NFL.com Power Rankings: Seahawks are #1 (UPDATED 9/8)

[Popeyejones]

^^^^ Careful, I'm a 9ers fan, so agreeing with me doesn't really help either of us. :lol:

I don't recall a team that was as complacent as the Packers have been this year ever being better the following year.

What made them complacent?

If it's that they weren't active players in the FA or trade market, they've been doing that forever and it has clearly been working for them.

If it's that they drafted with an eye toward the long-term they've also been doing that forever and it has clearly been working for them.

If anything, they were more active bringing back their own quality players than usual, IMO. I can't really think of anything else about their offseason that stands out as being un-Packers-like.

 

[rideaducati]

I keep seeing people pick the Packers because they're bringing back all their players. Aren't these same players that couldn't get it done last year?

I don't have a problem with people picking GB but having 'all their players are returning' could make them better but it could also make them the same.

FWIW outside of Seattle I think folks generally think that the Packers were a better team in the NFCCG that just sh!t the bed on some really bad bounces.

I'm not saying this is correct, just relaying a general impression.

The uninformed think that because they can't look past the scoreboard. Seahawks fans look at it like the Seahawks GAVE the Packers a 16 point lead just to make it fair. The NFL wanted the game to be close, so the Seahawks obliged.

 

[Popeyejones]

The uninformed think that because they can't look past the scoreboard. Seahawks fans look at it like the Seahawks GAVE the Packers a 16 point lead just to make it fair. The NFL wanted the game to be close, so the Seahawks obliged.

My point was that my general impression is that football fans inside and outside of Seattle tend to think about the NFCCG a little differently. As for if, as you claim, that's because a) NFL fans outside of Seattle are stupid, b) The Seahawks "gave" the Packers 16 points, or C) there's an NFL conspiracy, I guess is up for debate, but it seems we agree on my basic point.

 

[ptisme]

I keep seeing people pick the Packers because they're bringing back all their players. Aren't these same players that couldn't get it done last year?

I don't have a problem with people picking GB but having 'all their players are returning' could make them better but it could also make them the same.

Here is the reason for optimism (which you are free to disagree with):
1. Keeping the same team and adding no one only means you'll get worse if you have an older team with no room for individual improvement. Green Bay had a NUMBER of first and second year players really coming on at the end of last year. When you have one of the youngest teams in the league, they will get better via development.
2. Continuity: As the season went on, GB had one of the top OLINES in the league with a rookie center and a second year LT. Another off season together should make this group even better. A lot can be said for five guys gaining game experience together re picking up blitzes and run assignments.
3. The defense: The middle of the Packers defense has been the achilles heel of the Packers for five years.
a. The Packers went from one of the worst run defenses in the league to one of the best when Clay Matthews moved inside. They plan to move him all around now so offenses will not know where he's coming from till the last second. He'll also have an actual off season to learn the position. Think he's not important to this defense? Look how Seattle was able to move the ball in the NFCCG after he got hurt....
b. Add to that Rookie Sam Barrington will have a full off season to work as the starter there now. The rookie showed skill and tenacity there last year after he replaced the slow and ineffective AJ Hawk and Brad Jones at mid season.
c. Ha Ha Clinton Dix filled the gapping hole left by the injury that retired pro bowler Nick Collins. The long pass plays we saw in previous years were a thing of the past. Year two bigger things are expected of the rook.
d. BJ Raji. He's back from his biceps tear and has looked un-blockable in camp. With him, rising star Mike Daniels and the very effective LeTroy Guion, the Packers look to be very stout up front this year.
e. The cornerbacks: Gone are the aging (lost a step) Tramon Williams and the oft injured Davon House. Replacing them are ball hawk (and former all rookie team) Casey Hayward opposite solid Sam Shields. The Packers top two picks have looked good in camp as has second year man Demetri Goodson.... No one can remember the last time Rodgers got picked off 6 times in camp, a testament to these young talented corners.

Lastly, Packers fans feel that had they gotten to the super bowl they would have beaten New England. Seattle in Seattle has been a stumbling block for Green Bay so it's huge that we beat you here week two. You will disagree with this but Packers fans feel we will beat you at Lambeau which will put us a full game ahead of you in the standings and a leg up for home field... And we very much like our chances at Lambeau in January with a team that can finally run the ball and stop the run....

 

[rideaducati]

Complacent: showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.

The Packers didn't even try to get better. They are satisfied with what they had. They think they can get better results from the same players when the team they couldn't beat last year got even better. That is being complacent and smug.

The Packers have never won a Super Bowl without a big time player that was brought in as a free agent, but they think they can do it now.

Good luck. I don't think they can do it. It hasn't worked before, which is why the 80's Packers were so bad. Those Packer teams were complacent while being bad. At least this complacent Packer team is good. A great QB moves a team up from average, but not high enough to win it all.

I just don't see them getting better results from the same team that wasn't good enough to get it done last year considering the team they couldn't beat got better.

 

[ptisme]

Complacent: showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.

The Packers didn't even try to get better. They are satisfied with what they had. They think they can get better results from the same players when the team they couldn't beat last year got even better. That is being complacent and smug.

The Packers have never won a Super Bowl without a big time player that was brought in as a free agent, but they think they can do it now.

Good luck. I don't think they can do it. It hasn't worked before, which is why the 80's Packers were so bad. Those Packer teams were complacent while being bad. At least this complacent Packer team is good. A great QB moves a team up from average, but not high enough to win it all.

I just don't see them getting better results from the same team that wasn't good enough to get it done last year considering the team they couldn't beat got better.

The highlighted is one of the dumber insights I've seen in a long time. You do realize the 80's were pre free agency right? The 80's Packers were bad because of poor drafting and horrible coaching, not because they didn't sign the imaginary free agent....

 

[ptisme]

Complacent: showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.

The Packers didn't even try to get better. They are satisfied with what they had. They think they can get better results from the same players when the team they couldn't beat last year got even better. That is being complacent and smug.

The Packers have never won a Super Bowl without a big time player that was brought in as a free agent, but they think they can do it now.

Good luck. I don't think they can do it. It hasn't worked before, which is why the 80's Packers were so bad. Those Packer teams were complacent while being bad. At least this complacent Packer team is good. A great QB moves a team up from average, but not high enough to win it all.

I just don't see them getting better results from the same team that wasn't good enough to get it done last year considering the team they couldn't beat got better.

See my previous post where this is refuted.... PS, Please inform us who the Packers should have signed this past off season that:
a. Would have balanced the loss of Randall Cobb and Bryan Bulaga whom they wouldn't have been able to afford to resign as a result.
b. would have been worth putting them in a salary cap situation as more young players come to the end of their contracts.
c. Would have been better than the players they have or drafted.

 

[ptisme]

Complacent: showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.

The Packers didn't even try to get better. They are satisfied with what they had. They think they can get better results from the same players when the team they couldn't beat last year got even better. That is being complacent and smug.

The Packers have never won a Super Bowl without a big time player that was brought in as a free agent, but they think they can do it now.

Good luck. I don't think they can do it. It hasn't worked before, which is why the 80's Packers were so bad. Those Packer teams were complacent while being bad. At least this complacent Packer team is good. A great QB moves a team up from average, but not high enough to win it all.

I just don't see them getting better results from the same team that wasn't good enough to get it done last year considering the team they couldn't beat got better.

Do you actually think GB is average at it's other positions from quarterback? They have very good receivers, a very good running back, one of the best offensive lines in the entire league, and what I think will be a top 12 defense (which should be more than enough considering many here believe the 2015 Packers could have the best offense Green Bay has ever had, which is saying something!).

 

[rideaducati]

I think moving Matthews inside was a surprise and will now be schemed for. I don't think the results will be as good going forward. Replacing DBs with new players is quite likely to mean growing pains early on.

I love the Seahawks chances because the pass game has better options and the last time these two teams played, the Seahawks ran over the Packer D even with Matthews inside. I hope the Packers believe that they'll be handed five turnovers this time because it happened last time too.

GO HAWKS!

 

[rideaducati]

Complacent: showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.

The Packers didn't even try to get better. They are satisfied with what they had. They think they can get better results from the same players when the team they couldn't beat last year got even better. That is being complacent and smug.

The Packers have never won a Super Bowl without a big time player that was brought in as a free agent, but they think they can do it now.

Good luck. I don't think they can do it. It hasn't worked before, which is why the 80's Packers were so bad. Those Packer teams were complacent while being bad. At least this complacent Packer team is good. A great QB moves a team up from average, but not high enough to win it all.

I just don't see them getting better results from the same team that wasn't good enough to get it done last year considering the team they couldn't beat got better.

Do you actually think GB is average at it's other positions from quarterback? They have very good receivers, a very good running back, one of the best offensive lines in the entire league, and what I think will be a top 12 defense (which should be more than enough considering many here believe the 2015 Packers could have the best offense Green Bay has ever had, which is saying something!).

I believe that Rodgers makes the wide receivers. I don't think any of them are better than good and I don't think any of them would make a bad QB better.

I haven't seen the "very good" running back in Green Bay. I think a very good running back would do better behind that O-line. He is slow and has a spin move. He outweighs linebackers and DBs, but I don't think that makes him "very good" either. He also misses a lot of games. The Packers didn't try to replace him, so he must be good enough for them.

Seattle was top ten in offense and got better and number one defensively and shouldn't be worse. I still think the Seahawks have a better overall team.

 

[Popeyejones]

I believe that Rodgers makes the wide receivers. I don't think any of them are better than good and I don't think any of them would make a bad QB better.

FWIW save for maybe three or four guys in the league I think that's basically true of all WRs. Unless I'm forgetting someone A.J. Green might be the only WR in the league who is putting up big performances with below average QB play (and that's coming from someone who doesn't think Dalton is as bad as a lot of other people think).

I haven't seen the "very good" running back in Green Bay. I think a very good running back would do better behind that O-line. He is slow and has a spin move. He outweighs linebackers and DBs, but I don't think that makes him "very good" either. He also misses a lot of games. The Packers didn't try to replace him, so he must be good enough for them.

Lacy has missed one game in two years. He averaged 4.6 YPC last year, up there with other generally considered top backs lin the league like Lynch, Murray, Bell, etc. He also conributes to the passing game much more than I think a lot of people realize when looking at his running style and body type.

 

[rideaducati]

Complacent: showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.

The Packers didn't even try to get better. They are satisfied with what they had. They think they can get better results from the same players when the team they couldn't beat last year got even better. That is being complacent and smug.

The Packers have never won a Super Bowl without a big time player that was brought in as a free agent, but they think they can do it now.

Good luck. I don't think they can do it. It hasn't worked before, which is why the 80's Packers were so bad. Those Packer teams were complacent while being bad. At least this complacent Packer team is good. A great QB moves a team up from average, but not high enough to win it all.

I just don't see them getting better results from the same team that wasn't good enough to get it done last year considering the team they couldn't beat got better.

See my previous post where this is refuted.... PS, Please inform us who the Packers should have signed this past off season that:
a. Would have balanced the loss of Randall Cobb and Bryan Bulaga whom they wouldn't have been able to afford to resign as a result.
b. would have been worth putting them in a salary cap situation as more young players come to the end of their contracts.
c. Would have been better than the players they have or drafted.

They were satisfied with what they had...complacent. I couldn't care less as to who could have or would have replaced anyone on the Packer team. I just don't think they will be better with the same players. I have no doubt that there were inexpensive players that would improve the bottom of the Packers roster, but they didn't feel inclined to improve that part of their team either.

Like I said, good luck. It hasn't worked before, so it is bound to work this time.

Complacency leads to insanity. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

 

[Ambrose83]

Their were four teams last year that were pretty even.
New England beat Seattle
Seattle beat Green Bay
Green Bay beat New England
Dallas beat Seattle
Green Bay beat Dallas....


We'll see how this season goes and injuries could happen... But I'm telling you guys, Green Bay is an entirely different animal at Lambeau...

ya they are, ask the 9ers and kap about that.

Who?

you know the team that beat you guys in that impossible place to win in the playoffs... its week 2. it wont be minus 400 degrees and your qb basically sucks against our defense and I will bet you 200% our pass rush will be much improved as will the offense.

 

[ptisme]

Complacent: showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.

The Packers didn't even try to get better. They are satisfied with what they had. They think they can get better results from the same players when the team they couldn't beat last year got even better. That is being complacent and smug.

The Packers have never won a Super Bowl without a big time player that was brought in as a free agent, but they think they can do it now.

Good luck. I don't think they can do it. It hasn't worked before, which is why the 80's Packers were so bad. Those Packer teams were complacent while being bad. At least this complacent Packer team is good. A great QB moves a team up from average, but not high enough to win it all.

I just don't see them getting better results from the same team that wasn't good enough to get it done last year considering the team they couldn't beat got better.

Do you actually think GB is average at it's other positions from quarterback? They have very good receivers, a very good running back, one of the best offensive lines in the entire league, and what I think will be a top 12 defense (which should be more than enough considering many here believe the 2015 Packers could have the best offense Green Bay has ever had, which is saying something!).

I believe that Rodgers makes the wide receivers. I don't think any of them are better than good and I don't think any of them would make a bad QB better.

I haven't seen the "very good" running back in Green Bay. I think a very good running back would do better behind that O-line. He is slow and has a spin move. He outweighs linebackers and DBs, but I don't think that makes him "very good" either. He also misses a lot of games. The Packers didn't try to replace him, so he must be good enough for them.

Seattle was top ten in offense and got better and number one defensively and shouldn't be worse. I still think the Seahawks have a better overall team.

You don't know much about my team. Most pundits view Lacy as a top five back in the league which would qualify him as "very good". SI has him rated number four.
As to him "missing a lot of games", that's the second dumbest post I've seen in a long time. He played in all 16 games last year and 15 games as a rookie in 2013.
As to the receiving corp being "not any better than good": While Rodgers makes a huge difference here, they are VERY good. NFL.com has them rated the best unit in the NFL and scout.com has them at number two behind Denver...

You should really get to know another team before you bash them.. If you'll notice, not only have I come on here and gotten to know more about your team, I NEVER bash them!

 

[ptisme]

Complacent: showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.

The Packers didn't even try to get better. They are satisfied with what they had. They think they can get better results from the same players when the team they couldn't beat last year got even better. That is being complacent and smug.

The Packers have never won a Super Bowl without a big time player that was brought in as a free agent, but they think they can do it now.

Good luck. I don't think they can do it. It hasn't worked before, which is why the 80's Packers were so bad. Those Packer teams were complacent while being bad. At least this complacent Packer team is good. A great QB moves a team up from average, but not high enough to win it all.

I just don't see them getting better results from the same team that wasn't good enough to get it done last year considering the team they couldn't beat got better.

See my previous post where this is refuted.... PS, Please inform us who the Packers should have signed this past off season that:
a. Would have balanced the loss of Randall Cobb and Bryan Bulaga whom they wouldn't have been able to afford to resign as a result.
b. would have been worth putting them in a salary cap situation as more young players come to the end of their contracts.
c. Would have been better than the players they have or drafted.

They were satisfied with what they had...complacent. I couldn't care less as to who could have or would have replaced anyone on the Packer team. I just don't think they will be better with the same players. I have no doubt that there were inexpensive players that would improve the bottom of the Packers roster, but they didn't feel inclined to improve that part of their team either.

Like I said, good luck. It hasn't worked before, so it is bound to work this time.

Complacency leads to insanity. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

It's not complacent, it's about where you choose to allocate your dollars. The Packers draft well. They choose to use their money to resign their own. Why resign their own: 1. By and large Packers players give their team a home town discount (including Rodgers who signed a VERY salary cap friendly deal). 2. Not all players fit into a different scheme. Green Bay knows that the players it resigns can fit into its system. 3. Signing free agents means less supplementary picks. The Packers LOVE supplementary picks. Consider this: Josh Sitton (our best offensive line man) and MIke Daniels (our best defensive line man) were both supplementary picks.

Lastly, Green Bay's roster is stacked. The bottom of the roster is young ascending players, not has been free agents other teams didn't want. They probably could have only really used starting caliber free agent help at ILB to keep Clay outside. But this was not a year for FA ILB's....

 

[Ambrose83]

I believe that Rodgers makes the wide receivers. I don't think any of them are better than good and I don't think any of them would make a bad QB better.

FWIW save for maybe three or four guys in the league I think that's basically true of all WRs. Unless I'm forgetting someone A.J. Green might be the only WR in the league who is putting up big performances with below average QB play (and that's coming from someone who doesn't think Dalton is as bad as a lot of other people think).

I haven't seen the "very good" running back in Green Bay. I think a very good running back would do better behind that O-line. He is slow and has a spin move. He outweighs linebackers and DBs, but I don't think that makes him "very good" either. He also misses a lot of games. The Packers didn't try to replace him, so he must be good enough for them.

Lacy has missed one game in two years. He averaged 4.6 YPC last year, up there with other generally considered top backs lin the league like Lynch, Murray, Bell, etc. He also conributes to the passing game much more than I think a lot of people realize when looking at his running style and body type.

murray is a top back now after 1 good season?

 

[ptisme]

Their were four teams last year that were pretty even.
New England beat Seattle
Seattle beat Green Bay
Green Bay beat New England
Dallas beat Seattle
Green Bay beat Dallas....


We'll see how this season goes and injuries could happen... But I'm telling you guys, Green Bay is an entirely different animal at Lambeau...

ya they are, ask the 9ers and kap about that.

Who?

you know the team that beat you guys in that impossible place to win in the playoffs... its week 2. it wont be minus 400 degrees and your qb basically sucks against our defense and I will bet you 200% our pass rush will be much improved as will the offense.

I'm sure you're right.... You guys got this... LOL...
The number one thing that makes the Packers better at Lambeau is not the whether but Aaron Rodgers. With the lack of crowd noise when the offense is on the field he is able to completely mess with defenses with cadence and changing plays at the line... The no huddle can be run because he can call plays at the line.... Those long drives in the NFCCG that ended with the Seahawks stuffing them in the red zone will likely be replaced by long plays for touchdowns.... Ask Revis island...

 

[ptisme]

The Packers suck. They'll win 10 games this year in a crappy division, then lose in the wildcard round. I'll take any (non monetary) bet on that, too.

Non monetary.... How confident you are...

 

[Popeyejones]

The Packers suck. They'll win 10 games this year in a crappy division, then lose in the wildcard round. I'll take any (non monetary) bet on that, too.

Non monetary.... How confident you are...

Yeah, if I had skin in this game I'd definitely take a bet on the side of the Packers making it past the WC round.

 

[Popeyejones]

I believe that Rodgers makes the wide receivers. I don't think any of them are better than good and I don't think any of them would make a bad QB better.

FWIW save for maybe three or four guys in the league I think that's basically true of all WRs. Unless I'm forgetting someone A.J. Green might be the only WR in the league who is putting up big performances with below average QB play (and that's coming from someone who doesn't think Dalton is as bad as a lot of other people think).

I haven't seen the "very good" running back in Green Bay. I think a very good running back would do better behind that O-line. He is slow and has a spin move. He outweighs linebackers and DBs, but I don't think that makes him "very good" either. He also misses a lot of games. The Packers didn't try to replace him, so he must be good enough for them.

Lacy has missed one game in two years. He averaged 4.6 YPC last year, up there with other generally considered top backs lin the league like Lynch, Murray, Bell, etc. He also conributes to the passing game much more than I think a lot of people realize when looking at his running style and body type.

murray is a top back now after 1 good season?

If you don't think 2013 is a good season for him too, we'll just have to disagree.

Likewise, who are the top backs who played last year and didn't just have one good season? Lacy is gonna stack up with them on YPC last year too, and also contributed 40 something receptions. Like it or not he has been a very nice piece for the Packers so far, IMO.