heroes and goats

[Maxie the Taxi]

Studs: none

duds: Stubby and dunderdummy.

I totally agree with this.

Start with Capers... Reportedly, Capers game plans to stop either the run or the pass, depending upon the opponent. This game, the defense stopped neither the run nor the pass. Mark Ingram rushed for 172 yards, for crying out loud. You can't beat a team with an elite QB by letting them rush for those kind of numbers.

As the game went on, the rush defense got worse. No adjustments at halftime on the defense. If there were some, they failed.

Capers didn't fool Payton and Brees. The Packers' pass rush was negated by quick throws to the middle and the judicious use of screen passes. In the second half, when Brees got Jimmy Graham involved, the Packers had no answer and it was game over.

As bad as Capers performed, Stubby was worse...

The Packers' offense started fast, but instead of playing to their strengths, McCarthy got cute. The pass to Peppers was a joke. You've got two of the top WR in the league, a sure-handed rookie, and Quarless who caught the same pass two weeks earlier to win the game against the Dolphins. Instead, Rodgers throws a bullet to an elephant LB. I'm assuming Stubby made the call. I'm assuming they spent valuable game-prep time practicing it. My only question is: Why?

Then, for some unknown reason, Stubby decides to get cute with an onsides kick, giving Brees the ball in Packer territory. Again, why? You're 3 points yup. The offense is moving the ball. It's early. Why?

Some say Stubby was just being aggressive. I disagree. It was a foolish risk, with an improbably upside, for what? To demoralize Brees?

And if Stubby is such an aggressive, risk-happy coach, consider the 4th and 1 call: a fairly pedestrian -- and predictable -- Lacy carry. If McCarthy was a risk-taker, why not fling a pass downfield on that play, with the defense up?

The week before, when Payton, Brees and Company took a licking, they took inventory of themselves. Each player looked within himself and took responsibility. They vowed to turn their game around...and did.

Let's hope Stubby, Capers and company do the same. This team is not as good as they thought they were.

[Tyrion Lannister]

I totally agree with this.


The Packers' offense started fast, but instead of playing to their strengths, McCarthy got cute. The pass to Peppers was a joke. You've got two of the top WR in the league, a sure-handed rookie, and Quarless who caught the same pass two weeks earlier to win the game against the Dolphins. Instead, Rodgers throws a bullet to an elephant LB. I'm assuming Stubby made the call. I'm assuming they spent valuable game-prep time practicing it. My only question is: Why?

Then, for some unknown reason, Stubby decides to get cute with an onsides kick, giving Brees the ball in Packer territory. Again, why? You're 3 points yup. The offense is moving the ball. It's early. Why?

Some say Stubby was just being aggressive. I disagree. It was a foolish risk, with an improbably upside, for what? To demoralize Brees?

I thought the Peppers play was clever. McCarthy rarely shows any creativity, as he is a dull moor, so its nice to see a clever play out of him other than the "Raji fullback gut freezer X."

The D couldn't stop Brees or that no name RB. Shoulda onsided after every score. Woulda prevented the Saints O from milking too much of the clock.

[Pugger]

I thought the Peppers play was clever. McCarthy rarely shows any creativity, as he is a dull moor, so its nice to see a clever play out of him other than the "Raji fullback gut freezer X."

The D couldn't stop Brees or that no name RB. Shoulda onsided after every score. Woulda prevented the Saints O from milking too much of the clock.

That pass to Peppers was executed perfectly except Julius dropped it. Not many D's stop Brees unless they can rush the passer and we failed at that last night.

[Patler]

I thought the Peppers play was clever. McCarthy rarely shows any creativity, as he is a dull moor, so its nice to see a clever play out of him other than the "Raji fullback gut freezer X."

How is that clever? You split him out wide and throw to him? Clever might be lining him up in the backfield, or as a TIGHT end, positions in which the D might expect him to block, then freeing him up for a pass. Splitting him wide and throwing to him is not clever at all.

[pbmax]

How is that clever? You split him out wide and throw to him? Clever might be lining him up in the backfield, or as a TIGHT end, positions in which the D might expect him to block, then freeing him up for a pass. Splitting him wide and throwing to him is not clever at all.

As the WR is a former basketball guy who is 6' 7", I would have preferred a jump ball thrown to him. The slant was weird. You have to know how to cut off your DB and extend to catch.

[channtheman]

As the WR is a former basketball guy who is 6' 7", I would have preferred a jump ball thrown to him. The slant was weird. You have to know how to cut off your DB and extend to catch.

It felt like the Packers were hoping the Saints would think we would do that, and were hoping to fool the Saints by having Peppers run a slant. It should have worked, but Peppers dropped the pass.

[Patler]

It should have worked, but Peppers dropped the pass.

But that is exactly the issue, relying on a guy who is unaccustomed to handling the ball, and expecting him to cleanly catch a hard pass from Rodgers. When you you see OTs and others getting passes from a TE or FB position, it tends to be lob they can handle. I know, Peppers is a tremendous athlete, but the fact is he dropped a very catchable ball for a person accustomed to catching.

[channtheman]

But that is exactly the issue, relying on a guy who is unaccustomed to handling the ball, and expecting him to cleanly catch a hard pass from Rodgers. When you you see OTs and others getting passes from a TE or FB position, it tends to be lob they can handle. I know, Peppers is a tremendous athlete, but the fact is he dropped a very catchable ball for a person accustomed to catching.

I don't disagree with you. I was puzzled when we didn't go for a pass to Cobb, considering how good he has been for us in the red zone.

[Patler]

As the WR is a former basketball guy who is 6' 7", I would have preferred a jump ball thrown to him. The slant was weird. You have to know how to cut off your DB and extend to catch.

Problem is, he is a former basketball player of about 100 years ago. I think he played with Naismith using a peach basket, didn't he? Not sure it means a lot anymore after 15 years or so playing and training as a D lineman.

[Tyrion Lannister]

How is that clever? You split him out wide and throw to him? Clever might be lining him up in the backfield, or as a TIGHT end, positions in which the D might expect him to block, then freeing him up for a pass. Splitting him wide and throwing to him is not clever at all.

I thought Peppers lined up in the backfield, then motioned wide?

That was a clever play. Packers simply did not execute. Otherwise, it would be the most talked about play in Packers nation since Favre threw a lateral to Bubba Franks who then threw a TD to Driver, I believe.

[Patler]

That was a clever play. Packers simply did not execute.

Correction - Peppers didn't execute.

[Freak Out]

Correction - Peppers didn't execute.

It was really a stupid call I thought. If you are going to run a slant throw it to a real receiver. The ball hit him in the chest.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It was really a stupid call I thought. If you are going to run a slant throw it to a real receiver. The ball hit him in the chest.

I know this dead horse has been beaten to a pile of flesh and hair and pulverized internal organs. But expecting Peterson to catch a Rodgers fast ball is like playing an athletic offensive lineman at linebacker. It's insulting to the receiving craft to think you can just do it skillfully in game situations without lots of practice.

[KYPack]

How is that clever? You split him out wide and throw to him? Clever might be lining him up in the backfield, or as a TIGHT end, positions in which the D might expect him to block, then freeing him up for a pass. Splitting him wide and throwing to him is not clever at all.

You are trying to explain football to Tank.

Impossible task.

[pbmax]

I totally agree with this.

Start with Capers... Reportedly, Capers game plans to stop either the run or the pass, depending upon the opponent. This game, the defense stopped neither the run nor the pass. Mark Ingram rushed for 172 yards, for crying out loud. You can't beat a team with an elite QB by letting them rush for those kind of numbers.

They came out after halftime in single high safety to stop Ingram. The result was Graham going off and then the deep game got involved. So there were adjustments and they made the situation worse. What defensive alignment would you suggest that Capers deploy instead?

All you suggest is for Capers, against one of the five best QB and one of the 3 best passing attacks to focus on the run. That approach allowed NO to score 30 points in a half. I prefer letting Ingram rush for 100 in a half and allow 16 points total because they had trouble getting into the end zone from the red zone as well.

How about this instead? The only Packer defenders who get clear off blocks on a regular basis are Peppers and Matthews. Add in the deep safety and that is three guys free to make a correct form tackle. The deep safety is usually a rookie.

Eight other guys are in the process of being tied into knots by their blocker and cannot disengage. Some never get loose, some get one hand free, some dive at the ground trying to bury the block or trip the ball carrier. But guess what those 8 guys look like when they try to tackle? They look like players who cannot employ fundamentals to make a tackle. McCarthy mentioned this today in his presser.

But I don't think its tackling fundamentals. Its defeating the blocker across from you and disengaging at the correct moment. That had been happening in the previous 4 games, it didn't last night.

The question isn't whether Capers is dumb or the scapegoat for his game plan. Do the Packers have the players who can play a scheme he can coach? After that one game, it looks again like a colossal mismatch. And it has seemed that way whenever they meet a team they cannot turn into a one dimensional opponent.

The DC will always take the fall, but the brain trust has to figure out how to match the players to a coach's scheme. It hasn't happened since they had Collins, Woodson and Matthews at his peak health.

[Joemailman]

The DC will always take the fall, but the brain trust has to figure out how to match the players to a coach's scheme. It hasn't happened since they had Collins, Woodson and Matthews at his peak health.

So, the scheme only works if you have at least 3 Pro Bowlers on your defense? In addition to those, I would add that Tramon and Raji had career years in 2010. There are teams that play respectable defense with less. At times, the defense has looked like they've turned a corner, and then you have a performance like last night. Halfway through the season, the defense is still a bit of a mystery.

[pbmax]

So, the scheme only works if you have at least 3 Pro Bowlers on your defense? In addition to those, I would add that Tramon and Raji had career years in 2010. There are teams that play respectable defense with less. At times, the defense has looked like they've turned a corner, and then you have a performance like last night. Halfway through the season, the defense is still a bit of a mystery.

Its only in the top 8 (25%) in the League with 3 Pro Bowlers and 2 near Pro Bowlers, yes. That kind of goes with the territory.

I would tend to think that defenses doing much more with less (say the Cowboys this year) in a non-fluke, non-no film, new scheme way are actually more talented that people realize at the time (see Packers D in 2009).

But its possible Capers scheme yields huge variability when poorly executed. And I believe its been poorly executed. Even the players who have been lauded in this short season have been very up and down (Matthews, Daniels, Peppers, Shields). Ironically, the most consistent might be Burnett. In the front seven, who was free and clear to make a tackle versus Ingram last night? All the missed blocks, other than dives by filling DBs, were guys that couldn't get off their blocks.

wist might get his wish because I am not sure that any nickel he throws out there this year can defend the run. So it will only be of use when they have a good lead later in the game. The only problem is that when they ran 3-4 in the second half after getting gashed on the ground again, it was just as leaky.

[Maxie the Taxi]

They came out after halftime in single high safety to stop Ingram. The result was Graham going off and then the deep game got involved. So there were adjustments and they made the situation worse. What defensive alignment would you suggest that Capers deploy instead?

I don't know enough about the technical side of football to make a comment. I watch the game as a fan and am frustrated by the inability of a long-time, respected coach like Capers to devise a defense with the talent he has to shut down at least ONE aspect of the Saints' offense.

Ingram's performance was NOT Gale Sayers' like. He was running through mile-wide holes in our defense. And Brees had loads of time to throw.

I felt prior to the game that we had to pressure Brees to have any chance of winning. We didn't pressure Brees except on a handful of plays. To me it seemed like Capers couldn't commit to a game plan, kind of like a pro golfer who's not committed fully to a particular shot.

Did you watch the Pittsburgh/Indianapolis game? Dick LeBeau fully committed to pressuring Andrew Luck that game, no matter the consequences. He blitzed the house on most plays and Luck didn't have a prayer. LeBeau rushed so many people the Colts' RB's got hit by the traffic in the backfield, so their running game was stymied.

It seems football games are won in your opponents backfield. Nowadays pressure and penetration rule. I thought Dom initially brought that philosophy to Green Bay. Not now. Maybe we don't have the horses to get the job done.

[pbmax]

I don't know enough about the technical side of football to make a comment. I watch the game as a fan and am frustrated by the inability of a long-time, respected coach like Capers to devise a defense with the talent he has to shut down at least ONE aspect of the Saints' offense.

Ingram's performance was NOT Gale Sayers' like. He was running through mile-wide holes in our defense. And Brees had loads of time to throw.

I felt prior to the game that we had to pressure Brees to have any chance of winning. We didn't pressure Brees except on a handful of plays. To me it seemed like Capers couldn't commit to a game plan, kind of like a pro golfer who's not committed fully to a particular shot.

Did you watch the Pittsburgh/Indianapolis game? Dick LeBeau fully committed to pressuring Andrew Luck that game, no matter the consequences. He blitzed the house on most plays and Luck didn't have a prayer. LeBeau rushed so many people the Colts' RB's got hit by the traffic in the backfield, so their running game was stymied.

It seems football games are won in your opponents backfield. Nowadays pressure and penetration rule. I thought Dom initially brought that philosophy to Green Bay. Not now. Maybe we don't have the horses to get the job done.

I agree about pressure. ESPNWisconsin or someone referred to Pro Football Focus and said that the Packers blitzed on 10 of 35 Brees drop backs. He had a perfect passer rating on the throws without a blitz. I am a little dubious about that as I THINK Matthews caught him on a base pressure play (though there was no throw obviously).

But it goes without saying that if you go high pressure, you are going to get strafed by well timed runs with your pass rush unit out there. That is not really a threat with the Colts unless its Luck himself.

And that brings me around to the critical failure of this coach and this GM. They don't seem able to collect and develop the talent to get pass rush out of their base personnel. And as wist has pointed out, it becomes a tell. Now, if you can leverage it into favorable down and distance, then it doesn't matter. But as Capers said in the JSO writeup, without good tackling, it was too often 3rd and 2, not 3rd and 9.

[Pugger]

I don't know enough about the technical side of football to make a comment. I watch the game as a fan and am frustrated by the inability of a long-time, respected coach like Capers to devise a defense with the talent he has to shut down at least ONE aspect of the Saints' offense.

Ingram's performance was NOT Gale Sayers' like. He was running through mile-wide holes in our defense. And Brees had loads of time to throw.

I felt prior to the game that we had to pressure Brees to have any chance of winning. We didn't pressure Brees except on a handful of plays. To me it seemed like Capers couldn't commit to a game plan, kind of like a pro golfer who's not committed fully to a particular shot.

Did you watch the Pittsburgh/Indianapolis game? Dick LeBeau fully committed to pressuring Andrew Luck that game, no matter the consequences. He blitzed the house on most plays and Luck didn't have a prayer. LeBeau rushed so many people the Colts' RB's got hit by the traffic in the backfield, so their running game was stymied.

It seems football games are won in your opponents backfield. Nowadays pressure and penetration rule. I thought Dom initially brought that philosophy to Green Bay. Not now. Maybe we don't have the horses to get the job done.

Perhaps Dom was trying to get after Brees - running game be damned - but we just didn't get home? It seemed like we tried to utilize our new fangled NASCAR package and more DBs than LBers but when you allow a QB like Brees time you are gonna get burned like we did.