Making of an NFL Roster
Ted Thompson has been widely critisized since he took over the GM post of Green Bay for his lack of free agent signings (or trades). I have argued in the past that Mike Sherman was a bad coach, but a horrible GM. The Packers are again well under the cap, but did Thompson make a mistake by passively using free agents to build his team?
It appears to me that building an NFL team is similar to a MLB team in certain ways. It is important in baseball to be strong up the middle, and have deep pitching. In football, there is a hierarchy of positions. I would submit the four most important positions are:
- QB
- Offensive Tackles
- Defensive Ends to apply pressure
- Shutdown corners
I think we are beyond the point where a “serviceable” QB like Trent Dilfer could win a Super Bowl in today’s game. I don’t care how good your defense is, if the QB can’t make some game changing plays on his own, there is no Super Bowl victory dance.
Let’s look at the Packers in 2007, and determine why they are winning. They are pretty well set at QB. Favre is playing as well as he ever has. His INT rate is at an all time low, and he is spreading the ball to his 1 elite WR (Driver) and 4 other quality wide receivers and above average Tight End (D. Lee).
The Packers have 2 offensive tackles who have never been to a pro-bowl, but are as good as any tandem in the league. Clifton should make his first pro-bowl this year, and Tauscher has gone a couple years without a holding penalty or giving up a sack.
The most important signing by the Thompson era was reupping Aaron Kampman. At the time, the contract seemed excessive. Kampman was decent against the run and a decent pass rusher, but never seemed to make any game changing plays or rack up many sacks. After signing the contract though, Kampman has become the leader of the defensive line, and one of the top 5 pass rushers in the game. The other D-End KGB, is 3rd in the NFL in sacks since 2002. Cullen Jenkins is a better player than KGB, and despite not strating, plays more downs.
The Packers are one of a few teams that play bump and run coverage as a base defense. They are able to do this because Harris and Woodson are elite corners. It is shocking when either of them is beaten on a play. They may lead the league in penalties due to their style of play, but opposing receivers are very frustrated after facing them for 4 Q’s and getting beaten up at the line of scrimmage each play.
So back to the GM. Ron Wolf brought in Favre, but Sherman brought in Tauscher, Clifton, Harris, Kampman and KGB. Thompson signed Woodson….Maybe Sherman wasn’t so bad after all.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Agree with all, except #4. IMO, a Ray Lewis type middle linebacker OR a Shawn Merriman on the outside is more important - with a front 7 like that, you don’t need shutdown corners, since the QB won’t have much time to throw…
January 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
You ignorant sluts.
“I think we are beyond the point where a “serviceable” QB like Trent Dilfer could win a Super Bowl in today’s game. I don’t care how good your defense is, if the QB can’t make some game changing plays on his own, there is no Super Bowl victory dance. ”
What do you call Ben Roethlisberger from two years ago? Hell, he was *less* than serviceable and the Steelers won that game. He had the fourth *worst* passer rating in Super Bowl *history* (22.6) - and his team won.
And just last year… Peyton Manning is an all-time great QB who will retire to the discussion/debate of being *the* greatest of all-time. But look at his performance last year… it was decidedly Dilfer-like! Their passer ratings in Super Bowl-winning performances: Dilfer (80.9), Peyton (81.8). The Colts didn’t win last year cuz Peyton played like Peyton - they won (in part) cuz Peyton played like Dilfer. Peyton was the MVP - but it was more of a career achievement award and a nod towards “Hey, big guy, you finally broke through.”. His MVP award had *nothing* to do with his performance in that specific game - the co-MVPs should’ve been Rhodes and Addai, unless you wanted to give it to someone on defense (Bob Sanders, most likely)… you know, the performances that *actually* made the difference in that game.
What the last two Super Bowls have showed us - glaringly - is that you need a stifling defense (and an opponent with a terrible offense doesn’t hurt in that regard)… and just a QB that doesn’t give the game away.
Have you not been paying attention - or are you still a bit loopy over Va Tech’s improbable ACC Chamionship victory over the superior BC Eagles?
January 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I should know better than to try to speak for Danny, but:
Maybe he means a team needs to have a QB whose career potential is better than “servicable”? Yes, Petyon was mediocre during his win, and Ben was flat out awful in his, but I think it’s fair to say both those guys have MUCH more upside than Dilfer ever had, even in his wet dreams…
Point being, Peyton (duh) and Ben COULD make a big play potentially in their next SB appearance. Dilfer? Not so much…
January 8th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
What the hell does future potential have to do with present Super Bowl? A team doesn’t win a Super Bowl based on what their QB might/will do in the *future*. They win (in Danny’s theory) based on what they did *now* - in *this* game.
And to the point, Dilfer has as many Super Bowl rings as Peyton and Big Ben - and he performed as well as Peyton (in their respective SB wins), and way better than Big Ben did in his SB win. That’s the point.