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

To project which NFL franchises are in the best shape for the next three seasons, we asked our panel of experts -- John Clayton, Louis Riddick and Mike Sando -- to rate each team on a scale of 0-100 in five categories: roster (excluding quarterback), quarterback, draft, front office and coaching. We had a change at the top this year, along with having a perennial Super Bowl contender fall all the way to No. 14 and another team jump from 28th to sixth.

The overview: The Packers moved up one spot from a year ago, overtaking Seattle. What was the key? Green Bay's drafting improved from 11th to first, while holding on to the top spots in the quarterback and front office categories.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/ ... easons-nfl

Click to expand...

#1 Green Bay had an overall score of 91.3, up from their 85.5 score in 2014:
GB's Coaching: 87.3
GB's Roster: 88.3
GB's QB: 98.3
GB's Draft: 91.7
GB's Front Office: 93.0

Seahawks dropped to #2 but saw an overall improvement in their score from 88.4 to 89.7:
Seahawks' Coaching: 91.7
Seahawks' Roster: 89.7
Seahawks' QB: 87.3
Seahawks' Draft: 87.3
Seahawks' Front Office: 92.3

The future for Seahawks is all about how to they manage their team-building process and salary-cap discipline when Wilson -- their Super Bowl-winning franchise quarterback -- no longer counts just $1.69 million against the cap, as he does in 2015," wrote Louis Riddick of ESPN.com. "Properly valuing Wilson is not as easy as it seems, which is a good thing for the QB, and not so good for Seattle. Linebacker Bobby Wagner is set to become a free agent in 2016 and will likely be looking for a deal that averages about $9 million per year. And maybe most importantly, the Seahawks need to start preparing for life after Marshawn Lynch, whose desire to play will be reevaluated seemingly every offseason.

Click to expand...

I don't have much objection to this , and think it basically comes down to two uncertainties:

1) Rodgers is already a (if not the) top QB in the game, and it's uncertain if Wilson will become that.

2) As long as Rodgers is around (and he will be for the next three years at least) the Packers have already shown that they can reload while remaining a special team, and there's still uncertainty about the Seahawks' offense on that front (replacing linemen, they're yet to replace Tate, and they'll need to replace Lynch in the next three years; by comparatively overspending on their defense they haven't had to, and may not need to make any major replacements).

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.

hawknation2015":o4oc2m90 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

ptisme":1xjjr0tu said:

hawknation2015":1xjjr0tu said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

hawknation2015":2pcq4bw6 said:

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

Click to expand...

Ehh, confidence is in the eye of the beholder. I think one has to be a Packers fan to like their depth/ability at those positions just as one has to be a Seahawks fan to feel confident about their depth/ability now that the team is replacing two starters on an already weak offensive line, and one has to be a 9ers fan to feel confident about their depth/ability on d-line having to replace two starters there as well.

That NONE of these units will be as good as their respective fans believe before the season starts is pretty likely, IMO.

They only rated T Jack at 87.3?

Popeyejones":2y1tshlk said:

hawknation2015":2y1tshlk said:

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

Click to expand...

Ehh, confidence is in the eye of the beholder. I think one has to be a Packers fan to like their depth/ability at those positions just as one has to be a Seahawks fan to feel confident about their depth/ability now that the team is replacing two starters on an already weak offensive line, and one has to be a 9ers fan to feel confident about their depth/ability on d-line having to replace two starters there as well.

That NONE of these units will be as good as their respective fans believe before the season starts is pretty likely, IMO.

Click to expand...

What depth? LOL.

They have practically no depth at ILB and no quality depth at DT.

^^^ Yeah, you've gotta be a Packers fan to believe that.

Just as you've got to be a Hawks fan to write something like, " the Seahawks addressed their greatest weakness head on by drafting three impressive athletes to develop along the offensive line."

While true, anyone who's not a Hawks fan would say that the team just lost two starters and A) ignored the unit entirely until day 3, and B) when they did address it they picked two projected 6th-round-to-UDFA guys in the 4th round and another projected UDFA defensive tackle to convert to OG in the 6th round.

It's the same thing as 9ers fans who insist that the team's d-line rotation is going to be awesome because the loss of Justin Smith and Ray McDonald frees up room for other players (which some 9ers fans also say).

Only 11 more Sundays until the start of the regular season.

hawknation2015":3tojz25v said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the rankings, honestly. Yes, the Packers are weak in the middle, but they're good enough to give us fits on offense. Look at Wilson's games against them and they're always very poor and well under his average game. We still run well against them. If we didn't, we'd lose badly as our passing game literally sucks against them.

I also honestly don't understand how you can over value the QB position in today's NFL. Sure, we can get by without the greatest one, but honestly it's a QB driven league and everyone knows it. Rodgers is good enough to mask a lot of GB's problems the last few years; those problems became evident in the playoffs where they lost badly to those 49ers teams. You can also tell the roster building they've been doing now that they've been able to absorb Rodgers' contract with the performance they put on in the NFCCG.

Hawks46":1q85jhes said:

I don't have a problem with the rankings, honestly. Yes, the Packers are weak in the middle, but they're good enough to give us fits on offense. Look at Wilson's games against them and they're always very poor and well under his average game. We still run well against them. If we didn't, we'd lose badly as our passing game literally sucks against them.

Click to expand...

I thought Wilson was more efficient and in command of the offense in last year's opener against Green Bay than just about any other game I have seen of him.

The INTs in the NFC Championship Game were a total anomaly for Wilson. He took a hard hit to the head in the 2nd Quarter and passes were literally bouncing off his receivers' hands. Yet, he was still clutch enough to bounce back from all that adversity and win the game for us.

Popeyejones":1q85jhes said:

^^^ Yeah, you've gotta be a Packers fan to believe that.

Just as you've got to be a Hawks fan to write something like, " the Seahawks addressed their greatest weakness head on by drafting three impressive athletes to develop along the offensive line."

While true, anyone who's not a Hawks fan would say that the team just lost two starters and a) ignored the unit entirely until day 3, and B) when they did it address it they picked two projected 6th-round-to-UDFA guys in the 4th round and another projected UDFA defensive tackle to convert to OG in the 6th round.

It's the same thing as 9ers fans who insist that the team's d-line rotation is going to be awesome because the loss of Justin Smith and Ray McDonald frees up room for other players (which some 9ers fans also say).

Click to expand...

A few things in response to that:

(1) When you draft three offensive linemen that is a significant commitment to the position group, something that has happened for the first time in the Carroll Era.

(2) I was in love with Glowinski's tape and Sokoli's freakish athleticism BEFORE they were drafted. All three prospects are great athletes, but Sokoli's SPARQ stands out as the best in the NFL for his position group, i.e. the only player in the league with a pSPARQ that is four standard deviations higher than the average player at his position group. In addition to being an excellent athlete, Glowinski is just a nasty blocker. I'm excited about these three players. As the Seahawks have shown time and time again, where players are drafted is sort of irrelevant for us.

(3) Even without drafting three offensive linemen, we would have been alright. The issues at this position group over the last two Super Bowl seasons have been covered up fairly well, due to having the most elusive QB in the league and the best tackle-breaking RB. I'm just excited about the future now that we have finally made a serious commitment to developing more elite athletes along offensive line.

^^^^I think we're talking past each other a bit.

I'm not expressly saying you're wrong, I'm just saying the "upside" details you're including are of the sort that 9ers fans say about the teams d-line and Packers fans (even in this thread) say about their interior. \

The only thing I'd objectively disagree with is that this is the first significant committment to the position group in the Carroll era, and you can use draft conversion charts to prove it. Three third day picks don't equal the the 6th overall pick for Okung, in '10, another first rounder for Carpenter in '11, or a 2nd for Britt (and another 6th) last year. I think someone would be hard pressed to argue that as far as dedicating draft capital to a position group goes, this year doesn't rank 4th out of 6 for P.C./J.S.'s draft.

Popeyejones":i1tnuonp said:

^^^^I think we're talking past each other a bit.

I'm not expressly saying you're wrong, I'm just saying the "upside" details you're including are of the sort that 9ers fans say about the teams d-line and Packers fans (even in this thread) say about their interior. \

The only thing I'd objectively disagree with is that this is the first significant committment to the position group in the Carroll era, and you can use draft conversion charts to prove it. Three third day picks don't equal the the 6th overall pick for Okung, in '10, another first rounder for Carpenter in '11, or a 2nd for Britt (and another 6th) last year. I think someone would be hard pressed to argue that as far as dedicating draft capital to a position group goes, this year doesn't rank 4th out of 6 for P.C./J.S.'s draft.

Click to expand...

I have always thought the value chart was bogus. This is actually the first year in which we are likely to come away with more than one drafted rookie linemen:

2010 - only Okung.
2011 - only Carpenter.
2012 - only Sweezy (Smith was released, then IR'd, and then cut)
2013 - only Bowie (released with an injury designation before his 2nd year).
2014 - only Britt (Scott had a heart condition that prevented him from ever suiting up)
2015 - Now we have Glowinski, Poole, and Sokoli. Three of the best athletes in this class of linemen. :th2thumbs:

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.

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.

hawknation2015":2ccu1rgo said:

ptisme":2ccu1rgo said:

hawknation2015":2ccu1rgo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

peachesenregalia":2kvmile6 said:

ptisme":2kvmile6 said:

hawknation2015":2kvmile6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

LOL, rubbish. Raji sucks, and has for a couple of seasons now. Clinton Dix is alright, but still raw. Clay Matthews is so overrated, and the Packers have BY FAR the most overrated and dreadful DC in the game. Not at all concerned about GB being a threat next season.

Click to expand...

Good... Looking forward to welcoming you to Lambeau Field week two..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKnG06-oYcg

purpleneer":27ixcfrt said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

ptisme":2cbrwx6g said:

purpleneer":2cbrwx6g said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

...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.