Packers Still Too Soft

[pbmax]

I thought the idea was to get good football players. Big and tough are great accessories. How big and tough is that Giants defense? Kinda more fast and relentless than big or nasty.

That's the problem with adjective football analysis. Its an amorphous blob.

[ND72]

They are too soft, you cannot question that. The Giants and 49ers make us look like puppies.

[3irty1]

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.

I'll agree with you here. But attitude is all there is too it. McGinn's article is dogshit and so are the arguments that support it.

Over the last season the team has lacked a noticeable tone-setter on defense. A team looks like the defense and the defense looks like the middle linebacker. With Bishop off the field, most of the team's attitude goes with him. Losing Woodson to old age didn't help any either. Burnett became noticeably more active and physical last year and plays a position where he can set a tone but he'll have to take a similar step again to be considered a real body-sacraficing physical player by me. McMillian and Dezmen Moses have been that type of player so far but will need to gain experience and start producing to earn more snaps before their attitude can really affect the D.

On offense the team already has a pretty decent mean streak across their line. All they lack is consistent running back play IMO. DuJuan Harris has been nice but I wouldn't put the whole running game this season on his shoulders.

[rbaloha1]

They are too soft, you cannot question that. The Giants and 49ers make us look like puppies.

Explain that to the posters that think the current packers are nitschke like.

[smuggler]

No one in the current NFL is Nischke-like. Not even Navorro Bowman.

[pbmax]

These team Defensive Unit weights are for the year 2012 and include anyone who started 4 games for the team in that season. I took that approach because it would not limit it to full time starters (nickel personnel sometimes make starts and not just due to injury), would include key backups, would exclude those who do not see regular PT and would give the reader a solid idea of the heft that was on the field during actual game time. Once Pro Football Reference (source for all these numbers) adds snaps played to their info, an even better measure would be possible.

01. NYJ	251.18
02. SEA	250.18
[B]03. BAL	250.07[/B]
04. ARI	249.85
05. DAL	249.53
06. BUF	248.71
07. WAS	246.45
08. KAN	246.27
09. MIA	241.69
10. STL	240.92
11. PIT	240.25
12. NYG	239.86
13. HOU	239.62
14. IND	238.62
[B]15. GNB	238.28[/B]
[B]16. SFO	237.92[/B]

17. SDG	237.70
18. CAR	237.31
19. OAK	237.09
20. PHI	236.40
21. DEN	236.08
22. JAX	236.00
23. MIN	234.38
24. CIN	232.17
[B]25. NWE	229.92[/B]
26. CHI	228.50
27. TEN	228.10
28. NOR	227.36
29. DET	227.31
[B]30. ATL	226.00[/B]
31. TAM	225.00
32. CLE	218.45

So the Packers D isn't the 27th lightest in the League. And the League Championship games featured 2 of the lightest 16 defenses in the League.

I have no stat for softness, but as far as I can tell, this adjective substituting as analysis is about as consistent and objective as "Coach didn't have the team ready to play at the beginning of the game".

Thanks to denverYooper for compiling the numbers from a query I started at Pro Football Reference.

Here is that query for the Packers: http://pfref.com/tiny/W8AXK

[rbaloha1]

These team Defensive Unit weights are for the year 2012 and include anyone who started 4 games for the team in that season. I took that approach because it would not limit it to full time starters (nickel personnel sometimes make starts and not just due to injury), would include key backups, would exclude those who do not see regular PT and would give the reader a solid idea of the heft that was on the field during actual game time. Once Pro Football Reference (source for all these numbers) adds snaps played to their info, an even better measure would be possible.

01. NYJ	251.18
02. SEA	250.18
[B]03. BAL	250.07[/B]
04. ARI	249.85
05. DAL	249.53
06. BUF	248.71
07. WAS	246.45
08. KAN	246.27
09. MIA	241.69
10. STL	240.92
11. PIT	240.25
12. NYG	239.86
13. HOU	239.62
14. IND	238.62
[B]15. GNB	238.28[/B]
[B]16. SFO	237.92[/B]
17. SDG	237.70
18. CAR	237.31
19. OAK	237.09
20. PHI	236.40
21. DEN	236.08
22. JAX	236.00
23. MIN	234.38
24. CIN	232.17
[B]25. NWE	229.92[/B]
26. CHI	228.50
27. TEN	228.10
28. NOR	227.36
29. DET	227.31
[B]30. ATL	226.00[/B]
31. TAM	225.00
32. CLE	218.45

So the Packers D isn't the 27th lightest in the League. And the League Championship games featured 2 of the lightest 16 defenses in the League.

I have no stat for softness, but as far as I can tell, this adjective substituting as analysis is about as consistent and objective as "Coach didn't have the team ready to play at the beginning of the game".

Thanks to denverYooper for compiling the numbers from a query I started at Pro Football Reference.

Here is that query for the Packers: http://pfref.com/tiny/W8AXK

e-mail mcginn and challenge his results. just because you say so does mean it is.

imo the packers are too soft and get manhandled by teams with physical offensive lines no matter how much they weigh. jolly, bishop and perry help with standing up to the physicality of teams. tt understands what type of defensive players are needed to hold up in the trenches which is a weakness.

[Patler]

jolly, bishop and perry help with standing up to the physicality of teams.

Since two played not a single down last year, and Perry was a rookie and then gone himself after a short time, maybe all the hand-wringing over the state of the defense is not needed?

Add to that the further fact that they have a known hitter at safety who as a rookie played tentatively in 2012. IF, he matures as well, maybe the seeds are already in place for a defensive rebound. House for Williams as the starter opposite Shields might also help.

[3irty1]

These team Defensive Unit weights are for the year 2012 and include anyone who started 4 games for the team in that season. I took that approach because it would not limit it to full time starters (nickel personnel sometimes make starts and not just due to injury), would include key backups, would exclude those who do not see regular PT and would give the reader a solid idea of the heft that was on the field during actual game time. Once Pro Football Reference (source for all these numbers) adds snaps played to their info, an even better measure would be possible.

01. NYJ	251.18
02. SEA	250.18
[B]03. BAL	250.07[/B]
04. ARI	249.85
05. DAL	249.53
06. BUF	248.71
07. WAS	246.45
08. KAN	246.27
09. MIA	241.69
10. STL	240.92
11. PIT	240.25
12. NYG	239.86
13. HOU	239.62
14. IND	238.62
[B]15. GNB	238.28[/B]
[B]16. SFO	237.92[/B]

17. SDG	237.70
18. CAR	237.31
19. OAK	237.09
20. PHI	236.40
21. DEN	236.08
22. JAX	236.00
23. MIN	234.38
24. CIN	232.17
[B]25. NWE	229.92[/B]
26. CHI	228.50
27. TEN	228.10
28. NOR	227.36
29. DET	227.31
[B]30. ATL	226.00[/B]
31. TAM	225.00
32. CLE	218.45

So the Packers D isn't the 27th lightest in the League. And the League Championship games featured 2 of the lightest 16 defenses in the League.

I have no stat for softness, but as far as I can tell, this adjective substituting as analysis is about as consistent and objective as "Coach didn't have the team ready to play at the beginning of the game".

Thanks to denverYooper for compiling the numbers from a query I started at Pro Football Reference.

Here is that query for the Packers: http://pfref.com/tiny/W8AXK

Phenomenal post

[rbaloha1]

Since two played not a single down last year, and Perry was a rookie and then gone himself after a short time, maybe all the hand-wringing over the state of the defense is not needed?

Add to that the further fact that they have a known hitter at safety who as a rookie played tentatively in 2012. IF, he matures as well, maybe the seeds are already in place for a defensive rebound. House for Williams as the starter opposite Shields might also help.

remains speculation since we have not seen them as a unit. mm loves competition and tt needs to deliver more defensive players that match desmond bishop type mentality with production and experience against newer offenses. these players exist.

[rbaloha1]

Phenomenal post

Put your name to it and e-mail Mcginn. Then post Mcginn's response.

[pbmax]

I did email him originally and heard nothing back. But I don't need to hear from him to know measuring weight of the defense is problematic and will vary a LOT depending on how you choose players.

I also know that heavy players can be weak and lighter players can be strong. There are limits to what a 240 lb LB can do versus a 260 lb LB, but its not as simple as the 240 guy is weak and soft and the 260 guy is a monster. The Jets defense was terrible last year and they were quite heavy.

That is why citing the 27th weight ranking is terrible analysis. Not only doesn't he reveal his method, he puts it in no context. Its also terrible analysis to look at two drafts (one for pass rushers) and say the Packers have gone undersized. Its sub-intelligent, but it is what makes McGinn a successful reporter. He has a story (Packers are soft) and he is flogging it for all its worth. Everyone saw the Vikings and 49er games and is willing to believe it. And ANY info that affirms that belief is immediately accepted and any contrary info is waved away like a mosquito.

And no one wonders about the inconsistency. The 49ers are tough and presumably huge. Except they are not heavy at all and the Seahawks tore them apart at the end of the season. So are the Seahawks the best team in the NFC if they can be huge, out-physical the 49ers and win? I am sure the only reason we don't know that for certain is that they didn't make it into the NFC Championship Game and show us. Who beat them by the way? The light in the pants Falcons defense. You know who else stopped the physical and intimidating Seahawks? The soft as a baby's bottom Packers D.

Soft and small as a starting point to determine if there is a physical reason for the Packers terrible performance against the 49ers and the first two Vikings games? Makes perfect sense. Solution to problem to draft bigger, taller and heavier guys than are already on roster? Not even close. The guy who got beaten around the most in the 49ers game was Raji and he is the second biggest guy out there.

[pbmax]

Two notes:

1. Pickett is listed at 310 lbs. Which is a lie wrapped up in a strip of bacon. And would be the pefect explanation for the Jets ranking so high.

2. We should weight that list by number of games started when we calculate it next. Worthy started four games but his heft counts as much as Raji's in the current chart.

[rbaloha1]

I did email him originally and heard nothing back. But I don't need to hear from him to know measuring weight of the defense is problematic and will vary a LOT depending on how you choose players.

I also know that heavy players can be weak and lighter players can be strong. There are limits to what a 240 lb LB can do versus a 260 lb LB, but its not as simple as the 240 guy is weak and soft and the 260 guy is a monster. The Jets defense was terrible last year and they were quite heavy.

That is why citing the 27th weight ranking is terrible analysis. Not only doesn't he reveal his method, he puts it in no context. Its also terrible analysis to look at two drafts (one for pass rushers) and say the Packers have gone undersized. Its sub-intelligent, but it is what makes McGinn a successful reporter. He has a story (Packers are soft) and he is flogging it for all its worth. Everyone saw the Vikings and 49er games and is willing to believe it. And ANY info that affirms that belief is immediately accepted and any contrary info is waved away like a mosquito.

And no one wonders about the inconsistency. The 49ers are tough and presumably huge. Except they are not heavy at all and the Seahawks tore them apart at the end of the season. So are the Seahawks the best team in the NFC if they can be huge, out-physical the 49ers and win? I am sure the only reason we don't know that for certain is that they didn't make it into the NFC Championship Game and show us. Who beat them by the way? The light in the pants Falcons defense. You know who else stopped the physical and intimidating Seahawks? The soft as a baby's bottom Packers D.

Soft and small as a starting point to determine if there is a physical reason for the Packers terrible performance against the 49ers and the first two Vikings games? Makes perfect sense. Solution to problem to draft bigger, taller and heavier guys than are already on roster? Not even close. The guy who got beaten around the most in the 49ers game was Raji and he is the second biggest guy out there.

prove it. send it again. i shall follow-up and make sure he responds.

[rbaloha1]

you keep taking stuff so literally. its about match ups against certain units.

honestly i do not know what you are watching -- thank goodness mm is not buying your mindset.