top 10? sure. top 2? that's a stretch. pff dives into this type of stuff a lot deeper than anyone else. maybe it's true.
top 10? sure. top 2? that's a stretch. pff dives into this type of stuff a lot deeper than anyone else. maybe it's true.
I'm really not sure how you can make an argument that our roster is better than Carolina, Arizona, Seattle,Cincy,KC. Thats where I'd put us in the 6-8 range. Too many JAGS in the front 7, and unknowns at skill positions. We completely fell apart the 2nd half of the season. You have to accept that there is a correlation between the struggles and overall roster talent. A few injuries are not an excuse for that debacle.
HOFer
Agreed. I actually think our schedule will end up being harder than it looks. I like Jacksonville as a sleeper. The Colts will have Luck back. Tennessee is on the rise and Mariota looks very promising. Houston may have a QB. Dallas will have Romo back. I think the schedule might end up being tougher than it looks. Things change dramatically from year to year.Originally Posted by Patler
"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson
I like the Packers roster compared to their rosters of recent years. As far as if it is #2, #3, #10 or #20, I really don't have a clue, because for the most part other teams rosters are just names on a list, players that I might see a couple times a year if they are starters, and not at all if they are the backups. I suspect that is true for a good many of us who post on here. However, there are entities like PFF who have made it their business to review and analyze all players past performances and hypothesize about what it means going forward. Some of what they do is for publicity, perhaps even a little controversy, but they have a pool of data and information that most of us do not. They have to remain credible to a certain extent. For those reasons, I can not simple dismiss what they say. In the end, it doesn't matter if the Packers roster is #2 or #6, the differences are negligible, and will change as soon as the injuries start rolling in and/or rookies start over-performing or under-performing.
I think we are greatly mistaken if we equate roster strength with performance, either past or future. I think I agree with Wist on one thing (at least I think he feels this way when I sift through the chaff of his comments), the Packers have been underachievers since Holmgrens days. It was a problem under Wolf and Holmgren, Sherman and TT and MM. They have had rosters good enough to go farther than they have. I don't mean they have had the best roster, the best rosters don't always win the SB. They have had consistently good rosters, and some very good rosters for most of the last 25 years, and in my opinion should have threatened more than they have. I'm just hoping that 2016 isn't another year of frustration.
Agreed. My initial reaction to the schedule was that it wasn't as easy as it might seem and the home and away layout with the bye is strange.
As for who you play and when, Dallas is a good example. Does GB play them when things are going good for GB or not so good? Before Romo is injured, or after? When Romo is playing well, or during one of his periods when he plays only well enough to lose a close game.
I get what you are trying to say. Many Packer teams over the decades should have gone farther in the postseason. However, on the field individual performances can be evaluated differently. Eyeball test. We are pretty talent deficient in certain spots. Stretches over the last few years have shown us that. And even positions we thought were strengths (is WR corps last season) were shown to be bit of fool's gold. Evaluating roster talent is not an exact science, but nothing is more tangible than on the field performance.
Total yardage rankings are for Bears' fans.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I don't disagree, but the eyeball tests for many Packers in 2015 didn't correspond well to the same players' eyeball tests from 2014 (Cobb, Adams, Lacy, Linsley, even Aaron Rodgers, etc.) and it wasn't all because of Nelson's absences. So which eyeball test is to be believed, and why was there a difference? For Cobb, Lacy and AR, I want to think we should see in 2016 what we saw in 2014. For Linsley and Adams, the jury is out, and maybe they really are something that is a blend of what we saw the past two seasons.
But the bigger question is really how do we compare the roster to other teams rosters? I can say that in my opinion the 2016 Packer roster potentially looks stronger than the 2015 performance for a lot of reasons; but I really can't say how that compares to the roster of any other team. I don't see the other teams that much to be able to make such a comparison. Especially for teams GB has not played recently. However, while a lot of people extol the virtues of Seattle, for example, a team we have seen frequently, I don't think overall the Packers roster is lacking compared to Seattle's. It is different than Seattle for a lot of reasons Wist and others may emphasize, but it is certainly a team the Packers can beat. Not every time, but in a given game.
As I said before, whether they are #2 or #6 doesn't really matter much.
Would that mean that better records are for Vikings fans, and losing at home in the final game of the season with the division title on the line is for Packers fans?? What does Detroit get??
wist
Stats are used to support whatever position you want to take.
Turnovers have a much closer relation to win/loss record than yardage.
Losing the last game didn't mean that much to the Pack this year. In fact Minn lost the next weekend and the Packers won playing a weak Washington team.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
HOFer
Kind of interesting to see which players are ranked in NFL.com's various Top 100 lists. There is the list of Top 100 players ranked by the players, but four contributors are also providing their lists. So far, they've done #31-#100.
WR Jordy Nelson (NR, #49, #55, NR, NR)
OG T.J. Lang (NR, NR, NR, #83, NR)
OG Josh Sitton (NR, #78, NR, NR, NR)
DL Mike Daniels (#95, #74, #73, NR, NR)
OLB Clay Matthews (#51, #37, #40, #61, NR)
OLB Julius Peppers (NR, NR, NR, #72, #86)
S Ha Ha Clinton Dix (NR, NR, NR, NR, #83)
Some of these guys will be ranked in the top 30. Looks like Aaron Rodgers will be in everybody's top 30.
With 32 teams and 100 players, each team should have ~3 players on average on each list, so the Packers are fairly well represented.
"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson
I buy 2nd best roster. We rarely lose because we played our best and it wasn't good enough.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
3irty1, I agree with your analysis. Do we have holes? Yes, but so does every team in the league.
Is HaHa that good? At first blush, I didn't think so... But safeties rarely make impacts like Nick the Pick did. So maybe...?
We may not have as many "stars" as some other teams but perhaps “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”?
I'm wondering more and more how much the offensive players' rankings lead wide are because of Rodgers and how much are because of them.
If Jordy Nelson had Andy Dalton or Matt Ryan, would people still think he was a Top 7 WR?
If the OLine had Blake Bortles, would Lang and Sitton still be considered the best pass-blocking guard duo in the league?
Would Bahk still be looking at Top 10 LT money next year?
If Cobb had Bridgewater throwing to him, would he still be known as a WR who can fix a broken play?
I don't know the answer to these. Best guess is that it's a little of column A, a little of column B.
No longer the member of any fan clubs. I'm tired of jinxing players out of the league and into obscurity.
Quoted for TRUTH
"Aw, I have three kids and no money. Why can't I have no kids and three money?" - Homer Simpson
"Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get." - Homer Simpson
Check out Bucky Brooks over on nfl.com. He omits us and NE as far as the most talented roster and includes the cowgirls and NYG instead.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...talented-teams
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote