Cory's Corner: There's nothing wrong with the offense

It finally happened. Aaron Rodgers threw a pick at Lambeau Field to snap his streak of 586 passes without an interception at home.

Then he threw another one.

The Packers defense rallied and continued its torrid play for the 24-10 win ove the Rams, but fans were wondering what was wrong with an offense that had been lighting up scoreboards and opponents at will over the past 10 years. It really bothers me that people are actually thinking about this question, “What’s wrong with Rodgers and the offense?” Then they go a step further and actually have the courage to say it.

First of all, nothing is wrong with the Packers’ offense or Rodgers. The unit ran into a very good defense. That front four is arguably the best in the league – it actually reminds me of how much trouble the Lions used to give the Packers when Ndamukong Suh and the rest of its defensive line gave the Packers fits because they could generate a pass rush without having to blitz.

 “You notice on film, a lot of teams that blitz him, he just kind of throws quick … hot,” said Rams safety Rodney McLeod. “Our plan was four-man rush. If they don't get there, get their hands up.”

Next, we all know that the Packers have been playing thin at receiver ever since losing Pro Bowl deep threat Jordy Nelson to a season-ending injury in the preseason. But the Packers were able to cover it up with the play of James Jones, Davante Adams and Randall Cobb. Now Adams is out with an ankle injury, Cobb is trying desperately to play through a shoulder injury and Jones is hampered with hamstring troubles. And even with Jeff Janis and Jared Abbrederis on the roster, Rodgers and the coaching staff aren’t trusting either one. So, that leaves Ty Montgomery as the only healthy wide receiver – and he’s trying to play through rookie growing pains.

Finally, the running game has been largely inconsistent this year. On Sunday, Rodgers was the team’s leading rusher with — 39 yards. Eddie Lacy has been hampered with a nagging ankle, but amazingly enough the highest rushing total this year has been by backup James Starks when he put up 95 yards against Seattle.

One of these symptoms isn’t a problem, but you add them all up and it’s a deep issue. It also doesn’t help that we have all gotten fat off of Rodgers’ mastery. So when he has a subpar game, fans immediately start asking what is wrong with the offense.

Instead we should be more impressed with how well the defense has played. B.J. Raji has rebooted his career, Ha Ha Clinton-Dix looks like a perennial Pro Bowler and Clay Matthews is making a run at Defensive Player of the Year.

The offense might be an issue if the Packers were losing. But in the regular season, the name of the game is just to win by any means necessary. And if that looks ugly, so be it. If the Packers can still win when they’re not at their best, then when they start to peak in December, they should be hitting on all cylinders.

All of the top teams in the NFL have drawbacks. But all the Packers have to do is get healthy and they’re easily a Super Bowl contender. Even when healthy, the Bengals, Broncos, Falcons, Panthers and yes, even the Patriots have flaws. The difference is, the Packers are still able to win despite theirs.   

-------------------

Cory Jennerjohn is a graduate from UW-Oshkosh and has been in sports media for over 15 years. He was a co-host on "Clubhouse Live" and has also done various radio and TV work as well. He has written for newspapers, magazines and websites. He currently is a columnist for CHTV and also does various podcasts. He recently earned his Masters degree from the University of Iowa. He can be found on Twitter: @Coryjennerjohn

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (48)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
MarkinMadison's picture

October 13, 2015 at 06:36 am

Yes, I think this column was needed. I've even argued that Rodgers' game was not as bad as it appears on paper. No run game. No healthy receivers who have caught a pass in a regular season game prior to this year. Running game is ineffective. Lang goes down. Barclay, Tretter and Walker are rotated in before Walker settles down. Bulaga's first game back from injury. With all of that, you really want to label Rodgers' performance as "sub-par"? I don't.

Consider this. Facing the best DL in football, Rodgers took 2 sacks and 3 hits. He mostly scrambled away from pressure and was the team's leading rusher because of it. When he threw the ball he still connected on about 2/3 of his passes. Under similar pressure Nick Foles took 3 sacks, an astounding 12 hits, rushed for 2 yards, and when he got the ball off he completed 1/3 of his passes.

Saying Rodgers played sub-par is a bit like saying Jordan Speith "only" played par on a windy rainy day. Consider the weather.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
travis's picture

October 13, 2015 at 07:34 am

Nice write up. My brother-in-law told me I shouldn't critique the offense because we have Rodgers. That was all I needed to hear. The defense is playing awesome and I am still hesitant to give them the credit they deserve. Go Pack Go!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 13, 2015 at 07:43 am

You have confused the offense and Rodgers. No one is saying that Rodgers is sub-par. Many are saying that the offense as an entity has had some sub par games that might be indicative of deeper and difficult to fix causes.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

October 13, 2015 at 09:19 am

"So when he has a subpar game, fans immediately start asking what is wrong with the offense."

Also, scroll down the comments block on Nagler's Gut Reactions article this week. Some people here do think that Rodgers had a sub-par game. It wasn't his best, but I wouldn't call it sub-par.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Dan Stodola's picture

October 13, 2015 at 12:00 pm

If par is average or good, it would seem to me that it was an above par game, at least in the golf analogy.

But yes, it would be what I call a sub par game (golf parlance notwithstanding). Not like I'm particularly worried about it, however.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

October 13, 2015 at 09:01 pm

Turn over the ball on a fumble, throw two or three passes into defender's hands -(I'm not talking about the picks) is not a good game. There's definitely a difference between stats and performance. Whereas some fans may look at INTs and declare that's a bad performance, I look at if it was a bad throw, a poor play by the WR, or a great play by the defender. The two picks? Not really Rodger's fault, IMO, and I don't hold them against him. However, there were a couple balls thrown into defender's hands that ended up NOT being picks, but they were still poor decisions or poor throws- and that's a negative in my book.

Lastly, as a QB, you must protect the ball. You fumble the ball, that's a negative. Rodgers game was sub-par. Would you really be being honest to claim that Rodgers was "his usual self" on Sunday?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

October 13, 2015 at 10:44 pm

I agree with our point about where he put the ball, whether they were picks or not. That is on him. What I'm less enthused about is guys like 4th and 1 looking at the 2 interceptions and concluding he had a bad game. Even on the fumble some here have argued that it was at least partially caused by the O-line letting up.

I'm not a coach. I don't sit and grade every play. But I do think that #12 escaped a lot of bad situations on Sunday. "Usual old self?" Maybe not. Better than your average NFL QB? You bet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 14, 2015 at 09:44 am

Again, whether Rodgers had a sub-par game makes for a wonderful opportunity to debate, but it is not the point. We know Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL.

The issue is whether the offense as an entity has some issues and whether those issues can be addressed internally or by scheme. The offense only scored 14 points against the Rams and 17 versus SF. That is the issue.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

October 13, 2015 at 04:09 pm

OK R-E-L-A-X! RELAXRELAXRELAX! Ok, it had to be said.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Hematite's picture

October 13, 2015 at 06:36 am

Thankfully we have a defense that can help out the offense when they have a rough game.. the Rams game was a game we may have lost in previous years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

October 13, 2015 at 01:05 pm

I agree. Even with Davante Adams out and our offense not firing on all cylinders, with the defense playing the way they are I truly believe the Packers would beat any team in the NFL right now if they played on a neutral field.

We have yet to see the best this team has to offer. When we do, it's going to be spectacular!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Doug_In_Sandpoint's picture

October 13, 2015 at 06:56 am

So, are you saying it's not time for the Tolzine era to begin?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

October 13, 2015 at 08:10 am

I will take you're kidding!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Doug_In_Sandpoint's picture

October 13, 2015 at 10:55 am

Well, Arodge did throw an interception or two...

Of course I'm kidding.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 13, 2015 at 07:25 am

I'm not overly concerned with the offense just because there are so many injuries right now. Our top 3 WR's are all playing hurt and 1 isn't playing. Also Lacy is playing hurt and our OL has been banged up.

Plus we have just went through some of the best pass rushing teams in the league in the last few weeks. And arguably the best DL in the league on Sunday.

That being said, I think they still could be better then what they have been. Whether its changing personnel or changing play calls I think they could do a little better then what they have done.
For example against the Rams they didn't put Cobb or Montgomery in the backfield 1 time. That is a formation that has had success.
Receivers were struggling getting open against the Rams, so isn't there things they could do schematically to get WR's open?

Overall though I'm not concerned with this team at all. We finally have a defense that can change games, and win games for us. And in the playoffs if the offense isn't clicking in a game (like seems to happen in one playoff game every year) we now have a defense that can win it for us.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

October 13, 2015 at 07:52 am

FWIW Cobb and Ty in the backfield don't make a ton of sense against that team. It takes a long time to run a route down field out of the backfield. That's not what one wants against that D line.

I love that approach, just probably not that game.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 13, 2015 at 08:21 am

I disagree.

For those plays it really doesn't take a long time to run those routes, they can run all kind of short routes out of the backfield with those players. Even if its a simple swing pass it would have provided another look. It would have forced the defense to adjust its coverage.

To me they needed a change of pace. I thought if they put one or both in the backfield they could have gotten some mismatches.

My opinion is that the offense is at its best when its being creative with its personnel and packages. Putting players into positions to create the biggest mismatches.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

October 13, 2015 at 10:22 am

I totally agree with you. Was a bit surprised they didn't.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

October 13, 2015 at 08:01 am

For starters, the title and first 5 paragraphs are absolutely correct, but the rest of the article is filled with silliness.

We have Rodgers but have played good defensive lines. We'll be fine. Agreed.

Davante Adams' play was not covering anything up. He has yet to play well this year.

If the author thinks all these offensive detractors are a "deep issue" why are they dismissed? I'm not saying they are or are not, but the author says they are.

Why are Raji, Dix (who hasn't played well all year until the second half of this game, use Daniels or Peppers, or the youngsters contributing or...), and Matthews arguments for the offense?

"then when they start to peak in December, they should be hitting on all cylinders."

Huh? That's not an argument or evidence of anything just a fan-fueled statement. They certainly can peak, but nothing in this article is a suggestion as to why they will.

"But all the Packers have to do is get healthy and they’re easily a Super Bowl contender."

Actually they are a contender right now. Healthier or not.
And there's no reason to think they'll get healthi*er* from here on out. They've been one of the least healthy in the league the last 5 years. Last year appears to be an outlier.
They're banged up now and the likelihood is for them to continue to have more injuries than the average NFL team.

"Even when healthy, the Bengals, Broncos, Falcons, Panthers and yes, even the Patriots have flaws. The difference is, the Packers are still able to win despite theirs."

I'm absolutely certain those teams have managed to win despite theirs, too. Let me check their records, just to be sure... X-0 for all of them. Winning despite their flaws clearly is not a difference.

The difference is Aaron Rodgers, and even then some of those teams have their own approximation of Aaron Rodgers.

Good title. That's about it.

We have Rodgers. A talented roster. We should be fine and have a great shot at making and winning the Super Bowl, but not for much of what was said in this article.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 13, 2015 at 07:55 am

Tremendous post. I already copied "If the Packers can still win when they’re not at their best, then when they start to peak in December, they should be hitting on all cylinders" as the biggest flaw in the story.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
wimiller's picture

October 13, 2015 at 11:08 am

good post gr7070

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

October 13, 2015 at 08:12 am

Excellent article... Cory, I sign every word you place in it... I truly believe you are right!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
lucky953's picture

October 13, 2015 at 08:25 am

The coaching staff has done a very good job of making adjustments to the offense in response to problems in years past. I think we'll see Clements and MM adjust the scheme to fit the available personnel. Some of that will be utilization of unscouted looks in the postseason. When defenses get confused in coverage, AR usually makes them pay dearly.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 13, 2015 at 09:05 am

They have and will.

That's why I was slightly disappointed in the offense Sunday, because I really didn't see any adjustments made.
I'm not worried about the offense, but right now with the injuries they are suffering I think they need to get a little creative in their playcalling and personnel groupings.
This all being said, I don't think they have to change a lot especially since they just faced one of the best defensive fronts that we will see all year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DukeDivine's picture

October 13, 2015 at 08:29 am

"Clinton-Dix looks like a perenial pro-bowler." Dont get ahead of yourself, cowboy.... He's defnately i improved every week since week 1 but hold your horses. The gang tackling has definitely helped him look good when his swining off ball carriers and 3 other green jerseys swarm to the ball. Improving, yes. Perennial pro-bowler, HA HA!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

October 13, 2015 at 09:02 am

Sometimes you have to give credit to your opponent as well. The Rams did a good job against our ground game. This was the type of game where it was critical that the Packers not beat themselves and they didn't even with the TOs which the Rams earned by playing hard. Fortunately our defense played great and we ended +1 in TOs. Given the fact that we don't have Jordy plus all the other players with various injuries on the offense and we're still winning games by double digits points out that the offense is actually quite good but lacking consistency due to the numbers of players who are either out or playing injured. As a result, execution has suffered and the offense is not as sharp or consistent as we have come to expect. Fortunately the defense has reached the point where it can pick up the slack in the offense. We're fine. Go Pack Go! Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

October 13, 2015 at 10:23 am

Very well said.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
greenandgoldguy's picture

October 13, 2015 at 09:25 am

If Richard Rodgers catches that pass across the middle and scores then the offense is not taking as much of a hit. Would of been nice to get that one. But let's face you're going to have your struggles against a good front 4 when your front five are being schooled.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 13, 2015 at 09:40 am

'If Richard Rodgers catches that pass across the middle and scores then the offense is not taking as much of a hit'

This is very true. This being said, the offense just isn't firing on all cylinders yet. Once they get healthy and more playing time together they will clean it up.
Sunday's game kind of felt like the Buffalo game last year. Jordy dropped a TD pass in that game and Rodgers had one in this game.

The good thing about this team is they are able to win games like that this year. Last year they couldn't/didn't.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
lou's picture

October 13, 2015 at 10:07 am

Nothing better than to still have issues with one phase of the game or particular players when you are 5-0 but sports fans, especially Packer fans enjoy sharing their viewpoints, lets hope "Just Win Baby" is the theme all year. Also, yesterday on a post I wondered why no one had alluded to the fact that not having a true downfield TE was shrinking the field for the offense, here are Bob McGinn's comment today along those lines in the Journal/Sentinel, "Part of the reason the Packers aren't able to stretch defenses is their tight end. Richard Rodgers (58 of 62 snaps, including 16 in a three-point stance) led the team in receptions (six) and targets (eight) largely because the Rams paid him little heed. If the Packers want him with the ball in the flats or on check-downs, the Rams weren't concerned. Rodgers never breaks a tackle. He's 270 pounds, but little bitty defensive backs just chop him down with no problem. When he ran a slant from out wide on third and 3, SS T.J. McDonald stopped him from reaching the marker. "

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

October 13, 2015 at 10:26 am

A speed demon he is not.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Dan Stodola's picture

October 13, 2015 at 11:14 am

That kinda TE would be nice. But it wasn't necessary last year because Nelson stretched the field. Missing that is putting more pressure on all the other positions on the field.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Dan Stodola's picture

October 13, 2015 at 11:03 am

There's nothing wrong w/ Rodgers but there is w/ the offense. It'll help to get Adams back and a healthy Cobb too, but the offense is clearly showing that missing link, which is the deep threat that Nelson provided. Even w/ Adams back, Cobb healthy and Jones filling in its not going to change.

This is largely going to be the offense we see all year. Even Lacy's is having trouble getting going, and that too can be traced back to the lack of a deep threat.

With no one to stretch the field vertically the ILB creep in a 1/2 step closer, the Safeties are already much closer.

Rodgers is doing his best to mitigate the lack of a deep threat, but its going to be an ongoing season long issue. Not one that can't be overcome, but its not going to change this year.

A lot more 20-28 pt games instead of the 30 - 38 pt games we've become accustomed to. As long as the Defense continues the Packers will still have a highly successful season and could very well still end in a SB.

But don't try to tell me there's nothing wrong w/ the offense. Its clear something is missing and we all know what it is.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

October 13, 2015 at 11:34 am

Very true.

The sad part is we've actually played bad defenses.
Chicago, San Fran, and KC are the bottom 3 defenses in the league per Football Outsiders. Abs is not like the 2015 Seattle D is what most think it is, especially so without their safety.

I really hope that whatever is keeping Janis off the field changes and he can bring something (deep threat, big plays, etc.) to this O. That's almost certainly wishful thinking, though.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 13, 2015 at 06:56 pm

Well said. This is the point I made above: "There's nothing wrong w/ Rodgers but there is w/ the offense." Recall that we have been stopping the opposing teams offense for the most part, gaining extra possessions. 14 and 17 points is not a sign of an efficient offense. The O-line actually afforded Rodgers decent to even good amounts of time to throw. We couldn't run against the Rams (I pretty sure the author doesn't advocate having our MVP QB lead the team in rushing on a consistent basis), but I submit that the cause is the failure of the WRs to get separation and provide a vertical threat. Can be cured in-house over the course of the season? Maybe.

1) Cobb getting healthy would help; 2) The house opinion is that Adams will help when he returns (as many know, my own opinion of Adams is not high); 3) Montgomery, a rookie, will develop; 4) Abby will run some double moves to get deep and run great routes that gain separation; 5) the light comes on for Janis and he provides the deep threat.

I also suggest that a schematic issue could improve the offense. Our offense tends to ignore the middle third of the field. We used to stretch the field both vertically and laterally, but we have been doing less of the horizontal stretch plays close to the LOS than in the past.

If you’re ignoring a huge section of the field, it’s a VERY big offensive problem. We get away with it because Aaron Rodgers is a god walking amongst mere mortals, but the reason we struggle against Cover 2 has less to do with running the ball or personnel, and a lot to do with us ignoring 1/3rd of the field. That needs to be fixed. That’s on scheme.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Dan Stodola's picture

October 13, 2015 at 11:13 pm

I'd like to see some stats for that. I don't think anything is wrong schematically or that a portion of the field is being ignored. We know they haven't hit deep but its not really being ignored.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 14, 2015 at 09:58 am

Here are two charts comparing GB this year to NE last year. GB is nearly blank between the hashmarks.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/images/FilmRoom/FilmRoom-120414-1.jpg

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/images/FilmRoom/FilmRoom-26122013-05.jpg

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

October 14, 2015 at 09:58 pm

I wonder how many of Brady's between the hash throws are to Gronkowski.

I also wonder if the relatively small number of between-the-hash throws from Rodgers stems from his near-obsessive fear of tossing a pick.

Center of the field is more congested with defenders. Theoretically, you can pull a safety up to 49 yards away (Laterally) from a sideline throw. If you're tossing it down the center of the field, you can only catch a safety a maximum of 24 yards laterally off the mark. Yeah, I know, I know, but you get the point.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 15, 2015 at 01:10 am

That may well be. I'd like to see more crossing patterns near the LOS, say 5 yards off, instead of between the LBs and the 2 man deep safeties. Drag some LBs out of the middle and then run a slant between the hashes. It may be that GB is protecting Cobb and his shoulder. I'd like to see GB stretch the field laterally more. I don't really remember James Jones catching many inside the hash marks during his time here in GB (yes his recent TD catch was in the middle). I haven't seen Monty make catches in the middle either (oh wait, his recent TD catch - probably on a blown coverage, but still) was over the middle. Is there a pattern here? IIRC, most of Richard Rodgers' catches have been in the flats, not too many in the middle.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

October 13, 2015 at 11:05 am

The offense will be better against the Chargers , they looked awful last night their O line is a mess . Pack will go into the Bye 6 and 0 and come out healthier. Nothing wrong with that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

October 13, 2015 at 11:21 am

So the article title is there's nothing wrong with the offense - and then the article tells you all the things that are wrong with the offense. Most of it may be attributed to injuries in the receivers, backs and line but it's still not the level expected by this squad.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Big T's picture

October 13, 2015 at 11:24 am

This was a great game for Rodgers to be off. It was going to happen sooner or later. Rodgers had the deer in the headlight look and still pulled off the game. Now we don't have to hear about his no interception record every 15 seconds. Now he can concentrate on the game that he plays so well. This is good that he layed his egg now rather than the playoffs... Happy Day

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

October 13, 2015 at 01:28 pm

Before the game, heard all about how the Rams are over-rated, and their Dline isn't that great against the run, just a bunch of pass rushers, and team not to be feared. Now, after the game....uh, well how great a defense they were.
So wait, what about the Rams run defense again?
I'd just rather state things as I see them. This offense isn't excellent. Miscues and mental mistakes, penalties. Patriots tend to be excellent despitel plug and play street free agents. I kind of envy that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

October 13, 2015 at 04:11 pm

Healthy FA's and plug ins. We lost Jordy, take away Gronk and see what happens.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
aaronqb's picture

October 13, 2015 at 02:04 pm

I'm not alarmed at this point. IMO, there are a few things contributing to the fall off in offensive productivity.
1) Lack of a deep threat. Jordy Nelson's ACL injury hurts the team. The only WR on the roster with Jordy' speed and length is Jeff Janis and he obviously isn't ready yet. Doesn't look like Rodgers doesn't trusts him yet.
2) Tough defenses at the beginning of the schedule. Seattle and St Louis are both very good defenses.
3) Lots of injuries on offense, especially WR. Bulaga and Adams have missed multiple games. Lacy and Lang have missed time. Cobb and Jones (and probably Bakhtiari) are playing at less than 100%.

The good news is with the exception of the Jordy injury, everything else is fixable - the bye week is coming at a perfect time. Also, the team is learning to win with defense.

The team is trending up and is getting great play from its rookies. This bodes well for a very deep run in Jan/Feb.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

October 13, 2015 at 04:13 pm

Take a look at Rodgers hand in the picture with Fischer. It looks monsterous. I heard he had big hands but those are enormous!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

October 13, 2015 at 06:26 pm

Check out Mike Spoffords "what you might have missed" on the Packers site. The Rams were doubling Cobb most of the game, it led to GB's 1st TD, and should have led to another, when R Rodgers dropped what looked like a sure TD.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cuphound's picture

October 15, 2015 at 06:07 pm

Nothing's wrong, agreed, Cory. But we're spoiled. Just like it is impossible for Aaron Rodgers to NEVER have a decidedly human game, it's impossible to be a Packers fan and not experience shell shock when the players on our offense don't vanquish like the gods we know they were born to be.

I sometimes feel guilt for First World Problems, but for whatever reason, I never seem to have any remorse around how amazing the Packers offense are, especially Aaron Rodgers.

The upshot is that these little hiccups have given us a new opportunity to appreciate Dom Capers. As I have rarely had the chance to appreciate him, I feel this is new and exciting.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment 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.