Hey folks, welcome to our live chat discussing all things Packers. Fire away with your questions.
Well, we're starting off strong today. The quick answer: not after Week 6. The long answer? Sure, if the Packers continue playing this way for a second straight year, they stumble to a 9-7 or even 10-6 record, and other NFC contenders emerge while the Packers stay stagnant, you could see Mike McCarthy deserving of being on the hot seat. The question you have to ask is whether Ted Thompson would make that move, and I'm just not sure he would. The Packers GM is known for his desire to have continuity. So my guess would be no, but there's a long, long way to go before we really know what the landscape will look like at season's end.
I know, right? (Wait, forgot the hashtag: #firedomcapers) Look, this Packers defense is really good. Maybe not great, but they're really good. I think a big part of the problems yesterday was an offense putting way too much pressure on the defense. Week to week, this offense is asking the defense to perform miracles. That isn't fair. As far as Jared Cook being the savior, the Packers offense wasn't jumping off the page when he was healthy. Bottom line is this offense won't play better until the quarterback does, which makes it no different than any other offense in the league.
I wish I knew the answer. If I did, I'm guessing the Packers would pay me a lot of money to fix it. It's nothing short of stunning to see a two-time MVP quarterback play this poorly not for one game, not for two games, but for an extended period of time. The stats weren't great yesterday (fewer than 300 yards, 7 yards per pass), but they were better than Rodgers actually played. He had missed more missed throws that you just didn't see him make two, three, four, five years ago. Perhaps the most glaring was sailing a pass over Randall Cobb's head in the end zone. Cobb was wide open, it was a sure touchdown, and it's a throw even average NFL quarterbacks have to make.
I'm not qualified to dissect a quarterback's delivery, but I haven't noticed anything wrong with the upper-body motion. To me, the bigger problem is Rodgers' inability to set his feet and deliver. He had another overthrow to Randall Cobb late in the first half down the left sideline. Cobb wasn't wide open, but he was open to Aaron Rodgers' typical standards. I watched that play from field level, and Rodgers almost skipped into the throw. There was no solid base. Again, I'm not qualified to dissect a QB's motion, but skipping into throws seems like a good way to sail a pass over your WR's head.
It actually goes back before the Denver game. This offense hasn't been the same since Week 4 of last year when the 49ers dropped only one safety deep and dared the Packers to throw vertical. They couldn't, of course. Can't put this all on Mike McCarthy, just like you can't put it all on Aaron Rodgers, just like you can't put it all on the WRs. Outside the offensive line, there's no shortage of blame for the problems on offense.
That fumble was Mark Sanchez bad, yes. There was a time I'd scoff at anyone suggesting benching Aaron Rodgers, and I still think it is definitely premature. But if this continues five, six weeks? If we're sitting here Week 11 or Week 12, and nothing has changed? I mean, sure it would be radical, but I don't know if it would be the worst idea. And, yes, I can't believe I'm saying that.
Just pausing a moment to reflect on your "positive note" including mentions of "fatal mistakes" like fumbles, interceptions or failure to end drives. That's where we're at with the Packers offense. Even the silver lining has fatal mistakes.
It's certainly possible, considering the Packers coaching staff hasn't fixed this problem for going on over a year. The question is, who are you going to find that's better? I know, I know, you roll your eyes and scoff at the notion Mike McCarthy is a decent coach, but he certainly is that. It would take Mike McCarthy no time to find another NFL head-coaching job, like Andy Reid when the Eagles fired him. Now, sometimes change is needed for change's sake, but you can't make a move that monumental without knowing what comes next. And you better be sure what comes next is an improvement, or else it's just wasting everybody's time.
He had 6 yards on 3 carries. An average of 2 yards per carry. So I'm going to go with no, he's not someone you want to typically use a lot in the backfield. Of course, he was basically the Packers' No. 2 tailback Sunday. Could he be better in a No. 3 role? Certainly. But the Packers need to add a running back before Thursday's game, and it sounds like that's a definite possibility.
Sure, it was a mistake. Pretty obvious the Packers were hoping to sneak through Dallas with only one RB, get through Chicago and reevaluate after the minibye. It burned them.
That would make some news.
If it were easy, it'd be fixed already. Which, frankly, is the most troublesome part of the Packers' offensive problems. For as many times as Mike McCarthy or Aaron Rodgers say they'll improve, it's far from certain.
I don't think the previous commentator was serious.
I still think there's room to grow. Getting Jared Cook back could help. But this offense isn't 2014 or 2011. That's clear.
I covered that camp. I don't believe that has any correlation to his current problems.
I don't think he really needs anyone to tell him his fundamentals suck. He has eyes. He watches film. He's aware he's playing poorly. As far as coaching, Mcike McCarthy would say it's his job to make the quarterback successful. That's the whole point of his West Coast offense. So when the quarterback isn't successful, coaches aren't absolved from blame.
Yeah, it's weird how little we see a big running back used in short yardage. Even before this week, James Starks usually got those assignments. Maybe they think Lacy is slow to the hole out of the backfield. I don't really know. Just odd.
I really can't believe nobody has asked me about Brett Favre's halftime ceremony yet. (I kid, I kid.)
I think they're going to kill the Bears, but that's more a reflection on what I think of the Bears than what I think of the Packers. It is worth noting the two teams the Packers have lost to are a combined 10-1. Not like they're losing to bad teams. The Bears, of course, are on the opposite end of that spectrum at 1-5. A quick turnaround against one of the worst teams in the NFL is certainly what the doctor ordered.
Yes, I think a big reason the Packers have been resistant to add a running back is because it would mean potentially losing another player they like. When you have a team form a lopsided roster like the Packers did out of training camp with a surplus of defensive backs and receivers, it's because they like their talent at those positions. Do they want to risk losing Josh Hawkins or Marwin Evans or Jared Abbrederis or someone else? Of course not. They didn't want to risk losing Joe Callahan either. But they might have to.