What a difference a week can make. It seems as if the Packers went from Cinderella status to a team that no one knows. We've got problems, yes, but we've shown some promise. There doesn't seem to be a quick fix on the horizon, but is there such a thing in the NFL? What I do know is that teams change from one game to the next in the NFL. We won't know this one's identity until all the games have been played. There's reasons for optimism though! According to at least one site's figuring, we're actually a top 6 team.

http://footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/...-2-dvoa-ratings

Our special teams took a giant hit, though, this past game. As they should. Kapinos seems to be doing just fine, but our coverage blew. Is this going to be the same as last year? Throughout the beginning of the season, according to footballoutsiders, we were a good team. Then the losing started, but we were still considered a good team. Things just weren't bouncing our way. It wasn't until the last quarter of the season that our DVOA ranking actually matched the win-loss record. I certainly hope, though, that is not the case this year.

As opposed to the Bengals, we have a team that is in reality simply put: bad. Despite years of high draft choices they have not put it together. Below is a scouting report on them provided by the Press Gazette.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/articl...2168/1058/PKR01

This could be what we need to get our team going. But there are three things that have me worried about the direction our team is headed in.

http://packerslounge.com/2009/09/22/barnett-blasts-michaels/

Nick Barnett makes a mistake for the second time in a week on twitter. I love twitter. I think it's an absolutely ingenious website. I don't use it, personally, but I do recognize how efficiently it gets information out to people, as in the training camp updates provided by the Journal Sentinel and the Press Gazette. It also puts a face on celebrities, however illiterate they seem to be. Outside of Jermichael Finley complaining about playcalling last year, I have not seen a Mike McCarthy Green Bay Packer be so outspokenly disagreeable. Could this be a sign that our players are losing composure? Barnett criticized our coach's decisions publicly. Now he lays in to a Milwaukee journalist. How should we feel about this?

http://www.meatpackersunion.com/2009/09/super-salty.html

To be honest with you, I'm not terribly concerned about our offense. They have so much potential. Our skill position players are good. Our line is good. Our running backs are good. We are so loaded. But they won't have any success until they do one thing: have fun. They've got their heads so far up their butts worrying about the gameplan, they're forgetting they are high quality players who are paid millions of dollars to have fun! Loosen up offense, please! One thing that He Who Shall Not Be Named brought to this team was a looseness. A 'screw it let's just play' mentality. We're missing that right now and I don't expect us to get any better until we reclaim it.

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/includes/blog...mp;post_id=1146

The last thing that concerns me this week is from this interview with A.J. Hawk by Jason Wilde at ESPN Milwaukee. Two things I learned that I didn't know before: he likes Dave Matthews Band (bordering on obsession) and Top Gun is his favorite movie. Oh my good lord. We should've learned this before we spent the #5 pick on this guy.

I'm still confident about this team's chances. There are things out there that concern me, however. I hope that Steven Jackson doesn't take the same pills that Cedric Benson took last week.

Our line is not good, its average at best

And thank you for including the entire original post in your message.

But which line are you talking about? Colledge-Spitz-Wells-Sitton-Barbre? Or Clifton-Colledge-Spitz-Sitton-Barbre? Maybe you're thinking of Clifton-Colledge-Wells-Spitz-Tauscher.

My point is that we have talented offensive linemen. All of this has been debated before, but what is worth mentioning is that our guys have succeeded. They have played at a high level. And they have the potential to be very, very good.

i like it.

i'm also not freaking out after the loss to the bengals. it probably helps that i didn't see the game, but its not college ball and there's still 15 weeks left in the season. i think we'll rebound. a loss like that can be useful to remind the guys that they have to bring it every week against other pros, even teams like the rams or lions.

i am worried about the o line though. if the rams can get to Rodgers, then every team on the schedule will be able to.

If the rams, who average one sack a game, can get to Rodgers like Cincy did then we have a problem. I think with a week of practice and his foot a little better Colledge should be okay. Remember he is playing out of position.

I've seen mutiple threads on this and other Packer forums by fans blasting TT for having no depth behind Cliffy. I took a peek at the Gmen's depth chart and they had no one behind Kenny Phillips so they had to scour the street for a safety. I guess teams don't always have enough backups for each starter.

Anytime an injury occurs it'll spark complaints of lack of depth. When Al Harris went down last year, it wasn't enough that we could start Williams in his place. What were we doing having Blackmon as a nickel? TT obviously neglected this position.

If Donald Lee went down, I'm sure we'd end up with complaints about using a linebacker in two tight end sets. I guess people just need to find someone to blame for something that's unavoidable (if you have an injury, your depth takes a hit).

If they lose to the lowly Rams this week... the media and fans will be out in force trashing the old Ted and Mike show.

Will be out in force? Where you been all week?

Of course that's true. But all positions are not equal. Last year's Packers played the season with no NFL-ready backup quarterback and questionable depth at defensive end; this year it's left tackle. Those are three of the five key (ie, highest-paid) positions (together with WR and CB, where Green Bay has admirable depth). They also take longest to pick up. Not having a Plan B at any of those positions is, frankly, indefensible.

And what's changed this year?

Having our sixth best offensive linemen come in to the game is not a plan B?

There's a reason why those positions are the highest paid. Finding quality LTs, QBs, and DEs, players you trust, is difficult. Show me a team that we should follow. New England has a rookie backing up Tom Brady right now.

The other issue with Cliffy going down was how it affected 3 positions on the line.

The 6 Ps

Prior Planning Prevents Pizz Poor Performance

While I do agree with you for the most part, I believe a contrasting example here would be Jeff Garcia. Personally, I'd rather have him as the #2 as opposed to Flynn right now. Especially if you believe(d) the Packers have a shot at the playoffs this year.

It would be, if our sixth best offensive lineman wasn't a center.

Look, I see your point, but McCarthy spent the offseason claiming over and over again that his aim, as far as the line was concerned, was to put an end to the "merry-go-round" of shuffling starters whenever one player went down. We are two weeks into the season, with a lone injury to the oldest and most injury-prone of our linemen, and what do we see? Half the line shuffled around.

The other half are first-year starters. It's a recipe for disaster.

I don't blame the staff for the shenanigans at the safety position, for example. They foresaw potential problems — Bigby's injury struggles, Rouse's lack of development, poor depth — and reacted, bringing in a low-price free agent who knew the system. He didn't work out. That happens sometimes. Also, it's a new defense with a new coordinator; some of the veteran playing personnel won't fit with the scheme or with the coaches. That happens too.

On the offensive line, there's less excuse. It's the same scheme, the same coaches. But the foreseeable problems weren't addressed. No free agent who could play tackle was acquired in the offseason. The position wasn't considered urgent enough to merit more than a fifth-round draft pick, and the player chosen didn't make the roster (while a #3 undrafted center did).

As Heatseeker has been arguing for some time, a yawning gap is emerging between McCarthy's no-nonsense, common-sense-will-prevail spiel and what actually happens on the team. The same problems keep cropping up, and nothing ever seems to be done to fix them.



Well, if you trusted Tony Moll to play three years, why not a fourth? Don't get me wrong, Moll is no substitute for Clifton; but isn't it better to have a replacement-level tackle on your depth chart than no tackle at all?

I fail to see how playing Moll against the likes of Jared Allen and Chris Long is a better option than Colledge.

You seem to be assuming a few things Ammek. First, that the Packers had an option to acquire a better tackle than we've got. Second, that whatever tackle we bring in will be our sixth best lineman. And if not that, you are assuming that it's smarter to start the phantom tackle as opposed to bringing Wells off of the bench. I understand your frustration, but criticism without an actual suggestion for what should've happened is specious.

I'm a big believer in line stability. Short-term it doesn't always look like the logical option — hence your Moll comment — but in the longer term it usually pays off. Talk to line coaches. They'll agree.

The only way that Colledge is a better option than Moll is if the coaches see him as Clifton's eventual replacement. In that context, he's learning his future position, and the switch is worthwhile. Otherwise, it's a distraction from the Packers' aim, which is to make Colledge their left guard for the next decade.



Well we don't have a backup left tackle at all. Any old nincompoop off the streets would be better than nothing.

To reiterate my point: who is our left tackle of the future? This is an ideal opportunity to give someone a shot. If that person is Colledge, fine, I have no problem. But if it isnt, then this is a waste of everyone's time and effort. Clifton IMO has one more year, and even then he is likely to miss a game or two. His replacement should already be on the roster.



I am assuming the latter. Spitz isn't going to be a better center by playing left guard. Colledge won't improve as a guard by playing left tackle. The line won't make progress as a unit while it's being chopped and changed. The positions are more different than they appear, and stability is a much more valuable asset than we realize.

My main criticism of McCarthy is his "get our best players on the field, regardless of where they're playing" approach. I hate it; it hardly ever works. I don't enjoy seeing Chillar playing safety or Raji at end any more than Spitz playing left guard. We're meant to be emulating the Steelers: Draft projects. Immerse them in the scheme. Train them up at one position. Give them a handful of reps, ease them into the rotation. Bingo. You have youngish starters who know what they're doing.



I hope I'm clear now.