Oates gets it right

[net]

Why did the Bears crumble the Packers? They had almost all 22 starters back from last year in the same system.
The Packers lost to New Orleans because of breakdowns in a relatively new defensive secondary/linebacker corps.

Talent-wise, Brett is right. The Packers have some athletes. But they have a new coach, several new players, rookies starting....

Here is the Packers #1 problem well said by Tom Oates of the Wis. State Journal...
-------------------
Oates: A little continuity could go a long way for Packers
TOM OATES
608-252-6172
[email protected]
GREEN BAY - The game-week practice field is a place for making tackles, not acquaintances, but the Green Bay Packers uttered more than a few how-do-you-do's during the first two weeks of the regular season.

Indeed, the NFL's final cutdown day was more a beginning than an end in Green Bay. The revolving door kept right on spinning, needlessly so in some cases.

Just days before the opener against Chicago, the Packers claimed three undrafted rookies on waivers and cut Jason Horton. Horton's release was curious since it left Green Bay short on veteran cornerbacks.

Prior to the New Orleans game, the Packers signed controversial wide receiver Koren Robinson and cut fullback Vonta Leach even though Leach was one of the few Packers who played well against the Bears and was likely to be picked up by the Saints (he was). Then they swapped halfbacks with Houston, getting Vernand Morency for Samkon Gado.

The official spin is the Packers are doing everything they can to improve their roster. The truth is their roster is so weak they can afford some stabs in the dark. Whatever the reason, the changes kept the Packers unsettled in the days leading up to their first two games.

How much effect that had on their 0-2 start is open to debate. However, it didn't help that some players were studying the game plan while others were learning the playbook, that guys were finding out each other's names instead of each other's tendencies.

Small wonder, then, the Packers lacked cohesion and were plagued by communication breakdowns in the first two games.

The offensive line, which has rotated rookie guards since August, was inconsistent blocking for the run and the pass. The defense was solid up front but allowed 14 plays of 17 or more yards, including 12 through the air, many on coverage mixups. And the special teams, where frequent roster changes often have the most impact, gave up an 84-yard punt return.

The lesson? In the NFL, it's hard to trust the player next to you when you just met him.

"We've obviously had a lot of changes," offensive tackle Mark Tauscher said. "I think the organization wants to put as many good players in this locker room as they can. But there's always been shuffling. Even in the past, we've had different guys come in."

In the past the Packers had a veteran team, one that easily absorbed a new player or two. That's no longer the case. The unsettled roster hasn't helped a young team that needs every edge it can get.

But if you're looking for signs the Packers can win their do-or-die game at Detroit Sunday, consider the turnstile has finally stopped. The same 53 players are on the roster for the second week in a row.

"You want consistency and you want to be able to count on who's next to you," Tauscher said. "You don't want to constantly be switching gears. You want to get moving forward and, if you continually bring new people in and out and shift things around, you never really get going. So it has been nice that things have been a little more consistent this week."

It seems like a small thing, but a little continuity might be just what the Packers need to beat the Lions.

 

[musccy]

i agree with this article... the leach, horton, and gado deals/releases made NO sense to me because change for the sake of change won't do anything.

 

[bavpb]

It seems like a small thing, but a little continuity might be just what the Packers need to beat the Lions.

And they will!!! 8) One week of continuity will be enough for the Kitties. (At least do I hope so~~~) :wink: :lol:

 

[Packnic]

QUALITY!

 

[Zero2Cool]

Should a huge glaring error(or should i say misleading comment) in an article defunct the entire article??

 

[warhawk]

Did MM not set the starting lineup by week three of the pre-season? The only player I know of was Poppinga who they intentionally held out until they felt he was physically ready.

The only shuffling I am aware of addressed injuries to Henderson and Spitz.

I am not aware of a bunch of shuffling of ST players going into the Bears game. Had they shuffled a bunch of players for the Saints game and gave up an 84 yard return then, yeah, maybe it's a factor.

But what I saw was much better ST's play this week than last.

Everybody was holloring for another WR and kick returner and we got one in Robinson. Somebody had to go from the 53 man roster. Was that a mistake? Not from the first kick return I saw him make.

As far as Gado goes it was apparant he struggled in this offense. I would say Beech would have replaced him if he hadn't gotten hurt. Beech looked pretty darn strong. I don't think we have seen the last of him.

I just haven't seen the shuffling they are referring to in anything other than fine tuning the roster which all teams were doing after final cuts.

If anything I have heard more complaining about NOT already switching players out. Hell, half the defense would have already been changed around if that decision was left to some here.

 

[Packnic]

if it was left to some of the people here, we would be exactly like the vikings and redskins. Lots of Names... No trophies.

Instead we are building like the patriots and steelers. no names 4 trophies.

 

[pyledriver80]

if it was left to some of the people here, we would be exactly like the vikings and redskins. Lots of Names... No trophies.

Instead we are building like the patriots and steelers. no names 4 trophies.

What the heck do "Big Names" have to do with ANY of this Packnic? This if anything was completely RANDOM.


This is about the roster reshuffling that went on after week 1. I disagree with Warhawk when he says all teams do this. Most teams don't tradeor release thier starting/backup FB and backup RB after week 1. Most teams don't move thier underacheiving TE to a FB spot.


And Packnic, can we please quit using JUST the Steelers and Patriots as examples considering EVERY TEAM in the NFL builds through the draft. Washington and Minnesota may spend more in FA than most but they still try to build through the draft.

 

[Packnic]

NO. every team PARTICIPATES in the draft. not every team feels that the draft is the way to build. The packers, steelers and especially the patriots, all place high value on draft picks. which is why we left the 2006 draft with 11 picks out of 7 rounds. while some teams had 6 picks in 7 rounds.

There is a difference in participating and concentrating specically on the draft. The packers are banking on every player they pick to help them out in one way or another.

however! i do agree with you that the best way is through a mix of drafting and some quality FA pick ups. but i think everyone feels that way. its pretty much obvious Right now though... the packers werent in any shape to do that. so TT made sure to draft as many talented players as possible at a cheaper rate... then when you have the team in a better financial state, well you know.

in summary. all teams participate and draft players. certain teams however put more emphasis on the draft.

 

[pyledriver80]

So do the Texans, Cardinals, 49ers, Lions, Saints, Browns, Jets, etc.

All teams rely on the draft, sorry.


In fact the Steelers only had 5 players on thier Super Bowl roster from the 2003 AND 2004 draft COMBINED!

A better example would be the Browns or Cardinals but that wouldn't fit your argument.


The Patriots brought in LOTS of FA's during thier Super Bowl years. I don't know why you can't recognize that instead of throwing out generic statements that are easily proven false

 

[porky88]

So do the Texans, Cardinals, 49ers, Lions, Saints, Browns, Jets, etc.

All teams rely on the draft, sorry.


In fact the Steelers only had 5 players on thier Super Bowl roster from the 2003 AND 2004 draft COMBINED!

A better example would be the Browns or Cardinals but that wouldn't fit your argument.


The Patriots brought in LOTS of FA's during thier Super Bowl years. I don't know why you can't recognize that instead of throwing out generic statements that are easily proven false

Core of you teams are built through the drafts. The Patriots never really brought in high priced free agents. Richard Seymour, Tom Brady, Vince Wilfork, Deion Branch, Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson, Willie McGinest, Ty Law, Tedy Bruschi, Troy Brown, Matt Light, Dan Koppen, Ted Johnson, Logan Mankins. This list goes on and on. They built through the core of many drafts. Not just one specific draft.

They traded for Corey Dillon after 2 Super Bowls. They let go of Lawyer Milloy. The signed Mike Vrable a couple years back an they signed Rodeny Harrison a couple years back. Those were their key free agent moves. The big ones at least. Rosevelt Colvin was signed as a backup as well.

Let's use the Steelers for another example like you’ve stated above.

Ben Roelisberger, Joey Porter, Hines Ward, Antwaun Randel El, Alan Faneca, Marvel Smith, Kendal Simmons, Max Starks, Casey Hampton, Aaron Smith, Troy Polamalu, Brett Keisal, Deshea Townsend, Heath Miller, Ike Taylor, Clarke Haggans, Larry Foote, and Chris Hope. All those guys were brought in through the NFL Draft.

Free agency wise you have Jerome Bettis, Kimo Van Olhoefen, Jeff Hartings, and James Farrior. All signings that happen at different times really. In fact I believe all of them happen before the 00's. They also had their management around their for 10 years now so they were giving more than 2 years to bring in free agents to fit their system and built a sucesful team. Same with the Patriots.

Both Pittsburgh and New England relied heavily on the draft.

 

[tromadz]

word

 

[all about da packers]

If I do remember correctly, NO has 35+ players on the roster that weren't there last year.

The "changing players" shouldn't have been a factor this week against the Saints.

 

[warhawk]

if it was left to some of the people here, we would be exactly like the vikings and redskins. Lots of Names... No trophies.

Instead we are building like the patriots and steelers. no names 4 trophies.

What the heck do "Big Names" have to do with ANY of this Packnic? This if anything was completely RANDOM.


This is about the roster reshuffling that went on after week 1. I disagree with Warhawk when he says all teams do this. Most teams don't tradeor release thier starting/backup FB and backup RB after week 1. Most teams don't move thier underacheiving TE to a FB spot.


And Packnic, can we please quit using JUST the Steelers and Patriots as examples considering EVERY TEAM in the NFL builds through the draft. Washington and Minnesota may spend more in FA than most but they still try to build through the draft.

Henderson is the starting FB and Leach was not a necessity as they have only said about 1000 times they don't need a true fullback in this scheme. Henderson is valuable where Leach wasn't because catching the football is something he can do(and we use it) whereby Leach couldn't catch a cold.

Gado couldn't get past Heron this year thus he was moved instead. Why not try someone over a guy that doesn't fit and isn't going to contribute?
I liked Gado. Hoped he WOULD FIT. But it is what it is.

As far as drafting goes Washington traded exactly every single pick they had this year. CAPHELL is a five letter word. They better get used to it because they put all their marbles in a basket with a big hole in it.

 

[Lare]

NO. every team PARTICIPATES in the draft. not every team feels that the draft is the way to build. The packers, steelers and especially the patriots, all place high value on draft picks. which is why we left the 2006 draft with 11 picks out of 7 rounds. while some teams had 6 picks in 7 rounds.

There is a difference in participating and concentrating specically on the draft. The packers are banking on every player they pick to help them out in one way or another.

Actually, the Packers had twelve draft picks in 2006. Of those, two (Rodgers & Tollefson) aren't on the current roster and one hasn't practiced much or played (Blackmon).

They had eleven draft picks in 2005, six of which aren't on the current roster.

Hard to bank on players to help if they aren't on the roster or able to play.

 

[DePack]

NO. every team PARTICIPATES in the draft. not every team feels that the draft is the way to build. The packers, steelers and especially the patriots, all place high value on draft picks. which is why we left the 2006 draft with 11 picks out of 7 rounds. while some teams had 6 picks in 7 rounds.

There is a difference in participating and concentrating specically on the draft. The packers are banking on every player they pick to help them out in one way or another.

however! i do agree with you that the best way is through a mix of drafting and some quality FA pick ups. but i think everyone feels that way. its pretty much obvious Right now though... the packers werent in any shape to do that. so TT made sure to draft as many talented players as possible at a cheaper rate... then when you have the team in a better financial state, well you know.

in summary. all teams participate and draft players. certain teams however put more emphasis on the draft.

That's right....keep mentioning the Packers in the same sentence as the past 4 outa 5 champions and they will have the same success :roll:

You could have made the same statement but plugged in the Cardinals and Saints.

 

[Zero2Cool]

If I do remember correctly, NO has 35+ players on the roster that weren't there last year.

The "changing players" shouldn't have been a factor this week against the Saints.

bad coaching and play calling on defense and offense cost us the game ... ahmad carroll can be added to that too ... freakin bum!!

atleast thats how i think

 

[DePack]

If I do remember correctly, NO has 35+ players on the roster that weren't there last year.

The "changing players" shouldn't have been a factor this week against the Saints.

bad coaching and play calling on defense and offense cost us the game ... ahmad carroll can be added to that too ... freakin bum!!

atleast thats how i think

Man, I just watched that game again and our defensive secondary sucked. They can't get out of the way of their own feet. Woodson played much better but Carroll and both safeties sucked. We've gotta get more outta Collins and Manual in pass coverage.

 

[Zero2Cool]

I think Collins took blame for two TD's or two big pass plays and said he's going to work ******* correcting it.

Manuel was someone I seen constantly out of position and ... i cnat continue ill get upset.

Woodson looked better for sure.

Carroll, cant talk bout him ill get too upset.

 

[DePack]

I've always been worried about Manuel and after two games I don't feel much better. I hope he steps up this week. I'm not too concerned about Collins.

 

[Zero2Cool]

I'd rather see Culver in there than Manuel or Roman(who was yes i know cut, but before ppl starting saying I want roman back have to kill that thought)

 

[DePack]

I've never thought much of Roman either.

 

[warhawk]

NO. every team PARTICIPATES in the draft. not every team feels that the draft is the way to build. The packers, steelers and especially the patriots, all place high value on draft picks. which is why we left the 2006 draft with 11 picks out of 7 rounds. while some teams had 6 picks in 7 rounds.

There is a difference in participating and concentrating specically on the draft. The packers are banking on every player they pick to help them out in one way or another.

Actually, the Packers had twelve draft picks in 2006. Of those, two (Rodgers & Tollefson) aren't on the current roster and one hasn't practiced much or played (Blackmon).

They had eleven draft picks in 2005, six of which aren't on the current roster.

Hard to bank on players to help if they aren't on the roster or able to play.

Of the eleven drafted in '05 we no longer have the two seventh round picks Cambell and Whitticker. Underwood, who shows much promise, is on injured reserve, and, we all know what happened to Murphy.

Hawkins is gone because the guy we drafted this year Blackmon is a hell of an athlete and will more than likely challange for a corner position down the road(sooner if Woodson proves unworthy of a hefty paycheck).

We have Rodgers waiting in the wings along with guys like Underwood, Blackmon, Hodge, Culver, and J. Bush. People already contributing like Spitz, Moll, Colledge, Jennings, Hawk, Montgomery, and Poppinga. Yes, they have a ways to go but what rookies and 2nd year guys don't?

There is too much talent there to not look very soon down the road and see good things ahead. And it's a very impressive pool of talent to bank on.

 

[all about da packers]

If I do remember correctly, NO has 35+ players on the roster that weren't there last year.

The "changing players" shouldn't have been a factor this week against the Saints.

bad coaching and play calling on defense and offense cost us the game ... ahmad carroll can be added to that too ... freakin bum!!

atleast thats how i think

I totally agree. Not in terms of the D play calling as much as the mistakes the players were making, which led to the play calling looking suspect IMO (on the D side only).

 

[all about da packers]

I've always been worried about Manuel and after two games I don't feel much better. I hope he steps up this week. I'm not too concerned about Collins.

Truth be told, I think Kurt S. is the real problem back there, more than anything else at least.