NFL's most indispensable players (non-QB)

LUKE23 · Post #1 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:14 pm

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/training ... id=5483707

Woodson our top guy and #20 overall. I would agree that outside of Rodgers, he's the player we can least afford to lose. I'd say it goes:

1. Rodgers
2. Woodson
3. Matthews
4. Collins
5. Finley

With Jenkins in there as well right next to Collins/Finley.

Newz · Post #2 » by **Newz** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:16 pm

I would say:

1. Rodgers
2. Matthews
3. Jenkins
4. Woodson
5. Collins

No one WR/TE is extremely important. I think if you take out Jennings or Finley, Rodgers can still throw for 4000+ yards and 25+ TDs easily.

I think Matthews is our only elite or near elite pass rusher, so he comes in second for me. I think Jenkins is the best pass rusher on the line so he comes in third. Losing either of these guys has a huge impact on us getting to the QB, IMO.

Then after that it is the two Pro Bowl guys in the secondary.

LUKE23 · Post #3 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:20 pm

Finley is definitely up there. Without him, you have double coverage on one of the WR's, and you take away your biggest offensive weapon. Finley emerging late was one of the biggest reasons for our offense taking off last year (including improved OL play), and we saw the big glimpse of it in the playoff game when Finley was just unguardable. Outside of Rodgers he is the most important cog in the offense because he's the biggest mismatch on the entire offense, there is no position on D that can guard him adequately. With Finley, we have our best 3rd down weapon and Jennings and DD get far less attention.

Matthews and Woodson can go either way. I'd say Woodson is our best defensive player and our best player at creating turnovers, including providing veteran leadership. I have him #1 after Rodgers.

Newz · Post #4 » by **Newz** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:24 pm

I agree if you just ranked offensive players that Finley would be second. However, I think Rodgers still puts up 4,000 yards and probably 30 TDs even if Finley is replaced with Donald Lee.

My reasoning? 2008 when he put up 4,000 yards and 28 TDs when Finley barely even played. Rodgers is also clearly better now than he was back then. I just don't see offense as a problem for this team unless both of Finley and Jennings go down... Even then I think we would be able to score at a decent rate.

Our defense is what worries me and losing any of the four main guys is my biggest concern after Rodgers of course.

LUKE23 · Post #5 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:30 pm

We were 28 yards better per game and 2.6 points per game better in 2009 over 2008, in addition to bumping our yards per catch from 7.5 to 8.1, and I think Finley's emergence is a big reason why. Those numbers may not sound like a lot, but they are. It's more just how you have to scheme us. Finley is a WR in a TE body. You can slot him, which forces teams to play the WR's different. I think we'll see the difference a fully healthy Finley being in the lineup from day one makes over what our offense has been currently. If we lose him, Lee isn't getting much attention from opposing D's, which means our best weapon out PLUS more defensive attention for Jennings. It's a massive impact on our offense if Finley goes down (knock on wood).

Reddeye · Post #6 » by **Reddeye** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:42 pm

LUKE23 wrote:We were 28 yards better per game and 2.6 points per game better in 2009 over 2008, in addition to bumping our yards per catch from 7.5 to 8.1, and I think Finley's emergence is a big reason why. Those numbers may not sound like a lot, but they are. It's more just how you have to scheme us. Finley is a WR in a TE body. You can slot him, which forces teams to play the WR's different. I think we'll see the difference a fully healthy Finley being in the lineup from day one makes over what our offense has been currently. If we lose him, Lee isn't getting much attention from opposing D's, which means our best weapon out PLUS more defensive attention for Jennings. It's a massive impact on our offense if Finley goes down (knock on wood).

I agree. Finley is hugh matchup advantage for the Packers. The wrs get a lot of hype as being a great group, but I don't think there is a special guy in the group. Jennings is kind of close, but I doubt other teams worry about trying to stop him. Finley allow those guys to get either more one on one match ups or safety coverage.

Another guy that is important at least for this year is Clifton. I wouldn't put him top 5, but I don't think Bulaga is ready to replace him yet.

LUKE23 · Post #7 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:50 pm

The wrs get a lot of hype as being a great group, but I don't think there is a special guy in the group. Jennings is kind of close, but I doubt other teams worry about trying to stop him

I agree. I think the strength of our WR core is the depth of very good talent over there being an elite guy in the group. We just have four guys (assuming Jones/Nelson step up a bit) that you can argue as starting caliber. Not a lot of teams have that. Jennings is a legit #1 but not on the elite level of the WR's you really, really fear. I think Finley has the talent to be the hardest to stop TE in all of football. He's already shown those flashes.

Newz · Post #8 » by **Newz** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:51 pm

I'm not trying to say Finley isn't good. He is an amazing talent and possibly the most talented young player at the TE position. I'm just saying I don't think he's in the top 5 most important players on our team... I don't think anyone outside of Rodgers on the offensive side of the ball is.

'07 we were 4th in points scored and Finley wasn't on the team. '08 we were 5th in points scored. '09 we were 3rd.

You can try to downplay how good our WR core is, but they just produce with or without Finley. We are an elite offensive team regardless... So I think our top four or five defensive players are more important than Finley.

Post #9 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:57 pm

I think I'd go

1 - Rodgers
2 - Collins
3 - Woodson
4 - Matthews
5 - Finley

LUKE23 · Post #10 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:02 pm

Collins over Woodson is interesting, but given that our safeties would be a rookie and someone like Derrick Martin or Will Blackmon (since Bigby is on the PUP), that would be a horrific situation. Really, secondary depth is a big concern all over the board. I'd feel so much better if Harris was healthy.

Post #11 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:19 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Collins over Woodson is interesting, but given that our safeties would be a rookie and someone like Derrick Martin or Will Blackmon (since Bigby is on the PUP), that would be a horrific situation. Really, secondary depth is a big concern all over the board. I'd feel so much better if Harris was healthy.

The depth issue is why I have Collins that high. Woodson would probably slide over, but that just hurts the CB depth that much more.

To be honest I'd be tempted to put Matthews over Woodson as well.

rilamann · Post #12 » by **rilamann** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:27 pm

Newz wrote:I'm not trying to say Finley isn't good. He is an amazing talent and possibly the most talented young player at the TE position. I'm just saying I don't think he's in the top 5 most important players on our team... I don't think anyone outside of Rodgers on the offensive side of the ball is.

'07 we were 4th in points scored and Finley wasn't on the team. '08 we were 5th in points scored. '09 we were 3rd.

You can try to downplay how good our WR core is, but they just produce with or without Finley. We are an elite offensive team regardless... So I think our top four or five defensive players are more important than Finley.

I agree with you LP,even without Finley our passing game would still be pretty solid.

That's not a knock on Finley but a testament to how good guys like Rodgers,Jennings,Driver & Jones are and how deep we are in that area.

Hell even Donald Lee is pretty decent,he's no Finley obviously but he's not terrible.

LUKE23 · Post #13 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:37 pm

Lee is pretty blah. With Rodgers he has averaged 7.4 yards per catch. Finley has averaged 12.3. Lee has very little speed, he's just a possession guy.

Newz · Post #14 » by **Newz** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:39 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Lee is pretty blah. With Rodgers he has averaged 7.4 yards per catch. Finley has averaged 12.3. Lee has very little speed, he's just a possession guy.

That's why he said he is decent, but not nearly as good as Finley.

LUKE23 · Post #15 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:46 pm

I think "decent" is even stretching it at this point with Lee. He looked pretty bad last year. Drops and no speed. When I think "decent", I think average starter. Hes' definitely a below average TE if he's your top guy.

rilamann · Post #16 » by **rilamann** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:47 pm

Newz wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:Lee is pretty blah. With Rodgers he has averaged 7.4 yards per catch. Finley has averaged 12.3. Lee has very little speed, he's just a possession guy.

That's why he said he is decent, but not nearly as good as Finley.

YEAH!! You tell him LP.

Our passing game would still be solid without Finley but Finley makes our passing game so good it's almost not fair.

The league might to make a rule that the Packers have to sit one of Jennings,Driver or Finley on game days.

chuckleslove · Post #17 » by **chuckleslove** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:49 pm

I'm with Newbz on this one. Without Finley we still likely have a top 5 offense in the NFL. Without any one of Woodson, Matthews, Collins or Jenkins we start relying on backups that are either unproven/inexperienced rookies or average to below average veterans.

We are already going into the season relying on a bunch of younger guys like Burnett, Underwood, Lee, possibly Shields, and Neal.

rilamann · Post #18 » by **rilamann** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:49 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I think "decent" is even stretching it at this point with Lee. He looked pretty bad last year. Drops and no speed. When I think "decent", I think average starter. Hes' definitely a below average TE if he's your top guy.

Lee is decent and a decent starter at TE,I think you're already getting spoiled by watching Finley haha.

LUKE23 · Post #19 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:00 pm

Lee is decent and a decent starter at TE,I think you're already getting spoiled by watching Finley haha.

I think he's a #2 or #3 TE on most teams in the league personally. He was 27th by TE in yards per catch last year, 62nd in YAC by TE, 38th in yards per game by TE, and tied for 41st in TD. He's a below average starter for sure. He's a decent backup TE.

Turk Nowitzki · Post #20 » by **Turk Nowitzki** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
Lee is decent and a decent starter at TE,I think you're already getting spoiled by watching Finley haha.

I think he's a #2 or #3 TE on most teams in the league personally. He was 27th by TE in yards per catch last year, 62nd in YAC by TE, 38th in yards per game by TE, and tied for 41st in TD. He's a below average starter for sure. He's a decent backup TE.

I'm with Luke on this one. Lee was pretty bad last year although that was his worst year as a Packer. I do think he might be on the chopping block though. I like Havner's versatility and they might not feel comfortable trying to sneak Quarless/Crabtree onto the practice squad.