And why is that?

Err....because we are a top 10 team. Steve Whyche and Michael Lombardi agree.

Nothing would surprise me with the Mangenious!!!

mine would be

1.Ravens
2.Colts
3.Giants
4.Vikings
5.Saints
6.Jets
7.Steelers
8.Falcons
9.Pats
10. Cards/Packers

Quinn and Anderson are both rubbish so it wouldnt suprise me to be honest


IMO naturally

The Packers are not a top 10 team, top 15 certainly but they are no where near good enough for a top 10 ranking

Why not?

Offensive line and running game not good enough for a top 10 team.

So let me get this right, you're implying that your judge of player is better than that of Scott Pioli or Todd Haley?

Seems the experts disagree, as ALL of them have us number 1.

I noticed that too.

I'm implying i can make my own opinion.

You'd agree with me unless of course you think McDaniels was correct and Cassell/Simms/Orton are better than Cutler?

Orton is a very underrated game managing QB imo. He basically took Chicago to the playoffs in his rookie season before Grossman took over and ballsed things up. He may not have had great numbers, but he ran the offense smoothly.

If Oakland had a competant QB, we'd be a much better team imo.

gallery.me.com/laurence_hardy#100153 Also, that's some pictures from Staffordshire Stallions first training session of the year, I appear in a couple pics as the guy in a purple t-shirt with bad hair. Our probable QB this year is a Canadian Ex-baseballer, who's still better than JaMarcus Russell

gallery.me.com/laurence_hardy#100153 Also, that's some pictures from Staffordshire Stallions first training session of the year, I appear in a couple pics as the guy in a purple t-shirt with bad hair. Our probable QB this year is a Canadian Ex-baseballer, who's still better than JaMarcus Russell

Different Head Coaches will run different schemes and different schemes need different component parts...obviously McDaniels didnt think Cutler was the kind of QB he wanted for his offense, that's not a crime is it??

And co-incidentally, maybe having Cutler in Chicago has affected the potency of Matt Forte??

That reminds me of watching Britball in the 80s - anyone with a vaguely North American accent came in to play QB, irrespective of whether they'd ever played the position before in their life.

Packers shouldn't be anywhere near anyone's top 10 at this moment in time

Come on. I'm not suggesting we should be top 5. I'd say 7-10.

Orton plus 2 1st round draft picks could turn out to be better than keeping Cutler.

I'm not saying you won't be further down the line because I think with the players you have you can only get better but other teams have had more impressive starts. Given a loss at Lambeau against the Bengals (who have improved but it was at Lambeau) and a sloppy win against us, IMO (sadly) the worst team in the league which was still close in the 3rd quarter would mean that at this stage I'd have the Packers outside the top 10.

That could all change though of course. Some teams are awful and labelled no-hopers in September but dominating by December.

Clearly the Packers are a top ten team (according to Conroy) it's the rest of the world that's gone mad.

Having seen the guy today in training, he's got an arm like a flipping cannon. He's fairly accurate too.

This would put him ahead of Russell, Delhomme & Anderson as a starting NFL Qb.

And running the offence smoothly is what he is doing in Denver at the moment. Mind you it is helping having a decent running game and defence behind him which is something Cutler never had in the whole of last year.

After going back to having a go of one of my old Madden games yesterday, an old question that i never asked re-surfaced:

why is spiking the ball not considered intentional grounding?

Need to find an RB for this week, Willie Parker is out and Westbrook on bye, minds you once i get through this week half my team has sat out its bye week