Tweet
While I don't usually pay much attention to dead-season fluff Top-whatever lists, I find it interesting that in PFT's 26-100 on their list (with 1-25 revealed next Monday), not a single Packer has made it. Somehow, that doesn't seem even close to accurate.
-
No longer the member of any fan clubs. I'm tired of jinxing players out of the league and into obscurity. -
Ya, either we're going to see a few Packers higher than originally expected, or they've marginalized and discounted them entirely.
Outside of the obvious 2 who will be in the top 25, I kind of think one or more of Nelson, Cobb, Finley, Raji and Twill should be top 100.--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations... -
I can't argue with no Packers from 26-100. A healthy Nelson yes, but last year he didn't do much. Finley, no way not consistent and drops too many balls. TWill, come on maybe in 2010. One could make an argument that maybe Jones and Raji could be in the 80s or 90s.
Cobb is the only guy that deserves the list besides Arod and CM3, I'd put him in the 70s.
Fact of the matter is that our two blue chippers is all we really need to consistently be competitive. The Bears have like 6 on the list already, but Quitler is never going to take them to a title. Our 2 top 25ers are the difference between us and the KC Chiefs (they have way more pro-bowlers, but no "it" guys)."In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey."Comment
-
I'd include in the Top 100, but maybe not the Top 25:
Hayward
Sitton
Raji
(maybe) Burnett
(maybe) ShieldsNo longer the member of any fan clubs. I'm tired of jinxing players out of the league and into obscurity.Comment
-
lol, that sums up the list right there. You're right, the Bears have 6 guys on the list so far, and I wouldn't be shocked if they tossed Cutler on there yet. Let me check...yup, still not showing them in the playoffs last year.Originally posted by packer4life View Post
Vikings have one so far, and will probably only have one more, the Pack will likely also only have 2. Good job guys
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...Comment
-
I didn't double check the list, but I don't think the list has many guards involved. They have skewed to a lot of offensive specialists with DL/OLB and offensive tackles littered about. I thought about Sitton, but he is not top 5 in NFL in guard play. He would make the top 10 IMHO. I wouldn't put him on.
I think Hayward is deserving. He'll be on there next year.
Originally posted by Smidgeon View Post"In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey."Comment
-
There are a few guards - I noticed Evans, Mankins and Nicks on there, didn't look for more.Originally posted by packer4life View Post--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...Comment
-
Do you think Sitton was at their level last year...tough to say. I know he won awards a few years back for being a stud, but I'm not sure his play stayed at such a high level the past few years.Originally posted by Guiness View Post"In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey."Comment
-
I think Sitton is top 100. I don't have much qualms about anybody else not making the list. Barring injury, Cobb will be on the list next year. My hope is that Bulaga, Jones, Perry, Burnett, etc. are on the list next year."There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
Looking at the players, I kind of agree...but how do you reconcile with the general consensus of various Power Ranking, not to mention results on the field? Do some here have to acknowledge that MM is getting more with less?Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers View Post
I guess mostly I think it's humorous that someone has a lot of love for the Bears. I like Tillman. Briggs, not so sure. The other 4 on the list, well...if they deserve to be there, they need to fire their coach again!--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...Comment
-
I don't think he's necessarily getting more with less. Not to take anything away from him. He's doing well, but the Packers are not devoid of talent. He has the best QB in the game. I believe Clay is one of the top 3-4 defensive players. Still probably underappreciated a bit around the league. That puts him at a major advantage. The rest of the roster is pretty well-rounded with the potential for several young players to take a step up to elite or near elite level in the next year or two. Not as well-rounded as San Fran, but they can hold their own against a majority of the league with Rodgers giving them a chance every year.Originally posted by Guiness View PostLooking at the players, I kind of agree...but how do you reconcile with the general consensus of various Power Ranking, not to mention results on the field? Do some here have to acknowledge that MM is getting more with less?"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
Top 100, on average that is only the top 4-5 at each position. Since some positions will be higher represented, at others you need to be among the top 3-4 to be considered. How many Packers have reached that level? Williams, Shields, Raji, Finley and others that have been mentioned don't really come close. I don't think Sitton has made it there either, but might be close.
So many Packers, like Cobb, are young and just earning their reputations. Unless they take the legue by storm, it takes a few years for this type of recognition.Comment
-
AJ hawk isn't on the list? This is an outrage!- Once again, adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.Comment
-
TOP whatever lists rely heavily on reputation, and a team that stays young and turns over like the Packers will have less of that name recognition.Comment
-
Keeping in mind you are old and forgetful...Originally posted by Cleft Crusty View PostAll tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.
George OrwellComment
Comment