I'm So Angry...at the JSO

[Fritz]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/79761282.html

Y'know, I expect fans to get angry and react emotionally the day of a loss. I have no problem with people in game threads calling for MM's head after a loss. That's the emotion of being a fan (though I would hope people would cool off a little by today).

But the first third of Silverstein's JSO article - the supposed article about the game - was an awful, awful piece of work.

Let me give the context: The Packers had won five games in a row. At 9-4, they were the top seed for the playoff wild card spot in the NFC. They were playing the Super Bowl champions on the road - admittedly losers of five straight. Nonetheless, last year's champion - and one that had extra time to prepare.

The Packers lost by one point. The defense was not at all at its best, for sure. Jarrett Bush gave up some big plays, and many others did not play up to par - Hawk and Woodson and Chillar are three examples. It's unnerving that Mason Crosby missed another - to the right. The consistency of his misses is some small but cold comfort.

The Packer offense, despite a case of first-half dropsies, put up 36 point. They marched down the field with less than five minutes remaining and scored the go-ahead touchdown. They converted a two pointer.

A tough loss. But if you read the first third of the article, the Packers' defense "showed exactly where it's vulnerable and where it will be exposed if its lucky enough to play one of the aforementioned offensive juggernauts in the playoffs."

Yup, it's sure to be exposed. If they're lucky enough to get in. Christ, what a crappy team! As Silverstein also notes, "You can only imagine how many playoff quarterbacks are drooling over an opportunity to play against the Packers."

Jaysus, what the hell kind of Chicken Little garbage is this? Do I want it sugar coated? No. But your team dropped one game after winning five, to the Super Bowl Champions, on their home field. It happens. Silverstein sounds like a whiny, bitchy seventh grade girl.

Why can't these writers get it into their heads that the season is a long, arching narrative, with twists and turns like any story? Suddenly, the same team that was 9-4 two days ago is now a horrible team, a laugher for any team that plays it in the playoffs?

I can't tell you how pissed off I am. What shoddy, crappy journalism.

[pbmax]

The 'lucky enough' part seems a ridiculous choice to describe the situation.

But his overall point is a common view. Now it may simply be this week's narrative and therefore overcovered and overcredited, but the collective wisdom across the web, newspapers and radio is that the Packers pass defense was exposed when there was not enough pass rush. People, to one degree or another have been waiting for this since Al Harris was injured.

The Steelers, everyone feels, finally had the talent to expose the weakness.

Personally, other than the first touchdown when Bush got torched fast, I thought the Packers had more of a problem with their pass rush than with coverage.

[SkinBasket]

Write him and tell him. These guys aren't greek gods. They read their mail. Not saying that the greek gods didn't, but... I digress. A critical letter is often times responded to with a thanks for your input, I appreciate your readership, form response, but that's never stopped me.

[Patler]

Take a deep breath Fritz! :lol: We should be used to this by now.

According to the writers, no Packer ever has just a bad day, its always a sign of their real ability when they play poorly. It's what we should expect from them all the time. The past month has been a sham. The defense is really awful, and now everyone knows it!

No opponent ever has an outstanding day. Their performance is always due to the total ineptitude of the Packers. Now, others will do the same.

My question to Silverstein would be this: Would he have written the same article if the last pass had slipped through the receivers hands? Or, would he have written an article about the Packers persevering on a day when things didn't go well defensively? Would he have written about a team that is battle tested heading into the emotional playoff weeks?

Did the tone of his article really come down to just one play?????

[Pugger]

He sounds like some of the Negative Nellies on Packer fan internet forums... :roll:

[SkinBasket]

http://www.yourtango.com/files/debbie%20downer%202.jpg

[pbmax]

Take a deep breath Fritz! :lol: We should be used to this by now.

According to the writers, no Packer ever has just a bad day, its always a sign of their real ability when they play poorly. It's what we should expect from them all the time. The past month has been a sham. The defense is really awful, and now everyone knows it!

No opponent ever has an outstanding day. Their performance is always due to the total ineptitude of the Packers. Now, others will do the same.

My question to Silverstein would be this: Would he have written the same article if the last pass had slipped through the receivers hands? Or, would he have written an article about the Packers persevering on a day when things didn't go well defensively? Would he have written about a team that is battle tested heading into the emotional playoff weeks?

Did the tone of his article really come down to just one play?????
No. The tone of the article was written throughout the game as the Packers trailed for most of the game. Writers write the story as the game goes along. If that pass was dropped or defended, then it would have been the good fortune of an onside kick and the defense hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

Writers are limited in time and have their memory as their only reference. They don't stay employed if they cannot craft a narrative. This is the result of the poorer writers. McGinn takes the defense apart much more specifically.

But as you say Patler, this topic is the story of the game. The Packer defense had a bad game. There is no time for the gamestory writer to parse it completely. That's why we come here.

[Fritz]

Just so, Patler. Exactly.

I agree with PB that it was the pass rush - more specifically, the three man rush called over and over on that last drive. If the strength of your team is your line and linebackers and the weakness is depth at the corners, then put more pressure on Rothlisberger by rushing four or even five.

[Patler]

Take a deep breath Fritz! :lol: We should be used to this by now.

According to the writers, no Packer ever has just a bad day, its always a sign of their real ability when they play poorly. It's what we should expect from them all the time. The past month has been a sham. The defense is really awful, and now everyone knows it!

No opponent ever has an outstanding day. Their performance is always due to the total ineptitude of the Packers. Now, others will do the same.

My question to Silverstein would be this: Would he have written the same article if the last pass had slipped through the receivers hands? Or, would he have written an article about the Packers persevering on a day when things didn't go well defensively? Would he have written about a team that is battle tested heading into the emotional playoff weeks?

Did the tone of his article really come down to just one play?????
No. The tone of the article was written throughout the game as the Packers trailed for most of the game. Writers write the story as the game goes along. If that pass was dropped or defended, then it would have been the good fortune of an onside kick and the defense hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

Writers are limited in time and have their memory as their only reference. They don't stay employed if they cannot craft a narrative. This is the result of the poorer writers. McGinn takes the defense apart much more specifically.

But as you say Patler, this topic is the story of the game. The Packer defense had a bad game. There is no time for the gamestory writer to parse it completely. That's why we come here.

They write the body of the story as the game unfolds, but the lead-in and conclusion are written after the game, and it is the lead in short paragraphs that set the tone in this article, as Fritz noted. I respectfully submit that if the last pass had simply been dropped, those paragraphs and the tone of the article would have been different.

[sharpe1027]

What do you expect? People are upset about the game and specifically the defense. People like to hear things with which they agree. The article probably accomplishes its primary goal of getting more readers. Many people will skim the headline and first paragraph and feel good that their frustration is noticed. They may even use the article as a talking point at the office/bar later that week.

Serious football fanatics will read every article they can get there hands on regardless, why cater to them? They're an already guaranteed audience.

[pbmax]

500 yards of passing surrendered, this point still gets made. And its an attractive comparison considering several of the likely playoff participants. Too juicy to pass up. Its the story of the game, regardless of the conclusion one thinks can be drawn from it.

What might be different is the subject of this article. If they win, they may go with another angle for the big feature alongside McGinn's writeup. The Rodgers piece probably gets higher treatment. Then this writeup gets chopped down to the Notes column or some other space. But that conjecture writes itself.

[Sparkey]

Just so, Patler. Exactly.

I agree with PB that it was the pass rush - more specifically, the three man rush called over and over on that last drive. If the strength of your team is your line and linebackers and the weakness is depth at the corners, then put more pressure on Rothlisberger by rushing four or even five.

But Roethlisberger already had 440+ yards before that last drive, and then the Packers were rushing 4, 5 or 6. It was a slippery field and those conditions usually make it difficult for the pass rush. Look at Pittsburgh as they were ranked #4 in sack percentage but only got Rodgers once.

The passing game always has an advantage on a slippery field. Receivers know where they are going and defenders are reacting. Perfect example is the Rodgers to Jones TD for the lead. Jones put a great move on him, but the defender slipped reacting to that move. He would not have been nearly as open on a solid field.

[Bossman641]

Haven't read the article but based on the description I'm not sure if I want to.

If we are lucky enough to get in? Opposing QB's salivating? What about Rodgers and the offense salivating at the thought of moving up and down the field on the Saints, Cardinals, or Vikings? Outside of the Eagles, no NFC team has looked particularly imposing over the past 3-4 weeks. One loss isn't shaking my belief that the Packers will be dangerous come playoff time.

[pbmax]

Press Gazette's game story, 3rd paragraph. Too big a target to pass up, though the Press Gazette does not stray into the "lucky" route and leaves it open ended.

The bigger issue is whether Roethlisberger’s 503-yard game was an anomaly, or whether it exposed flaws in the Packers’ pass defense that could be a major problem the next time they face an elite quarterback surrounded by some good weapons. That's inevitable in the NFL playoffs

[Patler]

Press Gazette's game story, 3rd paragraph. Too big a target to pass up, though the Press Gazette does not stray into the "lucky" route and leaves it open ended.

The bigger issue is whether Roethlisberger’s 503-yard game was an anomaly, or whether it exposed flaws in the Packers’ pass defense that could be a major problem the next time they face an elite quarterback surrounded by some good weapons. That's inevitable in the NFL playoffs

A big difference in presenting it as a question for discussion rather than as a fact exposed in the game.

[pbmax]

Press Gazette's game story, 3rd paragraph. Too big a target to pass up, though the Press Gazette does not stray into the "lucky" route and leaves it open ended.

The bigger issue is whether Roethlisberger’s 503-yard game was an anomaly, or whether it exposed flaws in the Packers’ pass defense that could be a major problem the next time they face an elite quarterback surrounded by some good weapons. That's inevitable in the NFL playoffs

A big difference in presenting it as a question for discussion rather than as a fact exposed in the game.
Agree completely there. Silverstein went off the deep end calling a 9-5 team lucky to get in the playoffs after one loss.

[Fritz]

Well, I took Skin's advice and just wrote Silverstein an email expressing my dismay.

One of the points I made to him was that by his logic, teams should be drooling over the prospect of facing the Minnesota Vikings in the playoffs. Gosh, they only managed a measly seven points against a mediocre Carolina team, and their defense was ripped for almost 300 yards by a backup quarterback, and on top of that they gave up over a 100 yards rushing.

For that matter, what playoff offense wouldn't want to face the Saints? Look how many points they gave up this week!

[MJZiggy]

What do you expect? People are upset about the game and specifically the defense. People like to hear things with which they agree. The article probably accomplishes its primary goal of getting more readers. Many people will skim the headline and first paragraph and feel good that their frustration is noticed. They may even use the article as a talking point at the office/bar later that week.

Serious football fanatics will read every article they can get there hands on regardless, why cater to them? They're an already guaranteed audience.

What I expect is that fans will overreact and that "professional journalists" will at least pretend to report the game objectively. The Packers will not be "lucky" to get in. Loss or not, they are well positioned for that to happen. Loss or not, I believe Capers will look at this game and diagnose what went wrong effectively. I don't think we are nearly as vulnerable to an elite QB as the article openly states.

People may want to read what they agree with, but there are a few of us who despise people unfairly ripping on our team. They are a good team, not the Lions.

[mraynrand]

Well, I took Skin's advice and just wrote Silverstein an email expressing my dismay.

One of the points I made to him was that by his logic, teams should be drooling over the prospect of facing the Minnesota Vikings in the playoffs. Gosh, they only managed a measly seven points against a mediocre Carolina team, and their defense was ripped for almost 300 yards by a backup quarterback, and on top of that they gave up over a 100 yards rushing.

For that matter, what playoff offense wouldn't want to face the Saints? Look how many points they gave up this week!

You've misread the new culture Fritz - it's attention at any cost even if - maybe especially if - you have to humiliate yourself.

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/Chillylegs.jpg

[RashanGary]

pb has made some really good points in here. The article made a real point but took it a little too far.


I think the season shows that the Packers are a really good team, but this game (along with the Viking games) have shown what a really good QB can do to our defense. I agree that teams are going to go at Bush, Bell and Underwood until they prove they can play, and I agree with the article's implied suggestion that they can't play.

It's a weakness that I believe makes this team too weak to make it through the playoffs (we WILL run into a team that can and knows how to exploit it). I think it was really exposed last night and looks to be a problem that cannot be fixed. I disagree that they don't belong in the playoffs. I'd say they belong in the playoffs, but really aren't a contender with such a glaring and exploitable weak link on defense. I think the article really highlighted the story of the game, just took it a bit too far.

[Smidgeon]

I think the season shows that the Packers are a really good team, but this game (along with the Viking games) have shown what a really good QB can do to our defense.

I don't think this is a fault of just the Packer's defense. The modern game is designed around the QB. A good QB on a hot streak can beat any team and make the defense look silly. It isn't an indictment on the defense if they happen to hit a QB on a hot streak. The game is set up to allow for that. The best you can do is hope your QB is hotter (Skin, no need for graphical representation of that last point).

[cheesner]

The oddest part of this is the fact that the Packers were the #2 ranked defense after 13 games and were the #1 ranked defense after 12 games. This author thinks it was all an illusion?

I think the story here is LeBeau, Capers former pupil, being able to help his OC with his knowledge of Capers' defense. Whatever the Pitt offensive game plan was - it worked better than any other offense this season. I see no reason to panic, however.

Even with the last TD play, I was not upset. Disappointed, certainly, but not upset. The coverage was good. Rothlisberger made a perfect pass and Wallace made a fantastic catch. It is nearly impossible to prevent that. I do wish we had rushed more, but thats the way it goes. If that pass is off 2 inches, the ball hangs up for 1/8 second more, if the receiver doesn't barely drag that first foot, if if if . . . the defensive play call would have been successful anyway.

[Fritz]

pb has made some really good points in here. The article made a real point but took it a little too far.


I think the season shows that the Packers are a really good team, but this game (along with the Viking games) have shown what a really good QB can do to our defense. I agree that teams are going to go at Bush, Bell and Underwood until they prove they can play, and I agree with the article's implied suggestion that they can't play.

It's a weakness that I believe makes this team too weak to make it through the playoffs (we WILL run into a team that can and knows how to exploit it). I think it was really exposed last night and looks to be a problem that cannot be fixed. I disagree that they don't belong in the playoffs. I'd say they belong in the playoffs, but really aren't a contender with such a glaring and exploitable weak link on defense. I think the article really highlighted the story of the game, just took it a bit too far.

Implied suggestion? "The . . . defense showed exactly where it's vulnerable and where it will be exposed..." Oh, and "You can only imagine how many playoff quarterbacks are drooling over an opportunity to play against the Packers."

That's be explicit claim.

[RashanGary]

Sorry Fritz, I'm a huge fan and as of last week, I had a lot of hope for this team, this year, but. . . .


The things Jarrett Bush and Mike Bell were doing, I don't have a lot of confidence that they'll get it fixed. Bush looked lost and even though Bell looked like he was close on that play, he had no idea where his help was and he should have been playing outside leverage more than he was.

I wouldn't say teams are "licking their chops" to get at the Packers D, but I'm sure they know the first place they are going to try to exploit and I honestly believe a good team is going to have loads of success going at Bush and Bell.


The Packers belong in the playoffs IMO, but I don't think they're a real contender. They're young and sloppy on ST's. They have a FG kicker who is just bad right now and a punter who's been bad all year. And now they've had their weak link on defense exposed for everyone to see.

I like this team, don't get me wrong. Hell, I even think we could win a game or even two if they get on a little run. I just don't see this team having the mettle to make it to or win the SB.


This team is good, and by my estimation, they're only going to get better in the coming years. There's a lot of optimism after this game and after this season, but it's not all optimism. The reality is that we have some weaknesses, and they're bad enough that I don't think we can win playoff games with them or fix them this year for that matter.

[Fritz]

I don't necessarily think this is a Super Bowl team, either. The thing is, no one really knows who is and isn't. In '07 no one thought the Giants were a Super Bowl team. Last year lots of people thought Tennessee was a Super Bowl team.

That's what irks me about the article. Silverstein speaks confidently as if he knows already. Well, he doesn't. None of us do.

I'm guessing lots of Minny fans are worried and down on their team this week - but who knows if this is just part of the gamut for them or any team?

[ThunderDan]

Sorry Fritz, I'm a huge fan and as of last week, I had a lot of hope for this team, this year, but. . . .


The things Jarrett Bush and Mike Bell were doing, I don't have a lot of confidence that they'll get it fixed. Bush looked lost and even though Bell looked like he was close on that play, he had no idea where his help was and he should have been playing outside leverage more than he was.

JH-

Give it a rest on Bell. The only way he could have taken more away on the outside would have been bumping him 18 inches and making the WR run out of bounds.

That throw was in the only place it could have been caught.

[Fritz]

I'd have to agree. I can't see that Bell could've played it much better.

Other guys got burned on the drive down, but Rohtlisberger had time to wait for them to shake open.

Matthews got burned on one. Barnett/Woodson on another. Bush, of course.

[pbmax]

I don't think Silverstein was making a flat claim that the Packers will be lucky to get into the playoffs, he was being sarcastic that their former run of luck against average passers that he lists, is likely to end in the playoffs versus Brees, Manning or McNabb.

[pbmax]

Sorry Fritz, I'm a huge fan and as of last week, I had a lot of hope for this team, this year, but. . . .


The things Jarrett Bush and Mike Bell were doing, I don't have a lot of confidence that they'll get it fixed. Bush looked lost and even though Bell looked like he was close on that play, he had no idea where his help was and he should have been playing outside leverage more than he was.

JH-

Give it a rest on Bell. The only way he could have taken more away on the outside would have been bumping him 18 inches and making the WR run out of bounds.

That throw was in the only place it could have been caught.
He was supposed to be playing man under, as three people on the Packers staff have said. He was supposed to be between the receiver and Roethlisberger no matter what. But he let the receiver get by him deep across the endzone. He was supposed to ignore the possibility of a throw over his head and let Bigby take care of that. Bigby of course, was 20 feet away.

But even given his responsibility, he was only off by a half step at most. It was a pinpoint throw.

[Patler]

I don't necessarily think this is a Super Bowl team, either. The thing is, no one really knows who is and isn't. In '07 no one thought the Giants were a Super Bowl team. Last year lots of people thought Tennessee was a Super Bowl team.

That's what irks me about the article. Silverstein speaks confidently as if he knows already. Well, he doesn't. None of us do.

I'm guessing lots of Minny fans are worried and down on their team this week - but who knows if this is just part of the gamut for them or any team?

What got me most was the suggestion that yesterday was some great revelation; as if no one knew how to beat the Packer defense until Pittsburgh and Ben Roethlisberger showed them how. Now everyone knows! If only the Packers could have kept the secret that Bush, Bell and the others are not very good corners!

Every team knows the weaknesses in the Packer defense, just like the Packers know the weaknesses in their opponents' defenses. Did any fan think the weakness was something other than the 3rd and 4th corners? It becomes a chess game, can the offense scheme to take advantage of the weaknesses, or can the defense scheme to overcome the weakness and not let the offense use it to their advantage.

Sometimes pressure can make up for poor coverage, but Roethlisberger presents challenges in that department. He can withstand direct hits by linemen, and throw them off. Jenkins had a good shot around his shoulders late in the game yesterday, and slid right off.

No discredit to Roethlisberger, but he was phenomenally accurate yesterday, and he had to be. If they played again next week Capers might have a new wrinkle for them, just as Pittsburgh might. The result could be different, because as the score indicated, these are closely matched teams overall.

[RashanGary]

What got me most was the suggestion that yesterday was some great revelation; as if no one knew how to beat the Packer defense until Pittsburgh and Ben Roethlisberger showed them how. Now everyone knows! If only the Packers could have kept the secret that Bush, Bell and the others are not very good corners!


I didn't think they were as bad as they looked yesterday until yesterday. I honestly had hope that they had improved since weeks 4 and 7 and the back 7 was more ready to take on an upper tier QB. Last nights game cemented it for me, even if I turn out wrong. I now believe they have a weak link that cannot be covered for. I agreed with the main point of the story, so my disagreements with the story are minor and overall view of the story is positive (not that I like JS or anything but TS is that best of that bunch IMO).



No discredit to Roethlisberger, but he was phenomenally accurate yesterday, and he had to be. If they played again next week Capers might have a new wrinkle for them, just as Pittsburgh might. The result could be different, because as the score indicated, these are closely matched teams overall.

They had 10 days to prepare, 10 days to rest and it was at home. They were ready for Green Bay and we still looked like an equal team to them.



Not all is bad, but some of it was. This story highlighted the story of the game IMO. If they won, the story would have been Rodgers like pb suggested in another thread. They lost and they have a weakness that stood out that is going to be amplified with the good QB's in the playoffs.

[Freak Out]

Bigby of course, was 20 feet away.
:lol:
It did seem like Bigby was all by himself in the endzone.

[rbaloha1]

IMO the Packer defense is overrated. Too much emphasis on stats. This so called great defense gave up 500 passing yards. Any criticism is justified at this juncture.

[Fritz]

Any criticism?

This has been a solid defense that has come together as the season has progressed. They played the run well yesterday but did not play the pass well - at all.

My gosh, early in the year people were moaning that MM couldn't get Greg Williams or Mike Nolan as DC. But that's stopped, finally. Now one bad game and any criticism is warranted?

You're chicken littling, I think.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Big Ben did make some unbelievably good throws this game. If he's an inch or two off on several of those and this game is a W for us.

We got beat by a QB who was on fire all game long with little pass rush to worry about.

[Waldo]

What got me most was the suggestion that yesterday was some great revelation; as if no one knew how to beat the Packer defense until Pittsburgh and Ben Roethlisberger showed them how. Now everyone knows! If only the Packers could have kept the secret that Bush, Bell and the others are not very good corners!


I didn't think they were as bad as they looked yesterday until yesterday. I honestly had hope that they had improved since weeks 4 and 7 and the back 7 was more ready to take on an upper tier QB. Last nights game cemented it for me, even if I turn out wrong. I now believe they have a weak link that cannot be covered for.

A lot of QB's around the league take practice reps against their own D's first stringers, running the scout team, just to stay sharp during the week. Ben and Aaron are both like this. We run a D that uses a lot of trickery and confusion, and they run basically the same thing. Trickery and confusion only works if the opposing QB is tricked and confused. Top QB's might not be as tricked and confused as the bad ones, but it still bothers them. Ben was not tricked and confused at all. Nor was Aaron. The QB in the league most able to torch the Packers is Big Ben. The QB in the league most able to torch the Steelers is Aaron Rodgers (like Big Ben did to us, that was the most passing yards the Steelers D has given up in several years). They see that D week after week all year long. It is different than say a tampa-2 team playing a tampa-2, those defenses do not prey on QB confusion like a zone blitz 3-4.

You also cannot discount the friendly rivalry. Most more knowledgeable fans are aware, but I don't think that the casual fans are (nor are the GB beat or the game announcers), that Aaron and Ben are good friends off the field. I'm sure that played no small part in why both QB's played very well.

I don't think that this is the kind of success that you'd expect out of good QB's. Good QB's not named Ben or Aaron would be more flustered by the pressure packages and unusual coverages. Even the old hands. They may have seen it several times, but the few times a year (at most) they see it over the years pales in comparison to daily practices that Aaron and Ben see it.

[RashanGary]

You might be right, Waldo but I have a feeling there are few QB's by the names of:

Kurt, Drew and Brett that could also do similar things to Jarrett Bush and Mike Bell.

The Steelers laid out a nice blueprint too. I don't think we're going to scrap the whole scheme in week 16. It's not like we're playing Cutler and Stafford in the playoffs. We're going to face some SB winners with a lot of experience again and if we lose next time, we go home.

And if we somehow make it to the SB, we'll probably have to play a Tom or Peyton.

As good as Ben is, our defense has a whole gauntlet of great QB's they'll have to face if they want to win it.

Forgive me if I have little to no confidence that we can get it done, not after seeing what the Steelers did.

[bobblehead]

Well, I took Skin's advice and just wrote Silverstein an email expressing my dismay.

One of the points I made to him was that by his logic, teams should be drooling over the prospect of facing the Minnesota Vikings in the playoffs. Gosh, they only managed a measly seven points against a mediocre Carolina team, and their defense was ripped for almost 300 yards by a backup quarterback, and on top of that they gave up over a 100 yards rushing.

For that matter, what playoff offense wouldn't want to face the Saints? Look how many points they gave up this week!

I'll predict his response...Minnesota game "didn't count because xyz". GB on the other hand only counts when they play bad.

[rbaloha1]

Any criticism?

This has been a solid defense that has come together as the season has progressed. They played the run well yesterday but did not play the pass well - at all.

My gosh, early in the year people were moaning that MM couldn't get Greg Williams or Mike Nolan as DC. But that's stopped, finally. Now one bad game and any criticism is warranted?

You're chicken littling, I think.

Steelers did not really attempt to run the ball. Also they have become more of a passing team and are abandoning the run.

If Harris was still was playing and the defense performed at this level -- okay chicken little.

However as long as Bush and Ford are playing the pass defense is a big concern.

[bobblehead]

even though Bell looked like he was close on that play, he had no idea where his help was and he should have been playing outside leverage more than he was.



JH, that was a busted play that took what, like 5-6 seconds to develope. For all we know Bell played him perfectly the entire play other than the last 1 second we saw. A CB can not and will not cover someone for that long without a breakdown. Ben found the breakdown and threw a perfect pass to a guy that made a perfect catch.

All this reminds me of the NFCC game where Harris was all over Burress who made one fingertip catch after another and people declared that Harris can't handle guys like Burress (never mind that he handled them his entire career and every time since)

I agree we are thin at CB at this point, but we still handled baltimore and we weren't much thinner against the cowboys who we handled.

It all comes back to what I have said for years, a QB is never with his ass on the turf. We lost Kamp and only Mathews seems to consistently get pressure. Dom is going to have to work out ways to get his LB's in good matchups and get pressure.

[bobblehead]

IMO the Packer defense is overrated. Too much emphasis on stats. This so called great defense gave up 500 passing yards. Any criticism is justified at this juncture.

Your opinion is junk, nothing more. Our defense is rated exactly where it should be. Metrics don't lie. Now if you want to argue that the injuries to Harris and Kampman make us slightly overrated because they played most of the year it would be valid, but what you wrote is purley a waste of pixels.

[bobblehead]

And one other thing....what defense DOESN'T Brees, Manning et al light up? Its like we are the only good defense that is susceptible to the elite QB's of the game....DUH!!!

[mission]

Guy says "too much emphasis on stats" and then has a problem with us giving up 500 yards in the next sentence. Seems like a stat to me.

Bottom line is we had a chance to win the game at the end and we didn't

Rodgers had a very good yardage night as well. Who knows what dictated that but the 500 yards is obviously a statistical anomaly.

Any defense that can consistently shut down the run and FORCE teams to pass 45 times a game has a shot to win and is not the norm in the NFL. It comes down to execution in the backfield, and our young guys weren't prepared enough for it.

[denverYooper]

It was a crazy game, for sure.

One thing that popped out at me:
Pittsburgh had 10 penalties for 84 yards to our 7-53, but 5 of those 7 penalties resulted in first downs for them. 0 of their 10 penalties resulted in first downs for us.

Special teams was also in our favor:


GB Pitt
No. and Yards Punt Returns 2-25 3-19
No. and Yards Kickoff Returns 5-91 6-90


Plus, we benefited from a special teams blunder by the other team!

Had someone told me we'd have less penalties, more sacks, and better special teams performance, I would have thought there was no way we'd lose.

[pbmax]

The things Jarrett Bush and Mike Bell were doing, I don't have a lot of confidence that they'll get it fixed. Bush looked lost and even though Bell looked like he was close on that play, he had no idea where his help was and he should have been playing outside leverage more than he was.
Well, a + 1 to you Justin, for a great call here. From a reliable internet source:


"That's a defense where we try to take outside leverage and we try to play underneath the receiver," Capers said.

Man. That is twice I have been flat wrong today. I have got to get this cleaned up! :lol:

Seriously, JH, good get by you. It why we all want to read this site. :tup:

[Patler]

I didn't think they were as bad as they looked yesterday until yesterday. I honestly had hope that they had improved since weeks 4 and 7 and the back 7 was more ready to take on an upper tier QB. Last nights game cemented it for me, even if I turn out wrong. I now believe they have a weak link that cannot be covered for.

It can be covered for, because at times it has been. If things on the defense are as bad as the story makes out, it wouldn't be just the elite QBs who could take advantage of it. Others would too. Roethlisberger was phenomenal on Sunday in many ways, recognition, keeping plays alive, throwing accuracy. On another day he might not be exceptional in all those areas, the Packers might throw in another new wrinkle to confuse, the pass rush might be more effective, help can be provided in coverages and the weaknesses in the 3rd and 4th corners might not be as significant.

If the GB receivers had hung on to the ball better, Rodgers could have had nearly as many passing yards as Roethlisberger. Packer drives would have lasted longer, giving Roethlisberger fewer opportunities and maybe more pressure to score if they trailed. That can be another way of covering their defensive weakness, being more productive and consistent on offense.

Might the Packers give up 400 yards to other good QBs? Sure any defense might because many defenses have starting corners and safeties worse than GBs and nickel and dime backs just as bad. In the end, the Packers might still win, because the Packers offense has many weapons to exploit the weaknesses of the other defenses, too. A few less penalties on defense, Mathews' sack-strip-recovery holding up, a tipped ball here or there, the interception not being negated because of a penalty and the outcome could have been different.

[Smidgeon]

I didn't think they were as bad as they looked yesterday until yesterday. I honestly had hope that they had improved since weeks 4 and 7 and the back 7 was more ready to take on an upper tier QB. Last nights game cemented it for me, even if I turn out wrong. I now believe they have a weak link that cannot be covered for.

It can be covered for, because at times it has been. If things on the defense are as bad as the story makes out, it wouldn't be just the elite QBs who could take advantage of it. Others would too. Roethlisberger was phenomenal on Sunday in many ways, recognition, keeping plays alive, throwing accuracy. On another day he might not be exceptional in all those areas, the Packers might throw in another new wrinkle to confuse, the pass rush might be more effective, help can be provided in coverages and the weaknesses in the 3rd and 4th corners might not be as significant.

If the GB receivers had hung on to the ball better, Rodgers could have had nearly as many passing yards as Roethlisberger. Packer drives would have lasted longer, giving Roethlisberger fewer opportunities and maybe more pressure to score if they trailed. That can be another way of covering their defensive weakness, being more productive and consistent on offense.

Might the Packers give up 400 yards to other good QBs? Sure any defense might because many defenses have starting corners and safeties worse than GBs and nickel and dime backs just as bad. In the end, the Packers might still win, because the Packers offense has many weapons to exploit the weaknesses of the other defenses, too. A few less penalties on defense, Mathews' sack-strip-recovery holding up, a tipped ball here or there, the interception not being negated because of a penalty and the outcome could have been different.

Not to mention that it took Roethlisberger over 500 yards, three TDs, and a 10 minute possession advantage to beat the Packers by 1 point.

[PlantPage55]

We're at some weird point where our secondary can absolutely embarrass low to mid-tier QBs like Cutler, Stafford, and even Romo, but guys like Big Ben, Brady, Manning and Brees are probably too savvy at this point.

That's not to say we can't overcome it or that it would be impossible to best those QBs. It just seems like a tall order. Then again, it is a tall order for ANY secondary.

It certainly has a lot to do with us being on our 6th best CB as our nickel. That blows.

[Bretsky]

We're at some weird point where our secondary can absolutely embarrass low to mid-tier QBs like Cutler, Stafford, and even Romo, but guys like Big Ben, Brady, Manning and Brees are probably too savvy at this point.

That's not to say we can't overcome it or that it would be impossible to best those QBs. It just seems like a tall order. Then again, it is a tall order for ANY secondary.

It certainly has a lot to do with us being on our 6th best CB as our nickel. That blows.


Good point; but remembe we had Al vs. Dallas. It would be interesting to see how well we'd fare against Romo without Al Harris on the road.

They don't have the big three WR's though that can really expose our 3rd CB but it still would be interesting.

[Smidgeon]

We're at some weird point where our secondary can absolutely embarrass low to mid-tier QBs like Cutler, Stafford, and even Romo, but guys like Big Ben, Brady, Manning and Brees are probably too savvy at this point.

They are savvy, but they, like Big Ben, probably need a historic day to beat the Packers in a shoot-out.

Just to clarify, in case my statement came across as overly optimistic, I'm not saying the Packers are elite. I'm saying they're getting there, and the Pitt game did nothing to change that in my estimation. It was a pure shootout, the Packers' secondary had coverage breakdowns, time after time penalty or a failure to sack Big Ben resulted in another first down, and yet Big Ben had to be only the third QB in NFL history to accomplish something (500+ yards, 3 TDS, 0 INTs) to overcome the Packers. He did it scrambling with "I can't believe he found an open receiver" passes and "I can't believe he came down with that ball" catches. Pitt didn't blow out the Packers. It was a one point game and it took Pitt everything they had to get that.