I don't follow the Packers much, never really cared to even though they are in the North Division. But it does look like Green Bay and Chicago are dysfunctional right now; pardon me while I wipe away my crocodile tears. And the Vikings ain't doing so hot either and I feel so bad about all that.
A word about zone coverage though, and any comments will be appreciated. Essentially, in football you have zone pass coverage vs man-to-man. In man coverage basically you stick to your assigned man wherever he goes but you gotta be really fast and really aggressive to do that these days cuz some of those guys are pretty big and very fast. The zone alternative is as it sounds, each defensive player is responsible for a zone or area on the field of play. If run properly your pass defense can be pretty decent; it's designed to prevent long gainers, so the offense has to move the ball down the field in smaller chunks that often times are derailed by a penalty or a busted play.
But there's one other advantage to a zone defense, and that is that your defense has their eyes on the QB, reading him instead of your eyes on the receiver you're covering. And that means in todays NFL with so many nimble QBs that can run the ball effectively, you can make it harder for them to get big yardage cuz as soon as he takes off you got a bunch of guys coming at him like hellfire missiles. My Lions are a case in point, last year opposing QBs killed the Lions by escaping containment and running for 1st downs and TDs. And this was due in some part to their propensity to play man-to-man defense. But this year they've switched to using more zone coverages and thereby they ain't getting killed by the running QBs. Not yet anyway, interesting to see what happens going forward with Fields, Bryce Young, and others.