Packers roster ranked low

My random thoughts

 

I think the 2014 roster is significantly better than the roster that lost to SF in the 2012 playoffs.

i think Bakhtiari, Hyde, Daniels, Hayward, and Lacy are better, and maybe more precisely, better, faster than even Ted expected. 

I think Ted and company have inside information that Tretter and Sherrod might actually be upgrades.

I think Ted knew he'd get his safety at 21.

I think Ted recognized all these points and realized Peppers made perfect sense as a FA acquisition. Its not a must that Peppers dominates. That's what makes him dangerous. 

Last years Packers would have kicked Denver's ass is the SB. Same goes for NE. An AFC roster shouldn't crack the top 5. And that's generous. The Bengals Top 10? Silly. 

 

I didn't get the Peppers signing when it happened. Fact is Ted recognized how good some of the 2012 and 2013 picks were and saw another poor mans Reggie like he saw Charles for a team that he thinks is close to another Lombardi. 

 

No bold predictions but there's a lot to love with this roster.

 

 

 

These rankings are pretty amusing because by mid season they mean absolutely nothing. 

 

A good example are guys like Hayward and Sherrod.  Based on past results/performance, everyone expects Hayward to simply get back to 2012 form and no one expects anything out of Sherrod.   

 

Will Bulaga return to form and Tretter live up to the hype?  What about the rookies including Ha Ha and Adams?  

 

All I know is this:

1) we have a Top 5 QB in the league (Rodgers)

2) We have a Top 5 pass rusher (CMIII)

3) We have a top 5 starting WR group (Jordy and Cobb)

4) We have a top 10 starting RB (Lacy)

5) We have a top 10 starting CB group (Shields and Tramon)

6) We have a top 10 OL - assuming that Bulaga comes back healthy

7) we have a top 10 TE in Finley- assuming he returns

8) We have a lot of quality depth along the DL

9) We have a lot of quality depth at the DB position

10) We have a lot of quality depth at WR

 

The only area I still am not sold on is LB but I have to think that they are going to improve this year simply by virtue of adding Peppers and getting guys like Hayward back.   There were a lot of holes in the D last year because of injuries and it magnified their LB issues.

After last year's struggles when A rod was out,  it should come as no surprise that is how the Pack is perceived. Most of us look at the Packers in a different light. Until the pundits are proven wrong, the Packers will be hopefully flying under the radar.

quote:

The only area I still am not sold on is LB

But AJ Hawk is available and accountable!

Here's more on the color-coded system referenced in the piece. I'd have quite a few more players in the light green and green categories than they do.

A little disappointing how our two highest draft picks in maybe the last 30 years grade out as below-average starters when they should be in their prime.

I like being under the radar. Some of our new players are gonna surprise, particularly Peppers who will energized by his chance to get a Super Bowl ring before he retires.

The AJ Hawk suck factor has to come into play somewhere.

That might be true FS but I can't think of many other teams that have drafted better in later rounds or taken undrafted FAs. Think Driver and Henderson and KGB and Tauscher and Tramon and Shields.

Bahktiari...below average starter?

 

Pffft.

Win the Superbowl with a bunch of Rudys and ask me if I give two schits about a stat dump.  PFF is the epitome of being lost up it's own ass because it can't see the game/sport/past time beyond numbers.

 

How many people go over the 2010 stat lines with a hard on instead of watching a team come together and rise to the occassion.  The Pat Lee discussion is a prime example.  The guy sucked for the most part but in one game, at one moment made a huge difference.  Stat monkeys make me laugh.  They take sports and make it joyless.

ProFootballFocus has Bak as below-average as well.  That said, he was rookie thrust into the starting role of protecting the blind-side of, arguably, the best QB in the league (at least for a few games anyway).  While there's always a chance he could regress, I'd be inclined to say he will improve, and maybe improve significantly.

What Henry said.  Rank this.  When it all comes together it all comes together.

Bitch slapping 'stat monkeys' to pass the time till the start of training camp.

 

That's why I come to X4! 

Not surprised Raji is orange since he didn't get a sniff in free agency. 

Obviously Bakh rated that low is just stoopid!

 

The one that really gets me is Peppers at yellow. 

 

 

When he was first signed, I didn't think much of it....but the more I look at it, the more I see a guy that will be extremely motivated. The pressure is completely off him to be great. He only has to be "average" for the signing to make a difference in our defense. 

 

By the end of the year, he will be ranked Lt. Green MINIMUM if not green & potentially blue if he can find the fountain of youth.

 

An amazing thing happens when a solid veteran all of a sudden has a chance to win a ring. You see focus, drive & desire all rolled up into one. Peppers is a dangerous player this season. Offenses are going to have to deal with him starting with Seattle.

Agree with blame it on the RainBoris

 

Peppa is a huge signing.

 

It is great to be excited for football before Father's Day. 

We can pump ourselves up as much as we want but our DL and ILBs are weak compared to the better teams, especially the two we have to beat, Seattle and San Fran.  All we have at this point is hope that Raji returns to his early form as a NT, and that Perry, Jones, Worthy and Boyd are better than they've shown. How many of us expect Hawk and B. Jones to be better? 

I expect Barrington and Lattimore to be better.  Whether that means either one of them moves past Jones remains to be seen, but the group should be better.

They rank Datone Jones and Brett Goode as "below average starters". Datone Jones has played 263 snaps in his NFL career. Considering his amazing physical assets, I think there's a chance he improves. 

 

Brett Goode? The long snapper is a BELOW average starter? When's the last time we had a botch FG/Punt snap?

 

Keep in mind these "rankings" are based on PFF's grading. I subscribe to PFF because their "signature stats" are amazing, but I don't put too much credence into their grading system. If you look closely you can see plenty of disparities in the rankings. For example, Player A ranks higher than Player B in the "pass rush productivity" signature stat, yet Player B has a higher "pass rush" grade. Horse ***t. 

 

The first thing I’d say to anyone is that the systems’ not perfect…. A +13.4 is not always better than a +11.2 but perhaps a +10.3 is 98% certain to be better than a -3.4 etc. It’s just a system like any other but what we aim to do is put context on all plays. If a CB is badly beaten but the WR drops the pass the base stats would say that’s simply an incompletion against the CB but in our system it’s a negative grade.

 

Neil Hornsby. Founder - Pro Football Focus

Wow.  I am a huge Packer fan, and I really believe they have a shot to win it all this season. But the rankings of the roster overall and of individual players looks about right to me. All teams and individual players have an upside, but how well they played last year is in the books. And without ARod, this team was just short of awful. Maybe players injured last year will stay healthy this year and be 100%.  Maybe young guys will take the next step and maybe the old guys won't lose a step. But right now, this roster is what it is. I can hope, but I can't complain about this rating of players and roster.

In our SB winning year & the next regular season we probably played beyond our talent level. On offense MM & staff were way ahead of the DC's & big plays in the passing game were abundant. Defenses have done a much better job limiting those in the past couple of years. On defense, CM, Raji, & Woodson were all "difference makers" down the stretch. Since then Woodson is gone, Raji has not played to that level, & CM has battled injuries....not to mention the fact that we have not come close to replacing Collins.I'd say that our current talent level is in the 6th to 8th range. 

 

So, it sounds as if you agree with our LT Bakhtiari ranked "Below Average" & Peppers as just "average"?

 

I must have missed the memo that the NFL was awarding championships based on Pro Football Focus rankings.  

 

Oh well, I had high hopes for the season, but this will clear out my Sunday mornings for sure!

 

 

Yeah. Peppers may come back from his worst season, just like Raji might. But he was what he was last year. And Baktine was nothing special his first year. I think we tend to overrate him based on past and future expectations (rookie 4th round pick who will no doubt improve).  He is the anti-Hawk (which is best reflected by the way no one on this board can believe the coaches even let him start at ILB).  Rankings are relative. And hope and charity apply to all teams. I am not familiar with the Bengals roster, but I know they beat the Packers last year (with ARod), and I bet their fans see all kinds of promise and upside for their roster

When you saw the title to the thread, did you honestly think this would be anything but a Poopy Pants convention?  

 

Chilijohn:

Last years Packers would have kicked Denver's ass is the SB. Same goes for NE. An AFC roster shouldn't crack the top 5. And that's generous. The Bengals Top 10? Silly.

Huh?

 

Yup, Seattle whooped on Denver and I was glad to see it, but their defense was better than the Packer's defense (minus Clay Matthews) at almost every single position for crying out loud.

 

Denver regular season against NFC:

41-23 at Giants

52-20 Eagles

51-48 at Dallas

45-21 Redskins

 

I see no reason why Denver's offense would not have moved up and down the field with ease against the Packers, especially given that Manning likely would have had all day.

 

Patriots regular season against NFC:

23-3 Buccaneers

30-23 at Falcons

30-27 Saints

20-24 at Panthers

 

Yeah, I could see a matchup against Patriots possibly being competitive.  Kicked ass?  Hardly.

 

Bengals 34-30 over Packers

 

But, the Pack should have won.

 

Would have kicked Denver's ass?  Man, the homerism is astonishing.

Yeah & the classic poopy pants coming from you isn't astonishing.

 

He meant a healthy Packers team not the one that limped into the playoffs that lost on a last second FG.

 

Comparing Denver vs. the NFC Least? Ok, yes that's a perfect sample size of the NFC

 

No AFC team should be in the top 5

Well, what you refer to as poopy pants, I consider objectivity.

 

I stand corrected on Chili meaning a healthy Packer team, but to say the Pack would have kicked Denver's ass is, in my opinion, just plain silly.  Denver's offense was pretty much unstoppable the entire year and I think the only way to stop that offense would have been to do what the Giants did to the Patriots the year they almost went undefeated as well as what Seattle did to Denver - consistent pressure on the QB.

 

What in the world suggests the Packers would have consistently gotten to Manning?  And if they would not have, how is it off-base to think the Broncos offense would have done what it did all year?  Which is move the ball with incredible ease.  Chili didn't say he thinks the Packers would have won or made it competitive, he said they'd have kicked Denver's ass.

 

That's absurd.

 

As to showing Denver's NFC performance, I can't help who they played.

 

This is a typical case of tension between some whose alleged objectivity I (and I think others) think is inaccurate due to homerism and who others view some of what I write as inaccurate negativity, which I am guessing is what you characterize as "classic poopy pants."

 

whatever

 

 

Guys, guys...stop arguing. It's Sunday, let's crack open a Sam Adams and enjoy the summer, eh?

You lost the argument right there Colonel Conspiracy.

 

Objective fan.

 

Let's think of some more idiotic terms that make the person uttering them think he or she sounds smert:

 

Religious atheist 

Empathetic bigot

Stoic drama queen

 

When I first read Henry's post I saw colonoscopy.

Squeamish proctologist.  

One in a millions doc.

 

If you want to debate the roster and strentghs / weaknesses have at it. 

 

But but basing anything on a freaking poll, from freaking ESPN is loony. Bleacher Report has more credibility than ESPN - a true tallest midget contest if there ever was one. 

I would expect the Packers, a draft and develop team, not to be at the top of these kinds of analyzes. It by the nature of the study it is backwards looking, asking how well  did the player do last year. The study does not ask how good the player will be this year? If the authors  could do a credible job of that then they would be making a killing in Vegas not writing sports stories. Winding up 8th on this  list is not to bad for the Pack, they have a lot of guys that can make the 2 and 3 year improvement jump.