After Further Review: Packers vs. Vikings
By Ross Uglem
Ross will provide a few observations every Monday afternoon following a Packers game based on a few viewings of the condensed version of the game on NFL GamePass. While this might not be the All-22 camera deep dive that might be more "educational", it should provide a conversation point for the rest of the week.
By the way, you can check out a lot of clips from the All-22 from my actual study of this game by checking out my Twitter feed @RossUglem
This was by far Clay Matthews' best game of the season. Matthews is a very tightly wound athlete and he vey much struggles when he's not 100%. His impact as a player is undeniable, but it only seems to be more than background noise when Matthews is fully healthy. He seemed to be very much fully healthy on Sunday.
TJ Clemmings is one of the worst starting tackles in football. He makes Vikings fans yearn for the abilities up front of a Don Barclay. Even though Matthews often rushed from the ROLB position that got to go against Clemmings, he is the one that shows up on film. He looked like himself.
The Packers aren't going to get cornerbacks back that can dominate a game. If Randall gets back to full health and he and Gunter can play the outside, Rollins will go back into his more natural nickel position. As Adam Thielen showed, he can't hold up outside yet.
Matthews, Perry and Peppers are the team's hope at holding teams under 30 points. Rodgers has the ability to take care of the rest.
Rodgers is playing well enough now to win a championship without a good defense. The key is whether or not he can play at that level for four straight games. In 2010, he struggled in Chicago and the defense bailed him out. Rodgers awarded them with one of the best Super Bowl performances of all time.
His work, and the work of the wide receivers (even without Cobb) was exquisite. The Packers destroyed the middle of Minnesota's zone coverage. If they get Cobb back they can use some more unique looks. The Jordy Nelson slot machine should not be shelved. He is a Larry Fitzgerald-level problem from that area.
If Rodgers can be as mobile as he was against Minnesota while maintaining the "headspace" as he described it to get the ball out on time, they're going to score in the 30s. Can the defense keep 4 straight teams out of the 30s? We'll find out.
Mike Daniels is a very good player.
That was as poorly as I've ever seen Harrison Smith play. He's an exceptional football player and I think it looked like he wasn't ready to come back. A lot of those in-breaking routes the Packers threw used to end with their receivers getting drilled by the "Hitman". I have to appreciate his effort in a game he probably shouldn't have been playing in with is team having a chance for the playoffs in the single digits percentage-wise.
Davante Adams you have to catch that one in the back of the end zone. If that was a catch that would have been on the Rodgers highlight films for years to come. Yes, it was a wonderful toss but it was still a tough catch. Gotta hope the rest of Adams' excellent work from that game maintains his level of confidence and he doesn't dwell on that one. He's been excellent this season and Green Bay's going to need him in the playoffs.
The Packers were not good running the football against Minnesota. All the things that it looked like they had figured out with Montgomery in Chicago did not work out the way that they had hoped as a follow up. There aren't a lot of defenses that are as good as Minnesota's in this league, and you can't complain about 38 points. You have to hope the Packers can go back to the run if they need to.
Green Bay has tremendous potential in the screen game. They run it occasionally, and they were one Corey Linsley assignment away from a big gainer, but we're back to the point where Aaron Rodgers frustrates defenses to the point that they blitz him, even though they know they shouldn't. There might come a time in the game against Detroit or in the playoffs where a big Ty Montgomery screen changes the outlook of a game. Hot reads can't always be the answer to people bringing pressure against Green Bay.
Specifically pressure up the middle. The Packers are stuck in a situation where they have to use Montgomery as a back, and he needs to be good at pass pro. The Vikings are very good, especially up front, but the pressure that was put on Rodgers was just too much. Green Bay needs to shore up their interior pass protection.
Jared Cook is going to be about as productive as the offense dictates he should be. I've got no problem with Cook's catch rate of 61% because his average depth of target seems to be pretty far downfield. Yes, Green Bay does try to involve Cook in the flat, but a lot his work is much further down the route tree. Rodgers trusts him on the sideline, and that's important. He's physically the biggest threat they have.
Jake Ryan is really starting to get good. Ryan is an absolute rock in the middle of that defense. He's giving Green Bay quality of play commensurate with the absolute best seasons that AJ Hawk ever gave the Packers and he was picked 124 spots later. His athleticism is really starting to show from side to side as he gets further and further away from the ACL injury that affected his junior year at Michigan. I really think he and Martinez can be something special for the next few seasons, especially as they work Burnett into that ILB spot. I'll be interested to see if the Packers decide to draft a "cover" safety early to replace Burnett.
Green Bay is actually in a lot of trouble if Gunter can't play. Say what you will about Gunter he has the ability to have a very good game, and can play the outside cornerback position better than anyone on the roster that isn't Sam Shields. Playing Rollins and Randall on the outside and Hyde on the inside is just asking for trouble. Hyde is fine in a pinch, but all game long he someimtes becomes a liability athletically. Randall isn't healthy or consistent enough to be a #1 outside CB and Rollins might just be smoked mentally. Joe Whitt has a lot of work to do.
Adam Thielen is really good.
That was a lot of fun, but can we go back to Green Bay sweeping the Vikings?
-------------------
Ross Uglem is a staff writer for Cheesehead TV. He can be found on Twitter @RossUglem
Comments (38)
EdsLaces
December 26, 2016 at 11:23 pm
Randall is decent. Gunter is decent. Hyde is meh. Rollins...sucks. We need to draft a CB in a bad way. Young or not these guys won't turn out to be that great...especially Rollins. Also...Hayward getting 137 picks this year for the Bolts this year pisses me off.
NickPerry
December 27, 2016 at 05:57 am
God knows I've mentioned that about Hayward 100 times but it seems many don't agree. Hayward didn't do this, didn't do that, couldn't play man to man, didn't have any TO's last season or tackle well. My personal favorite is when they suggest he was always injured. He was injured his 2nd season, that's it. He had as many or just about as many tackles as his fellow CB's the last 2 seasons in Green Bay too so please, stop with the tackling issues.
He didn't have a great season in Green Bay in 2015. but he was still worth signing, especially with an oft injured #1 CB, three 2nd year players, and a BUNCH of UDFA rookies behind them. I mean WTF did people think would happen? Randall, a College Safety and Rollins who played 1 year IN CONFERENCE USA were going to to magically turn into shut down CB's?
It was a MISTAKE not to have a CB with some experience on the team with them. Period!
Funny thing happened in San Diego. He plays outside, he plays man to man and zone equally well, and he was damn sure worth $5 Million. Now as Rollins and Randall look like toast toasted 5 minutes too long, I'm hearing that Randalls and Rollins struggles are because they were thrust into positions they weren't ready for. Really?? After 30 some games the best they can do is allow QB ratings of over 120 when they pass to their respective sides? Hell Rollins who I actually had the most hope for based on last year was allowing a QB rating of over 130. Gunter was the best at 112.5, that was through nine games and after the last few weeks I doubt they've improved a lot.
Considering Shields has NEVER played 16 games, did you actually think he would this year? Did TT expect a guy with as many concussions as Sam has had just stop getting concussions? Considering they seem to come with more frequency after the first 3 or 4 that's just plain dumb.
Randall and Rollins are our future and I actually believe they'll develop into decent enough CB's. My whole point here is if not Hayward then someone else should have been signed with some experience. Can't ALWAYS play "Moneyball" Ted.
Packer_Pete
December 27, 2016 at 06:02 am
I am agreeing with you partially. While you are making a few good points, I still do think it was the correct decision to let Hayward go, based solely on his performances as a Packers CB. He now plays much better for the Chargers. The question is why? Maybe he does fit better in their scheme, but he does play multiple positions there. The other possibility is coaching, plain and simple. And based on the observation that only one CB this year on the Packers team improved (Gunter), I think it is a legitimate question. I know it is sacrilege here to question the coaching ability of Whitt, but I am not sure he is a good coach at all. Just my opinion, of course. I am just seeing that players are not improving, and that there are constantly communication issues in the backfield. And I largely blame Whitt for not correcting those. I think in the past he just had a lot of naturally good players, and to a large part also veterans in the secondary like Woodson or Collins who helped 'coach' the rookies. Now that Whitt has that luxury no more, suddenly there is no progress...
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that way to me.
NickPerry
December 27, 2016 at 06:23 am
That's an excellent point Pete. Players like Shields and Williams had a huge advantage coming in with Woodson and Harris already on the roster to learn from. Those are 2 of the better man to man CB's the Packers have had, Woodson one of the best ever. But IMO that supports some of what I'm saying. The Packers should have and another CB with experience other than Sam due to Sam's injury history.
The other part is Capers Defense. Is it to complicated? Is it Whitt? I always thought Whitt was one of the better CB Coaches in the NFL after what he helped do with Williams and Shields. Maybe it was Woodson, Collins, and Harris who were the better teachers, I don't know. But you're absolutely correct, there's been no progress this season. Even before the injuries they struggled.
pacman
December 27, 2016 at 07:54 am
Seems pretty clear that if AR is playing like he is capable of playing (recently), he can take any good group of receivers and make them look great. This concept just doesn't apply to defense. TT/MM/DC have trusted that this young group of CB/SS's could hold up and it is just not the case. On the line and LB's, they trusted the CM with some support would do it, even though CM always seems to get injured. Now we all know that it wasn't the lack of receivers last year and beginning of this year - it was AR and play selection. Cook is a good threat and relatively inexpensive but we could have used that $ on D. It is getting pretty depressing reading almost every week how bad we are against the pass. It will take 2-3 years to correct. These guys are going to have to really step it up against Detroit. One week at a time.
Ross Uglem
December 27, 2016 at 01:36 pm
It's not Whitt. Shields was supposed to be the #1 cover corner. Randall was supposed to be the turnover causing #2 who got help over the top. Rollins was supposed to play in limited space as a nickel as he continued to learn the nuances of football. When they lost Shields for the year that entire plan got shot to hell. There was a lot of Micah Hyde and Demetri Goodson in places that there should not have been. I personally would have paid Hayward what San Diego paid for him. His advanced stats have always been phenomenal. With that said, GB had a plan going into the year and it lasted all of one game.
sonomaca
December 27, 2016 at 09:58 pm
I don't think it was much of a surprise that Shields suffered another concussion. The previous one shelved him for several weeks. Probably wasn't wise to expect him to remain healthy.
The Packers have let three corners walk over the past two seasons. Perhaps they should have tried to keep at least one.
It's possible Randall is playing out of position. He might be a safety.
NickPerry
December 28, 2016 at 05:44 am
You just said it Ross, Demetri Goodson. I wish nothing but the best for the young man and his recovery. THAT was a horrible injury so I hope he's able to come back and fulfill his dream. But IMO the guy just wasn't a very good CB. Okay ST Player, but when you struggle like he did in the 3rd and 4th quarters of the preseason what do you suppose will happen in the regular season?
Just like last year with Jordy it's not ALL on Sam Shields being out. ONE player shouldn't ever cause that big of ripple effect on a Team that was/is supposed to be able to win a SB.
Thegreatreynoldo
December 28, 2016 at 03:06 am
@ Sonomaca: It has occurred to me that Randall's best position might be safety. Unfortunately, we don't need a safety. Moving Randall to S means we'd need two CBs who can actually play. CB is a premium position and that would cost a lot. Tramon wasn't worth $7M AAV. House wasn't worth $6.125 AAV. He's busted at Jacksonville, playing in all 15 games this year but starting just 2, and giving Jax just 270 snaps so far this season. There is a 95% chance Jax cuts him after this season, or makes him take a big pay cut. Maybe he'll be available in 2017 for cheap money. I do think most of us thought Shields would miss some time at some point, but few planned for getting just 62 snaps out of him. My view was that Gunter was the most important player to watch in the preseason hall of fame game since we would probably need him to play at a serviceable level at outside CB for several games this season (see my fanpost on Acme back in August if you want).
@ Ross Uglem: Agree. This plan made Shields the linchpin to the secondary. I previously posted about what I call the 'Goodson Effect:' we give up 32+ pts/gm when he plays, and 18.8/game when he does not. I was surprised Hayward didn't get more money. Still, GB coaches liked Hyde better; $5.1 AAV was too much for what this coaching staff was going to get out of Hayward. If I had been Hayward, I'd have taken some other team's offer over GB's if it was moderately close.
@Pacman: I drew the opposite conclusion: we now know that is was the WRs last year and the beginning of this year. Play selection and scheme should have been altered to adjust for the lack of WR talent, but that wasn't done. I agree that it was partly on AR this season.
@ Packer Pete: Interesting on Whitt, and I'll keep that in the back of my mind. Guess I never considered the possibility that Tramon and Shields benefited more from Woodson and Harris than from Whitt.
MITM
December 27, 2016 at 05:09 am
Im not disagreeing with you, im just curious what you saw specifically from Ryan this game. I would list ILB up near the top of our needs going into next year behind CB and pass rusher.
Ross Uglem
December 27, 2016 at 01:33 pm
It's just an old way of thinking about football, to think that the ILBs need to be highly drafted or spend a bunch of money on.
According to ProFootball Focus, the best two ILBs in football are Jerrell Freeman and Luke Kuechly, and their teams are 9-21 combined.
This isn't a team that is going to spend on ILB in a third straight draft if they feel Martinez, Ryan, Burnett and Thomas are good enough.
Martinez and Ryan have athletic potentail and are both about league average right now, weak against the pass and strong against the run. That's about all you need especially in a defense that uses hybrid players in passing sets.
Ryan specifically shows the side to side speed that had been lacking at the ILB position for years and as he grows in the defense and distances himself from his college ACL injury his ceiling is pretty high.
A highly drafted ILB next season is a pipe dream, unless that player is a true hybrid LB/S like a Jabrill Peppers.
MITM
December 27, 2016 at 03:43 pm
Jabrill Peppers is so overrated it almost makes me sick. Reuben Foster a Patrick Willis clone can completely transform a defense especially if he were sitting there later on where the Packers picked. At that point in the draft its a good bet to think that the top 3-4 best pass rushers and cornerbacks are off the board already. I think that in that scenario you have to draft the #1-2 ILB as opposed to the 4th or 5th best pass rusher left on the board.
Savage57
December 27, 2016 at 06:52 am
"With the 32nd, 64th, 96th, 128th, 160th, 192nd and 224th picks in the NFL draft, the Green Bay Packers select a cornerback. Any cornerback."
dobber
December 27, 2016 at 07:32 am
Between CB and edge-rusher, the top of the upcoming draft looks like it's all D...
Ross Uglem
December 27, 2016 at 01:26 pm
I would advise caution on spending all the draft capital in the world on CBs. Corners are historically slow to elevate their level of play to elite or even "very good". Rollins specifically is an inexperienced athlete that is being asked to do too much too early and has a bright future (still), even if that future is at FS.
If you draft 3 corners in the first 5 rounds and Shields doesn't retire, that doesn't work, it also doesn't work if you believe in Gunter or Randall. Draft one? Fine, but they won't pan out for 2 or 3 years and you'll be asking them to be replaced before they become what they will in the league.
Thegreatreynoldo
December 28, 2016 at 03:28 am
I don't think there is a snowball's chance in Hell that Shields plays another down for GB in 2017. If he doesn't retire, GB has to cut him. I wouldn't let him practice.
However, while it is fine to draft a CB, even high, I agree with Ross that it often takes until year 2 or 3 for CBs to develop, if one doesn't miss entirely. I think this is the year to buy a FA CB using the $9M cap savings from Shields and adding a couple more to it if necessary.
Lphill
December 27, 2016 at 07:07 am
After further review the Packers ended the Vikings post season hopes and may be responsible for ending the career of Adrian Peterson, well done!!!
Since'61
December 27, 2016 at 08:37 am
After further review our biggest weakness is our CBs and covering the middle of the field. Playing at home I doubt that Stafford will leave as many points on the field as Bradford and the Vikings did. Unless our pass rush steps up big time in Detroit Stafford might have a huge day. If the Bears QB and Bradford can throw for over 300 yards against our secondary how many yards will Stafford have? Even if Rodgers and the offense open up a lead the Lions have won with late comebacks all season. Over the years, our defense has had trouble holding a lead late in games even when we have good, healthy CBs. Maybe TT can re-sign Woodson for this week and the playoffs! Thanks, Since '61
Doug_In_Sandpoint
December 27, 2016 at 10:00 am
I hear you '61...but Stafford will throw one up a few times a game. Did that again last night and turned a tight game into a route. We must get at least 2 TO's from our dbs. We need to be the later season version rather than all the early season drops. Give the ball back to the offense and let Rodgers work it out.
Ross Uglem
December 27, 2016 at 01:38 pm
This kind of concern is pretty flawed. Russell Wilson is a better QB than Barkley and Bradford and he was embarassed by this Packers secondary. Bradford's numbers came in junk time. They were able to deal with Stafford in week 3 until he put up a bunch of junk time numbers. You have to look at game situations, not volume numbers.
Since'61
December 27, 2016 at 06:08 pm
Bradford had over 200 yards passing in the first half, not exactly junk time.
Wilson does not have a receiver as good as Alston on the Bears either. Plus he is a third stringer who moved the Bears effortlessly during the 4th Qtr 17 point comeback. You may to realize it but that's a game situation. Yes, the Packers stopped Wilson, but he also stopped himself with off target and overthrown passes. Maybe you should pay attention while you are watching game situations. Thanks, Since '61
Ross Uglem
December 27, 2016 at 09:21 pm
The 1st half was already junk time. Bradford was in a shootout immediately. The Vikings had no business being on that field. "Elite" QBs like Wilson, Ryan and Stafford haven't done any better or worse than "Junk" QBs like Bradford, Barkley or even Mariota. Green Bay has had the same probelm all year, a stout defense up front with the awful propensity to give up the big play (a lot). People said "uh oh" Julio Jones is coming, "uh oh" Odell Beckham is coming. "Uh oh" Stafford is coming is making something out of nothing.
sonomaca
December 27, 2016 at 10:09 pm
The NFC playoff QB's are good, but not exceptional: Prescott, Manning, Ryan, Wilson, and maybe Cousins or Winston. Ryan is probably the best of the bunch. I think the Packers can "limit" these teams to 28 to 32 points.
Rodgers is by far the best NFC QB at the moment. I think the Packers can and will drop 30+ going forward.
If, by some chance, the Packers got to the Superbowl, Brady would absolutely shred the Packers secondary. Absolutely no chance vs. New England.
Ross Uglem
December 27, 2016 at 10:15 pm
Totally disagree. NE offense currently ranks behind DAL, ATL and WAS in weighted DVOA. Being scared of Brady is being scared of a name. New England isn't significantly better than any of the NFC contenders. The way people talk you'd think the Pats had more than one Super Bowl win in the last 14 years but............... they don't. Now Green Bay doesn't either, but Brady isn't this undefeatable monster.
Thegreatreynoldo
December 28, 2016 at 03:36 am
Um, Ross, NE has won 3 super bowls in the last 14 years ('04, '05, '15) and they've won 4 in the last 15 seasons. But yes, NE is also flawed and does not scare me.
Ross Uglem
December 28, 2016 at 10:36 am
sorry that was a typo, and the years are off one. GB is considered the 2010 world champs even though the game itself was in 2011. 12 years. The Patriots have one title in the last 12 years.
RCPackerFan
December 27, 2016 at 08:36 am
Packers playing 3 straight division games to end the year, is not the easiest of tasks, especially with 2 of them being on the road.
The game of the season for the Packers is in Detroit Sunday Night.
The offense, in particular Rodgers is on fire. Nelson is returning to pre-injury form and their chemistry can't be denied. Getting contributions from Allison and Janis only makes the offense better.
I really wish Adams would have caught that TD pass. It was going to be a tough catch, but still hits him in the hands. Dropping 3 TD's in 2 games, is not a good thing.
The injury that is hurting the team the most was the one to Sam Shields. While he gave up plays here and there, his ability to lock down the other teams best WR really has hurt the defense. With Randall still battling injuries, now Gunter, our CB's are very thin.
Hopefully the pass rush can get to QB's giving the CB's help.
Mathews had his best game since early in the season before he got hurt. If he can play that way the rest of the year it changes our defense. And if Perry can add a pass rush even with his boulder hand that's going to help our defense significantly.
Bearmeat
December 27, 2016 at 08:40 am
The decision to let Heyward go was CLASSIC TT. It has burned him at times and made him look great at times.
Vets let go/retired that burned him: Heyward, Jenkins, Finley, Clifton, Shields, Collins, Grant.
Vets let go/retired that made TT look great: Favre (that's a biggie), Jennings, Jones, Hawk, Taucher, Sitton, Colledge, EDS, Raji...
This is far from an exhaustive list. The point is that sometimes TT is right and saves the team money. And sometimes he's wrong and it costs the team wins.
The worst thing for a team is a big swing and a miss in FA. Something that is frustrating as a Packers fan, but it's never happening under TT.
It's also important to remember that Shields was supposed to be our top CB. And he was capable. He got hurt. Then Randall, Rollins and Gunter all have been hurt too. They may still make the jump next year, but their injuries have cost them this year.
If the defense is going to survive the playoffs, it's going to be on the back of 30 plus points scored per game on offense, turnovers, and sacks. Not coverage.
RCPackerFan
December 27, 2016 at 09:16 am
You may want to add Suffered career ending injuries to Shields, Finley and Collins. Because they were forced to retire due to injury.
I do believe that Randall Rollins and Gunter will all improve next year. I do think they will need to draft a CB high in the draft though.
The best defense right now is a great offense. The Packers offense playing the way it has been, it puts a lot of pressure on the opposing offense. Which makes them take risks, which allows the defense to create turnovers.
With the Packers defense if they can bend but not break, that would be good. They did that early against the Vikings which allowed them to get out to a lead.
Bearmeat
December 27, 2016 at 10:53 am
Yeah. That's how they have to win. Offense putting pressure on the opposing offense. Defense capitalizing on mistakes. That's really their only reliable option. And it's a good one, but teams like Atlanta and Dallas could bust that up IMO.
Regarding injuries, the Packers have had unbelievably bad luck with career ending injuries to GREAT players over the past 25 years. Sharpe, Collins, Finley, Shields - that's enough! However, it's still the job of the GM to replace those players, regardless of how hard it is, or how suddenly the need came up. At various points during the TT era, the Packers have been a bag of suck for several years at TE, CB, RB, FS, P, LT, DT and OLB. That's on TT.
RobinsonDavis
December 27, 2016 at 12:35 pm
Let's not forget that it was 3 starting caliber and tested CBs at the time that they were not signed over the last 2 years. I think you do have to factor our current CB's (and LBs) injuries into the issues encountered this year, AND the fact that the Packers require there CBs to play a lot of one-on-one coverage with little support due to the various blitz packages incorporated in their defensive strategy, AND thus, I do not blame Whitt. But, the points above are well taken!
In reflection, when the Packers were in the need to run the table, 2 aspects had to improve:
1) The offense had to find a way to control the game. That meant better play from our QB and receivers in particular, but ALSO an aggressive, offensive game plan that shed its predictability.
2) The defense had to find a way to stop the opponent's passing game, whether through the DBs, Pass Rush, and/or turnovers.
I would argue that the offenive game plan HAS changed for the better over the current win streak, finding unique formations and schemes, though admittedly, still relying on Aaron to buy time with his feet. What I cannot argue for though, is any unique defensive schemes. Why can't we find ways to help our injured, young DBs out in coverage?
barutanseijin
December 27, 2016 at 12:47 pm
TT kept Hawk around too long and for too much cap money. Also, Finley, Collins & Shields had injuries & Raji didn't want to play anymore. Not sure how much TT had to do with those decisions.
Thegreatreynoldo
December 28, 2016 at 05:54 am
@ Bearmeat: agree on some, but just no on most of this, or my memory has taken a hike. You leave out Woodson and Wells, but here goes:
TT correct:
Favre: Agree 100%;
Jennings: Agree, but TT did make an offer for substantial $;
Wells: Not on your list, but he never played well after leaving GB, (injury?), so correct decision. Led to signing Jeff Saturday!
Colledge: Right decision.
Tramon: Too much money, not that good;
House: just 270 snaps this season - a $6M little used BU;
Walden: TT was right, tho Walden is not total suckitude, just a a fair bit (?) below average? I think our back up OLBs are better.
Debatable:
EDS: Probably TT was right, but debatable. EDS signed for $3.5M AAV, but GB liked Barclay better. GB paid Barclay $1.54M in 2014, but Barclay got hurt, didn't play at all in 2014, and has been terrible ever since. Thought you liked the idea of having serviceable back up veterans? Still, letting EDS go led to drafting Linsley. Probably right decision.
No real decision for TT to make or inapplicable:
Clifton: Injured, never played another down after leaving GB.
Shields, Collins, Finley Taucher: injured - nothing to do with TT really;
Raji: TT didn't let him go - wanted to re-sign him, inapplicable;
Not so good TT decisions:
Grant: Wondered how he made the '12 team, except Cedric Benson was our savior, and we had Alex Green, Benson, Grant - no wonder we went giddy when we drafted Lacy in 2013. In any event, Grant was out of football after 2012;
Hawk: we all wanted him gone at least a season earlier;
Jones: ditto - see hawk;
Bad TT decisions:
Jenkins: Well, that one burned TT. Really, not as sure about that now: think Jenkins wanted big money and hard feelings developed. Turned out no other team would give Jenkins big dough. TT should have matched the $ Jenkins got, assuming he could have.
Woodson: Should have offered Woodson a very modest contract. Big TT mistake. Left us with McMillan and the doctor, etc. Awful.
Jury out:
Hayward: Looking bad for TT, but is it a fluke? Looking at getting a 5th or maybe a 6th Rd. comp pick in 2017. Coaches thought Randall out - played Hayward and moved him to slot. Coaches thought Hyde out-played Hayward in 2014. What's a GM to do?
vj_ostrowski
December 27, 2016 at 08:54 am
Harrison Smith is a good player, but injuries or no, we seem to have his number. His getting torched by Jordy in primetime 2 years ago is one of my favorite Jordy highlights.
Ross Uglem
December 27, 2016 at 01:59 pm
Let's all just chill saying Shields is retired until he actually retires. It's his decision. It's not that cool to be first on something unless you're actually correct about it.
Thegreatreynoldo
December 28, 2016 at 06:08 am
It is Shields' decision whether to retire. It is TT's decision whether he plays for GB again. And that answer seems obvious to me: GB has 9 million reasons not to let Shields play for us again.
pacman
December 27, 2016 at 03:57 pm
Nice recap with a major exception - "Rodgers is playing well enough now to win a championship without a good defense". Considering we have not played elite teams, that does not hold up. Seattle is not playing that great and many of those INTs were lucky bounces. If our D can't make the stops, AR is not going to get the chances to keep scoring. Detroit will be a good test but they are not Atlanta or NE.
Ross Uglem
December 27, 2016 at 09:17 pm
There are no elite teams this season. If there were Atlanta definitely isn't one of them. The offensive resurgence has come against the 4th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 18th best defenses in the league.