PDA

View Full Version : Training Camp Power Rankings (ESPN)



DamnGoat
07-21-2008, 01:53 PM
ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking?season=2008&week=0)

25 (24) Bears 7-9-0 The Bears are hoping Kyle Orton or Rex Grossman will emerge as a viable quarterback, but their histories suggest otherwise. It's a big risk to take. As with the Lions, the defense will have to take control. (KS)
No reason to post the rest of the rankings, just interesting to see how bad everyone thinks the Bears will be. It seems awfully familiar to 3 years ago.

Soop
07-21-2008, 02:03 PM
Bears at 25 makes me want to punch babies in the face.

DamnGoat
07-21-2008, 03:33 PM
Bears at 25 makes me want to punch babies in the face.
I don't mind them being underrated, but they're not one of the 8 worst teams in the league.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-21-2008, 03:35 PM
I don't mind them being underrated, but they're not one of the 8 worst teams in the league.

Bulletin Board material.....I dont like going in rated highly I like being the underdog

Jerry34
07-21-2008, 03:52 PM
The Bears have so many question marks, there is no reason for them to be ranked much higher. Obviously this is just a list of how the teams did last year plus or minus how they did in free agency.

cambovenzi
07-21-2008, 04:25 PM
The Bears have so many question marks, there is no reason for them to be ranked much higher. Obviously this is just a list of how the teams did last year plus or minus how they did in free agency.

well the bears were much better than 25th last year,
and they didnt lose much.

they will actually be much better if they can stay even reasonably healthy.

Fuselage
07-21-2008, 04:28 PM
Love it. Underrated is where you want to be. How successful were we last year when everyone had us pinned to win the NFC North?

cambovenzi
07-21-2008, 04:35 PM
i would rather have atleast some recognition.
being expected to win had little to do w/ how poorly we played, and how injured the team was.

bearshuffle
07-21-2008, 04:51 PM
Love it.
Anybody with half a brain knows that we sustained a ton of injuries last year and if we stay reasonably healthy on both our OL and DL, we'll be 9-7 at worst. We're way too talented to be below .500. You could argue our defense is the best in the league when comparing position groupings. Our DL? Top five in the NFL. Our LBs? Top 3. Our DBs? Top 7 or 8. Specials? #1. Offense...if we can only limit turnovers and play efficient football, we'll beat a lot of good teams, but we'll always be in a lot of games with terrible teams due to a lack of consistency. I hope everyone understands we're are going to see some inconsistency early on with our O. We might have 6 new starters...LT, LG, RT, HB, and two receivers. Granted, Tait shouldn't have to adjust that much, but we've had a major overhaul otherwise. So, we can blame Turner (like I do quite often), but bottomline, we have a number of new guys that will need to step up if we are going to be decent on O.

CuseDude87
07-21-2008, 05:46 PM
It's to be expected. What was it, 10 ESPN "experts" picked the Saints to beat the Bears in the NFC title game? Riiiight...... :rolleyes:

Besides, training camp power rankings are stupid. Not to mention how dumb they are in general. How long were the Patriots atop the power rankings last year? 21 weeks? Doesn't mean jack ****.

4cubs
07-21-2008, 06:26 PM
It's to be expected. What was it, 10 ESPN "experts" picked the Saints to beat the Bears in the NFC title game? Riiiight...... :rolleyes:

Besides, training camp power rankings are stupid. Not to mention how dumb they are in general. How long were the Patriots atop the power rankings last year? 21 weeks? Doesn't mean jack ****.They were only off by 1. It took a miracle catch on the part of NY to pull the upset.

Play that game 10 times and the Pats win 8 of them.

But... Being an optimist, I get your point.

Soop
07-21-2008, 06:48 PM
I don't mind them being underrated, but they're not one of the 8 worst teams in the league.

Definitely not, and did you see who was ahead of them? What a joke! I'm with you on this, let's go kick some tail and prove these guys wrong.

WindyCity_22
07-21-2008, 06:57 PM
Bears at 25 makes me want to punch babies in the face.

funniest **** i've heard in a long time, lmfao :clap:

4cubs
07-21-2008, 07:09 PM
We only need to out-perform 3 teams during the regular season:



Vikings
Packers
Lions


Not an easy task, but not impossible.

I would say we are a better team than the one that went to the Super Bowl only 2 seasons ago.

As long as there is fair competition, we will have a serviceable QB. It's all up the the O-Line.

jaycruz92
07-21-2008, 10:51 PM
don't mind them being rated this low eh hem.. tim tebow. but this means if the bears arent expected to do much so if they do good fans will be even happier

jaycruz92
07-21-2008, 10:52 PM
We only need to out-perform 3 teams during the regular season:



Vikings
Packers
Lions


Not an easy task, but not impossible.

I would say we are a better team than the one that went to the Super Bowl only 2 seasons ago.

As long as there is fair competition, we will have a serviceable QB. It's all up the the O-Line.


i dunno if were a better team no moose no berrian no thomas jones

cambovenzi
07-21-2008, 11:15 PM
forte>jones (should be)
moose was nothing. booker replaces him.
berrian is ok. hester/others fill in fine.

BEARS+BULLS=:)
07-21-2008, 11:38 PM
^i agree forte=jones to say the least n IMO Booker>Moose n Berrian=drop/ran wrong route

DamnGoat
07-22-2008, 12:59 AM
i dunno if were a better team no moose no berrian no thomas jones
Eh, Moose was a pile of crap when he was here. I'll take Booker over him any day and Booker's not even that good either.

Berrian's loss is being greatly exaggerated here. He was a nice #2-3 WR with good speed, deep threat, poor route-runner and bad hands. Guys like that are replaceable.

As for Thomas Jones, he was a nice RB here, but I'm pretty certain he was a product of a good run-blocking system. When he was here the O-line was at it's best and then aged terribly after he left.

I'm not sure how Forte will do since the O-line is still a big question mark, but I'm confident he can put up TJ type numbers.

kozelkid
07-22-2008, 01:13 AM
It's said how stupid these analysts actually are. Not only were we 16th in record, but we also had a worse team last year. We have a better team and injuries hit us hard last year. Seriously, espn is really that dumb. I think we can very well be 9-7, but hey underrated works for me, but this is simply ********.

Jerry34
07-22-2008, 10:29 AM
well the bears were much better than 25th last year,
and they didnt lose much.

they will actually be much better if they can stay even reasonably healthy.

They should have been better than 25th I'll give you that. But looking at the list ESPN made I couldn't have put the Bears much higher than 20th and that would be really generous. The Bears did have injuries, but if Benson and Grossman stay healthy last year how many more game do they win? Obviously a healthy Urlacher, Brown and especially Vasher will make the defense 10x what it was last year. I just have serious doubts about the offense.

b1e9a8r5s
07-22-2008, 12:28 PM
I don't mind them being underrated, but they're not one of the 8 worst teams in the league.

Well, factually speaking the Bears had a BETTER record than 8 teams (there were 7 teams with 7 wins) so I don't think its way off base. Plus, when you look at free angency, we didn't do much, so I can see where this is coming. I am optimistic though, that with better health better line play we can have a good year.

b1e9a8r5s
07-22-2008, 12:42 PM
It's said how stupid these analysts actually are. Not only were we 16th in record, but we also had a worse team last year. We have a better team and injuries hit us hard last year. Seriously, espn is really that dumb. I think we can very well be 9-7, but hey underrated works for me, but this is simply bull****.

16th in record (it would be 17th btw, if we are the best 7-9 team) or 23rd (if we were the worst 7-9 team)? Let's not forget we were 5-9 and then won 2 meaningless games. I'm optimistic about this team too, but to say analyists are stupid for saying we're 25th is a little much, IMO.

Soop
07-22-2008, 01:00 PM
16th in record (it would be 17th btw, if we are the best 7-9 team) or 23rd (if we were the worst 7-9 team)? Let's not forget we were 5-9 and then won 2 meaningless games. I'm optimistic about this team too, but to say analyists are stupid for saying we're 25th is a little much, IMO.

17 Cardinals 8-8
18 Bills 7-9
19 Texans 8-8
20 Panthers 7-9
21 Ravens 5-11
22 Broncos 7-9
23 Jets 4-12
24 Bengals 7-9

IMO these teams ahead us are ranked too high.

CuseDude87
07-22-2008, 03:29 PM
17 Cardinals 8-8
18 Bills 7-9
19 Texans 8-8
20 Panthers 7-9
21 Ravens 5-11
22 Broncos 7-9
23 Jets 4-12
24 Bengals 7-9

IMO these teams ahead us are ranked too high.

I would rank them this way:

17 Broncos 7-9
18 Bears 7-9
19 Cardinals 8-8
20 Texans 8-8
21 Bills 7-9
22 Ravens 5-11
23 Panthers 7-9
24 Bengals 7-9
25 Jets 4-12

Max Power
07-22-2008, 03:41 PM
If everyone stays healthy (like that's going to happen in the NFL) this team has a top 5-10 defense, but a bottom 10(5? 2?) offense. They'll be a middle of the road team. In the NFL, the difference between 7-9 and 10-6 is usually just who gets the breaks. A pretty crappy Tennessee team made the playoffs in the AFC, last year. So, if the breaks go our way and teams kick to Hester, the Bears will have a chance to sneak into the playoffs.
But the chance of the defense staying healthy while having to be on the field as much as they probably will be, is pretty slim.

Soop
07-22-2008, 08:26 PM
I would rank them this way:

17 Broncos 7-9
18 Bears 7-9
19 Cardinals 8-8
20 Texans 8-8
21 Bills 7-9
22 Ravens 5-11
23 Panthers 7-9
24 Bengals 7-9
25 Jets 4-12

I would rank them this way:

17 Broncos
18 Bears
19 Texans
20 Panthers
21 Bengals
22 Bills
23 Cardinals
24 Jets
25 Ravens

NaturalRampage
07-22-2008, 08:52 PM
Don't even let this bother you. Preseason power rankings are purely opinion. There is nothing concrete to base it on, just the previous year, players returning, players acquired, and injuries. It just means some dork doesn't think our team is pretty on paper. A perfect example as Goat touched on earlier is the 2005 season. 13-3 after being horribly underrated in the preseason. Dr. Z put the Bears at 32 in his rankings. True, if Mr. Bean and Jessica Simpson had a kid he would probably grow up to be better at predicting football than Dr. Z, but it's still another example of these rankings being trash.

Commit2theCub
07-23-2008, 01:15 PM
ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking?season=2008&week=0)
No reason to post the rest of the rankings, just interesting to see how bad everyone thinks the Bears will be. It seems awfully familiar to 3 years ago.

Hopefully that all of these horrible power rankings, and comments about how bad the Bears will be would fire up that Defense to win the majority of the games for us. I know its a long shot, but its all we got...D-IIII

Tankjeep
07-25-2008, 12:43 PM
underlying theme, if the team can stay healthy.....then they will/might blow the rankings out of the water. optimistically, i think they have the potential to, but that's up to the o-line, play calling and defense.