Yes and no. Again, this is hypothetical, but I think the presence of Aaron Rodgers makes the Packers much more likely to hire an offensive head coach. That said, Brian Gutekunst hasn't been clearing his decisions with the quarterback, and he wouldn't start with his first head coaching hire, if it did come to that.
I'm sure he is. That's going to be a big question if that situation arises. My understanding is he's responsible for deciding Mike McCarthy's future, not Brian Gutekunst. I would guess he would give Gutekunst authority to make the head-coaching hire, but that's just a guess. It also might not be relevant, given there's no head-coaching vacancy.
Right alongside Jeff Janis?
Didn't watch last night's film, but overall I think Byron Bell has done enough to be the starter.
Doesn't matter who they played. A loss is a loss is a loss, especially when your midseason record is 3-4-1. In context, the much, much bigger issue is losing at Washington and Detroit. If they played those two games at the level they played in Los Angeles and New England, that probably doesn't happen.
If you think they need another receiver, you're not watching. So, no.
Because analytics show your team is significantly better off starting the second half with possession instead of the first.
We'll see. They're certainly set up to move on without him, if the money becomes too much. At the right deal, I could see him back. Question might be whether Randall Cobb would agree with it being the right deal.
You could say this about any number of facets currently involved with the Packers, but yeah.
I mean, that 10-5-1 is the pie-in-the-sky projection, but it is possible. Just don't know what you've seen from the Packers to suggest they'll achieve their best, likely outcome to close the year. You really see 7-1 over the next eight? I don't.
Yes. You can't slap an opponent across the face. That's not to say there haven't been more egregious acts in NFL history that have led to ejection. I just don't have any sympathy for a player when they lose their composure to that level. Whitehead put himself in position for the ref to make that call.
That's a good question, Carl. I really don't know, primarily because I don't know what level of input/involvement Philbin has in the offense. No matter the coordinator, I've always held that this is Mike McCarthy's offense. You could argue it didn't help Mike McCarhty stay current hiring an offensive coordinator who isn't one of those young, up-and-comers. You could also say there's a lot of value in their familiarity, even if you haven't necessarily seen it on the field this season. So, to me, that's a tough one to decide.
I would think any upgrade would be minimal. He's 31, so on the wrong side of his prime. He also has three sacks in eight games, and he's never been a double-digit sacks guy. So if you're looking for a savior on defense, I don't think Bruce Irvin is it.
No, Rad, you swung too much to the other side. It's certainly possible the Packers can finish better than 7-8-1. They could finish 10-5-1, but that's very unlikely. Most probable is something in the middle. I have a hard time thinking they go winless on the road this season, but they could also blow a home game to someone like the Falcons.
My guess is, yes. I think it's both. I really don't know which way that pendulum swings more often.
It's not a bad point. There's always risk involved with change, and that's something the Packers have to consider.
Moving Tramon Williams to free safety was probably a good start on defense. As for offense, some of that is a byproduct of playing rookie receivers. You'd expect that to improve as the rookies mature. So, sure it could get better. We'll see if it does.