already a subscriber? Register me
Subscribe now See my options
Green Bay Packers


  • We reserve the right to close commenting on specific stories.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
Comment threads per page: 10 | 20 | 50
  1. I counted 4 or 5 missed tackles on some of these runs. Is it because they can't, or because they don't want to?

    I think it's a little bit of both.
    Hide replies
  2. It's the job of the front seven to stop the the run and they got their butts kicked. Our d-backs are scared of taking AP head on, but most defensive backs are. We have very little athleticism in the front seven with Matthews hurt. Ponder ran all over us. Thank God he can't pass a lick.
    Hide replies
  3. I almost hate to point it out, but Burnett was the common denominator in that article...just when the guy seems to be coming around he pulls stuff like this, and Yeah, I realize that his 2 picks helped to salt away this point is that if he EVER learns to play physical ball we wont need 2 picks to get the Win, and one of those picks was a gimme from a very suspect QB...just stick your nose in there MB and make a play near the line of scrimmage like many Safetys do...I know a lot of you will rip on me for saying this, I dont dislike the guy, he just plays soft for much of the game, and seems capable of so much more...with a depleted D we need him to step it up...
    Hide replies
  4. "To be exact, Peterson had 153 yards on three runs. On his other 18 carries? Only 57 yards."

    Looks like a typical stat for a Packers RB this season; the 18 for 57, I mean.
    Hide replies
  5. The Vikings were just worse than the Packers. Nothing more.

    A team should never win giving up 200 yard to one guy.
    Hide replies
  6. Do the Seahawks Ponder?
  7. my issue is how capers keeps making excuses for obvious break downs. the db are lite and hate to tackle. you can see it in their effort. no accountability is the issue.
    Hide replies
  8. ever notice that the probleme the packers have never seem to get solved? tacklings been a problem for a couple of years. no pass rush except mathews, same thing. lousy running game, poor O line. dropped passes. nothing changes. i put the blame on mccarthy and thompson. they have a certain arrogant attitude that theyre so good that anyone they plug in will fix the problem. yet it never does. go figure.
    Hide replies
  9. Packers should cut out the commercials and concentrate on the game plan. They just need to get tough.
    Hide replies
  10. Anyone know who pancaked Hawk so bad? I don't remember seeing an ILB/MLB get pancaked that bad before. It was funny, and of course, it was 5 yards from the los on a run play. Packers definitely need to upgrade the ILB position next year. At least, Bishop should be back next year.
    Hide replies
    • So, get rid of the Packers leading tackler?
    • They got rid of Barnett (former leading tackler), and how did that turn out?
    • how did that turn out?

      you mean besides winning a super bowl and going 23-6* since?
    • they're 29-6 over their last 35.

      all without barnett.
    • Hawk is a ILB and is SUPPOSED to have the most tackles! He also got trucked in the Jacksonville game too. How many big plays has he made in his career? Five?
    • You all know how I feel about AJ.
    • Cut Hawk.
      Cut Jones.
      Cut Williams.
      Cut Finley.
      Cut the whole damn offensive line.
      Then go out and sign 9 all pros to replace them.
      What is TT thinking?
      He is ruining this franchise.
    • Count me in, I want AJ Hawk gone. I'd take my chances on his replacement being 'equal with hope of improvement'. I only wish I could point to someone among the current ILB who appears 'equal with hope of improvement?' You'd think if that guy was already here, his play would have stood out, it doesn't feel like it to me. Overall, our team has struggled to bring in talent at LB in general, as outside of the grandslam in CM3, we mostly have brought in journeyman level LB talent since Capers / TT arrived.
    • hawk bashers are pathetic.

      get a clue. you guys are wrong.

      hawk is NOT supposed to be the leading tackler. that's actually bishop/smith/jones's position that the honor goes to in this defense.

      hawk's position is designed to be the 2nd leading tackler.

      resorter- those "journeymen level" LBs keep winning games even when the starters are out, specifically 2 OLBs and 2 ILBs.

      funny how undertalented players manage do that.
    • It's funny how talking about Hawk suddenly devolves into everything TT has done wrong over X period of time. Somehow the Packers are supposed to have pro-bowlers, two deep, at every position yet stay within the salary cap/floor. If it was that easy, every team would be doing it. But it's not. It's easy to say you want a stud at position X that looked poorly the previous game, BUT WHERE IS THAT POTENCY going to be traded-off from? It's simply not an additive thing. There are so many studs your payroll can handle, so if you want a blue chip guy to replace Hawk, what blue chipper that we currently have do you want gone? What net gain in potency have you made?

      Successful teams of the roughly the last decade have taken the 3-4 blue chip approach, many go with the draft and develop, and they build a modular group of swapable players at certain positions. And then the rest is luck to some extent as it has to do with injuries. Sometimes you're hit where you're reasonably deep (2010), sometimes you're hit where you're thin (2012). Oh well.

      Here's the top 5 in W/L, regular and post season combined, since 2009-

      NWE - 48-17 - .738
      GBP - 48-18 - .727
      NOR - 46-20 - .697
      ATL - 43-19 - .694
      BAL - 45-21 - .682

      Here's the top 5 in W/L, regular and post season combined, since 2009 against playoff caliber teams -

      NOR - 15-6 - .714
      GBP - 16-8 - .667
      NWE - 11-9 - .550
      BAL - 13-12 - .520
      PIT - 11-13 - .458

      You'd think that would be enough to think positively of your GM and his approach, being only one of four teams with a .500 record against playoff caliber teams alone. But for about 40% of the fan base that is a big negatory. No dynasty, no love.

      Are the Packers having a softer year overall? Sure, but for a terrible call in Seattle, a "down year" STILL would have the 2 seed in the conference at this point. You'd think people would be stunned by such output. Nope.
    • nice post, toolk.

      actually, i believe the segment of the fanbase that is perpetually unhappy is MUCH, MUCH lower than 40%.

      the vast majority of the fanbase understands the reality of winning in the NFL and how much of an elite franchise the packers really are. they also understand they're one of the top 3 teams in the NFC right NOW and continue to win year after year after year under thompson.

      it's just that the ones on here scream louder than the vast majority that disagree with them.
    • Maybe I'll knock it down to 30%, but every couple of weeks or so I'll skim through some of the packer discussion boards here and there, and there are endless comments about the running backs, or the O-line, or the D-line, or the linebackers, and what ever else. And it's not just one here or there. It's a relatively significant number. And I wouldn't mind so much if they just weren't empty gripes that don't take into account the cap/floor and the myriad of other rules and regulations (e.g. individual floors). The attitude is TT should just be able to pick some low hanging HOF fruit no one else has discovered and toss him in. I have yet to see a team field first ballot hall of famers, willing to take 1/53rd of $120,000,000, at each position, two deep. It's easy to back seat drive and point out weaknesses. But to point out weaknesses that were gambles to begin with in the construction of the team is no mean feat. Teams that are designed to have the HOF linebacker/safety combo with the "don't F it up offense" shouldn't have a fan base complain why they don't have Joenny Unitana at QB. Or a team that bases its spread of talent to compliment a top drawer QB constantly complain why they don't have Ray Lewis 2.0 running around. The days of being decked out on both sides of the ball were left behind starting in 1993. It's seems there is a sizable portion of the fan base who just don't seem to realize dynasties are a thing of the past. Every team has holes, and injuries can make the holes look even bigger (it's not a coincidence that a lot of people thought Hawk was better with Matthews and Perry and Woodson around but he's "garbage" again when they're gone). But there are so many who just don't seem to be able to make the comparison of the team within reality, they imagine some dynasty and resent it when it doesn't materialize.
    • Cont.

      As for Hawk, if there is one thing that is certain, if TT thinks he can get more for less, Hawk is a goner. But I trust his opinion on the matter since he his team is tied for the most wins the last 3.75 years, and the most wins against playoff caliber teams over the same time. And the degree of griping I see does not comport with that reality. It's a bunch of ingrates complaining that the Packers aren't #1 by more.

      And I wouldn't be on such a mission if the same sort misremembering of the past didn't seem so frequent as well. The long and the short of it is a goodly portion of people seem to want to run down the past because a dynasty was never born, using "trash" and "garbage" to describe the team (with the exception of You Know Who) because they didn't become the 49ers of the 90's. Being happy with having one of best teams around wasn't good enough. I'm not going to sit by and let people run down the team for not being even better than they already are.

      Is it disappointing to wash out of the playoffs with giveaways? Sure, but then that is used for every petty gripe for the season and then people salt it away for a bashing of an era. It's a sick cycle. But that's about the size of the Packers' lack of post season success - giveaways. And every small complaint during the season is inflated out of proportion and suddenly being one of the top teams for 20 years suddenly is empty of value.
    • toolkein, how bout more than one pro bowler on our D. That would be nice. I've watched Raji now for several years hoping to see that great run stuffer, and inside pressure. I'm sorry, but I don't see it, for sure not this year. Picket is older and playing better. Mathews may have problematic hamstrings the rest of his career. In baseball, the D needs to be strong up the middle (C, CF, SS, 2B) and in Football the tackles, ILBers, and Safeties.
    • Hawk is the weakest link on the D and is getting paid around $6 mil/year to hold that ranking.

      Let's hope his last year in GB includes a deep playoff run and maybe another trip to the dance.

      It is too bad because he is a great guy off the field but is timid, slow, often out of position and not a play maker on it.
    • hawk is not the weakest link on the D. that would be erik walden, when dj smith was in it was smith.
    • Hawk is BY FAR the weakest link on the defense, no question about it. He is playing ILB, in the middle of the field, in the heart of where all the action is. Yet what has he done. No interceptions, forced fumbles, recovered fumbles, no impact plays. And whoever says that his position is not designed to make impact plays, HA HA HA HA HA HA! So you are admitting he is just there to eat up blockers or take up space. Well, he is pretty good at getting smothered by blockers. At $6 million a year, you could find a lot of guys that can do exactly what he is doing for probably 1/10th of that.
    • to think walden is a stronger link than hawk is extremely delusional.

      it's not close.
    • AJ Hawk is hot garbage
    • toolk lays out a nice, comprehensive, statistically (fact) driven argument.

      Five Barney Gumble's reply with "HE STINKS!", "HE S*CKS!", "HE'S HOT GARBAGE", "AMEN!".
    • I think the problem most have with Hawk is that he hasn't lived up to the status of his selection level. Going into that draft, everything I read about Hawk basically stated that he was the "safest" first round choice available, and the best 'backer in the draft. While I might agree with the first statement, you'd have a tough time selling me on the second. Of course it isn't Hawk's fault he was drafted that high.....but the fact remains that he was expected to make a bigger impact than he actually has.

      Myself, I don't have a big problem with him, but he's no Desmond Bishop. You could argue Jones has had a bigger impact in the last three games than Hawk has. He's a perfectly suitable NFL player - he's just not the Derrick Thomas/LT type. (No one is!!!)
    • Plus he's a drain on the salary cap at $6 million or $7 million per year.


Video Highlights

Latest Packers Photo Galleries
Fan Photo Gallery

Share your green and gold spirit in a fan photo gallery.

View gallery | Submit photo

Emily Hernandez - Milwaukee, WI
Packers on your phone


See Wisconsin athletes on Twitter