Yep I'd say no defense since you super bowl run has definitely hurt GB! Especially against San Fran.

Dappa was intimating that we won a Super Bowl with "no defense"

He wasn't necessarily talking about what has happened since ... if he was, then he would had to have mentioned that our defense has been hurting us and costing us games. He said "No defense never seemed to hurt Green Bay"

Is what I've said too hard for you to understand?

Or do you just want to hang [censored]?

Yeah good point. I think what I meant more was that Seattle won last year with incredible defense, and a good offense, rather than the other way around. As they say int eh NFL it comes in waves. Offense becomes the most important factor for a few years, then it swings back to defense for a few, and so on and so forth...

What's probably closer to the truth is that you can't win with one side of the ball being a glaring weakness.... You CAN win if they're just ok, though... Take the Eagles this year for example. There's no way they can continue on their merry way with the D giving up that many yards, and not getting turnovers, getting to the quarterback. The bend but don't break thing was good last year, but the floodgates were always gonna open. And it will probably be the reason they finish where they finish. Be it second in NFC East, or losing a Divisional playoff... or anything in between.

My point was in comparison to Chicago. His points were well made about their weaknesses. But I think with a scary offense, which I believe they have, the only need to be "good" on defense in the same way Seattle are good on offense and scary on defense.

Just didn't make my point at all well... lol

Dappa was intimating that we won a Super Bowl with "no defense"

He wasn't necessarily talking about what has happened since ... if he was, then he would had to have mentioned that our defense has been hurting us and costing us games. He said "No defense never seemed to hurt Green Bay"

Is what I've said too hard for you to understand?

Or do you just want to hang [censored]?

No by saying never he very much included the past 3 seasons, He might've had seen you get reasonable results (divisional champions and in to the playoffs without a defense, they are still good results if you are a Bills, Browns, Jags, several other teams including MFC fans). Where as we both realise a lack of defense (as well as running game and poor O line) has seen you crash out in the playoffs.

I was very much agreeing with you. When you won the superbowl, like almost every team that does win it, you had a good defense.

I probably should've quoted dappa instead of you.

My point was in comparison to Chicago. His points were well made about their weaknesses. But I think with a scary offense, which I believe they have, the only need to be "good" on defense in the same way Seattle are good on offense and scary on defense.

Just didn't make my point at all well... lol

Obviously I have a CBSS, probably linked to MFCSS but I don't think we have a scary offense. No doubt Marshall and Jeffery are a great combination, Bennett is good too and Forte's great as a receiving back. But it all starts from Jay Cutler, which means it can only get so scary. The O line are good in pass protection but can't run block to save themselves. It could be that Cutler finds his rhythm and makes it close to a scary offense but I just don't see it happening. He's been in the league too long to make the jump to elite. The best case scenario is a Flacco and Eli style hot January/Feb where he just makes a tonne of smart big plays. The Green Bay game last year was a good maturing for him, he made all the plays needed to win it, trading touchdowns with the best in the business, just our defense was atrocious. Whether Cutler can back that up against better defenses in playoff like games I'm not sure. Jets, Bills, 49ers, 3 above average defenses so far this year and injuries surrounding him so it's too early to tell.

Despite much better wideouts I don't have the bears offense as better than Sea Hawks. People need to stop underrating the Sea Hawks offense. Russel Wilson is near on elite then Marshawn Lynch, Percy Harvin and the rest are way above average.

The year after the lockout everyone was torching up yards and points. Brady and Brees had no defense but were just smashing teams by putting up 400 yards and 30+ easily. So far besides Denver I'm not sure there's a standout team on offense. Every team will be limited by how many possessions they get and how they get them by their defense and special teams. San Diego might be my favourite, Rivers is so fun to watch. If Pittsburgh ever let Big Ben be Ben again that would be fun. His sand lot football was amazing. His current football is often sad to watch. Looking forward to seeing more of Denver as well, especially if the train wreck come week 16/17 happens.

No by saying never he very much included the past 3 seasons, He might've had seen you get reasonable results (divisional champions and in to the playoffs without a defense, they are still good results if you are a Bills, Browns, Jags, several other teams including MFC fans). Where as we both realise a lack of defense (as well as running game and poor O line) has seen you crash out in the playoffs.

I was very much agreeing with you. When you won the superbowl, like almost every team that does win it, you had a good defense.

I probably should've quoted dappa instead of you.

Yeah good point. I think what I meant more was that Seattle won last year with incredible defense, and a good offense, rather than the other way around. As they say int eh NFL it comes in waves. Offense becomes the most important factor for a few years, then it swings back to defense for a few, and so on and so forth...

What's probably closer to the truth is that you can't win with one side of the ball being a glaring weakness.... You CAN win if they're just ok, though... Take the Eagles this year for example. There's no way they can continue on their merry way with the D giving up that many yards, and not getting turnovers, getting to the quarterback. The bend but don't break thing was good last year, but the floodgates were always gonna open. And it will probably be the reason they finish where they finish. Be it second in NFC East, or losing a Divisional playoff... or anything in between.

My point was in comparison to Chicago. His points were well made about their weaknesses. But I think with a scary offense, which I believe they have, the only need to be "good" on defense in the same way Seattle are good on offense and scary on defense.

Just didn't make my point at all well... lol

I'd argue that we had a great defense in 2010. The Stats back it up - we're just not remembered that way because of what has happened since. Green Bay had a top defense in 2010 and it's a shame that that fact isn't recognised by many so called experts and pundits.

We leaked points to a ridiculous level in the season following our Super Bowl win but still managed to win 15 regular season games - I was quite concerned about that at the time and said so many times on this thread. If you can remember back that far Dappa, you'll recall that I was not very confident at any stage during that season and when we lost that first playoff game to the Giants, I wasn't completely surprised. Resting our starters in week 17 and then having the week off didn't help but it was our defense that cost the Packers that year.

I'm the first to admit my teams weaknesses but I'd also argue that it's easier said than done to just have a top defense. I'm convinced that the Packers have been trying to improve things in all areas but when you win a Super Bowl, for all sorts of reasons, the money for free agents just dries up. We've drafted a whole bunch of defensive players in recent times but we all know how the drafts work - often drafting doesn't work. There's a lot of luck involved.

I believe a team can get to the playoffs with a dodgy defense but ... they'll need to be very good on offense to make it and also, it's doubtful that any team with a dodgy defense will get very far in the playoffs.

Last season we miraculously made the playoffs despite not having Rodgers for half the season - rather than giving credit to our defense, I reckon the Packers making the playoffs last year had much more to do with the Bears and Lions not getting it done when they had their opportunities. Both teams blew it.

As for this season, it's our offense that bothers me the most. Our strength has suddenly become quite ordinary - couple that with a dodgy defense and it could be a very long season for Packer fans. Then again, we might turn things around. Need to get a hurry on though and if we can't eke out a win against our most hated rival this week, we might be in a spot of bother

Finally, defense wins Championships (generally) and the Packers Super Bowl winning season of 2010/11 was no different. Woodson, Matthews, Williams, Hawk and a number of others all had terrific seasons.

San Diego might be my favourite, Rivers is so fun to watch.

I have Cinci as a team to look out for. But that's largely going off 3 games of sensational defense... so... small sample size.

As for the rest, yeah... I think the only thing we disagree on is Cutler. You've been burned by him. I haven't. I reckon if he's healthy his best is better (slightly) than Flacco and Eli.

As for this season, it's our offense that bothers me the most. Our strength has suddenly become quite ordinary - couple that with a dodgy defense and it could be a very long season for Packer fans. Then again, we might turn things around. Need to get a hurry on though and if we can't eke out a win against our most hated rival this week, we might be in a spot of bother

I think MOST fans, when asked who out of the big group of 1-2 teams that should be doing better, will actually do better... they say Packers will find their form. And they offer only one piece of evidence. Rogers. I reckon the more stuff changes the more it stays the same. If Rogers plays, you still can't go past them... Though I am curious... at what point do you jump off a team that should be above .500? Is it mid season? Eagles were 3-5 last year and stormed home. Maybe we're all just looking too much at a tiny sample size. In 6 weeks I reckon Eagles will be 5-1... but then after 10 I reckon they could easily be 5-5... So many things in the NFL I wish the AFL could steal. Like season length.

PS... I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on Patriots. I think they'll have a better second half than first, as their new big name list on defense finds its groove with the DC.

Edited September 24, 201410 yr by Dappa Dan

I have Cinci as a team to look out for. But that's largely going off 3 games of sensational defense... so... small sample size.

As for the rest, yeah... I think the only thing we disagree on is Cutler. You've been burned by him. I haven't. I reckon if he's healthy his best is better (slightly) than Flacco and Eli.

Cutler can play his position well and right now, he's doing quite well but ... he's a bit of a sook sometimes and is a bit too over confident for my liking. He may have matured but he's nowhere near elite until he can get the job done when it counts.

Super Bowl wins changes everything - for many of the fans of the Ravens & Giants, both Flacco and Eli would be revered. Eli won 2 and I maintain that when it counted, he stepped it up where others have fallen away. He's never been elite but we could say the same about Big Ben.

In the end, it's always about the wins and getting the job done when it counts.

I think MOST fans, when asked who out of the big group of 1-2 teams that should be doing better, will actually do better... they say Packers will find their form. And they offer only one piece of evidence. Rogers. I reckon the more stuff changes the more it stays the same. If Packers plays, you still can't go past them... Though I am curious... at what point do you jump off a team that should be above .500? Is it mid season? Eagles were 3-5 last year and stormed home. Maybe we're all just looking too much at a tiny sample size. In 6 weeks I reckon Eagles will be 5-1... but then after 10 I reckon they could easily be 5-5... So many things in the NFL I wish the AFL could steal. Like season length.

PS... I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on Patriots. I think they'll have a better second half than first, as their new big name list on defense finds its groove with the DC.

If the Packers are to get it done, it has to start happening right now. Falling to 0 & 2 within the division could be very costly. At some stage, I'm concerned that the Lions will start realising their potential. Wild-card spots might involve a bunfight with teams in the NFC South and the NFC West. In other words, a team in the NFC North in all likelihood has to win the division to make the playoffs.

The Pats will probably get on a winning streak and close out the AFC East early but ... they won't want to lose to KC this week. Arizona and the Chargers are the interesting teams to watch ... both teams are renowned for finishing off the season well but both have started well and the only loss that occurred was when they played each other.

Like last year, I reckon the Eagles will get better as the season goes on. 3 wins under the belt helps with confidence.

As for the AFL - they are just a money making concern with very little regard for the future of the competition. It's become a corporation and even though the NFL can be described the same way in terms of the "money", their sport is run so much better in terms of every team getting a fair crack at it. The scheduling is fair, revenue sharing is done properly and the divisions and conferences are a cut above how we do things here.

Gil wants to change the way the fixture works after 17 rounds and I believe that's at least a step in the right direction. Double-up blockbuster games hurts the smaller clubs and I could go on forever about all the other inequities

Edited September 24, 201410 yr by Macca

TV games ...

Friday

10.30am NY Giants at Washington (ESPN)

Monday

3.00am - 9.30am RedZone (ESPN ... "Every Touchdown From Every Game")

3.00am Green Bay at Chicago (7mate)

6.30am Philadelphia at San Francisco (7mate)

10.30am New Orleans at Dallas (7mate & ESPN)

Tuesday

10.30am New England at Kansas City (ESPN)

All the week 4 games

BS Report

Despite the week's games having a number of matches without great appeal, we'll still get to see a number of good match-ups. All 5 TV games have some appeal.

The Panthers @ Baltimore is another big game and I guess if Foxtel was still covering their 2 games, we'd probably get to see it in all likelihood.

What's happened to the Foxtel coverage of games anyway? Did 7mate get exclusive rights?

There's no doubt that in this thread, you would find more hatred of the AFL powers that be than in any other. When you see how it CAN be done...

There's no doubt that in this thread, you would find more hatred of the AFL powers that be than in any other. When you see how it CAN be done...

Yep, and because a number of people often only care about footy and their particular team, they often don't know any better.

Take the fixturing for example ... I've come across a number of people who seem to think that we deserve a poor fixture (in financial terms) because we're a poor side. Now, the AFL might think that way but that doesn't make it right.

There are numerous other examples of inequities in the AFL but again, because the sport is so tribal, not many are even interested in the big picture. Many supporters just cop it and come back with "That's just the way things are" ... it's such a lame response.

We've for the most part had a great product but the people running the sport seem to be obsessed with crowd numbers, TV viewers & making money. The big clubs are pandered to and because of that, the smaller clubs (the ones that aren't being heavily subsidised) are therefore under constant pressure. Right now that pressure is on us, the dogs, the saints and to a lesser extent North. I fully expect Brisbane to be looked after even though they're apparently 12 million in the red. If that were us ......

Anyway, the way the AFL run the sport could be described in some ways as negligent but ... I've long suspected that there's a hidden agenda to merge 4 of the Melbourne sides.

Yeah that's all been the case even since the mid nineties when Eddie got the AFL to give them all the Friday nights. Those are all good points, that people have been screaming about since Gardiner days, and were ignored. The difference here is that the Cowboys, Pats, Eagles, Packers don't run the NFL. The NFL is governed. Essendon has proven in the last couple of years that none of the big clubs care about being governed. Winning is the only thing. What it'll take is the smaller clubs banding together to crack it... If they complain, and are ignored, or worse... if they're punished, then it could widen the gap between the haves and have nots.

Add to that the game is now almost unwatchable as a sport...

Tough round(arnt they all) week 4 tips:

Saints

Falcons

Lions

Yeah that's all been the case even since the mid nineties when Eddie got the AFL to give them all the Friday nights. Those are all good points, that people have been screaming about since Gardiner days, and were ignored. The difference here is that the Cowboys, Pats, Eagles, Packers don't run the NFL. The NFL is governed. Essendon has proven in the last couple of years that none of the big clubs care about being governed. Winning is the only thing. What it'll take is the smaller clubs banding together to crack it... If they complain, and are ignored, or worse... if they're punished, then it could widen the gap between the haves and have nots.

Add to that the game is now almost unwatchable as a sport...

The smaller clubs banding together might help but (A) I can't see it happening and (B) even if it did happen, it's 3 or 4 small clubs against all the big clubs. Something needs to be done however and at least we'd have a combined voice. But you know what? If that combined voice was heard we'd probably be told to merge with each other.

In principle, the non awarding of a PP to us has a knock on effect to the other smaller clubs. They may not realise it yet, but if they get themselves into strife both on and off the field like we did, they ain't going to be getting much help to recover. The Saints had better watch themselves and so to the Doggies. We might scramble our way out but it's a long road back.

The reality is that the change of thinking needs to come from the top and at the top, they're hell bent on the AFL remaining at the top of the tree. The small clubs don't represent much money to the commission so therefore, we're expendable. We are disadvantaged against and then ridiculed and punished because of errors* made ... we're then disadvantaged against even further.

Re the footy ...

I must say, I've really enjoyed the finals but I have watched very little footy this year in the lead up ... being starved of it probably helped. I do, of course, watch or go to every Demons game but I used to be nuts on footy.

*Many of those "errors" were picking the wrong 17 year old kids ... we were somehow supposed to know beforehand that we were picking one bust after another. I've grown to hate the draft.

But you know what? If that combined voice was heard we'd probably be told to merge with each other.

*Many of those "errors" were picking the wrong 17 year old kids ... we were somehow supposed to know beforehand that we were picking one bust after another. I've grown to hate the draft.

Yeah the thing that pisses me off isn't what you've described. It's that that's been the case for years now, everyone knows that's the way it is, and noone ever does anything. My only hope is that now with the Essendon saga, it's a last straw scenario. Which of course, my heart tells me, won't happen. Money still talks.

And I actually disagree on the "wrong 17 year olds" thing... Yes it's partly that, but I think if you put those kids in better systems, they would be successes. You could have given us all the picks you want under Neeld, he didn't know how to develop for [censored]...

Yeah the thing that pisses me off isn't what you've described. It's that that's been the case for years now, everyone knows that's the way it is, and noone ever does anything. My only hope is that now with the Essendon saga, it's a last straw scenario. Which of course, my heart tells me, won't happen. Money still talks.

And I actually disagree on the "wrong 17 year olds" thing... Yes it's partly that, but I think if you put those kids in better systems, they would be successes. You could have given us all the picks you want under Neeld, he didn't know how to develop for [censored]...

Morton, Cook, Gysberts, Strauss, Blease, Watts, Scully, Sylvia, McLean and a few others wouldn't have been much better elsewhere. In fact, a number of them have gone elsewhere and they're no better.

Too much is made of "better systems" ... we've had "state of the art" facilities since the Junction oval and where's it got us? To me, if a player wants to be the best, it's up to the player. Any coach can only do so much. Most of the top players I played footy and cricket with were self driven - and that's at suburban level.

Nah, we just picked badly but ... the draft is a glorified lucky dip anyway. The errors were in effect, forced on us. I'm not making excuses either because on a number of other fronts, we've been less than deplorable.

Am I on the wrong thread all of a sudden?

We should rename the thread ... NFL (and other random utterances and rants)

Am I on the wrong thread all of a sudden?

We should rename the thread ... NFL (and other random utterances and rants)

Haha I come here to escape the names: Watts, Blease, Strauss, Tapscott, Morton, and most importantly.. Neeld! I used to think that american football was a stupid, long, boring and complicated sport but taking a small interest last year and now getting right into it this year, I absolutely love it. I find myself more excited and enjoying watching NFL games more than AFL games... If games were broadcasted at reasonable times I'd find myself watching a heap of it.

Morton, Cook, Gysberts, Strauss, Blease, Watts, Scully, Sylvia, McLean and a few others wouldn't have been much better elsewhere. In fact, a number of them have gone elsewhere and they're no better.

Hmm. I disagree... I thik that first year you join a club you learn SO much of what you need to know. Also not nearly enough is made of the players you have around you. For example, Hogan would be a much higher chance of being a superstar if he had, say, a Neitz there to set an example. As it is at demons, we have precious little to show kids the way. Not teach, but set an example. At least that's my feeling...

Apologies to other NFL fans. I forgot how it works in here.... Back to the fun 'Muhrican sports...

I find myself more excited and enjoying watching NFL games more than AFL games... If games were broadcasted at reasonable times I'd find myself watching a heap of it.

I'm completely hooked. I've been wrecked on Monday since now I'm watching even non Eagles games at 3am...

Hmm. I disagree... I thik that first year you join a club you learn SO much of what you need to know. Also not nearly enough is made of the players you have around you. For example, Hogan would be a much higher chance of being a superstar if he had, say, a Neitz there to set an example. As it is at demons, we have precious little to show kids the way. Not teach, but set an example. At least that's my feeling...

Apologies to other NFL fans. I forgot how it works in here.... Back to the fun 'Muhrican sports...

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Dappa.

You do make good points though and the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. I'd happily admit that our development and coaching has been way below standard but I still believe a top player will find his way to the top as an individual regardless. All the best players are self driven.

The club exiting our veterans from '07 onwards the way we did was truly awful as well. Our general list management and our ridiculous youth policy was flawed as well. A lot of unforced errors were made.

Back to the NFL ...

Rodgers tells Packer fans to relax (thanks Aaron, I feel so much better now )

Edited September 24, 201410 yr by Macca

Detroit

Atlanta (sorry Teddy)

Miami

Tough week (again)

Green Bay (a hit & hope)

Miami

New Orleans

I wouldn't be suprised if the raiders knock off Miami...

I wouldn't be suprised if the raiders knock off Miami...

Nor me ... was tempted to pick the Eagles, Pats or the Panthers but in the end, I just had a guess (which is my usual way of tipping) There will be road winners of course and there's always a surprise road winner or 3.