A good perspective on the Packers off season

[Packnic]

Maybe having a GOOD or BAD off-season doesn't dictate your teams success?

thats all im trying to say.


New England has had many offseasons where they were labelled as having the worst off season. worked out pretty good for them.

Its not all about who ESPN and CBS sportsline says is good. These guys have no clue what the innerworkings of a franchise are. Just today at work i was watchin NFL network, and they did a whole show on how stupid Preseason rankings and predictions are. everysingle person on the show which included several prominent journalist like Dr. Z and Peter King sat right there and said... we are wrong over 50 percent of the time. its all guess work and speculation, in fact they said celebrities like Catherine Bell had done better than most journalist ever do... by pure guessing.

looking at what a team brings in on paper is useless. at least wait until camp till you write off TT and the Packers. this is ridiculous that were having this conversation

theres a whole lot of out of work GMs in this forum.

 

[pyledriver80]

No...doesn't do it for me either. That 78% failure rate is eerily close to TT's failure in winning percentage as a GM.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[tromadz]

No...doesn't do it for me either. That 78% failure rate is eerily close to TT's failure in winning percentage as a GM.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[BangTheDrum]

Maybe having a GOOD or BAD off-season doesn't dictate your teams success?

Kinda like the Preseason???

 

[Lare]

....theres a whole lot of out of work GMs in this forum.

Nah, just a lot of Packers fans that care about their team. Some of which have done so longer than TT has been alive.

 

[CaliforniaCheez]

I disagree with the assessment of the Packers.

It sounds like some sportswriter complaining he has nothing to write about.

There was only one free agent I thought they Packers should have offered a contract. Sometimes the best action is no action and there were no big contract free agents that will hurt the team in the future.

The draft is not free agency and should not be for immediate needs. However the level of talent in the first and second rounds permits it there.
Last year the drafting of 2 tackles addressed long term need.

Long term the Packers need CB's as Woodson and Harris are aging. This was not a good draft class for CB's. When you build through the draft you can wait a year or 2 for the right guy.

Barbre hopefully addresses long term need on left side of line when Clifton is replaced by Colledge. Barbre's speed may make him an excellent pulling guard.
The Packers addressed TE with a guy who scored 40 on the Wondelic and can long snap. Rob Davis is no spring chicken.
FB was addressed while RB was partially.

I'm fairly satisfied with this draft. You don't always draft starters. A team can fill the roster with better quality depth that may become starters. 5th and 7th rounders do become Pro Bowl players in time. For example, while the Packers may be happy with the starters at DE there is a need for depth that is progressing toward starting.

As we look into the future, we can see CB, DE, RB, C, and QB needs being the likely part of next year's draft.

 

[Zero2Cool]

I'm wanting to see how the Packers do. After what appears to be a weak off season on paper. I want to see how well this coaching staff can coach up players.