Let's talk problems CALMLY

[squire12]

1 hour ago, NormSizedMidget said:

I think he stinks but at the same time I've said this about a billion QBs who grew with reps. Goff played as a true rookie so it's different but look at that change after reps. The thing is, we're needing a guy who can contribute now for wins. Not wait to grow. 

 

Agree.  Hundley was always viewed and needed to be a back up QB that could win a few games if Rodgers was out.  8 games is a longer duration, but the win for this year is a bit different than a team trying to find their franchise QB (like Goff or Trubisky).  The Rams and Bears are more willing to deal with the growing pains for the longer term gain of finding that QB. 

[SassyFascistAlphaGuy]

I was wrong. Brett Hundley is not the future. He stinks. 

[Acrid Josher]

Defense:

I said before the game last night and still believe we're fine at most positions. The exceptions for me are one of the edge spots and one of the secondary spots- each would benefit greatly from an influx of a single top tier player to the point it could transform the defense.

CB: We don't have a true #1 CB yet, but I'm fine developing King there with House as a good-enough starter who is at his ceiling and Randall as a guy who has proven lately he shouldn't be given up on either as a competent starter or potentially something better if he can get out of his own head. Nobody else is in my long term plans. I wouldn't mind making this the one place we spend big in FA (unlikely though as I don't see the right guy hitting the market) or another highish draft pick or several day 2/3 picks here in 2018 because having a true shutdown guy allows you to do many new things.

S: Safety is weird. I loved the Burnett/HHCD duo last year and thought it would be a strength this year, but I didn't account for HHCD's mini-regression. HHCD is still ok but either he lost something or he's not the same player when Burnett isn't there to help him with the calls and allow him to play with less on his plate. He's better in run support than as a playmaker or play-denier in the pass game, and that's a problem since his presumed partner next year, Jones, is the same. I like Burnett a lot and wouldn't mind extending him, but that creates a problem with cap and a glut of safety bodies that are run-first-pass-second defenders. If HHCD gets the red dot when we release Burnett we could really use a fast guy that makes teams afraid to throw over the top since HHCD seems to play best downhill. Probably the most confusing spot on the defense for me next year assuming we lose Burnett (the Packer way to not resign somebody at his point in career).

DI: I'm seeing lots of ambivalence on Kenny Clark and Mike Daniels. I think they've both played well and have no problem with this part of the defense. Elite vs the run and get enough push against the pass for me that it should be enough provided we upgrade edge. Lowry is whatever- I don't dislike him. I'd rather he be fourth- he'd be a good fourth.

DE: Perry is an excellent number two edge rusher. He's an average number one. CM3 isn't cutting it. I don't want to move him to ILB. Blake Martinez and even Jake Ryan probably give us similar or better production for much cheaper. Matthews cap hit is less next year so I wouldn't hate keeping him as a high snap #3- that probably increases his upside on the snaps he sees, but that means we need to find someone better to start across from Perry. Brooks would be a good #4 for the same price. Maybe with an offseason of weight training while not injured Biegel can take that #4 job instead. Fackrell isn't in my plans, would be nice if he could prove me wrong. I wanted to spend our #1 draft pick on this position each of the last two drafts. I want to spend our first rounder on one this year again assuming the guys I like are there like they were last year. I'm ok with moving picks to get the right guy. I agree with others who have said this is by far our biggest need on defense. For me it's the biggest need on the team period.

Offense:

The problem isn't even Hundley. Well it is, but only in the sense he's not Rodgers. This is a team that, given recent success, should care about exactly one thing: having a team capable of winning the SB. No team is winning the SB these days with a backup. We shouldn't have a plan to win the SB if Rodgers goes down for 8+ week. What we should have is somebody capable of giving us a chance for a 2-4 week stretch of games where AR is out with a more minor injury.

WR is noting to write home about. Jordy is slower but functional enough in the slot. Overpaid but that might be OK for his system/chemistry value to the team. Cobb is fast but doesn't give us enough. I love him as a person but if what we've seen over the last couple years is what he's giving us going forward we've got to part with him for that $9.5m savings. Use it to pay Adams instead. Truth for me is I'm fine with a meh group here with AR. I'm not investing many new resources here outside Adams' payday.

OL: We might need to use draft or FA capital to find Bulaga's replacement if his injury is as bad as it sounded yesterday. That really sucks because of what looks like an early bust in Spriggs after investing resources to get him last year. If Spriggs can be salvaged that's huge for us. Probably need to draft a backup for this position either way. Hopefully we're lucky enough to hit on another 4th round gem of a developmental Tackle with upside.

RB: I'm fine with Jones and Ty. There are problems, most notably pass blocking, but you hope that can be learned. It's not an idea group but again with AR I'm not worrying too much about it.

TE: I guess Kendricks is the only guy under contract next year. I hate spending draft capital on this position but we need another competent body. RR is super meh. If he can sign near vet minimum I take him. I'd really like an upgrade but I doubt we're finding another Jared Cook in FA or a sudden answer in a rookie (and I'm not spending a 1st rounder on a TE when EDGE is so much more important) so this position might need to remain underwhelming. I wouldn't even hate another Bennett type body that gives us upside as a run blocker and occasional looks in the passing game, even though the results weren't there in the passing game this year I think they were closer than results indicate. I don't know the FA market well enoughto say if that guy exists or not.

 

Special Teams:

Need a longsnapper. Hopefully Hart (?) or whatever his name is pans out. Too many miscues on point-kicks this season.

 

Coaches:

MM has many faults, but for whatever reason he gets it done well enough to put us in position for a run year-after-year. I'm not gonna rehash all the problems I have with him- I'll just say I doubt we can do better and I don't wanna gamble with the success he and Rodgers have had working together at this point in Rodgers' career.

DC is a guy whose players I see do so much right, and who is able to scheme around their weaknesses to create pressure in places others couldn't. I've thought for a long time he's not the problem. I still don't think he is the problem. However he's also not able to scheme around the kinds of weaknesses and opponents the Packers too often face. Can't get pressure enough against smart offenses without surrendering big plays when they start to anticipate. I hate change for changes sake, but at this point I don't think it would necessarily be a mistake to shake things up just to get fresh energy from the top. It very likely will result in growing pains and a worse defense year one. But I think a Joe Whitt might bring a certain je ne sais quoi that could help in the long run. It's so hard to know what and who makes a good coach as a fan, but I'm increasingly less and less invested in the idea of needing DC as our DC.

 

[minnypackerfan]

Whew...last night was tough to watch.  The offense reminded me of the Scott Hunter/Jerry Tagge Packer's of the early to mid-1970's.  The defense reminded me of the 1980's Packers.  That stat that was shown that Green Bay has not forced a punt from their opponent in their last 14 consecutive series is really alarming.  Depressing.  The last 25 years have been so great to watch after that previous 20 year were Green Bay was nearly the laughing stock of the league.   

This team really lacks top end talent or shall I say "difference makers" outside of Aaron Rodgers.  We've been picking anywhere from 24 to 32 for so long that I think this has finally caught up with us.  Thompson's drafts for the first 5 or 6 years yielded some really excellent players, a few of which are still on this team but aging fast.  But lately the results have been very mixed.  He has drafted a ton of defensive players over the past 5 years without much success.  There is some talent on this team but no difference makers are emerging.  Is it that Ted missed on these picks OR has Dom and his staff not developed the talent given to him?  I have a feeling the answer is "Both".  Maybe its time for Thompson to step aside and let someone else rebuild the talent.  Maybe its also time for Dom and his staff to step aside and bring in a new defensive coordinator with new ideas.  As far as McCarthy is concerned, if he is not willing to get rid of Dom at the end of the year he should also be gone.  McCarthy is not above reproach and our ""Highly Successful Head Coach" maybe a by-product of our two Hall of Fame Quarterbacks.

 

[skibrett15]

Hundley has 5 more games to show what he is or isn't.  Guy just needs reps.  Until he stops improving each game, don't sleep on Hundley.

 

Rookie 5th round picks who start their first 2 games aren't expected to win.  They are, however, expected to show something over their first 8 games.  Hopefully they give him an opportunity to continue to improve.

If and when he stops improving from game to game, then it's time to pick on Hundley.

[skibrett15]

Here's the play a lot were complaining about with the dig route vs the cover-2 hybrid thingamabob where they played man on the slots and the 5 man pressure didn't get home.  Moral of the story is 5 man pressure needs to get home, but this is 3rd and very long... play something simpler.

[MantyWrestler]

5 hours ago, squire12 said:

Rodgers had some clips like this early last year as well.  It happens to everyone.   Others make a few plays to offset it, Hundley is not.  

Hope some development happens and growth from these teachable clips takes place.   If not.....then ......

Watch Kendricks on that play. Looks like he’s trying to go out for a pass and bounces around like a pinball before Hundley has to scramble and never really gets into the pattern at all. Not. Good block by Jones either. 

[Pugger]

6 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Its a mixture of many things. GB has no excuse for not having a dependable back up QB. It's a staple in today's NFL. You need to have a back up who is capable of winning games now and then. We don't. That's on TT, that's on MM and it's on Hundley.

There are a couple of teams right now in this league that don't have a decent starter, let alone a backup.  I can't think of more than one or two teams that could overcome losing their starter for more than just a couple of weeks and still stay in the hunt.  It sucks for us but at least we know this QB situation is only temporary.  

[CWood21]

On 11/7/2017 at 3:51 PM, packfanfb said:

GB has no excuse for not having a dependable back up QB. It's a staple in today's NFL. You need to have a back up who is capable of winning games now and then. We don't. That's on TT, that's on MM and it's on Hundley.

LOL, you really believe that having a dependable backup QB is a staple to any NFL franchise?  Teams are struggling to find franchise QBs, but you think that a backup QB is a position that teams care heavily about is amusing.  There's no way that teams invest much into that position.  This entire premise is a really bad concept.

[packfanfb]

42 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

LOL, you really believe that having a dependable backup QB is a staple to any NFL franchise?  Teams are struggling to find franchise QBs, but you think that a backup QB is a position that teams care heavily about is amusing.  There's no way that teams invest much into that position.  This entire premise is a really bad concept.

I disagree. If Rodgers was 37 I'd say take a risk and develop a guy like Hundley (similar to the situation with Favre/Rodgers). We should have a vet backup QB on this team who had at least some success elsewhere. I.e. a chad henne, chase daniel, derek anderson. If we had to pay him a few million so be it. That way when Rodgers goes down for 3-4 weeks, maybe it wouldnt be an automatic 3-4 losses like our current situation.

[HyponGrey]

On 11/7/2017 at 4:13 PM, NormSizedMidget said:

Nothing I hate more in a QB than how he plays. Look at how Alex Smith actually tried in the playoffs and then when they took a guy early. Play with some balls. Some urgency. He's scared right now and that hatred I have for that is up there with HZs WR hatred lol

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, packfanfb said:

I disagree. If Rodgers was 37 I'd say take a risk and develop a guy like Hundley (similar to the situation with Favre/Rodgers). We should have a vet backup QB on this team who had at least some success elsewhere. I.e. a chad henne, chase daniel, derek anderson. If we had to pay him a few million so be it. That way when Rodgers goes down for 3-4 weeks, maybe it wouldnt be an automatic 3-4 losses like our current situation.

Of all the things to harp on about TT's roster construction, complaining about the backup QB position is probably the worst argument to be had especially when Rodgers is our starting QB.  IF any of two things happen, we're not having this discusion.  If Rodgers stays healthy or Brett Hundley displays anything resembling pocket presence, we're not having this discussion and instead having the discussion about how we're wasting cap space on a player whose not going to play.  It's a ridiculous argument to make.

But let's look at what some of the other teams are paying their backup QBs in terms of cap hits.

New England (Jimmy G) - 650k
Cincinnati (AJ McCarron) - 735k
Pittsburgh (Landry Jones) - $2.2M
Indianapolis (Jacoby Brissett) - 580k
Los Angeles C (Kellen Clemens) - $1M
Dallas (Cooper Rush) - $467k
Philadelphia (Nick Foles) - $1.6M
Washington (Colt McCoy) - $3.6M
Atlanta (Matt Schaub) - $3.5M
New Orleans (Chase Daniel) - 900k
Seattle (Austin Davis) - 695k

Of the 10 teams I listed, half of them are currently paying their backup QB $1M+ in terms of cap hit.  And how many of those teams are currently utilizing those QBs?  None.  Ergo, it's a waste of cap space.

[squire12]

10 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Of all the things to harp on about TT's roster construction, complaining about the backup QB position is probably the worst argument to be had especially when Rodgers is our starting QB.  IF any of two things happen, we're not having this discusion.  If Rodgers stays healthy or Brett Hundley displays anything resembling pocket presence, we're not having this discussion and instead having the discussion about how we're wasting cap space on a player whose not going to play.  It's a ridiculous argument to make.

But let's look at what some of the other teams are paying their backup QBs in terms of cap hits.

New England (Jimmy G) - 650k
Cincinnati (AJ McCarron) - 735k
Pittsburgh (Landry Jones) - $2.2M
Indianapolis (Jacoby Brissett) - 580k
Los Angeles C (Kellen Clemens) - $1M
Dallas (Cooper Rush) - $467k
Philadelphia (Nick Foles) - $1.6M
Washington (Colt McCoy) - $3.6M
Atlanta (Matt Schaub) - $3.5M
New Orleans (Chase Daniel) - 900k
Seattle (Austin Davis) - 695k

Of the 10 teams I listed, half of them are currently paying their backup QB $1M+ in terms of cap hit.  And how many of those teams are currently utilizing those QBs?  None.  Ergo, it's a waste of cap space.

While this is true, MIN is probably pretty happy they invested in a decent backup.  Insurance is a frisky thing, have it and hope to never need to use it, OR not have a good policy and regret that it sucks when you need it.

[CWood21]

10 minutes ago, squire12 said:

While this is true, MIN is probably pretty happy they invested in a decent backup.  Insurance is a frisky thing, have it and hope to never need to use it, OR not have a good policy and regret that it sucks when you need it.

There's a HUGE difference when your starting QB is walking injury concern.  In four of the last five seasons prior to this season, Rodgers has played in 16 games and the one year he didn't was when he suffered the freak collarbone break.  Since he was the starter in 2008, he's played in at least 15 games in 8 of his 9 seasons.  Sam Bradford has played in 16 games only twice in his career (2010 and 2012), and there's only one additional season (2016) when he played in 15 games.  Rodgers is significantly more durable than Rodgers.

[DocHambone]

Lets stahp calling Rodgers 35. He wont be 35 for another year. And TBH 35 is no longer old in 2017 NFL.