Tavern talk: Ranking the 3-2 teams

Lombardi, I'm a Ravens homer, so I have to ask... can they make the postseason? Also, how about an update on your list of Blues? Any additions to the list? Guys that made the jump from to almost a blue to full blue? And the reverse, guys that fell off the list, or took a step back?

Not exactly fair to say the Eagles have no depth on the lines. Consider that they have posted a 3-2 record with only 2 of their projected starters on the offensive line. Now, you could make the argument they have no *remaining* depth at OL. But the fact that a Winston Justice can jump in a RT, take over for Shawn Andrews and play pretty well goes against your "no depth" claim. They get Todd Herremans back this week, which should make a difference. If Stacey Andrews, another project starter, can get fully entrenched as well, I'm thinking the Eagles OL will look a whole lot better come Dec/Jan than it did on Sunday. It better anyways!

On the defensive line, how many teams rotate their personnel on the DL as often as the Eagles? The point is they go at least 8 deep with guys who get regular snaps. That seems like pretty good depth to me.

I won't argue that the Eagles are an enigma who can finish anywhere from 11-5 to 5-11. But I think depth is something the Eagles actually have.

Definitely do not agree with the "C" grade for the Packers offensive line - they are definitely below average. Definitely do not agree with the "B" grade for McCarthy as their coach either - one of the weaker coaches in the league at making real time adjustments during the course of a game. Finally, while his stats are nice window dressing, Rogers has yet to show he can get it done when it counts so I'm not sure an "A" grade is warranted - probably a "B+" is more accurate. The bottom line is wins and he doesn't have them. I believe Rogers can eventually be an "A" but one win against Chicago earlier this year in the closing moments doesn't show enough as that play to Jennings was based primarily on a mistake in coverage by the Bears than it was on Rogers calling an audible at the line because he recognized an opportunity to exploit. Come'n Pack let's go already!

Mike, not much to argue with. Regarding the schedule, why doesn't the league schedule 3 division games to start the season and end the season so all teams are balanced in that regard? Some may argue TV as the reason, but the TV schedulers should love it because division games are always compelling matchups. GB/Minn is a great example...this game should be one of the last three.

it doesn't really matter i doubt we'll be watching any of these 6 on feb 7

kevin i agree with your assement of the packers and rodgers A rating although i think an A- is probably more fitting, but the packers oline HAS TO BE A D, FAR FROM AVERAGE AT A C. I Think the ravens are the best team at this record, but a much tougher schedule ahead of them.

Giving Wade Phillips a C is very generous.

Jay Cutler is an A? 10 TDs, 7 INTs and 5 fumbles this year. 64 TDs and 44 INTs for his career. No playoff games. Doesn't being an A as a QB have to translate to winning, rather than just what is perceived as physical talents?

Your grades are ridiculous and seem to be entirely subjective. Worthless rankings.

#6. Lack and lack as you pointed out does not include an interesting notion about coaching. Are the best coaches purely mental and emotionally detached ? Or can a coach emotionally fire up a mediocre player with his passion for the game? Somehow, I suspect that emotional fires do not work at the pro level. The game, as I see it evolve, seems to favor mental coaches. I wonder if including the emotional factor in the head coach of 3-2 teams will have any correlation with success in the remainder of the season? If emotion and passion for the game works , the 9ers will get stronger. If it is mental the rest of them will be sorted out among themselves. If it is a mixture of both in a team, that will probably lead to the best outcome.

Cutler an "A"? Remind me of anything he's done differently than Romo, other than win less often.

I might have waited a week before putting out this list. The Niners were looking somewhat impressive prior to the beatdown courtesy of the Falcons. If the Niners come out strong and beat the Texans, I'd put them ahead of the Cardinals, if they lose to the Texans, I'd leave the Niners and Cards there.

The only other change I'd consider(depending on how this week shakes out) is putting Philly ahead of Chicago. The Eagles have better offensive weapons than the Bears, and they won't have another stinker like the one they had against the Raiders.

An NFC smorgasboard. Take the teams listed that do one thing exceptionally well, better than most.

Green Bay has great corners. Difference makers?

Interesting idea for a column. But - in my opinion - a terrible analysis; particularly in the NFC North.

Cutler should be a B since he has shown flashes of potential. Rodgers might be a B+ since he has won a game or three and is better at protecting the football. Neither of them should be rated above McNabb or Warner.

The Packers O-Line is at best a D. You actually think the mess they trot onto the field is average? A middle tier O-Line? Please!

How come all of your coaches (besides the abysmal Phillips) are above average? So the average coaches have winning teams or what? Lovie should be a C/C- & McCarthy should be C/C+. Singletary is maybe a C+/B- since he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Agree with Andrew on Mike McCarthy's grade. He would be no higher than the 20th best coach in the league. If GB was coached by Sean Payton, Josh McDaniels, or a number of other NFL coaches, GB would be 5-0 and looking at a 12 or 13 win season.

The Packers are the least disciplined team in your list. They have too many penalties, sacks due to missed assignments and a QB that can't be cured of holding the ball too long. Problems still exist after the bye when GB left at least 8 points on the field vs a DET team that despite missing 3 starting Defensive linemen had 3 sacks.

These are all problems going back to last season that McCarthy assures the fan base will be corrected. The message is getting real old and the fans are not believing him anymore. No one in GB expects them to be corrected by the ed of this season.

Hopefully Ted Thompson will come to his senses this year and end the Mike McCarthy experiment. It hasn't worked.

Man, you guys are tough...Lombardi has to come up with something entertaining 6 days a week and does a pretty good job of it. I bet none of the posters who continually lambast him could string together 5 sentences that were interesting in a month, no less have to write like Lombardi does. Keep up the good work L....

Cutler an A? The Packers offensive line a C? They're averaging 25 sacks in 5 games....how many would it take to get a D? 30? 35?

Are you kidding me? Warner is probably the 4th best QB in the league, and you have him as the 4th best QB out of these six 3-2 teams? He's better than McNabb, Cutler, and Rodgers. Out of the six, he's first in completion percentage with a fantastic 68.7%. It's hard for me to take any of these grades seriously.

How can you say that Cutler and McNabb are better QBs than Warner? A part from that I agree with you that the Packers O-line is awful and a D grade would have been much better. Rodgers is posting amazing numbers even with that orrendous line. He was sacked 25 times out of 164 attempts (15%) and it's incredible that he's still alive.

Michael,

You have a problem with grade inflation. Knock most of your grades down a full letter and you've got accuracy.

I broke my cystal ball. Have to agree with some of the above gentlemen. The packer offensive line is no more than a D. Further, the Packers, at this point have no running game. But, they do have upside potential, as both sides haven't gelled yet. With Tauscher back at RT and further improvement of rookie Lang at tackle, Pack just could get line to B-. Bears have serious problems in secondary, but I think they may have been better off with Orten.lol. Curious, given Denver's sucess why Kyle has stayed beneath the radar media wise.

To johnwer...

I actually think Lombardi is writing too much. I don't need two articles/day from him. I'd rather have quality over quantity.

This is a "fluff" piece. Can't you imagine this exact topic being discussed by your typical ESPN dolts sitting around that huge desk? Or even worse, that fake "living room" with chairs and a coffee table?

The point is a 3-2 means nothing. It is too early to draw a line in the sand that separates 3-2 teams from 2-3 or 4-1 teams, heck even 5-1 and 6-0 teams. After this weekend there could be a whole different "look". What happens if Dallas beats Atlanta and Arizona beats NY? Doesn't that change the whole landscape of the NFC?

I'm critical because I love this website and think it has a great thing going as long as it doesn't try to compete with ESPN and all the meaninngless drivel that they call "news" and "analysis" every week.

Whether you want to admit it or not, this article isn't news or analysis. We might as well have Lombardi start picking winners every week or turn the site into a pick 'em contest with the fans(and really - how boring would that be???).

I understand coach Mike McCarthy is well thought of inside the NFL. I've been watching closely, and I admit, I don't understand. Publicly, at least, he certainly is NOT a great communicator. There can be no question he knows his X's and O's as well as anyone. But, he has a stubborn streak a mile wide and is very slow to adjust. For four years the Packers have tried zone blocking with no success. Campen has proven he can't do the job, yet no change. I also question whether he has the intangibles that make a great leader. The team too often is a reflection of his flat personality. True, he doesn't get ruffled, but he doesn't ruffle either.

Love your columns but your personal biases do seep through. Specifically, what has Aaron Rogers and Mike Mccarthy done to merit such high grades especially visa vie Wade Phillips and Tony Romo? Looking at the stats, its seems Phillips has won more games (absolutely and by percentage) and Tony has both won more games and has a higher passer rating. How exactly are they worse? And of course the one head to head matchup was won by the Cowboys. How can you rate the Packers higher? Personal bias?

Octavio -
It's not really any mystery as to why many "experts" love players like Aaron Rogers and Philip Rivers - they are generally solid players for their fantasy league teams. Look at Rogers. He puts up great stats. It doesn't matter that the Packers' overall win loss record with Rogers at quarterback is below .500 (9-12 at last count) - Rogers helps the fantasy league guys with their personal league performance. That's why I admire players like Orton or Favre - not the prettiest of statistics but they consistently help their teams win - no matter what. I think most stats are worth the paper they are printed on. Wins will always trump stats.

Hey Mike,

I was wondering that if Kampman had his hand down on every play, say if the Packers still ran the 4-3, would you grade the D-line out at an A? You rated Cullen Jenkins as a Blue, Kampman has proven to be one of the best pass rushers in the last few years, and Pickett is solidly serviceable. Tell me what you think.

I enjoyed this article, but I agree that the Packers' O-Line grade is too high. Too many penalties and way too little protection for Rogers. Yes, he holds onto the ball too long, but maybe he figures if he starts throwing the ball away, he'll be doing it 50 times a game.

T.C.,

Your comments on Aaron Rodgers and fantasy numbers vs Brett Favre are the same ridiculous 'BF's a winner, AR's a loser with great stats, that are surface level knee jerk reactions.

Green Bay, the team, doesn't win games because of it's OFF line this year and DEF line last year. So many have pegged GB's losses on AR and it's a joke.

Also remember, MIN is 2 plays away from being 4-2. And if GB had an OFF line that could get 1 yard in one of three plays, MIN would have been in OT in that game. So, 3-4 plays different for MIN and they're 3-3 or 3-2-1 and people are talking about how bad the BF move was.

GB is 2-3 plays away from being 5-0 as well and Aaron Rodgers fantasy stats have nothing to do with that. Most games are closely competed and come down to a play or two in a game. Green Bay is no example. The fans that think players are out for their fantasy stats and not to win games need to grow up.

Fantasy football is an ego driven activity for the fans that has no basis on how players perform and whether they win or lose. To suggest otherwise is an offense to AR and Green Bay.

Subdude -
Seriously don't cry. Talk about a knee jerk reaction - if you would reread my post I didn't suggest that AR was out for his own personal fantasy stats. I suggested that that "experts" all love him and players like him because of his stats - big difference. Since the NFL is a bottom line business (wins) then at this point you cannot argue against Orton or Favre in comparing their W-L records to Philip Rivers or AR. I'm not slamming AR - he will be a great quarterback someday. I am happy for both him and Favre as both are where they should be - Favre with the veterans TT wouldn't give him and AR with a young team which he will lead them in the future to great things. Now go get yourself a tissue and enjoy the games this weekend.

Obviously you are going to over rate the Eagles but I truly believe that you have under rated the 49ers. Watch them over the next couple weeks and I believe that they will be the best team on that list by week 17.

The Cardinals DL is only a C+? You have to be kidding right. The best run stopping DL in the NFL by a large margin especially compared to the other 5 teams in this article only has a C+ rating? They could have zero sacks right now and still be an A. They are holding teams to 50 yards a game rushing, under 3 yards a carry.

Packers #1 of the 3-2 teams are you having lead paint chips for lunch ?
They are lucky the Bears gave them the first game , they stink !!!

Lombardi are you sniffing GLUE when you say the Packers are the best of the 3-2 teams ,
O line is more like a D- and D line more like a C . The Bears should have beat them and they
play that High School team the Lions twice a year they will be Third in that division !
Sum one has to take the GLUE away from you !

Ok, I will admit I'm an Eagles fan, but I definitely have some beef with your assessment.

The offensive line is a not a C+ and even if we are, our offensive line is much better than Dallas'. Peters is a top 5 talent on the left side, I know he had a bad game against Seymour while he was in, but you cannot simply get down on his ability based upon one game. Jackson is as reliable as any center in the game, maybe unspectacular, but he's very reliable. The depth is awesome, that we could get through this season with injuries affecting three starters to this point deserves creedence. Herremans is one of the most underrated linemen in the league and once he comes back, this line will really gel - perhaps at the most important stretch of the season.

The B- isn't so far off, but I would definitely grade them a B. Bunkley and Patterson are a very good run-stopping duo, extremely strong at the point of attack. The depth is certainly there, as we do rotate a ton as a person has pointed out already. Trent Cole is really what makes this go - he is close to a premier pass rusher with 4.5 sacks so far this season and he is also an excellent run defender on the edge. I think he too, is extremely underrated. I do not believe Chicago, Green Bay, San Francisco are better upfront than the Eagles.

To prove I can be somewhat objective the Coach and Quarterback ratings are probably spot on - I might even rate McNabb a B+ at this point. His inability to play well in closing minutes and inability to hit receivers in stride are killers - it was amazing the difference in YAC with Kolb compared to McNabb.

Wow, andrew. Rogers has yet to show he can get it done when it counts? What else does he need to do? What are you, another Favre homer?

I think the QB grades for Rodgers and Cutler are a bit high -- maybe A- Rodgers and B+ Cutler. I probably wouldn't trade Rodgers for any QB in the league given his age and potential, but he hasn't quite come through big time yet. The Packers o-line can't pass protect, and may set an all-time NFL sack record, and can't run block either. There's not one above average o-line player. D or D- seems more appropriate.

Mike - It would be interesting to hear wether or not any of your grades have changed after this weeks games.
Arizona looked pretty good last night.
Cutler looked well, like Cutler. People are enamored with his strong arm. I've seen him compared to Favre. I believe there is a fine line between great and good and it usually lies between the ears, not at the shoulder. Favre was/is great because he is a fiery competitor. Cutler, IMO, is more crybaby than fiery. He pouts. I see Jeff George not Brett Favre type of guy.

Packers, Dallas looked good.
San Fran - can't decide on a QB this late in the season takes them out of the picture IMO.