Here are all of the answers to this week's questions in the
latest edition of Packers Mailbag:
Q: I have bashed the defense now for for 4 weeks in a row
(plus the Bengal game). The defense is bad. Do we even want the
Packers to make the playoffs this year? We couldn't beat a 2-8 team at
home. The defense couldn't pull 1 single victory out of 4 games.
If/when Rodgers comes back, he won't be on defense (even though he would
probably be our best cover corner). Is it time to play for next
year? Clean house on the defense and play a third place / AFC East
schedule next year. The Pack does not have a super bowl caliber defense.
-- Tom K, La Crosse
Q: Is it me or do the Packers have an unusually high
number of hamstring injuries each year. What is up with that? Also, 0-3-1 is
expected when a team is missing 5 of it's top six players? At some point, the
next guy up is not as good as the guy he replaced. Do you agree that if we can
get AR back after the Lions game that we are still in the playoff race? If we
can get Cobb and the others healthy, I think the Pack would be a tough out.
-- Bob, Denver
Q: Does the tie help our overall cause at all?
-- Boyeaux, Tisch Mills
A: Every Packers player that I talked to in the
locker room after the game said the tie against the Vikings felt like a loss.
That emotional response makes sense given that the offense had the ball inside
the 5-yard line in overtime, even though they did have to overcome nearly
insurmountable odds to even get there (Minnesota's win probability was 97
percent late in the fourth quarter).
But when emotions subsided, the players should have realized
that a tie -- rather than a loss -- might have saved their season. With the
Bears and Lions both losing Sunday, Green Bay actually gained ground in the
division race. So, yes, a tie very much helped the Packers' playoff chances.
That leads to Tom's question, and of course they want to
make the playoffs. As Green Bay in 2010 and other teams who barely snuck in the
postseason can attest, just get in and crazy things can happen. Not being able
to beat the 2-8 Vikings was an obvious downer for the Packers, as is their
defense so far being unable to win a game without Aaron Rodgers.
To Bob in Denver's point, an 0-3-1 record shouldn't have
been expected without Rodgers, not when the organization was so confident that
they could go "next man up" at any position. If the Lions beat Green
Bay on Thanksgiving, getting Rodgers back the following game might be too late
for the Packers to stay in the playoff hunt this season unless they get some
help down the stretch.
Q: Do you think the Packers are Firing the Defensive
Coach after this year.After the way everything has played out the Last few
years and last years Payoff with the 49er game with Little adjustment to stop
the run and the DB getting worse.Time for a change old school is getting too
old.
-- Rich Malewski, Sylvania, Ohio
Q: Why has Dom Capers still have a job????
-- Rick Braestrup, Iowa
A: If the season ended today, I'd be a bit surprised
if Dom Capers was brought back for 2014. But coach Mike McCarthy did have
Capers' back this week when asked about it.
Here's McCarthy's answer to this general question from the
day after the tie with Minnesota: "I watched it this morning with the
defensive staff. We went through every call. It's a very talented, organized
defensive staff. I really like the teaching ability, the demand and their
personality. To answer your question, yes. That's what we're talking about,
preparation and execution. We need to play better. When you're an eight-man
front football (team), you need to stop it. They had over 200 yards. We had a
chance to address all of that, go through that this morning, go over it with
the team at 12:30 in the team meeting. ... I'm very comfortable in our coaching
staff. I think it's definitely one of the strengths of our program."
So there you go.
Q: Why the heck did coach go for 2 points instead of the extra
one after the touchdown. They would have won the game if it weren't for
that stupid play!!
-- Sherri Rutkosky, Sanford, FL
A: I'll let McCarthy also explain this one.
Here's his response in the postgame press conference: "I
think once you cross that fourth quarter like you've got to look at the whole
picture -- how many series were available to you at that time, obviously what
was going on on the headsets just getting ready for each series on offense, the
way they were running the football on defense, you're playing at home is a
positive because you've got to the crowd behind you. I'm comfortable with the
decision. We had a good play. Frankly, I wish had a couple more reps in that
play; I think it would have been a little clearer for him. So I thought it was
a solid decision."
Here's McCarthy's response the next day, which included more
detail: "I'm worried about the number of series, the opportunities the
offense is going to have. I'm worried about obviously the way we're playing,
the way the game is being called. We had a lot of moving parts -- more than
ever. I'm not just trying to be dramatic. That was a very different game for us
offensively, just from a management standpoint. That was definitely part of it.
And if you want to take it a step further, I think it was the next series or
the touchdown drive that we have after that, we have a fourth-and-1 situation
there. You kick the extra point and it's fourth-and-1, do you kick the field
goal there or do you go for it? I think the thing about, I had a year once
where we were going for 2-point plays in the second and third quarter, so I
remember I used to have like six 2-point plays on my call sheet. So I'm glad I
don't have to do that anymore. I think there's a time that you get into the
fourth quarter, I think you get out there past that, you're kind of reaching.
But when you get into the fourth quarter, you've got to start thinking about
it, and I think the information of what's happened up until that point is part
of the card. I don't ever look at the card and go, 'OK, it's time to go for
2.'"
Q: Why on earth did it take so long to put Tolzien on the
bench? Flynn should have played 2 weeks ago, over interception prone
Tolzien!
-- Bob, North Carolina
Q: Paul how come it seems so clear to me that Matt Flynn
should be starting on Thanksgiving, yet Mike McCarthy seems hesitant to
name him the starter?
-- Jesse Delaney, Waukon, Iowa
A: When Matt Flynn replaced Scott Tolzien in the
lineup Sunday, he had only been back with the Packers for 12 days. Even
McCarthy admitted that he was surprised Flynn was able to be as effective as he
was in that game given the lack of practice time. Flynn, by the way, said he
had only gotten eight total snaps in practice during those two weeks with the
starting offense. Yes, eight total. To have expected Flynn to play any sooner
than he did is, in my opinion, unrealistic.
It makes little sense to me why McCarthy did not simply
announce Flynn as the Thanksgiving game starter early in the week. Flynn will
start, but not giving a definitive answer might be a sign that McCarthy still
wavers in his confidence with Flynn, and that he still has a lot of confidence
with Tolzien.
Q: I don't know how long it takes for a new QB to
grasp all the plays and formations but I seriously doubt Tolzien or Wallace
could be expected to execute 50% of the playbook. Do you think McCarthy
is still calling plays as if Rodgers was playing QB? If so he shares in
the blame for 3 losses and a tie.
-- Nick, Readstown, WI
A: No, McCarthy has changed the offense since
Rodgers' injury. In fact, McCarthy said this week: "Face it, man, you play
different football with Aaron Rodgers than you do with the other
quarterbacks." From a play-calling perspective, what Seneca Wallace, Tolzien
and Flynn have run is not the exact same as what Rodgers would have run.
Q: Why did the Packers change their kicker on kickoffs
from Tim Masthay to Mason Crosby. I felt that Masthay was getting the ball
deeper in the end zone.
-- Tom Gauthier, Iron Mountain, MI
A: As special teams coordinator Shawn Slocum
explained it two weeks ago, the Packers felt they needed Crosby's superior
ability to place his kicks more so than they needed Masthay's stronger leg.
Q: Will you please have a pleasant conversation with Mike
McCarthy as to why he still uses Marshall Newhouse? We have guys on the PS and
Sherrod is back. A major reason we lost to Minnesota is because our offensive
line cannot protect the QB and they get penalized SOOOOOO MUCH! The whole
reason Rodgers is out is because our offensive line's inability to block.
-- Robert, Beloit
A: To your last point, Robert, I don't agree with
that. Rodgers didn't get hurt because of the offensive line. He got injured
because of the way he was tackled on that particular play. Every quarterback is
going to get hit hard at some point, no matter who's on the offensive line.
It's just that one hit ended with an awkward landing.
But as for Marshall Newhouse, the Packers would love to get
Don Barclay back to full health at right tackle. It's telling, though, that
Green Bay was willing to activate Derek Sherrod but not give him significant
snaps. Because, yes, Newhouse has not played well at all since stepping in for
an injured Barclay.
Q: Why don't the packers fire Ted Thompson. In the
last 5 drafts, his picks in the first 2 rounds have played less than 30% of the
games that they could have played in. Trying to build a team solely
through the draft has been a failure. Charles Woodson said it "a
piss poor defense on the field and without Rodgers we were 8-8 instead of 15-1.
-- Kevin Cotton, Cincinnati
A: Unless a team drafts a player with a significant
injury history and assumes that major risk, a general manager obviously can't
be expected to predict future injuries and thus avoid selecting those players.
I agree that the Packers shouldn't avoid free agency to the drastic extent that
Thompson avoids it, but many teams fail when handing out big money in the
offseason to veterans. It can work, but it can also backfire.
As for Thompson's draft picks, don't forget he got Eddie
Lacy in the second round and starting left tackle David Bakhtiari in the fourth
round this year, and added Casey Hayward (third-place Defensive Rookie of the
Year finisher) and blossoming pass-rusher Mike Daniels last year.
Q: Paul, Looking ahead to next year. Hopefully
management re-signs Sam Shields and James Jones to extensions. These 2
are the critical to the success of next years team. Of this list who do
the Pack try to keep because it will all be tough with the extensions Rodgers
and Matthews received.......
And the following year would most likely include Jordy
Nelson who will look for a nice contract as well. Times will be
tough. Do you have a feel what the Packers will do in the draft? I
still say defense is a priority. LB and safety and of course O Line.
-- Steve Waldvogel, Flagstaff
A: I can't post that entire list you included, Steve,
or it would take up the entire page, but I agree that Sam Shields should be a
priority for the Packers to re-sign. James Jones can also likely be had for a
very reasonable deal. After all, soon-to-be 30-year-old receivers aren't highly
sought-after in free agency. I don't think veteran Ryan Pickett will be back
considering his age (34) and Green Bay's depth at defensive line. I also don't
think tight end Jermichael Finley will be back, and it remains to be seen if
any NFL teams signs him considering his neck surgery.
I think if the draft was being held tomorrow and all things
were equal that safety should be the top positional priority. I also think that
tight end (Packers could really use a dominant threat to replace what Finley
provided) and wide receiver (Jones and Nelson are both almost 30 years old)
could be spots that would make sense high in the draft.
Q: I would think BJ Raji will not be signed this
offseason, I know he will want a bunch of money and Johnny Jolly seems to be a
better fit and more of a producer,what do you think? I heard Raji's name only
once on the radio during the Vikings game and he really seems to be just another
guy, nothing special.
-- Elwood Barnes, Jim Falls
A: I think Raji is more than "just another
guy," but he's played poorly the last several weeks and would probably be
wise to accept the reported $8 million per year extension from the Packers.
Thanks for all the questions this week. Enjoy the
Packers-Lions game on Thanksgiving, then send in your questions for the next
mailbag edition Thursday, Dec. 5.
