The RBs we have can run the ball. Neither Grant nor Starks are good receivers and neither of them are decent blockers. They seem to be a big notch ahead of the others when it comes to actually running the ball though. I have no idea how the young ones are with blocking.

---

This. We need to improve, but I think our defense gets the bulk of the budget this year...

---

That's my guess. O was #1. D was #19. Kind of obvious where the improvement needs to be.

---

The defense did what it had been doing all season long. It's the offense that's the reason the Packers were one and done. You can't win a game when you fumble it away three times and throw a pick and also put some whip creme on top with seven or so drops killing drives.

Packers went in with the last ranked defense in the mighty yards category and were in the wrong half in points allowed. They played poorly like they have all season. The loss falls on the offense far more than the defense. FOUR turnovers is going to kill your chances of winning. You can find stats that will prove that statement to be correct, however, I know you won't because you already know it to be true.

A defensive pass rush wouldn't have limited the four turnovers or fixed the dropped passed.

That said, you are 100% correct in the Packers need at least a threat of a pass rush. Hell, I'd almost rather an overloaded blitz than sending 3 to rush while hoping 8 can defend the back end.

I'm only disagreeing with which side caused the Packers to lose. There's no way it can be put on the defense when the offense gave it away four times and the referee's gave the Packers two* free possessions. The Greg Jennings fumble and the phantom blow to the head call on fourth drive that kept the Packers drive alive.

---

The defense played generally up to it's abilities. Not so with the offense, particularly on that day.

---

Yes, that's what I was trying to say.

---

I don't understand why we would have to get rid of the running backs. It makes no sense to do so and in the end, it would only hurt the team more than help.

Grant- May be gone just because of his age, unless he comes back at a huge discount. Serviceable in this offense.

Starks- Has shown he is very injury prone. When not injured, he can pound the ball for a few yards and help out.

Saine- He is a very raw rookie, but has potential. Could be a 3rd down back and help on screens. FAST!

Green- Hasn't shown anything because his injury, but could get that 3rd down back position and help on screens.

I think the running backs have done just fine for this team. Regardless of who you add to the mix, this offense will remain a passing attack offense.

---

I think that's about it. Even if it was Barry Sanders back there, giving him the ball means Aaron Rodgers doesn't get to throw it.

---

It's what reactionary people do because they are not rational. 🙂

---

Yes, the offense stunk it up. Not denying that. But plays like the "hail mary" and pass after pass by Manning with NO one there to break up the pass, or pressure Manning, and you get buried.
At NY, we won on a last second drive by the Packers, and a made field goal. Our defense stunk BOTH games. Gave up 35 points, then 37. If your offense is sputtering at all, you arn't going to win many games giving up those kinds of points. Shouldn't the defense be able to step it up and hold up their end of the bargain in such an important game like this?

They get paid too, don't they?

Yet when they were needed the most, they could'nt pressure Manning, couldn't defend passes, and couldn't tackle.
I watched the "Pro Bowl", and i could have SWORN that the whole NFC defense was the Packers D.
Even Clay Matthews wasn't giving it his all. Yes, i KNOW it's just the "Pro Bowl", but arn't you supposed to be the best at your position when you are there? Shouldn't there be SOME pride in how you play?

Even A-Rod said he was embarrassed at how some of the guys on his side played.

---