Postulated: The Packers 8-6 Record Is A Good Achivement This Season

[pbmax]

Where do you stand? 14 players on injured reserve, including six starters (Grant, Burnett, Barnett, Finley, Tauscher, Jones) and six rotation guys or Special Team starters (Harrell, Neal, Smith, Martin, Chillar*, Poppinga*) and two who definitely had a chance to play given their place on the depth chart (Bell, Havner). Plus the in season injuries that cost games from Jenkins, Pickett, Matthews, Bigby, Collins, Zombo, Underwood, Lee, Colledge, Rodgers, Hall and Driver.
*Have also started games.

Is 8-6 remarkable given the injuries and should the team be applauded and kept, mostly, on the same course?

Or is 8-6 indicative of too many close losses due to coaching (and possibly personnel) mistakes that in other hands would yield a 10-4 or better record?
.
.
.
.
By the way, please note how much better the O line played with Colledge back. I'm just saying....

[Bossman641]

Can I answer in 2 weeks?

If the team ends with 2 losses I would change my vote, but as of today I see no reason to change course. Havin even half the injured players back would have changed the outcome of at least 2 games.

[Freak Out]

Pretty amazing when you consider just how many players the team lost....let alone high profile guys..... Just tells you how good the remaining group really is. At least a part of it.

[Charles Woodson]

What hurts the most is all the last second losses. If we had been blowin out in some of our losses instead of going into overtime i might feel better, but its just hard to be content with 8-6 when the first 4 of our losses were by 3 points and our last two were winnable.

[Gunakor]

Look at it this way. Our losses have all been very close losses. Remove the injuries that have crippled our season and where are we specific to those close losses? Having Grant and Finley back in the fold could easily turn a 4 point loss @ Detroit into a 21 point win. Having Grant, Finley AND Rodgers against New England means we stomp their ass into the ground, staring over at Brady and laughing ourselves into a coma.

The close losses wouldn't even have been close games to begin with had lady luck shined on us in the injury department. Crosby doesn't have a chance to miss any game winning FG's. Flynn doesn't have an opportunity to blow it in the 2 minute offense. He gets to kneel on the ball instead.

The Packers have a dismal record in close games. Yet, they have a pretty good record in games that are not close. Think about it, how often do the Packers LOSE by 2 TD's or more? The teams that get blown out, THOSE are the teams that should really be worried about their football team. We have, what, 14 players on IR and yet are still in control of our own playoff destiny. We've proven that, regardless of injury, this team can play with anybody. Nothing to be ashamed of in that.

I'd give this season a positive grade. Even if it doesn't have a storybook ending.

[packrulz]

I voted agree, but the offensive line has been a big disappointment, even with Grant healthy, I doubt he could've gotten 1,000 yds rushing, GB needs a running game in Dec/Jan. I don't know how far the Pack can go in the playoffs if the run blocking doesn't get better.

[pbmax]

Boy, the Ted and/or Mike critics must be sleeping in this morning (or plowing out). I thought this result would be the reverse when I checked in this morning.

I will say this, I voted agree, but I am not so sure the close losses are due to the missing players. Perhaps this year there would have been fewer, but we have seen similar scenarios in the past, regardless of personnel. I don't think it is strictly playcalling or McCarthy having a "deer in the headlights" look, but a result of a strategy that make sense during the offseason and practice, but leaves too many opportunities on the field for the opponents. Settling for long FGs or having Defensive struggles versus the pass in 2008 and 2009 (Pit, Arz) and not being able to take the lead, hold the lead and/or drive out the clock.

In fact, I wonder if close game struggles tell us more about his defense than his offense.

[AtlPackFan]

I said 9-7 at the beginning of the season before all the injuries surfaced so I'm pleasantly surprised by their record.

[Fritz]

I think the answer is "both." I do think the injuries have played a major part in this record. Not only for the obvious reasons - having Grant and Finley back would've helped in short yardage situations - but because you end up playing street guys on special teams.

On the other hand, this pattern of crappy ST play has extended now into Slocum's second season as ST coach. And this pattern of shitty run blocking has extended into I don't know how many seasons.

So I think it's both. It's a positive to have this record with this many injuries. But I also feel that Slocum and Campen's ineptitude has been magnified by the injuries.

[gbgary]

if, before any games were played, you'd have rattled off that list of names and said we'd have a shot at 10-6 and a wild card...i'd have said you were f'n crazy! now seeing how the season has actually played out i'd say we'll be lucky to get to 10-6, but not because of the list so much. bad luck, a few untimely mistakes, and very questionable coaching decisions kept us from having an even better record and being in a better playoff position.

[sharpe1027]

You could add Al Harris and J. Jolly to that group.

[bobblehead]

I think one injury is the difference of 8-6 and 10-4 or better. Jemichael Finley. when we lost him we were unreliable at TE and we haven't recovered that. Nobody has stepped up at TE as opposed to almost every other injured position. To top it off, replacing finley is impossible, even if someone stepped up it still would have been a significan drop off.

[sharpe1027]

I think one injury is the difference of 8-6 and 10-4 or better. Jemichael Finley. when we lost him we were unreliable at TE and we haven't recovered that. Nobody has stepped up at TE as opposed to almost every other injured position. To top it off, replacing finley is impossible, even if someone stepped up it still would have been a significan drop off.

I think the combination of Grant AND Finley is a real killer. Sometime back, other posters explained that the two best ways to attack a soft 2-deep zone were 1) running the ball and 2) a TE that is a threat down the field. We lost both.

[mmmdk]

This thread has, at least, shown "great effort".

Grant - has been hard to replace. Truely missed.
Burnett - a rookie!? C'mon...Peprah made me forget Burnett.
Barnett - solid player but I do not miss those bad angles /missed tackles. Bishop's better!
Finley - the guy is missed; BIG TIME!!!
Tauscher - OL is in shambles, period, plus Tausch was losing a step anyway. Trouble is that OL, again, was being overrated by TT/coaches.
Jones - solid starter. Fact is: we don't even know if we really miss him. What has he [really] done?

The real trouble with lost starters is on offense; especially the underdeveloped OL. Our OL is mediocre at best.

Backups Neal & Harrell are missed due to Jolly suspension. Chillar is a good backup and hence missed. The rest are insignificant.

Players miss games; that's part of the game. Live with it or become apologists.

I see OL as the main culprit and injuries secondary; 'cos especially the defenders that were placed on IR, have replaced with outstanding play by Peprah & Bishop. To me they've been better than Burnett & Barnett duo; that were questionable anyhow.

And don't get me started with coaching...jeez! I'll give the coaches the"great effort" tag - at best.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Grant and Finley are really missed. Losing Rodgers for 1 1/2 games may have cost us 1-2 victories. Losing Matthews for 1 1/4 games may have cost us 1-2 victories. Those were big losses. Losing Ryan Pickett and Cullen Jenkins were big. Driver being ineffective for 4-5 games hurt, but we have depth there. Losing Mike Neal was big also--especially with the injuries to Pickett and Jenkins.