CARDS SAW A WEAKNESS AND EXPLOITED IT

[ThunderDan]

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

So before when some of us wouldn't assign blame we were "lame." But now Capers comes out and blames TWill and Barnett and our perception is now wrong?

This is exactly why I wrote that I needed tape and the play call.

[Fritz]

Bush is a tease. Shows flashes of ability, but always seems to come up short when needed the most. Time to move on here. See if Underwood, Lee or Bell can do better if given the opportunities Bush has had.

how true that is.

[Fritz]

I wonder why Capers did not seem to adjust his coverage in the second half after all that middle-of-the-field gashing that took place in the first half?

Move one safety into the middle, maybe? Leave Tramon Williams on an island and give the middle some help?

I wonder why. It'd be fun to be able to talk with him about this.

[Smidgeon]

I wonder why Capers did not seem to adjust his coverage in the second half after all that middle-of-the-field gashing that took place in the first half?

Move one safety into the middle, maybe? Leave Tramon Williams on an island and give the middle some help?

I wonder why. It'd be fun to be able to talk with him about this.

Capers is quoted in his year end conference saying that "Plans A, B, and C" didn't work. It sounds like he was trying to adjust, but he said the execution of said plans just wasn't there. I think it's been established that a lot of the players were jumping routes prematurely. At least, I've heard people say that was part of the issue.

[get louder at lambeau]

I can show Woodson fucking up OBVIOUSLY on simple highlight video from NFL.com, and have.

And OBVIOUSLY you've pre-concluded from your wealth of football knowledge that yours is the only correct perspective on exactly what's happening in said highlight clips--well, yours and whoever agrees with you. I've argued why those highlights don't tell the entire story in detail and your response is just "..well, it's obvious." Sound familiar? Oh yeah. That's because that's the response that is getting you so worked up about Bush haters. But since you've already decided ahead of time, what's the point?

Sorry, but I don't think "obvious" is too strong a term at all when the guy in question is literally laying on the ground not making a play or covering anyone successfully on video in four different examples. I have said more than once that I'm no expert, and stated that this is from my "unedumacated" point of view, so not sure where your getting that I "pre-concluded from my wealth of football knowledge". Sometimes you don't need to be an expert to see common sense things on video.

ob⋅vi⋅ous

1. easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident: an obvious advantage.

Was that term REALLY that much of an overstatement, when backed with video evidence? Seems pretty adequate to me. It doesn't mean there are no other opinions allowed but mine, it means I believe his fuck-ups are "easily seen, recognized, or understood". The context that I was using it in is one where I make it easily seen with the provided video link, which is exactly what I have been asking for from you and others who are saying Bush's mistakes were obvious-

Let's see some video that just shows where it LOOKS like something is Bush's fault

That's all. Is that really such a horribly off base request? I really don't get why you chose to debate the usage of the term "obvious" instead of just showing some basic evidence to support your viewpoint.

This is just a casual discussion, not a criminal trial. It's not about "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" here, just common sense discussion of football from a fan's perspective. Since when is video evidence not good enough to make basic conclusions from in a discussion on a Packer forum? The argument about needing a full game tape, with all views from all cameras, and a blueprint of the defensive scheme sounds like a cop out to me. Sorry if that pisses you off, but it does. By that logic we can never say anything about the performance of any player without all that evidence, which is literally impossible to get unless you're an NFL employee.

[Smidgeon]

That's all. Is that really such a horribly off base request? I really don't get why you chose to debate the usage of the term "obvious" instead of just showing some basic evidence to support your viewpoint.

This wasn't enough? (from an earlier post in this thread:)

In fact, I went back to the play by play to see what Fitzgerald did in the game. After looking at the catches Fitzgerald made, I would say that it wasn't that bad of a day by Woodson against one of the game's best WRs.

In the first half Fitzgerald had two catches for 20 yards and a lost fumble stripped by Woodson.

In the third quarter Fitzgerald got a defensive PI against Woodson for 9 yards, then the two touchdowns. The first I actually agree was incidental contact where Woodson fell. But Woodson falling on incidental contact isn't him getting schooled by Fitzgerald. That's a freak play that happens to everyone at one point or another. The second touchdown I maintain was a non called offensive PI where Fitzgerald pushed off enough to gain the separation needed to catch that ball. Or, to put it the way the rule book states (sorta), he plowed through a defender with established position. Later on in the quarter Woodson prevented a third down completion attempt to Fitzgerald.

Fourth quarter Fitzgerald had one catch against Woodson for 6 yards and one against Collins for 15. The one against Collins for 15 could have been when Woodson was covering, but I don't know because the Cards went no-huddle on that play.

That was Fitzgerald's entire day. Take away the freak play that could have happened to anyone and the debated offensive PI, and I would say Woodson ruled Fitz and not the other way around. Fitzgerald had three catches for 26 yards except for those two plays. When Woodson was on him and not tripped up by feet or pushed off of, Fitzgerald caught 3 balls, lost a fumble, and couldn't convert on a crucial third down.

The argument about needing a full game tape, with all views from all cameras, and a blueprint of the defensive scheme sounds like a cop out to me. Sorry if that pisses you off, but it does. By that logic we can never say anything about the performance of any player without all that evidence, which is literally impossible to get unless you're an NFL employee.

I agree that we really can't know either way about any player without all the evidence. Which is why I disagree with you saying that it's "so obvious" that Woodson played a bad game. On top of the video replay, I was also looking at the play-by-play statistics. Except I interpreted the video differently than you, which means it must not have been obvious, otherwise we both would have come to the same conclusion.

As for Bush, again, all I've ever said is there was one play where he was a couple steps behind the WR on a catch. I haven't had anything specificly bad to harp on Bush over. That one isn't me. I've only addressed my disagreement that Woodson had a horrible game. That's the only part. He didn't have his best game, but I think it was better than a lot of people are giving him credit for.

People who are saying Woodson had a horrible game are looking at final stats and not how those stats got there. A QB can throw a perfect pass and it will be his receiver that doesn't catch it, instead deflecting a pefectly thrown ball that the defense catches, and yet that INT is a negative stat for the QB even though the QB wasn't responsible for the INT. I've only been arguing that Woodson isn't at fault for those TDs because he wasn't at fault for falling down (or being pushed down as the case may be). That's my only point.

[pbmax]

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

Clearly Capers is just a Bush fanboy. Everyone watching the game knows who really was at fault!

Of course, I should be careful; Silverstein does not source his backing the bus over TWill and Barnett. There is a decent chance he is wrong.

[sharpe1027]

Clearly Capers is just a Bush fanboy. Everyone watching the game knows who really was at fault!

Of course, I should be careful; Silverstein does not source his backing the bus over TWill and Barnett. There is a decent chance he is wrong.

I noticed that too. He wrote the article it to make it sound like it was coming from Capers, but didn't specifically say it came from him. Who knows for sure?

That opinion had to come from somewhere though and I'd put more behind it than people that assumed it was Bush because it was Bush.

[get louder at lambeau]

That's all. Is that really such a horribly off base request? I really don't get why you chose to debate the usage of the term "obvious" instead of just showing some basic evidence to support your viewpoint.

This wasn't enough? (from an earlier post in this thread:)

You misunderstood me here. I was asking if THIS is a horribly off base request, from directly above that statement-

Let's see some video that just shows where it LOOKS like something is Bush's fault

What I am saying is that I have sufficient evidence to claim Woodson fucked up in that game. I never said that he played "horribly", but I DO hold a player accountable for contacting a receiver and falling on his ass. Twice. And for missing on an INT attempt and falling on his face to let the WR run free, and for going for a strip instead of a tackle, missing, and again falling on his ass. Those are not positive plays by any stretch of the imagination, yet you seem to acquit him fully, magically remove those plays from everything but the scoreboard, and say he "ruled Fitz" even though two of those plays I am blaming him for fucking up on weren't even against Fitzgerald, but their #3 and 4 receivers.

My argument isn't even ABOUT Woodson here, it's that I am able to show SOME evidence to show that he played poorly, as opposed to the people blaming Bush, who have provided nothing but opinion without any evidence of any kind for us to consider. Whether or not my evidence is sufficient for you or not, I provided some, and am asking others to do the same in relation to their claims that Bush, Bigby, etc. played poorly.

Our argument about Woodson's play is really just us going off on a tangent from the original topic- that Bush, Bigby, and the young guys were targeted. I'm just a sucker for an argument, I guess, especially when I think you're giving Chuck the "Good ol Brett" treatment, where fans try really hard to not to believe anything is their hero's fault. I'm a big fan of Woodson, but I think he played poorly this week. It looked like that during the game, and it looks like that on highlights.

You talk about me "pre-concluding" things, but my guess before the game would have been the same as everyone else- Woodson would play well, and Bush and the scrubs will struggle. In my opinion, my prediction was wrong. It seems to me that people who still believe the same thing they predicted would happen are the ones with a preconception here, not me.

[Smidgeon]

What I am saying is that I have sufficient evidence to claim Woodson fucked up in that game. I never said that he played "horribly", but I DO hold a player accountable for contacting a receiver and falling on his ass. Twice.

You do know there's a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, don't you? I'm not acquitting his entire game. I never have. Even when I made the "he ruled Fitzgerald" comment, I said it with a disclaimer. But the two TDs I am saying weren't a result of him blowing a coverage or even because he messed up. Was he responsible? Certainly. But in the way a QB is responsible for a tipped pass that turns into an interception. He was competetive on both of the routes. The first time he fell down, even if it was incidental, was because feet got tangled. One of the players happened to keep his feet and one didn't. Can you really say someone had bad coverage because their feet got tangled? If you can, whatever. It was just as likely that Fitzgerald would have fallen as Woodson falling. Yeah, Woodson fell, but it wasn't because of bad coverage. The point on that one was that it happens to everyone and it didn't matter if it was Bush or Underwood or Jolly on that pass. He was in good position to defend the route. If he had stayed on his feet and the TD pass was still thrown, then I'd absolutely blame him for giving up the TD. Kind of like the two consecutive plays against Cutler where Cutler turned Woodson around, the first for a long gain and the second for a TD.

The second TD it didn't matter if Woodson fell or not. If you're going to call offensive pass interferance a blown coverage by Woodson, you and I are not watching the same game.

As for the misses against the #3 and #4 WRs, sure, whatever. I don't really know those plays in question. I don't know if it was Woodson's responsibility to be there on that pass or if he was freelancing or if Collins was supposed to be there or if he was freelancing. Same with Bush. I don't know if it was Bush's fault he was a couple steps behind that receiver on the one drag route or if he broke off another defended route because the ball was already in the air. But I have more faith based on Woodson's portfolio of play this year that he wasn't out of position versus Bush. If it was Woodson's guy, yeah, he had bad coverage. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying there is I don't know. And neither do you. You're making a guess. I'm making a guess. And guesses aren't about obvious things. Obvious things don't have guessing involved.

[sharpe1027]

Smidgeon I think you keep missing the point. Woodson's play is only relevant in that is shows that people have more evidence of his bad play than they do of Bush's. Explaining away Woodson's play just makes it even more wrong that people are throwing Bush under the bus with even less analysis.

Basically, you are proving his point.

[Smidgeon]

Smidgeon I think you keep missing the point. Woodson's play is only relevant in that is shows that people have more evidence of his bad play than they do of Bush's. Explaining away Woodson's play just makes it even more wrong that people are throwing Bush under the bus with even less analysis.

Basically, you are proving his point.

I may be proving one of his points, but I wasn't arguing that there isn't a lot of evidence on Bush's sloppy play from this particular game. I was arguing with his assumption that Woodson played badly and that it was "OBVIOUS" that Woodson played badly.

[sharpe1027]

Smidgeon I think you keep missing the point. Woodson's play is only relevant in that is shows that people have more evidence of his bad play than they do of Bush's. Explaining away Woodson's play just makes it even more wrong that people are throwing Bush under the bus with even less analysis.

Basically, you are proving his point.

I may be proving one of his points, but I wasn't arguing that there isn't a lot of evidence on Bush's sloppy play from this particular game. I was arguing with his assumption that Woodson played badly and that it was "OBVIOUS" that Woodson played badly.

That may be. You still seem to be missing the point. The reason Woodson was mentioned was in the context of Bush. It is natural for the other side to assume you are disagreeing with their main point, otherwise it seems mostly to be argument for the sake of argument.

[get louder at lambeau]

What I am saying is that I have sufficient evidence to claim Woodson fucked up in that game. I never said that he played "horribly", but I DO hold a player accountable for contacting a receiver and falling on his ass. Twice.

You do know there's a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, don't you? I'm not acquitting his entire game. I never have. Even when I made the "he ruled Fitzgerald" comment, I said it with a disclaimer. But the two TDs I am saying weren't a result of him blowing a coverage or even because he messed up. Was he responsible? Certainly. But in the way a QB is responsible for a tipped pass that turns into an interception. He was competetive on both of the routes. The first time he fell down, even if it was incidental, was because feet got tangled. One of the players happened to keep his feet and one didn't. Can you really say someone had bad coverage because their feet got tangled? If you can, whatever. It was just as likely that Fitzgerald would have fallen as Woodson falling. Yeah, Woodson fell, but it wasn't because of bad coverage. The point on that one was that it happens to everyone and it didn't matter if it was Bush or Underwood or Jolly on that pass. He was in good position to defend the route. If he had stayed on his feet and the TD pass was still thrown, then I'd absolutely blame him for giving up the TD. Kind of like the two consecutive plays against Cutler where Cutler turned Woodson around, the first for a long gain and the second for a TD.

The second TD it didn't matter if Woodson fell or not. If you're going to call offensive pass interferance a blown coverage by Woodson, you and I are not watching the same game.

As for the misses against the #3 and #4 WRs, sure, whatever. I don't really know those plays in question. I don't know if it was Woodson's responsibility to be there on that pass or if he was freelancing or if Collins was supposed to be there or if he was freelancing. Same with Bush. I don't know if it was Bush's fault he was a couple steps behind that receiver on the one drag route or if he broke off another defended route because the ball was already in the air. But I have more faith based on Woodson's portfolio of play this year that he wasn't out of position versus Bush. If it was Woodson's guy, yeah, he had bad coverage. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying there is I don't know. And neither do you. You're making a guess. I'm making a guess. And guesses aren't about obvious things. Obvious things don't have guessing involved.

Circumstantial evidence? You really do sound like a defense lawyer. Wow. Next you'll get all Bill Clinton on me, and argue what the definition of "is" is. As I have stated MORE THAN ONCE, I'm not trying to prove anyone "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" here. We are fans discussing a football game on a Packer forum, not lawyers in a criminal trial.

You know what else I would say is obvious? That the second TD was NOT offensive pass interference. The pass was not thrown until Woodson was on his ass. Not only that, but he ran right at Fitz, and squared up his shoulders like he was going deliver a block. Then he's on his ass. Circumstantially, of course.

[SnakeLH2006]

you think Mike McKenzie is not better than Jarrett Bush?

exactly new guy

i've said it before and i'll say it again. bush should never be allowed on the field. we would almost be better off only putting 10 guys out of defense

he's just a disaster. myself and other of said almost all year that you have to find something better then bush, he's too mush of a liability

they made us pay last night for keeping bush. he was burned over and over again

Personally, Red is spot on. I've never seen a guy contribute so little to a win, yet able to contribute so much to a loss other than Jarrett Bush. I still can't believe that an undrafted CB/S couldn't do what he does on ST (occasional tackle) and on dime D (blow coverage after coverage) for much cheaper. Jarrett Bush is a millionairre. How's that feel? He makes millions to suck!