ESPN INSIDER : Packers camp preview

[Freak Out]

Did one of you have to pay for that? Do people actually sign up for insider stuff at ESPN? For any Packer fan that has been living on the grid for the last few months there is nothing new there. Does Gary Horton get paid good money to write this stuff? Many posters here do better than that daily!

Thank you Packer Rats and all the knowledgeable posters here!

[packers11]

No I don't pay for it, my friends all use this one account...

[BallHawk]

Re: ESPN INSIDER : Packers camp preview

Place-kicker Dave Rayner has a strong leg but is inconsistent beyond 30 yards. He will need to be better on his longer attempts and late in the season when the weather is a factor.

Typical ESPN thing, look at the stats and that's the final word. Don't take into account any of the other factors.

Ok, coming into December, Rayner was 11-12 from 20-29, 4-4 from 30-39, 4-6 from 40-49, and 1-3 from 50+. His statistics are skewed in the 30-39 category because he missed two kicks in the game in December against Minnesota, and the field was a mess in that game. Any kicker would of had trouble kicking in that weather Yet, he still went on to kick a 38 yarder, a 44 yarder, and another 44 yarder to win the game. He finished the month kicking 4-5 from 40-49 yards. Also, back in October, he kicked two long kicks including one that would of set the Packer record, but they were brought back on an idiotic penalty rule.

Is Rayner perfect? No. But he's better then the writer implies.

[Freak Out]

No I don't pay for it, my friends all use this one account...

Sweet......I appreciate the paste but am always surprised that they actually charge for most of that stuff.

[RashanGary]

You guys take ESPN and all national writers way too seriously. They cover 32 freaking teams. I'll bet that guy blows every one of us out of the water on 31 of the 32 teams with knowledge and we beat him with one team, our team. That artical probably wasn't meant for us as much as it was for those who don't spend countless hours brainstorming every team issue with dozens of fanatics just like ourslelves online. Maybe someone who is a Lion fan learned something. Maybe a Patriots fan picked something up. Bottom line, I agree with the poster above that it was in the ball park as far as accuracy. Our news is right from the horses mouth, we don't read the artical, we listen to the video at Packers.com and put it together for ourselves after talking about it and refining our thoughts with many others who provide valuable insight. It's nto fair to criticize them the way we do IMO or at least it's nto put in proper perspective.

[Packnut]

Horton

You guys take ESPN and all national writers way too seriously. They cover 32 freaking teams. I'll bet that guy blows every one of us out of the water on 31 of the 32 teams with knowledge and we beat him with one team, our team. That artical probably wasn't meant for us as much as it was for those who don't spend countless hours brainstorming every team issue with dozens of fanatics just like ourslelves online. Maybe someone who is a Lion fan learned something. Maybe a Patriots fan picked something up. Bottom line, I agree with the poster above that it was in the ball park as far as accuracy. Our news is right from the horses mouth, we don't read the artical, we listen to the video at Packers.com and put it together for ourselves after talking about it and refining our thoughts with many others who provide valuable insight. It's nto fair to criticize them the way we do IMO or at least it's nto put in proper perspective.

Well he may blow you out of the water as far as the other 31 teams but don't speak for anyone else. There are several of us who play some serious fantasy football and some of us who bet on games. You don't do either well if you don't know what's going on with EVERY team. .......

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

You seem stuck on where they were drafted, I'm talking about production and projection. Hell, I'll buy ya a beer I'm not worried about losing a bet. I sure would hope for your sake Jackson out produces Rice. He's likely gonna be the #1 guy if he can handle it and RB's have a FAR easier time than WR's making an impact. Rice will probably be a #3 reciever but should get on the field alot. Is he an upgrade over what he's replacing? I think so, but we'll have to see. Is Jackson and Jones and upgrade over Green and your last years #3 WR? One could argue not since we haven't seen them yet and can only base what we've seen in college. Also, keep in mind the point of my posts, that Horton has a valid argument, I'm not even saying he's right.

Still don't get it.

Wow, I honestly didn't think this was all that complicated.

What factors do we look at when discussing rookies?

big/small school
college production
round taken
round projected


What's so hard about that? I point out 2 of those could be used to support the guys argument. I'm guessing you'd understand my point if you wanted to. It's rather simple at it's heart.

Rastak is saying that the author has the right to claim that the players we drafted on offense are not upgrades because of the players they are replacing and also based on the round they were drafted. For example, Jackson can't be considered an upgrade because he's replacing a good back in Green and also because he wasn’t a high rated back in the draft and is not expected to do much in his rookie year. He's saying that they very well could turn out to be upgrades over the former players at their position but as of right NOW they really aren’t upgrades.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wow, I honestly didn't think this was all that complicated.

What factors do we look at when discussing rookies?

big/small school
college production
round taken
round projected

What's so hard about that? I point out 2 of those could be used to support the guys argument. I'm guessing you'd understand my point if you wanted to. It's rather simple at it's heart.

Seems silly. Jackson went to Nebraska. They had a rotation. He broke out of that rotation last year. I don't think they took him over "more productive" RBs (e.g. Garrett Wolfe) thinking that it would take him longer to produce because he wasn't the star at Nebraska until late in his career. Counter-example is Sidney Rice. The guy was productive at South Carolina. A school in the SEC. He was taken in round 2, but sounds like he's pretty raw. I don't consider the round they were projected in (Greg Jennings, Nick Collins) or the small school thing (Jennings, Nick Collins and Rashean Mathis). Not when you are talking about guys taken in the first couple of rounds. Maybe a guy like Donald Driver--that was taken in round 7. You spend a second round pick on a guy, you expect him to produce. I'm not saying he will kick ass, but it's not like they ignored RB and WR. TE, on the other hand, they pretty much completely ignored--which is the biggest failure of this offseason IMHO.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rastak is saying that the author has the right to claim that the players we drafted on offense are not upgrades because of the players they are replacing and also based on the round they were drafted. For example, Jackson can't be considered an upgrade because he's replacing a good back in Green and also because he wasn’t a high rated back in the draft and is not expected to do much in his rookie year. He's saying that they very well could turn out to be upgrades over the former players at their position but as of right NOW they really aren’t upgrades.

Which is one of my points, and it's silly. I stated that you could say that the Vikings only upgraded one position this offseason--RB. Adrian Peterson was a high pick. Since RB was a position of strength for the Vikings (Chester Taylor), then perhaps even that wouldn't be considered an upgrade by this author. They didn't sign any notable FAs (Bobby Wade and Visanthe Shiancoe don't count as notable FAs), and apparently second and third round picks aren't considered an upgrade. He came back arguing that Rice would be considered an upgrade because of his productivity at South Carolina--while Jackson (because of his lesser productivity) and Jones (because he played at a small school) might not be. I think that's just silly. The Packers took Jackson thinking he'll produce early on. Otherwise, they wouldn't have taken him in round 2.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Once the Packers lost Green, who would have been considered an upgrade? Adrian Peterson? No chance of getting him. Marshawn Lynch? Little chance of getting him. Dominic Rhodes? Ummm... no.

[Rastak]

No, I do agree they didn't ignore it. It is kinda unusual for a guy to take so long to become a starter. That having been said word on the street is that
he'll do well in the ZBS so he may do quite well.

He just didn't play alot until his senior year. As for Rice, we'll have to see how his game translates to the pro game. I've heard he did look a little raw in the first minicamp but his route running started to improve greatly during OTA's so we'll see.

Rice's highlights look good...his resume is solid


From scouts inc.....

Two-time All-SEC and joined Sterling Sharpe (1985-86) as a Gamecock receiver to post back-to-back 1,000-yard seasons…Despite playing just two years, left South Carolina as the school’s all-time leader in touchdowns and 100-yard games…

[BallHawk]

You guys take ESPN and all national writers way too seriously.

Put it this way. Sean Salisbury gets paid about one million dollars a year. I'm sure that a lot of diehard football fans, if they got a million dollars a year, would try pretty damn hard to learn as much as they could about each and every team.

These guys try to get by knowing as little as possible. We have a handful of guys that know just as much football as them.

[Rastak]

Rastak is saying that the author has the right to claim that the players we drafted on offense are not upgrades because of the players they are replacing and also based on the round they were drafted. For example, Jackson can't be considered an upgrade because he's replacing a good back in Green and also because he wasn’t a high rated back in the draft and is not expected to do much in his rookie year. He's saying that they very well could turn out to be upgrades over the former players at their position but as of right NOW they really aren’t upgrades.

Which is one of my points, and it's silly. I stated that you could say that the Vikings only upgraded one position this offseason--RB. Adrian Peterson was a high pick. Since RB was a position of strength for the Vikings (Chester Taylor), then perhaps even that wouldn't be considered an upgrade by this author. They didn't sign any notable FAs (Bobby Wade and Visanthe Shiancoe don't count as notable FAs), and apparently second and third round picks aren't considered an upgrade. He came back arguing that Rice would be considered an upgrade because of his productivity at South Carolina--while Jackson (because of his lesser productivity) and Jones (because he played at a small school) might not be. I think that's just silly. The Packers took Jackson thinking he'll produce early on. Otherwise, they wouldn't have taken him in round 2.

Out of curiosity Harv, how did the Vikings even get into this conversation?

That was WAY outside of the points I was making.

[retailguy]

They didn't sign any notable FAs (Bobby Wade and Visanthe Shiancoe don't count as notable FAs)

Why don't you ask Bretsky if they're noteable? :P

Seriously.... They will help the Vikings a hell of a lot more than Frank Walker and NOBODY ELSE will help us, that's for damn sure....

Frank Walker better get the damn nickel position or our Free Agents won't help us at all.


Shiancoe is at least going to play. A lot. Same with Bobby Wade.

[MJZiggy]

Shiancoe is at least going to play. A lot. Same with Bobby Wade.

Are they going to play really, really well and become unstoppable at their positions?