Last Year -v- This Year

[RashanGary]

What can we expect?


I'm counting the QB twice. I'm also counting the #3 WR and #2 RB.

Last Year - This Year
Favre 18 - Rodgers ?
Grant 8 - Grant 8
Jackson 3 - Jackson 6 (MM is quoted saying to expect big things from Bjack)
Driver 8.5 - Driver 8
Jennings 8 - Jennings 9
Jones 5.5 - Jones 7.5 (MM is quotes sayinig expect big improvement from JOnes)
Clifton 7.5 - Clifton 7
Colledge 5 - Colledge 6 (this is probably one of my more wishfull improvements but I do think it's realistic from a 3rd year guy)
Wells 6.5 - Wells 6.5 (I see the Pack having a good, solid line with no standouts and no duds)
Spitz 6.5 - Spitz 7
Tausch 7.5 - Tausch 7
Hall 5 - Hall 6.5
Lee 6.5 - Lee 6.5

Total -v- Total
6.8 --- 7.1 without Rodgers (Rodgers needs to rate a 6 of 10 or 12 of 20 here to have the offense stay the same).

I'm going to assume Rodgers is an average QB. I'll give him a 6 of 10 (just a guess) and assume the offense stays the same.



Harris 8 - Harris 7
Woodson 8.5 - Woodson 8.0
Collins 5 - Collins 5.5
Bigby 6 - Bigby 7
Hawk 7 - Hawk 7.5
Barnett 8 - Barnett 8
Poppinga 4 - Chillar 5.5
Jenkins/KGB 6.5 - Jenkins/KGB 6.5
Jolly 6.5 - Jolly 6.5
Pickett 7 - Pickett 7
Kampman 9 - Kampman 9
J. Bush 3 - T. Williams 5.5 (MM says he's excited about T. Williams)
C Williams 7 - J Harrell 6 (I think he can be a lot better. Last year I give him a 2.5 but I think his jump will be big)

Total -v- Total
6.6 - 6.8

Defense should also stay about the same. A slight bit better.



I'm not going to go through a big ST's breakdown because I really don't think I have any clue how gap responsible each player was or how to grade them. I do think with Blackmon having a little health and a big part of our ST's group staying together that the ST's group is the area that we acctually can see some improvement. I also think we should have a deeper team than a year ago assuming we have a nice draft. I'm not going to give any points to depth or rookie contritbution because I don't think it will have a big effect on the end result.



At the end of the day I think the Bears probably got better. The lions still suck. I think the Vikings will get better with the coaching continuity and QB continuity. I still think Tjack sucks, but just not as bad as a year ago. So. . . . The division got better. The schedule also got harder. I think our team will stay about the same with slight improvements coming accross the board but a significant drop in QB play.

If I had to predict a record right now I'd say 10-6 and a one and done playoff experience. With Favre I would have guessed 12-4 and a legit shot at the SB.


I see this team getting better for many years. Rodgers will get better. The young core will get better. We're only losing a few players and I think Thompson will find a way to replace them adiquately. I think the depth will be great after this years draft and will be among the best in the league for a number of years. I think the Packers will be playoff competitive every year for the next 5 years and maybe have shots at the SB one or two of them if a few things bounce our way. While next season might not be as good as last season, I think the long term outlook is better.

[b bulldog]

If the Bears stay healthy they will be much better on paper at least but in regards to what they've done so far, they've taken a step back. Their WR corp is a total joke now and they need to replace their number one pick in benson with another first round rb. The QB situation is a total mess and their Oline is getting old.

The Vikings should be better but the QB question will make or break them.

[texaspackerbacker]

Impressive, Justin. Did that come straight out of your own head--no plagiarism? If so, I sincerely am impressed.

The only thing I don't buy is your conclusion. Based on your own figures, even without Favre, we should be slightly better than last year, but you have it at 3 games worse.

And the Bears? Without any change at QB, without Berrian, with another year of mileage on Urlacher, what is the situation on Briggs?, I really can't see them as better.

Detroit was good before they were bad last year. I expect them to be improved. Minnesota also could be better if there QB situation improves one way or another.

I think Rodgers will be better than just average, and I think giving Favre 18 out of 20 last year is just a bit generous. Thus, I see the offense as better along with the defense. Even if 13-3 involved some good fortune last year, I really can't see dropping below 12-4.

[RashanGary]

I think Rodgers will be better than just average, and I think giving Favre 18 out of 20 last year is just a bit generous. Thus, I see the offense as better along with the defense. Even if 13-3 involved some good fortune last year, I really can't see dropping below 12-4.

If Rodgers can play close to Favre's level, I think the Packers are a legit SB contender. Not only getting there, but possibly winning it. The Packers have enough young, tough, impressive talent to beat any team in the NFL assuming they have a good QB.

1. With Blackmon and all of the returning ST's guys, I think they will be more sound and physically stronger (with development of all of the young guys).

2. I think the interior line will take a step forward while the OT's take a step back. Overall, I think they will have a rock solid unit. I also think McCarthy will find a way to improve the short yardage situation. With Jennings, Jones, Hall, Jackson and Grant all taking steps forward, Rodgers has a hell of group of skill players to work with.

3. I can see the defense growing together as a unit and playing as one. I'm really hoping to draft a DE high. I think we NEED some more pass rushing talent. I know we can't predict the draft, but that's what I'm hoping for - a pass rusher. I think Jolly is going to come back strong and so will Harrell. I think the big space eaters are more important with our scheme and will shore up the sieve that was created when Jolly went down. KGB is turning 30 but I think he has another good year left. They can be top 10. If they improve the pass rush depth at DE I think they can be top 5. I have a bad history with CB's, but I do think Tramon Willaims is going to prove to be a reliable nickle back and I also think Chillar is going to help the TE situation. Linihan was quoted at the owners meeting as saying "We have too much money tied up in the MLB and WLB. We wanted him but it was a buisness decision. He can really cover those TE's." That sounds like exacly what the doctor ordered at SLB.





Overall I'm optimistic, but I'm holding out judgement on Rodgers untill he really plays. I'm really hoping he pans out because that will be the key to the season. This team is ready to win right now and will be for a while. If Rodgers is as good as we hope then he's in a GREAT situation. If he's not very good, it's going to be obvious by seasons end. He's had time to learn. He's entering hsi prime. The team is good. No excuses.

[The Leaper]

Overall, our offense will improve from a talent standpoint...as Grant, Jennings, Jones, Lee and several OL players all stand to see significant improvement from experience gained. However, the loss of Favre and his extensive knowledge base of both our system and the opponents tendencies is a huge step backward. Favre probably won at least 3 or 4 games for GB last year due to his experience and knowledge...and those are games Rodgers will be hard pressed to produce likewise.

To me, the key for the Packers in 2008 is the defense. Rather than merely being a "bend-but-don't-break" unit, as they were for much of the last 2 years, they need to create turnovers and make plays.

I think 8-9 wins is a reasonable expectation for GB in 2008...considering modest improvement from the young kids and the loss of Favre. However, Rodgers by the end of the year should be a better QB than he is week 1...so I see the Packers being more of a 7-8 win team the first half of the year, but a 9-10 win team in the second half. As such, GB could be a formidable playoff team.

[RashanGary]

There were some psychology studies where some people took twenty practice shots at a dart board. Others took twenty mental shots, sort of imagining themselves doing it. Then they took 20 real shots. The people who took the twenty mental shots improved their usual accuracy more than the people who took the twenty real practice shots.


What is the point of all of that? The point is Rodgers has been taking mental shots for the last three years and this will be his forth off season. He knows he's going to be the guy so his practice focus is probably at an all time high right now and will be for the whole offseason. I'll bet he comes in, in better shape, more prepared than ever before.


He's not a rookie. He's a 4th year guy entering his prime. He doesn't have a lot of acctual game experience, but like Romo, Rivers and others he can come in and hit the ground running because of all the valuable experience he got preparing behind the starter.


If Rodgers is a good player I think it will be obvious right away. I don't think there is a rookie grace period. He had that three years ago. Now it's time to play. If he has a bad season I think it says more about who he is as a player than it does about his inexperience. He has 3 years of NFL experience getting ready. Bottom line, if Rodgers really has "it" I think it will show up right away this season and the packers will be a competitor. This team is good. He should be ready like Romo or Rivers. He has no excuses IMO. I'm sure he'll get better for a year or two, but starting from ground level is not acceptable.

[The Leaper]

He's not a rookie. He's a 4th year guy entering his prime. He doesn't have a lot of acctual game experience, but like Romo, Rivers and others he can come in and hit the ground running because of all the valuable experience he got preparing behind the starter.

Rodgers will not have the talent around him that Romo or Rivers has. Both Romo and Rivers have HOF caliber talent around them at the skill positions. GB does not have that.

I like Rodgers. He's a solid young QB. However, he doesn't have elite talent to work with...comparing his situation to one that has Owens or LT is a little off IMO.

In fact, what we do have is a mediocre OL that will give Rodger precious little time to stand back there and make decisions. Favre could handle it because of his vast experience. I'm not sure Rodgers will fare as well.

[Partial]

I expect them to be significantly worse. I expect a significantly worse running game, poor interior line play, and a quarterback who will develop what I like to call "David Carritis", where he will have a deer in headlights look and fear the sack play after play, and as a result play awful.

[RashanGary]

I expect them to be significantly worse. I expect a significantly worse running game, poor interior line play, and a quarterback who will develop what I like to call "David Carritis", where he will have a deer in headlights look and fear the sack play after play, and as a result play awful.

I'm hoping for the best. I'm hoping TT and MM are not lying when they say they have confidence in Rodgers. I'm hoping he really has earned this shot. If he's awful, we're in trouble.

He looked good against Dallas. Now he has to do it consistantly. We'll see.

[Partial]

I expect them to be significantly worse. I expect a significantly worse running game, poor interior line play, and a quarterback who will develop what I like to call "David Carritis", where he will have a deer in headlights look and fear the sack play after play, and as a result play awful.

I'm hoping for the best. I'm hoping TT and MM are not lying when they say they have confidence in Rodgers. I'm hoping he really has earned this shot. If he's awful, we're in trouble.

He looked good against Dallas. Now he has to do it consistantly. We'll see.

Dallas was also applying most of their pressure from the edges. We've got two good tackles. We know that. What happens when the pocket collapses up the middle and he gets forces into and ends arms??

I'm thinking 8-8 at this point. We'll see though.

[run pMc]

I agree that Favre's experience and intangibles won a few games last year. I think with a new QB and a tougher schedule, 8-9 wins sounds about right.

This assumes the injury bug doesn't hit, the starting CBs don't turn into petrified wood overnight, and Rodgers doesn't turn out to be a complete stiff.

Rodgers may have the mental reps, but game reps are completely different. I expect some rough spots with improvement as the season goes on.

Carr's a basket case because of the beating he took...wasn't he taking about 70 sacks a year? If the OL gives up 40 (much less 70) sacks people will be calling for heads to roll.

I don't think MM will let Rodgers get hammered like Carr did in HOU. MM will slide protection or max protect to plug leaks and keep his QB upright. HOU's line was a sieve, and Rodgers has already shown in his limited snaps that he'll get rid of the ball or scramble rather than be a DE's punching bag.

[dissident94]

Dont forget history people. You just don't replace a QB so easy with an unproven guy. Rodgers is unproven and some are annointing him already. He may be great but he may be horrible. One half doens't prove anything. I like Rodgers and hope he will be good. But if he falters we could be in the 6-7 win area.

[Partial]

Dont forget history people. You just don't replace a QB so easy with an unproven guy. Rodgers is unproven and some are annointing him already. He may be great but he may be horrible. One half doens't prove anything. I like Rodgers and hope he will be good. But if he falters we could be in the 6-7 win area.

Echoed

[Lurker64]

What do these numbers mean? How are they calculated? What do they correspond to? Is the performance of the team actually equally dependent on the performance of every player?

Is what you wrote actually more informative than "I think Tramon Williams will be a better nickel back than Bush, but I think that both of our elder corners won't be as good next year"?

[Partial]

What do these numbers mean? How are they calculated? What do they correspond to? Is the performance of the team actually equally dependent on the performance of every player?

Is what you wrote actually more informative than "I think Tramon Williams will be a better nickel back than Bush, but I think that both of our elder corners won't be as good next year"?

No, its not. It's really a big waste of time.

[texaspackerbacker]

This thread sure has degenerated into some irrational negativity since I last looked at it. 8 or 9 wins? maybe only 6 or 7? Come on, give me a break!

Justin's original post made an excellent and well thought out case for the Packers being slightly BETTER overall, even if Rodgers only performs at an average level for NFL QBs.

And what's this crap about Rodgers NOT having the talent around him that Romo or Rivers has? It's a stretch to claim Grant is as good as La Dainian Tomlinson, even though he did perform at just as high a level once he started. And great as the Packer receivers played, it's a bit much to claim any of them individually are as good as Terrell Owens or Antonio Gate. Beyond that, though, it's all Packers. Neither the Cowboys or Chargers receiver corps overall comes close to the Packers, and Marian Barber of the Cowboys also falls way short of Grant, based on last year's performance.

[Partial]

Here's how I look at it:

Great receivers
Average running backs
Average offensive line
unknown at QB

Good defensive line
Good linebackers
Good corners
Average safeties

Last year, we had the exact same thing except one-in-a-lifetime at QB.

[RashanGary]

What do these numbers mean? How are they calculated? What do they correspond to? Is the performance of the team actually equally dependent on the performance of every player?

Is what you wrote actually more informative than "I think Tramon Williams will be a better nickel back than Bush, but I think that both of our elder corners won't be as good next year"?

Shit, Lurker. You're really becoming one of my harshest critics. That's OK, you're civil about ripping my posts :)


Anyway, I don't think my analysis of each player is grand and spectacular. It's sort of a compilation of what I believe based on what I hear. I listen to McCarren, Harry Sydney, and the douche bags who call the games. . I listen to McCarthy and Thompson. I listen to the players in the lockerrooms. I read just about every article. I'm pretty much just like every person here. I form opinions the best I can. I don't think my ideas are concrete or true. I see them as my best interperatation.

That said, the real goal here was to piece together information as I understand it based on what I read and hear and what I believe about football in a format taht might apply to W/L success. The premise of rating each player and projecting improvements for young players and declines in older players is that each player has normal trend of improving, plateauing and then declinging. By looking at likey trends of each player, I thought it could be pieced together in a logical way to mean soemthing to the whole. I still do think it's somewhat logical although not perfect.

Based on how I view the roster (mostly young entering prime and very few old) I see the roster getting better with the QB positoin getting worse in all likelyhood. Will it play out that way? I don't know, but I think there is some solid reason to lean toward what I wrote. Someone could present a case that the Packers are the best in the league. Someone could present a case that without Favre they are the worst in the league. Anything if fair game right now, but I gave my best guess based on how I see it.

[Lurker64]

Shit, Lurker. You're really becoming one of my harshest critics. That's OK, you're civil about ripping my posts

I don't really intend to rip you, I just see numbers and I wonder what they mean. If they're just your subjective opinions based on what you've read or heard, that's fine, none of us are omniscient and we all cobble together our opinions from a variety of places. But at the same time, if you read stuff that makes you think "Korey Hall is likely to make a big jump this year" or if you actually have a reason for believing so (e.g. last year was his first year playing offense since high school, he showed steady improvement through the year, he has great intensity and enthusiasm) I'd rather hear about that than see some numbers that attempt to quantify how you feel.

At the very least when football writers do things like quantify players as blue chip, red chip, white chip, players etc. or they give them grades (like A-, C+, B) we have some standard against which we can compare the author's opinions with our own. Everybody knows that LaDanian Tomlinson is a blue chip player, and after a game where Tom Brady throws five touchdowns and no interceptions completing 85% of his passes everyone can tell that's an A or an A+ performance. So if someone turns and argues that player X is or isn't a blue chipper, we can agree or disagree based on his performance compared to players we all agree are blue chippers.

But I don't know what "7" means, so I can't really say whether I agree with you or I disagree. I don't know whether a 3 is "abjectly terrible" or "simply mediocre" or what have you. So it's really hard to make any comment other than "explain please?".

[KYPack]

I expect them to be significantly worse. I expect a significantly worse running game, poor interior line play, and a quarterback who will develop what I like to call "David Carritis", where he will have a deer in headlights look and fear the sack play after play, and as a result play awful.

I'm hoping for the best. I'm hoping TT and MM are not lying when they say they have confidence in Rodgers. I'm hoping he really has earned this shot. If he's awful, we're in trouble.

He looked good against Dallas. Now he has to do it consistantly. We'll see.

Dallas was also applying most of their pressure from the edges. We've got two good tackles. We know that. What happens when the pocket collapses up the middle and he gets forces into and ends arms??
I'm thinking 8-8 at this point. We'll see though.

Wrong, grasshopper.

Dallas was applying significant pressure right down the cock. College was benched after he gave up two early pressures, one when backup end Stephen Bowen beat him inside and Favre's hurried bomb came up way short and was intercepted by safety Ken Hamlin. Bowen was on a stunt, but DC should have that shit figured out by now. Brett left with the sore paw.

When they benched Colledge and ARod came in and took the quicks they were giving us in the middle of the field, the Packer offense lit it up.

Nobody knows how ARod will do in '08, but let's give him credit for what he got done in Dallas in '07

[ny10804]

I think the rubric is completely illogical. You tried to weight the importance of the QB position by making it out of 20, but even that doesn't begin to make sense of the rest of the numbers. The values of each position are far more complicated than you make it seem.

[RashanGary]

But I don't know what "7" means, so I can't really say whether I agree with you or I disagree. I don't know whether a 3 is "abjectly terrible" or "simply mediocre" or what have you. So it's really hard to make any comment other than "explain please?".

Very good point. That was a cobination of assuming people saw things as I see them and being too lazy to put together a good post.

[RashanGary]

I think the rubric is completely illogical. You tried to weight the importance of the QB position by making it out of 20, but even that doesn't begin to make sense of the rest of the numbers. The values of each position are far more complicated than you make it seem.


You Aholes are right (and I only call you aholes because you are crushing my fragile ego) :)


Anyway, I'm going to start putting together something a little more reliable and thorough and maybe Mad will make a story out of it. I'm going to seek the opinions of people who know more than me and people that this forum trusts and I'm going ot put it together in a way that explains how the data was collected and why it means what it means.


Jeepers H. Krispy's Why does everything have to be so logical and accurate? Why can't I just flop out a lazy opinion and have it go uncontested?

[privatepacker]

I think the rubric is completely illogical. You tried to weight the importance of the QB position by making it out of 20, but even that doesn't begin to make sense of the rest of the numbers. The values of each position are far more complicated than you make it seem.


You Aholes are right (and I only call you aholes because you are crushing my fragile ego) :)


Anyway, I'm going to start putting together something a little more reliable and thorough and maybe Mad will make a story out of it. I'm going to seek the opinions of people who know more than me and people that this forum trusts and I'm going ot put it together in a way that explains how the data was collected and why it means what it means.


Jeepers H. Krispy's Why does everything have to be so logical and accurate? Why can't I just flop out a lazy opinion and have it go
uncontested?

I understand what you did and think it was well done. The biggest ? is at QB which is no surprise and it will have the biggest impact on the team, no surprise there either. Just reading between the lines of TT and MM, I think they were ready for Brett to retire and have Rodgers take over. Maybe not because he will be better but to see if he can perform like they think he can. The Packers will go as far as Rodgers take them.