The problem wasn't our O, folks. It was our D. We let them on the field forever. They were on the field for more than 37 minutes, and even that is deceptive as 6 of our minutes were on that final drive.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

The problem wasn't our O, folks. It was our D. We let them on the field forever. They were on the field for more than 37 minutes, and even that is deceptive as 6 of our minutes were on that final drive.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

You can't dismiss the turnovers by the offense and special teams rather than dump it all on defense, IMO of course.

"pack93z" wrote:

That's why the Packers need a running threat.

"yooperfan" wrote:

"porky88" wrote:

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I'd like a winning lottery ticket because I'm tired of working. Miss America wants world peace. The Packers want an elite RB. None of us are going to get what we want this year.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Last week we killed the tackles because of the pass rush.. so this week they call a game to balance up the playcalling, which worked.. they gave up two sacks (one which Colledge blew a twist pickup, another topic all together).. and honestly were killing the Lions in the first half. You couldn't play a better game than the offense in the first half..

Second half the defense couldn't get off the field and we coughed the ball up a number of times.. one in which Rodgers threw a terrible pass (in defense his only mistake throwing the ball all day)... you don't have a lot to bitch about when you don't have the ball in the second half for more than a handful of plays.

When I read Rodgers statement.. I read it as if the defense didn't give the offense much to work with in the second half.. which they didn't. But part of that was on the offense and special teams.. turnovers gut a defense.. and a number of turnovers like we had in the second will have a defense sucking air. Which we were.

With that.. I don't have a ton to complain about from the defense in this game.. the Lions played a hell of a game in my opinion.. their playcalling was IMO an excellent blend of calls.. if the Lions don't shoot themselves in the foot constantly yesterday.. they are leading late in the game.

BTW.. that last drive was a thing of beauty for the Packers.. being able to run the ball and kill the clock was huge.

IMO.. this was a spot to force the run.. we better figure out how to run the ball if we want to be able to make a run in the playoffs.. sooner or later we are going to run into a team that will be able to force us to run.. either in coverage or pass rush... IMO, you have to have the element of the game available.. and it worked to perfection in the first half.. we had a full range of playcalling available in the first half against an underrated front from Detroit.

"pack93z" wrote:

...and miss teen south carolina would like the U.S. Americans to give The Iraq some education and maps, but that isn't happening either.

Agreed, though. If the team wants to outsource for a viable running option right now, unfortunately we're going to have to subject ourselves to the losing end of a trade.

"musccy" wrote:

I didn't read Rodgers statement to be a dig on the D at all. I think he was saying he wants his receiving group on the field more often and a full backfield less. The only team that can stop the Packers offense is the Packers offense. Against the Bears it was consistanly being penalized and working with poor down and distance and this week it was turnovers.

IMO what Rodgers was saying is he wants Finley, Jennings,Driver, and, Jones or Nelson on the field and let him handle it. Obviously, that is when this offense is most dangerous and really no D has shown they can stop them and with a mediocre run game and his talent I would want the ball more too.

"Warhawk" wrote: