life not worth living

[woodbuck27]

Would it make anybody feel better to know that the last time the Packers looked this bad on Thanksgiving Day was with Lombardi's greatest team? The 1962 Packers were 10-0 going into Detroit and were humbled 26-14. The final score doesn't tell the story. The Packers were down 26-0 until 2 meaningless 4th quarter TD's. Bart Starr was sacked 10 times and intercepted twice. The Packers had 122 yards total offense, and fumbled 5 times, losing three.

Damn stop it ! Just plain STOP IT YOU BRUTE !!

I've been trying to forget that game for 51 years.

Your a bad man... a very bad man.

[woodbuck27]

No inspiring analogy intended. Just pointing out even great teams can have a really bad day now and then.

and .....

'Of course'.... your realizing now that the 2013 Green Bay Packers aren't close to being 'a great team'.

Eh ?!

[Patler]

Would it make anybody feel better to know that the last time the Packers looked this bad on Thanksgiving Day was with Lombardi's greatest team? The 1962 Packers were 10-0 going into Detroit and were humbled 26-14. The final score doesn't tell the story. The Packers were down 26-0 until 2 meaningless 4th quarter TD's. Bart Starr was sacked 10 times and intercepted twice. The Packers had 122 yards total offense, and fumbled 5 times, losing three.

I remember that game. It was horrible. Starr was beaten to a pulp. The Packers were a dominant team, and for some reason just failed to show up that day.

Packers at Detroit was a tradition that felt like it had been going on for ever, but had only been 10-12 years or so. Lombardi was completely embarrassed by the game in '62, and the story goes that he complained to the league about the unfairness to Packer players always having to be away from their families on the Thanksgiving holiday. They played again in '63, but stating in '64 other teams went to Detroit, the Bears quite often, and the Packers didn't play in the game for 20 years.

[woodbuck27]

I remember that game. It was horrible. Starr was beaten to a pulp. The Packers were a dominant team, and for some reason just failed to show up that day.

Packers at Detroit was a tradition that felt like it had been going on for ever, but had only been 10-12 years or so. Lombardi was completely embarrassed by the game in '62, and the story goes that he complained to the league about the unfairness to Packer players always having to be away from their families on the Thanksgiving holiday. They played again in '63, but stating in '64 other teams went to Detroit, the Bears quite often, and the Packers didn't play in the game for 20 years.

OK that's it right there.

You and I are close in age.

You must be older. Eh!?

[Patler]

OK that's it right there.

You and I are close in age.

You must be older. Eh!?

"Older" yes, we just won't get into what I,...we... are older than!

[woodbuck27]

"Older" yes, we just won't get into what I,...we... are older than!

Yea that's the hormone shift thing.

Be polite... how dare you act so impertinent .... don't ask my age.

[Pugger]

I can't imagine how Aaron Rodgers being out changes anyone's approach to how they do their job from a fundamentals standpoint. When the defensive line and coaches meet and watch film and prepare on the practice field, do you think anyone is talking about Aaron Rodgers not being there when it comes to correcting assignments, making sure they are lined up correctly, making sure they use whatever technique they use to get off of blocks, etc.?

Sure, his ability to put pressure on the other team and score points, or at least drive the team and create field position issues for the other team does help the defense, but I can't imagine anyone on defense sitting there say, "A-Rod is not here, we can't do our jobs." We talk about Capers losing his job, but is a new DC going to make some of these guys better at their jobs? Maybe a new DC can get through to the guys we have better, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the guys winning one on one battles and being pros.

You can't deny Rodgers' otherworldly play hasn't camouflaged the shortcomings on this team, can you? A new DC just might change the atmosphere and philosophy of the defense. Something has to give. You either can your coaches or cut players. There is enough talent here for a new DC to work with.

[Pugger]

Would it make anybody feel better to know that the last time the Packers looked this bad on Thanksgiving Day was with Lombardi's greatest team? The 1962 Packers were 10-0 going into Detroit and were humbled 26-14. The final score doesn't tell the story. The Packers were down 26-0 until 2 meaningless 4th quarter TD's. Bart Starr was sacked 10 times and intercepted twice. The Packers had 122 yards total offense, and fumbled 5 times, losing three.

Yes. And we have a legit excuse - a 4th string QB and a roster full of backups. Back in 1962 I doubt there were this many injuries to starters on Vince's roster as Mike has today.

[bobblehead]

You can't deny Rodgers' otherworldly play hasn't camouflaged the shortcomings on this team, can you? A new DC just might change the atmosphere and philosophy of the defense. Something has to give. You either can your coaches or cut players. There is enough talent here for a new DC to work with.

Can I say that the play of Tozien (our practice squad QB) and Flynn has exacerbated our short comings? If the only reason we looked good before was ARod, is Tolzien/Flynn the only reason we look bad? Chicken or egg?

[woodbuck27]

You can't deny Rodgers' otherworldly play hasn't camouflaged the shortcomings on this team, can you? A new DC just might change the atmosphere and philosophy of the defense. Something has to give. You either can your coaches or cut players. There is enough talent here for a new DC to work with.

PLEASE Pugger try to somehow watch a recording of this last game.

It'll straighten you out. If your honest with yourself you'll see it as 'IT' is.

It's so bad that no bloody way you would ever hope or imagine that Aaron Rodgers should return to the Packers Vs Atlanta.

As this team is now...it's clearly much more than injuries and poor coaching.

[woodbuck27]

Can I say that the play of Tozien (our practice squad QB) and Flynn has exacerbated our short comings? If the only reason we looked good before was ARod, is Tolzien/Flynn the only reason we look bad? Chicken or egg?

GREAT (Aaron Rodgers ) + BAD = OK to get by with and wins ... Until the Packers face the BEST TEAMS = BAD = LOSING.

See games over the past 2 seasons Vs stiffer competition. As near as last season re-call the Play Off EXIT Vs San Fran.

Vs

Backup QB's or ... BAD + BAD = BAD = LOSING ... PERIOD.



Boolean Algebra wins again !

[Smidgeon]

I can't imagine how Aaron Rodgers being out changes anyone's approach to how they do their job from a fundamentals standpoint. When the defensive line and coaches meet and watch film and prepare on the practice field, do you think anyone is talking about Aaron Rodgers not being there when it comes to correcting assignments, making sure they are lined up correctly, making sure they use whatever technique they use to get off of blocks, etc.?

Sure, his ability to put pressure on the other team and score points, or at least drive the team and create field position issues for the other team does help the defense, but I can't imagine anyone on defense sitting there say, "A-Rod is not here, we can't do our jobs." We talk about Capers losing his job, but is a new DC going to make some of these guys better at their jobs? Maybe a new DC can get through to the guys we have better, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the guys winning one on one battles and being pros.

I think the defense is designed to play from ahead in blowouts. It isn't designed for slugfests. Not having Rodgers would exaggerate those shortcomings.

But even if that was true, it doesn't account for the Thanksgiving showing. As others have said, something has to give. There IS talent on the team, and M3 has said it isn't the scheme. Well, if it isn't the scheme, it's the coaching. And it seems like none of the defensive coaches are doing that outstanding of a job at present. DL, OLB, MLB, CBs, and S have all had serious gaffes that shouldn't have occurred past the second preseason game.

I like Greene and have heard good things about Trgo. But the rest...?

[pbmax]

Trgo (DC) and John Fox (HC) had a falling out in Carolina when the bottom dropped out on their defense near the end of Fox's tenure. Trgo left a year before Fox was canned I believe. Not sure what that was about, but if you believe past is prologue, Trgo's defense followed the same trajectory as Capers.

The defense is not designed to play from a lead, but its run defense shortcoming, whatever the cause, makes it seem like that. Rodgers makes that less of an issue.

My concern about the defense would remain whether Capers stays or not:

The players are young and presumably have some talent, but far too often it doesn't show on the field. Or their weaknesses show more. Is this position coaching OR is it a mismatch of type of player drafted and defense being played?

Capers defense was originally played with zone CBs who came up and tackled. The Packers draft athletes who need to be taught coverage first and they specialize in man (except Hyde). Who makes the call that this no longer works unless its Woodson and Collins back there?