What are your expectations for the 2010 Packers?

[MJZiggy]

Or were backups better when there were fewer teams?

I think it is more the free agency. Before the good teams were often really really good with backups often better than the starters from bad teams.

So injuries did not change the relative quality of the teams so radically as today. Today (with the cba) you can simpy not afford keeping all the backups that would be starters on many other teams.

So each team has a big drop of performance at most positions if the starter gets hurt. Or you are lucky/good and have a young, unproven player who really steps up (think Grant, T.Williams) if given the opertunity.

You can also blame specialization. Used to be that there weren't as many specialty players so players could fill in where need be.

[mngolf19]

Ascending Talent

Greenway, Edwards, Peterson, Rice, Robison, T Jack, T Johnson, Sullivan, Harvin, Loadholt, Allen, Brinkley. . . .

2 - legit stars
2 - Borderline probowlers or better
8 - Players that have shown something that should keep improving

That's 3 per season. Pretty good, especially considering how few picks they've had.


Rodgers, Collins, Poppinga, Hawk, Colledge, Jennings, Spitz, Jolly, B. Jackson, J Jones, K Hall, Bishop, Crosby, Nelson, Finley, Sitton, Flynn, Raji, Matthews, Lang, Q Johnson, B Jones


2 - legit stars (Collins, Rodgers)
4 - borderline probowlers or better (Jennings, Finley, Matthews, Sitton)
16 - Players that have shown something that should keep improving

That's 5.5 per season.



It appears the Packers have more ascending talent than the Vikings.

An interesting way to look at it. I like the different approach, but I'm not sure that it is fair to call Poppinga, Hawk, Colledge, B. Jackson, J Jones, K Hall "ascending." I think "plateauing" could just as easily be used to describe any of those guys. Did any of them really improve last year compared to two years ago? Maybe Hawk, but two years ago was a down year for him.

Tjack, Tyrell Johnson and Brinkley were weak spots too, but I gave a few guys the benefit of the doubt. I guess that last group should be titled, serviceable NFL players, possibly more.

JH, Johnson was starting for the first time and Brinkley was a rookie. They really should be listed as ascending. Thats not the same as what the "plateauing" group from above is.

[mngolf19]

I think GB and MN may be the two best teams in the NFC next year

Agreed.

[RashanGary]

Bjack, Jones and Korey Hall aren't necessarily plateaued. Our guys have just as much chance of ascending as your guys. All have 4 or less years experience in the NFL.

After season three, Nick Collins had seemed to plateau. Whispers of him not really being the guy were starting.

Bam, years 4 and 5, he's the most impactful, productive safety in the NFL for a 2 year span.

Tough to say who's ascending and who isn't. I changed it to serviceable NFL players, maybe mroe. Hawk has been better than any of the three I listed of your guys. He's probably not ascending, but he doesn't have to to beat Brinkley right now.

I had a word choice error that I fixed. Upon fixing, I think the new title fits pretty well and the big picture still applies. The Packers have a lot more young, quality talent from the last 4 drafts.

[b bulldog]

Game of playmakers, the Vikings have Rice, Harvin, AP, Favre, Shianco, Allen, Henderson, and Greenway is on the cusp.

Packers have Rodgers, Finley, Jennings, Mathews, Woodson, and maybe Collins.

If Brett comes back, the Vikings are clearly better, unless we get someone oppositte the Claymaker, who can rush the passer. This team has no passrush once Mathews is doubled, if your playing a legit O.

[RashanGary]

I think the way I'm viewing it is better than the way you are viewing it, bulldog.



The Packers are what they were last year. 11-5, one and done playoffs

The Vikings are what they were last year 12-4, one win in playoffs



The Packers look to be improving in many areas. The Vikings don't look to be improving in many areas. If you believe the Packers have more ascending talent (and I do), then you believe they get better at a higher rate than the Vikings, regardless of a subjective view of who qualified as a playmaker last year. It's charting trends, not charting who was better last year.

I'd list Kevin Williams, Jared Allen, Favre (if he's feeling good), Rice and Peterson as playmakers. The rest, really good, but not playmakers.

[b bulldog]

We can agree to disagree cause I think your way off base. You can say they were one and done which is true, but one must also admit the Vikings were probably the best in the NFC last year and that was with AP having a down year. Hope your right, but would say you are wrong, we shall see.

[b bulldog]

One more thing, this ascending thing is stupid because the Vikings have a roster already loaded with ascending players, studs, and super studs. They are clearly better with #4, to say otherwise is foolish. We have a D that gets exposed against quality QB's, check the stats.

[sharpe1027]

One more thing, this ascending thing is stupid because the Vikings have a roster already loaded with ascending players, studs, and super studs. They are clearly better with #4, to say otherwise is foolish. We have a D that gets exposed against quality QB's, check the stats.

The Vikings also have the great equalizer...Brad Childress. Call me a fool, but perhaps it is not as clear as you think.

[HarveyWallbangers]

One more thing, this ascending thing is stupid because the Vikings have a roster already loaded with ascending players, studs, and super studs. They are clearly better with #4, to say otherwise is foolish. We have a D that gets exposed against quality QB's, check the stats.

Were they clearly better at the end of the year? I'm not sure. Once we got used to the defensive scheme, Clifton and Finley got healthy, and Tauscher was resigned, we won 7 of our last 9 games. We didn't play the Vikings when we were at our best. The Vikings were. They lost 4 of their last 7. Otherwise, we might have won one of those two games and won the division. I know we lost to two teams, Arizona and Pittsburgh, that play the same defensive scheme as we do, but we also beat some good teams in Dallas and Baltimore. I think the two teams were pretty close. We ended up getting beat by Arizona and Pittsburgh, but would you rather have lost to Arizona, Chicago, and Carolina? I say the two teams are close, and I say bring it on.

[RashanGary]

I'm spot on with Harvey here. We were close last year. I agree, the Vikes were better but. . .

Next years a new year. Last year was the last year we'll be the youngest team in the league. This year, we're growing together and ascending, not starting over with youth.

I don't think it's even close, the Packers have more young talent that looks to be getting better. The Vikings have peaked. We're going to make up ground and I don't think it will take all that much to pass them.

My money, as it stands now, is on the Packers and that's not the fan in me talking. That's logic.

[sharpe1027]

I'm spot on with Harvey here. We were close last year. I agree, the Vikes were better but. . .

Next years a new year. Last year was the last year we'll be the youngest team in the league. This year, we're growing together and ascending, not starting over with youth.

I don't think it's even close, the Packers have more young talent that looks to be getting better. The Vikings have peaked. We're going to make up ground and I don't think it will take all that much to pass them.

My money, as it stands now, is on the Packers and that's not the fan in me talking. That's logic.

You make a decent argument that the Packers have the potential to improve more. IDK that the queens have peaked though. I think they might get better as a few of their young guys develop. Plus, we have no idea what they will end up with in the draft this year.

I think either team could come out on top. IMO, there's way to many variables for anyone to be too confident one way or the other.

[mngolf19]

One more thing, this ascending thing is stupid because the Vikings have a roster already loaded with ascending players, studs, and super studs. They are clearly better with #4, to say otherwise is foolish. We have a D that gets exposed against quality QB's, check the stats.

The Vikings also have the great equalizer...Brad Childress. Call me a fool, but perhaps it is not as clear as you think.

As do the Packers with MM. I still don't understand the arguement that MM is any better than Chilly. No matter what anyone thinks of him personally, his record alongside MM's....taking all achievements = even.

[mngolf19]

I'm spot on with Harvey here. We were close last year. I agree, the Vikes were better but. . .

Next years a new year. Last year was the last year we'll be the youngest team in the league. This year, we're growing together and ascending, not starting over with youth.

I don't think it's even close, the Packers have more young talent that looks to be getting better. The Vikings have peaked. We're going to make up ground and I don't think it will take all that much to pass them.

My money, as it stands now, is on the Packers and that's not the fan in me talking. That's logic.

It's your opinion, not logic. Logic would say the Vikes can get better as well. Logic would say the Vikes may draft well too. Logic would say your champ until knocked off. Something I've heard here before when Pack was on top. When you said its not even close, logic left the building. It's ok to have that opinion. I just think barring unequal circumstances they'll both be in double digit wins this year. My opinion.

[HarveyWallbangers]

As do the Packers with MM. I still don't understand the arguement that MM is any better than Chilly. No matter what anyone thinks of him personally, his record alongside MM's....taking all achievements = even.

Not quite. McCarthy = 38-26; Childress = 36-28