Do the Packers have the 2nd best roster in the league?

[wist43]

Or, it tends to prove the point for those who cling to Capers' propensity for starting strong and tapering off.

He's been fired everywhere he's been, and for good reason. He usually only lasts 5 years at any given destination - which is about as much rope as he should have been given here.

 

[Carl]

If the defense plays like it did most of the second half of the season, the number two seems accurate.

There was a rough 35ish minutes with Atlanta and the end of Seattle, but that was it. And the second half included good games against three very good offenses in the Eagles, Patriots, and Cowboys.

 

[AmishMafia]

The Vikings? How did he justify that?

Unfortunately i was laughing too hard to listen to the discussion and must have missed it. He did talk about having AP back. Not sure what that has to do with it. They have had him for years and still suck.

 

[Sanguine camper]

As long as the Packers have Rodgers their roster will be one of the best in the league. Their offense is elite but I don't see the defense being anything more than average. The special teams can only get better so other than the Seahawks the Packers are as good as any other team.

 

[wist43]

Unfortunately i was laughing too hard to listen to the discussion and must have missed it. He did talk about having AP back. Not sure what that has to do with it. They have had him for years and still suck.

Yes, the Vikings... top to bottom, sans the QB position?? Yes, they are better than we are.

But this is a QB driven league, and the Packers are a QB driven team - so much so, that Rodgers has a profound effect on our defense.

As I pointed out, 2-5-1 without Rodgers... a better overall team would be able to tread water better than that.

 

[Poppa San]

...
As I pointed out, 2-5-1 without Rodgers... a better overall team would be able to tread water better than that.

Very few teams start a QB for 2 games 6 weeks after he was signed to the practice squad and another QB for 4 games 2 weeks after he was signed as a free agent. Not many teams are prepared to lose their top 2 QBs in two weeks. Even this upcoming season, starting Hundley during the playoff stretch would be, to be polite, very interesting.

 

[D3uc3]

I

Offensively yes.
Defense? That's the big question mark!

I agree to a certain extent, because a few games we lost last season the offense just couldn't get going, dropped balls killed us in those games and any defense can only keep it so close when the spend half the game on the field.

 

[RRyder]

Am I the only one that doesn't get the "plenty of teams have more talent then us it's just Rodgers that moves up these types of rankings" argument?

Last time I checked Rodgers was on the team. No crap we're ranked higher with him on the roster. News flash take Brady off the Pats, Lynch off Seattle, Megatron off Detroit or anyone's best player off a roster and they'll fall in these types of rankings.

But hey let's try and guess how talented a team "really" is sans their best player even though that player adds into the overall talent of a team

 

[AmishMafia]

Yes, the Vikings... top to bottom, sans the QB position?? Yes, they are better than we are.

But this is a QB driven league, and the Packers are a QB driven team - so much so, that Rodgers has a profound effect on our defense.

As I pointed out, 2-5-1 without Rodgers... a better overall team would be able to tread water better than that.

Good ****ing grief. Really? Where is this Viking talent I keep hearing about? The Vikings went 7-9 with their preferred QB and they are somehow better?

DBs, LBs, DL, OL, RBs, WRs, TEs, QBs. Which position group on the Vikings is better than the Packers?

TE is the only group the Vikings may be better than the Packers. Even RB. Peterson is 30 years old. I do not trade Lacy for AP. Lacy is young and still on the rise - Peterson is going to have age catch up on him sooner rather than later. DL? maybe a bit.

But our LBs and DBs are better. Our OL and WRs are better.

I think if the Packers picked up the entire Viking roster on waivers, maybe 5 or 4 are able to start out of 22.

 

[PikeBadger]

Booger McFarland 2 days ago said the 4 most talented teams were Seattle, cincinnatti, i forget, and the final one is the Vikings. Unbelievable how much love the vikings get for doing so little.

What i loved to hear yesterday is that there is a new attitude at practice. A sense of udgency and focus. I think this will be a tremendous year for the Packers.

Well I guess that means those three teams besides Seattle have bad coaches, stupid players or both.

 

[TJV]

IMO using the cluster schtoop at backup QB in 2013 as part of a critique of the Packers roster sans QB is misguided. You can blame Thompson and his staff and/or McCarthy and his staff – or some combination of the two – for that. (But you can’t credibly blame the players or Don Capers.) The situation was not that the Packers went from all-everything Aaron Rodgers to a competent second stringer. Here’s the first paragraph of a recent jsonline story:

Summer practices must be easier on the eyes of Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson. Instead of watching Vince Young throw interceptions in a walkthrough period, he gets to see Scott Tolzien gun passes downfield in a two-minute drill. The state of affairs behind Aaron Rodgers has come a long way since 2013.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...2-quarterback-spot-b99517032z1-306868101.html

Beyond Young throwing INTs in walkthroughs, after Graham Harrell and BJ Coleman were jettisoned, neither Seneca Wallace, Scott Tolzien, nor Matt Flynn were on the roster for the last preseason game. Some here don’t have any or much confidence in Tolzien but I’m not among that group. He’s got the arm Flynn lacked to use the entire playbook and this is what Rodgers had to say in the same article about his work ethic:

"Scott's approach is what really separates him from other guys I've been around," Rodgers said. "He's a gym rat, he's a guy who really puts in the time....Just stuff that frankly most guys don't do.

According to what we've read, they've fixed his footwork and throwing motion and he's bright enough to understand the scheme. I’ll be surprised if he hasn’t taken another step forward this season: I expect him to be a competent backup QB (who I hope isn't needed).

 

[wist43]

Good ******* grief. Really? Where is this Viking talent I keep hearing about? The Vikings went 7-9 with their preferred QB and they are somehow better?

DBs, LBs, DL, OL, RBs, WRs, TEs, QBs. Which position group on the Vikings is better than the Packers?

TE is the only group the Vikings may be better than the Packers. Even RB. Peterson is 30 years old. I do not trade Lacy for AP. Lacy is young and still on the rise - Peterson is going to have age catch up on him sooner rather than later. DL? maybe a bit.

But our LBs and DBs are better. Our OL and WRs are better.

I think if the Packers picked up the entire Viking roster on waivers, maybe 5 or 4 are able to start out of 22.

Their DB's are better than ours... Rhodes, Smith, and now Waynes give them a solid core. We've lost Williams, and have no idea what to expect outside; Smith is better than both Burnett and Clinton-Dix, but both of those guys are okay. Overall, yes, the Vikings DB's are better than ours.

The Vikings are better at RB, TE, DL, and probably OL. That's a lot of positions to be better at. Barr is an ascending player at LB, and they drafted Kendricks.

Where we outpace them is at QB and WR - and since this is a passing/QB driven league, that is enough for us to be overall better than they are.

It's not like the differences are glaring - except at QB and WR where we have a distinct advantage; and at DB where they have the advantage. I would also say there is enough of a gap in talent between the DL's that the Vikings have a pretty good edge there too.

Yes, the Vikings have a good amount of talent.

The last time we played them, we only beat them by a FG - and that was without AP.

 

[AmishMafia]

Their DB's are better than ours... Rhodes, Smith, and now Waynes give them a solid core. We've lost Williams, and have no idea what to expect outside; Smith is better than both Burnett and Clinton-Dix, but both of those guys are okay. Overall, yes, the Vikings DB's are better than ours.

The Vikings are better at RB, TE, DL, and probably OL. That's a lot of positions to be better at. Barr is an ascending player at LB, and they drafted Kendricks.

Where we outpace them is at QB and WR - and since this is a passing/QB driven league, that is enough for us to be overall better than they are.

It's not like the differences are glaring - except at QB and WR where we have a distinct advantage; and at DB where they have the advantage. I would also say there is enough of a gap in talent between the DL's that the Vikings have a pretty good edge there too.

Yes, the Vikings have a good amount of talent.

The last time we played them, we only beat them by a FG - and that was without AP.

But again, if they have more talent than a team that was 2 mins from a Superbowl, how come they suck so much? They only went 7-9. You degrade the Packer roster because 2 years ago they didn't do well when Rodgers was out (they were down to their 4th choice at QB due to injuries). This ignores any talent they have developed, drafted or signed as a FA in the last 2 years, of course. Since they have added: Lacy, HaHa, Peppers, Adams, and Hyde.

Yet the mighty Vikings had their preferred QB starting and they couldn't even muster a winning record last season.

 

[Carl]

Their DB's are better than ours... Rhodes, Smith, and now Waynes give them a solid core. We've lost Williams, and have no idea what to expect outside; Smith is better than both Burnett and Clinton-Dix, but both of those guys are okay. Overall, yes, the Vikings DB's are better than ours.

The Vikings are better at RB, TE, DL, and probably OL. That's a lot of positions to be better at. Barr is an ascending player at LB, and they drafted Kendricks.

Where we outpace them is at QB and WR - and since this is a passing/QB driven league, that is enough for us to be overall better than they are.

It's not like the differences are glaring - except at QB and WR where we have a distinct advantage; and at DB where they have the advantage. I would also say there is enough of a gap in talent between the DL's that the Vikings have a pretty good edge there too.

Yes, the Vikings have a good amount of talent.

The last time we played them, we only beat them by a FG - and that was without AP.

Packers o line was one of the best in the league last season. Don't know how the Vikings o line was, but it's probably not better.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Good ******* grief. Really? Where is this Viking talent I keep hearing about? The Vikings went 7-9 with their preferred QB and they are somehow better?

DBs, LBs, DL, OL, RBs, WRs, TEs, QBs. Which position group on the Vikings is better than the Packers?

TE is the only group the Vikings may be better than the Packers. Even RB. Peterson is 30 years old. I do not trade Lacy for AP. Lacy is young and still on the rise - Peterson is going to have age catch up on him sooner rather than later. DL? maybe a bit.

But our LBs and DBs are better. Our OL and WRs are better.

I think if the Packers picked up the entire Viking roster on waivers, maybe 5 or 4 are able to start out of 22.

Vikings are better on the Dline, linebacker, DBs, RB (sorry, Lacy is REALLY good but c'mon, he's not Peterson!) and TE. Packers are better at QB, WR and Oline. Luckily, QB is the most important position so that's the biggest difference.

Trading a player isn't the way to determine who's better. Of course the Packers wouldn't trade for a $12m/yr, 30-year old RB. That would be stupid on a team that's driven by the passing game. But the last time Peterson played a full season he averaged 4.5 yards per carry when the entire point of the defense was to stop Peterson. Lacy averaged 4.6 yards per carry last season when defenses were geared to stop Rodgers. Lacy is really good and I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to say Lacy isn't a very good running back. But Peterson is one of the best runners of all time and I'm not willing to say a third year RB has passed him until I actually see Peterson start to fall apart on the field. Yes, 30 years old tends to be an age where running backs begin to decline but it's not like they forget to run. People have blown this 30 year old age limit thing completely out of proportion. You don't give huge contracts to 30 year old running backs but they can still run really well. Frank Gore was 31 last season and he averaged 4.3 yards per carry for 1,106 yards on a TERRIBLE team last season. Do people think Peterson is worse than Gore?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If only these type of non-sense rankings had any bearing on the outcome of the season....although that would mean that we would lose in the Super Bowl, so people would still be upset

Well, the Packers can't lose to the Seahawks in the Super Bowl.

A caveat to all this is.......how other teams fair with draft evaluation? Probably similar would be my guess. We have really hit the mark on a number of offensive players drafted in the last 10 years, which is why to many people it feels like we aren't hitting the mark in the draft on defense?

It would really take a lot of time to figure out how succesful Thompson has been in drafting defensive players over his tenure compared to other GMs. The Packers haven't finished in the top 10 in overall defense since winning the Super Bowl though and changing that should be a major emphasis going forward.

It wouldn't surprise me if many others around the league have better overall rosters outside of QB. Rodgers alone can push us to later in the draft and he eats up a lot of cap space. Not that he's an issue to have on the team of course.

Bucky Brooks made a ranking of NFL rosters without taking QBs into consideration with the Packers coming in at 8th.

How can you evaluate the players in the front 7, if he is going to run subpackages 80% of the time?? So yes, including Capers in rating the players is perfectly valid.

NFL defenses lined up in subpackages on more than 60% of the snaps last season. With the Packers defense holding by far the highest average lead at the start of a drive in the entire league in 2014 opponents were forced to throw the ball more often and Capers was probably fine with giving up time consuming drives while trying to prevent big plays. That's why he lined up in subpackages more often.

I agree to a certain extent, because a few games we lost last season the offense just couldn't get going, dropped balls killed us in those games and any defense can only keep it so close when the spend half the game on the field.

The Packers defense spent an average of 29:27 minutes per game on the field (more than 11 other teams). They could have prevented to stay on the field by forcing some more three and outs or punts, to blame the offense is wrong IMO.

Their DB's are better than ours... Rhodes, Smith, and now Waynes give them a solid core. We've lost Williams, and have no idea what to expect outside; Smith is better than both Burnett and Clinton-Dix, but both of those guys are okay. Overall, yes, the Vikings DB's are better than ours.

Both Burnett and Clinton-Dix had a better season in 2014 than Harrison Smith. If the Packers find someone capable of playing a solid season opposite Shields their secondary will be fine.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It would really take a lot of time to figure out how succesful Thompson has been in drafting defensive players over his tenure compared to other GMs. The Packers haven't finished in the top 10 in overall defense since winning the Super Bowl though and changing that should be a major emphasis going forward.

Good stuff there Captain You are hired, now we just have to figure out what your title will be

I have a lot of faith in TT and his draft and develop philosophy and I realize any single player in the draft is rarely a sure thing. Given that, I think the one knock I have on Thompson is what seems to be his stubbornness towards signing FA's. Recently, Peppers and Guion are glaring examples of the benefits of FA's. Yes, occasionally you get the Joe Johnson's, but more then not you can evaluate a player on his body of work (in the NFL) and can put a fairly accurate price tag on his value at that level to the team and you get what you pay for.

This past off season was possibly the most frustrating one to watch for me. A team so close to greatness, but glaring holes at ILB and CB and nothing done in FA to address it. Yes, we all trust TT and figure he has good solid plans to address these areas with current players or draft picks, but I think we would all feel a lot more comfortable with less in the salary cap coffers and two proven veterans at those 2 positions.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Jdeed]

With Aaron Rodgers maybe...without not even close.

Rodgers is a HUGE difference maker for the Packers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I have a lot of faith in TT and his draft and develop philosophy and I realize any single player in the draft is rarely a sure thing. Given that, I think the one knock I have on Thompson is what seems to be his stubbornness towards signing FA's. Recently, Peppers and Guion are glaring examples of the benefits of FA's. Yes, occasionally you get the Joe Johnson's, but more then not you can evaluate a player on his body of work (in the NFL) and can put a fairly accurate price tag on his value at that level to the team and you get what you pay for.

This past off season was possibly the most frustrating one to watch for me. A team so close to greatness, but glaring holes at ILB and CB and nothing done in FA to address it. Yes, we all trust TT and figure he has good solid plans to address these areas with current players or draft picks, but I think we would all feel a lot more comfortable with less in the salary cap coffers and two proven veterans at those 2 positions.

Just my 2 cents.

Most resonable Packers fans would like Thompson to selectively use free agency to address positions in dire need of an upgrade, especially with the success he has had when doing so.

Unfortunately TT seems reluctant to change his approach towards free agency.

 

[AmishMafia]

Most resonable Packers fans would like Thompson to selectively use free agency to address positions in dire need of an upgrade, especially with the success he has had when doing so.

Unfortunately TT seems reluctant to change his approach towards free agency.

There has not been a dire emergency in some time. Except maybe when AR got injured as well ash his backup. At which time TT signed FAs.

Most reasonable fans understand TT does use FA when the price is right and its in the best interest of the team.

 

[AmishMafia]

Vikings are better on the Dline, linebacker, DBs, RB (sorry, Lacy is REALLY good but c'mon, he's not Peterson!) and TE. Packers are better at QB, WR and Oline. Luckily, QB is the most important position so that's the biggest

The Packers have 2 HOF type LBs. You really think the Vikings are even close?

Disagree on DBs as well.

As far as Lacy goes, he may be a notch below AP from the past, but going forward we shall see. RBs tend to drop off fast. Be has surprised before. Will taking a year off make him rusty or will he have fresh legs. I wouldnt bet against him, but he is no sure thing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There has not been a dire emergency in some time. Except maybe when AR got injured as well ash his backup. At which time TT signed FAs.

Most reasonable fans understand TT does use FA when the price is right and its in the best interest of the team.

ILB has been in dire need of an upgrade for several years and after Collins suffered an career ending injury it took Thompson two years to adequately address the position.

Most reasonable Packers fans understand Thompson isn't above criticism.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers have 2 HOF type LBs. You really think the Vikings are even close?

I don't think it makes any sense to compare 3-4 to 4-3 linebackers. They have different assignments in their respective defensive schemes.

 

[AmishMafia]

I don't think it makes any sense to compare 3-4 to 4-3 linebackers. They have different assignments in their respective defensive schemes.

The subject matter is level of talent for a position group. It doesnt matter what system a team uses. There are no players on the Vikings who are at the talent level of Matthews or Peppers.

 

[AmishMafia]

ILB has been in dire need of an upgrade for several years and after Collins suffered an career ending injury it took Thompson two years to adequately address the position.

Most reasonable Packers fans understand Thompson isn't above criticism.

Dire need or dire emergency?

No, Thompson isnt above criticism. Neither is Rodgers, matthews or Lombardi. But when you are probably the best in the NFL it should provide some benefit of the doubt, especially from us fans with very little knowledge of the entire situation.