NOMOFO
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 1,105
- Reaction score
- 76
What would you consider a success in 2014?
- Thread starter ivo610
- Start date
My God they are bad. Got beat by 2 third stringers and 3 ball boys last night.
Lol, actually Im happy with the team right now. They're finally doing the opposite of what theyve done the entire Herb Kohl era. Put together a group of talented young guys and let them develop. Up until the the All star break I was afraid that I was going to wake up one day and hear about Antetokounmpo being traded for some old fart rental player.
ExpatPacker
Cheesehead
To be honest, I don't see this defense being able to make the progress needed to for the Packers to be a serious SB contender.
I hope the Packers have a good draft and fill some sorely needed holes: ILB, S, TE (assuming Finley is gone), but expecting rookies to make a impact has proved unrealistic. Maybe 1 in 10 of the top 100 rookies do so. We had one last year: Lacy. That's the advantage and disadvantage of TT's d-and-d strategy: rookies, and even 2nd-year players haven't made the adjustment to the pro game to the point where they can be solid impact players.
I also have not seen enough to be reasonably optimistic about Perry and Datone Jones, our #1 picks from the past 2 years, making the leap to solid starters/impact players.
I hope our OL issues are now solved. That would make a real difference. Losing Finley (and Jones) is going to have an effect. Boykin may be able to fill Jones' shoes well enough, but Finley was effectively a TE/WR threat that Quarless can't match. If we draft an Ebron, great, or maybe Seferian-Jenkins in round 2. They have a high potential.
If the Packers win the NFC North and are competitive in the playoffs, meaning that they can play toe-to-toe with the top teams of the NFC, that is as much as I can expect. I can't count that as a success however.
Impressive victories in the playoffs against top teams is a success, losing a tight game in the NFC championship is a success, making to the SB is a success, winning the SB is a success. The Packers have not done any of these in recent years. Their sole playoff victory was against a Joe Webb-led Vikings. Almost beating SF isn't good enough, and concluding that since we were pretty close to beating them that we'll be instant SB contenders if everyone plays healthy doesn't strike me as correct. You can't simply say that since we did good against top team X with players a,b,c, and d being hurt, that we'll be that much better if they're playing. It's not nearly so simple as that.
I hope the Packers have a good draft and fill some sorely needed holes: ILB, S, TE (assuming Finley is gone), but expecting rookies to make a impact has proved unrealistic. Maybe 1 in 10 of the top 100 rookies do so. We had one last year: Lacy. That's the advantage and disadvantage of TT's d-and-d strategy: rookies, and even 2nd-year players haven't made the adjustment to the pro game to the point where they can be solid impact players.
I also have not seen enough to be reasonably optimistic about Perry and Datone Jones, our #1 picks from the past 2 years, making the leap to solid starters/impact players.
I hope our OL issues are now solved. That would make a real difference. Losing Finley (and Jones) is going to have an effect. Boykin may be able to fill Jones' shoes well enough, but Finley was effectively a TE/WR threat that Quarless can't match. If we draft an Ebron, great, or maybe Seferian-Jenkins in round 2. They have a high potential.
If the Packers win the NFC North and are competitive in the playoffs, meaning that they can play toe-to-toe with the top teams of the NFC, that is as much as I can expect. I can't count that as a success however.
Impressive victories in the playoffs against top teams is a success, losing a tight game in the NFC championship is a success, making to the SB is a success, winning the SB is a success. The Packers have not done any of these in recent years. Their sole playoff victory was against a Joe Webb-led Vikings. Almost beating SF isn't good enough, and concluding that since we were pretty close to beating them that we'll be instant SB contenders if everyone plays healthy doesn't strike me as correct. You can't simply say that since we did good against top team X with players a,b,c, and d being hurt, that we'll be that much better if they're playing. It's not nearly so simple as that.
Last edited:
Vladimirr
Cheesehead
Vince Lombardi said:
