So proud of this team

[VegasPackFan]

Seriously...

I think it was after the loss to the Phins that I told my wife it was over this year. We had too many injuries and the refs hated us (see CHI loss). I was sure that next year we would be contenders for sure but this year was a chalk up to bad luck and lessons learned. What a great turnaround! We are right there for this year and next year with Finley, Grant and Barnett back, well, you do the math.

And the accomplishments this year are way beyond expectations. I love this team!!!

[bobblehead]

One of the announcers said that only 2 teams in recent history have lost 6 starters, much less 18? players total. Both of those teams finished with 6 or less wins.

[Tarlam!]

One of the announcers said that only 2 teams in recent history have lost 6 starters, much less 18? players total. Both of those teams finished with 6 or less wins.

Interesting stats; I'd love to know what teams they were talking about.

I am thrilled by how far they've gone. Anything after last week was gravy, but to spank the Dirty Birds in the G-Dome was more than just a brown coloured sauce.

I think our JH has been saying it for a while now that you only need a few real stars and a bunch of motivated JAGs to win it all.

[Little Whiskey]

Interesting stats; I'd love to know what teams they were talking about.

I am thrilled by how far they've gone. Anything after last week was gravy, but to spank the Dirty Birds in the G-Dome was more than just a brown coloured sauce.

I think our JH has been saying it for a while now that you only need a few real stars and a bunch of motivated JAGs to win it all.

I guess one of those teams was the Colts.


on a side note, I didn't think gravy was a sauce?

[jmbarnes101]

You're absolutely correct, this team could have folded up after the dolphins game and while we would have been disappointed it would have been reasonable. Instead we found out how good our coaches are and more inportantly we found out what a Packers person is.

Never say die, no excuses, just step up and show how badly you want it and most importantly, have fun. No wonder Ashmouga wants to come here after playing in Oakland. He wants to know what its like to play for an actual "team".

I'm concerned about all of those players coming back and people we'll draft. Who do we cut? They will all end up somewhere else because the depth on this team is ridiculous.

[RashanGary]

I think our JH has been saying it for a while now that you only need a few real stars and a bunch of motivated JAGs to win it all.

Cliff Chrisl used to say that. He talked iwth a lot of old NFL Personnel guys. It's part of the old NFL bible. Superstars are 80% of the equation. Chrisl is my favorite sports writer ever but I wasn't sure he was right about that. I test that theory all of the time. It seems to be holding up alright.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

This team has a lot in front of them still..........I want this team to win the superbowl!

[gbgary]

proud is an understatement. tt, mm, capers, and the other coaches have done a great job. last night's game was a masterpiece. i think a lot of the players that come back from injury may be backups or gone. other than fin and grant who would you plug in?

GO PACK!

[gbgary]

GO PACK!

[vince]

The issue I've always had with Christl is that people take his "playmakers" argument and conclude that going after every high-priced free agent "playmaker" is the way to go. You definitely need great players, but it's the strength of the team up and down the roster that enables great players to be great. Overpaying playmakers at the expense of solid players throughout the roster always fails. It takes good players all over, combined with a few great ones, to win. Weaknesses tend to get exploited, no matter how good the playmakers are. I have never seen Christl make that argument.

[vince]

other than fin and grant who would you plug in?

Burnett, Finley, Grant, Chillar, Jones, Neal, Barnett

[RashanGary]

The issue I've always had with Christl is that people take his "playmakers" argument and conclude that going after every high-priced free agent "playmaker" is the way to go. You definitely need great players, but it's the strength of the team up and down the roster that enables great players to be great. Overpaying playmakers at the expense of solid players throughout the roster always fails. It takes good players all over, combined with a few great ones, to win. Weaknesses tend to get exploited, no matter how good the playmakers are. I have never seen Christl make that argument.

Right. It gets taken the wrong way. We have Rodgers, Jennings, Finley, Collins, Woodson, Tramon, Raji and Clay. None of them are getting crazy coin. The part Cristl didn't seem to delve into was, "how do you get a handful of playmakers to fit under your salary cap?" The answer, if you look around, is to draft well. And it does help to not have horrible weak links, but it's funny how no matter who we plug in, we're still just about the same team. The playmakers are in tact. It's not all about the playmakers, but I think they're the biggest part of the equation. Take AR and Tramon Willaims out of that game and we have no chance.

[gbgary]

Burnett, Finley, Grant, Chillar, Jones, Neal, Barnett

so you'd replace three of our current starters at linebacker? the d is better now than it was when they were playing.

[vince]

so you'd replace three of our current starters at linebacker? the d is better now than it was when they were playing.
No, I'd replace the backups. It takes 53 to get it done. all of those guys would be on the 53 and contibuting if healthy.

[RashanGary]

I loved that pick six by Tramon. Before the snap he was just strolling around like he was falling asleep on the play, then he jumped that route. It was great.

[MadtownPacker]

After the Detroit embarrassment put the season in danger something changed in this team. Maybe pride kicked in or something but they are play all world and are now the team to beat. It is a great feeling knowing you have a game to watch next Sunday.

[MadtownPacker]

I loved that pick six by Tramon. Before the snap he was just strolling around like he was falling asleep on the play, then he jumped that route. It was great.
He did that on both picks. Made Melty Ice look like a little bitch. I know the announcers said Tramon had got beat but and the throw was late but I didn't see it that way.

[RashanGary]

I just listened to the Tramon interview. He said he baited him on the pick six, then he had under coverage in cover 2 on the other one. I'd have to go back and look at it, but that wasn't even Tramon's zone. The way the coverage played, Tramon had nobody so he went back to help deep where the safety was supposed to be. Had Tramon no made such an amazing athletic play, the safety was beat. Was that Peprah or Collins? Whoever it was, was beat.

[Tony Oday]

I never lost faith in this team!!!

[gbgary]

No, I'd replace the backups. It takes 53 to get it done. all of those guys would be on the 53 and contibuting if healthy.

ok...my original question concerned current starters only.

[vince]

gotcha. I think Burnett and Jones would start if healthy. And Neal would be a key contributor I suspect. There's no depth at ILB now, but I agree that we haven't missed Barnett or Chillar much. All the backups on D have come in and held down the fort pretty well.

[rbaloha1]

One of the announcers said that only 2 teams in recent history have lost 6 starters, much less 18? players total. Both of those teams finished with 6 or less wins.

To add -- starters did not play in 90 games. GB is the only team to make the playoffs with this stat.

[bobblehead]

Cliff Chrisl used to say that. He talked iwth a lot of old NFL Personnel guys. It's part of the old NFL bible. Superstars are 80% of the equation. Chrisl is my favorite sports writer ever but I wasn't sure he was right about that. I test that theory all of the time. It seems to be holding up alright.

I argued this even in emails with cliffy. Problem with that theory is that certain players who are very good, but have lack of talent around them don't look so good, but the minute the team starts winning and putting talent on the field everyone looks elite. Take a look at our defense, and short of Walden, who would you define as a JAG? Even walden, when surrounded by superior talent managed 3 sacks in a game.

The QB is the only player that must be superior to win. You also can't have exploitable holes. I think they have it wrong and that bad players lose games. If we were forced to start Jarret Bush at nickel our D looks a hell of a lot worse (see last season). Cliffy also used to say that an elite RB made the line look good. Bullshit, the Broncos and the 80's Rams could plug in anyone at RB and get 1k yards. The current packers have glimmers, but the same RB that everyone loves gets 123 yards with blocking and 50? without. Great teams have both elite players and solid players. Right now on D we all define Wood, TWill, Clay as great. Take away Shields and you have no clue how good TWill is. Take away Clay and all our DB's look more average. Take away ARod and the receivers start to look pedestrian.

Football is the ultimate team sport where everyone relies on everyone else. One gaping hole and an offense or a defense can go from very good to below average. Elite players tend to be the difference between an elite unit and a very good one....but no more. We lost Clay for 2 games and the defense still held the line. We lost Finley for the year and the O adjusted and looks just a tad better than average right now. Why? Because we don't have any gaping holes.

If it truly was about a few playmakers then TT truly does fail as a GM because he doesn't go get studs in FA. The Redskins should dominate. But something funny happens when you take another teams stud and put him on your team. If the players around him suck, so does he. On the flip side, something weird happens to teams like the steelers who lose Joey Porter. Other guys step up. Depth of talent wins the day. A chain is only as strong as what other coaches identify as the weakest link. Only if the weak links hold can your elite talent do what he does.

[Joemailman]

This is the first time since 1997-98 that the packers have won 2 playoff games.

First time the Packers have ever won 2 road playoff games.

[vince]

I argued this even in emails with cliffy. Problem with that theory is that certain players who are very good, but have lack of talent around them don't look so good, but the minute the team starts winning and putting talent on the field everyone looks elite. Take a look at our defense, and short of Walden, who would you define as a JAG? Even walden, when surrounded by superior talent managed 3 sacks in a game.

The QB is the only player that must be superior to win. You also can't have exploitable holes. I think they have it wrong and that bad players lose games. If we were forced to start Jarret Bush at nickel our D looks a hell of a lot worse (see last season). Cliffy also used to say that an elite RB made the line look good. Bullshit, the Broncos and the 80's Rams could plug in anyone at RB and get 1k yards. The current packers have glimmers, but the same RB that everyone loves gets 123 yards with blocking and 50? without. Great teams have both elite players and solid players. Right now on D we all define Wood, TWill, Clay as great. Take away Shields and you have no clue how good TWill is. Take away Clay and all our DB's look more average. Take away ARod and the receivers start to look pedestrian.

Football is the ultimate team sport where everyone relies on everyone else. One gaping hole and an offense or a defense can go from very good to below average. Elite players tend to be the difference between an elite unit and a very good one....but no more. We lost Clay for 2 games and the defense still held the line. We lost Finley for the year and the O adjusted and looks just a tad better than average right now. Why? Because we don't have any gaping holes.

If it truly was about a few playmakers then TT truly does fail as a GM because he doesn't go get studs in FA. The Redskins should dominate. But something funny happens when you take another teams stud and put him on your team. If the players around him suck, so does he. On the flip side, something weird happens to teams like the steelers who lose Joey Porter. Other guys step up. Depth of talent wins the day. A chain is only as strong as what other coaches identify as the weakest link. Only if the weak links hold can your elite talent do what he does.
Nail meet hammer. Well said.

[Packgator]

The issue I've always had with Christl is that people take his "playmakers" argument and conclude that going after every high-priced free agent "playmaker" is the way to go. You definitely need great players, but it's the strength of the team up and down the roster that enables great players to be great. Overpaying playmakers at the expense of solid players throughout the roster always fails. It takes good players all over, combined with a few great ones, to win. Weaknesses tend to get exploited, no matter how good the playmakers are. I have never seen Christl make that argument.

Well put. Football = the ultimate "team" sport. Which is why a good GM is so valuable.

[bobblehead]

The issue I've always had with Christl is that people take his "playmakers" argument and conclude that going after every high-priced free agent "playmaker" is the way to go. You definitely need great players, but it's the strength of the team up and down the roster that enables great players to be great. Overpaying playmakers at the expense of solid players throughout the roster always fails. It takes good players all over, combined with a few great ones, to win. Weaknesses tend to get exploited, no matter how good the playmakers are. I have never seen Christl make that argument.

Sorry vince, I should have read this before babbling on. You pretty much said what I said in a much shorter narrative.

[vince]

I liked yours better.

[rbaloha1]

Veteran leadership was key. A-rod working out the kinks with MM was also vital.

[Tarlam!]

on a side note, I didn't think gravy was a sauce?

Depends on what you call gravy, I guess. To me, thickened deglaced pan juices is gravy. That makes it a sauce. If you just deglace and reduce, that makes it a Jus, strictly speaking, which is technically in a class of its own.

I'd have to go back and check my textbooks, but that's how I remember it.

[RashanGary]

I disagree bobblehead. I'm with Christl.


Bring all of our guys back and instead of having 15 or 16 guys on IR, let's change that to 5.


Clay Matthews
Cullen Jenkins
BJ Raji
Jermichael Finley
Greg Jennings


Those 5 players would hurt us worse than the other 15 combined. Playmakers.

[RashanGary]

Credit to Thompson, he's built and incredibly deep team, but it's also incredibly talented at the top. We haven't lost those top guys other than Finley. The two injuries that hurt, one is Finley becuase he's a playmaker and game changer. The other is Grant because TT had a hole at backup RB. So yeah, holes effect things, but it's the star players that make it go. When Clay was hurt our whole defense looked like crap. Either him or Raj being injuried would destroy us IMO. Raj is a beast. Clay too.

[vince]

I disagree bobblehead. I'm with Christl.


Bring all of our guys back and instead of having 15 or 16 guys on IR, let's change that to 5.


Clay Matthews
Cullen Jenkins
BJ Raji
Jermichael Finley
Greg Jennings


Those 5 players would hurt us worse than the other 15 combined. Playmakers.
I think the point is that it's both. Playmakers and quality throughout the roster. Christl only talked about playmakers.

Two years ago Rodgers was thought of by Christl as an average QB who folds in the 4th quarter. Turns out it was actually because his defense couldn't stop anyone. Lack of quality throughout the roster.

Of course he's improved with experience but he's still the same guy throwing for 4000 yards and 30 TDs. People seriously thought that the defense's success the prior year was due to Favre's leadership.

If this defense still had holes like last year's, Christl would still be preaching his gospel about how Rodgers can't win the big games. The single-minded focus on playmakers is a common assessment that too simplistic for the game of football IMO.

[bobblehead]

I disagree bobblehead. I'm with Christl.


Bring all of our guys back and instead of having 15 or 16 guys on IR, let's change that to 5.


Clay Matthews
Cullen Jenkins
BJ Raji
Jermichael Finley
Greg Jennings


Those 5 players would hurt us worse than the other 15 combined. Playmakers.

I give up, you and cliff win. If you take the 5 most talented players off of any team they will suck....was that your point? Oh wait, thats MY point. First off, we played many games without at least 2 of those guys and never got blown out. What if I get to choose 5 guys you don't consider the "elite" playmakers. What if instead, Sam Shields, Brian Bulaga, TJ Lang, Chad Clifford, and Josh Sitton went down with injury. You think we would still be dominant because we would have your 5 on the roster? Really?? Lets see, we would be starting College at LT, Bush at the nickel, Spitz at LG, I'm not sure at RG or RT. Pretty sure that suddenly TWill wouldn't be making plays, Wood would have to actually cover deep routes, ARod would be a vegetable, and we would all blame MM and TT.

Also, your list included one of the guys who actually DID miss the season, and another that missed the 2 games we MUST win to get into the playoffs. It also included Jennings who I think we could survive without, but we would be weaker. Would losing Jenkins be that bad if we hand't lost Neal and Harrell (yea I know, but you get my point). If we had both of them, along with chillar, poppinga, Jones, and barnett, might we be able to fade losing Clay? And before you point out that I focused on the OL, remember, you focused 2 out of the 3 starters on the DL.

The point we both make is that injuries weaken your team, and the better the player hurt, the more it weakens your team....I'm not sure what that has to do with the overall point that weak links lose more games than strong links win.

[mmmdk]

I give up, you and cliff win. If you take the 5 most talented players off of any team they will suck....was that your point? Oh wait, thats MY point. First off, we played many games without at least 2 of those guys and never got blown out. What if I get to choose 5 guys you don't consider the "elite" playmakers. What if instead, Sam Shields, Brian Bulaga, TJ Lang, Chad Clifford, and Josh Sitton went down with injury. You think we would still be dominant because we would have your 5 on the roster? Really?? Lets see, we would be starting College at LT, Bush at the nickel, Spitz at LG, I'm not sure at RG or RT. Pretty sure that suddenly TWill wouldn't be making plays, Wood would have to actually cover deep routes, ARod would be a vegetable, and we would all blame MM and TT.

Also, your list included one of the guys who actually DID miss the season, and another that missed the 2 games we MUST win to get into the playoffs. It also included Jennings who I think we could survive without, but we would be weaker. Would losing Jenkins be that bad if we hand't lost Neal and Harrell (yea I know, but you get my point). If we had both of them, along with chillar, poppinga, Jones, and barnett, might we be able to fade losing Clay? And before you point out that I focused on the OL, remember, you focused 2 out of the 3 starters on the DL.

The point we both make is that injuries weaken your team, and the better the player hurt, the more it weakens your team....I'm not sure what that has to do with the overall point that weak links lose more games than strong links win.

You're on the Stubby path of learning - Stubby improving...will you?

[bobblehead]

You're on the Stubby path of learning - Stubby improving...will you?

Were you going to address anything I said, or just take a jab? PS...you must have missed the point of my entire post. I feel exactly the same as I did before, therefore I learned nothing by definition.

Also, stubby is not improving, you were simply wrong in the first place. He is the same coach that went to the NFCC in '07, but if you can save face by saying you were right, and Stubby changed, hey, have at it.

[mmmdk]

Were you going to address anything I said, or just take a jab? PS...you must have missed the point of my entire post. I feel exactly the same as I did before, therefore I learned nothing by definition.

Also, stubby is not improving, you were simply wrong in the first place. He is the same coach that went to the NFCC in '07, but if you can save face by saying you were right, and Stubby changed, hey, have at it.

McCarthy has improved. Your Stubby "logic" suggests he was a Belichick from the get go. That doesn't fly well.

BTW...Chilly went to the NFCC & that doesn't tell 1% of the story. Chilly sucked.

[RashanGary]

It's easier to find 5 average guys than it is one superstar. Superstars are rare. They make the difference. It's easy for a GM to find a decent player to fill a bad hole than it is to find a difference maker that changes a whole unit. All 11 guys on the field matter but there are rare players who rise above the rest and win games. I buy that.

[mmmdk]

It's easier to find 5 average guys than it is one superstar. Superstars are rare. They make the difference. It's easy for a GM to find a decent player to fill a bad hole than it is to find a difference maker that changes a whole unit. All 11 guys on the field matter but there are rare players who rise above the rest and win games. I buy that.

I agree & I'll pay the bill too.

[Fritz]

I have to say that after the ridiculous spate of injuries and the back to back Washington/Miami losses, I was despondent. I wasn't one of those "well, let's start talking about next year's draft" people, but I was sick that the season was lost.

I was obviously wrong. Mea Culpa.

By the way, did anybody notice how well Starks blocked for Rodgers? I think he earned some trust and some more playing time with that protection.

[pbmax]

The problem with Cliffy's playmakers and McGinn's blue chippers is that they often cannot tell whether it is the player, teammates/role or a combination of the two that make a player standout. And I don't think watching them in training camp can fill in the all those blanks (though it can identify a young player like Shields or Williams).

So, by the time both writers are sure about certain playmakers/blue chippers, the actual GM has had to make 25 decisions elsewhere about the roster and depth. And he clearly needs to hope some younger players develop. Their system might explain the Packers Offense right now (Rodgers and some good players and as such, occasionally inconsistent) but it doesn't cover the defense (Matthews, Raji, Collins, Williams, Woodson).

[HarveyWallbangers]

I just listened to the Tramon interview. He said he baited him on the pick six, then he had under coverage in cover 2 on the other one. I'd have to go back and look at it, but that wasn't even Tramon's zone. The way the coverage played, Tramon had nobody so he went back to help deep where the safety was supposed to be. Had Tramon no made such an amazing athletic play, the safety was beat. Was that Peprah or Collins? Whoever it was, was beat.

Peprah. The announcer made it seem like Tramon was beat and if Matty Melt hadn't made the pump fake, it would have been a TD. In actuality, Peprah had coverage until the pump fake. Peprah bit on it. Matty Melt had to pump fake to get the Peprah to bite inside. The problem with the play was Matty Melt's average arm strength. Rodgers would have roped that bad boy in there--like he did against the Bears late in the game on our lone TD drive.