Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
2 Pages12>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Greg C.  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:55:49 AM(UTC)
I'm still not especially keen on Sanders as DC, but there are major personnel problems with the defense this year, as explained in this article. I did not realize that only 5 of our last 20 draft picks have been defensive players:

http://www.greenbaypress...ferrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL
macbob  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:22:55 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm still not especially keen on Sanders as DC, but there are major personnel problems with the defense this year, as explained in this article. I did not realize that only 5 of our last 20 draft picks have been defensive players:

http://www.greenbaypress...ferrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL


Yeah, but Vandermause is conveniently picking his years to support his argument. The two preceding years (2005/2006) 12 of the 23 draft picks were defensive players, and there were two other defensive players acquired through draft-day/draft-pick trades, so we acquired a total of 14 defensive players out of 25 total during Thompson's first two drafts. Add them all up, and you've got 19 out of 45 picks went to defense in Thompson's first 4 drafts.
bozz_2006  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:46:03 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm still not especially keen on Sanders as DC, but there are major personnel problems with the defense this year, as explained in this article. I did not realize that only 5 of our last 20 draft picks have been defensive players:

http://www.greenbaypress...ferrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL


Yeah, but Vandermause is conveniently picking his years to support his argument. The two preceding years (2005/2006) 12 of the 23 draft picks were defensive players, and there were two other defensive players acquired through draft-day/draft-pick trades, so we acquired a total of 14 defensive players out of 25 total during Thompson's first two drafts. Add them all up, and you've got 19 out of 45 picks went to defense in Thompson's first 4 drafts.


Boom! +1
Greg C.  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:58:38 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm still not especially keen on Sanders as DC, but there are major personnel problems with the defense this year, as explained in this article. I did not realize that only 5 of our last 20 draft picks have been defensive players:

http://www.greenbaypress...ferrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL


Yeah, but Vandermause is conveniently picking his years to support his argument. The two preceding years (2005/2006) 12 of the 23 draft picks were defensive players, and there were two other defensive players acquired through draft-day/draft-pick trades, so we acquired a total of 14 defensive players out of 25 total during Thompson's first two drafts. Add them all up, and you've got 19 out of 45 picks went to defense in Thompson's first 4 drafts.


Nice catch. But the lack of talent on the defensive line is obvious, regardless of the reasons for it. I still like our DB's and LB's, and I think this defense would be much better with a couple more quality players on the line.
porky88  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:04:42 AM(UTC)
Vandermause was also a main supporter of Thompson not to long ago or so his articles seemed to lean towards positive opinions of Thompson.

I don't understand this blame him or him or whatever. How about multiple people accept responsibility? Personally Thompson and Sanders are two guys to start with.

I know this or so I heard this. Bob Sanders is a well liked guy and perhaps writers will hold back on harsh criticism of him due to maybe him giving them details for articles in the past and maybe future. Just a guess.
Greg C.  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:31:33 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Vandermause was also a main supporter of Thompson not to long ago or so his articles seemed to lean towards positive opinions of Thompson.

I don't understand this blame him or him or whatever. How about multiple people accept responsibility? Personally Thompson and Sanders are two guys to start with.


Vandermause is a reporter who calls it like he sees it, for the most part. He is neither a "supporter" of Ted Thompson nor is he "against" Thompson. I think he makes a good point that people may be scapegoating Sanders too much here. You may not like the word "blame" being thrown around, but it is important to try to analyze where the real problems are so they can be fixed.

Personally, I still think Sanders' job is on the line. But if Thompson can't beef up the D-line, the defense will probably continue to struggle no matter who the DC is.
digsthepack  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:20:59 AM(UTC)
I HOPE Sanders' job is one the line!! OK....players got injured, and some showed precipitous drop off. What tram in the league is not dealing with the same issues to varying degrees?

To me, this defense only works when things are damn near perfect, and Sanders is not creative enough to manufacture pass rush when needed. Today's game is about disrupting the QB, and this defense just does not do it.
MassPackersFan  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:30:13 PM(UTC)
At the start of the year (i.e. before injuries) I would have had a hard time naming a player on the defense that I wanted replaced. Losing Cullen Jenkins was a huge blow, but still, I'm happy for the most part with the talent we have. I honestly have to say that they're just not being used well. Show me a good defense in this league that gives up huge gains because one player was out of position. If you look at Pittsburgh's or Tampa's defense, they are aggressively schemed and flow to the ball. If one guy is out of position, it doesn't lead to a 45 yard gain. It leads to 3 guys tackling the ball carrier instead of 4.

Something is fundamentally flawed with our defensive scheme. It's a zero error design with not enough positive to outweigh the negative of huge plays given up when there is one mistake.
dfosterf  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:01:18 PM(UTC)
This is a team game, last time I checked. The consensus going into this season was our biggest variable was Aaron Rodgers replacing Brett Favre. That is where we were. All the rest smacks of a continued agenda. Blame? Ya, there's plenty of blame to be handed out. The utter collapse of a pass rush. The failure of the offensive line to protect the quarterback, to open a hole for our running back to get through. The linebackers regressing. The consensus variable, Aaron Rodgers...well, Ted Thompson made the right decision, in the TEETH of all the blame-game haters. I didn't like our offensive line, for example, but I understood why a GM might stand pat with it. Our defensive line...well, I though Johnny Jolly was going to be a big cog in it's return to early season form from the previous year... bet the Packers saw and thought the same thing. I mean, why wouldn't they? The play of the D-line fell off, ESPECIALLY Williams' play, once Jolly was out of the equation.

It all continues to sound and feel like pure revisionist history, classic 20/20 hindsight, further fueled by the BF crotch-sniffing Ted Thompson haters (an industry term). Is it TT? Is it Winston Moss? Is it Sanders? Is it the players? Is Justin bustin? Is it MM? Is it injuries that knocked people out? Is it injuries that some gutty football players are quietly playing through, still? Is it some shitty luck? These are questions, not answers, and I'm sure we will all be discussing them at length, all with our own personal agendas.

The Ted Thompson didn't draft enough defensive players compared to the offense is incredibly humorous. What happened to the Ted Thompson didn't get enough weapons for his bitching quarterback supporters? I guess in order to be the GM of the Pack, you need to learn how to be two places at once, at least in some circles amongst us.
MassPackersFan  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:20:31 PM(UTC)
Yep, you have to trade up for more picks and draft star offensive and defensive players.
Greg C.  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:22:53 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
This is a team game, last time I checked. The consensus going into this season was our biggest variable was Aaron Rodgers replacing Brett Favre. That is where we were. All the rest smacks of a continued agenda. Blame? Ya, there's plenty of blame to be handed out. The utter collapse of a pass rush. The failure of the offensive line to protect the quarterback, to open a hole for our running back to get through. The linebackers regressing. The consensus variable, Aaron Rodgers...well, Ted Thompson made the right decision, in the TEETH of all the blame-game haters. I didn't like our offensive line, for example, but I understood why a GM might stand pat with it. Our defensive line...well, I though Johnny Jolly was going to be a big cog in it's return to early season form from the previous year... bet the Packers saw and thought the same thing. I mean, why wouldn't they? The play of the D-line fell off, ESPECIALLY Williams' play, once Jolly was out of the equation.

It all continues to sound and feel like pure revisionist history, classic 20/20 hindsight, further fueled by the Brett Favre crotch-sniffing Ted Thompson haters (an industry term). Is it Ted Thompson? Is it Winston Moss? Is it Sanders? Is it the players? Is Justin bustin? Is it Mike McCarthy? Is it injuries that knocked people out? Is it injuries that some gutty football players are quietly playing through, still? Is it some shitty luck? These are questions, not answers, and I'm sure we will all be discussing them at length, all with our own personal agendas.

The Ted Thompson didn't draft enough defensive players compared to the offense is incredibly humorous. What happened to the Ted Thompson didn't get enough weapons for his bitching quarterback supporters? I guess in order to be the GM of the Pack, you need to learn how to be two places at once, at least in some circles amongst us.


I was hoping to have some reasonable discussion about the extent to which the problems with the D are due to scheme vs. the extent to which they are due to personnel. But you just want to turn it into pro-Thompson vs. anti-Thompson.

20-20 hindsight is what you use to look back on a season. Maybe it's a little early, because the Packers have not been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs yet, but I don't think so. These are the things fans talk about. I don't have a personal agenda. I don't think Mike Vandermause does either. And I'm not going to assume that everybody else has one. I'd like to assume that we can discuss these things without reading too much into each other's comments.
Blank402  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:24:36 PM(UTC)
I don't quite understand this article. He says we should keep Sanders because he oversaw a top ten defense last year, but he also says that this years defense (which is almost identical to last years) is terrible because of a lack of talent.

Am I just misunderstanding something here, or does that not make sense at all.
brnt247  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:25:08 PM(UTC)
Going into this season our defenses biggest problem was coverage from the safeties. Collins has certainly helped that cause out. We thought Bigby would be the player he was last season and he isn't.

I'm not going to blame Thompson for sticking to nearly an identical defense, minus Corey Williams, and expecting them to be at least comparable to last seasons. Pretty stupid article.
brnt247  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:29:32 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
This is a team game, last time I checked. The consensus going into this season was our biggest variable was Aaron Rodgers replacing Brett Favre. That is where we were. All the rest smacks of a continued agenda. Blame? Ya, there's plenty of blame to be handed out. The utter collapse of a pass rush. The failure of the offensive line to protect the quarterback, to open a hole for our running back to get through. The linebackers regressing. The consensus variable, Aaron Rodgers...well, Ted Thompson made the right decision, in the TEETH of all the blame-game haters. I didn't like our offensive line, for example, but I understood why a GM might stand pat with it. Our defensive line...well, I though Johnny Jolly was going to be a big cog in it's return to early season form from the previous year... bet the Packers saw and thought the same thing. I mean, why wouldn't they? The play of the D-line fell off, ESPECIALLY Williams' play, once Jolly was out of the equation.

It all continues to sound and feel like pure revisionist history, classic 20/20 hindsight, further fueled by the Brett Favre crotch-sniffing Ted Thompson haters (an industry term). Is it Ted Thompson? Is it Winston Moss? Is it Sanders? Is it the players? Is Justin bustin? Is it Mike McCarthy? Is it injuries that knocked people out? Is it injuries that some gutty football players are quietly playing through, still? Is it some shitty luck? These are questions, not answers, and I'm sure we will all be discussing them at length, all with our own personal agendas.

The Ted Thompson didn't draft enough defensive players compared to the offense is incredibly humorous. What happened to the Ted Thompson didn't get enough weapons for his bitching quarterback supporters? I guess in order to be the GM of the Pack, you need to learn how to be two places at once, at least in some circles amongst us.


I was hoping to have some reasonable discussion about the extent to which the problems with the D are due to scheme vs. the extent to which they are due to personnel. But you just want to turn it into pro-Thompson vs. anti-Thompson.

20-20 hindsight is what you use to look back on a season. Maybe it's a little early, because the Packers have not been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs yet, but I don't think so. These are the things fans talk about. I don't have a personal agenda. I don't think Mike Vandermause does either. And I'm not going to assume that everybody else has one. I'd like to assume that we can discuss these things without reading too much into each other's comments.


How could you possibly expect this not to turn into a pro-Thompson vs. anti-Thompson thread when you look at the title of the article?
dfosterf  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:44:12 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
This is a team game, last time I checked. The consensus going into this season was our biggest variable was Aaron Rodgers replacing Brett Favre. That is where we were. All the rest smacks of a continued agenda. Blame? Ya, there's plenty of blame to be handed out. The utter collapse of a pass rush. The failure of the offensive line to protect the quarterback, to open a hole for our running back to get through. The linebackers regressing. The consensus variable, Aaron Rodgers...well, Ted Thompson made the right decision, in the TEETH of all the blame-game haters. I didn't like our offensive line, for example, but I understood why a GM might stand pat with it. Our defensive line...well, I though Johnny Jolly was going to be a big cog in it's return to early season form from the previous year... bet the Packers saw and thought the same thing. I mean, why wouldn't they? The play of the D-line fell off, ESPECIALLY Williams' play, once Jolly was out of the equation.

It all continues to sound and feel like pure revisionist history, classic 20/20 hindsight, further fueled by the Brett Favre crotch-sniffing Ted Thompson haters (an industry term). Is it Ted Thompson? Is it Winston Moss? Is it Sanders? Is it the players? Is Justin bustin? Is it Mike McCarthy? Is it injuries that knocked people out? Is it injuries that some gutty football players are quietly playing through, still? Is it some shitty luck? These are questions, not answers, and I'm sure we will all be discussing them at length, all with our own personal agendas.

The Ted Thompson didn't draft enough defensive players compared to the offense is incredibly humorous. What happened to the Ted Thompson didn't get enough weapons for his bitching quarterback supporters? I guess in order to be the GM of the Pack, you need to learn how to be two places at once, at least in some circles amongst us.


I was hoping to have some reasonable discussion about the extent to which the problems with the D are due to scheme vs. the extent to which they are due to personnel. But you just want to turn it into pro-Thompson vs. anti-Thompson.

20-20 hindsight is what you use to look back on a season. Maybe it's a little early, because the Packers have not been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs yet, but I don't think so. These are the things fans talk about. I don't have a personal agenda. I don't think Mike Vandermause does either. And I'm not going to assume that everybody else has one. I'd like to assume that we can discuss these things without reading too much into each other's comments.


Interesting that I want to turn it into a pro-vs. anti Ted Thompson thread...the title of the thread is Blame Ted, not Sanders. I'm not trying to turn it into anything it wasn't already. I would agree to the concept that Mike V normally does not come in with an agenda, but this article sure seems to indicate one, and I find it uncharacteristic of him. The reason I ranted on about such agendas is becasue I find them unfair...just like I found the criticism of the very tough decision he had to make in the offseason. I will be more than happy to discuss solutions to our team's troubles, and have proposed many of them in the past few days. For example, I have a thread started in the draft section that has been up for days. It goes largely ignored, imo, because it is forward thinking instead of a backwards, and dare I say revisionist...again... critique of the staff and players on this team. I meant no offense, as I have stated elsewhere repeatedly, I am fully aware of my own prejudices as regards those that don't share my point of view, and was and will continue to try and make others aware of my biases. If you would like a discussion on personnel versus schemes, I submit that this was not the ideal way to go about it, as it certainly got my dander up more than a bit, and I bet I'm not alone...maybe at noon on a Wednesday in the Packershome forum, but not alone in the GBP fanbase. I was casting no aspersions upon you, btw.
warhawk  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:44:50 PM(UTC)
Hindsight always looks clear but going into this year we had Jenkins who is a beast and KGB productive as a pass rush specialist and in a role where he could give us what we needed and not be a liability against the run.

Then we lost Jenkins and KGB fell off the map. Now our pass rush that was very good in '08 becomes a huge negative. We have played ten teams thus far with winning records counting the Vikes twice which is an incredibly high number.

We played some very good teams with one hand tied behind our backs with no rush and STILL should have three or four more wins.

You can nit-pick about other things like better blocking but the offensive numbers are there and we have enough fire power to score enough points to win ballgames.

Where the numbers are NOT there are in sacks and pressures and when you play good football teams that are efficient at protecting their QB like the Titans and Saints you can hardly expect to win those.

While I would like to see a more aggressive scheme on defense I just don't see a need for "whole scale" changes here. Why? Get a couple of guys that can get to the QB and we WALK with the NFC NORTH and produce wins out of what has been last second losses to other pretty darn good teams.
porky88  
#17 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 5:26:47 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Vandermause was also a main supporter of Thompson not to long ago or so his articles seemed to lean towards positive opinions of Thompson.

I don't understand this blame him or him or whatever. How about multiple people accept responsibility? Personally Thompson and Sanders are two guys to start with.


Vandermause is a reporter who calls it like he sees it, for the most part. He is neither a "supporter" of Ted Thompson nor is he "against" Thompson. I think he makes a good point that people may be scapegoating Sanders too much here. You may not like the word "blame" being thrown around, but it is important to try to analyze where the real problems are so they can be fixed.

Personally, I still think Sanders' job is on the line. But if Thompson can't beef up the D-line, the defense will probably continue to struggle no matter who the DC is.


My point is blaming one person is ridiculous.

If it were that easy, then every single problem with every single team can be traced back to the guy calling the shots so obviously Thompson has responsibility because he's that guy, but you have to look and question the job Bob Sanders has done. Then you just have to question the players as well. Specifically why Brady Poppinga wasn't aware of Vonta Leach in the flat. That's not on Sanders, nor Thompson. That's on Poppinga. I think most of us realize that Leach can't be left open in the flat.

If the Packers truly want to fix the defense they'll come to realization that this is bigger than just blaming one guy. The last time the Packers blamed one guy for their defensive problems, it backfired. That being Ed Donatell.
Greg C.  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:11:12 PM(UTC)
It's good to see that this thread recovered a little while I was at work this afternoon. I suppose the title of the article could be perceived as inflammatory. I wouldn't have written that title myself, but I didn't think it was that big a deal.

I like Ted Thompson. I think he's done a fine job overall. The defense was good last year. But there was not enough depth on the D-line to make up for the injuries this year. That falls on the GM. It doesn't mean Ted's a bad GM, it just means that he has some fixing to do, and merely replacing the DC is not likely to solve our problems.

At the risk of getting off-topic, I think this team under Thompson may be like the Carolina Panthers. In a good year they could be contenders, but they will also have years where everything blows up in their faces and they don't even make the playoffs. That's the way things work in the NFL nowadays. Only the Patriots and Colts have really had sustained success in this decade.
macbob  
#19 Posted : Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:53:17 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm still not especially keen on Sanders as DC, but there are major personnel problems with the defense this year, as explained in this article. I did not realize that only 5 of our last 20 draft picks have been defensive players:

http://www.greenbaypress...ferrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL


Yeah, but Vandermause is conveniently picking his years to support his argument. The two preceding years (2005/2006) 12 of the 23 draft picks were defensive players, and there were two other defensive players acquired through draft-day/draft-pick trades, so we acquired a total of 14 defensive players out of 25 total during Thompson's first two drafts. Add them all up, and you've got 19 out of 45 picks went to defense in Thompson's first 4 drafts.


Nice catch. But the lack of talent on the defensive line is obvious, regardless of the reasons for it. I still like our DB's and LB's, and I think this defense would be much better with a couple more quality players on the line.


Yeah, I agree, but that was more due to a wasted 1st rd draft pick rather than neglect. Thompson expected Harrell to step up and replace Corey Williams, and all he's done is replace Cletidus Hunt.
macbob  
#20 Posted : Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:04:27 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
At the start of the year (i.e. before injuries) I would have had a hard time naming a player on the defense that I wanted replaced. Losing Cullen Jenkins was a huge blow, but still, I'm happy for the most part with the talent we have. I honestly have to say that they're just not being used well. Show me a good defense in this league that gives up huge gains because one player was out of position. If you look at Pittsburgh's or Tampa's defense, they are aggressively schemed and flow to the ball. If one guy is out of position, it doesn't lead to a 45 yard gain. It leads to 3 guys tackling the ball carrier instead of 4.

Something is fundamentally flawed with our defensive scheme. It's a zero error design with not enough positive to outweigh the negative of huge plays given up when there is one mistake.


I would tend to agree it's a scheme issue. Remember back to Sanders' first year as DC? The problem then was--drum roll, please...explosive plays! We kept getting burned over and over again (not to downplay the times when Sanders had difficulty getting the right number of guys on the field).

When you've got a problem that occurs game-after-game-after-game like that it's the coaches job to get the problem fixed, even if it means modifying the scheme because the players can't handle what they're being asked to do.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
uffda udfa (5h) : Canes lose 24-14 to previously 4-7 Pitt. Play Clemson in Conf. Championship next.
uffda udfa (6h) : *Miami
uffda udfa (6h) : .iai trails Pitt by 10 with under 2 minutes in 3rd qtr.
uffda udfa (7h) : Pitt up in 3rd qtr... 2nd week in a row Miami has struggled. Badgers could jump.
uffda udfa (7h) : The Canes belong on a Christmas tree not in a football playoff.
TheKanataThrilla (7h) : I might feel glad I am going to miss most of our Packer game.
wpr (9h) : That's awesome Thrilla. Have a great time
TheKanataThrilla (10h) : Got myself some tickets to the Grey Cup this Sunday. Taking my son.
TheKanataThrilla (22h) : Cousins is pretty good. Thankfully coaches were willing to lack past early draft rounds to play him.
wpr (23h) : Merry Thanksgiving to all. ;)
Zero2Cool (24-Nov) : uffda udfa -- if you want your name changed, send me a Private Message with new name
yinzer (24-Nov) : probably not, eh?
Zero2Cool (24-Nov) : Wonder if Chargers fans say regime is wasting Rivers.
yinzer (24-Nov) : old school
TheKanataThrilla (24-Nov) : Fave non-GB players. Love QBs so going Brees and Rivers.
hardrocker950 (24-Nov) : Hayward with a pick
TheKanataThrilla (23-Nov) : Love Rivers. Wish he'd find a great team to play for.
nerdmann (23-Nov) : Shit could turn around for us.
nerdmann (23-Nov) : Loins lost and the 'Gurlz are losing (not to jinx)
yinzer (23-Nov) : Ya got my vote on the name change, uffda udfa haha
TheKanataThrilla (23-Nov) : The claim is highly sweaty balls..
uffda udfa (23-Nov) : Wait... Pee Stain 76...would be better.
uffda udfa (23-Nov) : Checked settings and couldn't get it done.
uffda udfa (23-Nov) : Can I change my screen name from uffda to: Mike Daniels' Pee Stain ?
TheKanataThrilla (23-Nov) : I hate the endzone rule, Detroit got hosed on that call.
uffda udfa (23-Nov) : Happy Thanksgiving you homers! Ha ha.
TheKanataThrilla (23-Nov) : Yoop I am up from New York. Ogdenbugh is about an hour drive. Close to Syracuse as well, but never checked out any football or basketball ga
Zero2Cool (23-Nov) : Today's Birthdays: polargrizz (63)
TheKanataThrilla (23-Nov) : Go Lions, Chargers and Redskins. No doubt they all will lose as I am terrible on picking the Thursday game.
TheKanataThrilla (23-Nov) : My football pool buddies and I will be celebrating. We even have a bar that'll serve a turkey dinner.
TheKanataThrilla (23-Nov) : Hahahaha
yooperfan (23-Nov) : Happy Thanksgiving to all Packers fans from da U.P.of Michigan eh ??
TheKanataThrilla (23-Nov) : Happy Thanks Giving to my friends in the South. We should all be thankful for Aaron Rodgers for obvious reasons. Go Pack Go!!!
Nonstopdrivel (23-Nov) : Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
buckeyepackfan (23-Nov) : HAPPY THANKSGIVING PACKER FANS!!
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
14m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

16m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

20m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

Headlines