Thompson gets a C- grade

[pbmax]

I started that whole "How is Marshawn Lynch" thread because it seemed to me that it had become conventional wisdom that this was a major mistake on Thompson's part.

I frankly don't understand. Patler posted the side-by-side numbers, and Jackson's are better, period. And for those who would argue that's because Green Bay's offensive run blocking is better than Buffalo/Seattle's, I say only this: yeah, right. The offensive line has kept Rodgers clean but as far as run blocking? We've been complaining about the inability of Clifton and Tauscher to make the backside cut block for as long as the zone scheme has been used in Green Bay. And watch the games - what chance did Jackson have against the Vikings or Jets (or anyone) when he got the ball moving right and there were clusters of players two and three yards behind the line of scrimmage as Jackson tried to get outside?

My only real complaints with Thompson are that he hasn't found Matthews's complement yet, and that he hasn't locked up Tramon Williams and Cullen Jenkins yet. And he's still got time to get those two re-signed.

I say B+, maybe A-.

As was pointed out in a recent article, Jackson's numbers are skewed. He has the one long run, an da meaningless 27 yarder before half when we were running the clock out. Outside of those two runs, Jackson is averging a pretty pedestrian number on his carries. He has looked good at times, which I think most of that is credited to catching the defense off guard, more than him being good.

All running back numbers are skewed the exact same way.

Find me a chart that lists the running backs by median yardage or with the longest and shortest gains removed, then call me. 27 yards at the end of the half is pretty good, if you ask me. Because even if that one first down is not enough to run the clock, you have just won the field position battle for that exchange of possessions.

But in terms of game outcomes, those long runs, even if surrounded by lots of mediocrity still have value that the writer is essentially ignoring. Could a steadier back with more down to down production be better? Sure, but the writer employs no effort to determine how much better they would need to be nor to determine if Marshawn Lynch is that back.

[pbmax]

And I will defend the O line. Their protection this year has been good. Rodgers has been hit and sacked more than ideal, but he can be his own worst enemy in both areas. Other teams have had to send numbers to get him in most cases.

In years past, save last year when injuries exposed the backup tackles, the O line has been average and suffered in comparison to other facets of the offense.

This year, they might be the most effective unit. And their play is above average overall. As retailguy will tell you, they started slow again, but after injuries to Clifton, Tauscher and Colledge, they have really regained their form.

[pbmax]

the jes were very aggressive in the offseasn. they had 21 of 22 starters healthy. they were off a bye week. they were at home. which gm won the game again??

Pretty seleictive reasoning that can go the other way

The Bears were aggressive in free agency when both squads were relative healthy; which gm won that game ?

And I'm not arguing the Bears have anything special at GM

Better question: Who's roster would you take?

Right now ?

The Jets

Does right now include injuries? Then I might be hard pressed to argue.

But overall healthy, I'll take the Packers and pound you for four years.

[Bretsky]

the jes were very aggressive in the offseasn. they had 21 of 22 starters healthy. they were off a bye week. they were at home. which gm won the game again??

Pretty seleictive reasoning that can go the other way

The Bears were aggressive in free agency when both squads were relative healthy; which gm won that game ?

And I'm not arguing the Bears have anything special at GM

Better question: Who's roster would you take?

Right now ?

The Jets

Does right now include injuries? Then I might be hard pressed to argue.

But overall healthy, I'll take the Packers and pound you for four years.

Overall...healthy....I'd probably take the Pack but that Jets team is really good if you put age aside. They are close

Not many can hold the jock strap of that OL so they rarely get pounded

[pbmax]

the jes were very aggressive in the offseasn. they had 21 of 22 starters healthy. they were off a bye week. they were at home. which gm won the game again??

Pretty seleictive reasoning that can go the other way

The Bears were aggressive in free agency when both squads were relative healthy; which gm won that game ?

And I'm not arguing the Bears have anything special at GM

Better question: Who's roster would you take?

Right now ?

The Jets

Does right now include injuries? Then I might be hard pressed to argue.

But overall healthy, I'll take the Packers and pound you for four years.

Overall...healthy....I'd probably take the Pack but that Jets team is really good if you put age aside. They are close

Not many can hold the jock strap of that OL so they rarely get pounded

The Jets are in some ways, tailor made for the Packers to defeat. On offense, anyway. The Packers have enough size to neutralize, if not win the trench battle. Sanchez cannot take full advantage of coverage shortfalls and the running game versus the current Packer front seven will not break a game open. Which means the game turns on Sanchez and limiting turnovers.

A team that can run like that and pass better would expose the lack of pass rush (outside of Matthews) or coverage on TEs.

[ThunderDan]

I started that whole "How is Marshawn Lynch" thread because it seemed to me that it had become conventional wisdom that this was a major mistake on Thompson's part.

I frankly don't understand. Patler posted the side-by-side numbers, and Jackson's are better, period. And for those who would argue that's because Green Bay's offensive run blocking is better than Buffalo/Seattle's, I say only this: yeah, right. The offensive line has kept Rodgers clean but as far as run blocking? We've been complaining about the inability of Clifton and Tauscher to make the backside cut block for as long as the zone scheme has been used in Green Bay. And watch the games - what chance did Jackson have against the Vikings or Jets (or anyone) when he got the ball moving right and there were clusters of players two and three yards behind the line of scrimmage as Jackson tried to get outside?

My only real complaints with Thompson are that he hasn't found Matthews's complement yet, and that he hasn't locked up Tramon Williams and Cullen Jenkins yet. And he's still got time to get those two re-signed.

I say B+, maybe A-.

As was pointed out in a recent article, Jackson's numbers are skewed. He has the one long run, an da meaningless 27 yarder before half when we were running the clock out. Outside of those two runs, Jackson is averging a pretty pedestrian number on his carries. He has looked good at times, which I think most of that is credited to catching the defense off guard, more than him being good.

Seriously, Jackson's numbers are skewed and every running back in the NFLs aren't?

Let's look at M Lynch

87 rushes for 304 yards or 3.5 ypc.
Get rid of his 39 yard run and 86 for 265 or just under 3.1 ypc
Get rid of his best 5 rushes for the year and he is 82 for 207 or 2.5 ypc

I thought we wanted explosive RB who could score long TDs. It sure looks like M Lynch ain't that guy just like BJack isn't that guy.

[mmmdk]

the jes were very aggressive in the offseasn. they had 21 of 22 starters healthy. they were off a bye week. they were at home. which gm won the game again??

Pretty seleictive reasoning that can go the other way

The Bears were aggressive in free agency when both squads were relative healthy; which gm won that game ?

And I'm not arguing the Bears have anything special at GM

Better question: Who's roster would you take?

Right now ?

The Jets

What????

Saints, Colts, Ravens & Steelers...even Pats & Giants. I'd even say a healthy Packers roster over Jets. Lastly, Chargers team is such underachievers with their talent - gotta be the coach though I like Turner but he's not getting it done. It should be Chargers > Jets but it ain't so. Jets is borderline top 5 roster though.

[Tony Oday]

Writers are pissed because TT doesnt make a splash.

OL is suspect? Do you watch the Packers games or just a game cast on the internet? We have one old guy on he line and the rest of the guys are either real young or in their prime.

RB depth?! What was TT supposed to replace a guy that goes over 1000 yards and doesnt fumble? That makes NO sense.

What did he do wrong in the offseason? seriously tell me one thing. Marshawn Lynch is a nice name and I would have been onboard with it but really its not like he is AP or CJ.

TT added depth behind Finley in the draft because Finley hasnt made it through a year yet.

Neal was drafted because Jolly like da purple drank.

He gets an A-

[Fritz]

I started that whole "How is Marshawn Lynch" thread because it seemed to me that it had become conventional wisdom that this was a major mistake on Thompson's part.

I frankly don't understand. Patler posted the side-by-side numbers, and Jackson's are better, period. And for those who would argue that's because Green Bay's offensive run blocking is better than Buffalo/Seattle's, I say only this: yeah, right. The offensive line has kept Rodgers clean but as far as run blocking? We've been complaining about the inability of Clifton and Tauscher to make the backside cut block for as long as the zone scheme has been used in Green Bay. And watch the games - what chance did Jackson have against the Vikings or Jets (or anyone) when he got the ball moving right and there were clusters of players two and three yards behind the line of scrimmage as Jackson tried to get outside?

My only real complaints with Thompson are that he hasn't found Matthews's complement yet, and that he hasn't locked up Tramon Williams and Cullen Jenkins yet. And he's still got time to get those two re-signed.

I say B+, maybe A-.

As was pointed out in a recent article, Jackson's numbers are skewed. He has the one long run, an da meaningless 27 yarder before half when we were running the clock out. Outside of those two runs, Jackson is averging a pretty pedestrian number on his carries. He has looked good at times, which I think most of that is credited to catching the defense off guard, more than him being good.

Seriously, Jackson's numbers are skewed and every running back in the NFLs aren't?

Let's look at M Lynch

87 rushes for 304 yards or 3.5 ypc.
Get rid of his 39 yard run and 86 for 265 or just under 3.1 ypc
Get rid of his best 5 rushes for the year and he is 82 for 207 or 2.5 ypc

I thought we wanted explosive RB who could score long TDs. It sure looks like M Lynch ain't that guy just like BJack isn't that guy.

Thank you, Dan. You just saved me from going back and looking up Lynch's longest run, so I could reduce his numbers just as 1234 did with Jackson.

[Bretsky]

the jes were very aggressive in the offseasn. they had 21 of 22 starters healthy. they were off a bye week. they were at home. which gm won the game again??

Pretty seleictive reasoning that can go the other way

The Bears were aggressive in free agency when both squads were relative healthy; which gm won that game ?

And I'm not arguing the Bears have anything special at GM

Better question: Who's roster would you take?

Right now ?

The Jets

What????

Saints, Colts, Ravens & Steelers...even Pats & Giants. I'd even say a healthy Packers roster over Jets. Lastly, Chargers team is such underachievers with their talent - gotta be the coach though I like Turner but he's not getting it done. It should be Chargers > Jets but it ain't so. Jets is borderline top 5 roster though.

Perhaps you missed the content of the first few posts; we were looking at the Packers, Bears, and Jets

We were not doing a power ranking thread of the best rosters of the NFL

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Jets

Pre or post injuries? When healthy, I'd take our roster. The biggest reason? Aaron Rodgers is MUCH better than Mark Sanchez. I don't buy the hype on the Jets. (Don't get me wrong, they are a good team, but not the juggernaut they are made out to be.) I think the Steelers win the AFC.

[Bretsky]

The Jets

Pre or post injuries? When healthy, I'd take our roster. The biggest reason? Aaron Rodgers is MUCH better than Mark Sanchez. I don't buy the hype on the Jets. (Don't get me wrong, they are a good team, but not the juggernaut they are made out to be.) I think the Steelers win the AFC.

The question I answered was not
Healthy I'd also noted I'd take the Pack but it is close

Agree about the Steelers; man does a healthy TP put all the pieced of that D together

[Patler]

The fact of the matter is TT still hasn't gotten any depth behind our starting Long Snapper.

I know you are kidding, but the funny thing is, TT did have depth at long snapper! In the 2009 off season, JJ Jansen, who TT signed out of college the year before, was still on the Packers roster. He had spent 2008 on IR. TT traded Jansen to Carolina, where he has been their long snapper ever since. How many GMs have signed a long snapper as an undrafted free agent, then traded him for a draft pick?

[Fritz]

And then he traded our depth?? Damn TT, damn him!

I change that grade to a "D-"

[retailguy]

And I will defend the O line. Their protection this year has been good. Rodgers has been hit and sacked more than ideal, but he can be his own worst enemy in both areas. Other teams have had to send numbers to get him in most cases.

In years past, save last year when injuries exposed the backup tackles, the O line has been average and suffered in comparison to other facets of the offense.

This year, they might be the most effective unit. And their play is above average overall. As retailguy will tell you, they started slow again, but after injuries to Clifton, Tauscher and Colledge, they have really regained their form.

Yep, retailguy will tell you. Overall the OL is better this year. Even I have to admit that. However, they're still only average, and we've spent way too much development time and way too many draft choices to be "average".

But, I'll take it because it damn sure beats the alternative, which is what we experienced the past 3 seasons. They are beginning to at least play consistently, and for this group that's a huge advantage. Sitton is a stud, Colledge is almost serviceable, Wells is what he's always been a blue collar lunch pail guy, Taush is done, but good depth at this point, Cliffy is falling into retirement gracefully, Bulaga looks like a stud, and Patler is right, Lang is completely unknown at this point.

Lots of Ted love in here which is to be expected. We all know where I am on my favorite Tedster, but I wouldn't give him a C- either. I would give him a B-, and I'd think about upping that to a B if the team can keep playing strong down the stretch.

I don't understand those grades of A-, they are really bewildering to me. There is more to a GM than drafting ability. I'll say that Ted might just be the best evaluator of college talent in the NFL, if not, you could not make a serious argument for less than top 5.

The rest of the job? He's pedestrian at best. His ability to evaluate coaching talent is mediocre. His ability to handle the media is below mediocre. He consistently undervalues the contributions that non rookie free agents and non Packer veterans can make to a squad. Today, I understand that he has decided he can build a talented veteran squad over a period of time, and that is still a work in progress. We won't know for another year or so. We'll see. He doesn't come close to sniffing an "A" of any type until this team wins a playoff game.

But today, I'll stand strong on a b-, and you might even argue well enough that I'd give a b. Nothing you could say will get me into A- territory. Put down the kool-aid, you've had enough.

FWIW, I don't think the "evaluation" by the Press Gazette was that unfair, and I understand it considering his relationship or lack thereof with any person who even thinks about wearing a media badge. Whether he likes it or not, it is a part of his job, and the single biggest area he needs to improve.