Realistic Look at the Season

[RIPackerFan]

Too many people have said “we will suck this year – don’t get mad, I am just being realistic”. To me, this realism is just posing as pessimism. It tough to evaluate any team in the preseason (as shown in the non-correlation of preseason wins vs. regular seasons wins). However, I believe that one can compare position by position (yr. vs. yr.) when one player beats another player. When both players are on the same roster – and one beats the other, one can assume that the player that won the battle is better.

Using that logic, let’s look at the team:
Carroll vs. Woodson: Woodson won the battle – thus, he is starting – an improvement from last year since the person who started is still on the team and not starting.
Green vs. Gado/Herron – Green won the battle – an improvement
Whittiker vs. Moll – Moll won – an improvement
Manual vs. Roman – Manual won – an improvement
Jennings vs. Ferguson/Gardner – Jennings won – an improvement
Ryan vs. Sanders – Ryan won, an improvement

Thus, there are six positions on the team where the improvement is tough to argue, since the players that got beat out where on the team last year.

Let’s look at the other positions, where the argument isn’t as strong, but one could argue improvement.
Klemm vs. Spitz – Spitz won (while Klemm was injured and cut – he did lose his spot when he was playing – so this should be considered an improvement).
P. Lennon vs. Poppinga – this is a little closer, but I believe most would think that Poppinga will be better then Lennon
AJ Hawk vs. N. Diggs – Diggs was not a good player last year – the injuries and years took a toll on him, and most would believe this is an upgrade.

Three more improved positions.

Questionable Improvement:
Flannigan vs. Wells – I really liked Flannigan, but he did not play well last year. This is one, where the argument could be made on both sides.

Losses:
Rayner vs. Longwell – While Longwell did not play his best last year, he was a proven commodity and I doubt that Rayner will be better (but I may be wrong).

Still Outstanding:
Coaching is the largest question mark on this team. I don’t believe the preseason can be a good gauge of this, since so much of coaching is scheme preparation, which isn’t done in the preseason. People are all ready to say that Bates would have been a better D-coordinator, but let’s wait until a few games to see the game plan before we throw out Sanders. Let’s say this is a stalemate for now.

Looking at how close we were in most of the games last year, an improvement of 9 positions should lead to more wins, how can it not?

Now do I believe that we will challenge for the SB – will that would surprise me. But looking at our schedule (Jets, Buffalo, 49rs, Saints, Cardinals – all of who have had the same, if not more negative press as the Packers), along with the other self-destructing teams in the NFC North, how can one not be a little positive about this team.

This is not kool-aid, but realism in the preseason.

[RashanGary]

I think they are better than last year but not by much. Those improvements could very well be offset with Jags horrible attempt at installing a new run game and the struggles of an offense stumbling through new terminology and finding an identity.

As much as a few positions have gotten better, I think a few coaching positions have gotten worse. Bates > Sanders untill shown otherwise. Shermans run game > Jags untill shown otherwise. Those are big question marks.

They were a 4-12 team last year and with those improvements you spoke of they could be 7-9, 8-8. Only problem is, they're stumbling through learning a new offense and incoorperating 13 rookies and a bunch of 2nd year guys. If I had to guess, I'd say 6-10. 5-11 would not be a disappointment to me this year. I think it's expected.

[RIPackerFan]

I would agree that the coaching changes are the most difficult to predict - and we don't know exactly what to expect.

But the Lions and the Vikings (along with the other teams I mentioned before) have coaching changes - that the team has to implement - that is why at this point, the Packers have just a good a chance to implement the scheme as those other teams.

[RashanGary]

There has been nothing thus far that suggest this team is getting it together. Expecting the best is nothing but pure, blind faith. It's pretty realistic to assume a young team who went 4-12 last year will have a tough time climbing too far up the ladder with a whole new coaching staff.

I don't call that pessimistic. That's reality man. And when it comes to beating the Bears, we have no chacne. That is the best defense in the league and they are going to KILL Favre. I wouldn't be surprised if we lost our starting QB in week 1. It's hard to win if you can't run or pass. The Bears will shove it down our throats.

[RIPackerFan]

You are using coaching and schemes to justify that we will be bad - before the first game. It like using the preseason wins/losses to justify how good or bad a team will be - and that doesn't work.

Meanwhile the majority of teams we play this year have had coaching changes - so they will all be learning new schemes.

As far as the Bears, while good, they are given too much respect. They played poor offensive teams last year, similar to the Pack, thus their ranking was elevated. Jesus, look at what Carolina did to them. So I think it is a little far-fetched to call them best in the league.

And I guess we will see this weekend.

[ahaha]

There has been nothing thus far that suggest this team is getting it together. Expecting the best is nothing but pure, blind faith. It's pretty realistic to assume a young team who went 4-12 last year will have a tough time climbing too far up the ladder with a whole new coaching staff.

I don't call that pessimistic. That's reality man. And when it comes to beating the Bears, we have no chacne. That is the best defense in the league and they are going to KILL Favre. I wouldn't be surprised if we lost our starting QB in week 1. It's hard to win if you can't run or pass. The Bears will shove it down our throats.

That's not reality, it's pessimistic. Predicting who is going to be good or not in football, at this point of the season, is a crap shoot. The Packers made enough changes to make an optimist think they could be a decent team. The addition of Woodson and Manuel SHOULD make the secondary better. The addition of Hawk, Poppinga, Taylor, and Hodge SHOULD make the weakest link of our defense, the linebackers, better. The emergence of Greg Jennings SHOULD make our receivers better. We have two rookies starting on the offensive line, but those positions were terrible last year. The COULD be a lot better as the season rolls on. A healthy Bubba Franks SHOULD make our TE's better. And the same with Ahman Green and the running backs, he was hurt long before he ruptured that tendon. Rayner looks like a downgrade, but Longwell had a terrible season. The punter looks better than Sanders.
Is this reality, who knows? But, there are enough reasons, for an optimist, to think the Packers could have a winning season. A lot depends on how much stock you put in the preseason performance. example....do you think Woodson is as bad as his performance against the Bengals. Do you think Jennings will be as good as he's looked. Who really knows. The only thing I know is that nobody has lock on "reality" when trying to predict a team's season this early.

[Creepy]

A winning season can be expected of the Packers. The North has three new coaches and the only retained team still has offensive woes. If the Bears had played outstanding football last year to capture the North it would be different. The Bears didn't blow out anybody and to epxect to win on TOs for TDs two years in a row is wrong.

We all play the same opponents except everybody for two dgames. So winnning in the division will decide the champion. The entire North has to play the Dolphins, Patriots, Jets & Bills and if you looked at the experts they wouldn't expect any of the North to beat Miami & NE, but everybody would be given a chance to beat the Bills & Jets.

Saying your a realist and predicting doom & gloom has been done before. Ask the Rams of 1999, 2001 Patriot fans, the 2004 Charger fans and even the 2005 Chicago fans. Except for maybe L. Smith they wanted to hang their HCs and bring in somebody new. If the realist fans would have had their way, Vermiel would have been fired as would Belichek & Schottenheimer. So save the realist crap for a Mocca, banana, creamed Latte/ice coffee.

Come back to the Beer and Brats and lets cheer them onto victory, rather than cry at the first sign of trouble.

[Willard]

And when it comes to beating the Bears, we have no chacne. That is the best defense in the league and they are going to KILL Favre. I wouldn't be surprised if we lost our starting QB in week 1. It's hard to win if you can't run or pass. The Bears will shove it down our throats.

Jennings, it seems like you are keeping your expectations low for the Packers this season. Thats cool. It is less painful that way if this team doesn't "get it together". But do you really believe that the Pack "has no chance" against the big bad scary bears defense? I agree that on paper they are a great looking defense. I also agree that they are physically punishing, and opportunistic by creating turnovers. But don't get so caught up in the hype you hear from the media and the bears fans. This team can be beaten. The Panthers put up 29 points on this heralded team on their home court in their last meaningful game.

The Pack averaged 380 yards on this heralded defense last year despite the fact that the Pack was missing their top 2 RBs & #1 WR in both games, their #1 TE for more than 7 quarters, and their #3 WR as well as their #3 RB for the 2nd game. WHile 380 yds/game is not All-World it is considerably better than the 255 yds/game that the bears registered against the Pack. Turnovers were the reason the bears' won those games, and I give them credit for creating those turnovers. In the end the only stat that matters is the scoreboard - and the bears won both times. But to suggest that the Pack can not beat this team leads me to believe that you are playing the low expectation game with yourself. Again, thats cool. I understand.

[Gooser]

RIP,

I am one of those realistic/pessimistic Packer fans you refer to and I must admiit, your post was the first believable argument I've read this season. It is easy to fixate on new coaches, new players and new system as well as what we witnessed vs CINCY and run for the hills. But your position-by-position improvement analysis goives one hope if only for a few days more.

[Gooser]

Inferior DL/OL usually not good. Throw in loss of top playmaker (Javom Walker) and top DL (Grady Jackson) and where are ya?Maybe Pack won't be as bad as last year but can they play the Bears tough????? I just don't see it unless everything comes up golden for the Packers. 6 new defensive starters rise up to slam the door shut on Bears offense, while pair of rookie Gs manhandle Bears outstanding DTs and a rookie WR cuts their All-Pro secondary to shreds ala Steve Smith. I suppose it's possible but is it likely????? Vegas has the game at 3.5 because of intangibles. I expect 7 to 21 point victory by Bears. NFL Defensive MVP Uhrlacher wants his SB ring this year - I think the Bears have been pointing to this game to reestablish their divisional dominance from the get-go. Nothing left to do but wait and see. There's maybe a 10% chance the Packers will scare the bejeezus out dem Bears. Odds say bet the Bears.

[packrulz]

I am a realist and the Packers do have a young team but looking at the schedule I think they could finish 8-8. All this young team, inexperienced coach blah-blah means nothing. I've been watching football for many years and have seen coaches have a big impact in their first year, not to mention rookie players. They can beat the Bears if they avoid turnovers and protect Favre.

[Spaulding]

Nice post RIPackerfan. Stats tell the true story and in the perspective you gave I can see some value to optimism. Then again, regardless of gains in position it all boils down to injuries and turnovers.

Guessing this year is by far the biggest crap shoot since Holmgren took over. Short of the Rhodes experiment debacle and last years injury bug we've been expected to be playoff contenders.

With the change in coaching staff, high roster turnover, influx of many rookies and one year veterans and a new running scheme provides more question marks than answers.

All I know is that regardless of whether we're 10-6, 2-14, or something in between, I'll be praying the Pack at least splits with the Vikes.

Rastak aside, most of the Twin Cities fans are fair weathered whiners and a slow start by the Vikes (who still haven't sold out any of their home games) should shut them up nicely.

Beer me someone, my throat is parched from my venture onto the soap box :mrgreen:

[MJZiggy]

Inferior DL/OL usually not good. Throw in loss of top playmaker (Javom Walker) and top DL (Grady Jackson) and where are ya?Maybe Pack won't be as bad as last year but can they play the Bears tough????? I just don't see it unless everything comes up golden for the Packers. 6 new defensive starters rise up to slam the door shut on Bears offense, while pair of rookie Gs manhandle Bears outstanding DTs and a rookie WR cuts their All-Pro secondary to shreds ala Steve Smith. I suppose it's possible but is it likely????? Vegas has the game at 3.5 because of intangibles. I expect 7 to 21 point victory by Bears. NFL Defensive MVP Uhrlacher wants his SB ring this year - I think the Bears have been pointing to this game to reestablish their divisional dominance from the get-go. Nothing left to do but wait and see. There's maybe a 10% chance the Packers will scare the bejeezus out dem Bears. Odds say bet the Bears.

I'll take this in order. Javon was a loss, but I don't believe it's a non-recoverable loss. We played without him all year last year and there are now others on the team that are better than he and Donald's backups last year. Grady Jackson was that good last year? He was good, but he was no Reggie. Pickett will be fine there. Yes, they are a professional football team with a focused and dedicated coach, they know the importance of this game and can play it tough. The Bears' offense is not so terrifying that a young line can't handle it. It's the Bears offense. Led by Grossman and for those who think that if he starts to have a bad game he will get yanked, that would cause an immediate qb controversy. Lovie's got that hanging over his head. All the guards have to do is hold their own for a second so Brett can get the ball out, and it's not the rookie WR that has to slice up the secondary. DD will do that and if they focus too much attention on him, that leaves someone on an island with Jennings and if they don't adequately cover him (and Bubba for that matter) they will burn that vaunted Bear D. I have a feeling that nobody's planning for Jennings and he could very well tear them up because of it. Urlacher can want his ring all day long, but if he doesn't bring the offense along with him, he's not gonna get it. You can bet whoever you want, but you may be in for a surprise if you bet wrong.

[superfan]

Like last year, the success of this team will be determined by injuries. At this time last year, although the team had a few more question marks than previous seasons, most people would have predicted something between 8-8 and 11-5. Thanks to injuries, poor performances, bad luck, etc., the 4-12 plummet was ultimately inevitable.

Although I agree with most of what the original poster said, I think it should be tempered with the fact that most teams feel it has made some upgrades over the previous season -- it's the nature of the offseason and why draft/FA are so popular with nuts like us. Without doing exhaustive analysis, I would guess you could use that rationale and player comparison to determine that maybe 25 of the 32 teams will be better this season. Obviously that can't happen.

If today's roster stays mostly intact throughout the season, known players play up to expectations, and we see normal progression from the younger players, I would expect a range of 7-9 to 9-7. But I'm afraid it won't take much for the wheels to fall off again and finish in the same neighborhood as last season.

I believe this team is capable of beating any other team on the schedule as well as losing to any team on the schedule. At the least, should be an interesting season.

[BEARMAN]

Better then last year isn't saying much boys, ANYthing is better then last year ! :roll:


GO BEARS !

[packrulz]

Better then last year isn't saying much boys, ANYthing is better then last year ! :roll:


GO BEARS !

Yes, getting beat in the first round of the playoffs must suck. :roll:

[Willard]

Better then last year isn't saying much boys, ANYthing is better then last year ! :roll:


Bear, finally we can agree on something. :wink:
At least I hope it can't get worse... :shock:

[Astonishment]

The reality is...

…there is no way to predict how this team will do!!! There are so many variables that it is almost impossible anything outside of them not going 16-0. With numerous variables it is usually a safe assumption that there will be struggles while those things get worked out. So I believe there is a realistic basis for some pessimism. However, because we don't have any history with this team (with as much youth as they have) it is impossible to even predict if the pessimism is truly warranted. In the end the only true "Realistic Look" is that we really have no idea, and even the Packers themselves don't know. We can all make assumptions with things we think we have seen, but in the end that is all we have. Going into next season we will have allot more answers even if the Packers have a new QB.

[mngolf19]

Rastak aside, most of the Twin Cities fans are fair weathered whiners and a slow start by the Vikes (who still haven't sold out any of their home games) should shut them up nicely.



Nice. :roll:

[packrulz]

The reality is...

…there is no way to predict how this team will do!!! There are so many variables that it is almost impossible anything outside of them not going 16-0. With numerous variables it is usually a safe assumption that there will be struggles while those things get worked out. So I believe there is a realistic basis for some pessimism. However, because we don't have any history with this team (with as much youth as they have) it is impossible to even predict if the pessimism is truly warranted. In the end the only true "Realistic Look" is that we really have no idea, and even the Packers themselves don't know. We can all make assumptions with things we think we have seen, but in the end that is all we have. Going into next season we will have allot more answers even if the Packers have a new QB.

I look at the stats and most of the time rookie players don't have much of an impact their first year. So to expect all the rooks to jell is unrealistic. However, the other teams (queens, Lions), have new coaches and players too. That helps the Packers odds. I still expect they will be competative.

[Zool]

Rastak aside, most of the Twin Cities fans are fair weathered whiners and a slow start by the Vikes (who still haven't sold out any of their home games) should shut them up nicely.



Nice. :roll:He's right. I've lived in enemy territory since 1980 and its always the same thing. When the Vikes are winning there's purple everywhere. When they are having a down year or 2, you dont see an ounce of it.

When they are winning the fans say "we are having a great season". When they are losing "they suck". Obviously this isnt all of them, but its a majority.

[mngolf19]

Rastak aside, most of the Twin Cities fans are fair weathered whiners and a slow start by the Vikes (who still haven't sold out any of their home games) should shut them up nicely.



Nice. :roll:He's right. I've lived in enemy territory since 1980 and its always the same thing. When the Vikes are winning there's purple everywhere. When they are having a down year or 2, you dont see an ounce of it.

When they are winning the fans say "we are having a great season". When they are losing "they suck". Obviously this isnt all of them, but its a majority.

And this makes them fair weathered? I follow the team as much as anyone, and grew up in MN. I have no problem saying they suck when they do. But that doesn't change my allegiance to the team.

[Green Bud Packer]

Better then last year isn't saying much boys, ANYthing is better then last year ! :roll:


GO BEARS !tell me that story about how the bears sucked that year following their last division title.you know it so well.

[Dabaddestbear]

....

As far as the Bears, while good, they are given too much respect. They played poor offensive teams last year, similar to the Pack, thus their ranking was elevated. Jesus, look at what Carolina did to them. So I think it is a little far-fetched to call them best in the league.

And I guess we will see this weekend.
If you are using the loss to Carolina as a measuring stick to how good the Bears were last year, then I wonder were you giving them credit for being great after they beat the crap out of them in the regular season. Since that win came well before the PLAYOFF loss as well as other wins. And like I have said before having one player destroy you in a game do not mean your team is no good. When Jordan destroyed the Lakers, Pistons, Suns, Jazz etc... in the playoffs did that make them teams overrated? No. It just Highlighted the skill level and hunger of one player that could not be matched. Once again since there is only one Steve Smith out of 32 teams the Bears will be ok. :wink:

[Dabaddestbear]

Better then last year isn't saying much boys, ANYthing is better then last year ! :roll:


GO BEARS !tell me that story about how the bears sucked that year following their last division title.you know it so well.

1979: The Packers went 5-11 then in 1980: They went 5-10-1. So if you want to keep basing stuff on how the Bears record was good in 2001 and how they failed to repeat such success the following season(although alot of you guys fail to mention how key players was no longer on that team from 2001, and how injuries made it impossible) then just look at the Packers and how they faired during the 16 game after a losing season.

1986....4-12. the season in which Charles Martin took the cheap shot on the Punky QB to make it that much more difficult to win the SB that season.
----followed by---
1987...5-9-1 strike shortened season that saved the Packers from even more losing and the last sign of Mister Gregg.
----followed by----
1988...another 4-12 season in which they actually started off 0-5!

So you see if history is any indicator the Packers have a just a good a chance of sucking even more for years to come as the Bears have a chance of taking a step back.

[RIPackerFan]

DBB,

It is not that simple - and you should read my post again.

1) I said Bears D numbers were helped by playing poor offensive team. When you look at the stats, they only played 4 teams in the top half of the offensive teams (Cincy at 6, Washington at 11, Atlanta at 12, and Pitt at 15). The rest of the teams were in the bottom half - 8 games were played by teams in the lowest third of offensive production. Also, out of the 4 best offensive teams they played, they lost to three of them.

2) It wasn't just Steve Smith - they ran over 123 yards, with a 4.0 average on you. Also, Delhomme played pretty good - 434 yards they put up against you.

The best defense in the league does not allow that to happen. Now I am not saying the D is not good, but looking at the above trends, you can see why one could believe they were overrated.

By the way, for that reason (along with being in a constant state of coming from behind), I also think the Pack's D was overrated.