Does it make anyone feel better about the Packers because the Packers O line is apparently several steps better (even when injured) that the Dallas Cowboys O line?
Because it should.
Normally being better than Dallas is no great shakes. But everyone who was anyone thought their O line was noteworthy. And the Eagles just abused it.
Two weeks after the Packers ate their lunch. Eagles were away for both games.
Last edited by pbmax; 11-28-2014 at 09:41 AM.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Ultimately, it's in the trenches. Just look at what's happened to SF without a great O-line and loss of players in their defensive front 7.Originally Posted by pbmax
As bizarre as it might seem for the haters, Packers desperately need Perry back and healthy.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Yep, blocking and tackling. Blocking and tackling.
I've always thought Perry could be a player - his problem has been in how he's been used since he's been here, i.e. dunderdummy.
Now this year he is finally be used with his hand in the dirt, and all of a sudden he's showing flashes of being player?? Go figure...
If Perry does indeed miss this game, I think that will probably seal our fate. If Perry is out, dunderdummy will almost certainly run very little or no 3-3, and will be thrilled to run 2-4 the whole game. Brady will devour the 2-4, and dunderdummy will be thrilled to hold the Patriots to gains of 15 yds/play.
Dunderdummy has stated openly how much of a pussy he is, i.e. that elite QB's must not be challenged in any way. He will be content to sit back and let Brady pick us apart all day long... we've seen this movie many times.
wist
Yes. We should definitely ignore the entire Chcago game.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
So let me get this straight... you'd rather give up 150+ yds/game on the ground, and leave receivers running unmolested and uncovered all over the field?? To stick to your (and dunderdummy's) beloved 2-4, you'd rather have that, than put a 3-3 on the field like we had against Chicago??
I'm beginning to think that you are dunderdummy's 'mini-me'.
wist
Keep up. Second Chicago game, Perry at OLB in 2-4. Bears went 24-55 in run game.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Tyler Dunne @TyDunne · 9h 9 hours ago
Injuries: Nick Perry questionable
Davante Adams probable
Jarrett Bush quest
T.J. Lang probable
Josh Sitton prob
Brandon Bostick probable
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I like Wist a lot, but this obsession with 2-4 is over the top. I got tired of this and left. I have analysis somewhere of several more games showing Capers adjusts the 2-4 to essentially a 3-3 for run heavy teams, and runs the 2-4 primarily on (predicted) passing downs (last year). Chicago obviously can do both, so Capers went with a 2-4 that included Perry.
I think that Capers took the new pass interference rules to heart and that the 2-4 this year was an acknowledgement that team were going to be pass-happy. results have been mixed. Obviously Seattle is getting away with a lot of contact and in the playoffs, like last year against SF, the refs are gonna swallow their whistles.
Unfortunately for the Packers, Capers' schemes do require the flexibility of a lot of specialized players, and if guys get hurt, he becomes limited very quickly. It's not like injuries don't hurt other teams (see SF for example), it's just missing a guy here or there can totally kill Dom's schemes (See at Saints, for example).
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...l=1#post807270
You mean a "2-4" look similar to this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ one??
Max: "Well, its nice to know I haven't lost my mind. Packers did use a Bear front versus Eagles. That's 4 linebackers (Peppers, Hawk, Perry and Matthews) and 2 lineman (Daniels and Guion)."
If Perry is a "LB" in that presnap shot - wouldn't Danels and Guion be "LB's" as well; and if that is the case, isn't that 0-6 alignment by your reckoning??
Since you like to call that a "2-4", then what in God's name would be a 3-3??
Perry played a lot of the Chicago game with his hand in the dirt, i.e. as a DL - which is where he belongs.
The only problem I have the alignment that you posted there is that Hawk is still on the field... I'd much rather see Neal in Matthews spot, and Matthews playing the middle where Hawk is, and Hawk standing on the sideline along with Brad Jones.
wist
Yes, it is no coincidence that our D improved with Perry as an OLB and Clay inside.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote