Packers D to Decline in 2010?

[Tony Oday]

Rice is going to be a superstar for many years. Finley is going to be great, but last year Shiancoe was better. Barrian is a good player. Harvin is a good player.

Rice > Jennings IMO
Driver > Barrian IMO
Harvin > Jones IMO
Shiancoe last year > super young Finley although Finley has flashed signs of near future greatness.


I don't think the weapons were all that different. Throw Peterson and a better OL and it's a no brainer who has a better supporting cast. Rodgers is in a really good situation, no doubt. They're comparable situations really. But Peterson is the best player on either team and tips it largely in the Vikings favor.

To me, the way Rodgers played the 2nd half of the season, he's our big difference maker the way Peterson is theirs.

I have always said WR should be judged as pairs because who knows who is getting doubled at what time. In that I think its a wash. OLines are actually pretty similar once ours solidified. AP has game breaking but fumbles. Grant wont win the game on a three broken tackle run but gets the 4 yards and keeps the ball. Shianco is no were NEAR Finley at all. That isnt even close to a comparison. Shianco is a big Red Zone Threat and the great old one loves Tightends hehe had too! Finley is by far a supperior TE.

I agree with the last statement about if AP tilts then they win and if AR gets a lead we win. This season if AR can get a lead I can see Favre crumble.

[sharpe1027]

I'm not sure I'd put the entire MN receiving core above GBs, but another factor is MN's offensive philosophy. If Rodgers was at MN with that team and philosophy, maybe he would not have thrown the ball down the field as much as he did in GB. MN likes to do a lot of dink and dunk passes.

[packerbacker1234]

No offense intended but...

http://www.nfl.com/players/adrianpeterson/profile?id=PET260705

His fumbles actually went down. He had 50 less carries (understandable, they passed the ball more) , 8 more TD runs, 1300+ yards, and 4.4 yards per carry.

Adrian Peterson has been in the league 3 seasons, and last year was a damn good season for any RB. Did anyone really think he was going to have close to 1800 yards again just because he had a QB who could throw the ball? ALl they did the year before was hand to him on every down. Ask LT what that is like - his best years were when he got the ball all the time, and it wore him down. Keep in mind, AP also increased his catches by 22 and passing yards by 300, which all then makes up for any loss in rushing yards.

So, AP went to being a goat? really? Last I checked, he was still one of the best players in the NFL last season. He can't help it that his QB put up MVP numbers so his didn't look as impressive, even though they really were impressive still. If grant had those numbers, would we even be talking about wanting another RB ever?

None taken. Go to footballsfuture.com Vikign board. There are more posts about Peterson's fumbles costing the game than Favre's interceptions. There are jokes on ESPN about Peterson "dropping" Favre's grandchild the way he dropped the ball in the playoff games where Favre is getting a free pass.

You've done nothing to refute my point. Players who were good with Favre are just as good or better before or after him (see Sharpe, Kieth Jackson, Rison, Donald Driver, Greg Jennings, Adrian Peterson, Ryan Grant, Coles, Cotchery). And whenever Favre retires, Rice will still be great. . .

The whole fantasy that many Packer fans had about Favre is just not supported by the facts.

He was fortunate to be on a team with ownership that from the top down, has put people in jobs that they can succeed at and has not meddled with football decisions. Because of that, they've had really good GM's that have veen able to do their jobs (Wolf, Thompson). They'll be good for many years after Brett just as they were good with him.

Favre's durability and accountability were both amazing. Those are individual accomplishments that can't be knocked. But to credit him for much of the Packers (or Vikings for that matter) success on offense, that's just not realistic. He was very lucky, the teams he was blessed to play on and has taken way more credit away from great players than one work-lunch post can bring light to.

Oh I am not arguing that all of the success favre and the packers/jets/vikings are on his shoulders squarly. However, despite the fact teh vikings were in the playoffs before #4 showed up, they won the division and got in at 9-7, lost in round one, and there wild card teams with better records. That was just a bad season for the NFC North. Traditionally good teams had bad years (bears, packers) and the vikings scraped their way to the top, pounding it all the time.

Favre shows up, has pretty much the same team as the year prior, and they are in the NFC Championship game, and won significantly more games. Now, is that all on favre? No. Many felt the vikings were an 11 win team, though based on the QB's they had and the aging team, outside of AP I am not sure how the hell they thought they were an 11 win team. But in any case, Favre's direct impact on the vikings was the first time I think in his career you got to see the single difference he made to an offense. Any time a guy comes in and performs at the QB position as an MVP (really, he had MVP numbers) it's really hard to argue he did not make that offense significantly better.

My argument, though, was not on Favre;s impact - it was on AP's #'s. 4.4 yards a carry is GOOD. Sure, it's low for him, but so what? The line play declined for their rushing game and AP was stuck trying to break tackles in the backfield (the statistics support this). Sure if grant got the 30 more carries he needed to catch AP, his numbers would be identical.

But I am not sure it's really a negative thing. I think what you saw from AP is what you will see anytime he is in a passing offense. You certaintly will never except a colts RB to ever get 1700+ yards when Peyton is there. You just do get the numbers with a pass first team. With the titans... run run run run run, look at that 2k.

He did "negatively" affect AP in terms of numbers simply because AP wasn't the focal point of the offense. Overall though, Favre made the vikings a significantly better football team. It's really hard to argue against that point. If you want to talk career...

You're right, in GB things were not always true. He didn't "make" WR's per say, but he sure helped some. Corey Bradford? He was a decent name in GB, career gone after leaving. Billy Schreoder? Same thing. Freeman? Same thing. It was based on the fact that some mediocre WR's played for GB and had some pretty darn good seasons, but after leaving they pretty much played themselves out of the league.

Not every WR was made by Favre. Sterling Sharpe was already a stud, and I am pretty Positive Robert Brooks was just one hell of a player. Likewise, Donald Driver is just a great WR. Favre didn't make him, Driver is just that good. That doesn't mean he didn't give average WR's really good seasons.

Rice sure looks like he is hear to stay for the vikings, and you don't really know if he was just bad before or always was good and never had a real QB. In either case, the vikings last season were way better with Favre then without.

We were a better team for 16 seasons with favre then without. Is he the sole guy? No, it's a team game. But QB's are the focal points of an offense.

[ThunderDan]

I appreciated what BF did for the Packers but there were a number of NFL QBs who got traded because of BF's endurance.

Brunnel, Hasselbeck and Brooks. Who knows what they would have done in GB?

[packerbacker1234]

I appreciated what BF did for the Packers but there were a number of NFL QBs who got traded because of BF's endurance.

Brunnel, Hasselbeck and Brooks. Who knows what they would have done in GB?

Hasselback you have a good gage fore - as he was starter after he left and is still a starter today. He is a decent QB. Not great, and I am not sure I would be asking him to win a SB for you.

The others are sort of meh for what we can say. It's a lot of what ifs. But durability aside, Favre did have to continue to play well to keep his job, and he did play well. He just had that tendacy to blow it in the playoffs... sort of like McNabb... except were not philly so we don't chase QB's out.

[RashanGary]

And the Jets were better without Favre than with. You're choosing to believe what you want to believe and dismiss the rest.

[RashanGary]

My read is that the Packers are better without him than with. I believe that becaue the way Rodgers played in the 2nd half of last year is better than I remember Brett Favre ever playing.

Time will tell though. We need that championship.

Favre's a good QB though, and his durability and longevity are amazing. I'm certainly not arguing that. My view is that he's not as good as you think and the Packers will be just fine without him. I've felt that way for some time, before he left even. I've just seen too many QB's as good or better to think he's not replacable.

[packerbacker1234]

My read is that the Packers are better without him than with. I believe that becaue the way Rodgers played in the 2nd half of last year is better than I remember Brett Favre ever playing.

Time will tell though. We need that championship.

Today they are, I am just talking over the course of his career in GB - we could of been the packers... or we could of been the lions, bears, etc.

We were stable. I think today's team is better without, but 5 years ago? meh.

[RashanGary]

There are just too many QB's I've seen that were as good or better than Favre. I just don't buy his hype. I think he's had a very overrated career. Just not a champion other than the year the D and ST's were #1. There have been a handful of mediocre QB's to win championships with teams like that and Favre has been on too many really good teams to not win more if he was as good as some of his clippings.

[packerbacker1234]

There are just too many QB's I've seen that were as good or better than Favre. I just don't buy his hype. I think he's had a very overrated career. Just not a champion other than the year the D and ST's were #1. There have been a handful of mediocre teams to win championships with teams like that and Favre has been on too many really good teams to not win more if he was as good as some of his clippings.

And Peyton Manning didn't win a SB till his defense became the best playoff defense in the entire playoffs that year and his RB's combined for 250 yards as peyton tried his best to hand the game to Sexy Rexy.

I'm just saying, no QB wins the SB on his own. If Peyton is the best... good luck arguing he won that SB that year.

[RashanGary]

I think Peyton is better than Favre ever was, but that's just one guys opinion.

We disagree. I don't know if I've had this conversatin with you, but I've had it with others. It ends the same way, nobody changes their mind.

I understand your opinion. You might be right. It's going to take time to see how much that guy is missed. I'm guessing not much at all.

[get louder at lambeau]

He didn't "make" WR's per say, but he sure helped some. Corey Bradford? He was a decent name in GB, career gone after leaving. Billy Schreoder? Same thing. Freeman? Same thing. It was based on the fact that some mediocre WR's played for GB and had some pretty darn good seasons, but after leaving they pretty much played themselves out of the league.

Corey Bradford actually got slightly BETTER after he left with David Carr throwing at him. He played four years for Houston, then one for Detroit. Favre didn't make him by any stretch of the imagination.

Bill Schroeder was 31 before he left for Detroit. His stats went down, but he was well past his prime and playing on a 3-13 Matt Millen run Lions team and being thrown at by a rookie Joey Harrington. Not sure that says too much.

Antonio Freeman was 30 before he ever saw the field for another team, and he went from being a 16 game starter in GB to starting only one game in Philly, yet his production didn't fall much at all, with only 6 fewer receptions. He came back to GB ( and Faver) the next year, and that's when his production really went to shit.

So to sum up, Faver didn't make any of those guys. They were who they were. In GB, people find it hard to believe that it wasn't the miracle work of their legendary QB, but it wasn't. He didn't walk on water either. He's just an amazingly durable QB who had some great seasons and some pretty average seasons.

[RashanGary]

Nice post, Louder@Lambeau. . .

I get too lazy to look some of this stuff up. I'm not a Favre hater, really not at all, but when everyone around him gets put down to make everyone udnerstand just how wonderful he was, I just don't by it.

Favre played on some really good teams. He was a darn good QB and played in every game for almost 20 years so he has stats. He deserves credit for a fanstastic career.

He doesn't deserve the credit for the great players that played with him and I think all of those who said we were going to suffer without him are going to realize how little he meant to the big picture.

The Packers have a good situation with a good GM. They're going to be competitors year in adn year about because of that. Without Mark Murphy picking up where Harlan left off and staying true to Harlan's philosophies on football, none of it would be possible. I respect a lot of the things Favre did on the field, but not as much as I respect what Harlan did for this organization. He is the guy who changed it and he's the main reason why it was good through the 90's, 2000's and the way he left it, even through the 2010's. Until the attitude changes at the top, the Packers will be good. It starts up there. Some people just accidently credited one player with something much bigger. I get annoyed when people talk about how wonderful our country is, like we're somehow better than other people. But with the Packers, the way they're run at the top, I think they are better than most NFL teams and that's why they win.

[get louder at lambeau]

So anyway, how bout them Packers?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rice > Jennings IMO
Driver > Barrian IMO
Harvin > Jones IMO
Shiancoe last year > super young Finley although Finley has flashed signs of near future greatness.

I'd give Jennings at least a wash with Rice. I was amazed at how much Rice was single covered last year--even after showing he was ready to break out. The Baltimore game stands out as a prime example when the Ravens tried to cover Rice one-on-one with Frank Walker. Having Favre, Peterson, Harvin, and Berrian as a deep threat opened things up for Rice to get one-on-one coverage.

I'd agree with Driver and Harvin. Finley actually had better numbers than Shiancoe--when you consider he played 3 fewer games (closer to 4).

Shiancoe = 56 catches, 566 yards, 10.1 in 16 games (I don't put much credence in his TD catches; not one came outside the redzone; he was very Bubba-like in his TD catches)

Finley = 55 catches, 676 yards, 12.3 in basically 12 games