NFL 2011-12

[Big A HG]

I know football is a long ways away, but let's fire up the discussions, because there's a lot to cover still in the offseason.

What do you think of the potential lockout? Will it happen?

What are you NFC North or Super Bowl predictions?

Who does your team need in the draft? Any trade possibilities?

My NFC North Predictions as of right now:

1) Green Bay (12-4) - They found some chemistry and have a ton of guys coming back that weren't there in the Super Bowl run. They might lose a couple guys, but maybe only one or two of any real significance. They figured out how to win the close games as well

2) Chicago (9-7) - They are getting older on defense and their offense needs some more work. The Jay Cutler situation may have put some quiet doubts in some of the players minds as well, but they are too talented to not be competitive.

3) Detroit (7-9) - Things are looking up for the Lions, but I'm not ready to jump on any sort of playoff talk bandwagon yet. They have a ton of good, young tools, but are still missing too many key pieces. Consistent QB play will be the x-factor.

4) Minnesota (5-11) - The future is none too bright for the Vikings. Where will they play? Who will play QB? A lot of key players are up there in age, but they still have some talent to win a few games. They need a good draft and to maybe pick up a few key guys in free agency or via trade. Carson Palmer or Donovan McNabb? Kevin Kolb? The Vikes need a long-term fix at QB, but that option isn't there yet, so another band-aid is needed.

Super Bowl predictions: New England 31 - Atlanta 20 in one of the more boring Super Bowls in recent memory.

[redwing77]

My NFC Impressions and predicted outcome:

....

I think there will be a lockout.

However, if a miracle does occur:

1. Green Bay - I think Green Bay goes after a WR. Sorry, I may be a Packer fan, but I don't drink the Kool-Aid. They WR Corps are NOT as good as everyone says they are. The Pack could use a more reliably catching WR, even if he is a bit slower than what they got. Ferguson while he was with GB wasn't the fastest player but he was reliable with his hands. Chris Carter with the Vikings wasn't that fast but he caught EVERYTHING. The Pack need more of that if they are to be effective. I'd also argue that they need more help in TE, OLine, and RB Depth.

2. Chicago - They won't finish close to GB. Their D is getting old. Cutler is overrated and a bit fragile. Their WRs are ok but I think their OLine will again fail, but this time they won't recover. They will seek OLine help and QB depth. They'll draft D pretty highly.

3. Detroit - They will finish 8-8 in my mind. This team will be very much improved. Unfortunately, Stafford can't stay healthy and their OLine sucks. They'll draft OLine and probably try to sign them too. Their D is pretty good but they might go after some Secondary in the draft.

4. Minnesota - This team will be awful next year. No QB, No OLine, No Pass Secondary, Little WR and TE help. The only position they're fairly solid at is RB. There is simply too many problems with this team for the Vikings to be competitive in one off season. It will take 2-3 years for them to return to the top ranks in the mediocre-strengthed NFC North.

[Big A HG]

I only disagree with you when it comes to the Packers TE's. Jermichael Finley is a stud as a receiving tight end, Aaron considers him the best in the league (maybe a bit biased, but he's one of the best no doubt). His blocking had improved. If he was healthy all year, the Packers would have been more of a monster than they already were. If you look at Finley's first year and a half at Tight End, he seemed virtually worthless at times, but showed promise here and there...then he figured it out, and became a stud. I think Andrew Quarless, who was the primary tight end most of the year for the Packers fits that same mold. He was a rookie, and his body is extremely athletic (huge and quick). Once he "gets it" like Finley after learning the offense for a year or two, they will be a tandem you won't be able to stop.

The Packers will also have Donald Lee at tight end, and though he's not a great receiving tight end, he is a great blocking tight end.

I also agree with you about the Packers WR. I don't know how some can say their receivers are as good as they are. I think what makes them decent is they understand the offense and run good routes, but their hands as a whole are mediocre at best and they've been dropping key passes long before the Super Bowl. James Jones becomes a free agent and Driver is getting older, so this needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Larry Fitzgerald and Greg Jennings are really good friends and actually workout competitively against each other in the offseason. Larry fits the Packers mold of the type of personality that would work in the Green Bay organization, but it probably isn't much more than a nice thought considering Ted Thompson likes to keep a tight wallet.

I don't think you'll see Green Bay spend one of their top picks on a Running Back. The Packers are too smart to waste a pick on a RB that high. You can put anyone behind a good O-line and they will run for 1000 yards, but the Packers had neither a RB nor an O-line they could rely on once Grant went down. I think Starks showed good promise, and with Grant coming back, they will have plenty to count on at RB, so long as they improve that O-line, so I see them picking up another lineman or two before another RB.

[redwing77]

I only disagree with you when it comes to the Packers TE's. Jermichael Finley is a stud as a receiving tight end, Aaron considers him the best in the league (maybe a bit biased, but he's one of the best no doubt). His blocking had improved. If he was healthy all year, the Packers would have been more of a monster than they already were. If you look at Finley's first year and a half at Tight End, he seemed virtually worthless at times, but showed promise here and there...then he figured it out, and became a stud. I think Andrew Quarless, who was the primary tight end most of the year for the Packers fits that same mold. He was a rookie, and his body is extremely athletic (huge and quick). Once he "gets it" like Finley after learning the offense for a year or two, they will be a tandem you won't be able to stop.

The Packers will also have Donald Lee at tight end, and though he's not a great receiving tight end, he is a great blocking tight end.

True, but they don't have great depth. After Quarless, who do they have? Sure, I don't think Lee, Quarless, and Finley will all go down at one time but... I'd like to see more depth. Quarless will have to explode and Finley will have to keep up the half seasons' worth of studness to not make my claim true.

I also agree with you about the Packers WR. I don't know how some can say their receivers are as good as they are. I think what makes them decent is they understand the offense and run good routes, but their hands as a whole are mediocre at best and they've been dropping key passes long before the Super Bowl. James Jones becomes a free agent and Driver is getting older, so this needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Larry Fitzgerald and Greg Jennings are really good friends and actually workout competitively against each other in the offseason. Larry fits the Packers mold of the type of personality that would work in the Green Bay organization, but it probably isn't much more than a nice thought considering Ted Thompson likes to keep a tight wallet.

I wonder how much their ownership has to do with the wallet. To be honest, I'm not sure how that whole situation works.

I say, bye bye Jones. And if Driver wishes to stay, I say keep him provided he asks for the right price. He's a good leader and locker room guy. He's not bad in the field. A good #4 WR if GB decides to run it that way. Signing Larry Fitzgerald would be a great move. Jennings is probably the closest of all the WRs to be reliable with his hands, but he's still not eyebrow raising good in that department.

I was extremely happy that the Packers won the Super Bowl despite an almost unbelievable amount of mediocrity that the WR Corps displayed. They didn't exactly suck, but I wouldn't call them any better than "meh."

I say if there is a great option in the first or second round for a WR with great hands, I'd be ok if they drafted the guy. However, it's unlikely they will.

I don't think you'll see Green Bay spend one of their top picks on a Running Back. The Packers are too smart to waste a pick on a RB that high. You can put anyone behind a good O-line and they will run for 1000 yards, but the Packers had neither a RB nor an O-line they could rely on once Grant went down. I think Starks showed good promise, and with Grant coming back, they will have plenty to count on at RB, so long as they improve that O-line, so I see them picking up another lineman or two before another RB.

I don't know. Certainly not the first or second round. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a 3rd or 4th round pick. No lower than 7th round. Grant is coming off of a big time injury, Starks has to show more than just flashes of brilliance (not to mention keep up a good work ethic), and Brandon Jackson is about as good as he's going to get. I'd love to see the Packers draft a RB perhaps in the mold of a Chester Taylor... Perhaps because I'm not sold on Jackson or Starks.

[Big A HG]

In terms of TE's...I'm not sure what you see that I don't about the tight end situation, but I guess we can agree to disagree.

In terms of WR's...a fast WR with great hands is useless if he isn't a good route runner. You need to run precise routes in a modified West Coast offense like the Packers do, and that's what has made mediocre WR's successful in the Packers offense of late.

In terms of RB's...a great RB is useless without at least a good O-line. The line has been the primary reason why the Packers haven't been greatly successful at running the ball. The poor running game the Packers are believed to have is a bit of an abberation. Before this year, Ryan Grant was a top-4 RB statistics-wise over the previous 3-4 seasons, which has been quietly impressive. This was likely overshadowed by the whole Favre/Rodgers situation. Then, when Grant went down, in came Jackson. That guy is just terrible, and has led people to believe the Packers can't be a good running team without a good RB. When Starks came in, you saw a big change. Starks, despite only having limited playing time so far, is without a doubt the best RB on the team, even moreso than Grant. Starks is patient in waiting for a hole, finds holes that Grant couldn't find, and always runs downhill even when tackled, gaining a few extra yards on poor plays. He also has the quick burst through a hole that may only be there for an instant. He's not the next Adrian Peterson, but more like a poor man's Chris Johnson...and I'm fine with that. If the Packers had a better offensive line, Starts would be a 1100 yard rusher guaranteed, and if lucky, maybe more. So, IMPROVE THE OFFENSIVE LINE!!

[redwing77]

Big A Hg-

You guessed what I'd do if I were Ted Thompson at the draft with my first and perhaps second round picks! Definitely going after OLine.

What I see in the TE position: I don't think a half season and a partial season (due to injury) can justify complete faith. Todd Heap, Jay Novacek, Shannon Sharpe (I think he was a TE at one time? Sterling was a WR...), Ozzie Newsome, Mike Ditka, Tony Gonzalez, and so on didn't garner their reputations on 8-14 games over two seasons. IF Finley can stay healthy and put up that kind of play (even if it isn't putting up that kind of numbers), then great. If not, then GB should be concerned.

And you just justified my concerns on RB. Brandon Jackson isn't a great RB. I'd love to see him on another team, but if not, he'd be an ok short yardage guy or perhaps he can be trained to block on pass plays. Starks may turn into the premier back but he still may not. I thought Tyrone Wheatley and Rashan Salaam would turn into great NFL RBs due to their speed and strength but they busted out. Starks has speed and strength and he has shown signs of greatness. But Grant is coming off of an injury and you have Starks. Not much depth, no?

I'd like to see a RB taken in perhaps the 3rd or 4th round.

Maybe we need a CB to replace Woodson? Woodson may have another year (I don't know if he's a free agent or is going to retire or not) left but it would be nice to draft his replacement this year.

[Big A HG]

I don't think the Packers need a star running back. They just need a guy who can be consistent and keep a defense honest to keep passing lanes open for Rodgers. The O-line is a huge help for that run game and to keep Rodgers standing...can't afford to lose him for any length of time.

Nnamdi Asomugha from Oakland is one of the best cover corners in the league. Rumor has it that he has stated he would love to either play with the Jets or Packers. The only problem is, he'll come at a price, and that's not particularly Ted Thompson's style. Hypothetically speaking, let's say Green Bay signed Nnamdi. That would put Tramon and Asomugha at the CB spots, with Sam Shields continuing to grow at the nickelback spot. Charles Woodson would then move back to safety with Nick Collins. This also is huge in a dime defense where Woodson can move back up to CB, allowing Peprah/Burnett to come back in at safety. By the time Charles is done, Morgan Burnett will be ready to step into the role Woodson was in at safety. If the Packers signed Asomugha, I don't think you can find a better secondary in the history of the NFL.

The Packers will likely need a DE because it will be very tough to fill the hole that Cullen Jenkins will leave because he is most likely not coming back. Cullen is a stud and one of the most overrated defensive guys in the NFL, but being a free agent, he will be wanting more than the Packers are likely wanting to give...which is no surprise to either side of the negotiating table by the sounds of it.

James Jones will be a tough keep as well, which means the Packers will need to find a reliable WR.

I'd say here's how the draft goes for the Packers (can't remember what other picks we may or may not have due to past deals, and too lazy to look):

1) O-line

2) D-line

3) 3-4 style OLB

4) WR

5) RB

6) O-line

7) Best available

Matt Flynn has been talked about as a good trade chip. He's garnered some interest after his play against the Patriots. He's backed up Rodgers for a couple years now, so he's got a good understanding of a pass-first offense. His only downside is limited playing time, thus making it a high-risk/high-reward time trade for whoever would want him. I can easily see Thompson moving Flynn to move up in the draft in the first round if he feels like he can get an immediate impact player.

[redwing77]

YOu won't get a star rb with a 3rd or 4th round pick unless you pull a Belicheck and get lucky.

I agree with you about the DE position. Although defensively, I'd love to get the other Matthews kid out of Oregon... but doubt that will happen.

I also think that the Packers won't get that CB guy. However, the Jets picking him up would be HILARIOUS as he was the source of Revis' holdout.

I don't think the Packers would be bad off if Jones left. The guy is good for at least one key drop a game. And Rodgers didn't often go back to him after he dropped the ball last post season.

I'd still say that the Packers should draft a WR...

Here's my draft order:

1. OL

2. DE

3. WR

4. RB

5. OLB

6. OL

7. Best available