Jump to content

This Is Rival Talk v1.0


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

You could literally say that about every team in the league. What does the Packers roster look like in a few years if Gary, Savage and Sternberger don't develop, or Jordan Love doesn't turn into a franchise QB?

The Vikings are paying fair contracts to a bunch of blue chip players, most of them in their primes. Barr is the only one who's arguably overpaid, plus Cook if you don't believe in paying running backs.  Smith is 31 but his game is aging well so he may have a few years left. Rudolph and Thielen will age out before long but they already have Smith and Jefferson on board. 

The question with the roster is whether the young CBs will be any good (so far: no), and whether they can finally build a decent OL. 

I knew you were going to say that haha.  I certainly hope they develop, but I think GB's situation is a bit different than MNs. Stern, Gary, and Savage have done very little so far and GB made the NFC championship and just put a pretty big beat down on MN without much contributions from them. GB has prime age probowlers in front of Gary under contract, for 3 more years, a HOF QB playing at a high level under contract for 4 more. Of course the plan is likely for Love to take over as a first rounder sooner than that, but I'm not sure if their future is dependent upon him. If he sucks, they could stay with 12 and look for a different replacement down the line. Although that isn't likely. Of course they want savage to pan out, but he's a safety so it's not the end of the world if he dosen't become a probowler. I could argue Keke and Adams developing would be more beneficial to be honest.

Could probably say it about Dillon too if jones leaves and that MVS/Lazard need to develop even more too.

I think MN has to fix a defense and Oline to be competitive. Whereas GB's roster is currently better than MNs and is already competitive but could really use Gary, Savage, Keke, Stern, Deguara, Dillon, etc to go to the next level. 

GB prob has a more favorable cap situation at the moment too but that could change with a few extensions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

GB prob has a more favorable cap situation at the moment too but that could change with a few extensions.

I don't really agree that we have a better cap situation than anyone, except probably the Saints.  MN isn't super great in that department either, but we aren't leagues apart.  I took a cursory look a while ago, both MN and GB are in the bottom half of available cap space for a few years.  We have big money tied up in: Rodgers, Smith, Smith, Clark, Adams, and Amos.  Turner and Lowry are not cheap either.  We have: Bakhtiari, Linsley, King, Alexander, Jones, and Kirksey coming up soon, all of whom will probably be costly. 

 

 

I would be more interested to see why the Packers seem to have had good offensive lines for the better part of the last two or three decades, and the Vikings have seemed to struggle since the days of Hutchinson.  We have consistently had decent back-ups and our preferred starting 5 has been solid for all but like 3 seasons in 25 years.  That can't just be luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I don't really agree that we have a better cap situation than anyone, except probably the Saints.  MN isn't super great in that department either, but we aren't leagues apart.  I took a cursory look a while ago, both MN and GB are in the bottom half of available cap space for a few years.  We have big money tied up in: Rodgers, Smith, Smith, Clark, Adams, and Amos.  Turner and Lowry are not cheap either.  We have: Bakhtiari, Linsley, King, Alexander, Jones, and Kirksey coming up soon, all of whom will probably be costly. 

This is essentially what I stated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I would be more interested to see why the Packers seem to have had good offensive lines for the better part of the last two or three decades, and the Vikings have seemed to struggle since the days of Hutchinson.  We have consistently had decent back-ups and our preferred starting 5 has been solid for all but like 3 seasons in 25 years.  That can't just be luck.

Maybe having HOF talent under center has made it a priority? I would take my job much more seriously protecting Rodgers than Chistian Ponder.

But seriously, we have to praise both the draft and develop sides of our Oline progression.  Getting a guy like Jenkins in the 2nd is incredible and I don't blame them for seeing if he's got the chops to play tackle, but turning mid round picks into probowlers has been huge for the team.  Campen and his staff deserve credit, we'll see what the new regime can do but so far, it's been a positive.

It's also easier to keep momentum than completely build from the ground up. The established talent and experience is already there which allows a new piece to be added in and held to a high standard without being thrown into the water with a bunch of guys who are also finding their role.

Let's keep the party going.

Edited by Refugee
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Arthur Penske said:

Stern, Gary, and Savage have done very little so far and GB made the NFC championship and just put a pretty big beat down on MN without much contributions from them.

The Packers had a better record than the Vikings in 2019, won the division and both head to head games, and went one round further in the playoffs.

Meanwhile, the Vikings had a better points differential (by 41 points) and therefore expected win rate (10.6 to 9.7), better DVOA (by over 10% -- 7th ranked GB was closer to 16th ranked ATL than to 5th ranked MIN), and better team PFF grades.

GB clearly deserved the division because of the head-to-head wins, but they weren't much better than the Vikings overall, and they were arguably worse in some ways. The 13-3 record wasn't a fraud, but it was somewhat flattering.

If any concerned Packers fans want to worry themselves about how the Vikings will ever rebuild their shambles of a defense, I invite you to consider your own defense, which wasn't very good last year (9th in points allowed despite an easy schedule, 15th in DVOA), got embarrassed in the Niners game, and got off to a bad start this year (26th in points allowed, 30th in DVOA, and last in yards/play, after week one). However big of a "beat down" that game was, it wasn't much credit to the Packers defense. 

There's one reason why the Packers won so many close games last year including a playoff game against an elite QB, and blew out the Vikings in week one despite allowing 34 points. It's not the defense, or the OL, or the receiver depth or the coaching. It's Aaron Rodgers. 

10 hours ago, Arthur Penske said:

a HOF QB playing at a high level under contract for 4 more. Of course the plan is likely for Love to take over as a first rounder sooner than that, but I'm not sure if their future is dependent upon him. If he sucks, they could stay with 12 and look for a different replacement down the line.

You guys were singing a very different tune about Rodgers just a week ago, and even more so right after the draft.

Rodgers was basically perfect in week one, but that was in ideal conditions (no pressure, no coverage, no crowd noise). His performance has been met with surprise or even shock, but the truth is he's continued to put up elite games all the way along, even last year with the blowout over the Raiders and the playoff win vs Seattle. The problem is that he hasn't been able to sustain that level of performance, and his non-elite games have been getting worse and happening more often. 

Rodgers turns 37 this year. Maybe his age 37-40 seasons will somehow be better than his age 32-36 seasons, but that isn't likely. More realistically, at some point in the next 4 years, Packers fans will be wanting to see what Love can do as the starter.

On the day when Packers fans finally have to cheer for a team whose QB is only very good on his best day, they'll have a new appreciation for how good or bad the Packers front office, coaches, and non-QB roster really are. 

Edited by Krauser
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Krauser said:

On the day when Packers fans finally have to cheer for a team whose QB is only very good on his best day, they'll have a new appreciation for how good or bad the Packers front office, coaches, and non-QB roster really are. 

Soooo some of us packer fans didn’t have to live thru the 70s and 80s?

Also most have been telling us Rodgers is only very good for the last few years too. I think packer fans have plenty appreciation for all those things. Its why most appreciate Gute taking the risk ( even if they hate it) with the Love pick... because if he pulls another Rodgers level QB out of his hat, that will be 3 GMs picking/acquiring 3 hall of fame QBs in a row. He is taking the heat now if it means another 15 years of hall of fame QB play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Krauser said:

The Packers had a better record than the Vikings in 2019, won the division and both head to head games, and went one round further in the playoffs.

Meanwhile, the Vikings had a better points differential (by 41 points) and therefore expected win rate (10.6 to 9.7), better DVOA (by over 10% -- 7th ranked GB was closer to 16th ranked ATL than to 5th ranked MIN), and better team PFF grades.

GB clearly deserved the division because of the head-to-head wins, but they weren't much better than the Vikings overall, and they were arguably worse in some ways. The 13-3 record wasn't a fraud, but it was somewhat flattering.

If any concerned Packers fans want to worry themselves about how the Vikings will ever rebuild their shambles of a defense, I invite you to consider your own defense, which wasn't very good last year (9th in points allowed despite an easy schedule, 15th in DVOA), got embarrassed in the Niners game, and got off to a bad start this year (26th in points allowed, 30th in DVOA, and last in yards/play, after week one). However big of a "beat down" that game was, it wasn't much credit to the Packers defense. 

There's one reason why the Packers won so many close games last year including a playoff game against an elite QB, and blew out the Vikings in week one despite allowing 34 points. It's not the defense, or the OL, or the receiver depth or the coaching. It's Aaron Rodgers. 

You guys were singing a very different tune about Rodgers just a week ago, and even more so right after the draft.

Rodgers was basically perfect in week one, but that was in ideal conditions (no pressure, no coverage, no crowd noise). His performance has been met with surprise or even shock, but the truth is he's continued to put up elite games all the way along, even last year with the blowout over the Raiders and the playoff win vs Seattle. The problem is that he hasn't been able to sustain that level of performance, and his non-elite games have been getting worse and happening more often. 

Rodgers turns 37 this year. Maybe his age 37-40 seasons will somehow be better than his age 32-36 seasons, but that isn't likely. More realistically, at some point in the next 4 years, Packers fans will be wanting to see what Love can do as the starter.

On the day when Packers fans finally have to cheer for a team whose QB is only very good on his best day, they'll have a new appreciation for how good or bad the Packers front office, coaches, and non-QB roster really are. 

This is the one point in which I have to disagree. Sure, you will have a small group of people that'll want to rip the band-aid off; but barring injury I expect Rodgers to create a Jimmy Garappolo situation a year before his contract ends and force the Packers to either pay a King's ransom to keep Love or trade Rodgers...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...