Packers "failures" since 2010

[th87]

Seems like you can't wait for them to play a bad game and/or get eliminated in the playoffs so you can say "I told you so". To each their own.

How is this productive?

[MickeyDavis]

Just an observation. I have friends who are exactly the same. I'm always disappointed when the season ends short of a title. t I will criticize the team, the coaching, the front office when I feel it's warranted. My 20/20 hindsight is sharp as a tack.

But I also enjoy the ride along the way, even if the final destination isn't where I had hoped.

[th87]

Seems like you can't wait for them to play a bad game and/or get eliminated in the playoffs so you can say "I told you so". To each their own.

"Here's to hoping I'm wrong."

The stuff you guys conjure up in your heads is comical. It's incredible, really. You guys form an opinion and read what you want to read to fit it.

They've been losing playoff games in the same fashion for six years. Until they don't, it isn't exactly unreasonable to be skeptical of a defense that hasn't done anything remotely impressive this season.

This whole thing started because I said I wanted to see them play well against a good QB. They didn't, they were picked apart by him, and gave up a trademark, 9-minute drive that loses the game 9/10 times. They did exactly what I criticized them for doing.

The immediate excuse is that King was hurt, but at this point, they are missing key players due to injury every game. When does that excuse dry up?

And wasn't King in on the first drive in which they carved us up?

Another interesting thing is that players like Walden, Hayward, and Hyde were liabilities when they were here, but improved significantly after leaving. Capers?

[MickeyDavis]

Agree about Capers. I don't get the MM loyalty to the guy. We've drafted a ton of defensive players, changed some defensive assistants but keep Capers. Maybe a new DC won't matter. But maybe it will.

[dools644]

Seems like you can't wait for them to play a bad game and/or get eliminated in the playoffs so you can say "I told you so". To each their own.

"Here's to hoping I'm wrong."

The stuff you guys conjure up in your heads is comical. It's incredible, really. You guys form an opinion and read what you want to read to fit it.

They've been losing playoff games in the same fashion for six years. Until they don't, it isn't exactly unreasonable to be skeptical of a defense that hasn't done anything remotely impressive this season.

This whole thing started because I said I wanted to see them play well against a good QB. They didn't, they were picked apart by him, and gave up a trademark, 9-minute drive that loses the game 9/10 times. They did exactly what I criticized them for doing.

The immediate excuse is that King was hurt, but at this point, they are missing key players due to injury every game. When does that excuse dry up?

And wasn't King in on the first drive in which they carved us up?

Another interesting thing is that players like Walden, Hayward, and Hyde were liabilities when they were here, but improved significantly after leaving. Capers?

I think it's probably more nuanced than just Capers. Hayward fit much better into the SD defense than he did GB's, but he was a guy a lot of people liked when he was here. He had some success here, but with money committed to Shields at the time and a lot invested in Randall and Rollins it made sense, at the time, to let him go. I can't really criticize that because you know how hindsight goes. Hyde is a similar story, I think both are players that have personnel that better complements them than they had in GB. Buffalo has an amazing pass rush, which is a secondary's best friend. GB has gotten better there but it's not as good.

I don't think signing either one at the $$ they commanded in FA was necessarily a good idea for the Packers. Hyde was also a liability at times because he's slow, but that's a lot less important when you consistently get to the QB.

The thing that makes me believe it's more personnel than Capers is that usually the defense is OK against average or worse offenses. It's when they face good QBs that they really struggle. Most of the NFL does, but Atlanta is the perfect example for me. It is so clear when we play them that we don't have the juice to line up with them defensively. There's only so much Capers can do then. Another example of that was 2011, when Capers had such an awful rush they dropped 8 against Eli and still couldn't get anything done.

I just don't think they've drafted well at all defensively. And the guys that have panned out can't stay healthy.

[Ron Swanson]

Capers should've been canned 4 years ago. Call it cliche, but I prefer a coordinator to be on the sidelines and visible/accessible to his players. Lording over his players/assistants from the booth clearly doesn't give him a much better perspective on the overall game plan.

[th87]

Just an observation. I have friends who are exactly the same. I'm always disappointed when the season ends short of a title. t I will criticize the team, the coaching, the front office when I feel it's warranted. My 20/20 hindsight is sharp as a tack.

But I also enjoy the ride along the way, even if the final destination isn't where I had hoped.

I think one can still enjoy the ride and also go after what seems to be an annual issue that threatens to get us again. JMO.

[MickeyDavis]

I think it's probably more nuanced than just Capers. Hayward fit much better into the SD defense than he did GB's, but he was a guy a lot of people liked when he was here. He had some success here, but with money committed to Shields at the time and a lot invested in Randall and Rollins it made sense, at the time, to let him go. I can't really criticize that because you know how hindsight goes. Hyde is a similar story, I think both are players that have personnel that better complements them than they had in GB. Buffalo has an amazing pass rush, which is a secondary's best friend. GB has gotten better there but it's not as good.

I don't think signing either one at the $$ they commanded in FA was necessarily a good idea for the Packers.

The thing that makes me believe it's more personnel than Capers is that usually the defense is OK against average or worse offenses. It's when they face good QBs that they really struggle. Most of the NFL does, but Atlanta is the perfect example for me. It is so clear when we play them that we don't have the juice to line up with them defensively. There's only so much Capers can do then. Another example of that was 2011, when Capers had such an awful rush they dropped 8 against Eli and still couldn't get anything done.

I just don't think they've drafted well at all defensively. And the guys that have panned out can't stay healthy.

Shields injury hurt big time. Defensive draft busts hurt. I agree that at the time letting Hayward go made sense but man I wish he was here now. Big weakness at ILB going back to Hawk hurt. Martinez has greatly improved in year 2, let's hope it continues.

[dools644]

The Chargers have Joey Bosa and Melvin Ingram. The Packers have nobody close to as good as either one. It's a huge part of his success there. The Packers could sure use him now but he would not be balling out the way he is in SD. Neither would Hyde, whose lack of speed is negated by another great pass rush.

[Prickle]

We're all aware of how lucky Rodgers, and the Packers were to even have our ONE Super Bowl, right? Let us not forget, that without a "miracle" DeSean Jackson punt return TD in 2010, the Packers don't even make the playoffs that year. We could very easily be talking about how Rodgers still doesn't have a single Super Bowl appearance under his belt yet, which would be even more depressing.

[dools644]

We're all aware of how lucky Rodgers, and the Packers were to even have our ONE Super Bowl, right? Let us not forget, that without a "miracle" DeSean Jackson punt return TD in 2010, the Packers don't even make the playoffs that year. We could very easily be talking about how Rodgers still doesn't have a single Super Bowl appearance under his belt yet, which would be even more depressing.

This isn't correct. The DeSean Jackson return had nothing to do with them making the playoffs. It's a thing that has stuck for some reason but it's wrong. The Eagles finish 9-7 without that play and miss the playoffs. The only thing it changed was GB going to Philly instead of New York.

And the way they barely made the playoffs only strengthens the argument. They almost always barely lose in the playoffs yet for some reason almost always squeak their way in.

[KidA24]

We're all aware of how lucky Rodgers, and the Packers were to even have our ONE Super Bowl, right? Let us not forget, that without a "miracle" DeSean Jackson punt return TD in 2010, the Packers don't even make the playoffs that year. We could very easily be talking about how Rodgers still doesn't have a single Super Bowl appearance under his belt yet, which would be even more depressing.

This isn't correct. The DeSean Jackson return had nothing to do with them making the playoffs. It's a thing that has stuck for some reason but it's wrong. The Eagles finish 9-7 without that play and miss the playoffs. The only thing it changed was GB going to Philly instead of New York.

And the way they barely made the playoffs only strengthens the argument. They almost always barely lose in the playoffs yet for some reason almost always squeak their way in.

That game happened 3 weeks before the end of the season and clinched the division for the Eagles. You've no idea how they would've played otherwise.

What it did do, is give Green Bay control of their own destiny again. If that game goes the other way, the Packers are NOT in control of their own destiny, they are behind both the Giants and the Eagles (and 2 games behind the Saints for the other Wild Card) and quite possibly miss the playoffs.

Edited to add: The last two weeks the Eagles had nothing to play for, they were locked into the 3rd seed, they didn't even play Vick the last game of the season.

[dools644]

We're all aware of how lucky Rodgers, and the Packers were to even have our ONE Super Bowl, right? Let us not forget, that without a "miracle" DeSean Jackson punt return TD in 2010, the Packers don't even make the playoffs that year. We could very easily be talking about how Rodgers still doesn't have a single Super Bowl appearance under his belt yet, which would be even more depressing.

This isn't correct. The DeSean Jackson return had nothing to do with them making the playoffs. It's a thing that has stuck for some reason but it's wrong. The Eagles finish 9-7 without that play and miss the playoffs. The only thing it changed was GB going to Philly instead of New York.

And the way they barely made the playoffs only strengthens the argument. They almost always barely lose in the playoffs yet for some reason almost always squeak their way in.

That game happened 3 weeks before the end of the season and clinched the division for the Eagles. You've no idea how they would've played otherwise.

What it did do, is give Green Bay control of their own destiny again. If that game goes the other way, the Packers are NOT in control of their own destiny, they are behind both the Giants and the Eagles (and 2 games behind the Saints for the other Wild Card) and quite possibly miss the playoffs.

Nope, wrong. First off, Jackson's return broke a tie game, it's not like they were about to lose. If you mean it served as the East tiebreaker eventually, yes, but it didn't "clinch" anything...they all finished 10-6. Had the Giants beaten the Packers the next week, they finish 11-5 and win the East. The Giants were one game back with 2 to play.

If the game goes the other way the Packers are still in control of their own destiny. The only difference would be the Eagles finish 9-7, the Giants 11-5 and the Packers visit the Giants instead of the Eagles WC weekend. The Packers had WC tiebreakers over both teams. Only way the Packers miss is if both teams went 11-5; impossible to happen without the Packers losing a game.

It's something people keep repeating every time this comes up and it's simply not true.

[dools644]

Actually the last part isn't right, they could both go 11-5 and the 5th loss would be the Packers. I suppose both also could have made it if the game had ended tied.

[KidA24]

If the Giants win that game they are 10-4, two games better than the Packers.
If the Eagles win that game they are 9-5, a full game better than the Packers who are 8-6 at that point in the season.

How exactly do the Packers control their own destiny if they are a game behind and don't play the team ahead of them?

Jesus christ man.

[dools644]

If the Giants win that game they are 10-4, two games better than the Packers.
If the Eagles win that game they are 9-5, a full game better than the Packers who are 8-6 at that point in the season.

How exactly do the Packers control their own destiny if they are a game behind and don't play the team ahead of them?

Jesus christ man.

They don't, and I already corrected myself. But that punt return didn't clinch a thing. You're equal parts incorrect, and the fact remains that punt return didn't get the Packers in the playoffs. I can admit being wrong, you can't.

"Jesus Christ man."

[dools644]

And you can say I don't know how it would have played out, but guess what, guy? You don't either. Pretty sure the Eagles weren't trying to lose to Minnesota with Vick throwing 43 passes.

[rilamann]

This whole thing started because I said I wanted to see them play well against a good QB. They didn't, they were picked apart by him, and gave up a trademark, 9-minute drive that loses the game 9/10 times. They did exactly what I criticized them for doing.

The immediate excuse is that King was hurt, but at this point, they are missing key players due to injury every game. When does that excuse dry up?

That Dallas drive late was like a litmus test that our defense is still really really bad, like bottom 5 in the league kind of bad.

Any NFL defense that is even kinda sorta good wouldn't give up a 9 minute 17 play drive like that with the game on the line.

[dools644]

This whole thing started because I said I wanted to see them play well against a good QB. They didn't, they were picked apart by him, and gave up a trademark, 9-minute drive that loses the game 9/10 times. They did exactly what I criticized them for doing.

The immediate excuse is that King was hurt, but at this point, they are missing key players due to injury every game. When does that excuse dry up?

That Dallas drive late was like a litmus test that our defense is still really really bad, like bottom 5 in the league kind of bad.

Any NFL defense that is even kinda sorta good wouldn't give up a 9 minute 17 play drive like that with the game on the line.

Yes, and it's getting to the point where you really have to wonder what the problem is. I really dislike pinning things on coaching. But it just seems like there is too much talent on the defense for it to be this bad. Or, do we as fans just drastically overrate our own guys?

Burnett, Daniels, Clark, King, Perry, then you have Martinez coming on, a veteran in House, aging Matthews that can still play sometimes, and an overrated but decent player who must be doing something right in Ha-Ha. It seems good enough to be average, at least.

Granted that guys like Hyde and Hayward wouldn't be as good here as they are in their new places, but it seems like they have guys who can play. So why are they still so bad?!

[dools644]

Dean Lowry is a good example of why our defense sucks. A guy like that has no business starting at end in the NFL. I'm hard-pressed to find another team that would start a guy like that. He is the quintessential "just a guy" who brings squat to the table as a starter. That is a position that should have filled with a veteran piece.