Not sure I agree. For one thing, to get a decent CB would cost a lot, teams just won't part with those guys because they're trying to win games too. One of the few places the Packers had depth was CB, though it's really young depth, so there will be ups and downs. Hyde can handle the nickel role, so that helps. Gunter has basically played three games, two good ones and one back one. I realize Goodson and Hawkins aren't as good as the guys they're replacing, but they're on the team for situations just like this. I'm just not as convinced as you are that Thompson could trade for someone who will be enough of an upgrade. Not saying it's impossible, but I'd guess it's unlikely.
If they can control the ball with the short passing game, like they did last week, that would keep Atlanta's offense off the field. That would improve their chances a lot. They'll also have to stop the run, and do it without committing an extra guy to the box, because they have Julio Jones to deal with. Freeman is a good back, so that won't be easy.
I think Davis is better. He's much younger -- 25 to I think 29 for Spiller, that's a huge difference for RBs. Davis could be a starter but the big concern there is the fumbles. Spiller I think is better in the passing game, but for the role the Packers need without Lacy, I'd think Davis is the better option.
Is it highly unlikely Lacy makes it back? I haven't heard that so can't say that that's true. For the Packers to get Lynch, he'd have to unretire, and then Seattle would have to cut him. I don't know if Seattle would do that. So Thompson would have to trade with the Seahawks. If I'm the Seahawks I'm not doing any deal that sends Lynch to the Packers unless I absolutely ransack them, or unless I think Lynch doesn't have it anymore. The Seahawks think they can win the SB and have to see the Packers as a bigger threat if they had Lynch -- again, unless they think Lynch is washed up.
I'd guess Montgomery the most, don't know yet if Jackson is going to play. I'd think Davis will play more than he did last week.
As far as Matthews goes, all I know is he has a hamstring injury and didn't practice yesterday. McCarthy said today that Matthews will do at least some work in practice today. That suggests they think he has a decent chance to play this week, but we'll have to wait and see on that. They don't practice Fridays, so they probably won't know until Saturday's practice.
I'll bet against it. He already pulled off one shocker by trading for Davis.
They basically did it like that against Chicago, so they don't think it's necessary. That obviously means lots of snaps for Montgomery at RB, and some for Cobb. Maybe more one-back stuff for Ripkowski too.
I'd think it's more of a stopgap, though I can't say for sure, because I do wonder if it still can change their offensive approach for the rest of the season. Things were going nowhere the way they were, so maybe this will mean they'll do more four and five WR stuff even when they get healthier at running back. Maybe this is what it takes to jump-start the offense and get it back in rhythm, using the short passing game as part of the running game, change the way teams defend them. So we'll see. I'm just not sure how playing the way they did against Chicago will work against really good defenses like Minnesota. It just seems like in the playoffs there would be a game where you'd need to be able to run the ball credibly. Let's see how it plays out.
Right. My bad. Should have said Allison. He really did flash some ability to get open in camp, and Rodgers appeared to have no qualms about throwing him the ball. We'll see if McCarthy gets him on the field this week.
All depends on whether Jackson plays. If he does, I'd guess Montgmery, Jackson, Davis in that order.
I can't say for sure about that, because I obviously know the Packers a lot better than any other teams. I'm sure they're not the only ones to lose good players like that, but I can't name others off the top of my head.
That's a big picture question, and a good and important question. It's also especially tough to answer during the season because things are so fluid. I remember in '10 when the Packers lost two in a row late in the year, which left them at 8-6. It looked like they weren't going anywhere. As we all know, they won out. So we need to let this play out, still 10 games to play, outlooks can change, sometimes dramatically, in that time. The one thing I'll say, as I have before, there are some in the league who think a coach shouldn't stay with a team for more than 10 to 12 years. McCarthy is in year 11 for those who subscribe to that philosophy.
It's going really well. Always had the greatest respect for them having competed against them all those years. I don't think people around the country appreciate how competitive this market is, how detail-oriented the coverage on the Packers is because of the fan interest. There still is internal competition, sure. But they've been excellent to work with. Extremely knowledgeable and committed.
Really tough question, I've gone back and forth on this over the last week or so. I guess I still lean Lacy, but that could change if Davis shows much later in the season. Having a run threat can help a quarterback so much. The Packers could face a really tough call there if both are able to return. The defense has missed Shields whenever he's been gone.
Yes. And look, a lot of money is blown in free agency. There are way more bad signings than good ones. I still think he could do more signings like he did with Cook this year, and if they don't work, there's not a lot lost (shorter term deals, etc.). Same with in-season trades for a CB. You have to feel pretty good that the player is better than what you have, and worth the price of whatever draft pick you give up. Those picks are valuable, you can't go dealing them willy nilly.
Wondering the same thing myself. He didn't do much of anything on special teams in the preseason, so that hurts his chances. It looks like four guys for sure won't suit up because of injuries: Cook, Randall, Rollins, Starks. So that leaves three other inactives.
I think that was just someone in online media doing one of those lists, "five trades that should happen." I don't think it was based on any reporting. So I don't know if Cleveland is even willing to trade him, and whether the Browns would ask for a lot. If they want a lot, well, the guy is 27, so he's as good as he's going to get and could start declining in a year or two. He is a talented player, so if he's available it's something the Packers would have to look into. But it's not at all clear he's available.
Sorry, that's the question I just answered, don't think it posted initially for some reason.
Flores was added to the practice squad, not the 53. I'm not at all convinced Shields will be back this year, but I don't have any inside information on that, just suspicious that they put him on IR after he'd already been out a month.
Not necessarily. They could go one more year at his current price and see how much stronger-better his knee gets -- but he is 31, so age is working against him. They also could try to re-work his contract, though he'd have to agree to it. Sometimes players will do it if they can earn back the lost money via incentives, or if they get some guaranteed money even if their overall pay is lowered.
I don't know if it is, but knowing that he's had four concussions in the NFL and another back in college, and that he missed a month last year with one and will miss at least 12 weeks with one this year, retirement at minimum has to be on the table.
Haven't picked a score yet, but have to go with Atlanta. Falcons have a really good offense with run-pass balance, a good QB and a great WR who probably will have a good day against the Packers' thin CB group.
That's what I'm wondering. It almost forces the Packers to play more of the quick-rhythm passing game.