Do the Packers need to improve?

[HardRightEdge]

The "are we improved?" question has been explored thoroughly in that thread.

The more important questions are:

1. Do the Packers need to improve?

2. And what is the need that does or does not require an improvement? What is the objective?

 

[Mondio]

I think focus and execution can always be improved. In terms of players we have the guys to get it done. Even with holes at ILB and Williams leaving. Injuries are always a concern, so depth can be improved. There are starters that could be improved upon too, but I don't think we "need" to either. MOving Matthews to the inside gives us pretty much the same D, minus depth and williams. Focus and execution, but I think we'll improve thru the draft too with at least one big contributer.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think focus and execution can always be improved. In terms of players we have the guys to get it done. Even with holes at ILB and Williams leaving. Injuries are always a concern, so depth can be improved. There are starters that could be improved upon too, but I don't think we "need" to either. MOving Matthews to the inside gives us pretty much the same D, minus depth and williams. Focus and execution, but I think we'll improve thru the draft too with at least one big contributer.

In order to do what, exactly?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The "are we improved?" question has been explored thoroughly in that thread.

The more important questions are:

1. Do the Packers need to improve?

2. And what is the need that does or does not require an improvement? What is the objective?

The Packers need to improve the ILB position. Addressing the position adequately would make them the odds-on favourite to win the Super Bowl.

 

[XPack]

For me, the answer is a obvious YES! Until we bring the Lombardi Trophy home, there evidently is the need for improvement. Post SB win, we can think of sustain rather than improve.

Special Teams - Lots to improve there after last season.
Key Man risks - How many players do you categorize as 'Key Man' as in their injury will seriously derail our season? Apart from A.Rodgers, I think of Clay, Sam Shields and who else? Bigger this list, more we have to improve.

 

[Half Empty]

Haven't seen a Lombardi since 2010, so of course they need to improve.

Taking the last part of the word, they have 2 1/2 proven receivers, no proven difference makers at TE, one proven OK backup for the OLine. One proven (undersized) outside CB, one semi-proven ILB, and (fill in the blank) NT.

 

[TJV]

What is the objective?

(Raising my hand and shouting "Ooh ooh ooh!" ala Arnold Horshack) I know, I know, I know!! The objective is winning a Super Bowl!

Seriously:
1. Do the Packers need to improve? Yes, of course. 1) They didn’t win a title last season; 2) Staying the same while other teams improve equals regressing relative to those teams.
2. And what is the need that does or does not require an improvement? What is the objective? As already mentioned, STs and the defense have to improve. Particularly the trend on defense relative to how they perform in the fourth quarter. And at the very least avoiding bone-head plays on STs. (I already answered the second question!)

How much do they have to improve may be the pertinent question and my answer to that is not all that much. Of course they fell apart at the end of the Seattle game but how would the season have proceeded if they made the changes on D before opening day instead of on the bye week? What if Rodgers wouldn't have been injured? Would the title game been played in Green Bay? Would Bostic not have lost his mind? Would it have mattered (would an onside kick been decisive)?

 

[Mondio]

In order to do what, exactly?

win a super bowl of course.

We have positions all over to be improved upon, but you're never, ever going to have all pros at every position. I think every Dlineman could be improved upon. Daniels is the only guy I really like. The rest are just guys, but those "guys" were good enough to get it done last year, save for a monumental team collapse, the likes not often seen in the NFL but it happened.

I think between Hayward, Shields, Dix, Burnett, Hyde we have a secondary good enough to win it all. I think we need depth, but I think right now we have guys that can get it done.

We have an OLB playing ILB and another guy that is ok and that was good enough last year, again except for the 5 minute collapse. I think the other guys we have at OLB do an above average job with Peppers doing much better than average job.

I think we'll have a top offense in yards and scoring again next year even if we don't add anybody.

so do we "need" to improve? besides focus and execution, no, I don't think we "need" to. I think the guys right now could get it done, assuming good health all year which rarely happens, so that should be improved upon and I trust those guys to get the guys in the draft.

what would I like to see improved? I still think we can have better LT play. I think our young center will continue to grow. QB? I think we're good. WR? Just fine. TE? we can upgrade, but I think our young guy will prove himself this year. we don't need Gronk, we just need someone that can turn around and catch a ball for a 1st down 30 times a year. I think our offense has more than enough weapons. RB? I think we're fine. It would be nice to have another guy for that 3rd down guy but Lacey and Starks are more than capable.

on Defense, NT could be upgraded, but then we have the same guys as last year and a big wait and see on Raji. Some of those young guys should continue to improve along that line. ILB could be improved, both positions, but Matthews and Barrington can get it done if need be. I think OLB is fine with Peppers and the other guys are good enough, though they could definitely be upgraded. and secondary, I already said I think the guys we have are good enough, though besides Shields there are better players than all of them playing in this league and Shields definitely needs to work on his focus and consistency still. But expecting all the guys better to play on this team is a bit unrealistic.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Packers need to improve most at ILB, CB and dline. Those positions have been examined pretty much in depth. In a rematch against Seattle who on the defense covers Graham (granted, not many CAN cover Graham) or who stops Lynch or who covers those dynamic wide receivers? Those are the areas the Packers need to improve on. (btw, the dynamic receivers comment was sarcastic).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Taking the last part of the word, they have 2 1/2 proven receivers, no proven difference makers at TE, one proven OK backup for the OLine. One proven (undersized) outside CB, one semi-proven ILB, and (fill in the blank) NT.

The offense led the league in scoring last season. With all 11 starters returning there's not a huge need for improvement.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

The offense led the league in scoring last season. With all 11 starters returning there's not a huge need for improvement.

But that offense couldn`t get it done when it mattered. Sorry mate, but we DO need to improve.

 

[thisisnate]

We are good enough right now to make a Superbowl run. So strictly speaking, I don't think we *need* to improve. But no team will every say they are "good enough."

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But that offense couldn`t get it done when it mattered. Sorry mate, but we DO need to improve.

Rodgers injury played an important role in it. I expect the Packers offense to be one of the highest scoring ones in the league with a healthy QB.

 

[PackerDNA]

Rodgers injury played an important role in it. I expect the Packers offense to be one of the highest scoring ones in the league with a healthy QB.

I don't believe Rodgers injury was as big a factor as you'd like to believe. From the end of the 1st quarter until they're last possesion in the title game, the offense- and Rodgers- did squat. They were also shut down in the regular season losses to Seattle, Detroit and Buffalo. Not coincidently, three of the better defenses that they faced, and in the league overall.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't believe Rodgers injury was as big a factor as you'd like to believe. From the end of the 1st quarter until they're last possesion in the title game, the offense- and Rodgers- did squat. They were also shut down in the regular season losses to Seattle, Detroit and Buffalo. Not coincidently, three of the better defenses that they faced, and in the league overall.

It's tough to score a ton of points against great defenses. The Packers still managed to lead the league in scoring, no reason to worry about it.

 

[Half Empty]

We are good enough right now to make a Superbowl run. So strictly speaking, I don't think we *need* to improve. But no team will every say they are "good enough."

Problem being, that could have been said about all but a couple of Packer teams over the past few decades. Just running isn't enough - finishing is.

 

[Half Empty]

It's tough to score a ton of points against great defenses. The Packers still managed to lead the league in scoring, no reason to worry about it.

Leading the league in anything is fine, but unless it's winning the last game, it doesn't count.

 

[PackerDNA]

I thought the point of having a great offense was being able to score, period. Including against top defenses. But yeah, barring injury the offense should be one of the best in the league for at least the next two seasons.

 

[TJV]

Of course having the leading offense in the league "counts". Regarding Rodgers' injury, consider the two FG attempts near the Seattle goal line. His injury took an important option off the table IMO: If Rodgers were fully healthy he could have rolled out to find a receiver in the EZ or run for the score (as he did at Chicago for example).

 

[PackerDNA]

Then again, maybe not. You don't know that ,Jack. And Rodgers was healthy in the 3 other games I mentioned.

 

[Pack-12]

I thought the point of having a great offense was being able to score, period. Including against top defenses. But yeah, barring injury the offense should be one of the best in the league for at least the next two seasons.

The point of having a great offense is to help your team win but that doesn't mean anything is guaranteed, sometimes a game doesn't go your way. Seattles great defense allowed 30 points a couple of times, that's how it goes in this league.

 

[PackerDNA]

The point of having a great offense is to help your team win but that doesn't mean anything is guaranteed, sometimes a game doesn't go your way. Seattles great defense allowed 30 points a couple of times, that's how it goes in this league.

All well and good, but the point is every time this offense went against an upper tier defense, save for the second Detroit game, they s**t the bed. Rodgers was healthy for the first three of those five games.

 

[HardRightEdge]

All well and good, but the point is every time this offense went against an upper tier defense, save for the second Detroit game, they s**t the bed. Rodgers was healthy for the first three of those five games.

All of those losses were on the road. It's hard to score on the road against a decent defense, particularly in the playoffs. Peyton Manning has spent a career demonstrating that fact.

Some glue and grit is needed. In beating the Steelers, with cornerbacks going down like flys, the defense hung on. Since then, the defensive collapses in the playoffs are hard to ignore.

 

[HardRightEdge]

(Raising my hand and shouting "Ooh ooh ooh!" ala Arnold Horshack) I know, I know, I know!! The objective is winning a Super Bowl!

Seriously:
1. Do the Packers need to improve? Yes, of course. 1) They didn’t win a title last season; 2) Staying the same while other teams improve equals regressing relative to those teams.
2. And what is the need that does or does not require an improvement? What is the objective? As already mentioned, STs and the defense have to improve. Particularly the trend on defense relative to how they perform in the fourth quarter. And at the very least avoiding bone-head plays on STs. (I already answered the second question!)

How much do they have to improve may be the pertinent question and my answer to that is not all that much. Of course they fell apart at the end of the Seattle game but how would the season have proceeded if they made the changes on D before opening day instead of on the bye week? What if Rodgers wouldn't have been injured? Would the title game been played in Green Bay? Would Bostic not have lost his mind? Would it have mattered (would an onside kick been decisive)?

Seriously...a goal unstated is a goal unmet. I thought a reminder might be in order. It's not about winning the division. It's not about adhering to "the process", "contending", "making a run" or accumulating fantasy point.

The Packers could trade the entire 2015 draft for a motel plus a gas station to be named later and should still win this division against teams going sideways or backwards.

I wonder what the tone of these conversations would be if the Packers were in the NFC West, playing Seattle, a Palmer-led Arizona team, and the tough Rams defense twice per year. Not to mention the currently floundering 49ers with a QB this defense can't seen to contain while others have less of a problem in that regard.

Well, those are the kinds of teams you're likely to face in the playoffs, perhaps on the road. Something more than "the process" is needed.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I been thinking about this.......I've come to the conclusion that we need Raji to be dominant again. Or equivelent in a top tier D-lineman. The guy who commands the spot light, and opens the door for the other 10 defenders.