Not good enough, not good enough, not good enough.

[Patler]

Offense - not good enough.
Defense - not good enough.
Special Teams - not good enough.

Good teams win a few games each year when one aspect of the team carries the team even though one or both of the others is/are having a bad game. The offense scores a bunch on a day the defense struggles. The defense shuts a team down on a day the offense struggles. Special teams scores TDs, gets turnovers or wins field position battles when the O and/or D aren't at their best.

That isn't happening for the Packers right now. No aspect of the team is stepping forward to win games that are there to be won, especially the last two weeks. The offense isn't good enough, the defense isn't good enough and special teams aren't good enough to pull out close fought games on any regular basis.

Kind of feels like last year at this time, doesn't it???

[Bretsky]

The losses actually feel like our horrid year a few years ago when we did all of the little things poorly in order to lose.

[Joemailman]

I would argue that the defense has been good enough. It's unrealistic to expect an injury-riddled defense to completely shut teams down. The Packers are 9th in the NFL in defensive PPG. That should be good enough to be better than 3-3.

[3irty1]

I would argue that the defense has been good enough. It's unrealistic to expect an injury-riddled defense to completely shut teams down. The Packers are 9th in the NFL in defensive PPG. That should be good enough to be better than 3-3.

Not good enough when the team loses. We're talking about a unit that plays well enough to overcome the poor play of other units.

[Tarlam!]

I agree with Joe, if the O plays to its full potential, they should be capable of 35 points a game. But they're not. If the ST covering units don't play like 32nd best in the legue, the makeshift D has better field position.

The D isn't great, but it's good enough.

[Joemailman]

I would argue that the defense has been good enough. It's unrealistic to expect an injury-riddled defense to completely shut teams down. The Packers are 9th in the NFL in defensive PPG. That should be good enough to be better than 3-3.

Not good enough when the team loses. We're talking about a unit that plays well enough to overcome the poor play of other units.

Based on what you're saying, no unit is good enough unless the team is 6-0. I think that's unrealistic.

[3irty1]

I would argue that the defense has been good enough. It's unrealistic to expect an injury-riddled defense to completely shut teams down. The Packers are 9th in the NFL in defensive PPG. That should be good enough to be better than 3-3.

Not good enough when the team loses. We're talking about a unit that plays well enough to overcome the poor play of other units.

Based on what you're saying, no unit is good enough unless the team is 6-0. I think that's unrealistic.

Well we should be 6-0 to be honest. We've been beaten three times by inferior teams imo.

[Tarlam!]

We've been beaten three times by inferior teams imo.

Although it's just semantics, I differentiate beetween being beaten and losing. Being beaten implies being dominated, IMO. Losing implies a certain self-infliction.

The result is obviously the same, but to me, there's a distinct difference: The Packers haven't been dominated and the losses have been self inflicted. Chicago, 18 penalties, Washington, 2 missed FG's and not taking the chipshot on 4th coupled with the drops,now against the Fins,poor QB play, poor WR play cost them the game.

To me, Bretsky's newest sig has it pretty well nailed.

[Joemailman]

I would argue that the defense has been good enough. It's unrealistic to expect an injury-riddled defense to completely shut teams down. The Packers are 9th in the NFL in defensive PPG. That should be good enough to be better than 3-3.

Not good enough when the team loses. We're talking about a unit that plays well enough to overcome the poor play of other units.

Based on what you're saying, no unit is good enough unless the team is 6-0. I think that's unrealistic.

Well we should be 6-0 to be honest. We've been beaten three times by inferior teams imo.

The Packers team that took the field yesterday was not superior to a rested, healthy Miami team. Nor were they a superior team the week before once Pickett, Lee, Finley and Matthews left. I agree they should have beaten the Bears. They shot themselves repeatedly in the foot on that one.

[Pugger]

I think our D was dominated by Miami's offense yesterday. Yes, we only gave up 20 points in regulation but they had the ball for what seemed like eons and we had problems getting off the field. I don't think we layed a finger on Henne all afternoon. If you don't harrass the QB you are in for a long afternoon. Our ST is the worst of the lot and that doesn't help either our O or D. Let's hope we get some of our walking wounded back soon and we can turn this nightmare around starting Sunday night.

[mraynrand]

I would argue that the defense has been good enough. It's unrealistic to expect an injury-riddled defense to completely shut teams down. The Packers are 9th in the NFL in defensive PPG. That should be good enough to be better than 3-3.

Not good enough when the team loses. We're talking about a unit that plays well enough to overcome the poor play of other units.

Based on what you're saying, no unit is good enough unless the team is 6-0. I think that's unrealistic.

Well we should be 6-0 to be honest. We've been beaten three times by inferior teams imo.

Yep. Even injured the Packers were better than Miami. Underperforming team. Offense was to blame yesterday. Even though teams were marginal, It's hard to hold them to an incredible standard, as they were diminished because of trickle down effect from injuries.

[Pugger]

I would argue that the defense has been good enough. It's unrealistic to expect an injury-riddled defense to completely shut teams down. The Packers are 9th in the NFL in defensive PPG. That should be good enough to be better than 3-3.

Not good enough when the team loses. We're talking about a unit that plays well enough to overcome the poor play of other units.

Based on what you're saying, no unit is good enough unless the team is 6-0. I think that's unrealistic.

Well we should be 6-0 to be honest. We've been beaten three times by inferior teams imo.

The Packers team that took the field yesterday was not superior to a rested, healthy Miami team. Nor were they a superior team the week before once Pickett, Lee, Finley and Matthews left. I agree they should have beaten the Bears. They shot themselves repeatedly in the foot on that one.

I think we had problems once Matthews left the game in DC last weekend. Once we lost his fire and pass rush McNabb looked like a different QB and the game slipped away. :(

[Tarlam!]

I think our D was dominated by Miami's offense yesterday. Yes, we only gave up 20 points in regulation but they had the ball for what seemed like eons and we had problems getting off the field. I don't think we layed a finger on Henne all afternoon. If you don't harrass the QB you are in for a long afternoon. Our ST is the worst of the lot and that doesn't help either our O or D. Let's hope we get some of our walking wounded back soon and we can turn this nightmare around starting Sunday night.

I almost agree completely except the part about being dominated. Sure, Miami had thiri way most of the time, but they only managed 20 points. That to me speaks volumes.

Now, if the O and ST are clicking, score points and salvage valuable yardage, kep their D on the field and their own resting, then it's a different ball game.

[Kiwon]

Next week's game against the Vikings will help answer the question if the Packers are "good enough" even to take the division title.

They better hope they are with the Jets, Cowboys, Vikes, and Falcons coming in succession. They should beat the 49ers and Lions but finishing the season against the Pats, Giants, and Bears would be difficult even if they were completely healthy.

[gbgary]

it's the o that's dragging the team down. special teams could be better and the d could get some more turnovers but it's the o that's dragging the team down.

[Tarlam!]

[quote="Kiwon"finishing the season against the Pats, Giants, and Bears would be difficult even if they were completely healthy.[/quote]

Well, yeah, but that's because they're haven't played to their potential on O and ST.

[ND72]

Offense - not good enough.
Defense - not good enough.
Special Teams - not good enough.

Good teams win a few games each year when one aspect of the team carries the team even though one or both of the others is/are having a bad game. The offense scores a bunch on a day the defense struggles. The defense shuts a team down on a day the offense struggles. Special teams scores TDs, gets turnovers or wins field position battles when the O and/or D aren't at their best.

That isn't happening for the Packers right now. No aspect of the team is stepping forward to win games that are there to be won, especially the last two weeks. The offense isn't good enough, the defense isn't good enough and special teams aren't good enough to pull out close fought games on any regular basis.

Kind of feels like last year at this time, doesn't it???


It is very simple...we're not good, so saying it's not good enough is kind of hard to say. It's frustrating considering we all had higher expectations, but it is what it is, and we're just not a good football team.

[Patler]

I would argue that the defense has been good enough. It's unrealistic to expect an injury-riddled defense to completely shut teams down. The Packers are 9th in the NFL in defensive PPG. That should be good enough to be better than 3-3.

You're missing my point. I was talking about being good enough to win a game for you by stepping up when the others aren't going so well.

Are all aspects good enough to win if they play well on the same day? Sure, but that doesn't always happen. SOmetimes you have to win in spite of not playing well in one aspect of the game. So far no group has stepped up much in critical situation to win the game. They've all had their chances.

[Patler]

I agree with Joe, if the O plays to its full potential, they should be capable of 35 points a game. But they're not. If the ST covering units don't play like 32nd best in the legue, the makeshift D has better field position.

The D isn't great, but it's good enough.

But not good enough to win when the "O" is not a top scoring machine, and that's my point.

Really good teams can win even if they aren't hitting on all cylinders. This team isn't able to do that.

[Patler]

Offense - not good enough.
Defense - not good enough.
Special Teams - not good enough.

Good teams win a few games each year when one aspect of the team carries the team even though one or both of the others is/are having a bad game. The offense scores a bunch on a day the defense struggles. The defense shuts a team down on a day the offense struggles. Special teams scores TDs, gets turnovers or wins field position battles when the O and/or D aren't at their best.

That isn't happening for the Packers right now. No aspect of the team is stepping forward to win games that are there to be won, especially the last two weeks. The offense isn't good enough, the defense isn't good enough and special teams aren't good enough to pull out close fought games on any regular basis.

Kind of feels like last year at this time, doesn't it???


It is very simple...we're not good, so saying it's not good enough is kind of hard to say. It's frustrating considering we all had higher expectations, but it is what it is, and we're just not a good football team.

Exactly. It's a team that has no dominating aspect. We've all seen teams with mediocre offenses and stellar defenses that win games, or vice versa and win shoot outs. Others have STs that continually improve field position for them in close games until late points can be scored even without a great offense.

Right now, no part of the Packer team seems capable of picking up the others on a bad day. They aren't good enough to do that.

[Packers4Glory]

Defense-- Has played ok. Not forcing the TO's like last yr but despite some key injuries they have tread enough water to win. The defense is a concern mainly due to injuries. That and dumb penalties that extend drives.

Offense--Just like last preseason the offense bought the preseason kool-aid from the press and have underachieved. Penalties, injuries, drops, fumbles, and poor pass protection.

Special teams--Just pitiful. Horrific. shitty. How else can you describe it? Inconsistency all the way around. Injuries to the main units aren't helping. This team has lost 2 games simply due to poor execution on ST. I honestly don't think there is a worse ST unit in the NFL. It's been an ongoing theme in GB for several seasons now.

ST and penalties. Its a rare week we don't suck more than the other team in both categories. Poor ST and poor discipline are a GB calling card these days. We are going to get called on everything nick picky because we have developed a reputation for committing penalties.

[Tarlam!]

But not good enough to win when the "O" is not a top scoring machine, and that's my point.

Really good teams can win even if they aren't hitting on all cylinders. This team isn't able to do that.

What surprises me most about your post is that you didn't use the Patriots game as evidence to support your case. :lol:

However, you set yourself up a little bit here for a trap. You're suggesting no unit of the team is good enough and so, unless all 3 are good enough, well, it's not good enough. I contest that view.

For a single unit to win a game despite no support or minimal from the other two units, it needs to be great, not "good enough". I would say the SB winning Ravens defense qualifies.

The offense is good enough and has even been great, as has been proven in the past, but they are not playing up to their potential.

The ST outright suck, and have no hope of pulling a Patsie on anyone. But that ST performance by the Pats was outstanding, or pathetic by Miami. Or both.

And the defense is good enough, just not great enough to win games without help from the other units. But it's good enough, IMO.

[Patler]

However, you set yourself up a little bit here for a trap. You're suggesting no unit of the team is good enough and so, unless all 3 are good enough, well, it's not good enough. I contest that view.

For a single unit to win a game despite no support or minimal from the other two units, it needs to be great, not "good enough". I would say the SB winning Ravens defense qualifies.

The offense is good enough and has even been great, as has been proven in the past, but they are not playing up to their potential.

The ST outright suck, and have no hope of pulling a Patsie on anyone. But that ST performance by the Pats was outstanding, or pathetic by Miami. Or both.

And the defense is good enough, just not great enough to win games without help from the other units. But it's good enough, IMO.

Somehow I failed to convey what I wanted to when I started this thread. Probably because I tried to get a catchy headline for it, and work it into the intro. Many are taking my intent wrong, and are focusing too much on the phrase I apparently overused! :lol:

I'm not looking for the offense, defense or ST to be great all the time. I also didn't mean they weren't "good enough" as a whole for the season at large (although maybe they aren't!)

I'm looking for them to be good enough to step up when they can, play above themselves if you will, and win a game that is there to be won, even when things haven't gone well. Instead we see interceptions, penalties, poor series and dropped balls on offense; penalties giving away first downs and negating interceptions on defense; and fumbles, penalties, poor punts, missed FGs and long kick returns allowed on STs.

Each phase has been presented numerous opportunities to do things at the ends of games to win games when things had not gone well collectively. Each crapped the bed more than once when given those opportunities.

Teams need to know how to win games that are close, to win games that maybe they don't deserve to but have the opportunity to. MM's packers have shown very little of that ability.

Sorry for having presented the topic so poorly.

[Pugger]

I think our D was dominated by Miami's offense yesterday. Yes, we only gave up 20 points in regulation but they had the ball for what seemed like eons and we had problems getting off the field. I don't think we layed a finger on Henne all afternoon. If you don't harrass the QB you are in for a long afternoon. Our ST is the worst of the lot and that doesn't help either our O or D. Let's hope we get some of our walking wounded back soon and we can turn this nightmare around starting Sunday night.

I almost agree completely except the part about being dominated. Sure, Miami had thiri way most of the time, but they only managed 20 points. That to me speaks volumes.

Now, if the O and ST are clicking, score points and salvage valuable yardage, kep their D on the field and their own resting, then it's a different ball game.

Yes, we only gave up 20 points but Miami had the ball for over 10 more minutes than we did, especially in the 3rd quarter. You are right, it is a wonder our backup's backups kept us in the game score wise.

[MJZiggy]

However, you set yourself up a little bit here for a trap. You're suggesting no unit of the team is good enough and so, unless all 3 are good enough, well, it's not good enough. I contest that view.

For a single unit to win a game despite no support or minimal from the other two units, it needs to be great, not "good enough". I would say the SB winning Ravens defense qualifies.

The offense is good enough and has even been great, as has been proven in the past, but they are not playing up to their potential.

The ST outright suck, and have no hope of pulling a Patsie on anyone. But that ST performance by the Pats was outstanding, or pathetic by Miami. Or both.

And the defense is good enough, just not great enough to win games without help from the other units. But it's good enough, IMO.

Somehow I failed to convey what I wanted to when I started this thread. Probably because I tried to get a catchy headline for it, and work it into the intro. Many are taking my intent wrong, and are focusing too much on the phrase I apparently overused! :lol:

I'm not looking for the offense, defense or ST to be great all the time. I also didn't mean they weren't "good enough" as a whole for the season at large (although maybe they aren't!)

I'm looking for them to be good enough to step up when they can, play above themselves if you will, and win a game that is there to be won, even when things haven't gone well. Instead we see interceptions, penalties, poor series and dropped balls on offense; penalties giving away first downs and negating interceptions on defense; and fumbles, penalties, poor punts, missed FGs and long kick returns allowed on STs.

Each phase has been presented numerous opportunities to do things at the ends of games to win games when things had not gone well collectively. Each crapped the bed more than once when given those opportunities.

Teams need to know how to win games that are close, to win games that maybe they don't deserve to but have the opportunity to. MM's packers have shown very little of that ability.

Sorry for having presented the topic so poorly.

I understood it, but then again, I just got here so that doesn't help you much.

I think if healthy, the defense would be just what you suggest. I think the Offense has the potential--they just need to start firing. The problem is that they're all in a slump at once.

[superfan]

Really good teams can win even if they aren't hitting on all cylinders. This team isn't able to do that.

A good example of this might be the 13-3 2007 squad. That team had games where they weren't firing on all cylinders, but they still found ways to win. Such as the ugly week 6 17-14 home victory vs the Redskins. And the game after that, the victory at Denver featuring the memorable OT bomb to Jennings.

That was a special season, where a number of things fell just right for the team. So far, this season isn't special. Well, maybe "short bus" special... :roll:

[Tarlam!]

OK, Patler, I get what you're saying. I think Superfan's explaination is the one that jilted my opininion.

"Good teams find a way to win close games".

[Fritz]

So many chances, too, for the various units to step up: the offense in the Bears game (Jones's fumble). Crosby missing a game winner in Washington.

About four plays might be the difference between this 3 - 3 crap and a 5 - 1 start.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

The defense has been plenty good enough. We were missing half the starting defense and they still kept them in the game. If they had everyone healthy from the beginning of the year until now, I honestly believe that they would have the best defense in football. This year just blows all the way around. Talent wise they are the best team in football starting the year and now everyone is hurt. With some luck this easily could have been there year. This season is a lost cause now though. They would need to be 5-1 or 6-0 right now to get into the playoffs with all the injuries they have and the schedule coming up.

A promising season looks just about over.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

About four plays might be the difference between this 3 - 3 crap and a 5 - 1 start.

Actually probably between this 3-3 crap and a 6-0 start.

[sheepshead]

Offense - not good enough.
Defense - not good enough.
Special Teams - not good enough.

Good teams win a few games each year when one aspect of the team carries the team even though one or both of the others is/are having a bad game. The offense scores a bunch on a day the defense struggles. The defense shuts a team down on a day the offense struggles. Special teams scores TDs, gets turnovers or wins field position battles when the O and/or D aren't at their best.

That isn't happening for the Packers right now. No aspect of the team is stepping forward to win games that are there to be won, especially the last two weeks. The offense isn't good enough, the defense isn't good enough and special teams aren't good enough to pull out close fought games on any regular basis.

Kind of feels like last year at this time, doesn't it???

I disagree. I think we are good enough(injuries aside). Every loss has been by 3 points. I dont think the prognosticators were wrong about our team as a favorite. First, there's tremendous parody, particularly in the NFC. I think its coaching on the offensive side and I think this falls squarely on our head coach. He has never done anything to convince me he is the guy to take us to February football. Our much maligned general manager has put a very very good team on the field. We are good enough, we're just not playing up to our capabilities.

[The Leaper]

Right now, no part of the Packer team seems capable of picking up the others on a bad day. They aren't good enough to do that.

The defense is...when reasonably healthy. Yeah, the whole team screwed the pooch in Chicago going penalty crazy. However, the fact that a greatly depleted defense has given this team multiple chances to win at the end of the last 2 games is good enough for me.

The offense is the unit that deserves the lion share of blame...too much talent to only be scoring 20 a game, even with the loss of Grant and Finley. Questionable coaching moves also factor in heavily...NO component of the team can overcome major coaching blunders like skipping an easy FG on the road and risking change of momentum on a 4th down play when you don't have a run game and your best red zone threat isn't on the field.

[packerbacker1234]

Honestly, even with all the injuries... I have to say this: The defense has played "good enough" to win every single game we have played this year. The points have been limited.

Unfortunately, our offense things scoring 14 points a game should be good enough. Ask the vikings how well that did for them earlier this year.