Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Should the Packers Consider trading for Isabella
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dantés" data-source="post: 884241" data-attributes="member: 12283"><p>Yeah, I get it. They aren't as talented at the position as they could be. Depending on what one believes about the draft, they either missed out on adding a talent, or didn't want to all that badly.</p><p></p><p>My point is that while I understand people's frustrations that they didn't take a WR in the draft, it's invalid to criticize the FO for the current group on the field, as no team could have anticipated losing Funchess to COVID, and then having Adams, Lazard, and St. Brown hurt at the same time. You take WR's number 1, 2, 3, and 5 away from any roster in the league, and what's left would be paltry. </p><p></p><p>I do consider PFF to be a credible source as far as football opinions go; I just don't consider them to be the final word. Looking through their rankings there, I see a few teams that I would certainly rate below the Packers group-- such as the Chargers, the Browns, the Giants, the Bears, and the Colts. </p><p></p><p>I think the Packers set themselves up this season to be somewhere in the middle of the league in terms of WR talent, but that many fans carry the perception that they're one of the worst in the NFL largely because of all the hubbub around not taking a receiving in the draft. </p><p></p><p>Beyond any doubt, the Packers could win a SB with this group at WR. Look back at the WR corps of recent Super Bowl champs and you'll see plenty of groups comparable to the current Green Bay squad, or worse. </p><p></p><p>What's more, they currently have the best offense in the league, and they haven't been close to full strength at the position. I realize that they will play tougher defenses, but they will also get guys back. And even if tougher defenses means they go from the #1 offense in the league to, like, 5th... you can still win a Super Bowl with that. </p><p></p><p>When a team plays lesser defenses, you don't discount the results, but rather you have higher expectations. The Packers have blitzed all of them, and are averaging 38 points per game. I'd say that should qualify to meet raised expectations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dantés, post: 884241, member: 12283"] Yeah, I get it. They aren't as talented at the position as they could be. Depending on what one believes about the draft, they either missed out on adding a talent, or didn't want to all that badly. My point is that while I understand people's frustrations that they didn't take a WR in the draft, it's invalid to criticize the FO for the current group on the field, as no team could have anticipated losing Funchess to COVID, and then having Adams, Lazard, and St. Brown hurt at the same time. You take WR's number 1, 2, 3, and 5 away from any roster in the league, and what's left would be paltry. I do consider PFF to be a credible source as far as football opinions go; I just don't consider them to be the final word. Looking through their rankings there, I see a few teams that I would certainly rate below the Packers group-- such as the Chargers, the Browns, the Giants, the Bears, and the Colts. I think the Packers set themselves up this season to be somewhere in the middle of the league in terms of WR talent, but that many fans carry the perception that they're one of the worst in the NFL largely because of all the hubbub around not taking a receiving in the draft. Beyond any doubt, the Packers could win a SB with this group at WR. Look back at the WR corps of recent Super Bowl champs and you'll see plenty of groups comparable to the current Green Bay squad, or worse. What's more, they currently have the best offense in the league, and they haven't been close to full strength at the position. I realize that they will play tougher defenses, but they will also get guys back. And even if tougher defenses means they go from the #1 offense in the league to, like, 5th... you can still win a Super Bowl with that. When a team plays lesser defenses, you don't discount the results, but rather you have higher expectations. The Packers have blitzed all of them, and are averaging 38 points per game. I'd say that should qualify to meet raised expectations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Guacamole
gopkrs
shockerx
weeds
Latest posts
A Packers Mock Draft
Latest: SudsMcBucky
Today at 8:26 AM
Draft Talk
Badger Volleyball 2025-26
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 7:56 AM
Wisconsin Badgers Forum
R
Dome over Lambeau?
Latest: rmontro
Today at 3:47 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2025 Draft Prospects for Packers
Latest: gopkrs
Yesterday at 4:17 PM
Draft Talk
Top 30 Visits 2025
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 3:58 PM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Should the Packers Consider trading for Isabella
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
