Hi everybody, let's get this started. I'm sure a lot of the questions will be of this ilk. I'd say that yes, there has to be a lot of soul searching and tough questions asked internally with the Packers. Now, there's still almost half a season to play, so as bad as the Packers have looked the past two weeks, there still is a decent amount of football to be played. IMHO, no decisions should be made until this plays out, and it's pretty safe to assume that that's what Murphy thinks too. You just don't know what might happen even though right now things look back. They just haven't found a way to make up for the loss of Shields and Lacy and also playing temporarily without Matthews. I would have thought they'd survive that better than they have, but they haven't so far.
Murphy is Thompson's boss, so he could. But here's how it works over there, as it should, because it's the key to the franchise's success since Bob Harlan hired Wolf in November '91: The team gives full control of football decisions to the GM, so he swims or sinks on his own merits. If the president and/or executive committee are unhappy with how football is going then they can fire the GM. But they're smart to have a setup where the GM does it his own way. That keeps football decisions in the hands of experts on football. It also makes working for the Packers one of the most coveted jobs in the league. So if Murphy is that unhappy with the results then it's up to him to make a change. I do agree that there are more guys like Cook that could be signed to short-term deals most years and possibly help, and if they don't there's not a huge investment lost.
I'm trying to think back through history for when that's worked in the NFL. Can't remember any instance. Indy did well when Arians took over for Pagano when Pagano was ill, but it's not like the Colts went to the Super Bowl. If anybody remembers an instance or two when it's worked in the NFL, let me know. It just seems different with football. It seems like midseason changes sometimes help in basketball and baseball -- it also fails plenty -- but less so in football. I'd have to think about it for reasons why.
Practice in the regular season is only open for individual and group drills, when they start doing 11 on 11 reporters must leave practice, so no reporters have seen Hundley in 11 on 11 since camp. And really, you don't know for sure until he plays in games, though the coaching staff I'm sure has some idea based on what it sees in practice.
I doubt they'd cut him in the offseason, he's on a cheap rookie contract and there's not any harm in bringing him back. He knows the system, etc. But I agree they need a major upgrade at that position.
I just don't think the TEs are good enough to do it, that's my opinion. Cook has been injured (high ankle sprain) but looks like he at least has a chance to return this week, which presumably would help the offense some. I just don't think Richard Rodgers is good enough to justify playing as much as they do, and with Lacy out (and Starks for several weeks) they haven't had any running backs. So that's killed the run game. With their current situation, they need to pass a lot, even if that's not the way you want to do it. Balance is better but you have to play the cards you're dealt. So yeah, a good tight end would help their receivers, but they haven't had one. Maybe Cook can be that guy. He's not a real good blocker but he's a big target with pretty good speed as a receiver.
This has been an ongoing question going back a couple seasons. I don't get the sense they argue and dispute, etc., but Rodgers' body language and occasional comments after games suggests they have their disagreements about the offense. Both have talked publicly about it over the last year or so and say confrontation/disagreement is healthy. I'm sure it can be, though at times I'm sure it can be unhealthy too, depending on how it manifests itself. It doesn't appear to be helping matters now.
The little bit the Packers have been saying suggests that Lacy won't be back until January at the earliest and maybe not at all this year. That makes me think he probably won't be back, but I don't know that.
The trade deadline has passed, and I seriously doubt they can find anyone better on the street. Maybe a decent player will get cut for reasons other than performance, like when DL Howard Green was cut in '10 and picked up by the Packers, but that's relatively rare. They're probably going to have to go with what they've got.
Draft and develop as a general theory is the way to go, and there's nothing wrong with having a young team. As George Young (former Giants GM) said, football is like the marines, the younger the better. That said, and like I mentioned earlier, I suspect there are a couple guys in the Cook mold they could sign almost every year. Short-term deals, decent money but not huge. If the guy doesn't work out, not that much is lost, and maybe he helps. So yeah, I think Thompson could stay true to his general philosophy while signing a few more free agents.
I haven't heard anything about his weight -- do you remember where you heard that? Lacy was a second-round pick, so there's not fifth-year option. He's a free agent in the offseason.
I wonder the same thing. Really looked like he let up and at least might have had a shot to put Murray OB inside the 5. Our Michael Cohen tried to talk to him after the game but he declined. Haven't seen any quotes from him this week. But I agree, he inexplicably let him. Seems strange because he's struck me as a guy who gives good effort.
None of us is expert in game planning and play calling, but looks to me like they have to do the latter, pass to set up the run. They just don't have the run game without Lacy. Starks coming back should help some, maybe Christine Michael will help also. Maybe they'll be able to play more conventional football with those two.
They haven't said and wouldn't before the game, wouldn't want to alert Washington. My guess is no, that they'll have Joe Thomas play in there and have Matthews outside. The plan all season was to play Matthews predominantly outside, so I'd think they'd keep him there, but you never know.
I didn't notice that and can't give you a good answer.
Not sure I'm more of a fan of one of those schemes than the other. When they went 3-4 there were fewer teams using it so getting the right personnel was a tad easier. I'd have to look but I think it's pretty close to half and half as far as 3-4 and 4-3 in the league now.
Good question and I'm really not sure how either team will do it. Maybe they'll just have their CBs play a side. If you're Washington, who would you put Norman on? Nelson historically is their best receiver but isn't this year. Adams has played the best the last couple games. So could be either of them.
I think it would take a lot. I mean a lot.
Before the season I'd have said TE, RB, OLB. Now I'd add CB and WR to that list, with both possibly ahead of OLB, though Matthews' injury issues makes that a big need too. That's a lot of needs.
He'll probably play a little bit this week but I'd think he'll need a few weeks to have a decent feel for the offense.
I haven't heard anything like that but it could be true. As these quarterbacks get to age 30 or a little older, they've seen and done so much on the football field, they probably get tougher to coach. I'm guessing they think they know more than their position coach. In many ways they probably do, though everybody still needs coaching.
We'll have to see on that. Last week he played but was limited. I think he was limited in practice yesterday, if he is again today then maybe he'll be available for only part-time duty again this week.