Green19 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 I know... the title is dramatic and most every fan base would say "cry me a river". But a recent topic in the sporting world media is... Green Bay has an average to below average roster "talent wise" and would be nothing without Aaron Rodgers. So it got me thinking... is the GB roster truly average across the board, from a talent stand point? Are teams like the Titans, Bears, Minnesota, Texans far more superior "talent wise" as media members and shock jocks claim? Or is it the curse of having a franchise QB that people can't see past the QB and teams with franchise QBs win only because they have one. And teams without one are crazy talented because they are winning without one. Just interested on everyone's thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 No. It's just a BS talking point. Right now, the Packers talent LOOKS average. Both Bulaga and Bahktari are two of the best RT and LT in the NFL. Mike Daniels is a top flight DT. Nick Perry is a legit #1 edge rusher. The teams that have played vs Atlanta-Det? Yeah probably average to slightly below, but that's 4 studs that haven't been on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeJadedFew Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 Most teams without a top 10 cube will struggle mightily in todays NFL. Curiously enough the Packers with a top 1-2 QB haven't been able to get back to the SB in 7 years despite having the "best" GM in the game. They're consistently undermanned and making rookie mistake in crucial moments - a testament to keeping an unexperienced and cheap roster - however one which becomes exposed to teams which take a more acute 2-4 year approach in building their squads. Those windows also coincide with normal roster turnover and a typical NFL career. You can win regular season games and take your rookie lumps in games 1-16 with HOF QB play, however the coaches and coordinators who's teams make the playoffs are going to target your teams weakest link until you can stop them, unfortunately this teams weakest link always seams to be youthfulness inexperience at crucial positions, at crucial times in the winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 The cap impact of a real top flight QB is overrstated. Most teams either are already paying that guy, desperately need that guy, or are in a very small window of having a guy on a rookie contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 It's not the having a top tied QB curse, it's missing on some draft classes in succession. A talented roster has lots hits in multiple drafts stacked together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 QB is without a doubt the one position that wins you games in the NFL. If it is a curse to have a franchise QB, then I'm happy that GB is cursed. I'd love a defense to go with him. And we are kind of getting there. If you have a franchise QB, you change your draft philosophy. Defense, defense, defense. Find a pass rush, find corners and hope your franchise QB puts you up a few scores and turn it into a passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green19 Posted September 30, 2017 Author Share Posted September 30, 2017 20 minutes ago, vegas492 said: QB is without a doubt the one position that wins you games in the NFL. If it is a curse to have a franchise QB, then I'm happy that GB is cursed. I'd love a defense to go with him. And we are kind of getting there. If you have a franchise QB, you change your draft philosophy. Defense, defense, defense. Find a pass rush, find corners and hope your franchise QB puts you up a few scores and turn it into a passing game. Oh believe me, I'm happy where GB is at with Rodgers. My point is more... Is it a lazy talking point because everyone just wants to focus on Rodgers and make him EVEN BETTER... or is GB's roster truly average talent wise sans Rodgers? Are Nelson, Cobb, Adams average talents? Bennett, Kendricks average? Haha, Burnett, Jones average? Matthews, Perry, Brooks? Daniels, Lowery, Clark, Dial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 Bennett, Kendricks, Jones, Brooks, Lowry, Clark, and Dial are all arguably average players or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Bennett, Kendricks, Jones, Brooks, Lowry, Clark, and Dial are all arguably average players or worse. Ya put Clark at average for his position? I'd have him and Bennett, well the Bennett I knew above that line. Brooks on it. Everyone else below. Josh Jones is probably a ?? If that's who we're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PackyAttacky Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 17 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Bennett, Kendricks, Jones, Brooks, Lowry, Clark, and Dial are all arguably average players or worse. Fire Ted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said: Ya put Clark at average for his position? I'd have him and Bennett, well the Bennett I knew above that line. Brooks on it. Everyone else below. Josh Jones is probably a ?? If that's who we're talking about. I think Clark is a solid player, but the man has 0 sacks and 19 career tackles. I just haven't been impressed with Bennett. He's 30 now and I'm not sure how he looks into the future. Limited wheels aren't going to improve and he's already limited in the passing game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 17 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: I think Clark is a solid player, but the man has 0 sacks and 19 career tackles. I just haven't been impressed with Bennett. He's 30 now and I'm not sure how he looks into the future. Limited wheels aren't going to improve and he's already limited in the passing game I would agree that Bennett has been less impressive than I anticipated thus far. I just see his body type and potential knowledge of finding spots in the D to get /be open. He needs to be a move the chains option on 3rd down and another redzone target option. The big plays are Nelson, Adams and Cobb, with Bennett drawing enough attention to open more space for those 3. Lets see how the next few games go with a hopefully more healthy OL. GB starting OT have played a grand total of what...7 quarters of a possible 32. Get that turned around and the offense likely looks vastly different on many fronts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: I think Clark is a solid player, but the man has 0 sacks and 19 career tackles. I just haven't been impressed with Bennett. He's 30 now and I'm not sure how he looks into the future. Limited wheels aren't going to improve and he's already limited in the passing game Rodgers needs to throw it to him properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 7 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: I think Clark is a solid player, but the man has 0 sacks and 19 career tackles. I just haven't been impressed with Bennett. He's 30 now and I'm not sure how he looks into the future. Limited wheels aren't going to improve and he's already limited in the passing game Was Clark drafted to be a pass rusher or a guy to engage linemen so others could be free to get after the QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 12 hours ago, Green19 said: But a recent topic in the sporting world media is... Green Bay has an average to below average roster "talent wise" and would be nothing without Aaron Rodgers. I disagree with this. Where exactly are the Packers deficient talent wise? I would say LB and CB, and we would probably like the pass rush to have a little more teeth. The offense could also use a little more speed, and a true stud RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.