http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...275906551.html
Printable View
hey....a personnel guy called Sherrod "Just a guy"............has he improved ?
Honestly, a bit surprised by this. I predicted GB to go 11-5 so I'm a bit surprised by the tone there
I'm also surprised Detroit was a one point favorite Sunday and since most money is going with Detroit the line has increased to them being a 2 pt favorite.
Quick thoughts:
1.) Bob's latched on to the "last X games" stat.
2.) "An experienced executive in personnel for a National Football League team thinks there is." Fine sentences there, Bob. Did JSO fire their editors?
3.) Bob has no idea how a betting line works.
4.) Josh Sitton, the guy who comes out with a clean sheet every week, and has been in the conversation for 3 years for best guard in the league, is a "player you can win with".
I thought the guy's breakdown of the various players and units was fair. I just don't see how he comes up with 8-8. Does he think the 2014 Packers with a healthy Rodgers and Matthews is no better than the 2013 version that missed those guys for half the year?
Rodgers is the only pro-bowl player, lol
8-8 would be disappointing, but not surprising.
Wasn't there talk this summer of this being McCarthy's most talented team?
All the grades were reasonable with these mild surprises:
The scout really likes Richard Rogers, has him as a more promising rookie than Ha Ha
Is Barrington better than Latimore?
I like the choice of brown to color the shitty players
Yes. An 8 win team last year without your elite QB and still the same this year with him. Pathetic evals by 'professionals'.
That's just what I was thinking. Arod is worth more than half a game improvement by playing all 16 games. Last year Bob had a column on how we could survive an absence of ARod. This year we get this.Quote:
Originally Posted by smuggler
I think it's fair to say the scout was also considering upgrades the other nfc teams have made as well. I'd bet he thinks both the Bears and Lions have improved more than GB.
It's easy to pick a writer apart on every article; but those in the industry consider McGinn among the best. I'd agree with Joe in that the article, for the most part was fair.
But in my mind at worst they should still have come to the conclusion that at worse they were a marginal playoff team instead of garnering a record that does not get them in the playoffs.
Consider me a homer...I guess
But I think they are also considering the other NFC teams too.Quote:
Originally Posted by smuggler
Last year everybody was on board with GB being the elite of the NFC North
I still think we are; but there are MANY in the industry not on board with that
Some think the Lions will win the NFC north and many are picking the Bears
Last year it was all about GB and many of those same pundits were picking GB to the Super Bowl
from the article....
"An experienced executive in personnel for a National Football League team thinks there is.
In an extended interview last week, the personnel man assigned a grade to each of the Packers' 60 players for the Journal Sentinel and broke down the roster position-by-position. Selected because of his level of expertise and success in the NFL, he has studied the Packers this summer, this September and for years before that."
Put your name to it, or else it could all just be Bob's agenda. This is not legal case where comments would put the person in jeopardy, so why not put a name to it? Weak stuff that tries and succeeds to gain clicks, but has a weak basis without a named source.
Okay, Blue Dog - maybe you're right. They missed the "poor" end of the spectrum. Maybe that color coding needed to be more extensive.
Brown - Bad player. Shitty.
Brown, streaked with red - a player who is not only bad but is representative of a larger sickness in the team.
Brown, with corn - bad player, but colorful.
Blackish-brown - a bad player who ate far too much steak the night before.
Lol Fritz
I think the article was fair - but I'm biased b/c the guy is saying a lot of what I've been saying for a while now.
I think more highly of Nelson that he apparently does; I agree that we are going to struggle to stop the run all year - he doesn't address philosophy in this regard, only evaluates the players, but the players are a reflection of the Packer philosophy that says stopping the run is only an incidental aspect of the game.
He gives higher grades to the OL than I would - but the same issue exists here as with the run defense. The players might be better than what they produce, but MM doesn't put them in good positions to excel b/c he is back to only calling 3 running plays again. When he went to a more diverse play sheet, and incorporated power plays, the OL responded, Lacy improved, and suddenly we had a little bit of a running game.
He rips the ILB's - but of course Stevie Wonder can see how pathetic they are. 1265 can't see it, but everyone else can. I think he is too lenient on the DB's. Burnett looks the part, but the guy simply doesn't make plays. Has the tackling improved?? Couldn't be any worse than last year... seems a bit better, we'll see. I haven't viewed Williams as being in decline - hope he's not.
At the end of the day, the Packers are all about Aaron Rodgers. We have Rodgers, Nelson, and Matthews that are pro bowl caliber players; we have a handful of players just below that level - Shields, Williams, Lacy, and I think maybe Daniels.
On offense, the OL is average across the board and the depth is poor; Cobb is okay, but the other receivers are below average at this point; the TE's are junk.
On defense, there are some good players up front, but of course they are not used to their strengths. I think Perry and D. Jones are better than what they are producing, but I put that on dunderdummy; the DB depth might be okay, but between TT playing musical chairs and injuries it is a stretch to think that unit can be consistently effective against top-flight competition.
I had us at 11-5 this year... and we can maybe still get to that level, but we are still a flawed team. I thought we might have the talent to at least be in the conversation for a Superbowl, but the Packers flawed philosophies haven't been addressed, and the players don't seem to be developing and stepping up.
8-8 is still a bit harsh... with Rodgers we should be in the 9-7 to 11-5 range; but I don't see how we can advance past the more phsycial teams that are philosophically sound. They just beat us up, and there's nothing we can do about it.
Overall, the Lions have better personnel than we do... it all comes down to Stafford vs. Rodgers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretsky
If Stafford has truly improved his game, the Lions should win the division.
Chicago is just below us I think, but they have more skill position talent than we do.
Minnesota losing Peterson kills them, so they're not in the conversation anymore.
One of Bob's longtime sources is Bill Polian. He's not the only one, but this took time to do, so has to be someone he knows well.
That works. But I would use this for a new player who hasn't fully digested the packer system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritz
Also, as to whether the player has any future at all in NFL, you might go with floaters and sinkers.
That's the best McGinn and the journal can come up with on a game day Sunday morning? McGinn referred to the person he interviewed as an "expert", an "executive", and a "scout".
The article is about individual/position personnel as some "unnamed expert/executive/scout" views things. The "unnamed expert/executive/scout" picked Minnesota to win the NFC North. The "unnamed expert/executive/scout " must think Minnesota is the best team with the best personnel in the division. I'd like to know what team the unnamed "expert/executive/scout" works for. I hope he has a lifetime contract with them.
If you think McGinn is a sleazeball, then ignore it. If you think McGinn has been an honest pundit over years, then trust him. Your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina_Packer
I have no problem with an anonymous analyst. His employer undoubtedly doesn't want the organization's views on players known.