Green Bay's defensive scheme last year was relatively simple: the front four were responsible for covering running lanes and generating pass rush, the linebackers filled any gaps in both run coverage and pass coverage, the cornerbacks played a tight pressing version of man-to-man coverage on the outside, and the safeties were either both over the top or split (one in coverage, the other in run support).

That's it in a nutshell.  Sure, you can throw in wrinkles here and there and maybe blitz sometimes, but that's the Green Bay defense at its core.  It's very plain, very reactionary, very vanilla.  There's admittedly not much creativity on this side of the ball; everyone has a job and is expected to cover their assignments.

Now the question at Lambeau is whether or not to change that defensive philosophy.  Do they want to put last year behind them and continue with the system as is, or would they prefer to move to a different style of play?  And if the latter is the case, what system is best for the Packers?  A basic Tampa 2 scheme?  Maybe a switch to a 3-4 (a move that has had some scattered support around Packer Nation)?  McCarthy and Winston Moss (the only defensive coach left standing from the January Purge...if he stays, that is) need to identify what type of system is best for success in the NFC North and perhaps beyond. 

Poll

Will Mike Nolan join the Packers as defensive coordinator?

81%

Yes

73 votes

18%

No

17 votes

90 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

Yesterday, the story was that Bob Sanders might be fired.  Today, the story is so much more.

Defensive coaches that were fired, according to the National Football Post: defensive ends coach Carl Hairston, defensive tackles coach Robert Nunn, secondary coach Kurt Schottenheimer, cornerbacks coach Lionel Washington and strength & conditioning coordinator Rock Gullickson.

In case you were wondering if anyone actually was retained, the answer is yes.  Assistant head coach/linebackers Winston Moss, one of the highest regarded assistants (not just in Green Bay, but in the NFL) was kept on staff.  Why?  Probably because he's been quietly gathering attention as a head coaching candidate, even interviewing for the St. Louis job.

So what now?  Well, Green Bay needs to hire some new assistants to go with a shiny new defensive coordinator.  Any suggestions?

UPDATE: I had previously reported that defensive quality control coach Joe Whitt Jr. had been fired.  I was mistaken; strength & conditioning coordinator Rock Gullickson was fired, not Joe Whitt Jr.

My apologies to everyone for being incommunicado for the past two weeks.  After the semester ended, I journeyed back to Milwaukee for the holiday, then returned to New Jersey for the New Year celebration (which consisted of two mimosas and going to bed at 12:30.  I am an old man.)  But, then again, it hasn't been very busy for the Packers lately, so that's how I rationalize my absence.  Take that, guilty conscience!

In all seriousness, this time of year is always the toughest for teams who underachieved their way out of the playoff hunt.  For some, it is chock-full of news-worthy events, be it the firing of a coach who deserved it, canning one who probably didn't, or the Fifth Annual Brett Favre Retirement Talk Merry-Go-Round (insert "I told you so" comment here).

But for us Packer fans, the news front is pretty quiet.  Yes, Mike Stock retired, but is anyone surprised by that move?  The special teams were as inconsistent as the team as a whole, ranging from dynamic one week to putrid the next.  It had to happen, and everyone knew it, but now that it's done, what else is there really to talk about?  We could dive into the biggest problem needing attention in the offseason: the run defense. 

Poll

What's your take on the run defense in 2008?

• Injury handicapped the squad beyond repair.
• The scheme doesn't translate to on-field success.
• The personnel weren't right for the system.
• Just a bad year with bad matchups at bad times.

  47 votes | Results

Continue reading this post »

Well then.

I really don't have much to say, as evidenced by my near-24-hour delay in posting this item.  After all, my esteemed colleagues in the game thread covered it, and Brandon certainly covered the most important bits.

How many losses by 4 points or less is it now?  Eight?  Eight of Green Bay's ten (and pleasepleaseohPLEASELORDPLEASE keep it at ten) losses?  How many times has the special teams given up crucial field position, or has the offense failed to convert a drive into a crucial score, or has the run defense yielded after 3 solid quarters of work?

So, yeah.  There isn't a whole lot to say that we haven't talked about before.  I do, however, have one thing I would like to say to anyone and everyone who considers themselves a Packer fan.

Stop.

Continue reading this post »

In a season as turbulent as 2008 has been, it's hard to find positives in Green Bay.  However, the NFL Pro Bowl rosters were released today, and two of your Packers have been chosen to take an island vacation and play in a game that no one will watch.  Three cheers apiece for...

 
Charles Woodson!  And...

Nick Collins!

Both Woodson and Collins are Pro Bowl starters, and deservedly so.  But why talk about Woodson's stats (54 tackles, 14 passes defensed, 5 interceptions and 2 TD's), or Collins' stats (65 tackles, 10 passes defensed, 5 interceptions and 3 TD's), or how both were integral to Green Bay's early success against the pass, or how both played heroically through nagging injuries...when we can talk about the snubs!

Possible Snub #1: Aaron Rodgers

Rodgers has played great this year, no doubt about it.  But his stats don't compare to that of the other NFC quarterbacks who made it (Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, and Eli Manning), and neither does his win total.  Soon, young padawan, but not this year.  Maybe when Warner retires and Eli Manning goes back to being Eli Manning.

Possible Snub #2: Greg Jennings

Now here's a guy you can make a case for.  Jennings had a scorching hot start to the season through the first six weeks, then started to cool off just in time for Pro Bowl voting to open.  Still, Jennings is 5th in the NFC in yards and touchdowns...but compared to the seasons enjoyed by Steve Smith (the good one), Roddy White, and the Arizona Duo of Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin, it's hard to put Jennings in one of those spots.  The only player I would consider bumping is Steve Smith, and I would totally replace him with...Calvin Johnson.  Seriously, Megatron deserved the Pro Bowl more than anyone; putting up the numbers he did on the team he was on is a monumental feat and it's a tragedy he didn't make the cut.

Possible Snub #3: Ryan Grant

No.  No, no, no, a thousand times, no.  Grant may be 9th in the league in rushing yards, but he has been so underwhelming this season (3.9 ypc on 268 carries), there's no way he deserves to make the Pro Bowl over Adrian Peterson, Michael Turner, and Clinton Portis.  The only possible "snub" in the NFC at this position is DeAngelo Williams, and he didn't really turn it on until a few weeks ago.

Possible Snub #4: Aaron Kampman

Kampman had a good year this year.  Not great, but good.  He'll probably eclipse 10 sacks in the next two weeks, which should be his floor in terms of production.  However, Justin Tuck, Julius Peppers, and Jared Allen had great years, and deserve to make the trip.  How John Abraham didn't make the squad, I will never know.  He even fits the odd 2008 Pro Bowl requirement for all NFC DE's to have a first name that start with the letter 'J'!

Possible Snub #5: ?

Is there anyone else on this Packer team that deserves a look?  If there is, I can't think of them.

Poll

Will you even watch the Pro Bowl?

18%

Definitely; football is football.

15 votes

26%

I might check out the highlights on SportsCenter.

21 votes

55%

Watch the what-now?

44 votes

80 votes | Poll has closed

Oftentimes, teams and fans alike try to forget losing seasons.  The rationale is that, by putting it behind them, they can get past it and move on.  Seems logical, doesn't it?  So, under that school of thought, the best approach for Green Bay would be to finish out the season somewhere between 7-9 and 5-11 (although keeping the potentially 0-16 Lions from going winless would be a disaster all on its own), admit its mistakes, and focus on improving for 2009.

In any case, the latest installment of Green Bay's tour of heartbreaking losses, the 20-16 loss at Jacksonville, is a perfect microcosm of the 2008 Green Bay Packers.  Here's how: 

Poll

While 2008 may be a done deal, how optimistic are you for 2009?

37%

Very; Green Bay is a young team that can only get better.

42 votes

39%

Moderately; while they've been close, there's still a long way to go.

45 votes

23%

Not at all; winning close games are the mark of a successful team, and this team can't do that.

26 votes

113 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

Green Bay and Jacksonville have had somewhat similar experiences in 2008.  Both teams were among the best last year, though Green Bay excelled with a dynamite passing game whereas Jacksonville had a dominant running game.  Both teams had offseason issues (the Favre Saga here, the Richard Collier shooting there), and both teams have been killed by injuries (Jacksonville's offensive line was destroyed in the preseason and early weeks of 2008).

As I wrote of the Jaguars way back in week 8 in the first week of my premature playoff preview:

This team is quite the enigma.  They look good against good teams, but they look bad against bad teams.  They could easily go 11-5 or 5-11.

It turns out that the latter was the route Jacksonville ended up taking.  At 4-9 and last in the AFC South (where Tennessee has dominated, Indianapolis has vastly improved, and the Texans aretrying to make people respect them), Jacksonville has fallen way short of expectations; just like the 5-8 Packers have.

So what's to play for this week?  It seems for both Jacksonville and Green Bay, not much.  Yes, it might still be possible for the Packers to go on a run, get a whole ton of help, and win the NFC North, but there's only about a 5% chance of happening, so let's get the obligatory "they could still make it!" talk out of the way and focus on what this week is really about: offseason momentum.

Remember in 2006, when Green Bay was 4-8 and managed to go on a 4-game streak to end the year at .500?  That momentum carried over into 2007, where the Packers went on a tear.  And that's exactly what I want the next three weeks to be.

I don't want to rest any starters.  If they're healthy, I want them out there.  Sorry Matt Flynn, I don't want you taking snaps from Aaron Rodgers.  Tramon Williams, you're still the nickel back unless McCarthy continues the Charles Woodson at safety experiment.  Brandon Jackson, you don't get to take carries away from Ryan Grant.  (On the other hand, might deserve a shot because he's been more productive in his limited action.)  Justin Harrell, as long as you didn't pull a muscle in the shower, I want you out there in the rotation.

Yes, this season is pretty much done.  But that's no reason to just give up and hope for better in the future.  If there's any hope of fixing next year's problems now, I'm all for it.  What does the rest of Packer Nation think?

Poll

Should Green Bay play backups to help with their growth or stick with the starters to get some momentum for the offseason?

60%

Stick with the starters; if they're healthy, get them out there to get some W's.

36 votes

26%

Play the backups; there's no point to this season anymore, we might as well accelerate their development.

16 votes

13%

It doesn't matter to me, I'll be watching (insert second-favorite NFL team here).

8 votes

60 votes | Poll has closed

We're getting so very close, boys and girls.  The playoffs are a mere three games away.  Some races are all but over, while others are uncomfortably tight.  You know what else is uncomfortably tight?  Size-small UnderArmour.  Honestly, I'm not a big guy.  So when I decide to throw on my old UnderArmour shirt to work out, I figure it won't be an issue.  But I forgot how ungodly small that thing is.  It made me feel fat, which is hard to do, at a scant 165 lbs.  It was like getting hugged way too tightly by someone you really didn't want hugging you in the first place.  Sure, it's good for football, but it is not workout-friendly.  Get a medium next time, jerk.

Now that I've rambled incoherently, shall we move onto the rankings?  I believe we shall...after the jump.

Poll

Can the Miami Dolphins shock the world and win the AFC East?

70%

Yes, and I am just as amazed.

28 votes

20%

No, the Jets will get their act together.

8 votes

10%

No, the Patriots are set up to win...again.

4 votes

40 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

We all have to face it: The Packers are not a playoff-caliber team.

-Kevin Seifert, ESPN.com

There's already been enough discusion over the bad things that happened yesterday.  The Packers sufferred a loss that dropped them to 5-8, and both the Bears and Vikings won (although the Vikings just barely made it past the woeful Detroit Lions).  In giving up 400+ yards to Matt Schaub and 120+ to Steve Slaton, the Packers also gave up the little remaining hope at snagging the NFC North title.

(Yes, I know it's still mathematically possible.  Trust me, I'm trying to convince myself that Green Bay can run the table and that both Chicago and Minnesota will fall off the face of the planet or get violent diarrhea or something, thus opening the door to yet another Green and Gold division championship.)

But you know what?  I don't want to talk about the dismal run defense...or the offense's 1-for-10 3rd down conversion rate...or the suddenly staggering pass defense...or the positively putrid pass rush...or the fact that a fourth major defensive starter is probably going to be limited by an injury (Nick Collins)...or how Bob Sanders might lose his job...or Mark Tauscher's season-ending knee injury...or Aaron Rodgers' startling inconsistencies (including a boneheaded interception at the end of the first half)...and I certainly don't want to talk about the offensive drive in the 4th quarter that first managed to get to the Houston 22-yard line with 3:02 left and, with a holding penalty and a sack, ended up as a punt from the Houston 38-yard line with 2:00 left.

I don't wanna talk about any of that.  Why?  Because I'm positively delusional.  I can't handle the negatives anymore.  I need some positives, just like I did way back in October after the Tampa Bay loss.  Let's get happy, people!

Poll

How is the rest of the Packers' season gonna play out?

15%

3-0, and an NFC North title!

14 votes

28%

2-1, ending up just under .500

26 votes

30%

1-2, and at 6-10, right where this team belongs.

27 votes

25%

0-3, wake me up when it gets to be draft time.

23 votes

90 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

One of the top headlines on the site reads:

Confidence shaken?

Is Mike McCarthy losing confidence in Aaron Rodgers? Get more on that, plus get an inside look at Cowboys-Steelers.

 Then, after clicking the link, the anonymous writer has this to say:

With the game, and possibly a season, on the line, Packers coach Mike McCarthy’s choice of play-calling late in Sunday’s 35-31 loss to the Panthers could have been telling in his faith in first-year starting quarterback Aaron Rodgers.

Greg A. Bedard of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal explains.

From the outside looking in, McCarthy’s choice of play-calling suggested that in crunch time, McCarthy does not have ultimate confidence in Rodgers, his first-year starter. McCarthy’s revelation on Monday that if he had gone for it on fourth down — something he considered — he would have called another running play seemed to support the notion that Rodgers might not have McCarthy’s complete confidence.

Talk about taking something completely out of context.  The people at NFL.com neglected to mention that McCarthy had affirmed his total confidence in Rodgers, and it seems that they're sacrificing common football sense for trying to make a story out of nothing.

Green Bay had the ball on the 1-yard line.  There's not enough room to pass the ball effectively; you only have 11 yards to work with before you hit the sideline/endline.  Any respectible offensive line should be able to generate enough push to punch the ball from that distance.  Shoot, Carolina did it five times that game.

Calling run plays has nothing to do with McCarthy's confidence in Rodgers.  It's playing the percentages.  Unfortunately, Carolina was able to firm up its goal-line defense at the same time.