Can't argue with anything you said. I remember how a lot of people were asking why the Packers kept him around early in the season, saying Cox was wasting a roster spot that we could have filled with a talented player. I keep thinking of that old adage; "Oh ye, of little faith." It seems to ring true here.
I'm not down on Van Ness. In the Packers defensive schemes, both Van Ness and Gary will suffer when it comes to stats, because their primary job is to keep runners from getting outside, where they can make huge plays. They need to turn them in, or force them to the sideline, so the speedier DBs can come up and make the tackles. Early in the season, both were having problems with that, but over the last few games, they've been doing a great job in holding the corner. This is one of those things that you never see in stats, but rest assured, the coaches see it on film, because it lets the rest of the team do their jobs.
www.thecoldwire.com
For someone to call him out after he was credited with 3 solo tackles plus an assist which led or tied all the DBs on the team, this is just crazy talk.
Stokes did have an excellent game against the Saints. Here's the top 5 PFF ratings both offense and defense. He has been relatively stable against the pass, but his run PFF is pretty bad. It doesn't show in these stats, but it's what it is. He's in the bottom 20% of the CBs in the league. I believe he's allowed 3 TDs this year, in man coverage, and I don't think any of them came against a #1 on a team, but not positive.
So we'll see how he does next game. I only remember him barely hanging on to someone on our L side. Should have been an easy tackle but the guy was getting away and would have except help finally came. And another that just really looked iffy. So we'll see. He looks kinda shy to me on the tackling and shedding a blocker.
At this point we have 11 wins and should finish with at least 12. Pretty good for the youngest team in the league. After Rodgers and Co. departed if you would have said we would be in the postseason the first years going forward you would have made book. It is just unfortunate that this team of all decades is in the same division with the 2 best teams in the conference. I guess it would be worse if we had to be in the AFC West the last 6 seasons with Mahommes and Andy Reid staring us down.
The Saints were proclaimed to be the best team in the NFL after two games this season. Things change, eh?
The only games we've lost are to teams with 3 losses or less. Everyone else has been meat. I like where this team is. No crushing injuries, young players improving. Hopefully the coaches can draw up good game plans going forward. I'm not scared of anyone out there.
Don't get too over confident, The Packers have had their share of close victories (Colts, Rams, Texans, Jags, and Bears).
Sitting out some of the players that are on injury status gives one the sense that the Packers may not be tanking this game but appear to be saving what they hope is their best in two weeks. They figure to face the Eagles or one of 3 others. No matter what happens today what the team does in two weeks is what counts.
Imo, what they need to do is create consistent up the middle pressure on opposing QB's. If we are able to do that we have an advantage over both Detroit and Minnesota.
Both of those opponents are very strong at blocking up the middle. That is why few teams have been able to do that against them.
