What's Happened to the Green Bay Packers?

[TJV]

What if Rodgers had not fallen in the draft and he wouldn't be on the GB roster?

What if the Sun were a couple of billion years older than it is and its heat evaporated all the water on Earth??!!

I wish brandon2348's post above this one were true but IMO that's a very rosy look at the roster, so IMO Thompson has to share some of the blame. And I agree it's very likely Philbin's contribution in preparing the game plan is missed and even moreso are all the losses Thompson's personnel department has suffered over the years.

 

[brandon2348]

What if the Sun were a couple of billion years older than it is and its heat evaporated all the water on Earth??!!

I wish brandon2348's post above this one were true but IMO that's a very rosy look at the roster, so IMO Thompson has to share some of the blame. And I agree it's very likely Philbin's contribution in preparing the game plan is missed and even moreso are all the losses Thompson's personnel department has suffered over the years.

Rosey? lol. Yeah the Eagles got Nick Foles, Shady McCoy(total stud), Jeremy Maclin, Riley Cooper, Jordan Matthews (R). Brent Celek TE

Not terrible but not as good as our guys overall. Guess what? There scoring points.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think running a lot of no-huddle offense has taken some creativity away from McCarthy's play calling. He was way more innovative when the team had enough time between plays to make substitutions. I'm fine with running the no-huddle from time to time but in that case I would like to have Rodgers actually call the plays.

 

[PackerDNA]

IMO, on a whole , things are getting stale. And I don't see TT or MM as being very willing to make changes or adjustments.

 

[brandon2348]

I think running a lot of no-huddle offense has taken some creativity away from McCarthy's play calling. He was way more innovative when the team had enough time between plays to make substitutions. I'm fine with running the no-huddle from time to time but in that case I would like to have Rodgers actually call the plays.

Couldn't agree more and when MM was asked "if the no-huddle takes away some creativity by not subbing in different personnel groups" he of course did his look at the reporter like there stupid look and basically said "no'. He is bent on making this hurry up offense go and I hope it works but I am losing confidence.

Yeah, pick your spots and times to use the no-huddle and let Rodgers run the show and get in a groove when you do.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Couldn't agree more and when MM was asked "if the no-huddle takes away some creativity by not subbing in different personnel groups" he of did his look at the reporter like there stupid look and basically said "no'. He is bent on making this hurry up offense go and I hope it works but I am losing confidence.

Yeah, pick your spots and times to use the no-huddle and let Rodgers run the show and get in a groove when you do.

Just throwing this out there. How do people know Rodgers isn`t running the show when we go no huddle ? What is it about Rodgers that makes him un-blameable here ? I asked the question the other day and nobody could answer my question. The team or more precisely after last week, the offense needs to get its act together, and that includes Rodgers. People may not like or agree with me on this but hey !! its my opinion.

 

[brandon2348]

Just throwing this out there. How do people know Rodgers isn`t running the show when we go no huddle ? What is it about Rodgers that makes him un-blameable here ? I asked the question the other day and nobody could answer my question. The team or more precisely after last week, the offense needs to get its act together, and that includes Rodgers. People may not like or agree with me on this but hey !! its my opinion.

Well were always running "no huddle" and MM is calling the plays. He has even said he is. Rodgers has limited things he can check to from the play called from MM. The discussion is not only MM's play calling but that by keeping one personnel group on the field the whole time it limits creativity in play calling.

Which even the Eagles run multiple formations out of there no-huddle. They don't run a certain formation out of it 72 percent of the time like we do with our "3 receiver set".

It's like MM is hurrying up the offense to be predictable.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Well were always running "no huddle" and MM is calling the plays. He has even said he is. Rodgers has limited things he can check to from the play called from MM. The discussion is not only MM's play calling but that by keeping one personnel group on the field the whole time it limits creativity in play calling.

Which even the Eagles run multiple formations out of there no-huddle. They don't run a certain formation out of it 72 percent of the time like we do with our "3 receiver set".

I stand/sit corrected. When I asked the other day, people did not have that answer. But I still firmly believe Mr Rodgers needs to turn up on Sunday.

 

[TJV]

What is it about Rodgers that makes him un-blameable here ? I asked the question the other day and nobody could answer my question.

I think Rodgers has received criticism. I and others have posted he hasn't been his usual sharp self. I even cautioned that his falling in love is probably good for him but may not be good for Packers fans! Of course there's some push back when Rodgers gets criticized but if he has received some blame from some of us.

About the no huddle: The trade off is the mismatches it can create because the D doesn't have time to make substitutions based on down and distance. IMO the struggles of the O have more to do with someone ******** up on too many plays. Even Sitton and Lang, for example, have been guilty of that; as well as the receivers not getting open, Rodgers not being his usual accurate self (that was just for you Bill), and it doesn't matter if they're in no huddle or not.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I think Rodgers has received criticism. I and others have posted he hasn't been his usual sharp self. I even cautioned that his falling in love is probably good for him but may not be good for Packers fans! Of course there's some push back when Rodgers gets criticized but if he has received some blame from some of us.

Well you know by now I respect you and your opinion TJV, but I feel like the finger of blame seems to be pointing at McCarthy here, and while I agree he needs to get his head from a delicate part of his anatomy, so does Rodgers. JMHO of the situation, and I don`t get animated too often, but this driving me nuts.

And now I shall go and sit quietly in the corner

 

[brandon2348]

I think Rodgers has received criticism. I and others have posted he hasn't been his usual sharp self. I even cautioned that his falling in love is probably good for him but may not be good for Packers fans! Of course there's some push back when Rodgers gets criticized but if he has received some blame from some of us.

About the no huddle: The trade off is the mismatches it can create because the D doesn't have time to make substitutions based on down and distance. IMO the struggles of the O have more to do with someone ******** up on too many plays. Even Sitton and Lang, for example, have been guilty of that; as well as the receivers not getting open, Rodgers not being his usual accurate self (that was just for you Bill), and it doesn't matter if they're in no huddle or not.

Everything needs to be better. Everything and Everyone.

 

[Forget Favre]

Nothing has happened to them.
They are just like all other 31 teams in the NFL.
You win some you lose some.

Be patient. Better days are ahead and they are going to start this weekend after they beat the Bears.
**** the negativity.
What kind of fan would I be if I don't start having faith in them now?

 

[brandon2348]

I think Rodgers has received criticism. I and others have posted he hasn't been his usual sharp self. I even cautioned that his falling in love is probably good for him but may not be good for Packers fans! Of course there's some push back when Rodgers gets criticized but if he has received some blame from some of us.

About the no huddle: The trade off is the mismatches it can create because the D doesn't have time to make substitutions based on down and distance. IMO the struggles of the O have more to do with someone ******** up on too many plays. Even Sitton and Lang, for example, have been guilty of that; as well as the receivers not getting open, Rodgers not being his usual accurate self (that was just for you Bill), and it doesn't matter if they're in no huddle or not.

I get all that. I was just saying that if you look at Philly's version of the "no huddle" they use multiple formations and varieties of those formations much more. They go from "three wide" to "4 wide" to "2 TE's" and other formations much more then MM's early version here that we have all been so spoiled to witness.

I stand to be corrected but I only saw us run 2 different formations out of "no-huddle" Sunday.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I`ve taken my meds and I`m okay now (deep breaths, deep breaths )

 

[PackerDNA]

I`ve taken my meds and I`m okay now (deep breaths, deep breaths )

Keep 'em close by Sunday- just in case.

 

[Poppa San]

Everything needs to be better. Everything and Everyone.

So put some Blue Bonnet On it.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

.
EDIT} gee this was a waste of my 4000th post.

 

[OCBP]

What if the Sun were a couple of billion years older than it is and its heat evaporated all the water on Earth??!!

I wish brandon2348's post above this one were true but IMO that's a very rosy look at the roster, so IMO Thompson has to share some of the blame. And I agree it's very likely Philbin's contribution in preparing the game plan is missed and even moreso are all the losses Thompson's personnel department has suffered over the years.

Hope that you noticed my sarcasm. The claim that GB has studs across the board is silly. The game on Sunday is a must win--Within the division and within the conference. If the plethora of talent that is described doesn't step up the season is in jeopardy. After 3 games, you may have 1 Pro Bowler. Nelson. That's it. I see no reason to say any aspect of the starting GB O, D or Special Teams are worthy of the praise that 2348 provides.

Let's be factual and not bloated with Koolaid.

 

[brandon2348]

That's one way of looking at it. I agree the players need to play better but I think it's more about MM's failed system at this point. His offense is terrible and predictable. No team could of done any better with MM's offensive game plans and adjustments. I would say it deserves a grade of an "F".

People say our fans our spoiled and we have had this prolific offense over the last several years. Then why did MM change it? Why did he dumb it down to run only two different formations over the entire game and "hurry up" the process? Geez, give the guys a chance MM.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Comparing the rosters to those of other teams is interesting. I don't think this team is necessarily loaded but its pretty well built...especially on the offensive side. There is no excuse for the offense to look like it does.

I don't think MM has recovered from that fateful day in Kansas City when the blueprint to shut down his offense was born. That day was when the offense started its decent off the mountain top. Its slowly gotten weirder and worse.

 

[OCBP]

That's one way of looking at it. I agree the players need to play better but I think it's more about MM's failed system at this point. His offense is terrible and predictable. No team could of done any better with MM's offensive game plans and adjustments. I would say it deserves a grade of an "F".

People say our fans our spoiled and we have had this prolific offense over the last several years. Then why did MM change it? Why did he dumb it down to run only two different formations over the entire game and "hurry up" the process? Geez, give the guys a chance MM.

GB has prolific offenses for 25 years for one reason. Two HOF QB's. There is not another Packer offensive player over the 25 year period to date that has a chance to be a HOFer.

You can say play calling, you can say injuries and any thing else that rationalizes a marginal W/L record and the inability to win playoff games the last few years.

To me it comes down to having play makers. This roster, because of poor drafting, a philosophy of developing and a lack filling gaps via free agency because draft/develop is flawed without drafting properly is marginal and without play makers that consistently perform.

GB does not have playmakers that have consistently performed.

 

[brandon2348]

Comparing the rosters to those of other teams is interesting. I don't think this team is necessarily loaded but its pretty well built...especially on the offensive side. There is no excuse for the offense to look like it does.

I don't think MM has recovered from that fateful day in Kansas City when the blueprint to shut down his offense was born. That day was when the offense started its decent off the mountain top. Its slowly gotten weirder and worse.

No excuse and I don't think a lot of people realize how dangerous Randall Cobb is. If we don't start using him correctly he will probably leave.

 

[brandon2348]

GB has prolific offenses for 25 years for one reason. Two HOF QB's. There is not another Packer offensive player over the 25 year period to date that has a chance to be a HOFer.

You can say play calling, you can say injuries and any thing else that rationalizes a marginal W/L record and the inability to win playoff games the last few years.

To me it comes down to having play makers. This roster, because of poor drafting, a philosophy of developing and a lack filling gaps via free agency because draft/develop is flawed without drafting properly is marginal and without play makers that consistently perform.

GB does not have playmakers that have consistently performed.

That's not true. Finley broke his neck so were developing a guy. Jordy and Cobb and Lacy are all play makers. I even think Starks when healthy is a "play maker". Devante Adams is a "play maker" on the rise. I am not huge on Boykin and we don't know about Janis. How many play makers do we need?

 

[brandon2348]

GB has prolific offenses for 25 years for one reason. Two HOF QB's. There is not another Packer offensive player over the 25 year period to date that has a chance to be a HOFer.

You can say play calling, you can say injuries and any thing else that rationalizes a marginal W/L record and the inability to win playoff games the last few years.

To me it comes down to having play makers. This roster, because of poor drafting, a philosophy of developing and a lack filling gaps via free agency because draft/develop is flawed without drafting properly is marginal and without play makers that consistently perform.

GB does not have playmakers that have consistently performed.

If MM calls the right "play" then they have a chance to be "makers". Now we have a "playmaker"

 

[brandon2348]

Do we need to go out and get "Megatron"? Would we have enough play makers then? Geez.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

About the no huddle: The trade off is the mismatches it can create because the D doesn't have time to make substitutions based on down and distance.

That's the fundamental concept of running the no huddle. The problem with it though is that it doesn't work if the defense has a favorable personnel group on the field and MM is too stubborn to make any adjustments (I think I heard somebody else talk about that this week ), keeping the same guys on the field play after play and praying that it will miraculously create the desired mismatches at some point.