Packers Huddle

Here's the team by team roster rankings from PFF going into the 2022 season

GB ranked # 6 in the entire league last summer.
There have been additions/subtractions and upgrades & downgrades- looking forward to seeing the 2023 rankings.
I'm guessing GB is right around 10th -12th going into the new season.

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-roster-ran ... -lineup#GB

Here's the Team OL rankings from PFF - going into the 2023 season

GB ranks # 8

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-offensive- ... -offseason

.

BSA wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2023 14:09

Here's the Team OL rankings from PFF - going into the 2023 season

GB ranks # 8

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-offensive- ... -offseason

.

With this many new faces, and especially a new QB1, give me the 8th best roster going into TC anytime!

CWIMM wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2023 03:00

APB wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023 09:03

A survey of ~1100 Packer fans about the expectations for this year, their opponents, and other team/individual player expectations. Seems pretty much on par with what we've discussed here. Some high on Packers, some low, but most expect an 8-10 win season while competing for a division/wild card spot in the playoffs.

It's interesting there's that much optimism about the Packers entering this season. I believe they will end up being closer to drafting first overall than making the playoffs.

Intersting.

I truly believe the 2023 Packers are better than the 2022 Packers.

That being said, I also truly believe the 2022 Packers was worse than its 8-9 record. I believe the 2022 Packers was more like a 6-11 team.

go pak go wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2023 15:42

CWIMM wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2023 03:00

APB wrote: ↑

27 Jul 2023 09:03

A survey of ~1100 Packer fans about the expectations for this year, their opponents, and other team/individual player expectations. Seems pretty much on par with what we've discussed here. Some high on Packers, some low, but most expect an 8-10 win season while competing for a division/wild card spot in the playoffs.

It's interesting there's that much optimism about the Packers entering this season. I believe they will end up being closer to drafting first overall than making the playoffs.

Intersting.

I truly believe the 2023 Packers are better than the 2022 Packers.

That being said, I also truly believe the 2022 Packers was worse than its 8-9 record. I believe the 2022 Packers was more like a 6-11 team.

I get what you're saying but they could have just as easily been an 11-6 team as 6-11. You can show me evidence of both being the more accurate portrait.

The 2022 Packers were an enigma. Good enough some weekends to compete with the best of teams yet inconsistent and bad enough to also lose on any given weekend.

One way to get a handle on team strength is to look at Point Differential- its highly predictive

Last year, GB point differential was -1 and that indicates a non-playoff team. Ironically, the vikes PD was -3 and as we saw opening weekend of the postseason - they weren't a playoff team either. In this case the PD told the real story more than the W/L column. The lovable Lions were +26 last year, that's hardly a juggernaut. We'll see how they handle some success

If you want to be a top caliber team, your PD should be + 80 or more.
Look at SF and the Eagles at +173 and + 133. Those are strong /good playoff caliber teams.

.

BSA wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2023 18:18

One way to get a handle on team strength is to look at Point Differential- its highly predictive

Last year, GB point differential was -1 and that indicates a non-playoff team. Ironically, the vikes PD was -3 and as we saw opening weekend of the postseason - they weren't a playoff team either. In this case the PD told the real story more than the W/L column. The lovable Lions were +26 last year, that's hardly a juggernaut. We'll see how they handle some success

If you want to be a top caliber team, your PD should be + 80 or more.
Look at SF and the Eagles at +173 and + 133. Those are strong /good playoff caliber teams.

.

image.png

Da Bears

The Eagles lost both coordinators. Whatever that means...........

NFC South. Ouch.

BSA wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2023 13:46

Here's the team by team roster rankings from PFF going into the 2022 season

GB ranked # 6 in the entire league last summer.
There have been additions/subtractions and upgrades & downgrades- looking forward to seeing the 2023 rankings.
I'm guessing GB is right around 10th -12th going into the new season.

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-roster-ran ... -lineup#GB

I would be shocked if any expert out there believes the Packers have the 10th or 12th best roster in the league. I fully expect most to consider them to be in the bottom third entering the season.

go pak go wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2023 15:42

Intersting.

I truly believe the 2023 Packers are better than the 2022 Packers.

The 2023 Packers might have more potential show years down the road than last year's team but I fully expect their inexperience to result in a lot of struggles this season. Therefore I don't believe they will get anywhere near making the playoffs.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 05:44

BSA wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2023 13:46

Here's the team by team roster rankings from PFF going into the 2022 season

GB ranked # 6 in the entire league last summer.
There have been additions/subtractions and upgrades & downgrades- looking forward to seeing the 2023 rankings.
I'm guessing GB is right around 10th -12th going into the new season.

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-roster-ran ... -lineup#GB

I would be shocked if any expert out there believes the Packers have the 10th or 12th best roster in the league. I fully expect most to consider them to be in the bottom third entering the season.

go pak go wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2023 15:42

Intersting.

I truly believe the 2023 Packers are better than the 2022 Packers.

The 2023 Packers might have more potential show years down the road than last year's team but I fully expect their inexperience to result in a lot of struggles this season. Therefore I don't believe they will get anywhere near making the playoffs.

Yeah, but what about the rest of the NFC North? Da Bears are just plain bad. The Lions and Vikings are not much better. A 9-8 record might very well win the NFC north and a playoff spot.

IMO it depends on team health and that depends on when they get Gary and Stokes back and when they are 100%.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 06:01

Yeah, but what about the rest of the NFC North? Da Bears are just plain bad. The Lions and Vikings are not much better. A 9-8 record might very well win the NFC north and a playoff spot.

IMO it depends on team health and that depends on when they get Gary and Stokes back and when they are 100%.

I don't expect any NFC North team to finish the season with a particularly great record but consider the Lions favorites to win the division with the Vikings finishing in second. The Packers will compete with the Bears for third.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 06:06

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 06:01

Yeah, but what about the rest of the NFC North? Da Bears are just plain bad. The Lions and Vikings are not much better. A 9-8 record might very well win the NFC north and a playoff spot.

IMO it depends on team health and that depends on when they get Gary and Stokes back and when they are 100%.

I don't expect any NFC North team to finish the season with a particularly great record but consider the Lions favorites to win the division with the Vikings finishing in second. The Packers will compete with the Bears for third.

I disagree.

The Packers were 8-9 last year with injuries and middling QB play. They have since bolstered several positions of importance while (presumably) gaining back those injured players. The big question, obviously, will be Love taking over at QB.

Love isn't replacing HOF level QB play. Love is replacing middling QB play that had the Packers competing for a division title up until the final weekend - a game they were favored to win. If the Packers can get middling QB play (or better) from Love this year, I think they'll be right back in the thick of things come January.

No, I don't expect them to compete for a championship, at least not this year, but I do think they'll be competing for the division or a wildcard spot.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 05:44

BSA wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2023 13:46

Here's the team by team roster rankings from PFF going into the 2022 season

GB ranked # 6 in the entire league last summer.
There have been additions/subtractions and upgrades & downgrades- looking forward to seeing the 2023 rankings.
I'm guessing GB is right around 10th -12th going into the new season.

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-roster-ran ... -lineup#GB

I would be shocked if any expert out there believes the Packers have the 10th or 12th best roster in the league. I fully expect most to consider them to be in the bottom third entering the season.

go pak go wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2023 15:42

Intersting.

I truly believe the 2023 Packers are better than the 2022 Packers.

The 2023 Packers might have more potential show years down the road than last year's team but I fully expect their inexperience to result in a lot of struggles this season. Therefore I don't believe they will get anywhere near making the playoffs.

You are correct. The national media is very down on our roster. I believe I heard ESPN may be more bullish in Chicago than GB.

However, there are also some names in the national media that are quite bullish on Green Bay and think they could surprise people.

That is ultimately where I stand.

When I look at our schedule, I see a very good chance of starting hot our first 9 games. Our death stretch is mid November through early December

The first 9 games could work for or against us. On one hand, it could build confidence early and we start rolling. On the other hand, we may lose our opportunity to build wins vs winnable opponents as our own roster builds into its shoes.

But I am bullish. I think 9 to 12 wins and an NFC north Title is a possibility. But I'm not expecting anything.

And that's why I'm so excited for this season

CWIMM wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 06:06

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 06:01

Yeah, but what about the rest of the NFC North? Da Bears are just plain bad. The Lions and Vikings are not much better. A 9-8 record might very well win the NFC north and a playoff spot.

IMO it depends on team health and that depends on when they get Gary and Stokes back and when they are 100%.

I don't expect any NFC North team to finish the season with a particularly great record but consider the Lions favorites to win the division with the Vikings finishing in second. The Packers will compete with the Bears for third.

I saw that prediction yesterday on yahoo, it's formulated on the basic thinking that Love being a first year starter will struggle, the WR's lack experience, and Barry isn't a good enough DC, it fails to realize that Love has sat behind a HOF, and in a scheme set he is well acquainted with, same with these young receivers, it's as though whomever wrote that has never seen a second year leap, and Watson over the last half of last season showed he's easily up to the task to produce well over a 1000 yrds, it's bonkers to not expect that since he lost half the season last year and still had close to 700 yards, same for Doubs, to expect regression makes no sense, throw in Reed, Toure, Wicks and these TE's and we finally have depth at receiver.

never have understood why people think Rookie receivers can't do well, specially since half a doz every single year prove they can, of course they have stuff to learn, but they do produce and the stats show it.

maybe I'am more optimistic then most others, but I've always been a think I can type person, and I love hearing that from all our young players this year, they believe in themselves, and believing is half the battle, I still hold with my earlier view, Love will impress, the receiver group has vastly improved, and Gray was the biggest problem with the defense, all other things considered I still expect a 10 to 12 win season and PO's

never have understood why people think Rookie receivers can't do well

No one thinks this...

What many are saying is that it is not a common occurrence for a rookie wide receiver to get into that #1 or #2 WR range of production. 50 rookie WRs in the history of the NFL have hit 900 yards (138 with 700+ yards). https://stathead.com/tiny/hnCGY

Let's take it 1 step further. In the history of the NFL, 103 rookies drafted outside of the 1st round went for 600+ yards. https://stathead.com/tiny/ZMaVf

Now, if we limit to 1990 and look at all rookies, and assume that "a half dozen, do well," that bar would be set at 467 yards or about 27.5 yards a game... I am not sure I would call that doing well.

go pak go wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 10:23

The national media is very down on our roster.

Day 1 Headline: Rodgers is washed !
Day 2 Headline: The Packers are toast without Rodgers !

The national media has one main goal - and that's to sell advertising. They don't care about being right or offering inside insight- they care about eyeballs on their ads. Its how they earn a living. So anybody who leans on the national media as a barometer of the Packers talent is missing the boat. Agitating Packer fans = More revenue

That's why I keep linking info from other more legitimate sources

Here's another one; The Sagarin Ratings, used by bettors.

At the end of last season, GB was ranked # 8, 9 or 10 in the league depending on which ranking methods are used
(note where the legendary lions and the vincible vikings are ranked)

The Packers are a good team and I agree with go pak go that the 2023 roster is gonna be better than the 2022 roster

http://sagarin.com/sports/nflsend.htm


The national media and our rivals are all dreaming about the Packers sucking...in part because GB has been so good for so long.

But they're all going to be very disappointed. The 2023 Packers will be playing meaningful football in December

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 11:40

never have understood why people think Rookie receivers can't do well

No one thinks this...

What many are saying is that it is not a common occurrence for a rookie wide receiver to get into that #1 or #2 WR range of production. 50 rookie WRs in the history of the NFL have hit 900 yards (138 with 700+ yards). https://stathead.com/tiny/hnCGY

Let's take it 1 step further. In the history of the NFL, 103 rookies drafted outside of the 1st round went for 600+ yards. https://stathead.com/tiny/ZMaVf

Now, if we limit to 1990 and look at all rookies, and assume that "a half dozen, do well," that bar would be set at 467 yards or about 27.5 yards a game... I am not sure I would call that doing well.

thats because most team don't wait till the last quality receiver they have is out the door before drafting replacements, it's like Cobb was for us in 2010, or Jordy a year earlier, they had to wait behind proven receivers to get on the fieldm Cobb had almost a 1000 yards year two and was easily ready to do that as a rookie, cept he had GJ, Nelson, Jones and double D ahead of him, most of the top tier receivers drafted play well as rookies.

Yoop wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 13:01

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 11:40

never have understood why people think Rookie receivers can't do well

No one thinks this...

What many are saying is that it is not a common occurrence for a rookie wide receiver to get into that #1 or #2 WR range of production. 50 rookie WRs in the history of the NFL have hit 900 yards (138 with 700+ yards). https://stathead.com/tiny/hnCGY

Let's take it 1 step further. In the history of the NFL, 103 rookies drafted outside of the 1st round went for 600+ yards. https://stathead.com/tiny/ZMaVf

Now, if we limit to 1990 and look at all rookies, and assume that "a half dozen, do well," that bar would be set at 467 yards or about 27.5 yards a game... I am not sure I would call that doing well.

thats because most team don't wait till the last quality receiver they have is out the door before drafting replacements, it's like Cobb was for us in 2010, or Jordy a year earlier, they had to wait behind proven receivers to get on the fieldm Cobb had almost a 1000 yards year two and was easily ready to do that as a rookie, cept he had GJ, Nelson, Jones and double D ahead of him, most of the top tier receivers drafted play well as rookies.

What I posted was not just the Packers, it was the entire history of the league or 1990 on. I think it is very understandable to be skeptical of a rookie coming in and doing well. I've shown that is not a common occurrence. Not a half dozen each year and most definitely not most of the top tier receivers. Does that not bring some understanding?

I find the discussion about projections of the Pack's record to be both entertaining and fascinating.

I usually have a pretty firm belief about where the season is going to go, even when I'm wrong.

Not this season.

I think there is a some very good young talent that I am looking forward to see develop. I think there is a palpable sensation of relief with #12 gone. I think this might be the easiest schedule I can remember the Packers playing.

I also think that Joe Barry is still the Defensive Coordinator and that the biggest pass rush threat is unlikely to ever be 100% this season. I think that teams are going to attack the GB offense in ways we have not seen in recent years and I mostly think that this is year 1 for Jordan Love.

I'll be satisfied if the team wins at least 7 games (1 more than Rodgers won in his first season as a starter) and Jordan Love shows promise that he can be a top tier QB.

I'll be dissatisfied if this is year 13 of disappointing defensive play.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 13:10

Yoop wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 13:01

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 11:40

No one thinks this...

What many are saying is that it is not a common occurrence for a rookie wide receiver to get into that #1 or #2 WR range of production. 50 rookie WRs in the history of the NFL have hit 900 yards (138 with 700+ yards). https://stathead.com/tiny/hnCGY

Let's take it 1 step further. In the history of the NFL, 103 rookies drafted outside of the 1st round went for 600+ yards. https://stathead.com/tiny/ZMaVf

Now, if we limit to 1990 and look at all rookies, and assume that "a half dozen, do well," that bar would be set at 467 yards or about 27.5 yards a game... I am not sure I would call that doing well.

thats because most team don't wait till the last quality receiver they have is out the door before drafting replacements, it's like Cobb was for us in 2010, or Jordy a year earlier, they had to wait behind proven receivers to get on the fieldm Cobb had almost a 1000 yards year two and was easily ready to do that as a rookie, cept he had GJ, Nelson, Jones and double D ahead of him, most of the top tier receivers drafted play well as rookies.

What I posted was not just the Packers, it was the entire history of the league or 1990 on. I think it is very understandable to be skeptical of a rookie coming in and doing well. I've shown that is not a common occurrence. Not a half dozen each year and most definitely not most of the top tier receivers. Does that not bring some understanding?

no more then realizing if more opportunity where allowed for Rookies to play these stats would change