Cheesehead
Well-known member
- Mar 19, 2019
- 2,854
- 0
Carmen from Trimbach, Switzerland
What would it take for the Packers to have "defensive dominance"? I'm sure Spoff is right in saying that one CB won't get them there, but what will? Is it a matter of personnel, scheme or something else?
Another Pro Bowl defensive lineman, greater depth at corner, and a presence in the middle that can generate turnover plays. That's a ton to ask, but that's my wish list. Nobody has everything, not the way the game is geared toward offense these days. The Packers have a lot of pieces with regard to pass rush, coverage, and stopping the run. But they need more. Everybody needs more.
Richard from Madison, WI
"Another Kenny Clark would do just fine." On behalf of the American Institute for the English Language, I am pleased to award you this honorary doctorate for setting a new world standard in the art of understatement.
So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
Dan from Toledo, OH
By saying the chances of an O-lineman at the end of Round 1 are better than a D-lineman you've now virtually guaranteed we take a D-lineman. (Perhaps a reverse jinx executed on purpose?) I look forward to what "player to be named" can accomplish next to Kenny Clark.
You give me too much credit, but if you're right, I'll take it.
Sam from Greendale, WI
Unlike the MLB and NHL, the NFL has not retired a player number league-wide. I don't see that ever happening. Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and Wayne Gretzky has several untouchable records. What would an NFL player have to do to get their number retired league-wide? The only one I can think of even coming close is Brady who has won more Super Bowls than several franchises.
I don't see the league ever retiring a number in that fashion. If the league were so inclined, it would have done so for one of the game's pioneers by now. That's not an indictment or accusation of an oversight, but more a reflection that some of the most influential people in shaping the NFL as we know it today never put on a uniform.
Dick from Four Oaks, NC
Following up on Matthew from Teaneck, NJ, re: the bye week. It's always bothered me that, as an example, the Pack might have their bye in Week 5, the Bears in Week 7, the Lions in Week 9 and the Vikings in Week 10. Why can't the entire division have the same bye week? NFC East – Week 6. AFC South – Week 7. NFC West – Week 8, etc. Seems the most fair to me and really doesn't hurt the TV schedule. Please pass along to Mr. Goodell with our highest recommendation. Thanks!
The weekend Inbox was chock full of ideas for how to disperse the bye weeks more fairly. Have a whole conference off one week, the other conference the next. Cram all the byes into Weeks 8-11. By division, as outlined above. The list goes on, and the Inbox had them all and then some. I think it's time to realize the NFL doesn't care about the bye weeks being fairly distributed or it would have devised a system accordingly by now, don't you? The league cares about having as few markets as possible without a relevant game to watch on any given Sunday. It doesn't want a whole conference, or whole division, off in a given week because the fear is it'll take too many eyeballs off the games. Are there more fair and equitable ways to schedule the bye weeks? Of course! But that's never been the question.
Terry from Sun Prairie, WI
What player do you think was the most surprising from last season?
Easy. Krys Barnes. For him to do what he did as an undrafted rookie, without any OTAs or preseason games and while battling some injuries too, was remarkable. I look forward to seeing where his game goes in Year 2.