I'm So Angry...at the JSO

[Patler]

I didn't think they were as bad as they looked yesterday until yesterday. I honestly had hope that they had improved since weeks 4 and 7 and the back 7 was more ready to take on an upper tier QB. Last nights game cemented it for me, even if I turn out wrong. I now believe they have a weak link that cannot be covered for.

It can be covered for, because at times it has been. If things on the defense are as bad as the story makes out, it wouldn't be just the elite QBs who could take advantage of it. Others would too. Roethlisberger was phenomenal on Sunday in many ways, recognition, keeping plays alive, throwing accuracy. On another day he might not be exceptional in all those areas, the Packers might throw in another new wrinkle to confuse, the pass rush might be more effective, help can be provided in coverages and the weaknesses in the 3rd and 4th corners might not be as significant.

If the GB receivers had hung on to the ball better, Rodgers could have had nearly as many passing yards as Roethlisberger. Packer drives would have lasted longer, giving Roethlisberger fewer opportunities and maybe more pressure to score if they trailed. That can be another way of covering their defensive weakness, being more productive and consistent on offense.

Might the Packers give up 400 yards to other good QBs? Sure any defense might because many defenses have starting corners and safeties worse than GBs and nickel and dime backs just as bad. In the end, the Packers might still win, because the Packers offense has many weapons to exploit the weaknesses of the other defenses, too. A few less penalties on defense, Mathews' sack-strip-recovery holding up, a tipped ball here or there, the interception not being negated because of a penalty and the outcome could have been different.

[Smidgeon]

I didn't think they were as bad as they looked yesterday until yesterday. I honestly had hope that they had improved since weeks 4 and 7 and the back 7 was more ready to take on an upper tier QB. Last nights game cemented it for me, even if I turn out wrong. I now believe they have a weak link that cannot be covered for.

It can be covered for, because at times it has been. If things on the defense are as bad as the story makes out, it wouldn't be just the elite QBs who could take advantage of it. Others would too. Roethlisberger was phenomenal on Sunday in many ways, recognition, keeping plays alive, throwing accuracy. On another day he might not be exceptional in all those areas, the Packers might throw in another new wrinkle to confuse, the pass rush might be more effective, help can be provided in coverages and the weaknesses in the 3rd and 4th corners might not be as significant.

If the GB receivers had hung on to the ball better, Rodgers could have had nearly as many passing yards as Roethlisberger. Packer drives would have lasted longer, giving Roethlisberger fewer opportunities and maybe more pressure to score if they trailed. That can be another way of covering their defensive weakness, being more productive and consistent on offense.

Might the Packers give up 400 yards to other good QBs? Sure any defense might because many defenses have starting corners and safeties worse than GBs and nickel and dime backs just as bad. In the end, the Packers might still win, because the Packers offense has many weapons to exploit the weaknesses of the other defenses, too. A few less penalties on defense, Mathews' sack-strip-recovery holding up, a tipped ball here or there, the interception not being negated because of a penalty and the outcome could have been different.

Not to mention that it took Roethlisberger over 500 yards, three TDs, and a 10 minute possession advantage to beat the Packers by 1 point.

[PlantPage55]

We're at some weird point where our secondary can absolutely embarrass low to mid-tier QBs like Cutler, Stafford, and even Romo, but guys like Big Ben, Brady, Manning and Brees are probably too savvy at this point.

That's not to say we can't overcome it or that it would be impossible to best those QBs. It just seems like a tall order. Then again, it is a tall order for ANY secondary.

It certainly has a lot to do with us being on our 6th best CB as our nickel. That blows.

[Bretsky]

We're at some weird point where our secondary can absolutely embarrass low to mid-tier QBs like Cutler, Stafford, and even Romo, but guys like Big Ben, Brady, Manning and Brees are probably too savvy at this point.

That's not to say we can't overcome it or that it would be impossible to best those QBs. It just seems like a tall order. Then again, it is a tall order for ANY secondary.

It certainly has a lot to do with us being on our 6th best CB as our nickel. That blows.

Good point; but remembe we had Al vs. Dallas. It would be interesting to see how well we'd fare against Romo without Al Harris on the road.

They don't have the big three WR's though that can really expose our 3rd CB but it still would be interesting.

[Smidgeon]

We're at some weird point where our secondary can absolutely embarrass low to mid-tier QBs like Cutler, Stafford, and even Romo, but guys like Big Ben, Brady, Manning and Brees are probably too savvy at this point.

They are savvy, but they, like Big Ben, probably need a historic day to beat the Packers in a shoot-out.

Just to clarify, in case my statement came across as overly optimistic, I'm not saying the Packers are elite. I'm saying they're getting there, and the Pitt game did nothing to change that in my estimation. It was a pure shootout, the Packers' secondary had coverage breakdowns, time after time penalty or a failure to sack Big Ben resulted in another first down, and yet Big Ben had to be only the third QB in NFL history to accomplish something (500+ yards, 3 TDS, 0 INTs) to overcome the Packers. He did it scrambling with "I can't believe he found an open receiver" passes and "I can't believe he came down with that ball" catches. Pitt didn't blow out the Packers. It was a one point game and it took Pitt everything they had to get that.