Thread: Packers' talent matches Vikings'

Posted September 27, 2006

[size=13pt]Chris Havel column: Packers' talent matches Vikings' [/size]



By Chris Havel

To say the Green Bay Packers are a young team is getting old. To say they are rebuilding is nothing more than a convenient excuse for failure.

It is time to quit perpetuating the myth.

The truth is, the Packers' frontline players have enough experience to compete, and the 53-man roster has enough talent to win more than it loses.

Do the Packers have the weapons to challenge the Chicago Bears in the NFC North? Nope. That was evident in their 26-0 loss in the opener. Do they have the talent to make the Minnesota Vikings sweat it out in the race for second place? You bet.

Starter for starter, the Packers stack up favorably with the Vikings. In some ways, they have more talent based upon past performance. If the Packers continue to stay healthy, and inexperienced backups aren't thrust into starting roles, they should be right there with the Vikings come December.

If the Packers become also-rans, it won't be because they are young or rebuilding. It will be due to one or all of the following:

Coach Mike McCarthy, offensive coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski, defensive coordinator Bob Sanders and special teams coach Mike Stock do a poor job.

The veterans fail to consistently perform up to their potential.

A slew of injuries at key positions, particularly quarterback, receiver and the offensive line, reduces the offense to a shambles.

That is true of most NFL teams, and the Packers are no different. To say General Manager Ted Thompson didn't provide McCarthy, Sanders or Stock with the horses to run a competitive race is naïve.

Consider the Packers' and Vikings' depth charts. Which quarterback (Brett Favre or Brad Johnson?), tight end (Bubba Franks or Jim Kleinsasser?) or receiving tandem (Donald Driver and Greg Jennings or Travis Taylor and Troy Williamson?) would a majority of NFL teams prefer?

True, the Vikings' offensive line, interior defensive line and safeties are more talented, and running back Chester Taylor gets the nod over Ahman Green at this stage of their careers. But the Packers' defensive ends rate a slight edge, and their linebackers are physically superior. The Vikings' Fred Smoot and Antoine Winfield have outperformed Al Harris and Charles Woodson, but what cornerback tandem hasn't ? Harris and Woodson are too talented, and they should be too embarrassed, to let that continue.

The Vikings' Tony Richardson is a powerful blocking fullback, but William Henderson is the more effective receiver.

Ex-Packers kicker Ryan Longwell is money in the clutch, but Dave Rayner missed only a 53-yarder and has the stronger leg on kickoffs. The punters are a draw, and Green Bay's return game is more explosive with Koren Robinson and Woodson.

The Vikings' Kevin Williams is a Pro Bowl defensive tackle that can dominate a game, and their offensive line is capable of punishing the best defensive front sevens. Those are significant advantages for the Vikings, but the overall disparity between the teams — if one exists — is minimal.

If the Packers finish a distant third to the Vikings, or worse, dead last in the NFC North, the culprits will be ineffective coaching, substandard play by key veterans and-or a spate of injuries.

The perception of the Packers is that of a young, rebuilding team.

That isn't the reality.

Chris Havel can be reached by voice mail at (920) 431-8586 or by e-mail at [email protected]

I thought real hard about posting this in the "Fantasy forum".

Obviously, Havel has a hard time distinguishing between reality & fantasy.

They don't have the talent to challange the Bears which he said was evident by an an asswhooping they recieved yet we do have the talent.

His logic is mind boggling.

He has Favreitis, Favre is magical stop being so ignorant to be believe otherwise.

The guy had one too many gin and tonics at the gay bar last night.

What a tool. And in the TE comparison why did he neglect to mention Wiggins?

Looks like he subscibes to the Jeff Duncan school of journalism.

the only comparisons we even have with the fudgepackers is the old QB factor.
that reporter is high on crack i'm assuming!

That IDIOT will soon come back down to earth when the Pukers rattle off a string of LOSSES against superior competition!

IF only potential automatically translated into wins...LOL

If IF was a FIFTH, we'd all be DRUNK...
And if IF was a SPLIFF, we'd all be STONED...
Methinks that sportswriter is more than a little bit of BOTH!!!

WOW - this is very funny.
I don't fault the author for writing this, he probably grew up in Green Bay and has these conversations with every dilusional Packer fan out there.
But how did his editor let this go to print?


1.
In his position analysis he doesn't take into account that where the Vikings have an edge they are significantly better and where the Packers have an edge it is slight.
For instance...

Brad vs. Favre - sure Favre had an amazing career and you would generally prefer him over Johnson, but not by much as Favre will make a lot more mistakes than Johnson and put your defense in compromising positions.

2.
Chicago 26 - Green Bay 0
Chicago 19 - Minnesota 16

The punters are a draw, and Green Bay's return game is more explosive with Koren Robinson and Woodson.

yeah, until he's suspended for the rest of the season.

i'll take troy/pinner/moore over that

: