26th? You're kidding me?

[BallHawk]

On ESPN's so called "Ultimate Depth Chart" they ranked each teams pass defenses 1-32. They said they were ignoring statistics from last season, which is understandble to a degree, but you can't just ignore them. Anyway, they ranked us 26th!!!!!!!(They ranked us in the shits for everything else, ranking our QB 16th.) Just to underatand how bad that is the 49ERS WERE 22nd. So ESPN believes that.

Derrick Johnson, Mike Adams, Ben Emanuel, and Shawntae Spencer are better than.....

Charles Woodson, Marquand Manuel/Mark Roman, Nick Collins, and Al Harris.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Mike Golic needs another Big Mac.

[PackerPro42]

I saw that on sportscenter and the bastards had us ranked low for everything. God we're not that bad. Our team has actually improved from last ea. Thos guys just don't know what they're talking about.

[Deputy Nutz]

I noticed that as well, and it certainly pissed me off. All the national media sees in Green Bay is the Packers 4-12 record from last season. Once again, Espn trots out their vast football knowledge with the likes of Mike Golic, "Stink", and Sassyberry. It is sad when Sassyberry is the smartest fella on the set.

The Packers added two new starters to the secondary, AJ Hawk, and Ryan Pickett. Pickett will hopefully add a little bit to the pass rush from the middle, but still, you add Woody, Manuel, and AJ Hawk you are not the 26th ranked pass defense, especially when you were in the top 15 last year without those guys.

At least Baltimore and Seattle were in the top 5. How the fuck is Seattle in the top 5? What a joke.

[Rastak]

I noticed that as well, and it certainly pissed me off. All the national media sees in Green Bay is the Packers 4-12 record from last season. Once again, Espn trots out their vast football knowledge with the likes of Mike Golic, "Stink", and Sassyberry. It is sad when Sassyberry is the smartest fella on the set.

The Packers added two new starters to the secondary, AJ Hawk, and Ryan Pickett. Pickett will hopefully add a little bit to the pass rush from the middle, but still, you add Woody, Manuel, and AJ Hawk you are not the 26th ranked pass defense, especially when you were in the top 15 last year without those guys.

At least Baltimore and Seattle were in the top 5. How the fuck is Seattle in the top 5? What a joke.


I don't know how Seattle got that high, they lost their backup saftey after all.


Just kidding...actually, I'd rank GB higher than that. Woodson is kind of a question mark though and it seems Harris is PO'd. Manual was playing last year because the starter got hurt. And GB needs to get a decent pass rush to really help their secondary..perhaps they don't think they'll come through.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Well, all I've got to say is that our D has a lot of new faces (on the field and on the bench) and a lot to prove. Manuel, Pickett and Woodson have to show that they're even starting material. They were all either backups or injured players on their former teams. And they're starters on our team. I'm excited about the potential, but it's way too early to get excited about our starting team. We technically don't have one yet.

Hate to be the anti-homer, but we won't know how good this defense is until the pads are on in preseason. The rankings are worthless, but, come on people, do you really think the media is going to step up and have confidence in a defense that helped a team go 4-12?

We will be underdogs until we can prove otherwise.

tyler

[PackerPro42]

I think that they should consider moving Carrol to saftey, that way he can use he speed for good. He can also be a little more agressive because it seems like all the good safteys are today.

[Rastak]

I think that they should consider moving Carrol to saftey, that way he can use he speed for good. He can also be a little more agressive because it seems like all the good safteys are today.


Actually, I think Carroll will be a very solid nickel back. I haven't liked the guy since the day they drafted him (as a player) but he was improving last year and he will be a pretty solid 3rd corner.


Not sure how he'd do at safety...that might work.

[Pack0514]

Agreed Jack, no offense Rastak but the Vikings have signed some good players the past couple of years and it hasnt materialized into anything yet. This year may be different but the only point I am trying to make is that just because we signed some people doesnt mean they will play well together.

Go ahead throw the tomatoes.

Anyways, it will be more fun to be the underdog and piss on others parades when they arent ready.

[Deputy Nutz]

Carroll isn't physical enough to play safety, and beside that position is a little crowded at this point.

Another thing, Carroll is just too small to play safety. He will impress as a nickel back where he can use his speed to match up with the small recievers in the slot.

[wist43]

I understand that you guys aren't happy about the lack of respect for our team, but the fact is that the Packers are, in fact, one of the worst teams in the league... Sorry, but that's reality.

Yes, I think the team is slightly improved over last years mess, but they have a long way to go to be a decent team. Favre coming back and a relatively easy schedule gives them a chance to get close to .500, but it's going to be a long haul for them to get back to respectability.

Bottom line is the Packers simply aren't a very good football team.

[BallHawk]

The only person who sort of believes in the Packers is Chris Mortenson. I remember him on draft day saying that they could either go 5-11, 6-10, or make it into the playoffs.

[Chester Marcol]

I understand that you guys aren't happy about the lack of respect for our team, but the fact is that the Packers are, in fact, one of the worst teams in the league... Sorry, but that's reality.

Yes, I think the team is slightly improved over last years mess, but they have a long way to go to be a decent team. Favre coming back and a relatively easy schedule gives them a chance to get close to .500, but it's going to be a long haul for them to get back to respectability.

Bottom line is the Packers simply aren't a very good football team.

Agreed. It wasn't that long ago that the consensus was, we are the defending NFC North Champions until one of the other teams proves otherwise. Well, now we are on the opposite end of that spectrum and we are what we are with more unknowns than knowns. Until Favre is slinging more td's than int's and the defense is consistently controlling other teams, those rankings are our place in the NFL. I like this position because I believe we will surprise a team or two. Hopefully it's this year we get the ship righted and we'll be headed back up the charts.

[Brandon494]

What a joke, we were #1 last year in pass defense and I know teams ran on us a lot but we were still good against the pass. We add A.J. hawk, Woodson, and Manuel and somehow we drop 25 spots? You notice how they didn't even explain why we were that low, they just gave us 26th and went on to the next team. I expect us to be no higher than 20 in any of their ranking but who really cares anyway?

[MadtownPacker]

Screw that!! My opinion is as good as the e.s.p.n. (extremely stupid predictions network) clowns any day.

Im throwing on the G&G goggles and predicting the Packers make a run at the playoffs!

Bank on it MFers!!

[jack's smirking revenge]

Well, I'm a fan and don't even beileve in the Packers right now. I guess it all depends on what you "believe in". Believing that they're going to go 7-9 or somewhere around there I think is pretty down-to-earth. I think that's a realistic expectation. To believe that they're SB or playoff bound is crazy right now because of all of the changes to the players, coaching staff and schemes. As wist said, they're just not a good football team right now.

Do I have faith that they could become one? Yes. In time. But all of the chaos has to coalesce into chemistry, leadership and focus. Right now, I don't see a leader on the Packer defense. I question the offensive and defensive lines. And the new schemes and coaching staff have to click with the influx of new faces.

Obviously, these are just my opinions. Even if the Packers tank in 2006, I will still be a fan and I will still be supportive.

26th? If anything, that should be a motivating factor for a defense that was ranked 7th last year. At least they're not ranked an inaccurate first...

tyler

[Rastak]

Agreed Jack, no offense Rastak but the Vikings have signed some good players the past couple of years and it hasnt materialized into anything yet. This year may be different but the only point I am trying to make is that just because we signed some people doesnt mean they will play well together.

Go ahead throw the tomatoes.

Anyways, it will be more fun to be the underdog and piss on others parades when they arent ready.

No offense taken at all. In response to the Vikings comment, I think their defense DID improve greatly with their signings....but then their offense went straight to pot....LOL...this year they concentrated on offense so we'll see.

As for Green Bay, it does take some time to gel, Minnesota was bad for 5 games then turned it around and played quite well. I don't know much about Saunders but GB should take too long to get it going on defense I don't think.

edit: I meant shouldn't take too long.

[MJZiggy]

My opinion of ESPNothing ranks slightly below their opinion of my team, so their opinion doesn't really matter that much to me anyway.

[Fosco33]

I understand that you guys aren't happy about the lack of respect for our team, but the fact is that the Packers are, in fact, one of the worst teams in the league... Sorry, but that's reality.

Yes, I think the team is slightly improved over last years mess, but they have a long way to go to be a decent team. Favre coming back and a relatively easy schedule gives them a chance to get close to .500, but it's going to be a long haul for them to get back to respectability.

Bottom line is the Packers simply aren't a very good football team.

We'll see....

Injuries and close losses last year with a desparate QB and a D that didn't force turnovers. Seems like we've addressed the D - given the parity in the NFL it's not crazy to go worst to first.

All these preseason rankings are complete BS. Anyone that buys into them or lets it affect their analytical view of football is being controlled by ESPN.

Again we'll see....

[pbmax]

What a joke, we were #1 last year in pass defense and I know teams ran on us a lot but we were still good against the pass. We add A.J. hawk, Woodson, and Manuel and somehow we drop 25 spots? You notice how they didn't even explain why we were that low, they just gave us 26th and went on to the next team. I expect us to be no higher than 20 in any of their ranking but who really cares anyway?
We were not good against the pass. We gave up a passer rating of 86.2 to opposing QBs. Let me remind you of the Murderer's Row we faced: Harrington (twice), Orton, Grossman, Boller (BEST GAME OF HIS ENTIRE FREAKING CAREER!), Dilfer, Griese, Brooks, Batch, and Mike McMahon.

Al Harris was the only thing above average about our Pass D. We reversed the slide of the previous four years because the run D held together despite a huge number of attempts and Bates scheme (and the lack of Darren Sharper) slashed the number of big plays allowed to close to half of the previous year. This defense is not better than the unit Donatell had in 2002 and 2003, although Bates was light years ahead of Donatell scheme wise.

NFL Stats had Pack Pass D
1st in Yards Allowed
2nd in Fewest Pass Attempts Faced
14th Completion Pct. Allowed
16th in Yds. per Completion
23rd in Passing TDs allowed
25th in QB rating allowed

Pack Run D
23rd Yds allowed per game
19th Yds per attempt
8th in TDs Allowed
6th Most Rushing Attempts Against

Scoring D
20th in Points Allowed
18th in Points Allowed (without ST scores, safeties, or Int/Fum return for TD)

Football Outsders had the Packers Team Defense ranked:
22nd Overall
22nd vs. Pass
22nd vs. Rush
15th in Sacks per pass attempt

For the Pass Defense:
Rank was 22nd
vs. #1 WR 8th
vs. #2 WR 28th
vs. Other WR 26th
vs. TE 30th
vs. RB 20th

[jack's smirking revenge]

What a joke, we were #1 last year in pass defense and I know teams ran on us a lot but we were still good against the pass. We add A.J. hawk, Woodson, and Manuel and somehow we drop 25 spots? You notice how they didn't even explain why we were that low, they just gave us 26th and went on to the next team. I expect us to be no higher than 20 in any of their ranking but who really cares anyway?
We were not good against the pass. We gave up a passer rating of 86.2 to opposing QBs. Let me remind you of the Murderer's Row we faced: Harrington (twice), Orton, Grossman, Boller (BEST GAME OF HIS ENTIRE FREAKING CAREER!), Dilfer, Griese, Brooks, Batch, and Mike McMahon.

Al Harris was the only thing above average about our Pass D. We reversed the slide of the previous four years because the run D held together despite a huge number of attempts and Bates scheme (and the lack of Darren Sharper) slashed the number of big plays allowed to close to half of the previous year. This defense is not better than the unit Donatell had in 2002 and 2003, although Bates was light years ahead of Donatell.

NFL Stats had Pack Pass D
1st in Yards Allowed
2nd in Fewest Pass Attempts Faced
14th Completion Pct. Allowed
16th in Yds. per Completion
23rd in Passing TDs allowed
25th in QB rating allowed

Pack Run D
23rd Yds allowed per game
19th Yds per attempt
8th in TDs Allowed
6th Most Rushing Attempts Against

Scoring D
20th in Points Allowed
18th in Points Allowed (without ST scores, safeties, or Int/Fum return for TD)

Football Outsders had the Packers Team Defense ranked:
22nd Overall
22nd vs. Pass
22nd vs. Rush
15th in Sacks per pass attempt

For the Pass Defense:
Rank was 22nd
vs. #1 WR 8th
vs. #2 WR 28th
vs. Other WR 26th
vs. TE 30th
vs. RB 20th

Really shines a different light on that #7 ranking, doesn't it? Thanks for posting this info.

tyler

[BallHawk]

Are we an elite defense? NO

Did our ranking make us seem better than we really were? YES

Are we the 6th worst pass defense in the league? NO


So any predictions for what they put our rush defense? I'm saying 28th.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ballhawk, what are you doing in Naples? That's just old people there. You running scams or something? Selling cemetary plots? Bilking people out of social security checks?

[PackerPro42]

Are we going off ESPN rankings or are we foing off stats?

[BallHawk]

I'm the chairman of the NBA(National Bingo Association).


On a serious note it sucks here. In season I'm surrounded by old people who drive with their head up their ass and when their not here it either rains every day or we're pounded with hurricanes. My family is considering moving to Charlotte, NC. Anybody know what it's like there? We visited it in the Spring and it looks like a nice place.

[PackerPro42]

Anything in the Carolinas rocks.

[Fosco33]

Anything in the Carolinas rocks.

LOL!

I lived in Rock Hill, SC for a summer (near Charlotte) and worked extensively in Clover, Fort Mill, Lancaster - they all sucked - big time. Charlotte was alright but I got turned off by the Deep South (bible belt, hot/humid, trailers, racism) - and this is not a generalization. Unless you're in a large city, I'd steer clear of the Carolinas.

[PackerPro42]

Yeah I'll agree with you there. My family vacations down there every year since I was three. And the small towns suck unless you know people there, which I do.

[Fosco33]

Yeah I'll agree with you there. My family vacations down there every year since I was three. And the small towns suck unless you know people there, which I do.

Good call. Small towns anywhere basically blow - unless you know people - trust me I grew up in one in WI :lol:

[wist43]

What a joke, we were #1 last year in pass defense and I know teams ran on us a lot but we were still good against the pass. We add A.J. hawk, Woodson, and Manuel and somehow we drop 25 spots? You notice how they didn't even explain why we were that low, they just gave us 26th and went on to the next team. I expect us to be no higher than 20 in any of their ranking but who really cares anyway?
We were not good against the pass. We gave up a passer rating of 86.2 to opposing QBs. Let me remind you of the Murderer's Row we faced: Harrington (twice), Orton, Grossman, Boller (BEST GAME OF HIS ENTIRE FREAKING CAREER!), Dilfer, Griese, Brooks, Batch, and Mike McMahon.

Al Harris was the only thing above average about our Pass D. We reversed the slide of the previous four years because the run D held together despite a huge number of attempts and Bates scheme (and the lack of Darren Sharper) slashed the number of big plays allowed to close to half of the previous year. This defense is not better than the unit Donatell had in 2002 and 2003, although Bates was light years ahead of Donatell scheme wise.

NFL Stats had Pack Pass D
1st in Yards Allowed
2nd in Fewest Pass Attempts Faced
14th Completion Pct. Allowed
16th in Yds. per Completion
23rd in Passing TDs allowed
25th in QB rating allowed

Pack Run D
23rd Yds allowed per game
19th Yds per attempt
8th in TDs Allowed
6th Most Rushing Attempts Against

Scoring D
20th in Points Allowed
18th in Points Allowed (without ST scores, safeties, or Int/Fum return for TD)

Football Outsders had the Packers Team Defense ranked:
22nd Overall
22nd vs. Pass
22nd vs. Rush
15th in Sacks per pass attempt

For the Pass Defense:
Rank was 22nd
vs. #1 WR 8th
vs. #2 WR 28th
vs. Other WR 26th
vs. TE 30th
vs. RB 20th

Thanks for the stats... I've seen them before, but am too busy and/or too lazy to look them up for substantiation. The Packers number 7 ranking was a mirage. They weren't that good on defense.

Clearly the back seven will be improved, but they're not going to be world beaters; and, they will still have absolutely no pass rush. Since pass defense has to include pass rush, I don't see how anyone can conclude they'll be appreciably better in pass defense overall.

Hopefully the addition of Hawk and Manuel will improve the run defense enough that opposing teams will be forced to throw more... but, understand that our #1 ranking against the pass last year was more a function of the Packers inability to stop the run than it was a function of their ability to defend the pass.

[Zool]

What a joke, we were #1 last year in pass defense and I know teams ran on us a lot but we were still good against the pass. We add A.J. hawk, Woodson, and Manuel and somehow we drop 25 spots? You notice how they didn't even explain why we were that low, they just gave us 26th and went on to the next team. I expect us to be no higher than 20 in any of their ranking but who really cares anyway?
We were not good against the pass. We gave up a passer rating of 86.2 to opposing QBs. Let me remind you of the Murderer's Row we faced: Harrington (twice), Orton, Grossman, Boller (BEST GAME OF HIS ENTIRE FREAKING CAREER!), Dilfer, Griese, Brooks, Batch, and Mike McMahon.

Al Harris was the only thing above average about our Pass D. We reversed the slide of the previous four years because the run D held together despite a huge number of attempts and Bates scheme (and the lack of Darren Sharper) slashed the number of big plays allowed to close to half of the previous year. This defense is not better than the unit Donatell had in 2002 and 2003, although Bates was light years ahead of Donatell scheme wise.

NFL Stats had Pack Pass D
1st in Yards Allowed
2nd in Fewest Pass Attempts Faced
14th Completion Pct. Allowed
16th in Yds. per Completion
23rd in Passing TDs allowed
25th in QB rating allowed

Pack Run D
23rd Yds allowed per game
19th Yds per attempt
8th in TDs Allowed
6th Most Rushing Attempts Against

Scoring D
20th in Points Allowed
18th in Points Allowed (without ST scores, safeties, or Int/Fum return for TD)

Football Outsders had the Packers Team Defense ranked:
22nd Overall
22nd vs. Pass
22nd vs. Rush
15th in Sacks per pass attempt

For the Pass Defense:
Rank was 22nd
vs. #1 WR 8th
vs. #2 WR 28th
vs. Other WR 26th
vs. TE 30th
vs. RB 20th

Thanks for the stats... I've seen them before, but am too busy and/or too lazy to look them up for substantiation. The Packers number 7 ranking was a mirage. They weren't that good on defense.

Clearly the back seven will be improved, but they're not going to be world beaters; and, they will still have absolutely no pass rush. Since pass defense has to include pass rush, I don't see how anyone can conclude they'll be appreciably better in pass defense overall.

Hopefully the addition of Hawk and Manuel will improve the run defense enough that opposing teams will be forced to throw more... but, understand that our #1 ranking against the pass last year was more a function of the Packers inability to stop the run than it was a function of their ability to defend the pass.

It was also helped out by our complete inability to play with a lead. If only someone was ambitious enough to sort out 1st half vs 2nd half stats for run defense I bet you would see disparaging numbers there. The defense can only get pounded for so long every game before they run out of gas.

[pbmax]

Are we going off ESPN rankings or are we foing off stats?
I am trying to go off any objective information I can lay my hands on, plus my eyeballs.

And that lead me to conclude, however dumb and ill-informed Golic, Stinky and TrojanBoy are, our pass defense is closer to 26th than 1st. Based entirely off last year, I'd say we are 20th.

Add Woodson, Manuel, Pickett and Hawk plus I like the Allen addition, I think we are moving up, esp. if Woodson plays the most of the season.

But the odds are good that the offenses we will face this year will be better than last year's collection of defective units.

So we could improve and still be in the second half of the league.

I'm betting on 15th if Sanders is as good as Bates.

[MJZiggy]

See? Now that sounds more reasonable. I'm not such a homer that I think we are gonna have a number 1 defense this year, but neither are we bottom of the barrel. I think our D is middle of the pack and we have to work pretty hard on improving our run-stuffing skills and our turnover ratio and if we can do that, we should see a much happier outcome this season. Then perhaps next year, the "experts :roll: " might rank us more toward where we should be.

[packrulz]

ESPN never was very pro Packer IMO. It seems like they talk up the big market teams to boost their ratings. But, the Packers do have lots of question marks. They'll do better than 4-12, but how much better is anyone's guess. After the Bears, the 1st half of the schedule isn't that tough, if they can get off to a good start & win the divisional games I don't think 9-6 is out of the question. It's the NFC North were talking here.

[BallHawk]

I don't think 9-6 is out of the question. It's the NFC North were talking here.

In all reality, 9-6 is defintely out of the question.:mrgreen: JK, I know what you meant.

I think we'll go 10-6. We'll be the 2004 San Diego Chargers.(4-12 to 12-4)

[packrulz]

I don't think 9-6 is out of the question. It's the NFC North were talking here.

In all reality, 9-6 is defintely out of the question.:mrgreen: JK, I know what you meant.

I think we'll go 10-6. We'll be the 2004 San Diego Chargers.(4-12 to 12-4)


Whoops. No wonder my math teacher used to yank on my ear! I meant 9-7. :oops:

[Deputy Nutz]

Anything in the Carolinas rocks.

LOL!

I lived in Rock Hill, SC for a summer (near Charlotte) and worked extensively in Clover, Fort Mill, Lancaster - they all sucked - big time. Charlotte was alright but I got turned off by the Deep South (bible belt, hot/humid, trailers, racism) - and this is not a generalization. Unless you're in a large city, I'd steer clear of the Carolinas.

I totally disagree with you on this one. I would move to North Carolina in a heart beat. Charlotte is on of the most wonderful, and progressive cities in America. The Coast line of the Carolinas is just a wonderful place to be, just beautiful.

[Fosco33]

Anything in the Carolinas rocks.

LOL!

I lived in Rock Hill, SC for a summer (near Charlotte) and worked extensively in Clover, Fort Mill, Lancaster - they all sucked - big time. Charlotte was alright but I got turned off by the Deep South (bible belt, hot/humid, trailers, racism) - and this is not a generalization. Unless you're in a large city, I'd steer clear of the Carolinas.

I totally disagree with you on this one. I would move to North Carolina in a heart beat. Charlotte is on of the most wonderful, and progressive cities in America. The Coast line of the Carolinas is just a wonderful place to be, just beautiful.

I never dissed Charlotte. I'd recommend an extended visit if you plan on moving to the rural areas.

[woodbuck27]

ONE WORD ! NUTS ! !

[BallHawk]

If we moved to NC, we'd defintely be moving to Charlotte.

Harlan, you ever visited Naples?

[BallHawk]

And ESPN ranked our rush defense 26th.

[BallHawk]

And Sean Salseburry thinks we'll struggle to win 5 games. What a dumbfuck.

[Dabaddestbear]

The only person who sort of believes in the Packers is Chris Mortenson. I remember him on draft day saying that they could either go 5-11, 6-10, or make it into the playoffs.
each win total for the Packers went up as he took another pull on his bong. :roll:

[Fosco33]

The only person who sort of believes in the Packers is Chris Mortenson. I remember him on draft day saying that they could either go 5-11, 6-10, or make it into the playoffs.
each win total for the Packers went up as he took another pull on his bong. :roll:

All the talking heads can't change the fact that winning and losing are done by players and coaches. Talk is cheap.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I've been saying this for a long time, but most of the national writers don't know much about each individual team. Imagine how much time we invest to learn about the Packers. Do you think most national writers are going to invest that much time to really learn about 32 teams? A few do. I can't see a guy like Salisbury investing that much time. I'm sure he's too busying enjoying his money. They take the latest buzz and run with it. I'd bet that I do as much research as 90% of the national writers. Of course, I don't have the resources they do. I do it for the Madden franchise style fantasy football league I'm in. I'd bet 95% of my free time is spent researching or on here.

[Willard]

I agree with Harvey. These guys (Golik, Stank, Salisbury) are barely prepared for these stupid segments. They have a few notes written down on cocktail napkins, they do not justify their selections with any pertinent facts (statisitics, player gains/losses). All in all it is bad TV.

But I don't care. I am in the camp that likes going into the season as an underdog. It has been years since we entered a season with such low expectations on our team. Let's all try to enjoy it. If the team clicks on all cylinders we will all get to chuckle at those who thought we would be as sucky as we were last year!

[SD GB fan]

working off the radar is a good advantage. especially since our team has the potential/talent to explode when things are clicking. (new orleans game last year, of course, the Aints werent much but still). i hope ppl keep badmouthing the pack cos that meants they will hafta eat it more when they are shown up.

[BallHawk]

they will hafta eat it more when they are shown up.

Yeah, once Mike Golic gets all those Burgers out of his throat... I hate Mike Golic.

[woodbuck27]

Well, I'm a fan and don't even beileve in the Packers right now. I guess it all depends on what you "believe in". Believing that they're going to go 7-9 or somewhere around there I think is pretty down-to-earth. I think that's a realistic expectation. To believe that they're SB or playoff bound is crazy right now because of all of the changes to the players, coaching staff and schemes. As wist said, they're just not a good football team right now.

Do I have faith that they could become one? Yes. In time. But all of the chaos has to coalesce into chemistry, leadership and focus. Right now, I don't see a leader on the Packer defense. I question the offensive and defensive lines. And the new schemes and coaching staff have to click with the influx of new faces.

Obviously, these are just my opinions. Even if the Packers tank in 2006, I will still be a fan and I will still be supportive.

26th? If anything, that should be a motivating factor for a defense that was ranked 7th last year. At least they're not ranked an inaccurate first...

tyler

http://www.realfootball365.com/nfl/articles/2006/06/nfl-preview-june150606.html

Above is a link to another ranking. The Packers were ranked 31 out of 32 Teams, only ahead of the 49er's.

31.) Green Bay - Arguably the worst team in the NFL. The front office is becoming a joke, which was evident in its handling of the Javon Walker and Darren Sharper fiascos in recent years. The ridiculous treatment the Packers allow quarterback Brett Favre to put them through, and the strange hiring of Mike McCarthy as the head coach. The only reason to go to Lambeau this season will be to drink beer and see the crumbling of a legend. 27, 28, 29. How many interceptions is that, Brett?

Whatever. woodbuck27

[MJZiggy]

OUR front office is a joke? Have they MET Matt Millen?