I missed most of the 1st Q so I missed most of the aggravation. It was apparent that with Williams out it hurt not only the secondary but the whole defense.
GB offense took a while last year to come together. May see the same thing this year too. (Despite the 42 points in the opener.)

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I'm not challenging your statement here. I read an article that Charles Woodson said Sunday was the first time he's played so much on the perimeter. I wonder if it was the loss of Tramon Williams that hurt the Packers or if not having Charles Woodson in his "normal" roaming area that hurt more? Then again, Charles Woodson had two interceptions and a fumble recovery.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Nor would I presume to decent from your opinion. But the question becomes WHY was Charles playing out of his preferred position? It was because Williams was not on the field.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

That's kind of ticky tack there, lol. If this, then that, if th... Packers were short Tramon Williams, they let that effect two positions.

Woodson for Williams
Bush for Woodson


I'd have rather seen Sam Shields on Steve Smith, Bush on the other guy, Lafell? and let Woodson make Cam throw errant passes or run out of the pocket.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Nor would I presume to decent from your opinion. But the question becomes WHY was Charles playing out of his preferred position? It was because Williams was not on the field.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

yep. But I did not get the call from capers. Did you?

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Its simple really; Bush makes a better backup at Woodson's position (Nickle corner, Physical blitzing almost safety/lb type role, covering TE's) than he does at William's position (Cover corner). Woodson is clearly a better cover corner than Bush is, while Bush play's Woodson's position better than any other on the field.

But I too would have liked to see Shields, with some safety help, on smith.

Edit: I think I misread your post, I think we're agreeing here but I've written my post as if it was contrary to your opinion.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 

BTW, I was saying what I preferred to have seen. I didn't say I was making the decisions. That assumption wasn't necessary.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool