Improve This Article: Reasons Packers Retreated To 6-10

[pbmax]

I respect the job journalists have. However, I often am incensed at the way they go about writing the ultimate product. Greg Bedard at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an article titled Spiraling In Control (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/48636402.html) posted on June 20th, 2009 makes the following observations:

He states that with Rodgers the Packers fell from 13-3 to 6-10 and in eight losses, were within a touchdown up or down at the beginning of the fourth quarter. He then tells us that given his statistical performance this can't be Rodgers fault, but that wins and losses are what count and that's just too bad for Rodgers. He tells us in the middle of the story that he does not believe his own story's premise, but he makes only the feeblest attempt to defend his assertion.

This is how a coward writes. He makes no attempt to shuffle through the debacle, the sometimes conflicting data and results. He does not do a good job of understanding where Rodgers fell short, not to mention looking at other areas of the team. If your editor insisted on an article on Rodgers, then you really should not submarine your own piece by telling us you don't trust its central fact mid-story.

An actual reporter would have dug into the vast and confusing number of reasons for the backtrack by the team. He might have to write an article about some other player or position on the team.

Let's do his job for him.

1. Poor judgments about the defensive line. I was already concerned about the pass rush prior to 2007, a season when Kampman, a part-time pass rush KGB and Corey Williams looked like men possessed. But Jenkins, Williams, Jolly and KGB got banged up and it wasn't the same pass rush by the end of the season. Going into 2008, KGB was coming off surgery, Jenkins might have proven he could not play at 100% all season and Williams was gone. Where we thought we had run stuffing depth was disproved after Pickett developed a bad arm and the run defense collapsed, especially after Jenkins was lost for the season. We knew there was little depth in pass rush from 2007, in 2008 we knew there was little depth in run D on the line.

No team can carry NFL starter depth at every position. But in Sanders defense, he needed a pass rush and run D from his front four in standard matchups. We did not have those players in 2008.


Your turn, someone do Reason #2 why the Packers Fell to 6-10.

[cpk1994]

2. Special Teams. Thompson made a huge blunder by letting Mike Stock talk him into relasing P Jon Ryan mere days before the opener. The position never got settled as they went through multiple punters. The coverage units regressed and were regualry giving up significant position to the opposition while the return units couldn't gain any postion.

[pbmax]

Just a suggestion, but if folks take up the offer to keep this going, you might want to announce what topic you are going to hit. That might allow you to put some time and research into it, and avoid getting your topic hijacked in the meantime. :D

[oregonpackfan]

Bottom line: Aaron Rodgers is not responsible for the team's difficulties in defense and special teams! These were the main reasons for the Packers' decline in '08, not the change of starting quarterbacks.

[Lurker64]

#4) Predictability in the running game

Packers coach Mike McCarthy has sworn up and down since he got here about wanting to have an identity as a tough running team, but this has never actually shown up on the field. Why not? Simply put, offensive tackle play. The Zone Blocking system essentially has four plays: Inside Zone Left/Right and Outside Zone Left/Right. With both offensive tackles losing a step or more due to age and injuries in 2008 compared to in 2007, none of the outside zone runs were even the least bit effective. The Packers were effective at running the inside zone runs, but the outside zone runs consistently yielded 0-2 yards. So in order to keep the linebackers from jumping the inside gaps every time they anticipated run (which they did, sometimes, see the at Minnesota game for example), the Packers threw away a bunch of plays on 0-2 yard runs just so their running game wasn't wholly predictable.

Why is the outlook for this year less bleak? Clifton can't run block, but he's an adequate pass blocker and will stay around if he's healthy. Whoever ends up winning the RT spot this year is going to be an upgrade over the Mark Tauscher of 2008, as his play was mistake ridden and he got beat by even mediocre LDEs in both pass and run blocking. Tony Moll wasn't much of an upgrade, because he's even more error prone but Daryn Colledge was excellent at RT in the Detroit game, and hopefully one of the youngsters competing for the position can either be a relatively mistake-free player (more probably Lang) or be more of a dominating physical presence in the running game (more probably Barbre or Giacomini).

Also, McCarthy was forced to adapt to the faiure of the ZBS due to his inadequacies at Tackle by mixing it up with more power running. With the addition of Quinn Johnson to be the proverbial hammer of god on short yardage, and with a whole offseason to add and implement twists to the running game, plus a healthier Ryan Grant should give a running attack improved over the lackluster 2008 performance.

At the very least, we should be able to run 3 of the four ZBS plays, which is 50% more than last year.

[]{ilr]3]

2. Special Teams. Thompson made a huge blunder by letting Mike Stock talk him into relasing P Jon Ryan mere days before the opener. The position never got settled as they went through multiple punters. The coverage units regressed and were regualry giving up significant position to the opposition while the return units couldn't gain any postion.

2nd here. Ryan was a great locker room presents as well from what I had read.

[RashanGary]

Nice job, PB. I can't believe things like that are never written.

[Partial]

[b]#5. SES syndrome (Seven-Eleven Syndrome).

This team could not close, be it offensively, defensively or on special teams. Despite what the statistics say, this team was horrible in the second half of games. Until this changes they will stay near 6-10.

[woodbuck27]

2. Special Teams. Thompson made a huge blunder by letting Mike Stock talk him into relasing P Jon Ryan mere days before the opener. The position never got settled as they went through multiple punters. The coverage units regressed and were regualry giving up significant position to the opposition while the return units couldn't gain any postion.

To add to this or rub salt into the wound of a judgement of a late cut of a previous starter at a vital position that appeared on the mend:

Jon Ryan had a very solid season punting in Seattle as I recall. Good for Jon Ryan.

[woodbuck27]

#4) Predictability in the running game

Packers coach Mike McCarthy has sworn up and down since he got here about wanting to have an identity as a tough running team, but this has never actually shown up on the field. Why not? Simply put, offensive tackle play. The Zone Blocking system essentially has four plays: Inside Zone Left/Right and Outside Zone Left/Right. With both offensive tackles losing a step or more due to age and injuries in 2008 compared to in 2007, none of the outside zone runs were even the least bit effective. The Packers were effective at running the inside zone runs, but the outside zone runs consistently yielded 0-2 yards. So in order to keep the linebackers from jumping the inside gaps every time they anticipated run (which they did, sometimes, see the at Minnesota game for example), the Packers threw away a bunch of plays on 0-2 yard runs just so their running game wasn't wholly predictable.

Why is the outlook for this year less bleak? Clifton can't run block, but he's an adequate pass blocker and will stay around if he's healthy. Whoever ends up winning the RT spot this year is going to be an upgrade over the Mark Tauscher of 2008, as his play was mistake ridden and he got beat by even mediocre LDEs in both pass and run blocking. Tony Moll wasn't much of an upgrade, because he's even more error prone but Daryn Colledge was excellent at RT in the Detroit game, and hopefully one of the youngsters competing for the position can either be a relatively mistake-free player (more probably Lang) or be more of a dominating physical presence in the running game (more probably Barbre or Giacomini).

Also, McCarthy was forced to adapt to the faiure of the ZBS due to his inadequacies at Tackle by mixing it up with more power running. With the addition of Quinn Johnson to be the proverbial hammer of god on short yardage, and with a whole offseason to add and implement twists to the running game, plus a healthier Ryan Grant should give a running attack improved over the lackluster 2008 performance.

At the very least, we should be able to run 3 of the four ZBS plays, which is 50% more than last year.

Where are we really in the running game after Ryan Grant? This is a problem area on our 'O' that stays with us. We must see a power runner come out of the mix. The consequence of a continued lack luster to up and down performance on our OL will translate negatively as the opposition keys on the performance of Aaron Rodgers and our receivers.

Aaron Rodgers had a solid rookie season but now he needs to stand up in his second season. It's not uncommon to see a dip in performance in a second year starter. The league knows better how to defend against him and without pressure off with a better running game, Aaron may place too much pressure on himself.

We are still a team in transition with a brand new defense. I believe we only need to see some overall improvement to be encouraged beyond 2009.

GO PACK GO!

[MJZiggy]

2. Special Teams. Thompson made a huge blunder by letting Mike Stock talk him into relasing P Jon Ryan mere days before the opener. The position never got settled as they went through multiple punters. The coverage units regressed and were regualry giving up significant position to the opposition while the return units couldn't gain any postion.

To add to this or rub salt into the wound of a judgement of a late cut of a previous starter at a vital position that appeared on the mend:

Jon Ryan had a very solid season punting in Seattle as I recall. Good for Jon Ryan.I'm still trying to understand Stock's reasoning on that one. If TT hadn't found Kapinos, during the season, we'd have been completely screwed.

[falco]

At one point in the season, Ryan was ranked right at the bottom in the major statistics. Not sure how he finished out.

[privatepacker]

When the Packers went 13-3 they won many games in the 4th qtr w/ special teams, fumble recoveries, and long pass plays ie Denver OT game. Green Bay wasn't blowing teams out or have large winning margins. They were winning by scratching and clawing their way through 60 minutes hopeing for a break that would win the game for them.
2008 all of those breaks went away and injuries along w/ questionable personnel decisions left the team 6-10.
I guess what I'm saying is the the Packers were fortunate to win 13 games in 2007. Last year the ball bounced away and they ended up w/ losing record.
This season what it appears to be a team that has some depth on the DL/OL which means they should be able to run the ball and stop the other from doing it. The 3-4 MAY slow it down in the early part of the season but should come on like game busters in the latter half.
The Packers should make the play-offs and if the right breaks happen...get hot at the end of the season.

[Waldo]

#5) Specific Injuries

I thought that two injuries in particular has a major negative affect on the team, KGB and Bigby.

With KGB, the Packers had a low-mid range starter and elite situational player behind Cullen. He was probably our single best backup at any position prior to '08. You never had to worry about an injury to Cullen because of KGB. Sure the D may drop a hair, but KGB's weaknesses were well defined and the team knew how to adjust to minimize them. With KGB's drop to basically a useless player with his surgery (a routine surgery too that Clifton gets biannually, and 10% of just about any starting team gets on a given year), that is what really made Cullen's injury devastating. We immediately went from first to 3rd string. Nobody has starting quality players as 3rd stringers.

Bigby was another crushing blow. He simply did not have a backup. The SS is an integral part of the run defense of most teams. Peprah and Bush are FS's, corners that aren't great in coverage, but with the athleticism to function as the deep line of the defense. Rouse is physically built to be a dominant presence at SS, but he just doesn't have it mentally to play the position. To our overall run defense, I think that Bigby and Pickett are our two most important players. We may have railed on Manuel for his play in GB, but compared to who we were lining up at SS after Bigby went down, Manuel was an upgrade; as it relates to the run, Manuel is a legitimate SS.

If you note, TT's top 3 offseason acquisitions, Antony Smith, Raji, and Matthews, addresses each of these positions. Antony Smith's game is similar to Bigby, he is a legitimate SS and can be relied on to be an effective box player. Raji is a legit backup for Pickett should injury strike there, and Matthews is probably the player most similar to KGB that TT has drafted.

[Waldo]

[b]#5. SES syndrome (Seven-Eleven Syndrome).

This team could not close, be it offensively, defensively or on special teams. Despite what the statistics say, this team was horrible in the second half of games. Until this changes they will stay near 6-10.

I've studied this through historical records of the seasons of several teams, over several years going back decades, and have well over 150 data points.

There is absolutely no correlation to anything when it comes to winning/losing close games.

Carolina lost more close ones than they won for about a 4 year stretch, that is the biggest that I could find. If I recall correctly the Packers are +9 in close games W-L since 1970, since 1992 they win them at a rate of 58%, well below the teams non-close rate. This holds true for all teams in the NFL all QB's, over a given length of time, any teams W-L record in games decided by less than a TD is closer to 50% than their record in decisive games.

When a game is close, roll the dice, the winner of the game is practically decided by pure random chance. There is no such thing as a "winner", that closer than wins in the clutch.

In season the team developed negative momentum last year. With a new season, it takes 1 game to break that type of momentum.

[pbmax]

I think we skipped one.

#3 - 2nd Half Strategy With A Lead

In several of the eight losses, McCarthy was clearly leaning on his run game to burn clock and shorten the game in the second half. This is often a wise strategy as it limits mistakes, limits possessions and usually keeps the field position battle even. Late in games, it can be more important to run 3 times and fail to get a first down as you can burn timeouts or take time off the clock. It also takes the pressure off a first year starter at QB.

But with this edition of his team, swapping punts was usually a net loss. Lurker enumerated the problem with the run game. And the defense, even when it had an advantage in TOP, could not hold up to an offense throwing the kitchen sink at it. Pack D backs can stop the passing game, but getting gashed with long runs makes the pass D an afterthought. Given the capabilities of his team, he took the air out of the ball too early.

I can understand McCarthy not wanting to change his gameplan until injuries made it obvious that this was not going to improve. At a certain point (Tennessee maybe?) he had to realize he had a team that needed to win overwhelmingly with its offense.

[Packnut]

I think we skipped one.

#3 - 2nd Half Strategy With A Lead

In several of the eight losses, McCarthy was clearly leaning on his run game to burn clock and shorten the game in the second half. This is often a wise strategy as it limits mistakes, limits possessions and usually keeps the field position battle even. Late in games, it can be more important to run 3 times and fail to get a first down as you can burn timeouts or take time off the clock. It also takes the pressure off a first year starter at QB.

But with this edition of his team, swapping punts was usually a net loss. Lurker enumerated the problem with the run game. And the defense, even when it had an advantage in TOP, could not hold up to an offense throwing the kitchen sink at it. Pack D backs can stop the passing game, but getting gashed with long runs makes the pass D an afterthought. Given the capabilities of his team, he took the air out of the ball too early.

I can understand McCarthy not wanting to change his gameplan until injuries made it obvious that this was not going to improve. At a certain point (Tennessee maybe?) he had to realize he had a team that needed to win overwhelmingly with its offense.

It's the "Mike Sherman" syndrome. An inability for a coach to react to what's happening on the field and make the right changes. Anyone with half a brain could see our D could'nt stop a HS offense, yet MM handcuffed his offense continually at key times in the 2nd half.

If you look at the good coaches in the NFL both past and present, you'll see their biggest strength is reacting to game play. BB is a master of it in New England. Conversely, look at the poor coaches and they are infected with the Sherman syndrome.

All we can do is hope MM has learned his lesson..........

[woodbuck27]

2. Special Teams. Thompson made a huge blunder by letting Mike Stock talk him into relasing P Jon Ryan mere days before the opener. The position never got settled as they went through multiple punters. The coverage units regressed and were regualry giving up significant position to the opposition while the return units couldn't gain any postion.

To add to this or rub salt into the wound of a judgement of a late cut of a previous starter at a vital position that appeared on the mend:

Jon Ryan had a very solid season punting in Seattle as I recall. Good for Jon Ryan.I'm still trying to understand Stock's reasoning on that one. If TT hadn't found Kapinos, during the season, we'd have been completely screwed.

That one really shocked me MJ. I know the reputation and heart of Jon Ryan by all I've read on him personally and his career to date. I hope that Jon Ryan will continue to have a solid career as a punter.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

At one point in the season, Ryan was ranked right at the bottom in the major statistics. Not sure how he finished out.

Maybe you could look that up falco? You were never on board with Jon Ryan as I recall.

GO PACKERS!

[pbmax]

Topics Left Untouched By Bedard and This Thread (so far):

6. Rodgers Areas For Improvement (yes it would be OK to compare him to Brett since this is one of the ways the team changed year to year)

7. Linebacking Corp: Victim or Perpetrator of Dreck?

8. Strength of Schedule and Matchups: Its all important, but no one pays attention to it except when next season's schedule is announced. That is the worst way to consider it since all the teams will be different by Sept and REALLY different in November.

[Pugger]

Another problem we had last year (and at times in 2007) was no pass rush. Losing KGB didn't help. Neither did having Harrell on the PUP list and losing Jenkins. Some folks blame it all on TT trading Williams to Cleveland but this trade was before the D line went to hell in a handbasket (and Williams wasn't setting the world on fire in OH either). With this poor pass rush and weakness at safety opposing QBs had a field day against us. :(

[Fritz]

I'm going to dip into the TexasPackerBacker's playbook:

Injuries. Every team has 'em, sure. No doubt. However, to lose Jenkins and Barnett and to have AJ Hawk and Atari Bigby playing one-armed or one-legged is a lot to overcome.

I'm still glad that Sanders got fired (no glad in terms of wishing him ill), but I do think that maybe 8-8 or perhaps - perhaps - 9-7 was possible if injuries had not played such a major role.

[]{ilr]3]

Some folks blame it all on TT trading Williams to Cleveland but this trade was before the D line went to hell in a handbasket (and Williams wasn't setting the world on fire in OH either).

Really, I didnt people were too ruffled about him being traded away? I thought even at the time we got a decent value for him and then he turned out to be such a turd after he got paid that just sweetened the deal.

[Fritz]

Who knew a turd could sweeten anything?

[wist43]

Number one reason is defense...

That passive piece of junk scheme they were running... might as well have been playing flag football.

TT should have gone to a 3-4 the year he was hired... had he??? we would probably be contenders - as it is, even with the needed switch, and even with bringing in an actual 1st round calibur Def. Linemen (Raji), it is going to take a few years to transition.

So, we are into year 5 of TT's regime, and even if we ramp up from here, we're looking at year 8 before we might be considered contenders... that's a lot of wasted years of OJT.

[SkinBasket]

Who knew a turd could sweeten anything?

You've never tried cheap caviar with boiled egg on a cracker have you?

[woodbuck27]

[b]#5. SES syndrome (Seven-Eleven Syndrome).

This team could not close, be it offensively, defensively or on special teams. Despite what the statistics say, this team was horrible in the second half of games. Until this changes they will stay near 6-10.

I've studied this through historical records of the seasons of several teams, over several years going back decades, and have well over 150 data points.

There is absolutely no correlation to anything when it comes to winning/losing close games.

Carolina lost more close ones than they won for about a 4 year stretch, that is the biggest that I could find. If I recall correctly the Packers are +9 in close games W-L since 1970, since 1992 they win them at a rate of 58%, well below the teams non-close rate. This holds true for all teams in the NFL all QB's, over a given length of time, any teams W-L record in games decided by less than a TD is closer to 50% than their record in decisive games.

When a game is close, roll the dice, the winner of the game is practically decided by pure random chance. There is no such thing as a "winner", that closer than wins in the clutch.

In season the team developed negative momentum last year. With a new season, it takes 1 game to break that type of momentum.

That's good research. Interesting stuff Waldo. I believe the best teams just have that strength of attitude and preperation to close out tight games as winners. That is the true measure of an organization in terms of pleasing the fan and owners.

GO PACK GO!

[bobblehead]

I don't know if you guys have noticed, I have not once entered into any sort of Favre debate. It is a battle I've been fighting for more than 5 years, and I used to come from a very unpopular position, that has risen in popularity in the last year.

So you, me, harrell and several others agree...Favre has always been a selfish ass, its just standing out more now.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't know if you guys have noticed, I have not once entered into any sort of Favre debate. It is a battle I've been fighting for more than 5 years, and I used to come from a very unpopular position, that has risen in popularity in the last year.

So you, me, harrell and several others agree...Favre has always been a selfish ass, its just standing out more now.



You must have skimmed over the part in bold. :lol:

[Gunakor]

[b]#5. SES syndrome (Seven-Eleven Syndrome).

This team could not close, be it offensively, defensively or on special teams. Despite what the statistics say, this team was horrible in the second half of games. Until this changes they will stay near 6-10.

I've studied this through historical records of the seasons of several teams, over several years going back decades, and have well over 150 data points.

There is absolutely no correlation to anything when it comes to winning/losing close games.

Carolina lost more close ones than they won for about a 4 year stretch, that is the biggest that I could find. If I recall correctly the Packers are +9 in close games W-L since 1970, since 1992 they win them at a rate of 58%, well below the teams non-close rate. This holds true for all teams in the NFL all QB's, over a given length of time, any teams W-L record in games decided by less than a TD is closer to 50% than their record in decisive games.

When a game is close, roll the dice, the winner of the game is practically decided by pure random chance. There is no such thing as a "winner", that closer than wins in the clutch.

In season the team developed negative momentum last year. With a new season, it takes 1 game to break that type of momentum.

That's good research. Interesting stuff Waldo. I believe the best teams just have that strength of attitude and preperation to close out tight games as winners. That is the true measure of an organization in terms of pleasing the fan and owners.

GO PACK GO!

I think Waldo's post suggests that in tight games many times the outcome rests on which way that oblong ball bounces. It's not always the best or most prepared team that wins those close games, sometimes it's just the luckiest. That's why you almost never see teams go 14-0 or 16-0 for the season. You could be the best prepared team in the NFL week in and week out, but over a 17 week season the ball is bound to bounce in the opponents direction at least once or twice in close contests.

[woodbuck27]

Number one reason is defense...

That passive piece of junk scheme they were running... might as well have been playing flag football.

TT should have gone to a 3-4 the year he was hired... had he??? we would probably be contenders - as it is, even with the needed switch, and even with bringing in an actual 1st round calibur Def. Linemen (Raji), it is going to take a few years to transition.

So, we are into year 5 of TT's regime, and even if we ramp up from here, we're looking at year 8 before we might be considered contenders... that's a lot of wasted years of OJT.

Yes. Pack a big lunch folks because were a long ways from the next station with a really decent hot meal. Were going to walk a ways further before we can get really exited and run.

Let's try to enjoy the ride and view.

GO PACKERS!

[Fritz]

The Packers will do well this year, I think.

I'm excited about the offense - hopeful the running game can be a force. I'm curious about the defense, and if I start screaming at a botched coverage or the oppsoing team's third down conversion, I will try to remember the keystone kops routine of last year's defense and calm down.

[Gunakor]

Number one reason is defense...

That passive piece of junk scheme they were running... might as well have been playing flag football.

TT should have gone to a 3-4 the year he was hired... had he??? we would probably be contenders - as it is, even with the needed switch, and even with bringing in an actual 1st round calibur Def. Linemen (Raji), it is going to take a few years to transition.

So, we are into year 5 of TT's regime, and even if we ramp up from here, we're looking at year 8 before we might be considered contenders... that's a lot of wasted years of OJT.

Yes. Pack a big lunch folks because were a long ways from the next station with a really decent hot meal. Were going to walk a ways further before we can get really exited and run.

Let's try to enjoy the ride and view.

GO PACKERS!

I don't think we're that far away. TT's been drafting 3-4 type players in more than just this past draft - he just hasn't emphasised defense in any except this last one. Jeremy Thompson fits the mold of an OLB much better than a DE, for example, which makes me wonder if he saw this coming even before the 2008 season began, giving us a head start in the transition. I don't know for certain, it's just a thought.

[woodbuck27]

[b]#5. SES syndrome (Seven-Eleven Syndrome).

This team could not close, be it offensively, defensively or on special teams. Despite what the statistics say, this team was horrible in the second half of games. Until this changes they will stay near 6-10.

I've studied this through historical records of the seasons of several teams, over several years going back decades, and have well over 150 data points.

There is absolutely no correlation to anything when it comes to winning/losing close games.

Carolina lost more close ones than they won for about a 4 year stretch, that is the biggest that I could find. If I recall correctly the Packers are +9 in close games W-L since 1970, since 1992 they win them at a rate of 58%, well below the teams non-close rate. This holds true for all teams in the NFL all QB's, over a given length of time, any teams W-L record in games decided by less than a TD is closer to 50% than their record in decisive games.

When a game is close, roll the dice, the winner of the game is practically decided by pure random chance. There is no such thing as a "winner", that closer than wins in the clutch.

In season the team developed negative momentum last year. With a new season, it takes 1 game to break that type of momentum.

That's good research. Interesting stuff Waldo. I believe the best teams just have that strength of attitude and preperation to close out tight games as winners. That is the true measure of an organization in terms of pleasing the fan and owners.

GO PACK GO!

I think Waldo's post suggests that in tight games many times the outcome rests on which way that oblong ball bounces. It's not always the best or most prepared team that wins those close games, sometimes it's just the luckiest. That's why you almost never see teams go 14-0 or 16-0 for the season. You could be the best prepared team in the NFL week in and week out, but over a 17 week season the ball is bound to bounce in the opponents direction at least once or twice in close contests.

I have to hold on this Gunakor. Good preparation trumps good luck because they go hand in hand.

GO PACK GO!

[cheesner]

9. Team Conditioning

Last years defense continually let up late in the game. I feel this issue was a bigger deal to MM and TT than it is considered to be to us fans. I feel the change over in the strength and conditioning coach is an indicator of the degree of seriousness that MM considered this issue. The new S&C coach Redding has stated several times in various interviews how his program stresses endurance as well as strength. I am not sure if this is because he has been told this is important or if he was selected because it is already important in his philosophy - but I am certain it is in direct response to an critical problem with last year's team.

[woodbuck27]

Number one reason is defense...

That passive piece of junk scheme they were running... might as well have been playing flag football.

TT should have gone to a 3-4 the year he was hired... had he??? we would probably be contenders - as it is, even with the needed switch, and even with bringing in an actual 1st round calibur Def. Linemen (Raji), it is going to take a few years to transition.

So, we are into year 5 of TT's regime, and even if we ramp up from here, we're looking at year 8 before we might be considered contenders... that's a lot of wasted years of OJT.

Yes. Pack a big lunch folks because were a long ways from the next station with a really decent hot meal. Were going to walk a ways further before we can get really exited and run.

Let's try to enjoy the ride and view.

GO PACKERS!

I don't think we're that far away. TT's been drafting 3-4 type players in more than just this past draft - he just hasn't emphasised defense in any except this last one. Jeremy Thompson fits the mold of an OLB much better than a DE, for example, which makes me wonder if he saw this coming even before the 2008 season began, giving us a head start in the transition. I don't know for certain, it's just a thought.

Ted Thompson was also a linebacker when he played. That might be a factor in his decision making relative to draft at what positions. It's been awhile since I studied it concerning Ted's drafts, but I beleve the best strategy is to secure depth on the lines.

You need a heady QB with winning ways and a solid ground game as well to secure balance on offense and the respect of opposition defenses. I truly believe or am of the opinion that we're still in transition Gunakor.

GO PACKERS.

[cpk1994]

I'm going to dip into the TexasPackerBacker's playbook:

Injuries. Every team has 'em, sure. No doubt. However, to lose Jenkins and Barnett and to have AJ Hawk and Atari Bigby playing one-armed or one-legged is a lot to overcome.

I'm still glad that Sanders got fired (no glad in terms of wishing him ill), but I do think that maybe 8-8 or perhaps - perhaps - 9-7 was possible if injuries had not played such a major role.Well, if Mason Crosby makes two kicks(vs. Bears & Vikings), they would have been 8-8. Not blaming him for the losses mind you, but it does show you this team wasn't as bad as the 6-10 record indicates.

[wist43]

Number one reason is defense...

That passive piece of junk scheme they were running... might as well have been playing flag football.

TT should have gone to a 3-4 the year he was hired... had he??? we would probably be contenders - as it is, even with the needed switch, and even with bringing in an actual 1st round calibur Def. Linemen (Raji), it is going to take a few years to transition.

So, we are into year 5 of TT's regime, and even if we ramp up from here, we're looking at year 8 before we might be considered contenders... that's a lot of wasted years of OJT.

Yes. Pack a big lunch folks because were a long ways from the next station with a really decent hot meal. Were going to walk a ways further before we can get really exited and run.

Let's try to enjoy the ride and view.

GO PACKERS!

I don't think we're that far away. TT's been drafting 3-4 type players in more than just this past draft - he just hasn't emphasised defense in any except this last one. Jeremy Thompson fits the mold of an OLB much better than a DE, for example, which makes me wonder if he saw this coming even before the 2008 season began, giving us a head start in the transition. I don't know for certain, it's just a thought.

Ted Thompson was also a linebacker when he played. That might be a factor in his decision making relative to draft at what positions. It's been awhile since I studied it concerning Ted's drafts, but I beleve the best strategy is to secure depth on the lines.

You need a heady QB with winning ways and a solid ground game as well to secure balance on offense and the respect of opposition defenses. I truly believe or am of the opinion that we're still in transition Gunakor.

GO PACKERS.

I'm not saying they'll be bad... just saying they're not a legit contender. The years have a way of ticking by fellas... before ya know it, SB XXXI will be 25 years in the rearview mirror.

We've gone round and round about this for years guys... I want to win championships - most of you guys are content to win the division... we'll always disagree about where the train should be headed.

As for the idea that TT has been drafting 3-4 personnel prior to this year... Jeremy Thompson was drafted with 3-4 foresight??? I think I had forgotten how homerized you guys are :lol:

Capers is going to be playing as much, or more 4-3 than he is 3-4 b/c he simply doesn't have enough 3-4 personnel... I saw JT as having some upside as a 4-3 end, but he's a fish out of water as a 3-4 LB; same thing for Kampman... Capers is going to have to play a lot of 4-3 fronts.

[Waldo]

As for the idea that TT has been drafting 3-4 personnel prior to this year... Jeremy Thompson was drafted with 3-4 foresight??? I think I had forgotten how homerized you guys are :lol:

Capers is going to be playing as much, or more 4-3 than he is 3-4 b/c he simply doesn't have enough 3-4 personnel... I saw JT as having some upside as a 4-3 end, but he's a fish out of water as a 3-4 LB; same thing for Kampman... Capers is going to have to play a lot of 4-3 fronts.

I really can't see how you think this about JT.

I thought he was a fish out of water as a 4-3 end. The guy's use in college was much more similar to 3-4 OLB. He rushed hands up on occasion, he split out wide on a TE on occasion, he dropped into coverage. He was taught the whole field POV in college and how to play forward and back.

I was surely not alone on draft day in 2008 in thinking that TT had no intention of him being a 4-3 DE. That his ultimate role was joker DE, the role that Jason Taylor played in Miami's hybrid, which was essentially a 4-3 with Taylor having hands up/down option and the ability to pick his gap, with some dropping responsibilities.

[woodbuck27]

9. Team Conditioning

Last years defense continually let up late in the game. I feel this issue was a bigger deal to MM and TT than it is considered to be to us fans. I feel the change over in the strength and conditioning coach is an indicator of the degree of seriousness that MM considered this issue. The new S&C coach Redding has stated several times in various interviews how his program stresses endurance as well as strength. I am not sure if this is because he has been told this is important or if he was selected because it is already important in his philosophy - but I am certain it is in direct response to an critical problem with last year's team.

Good point there and it's a good thing to see a program layed on whereby the team as a whole loses weight. Lean plays mean sorta thing.

GO PACK GO!

[woodbuck27]

Number one reason is defense...

That passive piece of junk scheme they were running... might as well have been playing flag football.

TT should have gone to a 3-4 the year he was hired... had he??? we would probably be contenders - as it is, even with the needed switch, and even with bringing in an actual 1st round calibur Def. Linemen (Raji), it is going to take a few years to transition.

So, we are into year 5 of TT's regime, and even if we ramp up from here, we're looking at year 8 before we might be considered contenders... that's a lot of wasted years of OJT.

Yes. Pack a big lunch folks because were a long ways from the next station with a really decent hot meal. Were going to walk a ways further before we can get really exited and run.

Let's try to enjoy the ride and view.

GO PACKERS!

I don't think we're that far away. TT's been drafting 3-4 type players in more than just this past draft - he just hasn't emphasised defense in any except this last one. Jeremy Thompson fits the mold of an OLB much better than a DE, for example, which makes me wonder if he saw this coming even before the 2008 season began, giving us a head start in the transition. I don't know for certain, it's just a thought.

Ted Thompson was also a linebacker when he played. That might be a factor in his decision making relative to draft at what positions. It's been awhile since I studied it concerning Ted's drafts, but I beleve the best strategy is to secure depth on the lines.

You need a heady QB with winning ways and a solid ground game as well to secure balance on offense and the respect of opposition defenses. I truly believe or am of the opinion that we're still in transition Gunakor.

GO PACKERS.

I'm not saying they'll be bad... just saying they're not a legit contender. The years have a way of ticking by fellas... before ya know it, SB XXXI will be 25 years in the rearview mirror.

We've gone round and round about this for years guys... I want to win championships - most of you guys are content to win the division... we'll always disagree about where the train should be headed.

As for the idea that TT has been drafting 3-4 personnel prior to this year... Jeremy Thompson was drafted with 3-4 foresight??? I think I had forgotten how homerized you guys are :lol:

Capers is going to be playing as much, or more 4-3 than he is 3-4 b/c he simply doesn't have enough 3-4 personnel... I saw JT as having some upside as a 4-3 end, but he's a fish out of water as a 3-4 LB; same thing for Kampman... Capers is going to have to play a lot of 4-3 fronts.

Your the fella that see's the LBer position very well.

[Partial]

[b]#5. SES syndrome (Seven-Eleven Syndrome).

This team could not close, be it offensively, defensively or on special teams. Despite what the statistics say, this team was horrible in the second half of games. Until this changes they will stay near 6-10.

I've studied this through historical records of the seasons of several teams, over several years going back decades, and have well over 150 data points.

There is absolutely no correlation to anything when it comes to winning/losing close games.

Carolina lost more close ones than they won for about a 4 year stretch, that is the biggest that I could find. If I recall correctly the Packers are +9 in close games W-L since 1970, since 1992 they win them at a rate of 58%, well below the teams non-close rate. This holds true for all teams in the NFL all QB's, over a given length of time, any teams W-L record in games decided by less than a TD is closer to 50% than their record in decisive games.

When a game is close, roll the dice, the winner of the game is practically decided by pure random chance. There is no such thing as a "winner", that closer than wins in the clutch.

In season the team developed negative momentum last year. With a new season, it takes 1 game to break that type of momentum.

That is interesting to know but it wasn't specifically what I was referring to. Close game or not the Packers weren't very good in the second half. Even against Detroit they blew a big lead and let them back into the game.

My beef with the team is the lack of mental toughness, which is a reflection on the coach. The strangest thing about this to me as MM seems like a pretty mentally strong guy, but to the counterpoint his play calling with the lead could provide some doubt.

As I said in another post, the Packers have the talent to easily get most teams on the floor and in position for the victory. They need to develop a nastiness where they can step on the throat and close it out. AJ Hawk was supposed to be the intimidator to bring this sort of attitude to the team. Hopefully Matthews will help in this regard. They need some toughness.

[Partial]

I think Waldo's post suggests that in tight games many times the outcome rests on which way that oblong ball bounces. It's not always the best or most prepared team that wins those close games, sometimes it's just the luckiest. That's why you almost never see teams go 14-0 or 16-0 for the season. You could be the best prepared team in the NFL week in and week out, but over a 17 week season the ball is bound to bounce in the opponents direction at least once or twice in close contests.

Whoops nevermind I misread the bolded portion of this. My bad.

[pbmax]

We've gone round and round about this for years guys... I want to win championships - most of you guys are content to win the division... we'll always disagree about where the train should be headed.
No one is content to win the division. Its preferable to drafting ninth, but that's about it.

We went 13-3 two years ago and I don't think it was an accident. And that team had holes on both sides of the ball, including your favorite hobby horse, the static 4-3 over.

The reality of the talent is the point of this thread and is probably between 13-3 and 6-10. But its possible Capers will get something new out of this talent on the defensive side, in addition to the two new toys he gets to play with.

By my count, Thompson has drafted 23 defensive players and 27 offensive players without including the kicker. It was his first D heavy draft, but the numbers are pretty balanced, especially since 4 of his 5 first round picks have been for defense and his two most expensive free agent acquisitions were a CB and DT.

[Gunakor]

As for the idea that TT has been drafting 3-4 personnel prior to this year... Jeremy Thompson was drafted with 3-4 foresight??? I think I had forgotten how homerized you guys are :lol:

Knock it off wist. What I said was that JT better fits the mold of a 3-4 OLB than that of a 4-3 DE. Whether that was foresight or not, who knows. Certainly not you or I.

I think I must have forgotten what a pessimist you are :lol:

[pbmax]

I watched the games and found this to be the biggest problem. This team is soft when it matters and can't stomp on the throat of the enemy. They can take them to the ground but are too gutless to finish the job.Please give me an example of a player being gutless on the team. Please give me an example of a player being soft. Otherwise, this is a bland generalization of an emotional reaction to losing a game. This does not tell me why they lost, just how someone felt about it. You need to break this down to a finite act, something we can observe and measure. Otherwise its just announcer twaddle that sounds convincing because you are finding fault with the team that lost. It tells us nothing about WHY. Did Hawk struggle because he soft or injured? Did Pickett struggle because he suddenly became soft, injured, or without adequate help at the other DT?


My beef with the team is the lack of mental toughness, which is a reflection on the coach.Please show me a concrete example, a finite one, of mental toughness. Or the lack thereof. Did Tramon Williams struggle after going back to the nickel spot because of toughness? Where did you see it?


his play calling with the lead could provide some doubt.This gives us something to work with. But it has nothing to do with toughness or softness or aggression. The strategy used works most of the time. There is a reason people as diverse as Bill Parcells, Belicheck, Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs and Mike Holmgren have used it. Tell me why it failed with McCarthy and the 08 Packers, don't just remind me that it did.

Unless you can point to the event on the field, these are just emotionalisms. Provide us with something specific, more than the fact that the Packers were getting outscored in the 4th quarter. Why did it happen?

[pbmax]

Waldo, I think the comment you are critiquing belongs to wist and not Justin H.

But I think both Waldo and wist are right, and the reason is the fifth round. A team drafting for pass rush at end in the fifth round cannot be choosers, but beggars. You take the best that is left. That Jeremy Thompson has a role in the 3-4 probably has less to do with Ted committing to the 3-4 a year early, and more to do with best player available. Much the same as Kampman. Neither look ideal as 4-3 ends compared to higher round prospects, but each had skills that could be developed. Better skills than the players left at their draft position, regardless of body type.

[Scott Campbell]

Waldo, I think the comment you are critiquing belongs to wist and not Justin H.

But I think both Waldo and wist are right, and the reason is the fifth round. A team drafting for pass rush at end in the fifth round cannot be choosers, but beggars. You take the best that is left. That Jeremy Thompson has a role in the 3-4 probably has less to do with Ted committing to the 3-4 a year early, and more to do with best player available. Much the same as Kampman. Neither look ideal as 4-3 ends compared to higher round prospects, but each had skills that could be developed. Better skills than the players left at their draft position, regardless of body type.



Didn't the Packers trade up to take Thompson in the 4th?

Not that it changes your point, which I agree with.

[pbmax]

Waldo, I think the comment you are critiquing belongs to wist and not Justin H.

But I think both Waldo and wist are right, and the reason is the fifth round. A team drafting for pass rush at end in the fifth round cannot be choosers, but beggars. You take the best that is left. That Jeremy Thompson has a role in the 3-4 probably has less to do with Ted committing to the 3-4 a year early, and more to do with best player available. Much the same as Kampman. Neither look ideal as 4-3 ends compared to higher round prospects, but each had skills that could be developed. Better skills than the players left at their draft position, regardless of body type.



Didn't the Packers trade up to take Thompson in the 4th?

Not that it changes your point, which I agree with.
Yep, my mistake, I read the draft chart wrong. :oops:

[Scott Campbell]

Yep, my mistake, I read the draft chart wrong. :oops:


It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't the 2007 draft guru. :lol:

[pbmax]

Yep, my mistake, I read the draft chart wrong. :oops:


It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't the 2007 draft guru. :lol:
My title covers the first round only. 8-)

[falco]

At one point in the season, Ryan was ranked right at the bottom in the major statistics. Not sure how he finished out.

Maybe you could look that up falco? You were never on board with Jon Ryan as I recall.

GO PACKERS!

This is too funny. In other thread, you said that I was a poster with an axe to grind and a long and selective memory. I didn't post back, because I was at work, but couldn't figure out what the heck you were talking about, since you and I have never really exchanged words.

Then I read this post and remembered that at one point in time you had flipped out at back at JSO (ca 2005?) because I made a joke about Jon Ryan being Canadian. For the record, I was never against him, but you seemed to lash out at me regardless.

And yet, I am the one with the long memory...

[falco]

I think it would be fair to say injuries and a lack of depth on D caused our downfall. We just didn't have the depth on the d-line to rotate guys, and despite our secondary that just rocked the house the first half of the year, our d-line broke down in the second half of games.

[Partial]

I watched the games and found this to be the biggest problem. This team is soft when it matters and can't stomp on the throat of the enemy. They can take them to the ground but are too gutless to finish the job.Please give me an example of a player being gutless on the team. Please give me an example of a player being soft. Otherwise, this is a bland generalization of an emotional reaction to losing a game. This does not tell me why they lost, just how someone felt about it. You need to break this down to a finite act, something we can observe and measure. Otherwise its just announcer twaddle that sounds convincing because you are finding fault with the team that lost. It tells us nothing about WHY. Did Hawk struggle because he soft or injured? Did Pickett struggle because he suddenly became soft, injured, or without adequate help at the other DT?


My beef with the team is the lack of mental toughness, which is a reflection on the coach.Please show me a concrete example, a finite one, of mental toughness. Or the lack thereof. Did Tramon Williams struggle after going back to the nickel spot because of toughness? Where did you see it?


his play calling with the lead could provide some doubt.This gives us something to work with. But it has nothing to do with toughness or softness or aggression. The strategy used works most of the time. There is a reason people as diverse as Bill Parcells, Belicheck, Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs and Mike Holmgren have used it. Tell me why it failed with McCarthy and the 08 Packers, don't just remind me that it did.

Unless you can point to the event on the field, these are just emotionalisms. Provide us with something specific, more than the fact that the Packers were getting outscored in the 4th quarter. Why did it happen?

That raises the question of why does anything happen? How can anyone quantify anything like that.

[Lurker64]

That raises the question of why does anything happen? How can anyone quantify anything like that.

There are reasons that you believe the things you do. You claim that the Packers went 6-10 because they weren't mentally tough and displayed poor second half play calling, so you apparently believe that. Now potentially your reason for believing this is "they went 6-10 and they're talented, so it's got to be something..." in which case this is circular reasoning; the Packers did not go 6-10 because they went 6-10.

But if there's something else to it, if you have specific reasons that you believe what you claim to believe, and specific examples that reinforce your beliefs, we would love to hear it. At the very least, it would dispell all doubts that your reasoning is circular.

After all, if the Packers truly lacked mental toughness, someone else who watched the same games you did should be able to spot this if you informed them what "lack of mental toughness" looks like.

[Administrator]

To the OP - I've split the non-football related stuff out of this topic. You can find it in a similar named thread in the Romper Room.


To everyone - Back to a good discussion.

[Waldo]

That raises the question of why does anything happen? How can anyone quantify anything like that.

Often there is no why. The Carolina game is a perfect example. Try to wrap your head around reasons for that lost, and you are left spinning your wheels looking for something that doesn't exist. You must face the reality that the ball bounced the wrong way for the Packers, that 5 or so critical plays in that game near the end had to happen exactly like they did for Carolina to win. In 100 iterations of the same events, with the same teams, those 5 plays would likely have the same results that lead to the Carolina win easily a single digit % of the time.

The first bomb to S Smith, beating good double coverage. Perfect throw, spectacular catch.

The stuff of the RB's 2 plays in a row on the 1, including the fullback dive, which had worked nearly flawlessly to that point all season for getting a yard.

The second bomb to S Smith, beating good double coverage with Wood in primary coverage, and it was darn good coverage. Again Delhomme threw 50 yards on the money, and Smith hauled in a very difficult catch.

Aaron's int by Beason. That was a spectacular int by Beason, the throw was money for Driver, LB's aren't supposed to even be able to break up plays like that, much less intercept them. Few WR's would have caught that ball the way he did (Jones is the only Packer I would have confidence catching it), and he is a LB. High point catching a ball at full extension at full jumping height is incredibly difficult.

Any one of those plays go differently and there is a good chance that GB wins. No matter what you want to say about "killer instinct" or "gutless" or whatever, the ball just didn't bounce our way.

There is no why. It just happens sometimes, there is nothing that anybody can do about it.

[Scott Campbell]

In 100 iterations of the same events, with the same teams, those 5 plays would likely have the same results that lead to the Carolina win easily a single digit % of the time.


Amen to that. How many times out of 100 would we have beaten Philly in the 4th and 26 game?

There's nothing more painful to me than to lose one that we should have won.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I'm going to dip into the TexasPackerBacker's playbook:

Injuries. Every team has 'em, sure. No doubt. However, to lose Jenkins and Barnett and to have AJ Hawk and Atari Bigby playing one-armed or one-legged is a lot to overcome.

I'm still glad that Sanders got fired (no glad in terms of wishing him ill), but I do think that maybe 8-8 or perhaps - perhaps - 9-7 was possible if injuries had not played such a major role.Well, if Mason Crosby makes two kicks(vs. Bears & Vikings), they would have been 8-8. Not blaming him for the losses mind you, but it does show you this team wasn't as bad as the 6-10 record indicates.

Seriously dude you have to let this line of thinking go. Missed FGs? That's football. I could just as easily say the Vikings were a missed FG away from sweeping the pack last year. I could point out a handful of plays that, had they been different by only inches would have resulted in many more wins for the Vikings, or any othe team.

[Waldo]

I'm going to dip into the TexasPackerBacker's playbook:

Injuries. Every team has 'em, sure. No doubt. However, to lose Jenkins and Barnett and to have AJ Hawk and Atari Bigby playing one-armed or one-legged is a lot to overcome.

I'm still glad that Sanders got fired (no glad in terms of wishing him ill), but I do think that maybe 8-8 or perhaps - perhaps - 9-7 was possible if injuries had not played such a major role.Well, if Mason Crosby makes two kicks(vs. Bears & Vikings), they would have been 8-8. Not blaming him for the losses mind you, but it does show you this team wasn't as bad as the 6-10 record indicates.

Seriously dude you have to let this line of thinking go. Missed FGs? That's football. I could just as easily say the Vikings were a missed FG away from sweeping the pack last year. I could point out a handful of plays that, had they been different by only inches would have resulted in many more wins for the Vikings, or any othe team.

That right there is why close games are nothing more than.....

http://www.mbaintheusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/roll-the-dice.jpg

When all that takes place on the field is considered, random chance moreso than anything else decides the outcome, it cannot be replicated, long term consistent success or failure cannot be sustained, it is what it is, the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 for most teams is nothing more than a little luck.

No coach can bring it, they cannot teach it, try as they might, no special "clutch" players can do it consistently. A team may get hot or cold for a year or two, but as the picture gets wider, the "clutch" factor disappears into nothingness. Fans want to assign why to things. There is no why, it is just the way the game is. Football is a game of skill and a game of luck.

[Fritz]

Poor kickers. Their mistakes are so apparent. I sometimes wonder if, after a "if only the kicker had..." statement, there might be two missed blocks that a lineman might've had that - had he made them - might've won the team the two games it lost.

Or if two dropped passes could be the difference between 9-7 and 7-9. Or two missed linebacker assignments.

and so on.

[hoosier]

That right there is why close games are nothing more than.....

http://www.mbaintheusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/roll-the-dice.jpg

When all that takes place on the field is considered, random chance moreso than anything else decides the outcome, it cannot be replicated, long term consistent success or failure cannot be sustained, it is what it is, the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 for most teams is nothing more than a little luck.
No coach can bring it, they cannot teach it, try as they might, no special "clutch" players can do it consistently. A team may get hot or cold for a year or two, but as the picture gets wider, the "clutch" factor disappears into nothingness. Fans want to assign why to things. There is no why, it is just the way the game is. Football is a game of skill and a game of luck.

I haven't looked at this question closely enough to have a strong position in favor or against what you're saying. Intuitively, what you're saying makes some sense--luck undeniably plays a big part in many close games. But so do mental preparation, training and good coaching. Let's imagine doing a five year comparison of a well coached team (Bill Bellichick or Bill Parcells) aginast a poorly coached team (pick your example). You're not really saying that the poorly prepared team would fare equally well over the long run in close games as the well prepared team, are you? Or, to put this in more concrete terms, how would you explain the disparity between Carolina and New Orleans in close games under their current coaches? Carolina is 23-17 in games decided by 4 or fewer points under Fox; New Orleans is 6-15 in games of <4 pts under Payton. Payton has only been coaching for three years; that record might be an anomaly. But Fox has been there for, what, seven years? It seems to me he has to be doing something better than most to be 23-17 in close games over more than half a decade.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Poor kickers. Their mistakes are so apparent. I sometimes wonder if, after a "if only the kicker had..." statement, there might be two missed blocks that a lineman might've had that - had he made them - might've won the team the two games it lost.

Or if two dropped passes could be the difference between 9-7 and 7-9. Or two missed linebacker assignments.

and so on.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Or look at the other side of the coin. How many FGs, dropped passes, etc. were there for the opposing teams in the 6 wins the Pack had last year?

Again, that's just football.

However, some coaches and players will tell you luck is where hard work and opportunity meet.

[ThunderDan]

I'm going to dip into the TexasPackerBacker's playbook:

Injuries. Every team has 'em, sure. No doubt. However, to lose Jenkins and Barnett and to have AJ Hawk and Atari Bigby playing one-armed or one-legged is a lot to overcome.

I'm still glad that Sanders got fired (no glad in terms of wishing him ill), but I do think that maybe 8-8 or perhaps - perhaps - 9-7 was possible if injuries had not played such a major role.Well, if Mason Crosby makes two kicks(vs. Bears & Vikings), they would have been 8-8. Not blaming him for the losses mind you, but it does show you this team wasn't as bad as the 6-10 record indicates.

Seriously dude you have to let this line of thinking go. Missed FGs? That's football. I could just as easily say the Vikings were a missed FG away from sweeping the pack last year. I could point out a handful of plays that, had they been different by only inches would have resulted in many more wins for the Vikings, or any othe team.

Like the 4 or 5 times AP was on the field with his helmet off and the officals don't call a 15 yard penalty?

[cheesner]

That right there is why close games are nothing more than.....

http://www.mbaintheusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/roll-the-dice.jpg

When all that takes place on the field is considered, random chance moreso than anything else decides the outcome, it cannot be replicated, long term consistent success or failure cannot be sustained, it is what it is, the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 for most teams is nothing more than a little luck.
No coach can bring it, they cannot teach it, try as they might, no special "clutch" players can do it consistently. A team may get hot or cold for a year or two, but as the picture gets wider, the "clutch" factor disappears into nothingness. Fans want to assign why to things. There is no why, it is just the way the game is. Football is a game of skill and a game of luck.

I haven't looked at this question closely enough to have a strong position in favor or against what you're saying. Intuitively, what you're saying makes some sense--luck undeniably plays a big part in many close games. But so do mental preparation, training and good coaching. Let's imagine doing a five year comparison of a well coached team (Bill Bellichick or Bill Parcells) aginast a poorly coached team (pick your example). You're not really saying that the poorly prepared team would fare equally well over the long run in close games as the well prepared team, are you? Or, to put this in more concrete terms, how would you explain the disparity between Carolina and New Orleans in close games under their current coaches? Carolina is 23-17 in games decided by 4 or fewer points under Fox; New Orleans is 6-15 in games of <4 pts under Payton. Payton has only been coaching for three years; that record might be an anomaly. But Fox has been there for, what, seven years? It seems to me he has to be doing something better than most to be 23-17 in close games over more than half a decade.I think you are both correct. Luck certainly plays a role in deciding outcomes. Close games and deciding plays that could go either way, are left to chance by at least some percentage. However, it is a coach and players that put themselves in the position to win has also a sizable consideration in the equation.

Think about poker. If you get a great hand on the flop and you sucker some other player into going all in, you did well. You are not guaranteed to win, but the odds are way in your favor. Even though you have a 95% chance of doubling your money - he may luck out and hit runner runner and win the hand. Luck plays a role but playing smartly in poker over the long haul will net me more victories than defeats.

In football if you are coaching well and playing well, eventually, you will get more wins than defeats. The better you are in each of those categories, the more likely you are to win. The more likely you are to win the more wins you will have over the long haul.

[Waldo]

That right there is why close games are nothing more than.....

http://www.mbaintheusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/roll-the-dice.jpg

When all that takes place on the field is considered, random chance moreso than anything else decides the outcome, it cannot be replicated, long term consistent success or failure cannot be sustained, it is what it is, the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 for most teams is nothing more than a little luck.
No coach can bring it, they cannot teach it, try as they might, no special "clutch" players can do it consistently. A team may get hot or cold for a year or two, but as the picture gets wider, the "clutch" factor disappears into nothingness. Fans want to assign why to things. There is no why, it is just the way the game is. Football is a game of skill and a game of luck.

I haven't looked at this question closely enough to have a strong position in favor or against what you're saying. Intuitively, what you're saying makes some sense--luck undeniably plays a big part in many close games. But so do mental preparation, training and good coaching. Let's imagine doing a five year comparison of a well coached team (Bill Bellichick or Bill Parcells) aginast a poorly coached team (pick your example). You're not really saying that the poorly prepared team would fare equally well over the long run in close games as the well prepared team, are you? Or, to put this in more concrete terms, how would you explain the disparity between Carolina and New Orleans in close games under their current coaches? Carolina is 23-17 in games decided by 4 or fewer points under Fox; New Orleans is 6-15 in games of <4 pts under Payton. Payton has only been coaching for three years; that record might be an anomaly. But Fox has been there for, what, seven years? It seems to me he has to be doing something better than most to be 23-17 in close games over more than half a decade.

I think that a lot of it really depends on where your arbitrarily chosen point is. 4 pts? IMO 6 pts or less is a better measure. It is the boundary that separates a 1 play game from a multiplay game, and it captures OT (they don't kick extra points in OT). When the game is within 6, 1 play (assuming automatic extra points, a fairly safe assumption) is all that is needed for a lead change, either a great defensive or offensive play can win the game.

Since Fox came to Carolina they are +6 in W-L of games decided by 6 or fewer points (25-19), a win % of 56.8%. Over the same time period in games decided by 7 points or more they are 38-30, a win % of 55.9%. Interesting to note though, over Fox's tenure prior to 2008, they were +1 in close games (20-19), 2008 was an exceptionally good year for them in the close ones (no shocker that they went 12-4). The net difference in close games W-L in Fox's tenure goes: -2, 6, -5, 1, -1, 2, 5, there is no pattern of consistent success.

For Payton, they are -2 in close games over his tenure, a win % of 44.4%. Over the same period their record in games decided by 7 or more is 56.7%. Again, but just the opposite of Carolina, they are coming off of a down year, prior to 2008 they were +1. The net difference in close games in Payton's tenure goes: 1, 0, -3, again, no pattern.

GB this decade is +1 in close games, a win % of 51.0%. Over the same time period the non close winning % is 62.1%. Prior to '08 the Packers were +7 in close games this decade (we were due). The net difference in close games for the Pack this decade goes: 2, -1, 5, -2, 3, -4, 1, 3, -6, again, absolutely no pattern. Going back to 1970 the Pack is +8 in games decided by 6 or fewer, and there is an average of about 6 close games a year.

Pit has been well coached. They are actually +8 this decade, and their yearly #'s go: -2, 2, 3, -4, 6, -1, 1, -1, 4, for a win % of 58.7%. Their non close winning % over the same time period is 67.3%. No shocker that the year they won 5 close ones they went 15-1 (and went 11-5 the next year, actually as a better team winning the SB), last year they won 4 they went 12-4. Something tells me Pit isn't going to replicate their success next year. Call it a hunch.

[pack4to84]

Very impressive Waldo.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I'm going to dip into the TexasPackerBacker's playbook:

Injuries. Every team has 'em, sure. No doubt. However, to lose Jenkins and Barnett and to have AJ Hawk and Atari Bigby playing one-armed or one-legged is a lot to overcome.

I'm still glad that Sanders got fired (no glad in terms of wishing him ill), but I do think that maybe 8-8 or perhaps - perhaps - 9-7 was possible if injuries had not played such a major role.Well, if Mason Crosby makes two kicks(vs. Bears & Vikings), they would have been 8-8. Not blaming him for the losses mind you, but it does show you this team wasn't as bad as the 6-10 record indicates.

Seriously dude you have to let this line of thinking go. Missed FGs? That's football. I could just as easily say the Vikings were a missed FG away from sweeping the pack last year. I could point out a handful of plays that, had they been different by only inches would have resulted in many more wins for the Vikings, or any othe team.

Like the 4 or 5 times AP was on the field with his helmet off and the officals don't call a 15 yard penalty?

Right..... or the pass interference that was not called against Al Harris in week one. Had it been called the Vikings could have easily won that game.

:cry:

[Scott Campbell]

So are great players lucky more often than average players?

And do great teams blow out more teams to stay out of tight games, and away from luck influenced outcomes?

[Patler]

The problem with looking at just margin of victory to determine a "close game"is that the final margin is not necessarily indicative of the nature of the game. Nearly 40% of all NFL games are decided by 6 points or less, yet I would not call 40% of all NFL games close games.

Too many games that are not particularly close the first 50+ minutes become "close" under the 6 point criteria only in the waning moments of a game. A team comfortably in the lead plays prevent defense and very conservative on offense, and sees a 20 point lead cut to six as time runs out. Conversely, we have all seen seesaw battles late into the 4th quarter all of a sudden swing significantly to one team because of a couple turnovers during the last few minutes.

To properly evaluate the effects of coaching vs. "luck" on close games, one really has to analyze the nature of the game and how the game was decided. If a team has a 20+ point lead into the 4th quarter, and wins by 3 or 6, did their coach do a good job winning a close game, or a poor job for darn near losing a game that should have been in hand? Did the losing coach do badly because he lost a close game, or does he get credit for almost staging a great comeback?

[woodbuck27]

I watched the games and found this to be the biggest problem. This team is soft when it matters and can't stomp on the throat of the enemy. They can take them to the ground but are too gutless to finish the job.Please give me an example of a player being gutless on the team. Please give me an example of a player being soft. Otherwise, this is a bland generalization of an emotional reaction to losing a game. This does not tell me why they lost, just how someone felt about it. You need to break this down to a finite act, something we can observe and measure. Otherwise its just announcer twaddle that sounds convincing because you are finding fault with the team that lost. It tells us nothing about WHY. Did Hawk struggle because he soft or injured? Did Pickett struggle because he suddenly became soft, injured, or without adequate help at the other DT?


My beef with the team is the lack of mental toughness, which is a reflection on the coach.Please show me a concrete example, a finite one, of mental toughness. Or the lack thereof. Did Tramon Williams struggle after going back to the nickel spot because of toughness? Where did you see it?


his play calling with the lead could provide some doubt.This gives us something to work with. But it has nothing to do with toughness or softness or aggression. The strategy used works most of the time. There is a reason people as diverse as Bill Parcells, Belicheck, Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs and Mike Holmgren have used it. Tell me why it failed with McCarthy and the 08 Packers, don't just remind me that it did.

Unless you can point to the event on the field, these are just emotionalisms. Provide us with something specific, more than the fact that the Packers were getting outscored in the 4th quarter. Why did it happen?

No any intended or personal knock on you Partial but we can all learn from this post. I'll add that it's the job of the coach's to review plays that are decisive to loss's and communicate clearly with players that may have screwed up. The GM must ensure that the players have the reasonable skill level to execute properly.

Defensive and offensive philosophy - acquisition - communication - practise - analysis of results- PRACTISE. Players make and remain on a team based on attitude and dedication to contribute. PRACTISE.

I'm getting you pbmax. Here ladies and gentleman is the difference between a mere post and a great post. It calls upon us all to use our brains and not so much our emotions.

It demands of us what is needed to make this forum truly a solid one and not what we see all over the internet and can be best summed up as ignorance and lousy manners.

GO PACK GO!

[Waldo]

And do great teams blow out more teams to stay out of tight games, and away from luck influenced outcomes?

Nope, no pattern to that either. Some years there will be 3 close ones, some years there will be 10.

There is no why. No matter how much we want to believe that there is.

[Fritz]

Poor kickers. Their mistakes are so apparent. I sometimes wonder if, after a "if only the kicker had..." statement, there might be two missed blocks that a lineman might've had that - had he made them - might've won the team the two games it lost.

Or if two dropped passes could be the difference between 9-7 and 7-9. Or two missed linebacker assignments.

and so on.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Or look at the other side of the coin. How many FGs, dropped passes, etc. were there for the opposing teams in the 6 wins the Pack had last year?

Again, that's just football.

However, some coaches and players will tell you luck is where hard work and opportunity meet.

I thought hard work and opportunity met at a beautiful woman.

On a more serious note - wow. A real football discussion. This is so wonderful I'm pinching myself to make sure it's real.

Thank you Waldo, Hoosier, Cheesner, and all who have contributed to this thoughtful analysis.

[Scott Campbell]

And do great teams blow out more teams to stay out of tight games, and away from luck influenced outcomes?

Nope, no pattern to that either. Some years there will be 3 close ones, some years there will be 10.

There is no why. No matter how much we want to believe that there is.


Ok, but then how do great coaches consistently field great teams? Are they just statistical outliers?

I'd like to think that Vince had a little more going for him than luck.

[Fritz]

And do great teams blow out more teams to stay out of tight games, and away from luck influenced outcomes?

Nope, no pattern to that either. Some years there will be 3 close ones, some years there will be 10.

There is no why. No matter how much we want to believe that there is.


Ok, but then how do great coaches consistently field great teams? Are they just statistical outliers?

I'd like to think that Vince had a little more going for him than luck.

He read Goethe's Faust and worked out his own deal?

[RashanGary]

I'll buy the bad breaks for part of it. I certainly don't think it was the biggest reason and not even close.


Defense was the #1 reason (goes on Thompson and Sanders)
Special teams was the #2 reason (goes on Thompson)
Stubborn coaching (playing like you have a good defense and good running game even though you don't) was #3 IMO (McCarthy)
Injuries were #4 (trainer)
Unusually high number of bad bounces would be #5 for me. Maybe a game, two at most. (just the way it worked out but we did get BJ Raji)

[woodbuck27]

At one point in the season, Ryan was ranked right at the bottom in the major statistics. Not sure how he finished out.

Maybe you could look that up falco? You were never on board with Jon Ryan as I recall.

GO PACKERS!

This is too funny. In other thread, you said that I was a poster with an axe to grind and a long and selective memory. I didn't post back, because I was at work, but couldn't figure out what the heck you were talking about, since you and I have never really exchanged words.

Then I read this post and remembered that at one point in time you had flipped out at back at JSO (ca 2005?) because I made a joke about Jon Ryan being Canadian. For the record, I was never against him, but you seemed to lash out at me regardless.

And yet, I am the one with the long memory...

after reading that below I decided to edit my post to stick to your response falco as it related to football:

To the OP - I've split the non-football related stuff out of this topic. You can find it in a similar named thread in the Romper Room.


To everyone - Back to a good discussion. Administrator

To be on topic Re: football:

I could be wrong falco, but it seems to me that when I checked and as I re-call that was late in 2008. Jon Ryan was showing up as one of the top eight punters overall in the NFL. I didn't check his final stats for 2008 falco.

GO PACK GO!

[GBRulz]

I'm going to throw in another reason why I think we struggled that I haven't seen posted yet.....

Since when are the Packers a freaken dome team? M3 practices indoors wayyyyyy too damn much. Our worst two cold weather performances in many years have both come under the M3 regime and yes, I partially blame it on not being prepared to play in the cold.

[Scott Campbell]

Since Woody wisely edited his comments out, I will too.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm the sort that generally stands for the downtrodden, the newcomer, the minority, the less privaleged,m the new guy. . .you get the picture falco.



I think it's wonderful that we have that in common Woody.

[woodbuck27]

Some of us come from a culture that places alot of and /or respect based in the wolf pack mentality. We grow alot in not just having our scraps but in how we follow up after licking our wounds. Some never allow that growth in themselves. Rather wear the cloak of the village idiot and look for every opportunity to continue the last fight.


So you're saying that some of us are Canadian?

Scott. Please get on topic. I revised the post the above comes from.

I'm going to ignore you Scott Campbell to save you more embarassment.

In future I will ignore you and cpk1994. Your two of a kind and nothing I have to deal with.

I'll add this. In my view you've always come off as the poor soul. I've never come across anyone in my life that criuses to be bruised like you Scott.

Your the classic bully Scott and you always suffer your own fate man. You cannnot get out of your own way. That's sad to pathetic that you live on our forum to harass and intimidate. It's worse that you even imagine you might survive that behaviour Scott Campbell. In the past even your groupies :D couldn't pull you in. You just go on beating yourself up Scott.

[mission]

Some of us come from a culture that places alot of and /or respect based in the wolf pack mentality. We grow alot in not just having our scraps but in how we follow up after licking our wounds. Some never allow that growth in themselves. Rather wear the cloak of the village idiot and look for every opportunity to continue the last fight.


So you're saying that some of us are Canadian?

I'm going to ignore you Scott Campbell to save you more embarassment.

In future I will ignore you and cpk1994. Your two of a kind.

I'll add this. In my view you've always come off as the poor soul. I've never come across anyone in my life that criuses to be bruised like you Scott.

Your the classic bully Scott and you always suffer your own fate man. You cannnot get out of your own way. That's sad to pathetic.

I'm offended that you didn't include me in your condemning...

[Scott Campbell]

There's no need for personal attacks Woody.

I think everyone is very glad you're here and posting. Welcome back. Perhaps you took some things I said in the past personally. If so, I'm sorry. I'd like to start anew. And you're right, this is a place for football posts.

Jon Ryan finished 7th in the league last year. I was very proud of him for you.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm offended that you didn't include me in your condemning...



I think there's plenty of room for all of us here. Woody is every bit as good a poster and human being as I am, and as you are. Were are all equal.

So lets talk Packer football!!!!

[woodbuck27]

So are great players lucky more often than average players?

And do great teams blow out more teams to stay out of tight games, and away from luck influenced outcomes?

Here is a solid post in terms of the question Scott:

1. So are great players lucky more often than average players?

My answer Scott:

A majority of great players will often say that their good fortunes regarding the play etc. are due to some good lu8ck. Now that response is just based in my long association with athletes and as a sports fan.

2. Do great teams blow out more teams to stay out of tight games, and away from luck influenced outcomes?

Mr response :

Great teams will more likely see game outcomes where the quality of that teams play will show lopsided scores. Those same teams will still experience close scores as an outcome. I believe that the better prepared a team is the more likely it will be great and win those close games. In those close games the element of luck will saw back and forth but preperation meets results rules over luck.

GO PACK GO!

[woodbuck27]

Some of us come from a culture that places alot of and /or respect based in the wolf pack mentality. We grow alot in not just having our scraps but in how we follow up after licking our wounds. Some never allow that growth in themselves. Rather wear the cloak of the village idiot and look for every opportunity to continue the last fight.


So you're saying that some of us are Canadian?

I'm going to ignore you Scott Campbell to save you more embarassment.

In future I will ignore you and cpk1994. Your two of a kind.

I'll add this. In my view you've always come off as the poor soul. I've never come across anyone in my life that criuses to be bruised like you Scott.

Your the classic bully Scott and you always suffer your own fate man. You cannnot get out of your own way. That's sad to pathetic.

I'm offended that you didn't include me in your condemning...

Sorry for the hurt feelings mission. :D

Today we have a minor car accident that could result in deaths. Do you prefer a chain reaction and the probability of deaths to rise?

GO PACK GO!

[Scott Campbell]

A fine post Woody.

Here's to our new found friendship built upon mutual respect as equal contributors to PackerRats, and mankind.

:glug:

[falco]

Woody, I think Jon Ryan was a good punter. When you attacked me way back when at JSO, it was because I defended TT. You were lambasting TT for allowing Jon Ryan to head to Cincinatti without signing him. I said, hey, we don't know the whole story. You jumped all over me and accused me of hating Canadians, or something to that effect.

I liked Jon Ryan when he was here. Thought he could have been good for us. So you are barking up the wrong tree.

As a side note, that kickass play where they cancelled the fake punt, but Jon Ryan didn't get memo and got the first anyway, that was awesome. Can someone post a clip?

[woodbuck27]

There's no need for personal attacks Woody.

I think everyone is very glad you're here and posting. Welcome back. Perhaps you took some things I said in the past personally. If so, I'm sorry. I'd like to start anew. And you're right, this is a place for football posts.

Jon Ryan finished 7th in the league last year. I was very proud of him for you.

This certainly isn't a place to act immaturely Scott. Manners are often based in more or less ignorance.We need to learn to pardon ignorance.

A truce should last longer that the shame of the Palestine/Israel Peace talks.

That has always been the only way for you and I Scott. Different personalitys and different upbringings and cultures can collide overruling co-operation. One must look beyond ego and selfish motives and you know that's true Scott where some may not.

Bottom line is noone on this forum is bigger than the pursuit of the greater part to talk football. You by now know where I stand there as it's been over 4 years since we met on a forum Scott. I only post on the footbal thread and romper room.

All this Brett Favre and Brett Favre Vs Ted Thompson stuff is going to likely end up with a load of crow being swollowed and or egg on some posters face. When we post on that issue I advise all to be prepared for a result that knocks them on their seat. As a forum we have to survive any short term outcomes. Not ever get too stu;pid. :D

GO PACKERS!

GO PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

A fine post Woody.

Here's to our new found friendship built upon mutual respect as equal contributors to PackerRats, and mankind.

:glug:

You were doing so good too Scott. Man after four years your too easy to read. Just leave out two words from the above and read the different result Scott. Your not posting anyone Scott. Your posting woodbuck27 and like it or not I'm no dummy.

Palestine/Israel ! !

[Scott Campbell]

This certainly isn't a place to act immaturely Scott. Manners are often based in more or less ignorance.We need to learn to pardon ignorance.


Profound. You won't read that in any fortune cookie. I look forward to many more of these little pearls of wisdom, as together we shall light the way towards posting tolerance. Keep fighting the good fight Woody. Lets make PackerRats the best it can be!

GO PACK GO!!!!

:glug:

[woodbuck27]

Woody, I think Jon Ryan was a good punter. When you attacked me way back when at JSO, it was because I defended TT. You were lambasting TT for allowing Jon Ryan to head to Cincinatti without signing him. I said, hey, we don't know the whole story. You jumped all over me and accused me of hating Canadians, or something to that effect.

I liked Jon Ryan when he was here. Thought he could have been good for us. So you are barking up the wrong tree.

As a side note, that kickass play where they cancelled the fake punt, but Jon Ryan didn't get memo and got the first anyway, that was awesome. Can someone post a clip?

Why can't we just maybe decide if dumping Jon Ryan ( and doing so down to the end of TC last year ) was prudent? Look at him as a punter ( forget his nationality of origin) before he arrived as a Packer and his results in Seattle in 2008 NFL season.

I'll go first. I disagreed with the move to cut Jon Ryan as I felt his history and character exemplified him as a Green Bay Packer for years to come. His results in seattle back up my position.

GO PACK GO!

[Scott Campbell]

His yardage in Seattle looked respectable. But the reasons for dumping Ryan were well chronicled. He out kicked his coverage, had a tortoise like get away time, lacked hang time, and couldn't reliably kick directionally.

The mistake wasn't in dumping him. The mistake was dumping him as late as they did, and without having an adequate replacement. It helped cost Stock his job. And it reflected very poorly on Thompson.

[woodbuck27]

This certainly isn't a place to act immaturely Scott. Manners are often based in more or less ignorance.We need to learn to pardon ignorance.


Profound. You won't read that in any fortune cookie. I look forward to many more of these little pearls of wisdom, as together we shall light the way towards posting tolerance. Keep fighting the good fight Woody. Lets make PackerRats the best it can be!

GO PACK GO!!!!

:glug:

Scott you won't tred in a soupy pool of sarcasm and survive as well as the other chap can tred water. Unfortunately Scott. Real change only results as a result of reflection after pain.

A wise man once said. Before you enter battle against any man. Be well aware of that opponents skills. Better to greet all well.

Getting back to football I'm thinking of Brett Favre for sure now in terms of the above.

and. . . . . .

Good Vs Bad karma.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm doing all I can to stay out of the gutter Woody.


So who the hell is going to be our punter this year? And why haven't we read anything about it yet?

GO PACK GO!!!

:glug:

[pbmax]

Nope, need to give this another try.

[cpk1994]

So who the hell is going to be our punter this year? And why haven't we read anything about it yet?

GO PACK GO!!!

:glug:Becuase they haven't gotten to training camp yet?

[MJZiggy]

What's wrong with Kapinos? I thought he did fine!?

[cpk1994]

What's wrong with Kapinos? I thought he did fine!?I don't think anyone said anything was wrong with Kapinos. What was wrong was how long it took to get to him and what was done in the interim.

[falco]

Kapinos was acceptable, but he's not a guy you take to camp without serious competition.

[falco]

Why can't we just maybe decide if dumping Jon Ryan ( and doing so down to the end of TC last year ) was prudent? Look at him as a punter ( forget his nationality of origin) before he arrived as a Packer and his results in Seattle in 2008 NFL season.

I'll go first. I disagreed with the move to cut Jon Ryan as I felt his history and character exemplified him as a Green Bay Packer for years to come. His results in seattle back up my position.GO PACK GO!

For the record, I do think dumping Jon Ryan was a mistake... and I believe you are the one who has had a hard time forgetting his nationality of origin... no one else gives a damn where he came from.

[MJZiggy]

By the way, PB, fantastic idea for a thread. You know how I feel about media and you know I think we're better than they are. We proved it too if they were only paying attention!!! 8-)

[RashanGary]

7th ranked ST's dropped to 26th ranked ST's (Dallas Morning News overall ST's ranking)
9th ranked defense dropped to 20th ranked defense (NFL.com ypg stat)
Offense went from 3rd to 8th



There is zero question in my mind that the Packers got worse last year. The luck card is the smallest of factors.

The good thing is they've added DL. They've kept their offense together for yet another year. There is no reason to believe they can't be back in the top 10 in all areas next year. No reason at all.

[woodbuck27]

I'm going to throw in another reason why I think we struggled that I haven't seen posted yet.....

Since when are the Packers a freaken dome team? M3 practices indoors wayyyyyy too damn much. Our worst two cold weather performances in many years have both come under the M3 regime and yes, I partially blame it on not being prepared to play in the cold.

I believe your absolutely correct GBRulz. It comes down to common sense and back to the toughness needed by the best teams.

GO PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

7th ranked ST's dropped to 26th ranked ST's (Dallas Morning News overall ST's ranking)
9th ranked defense dropped to 20th ranked defense (NFL.com ypg stat)
Offense went from 3rd to 8th



There is zero question in my mind that the Packers got worse last year. The luck card is the smallest of factors.

The good thing is they've added DL. They've kept their offense together for yet another year. There is no reason to believe they can't be back in the top 10 in all areas next year. No reason at all.

This bad!

7th ranked ST's dropped to 26th ranked ST's (Dallas Morning News overall ST's ranking)

9th ranked defense dropped to 20th ranked defense (NFL.com ypg stat)

Offense went from 3rd to 8th

GO PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

Why can't we just maybe decide if dumping Jon Ryan ( and doing so down to the end of TC last year ) was prudent? Look at him as a punter ( forget his nationality of origin) before he arrived as a Packer and his results in Seattle in 2008 NFL season.

I'll go first. I disagreed with the move to cut Jon Ryan as I felt his history and character exemplified him as a Green Bay Packer for years to come. His results in seattle back up my position.GO PACK GO!

For the record, I do think dumping Jon Ryan was a mistake... and I believe you are the one who has had a hard time forgetting his nationality of origin... no one else gives a damn where he came from.

falco your tone here is obviously strained. Just relax please. I suggest we leave the past in the past and here just be Packer fans.

GO PACK GO!

[Scott Campbell]

Why can't we just maybe decide if dumping Jon Ryan ( and doing so down to the end of TC last year ) was prudent? Look at him as a punter ( forget his nationality of origin) before he arrived as a Packer and his results in Seattle in 2008 NFL season.

I'll go first. I disagreed with the move to cut Jon Ryan as I felt his history and character exemplified him as a Green Bay Packer for years to come. His results in seattle back up my position.GO PACK GO!

For the record, I do think dumping Jon Ryan was a mistake... and I believe you are the one who has had a hard time forgetting his nationality of origin... no one else gives a damn where he came from.


I don't believe his nationality of origin should be held against him. I wouldn't care if he was from Chicago, as long as he can kick. I wonder if his getaway time has improved, or he's a blocked kick waiting to happen every time he touches the ball.

GO PACK GO!!!

:glug:

[woodbuck27]

Why can't we just maybe decide if dumping Jon Ryan ( and doing so down to the end of TC last year ) was prudent? Look at him as a punter ( forget his nationality of origin) before he arrived as a Packer and his results in Seattle in 2008 NFL season.

I'll go first. I disagreed with the move to cut Jon Ryan as I felt his history and character exemplified him as a Green Bay Packer for years to come. His results in seattle back up my position.GO PACK GO!

For the record, I do think dumping Jon Ryan was a mistake... and I believe you are the one who has had a hard time forgetting his nationality of origin... no one else gives a damn where he came from.

I don't believe his nationality of origin should be held against him. I wouldn't care if he was from Chicago, as long as he can kick. I wonder if his getaway time has improved, or he's a blocked kick waiting to happen every time he touches the ball.

GO PACK GO!!!

:glug:

I had prepared a splendid response to this post, and whoooshhh, it went off somewhere.

Scott. Do you like Canada better than Chicago? Chicago better than Minnesota?

Jon Ryan.

I don't imagine his nationality was a factor in his being cut. It simply was an error in terms of short term needs Scott. It's very hard to get a read on alot of things that happen with our team.

That's why we're here. :D

GO PACK GO!

[woodbuck27]

His yardage in Seattle looked respectable. But the reasons for dumping Ryan were well chronicled. He out kicked his coverage, had a tortoise like get away time, lacked hang time, and couldn't reliably kick directionally.

The mistake wasn't in dumping him. The mistake was dumping him as late as they did, and without having an adequate replacement. It helped cost Stock his job. And it reflected very poorly on Thompson.

OK good. So Scott. In your final analysis Jon Ryan was simply a lousy punter in a Green Bay Packer uniform? He couldn't adapt his skills to the NFL style of game? Yet he's picked up right away and punts well with Seattle?

Just a thought here:

Alot of pressure on the coach's when the GM takes a hands off whatever is going on in the field approach or hides out alot. If I brought Jon Ryan in and saw he was growing and he was Scott. I'd have plenty to say before any ST coach dumped that man for nothing really to count on.

PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

I'm doing all I can to stay out of the gutter Woody.


So who the hell is going to be our punter this year? And why haven't we read anything about it yet?

GO PACK GO!!!

:glug:

:D OK Scott.

[Scott Campbell]

I had prepared a splendid response to this post, and whoooshhh, it went off somewhere.


Off somewhere? You mean like to Harlan?

I'm confused.




I think Jon Ryan is in a better place now. The fans in Seattle seem to appreciate him more than we did.


GO PACK GO!!!


:glug:

[Scott Campbell]

OK good. So Scott. In your final analysis Jon Ryan was simply a lousy punter in a Green Bay Packer uniform? He couldn't adapt his skills to the NFL style of game? Yet he's picked up right away and punts well with Seattle?

Just a thought here:

Alot of pressure on the coach's when the GM takes a hands off whatever is going on in the field approach or hides out alot. If I brought Jon Ryan in and saw he was growing and he was Scott. I'd have plenty to say before any ST coach dumped that man for nothing really to count on.

PACKERS!


A reasonable perspective.

I remember that after the move, Stock's comments made it sound like he was uncoachable.

[woodbuck27]

I had prepared a splendid response to this post, and whoooshhh, it went off somewhere.


Off somewhere? You mean like to Harlan?

I'm confused.




I think Jon Ryan is in a better place now. The fans in Seattle seem to appreciate him more than we did.


GO PACK GO!!!


:glug:

Harlan? Come on Scott. Your paranoid. There can't be much left of that skeleton. You've dragged it around like a wee childs security blanket for what? Three years now.

Let it go Scott. I mean, I'm concerned for you.

What kind of place do you live in man? Football Scott. That other stuff is for the psychiatrist's office not here.

GO! Packers !!

[Scott Campbell]

Geez, I thought you and Harlan exchanged emails. Your tone here is obviously strained. Just relax please.

I'm committed to nurturing our new relationship as equals - both as posters, and as human beings. I'm as good as you. And you're every bit as good as me. :D

So how bout we knock the nonsense off, and stick to football?

I did feel badly for you the day Ryan was cut. I know you were pulling for him.

GO PACK GO!!!! :glug:

[SkinBasket]

This can't continue. It's like when everyone started using each other's avatars.

[Scott Campbell]

This can't continue. It's like when everyone started using each other's avatars.



Ahhh yes. Good times.

[woodbuck27]

Geez, I thought you and Harlan exchanged emails. Your tone here is obviously strained. Just relax please.

I'm committed to nurturing our new relationship as equals - both as posters, and as human beings. I'm as good as you. And you're every bit as good as me. :D

So how bout we knock the nonsense off, and stick to football?

I did feel badly for you the day Ryan was cut. I know you were pulling for him.

GO PACK GO!!!! :glug:

YES! Football please Scott.

I don't bother posters here with matters I handle well by myself. Take that issue away (of what I can't even re-call) and the way that crap went down on Harlan away too please. It's not relevent in any sane sense to now.

Let go!

Secondly I wasn't aware there was any nonsence going on bet. you and I Scott. End of that.

[Patler]

OK good. So Scott. In your final analysis Jon Ryan was simply a lousy punter in a Green Bay Packer uniform? He couldn't adapt his skills to the NFL style of game? Yet he's picked up right away and punts well with Seattle?

Just a thought here:

Alot of pressure on the coach's when the GM takes a hands off whatever is going on in the field approach or hides out alot. If I brought Jon Ryan in and saw he was growing and he was Scott. I'd have plenty to say before any ST coach dumped that man for nothing really to count on.

PACKERS!

A little perspective on Jon Ryan. He was similar in Seattle in 2008 to what he was in GB in 2007. Among the league leaders in gross average, but also among the league leaders in the number touchbacks, and in the lower level in number of kicks downed inside the 20. As a result, his net average (which is really more important than gross average, in my opinion) was in the middle of the league. He remains what he was, a punter with a big leg who is still learning the finer points of punting. He could be a very, very good punter if he figures out that part of it.

I'm not sure that Seattle is so set on Ryan long term. Almost every FA punter of any note has been rumored to be being courted by the Seahawks, including Adam Graessle who signed with the Packers last month after getting a similar offer from the Seahawks. The Packers have since released him, but I don't see that the Seahawks have made a new offer to him.

[woodbuck27]

OK good. So Scott. In your final analysis Jon Ryan was simply a lousy punter in a Green Bay Packer uniform? He couldn't adapt his skills to the NFL style of game? Yet he's picked up right away and punts well with Seattle?

Just a thought here:

Alot of pressure on the coach's when the GM takes a hands off whatever is going on in the field approach or hides out alot. If I brought Jon Ryan in and saw he was growing and he was Scott. I'd have plenty to say before any ST coach dumped that man for nothing really to count on.

PACKERS!

A little perspective on Jon Ryan. He was similar in Seattle in 2008 to what he was in GB in 2007. Among the league leaders in gross average, but also among the league leaders in the number touchbacks, and in the lower level in number of kicks downed inside the 20. As a result, his net average (which is really more important than gross average, in my opinion) was in the middle of the league. He remains what he was, a punter with a big leg who is still learning the finer points of punting. He could be a very, very good punter if he figures out that part of it.

I'm not sure that Seattle is so set on Ryan long term. Almost every FA punter of any note has been rumored to be being courted by the Seahawks, including Adam Graessle who signed with the Packers last month after getting a similar offer from the Seahawks. The Packers have since released him, but I don't see that the Seahawks have made a new offer to him.

The question then is:

Will Jon Ryan ever smarten up?

[Scott Campbell]

The question then is:

Will Jon Ryan ever smarten up?


Some Canadians are late bloomers, so I'm still pulling for him.


GO PACK GO!!!!

:glug:

[Patler]

The question then is:

Will Jon Ryan ever smarten up?

That clearly is the question. Apparently, the Packers believed that he would not. He is beyond being a "young player", he will be 28 during the season. His NFL exposure is very limited, and expectations of an NFL punter are different than a CFL punter, so he is "young" in that regard.

Some have mentioned the play he ran when a faked punt had been called off, but he failed to realize it. Preseason last year, right? I thought that was the play that might have sealed his fate in GB. Stock had some comments about it being a nice effort, but questioned why everyone else on the punt team knew it was off, but the punter did not. A mistake like that at a crucial time could be a killer. After his poor performances in crucial games in 2007, I thought this might have been the last straw, with the staff losing all confidence in Ryan.

He will be an interesting player to follow for the next year or two. Will he or won't he make it to the next level?

[woodbuck27]

The question then is:

Will Jon Ryan ever smarten up?


Some Canadians are late bloomers, so I'm still pulling for him.


GO PACK GO!!!!

:glug:

I read it and I'm ignoring it.

[RashanGary]

He will be an interesting player to follow for the next year or two. Will he or won't he make it to the next level?

I'm just curious, Patler, I've seen comments like these in the past. You're interested in outcomes but rarely have any opinion one way or the other how it might pan out.

If it pans out one way or the other, what do you learn? What did you reinforce? Can you use that information for going forward for anthing other than discussion what happened? Do you know the why of anything or at least have a good theory?

You seem to be very thorough at using facts to make a strong case for what actually happened after the fact. Is that what you enjoy?

I like to see results too, but I like to find patterns and use them to predict the future. It's a challenge for me. I don't see talking about what happened as a challenge but you seem to love it. I'm just curious where you're coming from. I guess I don't understand your motivation.

[woodbuck27]

He will be an interesting player to follow for the next year or two. Will he or won't he make it to the next level?

I'm just curious, Patler, I've seen comments like these in the past. You're interested in outcomes but rarely have any opinion one way or the other how it might pan out.

If it pans out one way or the other, what do you learn? What did you reinforce? Can you use that information for going forward for anthing other than discussion what happened? Do you know the why of anything or at least have a good theory?

You seem to be very thorough at using facts to make a strong case for what actually happened after the fact. Is that what you enjoy?

I like to see results too, but I like to find patterns and use them to predict the future. It's a challenge for me. I don't see talking about what happened as a challenge but you seem to love it. I'm just curious where you're coming from. I guess I don't understand your motivation.

Your like me JH. Into the analytical. What makes this or that tick. We're not inventors or I'm not.

[Patler]

He will be an interesting player to follow for the next year or two. Will he or won't he make it to the next level?

I'm just curious, Patler, I've seen comments like these in the past. You're interested in outcomes but rarely have any opinion one way or the other how it might pan out.

If it pans out one way or the other, what do you learn? What did you reinforce? Can you use that information for going forward for anthing other than discussion what happened? Do you know the why of anything or at least have a good theory?

You seem to be very thorough at using facts to make a strong case for what actually happened after the fact. Is that what you enjoy?

I like to see results too, but I like to find patterns and use them to predict the future. It's a challenge for me. I don't see talking about what happened as a challenge but you seem to love it. I'm just curious where you're coming from. I guess I don't understand your motivation.


With all that I put in my posts on Ryan, it is rather odd that you would focus on just that one sentence. However, following him should be interesting regardless of your opinion about him, to determine if your opinion is right or wrong, if the Packers were right or wrong, if Seattle is right or wrong. It will give you a factual case history that might have value in assessing the potential of another CFL punter, or another big legged, slow get off somewhat uncontrolled punter of any background. I suppose it could provide data points for evaluating redheaded punters, but I doubt it.

The best predictor of the future is an understanding of the past. Perhaps if you focus on the content of my posts, rather than just an off-handed comment at the end of one, you will discern my opinion. I try to make my posts a logic presentation of facts that are intended to sway the reader to form an opinion which in fact is my opinion. What do my posts imply about Ryan? In short, that Ryan is what he has been, he hasn't changed, he isn't likely to change at this stage, and at least two teams don't seem to have a high regard for his development. Do you not see an opinion that I hope to sway others toward?????


A little perspective on Jon Ryan. He was similar in Seattle in 2008 to what he was in GB in 2007. Among the league leaders in gross average, but also among the league leaders in the number touchbacks, and in the lower level in number of kicks downed inside the 20. As a result, his net average (which is really more important than gross average, in my opinion) was in the middle of the league. He remains what he was, a punter with a big leg who is still learning the finer points of punting. He could be a very, very good punter if he figures out that part of it.

I'm not sure that Seattle is so set on Ryan long term. Almost every FA punter of any note has been rumored to be being courted by the Seahawks, including Adam Graessle who signed with the Packers last month after getting a similar offer from the Seahawks. The Packers have since released him, but I don't see that the Seahawks have made a new offer to him.


That clearly is the question. Apparently, the Packers believed that he would not. He is beyond being a "young player", he will be 28 during the season. His NFL exposure is very limited, and expectations of an NFL punter are different than a CFL punter, so he is "young" in that regard.

Some have mentioned the play he ran when a faked punt had been called off, but he failed to realize it. Preseason last year, right? I thought that was the play that might have sealed his fate in GB. Stock had some comments about it being a nice effort, but questioned why everyone else on the punt team knew it was off, but the punter did not. A mistake like that at a crucial time could be a killer. After his poor performances in crucial games in 2007, I thought this might have been the last straw, with the staff losing all confidence in Ryan.

Have I not focused on the aspects of his career that are negative? Have I not supported it factually? I have recognized counter arguments (lack of NFL experience) but dismissed them without support.

You seem to believe that the only way to express an opinion is by confrontation with other posters, and by using demeaning and degrading descriptions of players about whom you have a negative opinion (Favre, Blackmon, etc.). I think it can be done more diplomatically than that. Most of the players are trying their best, but they may lack talent, physical attributes, instinct or even basic intelligence. So long as their effort is there, I will not berate them.

[Scott Campbell]

So long as their effort is there, I will not berate them.


Wisdom.


It's a shame that I'm not that smart.

[Fritz]

Subtlety and class and the use of facts, Patler, are not the strong suits of some folks here.

If you would only call people names and berate them personally for, say, their opinions of whether Favre has betrayed the Packers or whether Justin Harrell is already a bust due to his laziness and Thompson's stubbornness - disregarding the injury history is what I think people say - then we could more easily discern your opinion.

It'd go something like this:

"Jon Ryan sucked before, he clearly sucks now, and will continue to suck until he's out of the league, which shouldn't take long. Plus he's Canadian and that contributes to his suckiness. And anyone who doesn't agree with me is a God*&&%%$*@!)%$*&!!@#(*^$#!!!!"

See? It's easy. You can do it!

PS - Also, P., it's perfectly acceptable to post such drivel even if, two years ago, you were touting Jon Ryan as the next Ray Guy. Most people won't remember, and of those who do, most are too lazy to try to find your posts on the topic. So you don't ever have to be wrong! It's great!

[RashanGary]

I see the purpose of your form of communication. It's certainly more persuasive than mine. I make a point that I think is obvious to somebody who obviously hasn't caught on to it. It almost draws a line in the sand.

You are sort of agreeable, but manage to sprinkle your points in, in a way that it's almost like you never expressed an opinion at all. By doing that, readers sort of connect dots and make their own opinion that happens to be like yours. Hey, the best ideas are our own ideas so I can see how your style is persuasive.



I've always thought you thought getting rid of Ryan had it's merits.
I've always thought you approve of Ted Thompson as GM.
I've always thought you approved of moving on from Brett Favre.

I don't think one person on this forum knows what you think of Ted and Mike. I don't think one person knows what you think of anything, really. They know you present facts, but you never really say you think there are more on one side than the other. You just talk about them, and then when something is finalized, you talk about what happened.

Maybe in your own mind you have theories and ideas of what you think is coming (not what already happened), I don't think you really put them out there though. It would be nice to hear what you think, not what you know once in a while. Knowing things is boring. Thinking things is open for debate and fun.

[Scott Campbell]

Hey, anybody could post like Patler if they had a research staff of 32 people.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't think one person on this forum knows what you think of Ted and Mike.



I think he's hinted at his opinion on Ted on plenty of occasions.

[RashanGary]

Hey, anybody could post like Patler if they had a research staff of 32 people.

Yeah. He's impressive. And sometimes, he remembers things that are important to an issue that you can just tell he made a little mental note of it when it was said and was going to go back to it when things are finished. You can see he's obviously got ideas. He wouldn't just happen to remember important details unless he viewed them as important at the time he read them. I know he's a good poster, I hope I'm not sending a message otherwise here.

I get a little frustrated because they're never really expressed as a theory or in a "there is more reason to believe this than that" way. It's expressed in a, "there is reason to believe this or this" way.

Obviously Patler brings some great things, particularly an attention to detail and stellar memory of details that matter. I like to see the details and facts brought together to support a defined theory, not just left so open. I'm sure he knows what he thinks will happen or thinks is happening before it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't though. I think I know what Patler thinks, like I said, I just don't know.

[Scott Campbell]

I get a little frustrated...............


I disagree. I think if you get 3 or 4 guys who really know there stuff like he does, then you've got yourself a football forum. And I think we have more than that many here. The rest of us are just filler.

[cpk1994]

The question then is:

Will Jon Ryan ever smarten up?

That clearly is the question. Apparently, the Packers believed that he would not. He is beyond being a "young player", he will be 28 during the season. His NFL exposure is very limited, and expectations of an NFL punter are different than a CFL punter, so he is "young" in that regard.

Some have mentioned the play he ran when a faked punt had been called off, but he failed to realize it. Preseason last year, right? I thought that was the play that might have sealed his fate in GB. Stock had some comments about it being a nice effort, but questioned why everyone else on the punt team knew it was off, but the punter did not. A mistake like that at a crucial time could be a killer. After his poor performances in crucial games in 2007, I thought this might have been the last straw, with the staff losing all confidence in Ryan.

He will be an interesting player to follow for the next year or two. Will he or won't he make it to the next level?I think TT was fine with Ryan as his punter. Him not bringing in any competition for Ryan pretty much shows that. Stock was the only one who had a problem.

THe fake punt you mention was a regular season game at Minnesota.

[retailguy]

personally, I think it's easy to discern what Patler thinks. The facts he posts lead you to an obvious conclusion most of the time.

Why doesn't he state it? Simple, he knows he rarely has the "full information" to make a decision. Sometimes, the Packers haven't publicized it, and more often, full information requires the future. Since it hasn't happened yet, it isn't over. (Favre is a perfect example. It isn't likely that he'll have great success with the Vikings, but it is certainly possible. The future events will reveal that.)

He draws appropriate conclusions, but I can't recall him ever "forecasting" a conclusion. Likely scenarios, yes, conclusions that state definitive fact, no.

[RashanGary]

Maybe in your own mind you have theories and ideas of what you think is coming (not what already happened), I don't think you really put them out there though. It would be nice to hear what you think, not what you know once in a while. Knowing things is boring. Thinking things is open for debate and fun.


personally, I think it's easy to discern what Patler thinks. The facts he posts lead you to an obvious conclusion most of the time.

Why doesn't he state it? Simple, he knows he rarely has the "full information" to make a decision. Sometimes, the Packers haven't publicized it, and more often, full information requires the future. Since it hasn't happened yet, it isn't over. (Favre is a perfect example. It isn't likely that he'll have great success with the Vikings, but it is certainly possible. The future events will reveal that.)

He draws appropriate conclusions, but I can't recall him ever "forecasting" a conclusion. Likely scenarios, yes, conclusions that state definitive fact, no.

Not to be rude, RG, you've obviously lived more life than me and could probably school me in about 100 aspects that you're experienced in, but. . .

What the hell did you read? Are you just waking up from a dream and responding to what you imagined? Show me one point where I said Patler should know things beyond doubt before they happen. Not only did I not say that, I said the exact opposite. Again, not to be rude, but I don't know how to say I question your ability to read and reason without being rude.

[RashanGary]

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.


This is the scientific method. It's quite invigorating to play with. You should try it. Look at step 2. I think that is a concept you haven't quite wrapped your mind around. It's called forming a conjecture, or and idea of what you think will happen before it's proven. It's fun for those of us who wonder why and like to challenge ourselves. Patler brings some great stuff. He seems to have that type of mind, but he's not stating his theory in my opinion.

[retailguy]

Maybe in your own mind you have theories and ideas of what you think is coming (not what already happened), I don't think you really put them out there though. It would be nice to hear what you think, not what you know once in a while. Knowing things is boring. Thinking things is open for debate and fun.


personally, I think it's easy to discern what Patler thinks. The facts he posts lead you to an obvious conclusion most of the time.

Why doesn't he state it? Simple, he knows he rarely has the "full information" to make a decision. Sometimes, the Packers haven't publicized it, and more often, full information requires the future. Since it hasn't happened yet, it isn't over. (Favre is a perfect example. It isn't likely that he'll have great success with the Vikings, but it is certainly possible. The future events will reveal that.)

He draws appropriate conclusions, but I can't recall him ever "forecasting" a conclusion. Likely scenarios, yes, conclusions that state definitive fact, no.

Not to be rude, RG, you've obviously lived more life than me and could probably school me in about 100 aspects that you're experienced in, but. . .

What the hell did you read? Are you just waking up from a dream and responding to what you imagined? Show me one point where I said Patler should know things beyond doubt before they happen. Not only did I not say that, I said the exact opposite. Again, not to be rude, but I don't know how to say I question your ability to read and reason without being rude.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't drawing comparisons to you specifically. That wasn't my intent. If you want to own it, that's on you, not me, but i wasn't inferring anything.

What I was saying is that unlike many in this forum, he doesn't draw conclusions before the end. That's all. I think it's an admirable quality that many of us could emulate.

[RashanGary]

And like I said, I think it's obvious Patler has a scientific mind. Some of the details he remembers show me that he thought about possible scenarios, formed an opinion, and then waited to see how it played out.

Either he remembers everything he's ever read (I highly doubt) or he files what he reads based on perceived importance (I highly lean toward). The reason I think it's one of these two things is because the details he brings up and remembers are so important to the conclusion. They are the exact details you would want to remember to reinforce an opinion.

Clearly, Patler is a very curious, intelligent, wise person with great insight. I hope it doesn't come off like I'm tearing him down. I think I enjoy many of the same things as Patler. I think some of the things that drive him, also drive me. I'd just like to see a more clear step 2 so we can find out if his theory was right or wrong, so we know what his theory is.

I think I know he has them but without the step 2, I wonder what the hell his motivation is. I understand scientific curiosity. It's one of my main drives. Just discussing facts with no real purpose, that I don't really relate to and without a step 2, that's what it feels like to me.

[Scott Campbell]

This is the scientific method. It's quite invigorating to play with. You should try it.


I prefer the Brett Favre gunslinger methodology of logic. :lol:

[RashanGary]

And if you want my conjecture on Brett Favre with the Vikings (note to you, a conjecture is not a proven fact. It's a theory, directly stated, to be proven or disproven and I'm open to either. Because I put the Packers over my ego, I prefer to be wrong)

I think Brett Favre will succeed in Minnesota. (this is a direct example of step 2)

1. He has a great defense that can keep even the worst QB in ever game
2. Brett Favre isn't even close to the worst QB. He's a great upgrade over what they had last year IMO
3. I believe Adrian Peterson is the best running back in the game


I think Brett Favre will succeed. I think the Vikings will be very hard to overcome. I did not want to see Favre with the Vikings for this reason.

I don't ever remember Patler insinuating Favre would fail in Minnesota. You saying you understand him and then citing that as an example just shows how you make shit up as you go. I've never heard Patler even come close to making a theory on the matter, but if he did, I think he'd be a lot closer to the one I made than the one you said you saw him post.

[Scott Campbell]

I hope it doesn't come off like I'm tearing him down.


Not so much that, as it sounds like you're asking him to improve as a poster. That's probably not going to be a very popular position.

[retailguy]

LOL. I illustrated the Favre example PRECISELY because he has not weighed in. That was the point. :P

[falco]

I was at the game where Jon Ryan got the first on that fake punt. Since everyone else thought it was a real punt, I was watching downfield. All of a sudden I saw we had a first down.

I agree, it was a boneheaded play by Ryan, but in the end it got a first down. You may be right that it sealed his fate.

Dude was freaking ripped though.

[Scott Campbell]

I was at the game where Jon Ryan got the first on that fake punt. Since everyone else thought it was a real punt, I was watching downfield. All of a sudden I saw we had a first down.

I agree, it was a boneheaded play by Ryan, but in the end it got a first down. You may be right that it sealed his fate.

Dude was freaking ripped though.


I've never seen arms like that on a kicker.

[cpk1994]

I was at the game where Jon Ryan got the first on that fake punt. Since everyone else thought it was a real punt, I was watching downfield. All of a sudden I saw we had a first down.

I agree, it was a boneheaded play by Ryan, but in the end it got a first down. You may be right that it sealed his fate.

Dude was freaking ripped though.


I've never seen arms like that on a kicker.He must have been working out with Ed Hochuli.

[MJZiggy]

I hope it doesn't come off like I'm tearing him down.


Not so much that, as it sounds like you're asking him to improve as a poster. That's probably not going to be a very popular position.

Probably not actually possible either.

PATLER: Please check your PM.

[RashanGary]

LOL. I illustrated the Favre example PRECISELY because he has not weighed in. That was the point. :P

:) got me. I feel a little sheepish. . .



There are a lot of people with scientific minds that will make a theory and set out to prove or disprove it. Harvey and Tyrone think James Jones is a high end #3 WR. I think he's high end #2 material. Now James Jones career will tell who is right. I might be wrong. They might be wrong. Nothing is proven, but that's what we do. It's fun.

Some people can't have fun with it because they're either sarcastic, rude and intolerant or they are stubborn and frustrating to deal with because they never admit wrong. Those people always wonder why everyone is out to get them. Well, look in the mirror.

[retailguy]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P :wink:

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society. :D

[Patler]

He draws appropriate conclusions, but I can't recall him ever "forecasting" a conclusion. Likely scenarios, yes, conclusions that state definitive fact, no.

OK, lets discuss that.

When Sherman's contract was extended, who predicted he would be gone within a couple years? Patler. (Was it still JSO then?)

Who predicted the Giants would win the playoff game? Patler. (I took a lot of crap for that before AND after the game.)

Who predicted that Favre would retire shortly after the Giant's game? Patler. (Some thought I was crazy because of the Packers success, but I stuck to it. After it actually happened I was begged to predict a positive Packer story!)

When Bretsky asked what would happen if Favre wanted to return (before he even asked to return) who said he would never play for the Packers again? Patler.

Before playoffs even started, who predicted that the UW Men and UW Women would win NCAA hockey Championships in the same year? Patler. (My preferred sport is hockey, and a game that I actually know something about.)

Who predicted at the end of 2005 that Atlas Herrion would be a starter at guard in 2006? Patler. (OK, so I was wrong!)

I could go on, but I really see no need to defend myself. I really don't care if others know my opinion or not. If I persuade you to accept it as yours without browbeating you with the fact that it is mine, I've accomplished my goals! :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

Holy crap, enough already. We've created a monster.

[Patler]

Patler brings some great stuff. He seems to have that type of mind, but he's not stating his theory in my opinion.

JH;

Are you familiar with the Socratic teaching method? Familiarize yourself with it, and you will understand me much better.

[MJZiggy]

(My preferred sport is hockey, and a game that I actually know something about.)



:shock: Are you suggesting that you DON'T know football?

[pbmax]

... Harvey and Tyrone think James Jones is a high end #3 WR. I think he's high end #2 material. Now James Jones career will tell who is right. I might be wrong. They might be wrong. Nothing is proven, but that's what we do. It's fun...
Its all fun and that is why we are here. But this example of a testable hypothesis is problematic.

First of all, it may not be testable at all. Jones plays for the Packers for a couple of more years. Whether he is objectively a #2 or #3 will take a backseat to his ranking on the Packers. If Driver retires and Nelson surpasses him, then he is #3 on the Packers, almost regardless of his worth to other teams, or ranking of league WRs (you might get a reading if Packer's depth or another team's desperation led to a trade).

Second, not all teams are created equal on the QB ability or WR depth front. Jones might be the number one target on some teams in the NFC North. Will you measure success by his depth chart spot, number of catches or his rankings among all league receivers (#1-Top 32, #2-Top 64, #3-Top 96, etc.)?

It will be difficult to agree to the measurement that should be used, much less test that conjecture. A better hypothesis might be "Jones will wind up as a #x WR on the Packers". In that case, my bet is on a number 3 receiver behind Nelson by next year.


And Patler, I am so disappointed you blew the Atlas Herrion prediction! :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

And Patler, I am so disappointed you blew the Atlas Herrion prediction! :lol:


Alabama kid.

[Fritz]

This is the scientific method. It's quite invigorating to play with. You should try it.


I prefer the Brett Favre gunslinger methodology of logic. :lol:

Drew Barrymore would be quite invigorating to play with. The scientific method is just the scientific method.

[pbmax]

Resolved: Better Reasons Than Blaming Fans For Blaming Aaron Rodgers for The 6-10 Record

1. Poor judgments about the defensive line talent
2. Special Teams
3. 2nd Half Strategy With A Lead
4. Predictability in the running game
5. Specific Injuries
6. Team Conditioning
7. Luck: Two Field Goal Kicks and Assorted Plays Went Against the Packers in 08
8. Lambeau: Practicing Indoors Killing Home Field Ad


Areas We Need to Cover Yet

9. Rodgers Areas For Improvement (yes it would be OK to compare him to Brett since this is one of the ways the team changed year to year)
10. Linebacking Corp: Victim or Perpetrator of Dreck?
11. Strength of Schedule and Matchups: Its all important, but no one pays attention to it except when next season's schedule is announced. That is the worst way to consider it since all the teams will be different by Sept and REALLY different in November.

[pbmax]

9. Aaron Rodgers: Not Quite Favre Yet

Football Outsiders calculates a Sack Rate for all Offensive Lines, determined by the number of dropbacks, actual throws, sacks, pressures, hits while throwing, etc. One of the most remarkable things about Favre is that while adjusting to a new offensive line in 05 and 06, the team's Sack Rate was still top ten. It wasn't as good as previous years, but it was not terrible either.

We all remember the pressure Favre felt behind 2 new guards in 2005. And it was no cakewalk when he had two rookie guards and first year starter Wells at center in 2006. It was not the same pass protection. Some of this credit goes to the O line coaches and the players. But a lot of credit must go to Favre.

Recognizing pressure, making protection calls and knowing when you had to throw were things Favre had mastered by this point of his career. I think an argument could be made that Favre at times, in order to protect himself and the ball, threw too early rather than try to escape, throw it away or just fall on the ball. But he rarely moved without purpose in the pocket and had an uncanny clock in his head.

But older posters will remember young Favre used to not have any clock at all. A play wasn't dead until Favre was trapped like Tarkenton or had thrown the ball to his twelfth read. Holmgren used to cringe when the Gunslinger would come off his first read (Sharpe) and then improvise while bouncing off his lineman. And as fun as Jon Ryan's run for a first down against the Vikes was, it was not more fun than the first time a Green Bay home crowd saw Favre throw the ball out of bounds.

Favre, instead of channeling Houdini, channeled Ken Andersen and threw out of bounds. But in typical Brett fashion, the ball took an unexpected flight path: about 50 yards vertically in the air, and 35 yards to the sideline. It was like a pop fly in foul territory. You could have run out the clock or covered a punt with that kind of hang time. But to the enormous credit of the Packer fan base, that goofy throw out of bounds got Brett an ovation. Has to be one of the very few instances of applause for throwing safely out of bounds.

Rodgers is a different QB. He is not willing to reverse field like young Favre did; he has a run mode and a run to the sideline while intending to throw mode. The latter of which it took Favre some years to develop. But he doesn't yet have that clock or instantaneous understanding of where pressure is coming from and where to go with the ball. His movement in the pocket sometimes leads him the wrong way and into more pressure.

But he has clearly progressed as a QB in his three years as backup, and it stands to reason he will improve with more starts. His share of sacks and pressures that he contributes to will decline and the offense will sustain longer drives more often. One aspect of Rodger development that does not get enough mention is his time on the bench. He clearly benefited from it, and more teams would be wise to do this with QBs who come into the league with less than an ideal number of starts under their belt in College.

[Rastak]

(My preferred sport is hockey, and a game that I actually know something about.)



:shock: Are you suggesting that you DON'T know football?


The dude is smart AND humble.....

[Gunakor]

Favre had incredible pocket awareness. Best I've seen in a very long time, maybe ever. That was as big an asset to him as his cannon arm, especially later on in his career. Aaron will eventually develop this pocket awareness, but I agree, it's not nearly there yet.

[woodbuck27]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P :wink:

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society. :D

Patler is really a post HAL prototype. The system he uses to find `the facts`to support his positions has always caused me to wonder also.

Patler. You have a great filing system or your a computer. :D

[HarveyWallbangers]

... Harvey and Tyrone think James Jones is a high end #3 WR. I think he's high end #2 material. Now James Jones career will tell who is right. I might be wrong. They might be wrong. Nothing is proven, but that's what we do. It's fun...

Actually, I said Jones has the upside to be a decent #2, but I think Nelson has the upside to be a good #2. I don't think there's a lot that separates them. I just like Nelson a bit more.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P :wink:

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society. :D

Patler is really a post HAL prototype. The system he uses to find `the facts`to support his positions has always caused me to wonder also.

Patler. You have a great filing system or your a computer. :D

He is nothing special, just looks special to you canadians.

[denverYooper]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P :wink:

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society. :D

Patler is really a post HAL prototype. The system he uses to find `the facts`to support his positions has always caused me to wonder also.

Patler. You have a great filing system or your a computer. :D

Or he has Teh Google.

On a side note, computers were people from the early 17th century until the early 20th. They were people who performed calculations. So, in that sense, "computer" fits him well.

If he were a machine, he should probably be entered in the Loebner prize competition. He'd likely be the first gold they've ever given.

[Fritz]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P :wink:

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society. :D

Patler is really a post HAL prototype. The system he uses to find `the facts`to support his positions has always caused me to wonder also.

Patler. You have a great filing system or your a computer. :D

Or he has Teh Google.

On a side note, computers were people from the early 17th century until the early 20th. They were people who performed calculations. So, in that sense, "computer" fits him well.

If he were a machine, he should probably be entered in the Loebner prize competition. He'd likely be the first gold they've ever given.

Do we know that Patler is not a machine?

[sharpe1027]

Hey, anybody could post like Patler if they had a research staff of 32 people.

Yeah. He's impressive. And sometimes, he remembers things that are important to an issue that you can just tell he made a little mental note of it when it was said and was going to go back to it when things are finished. You can see he's obviously got ideas. He wouldn't just happen to remember important details unless he viewed them as important at the time he read them. I know he's a good poster, I hope I'm not sending a message otherwise here.

I get a little frustrated because they're never really expressed as a theory or in a "there is more reason to believe this than that" way. It's expressed in a, "there is reason to believe this or this" way.

Obviously Patler brings some great things, particularly an attention to detail and stellar memory of details that matter. I like to see the details and facts brought together to support a defined theory, not just left so open. I'm sure he knows what he thinks will happen or thinks is happening before it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't though. I think I know what Patler thinks, like I said, I just don't know.

There is a certain wisdom in recognizing that certain things cannot possibly be knowable with any certainty. Pointing out this uncertainty, while explaining the reasons for why one answer is more likely correct is about as definitive as you can get without pretending to know more than you do.

If you are suggesting that posters should tout their theories as the "correct" theory, then I disagree. That would be a misrepresentation.

If you are suggesting that posters must provide short summaries to assist in understanding the point of the post, I guess it is a reasonable request, if somewhat unnecessary.

[sharpe1027]

Favre had incredible pocket awareness. Best I've seen in a very long time, maybe ever. That was as big an asset to him as his cannon arm, especially later on in his career. Aaron will eventually develop this pocket awareness, but I agree, it's not nearly there yet.

Maybe, but probably not.

Favre had good awareness of where the rush was coming from staring on day 1 in greenbay. Granted, that didn't mean he would get rid of the ball quickly. Early in his career he often tried to buy more time by scrambling around and stiff arming Defensive Tackles. Later, he took more check-downs or made more throws out of bounds.

Aaron should improve with more play, and I have every reason to believe that he will. Still, by comparing their first years, I think it is unlikely that Rodgers will ever be as good at it as Favre was/is.

To be fair, I see things that Rodgers does better than Favre did early in his career. Rodgers has a sweet throw on his rollouts. I am also much more comfortable with Rodgers' decision making than I was with Favre after his frist year.

[falco]

Rodgers will probably never have Favre's talent. But Favre is a top 10 QB...probably only two or three others QBs playing now who could have rivaled him in his prime.

However, I do think Rodgers can win us a superbowl, with the right talent around him (ala the 96 packers).

And I think, despite our 6-10 record last year, he is already surrounded by some pretty good talent.

[SnakeLH2006]

Direct reply to topic:

Injuries

[cpk1994]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P :wink:

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society. :D

Patler is really a post HAL prototype. The system he uses to find `the facts`to support his positions has always caused me to wonder also.

Patler. You have a great filing system or your a computer. :D

Or he has Teh Google.

On a side note, computers were people from the early 17th century until the early 20th. They were people who performed calculations. So, in that sense, "computer" fits him well.

If he were a machine, he should probably be entered in the Loebner prize competition. He'd likely be the first gold they've ever given.

Do we know that Patler is not a machine?I'm sure there are some women out there who could answer that one.