All of this is true, and the Packers are and have been a decent team. But even with statistic that show the defense is average, I have zero faith that they will make the big stops against contenders when it matters most. They may be average or above average for most of the game, but when it matters most, I have little faith that the Packers defense will step up, even when healthy. At least against the likes of Cam Newton, Carson Palmer, Russell Wilson, Cowboys, Drew Brees, etc.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Another good thing is that there's only 1 bad thing: Some total dumbass was singing R.Rodgers praises last year; the guy was just WRONG! RRodgers sucks, he cant block and forgot how to catch. Cook will be back.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

All of this is true, and the Packers are and have been a decent team. But even with statistic that show the defense is average, I have zero faith that they will make the big stops against contenders when it matters most. They may be average or above average for most of the game, but when it matters most, I have little faith that the Packers defense will step up, even when healthy. At least against the likes of Cam Newton, Carson Palmer, Russell Wilson, Cowboys, Drew Brees, etc.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

I agree for the most part with your post. My point is and always has been, that if a wall is painted red , don't call it a blue wall . Inventing a clever story to explain away or excuse young Johnny's stealing/eating the family's Cherry Pie does not change the fact that Johnny stole and ate the family's desert.

In the same manner, using statistics or injured players or the weather or any other carefully woven story to rescue GB from the reality of not having a good defense is much like young Johnny and Cherry Pie. You can argue how or why or who you believe is to blame, but the bottom line is crystal clear. GB's defense can't compete against the leagues better teams.

Now what is the truth ?
The Players give their best on every play. The coaches work hard and do the best they can with the players they are provided with. The truth is that the GM picks the players and the "buck" stops with him.

Originally Posted by: Smokey 

I don't necessarily disagree with what you have to say, but how do you define "Competing against the league's better teams" on defense? Restricting them to 14 points or less? 21? 30? 40? Right now against the level-B teams in the league in offense they're hovering around 30 points per game. Doing "Good" in my opinion would be keeping them to below their season average. We didn't do that with Dallas and unless the offense turns into a 2011 monster machine again (which I doubt it will), the Packers need to elevate their game from "Almost good" to something better.

I will say though, and not that this means a damn as far as how good they're playing goes (Much like your argument above), I'd expect them to be doing far worse given the injuries at CB. I think Clay's overrated but it's still a loss. Hopefully once we start getting a few people back or newbies continue to improve, we'll elevate our D to good. This offense should definitely be able to score 30 points+ a game against anything but elite defenses on talent alone and need to (continue) get(ting) their shit together.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

IMO, without the stats/excuses/or blame, the Packers are just barely a Wildcard Team that will loose against any other playoff team they will face. They will loose because the Defense can't stop opponents from scoring points .

Originally Posted by: Smokey