Blue Chip Players on the Packers

[pbmax]

According to the National Football Post's Michael Lombardi:

Green Bay

BLUE: QB, Rodgers; WR, Jennings; DE, C. Jenkins; OLB, Kampman; CB, Woodson.

ALMOST BLUE: WR, Driver; ILB, Barnett; CB, Harris.

I am a little unclear on the process here (apparently ESPN's The Sports Guy weighed in, which should immediately call this into question) but it appears that Woodson was elevated from Near Blue to True Blue by acclimation from readers.

[MichiganPackerFan]

It seems they're pretty generous in handing out those blue chips.

[SkinBasket]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

[sharpe1027]

Re: Blue Chip Players on the Packers

I don't get how Woodson could just barely make it, yet Jenkins is on the list at all. Jenkins has be good for stretches, but has yet to put an entire season of good play together, mostly due to injuries.

I don't know the true meaning of "blue chip," but personally, I would put Pickett ahead of Jenkins in value to the team. Hell, Jenkins may not even start all year, if Jolly keeps tearing it up and BJ is as good as advertised...

[pbmax]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

I agree that numerical rankings would be more useful for comparison. But didn't McGinn use this concept himself for several years? He labeled them as colors instead of colored chips. Blue players, red players, heliotrope players, etc.

And I think the rationale he gave was that teams coded players the same way on their boards. I wonder if this has changed, as I don't remember seeing his chart recently.

[DonHutson]

I've heard of 'Kinda Blue', but not 'Almost Blue.' Is that like periwinkle?

[RashanGary]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

Wasn't there a movie with shaq back in the 90's where they talked about blue chips?

[Zool]

the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

[MichiganPackerFan]

WOW! That was way back, before Shaq was a gluttonous fat bastard.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I actually think this is a pretty fair list, and I'm surprised anybody outside of Green Bay appreciates Cullen Jenkins. He may not be a blue because I think staying on the field should be a part of ranking a player. He did play like a blue chip player at the beginning of last year.

[Bossman641]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

I prefer to call the top 3 players elite, the bottom 5 terrible, and everyone else average.

[SkinBasket]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

I prefer to call the top 3 players elite, the bottom 5 terrible, and everyone else average.

We have 3 elite players?

[buchunter03]

I was actually listening to the Bill Simmons podcast when he was talking with Lombardi. I was glad to hear he had Cullen Jenkins as a blue. He is very underrated and our defense was not the same when he went out. He can get to the quarterback and also stops the run very effectively. Just watching him in preseason you can tell he is very important to the d-line much more so than Pickett or anyone else.

Also Lombardi mentioned how much he loved Aaron Rodgers and that he had the Packers going to the Super Bowl... I instantly became a huge fan of Mike Lombardi.

[mraynrand]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

I think Rodgers is 9,945,657,223,431.65 and Jennings is 8,987,456,322,433.32

[pbmax]

I've always hated the writers who break players into tiers like this. Mainly because for most players it's obvious where they fall on the scale, and for the others it's entirely subjective. And the whole "chip" concept is very 1992.

I find numerical ratings much more useful for comparison. If you're going to rate players, do it right and precisely, not just lump them into 4 or 5 groups.

I prefer to call the top 3 players elite, the bottom 5 terrible, and everyone else average.

That is also how Partial rates QBs.