Announcement

**The Leaper** · 07-01-2006, 01:15 AM

No one is sure how Favre will be in the WCO?? WTF is that supposed to mean? I remember him winning...oh, say 3 straight MVP awards in the WCO...so I think he'll do just fine considering he's been running this offense just about his entire career.

I think the 22 rating is reasonable at this point...but the Favre comment just ruins it for me.

**Harlan Huckleby** · 07-01-2006, 01:15 AM

what would Vince say about a #22 ranking?

**SD GB fan** · 07-01-2006, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by The Leaper

No one is sure how Favre will be in the WCO?? WTF is that supposed to mean? I remember him winning...oh, say 3 straight MVP awards in the WCO...so I think he'll do just fine considering he's been running this offense just about his entire career.

I think the 22 rating is reasonable at this point...but the Favre comment just ruins it for me.

ya that bugged me too. maybe he meant the switch back to the WCO, especially since favre has publicly stated that he finds the terminology difficult. o well i dun expect analysts to be accurate all the time. yes, it is their job but keeping tabs on the present and past of 32 teams is hard.

**RashanGary** · 07-01-2006, 01:55 AM

Fair rating...

Just when you think they're pretty good, you look at the list of NFL teams and you think "whoa....most of those guys are really good, no wait, the Packer are just really bad"

The Packers have alot of questions. It could be 5-11 or 9-7. I'm thinkin 8-8 but I'm a bit of a homer at times.

**ahaha** · 07-01-2006, 01:16 PM

Statistically, the Packers weren't that bad last year. The one stat that killed us was turnover ratio. -24!!!!!! That is ATROCIOUS! Turn that stat around, and we're a pretty good team.

**SD GB fan** · 07-01-2006, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by ahaha

Statistically, the Packers weren't that bad last year. The one stat that killed us was turnover ratio. -24!!!!!! That is ATROCIOUS! Turn that stat around, and we're a pretty good team.

holy shit..that bad!?!

well any team that can turn that around will be a pretty good team. and our statistics werent really accurated from last year. we were NOT a ranked 7 D and we were NOT a 4-12 team. we were in a lot of close games but luck rolled the other way. im leaning toward a weak 6-10 team.

**4and12to12and4** · 07-01-2006, 01:24 PM

I disagree with Baltimore, St. Louis, Arizona, and possibly Atlanta being ahead of us. But, who really knows with so many changes. I think the biggest issue for success this year will be having a successful running game, and with a young interior line and question marks at running back, it's a crapshoot at this point.

By the way, Ahaha, my statistics were accurated once, it was a painful procedure.

**woodbuck27** · 07-02-2006, 10:20 AM

Here's a good article about why the Packers finished 4-12 last year. It also explains why Brett had a difficult season.

Packer Report.com

These stats don't lie

By: Bob Fox
greenbaybob@hotmail.com
Date: Jun 25, 2006

When one of 32 National Football Teams rank 30th or lower in several vital statistics, well, the chances of success are slim. The 2005 Green Bay Packers were that type of team. Therefore, their 4-12 record should not be a surprise.

Yes, there were other contributing factors like big losses in free agency and devastating injuries to key playmakers on offense. But just look at these stats:

The 2005 Packers ranked 30th in rushing yards per game and 31st average yards per rush. You won't win many games when you average 84.5 yards a game rushing with only a 3.4 yard average. The Packers are hopeful an improved offensive line, especially in the middle, will enhance the run production in 2006. That, and instituting a new zone blocking scheme that has been very successful for teams like the Denver Broncos and Atlanta Falcons. The RBs will have to choose the right hole quickly and get past the first and second level. Vince Lombardi called this "running to daylight." Staying healthy at the running backs position would be nice as well.

That lack of a running game affects the passing game. Ask Brett Favre. It is no wonder that Favre threw 29 interceptions last year, the most in the league. Favre had porous blocking up the middle in both the run game and in pass protection. When the running game isn't consistent and a team is always behind in the score, a QB will throw a lot of passes trying to bring his team back. The passes are also usually higher risk passes because of the score and situation. Invariably, interceptions will occur under those conditions.

The 2006 Packers will try and establish a power running game that will make play action a legitimate weapon again. With play action comes hesitation from the defense. Favre does not need much room to complete a pass. Play-action passes create open seams for a QB to make a throw. Head coach Mike McCarthy is also going to use a more classic version of the West Coast offense which relies on a lot of shorter and medium range passes. High percentage passes. Passes that give the WR, TE or RB an opportunity to make big yards AFTER the catch. Never fear, Favre will still go deep, but the bulk of the passing game will occur in the middle of the field.

Green Bay's special teams unit weren't so special last year. In fact, they were putrid. Just look at these statistics. The Packers ranked 32nd in kickoff return average (18.9 yards a return), 31st in gross punting average (38.9 yards), 32nd in net yards punting (33.5 yards), and finally 28th in extra points percentage and 27th in field goal percentage. I'm surprised the Packers weren't 0-16 with that production. For the 2006 Packers to be successful, the Green Bay special teams have to improve. Significantly.

The biggest area for improvement for The Packers in 2006 has to be turnover ratio. The Packers were tied for 31st in the NFL in this statistic. Green Bay was minus-24 in this huge stat. The Packers hope that the new offensive scheme will decrease the number of turnovers with that unit. The defense is hoping that the additions of A.J. Hawk, Ben Taylor, Charles Woodson and Marquand Manuel and others will create more turnovers.

The bottom line is that it all starts in the trenches. The Green Bay offensive and defensive lines must control the line of scrimmage. The playmakers on both offense and defense, have to make plays when they are there to be made. The special teams need to be special. The fortunes of the Green Bay Packers in 2006 will depend on it.

**MJZiggy** · 07-02-2006, 10:25 AM

Well, the rushing ypc was probably due to injury, but holy crap, if TT saw these rankings, it's no wonder the kick returner's gone and he didn't fight so hard to keep Longwell. Can we hope some new blood will take care of these areas? Go Grandpa Stock!!

**GrnBay007** · 07-02-2006, 10:51 AM

Instead of starting a new thread I'll throw this in here. On USA today sports they have some polls relating to Fantasy Football drafting. For the poll on: Which player/unit would you be most wary of in the draft?

Favre was picked the most at 26%. Closest to him was Fred Taylor and Mark Brunell with 19%.

So yeah, I'm a homer... but I'd still take Favre on my FF team anyday!

-

**HarveyWallbangers** · 07-04-2006, 08:56 PM

I think I've seen one magazine where they were picked higher than 4-12.

The Sporting News picked them to go 7-9--good for 2nd place in the division. Here were their division standings:

Chicago = 8-8
Green Bay = 7-9
Minnesota = 6-10
Detroit = 5-11

Great division!

Announcement

Pack shown some love

Pack shown some love

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment