It's a little difficult for a guy to elevate his game when he's likely looking at a suspension, duration to be determined. Raji as comback player of the year? That is a rose-colored-glasses assessment. It should be a "we'll see" situation, viewed with some skepticism, given his motorless play in a healthy contract year.
Talented? Yes. Holes? Surely. Depth issues? No doubt.
I'm skeptical of guys making "the jump" who have not played. Even McCarthy, in a recent quote, amended his blanket "second year jump" statements in past years to exclude guys were injured in their first year.
By "have not played" I mean that they either were on the practice squad, red shirted on IR, did not make the game day roster with any regularity, or played exclusively on special teams...in other words, guys who got little or no game work at their position in their first year. With each successive year of non-play at their position, the odds go down regarding the "jump".
Lets look at the current starters. Which among those guys got few, if any, position snaps in their first healthy year?
There's Rodgers. He's sui generis. He's the only one.
I thought Lang and/or Sitton might be in this category, but Lang got 3 starts as a rookie and Sitton got 2. I suppose we could include Guion, but he was not developed by the Packers, was a two-year starter when came to us, and may not even be a starter next season.
The point being, to just assume that a guy who could not get on the field in his first healthy year will develop into a starter is just a low probability guess. You don't know what you've got until the guy actually plays. The "jump" assumption t overlooks the high churn rate at the bottom of the roster every year among those non-playing guys. And history shows the churn has been particularly high among the ILB reserves.
A second year jump can be optimistically expected from guys who played their first year. For example, can we expect more consistency from Dix and Barrington? That's reasonable. Linsley? Maybe a little, though he looks close to a finished product as it is. Adams? There's cause for optimism, given what he showed playing a difficult postion for a rookie. Rodgers? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, caution should be taken even with assumptions in this regard.
This is what McCarthy said last August with respect to Datone Jones: [Jones is a] "very talented young man [and] one of those second-year players who makes a huge jump."
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...mccarthy-datone-jones-to-make-huge-jump-in-14
That did not happen. Perry never made the jump either.
So as to the question, "is the team improved?" at this point, I'm not seeing a possible (but uncertain) jump from second year starters and the return of Raji outweighing the big hole at ILB with a bunch of zero-snap guys at the position, the questionable conversion of Hayward to cover corner, and the zero experience at cover corner backup. An injury to either Matthews or Peppers (or Peppers hitting the wall) would be especially problematic since there is not another effective pass rusher on the roster, and an injury to Matthews undoes the ILB plan entirely. There's no depth at WR in a primarily 3-wide offense. I won't even get into what the loss of Flynn means. A Guion/Jones rotation at DE might finally solve the Jenkins departure problem that was never adequately solved, but Guion's availability remains in question.
Now, if you think the current roster is "good enough", that's another debate. However, I would point out that the low injury rate from last season is not likely to be repeated, so the starting lineups now are not likely to be intact by mid-season.
Thompson does need a h*ll of draft to improve the team, though less so (we hope...and it is a hope) with Raji and Guion in the fold, particularly to acquire an ILB who can play now, a backup cover corner (who might even compete with Hayward for the job), and a backup who can edge rusher who can get some snaps in passing downs when Matthews is in the middle.
as in ironic funny, not "ha ha" funny.
