Which Team(s) Are Most Likely To Regress From Winning Records Last Year To Losing Ones This Year?

[Candidate for Deletion]

As for continuity, the Packers only lost one starter on defense from a year ago-- Shields (and he missed almost the entire season last year anyhow). I realize the depth has churned somewhat, but if that constitutes a lack roster continuity then I would argue that there is basically no such thing.

I've always had an issue with quoting whether we lost starters or not. We lost guys who played significant snaps last year, to the level that they were essential parts of the defense. Peppers and Jones both played more snaps than Matthews (at 584, 548, and 476 respectively). Guion is all but off the team, and played almost as many (448). We rotate and sub package so much that saying "we only lost one starter" is misleading at best. We definitely lost personnel, and while we had several guys step up, got several that we all really like, and had injured players come back to healthy status this year, we are by no means shored up. In fact, I'd say that the opinion that we are worse off than last year is as equally viable as the opposite.

Rodgers is unequivocally the single biggest advantage on this team by a decent margin, and he did play incredibly well last year. However, I would point out that a much less incredible version of him led the team to the same record in 2015. A less than superhuman Rodgers has not necessarily meant a losing record for the Packers.

Agreed, and I did not mean to suggest this if that is how you read it. In fact, I was actually thinking as I wrote my piece about Rodgers how "statistically well above average" is pretty much average for Rodgers. Still, that having been said, last year's Running of the Tables was just incredible. I remember finding a post I had put up from the Friday before the first RotT game where I talked about how likely it was that MM and/or TT get fired when we missed the playoffs, seeing as only winning out could get us to the playoffs and we all knew that wouldn't happen. Lol!

I'm not sure I would agree that the roster got worse this season. On defense, they have improved personnel on the DL, at S, and at CB. Their edge rusher group is admittedly weaker barring big leaps from Fackrell and/or Elliott. The RG position is the only area on offense where they got worse and it's hard for me to see how that is going to have a huge impact. Tight end most certainly improved, and running back is a complete unknown in my opinion. Not to say that they improved at every single spot, but the net direction is forward in my opinion.

That's totally a fair opinion, but as I said above I think the opposite is equally fair, suggesting that the compromise of "pretty much the same" is likely hard to disprove. As for your positional ranking, I'd say that our expectations at RB last year support the idea that, as of right now and this same point last year, we are worse at RB. TE is a place where I remain unconvinced, as I outlined in an earlier post. I will remain highly confident in our O-Line. Defense I agree we are better at DL and S, I'd say we remain an unknown quantity at CB, and our LB corps is such a dumpster fire that there is no point in comparing it to anything else.

Finally, on the performance of the defense, one of the nice things about the continuity on the Packers is that we have a lot of data that corresponds directly to this staff. In Capers' 8 years as the defensive coordinator, his unit has finished 7th, 2nd, 19th, 11th, 24th, 13th, 12th, and 21st in scoring defense. Arguments about personnel aside, the numbers would say that the most likely direction of the defense in 2017 is slightly up. I would guess they're close to average in scoring defense this season.

I too love macro trends, but they're NOT predictive - or, rather, given that they are macro trends the number of factors one would have to identify easily reach the thousands and therefore make prediction a computationally complicated endeavor. Simply look at all the macro trend based stock market books which got everything wrong on that one.


Loved your post, thanks!

 

[Dantés]

Carson looks cooked.

He actually finished out the season pretty well.

I've always had an issue with quoting whether we lost starters or not. We lost guys who played significant snaps last year, to the level that they were essential parts of the defense. Peppers and Jones both played more snaps than Matthews (at 584, 548, and 476 respectively). Guion is all but off the team, and played almost as many (448). We rotate and sub package so much that saying "we only lost one starter" is misleading at best. We definitely lost personnel, and while we had several guys step up, got several that we all really like, and had injured players come back to healthy status this year, we are by no means shored up. In fact, I'd say that the opinion that we are worse off than last year is as equally viable as the opposite.

Agreed, and I did not mean to suggest this if that is how you read it. In fact, I was actually thinking as I wrote my piece about Rodgers how "statistically well above average" is pretty much average for Rodgers. Still, that having been said, last year's Running of the Tables was just incredible. I remember finding a post I had put up from the Friday before the first RotT game where I talked about how likely it was that MM and/or TT get fired when we missed the playoffs, seeing as only winning out could get us to the playoffs and we all knew that wouldn't happen. Lol!

That's totally a fair opinion, but as I said above I think the opposite is equally fair, suggesting that the compromise of "pretty much the same" is likely hard to disprove. As for your positional ranking, I'd say that our expectations at RB last year support the idea that, as of right now and this same point last year, we are worse at RB. TE is a place where I remain unconvinced, as I outlined in an earlier post. I will remain highly confident in our O-Line. Defense I agree we are better at DL and S, I'd say we remain an unknown quantity at CB, and our LB corps is such a dumpster fire that there is no point in comparing it to anything else.

I too love macro trends, but they're NOT predictive - or, rather, given that they are macro trends the number of factors one would have to identify easily reach the thousands and therefore make prediction a computationally complicated endeavor. Simply look at all the macro trend based stock market books which got everything wrong on that one.

Loved your post, thanks!

The point on continuity is not to say that we didn't lose snaps. We did. But all teams lose snaps, every year. Relative to what is normal in the NFL, the Packers didn't lose all that much.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying at RB. But given what they had to work with last year-- having to rely on a guy who is suddenly making a position switch, I would say it's hard to argue they're necessarily worse off at the position.

I'd make a similar care at CB. There are plenty of unknowns there, but it is hard to imagine a situation where they could possibly be put into a worse spot than they were last year. There were such bizarre rashes of injury at running back and cornerback that they're probably going to be better off at those positions, if for no other reason, simply because there isn't much of a probability of that happening again.

Previous performance under Capers does not mean that the Packers are for sure going to improve on the 21st ranked scoring defense, but I do think it indicates that there is a better chance of improvement than regression.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

The point on continuity is not to say that we didn't lose snaps. We did. But all teams lose snaps, every year. Relative to what is normal in the NFL, the Packers didn't lose all that much.

Good point. I have not looked at all to see what the average number of snaps lost (using that term) is for each team, I just wanted to demonstrate that guys upon whom we relied heavily are now no longer with us, and other guys will have to pick up those snaps and do more than they did last year with their work load. Also, I'm fully on board the "CM3-minus-HGH=Bad" train, inasmuch as he essentially is no longer the Claymaker at all. We pretty much lost him too.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying at RB. But given what they had to work with last year-- having to rely on a guy who is suddenly making a position switch, I would say it's hard to argue they're necessarily worse off at the position.

With the last year thing, I was talking about how we had high expectations for an apparently healthy and properly weighted Lacy. Monty did great in his workload once Lacy was gone, but the expectation at the start was a returned-to-form Lacy and time for Monty to come up to speed. This year it's a "we hope Monty's success wasn't a fluke" and a bunch of rookies.

I'd make a similar care at CB. There are plenty of unknowns there, but it is hard to imagine a situation where they could possibly be put into a worse spot than they were last year. There were such bizarre rashes of injury at running back and cornerback that they're probably going to be better off at those positions, if for no other reason, simply because there isn't much of a probability of that happening again.

I agree that the circumstances of last year's CB disaster are unlikely to repeat themselves. My particular worry is two fold, and pertains mostly to Randalls and Rollins. First, that they've each only had one year of success, and there are enough of those guys who never found it again to fill in the Grand Canyon. Second, the possibility of recurrence of injury or even that they will never fully recover from their injuries, which while smaller than the representative group of the first case, could still fill up a large building.

To be clear, I actually really REALLY like our CB group this year, but they're essentially a rookie, a guy we didn't want to have to play last year (but who actually did relatively well when he did play), somebody who is essentially a castoff from another team (granted, a team which utilized him poorly as they could for reasons, I guess), and a couple of guys who got hurt after looking pretty good (intentionally overlooking Hawkins and the other developmental guys). Again, I really like the personnel, but the history of performance is not there at all, and that is why I list them as essentially an unknown.

Previous performance under Capers does not mean that the Packers are for sure going to improve on the 21st ranked scoring defense, but I do think it indicates that there is a better chance of improvement than regression.

I guess, technically speaking, they have 21/32 chances of being better than last year XD

what's that? not funny? awwww

 

[Dantés]

Good point. I have not looked at all to see what the average number of snaps lost (using that term) is for each team, I just wanted to demonstrate that guys upon whom we relied heavily are now no longer with us, and other guys will have to pick up those snaps and do more than they did last year with their work load. Also, I'm fully on board the "CM3-minus-HGH=Bad" train, inasmuch as he essentially is no longer the Claymaker at all. We pretty much lost him too.


With the last year thing, I was talking about how we had high expectations for an apparently healthy and properly weighted Lacy. Monty did great in his workload once Lacy was gone, but the expectation at the start was a returned-to-form Lacy and time for Monty to come up to speed. This year it's a "we hope Monty's success wasn't a fluke" and a bunch of rookies.


I agree that the circumstances of last year's CB disaster are unlikely to repeat themselves. My particular worry is two fold, and pertains mostly to Randalls and Rollins. First, that they've each only had one year of success, and there are enough of those guys who never found it again to fill in the Grand Canyon. Second, the possibility of recurrence of injury or even that they will never fully recover from their injuries, which while smaller than the representative group of the first case, could still fill up a large building.

To be clear, I actually really REALLY like our CB group this year, but they're essentially a rookie, a guy we didn't want to have to play last year (but who actually did relatively well when he did play), somebody who is essentially a castoff from another team (granted, a team which utilized him poorly as they could for reasons, I guess), and a couple of guys who got hurt after looking pretty good (intentionally overlooking Hawkins and the other developmental guys). Again, I really like the personnel, but the history of performance is not there at all, and that is why I list them as essentially an unknown.


I guess, technically speaking, they have 21/32 chances of being better than last year XD

what's that? not funny? awwww

Whatever the reason, you're right that Clay Matthews isn't what he once was. But that's not a change from 2016, which is what we're discussing. He should be relatively the same mediocre player he was a year ago. That is the position where we lost a lot of snaps, and it's the one place where I would fault TT for not adequately addressing this offseason. I thought he should have signed another FA at that position or kept Jones. That is the place where I think we got worse, and much now depends on Perry being healthy and Fackrell/Elliott stepping up. However, I still think the defense made net progress because of the gains made at the other positions.

I understand what you're saying about Lacy and the expectations coming into last season. However, the reality of what actually took place was that Lacy went down along with almost everyone else and they had to ask a WR to switch positions. Montgomery with a full offseason to work at being a RB and some healthy rookies behind him, while nothing to crow about, strikes me as a better situation than Montgomery trying to switch positions on the fly with basically no one else to share the load.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

Whatever the reason, you're right that Clay Matthews isn't what he once was. But that's not a change from 2016, which is what we're discussing.

Again, I'm looking at this from the perspective of this point before the season this year and last year. That was just meant as an aside, though.

I too thought that we should have brought in at least one FA LB, or drafted just a bit more heavily at the position (though to be fair, we needed about 5-8 more draft picks to fully address all of our needs). I'm not usually high on getting in FAs, especially expensive big name guys, but this was an exception. Would have loved to get Flowers.

For RB, you're correct as to how it went, though we will have to see how this year goes to adequately compare. We could end up starting the season fully disillusioned in all of our RB rookies, or we could see ourselves at the bye week getting trade offers for our amazing stable of young guys. Can't wait to find out either way.

 

[PackAttack12]

I'm not suggesting that having a dominant TE is not a good thing; that is a given. I'm contesting that Jared Cook was somehow solely or even largely responsible for the team going 10-2 when he was playing, as that is what was directly implied.

I also doubt the ability of this team to fully utilize a dominant TE in the manner which many other teams have become adept. This is not to say we cannot do so, but that aside from Cook our last best guy - Finely - was never really much of a focal point for our offense in the way that people seem to remember.

We run a unit designed to take advantage of highly skilled WRs and meticulously timed routes. The primary weapon for Rodgers is, and has been, the WR. Aside from the QB and WRs themselves, the most important next factor in opening up our passing game (specifically WR game) is our running game, something MM has said again and again, to the extent which it keeps the defense from selling out on the pass. I'm totally willing to accept that a dominant TE, used well in the middle of the field especially, can do something similar, but that is not something our team has demonstrated much in the last decade. I personally believe that an effective short passing game could do as much or more for us as an effective running game. I would love to see Bennett and Kendricks fill that role for the team, though I will have to be convinced that two guys at twenty-nine and thirty years old will totally transform our offense. They could, I hope they will, but it will have to be proven to me.

I'm not disputing the point about the wide receivers. Which is why in the first sentence of my post, it read:

Having a productive tight end commanding attention in the middle of the field directly correlates to more opportunities for Rodgers to make plays on the outside.

Defenses just have to respect the middle of the field and having two really good TE's helps in that regard. Bennett doesn't have to haul in 1,000+ yards with 12+ TD's to open the offense up. But the defense has to respect the possibility of big plays from the position. Why do you think Rodgers made it a point to say in his postgame presser following the NFCCG that Jared Cook must be a top priority? He knows how important it is.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Bottom line is unlike the Falcons, Lions, Cowboys and possibly the Seahawks, I along with most others here see little reason to suspect the Pack will regress. While we may very well lose a game or two we shouldn't, I could easily see this team ending up 12-4 or at least 11-5. Again this does assume Rodgers picks up where he left off and doesn't go back into his slump, but with the added TE weapons that have been brought up, hopefully no more injuries to Jordy and better production out of our running game, I could very well see a 12-4 record in sight.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

I'm not disputing the point about the wide receivers(...)

My breaking down the offense wasn't a lesson to you as to how it breaks down, it was to be sure that all clarity was in place as for what the role of a TE is in our offense. Your focus on that leaves out the other major points which are: 1) to which extent that role influences the overall impact of the offense as a force multiplier as compared to the running game; 2) how listing the W/L with Cook in the field is not an indicator of how successful he was in his role in any meaningful way, and 3) to what extent these two pretty old new guys will do something different and transformative for our team.

In point one, I can accept the idea that a dominant TE can do as much or more than a dominant running game, but our team has not shown a predilection for playing that way. In point two, there were innumerable other factors at play which make throwing out the 10/2 stat entirely spurious. In point 3, I am not saying that these guys are destined to fail and I am not saying that I don't like them, I'm just saying that their presence is neither a guarantee nor even an indicator of impending success - I'm going to have to be shown this in game. I'll be thrilled to see it, but I wont be surprised if a year from now we are discussing if their contracts are worth it.

Defenses just have to respect the middle of the field and having two really good TE's helps in that regard. Bennett doesn't have to haul in 1,000+ yards with 12+ TD's to open the offense up. But the defense has to respect the possibility of big plays from the position. Why do you think Rodgers made it a point to say in his postgame presser following the NFCCG that Jared Cook must be a top priority? He knows how important it is.

Really, who of us at the start of LAST year would have listed Kendricks in the ranks of "really good TEs"? And who, at the end of last season, would have said we preferred to lose Cook and get another guy even older than him who weighs 30 lbs heavier? I have to be shown in game, as I said above, that these two guys are going to be transformative for us. Nobody should be assuming they will be.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

Bottom line is unlike the Falcons, Lions, Cowboys and possibly the Seahawks, I along with most others here see little reason to suspect the Pack will regress. While we may very well lose a game or two we shouldn't, I could easily see this team ending up 12-4 or at least 11-5. Again this does assume Rodgers picks up where he left off and doesn't go back into his slump, but with the added TE weapons that have been brought up, hopefully no more injuries to Jordy and better production out of our running game, I could very well see a 12-4 record in sight.

Hot Take: I think 9-7 is more likely than 12-4. I'd figure that 10-6 and 11-5 are the most likely results in the end, but the defense really could sink us to incredible depths.

And technically, all I said is that they should be on the list.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

No way we lose 7 games, aksnay no way. And we definitely are not going 10-6 three years in a row. There are only about three games on our schedule I could actually look at as likely losses with maybe 2 more being up for grabs, but I can't see 6 teams on that schedule beating us.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

No way we lose 7 games, aksnay no way. And we definitely are not going 10-6 three years in a row. There are only about three games on our schedule I could actually look at as likely losses with maybe 2 more being up for grabs, but I can't see 6 teams on that schedule beating us.

Are we looking at the same schedule, or are your glasses so green and gold they're basically opaque? (meant as friendly jab, not nasty snark)

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Are we looking at the same schedule, or are your glasses so green and gold they're basically opaque? (meant as friendly jab, not nasty snark)

Again the only way we lose 6 or more again is if Rodgers plays like **** again like he did opening last year. No way we'd have lost 6 last year if he hadn't been bombing and making terrible reads like he was against Minny, Dallas and Indy in the early going. The offense has plenty of improvements we've already pointed out, and the defense while still needing a little work should be plenty adequate for 11-12 wins.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

Again the only way we lose 6 or more again is if Rodgers plays like **** again like he did opening last year. No way we'd have lost 6 last year if he hadn't been bombing and making terrible reads like he was against Minny, Dallas and Indy in the early going. The offense has plenty of improvements we've already pointed out, and the defense while still needing a little work should be plenty adequate for 11-12 wins.

For real, we have no common ground on which to discuss this because I can barely agree with any part of that, so I'll just let it go.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Shouldn't WE be on that list? I hope we don't, but there is every chance we could if this defense doesn't perform at the top of it's potential. If it even ends up being "good" for the personnel we have, that will probably be enough to sink us under 10 wins. Not popular, I know, but I really REALLY hate our defense right now.

I don't believe the Packers should be oart of that list as the offense will most likely carry the team to another 10+ win season. It will be critical that the defense makes major improvement to be successful in the playoffs though.

I don't think it'll be the case this season, and while our defense still has concerns, if it were to improve even moderately I'd give us a great chance to rack up that number 1 seed considering Seattle's offensive line is a mess and they no longer can rely on their defense to get the job done.

The Seahawks defense finished third in points allowed last season, I'm really curious to figure out why a lot of posters consider that unit to be done.

As for continuity, the Packers only lost one starter on defense from a year ago-- Shields (and he missed almost the entire season last year anyhow). I realize the depth has churned somewhat, but if that constitutes a lack roster continuity then I would argue that there is basically no such thing.

It's kind of funny that you consider missing Banjo, Dorleant and Goodson entering the NFCCG as a valid reason for giving up 44 points yet completely dismiss the Packers losing Peppers and Jones this offseason.

I also doubt the ability of this team to fully utilize a dominant TE in the manner which many other teams have become adept. This is not to say we cannot do so, but that aside from Cook our last best guy - Finely - was never really much of a focal point for our offense in the way that people seem to remember.

Finley was the focal point of the offense early in 2010 when he caught 21 passes for 301 yards in the first four games before suffering a season ending injury. The point neing that McCarthy knows how to successfully use a dominant tight end.

I'm not usually high on getting in FAs, especially expensive big name guys, but this was an exception. Would have loved to get Flowers.

I guess you're talking about CB Brandon Flowers. It would have been a terrible idea for the Packers to sign him this offseason as he suffered his fourth concussion last year and most likely finds himself in the exact same situation as Shields.

My breaking down the offense wasn't a lesson to you as to how it breaks down, it was to be sure that all clarity was in place as for what the role of a TE is in our offense. Your focus on that leaves out the other major points which are: 1) to which extent that role influences the overall impact of the offense as a force multiplier as compared to the running game; 2) how listing the W/L with Cook in the field is not an indicator of how successful he was in his role in any meaningful way, and 3) to what extent these two pretty old new guys will do something different and transformative for our team.

In point one, I can accept the idea that a dominant TE can do as much or more than a dominant running game, but our team has not shown a predilection for playing that way. In point two, there were innumerable other factors at play which make throwing out the 10/2 stat entirely spurious. In point 3, I am not saying that these guys are destined to fail and I am not saying that I don't like them, I'm just saying that their presence is neither a guarantee nor even an indicator of impending success - I'm going to have to be shown this in game. I'll be thrilled to see it, but I wont be surprised if a year from now we are discussing if their contracts are worth it.


Really, who of us at the start of LAST year would have listed Kendricks in the ranks of "really good TEs"? And who, at the end of last season, would have said we preferred to lose Cook and get another guy even older than him who weighs 30 lbs heavier? I have to be shown in game, as I said above, that these two guys are going to be transformative for us. Nobody should be assuming they will be.

I agree with a lot of posters that Bennett and Kendricks present a significant upgrade over Cook and Rodgers. It seems there's no way to change your mind about it before you've seen them perform on the field though.

No way we lose 7 games, aksnay no way. And we definitely are not going 10-6 three years in a row. There are only about three games on our schedule I could actually look at as likely losses with maybe 2 more being up for grabs, but I can't see 6 teams on that schedule beating us.

While I don't expect the Packers to lise six games in 2017 either there's always a possibility that might happen. There wasn't a single poster around expecting the team to start 4-6 last season.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

I guess you're talking about CB Brandon Flowers.

No, I just have a terrible memory and didn't look up the name of the guy I had meant. Tried to do so now, and couldn't find the guy, and it's early and bleh. There was some LB that a lot of people, myself included, liked though.

I agree with a lot of posters that Bennett and Kendricks present a significant upgrade over Cook and Rodgers.

I agree that they are an improvement, as a unit, over the unit of Cook and Rodgers (mostly because, Rodgers, amirite?). As an individual player, neither impresses me all that much more, and I'm not sure that we will suddenly become an uber successful multi-TE usage unit either. This is why I will remain unconvinced until I see it on the field.

 

[Mondio]

There is going to be a learning curve for both to get this offense working like it should, but I see Kendricks as being almost an equal already to Cook. I think MB is a different TE than Cook was, but I think he's an upgrade even if he isn't as fast. They do need to prove it, but I think they will. Lining up 2 TE's rather than a TE that is an adequate blocker on one side and a back up tackle as the other TE is very limiting over lining up with 2 TE's that are good blockers, big targets and good pass catchers. Especially if we can line up monty all over. They still need to execute, but there are so many more possibilities in short yardage and goaline situations. So many more looks, lots more for teams to prepare for. all that means nothing if they can't execute it, but I do think both are more than qualified to pick this up and go forward with it. Might not see it week 1, but by week 10 i think it's going to be something special.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

When I see our Defense having to AGAIN draft 2 corners after doing it within the last 2 years, when I see no viable QB of the future (Hundley might be the guy might not be) when I see us struggling at ILB, and when I see both guards from the 2015 season gone, and us MAYBE having a running back, I worry that WE'RE the team to regress to 7-9 or further.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

When I see our Defense having to AGAIN draft 2 corners after doing it within the last 2 years, when I see no viable QB of the future (Hundley might be the guy might not be) when I see us struggling at ILB, and when I see both guards from the 2015 season gone, and us MAYBE having a running back, I worry that WE'RE the team to regress to 7-9 or further.

Not to focus on minutia, but Hundley not being the eventual successor to Rodgers has no bearing on whether we go 13-3 or 7-9 this year.

 

[PackAttack12]

When I see our Defense having to AGAIN draft 2 corners after doing it within the last 2 years, when I see no viable QB of the future (Hundley might be the guy might not be) when I see us struggling at ILB, and when I see both guards from the 2015 season gone, and us MAYBE having a running back, I worry that WE'RE the team to regress to 7-9 or further.

7-9 and Aaron Rodgers just don't go together.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

7-9 and Aaron Rodgers just don't go together.

When you look at Concussions, Broken Foot (Yes while a backup), Broken Collar Bone...7-9 would go with Aaron Rodgers injuries.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

While I don't expect the Packers to lise six games in 2017 either there's always a possibility that might happen. There wasn't a single poster around expecting the team to start 4-6 last season.

But as I mentioned, this is because we all thought Rodgers's crappy play was going to stop at the end of 2015. Turns out that didn't quite happen. But MM seems to have fixed the problem of WRs getting open and Adams addressing the drop issues. Despite a tough loss in the NFCCG, my feeling is Rodgers is going to pick up where he left off in his run the table play, and so long as Jordy and Cobb stay healthy this season, I'm expecting the offense to look like the well-oiled machine we were missing at the outset of last season.

 

[AmishMafia]

No, I just have a terrible memory and didn't look up the name of the guy I had meant. Tried to do so now, and couldn't find the guy, and it's early and bleh. There was some LB that a lot of people, myself included, liked though.

I suppose you will fill us in on the names of your FAs AFTER the season is over.

 

[GBkrzygrl]

No, I just have a terrible memory and didn't look up the name of the guy I had meant. Tried to do so now, and couldn't find the guy, and it's early and bleh. There was some LB that a lot of people, myself included, liked though.

Are you possibly thinking about Lattimore? If I remember correctly a lot of people were high on him.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

When you look at Concussions, Broken Foot (Yes while a backup), Broken Collar Bone...7-9 would go with Aaron Rodgers injuries.

Yeah typical response of a Viking fan who hopes for that because his QB's win ceiling is 8-8.

 

[PackAttack12]

When you look at Concussions, Broken Foot (Yes while a backup), Broken Collar Bone...7-9 would go with Aaron Rodgers injuries.

Lawdhamercy.

Clearly I was referring to a healthy Aaron Rodgers. And given that the man hasn't finished a season below .500 since his 1st season in the league, I think it's pretty silly to suggest that 7-9 is a realistic finishing record.

If some want to engage on hypotheticals when figuring what the final record will be, then go ahead. I'll logically assume he's going to be available for 16 games.