Green Bay Ravens?

[Rastak]

http://vikings.scout.com/a.z?s=63&p=2&c=656931


I recently bought a pass to the site and got all the NFL teams articles....so here ya go.....


This story originally published on PackerReport.com
The Green Bay Ravens?


Posted Jul 7, 2007

Little off-season love for offense puts pressure on defense to win games in 2007, says PackerReport.com's Doug Ritchay

The last two NFL drafts the Green Bay Packers have had a chance to implement some firepower into their offense during the first round and both years the Packers passed on offense and went to defense. In 2006, the Packers selected linebacker A.J. Hawk over tight end Vernon Davis, which, few, if anyone, complained. This past April, the Packers picked oft-injured defensive tackle Justin Harrell over a handful of wide receivers, and this pick raised eyebrows.
Harrell wasn't only a health risk, he makes the deepest position on the roster even deeper, while offense remains a work in progress. Yes, the Packers drafted wide receiver Greg Jennings last year and running back Brandon Jackson this year, both in the second round, but with little receiver depth and no big-play people at tight end, the Packers' offense needed an infusion of explosiveness outside.

It didn't come, and during the off-season this direction made me wonder if the Packers are the second coming of the Baltimore Ravens, who won the Super Bowl after the 2000 season, mainly based on a running game and defense.

They had to, Trent Dilfer was the quarterback.

But with Brett Favre still under center for Green Bay, why haven't the Packers given him more help outside? My guess is GM Ted Thompson is trying to build from the inside out, which is common in the NFL. Start on the lines and move outside when you're set in the trenches.

The other idea is Thompson is bracing for LAB — Life After Brett. Knowing Aaron Rodgers is the untested heir apparent, Thompson is building the defense in an effort to not put pressure on Rodgers to score 30 points a game, when it's finally his turn. Makes sense, but what if the offense doesn't improve this season? The Packers can't win every week 14-10, the offense has to give it weeks off.

Thompson is building during Favre's final seasons, which is tricky. He's preparing for the future, while many NFL teams look at the future as now. The NFL has become a win-now league, but Thompson isn't flinching. He's picking the best players on his draft board and going from there. Ironically, Thompson has made 23 picks over the last two drafts and only 10 are defensive selections. This would give you the idea the Packers are on the offensive. They're not. Among the 13 offensive picks are four offensive linemen, one running back and one tight end picked in the seventh round (not likely to make impacts ever), one quarterback (third-stringer Ingle Martin) and one kicker.

The Packers had to remake their offensive line after the 2005 debacle and did so in 2006. Nonetheless, if the offense is going to make a marked improvement in 2007, the Packers need Jennings to be the picture of health, starting opposite Donald Driver, while Jackson better live up to his second-round grade the Packers gave him this past draft.

If one or both disappoint, Favre has every right to be ticked, because the offense has no other options. There is nothing proven beyond Green Bay's top two receivers, while tight end Bubba Franks has plummeted so far it seems unlikely he'll ever get close to being a factor again.

Receiver Koren Robinson may come back in September, but without the ability to work out with the team until he is reinstated after violating the league's substance abuse policy, the realistic expectation is he can help in the return game and maybe later in the season on offense.

Robert Ferguson, Ruvell Martin, Carlyle Holiday and draft picks James Jones and David Clowney don't exactly scare defenses, but one of them will be the team's No. 3 receiver to start the season.

The Packers' approach to this off-season was befuddling, at least on offense. They didn't acquire a veteran running back and are going with the combination of Vernand Morency and Jackson, which could be one of the five worst combinations in the league, starting out.

With no reliable depth at wide receiver the Packers waited until the third round to pick Jones and snapped up Clowney in the fifth. Picking at that stage of the draft, you can't expect either to do much. Receivers in the first two rounds struggle as rookies.

With this being the direction the Packers are going, they will rely on their defense to lead the way to the playoffs in 2007. And maybe, in time, the running game catches up as the offensive line looks solid.

Still, this team doesn't look that great. But who thought the Ravens were

[BallHawk]

In 2006, the Packers selected linebacker A.J. Hawk over tight end Vernon Davis, which, few, if anyone, complained. This past April, the Packers picked oft-injured defensive tackle Justin Harrell over a handful of wide receivers, and this pick raised eyebrows.
Harrell wasn't only a health risk, he makes the deepest position on the roster even deeper, while offense remains a work in progress.

I don't see what the Packers should of done here. Meachem is, as of now, injured. Sidney Rice would of been a reach as Dwayne Jarrett would of been. If Ted Ginn was there you could of made the arguement, but none of these guys were instant-impact talents, which I'm assuming the author thinks the Packers have got.


David Clowney doesn't exactly scare defenses

Oh, c'mon, I'm sure at least one NFL DB is afraid of clowns.:wink:


The Packers' approach to this off-season was befuddling, at least on offense. They didn't acquire a veteran running back and are going with the combination of Vernand Morency and Jackson, which could be one of the five worst combinations in the league, starting out.

Who should we of got? Ahman Green was overpaid, Dominic Rhodes is a drunk, etc. There wasn't any great talent out there. I'd rather go with youth.

To say they are one of the 5 worst in the league is a strech. Maybe worst 10, but not worst 5. On paper it looks bad, but if Jackson or Morency steps it up, the running game could be pretty good.

[Bretsky]

Worst five combo in the NFL; I'm too lazy to go team to team, but I bet if somebody like Rastak...aka..a more neutral source...analyzed

I bet the GB RB duo would be in the bottom five.

Now they could prove to be more than suffice, but on paper their talent positions on offense looks sub par and an injury to Driver or Jennings would be devastating..........on paper at this point.

[BallHawk]

Worst five combo in the NFL; I'm too lazy to go team to team, but I bet if somebody like Rastak...aka..a more neutral source...analyzed

Forget, Ras. I'm as neutral as it gets around here. :wink: :wink:

Being objective, here are some teams that I think are, arguably, worse then the Pack, or equal to them, at the RB position.

Buffalo: They've got a rookie in Lynch and a 2 TD guy in Anthony Thomas. Unless Lynch is unbelievable, they could be bottom 5.

Cleveland: If Jamal is like what he was last year, they're fine, but if he gets hurt or plays average, they've got nobody behind him.

Titans: One of the worst situations, if not the worst situation, in the league. A rookie in Chris Henry and LenDale White. They're RBs have a career experience of 244 yards and 0 TDs. Ouch.

Teams that I see as being very close to us in talent level at RB: Houston, Oakland, New York Giants, Carolina.

I see how you can make the argument we're bottom five, but I think we're more bottom 10, then bottom 5.

[the_idle_threat]

Thanks for posting, Ras.

That being said, this guy's a joke. The article is rambling, poorly written, and poorly thought out. Reminds me of some of the amateur stuff that is posted on message boards like JSO, and to a lesser extent, this one. It does not strike me as an article from a professional sports publication, and yet it is one.

They could get better writing and better Packer team analysis from any of about 3 dozen regular posters here at Packerrats---at least a couple of whom aren't even Packer fans.

[/rant]

[Brandon494]

Worst five combo in the NFL; I'm too lazy to go team to team, but I bet if somebody like Rastak...aka..a more neutral source...analyzed

I bet the GB RB duo would be in the bottom five.

Now they could prove to be more than suffice, but on paper their talent positions on offense looks sub par and an injury to Driver or Jennings would be devastating..........on paper at this point.

And as Denver has shown in the past you don't really need a big name running back in the zone blocking system. I really think our O-line will be greatly improved next season now having a year of experience under their belt.

[Bretsky]

Worst five combo in the NFL; I'm too lazy to go team to team, but I bet if somebody like Rastak...aka..a more neutral source...analyzed

I bet the GB RB duo would be in the bottom five.

Now they could prove to be more than suffice, but on paper their talent positions on offense looks sub par and an injury to Driver or Jennings would be devastating..........on paper at this point.

And as Denver has shown in the past you don't really need a big name running back in the zone blocking system. I really think our O-line will be greatly improved next season now having a year of experience under their belt.


It's not the system, it's the players. Denver had some very good OL's.
We were in the ZBS last year and by no means did we tear it up.

B

[bbbffl66]

Worst five combo in the NFL; I'm too lazy to go team to team, but I bet if somebody like Rastak...aka..a more neutral source...analyzed

I bet the GB RB duo would be in the bottom five.

Now they could prove to be more than suffice, but on paper their talent positions on offense looks sub par and an injury to Driver or Jennings would be devastating..........on paper at this point.

And as Denver has shown in the past you don't really need a big name running back in the zone blocking system. I really think our O-line will be greatly improved next season now having a year of experience under their belt.
Experience does not mean anything if you are good. I think the jury is very much out on whether any of the 3 2nd year guys are ok, good, great or washouts. I remember the Jets and Pats games!

[Brandon494]

Worst five combo in the NFL; I'm too lazy to go team to team, but I bet if somebody like Rastak...aka..a more neutral source...analyzed

I bet the GB RB duo would be in the bottom five.

Now they could prove to be more than suffice, but on paper their talent positions on offense looks sub par and an injury to Driver or Jennings would be devastating..........on paper at this point.

And as Denver has shown in the past you don't really need a big name running back in the zone blocking system. I really think our O-line will be greatly improved next season now having a year of experience under their belt.
Experience does not mean anything if you are good. I think the jury is very much out on whether any of the 3 2nd year guys are ok, good, great or washouts. I remember the Jets and Pats games!

I remember the Pats and Jets game also. I also remember that we had two rookie starters on the O-line, first year starting center, learning a new offensive scheme, learning a new blockin scheme, had a new head coach and offensive coach. The two rookies will be stronger this season and the O-line now has a year experience playing with each other. Also if you don't think experience means anything you have a lot of learn.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Buffalo: They've got a rookie in Lynch and a 2 TD guy in Anthony Thomas. Unless Lynch is unbelievable, they could be bottom 5.

Cleveland: If Jamal is like what he was last year, they're fine, but if he gets hurt or plays average, they've got nobody behind him.

Titans: One of the worst situations, if not the worst situation, in the league. A rookie in Chris Henry and LenDale White. They're RBs have a career experience of 244 yards and 0 TDs. Ouch.

Teams that I see as being very close to us in talent level at RB: Houston, Oakland, New York Giants, Carolina.

I see how you can make the argument we're bottom five, but I think we're more bottom 10, then bottom 5.

I was with you on everyone of those teams--until you stated Carolina. Foster is decent, and DeAngelo Williams will be a star, IMHO.

[the_idle_threat]

Buffalo: They've got a rookie in Lynch and a 2 TD guy in Anthony Thomas. Unless Lynch is unbelievable, they could be bottom 5.

Cleveland: If Jamal is like what he was last year, they're fine, but if he gets hurt or plays average, they've got nobody behind him.

Titans: One of the worst situations, if not the worst situation, in the league. A rookie in Chris Henry and LenDale White. They're RBs have a career experience of 244 yards and 0 TDs. Ouch.

Teams that I see as being very close to us in talent level at RB: Houston, Oakland, New York Giants, Carolina.

I see how you can make the argument we're bottom five, but I think we're more bottom 10, then bottom 5.

I was with you on everyone of those teams--until you stated Carolina. Foster is decent, and DeAngelo Williams will be a star, IMHO.

I was thinking that too regarding Carolina, although I don't have quite as much faith in Foster. Williams is very talented.

[BallHawk]

I view Foster as being maybe slightly better than Morency. I really like Williams too, but comparing him to Jackson, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they are a close comparison.

[Bretsky]

I view Foster as being maybe slightly better than Morency. I really like Williams too, but comparing him to Jackson, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they are a close comparison.

And I thought you said you could be neutral ? :wink:

It's not reasonable to compare Jackson to De-Angelo yet.

[wist43]

Worst five combo in the NFL; I'm too lazy to go team to team, but I bet if somebody like Rastak...aka..a more neutral source...analyzed

Forget, Ras. I'm as neutral as it gets around here. :wink: :wink:

Being objective, here are some teams that I think are, arguably, worse then the Pack, or equal to them, at the RB position.

Buffalo: They've got a rookie in Lynch and a 2 TD guy in Anthony Thomas. Unless Lynch is unbelievable, they could be bottom 5.

Cleveland: If Jamal is like what he was last year, they're fine, but if he gets hurt or plays average, they've got nobody behind him.

Titans: One of the worst situations, if not the worst situation, in the league. A rookie in Chris Henry and LenDale White. They're RBs have a career experience of 244 yards and 0 TDs. Ouch.

Teams that I see as being very close to us in talent level at RB: Houston, Oakland, New York Giants, Carolina.

I see how you can make the argument we're bottom five, but I think we're more bottom 10, then bottom 5.

I agree that the article isn't very well written... one of my petter peeves.

However, I agree that the Packers running game is among the worst in the league. Perhaps they can elevate their running game with a years worth of experience, both by the players and coaches, but in terms of talent, the Packers are definitely underpowered.

[retailguy]

I view Foster as being maybe slightly better than Morency. I really like Williams too, but comparing him to Jackson, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they are a close comparison.

And I thought you said you could be neutral ? :wink:

It's not reasonable to compare Jackson to De-Angelo yet.

Neutral is, as HE defines it.... LMAO... Anyone who would argue that our RB's are "comparable" to the rest of the league has some serious issues with non-removable kool-aid goggles. NO NFL franchise will EVER have to put 8 men in the box to stop our run in 2007. What impact do you think that's going to have on the passing game? hmm?

[BallHawk]

Anyone who would argue that our RB's are "comparable" to the rest of the league has some serious issues with non-removable kool-aid goggles.

Yeah, I'm sure that the Titans are light years ahead of us. :roll:

[cheesner]

I don't know how you can say we are in the bottom 5 RB duos. I would say we are in the 'unproven' category. There are too many variables in the equation last year to determine how good Morency is. OL generally make a big jump in their 2nd year after a year in the system and gaining some strength in the offseason. As far as Jackson goes, RB is the one position where you don't really need experience to excel. What is there to learn - especially in the ZBS? Success is mainly based on a player's natural talent.

I could see us having problems this year rushing the ball, but I can also see a scenario where it takes off and we run the ball very effectively.

[wist43]

In getting back to the title of the thread - defense...

You guys know my arguments on this subject - far too passive and static to ever truly be a dominant unit. Therefore, the Packers may draft defense in the first round every year from now until the cows come home, but there's a ceiling to how effective a defense can be in this scheme.

Pressure is the key to good defense, and the Packers can be ok against the league's lower life forms, but against good offenses, they'll continue to get smoked. It's hard to watch, but go back and look at the NE and NYJ games... when the front 4 couldn't get pressure, they were dead meat in the back seven. It's hard to put the onus on the players in those situations - it's the job of the coaches to put players in positions to make plays... this scheme doesn't allow for that. It's just line up, rush 4 straight up (with an occassional stunt), not much pre-snap movement, and little threat of the blitz (whether they come or not) - the scheme doesn't lend itself to creating any confusion for the OL or QB.

Ironically, I've used the Ravens as an example in making my points of deficiency wrt the Packers defense. The Ravens run a very aggressive, multi-front, mult-blitz scheme. The Packers just send 4 guys snap after snap, and occassionally send one of their backers, who are always in the same position and are not effective blitzers anyway.

The Packers would have to make drastic modifications to the scheme for them to have any chance of having a dominant unit.

[The Leaper]

The Packers would have to make drastic modifications to the scheme for them to have any chance of having a dominant unit.

I believe we ran pretty much the same general scheme for the most part back in 1996. The difference is that we had a much more dynamic front four back then...plus we had a much better defensive coaching staff.

The scheme can be successful...Miami's defense in the same scheme has put PLENTY of pressure on opposing offenses over the years. Running a multi-front defense is no way to guarantee superior defensive performance. In fact, with the pitiful defensive coaching staff we have, it would be an utter failure.

[wist43]

The Packers would have to make drastic modifications to the scheme for them to have any chance of having a dominant unit.

I believe we ran pretty much the same general scheme for the most part back in 1996. The difference is that we had a much more dynamic front four back then...plus we had a much better defensive coaching staff.

The scheme can be successful...Miami's defense in the same scheme has put PLENTY of pressure on opposing offenses over the years. Running a multi-front defense is no way to guarantee superior defensive performance. In fact, with the pitiful defensive coaching staff we have, it would be an utter failure.

That's one of my chief complaints about the scheme, is that to have any shot at being a dominant unit you have to have 4 absolute studs up front - how likely is that happen, and how expensive??? That '96 team had such an awesome front 4, they didn't need to blitz. That said, when they did blitz, they had players that were very adept at it - Simmons, Williams, and Butler. The current Packers have no one on their team that can match any one of those guys.

As for Miami, Taylor is a stud, and they've had a history of some decent DT's going thru there, but it's not like their defense has even come close to carrying them. Certainly not championship calibur.

Perhaps the scheme can be successful - depending on how you define "success" - but in no way do I ever see it has having the potential to be dominant. I agree that switching defenses at this point would mean wholesale personnel and coaching changes and would be a failure - at least in the short term... but, that isn't going to happen. Changing schemes at this point would be akin to admitting that they were wrong in implementing it to begin with; that combined with everything they have invested in terms of draft picks and money - no way will there be any changes.

We're stuck with what we've got.

[The Leaper]

As for Miami, Taylor is a stud, and they've had a history of some decent DT's going thru there, but it's not like their defense has even come close to carrying them. Certainly not championship calibur.

Comparing ANY team to the Ravens of 6-8 years ago is insane. That defense was quite possibly the best ever. It is one of the few that could actually carry their team to a title. The Patriots defense didn't win any Super Bowls without the last minute offensive drives and clutch kicks. Even the Packer defense in 1996 didn't win a title on its own. So, most of the time, you can have a championship caliber defense and still fall short if other aspects of the game aren't strong.

Miami's offensive shortfalls are well documented. Their defense has been plenty good enough on a consistent basis in the last 10 years to give the team a chance to field a title contender...but the offense never stood up to their end of the deal behind a steady line of lame QBs, spotty OLs, and lackluster skill position players.

To win a title, the best way is BALANCE from all three aspects of the game...led by a franchise/system QB.

[CaliforniaCheez]

1) I think some of you are selling Jackson short.

2) You also sell Jones short. If Brett gets the ball near he will come down with it.

3) You have not seen how Korey Hall catches the ball out of the backfield.

4) The Packer Receivers who make the team from last year will be improved.

The big thing is so many of you have a negative opinion of the unknown. That is incorrect thinking.

The new players will be

a) Better than those they replace.
b) The same as those they replace or worse.

If a it is good. If b then they will be gone soon.

[retailguy]

The big thing is so many of you have a negative opinion of the unknown. That is incorrect thinking.




The big thing is that so many of you have a positive opinion of the unknown. That is EQUALLY incorrect thinking.

ALL NFL players have talent. Will they use it? Right now, no one knows. This blog entry (which I've bolded sums up my line of thinking pretty well. I suppose this makes me NEGATIVE, but "C'est la vie"):

http://pu2006.typepad.com/packer_update/2007/06/index.html

June 04, 2007
OFFENSE COULD BE OFFENSIVE IN '07

How one views the Packers offense largely depends on what one thinks of GM Ted Thompson and head coach Mike McCarthy. Supporters probably expect things to be very much improved on that side of the ball. Skeptics, on the other hand, probably expect to see another season of stumbling around in the red zone. So who’s correct? While we won’t know for sure until the fall, as of right now, it’s tough to be overly optimistic. “I like both Thompson and McCarthy and there’s definitely some good young talent at the skill positions, but everything - and I mean everything - is going to have to go right for this offense to score points on a consistent basis,” said a scout for another team. “And that’s an awful lot to expect.”

So what exactly constitutes the idea of “everything going right?” For starters, the only two proven playmakers have to fight off the ravages of age for yet another season. “While [quarterback] Brett Favre has clearly slipped in recent years, the wheels haven’t fallen off just yet,” said the scout. “But at 37, he’s kind of playing Russian Roulette with his career. It remains to be seen if his luck can hold out for a 17th round.” And while Driver, 32, showed absolutely no signs of slowing down last season, he too is performing on borrowed time. “Most wide receivers begin to lose a step or two once they hit the wrong side of 30,” added the scout. “And while it hasn’t happened yet with this particular player, it will. It’s just a matter of when.”

And even if Favre and Driver are able to hold off Father Time for another season, the offense still needs to find a quality running back, a useful tight end and a reliable third receiver from among an anonymous group of recent draft choices and castoffs. “Thompson obviously has a lot of faith in his own ability to judge talent and his coaching staff’s ability to develop young players,” said the scout. “That’s good, but I just don’t know how realistic it is - at least for right now. Remember, Bill Walsh didn’t become a certified ‘genius’ until he had guys like Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, etc. I doubt even Walsh could put together a consistently productive offense with what McCarthy currently has at his disposal.”

[MJZiggy]

The big thing is that so many of you have a positive opinion of the unknown. That is EQUALLY incorrect thinking.

Yet a whole lot more fun...

[Bretsky]

The big thing is that so many of you have a positive opinion of the unknown. That is EQUALLY incorrect thinking.

Yet a whole lot more fun...

But more disappointing in the end

Expect nothing; can't get disappointed then. I'm waving the white :flag:

[MJZiggy]

But then you're miserable and spewing negativity on everyone else all offseason (some of us are trying to enjoy the party...)

[Bretsky]

But then you're miserable and spewing negativity on everyone else all offseason (some of us are trying to enjoy the party...)

To be fair, I've been spewing much less negativity after giving up hope. :wink:

[wist43]

The big thing is that so many of you have a positive opinion of the unknown. That is EQUALLY incorrect thinking.

Yet a whole lot more fun...

I'm sure I'm in the "negative" catagory, but I don't view it that way. I view it as solving a puzzle - and solving puzzles is fun. Of course our puzzle is always changing from year to year, so the fun never ends.

As for the negativity label, I think scouts and GM's have to look at team building in that way... "where is our team deficient, what needs to be fixed and rebuilt, etc. Of course, TT doesn't look at it that way, and that makes for some very interesting arguments for us - and that's fun too!!!! :)

[Scott Campbell]

This blog entry (which I've bolded sums up my line of thinking pretty well. I suppose this makes me NEGATIVE, but "C'est la vie"):

I believe this blog entry identifies you as a "skeptic", as opposed to the more positive thinking "supporters".

[MadtownPacker]

This blog entry (which I've bolded sums up my line of thinking pretty well. I suppose this makes me NEGATIVE, but "C'est la vie"):

I believe this blog entry identifies you as a "skeptic", as opposed to the more positive thinking "supporters".Wouldn't skeptic mean he at least had some hope? I would put him down as more of a doom & gloomer waiting for the walls to collapse and the wheels to fall off.

In that light I guess I am a sheep following the herder to greener pastures that might not exist. But that's OK because I will still enjoy the journey.

[Scott Campbell]

............. I guess I am a sheep following the herder to greener pastures that might not exist. But that's OK because I will still enjoy the journey.


Well Mr. Sheep, well see how much you enjoy the journey if Murphy gets ahold of you.

[Scott Campbell]

Wouldn't skeptic mean he at least had some hope? I would put him down as more of a doom & gloomer waiting for the walls to collapse and the wheels to fall off.


I get the impression some of the doom and gloomers would just as soon seen the Packers self destruct just to validate their views on Ted.

[Tarlam!]

I guess I am a sheep...


Be careful what you say, we now have a Kiwi member on the forum.....

[Tarlam!]

Of course our puzzle is always changing from year to year, so the fun never ends.


OMG, that is a hysterically funny line. That almost, but not quite made it into my signature. F**k, I laughed at that!

Thanks, Wisty! :bow:

[BallHawk]

waiting for the walls to collapse and the wheels to fall off.

Sounds like your car.

:wink: :wink:

[Bretsky]

Wouldn't skeptic mean he at least had some hope? I would put him down as more of a doom & gloomer waiting for the walls to collapse and the wheels to fall off.


I get the impression some of the doom and gloomers would just as soon seen the Packers self destruct just to validate their views on Ted.


TEX IS ALIVE :lol:

Exactly what I read him state over at JS for two years. I'll welcome the opportunity to win a Super Bowl and idolize Ted Thompson as I do Ron Wolf and Mike Holmgren

[cheesner]

The big thing is that so many of you have a positive opinion of the unknown. That is EQUALLY incorrect thinking.

Yet a whole lot more fun...

I'm sure I'm in the "negative" catagory, but I don't view it that way. I view it as solving a puzzle - and solving puzzles is fun. Of course our puzzle is always changing from year to year, so the fun never ends.

As for the negativity label, I think scouts and GM's have to look at team building in that way... "where is our team deficient, what needs to be fixed and rebuilt, etc. Of course, TT doesn't look at it that way, and that makes for some very interesting arguments for us - and that's fun too!!!! :)
TT looks at it as:
'where is our team deficient, what needs to be fixed and rebuilt, etc. that will make us a better team this year and into the future.'

Do you really think TT does not want to improve the team? I think this pushes you beyond "negative" or "doom and gloom" and into some new territory of "obssesively pessimistic paranoia".

[wist43]

I think TT sticks to his board w/o regard to the state of the roster... he's said as much.

His philosphy is that you always take the BPA regardless of position, and then, after 8 billion years, BPA eventually meets up with need. Given that the team is going to take a major step back when Rodgers takes over, when does TT get the roster fleshed out, and have all the pieces in place???

Let's assume a best case scenario, i.e. that Rodgers can play, even if he can play it's going to take him 2-3 years to get it figured out - at least to the point where he could reasonably lead a playoff run.

So, 2-3 years down the line: 5 major players on the team will likely be done, or nearly done - Driver, Clifton, Tauscher, Harris, and Woodson. Also, Kampman's contract will be up, and Hawk, Harrell, Collins, Colledge, and Spitz will all be close to FA.

So he spends his cap money to "keep our own", and he still has to replace all of those other major pieces. Throw on top of all of those "needs", the already existing holes at TE, WR, and RB... If he doesn't address "need" at any point, how does he ever get the roster caught up???

I'm not an advocate of reaching to fill a need (Jamal Reynolds was just a stupid pick). I am an advocate of moving up and down the draft board to find good players that fill needs, however. Also, the use of draft picks in trading for current NFL players, i.e. Turner, etc...

It's reasonable to always be looking at the long term, but the NFL is a 4-5 year cycle league; this is TT's 3rd offseason and I don't see any hope of us being in position to make a playoff run w/in another 2-3 years. TT isn't taking the long view/approach, he's taking the longest view/approach. I'm not that patient.

[Scott Campbell]

I think TT sticks to his board w/o regard to the state of the roster... he's said as much.

His philosphy is that you always take the BPA regardless of position, and then, after 8 billion years, BPA eventually meets up with need.


I'm not sure how you can stick with that conclusion after this last draft. Our greatest area of need was at RB. Ted drafted 2. Once Lynch was off the board, there weren't any RB's left worthy of the 16th pick. So he picked Harrell in the first, and then addressed our greatest area of need with the very next pick.

Review the draft picks again, and match their positions up with our greatest areas of need. There is plenty of alignment with need if you're looking for it, even if you don't want to admit that taking a DT with our #1 was a good idea.

In conclusion, I maintain that it didn't take 8 billion years.

[wist43]

I think TT sticks to his board w/o regard to the state of the roster... he's said as much.

His philosphy is that you always take the BPA regardless of position, and then, after 8 billion years, BPA eventually meets up with need.


I'm not sure how you can stick with that conclusion after this last draft. Our greatest area of need was at RB. Ted drafted 2. Once Lynch was off the board, there weren't any RB's left worthy of the 16th pick. So he picked Harrell in the first, and then addressed our greatest area of need with the very next pick.

Review the draft picks again, and match their positions up with our greatest areas of need. There is plenty of alignment with need if you're looking for it, even if you don't want to admit that taking a DT with our #1 was a good idea.

In conclusion, I maintain that it didn't take 8 billion years.

It's one thing to draft a guy at a position of need... but, if he's "just a guy" you really haven't done anything to improve the team, or eliminate the need. What I'm talking about is difference makers, or potential difference makers.

I do have hope that Jackson will be the starter in short order, but would much rather have Turner or Lynch. Jones on the other hand, is "just a guy", IMO, and really doesn't address the need at WR - no, I didn't want Moss. Jones may turn into a decent #3 at some point in his career, maybe even a #2; but, he's certainly not going to be a playmaker that is going to change GB's fortunes at WR.

If TT is just going to settle for who's sitting there when he picks, always take his BPA regardless of position, not be very active in FA, and isn't going to be creative in going after quality players at positions of need, I don't think he'll ever get the roster positioned to win a championship.

[cheesner]

I think TT sticks to his board w/o regard to the state of the roster... he's said as much.

His philosphy is that you always take the BPA regardless of position, and then, after 8 billion years, BPA eventually meets up with need. Given that the team is going to take a major step back when Rodgers takes over, when does TT get the roster fleshed out, and have all the pieces in place???

Let's assume a best case scenario, i.e. that Rodgers can play, even if he can play it's going to take him 2-3 years to get it figured out - at least to the point where he could reasonably lead a playoff run.

So, 2-3 years down the line: 5 major players on the team will likely be done, or nearly done - Driver, Clifton, Tauscher, Harris, and Woodson. Also, Kampman's contract will be up, and Hawk, Harrell, Collins, Colledge, and Spitz will all be close to FA.

So he spends his cap money to "keep our own", and he still has to replace all of those other major pieces. Throw on top of all of those "needs", the already existing holes at TE, WR, and RB... If he doesn't address "need" at any point, how does he ever get the roster caught up???

I'm not an advocate of reaching to fill a need (Jamal Reynolds was just a stupid pick). I am an advocate of moving up and down the draft board to find good players that fill needs, however. Also, the use of draft picks in trading for current NFL players, i.e. Turner, etc...

It's reasonable to always be looking at the long term, but the NFL is a 4-5 year cycle league; this is TT's 3rd offseason and I don't see any hope of us being in position to make a playoff run w/in another 2-3 years. TT isn't taking the long view/approach, he's taking the longest view/approach. I'm not that patient.
In 2-3 years we will have another 20-30 draft picks to choose from. We will also have some sizable cap room in which to sign the 5 players you mention. If we continue to get 6 good players every 2 drafts (I added Rodgers) that will give us 12 more good players. That is a lot of good players for one team. Throw in Kampman and Wells, and 2-3 more impact FAs (I expect Woodson and Picket to be on the downside at that point) and we could be very formidable. Yes, it hinges on Rodgers, but that is the nature of QBs. You never know for sure who is going to work out.

As far as building to win now, there is just too much risk involved in bringing in FAs. It is possible, but the Packers have too many wholes to fill. I think they could have become a good playoff team, but not superbowl competitive. That just isn't good enough in my mind.

[cheesner]

It's one thing to draft a guy at a position of need... but, if he's "just a guy" you really haven't done anything to improve the team, or eliminate the need. What I'm talking about is difference makers, or potential difference makers.

I do have hope that Jackson will be the starter in short order, but would much rather have Turner or Lynch. Jones on the other hand, is "just a guy", IMO, and really doesn't address the need at WR - no, I didn't want Moss. Jones may turn into a decent #3 at some point in his career, maybe even a #2; but, he's certainly not going to be a playmaker that is going to change GB's fortunes at WR.

Where will our playmakers come from? Who were our last playmakers? Favre, Driver, Green, Levens, Freeman, Brooks, and Chumura. All these players have a few things in common. None were 1st round picks (2nd, 7th, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 6th IIRC). Only Favre began playing in his second year, the rest road the pine for a few years and developed.

Playmakers do not need to come from high 1st round selections. We have some talented youngsters who may very well develop into playmakers.

[Tarlam!]

I think what Wisty says makes a heck of a lot of sense, but, being of the Kool Aide disposition, I agree to disagree.

It is all very plausible; Wisty says, go get the player who is BPA at a need position via trade to accelerate the process.

The flaw, here, is that Shermy showed us exactly how that can backfire, by being a poor judge of player.

TT is attempting to demonstrate how to build a championship team by being a GOOD judge of player, sitting tight in drafts, believing in your boards and not overpaying for FA.

As far as the window is concerned, TT has proven he is a cap master. I hav no doubt that he will continue to lock down our own before they become FA's.

Where I really agree is that 5 players are heading into the home stretch. Again, TT is gambling on players like Barbre to come along.

Both Wisty's and TT's methods have flaws, but both have a good chance of working. What I like about TT's method is it seems to be relatively objective.

[wist43]

I'm aware of the upside arguments, and I have hope for guys like Wynn, Jolly, Blackmon, Underwood, et al... and, I agree that whether Rodgers turns out or not is an unknown that is simply the nature of the beast.

I have no problem with the quantitiy over quality approach early in the rebuilding process; but, there is a time and place for everything. If we do have another 20-30 draft picks in the next 2-3 years, all TT will be doing is repeatedly turning over the bottom of the roster.

You need stars to win... will TT go balls to the wall to acquire those 2-3 players that will get us over the top??? I doubt it.

Would we have won the SB w/o Reggie White??? Of course not. Would we have won the SB w/o Brett Favre??? Of course not. Would TT have gone after either??? Of course not.

[MJZiggy]

I'm aware of the upside arguments, and I have hope for guys like Wynn, Jolly, Blackmon, Underwood, et al... and, I agree that whether Rodgers turns out or not is an unknown that is simply the nature of the beast.

I have no problem with the quantitiy over quality approach early in the rebuilding process; but, there is a time and place for everything. If we do have another 20-30 draft picks in the next 2-3 years, all TT will be doing is repeatedly turning over the bottom of the roster.

You need stars to win... will TT go balls to the wall to acquire those 2-3 players that will get us over the top??? I doubt it.

Would we have won the SB w/o Reggie White??? Of course not. Would we have won the SB w/o Brett Favre??? Of course not. Would TT have gone after either??? Of course not.

You know that logic is flawed, because when Wolf brought TT on board he asked him to evaluate a player and decide if they should go after him. He got the job because he decided that, yes, Brett Favre was a player to pursue. So of course he would have. Just because he hasn't doesn't mean he necessarily won't.

[wist43]

Favre was originally a 2nd round pick that Wolfe had the guts to give up a 1st round pick for; White was the FA of all FA's, and there was a bidding war for him.

1) Would TT give up a 1st round pick for any current NFL player??? let alone one that was drafted in the 2nd round and had a rep for being an unfocused partier???

2) Would TT engage in a top of the market bidding war for any FA???

Of course he wouldn't... it's simply not in his personality, and doesn't fit the template he has been working off of since he got here.

I'm sure TT has evaluated a ton of players that he thinks are good. Has he gone after anyone??? No. It's one thing to think a player is good and worth pursuing, it's quite another to actually construct and execute the trade or signing.

Favre and White became Packers b/c Wolfe was bold and creative. TT is neither.

[MJZiggy]

1. From what I understand, TT's recommendation WAS to get him--that he WAS worth it.

2. There had never been before and never will again be a free agent like Reggie White. Even though his acquisition is completely irrelevant to what TT would do, he was the best around, not just the best available. Would TT have gone after him? You can't say that he wouldn't any more than I can say that he would. What I can say is that there won't BE another free agent like him available so it's really a moot point.

[wist43]

1. From what I understand, TT's recommendation WAS to get him--that he WAS worth it.

2. There had never been before and never will again be a free agent like Reggie White. Even though his acquisition is completely irrelevant to what TT would do, he was the best around, not just the best available. Would TT have gone after him? You can't say that he wouldn't any more than I can say that he would. What I can say is that there won't BE another free agent like him available so it's really a moot point.

I think what we're discussing here, more than the merits of what a particular player may offer, is TT's personality and whether HE would do what it takes to acquire that player, or any other player.

Wolfe was a gutsy, shoot from the hip type of GM. TT may have served Wolfe ably as a talent evaluator and administrator, but they're different people with different personalities.

TT is very staid and conservative in his approach as GM... quite the opposite of Wolfe.

[MJZiggy]

TT is very staid and conservative in his approach as GM... quite the opposite of Wolfe.

So far, but unless you've been either married to him or had long discussions with him on his player acquisistion philosophies, including detailed analyses of why he made the moves that he did, then you can't accurately make definitive statements about what he will or won't do. All you have to go on is what he's done so far without much of an explanation as to his reasoning behind each move. You're making concrete statements off of assumptions.

[Tarlam!]

You're making concrete statements off of assumptions.

Yeah, Wisty, and nobody else on this forum EVER does that except you! :taunt:

[wist43]

I've been checkmated Tar...

Think I'll tuck my tail between my legs and run up front (they keep us lab guys locked up in the back, as we're an embarrassment to the "normal" folk) and get a cup of coffee. That might cheer me up... or at least perk me up, lol.

[Scott Campbell]

I've been checkmated Tar...

Think I'll tuck my tail between my legs and run up front (they keep us lab guys locked up in the back, as we're an embarrassment to the "normal" folk) and get a cup of coffee. That might cheer me up... or at least perk me up, lol.


Now think about that for a moment Wist. Imagine you were in the PR department for the Packers, and responsible for making season ticket holders happy. I bet you could whittle that 30 year wait down to 3 months in your first week on the job.

There's a good reason that companies keep the "realists" in back away from the normal folk.

[Scott Campbell]

So far, but unless you've been either married to him or had long discussions with him on his player acquisistion philosophies, including detailed analyses of why he made the moves that he did, then you can't accurately make definitive statements about what he will or won't do. All you have to go on is what he's done so far without much of an explanation as to his reasoning behind each move. You're making concrete statements off of assumptions.


Extremely well said.

[wist43]

I can remember back in the 90's - I was the Kool-Aid drinker.

It had been so long since we had seen a winner, everyone was very skeptical, and I was one of the few voices in the wilderness trying to convince people that Favre could play, and that the team was headed in the right direction.

"A 1st rounder for a guy who was originally a 2nd rounder???" Most were skeptical if not pissed... but I knew Favre could play, as I had seen him play several games in college.

When White signed, more people got on the bandwagon... and it was a fun ride. All along, even though I had to pinch myself from time to time, I knew we were headed in the right direction and would have a very good shot at winning a SB.

Just don't see it or feel it with TT.

[MJZiggy]

That's because you're older and more curmudgeony (and before you all jump on me, yes I know that's not REALLY a word...)