Official Packers @ Seahawks game week discussion

[RashanGary]

In a hurry. . . . Nothing to add. . . .


Well, would love to see us play some decent zone defense this week. . .

[3irty1]

Sadly this could be the best secondary we've faced so far. If the offense can get going in this game I'll be surprised. Defensively the Packers have no excuses. They should eat this team alive.

[RashanGary]

Sadly this could be the best secondary we've faced so far. If the offense can get going in this game I'll be surprised. Defensively the Packers have no excuses. They should eat this team alive.

I'm not as certain as you. Shields is equally bad at zone coverage as Bush. He's a total turd. Wilson is a scrambling QB. We can't just turn our backs on him.

Woodson, Burnett, Hayward, House and Williams have shown the ability to play zone. Our defense can't just stack the box and have Collins clean up the whole back end of the field for us. Now we have to play games with our eyes to the ball. Not all of them, but some of them.

Chicago, we were able to play man defense all day. That's not going to be the case every week. There is some growing to do back there. A lot of it. We just got lucky, the way the game went in Chicago, their OL, and the way they tried to attack us. I'm not anointing them yet. So far, they've shown zero signs that they can play zone, and if they can't, we're going to get destroyed by good teams who match up well against us. We need to be more well rounded. Thsi game will put that to the test, well more like a pop quiz. The test will come in January and we'll fail it if we had to take it now. I think we'll have to play zone next Sunday, and I think Shields will get eaten alive.

[Iron Mike]

I'll be there. Watch for me on t.v.

[Pugger]

I wonder who will start at QB...

[Smeefers]

Huh, I thought shields was much better in zone than the other CB's we had on the team - as in almost as good as Tramon. I don't know, maybe you get that NFL channel where you get the coaches footage or something and have seen something I haven't seen. The way I always saw it was shields speed has been what makes him better in zone than in man. Last year he did get in quite a bit of trouble for jumping routes, but it's hard to base his overall performance on last year. If you were to do that, our entire secondary should be shit canned for the rookies. You can't make excuses for williams and woodson and then just throw everyone else to the flames.

I suppose I could get into the stats, but I don't want to. Instead I'll just say this. If you go back and look at our DB's tackling numbers from last year and then you look at them from 2010, you're going to see a pretty big jump. That's because the whole defense was out of wack. There was no pressure, LB's weren't doing a fantastic job of tackling so at times it would come to the DB's and the DB's were getting crushed because everyone's coverage had slipped. From looking at the SF game, I knew Bush was the same guy he's been for the last 6 years. Tough as nails, but just not very good on the field. Having learned that, I look at the Bears game and I'll tell you what, to me, shields looked like he was picking up where he left off from his rookie year. His stat line reads zeros and to me, that's actually a pretty good thing. I think the words "eaten alive" may be a bit to aggresive.

[RashanGary]

Hey Smeefers. . .

If you picture the plays shields makes, he's either trailing a WR (using his speed) or matched up one on one and jumps a route.

He doesn't settle in and make plays on the ball. He's usually lost.

[sharpe1027]

CBs trail wrs and jump routes in both man and zone. The difference is whether you hand off responsibility at a certain point.

[RashanGary]

CBs trail wrs and jump routes in both man and zone. The difference is whether you hand off responsibility at a certain point.

I hope I'm off on it. Would love if he grabbed that job by the balls and ran with it. The longer he holds up, the more time it gives House to get a full recovery (even if he does have to wear the precautionary brace.) House has said he thought he would have to change his game, like Wood and Twill did, but after all of his time off (something the other two didn't get) he didn't have to change anything on the practice field.

I'd still love to see him get more time, and if Shields has some stinkers in zone coverage 6 weeks down the road, House could get another chance, and maybe be an upgrade.

To Shields credit, every DB struggled with zone coverage all last year with that piss poor pass rush. Matthews struggled. No matter how great the player, the makeup of that team made everyone worse for it. I very well could be off a mile on this, and I hope to heck I am. If Capers said thats Shields best game as a Packers, my mouth is shut until he proves otherwise.

Guy is a playmaker as a man corner. If he can even be average in zone, he's still a differnce maker. I retract my posts. I don't have nearly enough dots to connect, and it looks like the ones I am connecting might not even be part of the picture.

[rbaloha1]

Appears SS swagger has returned with fearless tackling.

My bigger concern is Capers problems when facing rookie qbs.

Agree that Seattle's secondary length creates problems. A-rod has to be more precise.

[Fritz]

Appears SS swagger has returned with fearless tackling.

My bigger concern is Capers problems when facing rookie qbs.

Agree that Seattle's secondary length creates problems. A-rod has to be more precise.

I think Rodgers has been plenty precise. And in doing so, sometimes he puts the ball in places a defender cant....quite....reach - but that are barely reachable by his receivers. And so far, they've not done a good job of making those tough catches.

I think this season will be one of slow growth. The defense seemed to improve against the Bears, but the offense is slow to grow. But this week, the defense might appear to take a step back, and the offense might improve. Or, more likely, the defense will look a little shaky until they get a handle on Wilson's scrambling, and then settle in. The offense might look unfamiliar to us once more this week.


But too many fans shriveled up after the SF game - and I think the players and coaches responded to that with the Will Farrell Semi-Pro clip. They're not panicking inside Lambeau, nor should the fans. It's early. Remember the gnashing of teeth after the Washington and Miami losses two years ago? I was one of them, but I'm trying to learn that the season is long, and it's not whether you're the best team in the league at the beginning, it's whether you are at the end.

So shrivel not, my fellow Packer fans. Let's look for a "W" and some signs of progress, however small. Oh, and no major injuries.

[rbaloha1]

I think Rodgers has been plenty precise. And in doing so, sometimes he puts the ball in places a defender cant....quite....reach - but that are barely reachable by his receivers. And so far, they've not done a good job of making those tough catches.

I think this season will be one of slow growth. The defense seemed to improve against the Bears, but the offense is slow to grow. But this week, the defense might appear to take a step back, and the offense might improve. Or, more likely, the defense will look a little shaky until they get a handle on Wilson's scrambling, and then settle in. The offense might look unfamiliar to us once more this week.


But too many fans shriveled up after the SF game - and I think the players and coaches responded to that with the Will Farrell Semi-Pro clip. They're not panicking inside Lambeau, nor should the fans. It's early. Remember the gnashing of teeth after the Washington and Miami losses two years ago? I was one of them, but I'm trying to learn that the season is long, and it's not whether you're the best team in the league at the beginning, it's whether you are at the end.

So shrivel not, my fellow Packer fans. Let's look for a "W" and some signs of progress, however small. Oh, and no major injuries.

Is it precision or timing? IMO its probably more timing. Clearly the passing game is not where it should be.

[George Cumby]

Here's the box from the Dal SEA game:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=20120916026

Birds ran it down D's throat and picked up a couple of TO's. Passing advantage heavily to the 'Boys. ToP to the Birds.

If GB stops the run, I think we're good.

Caveat: I have seen none of the game so this is pure extrapolation from numbers.

[mission]

Here's the box from the Dal SEA game:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=20120916026

Birds ran it down D's throat and picked up a couple of TO's. Passing advantage heavily to the 'Boys. ToP to the Birds.

If GB stops the run, I think we're good.

Caveat: I have seen none of the game so this is pure extrapolation from numbers.

Watched most of it, I'd say that's pretty true. Lynch looked really tough and constantly put them in good down/distance situations.

[denverYooper]

Here's the box from the Dal SEA game:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=20120916026

Birds ran it down D's throat and picked up a couple of TO's. Passing advantage heavily to the 'Boys. ToP to the Birds.

If GB stops the run, I think we're good.

Caveat: I have seen none of the game so this is pure extrapolation from numbers.

I don't think many people outside of the Pacific NW ever see many Seahawks games.