Surprise Opponent of 2016

[El Guapo]

In another thread, I saw Captain mention that the Panthers, Cardinals, and Seahawks(?) were the teams to beat in the NFC. Not surprising as all were in the championship games last year. However, the NFL mixes it up and Cinderalla stories pop up every season. So specifically looking at the Packers schedule this season, which team do you expect to be much better than they were in 2015. For the moment, let's exclude the Cowboys for obvious reasons. Who's the sleeper opponent, the 2011 Chiefs...?

My personal choice is the Falcons. I like Dan Quinn at the helm, think that they did a good job in the draft with some decent offseason moves (especially at center), and think that Matt Ryan is about ready to really execute Shanahan's offense. They aren't necessarily a playoff team, but I think that they will give the Pack a hard time in Atlanta.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Minnesota.

 

[Royal Pain]

I expect Jacksonville to surprise some folks this season. Their quarterback showed improvement last year and they are adding some talent on defense.

 

[C-Lee]

Minnesota.

Would this really be a surprise? They won the North last season.

 

[RRyder]

Jaguars are my bet to suprise this season. They got some damn good young talent on that team that if it starts to come together they'll take a jump in the rankings.

It all starts with Bortles. He was a raw prospect comming out and has progressed nicely. If he continues his progression we'll have a battle on our hands down in Jacksonville even though I still think we'll win convincingly as their young guys aren't quite there yet bit that's not to say the talent isn't there for them to make a statement

 

[El Guapo]

There are no wrong answers, just those that get picked upon more than others!

 

[HardRightEdge]

Would this really be a surprise? They won the North last season.

The OP mentioned CAR, SEA, AZ as the "teams to beat". Since MIN was not mentioned in that context, I would suppose that would qualify them as a sleeper.

Consider my mention a gentle reminder of where the more immediate threat resides.

 

[Vrill]

Would this really be a surprise? They won the North last season.

But how often does that happen with Minnesota? It would be a surprise IMO if they won our division two years in a row.

 

[C-Lee]

Consider my mention a gentle reminder of where the more immediate threat resides.

Respect.

 

[C-Lee]

But how often does that happen with Minnesota? It would be a surprise IMO if they won our division two years in a row.

Agreed, but we can't sleep on them.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Agreed, but we can't sleep on them.

I think the point is I don't see anyone sleeping on them. I mean, I guess reading around on some other forums I did see a few non-Packer fans dismiss them a little bit, but for the most part their stock is pretty high this year and for good reason.

Yeah, I'd probably be a little shocked if we lost the division to them again, but I definitely would not be surprised if they won 10 or 11 games again this year.


I'd have to go with the OP's pick of Atlanta, I've been calling them the big powerhouse dark horse all offseason and they are not getting enough love from the experts. These guys kicked Cam Newton's butt last year and they are stockloading the house with a lot of weapons. They drafted a beast TE in Austin Hooper who might be better than Rob Gronkowski, got a burner in Daje Johnson who's going to cause trouble underneath and take the coverage off of Julio, DeVonta Freeman looks like LT in his prime and is going to have a huge year. If there's one big boom to look out for coming out of the south, it's these guys.

 

[C-Lee]

ATL will be a tough road game for SURE, but, we do own them there

 

[AmishMafia]

Seahawks and Cowboys. All will be surprised how average they are.

Jaguars. Glad we are playing them early, maybe we can vatch em before they really gel. I really like the talent they have recently brought in.

 

[Poppa San]

Seahawks and Cowboys. All will be surprised how average they are.

Jaguars. Glad we are playing them early, maybe we can vatch em before they really gel. I really like the talent they have recently brought in.

Would they be a good test case to settle the debate over talent or coaching?

 

[HardRightEdge]

But how often does that happen with Minnesota? It would be a surprise IMO if they won our division two years in a row.

Disappointed, yes. Surprised, no.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Seahawks and Cowboys. All will be surprised how average they are.

Jaguars. Glad we are playing them early, maybe we can vatch em before they really gel. I really like the talent they have recently brought in.

For a while I been sayin the Hawks are goin downward. Not quite San Francisco bad, but they nowhere close to what they were two years ago. Their O-line is going to be pretty bad this year, no more Lynch, no more Bruce Irvin, this team is going to get eliminated from the playoffs. Calling it right now.

The Cowboys I don't know. Obviously Romo coming off that big injury last year, and having that happen for the 2nd time in his career is big and is going to have to be watched, so yeah that side of the equation should be a concern for them. But on paper their o-line should still be pretty good and on paper their running game got a big upgrade with both Elliot and Morris in town now, so that could be an equalizer there. But at this point, just don't really know what to expect out of the east other than Washington probably not winning it back to back.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree with some posters that I expect the Jaguars to surprise a lot of people this season. They added a lot of decent players this offseason and Dante Fowler, the third overall pick from the 2015 draft, is healthy and ready to play as well.

I'd have to go with the OP's pick of Atlanta, I've been calling them the big powerhouse dark horse all offseason and they are not getting enough love from the experts. These guys kicked Cam Newton's butt last year and they are stockloading the house with a lot of weapons. They drafted a beast TE in Austin Hooper who might be better than Rob Gronkowski, got a burner in Daje Johnson who's going to cause trouble underneath and take the coverage off of Julio, DeVonta Freeman looks like LT in his prime and is going to have a huge year. If there's one big boom to look out for coming out of the south, it's these guys.

Whoa! Let´s keep a sense of proportion. There´s absolutely no chance of Hooper ending up being a better tight end than Rob Gronkowski. Daje Johnson is an undrafted rookie who isn´t a sure thing to even make the roster let alone have an impact at the pro level.

 

[armand34]

Would they be a good test case to settle the debate over talent or coaching?

I believe in Talent over the coaching for that team (Jags).

Similar to the Seahawks, they were loaded between 2013-2014, how much coaching was required to get there. I don't believe Pete Carroll and Darrell Bevell are upper-echelon coaches in the league. You can credit the Seahawks more for acquiring talent, than coaching the hell out of that team....in my ever so humble opinion.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I believe in Talent over the coaching for that team (Jags).

Similar to the Seahawks, they were loaded between 2013-2014, how much coaching was required to get there. I don't believe Pete Carroll and Darrell Bevell are upper-echelon coaches in the league. You can credit the Seahawks more for acquiring talent, than coaching the hell out of that team....in my ever so humble opinion.

I agree that talent is more important than coaching but for sure both factor into a team´s performance.

 

[AmishMafia]

Would they be a good test case to settle the debate over talent or coaching?

Maybe.

I think the best example is Lombardi. There were 15ish HOF or Probowlers on the roster when he took over and yet the Packers were one of the worst teams in football. With the great coaching they went from sucking to historically good. They had the talent but not the direction and keadership.

 

[Half Empty]

I, on the other hand, think that Vince was the guy who proved that it has to be both. I certainly am not going to deny that he got the most out of the people he had to work with, but he was responsible for bringing in a lot of the dynasty players. Check the '59 roster http://nfl.packers.com/history/all_time_roster/players/, paying special attention to how many of the eventual stars had more than a year or two under their belts at the time. The jump in production from '58 to '59 may well be attributed primarily to coaching, but 'Lombardi's Packers' were most definitely a combination of talented players acquired and a coach who got them to play their best.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Would this really be a surprise? They won the North last season.

But if you read other people posting it seems like nobody wants to believe Minnesota is any good.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But if you read other people posting it seems like nobody wants to believe Minnesota is any good.

In my opinion the Vikings are overrated because they won the NFC North last season basically because the Packers struggled during the second half of 2015. I´m not suggesting Minnesota is a terrible team but a mediocre one.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I, on the other hand, think that Vince was the guy who proved that it has to be both. I certainly am not going to deny that he got the most out of the people he had to work with, but he was responsible for bringing in a lot of the dynasty players. Check the '59 roster http://nfl.packers.com/history/all_time_roster/players/, paying special attention to how many of the eventual stars had more than a year or two under their belts at the time. The jump in production from '58 to '59 may well be attributed primarily to coaching, but 'Lombardi's Packers' were most definitely a combination of talented players acquired and a coach who got them to play their best.

Jack Vainisi should be mentioned as an important contributor to the Packers success in the 1960s as well. He was responsible for hiring Lombardi and bringing a lot of core players of those championship teams to Green Bay.

 

[Half Empty]

Fully agree. My point was supposed to be that, while there were a lot of (eventual) big names on the roster when Vince took over (thanks to Jack), (a) there needed to be a lot more and (b) those he inherited had to be coached up. If Vince had been like some (decent coach, horrible GM), the groundwork laid by Vainisi might well have gone for naught. Hence, within reason, good coaches make players better, good players make the job easier. Sometimes a Switzer/Cowboys combination comes along, but I'd say that's the exception that proves the rule.