What is needed for you to enjoy, have fun watching the Packers?

[woodbuck27]

We were 5-2 before Rodgers got hurt. Yup, just terrible.

Seattle isn't paying their starting QB diddly squat so they can afford to dabble in FA.

Please !

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/schedule/_/name/gb/green-bay-packers

Look at the scores and Packers Vs the competition before Aaron Rodgers went down:

Week 1... a LOSS to the San Fran 49ers SCORE 34 - 28.

Week 3 ... a LOSS to the Cincy Bengals SCORE 34 - 30

Week 8 ... A WIN over the Minnesota Vikings SCORE 44 - 31

Three other 'wins' over four teams, including Washington and Cleveland.

Do you see anything wrong there Pugger?

[Pugger]

Please !

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/schedule/_/name/gb/green-bay-packers

Look at the scores and Packers Vs the competition before Aaron Rodgers went down:

Week 1... a LOSS to the San Fran 49ers SCORE 34 - 28.

Week 3 ... a LOSS to the Cincy Bengals SCORE 34 - 30

Week 8 ... A WIN over the Minnesota Vikings SCORE 44 - 31

Three other 'wins' over four teams, including Washington and Cleveland.

Do you see anything wrong there Pugger?

The D giving up 30+ points? It was an issue but not many talked about it because our offense was good enough to over come it and we were winning more than we lost. Woody, why did you put quotes around "wins"? Did those wins not mean as much as when you beat a team by more than one score? This isn't the NCAA. You don't get extra credit for blowing out an opponent or winning by 1. All that matters is the W or the L.

[bobblehead]

For me the difference between the teams of the 70's and 80's and now is that back then we had MUCH lower expectations. Those teams were terrible, and we just never expected a lot. We have been accustomed to a decent team for a while now, so seeing this bad is quite a shock. While IMO the writing has been on the wall with TT's complacency and refusal to go after free agents. I think a losing season and a total house cleaning, from TT down would be the best thing for this team. Of course the TT/stubby sack jockeys will respond by saying how great they both are.

So you wanted FA acquisitions? Tell me who, in the offseason you would have spent money on to replace a projected starter? And yes, we have covered all the great safeties that were available this offseason to replace Jennings/McMillin

[woodbuck27]

The D giving up 30+ points? It was an issue but not many talked about it because our offense was good enough to over come it and we were winning more than we lost. Woody, why did you put quotes around "wins"? Did those wins not mean as much as when you beat a team by more than one score? This isn't the NCAA. You don't get extra credit for blowing out an opponent or winning by 1. All that matters is the W or the L.

I was focusing on the fact that three times with Aaron Rodgers behind Center the Packers 'D' allowed 30+ points. I see that as a sign that our defense was sketchy before AR went down. Well actually some Packer fans know that the Packer 'D' was weak entering this season (See the San Fran win over the Packers in an early exit from the playoffs last year) to prove that was the case and needed to be a focus for 'last off season'.

Right here on Packerrats that was discussed a great deal:

Recall the outstanding effort that wist43 made to convince Packerrats of this fact! I've agreed that wist43 was correct. That was obvious.

" Woody, why did you put quotes around "wins"? Did those wins not mean as much as when you beat a team by more than one score? This isn't the NCAA. You don't get extra credit for blowing out an opponent or winning by 1. All that matters is the W or the L. " Pugger

Your redirecting this conversation from a focus on the Packers 'D'... to wins and margins of wins. We're discussing the Packers quality of competence on the defensive side of the ball Pugger.

All the same:

Yes a 'W' is a win. I don't care by how many points the Packers take a win. Win by ' one point ' or win by ' 30 points ' is all the same to me in the 'W' column.

In order to be called a balanced and strong team that team should have a measure of solid strength defensively. It shouldn't be one way or the other but be balanced on both sides of the ball. A solid to great defensive team has to have the offensive strength to put up enough points for the 'W'.

As to this part:

and .... " three other 'wins' over four teams, including Washington and Cleveland. " woodbuck27

That should have read :

Four not Three other 'wins' over four teams, including Washington and Cleveland.

When I discovered your post to me it was too late to revise that.

Note:

I mentioned Washington and Cleveland because these are teams that are considered weaker in the NFL with 3 and 4 'W's respectively.

PACKERS !

[Patler]

For me the difference between the teams of the 70's and 80's and now is that back then we had MUCH lower expectations. Those teams were terrible, and we just never expected a lot. We have been accustomed to a decent team for a while now, so seeing this bad is quite a shock. While IMO the writing has been on the wall with TT's complacency and refusal to go after free agents. I think a losing season and a total house cleaning, from TT down would be the best thing for this team. Of course the TT/stubby sack jockeys will respond by saying how great they both are.

In other words, we have been spoiled. I can agree with that. On the other hand, I have been around enough good athletic teams for enough years to realize that sometimes a season goes in the crapper. It happens even when you think you have a "perfect" team, and the 2013 Packers were not that by any stretch.

TT is complacent? You think so? I don't. He turns over a very large portion of his roster every year. That is anything but complacent.

The FA thing? I firmly believe it is mostly fools gold. But, we (collectively, as a group) have gone around and around on that many times. I guess we will just disagree on that.

[sharpe1027]

Probably not necessary, but a cold beer helps.

[bobblehead]

Say what you want about free agency being a folly, but it looks pretty successful in Seattle. There needs to be some big changes, yet there won't be.

yea, it works great for the most active teams in FA, the Redskins, the Vikings, the dream team eagles, and don't forget about the most active team last year, the titans. But we definately should have chased that big name FA safety ed reed, he has a few years left. TT is such a fool.

[Patler]

Say what you want about free agency being a folly, but it looks pretty successful in Seattle. There needs to be some big changes, yet there won't be.

yea, it works great for the most active teams in FA, the Redskins, the Vikings, the dream team eagles, and don't forget about the most active team last year, the titans. But we definately should have chased that big name FA safety ed reed, he has a few years left. TT is such a fool.

Not only that, there is a lot of the story yet to play out in Seattle, too. So far, they have accomplished good season's records last year and this and a single playoff win. They are carrying $5 million in dead money for just Flynn and Winfield, and a total of almost $8 million in dead money. It is manageable this year for them, partly because they have little to nothing invested in a QB, and they were building from a roster that had won 23 games the four seasons prior to last year.

But, an interesting thing is shaping up in Seattle. They have active contracts that will count for over $125 M against the 2014 salary cap, and have 18 players poised to enter free agency, including Michael Bennett, Golden Tate and other starters. Even if they let all of them walk, and replace 18 roster spots with rookies, there is substantial cost to add to the $125M in active contracts. They have $88M already against the 2015 salary cap. Some of the larger ones have substantial dead money costs in 2014 and 2015 if the players are released. To be sure, some can be cut with substantial caps savings and little impact on the team (like Sidney Rice), but others would be missed on the field. On top of that, eventually they will have to pay Russell Wilson and some other young players, like Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas.

They rolled $10M. from 2012 into 2013, and have spent most of all they have for this year. They will have an effective cap limit that will be less in 2014 than what they have this year.

Being a player in FA is one thing when you have an under-performing roster, a cheap starting QB and cap space to make mistakes. It will be interesting to see how active they remain in FA as their salary cap tightens. Even TT was relatively active in FA his first few years in GB, too. It will also be interesting to see if they have something that can be maintained for an extended time, as the Packers have.

[Fritz]

Not only that, there is a lot of the story yet to play out in Seattle, too. So far, they have accomplished good season's records last year and this and a single playoff win. They are carrying $5 million in dead money for just Flynn and Winfield, and a total of almost $8 million in dead money. It is manageable this year for them, partly because they have little to nothing invested in a QB, and they were building from a roster that had won 23 games the four seasons prior to last year.

But, an interesting thing is shaping up in Seattle. They have active contracts that will count for over $125 M against the 2014 salary cap, and have 18 players poised to enter free agency, including Michael Bennett, Golden Tate and other starters. Even if they let all of them walk, and replace 18 roster spots with rookies, there is substantial cost to add to the $125M in active contracts. They have $88M already against the 2015 salary cap. Some of the larger ones have substantial dead money costs in 2014 and 2015 if the players are released. To be sure, some can be cut with substantial caps savings and little impact on the team (like Sidney Rice), but others would be missed on the field. On top of that, eventually they will have to pay Russell Wilson and some other young players, like Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas.

They rolled $10M. from 2012 into 2013, and have spent most of all they have for this year. They will have an effective cap limit that will be less in 2014 than what they have this year.

Being a player in FA is one thing when you have an under-performing roster, a cheap starting QB and cap space to make mistakes. It will be interesting to see how active they remain in FA as their salary cap tightens. Even TT was relatively active in FA his first few years in GB, too. It will also be interesting to see if they have something that can be maintained for an extended time, as the Packers have.

Looks like it's "win now" in Seattle, or else. This surprised me, given that the management over there does have ties to the Ted Thompson way, which is financially more conservative.

If Seattle wins it all this year, you could make an argument for doing it that way, just as you could make an argument for doing it Ted's way, given that under his watch the Pack as a SB win.

[Patler]

If Seattle wins it all this year, you could make an argument for doing it that way, just as you could make an argument for doing it Ted's way, given that under his watch the Pack as a SB win.

Yes, you could; unless it all falls apart over the next few seasons. The Packers have been relevant in playoff discussions for the last 20+ years, except for a season or two here and there under all of the last 3 GMs. If Seattle wins the SB, then falls back into playoff irrelevance, I would argue their way is not the way to do it.

[denverYooper]

I'd like to see Datone Jones get some more snaps and hope to see Perry develop some more. With Rodgers back next year, a front with Matthews/Daniels/Jones/Perry *could* be fun to watch against teams that have to pass.

[Zool]

A new C, RG, RT who can actually block would be a nice change of pace. Watching QB's with good lines makes me sad for AR.

[MadScientist]

Things that I would enjoy:
Seeing Sherrod and Lane Taylor manning the right side and doing a credible job (just not so good that Campen keeps his job).
Seeing somebody not named Clay develop into a pass rusher so the QB has pressure without a blitz.
Seeing Tolzien start to look like a decent backup - hitting open guys, working with some tempo, leading the team to the end zone.
Seeing some actual arms out, drive through the ball carrier tackling by the defense.

In summary, seeing the Packers look like they are no where near the worst team in the NFL when they don't have AR.

[denverYooper]

Not only that, there is a lot of the story yet to play out in Seattle, too. So far, they have accomplished good season's records last year and this and a single playoff win. They are carrying $5 million in dead money for just Flynn and Winfield, and a total of almost $8 million in dead money. It is manageable this year for them, partly because they have little to nothing invested in a QB, and they were building from a roster that had won 23 games the four seasons prior to last year.

But, an interesting thing is shaping up in Seattle. They have active contracts that will count for over $125 M against the 2014 salary cap, and have 18 players poised to enter free agency, including Michael Bennett, Golden Tate and other starters. Even if they let all of them walk, and replace 18 roster spots with rookies, there is substantial cost to add to the $125M in active contracts. They have $88M already against the 2015 salary cap. Some of the larger ones have substantial dead money costs in 2014 and 2015 if the players are released. To be sure, some can be cut with substantial caps savings and little impact on the team (like Sidney Rice), but others would be missed on the field. On top of that, eventually they will have to pay Russell Wilson and some other young players, like Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas.

They rolled $10M. from 2012 into 2013, and have spent most of all they have for this year. They will have an effective cap limit that will be less in 2014 than what they have this year.

Being a player in FA is one thing when you have an under-performing roster, a cheap starting QB and cap space to make mistakes. It will be interesting to see how active they remain in FA as their salary cap tightens. Even TT was relatively active in FA his first few years in GB, too. It will also be interesting to see if they have something that can be maintained for an extended time, as the Packers have.

[Patler]

FDR on the Seattle sidelines? ! !