Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

If Bulaga's healthy, that's true. He tore his ACL in early November, the second ACL tear in that knee. He's 29, the same age Loadholt was in 2015 (tore his Achilles in preseason and never played again). He was asked to take a pay cut (reportedly, and refused), which suggests the team isn't confident in him as a long-term option. 

If Bulaga can't play, the options are Kyle Murphy (abused by rookie Carl Lawson in the Bengals game last year to the tune of 3 sacks and 7 hurries), Jason Spriggs (allowed the game and season ending 4th down sack to 37 year old Julius Peppers in the Panthers game where Rodgers tried to make a comeback) and Byron Bell (one of the backup Cowboys tackles last year who allowed 6 sacks to Adrian Clayborn in a single game). Spriggs is probably the best of that group, and the Packers have consistently had success developing OL, but if Bulaga's out the right side of the line is no sure thing. 

Graham turns 32 this year and was ineffective in Seattle in 2017 except as a red zone weapon. He wasn't getting open downfield between the 20s. Rodgers will make great use of him in the red zone but I'm not sure McCarthy can count on Graham to open up the offense. 

Unless Graham turns back the clock and one of the rookie WRs makes an immediate impact, this will be the weakest supporting cast for the Packers pass offense of Rodgers' career. 

The big DL (Clark and Daniels, Wilkerson if he revives his career) are really really good.

Matthews and Perry (yeah?) leave something to be desired as edge rushers, IMO. They're good, but they're not game changers. I'm not sure what rush efficiency metrics you mean but PFF put them at 9.3% (CM) and 8.7% (NP) for pass rush productivity last year, with 41 full-time edge rushers (looking at 4-3 DE and 3-4 OLB who played 50% of snaps) scoring higher than both of them, including relatively unsung players like Sam Acho, Zadarius Smith and Robert Ayers. 

And yes, their chronic recurring injuries are a problem, and their age curves are against them (Matthews is 32, same age Jared Allen was during his 2014 season with the Bears), and there's nothing much in rotational depth behind them (is Fackrell still the 3rd option?). So I think the Packers pass rush is a weakness at this point, or at least, not a strength. 

Agreed, they have a really nice group of young corners, but when was the last time a young corner played really well in GB? They're going to need a lot from at least 2 of King, Alexander and Jackson. Maybe they'll be amazing even this year but until they realize some of their potential, the Packers pass defense will be a major question mark. 

Add those up and there are legitimate concerns about the Packers pass blocking, pass receivers, pass rush, and pass coverage. Some of those questions will no doubt work out fine, but unless everything breaks their way, others won't.

GB does get Aaron Rodgers back, which makes up for a lot, but there might be a lot for him to make up for.

To me, it's a stretch to elevate a team with those question marks as the favorite in an NFC that includes the Eagles, Saints, Rams, Falcons, Panthers and Vikings. 

You're comparing ages to Bulaga and Loadholt and downplaying the different injuries. Achilles is a career sapper (if not ender entirely). ACL has reached the point where it's 10 months to be physically healthy and 16 to be mentally all there. Bulaga should be fine by playoff time if not sooner. Even if he isn't, the backups are fine. They're not going to detail the offense whether it be Murphy or Springs. Neither is as good as Bulaga but neither will be an embarrassment.

We'll see on Graham. I tend to believe in great players having a bit left in the tank when they get out of bad situations, and that Seahawks offense is a damn mess with really mediocre coaching and horrific line play. We're just going to have to wait that one out.

When healthy, (Perry and Matthews played way too much time nicked up last year) both are legitimate rushers. The decision to cut our rush package reps basically in half in 2017 was always going to do bad things for their stats. When you're rushing 3 when you used to rush 6, it's just ugly for the numbers. Add a defense that really struggled getting into pressure package down and distance due to a crumbling secondary and you're not going to do great. Any number that indicates Matthews was a more effective rusher than Perry last year is a deeply flawed one.

Hyde, Randall, and Hayward all played well as rookie CBs for us. Throw Sam Shields in with that group if you want, though that's reaching a bit further back.

I don't think anybody should be declaring this Packer team a favorite in the NFC, minimally until we see 8 games of what this defense looks like.

I also don't think they should be counted out and should be held in the discussion. You've got a lot of teams on that list that only have a very small time frame of being good. Consistency has to count for something.

Panthers and Saints have both been very up and down in recent years. Eagles and Rams basically had coaches that brought in new concepts that teams hadnt dealt with before. The Vikings, Packers and Falcons have all at least consistently been in the fight rather than fading in and out.

[Krauser]

6 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

You're comparing ages to Bulaga and Loadholt and downplaying the different injuries. Achilles is a career sapper (if not ender entirely). ACL has reached the point where it's 10 months to be physically healthy and 16 to be mentally all there. Bulaga should be fine by playoff time if not sooner. Even if he isn't, the backups are fine. They're not going to detail the offense whether it be Murphy or Springs. Neither is as good as Bulaga but neither will be an embarrassment.

Didn't mean to suggest Bulaga's injury is the same as Loadholt's, but that he's old enough now that his long term recovery is uncertain (especially given that this was a repeat ACL tear). The Packers apparently think so, since they tried to get him to accept a pay cut. The rest of Bulaga's contract (2 years left) would easily be worth paying as written if he was healthy and playing at his usual level. So I guess the Packers are themselves concerned that he won't be.

I think you're a little too sanguine on how well things will go if Bulaga isn't back to full strength, at least early in the year. Spriggs (Panthers game) and Murphy (Bengals game) did have a significantly detrimental effect when they had to start last year. Byron Bell isn't good either. One of those guys has a good chance of having to start against Danielle Hunter in week 2.

The Packers have an enviable record with OL development, but they've also been derailed by injuries at a few points (late 2015, most obviously). Until Bulaga's back and shows he's back to full strength, the right side of OL will be a question mark. 

...

That said, I'm not counting them out. The Packers might be very good, if their roster comes together just right. Agree that we'll have to wait and see how things go with Graham bouncing back, the young secondary, depth at edge rusher and WR, the coaching and scheme changes, etc. Should be an interesting year. 

Thanks for your contributions to the discussion here. 

[vike daddy]

Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers has avoided interceptions like no other quarterback in NFL history. Rodgers has just 78 interceptions in his NFL career, and his rate of throwing an interception on 1.6 percent of his passes is the lowest for any quarterback in NFL history.

Rodgers is 10th in NFL history in passing touchdowns, but he’s tied for 159th in NFL history in interceptions. The quarterback directly in front of Rodgers on the career touchdown list, Ben Roethlisberger, has 96 more interceptions than Rodgers. The quarterback directly behind Rodgers on the career touchdown list, John Elway, has 148 more interceptions than Rodgers.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/07/aaron-rodgers-avoidance-of-interceptions-is-incredible/

[Arthur Penske]

On 7/5/2018 at 9:43 AM, Krauser said:

If Bulaga's healthy, that's true. He tore his ACL in early November, the second ACL tear in that knee. He's 29, the same age Loadholt was in 2015 (tore his Achilles in preseason and never played again). He was asked to take a pay cut (reportedly, and refused), which suggests the team isn't confident in him as a long-term option. 

If Bulaga can't play, the options are Kyle Murphy (abused by rookie Carl Lawson in the Bengals game last year to the tune of 3 sacks and 7 hurries), Jason Spriggs (allowed the game and season ending 4th down sack to 37 year old Julius Peppers in the Panthers game where Rodgers tried to make a comeback) and Byron Bell (one of the backup Cowboys tackles last year who allowed 6 sacks to Adrian Clayborn in a single game). Spriggs is probably the best of that group, and the Packers have consistently had success developing OL, but if Bulaga's out the right side of the line is no sure thing.

 

Agreed, they have a really nice group of young corners, but when was the last time a young corner played really well in GB? 

You’re missing Justin McCray who played pretty well at RT last season when needed. While he’s anticipated to play guard he could move to RT too if necessary. Cole Madison (rookie) is another possibility at RT.

last time a young corner played well in GB? I’d say basically every year before the last 2 years. Sheilds, Hayward, Williams, Hyde, ect

Not to mention its a new DC, so while some positional coaches are the same using Capers are precedent isn’t that relevant.

Edited July 7, 2018 by ArthurPensky

[Krauser]

23 hours ago, ArthurPensky said:

You’re missing Justin McCray who played pretty well at RT last season when needed. While he’s anticipated to play guard he could move to RT too if necessary. Cole Madison (rookie) is another possibility at RT.

McCray was pretty bad from what I saw of him. PFF didn’t like him either. I thought Madison was expected to play guard. 

In any case, the point was that if Bulaga isn’t healthy, the Packers don’t have “good starters at 4 of the 5 offensive line positions”. Bakhtiari is great, and Taylor and Linsley are pretty good. RG is an question mark right now. RT is a weakness until Bulaga returns to full strength, or one of the depth options proves to be a good starter (which none of them were last year). 

Quote

last time a young corner played well in GB? I’d say basically every year before the last 2 years. Sheilds, Hayward, Williams, Hyde, ect

Tramon Williams is 35 and was a rookie the same year as Adrian Peterson. Sam Shields was a rookie on the Super Bowl team in 2010. Hayward and Hyde were good as rookies in 2012 and 2013 respectively. 

2015-17 Packers CBs who started as rookies include Randall (late 1st in 2015), King (early 2nd in 2017), and Rollins (late 2nd in 2015). All had some nice moments but none were especially good. Randall had the best rookie year of that group by reputation but he gave up too many big plays. GB also had other young UDFAs play CB due to injuries — Gunter and Hawkins among others — and none of them were impressive. 

In any case, the point is that a lot of unproven (though no doubt talented) young CBs are going to have to be above average NFL starters right now, or else the Packers secondary will be mediocre, at best.  

Quote

Not to mention its a new DC, so while some positional coaches are the same using Capers are precedent isn’t that relevant.

I thought Capers coverage scheme was fairly easy to learn and execute, lots of off man and zone principles, giving DBs opportunities to read the QB and make plays on the ball. They used a lot of disguised zone coverages (late rotation of the safeties or whatever) which led to INT opportunities when QBs  relied on their presnap reads.  He was good at scheming pressure both from the DL/edge (lots of twists and stunts) and second level blitzers, and his fairly uncomplicated coverage scheme looked good as long as pressure got home.

FO charting of the Packers defense: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/defense-and-pass-pressure-2015

2015: 10th best pressure rate, DVOA with pressure 4th, without pressure 10th, difference 5th (5th biggest drop in DVOA without pressure)

2016: 16th best pressure rate, DVOA with pressure 5th, without pressure 28th, difference 1st

2017: 26th best pressure rate, DVOA with pressure 13th, without pressure 32nd, difference 2nd

Best indicator of the quality of the secondary is the DVOA without pressure, where the Packers went from pretty good to terrible after 2015. Their top 2 CBs in 2015 were Shields and Hayward, but both were gone the next year — Hayward to San Diego and Shields to retirement from concussions.  Even with substandard personnel, Capers was able to get good results from the secondary as long as pressure got home (top 5 biggest improvement in the league in DVOA with pressure from baseline without, all 3 years). With better CBs, and a decent pressure rate (both true in 2015), the pass defense was actually good in general.

Along with the loss of their best CBs after 2015, the Packers pressure rates dropped off considerably in 2017, coinciding with Peppers leaving town. Perry put up a career best performance in his contract year in 2016, but he hasn’t been a consistent difference maker after 6 years in the league, and it’s unclear if he’ll ever take his game to the next level. Matthews still tries hard but he’s no longer someone offenses have to scheme around, and he’s past 30 so may be on the decline. Peppers was a great signing in 2014 but he’s gone now.  None of the depth options they’ve drafted in recent years have developed into legitimate threats (Fackrell was taken 88th in the 2016 draft, ironically the same pick the Vikings used on Danielle Hunter a year earlier). 

So I think right now the Packers have nothing great in terms of pass rushers, though the top 2 edge rushers are solid (as long as they’re not injured, which they often have been). And their secondary was a dumpster fire last year in terms of talent, not only limited by scheme — a scheme that had worked fine just 2 years earlier when they happened to have 2 good starting corners. I doubt that any DC could have produced average coverage results from the group last year.

My understanding of Pettine from his time with the Jets is that he asks his CBs to play a lot of man coverage, without much help. Maybe that’s just because he had Revis and Cromartie, so that could be wrong. But if so, the Packers corners are going to have a harder job to do, not easier. That’s also true if Pettine is going to use more pattern matching zone principles — just about anything Pettine is going to ask the secondary to do will be harder than Capers scheme.

Vikings fans have some experience watching highly drafted corners develop in a complex coverage scheme that asks a lot from its players. Even with Mike Zimmer as the coach, it’s taken a series of 1st round (Rhodes 2013, Waynes 2015) and 2nd round (Alexander 2016) talents usually 2 years to be competent starters, and 3 to be above average. So if Packers fans are expecting average or better pass coverage this year from two rookies, a 2nd year guy who missed half his rookie season from injuries and a 35 year old, I think that’s overly optimistic — especially since the pass rush doesn’t seem likely to be much better this year than in 2017.

The young corners do have talent. King is a good fit for a man coverage scheme, and he did well against Julio in Atlanta last year. He wasn’t great from what I saw otherwise, but he’s got the physical tools. Jackson and (especially) Alexander are very good prospects. If all 3 of those guys develop to their potential, and HHCD bounces back, they could have a good secondary in 2019, and an excellent one by 2020. But for this year, I don’t think they can expect to be much better than half decent. 

So again, I think there are legitimate questions about the Packers receivers (beyond Adams and Graham), OL (on the right side), pass rush (beyond the top 2) and pass coverage (in general). Rodgers is a great player but he’s coming off an injury in his mid 30s, and the rest of the Packers team seems obviously worse than it was a few years ago. The new coaching schemes may make a difference in bringing out better performances from players who probably underperformed last year, but I think they’re still short some blue chip talent, especially on defense — or at least that the blue chip players they may have found in the draft this year will need a couple of years to develop in order to perform at the level to make the team true contenders.

I made this point before but I think the next contender Packers team may require a turnover around Rodgers similar to what the Saints went through from their last playoff team in 2013 to 2017. Brees is still there, but aside from a few holdovers (Jordan, Ingram), most of the best players on their team last year had been added in the last 3 years (Kamara, Thomas, Rankins, Lattimore, Ramczyk, Unger, Warford, Okafor, etc). 

I think the next time the Packers win 12 games, they will have gone through a similar level of turnover from 2014, with a few holdovers (say, Bakhtiari, Adams, Linsley and Clinton-Dix) plus Rodgers of course, but most of the cornerstones from the 2014 team already replaced. They’ve already started that process, with Sitton, Lang and now Nelson gone, but they haven’t really found comparable quality replacements yet (the young CBs may eventually be good replacements for Shields and Hayward but probably not quite yet), and there’s still a generation of older veterans (Matthews, Perry, Daniels, Cobb, Bulaga) that probably mostly need to be replaced before the team is again as good as it was from 2009-2014.  

[Arthur Penske]

26 minutes ago, Krauser said:

McCray was pretty bad from what I saw of him. PFF didn’t like him either. I thought Madison was expected to play guard. 

In any case, the point was that if Bulaga isn’t healthy, the Packers don’t have “good starters at 4 of the 5 offensive line positions”. Bakhtiari is great, and Taylor and Linsley are pretty good. RG is an question mark right now. RT is a weakness until Bulaga returns to full strength, or one of the depth options proves to be a good starter (which none of them were last year). 

I’d classify McCray as a pretty good guard last season. Certainly not a liability.  Wasn’t a liability at RT either.

As far far as the whole “ packers roster dosent have talent” aside from Rodgers, you can argue lack of talent all you want but they were 4-1 with him last season. Which was on par with the vikes.

Also, No ones guaranteeing these players return to pro bowl form as it was some time ago for many, but the packers did sign 4 former probowl players and and incoming draft ( like every team). So I think it’s a bit foolish to just assume none of these players can have a big impact.

i also noticed you mentioned Tramon   Williams as old, kind of implying washed up? Which is fine. But Take a look at his PFF last season. If you want to use PFF as a reference for other players you’re mentioning need to use it for him too, not just look at his age. Need to be consistent there.

Edited July 8, 2018 by ArthurPensky

[Krauser]

McCray isn’t (yet) a good starter at RT, like Bulaga (has been). Until Bulaga is healthy or some of the depth guys establish themselves, the Packers have question marks at both spots on the right side of the OL.

I never said none of the incoming players would have an impact.

I like the corners they drafted a lot, but realistically they will likely take 2-3 years to become above average starters.

I didn’t mean to imply Williams was washed up, in fact I praised the signing at the time (back a few pages in this thread). It’s true that it’s hard to expect him to continue to play well at his age. The @AlexGreen#20 thread I linked here also made the point that the Cards scheme was probably better suited to Williams’ lack of speed than Pettine’s, and that showed when they were both with the Browns.

Wilkerson and Graham might rebound to have big years but I think in even the best case scenario they’re adding strength to strength (DL was already the best part of the defense, red zone passing already the best part of the offense). I don’t think it’s realistic to expect that both of those guys will turn the clock back 2-3 years and play at a Pro Bowl level, though of course that’s possible. 

2 hours ago, ArthurPensky said:

As far far as the whole “ packers roster dosent have talent” aside from Rodgers, you can argue lack of talent all you want but they were 4-1 with him last season. Which was on par with the vikes.

The 2017 Packers with Rodgers won home games against a Seahawks team trying to play without an OL, a bad Bengals team (in OT) and a terrible Bears team in what will probably be Mike Glennon’s last career start (the only game GB won all year by more than 8 points). Against better teams, on the road, they got stomped by the Falcons (trailing by 24 entering the 4th quarter), won a shootout with a pretty good Cowboys team, and lost in Carolina with Rodgers back but still limited by injury. So that was 4-2 with Rodgers. 

The Vikings meanwhile lost on the road to Pittsburgh (the only game they lost by more than a TD) when Bradford pulled up lame in warmups, the Lions at home when Cook tore his ACL and Carolina on the road. They won 13 games and only 3 of them were actually close: the Bears road game where a gimpy Bradford played the 1st half, the Falcons on the road and the Lions on the road. BAL and WAS got within 8 points in garbage time (the Ravens only as time expired) but those were comfortable wins. They did all that with a backup QB playing more games than the Packers had their backup QB play, and along the way managed to shut out GB in Lambeau in December. 

The Packers weren’t a Rodgers collarbone injury away from winning the division last year, let alone contending for the NFC. Having him back this year is a huge plus, obviously, but that isn’t going to solve all the questions with the rest of their team.They do have some top end talent in its prime (Bakhtiari, Adams, Clark, Daniels, etc) but their overall roster doesn’t seem nearly as deep or as good as it was a few years ago.

If everything breaks right — previously elite veteran FAs recapture their prior form, players who struggled last year bounce back in the new schemes, depth players and rookies take big steps forward and contribute, plus of course Rodgers and other keystones stay healthy — they might far exceed my expectations, and live up to the preseason hype that they’re one of the best teams in the league. 

But I don’t think that’s the most likely scenario. Too many things can go wrong. If they do, they could be in for a long year, even with a healthy Aaron Rodgers.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Krauser

[Arthur Penske]

Hey, you’re obv entitled to your opinion. I think you’ll be somewhat wrong  for 2018 though. Particularly the impact of Pettine. That said, I do agree some things need to go right for the Packers to reach the top of the NFC agian. Mainly stay healthier this season and have some contributions from FAs, second year guys, and a few rookies.

 I was talking about McCray being pretty good at RG. He was adaquate at RT.

[Cadmus]

10 hours ago, Krauser said:

McCray isn’t (yet) a good starter at RT, like Bulaga (has been). Until Bulaga is healthy or some of the depth guys establish themselves, the Packers have question marks at both spots on the right side of the OL.

I never said none of the incoming players would have an impact.

I like the corners they drafted a lot, but realistically they will likely take 2-3 years to become above average starters.

I didn’t mean to imply Williams was washed up, in fact I praised the signing at the time (back a few pages in this thread). It’s true that it’s hard to expect him to continue to play well at his age. The @AlexGreen#20 thread I linked here also made the point that the Cards scheme was probably better suited to Williams’ lack of speed than Pettine’s, and that showed when they were both with the Browns.

Wilkerson and Graham might rebound to have big years but I think in even the best case scenario they’re adding strength to strength (DL was already the best part of the defense, red zone passing already the best part of the offense). I don’t think it’s realistic to expect that both of those guys will turn the clock back 2-3 years and play at a Pro Bowl level, though of course that’s possible. 

The 2017 Packers with Rodgers won home games against a Seahawks team trying to play without an OL, a bad Bengals team (in OT) and a terrible Bears team in what will probably be Mike Glennon’s last career start (the only game GB won all year by more than 8 points). Against better teams, on the road, they got stomped by the Falcons (trailing by 24 entering the 4th quarter), won a shootout with a pretty good Cowboys team, and lost in Carolina with Rodgers back but still limited by injury. So that was 4-2 with Rodgers. 

The Vikings meanwhile lost on the road to Pittsburgh (the only game they lost by more than a TD) when Bradford pulled up lame in warmups, the Lions at home when Cook tore his ACL and Carolina on the road. They won 13 games and only 3 of them were actually close: the Bears road game where a gimpy Bradford played the 1st half, the Falcons on the road and the Lions on the road. BAL and WAS got within 8 points in garbage time (the Ravens only as time expired) but those were comfortable wins. They did all that with a backup QB playing more games than the Packers had their backup QB play, and along the way managed to shut out GB in Lambeau in December. 

The Packers weren’t a Rodgers collarbone injury away from winning the division last year, let alone contending for the NFC. Having him back this year is a huge plus, obviously, but that isn’t going to solve all the questions with the rest of their team.They do have some top end talent in its prime (Bakhtiari, Adams, Clark, Daniels, etc) but their overall roster doesn’t seem nearly as deep or as good as it was a few years ago.

If everything breaks right — previously elite veteran FAs recapture their prior form, players who struggled last year bounce back in the new schemes, depth players and rookies take big steps forward and contribute, plus of course Rodgers and other keystones stay healthy — they might far exceed my expectations, and live up to the preseason hype that they’re one of the best teams in the league. 

But I don’t think that’s the most likely scenario. Too many things can go wrong. If they do, they could be in for a long year, even with a healthy Aaron Rodgers.

Not even a Packers homer, but this is just a completely nonsensical statement. It's the type of comment I'd expect from someone posting on the Worldwide Leader in Sports website.   

You're whole post attempts to make every argument for why the Vikings losses were aberrations and why the Packers wins with Rodgers should be overlooked. Terrible stink of homerism throughout man, no two ways about it. You literally type...."with Rodgers back but still limited by back injury. So that was 4-2 with Rodgers." You don't see anything wrong with those back-to-back statements?

There's a reason the Packers entered Week 6 last season with a better record (4-1)  than the Vikings (3-2). The guy tilts the field like few QBs in the NFL, and that's impossible to ignore.

In 2018, it' should be the Packers and Vikings jockeying for the NFC North title, but don't expect the Bears or Lions to be complete pushovers. 

[Arthur Penske]

7 hours ago, Cadmus said:

Not even a Packers homer, but this is just a completely nonsensical statement. It's the type of comment I'd expect from someone posting on the Worldwide Leader in Sports website.   

You're whole post attempts to make every argument for why the Vikings losses were aberrations and why the Packers wins with Rodgers should be overlooked. Terrible stink of homerism throughout man, no two ways about it. You literally type...."with Rodgers back but still limited by back injury. So that was 4-2 with Rodgers." You don't see anything wrong with those back-to-back statements?

There's a reason the Packers entered Week 6 last season with a better record (4-1)  than the Vikings (3-2). The guy tilts the field like few QBs in the NFL, and that's impossible to ignore.

In 2018, it' should be the Packers and Vikings jockeying for the NFC North title, but don't expect the Bears or Lions to be complete pushovers. 

Yeah, I think @Krauser is overlooking that the Packers were averaging over 11 pts more with Rodgers than Huntley. While the defense would have obviously still held things back, if those offensive numbers held straight, the Packers would have been in the hunt for a playoff spot and even the possibly even the division.

Edited July 9, 2018 by ArthurPensky

[Krauser]

The Packers were 4-2 with Rodgers last year, even if he was limited by injury in Carolina. I was writing in response to “they were 4-1 with him last season”. 

They were 4-1 before he got hurt but had been blown out in the only game where they faced a playoff team (the Falcons, who the Vikings beat 14-9 on the road with Keenum at QB). They played well in the Cowboys win, full marks for that, and they do deserve credit for beating the Seahawks. Going to OT to beat the Bengals was not impressive (Vikings later beat them 34-7). Their one big win was the Bears game where Glennon gave up 4 turnovers. 

The Vikings losses weren’t aberrations, but there were only 3 of them, and 2 of them were close. The one blowout loss came after they switched starting QBs after pregame warmups. They beat some very good teams (Falcons, Rams, Saints), and most of their wins were comfortable. They did that mostly with a backup QB.

Let’s say the Packers beat the Vikings once with Rodgers healthy (season series split 1-1 in 2015 and 2016). That would put the Vikings record at 12-4 for the year. The Packers would be at 5-2 in games Rodgers started healthy, needing to go 7-2 in their other games to tie for the division lead.

Packers fans might want to suggest that the team that got blown out in Atlanta and needed OT to get past Cincinnati, both with Rodgers healthy, would have only dropped 2 of their other 9 games, including the Saints, Panthers, Lions twice, Ravens and Steelers. I really don’t see it. 

The Packers had Rodgers healthy for 2015 and 2016 and went 10-6 both years. Last time they won more than 10 was 2014. 

The 2017 team was noticeably worse than 2014 even aside from the QB: the IOL lost Sitton and Lang, Nelson slowed down considerably, the pass rush was mediocre, and the secondary was a disaster. Yet Packers fans want to believe that they’d have gone 12-4 or better last year (which is what it would’ve taken to win the division), if it wasn’t for that injury.

I think the idea that the Packers were as good as the best teams in the NFC last year is wishful thinking. The talking point about their record before Rodgers’ injury ignores the degree to which their struggles last year had to do with other significant problems with their team.

A more detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Packers roster shows they still have some serious questions to answer. I like some of the moves they’ve made this offseason, including changing coaches, some of the free agents, and the CBs in the draft. Even so, I don’t think it’s likely that all those questions will be resolved this year, at least not to the point that GB will be able to live up to current expectations as one of the elite teams in the league.

[swede700]

8 hours ago, Cadmus said:

There's a reason the Packers entered Week 6 last season with a better record (4-1)  than the Vikings (3-2). The guy tilts the field like few QBs in the NFL, and that's impossible to ignore.

 

 

Yes, because the Packers had Rodgers for all 5 games, while the Vikings only had their starting QB for 1 game and lost their starting RB in game 4.  Otherwise, it's quite possible that the Vikings would have also been 4-1.  There's absolutely no question that, by far, Aaron Rodgers is the most valuable player to his team in the NFL, but as he ages, he likely isn't going to keep it up forever.  The talent on the rest of the team has to be upgraded.  I can't agree that their potential, at this point, is sky-high, because they have far too many holes at too many positions (and not enough depth behind the starters that are solid) to be at that level.  They have the talent to make the playoffs certainly, but they aren't serious SB contenders right now, at least IMO. They are at least 2 solid drafts and free agency periods away.            

[Krauser]

1 hour ago, ArthurPensky said:

Yeah, I think @Krauser is overlooking that the Packers were averaging over 11 pts more with Rodgers than Huntley. While the defense would have obviously still held things back, if those offensive numbers held straight, the Packers would have been in the hunt for a playoff spot and even the possibly even the division.

Even if we take that number at face value, and give the Packers 110 more points scored, 11 per game Rodgers didn’t finish, they still only end up 4th in the NFC in points scored, and 5th in points differential (+46, with the Vikings at +130, or +108 if you dock them 22 points for the Packers games). Points differential of +46 is almost exactly what GB put up in 2015 (+45) and 2016 (+44) — and they were 10-6 both years. 

You can add 11 points to the Packers totals in each game and they still end up losing both Vikings games, both Lions games, and the Ravens game. Those additional points put them ahead of the Steelers and Saints but that’s only good enough for 9-7. 

My prediction since 2015 has been that the Packers are roughly a 10 win team, with Rodgers, so those numbers are right where I’d expect them.

Meanwhile, the Vikings won 13 games last year. That’s a better record than GB has put up since 2011. Hard for me to believe the 2017 Packers would’ve matched their best result from the last 6 years (12 wins in 2014), even if they were 4-1 through the first 5. I agree GB would’ve been in the mix for the playoffs but it hardly would’ve given them the division — the Vikings had a very good team last year.

 

[Arthur Penske]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

Even if we take that number at face value, and give the Packers 110 more points scored, 11 per game Rodgers didn’t finish, they still only end up 4th in the NFC in points scored.

Meanwhile, the Vikings won 13 games last year. That’s a better record than GB has put up since 2011. Hard for me to believe the 2017 Packers would’ve matched their best result from the last 6 years (12 wins in 2014), even if they were 4-1 through the first 5. I agree GB would’ve been in the mix for the playoffs but it hardly would’ve given them the division — the Vikings had a very good team last year.

 

You’re assuming the Packers would have lost The 2 games to the vikes with Rodgers. Which may well be the case but still an assumption. 

With the points total you’re assuming the Packers offensive play wouldn’t have impacted the game other than the score. Less time on the field for the Packers defense, game situation, etc. the offense Huntley led didn’t do any favors to the packers defense when they got shut out twice and contastly having stalled drives, ect. It’s not apples to apples there if Rodgers were healthy.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by ArthurPensky

[NorthCountryEvo]

40 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said:

You’re assuming the Packers would have lost The 2 games to the vikes with Rodgers. Which may well be the case but still an assumption. 

With the points total you’re assuming the Packers offensive play wouldn’t have impacted the game other than the score. Less time on the field for the Packers defense, game situation, etc. the offense Huntley led didn’t do any favors to the packers defense when they got shut out twice and contastly having stalled drives, ect. It’s not apples to apples there if Rodgers were healthy.

 

 

 

 

What you are saying is a fairly obvious statement though, and one that can be said about any argument or set of statistics that have been used in this conversation. That would be like Vikings fans saying if Bradford never got hurt, and he matched roughly his same stats from week 1 in every game, the Vikings would have won X amount of games, and putnuo X stats. All we have to use are the stats that actually occurred, and the trends that were shown based off of larger samples. 

 

If we play the what if game, you really get no where, but if we use the stats and trends available, then some reasonable discourse can happen.