Corner Backs

XPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
527
Location
Garden State
Why desperation? A high draft pick seems more the norm than not. The FA is to try and replace the one who had a career ending injury. Simple replacement. If Shields were healthy, chances are House is not a Packer. Maybe not King either.

Because we were abysmal last season? Literally scraping the bottom. No way TT could get away with not beefing up that position.

A high draft pick is when you intend to develop talent. Not just throw them down the deep end of the pool in their rookie season. The fact that we are having to count on Randall, Rollins and King to be our primary covers reek of gross mismanagement to me. Esp we we've been letting go of every half decent CB/SS we have (Tramon, Casey, Micah) and replacing them with "high draft picks".
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
357
Reaction score
19
A high draft pick is when you intend to develop talent. Not just throw them down the deep end of the pool in their rookie season.
Eh, I take issue with that. I'd say that at least the top 10-15 first draft picks are expected more and more to be able to contribute substantially their fist year. Depending upon position, that can even extend into deeper rounds as well. I'd say that in general 1st round picks by and large are guys who are expected to have less developmental time. Granted, King was hailed as a developmental prospect, but I'm speaking more generally.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,111
Reaction score
1,590
Location
Land 'O Lakes
The fact that we are having to count on Randall, Rollins and King to be our primary covers reek of gross mismanagement to me. Esp we we've been letting go of every half decent CB/SS we have (Tramon, Casey, Micah) and replacing them with "high draft picks".
If one views Randall and Rollins as train wrecks, then yes. However, Randall and Rollins had pretty solid rookie campaigns so to dismiss those as irrelevant is overlooking the skill that these players possess. The personnel department and coaching staff must have a good belief that these guys can do the job. The problem with your second statment is that those guys were half-decent at best in the case of Casey and Micah, and coming down to that in the case of Tramon. On the flip side we had ascending young talent, which is usually a no-brainer for any GM going into 2016.

Depending upon position, that can even extend into deeper rounds as well.
That's an important point right there but it cuts both ways. Some positions you can get starters in the 2nd or 3rd rounds but certain positions such as DT and OL usually take a few years to get up to speed. Players haven't necessarily gotten more NFL-ready in the past decade. Fan impatience has placed a higher desire on players. Some teams are running more pro-style schemes but the players are still young, often not fully-developed physically or mentally, and entering a new level of play against the best.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
Eh, I take issue with that. I'd say that at least the top 10-15 first draft picks are expected more and more to be able to contribute substantially their fist year. Depending upon position, that can even extend into deeper rounds as well. I'd say that in general 1st round picks by and large are guys who are expected to have less developmental time. Granted, King was hailed as a developmental prospect, but I'm speaking more generally.
Well FWIW, King was technically a 2nd round pick, if not but barely. But given that the Packers spent their 1st and 2nd rounder in 2015 on DB's, which under performed in their second years, it's disappointing to me that Thompson decided against adding a veteran difference maker at CB. House was a decent signing, but there's not one player on our roster that I would feel comfortable even attempting to slow down the better receivers in the game.

I agree that higher picks are generally asked to do more than lower round picks, but I get the sense that many are expecting King to emerge as the #1 CB for this team by season's end. And to me, that's a bit too much to ask.

Hopefully our defensive front can generate more pressure this season, reducing opposing QB's pocket time by another second or second and a half, and maybe that will provide our secondary with more of a shot to hold up. Because right now, there isn't a single difference maker in our CB group.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
That's an important point right there but it cuts both ways. Some positions you can get starters in the 2nd or 3rd rounds but certain positions such as DT and OL usually take a few years to get up to speed.

While I agree there are some positions on which it takes draftees several years to get up to speed I don't consider the offensive line to be one of them.
 

XPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
527
Location
Garden State
Eh, I take issue with that. I'd say that at least the top 10-15 first draft picks are expected more and more to be able to contribute substantially their fist year. Depending upon position, that can even extend into deeper rounds as well. I'd say that in general 1st round picks by and large are guys who are expected to have less developmental time. Granted, King was hailed as a developmental prospect, but I'm speaking more generally.

How many of Top 15 picks every year end up being worth the while? It's a hit or miss as picks are based on potential and expectations.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
How many of Top 15 picks every year end up being worth the while? It's a hit or miss as picks are based on potential and expectations.

While there are several top 15 picks not making an immediate impact every single year the chances to draft a bona fide starter are definitely higher than at the end of the first round.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
357
Reaction score
19
How many of Top 15 picks every year end up being worth the while? It's a hit or miss as picks are based on potential and expectations.
While there are several top 15 picks not making an immediate impact every single year the chances to draft a bona fide starter are definitely higher than at the end of the first round.
And, further, those guys are expected to be able to contribute quickly.
 

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
329
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
While there are several top 15 picks not making an immediate impact every single year the chances to draft a bona fide starter are definitely higher than at the end of the first round.

TT & Co. have little choice than to draft a player or find an DFA that's flawed in some way and to coach 'em up. For example, Bakhtiari may not be Boselli but he fits the bill nicely considering his draft status. Even with a pretty good track record of D&D it still brings us back to the only available resource that seems to be chronically underused. Sigh...
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
TT & Co. have little choice than to draft a player or find an DFA that's flawed in some way and to coach 'em up. For example, Bakhtiari may not be Boselli but he fits the bill nicely considering his draft status. Even with a pretty good track record of D&D it still brings us back to the only available resource that seems to be chronically underused. Sigh...

True, with it being extremely tough to address an immediate need with a draft pick by annually selecting at the end of each round the Packers should definitely use free agency more often to upgrade positions of need.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
357
Reaction score
19
Are those guys expected to contribute quickly, or are they expected to be great players? Those two don't always go hand-in-hand.
Id say that the expectation when you draft a guy top 10 is that they should be both. Missing the quickly part, they could still be considered a success, but if they don't end up being more than an AJ Hawk or so, they should be viewed as missing expectations. I'm not trying to imply the expectations are fair or rational, merely that the expectations for production and quality from a top 10 pick (and extending to top 15 more often than not) exist.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,111
Reaction score
1,590
Location
Land 'O Lakes
I agree. My point is that the start-quickly expectation is more of a recent fad and not based on any real shift in the actual preparedness of college football players. I think that free agency has increased the urgency felt by fans, media, and front offices to affect changes quickly. Coaches only get two or three seasons to turn things around, or hold on to what they've built. Players have a shorter leash. The timeline for player development used to be much longer. They are much more prepared than they were in the 1960s in terms of knowing pro style offenses and defenses, but they are no more physically or mentally at 21 to compete against the best-of-the-best players in their prime mid-to-late 20s.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,111
Reaction score
1,590
Location
Land 'O Lakes
Going back to the original thread a bit, I listened to the JS Online podcast this morning. Tom Silverstein said that Capers told him that Davon House's hamstring is fine but they don't want to take chances on the injury lingering into the season. Therefore we likely won't see House play in the preseason. Obviously players get work in camp, but I wonder how much work House is actually getting. While he generally knows the defense from a few years ago, he's never played with most of the guys around him. Getting reps to get the communication and trust down is important. Capers must feel that House will be ready.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
Going back to the original thread a bit, I listened to the JS Online podcast this morning. Tom Silverstein said that Capers told him that Davon House's hamstring is fine but they don't want to take chances on the injury lingering into the season. Therefore we likely won't see House play in the preseason. Obviously players get work in camp, but I wonder how much work House is actually getting. While he generally knows the defense from a few years ago, he's never played with most of the guys around him. Getting reps to get the communication and trust down is important. Capers must feel that House will be ready.
In this situation, I like and appreciate the cautious approach. He's a veteran who's familiar with Capers, and even though he's not getting the reps, he's definitely studying and making sure that he'll be ready to go for the games that count.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,111
Reaction score
1,590
Location
Land 'O Lakes
Agreed. I have some worries about the chemistry, which will eventually get there, but we have a tough set of opening acts.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
357
Reaction score
19
Agreed. I have some worries about the chemistry, which will eventually get there, but we have a tough set of opening acts.
while I'm not following the ailments and woes of the other teams we are facing, I think there is a legitimate danger us wandering into our bye week at 4-3 or even 3-4.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
357
Reaction score
19
What's the source of your skepticism?
our defense being overall pretty anemic against the pass (including the pass rush), our tendency to get destroyed in the middle of the field by even decent TEs and slot receivers (which might be better this year with the better safety group, but maybe not as well) of which we face several, our running game (primarily the abhorrent run blocking of late) leading our offense to be relatively one dimensional, and the likelihood that our offense starts off slowly (as it has done a few times these last several years). I see the SEA game as a pretty sure loss, the ATL game a likly loss, CIN a probable win, CHI is the only sure win in my mind, DAL is a probable win, Min could go either way, and NO is a probable win. Of those probable wins, they are all still very possible losses. Thats at absolute best a 5-2 start, more likely 4-3, possibly as bad as 3-4 (even 2-5 is possible, but very unlikely; 3-4 is not so unlikely as to be not worth fearing)

edit: I keep being tempted to move Cincy to a pretty sure win, but from what I've seen the things at which they are good match up well with the things at which we are bad, so I consider it a probable win.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
our defense being overall pretty anemic against the pass (including the pass rush), our tendency to get destroyed in the middle of the field by even decent TEs and slot receivers (which might be better this year with the better safety group, but maybe not as well) of which we face several, our running game (primarily the abhorrent run blocking of late) leading our offense to be relatively one dimensional, and the likelihood that our offense starts off slowly (as it has done a few times these last several years). I see the SEA game as a pretty sure loss, the ATL game a likly loss, CIN a probable win, CHI is the only sure win in my mind, DAL is a probable win, Min could go either way, and NO is a probable win. Of those probable wins, they are all still very possible losses. Thats at absolute best a 5-2 start, more likely 4-3, possibly as bad as 3-4 (even 2-5 is possible, but very unlikely; 3-4 is not so unlikely as to be not worth fearing)

edit: I keep being tempted to move Cincy to a pretty sure win, but from what I've seen the things at which they are good match up well with the things at which we are bad, so I consider it a probable win.
Your skepticism is understood, but 2015 I wouldn't say the offense started slow. They did average 32 points per game. Rodgers in all three of those games had a 100+ passer rating, 80+ QBR, and had a 10-0 TD/INT ratio. Now, after that we started to see a bit of a change when defenses adjusted to how the Packers were playing without Nelson. Last season, Rodgers was force feeding Jordy a lot early on, not to mention still trying to work himself out of the funk he was in to finish the '15 season. I think all of those bugs have been worked out, and I know you don't want to acknowledge this, but Jared Cook's return from injury last year starting with the Washington game was the beginning of the offense taking off. I know you write that off as coincidence, but I maintain that it has merit.

This season, we have 2 legitimate tight end threats, and our top 3 receivers are intact from last season, not to mention continuity at the RB position with Montgomery. And Rodgers and Bennett have been putting in extra reps to work on their timing. I don't think there's going to be near as much adjusting like there was at the beginning of last season. The offense will come out firing.

Now I certainly share your concerns with the schedule, but I don't see how you're viewing the Seattle game as a for sure loss. We've had their number since losing the NFCCG, and even in that game we outplayed them for 55 minutes. Since Wilson became a starter, the Seahawks have lost by double digits in the regular season just twice. Both times were the past two times the Packers played them. And it's at home. I'm confident about the 1st game of the season being a win.

I don't think we can beat Atlanta on the road with the state of our defense, though improved. I'll have to see it to believe it, unless AR goes bananas and matches them possession for possession. In my mind, that gets us to 1-1.

Bengals/Bears back to back at home? 3-1.

Cowboys without Zeke is a win, especially with their inexperienced secondary. AR will have a field day.

Vikings are a division rival, I'll give you that one as a potential loss, although Rodgers would love to make amends for that early season loss last season. It took 4 Rodgers turnovers to lose by three points last September with a clearly less than clicking offense. And New Orleans at home doesn't scare me.

I predicted 13-3 as the finishing record, and I'll say the team starts 6-1, with a worst case of 5-2.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,950
Reaction score
2,900
while I'm not following the ailments and woes of the other teams we are facing, I think there is a legitimate danger us wandering into our bye week at 4-3 or even 3-4.

First 7 weeks are:

1. Vs. Seahawks
2. @ Falcons
3. Vs. Bengals
4. Vs. Bears
5. @ Cowboys
6. @ Vikings
7. Vs. Saints

Seahawks are tough, but conversely we get them at home. Neither outcome there would surprise me.

Playing the Falcons as they open their new place is going to be tough. I expect to lose that game. They're going to be so amped.

The Packers ought to beat the Bengals and Browns at home. I don't expect either team to be very good.

The Cowboys game is an away game, but they don't have a strong home field advantage and should be without Elliott. I'd guess we win that one.

Playing away to the Vikings will be another tough one. I expect them to be the main competition in the division. I could see us trading wins with them.

I would be skittish about the Saints in NO, but they're a bad road team so I would pick us to win at home.

4-3 seems like a reasonable possibility. Losses against, say, the Hawks, Falcons, and Vikings. My own guess is 5-2, as I would be that between Seattle and Minnesota, one goes our way and one does not.

The home stretch would then be:

8. Vs. Lions
9. @ Bears
10. Vs. Ravens
11. @ Steelers
12. Vs. Bucs
13. @ Browns
14. @ Panthers
15. Vs. Vikings
16. @ Lions

If they're 4-3 or 5-2 at the bye, I like them to finish with 11 or 12 wins with that second half slate.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
First 7 weeks are:

1. Vs. Seahawks
2. @ Falcons
3. Vs. Bengals
4. Vs. Bears
5. @ Cowboys
6. @ Vikings
7. Vs. Saints

Seahawks are tough, but conversely we get them at home. Neither outcome there would surprise me.

Playing the Falcons as they open their new place is going to be tough. I expect to lose that game. They're going to be so amped.

The Packers ought to beat the Bengals and Browns at home. I don't expect either team to be very good.

The Cowboys game is an away game, but they don't have a strong home field advantage and should be without Elliott. I'd guess we win that one.

Playing away to the Vikings will be another tough one. I expect them to be the main competition in the division. I could see us trading wins with them.

I would be skittish about the Saints in NO, but they're a bad road team so I would pick us to win at home.

4-3 seems like a reasonable possibility. Losses against, say, the Hawks, Falcons, and Vikings. My own guess is 5-2, as I would be that between Seattle and Minnesota, one goes our way and one does not.

The home stretch would then be:

8. Vs. Lions
9. @ Bears
10. Vs. Ravens
11. @ Steelers
12. Vs. Bucs
13. @ Browns
14. @ Panthers
15. Vs. Vikings
16. @ Lions

If they're 4-3 or 5-2 at the bye, I like them to finish with 11 or 12 wins with that second half slate.
It could turn out to be a sneaky tough schedule, especially if somehow Zeke's suspension gets reduced. Seattle/Atlanta starting out speaks for itself. Ravens/Steelers/Bucs is going to be an interesting stretch. I think Baltimore could be a trap game, and the Bucs will be better, luckily it'll be played at Lambeau in cold weather. Then finishing with Panthers/Vikings/Lions. Two division games, and if Cam bounces back, it could get really interesting.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,950
Reaction score
2,900
It could turn out to be a sneaky tough schedule, especially if somehow Zeke's suspension gets reduced. Seattle/Atlanta starting out speaks for itself. Ravens/Steelers/Bucs is going to be an interesting stretch. I think Baltimore could be a trap game, and the Bucs will be better, luckily it'll be played at Lambeau in cold weather. Then finishing with Panthers/Vikings/Lions. Two division games, and if Cam bounces back, it could get really interesting.

We shall see, but I don't expect Zeke to get less than 6 games when it's all said and done. That's supposed to be the hard minimum for domestic violence now, and they still need to decide what to do on the basis of that mardis gras fiasco.

As I look over the roster now, not knowing exactly how teams are going to look different once this season gets going in earnest, it breaks down like this:

2 games that I'd be surprised if the Packers won. @ ATL and @ PIT. The Falcons will be playing their first home game in a new stadium. They'll be riding a huge emotional wave with a rocking crowd. The Steelers with "home version" Big Ben are probably better than the Packers.

5 games where neither outcome would surprise me. Both of the Vikings games fall in this category-- I think they'll have a better year with Bradford in house from the beginning. The Seahawks are a great opponent but we get them at home. The Bucs seem to be on the rise, and I could see a bounce back from the Panthers, who we have to play out there.

9 game where I would be surprised if we lost. Both Bears and Lions games are in this category, as I expect them to both be below average. I think the Bengals and Ravens will be down this year. The Browns are an obvious one. We get the Saints at home, and I am expecting a "Zekeless" Cowboys team.

So when you throw all that together, I suspect we're in for another 10-12 win season. They probably lose the two I noted first, and then 3-4 more with perhaps one surprising loss coming from that last group. Excluding Rodgers' first season as the starter, he and MM have averaged 10.9 wins per season for 8 years. They've dipped below double digits one time. So that's the kind of year I think we can expect. It all comes down to the playoffs.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Going back to the original thread a bit, I listened to the JS Online podcast this morning. Tom Silverstein said that Capers told him that Davon House's hamstring is fine but they don't want to take chances on the injury lingering into the season. Therefore we likely won't see House play in the preseason. Obviously players get work in camp, but I wonder how much work House is actually getting. While he generally knows the defense from a few years ago, he's never played with most of the guys around him. Getting reps to get the communication and trust down is important. Capers must feel that House will be ready.

While House is familiar with Capers´ scheme he isn´t an elite cornerback by any means and therefore I´m worried about him having missed most of training camp.

while I'm not following the ailments and woes of the other teams we are facing, I think there is a legitimate danger us wandering into our bye week at 4-3 or even 3-4.

I consider that prediction to be extremely negative. While I expect the Packers to lose at Atlanta it´s more likely the team enters the bye week at 6-1 in my opinion.

Vikings are a division rival, I'll give you that one as a potential loss, although Rodgers would love to make amends for that early season loss last season. It took 4 Rodgers turnovers to lose by three points last September with a clearly less than clicking offense.

FWIW the Packers turned over the ball three times at Minnesota last season with Rodgers accounting for two of them.

Playing away to the Vikings will be another tough one. I expect them to be the main competition in the division. I could see us trading wins with them.

I truly believe the Packers don´t have any legitimate competition to win the division this year. Unfortunately there are some teams in the NFC capable of challenging them.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top