Packers have edge in playmakers

[RashanGary]

Chrisl piece

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110116/PKR07/110116059/Baranczyk-Christl-column-Packers-have-edge-in-playmakers

[RashanGary]

He beat of few of the drums I tend to beat to death around here. Woodson inside is special for us. I learned the playmaker theory from Christl, so of course he hit on that.

The strengths of our team IMO are the passing game and the nickle passing defense with Woodson being the wildcard that throws QB's completely off. If the Packers get a lead, it can come tumbling down on whoever we're facing really fast.

If the Bears run the ball well early, look out. It's going to be a Bear game with a likely Bear ending. If we can get a couple early stops and put some early points on the board, look out. Jay Cutler is not going to come remotely close to winning a shootout against Rodgers, not when he's going up against what might be the most unpredictable, playmaker laden passing defense in football.

[vince]

I'm not disagreeing with you or Christl, except to say taht he goes on and on with about 15 paragraphs about the playmakers, then he gives lip service to to what is equally key to the game.

Why was Rodgers such a playmaker this most recent game but not the previous game against the Falcons?

Sam Shields vs. Chris Owens
Shields’ value to the Packers again was apparent.

Brian Williams, the Falcons’ nickel back, got hurt in the final regular-season game, Owens filled in and the Packers threw at him all game long. When a team has an obvious hole in its secondary, it’s hard to overcome. That’s what sunk New Orleans the week before and that was a big part of what sunk the Falcons. Shields gave up some completions, but he was no easy target.
Neither one of these guys are playmakers, but they were the difference between the two games.

[Smeefers]

He also didn't acknowledge the Bears depth at all. When I look at the bears, I see Hester, Peppers, Urlachers (all mentioned by the article), but I also see Lance Briggs, Matt Forte, Greg Olson, Tommy Harris and Jay Cutler.

I agree though, if they can run on us, we're in trouble. If we make them play from behind, we own them.

[Tarlam!]

I'm glad to see we're retouching with reality! Saturday night and Sunday morning was enough for me to wanna alert the kool aide police and write to congress to issue prohabition for some of you guys!

This will be the toughest challenge the Pack has maybe ever faced. The Bears hate the Pack. They will be pumped. I just hope nobody from Green Bay thinks it's as easy as it was last week.

[AtlPackFan]

I agree. If the Pack can shutdown Forte like they did Turner, they should win the game.

In my way in to work this morning, I was listening to 1250 the fan. I couldn't believe what I was hearing! They were talking this morning as though Rodgers is going to be able to toss the ball around like he did against Atlanta. First, the Bears are a better defense. Second, the Packers won't be playing in perfect dome conditions. And I REALLY worry about special teams.

[RashanGary]

I'm not disagreeing with you or Christl, except to say taht he goes on and on with about 15 paragraphs about the playmakers, then he gives lip service to to what is equally key to the game.

Why was Rodgers such a playmaker this most recent game but not the previous game against the Falcons?

Neither one of these guys are playmakers, but they were the difference between the two games.


And the Falcons will have a much easier job finding an average player to replace Owens than the Bears will finding a pass rusher the caliber of Matthews.

Playmakers = Rare
Average players that qualify as not being a hole = Common


Playmakers rule (period) .

The hardest part of building a champion is getting the playamakers not covering the holes with decent talent.

[vince]

Playmakers are easy to get. All you have to do is pay for them.

[Guiness]

I'm not disagreeing with you or Christl, except to say taht he goes on and on with about 15 paragraphs about the playmakers, then he gives lip service to to what is equally key to the game.

Why was Rodgers such a playmaker this most recent game but not the previous game against the Falcons?

Neither one of these guys are playmakers, but they were the difference between the two games.

Owens was #21? If so, he was responsible for a ton of completions and yards given up to the Pack.


Average players that qualify as not being a hole = Common

I would agree in general, but CB seems to be an exception because it's so easy to expose a weakness there. There aren't a lot of NFL caliber CB's walking the streets, and I bet Atlanta spent some time over the past two weeks looking for a replacement for him!

[green_bowl_packer]

Sam Shields gets it.

via twitter - sam shields = stickyshields9

Just had a great talk with my big bro Charles Woodson I'm learning!!!
about 15 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

sam shields

On Sunday 16th January 2011, @stickyshields9 said:

Damn the last time I ever been in a championship football game was pop Warner flag football now I will be in one next week in the NFL!! Cant wait

[Packers4Glory]

The bears have a beast in Peppers which scares me a lot. If he has a big game we likely lose. Their linebackers are terrific and if Harris shows up it will be a tough go. However I think the defenses match up well together...GB has an obvious edge on offense, but the Bears blow us away in the ST category.

We have to find a way to minimize the damage on ST. I don't want to get into a field position battle w/ the Bears. They have beat several teams because of winning that battle this year. That right now is my key to the game. We just can't be forced deep in our own territory all game and expect to put together long extended drives against their defense, nor can we afford to be put on a short field on defense. Have to win this battle some how.

[sharpe1027]

With all due respect, I think the whole "playmaker" argument is intellectually dishonest. IMO, it is an attractive argument because it is 1) simple and 2) almost impossible to prove or disprove. A team does well and we can point to whatever players meet some unknown threshold of "playmaking." A team does poorly and we can point to a lack of some unknown threshold of "playmaking." As far as I can cell, the two teams could have the exact same players and the only difference in playmakers is the outcome of the game(s).

Maybe there is something to the argument, but since I have no clue when a player is "playmaker" and when he is not, I can't make an intelligent analysis. Another way to look at it is the chicken or the egg analysis? "Playmakers" are found in abundance on successful teams, but is that just 20/20 hindsight? Think of all the preseason predictions that rely heavily upon an analysis of the big name players. Their predictions are not very accurate. I think it is telling that when players change teams they sometimes suddenly become a playmaker or stop being a playmaker. For example, few people thought Woodson was a "playmaker" when he was with the Raiders...

[Bretsky]

I like the playmaker analysis; the assumption is that if you have them you can surround them with average talent and your playmaker will still allow his unit to excel. How'd we look when Clay Matthews went down ? Rodgers went down ? The only true playmaker I think we lost this year was Finley and it seemed to take a while to bounce back from his loss

[sharpe1027]

Great players help their team more than average players. I just don't think you can make judgment on how good a team is by counting the number of playmakers, or by comparing only the playmakers of two teams against each other.

[Guiness]

Redskins have McNabb, Chris Cooley, Santana Moss, Orakpo, Fletcher, Hall AND Haynesworth.

Is that enough playmakers for you?

[Lurker64]

I think the playmaker argument is tautological. How do we know a player is a "playmaker"? Because we see him, on a regular basis, making plays that win games for his team. So then, we therefore conclude that playmakers, by making plays, win games for his team.

[RashanGary]

Playmakers are easy to get. All you have to do is pay for them.

Teams rarely let their best players hit UFA and when they do, the price is so high, you can't afford enough of them. If you think you're going to get your playmakers that way, you will be a loser.

[rbaloha1]

Over analyzing. IMO playmakers are players that make game changing plays (i.e. sacks, forced fumbles, interceptions, tackle for losses, big st returns, explosive runs and passes) on a consistent basis.

Packers Defense: Matthews, Bishop, Woodson, Williams, Collins
Bears Defense: Peppers, Urlacher, Briggs, Tillman, other secondary players
Bears ST: Hester

Packers Offense: Rodgers, Jennings, Jones
Bears Offense; Cutler, Forte

Packers may have a few more playmakers than the Bears but that does not necessarily mean victory. The weather and the Bears physical defense neutralizes some of the Packers playmaking abilities.

[mmmdk]

Hester is such a weapon...work truely cut out for Crosby & Mashtay; especially 'cos our ST KO & PR coverage is below average.

Crosby needs air under those deep KOs to aid KO coverage team...but what has happened to his KOs this season? His one true strength of the past!

Get this fixed!

[RashanGary]

Clearly it's more complex than just, "how many playmakers do you have", but elite talent is rare and it makes a huge difference. Enough so that you can weigh who's more likely to win based on it.

Elite talent
Overall talent level
Lack of holes

How it all comes together. Having the luxury to play Woodson inside makes our defense scary unpredictable. Having 4 good WR's makes our passing offense scary unpredictable. Having Jackson as our RB hurts us. Having Starks step forward helps. . . . Coaching, weather, luck. . . . . .

Yeah, there's a lot to it, but elite talent is rare. We're especially lucky to have it at QB and pass rusher. Rodgers, Matthews, Raji, Jennings and I think Woodson (in his inside role) are the primary reasons we're so scary. These guys make MM and dom look smart. They force teams to do things they don't want to do and make everyone on the field better. I think Shields is on pace to be good and in this defense with this pass rush he is good already but in the no pass rush Sanders defense, he'd be destroyed. He looks a half-step lost a lot of the time but QB's don't have the time to exploit it.

[rbaloha1]

Clearly it's more complex than just, "how many playmakers do you have", but elite talent is rare and it makes a huge difference. Enough so that you can weigh who's more likely to win based on it.

Elite talent
Overall talent level
Lack of holes

How it all comes together. Having the luxury to play Woodson inside makes our defense scary unpredictable. Having 4 good WR's makes our passing offense scary unpredictable. Having Jackson as our RB hurts us. Having Starks step forward helps. . . . Coaching, weather, luck. . . . . .

Yeah, there's a lot to it, but elite talent is rare. We're especially lucky to have it at QB and pass rusher. Rodgers, Matthews, Raji, Jennings and I think Woodson (in his inside role) are the primary reasons we're so scary. These guys make MM and dom look smart. They force teams to do things they don't want to do and make everyone on the field better. I think Shields is on pace to be good and in this defense with this pass rush he is good already but in the no pass rush Sanders defense, he'd be destroyed. He looks a half-step lost a lot of the time but QB's don't have the time to exploit it.

Agree about SS. Tremendous catch-up speed also makes up for getting beat.

[sharpe1027]

Your weakest link can be just as important as you strongest link. If your RB sucks at running the ball, that can be just as important to the outcome as having a stud TE. Whether or not your 3rd nonplaymaker DB is solid enough to cover the opponents 3rd string WR can be almost as important as whether or not your 1st playmaker DB can cover their 1st playmaker WR (Arizona playoff game anyone?).

One way to judge the "playmaker" argument is to look at how players do when they change teams. Look at the Skins vs. the Patriots and how players suddenly become or stop being playmakers.

[Packers4Glory]

The Packers have depth. there is a lot of talent on the roster. HOwever I think w/ the currently active players, the bears have equal if not more overall talent ready for the game. I mean they have zero injuries of any significance. zero. their roster is 99% if not 100% intact where we have back up of back ups playing or picked up off the street.

as I said I'm mostly concerned w/ special teams. The Packers, unlike the bears, have yet to put a strong emphasis on ST as a team, and yet they play such a big role on both sides of the ball.

I'm worried about how they will decide to kick off to the bears. I hate to concede field position because we pooch it or squib kick. I think you have a better shot trying to cover it rather than hand them the ball on the 40 every drive. No matter how well your D is playing, its tough to stop some sort of scoring drive. Chicago will run the ball a heck of a lot more than they did week 17.

[Tarlam!]

I think the playmaker argument is tautological.

That WOOOOSH you may have just heard was me sprinting for my Webster's. Nice use of the word. Show off.

[Pugger]

To me a playmaker is one who the opposition has to account for any time he is on the field. Matthews is one because of all the attention he gets. Teams also have to know where Woodson is. Williams might be getting that reputation now too. On offense Rodgers is the man. Jennings can stretch the field but it is Rodgers who is the blue chipper on O for us.

The bares' playmakers are also mostly on D. Peppers and Urlacher can cause havoc and maybe Briggs. Their other big playmaker is Hester but that is mainly on ST but he can change a game in an instant so you have to kick away from him or he'll burn ya.

However, because we have the better QB that gives us such a big edge in this QB driven league.

[wootah]

With all due respect, I think the whole "playmaker" argument is intellectually dishonest. IMO, it is an attractive argument because it is 1) simple and 2) almost impossible to prove or disprove. A team does well and we can point to whatever players meet some unknown threshold of "playmaking." A team does poorly and we can point to a lack of some unknown threshold of "playmaking." As far as I can cell, the two teams could have the exact same players and the only difference in playmakers is the outcome of the game(s).

Maybe there is something to the argument, but since I have no clue when a player is "playmaker" and when he is not, I can't make an intelligent analysis. Another way to look at it is the chicken or the egg analysis? "Playmakers" are found in abundance on successful teams, but is that just 20/20 hindsight? Think of all the preseason predictions that rely heavily upon an analysis of the big name players. Their predictions are not very accurate. I think it is telling that when players change teams they sometimes suddenly become a playmaker or stop being a playmaker. For example, few people thought Woodson was a "playmaker" when he was with the Raiders...

I could not agree more with this post. There are many more factors that decide the outcome of a game, having good players is just one of them. I'm a soccer coach in my free time and lately have been reading a lot of books regarding the mental aspect of playing sports. A lot of bull has been written on this topic, but I must say I was very much impressed by the work of Bill Beswick, who worked as a psychologist for multiple professional sport players and teams in a wide range of disciplines.

He conducted a survey among professional soccer coaches on "what wins games" on the highest level. For what it's worth, this was the outcome:
50% - Winning mentality
10% - Defensive organisation
10% - Offensive organisation
10% - Transition organisation
10% - Set plays
5% - Special players
5% - Luck (Refs, lucky bounces...)

Yes, I know it is soccer, which is a different ballgame, but still the results were impressive to me. It means that if a player has the qualities to make it to the highest level, the biggest differentiator is the mentality of the players/team. I strongly recommend his work "Focussed for soccer, how to win the mental game" to anyone involved in coaching.

Also, I don't know if anybody saw the highly interesting episode of '60 minutes' with professional sports gambler / multimillionaire Billy Walters (link (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7253011n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel)). He claimed that the Vikings would have got to the playoffs had Chilly been fired 3 games earlier, mainly because the team disliked Chilly and really wanted Frazier to succeed so they would play harder. I'm not saying everything what he said should be believed, but the guy has an impressive trackrecord to back his statements up, and all of his decisions have been based on an exhaustive amount of information as you can see in the episode. This confirms my take on the importance of the mental aspect of playing sports.

But then of course you could say that playmakers have the greatest winning mentality :) Not quite: remember Mr. Playmaker Vince Young?

So I don't really care that the Packers have more 'special players', I care more about the fact that they have the mental advantage in playing the Bears, even if they're playing in Chicago:
- They have proven the can block out the distractions of playing on the road in a tough environment (Georgia Dome)
- They have proven that they can overcome adversities in games, they survived big momentum swings, with the Jennings fumble in ATL, the Jones dropped TD in Philly
- They have beaten the Bears the last time, while they both were playing to win. They know they can beat them.
- Most importantly, they have become a team, a true PACK; they are 'clicking' as a group, having overcome the injuries earlier in the season and sticking to the plan which brought them to where they are right now

Now this is the law of the jungle -
As old and as true as the sky;
And the wolf that keep it may prosper,
But the wolf that shall break it may die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk,
The law runneth forward and back -
And the strength of the pack is the wolf
And the strength of the wolf is THE PACK.
-Rudyard Kipling

Go Pack Go!

[vince]

Great posts wootah, sharpe, Harrell and others. Insightful. Thanks for the extra effort. I made a blog entry out of your perspectives on this subject.

[gbgary]

Great posts wootah, sharpe, Harrell and others. Insightful. Thanks for the extra effort. I made a blog entry out of your perspectives on this subject.

yeah. i don't have the guts to add anything.

[RashanGary]

From McGinn's recent article.

"Probably 80% of the guys on teams are similar," an executive in personnel for an NFC team with more than 15 years in the industry said at midweek. "Then it's the other 20% that decide games. The game's close, and then one of them makes a big play."




Of course, one of McGinn's scouts said Tramon didn't look like the real deal after last year and now they have him as a Red-chipper.

These guys don't know everything, but the playmaker thing they all seem to agree on. I buy it.

[bobblehead]

Lets put this crap to rest. McGinn did a piece as well on the insider and even used a scout as his source. A harsh grader by his account. Same scout in '07 graded the packers again today. his list went something like this.

Blues: None.

Reds: WR Greg Jennings, WR Donald Driver (-), DE Aaron Kampman, DE Cullen Jenkins (-), DE Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila (-), LB A.J. Hawk, LB Nick Barnett (-), CB Charles Woodson (-).

This is how he sees the Packers today:

Blues: WR Greg Jennings, QB Aaron Rodgers, LB Clay Matthews (-).

Reds: WR Donald Driver (-), WR James Jones, TE Jermichael Finley, T Chad Clifton, RB Ryan Grant (-), DE Cullen Jenkins (+), DE Ryan Pickett (-), NT B.J. Raji (-), LB Nick Barnett (-), CB Charles Woodson (-), CB Tramon Williams, S Nick Collins (-), K Mason Crosby (-), P Tim Masthay (-).

So, in '07 BF wasn't a blue or even a red huh? Wonder what he would have graded the same player in '09 with the Vikings. AJ Hawk was a Red in '07, but coming off his finest season this year he isn't. Woodson was DPOY in '09, but is merely a red player. Jennings has upped the ante....but so has his QB...chicken or egg?

Lets take it further...now we are up to 20% of the roster. Half the starters. I concur with the playmaker theory...if half your starters at least are "studs" then I concur, your team is damn good. And to JH's point the other day, if you take the best 5 players off your roster your team likely sucks. DUH!! If the playmaker theory was valid, the Redskins win the superbowl by virtue of signing everyones playmakers...but they do not cuz the roster sucks after that handful.

Guys who are the exact player they were get different grades based on the talent around them and the system they play in. We lost Grant, Barnett and Finley who rank as Red, yet we are in the NFCC game. We also get credit for a red kicker who hasn't made a game changing kick all season...but he missed a few that changed the result of the game. But, put him on a damn good team making a run, and suddenly he grades out as a Red. James Jones....yea, think he gets a red grade if he plays for cincinatti?

This bullshit is a self fulfilling prophecy and thats exactly what I used to argue with Christl about. If you are winning suddenly decent players get ranked as Reds and reds get ranked as blues. Those same players on a losing team get down graded. Guys like Barnett, jones, crosby and masthey don't even get mentioned. Earlier in that very article McGinn calls Crosby and masthey average at best, but then they get red grades. The bears have only 6 reds...wonder if Robbie Gould made the list. he is more clutch than crosby.

Larry Brown of the Cowboys made pro bowls and SB MVP's. He sucked when he left that overall talented team. DHoward was a blue return man....except for before and after he played in GB with the superior blocking up and down special teams. Is Hester considered a blue if he plays for our return team, or does he suddenly look like a red at best?

You can crown the damn theory if you want...go ahead and crown it. But it is what I think it is. If the packers suddenly have a down year next season with Finly and Grant back you will suddenly notice Jennings will be a red again. Masthay and Crosby certainly won't be reds, and neither will Jones.

Again I ask, how good would that Defense be if we lost a guy who didn't even get ranked (shields) and suddenly Bush was playing nickel? Ask Kurt Warner how much different that exact same defense would look...even if it had a red player like barnett in place of an unranked player in Bishop? Even if it had Brad Jones instead of off the street Eric Walden. More playmakers...but one GAPING HOLE. Different defense entirely....how can that be?

[bobblehead]

I'm glad to see we're retouching with reality! Saturday night and Sunday morning was enough for me to wanna alert the kool aide police and write to congress to issue prohabition for some of you guys!

This will be the toughest challenge the Pack has maybe ever faced. The Bears hate the Pack. They will be pumped. I just hope nobody from Green Bay thinks it's as easy as it was last week.

Not possible. By McGinn's scout, the packers have one less blue and 8 more reds. One of the blues is a return man who better not get a returnable punt. Pack wins in a BLOWOUT.

[bobblehead]

Playmakers are easy to get. All you have to do is pay for them.

Just win, and all your average players become playmakers....thats the way the theory works.