NFC North Rankings

by Adam T on May 29, 2007 1:48 PM CDT in News Comment 6 comments

My friend over at Daily Norseman has posted Pro Football Weekly's Preview. This info shows the rankings of positions in the NFC North.

QB - Packers (B-), Lions (C+), Bears (C+), Vikings (D+)
RB - Vikings (B+), Lions (B-), Bears (B-), Packers (D+)
WR - Lions (B+), Bears (C+), Packers (C), Vikings (D)
OL - Bears (B+), Vikings (B), Packers (C+), Lions (D)
DL - Bears (B), Vikings (B-), Lions (B-), Packers (C)
LB - Bears (A-), Vikings (B-), Packers (B-), Lions (C-)
DB - Bears (B+), Vikings (B-), Packers (B-), Lions (C)
ST - Chicago (A), Lions (B), Vikings (C), Packers (C-)

Now, if you take the numerical values from a standard 4.0 GPA scale and apply them to the letter grades above, you come up with the following:

Chicago - 3.08 (a solid B)
Minnesota - 2.34 (in the C+ range)
Detroit - 2.34 (another C+)
Green Bay - 2.18 (closer to a C than a C+)

Yet the predicted records for the division are as follows:

Chicago - 11-5
Green Bay - 7-9
Detroit - 6-10
Minnesota - 5-11

I could make a case against his statement that the only two not debatable topics are Chicago's special teams and the Viking's running backs and throw in there Chicago's Dline, perhaps even Oline.

Chicago's linebacker would also be unquestionable if Briggs would be there with bells on.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Packers RB's

are rated too low. That team always finds a way to turn guys like Samkon Gando and Noah Herron into solid backs.

by Devin47 on May 29, 2007 4:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

But you can't really rate them higher...

...going into the season.

by tyger1147 on May 29, 2007 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I based that on

I don't think the gap between the Bears' D-line and the Vikings' D-line is all that large, quite frankly. The Bears, obviously, have much better pass rush ability than the Vikings do, but I think the Vikes D-line is significantly better against the run. I'll have to see what we do with a healthy E. James (if dude can stay healthy for more than 3 games) and the new rush schemes that Leslie Frazier brings to the table.

As far as LB, the Bears have the best right now, sure. But before making it "undisputable," I want to see how they perform without Briggs (insert "Brian Urlacher has made every linebacker that he's ever played with ever" comments here), and I want to see how we do with Henderson moving back to MLB and a healthy Chad Greenway (if he can make it out of the first quarter of the first pre-season game this year). Green Bay's LBs, as much as it pains me to admit it, could be pretty good, too.

But the RB and ST kings in this division really can't be argued, I don't think.

The Daily Norseman - SBN's Vikings Blog
Where stupidity is the only bannable offense.

by Gonzo on May 29, 2007 8:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

before making running back

"undisputable" I want to see what benson does as a number one for a full year. and let's have ap atually take some contact before we crown anyone's asses.

fair is fair after all.

I do believe Briggs is still a Bear.

by mike b on May 29, 2007 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well the undisputable

is obviously related to it being a pre season rankings, so it is what it is.

by Adam T on May 30, 2007 7:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I always laugh...

when i see people assign grades to athletes in a manner like this. Clearly, grade inflation hasn't translated into higher grades from the media. If these grades were assigned to students, there would be a revolt...

That's not to say the grades are too harsh - its just pointing out that the general view of an A, B, C, etc. is very different than the view students have of those different grades.

by shawndgoldman on May 30, 2007 10:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs