Yet another "soft" article

[wist43]

You guys give me shit about knocking the team for being soft - but the fact remains, the national media makes the charge, and there are regular articles run about the team being soft.

This article says the players are pissed, that the coaches post these articles on the bulletin board, and they're gonna prove they're not a soft team, blah, blah, blah...

They need to take it up with MM and Capers.

They play soft schemes - there's simply no way around that fact. If the OL is pissed that they're being called soft - well get in your coaches ear to call an occasional power running play.

If the defense is pissed b/c they're accused of being soft up front - well, get in Mr. Spraypaintedhair's face, and tell him you don't like playing with 1 DL on the field!!!

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/soft-label-is-one-hard-knock-for-packers-players-b9977422z1-220446531.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v67r4UHs4m0

[Fritz]

You guys give me shit about knocking the team for being soft - but the fact remains, the national media makes the charge, and there are regular articles run about the team being soft.

This article says the players are pissed, that the coaches post these articles on the bulletin board, and they're gonna prove they're not a soft team, blah, blah, blah...

They need to take it up with MM and Capers.

They play soft schemes - there's simply no way around that fact. If the OL is pissed that they're being called soft - well get in your coaches ear to call an occasional power running play.

If the defense is pissed b/c they're accused of being soft up front - well, get in Mr. Spraypaintedhair's face, and tell him you don't like playing with 1 DL on the field!!!

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/soft-label-is-one-hard-knock-for-packers-players-b9977422z1-220446531.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v67r4UHs4m0


If they say it is so, and say it often, and say it nationally, then it must be true.

Now there's some logic for ya.

[pbmax]

Most of the work on the soft charge has been done close to home. I don't read much national football coverage but other than radio and local papers, the closest I have read was Ben Muth expressing wonderment at the way Raji was getting destroyed by the San Fran double teams. Of course, Muth, a Stanford grad, has had a tough time wrapping his head around the read option and regularly gets consults from other bloggers about what he was seeing from blockers. For instance, he did not understand or bother to explain why Gore did not get the ball when Raji got rocked out of his gap.

Smart Football wrote that the Packers were completely bamboozled by the 49ers and that the scheme was not read option sound. Unfortunately for soft core porn peddlers, he didn't want more beef on the line, he wanted more bodies in the alleys and better assignment execution. In fact, the reason its probably only being parroted nationally and is not a BIGGER story is the fact that national pro football writers barely grasp the read option as a concept, much less understand how to judge a defense facing it. For much of the preseason, Denver beat guys were telling the world that Denver was in a pistol formation when in actuality, it was a shotgun with a back offset. You know, the formation Manning has been throwing and running out of for better than a decade.

Soft is the easiest, most emotional charge to level at a team. Its like complaining about energy, leadership and body language. Its an expression of the viewers uneasiness, not analysis. If a team is getting its hat handed to it, you can find evidence of each of these from any game. It never explains WHY, just expresses the frustration of the fan. Unfortunately, it also passes for sports reporting these days. Its hard to defend a defense after seeing 183 yards put up against you on the ground. But the fact remains that the team didn't give that up because its soft; it execution and alignment were not up to snuff.

And Lang should shut up about playing with an edge and just run block better. Its dopey confusing cause for effect thinking like that which will cost him his job soon.

[King Friday]

Strange cure has been identified for the "soft, squeezable" Packer defense...

Lots of defensive players in their contract year.

[wist43]

Mark Wahlberg is light on his feet though, huh... and in boots no less :)

Love that movie... the cop telling him what they found in his car?? LOL


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1j4mK6cs_A

Hal and Christinith?? LOL... too funny :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPV8F48TLJA

[Pugger]

We're doomed!

[Cheesehead Craig]

PB, love the take on "soft".

So what makes a team soft? Is it if they rely on the pass on offense moreso than with the run? If you win, what's the difference? If you can run the ball on offense does that make you tough? So does that mean that KC, Buffalo, and the Jets are tougher, better teams because they can run the ball? The W's are not there to support that and I don't think anyone considers them tough.

On defense it seems that you're soft if you cannot stop the run. But if you do stop it, you're tough. If you can stop the pass, it's not toughness, it's credited to players executing a scheme and not blowing an assignment. Why cannot that not be the same theory applied to stopping the run? It seems that if your players are where they are supposed to be on defense and don't blow their assignment, you're going to stop the run as well.

The Ravens with all their talk of how tough they are on D are middle of the pack in stopping the run and pass stats-wise. The Packers gave up fewer yards than the Ravens did both vs the pass and run, fewer points, and had more 10 more sacks but yet the Ravens are considered tough but the Packers are not. Why is that? The stats don't back it up. Perhaps it was just a fluke year where they won the SB when their offense had a real hot stretch.

[mraynrand]

Soft is the easiest, most emotional charge to level at a team. Its like complaining about energy, leadership and body language. Its an expression of the viewers uneasiness, not analysis.

Everyone stop the softness!! Now!!

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/Defensivecure_zpsd91d22f5.jpg (http://s453.photobucket.com/user/mraynrand/media/Defensivecure_zpsd91d22f5.jpg.html)

[Zool]

Wist, you fucking hate the media. Well at least in the other forum you do. Here they are your ally? Maybe Harv should start a Wist Inconsistent thread.

[wist43]

Wist, you fucking hate the media. Well at least in the other forum you do. Here they are your ally? Maybe Harv should start a Wist Inconsistent thread.

Sports media aint media - except in terms of political correctness.

Still, they need to be burned at the stake along with Tom Brokaw and Rachael Madness - just b/c :)

[wist43]

Everyone stop the softness!! Now!!

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/Defensivecure_zpsd91d22f5.jpg (http://s453.photobucket.com/user/mraynrand/media/Defensivecure_zpsd91d22f5.jpg.html)

Yes ayn, yes!!!

[denverYooper]

Sports media aint media - except in terms of political correctness.

Still, they need to be burned at the stake along with Tom Brokaw and Rachael Madness - just b/c :)

My wife likes to say that sports (and NFL, in particular) media is just soap opera for men.

[mraynrand]

My wife likes to say that sports (and NFL, in particular) media is just soap opera for men.

If she had an ID on this website, she would get repped. You, sir, get nothing.

[KYPack]

It's got to be hard to be good, boys.

That goes for the for the girls, too.

[bobblehead]

PB, love the take on "soft".

So what makes a team soft? Is it if they rely on the pass on offense moreso than with the run? If you win, what's the difference? If you can run the ball on offense does that make you tough? So does that mean that KC, Buffalo, and the Jets are tougher, better teams because they can run the ball? The W's are not there to support that and I don't think anyone considers them tough.

On defense it seems that you're soft if you cannot stop the run. But if you do stop it, you're tough. If you can stop the pass, it's not toughness, it's credited to players executing a scheme and not blowing an assignment. Why cannot that not be the same theory applied to stopping the run? It seems that if your players are where they are supposed to be on defense and don't blow their assignment, you're going to stop the run as well.

The Ravens with all their talk of how tough they are on D are middle of the pack in stopping the run and pass stats-wise. The Packers gave up fewer yards than the Ravens did both vs the pass and run, fewer points, and had more 10 more sacks but yet the Ravens are considered tough but the Packers are not. Why is that? The stats don't back it up. Perhaps it was just a fluke year where they won the SB when their offense had a real hot stretch.

So many bad points, where to start. You picked three good running teams with GOD AWFUL QB's. QB play is still the most important aspect in pro football.

As to all the rest, it goes like this. In the passing game the recievers can't actually push you, or hit you, or physically dominate you to get open...its finesse by definition. Faster, precise, hard cuts. Defensively you mimick the offense and stay with them....but DON'T TOUCH!!!

Why is a running team considered "tougher". Because to create a run lane I must knock you back and control you. I am allowed to push, pull, grab and steamroll. Very different than the passing game. Physical hard football.

Now, here is where I agree with you and part from Wist. I don't think you have to be physically dominant to win. You can win with finesse, but one way or the other you must get positive yardage and be able to run the ball. QB play is still king, because even a good running team gets 3rd and 7 and needs to convert. However, a bad running team gets 3rd and 10...and never keeps a defense honest which makes it harder to pass block.

Balance is king in the NFL. If you have a weakness they will gameplan for it. You must play the run well, you must run well; same for the pass. If you are fundamentally flawed you will lose.

The packers are called "soft" because MM forgets to run and handicaps his offense. When they do run, guys blow assignments (and sometimes get beat). We don't run well. It may be a soft thing, but it also has to do with assignments.

For my money, I value the OL. I would NEVER have let Wells walk. Imagine an OL of Sherrod, Lang, Wells, Sitton, Bulaga. A little luck and one FA choice different and our OL might be top 10....but one bad call and 2 bad injuries and we are just another "soft" team.

[Cheesehead Craig]

So many bad points, where to start. You picked three good running teams with GOD AWFUL QB's. QB play is still the most important aspect in pro football.

As to all the rest, it goes like this. In the passing game the recievers can't actually push you, or hit you, or physically dominate you to get open...its finesse by definition. Faster, precise, hard cuts. Defensively you mimick the offense and stay with them....but DON'T TOUCH!!!

Why is a running team considered "tougher". Because to create a run lane I must knock you back and control you. I am allowed to push, pull, grab and steamroll. Very different than the passing game. Physical hard football.

Now, here is where I agree with you and part from Wist. I don't think you have to be physically dominant to win. You can win with finesse, but one way or the other you must get positive yardage and be able to run the ball. QB play is still king, because even a good running team gets 3rd and 7 and needs to convert. However, a bad running team gets 3rd and 10...and never keeps a defense honest which makes it harder to pass block.

Balance is king in the NFL. If you have a weakness they will gameplan for it. You must play the run well, you must run well; same for the pass. If you are fundamentally flawed you will lose.

The packers are called "soft" because MM forgets to run and handicaps his offense. When they do run, guys blow assignments (and sometimes get beat). We don't run well. It may be a soft thing, but it also has to do with assignments.

For my money, I value the OL. I would NEVER have let Wells walk. Imagine an OL of Sherrod, Lang, Wells, Sitton, Bulaga. A little luck and one FA choice different and our OL might be top 10....but one bad call and 2 bad injuries and we are just another "soft" team.

I picked those teams precisely because they are some of the best running teams in the league but can't win. Apparently tough teams can run the ball. But none of those teams are thought of as tough. I just think that using that as the definition is false.

You sure as heck can touch in the passing game. WR push off, 5 yd chuck zones, laying into a WR when he catches the ball. Pass rushing and blocking are sure as hell physical and arguably moreso given you have to sustain your blocking, or try and get through the blocker for longer than most running plays.

I pretty much agree with PB that "tough" and "soft" aren't real reasons for success or failure. It's a label that makes it easy to explain away some failure.

I also agree that balance is essential, don't get me wrong. I also agree with you that having an OL that is elite solves a world of problems and I'm a big proponent of having one (of course it helps when your high picked OL don't keep blowing out knees or legs). Frankly, I want the Pack to get rid of their OL coaching staff in it's entirety. They stink as too often assignments are missed and that comes down to coaching.

[wist43]

Well, in FF thru the game as quickly as I could - more of the same.

Lot's of 2-4, 1-5, 1-whatever from Capers; and 3 running plays from MM.

I understand the players take offense at being labeled "soft", but it is the coaches that put them in those passive positions. A leopard doesn't change his spots, and MM and Capers will continue doing the same things they did last year.

We got pounded for 400 yds, and we only gained 215 - or thereabouts by my quick math (muddled by fatigue) so don't bitch at me if the numbers are off - you can bitch at me like you always do for saying the team is philosophically weak.

The score may have only been 17-10; and it may "only be a preseason game"; but, for sure and for certain we were dominated at the LOS - not necessarily b/c of the players, but b/c of the schemes of Mr. Spraypaintedhair, and Mr. We'llgetthatcleanedup.

Wonder what Lacy is thinking now?? How many times did he take a handoff and get throttled before he could look up?? This aint Alabama ;)

[mraynrand]

... 3 running plays from MM.

Wonder what Lacy is thinking now?? How many times did he take a handoff and get throttled before he could look up?? This aint Alabama ;)

couldn't have been more than 3

[Maxie the Taxi]

Lacy had 8 carries... for -5 yards. Franklin had 4 carries... for 1 yard. Harris had 3 carries... for 2 yards.

[denverYooper]

Lacy did have the disadvantage of playing most of his snaps while Harrell was QB. That changes the math a bit for the defense. Not that it's an excuse for the shitty game he and the line had but having Rodgers (or even Young) would have taken some focus off of him.

From PFF(https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/08/24/refo-sea-gb-preseason-wk-3/):


Eddie Lacy finished the day with -5 yards rushing, despite picking up 7 yards after contact. He did have an 11-yard run called back after a penalty.

[wist43]

What you see is what you get... what MM and Capers ran out there last night was midseason. It might not have been midseason execution, but the formations and play calls were what we do. From last year to this - predictably, nothing has changed.

Capers cannot help himself, he as to play as small as possible, it's in his nature.

I breezed thru the game, but one thing that stood out to me was how many times Capers was lined up with Datone Jones being the biggest player we had on the field. He was lined up inside with no other DL in the same zip code - I don't care how quick Jones is off the snap, or how many one-on-ones he won during camp... if you have 3 interior OL who only have to block 1 guy?? you might as well just drop that guy into coverage, or sit his ass on the bench for all the effectiveness he is going to have in generating pressure.

Michaels 43 yd TD came on 2nd-18... Capers goes light in the loafers - Michael ran all way untouched until the 3 yard line.

Maybe every guy on the field on that play is a tough SOB?? Maybe they're good players?? But Capers putting them in that formation b/c he thinks this is a flag football league that has outlawed physical play and running the ball - this is what makes the defense soft.

Two plays before Michaels embarrassing run, we gave up a 1st down on 3rd and 16 where the receiver caught the ball short and then simply ran for the 1st down untouched - escorted out of bounds... how polite.


It isn't the players, it is the coaching and schemes.

[mraynrand]

Lacy had 8 carries... for -5 yards. Franklin had 4 carries... for 1 yard. Harris had 3 carries... for 2 yards.

As Joe Namath would say: "Dey goin' in reverse!"