Packers Still Too Soft

[rbaloha1]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-still-too-soft-to-be-favorites-td9klcm-203946331.html

[pbmax]

Not buying it. In his lead paragraph he admits the shakiness of his info and say he has sources claim the head coach and GM acknowledge the perception that the team has gone soft and small.

So he is saying the team will do something about the perception? Hire a PR consultant maybe?

Finesse offense might be closer to the truth but if Holmgren called runs with a frequency like McCarthy the numbers would be similar. Its a passing team. Passing games work in cold weather unlike what every writer in this state believes (despite 20 years of contrary evidence) you can win playoff games in the cold by passing.

Adding a running game doesn't make you win because you are suddenly tough and large. It would make the offense more multi-dimensional. So better by adding ability, not by toughness or size. If size and toughness and a running game won, the Titans would have 2 Super Bowls by now. Same with the Chargers.

Funny that Bob doesn't matter the positions where the Packers have gotten bigger (RT, ILB, center, OLB) in this fun little exercise of scaring the weather vanes in his audience. To Bob the only positions that matter are TE, LT and DE/DT (Worthy and Daniels).

[rbaloha1]

Not buying it. In his lead paragraph he admits the shakiness of his info and say he has sources claim the head coach and GM acknowledge the perception that the team has gone soft and small.

So he is saying the team will do something about the perception? Hire a PR consultant maybe?

Finesse offense might be closer to the truth but if Holmgren called runs with a frequency like McCarthy the numbers would be similar. Its a passing team. Passing games work in cold weather unlike what every writer in this state believes (despite 20 years of contrary evidence) you can win playoff games in the cold by passing.

Adding a running game doesn't make you win because you are suddenly tough and large. It would make the offense more multi-dimensional. So better by adding ability, not by toughness or size. If size and toughness and a running game won, the Titans would have 2 Super Bowls by now. Same with the Chargers.

Funny that Bob doesn't matter the positions where the Packers have gotten bigger (RT, ILB, center, OLB) in this fun little exercise of scaring the weather vanes in his audience. To Bob the only positions that matter are TE, LT and DE/DT (Worthy and Daniels).

579

[woodbuck27]

Not buying it. In his lead paragraph he admits the shakiness of his info and say he has sources claim the head coach and GM acknowledge the perception that the team has gone soft and small.

So he is saying the team will do something about the perception? Hire a PR consultant maybe?

Finesse offense might be closer to the truth but if Holmgren called runs with a frequency like McCarthy the numbers would be similar. Its a passing team. Passing games work in cold weather unlike what every writer in this state believes (despite 20 years of contrary evidence) you can win playoff games in the cold by passing.

Adding a running game doesn't make you win because you are suddenly tough and large. It would make the offense more multi-dimensional. So better by adding ability, not by toughness or size. If size and toughness and a running game won, the Titans would have 2 Super Bowls by now. Same with the Chargers.

Funny that Bob doesn't matter the positions where the Packers have gotten bigger (RT, ILB, center, OLB) in this fun little exercise of scaring the weather vanes in his audience. To Bob the only positions that matter are TE, LT and DE/DT (Worthy and Daniels).

Is any of this a lie or fostering a misapplication of the TRUTH?

This:

The Packers ..."a team that ranked 27th in average weight a year ago"

Or what parts of this are not factual in terms of a direction for TT to focus on?:

" In the draft, Thompson should and probably will be looking for bigger, tougher players.

Just in the last two years, the Packers have made too many draft choices that were shorter and lighter than desired. There was a 6-2 tight end (D.J. Williams) and a 5-10½ inside linebacker (D.J. Smith) in 2011, and a 6-2½ defensive end (Worthy) and a 6-0½ defensive end-inside pass rusher (Daniels) in 2012.

One exception, perhaps two, might be acceptable, but compromising height-weight standards that often has led to the Packers' size disadvantage against the power teams.

Fortunately for Thompson, the team's primary needs - the offensive line and the defensive line - correspond to two of the strongest areas of the draft. "

GO PACK GO !

[rbaloha1]

There is a stat expert on the board that challenges McGinn's methodology -- please consult with him.

[pbmax]

His measurement and ranking by weight were highly misleading and rb is correct, that was torn apart in another thread. So Bob is misleading you there.

Also the last two drafts don't make much of an impact on McGinn's argument. Williams barely saw the field and neither did Smith. Daniels and Worthy were backups.

Plus this argument has been making the rounds since 2007 and the Giants playoff loss. Perhaps you could construct an argument about this team being small and soft, but the evidence they cite starts before 2012. Bob needs an explanation for the 2011, 2007 playoff losses as well.

[rbaloha1]

Mcginn is correct to challenge toughness. The front seven is undersized.

[rbaloha1]

His measurement and ranking by weight were highly misleading and rb is correct, that was torn apart in another thread. So Bob is misleading you there.

Also the last two drafts don't make much of an impact on McGinn's argument. Williams barely saw the field and neither did Smith. Daniels and Worthy were backups.

Plus this argument has been making the rounds since 2007 and the Giants playoff loss. Perhaps you could construct an argument about this team being small and soft, but the evidence they cite starts before 2012. Bob needs an explanation for the 2011, 2007 playoff losses as well.

Excuse me but the other poster challenging Mcginn was incorrect and lacks Mcginn's resources to make his claim.

[pbmax]

Mcginn is correct to challenge toughness. The front seven is undersized.

Undersized has nothing to do with toughness.

And the starting front seven is not undersized. The backups he cites might be. Unless you are concerned about height and length of DEs. But even with 2 inch longer arms. Raji wasn't going to stop Kapernick on that run.

[pbmax]

Excuse me but the other poster challenging Mcginn was incorrect and lacks Mcginn's resources to make his claim.

I think he made a convincing case.

[rbaloha1]

I think he made a convincing case.

Disagree.

[pbmax]

denverYoop:

Can you post the data you created when coming up with this post?

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?25152-Dynasty&p=713259&viewfull=1#post713259

[smuggler]

I know some of the backups played soft last year. Not surprising for backups.

[wist43]

It's body type, a lack of quality depth, and the conscious decisions by Capers to put small fronts on the field.

On the OL, most of our players are in the ballpark in terms of weight... but they were selected and valued by the Packers b/c they are more mobile than they are stout. McCarthy has 3 running plays, and everyone knows what they are - student body left, right, and middle. And in pass pro, you don't need to be a killer to kick-slide and mirror.

Consider draft prospect Brennan Williams, OT, North Carolina, 6'6" 320 lbs.

He certainly has the size - but here is his write-up in ProFootballWeekly:

Downside

- Underdeveloped body - needs to get stronger
- Not explosive off the ball
- Exposed by inside counters
- Quirky, artsy personality atypical of the trenches
- Has some weight room limitations (back)

Fits the bill size wise - but in terms of how he is built, and how he plays - he is soft.

[rbaloha1]

The point is to get big and tough guys like the niners -- guys looking to pound you on every play.

Only Bishop fits that mold on defense. Jolly also possessed that temperament.