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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
VinceLambeauStarr  
#1 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:23:38 AM(UTC)
The NFL is a revolving business, year on year the turnover for playing staff means that teams are consistently remodeled. It's become an increasing rarity that a team or unit grows old together, which in itself can be a massive negative, case in point, the current Steelers defense.

To state more of the obvious:-

The most prized position is Quarterback, as we have known for many an eon. Having a durable, Hall of Fame caliber quarterback means that whilst sourcing a capable backup is still very important, care must be given not to disrupt the week upon week preparation.

No one could have envisioned that Aaron Rodgers would miss multiple games for the first time in his career, but here we are.

This year our beloved team has faced more adversity than any in Mike McCarthy's tenure, our Superbowl winning year included.

A quick look at injuries by position plays very favorably in the argument that Ted Thompson and staff are meticulous developers and planners.

QB - We will wait and see
RB - Lacy has missed time due to a concussion, BOTH other runners on the depth chart have contributed majorly in games. Dujuan Harris also got injured before the season started. In terms of making a statement on depth? Resounding.
FB - N/A
WR's - Cobb and Jones have missed time, Boykin and White stepped up. This can also reflect on Aaron Rodgers, but let's not forget that it's the recievers who have to make the catches, and contribute to the building of chemistry
TE - Quarless is proving a capable fill in
OL - Bulaga went down during preseason, and Bakhtiari is stating a strong claim as a permanent fixture.

DL - We are deep here, and relatively healthy. A quick glance at IR shows Worthy, a 2nd round draft pick.
LB - Lattimore steps in for Jones, and performs very well. On the flipside, Matthews absence has been very noticeable
DB - Our youngest corps, and one which I envision the talent level to keep increasing

In conclusion, we are in the upper echelon of teams that are designed to deal with multiple injuries spanning multiple positions, and with that in mind I cannot fault not having a better backup quarterback. One who can still prove us all wrong, lest we are sages with the power of perception.

wpr  
#2 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:59:11 AM(UTC)
VinceLambeauStarr said: Go to Quoted Post

To state more of the obvious:-

The most prized position is Quarterback, as we have known for many an eon. Having a durable, Hall of Fame caliber quarterback means that whilst sourcing a capable backup is still very important, care must be given not to disrupt the week upon week preparation.

No one could have envisioned that Aaron Rodgers would miss multiple games for the first time in his career, but here we are.



This is the only part of your post I have an issue with.

After a very brief check on the NFL QBs. Only a small portion of them have not missed games due to injures. Of those who have not missed games often that is because they have only been in the league for 1-3 years. Their time may well be coming.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the prized position is the QB and that all the mayhem on the field is most often focused on the QB or in near proximity. it can be something as simple as Linemen have frequently inadvertently fallen or rolled onto the leg of another player injuring him.

The front office has to have a better than than "We hope nothing bad will happen". They can't trot a guy out there who doesn't get more than a handful of snaps with the first team a week. Certainly not someone who was added after training camp was done and then expect him to be able to succeed.
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#3 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 11:19:08 AM(UTC)
Is Packer "depth" at the positions where it is on the better end really any better than most teams around the league? And you take the worst example (other than QB), the offensive line, I would suggest our depth is and has been for years, a lot worse than most teams.

ALL OF THAT WAS MASKED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE BEST QB BY FAR IN THE NFL. Aaron Rodgers had the great success he had while virtually never having a lot of time to throw - basically running for his life and STILL making incredible passes. Until this season, he had woefully inadequate RBs. Our WRs are really good, but they aren't Calvin Johnson or A.j. Green - basically they are what they are mostly because of Rodgers.

Now Rodgers is down for hopefully a short time, but who knows? And all of the problems stick out like a sore thumb - and you can't really even say it's "depth" - more like it's the "supporting cast" to the star who is now out.

Thank You TT.
nerdmann  
#4 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 12:09:45 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
Is Packer "depth" at the positions where it is on the better end really any better than most teams around the league? And you take the worst example (other than QB), the offensive line, I would suggest our depth is and has been for years, a lot worse than most teams.

ALL OF THAT WAS MASKED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE BEST QB BY FAR IN THE NFL. Aaron Rodgers had the great success he had while virtually never having a lot of time to throw - basically running for his life and STILL making incredible passes. Until this season, he had woefully inadequate RBs. Our WRs are really good, but they aren't Calvin Johnson or A.j. Green - basically they are what they are mostly because of Rodgers.

Now Rodgers is down for hopefully a short time, but who knows? And all of the problems stick out like a sore thumb - and you can't really even say it's "depth" - more like it's the "supporting cast" to the star who is now out.

Thank You TT.


How many teams could lose both starting Ts and still contend?

This team doesn't have "depth" on the OL, in the sense that they're only actually carring 6 or 7 OL right now. LOL. But they pretty much all can play. When we get our starters back, the guys who are starting now are gonna be the best backups in the league.
sschind  
#5 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 1:20:01 PM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
How many teams could lose both starting Ts and still contend?

This team doesn't have "depth" on the OL, in the sense that they're only actually carring 6 or 7 OL right now. LOL. But they pretty much all can play. When we get our starters back, the guys who are starting now are gonna be the best backups in the league.


You would think so wouldn't you. The problem is that someone always seems to be getting hurt and we are always in this position. I remember everyone last year saying we will be getting this guy back and that guy back and training camp will be a real battle and we will be stacked. Then TC rolls around and someone else gets hurt and the battles never materialize and we are left saying next year we will have this guy back and that guy back and training camp will be a real battle and we will be stacked.

I like your idea in theory and not just the way it applies to the O line. and if we can ever shake the injury bug we will be loaded.

sschind  
#6 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 1:40:27 PM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
This is the only part of your post I have an issue with.

After a very brief check on the NFL QBs. Only a small portion of them have not missed games due to injures. Of those who have not missed games often that is because they have only been in the league for 1-3 years. Their time may well be coming.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the prized position is the QB and that all the mayhem on the field is most often focused on the QB or in near proximity. it can be something as simple as Linemen have frequently inadvertently fallen or rolled onto the leg of another player injuring him.

The front office has to have a better than than "We hope nothing bad will happen". They can't trot a guy out there who doesn't get more than a handful of snaps with the first team a week. Certainly not someone who was added after training camp was done and then expect him to be able to succeed.


I agree but what do you do about it? You said in another post that you can't keep cutting guys and bringing in new guys every 2 months and expect good things to come of it and I agree but what if the guys you have are not doing what you had hoped they would by this point. Is it better to keep someone around just because they have been around or is it better to go out and get someone who you think will be better. Obviously the best answer is to get someone better to begin with but that is easier said than done as we have seen.

Maybe its time for Ted Thompson to target a young QB a little higher than the 7th round or UDFA (not that draft position guarantees a better player) and work him up. Hopefully we won't have to look at him as the QB of the future for a few more draft cycles but maybe we could get him to the point where we can move him and upgrade his draft position. Ron Wolf always seemed to be able to do that. Ted Thompson could have had one with Matt Flynn but we ended up with nothing to show for it (at least I don't think we got any picks for him, I could be wrong.)




steveishere  
#7 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:28:08 PM(UTC)
We got a 5th round pick for Flynn. I don't really see any scenario where we could have gotten anything more for him.
steveishere  
#8 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:40:28 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
Is Packer "depth" at the positions where it is on the better end really any better than most teams around the league? And you take the worst example (other than QB), the offensive line, I would suggest our depth is and has been for years, a lot worse than most teams.

ALL OF THAT WAS MASKED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE BEST QB BY FAR IN THE NFL. Aaron Rodgers had the great success he had while virtually never having a lot of time to throw - basically running for his life and STILL making incredible passes. Until this season, he had woefully inadequate RBs. Our WRs are really good, but they aren't Calvin Johnson or A.j. Green - basically they are what they are mostly because of Rodgers.

Now Rodgers is down for hopefully a short time, but who knows? And all of the problems stick out like a sore thumb - and you can't really even say it's "depth" - more like it's the "supporting cast" to the star who is now out.

Thank You TT.


Our depth on the offensive line is starting right now and is far from one of the worst in the league so I don't see how the depth there can be considered bad. I think it's a different ball game if Sherrod and Bulaga are your starting tackles and Bakhtiari and Barclay are your back ups. Now our depth with our back ups being the starters is pretty bad but I don't see how that is a worse situation than anyone else would be in.

That crap about the WRs not being Calvin Johnson or AJ Green is bs. Calvin Johnson is having a hall of fame career, you expect us to have all hall of fame WRs or something? I tell you one thing I wouldn't trade our WRs for Detroits. You aren't giving our WRs enough credit either having Rodgers helps them but Jordy Nelson and Cobb are damn good players. I guess Jordy had the best game of his career with Matt Flynn at QB because of the "aura" of Rodgers or something right?

nerdmann  
#9 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 4:39:37 PM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
You would think so wouldn't you. The problem is that someone always seems to be getting hurt and we are always in this position. I remember everyone last year saying we will be getting this guy back and that guy back and training camp will be a real battle and we will be stacked. Then TC rolls around and someone else gets hurt and the battles never materialize and we are left saying next year we will have this guy back and that guy back and training camp will be a real battle and we will be stacked.

I like your idea in theory and not just the way it applies to the O line. and if we can ever shake the injury bug we will be loaded.



We just got Sherrod back.

There is a record number of ACLs in the league this year. I think it may have to do with the issue of "tackling low" so as to avoid any appearance of helmet contact. Not sure why this team has had so many hammies. It's weird. Kind of pissing me off. But it's not on Ted, per se.
sschind  
#10 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 6:04:35 PM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
We got a 5th round pick for Flynn. I don't really see any scenario where we could have gotten anything more for him.


Was that 5th rounder for Flynn or because we basically swapped a competent center in Wells for a Saturday that couldn't play on Sunday
sschind  
#11 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 6:09:07 PM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
We just got Sherrod back.

There is a record number of ACLs in the league this year. I think it may have to do with the issue of "tackling low" so as to avoid any appearance of helmet contact. Not sure why this team has had so many hammies. It's weird. Kind of pissing me off. But it's not on Ted, per se.


Sherrod will be a big plus. I'm not sure if he will compete for the starting job or just remain a backup this year but he will certainly help. Can he play guard?

nerdmann  
#12 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 6:27:17 PM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
Sherrod will be a big plus. I'm not sure if he will compete for the starting job or just remain a backup this year but he will certainly help. Can he play guard?



Taylor can play G. I wish he could play C.

I have to assume Barclay is our backup C, with Lang being out. Although I guess Lang hasn't been listed out officially.

Maybe they'd use the longsnapper.
Mucky Tundra  
#13 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 6:50:17 PM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
Sherrod will be a big plus. I'm not sure if he will compete for the starting job or just remain a backup this year but he will certainly help. Can he play guard?



IIRC they tried Sherrod at G during TC his rookie year. It didn't end too well.
steveishere  
#14 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 8:42:42 PM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
Was that 5th rounder for Flynn or because we basically swapped a competent center in Wells for a Saturday that couldn't play on Sunday


Likely getting a pick for Wells got cancelled out by him getting hurt and not playing and Saturday making hte pro-bowl. Flynn had the bigger contract between him and wells so any compensatory pick was mostly from him.
sschind  
#15 Posted : Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:15:53 PM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
Likely getting a pick for Wells got cancelled out by him getting hurt and not playing and Saturday making hte pro-bowl. Flynn had the bigger contract between him and wells so any compensatory pick was mostly from him.


You may be right. Flynn was most likely perceived as the bigger loss. I didn't realize that Saturday made the pro bowl. Another reason not to watch it.

porky88  
#16 Posted : Friday, November 8, 2013 12:18:31 AM(UTC)
Is it depth or is the system just that good? A lot of ex Packers get looks elsewhere, but none of them seem to blossom. I do think the environment and circumstances matter. In other words, the structure Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy have put in place is arguably as responsible for the resiliency as the actual talent Thompson drafts. From that standpoint, I don’t think the duo gets enough respect. They certainly don’t seem to get as much respect as maybe the Rooney Family or Bill Belichick do.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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
uffda udfa (5h) : Packers re-sign Christine Michael
Smokey (6h) : Easier said than fixed .
Nonstopdrivel (7h) : The web version lists who started the thread; the mobile version lists who last updated it.
Nonstopdrivel (7h) : Also, there's a weird disparity between the web version and online version of this site.
Nonstopdrivel (7h) : ;-)
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : Packers wanted D. Ware in 2005. Thank you Cowboys!
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : lol Rourke
Nonstopdrivel (21-Mar) : I HATE HATE HATE the way all threads get marked as read after viewing a few of them in one session. It's obnoxious.
Smokey (21-Mar) : Check out this site, NFLdraftscout.com , a great resource site.
Smokey (20-Mar) : Jared Cook signs with Raiders .
Smokey (20-Mar) : I did watch SB 45 on YouTube the other night, very eye opening .
Smokey (20-Mar) : Watching Spring Training Baseball, Nationals vs Yankees, very interesting .
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : B1G making some noise in that bracket
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : The more join, the more talk, the better. including John
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : no forum should need one person, we have others, speak up!
gbguy20 (19-Mar) : slow forum needs more uffda
Smokey (19-Mar) : There's always next year .
Smokey (18-Mar) : Virginia is still in it !
Smokey (18-Mar) : On Wisconsin
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Down goes Villanova!! Badgers!!!
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Might have went into your SPAM or JUNK folder??
yooperfan (18-Mar) : Funny I never got the invite
wpr (17-Mar) : Ignoring the Signing Bonus, Jones' base is only $725K above the vet min
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Not many seem interested, but I did invite those from last year.
dhazer (16-Mar) : no bracket challenge Kevin?
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Blame twitter on the /home page here lol
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Datone Jones Vikings deal $3.75M, $1.6M signing bonus, $1.5M salary, $31,250 per game active, $150K workout bonus, $1.25M sacks-pt incentive
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Nope. I don't care to read up on Vikings players. :-)
Bnoble (15-Mar) : Anyone see any numbers on Jones deal?
uffda udfa (14-Mar) : Datone to Minnesota.
musccy (14-Mar) : A more $ than I'd prefer, but still glad Elliott is back
uffda udfa (14-Mar) : Jayrone back on a one year 1.6 deal.
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Martellus Bennett Contract Details: New Packers TE has just $3.85M cap hit in 2017
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Packers have $28 under cap yet
hardrocker950 (13-Mar) : Walden would be a nice pickup...
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
4m / Green Bay Packers Talk / FLORIDA PACKER88

42m / Announcements / Smokey

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / musccy

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

4h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

6h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Nonstopdrivel

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

17-Mar / Around The NFL / Smokey

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

Headlines