NFC North: Twitter Quick Hits for the Packers, Bears, Vikings and Lions

I need a better title for the Mailbag since it's also (and often) about back-and-forth Twitter conversations. If you have an idea, let me know.

Friday I reached out to hear what the readers had to say on Twitter about events from around the NFC North this week. Here is a sampling.

We'll start with the Lions question of the day:

It's funny because I was thinking there are more concerns for the defense but wasn't clear. That said, Twitter follower Ron Woznock makes a great point:

While the Lions changed how and where Suh played a little last year (which is being corrected as we speak), he did nurse the shoulder injury all year. One can't help but wonder if that had a little to do with the dip in numbers.

This year should tell the tale. He feels confident and that's a plus.

On a lighter note:

Yes. That should concern all of us.

The Vikings face numerous challenges this year, so I asked you guys what worried you the most:

Ben was naturally concerned by all of it.

I think, really, Peterson's knee will be fine. The development of a young QB and his weapons is a big concern. There will be bumps in the road, but how big they are will tell us how much work will be left to do at season's end.

Mr. Dougie Fresh went a different route:

I totally agree with what you're saying, Mr. Fresh, and I also think they were just not sold on making a big splash with a pricey veteran, instead dedicating to build slowly over time.

I'm not concerned with the linebackers—my biggest concern defensively is still the secondary.

We move onto the Packers. This week, I had the pleasure of working with the B/R lead writers on some videos. I joined Dan Levy, Josh Zerkle, Aaron Nagler and Matt Miller in NYC for a series of videos covering all 32 teams (I was just in the NFC North ones and a few side videos).

In our Packers video, Mr. Zerkle mentioned he felt Jordy Nelson was overpaid, which, not surprisingly Nagler, took issue with.

I thought I would get your reaction to this and you did not disappoint—even though some of the reaction surprised me a little.

I think Colleen (from PocketDoppler.com) and Zach (of B/R and CheeseheadTV, of course) are right in that it is a reasonable contract overall. I don't think they made an obscene offer or horribly overpaid him.

"The Professor" makes an equally good point, though.

I'll be honest—I was surprised the Saints went hard after Colston, considering how hurt he is most years. While I think the Packers made a reasonable contract for Nelson, it does have a little risk.

How much depends on how much you believe in Nelson. I'm not 100 percent sold that he's repeating his 2011 numbers—not if Jermichael Finley rebounds, Randall Cobb improves and Greg Jennings is Greg Jennings.

Miller mentioned last week that he felt Nelson was actually better than Jennings, something I don't quite agree with. We've seen Nelson's upside, though, and it's huge.

However, much like with Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers can make a lot of receivers look very good. How vital is Nelson?

It's a big question going into 2012.

Bears fans were a little slow to respond on Friday, so I went back to the well this morning for the Bears question.

Some of your responses were succinct:

Some were much more in depth:

And one was hopeful it will all work out by Monday:

I think there are some good points here. Yes, the shelf life of a running back is shorter than other "skill" positions, and big money will always make more sense going to a guy like Brees over Forte.

For a guy like Forte, though, you are getting one of the best backs in the league—paying him good running back money is worth it because the level of play you get is of higher quality than you will get with a middle-tier guy.

Sean doesn't agree that Forte is as elite as Brees at his position. I agree—I like Forte and feel his is one of the better backs in the NFL, but he's not to running backs what Brees is to quarterbacks.

Plus, and it was pointed out in the tweets, but it is far harder (and more vital) to find a franchise quarterback than a franchise running back—if that even exists anymore.

A shorter contract might protect you as well in case he wears down.

Still, I agree with Sean, Buddy and Eric—not all positions are created equally.

I also agree with Matt's point and have said for some time that Forte has virtually no leverage. That evaporated when Michael Bush signed.

He is probably hoping that a deal will be made today or tomorrow and maybe it will. In that case, I'd have to imagine he's taking less than he wanted. If it doesn't happen, he'd be wise to sign his tender, take the money and play his tail off in the hopes of a big contract elsewhere next year.

Bob came in late with an interesting side note—one I was actually reading about on Facebook this morning.

Certainly, it gets tougher and tougher to see a game live, and when you look at how much the players get paid over other vital jobs, it can be tough to swallow.

That said, a football career is short. I say get paid what you can, while you can and make sure you have something left for later when your body breaks down. The owners certainly bear some blame as well. These guys cry poor for stadiums and then spend lavishly elsewhere.

We know there is profit for everyone—maybe some day they can find a way to make it without gouging us for money at the gate.

That's a column for another day, though.

Thanks for all the responses—and if you have a good idea for a title for this thing, send me a tweet or PM me here at B/R.

Check out the B/R NFC North Facebook page, like us and keep up with everything NFC North on Bleacher Report! Follow me on Twitter at @andrew_garda.