Yeah man, I turned it off at the end of the third.
Right now the Pack’s defense looks exactly the opposite of the Super Bowl years. Then they had the big tackles on the DL that just sucked up the run blocking like a vacuum cleaner. Now their line looks extremely soft against the run. Am I correct that one of their starting tackles has missed the last few games with an injury? Maybe when and if he gets back, things will improve.
Yeah man, that guy sucks. I feel your pain.
Yeah, big ol’ Grady Jackson. Jackson used to fail offseason conditioning programs with cheeseburger-scented elan for years. Naturally, going into this season, he was in the best shape he’s been in since he has in college. So, of course, he hurt himself.
The only thing more sad than watching Brett Favre play right now is the likelihood that we won’t see him play ever again after this season.
Grady Jackson is the tackle you’re thinking of. Out with a hip injury.
I don’t think they will improve much with his return. With McKenzie gone, they’re heavily playing two rookie corners who clearly have a lot of coaching to absorb.
Yeah, the Packers looked bad, but at least give SOME credit to the Titans. They showed up…big time. That was the team I was expecting at the beginning of the season. I know they won’t be able to dominate everyone like that, but I am hoping it allows the Titans to get some confidence back and play the way they are capable of playing.
I have no idea what it will take to get the Packers to play up to their potential. Even with the missing players, the Packers look bad. Their offense should be better than that…it’s explosive, but it just isn’t showing it. I like the Packers, so I felt bad watching them suffer like that. But those players have to take a lot of the blame. They aren’t executing like they should, especially on defense, where they have forgotten how to tackle (the Titans were suffering the same problem until last night…hopefully, it won’t show up again).
Week 1 was the Packers as they should have been all season. Dominant, tough, and a contender. But that game cost us dearly. We lost Jackson.
Weeks 2-4 were the Packers as should be expected given the rookie corner (Al Harris is the other one and he isn’t a rookie) and messed up Defensive Line (Grady isn’t the only casualty). Our O-line is also messed up. We’re missing a guard and our Center. The loss of our Center is devastating for Ahman Green.
Week 5 indicates that the coaching problem* we’ve had since Holmgren left (remember, he was replaced, for a year, by Ray Rhodes). Sherman is a conservative and uninspiring coach. Since we have exactly one Offensive leader (Favre) and no real Defensive leader - we basically have no leadership except for Brett Favre trying to make something - anything - happen. That’s awful.
I’ve been saying it for three years now (even when they were making the playoffs) Sherman has to go. Given that he fired Donatell and it looks like that was a seriously bad move … maybe this season will make that happen. The sad thing is, the only things that will keep Favre from retiring this year now are:
- His streak
- He’s not the type of guy to quit during a losing season
But if this is a coaching problem, or if Sherman gets fired and the Packer Oligarchy can’t find a good replacement (this is one disadvantage of not having a single owner) - why should Favre stay on?
*One caveat. Favre’s wife’s brother was killed last Thursday so, given the concussion and the funeral, Favre didn’t practice at all last week.
This season would be a sad note to see him go out on.
Favre is definitely thinking about quitting. Saw something in the paper where he said he asked his five year old daughter if it would bother her if he quit. She said no. I know that doesn’t mean a lot, but it does mean it’s on his mind.
My guess is the deciding factor will be how he feels about the Packer’s chances next year, which of course will be greatly influenced by how the rest of the season goes. If the Packers pull a 5-11 and Favre thinks they are at least a couple of years away from contending again, he may pack it in.
Going into this season, Favre seemed to indicate that he was only playing because he really felt they could win a Super Bowl. After this disappointment, I am not sure he will be convinced of that again (even if it’s true). He looked crushed after the loss on Monday night. Sadly, they have no one to replace him with. If he leaves after this season, they’ll have to draft someone or hope someone comes up on the market (I can’t think of anyone like that though). That would make them at least two years away from serious contention again…at least.
Drew Brees will be available and has been looking pretty sharp.
Drew Brees will be available and has been looking pretty sharp.[/quote]
Good one. I agree. I’ve actually thought that Brees was never given the chance he deserved. He has no receivers and a questionable OL. I think he’s a great player. I don’t know if he would fit the Packer’s system though. They have kind of a West Coast thing going and the Chargers (from what little I have seen) don’t. But I like Brees as a QB.
My question about Brees is whether his strong output is from being highly motivated by Rivers or if he really has put it all together. There’s also a question of whether he’s overachieving.
I don’t think he’s overacheiving. I think he finally has more than one decent receiver who isn’t a musclebound headcase (David Boston). Reche Caldwell and Antonio Gates give him 3 distinct areas to attack (the RB/screen/flat, the shortish over the middle TE/a WR), which is something I’m sure he took for granted in the spread offense he ran at Purdue, where he was often very lonely in the backfield.
Previously, all he had was LaDanian Tomlinson. While great, if teams can double team your one WR (Boston) who thinks he’s better than he is, you’re going to struggle. Esp. with a poor offensive line and suspect defense.
I don’t think it’s motivation from Rivers, since he had Flutie stealing his time (instead of just threatening to steal his time) to motivate him before. Also, he’s in that contract year, so free-agent $$ are probably more of a concern than Rivers.