Packers Post-Game: Injuries and The Week Ahead
by Brandon on Nov 27, 2009 12:16 AM CST
in Analysis
19 comments
From Mike McCarthy's press conference:
(Did you have any injuries?)
Jermichael Finley has the wind knocked out of him; he did return. Chad Clifton had a hamstring; he did not return. Cullen Jenkins had the wind knocked out of him; he did return. Jordy Nelson had a shoulder injury; he did not return. Brandon Underwood had a hamstring; he did not return. And with that, I'll take your questions.
The only injury he didn't address above was QB Aaron Rodgers, who had x-rays after the game for an injured knee and elbow, but when asked specifically about it, Mike McCarthy said "Yeah he's fine. He'll be sore in the morning."
One thing that did surprise me was that Underwood didn't play a bigger role in replacing CB Al Harris, though he still got injured at some point. But now I see that the Lions don't play more than 3 WRs and they like to use multiple tight end sets. The Packer LBs were usually left in the game to cover the tight ends.
They didn't do a good job exploiting Harris's absence, in part because their No. 2 and No. 3 WRs aren't very good. WR Dennis Northcutt had one big 47 yard reception against CB Jarrett Bush, he dropped another one with Bush in coverage that should have been a 1st down, but then only caught 1 of the other 3 passes thrown his way for 5 yards. WR Bryant Johnson only had 1 reception for 17 yards on 3 pass attempts.
It will be a slow news period for the rest of the long Thanksgiving weekend. The Packers are treating this like a bye week, and the players have off until Monday. They don't play the Ravens until December 7th, so they'll have 11 days in between games. It also might give all the injured players time to heal, including LB Brandon Chillar who's been on the active roster but kept out to rest his broken hand.
0 recs |
19 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
3 wins in 12 days
is a pretty sweet deal, especially considering its 11 days till our next game. Lets get some rest for these guys and come out and attack the Ravens
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 27, 2009 8:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
It'll be a long week and a half
This is great for the Packers. We could use an extra bye week, especially going in hot. With the Giants losing last night, the Packers are the clear front runners for the Wild Card. However, it’s not over til it’s over, so we can’t let up. I’m sure the players are enjoying this bye week to get some rest, the coaches have extra time on their hands to prepare in advance for our upcoming opponents to make our playoff push.
by Jabooty on Nov 27, 2009 11:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
This long break between games couldn't come at a better time.
When I saw Aaron Rodgers was hurt a little bit yesterday, I breathed a sigh of relief knowing that it was 11 days until the next Packers game.
This long gap gives the Packers a chance to rest some of their injured players and get them back by December 7 for our game against Baltimore.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Nov 27, 2009 11:20 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Gives them extra time to prepare for the Ravens too which is a bonus for us. They are coming off a very big emotional game and we had an easy game and then a long gap. I like how that sets us up…
by TrevorR on Nov 30, 2009 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yikes
I like how that sets us up…
Careful with your choice of words, there. ;)
The glass is more than half-full.
by NorthStarr on Dec 1, 2009 3:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
“One thing that did surprise me was that Underwood didn’t play a bigger role in replacing CB Al Harris, though he still got injured at some point. But now I see that the Lions don’t play more than 3 WRs and they like to use multiple tight end sets. The Packer LBs were usually left in the game to cover the tight ends.”
Are you kidding me?? Tramon Williams is Harris’s her apparent. He did a great job last year for Harris and in this last game he didn’t miss a step. Maybe I am missing something in all of the games that I have watched. When other teams use 4 wides our 2 safety’s (Bigby, Collin’s) and and extra LB cover and not nessesarilly and extra CB. When Harris was healthy, I noticed Tramon and Harris were on the #1’s and 2’s WR and they shifted Woodson to a hybrid Safety/CB role…….. meaning ability to blitz with him or to cover a high priority tight end or a deceptive package(overload on one side). This works most of the time because other teams don’t always allow you the ability to sub personnel. If a team has an average joe tight end—- yes , a LB usually covers. Now the only difference is Tramon, Collins, Bigby and Woodson, but a LB has to step up coverage of a tight end. This still allows the ability to rush 3 LB’s and 3 DT’s. I will be the first to admit that I do not know everything about football. But since we implimented the 3-4, I have been studing it and watching it. It is interesting and I like it. Especially because last year we were 20th in total defense and 26th in rushng defense and this year we are 2nd in total defense and 4th in rushing defense (NFL.com) I honestly don’t think Bush and Underwood are going to be expected to step up anything other than special teams. Sure they use them in some packages, but they fail miserably and they should not be on the roster next year. I believe this is why GB went outside the building and got Bell and Derek Martin. Course I am wrong often and I could be wrong again. But using Underwood in place of Harris is a rediculous notion.
by turd on Nov 27, 2009 6:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Your right with an exception..
When Woodson goes to safety Bigby usually comes out and we had Tramon and Harris on the WRs. But without Harris you would expect Underwood to take Tramons spot and Tramon to take Harris’. But I think what Brandon was trying to say is that Underwood didnt exactly play that much. Which might have been because the Packers didnt need to use Woodson as the hybrid safety (they have a name for the package but I am drawing a blank) due to the Lions not having very good WRs and not going with the bigger WR sets. Or if Capers plans on not doing it now without Harris
by bizzle4 on Nov 27, 2009 8:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not Underwood over Williams
After Harris was knocked out of the 49ers game, Underwood came in and played a lot at Harris’s spot (right outside CB) because the 49ers were playing the spread offense and Woodson was usually in the slot covering Vernon Davis late in the game. The Packers were using their dime package, and in the dime, Underwood is playing Harris’s role (though he’s now the 6th defensive back). I’m in no way claiming Underwood is better than Williams. But against the Lions, they kept Woodson on Johnson (who was usually playing outside) and the Packers never put in more than 5 defensive backs (so Underwood didn’t play much). As bizzle4 said, I was just noting that Underwood didn’t play much (because the Packers didn’t go to their dime package).
by Brandon on Nov 27, 2009 10:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bush should have had an interception.
The Lions WR became a DB and broke up the play. I was more impressed with Tramon Williams than Bush in filling Al’s spot. I also think that Atari or Nick could probably fill Al’s spot from time to time. I know the safety’s role is different…I’m just saying. A lot of vitriol from the Viqueen fans over our recent 3 in a row. They say they’re laughing that we have a bit of swagger now, but if you look, you can see that Dom is playing the D different than he was the first part of the year. 1 of them said that they should have “won the game against the Steelers” but the Steelers are the only team above .500 that they’ve played. Must be nice to be 1st in the NFC North and get to play a powderpuff schedule! Sooner or later Benedict Brent is going to show his true colors and they’re not going to be Green and Gold!
by biggun33 on Nov 28, 2009 1:11 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Except for two wins over a team in their division that have a winning record.
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Nov 28, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of vitriol from the Viqueen fans over our recent 3 in a row. They say they’re laughing that we have a bit of swagger now, but if you look, you can see that Dom is playing the D different than he was the first part of the year. 1 of them said that they should have "won the game against the Steelers" but the Steelers are the only team above .500 that they’ve played.
Yeah, just ignore them. They don’t like to see us having success, and they definitely don’t like that it looks like when Capers calls a good game our defense can be very good. All of them talk a lot about how soft our schedule is but they’ve only played 3 teams with winning records, and lost to one of those teams. When a team has a good season in the NFL a lot of the time their is some luck involved. Like in our 13-3 season when we recovered that punt block for a TD against the Eagles after it bounced about 20 yards to get there.
They could have easily lost to the 49ers and Ravens but those games went there way. In looking at our two teams I feel confident about our chances if we happen to meet in the playoffs, assuming we make it, and good about our chances in the future. Our o-line has been much better as of late, and that was really our downfall against them. Our defense was iffy against them in both games but I would love to see Capers call a game like he did against the Cowboys or 49ers instead of the conservative approach he took against them our first two games.
by packallday555 on Nov 28, 2009 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All of them talk a lot about how soft our schedule is but they’ve only played 3 teams with winning records, and lost to one of those teams.
On the other hand, we’ve played three teams with winning records (in 4 games) and lost 3 of those 4 games. We’re 6-1 against the Bears, Rams, Lions, Bucs, and Niners. That’s hardly impressive. The next five weeks is going to say a LOT about both teams. We have three very good teams lined up, two of which are on the road, and Minnesota’s schedule is toughening up as well with all six of their next games coming with playoff implications- Chicago, Carolina, and New York are all in the wildcard hunt, Cincinnati is fighting for playoff positioning, and the Arizona game next week has a direct impact on the NFC playoffs as well.
by vitaminx on Nov 28, 2009 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate to say it
but they’re playing the same powderpuff schedule that we are and they only have one loss. That speaks a lot more to our inability to come out and win when we need to and close out games than it says anything about the Vikes’ so far fantastic season. If this winning streak extended back to the Tampa game, I’d say it’s impressive and not really indicative of how much better they are than us or not, but just losing that game alone made me really sour on the whole year, and especially the game before that which we absolutely NEEDED if we wanted any chance at making a serious run this year.
It’s hard to admit, but Minnesota is one of the best teams in the league this year and may be the best (and maybe more importantly healthiest) team in the NFC. Unfortunately, one of the hardest things about sports is that eventually your worst and most hated rival will eventually be good and make a run.. I’m just hoping it doesn’t get there all the way, and thankfully so is the rest of the league as everyone is sick of “Benedict Brent.”
by vitaminx on Nov 28, 2009 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Keep one thing in mind...
Two of our losses and two of their wins are against one another. You take those out and the records against the others aren’t THAT different. Clearly the Vikings are a better all around team and are playing at a higher level but that doesn’t mean the packers still aren’t a playoff worthy team. Aside from the Bucs game which was clearly a shocking meltdown…the only losses were to division leading Vikings twice and the Bengals who swept both the Ravens and Steelers. We might be harder on this team than we should be…we have a LOT to prove yet though.
by TrevorR on Nov 30, 2009 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
It’s not like we’ve had a horrible year by any means. We’re in position to make the playoffs and I think we could possibbly put a nice little run together. I think why people are so disappointed is because we should have a much better record with the talent we have on this team. Personally, it really bugs me that Capers went so conservative on us from week 2 to when we played the Cowboys. I just can’t help but think our defense would have had much more success against the Vikings had they been somewhat unpredictable but oh well.
by packallday555 on Nov 30, 2009 6:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly I didn’t see us being too much better that our 7-4 record…I guess maybe 8-3 at best. Obviously the Tampa game was one we should have won, but this isn’t a 10-1 team…hopefully they are growing and improving and will be one by the end of the season though.
by TrevorR on Dec 1, 2009 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All good points
Although the Vikings have already played the Ravens and Steelers, who are coming up soon for us. They barely beat one and lost to the other, and that may very well be what happens with us, but I think if we close out the year on a huge winning streak and end up 12-4, that would make me pretty happy about our chances the rest of the way.
I went on a bit of a rant in the other thread about how much of a momentum changer that second Viking game was and how embarrassing it was, especially as a lifelong Packer fan who grew up only with “that one” at QB. If we had beaten them and won the Bucs game, we’d still be in the running for the division title (Minnesota would be 9-2 and so would we, but we have the easier schedule and more out of conference games).. of course, life isn’t about “could haves” and “should haves” it’s just what we “have”, I guess the disturbing part to me is just how clear the line is between the elite teams (Minnesota, New Orleans, Indianapolis) the great teams (Cincinnati, Arizona, San Diego, New England) and the good teams (Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Baltimore, Dallas, maybe Tennessee now as well?) are, and depending on what we do in the next couple weeks we could be a great team or just right in the middle between great and good. But those elite teams do what they need to do to just win and it’s very clear and far away who deserves those wins and who don’t.
We better hope for an amazing postseason run.
by vitaminx on Dec 1, 2009 5:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Timing
It’s all about peaking at the right time. The Packers can beat any of the other potential playoff teams. Even the 2 unbeaten teams have weaknesses to exploit (Saints: run defense; Colts: entire defense). If the Packers can get a good performance from their weakest areas (special teams, pass protection, penalties, Jarrett Bush) for a 4 game run, then they’ll beat everyone. The problem, of course, is that all those problem areas have been a problem all season long, and none of them have been avoided, or played through, for a 4 game winning streak at any time during the first 11 games.
by Brandon on Dec 1, 2009 10:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
Related FanShots on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
