Let's dive right in. I don't know what the odds are, but they're a lot better than they were when Ted Thompson was GM. I haven't heard/read any rumors about the Packers in trade talks but that doesn't mean they haven't happened or aren't happening. I'd think their primary target would be a pass rusher. I have no idea if Arizona is willing to move Chandler Jones, or at what price, but I'd think he'd be an attractive target for the Packers if available. As you suggest, safety probably would be No. 2 on the list .
I have to say I don't remember either of those two lining up in three points stances very often, Capers usually had those guys standing up. I think I remember Perry doing it some but Matthews not often at all, but maybe my memory if off. Some guys like being down in the three-point stance for the takeoff, others like standing up so they can see better. A lot of it probably has to do with how you did it in your formative years as a rusher. I know Peppers put his hand down a lot as an outside rusher but I can't say I remember Matthews putting his hand down that much.
I've been thinking about how much sense it would make for the Packers to go after Peterson. A year ago it would have made a lot of sense, a little less so now. He's 28 and still due about half his $11 million this year and an $11 million next year and $12M the year after. Those aren't bad salaries for a player his caliber, though you do have to take into consideration when his decline could begin and then how steep it will be. I have trouble seeing giving up a first-rounder for him, put it that way. With King, Alexander and Jackson, the Packers have invested a lot of high picks at the CB position in the last two drafts, so I'm just not sure it would make sense to go after Peterson for what he's likely to cost in draft compensation. Jones makes a lot more sense, rent him for the rest of this year and next. Wouldn't give up a first-rounder for him, not sure if I'd give up a second, definitely would a third. But no idea if the Cardinals are willing to move him.
That's a really interesting question. It's what, five first-rounders? Rodgers is 34, and with the way you can't hit the QB now, playing into his early 40s at minimum is realistic. I might want to know more about this year's draft, how the QBs are etc. But pretty sure I'd have to say no on that. I don't know what you'd do, but I'd say no,. QBs are just too hard to find.
Basically, yes, they're a good team when he's playing well, and when not, they're not. Agreed they badly need a tackle, Bulaga is just so beaten up. You can cover up more for weaknesses at guard, but tackles are so often on an island. On defense, if I'm them, I'm drafting at least two OLBs next year.
A lot of truth in that. They're much healthier now, most importantly Rodgers might be able to practice all week, which means he's healthier and and just as importantly that he should be sharper with a full week of practice. I'd assume Cobb and Allison will be back from their hamstring injuries also. The schedule for the next five weeks is really challenging, but the prelims of the season are over, this is the heart of the schedule, and yes this is their chance. Rams and New England back to back on the road, winning one of those two would mean a lot.
I thought Philbin might make a big difference as an experienced voice on the staff and someone McCarthy would listen to. Whatever influence he has, it hasn't shown up in improved performance, at least not yet. We probably should use the second half of the season to better judge Pettine, give him some time to get to know his personnel and for the players to really grasp his scheme.
I don't know if Peterson could be a safety or not, just don't know enough about the way he plays. An interesting thought. I wonder if they should move Breeland to safety.
More fair than not. His early drafts were outstanding, they really were. Rodgers, Collins, Jennings, Matthews, Raji, Nelson, Sitton, Lang, a lot of talent there. But his last few drafts weren't good, and he didn't do enough of the other little things, such as targeted free agency, to upgrade the roster. But it doesn't take much to turn a team around if it has a QB. One really good draft can do it.
They just haven't drafted enough pass rushers the last five years or so. Have to keep picking them until you find one. Relied too much on Matthews and Perry despite their injury histories and Matthews' age.
Though as a staff we pick the Packers outcome each week, I'm really not big on picking games. It's just kind of impossible. If I had to pick, I'd guess they come out of it 2-3.
That does happen every once in a while. Trying to remember when the last coach trade was. I'm thinking Gruden from Oakland to Tampa. I don't know how they'd determine compensation. When the Packers hired Holmgren from SF they gave up a second -- it wasn't a trade, but he was still under contract with SF as coordinator, and at that time league rules allowed SF to get compensation because he was under contract. I just looked it up, Gruden cost Tampa Bay two first-rounders and $8M. Your guess is as good as mine for what a team might trade a coach for now. A first-rounder?
I still think it's a lot less the specific scheme than how good the coach is running it, and how good the players are. With the way the league is now, everybody's running 4-3 most of the time anyway, because nickel is essentially a 4-3 (two inside rushers, two outside, two inside linebackers and 5 DBs).
Nobody's unbeatable, we saw that in '07 when the Patriots lost the SB. They definitely have an edge with the extra prep time and week off to get healthy. The Rams eventually are going to play a bad game against somebody. Will it be this week? I don't know. The Rams have more than their share of difference makers and good players. It will take a lot to beat them. But is it asking too much? Not from a team with Aaron Rodgers.
Players on IR can watch practice as far as I know, and they can attend meetings. But yeah, the determination for whether they can return is done mostly by the medical and strength/conditioning staffs. They can work them out on their own and tell quite a bit from that. But you're right, they can't test them in a team environment. They work with these guys all the time, though, so they can tell a fair amount from individual work.
The play clock might help the D get off the snap if it gets down far enough, I'm sure some guys use that, though I don't know how difficult it is to watch the clock but also the ball in case the ball is snapped with 1 or 2 seconds left as opposed to going to zero. I guess that's the potential downside to taking the clock down. The upside is, the defense can't wait forever to get out of its coverage disguises, so taking the clock down helps reveal what they're really doing. I'd say it's more of what you alluded to earlier in the question, he just has to get the ball out.
Interesting thought, but you'd have to be careful about what you give up. He's 31. They've signed old TEs the last two years. Bennett bombed. Graham is still a good athlete and player, but he's lost speed. Cook could decline at any time. So I don't know that I'd give up a lot for him. A fourth-rounder? A fifth?
I get your drift, but I doubt they could get anything worthwhile in return. Cobb is in the last year of his contract, so a team would be getting him for only half a season. If the Packers are down on Clinton-Dix, is there reason to think anybody else would give up good value to get him?
I have to say, watching the Red Zone on Sunday, those two RBs for SF are pretty good, they really are fast and quick. The Packers' run D had been pretty decent for the most part until that last game. That said, Gurley probably is the best back in the league, so Pettine has his hands full, because the Rams also have some playmaking talent at WR. That's why they're unbeaten, they are really, really tough to defend. Pettine probably will have to use run stoppers on the DL (three defensive lineman) in his nickel defense on a lot of downs, which will hurt the pass rush but give him a better shot at slowing down the run.
I haven't heard much about it. The results on the field have been so-so -- they're 3-2-1 and have not looked like a particularly good team for the most part. To be fair, they're putting in a new defense, so that takes time. Let's see how they do in the second half of the season. The offense has been only OK, but one of the big questions I have is, to what degree is that because Rodgers hasn't been the same because of the injury and lack of practice? I don't have anything like a definitive answer for you on that. But no, I haven't heard much one way or the other whether the changing of duties has had much effect. It sure doesn't feel like the offense has changed much as far as approach and all that goes, at least not from the outside looking in.
That short touchdown pass last week to Montgomery where they used that diamond formation wide to the left and had three guys lined up in front of him as blockers, that looked new and innovative. Agreed they could use more of that.
Minnesota put up I think it was 31 points on them, so it's not like there's is a great D. But they do have a pass rush, especially with Aaron Donald, he's probably the best D player in the league. You kind of laid it out, though, the Packers probably will need to do it by scoring a lot early, getting ahead or at least keeping up, so that if the D can force a couple FGs instead of giving up TDs,