Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
4 Pages<1234>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Glorydays  
#21 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 9:50:16 AM(UTC)
Glorydays

Rank: Practice Squad

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: Ohio

Applause Given: 4
Applause Received: 4

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
How can you think he couldn't win a High School game when he had double digit win total in College?

I believe losing Jermichael Finley and Greg Jennings would hurt, but not as much as some may think. I think Andrew Quarless and D.J. Williams can fill in admirably for Finley and also Randall Cobb, James Jones and Jordy Nelson can eat up the catches Jennings will not get. I also think that Jarrett Boykin fella is gonna contribute a couple dozen receptions too.


My concern is if we lose a starter or two at WR. That makes a huge dropoff in talent. As far as Harrell goes, he hast displayed ANYTHING that would inspire confidence if Aaron Rodgers went down. His stumble bum play on the one yard line was agonizing to watch. Could that happen to anyone? Sure. Its still uninspiring. He's no daisy!
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#22 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:55:38 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 95
Applause Received: 160

Ok. So as long as we get a monster at DE or LB or S, we will make the playoffs with Harrell at QB for 16 games?

Every team needs new players and depth. The Super Bowl champs in Baltimore currently have major issues at LT, MLB (2), WR and Safety. Everyone has needs. Packers are no different in that regard.

The point is that I personally have no faith in this team making the playoffs if Aaron Rodgers goes down for any serious time. Any other player can go down and I think we can survive. It was proven this year. But Harrell has no experience and, so, we have no evidence to suggest that we have an adequate backup.

We are not like everyone else. Things worked out ok for 49ers with their 'backup'. Seattle has experience. Washington looks like it did well last year with both rookie QB's. Atlanta has experience. Many teams have a veteran (castoff) at backup QB. We have novices.

Favre and Rodgers have spoiled us. I don't think we place enough value on a backup QB in today's NFL, because, frankly, the backup in Green Bay has not been relied on in 20 years. Our time is coming.
Offline Pack93z  
#23 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:07:35 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 398
Applause Received: 1,078

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post


We are not like everyone else. Things worked out ok for 49ers with their 'backup'. Seattle has experience. Washington looks like it did well last year with both rookie QB's. Atlanta has experience. Many teams have a veteran (castoff) at backup QB. We have novices.


What about the Champs.. the Ravens? Tyrod Taylor would give you confidence?

I agree.. Rodgers goes down, we have lost a ton. Probably will not be a playoff contender. But just as Flynn was an unknown and shined.. the same could happen with Harrell as well. Harrell has shown positives (along with negatives) in preseason.. but to discard him because of a single snap? He has been in the system for a couple of years and the staff has confidence in him.

Sorry.. this is a product of the NFL of today.. when you commit the type of money these franchise QB's are getting.. committing dollars to retain proven backups isn't always available.

The examples you are citing are teams with either young starters and highly drafted backups because both are just proving themselves and are relatively cheap or they are midline starting QB's with the future in the wings.

Now.. compare players in Rodgers pay bracket. Go look up the Brady, Brees, Manning(s), Rivers, Cutler camps. What do they all have.. a clear frontline starter collecting large money with inexperience behind them for the most part.

We are no different. Are we spoiled.. absolutely.

Would I love to have an upgrade.. absolutely.. but I have one end game in mind. The Lombardi.. I see more pushing needs in the starters of this roster than a backup QB. I have more important rotational players in mind than a backup QB.

Plus I think QB's as a whole.. the position is overrated. They are not the end all be all of a complete football team.

Message modified by user Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:27:34 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#24 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:32:46 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
Ok. So as long as we get a monster at DE or LB or S, we will make the playoffs with Harrell at QB for 16 games?


Maybe. You don't know. No one does. Let's just hope that doesn't happen. I don't want to see Rodgers go down.

All I know, is we need to bolster our D. Is there really any question about this? Did you watch any of those games? Add to that more emphasis with running the ball, and maybe some players there to upgrade our rushing ability. Who is to say Harrell or Coleman wouldn't be able to make the playoffs? Who is to say that they wouldn't improve with more #1 reps?

These defensive upgrades are necessary for Green Bay to become a better team. If we fail to make them, again, we may not make the playoffs, WITH Rodgers. But, I doubt highly that we would go anywhere without being able to stop the run, and stop TEs roaming free across the middle of our D.

You are arbitrarily picking just one player, Rodgers, in a hypothetical scenario where he becomes injured, and saying the backup for his position will not be able to help us win. Try picking Raji, or Pickett... what do you think would happen differently? Me, I think those defensive losses would take us out of any kind of playoff running faster than the loss of Rodgers. At least with Harrell and Coleman, we'd still have a chance with a run heavy offense installed.

We have no depth on our front 7, and many holes at front 7 starter positions. Pick should be a backup by now, at his age. There is a giant sucking sound coming from the front 7 of our D... Who is it on our defense that other teams are always having to gameplan around, besides Matthews? Oh, that's right! NO ONE.
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#25 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:13:13 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 95
Applause Received: 160

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
Maybe. You don't know. No one does. Let's just hope that doesn't happen. I don't want to see Rodgers go down.

All I know, is we need to bolster our D. Is there really any question about this? Did you watch any of those games? Add to that more emphasis with running the ball, and maybe some players there to upgrade our rushing ability. Who is to say Harrell or Coleman wouldn't be able to make the playoffs? Who is to say that they wouldn't improve with more #1 reps?

These defensive upgrades are necessary for Green Bay to become a better team. If we fail to make them, again, we may not make the playoffs, WITH Rodgers. But, I doubt highly that we would go anywhere without being able to stop the run, and stop TEs roaming free across the middle of our D.

You are arbitrarily picking just one player, Rodgers, in a hypothetical scenario where he becomes injured, and saying the backup for his position will not be able to help us win. Try picking Raji, or Pickett... what do you think would happen differently? Me, I think those defensive losses would take us out of any kind of playoff running faster than the loss of Rodgers. At least with Harrell and Coleman, we'd still have a chance with a run heavy offense installed.

We have no depth on our front 7, and many holes at front 7 starter positions. Pick should be a backup by now, at his age. There is a giant sucking sound coming from the front 7 of our D... Who is it on our defense that other teams are always having to gameplan around, besides Matthews? Oh, that's right! NO ONE.


So we can't live without Raji? Hope he doesn't get hurt and miss any games. Oh wait. He did. So did Woodson and Matthews. All of our supposed studs on defense missed games in 2012. Did we give up yards? Yes. Win games anyway? Yes.

Of course the D needs to get better. So does the O. So do Special Teams. I doubt Mike McCarthy is satisfied with any of them.

But Aaron Rodgers covers up for a lack of running game, injured receivers, porous line. Think Harrell can?
Offline Pack93z  
#26 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:23:33 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 398
Applause Received: 1,078

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post


But Aaron Rodgers covers up for a lack of running game, injured receivers, porous line. Think Harrell can?


So how about fixing the real issue of a sluggish running game, a porous line and better depth at receiver in place of committing more dollars (in which a FA QB will cost) or consuming a higher pick on a QB whereas that pick can be used on more immediate return. Or better yet.. build an ass kicking take no prisoners type of defense..
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#27 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:27:20 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

You have to admit, your hypothetical situation is shifting... you were talking 16 games with Harrell. I'm saying, over the course of 16 games, we would lose more with the loss of those other players I mentioned. Maybe not. Who knows? I know damn well what Rodgers does for our team.

We gave up at least 100 yds in 7 of our last 9 games of the 2012 season, including the playoffs. We averaged 132 opponent rushing yds per game by our D in 2012. We let a rookie torch us for 444 yds in his first playoff game.... we gave up 323 yds rushing in that one game. 579 total yds of offense given up.

NFL record for most rushing yds given up to a QB. That's horrendous, and unacceptable.

Woodson's comments after that game: "They're a deep team, they're a big team, they're a fast team, they're well-coached," he said. "I look at us and maybe we've got to be bigger and faster."

We gave up 409 yds rushing to AP in just two games against MIN... Ridiculous. We spent time working on tackling drills. AP had 189 yds AFTER CONTACT in just one game.

Our last 3 playoff losses we gave up 51, 37 and 45 points. This SCREAMS we need help on D.

Conversely, we never rushed for more than 100 yds away from home last year. This SCREAMS we better learn how to run the fucking football.

Two major points of emphasis for 2013 I would say...

Message modified by user Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:00:48 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline nerdmann  
#28 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 3:01:25 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,706
Applause Received: 664

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
So we can't live without Raji? Hope he doesn't get hurt and miss any games. Oh wait. He did. So did Woodson and Matthews. All of our supposed studs on defense missed games in 2012. Did we give up yards? Yes. Win games anyway? Yes.

Of course the D needs to get better. So does the O. So do Special Teams. I doubt Mike McCarthy is satisfied with any of them.

But Aaron Rodgers covers up for a lack of running game, injured receivers, porous line. Think Harrell can?


One could argue that Aaron is more likely to abandon the run game and audible into too many deep passes down the field. Harrell would not be prone to stat whore, but would be forced to work within the system and maintain solid fundamentals.

With Harrell as your QB are you gonna abandon the running game? I don't think so. You're going to have balance. And he's not gonna be passing up open guys waiting 8+ seconds for something to develop deep.

Remember in '99 when Trent Green went down in the preseason? Rams fans thought their season was over. Up steps the next guy, you might have heard of him. Dude named Kurt Warner.

Is Harrell as good is Kurt Warner? Unlikely. But the Packers offense is stacked with talent, especially if we get Sherrod/Datko and Bulaga back. Dude's gonna have plenty of targets coming open.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#29 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 3:23:01 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 95
Applause Received: 160

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
With Harrell as your QB are you gonna abandon the running game? .


Please smile when you read this because I am when typing. "Didn't know we had a running game to abandon..." Big Grin

thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 3/6/2013(UTC)
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#30 Posted : Wednesday, March 6, 2013 3:37:55 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 95
Applause Received: 160

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
You have to admit, your hypothetical situation is shifting... you were talking 16 games with Harrell. I'm saying, over the course of 16 games, we would lose more with the loss of those other players I mentioned. Maybe not. Who knows? I know damn well what Rodgers does for our team.

We gave up at least 100 yds in 7 of our last 9 games of the 2012 season, including the playoffs. We averaged 132 opponent rushing yds per game by our D in 2012. We let a rookie torch us for 444 yds in his first playoff game.... we gave up 323 yds rushing in that one game. 579 total yds of offense given up.

NFL record for most rushing yds given up to a QB. That's horrendous, and unacceptable.

Woodson's comments after that game: "They're a deep team, they're a big team, they're a fast team, they're well-coached," he said. "I look at us and maybe we've got to be bigger and faster."

We gave up 409 yds rushing to AP in just two games against MIN... Ridiculous. We spent time working on tackling drills. AP had 189 yds AFTER CONTACT in just one game.

Our last 3 playoff losses we gave up 51, 37 and 45 points. This SCREAMS we need help on D.

Conversely, we never rushed for more than 100 yds away from home last year. This SCREAMS we better learn how to run the fucking football.

Two major points of emphasis for 2013 I would say...


12 months ago, we were all screaming about the need to shut down the pass. We had given up historic numbers in passing yardage. We were opposing QB's fantasy games. 15-1 record but lots of hand wringing after a depressing loss in the playoffs. So lots of defensive players drafted. Much improvement in Pass D. Still won a lot of games. Gave up some embarrassing rushing yardage though. Funny how even when things change, they stay the same.


Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
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

Tweeter

Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / hardrocker950

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / The_Green_Ninja

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / porky88