Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Point of Veau: Packers Need a Jackhammer Fullback

By Category

Point of Veau: Packers Need a Jackhammer Fullback

Packers fullback John Kuhn. Photo by Corey Behnke of CheeseheadTV.com.

If the Green Bay Packers really and truly are going to be better at running the football, as head coach Mike McCarthy vowed they'd be this offseason, they'd be advised to add a jackhammer type of fullback to their offense.

McCarthy didn't mince words in June during the team's Organized Team Activities when he said, “We’ll be better, I can promise you that. You can write that down, big letters.”

But now McCarthy needs help from general manager Ted Thompson in acquiring a fullback capable of opening holes and punishing linebackers, if indeed the Packers are committed to keeping a fullback on their roster.

In both 2009 and 2010, the Packers surprisingly employed three fullbacks, and won a Super Bowl while doing so. Now they're down to just one true fullback, John Kuhn, who's 30 years old and entering his eighth year in professional football.

While Kuhn doesn't have a reputation of being a bulldozer of a blocker and his skills as a runner have diminished, this isn't an indictment of the folk hero fullback either.

There's plenty Kuhn does well from being a personal protector of Aaron Rodgers in the passing game to possessing an intimate knowledge of McCarthy's offense to being a reliable receiver out of the backfield to his capability of playing in one-back sets to being a solid locker room presence to his contributions on special teams.

But Kuhn is merely average at the one aspect of the game that's requisite for a fullback in the NFL, and that's acting as a lead blocker in the running game. According to ProFootballFocus.com (subscription required), Kuhn graded out as 12th out of 25 NFL fullbacks who played at least 25 percent of his team's snaps in 2012. That's up from a ranking of 20th in 2011.

After adding two running backs in the first four rounds of the NFL draft in the form of Eddie Lacy and Johnathan Franklin, the need for an effective lead blocker has never been higher during the McCarthy era in Green Bay.

With a true power runner like Lacy in the fold, the need for using Kuhn as a short-yardage and goal-line ball carrier is diminished. And as Kuhn's responsibilities in the Packers offense likewise decrease, the urgency for a fullback that's primarily used as a run blocker is only exacerbated.

Former Packers fullback and three-time Pro Bowler Vonta Leach is currently a free agent after being cut by the Baltimore Ravens, but Green Bay reportedly isn't among five teams in the running to acquire Leach's services.

As one of the top blocking fullbacks in today's game, Leach wouldn't be a bad option for the Packers. But they likely don't want to get into a bidding war for a player who's already 31 years old. More than likely, Leach will be seeking a multi-year contract, something the Packers would be hesitant to offer to someone who's no longer on the sunny side of 30.

The Packers did sign Jonathan Amosa out of Washington as an undrafted free agent this season, but until the pads go on during training camp, Amosa will remain an unknown entity.

More than likely Kuhn will be spending the 2013 season in a Packers uniform, a nod to an experienced player whose best quality might be his pass blocking. And for a team that just made Rodgers the highest-paid player in NFL history, they're going to want to protect their investment.

But seeing as Kuhn's contract expires after the current season, his long-term future in Green Bay is in question. When Kuhn's time comes to a close, it will be time for the Packers to make a philosophical shift at the fullback position.

They need to find a buiser, the type that can open holes for Lacy and Franklin for years to come, and it's up to Thompson to find that player.

Brian Carriveau is the author of the book "It's Just a Game: Big League Drama in Small Town America," and editor of Cheesehead TV's "Pro Football Draft Preview." To contact Brian, email carriveau@uwalumni.com.

  • Like Like
  • -2 points

Fan friendly comments only: on Comments (75) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Kevmoney's picture

The packers are going to be cheap and try to find a fb on the street rather than get a proven player like Leach. Maybe next year,they're usually a year or two behind on these things.

Evan's picture

Actually, they're not going to be cheap - they're most likely going to keep their $2.5 million guy. But of all the positions to spend cheaply on, fullback has to be number 1.

THEMichaelRose's picture

Sure, a Vonta Leach would be a nice asset on occasion (goal line/short yardage). But I don't totally agree that we need one on the 53.
Mike's all about the 3 TE sets now. So really, one of your bigger TEs (Taylor/Mulligan/Quarless) could motion into the backfield if you really want an extra push in the middle. I get that it's not the same.

For the Packers to improve at running, I don't think a FB is the key. The key is the talented RB threat, who can make something happen in a singleback formation. Then safeties move up, then Rodgers does his thing, then safeties move back, etc, etc. Aka - keep the D off-balance. If you bring Vonta Leach onto the field, the D has been given a pretty strong hint.

cow42's picture

I don't think the addition of the 2 RBs or the flip-flopping of the OLine will change the way defenses play the Packers.

You really mean to tell me that you think any DC will go into a game against the Pack thinking "we can not let the run game beat us."?

No way.

Every defense the Packers see will have the following agenda...

1. Take away the long ball.
2. Take away the long ball.
3. Take away the long ball.

The Packers are going to have to figure out how to beat the deep shells they're going to see WITH THEIR PASSING GAME... dump offs, RB screens, throws over the middle to TEs, throws in flats to RBs, WR screens, bubbles, etc.

regardless of the "changes" the Packers have made in terms of the running game, every defense they face is still going to play pass first. no running back the Packers have will change that as long as Rodgers is under center.

Rodgers and McCarthy need to get smarter.

THEMichaelRose's picture

Defenses might play the Packers that same way to start out. But if our RBs can average even like 4 ypc, then play action becomes more viable at least. If they can average 4.5-5, safeties will move up. They have to. Mike may not like sticking with the run, but he'll have to if he gets real results.

steve's picture

As much as I agree with your assessment, when has McCarthy stayed with the run even when it is working? Its just not his style and you got to admit our o-line is not designed to push people out of the way play after play. All that said, I hope you are right, but history seems to indicate otherwise. We'll see.

some guy's picture

he does do it - see first Minnesota game. He just doesn't like it

The TKstinator's picture

I wrote very similar thoughts at the end of the "charting Eddie Lacy" thread.

Bearsstillsuck's picture

As I recall, all it took was one 123 yard game from a no-name running back for defenses to start respecting the run in the 2010 championship run.

mark's picture

Bingo.

cow42's picture

So I assume that you've gone back and re-watched all of the 2010 playoff games. Since you took the time to do that (and thanks for doing so), please explain what changes you saw being made by the defensive coordinators that the Packers faced.

All I'm saying is this...

Being able to simply run the ball WILL NOT change the way opposing DC's game plan. The only thing that will make teams change the way they play the Packers is for the Packers to prove that they can WIN GAMES by running.

Do you think that the Packers will be able to WIN GAMES by running?

I don't think they're anywhere near able to do that. They don't have the type of personel it takes to do that. They don't even WANT to do that. And I don't blame them... they have Aaron Rodgers... They're built to throw the ball.

If you're a DC and you're playing the Packers, and you decide to go into a game hell bent on stopping the run... you will lose... and you should be fired. It'd be like going into a game against the Vikings and focusing on not letting Ponder beat you. No matter how much the Vikings' passing game might improve, you'd still be stupid to go into a game not doing everything you possibly can to control the run game.

Scott M's picture

I agree, teams will attempt to take away the pass first, dare us to run. That gameplan will not change. But the running game doesnt need to do it alone for the Packers to be successful IMO, just picking up some short third downs and keeping us in good down and distance will help this passing offense.

We need the running game to be good enough to exploit soft fronts, enhance play action, and be a reasonable threat in short yardage. Rodgers and his targets are the teams strength and that isnt going to change, but more offensive diversity will surely be of help to them and hopefully keep our offense from force feeding the pass week after week.

Idiot Fan's picture

None of us know whether or not they will be able to do that. We're just excited because we finally have some players that seem to have a lot of potential. I can't say that they will or they won't, but they seem to have a shot at becoming, not just serviceable, but a downright good running team. Only time will tell though. Training camp can't get here fast enough for me.

Bearsstillsuck's picture

Understand what you're saying, but EVERYONE wants to pass. Even the niners who, though they had a power run game in the beginning of last season, transitioned to a deceptive option attack that took advantage of kapernicks arm and legs as well as the play action passing game. The point is, they had to have a run game to make it go, but they have become a qb-centric offense like the packers. The packers will never run an option attack like that, but an effective running game will add another facet from the backfield besides screens and short-intermediate passes AND will help cut down sacks. Pass rushers cant rush the passer if they have play the run too. Furthermore it will only help the play action game, which was huge down the stretch in 2010. Just remember the game against the giants.

MarkinMadison's picture

"The Packers are going to have to figure out how to beat the deep shells they’re going to see WITH THEIR PASSING GAME…"

Sorry Cow, but that makes NO SENSE. That is exactly what they have been trying to do for the last 2 years, and it has not worked. They need to beat the two-deep with a credible running game in order to pull teams out of the shell.

cow42's picture

I disagree.
I don't think they use their backs and tight ends enough in the passing game.
I think they're still a bit stubborn in terms of trying to force things deep... and it's resulting in a disturbing amount of sacks.

Stroh's picture

They didn't force it deep last year and they tried to run but the RB kept getting injured. They'll run for 125 on your 9ers that'll pull safeties up for the next few games. I have no doubt they'll run teams out of the 2 deep safeties.

Stroh's picture

Running is the only way to get teams out of it. More passing won't do it.

cow42's picture

125, huh?
Are you counting Rodgers' yards?
Then maybe.

Teams won't play deep shells if they're going up against an offense that can win by running.

The Packers are not a team that will ever look to beat anyone by running.

No matter how much the Packers' running game improves - I feel that it would still be a mistake to play to stop the run and open things up in the passing game.

MORE passing might not get teams out of 2 deep looks... but SMARTER passing sure can.

Stroh's picture

They tried short to mid passing last year. That did nothing. You have to run them out of it. Packers will prove they can run against anyone if they do it vs 9ers. Make a statement vs 9ers rest of schedule will come out of 2 deep looks. Mark it down!

Chad Toporski's picture

"Being able to simply run the ball WILL NOT change the way opposing DC’s game plan. The only thing that will make teams change the way they play the Packers is for the Packers to prove that they can WIN GAMES by running."

This is a perfect example of the "either or" world that you live in. Either a team sucks or they're great. Either a team wins with running or they win with passing.

Your inability to see the grey area in between is your fatal analytical flaw.

The running game doesn't have to take over the Green Bay offense in order for it to help them win more games and be more dominant.

Additionally, you keep talking about this "two deep shell," but you don't recognize that teams don't stay in this coverage all game long. They might use that coverage more often than not, but they still mix it up based on their scouting and game plan. You have an overly simplistic view of a deeply complicated chess match that goes on in football games.

redlights's picture

I like Kuhn and understand what he brings to the field, particularly blocking and special teams. But his contract is a bit much to stomach.

Training camp should be interesting!

PackRat's picture

With their trio/quartet of halfbacks, there should be very few touches via runs/passes for Kuhn, the part of the game he excells at. At least two of the four are good blockers and the bar has been set for Starks to improve. Don't think Franklin can measure up. Therefore, I like the idea of a battering ram blocker/special teams guy unless they decide to go WITHOUT a fullback and just keep an extra lineman/TE.

MarkinMadison's picture

"The Packers did sign Jonathan Amosa out of Washington as an undrafted free agent this season, but until the pads go on during training camp, Amosa will remain an unknown entity."

I was a bit surprised that they did not address the full back positions in the later rounds. All rookies are a crap shoot to some degree. Maybe there was none they really liked. Or maybe Amosa can be the battering ram. But I agree with the assessment that Kuhn's skill set may be a lot less valuable if Lacy or Franklin progress well with their pass blocking. Lacy should be able to fill that role. We need the ram.

Lou's picture

Leach was a "Hammer" when he entered the league with the Packers, the issue in a pass first offense was at that time he could not catch a screen pass to save his life - you could just see the team was hoping after working with him he could but that was his ticket out of town. Kuhn has been a solid investment to date along the lines of Donald Lee (great team player at a reasonable starters price). Like Lee however, he is reaching the point where production may not equal pay at an advanced age.

The TKstinator's picture

Well put.

Mitch Mundane's picture

Can't dump Kuhn until you have someone better. There were FB's in the draft Ted passed on so I assume they love him.

Aaron Rogders's picture

Uh.... did you forget we have the "Freezer"?

Sir Cheese's picture

Ever the pessimist troll Cow42. The only way to get defenses out of the cover 2 shell is to run the ball effectively. The cover 2 defense dares teams to run ball, and is only used when a defense has no respect for the opposing run game. If a Packers RB is gaining 4.5 yards per carry there is no way defenses are just going to sit back and let the Packers run it all day. They have to adjust. I agree that Mike Mcarthy will have to be more patient and show true dedication to the run game, and that will only open up more offensive possibilities for Aaron Rodgers.

Barutan Seijin's picture

What's trollish or negative about saying that Rodgers is the team's strongest weapon and it would be foolish not to stick with it? Seems pretty grounded to me.

cow42's picture

whatever i say is "trollish".
nothing i post is plausible.
that's just understood.

nevertheless - i have my opinions.

Chad Toporski's picture

But that's not the argument at hand. Cow is saying that the Packers shouldn't even bother trying to improve their running game if it's not going to be the primary reason they win games.

Why is it such a hard concept to understand that running the ball more effectively will pay higher dividends when it comes to the passing game?

JakeK's picture

Nowhere does it say by anyone that GB "shouldn’t even bother trying to improve their running game".... You're rewording other's posts to suit your argument. ...

Just because GB will have new RBs & a revamped OL in 2013 doesn't mean McCarthy will take the ball out of Rodgers hands... GB is a passing team in a passing league...

cow42's picture

"Cow is saying that the Packers shouldn’t even bother trying to improve their running game if it’s not going to be the primary reason they win games."

nope.
never said that.

but whatever...
i'm just an idiot who has an "overly simplistic view of a deeply complicated chess match that goes on in football games", whereas the rest of the posters on this blog have a deep understanding of all of the complexities and nuances that are at hand.

it's my overly-simplistic opinion that drafting 2 RBs and flip - flopping the OLine isn't going to dramatically change the way defenses line up to play the Packers.

that's it.

P.S.
i think FAR too much stock is put into the cerebral aspect of pro football. let's just say that it seems like there aren't a boatload of Brad Joneses (ie. rocket scientists) littering NFL rosters... and they're still getting things done.

Point Packer's picture

I'm consistently torn on Kuhn.

One one hand, he's a better than average pass blocker and safety valve for Rodgers. Say what you want about him, but the guy has a knack for finding holes in opposing D's pass coverage and is shifty enough to get some YAC.

On the other, he is a below average run blocker and runner. Regarding the latter, he is down-right painful to watch. 3rd and 1 is not a down when Kuhn is effective.

Is that performance worth 2.5 million a year? I dare to say it isn't. Then again, I could make a strong case that he's worth every penny. Once again, torn.

cow42's picture

No one would miss Kuhn if he was gone.

Point Packer's picture

I think I agree with that. Lots more you can do with 2.5 million than hire a serviceable FB.

THEMichaelRose's picture

I agree he's not worth it. But, even if he got cut, that money won't be used elsewhere.

zeke's picture

Why not?

cow42's picture

Q: "Why not?"

A: Other guys would be able to do what he does... at less of a cost.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that if Kuhn were cut, there would not be a single instance where someone watching a Packer game would think to themselves... "Man, we sure coulda' used Kuhn there."

zeke's picture

The "why not" was in reference to the statement that the money would not be used elsewhere.

Nerd's picture

Kuhn's lost it imo.

Why not use Lacy as the thunder? Or they could bulk up one of the other guys if you wanted a true FB.

We've got Mulligan and Quarless can block too.

Is John Hoese on the PS!?

Sir Cheese's picture

I agree that Kuhn is expendable, especially at 2.5 million. He is a versatile player but his cap hit could be used towards extensions on more important pieces like Morgan Burnett, Sam shields, James Jones, Finley, possibly EDS. It will be very hard to sign all of these players as it is and we need every penny we can muster. The one place we really need a FB to be effective is on 3rd and 1 and Kuhn just doesn't clear out linebackers effectively. I would be very surprised if the Packers don't cut him this season.

Evan's picture

While I'd probably be in favor of cutting Kuhn, this is the last year of his deal (right?) so his cap hit will be used to help sign next year's free agents.

MarkinMadison's picture

Remember that any unused cap space can be rolled over. The fact that he is in his last year is true, and favors him staying, but there is an incentive to cut him if other players can fill the role(s) better. We'll just have to see what August brings.

Lucky953's picture

It's hard to name a team that consistently wins games running the ball. The rules favor passing and more points. I think Kuhn is done. A key acquisition has been Mulligan. He can win at the point of attack. I agree with the many posters who argue that an effective run game helps set up the passing game. DCs aren't going to ignore 100+ ypg, which I think this team can do with some moderate consistency. A TE or back needs an extra step to get separation. 4.3 ypc can give it to them. Safeties can't ignore what's happening in the backfield. I think the effective threat of run success creates uncertainty for defenses and that tilts things yowards the offense. But let's be real, defense has been the problem with this team. We were 5th in points last year without a run game. The biggest improvement has to come on the defensive side.

Point Packer's picture

The Vikings have been awesome with the best running game in the league......

Doesn't have to be great, just serviceable. See 96/97 Edgar Bennett/Dorsey Levins combo. No flash, just respect. Pack needs to get back to that. We were on our way toward the end of last year.

Idiot Fan's picture

It seems like each of last four years or so there has been this progression of starting out the year with the passing guns blazing, particularly focusing on the deep pass, and then after a handful of games they realize that Rodgers is getting pounded and defenses are just keying in on the deep pass. So, slowly they start to build in the running game, and by the end of the year we start to think, "hey, we may have something here." Only when the next season starts we seem to have forgotten about the running game again. Anyway, I do have hopes that this year will be different!

Stroh's picture

I've talked w/ another friend who's a Packer fan. We've come to the conclusion that McCarthy has a season long plan each year. And it always has started w/ throwing the ball a lot early in the season (to take advantage of the weather) and building the running game starting in early Nov, so by late Nov/Dec, the running game has its legs and we can run in the playoffs.

That has been the plan... IMO, that needs to change this year and it'll be especially important to get the run game going when the season starts. We will need it to get teams out of the deep Safeties looks we will constantly get. Start out w/ strong run game vs SF and make a statement, forcing teams to honor the run from the beginning this year.

DraftHobbyist's picture

I think it would be extremely hard to carry two FB's this year, and if they were going to cut Kuhn (like I think they should have) then they probably would've done it already. There is a benefit to keeping Kuhn one more year, letting him walk, and hoping a team gives him a big enough contract for a comp pick.

Also, I think MM's statement can come true without a blocking FB. The running game was so terrible that just adding 2 RB's highly should be enough to improve the running game alone. I don't think the question is if the running game improves, it's a question of how much.

Fi crane's picture

Here's a simple question cover two and the number of def. players in the box. Are they always related. None of you mentioned numbers in The box. And which will Pack offense want or not want to see? It seems so confusing now that they might have options.

vikequeen god's picture

They want to see them load the box against the run to open up the pass, which means pulling one safety down out of coverage to play the run. This takes them out of cover two and puts them in single high/cover three looks.

Fish . Crane's picture

and so the only way to make that happen is to.....

cow42's picture

that's the thing - no one's going to "load the box against the run" when playing the Packers... regardless of how improved their running game is.

Stroh's picture

While that remains to be seen if they would or not, its kinda immaterial. They don't have to "load the box". What you don't seem to understand is that a good run game slows the pass rush, it holds the LB and Safeties for a second longer, making the play action much more effective and allowing the recievers to get deep again.

Why is it so hard for you to understand? An effective run game has a lot of side effects on the D that open the field for the Offense!

Your so black OR white, this OR that, that you have absolutely no clue of the subtleties that happen!

RC Packer Fan's picture

I agree... You get a running game going, you can use play action passes. Do we even remember what those are? That play is made to prevent safety's/linebackers from dropping into coverage and have to actually respect the run. When they pause that allows WR's/TE's to get behind them and they are beat.
Having a true running threat only helps the offense. I'm not saying defenses will load the box, but it will cause hesitation in the defenses minds if Lacy or whoever is running all over them.

joshywoshybigfatposhy's picture

listen to rodgers talk about kuhn - he's a comfort blanket.

kuhn's value has to do with his familiarity with our offense/his smarts, and his value to #12. he would not have much value to another team, hence i doubt any other team will pick him up at a high rate next year, hence no comp. draft pick should be expected.

if you're going to let him go, do it now, if not, let him test FA next year and consider bringing him back, but only at a significant discount.

but i think his value is somewhat difficult to gauge... until he's gone and rodgers sack #'s go even higher.

is it the smartest route to spend 2.5m on a pass protector/dump down option? probably not, but i say leave it be for now.

Stroh's picture

I mostly agree... I don't know that Kuhn is worth 2.5M anymore, but he is certainly a security blaket. Not only for Rodgers either but for the coaches. He is the best 3rd down option for now, very good ST player, decent enough short ydg RB, decent blocker. His value cant be easily measured by stats. He has the ability to function in a lot of roles, even if he loses some of them to better options this year. Love to have him at 1.5M, but he still has a place on the team, IMO.

Lucky953's picture

Good points!

don c's picture

check kuhn's production the yr before last. what, he made 17 out of 18 short yardage runs for first downs. was used in the offense. then , he hurt his knee in the playoff game. anyone who knows knee injuries it usually takes a yr for a person to fully recover. last yr the pack used him on what, 3 short yardage situations. he adds a dimension to the offense that leach can't provide. he is perfect for the style of offense for green bay. as rodgers said in an interview, kuhn is so smart that he picks up on things that rodgers doesn't see. don't be so quick to throw kuhn off the bus. prediction, if used properly this yr, he will have a big year and the doubters will be quiet

Point Packer's picture

He was used only three short yardage situations last year?

Show me the stat. That seems WAY too low.

Evan's picture

If it really was only 3, then he was 0-3.

Breadman's picture

I wish he only touched the ball 3 times on short yardage. Unfortunately, Kuhn got snuffed on third &1 a lot. I'd say near 10 times.

Breadman's picture

At home last season Kuhn rushed for 9 yards on 8 attempts for a 1.1 Avg. he had zero Rushing TD at home and his long run was 5 yards. Kuhn touched the ball 9 times on 3rd and 4th down last season.

Fish/Crane's picture

Those are Aundra Thompson numbers there.

Lucky953's picture

Nice call!

hayward4president's picture

Saying a running game would not help us is so stupid. Sometimes its like people just want to argue. There is no reason to not get better at running. If we could average even 75 yrds a game from a rb or a pair of rbs we would be unstoppable. Plus throw ina couple dump passes to franklin and we are going to dominate.

al's picture

you just need the threat you will run the ball to open the game up + we need to get more turn overs ............

Mikeh's picture

You are right teams wont stack the box against the run. It isn't going to happen.

But a running game will mean teams can't sell out on the pass. If they do then no I think you are wrong - Green Bay will be able to win by running the ball.

Green Bay will remain a passing team but they have to be able to take what the defence gives you - if they give you the run you need to be able to take it. If the defence offers us the run we should be able win by running.

That is what the emphasis on the rushing game is all about. Its not about making us a rushing team, its about making sure teams can't get away with the sell out on the pass.

Paul Ott Carruth's picture

I find the discussion concerning the Packer running game to be fascinating. All make good points. Cow is right in saying the Packers will not see a majority of single high but they will see it from time to time in post snap rotations in the form of fire zones. The 49ers ran a decent amount of fire zones against the Packers last year....it's what a Fangio defense is known for. The other posters who say the Packers need to run the ball to bring down a safety are also correct but not in the sense of the Packers being led by Lacey and Co. This game is all about situations (D&D, field position, time, flow, personnel, etc.) Imagine just a threat of a capable run game on 3rd & 3 or 4. When is the last time teams had to respect a Packer RB in a situation like this? Teams may not come of 2 high looks but if Green Bay can pose a reasonable threat in situations like this safeties then start to creep at the snap and this is where playaction becomes big. It's not about the yards.....it's about the threat. Peterson is not in our backfield but he doesn't need to be. Now....Cow is 100% accurate in his assessment that McCarthy and Rodgers need to become more WCO centric. The ball has been pushed vertically far too much the last two years. Using the backs to attack underneath against coverage takes the place of the run. Coach Walsh called it the long hand-off. All areas of the field need to be stretched 100 yards long and 53 and 1/3 wide. I believe McCarthy has two capable backs to utilize in the passing game. Whether he chooses to use them remains to be seen. He would be wise to do so.

Spiderpack's picture

Thank you Paul, I feel sane again.

cow42's picture

maybe i'm not as big of an idiot as everyone thinks?

zeke's picture

Troll and idiot are not the same thing.

don c's picture

you fans are foolish, pack lost because they had no defense, plain and simple. everyone wants to blame it on a particular person or coach.they scored enough points to win, they had no run defense or preesure on qb. next time you watch a game, analyze it too. bunch of crybabies

calf21's picture

Has someone urinated upon your cornflakes, dear friend?

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Tickets

Quote

"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."