That being the case, there’s quite a bit of news surrounding the Green Bay Packers, a team that’s lost three of four and desperately needs to right the ship.

What better time than now to make a trip back to the question department, right? After all, [...]]]> And Vikings week, chapter one (technically, chapter three) has officially begun.

That being the case, there’s quite a bit of news surrounding the Green Bay Packers, a team that’s lost three of four and desperately needs to right the ship.

What better time than now to make a trip back to the question department, right? After all, it’s been awhile since we’ve been here.

• Question: Are we witnessing the decline of Charles Woodson?

Answer: Sadly, maybe. The reigning NFL Defensive Player of the Year just has not been anywhere near as much of a factor as he’s been in previous seasons thus far. Woodson has recorded just one interception, against Detroit, and five passes defended through six games. As always, those numbers only tell part of the story. Woodson, always a physical corner, has been drawing penalties left and right this season, mostly of the “illegal contact” variety. Can’t remember where I read this, but one of the Packers’ beat writers proposed the theory awhile back that Woodson – pushed around by Larry Fitzgerald in the wild card loss – is hellbent on making sure that never happens again. Thus, he’s taken his physicality to another level. If that’s true – and even if it isn’t – he needs to dial things back a notch or twelve. He’s really hurting the defense. More than that, teams are simply not afraid to throw at him this season, something that isn’t going to change until he turns in a clean game and starts making some big plays. He’s been rather good in run support, so he’s still bringing value. But for the defense, wrecked by injuries, to get back to where it was last season, he has to be better. Period.

• Question: Should we be firing up the “Fire McCarthy” bandwagon yet?

Answer: We haven’t quite reached that point yet. It’s mid-season and the Packers are once again underwhelming, so it’s natural that some fans would be calling for Mike Mac’s dismissal. I can’t lie – I’ve thought about it a time or two myself already. He’s certainly given us plenty of reason to think such thoughts, hasn’t he? Unbalanced, arrogant playcalling; a complete inability to win close games; a team that continues to take bad penalties at crucial times (if not for the entire game). The 3-3 record is bad enough, but what’s really damning is that the same problems exist with this team five years into McCarthy’s time at the helm. You can’t help but wonder if a new direction is needed. That said, it’s far too early to be calling for his firing. This was a playoff team last year and, as bad as things have been, a win Sunday night changes everything. Now, with an extremely tough schedule the rest of the way (and injuries mounting), there’s always a chance this team bottoms out. If that happens – say, they finish 7-9 or 8-8 and miss the playoffs – then it would be time to discuss firing him. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Famous last words, probably.

• Question: What can we honestly expect from Al Harris, Atari Bigby, and James Starks?

Answer: To hear McCarthy tell it in his Monday presser, it sounds like all three have rehabbed their injuries as much as possible and are ready to begin practicing. What happens after Wednesday is anyone’s guess. I have a feeling Harris is closer to returning than the other two and will see the field in some capacity Sunday night. He won’t start, but could see considerable time as the nickel back. But for a player of Harris’ age, coming off of that type of injury, it seems unlikely he’ll be able to go every snap in that role. Sam Shields has been decent in that role this season, when healthy, so I’d expect that he and Harris will rotate. Bigby seems further away – they wouldn’t have traded for Anthony Smith, otherwise. Still, it wouldn’t shock me if he played a portion of the game Sunday night. His biggest strength is playing the run, after all, and that Peterson guy is pretty good. It’s important for the Packers to not overuse these two right away. It’s a big game, no question, but it’s more important to get these two ready for the second half. Don’t expect much from Starks. The guy hasn’t played a meaningful snap since early in 2009. It’s going to take at least a couple of weeks for him to shake off the considerable rust he’s accumulated. If he makes any impact, it likely won’t happen until after the bye early next month.

• Question: What should we expect from the newly acquired Smith?

Answer: Don’t expect him to be a savior, but he is an upgrade. Smith – yes, that Smith, the one signed by the Packers before being released late in camp last year – knows this scheme inside and out from his time in Pittsburgh/brief time in Green Bay. If you don’t remember the story of why he was cut, well, it seemed to come down to this: While certainly capable of making big plays, Smith also allegedly freelanced too much for the coaches’ liking. There was also some issue with his apparent reluctance to play special teams. All along, though, it seemed like Ted Thompson sort of new he made a mistake in cutting Smith, so it’s not a shock that he’s back in the fold. I’m guessing he’ll start Sunday night, so here’s to hoping he can be better than Charlie Peprah. It’s hard to imagine he won’t be.

• Question: Where is this team at, health-wise?

Answer: The two key injuries to watch, obviously, are those of Ryan Pickett (ankle) and Clay Matthews (hamstring). McCarthy told reporters Monday that the two may be ready to practice later in the week. The key day, as always, to focus on is Friday. If a player practices Friday, he usually goes Sunday. Matthews’ injury seems less serious than Pickett’s, so my guess is that he’s more likely to go. Good, because this team can not win without him. Doesn’t sound like any update was provided on Mike Neal (shoulder). Neal and Pickett hopefully can go – you need all the big bodies you can get against Peterson. No word on the status of Brandon Chillar (shoulder) and Mark Tauscher (shoulder) doesn’t sound likely to play. Donald Driver (thigh) and A.J. Hawk (groin) could miss practice time, but should be fine. Brady Poppinga (knee) is going to have surgery, so he’ll be out awhile, if not the rest of the season. Finally, Jermichael Finley (knee) is officially done for the year. He’ll be placed on injured reserve to make room for Smith. Whew.

• Question: How does Shawn Slocum continue to have a job with this team?

Answer: Your guess is as good as mine. Incriminating photos of Thompson and/or McCarthy, perhaps?

-Chris Lempesis

Let’s get to the rest of it, quick-hit, bullet-point style right now:

Mike McCarthy said he and Aaron Rodgers are “on the same page” [...]]]> Outside of the disappointing news regarding Morgan Burnett – no link, you can just scroll down – there was a lot going on with the Green Bay Packers on Monday.

Let’s get to the rest of it, quick-hit, bullet-point style right now:

• McCarthy downplays Rodgers’ comments

Mike McCarthy said he and Aaron Rodgers are “on the same page” on Monday, a day after Rodgers questioned the playcalling in Green Bay’s win over Detroit. It sure sounds like Rodgers wants to see more of the offensive attack Green Bay ran in its loss to Chicago, one that almost completely relies on Rodgers throwing out of shotgun formations. I agree with QB12 – to a point.

If the team is really committed to going with Brandon Jackson and John Kuhn as its backs the rest of the way, then yeah, having Rodgers throw 90 percent of the time is a smart call. With those two, things should not be like they were Sunday (18 runs, 17 passes, with three runs from Rodgers, also). But I still feel this team needs to run the ball – it just needs a legitimate threat at running back to do so. I still think it needs Marshawn Lynch. McCarthy may not want to run the ball – okay, he really doesn’t want to – but a player like Lynch helps the passing game, too. Teams would have to respect him, thus taking away the option of nickel-and-diming Green Bay to death (something that’s only going to happen more and more). That only furthers the chances of success for Rodgers and Co. And, oh, by the way – Lynch is a pretty good pass-catcher, too.

• Agent: Chillar’s injury may be more serious than initially thought

Great item in the Green Bay Press Gazette Insider’s Blog Monday, in which the agent for linebacker Brandon Chillar, Jim Ivler, said Chillar’s shoulder injury could be rather serious. Chillar injured his shoulder against the Bears.

Ivler, from the post: “I hope it isn’t season-ending, don’t think it is, but I’m not going to rule out that it’s not possible. By Wednesday, we’ll probably have a better idea.”

Unlike those season-ending injuries suffered by Ryan Grant and Burnett, Chillar’s injury would not significantly damage the position he plays at. Linebacker, outside of maybe wide receiver or offensive line, is the Packers’ deepest position. There are more than enough options to fill his void, should his season be over.

And, besides, it’s not like Chillar was setting anything on fire with his play. For all his athleticism, Chillar hadn’t been much of a factor at all so far this season. Even worse, his coverage skills – supposedly the best part of his game – had suffered, for some reason.

• McCarthy thinks the Packers need a dose of reality

Backtracking to McCarthy’s Monday presser, there was another bit of interesting info: McCarthy thinks the Packers need to relax a bit after Sunday’s close win.

McCarthy: “I’ll just say this: I think we need to get a little more realistic, and I haven’t talked to the team yet. I’ll touch on this when I get in there, but we came in the locker room, we always pray when we come back in, and usually there is some excitement. You would have thought we lost in the locker room, and I think that is unrealistic and we need to get in touch with reality.”

You know what? He’s dead-on. Sunday’s win was not wonderful, to say the least, but it’s a win. It’s something to build off of. No point in getting too down over it. I’m sure the folks in San Francisco, Carolina and Detroit would gladly trade places with Green Bay.

• Rodgers voted union rep for the team

Rodgers now replaces Mark Tauscher, who had filled that role for the past couple of years.

Greg Bedard of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has more about the situation, and what it means as far as the team’s stance in the pending labor situation, here. Sad that you’re leaving us, Greg, but best of luck.

• Packers’ fans in D.C., look out!

OBOD is heading your way this weekend. There is talk of a meet up – or Tweet up, as the kids like to call ‘em – somewhere Saturday night in the D.C. area. We’ll hopefully know more shortly. When we do, we’ll pass it along.

For now, I’m just worried about how I’m going to handle the two-and-a-half hour flight Saturday morning. I’m utterly, completely terrified of flying. Any suggestions? If not, can you at least pray for me?

-Chris Lempesis

Some felt veteran Chad Clifton needed to give way to rookie Bryan Bulaga, using age and/or injuries as the main reason for their beliefs. On that one, I firmly backed Clifton.

With that said, the following statement may come [...]]]> Last week, the big debate amongst fans of the Green Bay Packers centered around the team’s left tackle position.

Some felt veteran Chad Clifton needed to give way to rookie Bryan Bulaga, using age and/or injuries as the main reason for their beliefs. On that one, I firmly backed Clifton.

With that said, the following statement may come as some surprise: Right tackle Mark Tauscher needs to be benched.

Outside of a strong performance against Buffalo in week two – who didn’t have a strong showing in that one, though? – Tauscher has spent much of the 2010 season being either pushed around or, worse, flat-out spooked out by opposing pass rushers. The Packers can no longer afford to send him out there in the hopes he can regain his old form.

In turning in two very bad performances, Tauscher has shown that the game has simply passed him by, struggling in both the physical and mental aspects.

In week one, it was the physical. Philadelphia’s ends/outside linebackers simply pushed Tauscher around for much of the contest – that is, when they weren’t flying past him. That could be forgiven at the time, though, because of the Eagles’ elite front-seven talent. And, hey, everyone has a bad day, right?

After the performance against the Bills, as bad as they are, you hoped Tauscher had gotten back on track. Then came Monday night.

As bad as Tauscher was, physically, in his matchups with Chicago defensive ends Julius Peppers and Israel Idonije, he was even worse in the mental areas. It became very clear, even before the penalties reigned down on Tauscher in the second half - three in all, two false starts and a holding – that Tauscher was mentally overwhelmed by the matchups. The reasons behind that are anyone’s guess, but go back and look at his facial expressions/body language throughout the night. He just didn’t look like the Tauscher we’ve come to know.

You remember the old Tauscher, right? The gamer, the battler, the man who held Seattle’s Patrick Kearney to zero defensive stats in the 2008 divisional playoff win (the most impressive right tackle performance I’ve ever seen). That Tauscher is gone and maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. He was never the most physically-gifted tackle, but he always had enough to make him a good player when you threw in his knowledge of the game/mental toughness. But now it appears his already-limited physical skills have left him completely, and they’ve taken his mental strength with them.

It’s time to turn the page there and give either Bulaga or second-year man T.J. Lang a go. Bulaga has already practiced at the position more than once this season, so he should get the first shot. He’s got the youth, strength and disposition (i.e., nasty, as does Lang). The team’s putrid running game should also see a boost from his insertion into the starting lineup (even though Mike McCarthy really doesn’t want to run the football).

I know what you’re saying: Chris, why are you in favor of putting Bulaga in long-term at right tackle when you just said last week that he should not replace Clifton?

Well, there are a couple of reasons.

First, the right tackle position is less daunting on a rookie than is the left tackle spot. Right tackles face some good pass rushers, yes. And, as we saw Monday, teams will shift their best pass rusher to the side they feel is the weakest (as the Bears did when they moved Peppers to left end in the second half). But, more often than not, the right tackle draws a matchup that isn’t as intimidating, good for Bulaga as I still think he’ll struggle with pure speed rushers, at least for year one. It’s more a game of strength over there, something that should suit Bulaga just fine.

Secondly, I never thought the game passed Clifton by, proven by his overall strong showing Monday. With him, it was simply an injury issue. If healthy, I was – and still am – fairly certain Clifton has at least one more year in him. Tauscher, on the other hand, doesn’t appear to be injured, unless the team is hiding something from us. He just appears to be shot.

If that’s the case, it’s time to have Tauscher – a man Packers fans have all come to love – step aside. As a smart, crafty backup, Tauscher can still provide excellent value, both to his replacement and the team as a whole.

-Chris Lempesis

In the meantime, [...]]]> Good morning, OBOD readers — Gene here. Chris is off fuming somewhere, so I thought I’d weigh in with a few, shall we say, more measured thoughts about last night’s loss to the Bears. Chris’s recap is coming, and I can tell you after talking to him last night, it will be colorful.

In the meantime, here are a few thoughts from my corner of the world on the game:

–The most galling part of it is not that the Packers lost. It’s the way they did it. We’ve obviously been over the penalties a dozen times, so I won’t belabor the point here, but this has been an issue all the way through Mike McCarthy’s tenure as head coach. And it took points off the board last night; without the holding call on Jermichael Finley’s touchdown, the Packers win that game. Every team in the NFL has hiccups these days; nobody is complete enough to play 16 games without slipping. But I walked away thinking the Packers were two touchdowns better than the Bears, if only they’d played a clean game.

–I know McCarthy isn’t going to run the ball much, and that’s fine, but if the Packers don’t at least give some thought to running, you’re going to see teams do exactly what the Bears did last night: drop into a deep zone, make the Packers play underneath and put the clamps down in the red zone. And teams like the Bears, who can pressure the quarterback with their front four, will be especially successful at it (hello, Jared Allen). Mark Tauscher looked jumpy, like he needed an extra half-second to prepare himself for Julius Peppers. That would explain some of the false starts, and the holding penalties came when Tauscher had no other recourse. Is this offensive line good enough to get the Packers deep into the playoffs? I don’t know, but it’s another recurring issue of the McCarthy/Thompson era.

–Here’s the thing that bugs me most: In yet another prime-time opportunity to make a statement, the Packers were ragged. This has been a theme in almost every prime-time game they’ve played under McCarthy, when emotions run a little higher and strange things tend to happen. Let’s look at the list:

2006: Lost to Philadelphia 31-9 on Monday night, got shredded by Shaun Alexander in Seattle on Monday night in a crushing loss to their playoff hopes, got a sloppy Thursday night win against the Vikings and beat a Bears team that didn’t care about the final Sunday night game of the season.

2007: Got beat at Lambeau by the Bears on Sunday night, in a game much like last night’s, slipped by the Broncos in a closer-than-it-should-have-been game on Monday night (against Jay Cutler, with Brett Favre hitting Greg Jennings for the sudden-death score), got embarrassed in the first half of a Thursday night game against Dallas before Aaron Rodgers filled in for an injured Brett Favre and nearly brought the Packers back.

2008: Beat the Vikings on Monday night in probably the best prime-time game of the McCarthy era, got undressed by Dallas on Sunday night, watched Drew Brees completely torch them on Monday night, lost to the Bears after getting a field goal blocked on Monday night (sound familiar?)

2009: Won the Sunday night opener against the Bears after falling flat in the second half and needing Rodgers-to-Jennings to bail them out in the final minute, got torched by Favre on Monday night in the Metrodome (a game McCarthy has admitted he had the Packers too jacked up for), won a sloppy Monday night game over the Ravens, during which both teams nearly set NFL records for penalties.

2010: Lost to the Bears last night.

That’s a 6-9 prime-time record under McCarthy, and I’d say exactly one of those wins (the Vikings game in 2008) was one you could feel good about afterward. And then we’ve got a 1-2 playoff record, with the Packers making crucial late-game mistakes (and I’m not just talking about the Favre pick against the Giants and the Rodgers fumble against the Cardinals) in both of them.

For a guy who prides himself on having the finger on the pulse of his team, wouldn’t you expect a few more complete performances when emotions are running highest?

If the NFC is as flawed as it appears to be – and an NFC with that team as its only unbeaten is definitely flawed – the Packers’ opportunity is still there. But it’s going to take cleaner performances than we saw last night, and it’s going to take composed efforts in big situations.

So far, we have seen the Packers deliver neither of these things. That’s why I picked them to fall short of the Super Bowl, and until they do something to change my mind, I’m sticking with that prediction.

Favre comes in on Sunday night in three weeks. The Packers travel to New York after that to face the Jets (in a game I want them to steal in a make-up for last night), and they have the Cowboys on Sunday night the week after that.

The statement games will keep coming. Let’s see it, guys.

–Gene Bosling

We at OBOD, however, love conundrums. They give us a chance to come down on one side or another of an important Green Bay Packers-related issue and, of course, stir the pot – something [...]]]> Conundrums are a pain in the you-know-what for football teams. They wreck the “keep it simple, stupid” approach that most thrive on.

We at OBOD, however, love conundrums. They give us a chance to come down on one side or another of an important Green Bay Packers-related issue and, of course, stir the pot – something we happen to think we’re pretty good at.

That said, this current Packers conundrum is a doozy even by our lofty standards: What, exactly, should Green Bay do with its left tackle situation?

Through roughly six quarters of play in 2010, mainstay Chad Clifton hasn’t been good at all. His bulky knee has been a major reason for that and some are suggesting that age has also finally caught up to the 34-year old, 11th-year warrior (not a term I use lightly, either). Clifton was pulled from Sunday’s blowout win over Buffalo during the second quarer, head coach Mike McCarthy said, because he felt Clifton’s knee simply was not right.

In his place stepped rookie Bryan Bulaga. The man many expect to take over for Clifton sooner rather than later got his first taste of regular season action. Outside of one false start call – looking like Cliffy already with that one – Bulaga was rather good. He did a nice job in pass protection and the team seemed to run the ball better with Bulaga in the game, although the running game still wasn’t very good. Perhaps just as importantly, he didn’t seem overwhelmed by any of it (well, it was the Bills).

That’s led some to suggest that Bulaga’s time is now, that he should replace Clifton as the starter going forward. McCarthy weighed in Monday, saying that when Clifton is healthy, he’ll return to the starting lineup.

After giving it some serious consideration, I have to say I agree with McCarthy. If Clifton’s 100 percent, it’s his job. I’m sorry, but there’s just something about playing the entire season with a rookie left tackle – solid performance versus Buffalo or no – that scares me to death.

Maybe that’s because I’ve checked out the Packers schedule. Over the next seven weeks, Green Bay faces some seriously talented pass rushes:

• Chicago – Julius Peppers in a nationally televised game. These are the only games he shows up for.
• Detroit – Much improved in that department. Kyle Vanden Bosch isn’t done yet and has a ton of veteran know-how.
• Washington – Despite losing to Houston, that defense bashed Matt Schaub around all day.
• Miami – We all saw what that group did to Favre, right?
• Minnesota – Jared Allen. Enough said.
• New York Jets – You don’t think Rex Ryan is going to collapse things Bulaga’s way?
• Dallas – DeMarcus Ware. Uh-oh.

Now, this is not to suggest Bulaga would be eaten alive every single time out, because I really don’t think that’s the case. He’s extremely talented and should be able to hold down the fort for a brief stretch while Clifton’s knee gets right. In time, he’ll likely become more than adequate at manning the left tackle spot and, hopefully, he can do just that for, oh, the next decade-plus.

Key words in that last graph: “A brief stretch” and “in time.”

Bulaga’s time has not come yet. 

Are you sure that a rookie who, according to most draft experts, struggled with speed rushers will be able to survive that seven-game stretch without at least a few wretched performances? What about the rest of the season? And if he can’t survive, can Aaron Rodgers? Remember, it only takes one whiff by an outmatched lineman for it to be all over.

If Bulaga plays, it should only be because Clifton’s knee is still too bothersome to go on. While I’m supporting Clifton, I’m not supporting him at anything less than 100 percent. And by “100 percent”, I mean he has to be able to practice all three days. Anything less is simply not good enough. But, when he’s healthy, he deserves one more chance. That’s not because of his status or lofty 2010 salary, either.

It’s because of his considerable knowledge of the position. Clifton has never been the most talented left tackle in the league, by any stretch, but like his running mate on the right side – Mark Tauscher – Clifton has excelled at the position because of smarts and toughness. He may be at or approaching AARP status for an NFL player and he may be held together by duct tape and chicken wire, as I’ve long suggested, but he almost always makes sure the quarterback makes it through unscathed. In a season with Super Bowl aspirations, that’s the type of player I want covering the blindside.

The playing time Bulaga sees while Clifton heals up – unknown as of now, but it sure sounds like he’ll draw Peppers next Monday – will be extremely valuable for him moving forward.

But I’m not ready to count Clifton out yet. With everything he’s been able to bounce back from, it seems silly to bet against him.

-Chris Lempesis

This week’s Wednesday special is going to be all about the running backs. No injury reports. No mention of Mason Crosby winning NFC Special Teams Player of the Week (outside of that one, of course). Nothing but running backs.

And, really, why not? The position is the focus of [...]]]> Don’t worry – you didn’t misread the title.

This week’s Wednesday special is going to be all about the running backs. No injury reports. No mention of Mason Crosby winning NFC Special Teams Player of the Week (outside of that one, of course). Nothing but running backs.

And, really, why not? The position is the focus of conversation involving the Green Bay Packers right now as they prepare for Sunday’s home opener with the Buffalo Bills. There are multiple layers to this and we’re going to attempt to get to them now.

Let’s first talk about the situation, as it currently stands. While the Packers moved extremely quickly in signing Dimitri Nance off Atlanta’s practice squad Tuesday, it’s highly unlikely Nance plays Sunday. He’ll need at least a little time to learn everything and five days is simply not enough. That means the duo of Brandon Jackson and John Kuhn will once again handle the position against Buffalo. That shouldn’t be a problem this week.

Still, I can’t see a scenario in which Nance is strictly a “warm body”, at least for the time being. Otherwise, the Packers would have simply kept that roster spot open for Ryan Grant, who could have been ready to return from his injury before the end of the regular season. Plus, Green Bay moved so fast on him, you have to think it’d been targeting him for awhile now. And with only one true running back – Jackson – Nance will see game time sooner rather than later (I know we all love Kuhn, but give me a break – there’s no way he’ll be the No. 2 back much longer). How Nance performs in whatever time he gets will determine a lot going forward.

I say that because, after the Miami game on Oct. 17, James Starks is eligible to return from the PUP list. His hamstring injury never seemed to improve much during camp, but the team must have received a good prognosis or else it would have placed Starks on injured reserve. If Nance is playing well enough, the Packers can slowly work Starks back into the flow of things. That’s extremely important. Remember, Starks saw no real action in camp and hasn’t played a down of meaningful football since the end of his junior year at Buffalo (missed all of 2009 with a shoulder injury). Expecting him to be ready to roll right away is asking an awful lot of the youngster.

If Nance pans out decently and Starks can regain his footing soon enough, could I envision a scenario in which the team goes with Jackson, Nance and Starks as its three backs the rest of the way? Yes, I could. As Gene brilliantly pointed out Tuesday, the Packers are simply not that concerned with running the ball, no matter how much they say they are.

But perhaps the more important question is: Is that the right call to make? That’s really the most important question. Jackson’s never been a featured back in the pros and has had some durability issues. Nance is a complete unknown. Starks is, well, see above.

As good as the passing game is and as weak as the early season schedile appears to be, the fact is the schedule gets really tough really quick. And, at some point, Aaron Rodgers is going to have a bad game or two. In those spots, you’d like to have a little more than Jackson/Nance/Starks to lean on.

You’d like to have Marshawn Lynch.

Since the moment we found out Grant was done for the year, Lynch’s name has been thrown around a lot as a possible trade target for Green Bay. Wednesday, rumors were running rampant on the ‘net that a potential Lynch-for-A.J. Hawk swap was in the works (still not sure were that rumor exactly came from, but I digress). Hawk’s agent, Mike McCartney (no I’m not making that name up) said that Hawk would be open to a trade and there are reports that Hawk has put his house in Green Bay on the market.

Still, that seems unlikely to me. While Hawk did not play a single defensive snap against the Eagles, he plays an important role as a run stopper in the base scheme. And he’s a Ted Thompson guy. We all know how much Teddy hates to part with one of his own.

But trading a draft pick for Lynch? Ah – now you’re talking.

The Bills are dying to rid themselves of Lynch, a former Pro Bowler who is now, essentially, the team’s No. 3 back. It wouldn’t take much to get him (a third round pick, maybe, but a fourth seems more likely to me). Thompson has clearly been a longtime follower of Lynch, as well. It’s been long suggested that Green Bay panicked in taking Justin Harrell in the ‘07 draft because the player it really wanted – guess who? – went off the board. And there were rumors before this year’s draft that the Packers were kicking the tires on a potential Lynch trade.

And, before you go any further, please do not give me the “that’s not Teddy’s way of doing business” line. Actually, it is. Thompson has aggressively chased trades for both Randy Moss and Tony Gonzalez in his tenure, only to lose out at the last minute. He may hate free agency, but trades are a different story. And, by handing out big contracts/contract extensions to older players (Chad Clifton, Mark Tauscher, Ryan Pickett, Charles Woodson), Thompson is making it known he thinks this current group has a shot to win it all.

If that’s the case, why not tack on one more guy to further solidify things? Lynch has some character issues, but the Packers have enough leaders to keep him in line (plus he knows Rodgers and Desmond Bishop from their days at Cal). On the field, he’s an absolute beast, blessed with both power and speed and an ability to make plays in the passing game, a potentially nice thing to have on those crappy weather days late in the season.

Any move for Lynch isn’t likely to happen right away. The Packers will take their shot with their current group of backs first. In the end, though, I just can’t shake this feeling that the move makes too much sense not to happen.

Lynch rolls into town Sunday. In a perfect world, it’s not long before he heads back.

-Chris Lempesis

We here at OBOD don’t have any balls to hand out. Wait – that sounded terrible. Let’s try that again.

We here at OBOD don’t have any game balls to hand out. But we do have donuts (at least hypothetically). And, to [...]]]> After each win, teams hand out game balls to those who turned in outstanding performances.

We here at OBOD don’t have any balls to hand out. Wait – that sounded terrible. Let’s try that again.

We here at OBOD don’t have any game balls to hand out. But we do have donuts (at least hypothetically). And, to celebrate the Green Bay Packers’ 27-20 win over the Philadelphia Eagles in Sunday’s season opener, we’re going to hand some out now. Keep in mind, though: These ain’t all good donuts.

Offense

A strawberry jelly-filled donut goes to…Brandon Jackson. While a number of players turned in good showings on this side of the ball, Jackson’s was, in many ways, the most important. That might sound strange if you were to simply look at his stat line (18 carries, 63 yards, two catches, 12 yards). But if you watched the game, you know what Jackson brought to the table. Stepping in for an injured Ryan Grant, Jackson ran hard and showed elusiveness, picking up big yards at some crucial times. And his o-line didn’t help him out as much as it could have, generating little push in more than a couple of instances. Of course, there’s also his value as a blitz buster. Hopefully, he can keep this up so Grant can fully heal and get back to work.

A pair of plain donuts go to…Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher. Maybe it’s the fact that these two aren’t the youngest cats around. Maybe it’s the fact that Philadelphia has some really quick, strong, talented players on the edges of its defense. Whatever the case, these two were simply not very good Sunday. These types of showings can not be repeated too often or Aaron Rodgers is going to have to rush an awful lot of throws, like he did in this contest.

Defense

A chocolate-covered glazed donut goes to…Clay Matthews. Seriously, did you think someone else would get this? Matthews was a one-man army against the Eagles, racking up seven tackles, two sacks, a forced fumble and a near-interception. His effort was awe-inspiring, mainly because his effort was of the true wire-to-wire variety. He played the run as well as the pass. Philly tried blocking him every which way it could, but it didn’t matter. Need proof? How ’bout Matthews’ walk-off tackle of Michael Vick? After all, all he did there was shed two different blockers on his way to Vick, exhaustion or not. Sophomore slump? Clay knows not what that means. Also, we thought about giving B.J. Raji one, but you just know he doesn’t stick to one donut. He’d eat all of them. That’s not fair, is it?

A gross, lemon jelly-filled donut (seriously, who likes those?) goes to…Actually, we couldn’t think of anyone bad enough to give this to. Really, the defense as a whole was quite good. For this week, let’s not pick on anyone here.

Special teams

A multi-colored sprinkled donut (they are the special teamers, remember) goes to…Mason Crosby. Crosby continued to build on his strong training camp in the opener, drilling two first-half field goals that ended up being crucial to the final outcome. And neither of these was easy, Crosby connecting from 49 and 56 yards, respectively. The latter of those only set a franchise record. Remember those games last year where the team won in spite of Crosby’s shoddy kicking? This year, it looks like Crosby may be a big-time weapon instead.

A sour-cream donut (barf) goes to…Um, actually, again, there wasn’t anyone here worthy of such a bad snack. The special teams was really, really good in this game. Besides, I think those guys have eaten their share of crappy donuts over the past year, anyways. We’ll spare ‘em this week.

-Chris Lempesis

However, if you were looking for a gritty, gutty showing – think Jeep, Crown Royal or maybe Elizabeth Banks (ladies, [...]]]> If you were expecting Sunday’s game with the Philadelphia Eagles to be a thing of true beauty – a Rolls Royce, Cristal, Megan Fox type of performance – you might have ended up a bit disappointed.

However, if you were looking for a gritty, gutty showing – think Jeep, Crown Royal or maybe Elizabeth Banks (ladies, feel free to sub in your fellas of choice here) – the Green Bay Packers gave you exactly that.

Green Bay’s 27-20 road win over the Eagles at Lincoln Financial Field wasn’t always what you thought it could be, but there were a great many positives the Packers can take with them moving forward.

As for who falls in the “wasn’t always what you thought it could be” category, go ahead and look at how the offense started and ended the contest.

That unit bookended the game with weak showings. Poor line play was a major culprit, with tackles Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher definitely showing their age. That led to less-than-stellar production from Aaron Rodgers- his two interceptions came in those quarters - though the line isn’t totally at fault. Rodgers seemed a hair off, making numerous uncharacteristically dangerous throws into coverage.

You can blame head coach Mike McCarthy for the fourth-quarter foolishness, McCarthy seemingly unwilling to go with anything other than a “run, run, pass” philosophy. His inability to go for the backbreaking blow almost cost the team the game.

But if you’re looking for anything else to place in that category, you won’t find much. The rest of the game was filled with out-and-out positives.

The defense tops that list. Facing an Eagles offense packed with playmakers, Dom Capers’ unit more than held their own. All offseason, fans wondered if the seemingly thin pass defense and pass rush would hold up. Looking good so far. Players like Clay Matthews (game ball) and B.J. Raji provided the heat and the secondary, as a whole, was strong outside of a few gaffs here and there.

Michael Vick (278 all-purpose yards, one passing touchdown) made some big plays, yes, but considering he was not the quarterback Green Bay spent the week preparing for, it’s hard to argue with the overall job done against him. And when the Eagles were moving towards the game-tying score, there was the exhausted defense – again, thanks Mike – pulling it together for the walk-off stop.

And if we worried about the defense before the season, we were damn near cataclysmic regarding the special teams.  While that fear was justifiable then, it was certainly not Sunday. The coverage units allowed just one decent return in six tries. Jordy Nelson, the man no one wanted on returns, racked up 151 yards (31.2 average), including three beauties in a row. Tim Masthay averaged over 40 yards a punt and the player who made our stomachs quiver the most – kicker Mason Crosby - drilled two long-distance field goals, including a franchise-record 56-yarder to end the first half.

Oh yeah – then there was the offense in the middle two frames. In those quarters, Rodgers and Co. were deadly in their precision and execution. Keeping with the short-to-intermediate philosophy that worked so well late last season, the Packers moved the ball at will against a very tough, talented Eagles defense. Remember, most defenses can’t blitz the way Philadelphia does, nor do most have the talent of that group. And Green Bay was still able to put 27 points on the board against them, aided by better-than-expected running from Brandon Jackson and John Kuhn.

See what I mean about the “great many positives”?

The injuries are troublesome – you get healthy, Ryan Grant – and, again, things were not wonderful across the board. But Green Bay is just getting started and it’s clear things will improve. For the first game of the season, it was more than good enough.

I mean, really, would you turn down Elizabeth Banks?

-Chris Lempesis