Packers Question of the day - How far can They go?

A shaky offense that still hasn't been ridden of the skeptics, a thin cornerbacks group and a stellar front seven that has performed beyond expectations. Will it be enough?

The Packers are known to have soared on the wings of Aaron Rodgers and his arm, but so far in 2016, they haven't been doing much soaring. A box score will tell you otherwise and tell you Rodgers is looking like a form of his usual self, but film tells another story.

Can the Packers carry themselves to a playoff appearance and possibly more with the group they're working with now, or will the offense need to get themselves together and fast?

__________________________

Zachary Jacobson is a staff writer/reporter for Cheesehead TV. He's the voice of The Leap on iTunes and can be heard on The Scoop KLGR 1490 AM every Saturday morning. He's also a contributor on the Pack-A-Day Podcast. He can be found on Twitter via @ZachAJacobson or contacted through email at [email protected].

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (80)

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

October 11, 2016 at 09:24 am

Only go as high as Rodgers takes them. I think last year really messed with his head. He took a beating. I believe if he settles down, he will get back to his old self. Last year he felt he had to do it all himself. This year with the line and Lacy playing better, and Jordy back, he can feel less stressed.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
KenEllis's picture

October 11, 2016 at 10:22 am

The line is playing lights out. Eddie is running quite well. Jordy is back.

And the passing O is ... not good.

There is something broken (routes are stale or WRs can't get separation or ARod is just off, or a combination of all of the above).

MM is still, publicly at least, in denial that there are any issues and we continue to see the same looks every week. Aaron is playing like he knows its broken but he can't acknowledge the obvious.

Stubborness is not always a virtue.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

October 11, 2016 at 02:43 pm

Stubbornness is killing them. I'm not to optimistic they will get away from it since it goes on for so long now.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4zone's picture

October 11, 2016 at 01:02 pm

Disagree. Right now, Rodgers is only part of a larger problem. This team is beginning to rely on D instead of O. It's proven that teams without great QB's can win it all. We also are supposedly moving toward a more balanced attack which should lessen the importance of QB. Not eliminate the importance, but lessen it. Also, I believe the WR's need to pick it up here. I think as much of the problem is with them as with AR.

Having said all that, even though I believe a majority of fans are concerned about 'present' performance, for the most part, we agree we have potential for way better. If the secondary continues to improve, the run D continues on it's current trajectory, the OL continues to block like they did last week. We will be OK. If AR can figure out why he intermittently throws the ball at RB's feet and well behind crossing WR's who are wide open and WR's can just make the plays then should make, then the O should make large strides as well.

When firing on all cylinders, this team has the talent to be one of the best in the NFL. They just have to work the kinks out, stay reasonably healthy then they can make a race of it in the NFC North and have a solid chance at another SB appearance. If they don't, we should be in a much better draft position come next spring.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
carusotrap's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:31 am

This week will reveal much. Dallas is for real (but not without weaknesses). Dak Prescott has really mastered the dink and dunk offense, and Elliot is currently the best RB running behind the best OL the Packers will have faced all year. I do think this might be the week for Dak's first INT, though.

It will all depend on whether the GB O has the fortitude to play an entire game like they so often do their first possession: balance, substitutions, take what the D gives, smarts. But, if they decide to go 40 yards down field on every 3rd and 2 (or worse, give it to "one yard and a cloud of dust Starks" out of the shotgun), we are in for a long day.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
mrj007's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:50 am

Lol

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Duke Divine's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:33 am

After re-watching the game and a text from my brother to look at formation patterns on offense we both realized that the offense was super productive with different personnel groupings in the first half. In the second half Mashed Potato Mike exclusively played his tired old "zebra package" with the same route combos as usual and the offense stalled immensely. If Tater Mike doesn't get caught up in forcing the zebra package like a square block into a triangular hole this ship could get righted and they can win it all. All the dropped balls and other small things on offense are correctable. THe young secondary is improving with each experience and with progression of health. I'm confident the offense and defense will be fine, But Derrick Frost 2.0 aka Schumbag and the coverage issues could kill them at the worst possible time...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
mrj007's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:52 am

I wonder if he went zebra because the Packers were in control of the game?. Not show their hand?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 10:15 am

Sorry but 2 TD's in the first half and 3FG's in the second half and a 23-17 final,when were they in control of the game? Only after Cobb's first down catch to run out the clock

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

October 11, 2016 at 10:26 am

They never played from behind. They ran about 7 minutes off the clock in the 4th quarter scoring a FG and then running the final 3 and a half minutes off the clock to close out the game. The Packers OL and front 7 dominated the LOS, that's where the control is. If R Rodgers catches the TD pass prior to their last FG the score would have been 27-9 at that point with less than 7 minutes to play. Sounds like control to me. The final score is not always indicative of how close or how much two teams are separated. The Packers controlled the ball for 36+ plus minutes against the Giants. Our punter gave away 6 points by providing the Giants with a short field at least twice. Otherwise we're looking at a 23-10 final or if Starks and Rodgers catch their TD passes a 34-10 final. Control is in the eye of the beholder, especially if you know what you are watching. You don't need to win every game 49-0 to be in control. This team which needs to clean up a few areas is only one play away from 4-0, regardless of how much they are in control. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 12:02 pm

It is amusing to see all the"ifs" and stats in that post,tell me Since 61 that you have never seen a football game where a team has dominated the stats and still lost the game,football is a game of anything can happen, ifs and stats don't change the facts,and the fact is the Giants were a TD and extra point away from winning that game but you want to talk ifs?what if GB doesn't get that first down to run out the clock?

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

October 11, 2016 at 02:22 pm

Appreciate the feedback, However,there are no ifs in my post. And the facts are The Packers won the game. They controlled the ball for 36 minutes. They dominated the LOS. They did get the 1st down to run out the clock. The ifs were included just to point out that they would have created additional points. Those additional points would have made the final score more one-sided and possibly reduced the unnecessary level of angst for "only" winning by a TD. And yes, I can assure you that I have seen more games than you have where teams have dominated the stats and lost the game. However, your original point was that the Packers were not in control of the game and my response was based on which team controlled the game. When a team dominates the LOS, controls the ball for 36 minutes, plays the entire game with a lead and runs about 11 minutes off the clock in the 4th quarter they control the game regardless of the final score, Just because you control the game doesn't necessarily mean that you win the game. I would for example, say that the Packers controlled the NFCG game against Seattle until the last 3+ minutes and then their STs and defense committed suicide on the field and lost control of the game. And just to pick one more nit, if the Giants had scored another TD and extra point they would have tied the game not won it. They would have needed 8 points to win not 7, unless they tied and either scored again or won in OT. 23-16=7. I know, its another meaning less stat but you brought it up. So is your point about control or stats. Either way the Packers won and as I said before I'll take a win every week because W's are the only STAT that matters. Do the Packers need to improve? Yes, they do. They need their QB to play better, they need a real punter, they should replace Starks and we need to tighten up our CBs pass coverage and our STs kick coverage and tackling. For me, given the way our OL and front 7 are playing, all we really need is for A-rod to play better and for our WRs to catch passes and DBs to hold onto picks. If those things happen we can live with the rest if we have to. Go Pack Go! Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
chugwater's picture

October 11, 2016 at 02:47 pm

Nice post. Couldn't agree more. Felt the same about the Detroit game.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Duke Divine's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:59 am

In hindsight if Lacy doesn't get hurt (or Starks produces) and there are 2 less drops I don't even knit pick what formations were ran when because it would have been a much more comfortable win...

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

October 11, 2016 at 02:23 pm

Thank you Duke. I completely agree. Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 11, 2016 at 10:14 am

To me that is what is holding the offense back. Staying in 1 formation.

The proof is on tape now. When they mix and match personnel, and create different looks their offense moves the ball. When they try going hurry up and stick to the 11 personnel it stalls out and struggles.

The strength of this WR group is not 1-3. Its 1-7. The diversity of this group gives the offense many options of what it can do.

Hopefully Mike just goes with what is working. What is working is changing players more often. He should stick with that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

October 11, 2016 at 11:26 am

Do you guys remember detroit lions run and shoot offense. Mouse Davis knew that the DBs could not cover their Wrs all at once. I believe MM could put at least 4 wrs on the line and someone would be open. So instead of so much mix and match, just go shot gun.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 11, 2016 at 11:49 am

To me its not even about running 4 and 5 WR's all game long. Its also about getting Ripkowksi on the field more, and Rodgers on the field less..

I'm sorry but IMO, Rodgers should not play 91% of the snaps on offense. Especially when Ripkowski played only 31%
Also I still don't believe Adams should play 75% of the snaps, though he played a lot better in this one, so I will let that one slide a bit.

I would like to see more mixing and matching because it creates confusion with defenses. Especially since defenses aren't used to seeing us do that.

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

October 11, 2016 at 02:26 pm

RC- I agree that R Rodgers should not see so many snaps but what are they going to do while Cook is hurt? Are you saying that Perillo should play more? I'm not sure that he is a better option than Rodgers until Cook returns. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 11, 2016 at 11:54 pm

Yes Rodgers snaps will be up.. but now way should he be in 90% of the offensive snaps.
They really don't have to replace Cook with Rodgers. They have Ripkowski they can use. They have an abundance of WRs to use.

They used Spriggs early in the game, and could have went crack to that more. They have options.

Mixing personnel more would better for this offense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

October 12, 2016 at 04:17 am

So, you basically say we should use Spriggs as TE. Wow, how many genius people are here. My vote for you if you apply for Mike McCarthy job!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 11, 2016 at 12:56 pm

"Mouse Davis knew that the DBs could not cover their Wrs all at once."

And while shotgun offenses with 11 personnel seem to be pretty common these days, the "silver streak" or "run and shoot" or "red gun" as base offenses never became the dominant mode of attack. They're defendable and they struggle in the red zone where spacing becomes an issue.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 13, 2016 at 08:51 am

I agree,that offense was effective for a short time,like a fad,didnt take long before DC's figured it out and it got shelved,like the read option or"Pistol" that the Niners sprung on Capers a few years ago and totally embarrassed him,then in the off season MM,Capers and staff went to talk to College coaches to learn how to defend it.I don't believe SF used it much after that,probably because the rules state that in that offense even if the QB hands the ball off the defense can hit him putting your QB at risk of getting hit repeatedly,too bad Capers didn't know that at the time

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

October 11, 2016 at 05:31 pm

I agree with both you and Dob. But Mouse Davis wanted more money and got canned. No one knew what to call after that. Shelving the shoot. The Dbs are better today then that time period. So I would go according to the opposition's Talent at that position. I just would Like to get Richard Rogers off the field as a WR. And see what are other guys can do in a game situation.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 07:16 pm

Well said

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

October 11, 2016 at 12:47 pm

Simple and to the point. Please let MM know.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Duke Divine's picture

October 11, 2016 at 01:33 pm

Hopefully, but Mashed Potato Mike sure likes sticking with his game plan no matter what others think, or what happens on the field, or on tape, or any other outside factor. It's his way and that's the way it's going to be. Hopefully his way morphs into some flexibility in approach and adjustments.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

October 12, 2016 at 04:22 am

Well, "Mashed Potato" Mike has every right to think he knows football better than you and much, much better knows his team than you! How I come to that? He won at least one SB with his team, while I couldn't find your name in any team who won NFL game... Please do not be offended if I decide to believe Mike McCarthy over you...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
barutanseijin's picture

October 12, 2016 at 07:43 am

If you believe he has nothing worthwhile to say because he is a fan and not an NFL head coach, why are you here reading his posts?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Portland Mark's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:37 am

The defense gives me hope. Remember, in 2010 their defense was better than the offense. Rodgers had 28 TDs vs 11 ints. If defense performs I believe they can win it all.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:52 am

The offense took off right before the playoffs that year...

I just have a gut feeling this offense will this year too...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 10:18 am

I'm hoping for sooner than that

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

October 11, 2016 at 10:31 am

If the Packers continue winning why does their offense need to take off sooner than December? If they win the rest of their games exactly the same as their win against the Giants would that be so bad? I would take it every week. Unless you are invested in some manipulated fantasy madness. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 11, 2016 at 01:05 pm

It's like the old joke: What do they call the guy who graduates last in his class in med school? Doctor.

What do you call a football team that wins all of its games by one point? Super bowl champs.

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

October 11, 2016 at 02:29 pm

Dobber - as usual you have stated the point brilliantly. Only the W's matter, everything else is window dressing for the TV air heads to justify their existence over. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 11, 2016 at 02:56 pm

But I do have to admit that I am interested in manipulated fantasy madness! :)

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

October 11, 2016 at 06:24 pm

Now that I think about it I am as well depending on the fantasy. Good point Dobber! Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 03:49 pm

What do you call a team that loses all it's games by one point?
Close!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 11, 2016 at 08:06 pm

Touche!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 03:37 pm

Since 61, here you go with the "ifs" again... if, if,if, wow! let's do this AGAIN,you want to talk ifs,what if GB doesn't sack Bottles in the red zone to run out the clock? What if Detroit ties that game and GB loses in OT? What if GB doesn't get that first down to run out the clock last Sunday? I see 6 games on their schedule that they could lose if the offense continues to struggle in the second half,Dallas,Atlanta, Philadelphia,Seattle,Minnesota and Detroit at Detroit after watching them destroy previously unbeaten Philly last Sunday and GB like other teams usually lose a game that they shouldn't, that could leave them at 9-7,too early to tell but is 9-7 going to get them in the playoffs? If so as a wild card and you know what that means,road games,so yes I would like to see the offense get it going sooner than later, from me,thanks since 57'

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

October 11, 2016 at 04:46 pm

If you actually read my posts you would see that I discussed the fact that the Packers have a number of areas where they need to execute better. Such as better QB play from A. Rodgers, better punting, better kick coverage and tackling, better catching of passes and picks and they need to replace Starks. With better play from Rodgers and the WRs many of the concerns about the offense are resolved. The problem is the punter and the coverage. The coverage is correctable. I don't know that the punter won't cost us a game or two as the season goes on. Made it with only one if, now 2. As for playoff road games, the only SB we have won with the MM/AR edition of the Packers was by playing all of our playoff games on the road, so I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. Again, I would take the four wins on the road to win the SB, IF that's OK with you. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
chugwater's picture

October 11, 2016 at 02:53 pm

The offense was hit and miss thru much of 2010. Smoked the Cowboys, 49ers, and Vikings (in Metrodome). Beat the tar out of the Giants, but struggled against Detroit even before AR got hurt. The Bear season finale at home was not that impressive either.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
barutanseijin's picture

October 12, 2016 at 07:50 am

The Bears had a good defense back then and it was very cold that night. That was a great victory even if they didn't run up the score on da Bears. Come to think of it, every win against Lovie "Beat the Packers" Smith was a great one.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 11, 2016 at 10:25 am

The pundits have no problem at this stage saying the Vikings can win it all, but they aren't necessarily qualifying it with the statement "they will only go as far as Sam Bradford will take them." He needs to be a game manager and that defense will do the rest. If this defense in GB matures (and gets healthy) in the secondary, they have the potential to be a dominant unit...and one dominant unit can win an SB. If you add a top 10 offense to it, whether that comes by running the ball or throwing, things look pretty good.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 03:45 pm

I hope that D becomes dominant,they might need that to happen more than ever this year,who knows at this point but there is the possibility that the NFC North could have two of the best defenses in the NFL

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:49 am

First things first.

McCarthy has to figure out what is best for this offense. They for the first time in over a year found Rhythm against the Lions in the first half.
The first 2 drives of the Giants game they drove fairly easily against them.
Then after that they struggled a bit.

The biggest change that worked was that McCarthy used a lot more personnel. Changed formations, changed looks, made the defense try to keep up with the offense. When it has struggled they mostly stayed in the 11 personnel, and were pretty predictable.

To me its obvious what McCarthy needs to do to get the most out of this offense. Its not staying in 1 formation for whatever % of plays. They have 7 different WR's who all offer something different. Start using them. They have a FB who is opening up holes for the RB's. Use him more.
I'm sorry but Richard Rodgers should not be playing 90% of the offensive snaps.

For Rodgers, he has to get the ball out faster and on time. Also he needs to spread the ball around more. His best game in a while was the Lions first half. He targeted like 8 different people.
Rodgers game against the Giants would have looked much better if his WR's didn't drop some balls.

This team will go as far as the offense takes it. If they get humming by the end of the season (and I believe they will). I think they go all the way if the offense gets back to what we are used to seeing.

I think the offense is heading in the right direction. I just have a feeling that it will explode soon. To me it feels like McCarthy is still trying to figure out how to get the most out of the offense, and he is getting closer.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Colin_C's picture

October 11, 2016 at 12:38 pm

Agree on all points. I was at the game, and often noticed Rodgers throwing with only one foot on the ground. That led to several errant throws that could have been big first downs. Of course, there were drops that didn't help. My keys to future success are spreading the ball around (i.e. Monty, Abby, Davis, and Janis), and not giving it to Starks. Seriously, I like the guy, but that fumble could have lost us the game. If we develop a better one two punch in the backfield, and the passing game takes take off, watch out. At the end of the day though, I think it will be the D that brings home a Lombardi.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bugeater's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:50 am

As long as the O line is giving Rodgers 5 seconds of protection for passing plays, I think they'll be ok.

I also really like the new look play fakes and planned bootlegs. I thought ARod looked really sharp and fluid in the way he executed those new looks. That will pay dividends as the season progresses. Can you imagine if Lacy continues to run like he has been how effective those play fakes are going to be?

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

October 11, 2016 at 10:08 am

I think about this question as follows: Even with dropped passes, a less than excellent Aaron Rodgers, shaky CB play and an almost non-existent punter, the Packers are one play away from being 4-0. Also, they are probably about 3-4 dropped passes and/or 2-3 dropped interceptions away from blowing out the Lions and the Giants. Why? Because they have been getting solid to excellent play from their OL and their defensive front 7. If that continues and we get Shields back, improved play from Aaron Rodgers, catch the catchable passes and picks this team can go a long way. To help ensure that we succeed the Packers need a better punter, they should replace Starks with an RB who can play and we need Jared Cook back. This team still has plenty of upside as we obviously haven't peaked yet, especially on offense. A Rodgers needs to play better and I believe that he will, but until then at least we have a defense that is playing solid on a consistent basis. Special teams need to play better as well. Better punter and better coverage and tackling. For now, the only game we need to win is the next one, against Dallas. If we can stop their run game or at least not let their OL dominate the game we should be able to stop the Cowgirls. If Lacy is healthy we have our own strong running game with an excellent OL as well and we can dominate the LOS. Again the field position battle will be critical and I hope that our punter doesn't blow if for us. If Schum could actually pin the Cowboys deep in their end a few times that would really help, I just don't have any confidence in him. Maybe he surprises me. Go Pack Go! Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 03:53 pm

Another post chocked with " ifs"

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

October 11, 2016 at 04:34 pm

If you don't read my posts you won't be upset by them. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 07:21 pm

I'm not upset but sorry you are right,I shouldn't read them

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Charvid's picture

October 11, 2016 at 08:30 pm

Schum can certainly pin the Cowboys deep in their own territory...if he uncorks one of his normal 33 yard boots...and the Packers are punting from the Cowboys 35 yard line. ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Brian's picture

October 11, 2016 at 11:06 am

If things don't improve, the divisional round. If things get better, NFC championship game. For the past two years, the offense has struggled mightily against top defenses and from what is happening now, it is trending that way, too. Injuries will factor in as the year progresses.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 11, 2016 at 12:58 pm

"For the past two years, the offense has struggled mightily against top defenses"

By definition, offenses struggle against top defenses.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Brian's picture

October 11, 2016 at 01:53 pm

Really, you sir are a genius! I was going to refute your BS comment but it doesn't justify it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 11, 2016 at 02:04 pm

Such is the story of my life... ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

October 11, 2016 at 11:07 am

Defense, Defense ,Defense! If they can get the secondary playing like the guys in front of them. They can go far. But so far the pass coverage just isn't what I expected. A-rod has to regain his TOUCH. (MM has to Control the clock.) To do that we need better than what were seeing. The biggest question marks were caused by TT. Running backs, A Punter, and a All-pro guard replaced? But lets be positive and give them all a chance to get it right. We need to be better than the Vikings. This team needs to turn on the Jets. And show even more explosiveness. More effort is required.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Norm's picture

October 11, 2016 at 08:13 pm

But they don't play the Jets!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
L's picture

October 11, 2016 at 11:56 am

There's no doubt they could go all the way. First, you must make the playoffs and they're certainly capable of that feat; secondly, it's about getting hot and having all phases of the game performing well once in the playoffs and the Packers should be capable of that too. The offense has the needed weapons, so it's about getting the execution ironed out and just being smart, there's lots of optimism on the defensive side; however, there's a lot less on the special teams' punt squad which could be the weakest link of this team.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NMPF's picture

October 11, 2016 at 12:28 pm

I'm trying to figure out when the last time in the last 15 or so games the O, D and ST played a good full game at the same time. There always seems to be at least 1 facet of the game that keeps lagging behind, which is keeping teams in games. The scary part is its never seems to be the same facet , making it a lot harder to fix. Continuing this trend can nip you in the regular season but devour you in the post.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

October 11, 2016 at 12:49 pm

I think they can probably get themselves to the playoffs with a wild card berth. They could get a playoff win if they draw a good match up, like last year. I don't think they can beat the top teams on a regular basis.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 11, 2016 at 01:03 pm

I don't see the Vikings going undefeated. I don't think they'll win more than 11 or 12 games even though it might not look like that now. They are limited offensively and the NFL is a kooky place. The Vikes are a team, like others with so-so offenses and strong defenses, that needs to win the turnover battle on a weekly basis. They're going to have weeks when they lose the TO battle...and when they do, they're going to lose games.

With that in mind, the Packers will have an opportunity to be in the conversation for a divisional title at the end if they can continue to progress. Keep in mind that the Vikes are one Sam-Bradford-crystal-knee away from noodle-armed Shaun Hill (or even Joel Stave) being their starting QB.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 07:24 pm

Hmm,some of what you said in the first half of your post kind of reminds me of the SB champion Broncos

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

October 11, 2016 at 01:34 pm

11-5 or 10-6 and another divisional playoff loss. #12 is a year older. MM is on the hot seat, but is retained. Offense runs the same plays that haven't worked since 2013 and the same dynamic takes place next season.

This team will never win another SB with MM. Plain and simple.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

October 11, 2016 at 01:53 pm

So let me see at 3 - 1 the gist of this thread is what is wrong with the Packers? There are no style points in the NFL just winning the games is good enough.

The offense does have to play better to beat the top teams. But the parts are there. The line is playing well and the skill players are available. The playing better really just appears to be avoiding turnovers, penalties and drops. If the do that they are scoring plenty of points to win any game

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

October 11, 2016 at 02:07 pm

I did a little homework. Since 2008 when Aaron Rodgers became the starting QB, the Packers have been in 50 games when they entered the 4th quarter behind by 14 points or less, or tied, or had fallen behind in the 4th quarter and had to score enough points to win. Out of those 50 games, the Packers have won 19 and lost 31. A winning percentage of 38%. (And one of the games they won was with Matt Flynn playing against Dallas.)

Clearly, coming from behind is not a strength of either Mike McCarthy’s offense or Aaron Rodgers’ play.

I know MM wants to run out the clock in the 4th quarter when they have the lead and Dom Capers wants to play “prevent” defense. But if one looks at the stats and history, these are not the best strategies to employ for this team and this quarterback. If the Packers happen to lose momentum and fall behind to their opponent, the odds are they will lose the game.

Since 2014, the Packers have scored 590 points in the 1st half and 458 points in the 2nd half. I believe the Packers will only go all the way with Mike McCarthy as the Head Coach and Aaron Rodgers as the quarterback and Dom Capers as the Defensive Coordinator, if they attack both offensively and defensively for a full sixty minutes and stop pretending they are a team they’re not.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

October 11, 2016 at 02:56 pm

How far can they go? They can win it all.

How far will they go? Depends on their consistency.

It's not like we haven't seen moments of greatness from our Offense and dominance from our Defense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sonomaca's picture

October 11, 2016 at 03:27 pm

Vikings look good to win the NFC North. Their schedule really isn't that difficult. Got the Bears and Lions twice. Also, the Jags, Colts, Cards, Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles and Packers. I doubt they lose more than 3 of those games.

That means the Pack are probably playing for a home WC game, and then off to either Seattle or Minnesota.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Charvid's picture

October 11, 2016 at 08:39 pm

How many times have we seen Minnesota absolutely poop themselves in the second half of the year? We are 3-1, Vikes are 5-0...basically 1 game out of the Division Lead...not even a third of the way into the schedule. Way too early to concede that we're playing for a WC spot!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sonomaca's picture

October 11, 2016 at 11:32 pm

Might have agreed with you in the past, but the Minnesota defense is too good this year. I think the Vikings lose, at most, 3 games. That means the Packers must go 10-2 just to tie the Vikings. That seems like a stretch given that the Packers still have to face Minnesota, Seattle and Atlanta.

Fact is, Packers are now playing for the first WC seed. They'll get the WC game at home, win it, and then get trounced in either Seattle or Minnesota. Same script as in previous years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Dancing Eddy's picture

October 11, 2016 at 03:08 pm

We will go as far as we always do, a middling playoff run. We do not play to put teams away. We are not a good second half team due to the tendency to play relaxed and conservative. MM does not adapt well. TT manages to save money( I never get what he is saving FOR). STeams will let us down at some point. Second halfs make me nervous. But it is still better than the bottom half off the league.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
al bundy's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:11 pm

Ditto

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

October 11, 2016 at 07:30 pm

I just read an interesting piece on www.cbssports.com , writer there picking Dallas over GB,check it out

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 11, 2016 at 07:42 pm

GB has enough talent to be in the super bowl.

We have a strong front 7 with depth (though the depth part surprises me a little). I still don't understand how Perry only got 351 snaps last year while Neal got 734. We have a strong OL, though the depth is a little shaky. I am comfortable with AR and Hundley at QB. RB is good though the depth again is shaky. FB is pretty good.

We need a 3rd receiving option (and have since 2013). Cook could provide it upon his return. I can at least conceive of one of the WRs breaking out (I don't mean as a #1 WR but rather as a good solid 3rd option). I think Abby, Monty and Davis have the necessary talent.

The secondary has been a little up and down, but I see good talent. I wrote several times during the preseason that Gunter was the pivotal guy, a guy who could provide depth should we lose Shields, Rollins or Randall for a while. He answered the bell pretty well, and might be able to build off of his performance against NY. Otherwise, we have to hope for the return of Shields and good health. Folks noticed that when they moved Burnett to hybrid ILB, Brice played in his stead. Very promising player.

The biggest impediments to a successful playoff run IMO involve stubbornness, misplaced loyalty (RR, Getsy) and lack of a killer instinct.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
al bundy's picture

October 11, 2016 at 09:09 pm

Something to chew on. Lions came back and almost won. Vikings did win. Giants had two over thrown passes to wide open guys and could have easily won.
I think this is now better than an 8-8 team. Only because there ars so many horrible teams.
I think they go belly up in the playoffs again one and done.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

October 12, 2016 at 06:44 am

So will the Vikings. They have a Top 3 defense I'll give you that. Green bay gave them the ball 4 times AT home in their "Dome Opener" and barely won. The Vikings have beat teams that everyone else has beat too. Eli overthrew lots of times, maybe pressure was a reason. Hell if you wanna make excuses then if Shields plays he locks down Diggs and the Packers win.

Your very quick to make EXCUSES for the Vikings as well as EXCUSES for the Teams the Packers have beat. You and I both know the Packers haven't even come close to playing their best, even if it's marginally better. The Vikings are playing WAAAY above their heads, especially on Offense and they still are only the 30th ranked Offense. The Packers may not make it to the dance, but the Vikings won't either. Not even the NFC Championship Game.

I'll tell you right now, the Vikings won't be the #1 seed, and they sure aren't a "Lock" to win the Division. The Vikings are 5-0...Impressive.. The Vikings are 5-0...It's EARLY...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

October 12, 2016 at 06:44 am

So will the Vikings. They have a Top 3 defense I'll give you that. Green bay gave them the ball 4 times AT home in their "Dome Opener" and barely won. The Vikings have beat teams that everyone else has beat too. Eli overthrew lots of times, maybe pressure was a reason. Hell if you wanna make excuses then if Shields plays he locks down Diggs and the Packers win.

Your very quick to make EXCUSES for the Vikings as well as EXCUSES for the Teams the Packers have beat. You and I both know the Packers haven't even come close to playing their best, even if it's marginally better. The Vikings are playing WAAAY above their heads, especially on Offense and they still are only the 30th ranked Offense. The Packers may not make it to the dance, but the Vikings won't either. Not even the NFC Championship Game.

I'll tell you right now, the Vikings won't be the #1 seed, and they sure aren't a "Lock" to win the Division. The Vikings are 5-0...Impressive.. The Vikings are 5-0...It's EARLY...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

October 12, 2016 at 07:08 am

While the Vikings do have a very good defense, I'm still not sold on them yet. Remember last year the Falcons started 6-0 and didn't make the playoffs.
They have faced offenses that have struggled. The Titans offense essentially gave the Vikings 14 points. The Packers offense was struggling, the Giants offense has been hot and cold, mostly cold. The Panthers are a shell of themselves from last year and the Texans are a team that has not played well away from home. Getting blown out by both teams they have played on the road.

While the Vikings are undefeated at this point, I'm not about to crown them anything.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Icebowler's picture

October 13, 2016 at 02:47 am

As we proved in 2010/11, just make the damn playoffs. Then it's a brand new season, especially if you have the discipline to win on the road if necessary.

+ 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.