Read this Pete Dougherty article from Packersnews.com. Interesting look at not just the Favre situation, but the overall needs heading into 2008. While I don’t disagree with the likelihood that Favre is enjoying himself this season and is particularly enjoying having more influence over offensive play-calling, I’ll hold out for the possibility that a deep playoff run may be enough to convince Favre to go out on top (or nearly on top). I hope not, we’ll see…
As far as needs for 2008, I think Dougherty is mostly on, though I would add we may need to look at filling Poppinga’s spot. Now, Poppinga has played better recently, in his defense, but he continues to be a liability in coverage and overall hasn’t been as good as a few of the linebackers we could have picked up last off-season (or some of the high quality linebackers in the 2007 draft). And, if Rouse continues to make plays, even though I do see some serious potential still for both Bibgy and Collins, I think Rouse needs to get on the field and start.
Of course, if I were defensive coordinator, I would have benched Poppinga mid-season and gone to a new regular line-up – not a 3-4 or a 4-3, but a 4-2! I would have replaced Poppinga with Rouse – yes, I would have started 3 safeties. Rouse is faster than Poppinga, better in coverage (could have helped with the tight-end coverage problem), as good a tackler, more instinctive and he has shown play-making ability Poppinga hasn’t shown all year.
Tags: Favre, offseason, Packers, retirement
packergeeks 
December 28, 2007 at 4:13 am |
Dude, that is why your NOT a defensive coordinator. A 4-2 would never work. Rouse may be a good safety, but with only two linebackers, every team in the league would run oer us. If Bob Sanders read that, he would be chuckling for days
December 28, 2007 at 9:20 am |
Ryan – I should clarify what I meant by 4-2. I only meant 2 linebackers by title, but that Rouse would function in the scheme similar to how Poppinga functions (or doesn’t function as the case is). Your argument would be stronger if Poppinga weren’t so bad. I’m operating from the factual position that because Poppinga doesn’t do much, it would be very difficult for someone else to come in there and do worse. Rouse is actually not much smaller than Poppinga (just a few pounds lighter – Rouse is taller), so I wouldn’t think he’d be any more of a liability covering the run than Poppinga. Rouse has also demonstrated through the season that he is a better hitter and a more aggressive tackler than Poppinga. Poppinga had one really good tackle last week, but outside of that, he’s been largely absent back there all year. Rouse would also bring a new dimension to the defense, pass coverage, something that is a real problem for Poppinga. And most importantly, Rouse appears to be a playmaker, something we can definitely say does not characterize Poppinga.
January 3, 2008 at 3:51 am |
4-2 sucks go with a 46 bear, thats the way to go
March 4, 2008 at 10:00 pm |
Hey packergeeks! Please promote the petition to bring Favre back!
Bring Back Favre
March 5, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
[…] – this retirement thing may be my fault Check out this previous packergeeks post. Perhaps this bit of forecasting may have been a bad omen. I apologize to all Packer fans if Favre […]
March 6, 2008 at 7:56 pm |
Good call Packer Geeks on retirement after deep playoff run. I am betting that 3-6 from 11-12:15 or so may have been one of the least productive (at work) time periods in recent WI history. Everyone was watching Favre’s press conference. Probably higher WI ratings than the super bowl and certainly the presidential primaries. Flags should now be at 1/4 mast-half mast being reserved for the death of presidents and such. Favre is more important. The most telling graphic of the Favre retirement events–North division QBs since Favre began: Detroit, Minn, Chicago-something like 55 different QBs started for them v. GB–1. Am to the Pabst stage of grieving now.