From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: Packers 1992 Summary (long)
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date: 28 DEC 92 16:34:09    

In article <1992Dec28.220225.10246@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, tkelsey@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (todd.p.kelsey) writes...

>Overall: B
>The Packers 1992 season was beyond my wildest preseason expectations.
>This was a team I expected to win 3 to 5 games and they nearly made
>the playoffs.  After the seventh game this team really started to gel 
>and understand Mike Holmgren's system.  The leadership of Ron Wolf and 
>Holmgren leave the Packers well positioned to continue their rise.

Please, let it be true.

>Quarterback: A-
>Brett Favre is a budding star in the league.  He has all the tools
>(strong arm, mobile, tough, leadership) to be an outstanding quarterback
>for many years.  The task for Favre and Holmgren is to keep Favre
>focused on reaching his potential.  Don Majkowski's days in Green Bay
>appear numbered, since he will be a free agent and the Packers will
>never want to match his $1.7 million salary of this year.  The Packers
>will need to pick up a veteran backup quarterback in the off season.

Maybe.  But I'll bet they pick up another rookie and count on Ty 
Detmer if anything happens to Favre.  Also, while I thing the 
probability is *extremely* small, Majkowski may be back.  I don't 
think that under the new agreement (as it's rumored to be) the Packers 
have to offer him as much as he made this year.  Some other team in 
desparate need of a QB will probably sign him.  He'd be willing to 
take a cut in pay for a chance to start somewhere else.  But probably 
his best chance for a decent end to his career is as a backup in GB.  
He's going to go somewhere else and do a Jay Schreoder imitation.

>Running Back: B-
>The Packer running backs made great strides in 1992.  This was an area,
>going into the season, that appearred to be a major weakness, but turned
>out to be adequate.  Workman, Thompson, and Bennett all showed they could
>be the feature back when necessary.  Harry Sydney was steady at fullback
>and continually came up with key plays when needed.  Bennett, Dexter McNabb,
>and Marcus Wilson all have potential.  The Packers could still use a game
>breaking runner (so could about 24 other teams), but if that person
>is not available in the draft, what they currently have should be adequate.
>
>Wide Receivers: B-
>This breaks down to Sterling Sharpe - A+, everybody else D-.  Sterling
>was fantastic in 1992.  This offensive is perfect for him.  It's great
>to know he has that 10 year contract.  The Packers desparately need
>a receiver to complement (take the heat off) Sharpe.  Ron Lewis showed
>flashes and may be the guy next year.  Corey Harris was a special teams
>star.  If he can get to that level as an offensive player he could start.
>Robert Brooks is young and very inconsistent.  Sanjay Beach is a stiff.
>The Packers need to draft or sign free agent receivers.

Until relatively recently, it was *very* unusual for a WR to do much 
in his 1st year.  I you can draw any conclusions about the future 
Corey Harris or Robert Brooks from their performance this year.

Ditto for RBs Edgar Bennett and Dexter McNabb.

>Tight Ends: B
>Jackie Harris is on his way up.  Ed West is on his way out.  Harris 
>finally started to live up to his potential.  If he makes similar
>strides next year he could make the pro bowl.  West has shown he
>can not catch Favre's passes.  He also is slowing from age and past
>injuries.  He may be gone next year.

Packers are still high on Mark Chumara.  His injury was not supposed 
to be career ending.  We'll see.

>Offensive Line: B
>This group performed way beyond expectations this year, but there are
>some major holes to fill.  For the first time in years the Packers
>were actually able to run the ball and in most games the quarterback
>was given adequate time to throw.  The Tootie Robbins trade solidified the 
>right tackle position.  He had an excellent year.  Ron Hallstrom also had his
>best season in years.  What happened to the Hallstrom who seemingly had
>2 holding penalties per game in 1991?  Both these players are near the
>end of their careers, though.  Ken Ruetggers had a fine season, as well,
>but I expect him to leave Green Bay as a free agent.  Campen is solid,
>but unspectacular (I've heard rumors that he will be leaving Green Bay
>as well).  Winters and Sims filled in admirably when called on.

I don't know, I guess you gotta give them a B.  But that seems a 
little high considering the Packers inability to run when necessary.  
Almost all the Packers rushing yardage was made off trap blocks and 
sweeps.  When they were 3rd and 1 they were in trouble because they 
had no drive blocking - no power.  When they had big leads to protect 
and they needed to run out the clock they were in trouble for the same 
reason.

The number of sacks was way down but the new offense requires shorter 
and quicker drops by the QB.  You also have to factor in Favre's quick 
release, his elusiveness, and his ability to make quick decisions and 
get rid of the ball.  He's much better at these things than Tomczak.
I don't think Packer QBs really had that much more time to throw than 
last year.

>Defensive Line: C-
>This group has some major holes that were obvious in the Viking game.
>They get almost no pass rush from the line and they are also ineffective
>at stopping the run.  Nearly to a man the Packers DL are all stopgap at
>best.  Matt Brock may be the only one who deserves to start.  This
>would be an ideal position for the Packers to try to lure a big name
>free agent.  They also need to draft at this position.  Either way,
>the DL needs help if the Packers defense is to improve.

I don't know, C- seems a little high for this group too.  I'd say D 
for all the same reasons that you gave.

>Linebackers: B+/A-
>The strength of the defense.  Johnny Holland finally overcame the 
>inconsistencies he had early in his career to have an outstanding 
>all-around season.  One could make a very good argument that he
>deserved to go to the pro bowl.  The Packers should make signing
>him a high priority in the off season.  Tony Bennett continues to 
>improve and could make the pro bowl next year.  He had a chance
>this year, but faded in several key late season games.  George Koonce
>looks like he will be a fixture for many years in this defense.  He
>always seems to be around the ball.  Brian Noble appears to be on
>the decline.  He had his worst season since early in his career.  His
>neck injury may have had a psychological effect.  The Packers depth
>at LB appears good.  Brady, Dent, and Paup all had their moments.
>Due to injury, D'Onofrio was a major disappointment this year.  The
>Packers need him to step up next year.

Agreed.

>Secondary: B-
>Loads of talent that improved immensely during the season.  This could
>be a team strength for years to come.  Chuck Cecil had an excellent
>year (although I'm suprised that he will be starting in the pro bowl).
>As the season progressed he developed a "nose" for the football and
>would look for the interception.  His hitting intimidated several
>opposing receivers and resulted in a lot of dropped passes.  It's
>hard not to like a player who has blood running down his face in 
>nearly every game.  Cecil will be a free agent.  Signing him must
>be a priority.  LeRoy Butler looks like he will be an outstanding
>strong safety.  His hitting improved alot this year and he's always
>been a good cover man.  Terrell Buckley has loads of talent, but
>needs to learn to keep his head in the game.  He gets "burned" more
>than he should (but most rookie cornerbacks do).  He also needs to 
>work on his tackling.  Considering he missed all of training camp,
>I thought he had a good year (3 ints, 2 TDs).  Packer fans need to
>remember he is only 21 and a rookie.  Vinnie Clark is an enigma.  He
>has ideal size, great speed, yet continually gets burned.  If he
>doesn't improve in training camp, he may be gone.  Roland Mitchell
>had a fine year.  More depth is needed in the secondary.

I still think Clark is going to be really good.  He always seems to be 
in position but doesn't make the plays.  In fact, he looks like a 
rookie.  I think that his limited playing time last year, moving from 
RCB to LCB, adjusting to the new defense has set him back a year.  
Maybe with another training camp he can make it.

>Special Teams: C+
>The play of the special teams mirrors the Packers entire season.
>It was pathetic early on, but solid if not spectacular at the end
>of the season.  A couple of key moves solidified the special teams.
>First of all, the acquisition of Corey Harris improved the coverage
>teams and kickoff returns.  He deserves a roster spot next year
>just on his special teams play.  Second, the return of Don Majkowski
>as holder improved the field goal unit.  Jacke missed very few kicks 
>with Majkowski holding.  Third, the replacing of Paul McJulien
>with Bryan Wagner.  What happened to McJulien?  I thought the Packers 
>were set for many years at punter.  Wagner was steady, but could be
>improved upon.  Finally, the removal of Terrell Buckley as punt
>returner.  Buckley is very explosive and I believe he will be a
>great punt returner, but he needed to be replaced this year.  Over
>the off season he needs to work to reduce his fumbling.  I expect he 
>will be the punt returner again next year.

I think I read that KC signed him.

>Coaching: A
>Mike Holmgren and his staff pulled off a minor miracle in getting
>a team in total disarray and lacking talent to the brink of the
>playoffs.  

A+

>Front Office: A
>Bob Harlan finally did what all good team presidents (owners) should
>do.  Pick a good football man, give him absolute power, and get out
>of the way.  Ron Wolf was the man he picked and this looks like a
>great choice.  Here's a summary of Wolf's accomplishments in his
>first year (complete with my original opinion of the move):
> 
>1.) Essentially traded a 2nd round pick for a head coach
>	with no previous coaching experience.  I thought this was
>	ludicrous and wanted him to hire Parcells.  Holmgren
>	has already proven himself to be worth more victories than
>	any single player could have been.

I think Wolf would have hired Parcells if Parcells had been willing.  
Remember he wanted complete control.  Rumor has it that after he was 
snubbed by TB, Parcells asked again about the GB job.  By then 
Holmgren had already been hired.

>2.) Traded a 6th round pick for what appeared to be a washed up Offensive
>	Tackle (Tootie Robbins).  Robbins was the anchor of a
>	much improved offensive line.
> 
>3.) Traded a 1st round pick for a third string quarterback.  Of course,
>	this quarterback is Brett Favre, who is pro bowl bound and 
>	appears to be a budding superstar.
> 
>4.) Picked Terrell Buckley with the 5th pick in the draft.  The jury
>	is still out on this one, but Buckley has shown he has potential.

5.) Drafted a bunch of other people who haven't done much of anything. 

Unless we see some major improvement from Brooks, McNabb, and 
Bennett or if Chumura, D'Onofrio, and Orlando McKay come of IR 
and this draft will have to be considered fair to middlin' even 
if Buckey lives up to the potential he seems to have.  If you want to 
consider Favre as part of the draft, as Ron Wolf does, I guess you can 
say it's an okay draft.

>1992 turned out to be a pleasant suprise for this Packer fan who
>came into the year with very low expectations.  It's entirely
>possible that the Pack may not duplicate this season's success
>next year, but with a good draft and a few key free agent moves
>I expect them to challenge for a playoff spot.
>Either way, the foundation appears to be there for the Packers
>to be an NFL power by the mid 1990's.

I'm cautiously optimistic.  It may not be a good idea to draw any 
conclusions from one good year though.

> Comments welcome.

Try and stop 'em.  :-)

JGH