Stacking Up the NFC North

[brandon2348]

At least then he would be qualified to come in the forum and talk $hit about all the other losers in the NFL.

Bottom line is some guys perform well through injuries and some guys can't. It's a tough sport and isn't for everyone.

As Martellus Bennett would say "It's not for B*tches"

 

[swhitset]

The problem is that you have no idea what the extent of the injuries are... Every player and every injury is different. For any of us to sit behind our keyboard and talk crap about some a player's inability to perform through an injury is at best, intellectually ignorant and at worst simple false bravado.

 

[brandon2348]

The problem is that you have no idea what the extent of the injuries are... Every player and every injury is different. For any of us to sit behind our keyboard and talk crap about some a player's inability to perform through an injury is at best, intellectually ignorant and at worst simple false bravado.

That's fine but in the case of Demarious Randle he has had some type of nagging injury since he has been with the Packers as I posted.

Maybe he just can't hold up? He has been hampered by some type of nagging injury since rookie camp in 2015. He has been listed on the injury report from everything from knee, groin, hamstring etc etc etc.

Maybe he is some hybrid Pac 12 player that played FS in college and can't hold up at corner in the NFL? That's what my money says anyways. I've seen this guy play three times in person and not all that impressed with his physicality outside. Everyone can be hopefull that he gets better and I am too but based on what I've seen with my own two eyes along with his injury history I'm not holding my breath.

I hope I am wrong.

 

[swhitset]

That's fine but in the case of Demarius Randle he has had some type of nagging injury since he has been with the Packers as I posted.

Maybe he just can't hold up? He has been hampered by some type of nagging injury since rookie camp in 2015. He has been listed on the injury report from everything from knee, groin, hamstring etc etc etc.

Maybe he is some hybrid Pac 12 player that played FS in college and can't hold up at corner in the NFL? That's what my money says anyways. I've seen this guy play three times in person and not all that impressed with his physicality outside. Everyone can be hopefull that he gets better and I am too but based on what I've seen with my own two eyes along with his injury history I'm not holding my breath.

I hope I am wrong.

I can understand your frustration with Randle.. but I just can't agree when people start saying that injuries shouldn't matter etc... All the tough talk in the world does not change the fact that if your best players are hurt ... your team will suffer. Of course the extent of the injury and to which players can determine how badly it affects the team, but it is unrealistic to think that a team can just "tough through it". Now this does not mean that I am blaming last years crappy defense on injuries alone. I do think that Thompson should have done more to help out the secondary the minute Shields went down.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I know you believe that. I'm fine with you believing that.

In my opinion, one gets into trouble when they think that one indicator is all they need-- be it athletic testing numbers, PFF scores, their own tape watching, or statistics. It all needs to be considered. Heck, Steve Palazzolo just said on their podcast the other day that where the athletic numbers and the PFF scores overlap is where you find the closest thing to a "can't miss" prospect.

When I started following the draft closely 10 years ago, the general opinion (which I shared) was that athletic metrics should only be about 5% of the evaluation and you can see everything on tape if you know what to look for. As time has gone by, I've realized how wrong that was. You can't just "scout" combine results, but they do often correlate. You have to understand what matters at what position. But the bottom line is that I've found that athleticism deserves a much bigger chunk of the pie than it was getting.

Maybe it comes across like all I care about are combine numbers because I bring them up a lot. That's not true. I do watch these guys and pay a lot of attention to what the analysts say, including PFF. But I talk about the metrics because a) I think they're the most overlooked aspect of the process and b) they're easy to discuss online because they're quantifiable.

But I do think it's kind of weird that I can't really bring them up without someone making some comment about "underwear olympics." There are a number of teams that clearly put a lot of stock in this aspect of the process that so much fans scoff at as unimportant. The Packers, Seahawks, and Chiefs come to mind (basically anyone off the Wolf tree). The Steelers and Ravens have become increasingly more invested in athletic metrics in recent seasons. No one covets three cone times more than Bill Belichick. Maybe someone needs to call these front offices up and tell them that the combine is stupid.

But bottom line-- I stand by what I said. Teams that prioritize athleticism properly are going to be more successful in the draft. I don't know if that is true of PFF scores. Maybe it is. But I'm not telling anyone that sparq (or the like) is all that matters or that athleticism = success. It's one piece of the puzzle.

I'd much rather have a bigger faster stronger star player, than a smaller slower weaker one...

 

[Mavster]

1) That's ********. It's absolutely, 100% true and verifiable that wide receivers don't become what Adams is just because they play with Rodgers.

2) It was less than clear what you were trying to say and it's ridiculous that you would "disagree" with someone saying that they don't get your point.

3) You've still completely missed the original point. Injuries affect players on the field. This is obvious. Sometimes players bounce back from injury plagued seasons and play much better (e.g. Adams). Sometimes they don't. There is no guarantee that Randall will be better simply because he was hurt for much of last season, but there is a distinct possibility of that being the case. That you need this spelled out for you makes it highly ironic that you're making comments about people with two brain cells.

Good lord, I've upset you yet again. You hate when your little echo chamber gets rattled

1.) How many early round WR's have failed in Green Bay under Thompson? Plus, It's not like its hard to put up solid stats when you're playing with Aaron Rodgers either. Adams hands were broken in his 2nd season, and we didn't have Jordy which made it even harder on him to produce. But hey lets just yell "INJUREEZ" as the sole reason he played poorly because it's easy.

2.) I have nothing to say to that.

3.) What point did I miss? All I'm saying is that just because one player had a bounce back year after a sophomore slump doesn't mean every player will. For all we know Randall could take the path of Datone Jones

And Rodgers has had two different WR's of his lead the league in TDs in just the last 4 seasons, but pleasure continue to act like having him at QB doesn't makes life way easier for Adams and co.

 

[brandon2348]

I can understand your frustration with Randle.. but I just can't agree when people start saying that injuries shouldn't matter etc... All the tough talk in the world does not change the fact that if your best players are hurt ... your team will suffer. Of course the extent of the injury and to which players can determine how badly it affects the team, but it is unrealistic to think that a team can just "tough through it". Now this does not mean that I am blaming last years crappy defense on injuries alone. I do think that Thompson should have done more to help out the secondary the minute Shields went down.

I think Thompson should of done more too and yes injuries can obviously affect the outcome of a season.

My main deal here is I don't like the comparison I'm seeing used constantly that Adams had a rebound in year 3 so we should expect Randle to do the same. It's just different. They play different positions and struggled due to more issues then just injury in 2nd year. Randle has the much more difficult task IMO and I just don't think his skill set bodes well for a boundary corner. The guy just isn't physical enough IMO.

I really belive he should be moved inside.

 

[Dantés]

Good lord, I've upset you yet again. You hate when your little echo chamber gets rattled

1.) How many early round WR's have failed in Green Bay under Thompson? Plus, It's not like its hard to put up solid stats when you're playing with Aaron Rodgers either. Adams hands were broken in his 2nd season, and we didn't have Jordy which made it even harder on him to produce. But hey lets just yell "INJUREEZ" as the sole reason he played poorly because it's easy.

2.) I have nothing to say to that.

3.) What point did I miss? All I'm saying is that just because one player had a bounce back year after a sophomore slump doesn't mean every player will. For all we know Randall could take the path of Datone Jones

And Rodgers has had two different WR's of his lead the league in TDs in just the last 4 seasons, but pleasure continue to act like having him at QB doesn't makes life way easier for Adams and co.

You're pretending that people are saying something that they're not, and responding to this misrepresentation. Either that, or you still don't get it. In either case, I'm too upset over my rattled echo chamber to continue explaining it to you.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Being the slow season, might be interesting to see a few examples of what each of you would consider to be really good and really bad players and small or large differences between them. Absolutely subjective, I know, but it's not like we don't discuss 'eye of the beholder' stuff all the time.

While that's a pretty difficult task I'll give it a try not having thought about it for an extended period of time. I agree that every single player having made an NFL roster is extremely talented in my opinion there's a significant difference in performance between Chris Harris jr., who has allowed the fewest yards per coverage snaps over the past five seasons, and Damarious Randall at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[swhitset]

While that's a pretty difficult task I'll give it a try not having thought about it for an extended period of time. I agree that every single player having made an NFL roster is extremely talented in my opinion there's a significant difference in performance between Chris Harris jr., who has allowed the fewest yards per coverage snaps over the past five seasons, and Damarious Randall at the other end of the spectrum.

I completely agree... except that is not what I was trying to say. I did not say it well apparently, but my point was that the relative abilities of all NFL players is actually quite close, but that a very small difference can actually make a huge difference in performance.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I completely agree... except that is not what I was trying to say. I did not say it well apparently, but my point was that the relative abilities of all NFL players is actually quite close, but that a very small difference can actually make a huge difference in performance.

OK, I think I understand what you're trying to say and tend to agree with it.

 

[swhitset]

I completely agree... except that is not what I was trying to say. I did not say it well apparently, but my point was that the relative abilities of all NFL players is actually quite close, but that a very small difference can actually make a huge difference in performance.

Therefore .. back to the original point... I am hoping that adding House and King, et al. will yield a bigger performance improvement then you are expecting.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Therefore .. back to the original point... I am hoping that adding House and King, et al. will yield a bigger performance improvement then you are expecting.

I hope that the cornerbacks will perform on a way higher level than last season as well but unfortunately I'm not convinced about it happening.

 

[swhitset]

I hope that the cornerbacks will perform on a way higher level than last season as well but unfortunately I'm not convinced about it happening.

Lol neither am I... but at this point, all we can do is hope ....

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Lol neither am I... but at this point, all we can do is hope ....

While that's true I would feel way more comfortable about the position if Thompson had signed a veteran capable of taking over the top spot on the depth chart.

 

[Dantés]

Let's resurrect this thread and try again.

Quarterback: There's still no contest here for the #1 spot, but #'s 2 and 3 are tough to sort. Cousins isn't the talent that Stafford is, and yet he's been more productive in the context of a specific system. But he's leaving that system in 2018, while Stafford has continuity with an OC who he has thrived under. I am going to give the edge to Stafford, but you could call this either way.

1. Packers
2. Lions
3. Vikings
4. Bears

Running Back: Some new kids on the block made this an interesting position in 2017. Dalvin Cook, Tarik Cohen, and Aaron Jones made their presence felt in limited opportunities. I still have to go with the Bears here for the top spot, as Howard is the best pure runner in the division and Tarik Cohen proved to be an exceptionally dangerous change of pace option. Behind them, most would probably expect me to give the nod to the Vikings, but I'm going with the Packers. Aaron Jones was more impressive in a worse situation than Cook. He just doesn't have the name recognition. He's a better player and vastly more talented. And I would definitely take Ty Montgomery and Jamaal Williams as backups over Latatvius Murray and whoever ends up being the 3rd guy in Minnesota. Detroit brings up the rear until they prove they shouldn't.

1. Bears
2. Packers
3. Vikings
4. Lions

Wide Receiver: The Vikings have questionable depth, but their strength in the top two is so good that I have to give them the nod here. Thielen and Diggs did more for Keenum than vice versa. After them, I'm going with Detroit. I think their 11 personnel of Jones, Golladay, and Tate in the slot could be a great look for them. The Packers are 3rd mainly because their 3rd option is so up in the air. Adams is a true #1 IMO, and Cobb is reliable. They have a ton of young talent behind them, but I won't give that credit until someone really emerges. The Bears did a lot to address this situation, but they're still an easy 4th for me. For one, wide receiver is one of the least successful positions in free agency. Robinson is super talented, but the truth is that the campaign that brought him notoriety was three seasons ago. Taylor Gabriel is the other big FA acquisition, but without Kyle Shanahan I don't think he's more than a bit part player. I love their Anthony Miller pick, but again I'm not going to give credit for unrealized potential. Overall, I see 1-3 clumped pretty closely together and the Bears a more distinguished 4th place.

1. Vikings
2. Lions
3. Packers
4. Bears

Tight End: Whereas I think the Bears' additions at WR are overrated, I love the move to acquire Trey Burton. When you add him to Adam Shaheen, I think you have the recipe for some great 12 personnel look. The latter was surprisingly good for a rookie coming from a low level of college competition. After them, I still really like Kyle Rudolph. He's not quite the RZ threat that Graham is, but he's still good in that area while also being a capable blocker. Morgan is a good second TE and Conklin is a nice add via the draft. The aforementioned Graham should be a touchdown machine, but it's an open question how much he will add between the 20's. Kendricks was disappointing last season but he's solid as a #2 and might surprise with a season where he gets to play more with Rodgers. The Lions are a disaster at the position.

1. Bears
2. Vikings
3. Packers
4. Lions

Offensive Line: Despite their losses over recent season, the Packers are #1 because of what they offer at the tackle positions. Bakhtiari is one of the best linemen in the league, let alone in the division. Taylor and Linsley are strong starters. Bulaga is the best RT in the division, and they have several options to hold the fort while he makes it back from injury. McCray's play at guard was promising-- he may be the next guy that Campen develops out of nowhere into a good starting interior OL. I'll give the nod to the Bears for the #2 spot. Leno and Massie are merely average on the edges, but Daniels-Whitehair-Long should be a great trio inside. The Detroit Lions continue to baffle. Decker-Glasgow-Ragnow-Lang-Wagner should be a great line, but they've had all but one of those pieces previously and really underperformed. Until they prove themselves, they're in the 3rd spot. Lastly, the Vikings still have a quietly bad OL. They both overachieved in 2017, while also being helped by scheme. Reiff and Remmers are pass pro liabilities on the edges and no one on the interior is impressive. Di Filippo is going to have hit work cut out for him getting the ball out fast.

1. Packers
2. Bears
3. Lions
4. Vikings

I'll post defense later.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Let's resurrect this thread and try again.

Quarterback: There's still no contest here for the #1 spot, but #'s 2 and 3 are tough to sort. Cousins isn't the talent that Stafford is, and yet he's been more productive in the context of a specific system. But he's leaving that system in 2018, while Stafford has continuity with an OC who he has thrived under. I am going to give the edge to Stafford, but you could call this either way.

1. Packers
2. Lions
3. Vikings
4. Bears

Running Back: Some new kids on the block made this an interesting position in 2017. Dalvin Cook, Tarik Cohen, and Aaron Jones made their presence felt in limited opportunities. I still have to go with the Bears here for the top spot, as Howard is the best pure runner in the division and Tarik Cohen proved to be an exceptionally dangerous change of pace option. Behind them, most would probably expect me to give the nod to the Vikings, but I'm going with the Packers. Aaron Jones was more impressive in a worse situation than Cook. He just doesn't have the name recognition. He's a better player and vastly more talented. And I would definitely take Ty Montgomery and Jamaal Williams as backups over Latatvius Murray and whoever ends up being the 3rd guy in Minnesota. Detroit brings up the rear until they prove they shouldn't.

1. Bears
2. Packers
3. Vikings
4. Lions

Wide Receiver: The Vikings have questionable depth, but their strength in the top two is so good that I have to give them the nod here. Thielen and Diggs did more for Keenum than vice versa. After them, I'm going with Detroit. I think their 11 personnel of Jones, Golladay, and Tate in the slot could be a great look for them. The Packers are 3rd mainly because their 3rd option is so up in the air. Adams is a true #1 IMO, and Cobb is reliable. They have a ton of young talent behind them, but I won't give that credit until someone really emerges. The Bears did a lot to address this situation, but they're still an easy 4th for me. For one, wide receiver is one of the least successful positions in free agency. Robinson is super talented, but the truth is that the campaign that brought him notoriety was three seasons ago. Taylor Gabriel is the other big FA acquisition, but without Kyle Shanahan I don't think he's more than a bit part player. I love their Anthony Miller pick, but again I'm not going to give credit for unrealized potential. Overall, I see 1-3 clumped pretty closely together and the Bears a more distinguished 4th place.

1. Vikings
2. Lions
3. Packers
4. Bears

Tight End: Whereas I think the Bears' additions at WR are overrated, I love the move to acquire Trey Burton. When you add him to Adam Shaheen, I think you have the recipe for some great 12 personnel look. The latter was surprisingly good for a rookie coming from a low level of college competition. After them, I still really like Kyle Rudolph. He's not quite the RZ threat that Graham is, but he's still good in that area while also being a capable blocker. Morgan is a good second TE and Conklin is a nice add via the draft. The aforementioned Graham should be a touchdown machine, but it's an open question how much he will add between the 20's. Kendricks was disappointing last season but he's solid as a #2 and might surprise with a season where he gets to play more with Rodgers. The Lions are a disaster at the position.

1. Bears
2. Vikings
3. Packers
4. Lions

Offensive Line: Despite their losses over recent season, the Packers are #1 because of what they offer at the tackle positions. Bakhtiari is one of the best linemen in the league, let alone in the division. Taylor and Linsley are strong starters. Bulaga is the best RT in the division, and they have several options to hold the fort while he makes it back from injury. McCray's play at guard was promising-- he may be the next guy that Campen develops out of nowhere into a good starting interior OL. I'll give the nod to the Bears for the #2 spot. Leno and Massie are merely average on the edges, but Daniels-Whitehair-Long should be a great trio inside. The Detroit Lions continue to baffle. Decker-Glasgow-Ragnow-Lang-Wagner should be a great line, but they've had all but one of those pieces previously and really underperformed. Until they prove themselves, they're in the 3rd spot. Lastly, the Vikings still have a quietly bad OL. They both overachieved in 2017, while also being helped by scheme. Reiff and Remmers are pass pro liabilities on the edges and no one on the interior is impressive. Di Filippo is going to have hit work cut out for him getting the ball out fast.

1. Packers
2. Bears
3. Lions
4. Vikings

I'll post defense later.

Cook looked like the OROY before his injury. Plus, the Vikings clearly see him as an integral part of their offense, while McCarthy seems okay with keeping the most explosive player on the sideline and . They are definitely better at the RB position.

 

[Dantés]

Cook looked like the OROY before his injury. Plus, the Vikings clearly see him as an integral part of their offense, while McCarthy seems okay with keeping the most explosive player on the sideline and . They are definitely better at the RB position.

Aaron Jones is better than Dalvin Cook. He’s way, way more talented. He was more productive on a per snap basis despite playing most of his snaps with Brett Hundley. If Cook was the UTEP grad who went 5th round and Jones was the FSU guy who went round 1, perceptions would be totally flipped.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Aaron Jones is better than Dalvin Cook. He’s way, way more talented. He was more productive on a per snap basis despite playing most of his snaps with Brett Hundley. If Cook was the UTEP grad who went 5th round and Jones was the FSU guy who went round 1, perceptions would be totally flipped.

Seriously? Jones is way more talented than Cook? Get a hold of yourself.

Jones is talented, yes. But there's clearly a reason that he wasn't on the field, while Cook was the focal point of their offense. His talent doesn't matter if we can't even depend on him getting snaps, and we surely shouldn't consider ourselves to have an advantage over Minnesota in that department.

Cook put up great stats, despite being behind a poor offensive line. He was averaging over 110 scrimmage yards per game. How is that not exceptional production? You can say any one player in the league is superior to another if you just point to a couple of big games and ignore all of the ones in which they did nothing, which is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Dantés]

Seriously? Jones is way more talented than Cook? Get a hold of yourself.

Jones is talented, yes. But there's clearly a reason that he wasn't on the field, while Cook was the focal point of their offense. His talent doesn't matter if we can't even depend on him getting snaps, and we surely shouldn't consider ourselves to have an advantage over Minnesota in that department.

Cook put up great stats, despite being behind a poor offensive line. He was averaging over 110 scrimmage yards per game. How is that not exceptional production? You can say any one player in the league is superior to another if you just point to a couple of big games and ignore all of the ones in which they did nothing, which is exactly what you are doing.

Yes, there is a reason Jones wasn’t the guy when the season started like Cook. Draft status. “He wasn’t the starter right away” seems like a poor argument in the face of his actual production when he got work.

I never said anything about Cook not being productive. Jones was simply more productive.

How are you going to go after Jones’ reliability while touting Cook? Cook managed less playing time than Jones did before getting hurt.

If Jones isn’t as talented as Cook, you want to explain to me why he was more productive per carry despite having more carries? Then we can talk about how much more athletic he is.

 

[Raptorman]

Yes, there is a reason Jones wasn’t the guy when the season started like Cook. Draft status. “He wasn’t the starter right away” seems like a poor argument in the face of his actual production when he got work.

I never said anything about Cook not being productive. Jones was simply more productive.

How are you going to go after Jones’ reliability while touting Cook? Cook managed less playing time than Jones did before getting hurt.

If Jones isn’t as talented as Cook, you want to explain to me why he was more productive per carry despite having more carries? Then we can talk about how much more athletic he is.

The difference in rushing production is equivalent to one 60 run. But if you want to go by production.
In 4 games Cook produced 444 yards on 85 touches for 5.2 yards per touch.
In 12 games Jones produced 470 yards on 90 touches for 5.2 yards per touch.

Head and shoulders he's better than Cook.

 

[Dantés]

The difference in rushing production is equivalent to one 60 run. But if you want to go by production.
In 4 games Cook produced 444 yards on 85 touches for 5.2 yards per touch.
In 12 games Jones produced 470 yards on 90 touches for 5.2 yards per touch.

Head and shoulders he's better than Cook.

Explain to me why it makes any sense to break it up by games? As a 5th round pick, Jones took time to crack the lineup-- the job wasn't handed to him like it was Cook. Then when he did take over, he eventually suffered a knee injury that he played through for a while before getting back to 100%. By breaking it up via total games active, you're artificially including games from before he broke out and while he wasn't actually healthy (I understand-- it does take a little manipulation to argue Cook's superiority). When he was healthy, he was fantastic. On a per touch basis, he was a better rusher than Cook. He's also way, way more athletically talented than Cook, he's not coming off a torn ACL, and he doesn't have a fumbling problem. Much of his production came with absolutely wretched QB play.

But I am sorry that the Packers found a back in the 5th who is better than the guy your team drafted 41st overall. That must be hard.

 

[Dantés]

I love the drive-by disagree @KyraReppe5. Very convincing.

 

[Dantés]

The bottom line is that if you just gave people running back A and B with Jones' and Cook's production and athletic profiles respectively, most people would give Jones the nod as the better rookie. Cook gets way more hype because he was a big name in college and was drafted in the 2nd round. "5th round" and "UTEP" are clouding what should be a pretty obvious conclusion.

 

[GleefulGary]

Bring this to the hot take thread!