Where the blame really lies

[Patler]

OK. Serious this time. I started a few goofy threads to lighten the mood for a serious, hopefully analytical and not emotional discussion. Many of you saw the threads for what they were, a suggestion that we should all take a deep breath, then discuss the fiasco we witnessed today.

The defense played very well.
Special teams played well/good enough to win.

Some individuals made some mistakes, but that happens. You have to accept that no one is perfect, not even Greg Jennings, and once in a while a ball will get away from him.

However, the one group that got overwhelmed continuously was the O-line, and it wasn't just an occasional play made by a great player like Suh. It was a total failure of the O-line as a unit, with each and every one of them being dominated by the man across from them. There was no place to run, there was no protection in the passing game. While there are solid players and a budding star in Suh, this was three good, but not great d-linemen and Suh absolutely dominating first 5 blockers, then six when a TE was kept in, or even 7 with a back; all trying to handle four Lions, with little blitzing.

Unfortunately, this was not unique. There has been little running room all year, and the protection given to Rodgers has been very, very shoddy. He rarely has a clean pocket, and only his willingness to run and his ability to make throws on the move have kept the offense going.

But, in the end, a good O-line is essential to win consistently, because they take over close games and get you the points when you need them by opening holes for the backs, and giving the QB time and confidence to execute the passing game.

Sadly, this is what the O-line has been under MM each and every year. I believe that there is either a basic philosophical flaw in what they do as a unit, or the coaching is bad, because even average NFL linemen should not be absolutely dominated play after play after play by the four d-linemen the Lions have. The Packer O-line was not prepared to handle what the Lions brought. Because of that, the Packers lost.

[Noodle]

Let me second this. I know that Patler has been trying to get Campen dumped for a while (I'm guessing football-guy Campen gave math-geek Patler a world-class wedgie in gym class that still stings to this day), but at this point, the abject failure of the OL to become a competent unit is glaring.

An OL can understandly suffer from immaturity -- it takes a while to develop a cohesive unit.

But the Pack OL has been relatively stable this season, yet they have consistently failed at run blocking and have often sucked in passpro. And the basic pieces of the OL (Sitton, Wells, College, Cliffy, Tausch, Lang, Spitz) have been in play for at least two years, with Bulaga the only rook.

The Pack OL is composed of big guys -- we're bigger than the Pat's OL by more than a plate full of bisquits. So it's not like we have a crew of ballerinas brought in for the ZBS. No, the problem goes beyond that, and I have to agree with Patler that it is coaching. The thing I don't know is whether the game plan coaches are doing a good job understanding match-up issues and are asking our guys to do things they can't.

But that goes back to the first question -- why can't they?

Coaching.

[th87]

Agree completely. For all the talk about MM's play calling, the real problem goes back to execution, and the line has been the weak link for years. Even though sack numbers are down, I still don't see the clean pocket that Brady seems to enjoy.

Fix that, and MM is regarded as a genius.

[packrulz]

I think Suh is a great, dominating, pro bowl caliber defensive lineman, he was very disruptive and made his teammates look better. I also think the turnovers lost the game, not necessarily the Packers offensive line. However, I agree that the run blocking is terrible, the Packers have become one dimensional, the last time a Packer had 100 yards rushing was Oct. 10th, when BJack had 115 against the Redskins. I'm not convinced it's poor coaching either, it might be lack of talent. Sitton/Bulaga are pretty good, but Wells/Colledge/Clifton don't run block very well at all. Campen can coach the hell out of them (pad level dammit) but I doubt they'll ever be good run blockers. If the Packers don't make the playoffs, I think they should give McDonald some starts at center, Spitz at left guard, and Lang at left tackle, just to see what they've got.

[mmmdk]

Agree with Patler; I don't agree with McCarthy ever looking like a genius [th87 remark]. :wink:

What do we want? What does TT & players want? A championship I hope. Then changes must be made & I'd go as high as new head coach but what Patler points out are the things that should be looked at ASAP. Then add special teams even though they did fine yesterday.

Q: How many years left on McCarthy contract?

[mmmdk]

I think Suh is a great, dominating, pro bowl caliber defensive lineman, he was very disruptive and made his teammates look better. I also think the turnovers lost the game, not necessarily the Packers offensive line. However, I agree that the run blocking is terrible, the Packers have become one dimensional, I can't remember the last time a Packer had 100 yards rushing. I'm not convinced it's poor coaching, it might be lack of talent. Sitton/Bulaga are pretty good, but Wells/Colledge/Clifton don't run block very well at all. Campen can coach the hell out of them (pad level dammit) but I doubt they'll ever be good run blockers. If the Packers don't make the playoffs, I think they should give McDonald some starts at center, Spitz at left guard, and Lang at left tackle, just to see what they've got.

Only a Vick or AR type of QB can survive our crappy pass protection. AR is too often the leader rusher; that's gonna end badly - sooner or later.

[vince]

The Packers obviously were outplayed all along the o-line. Clifton, Wells and Bulaga all got pushed back with regularity - to the extent that way too many plays were disrupted in the backfield. Spitz couldn't even seem to get in the way.

They also were outschemed along the front. When the Lions blitzed, it worked. They were able to isolate TE's on DE's. Crabtree got abused trying to block guys one on one way too big and strong for him to handle. They often put two big d-linemen way outside to force mismatches and threatened or brought linebackers up the middle. The Packers didn't block it properly or weren't prepared with on-the-fly adjustments. They did not have the checks and audibles in place to offset what the Lions were doing at the line. Simple as that.

Suh is great, but they made average d-linemen look like Pro-Bowlers.

Add to that a bunch of turnovers, including a huge one in the endzone and another dropped TD pass and you have one of the ugliest performances from the Packers taht I can remember.

They obviously need help and need some serious corrections, but I think the Packers still have a good shot to make the playoffs if they can beat the Giants and Bears at home to finish the regular season.

[3irty1]

In the small sample size I've seen I've determined that Jim Schwartz is absolutely adept at forming game plans against MM and especially Capers.

MM runs a true multiples offense, you never quite know what you'll see on any given week. Schematically the Packers are pretty unpredictable and Schwartz focused on what he could control. All you have to go off of is tendencies. Based on this season you know we are going to get most of our rushing yards off of broken scrambles and designed draws. You know that we will mess with your tempo and substitutions by going no huddle, and by switching formations quickly and sometimes drastically (full house to 5-wide). The other thing you know is who we are going to put on the field and Schwartz and co. found some alarming mismatches all over our DL. He seemed to have a new package and a new alignment for every situation and all of them worked. Suh was too much for Sitton, Sammie Lee Hill laughed at Wells, Corey hall embarrassed College, Clifton struggled with a rotation of guys, Bulaga was overwhelmed and confused with some funky two player alignments on his side.

On defense the mismatches were even worse IMO. The Packers running defense is not nearly as poor as the talking heads wanted us to believe and in fact have taken very little damage from running backs all year long. By no means should the lions have had that kind of success against us. Atlanta's main plan to run the ball on us involved trying to isolate Frank Zombo, Detroit did this all too easily probably due in part to the absence of Cullen Jenkins who would normally being playing next to Zombo.

Jim Schwartz's team isn't good but I have a feeling that we haven't lost our last game to him. He seems to have MM figured out and knows exactly how to attack us on offense and defense.

[pbmax]

MM runs a true multiples offense, you never quite know what you'll see on any given week. Schematically the Packers are pretty unpredictable and Schwartz focused on what he could control. All you have to go off of is tendencies. Based on this season you know we are going to get most of our rushing yards off of broken scrambles and designed draws. You know that we will mess with your tempo and substitutions by going no huddle, and by switching formations quickly and sometimes drastically (full house to 5-wide). The other thing you know is who we are going to put on the field and Schwartz and co. found some alarming mismatches all over our DL. He seemed to have a new package and a new alignment for every situation and all of them worked. Suh was too much for Sitton, Sammie Lee Hill laughed at Wells, Corey hall embarrassed College, Clifton struggled with a rotation of guys, Bulaga was overwhelmed and confused with some funky two player alignments on his side.

You do realize Colledge played 2 plays total?

[3irty1]

No I didn't, but lets make a thread on that. I assume it was Lang I saw getting caught up high then.

[pbmax]

Spitz came in for Colledge as he apparently hurt his knee tackling the returner after the Quarless fumble. But Lang, for reasons unknown to me, replaced Spitz by the second half.

In fairness, losing the starter didn't help Wells combat Suh.

[Pugger]

Yes, the O line was atrocious but because we screwed up by turning the ball over we lost the game. Even with our crappy O line blocking we still could have won the game had we not given them the ball right before we were in the position to score 3 times yesterday. But these O line woes MUST be addressed before we can think about winning any championships around here.

[Pugger]

Spitz came in for Colledge as he apparently hurt his knee tackling the returner after the Quarless fumble. But Spitz, for reasons unknown to me, replaced him by the second half.

In fairness, losing the starter didn't help Wells combat Suh.

Good lord, two starters injure themselves after a turnover (remember Finley in DC?)!?

[denverYooper]

Spitz came in for Colledge as he apparently hurt his knee tackling the returner after the Quarless fumble. But Spitz, for reasons unknown to me, replaced him by the second half.

In fairness, losing the starter didn't help Wells combat Suh.

Good point. Detroit's front is a tough one to lose a starting OL guy against.

[pbmax]

I will say this about the defense. It surrendered too much on the ground again. And this was not a mobile QB escaping the pass rush while the D played man coverage. Stanton could not drive that offense via the pass and they still were able to run for first downs. This meant time of possession (and number of possessions) and field position were evenly contested rather than wins for the Packers, even with reasonable KO coverage and good punting.

Its clearly the second problem after the offense, but while the Packers offseason depth chart will look great, injuries have reduced this line to below average.

[Patler]

Good point. Detroit's front is a tough one to lose a starting OL guy against.

Except that Detroit played the entire game with one backup on their d-line, and most of the game with a second backup on their d-line. Losing Colledge is no excuse.

[denverYooper]

Bulaga was overwhelmed and confused with some funky two player alignments on his side.

On defense the mismatches were even worse IMO. The Packers running defense is not nearly as poor as the talking heads wanted us to believe and in fact have taken very little damage from running backs all year long. By no means should the lions have had that kind of success against us. Atlanta's main plan to run the ball on us involved trying to isolate Frank Zombo, Detroit did this all too easily probably due in part to the absence of Cullen Jenkins who would normally being playing next to Zombo.

Jim Schwartz's team isn't good but I have a feeling that we haven't lost our last game to him. He seems to have MM figured out and knows exactly how to attack us on offense and defense.

1.) I had to leave at halftime, but they were throwing a lot of different things against Bulaga in a game of confuse the rook. To their credit, it worked.
2.) Totally agree about our run D. I think they are willing to give up some yards to the running backs in order to control the passing game. I actually think a large part of their overall gameplan is to make it about GB's passing game vs. the other team's running game.
3.) Disagree about the Lions not being good. They're on the rise and in some ways it is unfortunate for the Packers because they're going to have to contend with a good Lions team over the next few. I have a feeling that the division past this year will be Packers/Lions because they both have a decent core of young players.

[Patler]

I have a feeling that the division past this year will be Packers/Lions because they both have a decent core of young players.

The question might come down to whether they can keep their starting QBs healthy.

[denverYooper]

Except that Detroit played the entire game with one backup on their d-line, and most of the game with a second backup on their d-line. Losing Colledge is no excuse.

It doesn't excuse the poor line play across the board but it certainly didn't help. I'm with you that their line play has been subpar and probably masked by Rodgers's ability.

I don't see the Giants game going much better for that group because NYG's front is arguably better than Detroit's.

[ND72]

So here's my thing...and I don't disagree with anything said. Our OL is just horrible, and it pains me because it seems so simple to me, and it seems simple because I saw Chicago doing this last week against Detroit, and we never once did it. Detroit plays those wide DE's....which Clifton & Bulaga struggled with. Chicago did not seem to have that problem...why? On every play, I saw Forte flare out, chipping off the DE, aka, pushing him back inside instead of allowing him upfield, and Chicago routinely was bring Olson in motion, and doing the exact same thing on the other side, so they got a TE & RB to chip on the DE's, and then they ran out into a pattern. How many times did you see this from us? McCarthy tried putting a TE in, but all that did was widen the DE further, and Crabtree got crushed.

Here are some other issues I had. Detroit ran a perfect plan. They did exactly what I expected all season long. Teams to say, screw their run game, go get their QB. So they obviously told their DL go as hard and as fast as you can and get upfield. In the mean time, that disrupts EVERYTHING else GB was trying to do.

Also...our first screen we ran? 2 minute mark left in the game. When you play a team who's DL is just storming upfield, you run screens and draws. We ran like 2 or 3 draws in the first half, and they actually kind of worked. Dislike the play selections by McCarthy. He obviously had a plan going into the game and refused to get away from it even though nothing was working.

[Freak Out]

I'm still so disgusted I can't really talk about it.

We lost to a 2 win team when our season was on the line....it was a complete failure by the players and coaches.

[3irty1]

So here's my thing...and I don't disagree with anything said. Our OL is just horrible, and it pains me because it seems so simple to me, and it seems simple because I saw Chicago doing this last week against Detroit, and we never once did it. Detroit plays those wide DE's....which Clifton & Bulaga struggled with. Chicago did not seem to have that problem...why? On every play, I saw Forte flare out, chipping off the DE, aka, pushing him back inside instead of allowing him upfield, and Chicago routinely was bring Olson in motion, and doing the exact same thing on the other side, so they got a TE & RB to chip on the DE's, and then they ran out into a pattern. How many times did you see this from us? McCarthy tried putting a TE in, but all that did was widen the DE further, and Crabtree got crushed.

Here are some other issues I had. Detroit ran a perfect plan. They did exactly what I expected all season long. Teams to say, screw their run game, go get their QB. So they obviously told their DL go as hard and as fast as you can and get upfield. In the mean time, that disrupts EVERYTHING else GB was trying to do.

Also...our first screen we ran? 2 minute mark left in the game. When you play a team who's DL is just storming upfield, you run screens and draws. We ran like 2 or 3 draws in the first half, and they actually kind of worked. Dislike the play selections by McCarthy. He obviously had a plan going into the game and refused to get away from it even though nothing was working.

This. We've seen this all year. Players coming from four-point stances, pass rushing personnel playing every down, Detroit was so confident in their rushing defense that they could spread and stack DEs in all sorts of places in order to get to the QB. Ironically it seems even more important to keep the running game reps up for a team that can't run the ball. It might be preferable to beat your head against the wall trying to run the ball as long as it means teams have to expect it even if they don't respect it.

[denverYooper]

I'm still so disgusted I can't really talk about it.

We lost to a 2 win team when our season was on the line....it was a complete failure by the players and coaches.

Yup.

I've defended M3 on several occasions for his team coming up flat in big games but this one is indefensible.

[denverYooper]

This. We've seen this all year. Players coming from four-point stances, pass rushing personnel playing every down, Detroit was so confident in their rushing defense that they could spread and stack DEs in all sorts of places in order to get to the QB. Ironically it seems even more important to keep the running game reps up for a team that can't run the ball. It might be preferable to beat your head against the wall trying to run the ball as long as it means teams have to expect it even if they don't respect it.

I agree that they should have pounded the middle of the line more. The other problem with the run game was that they were splitting carries too much. 15 carries by the 3 running backs (Jackson 7/20, Starks 6/8, Nance 2/4) without letting any one of them or the line get into any kind of groove. I left right after Flynn threw that pick in the end zone but was flabbergasted that they didn't even try to run once in that trip to the red zone and felt that they set him up for failure there.

[Scott Campbell]

OK. Serious this time. I started a few goofy threads to lighten the mood for a serious, hopefully analytical and not emotional discussion. Many of you saw the threads for what they were, a suggestion that we should all take a deep breath, then discuss the fiasco we witnessed today.

The defense played very well.
Special teams played well/good enough to win.

Some individuals made some mistakes, but that happens. You have to accept that no one is perfect, not even Greg Jennings, and once in a while a ball will get away from him.

However, the one group that got overwhelmed continuously was the O-line, and it wasn't just an occasional play made by a great player like Suh. It was a total failure of the O-line as a unit, with each and every one of them being dominated by the man across from them. There was no place to run, there was no protection in the passing game. While there are solid players and a budding star in Suh, this was three good, but not great d-linemen and Suh absolutely dominating first 5 blockers, then six when a TE was kept in, or even 7 with a back; all trying to handle four Lions, with little blitzing.

Unfortunately, this was not unique. There has been little running room all year, and the protection given to Rodgers has been very, very shoddy. He rarely has a clean pocket, and only his willingness to run and his ability to make throws on the move have kept the offense going.

But, in the end, a good O-line is essential to win consistently, because they take over close games and get you the points when you need them by opening holes for the backs, and giving the QB time and confidence to execute the passing game.

Sadly, this is what the O-line has been under MM each and every year. I believe that there is either a basic philosophical flaw in what they do as a unit, or the coaching is bad, because even average NFL linemen should not be absolutely dominated play after play after play by the four d-linemen the Lions have. The Packer O-line was not prepared to handle what the Lions brought. Because of that, the Packers lost.


Almost total agreement with your assessment. But I'm really, really ticked about Jennings. And not becase he dropped the ball, but because he quit on the play and let his emotions interfere with his responsibility. I heard someone say he probably thought it was incomplete, but it takes very little effort to turn your head around to see what happened. But he was too busy feeling sorry for himself. Horrible mental error. And this guy is supposed to be a team leader.

[vince]

Regarding the Packers' run D, I didn't keep track specifically but the Packers were in nickel pretty much the whole game. Even so, the Packers pretty much bottled up the Lions rushiing attack, except for the QB scrambles/designed drop-back runs. Take away Stanton, and the Packers held the Lions to under 4 yards a carry with only 2 d-linemen in the game.

In spite of the Packers utter futility on offense, time of possession was equal because of the performance of the D. The Packers D forced punt after punt if they weren't intercepting the ball, along with a missed long FG, one TD and the end of half and game. Stanton wasn't sharp passing the ball, but the defense did it's job, including defending the run IMO.

[ND72]

I heard an ESPN "expert" say, "Can you beleive the Packers gave up over 200 yards rushing to Detroit?"....I yelled at the TV, mostly because Detroit had what, like 50 rush attempts?

[bobblehead]

This. We've seen this all year. Players coming from four-point stances, pass rushing personnel playing every down, Detroit was so confident in their rushing defense that they could spread and stack DEs in all sorts of places in order to get to the QB. Ironically it seems even more important to keep the running game reps up for a team that can't run the ball. It might be preferable to beat your head against the wall trying to run the ball as long as it means teams have to expect it even if they don't respect it.

YEs, Yes, yes. You can't run the ball 13 times a game and win. I don't care what anyone here says or what half ass stat you might show, to win in the NFL you MUST be able to run the ball effectively (and have a QB that can convert manageable 3rd downs).

[bobblehead]

I heard an ESPN "expert" say, "Can you beleive the Packers gave up over 200 yards rushing to Detroit?"....I yelled at the TV, mostly because Detroit had what, like 50 rush attempts?

But, this is partially the reason they eventually broke through with a TD. Our D finally broke down against a team committed to the run....theirs did not against a team not committed to the run.

[vince]

Stanton sucks, but I don't care what anyone says. You hold a team to one score, you've done your job. End of story. The problem was on the other side of the ball.

[vince]

I heard an ESPN "expert" say, "Can you beleive the Packers gave up over 200 yards rushing to Detroit?"....I yelled at the TV, mostly because Detroit had what, like 50 rush attempts?
44 for 190, including Stanton's 11 yds./carry (4/44).

[Patler]

.... to win in the NFL you MUST be able to run the ball effectively (and have a QB that can convert manageable 3rd downs).

...or more accurately, an offense that can covert manageable third downs. For example, it helps if at least a couple of the linemen block somebody for more than a half-second.

The third downs yesterday:

3/1 - sack
3/13 - incomplete
3/14 - pass for 6
3/11 - pass for 5
3/17 - pass for 4
3/17 - pass for no gain
3/3 - incomplete
3/10 - scramble for 12
3/1 - sack
3/11 - incomplete
3/11 - pass for 18
3/1 - incomplete
4/1 - incomplete

[vince]

Spitz came in for Colledge as he apparently hurt his knee tackling the returner after the Quarless fumble. But Lang, for reasons unknown to me, replaced Spitz by the second half.

In fairness, losing the starter didn't help Wells combat Suh.Wilde said that Philbin confirmed that Spitz was removed because of performance, not injury.

[Smidgeon]

Yup.

I've defended M3 on several occasions for his team coming up flat in big games but this one is indefensible.

Didn't the '96 team lose to the Colts...?

[denverYooper]

Didn't the '96 team lose to the Colts...?

No. They lost to the Chiefs/Cowboys back to back and the Vikings. The '97 team lost to the Colts.

Look, I don't want to run McCarthy out of town. He just deserves to take some heat for this game because his offense stunk. As Patler said, he does tend to get too intellectual at times with his game planning and maybe that hampers the execution at times. I think there are a lot of things that he does well as a coach and he usually calls a good game but he needs to improve a few areas.

Along with his propensity to occasionally overplan, he's still struggling to get a handle on challenges. I feel he's gone from being too loose to being too conservative. I also feel that his devotion to certain guys (*cough* Campen, *cough* Slocum) has hindered this team at times and those things really get magnified in important games.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Offensive line was terrible.

Once Rodgers was out, i felt the only way they would win was with a defensive TD or a special teams TD, and they didn't get one.

Should have challenged the TD to Jennings. In a game where you can't move the ball, it's worth risking a TO for 4 more points.

Overconfidence. The lions were a lot better than their 2-10 record. And their front four played really well.

[denverYooper]

I'm willing to bet that the Giants will be watching the film on this game and drooling. They're going to try to control the game with their front 4 as well. I am interested to see how the Pack responds there.

[denverYooper]

I thought Quarless played well after his fumble.

[vince]

I think it would have been very difficult for the ref to overturn the call on Jennings. The ball did hit the ground based on the angle they showed, although it was in Jennings hands when it did. I don't think there was enough to overturn the call and there may well have been enough to confrm it.

[Smidgeon]

No. They lost to the Chiefs/Cowboys back to back and the Vikings. The '97 team lost to the Colts.

Look, I don't want to run McCarthy out of town. He just deserves to take some heat for this game because his offense stunk. As Patler said, he does tend to get too intellectual at times with his game planning and maybe that hampers the execution at times. I think there are a lot of things that he does well as a coach and he usually calls a good game but he needs to improve a few areas.

Along with his propensity to occasionally overplan, he's still struggling to get a handle on challenges. I feel he's gone from being too loose to being too conservative. I also feel that his devotion to certain guys (*cough* Campen, *cough* Slocum) has hindered this team at times and those things really get magnified in important games.

Thanks. I couldn't remember which one it was. I just wanted to remind people that losing to a bad team in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean anything. The Patriots lost to the Browns after all...

[swede]

I think it would have been very difficult for the ref to overturn the call on Jennings. The ball did hit the ground based on the angle they showed, although it was in Jennings hands when it did. I don't think there was enough to overturn the call and there may well have been enough to confrm it.

I agree. If the catch had been ruled a TD there was a slight chance it would stand after review, but there is no way the call was going to be reversed with the ball moving as much as it did.

[pbmax]

44 for 190, including Stanton's 11 yds./carry (4/44).

And they had seven first downs by rushing (Pack had 4). Stanton had 3 of those first downs. Their RBs averaged 3.95 yards if my earlier math was correct. Its not as bad as it looked in the stat chart. That may have been all in comparison. Packers had 2 INTs and held them below 300 yards. Considering the offense was doing them no favors, it might have been the best that could be expected.

[pbmax]

Here is McCarthy from today, perhaps inadvertently lending credence to Patler's contention about the O line:


On the performance of the offense: "Offensively, we performed poorly and that starts with me. I did not see any signs in preparation that led me to be concerned. Frankly, the issue was clearly execution. I give credit to Detroit. They did a fine job against us but from a scheme standpoint they pretty much played their base defense. It was our guys against your guys and we did not perform. ... It was a poor performance by our offense."

[bobblehead]

...or more accurately, an offense that can covert manageable third downs. For example, it helps if at least a couple of the linemen block somebody for more than a half-second.

The third downs yesterday:

3/1 - sack
3/13 - incomplete
3/14 - pass for 6
3/11 - pass for 5
3/17 - pass for 4
3/17 - pass for no gain
3/3 - incomplete
3/10 - scramble for 12
3/1 - sack
3/11 - incomplete
3/11 - pass for 18
3/1 - incomplete
4/1 - incomplete

Actually this speaks volumes about our inability/refusal to run. Sacked twice and incomplete 3 times on 3rd and short....never even tried to run....and the rest of the time we were in 3rd and long because we CAN'T run.

[Freak Out]

Actually this speaks volumes about our inability/refusal to run. Sacked twice and incomplete 3 times on 3rd and short....never even tried to run....and the rest of the time we were in 3rd and long because we CAN'T run.

Insane numbers.....we need a road grader or two.

[vince]

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20101213/PKR07/101213147/Baranczyk-Christl-column-Hard-to-win-without-stars


The run blocking

The pad level the Packers’ line plays with isn’t conducive to running the ball. When you play against guys who are bigger and stronger like the Packers did Sunday, you’ve got to play with better leverage. Granted, the guards and center had their hands full. Ndamukong Suh is everything he was cracked up to be. Corey Williams has been resurrected now that he’s back in a 4-3 scheme and playing next to Suh. Suh might be playing as well as any defensive player in the league right now.

Scott Wells, Josh Sitton and Bryan Bulaga usually play with decent pad level. But even Sitton struggled in this game. First-and-5, 14:01 to go in the third quarter, Suh crossed Sitton’s face so fast that Sitton didn’t have a chance, and it was a loss of 2. The same with Wells. That’s his game: To out-technique people. But Suh and Williams were too good for him to handle.

Chad Clifton never gets pad level and Daryn Colledge isn’t much better. When Colledge got hurt, the Packers put in Jason Spitz and he got tossed around like a rag doll. Then T.J. Lang, a bigger guy, came in and he didn’t give them a boost, either.

The pocket also was getting collapsed in the middle of the line. Even without Kyle Vanden Bosch, the Lions have a good front four. And adding Suh covers up for a lot of weaknesses in that back seven.

For example, with their zone scheme, the Packers are combo blocking at the point of attack almost every play. But if the blockers can’t release because of the penetration of the other team’s tackles, they’re not going to be able to pick off linebackers, who make the plays. With the pressure they got from their front four, the Lions didn’t have to blitz and expose their weaknesses at corner.

The offensive tackles

It appears that Clifton might be running out of gas and Bulaga might have hit the proverbial rookie wall. Both look as if they’re wearing down.

Bulaga isn’t the same player he was earlier in the year. It looks as though he’s losing weight. He’s not shocking people anymore with his initial punch in pass pro. Part of it against the Lions was that they line their defensive ends up so wide. But both those tackles were on skates the entire game.

Clifton is getting beat to the edge. That’s a bad sign for a tackle. That’s a speed and quickness issue. His drop-step doesn’t seem to be as quick as it was at mid-season.

[vince]

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20101213/PKR01/101213195/Notebook-Each-offensive-lineman-had-losing-performance-coach-says

James Campen didn’t mince words when it came to assessing the play of his offensive linemen in the Packers’ 7-3 loss at Detroit on Sunday.

“Every one of the guys had a losing performance,” Campen, the Packers’ offensive line coach, said on Monday after grading the film.

The poor play up front was the overriding factor in the upset loss at Ford Field. Other than two explosive gains on quarterback scrambles, one of which got starter Aaron Rodgers concussed and knocked out of the game, the Packers had no running room. Running backs Brandon Jackson (seven carries), James Starks (six) and Dimitri Nance (two) combined for 31 rushing yards largely through no fault of their own.

The Lions, who rarely blitzed, recorded eight quarterback hits and four sacks.

Campen chalked it up to things like footwork, hand placement and pad level, the latter of which was both a problem in the running game and on some of the bull rushes that created pressures and sacks.

“It really stings you more when you’re not fundamentally sound, and you allow that to happen because your own individual technique is not where it should be. To get physically beat in some of those instances is embarrassing.”

Safe to say, it wasn’t a pleasant Monday film review in the offensive line meeting room.

“These guys will respond, and they will come back to work, and they will remember this,” Campen said. “This cannot happen. To have all of us getting beat, players at times are going to have a tough day, but then you rely on the next guy to pick you up. That’s being a teammate and working together. But too many times it was all of them.”

The Packers lost starting left guard Daryn Colledge on the second play of the game. He sustained a left knee injury while trying to tackle Detroit’s Brandon McDonald, who recovered a fumble by Packers tight end Andrew Quarless. Jason Spitz finished the first half in Colledge’s place but then was benched in favor of T.J. Lang, who in the words of offensive coordinator Joe Philbin did “OK, I guess” and was “average.”

The surprising part about it was the Lions didn’t do anything fancy. In many cases, they rushed only four. But their front seven dominated in the running game.

“When you have five negative (yardage) runs, four sacks, two penalties, you’re going backwards,” Philbin said. “It’s hard enough to get a first down. It’s tough to stick with the run game when you have five negative runs in the ball game.”

[Joemailman]

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20101213/PKR01/101213195/Notebook-Each-offensive-lineman-had-losing-performance-coach-says

Campen chalked it up to things like footwork, hand placement and pad level, the latter of which was both a problem in the running game and on some of the bull rushes that created pressures and sacks.

“It really stings you more when you’re not fundamentally sound, and you allow that to happen because your own individual technique is not where it should be. To get physically beat in some of those instances is embarrassing.”

Many coaches will say you play the way you practice. The above quote might make some wonder what the coaches have been focused on in practice.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Campen chalked it up to things like footwork, hand placement and pad level, the latter of which was both a problem in the running game and on some of the bull rushes that created pressures and sacks.

“It really stings you more when you’re not fundamentally sound, and you allow that to happen because your own individual technique is not where it should be. To get physically beat in some of those instances is embarrassing.”

Many coaches will say you play the way you practice. The above quote might make some wonder what the coaches have been focused on in practice.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

[ZachMN]

This sits squarely on MM and TT- the o Line is inconsistent and has been since they let Wahle and Riveria go. It is the coaches responsibility to have a fundamentally sound team and you start with the line. The fact that Colledge is still on this team speaks volumes. I have watched him literally turn and watch d linemen chase down our running backs while doing nothing. For me they better get some road graders in here and be able to run at will and the passing game will take care of itself all that bs 5 receiver crap get some conditioned 330 pounders who can go no huddle and wear out defenses with run after run after run don't let them sub players in then pass all over them too many coaches make it so complicated yet BB seems to do the obvious and win with "scrubs"