Poll: Who will win the 2013 Superb Owl?

Kerb Hohl · Post #1 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:02 pm

Sorry, I don't have all the signings on here yet.

Kansas City Chiefs Traded for Alex Smith, kept Bowe, plus a bunch of other signings.

Miami Dolphins Mike Wallace and Ellerbe

Seattle Seahawks Harvin, Avril, etc.

Cleveland Browns Paul Kruger and others

Atlanta Falcons Got Steven Jackson

Indianapolis Colts Walden, Francois, etc.

San Francisco 49ers Might trade for Revis, got Boldin

Chicago Bears Bushrod and Bennett

Denver Broncos Welkah

Detroit Lions Reggie Bush and some defensive signings

Wilford Brimley · Post #2 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:03 pm

I'm assuming this is in response to my thread :lol:

Im going Seattle, because they made solid moves, and didn't break the bank on mediocre players.

Post #3 » by **humanrefutation** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:05 pm

The team that wins the free agency offseason usually wins the Super Bowl, IMO.

Wilford Brimley · Post #4 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:06 pm

I know who WONT win it. The team with a terrible oline, dline and running game.

RiotPunch · Post #5 » by **RiotPunch** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:09 pm

Colts, imo. Sound FA signings translate to SB rings.

My money is on Harvin being injured by the time playoffs roll around and Avril is close to a non-factor. Mediocre situational pass rusher.

th87 · Post #6 » by **th87** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:16 pm

To be fair, the point isn't FA spending = Super Bowl.

The point is that reducing weaknesses (preferably quickly) increases your chances of winning a Super Bowl. Is that a fair statement?

The Packers appear to have had chances to mitigate their long-standing weaknesses, but the team has chosen to wait for some future opportunity. Since this approach has been used unsuccessfully thus far in the case of RB and pass rush, fans wanted something different, and are understandably upset that no new approach will be employed.

It might work out. But there's more historical precedent of it not working, which stresses people out.

Kerb Hohl · Post #7 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:19 pm

New England, Houston, Atlanta, Nawlins, Pittsburgh, Giants, Ravens, Denver (mostly). All of those teams have weaknesses.

What does that sound like? That sounds like the Super Bowl contenders or good teams sans San Francisco and Seattle.

What sort of groundbreaking signings have they made?

Post #8 » by **MickeyDavis** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:22 pm

humanrefutation wrote:The team that wins the free agency offseason usually wins the Super Bowl, IMO.

Agreed, look how many the Skins and Eagles have won

Newz · Post #9 » by **Newz** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:23 pm

The Packers weaknesses, IMO, are:

LT - I agree on not blowing a ton of money on one of the guys that were available.
DE - There were some guys available, but honestly we are deep with decent DE's... if we were to sign a guy I'd want him to be a legit difference maker.
RB - This is a position where we can still get a veteran with a bunch of miles on his legs for cheap. Benson should be just about as good as Jackson if we want to go that route.
OLB - Not a ton of options here.

With huge extensions coming up I don't think we really have the flexibility to add a legit difference maker unless we cut some guys like Tramon and Finley... and then you just create more weaknesses.

I like TT's approach and I always have. Stick to it, continue to draft and develop. Every once and a while when it makes sense and you can get value, then strike in free agency.

Wilford Brimley · Post #10 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:23 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:The team that wins the free agency offseason usually wins the Super Bowl, IMO.

Agreed, look how many the Skins and Eagles have won

Yes, because i'm advocating to break the bank. :roll:

Newz · Post #11 » by **Newz** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:25 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:New England, Houston, Atlanta, Nawlins, Pittsburgh, Giants, Ravens, Denver (mostly). All of those teams have weaknesses.

What does that sound like? That sounds like the Super Bowl contenders or good teams sans San Francisco and Seattle.

What sort of groundbreaking signings have they made?

I think it's even a little sketchy to say that Seattle and the 49ers don't have weaknesses. I like both Kaepernick and Wilson... but those guys are going into their second year. It's not like they are proven superstar QBs. Odds are they'll be good, but they could cool off and be less effective next season.

Guys regress, get hurt, get old and all of that. Just look at the Packers... if our guys were ageless and immune to injury we'd dominate every season, sadly that's not how things are.

Kerb Hohl · Post #12 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:28 pm

I wasn't saying San Fran and Seattle don't have weaknesses, I was saying they are the only "contenders" spending right now outside of Welker coming in really cheap and Steven Jackson.

th87 · Post #13 » by **th87** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:32 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:New England, Houston, Atlanta, Nawlins, Pittsburgh, Giants, Ravens, Denver (mostly). All of those teams have weaknesses.

What does that sound like? That sounds like the Super Bowl contenders or good teams sans San Francisco and Seattle.

What sort of groundbreaking signings have they made?

The Packers are Super Bowl contenders as well. But with improvements, they can strengthen their chances for contention. One such potential improvement opportunity seems to have passed them by (it's also possible that Jackson busts).

It's simply about increasing your chances.

Kerb Hohl · Post #14 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:33 pm

th87 wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:New England, Houston, Atlanta, Nawlins, Pittsburgh, Giants, Ravens, Denver (mostly). All of those teams have weaknesses.

What does that sound like? That sounds like the Super Bowl contenders or good teams sans San Francisco and Seattle.

What sort of groundbreaking signings have they made?

The Packers are Super Bowl contenders as well. But with improvements, they can strengthen their chances for contention. One such potential improvement opportunity seems to have passed them by (it's also possible that Jackson busts).

It's simply about increasing your chances.

Yet all of those contenders (normally mainstays in contention) did nothing to "increase their chances" outside of Welkah coming in for cheap.

Two teams that can pay their QBs 1/20th what most of the other teams have to blew their wad.

Newz · Post #15 » by **Newz** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:35 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:Yet all of those contenders (normally mainstays in contention) did nothing to "increase their chances" outside of Welkah coming in for cheap.

Two teams that can pay their QBs 1/20th what most of the other teams have to blew their wad.

Dude... the Falcons got a 30 year old RB with a ton of mileage on him, the Giants got a declining DT who had one great year and the Broncos got a 32 year old slot receiver.

How can we possibly beat any of those teams now? Their chances of winning have been increased SO MUCH.

th87 · Post #16 » by **th87** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:51 pm

Newz wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:Yet all of those contenders (normally mainstays in contention) did nothing to "increase their chances" outside of Welkah coming in for cheap.

Two teams that can pay their QBs 1/20th what most of the other teams have to blew their wad.

Dude... the Falcons got a 30 year old RB with a ton of mileage on him, the Giants got a declining DT who had one great year and the Broncos got a 32 year old slot receiver.

How can we possibly beat any of those teams now? Their chances of winning have been increased SO MUCH.

It could backfire. But assuming that Jackson has gas in the tank, he'd be somewhat of an upgrade from Turner. Some net gain, but nothing too serious. For the Packers though? He'd constitute a huge upgrade from the Harris platoon. Jackson would've improved us more than he improves the Falcons.

Kerb Hohl · Post #17 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:54 pm

Upgrade from Turner? Maybe.

Playing 2011 at age 29, Michael Turner averaged 4.5 yards per carry and ran for 1,300 yards. Last year he averaged 3.5.

Steven Jackson turns 30 in September.

I would have rolled the dice but it could be a complete waste for them as well.

Bucksfans1and2 · Post #18 » by **Bucksfans1and2** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:11 pm

th87 wrote:To be fair, the point isn't FA spending = Super Bowl.

The point is that reducing weaknesses (preferably quickly) increases your chances of winning a Super Bowl. Is that a fair statement?

The Packers appear to have had chances to mitigate their long-standing weaknesses, but the team has chosen to wait for some future opportunity. Since this approach has been used unsuccessfully thus far in the case of RB and pass rush, fans wanted something different, and are understandably upset that no new approach will be employed.

It might work out. But there's more historical precedent of it not working, which stresses people out.

You're not going to get the giant red text for this one, but you're getting close again.

What were the Packers ranked in sacks this year?

If you guessed 4th in the league with 47, more than every playoff team other than Denver and Cincinnati, you're correct. And we did this with 14/15 games of borderline NFL players at OLB.

dedned · Post #19 » by **dedned** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:13 pm

This is stupid. I always pick the Packers.

th87 · Post #20 » by **th87** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:20 am

Bucksfans1and2 wrote:
th87 wrote:To be fair, the point isn't FA spending = Super Bowl.

The point is that reducing weaknesses (preferably quickly) increases your chances of winning a Super Bowl. Is that a fair statement?

The Packers appear to have had chances to mitigate their long-standing weaknesses, but the team has chosen to wait for some future opportunity. Since this approach has been used unsuccessfully thus far in the case of RB and pass rush, fans wanted something different, and are understandably upset that no new approach will be employed.

It might work out. But there's more historical precedent of it not working, which stresses people out.

You're not going to get the giant red text for this one, but you're getting close again.

What were the Packers ranked in sacks this year?

If you guessed 4th in the league with 47, more than every playoff team other than Denver and Cincinnati, you're correct. And we did this with 14/15 games of borderline NFL players at OLB.

What giant red text? Again? This may be our first exchange ever - you may have me confused with someone else?

But to your point, sacks don't tell the entire pass rush story. You know that. There are tons of other factors involved, including blitz percentage, how many rushers were used, how many blitzes failed, etc.

I'd be more interested in knowing how well we did without blitzing.

Who will win it?