Blue Chip Players on the Packers

[pbmax]

According to the National Football Post's Michael Lombardi: (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Tavern-talk-blues-by-team.html)

Green Bay

BLUE: QB, Rodgers; WR, Jennings; DE, C. Jenkins; OLB, Kampman; CB, Woodson.

ALMOST BLUE: WR, Driver; ILB, Barnett; CB, Harris.

I am a little unclear on the process here (apparently ESPN's The Sports Guy weighed in, which should immediately call this into question) but it appears that Woodson was elevated from Near Blue to True Blue by acclimation from readers.

[MichiganPackerFan]

It seems they're pretty generous in handing out those blue chips.

[SkinBasket]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

[sharpe1027]

I don't get how Woodson could just barely make it, yet Jenkins is on the list at all. Jenkins has be good for stretches, but has yet to put an entire season of good play together, mostly due to injuries.

I don't know the true meaning of "blue chip," but personally, I would put Pickett ahead of Jenkins in value to the team. Hell, Jenkins may not even start all year, if Jolly keeps tearing it up and BJ is as good as advertised...

[pbmax]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.
I agree that numerical rankings would be more useful for comparison. But didn't McGinn use this concept himself for several years? He labeled them as colors instead of colored chips. Blue players, red players, heliotrope players, etc.

And I think the rationale he gave was that teams coded players the same way on their boards. I wonder if this has changed, as I don't remember seeing his chart recently.

[DonHutson]

I've heard of 'Kinda Blue', but not 'Almost Blue.' Is that like periwinkle?

[RashanGary]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

Wasn't there a movie with shaq back in the 90's where they talked about blue chips?

[Zool]

the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007KIFLE.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[MichiganPackerFan]

WOW! That was way back, before Shaq was a gluttonous fat bastard.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I actually think this is a pretty fair list, and I'm surprised anybody outside of Green Bay appreciates Cullen Jenkins. He may not be a blue because I think staying on the field should be a part of ranking a player. He did play like a blue chip player at the beginning of last year.

[Bossman641]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

I prefer to call the top 3 players elite, the bottom 5 terrible, and everyone else average.

[SkinBasket]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

I prefer to call the top 3 players elite, the bottom 5 terrible, and everyone else average.

We have 3 elite players?

[buchunter03]

I was actually listening to the Bill Simmons podcast when he was talking with Lombardi. I was glad to hear he had Cullen Jenkins as a blue. He is very underrated and our defense was not the same when he went out. He can get to the quarterback and also stops the run very effectively. Just watching him in preseason you can tell he is very important to the d-line much more so than Pickett or anyone else.

Also Lombardi mentioned how much he loved Aaron Rodgers and that he had the Packers going to the Super Bowl... I instantly became a huge fan of Mike Lombardi.

[mraynrand]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

I think Rodgers is 9,945,657,223,431.65 and Jennings is 8,987,456,322,433.32

[pbmax]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

I prefer to call the top 3 players elite, the bottom 5 terrible, and everyone else average.
That is also how Partial rates QBs. :lol:

[pbmax]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

I think Rodgers is 9,945,657,223,431.65 and Jennings is 8,987,456,322,433.32
You forgot to adjust for weather.

[Patler]

Cullen Jenkins a "Blue" player? Ridiculous in my opinion!

2008 - Just 4 games played, too little to base any "star" rating on.
2007 - 16 games, 15 starts. Mediocre performance. Injured somewhat, but even coaches felt he underperformed in light of his injuries.
2006 - started just 5 games. Had decent performances at end of season replacing KGB.
2004 & 2005 - sometimes starter, mostly at DT. Good player, not special.

A "Blue" player shouldn't get there based solely on potential, and Jenkins has not performed well enough over any significant length of time to earn such a rating. Potentially "Blue" or "Almost Blue" perhaps, but he has not earned a full blue in my opinion.

[Guiness]

I agree that numerical rankings would be more useful for comparison. But didn't McGinn use this concept himself for several years? He labeled them as colors instead of colored chips. Blue players, red players, heliotrope players, etc.

And I think the rationale he gave was that teams coded players the same way on their boards. I wonder if this has changed, as I don't remember seeing his chart recently.

There's a comic strip called Shoe, and I remember an old strip I thought was funny. Guy was commenting on how people were using foods to describe colour, and asked a waitress what food she would use to describe his sports coat.

"Catfood"

[wpony]

I think Driver should be a blue I mean he has been outstanding catching anything for years I mean its true that Jennings has that nose for TD and he is a great WR. and I think he is a near blue or maybe even a low blue but Driver has been doing it for so many more yrs and has his battle scars to prove it maybe is numbers were down last YR but that was not his fault more Ar's fault for throwing to Jennings maybe because he was more comfortable because he was more use to throwing to him in practice? I am just glad we have them both on the Packers.

[packerbacker1234]

I agree, if Driver isn't a blue chip player then seriously wtf is this writer's problem. Driver was awesome in 07 and had good numbers last year with a new qb transition. Also, the few plays driver has made in the preseason shows that even though he is 34, he's playing like he is 28. The guy is just phenominal.

[pbmax]

Cullen Jenkins a "Blue" player? Ridiculous in my opinion!

2008 - Just 4 games played, too little to base any "star" rating on.
2007 - 16 games, 15 starts. Mediocre performance. Injured somewhat, but even coaches felt he underperformed in light of his injuries.
2006 - started just 5 games. Had decent performances at end of season replacing KGB.
2004 & 2005 - sometimes starter, mostly at DT. Good player, not special.

A "Blue" player shouldn't get there based solely on potential, and Jenkins has not performed well enough over any significant length of time to earn such a rating. Potentially "Blue" or "Almost Blue" perhaps, but he has not earned a full blue in my opinion.
I think you might underestimate Jenkins in 07 (especially early), though injuries did slow him down later. Which has been his story for most of his career.

But the list is overgenerous. In the master list, there are 12 quarterbacks listed as Blue. That is more than 1/3 of the League. Ridiculous I say!

[Patler]

I think you might underestimate Jenkins in 07 (especially early), though injuries did slow him down later. Which has been his story for most of his career.

But the list is overgenerous. In the master list, there are 12 quarterbacks listed as Blue. That is more than 1/3 of the League. Ridiculous I say!

Ya, "mediocre" was probably a bit too harsh. :lol: But my recollection is that even early he wasn't any kind of a "wow" performer. I just don't think he has achieved anything close to what a "Blue" player should.

[Fritz]

WOW! That was way back, before Shaq was a gluttonous fat bastard.

. . . and before Nick Nolte was a gluttonous fat bastard.

[SkinBasket]

I agree, if Driver isn't a blue chip player then seriously wtf is this writer's problem. Driver was awesome in 07 and had good numbers last year with a new qb transition. Also, the few plays driver has made in the preseason shows that even though he is 34, he's playing like he is 28. The guy is just phenominal.

Hate to break this to you, but Driver's declining. He's kind of old. A little outdated. He's a ruble.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/1-ruble-coin_1987_Borodino.jpg