What should the 2015 Packers look like ?· Page 4

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

9 years ago

After the draft, we will have everything we need personnel wise. What we still need and have always needed is a new attitude that comes all the way from the top. We need a killer instinct, we need to be aggressive - for the full 60 minutes, no matter the score, no matter what week it is. The offense should never let up, the defense should never let up. Foot on the throat, everytime, no mercy. This is how I want the 2015 team to look. It needs to be their identity, their legacy....No more of this prevent defense bullshit...

Originally Posted by: gbguy20

Just imagine when Rodgers went out of games because we were so far ahead. If he had stayed in to have that killer instinct and ended up getting hurt.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Smokey
Veteran Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#32

It is no secret that the Packers need CB's and ILB's. Ted Thompson may not fill all of the player needs with the draft. Often one team will draft the player that another team needs. Trades are not unheard of . Players get released at training camps also.

Buckle your seat-belts, it's going to be a wild ride !

:joker: :faroah:

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#33

The 2015 Packers team will finish what the 2014 Packers team started and that's how they should look and will look. The Packers have not lost any critical piece of the puzzle and removed several of the "scapegoats" of the mistakes. The time is now.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Addition by subtraction - yeah!

I don't really see any urgent needs, although we certainly could use a Corner and a ILB.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

Poppa San
Member

9 years ago

#34

I an not seeing the immediate need for a CB. Casey was a 2nd round pick for a reason. Micah will be the nickel. Now for a dime CB that gets to the field maybe 10 plays a game, yeah but it isn't that great a need. Get a really good pass rush and either of my deceased grandmothers could play dime back. For development? Sure. Injury replacement? Sure. Drafting for a starting spot? Not necessary.
I am not sold on a 2nd starting ILB is on the roster. Unless players develop that were on the practice squad and IR last season, that is not a position of strength. Barrington is a JAG. Unless he grows into the spot. I do like Matthews there though and will accept him as an ILB if nothing else fruits.
I expect to see the same team by week 3 that played in Seattle last season for the NFCCG. I do not expect McCarthy to ever again take his foot off the pedal. He hasn't been burned by it in the past, but that game was a soul searcher. He doesn't repeat mistakes of that magnitude.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

I awoke this morning with a headache. I still went to work. She went back to sleep.

Smokey
Veteran Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#35

Originally Posted by: Poppa San

Having lost 3 LB's and 2 CB's already in this off-season, I don't see starting last seasons want-a-be's as a viable solution. In addition, ST's as a rule, plays a lot of LB's, Safety's, and back up RB's. Having tunnel vision for just the Offense or the Defense and not considering the total picture.

I await your unveil your avatar, I'm sure it will be a dandy !

👍 😨 👎 👅

Smokey
Veteran Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#36

In an attempt to get this forum back to talking about football , I've returned this thread. In the hope that good manors and good sense will prevail and The Team will emerge above individual personal problems.
Ted Thompson it seems has done well to keep a great Offense together. The Defense and Special Teams remain to be seen. This thread is here so that this forums members may discuss what we all hope will be a Championship Season. Some positions remain cloudy , yet others will be quite solid.

Post what you think. Post what you hope to see walk onto the field this season. Who will step up ? Will rookies tart and where ?

Wade
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#37

IMO, the Packers must have a goal to be substantially better than last year.

As of right now, they are not. It really depends on what the draft adds, doesn't it?

ILB: Real need. Barrington is still potential, but his words notwithstanding, he was here last year. If he is the best ILB on the squad then the team hasn't improved yet, it's declined right now because his backups aren't as good as Hawk/Jones/Lattimore were as backups. I have no doubt that the draft will provide a quality backup. Whether it will mean a better starter than last year's committee is not clear. I expect most ILBs will be drafted earlier than their real quality suggests. If GB wants an ILB improvement from this draft, they're probably going to have to use a first to second quality (IMO there are no first round quality ILB in this draft), a second to get third quality, or a third to get fourth/fifth quality. Even if you buy the Barrington potential card, they still need another ILB (do people really want Matthews playing ILB all the time?) and they still need backup to replace Hawk et al. Position must be addressed in first four rounds IMO.

CB: Real need. Are people saying that Hayward/Hyde are better at the CB position than Tramon? And if so, the evidence for this is....? After all, neither could beat him out last year. So if they don't pick up a CB that is at least as good as one of those two, or even at least as good as House, they won't have improved going into the season. Good thing is this draft is deep at the CB position, so that improvement may well come. But I think the team's asking for real trouble if they think the current CBs are good enough as a unit. Also must be addressed in first four rounds.

DT: Real need. I like Guion. I really do. But he should be a rotational backup type, not a starter. And I remain unconvinced that Raji is going to be the level of DT starter you want either. Wouldn't be at all surprised (or bothered) if GB goes here in the first two rounds, because the DT talent in this draft is bi-modal: If you don't get one before pick 75, then the rest of the crop is 5th and lower.

TE: Real need. Quarless is a great number 2 TE. I want a number 1 TE. Good draft for TEs. Need should be fillable. I don't like Williams, but Walford/Heuerman/Koyack would all be cool between late 2nd and fourth. And several later-round possibilities, too, though none of those likely to be better than 2nd to Quarless's #1.

Other places they could get improvement:
OT: I really wish they would draft someone who could and would push Bahktiari hard. And while I know everyone likes Bulaga, I wouldn't mind someone to push him, too. But definitely someone who can push Bacteria.

OG: Sitton is the Rock of Gibraltar. But I still wish they'd draft an OG high enough that he'd push Lang, who IMO is the most overrated of our linemen.

DE: I really wish they could get someone better than Neal/Perry/Jones.

OLB: Not a huge need, but still need someone who can be Peppers replacement in 2017 or if he gets injured.

S: Pass defense over the middle is still too weak to my mind. Most of this is probably ILB problems, but some of it has to lie with the safeties.

P. Masthay's year was bad enough that it might be worth spending a seventh or one of the comp 6ths on a punter.

RB. Lacy/Starks/Kuhn is okay. Wouldn't mind an upgrade over one of the last two.

WR. Lots of talent in this draft. Not a big need, though.

Okay without any draft attention:

C (though this draft has some gems) Lindley has this spot under control. Maybe a backup late.

QB Maybe a flyer in the 7th, but no real need. And its a weak QB class anyway.

K No need.

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)

sschind
Senior Member

9 years ago

#38

Originally Posted by: Wade

What you are saying is that, like every other team in the league, the Packers have areas where improvements or upgrades are either needed or would be nice. Overall I like your assessment I just disagree on the degree of the needs in some areas though but that is my opinion.

I think ILB and CB are the two top priorities in the draft. That's not to say I hope Ted Thompson drafts one regardless of value but I think Ted also recognizes the need at those positions and using his drafting methods he will come up with a way to add players to those positions. He may not fill them but he will address them. I also think improving either position by adding a strong starter will help to improve the other simply by adding another talented player on the field. That is why I don't think it is critical to say we have to draft an ILB #1 and a CB #2 (or vice versa) I do hope that either the #1 or the #2 pick will be one of these 2 positions though, again, providing Ted feels the value is there and he doesn't reach.

I'm not sure TE is a real need. Yes a huge talented red zone target would be nice but I don't think it is a necessity. I wouldn't mind if Ted drafted one early but I won't be upset if he doesn't. It all depends on what the Packers ask of the TE to do. I think Rodgers can be a #1 TE and accomplish all the Packers ask of the position. If they want to turn the position into a Gronk or a Graham position then they may need to upgrade but I still think Rodgers or even Quarless could be a top 5 TE if that is what the Packers wanted out of the position.

I wouldn't mind spending a 1st or 2nd round pick on a DT but not both. IMO That would be neglecting the CB and ILB too much. I'm not sure I would hold out any more hope for a rookie drafted at #30 or #62 than I would for Raji.

All the rest of the positions are luxury backup or future replacement type picks but they are legitimate concerns. I wouldn't mind seeing 3-7th round picks at any of them. I honestly wouldn't mind a 1st or 2nd round pick on some of them depending on the guy available.

All in all on the offense I don't think the 2015 Packers will, nor should they, look much different than the 2014 version. Possibly and upgrade at TE and stronger backups would be all I would expect.

On defense I see some more significant changes obviously. I could see 5-6 different starters from the start of last year. 1, maybe even 2 on the DL possibly 2 ILB and 2 DBs. I doubt all these can be addressed in the draft although Hayward is in house, Barrington is in house if he starts and you don't consider him a starter last year and Raji did not start last year so that makes at least 3 of those 5-6 that were not starters at the start of last year that are already in house. I can see why this may not make some people all that excited but it does address some of the problems. If the Packers can find a quality starter at ILB and one at CB in the draft and add another 2 or 3 quality depth players at other positions I think they will be much improved over last year.

Wade
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#39

Last year's "in house" wasn't good enough.

Since the season ended, what is "in house" is less than what was. Yes, the players can grow and improve and that way improve what was in house. But apart from the rookies (most notably Rodgers, perhaps), everyone in house has had time to improve; expecting substantial improvement from them IMO is giving too much weight to the "improvement" requirement.

And since Ted Thompson doesn't go heavy in free agency (sorry, but signing a 3rd string quarterback prospect doesnt count), that means the draft.

I'll take your comments on Rodgers to heart and say that TE isn't as critical as the other three of my "real needs".

But, I"m sorry but:
1. Believing that Raji/Guion are going to improve substantially over last year is dreaming. Raji's had one half of one year that was outstanding, plus some occasional flashes. I can't get excited about relying on him as a starter. And Guion is better than I thought he'd be -- kudos to Ted for recognizing that -- but he shouldn't be the starter either. Not good enough. If we draw the starter here from the current roster, we're settling for no significant improvement. At the very least the team needs to draft someone who is going to seriously push Raji and Guion for that starter's job.
2. ILB. Okay, I get it, Hawk has lost a step and I was never a huge fan anyway. And Brad Jones I never liked. I don't see either of them as starter quality. But do we have backups that are of Hawk/Jones quality? Who?
And as for Barrington? Well, all I can say is that I thought about Lattimore a couple years ago what a lot of people think about Barrington now. He might improve. But if I were to rank him among starting ILBs in the NFL right now, I'd put him somewhere in the bottom third/bottom quarter as of the end of last year. That's not good enough. They should be striving for better, not assuming he's going to be a lot better because he's had some starts. And we shouldn't be relying on our best OLB to platoon at ILB either.
3. CB. Neither Heyward nor Hyde could beat out Tramon. Neither is a rookie or a second year player this year. As of last year, they were at least a small step down from our starter, and that starter didn't have that great of a year.

We can get by with couple of these guys as starters. But, IMO, if we don't have at least two ILB/CB/NT starters that weren't on the team next year, the defense isn't going to improve enough. Again.

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)

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#40

I'm gonna take a different view from Wade and Sschind. I DON'T see the Packers as "just like any other team" - significant needs, etc.

But for luck/bad calls/mistimed mistakes/take your pick, we were right there last season, and arguably just by clearing out some ....... I don't want to say "crap" for Tramon, and not even really Hawk, as he was a serviceable player for a long time. Let's just call it "addition by subtraction", we should be no worse and maybe better before even considering the draft.

ILB: the evolving of the position - switching Matthews in there for most downs and Barrington, who should get better yet, was extremely much better than B. Jones and Hawk at the beginning of the season. I always like Mulumba, and he may help at ILB along with whatshisname Carl ___? also. And of course, somewhere in the early part of the draft, there will be an ILB picked.

CORNER: I really do see a healthy Hayward and Hyde with another year of experience as a slight upgrade from a gradually fading Tramon Williams. Also, I'm hopeful they knew something about Goodson when they kept him around - that he has the ability to be a good contributor. And of course, there will be an early round Corner chosen too.

D LINE: Going more and more - as I heartily advocated - to smaller more mobile D Linemen, that alone IMO is a step forward. I HOPE the oversize guys get fairly little use on regular downs, and for that, Guion, Pennell, and yes, since we have him, maybe even Raji are more than adequate. I expect to see either Daniels or Boyd at NT or as DTs in an even man D Line the majority of the time. I expect Datone Jones to improve a little bit as a 3-4 DE, and like Goodson at Corner, I hope they had reason to keep Thornton, and he becomes a contributor. I see no D Lineman needed in the draft.

O LINE: I've finally come around to the view that Bakhtiari is an NFL quality DT. If Bulaga can stay healthy and play like last season, we should be OK. I'm not overly satisfied either individually or as a unit with the whole bunch, as at times they get overpowered or beat by speed rushers or whatever. The whole bunch is only slightly better than mediocre, but with Aaron Rodgers's escapability and quick release, a mediocre O Line should be good enough. Also, we should have more depth than in the past with Barclay - assuming he's healthy and Tretter, assuming he develops and improves some. No O Lineman needed except maybe late in the draft.

TE: I like Richard Rodgers and Quarless a LOT better than when Finley was there. I much prefer a general purpose TE - a decent possession receiver who can block at least a little bit. We could use a mid or late round developmental TE as a third stringer, but other than that, what we have is plenty good enough.

WR: I'm excited to see a LOT more of Jeff Janis and also Abbrederis. That makes 5 very good, maybe excellent targets for the best QB in the history of the world to throw to. Do we draft a 6th? Maybe, since there are so many, and we probably won't keep 4 or 5 TEs like some past years.

SAFETY: Excellent quantity, Very Good quality - no additions needed.

OLB: I am also excited to see a lot more of Jayrone Elliot. With Peppers, and still Matthews on passing downs, and Neal and Perry being decent at times, we are more than set there.

QB: I am very happy that we finally have moved on from Flynn as a backup. Obviously we are screwed if anything happened to Aaron Rodgers; On the other hand, I could actually see Tolzien stepping in and doing a decent NFL-quality job. I suppose drafting a low rounder or UDFA is a good idea for a third stringer. I kinda liked the idea of Blake Bell, the Oklahoma Belldozer, as a project TE and emergency QB as well as Tebow-like short yardage QB.

RB: Everybody knows, I STILL want Melvin Gordon. It probably ain't gonna happen for the Packers, but the guy is gonna be an all out superstar. Starks is just a guy IMO; DuJuan, who I liked, is gone; We have a tough decision to make in a year or so on Lacy - I would almost bet he doesn't get beyond his rookie contract with the Packers. It's not that far-fetched, considering these things and the relative lack of urgency at all other positions, that we draft an RB in the first round - Gordon, I hope!!!!!

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (6m) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (8m) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (18m) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (29m) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (39m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (59m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (1h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (1h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (2h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (2h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (2h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (2h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (2h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (5h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (5h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (5h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (5h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (5h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (5h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (5h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (5h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (5h) : Packers will get in

beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS