The Eye in the Sky - Good Loss?!

[MJZiggy]

by Eric Baranczyk

Yes, it is painful to admit but some losses can be good losses. READ MORE HERE!!! (http://www.packerrats.com)

[pbmax]

Get this man a raise! And MJ too!

And, just to pat myself on the back a little, in the Game Thread I was pining for Fritz's under defense, mainly so I could see Wayne Simmons beating the crud out of Jason Witten.

I agree with much of the article. I think the running game is further along than Eric paints it, mostly due to fewer Colledge mistakes and perhaps Spitz at center. I think it may be next year before we see Rodgers regularly go deep.

Jones losing the case of the dropsies would make the short passing game immediately better, because only a linebacker will get him off the slant route, and the LB can't run with him. If our D coaches can coach, then we should see a big improvement in Rouse, TWill and Blackmon by week 10. I am impressd by a healthy Jenkins, worried about Kampman and hoping Pickett rededicates himself after Davis abused him. No more slacking offseason big guy.

I think there is good reason to peg this team on the same trajectory as the 1994-5 Packers.

[Bretsky]

Good article, although I'll never believe a loss is a good loss.

A good point at the end; if MM has confidence in Rodgers it would be alright to call a more agressive game plan with many more deeper routes. The play calling in our passing game has been more conservative than in the past. I know taking chances causes more risk and could result in INT's; it would also result in TD's.

I'm not sure I agree with the basis of the article that our defense will be better suited to play the offense of Dallas next time. Last year TO had a huge game against us when we thought we could single him. It seemed like we brought a safety up more to get in the running lanes.

This year Vanilla Bob went to the other extreme and doubled TO much of the game...taking away the run support. And their Running Game tore us apart.

They have a great OL; solid WR core and great TE. To go along with a very good QB Dallas looks like the best offense in the NFL.

Barring injuries I don't know how our defense can stop them, and losing Harris makes our chances worse.

I'd probably advocate trying to keep them off balance with a combination of safety blitzes on the run and pass...........and I'd keep the safety back to double TO sporadically as well.

Try to confuse Romo. It seemed like our delayed blitzes rarely work against good OL's and Dallas was always one step ahead of our defense.

I came out of that game........thinking........if we make the playoffs

I hope to hell somebody beats Dallas before we have to play them again.

[GrnBay007]

A good point at the end; if MM has confidence in Rodgers it would be alright to call a more agressive game plan with many more deeper routes. The play calling in our passing game has been more conservative than in the past. I know taking chances causes more risk and could result in INT's; it would also result in TD's.



Maybe I'm way off here...but reading this makes me wonder how much of the play calling so far this year is a reflection of last season (somewhat) and the off-season stuff that happened with Favre. *Not trying to start any QB comparisons by any means here* ....we don't need that. But last year so many people talked about MM "reeling" Favre in and trying to make him play more conservative. I'm wondering if they are of the belief at this time that having Rodgers play conservatively is all the Packers need? ...just someone to manage the game? If so, it doesn't seem the rest of the team is quite up to that yet. Rodgers has a good arm. When I think of a QB just out there to "manage" the game I think of the year Rex ended up in the SB. Rex didn't get the Bears there as much as the rest of the team. Rodgers has way more going for him than Rex. Let him take on the play-maker role a bit more.

[Bretsky]

My focus of the loss was more on the defense but I have noticed that.

I feel we'd have gotten our asses kicked regardless of who was our QB last Sunday.

[channtheman]

I was thinking about the same thing at work tonight. I think that this definitely is a good loss for the Packers. As was already mentioned in the article, now we know what we need to strive for and what a GREAT team looks like. We're still a good team though some people I have noticed think that we all of a sudden are horrible.

Another thought I had was that I think the pressure is off the Packers now. I think we are kind of perceived how the Giants were last year: not really that great but kind of an annoyance. Hopefully we can fly under the radar this year and make a deep post season run.

Just a couple of things that I disagree with the article about. I think that Rodgers does a fine job "taking chances" when the opportunity is there. It's just that I honestly think some of the playcalling screwed up what could have been. For example. After we had run the ball all the way down the field I think early in the second half, we got to a first and goal. Everyone and their mother knew that McCarthy was going to run the ball, and he did. He should have play actioned out of the same formation that he used to run the ball down the field the whole drive. The next 2 plays I think he lined up Rodgers in shotgun with no running back so everyone knew we would pass. I think the predictability of the Packers offense made it WAY to easy on the Cowboys defense.

[SnakeLH2006]

Well yeah...So I made this topic:

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=14867

[pbmax]

Bretsky, I had this same conversation with Harvey earlier this week. By delayed blitzes, do you mean blitzing from a linebacker's normal drop, or do you mean waiting a count or two after the snap to rush the passer?

I usually call the latter a delayed blitz. And the few of these that I have seen are not really blitzes, but reading the protection and then the LB pass rushing after its clear the RB or TE isn't going out on a pattern.

As for blitzing from the LB normal drop, I think this is a good idea for the following reason: I don't think at this point that either Hawk or Barnett are good enough to bear an O Lineman to get to the QB. If they run to the line before the snap, the line can adjust and shift a guard or center to them. And the Cowboys were blocking our front four with four, so there was a free guy.

As for a rematch, I think the offense ran the ball well. If they can solve the problem of using max protect and then having Rodgers struggle with a 2 or 3 man route, then I think they will be able to sustain drives. That will give the defense a break and make our run D better. If the D can straighten out the alignment problems and not let Felix run untouched for 60 yards, I think we can win. We are much closer than a two score deficit might indicate.

I agree with you that injuries in the secondary are going to make that harder. It probably means less blitzing in the short term. As for Rodgers and the gameplan, he is averaging 8.0 yards per attempt. That is historically a very good number. But right now several QBs are over 8.0, so those numbers might be partially a result of a small sample size. Throwing deeper might shake loose a safety or LB during a game, but that number is very good, especially given that those safeties and LBs pay dearly for closing in on the line of scrimmage when Driver and Jennings run by them for YAC.

[texaspackerbacker]

I thought it was an OK article. The basic premise about "a good loss" is fine. A couple of the details of the prescription for improvement, not so much. First of all, while you are ALWAYS looking for improvement, a fairly close loss to an elite team shouldn't trigger anything too drastic.

I am on record as saying many times, a helluva lot more potential harm comes from blitzing than benefit. If it gets to the point of desperation against a team like the Cowboys, then, maybe. Otherwise, you play bend-don't break defense with a few very rare surprise blitzes thrown in. We played two safeties over the top last week, but in effect, it was only one, as we almost always had a safety helping out on T.O. This week, with a new Corner, we may need to do pretty much the same thing with whichever receiver Williams covers. I really don't foresee very much dropoff, though, with Williams and Blackmon on the field more.

As for offense, I like the idea in the article of basically throwing it downfield a little more, thereby setting up the run--maybe break loose Grant for some long gainers. I thought I noticed Grant getting some of his burst back last week, but the Cowboys, either by cheating up with the safeties or whatever generally stopped him just as he reached the second level.

Tampa ain't the Cowboys, either offense or defense, so hopefully we can have a fairly easy win.

[MadScientist]

Interesting how Eick's areticle are more upbeat after a loss than after a win. Old coaches philosophy of not letting em get too excited after a win or too down after a loss I suppose.

I'm not going to classify it as a good loss, especially since they lost Al. However, it can be considered a useful loss, if they take the good, fix the bad, and kick some ass this week.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Great article. Thanks.

[oregonpackfan]

This was the third game of the season, fellow Packer fans!

This was the third game as a starter for Aaron Rodgers.

This was the third game of the season against what may be the best team in the NFL right now.

This was the third game of the season played by the youngest team in the NFL.

Sure, the loss of Al Harris was terrible. Yet, I see quite a bit of "Upside" for this team.

As I have said in other posts, Packer fans need to be patient. I think this team will really start to jell in the second half of the season.

[boiga]

Thanks for the article Eric and good point oregonpf.

This team is still gelling and improvement over the course of the season should be expected. This is still looking like a 10-6 team.

That said, I think the most important lesson from this game was that the O-Line that started the season isn't good enough. Colledge has improved, but Moll is a liability. With Wells back starting. hopefully we can solidify our pass protection against a fast blitz.

Also, I think some are being excessively harsh against our pass rush. We had three sacks of Romo, which is three more than any other team that has played the cowboys this year. Honestly, our defense held their own against the cowboys. I'm much more worried about our offense

Our team can not be effective in max protect and I agree with Eric that we need to stretch the field more. Rodgers has the arm and the judgment, so take advantage of those assets. There was far too much crowding of the line of scrimmage by the Boys' defense and the lack of pass blocking didn't let us take advantage of those opportunities.

[Fred's Slacks]

Also, I think some are being excessively harsh against our pass rush. We had three sacks of Romo, which is three more than any other team that has played the cowboys this year. Honestly, our defense held their own against the cowboys. I'm much more worried about our offense


I agree. I think most are being excessively harsh on the defense in general. I was impressed by what they were able to do against the most talented offensive team in the league right now.

The Dallas running game didn't kill us. They got a lot of yards because the offense struggled to control the football. What killed us was 3 big plays. The long run by Jones and the 2 big catches by Austin. With out those three plays, its a different game.

If Bigby is healthy the Jones run never happens because unlike Rouse, he knows where to line up. If Harris and Bigby are healthy the long TD to Austin never happens because of Harris' lockdown coverage and Bigby playing over the top.

So overall I was impressed with the Defense and I feel it was more our inexperience and injuries that were the difference.

On the other hand I was surprised that the offense was unable to score points. I really thought that this was going to be a high scoring game similar to the Philly-Dallas game. That said, there are still many reasons for optimism. Grant is hardly 100%, our offensive line and receiver position is beat up and our QB is starting his 4th game tommorrow on the youngest team in the league. Its pretty safe to say, they will improve.

[sheepshead]

This was the third game of the season, fellow Packer fans!

This was the third game as a starter for Aaron Rodgers.

This was the third game of the season against what may be the best team in the NFL right now.

This was the third game of the season played by the youngest team in the NFL.

Sure, the loss of Al Harris was terrible. Yet, I see quite a bit of "Upside" for this team.

As I have said in other posts, Packer fans need to be patient. I think this team will really start to jell in the second half of the season.

This is good perspective. After all we killed the Giants last year week 3, 35-13!