Like I said earlier, I still think there's some talent to work with there with MVS, Allison and Tonyan. I could very easily be proven wrong, but I still think one or even all of them could really improve as the season goes on. Who knows, maybe Kumerow or Davis will contribute more. I wouldn't just go out and get someone who's decent. But I do get Tom's point, and a guy like Green is at least worth looking into very seriously, because he is a super-talented guy as long as the injuries haven't degraded him too much, and if they think he has a couple really good years left in him. Those are big questions, but they're very much worth looking into if you're the Packers.

I wouldn't put that 4-0 into the books quite yet. They're a pretty big favorite this week against Denver, and I'm sure I'll pick them to win. But Fangio is a good defensive coach. But more to the point, Philly is the next week, and while it will be playing on the road on a short week (Thursday night), the Eagles are a very talented team with a talented QB, a much bigger challenge for this defense than it faced in Trubisky and Cousins (and will face in Flacco). I think the fast start against the Vikings in part was because, as a scout texted me this week, LaFleur had the chance to give them a bunch of unscouted looks that worked. But once they got past that, the Vikings adjusted, and the Packers' struggles returned, and there's a good chance the biggest factor in those struggles is the new offense and new coaching staff. Now, that could be proven wrong if they're still struggling in November. And yeah, I thought they should have cut Graham in the offseason and used the money elsewhere.

I don't know anyone who watched camp who is at all sure he's the answer. He has ability -- he's a fairly explosive guy for that position, has some cover skills that are needed to play there in today's game. He had his occasional moments in practice in camp before he got hurt. But I can't say he just jumped off the field in camp, either. He will have a lot to prove when he returns. He does have some speed an explosiveness that none of their other ILBs has though.

I think it's becoming more and more like that in the league with the ability to acquire tickets online, and the ability to make a nice profit selling your tickets. I watched the Eagles-Falcons game Sunday night, it was played in Atlanta but when the Eagles scored you could hear the roar of the Eagles' fans there. I don't blame season-ticket holders for selling their tickets for some games. I wouldn't be surprised if the GB season-ticket holders could pay for their season tickets (or a big chunk of the costs) by selling, say, the two most popular games. Owning season tickets isn't cheap.

I'm guessing you mean for that ILB-S role. But he turns 31 in December and had that bad Achilles injury two years ago that was still giving him a lot of trouble last year, enough that the Chiefs cut him. I think he's not with a team, right? I'm guessing he's done.

I think Rob Demovsky reported that Savage won't practice much this week but that he's expected to play. I suspect his injury is one of several that convinced LaFleur to conduct a walk-through today instead of a normal practice.

Glad you mentioned Vitale, I failed to earlier. I don't want to overstate his possible impact, but I do wonder if Vitale can add a little something to the offense. I'm not saying he could become a real playmaker or anything like that, but in camp before he got hurt he showed the ability to catch the ball downfield like a tight end -- he played a combo TE-HBack-RB role in college. He was getting a lot of snaps in practice before he injured his calf. He missed a few weeks and didn't get as much work after returning. But as the LaFleur learns his players and the offense evolves, maybe he'll play Vitale more, have two RBs and three WRs, for instance -- and try to get the ball to Vitale in the passing game some.

I would strongly argue they made the right call. Cobb was a good player here and a very tough guy and all that, but I have serious doubts he'll make it through the season or at minimum not suffer some injuries that diminish his play. That's one of the reasons this is a big man's game, very few of the small guys like him can sustain it for a long time, they get beaten up and lose some of the explosiveness that allowed them to make plays when they were younger.

If that happens, I'd still keep him for depth if I'm them.

I can't imagine the Giants would want Graham, they wouldn't want to pay that salary. Engram's interesting. He's young (25), can run, was a first-round pick. No idea what the Giants would want for him. Don't know if a third-rounder would get the deal done. I think LaFleur likes TEs who can block, so their presence on the field isn't a tip-off to whether it's run or pass. I have no idea what kind of blocker Engram is.

He's been pretty solid so far. You're right that he's not a difference maker, but he's done the job, so it's more erosion than anything, because Amos has to move to his spot, and Redmond replaces Amos. Redmond isn't nearly as good as Amos back there. If Burks were playing and doing OK it would matter less.

Lowry has played well the first two games. I don't know how Daniels is doing other than what the stat sheet you point to says. At the time I leaned toward keeping Daniels for the pass-rushing depth, and that at some point in the season they'd wish they'd had him because of injuries or whatever. But I also said in these chats that I understood why Gutekunst cut him, and that he probably was concerned about the injuries catching up with him -- Daniels didn't practice all offseason because of a foot injury that landed him on IR late last year. So Gutekunst lived by the old personnel aphorism better a year early than year late, and yeah, it very well could be that this season will show he made the move at the right time. We can answer that better in December.

It's only fair. I criticize the Packers for their mistakes, need to fess up for my own and at least explain my thinking when I'm wrong, which is often.

I'd think he still can add some unscouted looks each week, for all I know the new offense might allow him to do it deeper into the season. McCarthy always used to say that there were a lot of unscouted looks for the first month of the season, then fewer after that. Maybe if LaFleur is keeping things a little simpler early this year it will make it easier to add things that he hasn't shown on tape later in the season.

Proceed with caution.

I thought they did a better job of snapping 10 or more seconds this last game than in the opener. Especially early, I thought they played at a pretty good tempo. I tried to monitor that throughout the game -- can't do it every play, too much to try to watch. But yeah, as the game went on it slowed down some. Also, I'm guessing that in the fourth quarter they might have wanted to run the play clock longer to shorten the game.

I thought it was very good in the opener. There was Savage's glaring missed tackle on the Cook touchdown, no getting around that. But I'd say the tackling overall has been OK so far. The Bears are really good on D, you're right there. Mack, Hicks and Roquan Smith give them an outstanding front seven.

He's not playing much, that's for sure, played only two series against the Bears, maybe twice as many snaps last week. That's not all bad, not sure how ready he's be to contribute a lot, if he were playing a lot it probably would be very up and down. The Smiths allow the luxury of sitting him a lot. Where they're going to need him as the season goes on is as a spot player and a dime rusher (3 OLBs and one DL). The Smiths are playing a lot, I have to think the Packers will want to rest them just a little more as the season goes on to help keep them healthy. So this can't be a redshirt year for Gary, even if he's not going to be a starter.

Yes.

I guess I'm very much in the minority in thinking he wasn't that great with the Rams last year. Yeah, his average per carry was great (6.0 yards), but look how much the Rams' offense dropped off in the final month and playoffs after Gurley's knee acted up. Defenses didn't have to stop Anderson to beat the Rams, which they had to do with Gurley. So Anderson got his yards but defenses weren't keying on him and were able to take other things away with the threat Gurley provided. So I'm not seeing it with Anderson. Maybe I'm dead wrong, but I didn't get all the high praise he was getting, and the suggestions that the Rams were able to replace Gurley without a big dropoff. I thought the dropoff was huge.

Have to disagree completely on this one Mr. Daddy. Montgomery just didn't have it. He wasn't quick and explosive enough to be a playmaker, he is not a dynamic player. He's an OK player at best. And everything was always somebody else's fault. I thought it was a really bad sign when after his huge fumbled KOR against the Rams, instead of simply saying he made a mistake, he turned himself into the victim by talking at length about the hate he endured Twitter. Don't get me wrong, Twitter is often a cesspool and the threats and invective hurled his way were despicable. But he didn't have to bring it up, and it struck me he was making himself the victim when if he was really holding himself accountable he'd have just said, "I made a big mistake," and left it that. I thought he was insubordinate in bringing that ball out of the end zone in the first place. I thought the Packers were totally justified in dumping him. He hasn't done anything in Baltimore to suggest they made the wrong call. So I have to disagree with you on this one Mr. Daddy, though love that you check in and ask a question on the chat just about every week.

The hit and miss on the draft is very true, and the Steelers must really like him, as you say. Fitzpatrick is young. I'd just be really concerned if I were the Steelers that they could have a terrible year and have just given away a top-10 pick, maybe even top-five. That's where you have the best chance to get a special player, even if there is a crapshoot element to it. But you basically articulated why the Steelers did the deal.

OK, this will have to be the last question, lost track of the clock, time to move on to other duties. I'm sure you're right, two first-rounders is a lot for a defensive player who's not a great pass rusher, though CB is a premium position as well. Of all the CBs in the league, I'd think Ramsey would get the greatest value in a trade -- he's the most talented cover guy in the league, and he's only 25 -- which is why I didn't dismiss it out of hand. Another issue is you'd have to pay him big, big money around the corner, and if you're concerned about what kind of guy he'd be in the locker room and on the sidelines that could be a deal breaker too, because money only empowers a guy. But he is a true difference-maker who's only 25 and plays a premium position in this league, and they don't become available very often. If Minkah Fitzpatrick is worth a first-rounder that might even be in the top 10, is it really that outlandish to wonder whether Ramsey might be worth two firsts? Or, more realistically, a 1 and a 3? That's why I won't just dismiss it. With that, we'll have to call it a chat. Thanks everybody for coming by, very much appreciated, always enjoy hearing what's on your mind. Thanks especially to our subscribers, who make our thorough coverage of the team possible. And remember, you can get our PackersNews app to get all our Packers coverage for only $4.99 a month, that's a really good deal. Until next week, take care everybody.