2009: Another Slow Start in the Cards?

[Fritz]

I feel better....slightly. On the one hand, it seems hard to believe they won't improve, almost by default. How many times did we watch a lead slip away in the last five minutes of a game? Then there's Capers's track record of improvement in one year.

But as was pointed out above, the Pack don't seem to adjust to new schemes very well. The debacle of the Donatell/Slowik change remains fresh in my mind. The continuing struggle - I think - with zone blocking (I know MM is screaming at me somewhere) is in my mind.

However, Rodgers should be more comfortable, and if the team's health - most especially Rodgers - is good, they ought to improve.

Okay. Deep breath.

[MadtownPacker]

At least a winning record with the team in contention all year.

I'd like to see the statistics onteams that install a 3-4. I did a thread on the Pack when they went to a 3-4 in '80. their poor '79 defense was better than the '80 team. It takes a good bit of time for the D to gel in a new scheme.

'Ol MM might have bit off more than he can chew with this latest move.

Are you drunk? A winning record will get you playoffs in the NFC and you know that.

TT cant stick with M3 if he doesnt give him something good in 09.

[Gunakor]

At least a winning record with the team in contention all year.

I'd like to see the statistics onteams that install a 3-4. I did a thread on the Pack when they went to a 3-4 in '80. their poor '79 defense was better than the '80 team. It takes a good bit of time for the D to gel in a new scheme.

'Ol MM might have bit off more than he can chew with this latest move.

Are you drunk? A winning record will get you playoffs in the NFC and you know that.

TT cant stick with M3 if he doesnt give him something good in 09.

He can if he deems the problem a rocky transition on defense, and decides that the defensive struggles will work themselves out with more time to get accustomed to the new scheme.

[Waldo]

I posted it in another thread, but every 3-4 defense today in the NFL improved significantly when compared to the previous year, the year they made switch, except Baltimore, who had a bunch of players retire/leave from a #4 defense (hard to blame scheme change fully), and SF. The one constant in those less than stellar transitions is Mike Nolan. All others improved their ranking, even teams like Cle and NYJ that didn't even close to have the right personnel when they made the switch.

[SnakeLH2006]

Offensively, the key is the running game. The Packers really need to see the 2007 Ryan Grant, not the 2008 version.

I think their is a good chance of seeing the 2007 Ryan Grant. This year he will come in fully healthy and able to fully participate in all activities as he doesn't have a contract to worry about.

I like Grant. Always have from his days at ND. But....

Grant still has to prove that he can stay healthy for an entire season. One of the reasons that he had a nondescript career at Notre Dame, and as a result was not drafted, was a problem staying on the field. When there, he performed very well, and he didn't miss extended time, but was often "nicked up." He was passed (or caught) in the depth chart when he wasn't 100% and had to come out at times. As a result, he didn't lock down his starting role and in his Junior season he gave an opportunity back to Julius Jones. As a Senior, he opened the door for Darius Walker, a freshman.

Of course didn't play in NY. 2007 was a half season+ in GB. 2008 was injury marred.

If I recall correctly, it was often a hamstring problem that bothered him at ND. When he first came from the Giants, he missed practices the first or second week in GB because of a hamstring. Then, last year, a hamstring issue again.

Grant can be an asset, but the Packers need someone behind him that can be counted on.

Agreed. I believe part of Grant's problems come in when he carries the ball for 30 times a game. Look at Fred Taylor, rejuvenate his career at 30 when they found that he could stay healthy(ier) when they could spell him with another back for 10-15 carries a game, and limit him to 20 good touches.

I feel, as most do on PR, that Lumpkin, Wynn, or BJack could step in a provide those carries to spell Grant effectively. I know all 4 were banged up at different times in 2008, but M3 can't keep giving feeding Grant 30 carries for several games in a row at times, and feel he can be effective in the NFL.

What would help is a more consistent D to keep the O off the field, as I'm not so worried about Grant, as I am ARod in 2009. I really liked ARod in 2008 and feel he will really shine in 2009 with a good D. If the D regresses or even stays the same as 2008, this could spell trouble for ARod's health, as well, as his name is out there as the man to stop GB's O.

Job number 1 is 2009, is finding ways to deflect hits/attention from ARod whether that be a healthy Grant and RB tandem/trio and/or an improved D to keep him healthy.

[Gunakor]

What would help is a more consistent D to keep the O off the field, as I'm not so worried about Grant, as I am ARod in 2009. I really liked ARod in 2008 and feel he will really shine in 2009 with a good D. If the D regresses or even stays the same as 2008, this could spell trouble for ARod's health, as well, as his name is out there as the man to stop GB's O.

Job number 1 is 2009, is finding ways to deflect hits/attention from ARod whether that be a healthy Grant and RB tandem/trio and/or an improved D to keep him healthy.

Rodgers shoulder injury happened due to Aaron stretching the ball out in front of him during one of his runs, trying to pick up a first down, and landing awkwardly on the arm/shoulder. Great defense cannot protect Aaron from himself.

By the way, a more consistent D would translate to the offense spending MORE time on the field, not less. A more consistent D would mean the defense would force more three and outs, putting the offense back on the field and giving the defense more time on the sideline. As it should be. I'd rather my offense command a 2:1 advantage in time of possession than to be on the short end of that stick.

[cpk1994]

I feel better....slightly. On the one hand, it seems hard to believe they won't improve, almost by default. How many times did we watch a lead slip away in the last five minutes of a game? Then there's Capers's track record of improvement in one year.

But as was pointed out above, the Pack don't seem to adjust to new schemes very well. The debacle of the Donatell/Slowik change remains fresh in my mind. The continuing struggle - I think - with zone blocking (I know MM is screaming at me somewhere) is in my mind.

However, Rodgers should be more comfortable, and if the team's health - most especially Rodgers - is good, they ought to improve.

Okay. Deep breath.

Don't you think, though, that the scheme change you mentioned probably had to do more with Donatell/Slowik and how the tought it rather than the players? Those two don't strike me as good teachers. Capers, OTOH, is well know as a good teacher and is a far suprerior upgrade to those two dimwits by default.

[Fritz]

Well, I certainly hope you are right. However, those guys were also coaches elsewhere, so it's not like a Lions' coaching hire where everybody says "WTF?" and when the guy gets fired he never gets another, similar job in the NFL again.

But I hope you are right. I think you are, based on Capeers's past performance.

[cpk1994]

Well, I certainly hope you are right. However, those guys were also coaches elsewhere, so it's not like a Lions' coaching hire where everybody says "WTF?" and when the guy gets fired he never gets another, similar job in the NFL again.

But I hope you are right. I think you are, based on Capeers's past performance.

Yes they were coaches elsewhere, but Slowik just oversaw the worst D in the NFL with the Broncos and Donatell was nothiong to wrtie home about with the Falcons. They get jobs becuase of the "retread" facotr more than what they have accomplished.