DAMMIT.....Is SAN FRAN our new DALLAS of the 90's ?????

[woodbuck27]

Last year 49ers dominated both games. This year, Packers actually had a 4th quarter lead in both games, so they made strides. The Packers defense just isn't good enough right now, although they played respectably yesterday. The 49ers have more playmakers on defense, and I think that's the difference. But let's face it, that game could easily have gone the either way. I don't think the situation is similar to the '90's Dallas situation. Last year it was, but not now.

Yea right Joemailman. Are you viewing different Packer Vs 49ers games than I am?

Are we seeing the Green Bay Packers achieve Vs the San Fran 49ers? Are you really seeing that Joe? If you are I'm certainly not and adamantly stand by my position and here's my proof that the 49ers own the Green Bay Packers. That the 49ers simply put handle the Packers and do so now consistently:

We saw the Packers lose two games to the San Francisco 49ers in 2013.

Is that really progress? Please try hard come to terms with yourself. Don't allow 'the blind fan' in Packer fan to dominate, disillusion you Joe.

Try being REAL. Maybe it's hard for you? It is hard to see the TRUTH when you hoped / imagined so much more. The shock value of a complete smashing of your hopes. That's exactly where I landed after Sundays latest loss to the San Francisco 49ers.

I refuse now to let that result in any way shape or form do anything but recommend change as a Green Bay Packer fan. I'm right where I need to be. Totally honest with myself as a Packer fan. The same way I need to be with life in any general sense.

It's 'just real' that will somehow help us Packer fans see the right path to ever winning against any such talented team as the San Francisco 49ers. If we don't all get there and all focus on something a lot more for the Green Bay Packers my team is doomed to failure in any future playoffs.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

If Hyde makes that pick we win. This was a close game.

If...if ...if... if's. Sure I saw many 'if's Tony Oday.

The result on the scoreboard and the pain in that Packer locker room.

A lose ! Another loss!! Another damn loss to this damn team.

The San Francisco 49ers are off next week to play the Carolina Panthers and not the Green Bay Packers. That hurts most of Packer nation so badly, I imagine. It hurts me.

How can four straight loss's be cast aside with any excuse; be rationalized in any way?

It was a loss.

It was the fourth straight loss.

The Green Bay Packers have now 'lost' four (4) straight games to the San Francisco 49ers.

What part of that doesn't embarrass you and/or doesn't hurt 'You'?

Although all as sure as hell isn't green in terms of the current Green Bay Packers.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

For me, this is all on Thompson. Most of his first round selections have been very subpar, especially in the last 3-4 years. If he's not going to add anything through free agency, then he damn well better hit on more than half of his 1st round picks. The current strategy has not been effective in accumulating talent over the last 3 years. To me, Thompson also screwed up royally this past offseason by having such a damn hissy fit over the kicking position and neglecting to acquire a capable backup QB.

The Green Bay media needs to be far more critical of Thompson this offseason and put some pressure on him. I'm not saying he needs to go...he's a very good GM, and I think he'll respond well to the challenge. He's been subpar lately and he needs to step it up just as much as Raji or Finley or Burnett...that needs to be expressed. Teams like SF and SEA have made themselves better this past few offseasons with decent FA pickups like Boldin and very solid drafts. We have been spinning our wheels it seems. We are elite because of Rodgers...without him, our team is mostly crap.

You see it clearly.

Congratulations.

There's no sensible way that Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy can continue with their ways, manners and attitudes. Their lack of half decent foresight based in a certain reality.

I'm totally appalled with this incredible arrogance that we all should be clearly seeing in these men that we count on for the best fortunes of the Green Bay Packers.

They must change and we must see much more positive results from both of these Packer leaders or they should be seriously dealt with. I want them at least to be placed on serious warning. Warning from the media as a result of obvious fan reactions that cannot in any way be seriously positive now.

Please stop with blame on injuries. That scapegoat distraction doesn't wash. If you want the reason why...look at the score in that latest loss of four to the San Francisco 49ers.To blame a three point loss on injuries is simply refined arrogance. That game had to be won. That Packer team was perfectly set up for victory in that game and the reason for the loss were many but it all falls on the leadership.

If TT and MM both don't step up and clearly take the blame for this 2013 season result (s). Their certainly out to lunch arrogant. I'm fed up with Mike McCarthy hiding behind "the same Ole words and shrugs and what can you do's" and Ted Thompson 'just hiding'.

All of Packer Nation must unite in gaining at least that much control over a situation that is bad and could 'only' get worse. I can attest to this as a fact. A teams fans should count because they do.

The teams fans are the most important element of why a team franchise exists. You never piss off the fan base. If as the team's leadership you make moves and worse don't make moves to send the fan base south of you. You might best retire because the demand will come for you to be FIRED!

AQ clear message to Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy. This is this Packer fans position and warning.

The Green Bay Packers must win and nothing less than that is acceptable. Winning is the 'only' accurate measuring tool for your competency.

PACKERS !

[Patler]

To me, Thompson also screwed up royally this past offseason by having such a damn hissy fit over the kicking position and neglecting to acquire a capable backup QB.

Much of your criticism of TT is understandable, but I can't say I understand the above, let alone agree with them.

What "hissy fit" did he have over the kicking position? He brought in some competition for Crosby, as should have been expected. He protected the Packer salary cap when he decided to stick with Crosby, just in case Crosby had not fixed what ailed him. Crosby responded. In my opinion, this was an example of a GM handling the situation almost perfectly.

As for the backup QB position, a few comments:

- without any facts to prove it, I believe TT relies as much on MM's opinion about the backup QBs as he does on his own. Just a guess on my part.

- I can't fault him/them for taking a chance with BJ Coleman. He had the physical abilities to be worth taking a chance, and I have to commend them for not wasting too much time on him. It would have been easy to drag him along as a 3rd QB or PS player for a second year, but they were very decisive with him. The gave him a fair, but not excessive opportunity.

- they probably showed too much confidence in Graham Harrell, but I'm not convinced they didn't fix the problem before the season started by signing Seneca Wallace. Had he not been injured, McGinn might have been right about the Packers' prospects of playing half the season without Rodgers.

[woodbuck27]

Much of your criticism of TT is understandable, but I can't say I understand the above, let alone agree with them.

What "hissy fit" did he have over the kicking position? He brought in some competition for Crosby, as should have been expected. He protected the Packer salary cap when he decided to stick with Crosby, just in case Crosby had not fixed what ailed him. Crosby responded. In my opinion, this was an example of a GM handling the situation almost perfectly.

As for the backup QB position, a few comments:

- without any facts to prove it, I believe TT relies as much on MM's opinion about the backup QBs as he does on his own. Just a guess on my part.

- they probably showed too much confidence in Graham Harrell, but I'm not convinced they didn't fix the problem before the season started by signing Seneca Wallace. Had he not been injured, McGinn might have been right about the Packers' prospects of playing half the season without Rodgers.

** "Much of your criticism of TT is understandable, but I can't say I understand the above, let alone agree with them." Patler

Criticism of TT is understandable but....?

There's a certain contradiction there. Which is it going to be Patler?

** " without any facts to prove it, I believe TT relies as much on MM's opinion about the backup QBs as he does on his own. Just a guess on my part. " Patler

Green Bay Packer 'General Manager' Ted Thompson is acknowledged by some as a draft genius.

To be such TT must be capable of evaluating the prospects before the draft and once selected to be a Green Bay Packer prospect take a certain focused interest in doing a frequent follow-up and comparison of his initial grade on those he drafted. Certainly that and those that make the teams roster.

Ted Thompson has to be fully aware of the day to day happenings with the Packers and observing such or visable.

Mike McCarty didn't close on Seneca Wallace's hire as a backup QB. That was on Ted Thompson. It's then incumbent on General Manager Ted Thompson to ensure that his hire is working out just very well Thank You. This is the backup QB were discussing here. Ted Thompson's team is 'only' as secure in terms of wins; as is the strength of his hire at backup QB. Ted Thompson must never hire that man and then forget him.

Ted Thompson: Hi Mike... How's Seneca Wallace coming along?

Mike McCarthy: Ohh Gee Ted... he's doing very well. Nice hire Ted.

Ted: Well Thanks Mike. OK Mike ...Well carry on. I'm pretty busy here.

Packers !

You've got to be ready for 'the show' to GO !

[Patler]

** "Much of your criticism of TT is understandable, but I can't say I understand the above, let alone agree with them." Patler

Criticism of TT is understandable but....?

There's a certain contradiction there. Which is it going to be Patler?

** " without any facts to prove it, I believe TT relies as much on MM's opinion about the backup QBs as he does on his own. Just a guess on my part. " Patler

Green Bay Packer 'General Manager' Ted Thompson is acknowledged by some as a draft genius.

To be such TT must be capable of evaluating the prospects before the draft and once selected to be a Green Bay Packer prospect take a certain focused interest in doing a frequent follow-up and comparison of his initial grade on those he drafted. Certainly that and those that make the teams roster.

Ted Thompson has to be fully aware of the day to day happenings with the Packers and observing such or visable.

Mike McCarty didn't close on Seneca Wallace's hire as a backup QB. That was on Ted Thompson. It's then incumbent on General Manager Ted Thompson to ensure that his hire is working out just very well Thank You. This is the backup QB were discussing here. Ted Thompson's team is 'only' as secure in terms of wins; as is the strength of his hire at backup QB. Ted Thompson must never hire that man and then forget him.

Ted Thompson: Hi Mike... How's Seneca Wallace coming along?

Mike McCarthy: Ohh Gee Ted... he's doing very well. Nice hire Ted.

Ted: Well Thanks Mike. OK Mike ...Well carry on. I'm pretty busy here.

Packers !

You've got to be ready for 'the show' to GO !

You are sort of muddling issues there Woodbuck. There is no contradiction at all in my response. As I said, I understood much of the criticism, but took issue only with two specific statements that I quoted. I left the remainder of his post without comment from me, because I understand his position on things like early round draft failures in recent years, etc. I disagree with and discussed only the two comments about kicker and backup QB.

I think he handled the kicker issue very well.

I don't know if he handled backup QB well or not because of the factors I listed, but mostly because we never really got to see much of Seneca Wallace. As I said, if Wallace had stayed healthy, maybe McGinn would have been right about the Packers prospects when playing without Rodgers. The fact is, we just don't know because Wallace, too, was injured. I'm not prepared to jump to the conclusion that Wallace wasn't good enough, nor to the conclusion that he was. It's almost like trying to judge if Tretter was a good draft pick or not. Nothing to make the evaluation on.

Note that I agreed with any criticism that relied on sticking with Harrell too long, even though that was not a point raised specifically by KF. I will give his general comment that fact.

[pbmax]

For me, this is all on Thompson. Most of his first round selections have been very subpar, especially in the last 3-4 years. If he's not going to add anything through free agency, then he damn well better hit on more than half of his 1st round picks. The current strategy has not been effective in accumulating talent over the last 3 years. To me, Thompson also screwed up royally this past offseason by having such a damn hissy fit over the kicking position and neglecting to acquire a capable backup QB.

The Green Bay media needs to be far more critical of Thompson this offseason and put some pressure on him. I'm not saying he needs to go...he's a very good GM, and I think he'll respond well to the challenge. He's been subpar lately and he needs to step it up just as much as Raji or Finley or Burnett...that needs to be expressed. Teams like SF and SEA have made themselves better this past few offseasons with decent FA pickups like Boldin and very solid drafts. We have been spinning our wheels it seems. We are elite because of Rodgers...without him, our team is mostly crap.

The critique I get, but if you were Thompson's supervisor what would you be asking him to do differently? You lose me at media pressure and making the team better because they are so general.

Do you think he has been asleep at the draft table for 3 years? Or do you think something has gone wrong in his evaluation or selection of first round talent? Beyond the results and injuries, is it something identifiable and correctable?

Or do you think he HAS to be involved more in Free Agency? Because that is fine, but would be better with player suggestions and numbers.

[pbmax]

You are sort of muddling issues there Woodbuck. There is no contradiction at all in my response. As I said, I understood much of the criticism, but took issue only with two specific statements that I quoted. I left the remainder of his post without comment from me, because I understand his position on things like early round draft failures in recent years, etc. I disagree with and discussed only the two comments about kicker and backup QB.

I think he handled the kicker issue very well.

I don't know if he handled backup QB well or not because of the factors I listed, but mostly because we never really got to see much of Seneca Wallace. As I said, if Wallace had stayed healthy, maybe McGinn would have been right about the Packers prospects when playing without Rodgers. The fact is, we just don't know because Wallace, too, was injured. I'm not prepared to jump to the conclusion that Wallace wasn't good enough, nor to the conclusion that he was. It's almost like trying to judge if Tretter was a good draft pick or not. Nothing to make the evaluation on.

Note that I agreed with any criticism that relied on sticking with Harrell too long, even though that was not a point raised specifically by KF. I will give his general comment that fact.

The coming storm will be a continued over estimation of the value of Matt Flynn. He was healthy and sturdy enough to relearn the offense and perform adequately. His health might be more valuable to the Packers than his performance. It will be interesting to see who they pair with Tolzien this offseason.

[woodbuck27]

You are sort of muddling issues there Woodbuck. There is no contradiction at all in my response. As I said, I understood much of the criticism, but took issue only with two specific statements that I quoted. I left the remainder of his post without comment from me, because I understand his position on things like early round draft failures in recent years, etc. I disagree with and discussed only the two comments about kicker and backup QB.

I think he handled the kicker issue very well.

I don't know if he handled backup QB well or not because of the factors I listed, but mostly because we never really got to see much of Seneca Wallace. The fact is, we just don't know because Wallace, too, was injured. I'm not prepared to jump to the conclusion that Wallace wasn't good enough, nor to the conclusion that he was. It's almost As I said, if Wallace had stayed healthy, maybe McGinn would have been right about the Packers prospects when playing without Rodgers.like trying to judge if Tretter was a good draft pick or not. Nothing to make the evaluation on.

Note that I agreed with any criticism that relied on sticking with Harrell too long, even though that was not a point raised specifically by KF. I will give his general comment that fact.

" I think he handled the kicker issue very well. " Patler

I do as well.

" As I said, if Wallace had stayed healthy, ** maybe McGinn would have been right about the Packers prospects when playing without Rodgers." Patler

Patler, would you please, if it's not to difficult.

Post your interpretation of what Bob McGinn wrote specifically in **that regard**.

Thank You and have a nice day.

[woodbuck27]

The critique I get, but if you were Thompson's supervisor what would you be asking him to do differently? You lose me at media pressure and making the team better because they are so general.

Do you think he has been asleep at the draft table for 3 years? Or do you think something has gone wrong in his evaluation or selection of first round talent? Beyond the results and injuries, is it something identifiable and correctable?

Or do you think he HAS to be involved more in Free Agency? Because that is fine, but would be better with player suggestions and numbers.

" do you think he HAS to be involved more in Free Agency? Because that is fine, but would be better with player suggestions and numbers. " pbmax

It's a tad early for us fans to be able to make realistic recommendations until we're better informed in terms of how much actual CAP space the Packers will have entering FA.

[Patler]

[I]
" As I said, if Wallace had stayed healthy, ** maybe McGinn would have been right about the Packers prospects when playing without Rodgers." Patler

Patler, would you please, if it's not to difficult.

Post your interpretation of what Bob McGinn wrote specifically in **that regard**.

Thank You and have a nice day.

Here you go, a link to the article that appeared the day before Rodgers got hurt:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...230373561.html

I will use McGinn's own words to sum it up:

Having spent much of the week researching the long career of No. 2 quarterback Seneca Wallace and the brief career of practice-squad quarterback Scott Tolzien, the guess here is that even if the Packers were to lose Rodgers early Monday night against the Chicago Bears they'd find ways to finish 11-5.

Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/topst...#ixzz2pjMrI5E9
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

[woodbuck27]

Here you go, a link to the article that appeared the day before Rodgers got hurt:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...230373561.html

I will use McGinn's own words to sum it up:

I have a limited number of articles that I can access each month.

That's why I asked for your interpretation.

I do recall this Bob McGinn piece in discussions here and even now what he wrote is downright uncanny in the creeps it gives me.

I'm going in a different direction. Play the Devil's advocate.

I'll go with Seneca Wallace's record as an NFL starting QB and time away from the NFL of late. Post that I wouldn't have had much faith in Seneca Wallace as a solid backup QB.

That's moot because obviously Ted Thompson did.

I'll go one step further. As a Packer fan how much weight 'seriously', does my view here have?

I'll point out that as I'm often reading here; again "the Injury Card" trumps anything even remotely close to resembling a Ted Thompson critique.

My frustration abounds.

[Patler]

I have a limited number of articles that I can access each month.

That's why I asked for your interpretation.

I do recall this Bob McGinn piece in discussions here and even now what he wrote is downright uncanny in the creeps it gives me.

I'm going in a different direction. Play the Devil's advocate.

I'll go with Seneca Wallace's record as an NFL starting QB and time away from the NFL of late. Post that I wouldn't have had much faith in Seneca Wallace as a solid backup QB.

That's moot because obviously Ted Thompson did.

I'll go one step further. As a Packer fan how much weight 'seriously', does my view here have?

I'll point out that as I'm often reading here; again "the Injury Card" trumps anything even remotely close to resembling a Ted Thompson critique.

My frustration abounds.

The difficult thing in evaluating a backup QB is looking at his past performances, which may have been for some pretty poor teams, and forecasting how he will do with what should be an overall better roster in GB, for example. Maybe what this year proved is that the rosters other than the elite QBs are much closer than people acknowledge.

Put Rodgers on the Bears the last 9 years and they might have been in the drivers seat of the NFC North.

[run pMc]

Speaking of the Bears, GB has handled them pretty good the last few years. Think their forums go crazy with each loss?
Imagine if all this happened at Lambeau in 4 seasons:
- losing the NFC Championship game (Halas Trophy)
- let them clinch the division two years later
- losing the division in the final minute of the regular season on a botched coverage 4th down bomb.
- going 2-7 against them from 2010-present, and 17-31 from 1990-present (or you could cherry pick and go from 1992-present and get 13 wins 31 losses)

THAT is being someone's b*tch.

SF is definitely under GB's skin, and it will be a monkey off the back to beat them, going 0-4 vs. SF in two seasons with a couple of those games being competitive -- especially this last one -- isn't quite total domination.
GB is closing the gap on SF, and I think they will continue to do so.

[run pMc]

I think TT handled the Crosby situation about as well as he could've, and it worked out for everyone.
I'd put the backup QB thing on M3 as much as TT -- seems like they moved fast on Coleman, but kept Harrell too long. I think that was on M3 and his loyalty and ego. The Vince Young signing was desperation and at that point we all saw how thin the QB depth was. The sunny side to that is there is no way Wallace comes back, Flynn might come back, and Tolzien has potential as a backup. I'd still rather not have to play either, and I think TT will make sure the QB depth/talent is better in 2014 TC than it was in 2013.

As for TT and shaking things up, he's lost some good personnel men (Dorsey, McKenzie, Schnieder) in the last few years and I'm sure that's impacted the scouting/drafting. The 2012 all-defense draft has yielded mixed results at best. Some of his other recent draft picks who have shown they can play (Bulaga, Hayward, Cobb) got hurt...TT needs to have a solid draft, plain and simple.

Only other comment is he needs to be open to more actively exploring FA for certain spots (a solid veteran safety, if one exists, for example).