Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ESPN INSIDER : Packers camp preview

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ESPN INSIDER : Packers camp preview

    Packers camp preview

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By Gary Horton
    Scouts Inc.




    Three Burning Questions



    1. Can future Hall of Famer Brett Favre bounce back to lead the Packers to the postseason?
    Favre will turn 38 during the 2007 season. He has lost some zip on his throws as well as some of his mobility to move out of the pocket and improvise. Favre has made a living forcing balls into tight coverage and scrambling to make dramatic plays under pressure. Much of the magic has been lost over the past few seasons, but Favre still has effective tools and the confidence to lead his team. Favre is the ultimate competitor and doesn't want to retire on a sour note, so he will do what it takes to move the football and put the Packers in position to win. He bounced back in 2006 after his worst season as a professional in 2005, but it still wasn't enough. Does Favre have enough support from surrounding personnel to get to the postseason?


    2. Can the defense build on its strong finish in 2006?
    The Packers' defense was inconsistent in 2006 under the direction of coordinator Bob Sanders, but it finished the season strong. Can this defense continue to execute out of the base 4-3 scheme? Can it become a stabilizing force and take the pressure off an aging quarterback and help win games? In the Packers' eight losses in 2006, the defense gave up more than 24 points per game. Green Bay is going with much of the same personnel in 2007 but added a playmaker on the interior line (Justin Harrell). Last year's first-round pick, LB A.J. Hawk, should only be better with a year under his belt.


    3. Can the special teams become an attribute rather than a detriment?
    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. Punter Jon Ryan also has a strong leg, but he was inconsistent with his hang time, and his net average was not good in several contests. The coverage teams were not without fault, as the Packers gave up field position too often with the change of kicks. The Packers averaged less than 20 yards per return on kickoffs, with a league-worst long of 35 yards. Punt returns also lost field position, and both facets must improve for a postseason run.


    The player under the microscope

    RB Brandon Jackson. Ahman Green is an average starting NFL running back. He isn't a superstar, but he could be missed in a big way if Jackson is unable to transition quickly to the NFL game. Jackson has a lot of talent and fits Green Bay's zone-blocking scheme well. He isn't a dancer and is a decisive runner, which is exactly what the Packers are looking for, but he also did not dominate while at Nebraska and has to prove he can be a difference maker. Jackson will battle with Vernand Morency for the starting spot, and both backs will surely see playing time early. But Green Bay knows what it has in Morency, and he lacks the potential Jackson brings to the table. The Packers did very little to improve their skill-position players on offense, which will add to the pressure on this rookie runner.


    Breakout player

    WR Greg Jennings. Jennings should have a great chance to put up big numbers in this new offense. Favre surely has gained confidence in him, after Jennings' impressive rookie season. Jennings flashed big-play ability thanks to his tremendous speed. He will be a better route runner and will understand the West Coast scheme better in 2007, and he should get more balls thrown his way. With Donald Driver having his best season as a pro (92 grabs), defensive coordinators may tilt coverage towards the veteran, which will give Jennings more opportunities.


    Comeback player of the year

    FS Nick Collins. As a rookie in 2005, Collins burst on to the scene and quickly established himself as the starting free safety. He is a good athlete with quickness, speed and suddenness. His transition to the NFL was very impressive, especially since he hailed from a small college (Bethune-Cookman), but Collins regressed in his sophomore season. Green Bay has built a formidable defense with a talented front seven and two good cornerbacks. But the Packers need more production from their safeties. We expect Collins to provide the production needed and to regain the form he showed as a rookie.



    Offensive philosophy

    Head coach Mike McCarthy changed coordinators in the offseason and is hoping Joe Philbin can give the Packers' offense a fresh approach. Philbin will stay with the West Coast passing game, using short crossing patterns along with vertical routes to stretch deep zones. Driver had the best season of his eight-year career, and Jennings may just be the speedster opposite him the Packers have been lacking. Favre played better in 2006 but still fell short of performing at a high level. Look for more short drops and a quicker passing game to keep the pressure off a somewhat average offensive line. The Green Bay offense improved in 2006 but still wasn't able to establish a consistent ground attack, and the front office decided on new blood to carry the football. Morency and Jackson have similar running styles and should fill the void left by Green's departure. The success of this offense is based on balance, and a ground attack needs to be established. Look for McCarthy to run the ball to keep the pressure off an aging quarterback who has lost some magic.


    Defensive philosophy

    Defensive coordinator Bob Sanders leads a Packers' defense that showed flashes of excellent play in 2006 but could not perform well on a consistent basis. Sanders uses a base 4-3 front and two-deep zone coverage as the core of his philosophy. He employs several stunts and twists up front but rarely all-out blitzes to apply pressure on the quarterback. Defensive ends Aaron Kampman, Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila and Cullen Jenkins generated 28 sacks in 2006. The secondary will play a good mix of man and zone, but disguising coverages and keeping opposing quarterbacks guessing is their most effective strategy. Green Bay's secondary is solid but doesn't have any outstanding playmakers, so the coaches elect to keep a good cushion on most routes. The Packers will look to become more physical against the run, since they were very erratic in this area in 2006. Both defensive tackles have good size and strength but appear to be limited-area defenders. They will use a variety of over and under fronts with their tackles. The Packers drafted talented DT Justin Harrell in the first round to give them a playmaker in the middle. The linebacking corps fields two very athletic players in A.J. Hawk and Nick Barnett; both have great range but may need to attack downhill more aggressively against the inside ground game. Look for Sanders to mix in more eight-man fronts and zone blitzes in 2007 to force opponents into more turnovers.

  • #2
    When did Greg Jennings become such a 'speedster'?
    In my opinion, he is much more of an Antonio Freeman type.
    Who Knows? The Shadow knows!

    Comment


    • #3
      Article

      Originally posted by The Shadow
      When did Greg Jennings become such a 'speedster'?
      In my opinion, he is much more of an Antonio Freeman type.

      Since these guys rarely do their homework. They just copy what someone else says while changing the words. I have no clue what has happened at ESPN, but it's a damn shame. Writing for them has to be the easiest job on earth cause it's easy to see the great majority just cruise through it with very little effort.

      Comment


      • #4
        I know, there are a couple little things. No playmakers in the secondary? I guess 8 INTs by Woodson doesn't count as playmaking. Oh well.

        Comment


        • #5
          Jennings has solid speed (4.45 before the draft), and he's quick. I doubt Freeman, especially at the end of his career, ran that. Freeman got by on guts, instincts, great route running, and an MVP QB in the prime of his career.
          "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 Thompson

          Comment


          • #6
            Drafting two WR, 2 RB's, a TE and the "Packers did little to upgrade their [I hate the ignorance of the phrase] 'skill positions'."

            No mention in the Kick Teams portion about drafting 2 Long Snappers and a PK (holdout).

            ESPN has no credibility or knowledge west of New Jersey and south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CaliforniaCheez
              Drafting two WR, 2 RB's, a TE and the "Packers did little to upgrade their [I hate the ignorance of the phrase] 'skill positions'."

              No mention in the Kick Teams portion about drafting 2 Long Snappers and a PK (holdout).

              ESPN has no credibility or knowledge west of New Jersey and south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

              Well two of the four are 7th rounders so I'm not sure that is a big upgrade. It might be but it's reasonable to wonder. The other two also might be upgrades but if you look at Jones projected slotting and Jackson's Nebraska career productions you could probably make that statement and defend it.

              They might all turn out to be great but I don't think Horton was way out of line with that statement.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rastak
                Well two of the four are 7th rounders so I'm not sure that is a big upgrade. It might be but it's reasonable to wonder. The other two also might be upgrades but if you look at Jones projected slotting and Jackson's Nebraska career productions you could probably make that statement and defend it.

                They might all turn out to be great but I don't think Horton was way out of line with that statement.
                I'm with Cheeze. They used two of their top three picks on RB and WR--in addition to a 5th round WR, 7th round TE, and 7th round RB. Unless you select one with your 1st and 2nd round picks, you can't upgrade much more than that in the draft. I guess you have to sign a Kevin Curtis (never started before), Donte' Stallworth (most intriguing talent, but has never stayed healthy), or Dominic Rhodes (platoon player with Indianapolis) to get credit for trying to upgrade a position. Apparently, outside of RB, Minnesota did little to upgrade any of their positions.
                "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 Thompson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
                  Originally posted by Rastak
                  Well two of the four are 7th rounders so I'm not sure that is a big upgrade. It might be but it's reasonable to wonder. The other two also might be upgrades but if you look at Jones projected slotting and Jackson's Nebraska career productions you could probably make that statement and defend it.

                  They might all turn out to be great but I don't think Horton was way out of line with that statement.
                  I'm with Cheeze. They used two of their top three picks on RB and WR--in addition to a 5th round WR, 7th round TE, and 7th round RB. Unless you select one with your 1st and 2nd round picks, you can't upgrade much more than that in the draft. I guess you have to sign a Kevin Curtis (never started before), Donte' Stallworth (most intriguing talent, but has never stayed healthy), or Dominic Rhodes (platoon player with Indianapolis) to get credit for trying to upgrade a position. Apparently, outside of RB, Minnesota did little to upgrade any of their positions.
                  No Harv, I'm not saying Green Bay didn't upgrade. I'm saying Jackson didn't exactly light it up in college. Jones was projected much lower. They both might be great players, I don't know. I'm just saying Horton's position is defensible. Minnesota might not have gotten new weapons either but Peterson and Rice both produced big time in school and likely they are an upgrade over what was there. They may not be upgrades but it's a more difficult argument BEFORE camp starts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
                    Originally posted by Rastak
                    Well two of the four are 7th rounders so I'm not sure that is a big upgrade. It might be but it's reasonable to wonder. The other two also might be upgrades but if you look at Jones projected slotting and Jackson's Nebraska career productions you could probably make that statement and defend it.

                    They might all turn out to be great but I don't think Horton was way out of line with that statement.
                    I'm with Cheeze. They used two of their top three picks on RB and WR--in addition to a 5th round WR, 7th round TE, and 7th round RB. Unless you select one with your 1st and 2nd round picks, you can't upgrade much more than that in the draft. I guess you have to sign a Kevin Curtis (never started before), Donte' Stallworth (most intriguing talent, but has never stayed healthy), or Dominic Rhodes (platoon player with Indianapolis) to get credit for trying to upgrade a position. Apparently, outside of RB, Minnesota did little to upgrade any of their positions.
                    How can we possibly accredit an upgrade to a particular position with a draft pick in the general sence? A rookie in the NFL?

                    To go there is fundamentally wrong Harvey.

                    We should only speak in terms of an ubgrade, ie at SS, when the player we bring in to replace the incumbant, is by experience observed as a superior talent in terms of being able to excel at the NFL level.

                    Unless an early round draft pick is known as an extremely talented player at previous levels, and NFL ready. How could any other recent draft pick or rookie be considered an upgrade unless the front line players of the previous season were just aweful?
                    ** Since 2006 3 X Pro Pickem' Champion; 4 X Runner-Up and 3 X 3rd place.
                    ** To download Jesus Loves Me ring tones, you'll need a cell phone mame
                    ** If God doesn't fish, play poker or pull for " the Packers ", exactly what does HE do with his buds?
                    ** Rather than love, money or fame - give me TRUTH: Henry D. Thoreau

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Rastak
                      I'm saying Jackson didn't exactly light it up in college. Jones was projected much lower. They both might be great players, I don't know. I'm just saying Horton's position is defensible. Minnesota might not have gotten new weapons either but Peterson and Rice both produced big time in school and likely they are an upgrade over what was there. They may not be upgrades but it's a more difficult argument BEFORE camp starts.
                      I don't get this angle AT ALL. Rice and Jackson were second round picks. Wouldn't the fact they were both second round picks be a better barometer. I'll put a beer on Jackson outproducting Rice his rookie year. If Rice's production at South Carolina was a good barometer, he should be to do better, right? Jackson only has to beat out Morency, but Rice only has to beat out Troy Williamson and/or Bobby Wade.
                      "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 Thompson

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
                        Originally posted by Rastak
                        I'm saying Jackson didn't exactly light it up in college. Jones was projected much lower. They both might be great players, I don't know. I'm just saying Horton's position is defensible. Minnesota might not have gotten new weapons either but Peterson and Rice both produced big time in school and likely they are an upgrade over what was there. They may not be upgrades but it's a more difficult argument BEFORE camp starts.
                        I don't get this angle AT ALL. Rice and Jackson were second round picks. Wouldn't the fact they were both second round picks be a better barometer. I'll put a beer on Jackson outproducting Rice his rookie year. If Rice's production at South Carolina was a good barometer, he should be to do better, right? Jackson only has to beat out Morency, but Rice only has to beat out Troy Williamson and/or Bobby Wade.
                        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.


                        Beer might have to wait for a bit though....Dr called and MRI indicates two torn tendons in my ankle.....GRRRRRRRRR....so now it's surgery.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          We weren't ripped or overly hyped in this article, so he's at least in the ballpark, if not a little stretched out on some of his facts.

                          Hey, if Jackson has to produce this year, I was wondering if anyone can recall a really productive rookie running back for the Packers, or one that has come into the NFL in the last 5 years. Seems like they normally struggle early to get acclaimated.
                          "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Rastak
                            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.
                            "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 Thompson

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
                              Originally posted by Rastak
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X