Who from IR would make a difference in the Super Bowl?

[Patler]

We have lamented the long IR list all season, and it certainly impacted depth and may have affected the final record. But that doesn't matter now, it comes down to just this game. Assuming no one is lost to injury during the game, so depth is not an issue, with how the replacements individually and the team as a whole are playing, who from IR would give the team a better chance to win next Sunday?

Finley - seems obvious at first, but since he left and they weathered DD's injury, the Packers have really learned to spread the ball around to 4 receivers. We've also seen more passes to backs than at times in the past. The offense would be different with Finley, and in ways that might improve the chance to win one game because Finley presents unique coverage problems. But all in all they have compensated quite well.

Tauscher - I love the guy, but the way he was playing Bulaga might be an improvement. Maybe Tauscher would have come around like Clifton did after a month, and Bulaga could have replaced Colledge, but I don't think Tauscher would really have helped their chances to win.

Barnett - The defense has been top notch. He wouldn't make that much of a difference.

Grant - maybe, but Starks has run pretty well, and looks like a better receiving option than Grant. I'm not sure Grant would improve their chance to win.

Burnett - hard to say how much he might have progressed if he hadn't been injured, but Peprah hasn't been a weak link of significance.

Chiller - with the way they use Woodson now, I don't think he would improve things.

Poppinga or Jones - I don't think they are steps up over Zombo/Walden. Now if either Zombo or Walden can't play, it hurts.

Neal - would likely have made things different, but bringing in Green has given Capers a new toy to play with, and the result has been a new behemoth look on running downs. Neal would have improved the rotation, though its arguable how much that will mean in one game. Wilson has been better than I thought he might be. He hasn't made a difference, but has at least held his own.

The rest were just role players replaced by other role players.

When it comes right down to the ones who will play in one game, the only one really missed might be Finley, and I think the Packers have even compensated for his loss very well.

The IR list is long, but I see no need to say, "If only......"

[RashanGary]

Finley, Neal, Grant

I know Starks looks solid, but Grant gets more consistent yards. In our offense, Grant is a really nice fit. He might not make that last guy miss so his big runs are way down, but he gets steady tough yards, keeps AR in good down and distances and is very reliable.

I think Neal is a fantastic player. He would make us better some way some how

Finley is a superstar. He changes defenses.

[red]

finley for sure just because no one can cover him. mismatch nightmare for any team and would open things up for other guys

other then that i think i agree with everything else there patler. all the new guys have just stepped up so much that they've basically filled the same shoes of the guys they replaced

[pbmax]

Finley, because like the Arizona playoff game, they could have accounted for everyone else and still had no answer for Finley.

[Bretsky]

Finley, Neal, Grant.......and maybe in that order

High upside IMO for Neal

[Tony Oday]

Finley but I like AR spreading it out all over when JF has been out...seemed like he zeroed in on him early

Grant is a stud...could use him for SURE next weekend.

Other than that the Packers Coaches have coached up the replacements

[OS PA]

I am convinced, maybe falsely, that nobody would be able to run on the Steelers, but having Grant to run into the teeth of that defense would at least keep Polamalu in the box. Starks will fill that role well enough. Hopefully McCarthy doesn't get the bright idea to run outside in this one. Wide receiver screens and swings to the backs could be good though which Starks and Jackson are worlds better than Grant at.

Finley on the other hand would put us over the top. If he had been healthy all year I'm convinced we'd either have three 1000 yard receivers or Finley would have gone over 1600. He either has to be fully accounted for with a lb bumping him off the line, a cb covering him in the 5-15 yards and a constant safety over the top, or he has to be let loose. Rodgers may have zoned in on Finley early, but I'm convinced that problem would have sorted itself out. Finley would make this nearly unstoppable offense (on turn) 100% unstoppable. We may as well have left Masthay on the inactive list if Finley were in the game.

[gbgary]

for me it's fin and grant.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This is a game where we could have used Finley.

Finley vs. the Steelers last year = 9 receptions and a TD.

Grant didn't touch the ball much vs. the Steelers last year, but he did have a nice 24 yard TD run that put us up late in the game.

[Pugger]

Now that Rodgers has spread the wealth around to all of the receivers this season having Finley back in NOW would be devastating for Pitt. Who in the hell would they concentrate on? They have a big enough headache now with Jennings, Driver, Jones, Nelson, Lee, Crabtree, Quarless...you get the picture. :-D

[steve823]

I think Finley's injury can be looked at in a good way. Rodgers was keying in on Finley way too much at the beginning of the year and was uncharacteristically forcing the ball to him. When Finley went down he started spreading it out, and made Jennings the #1 option again. I think next year he won't key in on anybody anymore. But yea, of Finley would be huge in the Superbowl.

Grant is a solid player, but luckily the play of Starks made his injury seem not nearly as significant as it should have been.

Neal is a good rotational player who can bring pressure. Him, BJ, and Jenkins would be a great 3 man rush IMO.

And Barnett..don't get me started with him. I hope he's gone next year and we restructure Hawk's contract.

[bobblehead]

Finley, because like the Arizona playoff game, they could have accounted for everyone else and still had no answer for Finley.

This...and let me be the first to say Brad Jones. I think he is a clear step better than Zombo and Walden. Zombo MAY play the run a tad better, but not much, and Jones is a superior cover and rush man to both. OLB opposite Clay has been the only spot on our D that has had to be "covered up" at all. Jones isn't all world, but I thought he was superior to any other options by a decent amount.

Every time we go 4 wide and Quarless is one of the 4 (they do this to create substitution match up problems) think of how much better it would look with Finley lining up there. And as PB said, there simply is NO answer for Finley.

[swede]

This is a game where we could have used Finley.

Finley vs. the Steelers last year = 9 receptions and a TD.

Grant didn't touch the ball much vs. the Steelers last year, but he did have a nice 24 yard TD run that put us up late in the game.

I just saw that play a few days ago on the NFL network. That was a thing of beauty.

I look at a run like that and I ask myself why I don't trust in Ryan Grant. His numbers compared well with AP's over the couple of years they both played. Why is it that I doubt the guy?

I think the answer is that Ryan Grant, maybe more than any other elite running back, needs a hole--a big freaking hole---before he hits that next gear and creates fear and panic in the defensive backfield.

Maybe that's it. And that is why we need well-executed, well-schemed running plays in the Super Bowl more than we need Ryan Grant. All of our running backs do pretty well when they get a big freaking hole.

[Pugger]

And having Grant, Starks and Jackson back there at HB next season is gonna be fun!

[Fritz]

It's Finley. Just look at when the Bears game got tight and it was third and four and Rodgers put the ball spot on to Quarless - and it slithered through his hands. Finley would be the go-to guy that nobody could cover. He'd be the third down answer.

Finley.

[mmmdk]

It's Finley. Just look at when the Bears game got tight and it was third and four and Rodgers put the ball spot on to Quarless - and it slithered through his hands. Finley would be the go-to guy that nobody could cover. He'd be the third down answer.

Finley.

Finley it is; the rest have been replaced nicely. Some injuries turn out to be a blessing...if you have guys that steps up & that we have.

Some of these PR injury tweets/posts are as smart as Barnett & Finley on Twitter....as in "they won't go away" :smile: Thank Buddha that we mainly lost cannon fodder players sans a very, very few. All hail the replacements as they actually will play and have done so - much better than expected.

[Packers4Glory]

Finley. I really believe he was going to be the best TE in football this yr and he was off to that type of start. Nobody could cover him and having him roam the middle of the field was just an unfair advantage. His loss is the reason we see an inconsistent offense more than anything else. His loss was a reason their was a light shining on the glaring weakness that is our running game.

If you want a 2nd guy its Grant.



CLiff Notes

Finley
/thread

[Scott Campbell]

Finley, Neal, Grant

I know Starks looks solid, but Grant gets more consistent yards. In our offense, Grant is a really nice fit. He might not make that last guy miss so his big runs are way down, but he gets steady tough yards, keeps AR in good down and distances and is very reliable.

I think Neal is a fantastic player. He would make us better some way some how

Finley is a superstar. He changes defenses.


Agreed - Finley, Neal and Grant. Those 3 guys make this roster downright scary.

[bobblehead]

Agreed - Finley, Neal and Grant. Those 3 guys make this roster downright scary.

Ok, Neal may help some, but we will be playing the fatties quite a bit and I think neal would have merely been rotational. Grant....you can't really run on Pitt anyway.

Finley's new nickname should be "the question". but I maintain that if I could have 2 players off the IR fully healthy Brad Jones should be the second.

[Guiness]

Based on our needs on the field, Brad Jones is the guy we should want back. Next best hope is that Walden or Zombo will be good to go!

Finley's next. We also don't have a replacement for him. I had hopes Lee would play like the starter he did a couple of years ago, but it didn't happen, and Quarless, well, is a rookie. However, passing O is good without him.

Next is Grant. I don't think Starks has fully replaced him yet by any means. By the end of TC next year, he could very well grow into the role enough that they share the backfield, but he's not there yet.

I don't get the love for Neale. He might be good, but he certainly hasn't shown us enough yet to be sure he'll be effective at all. Having him back would be a guess at best.

[MJZiggy]

Pouncey. he he.

[pittstang5]

I had hopes Lee would play like the starter he did a couple of years ago, but it didn't happen, and Quarless, well, is a rookie. However, passing O is good without him.


Guiness, you bring something up that I keep thinking about...Where is Lee? He's caught a couple TDs, but they've been all short yardage. Even his other catches have been screens. Granted Quarless is a faster guy and a better deep threat, but Lee could be that 5-7 yard across the middle guy, but I don't see him there. He's more of a blocker now. They must be phasing him out and I don't see him on the roster next year.

[get louder at lambeau]

Chiller - with the way they use Woodson now, I don't think he would improve things.

Chillar can play ILB, OLB, and safety in the "Big Okie" for short yardage. He'd be nice to have around. He's not at the top of the list, but if guys like Brad Jones are being mentioned, Chillar deserves to be mentioned too. I think he plays Special Teams too.