The Packer Wire A forum for the greatest fans of the greatest franchise in the world, the Green Bay Packers.http://www.packerwire.net/index.phpWed, 08 Sep 2010 17:13:51 -0500 Phorum 5.2.12a http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166181#msg-166181 Re: Vikings Rosterhttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166181#msg-166181 Bambam The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 16:41:51 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166180#msg-166180 Re: Vikings Rosterhttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166180#msg-166180 Bambam The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 16:38:44 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166179#msg-166179 Re: I agree with Karl on pretty much allhttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166179#msg-166179TT had plenty of time, advance warning to know that something, ANYTHING needed to be done with the secondary, pass rush, LB, and special teams (in particular a returner).]]> Bambam The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 16:36:23 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166178,166178#msg-166178 We going to have picks contest this year??http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166178,166178#msg-166178 packattack The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 14:36:40 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166177,166177#msg-166177 Spitzhttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166177,166177#msg-166177 packattack The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 14:35:52 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166176#msg-166176 I agree with Karl on pretty much allhttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166176#msg-166176
1) NO team is stacked 5 deep at every position. Every team has weakness.

2) While i agree we probably should have / could have drafted another CB , there is no guarantee they too wouldnt have been busts. Some posters on borads make it sound as if a draft pick not picked/ or a free agent not signed is a guaranteed all-pro that we missed. Weather a rookie or a vet..no FA is guarenteed to help. At least with young players already on roster the coaching staff already knows what to expect out of players. Gettign to meet a FA for a few hours doesnt guarantee knowing their work ethics.

3) We are foregetting that some of the depth for the queens is getting pretty old. Pat Williams is now 37 going to be 38, Kevin is i think 30 going on 31. And lets not forget that Qb guy.

4) While we may not have extreme depth at positions , i would take our weakness over theirs. Backup corners who have (except for shields ) played is better than not having any.Even shields has at least been here through out camp.Who exactly r there wr's agian after berrien and Harvin -both injury concerns in there own right? Heck they dont even know. Harvin could wake up tomorrow and not play agian all year. I would line up there wr against our CB any day. Woodson and Williams will hold their own agians Harvin and Berrien and then our CB r better than their WR. NOw lets turn that around , who would u take with their CB's against our WR's .... :) they dont have 4..like it was said earlier 1 injury and they are sunk in the secondary.

5) I agree about not wanting to use Williams as a returner (or worst yet Jennings or Woodson). I do think it is ill advised. Jordy should be fine and Jackson should be fine on KR. Would it have been nice to pick one up ...Yes. We have used draft choices on them ..i think most r like punters and kickers , they usually end up floating around for a while before they r good. Some maybe drafted and r good , but r usually chosen earlier in draft and again they may or may not work. Give up some field position for ball security is all i care about.
Actually on this subject i have to say, i dont really believe it is as much the guy returnig ball as it is the unit opening holes for him and sometimes luck ( a whole opens as designed and the guy actually see's it.Depending on the kick, holes sometimes open earlier or later than needed.The actual player that is just so elusive that he makes all the difference is pretty few and far between. Hall (KC) and Hester are the exception not the rule and the bears made the mistake of taking ball out of Hesters hand , just to prove how hard it is for a team to keep a 1 dimentional player on the team.

6)I personally like the way our strengths and weakness line up against the queens. I already mentioned WR's vs CB's. I give the queens credit for their running game; mostly pederson. But guess what? that is our strength on defense.Behind pederson the queens dont seem to have much..actually person i really repected was Chester Taylor and now he is gone. There Oline is not exteremly great...Hutchington is exceptional but the rest is good on average.The queens center , Sullivan sint a lock to practice or play as of now and hasnt played much yet. They have lots of injury concerns and my guess they arent as deep as i think we are. They do have better special teams probably but They defenitely are counting on starters at already weak positions. Losing Asher Allen or Harvin would be devistating to already shallow positions.
Basically they can stop our run proabbaly very well but we probably will be able to pass at will.We proabably will stop their run , i am not convinced that even Brett is going to make their passing game equal our passing attack.


7)I would take Aaron vs Brett just due to thinking that Brett is more likely to break down at any time . Backup qb's are about equal to be honest. Jackson has exerience and can run but is prone to bad judgement. Flynn doest had the experience (starting) but i think is a smarter QB if needed to manage a game. I understand there isnt much to go on to prove this but it is my belief anyways.

8) TE's while queens arent bad , i take ours in a heart beat.

9)There was talk of there front 7. Like i said they have age to deal with plus injuries. While we ahve injuries too, ours r less severe or at least our players r closer to being back. Remember Packer mgmt is ultraconservative with injuries thus players have been held out. Henderson is coming off big injury and hasnt practiced much at all, kinda like if we were counting on Harris to start this week and he just started practicing.Their injured players r out because they couldnt practice.
The big thing for me is I think our O-line will contain their front alot better than last year.

10) last thing: Last year Lang was not the problem --Colledge and Barbre were the ones getting turnstiled. Lang actually had only a few pressures AND HE DID IT WITH NO REAL PRACTICE AT POSITION.HE actually held his own very well while he was in and may have actually improved our run game while in at LT.
Dont confuse him with Colledge or Barbre.Heck I am almost positive that even after he took over at LT and Colledge returned to LG, it was later proven that most of the issues from left side were also Colledges fault .

All and all i am going Packers over Queens if played today.Lets see in a few weeks , after a few injuries (especially if queens have any in secondary or wr) where the queens maybe in as bad shape as we were late in the season when we had Bush playing @ #3 cb...heck he may end up being better than anything the queens have , which would be extremely funny if that happened.And at WR they maybe desperate enough to have to bring Freeman back again LOL :) .]]> packattack The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 14:30:37 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166175,166175#msg-166175 So much for that - Smith signs with Miamihttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166175,166175#msg-166175sports.yahoo.com]]]> ThepacktillIdieNNB The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 14:12:39 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166174#msg-166174 Re: Uh oh ...http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166174#msg-166174
Quote
4Pack
Quote
jay
Quote
4Pack
I am just happy that the Packers have the youngest team in the NFL every season. We can all sit around here year after year and talk about what a bright future the Packers have. I hope that someday the future arrives...but we all know that tomorrow never comes.

well the packers pretty much fell in the middle of the pack last year in terms of average age. sorry to dissapoint you.

No dissapointment here because you are wrong again.

[www.jsonline.com]

sorry i was confused with another site that calulates the age with a factor for weighting the position and time spent on the field...ie a starters QB's age is more important than the 3 string tackle that isnt active for game day.

so what does the age have to do with anything. last year the redskins were the oldest based on the ESPN average age formula...their spot in the playoffs was what?? yes the saints were the second oldest and won the SB...but the colts were the second youngest and lost he SB. i dont really see much of a correlation between age and success as you would like to point out. The Lions and Seahawks were 0.37 and 0.58 years younger than the Saints and were terrible.

Age Rank NFL Team Average Age
1 Redskins 28.02
2 Saints 27.99
3 Cardinals 27.74
3 Patriots 27.74
5 Lions 27.62
6 49ers 27.51
7 Steelers 27.50
8 Vikings 27.48
9 Seahawks 27.41
10 Falcons 27.39
11 Titans 27.29
12 Browns 27.18
13 Jets 27.16
13 Broncos 27.16
15 Bears 27.02
16 Cowboys 26.93
17 Bills 26.93
18 Chargers 26.93
19 Texans 26.89
20 Giants 26.88
21 Ravens 26.83
22 Raiders 26.82
23 Eagles 26.81
24 Rams 26.73
25 Jaguars 26.61
26 Bengals 26.60
27 Dolphins 26.47
28 Bucs 26.46
29 Panthers 26.39
30 Chiefs 26.36
31 Colts 26.34
32 Packers 26.16

the median age is 26.93...the packers were 0.77 years younger than the media, while the redskins were 1.09 years older than the median. since there isnt perfect gaussian distribution one could make the arguement the redskins and saints are outliers of the real data. the packers as might well fall in the outlier range but the skins and saints sure do. i just dont see any consistent arguement to be made of the average age of a team having any impact on the outcome of the season.

the weighted scale as seen below shows some big changes differences. taken from [fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com]
to me shows a much stronger correlation between age and success. in this one the pack is in the middle. yet the bills, browns and seahawks are still in the top half. much more of last years playoff teams are in the top half by this analysis.

25.9 Houston Texans
26.4 Jacksonville Jaguars
26.6 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
26.6 St. Louis Rams
26.6 New York Giants
26.7 Philadelphia Eagles
26.8 Miami Dolphins
26.8 Kansas City Chiefs
26.9 Chicago Bears
26.9 San Francisco 49ers
26.9 Carolina Panthers
26.9 Detroit Lions
27.0 Cincinnati Bengals
27.1 San Diego Chargers
27.2 Tennessee Titans
27.2 Oakland Raiders
27.3 Cleveland Browns
27.3 Green Bay Packers
27.3 Atlanta Falcons
27.4 New Orleans Saints
27.4 Seattle Seahawks
27.4 Indianapolis Colts
27.5 Baltimore Ravens
27.5 Buffalo Bills
27.6 New York Jets
27.7 Dallas Cowboys
28.0 Pittsburgh Steelers
28.0 Arizona Cardinals
28.1 Washington Redskins
28.2 Denver Broncos
28.3 Minnesota Vikings
28.7 New England Patriots]]> jay The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 13:58:39 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166103,166173#msg-166173 Re: We lead the league in cut players signed by other teamshttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166103,166173#msg-166173
Quote
FinalFour
Makes sense. I doubt Toribio's ceiling was all that high. McDonald was a bit of a surprise but maybe he showed something in practice that the coaches liked? He had to; that was a very tough competition in the trenches this year.

I like the moves. At least for now, we look lean and ready to weather a few storms should they arise because of our versatility...


I agree with you on McDonald. He was a surprise. I read that he is a tuff scrapper type. If we make a run deep into the playoffs, it might have been better to keep the guys who were closer to getting on the field or at least had some experience. But TT is sticking to his philosophy. That was a Sherman pitfall IMO. He kept players that were more field ready knowing he had a playoff team. But those guys were already at their ceilings. Added to that he was a gambler in the draft. Noone to developed. He got it right in Jenkins and Wells. But not enough to move the team forward.]]> caddis The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 13:37:48 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166172#msg-166172 Re: Uh oh ...http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166172#msg-166172
Quote
jay
Quote
4Pack
I am just happy that the Packers have the youngest team in the NFL every season. We can all sit around here year after year and talk about what a bright future the Packers have. I hope that someday the future arrives...but we all know that tomorrow never comes.

well the packers pretty much fell in the middle of the pack last year in terms of average age. sorry to dissapoint you.

No dissapointment here because you are wrong again.

[www.jsonline.com]]]> 4Pack The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 12:25:12 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166103,166171#msg-166171 Re: We lead the league in cut players signed by other teamshttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166103,166171#msg-166171
I like the moves. At least for now, we look lean and ready to weather a few storms should they arise because of our versatility...]]> FinalFour The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 11:52:01 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166103,166170#msg-166170 Re: We lead the league in cut players signed by other teamshttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166103,166170#msg-166170 caddis The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 10:34:20 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166169#msg-166169 Re: Uh oh ...http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166169#msg-166169
Quote
4Pack
I am just happy that the Packers have the youngest team in the NFL every season. We can all sit around here year after year and talk about what a bright future the Packers have. I hope that someday the future arrives...but we all know that tomorrow never comes.

well the packers pretty much fell in the middle of the pack last year in terms of average age. sorry to dissapoint you.]]> jay The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 09:49:30 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166074,166168#msg-166168 Re: Good News: Bryan signed to Bucshttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166074,166168#msg-166168 shadow The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 09:34:31 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166167#msg-166167 Re: Uh oh ...http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166167#msg-166167 John Anderson The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 06:50:20 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166001,166166#msg-166166 Re: Disturbinghttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166001,166166#msg-166166
Quote
Chraya
Who says Spitz wasn't good enough? He was never in danger of being cut. It is simply a question of keeping him as a backup or trading him. After what happened last year with injuries, I prefer keeping him as a backup. We have 3 solid backups in Spitz, Bulaga and Lang.

This is speculation on my part, but I think that Spitz's back injury was more of a factor this year than anyone let on. Back injuries for linemen are tricky especially with all the pounding that they take and with all the issues with Harrell MM is probably being more cautious than with other injuries.

IMHO next year either Colledge or Spitz will be gone through FA. Doubt if the Packers will be able to keep both of them. IMHO Colledge has a burr under his saddle for not getting an extension this year and will be the most likely to at least test the market. Again IMHO I think that Spitz is the better of the two when healthy.]]> Bubba The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 06:43:50 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166001,166165#msg-166165 Re: Disturbinghttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166001,166165#msg-166165 Chraya The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 01:57:51 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166164#msg-166164 Re: Vikings Rosterhttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166164#msg-166164
And regarding returners, I'm absolutely making the opposite point, but seems you have trouble following a logical argument. Harvin is a Pro Bowl returner and their #2 WR, an area of weakness for the Vikes. I don't see that as a problem as you put your best players into spots they can make plays. This has been proven as well in Chicago when Hester was taken off special teams. If other teams do it and we don't complain, even think it is a great idea, why is it so bad when we do it? I think the injury risk for returners is way overblown, it is no greater risk than playing them an extra several offensive or defensive plays.]]> KarlZimm The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 01:17:38 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166163#msg-166163 Re: Uh oh ...http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166163#msg-166163 Chraya The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 00:39:16 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166162#msg-166162 Re: Vikings Rosterhttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166051,166162#msg-166162 Chraya The Packer WireWed, 08 Sep 2010 00:22:24 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166103,166161#msg-166161 Re: We lead the league in cut players signed by other teamshttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166103,166161#msg-166161
Quote
FinalFour
Toribio cut; not sure who we kept but I didn't really hear anything about the exciting play of Anthony Toribio, did you guys?

While Toribio plays NT, they kept CJ Wilson as the 6th DL. He plays DE & was their 7th round draft choice.

Quote
FinalFour
EDS was cut; this one hurt but we kept Spitz and Newhouse over EDS

They also kept Nick McDonald, a non-drafted free agent who plays Right Guard. This 1 surprised me in that I suspected he would have passed unnoticed onto the practice squad.]]> backpacker The Packer WireTue, 07 Sep 2010 23:35:55 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166137,166160#msg-166160 Re: Clifton Smithhttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166137,166160#msg-166160 wiazcat The Packer WireTue, 07 Sep 2010 22:20:34 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166137,166159#msg-166159 Re: Clifton Smithhttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166137,166159#msg-166159 ShortPack The Packer WireTue, 07 Sep 2010 21:35:09 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166074,166158#msg-166158 Re: Good News: Bryan signed to Bucshttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166074,166158#msg-166158 ShortPack The Packer WireTue, 07 Sep 2010 21:26:49 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166074,166157#msg-166157 Re: Good News: Bryan signed to Bucshttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166074,166157#msg-166157 MikeOulu The Packer WireTue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:39 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166074,166156#msg-166156 Re: Good News: Bryan signed to Bucshttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166074,166156#msg-166156 MikeOulu The Packer WireTue, 07 Sep 2010 21:17:59 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166155#msg-166155 Re: Uh oh ...http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166155#msg-166155
Let's hope JA is right and BB plans to go for it all this year - thus, he holds onto RM.]]> ShortPack The Packer WireTue, 07 Sep 2010 21:10:47 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166001,166154#msg-166154 Re: Disturbinghttp://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166001,166154#msg-166154 BigBri The Packer WireTue, 07 Sep 2010 20:56:02 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166153#msg-166153 Re: Uh oh ...http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166153#msg-166153 4Pack The Packer WireTue, 07 Sep 2010 20:36:59 -0500 http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166152#msg-166152 Re: Uh oh ...http://www.packerwire.net/read.php?2,166097,166152#msg-166152
I'm just pointing out to the poster that, while TT might consider a 2nd-round pick to be worth a lot more than a superstar like Moss, the Queens sure don't think that way. Case in point: the Allen trade. IMO, the Queens are concentrating on winning TODAY and they just might offer 'the farm' to get that SB-title.

We seem to be just sort of wallowing-along, waiting for everything to fall into place for us some year via the draft. That's not going to happen because Clifton, Tausch, Driver, Barnette, Woodson, and Harris don't have a lot of time left on the clock.

Just pointing out the 2 philosophies of thought doesn't make me bitter.]]> ShortPack The Packer WireTue, 07 Sep 2010 20:13:25 -0500