DAMMIT.....Is SAN FRAN our new DALLAS of the 90's ?????

[Bretsky]

They are making us our bitch and it's been frustrating

Back in the Holmgren Days.....we'd get to the playoffs every year...but they had our number

Making general comparisons.............


Dallas had an INCREDIBLE OL
Niners hav an INCREDIBLE OL...

Dallas would handle our DL; San Fran seems to more than handle or OL

Dallas had an incredible NFL Coach who was a bit arrogant
San Fran seems to have a very solid NFL coach tha is also arrogant

Both seemed to always have their teams ready to play.

Dallas DL always gave our OL troubles it seemed; Favre was often on the run
San Fran DL seems and LB's seem to dominate us; Rodgers, like Favre, needs to create



The comparisons only start here.............feel free to offer your own or your thoughts

I have a bad feeling going into every game against SF; same way I felt playing the Cowobys long ago


HAPPY COLD DAYS !!!
B

[Bretsky]

And since they have made us our bith........what do we need to do to stop the onslaught ????

I wonder if we need a defensive overhaul. At the least, we need to get stronger and faster......and faster and faster....bad sign when it seems the QB is faster than some of your LB's

[Tony Oday]

If Hyde makes that pick we win. This was a close game.

[Joemailman]

Last year 49ers dominated both games. This year, Packers actually had a 4th quarter lead in both games, so they made strides. The Packers defense just isn't good enough right now, although they played respectably yesterday. The 49ers have more playmakers on defense, and I think that's the difference. But let's face it, that game could easily have gone the either way. I don't think the situation is similar to the '90's Dallas situation. Last year it was, but not now.

[King Friday]

For me, this is all on Thompson. Most of his first round selections have been very subpar, especially in the last 3-4 years. If he's not going to add anything through free agency, then he damn well better hit on more than half of his 1st round picks. The current strategy has not been effective in accumulating talent over the last 3 years. To me, Thompson also screwed up royally this past offseason by having such a damn hissy fit over the kicking position and neglecting to acquire a capable backup QB.

The Green Bay media needs to be far more critical of Thompson this offseason and put some pressure on him. I'm not saying he needs to go...he's a very good GM, and I think he'll respond well to the challenge. He's been subpar lately and he needs to step it up just as much as Raji or Finley or Burnett...that needs to be expressed. Teams like SF and SEA have made themselves better this past few offseasons with decent FA pickups like Boldin and very solid drafts. We have been spinning our wheels it seems. We are elite because of Rodgers...without him, our team is mostly crap.

[Freak Out]

Good post King. Not sure what kind of pressure TT actually gets from the directors, local media or the fans. I liked the Tramon comments earlier that were pointed in TTs direction.

[Joemailman]

I agree with much of what King said, although I think 2013 might be his best draft in a while. Lacy is his best pick since Matthews, and Bakhtiari might be another Sitton-type pick. I suspect the backup QB situation was probably as much the fault of McCarthy/Clements as it was Thompson.

[bobblehead]

Thompson is the GM, therefore the body of work is at his doorstep. 5 straight playoff appearances. Great record. Superbowl title. 15-1 season.

Also: Defense that bleeds yards even when mostly healthy.

[pbmax]

Thompson is the GM, therefore the body of work is at his doorstep. 5 straight playoff appearances. Great record. Superbowl title. 15-1 season.

Also: Defense that bleeds yards even when mostly healthy.

But on OP topic, offense was healthier yesterday and was awful, especially QB. Defense outplayed them even though they allowed the late scores.

[KYPack]

I think Carolina will tear SF's asses up.

[pbmax]

I think Carolina will tear SF's asses up.

I am of two minds about this. One, sure would love to see SF routed.

But who wants to see the vanquisher proven hollow? Plus I was convinced the Packers could beat Carolina on the road, for no particular reason other than it wasn't a Seattle level crowd.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I have been thinking the same thing Bretsky. I just want the Pack to get over the SF hump.

[ThunderDan]

I have been thinking the same thing Bretsky. I just want the Pack to get over the SF hump.

I hope Sf is our Dallas of the 90s.

We went to two Super Bowls in a row and won one.

If we have to look at ourselves and improve and kick their asses in a couple of years to go to two Super Bowls in a row, I say Bring It On!

[Little Whiskey]

I hope Sf is our Dallas of the 90s.

We went to two Super Bowls in a row and won one.

If we have to look at ourselves and improve and kick their asses in a couple of years to go to two Super Bowls in a row, I say Bring It On!
Problem is.... Greenbay didn't play Dallas in the playoffs during the 96 and 97 Super Bowl runs. Carolina beat them in 96 and they missed the playoffs in 97.

[woodbuck27]

They are making us our bitch and it's been frustrating

Back in the Holmgren Days.....we'd get to the playoffs every year...but they had our number

B

It's a bit weird to see this thread B.

I was just reading this Article ... LINK below. It's an interesting read that covers what it was like to lose "eight straight games" to the Dallas Cowboys from 1991-96. Back then that record redefined domination for the Dallas Cowboys over the Green Bay Packers. The Dallas Cowboys were a huge obstacle against the Green Bay Packers achieving with a very decent team led by the likes of Brett Favre and Reggie White as they came on board.

This isn't meant to rub any salt in any Packer fan wounds. It's a difficult time now after seeing our Packers lose the fourth straight game to the San Francisco 49ers. Those 90's Packers lost twice as many straight. I have informed Packerrats how last Sundays 23-20 loss to the 49ers has affected me. I hate that the Green Bay Packers didn't handle their arch rivals in conditions that should have certainly allowed the team to do so. I watched the Packers blow time after time opportunity's to get more points on the score board to seal a victory and over and over ...and over again that didn't happen. I was shocked to witness that defeat of our team.

That the Packers failed to win left me simply so frustrated I cannot properly express the exact disappointment I felt. I really don't know when I felt so defeated as a Packer fan. Maybe it's my age and what I see as a narrowing opportunity with a terrific leader at the QB position. I see and don't simply sense the waste of Aaron Rodgers. I know that the Green Bay Packers need something more to ever compete with teams like the San Fran 49ers. I take this fact seriously.

This article gets up close and personal and will take you back to the 1990's and what that Era of Green Bay Packers had to overcome. By far the majority of you experienced the total frustration of all those consecutive defeats for the team we love. The Big Bad Dallas Cowboys as Bretsky so accurately informs us. Owned the Green Bay Packers back then.

Have a look Packerrats:

Green Bay Packers vs. Dallas Cowboys Game Results - Complete History.

http://www.footballdb.com/teamvsteam.html?tm=12&opp=9

All of that frustration is back on our laps in the form of the San Francisco 49ers.

That team does own the current edition of the Green Bay Packers. We couldn't find enough ways not to win last Sunday.

So it's now four straight loss's and will it be counting? It certainly will Packerrats unless something huge happens.

Everyone of you get this message.

How long before all of you become enlightened and to fully realize and demand change? Without such change your Green Bay Packers will not win another Super Bowl.

Is that too severe for 'YOU'?

If that's the case. I simply ask that you take a real strong look at the current Green Bay Packers. Ask yourself what's wrong? I request that you all be simply honest with yourselves. Ask yourself what has to be done with that wrong to get back on course? Back to having even a reasonable opportunity of winning a Super Bowl.

Again... I challenge you as Packer fans to be totally honest with yourselves.

Going 1-3 in the playoffs since our 2010 Super Bowl Victory isn't cutting it. Isn't even close to cutting it. That record with Aaron Rodgers as the Green bay Packer QB and him being arguably the finest player at any position in the NFL and he's the Packer QB !!

The Packers 1-3 playoff record since winning a Super Bowl in the 2010 Season is far worse than unimpressive ... it's terrible.

The 2011 and 2012 season and now this 2013 season playoff loss !? Managing to win 'only' one playoff game in three Seasons !? Is that acceptable? Does that record predict a bright 2014 Season?

This article ( LINK Below ) is a flashback to a time one and a half to over two decades ago. It's about what was in the minds of Green Bay Packers back then when it was time to face a team that continually defeated them. It's about the positive mindset of a current Packer team before this latest loss to the San Fran 49ers just two days ago. The taste of that defeat so bitter inside of me.

It's an article that stimulates an obvious question (s). What went wrong on Sunday? What may the Green Bay Packers Organization do to overcome this San Francisco 49ers team? To create a team situation that can handle a west coast team that's simply a real thorn in the sides of a collective Green Bay Packers Nation?

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/a-new-nemesis-49ers-have-stood-in-packers-way-b99176698z1-238745241.html

A new nemesis: 49ers have stood in Packers' way.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

Last year 49ers dominated both games. This year, Packers actually had a 4th quarter lead in both games, so they made strides. The Packers defense just isn't good enough right now, although they played respectably yesterday. The 49ers have more playmakers on defense, and I think that's the difference. But let's face it, that game could easily have gone the either way. I don't think the situation is similar to the '90's Dallas situation. Last year it was, but not now.

Yea right Joemailman. Are you viewing different Packer Vs 49ers games than I am?

Are we seeing the Green Bay Packers achieve Vs the San Fran 49ers? Are you really seeing that Joe? If you are I'm certainly not and adamantly stand by my position and here's my proof that the 49ers own the Green Bay Packers. That the 49ers simply put handle the Packers and do so now consistently:

We saw the Packers lose two games to the San Francisco 49ers in 2013.

Is that really progress? Please try hard come to terms with yourself. Don't allow 'the blind fan' in Packer fan to dominate, disillusion you Joe.

Try being REAL. :grin: Maybe it's hard for you? It is hard to see the TRUTH when you hoped / imagined so much more. The shock value of a complete smashing of your hopes. That's exactly where I landed after Sundays latest loss to the San Francisco 49ers.

I refuse now to let that result in any way shape or form do anything but recommend change as a Green Bay Packer fan. I'm right where I need to be. Totally honest with myself as a Packer fan. The same way I need to be with life in any general sense.

It's 'just real' that will somehow help us Packer fans see the right path to ever winning against any such talented team as the San Francisco 49ers. If we don't all get there and all focus on something a lot more for the Green Bay Packers my team is doomed to failure in any future playoffs.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

If Hyde makes that pick we win. This was a close game.

If...if ...if... if's. Sure I saw many 'if's Tony Oday.

The result on the scoreboard and the pain in that Packer locker room.

A lose ! Another loss!! Another damn loss to this damn team.

The San Francisco 49ers are off next week to play the Carolina Panthers and not the Green Bay Packers. That hurts most of Packer nation so badly, I imagine. It hurts me.

How can four straight loss's be cast aside with any excuse; be rationalized in any way?

It was a loss.

It was the fourth straight loss.

The Green Bay Packers have now 'lost' four (4) straight games to the San Francisco 49ers.

What part of that doesn't embarrass you and/or doesn't hurt 'You'?

Although all as sure as hell isn't green in terms of the current Green Bay Packers.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

For me, this is all on Thompson. Most of his first round selections have been very subpar, especially in the last 3-4 years. If he's not going to add anything through free agency, then he damn well better hit on more than half of his 1st round picks. The current strategy has not been effective in accumulating talent over the last 3 years. To me, Thompson also screwed up royally this past offseason by having such a damn hissy fit over the kicking position and neglecting to acquire a capable backup QB.

The Green Bay media needs to be far more critical of Thompson this offseason and put some pressure on him. I'm not saying he needs to go...he's a very good GM, and I think he'll respond well to the challenge. He's been subpar lately and he needs to step it up just as much as Raji or Finley or Burnett...that needs to be expressed. Teams like SF and SEA have made themselves better this past few offseasons with decent FA pickups like Boldin and very solid drafts. We have been spinning our wheels it seems. We are elite because of Rodgers...without him, our team is mostly crap.

You see it clearly.

Congratulations.

There's no sensible way that Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy can continue with their ways, manners and attitudes. Their lack of half decent foresight based in a certain reality.

I'm totally appalled with this incredible arrogance that we all should be clearly seeing in these men that we count on for the best fortunes of the Green Bay Packers.

They must change and we must see much more positive results from both of these Packer leaders or they should be seriously dealt with. I want them at least to be placed on serious warning. Warning from the media as a result of obvious fan reactions that cannot in any way be seriously positive now.

Please stop with blame on injuries. That scapegoat distraction doesn't wash. If you want the reason why...look at the score in that latest loss of four to the San Francisco 49ers.To blame a three point loss on injuries is simply refined arrogance. That game had to be won. That Packer team was perfectly set up for victory in that game and the reason for the loss were many but it all falls on the leadership.

If TT and MM both don't step up and clearly take the blame for this 2013 season result (s). Their certainly out to lunch arrogant. I'm fed up with Mike McCarthy hiding behind "the same Ole words and shrugs and what can you do's" and Ted Thompson 'just hiding'.

All of Packer Nation must unite in gaining at least that much control over a situation that is bad and could 'only' get worse. I can attest to this as a fact. A teams fans should count because they do.

The teams fans are the most important element of why a team franchise exists. You never piss off the fan base. If as the team's leadership you make moves and worse don't make moves to send the fan base south of you. You might best retire because the demand will come for you to be FIRED!

AQ clear message to Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy. This is this Packer fans position and warning.

The Green Bay Packers must win and nothing less than that is acceptable. Winning is the 'only' accurate measuring tool for your competency.

PACKERS !

[Patler]

To me, Thompson also screwed up royally this past offseason by having such a damn hissy fit over the kicking position and neglecting to acquire a capable backup QB.


Much of your criticism of TT is understandable, but I can't say I understand the above, let alone agree with them.

What "hissy fit" did he have over the kicking position? He brought in some competition for Crosby, as should have been expected. He protected the Packer salary cap when he decided to stick with Crosby, just in case Crosby had not fixed what ailed him. Crosby responded. In my opinion, this was an example of a GM handling the situation almost perfectly.

As for the backup QB position, a few comments:

- without any facts to prove it, I believe TT relies as much on MM's opinion about the backup QBs as he does on his own. Just a guess on my part.

- I can't fault him/them for taking a chance with BJ Coleman. He had the physical abilities to be worth taking a chance, and I have to commend them for not wasting too much time on him. It would have been easy to drag him along as a 3rd QB or PS player for a second year, but they were very decisive with him. The gave him a fair, but not excessive opportunity.

- they probably showed too much confidence in Graham Harrell, but I'm not convinced they didn't fix the problem before the season started by signing Seneca Wallace. Had he not been injured, McGinn might have been right about the Packers' prospects of playing half the season without Rodgers.

[woodbuck27]

Much of your criticism of TT is understandable, but I can't say I understand the above, let alone agree with them.

What "hissy fit" did he have over the kicking position? He brought in some competition for Crosby, as should have been expected. He protected the Packer salary cap when he decided to stick with Crosby, just in case Crosby had not fixed what ailed him. Crosby responded. In my opinion, this was an example of a GM handling the situation almost perfectly.

As for the backup QB position, a few comments:

- without any facts to prove it, I believe TT relies as much on MM's opinion about the backup QBs as he does on his own. Just a guess on my part.

- they probably showed too much confidence in Graham Harrell, but I'm not convinced they didn't fix the problem before the season started by signing Seneca Wallace. Had he not been injured, McGinn might have been right about the Packers' prospects of playing half the season without Rodgers.

** "Much of your criticism of TT is understandable, but I can't say I understand the above, let alone agree with them." Patler

Criticism of TT is understandable but....?

There's a certain contradiction there. Which is it going to be Patler?

** " without any facts to prove it, I believe TT relies as much on MM's opinion about the backup QBs as he does on his own. Just a guess on my part. " Patler

Green Bay Packer 'General Manager' Ted Thompson is acknowledged by some as a draft genius.

To be such TT must be capable of evaluating the prospects before the draft and once selected to be a Green Bay Packer prospect take a certain focused interest in doing a frequent follow-up and comparison of his initial grade on those he drafted. Certainly that and those that make the teams roster.

Ted Thompson has to be fully aware of the day to day happenings with the Packers and observing such or visable.

Mike McCarty didn't close on Seneca Wallace's hire as a backup QB. That was on Ted Thompson. It's then incumbent on General Manager Ted Thompson to ensure that his hire is working out just very well Thank You. This is the backup QB were discussing here. Ted Thompson's team is 'only' as secure in terms of wins; as is the strength of his hire at backup QB. Ted Thompson must never hire that man and then forget him.

Ted Thompson: Hi Mike... How's Seneca Wallace coming along?

Mike McCarthy: Ohh Gee Ted... he's doing very well. Nice hire Ted.

Ted: Well Thanks Mike. OK Mike ...Well carry on. I'm pretty busy here.

Packers !

You've got to be ready for 'the show' to GO !

[Patler]

** "Much of your criticism of TT is understandable, but I can't say I understand the above, let alone agree with them." Patler

Criticism of TT is understandable but....?

There's a certain contradiction there. Which is it going to be Patler?

** " without any facts to prove it, I believe TT relies as much on MM's opinion about the backup QBs as he does on his own. Just a guess on my part. " Patler

Green Bay Packer 'General Manager' Ted Thompson is acknowledged by some as a draft genius.

To be such TT must be capable of evaluating the prospects before the draft and once selected to be a Green Bay Packer prospect take a certain focused interest in doing a frequent follow-up and comparison of his initial grade on those he drafted. Certainly that and those that make the teams roster.

Ted Thompson has to be fully aware of the day to day happenings with the Packers and observing such or visable.

Mike McCarty didn't close on Seneca Wallace's hire as a backup QB. That was on Ted Thompson. It's then incumbent on General Manager Ted Thompson to ensure that his hire is working out just very well Thank You. This is the backup QB were discussing here. Ted Thompson's team is 'only' as secure in terms of wins; as is the strength of his hire at backup QB. Ted Thompson must never hire that man and then forget him.

Ted Thompson: Hi Mike... How's Seneca Wallace coming along?

Mike McCarthy: Ohh Gee Ted... he's doing very well. Nice hire Ted.

Ted: Well Thanks Mike. OK Mike ...Well carry on. I'm pretty busy here.

Packers !

You've got to be ready for 'the show' to GO !

You are sort of muddling issues there Woodbuck. There is no contradiction at all in my response. As I said, I understood much of the criticism, but took issue only with two specific statements that I quoted. I left the remainder of his post without comment from me, because I understand his position on things like early round draft failures in recent years, etc. I disagree with and discussed only the two comments about kicker and backup QB.

I think he handled the kicker issue very well.

I don't know if he handled backup QB well or not because of the factors I listed, but mostly because we never really got to see much of Seneca Wallace. As I said, if Wallace had stayed healthy, maybe McGinn would have been right about the Packers prospects when playing without Rodgers. The fact is, we just don't know because Wallace, too, was injured. I'm not prepared to jump to the conclusion that Wallace wasn't good enough, nor to the conclusion that he was. It's almost like trying to judge if Tretter was a good draft pick or not. Nothing to make the evaluation on.

Note that I agreed with any criticism that relied on sticking with Harrell too long, even though that was not a point raised specifically by KF. I will give his general comment that fact.

[pbmax]

For me, this is all on Thompson. Most of his first round selections have been very subpar, especially in the last 3-4 years. If he's not going to add anything through free agency, then he damn well better hit on more than half of his 1st round picks. The current strategy has not been effective in accumulating talent over the last 3 years. To me, Thompson also screwed up royally this past offseason by having such a damn hissy fit over the kicking position and neglecting to acquire a capable backup QB.

The Green Bay media needs to be far more critical of Thompson this offseason and put some pressure on him. I'm not saying he needs to go...he's a very good GM, and I think he'll respond well to the challenge. He's been subpar lately and he needs to step it up just as much as Raji or Finley or Burnett...that needs to be expressed. Teams like SF and SEA have made themselves better this past few offseasons with decent FA pickups like Boldin and very solid drafts. We have been spinning our wheels it seems. We are elite because of Rodgers...without him, our team is mostly crap.

The critique I get, but if you were Thompson's supervisor what would you be asking him to do differently? You lose me at media pressure and making the team better because they are so general.

Do you think he has been asleep at the draft table for 3 years? Or do you think something has gone wrong in his evaluation or selection of first round talent? Beyond the results and injuries, is it something identifiable and correctable?

Or do you think he HAS to be involved more in Free Agency? Because that is fine, but would be better with player suggestions and numbers.

[pbmax]

You are sort of muddling issues there Woodbuck. There is no contradiction at all in my response. As I said, I understood much of the criticism, but took issue only with two specific statements that I quoted. I left the remainder of his post without comment from me, because I understand his position on things like early round draft failures in recent years, etc. I disagree with and discussed only the two comments about kicker and backup QB.

I think he handled the kicker issue very well.

I don't know if he handled backup QB well or not because of the factors I listed, but mostly because we never really got to see much of Seneca Wallace. As I said, if Wallace had stayed healthy, maybe McGinn would have been right about the Packers prospects when playing without Rodgers. The fact is, we just don't know because Wallace, too, was injured. I'm not prepared to jump to the conclusion that Wallace wasn't good enough, nor to the conclusion that he was. It's almost like trying to judge if Tretter was a good draft pick or not. Nothing to make the evaluation on.

Note that I agreed with any criticism that relied on sticking with Harrell too long, even though that was not a point raised specifically by KF. I will give his general comment that fact.

The coming storm will be a continued over estimation of the value of Matt Flynn. He was healthy and sturdy enough to relearn the offense and perform adequately. His health might be more valuable to the Packers than his performance. It will be interesting to see who they pair with Tolzien this offseason.

[woodbuck27]

You are sort of muddling issues there Woodbuck. There is no contradiction at all in my response. As I said, I understood much of the criticism, but took issue only with two specific statements that I quoted. I left the remainder of his post without comment from me, because I understand his position on things like early round draft failures in recent years, etc. I disagree with and discussed only the two comments about kicker and backup QB.

I think he handled the kicker issue very well.

I don't know if he handled backup QB well or not because of the factors I listed, but mostly because we never really got to see much of Seneca Wallace. The fact is, we just don't know because Wallace, too, was injured. I'm not prepared to jump to the conclusion that Wallace wasn't good enough, nor to the conclusion that he was. It's almost As I said, if Wallace had stayed healthy, maybe McGinn would have been right about the Packers prospects when playing without Rodgers.like trying to judge if Tretter was a good draft pick or not. Nothing to make the evaluation on.

Note that I agreed with any criticism that relied on sticking with Harrell too long, even though that was not a point raised specifically by KF. I will give his general comment that fact.

" I think he handled the kicker issue very well. " Patler

I do as well.

" As I said, if Wallace had stayed healthy, ** maybe McGinn would have been right about the Packers prospects when playing without Rodgers." Patler

Patler, would you please, if it's not to difficult.

Post your interpretation of what Bob McGinn wrote specifically in **that regard**.

Thank You and have a nice day.

[woodbuck27]

The critique I get, but if you were Thompson's supervisor what would you be asking him to do differently? You lose me at media pressure and making the team better because they are so general.

Do you think he has been asleep at the draft table for 3 years? Or do you think something has gone wrong in his evaluation or selection of first round talent? Beyond the results and injuries, is it something identifiable and correctable?

Or do you think he HAS to be involved more in Free Agency? Because that is fine, but would be better with player suggestions and numbers.

" do you think he HAS to be involved more in Free Agency? Because that is fine, but would be better with player suggestions and numbers. " pbmax

It's a tad early for us fans to be able to make realistic recommendations until we're better informed in terms of how much actual CAP space the Packers will have entering FA.

[Patler]

[I]" As I said, if Wallace had stayed healthy, ** maybe McGinn would have been right about the Packers prospects when playing without Rodgers." Patler

Patler, would you please, if it's not to difficult.

Post your interpretation of what Bob McGinn wrote specifically in **that regard**.

Thank You and have a nice day.

Here you go, a link to the article that appeared the day before Rodgers got hurt:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/team-could-win-without-rodgers-b99132791z1-230373561.html

I will use McGinn's own words to sum it up:




Having spent much of the week researching the long career of No. 2 quarterback Seneca Wallace and the brief career of practice-squad quarterback Scott Tolzien, the guess here is that even if the Packers were to lose Rodgers early Monday night against the Chicago Bears they'd find ways to finish 11-5.

Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/topstories/team-could-win-without-rodgers-b99132791z1-230373561.html#ixzz2pjMrI5E9
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

[woodbuck27]

Here you go, a link to the article that appeared the day before Rodgers got hurt:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/team-could-win-without-rodgers-b99132791z1-230373561.html

I will use McGinn's own words to sum it up:

I have a limited number of articles that I can access each month.

That's why I asked for your interpretation.

I do recall this Bob McGinn piece in discussions here and even now what he wrote is downright uncanny in the creeps it gives me.

I'm going in a different direction. Play the Devil's advocate.

I'll go with Seneca Wallace's record as an NFL starting QB and time away from the NFL of late. Post that I wouldn't have had much faith in Seneca Wallace as a solid backup QB.

That's moot because obviously Ted Thompson did.

I'll go one step further. As a Packer fan how much weight 'seriously', does my view here have?

I'll point out that as I'm often reading here; again "the Injury Card" trumps anything even remotely close to resembling a Ted Thompson critique.

My frustration abounds. :lol:

[Patler]

I have a limited number of articles that I can access each month.

That's why I asked for your interpretation.

I do recall this Bob McGinn piece in discussions here and even now what he wrote is downright uncanny in the creeps it gives me.

I'm going in a different direction. Play the Devil's advocate.

I'll go with Seneca Wallace's record as an NFL starting QB and time away from the NFL of late. Post that I wouldn't have had much faith in Seneca Wallace as a solid backup QB.

That's moot because obviously Ted Thompson did.

I'll go one step further. As a Packer fan how much weight 'seriously', does my view here have?

I'll point out that as I'm often reading here; again "the Injury Card" trumps anything even remotely close to resembling a Ted Thompson critique.

My frustration abounds. :lol:

The difficult thing in evaluating a backup QB is looking at his past performances, which may have been for some pretty poor teams, and forecasting how he will do with what should be an overall better roster in GB, for example. Maybe what this year proved is that the rosters other than the elite QBs are much closer than people acknowledge.

Put Rodgers on the Bears the last 9 years and they might have been in the drivers seat of the NFC North.

[run pMc]

Speaking of the Bears, GB has handled them pretty good the last few years. Think their forums go crazy with each loss?
Imagine if all this happened at Lambeau in 4 seasons:
- losing the NFC Championship game (Halas Trophy)
- let them clinch the division two years later
- losing the division in the final minute of the regular season on a botched coverage 4th down bomb.
- going 2-7 against them from 2010-present, and 17-31 from 1990-present (or you could cherry pick and go from 1992-present and get 13 wins 31 losses)

THAT is being someone's b*tch.

SF is definitely under GB's skin, and it will be a monkey off the back to beat them, going 0-4 vs. SF in two seasons with a couple of those games being competitive -- especially this last one -- isn't quite total domination.
GB is closing the gap on SF, and I think they will continue to do so.

[run pMc]

I think TT handled the Crosby situation about as well as he could've, and it worked out for everyone.
I'd put the backup QB thing on M3 as much as TT -- seems like they moved fast on Coleman, but kept Harrell too long. I think that was on M3 and his loyalty and ego. The Vince Young signing was desperation and at that point we all saw how thin the QB depth was. The sunny side to that is there is no way Wallace comes back, Flynn might come back, and Tolzien has potential as a backup. I'd still rather not have to play either, and I think TT will make sure the QB depth/talent is better in 2014 TC than it was in 2013.

As for TT and shaking things up, he's lost some good personnel men (Dorsey, McKenzie, Schnieder) in the last few years and I'm sure that's impacted the scouting/drafting. The 2012 all-defense draft has yielded mixed results at best. Some of his other recent draft picks who have shown they can play (Bulaga, Hayward, Cobb) got hurt...TT needs to have a solid draft, plain and simple.

Only other comment is he needs to be open to more actively exploring FA for certain spots (a solid veteran safety, if one exists, for example).

[woodbuck27]

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/6158/defense-battles-but-still-has-shortcomings?ex_cid=espnapi_public

Defense battles but still has shortcomings.

January, 5, 2014 ... 11:00 PM ET ... By: Rob Demovsky | ESPN.com

Comment woodbuck27:

Aaron Rodgers and Randall Cobb; others give props to the Packer 'D' and DC Dom Capers.

But ... in the end was that enough?

In my view .... NO !

As I posted elsewhere yesterday. NFL Access's noted analyst Eric Davis planted the loss straight at the Packer 'D' for not protecting a late lead.

Personally I believe that instead of us Packer fans seeing 'a team win' we saw 'a Team LOSS' on a grand scale. That loss has nothing to do with a three point differential and everything to do with just how many times we failed to capitalize on plays that were so right there for the Packer benefit and in most cases for naught.

PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

http://cinesport.jsonline.com/nfl-green-bay-packers/packers-49ers-postgame-sound/

Jim Harbaugh, Mike McCarthy and Aaron Rodgers all spoke after the 49ers' 23-20 victory over the Green Bay Packers. San Francisco travels to Carolina to take on the Panthers next Sunday.

[Pugger]

Last year 49ers dominated both games. This year, Packers actually had a 4th quarter lead in both games, so they made strides. The Packers defense just isn't good enough right now, although they played respectably yesterday. The 49ers have more playmakers on defense, and I think that's the difference. But let's face it, that game could easily have gone the either way. I don't think the situation is similar to the '90's Dallas situation. Last year it was, but not now.

Especially had we had some of our injured guys in there like Heyward, Clay, Jolly, Shields, Neal...

[Pugger]

I think Carolina will tear SF's asses up.

And I for one will be cheering them on!

[mraynrand]

GB is closing the gap on SF, and I think they will continue to do so.

I think the gap is closed. If they had been as healthy as SF, they win that playoff game - even just in the game itself. See what happens in the offseason, TT has a chance to make Packers a decidedly better team, if they are reasonably healthy.

[mraynrand]

I think SF will beat Carolina. Carolina has a limited offense that SF can totally dominate. Carolina's defense is extremely good, but SF's offense just has more weapons.

[Pugger]

The difficult thing in evaluating a backup QB is looking at his past performances, which may have been for some pretty poor teams, and forecasting how he will do with what should be an overall better roster in GB, for example. Maybe what this year proved is that the rosters other than the elite QBs are much closer than people acknowledge.

Put Rodgers on the Bears the last 9 years and they might have been in the drivers seat of the NFC North.

Flynn flamed out in Seattle, Oakland and Buffalo but he was serviceable for us. Sometimes a guy has to be in the right spot to thrive?

[denverYooper]

I think the gap is closed. If they had been as healthy as SF, they win that playoff game - even just in the game itself. See what happens in the offseason, TT has a chance to make Packers a decidedly better team, if they are reasonably healthy.

I thought about this too and was trying to put my finger on the difference between the first game of the year against them and the last. Maybe they just figured out how to play them? Eddie Lacy sure helped wear out the defense at times. Their safeties bounced right off of him. Or maybe the bloom is of Kap a bit. For all he can do with his legs, he is a high variance passer right now -- some throws look strong and very good but some are just horrid -- and he seems to struggle with his reads.

[denverYooper]

San Fran is likely going to see the coaching staff break up as well and they've had 3 good years with the same staff and few injuries. The NFC West is also getting pretty strong, and it wouldn't be surprising to see the records even out there. Much as I'm loathe to admit it, I think Hairball is a good coach, but the Niners have enjoyed continuity on the staff and in the trenches and good health. They're going to start running into "rich team" problems soon -- lower draft picks, good players they can't pay (already Goldson, and their D was not as dominant this year), and their coaches will get picked off.

[Pugger]

San Fran is likely going to see the coaching staff break up as well and they've had 3 good years with the same staff and few injuries. The NFC West is also getting pretty strong, and it wouldn't be surprising to see the records even out there. Much as I'm loathe to admit it, I think Hairball is a good coach, but the Niners have enjoyed continuity on the staff and in the trenches and good health. They're going to start running into "rich team" problems soon -- lower draft picks, good players they can't pay (already Goldson, and their D was not as dominant this year), and their coaches will get picked off.

And they might have problems keeping all these vet FAs once they have pay Kaep.

[red]

I thought about this too and was trying to put my finger on the difference between the first game of the year against them and the last. Maybe they just figured out how to play them? Eddie Lacy sure helped wear out the defense at times. Their safeties bounced right off of him. Or maybe the bloom is of Kap a bit. For all he can do with his legs, he is a high variance passer right now -- some throws look strong and very good but some are just horrid -- and he seems to struggle with his reads.

i think the cold had a lot to do with it. they killed us the first game through the air going to crab and more importantly boldin

those two were very quiet this time, and i don't even remember hearing boldins name

so either those two were shut down, or those two were affected by the cold

[pbmax]

There was a point in the 3rd Quarter where the 49er D did not look like it wanted any part of the cold or unnecessary hitting. The defense was ripe for being taken apart.

In other news, I heard James Jones played with two broken ribs somewhere.

[mraynrand]

There was a point in the 3rd Quarter where the 49er D did not look like it wanted any part of the cold or unnecessary hitting. The defense was ripe for being taken apart.

In other news, I heard James Jones played with two broken ribs somewhere.

Bigger, tougher

[woodbuck27]

There was a point in the 3rd Quarter where the 49er D did not look like it wanted any part of the cold or unnecessary hitting. The defense was ripe for being taken apart.

In other news, I heard James Jones played with two broken ribs somewhere.

At one point I observed the 49er offense looking almost stunned as they sat on the sidelines while the Packer 'O' was doing it's thing.

I said to Mae. Look at the look in their eyes:

They looked stone cold beaten. I swear I saw that look of defeat on them. It was in their eyes and it was in their stature.

[Patler]

I heard James Jones played with two broken ribs somewhere.

I think he played in Green Bay. (Or is the correct sarcastic reply: "the ribs were in his chest"?)

[pbmax]

I think he played in Green Bay. (Or is the correct sarcastic reply: "the ribs were in his chest"?)

Both are acceptable!

[run pMc]

San Fran is likely going to see the coaching staff break up as well and they've had 3 good years with the same staff and few injuries. The NFC West is also getting pretty strong, and it wouldn't be surprising to see the records even out there. Much as I'm loathe to admit it, I think Hairball is a good coach, but the Niners have enjoyed continuity on the staff and in the trenches and good health. They're going to start running into "rich team" problems soon -- lower draft picks, good players they can't pay (already Goldson, and their D was not as dominant this year), and their coaches will get picked off.

Agree. Also, unlike GB, SF starts a lot of veterans and they play the vast majority of the snaps...you'd think if either team was to have injury problems, it would be the older team. This year they had more injuries than last; I wouldn't be surprised if that trend continued.

Success brings copycats. Other teams will poach their staff and FA's. Gonna be hard to keep that OL and front 7 defense together.

Kaepernick is under contract but (I think) eligible for an extension this offseason...he reminds me of Donovan McNabb. SF will want to sign him and that will cost them a solid player or two elsewhere. No wonder they keep trading for more draft picks.

[denverYooper]

FWIW:

Michael David Smith ‏@MichaelDavSmith 10m
Colin Kaepernick has 30 starts. Averages 300.7 pass yards, 100.3 rush yards in three vs. GB. Averages 186.9 and 30.5 in 27 other games.

[bobblehead]

FWIW:

Michael David Smith ‏@MichaelDavSmith 10m
Colin Kaepernick has 30 starts. Averages 300.7 pass yards, 100.3 rush yards in three vs. GB. Averages 186.9 and 30.5 in 27 other games.

Bingo. They have our number atm, but just like Dallas, once we broke through they went into a 25 year tailspin. Same might happen to this team.

[pbmax]

Bingo. They have our number atm, but just like Dallas, once we broke through they went into a 25 year tailspin. Same might happen to this team.

That number is dual pass and run threat.

[denverYooper]

That number is dual pass and run threat.

Good point. That's hard on a defense that relies so heavily on situational packages.

[LP]

Bingo. They have our number atm, but just like Dallas, once we broke through they went into a 25 year tailspin. Same might happen to this team.

San Fran doesn't have Jerrah to muck things up for them.

[Old School]

When the 9ers go to Carolina, I hope Luke Kuechle hits Coleen Creepyneck so hard, all her tattoos fall off.

[Pugger]

When the 9ers go to Carolina, I hope Luke Kuechle hits Coleen Creepyneck so hard, all her tattoos fall off.

I will be rooting for Carolina this weekend, that's for sure.

[Striker]

I will be rooting for Carolina this weekend, that's for sure.

Carolina and New Orleans. Send Harbaugh and Carroll home early.

[run pMc]

Carolina and New Orleans. Send Harbaugh and Carroll home early.

This.

[bobblehead]

San Fran doesn't have Jerrah to muck things up for them.

No, they have crackbaby Debartello

[woodbuck27]

I will be rooting for Carolina this weekend, that's for sure.

Ohh Dear what can I write .... OK.

Not me Pugger as that definitely supports another team (besides the San Fran 49ers) or the Carolina Panthers as being better than the Green Bay Packers.

I'll hope for a San Fran 49ers win in that game and at least then there will be some pause and is the Carolina Panthers a better team that the Packers. I want the 49ers to absolutely own the Panthers. To go all the way to the Super Bowl and win that sucker too.

I base that post on simple logic.

We learned that way back when we were 10-12 years of age and 'the Boys' comparing teams down at the corner store. Back then it was rare or just not happening to have a girl toss sports around with the fellas. They tossed other things at us. :grin:

PACKERS !

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/239500641.html

TRENT DILFERS TAKE on why Colin owns the Packers D
CK struggles against the one kind of defense the Packers rarely attempt

[call_me_ishmael]

I have kind of wondered why the Pack didn't sit in deep cover 2 with the safeties and make Gore beat us. We aren't gonna get pressure, so why bother?

[woodbuck27]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/239500641.html

TRENT DILFERS TAKE on why Colin owns the Packers D
CK struggles against the one kind of defense the Packers rarely attempt

Hi B.

Pretty easy to understand that article and where our 'D' needs to adjust on a fundamental basis. Send this in memo form to:

http://www.mapquest.ca/?version=1.0&hk=9-O4H39BbV

Way too often we see our defense turn their eyes to the ie WR/TE and not check back to the ball. I reviewed the game recording today and it's unbelievable just how lenient the Zebras were with our DB's grabbing and otherwise clear PI desperation.

The ball should definitely have been placed on our 1 yard line after a clear PI on a Kaepernick pass to the end zone (A. Boldin as I recall it was interfered with) and that was ignored by the Officials and as a result 'only' ended with 3 more points down and a score of 6 - zip...49ers.

All else the same. The score should have been San Fran 49ers 17 - Packers 10 at the half. Not 49ers 13 - Packers 10.

Our teams DB's too often give over the top too much room or pursue opponent route runners with their backs to the ball. Our DB's are not athletically gifted enough or clearly outmatched. Anyone (or fan) that can simply see a game should know that's exactly the case. It's too easy to see.

Why are common sense fundamental concepts ignored?

A bunch of kids at a Sunday afternoon pick up game would know that much. To not turn their backs to the ball. Isn't that a no brainer!?

Packerrats want for some reason to lay the blame this time on the 'O'; and with no doubt the Packers 'O' was certainly off. It was nowhere after the 1st Qtr. (what!? 6-8 yards total offense).

The fact remains that the Packers 'O' did have the team ahead as the game went. That closing drive for a FG and the San Fran 49ers win; was set up by lousy defense. A "no defense" that gave up two HUGE 3rd down plays to the San Fran 49ers or the Packers have a real shot at flipping the outcome.

It's right there that that game was lost. LOST by the Packer 'D'.

That loss was on the Packers defense ...AGAIN.

PACKERS !

[Pugger]

Ohh Dear what can I write .... OK.

Not me Pugger as that definitely supports another team (besides the San Fran 49ers) or the Carolina Panthers as being better than the Green Bay Packers.

I'll hope for a San Fran 49ers win in that game and at least then there will be some pause and is the Carolina Panthers a better team that the Packers. I want the 49ers to absolutely own the Panthers. To go all the way to the Super Bowl and win that sucker too.

I base that post on simple logic.

We learned that way back when we were 10-12 years of age and 'the Boys' comparing teams down at the corner store. Back then it was rare or just not happening to have a girl toss sports around with the fellas. They tossed other things at us. :grin:

PACKERS !

To each his own. I don't want SF or Seattle to even sniff a Lombardi this season. This doesn't mean I'm rooting for anyone - just against those 2 teams.

[Pugger]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/239500641.html

TRENT DILFERS TAKE on why Colin owns the Packers D
CK struggles against the one kind of defense the Packers rarely attempt

I will definitely watch how Carolina plays Kaep this weekend.

[pbmax]

I have kind of wondered why the Pack didn't sit in deep cover 2 with the safeties and make Gore beat us. We aren't gonna get pressure, so why bother?

Because last time they did that the QB ran for 181 yards an Gore had another 100 or so.

[mraynrand]

I have kind of wondered why the Pack didn't sit in deep cover 2 with the safeties and make Gore beat us. We aren't gonna get pressure, so why bother?

I was impressed that they stayed with man coverage even when they had to play House. Makes you wonder how much better it wold have worked out with Shields and Neal in the game. Of course, they still would have had to overcome horrible performances by the ILBs.

[mraynrand]

Because last time they did that the QB ran for 181 yards an Gore had another 100 or so.

579!

[mraynrand]

I have kind of wondered why the Pack didn't sit in deep cover 2 with the safeties and make Gore beat us. We aren't gonna get pressure, so why bother?

Thinking more about this, it would have possibly made more sense to fill the box even more. Kap was struggling with accuracy on his deeper throws and the refs were allowing interference all over the place. With the way T-will was playing, you fill the box and have the LBs and one safety cover shallow, and then single cover everything deep, hoping for more off-target passes. Might have stopped the scrambles.

[MadtownPacker]

579!
Oh man if I could just bring RB back for a week...

[denverYooper]

At least our "Dallas" isn't in the same division:

http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/49ers-Colin-Kaepernick-must-unlock-key-to-5167285.php

Packers : Bears :: Seahawks : 49ers

[denverYooper]

The previous article mentions the Seahawks made Kaep pay for his poor throws, whereas Green Bay and Carolina did not:


In the 49ers' first two playoff games, Kaepernick got away with notable near-misses. On the third play of a game-winning drive at Green Bay, he underthrew a short pass that was nearly intercepted by cornerback Micah Hyde. In a divisional win at Carolina, Kaepernick's slant from his 3-yard line was jumped by safety Quintin Mikell, who couldn't finish the play.

Against Seattle, which led the NFL with 28 interceptions and has three All-Pros in the secondary, Kaepernick paid for his mistakes.

[hoosier]

The previous article mentions the Seahawks made Kaep pay for his poor throws, whereas Green Bay and Carolina did not:

Which is consistent with this thesis: the biggest difference between the 2009-11 Packers and the 2013 version is the huge decline in takeaways. It is not just the number either. During their playoff run in 2010 they relied on turnovers to break the game open (NYG, at Atl in divisional game, at Chi in CG) or to fend off late comebacks (Chicago in week 17, wildcard game at Philly, at Chicago in CG, Mendenhall fumble in SB).

They need a healthy Casey Hayward and a safety who has a sense for the ball but is able to keep it within the system.

[Striker]

Thinking more about this, it would have possibly made more sense to fill the box even more. Kap was struggling with accuracy on his deeper throws and the refs were allowing interference all over the place. With the way T-will was playing, you fill the box and have the LBs and one safety cover shallow, and then single cover everything deep, hoping for more off-target passes. Might have stopped the scrambles.

I see Kaepernick as a slightly more accurate Vick. Runs if the first option is gone, will make the wow throw, but will throw some really dumb ones up too.

Packers missed at least two (Tramon in the end zone and Hyde) during the game. Hopefully they can make him pay the next time they play.