Rams at Packers Divisional Thread - Your pick?

[LinvilleGorge]

Just now, t96 said:

Also, remember how well we played the Packers after the first 3 drives or so? That was with Teddy B stinking it up too... Once we get our QB in this draft, I don't think we're all that far off from competing.

Me neither. This young D will keep improving and our offensive weapons are legit. We need to focus on getting a QB first and foremost, then building on the OL and secondary. Those are the big gaps on this roster IMO.

[top dawg]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

But he does have arguably the single best WR in the game. Our #1 WR that year was a former bust most had written off as just a special teamer.

Yeah, they may be an underrated bunch

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, OldhamA said:

They had Favre before him. Seems a little unfair. They deserve a few seasons of Freeman when he finally retires.

I grant Favre was good, but nowhere near as good as Rodgers.

Rodgers is just on another level.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, t96 said:

I agree on Adams, though I think Olsen in 2015 was good enough as a receiver to be pretty close to cancelling Adams out. Ginn and Cotchery were not great by any means, but they were better than what Rodgers has behind Adams... And I have no idea who the Pack's TEs are.

Their starting TE has 11 TDs and probably has the highest catch percentage in NFL history for a player with 50+ targets.  He's caught 52 of 59 targets.

[OldhamA]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I grant Favre was good, but nowhere near as good as Rodgers.

Rodgers is just on another level.

Favre played in an era when QBs were allowed to be hit and CBs were allowed to be within 5 yards of the WR.

He was incredibly good. 

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I grant Favre was good, but nowhere near as good as Rodgers.

Rodgers is just on another level.

But way more fun to watch. Favre was probably the single most fun to watch player as a neutral observer in NFL history. Whether it was great or awful, it sure as hell wasn't gonna be boring.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, OldhamA said:

Favre played in an era when QBs were allowed to be hit and CBs were allowed to be within 5 yards of the WR.

He was incredibly good. 

Nowhere near as consistent though.

Favre could throw a pass that would make you go OMG followed immediately afterward by one that made you go WTF.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

But way more fun to watch. Favre was probably the single most fun to watch player as a neutral observer in NFL history. Whether it was great or awful, it sure as hell wasn't gonna be boring.

Wouldn't argue that. He absolutely loved playing football too.

[t96]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Their starting TE has 11 TDs and probably has the highest catch percentage in NFL history for a player with 50+ targets.  He's caught 52 of 59 targets.

Rodgers had 48 TDs, someone had to catch them... None of that surprises me. From what I've watched of the Packers this year, which I admit has not been a ton, that TE has not stood out at all to me. Not saying he's some scrub, I just don't know. I do know though that Rodgers has done more with this well below average group than many other "elite" QBs this year have done with much much better receiving weapons, including Mahomes, Allen, Wilson, etc. Not even trying to take away from any of the Pack's receivers, just giving Rodgers credit where it's due as this was one of the best seasons from a QB in league history.

[Mr. Scot]

Boy, that was a hard, tough run.

[top dawg]

Just now, t96 said:

Rodgers had 48 TDs, someone had to catch them... None of that surprises me. From what I've watched of the Packers this year, which I admit has not been a ton, that TE has not stood out at all to me. Not saying he's some scrub, I just don't know. I do know though that Rodgers has done more with this well below average group than many other "elite" QBs this year have done with much much better receiving weapons, including Mahomes, Allen, Wilson, etc. Not even trying to take away from any of the Pack's receivers, just giving Rodgers credit where it's due as this was one of the best seasons from a QB in league history.

I think you're underestimating the quality of their receivers. 

[t96]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I grant Favre was good, but nowhere near as good as Rodgers.

Rodgers is just on another level.

You have to take into account the way passing in the NFL has developed over time. Favre had an absurd stretch in the 90s with 3 straight MVPs and multiple other dominant seasons, compared to what other QBs were doing at the time. Looking at raw stats, yes Rodgers is wayyyy better. But the eye test with both of them in their primes, I'd say is pretty close. I'd still give it to Rodgers, and career wise, yes Rodgers' prime has lasted much longer than Favre's did. But Favre in his prime was not far off from Rodgers.

[OldhamA]

Hurricanes had to play Cook and Akers for like 6 straight years. 

Glad they're both in the NFL now - fantastic RBs.

[LinvilleGorge]

Just now, t96 said:

Rodgers had 48 TDs, someone had to catch them... None of that surprises me. From what I've watched of the Packers this year, which I admit has not been a ton, that TE has not stood out at all to me. Not saying he's some scrub, I just don't know. I do know though that Rodgers has done more with this well below average group than many other "elite" QBs this year have done with much much better receiving weapons, including Mahomes, Allen, Wilson, etc. Not even trying to take away from any of the Pack's receivers, just giving Rodgers credit where it's due as this was one of the best seasons from a QB in league history.

Oh, for sure. I wouldn't call the Oackers' unit one of the better in the league. Adams is ELITE. The rest of the bunch is below average. But that guy in the backfield behind/beside Rodgers is no slouch himself. Overall, I'd say their skills position talent averages out to be average to slightly above average.