1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon... Update: Announcement to be released on MONDAY!

Charles Robinson's NFC Rankings

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Packersfan43084, May 15, 2006.

  1. Packersfan43084

    Packersfan43084 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    295
    Ratings:
    +0
    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=A ... &type=lgns

    14. Green Bay Packers – Brett Favre is back, but the offensive weapons around him leave a lot to be desired. Rod Gardner, Robert Ferguson and Donald Driver won't strike fear into the hearts of defenses, and the collection of running backs has to prove it can stay healthy. Success is going to fall on the defense, where plenty of big additions have been made: Charles Woodson, Marquand Manuel, Ryan Pickett, A.J. Hawk and Abdul Hodge.

    This is guy is crazy. That's all I'm saying. What say you?
     
  2. agopackgo4

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hey I had forgot about Rod Gardner. He did alright. Not sure that he could keep up half way decent play for a whole season for us though.
     
  3. HatestheEagles084

    HatestheEagles084 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,423
    Ratings:
    +1
    he has the eagles at #5--the 4th team from that division in the top 5...i only see one wild card from that division...

    I'm optimistic about our season, but not trying to overrate us...i put us ahead of arizona, new orleans and st. louis for sure--maybe even ahead of tampa bay--they benefitted from a last place schedule last year, something i hope we benefit from this year and maybe squeeze out a playoff spot
     
  4. TheStone

    TheStone Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    156
    Ratings:
    +10
    This is just....... one opinion :!:

    I don't think the Cowboys and Redskins will make it to the Playoffs this year.

    The Giants are looking good, but not first place.

    The Pack is at least at No.8.

    The Eagles are much more dangerous. Maybe No. 2.

    And the Cardinals......expectations are rising, Edge at RB, good WRs.
    If the O-line gives Warner enough time to throw ---> PLAYOFFS
     
  5. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    I agree with him about our offensive weapons....or lack threrof, but I think Brett Favre and our defense put us in the top half of the NFC.
     
  6. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    I agree. Our defense should be great and after one bad season the media has jumped on the Packers offense as an inept, uncapable, group. Like Driver can't catch, Green can't run, or, Henderson can't block.

    I can understand grumblings about the offensive line. But no weapons? I hope these guys listed above keep reading this. An ax to grind is a great thing.

    We didn't hire these guys and they aren't working their a$$es off to put a disfunctional group on the line of scrimmage. I have faith that the line play will improve significantly over last year.

    I do not believe JJ would set himself up with statements that compare the talent levels favorably with the group he had at Atlanta if he didn't believe it. I mean, why would he do that? If he wasn't convinced it was true he could have just said the routine "we have a ways to go" or whatever.

    If he's optimistic he's got the talent to work with, I'm optimistic.
     
  7. calicheesehead

    calicheesehead Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    742
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well if they are going to do the exercise of rating the teams prior to any cuts preseason games or the like, they have to rank the teams accordingly. This is just one opinion so I take it as such, however moving from spot 1 through 16, the teams are not seperated by much. Who knows how it will pan out, but I think GB has just as good a chance as anyone in that group. With our team gelling as one and all buying into McCarthys' system, we could turn out to be a great team. I try not to get to emotional this time of year. The Bears aren't that great to be listed up that high and the Vikes should not be that low. I would almost rank all these teams into 4 levels with many teams tying at a particular level. It is didturbing to see GB in the ranks of the Lions and 49er's. I hope everyone jumps on board with this mindset though, that GB is that easy. If they do a lot of teams will overlook us as being an easy win. Ahh the underdog mentality is back.
     
  8. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    It's a low ranking, but big deal. We all know the Packers are better and the team will prove just that.

    This team is going through a lot of changes. Last year there were 15 rookies on the roster and many had to fill-in for our best players due to injuries. Now we have another large amount of rookies and new players in the mix, compounded by the new coaching staff.

    This team has been carried by the offense for a long time and that offense was crappy last year. There has been little done in the offseason to improve the offense, so it's likely to be bad again. We lost the best receiving weapon in Walker and have done little to solidify the poor OL -- don't reference the rookies because it's very rare that a rookie OL makes the impact we need.

    This will be a tough year with growing pains for the coaches and players. I expect us to finish about 8-8 or 9-7. We have the talent to do better, but with the new coaches and several young players, we will see a lot of mistakes along the way.
     
  9. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    Exactly Bobby...

    That's why I've been saying that TT should have tried to sign Moulds...or should have worked harder to keep Javon...

    (oh well..spilt milk...)

    The O-line and the receivers will struggle this year! Plus the D has a new coordinator..so it may take awhile for them to come together as well....
     
  10. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Yeah...

    -except Sanders was with the team last year and knows all the guys from last years roster very well.

    -except it is the same scheme.

    who cares about facts.
     
  11. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    ..that doesn't mean shiite...

    Sanders isn't Bates...

    What do you think you can just plug anyone in there who was under somebody as an assistant and it will work out the same way...??

    How'd that work with Slowik for ya'...??
     
  12. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Not to inject myself in a good pissing match, but....Slowik was a pretty well known commodity, and the concensus was that he was a decent secondary coach, nothing more. He was given more responsibility than his track record warranted. Sanders comes a little more regarded, and the fact he retains the same system, something Slowik did not, certainly helps move things forward.

    I appreciate your point, 66, but Sanders has a little more going for him than Slowik did coming in. That is not to say, however, that he is Bates' Mini-Me. However, the fact that he had been with Bates for as long as he had, and that Bates recommended him highly, has to be considered a positive.
     
  13. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    A coaching veteran of 30 years, Sanders has helped his defenses rank among the league's top eight in four of his five seasons in the NFL. - packers.com

    but he's slowik jr.

    right
     
  14. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    ...and what you don't seem able to comprehend is that he is NOT Jim Bates...

    ....AND the following quote... "has helped four of his five seasons in the NFL"....from the PR department of www.packers.com is not a ringing endorsement of a savvy and wiley VETERAN DEFENSIVE COACH...

    This guy is still as of yet unproven as a Defensive Coordinator...add this to the fact that you have quite a few NEW defensive players on the roster...

    (..and oh yeah...in case you haven't figured it out yet...)

    He is NOT Jim Bates..!!!
     
  15. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Geez........not back FIVE minutes, and they are at it already...........geez!!!
     
  16. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think we can all agree, as was stated in my previous post, that Bob Sanders IS NOT, in fact, Jim Bates!!

    Stellar observation 66...eyes like an eagle!!

    All I am saying is that he has more going for him, going into the DC slot, than Slowik did.

    Is that too hard to understand?

    Apparently.

    Perhaps if you repeat 4 or 5 times in CAPS that Sanders IS NOT Jim Bates.....we will all understand that Sanders is not Jim Bates.

    Call the local news, man. Breaking story!!
     
  17. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    BREAKING NEWS.......BOB SANDERS IS NOT JIM BATES!! EXTRA, EXTRA...READ ALL ABOUT IT.

    SO.....WHEN YOU PUT IN CAPS IS IT SOMEHOW SUPPOSED TO INCREASE OUR COMPREHENSION, 66? OR DOES IT JUST MEAN THAT YOU ARE YELLING?
     
  18. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    WHAT!?!? WHAT DID YOU SAY DIGS!?!? WAIT........oh thats better!!!
    Like i said...........not back 5 minutes, and they are at each others throats again. I REALLY (sorry about the caps!LOLOL!!!) don't understand it.........like Rodney King said......."Can't we all just get along???"
     
  19. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    I agree. Slowik came in there with a bunch of BS blitz packages and stuff that did not work in the NFL and Sanders is going with the same schemes as installed by Bates. Big difference.

    Just because Slowik was a lousy hire doesn't mean Sanders wil be. If MS wasn't so intent on finding a scape goat in Donetell then Slowik would have never been put in a position he couldn't handle in the first place.

    Slowik was clueless. Let's not catagorize Sanders in that group.
     
  20. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    By that logic, Mike Holmgren should have failed because he IS NOT Bill Walsh!
     
  21. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    digs..

    you have the marvelous ability in your shrill way to take the original intent of a post and totally subvert it into something that it never was.....

    My original point was that not everyone should automatically annoint the Packers defense as the second coming of the '85 Bears....Bates was good last year but now he's gone. Sanders is new as a DC and there are alot of new guys on defense...and it will take this unit some time to gel.....

    Problem is that if you try to point this out to some people they have a hissy fit and spew inane nonsense..such as you just did....

    But it still doesn't take away from my original point now...DOES IT?
     
  22. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    yeah new defensive players this year

    Woodson
    Hawk
    Pickett


    we're DOOMED!
     
  23. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    66...I do not know many people on this forum who expect us to be the second coming of the 1985 Bears. However, I do know many forum members, of which I am one, who expect marked improvement from the unit this year.

    Why is that so hard to swallow with the additions the team has made, and the continuation of a system that the players are comfortable and productive in?

    You have a tendency to turn mole hills into mountains....along with the tendency to be confrontational towards those whom you disagree with. And you wonder why people respond to you in the manner they do?

    Again, we know Sanders is not Bates...but the continuation of Bates' scheme has to be considered a positive? Can we agree on this point?
     
  24. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    When I see it happen...then i will agree...

    (But there's more to being a good coach than just coming from the same system that HAD a good coach...ie..BATES!)

    Jim Bates IS a good coach...

    The question is then....is Bob Sanders as good a DC as Jim Bates?

    One can only hope..but the jury is still out.....imo
     
  25. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    looks like the TT-hatred has shifted to Sanders.

    5 years of working with Bates, 1 year of working with the Packers. Same system, a lot of the same players. The NEW players are pretty impressive...

    interesting negative spin on this one.
     

Share This Page