looking at espn power ranking during the middle of our superbowl season

espn is so lame, the patriots are still number 1 and the cowboys are ahead of the giants wtf?! The patriots have gotten worse, and the giants and cowboys have stayed the same, but somehow the list is still the way it is. I’m not going to look at powerranking again this season.

"snuffalufagus fucks my shit up"

by leopoldjones on May 13, 2008 11:51 AM CDT 0 recs

2006 Preseason Power Rankings (ESPN)

You never know…

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking?week=0&season=2006

by Subotai on May 13, 2008 12:42 PM CDT 0 recs

Just too many questions

to rank them much higher. Are Rex or Kyle capable? Is the OL improved? Who are the safeties? Will Tommie Harris & Urlacher regain old form? Are the DT’s healthy? Who the hell are the receivers? Who’s the starting tailback and will he be worth a damn? I see a lot of potential good answers to these questions, but I also see the bad.

by MuleTrain on May 16, 2008 2:48 PM CDT 0 recs