Ladies and Gentlemen...Pat Kirwin...
Patriots
Steelers
Bears
Cowboys
Lions
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
You forgot this part:
"Honorable mention for roster depth goes to Buffalo, San Francisco, New York Giants and Houston."
"Honorable mention for roster depth goes to Buffalo, San Francisco, New York Giants and Houston."
His Criteria
1. A backup quarterback who could win half the games he started if he had to start 4: I guess the Packers don't score high on this, no one knows what Harrell can/will do...but I like the track record of McCarthy.
2. A second running back who could be a 1,000 yard back : Heck, the Packer starter probably isn't a 1000 yard rusher with their passing tendencies
3. A third wide receiver who could go in for a starter down 5 passes per game: The Packers have 5 receivers who could do that.
4. A second tight end who could put up starter results: Lots of TE's to chose from. Maybe not one sure guy, but I bet that guy is there
5. Two experienced backup offensive linemen. I think the Pack has this, people got enough playing time with injuries last year...but there were no free agent signings so the author probably doesn't realize the Pack has this.
6. A third defensive tackle already in a rotation that could play a whole game: Worthy should get the nod for this....Pack should get credit for trying to fill this criteria
7. A pass rush specialist that could play some run down situations if he had to. Same as with Worthy, Perry should be this guy
8. A fourth corner back that could bump up to the nickel corner : Pack has this already with Bush, but did nothing sexy to call attention to it
9. A third safety that can start : The loss of Collins probably means the Pack isn't guaranteed of having this criteria filled, but the draft could have done so.
10. Four core special team players that could help in a pinch. I can't see how anyone could say the Pack doesn't have these players on their roster, but..........
If the author is only looking at what teams did from the end of last season to now towards this criteria then I have no problem with the Pack being left off. If all you look at is these criteria, I can understand the author's choices. I don't think he looks at things like character, player development or players fitting a system...so it's not a very complete look at player development...but it is football talk and that is sorely needed at this time of year.
1. A backup quarterback who could win half the games he started if he had to start 4: I guess the Packers don't score high on this, no one knows what Harrell can/will do...but I like the track record of McCarthy.
2. A second running back who could be a 1,000 yard back : Heck, the Packer starter probably isn't a 1000 yard rusher with their passing tendencies
3. A third wide receiver who could go in for a starter down 5 passes per game: The Packers have 5 receivers who could do that.
4. A second tight end who could put up starter results: Lots of TE's to chose from. Maybe not one sure guy, but I bet that guy is there
5. Two experienced backup offensive linemen. I think the Pack has this, people got enough playing time with injuries last year...but there were no free agent signings so the author probably doesn't realize the Pack has this.
6. A third defensive tackle already in a rotation that could play a whole game: Worthy should get the nod for this....Pack should get credit for trying to fill this criteria
7. A pass rush specialist that could play some run down situations if he had to. Same as with Worthy, Perry should be this guy
8. A fourth corner back that could bump up to the nickel corner : Pack has this already with Bush, but did nothing sexy to call attention to it
9. A third safety that can start : The loss of Collins probably means the Pack isn't guaranteed of having this criteria filled, but the draft could have done so.
10. Four core special team players that could help in a pinch. I can't see how anyone could say the Pack doesn't have these players on their roster, but..........
If the author is only looking at what teams did from the end of last season to now towards this criteria then I have no problem with the Pack being left off. If all you look at is these criteria, I can understand the author's choices. I don't think he looks at things like character, player development or players fitting a system...so it's not a very complete look at player development...but it is football talk and that is sorely needed at this time of year.
There's a reason this guy isn't in an NFL front office.
The Bears really had that QB part covered last year! 
The Pats, Saints, Giants and Packers (half of last year's final 8) didn't have much use for a single 1000 yd rusher, much less 2 of them.
And the Bears sure locked that category down. Just like they did with Marion Barber and Chester Taylor.
And the Bears sure locked that category down. Just like they did with Marion Barber and Chester Taylor.
All I know is that the Packers won a Super Bowl just 2 seasons ago with 16 players on IR. If they don't know how to build depth properly, then nobody does.
