-
-
Re: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North
The thing is people are saying they are way better than the Eagles, I prove that they aren't but yet they still say it, the Packers didn't beat the Eagles by that much both games. The Eagles should be rated higher than 86 atleast a 89 or 90.Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North
What?
So when comparing the QB's, we can only use the stats from the two games we played against each other.
But when comparing teams the fact that we beat you guys twice in your stadium means nothing?
How does that make sense?
This thread is ridiculous. I'm out.
Member: OS Uni Snob Association | Twitter: @MyNameIsJesseG | #WT4M | #WatchTheWorldBurn
Originally posted by l3ulvlComment
-
Re: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North
well hell why not compare them when they played each other? If the pack was so much better than the Eagles they should of blown them out!Comment
-
I'm a Bears fan, live in Chicago, and I can tell you Rodgers is better than Vick in SOME ways. Obviously, Vick is a better athlete and playmaker with his feet, and is more dangerous. Rodgers is obviously more accurate. But Vick is accurate as well, and Rodgers can make plays with his feet when the opportunity presents itself. That's what makes them close, and in that situation I'd rather have Vick because he's a homerun threat. You can't really drop everyone in coverage because he (and LeSean McCoy - I believe he was a Pro Bowler on the Eagles too
) can kill you with their speed all game. And if you blitz, the possiblilty of a deep pass to Jackson/Maclin is there.
What truly seperates Rodgers from Vick is the fact that Vick tends to tire himself out over the course of the season, causing himself to sort of fade late. Rodgers numbers are inflated because they basically use a spread philosphy, which goes away from the traditional run-the-ball mentality in the NFC North. The Packers can't really run the ball consistently, they proved that last year (Note I said consistently) so they basically use a pass-heavy offense.
Also, let's put this to rest - if Chicago wasn't so stubborn (Seriously, they lost because Chicago ran a vanilla offense for whatever reason) they could have easily won. The Bears shut them down running the ball and Matt Forte couldn't be stopped. So, yes they should be the best rated team in the NFC North, but not the game. They don't even have a rushing attack. Ryan Grant better be an 82 at BEST. Starks should be around 72-74, had a nice run in the playoffs but dissappeared eventually.Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North
They could of easily of won? Vanilla offense? It was a defensive struggle the packers and the bears sucked on offense in that game not to mention Cutler was out of the game. And Matt Forte couldn't be stopped?? Not once did I see Forte show any spark in that game the packers shut you guys down and the bears shut us down it came down to the end like any other Bears/Packers.I don't think the bears could've easily won, I hate to come out and say this but that's an bad excuse.I'm a Bears fan, live in Chicago, and I can tell you Rodgers is better than Vick in SOME ways. Obviously, Vick is a better athlete and playmaker with his feet, and is more dangerous. Rodgers is obviously more accurate. But Vick is accurate as well, and Rodgers can make plays with his feet when the opportunity presents itself. That's what makes them close, and in that situation I'd rather have Vick because he's a homerun threat. You can't really drop everyone in coverage because he (and LeSean McCoy - I believe he was a Pro Bowler on the Eagles too ) can kill you with their speed all game. And if you blitz, the possiblilty of a deep pass to Jackson/Maclin is there.
What truly seperates Rodgers from Vick is the fact that Vick tends to tire himself out over the course of the season, causing himself to sort of fade late. Rodgers numbers are inflated because they basically use a spread philosphy, which goes away from the traditional run-the-ball mentality in the NFC North. The Packers can't really run the ball consistently, they proved that last year (Note I said consistently) so they basically use a pass-heavy offense.
Also, let's put this to rest - if Chicago wasn't so stubborn (Seriously, they lost because Chicago ran a vanilla offense for whatever reason) they could have easily won. The Bears shut them down running the ball and Matt Forte couldn't be stopped. So, yes they should be the best rated team in the NFC North, but not the game. They don't even have a rushing attack. Ryan Grant better be an 82 at BEST. Starks should be around 72-74, had a nice run in the playoffs but dissappeared eventually.Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North
So if a Packers fan basically calls the Eagles overrated, you wouldn't expect a bunch of Eagles fans to come and defend their team? I could see it if Green Bay had went 14-2 and then lost in the divisional round, but they won the Super Bowl. Give them some credit. If your Eagles are as good as you say they are (and I think they're the runaway favorite in the NFC East this year, especially with the addition of Asomugha), then they'll do great this year. We shall see.Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North
No need to take it to a personal level.
You stirred the hornets nest. No need to talk trash when your team hasn't held the Lombardi trophy.
And I thought all Eagle fans were the nicest fans on the planet.
The better team went to the SB and won, bottom line.
Based on last year's season, those ratings are fairly accurate.Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North
What in the world would make you say he is an 82 at best when he got hurt Week 1 and missed the hole season?He neither should increase or degress.I'm a Bears fan, live in Chicago, and I can tell you Rodgers is better than Vick in SOME ways. Obviously, Vick is a better athlete and playmaker with his feet, and is more dangerous. Rodgers is obviously more accurate. But Vick is accurate as well, and Rodgers can make plays with his feet when the opportunity presents itself. That's what makes them close, and in that situation I'd rather have Vick because he's a homerun threat. You can't really drop everyone in coverage because he (and LeSean McCoy - I believe he was a Pro Bowler on the Eagles too ) can kill you with their speed all game. And if you blitz, the possiblilty of a deep pass to Jackson/Maclin is there.
What truly seperates Rodgers from Vick is the fact that Vick tends to tire himself out over the course of the season, causing himself to sort of fade late. Rodgers numbers are inflated because they basically use a spread philosphy, which goes away from the traditional run-the-ball mentality in the NFC North. The Packers can't really run the ball consistently, they proved that last year (Note I said consistently) so they basically use a pass-heavy offense.
Also, let's put this to rest - if Chicago wasn't so stubborn (Seriously, they lost because Chicago ran a vanilla offense for whatever reason) they could have easily won. The Bears shut them down running the ball and Matt Forte couldn't be stopped. So, yes they should be the best rated team in the NFC North, but not the game. They don't even have a rushing attack. Ryan Grant better be an 82 at BEST. Starks should be around 72-74, had a nice run in the playoffs but dissappeared eventually.
2 Straight 1200 yard season in 08 and 09 is an 82 at best? Just horrible opinions.Comment
-
Re: Madden NFL 12 Team Ratings - NFC North
*Peeks in thread*
Comment
Comment