Last Year -v- This Year

[texaspackerbacker]

This thread sure has degenerated into some irrational negativity since I last looked at it. 8 or 9 wins? maybe only 6 or 7? Come on, give me a break!

Justin's original post made an excellent and well thought out case for the Packers being slightly BETTER overall, even if Rodgers only performs at an average level for NFL QBs.

And what's this crap about Rodgers NOT having the talent around him that Romo or Rivers has? It's a stretch to claim Grant is as good as La Dainian Tomlinson, even though he did perform at just as high a level once he started. And great as the Packer receivers played, it's a bit much to claim any of them individually are as good as Terrell Owens or Antonio Gate. Beyond that, though, it's all Packers. Neither the Cowboys or Chargers receiver corps overall comes close to the Packers, and Marian Barber of the Cowboys also falls way short of Grant, based on last year's performance.

[Partial]

Here's how I look at it:

Great receivers
Average running backs
Average offensive line
unknown at QB

Good defensive line
Good linebackers
Good corners
Average safeties

Last year, we had the exact same thing except one-in-a-lifetime at QB.

[RashanGary]

What do these numbers mean? How are they calculated? What do they correspond to? Is the performance of the team actually equally dependent on the performance of every player?

Is what you wrote actually more informative than "I think Tramon Williams will be a better nickel back than Bush, but I think that both of our elder corners won't be as good next year"?

Shit, Lurker. You're really becoming one of my harshest critics. That's OK, you're civil about ripping my posts


Anyway, I don't think my analysis of each player is grand and spectacular. It's sort of a compilation of what I believe based on what I hear. I listen to McCarren, Harry Sydney, and the douche bags who call the games. . I listen to McCarthy and Thompson. I listen to the players in the lockerrooms. I read just about every article. I'm pretty much just like every person here. I form opinions the best I can. I don't think my ideas are concrete or true. I see them as my best interperatation.

That said, the real goal here was to piece together information as I understand it based on what I read and hear and what I believe about football in a format taht might apply to W/L success. The premise of rating each player and projecting improvements for young players and declines in older players is that each player has normal trend of improving, plateauing and then declinging. By looking at likey trends of each player, I thought it could be pieced together in a logical way to mean soemthing to the whole. I still do think it's somewhat logical although not perfect.

Based on how I view the roster (mostly young entering prime and very few old) I see the roster getting better with the QB positoin getting worse in all likelyhood. Will it play out that way? I don't know, but I think there is some solid reason to lean toward what I wrote. Someone could present a case that the Packers are the best in the league. Someone could present a case that without Favre they are the worst in the league. Anything if fair game right now, but I gave my best guess based on how I see it.

[Lurker64]

Shit, Lurker. You're really becoming one of my harshest critics. That's OK, you're civil about ripping my posts

I don't really intend to rip you, I just see numbers and I wonder what they mean. If they're just your subjective opinions based on what you've read or heard, that's fine, none of us are omniscient and we all cobble together our opinions from a variety of places. But at the same time, if you read stuff that makes you think "Korey Hall is likely to make a big jump this year" or if you actually have a reason for believing so (e.g. last year was his first year playing offense since high school, he showed steady improvement through the year, he has great intensity and enthusiasm) I'd rather hear about that than see some numbers that attempt to quantify how you feel.

At the very least when football writers do things like quantify players as blue chip, red chip, white chip, players etc. or they give them grades (like A-, C+, B) we have some standard against which we can compare the author's opinions with our own. Everybody knows that LaDanian Tomlinson is a blue chip player, and after a game where Tom Brady throws five touchdowns and no interceptions completing 85% of his passes everyone can tell that's an A or an A+ performance. So if someone turns and argues that player X is or isn't a blue chipper, we can agree or disagree based on his performance compared to players we all agree are blue chippers.

But I don't know what "7" means, so I can't really say whether I agree with you or I disagree. I don't know whether a 3 is "abjectly terrible" or "simply mediocre" or what have you. So it's really hard to make any comment other than "explain please?".

[KYPack]

I expect them to be significantly worse. I expect a significantly worse running game, poor interior line play, and a quarterback who will develop what I like to call "David Carritis", where he will have a deer in headlights look and fear the sack play after play, and as a result play awful.

I'm hoping for the best. I'm hoping TT and MM are not lying when they say they have confidence in Rodgers. I'm hoping he really has earned this shot. If he's awful, we're in trouble.

He looked good against Dallas. Now he has to do it consistantly. We'll see.

Dallas was also applying most of their pressure from the edges. We've got two good tackles. We know that. What happens when the pocket collapses up the middle and he gets forces into and ends arms??
I'm thinking 8-8 at this point. We'll see though.

Wrong, grasshopper.

Dallas was applying significant pressure right down the cock. College was benched after he gave up two early pressures, one when backup end Stephen Bowen beat him inside and Favre's hurried bomb came up way short and was intercepted by safety Ken Hamlin. Bowen was on a stunt, but DC should have that shit figured out by now. Brett left with the sore paw.

When they benched Colledge and ARod came in and took the quicks they were giving us in the middle of the field, the Packer offense lit it up.

Nobody knows how ARod will do in '08, but let's give him credit for what he got done in Dallas in '07

[ny10804]

I think the rubric is completely illogical. You tried to weight the importance of the QB position by making it out of 20, but even that doesn't begin to make sense of the rest of the numbers. The values of each position are far more complicated than you make it seem.

[RashanGary]

But I don't know what "7" means, so I can't really say whether I agree with you or I disagree. I don't know whether a 3 is "abjectly terrible" or "simply mediocre" or what have you. So it's really hard to make any comment other than "explain please?".

Very good point. That was a cobination of assuming people saw things as I see them and being too lazy to put together a good post.

[RashanGary]

I think the rubric is completely illogical. You tried to weight the importance of the QB position by making it out of 20, but even that doesn't begin to make sense of the rest of the numbers. The values of each position are far more complicated than you make it seem.

You Aholes are right (and I only call you aholes because you are crushing my fragile ego)


Anyway, I'm going to start putting together something a little more reliable and thorough and maybe Mad will make a story out of it. I'm going to seek the opinions of people who know more than me and people that this forum trusts and I'm going ot put it together in a way that explains how the data was collected and why it means what it means.


Jeepers H. Krispy's Why does everything have to be so logical and accurate? Why can't I just flop out a lazy opinion and have it go uncontested?

[privatepacker]

I think the rubric is completely illogical. You tried to weight the importance of the QB position by making it out of 20, but even that doesn't begin to make sense of the rest of the numbers. The values of each position are far more complicated than you make it seem.

You Aholes are right (and I only call you aholes because you are crushing my fragile ego)


Anyway, I'm going to start putting together something a little more reliable and thorough and maybe Mad will make a story out of it. I'm going to seek the opinions of people who know more than me and people that this forum trusts and I'm going ot put it together in a way that explains how the data was collected and why it means what it means.


Jeepers H. Krispy's Why does everything have to be so logical and accurate? Why can't I just flop out a lazy opinion and have it go
uncontested?

I understand what you did and think it was well done. The biggest ? is at QB which is no surprise and it will have the biggest impact on the team, no surprise there either. Just reading between the lines of TT and MM, I think they were ready for Brett to retire and have Rodgers take over. Maybe not because he will be better but to see if he can perform like they think he can. The Packers will go as far as Rodgers take them.