One Exec "Packers Have Much Work To Do"

[woodbuck27]

Or, two injuries and one addiction can completely change the nature of a roster position when they occur within 3 years of each other. If Jennings, Driver and Nelson were wiped off the map by injury and addiction, would we be screaming that Thompson can't draft WR?

Solid point. Good post.

[pbmax]

We've got four talented/quality starters 'circa 2011 Packers' in our front seven. News to me !

a) Enlighten me pbmax. Name them please. Thanks. (-:

Of course it is news to you, you have decided to have an argument based on a single statistic (last year's Pass D) and one cause (front seven QB pressure) of that stat. By that measure, the Packers have the worst Defense of all time (I think by one yard over the Patriots of '11). So to you, it is some kind of magic or statistical fluke that the Defense actually conceded the 19th most points in the League.

The obvious answer to your question is Raji, Pickett, Hawk and Matthews. And that, as was the point of the prior posts, is just the first rounders. Bishop can clearly play as well.

b) What's all that got to do with today? Does that change the water on the beans?

The Green Bay Packers have *'the worst ranked defense' in the NFL. What's the evidence of that fact...the TRUTH? That fact is published constantly. **Don't you believe it pbmax? **

The New York GIANTS certainly took advantage of *that fact* in a lopsided loss as we went one and out last season in the playoff's. The New York GIANTS IMO took advantage of certain Packer arrogance or over confidence in the face of having a defense that distinctly sucks.

If you think the Giants game turned on the performance of the defense, then you have not absorbed the actual evidence of that game.

And, no, as has been discussed quite at length in dozens of posts, the worst defense moniker, when measured by total yards, is a horrible way to measure defensive success. So I do not think the Packers had the worst defense in the league. As for changing the water on the beans, see the next answer.

** Here's the crux of my position, pbmax.

Going back to the Detroit Lions regular season game in the latter portion of the 2010 season. Do you recall how you felt after that game? Do you recall the condition of our team in regards to the condition of adversity it was in? We're you totally confident that we were then playoff bound? Moreso bound to do as well as we did in the playoffs?

After that Detroit lions game were you sure that theb Green Bay Packers were going to that Super Bowl and actually become Super bowl Champs?

Of course not. But that is the way the playoffs go these days. The best regular season team is not winning as often as 6th seeds. The Giants have done it twice, the Packers once plus the Steelers. That's four times in a decade. Twice in the last two years. You cannot credit the Giants success without acknowledging the similarities between the two teams.

And by the way, the problem the Packer had in the Lion game was not the defense. Meaning that the entire point of this wist inspired tangent, that somehow Thompson has twice put together the talent for a top ten defense for Capers, yet does not know what he is doing, is limited in its scope to one year and a handful of games. And it is also where you and wist part ways. You think Thompson and the team's success was an anomaly in 2010 despite the Super Bowl, and that 2011 is the better measure.

Your differing standards of evidence depending on which side of the argument you occupy is interesting. Apparently, the Favre drama, the 2011 Giants playoff game and the Lions game of 2010 offer compelling evidence of Thompson's flaws.

But the Super Bowl win was a fluke, as are the most regular season victories and Rodgers presence on the team.

wist has a tenable position in the lack of D line roster success. Your position that Thompson is failing is not serious.

[Smidgeon]

Of course it is news to you, you have decided to have an argument based on a single statistic (last year's Pass D) and one cause (front seven QB pressure) of that stat. By that measure, the Packers have the worst Defense of all time (I think by one yard over the Patriots of '11). So to you, it is some kind of magic or statistical fluke that the Defense actually conceded the 19th most points in the League.

The obvious answer to your question is Raji, Pickett, Hawk and Matthews. And that, as was the point of the prior posts, is just the first rounders. Bishop can clearly play as well.



If you think the Giants game turned on the performance of the defense, then you have not absorbed the actual evidence of that game.

And, no, as has been discussed quite at length in dozens of posts, the worst defense moniker, when measured by total yards, is a horrible way to measure defensive success. So I do not think the Packers had the worst defense in the league. As for changing the water on the beans, see the next answer.



Of course not. But that is the way the playoffs go these days. The best regular season team is not winning as often as 6th seeds. The Giants have done it twice, the Packers once plus the Steelers. That's four times in a decade. Twice in the last two years. You cannot credit the Giants success without acknowledging the similarities between the two teams.

And by the way, the problem the Packer had in the Lion game was not the defense. Meaning that the entire point of this wist inspired tangent, that somehow Thompson has twice put together the talent for a top ten defense for Capers, yet does not know what he is doing, is limited in its scope to one year and a handful of games. And it is also where you and wist part ways. You think Thompson and the team's success was an anomaly in 2010 despite the Super Bowl, and that 2011 is the better measure.

Your differing standards of evidence depending on which side of the argument you occupy is interesting. Apparently, the Favre drama, the 2011 Giants playoff game and the Lions game of 2010 offer compelling evidence of Thompson's flaws.

But the Super Bowl win was a fluke, as are the most regular season victories and Rodgers presence on the team.

wist has a tenable position in the lack of D line roster success. Your position that Thompson is failing is not serious.

Repped.

[Deputy Nutz]

Or, two injuries and one addiction can completely change the nature of a roster position when they occur within 3 years of each other. If Jennings, Driver and Nelson were wiped off the map by injury and addiction, would we be screaming that Thompson can't draft WR?

Jolly had character issues going into the draft, and Harrell had injury history coming out as well. The flags were up TT took the gamble.

[woodbuck27]

Of course it is news to you, you have decided to have an argument based on a single statistic (last year's Pass D) and one cause (front seven QB pressure) of that stat. By that measure, the Packers have the worst Defense of all time (I think by one yard over the Patriots of '11). So to you, it is some kind of magic or statistical fluke that the Defense actually conceded the 19th most points in the League.

The obvious answer to your question is Raji, Pickett, Hawk and Matthews. And that, as was the point of the prior posts, is just the first rounders. Bishop can clearly play as well.



If you think the Giants game turned on the performance of the defense, then you have not absorbed the actual evidence of that game.

And, no, as has been discussed quite at length in dozens of posts, the worst defense moniker, when measured by total yards, is a horrible way to measure defensive success. So I do not think the Packers had the worst defense in the league. As for changing the water on the beans, see the next answer.



Of course not. But that is the way the playoffs go these days. The best regular season team is not winning as often as 6th seeds. The Giants have done it twice, the Packers once plus the Steelers. That's four times in a decade. Twice in the last two years. You cannot credit the Giants success without acknowledging the similarities between the two teams.

And by the way, the problem the Packer had in the Lion game was not the defense. Meaning that the entire point of this wist inspired tangent, that somehow Thompson has twice put together the talent for a top ten defense for Capers, yet does not know what he is doing, is limited in its scope to one year and a handful of games. And it is also where you and wist part ways. You think Thompson and the team's success was an anomaly in 2010 despite the Super Bowl, and that 2011 is the better measure.

Your differing standards of evidence depending on which side of the argument you occupy is interesting. Apparently, the Favre drama, the 2011 Giants playoff game and the Lions game of 2010 offer compelling evidence of Thompson's flaws.

But the Super Bowl win was a fluke, as are the most regular season victories and Rodgers presence on the team.

wist has a tenable position in the lack of D line roster success. Your position that Thompson is failing is not serious.

WOW!

Did you attend the same writing school as me?

That is a long post. It's reminds me of member...woodbuck27.

Please 'be patient'. I need nourishment...ENERGY... to just read that.... moreso respond.

I'll be back. Trust that, pbmax.

Blessings.

[3irty1]

Luckily for us all we really need is a front 6. The Packers most used and most needed defense is the 2-4, not the 3-4 and we have the tough spots filled but need a few role players to round-out our sub-packages and characters who can rotate in once in a while.

By my count we have a few different versions of the 2-4, a run-stopping version that we use often on first down with Pickett and Raji as our down lineman. In this formation McCarthy hinted that we'll also start seeing Jarrett Bush replacing Sam Shields because he is the superior run defender. The point of a formation like this basically to dare the offense to run as we'll line up in the 2-4 even against offensive formations with 2 TE's or a TE and a FB. Currently this formation puts our best 11 guys on the field because it puts Ryan Pickett, master of stuffing the run, on the field. The weak link of this formation was Walden last year who would most commonly line up across from the opposing team's LT (generally their best pass-blocker) who Walden could rarely challenge on passing plays and wasn't really useful going against lineman on running plays either.

Our passing version of the 2-4, arguably the most important 11 players on our defense was much weaker in 2011 than 2010 due mainly to the loss of Jenkins who along with Raji would account for our down linemen. Jarius Wynn was a pleasant surprise last year and if he takes another step forward or if Mike Neal can play healthy, we'll look better here but what is really needed is a guy to spell Raji. It's not normal for a NT to stay in on 3rd down. Raji is a fine pass rusher for his size but he plays the most physically exhausting position in football and IMO we ask too much of him. Basically we need a player here that is worth double teaming like Jenkins was. If lineman draw double teams the offense is forced to keep more guys in to block, making coverage easier and providing more time for players to win their one-on-ones up front. I'll still argue here that our biggest need again though is OLB. Dom likes Clay on the left vs the right tackle because although Clay is a great player he's not such a great pass rusher that you wouldn't trust your LT to handle him on their own. Clay will win that battle sometimes, but on the other side you pretty much have to leave a TE or RB there to help block. We put Walden vs their LT to force the offense to "waste" their best pass-blocker to be used on our worst pass-rusher. If we had someone in there who could actually win that battle occasionally, things start looking exponentially better for us.

The 3-4 we are actually pretty set at with the addition of Muir. The 3-4 is a run stopping formation. In 2010 it was incredibly effective with Pickett, Raji, and Green with Wilson as a rotational player. Wilson and Green both had big drop-offs in play last year to the point where Wynn was our best option and played well. Muir is the high motor run defender that will solidify this formation for us. Walden and IMO Hawk were the weak links of our 3-4 last season and the fact that they usually played next to each other made things even uglier. Muir will help, but replacing Walden will improve this formation quite a bit when this defense is passed on as it opens up zone-blitzes. Walden isn't a threat to rush, and Clay is the only threat to rush so its not hard to guess which 4 are coming. Putting a solid pass rusher opposite Matthews lets us use drop Matthews or even a lineman into coverage for some pretty fancy shit.

In conclusion I rank our defensive position needs from most to least important like so: OLB, S, DE

[woodbuck27]

Is Repped...a generation 'X' term ? Does it mean the same as 'Bump'?

Is the term 'Bump' no longer politically correct?

I'm genuinely and obviously in the celler on that one. (-:

[wist43]

That is a pretty uneducated assumption IMHO. Coming into last year, the defense was coming off a relatively good performance. By your own admission, there was a serious drop off in their performance. Do you simply you assume that you are the only person that could see that?

The players are exactly the same this year as last; sans Jenkins, whom TT didn't value enough to bid for; and, Hargrove and Muir who signed minimum wage contracts.

We may have won the SB, and the defense may have gotten away with gimmickry for a time, but I could certainly tell it was all smoke, mirrors, and guys playing way over their heads. I could clearly see the Packers had serious deficiencies in their front seven. Capers gimmicks could hold down the fort for only so long b/4 offenses caught up to it, and exposed our lack of talent.

That's what I clearly saw last offseason - winning the SB notwithstanding.

As I said, nothing has changed for the Packers front seven since last offseason - an offseason in which TT did absolutely nothing to build, rebuild, or augment the defensive front. Last year, if TT evaluated his front seven as being so solid that he need not even address the position at all last year - what makes any of you think he's changed his views??

I saw the deficiency last year from my couch; TT either didn't see it and erred in his evaluations; or he did see, but didn't think it a big enough problem to address.

Which brings us to this draft - if TT erred in his evaluations, will he man up; admit it; and make the moves necessary to rebuild a completely dead segment of the roster??

- or -

Will TT stick to his guns; stick to his evaluations, and the first front seven guy we see get drafted is in the 6th round??

[Smidgeon]

Is Repped...a generation 'X' term ? Does it mean the same as 'Bump'?

Is the term 'Bump' no longer politically correct?

I'm genuinely and obviously in the celler on that one. (-:

"Repped" means that I valued the insight in his post and therefore added "Reputation Points" to his account.

[Scott Campbell]

We may have won the SB, and the defense may have gotten away with gimmickry for a time, but I could certainly tell it was all smoke, mirrors, and guys playing way over their heads.

Yeah, a 19 game fluke winning streak.

That's what I clearly saw last offseason - winning the SB notwithstanding.

That's what you see every year - utter despair mixed with a healthy dose of doom and gloom. At least 7 years in a row of it.

Ted screwed up your annual hari kari ceremony with that stupid Superbowl win.



But I still think you're a good poster, and read all your stuff.

[sharpe1027]

Wist, are you basing your entire analysis of TT's supposed ego/refusal to admit mistakes upon last year's draft? TT has drafted equal numbers of defense and offense and he has used his higher picks more often for defensive players. The argument used to be that he would never trade up, of course, he did exactly that to get Matthews. This new argument about not valuing defense is all smoke and mirrors. If he drafted defensive players last draft, there would probably be other holes in the roster that you would be complaining about.

You can fault him for drafting defensive players that didn't pan out, but I don't buy an argument that he ignores the defense because he thinks it is fine.

IMO, if you draft for your defensive front because you need it, rather than because there are good players available, you lose out in the long run.

[wist43]

Yeah, a 19 game fluke winning streak.





That's what you see every year - utter despair mixed with a healthy dose of doom and gloom. At least 7 years in a row of it.

Ted screwed up your annual hari kari ceremony with that stupid Superbowl win.



But I still think you're a good poster, and read all your stuff.

lol... got a chuckle out of that; havin' surgery tomorrow, so laughing is good

[pbmax]

Jolly had character issues going into the draft, and Harrell had injury history coming out as well. The flags were up TT took the gamble.

Driver had a few marks against him, did he not? Though I am not sure if any GM asked him if his mother was a hooker.

I'll give you Jolly, but Jolly was never considered the prime answer to the question except the year Corey Williams was traded to Cleveland.

Harrell was undone by a back injury, that on the surface, doesn't seem related to a bicep or shoulder injury.

[pbmax]

Luckily for us all we really need is a front 6. The Packers most used and most needed defense is the 2-4, not the 3-4 and we have the tough spots filled but need a few role players to round-out our sub-packages and characters who can rotate in once in a while.

snip

In conclusion I rank our defensive position needs from most to least important like so: OLB, S, DE

I am with you, though Collins could change this. Even if he does, though, I think they need a CB as well.

[pbmax]

The players are exactly the same this year as last; sans Jenkins, whom TT didn't value enough to bid for; and, Hargrove and Muir who signed minimum wage contracts.

We may have won the SB, and the defense may have gotten away with gimmickry for a time, but I could certainly tell it was all smoke, mirrors, and guys playing way over their heads. I could clearly see the Packers had serious deficiencies in their front seven. Capers gimmicks could hold down the fort for only so long b/4 offenses caught up to it, and exposed our lack of talent.

That's what I clearly saw last offseason - winning the SB notwithstanding.

Well, maybe you and woodbuck are not having a parting of the way on this topic after all.