Aaron Rodgers watch.

[Sunshinepacker]

In my opinion it's absolutely lame to blame injuries for the secondary struggling mightily.

Uhhmmm....if Rodgers was hurt you wouldn't think the QB play would be worse? If Jordy Nelson was hurt, you wouldn't expect the receivers to be worse? Why is the secondary different? Especially when HALF the starting secondary is out.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You bring up the Vikings but their injuries have to been to guys on the defense that aren't that important and not nearly as many.

The Vikings have lost their starting quarterback, star running back and left tackle for the season and yet you don't consider those as important. Wow!!!

Uhhmmm....if Rodgers was hurt you wouldn't think the QB play would be worse? If Jordy Nelson was hurt, you wouldn't expect the receivers to be worse? Why is the secondary different? Especially when HALF the starting secondary is out.

I don't like to use injuries as an excuse for the team not performing up to expectations. The Vikings have proven by being aggressive that it's even possible to overcome the loss of the starting QB.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why can't it be an excuse when the defense folds? If players are out of the game it's not like they can be effective sometimes, they're just OUT. With the number of players out you can't just focus on the backups being worse, you also have to remember that it severely limits what Capers can do scheme-wise as well. He can't make adjustments he might want to make because he doesn't have any players to make those adjustments with.

Injuries are a part of the game and IMO, just too easy of an excuse sometimes for poor play by a team. The good teams overcome injuries, because they have depth. Vikings and Patriots can attest to that.

The Packers secondary played just fine for most of the first half against Detroit, despite the injuries to Shields and Burnett. This wasn't the case in the second half. Yes, injuries can be a part of a drop off in play, but should not be the excuse to explain the mistakes that Randall (opening day starter) has been making. Nor should it be the constant excuse like it was last year for some with Jordy's injury and the dysfunctional Packer offense.

If your team doesn't have back-ups that can step in and play at or near the level of the starters, then you haven't built a strong 53 man roster. Maybe this could be the achilles heel of a team as young as the Packers?

 

[swhitset]

Injuries are a part of the game and IMO, just too easy of an excuse sometimes for poor play by a team. The good teams overcome injuries, because they have depth. Vikings and Patriots can attest to that.

The Packers secondary played just fine for most of the first half against Detroit, despite the injuries to Shields and Burnett. This wasn't the case in the second half. Yes, injuries can be a part of a drop off in play, but should not be the excuse to explain the mistakes that Randall (opening day starter) has been making. Nor should it be the constant excuse like it was last year for some with Jordy's injury and the dysfunctional Packer offense.

If your team doesn't have back-ups that can step in and play at or near the level of the starters, then you haven't built a strong 53 man roster. Maybe this could be the achilles heel of a team as young as the Packers?

The Patriots just got shut out at home by Buffalo... Yes they won their first three. The Vikings lost Teddy Bridgewater and replaced him with a better quarterback in Bradford.... I am not happy with the way Randall is playing either, but to try and make some macho argument that the loss of your best cornerback and a starting safety along with a pro bowl linebacker and a starting DT should not affect the performance of the defense.... is ridiculous. Sure every coach has to preach that "next man up" philosophy , but most people understand its fallacy. Heck why even have a draft... just sign anybody that wants to play and the good coaches will turn them into stars lmao.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Patriots just got shut out at home by Buffalo... Yes they won their first three. The Vikings lost Teddy Bridgewater and replaced him with a better quarterback in Bradford.... I am not happy with the way Randall is playing either, but to try and make some macho argument that the loss of your best cornerback and a starting safety along with a pro bowl linebacker and a starting DT should not affect the performance of the defense.... is ridiculous. Sure every coach has to preach that "next man up" philosophy , but most people understand its fallacy. Heck why even have a draft... just sign anybody that wants to play and the good coaches will turn them into stars lmao.

In case you forgot it the Packers won the Super Bowl in 2010 with a total of 16 players on injured reserve. Teams need to have backups capable of performing on a decent level to be successful.

Once again, using injuries as an excuse is lame.

 

[PackAttack12]

In case you forgot it the Packers won the Super Bowl in 2010 with a total of 16 players on injured reserve. Teams need to have backups capable of performing on a decent level to be successful.

Once again, using injuries as an excuse is lame.

With the only possible exception being the quarterback.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sure every coach has to preach that "next man up" philosophy , but most people understand its fallacy. Heck why even have a draft... just sign anybody that wants to play and the good coaches will turn them into stars lmao.

Good depth is a fallacy?

Why have a draft? So that you can develop starters and in the process create a deep roster, one that you can rely on no matter who is playing. The Packers are typically very good at this. The teams that don't draft and develop so well, we all know the results.

Again, injuries are a normal part of an NFL season and the teams that can keep winning despite those injuries are the better teams at the end of the year. Maybe I am a bit sensitive when I hear people using injuries as the first excuse made for poor play, but after hearing people blame all the offensive problems last year on Jordy being injured, it gets old as the catch all phrase of why the other 52 guys didn't step up.

I have to ask again about the Detroit game, wasn't that the same secondary for the first half as it was the second half? What happened?

 

[swhitset]

Good depth is a fallacy?

Why have a draft? So that you can develop starters and in the process create a deep roster, one that you can rely on no matter who is playing. The Packers are typically very good at this. The teams that don't draft and develop so well, we all know the results.

Again, injuries are a normal part of an NFL season and the teams that can keep winning despite those injuries are the better teams at the end of the year. Maybe I am a bit sensitive when I hear people using injuries as the first excuse made for poor play, but after hearing people blame all the offensive problems last year on Jordy being injured, it gets old as the catch all phrase of why the other 52 guys didn't step up.

I have to ask again about the Detroit game, wasn't that the same secondary for the first half as it was the second half? What happened?

I Think you had better go watch that game a little more closely... The defense showed signs on the first drive of what was to come. Yes we shut down their running game .... but the lions were starting to open up the pass even in the beginning.. A few plays went the right way for us and skewed the whole first half. Even that "interception" by Randall was a completed pass that he stripped away. It was a good defensive play, but the receiver was still able to catch it initially.

 

[swhitset]

You asked what happened in the first half? The opposite of what happened in the second. The Packers offense dominated in the first half making the Packers Defense look good. In the second, the Lions offense dominated making everybody complain that the Packers offense let up, when in fact, they barely had any opportunities.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I Think you had better go watch that game a little more closely... The defense showed signs on the first drive of what was to come. Yes we shut down their running game .... but the lions were starting to open up the pass even in the beginning.. A few plays went the right way for us and skewed the whole first half. Even that "interception" by Randall was a completed pass that he stripped away. It was a good defensive play, but the receiver was still able to catch it initially.

We saw the same game. Prior to the play at the end of the half, the Packers were up 31-3, Stafford was 11-20-1 for 122 yards, hardly anything to concern yourself about. Then the defensive collapse started. First the 73 yard pass to MMJ that Hawkins slipped on and then missed a tackle. From that play on, Stafford was 17-21-0 for 246 yards. That concerns me. Randall gave up a lot of those yards in the second half and he is a starter. Would having Mathews, Burnett and Shields playing have helped? Probably, but this isn't the first time we have seen the defense collapse in the second half of a game, with or without starters missing. That is what concerns me. Remember, having 3 starters out doesn't mean you are only playing with 8 guys on defense or that the 3 guys taking their places have never played football. While your final product might not be as good, which the first half showed, it shouldn't be as bad as what we saw in the second half. Blame a certain drop-off on injuries, but there is more to it then that IMO.

 

[swhitset]

We saw the same game. Prior to the play at the end of the half, the Packers were up 31-3, Stafford was 11-20-1 for 122 yards, hardly anything to concern yourself about. Then the defensive collapse started. First the 73 yard pass to MMJ that Hawkins slipped on and then missed a tackle. From that play on, Stafford was 17-21-0 for 246 yards. That concerns me. Randall gave up a lot of those yards in the second half and he is a starter. Would having Mathews, Burnett and Shields playing have helped? Probably, but this isn't the first time we have seen the defense collapse in the second half of a game, with or without starters missing. That is what concerns me. Remember, having 3 starters out doesn't mean you are only playing with 8 guys on defense or that the 3 guys taking their places have never played football. While your final product might not be as good, which the first half showed, it shouldn't be as bad as what we saw in the second half. Blame a certain drop-off on injuries, but there is more to it then that IMO.

I have nothing to quarrel with in this post. My only problem is a blanket statement saying that injuries to starters should not affect the outcome. I agree that we need to see better play from those that were on the field especially the remaining starters... ie Randall and Rollins. But to say that the backups should be able to play as well as the starters .... well not so much. Why are we paying Mathews all that money if his backups can play just as well?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I have nothing to quarrel with in this post. My only problem is a blanket statement saying that injuries to starters should not affect the outcome. I agree that we need to see better play from those that were on the field especially the remaining starters... ie Randall and Rollins. But to say that the backups should be able to play as well as the starters .... well not so much. Why are we paying Mathews all that money if his backups can play just as well?

Of course you usually get a drop off in play between a back-up and a starter. I think we agree upon that. My point is, the excuses of "this guy was hurt or that guy was hurt" gets old and shouldn't be over used to explain things like what we saw in the second half against the Lions. Some said it all last year about Jordy. Injuries are a normal part of the NFL and the good teams find a way to keep winning, despite the injuries.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Vikings have lost their starting quarterback, star running back and left tackle for the season and yet you don't consider those as important. Wow!!!



I don't like to use injuries as an excuse for the team not performing up to expectations. The Vikings have proven by being aggressive that it's even possible to overcome the loss of the starting QB.

I was speaking of the defense...and the Vikings offense isn't exactly a model to aspire to. The Vikings have proven that by having one of the best defenses in the NFL, you only need an average offense to win games. You also have no way to prove the Vikings offense isn't actually being hurt by injuries because we've not seen the Vikings offense with Bridgewater. For another (what I would have thought was obvious) issue with your comparison, Bradford and Bridgewater are about equal QBs so I'm not sure how that relates to the guys replacing injured players for the Packers since those replacements are NOT of equal skill. Not sure why you keep bringing up points that are obviously not the same as what I'm talking about but if you think comparing the Vikings offense to the Packer's defense is an apples-to-apples comparison, then so be it.

As for injuries, no, nobody likes to use them because it sounds like an excuse. It's a silly tendency that makes zero sense. Obviously injuries matter. JJ Watt being hurt is going to affect the Texan's defense. Burfect missing games for the Bengals hurt the team. Injuries are a part of football but expecting a team to not miss good players is just asking to be disappointed. Did you think the players/coaches were doing a bad job because Seneca Wallace wasn't playing up to Rodgers' skill level?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Injuries are a part of the game and IMO, just too easy of an excuse sometimes for poor play by a team. The good teams overcome injuries, because they have depth. Vikings and Patriots can attest to that.

The Packers secondary played just fine for most of the first half against Detroit, despite the injuries to Shields and Burnett. This wasn't the case in the second half. Yes, injuries can be a part of a drop off in play, but should not be the excuse to explain the mistakes that Randall (opening day starter) has been making. Nor should it be the constant excuse like it was last year for some with Jordy's injury and the dysfunctional Packer offense.

If your team doesn't have back-ups that can step in and play at or near the level of the starters, then you haven't built a strong 53 man roster. Maybe this could be the achilles heel of a team as young as the Packers?

Please, show me a team's defense that overcame injuries to a starting dlineman, their second best overall defensive player, their starting corner and their starting safety. That's over a third of the defense being out. Teams don't overcome that. Teams can overcome injuries to mediocre players at some positions because then a slightly more mediocre player replaces that guy and the difference is negligible.

Great examples of injuries ruining a season. 2014 Packers. 2011 Texans (could have won the AFC until they were forced to start TJ Yates at QB). The only exception to the rule of injuries hurting a team would be the Pats and that's only because they have the best coach on the planet and McCarthy isn't Belichick.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Please, show me a team's defense that overcame injuries to a starting dlineman, their second best overall defensive player, their starting corner and their starting safety. That's over a third of the defense being out. Teams don't overcome that. Teams can overcome injuries to mediocre players at some positions because then a slightly more mediocre player replaces that guy and the difference is negligible.

Great examples of injuries ruining a season. 2014 Packers. 2011 Texans (could have won the AFC until they were forced to start TJ Yates at QB). The only exception to the rule of injuries hurting a team would be the Pats and that's only because they have the best coach on the planet and McCarthy isn't Belichick.

Kind of confused here. You ask me to show you a team that overcame defensive injuries similar to what the Packers were facing against the Lions and then you give me examples of how the Texans season was derailed by the loss of a QB and the 2014 Packers season was ruined because of what injuries? I thought the 2014 Season was derailed when Special Teams and the defense collapsed against the Seahawks in the NFCCG? I am sure I can cherry pick plenty of teams that won games and had successful seasons with many key players injured at some point in the season. Captain already named one, the 2010 Packers. 16 players on IR and some of those key guys.

BTW, the Packers did overcame the injuries they had when facing the Lions, especially in the first half and they did win the game, right? They just played really poorly on defense the second half. This Sunday, at least 3 of those players will probably be playing, so not sure what your point is, the season isn't derailed. Some of us are simply saying, game to game or even season long injuries are a normal part of the NFL and to always use those as an excuse for a loss or for poor play is being a bit short sighted IMO.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

With the only possible exception being the quarterback.

The Vikings have proved so far that it's possible to overcome losing the starting quarterback for the season as well.

Why are we paying Mathews all that money if his backups can play just as well?

Of course there's a drop-off in individual performance to be expected once a star player goes down but teams with good depth are able to limit it as well as use scheme adjustments to make up for it.

For another (what I would have thought was obvious) issue with your comparison, Bradford and Bridgewater are about equal QBs so I'm not sure how that relates to the guys replacing injured players for the Packers since those replacements are NOT of equal skill.

Well, teams should actually strive for being able to replace starters with equally talented players. While the Vikings have been able to achieve that at the most important position in football the Packers have struggled to do so at several others. All offseason long there was talk about Green Bay having the deepest roster in the league but right now it seems the team doesn't have great depth. That's on Thompson.

As for injuries, no, nobody likes to use them because it sounds like an excuse.

Yet you've done it throughout the entire thread.

Did you think the players/coaches were doing a bad job because Seneca Wallace wasn't playing up to Rodgers' skill level?

No, but I think Thompson did a terrible job of providing the Packers with a decent backup quarterback for the 2013 season.

 

[Poppa San]

Seneca Wallace went out with injuries early in the first game he started. We can't know if he was a viable option that season.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Seneca Wallace went out with injuries early in the first game he started. We can't know if he was a viable option that season.

True, Wallace's career numbers and the fact that the Packers signed him after training camp indicate he would have struggled though.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Yet you've done it throughout the entire thread.

Yes, because I then went on in my statement to say that the tendency to say "injuries aren't an excuse" is silly.

 

[PackAttack12]

The Vikings have proved so far that it's possible to overcome losing the starting quarterback for the season as well.

Only problem is that there aren't many teams willing to unload a quarterback talent like Bradford.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Only problem is that there aren't many teams willing to unload a quarterback talent like Bradford.

The Rams and then the Eagles both thought it was worthwhile unloading Bradford. While the Eagles are playing just fine with Carson Wentz, it almost appears that the last team holding Bradford is getting the best of the deals. In fairness to both the Rams and then the Eagles, I don't think either team viewed Bradford as being over talented, good, but not great. I think the jury is still out, but the Vikings seem happy.

 

[Sky King]

75% of the regular season still remains. That's a lot of potential injuries still waiting to happen for all teams, including the Packers. If Rodgers were to be lost fairly early and Bradford remains healthy all season the Vikings could win the North in a runaway.*

(* With a China doll playing QB the Vikings legitimately have plenty to be worried about, perhaps even more so than most other teams. They'll need to be much luckier than other teams considering Bradford's dismal injury history.)

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

75% of the regular season still remains. That's a lot of potential injuries still waiting to happen for all teams, including the Packers. If Rodgers were to be lost fairly early and Bradford remains healthy all season the Vikings could win the North in a runaway.*

(* With a China doll playing QB the Vikings legitimately have plenty to be worried about, perhaps even more so than most other teams. They'll need to be much luckier than other teams considering Bradford's dismal injury history.)

The Vikings could take another hit at QB and probably survive it. Packers losing AR might be harder to overcome.

 

[swhitset]

The Vikings could take another hit at QB and probably survive it. Packers losing AR might be harder to overcome.

I'm not sure I agree with that. the Vikings D would still be great, but their offense would look much different. Take the game against the Packers, Bradford stood in the pocket under serious pressure and delivered. I doubt a lesser QB would have gotten those throws off. Bradford made some very good throws against the Giants as well. While the Vikings Defense gets well deserved credit, I really think their much improved offense led by Bradford is the key to their current success. However I do agree that the Pack losing Rodgers would be harder on the Pack.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Only problem is that there aren't many teams willing to unload a quarterback talent like Bradford.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that it's possible to overcome losing the starting quarterback. The Patriots bein another example so far this season.