Around The NFL: Which Teams Are In Trouble

by Brandon on Sep 22, 2009 5:42 PM CDT in Green Bay Packers Analysis

I've got a new post up online at the Washington Post about which five teams are in trouble after the first two weeks. Unfortunately, the Green Bay Packers deserved a mention:

The Packers became a trendy Super Bowl pick because they added a former head coach, Dom Capers, to revamp the defense and QB Aaron Rodgers looked almost perfect in the preseason. After two weeks, the offense has stalled because the pass protection has collapsed. Rodgers won't survive another 16 game season if he continues to take such a beating. It doesn't look too good on the other side of the ball either; the defense just allowed 31 points to the Bengals' previously dormant offense.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Packer Haiku

Pack problems nothing
Like Lions, Browns, Rams, Chiefs, Bucs
Glad those aren’t my teams
http://PackerHaiku.com

Clark Osborn - PackerHaiku.com | FavreHaiku.com | BadgerHaiku.com

by PackerHaiku on Sep 22, 2009 6:24 PM CDT reply actions

Media Unsure
First we are champs, now are dirt
Just ignore the goons

by Danwood on Sep 22, 2009 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Packers are the darlings of most of the media

The Packers are not the team everyone thinks they are. They have a poor defense and an average offense. There is lots of young talent, but the key word is young, No OL depth and a thin defensive front 7 that no team will have problems against will sink them by week 10,. The best thing they could do is to realize that McCarthy is not the coach that can take them to the next level.

by Belarus on Sep 22, 2009 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Thank you, troll

Move along kids, move along.

by Danwood on Sep 22, 2009 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions

So you are happy with the results?

Let’s see. The Bengals scored 31 points on the Pack… the Bengals… 31! The Bears lost because of 4 turnovers and a dumb Center. The Packers could easily have been 0 – 2 in two home games. You are no Packer fan if you are satisfied with the results of weeks 1 & 2. McCarthy needs to move along – and you need to quit living in denial.

by Belarus on Sep 22, 2009 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions

No one

Is satisfied with what we’ve seen thus far. Have you read any of our rather lengthy posts and comments about our problems? But too say we have a poor defense isn’t really realistic. The only reason the Bears ever got the lead in the 4th was because of a “dumb” referee. We squandered many chances against the Bengals. Three times we got into their territory and came out with no points because of a Grant fumble, and Colledge who was playing LT for the injured Clifton gave up 2 sacks to Odom. We have a very talented team and there is a reason the media has a liking towards us.

by packallday555 on Sep 22, 2009 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions

I hope you are right

I’ve watched football for a long time and not seen 5 sacks in a game by one player before. The O-Line is a mess. With Clifton out 3/5 of the O-Line had new guys at their position this week. It’s hard to imagine being worse than 10 sacks in two games. Hopefully Clifton is back before the Vikings game because they have a good pass rush. Jerad Allen is a better pass rusher than Antwan Odom.

The Pack has given up 23 points and 335 yards per game. I call that poor, especially in home games. The front 7 is not deep, especially on the D-Line. They’d better hope there aren’t any injuries there. Even in the LB corp there is a significant drop off after the starters. Matthews looks good, and I believe he’ll play well, but he is young. He hasn’t proven himself yet. Barnett and Hawk are fine LBs, but not really well suited for plugging the run in the middle of a 3 – 4 when the NT position is only average.

by Belarus on Sep 23, 2009 6:16 AM CDT up reply actions

Agreed we need Clifton back or we’re in trouble.

When Raji comes back it will help the dline out very much. He can play any spot, and with us adding one more guy to the rotation, guys will be fresher. Matthews hasn’t proved himself yet but he has looked great so far. Barnett and Hawk are fine. They both looked great against the Bears, but struggled against the Bengals because they know how block against the 3-4. With more experience they will both be just fine, and with Raji at NT, they will have more opportunities to make plays.

by packallday555 on Sep 23, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions

Enough With The 4 INT Excuse

I’ve heard several Bear, Viking, and Favre fans, and MM and TT haters say that the Packers wouldn’t have beaten the Bears if it wasn’t for Cutlers 4 INT’s. YOU’RE EXACTLY RIGHT! But guess what; the Packers defense caused those 4 INT’s by getting pressure on Savior Jay and a good defensive secondary.

I love when you people say, well they would have lost if this and this and this hadn’t happened. Well guess what, the only team that can say what if is the Packers because the ref screwed them on that bogus illegal contact penalty but they still pulled out the win. Enough with the 4 INT thing. It’s actually an argument against you not for you.

by FavreSucks on Sep 23, 2009 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions

Cutler caused the INTs

He under threw a ball into double coverage on the Collins pick, and he threw the ball up for grabs on the Williams pick. In fact I recall something like 3 Packers and no Bears in the picture when Tramon caught the ball. In both cases the blitz flushed Cutler. In both cases he escaped the blitz and had some room to run. He didn’t have to make either throw. Without the Tramon INT and the boneheaded punt play, the Packers last TD wouldn’t have mattered.

The ref did blow the illegal contact call. But bad calls happen all the time, and usually they even up by the end of a game. The Pack is lucky not to be 0 – 2. I don’t like McCarthy as a head coach, but let’s see what he and DC come up with in St Louis. That ought to be an easy win and a tuneup for the Vikings, right?

by Belarus on Sep 23, 2009 6:01 AM CDT up reply actions

" In both cases the blitz flushed Cutler. In both cases he escaped the blitz and had some room to run. He didn’t have to make either throw. Without the Tramon INT and the boneheaded punt play, the Packers last TD wouldn’t have mattered."

That is what the blitz is intended to do. Flush QB’s out of the pocket and rush them into making a poor decision and that’s exactly what we did. The Williams INT was all on Williams making a play. He had Bennett locked down, and when he tried to break off his rotue Williams played it perfectly. In fact Cutler could have honestly thrown 5 or 6 picks if Williams or Bigby had better hands. Ya, the STs play costed them big time. But my repsonse to that is, the Bears never even get the lead had that referee not called that ridiclulous illegal contact call. We outplayed the Bears pretty much the whole game aside from the 3rd quarter.

by packallday555 on Sep 23, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions

Are you kidding?

I love how when its one play that changes a game for the packers its “those things happen” but when its the other way its “poor team, dumb luck”

Go away. Your posts are filled with illogical garbage. I hope for your friends sake that you are just trolling cause if I was your friend I would have stopped listening and calling years ago if those arguments actually make sense to you.

by TrevorR on Sep 23, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions

I know

People want to say if this or if that, but the thing is, it is what it is! Cutler threw 4 picks. Our defense did its job. We gave up one TD because Collins was off in la la land, and made a huge goaline stand to hold them to 3 points.

If we had an average defense last year, we win probably 6 games that we lost last year, which would have made us 12-4! But the fact is we had a bad defense, and a bad kicking unit last year (missed FG against Vikes, blocked FG against the Bears). There is and was nothing we could do about it.

by packallday555 on Sep 23, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions