Packers beat writers Tom Silverstein and Jim Owczarski discuss injuries at wide receiver and in the secondary. Packers News
Welcome to your Morning Buzz, rounding up news and views regarding the Green Bay Packers from around the web and here at PackersNews.com.
We'll start with Pete Dougherty's column arguing that cutting Jordy Nelson still was the right call by Packers GM Brian Gutekunst, likening it to when Nelson replaced an aging Donald Driver. In this case, Nelson's departure opened the door for Geronimo Allison.
More importantly, by the end of the season, there’s a real chance circumstances will have changed. We can look to Nelson’s breakthrough season, 2010, for what might happen.
That year, Driver at age 35 still was in the top three of the Packers’ receivers rotation. But by the end of the season Nelson (age 25) was the better player.
One source I’ve spoken with over the years still thinks Driver’s ankle injury in the Super Bowl helped the Packers win, because it forced them to play Nelson in his place. Nelson, you might remember, had nine catches for 140 yards (15.6-yard average) and a touchdown in that game.
Allison, 24, has improved as much as any player on the Packers’ roster this year and has had a lock on the No. 3 receiving job since early in the preseason. He has flashed skills digging out low throws and making extended catches along the sidelines. He has had a couple big third-down conversions. And he got behind Washington’s defense for a 64-yard touchdown a couple weeks ago.
Be sure to read the entire column here:
Of course, any able-bodied receiver might have looked good to the Packers at practice Thursday:
The Lions' pass rush will be bringing the heat Sunday on Aaron Rodgers:
Find out what Allen Iverson has to do with Packers vs. Lions:
Tom Brady joined Peyton Manning (539) and Brett Favre (508) in the 500 career TD passes club Thursday (and Brady has done it all with one tteam):
Albert Breer writes about the NFL's young gunslingers for the MMQB:
At 2-1-1, the Packers rank surprisingly high:
Interesting question, given that Packers might have been Vikings if the overtime had gone on for an extra 10 minutes:
Peter Bukowski looks at the Packers' improvements in situational defense: