Lets rev it up! A decent win over the Lions ( I personally thought it should have been 35 or 42 to nothing; however, a win is a win).

Now, on to Cleveland. This should be another Packers win. The Browns are quite simply awful. They don't have a QB, their D is in disarray, and their coach is on the hot seat. Other than that, they're fine.

Now, on to the Packers. Finally, Capers showed some defensive muscle in the Lions game. More unusual blitzes, more pressure, more good play. Finally! Hurrah!

On the other hand, Four or five sacks by the Lions? Are you kidding me? That is totally unacceptable. Grant again tried to show that he can run the ball, but again showed he is ineffective running the ball. If he is that bad in October, what will he be like in December?

I don't want to be too much of a 'downer' this week. I just think that at this point, the Packers are overrated by us fans. Yes, they can beat much inferior teams- however, when they play better teams, they fold like a poker player who gets two deuces (sp?) in their hand. Right now, the pre-season seems like a bitter joke, and the real season a jarring jolt of (unpleasant) reality.

Trap game - beware

If I'm the Browns, I bring a ton of pressure all game. Nothing to lose for them. On offense, I try to pound the ball. Browns need to shorten the game by keeping the clock moving, and I'm sure they think they have a chance to move the abll on the ground against the Packers. Throw in a couple turnovers or big ST plays and they have a shot at winning.

With all that said, I'm sure the Packers coaching staff knows all this. Just get it done, ugly or pretty I don't care.

I think this is another butt kicking as I do not see a single weapon the Browns have that we should be afraid of.

Packers: 35
Browns: 10

Grant should get 100+ yards this game. He is due for a solid game.

Here is the reality though. The Packers showed defensive muscle because the Lions had ZERO offensive muscle. They were playing their 3rd string QB and without the best player on their entire team(Calvin Johnson). Its not very hard to stop an offense consisting of a bunch of hacks.

Somebody's head has to roll for the performance of the OL yesterday. That was one of the most humiliating and atroocious displays I've ever seen. Seriously, 3 out of 4 DL starters were inactive. Our starting OL can't even keep other teams' 2nd and 3rd string DL in check. I don't want to hear about Rogers holding the ball. There are defenders in his face by the time he even gets the ball. Some OL are just giving up on plays leaving defenders clean shots on Rodgers. This is disgusting play from the OL and it has to stop. One play really stands out. Rodgers drew a defensive offsides call but the play continued, one of the OL just gave up and let Peterson run right at Rodgers. It took one heck of a play by Rodgers to avoid a sack and make a play. We can't have OL giving up on plays and allowing guys to run right by them. Who the heck coaches these guys? Why does he still have a job? Our OL is a complete joke. They have no pride and let defenders get clean shots on their QB. Its pathetic.

I don't really buy the Rodgers holding the ball too long argument. On nearly every passing play he has to make plays with his feet because the OL simply isn't protecting long enough. After a while that disrupts the QB's time clock and they are forced to constantly make plays on their own. It ultimately leads the QB into bad positions leading to sacks. The problem lies with the OL. Rodgers simply can't trust the protection and constantly feels he has to make plays with his feet.

Beware of Josh Cribbs...........

I hope you are correct....

Funny you should mention Cribbs.....

Battle on the Lake: Packers vs. Browns

Gimme win. 49-12 Packers. Or so I hope...

Yep, that's exactly what many posters said here about Cincinnati

The article should have mentioned punter Dave Zastudil as well. He's one of the best in the league and gets better as the weather gets worse. He also gets plenty of opportunities: the Browns' offense is as bad as advertised.

That said, I think you're all underestimating Cleveland somewhat. Sure, it is one of the league's worst teams, but it's bad rather than atrocious, and so not quite on a par with Detroit or the Rams. I'll confess that I sat through Browns-Bills (the 6-3 snoozefest) during the Pack's bye week and also saw some of the near-tie with Cincinnati. What I saw was a team that played hard, lines that performed adequately, and a sprinkling of promising youngsters at the skill/speed positions. What is desperately lacking is playmakers and a pass offense. (The Browns' best player, linebacker D'Qwell Jackson, missed the Bills game.) It's hard to know who to blame for the putrid passing display in Buffalo (Derek Anderson went 2/17 with a pick): there were seven or eight drops, half of them heinous, and almost as many passes that landed closer to the Canadian border than to a Browns receiver. Let's call it chicken-and-egg.

On defense, I think you're underselling the Browns. They have a punctually sprightly pass rush which is going to cause problems for the Pack. Also of note: the Bills' offensive line — which would be the worst in the NFL if it weren't for James Campen — had eight false starts and a holding penalty. We can safely deduce that the Pack will not have a sack-free, penalty-free showing in Cleveland.

Two sacks were CLEARLY on Rodgers. On the sack in the 2nd quarter it was second and goal from about the nine and he sat in the pocket and held the ball for 4 seconds. He HAS TO get rid of the ball in that situation. You can talk all you want about how a good line will hold up for 4 seconds, he needs to be aware of where he is and just get rid of it. Then you have third and goal from the 9 instead of from the 15 or so.

On the fumble play he held it about another 4 seconds from about the same spot on the field. It was 1st and goal! Just get rid of the ball and you have 3 more shots at the endzone! If the play isn't there he needs to live to fight another play.

Most disappointing is that he's regressed from last year on that point. That used to be a strong point for him, a point of veteran savvy displayed by a guy starting his first year. Greenhorns hold the ball too long, vets take what they can get and go on to the next play.

I most probably was one of them!

OK, lets kick this off. The Packers travel to Cleveland to take on the woeful Browns. Is anyone outside of Al Davis making a worse mess of a team than Eric Mangini? My goodness- their QB duet is non-productive; it seems Quinn is ready to be shipped off to another city (his house was put up for sale- not the move of a single young man who has made a commitment to the franchise that drafted him). Anderson is showing he was a one-year-wonder. Once the NFL DC's got some tape on the guy, he has been terrible. The Browns running game is, at best, mediocre, and there seems to be an air of desperation hanging over Cleveland.

Now, defensively, this is another story. We'll all finally get to view Corey Williams in a Browns uniform, though, from what I've been reading, he is less than impressive. Still, the quick cure for lack of QB pressure seems to be playing the Packers OL. The Lions game (five sacks of Rodgers?!) was ridiculous. Missed assignments, poor technique and simply whiffing blocks is getting to be a weekly occurrence. Now, there is no way that these two teams are even close in talent. The Packers are the superior team, and should win handily. However, this could be one of those classic "trap games" for the Green and Gold. Because after the Browns game, You Know Who leads the Vikings into Lambeau. This has to be a Packers fan's greatest nightmare. If the Packers overlook this game, it could be a devastating upset. I only hope that MM can finally keep his team focused and ready to play this week, and not have the team peering down the road.

Quite simply, the Packers finally looked like they had actually made some adjustments in the passing game, with Rodgers getting the ball out much more quickly (still- five sacks?!). This game will also give T.J. Lang more experience before he faces the toughest challenge he'll have all season versus Minny. Unless Clifton can be ready the following week against Minny (I would think the Packers staff would give him that extra week to recover more fully), because Allen is going to be rip-roaring to go.

OK, I just did what I hoped the Packers would not do- look forward to the following week. Enough of that. The "OFFICIAL" thread will be opening a few minutes after the end of the Cleveland game, beause I know that interest will be intense. Still, I expect the Packers to win handily on Sunday. Say, 31-14 or so. My final plea- get Grant going! Establish the run game! Fewer words and promises, and more concrete actions.

I couldn't agree more. Once again, the Packers have reason to be overconfident. What those reasons are may be unclear to us on the forum, but I'm really afraid that some Packers players might be ready to simply chalk up another W before playing the game. Especially with Minny, let by You Know Who coming up the next weekend- quite seriously, this could be that "anomaly game" where the unusual and unexpected happens. Though I certainly hope ot.

FWIW, I hope the Packers win this game as I will be in attendance ......

our defense should be able to force Anderson into several bad decisions per quarter. every other defense in the league has.

they do have a few decent players. Cribbs, as we all know, is electric and it looks like the geniuses running that show are finally trying to get him more involved. that could be scary, cos he was a quarterback in college so i hope we're ready for some potential trick plays. Mossaqoui looks like he's a good player, and Joe Thomas is one of the better LTs in the league.

that's about it though. the bottom line is that this team stinks. they were bad last year, and lost two of their best skill players (Edwards and Winslow). their defense gives up over 400 yards and almost 25 points per game. and that includes their 6-3 game.

losing this game would be absolutely unacceptable. hopefully MM puts up the Eagles as an example, and our guys are smart enough to see the trap for what it is. we were definitely on coast mode for most of the lions game.

Hopefully they don't have any defensive ends looking to have a career day in sacks.

I thought I read that he actually audibled out of a called shovel pass on that play, got greedy and held the ball too long(AGAIN). Maybe I have the wrong play, but it was one of those sacks in the red-zone.

Unless we turn the ball over on the road we should win this game. Cleveland's O is ranked#31 in the league (the Lions are #24th) and their D is #32 - dead last - while Detroit is #28th. FYI our O is #10 and our D is #8 and both sides of the ball are ranked higher than MN and Chicago according to nfl.com. Yeah, that surprised me too.

That's shocking really. IF only the oline was half decent, we'd be better than 3-2. Too bad...

Can the Packers get any luckier?

Last week they got the horrible Lions without Stafford and Johnson, their two best offensive players.

Now they get the horrible Browns without D. Jackson, probably their best defensive player. He just went on IR. This guy is a terror at ILB. Makes an incredible amount of tackles. Fearless, with fine instincts.

BTW, he is one of the guys I thought TT could have had low in the first round, or early in the second, if he had traded the Hawk pick. I was absolutely baffled that, if he wanted a WLB, why not trade that pick down, pick up another player, and get the WLB later also. There were four good guys who he could have gotten: D. Ryans, Jackson, R. McIntosh, and T. Howard. Each one turned out as good or better than Hawk at less than half the price.

1) The Browns D was horrible even before they lost Jackson.

2) Luck is part of the game. Trying to pull a Phil Hellmuth? "If luck wasn't a part of the game, I guess I'd win every one."

3) Hindsight is 20/20. Should we be lashing out because Brady went in the 6th round? Greg Jennings in the 7th? or perhaps the dozens of others that have helped their team greatly, despite being drafted in the later rounds. EVERY TEAM has been in the exact same situation: Team A drafts player X, but Team B drafted player Y, who turned out to be better than player X, who was drafted first.

We beat the Bares(unfortunately I think they are
classified as a "better team"),
were 4 yds and a few seconds from beating the Bengals,
and certainly didn't "fold" vs. the Queens.
(we mounted a comeback remember?)

We're 3-2, how is that a "jarring jolt of unpleasant reality"???

Sorry ricky, I wish we were 5-0 too,
but 3-2 at this point isn't the apocalypse!!




Even though they went to OT,
I don't feel comparing the Bengals and Browns is realistic.
Bengals worst game, Browns best.
And I don't believe the Pack "overlooked" CIN.
Just got beat.

GO PACK!!

Well I for one believe that this will be a tougher game than the Lions. Seriously, imagine if we took Rodgers and say, Jennings off the Packers. That's what the Lions were last week without Stafford and Megatron.

Granted, the Browns, talent-wise aren't anything to write home about, but they'll come to play. The tape is out on the Packers --- they can't protect worth a lick. Just because their offense might not be great doesn't mean they can't score points. If Rodgers is once again under heavy pressure (which he will be) that always increases the chance of turnovers.

And even though Mangini has gotten a bad rap lately, I don't think he's as bad as everyone thinks. His team will come to play and he'll give the offense (particularly, the line) a lot of different looks from their D. If Derek Anderson can revert to the D.A. of 2007, we could be in for a fight.

Like Max said, big time trap game.

Proving once again, at least to me, the uselessness of short term statistics. Does anyone here think our O or D is better than Minnesota's at this point? Doesn't mean we can't beat them.
Having watched this game for over 50 years I have seen every kind of upset possible. We sprang a few of our own in the 70s and 80s when we were worse than horrible. These people are all NFL players, the best football players on the planet, and anything can happen on any given gameday. I'd be willing to bet that if you made up a team of practice squad players and gave them one week, they would soundly defeat any college team you would put against them.
These players are all the best of the best and have usually all been winners at some point in their journey. Stats never take into account the unexpected, the fumbles, interceptions, punt and kickoff returns that can happen to any team at any time. I will be taking the Browns seriously, and if our team does not, be prepared to be disappointed.

I agree. I don't really have a good feeling about this game. The Packers have serious issues right now. I can't really ever have a good feeling about any game they play now days. I keep my expectations low and get excited when they win, rather than say they are going to kill a team and get depressed when they lose or win by a small margin against a "supposedly" inferior opponent. I think this team has serious leadership issues. Rodgers pointed out the fact that he knew some people in the Packers locker room were overlooking the Bengals. You can't overlook anybody in the NFL. These are all elite athletes hungry for a win. The truly good teams have leaders that don't allow other players to play with lower intensity when they are playing bad teams. I don't think we have that. This game is going to be closer than many here think. Its a game we should win by 3 TDs but I just don't see it happening. I expect a win but I don't expect it to be overwhelming. I just don't know what to expect from this team anymore.

Exactly. Stats don't mean anything until 3/4 of the way through the season. A team that is ranked #8 in defense in Week 7 or 8 could very well be ranked #20 by season's end. It happens all the time. Our defensive rankings skyrocketed from below average into the Top 10 after playing a an under-manned Detroit Lions offense missing both its #1 and #2 QBs and its biggest playmaker Calvin Johnson. I would hope we could keep that offense under 200 yards. It would have been a completely different game had Johnson been playing. I guarantee it.

I repeat, the Pack is lucky so far this year.

According to a report out of Cleveland, the Browns other Pro Bowl player on defense, Shaun Rogers is going to be out with swine flu. Plus five other starters may be inflicted. The NFL is probably going to let them raid their Taxi squad to fortify the roster.

THey may seriously think of postponing the game.

Except for the part about Rogers,
what part of this post isn't just your opinion.
(it's my opinion the Bengals and Queens got lucky!!)


Go Pack!!

Swine Flu? Is that OFFICIAL?

As of 10PM Wed, no one has been ruled out of the game
and the Browns are looking into the cause of the flu outbreak.
12 players missed practice.
Privacy laws prevent them from stating the exact type of illness.

(per Man-genius's presser,clevelandbrowns.com,NFL.com,
the Cleveland Plain Dealer and ESPN)

Let's add swine flu face-masks to our uniforms for the game.

Go Pack!!

Pats 4:

How is this for an opinion?

Quoting the AP from nfl.com: "The team has been sacked by the flu. Twelve players, including Pro Bowl nose tackle Shaun Rogers and five other starters missed practice Wednesday...."

"The Browns sick players are Rogers, RB Jerome Harrison, center Alex Mack, CB Anthony Madison, safety Brodney Pool, TE Robert Royal, WR Chansi Stuckey, LB Jason Trusnik, DE Brian Schaefering, FB Lawrence Vickers, DE Corey Williams, and LB Kamerion Wimbley."

"Wimbley missed last Sunday's game in Pittsburgh, and Rogers was sick during the 27-14 loss to the Steelers....Wimbley never got well enough to play and was sent home. Rogers was driven back to Ohio in a separate vehicle."

The article also includes a quote from the NFL office about just this contingency with the swine flu. It says that if you have six players confirmed with it, you can raid your taxi squad to fill the spots.

So the Browns will be without Jackson, and likely without Rogers, and Wimbley. Their three best defensive players.

More manna from heaven.

Packers 34 - Browns 17

Does it really matter to you? Be honest.

This is a game they have to win anyways, Rogers or no Rogers.

Lets just say they played Sunday with the full contingent, Jackson and the whole bunch...and the Packers won. Would it really matter to you? It would still be a throwaway, meaningless game to you anyway because it's the Browns.

Bottom line is, they have to beat the bad teams, and the Browns are bad even at full strength.

BTW, re luck, the Vikes got their own stroke of luck last week, and you can bet they'll take it and not be ashamed. I'll gladly take any lucky breaks my team can get and be happy/thankful for it.

There are usually enough stupid/unlucky incidents throughout a typical season, so i'll take the good when it happens.

Nail, meet head.

It's such an interesting concept because it's not something quantifiable. Like we all know that Rodgers throws a ball really well, moves well in the pocket and has shown very good field vision. We all know that Clay Matthews is fast. That B.J. Raji is big and strong.

But leadership?

It's something we're definitely lacking. Even our top-tier guys like Woodson, Jennings and Rodgers I don't see as real, "leaders" -- yet anyway. We need a Ray Lewis, Alan Faneca, Troy Polamolu-type player. Not only a great player, but someone who makes the players around them great. Right now, I think we just have a lot of puzzle pieces --- with no real connection.

True, and it's something I haven't thought too much about. Hard to to nail down though. On offense, it seems that Rodgers and Jennings are trying, but something hasn't really taken hold for whatever reason. On defense- there just seems to be a complete void there. I don't know if it's a by-product of everyone just trying to learn their 'new' job or what. Just my perception, I could be wrong I guess.

I find this leadership thing interesting. To me, it kind like the chicken or the egg. Are Ray Lewis, Brett Favre, Troy Polamolu great leaders because their teams win or do their teams win because they are great leaders? If the Packers ran off 6 straight wins and the defense really took off, would Woodson or Harris then be considered good leaders? There are leaders on every team but what effect do they have on wins and losses, I don't know how you answer that?

It's a difficult question to answer, Coco. But I do know this. Every Super Bowl winner I can remember in recent history has had at least one leader.

Big Ben and James Harrison you could argue are the Steelers leaders.
Manning on the Colts
Brady on the Pats
Lewis on the Ravens
Strahan on the Giants

I hear ya Heat but maybe those guys are on the Packers roster. To me, it seems like Rodgers, Driver, Woodson & Barnett are all leaders but since the team started slow they aren't viewed that way. If they go on a roll, I bet you will read a lot of stories about the leadership of these guys.

Perhaps, but I also think the lack of leadership could very well be a byproduct of having (for the 4th year in a row) the youngest team in the league.

Granted, there's guys like Driver, Woodson, Harris, etc. But those guys don't stand out as leaders to me. Great players, but not leaders.

Maybe the youngest team thing is a negative from that perspective, I don't really have an opinon either way.

However, I am curious - What should Rodgers, Driver & Woodson be doing that they are not doing? They are certainly leading by example on the field but what else do they need to do from a leadership stand point?

How do we as fans watching from a distance know what kind of leadership a team has? Are we looking at somebody who does a lot of talking on the field or in the media. Someone vocal like Ray Lewis?

With Green and Tausher signed it's likely we are not the youngest team. Youngest team is absolutely meaningless anyway because as has been pointed out many times, our game day active group is nowhere near the youngest ,and our starting 22 are actually closer to the other end of the scale. Clifton, Driver,Pickett, Woodson, Harris, Barnett,Jenkins,Chillar, and now Green and Tausher all have 6 or more years in the NFL. With 6 of those having over 10 years.

In a lifetime of observing team dynamics in sports or business or just everyday living, age is not the determining factor when it comes to leadership. Sure, leadership can develop in some individuals as they age and get experience, but there are people who are born to lead, and its my guess that everyone here knows such an individual.

None of this is meant to say that the Packers have such a leader, I wouldn't know. Real leaders,effective leaders, lead by example, and I believe we do have those type of people on our team.

Me too!

I don't know and never claimed to (as I said on page 1 about leadership not being quantifiable).

But that's really just it. IMO, when it comes to leadership, you either are, or you aren't. There's nothing you can, "do" to bring you from follower to leader. That's what makes it interesting to me.

As for the statement about how do we not know? I guess we don't. But it appears that there isn't any based on the actions and play on the field. I don't hang out with A.J. Hawk so no, I don't know what goes on in the locker room.

Like everyone here, all I can do is speculate.

Heat,

I wasn't trying to get on your case or anything, I hope you didn't take it that way. I was honestly curious about what people see externally to think someone is a leader. At work I have known people who were very good leaders and in about half of the cases I don't think it was obvious to people outside of work. I wonder how football players get that tag. For example Ray Lewis, is it because he is the best player on the team, is it because he is vocal on the field or does he do things behind the scenes that make everyone better?

To me, it's a little of all of these combined with team success. If Ray Lewis was on the Lions his whole career he would still be a great player but without team success I doubt if people would view him as a leader.

Who were the leaders in our 13-3 season?

2 of the 12 out with flu returned to practice for the Browns yesterday (Rogers being one who returned). The Browns are seriously hurting.

That said, I'm looking for more progression from the D. With Bigby back in the lineup, it seems Capers was able to do more with his looks and scheme. Matthews being the starter is something we were expecting would happen eventually. It will be interesting to see how Kampman is used this week. Hopefully Raji gets a bit more comfortable.

On offense, looks like T.J. Lang will get the start. If he does well, it puts MM in an interesting position. Return Cliffy back to the starting lineup or go with the hot hand? I would guess Cliffy would resume his starting role, but I wouldn't rush him back. Also, Spitz will likely be out. Once again, our starting O-line week to week is rarely consistent. I was hoping Spitz was more durable than Wells (and I thought that was one reason for him winning the starting role), but five games in that's not the case. We haven't mentioned Sitton much. Seems like he's been doing just fine at RG, but not sure.

As for WR, Jordy's out, so Swain will see some playing time. I'd like to see him step up as the 4th WR. He will probably get some chances on K and P returns, but Tramon Williams looks like he's the primary guy for those duties.

We should win this game handily, but I'm looking for more consistent, error- (drops, assignment errors, etc.) and penalty-free football. We just haven't seen that yet from this group.

Rob Davis. No question.