Something that bothered me last night

[HarveyWallbangers]

Isn't this a bit of an over-reaction? 7-4 doesn't mean suck, but really, outside of the Dallas game have they played anyone with a good record and looked convincing doing it?

This team has a ways to go to be considered a "good team" in my book. Maybe they'll start that trend this week.

I know what you are saying, but outside of the Tampa Bay game, have we looked that bad? We lost to 10-1 Minnesota twice in good games and we lost to a pretty good 8-3 Bengals team. Minnesota has played 5 games vs. teams with more than 4 wins. They beat us twice, but it was close. They beat Baltimore on a missed FG. They beat San Fran on a miracle last play. They lost to Pittsburgh.

[Pugger]

I'll tell ya what bothered me. Sean Payton has got a team that is no more talented on paper then us...fired up! Taking guys off the street and plugging them in and having them play like all pros. That teams success is coming from the sidelines..our mediocrity is coming from ours.

It is terrible how much the 7-4 Packers suck.

Isn't this a bit of an over-reaction? 7-4 doesn't mean suck, but really, outside of the Dallas game have they played anyone with a good record and looked convincing doing it?

This team has a ways to go to be considered a "good team" in my book. Maybe they'll start that trend this week.

How about this one, the Minnesota Vikings had only beaten 1 team with a winning record this season before BALT beat PITT Sunday night. The GREEN BAY PACKERS. Why do they get a pass? They have played DET (2x), CHI, CLE, STL, SEA and SF. Nobody is even suggesting that they should discount these wins for the Vikings!

This is what drives me crazy. If MN beats up on the bottom feeders of the NFL it is because they are a great team. If the Pack beats up on these same teams its because those teams stink. 7-4 is not mediocre.

[sheepshead]

I find the penalty issue troubling. It plagued us last year, not fixed, Guys are walking around between plays, no hustle. Not the win/loss necessarily. Letting teams back in games instead of putting them away like NO did last night. Not to turn this into a bitch fest, but the author of this thread pointed out a glaring difference in coaching staffs in my opinion.

[PlantPage55]

A couple things. The Saints are more talented than we are on offense, because they are not having to play the Brown County Shuffle with their offensive line, like we constantly have been.

Brees has the experience and chemistry with his receivers that Aaron doesn't quite have yet. In time and with more work, he will develop it. Look at the way that Drew Brees throws passes that rely entirely on timing. He throws to the WRs back shoulders with ease and they have the chemistry to know what he's seeing and to make the play.

We've seen Aaron throw that type of ball only a handful of times so far. But THAT is the kind of stuff that keeps a defense on their heels. A passing attack that has the defense scrambling and not the other way around. The lack of pressure that the guy feels doesn't hurt either.

I fully believe that we will get there in time. Just maybe not this season yet, but I am hopeful. The point is: it's unfair to demand that Mac gets this out of our offense, when NO's offense has a far more experienced leader. Aaron is doing an elite job for a guy with his experience level. But that level is vastly different from Brees'.

[sheepshead]

yeah that's it, thanks for clearing that up for me:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/passingYards/league/nfc

[pbmax]

I find the penalty issue troubling. It plagued us last year, not fixed, Guys are walking around between plays, no hustle. Not the win/loss necessarily. Letting teams back in games instead of putting them away like NO did last night. Not to turn this into a bitch fest, but the author of this thread pointed out a glaring difference in coaching staffs in my opinion.

Agree completely about penalties. Many of the Packer penalties are simply self-inflicted wounds.

[gex]

I'll tell ya what bothered me. Sean Payton has got a team that is no more talented on paper then us...fired up! Taking guys off the street and plugging them in and having them play like all pros. That teams success is coming from the sidelines..our mediocrity is coming from ours.

It is terrible how much the 7-4 Packers suck.

Isn't this a bit of an over-reaction? 7-4 doesn't mean suck, but really, outside of the Dallas game have they played anyone with a good record and looked convincing doing it?

This team has a ways to go to be considered a "good team" in my book. Maybe they'll start that trend this week.

How about this one, the Minnesota Vikings had only beaten 1 team with a winning record this season before BALT beat PITT Sunday night. The GREEN BAY PACKERS. Why do they get a pass? They have played DET (2x), CHI, CLE, STL, SEA and SF. Nobody is even suggesting that they should discount these wins for the Vikings!

Who brought up the Vikings in this thread? What about the other teams with winning records?

[ThunderDan]

I'll tell ya what bothered me. Sean Payton has got a team that is no more talented on paper then us...fired up! Taking guys off the street and plugging them in and having them play like all pros. That teams success is coming from the sidelines..our mediocrity is coming from ours.

It is terrible how much the 7-4 Packers suck.

Isn't this a bit of an over-reaction? 7-4 doesn't mean suck, but really, outside of the Dallas game have they played anyone with a good record and looked convincing doing it?

This team has a ways to go to be considered a "good team" in my book. Maybe they'll start that trend this week.

How about this one, the Minnesota Vikings had only beaten 1 team with a winning record this season before BALT beat PITT Sunday night. The GREEN BAY PACKERS. Why do they get a pass? They have played DET (2x), CHI, CLE, STL, SEA and SF. Nobody is even suggesting that they should discount these wins for the Vikings!

Who brought up the Vikings in this thread? What about the other teams with winning records?

I think Administrator did by discounting the Packers wins. MINN has just as many wins against terrible teams as the Packers do and other than the wins over the Packers they don't have a win against anyone else than BALT with a winning record. So if the Packers are below average which is what a lot of people are saying the Vikings have 1 win against BALT that even approaches a statement game. Do you see the hypocrisy?

I could have looked up IND or NO and they are going to have beaten 3 or more 4-7 or worse teams.

[mission]

A couple things. The Saints are more talented than we are on offense, because they are not having to play the Brown County Shuffle with their offensive line, like we constantly have been.

Brees has the experience and chemistry with his receivers that Aaron doesn't quite have yet. In time and with more work, he will develop it. Look at the way that Drew Brees throws passes that rely entirely on timing. He throws to the WRs back shoulders with ease and they have the chemistry to know what he's seeing and to make the play.

We've seen Aaron throw that type of ball only a handful of times so far. But THAT is the kind of stuff that keeps a defense on their heels. A passing attack that has the defense scrambling and not the other way around. The lack of pressure that the guy feels doesn't hurt either.

I fully believe that we will get there in time. Just maybe not this season yet, but I am hopeful. The point is: it's unfair to demand that Mac gets this out of our offense, when NO's offense has a far more experienced leader. Aaron is doing an elite job for a guy with his experience level. But that level is vastly different from Brees'.

And how long did it take Brees to develop into 'this' quarterback?

He's as close to the proverbial red-headed stepchild as there's been over the last 10-20 years.

League wide, he's gotten no love compared to what he's produced on the field.

Playoff success or lack there of ?

Not sure but he looked BRILLIANT last night.

[Bretsky]

Re: Something that bothered me last night

Watching the pats/saints game, I saw both Mike McKenzie and chris mcalister both playing very well for the Saints. The packers are very thin at CB at the moment, why wouldn't T.T. look @ 1 of these players (considering they both got picked up last week).

1 of them would be an upgrade over bush. imo.

Thoughts?

TT will go with the youngies with upside over the proven vets

[sheepshead]

Check this out:\



Posted by Mike Florio on December 2, 2009 12:23 PM ET
As it turns out, there were two suitors for the services of cornerback Mike McKenzie, one of the unlikely heroes of Monday night's game for the ages between the Saints and the Patriots.

Per a league source, the Packers were chasing McKenzie, too.

The need was obvious -- the Packers recently lost cornerback Al Harris for the year with a torn ACL.

In the end, McKenzie selected the Saints, in part because the Saints were willing to omit from his contract any language protecting the team against further salary obligation if a knee injury were to land McKenzie on injured reserve.

That said, it's unknown whether the Packers ever had an option to match the contract that the Saints gave to McKenzie. The 10-year veteran worked out for the Saints and signed there without visiting Green Bay.

McKenzie entered the league as part of a 1999 Packers draft class that obviously was aimed at dealing with Vikings receiver Randy Moss, who had made good on his promise to "rip up" the league as a rookie the prior season. In round one, Green Bay drafted cornerback Antuan Edwards. In round two, the Packers added cornerback Fred Vinson. McKenzie arrived in round three, and defensive back Chris Akins was picked in round seven.

Edwards, who was moved to safety, ultimately became a bust. McKenzie far and away emerged as the best of the bunch.

[mraynrand]

It shouldn't shock anyone that the Packers would be interested in McKenzie. But why would he want to come to Green Bay over NO?

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=19465&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[mngolf19]

I'll tell ya what bothered me. Sean Payton has got a team that is no more talented on paper then us...fired up! Taking guys off the street and plugging them in and having them play like all pros. That teams success is coming from the sidelines..our mediocrity is coming from ours.

It is terrible how much the 7-4 Packers suck.

Isn't this a bit of an over-reaction? 7-4 doesn't mean suck, but really, outside of the Dallas game have they played anyone with a good record and looked convincing doing it?

This team has a ways to go to be considered a "good team" in my book. Maybe they'll start that trend this week.

How about this one, the Minnesota Vikings had only beaten 1 team with a winning record this season before BALT beat PITT Sunday night. The GREEN BAY PACKERS. Why do they get a pass? They have played DET (2x), CHI, CLE, STL, SEA and SF. Nobody is even suggesting that they should discount these wins for the Vikings!

Who brought up the Vikings in this thread? What about the other teams with winning records?

I think Administrator did by discounting the Packers wins. MINN has just as many wins against terrible teams as the Packers do and other than the wins over the Packers they don't have a win against anyone else than BALT with a winning record. So if the Packers are below average which is what a lot of people are saying the Vikings have 1 win against BALT that even approaches a statement game. Do you see the hypocrisy?

I could have looked up IND or NO and they are going to have beaten 3 or more 4-7 or worse teams.

It's because people are trying to gauge a team that is 7-4, not 10-1. At some point that will stop if the team continues upward. If the Pack gets to 11-4, people will not be saying they got "lucky" or considering who they played. And if the Vikes get to 15-1, no one will care if their schedule was tough or if their games were close. You don't get to 11+ wins without actually being good.

[ThunderDan]

I'll tell ya what bothered me. Sean Payton has got a team that is no more talented on paper then us...fired up! Taking guys off the street and plugging them in and having them play like all pros. That teams success is coming from the sidelines..our mediocrity is coming from ours.

It is terrible how much the 7-4 Packers suck.

Isn't this a bit of an over-reaction? 7-4 doesn't mean suck, but really, outside of the Dallas game have they played anyone with a good record and looked convincing doing it?

This team has a ways to go to be considered a "good team" in my book. Maybe they'll start that trend this week.

How about this one, the Minnesota Vikings had only beaten 1 team with a winning record this season before BALT beat PITT Sunday night. The GREEN BAY PACKERS. Why do they get a pass? They have played DET (2x), CHI, CLE, STL, SEA and SF. Nobody is even suggesting that they should discount these wins for the Vikings!

Who brought up the Vikings in this thread? What about the other teams with winning records?

I think Administrator did by discounting the Packers wins. MINN has just as many wins against terrible teams as the Packers do and other than the wins over the Packers they don't have a win against anyone else than BALT with a winning record. So if the Packers are below average which is what a lot of people are saying the Vikings have 1 win against BALT that even approaches a statement game. Do you see the hypocrisy?

I could have looked up IND or NO and they are going to have beaten 3 or more 4-7 or worse teams.

It's because people are trying to gauge a team that is 7-4, not 10-1. At some point that will stop if the team continues upward. If the Pack gets to 11-4, people will not be saying they got "lucky" or considering who they played. And if the Vikes get to 15-1, no one will care if their schedule was tough or if their games were close. You don't get to 11+ wins without actually being good.

It's not even that. The NFL has a formula in place on who you will play the next year no matter what. You play the teams you play. Over 16 games every team plays horrible teams and good teams it evens out.

Winning is winning in the NFL, they don't draw pictures by a team's record to show how they got there.

[Patler]

Re: Something that bothered me last night

Watching the pats/saints game, I saw both Mike McKenzie and chris mcalister both playing very well for the Saints. The packers are very thin at CB at the moment, why wouldn't T.T. look @ 1 of these players (considering they both got picked up last week).

1 of them would be an upgrade over bush. imo.

Thoughts?

The Saints released McAlister on Tuesday.