http://bleacherreport.com/articles/136865-...-needs-the-most
Full Version: Interesting Article
Was a good read, thanks for posting it.
Some of the writer's comments were a little questionable, and no mention of Kampmann which I found odd, but he said some things that made me think a little. It hurt, but I'll get over it.
Some of the writer's comments were a little questionable, and no mention of Kampmann which I found odd, but he said some things that made me think a little. It hurt, but I'll get over it.
QUOTE (eX Oh @ Mar 11 2009, 11:56 AM) 
Was a good read, thanks for posting it.
Some of the writer's comments were a little questionable, and no mention of Kampmann which I found odd, but he said some things that made me think a little. It hurt, but I'll get over it.
Some of the writer's comments were a little questionable, and no mention of Kampmann which I found odd, but he said some things that made me think a little. It hurt, but I'll get over it.
He mentioned Kampmann, just as one of the LB's not on the DL.
Linebackers
Green Bay has Hawk and Barnett, fixtures inside, with Bishop a very serviceable backup for both. With the switch to 3 – 4 from 4 – 3, the OLB spots are in flux. Kampman, with the other two presumed converts Hunter and Thompson clearly fill the physical requirements as rushers, but we have yet to see how they convert into the new scheme.
QUOTE (KC Pack Fan @ Mar 11 2009, 08:58 AM)
Cool article. I was confused by this, though:
QUOTE
Minnesota has Allan and and Edwards at at DE and the Williams at DT. Quite possibly the best DL in football. Allan and Edwards are both in their prime. The Williams are both near the end.
Pat is older than dirt, but Kevin Williams is only 28. Is he really slowing down already?
I missed it the first time, but the author of that article is a Packers fan, so I think there's probably at least a little bias in there.
QUOTE (Packergeist @ Mar 12 2009, 12:34 AM)
He mentioned Kampmann, just as one of the LB's not on the DL.
Linebackers
Green Bay has Hawk and Barnett, fixtures inside, with Bishop a very serviceable backup for both. With the switch to 3 – 4 from 4 – 3, the OLB spots are in flux. Kampman, with the other two presumed converts Hunter and Thompson clearly fill the physical requirements as rushers, but we have yet to see how they convert into the new scheme.
Linebackers
Green Bay has Hawk and Barnett, fixtures inside, with Bishop a very serviceable backup for both. With the switch to 3 – 4 from 4 – 3, the OLB spots are in flux. Kampman, with the other two presumed converts Hunter and Thompson clearly fill the physical requirements as rushers, but we have yet to see how they convert into the new scheme.
Ah that he did. I must have skimmed right over it.
It's a different perspective for sure. Many posters here are assuming we have a lot of holes, and this article seems to say otherwise. I'm on the fence, but I have always thought our offseason needs will be DL first and OL second. Maybe some of the young OL guys we have are better than I dare hope, as the article seems to indicate.
This article tells us what we already know -- that the NFC North is very much up for grabs.
While the Pack on paper, seem like we have good depth and talent, our shortcomings on both sides of the trenches could make the talent of our smaller players (WR, DB's) completely irrelevant as they did last year.
I think it will come down to what team's second and third year players make the biggest jump, and what team drafts the best this year.
Right now, I'd say advantage Packers, but the Vikes were the ones still playing in January last year, so ya never know.
While the Pack on paper, seem like we have good depth and talent, our shortcomings on both sides of the trenches could make the talent of our smaller players (WR, DB's) completely irrelevant as they did last year.
I think it will come down to what team's second and third year players make the biggest jump, and what team drafts the best this year.
Right now, I'd say advantage Packers, but the Vikes were the ones still playing in January last year, so ya never know.
QUOTE (Heatseeker @ Mar 12 2009, 01:32 AM)
This article tells us what we already know -- that the NFC North is very much up for grabs.
While the Pack on paper, seem like we have good depth and talent, our shortcomings on both sides of the trenches could make the talent of our smaller players (WR, DB's) completely irrelevant as they did last year.
I think it will come down to what team's second and third year players make the biggest jump, and what team drafts the best this year.
Right now, I'd say advantage Packers, but the Vikes were the ones still playing in January last year, so ya never know.
While the Pack on paper, seem like we have good depth and talent, our shortcomings on both sides of the trenches could make the talent of our smaller players (WR, DB's) completely irrelevant as they did last year.
I think it will come down to what team's second and third year players make the biggest jump, and what team drafts the best this year.
Right now, I'd say advantage Packers, but the Vikes were the ones still playing in January last year, so ya never know.
Thank you for bringing up that 'key point': "While the Pack on paper..."
Exactly. Last year, for example, people looked at the rosters, and thought that Dallas and San Diego would be vying for the SB, for example. I also believe Seattle got some mentions. Oh well- that's why they play the games!
QUOTE (ricky @ Mar 11 2009, 07:30 PM)
Thank you for bringing up that 'key point': "While the Pack on paper..."
Exactly. Last year, for example, people looked at the rosters, and thought that Dallas and San Diego would be vying for the SB, for example. I also believe Seattle got some mentions. Oh well- that's why they play the games!
I think overall the Pack is slightly better talent wise. The Vikes have the best running back in the leauge, The Pack has a better coaching staff. 1-2 in the division, with the winner having the least injuries, and best luck in freak turnovers.Exactly. Last year, for example, people looked at the rosters, and thought that Dallas and San Diego would be vying for the SB, for example. I also believe Seattle got some mentions. Oh well- that's why they play the games!
QUOTE (diesel @ Mar 12 2009, 07:53 PM)
I think overall the Pack is slightly better talent wise. The Vikes have the best running back in the leauge, The Pack has a better coaching staff. 1-2 in the division, with the winner having the least injuries, and best luck in freak turnovers.
Oh, I think they will be pretty darn good. There is a very fine line between the best an the worst teams and with Harrell coming back strong this year and Bigby and Jenkins this team's defense will rock!
Th offensive line has had another year to gel and get accustomed to the switching and personnel mathup tatics of the ol personel to confuse the opponets D. The run game will be has shown it can be quite potent and think teams will really have to gameplan for that part of thier game this year.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.