New Defensive Scheme...

[packers11]

I know that the D has played well all season, but this scheme has really made me wonder lately why Bob Sanders is still charge of the D...

Every time I watch the D it is so vanilla it makes me sick , I could pick apart the weaknesses and the LB's hardly move around so its so obvious when they are about to blitz...

GB has far superior talent on D then teams like Philly and Baltimore, and look at their defenses... Philly absolutely shut down T.O. and the cowboys and Baltimore made the patriots look like another average offense...

I understand that the packers rely on the cornerbacks a lot, but so do teams like Philly and Baltimore except they use their lbers in many different ways...

I don't know, maybe this loss is just getting to my head, but this defense hasn't lived up to the talent that is on it... In my opinion the packers should bring in competition and interview rex ryan and see what he could bring to the table...


Thoughts???

[Partial]

I wish they'd blitz more and get a little more creative. They're very conservative on defense. They've got a great blitzing safety and they never use his strengths.

[Patler]

I think there are a lot of good players on the defense, but I'm not sure there is an abundance of highly talented players. No one that is really "special". I can't say that they underachieved.

[The Leaper]

I think there are a lot of good players on the defense, but I'm not sure there is an abundance of highly talented players. No one that is really "special". I can't say that they underachieved.

I agree. We have a lot of "very good" players on defense, but I don't think there are any players who are "elite" players. Elite players are the ones that make the difference in the NFL between winning titles and coming up short.

I think that can also be said of the offense. Favre used to be an elite player...he's not there anymore.

This team really overachieved in 2007. There really is no way to claim they underachieved IMO. They simply don't have the All-Pro caliber talent truly great teams usually have.

[pbmax]

The Packers have better D personnel than the Sixers or the Orioles, but the football franchises are still a different story. Although its a lot closer than it was a year ago. Philly was really banged up in the secondary this season and Baltimore is getting old.

Our cornerbacks seem to have gotten old fast. Especially Harris. He has had a steep decline against premier competition.


...GB has far superior talent on D then teams like Philly and Baltimore, and look at their defenses....

Thoughts???

[Patler]

I agree. We have a lot of "very good" players on defense, but I don't think there are any players who are "elite" players. Elite players are the ones that make the difference in the NFL between winning titles and coming up short.

I think that can also be said of the offense. Favre used to be an elite player...he's not there anymore.


I agree. Elite players make the stop in the backfield that Hawk missed late in the game and that Barnett missed earlier, they get that extra sack that the d-line did not, they complete the pass that Favre threw for his last interception, they make plays instead of commit the penalties that Woodson and Harris committed, they catch the difficult balls that Martin and Jennings did not in key situations.

Good players get close to all of those and keep the game close. I'm not suggesting that the Giants won because they had elite players make plays. Instead, the lack of elite players on both teams made the game a toss up that could have gone either way.

[Partial]

I think there are a lot of good players on the defense, but I'm not sure there is an abundance of highly talented players. No one that is really "special". I can't say that they underachieved.

I agree. We have a lot of "very good" players on defense, but I don't think there are any players who are "elite" players. Elite players are the ones that make the difference in the NFL between winning titles and coming up short.

I think that can also be said of the offense. Favre used to be an elite player...he's not there anymore.

This team really overachieved in 2007. There really is no way to claim they underachieved IMO. They simply don't have the All-Pro caliber talent truly great teams usually have.

Favre has been pretty elite thus the 13-3 season

[hurleyfan]

What was the term ol' Cliff Cristl used to say in his "chats"... BLUECHIP Players make the difference, and as others have stated, the Packers don't have any bluechippers..

We have some very good players, and there's a possiblility some of our youngsters could grow into that mold, but not in the very near future...

Now with another draft in the very bottom, not much of a chance of getting a true difference maker, unless TT really finds a hidden gem..

[Partial]

Favre was a blue chipper all year long. Are you kidding me? Our record with a Jon Kitna would have been 8-8

[hurleyfan]

Favre was a blue chipper all year long. Are you kidding me? Our record with a Jon Kitna would have been 8-8

Favre had a great year, don't get me wrong, and he is the best player the Packers had.. But one great player usually doesn't win a game when most of the other top tier players didn't play up to that BLUE" type of player

[Partial]

Cliffs theory was there are a lot of average players in the NFL and a few premiere ones. Get 2 or 3 blue chippers and your team would be in contention

A blue chipper is defined as the top 2-3 players at a particular position.

I would say Favre and Woodson were blue chippers.

Barnett, Harris, Clifton and maybe Driver were red chippers.

[Patler]

I think there are a lot of good players on the defense, but I'm not sure there is an abundance of highly talented players. No one that is really "special". I can't say that they underachieved.

I agree. We have a lot of "very good" players on defense, but I don't think there are any players who are "elite" players. Elite players are the ones that make the difference in the NFL between winning titles and coming up short.

I think that can also be said of the offense. Favre used to be an elite player...he's not there anymore.

This team really overachieved in 2007. There really is no way to claim they underachieved IMO. They simply don't have the All-Pro caliber talent truly great teams usually have.

Favre has been pretty elite thus the 13-3 season

Actually I would say he has been more controlled than elite. I'm not suggesting that he can't make plays at times, because he can. But playoffs are the playoffs, and he has not been a major difference maker in a positive way for a long time, save maybe somewhat against Seattle.

That doesn't mean he sucks, is awful, should be replaced, should retire or anything like that. He just isn't as special as he once was. He can still help them win, but won't carry them as he once did.

It happens with all the great QBs when they get older.

[The Leaper]

Favre was a blue chipper all year long.

Favre played well. He's not a consistent blue chip or elite player anymore. He certainly still can attain that level on certain days, but that is the exception and not the rule.

He's still a very good QB...and one capable of leading a team to a title. He just needs a little more help around him. Hell, it took having guys like Reggie White and LeRoy Butler on defense to help him win SB31. We don't have anyone on defense right now near the caliber of White or Butler.

[Patler]

Cliffs theory was there are a lot of average players in the NFL and a few premiere ones. Get 2 or 3 blue chippers and your team would be in contention

A blue chipper is defined as the top 2-3 players at a particular position.

I would say Favre and Woodson were blue chippers.

Barnett, Harris, Clifton and maybe Driver were red chippers.

I think you can also win with a lot of players who are better than average, even if not blue chippers. That is sort of where the Packers are. Blue chippers at key positions make it easier.

[The Leaper]

Favre has been pretty elite thus the 13-3 season

Favre was pretty non-elite yesterday thus no Super Bowl title.

[The Leaper]

I think you can also win with a lot of players who are better than average, even if not blue chippers. That is sort of where the Packers are. Blue chippers at key positions make it easier.

I dunno. It is difficult to win Super Bowls without having at least 2 "elite" All-Pro caliber talents on your team. I can't think of many recent Super Bowl winners that did not. The Steelers are probably the best example...but they had at least one "elite" player (Faneca) and a couple others who might miss the cut, but not by very much at all (Porter, Polamalu, Ward).

If you are going to win a title without an "elite" player, you better have about 8-10 very good players with a lot of playoff experience.

[Patler]

If you are going to win a title without an "elite" player, you better have about 8-10 very good players with a lot of playoff experience.

That was what I was trying to say. If your roster is filled with players just below "Blue chip", you will be better than most teams across the board. On the other hand, even two or three or four blue chippers on a team with a lot of below average players will not always get you very far.

Some of it has to do with key positions, too. A couple blue chip guards won't get you far with a below average QB and running backs.

The Packers got a lot farther with just a handful of Pro Bowlers than the Vikings did with a bucket full of them.

[Partial]

To argue Favre is not elite is ridiculous. What QBs played better?!?

One could argue three of them:

Manning, Brady and Romo.

I would say Romo was partially the benefactor of a great offensive line and a great running game.

I put Favre in the top 3 at his position in the league. To say that is not elite is poppycock.

[Patler]

To argue Favre is not elite is ridiculous. What QBs played better?!?

One could argue three of them:

Manning, Brady and Romo.

I would say Romo was partially the benefactor of a great offensive line and a great running game.

I put Favre in the top 3 at his position in the league. To say that is not elite is poppycock.

Whenever we talk about Favre, some refuse to accept that there is a medium ground between him being the best in the league, and being terrible. That is exactly where I think he is right now.

Putting aside what you remember Favre to have been in the past, and looking at what he really did this year. how much better was he than:

Roethlisberger
Hasselbeck
Brees
and maybe a few others.

All are very good QBs, which is right where I think Favre is.

[Partial]

I think he is a step up from all of those people. He has a stronger, more accurate arm.

[Patler]

I think he is a step up from all of those people. He has a stronger, more accurate arm.

Stronger, yes, more accurate when he is controlled, but overall not significantly more accurate. I think we are splitting hairs at this stage of Favre's career trying to distinguish him from some of the other very good QBs in the league.