RichNhansom":s8klat2c said:
ptisme":s8klat2c said:
Green Bay's reason for optimism is as follows:
1. Green Bay was one of the youngest teams in the league last year. They expect rookies and second year players from last year at center, TE, LT, RB, WR3, ILB, and DB to make jumps. While this is a projection, all these players looked good last year.
This seems like a reasonable assumption.
2. Assuming Rodgers stays healthy... The Packers feel there was a few third downs last year that Rodgers had lots of room to run to be converted this time against Seattle.
This not as much because Rogers was 100% healthy in the first game.
3. They return all 11 guys on offense and expect to be better due to continuity on that side of the ball.
This also seems like a safe assumption.
4. They are getting their two ILB's: Clay Matthews and 2nd year man Sam Barrington (who showed promise) a full off season at the position.
Again I could see why you would be optimistic.
5. They are getting BJ Raji back. He was in great shape last summer and moved back to the position he dominated at a few years ago. By all indications he was unblockable last summer before tearing his tricep. He's back and in even better shape.
This seems full on hopeful expectation but is not out of the realm of possibility but even if we assume it is accurate then it would be fair to say that Mebane and Hill will both be back and 100% healthy. Mebane being reported as the best shape of his life and has never shown to be anything other than elite while Hill was just coming into his own and looking like a stud. I mention these two because they were healthy in the first game and out in the second so if it is reasonable to believe Ragi will improve your defense (did he play in the first game?) then it is more than reasonable to assume that Mebane and Hill would be an even larger upgrade. Would you agree?
6. Our defensive backfield looks to be better this year with an infusion of speed and talent. They were good last year but Tramon Williams was getting long in the tooth and House couldn't stay on the field.
I'm sure you won't like this comment but you sound like a 9er fan with #6. Will they be an upgrade? You hope so but it is equally likely they will not and add in the 2nd game of the season I would say odds are they are still learning the defense and continuity. Remember you were talking up continuity in #1 so you have to consider it both ways.
7. Lambeau Field: The Packers view the winner of the week two match up as potentially the team that gets home field. As everyone knows Green Bay is Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hide at Lambeau vs away. Part of that is at home Rodgers has a quiet stadium to work his counts on the defense. Green Bay thinks it can put Seattle away in Lambeau... I rewatched the NE game at Lambeau last year. Green Bay won a close one but there were numerous instances where that game could have gotten out of hand in favor of the Packers.
Agree Lambeau is a tough venue and it makes sense that Rogers would play better in front of his home crowd and with less crowd noise. It also makes sense that our #3 corner (not decided yet) and our Slot corner (Lane) won't be back by then but you still have to credit Pete and the LOB for doing their research and shutting down top shelf QB's. I think this might be the key to the game.
8. Mike McCarthy is a great coach when it comes to preparing his team. He is just so so on game day. He's handed off the play calling to the talented Tom Clements while he focuses more on the entire team aspect. Early returns are he is making a huge difference in the position rooms. Hopefully Green Bay won't call plays not to lose this year if it gets a lead on Seattle....
Uhm, you went full 9er fan again. Until proven otherwise this is a down grade. Just changing something doesn't make it better and more often than not in the early stages it makes things worse. It may prove to be a smart move or it may backfire.
9. Green Bay finally fired ST coach Shawn Slocum and geared the draft toward upgrading special teams. This unit has only one way to go as it has been consistently ranked near the bottom of the league in special teams over the years...
Your really going full 9er fan to finish this off. Nicely done. Way to commit. J/K. I remember when we finally got rid of Holmgren and moved on to Mora. Hey it could only get better right? RIGHT?
Here is where I see the outlier's. This is in Lambeau but it is also a prime time game. Lets call that a wash (I'm assuming you know Seattle's record on prime time games?) 5 Turn overs is what kept the last game close and you still lost. It is pretty apparent McCarthy seemed to have your players so hyped they were completely spent by the 2nd half. That was a great way to start but do you think it's possible that Seattle was caught off guard a little? You have heard I'm sure, how hard it is to beat a team twice in the same season right? We won the first game 36-16 and it really wasn't that close. Don't you have to assume you will come out hyped again and get 5 more turn overs while we again come out flat in this next game along with all of your bullet points? And that is assuming Seattle won't be better with the addition of Jimmy. I could also go into a 9er fan type hype about Tyler Locket potentially dramatically improving out kick off and punt returns along with 6'5" 230lb Chris Mathews in his second year after putting up over 100 yards and a TD in the super bowl (the only game he played in last year) but to me that feels like 9er fan logic.
So sticking to the obvious and undeniable facts. How do you think that NFCC game would have looked if we don't turn the ball over 5 times? Do you think Seattle will come out flat like the NFCC game after how that game played out and hearing all off season how lucky they were to have won it? Removing all the hype fluff and hope do you still believe the Packers are the better team?
Cheers and thanks for posting here. Your a good poster and I enjoy reading your posts.
You make great points. I could nitpick some (Ie Casey Hayward needing a few games to be up to speed) but they were well thought out and reasoned. Sticking with what we know
1. That first game last year was an outlier. Nobody was going to play Seattle close on that night. We also had two starters hurt on our oline which almost got Rodgers killed. I think the fail Mary and the NFCCG were better representations of these two teams.
We were starting a rookie at RT and had multiple players already on IR for the defense. Injuries are part of the game. Your depth is what separates you from the others. I'm not sure how a game from 2 years prior in Wilson's rookie season is a better measuring stick than last years game. Unless you are again going full 9er fan and are willing to ignore the obvious info right in front of you to make your argument. Sorry for the insult but that really is reaching. Early part of the year, prime time game. Sounds earily similar to what we are looking at this year only in your house this time. As for better or worse on the road, the Seahawks have been good in both in recent years and in prime time we are the best in the NFL home and away.
2. We lost a game we should have won in January. This time it's at home. GB played horrible on the road all year. Further proof of how close these two teams are: we beat Dallas and New England whom you lost to.
Define should have won? Do you mean you should have played better? Or not came out so hyped at the beginning that you couldn't maintain a similar level of play through the whole game like Seattle did? While I agree that any team that is given 5 turn overs mostly in short field range, should come away with the win. You guys make the perfect argument for why it is critical to play 60 minutes of football and show exactly why Seattle is the better team.
Question for you. With how that game unraveled in January do you think McCarthy will have these guys ready to play a more consistent game this time or will they come out of the gates on fire only to burn out again as the game goes on?
Also if neither team turns the ball over in the NFCC game, do you think it is still a close game? Or does that game look eerily similar to the first game? Try and be honest here.
By the way beating a team another team lost to is completely meaningless unless you are just trying to pad an argument.
3. Green Bays younger trench players really improved as they gained experience last year. They dominated the trenches in that second game. You had some injured players coming back and so do we. We'll see how it shakes out
I'm sure they did but they didn't suddenly become all pro's. Every team has area's that improve as the season goes on. Look at Chris Mathews who didn't play a snap all year until the super bowl and the went off the hook for over 100 yards and a TD. The only way they were able to stop him was putting Brandon Browner on him who is similar in size at 6'3" and 230lb similar to Mathews who is 6'5" and 230lbs. Do you happen to have a 6'3" 230lb DB by chance?
Another question for you. What DB is going to cover Baldwin when Jimmy is drawing double coverage? And how are you going to spy Wilson and slow down Lynch while doubling Jimmy with Baldwin running around clean?
