He beat of few of the drums I tend to beat to death around here. Woodson inside is special for us. I learned the playmaker theory from Christl, so of course he hit on that.
The strengths of our team IMO are the passing game and the nickle passing defense with Woodson being the wildcard that throws QB's completely off. If the Packers get a lead, it can come tumbling down on whoever we're facing really fast.
If the Bears run the ball well early, look out. It's going to be a Bear game with a likely Bear ending. If we can get a couple early stops and put some early points on the board, look out. Jay Cutler is not going to come remotely close to winning a shootout against Rodgers, not when he's going up against what might be the most unpredictable, playmaker laden passing defense in football.
I'm not disagreeing with you or Christl, except to say taht he goes on and on with about 15 paragraphs about the playmakers, then he gives lip service to to what is equally key to the game.
Why was Rodgers such a playmaker this most recent game but not the previous game against the Falcons?
Neither one of these guys are playmakers, but they were the difference between the two games.Sam Shields vs. Chris Owens
Shields’ value to the Packers again was apparent.
Brian Williams, the Falcons’ nickel back, got hurt in the final regular-season game, Owens filled in and the Packers threw at him all game long. When a team has an obvious hole in its secondary, it’s hard to overcome. That’s what sunk New Orleans the week before and that was a big part of what sunk the Falcons. Shields gave up some completions, but he was no easy target.
Last edited by vince; 01-17-2011 at 07:26 AM.
He also didn't acknowledge the Bears depth at all. When I look at the bears, I see Hester, Peppers, Urlachers (all mentioned by the article), but I also see Lance Briggs, Matt Forte, Greg Olson, Tommy Harris and Jay Cutler.
I agree though, if they can run on us, we're in trouble. If we make them play from behind, we own them.
I'm glad to see we're retouching with reality! Saturday night and Sunday morning was enough for me to wanna alert the kool aide police and write to congress to issue prohabition for some of you guys!
This will be the toughest challenge the Pack has maybe ever faced. The Bears hate the Pack. They will be pumped. I just hope nobody from Green Bay thinks it's as easy as it was last week.
I agree. If the Pack can shutdown Forte like they did Turner, they should win the game.
In my way in to work this morning, I was listening to 1250 the fan. I couldn't believe what I was hearing! They were talking this morning as though Rodgers is going to be able to toss the ball around like he did against Atlanta. First, the Bears are a better defense. Second, the Packers won't be playing in perfect dome conditions. And I REALLY worry about special teams.
My house is in Georgia but Wisconsin is my home.
Originally Posted by vince
And the Falcons will have a much easier job finding an average player to replace Owens than the Bears will finding a pass rusher the caliber of Matthews.
Playmakers = Rare
Average players that qualify as not being a hole = Common
Playmakers rule (period) .
The hardest part of building a champion is getting the playamakers not covering the holes with decent talent.
Last edited by RashanGary; 01-17-2011 at 09:34 AM.
Playmakers are easy to get. All you have to do is pay for them.
Owens was #21? If so, he was responsible for a ton of completions and yards given up to the Pack.
I would agree in general, but CB seems to be an exception because it's so easy to expose a weakness there. There aren't a lot of NFL caliber CB's walking the streets, and I bet Atlanta spent some time over the past two weeks looking for a replacement for him!
Last edited by Guiness; 01-17-2011 at 10:24 AM.
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
Sam Shields gets it.
via twitter - sam shields = stickyshields9
Just had a great talk with my big bro Charles Woodson I'm learning!!!
about 15 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone
sam shields
On Sunday 16th January 2011, @stickyshields9 said:
Damn the last time I ever been in a championship football game was pop Warner flag football now I will be in one next week in the NFL!! Cant wait
"When it's third and ten, you can take the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time" Max McGee
The bears have a beast in Peppers which scares me a lot. If he has a big game we likely lose. Their linebackers are terrific and if Harris shows up it will be a tough go. However I think the defenses match up well together...GB has an obvious edge on offense, but the Bears blow us away in the ST category.
We have to find a way to minimize the damage on ST. I don't want to get into a field position battle w/ the Bears. They have beat several teams because of winning that battle this year. That right now is my key to the game. We just can't be forced deep in our own territory all game and expect to put together long extended drives against their defense, nor can we afford to be put on a short field on defense. Have to win this battle some how.
With all due respect, I think the whole "playmaker" argument is intellectually dishonest. IMO, it is an attractive argument because it is 1) simple and 2) almost impossible to prove or disprove. A team does well and we can point to whatever players meet some unknown threshold of "playmaking." A team does poorly and we can point to a lack of some unknown threshold of "playmaking." As far as I can cell, the two teams could have the exact same players and the only difference in playmakers is the outcome of the game(s).
Maybe there is something to the argument, but since I have no clue when a player is "playmaker" and when he is not, I can't make an intelligent analysis. Another way to look at it is the chicken or the egg analysis? "Playmakers" are found in abundance on successful teams, but is that just 20/20 hindsight? Think of all the preseason predictions that rely heavily upon an analysis of the big name players. Their predictions are not very accurate. I think it is telling that when players change teams they sometimes suddenly become a playmaker or stop being a playmaker. For example, few people thought Woodson was a "playmaker" when he was with the Raiders...
I like the playmaker analysis; the assumption is that if you have them you can surround them with average talent and your playmaker will still allow his unit to excel. How'd we look when Clay Matthews went down ? Rodgers went down ? The only true playmaker I think we lost this year was Finley and it seemed to take a while to bounce back from his loss
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
Great players help their team more than average players. I just don't think you can make judgment on how good a team is by counting the number of playmakers, or by comparing only the playmakers of two teams against each other.
Redskins have McNabb, Chris Cooley, Santana Moss, Orakpo, Fletcher, Hall AND Haynesworth.
Is that enough playmakers for you?
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
I think the playmaker argument is tautological. How do we know a player is a "playmaker"? Because we see him, on a regular basis, making plays that win games for his team. So then, we therefore conclude that playmakers, by making plays, win games for his team.
</delurk>
Teams rarely let their best players hit UFA and when they do, the price is so high, you can't afford enough of them. If you think you're going to get your playmakers that way, you will be a loser.
Over analyzing. IMO playmakers are players that make game changing plays (i.e. sacks, forced fumbles, interceptions, tackle for losses, big st returns, explosive runs and passes) on a consistent basis.
Packers Defense: Matthews, Bishop, Woodson, Williams, Collins
Bears Defense: Peppers, Urlacher, Briggs, Tillman, other secondary players
Bears ST: Hester
Packers Offense: Rodgers, Jennings, Jones
Bears Offense; Cutler, Forte
Packers may have a few more playmakers than the Bears but that does not necessarily mean victory. The weather and the Bears physical defense neutralizes some of the Packers playmaking abilities.
Hester is such a weapon...work truely cut out for Crosby & Mashtay; especially 'cos our ST KO & PR coverage is below average.
Crosby needs air under those deep KOs to aid KO coverage team...but what has happened to his KOs this season? His one true strength of the past!
Get this fixed!
PackerRats Thompson D. Yahoo Fantasy Football Champ 2019,
PackerRats Thompson D. Yahoo Fantasy Football Champ 2018,
PackerRats Pick'Em 2016-17 Champ + Packers year Survival Football Champ 2017,
Rats Yahoo Fantasy Football Champ 2013,
Ratz Survival Football Champ 2012,
PackerRats1 Yahoo Fantasy Football Champ 2006.
Clearly it's more complex than just, "how many playmakers do you have", but elite talent is rare and it makes a huge difference. Enough so that you can weigh who's more likely to win based on it.
Elite talent
Overall talent level
Lack of holes
How it all comes together. Having the luxury to play Woodson inside makes our defense scary unpredictable. Having 4 good WR's makes our passing offense scary unpredictable. Having Jackson as our RB hurts us. Having Starks step forward helps. . . . Coaching, weather, luck. . . . . .
Yeah, there's a lot to it, but elite talent is rare. We're especially lucky to have it at QB and pass rusher. Rodgers, Matthews, Raji, Jennings and I think Woodson (in his inside role) are the primary reasons we're so scary. These guys make MM and dom look smart. They force teams to do things they don't want to do and make everyone on the field better. I think Shields is on pace to be good and in this defense with this pass rush he is good already but in the no pass rush Sanders defense, he'd be destroyed. He looks a half-step lost a lot of the time but QB's don't have the time to exploit it.
Last edited by RashanGary; 01-17-2011 at 11:46 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
