That can be said about any position- If the defensive player (insert name here) doesn't produce the opposing QB will have more time to find his target. If the offensive player doesn't produce (insert name here) Aaron won't have the time he needs.
Originally Posted by: wpr
Yes, but not every player made the contribution-to-be-replaced that Jenkins did.
Put it this way: Desmond Bishop replaced Nick Barnett last year. Did a very good job. If he hadn't, the Packers would have been in more trouble. But not as big a trouble as they will be if Neal doesn't make it to Jenkins level.
Or an even better example, Brad Jones went down and was replaced by Zombo/Walden. They did well, but if they hadn't, all the Packers would have lost is Jones' production. Which was not on Jenkins level anyway.
To my mind losing Jenkins is more like replacing Mike Wahle with Daryn College-the-one-year-vet. Fortunately, Neal showed more than Colledge did in his first year. (Indeed, may have shown more than Colledge has done yet in his career.)
It has been how many years now, and it was only last year (maybe) that the "potential" of a successor for Wahle has translated into "adequate replacement"?
All we have right now is a few games and "potential" to trust in with regard to Neal. I'm not saying that letting Jenkins go is a bad decision -- not yet anyway -- but it is a move that has MAJOR risk. Risk far bigger than any other free agency loss I can think of for this year.
You let a stud go, and you run a big risk. And IMO Jenkins, injury problems and all, Jenkins has demonstrated that he is a major stud.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)