CARDS SAW A WEAKNESS AND EXPLOITED IT

[sharpe1027]

As is almost always the case, vilified players are not nearly as bad as people claim and our heroes are not nearly as good.

Bush looks a little awkward and isn't a true CB. He's been out of position at times and he's also made a few nice plays. His interception was a really nice play. He plays on every single special teams unit and from what I've read he draws attention from the other teams. He's shown to be pretty durable. Other than the alleged wrong double coverage (which is no better than a 50/50 proposition on who made the mistake), I've not seen or heard much about him making mental coverage mistakes. What I have seen is him being out of position and losing foot races.

He's probably never going to be better than a 2nd or 3rd string safety. He will not be able to cover a fast WR in tight man coverage. However, he's not anywhere near as bad as people seem to think.

If they find better, fine. Until then, he's worth his salary and roster spot.

[SkinBasket]

As is almost always the case, vilified players are not nearly as bad as people claim and our heroes are not nearly as good.

Who's "vilified?" Bush cannot play defense. He;s had many opportunities to prove himself and has failed each and every time during his tenure here (outside of that one awesome preseason he had). Recognizing that a player lacks the physical and/or mental skills to play a position is not "vilifying" him. It's accepting the reality that we have a depth problem at safety that extends from one of the two starters all the way to Bush.

Claiming Bush is under-appreciated as much as Woodson is over-hyped is flat out, plain stupid. Stoopid. Stoopid. Stoopid.

[SkinBasket]

BTW, I'm highly amused by this sudden development of this Bush Fan Club. It reminds me of the Samkon Gado folks.

[Smidgeon]

BTW, I'm highly amused by this sudden development of this Bush Fan Club. It reminds me of the Samkon Gado folks.

Except Gado had about a half season that was very effective...

[sharpe1027]

Who's "vilified?" Bush cannot play defense. He;s had many opportunities to prove himself and has failed each and every time during his tenure here (outside of that one awesome preseason he had). Recognizing that a player lacks the physical and/or mental skills to play a position is not "vilifying" him. It's accepting the reality that we have a depth problem at safety that extends from one of the two starters all the way to Bush.

Claiming Bush is under-appreciated as much as Woodson is over-hyped is flat out, plain stupid. Stoopid. Stoopid. Stoopid.

BTW, I'm highly amused by this sudden development of this Bush Fan Club. It reminds me of the Samkon Gado folks.

I see, thanks for correcting me about the fine points of exactly where the line is for what you consider "vilifying," very useful to this discussion. If someone who says Bush may not be quite as bad as everyone thinks, but clearly admits that he has his limitations, is a "Bush Fan Club" then sign me up!

Nobody claimed Bush is under-appreciated as much as Woodson is over-hyped.

Again, Bush has his limitations and makes plenty of mistakes, but he tends to gets more shit than he deserves. An extreme position I know, but that's how I see it. If you want to call me Stooopid for that, I can live with that.

[Patler]

Interesting to note that in several threads several fans have concluded that the safeties were at fault because of so many wide open completions in the middle of the field, saying things like "the safeties were no where to be seen." Well, now it seems from information from the coaches that perhaps the safeties shouldn't have been seen much on those plays. During the coaches press conferences, it became clear that the game plan was to have the safeties double on the outside, usually in support of Williams and Underwood. It was explained in the Q&As that the middle was left to Woodson and Bush, with any help they would get coming from the linebackers. As Capers said, you can't help everyone in coverage, you have to make choices.

Just goes to show how incorrect our judgments can be from the limited view we get on TV. The guy you see making (or missing) the tackle, getting there late and looking like he was beaten badly in the process, may not even have had responsibility for that receiver, but did well getting off his responsibility in time to help out.

I have argued for years, and agree with those on here who have said that unless you can see the whole field, see all routes by all receivers, AND know what coverage calls were made, most of the time you have no idea who really made the mistake in coverage and who didn't.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Interesting to note that in several threads several fans have concluded that the safeties were at fault because of so many wide open completions in the middle of the field, saying things like "the safeties were no where to be seen." Well, now it seems from information from the coaches that perhaps the safeties shouldn't have been seen much on those plays. During the coaches press conferences, it became clear that the game plan was to have the safeties double on the outside, usually in support of Williams and Underwood. It was explained in the Q&As that the middle was left to Woodson and Bush, with any help they would get coming from the linebackers. As Capers said, you can't help everyone in coverage, you have to make choices.

Just goes to show how incorrect our judgments can be from the limited view we get on TV. The guy you see making (or missing) the tackle, getting there late and looking like he was beaten badly in the process, may not even have had responsibility for that receiver, but did well getting off his responsibility in time to help out.

I have argued for years, and agree with those on here who have said that unless you can see the whole field, see all routes by all receivers, AND know what coverage calls were made, most of the time you have no idea who really made the mistake in coverage and who didn't.

pissing into the wind.

[Patler]

pissing into the wind.

???? You lost me on that reply.
Are you suggesting my comment will come back at me? SO be it!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

pissing into the wind.

???? You lost me on that reply.
Are you suggesting my comment will come back at me? SO be it!

Nah, wrong expression.

Shoulda just called you sysiphus (sp?).

[Patler]

Sisyphus? - I feel like him with many of my arguments! Real uphill battles!

[sharpe1027]

Interesting to note that in several threads several fans have concluded that the safeties were at fault because of so many wide open completions in the middle of the field, saying things like "the safeties were no where to be seen." Well, now it seems from information from the coaches that perhaps the safeties shouldn't have been seen much on those plays. During the coaches press conferences, it became clear that the game plan was to have the safeties double on the outside, usually in support of Williams and Underwood. It was explained in the Q&As that the middle was left to Woodson and Bush, with any help they would get coming from the linebackers. As Capers said, you can't help everyone in coverage, you have to make choices.

Just goes to show how incorrect our judgments can be from the limited view we get on TV. The guy you see making (or missing) the tackle, getting there late and looking like he was beaten badly in the process, may not even have had responsibility for that receiver, but did well getting off his responsibility in time to help out.

I have argued for years, and agree with those on here who have said that unless you can see the whole field, see all routes by all receivers, AND know what coverage calls were made, most of the time you have no idea who really made the mistake in coverage and who didn't.

It is true, but we can at least make a best guess from what we see. I mean why discuss anything here, clearly we never have all the facts...

I agree 100% that the safeties were playing help to the outside.

I had commented in another thread about what I thought was a lack of range by Gio. I clearly remember at least one play where Gio tried to come back to help on a deep route down the middle and couldn't close fast enough. Maybe it was the scheme and nobody could have made the playe, but he looked slow and I have a feeling that safety with more range would have had a chance at disrupting the play.

[Smidgeon]

...I have a feeling that safety with more range would have had a chance at disrupting the play.

Or at least a safety that hadn't had a leg injury earlier in the game...

[sharpe1027]

...I have a feeling that safety with more range would have had a chance at disrupting the play.

Or at least a safety that hadn't had a leg injury earlier in the game...

Exactly, whatever the reason, I think any holes in the defense were only made worse by having to play Gio.

[Smidgeon]

...I have a feeling that safety with more range would have had a chance at disrupting the play.

Or at least a safety that hadn't had a leg injury earlier in the game...

Exactly, whatever the reason, I think any holes in the defense were only made worse by having to play Gio.

Agreed. Which were probably made worse by the glut of DB injuries throughout the year. The pass defense depth was not in a good place by the time the playoffs started by any stretch of the imagination.

[sharpe1027]

Interestingly, Silverstein highlights two coverage mistakes in relation to an interview with Capers, one made by T. Williams and one made by Barnett. I think the first one is the blown coverage that people blamed on Bush where two DBs covered the same guy. The second one is the Doucet TD, also blamed on Bush.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/81328997.html