Green Bay Packers Thread

jman0war

WakeyTyke wrote: »

The Packers had shown their full one-dimensional approach to the Giants in their close victory in NY and Coach Coughlin gave a master class in how to learn, adapt and ultimately convincingly out-play Green Bay.

Hopefully this will be a huge learning curve for McCarthy and his staff, who seemed to have become over-complacent that the offense could always overcome the deficiences of the defense, despite all the warning signs. The Giant's have now produced a convincing template for stifling the Packers offense - change is now vital - we need more than a token running game.

The stats don't lie - that is one poor defensive unit.

Ted Thompson is going to have to adapt his beloved Best Available Player draft philosophy to BAP defensive player this year or get a lot more active in free agency.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the Giants D stopping the Packers.
Wasn't it more the case of the Packers self destructing on Offense?

It was really the Chiefs that showed how to beat the Packers.
-big game from front four Defensive line,
-big game for coverage unit,
-chew up clock on offense with runs.
-above all, keep Rodgers on the sideline, when he's in, get pressure.

But i agree overall.
Sure even Kurt Warner and the Rams' Greatest Show on Turf had Marshall Falk breaking big runs and providing the underneath threat.

Stev_o

On the plus side at least our draft position is a bit better then what it could be.

me-skywalker

Seeing Rodgers run around like Tebow frightened me.

We need better protection for our pass plays on offense and yes we need to develop our run game to be aggressive and an actual facet of offense for making drives and not just rely on Rodgers ability to scramble.

jman0war wrote: »

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the Giants D stopping the Packers.
Wasn't it more the case of the Packers self destructing on Offense?

It was really the Chiefs that showed how to beat the Packers.
-big game from front four Defensive line,
-big game for coverage unit,
-chew up clock on offense with runs.
-above all, keep Rodgers on the sideline, when he's in, get pressure.

But i agree overall.
Sure even Kurt Warner and the Rams' Greatest Show on Turf had Marshall Falk breaking big runs and providing the underneath threat.

Yes we had our moments of induced collapse but the The Giants played fantastic you have to give them the credit they deserve, they played to our weakness, dropping for cover knowing that we wouldnt run the ball and in the second half could use the spare man to pass rush, which is where we then failed on our offense due to the pressure being created.

They done this in the first game before the Chiefs played us, they just executed it better in the game that mattered.

Stev_o wrote: »

On the plus side at least our draft position is a bit better then what it could be.

How many draft picks have we got this year?
In saying that a rookie shouldnt be expected to just improve the D straight away. Capers needs to work with what we have and make that secondary work harder.

Howshocowpownw

Deleted User wrote: »

No no, by going undefeated through the season and then blowing it in the game that mattered most.

That was done once and once only.

And I suspect that if Pats fans were asked about it now, they would far rather to have shipped a few defeats along the way if it meant they went into the final with less hype and hysteria, rather than build up all that pressure and lose when it mattered most.

Of course they would rather have both. But for me the prospect of a perfect season pales into insignificance with the prospect of winning the Superbowl.



They screwed up in the sense they lost.

It may have been close, it may have been an amazing catch, they may have been the very best losers ever.

But they lost.

Eh No. For the simple reason, that had nothing to do with why we lost.

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll never know. They may have been complacent, they may not. One thing is for sure, they were overwhelming favourites and it would have been hard to keep complacency in check.

I'll say this much, the unbeaten issue added much to the glee of those who just don't like the Pats!

I would also much prefer to see them let players sit out games now, give Matthews, Rodgers, Nelson etc. or anyone carrying any tiny niggle or strain extended time on the sidelines, at least in divisional games where meetings have often produced bruising battles, rather than lose anyone through injury chasing 16-0.

Actually we do know:eek: Complacency had nothing at all to do with it. 1- It's Tom Brady and the Patriots who have been around football long enough to know. We've been in every position under Tom in big games from big favourites and losing to big underdogs and winning. 2-No team gets complacent in a Superbowl against a team that has already pushed them close in the regular season and comes into the game on a huge wave of momentum. As for screwing up or anything else that people want to call it. The fact is we played well like we did all season but a great Giants performance and two of the best plays in Superbowl history from Eli and Tyree:mad: won them the ball game. Funny thing is the man that was under the most pressure that game was Eli, anyone living in New York knows the deal. Couldn't help but admire the man after that game.

Arawn wrote: »

We will not lose to the giants. My mate will have a field day if her team beat us. Also I may of been so confident about thrashing them I joked we'd let flynn do the business for us, hopefully that smart comment won't bite me in the ass!

Probably should of stuck with the hot hand of Flynn:cool:

Stev_o

me-skywalker wrote: »

How many draft picks have we got this year?
In saying that a rookie shouldnt be expected to just improve the D straight away. Capers needs to work with what we have and make that secondary work harder.

Presuming we either get a second first round or second round pick for trading Flynn (He's gotta be franchised). We badly need another pash rusher because Raji and Picket haven't gotten within a sniff of the QB's this year which has meant that Mattews is just gotta constantly focused.

Also the lockout pretty much killed our defence, its a high risk system which sees long developing blitzing and it showed throughout the season how little prep some of the secondary players had.

Red Crow

Stev_o wrote: »

Presuming we either get a second first round or second round pick for trading Flynn (He's gotta be franchised). We badly need another pash rusher because Raji and Picket haven't gotten within a sniff of the QB's this year which has meant that Mattews is just gotta constantly focused.

Also the lockout pretty much killed our defence, its a high risk system which sees long developing blitzing and it showed throughout the season how little prep some of the secondary players had.

Finley will be franchised despite the small hate in GB atm. If Flynn is franchised and the Packers don't reach a trade before the start of FA they will be on the line to pay him around $14 Million.

Howshocowpownw

Howshocowpownw wrote: »

Actually we do know:eek:

No no, that is your opinion.

We do not know, it cannot be established or verified, it is all about opinions.

You look to other games with Brady, I look to the fact that motivation and complacency are issues that many successful teams strive to deal with at all levels in all sports. It a facet of human nature and I may say a lot of things about the Pats but I would concede that they are humans too! Of course, one constant is that where a team is expected to win and they fail, they will usually deny that complacency is an issue. And of course we do not know how much of a factor it was. All we can do is give opinions. Yours differs. Ask me why did Kerry lose the All Ireland this year and I'll say errors, substitutions, a great goal...but noone could rule out that complacency may have crept in at that stage.

me-skywalker

Eli Manning wrote: »

Finley will be franchised despite the small hate in GB atm. If Flynn is franchised and the Packers don't reach a trade before the start of FA they will be on the line to pay him around $14 Million.

You cant actually believe that there will not be a trade done. There will be a bundle of offers for the Packers to play with. But I think I saw an article on ProFootball 2weeks ago saying they won't franchise him?

spank_inferno

Eli Manning wrote: »

Finley will be franchised despite the small hate in GB atm. If Flynn is franchised and the Packers don't reach a trade before the start of FA they will be on the line to pay him around $14 Million.

Hello Eli (and congrats)

Can you elaborate on what you mean?
Why would Green Bay have to pay Flynn 14 million dollars?
He couldn't be on that money at the moment could he??

UnitedIrishman

spank_inferno wrote: »

Hello Eli (and congrats)

Can you elaborate on what you mean?
Why would Green Bay have to pay Flynn 14 million dollars?
He couldn't be on that money at the moment could he??

A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position in the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.

Correction: As of the new CBA, the franchise tag offer will be the average of the top paid player at the respective position over the last five seasons. This will actually reduce the amount that a team would need to offer a player.

So if teams call GB bluff and don't decide to trade for Flynn then he's owed 14m basically.

It's a bit of a dose to see such a good player leave for nothing but I can't see them taking the risk. Or if he does sign and gets tagged they'd want to get a deal sorted ASAP, considering you couldn't have Flynn making double what Rodgers is making to sit on his hole.

If we did tag him and get an offer it'd surely be something like a 2nd and a 3rd round pick?

Red Crow

me-skywalker wrote: »

You cant actually believe that there will not be a trade done. There will be a bundle of offers for the Packers to play with. But I think I saw an article on ProFootball 2weeks ago saying they won't franchise him?

Probably dude, I imagine there would be offers.

spank_inferno wrote: »

Hello Eli (and congrats)

Can you elaborate on what you mean?
Why would Green Bay have to pay Flynn 14 million dollars?
He couldn't be on that money at the moment could he??

Hi, and thanks.

No he's not on that money at the moment and it will potentially cost the Packers around $14 Million if they franchise him with the new CBA rules.

UnitedIrishman

Just another thing that's looking pretty bad for us during the off-season - our coaching crew looks like it's going to be pillaged by other teams. Joe Philbin already interviewed for the Fins, Dom Capers is supposedly wanted by the Raiders, Perry touted as potential Raiders DC, and assistant Winston Moss also to the Raiders.

Now of course these are all deals that are hypothetical but it looks like McCarthy is going to have to find at least one new coach for in his staff for next year.

me-skywalker

is it too early to start looking at next season's schedule :-(

UnitedIrishman

Well.. apart from it being months away.. :P

Home games:

Chicago Bears (8-8 in 2011), Detroit Lions (10-6), Minnesota Vikings (3-13), Arizona Cardinals (8-8), San Francisco 49ers (13-3), Jacksonville Jaguars (5-11), Tennessee Titans (9-7), New Orleans Saints (13-3)

Away games:

Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams (2-14), Seattle Seahawks (7-9), Houston Texans (10-6), Indianapolis Colts (2-14), New York Giants (9-7)

That's one tough schedule.

me-skywalker

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

Well.. apart from it being months away.. :P

Home games:

Chicago Bears (8-8 in 2011), Detroit Lions (10-6), Minnesota Vikings (3-13), Arizona Cardinals (8-8), San Francisco 49ers (13-3), Jacksonville Jaguars (5-11), Tennessee Titans (9-7), New Orleans Saints (13-3)

Away games:

Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams (2-14), Seattle Seahawks (7-9), Houston Texans (10-6), Indianapolis Colts (2-14), New York Giants (9-7)

That's one tough schedule.

Very tough indeed won't go 13 games without a defeat next season! Some humdinger matchups! 5 of this years playoff teams; Giants, Texans, Lions, 49ers and Saints. Can't wait. :-(


Lets look to 2013:

NFC North
Chi x2 Min x2 Det x2

NFC East
Giants, Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins

NFC South
Same place

NFC West
Same place

AFC North
Ravens, Steelers, Bengals, Browns

Howshocowpownw

Deleted User wrote: »

No no, that is your opinion.

We do not know, it cannot be established or verified, it is all about opinions.

You look to other games with Brady, I look to the fact that motivation and complacency are issues that many successful teams strive to deal with at all levels in all sports. It a facet of human nature and I may say a lot of things about the Pats but I would concede that they are humans too! Of course, one constant is that where a team is expected to win and they fail, they will usually deny that complacency is an issue. And of course we do not know how much of a factor it was. All we can do is give opinions. Yours differs. Ask me why did Kerry lose the All Ireland this year and I'll say errors, substitutions, a great goal...but noone could rule out that complacency may have crept in at that stage.

We do know, you clearly don't. Complacency in a Superbowl against a team that pushed you so close in the regular season. If you had been in Boston around game time or even at a superbowl ever you'd understand. Complacency would only have been a factor had either side taken a big lead, you want to find complacency go comment on a Bills/Oilers thread. Patriots/Giants was all about some great football winning the day as in most Superbowls.

jman0war

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

Just another thing that's looking pretty bad for us during the off-season - our coaching crew looks like it's going to be pillaged by other teams. Joe Philbin already interviewed for the Fins, Dom Capers is supposedly wanted by the Raiders, Perry touted as potential Raiders DC, and assistant Winston Moss also to the Raiders.

Now of course these are all deals that are hypothetical but it looks like McCarthy is going to have to find at least one new coach for in his staff for next year.

As you know it's common for staff of a Championship team to be picked apart like that. But i disagree that it's looking pretty bad.
It's a good thing.
The team needs some shaking up, and waking up.
In fairness a 15-1 season is extraordinary, it's something most teams will only dream about; but it all came apart so easily in 1 playoff game.

The defense has been atrocious this year.
Why is that?
The buck stops with the coaches.

We still have no credible running attack.
That has to change.

Howshocowpownw

Howshocowpownw wrote: »

We do know, you clearly don't.

:D

Fine so. I won't change your opinion.

I like the "we" and "you" stuff, it takes me back to arguments in the schoolyard...

me-skywalker

I wouldnt say complacency but certainly there is a general expectation to perform well without actually stepping up and performing well.

Aaron Rodgers: Rust had nothing to do with how Packers played
Posted by Michael David Smith on January 17, 2012, 4:08 PM EST

Getty ImagesThe Packers turned in their worst performance of the season at the worst possible time on Sunday, and that has lots of people asking whether the combination of resting some key players in Week 17 and getting a first-round playoff bye made the Packers rusty at playoff time.

But Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers doesn’t buy it.

“That had nothing to do with us playing,” Rodgers said on 540 ESPN Milwaukee. “To say that we were rusty is disrespectful to the Giants and their defense and the effort they put out. They played a game. They beat us. You know, we beat ourselves enough with the turnovers and the mistakes and the drops and the poor plays, but they beat us. They played better on Sunday than we did. They executed better. I don’t think rust played any part in it.”

Those comments echo what Rodgers said immediately following the game, that the Giants won because the Giants were the better team on Sunday. Rodgers clearly thinks this game was more about what the Giants did well than about what the Packers did poorly.

But while Rodgers might not have felt rusty, he did look rusty on Sunday, and it’s easy to see how he could get rusty when he didn’t play at all between the Packers’ December 25 game against the Bears and their January 15 game against the Giants. That’s a long time off that, in hindsight, Rodgers may have been better off not having.

It is a long time to take off and then expect to pick yourself right up to that mental and physical edge you expect all your skills and talents to be just to go is wrong. I know its hindsight but I would've liked to see hm in the Lions game.

jman0war

No teams admit they were rusty.

They were, and we all know it.

bruschi

My own opinon on the 'perfect season' aspect, as a Patriots fan, I would have preferred to lose more games and win the superbowl. Yes, a perfect season is a nice achievment to get, but realistically, who gives a crap at the end of the day as long as you are the overall winners at the end.

I was even saying it during the year, I'd prefer a loss for a couple of reasons. Firstly, opposing teams play much harder against a team that are favoured, and they want to be the ones to knock them off their perch.

Secondly, and most importantly IMO, is you learn far more in defeat than you do in winning. While that may sound strange, its a philosphy I have in coaching. You can win as many games as you want against inferior opposition, but it is only in defeat will you see your weaknesses and what needst o be improved. The Packers won a few tight games this year, and much like the Pats in 07, it masked over problems that would have been highlighted more in a loss. Green Bay were 32nd ranked in defence, but yet it wasnt really spoken off that much, more so in jest that 'defence doesnt win championships anymore'.

Rodgers should have played against Detroit. Now I know the fear of an injury is there, but consitency and a winning habit and playing are qualities that come from playing. He effectivley had 3 weeks off.

Whilst I know it seems we cant talk about complcency being a factor, IN MY OPINION, it has to be considered. Not so much the lackadaisical effort of players, but more so the schemes and plays that a team has. If you are winning all season with a certian playbook, then it doesnt change. So when a team gets you on the ropes, and you need to go to plan B, well if there is no plan B then you are stuffed. That comes from complacency in thinking that you have it all sussed, but again, moreso comes down to not having been tested as hard in the winning games before that. A factor I also think played a part was that the Patriots reverted to a more standard playbook and went far more conservative in that Superbowl.

Green Bay will be back though, and will be fierce contender next year. Like a couple of teams, they need to sort out some positions on defence. They relied heavily on takeaways all year long, and were superb at interceptions. But come playoffs, you need more than that. You need to stop them moving the ball, rather than playing to try win it back.

nicodemus93

you cant blame rustyness.. Matt Flynn hadnt played a game all year and ye threw for 6 tds and 480 yards against detroit. was he rusty?

mossy2390

combination of a bad day for the packers, dropped passes, near misses by rodgers and fumbles.

combined with a good day for the giants and excellent defense always going for the ball and forcing the fumbles.

cant be narrowed down to just one aspect, the defence has been poor all year and that never stopped them, it was when the giants defense stepped up and forced the fumbles that had the big effect, combined with the dropped passes that are normally made no problem = disaster!

me-skywalker

nicodemus93 wrote: »

you cant blame rustyness.. Matt Flynn hadnt played a game all year and ye threw for 6 tds and 480 yards against detroit. was he rusty?

He threw 1 INT, therefore yes! We demand perfection. At all times.


Seriously though, Is seen some guy on the Packers.com comments section saying how devastated he is and we threw away the game and how he is now giving up football. What an idiot. What a great season we had 15-1. COME ON 15-1!! We can't over react because of 1 game. We can learn from it, wait till the emotion settles, take a week or 2 off and reasses the situation. Learn and build; get better for next season. Don't write this team off, ever!

nicodemus93

we have to draft defense. unless we improve our D we will not return to the super bowl..However looking at the schedule i still expect us to win all our home games and most of our away games

bruschi

me-skywalker wrote: »

He threw 1 INT, therefore yes! We demand perfection. At all times.


Seriously though, Is seen some guy on the Packers.com comments section saying how devastated he is and we threw away the game and how he is now giving up football. What an idiot. What a great season we had 15-1. COME ON 15-1!! We can't over react because of 1 game. We can learn from it, wait till the emotion settles, take a week or 2 off and reasses the situation. Learn and build; get better for next season. Don't write this team off, ever!

I hated the whole off season after the superbowl loss to the Giants. I literally couldnt stand to watch any football or hear it or whatever. after a while I got back to my senses in time for the new season, in the hope we could go that one step further, pretty much the same team and same coaches etc. And then Brady goes down in game 1. :mad:

As long as Rodgers is still around, the Packers will still be in the reckoning next year. Starks and Grant need to improve IMO. They are good, but seem content for the play to move around them. Whether they need to have a defined no1 back or not I'm not sure, but they need a consistant ground game to compliment Rodgers (much like I believe NE needs it too, whether that is BJGE or Ridley). 27th in overall yardage isnt enough. And they need some upgrade on defence. The bones of a good defence is there, just need to get some more additions.

WakeyTyke

Given that Ted Thompson is very much a draft-and-develop GM it may well be the 2013 season before all the deficiencies in the Packer defense are fully rectified. Our best hope is if we can find another Clay Mathews-type Outside Linebacker with our first-round draft pick who can make an immediate impact on our pass rushing.

The fact that we will have possibly between 4-5 additional draft picks to compensate for losing players to free agency in the off-season will be a big bonus. May also help TT to trade up in the draft to get a better pick.

The prospect of a possible Collins - Woodson - Burnett combination at Safety would make an immediate improvement to defense. Davon House will hopefully make the planned step-up to to corner to replace Woodson. Whether Shields will ever learn to tackle is debatable so another corner is a priority. The other priority is a Defensive Tackle to compliment Raji and Pickett as a big question mark now hangs over Neal's ability to reach the standard of Jenkins as was predicted.

Whilst the defense might be some way off moving from 32nd to the top five I am very optimistic that we will have a much stronger defense to compliment our No. 1 offense.

UnitedIrishman

Most mock drafts have us picking up either a cornerback (such as Alfonzo Dennard if he falls that far) or a defensive end/linebacker (such as Andre Branch). Its pretty obvious to everyone that we need more pass rushers, that's for sure. I know our secondary wasn't exactly brilliant but when the opposition QB has ages to throw the ball then one of the receivers is bound to get seperation sometime or other.

On the other side, we need to find a RB from somewhere. Starks and Grant haven't done much bar the post-season of last year in terms of helping out the offence. I know we're in a pass heavy league with one of the best passers of the ball around, but it's badly needed to open up the game. I actually thought Alex Green was going to be a decent prospect but it's looking grim as to whether he'll be the same again after his injury.

Apart from that I'd imagine most of this draft will be spent on rebuilding the defence and picking up one or two offensive options late on or through FA.

BillN

Tough loss. I do think we need a better run game as has been posted earlier. You have to have a grind it out option to the attack. Here's hoping the Pack can get a fullback, or a good halfback via trade, draft or free agent signing. Better defense is a must as well. No team can keep winning games 45- 38 or so. One thing I heard in the media over here is that Rogers may not be a cold weather quarterback. Favre was for sure, but Rogers may not be. Oh well, one of the most exciting years to be a Packers fan nonetheless.

kmart6

BillN wrote: »

Here's hoping the Pack can get a fullback

What exactly do you think is wrong with John Kuhn?!