Negatives

[wist43]

wist must be the most Negative Nellie I've ever read on any Packer forum. Criticizing the defense this year when the offense is the one being offensive. Brilliant.

I'm only criticizing Capers when he comes out and does dumb shit like that 3rd and 5.

When Chicago came out after half time and ran the ball - like they should have been doing from the opening kickoff, Capers didn't play any gimmicks, he stayed in the 3-4. We still couldn't stop the Bears running game - the Bears stopped the Bears running game; but at least he played chess the way you're supposed to play chess.

[th87]

I'm sure you're right, the Packers didn't miss Jenkins last year

Strawman.

Also, I'm pretty sure SB winning coaches with 20 years of NFL experience know a little more about what "should" be done.

[mraynrand]

Its a little of both. Seattle was the first team not to stay deep like it was a Hail Mary on each play. JSO called it "daring them to pass" as opposed to the Bears and 49ers daring them to run. So by alignment, it was a defense they should have been able to torch with the pass. But you are correct that they played pass rush all the way with their ends. Its one of the few times they shouldn't have tried to take what the defense was giving them.

Good point about the receivers. I was mostly thinking of the mentality of the linemen and LBs - nobody was even thinking run. I think Cobb's run illustrated that. Hopefully Stubby will be Stubbilicious today and not repeat the Seattle Clusterstubby of a first half.

[pbmax]

Packers Defense by Halves versus the Bears:

50 offensive plays Total (all pass atts, no FG or punts)
23 rush
27 pass

1st half
18 total/9 rush/9pass

13-0 Packers favor, Bears 47 net yards and 4 first downs

2nd half
32 total/14 rush/18 pass

10-10 tie in half, Bears 121 net yards, 7 first down


wist's cranky recollections aside (Bears ran more in the first half), if you judge by results, play the sub Defenses and let the Bears run to nowhere.

[rbaloha1]

Who cares about the number of d-linemen? This season the schemes are working. Defense is much improved due to Hawk and Pickett steeping it up and rookies.

[packer4life]

Who cares about the number of d-linemen? This season the schemes are working. Defense is much improved due to Hawk and Pickett steeping it up and rookies.

This statement is enough to disprove the last 3 novels wist has written on this topic.

[wist43]

Strawman.

Also, I'm pretty sure SB winning coaches with 20 years of NFL experience know a little more about what "should" be done.

Not a strawman, you brought it up - I simply point out the ridiculous semblance of defense the Packers played last year - record setting futility btw; and you say, "it's all good".

TT didn't give Capers much to work with last year - again, don't think that's a controversial statement. Only you homers get your panties in a bunch. It's pretty ridiculous for you guys to be defending last years pass defense - again, what part of record setting futility don't you understand??

[th87]

Not a strawman, you brought it up - I simply point out the ridiculous semblance of defense the Packers played last year - record setting futility btw; and you say, "it's all good".

TT didn't give Capers much to work with last year - again, don't think that's a controversial statement. Only you homers get your panties in a bunch. It's pretty ridiculous for you guys to be defending last years pass defense - again, what part of record setting futility don't you understand??

Sigh. Another strawman. Never did I say it was all good - we were garbage on defense. But you tried to make the argument that not having Jenkins is what killed our defense. I pointed out that we played well without Jenkins in 2010 - implying then that our woes in 2011 were not solely because of the loss of Jenkins. Jenkins was erroneously deemed expendable by TT because of our performance without him in 2010. He was wrong, but our defense's problems were far bigger than that.

[wist43]

Sigh. Another strawman. Never did I say it was all good - we were garbage on defense. But you tried to make the argument that not having Jenkins is what killed our defense. I pointed out that we played well without Jenkins in 2010 - implying then that our woes in 2011 were not solely because of the loss of Jenkins. Jenkins was erroneously deemed expendable by TT because of our performance without him in 2010. He was wrong, but our defense's problems were far bigger than that.

lol... now you're saying exactly what I've been saying, but accuse me of floating another strawman?? Good grief. I've never said that losing Jenkins was the sole reason for our futility, and I never said we didn't maintain at least a half way decent level of play when he was out prior to our SB run.

Our defense stunk to bloody heaven last year - and homer Packer fans can't stand to hear that. I state it as fact, and everyone attacks me simply b/c they don't like the messenger. Doesn't make it less true, and doesn't mean I'll back off of telling it the way it is. After discussing some of Capers idiotic alignments with some posters, I've come to the conclusion that most of these folks can't tell the difference between a football and soccerball.

[th87]

lol... now you're saying exactly what I've been saying, but accuse me of floating another strawman?? Good grief. I've never said that losing Jenkins was the sole reason for our futility, and I never said we didn't maintain at least a half way decent level of play when he was out prior to our SB run.

Our defense stunk to bloody heaven last year - and homer Packer fans can't stand to hear that. I state it as fact, and everyone attacks me simply b/c they don't like the messenger. Doesn't make it less true, and doesn't mean I'll back off of telling it the way it is. After discussing some of Capers idiotic alignments with some posters, I've come to the conclusion that most of these folks can't tell the difference between a football and soccerball.

My only post on this thread was to point out that we did okay without Jenkins in 2010. I don't disagree with the rest of your statement - the defense was a joke last year, and I doubt you'll find anyone who disagrees.

What people do disagree with is your specific criticism of what should be done in-game. You, as far as I know, are not qualified enough to make those judgments. As far as I know, they saw more film than you to decide to use a certain alignment, etc. It is fair to say that the defense needs to play better, and do appear to do better in man, but those are just guesses on my part. For NFL professionals whose jobs and income depend on analyzing what to do in game situations, I'm sure they've thought of whatever it is you're suggesting.

[wist43]

My only post on this thread was to point out that we did okay without Jenkins in 2010. I don't disagree with the rest of your statement - the defense was a joke last year, and I doubt you'll find anyone who disagrees.

What people do disagree with is your specific criticism of what should be done in-game. You, as far as I know, are not qualified enough to make those judgments. As far as I know, they saw more film than you to decide to use a certain alignment, etc. It is fair to say that the defense needs to play better, and do appear to do better in man, but those are just guesses on my part. For NFL professionals whose jobs and income depend on analyzing what to do in game situations, I'm sure they've thought of whatever it is you're suggesting.

That's a cop out... coaches do stupid shit all the time within games - if their shit didn't stink, sports reporters, analysts, sports radio hosts... none of 'em would have a job, and we should all be watching like drones.

I know a fair amount about the game; and when it comes to the zig or zag of it all... it isn't that difficult to figure it out. This isn't rocket science, and noticing and commenting on the fact that rushing 2 is useless doesn't require a PhD in x's and o's.

[Zool]

I still want my question answered

[mraynrand]

I still want my question answered

You want answers?

[th87]

That's a cop out... coaches do stupid shit all the time within games - if their shit didn't stink, sports reporters, analysts, sports radio hosts... none of 'em would have a job, and we should all be watching like drones.

I know a fair amount about the game; and when it comes to the zig or zag of it all... it isn't that difficult to figure it out. This isn't rocket science, and noticing and commenting on the fact that rushing 2 is useless doesn't require a PhD in x's and o's.

The sports commentary industry is predicated on people complaining about what didn't (past tense) work - there's a lot of money in that. And there will be a lot of instances of things not working, because the other guys are getting paid to beat you too. So we put on our expert hats, and proclaim, "See? They should've rushed four, and if they did, they would've won." This assumes that these people who have been immersed in football their entire lives somehow didn't consider the simple modification of rushing four.

That's absurd to me. These people are generally very good at what they do (it's a multimillion dollar industry where every potential edge is investigated), and if they felt that rushing two was the correct course of action, I'd like to think that there was some very good reason they decided to go that way. Otherwise, why would they? You seem to think that Capers is either a blind zealot of his "cutesy" schemes, a complete idiot, or both. And I don't think you get to the level he's at by being those things. If it was so easy, everyone would do it.

So without their qualifications, all we can comment on are the results. It does seem that the Capers defense can't play zone. It does seem that the NFL has caught up to our defense. And based on this, we can definitely opine that this isn't working, and that we need to go in a different direction. But we are not honestly qualified to criticize in-game tactics (for an accomplished coach, anyway) - they are simply privy to much more information and knowledge than us.

[3irty1]

3rd and 5 is not the same as 3rd and 1. Its a passing situation. That one DL look is still just a nickle package. At most we would have had 2 DL there anyways in a 2-4 nickle. There is an advantage to the 1-5 psycho too though, its too confusing for a man-to-man power running scheme, it has too much speed to beat outside, and is probably indicating a blitz so there is no way of knowing which gaps are the right ones. Solid defensive call IMO.