How significant is the 2-3 start?

[Patler]

In 2007:

The Giants started 0-2.
San Diego 1-3
Seattle was 3-3 then 4-4

All made the playoffs.

[MTPackerfan]

Re: How significant is the 2-3 start?

In 2007:

The Giants started 0-2.
San Diego 1-3
Seattle was 3-3 then 4-4

All made the playoffs.

it is certainly not insurmountable as long as our overall play improves. We need to get pad levels lower and handle gap spacing correctly.

[Rastak]

Re: How significant is the 2-3 start?

In 2007:

The Giants started 0-2.
San Diego 1-3
Seattle was 3-3 then 4-4

All made the playoffs.

So you are suggesting the Vikes have a good shot?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What's that? Uh -- Playoffs? Don't talk about -- playoffs? You kidding me? Playoffs? I just hope we can win a game!

[Patler]

Re: How significant is the 2-3 start?

In 2007:

The Giants started 0-2.
San Diego 1-3
Seattle was 3-3 then 4-4

All made the playoffs.

So you are suggesting the Vikes have a good shot?

Have they dumped Childress???

[Rastak]

Re: How significant is the 2-3 start?

In 2007:

The Giants started 0-2.
San Diego 1-3
Seattle was 3-3 then 4-4

All made the playoffs.

So you are suggesting the Vikes have a good shot?

Have they dumped Childress???

Thanks for raining on my parade Patler!

[Fosco33]

In '03, Pack was 3-4 and went to playoffs.

In '04, Pack was 1-4 and went to playoffs.

Note - we also started 1-4 in '05 and '06....

Apparently we don't like to start 'hot' very often.

Chill

[texaspackerbacker]

There are a lot of teams that were expected to be outstanding this season that have been disappointments. Some like New England and to a lesser extent, Indy, the reason is obvious; Others like Dallas, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, San Diego, Cleveland, maybe Minnesota, maybe Seattle, etc., the reasons are not so clear.

Most of the good teams snap out of it most of the time. I see no reason why the Packers shouldn't do that.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: How significant is the 2-3 start?

In 2007:

The Giants started 0-2.
San Diego 1-3
Seattle was 3-3 then 4-4

All made the playoffs.

We have to go 8-3 just to finish at 10-6. And were not playing like we can go 8-3. So I think it's pretty significant, and we'll miss the playoffs.

[Fosco33]

Remaining schedule:

@ SEA - L/W
IND - L
@ TEN - L
@ MIN - L
CHI - W
@ NO - L/W
CAR - W
HOU - W
@ JAC - L/W
@ CHI - L
DET - W


4 games we 'should' win and 4 we 'should' lose.
The 3 games that will be our swing are the road games (SEA, NO, JAC) if all the others go to plan.

7-4 if we play lights out (9-7 overall).... might be good enough in NFCN.

[rbaloha1]

Its important.

Team is not playing to its capabilities. Defense is missing key players. Rookie qb.

The unknowns create much doubt if we are able to make the playoffs.

[Joemailman]

2-3 puts Pack 1 game out of first with 11 to go, so the record isn't terribly significant. What is significant is that the Pack can't stop anyone from running the ball. If the record is to improve, the run defense must improve.

[Patler]

2-3 puts Pack 1 game out of first with 11 to go, so the record isn't terribly significant. What is significant is that the Pack can't stop anyone from running the ball. If the record is to improve, the run defense must improve.

Against the run, Montgomery and Thompson looked like KGB did a couple years ago, before Jenkins was moved out to end. Teams will soon realize they can get 5 yards anytime they need it by running to that side.

[pbmax]

Against the run, Montgomery and Thompson looked like KGB did a couple years ago, before Jenkins was moved out to end. Teams will soon realize they can get 5 yards anytime they need it by running to that side.

Those plays to the outside right were available even when Jenkins was healthy, on 3rd down when he moved inside to rush the passer. It has happened since, where they are outside the tackle and face only the TE and STILL can't get off the block to hold the corner and make the back go laterally or cut back.

Now that they are playing 1st and 2nd, Patler is right and we might end up needing to over-commit to just stop that play.

2-3 is not a death sentence. But a win streak is needed now. Improvement is needed soon.

[Patler]

Against the run, Montgomery and Thompson looked like KGB did a couple years ago, before Jenkins was moved out to end. Teams will soon realize they can get 5 yards anytime they need it by running to that side.

Those plays to the outside right were available even when Jenkins was healthy, on 3rd down when he moved inside to rush the passer. It has happened since, where they are outside the tackle and face only the TE and STILL can't get off the block to hold the corner and make the back go laterally or cut back.

Now that they are playing 1st and 2nd, Patler is right and we might end up needing to over-commit to just stop that play.

2-3 is not a death sentence. But a win streak is needed now. Improvement is needed soon.

I was told the following, which gives me some hope:

Whereas two years ago the coaches realized that KGB simply can no longer hold up against the run, and is basically incapable against running plays at him, they do not have the same concerns with Montgomery. Montgomery just does wrong things. No coaching would ever help KGB, he just can't do it. They feel Montgomery will be adequate if they can just get through to him, and its not that he is dumb or uncoachable, just too anxious to make plays rather than maintain his responsibilities.

So they seem to have Montgomery who is too anxious and too aggressive, and Thompson who they say is too analytical and tentative. They need to blend the two!