Jump to content

craig

Members
  • Content count

    463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

89 Starter

1 Follower

  1. Packers Part way with WR coach Alvis Whitted

    Yeah, the improvement after they added Ervin was noticeable. Hard for the ST coach to create a good unit when the returner is bad. Having some speed and quickness helped. That's helped at RB too, with Jones. I'd love to see us try that at WR, too! OK, well, then maybe TE also?
  2. Packers Regression

  3. Packers Regression

    Regression expected on multiple levels. 1. Point differential and winning all the close ones. 2. Fluky few injuries. 3. Fluky huge turnover advantage. 4. Fluky differential between points allowed versus yards allowed. Regression also expected with aged offensive players (Rogers, Bulaga, Bakhti, Graham, Lewis). Rogers is aging and declining. With Rodgers and RT likely to further decline, so too the offense is likely to further decline. After the defensive disaster in San Fran, draft resources may yet again lean defense and the offense, which has received so little investment, will probably continue to be under-resourced and under-talented. That pessimism said, in some ways some flaws are so obvious that focusing attention may be relatively uncomplicated. DL, WR, TE, some kind of obvious areas to invest. Unfortunately there is no realistic avenue to upgrade the QB play. I hope the team is somewhat better next year, but don't expect they'll win as many games or get to the final 4 again next year.
  4. 2020 Off-season Discussion Thread

    Turner can be adequate at RG. Think he'd be badly exposed at RT. I wouldn't give him any consideration for replacing Bulaga at RT. **If** that's what they were kinda hoping for when they signed him, I sure hope they discard that notion.
  5. 1[12]: Rashan Gary [EDGE; Michigan]

    Leader, we had our shot, and this is what we got. We'll be back at 30 this year. That high-pick window has closed. .
  6. 2020 NFL Draft Discussion

    I think the concept of somebody quick, shifty, fast, and coordinated would be quite desirable and useful. MVS is straight-line fast, but uncoordinated and doesn't have quick, shifty change-of-direction. ESB was a popular guy on the board, with good speed relative to his height. But he wasn't actually fast, and his change-of-direction shiftiness seemed really lacking to me. Easy to cover for NFL corners, dependent on his size/height/hands catching contested balls, but not really a guy likely to juke his way open, or to be electric in the open field. So I'd enjoy somebody quick and shifty in open space, and a guy who could stop and go and cut and make it hard for defenders to mirror him. Kind of like Aaron Jones. We've forever wanted/accumulated big/strong backs who couldn't stop-and-go or shift or do stuff with suddenness. Having a shorter guy with some moves and who can improvise has been transformative. Adding a receiver with moves would be great.
  7. Matchup vs Seattle

    Our offense being decent, no guarantees there. But yeah, **IF** the Packers can play a good game offensively and Rodgers is reasonably accurate, I think 24+ points is the key. It's possible, and the offense needs to get there, and that would then allow for Seattle to complete a deep ball and allow for Russell to get a couple of scrambles. We need to score enough on offense so that Seattle making a couple of big plays won't kill us.
  8. Matchup vs Seattle

    Seattle is good, and our Wednesday injury list was longer than theirs. The notes about the o-line and the running backs are well taken. Would be great to really contain their running game, and push to a lot of 3rd-downs. Wilson is really elusive and is an excellent passer, and they've got deep-ball big-play capacity. We're not going to stop them every time. Part of me is almost a little nervous about their lack-of-running: *IF* they are really throwing a ton, I'm not sure our secondary is going to stop them consistently. Think it could get frustrating if they are passing mode, and end up both completing passes, having Wilson escape and make first downs, and they make some deep throws. On the other hand, *IF* they are throwing a ton, I guess a hope is that we convert an interception or two, or three.... We've won hardly any games without a turnover advantage; hope we have one on Sunday. Much talk about Wilson and our defense and stuff. But it's really critical that our offense can produce, and can score some TD's. Plural. Hard to dink-and-dunk and ball-control it all the way for 7 very often... going to need some big plays on offense. Hopefully Rodgers has a relatively decent accuracy day. Want to score some points so that a couple of deep balls or Wilson escapes or ST tricks aren't enough to turn the game.
  9. Random Packer News & Notes

    Yeah, lots of options. And lots of guys who could get cut without getting claimed, so that they could be resigned to practice squad. Personally, my very first cut would probably be Pankey. I'd like to hope that cats like Redmond, Hollman, Dexter, Summer, Madison, Jackson, and Williams have some future upside, the potential to be more useful than they are now. But Pankey? He's been around for years, and he's got slow feet. I kinda feel like his current status as a fringy 4th tackle is already his career tops, and that he'll never be more than that. Likewise I think Madison could be an easy cut; he's what practice squad is for, and nobody's going to claim him. Anyway, I don't think that cutting one of these guys is a showstopper in terms of recalling either Campbell or Greene.
  10. Random Packer News & Notes

    Thanks, Shane. Would be fun if he was able to come back 100%, and was actually able to help. I wonder whose snaps would be reduced if he picked up a few? Redmond, Sullivan, or Tramon? I'm curious what the overall distribution of snaps has been in the secondary. 1. Redmond has seemed to be play a lot... and to be in on a lot of bad plays. 2. Tramon has gotten a lot of snaps, and he too seems to be a guy involved in a lot of plays that don't turn out well. 3. Sullivan's been playing a lot too, I think MLF said like 35 snaps against KC? 4. Early on and coming out of camp, it seemed like Tony Brown was heavily involved in the rotation... But I don't seem to notice see him playing much from scrimmage since the injury? Has he been, and I just didn't notice? Or not so much? If not, I wonder if he just isn't 100%; or if he's just so mistake-prone and penalty-prone that they just prefer the other guys? 5. I know Jackson has played a few garbage-time snaps; has he played at all otherwise?
  11. packers selcet mAtt leFleUr as head coah

    Thanks, that's really interesting. It's way better this year, for sure. I wonder if having a healthier line and more consistently available Jones factors? Second, we were losing a lot last year. This year, lots of playing-with-the-lead in the 4th quarter. I like the balance. With all the off-season buzz about run, I had feared an excessive commitment, and that we'd be consistently running short gains into the box to no positive effect. I especially appreciate that 1st-down hasn't been excessively run-oriented. To be 18th in running, both overall and on 1st downs, is a pretty healthy place to be. We've got an extraordinary QB, so to be 8th in running and 22nd in passing would be silly... Being modestly pass-oriented only makes sense. If anything, I might prefer shifting that over even a little bit more in the passing direction? Unfortunately, that might happen more *IF* we're playing behind and playing catchup more often in the second half of the season. Or perhaps also if our o-line or Jones get hurt.
  12. Random Packer News & Notes

    Heh heh, when it's just a walk-through practice, I've always kinda wondered what it means to be "limited" vs "full"? A "limited" guy is too injured to even walk around? :):)
  13. Aaron Jones

    Yeah, let him play and see how he holds up. That said, I think we see how impactful a versatile good RB is. Take Jones off the Packers, and the offense looks a LOT different. A lot of offensive opportunities that disappear if you go back to having mediocre/bad RB's. It seems that a lot of teams are more committed to both running the ball, and to using RB's to catch passes. I wonder if the valuation of RB's may perhaps be rising around the league?
  14. Random Packer News & Notes

    But both of those effectively-two-games will be erased if Vikings beat us in one game there. That would erase the primary current tie-breaker factor, that we'd beaten them.
×