20 THINGS THE PACKERS DO NOT NEED

[Packnut]

Favre

The whole "magic at Lambeau" crap makes me laugh. The only "magic" that ever happened to make the Pack so good at home back in the day was the talent they'd assembled. You impropve the talent level and the magic will return.

I'll try to inject one note of optimism: the Pack finished strong last year despite Mr. Favre throwing lots o' picks in the last five games. If he can just be solid and not try to do it all, then maybe the defense and the improved offensive line can help the team out.

Last year I said 7-9. I'll wait til the end of training camp to make my predicition for this year.

Yeah picks tend to happen when you have a rookie run the wrong route (Jennings in the Vikes game) and tight ends who do nothing but drop passes. Yes, Favre does force things at times but to make the statement implying that he is soley responsible is just plain wrong.

How many of those picks were max protect when he's throwing to 2 or 3 possible targets who are covered by at leat 6 defenders?

I also remember at least 1 of those picks coming after one of his te's tipped the ball up in the air.

I'm not saying Favre is blameless, I'm just saying to many look at the QB position as an individual and not in a team concept. When a QB completes a pass, there are other factors that need to go right besides just the throw being made. The OL not only needs to provide enough time but also provide a throwing lane. The WR has to get a slice of seperation and make the catch.

The Bears game was a perfect example. The line gave him time and the wideouts got open. As a unit, the offense played much better than in the previous 3 games and as a result, Favre produced.

[wist43]

The whole "magic at Lambeau" crap makes me laugh. The only "magic" that ever happened to make the Pack so good at home back in the day was the talent they'd assembled. You impropve the talent level and the magic will return.

I'll try to inject one note of optimism: the Pack finished strong last year despite Mr. Favre throwing lots o' picks in the last five games. If he can just be solid and not try to do it all, then maybe the defense and the improved offensive line can help the team out.

Last year I said 7-9. I'll wait til the end of training camp to make my predicition for this year.

As one of the resident pessimists, I have to point out that last years "strong finish" was anything but... they damn near lost at home to Minnesota and Detroit, and probably should have lost both games. The Packers were absolutely putrid in both games, the Lions and Vikes were just more putrid.

7-9 this year... subject to change, but 7-9ish at this early stage.

[Zool]

The whole "magic at Lambeau" crap makes me laugh. The only "magic" that ever happened to make the Pack so good at home back in the day was the talent they'd assembled. You impropve the talent level and the magic will return.

I'll try to inject one note of optimism: the Pack finished strong last year despite Mr. Favre throwing lots o' picks in the last five games. If he can just be solid and not try to do it all, then maybe the defense and the improved offensive line can help the team out.

Last year I said 7-9. I'll wait til the end of training camp to make my predicition for this year.

As one of the resident pessimists, I have to point out that last years "strong finish" was anything but... they damn near lost at home to Minnesota and Detroit, and probably should have lost both games. The Packers were absolutely putrid in both games, the Lions and Vikes were just more putrid.

7-9 this year... subject to change, but 7-9ish at this early stage.

Not to be the eternal optimist, but they also almost won against StL and at Buffalo.

I assume you would rate both of those teams ahead of the Lions and Vikings from '06? So they were almost 6-10 but then again they were almost 10-6.

Had they won both of those games it would have been a 5 game winning streak heading into the NE game. The still would have lost that game, but it might not have been so ugly.

[The Shadow]

The whole "magic at Lambeau" crap makes me laugh. The only "magic" that ever happened to make the Pack so good at home back in the day was the talent they'd assembled. You impropve the talent level and the magic will return.

I'll try to inject one note of optimism: the Pack finished strong last year despite Mr. Favre throwing lots o' picks in the last five games. If he can just be solid and not try to do it all, then maybe the defense and the improved offensive line can help the team out.

Last year I said 7-9. I'll wait til the end of training camp to make my predicition for this year.

Fritz : well done.
You always seem to have a better grasp on things than most.

[Charles Woodson]

The whole "magic at Lambeau" crap makes me laugh. The only "magic" that ever happened to make the Pack so good at home back in the day was the talent they'd assembled. You impropve the talent level and the magic will return.

I'll try to inject one note of optimism: the Pack finished strong last year despite Mr. Favre throwing lots o' picks in the last five games. If he can just be solid and not try to do it all, then maybe the defense and the improved offensive line can help the team out.

Last year I said 7-9. I'll wait til the end of training camp to make my predicition for this year.

As one of the resident pessimists, I have to point out that last years "strong finish" was anything but... they damn near lost at home to Minnesota and Detroit, and probably should have lost both games. The Packers were absolutely putrid in both games, the Lions and Vikes were just more putrid.

7-9 this year... subject to change, but 7-9ish at this early stage.

Not to be the eternal optimist, but they also almost won against StL and at Buffalo.

I assume you would rate both of those teams ahead of the Lions and Vikings from '06? So they were almost 6-10 but then again they were almost 10-6.

Had they won both of those games it would have been a 5 game winning streak heading into the NE game. The still would have lost that game, but it might not have been so ugly.

The thing your not understanding is that our record was pretty damn misleading. I mean the fact that the only team over .500 that we beat was the bears leaves something to be desired. If you look at the stats of the games that we lost, we got killed in a lot of them. basically every team we lost to (besides rams and saints) we lost by over 10 points

Chicago 0-26

New Orleans 27-34

Philadelphia 9-31

St. Louis 20-23

Buffalo 10-24

New England 0-35

Seattle 24-34

NY 10-38

[packers11]

every team we lost to (besides rams and saints) we lost by over 10 points

The seattle game should have been a win with the packers...

If barnett was playing, i'm 110% sure that the packers would have pulled that one off...

Alexander was stomping on Hodge, but I couldn't blame him, hes a rookie...

Also that late roughing the passer call which allowed to give them a touchdown...

The only three losses that the packers got dominated on both sides of the ball were the Pats, Jets, and the season opener against the bears...

[Freak Out]

#21. VD

[Charles Woodson]

every team we lost to (besides rams and saints) we lost by over 10 points

The seattle game should have been a win with the packers...

If barnett was playing, i'm 110% sure that the packers would have pulled that one off...

Alexander was stomping on Hodge, but I couldn't blame him, hes a rookie...

Also that late roughing the passer call which allowed to give them a touchdown...

The only three losses that the packers got dominated on both sides of the ball were the Pats, Jets, and the season opener against the bears...

Phili?

[run pMc]

Three thoughts:
(1) some of these things are right on, most seem like crazy filler that the sports editor told somebody to make up to reach 20 things. Any team can have their season sabotaged by injuries or suspensions -- especially to the starting QB. How many games does ATL win with Joey H instead of Mike Prick?

(2) I always thought Allen Rossum was a decent kick returner. He was post-Desmond. Remember his TD return in that wild game vs. Indy?

(3) I predicted GB to finish around 5-11 or 6-10; I think they might win 6 games this year - because of a tougher schedule, not because it's a worse team. I think most of last year's rookies will actually play better. I also think there will be less losses by > 10 pts...a team that loses 8 games by as many pts tells me they were a young team learning the pro game.

...just my 2 cents.

[RashanGary]

I'll list the teams we play and based on what I know of the teams, I'll give a our chances of victory as a percent.

Philly - OVERRATED but still proven to be a pretty good team, 40%
Giants - Most overrated team in the NFL IMO, 65%
Chargers - Great team, 15%
Vikings - Horrible QB solid everywhere else, 65%

Chicago - Really good team, 40%
Washington - Bad team, 70%
Denver - Very good team, 25%

Kansas City - Average team, 65%
Minnesota - 65%
Carolina - Dline much older, missed their window, 60%
Detroit - Bad team but can't be as bad as last year, 75%
Dallas - Good team, 50%

Oakland - HOrrible team, 85%
St Louis - Aging team, not what they used to be, 65%
chicago - 40%
Detroit - 75%


Average percent over 16 games is 56.25%

.5625 multiplied by 16 games = 9.00 wins


I think we're better than the Giants, Vikings, Vikings, Lions, Lions, St Louis, Washington, Kansas City, Carolina and Oakland.

I think we're worse than Chicago, Chicago, San Diego, Philly, Denver

9 wins seems very possible IMO.



Our improvment comes from

Hawk
Jennings
Collins
Harrell
Colledge
Spitz
Moll (top backup)
Corey Williams

And many other young players who should be better than they were a year ago. The only player we lost was Green and he was not a great player last year so he is very replacable at this point in his career. Did we add players to make us better? not really but we do have a bunch of guys who stand a very good chance to get better. A couple of those guys could emerge as legit playmakers. I have confidence in the young core of this team to get better much like the Brewers this year.

[woodbuck27]

I'll list the teams we play and based on what I know of the teams, I'll give a our chances of victory as a percent.

Philly - OVERRATED but still proven to be a pretty good team, 40%
Giants - Most overrated team in the NFL IMO, 65%
Chargers - Great team, 15%
Vikings - Horrible QB solid everywhere else, 65%

Chicago - Really good team, 40%
Washington - Bad team, 70%
Denver - Very good team, 25%

Kansas City - Average team, 65%
Minnesota - 65%
Carolina - Dline much older, missed their window, 60%
Detroit - Bad team but can't be as bad as last year, 75%
Dallas - Good team, 50%

Oakland - HOrrible team, 85%
St Louis - Aging team, not what they used to be, 65%
chicago - 40%
Detroit - 75%


Average percent over 16 games is 56.25%

.5625 multiplied by 16 games = 9.00 wins


I think we're better than the Giants, Vikings, Vikings, Lions, Lions, St Louis, Washington, Kansas City, Carolina and Oakland.

I think we're worse than Chicago, Chicago, San Diego, Philly, Denver

9 wins seems very possible IMO.



Our improvment comes from

Hawk
Jennings
Collins
Harrell
Colledge
Spitz
Moll (top backup)
Corey Williams

And many other young players who should be better than they were a year ago. The only player we lost was Green and he was not a great player last year so he is very replacable at this point in his career. Did we add players to make us better? not really but we do have a bunch of guys who stand a very good chance to get better. A couple of those guys could emerge as legit playmakers. I have confidence in the young core of this team to get better much like the Brewers this year.

My interpretation of this is that you have us walking all over the Lions and the Vikings for a solid shot at 4 wins.

We almost blew that game late last season with the Vikings and wasn't that one of Taverus Jackson's first starts? We absolutely did all we could to lose that game.

That was the game fr. HELL to watch !!! Ever see Favre roll his eyes that much in a game? We were terrible.

Also you had better do a tad more research on the Redskins and the Chiefs.

These will be very tough teams to defeat.Especially playing KC in their house.

[retailguy]

Also you had better do a tad more research on the Redskins and the Chiefs.

These will be very tough teams to defeat.Especially playing KC in their house.

Aw c'mon Woody! If you make him do that, he can't get to 9 wins and then he'll be WRONG.... You aren't going to make him WRONG in July, are you?

He needs about 3 months to come up with denials and plausible reasons WHY he is wrong and it IS NOT his fault.

Let up on him, K? :P

[woodbuck27]

Also you had better do a tad more research on the Redskins and the Chiefs.

These will be very tough teams to defeat.Especially playing KC in their house.

Aw c'mon Woody! If you make him do that, he can't get to 9 wins and then he'll be WRONG.... You aren't going to make him WRONG in July, are you?

He needs about 3 months to come up with denials and plausible reasons WHY he is wrong and it IS NOT his fault.

Let up on him, K? :P

We all hope he is right too.

and of course, all predictions can't be wrong in July.

[HarveyWallbangers]

St Louis - Aging team, not what they used to be, 65%

I don't see them as an aging team. They don't have a lot of old guys. Four that I can think of that start -- Bruce, Pace, Chavous, and Little (sort of).

Bulger, Jackson, McMichael, Tye Hill, Tinoisomoa, Witherspoon, Wroten, Incognito, Setterstrom, Holt (he may be around 30, but he has several years left in him), Atogwe, etc. are all in their prime or yet to hit it.

[woodbuck27]

St Louis - Aging team, not what they used to be, 65%

I don't see them as an aging team. They don't have a lot of old guys. Four that I can think of that start -- Bruce, Pace, Chavous, and Little (sort of).

Bulger, Jackson, McMichael, Tye Hill, Tinoisomoa, Witherspoon, Wroten, Incognito, Setterstrom, Holt (he may be around 30, but he has several years left in him), Atogwe, etc. are all in their prime or yet to hit it.

This is a very good matchup for us to measure our progress.

The loss to them was heartbreaking last season. Especially so for Mike McCarthy.

Bulger,Jackson and Holt are a solid big three on their offense.

We matchup well at QB and #1 WR (WR) but we have to find a running game to come even close to competing with Stephen Jackson.