Roster Depth

[Tarlam!]

I can't remember being this optimistic about the roster depth (only been a fan since '01, so be gentle).

I am really encouraged by the team TT has assembled. There may not be too many pro bowlers, I concede that. But, most of the roster can play at a pretty high level. And pro bowl voting is dubious at best, so i don't pay too much credence to that popularity contest anyway.

It is going to be tough enough to land a spot on the Packer's practice squad this year, let alone making the 53 man roster. Then the game day 45 will be a weekly battle.

The only spanner looming over all of what's in the proverbial works is the injuries crap shoot all teams face. I remember ol' TexasPackerBacker harping excessively about this, even when the roster was extremely thin at best. He was correct, of course, but only in theory. Some of those teams stood bugger all chance even if they had been healthy.

This year seems different to me. This team looks, on paper. to be well balanced with maturity/youth, talent/grit, toughness/finesse, specialists/multi-talents. Injuries could be the differnce maker this year to make and, dare-I-say, go deep into the playoffs.

The Packers are as deep everywhere except Punter and 3rd QB as any team. Not too many Holders need replacing and depth at this position is not a prerequisite. If the Kicker gets injured, most teams are screwed, so, that too, equates to a level playing field.

If the offense converts on most 3rd downs, Punter should be a non issue. A "nice to have". It'd be nice to have a pro bowl-calibre 3rd string QB, too, but with a little bit of luck, we won't really need one.

I'm excited by the promise this roster brings! Anyone out of kool aide?

[pbmax]

I wonder how this new ban on the wedge on returns will affect special teams.

It will reduce the cost of replacing all that stretched out underwear.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I've broken it down for you before

I think I'll trust my own opinion, but thanks for the effort.

Ignoring facts as usual

9 of 11 for 124 yards in one game, 3 for 6 for 111 yards with 2 TDs and 0 picks in another game, 8 for 15 for 81 yards with 1 TD and 0 picks with 2nd teamers vs. 1st teamers. Nice try. Please try again.

[SkinBasket]

I've broken it down for you before

I think I'll trust my own opinion, but thanks for the effort.

Ignoring facts as usual

9 of 11 for 124 yards in one game, 3 for 6 for 111 yards with 2 TDs and 0 picks in another game, 8 for 15 for 81 yards with 1 TD and 0 picks with 2nd teamers vs. 1st teamers. Nice try. Please try again.

Please, don't.

[The Shadow]

I can't remember being this optimistic about the roster depth (only been a fan since '01, so be gentle).

I am really encouraged by the team TT has assembled. There may not be too many pro bowlers, I concede that. But, most of the roster can play at a pretty high level. And pro bowl voting is dubious at best, so i don't pay too much credence to that popularity contest anyway.

It is going to be tough enough to land a spot on the Packer's practice squad this year, let alone making the 53 man roster. Then the game day 45 will be a weekly battle.

The only spanner looming over all of what's in the proverbial works is the injuries crap shoot all teams face. I remember ol' TexasPackerBacker harping excessively about this, even when the roster was extremely thin at best. He was correct, of course, but only in theory. Some of those teams stood bugger all chance even if they had been healthy.

This year seems different to me. This team looks, on paper. to be well balanced with maturity/youth, talent/grit, toughness/finesse, specialists/multi-talents. Injuries could be the differnce maker this year to make and, dare-I-say, go deep into the playoffs.

The Packers are as deep everywhere except Punter and 3rd QB as any team. Not too many Holders need replacing and depth at this position is not a prerequisite. If the Kicker gets injured, most teams are screwed, so, that too, equates to a level playing field.

If the offense converts on most 3rd downs, Punter should be a non issue. A "nice to have". It'd be nice to have a pro bowl-calibre 3rd string QB, too, but with a little bit of luck, we won't really need one.

I'm excited by the promise this roster brings! Anyone out of kool aide?

Good analysis!

[Partial]

I've broken it down for you before

I think I'll trust my own opinion, but thanks for the effort.

Ignoring facts as usual

9 of 11 for 124 yards in one game, 3 for 6 for 111 yards with 2 TDs and 0 picks in another game, 8 for 15 for 81 yards with 1 TD and 0 picks with 2nd teamers vs. 1st teamers. Nice try. Please try again.

A: Bob McGinn - JB: You're calling Rodgers a "potentially great" QB. Fair enough. Smith is not the answer. We know that. Rodgers was awful here for two summers. He started to change his approach in Year 3 and came on markedly. First and foremost, I credit Rodgers for getting where he is at this point. His relationships with Tom Clements and Joe Philbin are exceptional, and QB is Mike McCarthy's foremost area of expertise. But Rodgers has done it. He lowered his delivery, he got stronger, he improved his arm, he stopped with the know-it-all attitude. Some still question how much of an upside he has. We shall see.

I consider McGinn cream of the crop and a trusted advisor. Boom.

[Tarlam!]

I consider McGinn cream of the crop and a trusted advisor. Boom.

That made me LOL, because I can say the very same thing about Harvey!

[pbmax]

So the bet is between Harv's numbers and McGinn's memory and summation on a chat?

My money is on the numbers.

[sharpe1027]

A: Bob McGinn - JB: You're calling Rodgers a "potentially great" QB. Fair enough. Smith is not the answer. We know that. Rodgers was awful here for two summers. He started to change his approach in Year 3 and came on markedly. First and foremost, I credit Rodgers for getting where he is at this point. His relationships with Tom Clements and Joe Philbin are exceptional, and QB is Mike McCarthy's foremost area of expertise. But Rodgers has done it. He lowered his delivery, he got stronger, he improved his arm, he stopped with the know-it-all attitude. Some still question how much of an upside he has. We shall see.

I consider McGinn cream of the crop and a trusted advisor. Boom.

Maybe I am remembering things differently, but I saw a big improvement in Rodgers in Year 2 and then even more improvement in year 3. Maybe McGinn has a reason to think Rodgers' 2006 preseason numbers were just an abberation...maybe not.

2006 (Preseason): QB rating = 101.1

[Cheesehead Craig]

Chris Havel thought Rodgers looked great in the 2006 preseason.

Here's the link to show it:

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=2831

[SkinBasket]

So the bet is between Harv's numbers and McGinn's memory and summation on a chat?

My money is on the numbers.

Yeah, I don't buy this bullshit, "His numbers should have been lower." The only reason people say stupid things like that is because they don't want to admit they were wrong. Intellectual cowardice.


boom?

[Patler]

Chris Havel thought Rodgers looked great in the 2006 preseason.

Here's the link to show it:

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=2831

USA Today thought he made great strides in that off season, too:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/packers/2006-08-10-rodgers-feature_x.htm?csp=34

[rbaloha1]

Appears Poppinga is the starter

Initially thought BP would not make the team due to the new 3-4 scheme.

Pleasantly surprised by BP's performance against Buffalo and optimistic BP will remain the starter. What do guys think? I suppose the attacking scheme allows BP to thrive rather than thinking too much.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Personally, I'd like to see Matthews beat him out. I've never felt Poppinga was as bad as some made him out to be, but he's probably tapped out as an average starter at best. I do think the 3-4 is a better scheme for him, so maybe he becomes solid. However, I have hopes that Matthews becomes a stud at a very important position in the 3-4.