What is the weak point of this roster?
by PackApologist on Sep 5, 2011 4:02 PM CDT
Email
PrintThe preason is now officially done and we are well on our way to the first game with the Saints. The season holds a lot of promise, and the Packers have an extremely talented roster, but as we sit with this roster my question is quite simple....
What is the riskiest part of it?
I think I've become numb to the fact that Ted Thompson always takes a big gamble to one part of our roster. In fact I think that gambling streak has bit us in the ass for the last couple of years....but the Packers have generally overcome that problem.
For example, in 2009 the Packers took a huge risk with the tackle spot. In that year Mark Tauscher was hurt and not even on the roster at the beginning of the year so they trotted out Allen Barbre as the starting RT. Chad Clifton was the starting LT as always, but there was some hope that Darryn Colledge was going to be the back up should something happen. The long shot for both spots should the original plan not work out was a rookie named T.J. Lang. Really though the Packers were just hoping that Barbre would hold up and Clifton wouldn't get hurt. And then early in the year it was clear that Barbre wouldn't hold up and Clifton did get hurt. This led to some bad games, lots of sacks and two gut wrenching losses to the Vikings and Brett Favre. It was overcome though when Tauscher was signed around midseason and Clifton got healthy.
Last year we saw the odd arrangement of two HB's on the roster and three FB's. Well this would work out fine as long as Ryan Grant stayed healthy and James Starks got right around midseason and quickly got up to NFL speed. What happened? Grant goes down in the first game of the year and Starks doesn't really get going until the playoffs. As a result the running game suffered all year.
So my question is...do we have something similar for this year?
I think we do. It shouldn't be that surprising that we do since Peter King called this one of the "quirkiest" rosters he's ever seen.
The culprit is in the offensive line in my humble opinion, but unlike 2009 the interior line is the worrisome part. The Packers kept only 8 offensive linemen. This is probably because the talent just wasn't very deep on the line this year compared to other parts of the team. Now I'm not too concerned with the starters or the backups at tackle. The starting line looks as good, or possibly better, than last year. I also don't really have too many concerns with Sherrod or Newhouse as backups at tackle. I really don't think Evan Dietrick-Smith is a good answer for the interior line, and neither Newhouse nor Sherrod has shown much promise as guards. This means that an injury to Lang, Scott Wells, or Josh Sittion could be scary thing for this team.
Another problem point could be FB. Now the fullback position is going the way of the dinosaur in today's NFL. There are even some running backs who don't even like to follow a lead blocker, most notably Adrian Peterson. That said, having a good FB allows the Packers flexibility in alignments which makes the offense more unpredictable. If Jon Kuhn goes down there aren't many great options there....maybe DJ Williams or Crabtree, but nothing spectacular.
On defense there are a whopping 10 linebackers and 10 defensive backs. There is some real depth there, but what about the defensive line? With Mike Neal already questionable, I don't know how many injuries that part of the team is going to be able to withstand.
So as you look over the current 53 of the Packers what concerns you the most? Is it the offensive line? The thin FB positions? Or is it something else? The loss of Jenkins or the questionable depth of our D-line? Or are you still bemoaning the fact that Harrell was cut or didn't keep some of those flashy young WR's?
100 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Either "only 1 FB" or "the offensive line"
I voted for the offensive line only because we only kept 8. As you said, the starting line is arguable better than last year but the issues are with depth in case there are injuries.
Keeping Kuhn as the only FB doesn’t really make much sense, especially follwoing last season when we kept THREE. I think Taylor could play FB if Kuhn got hurt, but not ful time. We shouldve cut Crabtree, who becomes expendable with the addition of Taylor, and kept Quinn Johnson (or kept someone at another position and gotten a FB for the PS). And plus I have to check again but Idont think we have a FB on the practice squad.
"I should run a marathon backwards, so I can see what 2nd place look like"
- Royce Da 5'9"
I've always wondered if he's actually 5'9".
The Lombardi trophy should either be in it's birth place, or else on a vacation in South Beach.
I think we'll be ok on the OL
Both Newhouse and Sherrod can play OG along with OT, so we have some flexibility. The question is: how many many offensive linemen do we carry on our gameday roster? Do we have all 8 so EDS is available in case Wells goes down?
2011 Super Bowl Champs!
I'm ok with the number of OL
Just don’t know if we have the talent to run block consistantly or keep Rodgers upright
SUPER BOWL CHAMPS
by Chief Oshkosh on Sep 5, 2011 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions
active roster
On the OL I think we keep 7 active for games again. EDS at all the interior OG/C and Newhouse at OT. Sherrod and Newhouse might switch off, but really Newhouse should be the 7th OL on game day.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I agree
But I’m not sure how the team would feel about having its 1st Round Draft pick not being on the active gameday roster. I would much rather have Newhouse playing over Sherrod at this point, especially considering he can play both OT positions, but who knows how it affects Sherrod.
2011 Super Bowl Champs!
1 FB
I’m not worried about the FB situation at all. They had Hoese in at camp so if something happens they can just resign him cause I don’t think he’s going anywhere. But realistically I think they kept all the FBs last year because they had those sets that included 3 in the backfield, then put the FBs on special teams the rest of the time. Well I think all the TEs we have work better for both of those purposes than the FBs. They can catch better than FBs and run faster. Assuming the TEs we kept are capable blockers, I think that’s an easy choice over keeping another FB
REPORTER: What do you think is happening to the team?
MICHAEL RAY RICHARDSON: The ship be sinking.
REPORTER: How far can it sink?
MICHAEL RAY RICHARDSON: Sky's the limit.
Not an option, but the D ends are my biggest concerns.
May be seeing Raji as an end in some formations with Green at nose if there is one, think I saw someone mention that before and I agree. I’m concerned about the lack of depth and experience, but trust in TT I shall.
I already told you! I deal with the god damn receivers so the linebackers don’t have to! I have coverage skills; I’m good at covering people! Can’t you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!
hmm...I should probably fix that
D-line is a good choice for a question mark. I think Raji will be fine there on the end, and Pickett is a pretty good option for nose. Personally I’m a bit more concerned about the o-line, but the d-line is looking a mite thin.
by PackApologist on Sep 5, 2011 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Wilson and Wynn
have both looked sharp this preseaon, and I’m confident that they’ll provide adequate depth. I’m more concerned with Neal’s consistency and availability as a starter.
Check out my work at JonBob's Packer Blog
by Green and Bold on Sep 5, 2011 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Not worried about D-line
They played so much 2-4-5 (or 2-4-4-Woodson, if you prefer!) last year, that I think 6 d-linemen on the roster is fine.
Eagle Totem - Comprehensive EMU coverage.
They were able to play that much 2-4-5 because of how amazingly penetrating Jenkins could be.
He’s gonna be hard to replace if Neal goes down/doesn’t pan out if we want to continue using that defense.
I already told you! I deal with the god damn receivers so the linebackers don’t have to! I have coverage skills; I’m good at covering people! Can’t you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!
We played when Jenkins was hurt last year
Using none other than Wynn and Wilson. We should be fine
"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"
by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 6, 2011 9:55 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
We played the 2-4 package so often because that’s our Nickel Package. It wasn’t because of our players. The teams we played against felt the best way to beat us was by using 3 WR’s. The Steelers also use the 2-4 Nickel Package, and they don’t have someone like Cullen Jenkins.
2011 Super Bowl Champs!
Not entirely true
The Packers use the 2-4-5 Nickel even against two WR offenses. It does have something to do with the personnel. That being said, I think there may be even more 2-4-5 Nickel this year because of the lack of DL depth. There is more LB depth and so the LBs may be played more often
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
2-4-5
Packers used the 2-4-5 becuz it got the best players on the field. SHields was our top backup defensive player and Woodson worked very well as a safety in the box. It had almost everything to do w/ personnel. If our best defensive backup was a DL we would have played a 34 base… But our best defensive non-starter was Shields and our best pass rushers after Matthews was Raji and Jenkins.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Bingo
Strohman hits the nail on the head. Shields gave Capers the luxury of moving Woodson to the line of scrimmage, effectively another linebacker. I could argue that the Packers played a 2-5-4 as Woodson nearly always was at linebacker depth.
With the fact that the two OLBs play on the line of scrimmage, though in a two point stance, you could argue that the Packers play a 4-3-4 defense. Matthews, Pickett, Raji, and Weldon are on the line; Woodson, Hawk and Bishop are playing within 7 yards; and Shields, Williams, Collins and Burnett comprise the secondary.
Nitschke never wore an earring!
Not so worried about FB
The QJ trade suggests to me that most FBs are readily replaceable. I mean, the Titans look to have brought him in for just the first four games of the season. All the FB movement lately makes me believe that they’re pretty swappable. If Kuhn were to go down, I suspect there’s a sufficient number of FA FBs ready to come in off the street, and like others have said, there are enough H-back TEs on the roster to cover a week or two.
DJ Williams won't be playing FB
I think you meant Taylor.
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
No, I mean Williams
He has the H-back experience and his height problems at TE aren’t really there for FB. Taylor would be another great choice due to his blocking ability, but of all the TE’s the one I would be most excited to see in an inverted wishbone would be Williams. It may only be the height that makes it so, but that’s just what my mind keeps going back to.
by PackApologist on Sep 5, 2011 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions
The knock on Williams is that he can't block
on the other hand, Taylor played some FB in college.
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
I've heard it both ways,
I’ve heard people say he can’t block, and I’ve also heard people say he’s a great H-Back prospect and could contribute at FB. I just wish I could ask Ted Thompson.
"I should run a marathon backwards, so I can see what 2nd place look like"
- Royce Da 5'9"
I've always wondered if he's actually 5'9".
The Lombardi trophy should either be in it's birth place, or else on a vacation in South Beach.
by BlackPack-fan on Sep 5, 2011 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions
H-back
Williams should become a good H-back type player, but he isn’t that as of now. He does need to improve his blocking quite a bit. Not too worried about his recieving skills, but he has work to do. At Arkansas, he generally lined up as a WR, much like we use Finley. So that is Williams niche right now. He definitely has to work on his blocking tho.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I like it
sure, we are a little thin at some spots but lets face it…. there is nobody we let walk we cant find an equal replacment for on the very day we lose someone to injury. We can “get through” a game covering for a missing FB or Lineman by pluggin in what we got. I’m confident in Ted that he has a plan for an emergency (ex: Tauscher) call if needed at any position.
The only worry I have is the interior line
Specifically, center. Sherrod could get us through at LG, and if it comes down to it, Bulaga could shift inside. But I’m not sure about EDS starting at center if Wells gets hurt. I know Lang has had a few snaps at C, but I don’t know how it turned out. Especially since the center is so important on the OL. With either of the guard spots, you can scheme protections to cover for their deficiencies.
I wouldn’t worry about the FB position. We kept five TE’s for a reason, and a big one was because of their versatility. Taylor has the size and intensity to play FB, as well as Crabtree. I would say Quarless too, but I’m not sure if he wants to get down and dirty in there.
Spitz was so nice for his versatility.
I’d think that the Pack would move Bulaga inside and Sherrod to RT if they trust Lang, should something happen to Wells.
I already told you! I deal with the god damn receivers so the linebackers don’t have to! I have coverage skills; I’m good at covering people! Can’t you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!
Peter King is a moron and I don't give a crap what he says, because it's generally self-centered and wrong
But it’s the O-Line
by Danwood on Sep 5, 2011 9:42 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Yeah.
Last September,
King said that we were going to lose to the Steelers in the Super Bowl!
"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
The Munsters of the Midway still suck!
by NorthStarr on Sep 5, 2011 11:49 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
and to lose to the Patriots when the playoffs started.
13.
Grossman: Sup, you insulin needing bitch! The sex cannon has arrived! Now get the hell out of my locker room, you chinless mother fucker!
STs?
Kicking is okay with Crosby, punting is shored up by Masthay, and coverage…is terrible.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"Don't mention execution around Paul Johnson. People will die." -Chris Pendley, on EDSBS
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Sep 5, 2011 9:58 PM CDT reply actions
rookies
That’s where Dr. Jennings, Lattimore, Taylor, and So’oto should come in handy.
Check out my work at JonBob's Packer Blog
by Green and Bold on Sep 5, 2011 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions
It'll take them some time to learn the ropes of that position
Rookie ST’ers will likely make rookie mistakes. That worries me. How long is it going to take them to figure out the intricacies of the ST positions? (hopefully, not too long, but Shawn Slocum is STILL our ST coach. Ugh.)
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"Don't mention execution around Paul Johnson. People will die." -Chris Pendley, on EDSBS
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Sep 5, 2011 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions
There have been some changes
It’s hard to tell if they’ll work until the season begins. Maybe someone with speed like Lattimore can make a difference on coverage. I’m not even certain who I’ll see returning kicks and punts though I expect it will be Cobb. Maybe it’ll be Cobb on punts and Green on kickoffs?
Returns
Last I heard is Cobb is the #1 KR and PR. Green might be pushing him for the KR job, but as of now its Cobb.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Just so long as it is NOT Tramon Williams, I'm fine.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"Don't mention execution around Paul Johnson. People will die." -Chris Pendley, on EDSBS
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Sep 7, 2011 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions
The weakest part
of this team will be what hampered them last year more than the injuries…MM relying on the defense via the lack/use of the offense to run up the score.His “predictability” and lack of a Belichek"run it up early and quick" keeps any/every team in the game.
“We never trailed by more than seven points”…says it all.
Hmmmm.....
I’m never quite sure how to respond to people who say that McCarthy uses a predictable offense…or not enough offense. To me the most consistent way to win football games is to get the lead early with the passing game and then slow the game down and beat down the opposing team with the running game. It doesn’t make for flashy scores or oodles of fantasy points, but it protects the QB and the lead.
Last year the problem wasn’t the playcalling for the offense it was the execution. Once Ryan Grant went down there wasn’t a legitimate running threat. This caused the offense to be feast or famine depending completely on Aaron Rodger’s arm. So I would say that injuries did play a big part in the lack of offensive production. Especially considering that in only one game were the Packers able to really run an effective four minute drill (against Detroit at home). Hopefully this year that will be fixed with an upgrade at LG for the running game and three halfbacks that should be able to do that instead of only one.
by PackApologist on Sep 6, 2011 9:51 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree here, I also wonder how people figure his offense is boring
He doesn’t run a lot of reverses or flea flickers or anything goofy but he has a hood variety of routes, he runs a lot of plays that isolate defenders and create mismatches well and ge has more formations alone than anyone in the NFL. As a fellow packers fan I’ve laughed at Martz’s offense with the Bears and as a St Louisan I’ve watched in awe at Martz’s greatest show on turf and his modern Tom Landry offense worked with the Rams because that team was loaded with HOFers and it wasn’t Az-Hakim running end arounds it was centering the offense around Faulk and Warmer executing traditional passing to Bruce Holt and Proehl while Pace defending his backside. The way I see it McCarthy seems to enjoy and utilize his versatile roster well.
Maybe they think he’s boring because at the end of games, like you said, he wants to run the 4 minute offense like most good coaches. With a better rushing attack than we had last year, which is basically every rushing attack in NFL history, it works. So unless Grant and Starks both get injured and Green happens to be an exact replica if Brandon Jackson without the blocking skills then we will be fine.
Of course, what’s footbal with out a little “FIRE MIKW MCMORON!!”
"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"
by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 6, 2011 10:15 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Nobody said fire MM
so look inside your hat first before sticking your feather in “Packer Doodle Dandy”
Sound like an adult film title.
In Every Climb and Place....
I am an ass hat.
by PhoenicianPakFan on Sep 6, 2011 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You called him the weak point of the tea
"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"
by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 6, 2011 5:03 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
You called him the weak point of the team
Inferring the team is better off without him. Your statement makes that clear to anyone who reads it. Not sure what the feather comment means but it seems defensive. Why are you clearly stating something then denying it in a defensive fashion? If you’re going to rip on someone atleast stick to your guns, and don’t act like I’m stupid
"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"
by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 6, 2011 5:08 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
To be exact....
the comment was that his style of not running up the score/putting teams away was the weakness, not McCarthy himself.
In Every Climb and Place....
I am an ass hat.
by PhoenicianPakFan on Sep 6, 2011 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Fine, whatever makes people happy
But if I didn’t think highly of Rodgers accuracy (which would be silly, he is excellent) and I told you that the weak point of the team was Rodgers forcing the ball downfield again like last year then you would assume I didn’t want Rodgers at QB, because that is clearly what I would have meant and clearly how most competent readers would interpret it. Sitting here playing nitpicky word games is immature, annoying, and doesn’t change what he meant. If he really meant something else he would include clarifying what he meant with his denial of McCarthy hatred rather than just saying “nuh-uh, that’s not exactly what I meant, verbatim!”
I also made my comment in jest, poking fun at McCarthy haters, I’m sorry it blew up in such a big, not amusing way
"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"
by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 6, 2011 10:21 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I understand....
and didn’t particularly agree with the original criticism. I just noticed that it went from a criticism of certain play calling style to an inferred criticism of the man as a coach in its entirety.
In Every Climb and Place....
I am an ass hat.
by PhoenicianPakFan on Sep 6, 2011 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions
You understood him wrong... it's all good. Happens to everyone on the internet
SUPER BOWL CHAMPS
by Chief Oshkosh on Sep 6, 2011 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions
It's not you, it's me.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"Don't mention execution around Paul Johnson. People will die." -Chris Pendley, on EDSBS
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Sep 8, 2011 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
No I wouldn't ASSUME
that but,I would acknowledge you didn’t like that PART of his play.As previously written/proven by you,the word ASSUME dwells heavy in your mind.
It may be best to simply say,I don’t get what you mean in lieu of ASSUMPTION.
Yes,MMs play calling
is too passive at times and allows teams to remain IN A GAME longer than nessessary.Hence the point of “never trailing by more than seven points”shows he doesn’t put them away earlier and has us in a place to trail period.
That is a weak link that is correctable and in NO WAY INFERS FIRING HIM.
Every player on the team has a weakness,does that mean CUT THEM ALL.
What do you drink when you read?
Full Circle
So I guess we come back to my original question in all of this where I’m confused about how MM play calling is passive. Is it just because he wants to run a good four minute drill and not just pass all through out the game? I wouldn’t call that passive, I would call that sound football and the recipe for a consistent offense.
Let’s take a step back away from the Packers to shed some light on my point and look at the Philadelphia Eagles. Andy Reid pretty much ignores the running game for all intents and purposes and uses a pretty heavy passing attach through out the game to secure a victory. This has worked out pretty well for him overall, but it’s a strategy that has stalled every year in the big game. As a result the Eagles offense has become dependent on the big play and generally hit or miss from week to week.
Coming back to the Packers and you see the exact same thing happening with the Packers last year. Since there was no running game to speak of the offense struggled to get a good tempo to it and the team had to fall back on its defense more than most would care to see. Really what the Packers offense needs to do is not just run down the field like its college football and run up the score, but have the ability to dictate the pace of the game and speed up and slow down the game at will.
Or here’s another way of looking at MM’s play calling….
I remember watching the final game of the year last year with my wife’s grandfather. As we watched the offense struggle to move the ball against the Bears both through the air and the ground he kept complaining about MM’s play calling, especially with the fact that he stuck with the run when the Bears were shutting it down. I tried to explain to him that a team has to stick with it to some degree otherwise large portions of the playbook disappear (most notably the play action pass). He gave me a contemptive snort until the Packers ran a play action pass that worked and Rodgers hit Donald Lee in the end zone for the game winning TD.
The desire to be able to cram the ball down the opposing team’s throats when you have the lead isn’t passive, it’s smart. Often in sports that’s the key to consistent victory. It’s not flashy, it doesn’t make Sports Center and it won’t get tons of fantasy points, but you know what it will get if executed properly? Lombardi trophies.
by PackApologist on Sep 7, 2011 8:03 AM CDT up reply actions
The word I used originally was"predictable"
and was and may again be a hindrance to securing more needed timely scores.The word “passive” being used by me was only in reference to him not being of a Belichek run it up mind.
Cramming the ball down the throat I get,but is something that works better or is more justified if you have the tools to do So.IMO,Kuhn,Jackson,Nance,Johnson and an rookie in Starks,whom I love, had proved way too many times their inability to do so.MM getting run plays in for the sake of keeping a defense somewhat honest sure,but to use as a closing weapon in close games is not the way to go unless you have a commanding lead which we didn’t have all too often.
Respectfully and IMO.
I'm with you on this. It seems that as the game goes on our 3 and outs (or after 1 first down) increase.
Dont have the stats to back that up though!
SUPER BOWL CHAMPS
by Chief Oshkosh on Sep 7, 2011 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions
I've never been critical of McCarthy's playcalling.
But I can say that there is a large contingent of Packer fans who last year were extremely critical of it. Don’t remember who they were or if you were among them but they were abundant.
I don’t consider myself a coach, tho I can see things on the field and recogize plays and formations that might work. I consider myself more of a scout/GM who evaluates players. That probably is why I don’t criticize McCarthy’s playcalling. I do think the fact that McCarthy won a SB has pretty much ended most peoples criticism for now.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Yes, there was a VERY large contingent
Obviously, most of them were not as stupid as the “MIKW MCMORON STRIKES AGAIN” dude. But I was getting into arguments every week.
Any time a play didn’t go the Packers way, 20 people would jump on and scream about how McCarthy’s playcalling was horrible. If we had the ball near the goalline and tried to run it in and failed, people would scream “Why would he try to run it in??? Our running game sucks, we should be passing!” If he tried to get the TD through the air and failed, they’d come on screaming “Why would he go to the pass so close to the goalline??? We should just be running it in with Kuhn!!!!”
It was like people expect every drive to end in a TD, and expect every playcall to be perfect.
Angelo: Right….so anyways Jay, I’m sure you understand that we needed to make this move and I wanna wish you the best of luck.
Cutler: (Swoops bangs out of eyes by throwing his head back) Whatever, I don’t need this team or you.
/Leaves in a huff
//Writes bad poetry on his blog
Grossman: What the fuck is Wilford Brimley’s problem?
My impression too.
No matter what McCarthy called, if it didn’t work, they came out in droves to criticize him. Seemed like the same people doing it both ways which is really annoying.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
To be fair...
we should expect every drive to end in a touchdown…and so should they.
In Every Climb and Place....
I am an ass hat.
by PhoenicianPakFan on Sep 7, 2011 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Its not as simple as that…there were legit concerns and points being made. 3rd and 3 and throwing a bomb is just a poor call…I get why they do it but its only smart in certain situations.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
by TrevorR on Sep 8, 2011 9:18 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yep, I am/was with you on that too. And we typically got the, “How do you know it’s not just Rodgers throwing it to his one deep option” argument back.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Sep 8, 2011 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions
No, you didn't say fire MM,
but, IMO, what you did say pretty much embodied the whole spirit of ‘FIRE MIKW MCMORON’.
In fact, the flavor of most, if not all, of the comments of yours that I have seen on APC, collectively leave me wondering if you could be one of those who deserted the Packers to follow Favre and is now trying to slink back into the fold, but is having some trouble letting go of, and so continues to stumble over, some of the past bitterness.
Just wonder sometimes, mind you.
"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
The Munsters of the Midway still suck!
I agree with your overall sentiment towards the post (poster?)...
but I hesitate to use a criticism of Mister McMoron to mean that he should be fired. I know we suffered through a lot of hatred towards TT and MM but to go too far in the opposite direction in disallowing criticism is not healthy either. Not saying you are doing it….I notice it a lot from many people.
In Every Climb and Place....
I am an ass hat.
by PhoenicianPakFan on Sep 7, 2011 4:13 AM CDT up reply actions
Saying MM needs
to be more agreesive in scoring means to you,I’m a deserter who followed Favre and wants to slink back in and then offer my previous posts as evidence to such. Please post one that will legitimize what you infer.
She criticized McCarthy, that’s it. It doesn’t mean she wants him fired, just that she thinks he could improve. And she’s definitely not alone in that regard, as I remember there being a number of people criticizing his play calling in 2009 and last season as well. That doesn’t infer that she’s a “Favre fan” and if she is, who cares?
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Sep 8, 2011 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions
The weakest part of the team last year
was that our most successful goal line play was a QB sneak…
That’s fixed with the return of Grant, the emergence of Starks, and the introduction of the Freezer package.
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
Is it fixed?
Because I still see an offensive line that can’t run block.
SUPER BOWL CHAMPS
by Chief Oshkosh on Sep 6, 2011 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Too early to tell
Preseason mean next to nothing. We’ll start to find out on Thurs. and should know by wk 3 or 4. I think the run blocking will be improved. Sitton and Bulaga should be a good tandem on the right side and hopefully Lang will be an improvement over Colledge.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
The O-line isn't really built to run block...
but they weren’t the main problem last year. The problem was that we had Brandon Jackson running the ball for most of the season.
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
Oh, you mean mr. stutter step then fall down?
He was great!
I already told you! I deal with the god damn receivers so the linebackers don’t have to! I have coverage skills; I’m good at covering people! Can’t you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!
Also the fact that Jackson and Kuhn loved to run directly into the backs of the linemen on almost every play
Because nothing helps you break a big run like running directly into a 300+ pound guy on your own team.
Angelo: Right….so anyways Jay, I’m sure you understand that we needed to make this move and I wanna wish you the best of luck.
Cutler: (Swoops bangs out of eyes by throwing his head back) Whatever, I don’t need this team or you.
/Leaves in a huff
//Writes bad poetry on his blog
Grossman: What the fuck is Wilford Brimley’s problem?
You should probably mention Grant when talking about running into OL’s backs. Brandon Jackson probably learned how to do it from him.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Sep 8, 2011 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions
D-Line is what gets me
With Guy going on IR, Neal being owie still, Pickett getting up there in age…. I really don’t think we got a lot of depth on the front lines. I was kind of upset that Jenkins was let go, then Neal was supposed to be the up and comer and he gets hurt in Week 2 of preseason, and Guy did not shine at all. I’m confident in who we got up front in Pickett, BJ, and sort of confident in Wilson, but I’ve got my fingers crossed that no injuries happen further to our D-Line. O-line is suspect right now, but I got a feeling they’ll gel better the 2nd or 3rd week and keep the penalties down and get better blocking.
When life gives ya lemons, shut up and eat your damn lemons.
Brett Favre will lead the Vikings to a Victory in Super Bowl XLVI, Guaranteed! - REVENGE4FAVRE
Howard Green goes a long way
You can take that any way you want. As the preseason went on I have become more and more of a Howard Green fan. The dude is able to get a pretty decent push up the middle as well eat space. He should also be a rotational NT if something happens to Pickett.
The other guy growing on me is Jarius Wynn. Now he’s not the technition that Jenkins was or have the freakish upside that Neal has, but he does go out and get some pressure and give his all. He’s an undersized guy that’s been able to play a bit bigger than what he is and be able to give a situational pass rush.
Really that D-line is going to be a group effort, especially with Neal being week to week. I think they can pull it off though.
by PackApologist on Sep 6, 2011 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions
Where are Thompson and McMoran?
Shouldn’t they have both been fired a few times by now?
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
fire Mikw Mcmoran
when life gives you melons, you might be dyslexic...
I hate the five tight ends
I know you’ve got to keep the drafted rookies, plus Crabtree, Quarless, and obviously Finley, but I think one of the two tight ends should’ve been released to make room for a lineman.
I know the NFL is evolving and all, but it’s puzzling to me how we’re going into the season so thin on both sides of the line. I think the game is still won in the trenches, and we’re one bad injury (with the holdout and last year’s pandemic, I’m especially worried) away from devastation on both sides.
Yeah I would have loved to see Crabtree go
Easily replaceable IMO
SUPER BOWL CHAMPS
by Chief Oshkosh on Sep 6, 2011 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree, I don't see anything he can do that can't be replaced
I get that ST play can play a big role in bench players making the roster, hence Jarret Bush, but for all I hear about Crabtree’s ST strengths I heard similar things about Swain and that didn’t save him. Crabtree being on the team isn’t an issue to me, but five TE’s are a lot and Crabtree is certainly replaceable in my eyes
"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"
by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 6, 2011 10:27 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Who would you have kept if Crabtree were cut?
I would probably have said McDonald or Gurley.
SUPER BOWL CHAMPS
by Chief Oshkosh on Sep 6, 2011 11:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Justin Harrell....
he could have been our next HoFer if TT hadn’t chased him out!
In Every Climb and Place....
I am an ass hat.
by PhoenicianPakFan on Sep 7, 2011 4:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Taylor and Quarless can block too
You missed the point
SUPER BOWL CHAMPS
by Chief Oshkosh on Sep 7, 2011 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
5 TE makes more sense to me than 3 FB
You know this may be a case of lesser evils and what not, but this doesn’t bother me as much as the gamble of our running back situation last year. The real problem along the lines isn’t the talent of the tight end position but rather the absolute disapointment our interior line prospects were this past preseason. Mix that with the injury concerns for Neal and you have our line problems in a nut shell.
by PackApologist on Sep 6, 2011 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions
For what OL?
Thats the question… If they had an 8th OL that was worth keeping I’m pretty sure it would have went that way. But we didn’t seem to have an OL that was worthy of a roster spot. And Crabtree is pretty valuable on ST!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
The consensus
seems to be that Crabtree is the best blocker on the team. I think Stroh’s on to something here in that Crabtree could be thought of as shoring up the OL as much as thinking of him as a TE. That flexibility combined with strong ST play makes him pretty valuable for the squad.
making the team?
In Every Climb and Place....
I am an ass hat.
by PhoenicianPakFan on Sep 7, 2011 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
We'll be fine with the OL
As I mentioned before, even though our depth is reduced, our flexibility is better. If you look at it closer, last year we had McDonald, EDS, Newhouse, and Lang as backup OG’s. We also had Lang and Newhouse as backup OT’s. The only difference is we got rid of McDonald and replaced him with Sherrod, who can do his job and play LT. Newhouse can do the same along with playing RT. Are we expecting more than 2 injuries on the OL? I’m not, and I feel that we can use some more talent elsewhere to improve our Special Teams. Why keep bodies on our OL if they aren’t that good? I’m very comfortable with Newhouse and Sherrod backing up the OG and OT positions. Along with EDS backing up the C and G positions. If we happen to lose a guy like Clifton for the year, then we can pick up a body later in the year. For now though, there wasn’t anybody worth holding onto. Nobody else truly earned a roster spot.
2011 Super Bowl Champs!
We also got rid of a starting G
so Lang moved out of the backup role. Still a little thin on the OL, but I guess if there had been another solid backup OL in camp he would have made the team.
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
Weaknesses
Here we are dissecting the Packer depth chart. I can’t say, in advance whether the OL depth or the DL depth is critical, but I can say this: There are no fewer than 31 other NFL teams who wish they had the Packer’s problems.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
