Deps

I did something vaguely similar a while back (haven't updated in about five or so years) as a Hall of Fame predictor. Only looking at QBs who played a sizable chunk of their careers in the Super Bowl era, I took their top 10 qualifying seasons, used 90s (1 standard deviation below the mean) for any seasons fewer than 10 that they had. This rewarded longevity by letting QBs who started for a long time remove any early or late career struggles while also emphasizing peak performance. I also gave bonus points for MVPs and Super Bowl wins. I can't remember which of Brady, Manning or Montana was leading when I stopped, but I think Brady's last Super Bowl probably would have put him over the top if he wasn't already. Then if I remember correctly it was Unitas, Young, Rodgers and Favre in some order, Starr and Tarkenton, and then Marino, Brees and Staubach. The big thing, though, was that it correctly placed all but two eligible quarterbacks correctly in or out of the Hall at that time. It had Ken Anderson just a bit behind Marino/Brees/Staubach and Joe Namath nowhere close to the other Hall of Fame QBs. I did have to move the line a bit, though, when Ken Stabler went from the best quarterback by this metric not in the Hall (non-Ken Anderson division) to the worst quarterback by this metric in the Hall (non-Joe Namath division). Elway fared a little better in this model, although still lower than he would traditionally be placed on all-time lists.

I kind of agree with Herman about Eric Wilson being a good bet. It might be the fifth linebacker in that the other four are locks, but he is still listed as the third linebacker on the depth chart. The two rookies missed enough time that I think they'll go with the guy they are most comfortable with actually playing linebacker now for the fifth spot, and by all indications, that is Wilson. As far as keeping five safeties and five linebackers, I don't know that it is that hard. My base for projections right now (and I'm going with the guess that Lloyd starts on IR) is 2 QBs, 3 RBs, 6 WR, 4 TEs, 8 OL, 9DL, 5 LB, 6 CBs, 5 S. That leaves two slots left for either QB3, OL9, DE5, or someone primarily there for special teams (Rochell, Anderson, Welch, or, if he isn't in the top 6 at receiver, Heath). I guess Ford could be a consideration, but keeping 6 defensive tackles is a tough ask. I kind of think, as of right now, DE5 is the least likely of those. I don't know that Cox or Mosby have done enough to distinguish themselves from each other to the point where you think you'll be able to sign at least one to the practice squad. As for the offensive line, the 8 number hinges on Monk moving ahead of Newman in the pecking order. I think Newman and Dillard have to be in the top 8 to make the team. None of the tackles competing with Dillard are locks, so swapping them is zero-sum, but Monk is almost certain to make the team. If Monk passes (or has passed) Newman, then the potential for a ninth lineman comes down to, has Telfort or Jones impressed enough to make the team but not enough to pass Dillard? Can Jennings show enough in two weeks of work to actually make the team? Is Glover a viable option despite currently being listed as a fourth-teamer? If the answer to all of those is no, then there is a good chance that CB7, S6 or LB6 makes the roster for special teams and the Packers just overload their practice squad with offensive linemen.

The biggest question mark to sort out is on the offensive line. Unless one of the day three or UDFA rookies stakes a legitimate claim to being lineman #7 it seems likely that Newman or Dillard sticks. Monk is close to a lock given his draft status and that they traded up for him. That would leave one or two spots for one draft pick, two promising UDFA and three other returnees on developmental tracks. Everything else at present at least seems to be two for one or two spots (QB, RB, TE), two for definitely one spot (K, LS), three for one spot (WR) or a question of which position group gets an extra one (King vs. Cox vs. Welch)

Going off of the Eagles talk, didn't the joke used to be that the Bengals scouting department consisted of an intern the owner sent to a bookstore to pick up a few draft guides?

The Cowboys are the better team and should win the game, but I think the Packers' chances are being understated for a few reasons. 1. You would think that a defense that gave up career games to Tommy Devito and Bryce Young and allowed Baker Mayfield a perfect passer rating would roll over and play dead against a good offense. That hasn't really been the case, though. Excepting the last two games, the Packers' defense seems to be completely opponent independent. I don't know if the numbers bear this out, but observationally it seems like they have equal effectiveness against good and bad offenses, which makes no sense. 2. The Packers have been really locked in offensively lately to the point where despite the well-documented early season struggles they ended up sixth in offensive DVOA. Love is spreading the ball around, Jones is healthy and the Packers are moving the ball as well as they have all season. 3. These are the two teams that have the fewest offensive drives in the NFL this year and the Packers have the fewest defensive drives. It could end up 24-20 with neither team punting. If those tendencies continue, the fewer drives there are the greater the chances that one mistake or bit of weirdness could have a significant impact on the result.

Apologies if this has been posted before, but how much has Love spread the ball around this year? Bo Melton was ninth on the Packers in receiving yards. I think his total would have been fourth on the Bears.

No, that would just render the whole exercise imaginary ... On second thought, carry on.

I heard something similar, but it was specifically geared toward troubleshooting when technology breaks down. Basically, that people for whom technology has always been generally reliable aren't as good at it as those of us for whom the blue screen of death was once just the cost of doing business.

My apologies if this has been pointed out, but this is partly because I believe the entire 11-player 2022 draft class made the team. That and the fact the only two of the 13 2023 draft picks they cut were beaten out for roster spots by undrafted free agents. It's still astounding, however, that their rookie backup QB actually brings up the average age.

Yah, I view a Nijman trade as unlikely but not unthinkable. The biggest argument against trading Nijman: Starting caliber tackles are tough to find, and one of the Packers' has a problematic knee. The biggest reason why Nijman might be dealt: starting caliber tackles are tough to find so someone might make an offer high enough that it makes sense for the Packers to take it. The bottom line is, he is a backup a year away from unrestricted free agency. Almost anyone in that situation is likely available for the right price.

I doubt it happens, but is there a circumstance where Nijman is dealt? Sure. 1. Green Bay has Walker as the clear-cut No. 3 tackle 2. They have Rhyan on at least equal footing overall, making Nijman, by virtue of being the No. 4 tackle, the de facto No. 8 offensive lineman. 3. Some team offers a day 2 pick or similar value (or, dare to dream, a starting caliber safety) Taking Nijman's name out of it, if a hypothetical team is offered a Day 2 pick for their impending free agent No. 8 offensive lineman, what percentage of the time do they take that deal? 80%? 85%? Do I think it is likely? No. I'd put the chances of all three conditions being met at roughly 5%. But it isn't inconceivable either.

On yards per carry? Not really. He was high for sure, but 1. Am I remembering incorrectly or did Allen come in on short yardage and goal-line runs, the kind that tend to decrease YPC? 2. Look up James Brooks' numbers for the three seasons Bo was over 100 carries. I think he might have been higher. Bo was as electric as they come (and not just the video game version), but when you throw in that after his rookie season he really didn't contribute much in the passing game, it is tough to make a Hall of Fame argument. He falls short even against other guys who had their career cut short but achieved a much higher volume of greatness during their time on the field (Davis, Sharpe, Willis, etc.). And I might be biased because I live in an area with ties to both, but I'd second Ken Anderson and Roger Craig.

And that’s fine. I was just pointing out that quantity wasn’t necessarily going to equal quality.

If they win by a field goal they tie the Seahawks, win by 4 and they lead. And whether or not they pass the Lions wouldn’t matter because they wouldn’t be in the playoffs. Regardless, the point remains. The only three teams that were better than mediocre last season in the NFC included two that entered the season with long term QB questions and a third that no one trusts in the playoffs.

It sounds good in theory with Aaron Jones being great and Allgeier and Pacheco contributing last year, but unless that becomes the new normal, you’re likely going to have to cover having a bottom five running back room. Since 2010, Jones is clearly the best drafted in round five or later. After that, though, it drops to Latavius Murray, Alfred Morris, Jordan Howard, Chris Carson, Dion Lewis, James Starks, etc. There might average out to be one guy in that tier per year.