Dynasty

[Fritz]

I don't understand this "the Packers are too small" line.

They did get rid of Brent Favre, and everybody knows - thanks for sending that pic out, Brent! - how small he was.

[rbaloha1]

Their defense certainly has been lacking the last two years, but as recently as 2010 it was fairly decent, which makes their recent performances all the more confusing.
I think the loss of Collins has been huge for the defense. He covered a lot of mistakes made in front of him, prevented a lot of big plays with his speed, and made impact plays.
The injury to Williams has also hurt. It has made him into a different player the last two seasons.
Woodson has declined significantly. It was inevitable, but still hurts
They really haven't had anything but role players at DL for a long time. They got away with it in 2010, but it has been exploited by teams the last two seasons.

There could be help on the way. I have hope for Perry, for some reason not really clear to me. I have a feeling he and Matthews could become a dynamic pair.
Hayward looks to be able to make up for some of the loss from Woodson's decline.
With good health (a long shot, I know) Shields and House might make up for the change in Williams, who could lose his starting job in 2013.
I should know better than to think this, but Neal just might salvage his career yet.
Hopefully Bishop returns as the player he was when he was hurt, although I'm not convinced that it will happen that way.

They need improvement at MLB. They need a dynamic, impact player at safety. I don't think they have one on the roster right now, so they may need to go get one. They need at least one well-rounded DL, and can use as many of those as they can get.

Generally agree with your analysis.

2010 was a year of 15 players on injured reserve with street free agents like Zombo and Green playing big successful roles. Plugging in these type of players and winning a super bowl was amazing and widely admired by the league.

Moving forward -- these are not the type of players that a team can have continued high success.

The Packers shortcomings on defense have been widely exposed especially in the front seven. An average front seven can be exposed in the option while a superior one can control the option as evidenced by the Ravens holding Gore to 29 yards rushing. IMO stopping the dive is the key to playing the option.

Sorry -- Mike Daniels, Neal and Worthy do not have enough size to play a full season of pounding. Packers need more Wolfolk, Ngata types. They are available in the draft. Moving Perry inside with Bishop adds the type of bulk and strength required to play inside.

It is interesting watching TT's proteges building big, powerful and fast rosters.

[pbmax]

An average front seven can be exposed in the option while a superior one can control the option as evidenced by the Ravens holding Gore to 29 yards rushing. IMO stopping the dive is the key to playing the option.

Sorry -- Mike Daniels, Neal and Worthy do not have enough size to play a full season of pounding. Packers need more Wolfolk, Ngata types. They are available in the draft. Moving Perry inside with Bishop adds the type of bulk and strength required to play inside.

It is interesting watching TT's proteges building big, powerful and fast rosters.

Just give this up. You have reached the point not only of diminishing returns but of making our points for us.

Here is a partial list of things you got wrong or don't understand:
1. Frank Gore did not rush for 29 yards in the Super Bowl. He had 110 yards rushing.
1a. His yards came mostly from Iso and Power runs, not dives.
2. That dominating front seven of the Ravens, led by Ngata, yielded 182 net yards rushing.
3. The Ravens, like the Falcons, decided that dying like the Packers was not an attractive choice. They choose to take away the option for Kaepernick and had their DE or OLB maintain outside contain or run at the QB, giving CK a give read on virtually every play. Despite this, Ck rushed for 62 yards.
4. If your game plan strategy was sound, the Packers should have beaten the 49ers (or held their offense in check) as they yielded fewer inside yards to Gore than the Falcons or Ravens. That didn't happen. What did, in fact, happen was that Harbaugh, Roman and mostly Ck demonstrated the a running and scrambling CK was far more dangerous than Gore.

Please just stop.

[rbaloha1]

Just give this up. You have reached the point not only of diminishing returns but of making our points for us.

Here is a partial list of things you got wrong or don't understand:
1. Frank Gore did not rush for 29 yards in the Super Bowl. He had 110 yards rushing.
1a. His yards came mostly from Iso and Power runs, not dives.
2. That dominating front seven of the Ravens, led by Ngata, yielded 182 net yards rushing.

Ngata was out for a good portion of the game -- who won the game

3. The Ravens, like the Falcons, decided that dying like the Packers was not an attractive choice. They choose to take away the option for Kaepernick and had their DE or OLB maintain outside contain or run at the QB, giving CK a give read on virtually every play. Despite this, Ck rushed for 62 yards.

Again not off spread option plays

4. If your game plan strategy was sound, the Packers should have beaten the 49ers (or held their offense in check) as they yielded fewer inside yards to Gore than the Falcons or Ravens. That didn't happen. What did, in fact, happen was that Harbaugh, Roman and mostly Ck demonstrated the a running and scrambling CK was far more dangerous than Gore.

The Packers game strategy was bad and part of it was due to poor game planning and bad personnel


Please just stop.

Never until you do.

Okay misread the gore number.

CK rushing numbers came on scrambles, designed qb runs and not read option.

PLEASE STOP!

[rbaloha1]

That's a terrible way to build a team. You might then do something dumb like draft 3 DBs in the first 3 rounds of a draft and then find yourself with only one viable player and a roster that has serious needs elsewhere*. Meanwhile, the passing offense you were trying to stop is killing you twice a year anyway.

The problem with McGinn's analysis is that he cherry picks certain recent acquisitions compares them to other cherry picked acquisitions on other teams and finds the Packers wanting. Even If McGinn has a point about the physical nature of the team (and he wasn't just talking about defense), it isn't made in this article in a persuasive way. Its just gravy to people who assume the 49ers roasted the Packers because of physical size and strength shortcomings.

The problem with the other conclusion you are drawing, that the Giants also beat the Packers physically, is that the Giants present a completely different physical challenge. The Giants pass rush often consists of 4 DEs rushing the QB. And one of those DEs is actually an OLB. The Packers have trouble pass protecting against that speed and quickness.

If you built an O line specifically to stop the Giants pass rush, you might be well undermanned to handle the 49ers strength.

The Packers don't need a change in approach, they need their picks and team healthy. If Bob had an idea how to prevent injuries, that article would be worth reading.


* Of course, if you are Ron Wolf and had been seized by a temporary case of Randy Moss paranoia, you then recover by trading one of the non-factors away for Ahman Green.

Please Stop!

[rbaloha1]

Can't believe you guys are discussing physicality as if it relates to avg team weight??

Body types, and overall offensive and defensive philosophies are what matter.

Raji is 330 lbs, but he is not a 2-gap player; all of our OL are 300+ pounders, yet they can't drive block to save their lives. Our LB'ers, given that they aren't protected very well by our miscast DL, don't take on and shed well. Our Safeties don't play downhill and bring the kill shot. Our FB is better suited taking swing passes in the flat...

Everything about the Packers is finesse. TT and McCarthy want OL that can get to the 2nd level and block in the open field; TT wants safties that are glorified corners, and wants corners that can cover first - tackling is incidental. Capers wants to play gimmicks with his front seven, so 2-gap DL aren't valued.

The Packers finesse philosophy is fine going up against other finesse teams, but the bully on the block is going to beat us up most of the time, and it shows against teams like the 49er's and Giants.

Whose on first?

[rbaloha1]

There you go with facts when someone knows something to be true when they see it.

Please stop.

[rbaloha1]

Did you misunderstand him or are you employing that sarcasm stuff?

Whose on First?

[3irty1]

Generally agree with your analysis.

2010 was a year of 15 players on injured reserve with street free agents like Zombo and Green playing big successful roles. Plugging in these type of players and winning a super bowl was amazing and widely admired by the league.

Moving forward -- these are not the type of players that a team can have continued high success.

The Packers shortcomings on defense have been widely exposed especially in the front seven. An average front seven can be exposed in the option while a superior one can control the option as evidenced by the Ravens holding Gore to 29 yards rushing. IMO stopping the dive is the key to playing the option.

Sorry -- Mike Daniels, Neal and Worthy do not have enough size to play a full season of pounding. Packers need more Wolfolk, Ngata types. They are available in the draft. Moving Perry inside with Bishop adds the type of bulk and strength required to play inside.

It is interesting watching TT's proteges building big, powerful and fast rosters.

While I agree that we could use another 340lb NT type guy to beef up the line in short yardage situations and backup Pickett and Raji, I disagree with your criticism of Neal, and Worthy. Neal is the exact kind of physical freak you think elite rosters are composed exclusively out of. His size is above average for the position but his strength and speed are much better than average. I think he's one of our best chances for improvement. Worthy is a rookie but has average size and great quickness of the line and the functional strength to compete already. He's a potential 3 down guy.

As for Daniels I'm pretty sure he was a late round choice to find a rookie that could play a situational role as an interior pass rusher where he could contribute immediately. It's a copycat league and in 2011 the Ravens got 7 sacks out of Pernell McPhee, a 275lb DL rookie and the Titans got 7 out of Karl Klug, another 270 lb rookie. Daniels played a similar role for us until he was pressed into service from injuries and proved pretty sturdy given his limitations. He wasn't the sack-artist we were probably hoping for but neither was McPhee or Klug this year. Hard to say what will become of Daniels.

As for moving Perry inside, that's a terrible idea and a waste of his potential as a pass rusher. He is a size-speed-strength freak but doesn't change directions that well and has already been a bit of a liability for us in coverage. In the middle he may look the part but it's not a position where his 1st round qualities will show. I'd rather move Walden in there or just keep Hawk.

[rbaloha1]

While I agree that we could use another 340lb NT type guy to beef up the line in short yardage situations and backup Pickett and Raji, I disagree with your criticism of Neal, and Worthy. Neal is the exact kind of physical freak you think elite rosters are composed exclusively out of. His size is above average for the position but his strength and speed are much better than average. I think he's one of our best chances for improvement. Worthy is a rookie but has average size and great quickness of the line and the functional strength to compete already. He's a potential 3 down guy.

As for Daniels I'm pretty sure he was a late round choice to find a rookie that could play a situational role as an interior pass rusher where he could contribute immediately. It's a copycat league and in 2011 the Ravens got 7 sacks out of Pernell McPhee, a 275lb DL rookie and the Titans got 7 out of Karl Klug, another 270 lb guy. Daniels played a similar role for us until he was pressed into service from injuries and proved pretty sturdy given his limitations. He wasn't the sack-artist we were probably hoping for but neither was McPhee or Klug this year. Hard to say what will become of Daniels.

As for moving Perry inside, that's a terrible idea and a waste of his potential as a pass rusher. He is a size-speed-strength freak but doesn't change directions that well and has already been a bit of a liability for us in coverage. In the middle he may look the part but it's not a position where his 1st round qualities will show. I'd rather move Walden in there or just keep Hawk.

Did you watch Neal get manhandled by the niners? Bought into the Cullen Jenkins replacement early on but not anymore.

Daniels is strictly situational.

Raji may not be resigned and Pickett is aging.

Walden? with those instincts.

Perry -- what other lbs have the ability to play inside against the run? BTW e-mail Leroy Butler what terrible idea this is.

[denverYooper]

While I agree that we could use another 340lb NT type guy to beef up the line in short yardage situations and backup Pickett and Raji, I disagree with your criticism of Neal, and Worthy. Neal is the exact kind of physical freak you think elite rosters are composed exclusively out of. His size is above average for the position but his strength and speed are much better than average. I think he's one of our best chances for improvement. Worthy is a rookie but has average size and great quickness of the line and the functional strength to compete already. He's a potential 3 down guy.

I agree with this. The big "problem" with the DL is that most of them are still not fully developed. DL seems to take the longest to grow into in the NFL.

[Zool]

The Packers shortcomings on defense have been widely exposed especially in the front seven. An average front seven can be exposed in the option while a superior one can control the option as evidenced by the Ravens holding Gore to 29 yards rushing.

19 carries 110 yards 5.8/ypc

As a team SF had 182 on 29 carries. Is there something I'm missing?

[rbaloha1]

19 carries 110 yards 5.8/ypc

As a team SF had 182 on 29 carries. Is there something I'm missing?

No -- who won the game? Didn't CK have that many yds against the Packers by himself?

[rbaloha1]

I agree with this. The big "problem" with the DL is that most of them are still not fully developed. DL seems to take the longest to grow into in the NFL.

Daniels and Neal can not morph into Wolfork, Ngata types.

Worthy shrunk during the season.

D line does not have enough big bodies -- it is on TT.

[3irty1]

Did you watch Neal get manhandled by the niners? Bought into the Cullen Jenkins replacement early on but not anymore.

Daniels is strictly situational.

Raji may not be resigned and Pickett is aging.

Walden? with those instincts.

Perry -- what other lbs have the ability to play inside against the run? BTW e-mail Leroy Butler what terrible idea this is.

A replacement for Jenkins is exactly what he is, if anything Neal anchors better than Jenkins did. Jenkins saw his fair share of rag dollings when playing the run but when you get that 300+ lb player that can excel as a pass rusher, you take the bad with the good.

Raji will probably be resigned, Pickett's decline is marginal to nonexistent at this point but I agree with you anyways. In the SB year we had Howard Green off the street who gave Capers some great options for formations and subs.

Walden's speed is his issue. His instincts fail him sometimes too but he's got super physical playing style, he's just too damn slow to be trusted on the edge and is ineffective as a pass rusher. Dom has played him inside on occasion, most notably during the 2010-2011 playoffs where he was playing his best ball for us. He's bigger but more importantly meaner than anything we've got inside at this point.

Effective 3-4 outside linebackers are much more valuable and rare than effective 3-4 linebackers. They would never move Perry unless they've ruled him out as a pass rusher or you have more than 2 good ones and are just trying to get your best guys on the field. We already know Walden is a lousy pass rusher, we also know that at their current weights Walden is a lot less robotic in his direction changes and less of a liability in coverage. So yeah, terrible idea.

Do my conclusions and the reasoning behind them not count because they don't have the endorsement of Leroy Butler? The beauty of giving my reasons for my thoughts, is you can explain why you think they are wrong, should you be up for some critical thinking, rather than just hiding behind McGinn, Butler, and Skip Bayless or whoever else you trust for your analysis.