Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
2 Pages12>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#1 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 10:00:55 AM(UTC)
I start this thread as a sequel or whatever to my blame Ted Thompson thread. Position by position, how do the Packers stack up against the rest of the league?

QB: Obviously in the top four along with Brady, Brees, and P. Manning. IMO, Rodgers is #1 even among those.

RB: Prior to this year, we were probably in the bottom ten, maybe bottom five. Now with Lacy, I would rank us top ten, maybe top five. Considering age, I can't think of any RB I'd rather have, although right now a few may be better. (I'd take Melvin Gordon over even Lacy, though).

WR: I said in the WR thread, we are probably top 8 or 10 - not higher than that because all our WRs are better because of Rodgers. Nelson might be top 5 or 6; Cobb might be top 10 or 12; Jones top 15 or 20.

TE: Assuming Finley is gone by injury/free agency or both going forward, I would think the Packers are in the lower half, maybe lower ten. There are a lot of decent TEs out there.

O-LINE: The Pits - that's not just a description of the job; It's a description of the quality of ours. Lower ten for sure, maybe lower five. Maybe it gets better if by some miracle, Sherrod plays like a first rounder next season. Bulaga has been adequate at best when healthy - NOT what you expect from a first rounder. Consider three things: 1. the way Aaron Rodgers and now his replacements NEVER get time, and basically have to run for their lives and 2. the way our running game even with Lacy can't do much of anything when not set up by passes - when they just have to line up and get the job done, they don't. 3. the way a lot of teams have rebuilt quality lines with apparent ease.

D-LINE: I see light at the end of the tunnel with Daniels, Datone Jones, and maybe Worthy, and hopefully moving Neal back there. We still are in the lower half, though, and with Raji and Pickett still playing the bulk of the snaps, we are bottom five - moving to mid-range if we lose the big fatties (keep Jolly, though).

OLB: Clay Matthews and Who? Matthews alone probably puts the Packers in the top half of the league. However, I'm getting less and less optimistic about Perry not being a bust. I certainly don't think he is the bookend for Matthews you would expect from a #1 pick.

ILB: Hawk has played better this season than in the past, and Brad Jones hasn't been as bad as I expected. Still, neither is anywhere near what you would call a "playmaker". I would say bottom ten overall.

CORNER: We may be better overall there than any time since the Lombardi era. Just the same, a lot of other teams have found good corners too these days. I'd put the Packers in the top ten. Top five? Maybe if Shields matures before Tramon fades too much and House continues to improve.

SAFETY: Disappointing is the best word. Burnett has been OK, but not quite what I was hoping. McMillian I had high hopes for but he has flopped. I kinda like Jennings, but he is just above minimum NFL-quality. I think Hyde will end up there, and maybe we draft somebody fairly high. For now, we are bottom ten.

PUNTER/KICKER: Masthay has been great; There seem to be a lot of great punters now, though, in the league. Crosby? Middle of the pack, I guess. At his best, there are at least 8 or 10 better kickers in the league, and he ain't always at his best. Combine the two, and I'd say top 10 or 12 in the league.

It's my contention that other than QB, the overall team is mid-range at best, maybe in the lower half. I'd be interested to read how those who think Ted Thompson is so great would rate the team position by position.
Zero2Cool  
#2 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 10:06:17 AM(UTC)
Sacks

OLB Matthews, Clay 6
DL Daniels, Mike 5.5
ILB Hawk, A.J. 5
ILB Jones, Brad 3.5
DL Jones, Datone 3
OLB Neal, Mike 3
OLB Perry, Nick 3


GermanGilbert  
#3 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 10:19:27 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
WR: I said in the WR thread, we are probably top 8 or 10 - not higher than that because all our WRs are better because of Rodgers. Nelson might be top 5 or 6; Cobb might be top 10 or 12; Jones top 15 or 20.


Maybe I misunderstood you, but how can a team be ranked 8th to 10th if the 3rd guy on the team is in the top 15 to 20 in the league? That means your 3rd WR is better than the #1 guy of half of the NFL teams.
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#4 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 10:31:15 AM(UTC)
GermanGilbert said: Go to Quoted Post
Maybe I misunderstood you, but how can a team be ranked 8th to 10th if the 3rd guy on the team is in the top 15 to 20 in the league? That means your 3rd WR is better than the #1 guy of half of the NFL teams.


Good Point, but I think there are 8 - 10 teams around with at least as good a situation as the Packers have, all things considered.

wpr  
#5 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 10:34:44 AM(UTC)
GB stacks up right in the middle at 15th.
Code:

Seattle Seahawks 	10 	1 	0 	.909 	
Denver Broncos 	     9 	2 	0 	.818 	
Kansas City Chiefs 	9 	2 	0 	.818 	
New Orleans Saints 	9 	2 	0 	.818 	
Carolina Panthers 	8 	3 	0 	.727 	
New England Patriots 8 3 	0 	.727 	
Arizona Cardinals 	7 	4 	0 	.636 	
Cincinnati Bengals 	7 	4 	0 	.636 	
Indianapolis Colts 	7 	4 	0 	.636 	
San Francisco 49ers 	6 	4 	0 	.600 	
Chicago Bears 		6 	5 	0 	.545 	
Dallas Cowboys 	        6 	5 	0 	.545 	
Detroit Lions 		6 	5 	0 	.545 	
Philadelphia Eagles 	6 	5 	0 	.545 	
Green Bay Packers 	5 	5 	1 	.500 	
Baltimore Ravens 	5 	6 	0 	.455 	
Miami Dolphins 	        5 	6 	0 	.455 	
New York Jets 		5 	6 	0 	.455 	
Pittsburgh Steelers 	5 	6 	0 	.455 	
San Diego Chargers 	5 	6 	0 	.455 	
St. Louis Rams 		5 	6 	0 	.455 	
Tennessee Titans 	5 	6 	0 	.455 	
Buffalo Bills 		4 	7 	0 	.364 	
Cleveland Browns 	4 	7 	0 	.364 	
New York Giants 	4 	7 	0 	.364 	
Oakland Raiders 	        4 	7 	0 	.364 	
Washington Redskins 	3 	7 	0 	.300 	
Tampa Bay Bucs 	3 	8 	0 	.273 	
Minnesota Vikings 	2 	8 	1 	.227 	
Atlanta Falcons 		2 	9 	0 	.182 	
Houston Texans 	2 	9 	0 	.182 	
Jacksonville Jaguars 	2 	9 	0 	.182 	

QCHuskerFan  
#6 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 10:41:41 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
Good Point, but I think there are 8 - 10 teams around with at least as good a situation as the Packers have, all things considered.



I would be interested in knowing your 8 teams as good as or better. Even with the Rodgers influence, I may have the Packers in the top 2.

Denver would be in the top 3. But if you discount the Pack for having Rodgers, doesn't the same argument work for Denver?

QCHuskerFan  
#7 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 10:46:51 AM(UTC)
QB- Top 3
RB- Top 10
WR- Top 3
TE- Middle
OL- Top 1/2 (#5 rushing and #5 passing team doesn't happen by accident)

DL- Bottom 1/2
LB- Middle
CB- Top 10 in potential, Bottom 5 in performance
S- Bottom 5-10

Specialists- Top 10
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#8 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 10:49:08 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan said: Go to Quoted Post
I would be interested in knowing your 8 teams as good as or better. Even with the Rodgers influence, I may have the Packers in the top 2.

Denver would be in the top 3. But if you discount the Pack for having Rodgers, doesn't the same argument work for Denver?



Yeah, but Denver isn't in my top three. They are about equal to the Packers in WRs IMO.

DarkaneRules  
#9 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 11:20:44 AM(UTC)
I just go by the eye test more often than not. My view of this team is that they are currently below average. Out of 32 teams, I would rank them around 15 - 20 area.
QCHuskerFan  
#10 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 11:21:15 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
Yeah, but Denver isn't in my top three. They are about equal to the Packers in WRs IMO.



I would agree that they are about equal.

So who are your top 8?
nerdmann  
#11 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 11:44:59 AM(UTC)
Haha, Bulaga "adequate at best." lol
dhazer  
#12 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 5:12:48 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan said: Go to Quoted Post
I would agree that they are about equal.

So who are your top 8?


Are you talking at this minute or when are all healthy?

1- Atlanta
2- Arizona
3- Chicago
4- Detroit
5 - Giants
6- Dallas
7- Bengals
8 - Packers
QCHuskerFan  
#13 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 6:25:26 PM(UTC)
dhazer said: Go to Quoted Post
Are you talking at this minute or when are all healthy?

1- Atlanta
2- Arizona
3- Chicago
4- Detroit
5 - Giants
6- Dallas
7- Bengals
8 - Packers


One of my main definitions of quality is depth. The Packers, even without Rodgers and with 2 of the WR having missed games due to injury, have 4 WR with at least 29 catches. I will contend that we don't have a major#1 like Johnson, Fitzgerald, or Marshall.

Atlanta- Definitely top 5
Arizona- Only have 3 receivers in double digits. Maybe 8th?
Chicago- Their #4 receiver has 1 catch. This team only has 2 viable WR options. Not top 8 in my opinion.
Detroit- Again, a team with only 3 real options, but 1 may be the greatest ever.
Giants- Again, 3 pretty good options.
Dallas- 4 decent WR. Top 5, probably
Bengals- Only 3 WR with more than single digit catches.
Packers- A #1A in Nelson, 3 others that have more than 29 catches. Top 3-5

Denver- 3 WR with more than 55 catches. No #4, but most productive 3 WR in league. Top 5

User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#14 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 6:58:55 PM(UTC)
dhazer said: Go to Quoted Post
Are you talking at this minute or when are all healthy?

1- Atlanta
2- Arizona
3- Chicago
4- Detroit
5 - Giants
6- Dallas
7- Bengals
8 - Packers


Sounds pretty reasonable. I posted this in the other thread earlier:

Lions, Cowboys, Bears, Bengals, maybe Saints, Cardinals, Texans, Niners, Ravens, Eagles - in addition to the Falcons and Broncos which somebody else mentioned.

steveishere  
#15 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 7:11:20 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
Sounds pretty reasonable. I posted this in the other thread earlier:

Lions, Cowboys, Bears, Bengals, maybe Saints, Cardinals, Texans, Niners, Ravens, Eagles - in addition to the Falcons and Broncos which somebody else mentioned.



It might be reasonable if you guys would bother to back up what you are saying with some reasonable explanations instead of just saying shit and acting like your word is law. Come on then give us your list and some reasons to back it up.
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#16 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 7:17:13 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan said: Go to Quoted Post
One of my main definitions of quality is depth. The Packers, even without Rodgers and with 2 of the WR having missed games due to injury, have 4 WR with at least 29 catches. I will contend that we don't have a major#1 like Johnson, Fitzgerald, or Marshall.

Atlanta- Definitely top 5
Arizona- Only have 3 receivers in double digits. Maybe 8th?
Chicago- Their #4 receiver has 1 catch. This team only has 2 viable WR options. Not top 8 in my opinion.
Detroit- Again, a team with only 3 real options, but 1 may be the greatest ever.
Giants- Again, 3 pretty good options.
Dallas- 4 decent WR. Top 5, probably
Bengals- Only 3 WR with more than single digit catches.
Packers- A #1A in Nelson, 3 others that have more than 29 catches. Top 3-5

Denver- 3 WR with more than 55 catches. No #4, but most productive 3 WR in league. Top 5



hahaha you can only throw to one receiver at a time. I can only dream how good Aaron Rodgers would be if we had one of those big three (make it four - the other Johnson is pretty damn good too - make it five, as Dez Bryant is outstanding also - make that six - I almost forgot A.J. Green). I'd put Jordy Nelson as a solid seventh behind that top six.
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#17 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 7:21:45 PM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Haha, Bulaga "adequate at best." lol


Are you forgetting the way he played last year BEFORE the injury? Playing hurt? It was never admitted publicly.
dhazer  
#18 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 7:33:10 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan said: Go to Quoted Post
One of my main definitions of quality is depth. The Packers, even without Rodgers and with 2 of the WR having missed games due to injury, have 4 WR with at least 29 catches. I will contend that we don't have a major#1 like Johnson, Fitzgerald, or Marshall.

Atlanta- Definitely top 5
Arizona- Only have 3 receivers in double digits. Maybe 8th?
Chicago- Their #4 receiver has 1 catch. This team only has 2 viable WR options. Not top 8 in my opinion.
Detroit- Again, a team with only 3 real options, but 1 may be the greatest ever.
Giants- Again, 3 pretty good options.
Dallas- 4 decent WR. Top 5, probably
Bengals- Only 3 WR with more than single digit catches.
Packers- A #1A in Nelson, 3 others that have more than 29 catches. Top 3-5

Denver- 3 WR with more than 55 catches. No #4, but most productive 3 WR in league. Top 5



Well how can you go with we have a great receiving group because we have 4 guys with 29 catches, That is because of injuries. How many games has cobb and jones missed and if I remember right wasn't Jordy out a few games also. Btw I forgot Denver they would be #1 by far.

I made my list on what I would think would be tops with Rodgers at QB for any of them.

Granted Denver would be about the same but imagine teams like the Bengals and Arizona with Rodgers under center.


Also is it the players or the system maybe we should look no farther than Jennings going to Minnesota.

I also just thought of an honorable mention and thats the Seahawks. They could be scary Harvin,Rice, Tate and Baldwin
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#19 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 7:53:23 PM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
It might be reasonable if you guys would bother to back up what you are saying with some reasonable explanations instead of just saying sh!t and acting like your word is law. Come on then give us your list and some reasons to back it up.


Seems like almost everybody is concentrating on WR - which is obviously one of the Packers strengths. How about the other positions where Ted Thompson has been so delinquent in drafting decent talent - O-Line, D-Line, LB other than Matthews, etc.?

Since you asked about WRs, I would contend that having a stud #1 go to WR is more important. Also, performance against us would indicate there is a premium on size (no "size of the Johnson" jokes intended hahaha). I would also put a premium on WRs who do the job with lesser QBs instead of vice versa - Bears, Cardinals, maybe Bengals and Cowboys.

Is that enough explanation? Now maybe you can reciprocate about how Ted Thompson is not to blame for the poor quality personnel in a lot of other positions.

nerdmann  
#20 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 7:57:55 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
Are you forgetting the way he played last year BEFORE the injury? Playing hurt? It was never admitted publicly.


Bulaga's fine. He's very good. Then you got Sitton and Lang, both playing VERY well this year. EDS to me is a good backup. He's playing "adequately."

How many teams could be down to their 5th tackle and still be in the race? Please.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Nonstopdrivel (10h) : should have done*
Zero2Cool (21-Feb) : Hi 😊😉
TheKanataThrilla (21-Feb) : I guess I should have did a refresh when I walked away from the computer.
TheKanataThrilla (21-Feb) : Peters is 25 with one year left on his contract at just over $3M
Zero2Cool (21-Feb) : Mel Kiper sticks with Marcus Davenport to GB in 2nd mock
Zero2Cool (21-Feb) : As for Marcus Peters, how old is he an what's his contract years left?
Zero2Cool (21-Feb) : Packers got tired of Sitton's antics.
Zero2Cool (21-Feb) : Sitton was released not because of play or salary, but personality. He will not be re-signed.
TheKanataThrilla (21-Feb) : If we are planning on possibly cutting Cobb I can see the 2nd round pick. A second round pick for Peters is a pretty good deal.
Smokey (21-Feb) : I'd offer Cobb + a 3rd round pick + a 6th round pick in 2019 for the CB Peters from KC.
TheKanataThrilla (21-Feb) : I guess that is a highter round pick
TheKanataThrilla (21-Feb) : Suggestion was a 2nd round pick. I would want a lower round pick. I think that is too much. A 3rd or 4th seems about right.
Smokey (21-Feb) : Cobb and WHAT PICK ?
TheKanataThrilla (21-Feb) : A suggestion I saw was a trade of Cobb and a Pick for Peters. I think that would be a great move.
Smokey (21-Feb) : Sitton was drafted be GB in 2008, not a young man at this point, but still is a "bear" of a man.
Cheesey (21-Feb) : Sitton? Maybe if the price is right.
Cheesey (21-Feb) : I doubt the Packers would try to resign Sutton. But who knows? If the price is right?
Zero2Cool (20-Feb) : Bears declining option on Josh Sitton. He'll be Free Agent.
Zero2Cool (20-Feb) : Chiefs CB Marcus Peters trade rumors -- come to Packers!
Smokey (20-Feb) : Join us in Packershome and be part of the discussion today .
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Elizabeeth ... good bye
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Saturday, August 19, 2017
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : That's dedicated spammng!
Nonstopdrivel (19-Feb) : For some reason, I had to flush my DNS cache to access this site from my laptop today.
Nonstopdrivel (19-Feb) : I prefer toads to frogs, Smokey, thank you very much.
Rockmolder (19-Feb) : My girlfriends says thanks, Rourke.
Smokey (19-Feb) : Nonstopdrivel that you most likely say to all the frogs you meet .
Nonstopdrivel (19-Feb) : Rockmolder's avatar is so fucking sexy.
gbguy20 (19-Feb) : never seen the interview before. tough to listen to. can't believe it was 7 years ago
gbguy20 (19-Feb) : just watched a nick Collins tribute on yourube. the end featured an interview with nick reflecting on his injury
buckeyepackfan (17-Feb) : Saints De'Vante Harris nothing but a POS!!!!! Look up his tweetes on Florida killings!!
Nonstopdrivel (17-Feb) : They're laying new gas line near my house. The trucks are all from a company in Madison.
Smokey (14-Feb) : 2018 Hall o Fame Game/Aug.2,2018/Ravens vs Bears
Zero2Cool (13-Feb) : Based off 2017 records, Packers have toughest schedule for 2018
Smokey (13-Feb) : Wow, tough new 2018 Packer Schedule !
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
17m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

2h / Random Babble / wpr

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Rockmolder

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Rockmolder

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

22-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

21-Feb / Random Babble / Smokey

21-Feb / Random Babble / Pack93z

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Rockmolder

16-Feb / Around The NFL / Cheesey

14-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

Headlines