More Banjo: @ Saints Week Oh Who the *$%&! Cares

[pbmax]

I got nothin'. Rodgers is hurt.

[pbmax]

Bill Barnwell ‏@billbarnwell 24m24 minutes ago
Did he get to punt tonight? Nah Masthay. #nahmasthay

[Tyrion Lannister]

Someone with a twitter account, please call out AJ Fucking Hawk.

[Rutnstrut]

Someone with a twitter account, please call out AJ Fucking Hawk.

Hawk is far from being the biggest problem this defense has.

[channtheman]

Typical at Saints game for the Pack. Hang with em early, get blown out late.

[pbmax]

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 16m16 minutes ago
#Packers Head Coach Mike McCarthy is now at the podium. #GBvsNO

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 15m15 minutes ago
McCarthy on Rodgers: He hurt his hamstring on the scramble. We kept him in the shotgun. Our QB movement package was gone. #GBvsNO

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 14m14 minutes ago
McCarthy: I thought he played smart and didn't put himself in position for further injury. #GBvsNO

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 14m14 minutes ago
McCarthy: This is a tough place to play. The crowd was phenomenal. #GBvsNO

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 12m12 minutes ago
McCarthy on Rodgers: He was limited to play from the pocket and hand the ball off. #GBvsNO

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 10m10 minutes ago
That's all from Mike McCarthy. #Packers QB Aaron Rodgers will be at the podium shortly. #GBvsNO

[pbmax]

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 59s59 seconds ago
Rodgers on hamstring: I'm not going to miss any time. #GBvsNO

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 5s5 seconds ago
Rodgers on Eddie Lacy: He made a big impact in the passing game. #GBvsNO

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 45s45 seconds ago
Rodgers on INTs: Felt good about the first throw, on the second one I missed my spot a little bit. #GBvsNO

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 20s20 seconds ago
Rodgers: (The Saints) are better than their record. Good football team with a good QB. #GBvsNO

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 12s13 seconds ago
That's all from #Packers QB Aaron Rodgers. Visit http://packers.com for complete #GBvsNO postgame coverage.

[Tyrion Lannister]

Hawk is far from being the biggest problem this defense has.

Then who is?

Yes, #58, #57 and #59 are bums also, but you don't see them diving at a would-be blocker's leg instead of trying to tackle the runner.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

I had to miss the game, was it as bad an ass whuppin as the score indicated?

[pbmax]

I had to miss the game, was it as bad an ass whuppin as the score indicated?

It was in the second half.

[George Cumby]

I too missed the game. My impression was Payton again out coached Big-Boned Mike?

[Zool]

I too missed the game. My impression was Payton again out coached Big-Boned Mike?

Seemed like Ryan had a good scheme in the secondary, and the Packers D came back to earth. Missing Shields and Burnett was glaringly obvious and the run D sucked as bad as they have all season.

[Bossman641]

I was glad to see Lacy involved in the passing game. It really brings another dimension to the offense

[pbmax]

I was glad to see Lacy involved in the passing game. It really brings another dimension to the offense

Yeah, but as usual, patient offense against that Cover 2 did not generate points for the Packers. They did get yards and kept field position reasonable, so that is better than previous efforts.

But red zone offense was terrible.

Chief among the culprits was another poor effort in pass protection on the road. Lang being replaced by Taylor wasn't ideal either. And then to run behind the kid twice in key situations was dumb. Maybe the first, to show you aren't scared. But after that, you should have been scared.

[pbmax]

On the short yardage run behind Taylor.


"It was game-planning," McCarthy said, explaining his decision. "We expected a form of the 'Bear' defense, a jam front. Poorly blocked on the front side. Frankly, the tougher blocks were on the back side. They stuffed us.

"Plus, Eddie was hot. He was running the ball extremely well. I was very comfortable with the call."

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-offensive-line-feels-the-loss-of-lang-b99378170z1-280488142.html#packers

[Patler]

All said above is true, but the key, I think, was when Rodgers tweaked his hamstring.

Tie game at half with the teams matching each other TD for TD and FG for FG.
NO takes possession with the 2nd half kickoff to a first down, but then the Packer "D" holds on 4th down for a huge change of possession without a score in a puntless game.
Packers drive down field quickly, have 1st and goal from the 6, but with Rodgers clearly a bit hobbled.
With Rodgers out of sync, the expected run on 1st goes no where, Rodgers quickly gets rid of the 2nd down pass on a play he would normally have extended, then tries another quick, no movement pass that is intercepted.

A chance to go up by 7, or at least 3 evaporates, and the Packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best.

Not saying they would have won, but until Rodgers' injury, I think the game looked like a classic shoot-out with teams matching score for score, but with the Packers looking to be in the leadership role and NO playing catchup, at least for a while. Up to that point, there was no evidence that the NO defense could stop the Packers any more than there was evidence GB could stop NO.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

"The packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best."

Sadly this is very true. I had a bad feeling about this game. Since 2009, I have far too many memories of packer defenses under Dom Capers allowing 40+ points when playing the elite QBs in the league. Warner, Brees, Manning, Brad, etc. The QBs who know where to go with the football before the snap always kill us. Against the next QB tier down, the defense usually plays very well. See 2010 superbowl run: Vick, Ryan, Culter, Big Ben. I know we are in for a long game when I see Brady, Manning, Brees, and now Kap and Wilson (b/c of read option). Avoid those five somehow in the playoffs and I think we have a decent chance at winning the superbowl.

[Patler]

They say you make your own luck, and to a large extent in athletic contests, I think that is true. Skill and all out effort make a lot of things look "lucky".

That said, did any "thing" go the Packers way all night?
On the first long pass to Stills, House actually dislodged the ball. Stills fell with the ball completely out of his control, but it fell on his inside forearm, and he was able to clutch it.
Later, of course, was the "pop-up" deflection that came straight down to the receiver.
Two onside kicks each looked like decent opportunities for GB to recover, and both end up in NO hands.
Two deflections off GB receivers bounce straight to NO defenders.

One week Lang gets a Rodgers fumble in a sea of opponents.
Another week everything goes the other way.
I guess that's what makes sports exciting.

[Patler]

"The packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best."


For all but a season here and there, that has been the story in GB under both Favre and Rodgers ever since 1997. Most seasons the team went only as far as the offense carried it, and the offense went only as far as its QB could take it. This has been going on a long time.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Still would have lost. Its just one of those games were the QB snaps the ball and as fast the WR can run down the field its a 30 yard completion with no packer in sight. I always scratch my head wondering way this always happens against the elite QBs we face. Obviously one explanation is simply that they are elite, but why does it seem that guys are always wide open uncovered.

[Cheesehead Craig]

All said above is true, but the key, I think, was when Rodgers tweaked his hamstring.

Tie game at half with the teams matching each other TD for TD and FG for FG.
NO takes possession with the 2nd half kickoff to a first down, but then the Packer "D" holds on 4th down for a huge change of possession without a score in a puntless game.
Packers drive down field quickly, have 1st and goal from the 6, but with Rodgers clearly a bit hobbled.
With Rodgers out of sync, the expected run on 1st goes no where, Rodgers quickly gets rid of the 2nd down pass on a play he would normally have extended, then tries another quick, no movement pass that is intercepted.

A chance to go up by 7, or at least 3 evaporates, and the Packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best.

Not saying they would have won, but until Rodgers' injury, I think the game looked like a classic shoot-out with teams matching score for score, but with the Packers looking to be in the leadership role and NO playing catchup, at least for a while. Up to that point, there was no evidence that the NO defense could stop the Packers any more than there was evidence GB could stop NO.

Now you're starting to sound like Collinsworth and his broken record last night. Too much was made about it, IMO. Just a whole load of bad play/luck turned the game.

* INT on a deflected pass, not on the hammy just bum luck. Stopped GB from going up at least 3 as you said. Not the hammy.
* Defense simply couldn't slow down, let alone stop NO on the next drive. Not on the hammy.
* Rodgers looked fine the next drive but Adams loses where the first down marker is and then the OL completely botches the 4th down run blocking. Not on the hammy.
* Defense again gets plastered by the NO offense. Not on the hammy.
* Next drive, the Packers are moving down the field and magically the hammy isn't mentioned by Collinsworth. Adams then stops running his route and Rodgers assumes he's going to keep running and another deflected ball is intercepted. Not on the hammy.

Boom. There's your game. Defense was putrid. The offense came up short too often in the red zone in getting TDs. They score one on 2 of those drives instead of FGs and they could have afforded some bad luck turnovers.

[denverYooper]

Still would have lost. Its just one of those games were the QB snaps the ball and as fast the WR can run down the field its a 30 yard completion with no packer in sight. I always scratch my head wondering way this always happens against the elite QBs we face. Obviously one explanation is simply that they are elite, but why does it seem that guys are always wide open uncovered.

They called House for a long DPI when he was in perfect position. Why bother covering people if they're just going to call a penalty?

[Patler]

Still would have lost. Its just one of those games were the QB snaps the ball and as fast the WR can run down the field its a 30 yard completion with no packer in sight. I always scratch my head wondering way this always happens against the elite QBs we face. Obviously one explanation is simply that they are elite, but why does it seem that guys are always wide open uncovered.

On a lot of plays last night, the receivers were not "wide open uncovered". Open? I suppose, but on many it took excellent throws to get the completion and not a batted ball or an interception. That is what the elite QBs give you that guys like Cutler do not give you on a consistent basis.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Yes House had good coverage on that play. I'm talking about the other 500 yards of offense I guess.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

On a lot of plays last night, the receivers were not "wide open uncovered". Open? I suppose, but on many it took excellent throws to get the completion and not a batted ball or an interception. That is what the elite QBs give you that guys like Cutler do not give you on a consistent basis.

Hmm were we watching the same game? I remember at least 10 passes with no packers within 5 yards. At least 10.

[Cheesehead Craig]

They called House for a long DPI when he was in perfect position. Why bother covering people if they're just going to call a penalty?

That call was junk. Also the OPI by Adams which was the same thing Graham did on his TD catch. All-Pros get the benefit that the rooks don't.

[denverYooper]

Now you're starting to sound like Collinsworth and his broken record last night. Too much was made about it, IMO. Just a whole load of bad play/luck turned the game.

* INT on a deflected pass, not on the hammy just bum luck. Stopped GB from going up at least 3 as you said. Not the hammy.
* Defense simply couldn't slow down, let alone stop NO on the next drive. Not on the hammy.
* Rodgers looked fine the next drive but Adams loses where the first down marker is and then the OL completely botches the 4th down run blocking. Not on the hammy.
* Defense again gets plastered by the NO offense. Not on the hammy.
* Next drive, the Packers are moving down the field and magically the hammy isn't mentioned by Collinsworth. Adams then stops running his route and Rodgers assumes he's going to keep running and another deflected ball is intercepted. Not on the hammy.

Boom. There's your game. Defense was putrid. The offense came up short too often in the red zone in getting TDs. They score one on 2 of those drives instead of FGs and they could have afforded some bad luck turnovers.

What you say is true, and points to several moments where the team could have rallied but before the hammy, Rodgers was pretty well in the driver's seat. He can play from inside the pocket, and still play like a top 5 QB, but there was clearly a bit of adjustment for him and for the offense during which the Saints just took over.

[Bossman641]

All said above is true, but the key, I think, was when Rodgers tweaked his hamstring.

Tie game at half with the teams matching each other TD for TD and FG for FG.
NO takes possession with the 2nd half kickoff to a first down, but then the Packer "D" holds on 4th down for a huge change of possession without a score in a puntless game.
Packers drive down field quickly, have 1st and goal from the 6, but with Rodgers clearly a bit hobbled.
With Rodgers out of sync, the expected run on 1st goes no where, Rodgers quickly gets rid of the 2nd down pass on a play he would normally have extended, then tries another quick, no movement pass that is intercepted.

A chance to go up by 7, or at least 3 evaporates, and the Packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best.

Not saying they would have won, but until Rodgers' injury, I think the game looked like a classic shoot-out with teams matching score for score, but with the Packers looking to be in the leadership role and NO playing catchup, at least for a while. Up to that point, there was no evidence that the NO defense could stop the Packers any more than there was evidence GB could stop NO.

I agree with a lot of what you said. It's not hard to imagine a situation where the Packers would have been up 10-14 points in the third quarter.
- Better red zone production early on, Peppers not dropping the TD
- The tip drill pass to Cooks that somehow fell between 3 Packers directly into Cook's chest
- If Rodgers doesn't tweak his hamstring, he most likely steps up into the pocket and hits Adams running across the back of the end zone

Oh well, it is what it is. 6-2 sounds a whole lot better than 5-3 but the Packers still control their destiny. Detroit still has to play at NE, AZ, and GB and they are extremely lucky to be 6-2 right now.

[Patler]

* INT on a deflected pass, not on the hammy just bum luck. Stopped GB from going up at least 3 as you said. Not the hammy.
* Defense simply couldn't slow down, let alone stop NO on the next drive. Not on the hammy.
* Rodgers looked fine the next drive but Adams loses where the first down marker is and then the OL completely botches the 4th down run blocking. Not on the hammy.
* Defense again gets plastered by the NO offense. Not on the hammy.
* Next drive, the Packers are moving down the field and magically the hammy isn't mentioned by Collinsworth. Adams then stops running his route and Rodgers assumes he's going to keep running and another deflected ball is intercepted. Not on the hammy.

Boom. There's your game. Defense was putrid. The offense came up short too often in the red zone in getting TDs. They score one on 2 of those drives instead of FGs and they could have afforded some bad luck turnovers.

Rodgers at full speed extends the play on 2nd down instead of quickly throwing it away without even moving. Rodgers on the move is his most dangerous. A TD on 2nd down with Rodgers on the move, and you don't even get to the play resulting in the first interception.

After the hamstring tweak, Rodgers was not as accurate, nor were things as in sync in the passing game as they had been. The first interception wasn't a bad throw, but it could have been better, and if better maybe not tipped by the DB for the interception. We have all seen Rodgers deadly accurate many, many times. He was early in the game, but not after the hamstring.

No, the defense could not stop NO after that, but the NO defense showed no signs of being able to stop GB until the injury and watered down passing game thereafter.

Rodgers didn't look right for the remainder of the game. Adams didn't lose awarenes of where the first down was, he had to shift his momentum backward to catch the pass that was just a bit off. Rodgers at his best makes a better throw for the 1st down.

Rodgers made some plays work the rest of the game, but it wasn't the Rodgers of the first half + the drive before the injury, and therefore a different passing offense.

The complexion of the game changed with the tweaked hamstring. Maybe the result didn't change, but the run-away victory would not have been as dramatic, in my opinion.

[denverYooper]

Yes House had good coverage on that play. I'm talking about the other 500 yards of offense I guess.

Green Bay had over 500 yards of offense too... 515 to NO's 504, and 7.8 yards/play to NO's 7.6. The offensive numbers were very similar. Rodgers threw for 418 yards.

Also, 2 interceptions and 8 penalties for 84 yards, where NO had 0 and 4 for 35

[denverYooper]

Hmm were we watching the same game? I remember at least 10 passes with no packers within 5 yards. At least 10.

Name them.

[Patler]

I agree with a lot of what you said. It's not hard to imagine a situation where the Packers would have been up 10-14 points in the third quarter.
- Better red zone production early on, Peppers not dropping the TD
- The tip drill pass to Cooks that somehow fell between 3 Packers directly into Cook's chest
- If Rodgers doesn't tweak his hamstring, he most likely steps up into the pocket and hits Adams running across the back of the end zone

Oh well, it is what it is. 6-2 sounds a whole lot better than 5-3 but the Packers still control their destiny. Detroit still has to play at NE, AZ, and GB and they are extremely lucky to be 6-2 right now.

I'm even willing to take the 1st half as it was, dropped pass by Peppers, missed onside attempt and all. 16-16 at half was fine with me, because NO had their missed opportunities as well Someone needed to steal a possession, and GB did it first with the stop on 4th down. It could have moved them into the drivers seat for the second half, and who knows where it might have gone from there.

Pro games change on a few plays. The last 4 plays of the Packers 1st possession in the 2nd half changed the game.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Rodgers at full speed extends the play on 2nd down instead of quickly throwing it away without even moving. Rodgers on the move is his most dangerous. A TD on 2nd down with Rodgers on the move, and you don't even get to the play resulting in the first interception.

After the hamstring tweak, Rodgers was not as accurate, nor were things as in sync in the passing game as they had been. The first interception wasn't a bad throw, but it could have been better, and if better maybe not tipped by the DB for the interception. We have all seen Rodgers deadly accurate many, many times. He was early in the game, but not after the hamstring.

No, the defense could not stop NO after that, but the NO defense showed no signs of being able to stop GB until the injury and watered down passing game thereafter.

Rodgers didn't look right for the remainder of the game. Adams didn't lose awarenes of where the first down was, he had to shift his momentum backward to catch the pass that was just a bit off. Rodgers at his best makes a better throw for the 1st down.

Rodgers made some plays work the rest of the game, but it wasn't the Rodgers of the first half + the drive before the injury, and therefore a different passing offense.

The complexion of the game changed with the tweaked hamstring. Maybe the result didn't change, but the run-away victory would not have been as dramatic, in my opinion.

Everything you said is spot on. If the Rodgers that started the game would have finished the game the score would have been something like 38-35. But by your same argument that means they would have scored 60 points if Rodgers say missed the whole game. Brees hasn't played amazing for most of the year. Even in the two home wins before our game hes made bad throws and big mistakes at times. We made him look stoppable last night. All I'm saying is that what happened to Rodgers in the second half doesn't change how the defense always folds when facing elite qbs. I'm not looking for a shutout. But a few punts would be nice.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Name them.

Name them. lol. Right. Yeah let me go get my game tape and I'll have them right out for you. While I'm doing that, go name at least passes that were well contested and almost broken up.

[Patler]

Hmm were we watching the same game? I remember at least 10 passes with no packers within 5 yards. At least 10.

There are some of those in most games in today's NFL and all the QBs hit those. That's why most of the QB's have completion percentages above 60%. The plays that kill you are the ones where you don't have great coverage, but are close, and the QB nails it. A bit overthrown and the WR doesn't get it, a bit underthrown and the DB can redeem himself. The elite QBs hit those regularly. If they miss those, you soon forget about the ones that were wide open, because the drive stalls anyway.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Green Bay had over 500 yards of offense too... 515 to NO's 504, and 7.8 yards/play to NO's 7.6. The offensive numbers were very similar. Rodgers threw for 418 yards.

Also, 2 interceptions and 8 penalties for 84 yards, where NO had 0 and 4 for 35

I'm not putting the loss on the offense obviously. Even with the TO the game shouldn't get out of hand like that. It took the Saints a mere two minutes to go 90 yards after the first pick. Pathetic.

[pbmax]

Perfect example is tipped passes. NO had one and it landed on their receiver. Packers had two and both bounced to defenders.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

There are some of those in most games in today's NFL and all the QBs hit those. That's why most of the QB's have completion percentages above 60%. The plays that kill you are the ones where you don't have great coverage, but are close, and the QB nails it. A bit overthrown and the WR doesn't get it, a bit underthrown and the DB can redeem himself. The elite QBs hit those regularly. If they miss those, you soon forget about the ones that were wide open, because the drive stalls anyway.

Sure a QB can be lights out some games and a little off in others. However, usually the games the QB is a little off are the ones when hes getting pressure in the face. He had all day to throw most of the game.

[denverYooper]

Name them. lol. Right. Yeah let me go get my game tape and I'll have them right out for you. While I'm doing that, go name at least passes that were well contested and almost broken up.

You were the one who made a very specific claim - 10 plays where there was not a defender within 5 yards.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

You were the one who made a very specific claim - 10 plays where there was not a defender within 5 yards.

I remember a lot of them, a couple to Jimmy Graham right off the top of head. How about he one near the sideline when Hyde waited for him to pick up another 10 yards and almost score. Or how about 3rd and 8 early in the game and a freakin RB walks out of the back field over the middle and picks up 10. And many others. If I really did have the game tape I would easily find ten.

[Patler]

Sure a QB can be lights out some games and a little off in others. However, usually the games the QB is a little off are the ones when hes getting pressure in the face. He had all day to throw most of the game.

Pressure can be part of it, but do you think Cutler would have had the same results as Brees if he had been NO's QB last night?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Pressure can be part of it, but do you think Cutler would have had the same results as Brees if he had been NO's QB last night?

My earlier post:

Sadly this is very true. I had a bad feeling about this game. Since 2009, I have far too many memories of packer defenses under Dom Capers allowing 40+ points when playing the elite QBs in the league. Warner, Brees, Manning, Brady, etc. The QBs who know where to go with the football before the snap always kill us. Against the next QB tier down, the defense usually plays very well. See 2010 superbowl run: Vick, Ryan, Culter, Big Ben. I know we are in for a long game when I see Brady, Manning, Brees, and now Kap and Wilson (b/c of read option). Avoid those five somehow in the playoffs and I think we have a decent chance at winning the superbowl.

[Patler]

My earlier post:

Sadly this is very true. I had a bad feeling about this game. Since 2009, I have far too many memories of packer defenses under Dom Capers allowing 40+ points when playing the elite QBs in the league. Warner, Brees, Manning, Brady, etc. The QBs who know where to go with the football before the snap always kill us. Against the next QB tier down, the defense usually plays very well. See 2010 superbowl run: Vick, Ryan, Culter, Big Ben. I know we are in for a long game when I see Brady, Manning, Brees, and now Kap and Wilson (b/c of read option). Avoid those five somehow in the playoffs and I think we have a decent chance at winning the superbowl.

On a grand scale, looking at more than just a game here and there, I don't thing the D plays better or worse depending on the QB they face. I think their play is very similar, but the results (and appearance) are often quite different. They can be exposed without actually playing worse.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

This is true. And I feel that the elite Qbs see those weaknesses and pick them apart. I remember Kurt Warner being extremely confident and almost cocky before that 2009 playoff game saying something along the lines of "he sees a lot of big plays coming." Maybe more man coverage and blitzs would help. We have the dbs and pass rushers. Giving these guys all day to throw and dropping into coverage doesn't seem to be working.

[pbmax]

Rodgers didn't look right for the remainder of the game. Adams didn't lose awarenes of where the first down was, he had to shift his momentum backward to catch the pass that was just a bit off. Rodgers at his best makes a better throw for the 1st down.

This. He was short on several balls including that 3rd down completion to Adams included. Poor replay spotting of ball aside, if they hit it clean, its a first down. As it turned out, 4th down run got stuffed.

[Bossman641]

This. He was short on several balls including that 3rd down completion to Adams included. Poor replay spotting of ball aside, if they hit it clean, its a first down. As it turned out, 4th down run got stuffed.

Rodgers wasn't stepping into throws like normal. Even the ones that got there didn't have the normal zip on them.

[pbmax]

Jason Wilde ‏@jasonjwilde 2h2 hours ago
Per #Packers PR director @JTWahlers, RG @TJLang70 suffered his ankle injury on the PAT after Green Bay's first TD.

[pbmax]

Questionable (mental lapse).

[Cheesehead Craig]

Questionable (mental lapse).

You sure have had some of those.

[pbmax]

You sure have had some of those.

I am considering IR-DTR to have time for a brain scan and some Lumosity training.

Or just play Portal 2. (lumosity)

[Cheesehead Craig]

I am considering IR-DTR to have time for a brain scan and some Lumosity training.

Or just play Portal 2. (lumosity)

So in Packers speak, you have a brain.

[Zool]

So in Packers speak, you have a brain.

The cake, as well as the improved D performance....is a lie

[red]

I dont know how much of an impact the injury really had.

To me, momentum had been lost and it had become a dog fight after the cutsie play with peppers followed by tue idiot onsides kick

We looked unstopable like last week before those two plays, and inept the rest of the game

I think we underestimated the saints, came out screwing around, and we werent prepaired to play the real football game that broke out

[Joemailman]

The Packers have been winning this year by winning the turnover battle, and by winning the red zone efficiency battle. They lost those battles Sunday night.

[Harlan Huckleby]

To me, momentum had been lost and it had become a dog fight after the cutsie play with peppers followed by tue idiot onsides kick

Neither of those turned tide of game.

I would never pass to Peterson because he doesn't get a lot of practice catching. JJ Watt, ex-tight end, dropped ball right in his hands in endzone when Houston tried to make him a hero. I also wouldn't let anybody but the kicker try field goals.

[Guiness]

On a lot of plays last night, the receivers were not "wide open uncovered". Open? I suppose, but on many it took excellent throws to get the completion and not a batted ball or an interception. That is what the elite QBs give you that guys like Cutler do not give you on a consistent basis.

There were two passes in particular I remember in which a receiver ended up totally uncovered. The announcers commented on it, I really can't remember why it was. I seem to have a bit of spot amnesia where last night is concerned :bang:

[Guiness]

Pro games change on a few plays. The last 4 plays of the Packers 1st possession in the 2nd half changed the game.

Agreed, and I think those last two passes I mentioned in my last post were very key. Those, and that whack-a-doodle interception on the pass that bounced off Quarless's chest.

[pbmax]

There were two passes in particular I remember in which a receiver ended up totally uncovered. The announcers commented on it, I really can't remember why it was. I seem to have a bit of spot amnesia where last night is concerned :bang:

There were three I remember. TD to TE in the flat. Similar play, midfield, player into flat after motion. He was covered but it was late and behind. Packers actually corned him well to get him down when they did.

Third was the crossing pattern out of backfield after motion. He was uncovered completely and was the only one other than the TE who I would call wide open. I think an ILB (Lattimore) blew that one.

[Pugger]

All said above is true, but the key, I think, was when Rodgers tweaked his hamstring.

Tie game at half with the teams matching each other TD for TD and FG for FG.
NO takes possession with the 2nd half kickoff to a first down, but then the Packer "D" holds on 4th down for a huge change of possession without a score in a puntless game.
Packers drive down field quickly, have 1st and goal from the 6, but with Rodgers clearly a bit hobbled.
With Rodgers out of sync, the expected run on 1st goes no where, Rodgers quickly gets rid of the 2nd down pass on a play he would normally have extended, then tries another quick, no movement pass that is intercepted.

A chance to go up by 7, or at least 3 evaporates, and the Packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best.

Not saying they would have won, but until Rodgers' injury, I think the game looked like a classic shoot-out with teams matching score for score, but with the Packers looking to be in the leadership role and NO playing catchup, at least for a while. Up to that point, there was no evidence that the NO defense could stop the Packers any more than there was evidence GB could stop NO.

I don't think any of us can say truthfully we thought our D was gonna stop Brees and company. I'm with you, NO couldn't stop us either. The main reason IMO of why we had to settle for FGs and not TDs before Aaron got hurt was we were screwing up more than anything NO did. Once AR hurt his hammy all bets were off. Most teams with elite QBs like Brees and Rodgers will suffer when their guy goes down or isn't playing well.

[Pugger]

Jason Wilde ‏@jasonjwilde 2h2 hours ago
Per #Packers PR director @JTWahlers, RG @TJLang70 suffered his ankle injury on the PAT after Green Bay's first TD.

I think his loss was huge. Poor Taylor was overwhelmed. :sad:

[Patler]

There were two passes in particular I remember in which a receiver ended up totally uncovered. The announcers commented on it, I really can't remember why it was. I seem to have a bit of spot amnesia where last night is concerned :bang:

Sure there were. As I wrote in another post, there are usually some of those in every game. But I didn't see guys running absolutely clear all night long. Yes, they were "open" and Brees put it on the money all night long.

[Rutnstrut]

My earlier post:

Sadly this is very true. I had a bad feeling about this game. Since 2009, I have far too many memories of packer defenses under Dom Capers allowing 40+ points when playing the elite QBs in the league. Warner, Brees, Manning, Brady, etc. The QBs who know where to go with the football before the snap always kill us. Against the next QB tier down, the defense usually plays very well. See 2010 superbowl run: Vick, Ryan, Culter, Big Ben. I know we are in for a long game when I see Brady, Manning, Brees, and now Kap and Wilson (b/c of read option). Avoid those five somehow in the playoffs and I think we have a decent chance at winning the superbowl.

Actually you are spot on, not only about Dom and elite QB's but stubby vs good teams also. Stubby and Dom are continually out coached. Add to that the fact that Rodgers doesn't play his best, when the momentum isn't always in GB's favor. What you get is a complete clusterfuck. The coaching staff and TT are pissing away AR's best years. You have a QB like that, you do WHATEVER it takes to put the best players and coaches around him.

[smuggler]

That's depressing. :C

[denverYooper]

Actually you are spot on, not only about Dom and elite QB's but stubby vs good teams also. Stubby and Dom are continually out coached. Add to that the fact that Rodgers doesn't play his best, when the momentum isn't always in GB's favor. What you get is a complete clusterfuck. The coaching staff and TT are pissing away AR's best years. You have a QB like that, you do WHATEVER it takes to put the best players and coaches around him.

They have seemed to melt down in primetime (7pm CST) games vs non-division teams over the last few years (since the thumping by the Giants in the 2011 playoffs). I wasn't sure if that was just recency because of this year (Seattle, NO) or not, so I grabbed the last 2.5 years of primetime games to look at. Their record over that span in prime-time games vs non-division opponents is 1-4, with their one win coming over the Texans and their 4 losses coming by an average of 3 scores. If you add in the loss to SF in the playoffs at Lambeau, they're 1-5 with the avg diff dropping to 17.

Interestingly, though, all of their non-division primetime games have been away games. So they're also playing on the road every time. It's a very specific set of circumstances that they don't deal well in, and those circumstances arise when there are a lot of eyeballs on the game due to the time slot. It's something that they need to overcome to be successful in the playoffs again, unless they can somehow pull either home games or early games.

They're 4-1 vs division opponents in those games, and their division opponents have often been pretty good teams. They just haven't been able to deal well with playing non-division opponents, in primetime, on the road.

2012
09-13-2012 - Thursday night vs Chicago Bears (10-6), W 23-10
10-14-2012 - Sunday night @Texans (12-4) - W 42-24
11-25-2012 - Sunday night @Giants (9-7) - L 38-10
12-09-2012 - Sunday night vs Detroit Lions (4-12) - W 27-10
Playoffs:
01-05-2013 - Saturday night vs Minny Vikings (10-6) - W 24-10
01-12-2013 - Saturday night @San Fran (11-4-1) - L 45-31

2013
10-27-2013 - Sunday night @Minnesota (5-10-1) - W 44-31
11-04-2013 - Monday night vs Chicago (8-8) - L 27-21
Playoffs:
01-05-2014 - Sunday afternoon vs San Fran - L 23-20

2014
09-04-2014 - Thursday night @Seattle - L 36-16
10-26-2014 - Sunday night @NO - L 44-23

[denverYooper]

FWIW, over that span, the road team's record in primetime non-division games is 29-60, with an average margin of defeat of 15 points. Teams are 0-8 when visiting the Superdome with an average margin of defeat of 24 points.

So it's not a bottom-of-the-barrel performance from Green Bay by any means, and I don't think it means "Stubby always gets outcoached". They're close to average performance in those scenarios.

Still, to become a contender or considered elite again, they have to win some of those.

[Cleft Crusty]

What a shock that when the Packers lose, they lose to superior teams (49ers in the playoffs), teams that match up well with them (Giants), or when they lose Rodgers to injury (Bears, possibly could argue New Orleans). And Shocking that the networks would want to broadcast playoff games, games pitting the better teams against one another, and teams with good QBs who can score the ball.

To repeat: Very good teams like the Packers routinely beat the teams they should and are in most of their games. They lose to better teams, in the playoffs, and to teams that match up well with them (i.e. can rush the passer with four and drop up to 7 in coverage), or when they are injured. There is no secret to why the Packers lose certain games.

Clefty thought he would never hear the idiotic, panic-stricken, naive, pathetic "They are wasting the best years of so-and-so's career" comment again, but being moronic and irrationally emotive are hallmarks of the worst of fandom. Great players make their teams great, which improves their records, and dramatically reduces their ability to obtain more great players in the draft, hurting their chances of winning. This is what the NFL wants - mediocrity and competitive games across the schedule. This shouldn't be a forgotten truth by so many fans, but alas Clefty should be used to insane, petulant, tantrum-throwing, permanently adolescent fans by now.

[ThunderDan]

FWIW, over that span, the road team's record in primetime non-division games is 29-60, with an average margin of defeat of 15 points. Teams are 0-8 when visiting the Superdome with an average margin of defeat of 24 points.

So it's not a bottom-of-the-barrel performance from Green Bay by any means, and I don't think it means "Stubby always gets outcoached". They're close to average performance in those scenarios.

Still, to become a contender or considered elite again, they have to win some of those.

DY-

You missed the fail Mary game from 2012 on your list. Of course I am not sure where you would put it.

-TD

[Fritz]

What a shock that when the Packers lose, they lose to superior teams (49ers in the playoffs), teams that match up well with them (Giants), or when they lose Rodgers to injury (Bears, possibly could argue New Orleans). And Shocking that the networks would want to broadcast playoff games, games pitting the better teams against one another, and teams with good QBs who can score the ball.

To repeat: Very good teams like the Packers routinely beat the teams they should and are in most of their games. They lose to better teams, in the playoffs, and to teams that match up well with them (i.e. can rush the passer with four and drop up to 7 in coverage), or when they are injured. There is no secret to why the Packers lose certain games.

Clefty thought he would never hear the idiotic, panic-stricken, naive, pathetic "They are wasting the best years of so-and-so's career" comment again, but being moronic and irrationally emotive are hallmarks of the worst of fandom. Great players make their teams great, which improves their records, and dramatically reduces their ability to obtain more great players in the draft, hurting their chances of winning. This is what the NFL wants - mediocrity and competitive games across the schedule. This shouldn't be a forgotten truth by so many fans, but alas Clefty should be used to insane, petulant, tantrum-throwing, permanently adolescent fans by now.


Call me petulant, call me adolescent, call me what you will, but the eternal pictures in my mind from that game are, first, that of Drew Brees dropping back, looking....and looking....and looking. Ordering a sandwich, and looking some more. Then finding - gasp! - an open receiver.n The second picture is that of watching the Packer defensive linemen and linebackers being walled off like 98 lb weaklings while Mark Ingram rumbled past.


Man, that was like watching a flashback to the 2011 defense. Ugly. Yes, Cutler would've splintered that defense. You give a second-tier QB that kind of time, and he'll find guys open.

[ThunderDan]

Call me petulant, call me adolescent, call me what you will, but the eternal pictures in my mind from that game are, first, that of Drew Brees dropping back, looking....and looking....and looking. Ordering a sandwich, and looking some more. Then finding - gasp! - an open receiver.n The second picture is that of watching the Packer defensive linemen and linebackers being walled off like 98 lb weaklings while Mark Ingram rumbled past.


Man, that was like watching a flashback to the 2011 defense. Ugly. Yes, Cutler would've splintered that defense. You give a second-tier QB that kind of time, and he'll find guys open.

Except we did play Cutler a few weeks back and won with that D. Of course he did throw for a lot of yards too.

[denverYooper]

DY-

You missed the fail Mary game from 2012 on your list. Of course I am not sure where you would put it.

-TD'

You're right. I don't know how to count that one.

[Patler]

Except we did play Cutler a few weeks back and won with that D. Of course he did throw for a lot of yards too.

Yes and no. Maybe the same scheme, but with Dante Jones who had a sack against the Bears, Shields who had an interception against the Bears and Burnett who had 13 tackles against the Bears.

[ThunderDan]

Yes and no. Maybe the same scheme, but with Dante Jones who had a sack against the Bears, Shields who had an interception against the Bears and Burnett who had 13 tackles against the Bears.

I did mention in the Game Day thread that Burnett would have gotten to the deep bomb that went for a TD while Hyde was 4 feet short.

[esoxx]

What a shock that when the Packers lose, they lose to superior teams (49ers in the playoffs), teams that match up well with them (Giants), or when they lose Rodgers to injury (Bears, possibly could argue New Orleans). And Shocking that the networks would want to broadcast playoff games, games pitting the better teams against one another, and teams with good QBs who can score the ball.

To repeat: Very good teams like the Packers routinely beat the teams they should and are in most of their games. They lose to better teams, in the playoffs, and to teams that match up well with them (i.e. can rush the passer with four and drop up to 7 in coverage), or when they are injured. There is no secret to why the Packers lose certain games.

Clefty thought he would never hear the idiotic, panic-stricken, naive, pathetic "They are wasting the best years of so-and-so's career" comment again, but being moronic and irrationally emotive are hallmarks of the worst of fandom. Great players make their teams great, which improves their records, and dramatically reduces their ability to obtain more great players in the draft, hurting their chances of winning. This is what the NFL wants - mediocrity and competitive games across the schedule. This shouldn't be a forgotten truth by so many fans, but alas Clefty should be used to insane, petulant, tantrum-throwing, permanently adolescent fans by now.

Gee, thanks Crusty the Clown. I make you a thread post-game asking for your learned expert opinions and you're a no-show. Now I find you in here trashing the good and hearty fans of the Green Bay Packers.

Also, don't you have anything better to do with your time than following around an 80's band while soiling your Depends?

[Fritz]

Except we did play Cutler a few weeks back and won with that D. Of course he did throw for a lot of yards too.


Yes, but I was referring to the question above as to whether a second-tier QB could've done as well as Brees did. My point is that if you give even a second tier QB the kind of time Brees had, he'd tear up that defense.

So if you gave Jay Cutler the time Brees had, I believe he'd tear up your D. When the Packers played the Bears, VaJayJay didn't have that kind of time.

[Patler]

I did mention in the Game Day thread that Burnett would have gotten to the deep bomb that went for a TD while Hyde was 4 feet short.

I will always wonder how different the defense might have been, and how playoff results might have differed, if the starting safeties the last four years were Burnett and Collins.

[Cleft Crusty]

Now I find you in here trashing a 'fan' of the Green Bay Packers.

fixed it for you. I was only responding to one 'fan.'

Clefty wasn't sure he could still post. I have no interest in providing any more content to this forum, but every once in a while I check in here and see there are a very few (one one) insolent, insufferable moron(s) in need of a beat down. The reaction was reflexive, which came as somewhat of a relief as Clefty was unaware he still has reflexes.

[Guiness]

Sure there were. As I wrote in another post, there are usually some of those in every game. But I didn't see guys running absolutely clear all night long. Yes, they were "open" and Brees put it on the money all night long.

Ya, I saw that after I posted. Usually when someone is wide open, on the replay you see that someone slipped, or ran into his own player, something, there's a reason for it. There were a couple of times in this game where someone was just flat out uncovered...running a flat route I think, go figure.

[Joemailman]

Rodgers (and Flynn) still photobombing the game captain photos. http://www.packers.com/media-center/photo-gallery/2014-Packers-Captains-Photos/e76bfad7-62c9-40ed-957b-771ef104cb22#start

[Joemailman]

"We need to tackle the damn ball carrier and put him on the ground," he said. "That's what we'll be focused on."


Is this simply frustration with the players, or is MM starting to run out of patience with his defensive coaching staff? He's stuck with Capers for a long time, but he's fired his defensive coaching staff before.

[George Cumby]

Is this simply frustration with the players, or is MM starting to run out of patience with his defensive coaching staff? He's stuck with Capers for a long time, but he's fired his defensive coaching staff before.

I hope the latter. The players, mostly, are there.

[Maxie the Taxi]

"We need to tackle the damn ball carrier and put him on the ground," he said. "That's what we'll be focused on."


Is this simply frustration with the players, or is MM starting to run out of patience with his defensive coaching staff? He's stuck with Capers for a long time, but he's fired his defensive coaching staff before.

When I hear this kind of thing from McCarthy, I get frustrated. It's kind of like the Sales Manager of a declining company saying: "We've got to go out and beat the bushes and close sales." As PB might say, it's just "word salad."

There is definitely something wrong in Green Bay and it's been wrong for some time. The Packers' defense is a mess. In a big game against an elite QB the defense got gashed for 200 yards on the ground and 300 yards through the air.

What's the answer? "We need to tackle the damn ball carrier." Well, tackling the ball carrier helps, but the problems run deeper than that.

PERSONNEL -- The Packers are undersized and under-manned on the D-line. The Saints had five guys on their O-line who are well over 300 lbs. The Pack's D-line is barely over 300 lbs. per man. Two of these men are untested rookies. And this undersizing is by design. Bigger, tested D-linemen like Pickett and Jolly have been available all season after Raji went down, but the Packers' brain trust passed on them.

SCHEME -- So, what is Dom Capers' answer to this intentional mismatch? Play only two D-lineman! That didn't work out too well against the Saints, so reportedly Dom is reconsidering. According to Rob Demovsky (http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/14709/mike-mccarthy-has-direct-message-for-packers-d):

"Capers might have to decide whether he can continue to play his undersized nickel package, which features just two defensive linemen, as his primary defensive look."

While Stubby rages about putting the ball carrier on the ground, Dom doesn't seem too worried:


"I’ve seen us through the first half of the season play pretty good run defense, so I feel like we can," defensive coordinator Dom Capers insisted Monday. "You look at last night, you might question it a little bit. But I've seen us have our moments where we've played good run defense. That's what we've got to do this second half. We know when you have something like that you get tested, and you get tested until you take care of it."

Are you kidding me? He has seen his team "have our moments" of good run defense?

Now that's the sense of urgency Stubby is no doubt looking for out of his Defensive Coordinator!

To be fair to Dom, I've seen the Packers' run defense have its moments too, but it's been damn few and far between.

HEAD COACHING -- However, Stubby doesn't want to talk about scheme and personnel, which I have just done:


"Everybody wants to talk about scheme and personnel," McCarthy said. "That's something that you’re always weighing or looking at. Or are there other individuals who deserve opportunities? Can we use other individuals a certain way? That's really what we talk about as coaches day-in and day-out. Our issue is on run D are fundamental. We need to do a better job of staying square [and] getting in our gaps."

Yes, our 200 lb. DB's need to fill the gaps between those 300+ offensive linemen and stay square. I can see that.

In my judgement the real problem IS scheme and personnel. Our personnel have been tailored to fit Capers' scheme and we're paying the price for it.

[Joemailman]

When I hear this kind of thing from McCarthy, I get frustrated. It's kind of like the Sales Manager of a declining company saying: "We've got to go out and beat the bushes and close sales." As PB might say, it's just "word salad."

There is definitely something wrong in Green Bay and it's been wrong for some time. The Packers' defense is a mess. In a big game against an elite QB the defense got gashed for 200 yards on the ground and 300 yards through the air.

What's the answer? "We need to tackle the damn ball carrier." Well, tackling the ball carrier helps, but the problems run deeper than that.

PERSONNEL -- The Packers are undersized and under-manned on the D-line. The Saints had five guys on their O-line who are well over 300 lbs. The Pack's D-line is barely over 300 lbs. per man. Two of these men are untested rookies. And this undersizing is by design. Bigger, tested D-linemen like Pickett and Jolly have been available all season after Raji went down, but the Packers' brain trust passed on them.

SCHEME -- So, what is Dom Capers' answer to this intentional mismatch? Play only two D-lineman! That didn't work out too well against the Saints, so reportedly Dom is reconsidering. According to Rob Demovsky (http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/14709/mike-mccarthy-has-direct-message-for-packers-d):

"Capers might have to decide whether he can continue to play his undersized nickel package, which features just two defensive linemen, as his primary defensive look."

While Stubby rages about putting the ball carrier on the ground, Dom doesn't seem too worried:



Are you kidding me? He has seen his team "have our moments" of good run defense?

Now that's the sense of urgency Stubby is no doubt looking for out of his Defensive Coordinator!

To be fair to Dom, I've seen the Packers' run defense have its moments too, but it's been damn few and far between.

HEAD COACHING -- However, Stubby doesn't want to talk about scheme and personnel, which I have just done:



Yes, our 200 lb. DB's need to fill the gaps between those 300+ offensive linemen and stay square. I can see that.

In my judgement the real problem IS scheme and personnel. Our personnel have been tailored to fit Capers' scheme and we're paying the price for it.

Actually, the Packers have played decent (not outstanding) run defense in half their games. The problem is they've played terrible run defense in the other half. And it's not like the teams that have run over them are so much better running the ball than the other teams. They've just been maddeningly inconsistent when it comes to playing the run. I think that's what has MM so frustrated. It looked like they had had 3 consecutive pretty good weeks, and then New Orleans happened. I don't think the problem is really the scheme, or the lack of size up front. If that were the case, I think they'd be consistently bad unless facing a poor running team. The real problem I think is a combination of poor tackling, and poor gap discipline. Whether the Packers need a wholesale personnel change or a coaching change is the big question. The Packers under Capers will never be a great run-stuffing team because of the amount of nickel Capers uses. But they have shown the ability to play middle-of-the-road run defense which would be good enough if they could do it consistently.

[KYPack]

I dunno, Joe Joe.

We are the worst team in the NFL vs the rush.

The GBP ain't getting gashed, we just don't stop the run.

We've given up 70 rushing 1st downs. A lot more than the next worst D.

Denver is the #1 rush D, they've given up 24 rush 1st's.

We've got to improve to mediocre against the run to have a chance in the play-offs ( I know, play-offs???)

I don't think we'll do it.

[George Cumby]

Soooooooooo...... Fire Capers???????

[Joemailman]

Soooooooooo...... Fire Capers???????

If performances like Sunday night become the norm the rest of the year, then yes. You just can't stop a great QB when it's 2nd and 3 all night.

[Pugger]

Soooooooooo...... Fire Capers???????

I don't see MM firing Capers before the season is over so unless our offense becomes unstoppable we will be 1 and done yet again in the post season if we get there.

[Maxie the Taxi]

If the choice comes down to "wholesale personnel" change or a coaching change, goodbye Capers and company.

I think we have high quality players but Capers' act is getting old and tired like me. When he first arrived in Green Bay, Dom's emphasis was on the pass rush and doing it creatively, i.e., devising ways to put his talented players in positions to succeed. When we faced an elite QB, Dom figured a way to pressure him. That pressure lead to a lot of good things happening, namely turnovers and defensive scores. The philosophy was bend but not break. Now, somehow, it's morphed into just plain breaking.

The whole Capers defense nowadays has become too cerebral, too technical. Not instinctive enough. Stubby used to harp about the players not trusting the system. Or blaming defensive woes on "communication breakdowns." Now he's resorted to reminding his defensive players that tackling is about putting the ball carrier on the ground.

Maybe after the season Dom retires and some young guy with high energy and renewed motivation takes over.

[Patler]

MM has now had two entirely different defensive coaching staffs (except for Winston Moss), and having a good defense remains the aberration, not the norm.
The same can be said for ST's.
Has he had bad staffs twice for each, D and ST?
Is it on TT?

...or, is there something about MM's entire program layout, for off season, training camp and in season, that does not foster quality performances from ST and D units? MM is an acknowledged micro-manager in terms of practice layouts, with detail for what everyone is doing every minute of time. He has acknowledged having many volumes of notebooks laying out every minute of every day when the team is in the facilities. His system has consistently turned out exceptional offenses and bad defenses and special teams.

If I were to select one word to describe his offenses, it is "cerebral". Players have to read, communicate and react. Everyone has to read and react the same. His practices are geared to efficiency, with an emphasis on calm. He talks about teaching, says littlea bout and almost practices against emotion. This seems to work for offensive performance, especially for the passing game, and maybe somewhat less successfully for a running game. Is his "thinking man" approach to workouts and practices inconsistent with the development of the playing characteristics that make for good defenses and special teams?

To borrow a phrase, does MM's program approach develop teams that are too soft to play well on D and ST, while being high achievers on O?

[pbmax]

MM has now had two entirely different defensive coaching staffs (except for Winston Moss), and having a good defense remains the aberration, not the norm.
The same can be said for ST's.
Has he had bad staffs twice for each, D and ST?
Is it on TT?

...or, is there something about MM's entire program layout, for off season, training camp and in season, that does not foster quality performances from ST and D units? MM is an acknowledged micro-manager in terms of practice layouts, with detail for what everyone is doing every minute of time. He has acknowledged having many volumes of notebooks laying out every minute of every day when the team is in the facilities. His system has consistently turned out exceptional offenses and bad defenses and special teams.

If I were to select one word to describe his offenses, it is "cerebral". Players have to read, communicate and react. Everyone has to read and react the same. His practices are geared to efficiency, with an emphasis on calm. He talks about teaching, says littlea bout and almost practices against emotion. This seems to work for offensive performance, especially for the passing game, and maybe somewhat less successfully for a running game. Is his "thinking man" approach to workouts and practices inconsistent with the development of the playing characteristics that make for good defenses and special teams?

To borrow a phrase, does MM's program approach develop teams that are too soft to play well on D and ST, while being high achievers on O?

Winner. I actually tried to write something similar yesterday but abandoned it at 8,500 words of woodbuckian denseness.

Though I don't think its the cerebral approach itself that is the limiting factor. Rather, like you need a nutrition science consultant to keep players up to the speed of the practices (same with strength and conditioning guys), you need D coaches who can create drills and team periods that will produce good defense under the regime as enacted by the HC. There is a lot of old school on the D side of the ball.

[pbmax]

I think we have high quality players but Capers' act is getting old and tired like me. When he first arrived in Green Bay, Dom's emphasis was on the pass rush and doing it creatively, i.e., devising ways to put his talented players in positions to succeed. When we faced an elite QB, Dom figured a way to pressure him. That pressure lead to a lot of good things happening, namely turnovers and defensive scores. The philosophy was bend but not break. Now, somehow, it's morphed into just plain breaking.


See, I think this analysis is self contradictory. When Capers arrived, he had a great run defense and that was where the emphasis was. He had to scheme and get nuts with fronts and blitzes to get pressure. The only year they both worked in concert was 2010, not surprisingly.

Since then, the pass rush has been middling and trending down. But unlike 2009, so is the run D. Peppers has helped the pass D, but it hasn't been consistent enough to stop opposing O's.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think Patler's on to something. I've never heard that about Stubby, but it makes sense. I've often thought that when the Packers' falter it's due to a lack of emotion, a lack of instinctual play...especially on defense.

Take the NO game for example. I've been following the Saints quite closely because of my proximity to them. I knew the Saints had a huge chip on their shoulder and intense resolve. The Packers were walking into an emotional cauldron. I think the Packers' initial success trading scores might have been due to the cerebral nature of the offense Patler described. But I felt the defense was flat and uninspired from the opening kickoff.

Football is a game of emotions. Stubby rarely shows emotion on the sidelines. It's strange that perennially successful coaches like Sean Payton and Belicheck have a way of getting their teams up emotionally but also trade on the cerebral aspects as well.

[Maxie the Taxi]

See, I think this analysis is self contradictory. When Capers arrived, he had a great run defense and that was where the emphasis was. He had to scheme and get nuts with fronts and blitzes to get pressure. The only year they both worked in concert was 2010, not surprisingly.

Since then, the pass rush has been middling and trending down. But unlike 2009, so is the run D. Peppers has helped the pass D, but it hasn't been consistent enough to stop opposing O's.

You may be right. I'm operating with a memory like a sieve. If what you say is accurate, Dom apparently has changed his philosophy. I mean in his early days he had bigger defensive linemen, didn't he? And guys like Cullen Jenkins?

[pbmax]

You may be right. I'm operating with a memory like a sieve. If what you say is accurate, Dom apparently has changed his philosophy. I mean in his early days he had bigger defensive linemen, didn't he? And guys like Cullen Jenkins?

Yes, though Cullen Jenkins would look small on the lines of 2010-2012 (well, skinny anyway). He was a tweener DT, 6' 4" and grew to 300 pounds. While he was in the League position demands morphed to make him suitable to play DE in a 3-4. And the bad run D in '11 and '12 don't augur well for the big lineman theory of run D. That only seemed to work for a few games in 2013.

But Jenkins only started in 2009 at DE. He was replaced to get Raji in at Nose and that moved Pickett to End. Jenkins then became the designated pass rusher. He was effective and he and Clay were almost, but not quite, enough to put the Packers D deep into the playoffs. His departure marked a lessening of pass rush but there were other problems that we are still experiencing now.

I really do think Patler nailed it and something about how the team is put together and trained leaves some holes. I don't think its hitting during the season (virtually no one does that anymore including the Seahawks) or live tackling in camp (less than half of teams do). The Packers have added the half line drill back for the last two years, but even last year it took some time before it seemed to be helping and I am not sure that last year's running success wasn't more Bach/Barclay/Lacy/Starks(healthy) related than half-line drill related. Half line drills aren't a panacea this year for certain.

But the same problems keep cropping up with new casts of characters. Its systemic and I don't find it convincing that Capers has forgotten how to game plan.

[Maxie the Taxi]

As you know, I don't know a lot about the technicalities of defensive football, so I defer to you on that.

But I do think I can recognize talent...and talent will out in my opinion over any scheme. And when I went back to check on Dom's first years in Green Bay, starting in 2009, I have to say my impression is that the players on those early teams were far more talented than the players we have now.

I wrote earlier that we have the players to compete. In reality, maybe we don't. Maybe several years in a row of low draft choices and FA inactivity are catching up with us. Maybe Dom is scheming the hell out of things because he just doesn't have the players to accomplish what he'd really like to.

[Pugger]

MM has now had two entirely different defensive coaching staffs (except for Winston Moss), and having a good defense remains the aberration, not the norm.
The same can be said for ST's.
Has he had bad staffs twice for each, D and ST?
Is it on TT?

...or, is there something about MM's entire program layout, for off season, training camp and in season, that does not foster quality performances from ST and D units? MM is an acknowledged micro-manager in terms of practice layouts, with detail for what everyone is doing every minute of time. He has acknowledged having many volumes of notebooks laying out every minute of every day when the team is in the facilities. His system has consistently turned out exceptional offenses and bad defenses and special teams.

If I were to select one word to describe his offenses, it is "cerebral". Players have to read, communicate and react. Everyone has to read and react the same. His practices are geared to efficiency, with an emphasis on calm. He talks about teaching, says littlea bout and almost practices against emotion. This seems to work for offensive performance, especially for the passing game, and maybe somewhat less successfully for a running game. Is his "thinking man" approach to workouts and practices inconsistent with the development of the playing characteristics that make for good defenses and special teams?

To borrow a phrase, does MM's program approach develop teams that are too soft to play well on D and ST, while being high achievers on O?

Maybe Moss might be a problem? Wasn't he our ILB coach until this year and now he's in charge of the all?

[denverYooper]

As you know, I don't know a lot about the technicalities of defensive football, so I defer to you on that.

But I do think I can recognize talent...and talent will out in my opinion over any scheme. And when I went back to check on Dom's first years in Green Bay, starting in 2009, I have to say my impression is that the players on those early teams were far more talented than the players we have now.

I wrote earlier that we have the players to compete. In reality, maybe we don't. Maybe several years in a row of low draft choices and FA inactivity are catching up with us. Maybe Dom is scheming the hell out of things because he just doesn't have the players to accomplish what he'd really like to.

Yeah, look at the Broncos defense this year. They bought Talib, Ward, and Ware and now Von Miller is playing back up to his All-pro ability on a cheap contract (3.25 mil this year). Suddenly they look like the 96 Packers.

[Pugger]

Yeah, look at the Broncos defense this year. They bought Talib, Ward, and Ware and now Von Miller is playing back up to his All-pro ability on a cheap contract (3.25 mil this year). Suddenly they look like the 96 Packers.

It will be interesting to see how long they'll be this dominate...

[Maxie the Taxi]

Yeah, look at the Broncos defense this year. They bought Talib, Ward, and Ware and now Von Miller is playing back up to his All-pro ability on a cheap contract (3.25 mil this year). Suddenly they look like the 96 Packers.

Exactly. One reason I think TT and MM don't like to bring in FA's is that there system is so damn cerebral and complicated. They like young guys who grew up in the system rather than old dogs who maybe won't learn new tricks fast enough. That strategy might be sound if the young guys drafted are really good, but if they are mediocre, then it falls apart.

An example is Micah Hyde. The guy is good but not good enough to plan on and develop into a top notch starter, as opposed to a real, natural talent and high draft choice like Clinton-Dix.

You get enamored with these mediocre guys and before long you get to thinking they are better than they really are.

We've got a lot of undrafted, low draft choice, mediocre talent on our defense. Even our higher draft choices are not elite. Clay is the exception. Maybe Morgan Burnett. But who knows about Datone Jones? And Nick Perry? Mike Daniels?

Who are the potential All Pro's down the road on this Packer defense?

[denverYooper]

It will be interesting to see how long they'll be this dominate...

Until they have to pay Von Miller.

[smuggler]

I have tried to rationalize retaining Capers, and doing so gives me a new understanding of abused spouses. He must be fired (after the season). If MM will not do it, he must also be fired.

[pbmax]

Exactly. One reason I think TT and MM don't like to bring in FA's is that there system is so damn cerebral and complicated. They like young guys who grew up in the system rather than old dogs who maybe won't learn new tricks fast enough. That strategy might be sound if the young guys drafted are really good, but if they are mediocre, then it falls apart.

Interesting point. Usually the vet case is made that the Packers (and esp. Capers) needs vets because of their usual callow and inexperienced yutes. In fact, Le Beau doesn't want young players to have to play in Pitts D.

But I don't think Peppers has exhibited too many problems with his learning curve. I think the issue is mainly finance, risk and downside of careers with FAs. I doubt the Packers system is too complicated that it hampers FAs.

But perhaps the best point is the run D problem itself. Run D is keeping your defense in shape and on target (gap integrity). There are fewer lessens more basic than that in football but somehow the Packers need to relearn it every season. If Capers was being too complicated, it would show up more easily in the backfield.

[LEWCWA]

I dont know how much of an impact the injury really had.

To me, momentum had been lost and it had become a dog fight after the cutsie play with peppers followed by tue idiot onsides kick

We looked unstopable like last week before those two plays, and inept the rest of the game

I think we underestimated the saints, came out screwing around, and we werent prepaired to play the real football game that broke out

I agree, why do you come out and dig into your bag of tricks at the time they did? Packers were the better team, but MM called the game like they couldn't beat them mano on mano. I had a very bad feeling after the onside kick. How bout you just line up and take it to them, instead of gimmicks.

[George Cumby]

Soooooooo...... Fire McCarthy???????????

[Patler]

Soooooooo...... Fire McCarthy???????????

Nah, too much success for that. You can do so much worse than him.
You stick with him and encourage him to self-evaluate and evolve.

[Fritz]

Interesting point. Usually the vet case is made that the Packers (and esp. Capers) needs vets because of their usual callow and inexperienced yutes. In fact, Le Beau doesn't want young players to have to play in Pitts D.

But I don't think Peppers has exhibited too many problems with his learning curve. I think the issue is mainly finance, risk and downside of careers with FAs. I doubt the Packers system is too complicated that it hampers FAs.

But perhaps the best point is the run D problem itself. Run D is keeping your defense in shape and on target (gap integrity). There are fewer lessens more basic than that in football but somehow the Packers need to relearn it every season. If Capers was being too complicated, it would show up more easily in the backfield.


This is what's so maddening. Every year, the defensive players and coahces and MM talk about needing to to re-teach lower pad level and proper tackling form.

This past year, MM finally admitted something else needed to be done. So there was that whole confusing (for me) scheme-and-personnel song and dance, but here we are, half way through, and what's MM saying about this still-lousy defense? They need to tackle better.

Every year, the defense is the weak link, and ST is not far behind. Ted's 2012 defensive draft was mostly a bust, and Perry hasn't been much of a first rounder. So some blame to Ted, for sure. He seems to have a hard time drafting well on the defensive line and, outside of Matthews, in the linebacking corps.

But MM is the lead coach, and as others have said, he's on defensive coach #2, and it's been bad for about three-and-a-half seasons now, with some minor small stretches of good defense (a few games at the beginning of last season).

But it's not, and has not been since 2010, a defense that is going to get you past the first round, unless your first round opponent's QB is Joe Webb.

Something more than "we gotta tackle better" has to happen at the end of this season. Whether it's MM re-evaluating how his program can produce such good offenses and shitty defenses, or whether he shit-cans Capers and company, I don't know. But something's gotta happen, unless there's a magical second-half turnaround.

But even the most optimistic Packer fans have to be pretty dubious about that happening.

[pbmax]

Nah, too much success for that. You can do so much worse than him.
You stick with him and encourage him to self-evaluate and evolve.

And he does change. I take the lessening of Packer hamstring as a direct sign that some of the changes have helped. I would bet its the sports science guy, but we'll see.

He did add half line drills and is not afraid to alter what worked previously (schedule) to make it work better.

The only thing lacking here is the germ of an idea of what the D staff needs to get it turned around. M3 already went at it from the multiple personnel angle. But I think practice is where its at. They might have to go get ideas from outside again.

But there is also player personnel. Maxie is right, there might only be one or two budding superstars on this team (Matthews and Dix). Otherwise, the rest of the first and second rounders have been decent role players at best. Maybe Burnett at his best. I am disappointed that self appointed leading loud-mouth Daniels hasn't had a better year.

[Fritz]

I agree with your assessment of Daniels, too. All bark, very little bite. He is what he is, perhaps - a high-energy guy with limited upside. Put him in Jerel Worthy's body, maybe. But Daniels is not a top-of-the-line starter. He's a JAG, to me.