Positives?

[jack's smirking revenge]

Yes, Mr. Pessimist is starting a thread about the positives with this team. What do you see as positives so far through 3 games this preseason? I'm hard-pressed to find some right now and would love to hear your thoughts. Not looking to debate, just wondering what other people are seeing as things to hang their hat on for 2006. Maybe it'll give me a little more hope for this season.

tyler

[Packnut]

I wish I could give you 1 but I got nothing. We suck in the trenches and that means trouble.

[Tarlam!]

Trimming down the roster is no longer a heart wrenching process?

[chewy-bacca]

Green and Harris. Green almost busted 2 runs, b\c of shoe strings he was cought.

No news was good news for Harris. He shut down Chad....to bad Woodson was way off.


thats about it though

[GoPack06]

well i think Ryan besides his first punt had a good game, and Dave Rayner looked solid.

I think Greg Jennings showed again that he should be starting.

Al Harris ownes Chad Johnson

Cullen Jenkins and Montgomery made some nice plays.

Donald Driver had another good game.

No one got hurt. Seriously. Thats very important for a young team.



I think were gonna see alot of this during the year. One game we're gonna look horrible and the next we're gonna look awesome. Thats because this team is so young. There gonna make some great plays and some bad ones. I think by the end of the year you'll see lots of imporvement. If your thinking that we we're going to the super bowl this year, than well your gonna be disapponted. I think we can finsih 7-9 or 8-8 and that would be a big step from last year.

[HarveyWallbangers]

1) Ahman Green looked healthy, and seemed to get better as the game went on.
2) Donald Driver looks like a true #1 receiver.
3) Brett Favre hasn't been forcing balls. I think it bodes well that he seems to be more under control this year.
4) Aaron Rodgers had two good games and a good scrimmage.
5) Greg Jennings looks like he'll contribute early.
6) Al Harris bounced back after having two poor games. Of course, Charles Woodson dropped off after having two solid games.

[FritzDontBlitz]

1.) no major injuries to the starters (underwood was actually subbing for the projected starter)

2.) greg jennings still looking good.

3.) despite the two turnovers (and neither were actually his fault) favre has looked decent for the most part.

4.) ahman green looked good in limited action last night.

5.) al harris is still the shiznit.

6.) they are throwing to the te more.

7.) cullen jenkins played like a monster last night.

8.) mike mccarthy showed he has the guts to go for it on 4th and short.

and yeah, i know i opened a huge can of worms with the "neither turnover was favre's fault" comment...

[jack's smirking revenge]

Let me redirect the conversation a bit: I'm not asking for who looked good last night. There's already a thread talking about last night's game. I'm wondering what/who has been consistently good over three games and will probably be consistently good come regular season?

I agree that Jennings is a cause for optimism. Seems to be quick and has (relatively) good hands.

tyler

[Partial]

Culver looks like he will be a good player with a few more years of experience.

Montgomery has been replacing Kampman on passing downs in the base defense.

Woodson has looked very good thus far.

[ahaha]

McCarthy seem like he has some balls. Who knows, maybe Sherman's conservative approach is the better way to go, but it sure is fun to watch a team go for it on 4th and 10 in their own territory.

[Charles Woodson]

8.) mike mccarthy showed he has the guts to go for it on 4th and short.



what about the 4and 10 that he went for...that turned out good...

[packers11]

McCarthy seem like he has some balls. Who knows, maybe Sherman's conservative approach is the better way to go, but it sure is fun to watch a team go for it on 4th and 10 in their own territory.

We were up by so much thats why we went for it :roll: ..... When anyone is getting crushed that bad im suprised we even punted it....

[RashanGary]

Hawk has looked good
Spitz has looked good
Aaron Rodgers has looked good
Greg Jennings has looked good

Those are all good for the next few years but won't be as helpfull this up coming season.

[RIPackerFan]

Run Defense:

For the entire first half - including an 11 yard scramble by Palmer 3.6 yrd/carry, excluding the scramble - 3 yards/carry. Three carries were for negative yards.

Longest run was 11 yards.

So while not great - I don't think that it is that bad - no huge gains, and if you remove the scramble - decent run stoppage.

Run Offense:

Surprisingly - our first half running game averaged 3.5 yards/carry - longest being 12 yards. We had no negative yard carries but 3 0 yard carries.

To me, that is a slight positive.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Montgomery has been replacing Kampman on passing downs in the base defense.

He looks decent, but he needs to quit jumping offsides.

[No Mo Moss]

No Major Injuries!!!!!

Can't be understated.

Also I actually saw Favre throw the ball away. I think this team will be much better then they looke dlast night. As I said in another thread though I think this kind of a thumping is good for the team. As good as we looke dlast week this young team needs to realize that if you don't prepare extremely well each and every week you'll get thumped no matter who you play. I also doubt very much that the Packers included in their game plan a defensive package to include preventing Palmer from passing on every frickin down. No one saw that coming. I figured a bunch of runs and a few third down plays. Two series and out. I doubt Sanders is anywhere near as inept as he looked last night.

[chewy-bacca]

Run Defense:

For the entire first half - including an 11 yard scramble by Palmer 3.6 yrd/carry, excluding the scramble - 3 yards/carry. Three carries were for negative yards.

Longest run was 11 yards.

So while not great - I don't think that it is that bad - no huge gains, and if you remove the scramble - decent run stoppage.

Run Offense:

Surprisingly - our first half running game averaged 3.5 yards/carry - longest being 12 yards. We had no negative yard carries but 3 0 yard carries.

To me, that is a slight positive.

and green was inches from breaking a couple of them.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Let me redirect the conversation a bit: I'm not asking for who looked good last night. There's already a thread talking about last night's game. I'm wondering what/who has been consistently good over three games and will probably be consistently good come regular season?

Jack,

Mine were meant to be for the preseason and scrimmage. ARod didn't do anything last night, but he has been solid up to this point. I think Hawk has looked pretty good in the games, but I don't want to be branded an OSU homer. He was in coverage a lot last night, and I didn't see any balls completed on him. He also had a couple of those "forceful" tackles I saw at OSU. He wasn't around the ball as much, but I think that had more to do with the action that flowed to him (e.g. not a lot of opportunities) than anything else.

[RashanGary]

No Major Injuries!!!!!

Can't be understated.

Also I actually saw Favre throw the ball away. I think this team will be much better then they looke dlast night. As I said in another thread though I think this kind of a thumping is good for the team. As good as we looke dlast week this young team needs to realize that if you don't prepare extremely well each and every week you'll get thumped no matter who you play. I also doubt very much that the Packers included in their game plan a defensive package to include preventing Palmer from passing on every frickin down. No one saw that coming. I figured a bunch of runs and a few third down plays. Two series and out. I doubt Sanders is anywhere near as inept as he looked last night.

Nice Post...

I pretty much agree with everything. I in no way think the Packers are a "good" team like Cinci is but I don't think they're as bad as they played last night and you listed a couple good reasons here.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think this team will be much better then they looke dlast night. As I said in another thread though I think this kind of a thumping is good for the team. As good as we looke dlast week this young team needs to realize that if you don't prepare extremely well each and every week you'll get thumped no matter who you play. I also doubt very much that the Packers included in their game plan a defensive package to include preventing Palmer from passing on every frickin down. No one saw that coming. I figured a bunch of runs and a few third down plays. Two series and out. I doubt Sanders is anywhere near as inept as he looked last night.

Well, it may or may not be good, but I'm betting the Packers weren't prepared for as much no huddle as Cincinnati went to. Usually, in preseason you are trying to get guys in and out and managing that. Having the added burden of defending the no huddle offense couldn't have helped. I know Minnesota didn't do too well in one series against Pittsburgh's no huddle with Big Ben at the helm.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Let me redirect the conversation a bit: I'm not asking for who looked good last night. There's already a thread talking about last night's game. I'm wondering what/who has been consistently good over three games and will probably be consistently good come regular season?

Jack,

Mine were meant to be for the preseason and scrimmage. ARod didn't do anything last night, but he has been solid up to this point. I think Hawk has looked pretty good in the games, but I don't want to be branded an OSU homer. He was in coverage a lot last night, and I didn't see any balls completed on him. He also had a couple of those "forceful" tackles I saw at OSU. He wasn't around the ball as much, but I think that had more to do with the action that flowed to him (e.g. not a lot of opportunities) than anything else.

The "redirect" message really wasn't meant for you. In fact, I think you posted at almost the same time that I posted my "redirection" message. Just didn't want this discussion turning into "what was great about last night".

Excellent responses so far! Keep 'em coming. I'm not sipping Kool-Aid yet, but am realizing that there were things that I missed throughout the preseason so far.

tyler

[No Mo Moss]

No huddle in the preaseason is cheap. I thought McCarthy letting the BEngals get their punting team on the field and then going fo rit on fourth and ten was an intentional statement back at LEwis. " I can be cheap too."

[RIPackerFan]

To be honest - I am glad we are getting the kitchen sink thrown at us in preseason - no huddles, 4 - 5 receiver sets, multiple formations. It gives the D a bunch of different films to study - so that they can correct it in the future (or at least be aware). I would rather this happen, then vanilla offenses, and when the regular season comes along, get hit with some variations and have the D not know what to do.

Also, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but this game had the feel of Favre's game in Oakland (after his father dying). It seemed all the Bengals stepped up for Palmer - they played flawlessly. Even when Palmer was getting hit, he was throwing good passes. Sometimes these games happen.

[MJZiggy]

Even in the games where we were getting clobbered (both of them) there were flashes. This week, I saw it in the 3rd as I've mentioned in other threads. They tossed Samkon in at FB and he did what FB's are supposed to do. Even when everyone was saying he wasn't learning ZBS, when they put him in the game, he still dragged the pile with him when it really counted. Now they just toss him it at FB to give him playing time and he begins to perform there as well.

Favre had time on a few plays to hang back in the pocket and wait for something to develop. The fact that it didn't doesn't diminish the fact that the O-line gave him what he needed at that point and that should make those that have been haranguing the line feel a little better.