The Official Pack-Queens Discussion Thread

[Patler]

What would you mofos say if it was Rodgers that got his leg jacked and Teddy B was playing in Lambeau on Sunday night?

So how the hell can you say the Vikings will win when they are missing their QB???

No fucking way, Packers take by 10+ points.

Why? Because the reasons for considering MN a contender did not include that Bridgewater was their QB. He was just their QB, not a difference maker on their team. As one of the analysts said two weeks ago, some figured they were a contender even though they didn't have a difference maker at QB. That's not a slam against Bridgewater, just recognition that he isn't there yet. Not saying he can't become a key to their success.

[smuggler]

While that's true, their starting QB today will have been with the team for less than two weeks. While it doesn't preclude the offense from working, it does make it less likely for the offense to be successful than if they had Bridgewater (and a consistent starter all offseason) under center.

[Upnorth]

Why? Because the reasons for considering MN a contender did not include that Bridgewater was their QB. He was just their QB, not a difference maker on their team. As one of the analysts said two weeks ago, some figured they were a contender even though they didn't have a difference maker at QB. That's not a slam against Bridgewater, just recognition that he isn't there yet. Not saying he can't become a key to their success.

That assumes Bridgewater was a bottom teir qb. He wasn't. While not elite he was middle of the pack, with decent mobility. Bradford doesn't have the ability to escape so I think it limits one important element of the game.

I recognize you are not slamming him, nor limiting his growth, but he was better than Bradford.

[Carolina_Packer]

Good post. Might be time to bench Rodgers in fantasy.

Offensive staff needs to get Cook involved more in the game plan. Gotta find a way to isolate Cook against LBers and safeties.

The Packers must establish respect for their run game. I'm not sure how often they received a single high safety look, but if teams are playing two high safety, the Packers must make them pay by running the ball effectively. That will draw an extra defender to the LOS and get the defense thinking run instead of coverage and then Cook can exploit the area between the safeties and the LB's.

Running the ball effectively also helps win the down and distance battle, makes third down more manageable and keeps the defense guessing, instead of it being an obvious passing play. Of course, moving the sticks greatly helps the defense, too. MM, you know what you have to do, you just seem conflicted on whether you want the run to set up the pass or vice versa. I would go with the run to setup the pass. You have the hoss, now ride him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I see a defensive struggle. Flip a coin.

[esoxx]

As usual, it will come down to who wins the turnover battle.

[pbmax]

Packers need to get better at comitting penalties while not looking like they are committing penalties.

The competition committee used to regulate the number of complaints a team could make to the NFL, asking teams to keep it at 10 per game. But the Jaguars questioned significantly more, and the NFL agreed there were 16 calls that could have gone the other way.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17576262/nfl-acknowledged-missed-calls-jacksonville-jaguars-week-1-loss-green-bay-packers

This is an odd article because unless I am missing something, the League has not said it blew any of the calls. Which makes this complaint interesting, because the NFL did not acknowledge that even this one was blown.

Of the 16 calls that the league recognized as going against the Jaguars, a key one was a missed defensive holding by Packers defensive back Micah Hyde against wide receiver Rashad Greene that would have given Jacksonville a first-and-goal from the Green Bay 9-yard line with under a minute left and a chance to win the game, the sources said. The Jaguars instead failed on the ensuing fourth-and-1 and lost 27-23.

[Guiness]

Packers need to get better at comitting penalties while not looking like they are committing penalties.

On the contrary, I think they're doing quite well...they don't look to the referees like they are committing penalties. If super slo-mo in a darkened room with Zapruder film experts shows things differently on Tueday,

What is Woodson doing these days? Maybe he's the double-secret 'getting away with it' consultant for the Packers DBs?

[Patler]

I sort of agree, but don't see it being that high scoring

MN 17
GB 13

I saw nothing on Sunday that made me think the Packer's offensive problems from last year have been solved. Against a good defense, they will struggle as badly as last year. MN isn't likely to have a lot going on offense yet either.

I don't usually find reasons to "bet" against the Packers, but I don't have a good feeling about this game, so I went with my gut. My biggest concerns are:

- success passing last week was on extended/broken plays, not the offense clicking.
- lots of miscommunications
- new stadium is said to be even louder than the old one, and specifically designed to be so
- fans will be rabid in the opening game of the new stadium.
- MN defense is solid front to back, with 1 or 2 really good ones at each level.

None of this bodes well for Packer's offense.

Packers will be quite inexperienced on defense, Ringo, Clark, Lowry, Martinez, Evans and Brice could all play significant rolls and have one game of experience. Thomas, Ryan, Rollins and Gunter could as well and have limited experience less than a year. Could be a difficult game for them.

On the other hand, Rodgers threw well short of his receiver a couple times again, just as we saw often in 2015; he completed less than 60% of his passes, gained a mediocre 199 yards passing and averaged less than 6 yards per attempt. He extended his string of games with a QB rating less than 100 to 13 consecutive games, and 15 of his last 16 games. Prior to the current string, he had never gone more than 4 games without achieving a QBR greater than 100, and that happened only once, I think. For perspective, his career QBR is 104.1. He has been less than his career average for 13 consecutive games.

Cobb and Nelson had six receptions each, but gained just 57 and 32 yards, respectively.

I think this is an indication that the Packers passing games is not fixed yet.

Why? Because the reasons for considering MN a contender did not include that Bridgewater was their QB. He was just their QB, not a difference maker on their team. As one of the analysts said two weeks ago, some figured they were a contender even though they didn't have a difference maker at QB. That's not a slam against Bridgewater, just recognition that he isn't there yet. Not saying he can't become a key to their success.

The game played out pretty much the way I expected it to.

That said, I think there were some encouraging signs as well. Apart from a rough night for Randall, the defense wasn't too bad, and each of the ILBs was noticed for positive reasons.

The early bye week this year could play into the Packers advantage