First off, I agree the injuries are substantial and clearly have an effect on the game, there is no doubt about that. But I also think their impact is overblown.

Lots of teams have injuries. The Vikings don't have Rice (Finley), Griffen (Harris), Sullivan (Tauscher), Chris Cook, Brian Robison, Williams/Sanford (Safeties), etc. Plus Shanicoe is not 100%, Harvin has migraine issues, etc. Why doesn't everyone give Childress the same pass given to Mike McCarthy (by some) for injuries?

While I agree, our injuries are more than the Vikings, its not that big of a difference. Plus last year, if I remember correctly, the Vikings played without EJ Henderson and Antoine Winfield in the playoffs.

Injuries are the easy excuse out. I think the last 2 games were closer than they should be if we were 100% but they are still winnable games and the reasons we lost them were not because of injuries.

That Bears game, Rodgers intentional grounding, Jones fumble, Mike McCarthy wasting a timeout with a stupid challenge. None of that relates to injuries.

The Redskins game, two wasted timeouts in the 2nd half, Rodgers not getting out of bounds, the wasted time after the not running out of bounds, meaning we settle for a 53 yard FG to win. Plus we had the ball TWICE in OT to win and did nothing.

The Dolphins game, that stupid man over the centre, while it was contraversial, I still don't understand, why he's near the centre, why not coach that? Plus the OT possession, you have the ball AT home to win and you go 3 and out. The running twice with Kuhn at the end of regulation against a goalline that stopped Peterson 3 times. If it wasn't for Rodgers heads up play, we were going to run some sort of shotgun throw for 4th and goal.

The Eagles game, we got destroyed by Vick, the Lions game, if Woodson gets called for that PI or Lions go for the long FG, we might have lost that (AT Home). Plus all the penalties this year (thats on coaching, not injuries).

We could easily be 6-0, I understand that, but we coud easily be 1-5. I feel the injuries are masking the inherent weaknesses in the team. Even when we were "healthier" did we really impress against the Eagles, Lions or Bears?

I still don't understand why more play actions weren't run in the 2nd half against the Dolphins, they seemed to be working wonders.

I am not saying fire MM/TT or anything, you can't do that, its mid-season plus heading into a lockout year. But I think the injuries have clouded in a way how crappy this team has been this year (even when "healthier").

We have to fix this, if we lose to the Vikings, its not a "must win" because its week 7 but its pretty important. The Vikings have injuries too, there is no way we should not be able to beat them AT home even with injuries. The gameplan should be pick on Lito Sheppard, pick on Lito Sheppard, then pick on Lito Sheppard. He gave up 3 TDs yesterday. If we don't pick on him, that can't be blamed on injuries?

---

MM finds a way to .500 at the midpoint of EVERY season, injuries or not. The only injuries we don't have depth to fill are Finley and CM3, and we still have plenty enough talent to win games.

---

What do the Vikings have to do with anything? They have less substantial injuries and less wins. If you want to make the comparison why don't you mention how they could likely have 0-1 wins had they been hit with injuries like GB has.

---

I don't think the injuries are a viable excuse for the offensive struggles.

The D is another story. It's a mystery to me why the 'fins didn't put up 30 points yesterday. It seemed that there was nothing we could do to stop runs between the tackles, plus we had ZERO pass rush.

I don't know if it's an excuse, but no doubt an explanation. The amount of injuries is almost unprecedented - 6 of our top 18 or so defenders (9 if you included Bigby, Harrell, and Harris) is stunning.

Injuries or not, if our offensive line doesn't get better, we will not.

---

What is the difference between an excuse and an explanation? Sounds like semantical hairsplitting to me.

Are the having an effect or are they not? If they are, does it really matter if it's an excuse or an explanation?

---

To me, it comes down to who's talking. One could argue that the folks running the team saying "but look at the injuries!" would be trying to excuse the losses and general messy play - I wouldn't make that argument, but it could be made. At least it's their job to explain these things and try to make improvements.

I, on the other hand, am just a fan. It's not my job to explain what's going on; I have only to try to make some sense of it, and that's if I choose to do so. So when I use my eyes and my brain and conclude that it's kind of hard to play winning football with nearly every key position being played by 2nd-to-3rd string players (certainly this is the case on the defense), I think that's an explanation.

Personally, those throwing the "excuse" mantra around have their own agendas - they're also the ones who least like the current regime. "Other teams have injuries!" Yes, they do - how many, and at what positions? Are they winning despite those injuries? These questions aren't asked, because the answers would weaken the position that Thompson and McCarthy are truly to blame for a slow start.

---

Yeah, I find it funny to compare us with the Vikes and they have two wins.

We have the double whammy of a cumulative effect and the effect of losing difference makers on both sides of the ball. When you lose Barnett, Burnett, Chillar, Pickett, and, Neal, you cannot expect to see the defense perform at it's best. Throw in Mathews and now you have a REAL problem.

It's not about excuses it's about facts. Anybody dispute that if we have Mathews and two or three of these other guys suited up we don't win that game? C'mon. Every time we DID produce some kind of pressure on Henne he threw it over everybodys head.

It' one thing to fight through two or three injuries but when half your team out there is second and third team guys and players that wouldn't even be on the team don't tell me it doesn't affect the quality of play. For one thing Capers can't call any where near the same kind of game he would if those guys were out there. Your better players can do MORE things BETTER and gives the Coordinater many more options on what he calls.

---

Well, injuries aside, our D held the Dolphins to 20 points in regulation. You said nearly every key position is being played by 2nd-to-3rd string players on D. Yet the D did an outstanding job, especially considering the time Henne had to throw the ball. Wish Rodgers had that much time.

Injuries are an explanation. I'm not arguing that.

What I'm not buying is injuries are the reason we lost in Miami. I think the reason is simply our O failed to put up more than 20 points in regulation at home against an average team. That's not acceptable, even with the future perennial Pro Bowler Finley out and our #1 RB out.

We still have playmakers in Greg Jennings and Donald Driver. Jackson has progressed a lot. While he's still no Ryan Grant, I still wonder why we don't utilize Jackson in screens more. I still don't get why we don't try to setup more YAC opportunities more. And lastly, I don't understand why Mike McCarthy hasn't changed the gameplan to get passes off faster as it's obvious our OL sucks and Aaron is taking too many hits.

---

An excuse would be "If we didn't have all the injuries we'd be 6 - 0!". Or "If the officials would stop bagging on the Packers, we'd have won!".

I don't think many, if any, are saying that. I think what we're saying is, with all the injuries, we're still in the game, but just not getting it done with what we have. Which is very transparent.

And others are saying we need better coaching and smarter players who don't commit as many boneheaded penalties.

---