Jump to content

Krauser

Veteran Members
  • Content count

    4,600
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Krauser last won the day on April 30

Krauser had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

408 Veteran
  1. Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

    The point you seem to be missing is that that stat doesn't mean much and you're not making a convincing argument just by repeating it. Bye now.
  2. Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

    Or... (and this idea may shock you as a Packers fan...) QB who was taken by his team to the Championship Game. Do you really think Case Keenum was the main reason the Vikings were 13-3 last year? What do you think Washington’s record would’ve been the last 3 years with Keenum starting instead of Cousins? What do you think the Packers record would’ve been last year with Keenum, and the Vikings with Hundley? If the Vikings had traded for Foles instead of signing Cousins, would you have them as Super Bowl favorites?
  3. Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

    More talent than the Vikings? How’s that? Broncos were 5-11 last year. Even if you think the Vikings slump to 8-8 how does Denver get 4 wins better? And yet the Packers managed to start 4-1 in 2017. Sure, OK. Cousins isn’t just overpaid or overrated by conventional statistics or decent but not enough to put the Vikings over the top — he’s flat out “bad”. What was your opinion of Case Keenum at the beginning of last season? What was his career record against winning teams at that point? And at the end of the year?
  4. Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

    Your take is that the Vikings went 13-3 mainly because of Keenum, not the rest of the team? And you think Cousins' record in Washington is mainly his own fault? The Broncos were 5-11 last year. The Vikings have been clearly better than that throughout Zimmer's time as HC, with QB play no better and probably worse than we can expect from Cousins in 2018. They had the #1 defense last year and should be roughly that good again this year. Even if you think Richardson is worse than Wilkerson, he's an upgrade from Tom Johnson, which was my point. What do you predict the Vikings record will be this year?
  5. Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

    Argh, the formatting hurts... I watch the Seahawks regularly. Graham wasn't good last year. Why are you showing Clay Matthews highlights in response to a comment about Blake Martinez's coverage ability? I know Matthews is still effective, though he has slowed down a little with age. Martinez meanwhile wasn't "above average in every category" -- PFF graded him -5.8 in coverage, which ranked 46th of 52 qualifying ILBs. The Packers had some injuries last year, but it wasn't way outside the norm for an NFL team. FO put their adjusted games lost 21st in the league: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/2017-adjusted-games-lost . IIRC that's the first time in the last several years they had more injuries than the Vikings. The non-Rodgers injuries definitely had an effect on their season but it's not like they should've been insurmountable. We can assume if you like that the Packers and Vikings split if Rodgers stayed healthy. That puts GB at 5-2 (excluding the Panthers game, including the first 5 games and the 2 against the Vikings). Assuming both Vikings games were close ones, the Packers would at that point be 1-1 in games decided by more than 8 points, and 4-1 in close games (which is unsustainable). To tie the Vikings they'd need to go 12-4, and to get there they'd need to go 7-2 (not 6-3) over 9 games including the 11-5 Saints, the 13-3 Steelers, the 11-5 Panthers, and home and home against the 9-7 Lions. Remember that the Packers with Rodgers healthy got blown out by the one playoff team they faced with Rodgers healthy (trailing 34-10 entering the 4th quarter in Atlanta) and needed OT to beat the Bengals at home. They were 10th in the NFL in DVOA heading in to the Vikings game,. So why would they be expected to win 7 or more of those games and end up with the 2nd best record in the NFL? Wilkerson is talented but hasn't played well since his injury. Graham is 32 and seemed to be slowing down last year. Alexander is a great prospect, I think he'll do well. The Packers may have added more talent than the Vikings this off season, but then their roster as of last year was clearly inferior. Rodgers is great, yes, we've established that. Pettine is probably good, but DeFilippo is probably good too. Kirk Cousins' record in Washington is about as relevant as Case Keenum's with the Rams and Texans. If the Vikings get Cousins to play "not much better than Keenum" did last year, they should win roughly 12 games this year.
  6. Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

    Fair enough, but this is a glass half full version. The TE might not be top 5 anymore given his age and struggles last year, the pass rushers are only serviceable when they're healthy which they haven't been consistently, the RBs are pretty good but not clearcut difference makers, the ILB is mediocre in coverage and the DBs haven't shown they can be effective in the NFL in what should be a more challenging coverage scheme this year. Aside from Rodgers going out, the Packers weren't unusually affected by injuries last year. Most of the players you listed are backups or rotational guys. Bulaga was the biggest loss. Perry missed a few games, but not much more than usual for him. Rodgers obviously was an unparalleled loss, but the team beyond him could've been expected to do better in his absence. I don't think Capers was very bad over the years, but the game caught up to him with QBs and offensive schemes now doing a better job of protecting the ball. I thought this article was convincing: https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/by-the-numbers/2017/11/2/16593328/dom-capers-packers-defense-interceptions-numbers-offensive-trend-conservative-short-passes . It remains to be seen how much more mileage Pettine will be able to get out of the same talent, and how well the young guys will do in the NFL. Considering the narrative around McCarthy as a QB development guru and offensive coordinator, and the reputation of the Packers WRs (Adams! Nelson! Cobb!) and OL, the fact that Hundley was completely abominable when pressed into service in his 3rd season does not make me think better of the Packers roster or organization. Vikings fans have had to endure Packers fans needling them about QBs for god knows how long (I remember posters on your board saying they wouldn't trade Hundley for then-healthy Bridgewater), but last year the Vikings went 13-3 with Case Keenum fergawdsakes while McCarthy's chosen protege crashed and burned. True, though worth mentioning the 3 wins were all by 7 points or less against the 5-11 Bucs (in OT), the 5-11 Bears and the 0-16 Browns (in OT). In other words, they didn't have a single impressive win, either beating up a bad team or winning against a good one. The close loss to the Steelers was somewhat impressive though that had a lot to do with the Pittsburgh defense making a couple of glaring mistakes in coverage that led to easy TDs. The Packers defense forced some turnovers, but in the end couldn't keep the Steelers from scoring 31 points. Again, if you compare that track record to the Vikings playing 15 games with Case Keenum as their only healthy QB, you can see why Vikings fans are not impressed with the Packers roster outside of Rodgers. ... I do think the Packers have the potential to be good this year, if Rodgers stays healthy. But there's a lot of happy talk about them (as usual) in the media, driven by Rodgers of course, that mostly glosses over the ways in which the Packers team around him took a step back in recent years, and the degree to which the changes they made to try to reverse that process this year are so far unproven. It's annoying as a Vikings fan that the team that went 13-3, retained all its major starters none of whom are older than 30, upgraded at QB and DT with players in their primes, and brought in one of the most highly sought after young coaches to run the offense, is being made second favorite in the division again just because Rodgers is healthy. It makes some sense given that the media mostly is interested in how great Rodgers is (really great), and maybe that's just how it will be for the next 5-6 years or whenever he eventually ages out. Maybe it will just take another year or two of the Vikings playing at a high level, if they're able to do so, before they're given more respect. We can be optimistic that the Vikings will win the division again (3rd year out of 4 if they do), but until they manage to do so, I get the idea that skepticism is still warranted. Still, in the meantime, it's hard to be sympathetic to Packers fans who feel their team is unfairly underrated right now. The Vikings upgraded a 13-3 team. If they play well this year, they're winning the NFC North.
  7. All abouts the wideouts

    I'd be pretty surprised if that happened. Wright has consistently been a pretty good WR through his career. He's not so old (turning 29) that he should drop off much. I wouldn't read much into his performance in OTAs, he's got a track record in the NFL. He obviously won't play with the ones as long as Treadwell is starting at split end and Thielen and Diggs are both healthy, so the fact that he didn't play with the ones isn't a knock on him at all. Wright is capable of backing up slot and flanker (meaning Thielen and Diggs in 3WR sets). They don't have any other backups with comparable experience. He's cheap too, so there's basically no benefit from releasing him in terms of cap space. Even keeping Wright, they still have room for 2 WRs among the new UDFAs and holdovers from last year (Coley, Zylstra, Cayleb Jones) to make the team, plus however many stick on the practice squad. It'd be pretty risky to rely entirely on that group to be the only backup WRs on the roster.
  8. The PFF article mentions Keenum was the 3rd most pressured QB in the league last year (he was 3rd on their percentage of dropbacks under pressure stat), but their own stats (pass blocking efficiency) put the Vikings OL a little above average in terms of the percentage of pass blocking snaps with pressure allowed. I don't know how they reconcile that, unless the difference is pressures allowed for other reasons (TEs, RBs blocking). Keenum himself was charged by PFF for allowing 6 sacks, 7 hits and 12 hurries, presumably blamed for pressures on plays where he held the ball. I guess those are counted in the 3rd most dropbacks under pressure stat, but if so that's not really a stat that completely reflects OL performance. The narrative change around the OL is weird. If you polled Vikings fans in November or December, they would've said the OL was at least solid or average, and many would have rate them higher than that. Some of the most consistent Keenum critics (thinking here of Matthew Coller especially) were talking about the OL having gone from a weakness to a strength. I was skeptical even then and pointed out in discussions about Keenum that the OL was still pretty mediocre and he was helping them look good by making plays under pressure. I guess the narrative changed in part because of the playoff loss (the OL wasn't great in the Saints game either, but I don't remember anyone complaining about it in particular), and because the PFF grades became the main point of discussion. The PFF grades seem harsh especially for Reiff -- I watch the games closely and often rewind to review OL play and don't remember Reiff being a major liability. I think Easton and Elflein also get knocked down for run blocking in power run situations, which happened a lot at the end of games (killing clock) -- the run game wasn't especially successful, but given the context it's not like it mattered much. I made the same point as everyone else this offseason, that the only major hole on the roster this year would at OL, with Berger retiring. I wanted at least one new starter (next to Remmers at whichever position) and possibly 2 (upgrading Easton). I still think they would've been better this year if they'd been able to land Ragnow or a similar day one starter. They did get a couple of good prospects in O'Neill and Gossett but it doesn't seem likely that they'll contribute much this year (O'Neill might). The chances for improvement beyond that rest on improvement from the younger players who were on the team last year (should be expected from Elflein, reasonable hope from Easton, Hill and Isidora). Bottom line, the OL in its current state seems at least competent -- probably below average, but not a major liability. It's definitely the weakest unit on the team, and a legitimate reason for concern especially in the games where they'll face an excellent DL on the road (Green Bay, LA and Philly, etc). But I'll be surprised if it's not at least half decent, as it was widely thought to be last year, before the narrative based on the PFF grades took hold.
  9. Valhalla Villager: News, Rumors and Gossip

    It makes sense to sign earlier in order to lock in guaranteed money that might not be offered next offseason if the player gets hurt or declines somehow. It also makes sense to sign earlier in order to get the signing bonus as soon as possible. Money now is worth more than money later, especially a year later. Some players will be getting much more money from their signing bonus than they've made in their career so far. Hunter was in that boat -- made $2.2M on the first 3 years of his rookie deal, got a signing bonus of $15M -- and now so is Diggs (made roughly $2M so far, likely gets ~$20M as a bonus). The other factor is that some players will want to stay with the team they know, especially if they have a good relationship with their coaches and teammates, play on a competitive team and like or at least don't mind living in that city. That's not just a matter of familiarity or the comforts of home, it has to do with building a professional reputation (look how much more recognition Smith, Rhodes and Griffen got last year in the context of the team's success; they would't be nearly as well known if they'd played similarly well on a bottom feeder team, even if the defense was decent) and also maximizing the chances of earning more of the value of the contract (sign long term the year before new coaches and schemes come in because the team is struggling, like Greg Jennings did, and you might not last long even if you play OK). The total value of the money players leave on the table can seem considerable (sometimes millions) but as a percentage it's usually more like 10-20%, and that's balanced by the security and the value of getting paid sooner, as well as the benefit of being in control of the next few years of their career. Many of us have probably made similar choices in careers or other life situations, choosing to maximize control, convenience, security or other elements of personal happiness rather than squeezing out every last dollar.
  10. Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

    They're better than that. Their OL is good if Bulaga comes back healthy -- Bakhtiari in particular is excellent. Adams is very good, and Cobb is OK even if he hasn't lived up to expectations in recent years. Graham seems to be slowing down but he could still be good this year. The young RBs aren't bad. The DL will be one of the best in the league if Wilkerson rebounds. Top 2 edge rushers are solid if not spectacular. Martinez is pretty good. Clinton-Dix was good until last year. The young CBs have a lot of talent even if they're unproven. I'm not trying to say they're bad. In fact I think most Vikings fans have consistently underrated how good the Packers have been over the years, and that in fact plays into the myth around Rodgers making his team invincible -- it obscures the degree to which the Packers' success was based on other high quality players (a long string of very good to great receivers, a tradition of superior OL play, stars on defense like Woodson, Matthews, Daniels and Peppers and a long string of very good DBs). They have had superior coaching for their WRs and OL and Capers' pass coverage scheme was only figured out recently -- until then it consistently produced turnovers and swung games in their favor. They have great facilities and a big home field advantage and their management has done well managing contracts and the draft. On top of all of that, they've had perhaps the most talented QB of all time starting through his prime for the last decade. No wonder they've been good. But it's not all because of the QB. As great as Rodgers is (very), it's no coincidence that his biggest success coincided with the Packers defense being one of the best in the league (late 2010), and that his offensive production has fallen off dramatically when his supporting cast struggles or gets hurt (late 2015). So it's worth noticing how good or bad the team around him actually is, and what factors (age, development, injuries, schemes) could make them perform better or worse. I don't think the Packers are likely much better right now than they were in early 2017, but they could be, if their roster comes together as their fans hope it will. They're probably roughly as good as they were last year, with new additions balanced more or less by departures, aging and injuries. That would make them a top 8-10 team in the league with Rodgers healthy, and they should contend for the division and at least make the playoffs. It's also possible that they'll be worse, if some of the changes they've made with rookies, older free agents and coaching schemes don't pan out, or if they end up having to deal with a rash of injuries or other unexpected problems. Even so, I doubt there are many Vikings fans who'd bet much against GB making the playoffs if Rodgers starts all or most of the year.
  11. Valhalla Villager: News, Rumors and Gossip

    Fair enough, I guess I shouldn't promise that other people haven't made unreasonable arguments that I haven't read. Of course there's no way Richardson will get extended until late this season at the earliest. I think it's fair to talk about the possibility of extending him eventually, even though he hasn't yet played a down in purple, and to want to leave room for that in the long-term budget.
  12. Valhalla Villager: News, Rumors and Gossip

    Sure, but literally no one is suggesting that. The point is just that they might want to budget for the possibility of keeping Richardson -- if he plays well. If Richardson has 7 sacks by the end of November and is 2nd in Pro Bowl voting for DTs behind Aaron Donald, it might be nice to be able to lock him up for 4 more years for cheaper than he'd cost on the open market in March. Since long-term extensions will be similarly expensive for Barr and (in the ideal scenario for team and player) Richardson, and it'll be hard to sign them both for that kind of money (right?), it's not crazy to want the team to wait to decide which offer to make. It doesn't sound to me like the Vikings are waiting, there are reports that they've made Barr an offer and are negotiating. But I won't be unhappy if Barr starts the season without a long-term deal in place.
  13. Valhalla Villager: News, Rumors and Gossip

    Richardson probably didn't want to sign long-term at this point, coming off 2 years with the Jets where he was miscast as a 3-4 DE or OLB, then a year in Seattle where he played well but didn't rack up sacks. If he plays well this year, he might get close to Short/Dareus money ($15-16M AAV) as a UFA next year, instead of his current $8M. He'll have every advantage given the scheme and the surrounding talent, so this is his big chance. Similar situation happened with Alshon Jeffrey last year. He was coming off a couple of down years in 2015-16, where he'd missed time due to injuries and a suspension, and his production had been limited playing in a terrible offense with the Bears. Teams would've hesitated to give him a long term deal at a premium price, and he wanted to boost his market. So he signed for one year $9.5M with the Eagles, and by December had shown enough that he was rewarded with a $52M/4 extension. The Vikings with Richardson should obviously wait to see what he does this year, but if he's playing well and is willing to extend, giving him a $12M extension would be very tempting. He only turns 28 this year (same age as Linval Joseph was in 2016), so he might get a 3-4 year extension running through to 2022 or so. If the Vikings know that they might want to give Richardson that deal, and maybe that they'd rather keep him and replace Barr than the opposite, if both play well this year, they should be reluctant to box themselves in right now, leave the question open until later this year or next offseason.
  14. Valhalla Villager: News, Rumors and Gossip

    Yeah, Richardson was good last year with the Seahawks -- their best DL against the run and their only good DT as a pass rusher. No guarantee, but I'm optimistic he'll be as good as Floyd was when he was still healthy (2014-15), maybe better than that.
  15. Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

    Did you watch the Vikings? Keenum had a couple of good games in November but his success otherwise required some good luck and great work by his WRs. He wasn't a quality starting QB. The point was that there was a drop-off from a healthy Bradford to Keenum, which there was. I'm not saying Hundley was anywhere near as good as Rodgers. I'm saying the Packers in 2017 weren't noticeably better than the 2015 or 2016 teams, who couldn't win more than 10 games despite Rodgers staying healthy. They would've had to win 12 games to tie the Vikings for the division lead, and 13 to win it outright. Playing more "winnable" games is nice, but sometimes teams lose close games. Not Green Bay in 2017, mind you -- they only had 2 close losses all year (in Pittsburgh and Carolina) and won 3 OT games plus 3 other games by 8 points or less, meaning only one of their wins was by more than one score (home to the Bears with Glennon). Projecting the Packers to have won 12 or more games in 2017 requires not only Rodgers staying healthy but every other bit of good luck to go their way as well. While it's possible that might have happened, it's nowhere near likely, let alone certain. The team had major flaws, especially in the secondary, that would realistically have made it very difficult for them to have the best or 2nd best record in the entire NFL given that they were roughly the 10th best team in the league (by DVOA) even when Rodgers was healthy. The constant refrain from Packers fans that GB would've won the division if only Rodgers hadn't gotten hurt is wishful thinking, and may be whistling past the graveyard.
×