The Electric Commentary

Sunday, October 01, 2006

What do we really know about the Packers?

Not much, really. We know that the Packers are 1-2, but they have (as I write this) only lost to undefeated teams. Then again, those undefeated teams have only played 3 games, and one of those three wins came against the Packers so it's more like they're 2-0, which doesn't tell you very much. Moreover, the lone Packer win has come against the Detroit Lions, and I think we can all agree that his merely proves that you are (mercifully) better than the Detroit lions.

We know that Al Harris is better when he can focus on the other team's #1 receiver, and that moving him around in coverage schemes this year has been a huge mistake. We know that Charles Woodson is horrible, but at least he's really expensive.

We know that Nick Barnett is still too small and still loves to celebrate at inappropriate moments. We don't know anything about A.J. Hawk. We know, shockingly, in my opinion, that Aaron Kampman is a far superior player to his linemate KGB. It's not really even close at this point. I believe that Cullen Jenkins is also superior, although we don't know this yet.

We don't know anything about kicking, except that we don't know anything. I guess that's something.

We know that Favre is lousy when he gets behind, but fine when he's close or ahead. One thing that only I know is that Brett's huge interception total from last year was much, much worse than it looked and is not indicative of anything. It is, however, a testament to the deceptiveness of raw, gross numbers. After you throw 3 picks in a game, your chances of winning are very, very low. The marginal cost of another interception is, therefore, very, very low. Especially when compared to the potential benefits of risk taking when down a large amount. So Brett's fine, is all I'm sayin'.

We know that Ahman Green can still run inside, but I suspect he's no Vernand Morency. But I guess we'll find out on Monday. We know that he no longer has speed to the outside. He can still catch though.

We know that Donald Driver is a great #2 receiver. We know that Greg Jennings is a huge talent, and he will likely be the #1 guy for years.

Lastly, we know almost nothing about the offensive line. We know that they're young, and we know that they're learning a new system. This is a lot of noise in the data. They may continue to struggle all year, or they may put it together and become dominant. I have no idea.

There are some reasons to be optimistic. Ahman Green did rush for over 100 yards against the Bears (although this may say more about the Bears than the Packers). I also feel that they usually give up sacks in total breakdowns rather than on an individual being beaten. These are tactical problems, not talent problems, and you can fix tactical problems.

I think that there is reason to be optimistic. If the Pack can put together some semblance of a line, the addition of Jennings should be huge. I'm worried about the defense. I'm specifically worried that the coaches will never figure out that they have to help out Woodson because of his name recognition. At least with Ahmad Carroll you knew he was terrible an could adjust accordingly, but Woodson has the wool pulled over everyone's eyes. This is similar to what has become the KGB problem.

Will they win on Monday Night? We don't know that. The Eagles look very good, just a hair from unbeaten themselves. But, they're hurt, they have one win over the 49ers, which counts as much as the Packers' win over the Lions, and they barely lost to a Giants team that we also have no idea about.

Really, we know nothing at all. This is always the case early in the season, and it bugs me when analysts try to separate the "real" 3-0 teams from the "fake" 3-0 teams and other nonsense like that. I've listened to everyone try to explain the Saints victory last week on the emotion of returning to New Orleans, but what about their huge upgrade at QB? What about Reggie Bush? I suspect that these factors (and the typical overrating of Atlanta and the "new" Michael Vick) played bigger factors in their Monday night win.

In conclusion, we can always come back to one thing. On certainty with which to anchor our belief systems, whatever they may be.

Robert "Turd" Ferguson sucks.

1 Comments:

  • Your turd anchor is indisputable.

    I will argue that Driver is a legitimate #1 WR. If your "great #2 WR" is not arguing against this, then that is fine.

    I looked at all of the NFL's starting WR's and there are only 13-14 WR's I would take over Driver. That makes him a good to average #1.

    By Blogger Scott H, at 7:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Search:
Keywords:
Amazon Logo