2010 Super Bowl team - half gone

[Patler]

Half the roster from the SB team is no longer with the Packers. I was surprised to read this in an article at GBPG:


Just 27 players from their 53-man Super Bowl championship team two years ago remained on the active roster when the 2012 season ended two weeks ago.

http://www.packersnews.com/article/20130126/PKR07/301260428/Mike-Vandermause-column-Jennings-Grant-good-gone-annual-roster-churn

[denverYooper]

How else do you keep the youngest team in the NFL every year?

[Joemailman]

How else do you keep the youngest team in the NFL every year?

Actually, the Packers were only 5th youngest this year. However, with Saturday, Driver, and perhaps Woodson not back this year, the Packers may be back on top.

[denverYooper]

Kidding aside, these numbers don't mean much to me without some context. Maybe 30% per year is not that far from normal in the NFL, and I doubt that it is "staggering".
But I don't know because Vandermause doesn't tell us that part. I guess the article just wouldn't have the same bite if he noted that average roster churn was 25% +/- 3% and that the Packers are >1 SD above the normal roster turnover.

[denverYooper]

Actually, the Packers were only 5th youngest this year. However, with Saturday, Driver, and perhaps Woodson not back this year, the Packers may be back on top.

YES!

They need to bring back the hunger.

[hoosier]

The Packers draft 7-9 guys each year and sign 1-3 undrafted FAs. It stands to reason that a dozen or so players are going to leave each year. Wouldn't it be more meaningful to look at which of the major contributors on the 2010 are no longer around? Nick Collins, Scott Wells, and now Greg Jennings and possibly Woodson.

[rbaloha1]

Its time to blow-up the roster Seahawk style.

For the naysayers that say do not overreact -- the NFL is changing pronto and the Packers better adjust. We can all debate is the spread option a fad. In the immediate future teams will be utilizing it in varying degrees. For example, according to SI, CK ran the spread option 14 times against the Packers but only once against the Falcons.

Bottom Line: Success or Failure against the spread option shall result in winning or losing games. Currently the Packers do not have the right personnel and schemes to stop it. Requires gap discipline and players capable of playing assignment football -- something the Packers lack hugely.

[KYPack]

This is an example of the mid-winter post season filler story.

it's about as amazing as "Parking lots empty each day at 5:30".

it might have been interesting if he compared our turnover with that of other teams.

[rbaloha1]

This is an example of the mid-winter post season filler story.

it's about as amazing as "Parking lots empty each day at 5:30".

it might have been interesting if he compared our turnover with that of other teams.


Last season the Seahawks turnover was 75 per cent. Packers need an ovehaul albeit not at 75 per cent.

[Patler]

There is another aspect to comparing end of year rosters in 2010 and 2012. Each team had significant injuries with many players brought in during the year to replace those on IR. It was expected that many of the players on the SB roster wouldn't be there in 2011, let alone 2012. It might be more informative to look at the start of season roster in 2010 to the start of season roster in 2012.

[rbaloha1]

There is another aspect to comparing end of year rosters in 2010 and 2012. Each team had significant injuries with many players brought in during the year to replace those on IR. It was expected that many of the players on the SB roster wouldn't be there in 2011, let alone 2012. It might be more informative to look at the start of season roster in 2010 to the start of season roster in 2012.

Injuries certainly play a role especially with the Packers. If an overachiever/fa gets injured the Packers need to release earlier (i.e. Zombo types).

[Pugger]

Last season the Seahawks turnover was 75 per cent. Packers need an ovehaul albeit not at 75 per cent.

I don't think we need an overhaul. We need just a few new players here and there:

RB
QB - to back up AR instead of Graham
C - to give EDS competition
DE
ILB
S

[rbaloha1]

I don't think we need an overhaul. We need just a few new players here and there:

RB
QB - to back up AR instead of Graham
C - to give EDS competition
DE
ILB
S

Is 30 per cent too high?

[Pugger]

30% this offseason? Maybe. It will depend, of course, on how our injured guys do coming back and what we get in the draft.

[rbaloha1]

30% this offseason? Maybe. It will depend, of course, on how our injured guys do coming back and what we get in the draft.

A low turnover rate = same head scratching off season

[mraynrand]

"Parking lots empty each day at 5:30".

goddamn slackers

[Joemailman]

Its time to blow-up the roster Seahawk style.




Last season the Seahawks turnover was 75 per cent. Packers need an ovehaul albeit not at 75 per cent.

Make up your mind. Do we need to blow up the roster like the Seahawks or not? I say not. The Seahawks aren't bad, but they're the team that couldn't beat Atlanta in the playoffs. I don't think they've accomplished anything that would make them the team that everybody else should be trying to imitate.

[Freak Out]

I think the Packers need a higher intake of Adderall.

There are obviously some major upgrades needed at certain positions....but is it really time to blow up the team? Hell no. Well.....maybe the defense. :)

[Joemailman]

Packers defense needs 4 things:

A top-notch Safety from the draft
An upgrade from Hawk
Bishop back
Nick Perry back

They'd be a damn good defense if those things happened.

[rbaloha1]

Make up your mind. Do we need to blow up the roster like the Seahawks or not? I say not. The Seahawks aren't bad, but they're the team that couldn't beat Atlanta in the playoffs. I don't think they've accomplished anything that would make them the team that everybody else should be trying to imitate.

Who is closer to the super bowl with a better roster -- imo the seahawks.

Why are the Seahawks having big success in a short period of time?

[rbaloha1]

Packers defense needs 4 things:

A top-notch Safety from the draft
An upgrade from Hawk
Bishop back
Nick Perry back

They'd be a damn good defense if those things happened.

That is a good start but by no means the end.

[Freak Out]

Who is closer to the super bowl with a better roster -- imo the seahawks.

Why are the Seahawks having big success in a short period of time?

Not. The Packers were a BS call away from beating them soundly in the toughest environment for a road team in the NFL.

[smuggler]

We had a ton of guys on IR, so it'd be more interesting to see what the numbers are like at the start of next season.

[rbaloha1]

Not. The Packers were a BS call away from beating them soundly in the toughest environment for a road team in the NFL.

Referring to end of the season not early in the season.

How were Ravens early in the year?

[hoosier]

Referring to end of the season not early in the season.

How were Ravens early in the year?

If you judge a team on how it finishes the year, then 4 times out of 5 you are going to be disappointed. If you decide to blow the team up every time it finishes on a bad note, you will just be adding lack of continuity to its list of problems. Look at how the Packers have done over the past five years since AR has been the QB. And then compare to Seattle. Chances are, next year Seattle will be reverting to their usual 8-8. Teams will figure out ways to stop Wilson, they will get their share of injuries, they won't get any gifts from replacement refs, and so on. Comparing Green Bay to Seattle based on one half a season is not very illuminating.

[rbaloha1]

If you judge a team on how it finishes the year, then 4 times out of 5 you are going to be disappointed. If you decide to blow the team up every time it finishes on a bad note, you will just be adding lack of continuity to its list of problems. Look at how the Packers have done over the past five years since AR has been the QB. And then compare to Seattle. Chances are, next year Seattle will be reverting to their usual 8-8. Teams will figure out ways to stop Wilson, they will get their share of injuries, they won't get any gifts from replacement refs, and so on. Comparing Green Bay to Seattle based on one half a season is not very illuminating.

The point is the trend of the Seahawks since Pete Carroll and TT's protege took over. Not judging it on 1/2 season or an early game

The Seahawks are trending up with a complete team unlike the Packers.

R U calling the Seahwks drafting, acquiring of free agents and coaching a fluke?

[rbaloha1]

If you judge a team on how it finishes the year, then 4 times out of 5 you are going to be disappointed. If you decide to blow the team up every time it finishes on a bad note, you will just be adding lack of continuity to its list of problems. Look at how the Packers have done over the past five years since AR has been the QB. And then compare to Seattle. Chances are, next year Seattle will be reverting to their usual 8-8. Teams will figure out ways to stop Wilson, they will get their share of injuries, they won't get any gifts from replacement refs, and so on. Comparing Green Bay to Seattle based on one half a season is not very illuminating.

Dude using the Seahawks as an example is only releveant in the Carroll era not the Holgrem era.

Your myopic analysis is not very illuminating.:bs2:

[RashanGary]

Just for perspective. . . . In 2010, over 20% of the players who started the team on the 53 man roster, did not finish the year on the 53 man roster. . . Kinda crazy how fast things change in the NFL.

[Guiness]

Dude using the Seahawks as an example is only releveant in the Carroll era not the Holgrem era.

Your myopic analysis is not very illuminating.:bs2:

I agree with what I think he's saying - the Pack has a good history of being competitive year over year. Seattle didn't make the playoffs in 2011, and the 'up and coming' team of 2011, the Lions, fell back to their usual futility. Chances are Seattle will as well.

For interest's sake, I ran through the Packer's 2010 roster to see who's not with the team now. Quite a list, 33 names, but honestly, not a lot of significant and/or unexpected names. Clifton and Tauscher are listed, as is Barnett. Cullen Jenkins is no longer with the team. Add Nick Collins and those are all that would be listed as significant players. Of those, only one got away as an FA, one was released. The others retired/stopped playing. I think this shows the extent to which the Pack is able to hold on to its core.



10 Matt Flynn
35 Korey Hall FB
32 Brandon Jackson
45 Quinn Johnson FB
23 Dimitri Nance
16 Brett Swain
86 Donald Lee
76 Chad Clifton T
73 Daryn Colledge G/T
67 Nick McDonald G/C
72 Jason Spitz C/G
63 Scott Wells C
95 Howard Green NT
77 Cullen Jenkins DE
94 Jarius Wynn DE
53 Diyral Briggs OLB
57 Matt Wilhelm ILB
20 Atari Bigby SS
36 Nick Collins FS
40 Josh Gordy CB
22 Pat Lee CB
26 Charlie Peprah SS
28 Brandon Underwood CB

56 Nick Barnett ILB
-- Josh Bell CB
54 Brandon Chillar ILB (IR) Injury icon 2.svg
91 Justin Harrell DE (IR) Injury icon 2.svg
41 Spencer Havner TE (IR) Injury icon 2.svg
97 Johnny Jolly DE (Susp.)
29 Derrick Martin FS (IR) Injury icon 2.svg
51 Brady Poppinga OLB (IR) Injury icon 2.svg
27 Anthony Smith FS (IR) Injury icon 2.svg
65 Mark Tauscher OT (IR) Injury icon 2.svg

[ThunderDan]

The point is the trend of the Seahawks since Pete Carroll and TT's protege took over. Not judging it on 1/2 season or an early game

The Seahawks are trending up with a complete team unlike the Packers.

R U calling the Seahwks drafting, acquiring of free agents and coaching a fluke?

And what did TT do when he came to GB? He cleaned house.

Now TT has the type of players he wants on his roster. He isn't going to blow up a team that has gone 41-14 in the last 3 years and won the Super Bowl once.

Does the roster need some changes? Yes. It certainly doesn't need to be dismantled.

[hoosier]

The point is the trend of the Seahawks since Pete Carroll and TT's protege took over. Not judging it on 1/2 season or an early game

The Seahawks are trending up with a complete team unlike the Packers.

R U calling the Seahwks drafting, acquiring of free agents and coaching a fluke?

Since Carroll took over Seattle is 25-23. They've finished below .500 twice in three years. The only "trend" I see there is that they tend to finish 7-9 most years.

[rbaloha1]

Since Carroll took over Seattle is 25-23. They've finished below .500 twice in three years. The only "trend" I see there is that they tend to finish 7-9 most years.

I am talking about this season and the arrival of Schneider. Don't the hawks have a playoff victory against the saints 2 seasons ago and a playoff victory this season? That is the trend I am talking about not the beginning. If you want to use the front end to discredit the current hawks situation then go ahead.

The hawks currently have a better roster and coaching staff than the packers. You want to use the old hawks to support your claim is just like saying bo derek is still a 10.

The packers current roster is only good enough to win the north and not beat the 49ers/Giants type teams. The normal turnover is not working at a level to go to the super bowl.

[mraynrand]

The hawks currently have a better roster and coaching staff than the packers.

:lol:


I am talking about this season and the arrival of Schneider. Don't the hawks have a playoff victory against the saints 2 seasons ago and a playoff victory this season?

you either have to take the whole package or just recent history; you can't mix and match just to favor your argument.

[rbaloha1]

:lol:



you either have to take the whole package or just recent history; you can't mix and match just to favor your argument.

Should we compare the 1921 packers against the current era?

The issue is the bold recent chages made by a TT protege that has resulted in a better roster than the Packers.

The hawks 3 years ago has no bearing in the argument since there almost all gone just like over 50 per cent of the packers are gone.

Its about now and if TT does not acquring free agents that do not screw the cap the Packers are in trouble of not winning the NFC.

[hoosier]

I am talking about this season and the arrival of Schneider. Don't the hawks have a playoff victory against the saints 2 seasons ago and a playoff victory this season? That is the trend I am talking about not the beginning.

Sorry, but one year doesn't make for a trend.

I get that you are impressed with the way the Seahawks renewed their roster and improved after the debacle of Holmgren's last year. They certainly exceeded everyone's expectations this year. And they were one of the hottest teams in the league in the second half of the season. I am not "discrediting" anything. I am pointing out that what has gotten you so excited is, historically speaking, often something that turns out to be short lived. Guiness pointed out Detroit as one example. Let's see what Seattle does next year. In the meantime, your assertion that their coaching staff and roster are superior to GB's is probably not one that most knowledgeable observers would share.

[rbaloha1]

Sorry, but one year doesn't make for a trend.

I get that you are impressed with the way the Seahawks renewed their roster and improved after the debacle of Holmgren's last year. They certainly exceeded everyone's expectations this year. And they were one of the hottest teams in the league in the second half of the season. I am not "discrediting" anything. I am pointing out that what has gotten you so excited is, historically speaking, often something that turns out to be short lived. Guiness pointed out Detroit as one example. Let's see what Seattle does next year. In the meantime, your assertion that their coaching staff and roster are superior to GB's is probably not one that most knowledgeable observers would share.

It is case by case situation. I never said the Lions had any staying power.

The hawks are the MODERN example of how to construct a team with huge changes and be competitive instantly. The old cliches about taking 3 -5 years to build no longer fit just like rookie qbs can not start in the NFL and the option could never work in the NFL are done. Your interpretation to claim its only half a season is trying to dismiss the hawks as short lived and a fluke is wrong.

Hopefully Kelly has success with using no huddle periodically throughout the game which sparks MM to use it the no huddle more.

[ThunderDan]

I am talking about this season and the arrival of Schneider. Don't the hawks have a playoff victory against the saints 2 seasons ago and a playoff victory this season? That is the trend I am talking about not the beginning. If you want to use the front end to discredit the current hawks situation then go ahead.

The hawks currently have a better roster and coaching staff than the packers. You want to use the old hawks to support your claim is just like saying bo derek is still a 10.

The packers current roster is only good enough to win the north and not beat the 49ers/Giants type teams. The normal turnover is not working at a level to go to the super bowl.

So SEA is 2-2 in the playoffs over the last 3 years.
The Pack is 5-2 with a Super Bowl.

[rbaloha1]

So SEA is 2-2 in the playoffs over the last 3 years.
The Pack is 5-2 with a Super Bowl.

The hawks with Schneider started the major overhaul over the last 2 years. Packers 0-2 in the playoffs

While you at it go back to 1921. Back to the future.

[Guiness]

I am talking about this season and the arrival of Schneider. Don't the hawks have a playoff victory against the saints 2 seasons ago and a playoff victory this season? That is the trend I am talking about not the beginning. If you want to use the front end to discredit the current hawks situation then go ahead.

The hawks currently have a better roster and coaching staff than the packers. You want to use the old hawks to support your claim is just like saying bo derek is still a 10.

The packers current roster is only good enough to win the north and not beat the 49ers/Giants type teams. The normal turnover is not working at a level to go to the super bowl.

I don't think looking at the last three years is ancient history! Their win over the Saints was when they got into the playoffs as a 7-9 team. I don't want the Pack to be a 7-9 team that needs a freakshow broken play 79 yard running TD to win a playoff game!

I'm not saying they're not trending upwards, just that I think the Pack patterning themselves after them smacks of bandwagon jumping!

[Guiness]

The hawks with Schneider started the major overhaul over the last 2 years. Packers 0-2 in the playoffs

While you at it go back to 1921. Back to the future.

The Pack is 1-2. They did beat Minnesota 2 weeks ago.

[rbaloha1]

I don't think looking at the last three years is ancient history! Their win over the Saints was when they got into the playoffs as a 7-9 team. I don't want the Pack to be a 7-9 team that needs a freakshow broken play 79 yard running TD to win a playoff game!

I'm not saying they're not trending upwards, just that I think the Pack patterning themselves after them smacks of bandwagon jumping!

Again the point is big roster changes does not mean rebuilding for the next season as the hawks are demonstrarting.

You guys keep pointing the Packers past success -- guess what -- over 1/2 the roster is gone from the super bowl and the replacements have not won a PLAYOFF GAME SINCE.

On the other hand, the hawks have significantly changed their roster during the same period and won 2 playoff games and were closer to the NFL championship game this season than the Packers.

[rbaloha1]

The Pack is 1-2. They did beat Minnesota 2 weeks ago.

Right. Big deal.

[Guiness]

Right. Big deal.

lol, ok! I would damn well have been a big deal if they'd lost!

[denverYooper]

If you judge a team on how it finishes the year, then 4 times out of 5 you are going to be disappointed. If you decide to blow the team up every time it finishes on a bad note, you will just be adding lack of continuity to its list of problems. Look at how the Packers have done over the past five years since AR has been the QB. And then compare to Seattle. Chances are, next year Seattle will be reverting to their usual 8-8. Teams will figure out ways to stop Wilson, they will get their share of injuries, they won't get any gifts from replacement refs, and so on. Comparing Green Bay to Seattle based on one half a season is not very illuminating.

Seattle's DC, Gus Bradley, also left to be HC of the Jax Jags. That's a big change for the real heart and soul of that team.

[hoosier]

The hawks are the MODERN example of how to construct a team with huge changes and be competitive instantly. The old cliches about taking 3 -5 years to build no longer fit just like rookie qbs can not start in the NFL and the option could never work in the NFL are done. Your interpretation to claim its only half a season is trying to dismiss the hawks as short lived and a fluke is wrong.

Can you offer something other than just your own persistent assertion about why we should see the Seahawks as here to stay? Their record this year does not by itself make for good evidence. Your claims about their superior coaching and roster talent do not strike me as very credible. I guess I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from, unless it is just the enthusiasm of the bandwagon.

[rbaloha1]

lol, ok! I would damn well have been a big deal if they'd lost!

Very true.

[rbaloha1]

Can you offer something other than just your own persistent assertion about why we should see the Seahawks as here to stay? Their record this year does not by itself make for good evidence. Your claims about their superior coaching and roster talent do not strike me as very credible. I guess I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from, unless it is just the enthusiasm of the bandwagon.

Can you offer something other than your own persistent assertion about why we should see the Seahawks as here not to stay? . Your claims about their unsuperior coaching and poor roster talent do not strike me as very credible. I guess I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from, unless it is just the denial of how good the Packers really are.

[denverYooper]

Again the point is big roster changes does not mean rebuilding for the next season as the hawks are demonstrarting.

You guys keep pointing the Packers past success -- guess what -- over 1/2 the roster is gone from the super bowl and the replacements have not won a PLAYOFF GAME SINCE.

On the other hand, the hawks have significantly changed their roster during the same period and won 2 playoff games and were closer to the NFL championship game this season than the Packers.

You might want to check your facts.

[rbaloha1]

You might want to check your facts.

Yea -- they beat Viqueens -- stand corrected.

[denverYooper]

Can you offer something other than your own persistent assertion about why we should see the Seahawks as here not to stay? . Your claims about their unsuperior coaching and poor roster talent do not strike me as very credible. I guess I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from, unless it is just the denial of how good the Packers really are.

I offered a reason above to believe that the Seahawks might regress next year: their DC left for a HC'ing gig.

I know at least one team last year where their dominant unit lost their OC to an HC gig and questions were asked all season whether that led to their dropoff.

[rbaloha1]

I offered a reason above to believe that the Seahawks might regress next year: their DC left for a HC'ing gig.

I know at least one team last year where their dominant unit lost their OC to an HC gig and questions were asked all season whether that led to their dropoff.

Nah Pete Carroll calls the defense.

Please also ask other posters to check their facts when required since you want to play board policeman.

[Guiness]

Can you offer something other than your own persistent assertion about why we should see the Seahawks as here not to stay? . Your claims about their unsuperior coaching and poor roster talent do not strike me as very credible. I guess I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from, unless it is just the denial of how good the Packers really are.

I don't think he (or I?) are saying the Seahawks are simply a flash in the pan, have lesser talent or the coaching is not good. Simply saying the jury is out if they will maintain their success. The playoff win 2 years ago was a lightning strike after a mediocre season, and it was followed up by a year in which they did not make the post-season.

This year they came on strong, and played well. Their starting CBs are both second year players, and the rest of the defense looks good. Their O, on the other hand, is suspect. I'm not sure about Wilson and the rest on that side of the ball. No #1 WR, top guy is a constantly injured Rice. We'll see what they have in Tate. I like Zach Miller, but he's not a game changer. Lynch is going to continue to play well, but an RB can't carry a team in today's NFL. Most importantly though, I think Wilson is a gimmick and while he may be a starter for a while, he will be a mediocre one.

Coaching...what can you say about Carroll? I can't shake the feeling he ran from the college ranks to escape the punishment that was going to be leveled at him. His honeymoon in Seattle is over, after this year they're going to expect big things out of the team. How does he handle is? What kind of a locker room presence does he have - can he consistently motivate players to play to their potential, or will his act wear off after a couple of years? College coaches don't have to worry about that, by the time a player gets used to your spiel, they've moved on and there's a new batch of recruits. Can Carroll maintain interest with 10 year vets?

[rbaloha1]

I don't think he (or I?) are saying the Seahawks are simply a flash in the pan, have lesser talent or the coaching is not good. Simply saying the jury is out if they will maintain their success. The playoff win 2 years ago was a lightning strike after a mediocre season, and it was followed up by a year in which they did not make the post-season.

This year they came on strong, and played well. Their starting CBs are both second year players, and the rest of the defense looks good. Their O, on the other hand, is suspect. I'm not sure about Wilson and the rest on that side of the ball. No #1 WR, top guy is a constantly injured Rice. We'll see what they have in Tate. I like Zach Miller, but he's not a game changer. Lynch is going to continue to play well, but an RB can't carry a team in today's NFL. Most importantly though, I think Wilson is a gimmick and while he may be a starter for a while, he will be a mediocre one.

Coaching...what can you say about Carroll? I can't shake the feeling he ran from the college ranks to escape the punishment that was going to be leveled at him. His honeymoon in Seattle is over, after this year they're going to expect big things out of the team. How does he handle is? What kind of a locker room presence does he have - can he consistently motivate players to play to their potential, or will his act wear off after a couple of years? College coaches don't have to worry about that, by the time a player gets used to your spiel, they've moved on and there's a new batch of recruits. Can Carroll maintain interest with 10 year vets?

Braddah -- others are saying the hawks are a flash in the pan just like the spread option.

Of course the jury is still out for the hawks because they have not been to the super bowl. But their recent acquisition of talent and play on the field demonstrates how quickly success is possible.. Rebuilding in the NFL is an excuse and the result of poor coaching and management.

What Carroll did to SC by getting them on probation has zero relevance what we are talking about.

Just shows that while I admire TT's ability to find street free agents you still need to get higher quality paid free agents.

[mraynrand]

Should we compare the 1921 packers against the current era?

The issue is the bold recent chages made by a TT protege that has resulted in a better roster than the Packers.

The hawks 3 years ago has no bearing in the argument since there almost all gone just like over 50 per cent of the packers are gone.

Its about now and if TT does not acquring free agents that do not screw the cap the Packers are in trouble of not winning the NFC.

then stop using the Hawks that won a playoff game two years ago (but got demolished by the same Bears team the Packers dismantled) to bolster whatever argument you are making. If you are trying to say that the Seachickens are showing a positive upward trend, that's indisputable. They finished strong and should have made the NFCC game, but for a final drive defensive meltdown. So what? They play in the most competitive Division of the toughest conference - IMO - and regardless of how good they are, they'l be severely challenged to improve on this season - especially since they likely won't get a free win! The proof will be in the pudding, but I'll wait to see it play out. I have no prediction at this time because I don't know who will be on the rosters in the fall and who will be healthy.

About your free agent argument: was Seattle built via free agency?

About your roster/coach comparison argument: That's your opinion. Green Bay beat Seattle straight up on the road and they both got as far in the playoffs. I like a few players on Seattle's defense better than GB's but I'd rather have Rodgers and our WRs. Our O-line is generally better at pass pro and there's is better at run blocking. They have a better featured RB. It's mostly a wash, except for we have better past performance - that is, the core Packer roster won a Superbowl.

Stubby has a better record coaching in the Pros than Pete Carroll, and has never been fired as a HC.

[rbaloha1]

then stop using the Hawks that won a playoff game two years ago (but got demolished by the same Bears team the Packers dismantled) to bolster whatever argument you are making. If you are trying to say that the Seachickens are showing a positive upward trend, that's indisputable. They finished strong and should have made the NFCC game, but for a final drive defensive meltdown. So what? They play in the most competitive Division of the toughest conference - IMO - and regardless of how good they are, they'l be severely challenged to improve on this season - especially since they likely won't get a free win! The proof will be in the pudding, but I'll wait to see it play out. I have no prediction at this time because I don't know who will be on the rosters in the fall and who will be healthy.

About your free agent argument: was Seattle built via free agency?

About your roster/coach comparison argument: That's your opinion. Green Bay beat Seattle straight up on the road and they both got as far in the playoffs. I like a few players on Seattle's defense better than GB's but I'd rather have Rodgers and our WRs. Our O-line is generally better at pass pro and there's is better at run blocking. They have a better featured RB. It's mostly a wash, except for we have better past performance - that is, the core Packer roster won a Superbowl.

Stubby has a better record coaching in the Pros than Pete Carroll, and has never been fired as a HC.

Boy you flip flop all over the place.

The point about free agency is to use it properly -- it is impossible to use it for the whole team. Pickett and Woodson were excellent acquisitions but what has happened since? Too many street free agents that are capable of winning the north and posting a good regualr season records but fail in the playoffs.

BTW WHAT DOES STUBBY'S OVERALL RECORD HAVE TO DO WITH THE NOW AND NOT BEING FIRED?

BILL BELICHEK WAS FIRED BY THE BROWNS.

[mraynrand]

The point about free agency is to use it properly -- it is impossible to use it for the whole team. Pickett and Woodson were excellent acquisitions but what has happened since? Too many street free agents that are capable of winning the north and posting a good regualr season records but fail in the playoffs.

Did Seattle build their roster with FA?


BTW WHAT DOES STUBBY'S OVERALL RECORD HAVE TO DO WITH THE NOW AND NOT BEING FIRED?

BILL BELICHEK WAS FIRED BY THE BROWNS.

So what? Stubby has a better record than Carroll and hasn't been fired as HC. You made the claim that Seattle's coaching staff was better; by objective criteria you are completely, totally, demonstrably wrong.

[sharpe1027]

The reason the Seahawks are such a big story is that they are the exception. Even if we accept that the Seachickens are here to stay long term, there are plenty of examples of teams that have been successful without overhauling their entire roster. How many Superbowl winners in the past 10 years were teams that had similar roster turnover?

The Seachickens surprised people because huge turnover is hardly ever a recipe for immediate success. You can model your team after a one-off exception, but you would be ignoring all the other evidence of even more successful teams doing something different and unsuccessful teams doing something similar.

[denverYooper]

We need to call up Nelly because it's getting hot in here.

[rbaloha1]

The reason the Seahawks are such a big story is that they are the exception. Even if we accept that the Seachickens are here to stay long term, there are plenty of examples of teams that have been successful without overhauling their entire roster. How many Superbowl winners in the past 10 years were teams that had similar roster turnover?

The Seachickens surprised people because huge turnover is hardly ever a recipe for immediate success. You can model your team after a one-off exception, but you would be ignoring all the other evidence of even more successful teams doing something different and unsuccessful teams doing something similar.

Times are changing are the seachicks are a now example of old cliches.

BTW the seachickens have a young roster with some people saying the chickens could have rookie of the year on both sides of the ball.

Old cliches and mindsets are being disproven.

[rbaloha1]

We need to call up Nelly because it's getting hot in here.

Nah the tradewinds always keep it cool in the face of nitwits.

[sharpe1027]

Times are changing are the seachicks are a now example of old cliches.

BTW the seachickens have a young roster with some people saying the chickens could have rookie of the year on both sides of the ball.

Old cliches and mindsets are being disproven.

Like I and others have said, your proof is one team making the playoffs; you ignore everything else including the more successful teams. You believe you are correct and that is fine. You just don't have much more than your belief to back up your claims.

[rbaloha1]

Like I and others have said, your proof is one team making the playoffs; you ignore everything else including the more successful teams. You believe you are correct and that is fine. You just don't have much more than your belief to back up your claims.

What is being ignored about the seachickens?

[rbaloha1]

Like I and others have said, your proof is one team making the playoffs; you ignore everything else including the more successful teams. You believe you are correct and that is fine. You just don't have much more than your belief to back up your claims.

No beliefs -- are the seachickens winning playoff games?

[sharpe1027]

What is being ignored about the seachickens?

You're ignoring the other 31 teams in the league.

[rbaloha1]

You're ignoring the other 31 teams in the league.

Do the other 31 teams have a TT protege running their front office?

Did the other 31 teams win a playoff game this season?

Is your goal to win the north or beat the niners?

[Guiness]

What Carroll did to SC by getting them on probation has zero relevance what we are talking about.



I'm really on the fence with him. While the state he left the Trojans in does not affect his NFL team, it speaks an awful lot to character. The captain left the sinking ship instead of trying to right it. I brought it up to go along with the new heightened expectations there will be for the Seahawks this year. How does he react to any harsh criticism that comes his way?
He's obviously doing better in the NFL than another college superstar coach, Steve Spurrier, did. Will he continue to do so? No crystal ball here...and the same question has to be there about the newest superstar recruit, Chip Kelly.

[rbaloha1]

I'm really on the fence with him. While the state he left the Trojans in does not affect his NFL team, it speaks an awful lot to character. The captain left the sinking ship instead of trying to right it. I brought it up to go along with the new heightened expectations there will be for the Seahawks this year. How does he react to any harsh criticism that comes his way?
He's obviously doing better in the NFL than another college superstar coach, Steve Spurrier, did. Will he continue to do so? No crystal ball here...and the same question has to be there about the newest superstar recruit, Chip Kelly.

I am rooting for Kelly. Already signaled he is not going to run a pure oregon offense with the hiring of a nfl offensive coordinator.

SS was arrogant nad though he could run his fun gun stuff in the nfl. Plus he was not a grinder and was trying to prove you do not have to put in the time to be successful in the NFL.

Kelly is a grinder and hopefully successful.

Maybe TT sees how to utilize Cobb in spread option just like how he studied Sproles.

Yes, the jury is still out on Carroll but he is on-track for big success with Schneider at his side.

[sharpe1027]

Do the other 31 teams have a TT protege running their front office?

Relevant because?


Did the other 31 teams win a playoff game this season?

Several of them did without doing what you suggest to their rosters.


Is your goal to win the north or beat the niners?

My current goal is to work of the winter beer gut from the past season. I don't play football anymore.

[rbaloha1]

Relevant because?

You figure it out.

Several of them did without doing what you suggest to their rosters.

Which ones?

My current goal is to work of the winter beer gut from the past season. I don't play football anymore.

Your ignorance answered the question -- mahalo braddah.

[sharpe1027]

Which ones?

San Fran and Baltimore to begin with.

[rbaloha1]

San Fran and Baltimore to begin with.

How much turnover did they have?

What was state of their rosters at the end of last year?

Why can the Seachickens beat the niners and not the Packers?

[denverYooper]

Maybe the Packers should hire John Frum in their front office and put him in charge of player personnel.

[rbaloha1]

Maybe the Packers should hire John Frum in their front office and put him in charge of player personnel.

Maybe. Problem is TT has final say and is too conservative in free agency. Street free agents are most likely only band-aids (okay for the anal retentive rats there are exceptions of course).

By no ways am I advocating MM have the final say like Caroll.

[sharpe1027]

How much turnover did they have?

Both have starting lineups that are pretty close to last year's starting 22.


What was state of their rosters at the end of last year?

Neither did better last year than the Packers did this year. Yet, they made the Superbowl without major overhauls.


Why can the Seachickens beat the niners and not the Packers?

The Seachickens could beat either team. They could also lose to either team.

[Guiness]

Maybe. Problem is TT has final say and is too conservative in free agency. Street free agents are most likely only band-aids (okay for the anal retentive rats there are exceptions of course).

By no ways am I advocating MM have the final say like Caroll.

Does Caroll have final say? IMO that is always a big mistake, and pushes me far towards the opinion that he will not have long term success. I don't think it's possible to hold those two jobs in the NFL. Two problems - there is too much involved, causing burnout, and the tendency of coaches to hold on to players too long after they've fallen off, because of what they've done in the past.

Our own two examples, Sherman here and Holmgren after he left, demonstrate how bad it can go with that model. Seperation of church and the state is paramount!

[rbaloha1]

Both have starting lineups that are pretty close to last year's starting 22.



Neither did better last year than the Packers did this year. Yet, they made the Superbowl without major overhauls.

So if the Packers follow this they will be in the super bowl next year? Did both of these teams have a championship caliber defense? Do the Packers have a championship caliber defense?

What about the remaining roster?




The Seachickens could beat either team. They could also lose to either team.

I am not asking the what if? Why did the seachickens dominate the niners late in the season while the packers were blown out?

[rbaloha1]

Does Caroll have final say? IMO that is always a big mistake, and pushes me far towards the opinion that he will not have long term success. I don't think it's possible to hold those two jobs in the NFL. Two problems - there is too much involved, causing burnout, and the tendency of coaches to hold on to players too long after they've fallen off, because of what they've done in the past.

Our own two examples, Sherman here and Holmgren after he left, demonstrate how bad it can go with that model. Seperation of church and the state is paramount!

Yes, that was the condition for taking the job. He learned from his previous NFL jobs that in order for him to have success he must have final say.

So far Carroll is an excellent evaluator of talent. This is by no means Sherman/Holmgren personnel idiocy.

[sharpe1027]

I am not asking the what if? Why did the seachickens dominate the niners late in the season while the packers were blown out?

They played better and probably had better talent on the field. Look, you are trying to convince people that the Packer's should pay more attention to how the Seachickens operate than to how the past SB winners operate. That they should pay more attention to the Seachickens than to how past division winners operate. That they should pay more attention to the Seachickens than to teams that are consistently good over the long term.

So, convince us: Why should all the focus be on this one team and not on any of the other more successful teams over the past 5 years?

[rbaloha1]

They played better and probably had better talent on the field. Look, you are trying to convince people that the Packer's should pay more attention to how the Seachickens operate than to how the past SB winners operate. That they should pay more attention to the Seachickens than to how past division winners operate. That they should pay more attention to the Seachickens than to teams that are consistently good over the long term.

So, convince us: Why should all the focus be on this one team and not on any of the other more successful teams over the past 5 years?

Not trying to convice you on anything. Keep believing in what you want. Something is currently not working since the super bowl as evidenced by the 2 season ending blowouts by being physically dominated.

Braddah -- go smoke some medical mj or take xanax or get some sun.

Pau -- time for surf my freezing rats.

[Patler]

Last season the Seahawks turnover was 75 per cent. Packers need an ovehaul albeit not at 75 per cent.



According to their newspaper coverage comparing their 2010 playoff roster to this season's:


When the Seahawks (11-5) face Washington in Sunday’s playoff opener, they’ll have 33 new faces on the 53-man roster from two seasons ago. The moves were drastic in some areas and subtle in others.

Per the article on the Packers roster, they have 26 new faces since 2010.

In 2010 the Packers won the Super Bowl, then went 15-1 in 2011, and 11-5 in 2012 while replacing 26 players.
In 2010 the Seahawks were 7-9, then were 7-9 again in 2011, and 11-5 in 2012 while replacing 33 players.

I guess I don't see the big difference, especially considering where each team was in 2010-2011.

[Zool]

Pete Carroll is a fucking joke

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/CarrPe0.htm

This entire thread is pretty much at the same location as Carrolls coaching prowess. I think my favorite part was his fortuitous jump to the NFL right as the NCAA sanctions were coming down in USC.

Fuck him and fuck the Seahawks.

[rbaloha1]

Pete Carroll is a fucking joke

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/CarrPe0.htm

This entire thread is pretty much at the same location as Carrolls coaching prowess. I think my favorite part was his fortuitous jump to the NFL right as the NCAA sanctions were coming down in USC.

Fuck him and fuck the Seahawks.

You are correct only because you are the commish.

[sharpe1027]

Not trying to convice you on anything. Keep believing in what you want. Something is currently not working since the super bowl as evidenced by the 2 season ending blowouts by being physically dominated.

Braddah -- go smoke some medical mj or take xanax or get some sun.

Pau -- time for surf my freezing rats.

Regardless of whether or not something is not working, that doesn't mean they should copy the Seachickens. They were, and still are, two different franchises in two different positions.

[rbaloha1]

Regardless of whether or not something is not working, that doesn't mean they should copy the Seachickens. They were, and still are, two different franchises in two different positions.

Braddah do not take everything so literally.

The issue imo is the current roster is not capable of beating the niners. The 30 per cent turnover is also not working -- only able to win the north.

The seachickens are an example of having success with an excessively high turnover. IMO the Packers need to change a minimum of 50 per cent of the roster.

[rbaloha1]

Pete Carroll is a fucking joke

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/CarrPe0.htm

This entire thread is pretty much at the same location as Carrolls coaching prowess. I think my favorite part was his fortuitous jump to the NFL right as the NCAA sanctions were coming down in USC.

Fuck him and fuck the Seahawks.

Its not about only coaching prowess but personnel and drafting moves.

[sharpe1027]

Braddah do not take everything so literally.

The issue imo is the current roster is not capable of beating the niners. The 30 per cent turnover is also not working -- only able to win the north.

The seachickens are an example of having success with an excessively high turnover. IMO the Packers need to change a minimum of 50 per cent of the roster.

Dude, just say what you mean then. I have no problem with the Packers improving, but the Seachickens are about the only example of success with excessively high turnover. There are multiple examples of low turnover and at least as much "success."

[rbaloha1]

Dude, just say what you mean then. I have no problem with the Packers improving, but the Seachickens are about the only example of success with excessively high turnover. There are multiple examples of low turnover and at least as much "success."

Dude, the game is changing as we speak. Quicker roster turnover is becoming new norm.

Low turnover works if you already have a super bowl level roster which imo the packers do not have but the ravens and 49ers do.

[sharpe1027]

Dude, the game is changing as we speak. Quicker roster turnover is becoming new norm.

Low turnover works if you already have a super bowl level roster which imo the packers do not have but the ravens and 49ers do.

The norm is not defined by one team.

[rbaloha1]

The norm is not defined by one team.

With the emergence of spread option/pistol, etc. requires changes on both sides of the ball -- i.e. higher roster changes than the previous monolithic NFL with majority of teams running wco offenses and high percentage of cover 2 defenses or 3-4.

Additional skill sets are required. Plus the cap is going up.

Plus how many new college coaches were hired? More roster changes.

Keep denying it and go masturbate.

[Patler]

The Packers won the SB, went 15-1 and 11-5 while changing 26 players.
The Seahawks went 7-9, 7-9 then 11-5 while changing 33 players.

I think it can be argued that Packers have actually been more aggressive in making changes than the Seahawks have been, when you consider that the Packers were working from the base of a roster that won the SB and then went 15-1 while the Seahawks were working from the base of a roster that went 7-9 and 7-9.

The Seahawks changed 33 players who accomplished nothing.
The Packers replaced 26 who won a SB and/or went 15-1.

[rbaloha1]

The Packers won the SB, went 15-1 and 11-5 while changing 26 players.
The Seahawks went 7-9, 7-9 then 11-5 while changing 33 players.

I think it can be argued that Packers have actually been more aggressive in making changes than the Seahawks have been, when you consider that the Packers were working from the base of a roster that won the SB and then went 15-1 while the Seahawks were working from the base of a roster that went 7-9 and 7-9.

The Seahawks changed 33 players who accomplished nothing.
The Packers replaced 26 who won a SB and/or went 15-1.

Whatever the number is which I will not dispute the Packers are either making the wrong or not enough personnel changes. The lack of physicality needs to addressed more than in the past.

[George Cumby]

Whatever the number is which I will not dispute the Packers are either making the wrong or not enough personnel changes. The lack of physicality needs to addressed more than in the past.

Well, based on this, I would prefer that they emulate the Niners than the Seahawks, at least as far as aggressive, dominating mindset.

As far as SEA is concerned, how many teams make the playoffs one year and fail to make the playoffs the next? The percentage is around 40-50%, is it not?

We'll see if they make it next year. Russell needs to avoid his sophmore slump which will be easier said than done as opponents will have had an entire off-season of film study on him. He also needs to avoid getting maimed.

The Rams will be better, the Niners are built to contend, who knows about the cards. Plus, they won't be gifted a game every year. I would say that SEA's perpetual success is far from guaranteed.

[Patler]

Whatever the number is which I will not dispute the Packers are either making the wrong or not enough personnel changes. The lack of physicality needs to addressed more than in the past.

Nah, they just need a few better and smarter players, especially on defense.

[rbaloha1]

Well, based on this, I would prefer that they emulate the Niners than the Seahawks, at least as far as aggressive, dominating mindset.

As far as SEA is concerned, how many teams make the playoffs one year and fail to make the playoffs the next? The percentage is around 40-50%, is it not?

We'll see if they make it next year. Russell needs to avoid his sophmore slump which will be easier said than done as opponents will have had an entire off-season of film study on him. He also needs to avoid getting maimed.

The Rams will be better, the Niners are built to contend, who knows about the cards. Plus, they won't be gifted a game every year. I would say that SEA's perpetual success is far from guaranteed.

Even better. BTW THE seahawks and rams roster are constructed to beat the niners.

Watched the 4 games of the Rams and Seahawks vs. the niners -- both teams were nit intimadated and took it to the niners. Matched the niners bullying mentality. The Giants also matched the niners physicality.

IMO the Packers are not close to beating the niners.

[rbaloha1]

Nah, they just need a few better and smarter players, especially on defense.

So your turnover rate is under the NFL norm of 20 per cent?

[sharpe1027]

With the emergence of spread option/pistol, etc. requires changes on both sides of the ball -- i.e. higher roster changes than the previous monolithic NFL with majority of teams running wco offenses and high percentage of cover 2 defenses or 3-4.

Additional skill sets are required. Plus the cap is going up.

Plus how many new college coaches were hired? More roster changes.

Keep denying it and go masturbate.

Almost all of these same things happen every year. As for the spread option/pistol, its nothing new. Regardless, there's a new offensive wrinkle every couple years that takes a bit for defenses to catch up with.

For the most part, the Packer's defense didn't get out muscled by the Niners; they just blew their responsibilities and let a skinny, fast "finesse" QB run wild. Gore was contained most of the game.

[rbaloha1]

Almost all of these same things happen every year. As for the spread option/pistol, its nothing new. Regardless, there's a new offensive wrinkle every couple years that takes a bit for defenses to catch up with.

For the most part, the Packer's defense didn't get out muscled by the Niners; they just blew their responsibilities and let a skinny, fast "finesse" QB run wild. Gore was contained most of the game.



What are you watching? The spread/pistol is more widespread and according to Trent Dilfer a major change to NFL offenses.

Minimizing the 49ers success and downplaying the Packers deficiences is ridiculous. Gore was contained -- so what?

The front seven was not physically dominated by the niners -- are you deliousnal? Please go back to masturbating.

[run pMc]

It's a young man's game. Contracts expire, free agency happens. TT historically likes a younger roster. I'm not surprised by any of that.


Watched the 4 games of the Rams and Seahawks vs. the niners -- both teams were nit intimadated and took it to the niners. Matched the niners bullying mentality. The Giants also matched the niners physicality.

The Rams, Niners and Seahawks are also division rivals -- the Lions, Bears, and Vikings don't intimidate GB, and when they play it's often the kind of game where you can throw the record out the window.
Personally I think the Seahawks are a decent team who had something of a lucky season. A tougher schedule, an offseason for DC's to figure out how to stop Russell Wilson (keep him in the pocket, get your hands up to block vision and deflect passes), and another year of wear and tear on Lynch -- who really is the backbone of their offense -- could cause a regression to the mean.

That Farrar guy on Yahoo Sports drives me crazy because every other story he writes is about his hometown Seahawks. If he was a Redskins fan we'd be arguing about how great RGIII and Co. are.

Agree with another poster re: GB's roster vs. SEA's. They have some nice players but I'd take Rodgers and his WR corps over SEA's. They play a different defense so it's not so simple to compare.

I expect more turnover this offseason -- Off the top of my head, Saturday, Driver, Jennings, Woodson, Hawk, Finley, Zombo, Walden, Grant, Starks are all possible to be gone. (Saturday for sure lol.)

[rbaloha1]

It's a young man's game. Contracts expire, free agency happens. TT historically likes a younger roster. I'm not surprised by any of that.



The Rams, Niners and Seahawks are also division rivals -- the Lions, Bears, and Vikings don't intimidate GB, and when they play it's often the kind of game where you can throw the record out the window.
Personally I think the Seahawks are a decent team who had something of a lucky season. A tougher schedule, an offseason for DC's to figure out how to stop Russell Wilson (keep him in the pocket, get your hands up to block vision and deflect passes), and another year of wear and tear on Lynch -- who really is the backbone of their offense -- could cause a regression to the mean.

That Farrar guy on Yahoo Sports drives me crazy because every other story he writes is about his hometown Seahawks. If he was a Redskins fan we'd be arguing about how great RGIII and Co. are.

Agree with another poster re: GB's roster vs. SEA's. They have some nice players but I'd take Rodgers and his WR corps over SEA's. They play a different defense so it's not so simple to compare.

I expect more turnover this offseason -- Off the top of my head, Saturday, Driver, Jennings, Woodson, Hawk, Finley, Zombo, Walden, Grant, Starks are all possible to be gone. (Saturday for sure lol.)

Some valid points. You talk about taking the packers offensive personnel over the seattle offensive personnel -- different scheme. How can you compare?

The hawks also run a 3-4 defense and only an idiot would take the packer personnel over the hawks (yes, I am comparing). Plus the hawks have a better fg kicker.

[sharpe1027]

What are you watching? The spread/pistol is more widespread and according to Trent Dilfer a major change to NFL offenses.

Yes, it is more widespread, but it's been around for years.


Minimizing the 49ers success and downplaying the Packers deficiences is ridiculous. Gore was contained -- so what? The front seven was not physically dominated by the niners -- are you deliousnal?

For the most part, the Packer's front 7 did not get blown off the line and the 49ers were not successful running up the middle. Instead, they gashed the Packers on the edges with runs by a finesse QB.


Please go back to masturbating.

Who said I ever stopped?

[pbmax]

So your turnover rate is under the NFL norm of 20 per cent?

:roll:

We deal with enough bad information information that being deliberately obtuse creates a real deterrent for most posters and readers. Patler posted just a few lines up that the Packer turnover from 11 to 12 was well above the percentage you give and he gave no indication that he thought the actual number was too high. In fact, take his statement about the defense and add offense and special teams changeover and you probably exceed the number you give by quite a bit.

And this doesn't even get into the problem with comparisons with both the Seahawks and 49ers. Both franchises were terrible for years and collected a slew of high draft position players. Take that base and graft on competent personnel and coaching people and you have the recipe for an overnight success.

The Packers have a roster more top heavy with established stars and recent drafts from a weaker position. The percentage of recent turnover will be quite different between an established team and the refurb franchises if you consider only starters and backups who play a lot of snaps.

Plus the cap is not going up much at all until after 2014. Estimates so far this year indicate the cap will rise less than a million per team next year; $400,000 in 2013 according to PFT.

[mraynrand]

Who said I ever stopped?

repped

[Guiness]

...obtuse...

repp'd for splendid use of this word!

[rbaloha1]

:roll:

We deal with enough bad information information that being deliberately obtuse creates a real deterrent for most posters and readers. Patler posted just a few lines up that the Packer turnover from 11 to 12 was well above the percentage you give and he gave no indication that he thought the actual number was too high. In fact, take his statement about the defense and add offense and special teams changeover and you probably exceed the number you give by quite a bit.

And this doesn't even get into the problem with comparisons with both the Seahawks and 49ers. Both franchises were terrible for years and collected a slew of high draft position players. Take that base and graft on competent personnel and coaching people and you have the recipe for an overnight success.

The Packers have a roster more top heavy with established stars and recent drafts from a weaker position. The percentage of recent turnover will be quite different between an established team and the refurb franchises if you consider only starters and backups who play a lot of snaps.

Plus the cap is not going up much at all until after 2014. Estimates so far this year indicate the cap will rise less than a million per team next year; $400,000 in 2013 according to PFT.

Brah -- you are the leader of obtuse!

The 20 per cent was from the from the article started by our estemed thread starter.

The point mr. obtuse was the thread starter was stating this years roster only neded some minor defensive tweaking. I asked the simple question if his number was under 20 per cent -- get it. Maybe you should join others in masturbation.

Mr. obtuse -- what is your percentage for roster turnover for the upcoming season? My number is at a minimum of 50 per cent.

[rbaloha1]

Yes, it is more widespread, but it's been around for years.

When was the pistol invented? Who first ran it in the NFL?

For the most part, the Packer's front 7 did not get blown off the line and the 49ers were not successful running up the middle. Instead, they gashed the Packers on the edges with runs by a finesse QB.

Braddah do you wanna buy lava land?


Who said I ever stopped?

My bad -- keep going and keep posting.

Let me know when you climax.

[Patler]

So your turnover rate is under the NFL norm of 20 per cent?

I couldn't care less what the percentage is this year. The goal is to get better, not meet some artificial level of change. It could be quite high this year because quite a few will be gone for sure (Driver, Saturday, Grant, probably Jennings, etc.) and quite a few depending on what replacements can be found (Starks, DJ Williams, Taylor, Zombo, Walden, Jones, Kuhn, Green, etc.) If they draft a guy like Tyler Eifert like some are predicting, Finley could be gone too. Woodson in 2013 or '14.

Harrell will likely be replaced by Coleman or someone else. Does anyone care? That will add about 2% to the rate of change.

Barclay most likely will be on the 53 man roster to start 2013. He wasn't to start 2012. Is that another almost 2% change or not? What if VanRoten makesthe opening roster, is that another almost 2%?

Will Worthy be ready for 2013? Another 2%?

If Bishop is back, is that another 2% change because he wasn't on the opening day roster in 2012? Quarless too?

[Bossman641]

Some valid points. You talk about taking the packers offensive personnel over the seattle offensive personnel -- different scheme. How can you compare?

The hawks also run a 3-4 defense and only an idiot would take the packer personnel over the hawks (yes, I am comparing). Plus the hawks have a better fg kicker.

WRONG

[Bossman641]

I certainly think the Seahawks are a team on the rise; but they had the advantage of the Fail Mary game and also only lost 11 games to starters all year (0 starters on IR). Let's give them a year or 2 of other franchises picking through their personnel/coaching departments and regression towards the mean with injury luck before we start declaring they have beaten the system.

[rbaloha1]

WRONG

you are correct. pc ran a 3-4 in college but runs a hybird 4-3.

Nonetheless their overall defensive personnel is far superior to the packers and can control spread option unlike the packers (no joe webb does not count)

[rbaloha1]

I couldn't care less what the percentage is this year. The goal is to get better, not meet some artificial level of change. It could be quite high this year because quite a few will be gone for sure (Driver, Saturday, Grant, probably Jennings, etc.) and quite a few depending on what replacements can be found (Starks, DJ Williams, Taylor, Zombo, Walden, Jones, Kuhn, Green, etc.) If they draft a guy like Tyler Eifert like some are predicting, Finley could be gone too. Woodson in 2013 or '14.

Harrell will likely be replaced by Coleman or someone else. Does anyone care? That will add about 2% to the rate of change.

Barclay most likely will be on the 53 man roster to start 2013. He wasn't to start 2012. Is that another almost 2% change or not? What if VanRoten makesthe opening roster, is that another almost 2%?

Will Worthy be ready for 2013? Another 2%?

If Bishop is back, is that another 2% change because he wasn't on the opening day roster in 2012? Quarless too?

Only requested a number due to the number of anal retentive rats who hide behind meaningless stats.

Change of the sake of change is not good.

Again the Packers alarmingly lack of physicality must be addressed strongly and not by oxygen tents.

[rbaloha1]

I certainly think the Seahawks are a team on the rise; but they had the advantage of the Fail Mary game and also only lost 11 games to starters all year (0 starters on IR). Let's give them a year or 2 of other franchises picking through their personnel/coaching departments and regression towards the mean with injury luck before we start declaring they have beaten the system.

Overthinking.

It is not about beating the system -- it is about acquiring the right players.

[Pugger]

I am not asking the what if? Why did the seachickens dominate the niners late in the season while the packers were blown out?

Because they have more talent on D and were healthier than us. Would the divisional playoff game had been different if we still had all of our guys AND played the game in GB? We'll never know.

[rbaloha1]

Because they have more talent on D and were healthier than us. Would the divisional playoff game had been different if we still had all of our guys AND played the game in GB? We'll never know.

Would the Packers at full strength beat the niners?

[rbaloha1]

Because they have more talent on D and were healthier than us. Would the divisional playoff game had been different if we still had all of our guys AND played the game in GB? We'll never know.

Why do the seahawks have more defensive talent than the packers?

Did TT screw-up by not getting Lynch?

[Bossman641]

Overthinking.

It is not about beating the system -- it is about acquiring the right players.

You are jumping all over the place. First you said the Packers needed a complete overhaul (75% like the Seahawks). Then you said the Packers didn't need to meet some arbitrary roster turnover number but instead just needed to acquire better players. Gee, better players, somebody pass this nugget on to TT quick.

BTW the Seahawks blew up their roster because they had new GM, coach, and schemes. It's no different than when TT cleaned house when he first got here.

[Patler]

The hawks are the MODERN example of how to construct a team with huge changes and be competitive instantly. The old cliches about taking 3 -5 years to build no longer fit just like rookie qbs can not start in the NFL and the option could never work in the NFL are done.


The hawks with Schneider started the major overhaul over the last 2 years.

Wasn't 2012 Schneider's third season in Seattle? Didn't they fall nicely into the old cliche of 3-5 years? In fact, I believe Schneider went crazy in the 2010 off season signing and releasing many, many FAs. I think he made a bunch of trades with draft picks and players to acquire other players and more draft picks.


I don't think their ascendency to respectability was as sudden as you are implying.

[mraynrand]

Why do the seahawks have more defensive talent than the packers?

Why do the seahawks have less offensive talent than the packers?

[Pugger]

Would the Packers at full strength beat the niners?

Maybe. Would having Perry, Bishop and Worthy in there been able to contain Kaep and Gore? If we were at full strength this past season like they were that playoff game might have been in GB. When we lost to SF the first game of the season we had a lot of kids trying to figure it all out. I contend right now we only need to upgrade a handful of positions:

DE
ILB
S
RB

OT is another question mark because we don't know the status of Sherrod and Bulaga. If these two can return and play like the first round picks that they were our offense will be much better than it was in 2012 and that could give a lot of DCs sleepless nights.

I'm wondering about this read/option offense and its long term future. Once these QBs like Kaep, RG3 and Wilson get hammered enough I think their coaches will not be so keen on putting them in these situations as often.

[mraynrand]

Would the Packers at full strength beat the niners?

they certainly could. Would the Niners be at "full strength" too? It depends on turnovers. I'm guessing the team that scored the most points would win - which is almost always true, except when playing at Seattle.

[rbaloha1]

Maybe. Would having Perry, Bishop and Worthy in there been able to contain Kaep and Gore? If we were at full strength this past season like they were that playoff game might have been in GB. When we lost to SF the first game of the season we had a lot of kids trying to figure it all out. I contend right now we only need to upgrade a handful of positions:

DE
ILB
S
RB

OT is another question mark because we don't know the status of Sherrod and Bulaga. If these two can return and play like the first round picks that they were our offense will be much better than it was in 2012 and that could give a lot of DCs sleepless nights.

I'm wondering about this read/option offense and its long term future. Once these QBs like Kaep, RG3 and Wilson get hammered enough I think their coaches will not be so keen on putting them in these situations as often.

Spread option imo is an added dimension but do not expect a full blown shift.

Just the threat or the formation causes slight hesitation with de/olb resulting in big plays.

RG3 is the only spread option qb that fails to avoid the big hits. He will learn to avoid the hits and become a big time player.

[mraynrand]

S
RG3 is the only spread option qb that fails to avoid the big hits. He will learn to avoid the hits and become a big time player.


:lol:

[Guiness]

RG3 is the only spread option qb that fails to avoid the big hits. He will learn to avoid the hits and become a big time player.

I don't know about that. Is it possible to avoid them all the time? CK took a good lick from our D during the playoff game - the one where he spiked the ball on the field and got the penalty. Yes, he was showing the D that he took their best shot and was fine, but if they line him up like that a few more times he's going to be moving a lot slower.

[woodbuck27]

Who is closer to the super bowl with a better roster -- imo the seahawks.

Why are the Seahawks having big success in a short period of time?

It will be v. interesting to see how the Seahawks perform next season. I see them as a real threat in two more seasons. It will depend alot on the consistency and possible further development of their offense. It seems obvious to me that the Seahawks are a team on the rise, with a respected by his players HC and a young GM with vision.

[woodbuck27]

I don't know about that. Is it possible to avoid them all the time? CK took a good lick from our D during the playoff game - the one where he spiked the ball on the field and got the penalty. Yes, he was showing the D that he took their best shot and was fine, but if they line him up like that a few more times he's going to be moving a lot slower.

The Skins should take the same approach to their OL as the 49ers did. Make it a priority of strength. Once you establish a franchise QB you better protect him.

It's the OL where we need to see more emphasis placed in terms of improving the Packers.

[rbaloha1]

I don't know about that. Is it possible to avoid them all the time? CK took a good lick from our D during the playoff game - the one where he spiked the ball on the field and got the penalty. Yes, he was showing the D that he took their best shot and was fine, but if they line him up like that a few more times he's going to be moving a lot slower.

Every qb gets smacked.

How many shots did pocket passer a-rod take?

[Fritz]

He did take some shots, but many of the sacks seemed less violent than the type a QB would get on the run.

[rbaloha1]

He did take some shots, but many of the sacks seemed less violent than the type a QB would get on the run.

Nonsense. Many pocket hits are from the blindside.

Less violent -- do you have some sort of violent meter?:???::???:

[Joemailman]

Most sacks are not made by a defensive player moving full speed, unless he's completely unblocked. There probably is a better chance of a QB taking a hit from someone moving full speed if he's taking off downfield on a run.

[denverYooper]

Most sacks are not made by a defensive player moving full speed, unless he's completely unblocked. There probably is a better chance of a QB taking a hit from someone moving full speed if he's taking off downfield on a run.

Defenses also get a little extra permission to hit running QBs because those QBs are a threat to run. Sometimes the strategy for beating a dual threat QB, even from guys not named Greg Williams, becomes "just hit the QB whether he has the ball or not."

[rbaloha1]

Most sacks are not made by a defensive player moving full speed, unless he's completely unblocked. There probably is a better chance of a QB taking a hit from someone moving full speed if he's taking off downfield on a run.

Is there ever a time a qb missed playing time from getting hit in the pocket? All those qb injuries are from running RG III style?

Ex qbs say injuries are less likely if you scramble and slide rather than be blind sided in the pocket.

[rbaloha1]

Defenses also get a little extra permission to hit running QBs because those QBs are a threat to run. Sometimes the strategy for beating a dual threat QB, even from guys not named Greg Williams, becomes "just hit the QB whether he has the ball or not."

Listen to Trent Dilfer about hitting the qb during a spread option play. The 49ers assign DELANEY walker as a protector for CK. DW blows up anyone who attempts to hit the qb.

Also mentioned 3 nfl defensive coordinators currently up in Canada learning from the Grey cup champs on how to defense spread offenses.

On a side note the new Badgers Defensive Coordinator Dave Aranda has a history of having success in defensing CK and the pistol while at the University of Hawaii. Hawaii always played CK tough with good succees. In fact, Reno's only loss one season was from Hawaii.

Maybe Capers needs to study and consult with Aranda.

[KYPack]

Listen to Trent Dilfer about hitting the qb during a spread option play. The 49ers assign DELANEY walker as a protector for CK. DW blows up anyone who attempts to hit the qb.

Also mentioned 3 nfl defensive coordinators currently up in Canada learning from the Grey cup champs on how to defense spread offenses.

On a side note the new Badgers Defensive Coordinator Dave Aranda has a history of having success in defensing CK and the pistol while at the University of Hawaii. Hawaii always played CK tough with good succees. In fact, Reno's only loss one season was from Hawaii.

Maybe Capers needs to study and consult with Aranda.

Some of the technique used by CFL and college D's will have to be adopted by NFL guys to counter the run option.

One thing I didn't see used as a defensive strategy was the thing they used against the veer and run option in college. Attack the shit out of the mesh point. When the QB has his hand on the hand-off, reading the next option, go get his ass. The veer died when defenses learned how to pressure the QB in that situation. After a few dozen solid licks, run option QB's will begin to take the option that spares 'em an ass whuppin'.

There are a handful of "Aranda" type guys out there, some of 'em will get jobs to counter this creature of offense.

[pbmax]

Listen to Trent Dilfer about hitting the qb during a spread option play. The 49ers assign DELANEY walker as a protector for CK. DW blows up anyone who attempts to hit the qb.

Also mentioned 3 nfl defensive coordinators currently up in Canada learning from the Grey cup champs on how to defense spread offenses.

On a side note the new Badgers Defensive Coordinator Dave Aranda has a history of having success in defensing CK and the pistol while at the University of Hawaii. Hawaii always played CK tough with good succees. In fact, Reno's only loss one season was from Hawaii.

Maybe Capers needs to study and consult with Aranda.

Delanie Walker is not assigned as a protector of CK any more than any other blocker on the read option. The only two not blocking are Kaepernick and Gore. Walker is more a personal protector of CK when he has a seven step while passing and Walker is on pass pro. In the read option, depending on play call and D tactics, Walker could be blocking in Gore's hole or CK's. If Dilfer said this he is being an idiot; I suspect, however, that you misunderstood his point.

A blind side and unexpected hit can occur even when the QB is trying to slide. Rodgers got knocked out of the Lions game during such a maneuver.

The QB is at risk anywhere. In the pocket for passing, he is dependent on his O line. But while running, he is dependent on his own vision and sense of risk. A running QB is going to take more punishment than a QB who doesn't run but can handoff to his RBs. A far better metric than equating punishment between running QBs and pocket passers would be to tally the number of times they get tackled while holding the ball.

[rbaloha1]

Some of the technique used by CFL and college D's will have to be adopted by NFL guys to counter the run option.

One thing I didn't see used as a defensive strategy was the thing they used against the veer and run option in college. Attack the shit out of the mesh point. When the QB has his hand on the hand-off, reading the next option, go get his ass. The veer died when defenses learned how to pressure the QB in that situation. After a few dozen solid licks, run option QB's will begin to take the option that spares 'em an ass whuppin'.

There are a handful of "Aranda" type guys out there, some of 'em will get jobs to counter this creature of offense.

Good stuff.

The Trent Dilfer discussion with Mike Golic also talked about how the defense can dictate where the ball goes -- which is what Aranda did when playing CK at Reno.

TD also mentioned formation wise there are giveaways the spread option is coming. Nonetheless the geomery and blocking angles provide an advantage to the offense -- TD mentioned Raji getting blown off the ball.

These new spread qbs can run the offense when they see a favorable defensive groupings.

Lets not forget Kiffin has all types of problems stopping spread offenses in college.

[rbaloha1]

Delanie Walker is not assigned as a protector of CK any more than any other blocker on the read option. The only two not blocking are Kaepernick and Gore. Walker is more a personal protector of CK when he has a seven step while passing and Walker is on pass pro. In the read option, depending on play call and D tactics, Walker could be blocking in Gore's hole or CK's. If Dilfer said this he is being an idiot; I suspect, however, that you misunderstood his point.

A blind side and unexpected hit can occur even when the QB is trying to slide. Rodgers got knocked out of the Lions game during such a maneuver.

The QB is at risk anywhere. In the pocket for passing, he is dependent on his O line. But while running, he is dependent on his own vision and sense of risk. A running QB is going to take more punishment than a QB who doesn't run but can handoff to his RBs. A far better metric than equating punishment between running QBs and pocket passers would be to tally the number of times they get tackled while holding the ball.

Not according to TD. Walker is assigned to CK when the play is going the opposite direction to protect CK. Using Walker in this capacity is a formation giveaway.

[pbmax]

Not according to TD. Walker is assigned to CK when the play is going the opposite direction to protect CK. Using Walker in this capacity is a formation giveaway.

There might be a play (or more likely, an alignment) designed where Walker has backside blocking responsibilities but it isn't to protect CK. Its to keep either guy from getting run down from behind. A read option takes time like a draw to read and decide to give or keep. If Matthews were left undisturbed for instance, then someone would get their clock cleaned. But that role is not always Walker and in the read option play the 49ers used versus the Pack for its biggest plays, he was playside blocking Walden or an ILB.

Also remember a pistol or a read option play is not a spread offense. One can use the other, but read option is a play action concept, pistol is an alignment and spread offense is a package of personnel and, usually, specific run and pass plays.

Chip Kelly runs a spread and he doesn't use pistol or the same read option the 49ers and Redskins are using.

[rbaloha1]

There might be a play (or more likely, an alignment) designed where Walker has backside blocking responsibilities but it isn't to protect CK. Its to keep either guy from getting run down from behind. A read option takes time like a draw to read and decide to give or keep. If Matthews were left undisturbed for instance, then someone would get their clock cleaned. But that role is not always Walker and in the read option play the 49ers used versus the Pack for its biggest plays, he was playside blocking Walden or an ILB.

Also remember a pistol or a read option play is not a spread offense. One can use the other, but read option is a play action concept, pistol is an alignment and spread offense is a package of personnel and, usually, specific run and pass plays.

Chip Kelly runs a spread and he doesn't use pistol or the same read option the 49ers and Redskins are using.

Suggest you listen to the exchange with Goilc. TD has access to stuff the rats do not. It was a big eye opener for ex defensive lineman Golic.

Look all this stuff is lumped together because everyone steals concepts/formations from each other. Nothing is pure on offense anymore. MM clearly staels from others -- hope he uses Cobb for spread option stuff with Alex Green.

Rats can keep saying this stuff is a gimmick which is counter to Dilfer's opinion of a revolution (do not agree with this opinion, agree more with Jaws about this stuff as an added dimension). But the Packers have demonstarted the inability to stop it. (joe webb does not count and is why dungy was excited for the viqueens when ponder was unable to play.)

Early in the season the Packers are going to have to prove they can control spread/read option, pistol, etc.

[Guiness]

Not according to TD. Walker is assigned to CK when the play is going the opposite direction to protect CK. Using Walker in this capacity is a formation giveaway.

Mmmm. According to Dilfer. Who, of course, has been given a copy of the 49ers playbook. Actually, I heard all teams issue them to the media, just to make their job easier :-D

[rbaloha1]

Okay rats Trent Dilfer is about to do a segment on espn sports center showing the mistakes teams make against the pistol and why it is unstoppable.