Some things that make our start even more surprising

[El Duderino]

There was nothing on TV so i watched the 4th quarter again of the Packer game on my DVR.Besides nobody whatsoever expecting a 3-0 start,it struck me that we started this good while these things have happened

1.The obvious of zero running game.Going 3-0 is unlikely enough,but if anyone told you ahead of time that we'd have had a terrible running game while playing the Eagles/Giants/Chargers,one win would have seemed a blessing.

2.AJ Hawk and Nick Collins haven't really made any great plays.Going into the season,the defense looked very impressive and i had very high hopes that Hawk would make that leap into near weekly playmaker and tempered hope that Collins would mentally catch up some to his vast athletic gifts,thus becoming another exciting young defensive playmaker.

Obviously it's way way early and both could still happen,especially Hawk having a great season.Plus,even though Collins has looked fairly invisible,at least he's not blowing coverages for big gains like he did last year early on.The fact though that neither guy has played great and the defense is still looking good,we could be even better defensively if those two start making big plays.

3.We started 3-0 even though our first round pick is watching games in street clothes,our second rounder hasn't produced much yet,and one of our third rounders doesn't play.To start this well with little help from our top five draft choices except Jones,it bodes for the pretty near present and the future if these these guy end up showing they can play.

4.The by far biggest question mark prior to the season was the offense.The terrible running game is an obvious huge concern,but we are 3-0 even though the offense was the area of the team hit by injuries.Morency is very likely the best back on the roster and he's yet to play and a huge key at WR,Jennings missed the first two games.

Looking at the schedule and team in training camp,predicting 3-0 for the start was done by absolutely zero people.But if you said the above things were going to happen at this point,predicting a 3-0 start would have been utterly laughable.I would have thought everything would have had to be going perfectly,yet it hasn't and the team is still 3-0 while not looking like they caught every break in games and the wins looked as if fluke played a big role.

[BuckFan25226]

Good thread, ELD. While Collins and Hawk have been average, our defense has been good.

We have basically shut down 2 of the most potent offenses in the NFC. And while we didn't play great defense against SD, we shut their running game down and outscored the most potent offense in the NFL last year. While they may not be as good as last year, they still have 2 of the best weapons in the NFL in LDT and Gates.

If our defense plays how they have been and continues to improve. I can't wait to see how this defense plays against offenses like Chicago, Washington, Minnesota, KC etc.

I'm also looking foward to seeing how our offense can do against weaker defenses like the Giants. If it's anything close to how we performed against NYG,I don't see us losing too many games.

[paulpressey25]

I agree with everything you said with the exception of the discussion on "fluke wins".

The 2007 team has played very well and far better than certain Packer teams like 1989 and 2004 that won 10 games by winning a number of games at the last second.

But we could probably be 1-2 right now if we didn't have a miraculous big play by Favre to Jennings on Sunday and also recover not one but two punt return fumbles by the Eagles to help us score 10 points.

Where I'm going with this is that those two games weren't dominating performances but games where we played each team very close and won each late in the fourth on a big play. We did a lot of that in 2004 and it masked some weaknesses that got exposed in the playoffs.

The positive is that TT appears to now have some playmakers on this team on both sides (I have to also acknowledge Barnett's INT to seal the chargers game). I really like this team....just noting we are two plays away from being 1-2 right now.

I'll be curious to see the season play out and how good the chargers and eagles actually end up being.

[El Duderino]

I agree with everything you said with the exception of the discussion on "fluke wins".

The 2007 team has played very well and far better than certain Packer teams like 1989 and 2004 that won 10 games by winning a number of games at the last second.

But we could probably be 1-2 right now if we didn't have a miraculous big play by Favre to Jennings on Sunday and also recover not one but two punt return fumbles by the Eagles to help us score 10 points.

Where I'm going with this is that those two games weren't dominating performances but games where we played each team very close and won each late in the fourth on a big play. We did a lot of that in 2004 and it masked some weaknesses that got exposed in the playoffs.

The positive is that TT appears to now have some playmakers on this team on both sides (I have to also acknowledge Barnett's INT to seal the chargers game). I really like this team....just noting we are two plays away from being 1-2 right now.

I'll be curious to see the season play out and how good the chargers and eagles actually end up being.

When i brought up fluke type of wins,i meant those games you see once in awhile where a team clearly outplays another,but every break seems to go the other way and a very lucky win is pulled out.

The Packers weren't clearly outplayed in any of the three wins

[jligon]

I agree with everything you said with the exception of the discussion on "fluke wins".

I agree. I've watched every down of every game this year and we arguably "deserved" to win all three of these games. Of course, in any close game you could say, "If they didn't _____, we would have lost." But you could just as easily say the same thing about us (e.g. 1st and goal from the 1 foot line). It's not like we had to play "perfect" games to beat these teams. And it's not as though we "stole" anything from anybody or continually depended on turnovers to win. We were strong and, I suppose you could say, beat them on both sides of the ball. If anything, it would have been a big disappointment if we'd lost any of these games because we played good enough that we deserved to win them all.

[ReasonablySober]

-= original quote snipped =-




When i brought up fluke type of wins,i meant those games you see once in awhile where a team clearly outplays another,but every break seems to go the other way and a very lucky win is pulled out.

Like one of these.

[El Duderino]

-= original quote snipped =-



Like one of these.

That would be a prime example.I remember watching that game and thinking,i not only can't believe we lost this game,but managed to lose by 14 points.

[paulpressey25]

-= The Packers weren't clearly outplayed in any of the three wins

I agree entirely. I'm just harkening back to Homers constant comments about how great teams don't win the close games. Great teams win numerous games by 10 to 20 points. (i.e. like we've seen New England do or the 1996-97 Packers)

We've taken the step of now getting playmakers and being able to play 60 minutes with most clubs......we just have a ways to go before we make the leap from 10-6 to 12-4/13-3 territory. I've always felt there was a massive difference in the quality of team from a 13 win squad versus even an 11-5 team even though the nominal difference is only two wins.

[El Duderino]

-= original quote snipped =-



I agree entirely. I'm just harkening back to Homers constant comments about how great teams don't win the close games. Great teams win numerous games by 10 to 20 points. (i.e. like we've seen New England do or the 1996-97 Packers)

We've taken the step of now getting playmakers and being able to play 60 minutes with most clubs......we just have a ways to go before we make the leap from 10-6 to 12-4/13-3 territory. I've always felt there was a massive difference in the quality of team from a 13 win squad versus even an 11-5 team even though the nominal difference is only two wins.

No question the elite teams win more often than not by pounding other teams and not winning most games late in the 4th quarter,we aren't there yet even if we make the playoffs.

To get to that point in the upcoming years, Rodgers obviously must pan out and then Thompson needs to add a few more impact players or see past picks turn into one.If you look at what TT has done so far,he's more improved the bottom 35-40 players area of the roster than the top 10-13 players.The overall talent is now better as is the depth,but we still need some more blue chippers.Let's look at the roster and who would be the best players on each side of the ball

Defense

Kampman
Jenkins
Barnett
Harris
Woodson
Hawk

Of those guys,Kampman/Jenkins/Barnett/Harris were leftovers from Sherman.Speaking of Sherman,for as bad a trainwreck he was at GM,he thankfully did some nice things finding DL guys on the cheap with Kampman,Jenkins,and Corey Williams that are at the core of our pass rushing defensive line unit.

Offense

Favre
Driver
Clifton
Jennings
Jones?

Of those first four,all are leftovers except Jennings.Jones looks great so far and by seasons end we should have a solid idea if he's as good as he looks now.It's still possible that Morency could show to be a nice No.1 RB,but until he stays healthy and does it,we won't know for sure.Rodgers is in the same boat at QB,this preseason though showed promising signs.Colledge has shown positive things,whether he can be consistant and become a top guard is still a big question mark.Spitz looks to me as having a limited ceiling,albeit could still be very useful.

Thompson has done his best work filling out the whole roster,ridding the team for the most part of black hole area like the Ahmad Carroll types or Joey Thomas.Simply more solid players throughout the roster and depth.The next step is for some of Ted's guys to look more like home runs instead of solid singles and doubles.Jennings and Hawk i have the highest hope for that happening.Rodgers could end up that also.

It's from the group of

Colledge
Spitz
Coston
Moll
Harrell
N.Collins
Jackson
Rouse
Barbre
Blackmon
Poppinga
Jolly

Lots of solid football players among them that's helping the team and some to early to tell.For the Packers to enter that top team area,we need a few of those guys to be more than just solid and/or who Ted brings in next year.To become among the best players on the team or a Pro Bowl level performer.Thompson has laid a foundation to be good for awhile by hitting quite a few singles,doubles,and some triples.If Rodgers pans out and a few blue chippers either develop from within or are added,then we might start winning those 38-10 games.

[craig]

Understanding what these three wins mean might be easier as the season plays out. if the Giants prove to be a 10-loss team and Eagles and Chargers are .500-type average, being 3 big-plays above even with Philly and Chargers might not prove we're that much better than average.

But if Chargers play out as the #3 team behind only Indy and New England in the mighty AFC, and if the Eagles play out as the next best thing after perhaps Dallas (and hopefully us) in the NFC, the fact that we played those teams even enough so that a couple of key plays gave us the wins could really confirm that we're well above average.