Only one game...

[chibiabos]

8) H-m-m-m? Just wondering what the coaches will have to say about the horrible play both defense and offense had? Perhaps a repeat of last years bromides? And of course one can look at this as an optimist and say they will improve or one can fall back on the pessimistic outlook or maybe just reality? Whichever way one leans it is obvious that GB needs some real fixes. Dropped passes, missed assignments, lack of technique, and certainly not the MM watch words about winning. Next pre-season game should be a win and if it isn't and we see more of what occured last night I would not be a McCarthy booster or a Jags man. Not too impressed with Sanders defense either.

 

[all about da packers]

Actually, McCarthy was calm in his post game interview, which can be taken in a good or bad manner depending which way you look at it.

 

[tromadz]

what did he say, it was preseason week 1? or that the errors were self inflicted and are correctable?

cuz both of those are true.


what i meant was(to fit in here at pf.com) ITS THE END OF THE WORLD! OH NO!

 

[Anubis]

what did he say, it was preseason week 1? or that the errors were self inflicted and are correctable?

cuz both of those are true.

what i meant was(to fit in here at pf.com) ITS THE END OF THE WORLD! OH NO!

I only got to see the first half of the game, however I did see some pretty bad play on both sides of the ball.

True it is only Preseason Week 1 and that most of the errors are correctable, but if something drastic doesn't happen with our interior o-line soon, Favre is going to be spending a lot of time on his back this season. So much for the "he's the right size for our system, so he'll work" theory when bringing in 3rd rate players cut from other teams with worse o-line problems than we have. Unfortunately, the entire concept of requiring talent in order to be great seems to be lost on not only TT, but a lot of the posters here as well.

On another note, why does "holding" and "Carrol" always seem to fall in the same sentance? WHY is he still on this football team???

Personally, I think the defense will shape up to be a pretty cohesive unit by Week One. However, the offense still looks to be in shambles with little improvement over last year. I hope to god something happens to prove me wrong where the offense is concerned.

Looking forward to Preseason Week Two...

GO PACK!!!

Robert C. Hedley

 

[pyledriver80]

what did he say, it was preseason week 1? or that the errors were self inflicted and are correctable?

cuz both of those are true.


what i meant was(to fit in here at pf.com) ITS THE END OF THE WORLD! OH NO!

Or other possible true answers would be

1. Because these guys are not ready to start in the NFL
2. We failed to address this problem before it arose

Trom, you obviouly cannot look at things objectively. When the Packers play well I will be the first to say positive things about them, but, when they put on a poor performance like last night they deserve to be called on it.


Noone is saying it's the end of the world, but it certainly doesn't look like this team is capable of competing at this point in time. I listened to people tell me how we were going to be OK. I heard how great Colledge and Spitz were going to be and how Coston and others were going to surprise people this year. I just can't see it, sorry.


The truth is these guys looked miles away from being ready. We have no "plan b" to fall back on so we are going to have to live with it. The real red flag for me was that the Defense didn't look impressive at all. I knew the O-Line was going to be bad but thought our Def. could hopefully keep us in games and give us a chance to win. It may be early but the Def. did not look to be a unit capable of doing that last night.


So though it's not the end of the world, it is something to be concerned about, even for the most optimistic fans.

 

[tromadz]

concern after a preseason week 1 game is stupid.

 

[porky88]

concern after a preseason week 1 game is stupid.

True you can't overreact. Clifton and Tauscher weren't exactly great on they're debuts either if I remember correctly.

With that said, GB had way to many problems last night. From what I saw Favre, Rodgers, Jennings, Hodge, and Hawk were the only players I can lable who had a good night. Jennings took some time to get going but really came on as the game went on. Hodge made some nice plays as I watched the game back on NFL Network. Hawk played solid and Rodgers had a great night.

That's 5 guys. 3 of them backups. The other 20 starters were not with it last night.

So theyr'e is def a lot of work to do. Next week will tell us a lot about the coaches and the willingness of these younger players.

 

[tromadz]

and 11 guys didnt suit up. but that would hurt the 'oh my god!' reactions.

 

[Packnic]

i understand being concerned to a point. im not really worried, it was preseason game 1 against a team that has played together for a while now under the same coaching staff. they dont have as far to go to gel because theyve been doing the same thing for 3 or 4 years together. we have rookie players and rookie coaches, give em a break. What i really dont get, it seems some people love to point out all their team faults more than applauding their teams great spots.

it seems like some of you are almost excited that this team performed poorly in the first preseason game. Like you couldnt wait for us to be terrible for some reason. that it would somehow prove your status as a self proclaimed guru . i just dont get it, its obvious where our weak spots are, quit pointing them out to prove how smart you are. instead try and bring up a good feasible solution that doesnt involve over paying aging lineman that dont fit into our new blocking system, and buyin every free agent available. and for god sakes if you hate this team so much go find another one.

 

[cheesey]

concern after a preseason week 1 game is stupid.

I don't agree completely. The Chargers looked 100% prepared, shouldn't the Packers too? Now, that doesn't mean i'm ready to throw away the season. It IS true these games don't count. That being said.....if they don't fix the O-line NOW, Favre won't be around to play the regular season!
They looked lousy in ALL facets of the game. It looked like they hadn't even practiced together yet. Now, if by the third preseason game they look good, i'll feel LOTS better. The last several years they looked bad in preseason, and it seemed to take several weeks INTO the regular season before they looked ready to play. Preseason is supposed to be so you are READY for week one.

And, the best play Ahmad Carrol made was the tackle of the REF! :wink:

 

[Zero2Cool]

2003 New England 4-0
2002 Tampa Bay 3-1
2001 New England 3-1
2000 Baltimore 4-0
1999 St. Louis 2-2
1998 Denver 3-1
1997 Denver 3-2
1996 Green Bay 3-1
1995 Dallas 2-3
1994 San Francisco 3-1
TOTAL: 30-12 (.714)

Winning preseason games is important. Just look at the numbers. As a barometer of regular-season success, preseason records are a remarkably accurate gauge.

The past 10 Super Bowl champions had a combined 30-12 (.714) preseason record in the year they won the Super Bowl. Nine of those 10 teams posted .500 or better preseason records. Last summer, the eventual Super Bowl teams -- New England and Carolina -- were unbeaten (8-0) in the preseason.

In the free agency/salary-cap era, developing veteran cohesiveness and team depth in preseason is more important than ever.

"There are certain things you can do in preseason to establish the foundation of your football team," said Houston Texans head coach Dom Capers. "We place great value on the development of our team through the use of preseason games."


Preseason success has translated to Super Bowl victories throughout NFL history. Of the 38 Super Bowl champions, 30 (78.9 percent) posted a preseason winning percentage of .500 or higher. Overall, the 38 Super Bowl winners have a combined 115-65-2 (.637) preseason record.

Since 1995, the final four playoff teams (AFC and NFC Championship Game participants) have combined for a preseason record of 95-53 (.642).


"My approach to the preseason is we try to win every game we play," says new New York Giants head coach Tom Coughlin, whose Jacksonville team played in two of those championship games. "It's much easier to teach and to learn when you've been in a winning situation."

Over the past 10 seasons, 81 of the 120 teams (67.5 percent) that made the playoffs were .500 or better during the preseason. Division winners combined for a 153-119 (.563) preseason record in that span, while all playoff teams posted a 282-224 (.557) preseason record.

"Preseason success gives the players and coaches something to build on," says Dallas Cowboys head coach Bill Parcells. "It's something positive to think about."

 

[PackerLegend]

The Colts have lost 9 preseason games in a row and look how good they are every year. The didnt go on to win a superbowl but it was expected of them. The had a chance when they played Pitt but Mike Vanderjet blow there chance for OT, after Big Ben made a lucky tackle to save the Colts from scoring.

 

[4packgirl]

ok, maybe this is a dumb question but here goes...did any of you actually expect us to win ALL the pre-season games?? or even ONE?? we ARE in the rebuilding years, people - get used to it!! this is a young team with an aging QB (who i happen to love) & it's gonna be rough.

we're lucky to go 7-9 - i'm aiming high for a 5-11 season - REALITY CHECK GUYS!!!!!

and no the friggin sky isn't falling!!! sheesh!

 

[PackerLegend]

In 2004 New England went 1-3 in preseason and went on to win a SB. And the Eagles who they faced went 1-3 in preseason. The Pack since 2003 have never been over the .500 mark in preseason hell last year was our best preason 2-2 and we went on to do the worst. In 2004 we went 1-3 and in 2003 we went 2-3.

 

[hoos]

In 2004 New England went 1-3 in preseason and went on to win a SB. And the Eagles who they faced went 1-3 in preseason. The Pack since 2003 have never been over the .500 mark in preseason hell last year was our best preason 2-2 and we went on to do the worst. In 2004 we went 1-3 and in 2003 we went 2-3.

Yeah, but look at your sample size. You're saying that you don't have to be great in the preseason to win the superbowl. This is true as there are usually outliers in any statistical analysis. However, Z2C's stats have a larger sample size and hold more water.