ESPN INSIDER : Packers camp preview

[packers11]

Packers camp preview

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Gary Horton
Scouts Inc.




Three Burning Questions



1. Can future Hall of Famer Brett Favre bounce back to lead the Packers to the postseason?
Favre will turn 38 during the 2007 season. He has lost some zip on his throws as well as some of his mobility to move out of the pocket and improvise. Favre has made a living forcing balls into tight coverage and scrambling to make dramatic plays under pressure. Much of the magic has been lost over the past few seasons, but Favre still has effective tools and the confidence to lead his team. Favre is the ultimate competitor and doesn't want to retire on a sour note, so he will do what it takes to move the football and put the Packers in position to win. He bounced back in 2006 after his worst season as a professional in 2005, but it still wasn't enough. Does Favre have enough support from surrounding personnel to get to the postseason?


2. Can the defense build on its strong finish in 2006?
The Packers' defense was inconsistent in 2006 under the direction of coordinator Bob Sanders, but it finished the season strong. Can this defense continue to execute out of the base 4-3 scheme? Can it become a stabilizing force and take the pressure off an aging quarterback and help win games? In the Packers' eight losses in 2006, the defense gave up more than 24 points per game. Green Bay is going with much of the same personnel in 2007 but added a playmaker on the interior line (Justin Harrell). Last year's first-round pick, LB A.J. Hawk, should only be better with a year under his belt.


3. Can the special teams become an attribute rather than a detriment?
Place-kicker Dave Rayner has a strong leg but is inconsistent beyond 30 yards. He will need to be better on his longer attempts and late in the season when the weather is a factor. Punter Jon Ryan also has a strong leg, but he was inconsistent with his hang time, and his net average was not good in several contests. The coverage teams were not without fault, as the Packers gave up field position too often with the change of kicks. The Packers averaged less than 20 yards per return on kickoffs, with a league-worst long of 35 yards. Punt returns also lost field position, and both facets must improve for a postseason run.


The player under the microscope

RB Brandon Jackson. Ahman Green is an average starting NFL running back. He isn't a superstar, but he could be missed in a big way if Jackson is unable to transition quickly to the NFL game. Jackson has a lot of talent and fits Green Bay's zone-blocking scheme well. He isn't a dancer and is a decisive runner, which is exactly what the Packers are looking for, but he also did not dominate while at Nebraska and has to prove he can be a difference maker. Jackson will battle with Vernand Morency for the starting spot, and both backs will surely see playing time early. But Green Bay knows what it has in Morency, and he lacks the potential Jackson brings to the table. The Packers did very little to improve their skill-position players on offense, which will add to the pressure on this rookie runner.


Breakout player

WR Greg Jennings. Jennings should have a great chance to put up big numbers in this new offense. Favre surely has gained confidence in him, after Jennings' impressive rookie season. Jennings flashed big-play ability thanks to his tremendous speed. He will be a better route runner and will understand the West Coast scheme better in 2007, and he should get more balls thrown his way. With Donald Driver having his best season as a pro (92 grabs), defensive coordinators may tilt coverage towards the veteran, which will give Jennings more opportunities.


Comeback player of the year

FS Nick Collins. As a rookie in 2005, Collins burst on to the scene and quickly established himself as the starting free safety. He is a good athlete with quickness, speed and suddenness. His transition to the NFL was very impressive, especially since he hailed from a small college (Bethune-Cookman), but Collins regressed in his sophomore season. Green Bay has built a formidable defense with a talented front seven and two good cornerbacks. But the Packers need more production from their safeties. We expect Collins to provide the production needed and to regain the form he showed as a rookie.



Offensive philosophy

Head coach Mike McCarthy changed coordinators in the offseason and is hoping Joe Philbin can give the Packers' offense a fresh approach. Philbin will stay with the West Coast passing game, using short crossing patterns along with vertical routes to stretch deep zones. Driver had the best season of his eight-year career, and Jennings may just be the speedster opposite him the Packers have been lacking. Favre played better in 2006 but still fell short of performing at a high level. Look for more short drops and a quicker passing game to keep the pressure off a somewhat average offensive line. The Green Bay offense improved in 2006 but still wasn't able to establish a consistent ground attack, and the front office decided on new blood to carry the football. Morency and Jackson have similar running styles and should fill the void left by Green's departure. The success of this offense is based on balance, and a ground attack needs to be established. Look for McCarthy to run the ball to keep the pressure off an aging quarterback who has lost some magic.


Defensive philosophy

Defensive coordinator Bob Sanders leads a Packers' defense that showed flashes of excellent play in 2006 but could not perform well on a consistent basis. Sanders uses a base 4-3 front and two-deep zone coverage as the core of his philosophy. He employs several stunts and twists up front but rarely all-out blitzes to apply pressure on the quarterback. Defensive ends Aaron Kampman, Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila and Cullen Jenkins generated 28 sacks in 2006. The secondary will play a good mix of man and zone, but disguising coverages and keeping opposing quarterbacks guessing is their most effective strategy. Green Bay's secondary is solid but doesn't have any outstanding playmakers, so the coaches elect to keep a good cushion on most routes. The Packers will look to become more physical against the run, since they were very erratic in this area in 2006. Both defensive tackles have good size and strength but appear to be limited-area defenders. They will use a variety of over and under fronts with their tackles. The Packers drafted talented DT Justin Harrell in the first round to give them a playmaker in the middle. The linebacking corps fields two very athletic players in A.J. Hawk and Nick Barnett; both have great range but may need to attack downhill more aggressively against the inside ground game. Look for Sanders to mix in more eight-man fronts and zone blitzes in 2007 to force opponents into more turnovers.

[The Shadow]

When did Greg Jennings become such a 'speedster'?
In my opinion, he is much more of an Antonio Freeman type.

[Packnut]

When did Greg Jennings become such a 'speedster'?
In my opinion, he is much more of an Antonio Freeman type.


Since these guys rarely do their homework. They just copy what someone else says while changing the words. I have no clue what has happened at ESPN, but it's a damn shame. Writing for them has to be the easiest job on earth cause it's easy to see the great majority just cruise through it with very little effort.

[rpiotr01]

I know, there are a couple little things. No playmakers in the secondary? I guess 8 INTs by Woodson doesn't count as playmaking. Oh well.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Jennings has solid speed (4.45 before the draft), and he's quick. I doubt Freeman, especially at the end of his career, ran that. Freeman got by on guts, instincts, great route running, and an MVP QB in the prime of his career.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Drafting two WR, 2 RB's, a TE and the "Packers did little to upgrade their [I hate the ignorance of the phrase] 'skill positions'."

No mention in the Kick Teams portion about drafting 2 Long Snappers and a PK (holdout).

ESPN has no credibility or knowledge west of New Jersey and south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

[Rastak]

Drafting two WR, 2 RB's, a TE and the "Packers did little to upgrade their [I hate the ignorance of the phrase] 'skill positions'."

No mention in the Kick Teams portion about drafting 2 Long Snappers and a PK (holdout).

ESPN has no credibility or knowledge west of New Jersey and south of the Mason-Dixon Line.


Well two of the four are 7th rounders so I'm not sure that is a big upgrade. It might be but it's reasonable to wonder. The other two also might be upgrades but if you look at Jones projected slotting and Jackson's Nebraska career productions you could probably make that statement and defend it.

They might all turn out to be great but I don't think Horton was way out of line with that statement.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well two of the four are 7th rounders so I'm not sure that is a big upgrade. It might be but it's reasonable to wonder. The other two also might be upgrades but if you look at Jones projected slotting and Jackson's Nebraska career productions you could probably make that statement and defend it.

They might all turn out to be great but I don't think Horton was way out of line with that statement.

I'm with Cheeze. They used two of their top three picks on RB and WR--in addition to a 5th round WR, 7th round TE, and 7th round RB. Unless you select one with your 1st and 2nd round picks, you can't upgrade much more than that in the draft. I guess you have to sign a Kevin Curtis (never started before), Donte' Stallworth (most intriguing talent, but has never stayed healthy), or Dominic Rhodes (platoon player with Indianapolis) to get credit for trying to upgrade a position. Apparently, outside of RB, Minnesota did little to upgrade any of their positions.

[Rastak]

Well two of the four are 7th rounders so I'm not sure that is a big upgrade. It might be but it's reasonable to wonder. The other two also might be upgrades but if you look at Jones projected slotting and Jackson's Nebraska career productions you could probably make that statement and defend it.

They might all turn out to be great but I don't think Horton was way out of line with that statement.

I'm with Cheeze. They used two of their top three picks on RB and WR--in addition to a 5th round WR, 7th round TE, and 7th round RB. Unless you select one with your 1st and 2nd round picks, you can't upgrade much more than that in the draft. I guess you have to sign a Kevin Curtis (never started before), Donte' Stallworth (most intriguing talent, but has never stayed healthy), or Dominic Rhodes (platoon player with Indianapolis) to get credit for trying to upgrade a position. Apparently, outside of RB, Minnesota did little to upgrade any of their positions.

No Harv, I'm not saying Green Bay didn't upgrade. I'm saying Jackson didn't exactly light it up in college. Jones was projected much lower. They both might be great players, I don't know. I'm just saying Horton's position is defensible. Minnesota might not have gotten new weapons either but Peterson and Rice both produced big time in school and likely they are an upgrade over what was there. They may not be upgrades but it's a more difficult argument BEFORE camp starts.

[woodbuck27]

Well two of the four are 7th rounders so I'm not sure that is a big upgrade. It might be but it's reasonable to wonder. The other two also might be upgrades but if you look at Jones projected slotting and Jackson's Nebraska career productions you could probably make that statement and defend it.

They might all turn out to be great but I don't think Horton was way out of line with that statement.

I'm with Cheeze. They used two of their top three picks on RB and WR--in addition to a 5th round WR, 7th round TE, and 7th round RB. Unless you select one with your 1st and 2nd round picks, you can't upgrade much more than that in the draft. I guess you have to sign a Kevin Curtis (never started before), Donte' Stallworth (most intriguing talent, but has never stayed healthy), or Dominic Rhodes (platoon player with Indianapolis) to get credit for trying to upgrade a position. Apparently, outside of RB, Minnesota did little to upgrade any of their positions.

How can we possibly accredit an upgrade to a particular position with a draft pick in the general sence? A rookie in the NFL?

To go there is fundamentally wrong Harvey.

We should only speak in terms of an ubgrade, ie at SS, when the player we bring in to replace the incumbant, is by experience observed as a superior talent in terms of being able to excel at the NFL level.

Unless an early round draft pick is known as an extremely talented player at previous levels, and NFL ready. How could any other recent draft pick or rookie be considered an upgrade unless the front line players of the previous season were just aweful?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm saying Jackson didn't exactly light it up in college. Jones was projected much lower. They both might be great players, I don't know. I'm just saying Horton's position is defensible. Minnesota might not have gotten new weapons either but Peterson and Rice both produced big time in school and likely they are an upgrade over what was there. They may not be upgrades but it's a more difficult argument BEFORE camp starts.

I don't get this angle AT ALL. Rice and Jackson were second round picks. Wouldn't the fact they were both second round picks be a better barometer. I'll put a beer on Jackson outproducting Rice his rookie year. If Rice's production at South Carolina was a good barometer, he should be to do better, right? Jackson only has to beat out Morency, but Rice only has to beat out Troy Williamson and/or Bobby Wade.

[Rastak]

I'm saying Jackson didn't exactly light it up in college. Jones was projected much lower. They both might be great players, I don't know. I'm just saying Horton's position is defensible. Minnesota might not have gotten new weapons either but Peterson and Rice both produced big time in school and likely they are an upgrade over what was there. They may not be upgrades but it's a more difficult argument BEFORE camp starts.

I don't get this angle AT ALL. Rice and Jackson were second round picks. Wouldn't the fact they were both second round picks be a better barometer. I'll put a beer on Jackson outproducting Rice his rookie year. If Rice's production at South Carolina was a good barometer, he should be to do better, right? Jackson only has to beat out Morency, but Rice only has to beat out Troy Williamson and/or Bobby Wade.

You seem stuck on where they were drafted, I'm talking about production and projection. Hell, I'll buy ya a beer I'm not worried about losing a bet. I sure would hope for your sake Jackson out produces Rice. He's likely gonna be the #1 guy if he can handle it and RB's have a FAR easier time than WR's making an impact. Rice will probably be a #3 reciever but should get on the field alot. Is he an upgrade over what he's replacing? I think so, but we'll have to see. Is Jackson and Jones and upgrade over Green and your last years #3 WR? One could argue not since we haven't seen them yet and can only base what we've seen in college. Also, keep in mind the point of my posts, that Horton has a valid argument, I'm not even saying he's right.


Beer might have to wait for a bit though....Dr called and MRI indicates two torn tendons in my ankle.....GRRRRRRRRR....so now it's surgery.

[Carolina_Packer]

We weren't ripped or overly hyped in this article, so he's at least in the ballpark, if not a little stretched out on some of his facts.

Hey, if Jackson has to produce this year, I was wondering if anyone can recall a really productive rookie running back for the Packers, or one that has come into the NFL in the last 5 years. Seems like they normally struggle early to get acclaimated.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You seem stuck on where they were drafted, I'm talking about production and projection. Hell, I'll buy ya a beer I'm not worried about losing a bet. I sure would hope for your sake Jackson out produces Rice. He's likely gonna be the #1 guy if he can handle it and RB's have a FAR easier time than WR's making an impact. Rice will probably be a #3 reciever but should get on the field alot. Is he an upgrade over what he's replacing? I think so, but we'll have to see. Is Jackson and Jones and upgrade over Green and your last years #3 WR? One could argue not since we haven't seen them yet and can only base what we've seen in college. Also, keep in mind the point of my posts, that Horton has a valid argument, I'm not even saying he's right.

Still don't get it.

[Rastak]

You seem stuck on where they were drafted, I'm talking about production and projection. Hell, I'll buy ya a beer I'm not worried about losing a bet. I sure would hope for your sake Jackson out produces Rice. He's likely gonna be the #1 guy if he can handle it and RB's have a FAR easier time than WR's making an impact. Rice will probably be a #3 reciever but should get on the field alot. Is he an upgrade over what he's replacing? I think so, but we'll have to see. Is Jackson and Jones and upgrade over Green and your last years #3 WR? One could argue not since we haven't seen them yet and can only base what we've seen in college. Also, keep in mind the point of my posts, that Horton has a valid argument, I'm not even saying he's right.

Still don't get it.

Wow, I honestly didn't think this was all that complicated.

What factors do we look at when discussing rookies?

big/small school
college production
round taken
round projected


What's so hard about that? I point out 2 of those could be used to support the guys argument. I'm guessing you'd understand my point if you wanted to. It's rather simple at it's heart.

[Freak Out]

Did one of you have to pay for that? Do people actually sign up for insider stuff at ESPN? For any Packer fan that has been living on the grid for the last few months there is nothing new there. Does Gary Horton get paid good money to write this stuff? Many posters here do better than that daily!

Thank you Packer Rats and all the knowledgeable posters here!

[packers11]

No I don't pay for it, my friends all use this one account...

[BallHawk]

Place-kicker Dave Rayner has a strong leg but is inconsistent beyond 30 yards. He will need to be better on his longer attempts and late in the season when the weather is a factor.

Typical ESPN thing, look at the stats and that's the final word. Don't take into account any of the other factors. :roll:

Ok, coming into December, Rayner was 11-12 from 20-29, 4-4 from 30-39, 4-6 from 40-49, and 1-3 from 50+. His statistics are skewed in the 30-39 category because he missed two kicks in the game in December against Minnesota, and the field was a mess in that game. Any kicker would of had trouble kicking in that weather Yet, he still went on to kick a 38 yarder, a 44 yarder, and another 44 yarder to win the game. He finished the month kicking 4-5 from 40-49 yards. Also, back in October, he kicked two long kicks including one that would of set the Packer record, but they were brought back on an idiotic penalty rule.

Is Rayner perfect? No. But he's better then the writer implies.

[Freak Out]

No I don't pay for it, my friends all use this one account...

Sweet......I appreciate the paste but am always surprised that they actually charge for most of that stuff.

[RashanGary]

You guys take ESPN and all national writers way too seriously. They cover 32 freaking teams. I'll bet that guy blows every one of us out of the water on 31 of the 32 teams with knowledge and we beat him with one team, our team. That artical probably wasn't meant for us as much as it was for those who don't spend countless hours brainstorming every team issue with dozens of fanatics just like ourslelves online. Maybe someone who is a Lion fan learned something. Maybe a Patriots fan picked something up. Bottom line, I agree with the poster above that it was in the ball park as far as accuracy. Our news is right from the horses mouth, we don't read the artical, we listen to the video at Packers.com and put it together for ourselves after talking about it and refining our thoughts with many others who provide valuable insight. It's nto fair to criticize them the way we do IMO or at least it's nto put in proper perspective.

[Packnut]

You guys take ESPN and all national writers way too seriously. They cover 32 freaking teams. I'll bet that guy blows every one of us out of the water on 31 of the 32 teams with knowledge and we beat him with one team, our team. That artical probably wasn't meant for us as much as it was for those who don't spend countless hours brainstorming every team issue with dozens of fanatics just like ourslelves online. Maybe someone who is a Lion fan learned something. Maybe a Patriots fan picked something up. Bottom line, I agree with the poster above that it was in the ball park as far as accuracy. Our news is right from the horses mouth, we don't read the artical, we listen to the video at Packers.com and put it together for ourselves after talking about it and refining our thoughts with many others who provide valuable insight. It's nto fair to criticize them the way we do IMO or at least it's nto put in proper perspective.

Well he may blow you out of the water as far as the other 31 teams but don't speak for anyone else. There are several of us who play some serious fantasy football and some of us who bet on games. You don't do either well if you don't know what's going on with EVERY team. .......

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

You seem stuck on where they were drafted, I'm talking about production and projection. Hell, I'll buy ya a beer I'm not worried about losing a bet. I sure would hope for your sake Jackson out produces Rice. He's likely gonna be the #1 guy if he can handle it and RB's have a FAR easier time than WR's making an impact. Rice will probably be a #3 reciever but should get on the field alot. Is he an upgrade over what he's replacing? I think so, but we'll have to see. Is Jackson and Jones and upgrade over Green and your last years #3 WR? One could argue not since we haven't seen them yet and can only base what we've seen in college. Also, keep in mind the point of my posts, that Horton has a valid argument, I'm not even saying he's right.

Still don't get it.

Wow, I honestly didn't think this was all that complicated.

What factors do we look at when discussing rookies?

big/small school
college production
round taken
round projected


What's so hard about that? I point out 2 of those could be used to support the guys argument. I'm guessing you'd understand my point if you wanted to. It's rather simple at it's heart.

Rastak is saying that the author has the right to claim that the players we drafted on offense are not upgrades because of the players they are replacing and also based on the round they were drafted. For example, Jackson can't be considered an upgrade because he's replacing a good back in Green and also because he wasn’t a high rated back in the draft and is not expected to do much in his rookie year. He's saying that they very well could turn out to be upgrades over the former players at their position but as of right NOW they really aren’t upgrades.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wow, I honestly didn't think this was all that complicated.

What factors do we look at when discussing rookies?

big/small school
college production
round taken
round projected

What's so hard about that? I point out 2 of those could be used to support the guys argument. I'm guessing you'd understand my point if you wanted to. It's rather simple at it's heart.

Seems silly. Jackson went to Nebraska. They had a rotation. He broke out of that rotation last year. I don't think they took him over "more productive" RBs (e.g. Garrett Wolfe) thinking that it would take him longer to produce because he wasn't the star at Nebraska until late in his career. Counter-example is Sidney Rice. The guy was productive at South Carolina. A school in the SEC. He was taken in round 2, but sounds like he's pretty raw. I don't consider the round they were projected in (Greg Jennings, Nick Collins) or the small school thing (Jennings, Nick Collins and Rashean Mathis). Not when you are talking about guys taken in the first couple of rounds. Maybe a guy like Donald Driver--that was taken in round 7. You spend a second round pick on a guy, you expect him to produce. I'm not saying he will kick ass, but it's not like they ignored RB and WR. TE, on the other hand, they pretty much completely ignored--which is the biggest failure of this offseason IMHO.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rastak is saying that the author has the right to claim that the players we drafted on offense are not upgrades because of the players they are replacing and also based on the round they were drafted. For example, Jackson can't be considered an upgrade because he's replacing a good back in Green and also because he wasn’t a high rated back in the draft and is not expected to do much in his rookie year. He's saying that they very well could turn out to be upgrades over the former players at their position but as of right NOW they really aren’t upgrades.

Which is one of my points, and it's silly. I stated that you could say that the Vikings only upgraded one position this offseason--RB. Adrian Peterson was a high pick. Since RB was a position of strength for the Vikings (Chester Taylor), then perhaps even that wouldn't be considered an upgrade by this author. They didn't sign any notable FAs (Bobby Wade and Visanthe Shiancoe don't count as notable FAs), and apparently second and third round picks aren't considered an upgrade. He came back arguing that Rice would be considered an upgrade because of his productivity at South Carolina--while Jackson (because of his lesser productivity) and Jones (because he played at a small school) might not be. I think that's just silly. The Packers took Jackson thinking he'll produce early on. Otherwise, they wouldn't have taken him in round 2.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Once the Packers lost Green, who would have been considered an upgrade? Adrian Peterson? No chance of getting him. Marshawn Lynch? Little chance of getting him. Dominic Rhodes? Ummm... no.

[Rastak]

No, I do agree they didn't ignore it. It is kinda unusual for a guy to take so long to become a starter. That having been said word on the street is that
he'll do well in the ZBS so he may do quite well.

He just didn't play alot until his senior year. As for Rice, we'll have to see how his game translates to the pro game. I've heard he did look a little raw in the first minicamp but his route running started to improve greatly during OTA's so we'll see.

Rice's highlights look good...his resume is solid


From scouts inc.....


Two-time All-SEC and joined Sterling Sharpe (1985-86) as a Gamecock receiver to post back-to-back 1,000-yard seasons…Despite playing just two years, left South Carolina as the school’s all-time leader in touchdowns and 100-yard games…

[BallHawk]

You guys take ESPN and all national writers way too seriously.

Put it this way. Sean Salisbury gets paid about one million dollars a year. I'm sure that a lot of diehard football fans, if they got a million dollars a year, would try pretty damn hard to learn as much as they could about each and every team.

These guys try to get by knowing as little as possible. We have a handful of guys that know just as much football as them.

[Rastak]

Rastak is saying that the author has the right to claim that the players we drafted on offense are not upgrades because of the players they are replacing and also based on the round they were drafted. For example, Jackson can't be considered an upgrade because he's replacing a good back in Green and also because he wasn’t a high rated back in the draft and is not expected to do much in his rookie year. He's saying that they very well could turn out to be upgrades over the former players at their position but as of right NOW they really aren’t upgrades.

Which is one of my points, and it's silly. I stated that you could say that the Vikings only upgraded one position this offseason--RB. Adrian Peterson was a high pick. Since RB was a position of strength for the Vikings (Chester Taylor), then perhaps even that wouldn't be considered an upgrade by this author. They didn't sign any notable FAs (Bobby Wade and Visanthe Shiancoe don't count as notable FAs), and apparently second and third round picks aren't considered an upgrade. He came back arguing that Rice would be considered an upgrade because of his productivity at South Carolina--while Jackson (because of his lesser productivity) and Jones (because he played at a small school) might not be. I think that's just silly. The Packers took Jackson thinking he'll produce early on. Otherwise, they wouldn't have taken him in round 2.


Out of curiosity Harv, how did the Vikings even get into this conversation?

That was WAY outside of the points I was making.

[retailguy]

They didn't sign any notable FAs (Bobby Wade and Visanthe Shiancoe don't count as notable FAs)

Why don't you ask Bretsky if they're noteable? :P :wink:

Seriously.... They will help the Vikings a hell of a lot more than Frank Walker and NOBODY ELSE will help us, that's for damn sure....

Frank Walker better get the damn nickel position or our Free Agents won't help us at all.


Shiancoe is at least going to play. A lot. Same with Bobby Wade.

[MJZiggy]

Shiancoe is at least going to play. A lot. Same with Bobby Wade.

Are they going to play really, really well and become unstoppable at their positions?

[Rastak]

Shiancoe is at least going to play. A lot. Same with Bobby Wade.

Are they going to play really, really well and become unstoppable at their positions?

Highly unlikely but that isn't the question nor the team this thread is taking about. The original question is did the Packers upgrade their offense?

[retailguy]

Shiancoe is at least going to play. A lot. Same with Bobby Wade.

Are they going to play really, really well and become unstoppable at their positions?

Highly unlikely but that isn't the question nor the team this thread is taking about. The original question is did the Packers upgrade their offense?

Rastak, haven't you figured out that the ole' duck and dodge is how you keep the "negative minority" from actually making a point? :wink:

[Rastak]

Shiancoe is at least going to play. A lot. Same with Bobby Wade.

Are they going to play really, really well and become unstoppable at their positions?

Highly unlikely but that isn't the question nor the team this thread is taking about. The original question is did the Packers upgrade their offense?

Rastak, haven't you figured out that the ole' duck and dodge is how you keep the "negative minority" from actually making a point? :wink:

No kidding. I wasn't even ripping on the pack, only pointing out that the original author had a defensible point.

[retailguy]

No kidding. I wasn't even ripping on the pack, only pointing out that the original author had a defensible point.


As much as it pains me to admit it, I agree with you. Of course, as a fan, I don't want to hear it in July, but this team could really stink. Also, the Vikings could really stink too, and you probably don't want to hear that in July either.

Props to the guy who wrote the story for having the balls to actually admit his point of view AND to write it down. It would be much easier and safer to laud Thompson for being the NFL's best drafter today.... :wink:

[Rastak]

No kidding. I wasn't even ripping on the pack, only pointing out that the original author had a defensible point.


As much as it pains me to admit it, I agree with you. Of course, as a fan, I don't want to hear it in July, but this team could really stink. Also, the Vikings could really stink too, and you probably don't want to hear that in July either.

Props to the guy who wrote the story for having the balls to actually admit his point of view AND to write it down. It would be much easier and safer to laud Thompson for being the NFL's best drafter today.... :wink:

I just read a chat on ESPN and they weren't real kind to either team





Rizzo ( WI ): What do you make of GB drafting Harrell and who will be better RB, Morency or Jackson ?? It pains me that those are the two options... Thanks

Matt Williamson: It should pain you, as should the WR and especially the TE position in GBay. I do like Harrell though and GBay is in the process of building a terrific D-led by Hawk and Barnett. Great fantasy sleeper D too by the way. BUT, the O is a wreck and your boy #4 is declining. Of the two, Jackson has much more upside and I expect him to get more and more touches as the season progresses.






Nate (DC): Falcons, 1st pick in the draft?...don't you mean the Vikings!

Matt Williamson: The Vikes certainly have a shot at that honor, but I like their D much more than ATLs.





Chris (Kaneohe, HI): Do you think that the minnesota one-two punch, could open up the passing game?

Matt Williamson: No. Minny will face 8 and 9 in the box play after play after play. Who scares you as a pass catcher? Make the QB beat you.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Out of curiosity Harv, how did the Vikings even get into this conversation?

That was WAY outside of the points I was making.

I brought them up to show how ludicrous the statement is... comparing it to something you could relate to. I wasn't saying the Vikings did nothing. Saying the Packers did nothing to upgrade WR and RB is like saying the Vikings did nothing to upgrade WR and DE (two of their positions of need).

[HarveyWallbangers]

Seriously.... They will help the Vikings a hell of a lot more than Frank Walker and NOBODY ELSE will help us, that's for damn sure....

Really? Doubtful, but anything is possible. They are paying them starter's money, at least. We weren't talking about overall FAs, so follow along here. The point is whether investing two of your top three draft picks (first day picks) and three of your top five draft picks on RB and WR is doing little to address THOSE positions. TE? We did nothing. S? We did little--unless Underwood or the 3rd round pick steps up. I'd say that the Packers attempted to address RB and WR. Whether those players pan out, nobody knows.