Hi everybody, let's get started, it's a new format so bear with me as I get accustomed to it. Yes, I've noticed that Tretter is getting pushed around some. That's what they've lost with Linsley's injury. Tretter is really athletic and excellent at getting out to linebackers on run plays, but he is susceptible to power, and Joseph is about as powerful as they come. I'm not sure if Linsley will become the starter again when he returns, but I'm sure there's a chance of it.
Could be right there Zeke. The West Coast rhythm of this offense sure isn't there.
No, it's not wrong. There could be some adjustment time, not only for Rodgers and Cook but for McCarthy with finding the best play calls as well. It can take a little while for an offense to find its identity. But yeah, I would have guessed Cook would have had more of an impact than he has even though it's early.
I'm sure Favre trusted some guys more than others, but yeah, he did seem less particular than Rodgers. As far as taking risks, I don't know if it's stats or buying wholeheartedly into the notion that turnovers lose games, but Rodgers definitely is more risk averse than Favre and a lot of other QBs. Now in the past, Rodgers played that way but still made a lot of plays. going back to last October or November, though, there hasn't been as much playmaking either.
Well, that's the kind of the kitchen sink of what might be going wrong. They were still good enough to win 10 and win a playoff game last year, so the program is far from a disaster. To my mind, the problem is the offense. The defense was fine last year and looks better this season. The problem is the offense, it's just not producing like it should with a quarterback of Rodgers' caliber. Most of the responsibility falls on Rodgers and McCarthy, though there hasn't been a ton of playmaking by the receivers/runners either. Still, Rodgers and McCarthy have to find a way to get Rodgers playing like he did from 2009-14. Whether it's changing the approach of the play calls or Rodgers' decision making or changing skill-position personnel more, they have to find something that works.
That's getting into an area of the game I can't claim to have a lot of expertise on. I do know quarterbacks need a little time, and the less the QB is hit the better for keeping him healthy and on the field. Beyond that I can't help you much on that one.
They started 6-0 last year. I might be in the minority, but I agree with the playing the starters less rather than more in the preseason. How a team plays in September is a lot less important than how healthy it is and how well it's playing in December and January. I know you have to get the team ready, but you also have to be healthy. Would playing Rodgers for a half against SF in the third preseason game have made a difference? Maybe you're right and it would, but I'm not convinced. I looked at the preseason game books for the rest of the division for the fourth preseason game, and none of them played its starting QB.
Not that I know of, and he sometimes returns phone calls, but not always. But his greatest weakness as a GM is his handling of the public side of the job. He really does owe it to the fans of the most public-dependent team in major sports in this country to at least comment on the roster after final cuts. The NFL has some rules about GM media availability -- I believe they have to talk at least once before the draft, and once a week at camp. I don't think anything else is required. I always thought it was a great service to fans that Ron Wolf made himself available in the locker room after road games.
Yes, they get a percentage of the contract, I think it's 3 percent.
Yeah, there's probably some truth in that.
I don't know if there's animosity, but Lang's comments were a sign of frustration. He said the line bears responsibility for some of the sacks, but he clearly was saying he thought Rodgers at times was holding the ball too long also. Maybe he was tired of the line taking all the blame or bothered that Rodgers chewed out Tretter when Tretter didn't snap the ball after a Vikings DL jumped, or maybe it was something else that triggered him to speak out.
Really, from what I could tell is mostly one Vikings receiver, Diggs, who was getting open. He looks like a really good one to me.
No update other than he had a bad hamstring injury and is eligible to come off PUP after the sixth game.
Have to tell you, I like that you changed the word from "insanity" to "stupidity." Pet peeve of mine, Einstein never said that, "the definition of insanity ..." thing, and that clearly isn't the definition of insanity. It's the definition of hard-headedness or maybe stupidity. Anyway, yours is a good question and one that the season will answer. I would think he has to consider making some important changes in the offense, but whatever he's going to do, whether it's changes large or small, he's not going to say it publicly. So we'll have to go by what we see in the games.
Doesn't sound like it. Maybe a DL, maybe a CB because of the injuries at those positions. But if they haven't made a move by now, maybe they won't sign anybody. That left that spot open last week. I don't get why. It's not like they need to save the money.
Don't think I'm an apologist at all, and I'm not afraid of losing my job or credentials for criticizing the Packers. But judge my columns and chats as you will.
Like I said earlier, I agree with playing them less and not more. I started covering the league in '93, and over that time I've seen teams play their starters (and their QB) less and less and less in the preseason. The exception is, the younger/newer the starting QB, the more he plays. It's a fine line, playing starters more would help them start the season better. But the end of the year is more important than the beginning, and being healthy is essential. For what it's worth, I checked the division teams on their approach, and Chicago played a lot of starters into the third quarter, including Cutler, and the Bears are 0-2.
Yeah, I do suspect that myself. The down side of the no-huddle is there's no substituting, and I'm not convinced the Packers have enough talent among their top three receivers to not mix and match personnel more, like they did earlier in McCarthy's tenure. They used to change personnel almost every play.
That's another way to look at it. It is a long season, many ups and downs even for good teams. But this strikes me as different than when Rodgers gave the R-E-L-A-X quote a few years ago because the offensive struggles go back to much of last season.
I basically agree. I mean, he makes some tough catches, but then he seems to have more than his share of drops too. He was like this in camp, too. He'd have a good day, or a some good plays, then he'd have a bad drop or two. And he's not a dynamic player. So I also question why other guys aren't mixed in more, instead of him getting a huge percentage of the No. 3 receiver snaps. Something to watch in the next couple games.
I don't know if he'll re-sign, but if I'm the Packers I'd hold the line on what kind of contract I'd offer. I think you're going a little easy on him. If he's lighter this year than last, it's not by a lot. Go back and look at highlights from his rookie year, you can see the difference in his physique and acceleration.
Yeah, I could see extending Lang. He's a little younger than Sitton and hasn't had the injury issues. Looks to me like he's playing pretty good football.