2010 Super Bowl team - half gone

[rbaloha1]

The Packers won the SB, went 15-1 and 11-5 while changing 26 players.
The Seahawks went 7-9, 7-9 then 11-5 while changing 33 players.

I think it can be argued that Packers have actually been more aggressive in making changes than the Seahawks have been, when you consider that the Packers were working from the base of a roster that won the SB and then went 15-1 while the Seahawks were working from the base of a roster that went 7-9 and 7-9.

The Seahawks changed 33 players who accomplished nothing.
The Packers replaced 26 who won a SB and/or went 15-1.

Whatever the number is which I will not dispute the Packers are either making the wrong or not enough personnel changes. The lack of physicality needs to addressed more than in the past.

[George Cumby]

Whatever the number is which I will not dispute the Packers are either making the wrong or not enough personnel changes. The lack of physicality needs to addressed more than in the past.

Well, based on this, I would prefer that they emulate the Niners than the Seahawks, at least as far as aggressive, dominating mindset.

As far as SEA is concerned, how many teams make the playoffs one year and fail to make the playoffs the next? The percentage is around 40-50%, is it not?

We'll see if they make it next year. Russell needs to avoid his sophmore slump which will be easier said than done as opponents will have had an entire off-season of film study on him. He also needs to avoid getting maimed.

The Rams will be better, the Niners are built to contend, who knows about the cards. Plus, they won't be gifted a game every year. I would say that SEA's perpetual success is far from guaranteed.

[Patler]

Whatever the number is which I will not dispute the Packers are either making the wrong or not enough personnel changes. The lack of physicality needs to addressed more than in the past.

Nah, they just need a few better and smarter players, especially on defense.

[rbaloha1]

Well, based on this, I would prefer that they emulate the Niners than the Seahawks, at least as far as aggressive, dominating mindset.

As far as SEA is concerned, how many teams make the playoffs one year and fail to make the playoffs the next? The percentage is around 40-50%, is it not?

We'll see if they make it next year. Russell needs to avoid his sophmore slump which will be easier said than done as opponents will have had an entire off-season of film study on him. He also needs to avoid getting maimed.

The Rams will be better, the Niners are built to contend, who knows about the cards. Plus, they won't be gifted a game every year. I would say that SEA's perpetual success is far from guaranteed.

Even better. BTW THE seahawks and rams roster are constructed to beat the niners.

Watched the 4 games of the Rams and Seahawks vs. the niners -- both teams were nit intimadated and took it to the niners. Matched the niners bullying mentality. The Giants also matched the niners physicality.

IMO the Packers are not close to beating the niners.

[rbaloha1]

Nah, they just need a few better and smarter players, especially on defense.

So your turnover rate is under the NFL norm of 20 per cent?

[sharpe1027]

With the emergence of spread option/pistol, etc. requires changes on both sides of the ball -- i.e. higher roster changes than the previous monolithic NFL with majority of teams running wco offenses and high percentage of cover 2 defenses or 3-4.

Additional skill sets are required. Plus the cap is going up.

Plus how many new college coaches were hired? More roster changes.

Keep denying it and go masturbate.

Almost all of these same things happen every year. As for the spread option/pistol, its nothing new. Regardless, there's a new offensive wrinkle every couple years that takes a bit for defenses to catch up with.

For the most part, the Packer's defense didn't get out muscled by the Niners; they just blew their responsibilities and let a skinny, fast "finesse" QB run wild. Gore was contained most of the game.

[rbaloha1]

Almost all of these same things happen every year. As for the spread option/pistol, its nothing new. Regardless, there's a new offensive wrinkle every couple years that takes a bit for defenses to catch up with.

For the most part, the Packer's defense didn't get out muscled by the Niners; they just blew their responsibilities and let a skinny, fast "finesse" QB run wild. Gore was contained most of the game.

What are you watching? The spread/pistol is more widespread and according to Trent Dilfer a major change to NFL offenses.

Minimizing the 49ers success and downplaying the Packers deficiences is ridiculous. Gore was contained -- so what?

The front seven was not physically dominated by the niners -- are you deliousnal? Please go back to masturbating.

[run pMc]

It's a young man's game. Contracts expire, free agency happens. TT historically likes a younger roster. I'm not surprised by any of that.

Watched the 4 games of the Rams and Seahawks vs. the niners -- both teams were nit intimadated and took it to the niners. Matched the niners bullying mentality. The Giants also matched the niners physicality.

The Rams, Niners and Seahawks are also division rivals -- the Lions, Bears, and Vikings don't intimidate GB, and when they play it's often the kind of game where you can throw the record out the window.
Personally I think the Seahawks are a decent team who had something of a lucky season. A tougher schedule, an offseason for DC's to figure out how to stop Russell Wilson (keep him in the pocket, get your hands up to block vision and deflect passes), and another year of wear and tear on Lynch -- who really is the backbone of their offense -- could cause a regression to the mean.

That Farrar guy on Yahoo Sports drives me crazy because every other story he writes is about his hometown Seahawks. If he was a Redskins fan we'd be arguing about how great RGIII and Co. are.

Agree with another poster re: GB's roster vs. SEA's. They have some nice players but I'd take Rodgers and his WR corps over SEA's. They play a different defense so it's not so simple to compare.

I expect more turnover this offseason -- Off the top of my head, Saturday, Driver, Jennings, Woodson, Hawk, Finley, Zombo, Walden, Grant, Starks are all possible to be gone. (Saturday for sure lol.)

[rbaloha1]

It's a young man's game. Contracts expire, free agency happens. TT historically likes a younger roster. I'm not surprised by any of that.



The Rams, Niners and Seahawks are also division rivals -- the Lions, Bears, and Vikings don't intimidate GB, and when they play it's often the kind of game where you can throw the record out the window.
Personally I think the Seahawks are a decent team who had something of a lucky season. A tougher schedule, an offseason for DC's to figure out how to stop Russell Wilson (keep him in the pocket, get your hands up to block vision and deflect passes), and another year of wear and tear on Lynch -- who really is the backbone of their offense -- could cause a regression to the mean.

That Farrar guy on Yahoo Sports drives me crazy because every other story he writes is about his hometown Seahawks. If he was a Redskins fan we'd be arguing about how great RGIII and Co. are.

Agree with another poster re: GB's roster vs. SEA's. They have some nice players but I'd take Rodgers and his WR corps over SEA's. They play a different defense so it's not so simple to compare.

I expect more turnover this offseason -- Off the top of my head, Saturday, Driver, Jennings, Woodson, Hawk, Finley, Zombo, Walden, Grant, Starks are all possible to be gone. (Saturday for sure lol.)

Some valid points. You talk about taking the packers offensive personnel over the seattle offensive personnel -- different scheme. How can you compare?

The hawks also run a 3-4 defense and only an idiot would take the packer personnel over the hawks (yes, I am comparing). Plus the hawks have a better fg kicker.

[sharpe1027]

What are you watching? The spread/pistol is more widespread and according to Trent Dilfer a major change to NFL offenses.

Yes, it is more widespread, but it's been around for years.

Minimizing the 49ers success and downplaying the Packers deficiences is ridiculous. Gore was contained -- so what? The front seven was not physically dominated by the niners -- are you deliousnal?

For the most part, the Packer's front 7 did not get blown off the line and the 49ers were not successful running up the middle. Instead, they gashed the Packers on the edges with runs by a finesse QB.

Please go back to masturbating.

Who said I ever stopped?

[pbmax]

So your turnover rate is under the NFL norm of 20 per cent?

We deal with enough bad information information that being deliberately obtuse creates a real deterrent for most posters and readers. Patler posted just a few lines up that the Packer turnover from 11 to 12 was well above the percentage you give and he gave no indication that he thought the actual number was too high. In fact, take his statement about the defense and add offense and special teams changeover and you probably exceed the number you give by quite a bit.

And this doesn't even get into the problem with comparisons with both the Seahawks and 49ers. Both franchises were terrible for years and collected a slew of high draft position players. Take that base and graft on competent personnel and coaching people and you have the recipe for an overnight success.

The Packers have a roster more top heavy with established stars and recent drafts from a weaker position. The percentage of recent turnover will be quite different between an established team and the refurb franchises if you consider only starters and backups who play a lot of snaps.

Plus the cap is not going up much at all until after 2014. Estimates so far this year indicate the cap will rise less than a million per team next year; $400,000 in 2013 according to PFT.

[mraynrand]

Who said I ever stopped?

repped

[Guiness]

...obtuse...

repp'd for splendid use of this word!

[rbaloha1]

We deal with enough bad information information that being deliberately obtuse creates a real deterrent for most posters and readers. Patler posted just a few lines up that the Packer turnover from 11 to 12 was well above the percentage you give and he gave no indication that he thought the actual number was too high. In fact, take his statement about the defense and add offense and special teams changeover and you probably exceed the number you give by quite a bit.

And this doesn't even get into the problem with comparisons with both the Seahawks and 49ers. Both franchises were terrible for years and collected a slew of high draft position players. Take that base and graft on competent personnel and coaching people and you have the recipe for an overnight success.

The Packers have a roster more top heavy with established stars and recent drafts from a weaker position. The percentage of recent turnover will be quite different between an established team and the refurb franchises if you consider only starters and backups who play a lot of snaps.

Plus the cap is not going up much at all until after 2014. Estimates so far this year indicate the cap will rise less than a million per team next year; $400,000 in 2013 according to PFT.

Brah -- you are the leader of obtuse!

The 20 per cent was from the from the article started by our estemed thread starter.

The point mr. obtuse was the thread starter was stating this years roster only neded some minor defensive tweaking. I asked the simple question if his number was under 20 per cent -- get it. Maybe you should join others in masturbation.

Mr. obtuse -- what is your percentage for roster turnover for the upcoming season? My number is at a minimum of 50 per cent.

[rbaloha1]

Yes, it is more widespread, but it's been around for years.

When was the pistol invented? Who first ran it in the NFL?

For the most part, the Packer's front 7 did not get blown off the line and the 49ers were not successful running up the middle. Instead, they gashed the Packers on the edges with runs by a finesse QB.

Braddah do you wanna buy lava land?


Who said I ever stopped?

My bad -- keep going and keep posting.

Let me know when you climax.