8-8, if lucky

[AZpackerbacker]

1. We were supposed to destroy the Lions subpar secondary.......didn't happen.......our WRs can't seem to get separation. Who is going to be blocking Allen?????

 

[longtimefan]

1 game out of 3?

I think yesterday he had a bad game..It sucks it happened...But I say 2 games if you toss out Jets, (and Seattle who has one of if not the best def in the league)

See how this thing shakes out in next 2 weeks..Bears and Vikings...I believe we win both those games

But to say he is having all these is jumping the gun a little

 

[lambeaulambo]

So - magically they are going to find themselves? MM just threw Lacy under the bus when it was his OL that needed it. Not good mojo - not good at all. I will predict 7-9. Its just realistic the way they are regressing. If the do, MM is toast, and take his supporting cast with him.

 

[longtimefan]

To be honest, I think that's overstated. According to PFF, the offense only gave up 2 sacks, 1 hit, and 4 hurries, and of those, only 1 sack and 4 hurries were on the OL.

EDIT: Luckily we play the Bears and Vikings coming up, and the Bears are beat up while the Vikings are missing Peterson.

PFF ?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While it´s true we started the 2012 and 2013 seasons 1-2 as well there´s a big difference to this year´s team though. The Packers were competitive during the early stretches of these seasons, not losing a single one of the early games by more than 8 points and getting robbed by the replacement refs in Seattle.

This year´s team, which very well could be 0-3, was easily manhandled by the Seahawks and were embarrassed by the Lions which were playing their fourth nickel corner most of the game.

IMO there´s reason to be concerned.

 

[ivo610]

While it´s true we started the 2012 and 2013 seasons 1-2 as well there´s a big difference to this year´s team though. The Packers were competitive during the early stretches of these seasons, not losing a single one of the early games by more than 8 points and getting robbed by the replacement refs in Seattle.

This year´s team, which very well could be 0-3, was easily manhandled by the Seahawks and were embarrassed by the Lions which were playing their fourth nickel corner most of the game.

IMO there´s reason to be concerned.

For the first time in a long time I have no idea who this team is

running game isnt as good as expected. offense seems to be in shambles. Defense is hit or miss. ect

 

[cara murphy]

I think 11-5 is good, but the November and December are more important

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I compared this year´s offense through the first three games this year to the ones over the last few season when we started 1-2 as well. Here´s what I found (league ranks in total, passing and rushing yards as well as points scored).

After three games:

2014 28 21 27 27
2013 3 3 10 2
2012 25 21 28 27

Here´s how the previous teams finished at the end of the season:

2013 3 6 7 8
2012 13 9 20 5

It seems like this year´s squad has started as slowly as the 2012 edition, mainly because they can´t run the ball so far. There´s reason to be optimistic though as the 2012 team was capable of improving over the course of the season, even finishing 5th in scoring that year.

 

[JBlood]

Advanced Football Analytics (http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/) has the Packers ranked 22 on offense; 25 on defense after 3 games. In 2013 the Packers ranked 5th in offense and 25th in defense at the end of the regular season by the same system of grading. So the defense is playing at the same level as last year, and it's likely the offense will improve somewhat, assuming the offensive line decides to play every down. That still leaves us as a team that will give up more points than we score and finish somewhere around 8 and 8. And big changes will result.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Advanced Football Analytics (http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/) has the Packers ranked 22 on offense; 25 on defense after 3 games. In 2013 the Packers ranked 5th in offense and 25th in defense at the end of the regular season by the same system of grading. So the defense is playing at the same level as last year, and it's likely the offense will improve somewhat, assuming the offensive line decides to play every down. That still leaves us as a team that will give up more points than we score and finish somewhere around 8 and 8. And big changes will result.

The defense has shown some promise over the last six quarters, if they can continue to play at that level we´ll be fine if the offense can improve significantly.

 

[JBlood]

The defense has shown some promise over the last six quarters, if they can continue to play at that level we´ll be fine if the offense can improve significantly.

I hope you're right. But Stafford was terrible Sunday; the Jets' QB was terrible; and receivers remain wide open in our secondary. We can't get off the field on 3rd downs (although the offense is very good at that). Good QBs will kill us. I'm not optimistic.

 

[Carl]

We've also had tough games to start each of the last years. The schd

Advanced Football Analytics (http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/) has the Packers ranked 22 on offense; 25 on defense after 3 games. In 2013 the Packers ranked 5th in offense and 25th in defense at the end of the regular season by the same system of grading. So the defense is playing at the same level as last year, and it's likely the offense will improve somewhat, assuming the offensive line decides to play every down. That still leaves us as a team that will give up more points than we score and finish somewhere around 8 and 8. And big changes will result.

The defense has been much better than 25th overall the last six quarters.

 

[JBlood]

We've also had tough games to start each of the last years. The schd


The defense has been much better than 25th overall the last six quarters.

I think that's as much the play of the opposing QBs as our defense. Seems to me opposing receivers are open on virtually every pass play. Stafford and the Jets' QB were terrible, especially in the red zone. Against a good QB (Wilson) we were destroyed.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think that's as much the play of the opposing QBs as our defense. Seems to me opposing receivers are open on virtually every pass play. Stafford and the Jets' QB were terrible, especially in the red zone. Against a good QB (Wilson) we were destroyed.

Don´t agree with you on that. The pass defense has been actually pretty good, ranking 6th in yards allowed and 5th in opposing passer rating so far. There´s no doubt the run defense has to improve though.

 

[JBlood]

Don´t agree with you on that. The pass defense has been actually pretty good, ranking 6th in yards allowed and 5th in opposing passer rating so far. There´s no doubt the run defense has to improve though.

Well, there's 2 ways to look at those figures. By QB Rating, Wilson is first in the league at 108.9; Stafford 21st at 84.1 and Jeno Smith 27th at 77. So our pass defense may have as much to do with the opposing QB's ineptitude as our level of play. Add to that the fact that teams don't have to pass against us to move the chains. Cutler ranks 9th at 98.2--so I would expect him to do well against us, if the early numbers hold true.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, there's 2 ways to look at those figures. By QB Rating, Wilson is first in the league at 108.9; Stafford 21st at 84.1 and Jeno Smith 27th at 77. So our pass defense may have as much to do with the opposing QB's ineptitude as our level of play. Add to that the fact that teams don't have to pass against us to move the chains. Cutler ranks 9th at 98.2--so I would expect him to do well against us, if the early numbers hold true.

We held both Geno Smith and Stafford to a pass rating of under 65 and the pass rush has been significantly improved over last season. It won´t matter a lot though as long as we can´t improve the run defense, that´s for sure.

 

[PackManDan]

I originally guessed the Packers would be 12-4. Even after the Seahawks loss I stayed with 12-4. After watching the poor Jets game and the performance against the Lions, I will say 10-6.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

They have had plenty of time to shake off the cob webs. Those of you that are still saying 11-5 or better, you are gunna have your hopes smashed. Our long run of NFC north dominance is over. It is not doom and gloom, just reality folks. Teams can only be good for just so long before a regression and I think this season is the start of that. We still have a LONG tough road ahead of us. Bears twice, lions once again, Panthers, Patriots, Atlanta, Saints, Eagles....... that is the worst of the rest of the schedule........ gunna be a long season guys.

 

[Sanguine camper]

The Packers are declining because they have lost too much talent that had not been replaced by bad drafting over the past 4 years. Look at all of the starters on the Super Bowl team that are gone. Other than guard and rb the lost starters have not been replaced with equally talented players. The biggest drop-off came in losing Collins, Woodson and Bishop. Datone Jones Hasn't replaced Jenkins either. BAD DRAFTS are catching up with the Packets.

 

[Lakedog]

There's a lot of fans making a lot of assumptions here. We don't know what MM is going to do next week, or any week. He goes from using his best assets to some sort of shell game w what plays he knows we can run... Fully acknowledging he cannot adapt during a game. He runs from scripts.... Never once reversing course when his plans don't work. This year, he's fully exposed. His lack of creativity cannot be overcome. It's not him. If he wants to return next yr he's going to have to listen to his smart QB.


Lastly- there's been one simple stat I use on every 1st n 10: if he throws on first, we'll get the 1st down. It's been the most predictive decision of his that I can track. Last week... When he finally got around to it, the secondary was back. Throw early!! And it's not so black n white... running vs throwing . Throwing is always tougher to defend w a good QB... Yet look at the results! See any fades? Back shoulders? Roll right n TE releases?

And for Gods sake... Pitch it to Cobb in the red zone n let him throw it. He's a QB! I felt like he's saving it for past three years. Run it two plays in a row n let him run it! This isn't the Steelers offense of the 70s MM.

 

[longtimefan]

Wilson was on, and we got destroyed. Stafford and Smith were both playing terribly, and that helped the defense look better than it was, too, more so against the Jets than the Lions. It's kind of like how Rodgers missing throws has made opposing defenses look better.

19- 28 191 yards is your definition of being on? While he was good, I personally cant say he was on..

Lynch was on, Darrell Bevell calling the plays was on

But it is just an opinion, nothing wrong with how you view it

 

[longtimefan]

Pretty much. That's a 67.9% accuracy rating. 2 TD's. 0 INT's. His team crushed ours. His passer rating was 110.9. I mean, if that's not being on then what is?

When I think f being on, I think of closer to 30 out of 33 or so..300+ and 3 or 4 tds

As I said, it was your opinion, we just have a diff meaning for the word

 

[Croak]

I predicted 8-8 to my son while I was watching the first game. His reply was the same as many of yours; they're just off to a slow start and will get things turned around. I hope he is right. This is TOTALLY subjective, but I just don't remember having such a dour impression of this team in quite a while.

 

[El Guapo]

Until this team demonstrates that it cannot turn things around, I'm on the optimistic bus.

 

[TJV]

Until this team demonstrates that it cannot turn things around, I'm on the optimistic bus.

That’s not the short bus, is it?*

*Caution: Joke attempted! No disrespect was meant toward any person, living or dead. Just trying to add a little levity.