Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Why are the Vikings' D > the Packers' D? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rev
- Start date
Explain this to me?! 
shamrock84
Footballguy
That's about 8 interceptions right there! 
T
trader jake
Guest
that and the packers fail to get pressure on the QB...and have not added a DLman that will markedly improve the team in that areaPackers added stellar players in A.J. Hawk and Pickett, but Charles Woodson is likely over-rated (and untested after missing many games over the past few seasons), and their only other defensive acquisitions of consequence were LB Taylor and S Manuel (I assume Taylor has at least a shot of starting, but what about Manuel?) Losing Jim Bates also hurts the Packers defense quite a bit IMHO.
As for the Vikings, just getting Tice and Company out of town had to raise the team's projected performance on both sides of the ball....even if Zippy the Wonder Dog had been hired as the team's new head coach.
As for the Vikings, just getting Tice and Company out of town had to raise the team's projected performance on both sides of the ball....even if Zippy the Wonder Dog had been hired as the team's new head coach.
Rev
Footballguy
Still, however, the Pac has solid talent in comparison to the Vikes, and I'm a Vikes homer! From the FBG outlook for the Packers D:
The Packers now appear to have two quality defensive ends who can put pressure on quarterbacks, two very good linebackers, and two potential shutdown cornerbacks.
C'mon boys... lemme here your logic!
The Packers now appear to have two quality defensive ends who can put pressure on quarterbacks, two very good linebackers, and two potential shutdown cornerbacks.
C'mon boys... lemme here your logic!
Rev,
Honestly, my guess is the ranking has more to do with the Packers offense not being able to go on long, sustained drives than it does the personnel on defense, since that would necessarily result in the defense being on the field more...giving up more yards/points and potentially wearing down in the second half.
QB - Favre isn't getting any younger, and feels as though he has to carry the team because....
RB - Green and Davenpoop are hurt, leaving Gado as the feature back (?) Also, Tony Fisher is in St. Louis now, which hurts their depth a bit.
WR - Javon Walker is gone and "Greg Jennings, sir, is no Javon Walker"
O-Line - A problem area for the Pack last season. What has the team done to improve itself on the line this off-season....with a QB who is another year older and an "uninspiring" back-up?
TE - Neutral/pass. Not much different from 2005 IMHO.
THAT is why their defense is ranked lower than it probably should be....at least in my opinion.
Honestly, my guess is the ranking has more to do with the Packers offense not being able to go on long, sustained drives than it does the personnel on defense, since that would necessarily result in the defense being on the field more...giving up more yards/points and potentially wearing down in the second half.
QB - Favre isn't getting any younger, and feels as though he has to carry the team because....
RB - Green and Davenpoop are hurt, leaving Gado as the feature back (?) Also, Tony Fisher is in St. Louis now, which hurts their depth a bit.
WR - Javon Walker is gone and "Greg Jennings, sir, is no Javon Walker"
O-Line - A problem area for the Pack last season. What has the team done to improve itself on the line this off-season....with a QB who is another year older and an "uninspiring" back-up?
TE - Neutral/pass. Not much different from 2005 IMHO.
THAT is why their defense is ranked lower than it probably should be....at least in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rev
Footballguy
Exactly my point... the Chicago Bears should have tought us that you can't simply downgrade a team's defense because of a lackluster offense. If you could, then why in Sam Hill are the Bears ranked #1??? I'm still clueless :whoosh:Rev,
Honestly, my guess is the ranking has more to do with the Packers offense not being able to go on long, sustained drives than it does the personnel on defense, since that would necessarily result in the defense being on the field more...giving up more yards/points and potentially wearing down in the second half.
QB - Favre isn't getting any younger, and feels as though he has to carry the team because....
RB - Green and Davenpoop are hurt, leaving Gado as the feature back (?) Also, Tony Fisher is in St. Louis now, which hurts their depth a bit.
WR - Javon Walker is gone and "Greg Jennings, sir, is no Javon Walker"
O-Line - A problem area for the Pack last season. What has the team done to improve itself on the line this off-season....with a QB who is another year older and an "uninspiring" back-up?
TE - Neutral/pass. Not much different from 2005 IMHO.
THAT is why their defense is ranked lower than it probably should be....at least in my opinion.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Rev,
Honestly, my guess is the ranking has more to do with the Packers offense not being able to go on long, sustained drives than it does the personnel on defense, since that would necessarily result in the defense being on the field more...giving up more yards/points and potentially wearing down in the second half.
QB - Favre isn't getting any younger, and feels as though he has to carry the team because.... This is true. Mike Sherman never put the brakes on Favre and McCarthy is an unknown. I wouldn't look for drastic improvement here.
RB - Green and Davenpoop are hurt, leaving Gado as the feature back (?) Also, Tony Fisher is in St. Louis now, which hurts their depth a bit. Gado averaged nearly the same per game last season as Cadillac did. Not saying he is that good, just that he's better than one might think. Also Green Bay is installing the zone blocking scheme that Atlanta and Denver use. This could vastly improve the rushing game as both Green and Gado have familiarity with that system.
WR - Javon Walker is gone and "Greg Jennings, sir, is no Javon Walker" Wideout is going to be similar to last season. They haven't improved much outside of Jennings, and losing Walker is a huge blow.
O-Line - A problem area for the Pack last season. What has the team done to improve itself on the line this off-season....with a QB who is another year older and an "uninspiring" back-up? They added lineman in the 2nd and 3rd rounds in the draft.
TE - Neutral/pass. Not much different from 2005 IMHO. Agreed.
THAT is why their defense is ranked lower than it probably should be....at least in my opinion.
Winning IS Everything
Footballguy
The Minnesota Viking defense is more opportunistic. They take more turnovers to the house than the Packers do and that usually shows up big in fantasy scoring.
Rev,The difference between the Bears and Packers though is:1. The have a much better O-Line and 1-2 punch at RB, IMHO.2. McCarthy couldn't hold Lovie Smith's jock-strap in the head coaching dept.3. Their D has been "doing it and doing it and doing it well" for a while now, and has earned that respect/ranking.4. Stability. Aren't all their defensive (and offense?) starters back with the Bears in 2006? Meanwhile the Pack has a new coaching staff, new "CB2", two new LB starters, another LB starter who might be moving positions, changes on the D-Line, etc., etc., etc.I'm not saying the Packers D couldn't be as good or better than Minnesota's.....I'm just speculating as to why the lower ranking.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
How could you possibly know this? He hasn't even coached a game yet?
I have the Vikes higher because the new attack oriented cover 2 should suit their D line perfectly (sacks) and besides that, their D line could be one of the best in the league this year if James and Udeze develop and stay healthy.
Rev
Footballguy
3 questions1. How would you compare the packers newcomers to the Vikings by position?
2. How does the wintery elements at Lambo help the Packer's D in the mid-to late season, which usually lines up with Fantasy playoffs?
3. Don't you think the Vikings will struggle on offense this year which will put more pressure on their defense?
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't be baggin' on Zippy.
1. There's no question that the Packers additions (Hawk, Woodson, Pickett, Manuel among others) will help more than the Vikes (Greenway, Tank Williams, Leber among others)2. I don't think the weather really matters that much in ranking a team D. I care mainly about turnovers, sacks, and the potential for big plays. Cold/wintry weather likely means more conservative play. You may get a shutout or single digit points allowed bonus because of it, but i dont see it producing more of the bread and butter of team D stats.
3. The Vikes struggled mightily on offense last year, and their team D was still pretty decent when they stiffened up in the 2nd half of the season.
I think that assuming the health of Harris and Woodson (which is a big if), the Packers should do better than the Vikes. But if either are problematic I would go the other way.
With solid (as in adequate) cover CBs, the LBs of the Packers should be able to use their speed to much better advantage. This will generate FPs (sacks, fumbles, INTs).
With solid (as in adequate) cover CBs, the LBs of the Packers should be able to use their speed to much better advantage. This will generate FPs (sacks, fumbles, INTs).
Rev
Footballguy
As to point 3, the Vikings offense was largely ineffective all year last year, and there are only modest signs of improvement this offseason. I'd rate the Vikings and Packers respective offenses at about the same tier, so that I'd have to evaluate the defenses on their own merit.I also see the 2 defenses as dead even as well:
-both offenses will sputter this year
-both defenses have picked up young studs and veteran talent
-MN has a better D-line, GB has better LBs
-GB has that late-season home field advantage in frigid whether, which comes in really handy against NFC north teams
-both have new systems/coaching personnel in town, which means alot of question marks and unknowns at this point
