How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell. Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

Yeah, I hear you. Cap hell has been played out. Sherman just picked a few wrong guys to give some big contracts, and when talking about the decline from 2004 to 2005 I do think it was one of the reasons. I'd rather be well under the cap then up against it right now. The Packers have some key guys coming up for FA after this year and next that I'd like to see resigned or kept if possible.

joe johnson was a mistake. Hunt, Ferguson, and KGB were mistakes.But really the only difference between being in cap hell and TT is the fact that the salary cap is 30 million higher now. Sherman didnt really have that many bad signings in comparison. When the cap was 80 million(2005) sooner or later you were going to have a bad cap year. With the cap at 109million(current) and spending not having caught up yet, it has been pretty easy to stay below the cap. That was a pretty dramatic jump in a short time frame. TT didnt do some miraculous overhaul from 2004 to 2006 to get us in better cap shape. The cap just made a big leap and he let some players walk. What skill does it take to just be crappy for a year? It would take skill to have to make tons of cuts and get bargain basement players who turn out very good and you go 9-7. Not 4-12.

 

[zDragon]

I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

You have to be joking, right?

Have you looked at what I've posted?

I am referring to the above quote. You say the defense is not much worse than last year and that could not be further from the truth. This year's defense is one of the worst in the league.

Please look at the facts I've posted. There's also quotes from McCarthy and Rodgers so don't catch my line for one poster and ignore everything else I've posted.To say they are one of the worst in the league is even further from the truth. Here's some worse defenses.

Lions

Rams

Bengals

Chiefs

Broncos

Texans

Seahawks

49'ers

Saints

Cardinals

Football Outsiders DVOA ranking for the Packers Defense is 11th.

You might not agree with the way they analyze the 40,000 plays each season but to say they are one of the worst is off base and my point.

Throw Football Outsiders out the window if they really think the Packers are the 11th ranked defense. That is ridiculous. They aren't even a top 20 defense let alone a top 11. They can't tackle anyone. Good defenses tackle well. The Packers don't. That is obvious if you watch them play.

They can't stop the run. They allow almost 5 yards per carry. That by itself eliminates them from being a top half of the league defense. There is no such thing as a good defense that is really bad against the run.

The pass defense is just outside the top 10 in yards per game, but that is misleading because teams don't have to throw the ball since their run defense is so bad. But teams throw at will late in games. The defense can't stop the pass when they need to.

They can't stop anyone from scoring. They are allowing almost 25 PPG (bottom third in the league), and over 100 in the last 3 games. They are especially bad when it matters.

I'd sure like to know how a team that is in the bottom 3rd in points allowed, bottom 5 in rushing yards per game, bottom 5 in rushing yards per attempt, and one of the worst tackling teams in the league can be anything but a bad defense.

They are clearly a bottom 3rd of the league defense, which means they are one of the worst.

Throw out a site that uses every snap of the season to determine it's ranking? Versus your judgment and numbers that can be deceiving?Can you describe what a good tackle looks like? I know I rarely see it in the NFL so this isn't a good point.

Yards per play for the packers is 5.5 sitting at #22 in the league right now. Not near the worst unless you use your third groupings.

In your grouping of thirds the #11 (Bucs) or last team in the top third are givng up 5.0 yd/pp or 30 more yds per game (60 plays) or 3 yards per drive more (10 drives). This goes to show how important field position is in football games and how situational football matters.

Scoring is directly related to situational football and points allowed is not a really good indicator.

You should read Football outsiders to get the basic idea of what they use to calculate the numbers then come back and post.

Judging by the above and some other useless numbers they use, I'll pass. Anyone can use any snap and post a bunch of information, but it is what they DO with the information that matters. I'm sure they have some useful things, but whatever numbers they use to claim that the Packers have the 11th ranked defense is completely worthless.

Instead of just throwing numbers into a computer, they should try watching the game once in a while. There is no way that defense is close to the 11th best defense and I don't need computer generated programs to tell me. It's obvious if you watch them play.

Fine. At least you looked at them which is more than some have. If you want to write the numbers off then that's fine. I find the numbers useful and it shows whats actually going on in more detail. The fact that several pro level coaches agree and praise the sight makes me feel I am correct in my opinion.When your talking about all this how have you taken into account the situational football that effects both sides of the ball. The statements your making don't align with viewing games in this manner.

For example in the Texans game the Defense got an interception and placed the ball on the Texans 23. The Texans defense now have to defend a short field and could easily give up 3 to 7 points. The fact that it's within 23 yards or a little over two first downs increases the chances of getting a touchdown increases for the Packers. In the examples your citing for pts per game does not take this into account.

Another example if the offense is not having successful drives and punting for 3-4 drives the field position changes that the opposing offense is slowing getting it's chances of scoring increased as long as they are having successful drives. This is why you hear a lot about the field position battle which is a very real thing. This another reason you hear that an interception is worth 45 yards of field position.

I think it's easy to look at a simple number and not understand what it actually is telling you. This also doesn't even take into account how close NFL teams are. You can go from the #22 pts allowed team in green bay to the #11 pts allowed team the Falcons and only have a 3 point difference in pts per game allowed.

 

[zDragon]

sho nuff 496 posts now.

another funny one:zDragon 170total forum posts 237

Maybe it's the same person with multiple personalities and they're at war.

Nope. I just happen to post in threads I feel something needs to be said versus adding useless and wasted space to them. I fear I would have very few odd and curious posts such as this.If you check I've posted a lot of information and facts from stats, post game interviews, etc. Not really sure why I even felt a need to respond to this other than I'm bored.

 

[deep vacuum]

If anyone cares, I think I'm at around 5 posts for this thread.

 

[hauser42]

For me it is time to look ahead. Maybe to get Flynn and Brohm some snaps Not to denigrte Rodgers but to give them some much needed experience), Get Jordy Nelson and Jermicheal Finley a few more snaps in preperation for next year. It's time to shut down the older vets who have been playing hurt to let them begin recoperation for next year.

It is time to really work the cap to pull as much stuff forward to this year so that they cango shopping for Albert Haynesworth.

I'm looking forward to the draft. The Packers will have a better pick than they have generally had for a decade and a half, and they will get the extra pick for Favre. They will be able to go BPA except at Q.B. or W.R. I'm thinking we could see them go Offensive Tackle, C.B. Guard with their first three, though an Impact D.E. might be available with their first pick. I'm excited for the future. I will be interested to see if T.T. can make some magic.

I can guarantee you that Thompson will not sign Haynesworth in free agency. That is not his style. He might add a few guys for depth here or there, but that will be the extent of it.

Character issues alone would eliminate him.

Early pick on a CB would be a waste of a pick. They have 2 vets and Williams, Blackmon and Lee for depth. Unless they decide to move Woodson to safety next year I would say this is low on the needs list.

 

[Kleck]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell. Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

Yeah, I hear you. Cap hell has been played out. Sherman just picked a few wrong guys to give some big contracts, and when talking about the decline from 2004 to 2005 I do think it was one of the reasons. I'd rather be well under the cap then up against it right now. The Packers have some key guys coming up for FA after this year and next that I'd like to see resigned or kept if possible.

joe johnson was a mistake. Hunt, Ferguson, and KGB were mistakes.But really the only difference between being in cap hell and TT is the fact that the salary cap is 30 million higher now. Sherman didnt really have that many bad signings in comparison. When the cap was 80 million(2005) sooner or later you were going to have a bad cap year. With the cap at 109million(current) and spending not having caught up yet, it has been pretty easy to stay below the cap. That was a pretty dramatic jump in a short time frame. TT didnt do some miraculous overhaul from 2004 to 2006 to get us in better cap shape. The cap just made a big leap and he let some players walk. What skill does it take to just be crappy for a year? It would take skill to have to make tons of cuts and get bargain basement players who turn out very good and you go 9-7. Not 4-12.

As the cap increases, so do player's contracts. It's progressive. The problem Sherman had was that he had enough bad signings to put them up against the wall, and when other player's contracts came due there was nothing to be done but let a few of them walk or cut other players. And when you cut a player who has a big signing bonus you leave yourself dead cap space. Bubba Franks was a $2m cap hit this year, plus we're still paying for Robert Ferguson. A house cleaning was going to happen regardless of who the GM was. What I think TT is doing right is something that his mentor, Ron Wolf, did and focus on building through the draft. You're not always going to make the right picks, but I do believe it's the best way to build a team. There is no better value in my opinion than those 2nd through late-round picks on 4-5 year rookie contracts that become stars. Maybe TT gets us up against a wall by 2011, maybe not. Arguably the biggest skill a GM needs is player evaluation, and in that area I have to say TT is dong a better job than Sherman.

 

[parasaurolophus]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell.

Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

Yeah, I hear you. Cap hell has been played out. Sherman just picked a few wrong guys to give some big contracts, and when talking about the decline from 2004 to 2005 I do think it was one of the reasons. I'd rather be well under the cap then up against it right now. The Packers have some key guys coming up for FA after this year and next that I'd like to see resigned or kept if possible.

joe johnson was a mistake. Hunt, Ferguson, and KGB were mistakes.But really the only difference between being in cap hell and TT is the fact that the salary cap is 30 million higher now.

Sherman didnt really have that many bad signings in comparison. When the cap was 80 million(2005) sooner or later you were going to have a bad cap year. With the cap at 109million(current) and spending not having caught up yet, it has been pretty easy to stay below the cap. That was a pretty dramatic jump in a short time frame.

TT didnt do some miraculous overhaul from 2004 to 2006 to get us in better cap shape. The cap just made a big leap and he let some players walk. What skill does it take to just be crappy for a year? It would take skill to have to make tons of cuts and get bargain basement players who turn out very good and you go 9-7. Not 4-12.

As the cap increases, so do player's contracts. It's progressive. The problem Sherman had was that he had enough bad signings to put them up against the wall, and when other player's contracts came due there was nothing to be done but let a few of them walk or cut other players. And when you cut a player who has a big signing bonus you leave yourself dead cap space. Bubba Franks was a $2m cap hit this year, plus we're still paying for Robert Ferguson.

A house cleaning was going to happen regardless of who the GM was. What I think TT is doing right is something that his mentor, Ron Wolf, did and focus on building through the draft. You're not always going to make the right picks, but I do believe it's the best way to build a team. There is no better value in my opinion than those 2nd through late-round picks on 4-5 year rookie contracts that become stars.

Maybe TT gets us up against a wall by 2011, maybe not. Arguably the biggest skill a GM needs is player evaluation, and in that area I have to say TT is dong a better job than Sherman.

i understand how the cap works. The recent jump in the cap was huge. Spending doesnt immediately catch up. it will probably take a few more years. Dead money has to filter through, rookie slots dont immediately make the same jumps, etc etc.

I agree completely about the 2nd-7th rd picks, however in order to hit on a higher percentage, you have to be able to afford to let players develop. The only way to let players develop not 100% at the expense of the present is to have good veteran backups and leaders. I dont really see Thompson and Mccarthy pursuing these kinds of players.

 

[Kleck]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell.

Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

Yeah, I hear you. Cap hell has been played out. Sherman just picked a few wrong guys to give some big contracts, and when talking about the decline from 2004 to 2005 I do think it was one of the reasons. I'd rather be well under the cap then up against it right now. The Packers have some key guys coming up for FA after this year and next that I'd like to see resigned or kept if possible.

joe johnson was a mistake. Hunt, Ferguson, and KGB were mistakes.But really the only difference between being in cap hell and TT is the fact that the salary cap is 30 million higher now.

Sherman didnt really have that many bad signings in comparison. When the cap was 80 million(2005) sooner or later you were going to have a bad cap year. With the cap at 109million(current) and spending not having caught up yet, it has been pretty easy to stay below the cap. That was a pretty dramatic jump in a short time frame.

TT didnt do some miraculous overhaul from 2004 to 2006 to get us in better cap shape. The cap just made a big leap and he let some players walk. What skill does it take to just be crappy for a year? It would take skill to have to make tons of cuts and get bargain basement players who turn out very good and you go 9-7. Not 4-12.

As the cap increases, so do player's contracts. It's progressive. The problem Sherman had was that he had enough bad signings to put them up against the wall, and when other player's contracts came due there was nothing to be done but let a few of them walk or cut other players. And when you cut a player who has a big signing bonus you leave yourself dead cap space. Bubba Franks was a $2m cap hit this year, plus we're still paying for Robert Ferguson.

A house cleaning was going to happen regardless of who the GM was. What I think TT is doing right is something that his mentor, Ron Wolf, did and focus on building through the draft. You're not always going to make the right picks, but I do believe it's the best way to build a team. There is no better value in my opinion than those 2nd through late-round picks on 4-5 year rookie contracts that become stars.

Maybe TT gets us up against a wall by 2011, maybe not. Arguably the biggest skill a GM needs is player evaluation, and in that area I have to say TT is dong a better job than Sherman.

i understand how the cap works. The recent jump in the cap was huge. Spending doesnt immediately catch up. it will probably take a few more years. Dead money has to filter through, rookie slots dont immediately make the same jumps, etc etc.

I agree completely about the 2nd-7th rd picks, however in order to hit on a higher percentage, you have to be able to afford to let players develop. The only way to let players develop not 100% at the expense of the present is to have good veteran backups and leaders. I dont really see Thompson and Mccarthy pursuing these kinds of players.

I hear what you're saying about player development, and lack of good veteran backups is a missing part to this Packer team. With some of the huge contracts signed in the past couple of years, and early 1st round rookie contracts hitting new highs every year, I can't believe that it hasn't caught up already. Players Agents aren't dumb. When there is more money to be spent, they'll be asking for it. Tommy Kelly $50M? Bernard Berrian $42M? Donte Stallworth $35M? Jerry Porter $30M? Makes me nervous to think what Greg Jennings will be asking for.

 

[Mario Kart]

Summary:

Defense = while giving up yards, they are not as good as last year but are not as bad as most people think according to the numbers. (B-)

Offense = have squandered many opportunities and have not played up to their potential. Definitely not as good or effective as last years offense, even with the majority returning, and have been quite ineffective at times. (C )

Special Teams = all around not good with the lone exception being Mason Crosby. The kickoff, punting coverage has not been good thus "helping" the bad numbers "given up" by the defense at times. (D)

Coaching = Compared with last year, not as good this year. Call it tentative, timidness, lacking of balls, whatever, but something is missing. Confidence in the ball handler? Who knows but it is different. (C-)

GM = the Packers are under the cap, have a young team, and are selling out games. The team is not winning, not effective on the field, and out of the playoffs with, possibly, a losing record for only the second time in 17 years. What changed from this year to last year? What players were added, subtracted? How has that helped the team, hurt the team? (C-)

 

[sho nuff]

I know it's only 2 games, but Rodgers has looked sharp. The Packers management were pilloried by the media for not bringing Favre back.

I know Rodgers is playing on a very good team, but he has 504 yards, 4 td's with no interceptions. One rushing td.

Favre has 375 yards, 3 td's and 1 int. His team is not as good.

Most important information in this post is that it's only been 2 games, check back after 16.

Of the five opportunities where Rodgers could have saved the game, I believe Favre could have won 3. Of the 5 games that the Packers have won this year, I believe Favre's poor play would have impacted the team into losing 1. This is would make their record on the year 7-6, and would put them still in contention to win the division, unlike now where they have to Pray that they win out and the Vikings lose out.

Could have won 3? Great. Does not mean he would have as you gave him credit for.But even given your supposed 7-6...so, they might squeak in with the division and then what?

That is the main issue.

If its just squeak in but get beat...they obviously made the right decision (which is what this thread is ultimately about).

I thought this thread was about how the Packers didn't miss a beat with Rodgers in instead of Favre? Atleast that's how it started in week 2, anyway. I disagree to the point that it wouldn't be worth it to win the division if they lose the 1st game. That makes no sense to me, as nothing is predestined in the world. If you make it into the playoffs, you have the opportunity to play to get into the superbowl. If you don't, then you wait till next year. So by your logic, since the Packers will most likely not be winning the division this year, they might as well have not played any of the games they played this year because it was all for nothing? Makes no sense.

I am sure some playoff experience would be good for rogers, like you said it makes no sense.

In the scenario posted...Favre would have still been on the team...so how would Rodgers be getting any playoff experience?

There's still an outside chance that Rodgers' could play in the playoffs. Should the Packers stop trying for the final 3 weeks even though if they win out and the Vikings lose out they are still likely one and done? I would think not, and the same holds true if Favre had been brought back, because "likely" isn't written in stone.What is the point in moving on with Rodgers if EITHER WAY the Packers can't make it to the playoffs or they make it in and they lose the first game? The object of the season is to make it to the playoffs. Then anything can happen.

The way the Packers have played this season they should have cut their losses before they started, traded all their old talent away for picks because that's their strategy, and planned to be good when Flynn or Brohm develop because NOBODY can succeed with the defense they have, right? They should have rebuilt their o-line and d-line and not risked their few young stars they had to injury, apparently, because either way they couldn't succeed.

I don't subscribe to that philosophy. Maybe they could have used Favre to get Rodgers' to the playoffs and handed him the reins then so he could get the same experience that the young players had last year in the NFC Championship game. It served them all so well.

Green Bay Packers: The most inexperienced team in the league.

What is the point of moving on with him if they can't make it? Ummm...I don't know, not having a 39 year old QB who would probably retire again and actually getting to see what the guy you drafted to replace him can do? Get him a year of experience under his belt. (Especially funny question given your last line).Nobody is saying cut everyone. If you cannot see the difference between a guy like Woodson and Harris or other older players and Brett Favre, I can't help you.

I don't think they realized Tauscher and CLifton would go downhill as fast (IMO, Tauscher did not so much)...thought they had another 2-3 years with them.

Rebuild the Dline? They have already been doing that. Its not that old of a line.

Let Favre get them to the playoffs and then yank him? ARe you seriously saying that? Do you understand how much complaining there would be? That has got to be the worst idea I have heard and I hope you were just being sarcastic in a poor attempt at making a point.

The point is...I don't think they thought it would go downhill this fast. They wanted to see what they had.

The point is...now that we see how bad the defense is...the decision is proving to be the right one as they were not going anywhere even if Brett were here.

 

[sho nuff]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell. Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

How much has Sherman even been brought up?THe point was...Sherman forced TT's hand in having to blow up the team and go young to start with.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Summaryefense = while giving up yards, they are not as good as last year but are not as bad as most people think according to the numbers. (B-)Offense = have squandered many opportunities and have not played up to their potential. Definitely not as good or effective as last years offense, even with the majority returning, and have been quite ineffective at times. (C )Special Teams = all around not good with the lone exception being Mason Crosby. The kickoff, punting coverage has not been good thus "helping" the bad numbers "given up" by the defense at times. (D)Coaching = Compared with last year, not as good this year. Call it tentative, timidness, lacking of balls, whatever, but something is missing. Confidence in the ball handler? Who knows but it is different. (C-)GM = the Packers are under the cap, have a young team, and are selling out games. The team is not winning, not effective on the field, and out of the playoffs with, possibly, a losing record for only the second time in 17 years. What changed from this year to last year? What players were added, subtracted? How has that helped the team, hurt the team? (C-)

i agree with most of this. I would give the offense a B(maybe a B+) and I would give the defense a C.

 

[sho nuff]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell. Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

Yeah, I hear you. Cap hell has been played out. Sherman just picked a few wrong guys to give some big contracts, and when talking about the decline from 2004 to 2005 I do think it was one of the reasons. I'd rather be well under the cap then up against it right now. The Packers have some key guys coming up for FA after this year and next that I'd like to see resigned or kept if possible.

joe johnson was a mistake. Hunt, Ferguson, and KGB were mistakes.But really the only difference between being in cap hell and TT is the fact that the salary cap is 30 million higher now. Sherman didnt really have that many bad signings in comparison. When the cap was 80 million(2005) sooner or later you were going to have a bad cap year. With the cap at 109million(current) and spending not having caught up yet, it has been pretty easy to stay below the cap. That was a pretty dramatic jump in a short time frame. TT didnt do some miraculous overhaul from 2004 to 2006 to get us in better cap shape. The cap just made a big leap and he let some players walk. What skill does it take to just be crappy for a year? It would take skill to have to make tons of cuts and get bargain basement players who turn out very good and you go 9-7. Not 4-12.

Hardy Nickerson too. And Bubba's contract.The other difference is not only was the team in cap trouble...the roster was old and lacked any depth at all.He did make some moves though to get rid of some bloated contracts.Letting guys like Rivera, FLanagan, and Green walk was a good chunk of change gone.

 

[sho nuff]

Summaryefense = while giving up yards, they are not as good as last year but are not as bad as most people think according to the numbers. (B-)Offense = have squandered many opportunities and have not played up to their potential. Definitely not as good or effective as last years offense, even with the majority returning, and have been quite ineffective at times. (C )Special Teams = all around not good with the lone exception being Mason Crosby. The kickoff, punting coverage has not been good thus "helping" the bad numbers "given up" by the defense at times. (D)Coaching = Compared with last year, not as good this year. Call it tentative, timidness, lacking of balls, whatever, but something is missing. Confidence in the ball handler? Who knows but it is different. (C-)GM = the Packers are under the cap, have a young team, and are selling out games. The team is not winning, not effective on the field, and out of the playoffs with, possibly, a losing record for only the second time in 17 years. What changed from this year to last year? What players were added, subtracted? How has that helped the team, hurt the team? (C-)

I don't understand how anyone would give this defense a B-. It was the worst 2 game stretch since something like 1958 (NO and Carolina).I can agree on the rest...but there is no way that defense is anything above a C and even that would be generous IMO.

 

[Chachi]

500 posts now.

Over/Under for 1000 is the date of January 15, 2009. Any takers?

 

[sho nuff]

500 posts now.Over/Under for 1000 is the date of January 15, 2009. Any takers?

Id count your posts that have anything to do with the topic and are not just worrying about my posts...but I have yet to find any.In the meantime...the decision appears to be just fine. As QB play is not top 5 of issues this team has had this year.

 

[zDragon]

Summaryefense = while giving up yards, they are not as good as last year but are not as bad as most people think according to the numbers. (B-)Offense = have squandered many opportunities and have not played up to their potential. Definitely not as good or effective as last years offense, even with the majority returning, and have been quite ineffective at times. (C )Special Teams = all around not good with the lone exception being Mason Crosby. The kickoff, punting coverage has not been good thus "helping" the bad numbers "given up" by the defense at times. (D)Coaching = Compared with last year, not as good this year. Call it tentative, timidness, lacking of balls, whatever, but something is missing. Confidence in the ball handler? Who knows but it is different. (C-)GM = the Packers are under the cap, have a young team, and are selling out games. The team is not winning, not effective on the field, and out of the playoffs with, possibly, a losing record for only the second time in 17 years. What changed from this year to last year? What players were added, subtracted? How has that helped the team, hurt the team? (C-)

I like the grades that were handed out. I would not put the coaching at c- though c at the lowest.

 

[zDragon]

Summaryefense = while giving up yards, they are not as good as last year but are not as bad as most people think according to the numbers. (B-)Offense = have squandered many opportunities and have not played up to their potential. Definitely not as good or effective as last years offense, even with the majority returning, and have been quite ineffective at times. (C )Special Teams = all around not good with the lone exception being Mason Crosby. The kickoff, punting coverage has not been good thus "helping" the bad numbers "given up" by the defense at times. (D)Coaching = Compared with last year, not as good this year. Call it tentative, timidness, lacking of balls, whatever, but something is missing. Confidence in the ball handler? Who knows but it is different. (C-)GM = the Packers are under the cap, have a young team, and are selling out games. The team is not winning, not effective on the field, and out of the playoffs with, possibly, a losing record for only the second time in 17 years. What changed from this year to last year? What players were added, subtracted? How has that helped the team, hurt the team? (C-)

I don't understand how anyone would give this defense a B-. It was the worst 2 game stretch since something like 1958 (NO and Carolina).I can agree on the rest...but there is no way that defense is anything above a C and even that would be generous IMO.

Your now looking at only two games again. Look at the overall body of work.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Summaryefense = while giving up yards, they are not as good as last year but are not as bad as most people think according to the numbers. (B-)Offense = have squandered many opportunities and have not played up to their potential. Definitely not as good or effective as last years offense, even with the majority returning, and have been quite ineffective at times. (C )Special Teams = all around not good with the lone exception being Mason Crosby. The kickoff, punting coverage has not been good thus "helping" the bad numbers "given up" by the defense at times. (D)Coaching = Compared with last year, not as good this year. Call it tentative, timidness, lacking of balls, whatever, but something is missing. Confidence in the ball handler? Who knows but it is different. (C-)GM = the Packers are under the cap, have a young team, and are selling out games. The team is not winning, not effective on the field, and out of the playoffs with, possibly, a losing record for only the second time in 17 years. What changed from this year to last year? What players were added, subtracted? How has that helped the team, hurt the team? (C-)

I don't understand how anyone would give this defense a B-. It was the worst 2 game stretch since something like 1958 (NO and Carolina).I can agree on the rest...but there is no way that defense is anything above a C and even that would be generous IMO.

Your now looking at only two games again. Look at the overall body of work.

They are still very good vs the pass but the defense is awful against the run - 28th in the league and giving up 17 TDs (tied for 5th most).So you're half right. But B-/C is around the area - you're splitting the difference between excelling at one position and sucking at another. I'd lean towards C/C+ myself but it's debatable. The pass D more than makes up for it often.

 

[sho nuff]

Summaryefense = while giving up yards, they are not as good as last year but are not as bad as most people think according to the numbers. (B-)Offense = have squandered many opportunities and have not played up to their potential. Definitely not as good or effective as last years offense, even with the majority returning, and have been quite ineffective at times. (C )Special Teams = all around not good with the lone exception being Mason Crosby. The kickoff, punting coverage has not been good thus "helping" the bad numbers "given up" by the defense at times. (D)Coaching = Compared with last year, not as good this year. Call it tentative, timidness, lacking of balls, whatever, but something is missing. Confidence in the ball handler? Who knows but it is different. (C-)GM = the Packers are under the cap, have a young team, and are selling out games. The team is not winning, not effective on the field, and out of the playoffs with, possibly, a losing record for only the second time in 17 years. What changed from this year to last year? What players were added, subtracted? How has that helped the team, hurt the team? (C-)

I don't understand how anyone would give this defense a B-. It was the worst 2 game stretch since something like 1958 (NO and Carolina).I can agree on the rest...but there is no way that defense is anything above a C and even that would be generous IMO.

Your now looking at only two games again. Look at the overall body of work.

I am looking at the overall body of work...its not good. Im not looking at just 2 games...I simply mentioned them because of the historical context.My grade is based on the whole season. Whether its poor play, wearing down, injuries or what...they have not been good.

 

[zDragon]

500 posts now.Over/Under for 1000 is the date of January 15, 2009. Any takers?

Id count your posts that have anything to do with the topic and are not just worrying about my posts...but I have yet to find any.In the meantime...the decision appears to be just fine. As QB play is not top 5 of issues this team has had this year.

Good posting on the post counts. Not sure why anyone would bother.

 

[sho nuff]

Summaryefense = while giving up yards, they are not as good as last year but are not as bad as most people think according to the numbers. (B-)Offense = have squandered many opportunities and have not played up to their potential. Definitely not as good or effective as last years offense, even with the majority returning, and have been quite ineffective at times. (C )Special Teams = all around not good with the lone exception being Mason Crosby. The kickoff, punting coverage has not been good thus "helping" the bad numbers "given up" by the defense at times. (D)Coaching = Compared with last year, not as good this year. Call it tentative, timidness, lacking of balls, whatever, but something is missing. Confidence in the ball handler? Who knows but it is different. (C-)GM = the Packers are under the cap, have a young team, and are selling out games. The team is not winning, not effective on the field, and out of the playoffs with, possibly, a losing record for only the second time in 17 years. What changed from this year to last year? What players were added, subtracted? How has that helped the team, hurt the team? (C-)

I don't understand how anyone would give this defense a B-. It was the worst 2 game stretch since something like 1958 (NO and Carolina).I can agree on the rest...but there is no way that defense is anything above a C and even that would be generous IMO.

Your now looking at only two games again. Look at the overall body of work.

They are still very good vs the pass but the defense is awful against the run - 28th in the league and giving up 17 TDs (tied for 5th most).So you're half right. But B-/C is around the area - you're splitting the difference between excelling at one position and sucking at another. I'd lean towards C/C+ myself but it's debatable. The pass D more than makes up for it often.

Last few games...the pass defense has not been very good either. Some of that is compounded by Woodson being at safety and some because there is no pass rush.But the last 3 weeks they have been getting beat through the air as much as on the ground.

 

[parasaurolophus]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell. Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

Yeah, I hear you. Cap hell has been played out. Sherman just picked a few wrong guys to give some big contracts, and when talking about the decline from 2004 to 2005 I do think it was one of the reasons. I'd rather be well under the cap then up against it right now. The Packers have some key guys coming up for FA after this year and next that I'd like to see resigned or kept if possible.

joe johnson was a mistake. Hunt, Ferguson, and KGB were mistakes.But really the only difference between being in cap hell and TT is the fact that the salary cap is 30 million higher now. Sherman didnt really have that many bad signings in comparison. When the cap was 80 million(2005) sooner or later you were going to have a bad cap year. With the cap at 109million(current) and spending not having caught up yet, it has been pretty easy to stay below the cap. That was a pretty dramatic jump in a short time frame. TT didnt do some miraculous overhaul from 2004 to 2006 to get us in better cap shape. The cap just made a big leap and he let some players walk. What skill does it take to just be crappy for a year? It would take skill to have to make tons of cuts and get bargain basement players who turn out very good and you go 9-7. Not 4-12.

Hardy Nickerson too. And Bubba's contract.The other difference is not only was the team in cap trouble...the roster was old and lacked any depth at all.He did make some moves though to get rid of some bloated contracts.Letting guys like Rivera, FLanagan, and Green walk was a good chunk of change gone.

Bubba's contract was a TT deal. KGB makes 6.15 million this year and he can sit on his butt and do nothing. His remaining signing bonus cap hit was very manageable. So we pay him anyway and we then cut him to free up a roster spot for TT's boy Justin.

 

[Kleck]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell. Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

Yeah, I hear you. Cap hell has been played out. Sherman just picked a few wrong guys to give some big contracts, and when talking about the decline from 2004 to 2005 I do think it was one of the reasons. I'd rather be well under the cap then up against it right now. The Packers have some key guys coming up for FA after this year and next that I'd like to see resigned or kept if possible.

joe johnson was a mistake. Hunt, Ferguson, and KGB were mistakes.But really the only difference between being in cap hell and TT is the fact that the salary cap is 30 million higher now. Sherman didnt really have that many bad signings in comparison. When the cap was 80 million(2005) sooner or later you were going to have a bad cap year. With the cap at 109million(current) and spending not having caught up yet, it has been pretty easy to stay below the cap. That was a pretty dramatic jump in a short time frame. TT didnt do some miraculous overhaul from 2004 to 2006 to get us in better cap shape. The cap just made a big leap and he let some players walk. What skill does it take to just be crappy for a year? It would take skill to have to make tons of cuts and get bargain basement players who turn out very good and you go 9-7. Not 4-12.

Hardy Nickerson too. And Bubba's contract.The other difference is not only was the team in cap trouble...the roster was old and lacked any depth at all.He did make some moves though to get rid of some bloated contracts.Letting guys like Rivera, FLanagan, and Green walk was a good chunk of change gone.

Bubba's contract was a TT deal. KGB makes 6.15 million this year and he can sit on his butt and do nothing. His remaining signing bonus cap hit was very manageable. So we pay him anyway and we then cut him to free up a roster spot for TT's boy Justin.

I had forgotten about Bubba signing the extension in 2005. cpheph1's cap page has KGB at $1,571,429 for remaining pro-rated signing bonus.

 

[parasaurolophus]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell. Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

Yeah, I hear you. Cap hell has been played out. Sherman just picked a few wrong guys to give some big contracts, and when talking about the decline from 2004 to 2005 I do think it was one of the reasons. I'd rather be well under the cap then up against it right now. The Packers have some key guys coming up for FA after this year and next that I'd like to see resigned or kept if possible.

joe johnson was a mistake. Hunt, Ferguson, and KGB were mistakes.But really the only difference between being in cap hell and TT is the fact that the salary cap is 30 million higher now. Sherman didnt really have that many bad signings in comparison. When the cap was 80 million(2005) sooner or later you were going to have a bad cap year. With the cap at 109million(current) and spending not having caught up yet, it has been pretty easy to stay below the cap. That was a pretty dramatic jump in a short time frame. TT didnt do some miraculous overhaul from 2004 to 2006 to get us in better cap shape. The cap just made a big leap and he let some players walk. What skill does it take to just be crappy for a year? It would take skill to have to make tons of cuts and get bargain basement players who turn out very good and you go 9-7. Not 4-12.

Hardy Nickerson too. And Bubba's contract.The other difference is not only was the team in cap trouble...the roster was old and lacked any depth at all.He did make some moves though to get rid of some bloated contracts.Letting guys like Rivera, FLanagan, and Green walk was a good chunk of change gone.

Bubba's contract was a TT deal. KGB makes 6.15 million this year and he can sit on his butt and do nothing. His remaining signing bonus cap hit was very manageable. So we pay him anyway and we then cut him to free up a roster spot for TT's boy Justin.

I had forgotten about Bubba signing the extension in 2005. cpheph1's cap page has KGB at $1,571,429 for remaining pro-rated signing bonus.

that is where i was getting the numbers from also.

 

[Frank Black]

What a pitiful INT Favre just threw to Buffalo in an important game. That's what he would be doing for GB this year if he was there, only with no long term upside long term potential.

 

[Sabertooth]

Rodgers lead the league in touchdown passes on third down (tied with Rivers). Did not know that.

 

[wilked]

Another W by Favre, Pack looking to lose yet again

 

[CalBear]

Another W by Favre, Pack looking to lose yet again

Rodgers led his team to a go-ahead fourth quarter score, and the Packers D let Jacksonville walk all the way down the field to go ahead. Favre threw a bad INT and didn't get anywhere near the end zone, and got bailed out when Buffalo called a stupid, stupid play and his defense forced a fumble and ran it in for a TD.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Another W by Favre, Pack looking to lose yet again

Rodgers led his team to a go-ahead fourth quarter score, and the Packers D let Jacksonville walk all the way down the field to go ahead. Favre threw a bad INT and didn't get anywhere near the end zone, and got bailed out when Buffalo called a stupid, stupid play and his defense forced a fumble and ran it in for a TD.

and now Rodgers is 0-5 in trying to win the game in crunch time after throwing an INT on the last drive.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Another W by Favre, Pack looking to lose yet again

Rodgers led his team to a go-ahead fourth quarter score, and the Packers D let Jacksonville walk all the way down the field to go ahead. Favre threw a bad INT and didn't get anywhere near the end zone, and got bailed out when Buffalo called a stupid, stupid play and his defense forced a fumble and ran it in for a TD.

While I don't disagree with a bunch of this - Favre threw a TD today so he did indeed get close to the end zone.

 

[VTjkru]

Another W by Favre, Pack looking to lose yet again

Rodgers led his team to a go-ahead fourth quarter score, and the Packers D let Jacksonville walk all the way down the field to go ahead. Favre threw a bad INT and didn't get anywhere near the end zone, and got bailed out when Buffalo called a stupid, stupid play and his defense forced a fumble and ran it in for a TD.

and now Rodgers is 0-5 in trying to win the game in crunch time after throwing an INT on the last drive.

While the Rodger detractors are really good at trolling, this is one point that I think both sides can agree on. Favre will lose some games with aggressive decisions but there are times he makes the highlight reel with them. Rodgers hasnt proven that he can win games but he also doesnt lose games either. I came into this season thinking the Packers should do fine, maybe not as good as last season, but as long as Rodgers manages the game well and doesnt try to win it by himself they will do fine. Obviously he's done his part but the other side of the ball is not playing nearly as well as last year.With Favre, the Packers probably win two to three games more at the max. It wouldnt surprise me if they had the same record though.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Before we hear about the all the excuses blaming the defense.....please remember the offense scored just 16 points today.

 

[ScottyFargo]

There is nothing more I would like than to see Rodgers succeed against the Bears next week. I really have to question their chances given the performance against the Jags today.

 

[parasaurolophus]

this team is just sickening.

Its really not fair that Rodgers cant ever be bailed out, but that being said, he folded today at the end. He almost threw a pick earlier on that last drive, then threw the pick.

His coach really screws him though. i hated hearing today "green bay getting back to the running game"

 

[BeaverCleaver]

this team is just sickening.Its really not fair that Rodgers cant ever be bailed out, but that being said, he folded today at the end. He almost threw a pick earlier on that last drive, then threw the pick. His coach really screws him though. i hated hearing today "green bay getting back to the running game"

fMike McCarthy is going to coach himself out of a job. He's been terrible this year.

 

[zDragon]

Before we hear about the all the excuses blaming the defense.....please remember the offense scored just 16 points today.

Lots of chances where they could not get the 7 and accepted the 3.

 

[zDragon]

this team is just sickening.Its really not fair that Rodgers cant ever be bailed out, but that being said, he folded today at the end. He almost threw a pick earlier on that last drive, then threw the pick. His coach really screws him though. i hated hearing today "green bay getting back to the running game"

The defense only gave up 7 points in the first half. The pack offense just didn't score touchdowns when they had a chance.

 

[parasaurolophus]

the play calling is atrocious.

Its like the same 12 freakin plays.

 

[sho nuff]

Before we hear about the all the excuses blaming the defense.....please remember the offense scored just 16 points today.

The offense was bad today too.Cannot settle for FGs all day.And what you just want to call an excuse...is the truth that some of you cannot handle. The defense is struggling and is allowing too much in the 4th quarters.Another TD given up after the offense, while still not good and Im not giving them a pass, but they got the lead with about 5 minutes left or so...80 yards and a TD later, the Packers were again down.

 

[sho nuff]

Before we hear about the all the excuses blaming the defense.....please remember the offense scored just 16 points today.

Lots of chances where they could not get the 7 and accepted the 3.

True...but will you admit this defense is not closing teams out and doing their part either?I see Brett's defense bailed him out.

 

[zDragon]

Before we hear about the all the excuses blaming the defense.....please remember the offense scored just 16 points today.

Lots of chances where they could not get the 7 and accepted the 3.

True...but will you admit this defense is not closing teams out and doing their part either?I see Brett's defense bailed him out.

It's easy enough to say that. Once again the Defense played good football for the majority of the game. The offense struggled all day to score touchdowns. Another close game that if the offense was putting it in the End zone the way they should the Packers come out in the win column.but if you want to look at one particular time fragment of the game sure the defense gave up the winning drive. Of course if the offense scored touchdowns versus field goals it isn't even close in the second half.Fact is the offense had a great chance to close this game down early and just did not do it.rI always like to end this with the Jags gave up 20 and their QB is the one that pulled through in the end after struggling most of the game.I DO NOT BLAME THE OFFENSE ONLY AND MY WHOLE POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT AS BAD AS SOME WOULD MAKE IT OUT TO BE.

 

[Neal Cassady]

ive watched long enough..look..its apparent that the jets are better with favre..problem is they wont be good enough..enjoy it this season..rogers has been solid..he has shown the kind of game that you can build on...i have no idea how the packers will turn out in the long run (free agents/injuries), but i'd MUCH rather have rogers than favre if i were a packer fan..AND I LOVE FAVRE..this year means nothing as they both are not going to win it all...packer fans..be happy youve got a top notch qb for years to come, which is something few teams can claim..btw..the packers d is not even close to last season

 

[sho nuff]

Before we hear about the all the excuses blaming the defense.....please remember the offense scored just 16 points today.

Lots of chances where they could not get the 7 and accepted the 3.

True...but will you admit this defense is not closing teams out and doing their part either?I see Brett's defense bailed him out.

It's easy enough to say that. Once again the Defense played good football for the majority of the game. The offense struggled all day to score touchdowns. Another close game that if the offense was putting it in the End zone the way they should the Packers come out in the win column.but if you want to look at one particular time fragment of the game sure the defense gave up the winning drive. Of course if the offense scored touchdowns versus field goals it isn't even close in the second half.Fact is the offense had a great chance to close this game down early and just did not do it.rI always like to end this with the Jags gave up 20 and their QB is the one that pulled through in the end after struggling most of the game.I DO NOT BLAME THE OFFENSE ONLY AND MY WHOLE POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT AS BAD AS SOME WOULD MAKE IT OUT TO BE.

Yes...its easy enough to say because its true. 14 4th quarter points when the team had a lead going into the 4th.Part of it was field position on one drive where the offense (and not Rodgers specifically) could not get one yard on 3 straigh rushes.And the offense had nothing to do with the D again giving up a early TD drive to open the game.Yes...the offense could be better. But again...late in a game, the D had a chance to come up and close the game out...and they could not do it either.Yup, their QB pulled through...against a defense that is not playing that well this year.

 

[zDragon]

Before we hear about the all the excuses blaming the defense.....please remember the offense scored just 16 points today.

Lots of chances where they could not get the 7 and accepted the 3.

True...but will you admit this defense is not closing teams out and doing their part either?I see Brett's defense bailed him out.

It's easy enough to say that. Once again the Defense played good football for the majority of the game. The offense struggled all day to score touchdowns. Another close game that if the offense was putting it in the End zone the way they should the Packers come out in the win column.but if you want to look at one particular time fragment of the game sure the defense gave up the winning drive. Of course if the offense scored touchdowns versus field goals it isn't even close in the second half.Fact is the offense had a great chance to close this game down early and just did not do it.rI always like to end this with the Jags gave up 20 and their QB is the one that pulled through in the end after struggling most of the game.I DO NOT BLAME THE OFFENSE ONLY AND MY WHOLE POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT AS BAD AS SOME WOULD MAKE IT OUT TO BE.

Yes...its easy enough to say because its true. 14 4th quarter points when the team had a lead going into the 4th.Part of it was field position on one drive where the offense (and not Rodgers specifically) could not get one yard on 3 straigh rushes.And the offense had nothing to do with the D again giving up a early TD drive to open the game.Yes...the offense could be better. But again...late in a game, the D had a chance to come up and close the game out...and they could not do it either.Yup, their QB pulled through...against a defense that is not playing that well this year.

To bad the offense can't score touchdowns while the defense is coming up with stop after stop. From the first quarter until the start of the fourth. Every time the Jags got the ball they were stopped.The offense faltered almost every drive up to that point. So they let the Jags STAY IN THE GAME. When the defense falters what does the Offense do MORE OF THE SAME in getting 3 points versus seven.What happens when they have the ball with 1:50.....fail to do anything one again. Tell me this. How many points can the defense give up before you realize the offense needs to take advantage of their chances.?Teams giving up as many or more points in the early games and winning so far. Chi 24Sea 20NYJ 27SD 21Ind 21What I'm hearing from you is if the Defense does not play perfect then the Packers will lose as that's been the case all year in close games.ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT BLAMING THIS ENTIRELY ON THE OFFENSE BUT MAKING THE POINT THAT THE DEFENSE IS NOT AS BAD AS SOME WOULD MAKE YOU BELIEVE.

 

[sho nuff]

Before we hear about the all the excuses blaming the defense.....please remember the offense scored just 16 points today.

Lots of chances where they could not get the 7 and accepted the 3.

True...but will you admit this defense is not closing teams out and doing their part either?I see Brett's defense bailed him out.

It's easy enough to say that. Once again the Defense played good football for the majority of the game. The offense struggled all day to score touchdowns. Another close game that if the offense was putting it in the End zone the way they should the Packers come out in the win column.but if you want to look at one particular time fragment of the game sure the defense gave up the winning drive. Of course if the offense scored touchdowns versus field goals it isn't even close in the second half.Fact is the offense had a great chance to close this game down early and just did not do it.rI always like to end this with the Jags gave up 20 and their QB is the one that pulled through in the end after struggling most of the game.I DO NOT BLAME THE OFFENSE ONLY AND MY WHOLE POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT AS BAD AS SOME WOULD MAKE IT OUT TO BE.

Yes...its easy enough to say because its true. 14 4th quarter points when the team had a lead going into the 4th.Part of it was field position on one drive where the offense (and not Rodgers specifically) could not get one yard on 3 straigh rushes.And the offense had nothing to do with the D again giving up a early TD drive to open the game.Yes...the offense could be better. But again...late in a game, the D had a chance to come up and close the game out...and they could not do it either.Yup, their QB pulled through...against a defense that is not playing that well this year.

To bad the offense can't score touchdowns while the defense is coming up with stop after stop. From the first quarter until the start of the fourth. Every time the Jags got the ball they were stopped.The offense faltered almost every drive up to that point. So they let the Jags STAY IN THE GAME. When the defense falters what does the Offense do MORE OF THE SAME in getting 3 points versus seven.What happens when they have the ball with 1:50.....fail to do anything one again. Tell me this. How many points can the defense give up before you realize the offense needs to take advantage of their chances.?Teams giving up as many or more points in the early games and winning so far. Chi 24Sea 20NYJ 27SD 21Ind 21What I'm hearing from you is if the Defense does not play perfect then the Packers will lose as that's been the case all year in close games.ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT BLAMING THIS ENTIRELY ON THE OFFENSE BUT MAKING THE POINT THAT THE DEFENSE IS NOT AS BAD AS SOME WOULD MAKE YOU BELIEVE.

You can keep that quote at the bottom of your post...but all you keep doing is making excuses for the defense.You did not mention that the Jets defense, came up with a fumble return for a TD to win the game.1:50 left...yup, they did not get it done. Would it have been any different had the defense held the Jags to a FG and the offense did not need to score a TD to win?As for how many points can the defense give up? Pointless question, give I have said several times in this and the last game that the offense has struggled too. And in reference to this game I have said you cannot just settle for FGs.But when will you ever admit the defense is not closing teams out. They did last year far more. But again gave up 14 points in the 4th quarter.While the offense did not get it done today, neither did the defense.And despite your denial, last years defense was much better...and more to the point of this thread, I doubt Brett Favre wins this game today either.And where are you hearing from me that the defense has to play perfect?I have not even come close to insinuating that, much less saying it.

 

[Tau837]

Since people are comparing the quality of the Packers and Jets defenses, let's look at the numbers. Since this week is in progress, these are the numbers through last week.

Yards allowed per game:

Jets - #18 in NFL - 334.6 ypg

Packers - #23 in NFL - 346.2 ypg

We know the Jets gave up 306 today, which will lower their average to 332.6 ypg. We know the Packers gave up 323 today, which will lower their average to 344.5 ypg.

Points allowed per game:

Jets - #19 in NFL - 22.5 ppg

Packers - #22 in NFL - 24.5 ppg

We know the Jets gave up 27 today, which will raise their average to 22.8 ppg. We know the Packers gave up 20 today, which will lower their average to 24.2 ppg.

So... the Packers give up ~12 more yards and ~1.4 more points per game. Green Bay is 5-9 and the Jets are 9-5. Obviously, there is a lot more to it than the difference in their defenses.

ETA: Entering this week, the Packers had 24 takeaways and the Jets had 23.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Since people are comparing the quality of the Packers and Jets defenses, let's look at the numbers. Since this week is in progress, these are the numbers through last week.Yards allowed per game:Jets - #18 in NFL - 334.6 ypgPackers - #23 in NFL - 346.2 ypgWe know the Jets gave up 306 today, which will lower their average to 332.6 ypg. We know the Packers gave up 323 today, which will lower their average to 344.5 ypg.Points allowed per game:Jets - #19 in NFL - 22.5 ppgPackers - #22 in NFL - 24.5 ppgWe know the Jets gave up 27 today, which will raise their average to 22.8 ppg. We know the Packers gave up 20 today, which will lower their average to 24.2 ppg.So... the Packers give up ~12 more yards and ~1.4 more points per game. Green Bay is 5-9 and the Jets are 9-5. Obviously, there is a lot more to it than the difference in their defenses.ETA: Entering this week, the Packers had 24 takeaways and the Jets had 23.

I haven't seen all the Jets games: Is there any truth to the rumor that Favre has played defense for the Jets? I can imagine that must be what is making the difference, because people did not expect Rodgers to play Packer D.

 

[sho nuff]

Since people are comparing the quality of the Packers and Jets defenses, let's look at the numbers. Since this week is in progress, these are the numbers through last week.Yards allowed per game:Jets - #18 in NFL - 334.6 ypgPackers - #23 in NFL - 346.2 ypgWe know the Jets gave up 306 today, which will lower their average to 332.6 ypg. We know the Packers gave up 323 today, which will lower their average to 344.5 ypg.Points allowed per game:Jets - #19 in NFL - 22.5 ppgPackers - #22 in NFL - 24.5 ppgWe know the Jets gave up 27 today, which will raise their average to 22.8 ppg. We know the Packers gave up 20 today, which will lower their average to 24.2 ppg.So... the Packers give up ~12 more yards and ~1.4 more points per game. Green Bay is 5-9 and the Jets are 9-5. Obviously, there is a lot more to it than the difference in their defenses.ETA: Entering this week, the Packers had 24 takeaways and the Jets had 23.

So?I don't see too many people claiming the Jets defense is just great.They got the job done late today when their offense could not do anything.But Id like to see 3rd down efficiency if you really want to compare. Then compare the 2 teams to what they had last year.I also don't see people just saying its due to the 2 defenses being different.Obviously, today, the Packers offense was bad, and their defense did not give them the help in the end either.Obviously today the Jets started out hot...but were bad in the 2nd half on offense. The defense was good in the first half, bad in the 2nd, but in the end made the big play and turned out to be the play that won the game.It surely was not Favre's 1/7 for 5 yards in the 4th quarter.

 

[zDragon]

Before we hear about the all the excuses blaming the defense.....please remember the offense scored just 16 points today.

Lots of chances where they could not get the 7 and accepted the 3.

True...but will you admit this defense is not closing teams out and doing their part either?I see Brett's defense bailed him out.

It's easy enough to say that. Once again the Defense played good football for the majority of the game. The offense struggled all day to score touchdowns. Another close game that if the offense was putting it in the End zone the way they should the Packers come out in the win column.but if you want to look at one particular time fragment of the game sure the defense gave up the winning drive. Of course if the offense scored touchdowns versus field goals it isn't even close in the second half.Fact is the offense had a great chance to close this game down early and just did not do it.rI always like to end this with the Jags gave up 20 and their QB is the one that pulled through in the end after struggling most of the game.I DO NOT BLAME THE OFFENSE ONLY AND MY WHOLE POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT AS BAD AS SOME WOULD MAKE IT OUT TO BE.

Yes...its easy enough to say because its true. 14 4th quarter points when the team had a lead going into the 4th.Part of it was field position on one drive where the offense (and not Rodgers specifically) could not get one yard on 3 straigh rushes.And the offense had nothing to do with the D again giving up a early TD drive to open the game.Yes...the offense could be better. But again...late in a game, the D had a chance to come up and close the game out...and they could not do it either.Yup, their QB pulled through...against a defense that is not playing that well this year.

To bad the offense can't score touchdowns while the defense is coming up with stop after stop. From the first quarter until the start of the fourth. Every time the Jags got the ball they were stopped.The offense faltered almost every drive up to that point. So they let the Jags STAY IN THE GAME. When the defense falters what does the Offense do MORE OF THE SAME in getting 3 points versus seven.What happens when they have the ball with 1:50.....fail to do anything one again. Tell me this. How many points can the defense give up before you realize the offense needs to take advantage of their chances.?Teams giving up as many or more points in the early games and winning so far. Chi 24Sea 20NYJ 27SD 21Ind 21What I'm hearing from you is if the Defense does not play perfect then the Packers will lose as that's been the case all year in close games.ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT BLAMING THIS ENTIRELY ON THE OFFENSE BUT MAKING THE POINT THAT THE DEFENSE IS NOT AS BAD AS SOME WOULD MAKE YOU BELIEVE.

You can keep that quote at the bottom of your post...but all you keep doing is making excuses for the defense.You did not mention that the Jets defense, came up with a fumble return for a TD to win the game.1:50 left...yup, they did not get it done. Would it have been any different had the defense held the Jags to a FG and the offense did not need to score a TD to win?As for how many points can the defense give up? Pointless question, give I have said several times in this and the last game that the offense has struggled too. And in reference to this game I have said you cannot just settle for FGs.But when will you ever admit the defense is not closing teams out. They did last year far more. But again gave up 14 points in the 4th quarter.While the offense did not get it done today, neither did the defense.And despite your denial, last years defense was much better...and more to the point of this thread, I doubt Brett Favre wins this game today either.And where are you hearing from me that the defense has to play perfect?I have not even come close to insinuating that, much less saying it.

Seems regardless of how the defense plays if the lose it's the defenses fault in you mind. Not closing out the game today for example. Sure they gave up 14 in the 4th. How many did they give up the entire game 20. The offense blew it yet you still find room to down the defense. The defense is not much worse or last years much better. This years is slightly worse.I DO NOT BLAME THE OFFENSE FOR ALL PROBLEMS THIS YEAR. MY POINT IS THE OFFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.And yes sho as long as I post to you I will keep the above tag. Since you used to like to point out I never blame the defense for anything. Want to make sure we stay on point.