Negatives

[Brandon494]

Had they gotten that FG we still had over 2 minutes for Rodgers to move this team into scoring position to retake the lead.

True but we also fumbled inside the red zone and dropped easy INTs, can't make those mistake and expect to win many football games.

[wist43]

Downlinemen do not equal pass rushers. Clay Matthews is almost never a down lineman. You don't have to be a down lineman to get pressure. A 1-5 or 2-4 nickle subpackage does not mean they are rushing 1 or 2. You know this.

And even if it wasn't by in large a passing situation, a package like that has advantages against the run too. Even with the size mismatch you can force the offense to guess correctly against a run blitz.

You are all over the place trying to defend an alignment that failed miserably all in an effort to poke me in the eye... give it up. Capers approach that you're getting a hard on over failed, and it failed quite predicably. The reason you need to have 3 down linemen in that situation is to deal with run or pass.

1 DL is an invitation to run. The situation had run written all over it; Seattle ran it for the 1st down with ease. Having a bunch of 240 lbs LB's and 195 lbs DB's wandering around the LOS is in no way going to be able to deal with 300 lbs OL firing off the ball.

It was a stupid call on Capers part and can't be defended - fuck man, give it up.

[Joemailman]

Yes we are lucky that the Saints missed that FG, we could have easily lost that game.

The only reason the Saints were in a position to kick that field goal was because the officials somehow missed an obvious fumble by Sproles. Overall, the Packers have been far more unlucky than lucky.

[Zool]

The only reason the Saints were in a position to kick that field goal was because the officials somehow missed an obvious fumble by Sproles. Overall, the Packers have been far more unlucky than lucky.

Golden Taint agrees.

Tho if Sproles could catch a cold, they would have kept the drive going.

[Pugger]

True but we also fumbled inside the red zone and dropped easy INTs, can't make those mistake and expect to win many football games.

I doubt Rodgers would have fumbled like Harrell did...

[Zool]

I still want the answer to my Patriots vs Packers last year in relation to the apparent horrible coaching the Packers D is receiving.

[mmmdk]

Face it; Packers has regressed to a team that depends on being lucky/unlucky to determine the outcome of their games.

With any "Luck" this sunday, you'll know what I mean.

[3irty1]

You are all over the place trying to defend an alignment that failed miserably all in an effort to poke me in the eye... give it up. Capers approach that you're getting a hard on over failed, and it failed quite predicably. The reason you need to have 3 down linemen in that situation is to deal with run or pass.

1 DL is an invitation to run. The situation had run written all over it; Seattle ran it for the 1st down with ease. Having a bunch of 240 lbs LB's and 195 lbs DB's wandering around the LOS is in no way going to be able to deal with 300 lbs OL firing off the ball.

It was a stupid call on Capers part and can't be defended - fuck man, give it up.

I'm not trying to make it personal at all, I really don't have a problem with that defensive call and I gave you all the reasons why. True there is a size disadvantage but for the offense it still means getting a hat on a hat for a blocking scheme to work and that's not easy to do when you don't know where the hats will be. In my experience Packer fans are a bit spoiled when it comes to these situations from the Mike Sherman years when the packers were an elite power running team and could take 3 or 4 yards whenever they needed them. Very few teams in the NFL will even attempt to run on 3rd and 3 much less 3rd and 5 and those teams are the top one or two power running teams of the day. I won't argue that it was an invitation to run, because 5 yards when you need it against any defense of NFL players is a big gamble--especially when the defensive formation dictates that you run an inside zone play. I think this is a common theme with Capers, he often invites teams to run.

Had they come out in the 3-4 or 5-2 or whatever you would have wanted and they pass to convert on 3rd and 5 I would be the one critisizing Capers--but I wouldn't make ignorant sweeping statements that nickle packages are a gimmick and there is no place in football for 1 and 2 DL formations.

[Patler]

Face it; Packers has regressed to a team that depends on being lucky/unlucky to determine the outcome of their games.

With any "Luck" this sunday, you'll know what I mean.

I'm not prepared to say they have "regressed" quite yet. Teams go through ups and downs in performance. Last year, I hoped they would struggle a bit toward midseason, so they could be ascending again toward playoffs. Instead, they played at an almost unsustainable level on offense for almost the entire year.

This year, STs are playing well, and they have the components to be better defensively than last year. The offense is inconsistent. The next four weeks should be a good indication if it is the normal ups and downs that teams face, or true regression from a team that maybe played way over its head last year.

[Joemailman]

I'm not prepared to say they have "regressed" quite yet. Teams go through ups and downs in performance. Last year, I hoped they would struggle a bit toward midseason, so they could be ascending again toward playoffs. Instead, they played at an almost unsustainable level on offense for almost the entire year.

This year, STs are playing well, and they have the components to be better defensively than last year. The offense is inconsistent. The next four weeks should be a good indication if it is the normal ups and downs that teams face, or true regression from a team that maybe played way over its head last year.

Any team that goes 15-1 in the NFL played over its head. Reality sets in the next year. JSO ran a story earlier this year where they pointed out that teams that win 14 or more games one year, on average win 4 fewer the next year.

People need to realize that what Rodgers did last year was probably an anomaly. From 2008-2010, Rodgers averaged 29 TD passes per season. He's currently on pace for 28. If Rodgers throws about 30 this year, many will see that as a regression from last year, when in reality it's an indication of how good a QB he is. Which is pretty damn good.

[denverYooper]

I'm not prepared to say they have "regressed" quite yet. Teams go through ups and downs in performance. Last year, I hoped they would struggle a bit toward midseason, so they could be ascending again toward playoffs. Instead, they played at an almost unsustainable level on offense for almost the entire year.

This year, STs are playing well, and they have the components to be better defensively than last year. The offense is inconsistent. The next four weeks should be a good indication if it is the normal ups and downs that teams face, or true regression from a team that maybe played way over its head last year.

The Packers have also faced one of the toughest 4 game starts in the league. Even New Orleans, at 0-4, is no cakewalk. Their schedule looks a lot harder now that the NFC West teams are all playing pretty well.

In the last game, Rodgers only threw one pass over 20 yards, so it seems that they are beginning to accept life in the short-intermediate game for now. It should be interesting to see what that means going forward, but I think their offense will settle into a groove and the "blueprint" used to beat them will become obsolete. Also, the real refs coming back will theoretically not mess with the fast break game that the Pack's O likes to run.

Funny thing is that the O playing more of a short game will likely make the D better, if for no other reason than they'll get more rest.

[wist43]

I still want the answer to my Patriots vs Packers last year in relation to the apparent horrible coaching the Packers D is receiving.

Zool, I have no idea what is going on with the Patriots - can't remember the last NE game I watched for more than a couple minutes. Can't offer an opinion on something I know nothing about.

[Patler]

People need to realize that what Rodgers did last year was probably an anomaly. From 2008-2010, Rodgers averaged 29 TD passes per season. He's currently on pace for 28. If Rodgers throws about 30 this year, many will see that as a regression from last year, when in reality it's an indication of how good a QB he is. Which is pretty damn good.

That is the biggest part of it. No way could Rodgers be expected to duplicate the way he played last year, but he could come close again some year. He was virtually flawless in 2011. However, I hope Rodgers and the Packer offense have grown beyond his averages of 2008-2010, to something in the 30-32 average per year for the next 5-6 years.

I remember Aikman going on and on one game last year, marveling at how Rodgers was playing. He commented about how in spite of the #s, Rodgers was really playing much better than Brees, Brady, etc. He said time and time again; "It really isn't as easy as Rodgers is making it look." It was after he had done quite a few Packer games.

[George Cumby]

That is the biggest part of it. No way could Rodgers be expected to duplicate the way he played last year, but he could come close again some year. He was virtually flawless in 2011. However, I hope Rodgers and the Packer offense have grown beyond his averages of 2008-2010, to something in the 30-32 average per year for the next 5-6 years.

I remember Aikman going on and on one game last year, marveling at how Rodgers was playing. He commented about how in spite of the #s, Rodgers was really playing much better than Brees, Brady, etc. He said time and time again; "It really isn't as easy as Rodgers is making it look." It was after he had done quite a few Packer games.

A lot of people here hate on TA for hating on the Packers. My observation is very differenet in that he speaks very highly of the team from TT on down. My general sense is that was an attitude change after you-know-who left town.

[Zool]

A lot of people here hate on TA for hating on the Packers. My observation is very differenet in that he speaks very highly of the team from TT on down. My general sense is that was an attitude change after you-know-who left town.

I think it's collateral damage from him being in the booth with Joe Buck, who is of course the anti-christ and should be burned on a crucifix.