Ouch! King Not On Cheesehead Bandwagon.

[Packnut]

Not that it matters, just another useless article. Still, kinda surprised to be this low. I mean 25? Our D's potential makes us a top 15 team alone.

25. Green Bay: Something just doesn't smell right here. Maybe it's the loss of the Lambeau mystique; Green Bay was 2-6 at home last year. Maybe it's the schedule; four of the Pack's first five this year come against 2006 playoff teams. Maybe it's the bad chemistry between legend (Brett Favre) and architect (Ted Thompson). Whatever it is, my gut says the four-game winning streak to end 2006 wasn't a sign of better things to come.

[wist43]

25 isn't out of line... I would probably have them a little higher, but the Packers have an awful lot of holes on the roster, and a bevy of unproven players penciled into the starting lineup.

The OL is shaky at best... in fact, I would go so far as to say they were nothing short of horrible just about all year. They'll have to make dramatic improvement just to get to average.

At the skill positions, they have Donald Driver and Greg Jennings... and that's it. Where are the pts going to come from???

Defensively, they were a disaster for the first 12 games... they were last, or nearly last in just about every measurable defensive catagory coming out of the NYJ game. 28 straight possessions in the red zone at one point: 19 TD's, 9 FG's for a scoring pct of 100%!!! That's nothing short of disasterous.

The fact that they made a little bit of run at the end means next to nothing... they could very well have lost two of those games (Minnesota and Detroit), and probably should have lost both. Those games were marked by some pretty terrible football by both teams.

The Packers will be better b/c of maturation, but they were so bad, at so many things last year... a 25 ranking really isn't out of line.

[Freak Out]

Not that it matters, just another useless article. Still, kinda surprised to be this low. I mean 25? Our D's potential makes us a top 15 team alone.

25. Green Bay: Something just doesn't smell right here. Maybe it's the loss of the Lambeau mystique; Green Bay was 2-6 at home last year. Maybe it's the schedule; four of the Pack's first five this year come against 2006 playoff teams. Maybe it's the bad chemistry between legend (Brett Favre) and architect (Ted Thompson). Whatever it is, my gut says the four-game winning streak to end 2006 wasn't a sign of better things to come.

25? I am always optimistic going into the season but who knows? If the running game stalls or we have a key injury it could happen. Old #4 could get frustrated and end up throwing 35 picks by the end of the season. But you are right when you say most of these right ups mean shit this time of year. Lets see what training camp and pre-season brings.

[Tarlam!]

This is great! There's less pressure on the team if everyone is expecting us to pick 7th in next year's draft from day one.

I still say we are gonna come out kick Philly Butts on our opener....

[Brandon494]

Its King....he has the Lions rated #13 :roll:

[Packnut]

Its King....he has the Lions rated #13 :roll:


The Lions are always the "in pick" and they always suck, but I tend to believe this is their best chance at finally improving. They will put up a ton of points, but they will also give up a ton of points.

[Packnut]

25 isn't out of line... I would probably have them a little higher, but the Packers have an awful lot of holes on the roster, and a bevy of unproven players penciled into the starting lineup.

The OL is shaky at best... in fact, I would go so far as to say they were nothing short of horrible just about all year. They'll have to make dramatic improvement just to get to average.

At the skill positions, they have Donald Driver and Greg Jennings... and that's it. Where are the pts going to come from???

Defensively, they were a disaster for the first 12 games... they were last, or nearly last in just about every measurable defensive catagory coming out of the NYJ game. 28 straight possessions in the red zone at one point: 19 TD's, 9 FG's for a scoring pct of 100%!!! That's nothing short of disasterous.

The fact that they made a little bit of run at the end means next to nothing... they could very well have lost two of those games (Minnesota and Detroit), and probably should have lost both. Those games were marked by some pretty terrible football by both teams.

The Packers will be better b/c of maturation, but they were so bad, at so many things last year... a 25 ranking really isn't out of line.


I would agree that this team can just as easily end up 5-11 as 9-7.

[FritzDontBlitz]

has peter king EVER said anything positive about green bay?

[SD GB fan]

king is a big fan of favre if i remember correctly. and he does have some accurate points about our team. but i think a rank of 25 a bit low.

[Packnut]

has peter king EVER said anything positive about green bay?


He has been friendly in the past due to his relationship with Favre which is why his low ranking surprised me.

[cheesner]

I always take what King writes with a grain of salt. I believe his is the best writer out there covering the NFL - but only by his writing skills. I also feel he is one of the least knowledgeable about football. He seems to take a odd look at things for the only reason of having an odd view.

Remember, he is the one in 1997 to vote for Carnell Lake the League MVP. This is the year Brett had to share with Barry Sanders. King also thought more highly of Lake than Terrel Davis and Steve Young (an probably a dozen more players who had bigger years.) The reason he voted for Lake? Lake was a safety who got moved to CB because of an injury. He should be rewarded for being so flexible in helping his team - King even admitted he wasn't the best CB in the NFL at the time.

[packinpatland]

has peter king EVER said anything positive about green bay?

In the past he's been a heck of alot more positive than his buddy Dr. Z.

[Packnut]

has peter king EVER said anything positive about green bay?

In the past he's been a heck of alot more positive than his buddy Dr. Z.


Hell, even the most die-hard Bears fan would be more positive about GB than Z! :lol:

[packinpatland]

has peter king EVER said anything positive about green bay?

In the past he's been a heck of alot more positive than his buddy Dr. Z.


Hell, even the most die-hard Bears fan would be more positive about GB than Z! :lol:

Dr.Z played ball, that entitles him to 'know' more than the rest of us. :roll:
Dr. Z drinks wine..........he thinks he knows more than the rest of us.... or at least that lets him, on occasion, write about it in his 'sports' column.

I know this isn't the right place to go off on this guy, I just dislike him so much, any opportunity is a good opportunity.

[Jimx29]

Its King....he has the Lions rated #13 :roll:


The Lions are always the "in pick" and they always suck, but I tend to believe this is their best chance at finally improving. They will put up a ton of points, but they will also give up a ton of points.I recall back 4-5 years ago, TV Guide ( :lol: ) picked the lions, who then went on to a stellar 2-14, or 3-13 record :D

[red]

25 seems a bit low, but not by much

we were very close to being a 6-10 or 5-11 team last year.

i'm with wist with not being all full of confidence about our o-line. they needed a lot of extra help last year to protect brett

our running game is one giant question mark. we could be horrible, or we could shock everyone. who knows? no one

while the d should get better, 2 very key guys continue to age in harris ad woodson. we could be in serious trouble if we lose one of them for any amount of time

add to that the fact that it looks like we are playing one hell of a difficult schedule and you can see why someone could rank us so low

we could be pretty damn good this year, or we could be flat out horrible

thats why they play the games

[Packers4Ever]

Could someone please tell me who this 'King' person is and

where I may find his column, article, story? I thought I knew

who all the "Packer Basher" columnists were ! :?

[retailguy]

Could someone please tell me who this 'King' person is and

where I may find his column, article, story? I thought I knew

who all the "Packer Basher" columnists were ! :?

sports illustrated. Peter King Here is the link to his latest column. He's not really a Packer basher in my opinion. I kind of like him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/07/16/mmqb/index.html

[MJZiggy]

Peter King of Sports Illustrated.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/07/16/mmqb/index.html

[Packers4Ever]

Thanks, Zig and RG, I'm gonna

go check him out now! :P

[Bretsky]

25 is too low; IMO we should be in the 15-20 area.

While the RB's look ugly on paper, the OL should improve. TE's stink and we have no upgrades yet. Slight improvement by the defense. Offense will still be consistently inconsistent. But we still should be about average.

[ecwiscott]

Its King....he has the Lions rated #13 :roll:

If memory serves me correctly he also had the Vikings going to the playoffs last year and also picked the Vikings to go to the Super Bowl a few years back. :roll:

I'm not even going to bother reading the article because most of his predictions are garbage......he's just trying to enflame people and sell magazines.

[The Leaper]

Not that it matters, just another useless article. Still, kinda surprised to be this low. I mean 25? Our D's potential makes us a top 15 team alone.

It isn't that the Packers are a bad team. Their schedule is rather difficult compared to last year. They are an injury away from serious disaster at 3 positions (QB, WR, CB) and were LUCKY last year to have no major injuries at those spots last year. There are far too many "ifs" and not enough certainties. Not everything is going to go right this year...and with a little bad luck this is a team that can easily go from 8-8 to 5-11 or 4-12.