2010 Schedule

[Fritz]

That's good seasoning for the playoffs, I think, playing all those playoff teams.

[pack4to84]

Next year we would face 6 playoff teams from this season.

[Guiness]

Dallas can't be too happy about coming back up here. Seemed like for a while we were always going there.

How did that manage to happen 3 years in a row?

[retailguy]

Heard on the radio last night after the game the Packers had played more teams that made the Playoffs then any other team in the Playoffs. So I looked it up. Raven had played one more playoff team then the Packers.

Playoff teams faced
Arz 2
Ind 2
NO 4
SD 4
Phi 4
Min 4
Dal 5
NYJ 5
NE 5
Cin 6
GB 6
Balt 7

Well, a few ways to look at this. We won 3 and lost 3. But the 3 wins came later in the season, tho' it's also clear that win 3 (yesterday) was a gimme.

We lost to Minny twice, on a neutral field, I like those odds, in the dome, well, not as much.

So, we lost to Cincy & then Minny twice, while we beat the Ravens, the Cowboys and the Cards. The real question is, would we beat Cincy today? Seems to be the best test. If the team that played yesterday showed up, yes, but again, another "gimme".

Incidentally, the Ravens lost 6 of the 7 games. They lost to the Colts, the Patriots, The Bengals (twice), the Vikings & us, and beat the Chargers (week 2). It could be a lot worse.

I didn't look at the other teams.

[ThunderDan]

Heard on the radio last night after the game the Packers had played more teams that made the Playoffs then any other team in the Playoffs. So I looked it up. Raven had played one more playoff team then the Packers.

Playoff teams faced
Arz 2
Ind 2
NO 4
SD 4
Phi 4
Min 4
Dal 5
NYJ 5
NE 5
Cin 6
GB 6
Balt 7

Well, a few ways to look at this. We won 3 and lost 3. But the 3 wins came later in the season, tho' it's also clear that win 3 (yesterday) was a gimme.

We lost to Minny twice, on a neutral field, I like those odds, in the dome, well, not as much.

So, we lost to Cincy & then Minny twice, while we beat the Ravens, the Cowboys and the Cards. The real question is, would we beat Cincy today? Seems to be the best test. If the team that played yesterday showed up, yes, but again, another "gimme".

Incidentally, the Ravens lost 6 of the 7 games. They lost to the Colts, the Patriots, The Bengals (twice), the Vikings & us, and beat the Chargers (week 2). It could be a lot worse.

I didn't look at the other teams.

What are you trying to say? The Arizona win doesn't count. This weeks Arizona game counts? We are playing the Bungals in the SB?

Look, other than TB we only lost to teams with winning records! 3 of the 5 losses came against teams in the playoffs.

[Joemailman]

The Packers would beat the Bengals now. The Bengals ran all over the Packers that game. No one can run the ball on the Packers right now. Plus, I think it's fair to say that that Odom guy wouldn't get 5 sacks again. Vikings are the only team to beat the Packers that could possibly do it again.

[retailguy]

Not sure at all what you're trying to say, but this comment:

Look, other than TB we only lost to teams with winning records! 3 of the 5 losses came against teams in the playoffs.

is kind of where I was going. Considering that all the teams we'll now face have winning records, I wanted to know how we stacked up against those teams.

Not great, but better than Baltimore. And, no, the AZ win doesn't count. We didn't prove anything, except we can spank AZ's scrubs hard. And yes, I know we put up 14 on the 1st team, who had nothing to play for, and were using a scaled back game plan per Whisenhunt's own comments. He had two game plans ready to go, one if Minny won, and one if Minny lost.

[retailguy]

The Packers would beat the Bengals now. The Bengals ran all over the Packers that game. No one can run the ball on the Packers right now. Plus, I think it's fair to say that that Odom guy wouldn't get 5 sacks again. Vikings are the only team to beat the Packers that could possibly do it again.

Hope you're right Joe. I agree that Benson would have a more difficult time, but not sure that the line is that much improved. 5 sacks probably wouldn't happen again, but if those 5 sacks turned into knockdowns, I'm not sure that would change much.

Clearly, today, we beat them on a neutral field and at home. In Cincy? tougher, but good prospects. I actually like the matchup with Minny better. Too much for the Packers to play for. I like the intangibles in that game.

I still think the OL is the weak link on this team, but we'll see. Right now, they have played better in recent weeks.

If I were Whiz, that's what I'd attack. The OL first, and then the secondary. Hopefully we can burn that focus with a good dose of Finley. I don't see how AZ accounts for him. I think they can take Jennings out of the game, and maybe Driver, but Jennings, Finley & Driver? I don't see it.

Relying on McCarthy for a good gameplan makes me nervous. I just don't like this game.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Packers would beat the Bengals now. The Bengals ran all over the Packers that game. No one can run the ball on the Packers right now. Plus, I think it's fair to say that that Odom guy wouldn't get 5 sacks again. Vikings are the only team to beat the Packers that could possibly do it again.

Totally agree. Plus, I think the Bengals caught us off-guard. If you said before the year that the Bengals would be a running team behind Cedric Benson but would have problems throwing the ball with Carson Palmer, Chad Ochocinco, Lav Coles, etc., I think most people would have said you were crazy. I'm guessing we had a game plan that looked to stop the pass--and they gashed us with the run.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hope you're right Joe. I agree that Benson would have a more difficult time, but not sure that the line is that much improved. 5 sacks probably wouldn't happen again, but if those 5 sacks turned into knockdowns, I'm not sure that would change much.

You don't think the OL is much improved? What? 41 sacks in the first 9 games. 10 sacks in the last 7 games.

[retailguy]

Hope you're right Joe. I agree that Benson would have a more difficult time, but not sure that the line is that much improved. 5 sacks probably wouldn't happen again, but if those 5 sacks turned into knockdowns, I'm not sure that would change much.

You don't think the OL is much improved? What? 41 sacks in the first 9 games. 10 sacks in the last 7 games.

This happens every year Harv. I want to see things change PERMANENTLY.

Nothing indicates that this won't happen again and again. Next season, game 1, I bet we're talking about OL issues, yet again....

I think if Whiz gameplans correctly, he can get to Rodgers. Whether Rodgers can take advantage of that (ie - finley and others), is still to be answered. I see hope that can happen, in spite of the OL.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This happens every year Harv. I want to see things change PERMANENTLY.

Nothing indicates that this won't happen again and again. Next season, game 1, I bet we're talking about OL issues, yet again....

What does that have to do with the point in question--which is whether we'd beat Cincinnati now and whether the OL is improved since we played them?

[Joemailman]

Obviously the OL is much better with Tauscher in there. Rodgers is now able to escape to the right when he needs to. He is absolutely deadly when throwing while rolling to the right. I really believe the Packers would be 13-3 or 14-2 if the OL had played all year the way they are playing now. They are a better team than they were 2 years ago heading into the playoffs. Still, the road ahead this year is very tough. I think this Packers team is very comparable to the 1995 team. Really good but maybe a year away.

[retailguy]

This happens every year Harv. I want to see things change PERMANENTLY.

Nothing indicates that this won't happen again and again. Next season, game 1, I bet we're talking about OL issues, yet again....

What does that have to do with the point in question--which is whether we'd beat Cincinnati now and whether the OL is improved since we played them?

Simple, I was responding to Joe's points about the OL and rushing defense as the reason we'd beat Cincy. I agreed with the rushing defense aspect, but not the OL.

I think the improvement we see in the OL is a mirage. It's going to disappear again soon. I concede that Tauscher is better than Barbre, but he's not what he used to be either.

My point is that Whisenhunt can exploit this, and I'm not sure if he won't or he will, but I still do not like this OL and don't agree that Odom and the Bengals wouldn't have the same defensive gameplan with continued success. I doubt they'd get 5 sacks, but as I said before, I'm not sure there is that much difference if those sacks became knockdowns.

You can throw out stats, but that ignores some things. Pressures and knockdowns can be just as disruptive to the gameplan as sacks. Timing is crucial in the Packers offense. Anything that messes that up successfully has an impact. This OL still allows way too much pressure.

[ThunderDan]

And, no, the AZ win doesn't count. We didn't prove anything, except we can spank AZ's scrubs hard. And yes, I know we put up 14 on the 1st team, who had nothing to play for, and were using a scaled back game plan per Whisenhunt's own comments. He had two game plans ready to go, one if Minny won, and one if Minny lost.

And what did we have to play for? Nothing! It's just an excuse. I agree they pulled their starters early but we played with fire and executed well. To me that is worth every penny even if it was against their "scrubs".

Really, how many "scrubs" can an NFL team carry on a 53 man roster?

For the Packers you have guys like Quinn Johnson (3rd fullback inactive at start of season), Brad Jones, Bush(vomit), TJ Lang, et al.

Due to injuries it is extremely hard to justify below average players on the bottom of your roster. This is also why I like having young guys with potential to chase in case of injury instead of 9 year vet who is a stop-gap at best.