What would you have predicted after 12 games

[Patler]

What would you have predicted the Packer record would be after 12 game, if you had known ahead of time that:

Rodgers would miss 4, but essentially 5 games
Wallace 3 of Rodger's 4, but essentially all 4
Bulaga all 12 games
Hayward 9
Cobb 7
Finley 6, essentially 7
Perry 5
Matthews and Bush 4 each
James Jones, Brad Jones and Burnett 3 each
Shields and Barclay 2
Dietrich-Smith substantial parts of 2 games
Lacy and Jolly 1

Realistically, I think I might have said they would be lucky to be 6-6; or is that just hindsight thinking that?

[Joemailman]

Before the season, I predicted 11-5. So I probably would have been looking at 8-4 through 12. 6-6 would have been the very best I would have predicted. More likely 5-7.

[MadScientist]

Hindsight. I would have said 7-5 or 8-4. Breaking down to 2-3 without and 5-2 or 6-1 with. I would not have expected that without Rodgers the Packers would play worse than the Jags, Bucs or Vikings. Maybe Houston is worse than the Packers right now, but that is only a maybe. This looks like an Infante team at the moment. They haven't been outclassed like they were against Detroit since the 2006 game against the Pats.

[woodbuck27]

What would you have predicted the Packer record would be after 12 game, if you had known ahead of time that:

Rodgers would miss 4, but essentially 5 games
Wallace 3 of Rodger's 4, but essentially all 4
Bulaga all 12 games
Hayward 9
Cobb 7
Finley 6, essentially 7
Perry 5
Matthews and Bush 4 each
James Jones, Brad Jones and Burnett 3 each
Shields and Barclay 2
Dietrich-Smith substantial parts of 2 games
Lacy and Jolly 1

Realistically, I think I might have said they would be lucky to be 6-6; or is that just hindsight thinking that?


That's an easy question to respond to in terms of some analysis:

First I would ask myself who is the Packers #2 and #3 QB's.

Ohh Dear look at that...not much there. Factoring that fact in would make it easier.

Rodgers went 5-2 and I may have predicted in that stretch when he was aboard' a 6-1 record. I realize the value of Aaron Rodgers and the QB position properly addressed by any NFL team.

That first game on the road in San Fran was up for grabs and I gave the edge to the 49ers. They took us easily last year and went to the Super Bowl.Their Off Season produced more fruit ... much more fruit.

Tough games up next with Washington at Home and then traveling south to Cincy followed by an early Bye Week.

After the BYE... at home to Detroit and back on the road to the the Super Bowl Champion Baltimore Ravens.

A tough opening five games of our schedule. We've got AR >>> 4W - 1L isn't overly optimistic

All a concern but we have Aaron Rodgers and as long as he's behind center he gives the Green Bay Packers a real chance to win.

The next two with AR = Wins so we're at 6-1 ( maybe 5-2 ) as it did actually shake out.

The next five games and with Rodgers essentially gone as he was early in game eight (8). There's a big Ohh Ohh !

In review and as an analysis I'd ask obvious questions RE: AR's replacement:

Who are the Packers #2 and #3 QB's? NFL experience? Ohh Boy... not good ! Not at all an encouraging analysis in terms related to the Packers winning now without AR.

The Chicago Bears equals trouble and more trouble in New York (Their poor season is a surprize). Tom Coughlin loves us.

Philly mmmm I would have thought a 'W' there.

Detroit with a Franchise QB and Calvin Johnson and Reggie Bush and more offensive weapons and a good 'D' = Trouble and a split.

Minnesota = maybe? ... two wins? The reason being their QB position. Bad = Bad at QB so Which team wants it most.

I would have said a reasonable analysis would dictate a 7-5 or possibly an 8-4 record.

After Aaron Rodgers and with the state of our 'D' which was exposed as it is Vs the San Francisco 49ers in our playoff exit last year. With the available not NFL caliber QB's after Aaron Rodgers. Really Seneca Wallace... WOW !?

Factoring in just the huge loss in Randall Cobb and that record could fall to 6-6 depended on who else was out with injury at what time.

The talent of Randall Cobb is important to the Green Bay Packers. Talent overall that will defeat two thirds of NFL teams with Aaron Rodgers.

The Green Bay Packers are a bottom of the NFL 'team' without Aaron Rodgers.

Some claim the cupboard isn't bare as long as it's stocked with soup. The Green Bay Packers have too much soup in the cupboard.

GO PACKERS.

[Patler]

Hindsight. I would have said 7-5 or 8-4. Breaking down to 2-3 without and 5-2 or 6-1 with. I would not have expected that without Rodgers the Packers would play worse than the Jags, Bucs or Vikings. Maybe Houston is worse than the Packers right now, but that is only a maybe. This looks like an Infante team at the moment. They haven't been outclassed like they were against Detroit since the 2006 game against the Pats.

But it's not just without Rodgers. That is what I thought the list would emphasize. I think the loss of Cobb was huge, too. The loss of Finley is big because of the drop-off to the next TEs. Hayward was the ball-hawk last year. Losing him for essentially the entire season was also very big in and of itself. Matthews has missed 1/3 of the season to date. J. Jones, Shields, B. Jones, Burnett; the cumulative effect of not only the games they missed but also the disruptions caused by so many players being in and out of the lineup makes it difficult to get beyond the early season inconsistencies that usually work themselves out after a few weeks.

[woodbuck27]

But it's not just without Rodgers. That is what I thought the list would emphasize. I think the loss of Cobb was huge, too. The loss of Finley is big because of the drop-off to the next TEs. Hayward was the ball-hawk last year. Losing him for essentially the entire season was also very big in and of itself. Matthews has missed 1/3 of the season to date. J. Jones, Shields, B. Jones, Burnett; the cumulative effect of not only the games they missed but also the disruptions caused by so many players being in and out of the lineup makes it difficult to get beyond the early season inconsistencies that usually work themselves out after a few weeks.

Yes as essentially the season doesn't get rolling until after the first 8 games.

Aaron Rodgers proves that he's a rather unique player in the NFL. He's maybe the 'only' NFL player that is obviously the teams MVP when he can't play.

[red]

I think 50-50 or maybe a game or two below that if i had known all that

And i think we're staring a 6 or 7 win season right in the face here

[denverYooper]

I think 50-50 or maybe a game or two below that if i had known all that

And i think we're staring a 6 or 7 win season right in the face here

I'd have thought .500 as well.

[pbmax]

I predicted they would have a tie, and I am sticking by it.

Seriously, Rodgers loss along moves them from 3-1 in my earlier estimation to 1-3 in my theoretical estimation. The various other losses easily put them at 7-8-1 for me.

[bobblehead]

What would you have predicted the Packer record would be after 12 game, if you had known ahead of time that:

Rodgers would miss 4, but essentially 5 games
Wallace 3 of Rodger's 4, but essentially all 4
Bulaga all 12 games
Hayward 9
Cobb 7
Finley 6, essentially 7
Perry 5
Matthews and Bush 4 each
James Jones, Brad Jones and Burnett 3 each
Shields and Barclay 2
Dietrich-Smith substantial parts of 2 games
Lacy and Jolly 1

Realistically, I think I might have said they would be lucky to be 6-6; or is that just hindsight thinking that?

When I created the me and my friend wist thread i was very distraught that we lost Bulaga and we found out Sherrod really wasn't going to be competitive anytime soon. I figured at that time that because of great receivers, ARod and a D that seemed to be stuffing the run at the time we could go 12-4 (or 9-3 after 12). I would say the big pain was caused by Rodgers, then Wallace going down, but believe it or not, Barclay missing time has hurt us a ton as well because it forced essentially our 5th OT into the lineup. We simply lost too much on the OL to win. My biggest gripe is that our D was relatively healthy for that turd we laid in Detroit.

What would I have predicted given all the information I have now? Hindsight is easy, but I may have drank some kool aid and guessed 7-5.

[Guiness]

I had bad feelings about this team from the time they lost to the Bengals. It was a so-so game for Rodgers, the rest of the team couldn't pull it out of the had, so it looked me that the Packers were going to have to get involved in shoot outs every week in order to win.

I had hopes for the Minnesota game, but even for it, the inactives were Shields, Barclay, Jolly and Perry. Add Hayward, Cobb also missing and a one-armed Mathews and maybe it shouldn't have surprised me either.

I probably would've guessed 7-5 but seems like that was optimistic.