Packers talent - PFF final grades

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
There is a lot of discussion on the lack of talent on the Packers team and that is justified to an extent. Here are PFF final top 101 rankings for the year.

The Packers put 6 on the list. Rodgers, Bakhtiari, Daniels, Nelson, Bulaga, Lang. This is where the talent level discussion is interesting. On the offensive side of the ball the Packers had 5 players in the top 94. That is really good. With 32 teams and 94 spots that would average 3 per team total and the Packers have 5 on offense alone. However on defense it is just Daniels and he is 68th. So there is obviously a lack of talent there.

At least we can be happy we are not any of the other NFC North teams. Each team only put 1 player on the list and no one higher than 75th. So there was a staggering lack of talent in the NFC North outside the Packers. Was surprised the Vikings only guy was Newman. Would have thought Rhodes, Smith Joseph or Griffen would have all been more likely

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pr...edium=paidsocial&utm_campaign=top100med020817
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
yes there is a lack of talent there. Peppers got old, Matthews was always hurt, Perry started well, then broke his hand and played OK. Our safeties I think are good, but not playmakers and they had to cover for a whole lotta of crap going on between them and the LOS so just how good can they be? i actually don't think much better, but i'm sure they could look a little better. One DL Daniels is about it. I am excited for Clark, he'll get bigger and stronger the next 4 years easily and he started flashing stuff the latter 3rd of the season. The rest are just rotation guys.

Lots of work to be done on that side of the ball, and then we'll watch our Oline get decimated next year and wonder why Ted sucks again LOL. I take that back. Sorry football gods, I will pay homage
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
I like the Packers roster from like #1 (Rodgers) through #6 or #7 (Lang or Bulaga), but the rest of the roster, #8 - #53 is not very good. Team needs a talent.
 
OP
OP
B

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
I like the Packers roster from like #1 (Rodgers) through #6 or #7 (Lang or Bulaga), but the rest of the roster, #8 - #53 is not very good. Team needs a talent.

I would say that is overstated. Burnett, Haha, Adams, Cook, etc are guys who would start for a lot of teams. I would say the issue starts more at 15 to 20
 
OP
OP
B

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
Could throw the rest of the offensive line in there too.

Taylor seems like a pretty average player to me but that is an OK thing when you have a couple studs and a couple really good guys. That is the case for the defense as well. If they can get two playmakers all the sudden guys who are more average type players will fit their role better. The problem is we didn't have a play maker rushing the passer or covering wrs. That is a recipe for disaster in this league
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
I would say that is overstated. Burnett, Haha, Adams, Cook, etc are guys who would start for a lot of teams. I would say the issue starts more at 15 to 20

I don't think what I said is much of a stretch. I agree that Burnett, Clinton-Dix, and Adams would start for most teams, but the lack of depth at running back, the lack of playmakers along the defensive line, the overall "averageness" at inside and outsider linebacker, and the lack of talent at corner is troubling. Cook had a very good half season, but his overall career has been underwhelming and is currently a free agent. Richard Rodgers doesn't install confidence at tight end.

So would you say that Packers have a good #1 - #11 and average to below average #12 - #53?
 
OP
OP
B

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
I don't think what I said is much of a stretch. I agree that Burnett, Clinton-Dix, and Adams would start for most teams, but the lack of depth at running back, the lack of playmakers along the defensive line, the overall "averageness" at inside and outsider linebacker, and the lack of talent at corner is troubling. Cook had a very good half season, but his overall career has been underwhelming and is currently a free agent. Richard Rodgers doesn't install confidence at tight end.

So would you say that Packers have a good #1 - #11 and average to below average #12 - #53?

Yeah I don't think it is much different but I just said it was overstated because I think our solid players goes a little deeper than you said.

Clay's quick decline and Shields injuries really hurt this defense.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
Yeah I don't think it is much different but I just said it was overstated because I think our solid players goes a little deeper than you said.

Clay's quick decline and Shields injuries really hurt this defense.

Clay's decline coupled with Shields release and the slow (or lack of) development of guys like Damarious Randall, Quentin Rollins, Trevor Davis, ect, has hurt the depth of the team. Packers need to see some of these recent draft picks develop and contribute.
 
OP
OP
B

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
Clay's decline coupled with Shields release and the slow (or lack of) development of guys like Damarious Randall, Quentin Rollins, Trevor Davis, ect, has hurt the depth of the team. Packers need to see some of these recent draft picks develop and contribute.

I agree. This defense wouldn't be great with a Clay who is a playmaker and a Shields who can cover number 1s but boy would it be better. Those are the two biggest needs of the defense right now.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I agree. This defense wouldn't be great with a Clay who is a playmaker and a Shields who can cover number 1s but boy would it be better. Those are the two biggest needs of the defense right now.
I'm going to have to disagree. IF Clay were at his probowl level and in a 12-15 sack range with pretty consistent pressure and Shields was on the field as himself, this defense would look worlds different than it did last year. I would put them in the great category.

We saw last year how losing the top and then injuring the replacements could affect the passing game, it's the same with the D this year. But I don't see clay being what he was, he's on the decline with or without that shoulder injury, but Shields could take out half a field and allow the other guys to be helped. But that wasn't the case, and they were constantly injured after that. Hard to tell what we had back there after a while. But for as bad as it looked, I don't think it's terribly far off either. For me, it all starts with the pass rush.
 

Arthur Squires

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
950
Reaction score
63
Location
Chico California
Taylor seems like a pretty average player to me but that is an OK thing when you have a couple studs and a couple really good guys. That is the case for the defense as well. If they can get two playmakers all the sudden guys who are more average type players will fit their role better. The problem is we didn't have a play maker rushing the passer or covering wrs. That is a recipe for disaster in this league
I think calling Taylor average is cutting the guy short, I mean he stepped in for a probowl player and held his own for the most part. Actually I've got to say I'm excited to see how well he plays with a full season starting under his belt. I was never high on the guy in the past but I'd have to say he surprised me.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,950
Reaction score
2,901
The only time TT drafted a player from Bethune Cookman, it was three time all pro Nick Collins.
 
OP
OP
B

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
I'm going to have to disagree. IF Clay were at his probowl level and in a 12-15 sack range with pretty consistent pressure and Shields was on the field as himself, this defense would look worlds different than it did last year. I would put them in the great category.

We saw last year how losing the top and then injuring the replacements could affect the passing game, it's the same with the D this year. But I don't see clay being what he was, he's on the decline with or without that shoulder injury, but Shields could take out half a field and allow the other guys to be helped. But that wasn't the case, and they were constantly injured after that. Hard to tell what we had back there after a while. But for as bad as it looked, I don't think it's terribly far off either. For me, it all starts with the pass rush.

That's fair. I still think the defense was probably closer to the 10-15 range with those two at their peak. But that might have been enough to win a super bowl
 
OP
OP
B

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
I think calling Taylor average is cutting the guy short, I mean he stepped in for a probowl player and held his own for the most part. Actually I've got to say I'm excited to see how well he plays with a full season starting under his belt. I was never high on the guy in the past but I'd have to say he surprised me.

I think he looks like an average guard. That is good enough for me. I would be interested to see how he graded out
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
599
I think calling Taylor average is cutting the guy short, I mean he stepped in for a probowl player and held his own for the most part. Actually I've got to say I'm excited to see how well he plays with a full season starting under his belt. I was never high on the guy in the past but I'd have to say he surprised me.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of average? He didn't perform like we thought Sitton would, and it was surprising that he did as well as he did, considering the lack of a 'book' on him, but I don't think he was anything special. Hopefully, that'll change, as it did with Bak, when the conventional description of his performance always included 'for a 4th rounder...'.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I think he looks like an average guard. That is good enough for me. I would be interested to see how he graded out

PFF ranked Taylor 41st out of 72 qualifying guards at 73.0. According to them he was way better in pass protection (83.0) than blocking for the run (46.9)
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
1,700
That's fair. I still think the defense was probably closer to the 10-15 range with those two at their peak. But that might have been enough to win a super bowl
Disagree. If Shields and Matthews had played the season at their all time peak levels, I think we'd have had a top 3 defense with Perry, Daniels and Peppers at their current level of play. No opponent would have had enough blockers to contain our pass rush, turnovers would have been much higher imo. We'd have been a late season juggernaut once the offense got untracked and waltzed into the super bowl.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Disagree. If Shields and Matthews had played the season at their all time peak levels, I think we'd have had a top 3 defense with Perry, Daniels and Peppers at their current level of play.

I think you extremely overvalue the talent level of the Packers defense.
 
OP
OP
B

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
Disagree. If Shields and Matthews had played the season at their all time peak levels, I think we'd have had a top 3 defense with Perry, Daniels and Peppers at their current level of play. No opponent would have had enough blockers to contain our pass rush, turnovers would have been much higher imo. We'd have been a late season juggernaut once the offense got untracked and waltzed into the super bowl.

We still would have had Rollins Randall and Gunter covering wrs so I find it hard to see a juggernaut there
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,950
Reaction score
2,901

I'm not sure what your point is, unless it's that Bethune-Cookman isn't a motherlode of NFL talent. I readily agree with you if that's your point.

But the one time that TT actually did draft out of that school, the pick was a home run. So I find it a little odd that that is the school that our friend Ted Thompson's Mind likes to reference in mocking Thompson. He's only done it once, and in that one case it was a great move. You'd think he would at least pick a school that led to a bust.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top