Rebound teams

[HarveyWallbangers]

For what it's worth.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80f2ee53&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true


Green Bay Packers

Quarterback Aaron Rodgers did a better-than-adequate job stepping in for Brett Favre amid a tsunami of controversy. Rodgers should be better in his second year as a starter. Right tackle Mark Tauscher, a solid nine-year veteran, is coming off knee surgery and is a free agent. The Packers have to address that situation, either by re-signing Tauscher if he's healthy or via trade, draft or free agency. Regardless, Green Bay needs to reinforce its offensive-line depth.

The big issue is on defense, where the Packers were gashed on the ground and gave up nearly 24 points per game. Green Bay is switching to a 3-4 defense and has brought in Dom Capers, one of the best at coaching the scheme, to coordinate the transition. End Aaron Kampman is set to move to outside linebacker and be the primary edge rusher, but such a move isn't always smooth. The Packers have to add some outside linebackers and solidify their secondary, but most of the personnel is in place to make the change.

[wist43]

Didn't read the article due to time contraints... only have time to argue on lunch hour now-a-days :)

Nevertheless... I agree with the sentiment that the Packers can be a rebound team... unless Minnesota takes another step up, GB should be right there fighting for the division.

[Bretsky]

GB would probably be first on my list of teams most likely to bounce back for a few reasons

1. Our Division Sucks

2. We lost a lot of close ones for a wide array of reasons

3. Injury bug hit us in some key spots last year so that should be better and/or TT should theoretically should have better backups for us as he cycles out some of the bottom guys off the roster.

[Fritz]

I'm thinking they will be better this year. Part of my reasoning is that even if the transition to the 3-4 is rocky, how much worse can that defense be than last year's rotten egg?

And if the team stays healthy, the offense's maturity (Rodgers, Colledge, Spitz, Jones, Nelson, Sitton, Finley, Jackson) should help it put up better numbers.

[Joemailman]

We should be better because Mike Montgomery will be bigger. :cow: :P

[Partial]

Don't see them rebounding unless they acknowledge the DL problem.

[Fritz]

Partial, Tex is probably the only guy in the universe who thinks the Packers have no defensive line needs (he thinks they only need a backup nose tackle). Just because TT hasn't signed two defensive linemen doesn't mean he doesn't understand the need.

He may sign a stopgap guy for a year while a rookie develops, or he may have his eyes on two or three defensive linemen in the draft. But I'm sure he's not going to send MM into the season with only five defensive linemen.

[Joemailman]

One problem last year was that we had a DC who wouldn't/couldn't adjust. He kept running the same scheme even though it was obvious he wasn't getting the DL production needed to run that scheme. Don't know exactly what Capers is going to come up with, but if something isn't working, I suspect he won't be afraid to try something else.

[Bretsky]

Partial, Tex is probably the only guy in the universe who thinks the Packers have no defensive line needs (he thinks they only need a backup nose tackle). Just because TT hasn't signed two defensive linemen doesn't mean he doesn't understand the need.

He may sign a stopgap guy for a year while a rookie develops, or he may have his eyes on two or three defensive linemen in the draft. But I'm sure he's not going to send MM into the season with only five defensive linemen.


he'll bring one in; it's bottomfeeder time.........TT is good at that

[MJZiggy]

Partial, Tex is probably the only guy in the universe who thinks the Packers have no defensive line needs (he thinks they only need a backup nose tackle). Just because TT hasn't signed two defensive linemen doesn't mean he doesn't understand the need.

He may sign a stopgap guy for a year while a rookie develops, or he may have his eyes on two or three defensive linemen in the draft. But I'm sure he's not going to send MM into the season with only five defensive linemen.


he'll bring one in; it's bottomfeeder time.........TT is good at that

Yes, he is. He's VERY good at that.

[retailguy]

Partial, Tex is probably the only guy in the universe who thinks the Packers have no defensive line needs (he thinks they only need a backup nose tackle). Just because TT hasn't signed two defensive linemen doesn't mean he doesn't understand the need.

He may sign a stopgap guy for a year while a rookie develops, or he may have his eyes on two or three defensive linemen in the draft. But I'm sure he's not going to send MM into the season with only five defensive linemen.


he'll bring one in; it's bottomfeeder time.........TT is good at that

Yes, he is. He's VERY good at that.

Maybe he's a carp...

[oregonpackfan]

Posters have documented here some valid points about the Packers difficulties in a 6-10 season: defensive shortcomings, injuries to key players, and special teams.

I still feel THE most difficult hurdle the Packers had to overcome was the entire Brett Favre retirement/unretirement/trade debacle. I think that just sucked the life out of the start of the season for the Packers.

Rodgers not only had to carry the burden of replacing a future Hall of Fame legendary QB, he had to carry the burden of constantly being compared to the same quarterback who was still playing, but this time for a different team!

Not only did Rodgers play well for a first year starter, I thought he displayed remarkable poise and maturity in handling the situation in which he was placed. As a Packer fan, I have a lot of confidence in Rodgers coming back without the shadow of Brett Favre lurking over him.

[SnakeLH2006]

GB would probably be first on my list of teams most likely to bounce back for a few reasons

1. Our Division Sucks

2. We lost a lot of close ones for a wide array of reasons

3. Injury bug hit us in some key spots last year so that should be better and/or TT should theoretically should have better backups for us as he cycles out some of the bottom guys off the roster.

I agree with all those points and look to a big season this year, if nothing else cuz our division is weak as always.

So Snake is going back to Vegas in 2 weeks from now. 2 years ago I had 36:1 odds of the Packers making the SuperBowl after going 8-8 in 2006. I put $10 on them at MGM Grand that would have netted Snake a cool $350 if Favre wouldn't have been too chilly in overtime vs. the Giants. GODDAMNIT! Sorry....still bitter...

But I wonder what the odds are now for this year's GB SuperBowl odds? If 20:1 or close, I'm putting $50 on it in a weak/turmoiled NFC. They look like a good bet for a rebound team for those reasons Bret listed.

[K-town]

As of Monday, March 2nd, at Fitzgerald's in Las Vegas:
Packers are 18 to 1 to win the Super Bowl...and 8 to 1 to win the NFC Championship.

[texaspackerbacker]

Partial, Tex is probably the only guy in the universe who thinks the Packers have no defensive line needs (he thinks they only need a backup nose tackle). Just because TT hasn't signed two defensive linemen doesn't mean he doesn't understand the need.

He may sign a stopgap guy for a year while a rookie develops, or he may have his eyes on two or three defensive linemen in the draft. But I'm sure he's not going to send MM into the season with only five defensive linemen.

Yeah, me, Thompson, and McCarthy. I'll settle for that.

I like the article's conclusion--that the Packers are likely to bounce back--DUH! Injuries ruined last season; Odds are that won't happen again.

The last line of the Packer segment of the article is just woefully ignorant, though. The Packers need to pick some OLBs (plural?) and solidify their secondary? That's just plain ridiculous on both counts.

I also reject the notion expressed by Bretsky and possibly others that the Packers are in a weak division. Sure, there is the Lions, but the other three are all quality teams. The Bears also were hurt by injuries last season. They still are tough on defense, and they aren't that far away on offense. The Vikings could be scary good if they found a solution at QB. I'd say about 4 or 5 of the other 7 divisions are clearly not as good as ours.

[bbbffl66]

Partial, Tex is probably the only guy in the universe who thinks the Packers have no defensive line needs (he thinks they only need a backup nose tackle). Just because TT hasn't signed two defensive linemen doesn't mean he doesn't understand the need.

He may sign a stopgap guy for a year while a rookie develops, or he may have his eyes on two or three defensive linemen in the draft. But I'm sure he's not going to send MM into the season with only five defensive linemen.

Yeah, me, Thompson, and McCarthy. I'll settle for that.

I like the article's conclusion--that the Packers are likely to bounce back--DUH! Injuries ruined last season; Odds are that won't happen again.

The last line of the Packer segment of the article is just woefully ignorant, though. The Packers need to pick some OLBs (plural?) and solidify their secondary? That's just plain ridiculous on both counts.

I also reject the notion expressed by Bretsky and possibly others that the Packers are in a weak division. Sure, there is the Lions, but the other three are all quality teams. The Bears also were hurt by injuries last season. They still are tough on defense, and they aren't that far away on offense. The Vikings could be scary good if they found a solution at QB. I'd say about 4 or 5 of the other 7 divisions are clearly not as good as ours.

Which Divisions are worse? AFC West? Yes. AFC South? Indy, Jax, Houston and Tenn? No! AFC North? SB Champs plus Balt. No! AFC East? NE, Buff Miami all pretty good. No. NFC West? Pretty crappy. Yes. NFC South? I believe( though not positive) they just had a winning record against NFC North. I know the Packers were swept! So no! NFC East? Eagles, Giants and CowPies are good teams. Skins? Enh! So I'd say no. That means the NFC North is better than 2 divisions right now - the NFC Worst and the AFC Worst.

[Fritz]

Partial, Tex is probably the only guy in the universe who thinks the Packers have no defensive line needs (he thinks they only need a backup nose tackle). Just because TT hasn't signed two defensive linemen doesn't mean he doesn't understand the need.

He may sign a stopgap guy for a year while a rookie develops, or he may have his eyes on two or three defensive linemen in the draft. But I'm sure he's not going to send MM into the season with only five defensive linemen.

Yeah, me, Thompson, and McCarthy. I'll settle for that.

I like the article's conclusion--that the Packers are likely to bounce back--DUH! Injuries ruined last season; Odds are that won't happen again.

The last line of the Packer segment of the article is just woefully ignorant, though. The Packers need to pick some OLBs (plural?) and solidify their secondary? That's just plain ridiculous on both counts.

I also reject the notion expressed by Bretsky and possibly others that the Packers are in a weak division. Sure, there is the Lions, but the other three are all quality teams. The Bears also were hurt by injuries last season. They still are tough on defense, and they aren't that far away on offense. The Vikings could be scary good if they found a solution at QB. I'd say about 4 or 5 of the other 7 divisions are clearly not as good as ours.

Tex, I'd bet neither Thompson nor McCarthy think the Packers are set on the defensive line.

[Pugger]

Posters have documented here some valid points about the Packers difficulties in a 6-10 season: defensive shortcomings, injuries to key players, and special teams.

I still feel THE most difficult hurdle the Packers had to overcome was the entire Brett Favre retirement/unretirement/trade debacle. I think that just sucked the life out of the start of the season for the Packers.

Rodgers not only had to carry the burden of replacing a future Hall of Fame legendary QB, he had to carry the burden of constantly being compared to the same quarterback who was still playing, but this time for a different team!

Not only did Rodgers play well for a first year starter, I thought he displayed remarkable poise and maturity in handling the situation in which he was placed. As a Packer fan, I have a lot of confidence in Rodgers coming back without the shadow of Brett Favre lurking over him.

+1

I wish I had written this post!! :pack:

[texaspackerbacker]

Partial, Tex is probably the only guy in the universe who thinks the Packers have no defensive line needs (he thinks they only need a backup nose tackle). Just because TT hasn't signed two defensive linemen doesn't mean he doesn't understand the need.

He may sign a stopgap guy for a year while a rookie develops, or he may have his eyes on two or three defensive linemen in the draft. But I'm sure he's not going to send MM into the season with only five defensive linemen.

Yeah, me, Thompson, and McCarthy. I'll settle for that.

I like the article's conclusion--that the Packers are likely to bounce back--DUH! Injuries ruined last season; Odds are that won't happen again.

The last line of the Packer segment of the article is just woefully ignorant, though. The Packers need to pick some OLBs (plural?) and solidify their secondary? That's just plain ridiculous on both counts.

I also reject the notion expressed by Bretsky and possibly others that the Packers are in a weak division. Sure, there is the Lions, but the other three are all quality teams. The Bears also were hurt by injuries last season. They still are tough on defense, and they aren't that far away on offense. The Vikings could be scary good if they found a solution at QB. I'd say about 4 or 5 of the other 7 divisions are clearly not as good as ours.

Tex, I'd bet neither Thompson nor McCarthy think the Packers are set on the defensive line.

I guess we'll see on draft day. I'd bet against them drafting any more than D Linemen brought in to compete--probably nothing higher than 3rd or 4th round.

Regarding the other divisions, 2 or 4 or 5, who's counting. Maybe I exaggerated a bit, although I still think the NFC North is better than the NFC South, despite the record last season, and probably the AFC East also. That's just unsubstantiated opinion at this point, though.

[SnakeLH2006]

As of Monday, March 2nd, at Fitzgerald's in Las Vegas:
Packers are 18 to 1 to win the Super Bowl...and 8 to 1 to win the NFC Championship.

Wow...I wonder what the difference is this year then? It wasn't 36:1 to WIN the SuperBowl 2 years ago, it was 36:1 to win the NFC Championship which I bet on...coming off of an 8-8 team. We just went 6-10 and instead of 36:1 it's now 8:1? Damn.....If that isn't good reason to expect a rebound this year for the Pack I don't know what is....Guess Snake is going for a cheap $10 bet again this year...except it would pay $70, not $350 if they made the SuperBowl. WOWZA. Go Pack.

[Bretsky]

As of Monday, March 2nd, at Fitzgerald's in Las Vegas:
Packers are 18 to 1 to win the Super Bowl...and 8 to 1 to win the NFC Championship.

Wow...I wonder what the difference is this year then? It wasn't 36:1 to WIN the SuperBowl 2 years ago, it was 36:1 to win the NFC Championship which I bet on...coming off of an 8-8 team. We just went 6-10 and instead of 36:1 it's now 8:1? Damn.....If that isn't good reason to expect a rebound this year for the Pack I don't know what is....Guess Snake is going for a cheap $10 bet again this year...except it would pay $70, not $350 if they made the SuperBowl. WOWZA. Go Pack.


What is the Even Money for Wins next year ? Over Under ?

What about the Playoffs ?

Winning the Division ?


Those are bets I might jump into

[SnakeLH2006]

As of Monday, March 2nd, at Fitzgerald's in Las Vegas:
Packers are 18 to 1 to win the Super Bowl...and 8 to 1 to win the NFC Championship.

Wow...I wonder what the difference is this year then? It wasn't 36:1 to WIN the SuperBowl 2 years ago, it was 36:1 to win the NFC Championship which I bet on...coming off of an 8-8 team. We just went 6-10 and instead of 36:1 it's now 8:1? Damn.....If that isn't good reason to expect a rebound this year for the Pack I don't know what is....Guess Snake is going for a cheap $10 bet again this year...except it would pay $70, not $350 if they made the SuperBowl. WOWZA. Go Pack.


What is the Even Money for Wins next year ? Over Under ?

What about the Playoffs ?

Winning the Division ?


Those are bets I might jump into

Good questions that need answers as I leave out of Brewtown on March 30th for Vegas...Anyone with good bets to lay out spit it and I'll post up what I throw down on for Pack/NFL bets. I also got screwed that year as I picked the fav. NE Patriots to win the Superbowl...for $10 which woulda payed only $35, then they choked to the Giants.

Anyone with good bets/odds this year post up as I'm leaving soon and Snake likes to roll the dice. Thanx!! :D

[cpk1994]

As of Monday, March 2nd, at Fitzgerald's in Las Vegas:
Packers are 18 to 1 to win the Super Bowl...and 8 to 1 to win the NFC Championship.Looks like it is time for me to lay down a couple of wagers....

[Joemailman]

I wonder if Arizona making it to the Super Bowl is a reason why the odds for teams making it to the Super Bowl don't seem to be as long this year.

http://www.nsawins.com/nfl-odds.shtml This site has Pack at 25/1 to win Super Bowl, same as Arizona! Detroit is longest shot at 100/1.

[KYPack]

Hey, back OT, ya know.

Re-bounders

The Pack This season we split the close ones and go 10-6.

Buffalo These guys hit hard and can run the ball. TO is in his honeymoon period & helps 'em win this year.

Texans They've got a good young team who is learning how to win.

New Orleans They blew us out last year. Their D gets it together to help the Brees powered attack.

Detroit Just kiddin'

[Bretsky]

I see NO being a very dangerous team next year, similar to GB.

[Joemailman]

Yep. New Orleans had a bunch of close losses, similar to the Packers. These are the teams who have a great chance for a big turnaround, especially because they both upgraded their defensive coaching staffs.

[SnakeLH2006]

Hey, back OT, ya know.

Re-bounders

The Pack This season we split the close ones and go 10-6.

Buffalo These guys hit hard and can run the ball. TO is in his honeymoon period & helps 'em win this year.

Texans They've got a good young team who is learning how to win.

New Orleans They blew us out last year. Their D gets it together to help the Brees powered attack.

Detroit Just kiddin'

Snake really likes Buffalo (for the same reasons...TO needs a new deal and will produce with Lee Evans, the RB, and that D), New Orleans, and Detroit.

Well Snake likes Detroit not because they will be good, but cuz they will be sucktastically suckass as usual and propel the Pack to the playoffs. :lol: :lol:

[Packers4Ever]

Posters have documented here some valid points about the Packers difficulties in a 6-10 season: defensive shortcomings, injuries to key players, and special teams.

I still feel THE most difficult hurdle the Packers had to overcome was the entire Brett Favre retirement/unretirement/trade debacle. I think that just sucked the life out of the start of the season for the Packers.

Rodgers not only had to carry the burden of replacing a future Hall of Fame legendary QB, he had to carry the burden of constantly being compared to the same quarterback who was still playing, but this time for a different team!

Not only did Rodgers play well for a first year starter, I thought he displayed remarkable poise and maturity in handling the situation in which he was placed. As a Packer fan, I have a lot of confidence in Rodgers coming back without the shadow of Brett Favre lurking over him.

+1

I wish I had written this post!! :pack:

I'm with you on every word, OPF and Pugger. Especially at that time of fall with all that was going on here at home, it was too much of an emotional upheaval for not just 100 fans, but many thousands- not to speak of the team itself. Think what most of them had to go through week after week. '09 just has to be a turn-around year for all of us and I think many are looking forward to it, I know I am !!