Green Bay Packers

[TroyF]

They did very well in the over/under thread by Fritz. They were one of the top vote getters to go to the Super Bowl in the Kodos poll.

I'm wondering if I've missed the boat on this team. I'd like some of you Packer supporters to tell me where I'm wrong. Here are my thoughts on the team:

I like the offense. They should be explosive with Green, Farve and a solid WR core. I do have concerns about Donald Driver (who tailed off badly toward the end of last season) and how much pounding Green can take. Still, I see no reason why the offense won't be around the same level as last year.

The defense? It scares me. They lose three of their top four tacklers from a year ago. (and 5 of their top 10) They lose their #2 sack man from a year ago. They lose players who forced 11 of their team total of 20 forced fumbles a year ago.

They now have two journeyman DT's, a rookie MLB and a DE who will have to start playing every down.

I see this defense as being really bad. I look at the Pack and I see a .500 team.

Am I the crazy one? I picked the Cardinals to surprise last year, so I'm certainly not above making bad predictions. :)

TroyF

[Fritz]

Troy,

its not that I think the packers are a great team, its just who they play.

[The_herd]

I agree with TroyF. The offense is gonna be similar to the the offense's they've had since picking up Green, it will be good, but not great. The defense is gonna be average at best.

The Packers are the only team in their division that won't be improved. Chicago will be improved if they don't suffer the 600 injuries they went through last year, Detroit will be better with Harrington a year wiser and adding Charles Rogers, and the Vike's should have a much improved defense and a better offense if a running back like Onterio Smith steps up.

I think this will be the same Packers team we're accustomed to seeing, they will win 10 or 11 games and flame out in the playoffs because they have to rely on Farve too much.

[ice4277]

The Packers are a good bet in the over/under but no way would I select them to go to the Super Bowl. Its essentially the same Packers team that lost a playoff game at Lambeau for the first time ever; 'nuff said.

[TroyF]

I guess I can see the weak division stuff. I don't have any extra money to bet right now. If I did, I'd put a lot of it down on the Packers not reaching 10 wins.

TroyF

[Fonzie]

I agree that the Pack's defense should give any Packer fan a serious case of the willies. The line in particular seems like a disaster waiting to happen. They'll need Johnson to come back strong, and they'll need their no-name defensive tackles to play much better if they're to even dream about stopping the run. Their linebackers - I'm not sure what to think. Getting rid of Nickerson is an improvement regardless of who replaces him, and I suspect Barnett will be OK. The secondary may even be better than last year, with the addition of Harris and the improvement of Jue.

I suspect the offense may also be better than last season, perhaps considerably so. Their WR corps is now deeper and more experienced, they've got much better depth at RB and at FB, and their offensive tackles will finally be back on the field. And their O-line will be key; if they can stay healthy all year I suspect the Packers will score 400+ points. Which, if the defense plays as badly as I fear, will be necessary for the Packers to make the playoffs.

Remember, the Packers were also decimated by injuries last year, second worst in terms of games missed by starters only to the Bears, if memory serves. And they still managed to win 12 games. And that's nothing to sneeze at, regardless of how weak your division is.

I'm not sure that either the Bears or the Vikings are so dramatically improved that they'll seriously challenge the Packers this year - although I like what the Vikings have done on defense. Bennett's injury has to be a worry for them, even if a backup plays reasonably well, and who knows which Randy Moss will show up? The Bears simply aren't as bad as last year's record suggests, but Kordell? I suspect they'll end up at or just below .500. And the Lions? They just don't have the talent yet. They'll get better under Mariucci, but not enough to challenge the Packers this year.

In summary, I think the Packers will win about 11 games this year, largely due to weak (but improving) divisional opponents. I don't, however, think they'll go deep into the playoffs because of their inadequate defense.

Just my $.02. I certainly wouldn't recommend wagering any significant amount of money on it.

[Arles]

This team had both starting tackles, both starting DEs, Green's backup, their pro-bowl safety and other starting safety, and top run-stuffing DT all out for significant time (ended with 5 starters on the IR). It got so bad that for the last four games their starting center was playing LT, Favre was playing with a torn knee and Green and Driver couldn't even walk out of the Jets game. In the second half of the Atlanta game, the Packers had Tony Fisher as the only healthy runner, Karsten Bailey as the no. 1 wideout and three OL starters not even suiting up. That doesn't even mention the "Hardly Tackleson" experiment at MLB.

Yet, with all this, the team finished 12-4 and a legit shot at some postseason noise if they could have kept half their injured skilled players on the field. So, given the team is somewhat healthy, this is a 12-4 team again in 2003.

As to the defense, GB finished second to last in the league in ypc allowed last season and still won 12 games. With the addition of two new LB starters (weakest area in 2002), an upgrade at corner and a healthy DL, you have to think they won't do any worse.

To me, it comes down to injuries, if GB loses half their starters to injury, they will suffer. But, if they stay somewhat healthy, they are an 11-12 win team. With the return of both starting tackles, addition of Walls and a healthy Favre, Green and Driver, you have to think that their offense will be atleast as good in 2003 as it was in 2002. And, it's hard for their defense to be much worse than 2002's showing.

Arlie

[TroyF]

I disagree mightily with your last point. I think it is VERY possible for their defense to be worse. In fact, I think it's possible it will be much worse. Your pass rusher isn't situational anymore, he's an every down DE who can be exploited on non-passing downs and worn down as a game progresses. Your rookie middle linebacker is going to be beaten and beaten badly while he learns the pro game.

We shall see. We'll find out a lot about them in the early weeks of the season. They start with two home games: Minnesota and Detroit. Then they go on the road to Arizona and Chicago. From that point on, it gets a bit more difficult.

I predict they'll go 2-2 in those first 4 games. If I'm right, you won't win 10 games. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and go from there. :)

For what it's worth, I hope I'm wrong. I like the Packers and Brett Farve a lot. He's one of my favorite players in the game today. I would certainly be happier seeing him win than I would seeing Randy Moss win. I think I'm going to see more of the latter than the former.

TroyF

[Jas_lov]

2-2? The first two are at home. How often do the Packers lose at home when the actually have their best RB,WR,2 OT,DT, and FS on the field? Not very. Yes the Vikings almost beat the Packers at home last year, but the Packers had significant injury problems. As Arles mentioned, Mike Flanigan, their center was forced to play left tackle. They had an undrafted rookie at right tackle. Nick Barnett is a rookie but he can't be any worse than Hardy Nickerson was. They have more speed at LB which is good. Upgrade with Harris over Tyrone Williams at 2nd CB. Joe Johnson is back opposite KGB. Lost Gilbert so nose tackle will be a concern but Cledius Hunt is an emerging player at the other DT.

I think the offense will be better than last year if everyone can stay healthy especially the O-line. The two tackles are the big key as they are coming off major injuries. Driver showed what he can do last year and Favre trusts him now. Walker and Fergy are big and athletic. Bubba for the redzone, and they're really excited about going to a 2 TE formation with Walls and Bubba. Green is the other big key so Favre doesn't have to do it all. He must stay healthy and be key in the passing game. As was stated before, Green's backup Najeh Davenport got injured also last year so the 3rd string RB Tony Fisher had to play and didn't do too bad. And they're really excited about FB Nick Luchey.

This is why I think they can start hot. 4-0 isn't out of the question. I like the Packers odds against the Vikings and Lions at home. By 2-2 I'm assuming you mean they lose to the Vikings and Bears cause there's no way the Cardinals or Lions can beat the Packers. Sure the Bears will be moving into a new stadium. But did you see what Favre did to them last year in Chicago on Monday night? The Bears did have a lot of injuries but so did Green Bay. What scares me about this team is how they get behind in games and I can't figure it out. That middle of the schedule is going to be their make or break playoff run though. I think they play at the Bucs, Eagles, at Vikings, 49ers in a row there. Plus playing against the AFC West! Sure their division is weak but the rest of the schedule is fairly tough. But we won't know for sure how this team stacks up until their first game against Minnesota.

[TroyF]

As I said, I could be wrong. :) That's why I wanted Packer fans to let me in on their thoughts. I did know about the injury troubles, but I wasn't that fond of the O-line anyway. I also wasn't fond of the D-Line. Johnson played horribly last year.

Yes, my prediction is they get beat by the Vikings opening day and the Bears opening game at the "new" Soldier Field. I think they beat the Lions at home and the Cards on the road. (I think the Lions game later in the season will not be a picnic. If Ricks catches a down the field pass, they lose to the Lions in Detroit last year. That game isn't a gimmee)

The Pack went 8-0 at home last year. The wins were by 3 against Atlanta in OT, by 3 against the Panthers, a rout over the Redskins in Patrick Ramsey's first career start, a win against the Dolphins and Ray Lucas, a rout against Detroit, a ten point win over the Bears, a 4 point win over the Vikings, and a shutout over the Bills.

This year they play (with my predictions) Minnesota (loss), Detroit (win), Seattle (coin toss, I'll give em the win), KC (loss), Philly (loss), SF (win), Chicago (win), Denver (win) That's 5-3. With a .500 road record, they finish up at 9-7. I'm not sure they have a .500 road record. Lets say I give em wins vs. Detroit, Arizona and Chicago. That leaves Minnesota (where they never seem to win), Tampa Bay (good luck), Oakland (probable loss), San Diego (Tomlinson against that run defense?), and St. Louis (again, Farve and domes don't seem to go together)

I still predict 8-8. Maybe 9-7. Feel free to insult me and call me many names if I'm wrong. :) :)

TroyF

[mckerney]

Yes the Vikings almost beat the Packers at home last year

Lets not forget that the league said the Vikings should have won that game due to an incorrect pass interference call on a Jack Brewer interception.

I see good things for the Vikings this year as their front 7 is looking very good (though there are still many questions as far as the secondary), their offensive line should be solid, especially if Kleinsasser is ready to go at TE, and Moss is said to have had a great offseason where he's had a bit of an attitude adjustment to come around as a team leader.

[Mustang]

Originally posted by TroyF

The Pack went 8-0 at home last year. The wins were by 3 against Atlanta in OT, by 3 against the Panthers, a rout over the Redskins in Patrick Ramsey's first career start, a win against the Dolphins and Ray Lucas, a rout against Detroit, a ten point win over the Bears, a 4 point win over the Vikings, and a shutout over the Bills.


Oh god.. you're one of THEM. The 'Oh ya.. they won BUT..'.

If your mind is made up, your mind is made up. People have thrown out so valid arguments pro and con but, you aren't going to change your mind so.. why even bother.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by TroyF
I guess I can see the weak division stuff. I don't have any extra money to bet right now. If I did, I'd put a lot of it down on the Packers not reaching 10 wins.
Even if you counted 6 division wins? Then they just need to go 4-6 outside the division. They are probably good enough to do that.

As for their division opponents, I don't see that much improvement. I don't think Chicago has improved at all. Their offense will not be better with Kordell Stewart or a rookie Rex Grossman at the helm. They still don't have an NFL caliber running back. Their defense lost their best pass rusher. Detroit has improved, but that just means they stink less. And they lost Claiborne, which is huge.

I don't know how to figure Minnesota. They would seem to be a good team, but lost a lot of games with these same guys. They have some good players on defense, but might have the worst pass rush in the NFL, and mediocre corners. They are going to once again get killed through the air. They could set the NFL points and yet go 6-10.

I think with Green Bay, they are counting on improvement from a lot of guys. They expect Walker and Ferguson to improve enough to make this Favre's best WR corps. As far as the defensive players to replace, other than Holliday, they didn't want them back, they were part of the reason the defense was so-so last year. Them being gone is considered a positive. And you can replace Holliday with the 2001 Joe Johnson and not lose much.

Wow that's a lot of ifs. Best case is 6-0 in division, 6-4 out, for 12-4. If none of those come through, they could go as bad as 6-10.

[cuervo72]

Ok, lets see:

Sun., Sept. 7 Minnesota Vikings - W
Sun., Sept. 14 Detroit Lions* - W
Sun., Sept. 21 at Arizona Cardinals - W
Mon., Sept. 29 at Chicago Bears - W
Sun., Oct. 5 Seattle Seahawks - W
Sun., Oct. 12 Kansas City Chiefs - W
Sun., Oct. 19 at St. Louis Rams - L
Sun., Oct. 26 Open Date
Sun., Nov. 2 at Minnesota Vikings - L
Mon., Nov. 10 Philadelphia Eagles* - W
Sun., Nov. 16 at Tampa Bay Buccaneers - L
Sun., Nov. 23 San Francisco 49ers - L
Thurs., Nov. 27 at Detroit Lions - W
Sun., Dec. 7 Chicago Bears - W
Sun., Dec. 14 at San Diego Chargers - W
Mon., Dec. 22 at Oakland Raiders - L
Sun., Dec. 28 Denver Broncos - W

Just guesses, and some of these days if you ask me in a week I might change. But I can see them going 11-5.

[Samdari]

You've got them losing to the 49ers at home but beating the Eagles?

?????????????????

Also, don't mark Seattle as an auto win just yet, nor at the Chargers.

The thing that struck me about the over/unders was the 49ers. They went from a very good coach to a terrible one, and I think they will play most of the season with either Tim Rattay or Ken Dorsey as QB. Yikes!

Get me to a bookie and get whatever I can down on under whatever number is posted.

EDIT: or, not of

[cuervo72]

You're right, I think the Seattle and Chargers games could go either way. The 49ers and Eagles...well, just hunches. There might be some games that don't go the way one would expect. The Eagles game is an MNF at Lambeau, and my pessimism as an Eagles fan has me wary of it. I think the Eagles SHOULD win, but...

edit: Chargers is plural.

[Jas_lov]

Exactly my point. The Packers can easily start off 6-0 if they win the games they're capable of winning. All six of those teams are not playoff teams from last year and four of the games are at home. The KC game should be the most interesting as the score will be in the 30's or maybe even 40's. The Packers won't go 6-0 in the division because they can never win in Minnesota. And they won't win in St. Louis or Tampa Bay. I do however think they can go 8-0 at home and 4-4 on the road with wins over the Lions, Cardinals, Bears, and a huge win over the Chargers. I do believe the Packers can beat the 49ers at home because the Packers always beat the 49ers recently except that damn Owens catch. The 49ers aren't any better than last year anyway.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Mustang
Oh god.. you're one of THEM. The 'Oh ya.. they won BUT..'.

If your mind is made up, your mind is made up. People have thrown out so valid arguments pro and con but, you aren't going to change your mind so.. why even bother.

Yes, my mind is made up. I did get what I wanted out of the thread. I've seen some great arguements as to why they'll win 10-12 games again. I've admitted repeatedly that I could be wrong. I haven't once tried to say that my belief is superior to anyone elses.

As far as they won BUT. . . there is a lot of data in all sports that shows most teams don't get lucky and win the close ones two years in a row. (ie: Chicago the past two years) The reason is that most of the time that's what it comes down to, luck.

In this case, I HAVE to show that I think the 12-4 record from last year is a bit of a mirage and that the Pack had a little luck last year. If I think that they were truly a 12-4 team, I have no way of saying they can't repeat that in their division, even in the wacky world of the NFL.

Good job to the Pack fans. They did a great job of demonstrating their points. As I've said earlier, feel free to rip into me if the Pack do get 10-12 wins. I've been wrong before and I'll certainly be wrong again.

Samdari,

They didn't go 6-0 in their division last year. They went 5-1. I'm guessing they get tripped up at least once more by division foes this year.

TroyF

[Chief Rum]

Troy, I noticed the tenor of this thread was similar to our Saints-Raiders' defense argument a week or two back. I have no comment on this issue at all, but I wanted to pose a question to you that struck me as rather inconsistent.

One of your primary arguments for the Saints D being so much better (as much as 9 spots better to 18-20, if I recall correctly) was the presence of Cie Grant, third round pick OLB out of Ohio State. And yet here you are declaring the Packers will be very bad because they'll be giving major PT to first round pick ILB Nick Barnett out of Oregon State. Seems a little inconsistent. What do you think?

Chief Rum

[TroyF]

Chief,

My thoughts on the Saints improving D stemmed from an organizational effort to change the philosiphy of their defensive scheme. The made numerous changes to get them faster. Adding Grant was only one of those changes. The Saints have a couple of solid DT's to take the pressure off of whichever young MLB they choose to start. Barnett doesn't have that luxury. He's a speed LB who has no DT's upfront to protect him. That's my reasoning. While I'm making predictions that will come back to bite my ass later on, how about this one: The Saints gave up 24+ points per game last year. The Packers gave up 20+ points. I'll predict the two will reverse this year.

TroyF

[Chief Rum]

I think they'll both give up 23 points. I still think you extended far too much importance to Grant's presence in your argument for the Saints. If you look back at that thread, I think you'll find that Grant's name is littered throughout your posts there.

I said then that Grant wasn't going to make a big difference, and would likely be just a backup, and I do think Barnett will have problems this season as well. There is consistency there, as I am saying both rookie linebackers would struggle.

You are saying that one, a third rpound pick will do well, while the other, a first round pick, will do poorly, and right now the only commonality I am seeing is that in either situation arguing as you have is beneficial to the argument you are putting up. But this particular view is logically inconsistent. So I thought I would ask again, more directly, not about the Saints' D, but specifically about your expectations for both Grant and Barnett, and why you so readily accept the contributions of one, but reject the other?

CR

[Fritz]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1493179.html

2. The unit that concerns me the most is the Green Bay Packers defense. The Falcons and Vick outscored the first team Packers defense 21-3, and Browns quarterbacks Kelly Holcomb and Tim Couch chewed up the pass defense in the first half last week. Sure, it's hard to evaluate a defense that doesn't scheme for preseason games, and the Packers indeed have a complex defense that succeeds on blitzes and good coaching. But the Packers aren't tackling well and that's not scheme. They have injuries galore along the defensive line and the linebackers don't seem to be in sync. The Packers should still win the NFC North, but the gap over the Vikings may not be as big as they think.

[Craptacular]

If the Gravedigger can't play this season (he's trying to prove to the coaches that he can play with the torn bicep), their defense is in serious, serious trouble. Even with a healthy Gilbert, they still have lots of holes, but I think they'll play better than the preseason has shown.

[TroyF]

Chief,

I didn't remember mentioning Grant THAT much in the thread. I decided to go back and look. Here are the quotes in which I mentioned Cie Grant:

Cie Grant, Derick Rodgers, Orlando Ruff and Tebuckey Jones give them a lot more team speed on that side of the ball.

If we rate performence on stars. . . I'd rate Clemons a 1 out of 5. He's a middle LB that had 8 or more tackles 3 times in 16 starts. Words simply cannot express how horrible that is. Ruff or Grant would almost have to TRY to do worse.

That was the extent of my quotes on Grant. I never even conceded he'd win the starting job, much less specify him as the sole reason the Saints would be better on defense.

Still, you have to look at the tools around a young player. Look at it this way: Who has more tools at his disposal this year: Byron Leftwich or Carson Palmer. If both were forced into starting duties, who would have the better chance of success? I think Leftwich is the better QB, but Palmer has a superior arsenal around him. Chad Johnson, Corey Dillon, a decent O-Line. . . Leftwich has a 34 year old Jimmy Smith and an injury prone Fred Taylor.

Well, Grant (or Ruff) has superior DT's in front of them than Barnett does. Ask me who I'd pick if I were drafting a team? Barnett. Not even close. Barnett simply doesn't have anything in front of him. The guards and centers are going to get to the second level (ie: the linebackers) a lot more against the Pack than they will against the Saints. That means a guy like Grant or Ruff will be able to run free more and use their speed to make plays. Barnett will have to use his brain more. IMO, the rookie who is forced to use his brain more will make more mistakes.

TroyF

[Arles]

Originally posted by TroyF
[B]I disagree mightily with your last point. I think it is VERY possible for their defense to be worse.

I guess it's always possible, but considering their talent level is no worse than that of 2002, it's not likely.


In fact, I think it's possible it will be much worse. Your pass rusher isn't situational anymore, he's an every down DE who can be exploited on non-passing downs and worn down as a game progresses.

First of all, the "situational pass rusher" started 11 straight games at the "Elephant" DE spot after Joe Johnson went on the IR in week 5 and was an every down DE. And, for the most part, he held up pretty well against the run considering he had never been an everydown player. What hurt him was when both Holliday and Gilbert Brown were also hurt, forcing the team to start both Aaron Kampman and Rod Walker (two guys that may not even make this year's roster).

You have to realize that this team had 6 games last year where the starting DL was KGB - Walker - Hunt - Kampman, with only Jamal Reynolds and Steve Warren as depth rotation guys. This season, the team has much more depth at the DL (and talent). It's still the weak point in the defense, but their talent is better than in 2002. GB also replaced two old and slow LBs (Wayne and Nickerson) with younger and faster players. The secondary is essentially the same with GB trading Ty Williams and Tod McBride for Al Harris and a healthy Antuan Edwards and Jue. So, from a depth standpoint this year's secondary may be even better than the unit that ranked 3rd in the NFL in passing yards allowed in 2002.


Your rookie middle linebacker is going to be beaten and beaten badly while he learns the pro game.

As opposed to the old, broken down MLB that routinely got beaten in 2002? Atleast Barnett has the ability to make up for his mistakes with his speed and tackling ability. Plus, he's looked pretty good in camp and has only missed one assignment in three full preseason games. The only two spots that worry me on defense is the third LB spot (Navies looks the same as Wayne thus far) and the NT. I have no problem with Johnson, Hunt, and KGB on the line, Barnett and Diggs at LB and a secondary of McKenzie, Harris, Sharper, Edwards and Anderson/Jue. That is a lot of talent for a "bad" defense.


We shall see. We'll find out a lot about them in the early weeks of the season. They start with two home games: Minnesota and Detroit. Then they go on the road to Arizona and Chicago. From that point on, it gets a bit more difficult.

I predict they'll go 2-2 in those first 4 games. If I'm right, you won't win 10 games. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and go from there. :)

I predict 4-0. They don't lose at home. With the exception of games against Atlanta, GB hasn't lost a home game in two full seasons. AZ is not a good team and GB should easily take them. Which leaves Chicago, a team that GB hasn't lost on the road to since the first Clinton term in the early 90s (something like 7 road wins in a row).

So, expecting GB to 3-1 is a stretch based on matchups and 2-2 is downright silly. None of those four teams will even sniff .500 this year.


For what it's worth, I hope I'm wrong. I like the Packers and Brett Farve a lot. He's one of my favorite players in the game today. I would certainly be happier seeing him win than I would seeing Randy Moss win. I think I'm going to see more of the latter than the former.

So, you bash GB's defense, but somehow think Minnesota is going to win with their D? I don't understand that. The Vikings may have the worst defense in the NFC and will be without their starting RB for most of the season. After Moss and Culpepper, that team is pretty thin on talent.

Arlie

[TroyF]

Dola,

Thanks for the link Fritz. I figured that was a training camp report on the Packers. It's interesting that it is a report on the entire league. I'm glad to see there is at least one so called "expert" that shares my concerns. :)

TroyF

[Arles]

Originally posted by Fritz
http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1493179.html

2. The unit that concerns me the most is the Green Bay Packers defense. The Falcons and Vick outscored the first team Packers defense 21-3, and Browns quarterbacks Kelly Holcomb and Tim Couch chewed up the pass defense in the first half last week. Sure, it's hard to evaluate a defense that doesn't scheme for preseason games, and the Packers indeed have a complex defense that succeeds on blitzes and good coaching. But the Packers aren't tackling well and that's not scheme. They have injuries galore along the defensive line and the linebackers don't seem to be in sync. The Packers should still win the NFC North, but the gap over the Vikings may not be as big as they think.

GB's startering DL against Cleveland on D - Nwokorie/Steve Martin/Kampman/KGB. Three starters didn't play (Johnson, Hunt, Walker). As to the Vick game, give me a break. You tell me who has the advantage between a non-blitzing vanilla defense against Mike Vick in preseason.

This team has rarely blitzed in the preseason and has done little gameplanning so far. It seems like there are a lot of people looking at the GB defense as this awful unit based on two preseason quarters with numerous starters missing. What I have seen is a unit where Nick Barnett has had 10 solo tackles in a little over 4 quarters of play, with both corners looking very good (which bodes well for blitzing).

Only time will tell though,

Arlie

[TroyF]

Arlie,

Sorry you are taking things so personal.

For what it's worth, that "every down" DE you talk about had 4 sacks in his last nine starts. (including the playoff game against the Falcons) You don't think the pounding on him took a toll?

As for the Vikings, they have taken huge steps on the defensive side of the ball. The secondary is a big concern, but the DL is strong. In fact, this taken from the same article Fritz linked:

But it can be argued that the Vikings now have the best defensive line in the division. With Kenny Mixon and Kevin Williams at ends, Chris Hovan and Fred Robbins at tackle and Lance Johnstone coming off the bench as a pass-rusher, the Vikings have the nice balance of playmaking ability that could be a little better than the Packers, Bears and Lions along the defensive line.

It all starts up front. If your DT's can't clog up the middle and you don't have a FEARSOME pass rush from the two ends, you are going to have problems stopping people. When you combine the fact the LB play is spotty at best, you have the makings for disaster.

I think the Vikings shored up the D-Line. I think Claiborne will give them some fire on the outside.

I guess I'll go ahead and exit stage left at this point. All of our feelings are known. You believe the Packers will have a better defense than last year and easily win 10 games. I think the Packers D will be far worse, that they'll struggle more in the division than some people think, and the tougher schedule outside the division will cause them to finish up at 8-8 or 9-7.

You win, I'll create a webpage stating how big of an idiot I am and let everyone from FOFC throw "virtual" tomatoes at a digital picture of me. You come to Colorado, I'll let you throw real tomatoes at me.

Relax Arle. Good luck to the Pack. I still hold to what I said up there. I hope I'm wrong and I hope the Packers are better than I think they are. I'll deal with the tomatoes if that is really the case.

TroyF

[Jas_lov]

Arles brings up some great points. Biggest of all is how the defense can be worse than last year when it's the same unit with upgrades at some positions like 2nd corner, middle linebacker, and the healthy d-line. Gilbert will now try to play through his torn bicep. I applaud him on that as he could have taken the money and sat out a year. But he's gonna try to fight through the pain. And really all he has to do is take up two blockers.
The Packers beat the Vikings last year at home with a considerably worse team than they have now. The Vikings have improved but Green Bay didn't have Ahman Green for that game. No starting nose tackle Gilbert Brown, no 2nd WR Terry Glenn, no 2nd CB Tyrone Williams. And of course no two starting tackles Clifton and Tausher. Let's also not forget how banged up that secondary was for a while. Against New England they didn't have Mike McKenzie or Darren Sharper. So they used Tod McBride at corner and rookie Marques Anderson filled in for Sharper. Plus Antuan Edwards, their starting SS was out so Matt Bowen was filling in for him. They had just signed Bryant Westbrook who played in that game and is coincidently out for this season. Yet the Packers still won big 28-10.
Now, the more and more this thread goes on, the more and more I like the Packers to get to 12 wins. That one game they won with McBride, Ty Williams, Marques Anderson, and Matt Bowen as their starting secondary was just one game in the entire season where they fought through injuries yet still managed to win.
Favre has improved weapons on offense. If Walker and Fergueson produce with Driver, Walls, Franks, and Green they have a very good offense. O-line is healthy now and Mike Flanigan is in his natural center position. I'm always worried about special teams with the Packers though. They've never been able to fill the void left by Allen Rossum and their kickoff coverage is horrible because Longwell can only kick it to the 10 yard line. Hopefully they've improved special teams.

[Jas_lov]

Yes, the Packers defense relies on blitzing which they obviously won't show off during the preseason. I respect your opinion TroyF, but I just can't see the Packers being a worse team than they were last year. The injuries just kept piling on and I can't imagine that will happen again this year. They even won the game when they didn't have Favre for half a game even if it was against the Redskins.

With the injuries they were on a roll at 8-1 and the turning point of the season was when they went to Minnesota and Tampa and lost badly. They were never the same team after that. They couldn't beat up teams like they did New England, Washington, and Detroit. Instead they had to come from behind to beat Minnesota and Chicago at home and then get routed by the Jets when they still had a chance to get home field. But the team never looked the same after they lost at Minny and Tampa. I hope this year their road trip to those exact same two places won't result in the same. Don't be surprised to see this team start the year 6-0.

[Arles]

Originally posted by TroyF
[Arlie,
Sorry you are taking things so personal.
It's not that I am taking things personal, I'm just amazed that the GB defense is getting dogged so badly publically after a couple bad quarters in early preseason games. GB ranked third in the NFL in passing yards allowed and has more talent at DE, safety and LB than they did in 2002.

What it comes down to is that two young DBs (Anderson and Chris Johnson) got beat on long plays (screen pass to Green against Cleveland and Vick's long pass to Finneran against ATL). And neither of those guys will be any better than the dime DB when the games count (if they even make the roster).

In fact, the one area that every packer fan has been holding their breath on with the defense (inside running) has actually been pretty good thus far. T.J. Duckett and Priest Holmes had little success up the middle and Cleveland also had little success with inside runs. Again, I think there is a lot of panic about this GB defense based on mistakes by players that won't even be playing in three weeks.


For what it's worth, that "every down" DE you talk about had 4 sacks in his last nine starts. (including the playoff game against the Falcons) You don't think the pounding on him took a toll?
First, by saying nine starts you cut out his 3-sack game against Miami. Also, he had three forced fumbles and still got a lot of pressure on the QB. But, I do agree that he wore down as the season went on. Probably because GB had only one DE reserve who was often injured (Jamal Reynolds) and KGB rarely came out in those nine starts. By adding Nwokorie and Johnson back in the lineup to go with Kampman and Reynolds, KGB won't be playing as much in running downs in 2003. Sherman has already said he will go with Nwokorie and Johnson in running situations in hopes that KGB stays fresher down the stretch.


As for the Vikings, they have taken huge steps on the defensive side of the ball. The secondary is a big concern, but the DL is strong. In fact, this taken from the same article Fritz linked:

But it can be argued that the Vikings now have the best defensive line in the division. With Kenny Mixon and Kevin Williams at ends, Chris Hovan and Fred Robbins at tackle and Lance Johnstone coming off the bench as a pass-rusher, the Vikings have the nice balance of playmaking ability that could be a little better than the Packers, Bears and Lions along the defensive line.

I agree that Minnesota has a better DL than GB, but the Packers have a much better secondary. Plus, Minnesota doesn't even have close to the pass rusher that KGB is. And, in this league, if you can't cover and have no pass rush, you will get beaten badly in the air.


It all starts up front. If your DT's can't clog up the middle and you don't have a FEARSOME pass rush from the two ends, you are going to have problems stopping people. When you combine the fact the LB play is spotty at best, you have the makings for disaster.

Well, Minnesota has Mixon (a whopping 4.5 sacks in 2002) and a converted rookie DT who has yet to register a sack in the preseason. Hardly the elements for a "fearsome" pass rush. GB has KGB and Joe Johnson, both players that have routinely put up double-digit sacks in their careers thus far.


I think the Vikings shored up the D-Line. I think Claiborne will give them some fire on the outside.

I agree that they are better at DT and LB, but they don't have a pass rush and can't cover. And that's not good when you face Brett Favre.


Relax Arle. Good luck to the Pack. I still hold to what I said up there. I hope I'm wrong and I hope the Packers are better than I think they are. I'll deal with the tomatoes if that is really the case.

Hey, it's football season and this is just a fun discussion. I'm sorry my dimeanor comes off a little too aggressive on this sometimes, but I really cannot understand how people think that this year's GB defense will be worse than the 2002 one, when they have numerous starters back from injury and more depth.

I think that the early preseason problems by a few (non-essential) young players have somehow morphed into a full-blown crisis regarding GB's defense. But, that's what happens in the preseason when there is a lot of anticipation but little substance :rolleyes:

Arlie

[TroyF]

Arle and Jas,

I think it is important I add one more thing to this discussion. I didn't like the Packers defense BEFORE the preseason had even started. I thought they were paper thin on the DL and LB and that they would be a very bad defense.

I didn't use the couple of preseason quarters of football to base my opinion off of them. I'd hope people would respect me enough to realize I would not do that. My opinion may be 100% off base. It may blow up in my face. It is based in my thought process as to how the defense has been put together, however, not a few pre-season quarters of football.

Please give me a little credit. . .

TroyF

[Arles]

TroyF,
I wasn't responding to you with the preseason comment. I was responding to Clayton's comments on how he was concerned after two preseason games. Given that most of GB's starters have played sparingly (if at all) and that the team hasn't even blitzed with the first unit, I think it's a little silly to use the preseason as a gauge for how they will perform in season.

So, you have made it very clear that you were using the end of last season and the personnel moves this offseason for the base of your opinion. And while I disagree, I think that you have a point in regards to the DTs and question marks on the LBs. But, then again, this team had the same question marks in 2002 when they led the league in takeaways (45), finished 6th in the NFL sacks (43) and third in passing yards allowed (186.7 ypg).

Arlie

[MIJB#19]

Packers 2003 NFL schedule
1 vs Minnesota
2 vs Detroit
3 at Arizona
4 at Chicago
5 vs Seattle
6 vs Kansas City
7 at St. Louis
8 bye
9 at Minnesota
10 vs Philadelphia
11 at Tampa Bay
12 vs San Francisco
13 at Detroit
14 vs Chicago
15 at San Diego
16 at Oakland
17 vs Denver
Starting out 6-0 is not unlikely.
A bye week in the middle of the season and not in week 3 like the Eagles and Buccaneers, I'm not sure what it means, but it must be an advantage to either of the sides.
On the other hand, let's say the Pack goes into the bye week at 6-1, for teams on steam a bye week can be lethal and lead to a couple of losses in the month after the bye.
Going 0-3 after the bye week is not impossible, especially looking at the schedule of @Vikings, Eagles and @Buccaneers.
Plus, those games could be troublesome for the next two games as well.
Ending the year 0-3 is not impossible either, though if the Packers are 9-4 going into these games, they only have home advantage to play for.
In the NFC 9 wins will be enough to be in the tiebreakers battle for a wild card, where in the AFC 10 wins might not be enough.

Still, the only thing that could forcome the Packers from making the playoffs would be a Brett Favre injury...

[The_herd]

I'm willing to bet the Pack don't go 8-0 at home this season, they have to play Seattle, Kansas City, Philly, Denver, SF. I'm willing to bet one of those teams beats the Pack. Actually, I would say at they lose at least 2 of these games. Those are some very good offenses that they go against.

A team as thin as the Packers are on the line right now usually struggle against both the run and the pass. No pass rush leads to big plays in the passing game no matter how good your corners are, Washington will find that out this season.

I don't think Barnett will be a problem, his speed will allow him to make more plays than anyone the Packers have had at LB the past few seasons. The loss of Gilbert Brown will hurt though. Starting Steve Martin at DT and KBG playing full time are good signs they may struggle to stop the run.

I do like their offense a lot, easily the best in the NFC north, and quite possible 2nd to the Rams (with a healthy Faulk in the NFC). If it can carry them, especially early on, they probably win 11-12 games, if not 8-10 wins are a possibility.

Like I said above, I think they go 11-5, I really don't think this team is good enough to do any better against that schedule, however, they could easily be an 8-8 or 9-7 team with another injury to the Secondary or the Defensive Line.

[Mustang]

Originally posted by TroyF
You believe the Packers will have a better defense than last year and easily win 10 games. I think the Packers D will be far worse, that they'll struggle more in the division than some people think, and the tougher schedule outside the division will cause them to finish up at 8-8 or 9-7.

You win, I'll create a webpage stating how big of an idiot I am and let everyone from FOFC throw "virtual" tomatoes at a digital picture of me. You come to Colorado, I'll let you throw real tomatoes at me.

Relax Arle. Good luck to the Pack. I still hold to what I said up there. I hope I'm wrong and I hope the Packers are better than I think they are. I'll deal with the tomatoes if that is really the case.




TroyF,

Link to your website please???

:D

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Mustang
TroyF,

Link to your website please???

:D

Yeah, I can't wait to see it.

[Cringer]

LMAO!! Have you been holding onto this thread for the last 4 months just waiting for this? Beautiful!!

edit: added the 4

[Ksyrup]

I think TroyF gets off on a technicality. The Packers didn't easily win 10 games. Otherwise, shouldn't you guys be asking for his address? Screw the website!! :)

[Mustang]

Originally posted by Cringer
LMAO!! Have you been holding onto this thread for the last 4 months just waiting for this? Beautiful!!

edit: added the 4

Hell ya!

:D

Now, granted, I would have selectively purged it from my memory if the events of yesterday hadn't happened...

[RawIsDan]

lol

[Marmel]

I cannot wait to see this website! :)

[Kodos]

I remember a similar situation back when Old Giants went on a long rant about how the Diamondbacks were a bunch of likable losers who had no chance to beat his Yankees. It was happy times for me when the D-backs won it all. :D

[TroyF]

Low on funds now with no web space. I made a promise though, I'll get the website up as soon as I can.

Congrats to the Packers, they proved me wrong. I wish to God Denver had played their starters yesterday, because I feel Denver would have won the game and made GB a 9-7 team, but thats nothing but excuses. The only thing I underestimated was the Pack offensive line staying healthy for the year. I didn't think they'd come back nearly as strong as they did and that propelled them to the title. (along with a choke job by Minnesota and what I still feel was a horrible call)

Unless GB makes DRASTIC improvements to their defensive line, I think the Viking will win the division next year. I still think it's easier to rebuild a secondary and LB core than a DL. I still HATE the Packers D-Line.

That one yesterday really hurt. I had it called. Green Bay would have been a major dissapointment to be out of the playoffs, Minnesota would have been a surprise. Oh well, you win some, you lose some. :)

It'll be a month or two, but you'll get your website. :)

[Chief Rum]

Looking back...

Without doing a search, I am trying to recall some of mine and Troy's predictions for this year, because I remember we talked a lot about them int he preseason (like in this thread) and in our aborted weekly predicitions show as well.

If I recall correctly, Troy was big on the following:

Packers are gonna suck
Raiders are gonna suck
Vikings will be very good
Cowboys will suck (I think, less sure about this one)
Skins will suck
Broncos will be very good
Chiefs will suck
Saints will be very good
Ravens will suck

My general responses:

He is wrong about the Pack
He is wrong about the Raiders
He is wrong about the Vikings
The Boys will do better than he thinks, but he is probably right about them overall
Skins may suck, but it won't be because of their defensive line
Broncos will be good because of their talent, but fail because of Plummer
Chiefs' defense is better than he thinks; they will be a surprise team
Saints' defense isn't good enough to overcome the inconsistency of the offense, leading to a mediocre season
Ravens' terrific D and great running back will overcome their bad rookie starting QB, and they will do better than he thinks.

How did it all turn out?

Troy was right that the Packers defensive line caused the team huge defensive problems, but he underestimated Favre and Green. So I kinda take that one.

Troy couldn't have been more right about the Raiders. They were horrible, even considering injuries. Troy is a big winner here.

I call the Vikes a tie. Troy thought they would be one of the true dominant teams in the league, with an explosive offense and an improved defense. I thought the defense was barely better than last year (when it was really bad), and I saw a star receiver who gives half-hearted efforts, an inconsistent QB, and a running back committee. I felt the Vikes had too much talent on offense to be very bad, but I had them pegged as a 6-8 win team. Troy looked dead on early on, but as the season progressed, some of the things I saw crept up and bit the Vikes on the ass. They weren't as bad as I thought they would be or as good as Troy thought. So this is a tie. :)

We generally agreed on the Boys sucking, because we both doubted Carter. I guess we should have put more faith in Parcells. So we both lost out on this one (although I think we both thought Parcells would improve the team a lot).

I can't say if the Skins sucked because of their defensive line. It didn't help, although I maintain it did a bit better than Troy was saying it would. But that's just talking the difference between truly bad and subpar. The defensive line still sucked. But the Skins were suckiness personified. It was in every part of that team. I don't know that their geberal crapitude can be brokenb down to one unit. That whole franchise stunk this year from Snyder to the kid who mixes the Gatorade before games. So I think we can take a bye on this one as unanswerable.

We were both right that they would be good, but I think Troy was more accurate, as I think they about finished exactly where he thought they would. I was thinking 8-8. Plummer, when healthy, was a big surprise. Troy takes this one.

I was dead on about the Chiefs, even that their defense seems to be improved (although it has proven to still suck generally). Troy had the defense pegged pretty well, but he vastly underestimated the abilities of that offense. So I get this one.

I think we may have to take a bye on the Saints as well. For Troy, the defense played pretty well when healthy, as he predicted. But they were just as mediocre overall as I thought they would be, with a defense with issues and an inconsistent offense. Troy does have the injury card in his favor--several key Saints' defenders missed large chunks of time this year.

I don't think Troy was ever really vocal about the Ravens' sucking, although he did stand by the difficulties a rookie QB would face, and he clearly didn't think as much of the Ravens' D as I did. He was right about Boller, but fortunately for the Ravens, Boller got hurt and Wright took over. Not that that mattered, because the offense was Lewis, who was every bit as good as I thougth he would be. The defense was also very good, as I expected. I would give this one to me, but, really, I don't think Troy thought the Ravens would be bad--he just thought it would be difficult for them to be very good with a rookie QB (can't really disagree with that).

On a side note, I think we both felt the Bengals had the potential to surprise. I don't think I would have predicted it to be with Kitna under center and Dillon ont he bench, though. But in reality, that was one of the bigger calls we were both making early on. Troy was much more vocal with it, though, so he deserves a lot of credit for that.

And I am not sure, either of us had the Pats pegged right. Ouch.

CR

[TroyF]

Lets see. . .

You're off base on a couple of things there Chief Rum.

I NEVER said the Chiefs would suck horribly. In fact, if you remember, I picked them to beat Denver in the first game the two teams played. I picked against the Chiefs a lot early on not because I thought they were a bad team, but that I thought with their horrific defense, they had the capability of imploding in any given week.

I REALLY started to be vocal AFTER the Denver game when people started spouting off that the Chiefs were mortal locks for the Super Bowl, even suggesting they could go 16-0 or 15-1. I thought Denver was a better team than Kansas City all year and I STILL feel that way. I think if the Chiefs were to go into Arrowhead next week, Portis would light them up again and Denver would win the game. I said repeatedly that Kansas City was a GOOD football team, but that they weren't a GREAT football team and that the defense couldn't hold up.

Barring a miracle recovery in the playoffs, I'm giving myself a checkmark for a correct prediction on this one.

The Ravens played far better on D than I thought they would. I still think the entire Boller trade was horrible and that he'll never be a good QB in the NFL. That defense played terrific this year and they deserve a lot of credit for that. I was wrong. Bigtime.

The big thing with the Raiders/Saints arguement was the defenses. I felt the Saints would be a middle of the pack team and that the Raiders would slide to the bottom. As it turned out, even with the injuries, the Saints finished 18th and the Raiders finished 30th in total D. I'll take a check mark there, thank you very much. :)

I missed the Patriots. I didn't think for a second they'd be this good. While I think that in the wild AFC they can be beat, how can you put down what they did this year? Amazing run. Amazing team. Brady is for real.

I thought Greg Williams of Buffalo was the worst coach in the NFL. I still think that, at least until he gets fired. Nobody does less with more.

I thought Denver would be good, but I was not sold on Plummer at all. I was scared to death actually. As the season progressed, it became clear that Denver was a terrific offense when he was at the helm. Denver went 9-2 in his starts, only losing to the Chiefs and the Bears. Both the Chiefs and Bears were BADLY outgained by Denver in those two games. Special teams failures lost Denver those games. I was DEAD WRONG about Jake Plummer. This guy can flat out play.

Consider these numbers for a second, this is what Denver has did in Jake's 11 starts:

9-2
395 offensive yards per game
28 points per game
16 points allowed per game
Outgained 10 of 11 opponents. (the Bengals outgained Denver by a yard on opening day)

I'll repeat, I was dead wrong on this guy. I want no credit at all. I thought Denver would win by overcoming him, Denver is winning BECAUSE of him Big difference and I didn't see it coming.