Robert McGinn end of season breakdown

[call_me_ishmael]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-getting-left-behind-by-nfl-elite-b99180633z1-239781131.html

[packrulz]

Kind of dramatic if you ask me, I think Bob is just trying to sell more newspapers. He does have a couple good points though. The defense didn't step up after ARod got hurt, sloppy tackling, inability to stop the run, too few turnovers. The back up QB situation was a mess. M3 wasted all that time on Harrell, so we really went into the season with no back up QB. I do think he has something in Tolzien though. All the injuries year after year is a concern, even down to hamstring pulls, either the players aren't getting proper conditioning or diet or practicing hard enough, they're too soft. TT needs to improve the middle of the D, Jennings was a flop, Raji is regressing, and Hawk will never get any better. Still, I don't think firing anyone is going to help, and I don't feel any of the free agents would have made a huge difference either.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

Sorta dramatic, but its an article sorely needed in Packerland, where I believe too many people are drinking the kool-aid concerning the competitiveness of Capers, MM, Slocum, and many of the players. If no personnel changes are forthcoming, then all have to improve to keep up with the NFL elite.

[bobblehead]

I believe about 2 months ago Bob wrote an article saying something like "MM and TT won't say it, but this was their most talented team yet. Injuries ruined what was to be their most successful season." Now they are dogshit, the league has passed them by, and they better change their ways.

I like Bob, generally speaking. He has a lot of knowledge about the game, and some good sources. I think he gets too much of his ideas for articles from over reacting fans though.

[bobblehead]

I will say one thing. Our model for backup QB has to change with the new CBA. In the past MM was able to use the QB school in the offseason to develop a backup. Those days are over with the limited time/things you can do in the offseason under the new CBA.

[denverYooper]

I believe about 2 months ago Bob wrote an article saying something like "MM and TT won't say it, but this was their most talented team yet. Injuries ruined what was to be their most successful season." Now they are dogshit, the league has passed them by, and they better change their ways.

I like Bob, generally speaking. He has a lot of knowledge about the game, and some good sources. I think he gets too much of his ideas for articles from over reacting fans though.

This.

These days, they call that using 'advanced metrics' to generate an article that will get hits.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Look, the ball bounces a different way or sticks in Hyde's fingers and the Pack would still be in it. That said, I think it's clear from watching the rest of the playoff teams that most of them are better than we are, especially if Rodgers is taken out of the equation. We just don't have the highest caliber players on defense. The Packers' secondary was touted as one of the deepest and best components of the team, but it proved leaky and fragile all season.

In order to make this team better in 2014 we don't need to overhaul it, just be smart and think out of the box. TT, Stubby and Capers have to adjust to the times and the conditions. If there is a glaring hole that needs filling with a FA, TT has got to pull the trigger. It's not like the FA/trade market is foreign to Green Bay (Favre, Sean Jones, Eugene Robinson, Pickett, Woodson and of course Reggie, to name a few). We aren't the same team without them.

By the same token, Capers has got to somehow simplify his defense so it works when we need to play young guys due to injuries or whatnot. He's got to realistically examine his system and his personnel and make real adjustments. "Keep it simple stupid" might be a good mantra for next year.

Lastly, Stubby has to adjust. I think he has to finally give up his play-calling duties and concentrate on keeping his head in the game as far as strategy and game conditions go. Why, for instance, does it suddenly dawn on him at halftime to run the ball more in the second half (Dallas game and a few others). He's calling the plays, for crying out loud. Why do you need the players to lobby you to go for it on 4th and one? When it's obvious a field goal isn't enough to win and you're on the SF five yard line with 5 minutes left, why do you kick a field goal? Sometimes Stubby can't see the forest for the trees.

[bobblehead]

Look, the ball bounces a different way or sticks in Hyde's fingers and the Pack would still be in it. That said, I think it's clear from watching the rest of the playoff teams that most of them are better than we are, especially if Rodgers is taken out of the equation. We just don't have the highest caliber players on defense. The Packers' secondary was touted as one of the deepest and best components of the team, but it proved leaky and fragile all season.


I think we are better than ANY of them if you take away their starting QB as well, so that is a worthless point to make. And if SF runs the table to the SB and we were <> that close to winning the game twice, do you still believe the other teams are better?

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think we are better than ANY of them if you take away their starting QB as well, so that is a worthless point to make. And if SF runs the table to the SB and we were <> that close to winning the game twice, do you still believe the other teams are better?

Take away the starting QB's and I think most of them are still marginally better than us. They have better players on defense generally and better linemen and linebackers. We can hold our own at the skill positions on offense, but I'd trade our defense (coach included) for any of the top teams in the NFL that are still in the playoffs.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I think the article was a little dramatic, but some valid points were made. As Maxi said, TT might need to change his approach if he wants to win another championship. I think his approach of accumulating draft picks and watching veterans walk is a great way to build a team from the ground up like he did from 05 to 08. What worries me about TT is he missed a great opportunity after the 2010 season to add some solid free agent pickups that might have delivered another championship to green bay.

I agree with his method of not overpaying for aging vets, but why after a superbowl win in 2010 should we spend the majority of the 2011 season searching for a replacement for Cullen Jenkins instead of just keeping him? We were stacked that year. I'm somewhat concerned that his idea of building a team stays the same even once the team is stacked and basically "built" to win. Sometimes its necessary to "go all in" when you build the roster up for all those years and had so many great players in the prime of there careers.

What we need now is to have consecutive drafts were he hits on at least a few pro bowlers or we stand to waste Rodgers and Matthews best years. I think you might see a different TT this offseason (at least I'm hoping we do). He needs to draft better players (have hated the last three first round picks) and use all avenues going forward to build the team back up to the best of the best. He has building blocks that should all be solid for at least 4 more seasons in Rodgers, Matthews, Nelson, Cobb, Lacey, hopefully Shields, Hayward*, Daniels, and Sitton. Bulaga, Bahk, and Hyde also probably figure to join that group. And this team still might have players in Worthy, Datone Jones, Boyd, and Tretter. With that said the safeties are trash (all of them), Tramon is in a contract year, Hawk is average, Brad Jones sucks, Perry should be playing DE, Neal and Raji are probably leaving, EDS is average, Finely looks like he's done, and depth at Wr might also become a problem. To try to address all these issues solely through the draft might not be fast enough to take full advantage of the remaining prime years of our best players esp. with heavy weights san fran and settle looking as strong as ever (I also predict the Rams will be the best team in the nfc two years from now).

[woodbuck27]

The Top Four defenses in the NFL are all in the NFC:

#1 Seattle 14.4 P/G

#2 Carolina 15.1 P/G

#3 San Fran 17.0 P/G

#4 New Orleans 19.0 P/G

THE GREEN BAY PACKERS #24 and allowing 26.8 P/G

Opponent TOTAL Yards Per Game:

Green Bay: 25th @ 372.3 Y/G Vs Seattle 1st @ 273.6 Y/G; Carolina 2nd @ 301.3; San Fran. 5th @ 316.9 Y/G ; New Orleans 4th @ 305.7 Y/G

Opponent PASSING Yards per game:

Green Bay: 24th @ 247.3 Y/G Vs Seattle #1 @ 170 Y/G; Carolina #6 @ 214.3 Y/G; SAN FRAN. 7th @ 221 Y/G; NEW ORLEANS 2nd @ 194.2 Y/G

Opponent RUSHING Yards per Game:

Green Bay: 25th @125 Y/G Vs Seattle 7th @ 101.8 Y/G; Carolina 2nd @ 86.9 Y/G; San Fran 4th @ 95.9 Y/G and NEW ORLEANS 19th @ 111.6 Y/G

There's a long ways to go on 'D' to seriously compete with the best NFC teams DEFENSE's.

GO PACK GO !

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think the article was a little dramatic, but some valid points were made. As Maxi said, TT might need to change his approach if he wants to win another championship. I think his approach of accumulating draft picks and watching veterans walk is a great way to build a team from the ground up like he did from 05 to 08. What worries me about TT is he missed a great opportunity after the 2010 season to add some solid free agent pickups that might have delivered another championship to green bay.

I agree with his method of not overpaying for aging vets, but why after a superbowl win in 2010 should we spend the majority of the 2011 season searching for a replacement for Cullen Jenkins instead of just keeping him? We were stacked that year. I'm somewhat concerned that his idea of building a team stays the same even once the team is stacked and basically "built" to win. Sometimes its necessary to "go all in" when you build the roster up for all those years and had so many great players in the prime of there careers.

What we need now is to have consecutive drafts were he hits on at least a few pro bowlers or we stand to waste Rodgers and Matthews best years. I think you might see a different TT this offseason (at least I'm hoping we do). He needs to draft better players (have hated the last three first round picks) and use all avenues going forward to build the team back up to the best of the best. He has building blocks that should all be solid for at least 4 more seasons in Rodgers, Matthews, Nelson, Cobb, Lacey, hopefully Shields, Hayward*, Daniels, and Sitton. Bulaga, Bahk, and Hyde also probably figure to join that group. And this team still might have players in Worthy, Datone Jones, Boyd, and Tretter. With that said the safeties are trash (all of them), Tramon is in a contract year, Hawk is average, Brad Jones sucks, Perry should be playing DE, Neal and Raji are probably leaving, EDS is average, Finely looks like he's done, and depth at Wr might also become a problem. To try to address all these issues solely through the draft might not be fast enough to take full advantage of the remaining prime years of our best players esp. with heavy weights san fran and settle looking as strong as ever (I also predict the Rams will be the best team in the nfc two years from now).

+1
Jenkins was a good fit for the Packers, as was Greg Jennings, regardless of the bad blood now. The defense was better with Desmond Bishop in the middle too. I understand the reasons for letting these guys go, but we didn't really function well without them.

[red]

I think the article was a little dramatic, but some valid points were made. As Maxi said, TT might need to change his approach if he wants to win another championship. I think his approach of accumulating draft picks and watching veterans walk is a great way to build a team from the ground up like he did from 05 to 08. What worries me about TT is he missed a great opportunity after the 2010 season to add some solid free agent pickups that might have delivered another championship to green bay.

I agree with his method of not overpaying for aging vets, but why after a superbowl win in 2010 should we spend the majority of the 2011 season searching for a replacement for Cullen Jenkins instead of just keeping him? We were stacked that year. I'm somewhat concerned that his idea of building a team stays the same even once the team is stacked and basically "built" to win. Sometimes its necessary to "go all in" when you build the roster up for all those years and had so many great players in the prime of there careers.

What we need now is to have consecutive drafts were he hits on at least a few pro bowlers or we stand to waste Rodgers and Matthews best years. I think you might see a different TT this offseason (at least I'm hoping we do). He needs to draft better players (have hated the last three first round picks) and use all avenues going forward to build the team back up to the best of the best. He has building blocks that should all be solid for at least 4 more seasons in Rodgers, Matthews, Nelson, Cobb, Lacey, hopefully Shields, Hayward*, Daniels, and Sitton. Bulaga, Bahk, and Hyde also probably figure to join that group. And this team still might have players in Worthy, Datone Jones, Boyd, and Tretter. With that said the safeties are trash (all of them), Tramon is in a contract year, Hawk is average, Brad Jones sucks, Perry should be playing DE, Neal and Raji are probably leaving, EDS is average, Finely looks like he's done, and depth at Wr might also become a problem. To try to address all these issues solely through the draft might not be fast enough to take full advantage of the remaining prime years of our best players esp. with heavy weights san fran and settle looking as strong as ever (I also predict the Rams will be the best team in the nfc two years from now).

the problem with needing 2 more big drafts is that its going to take those new rookies a few years to get up to speed.

i think it was in another thread where patler mentioned that it took nick collins 4 years before it "clicked" for him

we can't wait 4 years for a safety

in 4 years this team will almost be completely different just because of the turnover this team has

by my count, we have 6 more years, maybe 7, before the rodgers window closes. guys we draft in the next two years, are guys that we are gonna hope are ready to play for rodgers one last big hurrah at the end of his career

on top of that, we can't just focus on defense anymore in the draft. this year we are in major need of a TE, next year, if not already this year, we will need WR's (jones is a FA this year, cobb and jordy are both free agents next year). we may still need to draft an OT.

we can't just draft anymore, we're never gonna get back ahead by just drafting and having 10-13 rookies on the roster every year imo

teddy needs to open his purse strings and get us some guys that already know how to play the game imo. quit relying on unproven kids

[Patler]

McGinn often panders to the prevailing attitude of Packer fans. After the 2010 SB win and all during 2011, all he did was write about how the Packers were set up to be the dominant team of the NFL for years to come because their plan brought a constant infusion of young talent, which allowed the team to be selective in who of the vets they kept, and by avoiding expensive FAs they eliminated cap-killing mistakes when an FA bombs, as is all too common. Three months ago, their plan and preparation was so solid that even if Rodgers were lost, they would go 11-5. While losing Rodgers would be tough, He wrote:


"Yet, no organization would be better equipped to handle it than Green Bay."

Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/topstories/team-could-win-without-rodgers-b99132791z1-230373561.html#ixzz2qCjmKtWl
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter


I still value his draft analysis articles, but those are based on the opinions of others that he does a very good job of gathering and sorting. His articles featuring his own analysis of the team itself are an entirely different thing.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

the problem with needing 2 more big drafts is that its going to take those new rookies a few years to get up to speed.

i think it was in another thread where patler mentioned that it took nick collins 4 years before it "clicked" for him

we can't wait 4 years for a safety

in 4 years this team will almost be completely different just because of the turnover this team has

by my count, we have 6 more years, maybe 7, before the rodgers window closes. guys we draft in the next two years, are guys that we are gonna hope are ready to play for rodgers one last big hurrah at the end of his career

on top of that, we can't just focus on defense anymore in the draft. this year we are in major need of a TE, next year, if not already this year, we will need WR's (jones is a FA this year, cobb and jordy are both free agents next year). we may still need to draft an OT.

we can't just draft anymore, we're never gonna get back ahead by just drafting and having 10-13 rookies on the roster every year imo

teddy needs to open his purse strings and get us some guys that already know how to play the game imo. quit relying on unproven kids

Well don't underestimate how fast an impact first and second year players can have on a team. Raji, Matthews, and Bulaga played big roles in winning the superbowl in 2010 and all were first and second year players. Bill Belichick is think was quoted as saying the way to build a solid team that wins superbowls in this era is by having a lot of good players making a lot less then they are worth. Only way to accomplish that is through the draft. So I think loading up in the draft is important and should continue to be a focus, but we haven't hit on enough impact players recently. Having better drafts and signing another Woodson or Pickett can make a world of difference.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

An ideal offseason for me would be signing a T.J Ward type player. He probably won't command any more money than we were/are paying Pickett, Finley, Hawk (before restructuring), or Williams. Signing a guy you know can play to a contract you would already be paying to Nick Collins had to not been injured in 2011 and having a great draft were you hit on like 2 to 3 impact players will move this team back up with the elite. I wouldn't advocate signing more than one or two free agents because you want to be able to keep your Nelson, Cobb, and Shield, type players also. I would love to find another Woodson type signing, a player who makes an impact for 5+ years and is well worth his contact.

[Brandon494]

Same guy who wrote how this team wouldn't lose a beat if Rodgers went down to injury, now the NFL elite are passing the Packers? Give me a fucking break, if we had not lost All-Pro caliber players (Rodgers, Cobb, Matthews) along with others key starters this season we would have been right up top with those "elite teams".

[Brandon494]

An ideal offseason for me would be signing a T.J Ward type player. He probably won't command any more money than we were/are paying Pickett, Finley, Hawk (before restructuring), or Williams. Signing a guy you know can play to a contract you would already be paying to Nick Collins had to not been injured in 2011 and having a great draft were you hit on like 2 to 3 impact players will move this team back up with the elite. I wouldn't advocate signing more than one or two free agents because you want to be able to keep your Nelson, Cobb, and Shield, type players also. I would love to find another Woodson type signing, a player who makes an impact for 5+ years and is well worth his contact.

Although I would love to have TJ Ward I would prefer to have a safety that is more of a ball hawk. A guy who can play center field for us like Nick Collins, unfortunately for us those guys don't just grow on trees. A guy I like that you don't hear his name a lot is Stevie Brown from the Giants http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/13321/stevie-brown but doubt the Giants will let him walk.

[pbmax]

I will say one thing. Our model for backup QB has to change with the new CBA. In the past MM was able to use the QB school in the offseason to develop a backup. Those days are over with the limited time/things you can do in the offseason under the new CBA.

Yep. This.

[bobblehead]

+1
Jenkins was a good fit for the Packers, as was Greg Jennings, regardless of the bad blood now. The defense was better with Desmond Bishop in the middle too. I understand the reasons for letting these guys go, but we didn't really function well without them.

I blame TT for Bishop, Jennings was replaced already on the roster, and Jenkins I still believe signed for same/less than we offered.

[Joemailman]

I blame TT for Bishop, Jennings was replaced already on the roster, and Jenkins I still believe signed for same/less than we offered.

I think TT let Bishop go because he figured he was through health-wise. Bishop played 3 games for Minnesota this year. I think TT was right. It is certainly fair though to blame TT for not adequately replacing Bishop.

[bobblehead]

I think TT let Bishop go because he figured he was through health-wise. Bishop played 3 games for Minnesota this year. I think TT was right. It is certainly fair though to blame TT for not adequately replacing Bishop.

You never know if he would have been hurt here. I get that TT made that choice, but given that Bishop signed a very fair contract to the team, he should have been kept for this year yet. We weren't hurting for cap space. I do understand TT's thinking though.

[call_me_ishmael]

I believe about 2 months ago Bob wrote an article saying something like "MM and TT won't say it, but this was their most talented team yet. Injuries ruined what was to be their most successful season." Now they are dogshit, the league has passed them by, and they better change their ways.

I like Bob, generally speaking. He has a lot of knowledge about the game, and some good sources. I think he gets too much of his ideas for articles from over reacting fans though.

This is a stream of consciousness so bear with me.

It is funny how that works out. I think the team looked a heck of a lot better at the start of the year (not what you want). I think a lot of players showed their true colors and true talent when ARod went out. If a bunch of journeymen looks good with ARod, then no reason not to turn it over and try to get better (worst case, we end up right where we are today - terrible on D).

I would really like to see them just start over there. I would like to see some activity in free agency. Yes, they have some must-resign guys in Jordy and Randall, but they cannot continue having a dynamic offense and horrible D.

Watching the Pats game last night, it is surprising to me how much more aggressive and better they are on defense. They have a high priced QB, use free agency, and draft well. They have a dynamic offense, but there D is leaps and bounds ahead of us. Is it scheme? Is it the aggressiveness of the scheme that creates the perception that it's better? I really don't know. All I know is I'd much rather have that D roster, coaching staff and scheme then ours.

With QBs getting so much money today, it really seems to me like the best window to win a super bowl is to have a good QB on a rookie deal. See Wilson, Kaepernick, Newton, Luck, etc.

Also, ARod is good, but I'm not so sure that he's Brady, Manning or Luck good. Maybe I'm wrong.

[call_me_ishmael]

I think we are better than ANY of them if you take away their starting QB as well, so that is a worthless point to make. And if SF runs the table to the SB and we were <> that close to winning the game twice, do you still believe the other teams are better?

Nope. I think it's still a competitive close game against SF, Carolina and Seattle. I think it's a push or a slight advantage. 60-40% maybe. Where as if you put Flynn in and take Rodgers out it's 10-90% imo.

[call_me_ishmael]

McGinn often panders to the prevailing attitude of Packer fans. After the 2010 SB win and all during 2011, all he did was write about how the Packers were set up to be the dominant team of the NFL for years to come because their plan brought a constant infusion of young talent, which allowed the team to be selective in who of the vets they kept, and by avoiding expensive FAs they eliminated cap-killing mistakes when an FA bombs, as is all too common. Three months ago, their plan and preparation was so solid that even if Rodgers were lost, they would go 11-5. While losing Rodgers would be tough, He wrote:



I still value his draft analysis articles, but those are based on the opinions of others that he does a very good job of gathering and sorting. His articles featuring his own analysis of the team itself are an entirely different thing.

I think the Packers system was really going well after the super bowl. Then our Clay Matthews, Charles Woodson in his Prime, and Nick Collins of the personnel department all left for jobs in KC, Seattle and Oakland. Clearly they had a lot of talent there. I don't follow it much, but it seems unusual to me that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th members of the football organization left for GM jobs. It tells me they had a dynamic, unusually good personal staff.

Our drafting has sucked since the super bowl. Whether it's just bad luck, or what, it doesn't matter. By the Ron Wolf theory, we should have a minimum 3-4 additional quality starters on the team than we do. We don't because of poor drafting. That is the entire problem with the roster in my opinion. We are 3-4 quality starters away from the contending. Not pro bowlers or super stars, just quality average to above average players at their position. That makes 3-4 current starters into back-up depth, which makes the entire roster look better.

I think if we would have continued the pre-2010 success drafting, we would be contending and a dynamic team.

I'm not advocating for free agency, or drafting only, or really stating an opinion at all. My opinion is really that the Packers roster quality has taken a significant dip since the super bowl and it coincides with the massive organizational changing injury to Nick Collins and the departure of the the front line of personnel staff. The bottom line is we need some better players in a hurry and it is unlikely that they will all come in the draft in the next year or two.

[bobblehead]

Nope. I think it's still a competitive close game against SF, Carolina and Seattle. I think it's a push or a slight advantage. 60-40% maybe. Where as if you put Flynn in and take Rodgers out it's 10-90% imo.

If you take out Kap, Cam and Wilson the Packers cruise over any of them.

[pbmax]

+1
Jenkins was a good fit for the Packers, as was Greg Jennings, regardless of the bad blood now. The defense was better with Desmond Bishop in the middle too. I understand the reasons for letting these guys go, but we didn't really function well without them.

Might be better than Jones, but 2011 D puts the lie to Bishop's overall effect on the D. He and the D were good when there were better players around him.

[call_me_ishmael]

If you take out Kap, Cam and Wilson the Packers cruise over any of them.

I disagree. I think they win 6/10 on a good day if we're lucky. I think those teams could easily hold us to less than 20 points. I think our D is soft enough that they could still score. Certainly SF and Seattle. SF has a lot of weapons - I personally don't think Kaepernick is particularly good.

[woodbuck27]

I think the Packers system was really going well after the super bowl. Then our Clay Matthews, Charles Woodson in his Prime, and Nick Collins of the personnel department all left for jobs in KC, Seattle and Oakland. Clearly they had a lot of talent there. I don't follow it much, but it seems unusual to me that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th members of the football organization left for GM jobs. It tells me they had a dynamic, unusually good personal staff.

Our drafting has sucked since the super bowl. Whether it's just bad luck, or what, it doesn't matter. By the Ron Wolf theory, we should have a minimum 3-4 additional quality starters on the team than we do. We don't because of poor drafting. That is the entire problem with the roster in my opinion. We are 3-4 quality starters away from the contending. Not pro bowlers or super stars, just quality average to above average players at their position. That makes 3-4 current starters into back-up depth, which makes the entire roster look better.

I think if we would have continued the pre-2010 success drafting, we would be contending and a dynamic team.

I'm not advocating for free agency, or drafting only, or really stating an opinion at all. My opinion is really that the Packers roster quality has taken a significant dip since the super bowl and it coincides with the massive organizational changing injury to Nick Collins and the departure of the the front line of personnel staff. The bottom line is we need some better players in a hurry and it is unlikely that they will all come in the draft in the next year or two.

Solid post.

[mraynrand]

I personally don't think Kaepernick is particularly good.

LOL

[mraynrand]

If you take out Kap, Cam and Wilson the Packers cruise over any of them.

I totally agree, but really, this is a no brainer. Starting QBs on Divisional/Championship playoff teams are almost always one of, if not the main reason the team is there. Without their QBs, all those teams look a lot like the 2008 Minnesota Vikings.

[call_me_ishmael]

LOL

Where do you rate Kaepernick?

I would rather have the following QBs off the top of my head (not looking at factors like age, etc).

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Joe Flacco
4. Andrew Luck
5. Peyton Manning
6. Phillip Rivers
7. Eli Manning
8. Aaron Rodgers
9. Matt Stafford
10. Drew Brees

Maybe:
1. Nick Foles
2. Matt Ryan

That makes him a pretty middle-of-the-road starting QB imo. He has performed dynamically against the Packers, but just about every good QB throws for 400+ yards and has a big day.

[call_me_ishmael]

I totally agree, but really, this is a no brainer. Starting QBs on Divisional/Championship playoff teams are almost always one of, if not the main reason the team is there. Without their QBs, all those teams look a lot like the 2008 Minnesota Vikings.

You think if Matt Flynn or better is starting in Sea or SF, we beat them? I don't. They will still put points because they have solid running games (will be able to run for many yards) and enough weapons to keep us honest and from stacking the box.

[mraynrand]

You think if Matt Flynn or better is starting in Sea or SF, we beat them? I don't. They will still put points because they have solid running games (will be able to run for many yards) and enough weapons to keep us honest and from stacking the box.

Did you see Matt Flynn play when he was competing with Wilson as a rookie in camp? And Wilson has improved dramatically since then. I'd love to give them Flynn and take Wilson off the field. Best thing for our defense. Like playing Minnesota with Webb as QB.

[mraynrand]

Where do you rate Kaepernick?

I would rather have the following QBs off the top of my head (not looking at factors like age, etc).

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Joe Flacco
4. Andrew Luck
5. Peyton Manning
6. Phillip Rivers
7. Eli Manning
8. Aaron Rodgers
9. Matt Stafford
10. Drew Brees

Maybe:
1. Nick Foles
2. Matt Ryan

That makes him a pretty middle-of-the-road starting QB imo. He has performed dynamically against the Packers, but just about every good QB throws for 400+ yards and has a big day.

Just this year, I'd take him over Stafford, Eli Manning, Luck, and Flacco. Now subtract the remaining QBs from the rest of the NFL's starting QBs and ask how many of those remaining QBs the 49ers would like instead of Kap. They didn't want Alex Smith, and wouldn't want anyone less talented than that. Think they'd take Tannehill or Cousins or Romo over their guy? Not a chance. Point is that Kap is easily in the top ten, if not top 5 of NFL QBs, and with SF's defense and Hairball as coach, that's a recipe for three straight NFC Championship appearances.

[ThunderDan]

Just to get the real truth on the Ds rankings for teams that are left in the playoffs.
1. Sea
5. SF
19. Den
23. SD
26. NE

[mraynrand]

Some of you guys might actually have to acknowledge that the reason Flynn looks so much better as a GB QB, and looks like dog crap playing for other teams, is because the GB coach is an outstanding offensive mind.

[Guiness]

Some of you guys might actually have to acknowledge that the reason Flynn looks so much better as a GB QB, and looks like dog crap playing for other teams, is because the GB coach is an outstanding offensive mind.

Heretic!

[Guiness]

I totally agree, but really, this is a no brainer. Starting QBs on Divisional/Championship playoff teams are almost always one of, if not the main reason the team is there. Without their QBs, all those teams look a lot like the 2008 Minnesota Vikings.

Yup, haven't seen much else since the 2000 Ravens. Although I'm not so sure Eli had a whole lot to do with the Giant's 2007 victory.

[woodbuck27]

I believe about 2 months ago Bob wrote an article saying something like "MM and TT won't say it, but this was their most talented team yet. Injuries ruined what was to be their most successful season." Now they are dogshit, the league has passed them by, and they better change their ways.

I like Bob, generally speaking. He has a lot of knowledge about the game, and some good sources. I think he gets too much of his ideas for articles from over reacting fans though.

The Journal Sentinel’s Bob McGinn received the most distinguished honor in his field, after covering the GREEN BAY PACKERS for a span of over three decades.:

The McCann Memorial Award.

Bob McGinn received his reward at the Pro Football HOF ceremonies in Canton, Ohio.

It'a a well-deserved honor for one of the greatest football writers in the country.

Comment woodbuck27:

I'm not sure exactly what's happened with Ted Thompson over the last three seasons but it's obvious that he's struggling.

TT's likely feeling a little naked losing some great minds at 1265 Lombardi Ave. Ted Thompson lost IMO too much 'good help'. It's that back room stuff that can kick you in the ass. I'm sure that Ted Thompson is feeling the heat from such key loss's. We discussed this here right around the time we were enjoying our last Super Bowl. We knew that people would be pursued and the repercussions of that obvious.

Check out the improvements in NFL franchises after former Packer management personnel left for other pastures. ie Seattle and this past season KC. He lost Reggie McKenzie to the Oakland Franchise and that seems slower to come along and is maybe being re-assessed.

It's also been mentioned that maybe Ted Thompson's Scouting Dept. needs some change. That usually gets boo'd here.

I cannot read the article as my FREE access is already exhausted this month. I can well imagine the report on his observations as over the top too much is obvious now that's obviously not cool.

It's OK if you disagree with me. Your just wrong and it'll fall on you soon.

I'm afraid that as we see in too many organizations that slip badly after an unusual success. That feeling of self satisfaction and a false sense of security is walking hand in hand with what is a head shake and shoulder shrug or obvious symptoms of arrogance.

It'll all come out in the wash but unfortunately and likely not in a proper or timely fashion.

Aaron Rodgers is going to push his agenda forward I expect beginning next season. I think he has the power that Brett Favre didn't. You'll see that and I don't even write here that I informed you first.

You can blame Bob McGinn (and me) for the downfall in Packer success.

Isn't it simply easier to open your minds. No that won't help at all.

It will be what it will become.

[woodbuck27]

Just to get the real truth on the Ds rankings for teams that are left in the playoffs.
1. Sea
5. SF
19. Den
23. SD
26. NE

Your making a point there?

The Packers have to possibly play those teams at the TOP of your list to reach the Super Bowl.



The Top Four defenses ( as of Jan. 12 ,2014 ) in the NFL are all in the NFC:

Based on Points /Game:

#1 Seattle 14.4 P/G

#2 Carolina 15.1 P/G

#3 San Fran 17.0 P/G

#4 New Orleans 19.0 P/G

THE GREEN BAY PACKERS #24 and allowing 26.8 P/G

Opponent TOTAL Yards Per Game:

Green Bay: 25th @ 372.3 Y/G Vs Seattle 1st @ 273.6 Y/G; San Fran. 5th @ 316.9 Y/G

[Striker]

Yes, the Packers have some holes (ILB and S), but I find it amazing how fickle people are after a particularly bad injury plagued season.

The 49ers and Seahawks have both been pretty damn fortunate when it comes to injuries.

In 2012 the Seahawks/49ers had 11 and 8 games respectively missed by starters, whereas the Packers had 83.

This year, the numbers did jump, with the Seahawks and 49ers having 39 and 41, and the Packers had 70 (this is just counting starters).

[bobblehead]

I disagree. I think they win 6/10 on a good day if we're lucky. I think those teams could easily hold us to less than 20 points. I think our D is soft enough that they could still score. Certainly SF and Seattle. SF has a lot of weapons - I personally don't think Kaepernick is particularly good.

You can disagree, and I can't prove you are wrong. I can simply say that with Kap, we were <> this close to beating them. I guess without him they might be just as good. It flies in the face of logic though.

[red]

Yes, the Packers have some holes (ILB and S), but I find it amazing how fickle people are after a particularly bad injury plagued season.

The 49ers and Seahawks have both been pretty damn fortunate when it comes to injuries.

In 2012 the Seahawks/49ers had 11 and 8 games respectively missed by starters, whereas the Packers had 83.

This year, the numbers did jump, with the Seahawks and 49ers having 39 and 41, and the Packers had 70 (this is just counting starters).

because this isn't the first fucking time this team has been shit

3 years now we've been setting records on defense for futility

fickle? fuck that. we're sick of seeing the same shit happen week in and week out, same mistakes for 3 year. hell some of the mistakes like not covering anyone in the middle of the field have been problems for more then 3 years

[bobblehead]

I totally agree, but really, this is a no brainer. Starting QBs on Divisional/Championship playoff teams are almost always one of, if not the main reason the team is there. Without their QBs, all those teams look a lot like the 2008 Minnesota Vikings.

Yes, realize the context in which I made the post. Someone was saying something stupid such as the packers without Rodgers have no chance against these teams, but if you took their starting QB away they still are right there with us.

[pbmax]

You think if Matt Flynn or better is starting in Sea or SF, we beat them? I don't. They will still put points because they have solid running games (will be able to run for many yards) and enough weapons to keep us honest and from stacking the box.

Nope. One dimensional running teams aren't a problem for the Packers to beat unless you are Adrian Peterson.

[bobblehead]

You can blame Bob McGinn (and me) for the downfall in Packer success.

Isn't it simply easier to open your minds. No that won't help at all.

It will be what it will become.

I blame him for nothing woody. I simply said that 2 months ago he called this the most talented packer team MM and TT have had. What changed in 2 months that the NFL has passed them by? The 2 stances are black and white. They are incompatible. Its simply not possible to BELIEVE that both are correct. If he could give me a reason that he COMPLETELY reversed course in 2 months I would give the article more credit.

[Bretsky]

Where do you rate Kaepernick?

I would rather have the following QBs off the top of my head (not looking at factors like age, etc).

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Joe Flacco
4. Andrew Luck
5. Peyton Manning
6. Phillip Rivers
7. Eli Manning
8. Aaron Rodgers
9. Matt Stafford
10. Drew Brees

Maybe:
1. Nick Foles
2. Matt Ryan

That makes him a pretty middle-of-the-road starting QB imo. He has performed dynamically against the Packers, but just about every good QB throws for 400+ yards and has a big day.


As a Packer Fan I'd rather face a bunch of those QB's in the playoffs as opposed to Kapernik....who I detest.

[call_me_ishmael]

Just this year, I'd take him over Stafford, Eli Manning, Luck, and Flacco. Now subtract the remaining QBs from the rest of the NFL's starting QBs and ask how many of those remaining QBs the 49ers would like instead of Kap. They didn't want Alex Smith, and wouldn't want anyone less talented than that. Think they'd take Tannehill or Cousins or Romo over their guy? Not a chance. Point is that Kap is easily in the top ten, if not top 5 of NFL QBs, and with SF's defense and Hairball as coach, that's a recipe for three straight NFC Championship appearances.

I think they could put any of list of 12 on the team and be in the NFC championship team. Having the most #1 on a roster of any team does that when paired with good, motivating coaches. They have TONs of talent. Kaep is average to above average. Amazing arm. Great athlete. Couldn't beat Flacco with a much better team, though. Couldn't beat NYG with a similarly talented team. Won't beat SEA with a similarly talented team.

[call_me_ishmael]

You can disagree, and I can't prove you are wrong. I can simply say that with Kap, we were <> this close to beating them. I guess without him they might be just as good. It flies in the face of logic though.

I think the weather leveled the playing field. Play that game on a neutral field (indoor or outdoor, grass or turf) and we get molly whomped. They played SF about as good as I could imagine them playing week 1. They were closer than they are today, despite the score.

[call_me_ishmael]

As a Packer Fan I'd rather face a bunch of those QB's in the playoffs as opposed to Kapernik....who I detest.

I can't argue with that. He's a freakish athlete who wins. Maybe I'm selling him short. I don't know. He seems to have a hell of a lot of talent around him. They have Mike Crabtree, as vastly underrated receiver who was a top pick for a reason. A top 2-3 TE. The best OL in the NFL bar none. An aging but still very capable running game (tough runner). And a top 2-3 defense. I throw out the numbers when looking at defenses because it is tough to gauge (when you're ahead everyone is throwing on you, etc). The eye test says they have an elite defense that can win games by itself.

[woodbuck27]

I blame him for nothing woody. I simply said that 2 months ago he called this the most talented packer team MM and TT have had. What changed in 2 months that the NFL has passed them by? The 2 stances are black and white. They are incompatible. Its simply not possible to BELIEVE that both are correct. If he could give me a reason that he COMPLETELY reversed course in 2 months I would give the article more credit.

He's like some more in Packer Nation and saw enough to revise his view of the Packer leadership in terms of analysis.

People can change their opinions/views.

It certainly is OK and not uniquely rare to do so.

[pbmax]

Thought I had twice today on the ILBs. Saw other ILBs in coverage (Kuechly and Bowman) in trail coverage looking very much like Hawk and Jones.

The difference?

The safety over the top helping Bowman and the pass rush saving Kuechly by forcing a poor throw.

Now Hawk and Jones have trouble in run support as well, so I am not comparing them to the other two. But the struggles of the D overlap a bit and its easy to overestimate the number of new parts needed.

[call_me_ishmael]

Nope. One dimensional running teams aren't a problem for the Packers to beat unless you are Adrian Peterson.

Who says anything about one dimensional? They have defenses good enough to win the game single handedly. Flynn is good enough when paired with an elite defense and a running game to do well. I think it'd be a battle.

Both of these teams are what I would classify as elite in defense, and running game. The only place they will be lacking is the passing game - and having pro bowlers like Vern Davis and Mike Crabtree paired with copious time results in completions and moving the chains. They would still score and keep the ball out the Packers hands.

[bobblehead]

I think they could put any of list of 12 on the team and be in the NFC championship team. Having the most #1 on a roster of any team does that when paired with good, motivating coaches. They have TONs of talent. Kaep is average to above average. Amazing arm. Great athlete. Couldn't beat Flacco with a much better team, though. Couldn't beat NYG with a similarly talented team. Won't beat SEA with a similarly talented team.

My bad...are some on that list their backup QB?

[call_me_ishmael]

My bad...are some on that list their backup QB?

I don't understand what you mean.

[bobblehead]

I think the weather leveled the playing field. Play that game on a neutral field (indoor or outdoor, grass or turf) and we get molly whomped. They played SF about as good as I could imagine them playing week 1. They were closer than they are today, despite the score.

So...we come close in week 1 at their place, we almost beat them at our place, but they are far superior on a neutral field...they will molly whomp us. Got it.

[pbmax]

He's like some more in Packer Nation and saw enough to revise his view of the Packer leadership in terms of analysis.

People can change their opinions/views.

It certainly is OK and not uniquely rare to do so.

People who make these kinds of drastic revisions to their evaluations based on a small number of events (8 games?) have usually made 2 errors. Too optimistic on one side and too pessimistic on the other.

[pbmax]

Who says anything about one dimensional? They have defenses good enough to win the game single handedly. Flynn is good enough when paired with an elite defense and a running game to do well. I think it'd be a battle.

Both of these teams are what I would classify as elite in defense, and running game. The only place they will be lacking is the passing game - and having pro bowlers like Vern Davis and Mike Crabtree paired with copious time results in completions and moving the chains. They would still score and keep the ball out the Packers hands.

My error. One dimensional offense I meant. Packers have stopped them before, except for Peterson.

[call_me_ishmael]

So...we come close in week 1 at their place, we almost beat them at our place, but they are far superior on a neutral field...they will molly whomp us. Got it.

Touche. I suppose the first game, 34-28 was closer than I would guessed. We'll see. I don't know - I feel like SF is much, much better than us. I think it will catch up eventually once contracts come up for a lot of the young guys. They won't be able to keep the QB, the receivers, the LBs, etc. Starting to see it already with them not having the room to resign Gholston.

[Striker]

because this isn't the first fucking time this team has been shit

3 years now we've been setting records on defense for futility

fickle? fuck that. we're sick of seeing the same shit happen week in and week out, same mistakes for 3 year. hell some of the mistakes like not covering anyone in the middle of the field have been problems for more then 3 years

I thinks teams like the Jaguars or the Vikings are shit. Huge disparity between them and the Packers. The Pack has some definite flaws, they can't overcome the mass amount of injuries they're suffering from, and unfortunately, haven't been able to put a complete game together in the playoffs.

But there's a line of rationality that gets lost after a disappointing season. I do want Thompson and McCarthy to find a way to patch the holes in the defense and find a way to stop the injury epidemic. But I don't want the wholesale changes a lot of knee jerk posters on the JS want (wading through the 500+ comments on the JS article makes my brain hurt).

[Striker]

Touche. I suppose the first game, 34-28 was closer than I would guessed. We'll see. I don't know - I feel like SF is much, much better than us. I think it will catch up eventually once contracts come up for a lot of the young guys. They won't be able to keep the QB, the receivers, the LBs, etc. Starting to see it already with them not having the room to resign Gholston.

It'll be the same thing with the Seahawks. It will be interesting to see if those teams go the way of the Jets (who were the second coming for a while with back-to-back AFC Championship games before fading the last few years) or if they find a way to maintain their rosters once they have to start shelling out big bucks.

[channtheman]

It'll be interesting to see if the Seahawks pay big money to a QB who's stat line compares favorably to a young Timmy Tebow. Seattle is winning in spite of Wilson, not because of him.

[red]

It'll be interesting to see if the Seahawks pay big money to a QB who's stat line compares favorably to a young Timmy Tebow. Seattle is winning in spite of Wilson, not because of him.

at this point, i don't know if they will be able to pay him, not without making some major cap moves

i did some numbers in another thread a few weeks back, but the gist of it was, they are already tight against the cap for next season and that's without resigning any of their own free agents. and they have some pretty important free agents

the seahawks dynasty could come crashing to earth pretty quickly

things look better for them cap wise in 2015 when it will be time to resign wilson, but they need to get there first

[Bretsky]

It'll be interesting to see if the Seahawks pay big money to a QB who's stat line compares favorably to a young Timmy Tebow. Seattle is winning in spite of Wilson, not because of him.

Haaaa ? This is a pretty ridiculous statement unless you are basing this on one game as opposed to the 17 he's played as well as last year

2013 RUSSELL WILSON

The 7th best passer rating in the National Football League
3357 yards
26 passing TD' while throwing only 9 intereceptions
Completion %- 63%

On paper he's better than Kapernik in every category

In 2012 his stats were pretty much the same...100qb rating....3100yds....26td....10int


If you consider what Seattle is trying to do Russell Wilson has given them exactly what they want and more.

He'll get his money from Seattle

[mraynrand]

It'll be interesting to see if the Seahawks pay big money to a QB who's stat line compares favorably to a young Timmy Tebow. Seattle is winning in spite of Wilson, not because of him.

This is the NFL. My advice is to throw out the stats and watch games. Plus, the Seahawk players would throw themselves in front of traffic for that guy. Stats are for Fantasy geeks and Madden NFL games.

[bobblehead]

Touche. I suppose the first game, 34-28 was closer than I would guessed. We'll see. I don't know - I feel like SF is much, much better than us. I think it will catch up eventually once contracts come up for a lot of the young guys. They won't be able to keep the QB, the receivers, the LBs, etc. Starting to see it already with them not having the room to resign Gholston.

They are more talented overall, but the gap is small...and very likely filled if....APRH

[bobblehead]

It'll be interesting to see if the Seahawks pay big money to a QB who's stat line compares favorably to a young Timmy Tebow. Seattle is winning in spite of Wilson, not because of him.

Speaking of which, Manning finally tied Tebow for playoff wins. Lets see if he can pass him next week.

[mraynrand]

Speaking of which, Manning finally tied Tebow for playoff wins. Lets see if he can pass him next week.

you mean with Denver. You need to be careful with your selective use of stats!

[bobblehead]

you mean with Denver. You need to be careful with your selective use of stats!

I firmly believe in stats. Half of all schools are below average. In my mind I added Denver. I can't help it if you can't read my mind.

[mraynrand]

I firmly believe in stats. Half of all schools are below average.

Shouldn't it be just less than half that are below average?

[call_me_ishmael]

They are more talented overall, but the gap is small...and very likely filled if....APRH

Agree to disagree. I feel like the talent gap is significant.

[channtheman]

I'm just trolling. Wilson has had some awful games this year though. The Seattle defense is a bigger part of why they are so successful if you ask me.

[woodbuck27]

People who make these kinds of drastic revisions to their evaluations based on a small number of events (8 games?) have usually made 2 errors. Too optimistic on one side and too pessimistic on the other.

An interesting view pbmax.

I need to meditate on that response in terms of how anyone's emotional perception sets him/her on a certain course or call for action.

Maybe? I just gave you the most accurate if unqualified response.

[woodbuck27]

Yes, realize the context in which I made the post. Someone was saying something stupid such as the packers without Rodgers have no chance against these teams, but if you took their starting QB away they still are right there with us.

You wouldn't believe how this post sent me into a chamber of dire need to somehow reach out to you.

I'll just remind you of how this character put it:

" Stupid is as stupid does." Forrest Gump

I always believe that anyone is deserving of an opinion and such being respected for the value in turn that affords us:

Therefore cannot be classified as:

STUPID.

What may be stupid is to ever deem anything connected to another as "stupid"?

[woodbuck27]

As a Packer Fan I'd rather face a bunch of those QB's in the playoffs as opposed to Kapernik....who I detest.

Don't we detest him because he's so damn good/dangerous !?

Kaepernick is ...... combined with Jim Harbaugh.....scary.

Now give him conditions like we saw him enjoy in Carolina on Sunday Jan. 12, 2014 and all, those weapons and that very solid OL and his teams defense and it's not hard to see what the San Fran 49ers went to the Super Bowl and we're just edged out last year and get this:

Will more than likely be the NFC Rep again this year.

B.

I'm really beginning to feel:

It'll be The San Francisco 49ers and the NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS in SUPER BOWL XLVIII.

[Striker]

I'm just trolling. Wilson has had some awful games this year though. The Seattle defense is a bigger part of why they are so successful if you ask me.

Same with the 49ers and Kaepernick. Fantastic defense helps above average/good QBs look great.

[bobblehead]

People who make these kinds of drastic revisions to their evaluations based on a small number of events (8 games?) have usually made 2 errors. Too optimistic on one side and too pessimistic on the other.

An interesting view pbmax.

I need to meditate on that response in terms of how anyone's emotional perception sets him/her on a certain course or call for action.

Maybe? I just gave you the most accurate if unqualified response.

There is a reason that I respond to one set of posters by saying we are much better than you think, and another set by pointing out the teams weaknesses. Most people do the "Bill Walton" as I call it..."Chris Webber has the greatest hands in the history of the NBA" "Allen Iverson has the quickest first step EVER!!"

[bobblehead]

Shouldn't it be just less than half that are below average?

Well, depending on how exactly the numbers break down it could be just less or just over. With a large sample size its likely to be statistically insignificant.

[bobblehead]

You wouldn't believe how this post sent me into a chamber of dire need to somehow reach out to you.

I'll just remind you of how this character put it:

" Stupid is as stupid does." Forrest Gump

I always believe that anyone is deserving of an opinion and such being respected for the value in turn that affords us:

Therefore cannot be classified as:

STUPID.

What may be stupid is to ever deem anything connected to another as "stupid"?

A) Stupid certainly can be classified. B) Stupid was my opinion of the opinion, and therefore you must respect my opinion that the aforementioned opinion was stupid...by your own logic.

[bobblehead]

Don't we detest him because he's so damn good/dangerous !?


I detest him because he is a dick. I have no problem with him kissing his bicep, but he is the type that isn't content winning, he must mock Cam Newton's celebration. That is a dick move plain and simple. Likely if we kick their ass next year and Rodgers were to kiss his bicep, Kap would be up in arms about it.

[bobblehead]

Same with the 49ers and Kaepernick. Fantastic defense helps above average/good QBs look great.

Which is my entire case against the "playmaker" theory. Given a lot of talent around you, good players look great. Avg. players look good.

[mraynrand]

Likely if we kick their ass next year and Rodgers were to kiss his bicep, Kap would be up in arms about it.

I see what you did there

[Smidgeon]

Some of you guys might actually have to acknowledge that the reason Flynn looks so much better as a GB QB, and looks like dog crap playing for other teams, is because the GB coach is an outstanding offensive mind.

I'd like to see M3 go back to the offense of 2011. Make other teams play from behind. I do think M3 has an oustanding offensive mind, but I'm starting to think it's a bit inconsistent too. Too many times in the last couple years have the Packers been unable to get the points they need. Yes, the SF defense is a very good defense. But an outstanding offensive mind should be able to find exploitations.

I don't know. I'm just beginning to wonder more and more now. Is it the personnel? Is the talent there but the discipline lacking? Are the coaches too stubborn?

I thought this team was going to be dangerous for years watching the Arizona playoffs game (thank you, refs for all the non-calls). And I thought the 2010 superbowl was the start. Then 15-1 in the regular season in 2011, and defensive collapses in 2011, 2012, and 2013 (not necessarily the playoff game this year).

It's hard to be too optimistic when the trend has become a consistently collapsing defense and a team (coaches/players) who can't get it done in the playoffs.

Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate being in the playoffs every year. I just want to feel like there's a chance to go further than "just get in". There have been good reasons every year too (i.e. injuries). I just want to see the Packers do something with personnel (coaches/players) that convince me they take the collapses as seriously as I do.

And one last thing: "they" often say that Rodgers is arguably the best QB in the league. He is very good, but with Brady taking his team to the AFC championship for the third consecutive year, is it even a debate (and no, I don't think Payton is either because he needs a great cast to do anything in the playoffs)?

/frustration

[SkinBasket]

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Joe Flacco
4. Andrew Luck
5. Peyton Manning
6. Phillip Rivers
7. Eli Manning
8. Aaron Rodgers
9. Matt Stafford
10. Drew Brees

Maybe:
1. Nick Foles
2. Matt Ryan

Sweat mother of muffin humpers.

[mraynrand]

Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate being in the playoffs every year. I just want to feel like there's a chance to go further than "just get in".

Strange. Even with all the injuries, I though this team had a shot. They were one play away from beating SF, and SF could be your SB champ, if they can conquer the ghosts in Seattle.
Teams adjusted to the 2011 offense and just decided to stop the big plays and make the Packers move the ball down the field. Teams like SF had a better shot of stopping the slow march with just their front 7, which limited GB. So Stubby adjusted and insisted on a running game to hold the ball more and protect the defense, and they did just that. APRH, this team is pretty deep with talent and is always in the hunt.

[Bretsky]

I'm just trolling. Wilson has had some awful games this year though. The Seattle defense is a bigger part of why they are so successful if you ask me.

cool enough....and yes he did. That defense is the best in the NFL

[Smidgeon]

Strange. Even with all the injuries, I though this team had a shot. They were one play away from beating SF, and SF could be your SB champ, if they can conquer the ghosts in Seattle.
Teams adjusted to the 2011 offense and just decided to stop the big plays and make the Packers move the ball down the field. Teams like SF had a better shot of stopping the slow march with just their front 7, which limited GB. So Stubby adjusted and insisted on a running game to hold the ball more and protect the defense, and they did just that. APRH, this team is pretty deep with talent and is always in the hunt.

APRH, the offense is deep with talent and always in the hunt. My jury is still out on the defense.

And that first quarter where the Packers didn't even attempt a pass kind of took the wind out of the optimism sails for me. There was still a chance at the end, but that first quarter put me at the edge of my seat.

[Rutnstrut]

"And one last thing: "they" often say that Rodgers is arguably the best QB in the league. He is very good, but with Brady taking his team to the AFC championship for the third consecutive year, is it even a debate (and no, I don't think Payton is either because he needs a great cast to do anything in the playoffs)?"

Not even close imo, Brady is a much better QB than Rodgers, of course Brady also has a much better head coach.

[pbmax]

"And one last thing: "they" often say that Rodgers is arguably the best QB in the league. He is very good, but with Brady taking his team to the AFC championship for the third consecutive year, is it even a debate (and no, I don't think Payton is either because he needs a great cast to do anything in the playoffs)?"

Not even close imo, Brady is a much better QB than Rodgers, of course Brady also has a much better head coach.

Of course, because the QB is the entire offense and there is no such thing as defense or Special Teams.

[woodbuck27]

Yes, realize the context in which I made the post. Someone was saying something stupid such as the packers without Rodgers have no chance against these teams, but if you took their starting QB away they still are right there with us.

I disagree.

Take the starting QB away for the Packers and the opponent and in any game Vs the better NFL teams (especially the Seahawks, Panthers, 49ers and Saints).

There the Packers are certainly hard up against it. 'In reality' would be analyzed thus more often than not fail.

FAIL yes by all means FAIL because of the weakness on the Green Bay Packers small 'd' 24th ranked defense and bad to lousy performance on ST's.

We can't see the defense as it's played last season or a bottom third NFL 24th ranked defense. See the ST's as it's sucked all season and respect Mike McCarthy if he DOES nothing.

For any Packer fan or Packerrat to go there is simply "wrong". If that's the way that fan is likely in for a huge letdown over the next season. Now there is always a chance that next season could be perfect. Thus this isn't a line in that sand issue to argue over, It will be what TT and MM and company put into it this off season. That's the bottom line that no one here will influence one way or another.

The Green Bay Packer simply must improve on the defensive side of the ball and on ST's. Somehow create more turn overs. Our DB's (secondary) is seriously failing right now. If we lose Tramon Williams and Sam Shields and don't fix at safety and overall fix the middle of the defense. With so many Packer now headed to FA. The brew is getting really sour.

Add to that anymore decline on offense. Then without a certain and REAL ACTION Program. I really do believe that Packer Nation isn't going to be pleased.

For all that makes any decent sense. Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy simply put, must change what I see now as more stagnation.

I'm not here predicting such failure. I'm here very concerned that Ted Thompson may miss again in this draft. He got it right last season. Thus I have hope for the future, but there's the flip side that he's also missed a lot in his drafts.

Yes ...and isn't that a shocker that I would write that he has failed a LOT.

Do your homework and you'll certainly realize that TRUTH. TT doesn't seem to learn from mistakes. That is passed down to his teams Head coach Mike McCarthy who at times looked terrible this past season.

MM cannot deal with stress / pressure very well. He either freezes (gets a brain freeze); gets the blinders on; doesn't see what's too obviously seen and doesn't delegate "much needed to delegate responsibility", well at all.

It has to come down to much more in terms of attitude and respect for why the Packer fans are so loyal and hopeful. It's ALL about "just winning baby". That's where the San Francisco 49ers TEAM has it right now and maybe MM might pay attention.

I don't expect that Packer fans or Packerrats should all get there. Not unless your in disagreement with well you don't know much as "just a fan'. That you counter with a disapproval of that BULLSHIT ! That your a Packer fan that's informed and paying maximum attention. That your a Packer fan that expects your team to WIN.

JUST WIN !!

End of Part One of this post... Please see Part two if you care.

GO PACK GO !

[Smidgeon]

Of course, because the QB is the entire offense and there is no such thing as defense or Special Teams.

If it works for them, maybe TT should forsake Defense entirely in the draft and just make the offense completely unstoppable... :D

[denverYooper]

Of course, because the QB is the entire offense and there is no such thing as defense or Special Teams.

Or other teams.

Brady wouldn't have made it past San Fran either.

Well, he might have, but it was probably much easier to have Luck throw 4 picks to your defense.

[woodbuck27]

Part Two From PART ONE in Post #91.

Ted Thompson is likely going to again predominately stick with his draft and develop policy. If he does that without reaching into the pool of FA's for some "good value talent" he's betting on a weaker hand and more likely going to fail.

Ted Thompson doesn't have to nor will TT break the bank. He's done enough there already in terms of Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews. :-D Both of these Packer STARS need to look hard inside of themselves and concentrate on health and giving a lot more in 2014. Neither of those fellas earned their LARGE pay checks last season. Clay Mathews is a major concern as I see him. He has to focus on football....

Please Clay. If your going to act in the movie business then hand in your Packer helmut. Then we'll be rather than 60% sure your not going to be available. We'll be absolutely 100% sure your FLASHING (maybe) in Hollywood.

A lot of stars must align in TT's Solar System or the Green Bay Packers are looking again at their fourth straight playoff failure. They have to make the playoffs as a first step to even approaching reasonable success in 2014. There are teams in the NFCN that are going to work their tails off to ensure the Packers stumble. It seems to me that's already in process.

So far the Green Bay Packers are off to a poor start. No ... a shockingly poor start. Delusion seems to abound in Green Bay.

The attitude and an obvious state of emergency is being ignored. If that carries over into FA and TT doesn't nail this draft ie for one/two impact player (s).

I'm worried for the 2014 season.

That's not a prediction for imminent failure. That's what I see developing. That bugs the heck out of me. Ted Thompson's stubbornness to change will be the report on him after he's gone.

In order for me to be pleased with Ted Thompson. He should within himself summon change/growth.

The defense failing. The ST's failing.

You cannot blame it on injuries as that adversity is standard with any NFL team. The reason it snowballs is because Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy are somehow failing to get tough football players in Green Bay.

Stay the heck away from the White Collar Silver Spoon fed College boys/jocks. Get some real men into Green Bay. The first order of that day and Scouting and drafting has to be talent and TOUGHNESS !!

This is too obvious and not "reinventing the wheel - Rocket Science".

Ted Thompson has to draft MEN that when he meets them look like they could kick the crap out of him.

and ensuring by using proper conditioning and dietary programs to make packers more durable. The NFL is a dangerous work environment.

I don't imagine that Ted Thompson will be active out of the gate and Free Agency but he must get something really solid this off season. The real issue there. Will a decent Free Agent desire to play as a Green Bay Packer. Players leave Green Bay and pass on information and that spreads like wild fire. I just hope the message is positive and Green Bay's a great place and "the Packers" a Super Organization to play for. Mike Mccarthy tells me that's the case but Mike McCarthy says a lot that I deem sketchy.

Ted Thompson and his drafting success. His draft class for 2013 is a good success. That class made a solid contribution.

He has to hit it really solid again this season and the next and next...on and on..hit it. Looking back on the past how well has Ted Thompson really done? It's generally recognized that it takes 3 seasons for a prospect to develop fully as a very solid NFL team contributor.

Injuries snowball. If starters go down for excessive games the backups must be solid enough to hold down the fort. They must be game ready and in awesome condition.If any of these backup's fall your into your third stringers. Yup your getting it as up next is the dependable street FA. The miracle worker game changer !?

Hardly.

Ted Thompsons Draft and Develop Program fails when injuries predominate. You cannot teach/train/develop what's over the top too often injured. Get that for one season and it's not good. Get that for how many straight seasons now "and The Green Bay Packers"; and the prediction of failure in Ted Thompsons Program is an obvious conclusion. A "short of miracle" impending result.

Mike McCarthy cannot ever respond like some spoiled grade eight student, when asked the difficult question. He certainly has to have a solid answer as to what he's ensuring will stop the injuries. Mike McCarthy is something else in front of a microphone. WOW! He certainly is lacking in terms of personality and nice.

GO PACK GO !

[mraynrand]

And that first quarter where the Packers didn't even attempt a pass kind of took the wind out of the optimism sails for me. There was still a chance at the end, but that first quarter put me at the edge of my seat.

well, they kinda attempted to pass, it's just that Rodgers wouldn't pull the trigger, got sacked twice, the screen got blown up on one play there was no check down on at least another.

[woodbuck27]

I detest him because he is a dick. I have no problem with him kissing his bicep, but he is the type that isn't content winning, he must mock Cam Newton's celebration. That is a dick move plain and simple. Likely if we kick their ass next year and Rodgers were to kiss his bicep, Kap would be up in arms about it.

That's 'the Spirit'.

We'll hire this guy to sit on him if Kaepernick doesn't get a grip on the show boating.

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/24/24685/original/700.hq.jpg?1261

It's Jim Harbaugh that bites my arse.

[bobblehead]

I disagree.

Take the starting QB away for the Packers and the opponent and in any game Vs the better NFL teams (especially the Seahawks, Panthers, 49ers and Saints).


Now you disagree with something I nor anyone said. The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close. Those teams lose their QB and its still close. Nobody said anything about taking BOTH QB's away.

[Rutnstrut]

Of course, because the QB is the entire offense and there is no such thing as defense or Special Teams.

What, I was commenting on the Rodgers being the best QB thing, simply comparing QB's apples to apples. Do you really think Rodgers is better, he has a lot of play off wins to get yet to convince me.

[Pugger]

I'm just trolling. Wilson has had some awful games this year though. The Seattle defense is a bigger part of why they are so successful if you ask me.

In Wilson's senior year at Wisconsin he was great during the regular season but not so hot in the Rose Bowl.

[Pugger]

http://badgernoonan.tumblr.com/post/73222956300/jsonline-getting-left-behind-by-elite-football-hot

[Rutnstrut]

In Wilson's senior year at Wisconsin he was great during the regular season but not so hot in the Rose Bowl.
Actually the whole team collapsed, as the Badgers always do in the bowl games.

[mraynrand]

What, I was commenting on the Rodgers being the best QB thing, simply comparing QB's apples to apples. Do you really think Rodgers is better, he has a lot of play off wins to get yet to convince me.

It's tough to argue with Brady as the best in the NFL. Three superbowls, coupla AFC Championship games, lots of playoff appearances and records galore. Interesting point to ponder: Compare teams losing Brady, Manning and Rodgers, and it seems like the Colts were affected the most, Packers next, and Pats survived the best with Cassel. Maybe that's because Cassel is better than Colt and Packer backups, respectively, or it's because the team around the QB was relatively better. Hard to know. What I do know is that Rodgers is an excellent QB. Not so much worried about figuring out whether he's better or worse than Manning to Brady, but how to get him surrounded by sufficient talent to win. As the Steve Young in Tampa lesson shows, a great QB is garbage without a good surrounding cast, just as a good team can drop off the map without their great QB.

[bobblehead]

What, I was commenting on the Rodgers being the best QB thing, simply comparing QB's apples to apples. Do you really think Rodgers is better, he has a lot of play off wins to get yet to convince me.

I guess my overall point was/is that any team loses a good QB and they are going to struggle. I don't think anyone can argue that point. I also think that a good team beats nearly any team who is playing with their backup QB, even if that team is Seattle or SF.

[Smidgeon]

It's tough to argue with Brady as the best in the NFL. Three superbowls, coupla AFC Championship games, lots of playoff appearances and records galore. Interesting point to ponder: Compare teams losing Brady, Manning and Rodgers, and it seems like the Colts were affected the most, Packers next, and Pats survived the best with Cassel. Maybe that's because Cassel is better than Colt and Packer backups, respectively, or it's because the team around the QB was relatively better. Hard to know. What I do know is that Rodgers is an excellent QB. Not so much worried about figuring out whether he's better or worse than Manning to Brady, but how to get him surrounded by sufficient talent to win. As the Steve Young in Tampa lesson shows, a great QB is garbage without a good surrounding cast, just as a good team can drop off the map without their great QB.

Good points.

[call_me_ishmael]

"And one last thing: "they" often say that Rodgers is arguably the best QB in the league. He is very good, but with Brady taking his team to the AFC championship for the third consecutive year, is it even a debate (and no, I don't think Payton is either because he needs a great cast to do anything in the playoffs)?"

Not even close imo, Brady is a much better QB than Rodgers, of course Brady also has a much better head coach.

Brady is amazing for sure. I think the whole organization, top-down, is just run much better than every other team. The Packers are one of the truly elite special organizations - and the Pats are still a mile ahead imo.

[woodbuck27]

A) Stupid certainly can be classified. B) Stupid was my opinion of the opinion, and therefore you must respect my opinion that the aforementioned opinion was stupid...by your own logic.

It's just that word "STUPID" that I believe is one of the most dangerous words in the English language bobblehead.

That word is destructive and beneath you.

[woodbuck27]

Now you disagree with something I nor anyone said. The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close. Those teams lose their QB and its still close. Nobody said anything about taking BOTH QB's away.

i) "The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close." bobblehead

That's more true than false. It's not a definitive statement...yet I'll go with TRUE.

ii) "The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close. Those teams lose their QB and its still close." bobblehead

From that I interpret that now the matchup consists of both teams losing their starting QB's. The matchup involves backup QB's.

I think your saying if it's the Packers and Aaron Rodgers behind Center. Vs a Top four NFC Team without it's NO. 1 QB and in that case disagreeing that in that case the Packers lose.

Now you have "your opinion" and "his opinion" and that possibly deteriorating into something else.

How much value do you place in such scenario debates?

In my view opinions are worthless in terms of any determination.

Rhetoric based in opinion is at most possibly entertaining.

[Pugger]

Actually the whole team collapsed, as the Badgers always do in the bowl games.

Yes, the team did but had Russell not thrown those INTs the game might have had a different outcome.

[woodbuck27]

"And one last thing: "they" often say that Rodgers is arguably the best QB in the league. He is very good, but with Brady taking his team to the AFC championship for the third consecutive year, is it even a debate (and no, I don't think Payton is either because he needs a great cast to do anything in the playoffs)?"

Not even close imo, Brady is a much better QB than Rodgers, of course Brady also has a much better head coach.

Tom Brady is a system QB and he totally buys into Bill Belichick because BIill Belichick wouldn't have it any other way. It double down works because:

Bill Belichick is an extraordinary motivator of men. He's also very quiet in his manner of leadership. He's outstanding in terms of getting such positive results from his team despite almost any adversity.

I can't wait for his book. It'll be awhile because he doesn't give up many secrets. When he does talk I listen too him in fascination. He's simple in his brilliance.

Who's more like the Great 'Saint Vince' Lombardi ?

Bill Belichick or Mike McCarthy.

You might answer that question but among a whole group of people here that question will be conveniently ignored.

I've observed this and it seems that it's easier to hate brilliance. :grin:

Somehow I've managed to NEVER buy into that.

I've always posted this here. I want the combination of TT and MM to be more like Bill Belichick.

Why? Do we need to read the book?

[Fritz]

I think the Packers system was really going well after the super bowl. Then our Clay Matthews, Charles Woodson in his Prime, and Nick Collins of the personnel department all left for jobs in KC, Seattle and Oakland. Clearly they had a lot of talent there. I don't follow it much, but it seems unusual to me that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th members of the football organization left for GM jobs. It tells me they had a dynamic, unusually good personal staff.

Our drafting has sucked since the super bowl. Whether it's just bad luck, or what, it doesn't matter. By the Ron Wolf theory, we should have a minimum 3-4 additional quality starters on the team than we do. We don't because of poor drafting. That is the entire problem with the roster in my opinion. We are 3-4 quality starters away from the contending. Not pro bowlers or super stars, just quality average to above average players at their position. That makes 3-4 current starters into back-up depth, which makes the entire roster look better.

I think if we would have continued the pre-2010 success drafting, we would be contending and a dynamic team.

I'm not advocating for free agency, or drafting only, or really stating an opinion at all. My opinion is really that the Packers roster quality has taken a significant dip since the super bowl and it coincides with the massive organizational changing injury to Nick Collins and the departure of the the front line of personnel staff. The bottom line is we need some better players in a hurry and it is unlikely that they will all come in the draft in the next year or two.

I don't think the Packers' drafting has "sucked." Not at all. For example, it would be hard to argue that if the Packers had had Clay Matthews, Casey Hayward, and oh, say, Jermichael Finley against San Fran they would still have lost. Had it been Hayward instead of Hyde trying to pull down that pick at the end, would the game have ended differently? And that doesn't count Johnny Jolly, Mike Neal, Sam Shields, and so on and so on.

I also don't think recent first rounders have been bad choices; but they've been choices that have gotten injured frequently. Had Sherrod not gotten hurt there is much debate about how good he'd be (I'm on the side that believes he'd be starting now), and I also think Perry has flashed again this season, and Bulaga was solid before getting hurt again, and that it's too soon to say with Datone Jones.

Having said that, I also do think that with the big Rodgers and Matthews contracts, there is much more pressure to hit on more draft picks. Thompson can hardly afford flops at key positions, and he's had two recently in my opinion: Jerel Worthy and Jerron McMillan. McMillan was a key fail. He didn't need to be an All Pro but he needed to develop, and be a solid partner. And he didn't. In addition, like a few of Thompson's d-line picks, Worthy just doesn't fit the scheme. Nor does Raji in my opinion, and that's why I think he'll be gone. I do hope the D. Jones picks indicates that Thompson understands now that he can't just draft good players; he has to draft guys that can fit the scheme.

But I don't know if Thompson has much choice in how he's doing business in terms of drafting versus signing free agents. It's probably harder to come by a Russel Wilson/Colin Kaepernick/Aaron Rodgers every four years so you don't have to pay an excellent young QB a big contract than it is to hit on a higher percentage of draft picks.

But whoever made the point about Capers needing to simplify (Was it Maxie?) is correct, too. If Capers runs a scheme that is designed for experienced players, then he needs to adjust the scheme because he's not going to have many five-year-plus vets due to the nature of the NFL now. Unless he wants a bunch of vets who are cheap because they're at the end of their careers, and having those players will not increase the team speed on defense that McGinn was also calling for a couple weeks ago.

It's the nature of the NFL. Ron Wolf was not constrained the way that NFL GM's are now; he retired in part because those constraints were coming into place and he didn't like them.

And I agree too with whoever said MM needs to rethink his backup QB plan because of the new CBA. He may have to suck it up and keep Tolzien or whoever he drafts on his 53 so he can keep Flynn as the backup. He'll lose a precious special teams spot, but he may have no choice unless he wants to not have a young developing QB any more for a while.

So: draft defense up the middle (ILB, nose tackle, safety), choosing guys who are suited to the kind of 3-4 Capers employs, get someone in who can figure out why more Packers get hurt than other players on other teams do, have Capers simplify for his young defense, re-sign Shields and Neal, let Raji walk (he does not fit this scheme and does not want to play it, I don't think), re-sign Flynn, and see how it goes next year.

[bobblehead]

i) "The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close." bobblehead

That's more true than false. It's not a definitive statement...yet I'll go with TRUE.

ii) "The OP said that packers lose ARod and we aren't close. Those teams lose their QB and its still close." bobblehead

From that I interpret that now the matchup consists of both teams losing their starting QB's. The matchup involves backup QB's.



If that is what he meant, it was a very poorly constructed...everything. Obviously if we lose Rodgers we aren't going to win, but if in turn they lose their QB then it would be close. That isn't what he meant though. He meant that if we lose rodgers and they keep QB1 they kill us. If we have Rodgers and they lose QB1 its a close game. I contest that. Its ridiculous. Make every team in the playoffs immediately lose their starting QB and the Packers walk to the SB.

[bobblehead]

Who's more like the Great 'Saint Vince' Lombardi ?

Bill Belichick or Mike McCarthy.

You might answer that question but among a whole group of people here that question will be conveniently ignored.

You mean which one was a brilliant offensive mind and which one was a brilliant defensive mind...I agree, MM is more like Vince.

[pbmax]

What, I was commenting on the Rodgers being the best QB thing, simply comparing QB's apples to apples. Do you really think Rodgers is better, he has a lot of play off wins to get yet to convince me.

Yes, I happen to believe this. Its very close, but I think he is better. In general, Brady has played behind better protection and Rodgers is the superior deep thrower. Brady is Montana like in his accuracy and timing on short to medium throws. Each holds the ball longer than Peyton and take punishment as a result, but throws fewer INTs.

What I like about Belichick's offense is that they will completely change character between games to attack weaknesses. The downside is that if they guess wrong, you can shut that offense down for 3/4 of a game occasionally.

McCarthy concentrates on fewer points of attack and sticks with his plan and sticks with it for a half. He will alter the approach after halftime. If McCarthy has guessed wrong, you are behind the eight ball in the 3rd Quarter. He needs to more deeply integrate his newly empowered run game with his pass game in a way that produces an advantage (play action for instance) no matter where the safeties line up.

[Striker]

If that is what he meant, it was a very poorly constructed...everything. Obviously if we lose Rodgers we aren't going to win, but if in turn they lose their QB then it would be close. That isn't what he meant though. He meant that if we lose rodgers and they keep QB1 they kill us. If we have Rodgers and they lose QB1 its a close game. I contest that. Its ridiculous. Make every team in the playoffs immediately lose their starting QB and the Packers walk to the SB.

Seahawks backup is Tarvaris Jackson.

49ers is Colt McCoy

Yeah, it wouldn't be close. I'd dare either of those guys to beat you with their arm. No matter how good those defenses are, they will get worn down by constant 3 and outs.

[Pugger]

Seahawks backup is Tarvaris Jackson.

49ers is Colt McCoy

Yeah, it wouldn't be close. I'd dare either of those guys to beat you with their arm. No matter how good those defenses are, they will get worn down by constant 3 and outs.

Denver's backup is Brock Osweiler - who some say is pretty good - and NE's is Ryan Mallett. I wonder if any of these teams had lost their starting QB would they had even made the playoffs?

[Striker]

Denver's backup is Brock Osweiler - who some say is pretty good - and NE's is Ryan Mallett. I wonder if any of these teams had lost their starting QB would they had even made the playoffs?

If the Seahawks and/or 49ers lost their QBs, they'd have a rough go of it. Arizona and the Rams have good defenses that can easily bottle up the run, and have enough players in their respective secondaries that shaky backups would have had a rough go of it.

Denver might have, though it would have been rough with the Chiefs and Chargers in the division (probably delivering more losses) though the AFC wildcard was 9-7 so it could have been close. Patriots probably, just because the rest of the AFC East is so bad.

[denverYooper]

Denver's backup is Brock Osweiler - who some say is pretty good - and NE's is Ryan Mallett. I wonder if any of these teams had lost their starting QB would they had even made the playoffs?

Denver would get shellacked playing Osweiler against playoff teams. He's just too green.

[red]

Denver's backup is Brock Osweiler - who some say is pretty good - and NE's is Ryan Mallett. I wonder if any of these teams had lost their starting QB would they had even made the playoffs?

maybe if they played in the nfc north where every other team tries their hardest to lose

[woodbuck27]

If that is what he meant, it was a very poorly constructed...everything. Obviously if we lose Rodgers we aren't going to win, but if in turn they lose their QB then it would be close. That isn't what he meant though. He meant that if we lose rodgers and they keep QB1 they kill us. If we have Rodgers and they lose QB1 its a close game. I contest that. Its ridiculous. Make every team in the playoffs immediately lose their starting QB and the Packers walk to the SB.

Examining this statement:

The Green Bay Packers with Aaron Rodgers Vs any of the TOP FOUR NFL teams. With their far superior defense's and without their NO. 1 QB will lose to the Green Bay Packers.

Is that statement true?

Upon a close examination it's a maybe!?

The Packers offense will matchup very well Vs the Opponents Offense. That's not the end all to be all in terms of you lose in the playoffs and your out !

** The Green Bay Packers and Head Coach Mike McCarthy must win the battle of the clock by rushing a lot.

To get there MM has to establish and stick with the Packers running game throughout the game. Every game it has to be that. Is there any problem there? Yes there certainly is:

Mike McCarthy too often fails to stick with that running game no matter it's success because he somehow feels pressure to showcase his STAR players. That's the case and right in our Packer fan faces.

** Mike McCarthy has to (along with Aaron Rodgers and the RB's mostly) ensure ball control.

Passing against excellent defenses is risky. That's especially true in terms of the most excellent defenses and defending against the PASS.

** The team must win the Turn Over battle which is (tricky to unlikely) with the Green Bay Packers DC Dom Capers considerably weaker defense.

Remember that the TOP Four of Five NFL Total Defenses Rankings are in the NFC and belong to Elite NFC Teams ... (1) Seattle, (2) Carolina, (4) San Francisco and (5) New Orleans.

Other NFC Team defenses that are superior to the Green Bay Packers NFL 25th Ranked Defense are:

After the above and in "Order of Ranking" ... It's:

(6) Arizona; (8) New York GIANTS; (15) St. Louis; (16) Detroit; (17) Tampa Bay; (18) Washington and . . .

Then it's (25) Green Bay.

That's the eleventh (11th) of sixteen (16) defense's in the NFC. That's seven (7) ranked positions below the 18th ranked Washington Redskins.

** The Green Bay Packer must win with their Special Teams play and that's simply not rational thinking in terms of expecting that and the Green Bay Packers ST play. Based on going back how long and that sucking !

That translates to a tremendous effort and success in order to step forward as a much improved Green Bay Packers Defense AND Special Teams performance. Towards continuing that throughout the regular seasons schedule and assisting the Green Bay Packers to a playoff berth and any hope of a long playoff run.

That cannot be achieved by Magic Thinking woulda's - coulda's - shoulda's. Blame set down on injuries. As injuries translates to missing experience and thus development for non Vet roster players.

Injuries simply water down a roster that's for all intents and purposes incapable of stepping up to ensure success and next man up. Because of the Green Bay Packer rosters average age being young and inexperienced in regards to second stringers defense.

Look what Ted Thompson is faced with, given the last three seasons of overall failure in terms of playoff runs NOT; and so many roster spots held down by players headed to Free Agency.

How does Ted Thompson and MM weight that with this obvious fact:

Change is necessary and/or better contributions in terms of coaching and /or roster moves to upgrade the Packers DEFENSE and as a result raise any real hope and schemes projected towards achieving positive outcomes.

Anything sup par to this is "like pissing into a north wind", guaranteed failing. Another or... the fourth year of extreme mediocrity for the Green bay Packer defense and failure in the playoff's.

Bank on it. TT and MM have to institute a real change for the Green bay Packers Defense and ST's or we fail again in 2014.

That's a LOCK down surety.

SO...bobblehed if the Packers do little in terms of change for their defense and it doesn't appear as that's going tp happen in the immediate future.

Expect the Green Bay Packer to fail in the playoffs if they even get there.

Expect us Packer fans to be locked into discussion and the same issues and the Green Bay Packer Defense.

Expect "the same Ole Same Ole lame ass excuses" for TT, MM, Dom Capers and Shawn Slocum.

That means a focus of dedication to a change in scheme and very hard work to hop into a NFL Top Ten Position Ranked Defense.

NO ! Having Aaron Rodgers going up against the Top Ranked Teams without their NO> 1 QB is no real gurantee that The Green Bay packers as this team presently exists will walk through the NFC and land in Super Bowl XLVIX.

That's very likely NOT happening.

My logic is far from STUPID. My logic is rationally sensible. My logic spells out the TRUTH.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/instant_reaction_bob_mcginn_rips_packers/15530606?linksrc=story_team_green_bay_packers_auto _module_head_15530606

Instant Reaction: Bob McGinn rips Packers

January 13, 2014 Jacob Westendorf

GO PACKERS !

[denverYooper]

Someone should do an end-of-season breakdown of McGinn. We'll come up with a new stat to measure his Quality Articles to Clickbait ratio. Maybe we can get JSO to write into his contract that his QA/CB (we'll call it Quack-B) has to stay above 0.5.

By that metric, he's severely underperforming this year.