2009: Another Slow Start in the Cards?

[Fritz]

Okay...the players that now seem like sure top-5 picks might slide to the end of the first round after the combine, so that topic's played out for the moment...Favre's retirement is always fun, but wait, he plays for another team. The angst over hiring a coaching staff is gone.

So here's a slight but possibly interesting thread idea, which some have commented upon obtrusely in other threads: will the Packers get off to a slow start next year? And if they do, will it affect MM's future - and TT's?

I fear a slow start due to three factors: the now-historically slow-starting run game (and it looks like - again - the offensive line will be different this year), the difficulty of playing at NFL speed when your defense is still thinking its way through the 3-4, and the injury factor: length of recovery time for a guy like Nick Barnett (not sure about Jenkins), and Justin Harrell's back.

Will a 1-4 start or something like it cause so much dissatisfaction that the season will slide into oblivion, as it did this year? MM never did get it "corrected."

Tell me what you think. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me Capers has the same ingredients he did the last two times he converted a defense to a 3-4 and had success. Tell me why Grant will run for 100+ yards in the first five games of the season. Or tell me my worst fears will be confirmed.

Packer nation, discuss.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I think a healthier Grant who doesn't miss training camp will be much better at the beginning of the season than last year. So that alone will help our early season rushing attack.

With A-Rod now with a full season under his belt, the passing playbook can be opened up more and he'll start to see more of the field, thus making our offense more efficient.

While the front 7 learns their way into the 3-4, they can't perform much worse then they did last season. I feel that the quality of coaching has dramatically increased on that side of the ball and so therefore the learning curve will be shortened and the player's abilities will be maximized more often than in the past. The better coaching will offset the inexperience.

I don't see a slow start to the Packers next season. I can certainly see how that can be expected though.

[cpk1994]

Okay...the players that now seem like sure top-5 picks might slide to the end of the first round after the combine, so that topic's played out for the moment...Favre's retirement is always fun, but wait, he plays for another team. The angst over hiring a coaching staff is gone.

So here's a slight but possibly interesting thread idea, which some have commented upon obtrusely in other threads: will the Packers get off to a slow start next year? And if they do, will it affect MM's future - and TT's?

I fear a slow start due to three factors: the now-historically slow-starting run game (and it looks like - again - the offensive line will be different this year), the difficulty of playing at NFL speed when your defense is still thinking its way through the 3-4, and the injury factor: length of recovery time for a guy like Nick Barnett (not sure about Jenkins), and Justin Harrell's back.

Will a 1-4 start or something like it cause so much dissatisfaction that the season will slide into oblivion, as it did this year? MM never did get it "corrected."

Tell me what you think. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me Capers has the same ingredients he did the last two times he converted a defense to a 3-4 and had success. Tell me why Grant will run for 100+ yards in the first five games of the season. Or tell me my worst fears will be confirmed.

Packer nation, discuss.I can't tell you your're wrong, but I can't tell you you are right either. We need to wait and see what TT does in FA and the draft to get a better picture of what this team will have at its disposal.

That said, while your concerns are vaild, there are reasons for optimism, as well. ARod now has a year of expierence under his belt and should get even better. Grant will be fully healthy and without a contract to worry about so the running game should realistically get off to a better start. The secondary should be good again. There will be no distractions this off season, including no real pressing FA resignings, so the team can go about its business with full attention to the task at hand.

Basically I think we just need to wait and see what they come into training camp with.

[Fritz]

I feel better already. And I had forgotten that the pall of the Favre drama will not be hanging over the team this year.

[Pacopete4]

I feel better already. And I had forgotten that the pall of the Favre drama will not be hanging over the team this year.

I'm glad.. Gives TT butt rammers one less excuse to use when this team falls flat again and his record as GM gets even worse because he sits on his hands and thinks he's better than anyone that's ever drafted a team in the NFL..

[mission]

I feel better already. And I had forgotten that the pall of the Favre drama will not be hanging over the team this year.

I really gotta think this one can make a fight for #1 (against D Coaching) reason why we'll come out of the gates strong next season.

Think back to some of the worst moments of that debacle... how did YOU feel? Something strange in the pit of your stomach. I know for me, last off season was really shitty.

Imagine being inside of that... team torn, A-Rod... man...

This offseason is refreshing and I see no reason it won't positively affect the team just as it negatively did last year.

[Fritz]

Two points, Mission.

First, very smooth job of simply ignoring PP's inanity.

Second, I did wonder, last summer, if the drama would affect the team. I hoped it would pull the team together - let's show 'em we can win anyway! - but that obviously didn't happen.

I'm hoping for a harmonious offseason - re-upping a bunch of current Packers (like most posters, Jennings and Collins top my list, though I'd hate to see Colledge spend his crappy years developing in GB and then go somewhere else and play well), a draft heavy on the "D" and good attendance at the offseason stuff, and finally, an injury-free (well, minimal injury) training camp.

[Joemailman]

The issue of the Packers having a new defensive scheme to adjust to works both ways. On one hand. the Packers could go through some growing pains. On the other hand, opposing offenses early on could have a tough adjustment to make since the Packers have been a 4-3 team for years. It will likely be a hybrid defense in 2009, and Capers will do his best to keep opposing offenses guessing.

Offensively, the key is the running game. The Packers really need to see the 2007 Ryan Grant, not the 2008 version. I expect the passing offense to be outstanding. Nelson won't be a rookie, and Jones should be healthy. I expect Arod to have a banner year.

[Fritz]

I'm a big Jones fan. I hope that dude has a breakout year. He's big and strong and when he concentrates he seems able to make the tough catch.

[cpk1994]

Two points, Mission.

First, very smooth job of simply ignoring PP's inanity.

Second, I did wonder, last summer, if the drama would affect the team. I hoped it would pull the team together - let's show 'em we can win anyway! - but that obviously didn't happen.

I'm hoping for a harmonious offseason - re-upping a bunch of current Packers (like most posters, Jennings and Collins top my list, though I'd hate to see Colledge spend his crappy years developing in GB and then go somewhere else and play well), a draft heavy on the "D" and good attendance at the offseason stuff, and finally, an injury-free (well, minimal injury) training camp.The lack of drama will certainly be good for Rodgers. He can now concentrate on the job at hand, instead of having to handle the unfair treatment from the media.

I agree about Jennings and Collins, but I am not as sold as you are on Colledge. I don't know if TT needs to go heavy on the D, but I think a draft with mostly Lineman, O & D, will suffice.

[cpk1994]

Offensively, the key is the running game. The Packers really need to see the 2007 Ryan Grant, not the 2008 version.I think their is a good chance of seeing the 2007 Ryan Grant. This year he will come in fully healthy and able to fully participate in all activities as he doesn't have a contract to worry about.

[mission]

Two points, Mission.

First, very smooth job of simply ignoring PP's inanity.

Second, I did wonder, last summer, if the drama would affect the team. I hoped it would pull the team together - let's show 'em we can win anyway! - but that obviously didn't happen.

I'm hoping for a harmonious offseason - re-upping a bunch of current Packers (like most posters, Jennings and Collins top my list, though I'd hate to see Colledge spend his crappy years developing in GB and then go somewhere else and play well), a draft heavy on the "D" and good attendance at the offseason stuff, and finally, an injury-free (well, minimal injury) training camp.

I was with you in the "it'll pull em together" camp but I guess that's the glass-half-full in me.

Either way, I'm stickin with that same attitude this year with the defensive changes and no one having to take a side in the locker room.

What should really get this forum going is a good draft and a splash or two in FA ... if we can do that, draft well for defense/o-line then we should see some of our moves translate to wins on the field.


(as for PP, what can you really say to that? lol ... I'm learning Fritz, hang with me!)

[retailguy]

I feel better already. And I had forgotten that the pall of the Favre drama will not be hanging over the team this year.

I'm glad.. Gives TT butt rammers one less excuse to use when this team falls flat again and his record as GM gets even worse because he sits on his hands and thinks he's better than anyone that's ever drafted a team in the NFL..

What useful purpose did this serve? We're past this type of stuff. As a final warning, my quarter is two headed and I'll be looking for tails. In short, if this keeps up, you won't be coming back...

[texaspackerbacker]

Is the schedule even out yet?

Talking about 1-4, gosh, maybe you negativists will want to amend that to 0-5 if the Lions aren't in the first five games.

As was said, having Grant healthy alone will make a lot of difference. The biggest factor, though--other than possibly schedule--is kinda up to McCarthy. Even though Rodgers played well right from the start last season, he had a very short leash early and really even later in the season. I think McCarthy's hesitance to open things up was a major reason for the slow start.

It's all kinda hazy now, but that ol' four letter word, L-U-C-K undoubtedly had a lot to do with it--I mean other kinds of bad luck besides the most obvious kind, injuries.

[bobblehead]

One more reason to think we will start off better. MM is feeling a bit of pressure and he won't cut anyone any slack in preseason. If guys aren't performing they will get relegated to the bench fast. Guys who perform will be on the field.

[Pacopete4]

I feel better already. And I had forgotten that the pall of the Favre drama will not be hanging over the team this year.

I'm glad.. Gives TT butt rammers one less excuse to use when this team falls flat again and his record as GM gets even worse because he sits on his hands and thinks he's better than anyone that's ever drafted a team in the NFL..

What useful purpose did this serve? We're past this type of stuff. As a final warning, my quarter is two headed and I'll be looking for tails. In short, if this keeps up, you won't be coming back...

What was the point? It was saying TT is too arrogant to properly do his job to the fullest and that his followers, the butt rammers, are too blind to see that and after this next season.. They won't have Favre to blame.. Not a hard concept to follow

Just cuz u don't agree with the point I'm making, doesn't make it wrong..

Ps. If were truely past this why was the Favre drama ok to bring up and not TT's inability to do his job right?

[red]

i won't rule out a slow start again

i don't see us coming out and having a top 5 d next year and making the super bowl. it will take time for new d to get their sea legs.

i just wish they would have made the damn change last year, then we could have gotten a-rods bugs worked out last year and get the kinks fixed in the d. then this year we would be ready to make a run

add that to the fact that the o-line just completely manages to have their heads shoved as far up their asses as they can possibly have them at the start of the season. and i don't see a fast start

it does make me excited about our future, but i would be shocked if we lit it up this next season

[Pacopete4]

i won't rule out a slow start again

i don't see us coming out and having a top 5 d next year and making the super bowl. it will take time for new d to get their sea legs.

i just wish they would have made the damn change last year, then we could have gotten a-rods bugs worked out last year and get the kinks fixed in the d. then this year we would be ready to make a run

add that to the fact that the o-line just completely manages to have their heads shoved as far up their asses as they can possibly have them at the start of the season. and i don't see a fast start

it does make me excited about our future, but i would be shocked if we lit it up this next season

Itd be great to get a game changer either on O or D this offseason it would help a lot

[Fritz]

I feel better already. And I had forgotten that the pall of the Favre drama will not be hanging over the team this year.

I'm glad.. Gives TT butt rammers one less excuse to use when this team falls flat again and his record as GM gets even worse because he sits on his hands and thinks he's better than anyone that's ever drafted a team in the NFL..

What useful purpose did this serve? We're past this type of stuff. As a final warning, my quarter is two headed and I'll be looking for tails. In short, if this keeps up, you won't be coming back...

What was the point? It was saying TT is too arrogant to properly do his job to the fullest and that his followers, the butt rammers, are too blind to see that and after this next season.. They won't have Favre to blame.. Not a hard concept to follow

Just cuz u don't agree with the point I'm making, doesn't make it wrong..

Ps. If were truely past this why was the Favre drama ok to bring up and not TT's inability to do his job right?

Two things, PP. First, the "Favre drama" was simply my noting - in a thread about whether the Pack will start slow in 09 - that one factor in the Packers' favor this year is that they won't have the tension of last year from Favre's change of mind.

Secondly, had you originally said "TT's inability to do his job right," people might've disagreed, but you wouldn't be being threatened to be booted from the forum. I believe it was the "butt rammer" reference that did it.

Are you getting any of this?

[Pacopete4]

I feel better already. And I had forgotten that the pall of the Favre drama will not be hanging over the team this year.

I'm glad.. Gives TT butt rammers one less excuse to use when this team falls flat again and his record as GM gets even worse because he sits on his hands and thinks he's better than anyone that's ever drafted a team in the NFL..

What useful purpose did this serve? We're past this type of stuff. As a final warning, my quarter is two headed and I'll be looking for tails. In short, if this keeps up, you won't be coming back...

What was the point? It was saying TT is too arrogant to properly do his job to the fullest and that his followers, the butt rammers, are too blind to see that and after this next season.. They won't have Favre to blame.. Not a hard concept to follow

Just cuz u don't agree with the point I'm making, doesn't make it wrong..

Ps. If were truely past this why was the Favre drama ok to bring up and not TT's inability to do his job right?

Two things, PP. First, the "Favre drama" was simply my noting - in a thread about whether the Pack will start slow in 09 - that one factor in the Packers' favor this year is that they won't have the tension of last year from Favre's change of mind.

Secondly, had you originally said "TT's inability to do his job right," people might've disagreed, but you wouldn't be being threatened to be booted from the forum. I believe it was the "butt rammer" reference that did it.

Are you getting any of this?


Now just think how many times I've been called smething in a thread for supporting brett and being on that side... Don't see any mods or administrators coming down on them ever.... Ever! Are you gettng that? It's so one sided it's unreal.. Dsagree with me til u die but at least give me the same respect u give any other poster, whether u agree with me or not and I'd do the same... Oh and butt rammers is bad on these boards now? Talk about holding people to different standards..

[mission]

Here's the thing, Pete ...

You're basically breaking it down into "Favre supporters" and "TT butt rammers" ... the verbiage, I'm fine with... I'm a big boy.

First of all, it's not so black and white.

The most logical, easy to understand concept I can try to get you to understand is really pretty simple.

TT is the Green Bay Packers' General Manager. The decisions he makes impact the team we root for and wish to do well. So obviously we tend to give him the benefit of the doubt since we have no choice anyway.

Brett Favre is a player who used to play for the Green Bay Packers and now has nothing to do with the team's success. One way or the other... the words he says, the passes he throws ... anything and everything he does has nothing to do with how this team performs.

It's pretty easy to see why people tend to be verbally supportive of TT ... we WANT him to do well. It's OUR team.

It's also pretty easy to see why some people don't give a damn about Favre right now. They don't consider emotional factors in their decision making ... just logic, right-here-and-now, what actually matters kind of things.

If you don't get that, I mean... what can anyone say?

[Pacopete4]

Here's the thing, Pete ...

You're basically breaking it down into "Favre supporters" and "TT butt rammers" ... the verbiage, I'm fine with... I'm a big boy.

First of all, it's not so black and white.

The most logical, easy to understand concept I can try to get you to understand is really pretty simple.

TT is the Green Bay Packers' General Manager. The decisions he makes impact the team we root for and wish to do well. So obviously we tend to give him the benefit of the doubt since we have no choice anyway.

Brett Favre is a player who used to play for the Green Bay Packers and now has nothing to do with the team's success. One way or the other... the words he says, the passes he throws ... anything and everything he does has nothing to do with how this team performs.

It's pretty easy to see why people tend to be verbally supportive of TT ... we WANT him to do well. It's OUR team.

It's also pretty easy to see why some people don't give a damn about Favre right now. They don't consider emotional factors in their decision making ... just logic, right-here-and-now, what actually matters kind of things.

If you don't get that, I mean... what can anyone say?

All that is understood, but me as a guy who thinks TT is doing a crap job, shouldn't be treated like shit cuz I have a different opinion.. Treating people like that isn't the right way to go about Anythig either

[Bossman641]

I think the offense is going to have to shoulder the load for the first 1/4 - 1/3 of the season while some of the defensive players get back into the groove and the entire 3-4 scheme gels. I think the offense is definitely capable of picking up the slack, but without knowing what the schedule will look like it is hard to say for sure.

[Bretsky]

The key is to get better players

if TTT finds us a starting caliber player on FA on defense and then has a good draft we'll be fine

Snap out of it Fritz

Better players + Better Coaches + More Health= 2009 Success

[Partial]

I'm with Bretsky, but I think we need to bring in two good players in FA. I'm in support of bringing in any combination of two of the following three: Peppers, Scott, and Canty.

We cannot neglect the DL and assume they'll fill the end spot opposite of Jenkins. Last year the DL was awful, and we don't have a natural there. Canty won't be too expensive imo because he is a niche player who fits our scheme nicely.

Would like Peppers outside and Poppinga inside with Barnett not being counted on, or I would rather have Barnett outside and Scott inside.

I simply don't think a banged up Barnett is going to be able to take on a guard in the running game.

[Bretsky]

I'm with Bretsky, but I think we need to bring in two good players in FA. I'm in support of bringing in any combination of two of the following three: Peppers, Scott, and Canty.

We cannot neglect the DL and assume they'll fill the end spot opposite of Jenkins. Last year the DL was awful, and we don't have a natural there. Canty won't be too expensive imo because he is a niche player who fits our scheme nicely.

Would like Peppers outside and Poppinga inside with Barnett not being counted on, or I would rather have Barnett outside and Scott inside.

I simply don't think a banged up Barnett is going to be able to take on a guard in the running game.


I agree Partial, but to be honest, I've been too disappointed in past Free Agency to ever thing TT will bring us two

[Lurker64]

Would like Peppers outside and Poppinga inside with Barnett not being counted on, or I would rather have Barnett outside and Scott inside.

Poppinga's too slow to play inside in this scheme. Barnett is too small to play outside in this scheme. If Barnett is healthy, we have our two ILBs for this defense. In simplistic terms, 3-4 defenses come in two styles: Speed inside and size outside, or size inside and speed outside. We will be playing the former.

Scott, I'm not so sure about. LBs oftentimes leave Baltimore and find limited success elsewhere. It may have something to do with scheme.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Division title in 2009. Honestly, the schedule will be important. It would be nice to get some creampuffs early while we are adapting. It would also give us momentum--which seems to be huge in the NFL nowadays. My ideal first game would be an ARod led comeback over the Bears at Soldier Field.

[Bretsky]

I'd consider anything less than a divisional title a failure next year for sure

[Lurker64]

I'd consider anything less than a divisional title a failure next year for sure

So you're not on board with winning the superbowl as a wildcard team, then?

[Bretsky]

I'd consider anything less than a divisional title a failure next year for sure

So you're not on board with winning the superbowl as a wildcard team, then?


One step at a time........however....wouldn't complain about that scenario at all :!:

[Gunakor]

Here's the thing, Pete ...

You're basically breaking it down into "Favre supporters" and "TT butt rammers" ... the verbiage, I'm fine with... I'm a big boy.

First of all, it's not so black and white.

The most logical, easy to understand concept I can try to get you to understand is really pretty simple.

TT is the Green Bay Packers' General Manager. The decisions he makes impact the team we root for and wish to do well. So obviously we tend to give him the benefit of the doubt since we have no choice anyway.

Brett Favre is a player who used to play for the Green Bay Packers and now has nothing to do with the team's success. One way or the other... the words he says, the passes he throws ... anything and everything he does has nothing to do with how this team performs.

It's pretty easy to see why people tend to be verbally supportive of TT ... we WANT him to do well. It's OUR team.

It's also pretty easy to see why some people don't give a damn about Favre right now. They don't consider emotional factors in their decision making ... just logic, right-here-and-now, what actually matters kind of things.

If you don't get that, I mean... what can anyone say?

All that is understood, but me as a guy who thinks TT is doing a crap job, shouldn't be treated like shit cuz I have a different opinion.. Treating people like that isn't the right way to go about Anythig either

Nobody started anything with you until you jumped in to defend Favre calling TT supporters butt rammers - twice. And why you felt the need to jump in and defend Favre in this thread is beyond me, because nobody really said anything negative about him in the first place.

All that was originally said was that the team wouldn't have that drama hanging over their heads all summer, and that would likely translate to a faster start because there would be far less distraction while preparing for the new season. Nothing negative about Favre at all, just one positive outlook on the new season. Then you gave your butt rammers quip. You started it.

And then you bitch about why we single you out?

[cpk1994]

I feel better already. And I had forgotten that the pall of the Favre drama will not be hanging over the team this year.

I'm glad.. Gives TT butt rammers one less excuse to use when this team falls flat again and his record as GM gets even worse because he sits on his hands and thinks he's better than anyone that's ever drafted a team in the NFL..

What useful purpose did this serve? We're past this type of stuff. As a final warning, my quarter is two headed and I'll be looking for tails. In short, if this keeps up, you won't be coming back...

What was the point? It was saying TT is too arrogant to properly do his job to the fullest and that his followers, the butt rammers, are too blind to see that and after this next season.. They won't have Favre to blame.. Not a hard concept to follow

Just cuz u don't agree with the point I'm making, doesn't make it wrong..

Ps. If were truely past this why was the Favre drama ok to bring up and not TT's inability to do his job right?

Two things, PP. First, the "Favre drama" was simply my noting - in a thread about whether the Pack will start slow in 09 - that one factor in the Packers' favor this year is that they won't have the tension of last year from Favre's change of mind.

Secondly, had you originally said "TT's inability to do his job right," people might've disagreed, but you wouldn't be being threatened to be booted from the forum. I believe it was the "butt rammer" reference that did it.

Are you getting any of this?


Now just think how many times I've been called smething in a thread for supporting brett and being on that side... Don't see any mods or administrators coming down on them ever.... Ever!I think JH and I call bull on this statement.

[texaspackerbacker]

Itd be great to get a game changer either on O or D this offseason it would help a lot[/quote]

Game changer? You mean like Charles Woodson or Nick Collins?

Or maybe like Greg Jennings or Ryan Grant in '07--hopefully he gets back to that? Or like Aaron Rodgers?

I'd settle for a solid O Line--either from parts on hand or a new piece or two, and a 3/4 Defense made up of players already there that hits the ground runnin' and gets the job done right from the start--and Grant playing like he did in '07.

[bobblehead]

I feel better already. And I had forgotten that the pall of the Favre drama will not be hanging over the team this year.

I'm glad.. Gives TT butt rammers one less excuse to use when this team falls flat again and his record as GM gets even worse because he sits on his hands and thinks he's better than anyone that's ever drafted a team in the NFL..

Just curious. If we go 12-4 and win the division and first round bye and win a playoff game or 2 or 3.....are you going to man up and admit you were wrong?

I'm looking at this as a make or break year. I believe in TT, but another stinker like last year...or even 8-8 and I will be ready for change.

[cheesner]

Here's the thing, Pete ...

You're basically breaking it down into "Favre supporters" and "TT butt rammers" ... the verbiage, I'm fine with... I'm a big boy.

First of all, it's not so black and white.

The most logical, easy to understand concept I can try to get you to understand is really pretty simple.

TT is the Green Bay Packers' General Manager. The decisions he makes impact the team we root for and wish to do well. So obviously we tend to give him the benefit of the doubt since we have no choice anyway.

Brett Favre is a player who used to play for the Green Bay Packers and now has nothing to do with the team's success. One way or the other... the words he says, the passes he throws ... anything and everything he does has nothing to do with how this team performs.

It's pretty easy to see why people tend to be verbally supportive of TT ... we WANT him to do well. It's OUR team.

It's also pretty easy to see why some people don't give a damn about Favre right now. They don't consider emotional factors in their decision making ... just logic, right-here-and-now, what actually matters kind of things.

If you don't get that, I mean... what can anyone say?

All that is understood, but me as a guy who thinks TT is doing a crap job, shouldn't be treated like shit cuz I have a different opinion.. Treating people like that isn't the right way to go about Anythig either
You are not treated how you are because of what you think. You are treated the way you are because of how you express yourself. Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Lincoln, etc were great because they not only had great ideas, but they expressed them well and were heard. If they chose to get their point across through farting and tap dancing, you would not know their names today.

Let me try and help you out.

I usually make it a point not to read your posts, you say the same things in a ridiculous way. The only time I do is when someone puts your quote in their response.


"I believe you overestimate TT's qualities as a GM for several reasons. First, he . . . ."

"You are a TT butt rammer. TT sucks as a GM and he should be run out of town"

Do you see the differences in these statements above? One is respectful and provokes an intelligent discussion, the other does not. I am not sure why you come here, most come hear to gain insight and information on a team we really enjoy. You apparently come here to argue and to attack people. I would estimate your age to be 14-16 and you are going to have to learn at some point how to present your thoughts in an effective manner as this will help you in your career, marriage, freindships, etc.

So the reason why you do not get any respect, you don't deserve any. In the future, don't post in anger. Don't post any condescending terms for other posters. Don't feel the need to post the same sentiment in every thread. And post only statements backed up by logic, statistics, etc. Read carefully the posts of one of the more respected posters on this site, Palter. You will find all of his posts to be well reasoned and put in a straight forward, non-insuluting way. Palter has far more influence on the thoughts and opinons of this board than most. And isn't that the point of posting - debating aspects of the Packers to affect opinions?

[retailguy]

you guys can stop responding to pacopete and get back to the discussion at hand. He won't be replying to your messages any time in the near future.

thanks.

[cpk1994]

I feel better already. And I had forgotten that the pall of the Favre drama will not be hanging over the team this year.

I'm glad.. Gives TT butt rammers one less excuse to use when this team falls flat again and his record as GM gets even worse because he sits on his hands and thinks he's better than anyone that's ever drafted a team in the NFL..

Just curious. If we go 12-4 and win the division and first round bye and win a playoff game or 2 or 3.....are you going to man up and admit you were wrong?

I'm looking at this as a make or break year. I believe in TT, but another stinker like last year...or even 8-8 and I will be ready for change.This gets a little tricky considering the massive changes on "D". If he goes 8-8, he has aonther year imo. If the Packers go 6-10 or worse, then I probably would believe they should get ready to change. But I won't go as far as saying win the division or bust.

[MadtownPacker]

Anything less then a playoff game (wildcard or div title) means M3 should be fired and TT should get one last shot (2 to 3 years) to put together a winner.

[KYPack]

Anything less then a playoff game (wildcard or div title) means M3 should be fired and TT should get one last shot (2 to 3 years) to put together a winner.

At least a winning record with the team in contention all year.

I'd like to see the statistics onteams that install a 3-4. I did a thread on the Pack when they went to a 3-4 in '80. their poor '79 defense was better than the '80 team. It takes a good bit of time for the D to gel in a new scheme.

'Ol MM might have bit off more than he can chew with this latest move.

[retailguy]

Anything less then a playoff game (wildcard or div title) means M3 should be fired and TT should get one last shot (2 to 3 years) to put together a winner.

At least a winning record with the team in contention all year.

I'd like to see the statistics onteams that install a 3-4. I did a thread on the Pack when they went to a 3-4 in '80. their poor '79 defense was better than the '80 team. It takes a good bit of time for the D to gel in a new scheme.

'Ol MM might have bit off more than he can chew with this latest move.

That's my thought KY. I just don't think defenses are "plug and play". Too many new personnel, too many new schemes, terminology, processes and such.

Yeah, I've heard the lines about (most players) having played in it in the past (high school, college, other NFL teams), but I'm not buying it.

It takes time to gel, and in a 16 game season, you don't have very much.

They surprised me in 2007, but I don't think they'll do that again.

Today, I'm not optimistic.

[Lurker64]

I think it's shortsighted to say things like "unless x happens, y ought to be fired." If the Packers go 11-5 and miss the playoffs (like the Patriots this year) is that a sign of tremendous failure by the Packers brass? If the Packers go 8-8, win a wildcard, and win the superbowl that's definitely a win in most of our eyes. If the Packers suffer several season ending injuries to key players in the first game and struggle to make it to .500, does anybody think that people ought to get fired?

Too early to say.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Today, I'm not optimistic.

You are never optimistic.
:D

The thing that gives me hope is this:

1991 - Pittsburgh's defense with a 4-3 = 24th in points allowed, 22nd in yards allowed
1992 - Pittsburgh's defense with a 3-4 under Capers = 2nd in points allowed, 13th in yards allowed

1998 - Jacksonville's defense with a 4-3 = 17th in points allowed, 25th in yards allowed
1999 - Jacksonville's defense with a 3-4 under Capers = 1st in points allowed, 4th in yards allowed

2008 - Green Bay's defense with a 4-3 = 23rd in points allowed, 20th in yards allowed
2009 - Who knows? But at least Capers has shown he can pull this off. Twice.

I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I doubt fans of those teams thought their defensive turnarounds would happen so quickly.

[Patler]

Offensively, the key is the running game. The Packers really need to see the 2007 Ryan Grant, not the 2008 version.I think their is a good chance of seeing the 2007 Ryan Grant. This year he will come in fully healthy and able to fully participate in all activities as he doesn't have a contract to worry about.

I like Grant. Always have from his days at ND. But....

Grant still has to prove that he can stay healthy for an entire season. One of the reasons that he had a nondescript career at Notre Dame, and as a result was not drafted, was a problem staying on the field. When there, he performed very well, and he didn't miss extended time, but was often "nicked up." He was passed (or caught) in the depth chart when he wasn't 100% and had to come out at times. As a result, he didn't lock down his starting role and in his Junior season he gave an opportunity back to Julius Jones. As a Senior, he opened the door for Darius Walker, a freshman.

Of course didn't play in NY. 2007 was a half season+ in GB. 2008 was injury marred.

If I recall correctly, it was often a hamstring problem that bothered him at ND. When he first came from the Giants, he missed practices the first or second week in GB because of a hamstring. Then, last year, a hamstring issue again.

Grant can be an asset, but the Packers need someone behind him that can be counted on.

[retailguy]

Today, I'm not optimistic.

You are never optimistic.
:D

The thing that gives me hope is this:

1991 - Pittsburgh's defense with a 4-3 = 24th in points allowed, 22nd in yards allowed
1992 - Pittsburgh's defense with a 3-4 under Capers = 2nd in points allowed, 13th in yards allowed

1998 - Jacksonville's defense with a 4-3 = 17th in points allowed, 25th in yards allowed
1999 - Jacksonville's defense with a 3-4 under Capers = 1st in points allowed, 4th in yards allowed

2008 - Green Bay's defense with a 4-3 = 23rd in points allowed, 20th in yards allowed
2009 - Who knows? But at least Capers has shown he can pull this off. Twice.

I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I doubt fans of those teams thought their defensive turnarounds would happen so quickly.

Ok, Ok, I deserved that. :wink:

I appreciate seeing these statistics. I did not know these things. My only recollection of Capers was as the Houston coach. I knew he was supposed to be a defensive guru, but truthfully really didn't know that much about him.

On the one hand, I'm encouraged by the reports I read earlier about the depth of the talent on the Green Bay defense, but, again just can't see them putting it together so quickly.

I'd love them to prove me wrong! :lol: But, in Green Bay, it just seems that they have to work really hard to get the fundamentals down. Maybe Capers will change that. Maybe.

You cheered me up some! That's a good thing. :D

[Fritz]

I feel better....slightly. On the one hand, it seems hard to believe they won't improve, almost by default. How many times did we watch a lead slip away in the last five minutes of a game? Then there's Capers's track record of improvement in one year.

But as was pointed out above, the Pack don't seem to adjust to new schemes very well. The debacle of the Donatell/Slowik change remains fresh in my mind. The continuing struggle - I think - with zone blocking (I know MM is screaming at me somewhere) is in my mind.

However, Rodgers should be more comfortable, and if the team's health - most especially Rodgers - is good, they ought to improve.

Okay. Deep breath.

[MadtownPacker]

At least a winning record with the team in contention all year.

I'd like to see the statistics onteams that install a 3-4. I did a thread on the Pack when they went to a 3-4 in '80. their poor '79 defense was better than the '80 team. It takes a good bit of time for the D to gel in a new scheme.

'Ol MM might have bit off more than he can chew with this latest move.
Are you drunk? A winning record will get you playoffs in the NFC and you know that.

TT cant stick with M3 if he doesnt give him something good in 09.

[Gunakor]

At least a winning record with the team in contention all year.

I'd like to see the statistics onteams that install a 3-4. I did a thread on the Pack when they went to a 3-4 in '80. their poor '79 defense was better than the '80 team. It takes a good bit of time for the D to gel in a new scheme.

'Ol MM might have bit off more than he can chew with this latest move.
Are you drunk? A winning record will get you playoffs in the NFC and you know that.

TT cant stick with M3 if he doesnt give him something good in 09.

He can if he deems the problem a rocky transition on defense, and decides that the defensive struggles will work themselves out with more time to get accustomed to the new scheme.

[Waldo]

I posted it in another thread, but every 3-4 defense today in the NFL improved significantly when compared to the previous year, the year they made switch, except Baltimore, who had a bunch of players retire/leave from a #4 defense (hard to blame scheme change fully), and SF. The one constant in those less than stellar transitions is Mike Nolan. All others improved their ranking, even teams like Cle and NYJ that didn't even close to have the right personnel when they made the switch.

[SnakeLH2006]

Offensively, the key is the running game. The Packers really need to see the 2007 Ryan Grant, not the 2008 version.I think their is a good chance of seeing the 2007 Ryan Grant. This year he will come in fully healthy and able to fully participate in all activities as he doesn't have a contract to worry about.

I like Grant. Always have from his days at ND. But....

Grant still has to prove that he can stay healthy for an entire season. One of the reasons that he had a nondescript career at Notre Dame, and as a result was not drafted, was a problem staying on the field. When there, he performed very well, and he didn't miss extended time, but was often "nicked up." He was passed (or caught) in the depth chart when he wasn't 100% and had to come out at times. As a result, he didn't lock down his starting role and in his Junior season he gave an opportunity back to Julius Jones. As a Senior, he opened the door for Darius Walker, a freshman.

Of course didn't play in NY. 2007 was a half season+ in GB. 2008 was injury marred.

If I recall correctly, it was often a hamstring problem that bothered him at ND. When he first came from the Giants, he missed practices the first or second week in GB because of a hamstring. Then, last year, a hamstring issue again.

Grant can be an asset, but the Packers need someone behind him that can be counted on.

Agreed. I believe part of Grant's problems come in when he carries the ball for 30 times a game. Look at Fred Taylor, rejuvenate his career at 30 when they found that he could stay healthy(ier) when they could spell him with another back for 10-15 carries a game, and limit him to 20 good touches.

I feel, as most do on PR, that Lumpkin, Wynn, or BJack could step in a provide those carries to spell Grant effectively. I know all 4 were banged up at different times in 2008, but M3 can't keep giving feeding Grant 30 carries for several games in a row at times, and feel he can be effective in the NFL.

What would help is a more consistent D to keep the O off the field, as I'm not so worried about Grant, as I am ARod in 2009. I really liked ARod in 2008 and feel he will really shine in 2009 with a good D. If the D regresses or even stays the same as 2008, this could spell trouble for ARod's health, as well, as his name is out there as the man to stop GB's O.

Job number 1 is 2009, is finding ways to deflect hits/attention from ARod whether that be a healthy Grant and RB tandem/trio and/or an improved D to keep him healthy.

[Gunakor]

What would help is a more consistent D to keep the O off the field, as I'm not so worried about Grant, as I am ARod in 2009. I really liked ARod in 2008 and feel he will really shine in 2009 with a good D. If the D regresses or even stays the same as 2008, this could spell trouble for ARod's health, as well, as his name is out there as the man to stop GB's O.

Job number 1 is 2009, is finding ways to deflect hits/attention from ARod whether that be a healthy Grant and RB tandem/trio and/or an improved D to keep him healthy.

Rodgers shoulder injury happened due to Aaron stretching the ball out in front of him during one of his runs, trying to pick up a first down, and landing awkwardly on the arm/shoulder. Great defense cannot protect Aaron from himself.

By the way, a more consistent D would translate to the offense spending MORE time on the field, not less. A more consistent D would mean the defense would force more three and outs, putting the offense back on the field and giving the defense more time on the sideline. As it should be. I'd rather my offense command a 2:1 advantage in time of possession than to be on the short end of that stick.

[cpk1994]

I feel better....slightly. On the one hand, it seems hard to believe they won't improve, almost by default. How many times did we watch a lead slip away in the last five minutes of a game? Then there's Capers's track record of improvement in one year.

But as was pointed out above, the Pack don't seem to adjust to new schemes very well. The debacle of the Donatell/Slowik change remains fresh in my mind. The continuing struggle - I think - with zone blocking (I know MM is screaming at me somewhere) is in my mind.

However, Rodgers should be more comfortable, and if the team's health - most especially Rodgers - is good, they ought to improve.

Okay. Deep breath.Don't you think, though, that the scheme change you mentioned probably had to do more with Donatell/Slowik and how the tought it rather than the players? Those two don't strike me as good teachers. Capers, OTOH, is well know as a good teacher and is a far suprerior upgrade to those two dimwits by default.

[Fritz]

Well, I certainly hope you are right. However, those guys were also coaches elsewhere, so it's not like a Lions' coaching hire where everybody says "WTF?" and when the guy gets fired he never gets another, similar job in the NFL again.

But I hope you are right. I think you are, based on Capeers's past performance.

[cpk1994]

Well, I certainly hope you are right. However, those guys were also coaches elsewhere, so it's not like a Lions' coaching hire where everybody says "WTF?" and when the guy gets fired he never gets another, similar job in the NFL again.

But I hope you are right. I think you are, based on Capeers's past performance.Yes they were coaches elsewhere, but Slowik just oversaw the worst D in the NFL with the Broncos and Donatell was nothiong to wrtie home about with the Falcons. They get jobs becuase of the "retread" facotr more than what they have accomplished.