2010 Super Bowl team - half gone

[Patler]

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

I couldn't care less what the percentage is this year. The goal is to get better, not meet some artificial level of change. It could be quite high this year because quite a few will be gone for sure (Driver, Saturday, Grant, probably Jennings, etc.) and quite a few depending on what replacements can be found (Starks, DJ Williams, Taylor, Zombo, Walden, Jones, Kuhn, Green, etc.) If they draft a guy like Tyler Eifert like some are predicting, Finley could be gone too. Woodson in 2013 or '14.

Harrell will likely be replaced by Coleman or someone else. Does anyone care? That will add about 2% to the rate of change.

Barclay most likely will be on the 53 man roster to start 2013. He wasn't to start 2012. Is that another almost 2% change or not? What if VanRoten makesthe opening roster, is that another almost 2%?

Will Worthy be ready for 2013? Another 2%?

If Bishop is back, is that another 2% change because he wasn't on the opening day roster in 2012? Quarless too?

[Bossman641]

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.

WRONG

[Bossman641]

I certainly think the Seahawks are a team on the rise; but they had the advantage of the Fail Mary game and also only lost 11 games to starters all year (0 starters on IR). Let's give them a year or 2 of other franchises picking through their personnel/coaching departments and regression towards the mean with injury luck before we start declaring they have beaten the system.

[rbaloha1]

WRONG

you are correct. pc ran a 3-4 in college but runs a hybird 4-3.

Nonetheless their overall defensive personnel is far superior to the packers and can control spread option unlike the packers (no joe webb does not count)

[rbaloha1]

I couldn't care less what the percentage is this year. The goal is to get better, not meet some artificial level of change. It could be quite high this year because quite a few will be gone for sure (Driver, Saturday, Grant, probably Jennings, etc.) and quite a few depending on what replacements can be found (Starks, DJ Williams, Taylor, Zombo, Walden, Jones, Kuhn, Green, etc.) If they draft a guy like Tyler Eifert like some are predicting, Finley could be gone too. Woodson in 2013 or '14.

Harrell will likely be replaced by Coleman or someone else. Does anyone care? That will add about 2% to the rate of change.

Barclay most likely will be on the 53 man roster to start 2013. He wasn't to start 2012. Is that another almost 2% change or not? What if VanRoten makesthe opening roster, is that another almost 2%?

Will Worthy be ready for 2013? Another 2%?

If Bishop is back, is that another 2% change because he wasn't on the opening day roster in 2012? Quarless too?

Only requested a number due to the number of anal retentive rats who hide behind meaningless stats.

Change of the sake of change is not good.

Again the Packers alarmingly lack of physicality must be addressed strongly and not by oxygen tents.

[rbaloha1]

I certainly think the Seahawks are a team on the rise; but they had the advantage of the Fail Mary game and also only lost 11 games to starters all year (0 starters on IR). Let's give them a year or 2 of other franchises picking through their personnel/coaching departments and regression towards the mean with injury luck before we start declaring they have beaten the system.

Overthinking.

It is not about beating the system -- it is about acquiring the right players.

[Pugger]

I am not asking the what if? Why did the seachickens dominate the niners late in the season while the packers were blown out?

Because they have more talent on D and were healthier than us. Would the divisional playoff game had been different if we still had all of our guys AND played the game in GB? We'll never know.

[rbaloha1]

Because they have more talent on D and were healthier than us. Would the divisional playoff game had been different if we still had all of our guys AND played the game in GB? We'll never know.

Would the Packers at full strength beat the niners?

[rbaloha1]

Because they have more talent on D and were healthier than us. Would the divisional playoff game had been different if we still had all of our guys AND played the game in GB? We'll never know.

Why do the seahawks have more defensive talent than the packers?

Did TT screw-up by not getting Lynch?

[Bossman641]

Overthinking.

It is not about beating the system -- it is about acquiring the right players.

You are jumping all over the place. First you said the Packers needed a complete overhaul (75% like the Seahawks). Then you said the Packers didn't need to meet some arbitrary roster turnover number but instead just needed to acquire better players. Gee, better players, somebody pass this nugget on to TT quick.

BTW the Seahawks blew up their roster because they had new GM, coach, and schemes. It's no different than when TT cleaned house when he first got here.

[Patler]

The hawks are the MODERN example of how to construct a team with huge changes and be competitive instantly. The old cliches about taking 3 -5 years to build no longer fit just like rookie qbs can not start in the NFL and the option could never work in the NFL are done.

The hawks with Schneider started the major overhaul over the last 2 years.

Wasn't 2012 Schneider's third season in Seattle? Didn't they fall nicely into the old cliche of 3-5 years? In fact, I believe Schneider went crazy in the 2010 off season signing and releasing many, many FAs. I think he made a bunch of trades with draft picks and players to acquire other players and more draft picks.


I don't think their ascendency to respectability was as sudden as you are implying.

[mraynrand]

Why do the seahawks have more defensive talent than the packers?

Why do the seahawks have less offensive talent than the packers?

[Pugger]

Would the Packers at full strength beat the niners?

Maybe. Would having Perry, Bishop and Worthy in there been able to contain Kaep and Gore? If we were at full strength this past season like they were that playoff game might have been in GB. When we lost to SF the first game of the season we had a lot of kids trying to figure it all out. I contend right now we only need to upgrade a handful of positions:

DE
ILB
S
RB

OT is another question mark because we don't know the status of Sherrod and Bulaga. If these two can return and play like the first round picks that they were our offense will be much better than it was in 2012 and that could give a lot of DCs sleepless nights.

I'm wondering about this read/option offense and its long term future. Once these QBs like Kaep, RG3 and Wilson get hammered enough I think their coaches will not be so keen on putting them in these situations as often.

[mraynrand]

Would the Packers at full strength beat the niners?

they certainly could. Would the Niners be at "full strength" too? It depends on turnovers. I'm guessing the team that scored the most points would win - which is almost always true, except when playing at Seattle.

[rbaloha1]

Maybe. Would having Perry, Bishop and Worthy in there been able to contain Kaep and Gore? If we were at full strength this past season like they were that playoff game might have been in GB. When we lost to SF the first game of the season we had a lot of kids trying to figure it all out. I contend right now we only need to upgrade a handful of positions:

DE
ILB
S
RB

OT is another question mark because we don't know the status of Sherrod and Bulaga. If these two can return and play like the first round picks that they were our offense will be much better than it was in 2012 and that could give a lot of DCs sleepless nights.

I'm wondering about this read/option offense and its long term future. Once these QBs like Kaep, RG3 and Wilson get hammered enough I think their coaches will not be so keen on putting them in these situations as often.

Spread option imo is an added dimension but do not expect a full blown shift.

Just the threat or the formation causes slight hesitation with de/olb resulting in big plays.

RG3 is the only spread option qb that fails to avoid the big hits. He will learn to avoid the hits and become a big time player.