Seahawks leapfrogged in ESPN's "Future Power Rankings" by GB

[Bigbadhawk]

I think these rankings are conceived in a way that overvalues the QB position and greatly undervalues coaching and the defensive roster.

The Packers have a major hole in the interior of their defense, and they have done nothing to rectify it. The Seahawks' only weaknesses have been offensive line, receivers, and returner. Unlike the Packers' failure to adequately address the interior of their defense, the Seahawks addressed their greatest weakness head on by drafting three impressive athletes to develop along the offensive line. They also drafted an explosive returner/receiver prospect, and they traded for one of the most dominant big receivers in the league -- Jimmy Graham.

The hole has been rectified. They dumped both last years' slow poke starters (Hawk and Jones) and replaced them with Clay Matthews and Sam Barrrington.... The once weak free safety position has been stabilized with Ha Ha Clinton Dix. BJ Raji, our run stuffer is back and our entire defensive line looks to be very deep... GB's defense will be just fine and the Packer offense is primed to be the most prolific offense Green Bay has ever fielded.... BTW, Special teams have been revamped

Sam Barrington did not play great last season against the run. Clay playing ILB is now a necessity because you have no depth whatsoever at the position. Up front, Jones and Guion are terrible, and Raji has regressed at a steep rate. That puts more pressure on the linebackers to make plays.

Then you have to consider what happens to your outside pass rush with Clay forced to ILB . . . Perry has been a disappointment, while Mulamba and Neal are subpar pass rushers. What percentage of the snaps can you reasonably expect Julius Peppers to play from the OLB position, given that he will be 36 years old by the time the next NFC Championship Game rolls around?

Yeah, I wouldn't be overly confident in the "depth" of that front seven if I were you.

Matthews will be inside on first down and short yardage. On passing downs he will move outside with Barrington (who played well as a rookie when he was inserted last year) being the lone ILB. Matthews will move around so teams don't really have an idea where he will be coming from until the teams line up.
After moving Matthews inside on rushing downs, the Packers run defense improved to sixth over the final eight games, allowing 86.4 rushing yards per game on average. In their first half of the season, the Packers were 32nd against the run, allowing 153.5 yards per game per the LA Times.

So lets take a look at those final 8 teams and how they ranks when it came to rushing.
Bears 27th
Eagles 9th
Vikings 14th
Patriots 18th
Falcons 24th
Bills 25th
Bucs 29th
Lions 28th
Then in the playoffs they had to face the top 2 rushing teams being Dallas then the Seahawks, how did they do vs these two teams after being so vastly improved in the last half of the season vs so many quality rushing teams.

Dallas: 145 yards total, Murray with 123 at a almost 5 yard per carry average
Seattle: 194 yards total, Lynch with 157 yards at a 6 yard per carry average.

Tell us again how much imporved that Green Bay Defense was vs the run in the final 8 games. Must have been brutal to go against those teams ranked 24th, 25th, 27th, 28th, 29th in the league.

 

[kearly]

Cumulative DVOA: 2012-2014

Seahawks - 110.6
Packers - 43.6

Will Seattle's DVOA drop after they pay Wilson? Maybe, but it's worth noting that New England had their highest DVOA seasons ever after paying Brady. Development of a quarterback can easily offset the added cost.

As far as the scores in the article, it does not reflect just how vastly superior Seattle's roster is to Green Bay's. Green Bay has a Holmgren type roster. Good OL, great QB, great WRs, good RB, and a defense that hopes to be average. Whereas Seattle is loaded everywhere except pass catchers and OL, and both groups are better than people think.

And if Rodgers is a 98, then Wilson needs to be at least a 94 or 95, IMO. Rogers is probably the best QB in the game, but benefits from a soft defensive schedule. His numbers against top defenses are way lower, whereas Wilson tends to be the same QB even against tough defenses.

 

[ptisme]

I remember Murray being not a huge factor most of that game. They kept him in check and as I recall he got most of that in two or three second half runs.
Lynch had a great second half and did what he does...
In both games the defense played well enough to win against two of the top rushing teams in the league.

 

[Bigbadhawk]

I remember Murray being not a huge factor most of that game. They kept him in check and as I recall he got most of that in two or three second half runs.
Lynch had a great second half and did what he does...
In both games the defense played well enough to win against two of the top rushing teams in the league.

Regardless if they played well enough to win the games your original point was about how improved your defense was vs the run in the last 8 games, not about playing well enough to win. I showed how that defense played mostly weak run teams and odds are that was a big factor in how improved your defense was in those games. See how that works? I can care less if they played well enough to have a chance to beat Seattle and for winning against the Cowboys as that was not the original intent of your earlier message.

 

[ptisme]

I remember Murray being not a huge factor most of that game. They kept him in check and as I recall he got most of that in two or three second half runs.
Lynch had a great second half and did what he does...
In both games the defense played well enough to win against two of the top rushing teams in the league.

Regardless if they played well enough to win the games your original point was about how improved your defense was vs the run in the last 8 games, not about playing well enough to win. I showed how that defense played mostly weak run teams and odds are that was a big factor in how improved your defense was in those games. See how that works? I can care less if they played well enough to have a chance to beat Seattle and for winning against the Cowboys as that was not the original intent of your earlier message.

Couple points:
1. I'm not suggesting the Packers have the second coming of the 85' bears defense. I'm refuting your statement that Green Bay has done nothing to address its run defense and that the run defense is still a team weakness. The run defense was improved since they benched their two slow ILB's. Matthews was thrust into an all new position that he will now have an off season to learn. Barrington was a rookie who played very well and now he'll have an off season and should also take a step. Raji is said to be in the shape of his life and has been moved back to the position he excelled at in 2010.
2. Green Bay doesn't need the best defense in the league to win, just needs to be respectable. They weren't in 2011. They are respectable now. I think they played well enough to win in Seattle and certainly held their own against New England and Dallas.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

To the OP, should we or do we care? 3 years in the NFL is like 100 years anywhere else.

@ptisme, I hope you stick around when it matters and myself among many others speak with you when it's past bored time because I almost think you could hang here when it gets real.

I mean it isn't like our short greedy quarterback didn't outplay yours in every way that actually counts in real games not fantasy football and it may have been decently close then.

See the deal is Wilson is much like Aikman and in many ways like Montana (we'll get that question answered this year given he finally has receivers almost as good as Montana started with, almost).

Like them it's not clear cut as to how good he actually is in that same point in their career hence the money furor amongst fan base.


Modern economy says just pay the man though. Glad I'm not JS because ladies and gentlemen we're seeing big boy quarterback negotiations front row and center and it's not pretty to see. But when it's done you have yourself a 12 win team for the next 10 years EVERYBODY hates especially the NFCW.

 

[Overseasfan]

Greenbay and Seattle being the top two teams for the next three years isn't farfetched at all but the way these rankings are determined seem a bit sketchy. I'd say FO and draft are one category and roster and QB are one. And even then I wouldn't put roster, coaching and FO on the same level of importance.

 

[Scottemojo]

To be honest, that 3 man panel really didn't rate rosters, no matter what they say. Schneider and Ted are known for getting and developing talent. They get the benefit of the doubt from pundits on players who are as yet unknown quantities, not because Clayton and Sando possess amazing insight into the depth of rosters, but because in the past they have created deep rosters.

They could title their article "Seattle and GB have great GMs who won't bone their respective teams over the next 3 years" and it would be the same story.

 

[ptisme]

To the OP, should we or do we care? 3 years in the NFL is like 100 years anywhere else.

@ptisme, I hope you stick around when it matters and myself among many others speak with you when it's past bored time because I almost think you could hang here when it gets real.

I mean it isn't like our short greedy quarterback didn't outplay yours in every way that actually counts in real games not fantasy football and it may have been decently close then.

See the deal is Wilson is much like Aikman and in many ways like Montana (we'll get that question answered this year given he finally has receivers almost as good as Montana started with, almost).

Like them it's not clear cut as to how good he actually is in that same point in their career hence the money furor amongst fan base.


Modern economy says just pay the man though. Glad I'm not JS because ladies and gentlemen we're seeing big boy quarterback negotiations front row and center and it's not pretty to see. But when it's done you have yourself a 12 win team for the next 10 years EVERYBODY hates especially the NFCW.

You're set up to win with Wilson... You aren't set up to have that kind of defense for years to come as those boys are going to want to get theirs and you can't pay them all....

 

[ptisme]

Greenbay and Seattle being the top two teams for the next three years isn't farfetched at all but the way these rankings are determined seem a bit sketchy. I'd say FO and draft are one category and roster and QB are one. And even then I wouldn't put roster, coaching and FO on the same level of importance.

Seattle and GB should be good for years provided the front office for both teams stays in place... It's all about drafting these days...

 

[ptisme]

To be honest, that 3 man panel really didn't rate rosters, no matter what they say. Schneider and Ted are known for getting and developing talent. They get the benefit of the doubt from pundits on players who are as yet unknown quantities, not because Clayton and Sando possess amazing insight into the depth of rosters, but because in the past they have created deep rosters.

They could title their article "Seattle and GB have great GMs who won't bone their respective teams over the next 3 years" and it would be the same story.

This is outstanding....

 

[hawknation2015]

In what was an offseason full of upheaval in San Francisco, the 49ers dropped 19 spots from their 2014 standing in these future rankings, by far the largest decline. Last year, they ranked among the top five in drafting, non-QB roster, coaching and the front office. And this year, no team fell as many spots in its rankings for front office (fourth to 20th) or coaching (third to 32nd). The 49ers also dropped from second to 18th in non-QB roster, a fall surpassed only by the Saints. San Francisco's lone steady category: quarterback, which slipped just one spot to 17th. It is unlikely all the changes will work out in the negative so resoundingly, but at best, the unknowns cloud the future.

 

[purpleneer]

The thing I saw in the OP that should be garnering some backlash is the coaching grade for GB. The NFCCG was an example of terrible coaching costing them a SB berth, and not the only time they coached poorly. That is a staff and HC in particular that gets too much credit for what their QB does.

By the same token, who developed the quarterback? This year could be the most prolific offense Green Bay has ever produced. Does coaching get no credit for that?

...in addition to the fact that almost everyone here believes that it was coaching (i.e. not giving Lynch the ball) that cost the Seahawks the Super Bowl.

If G.B.'s lower coaching score should get a hit because of a coaching decision in the NFCC, Seattle's higher score certainly should too because of a decision in the SB.

While not perfect otherwise, the coaching that cost the SB win was really a single offensive playcall. The NFCCG was not "a bad decision," but bad philosophy and decisions throughout the game: more than once taking 3 down close, ridiculous conservatism offensively for most of the 2nd half, kneeling on an INT that should have sealed it by at least starting the drive in FG range (no chance they weren't coached to do it), giving up a TD on a fake FG when it's as obvious a keep-your-D-out-there situation as there ever was.
Developing a QB might be the most important aspect of coaching these days, but does McCarthy tick any other boxes? And does he really get all the credit for how good Rodgers is?

 

[HawKnPeppa]

I think these rankings are conceived in a way that overvalues the QB position and greatly undervalues coaching and the defensive roster.

The Packers have a major hole in the interior of their defense, and they have done nothing to rectify it. The Seahawks' only weaknesses have been offensive line, receivers, and returner. Unlike the Packers' failure to adequately address the interior of their defense, the Seahawks addressed their greatest weakness head on by drafting three impressive athletes to develop along the offensive line. They also drafted an explosive returner/receiver prospect, and they traded for one of the most dominant big receivers in the league -- Jimmy Graham.

The hole has been rectified. They dumped both last years' slow poke starters (Hawk and Jones) and replaced them with Clay Matthews and Sam Barrrington.... The once weak free safety position has been stabilized with Ha Ha Clinton Dix. BJ Raji, our run stuffer is back and our entire defensive line looks to be very deep... GB's defense will be just fine and the Packer offense is primed to be the most prolific offense Green Bay has ever fielded.... BTW, Special teams have been revamped

No bias here. [emoji8]

 

[HawKnPeppa]

These are three year future rankings right? Hate him all you want, and I do with the best of them, but not having the Colts in the top 10 and having a 41 year old Brady and 37 year old Romo over a 28 year old Newton and Luck is a bloody joke.

Also not sure how they pulled the "draft" metric out of their rear ends.

Yeah, cause Cam is a 'freight train' and they aren't. Back to your container, cat, BACK I say! [emoji12]

 

[HawKnPeppa]

I think these rankings are conceived in a way that overvalues the QB position and greatly undervalues coaching and the defensive roster.

The Packers have a major hole in the interior of their defense, and they have done nothing to rectify it. The Seahawks' only weaknesses have been offensive line, receivers, and returner. Unlike the Packers' failure to adequately address the interior of their defense, the Seahawks addressed their greatest weakness head on by drafting three impressive athletes to develop along the offensive line. They also drafted an explosive returner/receiver prospect, and they traded for one of the most dominant big receivers in the league -- Jimmy Graham.

The hole has been rectified. They dumped both last years' slow poke starters (Hawk and Jones) and replaced them with Clay Matthews and Sam Barrrington.... The once weak free safety position has been stabilized with Ha Ha Clinton Dix. BJ Raji, our run stuffer is back and our entire defensive line looks to be very deep... GB's defense will be just fine and the Packer offense is primed to be the most prolific offense Green Bay has ever fielded.... BTW, Special teams have been revamped

Sam Barrington did not play great last season against the run. Clay playing ILB is now a necessity because you have no depth whatsoever at the position. Up front, Jones and Guion are terrible, and Raji has regressed at a steep rate. That puts more pressure on the linebackers to make plays.

Then you have to consider what happens to your outside pass rush with Clay forced to ILB . . . Perry has been a disappointment, while Mulamba and Neal are subpar pass rushers. What percentage of the snaps can you reasonably expect Julius Peppers to play from the OLB position, given that he will be 36 years old by the time the next NFC Championship Game rolls around?

Yeah, I wouldn't be overly confident in the "depth" of that front seven if I were you.

Matthews will be inside on first down and short yardage. On passing downs he will move outside with Barrington (who played well as a rookie when he was inserted last year) being the lone ILB. Matthews will move around so teams don't really have an idea where he will be coming from until the teams line up.
After moving Matthews inside on rushing downs, the Packers run defense improved to sixth over the final eight games, allowing 86.4 rushing yards per game on average. In their first half of the season, the Packers were 32nd against the run, allowing 153.5 yards per game per the LA Times.

Total fan boy.

 

[hawknation2015]

Sam Barrington did not play great last season against the run. Clay playing ILB is now a necessity because you have no depth whatsoever at the position. Up front, Jones and Guion are terrible, and Raji has regressed at a steep rate. That puts more pressure on the linebackers to make plays.

Then you have to consider what happens to your outside pass rush with Clay forced to ILB . . . Perry has been a disappointment, while Mulamba and Neal are subpar pass rushers. What percentage of the snaps can you reasonably expect Julius Peppers to play from the OLB position, given that he will be 36 years old by the time the next NFC Championship Game rolls around?

Yeah, I wouldn't be overly confident in the "depth" of that front seven if I were you.

Matthews will be inside on first down and short yardage. On passing downs he will move outside with Barrington (who played well as a rookie when he was inserted last year) being the lone ILB. Matthews will move around so teams don't really have an idea where he will be coming from until the teams line up.
After moving Matthews inside on rushing downs, the Packers run defense improved to sixth over the final eight games, allowing 86.4 rushing yards per game on average. In their first half of the season, the Packers were 32nd against the run, allowing 153.5 yards per game per the LA Times.

Total fan boy.

And then in the playoffs, with Clay used primarily at ILB, GB allowed a horrendous 169.5 rushing yards per game. They also allowed 5.4 yards per carry, which was by far the worst of any team in the post season.

 

[rideaducati]

I remember Murray being not a huge factor most of that game. They kept him in check and as I recall he got most of that in two or three second half runs.
Lynch had a great second half and did what he does...
In both games the defense played well enough to win against two of the top rushing teams in the league.

Regardless if they played well enough to win the games your original point was about how improved your defense was vs the run in the last 8 games, not about playing well enough to win. I showed how that defense played mostly weak run teams and odds are that was a big factor in how improved your defense was in those games. See how that works? I can care less if they played well enough to have a chance to beat Seattle and for winning against the Cowboys as that was not the original intent of your earlier message.

Couple points:
1. I'm not suggesting the Packers have the second coming of the 85' bears defense. I'm refuting your statement that Green Bay has done nothing to address its run defense and that the run defense is still a team weakness. The run defense was improved since they benched their two slow ILB's. Matthews was thrust into an all new position that he will now have an off season to learn. Barrington was a rookie who played very well and now he'll have an off season and should also take a step. Raji is said to be in the shape of his life and has been moved back to the position he excelled at in 2010.
2. Green Bay doesn't need the best defense in the league to win, just needs to be respectable. They weren't in 2011. They are respectable now. I think they played well enough to win in Seattle and certainly held their own against New England and Dallas.

It's funny how you believe that the Packers can win with just a "respectable" defense when they haven't won a Super Bowl since 1968 without a top two defense in the league and have never won one when their defense was ranked lower than fifth in the league. NONE of the Packers vaunted Hall of Fame QBs could win it all without a top defense. Why don't we ever hear Rodgers being knocked like the constant rambling on about Russell only winning because of the Seahawks defense?

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

To the OP, should we or do we care? 3 years in the NFL is like 100 years anywhere else.

@ptisme, I hope you stick around when it matters and myself among many others speak with you when it's past bored time because I almost think you could hang here when it gets real.

I mean it isn't like our short greedy quarterback didn't outplay yours in every way that actually counts in real games not fantasy football and it may have been decently close then.

See the deal is Wilson is much like Aikman and in many ways like Montana (we'll get that question answered this year given he finally has receivers almost as good as Montana started with, almost).

Like them it's not clear cut as to how good he actually is in that same point in their career hence the money furor amongst fan base.


Modern economy says just pay the man though. Glad I'm not JS because ladies and gentlemen we're seeing big boy quarterback negotiations front row and center and it's not pretty to see. But when it's done you have yourself a 12 win team for the next 10 years EVERYBODY hates especially the NFCW.

You're set up to win with Wilson... You aren't set up to have that kind of defense for years to come as those boys are going to want to get theirs and you can't pay them all....

Wrong! They got their's already. Anybody that matters on defense is locked up for the next four years or so. As long as Pete is here the defense will be the last of our worries.

 

[hawknation2015]

To the OP, should we or do we care? 3 years in the NFL is like 100 years anywhere else.

@ptisme, I hope you stick around when it matters and myself among many others speak with you when it's past bored time because I almost think you could hang here when it gets real.

I mean it isn't like our short greedy quarterback didn't outplay yours in every way that actually counts in real games not fantasy football and it may have been decently close then.

See the deal is Wilson is much like Aikman and in many ways like Montana (we'll get that question answered this year given he finally has receivers almost as good as Montana started with, almost).

Like them it's not clear cut as to how good he actually is in that same point in their career hence the money furor amongst fan base.


Modern economy says just pay the man though. Glad I'm not JS because ladies and gentlemen we're seeing big boy quarterback negotiations front row and center and it's not pretty to see. But when it's done you have yourself a 12 win team for the next 10 years EVERYBODY hates especially the NFCW.

You're set up to win with Wilson... You aren't set up to have that kind of defense for years to come as those boys are going to want to get theirs and you can't pay them all....

Wrong! They got their's already. Anybody that matters on defense is locked up for the next four years or so.

Sans Bobby Wagner, which will hopefully get done ASAP.
Richard Sherman (Until 2019)
Earl Thomas (Until 2019)
Kam Chancellor (Until 2018)
Michael Bennett (Until 2018)
Cliff Avril (Until 2019)
K.J. Wright (Until 2019)

As long as we continue to develop a couple ready defensive contributors in each draft class, this defense will have a chance to keep on rollin'.
2015: Frank Clark and Tye Smith (maybe Ryan Murphy and Obum Gwacham)
2014: Kevin Pierre-Louis, Eric Pinkins, and Cassius Marsh (maybe Jimmy Staten)
2013: Jordan Hill and Tharold Simon (maybe Jesse Williams)
2012: Bobby Wagner, Bruce Irvin, and Jeremy Lane (maybe Greg Scruggs)