A Few Random Observations

[swede]

I thought Gilbert Brown digging the grave was pretty cool. Maybe Barnett should try that.

That was a good celebration because he used it solely on no gains or TFL's and also because it was crystal clear that he had just buried a guy and was now shoveling some green and gold dirt over the grave.

If Barnett would slash one time w/o the sheathing unsheathing business, and if he saved it for the times when he makes serious game-changing plays it would look better. Theatrics require brevity, clarity, and context in order to work.

[HarveyWallbangers]

All I know is that from the stands it seemed like Barnett only did it on good plays this week, and the crowd sure gets fired up when he does it. As much as people complain about it, it kept the crowd going several times.

[mraynrand]

I like the fact that it appears we will have an effective run game.

It's twice as good though, that its being done without that god forsaken U-71 package.

I hope you're kidding. This formation led to the best rushing attack in Packer history, and protected Favre with his broken thumb. The Packers were in rough shape at the bye in 2003, and the creation of this formation propelled them into the playoffs. Sure, teams started figuring it out in 2004, but at least give credit for something that was hugely successful for almost an entire season.

I'll give them credit for innovating with U-71. Too bad it took them 2 years to adjust once other teams figured it out.

This is pretty stupid. They put it in place after the bye week in 2003, used it through 2004 (although much less later in the year), and used it sparingly in 2005. The other teams adjusted and the Packers started running a number of other plays off of the formation. Effectively it was finished with the departure of Wahle and Rivera, because Klemm and Whitless could not run it. So it was used effectively for about a year. Sherman adjusted. That's just simple fact. It's OK to irrationally hate Sherman and color reality to suit that hatred (not neccessarily you SC, but Sherman Haters in general), but I prefer to look at the facts. The facts are that the run game in 2005 was destroyed by lack of adequate guards and running backs and no play making WR. Sherman adjusted to having Favre throw a lot more and a lot more to crappy WRs like Chatman and ineffective TEs like Donald 'concrete hands' Lee. Look at Favre's pass attempts - they were way up. Simply based on offensive production, Sherman was an effective playcaller. It's hard to deny the facts of the best running game the Packers have ever had in 2003 (with Favre nursing a broken thumb) and a statistical year ever for Favre in 2004 on par with his MVP year in 1997.

[The Shadow]

Yup, the real problem with the U-71 was that it seemed to remain stagnant -as opposing def. coordinators began to figure it out & adapt to it.
At that point, a true innovator-coach would have either done a major TWEAK or moved on to something else.

[esoxx]

Greenday's man-crush for Sherman is quite obvious given his numerous impassioned defenses for the guy. Broken record.

[potsdam_11]

Interesting comment, potsdam. Your elusive post gives little evidence of your thoughts about these issues... Care to elaborate?[/quote]


Vince,

First of all, perhaps calling some of the posters on this forum clueless was a bit harsh and I might have chosen a better adjective if I had put more thought into it… Then again, perhaps I wouldn’t have. Essentially, what I was eluding too is the seemingly endless number of posters that line up and just take pot shots at what they perceive to be the failings of the Packer’s coaching and management staff. Far too many posters, it seems, are railing on TT for an apparent lack of insight regarding how to run a football team, specifically, this Packer team. Additionally, I read an equal number of comments directed at MM and his lack of coaching prowess.
When I watch this “mis-managed, and ill-coached” Packer squad, (which is a rare event this year) I see a team, with significantly more upside than the squad I watched last year. Moreover, I see a team that each week, improves, and I see a team with a rookie class that could be more than adequate in the future. TT has managed to bring in a collection of not so well known talent, and put some very serviceable players out on the field, without bankrupting the team’s future. Is that too hard to see ?

I have tried to accept the opinions of most on this forum as fairly well reasoned, because I sensed a pretty-good football IQ; yet after eight games I find much of the criticism unwarranted, and less than reasonable. Thus my comment.

Perhaps I see the team from a less critical light, because I was able to see Lombardi’s teams play, and suffer through the many-many dismal years following. This Packer team is hardly in the ranks of the worst, conversely, they won’t rank amongst the best either. However, they certainly seem to have some promise, and that is a big step in the right direction.

[GrnBay007]

Pots, with all due respect, I think many of the posters on this forum are either on the TT and MM bandwagon OR they are saying it's too soon to tell but are not majorly negative.

[MJZiggy]

I'm glad you clarified, Potdam, 'cause I read your first comment entirely wrong. I agree with you in that I think TT knows where he wants to go and who he wants to take along, and M3 seems to have a pretty good idea of how he wants to get them there.

[Zool]

Pots, with all due respect, I think many of the posters on this forum are either on the TT and MM bandwagon OR they are saying it's too soon to tell but are not majorly negative.

I get what Pots is saying though. I think most of us are guilty of getting too high or too low at times about this team. That probably causes us to overstate our opinion from time to time.

It sure is fun though.

[mmmdk]

I don't think I'm overly optimistic on the Packers but it's been growing steadily the whole season. Did anyone notice how positive I was post-Rams game?; all I did was travel all the way to Green Bay from Denmark and then they lose!? I went home with a positive outlook. Check my posts from that period and onwards. What I liked was that the Packers run game came alive (vs Rams) with Herron at halfback - I guess this ZBS does work!? I saw a Packer team that was together and playing as a team though lacking talent at various positions (safeties, RB, backup tackle, depth at DE, receivers incl. TE).

Things that look good going into week 9:

Those 3 rookie guards look great (Spitz, Mool & Colledge). No busts here.
Greg Jennings is a starter but we need a great 3rd WR.
AJ Hawk has the tools to become better and eventually great?
Brandon Miree will be a Packer for years.
Rookie TE David Martin...wait...he's been here 5 years?
I'm worried that Morency is hurt badly; that's good 'cos I think he can play.
New punter & new kicker; they look very promising.
Woodson has played well as of lately; keep it up.
Favre has only 5 ints. in 7 games.
Dendy is actually better than Carroll Not so shocking I guess.
CB Will Blackmon hasn't played much; I saw a colledge game where he played WR - I'm high on him.

We need to add to it. Let's roll.

[potsdam_11]

Pots, with all due respect, I think many of the posters on this forum are either on the TT and MM bandwagon OR they are saying it's too soon to tell but are not majorly negative.

007 with equal respect to your comments.. I'm not able to peruse this board as thoroughly as I might like, and therefore tend to pick and choose from an admittedly narrow field of topics. Thus, my remarks are born from perhaps a more limited view of this board than you, or many others might have; that is not an apology, but rather, a point of consideration.

I will take your word on the prevailing attitude of the posters, and as time allows, read more of the threads, I normally skip.