What does 3-0 mean?

So I don't usually care about preseason NFL football, and I still don't really. The Lions were 4-0 in the preseason last year, and that turned out pretty well for them. However, I can't ignore the success the Packers have had in their first three games. I have only managed to see bits and pieces of games, so I can't make a completely legitimate analysis. That said here are some thoughts:

1. Offense: I believed from the start last year, and I continue to believe, that Aaron Rodgers is the real deal. Is he going to be the Packers version of Steve Young? I don't know. Is he going to be a top 5 NFL QB? Yes. He is top 10 now, and he will get better. The O-line is a work in progress, and it will be interesting to see how they do when opposing defenses play more than their base packages. The running game, as always, is the key. Grant looks better this year, and we need a full year out of him. I was impressed by Tyrell Sutton, who heretofore shall be known as Wildcat. He runs downhill, and has a good sense of space and how to read the zone blocking schemes. I hope Jermichael Finley continues to show the promise he has shown this preseason. TE seems to have been our weak spot in the receiving game, so we could us another presence down the middle.

2. Defense: So far so good. If we can force 3-4 turnovers per game, we will have no problem winning games. Obviously that won't happen. However, in the interview I saw with Charles Woodson he seems happy with the new system. He is more comfortable in read coverage than the previous press coverage. I'm hoping for a huge season from him. Nick Collins is motivated by his contract situation, he fortunately is not named Brandon Marshall, and is out to prove that he fits the new system. Kampman is still learning, but I remain hopeful that he can make the same transition that Jason Taylor made and continue to destroy people. As I said, so far so good, but I'm a bit more reserved in my enthusiasm for the defense. I think more will be revealed in the early regular season. That said, I did draft the Packers D as my back up in Fantasy this year.

3. Special Teams: I have not paid enough attention to make a comment. I continue to wait for Crosby to be given a shot at a 65 yarder. He will make one.

Mike Lucas is dumber than I thought

http://www.madison.com/tct/blogs/lucas/433444

Seriously? These two situations are comparable?

1. Kurt Warner does not have a consecutive games played streak. Brett Favre was not coming back to compete for a job. His ego would not allow that. Anybody who suggests otherwise is delusional or disingenuous. Additionally, it would be unfair for the Packers to say to Brett, "Well, you've been our starting QB for 15 years, but now you have to compete for your job." It just doesn't work like that in the NFL.

2. Matt Leinart and Aaron Rodgers are in different situations. If the Pack had not played Rodgers this year they would, in all likelihood, have lost him to free agency. The same cannot be said of the Prince of LA.

3. The Packer's atrocious defense and spotty running game would not have improved with Brett at QB. The Pack missed the playoffs because of those inadequacies, not because of poor QB play.

So I ask myself the question, "Would the Packers have been in the same position as the Cardinals with Favre (as the starter) and Rodgers (as the backup), if they would have adhered to the same fundamental concept of competition, "We'll play the best players and the quarterback who gives us the best chance of having success in 2008"?

Ummmmmm, no.

Second Verse, Same as the First

I remember during some interview toward the beginning of the season, Packers' GM Ted Thompson said something like, "I'm confident that with the team we have, we'll have a chance to win every game we play." That prediction has been accurate. Unfortunately, having a "chance" to win doesn't really do the trick in the NFL. During the 4-12 year three seasons ago, the Packers lost a bunch of close games. They were still a bad team. Most bad teams in the league play other teams pretty close. Anyhow, the season is now officially over, and all that's left to play for is pride and an effort not to get fired (so, please continue to lay down, defense). Random thoughts on the game:

- The 2nd and 1, 3rd and 1, 4th and 1 plays were just embarrassing. First off, some Monday-morning quarterbacking-- I don't know why they chose to run, run again, and run again, to not sneak the ball any of those downs, and to run with Grant twice, and Jon Kuhn once. Grant did not look good this game. Brandon Jackson might have earned the right to take a crack, and his presence in the package, at the least, would have made the Jaguars think pass. The fullback run is great when it works. But as the Panthers showed two weeks ago, it generally won't work against physical front sevens, like the Jaguars have. Plus, did anyone see both Packers' tackles lying on their sides on the 4th and 1? They both got pushed sideways to the ground. Sweet.

- If last game was the first installment in the ongoing "Is Tony Moll a starting Right Tackle in the NFL" audition, the answer at this point is "Skaaaaaaank!" I think the play where he got beat for a sack, Rodgers fumbled, Moll picked it up, started running forward and got popped, hard, pretty much sums it all up. Well intentioned, but kind of embarrassing.

- Quentin Groves harassed Rodgers all day from his defensive end spot. Groves looks to be a legitimately good rush end-- pretty big, very fast and physical, and somewhat crazy. He was available when the Packers chose Jordy Nelson, and Brian Brohm was taken just a few picks after the Jaguars nabbed him.

- Ryan Grant looked bad, although the holes weren't really there. But he just isn't shifty, seemed to opt to settle for running into the line a little too often, and didn't look particularly powerful. Maybe he runs too tall. I wonder what the difference is between this season and last? Worse line play? No Favre scaring off defenses? The Packers are playing better defensive lines? (Grant didn't do much against the Giants, after all.)

- It was odd to see a power running team like the Jaguars throw the ball so much. I guess they did that because the Packers, once again, put on very, very little pressure. Kampman got close a few times, and Hawk got a sack on a blitz where no one blocked him. (Pretty much the only circumstance where a Packers linebacker can get to the quarterback on a blitz.) And maybe the Packers were geared up to stop the run, as Jones-Drew (another guy I was hoping the Pack would draft way back when) didn't do too much on the ground. (Though they were definitely not geared up to stop David Garrard from running.) Whatever it was, they certainly didn't adjust, as wash-out Dennis freaking Northcutt had a career day, with big catches in both halves. If there's anything that disturbs me about the defense, it's that failure to make in-game adjustments.

- I don't think anyone outside the organization can explain what Jermichael Finley is doing on the field on key downs. Occasionally first and second downs not in the red zone, yes. But he needs to EARN the right to be on the field when it really matters. He has definitely not done that yet.

Oates is wrong.

Tom Oates is an excellent writer, but I disagree with his assessment of the Packers season and decision on the Favre/Rodgers decision: http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/packers/316019

The Pack's problems start with defense, and are followed by inconsistent running. In many ways, A Rodg is the bright spot in this season. This team would not have a better record with Favre at QB. It would have a better record if the defense from the beginning of last year were still playing.

Rodgers Resigned

Until 2014! And he wasn't even a free agent at the end of the season. He had one year left on his rookie contract, after the end of this year. I guess Ted Thompson really does have a huge man-crush on A-Rodge. I mean, he's looked excellent so far, and has done us all proud playing well through injuries, but signing him up for another six seasons? On the basis of 7 starts? All you can say is, "Whoa . . ." and hope that the Packers staff knows what they're doing.

"They need to get on board now or keep their mouths shut.''

I don't know about you, but I love this quote. And that's for two reasons-- first, the "keep their mouths shut" line is just a bizarre and amusing choice of words and second, I have no idea what point he was trying to make. If I "get on board now," that is, get fired up about Rodgers being the Packer starting QB, I get to complain if he flops? Or if I don't get on board now, and instead remain rather concerned about him being the new QB, I'm not allowed to be upset or complain if he stinks? Only blindly optimistic fans are allowed to take him to task when he screws up (which he undoubtedly will, many times)? Huh? Is there some sort of record keeper out there who's going to keep score about who's on or off board? And when is "now"? Can I wait to see if he gets hurt in training camp or how he performs in preseason games before I "get on board," or will the ship already have sailed by then? Exactly when is the departure time, because, personally, I'd like to do a thorough inspection of the vessel before I board.

What a bizarre and hilarious comment. And Rodgers has responded quite defensively, asking people to envision the questions asked by the reporter that would have led to that statement. Uh, what? Why don't you just tell us what the questions were? We have to guess? Is this some sort of entrance exam we have to pass in order "to get on board?" This whole thing is hilarious and I love it. Well done, A-Rodg.