CARDS SAW A WEAKNESS AND EXPLOITED IT

[Bretsky]

Troy Aikman commented yesterday that their head coach noted he really saw some things in the middle of the field that he felt AZ could take advantage of. Used some nice stack formations that seemed to help Fitz get free and make a guy most of us had never heard of look like a Pro Bowler. The only Doucette I ever knew was a broadcaster for the Bucks about fifteen years ago.

Dom Capers had no counter. I'm not sure there was any. They were going after Mr Bush, Mr Bigby, and whatever backups we put out there to replace them.

The Cardinals saw a weakness in the middle of the field against the Packers and exploited it heavily. They lined up their receivers close together in "stack" formations, and when there was man-to-man coverage it was hard for the outside defender to get through traffic to his man.


Great Game Plan. Kudos to Winsenhunt !

[red]

mike mckenzie

[Bossman641]

mike mckenzie

Maybe if the Packers had resigned Gilbert Brown the run defense would have been better as well. :roll:

What is it with Packer fans and wanting former players

[Administrator]

you think Mike McKenzie is not better than Jarrett Bush?

[Tony Oday]

you think Mike McKenzie is not better than Jarrett Bush?

I think Jolly in coverage is better :)

[red]

you think Mike McKenzie is not better than Jarrett Bush?

exactly new guy

i've said it before and i'll say it again. bush should never be allowed on the field. we would almost be better off only putting 10 guys out of defense

he's just a disaster. myself and other of said almost all year that you have to find something better then bush, he's too mush of a liability

they made us pay last night for keeping bush. he was burned over and over again

[Administrator]

you think Mike McKenzie is not better than Jarrett Bush?

I think Jolly in coverage is better :)

Had I been a fan of any other team yesterday, I might have laughed when I saw that. Instead I said, WTF was that?

[denverYooper]

you think Mike McKenzie is not better than Jarrett Bush?

exactly new guy

i've said it before and i'll say it again. bush should never be allowed on the field. we would almost be better off only putting 10 guys out of defense

he's just a disaster. myself and other of said almost all year that you have to find something better then bush, he's too mush of a liability

they made us pay last night for keeping bush. he was burned over and over again

Underwood had an ok game yesterday. I can see him moving ahead of Bush next year on the depth chart.

[Zool]

you think Mike McKenzie is not better than Jarrett Bush?

exactly new guy

i've said it before and i'll say it again. bush should never be allowed on the field. we would almost be better off only putting 10 guys out of defense

he's just a disaster. myself and other of said almost all year that you have to find something better then bush, he's too mush of a liability

they made us pay last night for keeping bush. he was burned over and over again

Underwood had an ok game yesterday. I can see him moving ahead of Bush next year on the depth chart.

I could see a paper bag moving ahead of Bush. Bush and Chillar were constantly out of place in the first half. Those 2 need to see the bench often.

[Scott Campbell]

you think Mike McKenzie is not better than Jarrett Bush?

I think Jolly in coverage is better :)

Had I been a fan of any other team yesterday, I might have laughed when I saw that. Instead I said, WTF was that?


Fritz dropped Gilbert into coverage during the Superbowl win.

[sharpe1027]

How many of those 10+ wide open catches were Bush's fault? Maybe a couple. I bet Woodson got beat as much as Bush.... :shock:

Bigby was out and the announcers didn't even notice. The scrubs we had in were killing us. Bush was not the biggest of the problems out there. He's just a convenient scape goat.

[Smidgeon]

How many of those 10+ wide open catches were Bush's fault? Maybe a couple. I bet Woodson got beat as much as Bush.... :shock:

Bigby was out and the announcers didn't even notice. The scrubs we had in were killing us. Bush was not the biggest of the problems out there. He's just a convenient scape goat.

Woodson got beat twice against Fitzgerald. Both for TDs. At least one could have been called an offensive PI. Maybe both. But probably just the second one. I can't blame Woodson for those. I think there were two other passes where he was around the play, but I don't know if those were his assignments or if he was free-lancing over to the play.

[pbmax]

Get over Mike McKenzie. You won't be seeing NO picking him up to play this week.

Also, they did not attack Bigby. They went much shorter in the middle. If a safety was getting torched, my bet would be Collins, not Bigby at this point.

I would suggest reading this: http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/81142762.html

Baranczyk covers the problem he believes the Packers had with the combo routes and the middle of the field. He also agrees with KYPack's dissection of the options available to the Packers for more pressure. He sees them as dismal, as currently staffed.

[SkinBasket]

Get over Mike McKenzie. You won't be seeing NO picking him up to play this week.

Also, they did not attack Bigby. They went much shorter in the middle. If a safety was getting torched, my bet would be Collins, not Bigby at this point.

I would suggest reading this: http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/81142762.html

Baranczyk covers the problem he believes the Packers had with the combo routes and the middle of the field. He also agrees with KYPack's dissection of the options available to the Packers for more pressure. He sees them as dismal, as currently staffed.

Problem is, Bigby was no where to be found in middle - short, mid, or deep, against the run or against the pass. He covered no one and offered no help. When he did bumble into a play, which wasn't often, he was missing tackles, grabbing facemasks and otherwise sucking ass.

Outside of Matthews, our D line created no pressure, so our defense was forced to match their formations, which meant having our shitty players on the field (namely Bush, who couldn't figure out who to cover, much less fail at trying to cover them, and Chillar, who looked like a boob as usual), and Arizona exposed them for what they are. Bigby is what he is and couldn't offer anything to offset those mismatches. Too bad, so sad. We need to find a lot of safety help before next fall for those times when our D line is struggling.

[sharpe1027]

How many of those 10+ wide open catches were Bush's fault? Maybe a couple. I bet Woodson got beat as much as Bush.... :shock:

Bigby was out and the announcers didn't even notice. The scrubs we had in were killing us. Bush was not the biggest of the problems out there. He's just a convenient scape goat.

Woodson got beat twice against Fitzgerald. Both for TDs. At least one could have been called an offensive PI. Maybe both. But probably just the second one. I can't blame Woodson for those. I think there were two other passes where he was around the play, but I don't know if those were his assignments or if he was free-lancing over to the play.

Woodson gets beat, and we make excuses. Bush is hardly heard from and everyone blames him.

[sharpe1027]

Get over Mike McKenzie. You won't be seeing NO picking him up to play this week.

Also, they did not attack Bigby. They went much shorter in the middle. If a safety was getting torched, my bet would be Collins, not Bigby at this point.

I would suggest reading this: http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/81142762.html

Baranczyk covers the problem he believes the Packers had with the combo routes and the middle of the field. He also agrees with KYPack's dissection of the options available to the Packers for more pressure. He sees them as dismal, as currently staffed.

I don't have insider, so I can't comment directly on what the articles says.

It seemed to me that several of the big plays happened when the safety bit hard on the sideline receiver and then Warner threw over the top down the middle. Bigby's backup seemed to have no range, and had to commit early and couldn't recover. Of course there were so many big offensive plays you can pick and choose from them however you want.

[bobblehead]

How many of those 10+ wide open catches were Bush's fault? Maybe a couple. I bet Woodson got beat as much as Bush.... :shock:

Bigby was out and the announcers didn't even notice. The scrubs we had in were killing us. Bush was not the biggest of the problems out there. He's just a convenient scape goat.

Woodson got beat twice against Fitzgerald. Both for TDs. At least one could have been called an offensive PI. Maybe both. But probably just the second one. I can't blame Woodson for those. I think there were two other passes where he was around the play, but I don't know if those were his assignments or if he was free-lancing over to the play.

Woodson gets beat, and we make excuses. Bush is hardly heard from and everyone blames him.

Agaiin, not making excuses for woodson (other than fitz plowing into him and no call). He didn't play great. Also not making excuses for bush...give me a break...not heard from??? What game were you watching??

Where as you have to pretend you know the coverage and responsibilities of Bigby to claim he was out of position, Bush was the obvious cover guy getting beaten time after time.

[Smidgeon]

How many of those 10+ wide open catches were Bush's fault? Maybe a couple. I bet Woodson got beat as much as Bush.... :shock:

Bigby was out and the announcers didn't even notice. The scrubs we had in were killing us. Bush was not the biggest of the problems out there. He's just a convenient scape goat.

Woodson got beat twice against Fitzgerald. Both for TDs. At least one could have been called an offensive PI. Maybe both. But probably just the second one. I can't blame Woodson for those. I think there were two other passes where he was around the play, but I don't know if those were his assignments or if he was free-lancing over to the play.

Woodson gets beat, and we make excuses. Bush is hardly heard from and everyone blames him.

Maybe it's because of how they were beat. You know perfectly well that Bush isn't in Woodson's class. And if you watched the game, you also know perfectly well that Woodson wasn't "simply beat". It isn't excuses.

[pbmax]

Get over Mike McKenzie. You won't be seeing NO picking him up to play this week.

Also, they did not attack Bigby. They went much shorter in the middle. If a safety was getting torched, my bet would be Collins, not Bigby at this point.

I would suggest reading this: http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/81142762.html

Baranczyk covers the problem he believes the Packers had with the combo routes and the middle of the field. He also agrees with KYPack's dissection of the options available to the Packers for more pressure. He sees them as dismal, as currently staffed.

Problem is, Bigby was no where to be found in middle - short, mid, or deep, against the run or against the pass. He covered no one and offered no help. When he did bumble into a play, which wasn't often, he was missing tackles, grabbing facemasks and otherwise sucking ass.

Outside of Matthews, our D line created no pressure, so our defense was forced to match their formations, which meant having our shitty players on the field (namely Bush, who couldn't figure out who to cover, much less fail at trying to cover them, and Chillar, who looked like a boob as usual), and Arizona exposed them for what they are. Bigby is what he is and couldn't offer anything to offset those mismatches. Too bad, so sad. We need to find a lot of safety help before next fall for those times when our D line is struggling.
Bigby was usually deep middle. And they were throwing lots of seams, ins and slants I think. Most of the action was in front of him. Very few plays got to his level during the throw. I am not saying he played well, but the underneath guys were in trouble first on most plays.

[sharpe1027]

How many of those 10+ wide open catches were Bush's fault? Maybe a couple. I bet Woodson got beat as much as Bush.... :shock:

Bigby was out and the announcers didn't even notice. The scrubs we had in were killing us. Bush was not the biggest of the problems out there. He's just a convenient scape goat.

Woodson got beat twice against Fitzgerald. Both for TDs. At least one could have been called an offensive PI. Maybe both. But probably just the second one. I can't blame Woodson for those. I think there were two other passes where he was around the play, but I don't know if those were his assignments or if he was free-lancing over to the play.

Woodson gets beat, and we make excuses. Bush is hardly heard from and everyone blames him.

Agaiin, not making excuses for woodson (other than fitz plowing into him and no call). He didn't play great. Also not making excuses for bush...give me a break...not heard from??? What game were you watching??

Where as you have to pretend you know the coverage and responsibilities of Bigby to claim he was out of position, Bush was the obvious cover guy getting beaten time after time.

I don't pretend to know anything. I didn't say Bigby was out of position. I said his replacement didn't seem to have much range. Settle down big boy, some of us are just trying to discuss the game. No need to get all bent out of shape and start slinging accusations.

[sharpe1027]

Agaiin, not making excuses for woodson (other than fitz plowing into him and no call). He didn't play great. Also not making excuses for bush...give me a break...not heard from??? What game were you watching??

Where as you have to pretend you know the coverage and responsibilities of Bigby to claim he was out of position, Bush was the obvious cover guy getting beaten time after time.

Here's the problem, when I say I didn't think Bush was our main problem, people pretend to know the coverages and tell me that it was Bush's fault. Meanwhile, I get blasted for pointing out that our backup seemed too slow to cover much ground.

[sharpe1027]

Maybe it's because of how they were beat. You know perfectly well that Bush isn't in Woodson's class. And if you watched the game, you also know perfectly well that Woodson wasn't "simply beat". It isn't excuses.

Woodson was beat. What kind of coverage was he planning to do by standing in Fitz's way 20+ yards down the field? It was an extremely ackward looking. Maybe Woodson wasn't playing Fitz, he was trying to read Warner and that is why he got beat.

I was screaming about offensive PI when I first watched it, but damn if it just didn't look like Woodson got caught not playing the WR.

[Smidgeon]

Maybe it's because of how they were beat. You know perfectly well that Bush isn't in Woodson's class. And if you watched the game, you also know perfectly well that Woodson wasn't "simply beat". It isn't excuses.

Woodson was beat. What kind of coverage was he planning to do by standing in Fitz's way 20+ yards down the field? It was an extremely ackward looking. Maybe Woodson wasn't playing Fitz, he was trying to read Warner and that is why he got beat.

I was screaming about offensive PI when I first watched it, but damn if it just didn't look like Woodson got caught not playing the WR.

Well, if Woodson was playing the QB and the ball and not the WR, Fitz can't run over him. At all. Them's the rules.

[Freak Out]

Get over Mike McKenzie. You won't be seeing NO picking him up to play this week.

Also, they did not attack Bigby. They went much shorter in the middle. If a safety was getting torched, my bet would be Collins, not Bigby at this point.

I would suggest reading this: http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/81142762.html

Baranczyk covers the problem he believes the Packers had with the combo routes and the middle of the field. He also agrees with KYPack's dissection of the options available to the Packers for more pressure. He sees them as dismal, as currently staffed.

Problem is, Bigby was no where to be found in middle - short, mid, or deep, against the run or against the pass. He covered no one and offered no help. When he did bumble into a play, which wasn't often, he was missing tackles, grabbing facemasks and otherwise sucking ass.

Outside of Matthews, our D line created no pressure, so our defense was forced to match their formations, which meant having our shitty players on the field (namely Bush, who couldn't figure out who to cover, much less fail at trying to cover them, and Chillar, who looked like a boob as usual), and Arizona exposed them for what they are. Bigby is what he is and couldn't offer anything to offset those mismatches. Too bad, so sad. We need to find a lot of safety help before next fall for those times when our D line is struggling.
Bigby was usually deep middle. And they were throwing lots of seams, ins and slants I think. Most of the action was in front of him. Very few plays got to his level during the throw. I am not saying he played well, but the underneath guys were in trouble first on most plays.

The plays I remember were right in between the LBs zone and the safety and seemed to be perfectly thrown/timed. The Zona OL played lights out and Warner with time is going to hit receivers with that much talent.

[MOBB DEEP]

mike mckenzie

i love u

[sharpe1027]

Well, if Woodson was playing the QB and the ball and not the WR, Fitz can't run over him. At all. Them's the rules.

If Fitz is running a route beyond 5 yards, the Woodson can't impede his route. At all. Them's the real rules... :wink:

[Smidgeon]

Well, if Woodson was playing the QB and the ball and not the WR, Fitz can't run over him. At all. Them's the rules.

If Fitz is running a route beyond 5 yards, the Woodson can't impede his route. At all. Them's the real rules... :wink:

That's if the CB is playing the WR. If he isn't playing the WR, he has as much right to that spot on the field as the WR does. Especially if he's playing a zone and watching the ball. I don't know if he was playing a zone and watching the ball, I'm just saying that not all scenarios say Woodson "just got beat". He could have been playing a deep zone. He could have recognized a play and moved off the WR to something else he saw. If either were the case and Fitzgerald ran into him, that's offensive PI.

[sharpe1027]

Rather than guess about the rules and make up our own stuff, bolded points are particularly interesting:




4. It is pass interference by either team when any player movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player of such player’s opportunity to catch the ball. Offensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched. Defensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is thrown until the ball is touched.

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch.

(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(c) Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.

(d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball.

Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.

(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

(c) Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.

Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a receiver’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball or neither player is looking for the ball.

(b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved players.

Note 1: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.

Note 2: Defensive players have as much right to the path of the ball as eligible offensive players.

Note 3: Pass interference for both teams ends when the pass is touched.

Note 4: There can be no pass interference at or behind the line of scrimmage, but defensive actions such as tackling a receiver can still result in a 5-yard penalty for defensive holding, if accepted.

Note 5: Whenever a team presents an apparent punting formation, defensive pass interference is not to be called for action on the end man on the line of scrimmage, or an eligible receiver behind the line of scrimmage who is aligned or in motion more than one yard outside the end man on the line. Defensive holding, such as tackling a receiver, still can be called and result in a 5-yard penalty and automatic first down from the previous spot, if accepted. Offensive pass interference rules still apply.

[Smidgeon]

Good stuff. The only question that remains then is this: Did Woodson fall down on his own, because of incidental contact, or because Fitzgerald gave him enough of a push to "create separation to catch the pass"? I'm not about to go back and replay the game to find out, but I believe our original point of debate was the difference between Bush's blown coverage and Woodson's coverage. I think on all of the passes thrown against Woodson, he was competetive on the route or ball on all of them. Bush? I can't say. I wasn't really watching him, but many posters have said that he was lagging on his routes.

[ThunderDan]

Rather than guess about the rules and make up our own stuff, bolded points are particularly interesting:




4. It is pass interference by either team when any player movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player of such player’s opportunity to catch the ball. Offensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched. Defensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is thrown until the ball is touched.

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch.

(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(c) Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.

(d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball.

Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.

(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

(c) Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.

Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a receiver’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball or neither player is looking for the ball.

(b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved players.

Note 1: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.

Note 2: Defensive players have as much right to the path of the ball as eligible offensive players.

Note 3: Pass interference for both teams ends when the pass is touched.

Note 4: There can be no pass interference at or behind the line of scrimmage, but defensive actions such as tackling a receiver can still result in a 5-yard penalty for defensive holding, if accepted.

Note 5: Whenever a team presents an apparent punting formation, defensive pass interference is not to be called for action on the end man on the line of scrimmage, or an eligible receiver behind the line of scrimmage who is aligned or in motion more than one yard outside the end man on the line. Defensive holding, such as tackling a receiver, still can be called and result in a 5-yard penalty and automatic first down from the previous spot, if accepted. Offensive pass interference rules still apply.

I think Note 2 at the bottom needs to be read by every offical, just in general and not just last nights game.

[sharpe1027]

I think Note 2 at the bottom needs to be read by every offical, just in general and not just last nights game.

Yes. But that had nothing to do with the Woodson play. The path of the ball was completely the other way. Frankly, I'm not sure it was PI at all because I don't think the the ball was in the air when contact occurred.

[sharpe1027]

Good stuff. The only question that remains then is this: Did Woodson fall down on his own, because of incidental contact, or because Fitzgerald gave him enough of a push to "create separation to catch the pass"? I'm not about to go back and replay the game to find out, but I believe our original point of debate was the difference between Bush's blown coverage and Woodson's coverage. I think on all of the passes thrown against Woodson, he was competetive on the route or ball on all of them. Bush? I can't say. I wasn't really watching him, but many posters have said that he was lagging on his routes.

Yeah, the one I remember, Bush trailing a WR that was dragging across the entire field before the pass was finally made. What exactly are people expecting our 3rd DB to be able to do? Play like Reevis?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

All Ty is going to say is that...he told you so.

Told you Coach Wiz was smart. Told you he wouldn't show his hand. And, boom...he showed it when it counted...not some meaningless game against the us in the regular season..or preseason.

Maybe next time, some of you will think instead of getting caught up in emotion.

P.S. Great season Pack. Thank you. Ty enjoyed the product you put out. Ty enjoyed watching the young players grow. Ty enjoyed the first year of DC's defense. Ty anxiously awaits for next season. Go Pack Go.

[Smidgeon]

Good stuff. The only question that remains then is this: Did Woodson fall down on his own, because of incidental contact, or because Fitzgerald gave him enough of a push to "create separation to catch the pass"? I'm not about to go back and replay the game to find out, but I believe our original point of debate was the difference between Bush's blown coverage and Woodson's coverage. I think on all of the passes thrown against Woodson, he was competetive on the route or ball on all of them. Bush? I can't say. I wasn't really watching him, but many posters have said that he was lagging on his routes.

Yeah, the one I remember, Bush trailing a WR that was dragging across the entire field before the pass was finally made. What exactly are people expecting our 3rd DB to be able to do? Play like Reevis?

I'm not. But I don't think Woodson's misses were as gregarious as your first post made it seem. That's where I took issue.

[sharpe1027]

I'm not. But I don't think Woodson's misses were as gregarious as your first post made it seem. That's where I took issue.

Misunderstanding, I meant only to point out that many people just assume that Bush is the problem by pointing out how differently people view Woodson's play even when he struggles some.

[Smidgeon]

I'm not. But I don't think Woodson's misses were as gregarious as your first post made it seem. That's where I took issue.

Misunderstanding, I meant only to point out that many people just assume that Bush is the problem by pointing out how differently people view Woodson's play even when he struggles some.

Well, I think we're back on the same page then. He didn't have his best game (who on D did?) but he did cause a momentum changing turnover and that fingertip pass defense late in the game.

[MOBB DEEP]

All Ty is going to say is that...he told you so.

Told you Coach Wiz was smart. Told you he wouldn't show his hand. And, boom...he showed it when it counted...not some meaningless game against the us in the regular season..or preseason.

Maybe next time, some of you will think instead of getting caught up in emotion.


lol at som many i told u so's

[swede]

All Ty is going to say is that...he told you so.

Told you Coach Wiz was smart. Told you he wouldn't show his hand. And, boom...he showed it when it counted...not some meaningless game against the us in the regular season..or preseason.

Maybe next time, some of you will think instead of getting caught up in emotion.

P.S. Great season Pack. Thank you. Ty enjoyed the product you put out. Ty enjoyed watching the young players grow. Ty enjoyed the first year of DC's defense. Ty anxiously awaits for next season. Go Pack Go.

QFT

That loss stung. As well as we have played it seemed so unlikely that anyone could find a flaw in our defense so deadly that we could only make their team punt--what...once?...twice?

It was cool we had a chance to win it, but it would have been stealing a game from a team that played better than we did overall.

[swede]

All Ty is going to say is that...he told you so.

Told you Coach Wiz was smart. Told you he wouldn't show his hand. And, boom...he showed it when it counted...not some meaningless game against the us in the regular season..or preseason.

Maybe next time, some of you will think instead of getting caught up in emotion.


lol at som many i told u so's

I did, too, but that's Ty. And if he didn't tell us before at least he's right after.

[ThunderDan]

I think Note 2 at the bottom needs to be read by every offical, just in general and not just last nights game.

Yes. But that had nothing to do with the Woodson play. The path of the ball was completely the other way. Frankly, I'm not sure it was PI at all because I don't think the the ball was in the air when contact occurred.

I am not saying that it did. It just needs to be noted to officals that contact between the O and D player is not automatically DPI (I would guess 95% of the calls are on the D).

[get louder at lambeau]

As usual, pbmax is the voice of reason around here.

Here's the Kurt Warner highlight video from NFL.com. It doubles as the Packer Pass Defense Lowlight Video-
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d815a55b7/Wild-Card-Kurt-Warner-highlights

1:52 Woodson is laying on his ass as Fitzgerald scores a TD.
2:30 Woodson is laying on his ass again as Fitzgerald scores another TD.
0:20 Woodson covers no one at all, as a WR from his side runs free for a TD.
1:40 Woodson whiffs on an attmpted pass breakup, falls on his face, and the WR runs free for a first down.
6:20 Woodson wraps up the WR, but then lets him go and falls on his ass. (This one set up the 35 yd game winning FG attempt at the end of regulation.)

Now, those of you who think Bush, or Bigby, or Giordano, or whoever else sucked, please do the same thing I just did, and show us all how they sucked, instead of just claiming it without basis.

Thanks in advance. :wink:

[Smidgeon]

As usual, pbmax is the voice of reason around here.

Here's the Kurt Warner highlight video from NFL.com. It doubles as the Packer Pass Defense Lowlight Video-
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-.....highlights

1:52 Woodson is laying on his ass as Fitzgerald scores a TD.
2:30 Woodson is laying on his ass again as Fitzgerald scores another TD.
0:20 Woodson covers no one at all, as a WR from his side runs free for a TD.
1:40 Woodson whiffs on an attmpted pass breakup, falls on his face, and the WR runs free for a first down.
6:20 Woodson wraps up the WR, but then lets him go and falls on his ass. (This one set up the 35 yd game winning FG attempt at the end of regulation.)

Now, those of you who think Bush, or Bigby, or Giordano, or whoever else sucked, please do the same thing I just did, and show us all how they sucked, instead of just claiming it without basis.

Thanks in advance. :wink:

I'm assuming you read the previous posts in this thread about my opinion on Woodson's coverage?

[get louder at lambeau]

As usual, pbmax is the voice of reason around here.

Here's the Kurt Warner highlight video from NFL.com. It doubles as the Packer Pass Defense Lowlight Video-
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-.....highlights

1:52 Woodson is laying on his ass as Fitzgerald scores a TD.
2:30 Woodson is laying on his ass again as Fitzgerald scores another TD.
0:20 Woodson covers no one at all, as a WR from his side runs free for a TD.
1:40 Woodson whiffs on an attmpted pass breakup, falls on his face, and the WR runs free for a first down.
6:20 Woodson wraps up the WR, but then lets him go and falls on his ass. (This one set up the 35 yd game winning FG attempt at the end of regulation.)

Now, those of you who think Bush, or Bigby, or Giordano, or whoever else sucked, please do the same thing I just did, and show us all how they sucked, instead of just claiming it without basis.

Thanks in advance. :wink:

I'm assuming you read the previous posts in this thread about my opinion on Woodson's coverage?

It seems somewhat reasonable to say Fitz should get a penalty, but what penalty, and is it just because we area Packer fans seeing through green and gold glasses? It's not offensive pass interference, because the ball hasn't been thrown yet, so offensive illegal contact? Do they EVER call that?

Chuck wasn't just standing there, minding his own business either, he was part of the contact. In the video, it shows a replay of the first one, and BOTH of them are hand-fighting. No way they call an offensive penalty on that in the real world. If anything, it looks like Chuck initiated contact, then Fitz took him out. The second one all you can see is Chuck running towards Fitz, then he's on his ass.

One way or another, that's 14 points that came as a direct result of Chuck on Fitz. No call. Two TDs. Can't blame anyone other than Woodson, unless you want to get ticky-tacky and blame the refs, which is always tempting.

Check out the one at the 0:20 mark and tell me what you think. I think that is a third TD that Woodson is responsible for, but can't tell for sure.

[Patler]

Personally, I thought the Woodson/Fitzgerald plays were good "no calls". The players converged at a spot on the one TD, and Fitzgerald won the encounter. So be it. As aggressive and physical as Woodson plays (Harris, too) when they get beat at their own game it is time to tip your hat to the receiver. To his credit, that's what Woodson did.

On too many plays, including one by Woodson, it seemed the Packers were too intent on ripping the ball out, and failed to make the tackles. Especially in the first half I saw defenders grabbing arms, not bodies, even when they were the first man there. A lot of extra yardage resulted from that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

All Ty is going to say is that...he told you so.

Told you Coach Wiz was smart. Told you he wouldn't show his hand. And, boom...he showed it when it counted...not some meaningless game against the us in the regular season..or preseason.

Maybe next time, some of you will think instead of getting caught up in emotion.


lol at som many i told u so's

I did, too, but that's Ty. And if he didn't tell us before at least he's right after.

Let's be clear. Ty never said that the Cards would win. Ty simply said that judging the Cards and what they could/would do based on the blowout was stupid.

Ty said the same thing in the preseason.

Ty simply stated, REPEATEDLY...go look it up, that the Cards didn't try, they played vanilla, and that Coach Wiz wasn't going to show his hand. Ty said it..it is on record. Ty said that if he were coach Wiz, going up against our D, Ty..like Wiz, wouldn't show a dang thing in a meaningless game.

[pbmax]

The Packer Insider article from Christl's guy said he thought the Packer shallow defenders were too quick to jump routes and leave their space, or both go with one player, leaving another alone. He attributed it to mental errors as well as too much aggression. Woodson definitely had some plays where safer, less aggressive tactics would have saved yards.

[denverYooper]

On too many plays, including one by Woodson, it seemed the Packers were too intent on ripping the ball out, and failed to make the tackles. Especially in the first half I saw defenders grabbing arms, not bodies, even when they were the first man there. A lot of extra yardage resulted from that.

Yes! I noticed that also. Several times there were 3 guys ripping at the ball, no one tackling.

[PA Pack Fan]

As usual, pbmax is the voice of reason around here.

Here's the Kurt Warner highlight video from NFL.com. It doubles as the Packer Pass Defense Lowlight Video-
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d815a55b7/Wild-Card-Kurt-Warner-highlights

1:52 Woodson is laying on his ass as Fitzgerald scores a TD.
2:30 Woodson is laying on his ass again as Fitzgerald scores another TD.
0:20 Woodson covers no one at all, as a WR from his side runs free for a TD.
1:40 Woodson whiffs on an attmpted pass breakup, falls on his face, and the WR runs free for a first down.
6:20 Woodson wraps up the WR, but then lets him go and falls on his ass. (This one set up the 35 yd game winning FG attempt at the end of regulation.)

Now, those of you who think Bush, or Bigby, or Giordano, or whoever else sucked, please do the same thing I just did, and show us all how they sucked, instead of just claiming it without basis.

Thanks in advance. :wink:

Thank you sir. You also helped in revealing the idiot posters here. :lol:

[Bretsky]

As usual, pbmax is the voice of reason around here.

Here's the Kurt Warner highlight video from NFL.com. It doubles as the Packer Pass Defense Lowlight Video-
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d815a55b7/Wild-Card-Kurt-Warner-highlights

1:52 Woodson is laying on his ass as Fitzgerald scores a TD.
2:30 Woodson is laying on his ass again as Fitzgerald scores another TD.
0:20 Woodson covers no one at all, as a WR from his side runs free for a TD.
1:40 Woodson whiffs on an attmpted pass breakup, falls on his face, and the WR runs free for a first down.
6:20 Woodson wraps up the WR, but then lets him go and falls on his ass. (This one set up the 35 yd game winning FG attempt at the end of regulation.)

Now, those of you who think Bush, or Bigby, or Giordano, or whoever else sucked, please do the same thing I just did, and show us all how they sucked, instead of just claiming it without basis.

Thanks in advance. :wink:


I trust you watched the game yesterday; at bare minimum you should have noticed the piss poor tackling angles and blown coverages....from several other than Woodson.

Just to clarify, I never said Woodson was even remotely effective yesterday.

Saying he stunk is not evidence the others did not

[get louder at lambeau]

As usual, pbmax is the voice of reason around here.

Here's the Kurt Warner highlight video from NFL.com. It doubles as the Packer Pass Defense Lowlight Video-
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d815a55b7/Wild-Card-Kurt-Warner-highlights

1:52 Woodson is laying on his ass as Fitzgerald scores a TD.
2:30 Woodson is laying on his ass again as Fitzgerald scores another TD.
0:20 Woodson covers no one at all, as a WR from his side runs free for a TD.
1:40 Woodson whiffs on an attmpted pass breakup, falls on his face, and the WR runs free for a first down.
6:20 Woodson wraps up the WR, but then lets him go and falls on his ass. (This one set up the 35 yd game winning FG attempt at the end of regulation.)

Now, those of you who think Bush, or Bigby, or Giordano, or whoever else sucked, please do the same thing I just did, and show us all how they sucked, instead of just claiming it without basis.

Thanks in advance. :wink:


I trust you watched the game yesterday; at bare minimum you should have noticed the piss poor tackling angles and blown coverages....from several other than Woodson.

Just to clarify, I never said Woodson was even remotely effective yesterday.

Saying he stunk is not evidence the others did not

I would just like to SEE the evidence, instead of having to take someone else's word for it. The highlight vids should show all the big plays, so it shouldn't be hard to find where they picked on Bush and Bigby. Not calling anyone out, I just want evidence, since videos are so easily available.

I saw Woodson fuck up over and over. Granted he had the hardest assignment, but he sucked yesterday. I saw Collins fuck up at least a couple times. I saw Chillar and the other LBs unable to cover WRs, which is no real surprise. I saw Warner play the game of his life, and I saw the receivers catch everything that came near them. I didn't see Bush fucking up much, or Bigby. Lots of people claim to have seen it, so I'd like to see what I missed.

[Smidgeon]

As usual, pbmax is the voice of reason around here.

Here's the Kurt Warner highlight video from NFL.com. It doubles as the Packer Pass Defense Lowlight Video-
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d815a55b7/Wild-Card-Kurt-Warner-highlights

1:52 Woodson is laying on his ass as Fitzgerald scores a TD.
2:30 Woodson is laying on his ass again as Fitzgerald scores another TD.
0:20 Woodson covers no one at all, as a WR from his side runs free for a TD.
1:40 Woodson whiffs on an attmpted pass breakup, falls on his face, and the WR runs free for a first down.
6:20 Woodson wraps up the WR, but then lets him go and falls on his ass. (This one set up the 35 yd game winning FG attempt at the end of regulation.)

Now, those of you who think Bush, or Bigby, or Giordano, or whoever else sucked, please do the same thing I just did, and show us all how they sucked, instead of just claiming it without basis.

Thanks in advance. :wink:


I trust you watched the game yesterday; at bare minimum you should have noticed the piss poor tackling angles and blown coverages....from several other than Woodson.

Just to clarify, I never said Woodson was even remotely effective yesterday.

Saying he stunk is not evidence the others did not

I would just like to SEE the evidence, instead of having to take someone else's word for it. The highlight vids should show all the big plays, so it shouldn't be hard to find where they picked on Bush and Bigby. Not calling anyone out, I just want evidence, since videos are so easily available.

I saw Woodson fuck up over and over. Granted he had the hardest assignment, but he sucked yesterday. I saw Collins fuck up at least a couple times. I saw Chillar and the other LBs unable to cover WRs, which is no real surprise. I saw Warner play the game of his life, and I saw the receivers catch everything that came near them. I didn't see Bush fucking up much, or Bigby. Lots of people claim to have seen it, so I'd like to see what I missed.

It may sound like a cop-out, but unless the Packers were in man, you don't know who was supposed to be covering whom. Some of those players running free maybe were supposed to be released to the defender with a deeper zone. Maybe Woodson's in all those plays because he was trying to make a play when everyone else stood around. And as for how much he sucked, he's the one who forced the one Cardinal turnover and had the crucial pass defensed late in the game. I'm not saying he played perfect. I'm just saying that from what I saw, he didn't play as bad as you infer. Highlights tell jack.

[get louder at lambeau]

Highlights tell jack.

Ruh-heeeely? Wow. I've heard people argue with opinions, with articles, with stats, but with video evidence? You know that's how they catch bank robbers and terrorists, right? It's kinda considered to be good evidence to be able to see things with your own eyes.

Yes, it does sound like a cop out. Of course you're right that sometimes you don't know who is supposed to be covering who, but sometimes it's just plain obvious. You can watch it over and over, and see what each player is doing. I'm no expert on pass defense schemes by any stretch, but you don't have to be to see some of this stuff.

I broke down that whole video in my unedumacated way for another site. Here is how I see it. If you disagree with what I see, I'd love to hear your version of what happened. Like I said, I'm no expert, just another Packer fan.


Here's what I see in the video-

Play #1- 3rd and 8, 3 receivers stacked tight to the right. Only 9 Packers on the screen, so I'm guessing two safeties are deep. Two CBs (Wood and Underwood?) get cleared out by Fitz and Doucet. Urban is totally uncovered for 13 yards and a 1st down.

Chillar is standing in the middle of the field doing nothing, so maybe that's on him? It looks like a possible scheme problem that they are using a weird set to exploit, so my guess is this one might be on Capers. The guy who caught it is a WR, not a TE, so you can't really expect Chillar, an LB, to be able to run with him anyway, right? That or one of those CBs was supposed to let the other two WRs run by him and play a short zone, so maybe it's on Underwood?

Whatever it was, they are 2nd and goal at the 5, and the end result is a rushing TD two plays later.

#2- 1st and 15. Tramon Williams is playing WAY off coverage, lining up 7 yards deep, and Warner sees it. He's still 5 yards off the WR when the ball gets there. Easy completion for 11 yards.

#3- 2nd and 3 at the GB 16. 4 wide, 2 per side. Packers bring Chillar on a blitz, 5 man rush. Warner over the middle to Doucet for an easy TD.

Collins was lined up in the middle, but is keying on the RB since the snap who goes out for a pass immediately. Woodson kinda just stands there, and covers nobody. He looks like he may have been trying to tell Collins something before the play. Maybe he wanted to change coverage? Very quick developing play that looks genius against our D. Either Woodson or Collins, or both look like they are to blame.

#4- 1st and 10. Attempted flea flicker, Matthews forces a fumble. Partyman AZ recovers. Sad

#5- 1st and 10. AZ goes 3 wide, spread out very wide, and a TE. 2 WRs right, TE left. TE (Ben Patrick) beats Collins bad for 23 yards.

#6- 2nd and 13 at the 16. 4wide, 2 per side. Fitz runs right at Bush, then jukes around him, apparently to disrupt his zone coverage timing. Great playcall by AZ with Fitz kinda running a pick on Bush. As a result, Doucet is open 3 yards deep underneath. Bush misses the tackle from behind. Collins hits him square for what should be an easy tackle, but doesn't wrap up and just falls off him. TD. The catch is on Bush. The TD is on Collins.

#7- 2nd and 3, 4 wide, 2 per side. Crossing pattern creates another natural pick, with Bush having to go around Barnett to follow Doucet across the field. Complete for 8. Not sure what could have been done better, great play design. Zone instead of man coverage may have worked better?

#8- 2nd and 7, 4 wide, motioned to become 2 per side. Woodson's guy gets it as he dives for the INT/breakup instead of covering, and whiffs. 11 yard completion.

#9- 1st and 10 at the GB 33. Woodson falls down after getting tangled up with Fitzgerald, and just sits there on the ground for a split second. Easy TD.

Many Packer fans may say that it should have been an offensive illegal contact penalty, but that never gets called in the NFL, and they both were battling a little. Woodson got the worst of it, and got schooled by the best receiver in the game for a long TD.

#10- 1st and 10, 4 wide, 2 per side. Looks like zone coverage, with the RB clearing Bush out wide to create a mismatch by isolating Doucet on Barnett, who whiffs on the tackle. 15 yards. Great playcall.

#11- 1st and 5 at the GB 11, 4 wide, 3 stacked tight left. Woodson falls down after contacting Fitz again, leaving Giordano in the endzone to cover Fitz. Another easy TD.

#12- 2nd and 8, 4 wide, 2 per side. RB hightower out of the backfield "covered" by Cullen Jenkins. Jenkins predictably gets burned, dives and gets his shoelaces enough to make him step out after 9 yards. He almost gets much more. This one is on Capers.

#13- 1st and 10. Can't see the formation in this one, since the play is in progress when the clip starts. It's probably 4 wide like most of the others. Tramon has great tight coverage on Breaston, but gets beat for 25 yards anyway with a perfect pass and great catch. Williams even grazed the ball with his hand. Nine times out of ten that would be incomplete with coverage like that. Warner is absolutely on fire.

#14- 2nd and 7 at the GB 17, 4 wide, 2 per side. The WRs on the left cross, and the RB goes out wide in the flat under them. I can't tell who's supposed to do what on this one. Could be on Williams, or Bush, or Barnett, who is the closest to Breaston when he gets the ball. One way or another, it looks like they know how to exploit our pass coverage scheme with complicated pass patterns.

My conclusion after watching that play by play and analyzing it to the best of my unedumacated abilities is that Warner and the Cardinal receivers were on fire, with only 4 incomplete passes all day, Woodson got schooled, and Capers got outschemed. I expected to see more of Giordano and the other backups, but it doesn't look like they really exploited them as much as you'd think. They dared Woodson to beat Fitzgerald, and the results were similar to Plaxico Burress vs. Al Harris in the '07 NFC Championship game.

[bobblehead]

How many of those 10+ wide open catches were Bush's fault? Maybe a couple. I bet Woodson got beat as much as Bush.... :shock:

Bigby was out and the announcers didn't even notice. The scrubs we had in were killing us. Bush was not the biggest of the problems out there. He's just a convenient scape goat.

Woodson got beat twice against Fitzgerald. Both for TDs. At least one could have been called an offensive PI. Maybe both. But probably just the second one. I can't blame Woodson for those. I think there were two other passes where he was around the play, but I don't know if those were his assignments or if he was free-lancing over to the play.

Woodson gets beat, and we make excuses. Bush is hardly heard from and everyone blames him.

Agaiin, not making excuses for woodson (other than fitz plowing into him and no call). He didn't play great. Also not making excuses for bush...give me a break...not heard from??? What game were you watching??

Where as you have to pretend you know the coverage and responsibilities of Bigby to claim he was out of position, Bush was the obvious cover guy getting beaten time after time.

I don't pretend to know anything. I didn't say Bigby was out of position. I said his replacement didn't seem to have much range. Settle down big boy, some of us are just trying to discuss the game. No need to get all bent out of shape and start slinging accusations.

The bigby comments weren't in regard to anything you wrote, it was a response to what others had written. Sooo, settle down big boy, I know it read as if I were attributing the bigby stuff to you, but my apologies, I was trying to slam bush mainly. I wasn't bent out of shape and I didn't mean to "sling allegations" your way.

[bobblehead]

Well, if Woodson was playing the QB and the ball and not the WR, Fitz can't run over him. At all. Them's the rules.

If Fitz is running a route beyond 5 yards, the Woodson can't impede his route. At all. Them's the real rules... :wink:

Ummmm....no, them isn't. Wood was in the endzone, established in position. If the ball is thrown on the other side of wood, Fitz can fight to get to it. What he can't do is slam into wood, push him to the ground and reverse field to get open. That is text book offensive PI.

[Smidgeon]

Highlights tell jack.

Ruh-heeeely? Wow. I've heard people argue with opinions, with articles, with stats, but with video evidence? You know that's how they catch bank robbers and terrorists, right? It's kinda considered to be good evidence to be able to see things with your own eyes.

Yes, it does sound like a cop out. Of course you're right that sometimes you don't know who is supposed to be covering who, but sometimes it's just plain obvious. You can watch it over and over, and see what each player is doing. I'm no expert on pass defense schemes by any stretch, but you don't have to be to see some of this stuff.

I broke down that whole video in my unedumacated way for another site. Here is how I see it. If you disagree with what I see, I'd love to hear your version of what happened. Like I said, I'm no expert, just another Packer fan.


Here's what I see in the video-

Play #1- 3rd and 8, 3 receivers stacked tight to the right. Only 9 Packers on the screen, so I'm guessing two safeties are deep. Two CBs (Wood and Underwood?) get cleared out by Fitz and Doucet. Urban is totally uncovered for 13 yards and a 1st down.

Chillar is standing in the middle of the field doing nothing, so maybe that's on him? It looks like a possible scheme problem that they are using a weird set to exploit, so my guess is this one might be on Capers. The guy who caught it is a WR, not a TE, so you can't really expect Chillar, an LB, to be able to run with him anyway, right? That or one of those CBs was supposed to let the other two WRs run by him and play a short zone, so maybe it's on Underwood?

Whatever it was, they are 2nd and goal at the 5, and the end result is a rushing TD two plays later.

#2- 1st and 15. Tramon Williams is playing WAY off coverage, lining up 7 yards deep, and Warner sees it. He's still 5 yards off the WR when the ball gets there. Easy completion for 11 yards.

#3- 2nd and 3 at the GB 16. 4 wide, 2 per side. Packers bring Chillar on a blitz, 5 man rush. Warner over the middle to Doucet for an easy TD.

Collins was lined up in the middle, but is keying on the RB since the snap who goes out for a pass immediately. Woodson kinda just stands there, and covers nobody. He looks like he may have been trying to tell Collins something before the play. Maybe he wanted to change coverage? Very quick developing play that looks genius against our D. Either Woodson or Collins, or both look like they are to blame.

#4- 1st and 10. Attempted flea flicker, Matthews forces a fumble. Partyman AZ recovers. Sad

#5- 1st and 10. AZ goes 3 wide, spread out very wide, and a TE. 2 WRs right, TE left. TE (Ben Patrick) beats Collins bad for 23 yards.

#6- 2nd and 13 at the 16. 4wide, 2 per side. Fitz runs right at Bush, then jukes around him, apparently to disrupt his zone coverage timing. Great playcall by AZ with Fitz kinda running a pick on Bush. As a result, Doucet is open 3 yards deep underneath. Bush misses the tackle from behind. Collins hits him square for what should be an easy tackle, but doesn't wrap up and just falls off him. TD. The catch is on Bush. The TD is on Collins.

#7- 2nd and 3, 4 wide, 2 per side. Crossing pattern creates another natural pick, with Bush having to go around Barnett to follow Doucet across the field. Complete for 8. Not sure what could have been done better, great play design. Zone instead of man coverage may have worked better?

#8- 2nd and 7, 4 wide, motioned to become 2 per side. Woodson's guy gets it as he dives for the INT/breakup instead of covering, and whiffs. 11 yard completion.

#9- 1st and 10 at the GB 33. Woodson falls down after getting tangled up with Fitzgerald, and just sits there on the ground for a split second. Easy TD.

Many Packer fans may say that it should have been an offensive illegal contact penalty, but that never gets called in the NFL, and they both were battling a little. Woodson got the worst of it, and got schooled by the best receiver in the game for a long TD.

#10- 1st and 10, 4 wide, 2 per side. Looks like zone coverage, with the RB clearing Bush out wide to create a mismatch by isolating Doucet on Barnett, who whiffs on the tackle. 15 yards. Great playcall.

#11- 1st and 5 at the GB 11, 4 wide, 3 stacked tight left. Woodson falls down after contacting Fitz again, leaving Giordano in the endzone to cover Fitz. Another easy TD.

#12- 2nd and 8, 4 wide, 2 per side. RB hightower out of the backfield "covered" by Cullen Jenkins. Jenkins predictably gets burned, dives and gets his shoelaces enough to make him step out after 9 yards. He almost gets much more. This one is on Capers.

#13- 1st and 10. Can't see the formation in this one, since the play is in progress when the clip starts. It's probably 4 wide like most of the others. Tramon has great tight coverage on Breaston, but gets beat for 25 yards anyway with a perfect pass and great catch. Williams even grazed the ball with his hand. Nine times out of ten that would be incomplete with coverage like that. Warner is absolutely on fire.

#14- 2nd and 7 at the GB 17, 4 wide, 2 per side. The WRs on the left cross, and the RB goes out wide in the flat under them. I can't tell who's supposed to do what on this one. Could be on Williams, or Bush, or Barnett, who is the closest to Breaston when he gets the ball. One way or another, it looks like they know how to exploit our pass coverage scheme with complicated pass patterns.

My conclusion after watching that play by play and analyzing it to the best of my unedumacated abilities is that Warner and the Cardinal receivers were on fire, with only 4 incomplete passes all day, Woodson got schooled, and Capers got outschemed. I expected to see more of Giordano and the other backups, but it doesn't look like they really exploited them as much as you'd think. They dared Woodson to beat Fitzgerald, and the results were similar to Plaxico Burress vs. Al Harris in the '07 NFC Championship game.

I said "highlights" not "the entire game tape". Highlights show one play or parts of one play. They don't show the play within the series or the series within the drive. They don't show the entire play: what the QB was looking at, what the WR saw in coverage, what the CB was trying to do, what the safeties were trying to cover. All of which are things that are necessary to know whether someone played as awful as you are saying Woodson played. I have no idea whether he played that awful or not. It's my opinion that he didn't.

And it definitely isn't comparable to Harris vs Burress two years ago. In that game Harris couldn't stop a single thing thrown to Burress. Until the two plays that Woodson fell down (tell me, did he fall down by himself?), Fitzgerald only had a couple catches at most. Then there's the play where Woodson stripped Fitzgerald of the ball. Then the other play where he defended the pass and knocked the ball down late in the game. That doesn't sound as one sided as you make it out to be.

------------------------

In fact, I went back to the play by play to see what Fitzgerald did in the game. After looking at the catches Fitzgerald made, I would say that it wasn't that bad of a day by Woodson against one of the game's best WRs.

In the first half Fitzgerald had two catches for 20 yards and a lost fumble stripped by Woodson.

In the third quarter Fitzgerald got a defensive PI against Woodson for 9 yards, then the two touchdowns. The first I actually agree was incidental contact where Woodson fell. But Woodson falling on incidental contact isn't him getting schooled by Fitzgerald. That's a freak play that happens to everyone at one point or another. The second touchdown I maintain was a non called offensive PI where Fitzgerald pushed off enough to gain the separation needed to catch that ball. Or, to put it the way the rule book states (sorta), he plowed through a defender with established position. Later on in the quarter Woodson prevented a third down completion attempt to Fitzgerald.

Fourth quarter Fitzgerald had one catch against Woodson for 6 yards and one against Collins for 15. The one against Collins for 15 could have been when Woodson was covering, but I don't know because the Cards went no-huddle on that play.

That was Fitzgerald's entire day. Take away the freak play that could have happened to anyone and the debated offensive PI, and I would say Woodson ruled Fitz and not the other way around. Fitzgerald had three catches for 26 yards except for those two plays. When Woodson was on him and not tripped up by feet or pushed off of, Fitzgerald caught 3 balls, lost a fumble, and couldn't convert on a crucial third down.

EDIT: Again, that doesn't tell the entire story. That tells part of it. I don't know that Woodson was locked up man to man all game. I don't know how often they zoned him away from Fitzgerald's route. So he arguably had a below average to poor day. But even if they show him on the highlight replays, without seeing it in context, the defensive play called, where he lined up, and who he was playing, you can't say he played awfully, and I can't say he played great.

Parry and joust.

[Pugger]

I think we can all agree that Sunday's playoff game wasn't exactly the defense's finest hour by any stretch of the imagination. Usually one or two guys have bad games but the crappy play was shared equally by everyone at multiple moments in that game. It didn't help to have almost zero pressure on Warner. If you give a QB like him that kind of time you're gonna get killed. It also didn't help to have such a depleted secondary. I can't think of many teams that can overcome the devastation we endured in that section of the defense with one pro-bowler CB and 2 backups on IR. It is nightmarish when you have to trot out your #6 DB on the depth chart in nickel and dime situations! :shock: The Steeler game and this playoff game really exposed how vulnerable we were after losing Kampman and Harris.

[sharpe1027]

I said "highlights" not "the entire game tape". Highlights show one play or parts of one play. They don't show the play within the series or the series within the drive. They don't show the entire play: what the QB was looking at, what the WR saw in coverage, what the CB was trying to do, what the safeties were trying to cover. All of which are things that are necessary to know whether someone played as awful as you are saying Woodson played. I have no idea whether he played that awful or not. It's my opinion that he didn't.

And it definitely isn't comparable to Harris vs Burress two years ago. In that game Harris couldn't stop a single thing thrown to Burress. Until the two plays that Woodson fell down (tell me, did he fall down by himself?), Fitzgerald only had a couple catches at most. Then there's the play where Woodson stripped Fitzgerald of the ball. Then the other play where he defended the pass and knocked the ball down late in the game. That doesn't sound as one sided as you make it out to be.

------------------------

In fact, I went back to the play by play to see what Fitzgerald did in the game. After looking at the catches Fitzgerald made, I would say that it wasn't that bad of a day by Woodson against one of the game's best WRs.

In the first half Fitzgerald had two catches for 20 yards and a lost fumble stripped by Woodson.

In the third quarter Fitzgerald got a defensive PI against Woodson for 9 yards, then the two touchdowns. The first I actually agree was incidental contact where Woodson fell. But Woodson falling on incidental contact isn't him getting schooled by Fitzgerald. That's a freak play that happens to everyone at one point or another. The second touchdown I maintain was a non called offensive PI where Fitzgerald pushed off enough to gain the separation needed to catch that ball. Or, to put it the way the rule book states (sorta), he plowed through a defender with established position. Later on in the quarter Woodson prevented a third down completion attempt to Fitzgerald.

Fourth quarter Fitzgerald had one catch against Woodson for 6 yards and one against Collins for 15. The one against Collins for 15 could have been when Woodson was covering, but I don't know because the Cards went no-huddle on that play.

That was Fitzgerald's entire day. Take away the freak play that could have happened to anyone and the debated offensive PI, and I would say Woodson ruled Fitz and not the other way around. Fitzgerald had three catches for 26 yards except for those two plays. When Woodson was on him and not tripped up by feet or pushed off of, Fitzgerald caught 3 balls, lost a fumble, and couldn't convert on a crucial third down.

EDIT: Again, that doesn't tell the entire story. That tells part of it. I don't know that Woodson was locked up man to man all game. I don't know how often they zoned him away from Fitzgerald's route. So he arguably had a below average to poor day. But even if they show him on the highlight replays, without seeing it in context, the defensive play called, where he lined up, and who he was playing, you can't say he played awfully, and I can't say he played great.

Parry and joust.

It may sound like a cop-out, but unless the Packers were in man across the board, you don't know who was supposed to be covering whom. Some of those coverages on Fitz maybe had a defender with a deeper zone helping out. Maybe Woodson's wasn't maned up on Fitz on all those plays because he was in zone or covering a different WR. And as for how forcing the one Cardinal turnover, it was key, but doesn't mean anything about the entire rest of the game. I'm not saying he was completely ineffective. I'm just saying that from the evidence presented by people here, he didn't play as good as you infer and nobody has been able to show much of anything wrong with Bush's play. Conclusions without much support tell jack.

:twisted:

Seriously though, trying to poke holes in someone else's points has limited value. Woodson and the entire defense was beat. IMHO, people need to stop blaming so much on Bush. I think he had a decent game, given how bad the entire D played.

[Zool]

Here's a question about highlight reels. Do you think they are going to show Larry Fitz catching balls or would they focus on Early Doucet. Because nothing sells ad space like a good Early Doucet highlight film.

Woodson was locked up on who's widely considered the best WR in football. He didnt play well obviously. He took far too many risks. Bush was lined up across from Doucet who had a whopping 17 catches on the season coming into the game. How many catches would Fitz have if locked up with Bush all day.

The Cards found the weak link and exploited it until they gave help and pulled the help from Woodsons side. Then they started going to Fitz.

Go find a Cardinal fan and ask if they feel good about the play of Michael Adams heading down to N.O.

[Smidgeon]

I said "highlights" not "the entire game tape". Highlights show one play or parts of one play. They don't show the play within the series or the series within the drive. They don't show the entire play: what the QB was looking at, what the WR saw in coverage, what the CB was trying to do, what the safeties were trying to cover. All of which are things that are necessary to know whether someone played as awful as you are saying Woodson played. I have no idea whether he played that awful or not. It's my opinion that he didn't.

And it definitely isn't comparable to Harris vs Burress two years ago. In that game Harris couldn't stop a single thing thrown to Burress. Until the two plays that Woodson fell down (tell me, did he fall down by himself?), Fitzgerald only had a couple catches at most. Then there's the play where Woodson stripped Fitzgerald of the ball. Then the other play where he defended the pass and knocked the ball down late in the game. That doesn't sound as one sided as you make it out to be.

------------------------

In fact, I went back to the play by play to see what Fitzgerald did in the game. After looking at the catches Fitzgerald made, I would say that it wasn't that bad of a day by Woodson against one of the game's best WRs.

In the first half Fitzgerald had two catches for 20 yards and a lost fumble stripped by Woodson.

In the third quarter Fitzgerald got a defensive PI against Woodson for 9 yards, then the two touchdowns. The first I actually agree was incidental contact where Woodson fell. But Woodson falling on incidental contact isn't him getting schooled by Fitzgerald. That's a freak play that happens to everyone at one point or another. The second touchdown I maintain was a non called offensive PI where Fitzgerald pushed off enough to gain the separation needed to catch that ball. Or, to put it the way the rule book states (sorta), he plowed through a defender with established position. Later on in the quarter Woodson prevented a third down completion attempt to Fitzgerald.

Fourth quarter Fitzgerald had one catch against Woodson for 6 yards and one against Collins for 15. The one against Collins for 15 could have been when Woodson was covering, but I don't know because the Cards went no-huddle on that play.

That was Fitzgerald's entire day. Take away the freak play that could have happened to anyone and the debated offensive PI, and I would say Woodson ruled Fitz and not the other way around. Fitzgerald had three catches for 26 yards except for those two plays. When Woodson was on him and not tripped up by feet or pushed off of, Fitzgerald caught 3 balls, lost a fumble, and couldn't convert on a crucial third down.

EDIT: Again, that doesn't tell the entire story. That tells part of it. I don't know that Woodson was locked up man to man all game. I don't know how often they zoned him away from Fitzgerald's route. So he arguably had a below average to poor day. But even if they show him on the highlight replays, without seeing it in context, the defensive play called, where he lined up, and who he was playing, you can't say he played awfully, and I can't say he played great.

Parry and joust.

It may sound like a cop-out, but unless the Packers were in man across the board, you don't know who was supposed to be covering whom. Some of those coverages on Fitz maybe had a defender with a deeper zone helping out. Maybe Woodson's wasn't maned up on Fitz on all those plays because he was in zone or covering a different WR. And as for how forcing the one Cardinal turnover, it was key, but doesn't mean anything about the entire rest of the game. I'm not saying he was completely ineffective. I'm just saying that from the evidence presented by people here, he didn't play as good as you infer and nobody has been able to show much of anything wrong with Bush's play. Conclusions without much support tell jack.

:twisted:

Seriously though, trying to poke holes in someone else's points has limited value. Woodson and the entire defense was beat. IMHO, people need to stop blaming so much on Bush. I think he had a decent game, given how bad the entire D played.

I agree that Woodson and the entire D was beat. Woodson didn't play lights out. The whole D allowed a ton of points. But the inference that I took issue to was one where Woodson played one of his worst games (not stated but implied). I didn't see it that way and have stated my reasons why. He didn't play a great game, but he didn't play as badly as people infer either. I don't have anything to say about Bush. I think the only time I referenced him was when I either referenced other posters ripping him or the one drag/trail route where he was in man coverage and in no position to even challenge the catch (but did get the tackle).

[sharpe1027]

I agree that Woodson and the entire D was beat. Woodson didn't play lights out. The whole D allowed a ton of points. But the inference that I took issue to was one where Woodson played one of his worst games (not stated but implied). I didn't see it that way and have stated my reasons why. He didn't play a great game, but he didn't play as badly as people infer either. I don't have anything to say about Bush. I think the only time I referenced him was when I either referenced other posters ripping him or the one drag/trail route where he was in man coverage and in no position to even challenge the catch (but did get the tackle).

Woodson had one of his best years ever, so I would say this was one of his worst games. I personally believe it was his worst game of the year. I am not saying that he was worse than anyone else out there, but it was one of his worst games.

One of the original and main reasons Woodson was brought up in this thread was to point out how people piled on Bush just because he's Bush and make excuses for Woodson just because he's Woodson. So I have to respectfully say you have completely missed one of the main points of this entire discussion.

[sharpe1027]

Here's a question about highlight reels. Do you think they are going to show Larry Fitz catching balls or would they focus on Early Doucet. Because nothing sells ad space like a good Early Doucet highlight film.

Woodson was locked up on who's widely considered the best WR in football. He didnt play well obviously. He took far too many risks. Bush was lined up across from Doucet who had a whopping 17 catches on the season coming into the game. How many catches would Fitz have if locked up with Bush all day.

The Cards found the weak link and exploited it until they gave help and pulled the help from Woodsons side. Then they started going to Fitz.

Go find a Cardinal fan and ask if they feel good about the play of Michael Adams heading down to N.O.

Bush would get torched by Fitz, badly. Bush is also a special teamer originally slated as a 4th backup safety.

[SkinBasket]

Bush is also a special teamer originally slated as a 4th backup safety.

Doucet is a 2nd year player slated as a 5th/6th backup WR. Of course it doesn't matter much since Bush didn't bother covering him half the time. Which is why you don't see Bush in your highlight films.

[sharpe1027]

Bush is also a special teamer originally slated as a 4th backup safety.

Doucet is a 2nd year player slated as a 5th/6th backup WR. Of course it doesn't matter much since Bush didn't bother covering him half the time. Which is why you don't see Bush in your highlight films.

This is fun. Let's see...when Woodson is blamed it is the refs fault...or is it that the posters can't possibly know the responsibilities on every play...ect...

Yet it is easy to blame Bush because we can assume that every catch by the 3rd WR was his fault. :roll:

See my point?

[Smidgeon]

I agree that Woodson and the entire D was beat. Woodson didn't play lights out. The whole D allowed a ton of points. But the inference that I took issue to was one where Woodson played one of his worst games (not stated but implied). I didn't see it that way and have stated my reasons why. He didn't play a great game, but he didn't play as badly as people infer either. I don't have anything to say about Bush. I think the only time I referenced him was when I either referenced other posters ripping him or the one drag/trail route where he was in man coverage and in no position to even challenge the catch (but did get the tackle).

Woodson had one of his best years ever, so I would say this was one of his worst games. I personally believe it was his worst game of the year. I am not saying that he was worse than anyone else out there, but it was one of his worst games.

One of the original and main reasons Woodson was brought up in this thread was to point out how people piled on Bush just because he's Bush and make excuses for Woodson just because he's Woodson. So I have to respectfully say you have completely missed one of the main points of this entire discussion.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see what happened one way and you see it the other way. And while I can definitely see where you're coming from (even if I have a different conclusion) it seems that you're saying that I "make excuses for Woodson just because he's Woodson." I don't think you're even trying to see what I'm seeing, just undermining my point by saying that I'm making excuses instead of looking at whether what I say has validity or not. So I'd just prefer to exit this discussion.

[sharpe1027]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see what happened one way and you see it the other way. And while I can definitely see where you're coming from (even if I have a different conclusion) it seems that you're saying that I "make excuses for Woodson just because he's Woodson." I don't think you're even trying to see what I'm seeing, just undermining my point by saying that I'm making excuses instead of looking at whether what I say has validity or not. So I'd just prefer to exit this discussion.

Not trying to make this difficult. I have to be honest, I'm really not sure what you are trying to say, other than you seem to take exception to any characterization of Woodson's play that is not favorable. Sure you put in disclaimers about how he wasn't perfect, but vast majority of your posts are efforts to defend him.

I'll try to clearly state my point:

Bush is a convenient scapegoat and I haven't seen or heard much that convinces me that he played all that poorly. I get that people are pissed about the loss and saw lots of pass yards given up and that Bush is an easy target. Woodson was brought up to show how the same conclusions made about Bush could make everyone's favorite (mine too) look poor as well.

[Smidgeon]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see what happened one way and you see it the other way. And while I can definitely see where you're coming from (even if I have a different conclusion) it seems that you're saying that I "make excuses for Woodson just because he's Woodson." I don't think you're even trying to see what I'm seeing, just undermining my point by saying that I'm making excuses instead of looking at whether what I say has validity or not. So I'd just prefer to exit this discussion.

Not trying to make this difficult. I have to be honest, I'm really not sure what you are trying to say, other than you seem to take exception to any characterization of Woodson's play that is not favorable. Sure you put in disclaimers about how he wasn't perfect, but vast majority of your posts are efforts to defend him.

I'll try to clearly state my point:

Bush is a convenient scapegoat and I haven't seen or heard much that convinces me that he played all that poorly. I get that people are pissed about the loss and saw lots of pass yards given up and that Bush is an easy target. Woodson was brought up to show how the same conclusions made about Bush could make everyone's favorite (mine too) look poor as well.

And I'll say this: I don't know how Bush played. Because he isn't a high profile defender, I don't think anyone really keys in on just him like they do Clay Matthews, Charles Woodson, Cullen Jenkins, or Nick Collins (and in this forum Atari Bigby). All I know about Bush is the one play that was already stated. I know, if Woodson was manned up on Fitzgerald all game--and I don't know that he was--Fitzgerald had four catches for 41 yards that weren't TDs and two catches for (I think) 77 yards for TDs. There is lively debate all over that at least the second one was offensive PI. If it is, I can't blame Woodson for that one. The first one I think their legs got tangled and Woodson ended up on the ground. I can't blame him for poor coverage on that one. It was just as likely that Fitzgerald would be the one on the ground as Woodson. And here's the kicker. If it was Bush instead of Woodson in all of those plays, my argument would be the same. I don't care if it was Tramon Williams, Josh Bell, or Brandon Underwood on those particular plays. The first Fitzgerald TD wasn't the defender's fault because the defender was competetive on the route and got tripped up (didn't slip, didn't sit down and cry in the dirt, didn't run the wrong way, wasn't three steps behind the receiver, etc). The second Fitzgerald TD I would have been just as adamant was an offensive PI if it was Bell, Bigby, Bush, Underwood, Collins, Jenkins, Harris, Raji, Pickett, Hawk, Barnett, Chillar, etc. Now do you get where I'm coming from? I'm not making excuses. I just think the particular plays that are being highlighted as bad plays by Woodson aren't bad plays, and wouldn't be by anyone--including Bush.

[SkinBasket]

Bush is also a special teamer originally slated as a 4th backup safety.

Doucet is a 2nd year player slated as a 5th/6th backup WR. Of course it doesn't matter much since Bush didn't bother covering him half the time. Which is why you don't see Bush in your highlight films.

This is fun. Let's see...when Woodson is blamed it is the refs fault...or is it that the posters can't possibly know the responsibilities on every play...ect...

Yet it is easy to blame Bush because we can assume that every catch by the 3rd WR was his fault. :roll:

See my point?

You want to excuse Bush's inability to play any position on this defense by pointing out his position on the depth chart. I was simply pointing out the guy he was supposed to be covering most of the time is just as low on his depth chart. Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets, which not only allows his guy to gun around like a horny unicorn in a field filled with golden sunshine, but also fucks the rest of the coverage for that play. Between his ineptitude and Bigby's inability to do anything other than stand around, there really wasn't much to be done when we couldn't generate pressure in base sets and were forced into dime.

[sharpe1027]

You want to excuse Bush's inability to play any position on this defense by pointing out his position on the depth chart. I was simply pointing out the guy he was supposed to be covering most of the time is just as low on his depth chart. Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets, which not only allows his guy to gun around like a horny unicorn in a field filled with golden sunshine, but also fucks the rest of the coverage for that play. Between his ineptitude and Bigby's inability to do anything other than stand around, there really wasn't much to be done when we couldn't generate pressure in base sets and were forced into dime.

Read the post I was responding to, which was trying to compare Bush to Woodson. I was pointing out that a comparison between Bush and Woodson is silly.

As for Bush's alleged inability to do anything but stand around, I don't buy that. The few replays I saw with guys all turned around involved Lee or Underwood. Maybe Bush messed up, but I find it much more likely that Lee and Underwood didn't have a clue.

I agree about the pressure.

[Smidgeon]

You want to excuse Bush's inability to play any position on this defense by pointing out his position on the depth chart. I was simply pointing out the guy he was supposed to be covering most of the time is just as low on his depth chart. Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets, which not only allows his guy to gun around like a horny unicorn in a field filled with golden sunshine, but also fucks the rest of the coverage for that play. Between his ineptitude and Bigby's inability to do anything other than stand around, there really wasn't much to be done when we couldn't generate pressure in base sets and were forced into dime.

Read the post I was responding to, which was trying to compare Bush to Woodson. I was pointing out that a comparison between Bush and Woodson is silly.

As for Bush's alleged inability to do anything but stand around, I don't buy that. The few replays I saw with guys all turned around involved Lee or Underwood. Maybe Bush messed up, but I find it much more likely that Lee and Underwood didn't have a clue.

I agree about the pressure.

I call Hogwash! Lee's on IR. There goes your credibility... ;) Just what game were you watching?

[MichiganPackerFan]

It was entirely and exclusively Bush's fault we lost that game, and if we cut him NOW, we may still have a chance to win, barring one-sided calls of course.

[sharpe1027]

You want to excuse Bush's inability to play any position on this defense by pointing out his position on the depth chart. I was simply pointing out the guy he was supposed to be covering most of the time is just as low on his depth chart. Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets, which not only allows his guy to gun around like a horny unicorn in a field filled with golden sunshine, but also fucks the rest of the coverage for that play. Between his ineptitude and Bigby's inability to do anything other than stand around, there really wasn't much to be done when we couldn't generate pressure in base sets and were forced into dime.

Read the post I was responding to, which was trying to compare Bush to Woodson. I was pointing out that a comparison between Bush and Woodson is silly.

As for Bush's alleged inability to do anything but stand around, I don't buy that. The few replays I saw with guys all turned around involved Lee or Underwood. Maybe Bush messed up, but I find it much more likely that Lee and Underwood didn't have a clue.

I agree about the pressure.

I call Hogwash! Lee's on IR. There goes your credibility... ;) Just what game were you watching?

I guess that proves it, Bush is certainly responsible for the loss! In all seriousness, what exactly is your point?

[MichiganPackerFan]

I guess that proves it, Bush is certainly responsible for the loss!

HEY! I JUST made that point. No more stealing my ideas.

[Smidgeon]

You want to excuse Bush's inability to play any position on this defense by pointing out his position on the depth chart. I was simply pointing out the guy he was supposed to be covering most of the time is just as low on his depth chart. Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets, which not only allows his guy to gun around like a horny unicorn in a field filled with golden sunshine, but also fucks the rest of the coverage for that play. Between his ineptitude and Bigby's inability to do anything other than stand around, there really wasn't much to be done when we couldn't generate pressure in base sets and were forced into dime.

Read the post I was responding to, which was trying to compare Bush to Woodson. I was pointing out that a comparison between Bush and Woodson is silly.

As for Bush's alleged inability to do anything but stand around, I don't buy that. The few replays I saw with guys all turned around involved Lee or Underwood. Maybe Bush messed up, but I find it much more likely that Lee and Underwood didn't have a clue.

I agree about the pressure.

I call Hogwash! Lee's on IR. There goes your credibility... ;) Just what game were you watching?

I guess that proves it, Bush is certainly responsible for the loss! In all seriousness, what exactly is your point?

First of all, I never said that Bush was responsible for the loss. All I've ever said about Bush was that I saw one play where he was a couple steps behind on a drag route (I think it's called a drag route) and made the tackle after the catch. My point is that I personally don't think Woodson played as badly as some were saying he did based on highlight cut-ups of the game. I stated my case for the plays on why I didn't think he had an awful game.

The reason I think the Packers lost was because they weren't perfect on offense. Warner was so red-hot that the only way to beat them was to outscore him. With a missed FG on both sides, one punt on both sides, only one three and out by Arizona, and only one turnover by Arizona, Green Bay had to be flawless to win the game.

[SkinBasket]

You want to excuse Bush's inability to play any position on this defense by pointing out his position on the depth chart. I was simply pointing out the guy he was supposed to be covering most of the time is just as low on his depth chart. Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets, which not only allows his guy to gun around like a horny unicorn in a field filled with golden sunshine, but also fucks the rest of the coverage for that play. Between his ineptitude and Bigby's inability to do anything other than stand around, there really wasn't much to be done when we couldn't generate pressure in base sets and were forced into dime.

Read the post I was responding to, which was trying to compare Bush to Woodson. I was pointing out that a comparison between Bush and Woodson is silly.

As for Bush's alleged inability to do anything but stand around, I don't buy that. The few replays I saw with guys all turned around involved Lee or Underwood. Maybe Bush messed up, but I find it much more likely that Lee and Underwood didn't have a clue.

I agree about the pressure.

I alleged that Bigby has the unique inability to do anything other than stand around, not Bush. Bush has the unique ability to move really fast in random directions completely unrelated to the coverage scheme. If we could meld them into one player, we still wouldn't have a functional safety.

I don't really blame Bush or Bigby or Chillar for their inadequacies. I blame Thompson for having such troubles finding a safety or two and I blame the defensive line for having such a poor game. We know what these other guys are, and we needed to find a way to keep their role limited ala Bigby, or on the bench completely.

[sharpe1027]

You want to excuse Bush's inability to play any position on this defense by pointing out his position on the depth chart. I was simply pointing out the guy he was supposed to be covering most of the time is just as low on his depth chart. Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets, which not only allows his guy to gun around like a horny unicorn in a field filled with golden sunshine, but also fucks the rest of the coverage for that play. Between his ineptitude and Bigby's inability to do anything other than stand around, there really wasn't much to be done when we couldn't generate pressure in base sets and were forced into dime.

Read the post I was responding to, which was trying to compare Bush to Woodson. I was pointing out that a comparison between Bush and Woodson is silly.

As for Bush's alleged inability to do anything but stand around, I don't buy that. The few replays I saw with guys all turned around involved Lee or Underwood. Maybe Bush messed up, but I find it much more likely that Lee and Underwood didn't have a clue.

I agree about the pressure.

I alleged that Bigby has the unique inability to do anything other than stand around, not Bush. Bush has the unique ability to move really fast in random directions completely unrelated to the coverage scheme. If we could meld them into one player, we still wouldn't have a functional safety.

I don't really blame Bush or Bigby or Chillar for their inadequacies. I blame Thompson for having such troubles finding a safety or two and I blame the defensive line for having such a poor game. We know what these other guys are, and we needed to find a way to keep their role limited ala Bigby, or on the bench completely.

My mistake on Bigby, I missed that transition. I think we at least found out why Bigby is our starter, our backup was worse.

I'm not really sure that Bush played that badly. I still think it is a conclusion people reach because they see a busted coverage and assume it's the fault of the latest scapegoat. Maybe Bush was responsible, but frankly the problems I saw with him up until this point were more about reacting to the ball and being a step slow or just slightly out of position.

[Smidgeon]

You want to excuse Bush's inability to play any position on this defense by pointing out his position on the depth chart. I was simply pointing out the guy he was supposed to be covering most of the time is just as low on his depth chart. Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets, which not only allows his guy to gun around like a horny unicorn in a field filled with golden sunshine, but also fucks the rest of the coverage for that play. Between his ineptitude and Bigby's inability to do anything other than stand around, there really wasn't much to be done when we couldn't generate pressure in base sets and were forced into dime.

Read the post I was responding to, which was trying to compare Bush to Woodson. I was pointing out that a comparison between Bush and Woodson is silly.

As for Bush's alleged inability to do anything but stand around, I don't buy that. The few replays I saw with guys all turned around involved Lee or Underwood. Maybe Bush messed up, but I find it much more likely that Lee and Underwood didn't have a clue.

I agree about the pressure.

I alleged that Bigby has the unique inability to do anything other than stand around, not Bush. Bush has the unique ability to move really fast in random directions completely unrelated to the coverage scheme. If we could meld them into one player, we still wouldn't have a functional safety.

I don't really blame Bush or Bigby or Chillar for their inadequacies. I blame Thompson for having such troubles finding a safety or two and I blame the defensive line for having such a poor game. We know what these other guys are, and we needed to find a way to keep their role limited ala Bigby, or on the bench completely.

My mistake on Bigby, I missed that transition. I think we at least found out why Bigby is our starter, our backup was worse.

I'm not really sure that Bush played that badly. I still think it is a conclusion people reach because they see a busted coverage and assume it's the fault of the latest scapegoat. Maybe Bush was responsible, but frankly the problems I saw with him up until this point were more about reacting to the ball and being a step slow or just slightly out of position.

I personally think Bush has been on the better side of okay for a while now. But I've been cautious about saying that on the forum since so many people are vilifying him.

[woodbuck27]

Can anyone here really single out one or two defensive players for what we witnessed on Sunday? The defenses on both teams were overall just ugly.

The best player for the Cardinals was IMO Dansby. Who was the best defensive player for the Packers? Where was Nick Barnett and AJ Hawk? They both looked invisable. The pass over the middle of the field was there all game as noone of our LBers could drop into proper coverage. Curt Warner owned our defense and Larry Fitzerald handled even Charles Woodson.

It was the weirdest playoff game I've ever seen. Both offenses almost scoring at will. I felt terrible for Aaron Rodgers but after last seasons Super Bowl and Curt Warners shock after playing a fine game could anyone here not find for his play last Sunday. Curt Warner played an amazing game.

[Smidgeon]

Can anyone here really single out one or two defensive players for what we witnessed on Sunday? The defenses on both teams were overall just ugly.

The best player for the Cardinals was IMO Dansby. Who was the best defensive player for the Packers? Where was Nick Barnett and AJ Hawk? They both looked invisable. The pass over the middle of the field was there all game as noone of our LBers could drop into proper coverage. Curt Warner owned our defense and Larry Fitzerald handled even Charles Woodson.

It was the weirdest playoff game I've ever seen. Both offenses almost scoring at will. I felt terrible for Aaron Rodgers but after last seasons Super Bowl and Curt Warners shock after playing a fine game could anyone here not find for his play last Sunday. Curt Warner played an amazing game.

For aforementioned reasons I disagree with the bolded statement.

[get louder at lambeau]

Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets,

Did he? I honestly don't know. I admit I tend to think that you don't know either, but I'd be interested in hearing why you say this.

[SkinBasket]

Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets,

Did he? I honestly don't know. I admit I tend to think that you don't know either, but I'd be interested in hearing why you say this.

Because I watched the game. Once, maybe even twice, the broadcast team even pointed it out on replay. Bush is out of his element on defense. He's been pressed into service in kind of emergency role, for sure. But he hasn't improved. He lacks an understanding of our coverages. He lacks the basic understanding of how to play defense in a general sense technique wise, and despite what some people claim is blazing speed, he sure as shit doesn't seem to be able to recover when a guy runs past him.

Bush was exactly what the Cardinals were talking about when they claimed they saw some things they could attack with stacked and bunched formations. Well that and the fact Bigby plays 30 yards off the LOS to limit his liability.

[sharpe1027]

Bush was exactly what the Cardinals were talking about when they claimed they saw some things they could attack with stacked and bunched formations. Well that and the fact Bigby plays 30 yards off the LOS to limit his liability.

Personally, I think they were talking more about the 3-4 defense in general, and in particular many of the zone concepts. Probably used the same game plan they used against Pittsburgh. Perhaps Bush was secretly playing for Pitt.

[KYPack]

Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets,

Did he? I honestly don't know. I admit I tend to think that you don't know either, but I'd be interested in hearing why you say this.

Because I watched the game. Once, maybe even twice, the broadcast team even pointed it out on replay. Bush is out of his element on defense. He's been pressed into service in kind of emergency role, for sure. But he hasn't improved. He lacks an understanding of our coverages. He lacks the basic understanding of how to play defense in a general sense technique wise, and despite what some people claim is blazing speed, he sure as shit doesn't seem to be able to recover when a guy runs past him.

Bush was exactly what the Cardinals were talking about when they claimed they saw some things they could attack with stacked and bunched formations. Well that and the fact Bigby plays 30 yards off the LOS to limit his liability.

One thing that I think screws Bush up is that he is a back-up at both safety and corner. But like Skin says, he is the master of no position. A couple times, I saw him release on guys that needed downfield coverage. Darren Perry is one of the better DB coaches in the league, but he still got a ton of work with Bush.

The Packers want to build from within, but Bush is like Hawk. This is his fourth season, but there seems to be little improvement. The guy still plays like a raw recruit and makes lots of mental errors. Even on ST, he's always getting hit by punts or taking rookie penalties. They signed him to a million dollar contract and we've still not seen the kind of production you'd expect from a fourth year guy making that kind of jing.

This pre-season will see a lot of eyeballs on Jarrett. if he dosn't show something, he might be out of a gig.

[Joemailman]

Bush is a tease. Shows flashes of ability, but always seems to come up short when needed the most. Time to move on here. See if Underwood, Lee or Bell can do better if given the opportunities Bush has had.

[SkinBasket]

Bush was exactly what the Cardinals were talking about when they claimed they saw some things they could attack with stacked and bunched formations. Well that and the fact Bigby plays 30 yards off the LOS to limit his liability.

Personally, I think they were talking more about the 3-4 defense in general, and in particular many of the zone concepts. Probably used the same game plan they used against Pittsburgh. Perhaps Bush was secretly playing for Pitt.

Well, sure they were talking about our zone coverage because they knew if they brought in 4 WRs, we would have to match them with players like Bush and Chillar. Guys who have trouble understanding our scheme, much less covering someone in it. Combine them with weak spots like Bigby, and you have a recipe for disaster, or victory depending which side of the fence you're on.

[get louder at lambeau]

Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets,

Did he? I honestly don't know. I admit I tend to think that you don't know either, but I'd be interested in hearing why you say this.

Because I watched the game. Once, maybe even twice, the broadcast team even pointed it out on replay. Bush is out of his element on defense. He's been pressed into service in kind of emergency role, for sure. But he hasn't improved. He lacks an understanding of our coverages. He lacks the basic understanding of how to play defense in a general sense technique wise, and despite what some people claim is blazing speed, he sure as shit doesn't seem to be able to recover when a guy runs past him.

Bush was exactly what the Cardinals were talking about when they claimed they saw some things they could attack with stacked and bunched formations. Well that and the fact Bigby plays 30 yards off the LOS to limit his liability.

So you know that based on the comments of announcers? Fair, I guess. I was hoping you might educate me on this, but as I expected, you don't really know either.

[SkinBasket]

Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets,

Did he? I honestly don't know. I admit I tend to think that you don't know either, but I'd be interested in hearing why you say this.

Because I watched the game. Once, maybe even twice, the broadcast team even pointed it out on replay. Bush is out of his element on defense. He's been pressed into service in kind of emergency role, for sure. But he hasn't improved. He lacks an understanding of our coverages. He lacks the basic understanding of how to play defense in a general sense technique wise, and despite what some people claim is blazing speed, he sure as shit doesn't seem to be able to recover when a guy runs past him.

Bush was exactly what the Cardinals were talking about when they claimed they saw some things they could attack with stacked and bunched formations. Well that and the fact Bigby plays 30 yards off the LOS to limit his liability.

So you know that based on the comments of announcers? Fair, I guess. I was hoping you might educate me on this, but as I expected, you don't really know either.

You watched the game right? You know Bush is 24. Not that difficult to use your eyeballs and watch him play. He's the guy in green with the 24 on his jersey.

[get louder at lambeau]

Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets,

Did he? I honestly don't know. I admit I tend to think that you don't know either, but I'd be interested in hearing why you say this.

Because I watched the game. Once, maybe even twice, the broadcast team even pointed it out on replay. Bush is out of his element on defense. He's been pressed into service in kind of emergency role, for sure. But he hasn't improved. He lacks an understanding of our coverages. He lacks the basic understanding of how to play defense in a general sense technique wise, and despite what some people claim is blazing speed, he sure as shit doesn't seem to be able to recover when a guy runs past him.

Bush was exactly what the Cardinals were talking about when they claimed they saw some things they could attack with stacked and bunched formations. Well that and the fact Bigby plays 30 yards off the LOS to limit his liability.

So you know that based on the comments of announcers? Fair, I guess. I was hoping you might educate me on this, but as I expected, you don't really know either.

You watched the game right? You know Bush is 24. Not that difficult to use your eyeballs and watch him play. He's the guy in green with the 24 on his jersey.

OK, I follow you so far, now enlighten me on how you know which receiver he's supposed to cover in bunched sets.

[MichiganPackerFan]

You watched the game right? You know Bush is 24. Not that difficult to use your eyeballs and watch him play. He's the guy in green with the 24 on his jersey.

OK, I follow you so far, now enlighten me on how you know which receiver he's supposed to cover in bunched sets.

Ooo! Ooo!! This is an easy one! I got it!! The receiver is about to catch the ball and whom Bush is 5 yards behind and madly dashing to catch up with?

[sharpe1027]

You watched the game right? You know Bush is 24. Not that difficult to use your eyeballs and watch him play. He's the guy in green with the 24 on his jersey.

OK, I follow you so far, now enlighten me on how you know which receiver he's supposed to cover in bunched sets.

Ooo! Ooo!! This is an easy one! I got it!! The receiver is about to catch the ball and whom Bush is 5 yards behind and madly dashing to catch up with?

That sounds like every player on the team, except for DL, no wait, I saw Jolly in poor trail position. But no, it is mostly Bush's fault.

[pbmax]

I am not saying Skin or MPF are wrong, but announcers usually have no idea what coverage and what responsibilities DBs have in those coverages. The game threads are full of guesses about who screwed up in coverage and who should have been there.

We often find out after a coach gets asked that something else entirely was supposed to happen. Bush has his faults but in those specific instances, he may have been recovering from someone else's mistake.

For instance, Warner told Peter King the same line about how they thought they could attack the middle of the Packer defense. But the example he gave wasn't to go after Bush or Bigby, it was how to get Steve Breaston on a LB in the middle of the field using motion. That is the play I saw that we never stopped.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/01/10/mmqb/index.html

[MichiganPackerFan]

I am not saying Skin or MPF are wrong...

of course I'm not wrong: my comment was to be used for humorous purposes only. Skin on the other hand is wrong. Very wrong. And in many aspects. Scary sometimes too. No offense Skin... (Still pissed about the parts of my life I can never get back after you post videos...)

[SkinBasket]

Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets,

Did he? I honestly don't know. I admit I tend to think that you don't know either, but I'd be interested in hearing why you say this.

Because I watched the game. Once, maybe even twice, the broadcast team even pointed it out on replay. Bush is out of his element on defense. He's been pressed into service in kind of emergency role, for sure. But he hasn't improved. He lacks an understanding of our coverages. He lacks the basic understanding of how to play defense in a general sense technique wise, and despite what some people claim is blazing speed, he sure as shit doesn't seem to be able to recover when a guy runs past him.

Bush was exactly what the Cardinals were talking about when they claimed they saw some things they could attack with stacked and bunched formations. Well that and the fact Bigby plays 30 yards off the LOS to limit his liability.

So you know that based on the comments of announcers? Fair, I guess. I was hoping you might educate me on this, but as I expected, you don't really know either.

You watched the game right? You know Bush is 24. Not that difficult to use your eyeballs and watch him play. He's the guy in green with the 24 on his jersey.

OK, I follow you so far, now enlighten me on how you know which receiver he's supposed to cover in bunched sets.

Well, one play comes to mind in which 24 was the inside DB. Three WRs to that side, one goes out, one up, and one in. Bush jumps the out WR despite another defender already covering and he being the furthest away while inside WR crosses middle literally right in front of Bush unopposed.

Here's another thing that comes to mind. Bush can't play defense. He's demonstrated that to a nauseating degree this season. So yeah, there's also some assumption on similar plays when Bush is in double on one WR while another runs free right past him, that he's the most likely candidate for who fucked up.

Your stance is based just as much on observation and conjecture as mine. If you want to argue that Bush is a decent defender or that he had a good game, go right ahead. I obviously can't stop you or your defense that this scheme is too complicated to possibly understand who should be covering who. Not that Bush can cover anyone anyway.

I didn't know that Bush's defensive abilities were such a point of contention.

[get louder at lambeau]

Bush repeatedly followed the wrong receiver in bunch sets,

Did he? I honestly don't know. I admit I tend to think that you don't know either, but I'd be interested in hearing why you say this.

Because I watched the game. Once, maybe even twice, the broadcast team even pointed it out on replay. Bush is out of his element on defense. He's been pressed into service in kind of emergency role, for sure. But he hasn't improved. He lacks an understanding of our coverages. He lacks the basic understanding of how to play defense in a general sense technique wise, and despite what some people claim is blazing speed, he sure as shit doesn't seem to be able to recover when a guy runs past him.

Bush was exactly what the Cardinals were talking about when they claimed they saw some things they could attack with stacked and bunched formations. Well that and the fact Bigby plays 30 yards off the LOS to limit his liability.

So you know that based on the comments of announcers? Fair, I guess. I was hoping you might educate me on this, but as I expected, you don't really know either.

You watched the game right? You know Bush is 24. Not that difficult to use your eyeballs and watch him play. He's the guy in green with the 24 on his jersey.

OK, I follow you so far, now enlighten me on how you know which receiver he's supposed to cover in bunched sets.

Well, one play comes to mind in which 24 was the inside DB. Three WRs to that side, one goes out, one up, and one in. Bush jumps the out WR despite another defender already covering and he being the furthest away while inside WR crosses middle literally right in front of Bush unopposed.

Here's another thing that comes to mind. Bush can't play defense. He's demonstrated that to a nauseating degree this season. So yeah, there's also some assumption on similar plays when Bush is in double on one WR while another runs free right past him, that he's the most likely candidate for who fucked up.

Your stance is based just as much on observation and conjecture as mine. If you want to argue that Bush is a decent defender or that he had a good game, go right ahead. I obviously can't stop you or your defense that this scheme is too complicated to possibly understand who should be covering who. Not that Bush can cover anyone anyway.

I didn't know that Bush's defensive abilities were such a point of contention.

Not saying I know better than you. I just want to hear some evidence, since I've heard lots of blame thrown his way, and not only by you.

I personally didn't see any really obvious fuckups from Bush. I'm no expert, as I've already stated. The way you stated that as a clear fact, I was curious.

I don't doubt he fucked up, but I do doubt he's as bad as many think. I think most of that is purely based on his reputation, which he has clearly earned. I just think he might be quite a bit better these days than his ultra-horrible reputation, and I haven't seen much evidence to the contrary.

[sharpe1027]

What I see is people blaming Bush first, being surprised that anyone would challenge them and only then trying to find proof to support their assumption. Maybe they are right, but even if they eventually are vindicated, they were still just using him as a convenient scapegoat. That's just a personal observation/belief, so take it for what it is worth.

[Zool]

The entire D sucked Sunday. Bush sucks consistently week in and week out. I just want him to not be on the team anymore. His ST contributions are few and far between lately and $1mil seems like an awful lot to pay for a 6th corner/4th safety.

[SkinBasket]

http://www.brettfarrey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ted_thompson.jpg
We're fine there.

[get louder at lambeau]

What I see is people blaming Bush first, being surprised that anyone would challenge them and only then trying to find proof to support their assumption. Maybe they are right, but even if they eventually are vindicated, they were still just using him as a convenient scapegoat. That's just a personal observation/belief, so take it for what it is worth.

I'm with you, sharpe. Great summary of the situation.

I really expected to see some evidence by now. I had no trouble finding evidence of Woodson's struggles this week. It should be even easier to find and deliver evidence of Bush's, if he really did suck as consistently or glaringly as some are saying.

Anyone? Evidence? Please?

I'd honestly like to see it. I have no doubt he had at least SOME bad plays. There is plenty of blame to go around. If no one else can bring anything at all, I'll dig up the two plays I noticed on the Warner highlights where he had problems, but neither looked too horrible, so I would guess there should be more.

[ThunderDan]

What I see is people blaming Bush first, being surprised that anyone would challenge them and only then trying to find proof to support their assumption. Maybe they are right, but even if they eventually are vindicated, they were still just using him as a convenient scapegoat. That's just a personal observation/belief, so take it for what it is worth.

I'm with you, sharpe. Great summary of the situation.

I really expected to see some evidence by now. I had no trouble finding evidence of Woodson's struggles this week. It should be even easier to find and deliver evidence of Bush's, if he really did suck as consistently or glaringly as some are saying.

Anyone? Evidence? Please?

I'd honestly like to see it. I have no doubt he had at least SOME bad plays. There is plenty of blame to go around. If no one else can bring anything at all, I'll dig up the two plays I noticed on the Warner highlights where he had problems, but neither looked too horrible, so I would guess there should be more.

Like anyone here has access to the endzone cams that the teams do. Plus, I need the playcalls and coverage for every defensive snap. Somehow I don't think that is going to happen. If I had both I would happily breakdown the coverage and assign blame. Since I have neither I won't.

Like anyone here has the evidence to show that any one on the D played good or bad!!!

[SkinBasket]

What I see is people blaming Bush first, being surprised that anyone would challenge them and only then trying to find proof to support their assumption. Maybe they are right, but even if they eventually are vindicated, they were still just using him as a convenient scapegoat. That's just a personal observation/belief, so take it for what it is worth.

Maybe others did blame him above the others, but I haven't. I've stated that our implosion started at the D line failing to generate pressure, which meant we couldn't dictate the defense, which meant we had to play players who aren't very good, like Bush and Chillar over our stronger base packages. It's not their fault they aren't great players. It's just unfortunate for the team.

I simply think that Bush and Bigby, and to a lesser extent Chillar, aren't very good at all and need to be upgraded for those games when our D line does struggle to control the line and generate pressure. Bush's play in extended time this past few months has been horrid. He's not a scapegoat. He's just bad.

[SkinBasket]

What I see is people blaming Bush first, being surprised that anyone would challenge them and only then trying to find proof to support their assumption. Maybe they are right, but even if they eventually are vindicated, they were still just using him as a convenient scapegoat. That's just a personal observation/belief, so take it for what it is worth.

I'm with you, sharpe. Great summary of the situation.

I really expected to see some evidence by now. I had no trouble finding evidence of Woodson's struggles this week. It should be even easier to find and deliver evidence of Bush's, if he really did suck as consistently or glaringly as some are saying.

Anyone? Evidence? Please?

I'd honestly like to see it. I have no doubt he had at least SOME bad plays. There is plenty of blame to go around. If no one else can bring anything at all, I'll dig up the two plays I noticed on the Warner highlights where he had problems, but neither looked too horrible, so I would guess there should be more.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think a lot of us have seen enough of Bush to know what kind of player he is without searching the internet for random bits of highlight footage that may or may not have Bush in them. I'm fine with my impression of him that I gained during the game. If you're not and you feel Bush is fine, then that's fine too. I'm just not going to put that kind of effort into arguing about the minutia of how our 4th safety/6th CB sucks. Sorry if that makes me lazy, but really, there's not much value in it considering what we know of the guy from watching him play - which is too much for many of us.

[get louder at lambeau]

What I see is people blaming Bush first, being surprised that anyone would challenge them and only then trying to find proof to support their assumption. Maybe they are right, but even if they eventually are vindicated, they were still just using him as a convenient scapegoat. That's just a personal observation/belief, so take it for what it is worth.

I'm with you, sharpe. Great summary of the situation.

I really expected to see some evidence by now. I had no trouble finding evidence of Woodson's struggles this week. It should be even easier to find and deliver evidence of Bush's, if he really did suck as consistently or glaringly as some are saying.

Anyone? Evidence? Please?

I'd honestly like to see it. I have no doubt he had at least SOME bad plays. There is plenty of blame to go around. If no one else can bring anything at all, I'll dig up the two plays I noticed on the Warner highlights where he had problems, but neither looked too horrible, so I would guess there should be more.

Like anyone here has access to the endzone cams that the teams do. Plus, I need the playcalls and coverage for every defensive snap. Somehow I don't think that is going to happen. If I had both I would happily breakdown the coverage and assign blame. Since I have neither I won't.

Like anyone here has the evidence to show that any one on the D played good or bad!!!

Jesus Christ, what a retared cop-out. Are you somehow realted to Johnny Cochran? I can show Woodson fucking up OBVIOUSLY on simple highlight video from NFL.com, and have.

If we needed all that to be able to tell anything about anything, then why do we even bother to watch the game? How bout some plain old everyday highlights? This is just a discussion, not a jury trial. Let's see some video that just shows where it LOOKS like something is Bush's fault- no digital watermark or notary witnessed signature to verify authenticity necessary. Let's use some common sense here.

[Smidgeon]

I had no trouble finding evidence of Woodson's struggles this week.

No, what you had was no trouble doing was concluding from highlight clips (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=497463#497463) that Woodson did struggle. Which is debatable when you look at the specific plays involved or look at Fitzgerald's effectiveness when Woodson was guarding him (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=497562#497562).

But like ThunderDan stated (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=498013#498013), without access to the full field angles, the plays that were called, who was responsible for what route, etc, it's only in my personal estimation. And that also means that your "evidence" for Woodson struggling has just as many holes as anyone else claiming Bush struggled. It probably has less evidence, unless you can find me an image where Woodson is three steps behind a receiver on a route he was obviously in man against the entire play? If you do, I'll withdraw my objection...

As a disclaimer, early on I was way more down on Woodson because the whole D gave up 45 points. But the more I looked into it, the better in my estimation he played.

[Smidgeon]

I can show Woodson fucking up OBVIOUSLY on simple highlight video from NFL.com, and have.

And OBVIOUSLY you've pre-concluded from your wealth of football knowledge that yours is the only correct perspective on exactly what's happening in said highlight clips--well, yours and whoever agrees with you. I've argued why those highlights don't tell the entire story in detail and your response is just "..well, it's obvious." Sound familiar? Oh yeah. That's because that's the response that is getting you so worked up about Bush haters. But since you've already decided ahead of time, what's the point?

[ThunderDan]

Jesus Christ, what a retared cop-out. Are you somehow realted to Johnny Cochran? I can show Woodson fucking up OBVIOUSLY on simple highlight video from NFL.com, and have.

If we needed all that to be able to tell anything about anything, then why do we even bother to watch the game? How bout some plain old everyday highlights? This is just a discussion, not a jury trial. Let's see some video that just shows where it LOOKS like something is Bush's fault- no digital watermark or notary witnessed signature to verify authenticity necessary. Let's use some common sense here.

Very classy.

So you think Woodson is to blame? Why, because Fitzgerald pushes off on him and he falls to the ground?

Here is the classic example. Bush is helping defend the bunch set and runs after a player doubling him while a TD is scored by a WR running free into the area that Bush vacated. Seems like Bush is to blame. But how do we know he isn't following the correct WR? I can't unless I know the defensive play call on where the routes should be picked up.

I can assign Bush the blame in games like PITT when he lets his man run right by him and then completely plays the ball wrong allowing a TD.

To say that you can is an overstatement of the truth.

[get louder at lambeau]

Jesus Christ, what a retared cop-out. Are you somehow realted to Johnny Cochran? I can show Woodson fucking up OBVIOUSLY on simple highlight video from NFL.com, and have.

If we needed all that to be able to tell anything about anything, then why do we even bother to watch the game? How bout some plain old everyday highlights? This is just a discussion, not a jury trial. Let's see some video that just shows where it LOOKS like something is Bush's fault- no digital watermark or notary witnessed signature to verify authenticity necessary. Let's use some common sense here.

Very classy.

So you think Woodson is to blame? Why, because Fitzgerald pushes off on him and he falls to the ground?

Here is the classic example. Bush is helping defend the bunch set and runs after a player doubling him while a TD is scored by a WR running free into the area that Bush vacated. Seems like Bush is to blame. But how do we know he isn't following the correct WR? I can't unless I know the defensive play call on where the routes should be picked up.

I can assign Bush the blame in games like PITT when he lets his man run right by him and then completely plays the ball wrong allowing a TD.

To say that you can is an overstatement of the truth.

That WOULD be a great example. Can you show us all that play, or do we have to take your word for it happening that way?

[sharpe1027]

As is almost always the case, vilified players are not nearly as bad as people claim and our heroes are not nearly as good.

Bush looks a little awkward and isn't a true CB. He's been out of position at times and he's also made a few nice plays. His interception was a really nice play. He plays on every single special teams unit and from what I've read he draws attention from the other teams. He's shown to be pretty durable. Other than the alleged wrong double coverage (which is no better than a 50/50 proposition on who made the mistake), I've not seen or heard much about him making mental coverage mistakes. What I have seen is him being out of position and losing foot races.

He's probably never going to be better than a 2nd or 3rd string safety. He will not be able to cover a fast WR in tight man coverage. However, he's not anywhere near as bad as people seem to think.

If they find better, fine. Until then, he's worth his salary and roster spot.

[SkinBasket]

As is almost always the case, vilified players are not nearly as bad as people claim and our heroes are not nearly as good.

Who's "vilified?" Bush cannot play defense. He;s had many opportunities to prove himself and has failed each and every time during his tenure here (outside of that one awesome preseason he had). Recognizing that a player lacks the physical and/or mental skills to play a position is not "vilifying" him. It's accepting the reality that we have a depth problem at safety that extends from one of the two starters all the way to Bush.

Claiming Bush is under-appreciated as much as Woodson is over-hyped is flat out, plain stupid. Stoopid. Stoopid. Stoopid.

[SkinBasket]

BTW, I'm highly amused by this sudden development of this Bush Fan Club. It reminds me of the Samkon Gado folks.

[Smidgeon]

BTW, I'm highly amused by this sudden development of this Bush Fan Club. It reminds me of the Samkon Gado folks.

Except Gado had about a half season that was very effective...

[sharpe1027]

Who's "vilified?" Bush cannot play defense. He;s had many opportunities to prove himself and has failed each and every time during his tenure here (outside of that one awesome preseason he had). Recognizing that a player lacks the physical and/or mental skills to play a position is not "vilifying" him. It's accepting the reality that we have a depth problem at safety that extends from one of the two starters all the way to Bush.

Claiming Bush is under-appreciated as much as Woodson is over-hyped is flat out, plain stupid. Stoopid. Stoopid. Stoopid.

BTW, I'm highly amused by this sudden development of this Bush Fan Club. It reminds me of the Samkon Gado folks.

I see, thanks for correcting me about the fine points of exactly where the line is for what you consider "vilifying," very useful to this discussion. If someone who says Bush may not be quite as bad as everyone thinks, but clearly admits that he has his limitations, is a "Bush Fan Club" then sign me up!

Nobody claimed Bush is under-appreciated as much as Woodson is over-hyped.

Again, Bush has his limitations and makes plenty of mistakes, but he tends to gets more shit than he deserves. An extreme position I know, but that's how I see it. If you want to call me Stooopid for that, I can live with that. :huh:

[Patler]

Interesting to note that in several threads several fans have concluded that the safeties were at fault because of so many wide open completions in the middle of the field, saying things like "the safeties were no where to be seen." Well, now it seems from information from the coaches that perhaps the safeties shouldn't have been seen much on those plays. During the coaches press conferences, it became clear that the game plan was to have the safeties double on the outside, usually in support of Williams and Underwood. It was explained in the Q&As that the middle was left to Woodson and Bush, with any help they would get coming from the linebackers. As Capers said, you can't help everyone in coverage, you have to make choices.

Just goes to show how incorrect our judgments can be from the limited view we get on TV. The guy you see making (or missing) the tackle, getting there late and looking like he was beaten badly in the process, may not even have had responsibility for that receiver, but did well getting off his responsibility in time to help out.

I have argued for years, and agree with those on here who have said that unless you can see the whole field, see all routes by all receivers, AND know what coverage calls were made, most of the time you have no idea who really made the mistake in coverage and who didn't.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Interesting to note that in several threads several fans have concluded that the safeties were at fault because of so many wide open completions in the middle of the field, saying things like "the safeties were no where to be seen." Well, now it seems from information from the coaches that perhaps the safeties shouldn't have been seen much on those plays. During the coaches press conferences, it became clear that the game plan was to have the safeties double on the outside, usually in support of Williams and Underwood. It was explained in the Q&As that the middle was left to Woodson and Bush, with any help they would get coming from the linebackers. As Capers said, you can't help everyone in coverage, you have to make choices.

Just goes to show how incorrect our judgments can be from the limited view we get on TV. The guy you see making (or missing) the tackle, getting there late and looking like he was beaten badly in the process, may not even have had responsibility for that receiver, but did well getting off his responsibility in time to help out.

I have argued for years, and agree with those on here who have said that unless you can see the whole field, see all routes by all receivers, AND know what coverage calls were made, most of the time you have no idea who really made the mistake in coverage and who didn't.

pissing into the wind.

[Patler]

pissing into the wind.

???? You lost me on that reply.
Are you suggesting my comment will come back at me? SO be it! :D

[Tyrone Bigguns]

pissing into the wind.

???? You lost me on that reply.
Are you suggesting my comment will come back at me? SO be it! :D

Nah, wrong expression.

Shoulda just called you sysiphus (sp?).

[Patler]

Sisyphus? - I feel like him with many of my arguments! Real uphill battles! :lol:

[sharpe1027]

Interesting to note that in several threads several fans have concluded that the safeties were at fault because of so many wide open completions in the middle of the field, saying things like "the safeties were no where to be seen." Well, now it seems from information from the coaches that perhaps the safeties shouldn't have been seen much on those plays. During the coaches press conferences, it became clear that the game plan was to have the safeties double on the outside, usually in support of Williams and Underwood. It was explained in the Q&As that the middle was left to Woodson and Bush, with any help they would get coming from the linebackers. As Capers said, you can't help everyone in coverage, you have to make choices.

Just goes to show how incorrect our judgments can be from the limited view we get on TV. The guy you see making (or missing) the tackle, getting there late and looking like he was beaten badly in the process, may not even have had responsibility for that receiver, but did well getting off his responsibility in time to help out.

I have argued for years, and agree with those on here who have said that unless you can see the whole field, see all routes by all receivers, AND know what coverage calls were made, most of the time you have no idea who really made the mistake in coverage and who didn't.

It is true, but we can at least make a best guess from what we see. I mean why discuss anything here, clearly we never have all the facts... :wink:

I agree 100% that the safeties were playing help to the outside.

I had commented in another thread about what I thought was a lack of range by Gio. I clearly remember at least one play where Gio tried to come back to help on a deep route down the middle and couldn't close fast enough. Maybe it was the scheme and nobody could have made the playe, but he looked slow and I have a feeling that safety with more range would have had a chance at disrupting the play.

[Smidgeon]

...I have a feeling that safety with more range would have had a chance at disrupting the play.

Or at least a safety that hadn't had a leg injury earlier in the game...

[sharpe1027]

...I have a feeling that safety with more range would have had a chance at disrupting the play.

Or at least a safety that hadn't had a leg injury earlier in the game...

Exactly, whatever the reason, I think any holes in the defense were only made worse by having to play Gio.

[Smidgeon]

...I have a feeling that safety with more range would have had a chance at disrupting the play.

Or at least a safety that hadn't had a leg injury earlier in the game...

Exactly, whatever the reason, I think any holes in the defense were only made worse by having to play Gio.

Agreed. Which were probably made worse by the glut of DB injuries throughout the year. The pass defense depth was not in a good place by the time the playoffs started by any stretch of the imagination.

[sharpe1027]

Interestingly, Silverstein highlights two coverage mistakes in relation to an interview with Capers, one made by T. Williams and one made by Barnett. I think the first one is the blown coverage that people blamed on Bush where two DBs covered the same guy. The second one is the Doucet TD, also blamed on Bush.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/81328997.html

[ThunderDan]

Interestingly, Silverstein highlights two coverage mistakes in relation to an interview with Capers, one made by T. Williams and one made by Barnett. I think the first one is the blown coverage that people blamed on Bush where two DBs covered the same guy. The second one is the Doucet TD, also blamed on Bush.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/81328997.html

So before when some of us wouldn't assign blame we were "lame." But now Capers comes out and blames TWill and Barnett and our perception is now wrong?

This is exactly why I wrote that I needed tape and the play call. :!:

[Fritz]

Bush is a tease. Shows flashes of ability, but always seems to come up short when needed the most. Time to move on here. See if Underwood, Lee or Bell can do better if given the opportunities Bush has had.

how true that is.

[Fritz]

I wonder why Capers did not seem to adjust his coverage in the second half after all that middle-of-the-field gashing that took place in the first half?

Move one safety into the middle, maybe? Leave Tramon Williams on an island and give the middle some help?

I wonder why. It'd be fun to be able to talk with him about this.

[Smidgeon]

I wonder why Capers did not seem to adjust his coverage in the second half after all that middle-of-the-field gashing that took place in the first half?

Move one safety into the middle, maybe? Leave Tramon Williams on an island and give the middle some help?

I wonder why. It'd be fun to be able to talk with him about this.

Capers is quoted in his year end conference saying that "Plans A, B, and C" didn't work. It sounds like he was trying to adjust, but he said the execution of said plans just wasn't there. I think it's been established that a lot of the players were jumping routes prematurely. At least, I've heard people say that was part of the issue.

[get louder at lambeau]

I can show Woodson fucking up OBVIOUSLY on simple highlight video from NFL.com, and have.

And OBVIOUSLY you've pre-concluded from your wealth of football knowledge that yours is the only correct perspective on exactly what's happening in said highlight clips--well, yours and whoever agrees with you. I've argued why those highlights don't tell the entire story in detail and your response is just "..well, it's obvious." Sound familiar? Oh yeah. That's because that's the response that is getting you so worked up about Bush haters. But since you've already decided ahead of time, what's the point?

Sorry, but I don't think "obvious" is too strong a term at all when the guy in question is literally laying on the ground not making a play or covering anyone successfully on video in four different examples. I have said more than once that I'm no expert, and stated that this is from my "unedumacated" point of view, so not sure where your getting that I "pre-concluded from my wealth of football knowledge". Sometimes you don't need to be an expert to see common sense things on video.


ob⋅vi⋅ous

1. easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident: an obvious advantage.

Was that term REALLY that much of an overstatement, when backed with video evidence? Seems pretty adequate to me. It doesn't mean there are no other opinions allowed but mine, it means I believe his fuck-ups are "easily seen, recognized, or understood". The context that I was using it in is one where I make it easily seen with the provided video link, which is exactly what I have been asking for from you and others who are saying Bush's mistakes were obvious-


Let's see some video that just shows where it LOOKS like something is Bush's fault

That's all. Is that really such a horribly off base request? I really don't get why you chose to debate the usage of the term "obvious" instead of just showing some basic evidence to support your viewpoint.

This is just a casual discussion, not a criminal trial. It's not about "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" here, just common sense discussion of football from a fan's perspective. Since when is video evidence not good enough to make basic conclusions from in a discussion on a Packer forum? The argument about needing a full game tape, with all views from all cameras, and a blueprint of the defensive scheme sounds like a cop out to me. Sorry if that pisses you off, but it does. By that logic we can never say anything about the performance of any player without all that evidence, which is literally impossible to get unless you're an NFL employee.

[Smidgeon]

That's all. Is that really such a horribly off base request? I really don't get why you chose to debate the usage of the term "obvious" instead of just showing some basic evidence to support your viewpoint.

This wasn't enough? (from an earlier post in this thread: (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=497562#497562))

In fact, I went back to the play by play to see what Fitzgerald did in the game. After looking at the catches Fitzgerald made, I would say that it wasn't that bad of a day by Woodson against one of the game's best WRs.

In the first half Fitzgerald had two catches for 20 yards and a lost fumble stripped by Woodson.

In the third quarter Fitzgerald got a defensive PI against Woodson for 9 yards, then the two touchdowns. The first I actually agree was incidental contact where Woodson fell. But Woodson falling on incidental contact isn't him getting schooled by Fitzgerald. That's a freak play that happens to everyone at one point or another. The second touchdown I maintain was a non called offensive PI where Fitzgerald pushed off enough to gain the separation needed to catch that ball. Or, to put it the way the rule book states (sorta), he plowed through a defender with established position. Later on in the quarter Woodson prevented a third down completion attempt to Fitzgerald.

Fourth quarter Fitzgerald had one catch against Woodson for 6 yards and one against Collins for 15. The one against Collins for 15 could have been when Woodson was covering, but I don't know because the Cards went no-huddle on that play.

That was Fitzgerald's entire day. Take away the freak play that could have happened to anyone and the debated offensive PI, and I would say Woodson ruled Fitz and not the other way around. Fitzgerald had three catches for 26 yards except for those two plays. When Woodson was on him and not tripped up by feet or pushed off of, Fitzgerald caught 3 balls, lost a fumble, and couldn't convert on a crucial third down.


The argument about needing a full game tape, with all views from all cameras, and a blueprint of the defensive scheme sounds like a cop out to me. Sorry if that pisses you off, but it does. By that logic we can never say anything about the performance of any player without all that evidence, which is literally impossible to get unless you're an NFL employee.

I agree that we really can't know either way about any player without all the evidence. Which is why I disagree with you saying that it's "so obvious" that Woodson played a bad game. On top of the video replay, I was also looking at the play-by-play statistics. Except I interpreted the video differently than you, which means it must not have been obvious, otherwise we both would have come to the same conclusion.

As for Bush, again, all I've ever said is there was one play where he was a couple steps behind the WR on a catch. I haven't had anything specificly bad to harp on Bush over. That one isn't me. I've only addressed my disagreement that Woodson had a horrible game. That's the only part. He didn't have his best game, but I think it was better than a lot of people are giving him credit for.

People who are saying Woodson had a horrible game are looking at final stats and not how those stats got there. A QB can throw a perfect pass and it will be his receiver that doesn't catch it, instead deflecting a pefectly thrown ball that the defense catches, and yet that INT is a negative stat for the QB even though the QB wasn't responsible for the INT. I've only been arguing that Woodson isn't at fault for those TDs because he wasn't at fault for falling down (or being pushed down as the case may be). That's my only point.

[pbmax]

Interestingly, Silverstein highlights two coverage mistakes in relation to an interview with Capers, one made by T. Williams and one made by Barnett. I think the first one is the blown coverage that people blamed on Bush where two DBs covered the same guy. The second one is the Doucet TD, also blamed on Bush.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/81328997.html
Clearly Capers is just a Bush fanboy. Everyone watching the game knows who really was at fault!

Of course, I should be careful; Silverstein does not source his backing the bus over TWill and Barnett. There is a decent chance he is wrong.

[sharpe1027]

Clearly Capers is just a Bush fanboy. Everyone watching the game knows who really was at fault!

Of course, I should be careful; Silverstein does not source his backing the bus over TWill and Barnett. There is a decent chance he is wrong.

I noticed that too. He wrote the article it to make it sound like it was coming from Capers, but didn't specifically say it came from him. Who knows for sure?

That opinion had to come from somewhere though and I'd put more behind it than people that assumed it was Bush because it was Bush.

[get louder at lambeau]

That's all. Is that really such a horribly off base request? I really don't get why you chose to debate the usage of the term "obvious" instead of just showing some basic evidence to support your viewpoint.

This wasn't enough? (from an earlier post in this thread: (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=497562#497562))

You misunderstood me here. I was asking if THIS is a horribly off base request, from directly above that statement-

Let's see some video that just shows where it LOOKS like something is Bush's fault

What I am saying is that I have sufficient evidence to claim Woodson fucked up in that game. I never said that he played "horribly", but I DO hold a player accountable for contacting a receiver and falling on his ass. Twice. And for missing on an INT attempt and falling on his face to let the WR run free, and for going for a strip instead of a tackle, missing, and again falling on his ass. Those are not positive plays by any stretch of the imagination, yet you seem to acquit him fully, magically remove those plays from everything but the scoreboard, and say he "ruled Fitz" even though two of those plays I am blaming him for fucking up on weren't even against Fitzgerald, but their #3 and 4 receivers.

My argument isn't even ABOUT Woodson here, it's that I am able to show SOME evidence to show that he played poorly, as opposed to the people blaming Bush, who have provided nothing but opinion without any evidence of any kind for us to consider. Whether or not my evidence is sufficient for you or not, I provided some, and am asking others to do the same in relation to their claims that Bush, Bigby, etc. played poorly.

Our argument about Woodson's play is really just us going off on a tangent from the original topic- that Bush, Bigby, and the young guys were targeted. I'm just a sucker for an argument, I guess, especially when I think you're giving Chuck the "Good ol Brett" treatment, where fans try really hard to not to believe anything is their hero's fault. I'm a big fan of Woodson, but I think he played poorly this week. It looked like that during the game, and it looks like that on highlights.

You talk about me "pre-concluding" things, but my guess before the game would have been the same as everyone else- Woodson would play well, and Bush and the scrubs will struggle. In my opinion, my prediction was wrong. It seems to me that people who still believe the same thing they predicted would happen are the ones with a preconception here, not me.

[Smidgeon]

What I am saying is that I have sufficient evidence to claim Woodson fucked up in that game. I never said that he played "horribly", but I DO hold a player accountable for contacting a receiver and falling on his ass. Twice.

You do know there's a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, don't you? I'm not acquitting his entire game. I never have. Even when I made the "he ruled Fitzgerald" comment, I said it with a disclaimer. But the two TDs I am saying weren't a result of him blowing a coverage or even because he messed up. Was he responsible? Certainly. But in the way a QB is responsible for a tipped pass that turns into an interception. He was competetive on both of the routes. The first time he fell down, even if it was incidental, was because feet got tangled. One of the players happened to keep his feet and one didn't. Can you really say someone had bad coverage because their feet got tangled? If you can, whatever. It was just as likely that Fitzgerald would have fallen as Woodson falling. Yeah, Woodson fell, but it wasn't because of bad coverage. The point on that one was that it happens to everyone and it didn't matter if it was Bush or Underwood or Jolly on that pass. He was in good position to defend the route. If he had stayed on his feet and the TD pass was still thrown, then I'd absolutely blame him for giving up the TD. Kind of like the two consecutive plays against Cutler where Cutler turned Woodson around, the first for a long gain and the second for a TD.

The second TD it didn't matter if Woodson fell or not. If you're going to call offensive pass interferance a blown coverage by Woodson, you and I are not watching the same game.

As for the misses against the #3 and #4 WRs, sure, whatever. I don't really know those plays in question. I don't know if it was Woodson's responsibility to be there on that pass or if he was freelancing or if Collins was supposed to be there or if he was freelancing. Same with Bush. I don't know if it was Bush's fault he was a couple steps behind that receiver on the one drag route or if he broke off another defended route because the ball was already in the air. But I have more faith based on Woodson's portfolio of play this year that he wasn't out of position versus Bush. If it was Woodson's guy, yeah, he had bad coverage. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying there is I don't know. And neither do you. You're making a guess. I'm making a guess. And guesses aren't about obvious things. Obvious things don't have guessing involved.

[sharpe1027]

Smidgeon I think you keep missing the point. Woodson's play is only relevant in that is shows that people have more evidence of his bad play than they do of Bush's. Explaining away Woodson's play just makes it even more wrong that people are throwing Bush under the bus with even less analysis.

Basically, you are proving his point.

[Smidgeon]

Smidgeon I think you keep missing the point. Woodson's play is only relevant in that is shows that people have more evidence of his bad play than they do of Bush's. Explaining away Woodson's play just makes it even more wrong that people are throwing Bush under the bus with even less analysis.

Basically, you are proving his point.

I may be proving one of his points, but I wasn't arguing that there isn't a lot of evidence on Bush's sloppy play from this particular game. I was arguing with his assumption that Woodson played badly and that it was "OBVIOUS" that Woodson played badly.

[sharpe1027]

Smidgeon I think you keep missing the point. Woodson's play is only relevant in that is shows that people have more evidence of his bad play than they do of Bush's. Explaining away Woodson's play just makes it even more wrong that people are throwing Bush under the bus with even less analysis.

Basically, you are proving his point.

I may be proving one of his points, but I wasn't arguing that there isn't a lot of evidence on Bush's sloppy play from this particular game. I was arguing with his assumption that Woodson played badly and that it was "OBVIOUS" that Woodson played badly.

That may be. You still seem to be missing the point. The reason Woodson was mentioned was in the context of Bush. It is natural for the other side to assume you are disagreeing with their main point, otherwise it seems mostly to be argument for the sake of argument.

[get louder at lambeau]

What I am saying is that I have sufficient evidence to claim Woodson fucked up in that game. I never said that he played "horribly", but I DO hold a player accountable for contacting a receiver and falling on his ass. Twice.

You do know there's a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, don't you? I'm not acquitting his entire game. I never have. Even when I made the "he ruled Fitzgerald" comment, I said it with a disclaimer. But the two TDs I am saying weren't a result of him blowing a coverage or even because he messed up. Was he responsible? Certainly. But in the way a QB is responsible for a tipped pass that turns into an interception. He was competetive on both of the routes. The first time he fell down, even if it was incidental, was because feet got tangled. One of the players happened to keep his feet and one didn't. Can you really say someone had bad coverage because their feet got tangled? If you can, whatever. It was just as likely that Fitzgerald would have fallen as Woodson falling. Yeah, Woodson fell, but it wasn't because of bad coverage. The point on that one was that it happens to everyone and it didn't matter if it was Bush or Underwood or Jolly on that pass. He was in good position to defend the route. If he had stayed on his feet and the TD pass was still thrown, then I'd absolutely blame him for giving up the TD. Kind of like the two consecutive plays against Cutler where Cutler turned Woodson around, the first for a long gain and the second for a TD.

The second TD it didn't matter if Woodson fell or not. If you're going to call offensive pass interferance a blown coverage by Woodson, you and I are not watching the same game.

As for the misses against the #3 and #4 WRs, sure, whatever. I don't really know those plays in question. I don't know if it was Woodson's responsibility to be there on that pass or if he was freelancing or if Collins was supposed to be there or if he was freelancing. Same with Bush. I don't know if it was Bush's fault he was a couple steps behind that receiver on the one drag route or if he broke off another defended route because the ball was already in the air. But I have more faith based on Woodson's portfolio of play this year that he wasn't out of position versus Bush. If it was Woodson's guy, yeah, he had bad coverage. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying there is I don't know. And neither do you. You're making a guess. I'm making a guess. And guesses aren't about obvious things. Obvious things don't have guessing involved.

Circumstantial evidence? You really do sound like a defense lawyer. Wow. Next you'll get all Bill Clinton on me, and argue what the definition of "is" is. As I have stated MORE THAN ONCE, I'm not trying to prove anyone "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" here. We are fans discussing a football game on a Packer forum, not lawyers in a criminal trial.

You know what else I would say is obvious? That the second TD was NOT offensive pass interference. The pass was not thrown until Woodson was on his ass. Not only that, but he ran right at Fitz, and squared up his shoulders like he was going deliver a block. Then he's on his ass. Circumstantially, of course.

[SnakeLH2006]

you think Mike McKenzie is not better than Jarrett Bush?

exactly new guy

i've said it before and i'll say it again. bush should never be allowed on the field. we would almost be better off only putting 10 guys out of defense

he's just a disaster. myself and other of said almost all year that you have to find something better then bush, he's too mush of a liability

they made us pay last night for keeping bush. he was burned over and over again

Personally, Red is spot on. I've never seen a guy contribute so little to a win, yet able to contribute so much to a loss other than Jarrett Bush. I still can't believe that an undrafted CB/S couldn't do what he does on ST (occasional tackle) and on dime D (blow coverage after coverage) for much cheaper. Jarrett Bush is a millionairre. How's that feel? He makes millions to suck!

[MichiganPackerFan]

... He makes millions to suck!

The world's oldest profession...

[Smidgeon]

I simply don't care anymore. The game's over. It was fun to debate for a couple days, but I'm done now.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I simply don't care anymore. The game's over. It was fun to debate for a couple days, but I'm done now.

Time to start flinging cyber-feces like the rest of us!

[Smidgeon]

I simply don't care anymore. The game's over. It was fun to debate for a couple days, but I'm done now.

Time to start flinging cyber-feces like the rest of us!

Eh. That bores me. All the down-trodden "who's to blame" gets old really quickly. Enough "cup half empty" or "cup have full of sh!t" stuff for me.

[MichiganPackerFan]

It's taking FOREVER for the season to start! Auugghh!

[Smidgeon]

It's taking FOREVER for the season to start! Auugghh!

Yeah. Can't come soon enough. I guess the next thing to look forward too is 97 days away. The draft. <sigh> Too much time, too little Packer football.

[SkinBasket]

Countdown To Draftday (http://www.7is7.com/otto/countdown.html?year=2010&month=4&date=22&hrs=19&ts=24&min=30&sec=0&tz=local&lang=en&show=dhms&mode=r&cdir=down&bgcolor=%23CCFFFF&fgcolor=%23000000&title=Countdown%20To%20Draftday)

[Smidgeon]

Countdown To Draftday (http://www.7is7.com/otto/countdown.html?year=2010&month=4&date=22&hrs=19&ts=24&min=30&sec=0&tz=local&lang=en&show=dhms&mode=r&cdir=down&bgcolor=%23CCFFFF&fgcolor=%23000000&title=Countdown%20To%20Draftday)

Thanks, Skin. Now I can agonize by the second...

[get louder at lambeau]

I simply don't care anymore. The game's over. It was fun to debate for a couple days, but I'm done now.

I'm with you. Truce. Now it's time to decide which free agents Ted should be fired for not getting this year! :wink:

[Smidgeon]

I simply don't care anymore. The game's over. It was fun to debate for a couple days, but I'm done now.

I'm with you. Truce. Now it's time to decide which free agents Ted should be fired for not getting this year! :wink:

Agree. Truce. It was a well argued debate.

So which FA are on your list?

[retailguy]

Taco Wallace was always my favorite.

[MJZiggy]

And I'm sure by now you can afford him...You gonna have him mow the lawn, take out the trash or what?

[Bretsky]

And I'm sure by now you can afford him...You gonna have him mow the lawn, take out the trash or what?

No, those guys were playing in our secondary against the Cardinals :lol:

[MJZiggy]

I may hire one of them for a babysitter. It's just one kid, they should be able to handle it.

[pbmax]

I may hire one of them for a babysitter. It's just one kid, they should be able to handle it.
Just be sure the neighborhood children don't get in a bunch formation with your child or he'll get lost.

[MOBB DEEP]

aint exploiting jack today!

[get louder at lambeau]

I may hire one of them for a babysitter. It's just one kid, they should be able to handle it.
Just be sure the neighborhood children don't get in a bunch formation with your child or he'll get lost.

Ouch. :lol:

[SkinBasket]

aint exploiting jack today!

They obviously showed too much against us. I have it on good authority that the Saints have a VCR and after adjusting the tracking several times, watched the second game against the Packers at least twice and solved their offense. Fools.

[MOBB DEEP]

I have it on good authority that the Saints have a VCR and after adjusting the tracking several times,

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: