I haven't seen many people blaming the loss on a lack of effort or juice. The Packers lost in part because they were flat. More importantly, they lost because their defense can't get off the field on third down and the passing attack is nonexistent.

It depends how things play out. If they were to really go off a cliff and finish 5-11 or something like that, then yes, he might be in some serious hot water. But if they are around .500 or a little north of it, I don't see McCarhty getting fired. Just my opinion.

I don't think the opposing teams know what plays are going to be called. But I do think they know what is required to stop the Packers' offense. The formula is pretty simple: Rush three or four guys, use a spy on Rodgers from time to time, play tight man coverage against the receivers, dare the Packers to run by keeping the safeties back in coverage instead of playing up around the line of scrimmage.

Janis looked really uncoordinated against Detroit last year when he lost a deep ball in flight. He talked about the difficulty of tracking the ball last season. I asked McCarthy about Janis' ability to track long passes earlier today. McCarthy said Janis has made huge strides in that area relative to last year and that he works very hard at it. But, as McCarthy noted, Janis has to catch the football. No other way around it.

A Connecticut native! Welcome aboard. I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one. I agree with you that Rodgers, Daniels, Matthews, Bakhtiari and Clinton-Dix are perhaps the most valuable players on the team when it comes to the trade market. But I'm not sure how that relates to retooling and rebuilding. Plenty of teams rely on non-first rounders to play huge roles. The Packers are no different in that regard.

No, I'm not surprised. The game plan for the Colts was totally different than the game plan for the Falcons. The offensive concepts were not the same.

Uhh....not happening. But you're right, the special teams were horrendous yesterday.

Generally speaking, it says that two dominant rushers are better than one. You can't double team Nick Perry, for example, if Clay Matthews is on the other side. And you can't double team Matthews as much as normal if Perry is playing as well. But it does tell me that Perry thrives in part due to the attention given to Matthews. I don't think you're wrong in that regard.

Terrible production from the tight end position. Richard Rodgers had six catches for 64 yards yesterday, and that pushed him over 100 yards FOR THE SEASON. It took him 8 games to gain 100 total yards. That's really, really bad. Obviously Jared Cook was meant to be the focal point at that position, but Rodgers has looked lost all year. It's strange considering he was a decent player last season. Justin Perillo does well for himself in limited reps.

Because they like interacting with the writers. Don't be so grumpy.

The Colts did a really nice job of sticking with the receivers for as long as possible. That was their gameplan, and they executed perfectly. Rodgers is also very risk-averse. He will not throw into tight windows for fear of interception. Obviously Andrew Luck does not play that way. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. You could argue that Rodgers needs to give his receivers more of a chance to grab passes in stick scenarios.

Interesting question. I think rookies struggle during OTAs and maybe the beginning of training camp. But the first game of the season, those rookies have had the playbooks for all of May, all of June, all of July, all of August and a week of September. I think that's enough time to understand their roles.

The writers discussed this in the press box. Most of us believed going for 1 was the correct option. However, here is the rationale we came up with about why McCarthy went for the 2-point conversion: Let's say the Packers chose to kick the extra point. That would put them down 11. Then let's say the Packers kick a field goal. They're down 8. Then let's say they score a touchdown and go for 2....and fail. At that point, the clock is basically melted and the Packers still need another score. Perhaps he wanted to get the 2-point try out of the way so that he knows exactly what he needs the rest of the way.

Safety Jermaine Whitehead was out of position. He got blocked into linebacker Kyler Fackrell, and both players fell. With two players down on the field, a huge hole opened up for the Colts. Todman, who went to UConn (had to get that in there), burst through the gap and took off up the sideline.

Yes they are.

I'm not excusing the decision to use those coverages, but it's important to understand why those matchups are happening. If Dom Capers wants to blitz, the players who aren't blitzing sometimes take on alternate roles. That's why we saw Mike Daniels drop into zone coverage once against Atlanta and Kenny Clark track a running back in the flat. Fackrell did not rush on that play because another player did.

The Packers' defense was pretty bad all afternoon yesterday, with the exception of the first quarter. I don't think it's just an end-of-game problem.

I agree that there is a level of extreme confidence here, or perhaps it's denial. The Packers have been so successful for so long that the players seem to think everything will work out. They just need to give it some time. To me, that comes across as denying any legitimate problems or a sense of over-confidence that roadblocks change.

Let's set a couple things straight: It was Shields' fifth concussion and third in the last three years. All concussions are different. Abbrederis missed a month last year because symptoms were so severe. Adams played four days after he was diagnosed. Everyone is different. I think fans also need to understand that the modern era is different than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Back then, players would often put themselves in the game by choice, regardless of their injury status. Today, trainers and coaches make the final call about who plays and who doesn't. If the coach and trainer say no, the player sits. It wasn't like that in the past. That is not meant as an excuse for anyone. It's simply an explanation of how the injury situation works.

I've heard this comment as well. But I'm not in any position to comment on how fast a player is or is not running. That's almost impossible to analyze unless it's extremely obvious -- as in sprinting versus a light jog.

I think as a whole the Packers' receivers are below average. Before the ACL injury, Jordy Nelson was clearly a No. 1 receiver. He has not returned to that level yet this season. Perhaps he needs a bit more time to get acclimated and adjust. And it's often true that players perform better two years after ACL reconstruction than they do one year after the procedure.

This made me laugh.

I don't think so. See Patriots, New England.

Why are they an exception? Are they not a coach and a quarterback? Are both quarterbacks not considered among the top 3 in the league? Are both coaches not Super Bowl winners?