NFC North Preview

Before I get started with the actual preview, I'm going to spend a few sentences to mention that I'm going to change-up the structure of these previews. Mostly, the previews are now going to be largely unstructured prose, with no time spent looking at the intricacies of each team's schedule. Why? Well, mostly because it seems to take most of my blogging time, and I'm finding that there's very little relative value (or interest) in that part. So, the previews are now going to be largely my thoughts. With that said, lets get onto the NFC North.

In my opening post, I made it very clear that I am not impartial. Hell, that's all that first post was about. And at this point, there is no team I am more biased against than the Bears. Why? The Bears are too old-school for me. I can't stand that they're as successful as they are with such a horrible offense. Actually, such a horrible passing offense. This isn't just about Rex Grossman. I thought their 2005 season, led by Kyle Orton, was a joke as well. As a matter of personal preference (or style, if I may put it that way), I love a beautifully-executed west-coast offense. Conversely, a game between two smash-mouth run-run-run football teams (see SEC conference football, sans Urban Meyer-coached teams) is incredibly boring. I understand that football will always have 'run the ball, stop the run' at its core, but such strategy is just not as entertaining. So, inherently, I have a problem with Chicago's style. Their passing offense isn't good enough for them to deserve the amount of success they've attained.

It also doesn't help that I'm a Seahawks fan, and had to deal with two horrible losses at Soldier field last year by said Bears team that I don't like. So, as you can imagine, I'm going to try to find anyway I can to justify saying the Bears will go 7-9 and not even get a wildcard spot.

So, can that happen?

Unfortunately, probably not. The two greatest reasons? Minnesota and Green Bay. Those two teams may end up as 1 and 2 in the 2008 NFL draft. Count those as four wins for the Bears. Any chance they don't win at least four more? Naw. So it's time to compromise. Let's try to make a case for a 9-7 season, with a possible 2nd-place finish behind Detroit.

How good is Detroit? Certainly, the Lions have some nice offensive weapons. Jon Kitna will have the option of throwing to Mike Williams, Mike Furrey, and, now, Calvin Johnson. Tatum Bell arrives as a new rushing threat (Detroit should hope Bell isn't another Broncos-system RB). All of this is run by Mad Mike Martz. You know Kitna is going to be tossing multiple 40-yard bombs each game. One problem - the Lions have a horrible offensive line (ranked 29 for those of you without an insider subscription). Now, the threat of that three-wide plus Bell set will certainly take some pressure off the line (or at least remove one guy out of the box). From there, it's all about how that line is coached and how well the linemen gel. From what little I know, Detroit doesn't have amazing raw talent with its linemen, but all they need is to create a few gaps for Tatum Bell and give Kitna 3+ seconds to throw and everything could fall into place.

How bad can Chicago be? This is said, of course, in a relative sense. The Bears won 13 games last year, in a special, Superbowl-making year. How many games will they decline to in 2007? (I would love to see 9, but I'll settle for 10). The Bears have had a number of less-than-positive off-season storylines. Here's a list of the reasons the Bears will decline, beginning with the most significant, in 2007.

• Thomas Jones traded to the Jets. There are so many aspects to this one. I guess I'll start with the loss of Jones's production. 1210 yards in 2006, 3493 in the last three seasons, 4+ yards/carry in the last four. Jones was the feature back last year (nearly double the amount of carries as Cedric Benson), and he did plenty to carry the Bear's offense and take pressure off Rex Grossman. So, why did the Bears get rid of him? That's kind of complicated, but not really when you look at how the Bears operate. A key point to keep in mind about the Bears - they draft quite well. Look at their previous four years and notice how many starters they've picked up in the first three rounds, and how many gems they've picked out of later rounds. This is a great trait, as it allows them the stockpile talent (especially on defense). The downside is the arrogance that comes with knowing they have a good chance of replacing established talents when they leave (I'll get into this again with Lance Briggs' potential hold-out). The Bears apparently didn't have much confidence that Jones would become a feature back, because they used the #4 pick in the 2005 draft to get Cedric Benson. Jones responded with his most prolific year - 1335 yards, 9 touchdowns. Jones had a similarly-productive year in 2006, but that didn't matter. The Bears felt they had the feature back they needed with Benson, who is a younger talent with (I guess) more upside. I've heard rumblings that there were personal issues, so that may have played into all of this. Whatever the case, in the end the Bears felt they had two #1 running backs, and since (proper management of) the salary cap doesn't allow for such talent redundancy, the Bears dropped the older of the two. Overall, that makes the Bears better in the long run, as they will have a well-paid feature back, a low-paid second back, and more money for the rest of their players. But this doesn't make the Bears better for 2007. I don't expect Benson and whatever second back to produce more than Jones and Benson did in 2007, and the money saved wasn't used to bring in any new talent, just keep their current talent (see Vasher and Tillman signings). Good organizations keep and develop their own talent, so I'm not knocking the signings. However, the cost of good talent over time is that peaks are lessened. The Bears peaked last year. They may peak again in 2008. 2007 will be a (relative) valley.
• Losses at Defensive Tackle. Tommie Harris will be back. That's the good news. Ian Scott, Tank Johnson, and Alphonso Boone will not be. A typical DT rotation includes four, sometimes five, players. So the Bears lost most of their DT rotation. That's fine, because they drafted a couple of studs in the the draft, right? Wait, they drafted zero DTs in the 2007 draft? Huh, so what you're saying is they have all of three DTs total on their roster, and will have to fill out their rotation with salary cap scraps in August? That doesn't sound like the Bears I know.
• Potential of a Lance Briggs hold out. I've heard that Jamar Williams is waiting to step in, that the Bears feel the drop-off will be minimal. I call BS on that one. Lance Briggs is a major talent. This is another case of the Bears' nose for talent (i.e. arrogance) hurts them in the short term. Williams, or some other LB, may equal Briggs' talent in the future. The chance that the future is now is minimal. I would be interested in how the Bears organization values each position (in the same sense that the Patriots have values on each position). Briggs' franchise-player contract would be for a little more than 7 million. Do the Bears think 7 million, regardless of the talent, is too much for a right OLB? Could that money be spent better elsewhere? Possibly. Again, this is a decision that helps the Bears in 2008 and beyond, not 2007.
• Loss of Ron Rivera and Lovie Smith's contract dispute. Thankfully, Smith eventually got resigned. And Ron Rivera may not have been the best coach in their organization, so they decided to flush him out and promote in-house. Still, the way both of these played out (long, public disputes) raised some red flags. There's a big difference between signing players and coaches - there's no salary cap for coaches. There's not a lot of good that can come from nickel-and-dime-ing your coaches when there's no limit on what you can pay them and they have a tremendous impact on how the team performs (certainly more so than other major American sports). With no salary cap, why not treat your coaches more like an investment that produces returns? Why make every other coach in the organization worry about their contract negotiations? Being an NFL coach is stressful enough as is. Just pay your coaches and get on with the game.

And I've barely mentioned Rex Grossman yet. This guy got so hammered last year (and deservedly so - how can a starter for a Superbowl team have games with sub-10 QB ratings?), so I'm not going to rub (much) salt in his wounds. I'll just say this much: I don't buy Rex Grossman. He seems to have Brett Favre's gunslinging mentality without any of Favre's talent. The Bears had one of the easiest schedules last year, and Grossman was able to pad his stats with monster games against bad teams (or at least, bad defenses). From what I've seen, this guy doesn't have the accuracy or the decision-making ability to be an elite quarterback. Grossman has been a starter for 2+ years at Florida and 1+ years in Chicago (plus a couple injured years on the bench). Grossman will be 27 this year. Shouldn't his decision-making be set by now? Accuracy can be improved with better mechanics. Decision-making is a bit more innate. Final words on Grossman: MNF in Arizona, and Superbowl.

Green Bay and Minnesota? I've heard talk that Green Bay's young defense will be pretty good, which may keep Brett Favre from playing from behind (and thus cut down on interceptions). Still, you really can only build on side of the ball at a time. The Packers lost Ahman Greene. How are they going to score. And the Vikings? They've got no quarterback. Chester Taylor and Adrian Peterson will be fun to watch... if defenses don't put nine in the box.

Bottom Line

1. Chicago - 9-12 wins, probably 10, definitely in contention for a playoff bye.
2. Detroit - 6-9 wins, probably 7, could challenge the Bears if everything goes their way.
3. Green Bay - 4-8 wins, probably 6, look for a lot of low-scoring games.
4. Minnesota - 3-7 wins, probably 4, it'll be a long season.