RealGM

Watched the complete game on DVR for the first time and came away with these observations-

QB- AR had a good game. He made a bad pass early and was lucky he didn't get the pass INT'd, but after that he looked better then I have ever seen him play. His passes weren't always perfect, but he moved around in the pocket very well. Brett got tunnel vision too often and missed wide open backs on 3rd down twice. Mistakes a vet shouldn't make, but it's preseason.

WR- I like Driver and Jennings, but they are a lot a like. They just don't get great separation. Jones looked like a vet, he looked strong. Holliday showed good concentration on the end zone grab. Martin looked OK.

TE-I think it's time to cut Franks and move on. He doesn't show burst off the line, body catches, and did nothing good. Lee and Alcorn looked OK.

RB-Brandon Jackson looked OK. Not much to work with early, but against scrubs he showed he can break tackles. I think he will be a solid inside runner, but doesn't have speed to break it outside on a regular basis (Morency). Noah is Noah-a guy that catches the Ball well and has some moves in the open field. A career 3rd down type back.

FB- Not much

OL- Passed block pretty well, but were unable to open anything for the RB against the Steeler regulars.

DT- Deep-deep-deep-all had their moments. This is the best and deepest group on the team.

DE- Jenkins beat their 1st and 2nd string OLT easily. KGB should be effective in the reduced roll. Kampman was his usual steady self.

LB- We all know Hawk and Barnett are top shelf, but I was impressed by Poppinga. He looked much less mechanical. The problem here is depth. The 2nd/3rd group was pretty weak.

S-Atari should have been cut on the spot-was out of position several times. Made weak arm tackle attempts on Davenport and got carried 10 yards, pathetic try on Young on the TD, and was beat several times. Underwood got spun around twice and then took bad angles-it's like he lost his instincts (could be the knee yet). I thought the last group of S (Culver/) were better.

CB-Dendy was bad. Blackmon wasn't perfect, but he made some nice open field tackles and played pretty tight coverage. Bush gave up some recepts, but the coverage was pretty good. Walker looked OK. Nobody in this group was lights out, but Blackmon looks active, and Bush and Walker may be fine.

For the amount of times that the DBs are out of position(not just in this game, but last year as well) it has to fall on Kurt Shottenheimer. I know Kurt is a friend oh M3's, but at some point Ted has to tell him that it isn't working. It will be the 2nd time he will be fired in 4 years? with the Pack if it hapens.

No real huge surprises in this game. The Packers will struggle rushing the ball this year. On 3rd and long Favre will be forcing the ball a lot because these receivers don't get a lot of separation. Individually James Jones has done more than I thought. With the deficiencies they have, it could be that AR is the better fit. I say that with a lot of stress on the "could be" part. AR's ability to avoid the rush and buy time could be a big plus. Favre just doesn't do that well at this point in his career. The big question is can AR maintain that level of play against starting defenses?

The defense could be great, but I don't know if they will be able to overcome Shottenhiemer's poor secondary coaching.

deep throat wrote:QB- AR had a good game. He made a bad pass early and was lucky he didn't get the pass INT'd, but after that he looked better then I have ever seen him play. His passes weren't always perfect, but he moved around in the pocket very well. Brett got tunnel vision too often and missed wide open backs on 3rd down twice. Mistakes a vet shouldn't make, but it's preseason.

Pretty much agree. I thought Rodgers was the unequivocal highlight of the game. He made a lot of plays with his feet that a lot of QBs probably couldn't. Did a nice job buying time, but even when he stuck around the pocket and was given some time he didn't escape and make a hurried throw. You could tell he was going through progressions. He missed a guy (Ferguson I think?) on a 3rd down and he threw another ball behind someone on a post (but was completed) but overall I couldn't complain about anything with him.

I don't know how much of Favre's failures in this game to attribute to him or the Pittsburgh defense. They were all over our WRs. By the time the ball got there, Driver and company were smothered. I'm not sure if it's that the Steelers backs were just that good, if Favre's balls got their late, or if the WRs were slopping in running their routes. Maybe a combination of all three.

deep throat wrote:WR- I like Driver and Jennings, but they are a lot a like. They just don't get great separation. Jones looked like a vet, he looked strong. Holliday showed good concentration on the end zone grab. Martin looked OK.

That's what I was talking about above. The defensive backs were all over our guys. We never tested them deep, however, at least with the first unit. They mostly ran comebacks and deep ins.

Loved what I saw out of Jones, Holiday and Martin. The move that Jones put on the back in the open field to get to the outside was a thing of beauty.

deep throat wrote:TE-I think it's time to cut Franks and move on. He doesn't show burst off the line, body catches, and did nothing good. Lee and Alcorn looked OK.

Franks is in his head. You could tell after he dropped that ball. I don't think there's any reason to cut him at the moment; his salary isn't hurting us. But he's not a reliable pass catcher. Didn't really pay attention to Lee or Alcorn.

deep throat wrote:RB-Brandon Jackson looked OK. Not much to work with early, but against scrubs he showed he can break tackles. I think he will be a solid inside runner, but doesn't have speed to break it outside on a regular basis (Morency). Noah is Noah-a guy that catches the Ball well and has some moves in the open field. A career 3rd down time back.

I thought Noah looked better running the ball than anyone and he did well on the long screen. But he whiffed big time a few times when picking up the block.

It was hard to get a read on the backs. They didn't have any holes at all the entire night.

deep throat wrote:OL- Passed block pretty well, but were unable to open anything for the RB against the Steeler regulars.

Agreed.

deep throat wrote:DT- Deep-deep-deep-all had their moments. This is the best and deepest group on the team.

This team should stop the run all year.

deep throat wrote:DE- Jenkins beat their 1st and 2nd string OLT easily. KGB should be effective in the reduced roll. Kampman was his usual steady self.

And they should get after the QB all season. I love our D-Line.

deep throat wrote:LB- We all know Hawk and Barnett are top shelf, but I was impressed by Poppinga. He looked much less mechanical. The problem here is depth. The 2nd/3rd group was pretty weak.

Starters looked active. No real weakness out there. I've got hope for Bishop but he didn't do anything to make me believe he wouldn't be a liability out there if Barnett went down.

deep throat wrote:S-Atari should have been cut on the spot-was out of position several times. Made weak arm tackle attempts on Davenport and got carried 10 yards, pathetic try on Young on the TD, and was beat several times. Underwood got spun around twice and then took bad angles-it's like he lost his instincts (could be the knee yet). I thought the last group of S (Culver/) were better.

Didn't see anything that lead me to believe any of those safeties should be starting in the NFL. They're going to be a huge reason this team loses games this year.

deep throat wrote:CB-Dendy was bad. Blackmon wasn't perfect, but he made some nice open field tackles and played pretty tight coverage. Bush gave up some recepts, but the coverage was pretty good. Walker looked OK. Nobody in this group was lights out, but Blackmon looks active, and Bush and Walker may be fine.

If Rodgers wasn't the highlight, it was Blackmon. His coverage was great and he made solid, sure tackles. Hope he keeps it up. I thought Bush looked good as well. No one else really stood out to me.

deep throat wrote:For the amount of times that the DBs are out of position(not just in this game, but last year as well) it has to fall on Kurt Shottenheimer. I know Kurt is a friend oh M3's, but at some point Ted has to tell him that it isn't working. It will be the 2nd time he will be fired in 4 years? with the Pack if it hapens.

No real huge surprises in this game. The Packers will struggle rushing the ball this year. On 3rd and long Favre will be forcing the ball a lot because these receivers don't get a lot of separation. Individually James Jones has done more than I thought. With the deficiencies they have, it could be that AR is the better fit. I say that with a lot of stress on the "could be" part. AR's ability to avoid the rush and buy time could be a big plus. Favre just doesn't do that well at this point in his career. The big question is can AR maintain that level of play against starting defenses?

The defense could be great, but I don't know if they will be able to overcome Shottenhiemer's poor secondary coaching.

Teams are gonna be daring the Pack to run all season. We'll see a lot of nickel packages and more blitzes than we've probably encountered before. The pressure will be on the backs. They have to not only pick up the blitz when it comes, but make them pay when the opposition only wants to play five or six in the box.

On defense, same as I've said all summer. Big plays will kill us. I've got no faith in the safeties.

I would have liked to see a statue of liberty play to see if the pittsburgh starters would have bitten on a run to leave a te or wr open.

I think we're just about in total agreement = mark this day down.

I know he made some mistakes in the return game, but I think Blackmon wil make some big plays as a return man in the next preseason game. The thing I like about him as a DB is his "fluidity", if that makes sense. Most of the other guys look mechanical and stiff in coverage. This was one of my favorite picks a year ago and the Rogers pick didn't make sense to me. I think in time I will be proven right (we know Rogers, jury still out on Blackmon). That said I was all over the Jones pick, and so far he's the bright spot in this draft.

I hope AR can keep it up. Last year he looked much more jittery in the pocket, and became unglued too easily. Let's hope he can build on this.

I HAD held the same view as you on Franks. I think they will play it out (as you say not a cap issue), but I feel at some point you cut your losses and give some of young guys his reps. The guys behind him are young and inexperienced-they could use it.

Brandon had a couple of nice runs if you remember in the 2nd half. He looks like a decent (adequate) combination back if we can get Morency healthy. I still think this year will be RB by committee-next year they get their back.

** The thing I forgot to mention was Crosby = a 52 yarder and a touchback. They questioned his actual leg strength because of the air in COL. I know at one time they had talked about him as a 3rd round pick or better. Could turn out to be a bargian.

deep throat wrote:I think we're just about in total agreement = mark this day down.

You can toss me in as well. We all saw the same things last game.

I even have Shawshank as a top 5 favorite movie.

I hope Crosby does make it because it would be nice to have a big leg kicker for kickoffs.

Blackmon got burned by Holmes on the deep ball badly, but overall he and Bush both played well.

Was there a decent safety or two available in free agency this year,i can't remember?

Grant and Hamlin were available. Either would be significantly better than Manuel.

I looked it up,Grant got a 6yr/30 million dollar deal with a 11 million dollar bonus.Who knows if he'd have been interested in coming to GB,but him and Collins would have formed a safety duo with lots of range.

I'm not a Thompson hater,but am curious why he didn't at least go after a guy like Grant.We were swimming in cash and if Brett retires as i expect,we'll have crazy amounts of cap space next year.A contract to Grant would hardly have been a burden this year or in the next few years.

A couple more notes...I thought Holiday clearly outplayed Martin and should be ahead of him as the 4th and possibly 3rd receiever....Martin was almost as much at fault for the near Rodgers int because he did not comeback hard for the ball at all, plus stepping out of the endzone is is a terrible mistake that cost GB a touchdown and could cost them a game in the regualr season if that bonehead play were to occur.

The the front 7 have the ability to be dominant and I liked the play of Blackmon and Bush....but Underwood was brutal and Bigby did not impress...which makes me somewhat concerned that today in practice Bigby took over for Manuel as the #1 safety....he did intercept Favre during the final 2 minute drill at practice today.

I am not worried like all of talk radio about the offense...yet. The Packers do not gameplan until game #3 and all they did was run a base offense with a handful of passing routes...I won't lie, Favre is making me nervous....seemd to have no connection with any of the young receivers, even Jennings, and forces things into his safety net...Driver and Fergie (who needs to go). The thing about Rodgers that inpressed me more then his quick mobility and strong arm was his poise and confidence...the way he moved in the pocket with a plan to buy time and allow his receivers to make a play....just never got the feeling he was going to make a stupid mistake or try to force a play...let the game come to him.....should have put up at least 17-21 points. The one thing I liked about Jackson was that after a shaky, indecisive start, he relaxed, calmed down, and play a much better second half.

Arod did have a very good game and was the highlight. My only complaint is that he was too concerned about the pass rush. He was moving well in the pocket, but sometimes it wasn't really necessary. I would like to see him stand in the pocket and make the throw even if he has to take a hit.

El Duderino wrote:I looked it up,Grant got a 6yr/30 million dollar deal with a 11 million dollar bonus.Who knows if he'd have been interested in coming to GB,but him and Collins would have formed a safety duo with lots of range.

I'm not a Thompson hater,but am curious why he didn't at least go after a guy like Grant.We were swimming in cash and if Brett retires as i expect,we'll have crazy amounts of cap space next year.A contract to Grant would hardly have been a burden this year or in the next few years.

Grant would have been interested if the $ was right. It's pretty clear that Theodore didn't think he was worth it or that much of an upgrade. I have a little issue with him passing on S in the first round (S's went #19,21,and 24). All these DTs look good-Williams/Pickett/Cole/Jolly - I'm not so sure that we didn't already have Harrell in the form of Jolly. I'm kind of surprised some of you were OK with them passing on Reggie Nelson-He seemed to be the popular pick- Just think of the extra dimension he would have added this team and been a full time player (not a part timer = rotation guy like Harrell).

deep throat wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Grant would have been interested if the $ was right. It's pretty clear that Theodore didn't think he was worth it or that much of an upgrade. I have a little issue with him passing on S in the first round (S's went #19,21,and 24). All these DTs look good-Williams/Pickett/Cole/Jolly - I'm not so sure that we didn't already have Harrell in the form of Jolly. I'm kind of surprised some of you were OK with them passing on Reggie Nelson-He seemed to be the popular pick- Just think of the extra dimension he would have added this team and been a full time player (not a part timer = rotation guy like Harrell).

I'm not really concerned with who's part time and who's the more impact player this season or the next. I want the guy who's going to be better in his prime.

I certainly wanted Nelson. I was hyping him up last September and wouldn't get off his jock until our pick was made. But a safety has to be a pretty amazing player to make more of an impact than a great d-lineman. Nelson may certainly end up being the better impact player; but that book won't be written for years.

But a safety has to be a pretty amazing player to make more of an impact than a great d-lineman.

No question DL is highest on the importance scale for defensive players and safety probably the lowest.I see the safety position though being held in higher regard around the NFL the last 10 years or so vs years past.

With the passing game around the league getting so important because of rule changes and smart offensive coaches,having a high quality safety that can cover,support the run,and create turnovers is a huge asset for any defense.We all saw last season the disaster teams face when they have a very weak link back there.

I'm fine with Thompson taking Harrell over Nelson if it ends up Harrell is the better player.It does bother me though that Thompson didn't seem to make an effort to sign a quality safety in free agency given all the cap space we had and will have going forward with the cap rising,Favre retiring,and all our key players already signed.

I don't see Nelson being an impact safety in this league at 185 pounds...he will never be much of a tackler but will be a good cover guy. Lets just wait and see what Rouse does and how he develops compared to Nelson...although Rouse is more of a strong safety while Nelson will have to be a free safety.

xTitan wrote:I don't see Nelson being an impact safety in this league at 185 pounds...he will never be much of a tackler but will be a good cover guy. Lets just wait and see what Rouse does and how he develops compared to Nelson...although Rouse is more of a strong safety while Nelson will have to be a free safety.

Nelson is 198. He's basically the same size as Ed Reed. Polamalu came in only slightly bigger at 206.

xTitan wrote:I don't see Nelson being an impact safety in this league at 185 pounds...he will never be much of a tackler but will be a good cover guy. Lets just wait and see what Rouse does and how he develops compared to Nelson...although Rouse is more of a strong safety while Nelson will have to be a free safety.

Tackling or hitting isn't just about size,proper form,proper angles, and a willingness to sacrifice your body also matters quite a bit.Watch enough football and you see some guys with a great football body that aren't good tacklers at all.Not wrapping up,often taking poor angles that leads to grasping at air as the guy with the ball runs by, and/or diving at feet to much out of lack of nerve.

The only concern i'd have about Nelson's size isn't that he won't tackler well enough,it's if his body can hold up playing safety in the NFL.Given he'll be a free safety that will be asked to be more of a playmaker deeper in the secondary than at the line of scrimmage,i think he'll excel.

Speaking of safeties,this is a huge year for Nick Collins.It's his third season and the team needs to see much more consistency from him.He has all the physical gifts needed to be a big time playmaker at safety,but to this point his many brainfarts have prevented this from happening.If the safety spot next to him proves to be a weak area again this year,we can't also have Collins blowing plays because he's either out of position or misreading what's happening.He runs like a deer and loves to hit,but we'll find out if he simply lacks the brains/instincts to be much more than a frustrating tease.

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I'm not really concerned with who's part time and who's the more impact player this season or the next. I want the guy who's going to be better in his prime.

I certainly wanted Nelson. I was hyping him up last September and wouldn't get off his jock until our pick was made. But a safety has to be a pretty amazing player to make more of an impact than a great d-lineman. Nelson may certainly end up being the better impact player; but that book won't be written for years.

That's where there is a difference of opinion both some of us wanna be GMs and the REAL real GMs. I think Nelson would have added exactly what they needed-his strong points address what they are lacking in current Packer S skills we have. I'm a firm believer in the BPA, I don't think you should reach to fill a need. I also believe that when things are pretty level you may have to slant the board for need. I find it hard to believe that an injured (out for the year) Harrell who has question marks was such a clear pick over the 3 Safeties that went with the next 8 picks (specifically Nelson). Add to the fact that we look young and two quality deep at the DT. The comparison used for Harrell on a quality highly thought of draft site was our own Jolly. Do we have anyone on this team with the skill set of a Reggie Nelson from what you have seen?

dude, You make the point that DT has a higher value (as DB indicates). Again, I would 3rd that opinion, BUT -it goes to need and relative value. I don't think Harrell's worth or value was that much above Nelson (if at all by most GMs). We know about the need part.

Lastly, People like to throw around the comment that Harrell was a top 10 predicted pick by some and that makes him great value. Look at the "predicted" top 10 picks at the beginning of every year. you will find at least 3 or 4 that have significant drops. Antaj Hawthorne was a DT that some thought was a top 10 pick going into the year-he ended up going in the 6th round if memory serves correctly. Everyone was talking about the Brady Quinn sweepstakes even into the year-who would get the top pick and the rights to draft him. Look what happened there. It's a weak arguement that means little especially when you add to that a injury history. I hope the pick works out, but some of the pro pick arguements don't hold up.

deep throat wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



That's where there is a difference of opinion both some of us wanna be GMs and the REAL real GMs. I think Nelson would have added exactly what they needed-his strong points address what they are lacking in current Packer S skills we have. I'm a firm believer in the BPA, I don't think you should reach to fill a need. I also believe that when things are pretty level you may have to slant the board for need. I find it hard to believe that an injured (out for the year) Harrell who has question marks was such a clear pick over the 3 Safeties that went with the next 8 picks (specifically Nelson). Add to the fact that we look young and two quality deep at the DT. The comparison used for Harrell on a quality highly thought of draft site was our own Jolly. Do we have anyone on this team with the skill set of a Reggie Nelson from what you have seen?

dude, You make the point that DT has a higher value (as DB indicates). Again, I would 3rd that opinion, BUT -it goes to need and relative value. I don't think Harrell's worth or value was that much above Nelson (if at all by most GMs). We know about the need part.

Lastly, People like to throw around the comment that Harrell was a top 10 predicted pick by some and that makes him great value. Look at the "predicted" top 10 picks at the beginning of every year. you will find at least 3 or 4 that have significant drops. Antaj Hawthorne was a DT that some thought was a top 10 pick going into the year-he ended up going in the 6th round if memory serves correctly. Everyone was talking about the Brady Quinn sweepstakes even into the year-who would get the top pick and the rights to draft him. Look what happened there. It's a weak arguement that means little especially when you add to that a injury history. I hope the pick works out, but some of the pro pick arguements don't hold up.

I guess I don't understand where you're coming from with this statement.

I agree with Thompson and his pick. I would have loved Nelson but if Harrell is the guy he apparently thinks he is and can be, it's really a no-brainer. So my opinion is the same as the 'real REAL gm'. You know...Ted Thompson.

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I guess I don't understand where you're coming from with this statement.

I agree with Thompson and his pick. I would have loved Nelson but if Harrell is the guy he apparently thinks he is and can be, it's really a no-brainer. So my opinion is the same as the 'real REAL gm'. You know...Ted Thompson.

Sorry, I probably didn't word that correctly. I meant that NFL GMs view things differently and so do some of the not so real ones on here. Yes - you seem to agree with the pick, whereas I and some other NFL Gms probably would not. Every GM (and couch version) has a little different view on how it should be done-how much to value a need in front of BPA, what positions have higher value, how to prioritize different skills/character of a player, the use of free agency, etc.

Again to illustrate the difference- I would not gamble on a DT who has his injury history, pretty one dimensional run stuff guy, and it's filling a position you are deepest at. I would rather take a CB (Hall) or S (Nelson) that would be good value at #16 and fill a major need now and grow with your young defense. With issues like shortened careers common today because of injury and the salary cap contraints I don't think you can afford the luxury of stock piling one position.

I don't want to get too caught up in this because it is over. I am just saying it was a move I didn't like (and don't like). You were OK with it = there lies the difference we have. I'm not saying I'm right or your wrong-just two different views. As people always say around now-time will tell.

deep throat wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Sorry, I probably didn't word that correctly. I meant that NFL GMs view things differently and so do some of the not so real ones on here. Yes - you seem to agree with the pick, whereas I and some other NFL Gms probably would not. Every GM (and couch version) has a little different view on how it should be done-how much to value a need in front of BPA, what positions have higher value, how to prioritize different skills/character of a player, the use of free agency, etc.

Again to illustrate the difference- I would not gamble on a DT who has his injury history, pretty one dimensional run stuff guy, and it's filling a position you are deepest at. I would rather take a CB (Hall) or S (Nelson) that would be good value at #16 and fill a major need now and grow with your young defense. With issues like shortened careers common today because of injury and the salary cap contraints I don't think you can afford the luxury of stock piling one position.

I don't want to get too caught up in this because it is over. I am just saying it was a move I didn't like (and don't like). You were OK with it = there lies the difference we have. I'm not saying I'm right or your wrong-just two different views. As people always say around now-time will tell.

The Packers are deep at DT, no question. But only two of them are going to play at any one time and we don't have a Pro-Bowl quality player among them.

You recently listed the top WRs in the league and what round they were drafted. Well, take a look at the top DTs:

Kevin Williams - 1st
Richard Seymour - 1st
Jamal Williams - 2nd
John Henderson - 1st
Marcus Stroud - 1st
Trevor Pryce - 1st
Warren Sapp - 1st
Shaun Rodgers - 2nd (30th overall)
Tommie Harris - 1st
Kris Jenkins - 2nd
Warren Sapp - 1st

Our guy Pickett was taken in the 1st, but no one is going to put him up there with those guys.

We had a nice collection of DTs and like you said, it was deep. But we didn't have one of the above and you have to think that when Thompson took Harrell, he did so thinking that Justin could someday be among those cats on that last.

We'll just have to wait and see.