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!
    Dismiss Notice

Let's look at Offense - consider Transitional Players, too!

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by IPBprez, Aug 29, 2005.

  1. IPBprez

    IPBprez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,883
    Ratings:
    +5
    from PackerChatters -

    [​IMG]
    by LosAngelis
    PackerChatters Staff
    Thursday, August 25, 2005
    "Transitional" Players
    I like the Franks signing, because I see him as an important transitional player between the ending of the Favre era and the start of the Rodgers* era.

    The end of the Favre era could be the end of this year, or more likely the end of 2006. Maybe further, but I doubt it.

    I do not see Green as being as important of a transitional player. As much as I love him, three-four years from now, I don't see him being able to contribute as he has.

    I see Walker and Fergie as important transitional players, but due to Driver's age, he may not be as key.

    Obviously, Tauscher and Clifton probably factor into being an important transitional players, but Flanagan probably do not.

    So, offensively, the players I would hope to see three years from now surrounding Rodgers* would be:

    • Walker
      Ferguson
      Franks
      Tauscher
      Clifton
    Not including Green, Davenport, or Fisher bothers me. Is this a need once Favre retires, or should one of these guys be considered important pieces of the future?

    Obviously, we could make a list of such players on defense, but I was looking mostly at offense right now. Defense still seems to be in a bit of flux..hard to say who we would want three years from now, other than perhaps Barnett.

    To me, the definition of a "transitional" player is a proven solid starter or contributor that is young enough to continue a high level of play over the next four years.

    Just thought I'd throw it out.


    ==============================

    I would add he forgot Murphy, who will become a starter and a transitional... Not sure Walker will be around next year, tho'

    On Defense, which will be reviewed later on... He should remember Collins & Cole will be here, along with Barnett.

    IPBprez
     
  2. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    There's way too much turnover in the NFL today to worry about transitional players for Rodgers. Signing Franks has just solidified one important position, which will help Rodgers in the long run. Having Wells, Witt, Clifton and Tauscher for awhile will also help out Rodgers in the long run.

    In the end, it doesn't mean much. Favre could play for another 3 years, in which case any of these guys could be traded, injured or released. This will be an entirely different team when (if) Rodgers takes over, and therefore this discussion will only be relivant when Favre announces his retirement.
     
  3. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    Let's worry about "this year" instead of annointing an heir apparent to Favre...

    (this guy always wants to see Favre walking out the door..)

    Well....when he does you will know it...because the Pack will then automatically become a .500 or below team...
     
  4. IPBprez

    IPBprez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,883
    Ratings:
    +5
    Bobby's correct as a blanket statement - but I tend to look at this as a constantly changing FLUID situation, no matter who we have at what position.

    Not too sure about the instant .500 Team - If things don't get better, especially Favre's INT ratio, then we may already be there.. in which cae, Rodgers taking over is a plus.. whether people can see the writing or not.. remains to be seen.

    Our biggest hamper to getting to the top again, has ..at times.. been Brett himself...
    Beyond that - it's always been Sherman's lack thereof with Defense.
    Bates changes that.... Now, if we could only get Bonamego to perform.....
     
  5. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

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

    You are insane if you think that Rodgers can take over for Favre at any time this year and think that things would be better...! We're not talking about Kurt Warner..for god's sake....

    Yeah..let's just trade in a future hall of famer, for some rookie who has'nt played a down in regulation....

    PREZ...i've got two words for you that i want you to remember....

    RYAN LEAF....(don't forget it...)
     
  6. agopackgo4

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Ratings:
    +0
    I say worry about this year and get as much talent around Favre as possibile.
     
  7. IPBprez

    IPBprez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,883
    Ratings:
    +5
    The comparison, "66" - was about (specifically) Brett's constant INT percentages.... and nothing more.

    If Brett throws at least three (or more) INT's in just about every game, all bets are off and he might as well retire admitting he's lost it. I have commented endlessly about Favre needing to get back to the fundamentals he had while under Mike Holmgren's tutelage - go back and see what his INT percentages were back then.... There's certainly no mistake why we were SuperBowl contenders during that time - no other Defenses could ever get their hands on the ball - no turnovers, period.

    Knowing this one item is a hot point for the Team - then having Rodgers in there wouldn't really be any different of an end result, now would it...... 'course not. Hence the comment. Brett's QB rating against the Pats was tragic - you know that, I know that. It needs to stop, or else. He simply MUST pay attention to his fundamental reads and follow thru's.. lay off and go another route, quit forcing the big play and go for the bucket instead. Remember, that Driver pass in the end zone against Buffalo could have gone the other way.... Driver's been stripped before, ya know. Remember, the Colts game - it can happen at any time.
     
  8. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    So let's see if Favre throw 3 picks per game...that would be about 36 now..is that right..IBPREZ?

    That is highly unlikely...

    Factor in the fact that Favre has had to develop three Rookie receivers (Walker, Ferguson, and Chatman) over the years...meaning Driver was the only real go-to guy while these guys "developed" (read..running poor routes and not getting separation)...and Walker only just came on last year.

    Fergies been MIA...and Chatman has been marginal as well...

    (Compare them to the Colt's receivers..or the Lions..and you'll see what I mean)

    Factor in also, that Mike Holmgren ran a "true" west coast offense with a lot of high percentage short passes..mixed in with the run, the TE seam pass (where did that play go?) and the occaisional bomb...that was then effective...because Holmgren knew how to call a game to keep the opposing defense off-balance...and the current crew does not....

    Factor in as well that the two headed monster Rossley/Sherman..has put the "P" in "Predictable" in terms of game planning and calling a live game and making "adjustments"..( i won't go into the Viking playoff loss last year..but i could...easy)

    (I don't even think that Tom Rossley knows when to use a forward pass is...in the nfl...and when not to...)

    Factor all of these things in...(and I don't care how many int's Favre throws...the Packers would NOT be better off with Rodgers as QB...that's just downright silly....bench your hof qb for a rookie!)
     
  9. ORRELSE

    ORRELSE Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's kind of stretching the truth--its true during the 2 Super Bowl years Favre threw less INTs but really his TD/INT numbers have been consistent throughout his career. His worst seasons were the first 2 years of Sherman's tenure but since then the INTs are highly comparable to the Super Bowl years.
    I tend to agree more that Favre didn't have the quality of WRs that he has now--or had back in 96-97. I hate to bash guys like Shroeder and Corey Bradford but its the truth. Those guys are no where near the talent level of Walker and Driver or Brooks and Freeman.
    Its well known Favre always throws boneheaded INTs--especially when he puts too much pressure on himself, but to argue that he throws more now than before is really twisting the truth.
     
  10. IPBprez

    IPBprez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,883
    Ratings:
    +5
    I expanded (stretched) to make a point - his fundamentals could be better and we all know it.

    Also - on other boards, comversation lent itself towards which QB's had how many INT's and were still able to make it to the SB. And what was that count? In the last four years, Favre's count was higher than any of the other highest counts all around who did make it. I'd just rather he tone it down, to give him and the team a better chance.
     

Share This Page