Losing Harrell alone is not crippling to our D-line. We hardly even had him in the past two years anyway. Don't forget that we also lost Jolly, and that Raji is not exactly the type of guy that can play every snap. We needed to pick up somebody to back up Raji because Jolly is gone, not because Harrell is gone, IMO.

---

Mike Neal is hurt too. He was drafted as a player to replace Jolly.

---

I knew I was forgetting somebody, but lethargy took over haha! Thanks for the help on that one 😉

---

The point is that they didn't exactly risk the season by having Harrell on the team like thatguy was trying to suggest. The de position was solid regardless of Harrell. It's a bad excuse to use to bash tt

---

The Green Bay Packers could be headed in the very opposite direction they are right now if it were not for TT's ability to build a solid team with depth through the entire 53 and beyond. Teams just don't have players like Shields, Williams, Bishop, Sitton, etc, that were either some of the late guys picked or not picked at all and make major contributions.

Along with that he made what I will rate as the 3rd best move by a Packer GM in history behind Reggie and trading for Favre by swooping down and nailing CM3.

You talk about tweaking and that's exactly what they have had to do since the beginning of the season....with mostly players on the roster. IF they weren't good enough why the hell were they on the team?

What is that some people can't understand that probably the next best player a team can go with when somebody goes down is one that has been there through spring training and pre-season?

Just my opinion but your nit-picking the Harrell deal, Bishop is just fine, the Woodson packages Capers is dialing up more than makes up for the single position(opposite CM3)we could be stronger at BUT I do agree the road just got bumpy..........for the other guys.

The truth is nobody wants to play the GB Packers right now.....and, for the Bears? I WISH we played them Sunday. We will kick their ass from one end of Lambeau to the other.

---

I love how people were bitching about taking two defensive linemen when we needed more help at outside linebacker back around the draft and now someone else is trying to claim we did nothing to address losing Harrell? LOL!

In all seriousness, there are worries. Namely, if we lose Matthews to injury as we saw in the 4th quarter against Washington and in the game against Miami. Running to the opposite side of Matthews though is nowhere near the same problem. They still have to account for Matthews. If you watch some of the stunts we ran against Dallas we sent Matthews up the middle a few times. Besides, Zombo has done alright this year and as someone mentioned if we have someone like Jenkins or Raji on the other side that can blow up the run anyways.

The other big issues are the running game and the inconsistency of our receivers. I know Rodgers has not been playing as well as he was last year but it's not necessarily problematic at this point, though it certainly couldn't hurt to have him find his form again. The offensive line too seems to have found their way the last couple games so I'm tentatively holding off my worry on them as well.

Every team has issues just as we do, but at the moment we're playing some of the best football. In my opinion in the NFC only Atlanta is playing clearly better football than us at the moment. There's reason to be cautiously optimistic.

---

Quarterbacks have a roll? Can you show me a video of it? I've never heard about the "quarterback roll" before. Sounds like a cool dance move. Does it look kinda like this?

[youtube]oHg5SJYRHA0[/youtube]

---

Bishhop and Jackson have been upgrades over the starters they replaced. So has Green, arguably. Anyone else think Hawks even looks better with Bishop in there?
The only injured player that we couldn't really replace was Finley, and all that has done is no longer allow Rodgers to try forcing him the ball all the time.
I have no worries about the defense whatsoever. Hell, I'm not even that concerned about the special teams at this point.
I AM still concerned about the offense. Chronic underperformers. But they usually start pulling their heads out of their asses around week 10. Time for that to start happening.

---

My opinion, with all due respect, is that it's no more constructive to find every small problem or downside and point them out than it is to ignore them. It might be a salve for the soul to occasionally allow oneself to look at the good - winning record, a division title within reach, team getting healthy, etc. Just a thought.

As for all the other teams you mention, I'll worry about them when the Packers play them - otherwise, they're NFL teams and they'll play other NFL teams, and the season will shake itself out. Worrying about what the Joneses do does nothing for what you do - it's needless distraction. As long as the Packers focus on the task at hand and do their jobs, they've got nothing to be concerned about.

As for us fans, we can worry about whatever the hell we want - it's a fair country. Me, I'll worry about the next opponent each week and leave it at that.

---

The commentators kept drooling over Cutlers' performance last night, but I just didn't see it. I counted at least six times when the commentators uttered the phrase "almost picked off." In my opinion, Cutler was wretched out there. He did just barely enough to eke out the win. Overall, while they gained a reasonable number of yards, they were utterly impotent to drive the ball into the end zone. Indeed, the Bears have the lowest red-zone scoring percentage in the league. The fact that they somehow still have the best record in the league speaks volumes about their opponents, I think. Either that or it indicates that they have an impressive defense. I haven't seen enough Bears games this year to speak to the latter point.

---