Packers Still Too Soft

[pbmax]

1. jumbling of words -- unable to decipher. Bottom Line -- the packers d-line is not equipped to stop newer offenses.

2. irrelevant due to typical circular logic

3. okay casey -- big deal

4. do not know what you are watching? WHY WERE COACHES AT TAMU?


P.S. When are you e-mailing Mcginn with your findings attempting to debunk his findings with your partners in crime?

Was kind of a word salad, wasn't it? Let's try again.

Forget soft-n-small for a moment and look at the roster: 7 DL lineman under normal not future contract. One is unlikely to see significant playing time next year (Worthy). One is a pass rush specialist in Daniels. The other five are each FAs in some form or fashion after this year.

Even if I think the line performed at a Pro Bowl level last year, they need a D lineman or two this year and next. So I would expect DL to appear under needs for the Packers for this draft from the contract length facts alone, regardless of performance.

This revelation squares McGinn's circle of logic in his column. He said T2 and M3 were aware of the perception of sosmall. He also said the duo were prepared to address it. But nowhere does McGinn say directly that they want D line because they BELIEVE they are softall. They might simply know they need more of them. And soon.

[pbmax]

2. irrelevant due to typical circular logic

That was your logic my man, not mine. You claim you are glad mm doesn't agree with me. I have his public statement. You have squadoosh.

[Patler]

tracey hayward.

did tt screw-up last year by drafting 6 defensive players in a row last year? did tt actually pick the best player available?

you failed to answer questions about last years draft and why mm demanded his coaches go to tamu.

Meant to do it separately but got a phone call. As an aside, what does that have to do with your non sequitur re:the TE?

As to last years draft, why would it be a mistake to draft 6 D? Just because I said "ideally" it will have a mix?

Drafting 6 D in a row does not violate BPA for several reasons:

1. - Most often there will be several similarly ranked players available when its your turn. Picking the one that best matches your need does not violate BPA. Following BPA doesn't negate the opportunity to pick for need.

2. - Several times it seems that TT saw a BPA on the board who stood out in his rankings and who was a defensive player. But it wasn't TT's turn yet, so he traded up to get him. Trading up supports the BPA philosophy, because it presupposes that you see a BPA that stands out from the rest, and you are willing to give up something to get him. It assumes he is such a BPA that he won't last until your turn, and there are not other equally talented players available that will satisfy you.

I'm not sure what sending the coaches on sabbatical has to do with a discussion about whether or not the team is soft and/or the draft vs. players on the roster to effect change; so I won't guess about what you expect me to comment on. Besides, that question wasn't asked in response to any of my comments anyway, was it?

Or, maybe your point is that the coaches went to learn how to make the players less soft and/or bigger?

[rbaloha1]

Was kind of a word salad, wasn't it? Let's try again.

Forget soft-n-small for a moment and look at the roster: 7 DL lineman under normal not future contract. One is unlikely to see significant playing time next year (Worthy). One is a pass rush specialist in Daniels. The other five are each FAs in some form or fashion after this year.

Even if I think the line performed at a Pro Bowl level last year, they need a D lineman or two this year and next. So I would expect DL to appear under needs for the Packers for this draft from the contract length facts alone, regardless of performance.

This revelation squares McGinn's circle of logic in his column. He said T2 and M3 were aware of the perception of sosmall. He also said the duo were prepared to address it. But nowhere does McGinn say directly that they want D line because they BELIEVE they are softall. They might simply know they need more of them. And soon.

I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR E-MAIL TO MCGINN AND A SANTIZED EXPLANATIOION OF WHY MM FORCED CAPERS AND STAFF FO TO TAMU ESPECIALLY SINCE YOUR ANALYSIS SAYS THE SCHEME IS FINE?

[pbmax]

I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR E-MAIL TO MCGINN AND A SANTIZED EXPLANATIOION OF WHY MM FORCED CAPERS AND STAFF FO TO TAMU ESPECIALLY SINCE YOUR ANALYSIS SAYS THE SCHEME IS FINE?

I was wondering about that. How will you "ensure" McGinn responds this time as you claimed you would earlier?

Going to TAMU to learn about an offensive scheme doesn't mean that Capers will alter his. It could alter his practice time and focus. There are a limited number of hours of practice and only 4 teams are seriously running pistol and read option. There still must be time to learn the base defense.

It could alter keys for players to read. It could alter the counters the players are warned to expect. It could alter the keys Hawk and Burnett read to re-align the defense at the LOS.

Or it could fundamentally alter the scheme the Packers employ versus the 49ers.

But that was not my point. Every scheme has strengths and weaknesses, even ones focused on balance. The far more important factor is how the players execute the scheme no matter what schematic choice the DC makes. My point wasn't that Capes scheme was perfect. It was that the execution of that scheme was worse than any alignment or personnel choices they made. It made the difference against Peterson, it will make a difference against CK.

[Patler]

In 2010, Raji+Pickett+Green was considered huge, even too big for what was desirable for a 3-4 line. Now, Raji+Pickett+Wilson or anyone else is considered too small.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog. Writers want to focus on height, weight, arm length, hand size and think that a half-inch here or there makes a huge difference. I think they focus on the wrong things.

[rbaloha1]

I was wondering about that. How will you "ensure" McGinn responds this time as you claimed you would earlier?

Going to TAMU to learn about an offensive scheme doesn't mean that Capers will alter his. It could alter his practice time and focus. There are a limited number of hours of practice and only 4 teams are seriously running pistol and read option. There still must be time to learn the base defense.

It could alter keys for players to read. It could alter the counters the players are warned to expect. It could alter the keys Hawk and Burnett read to re-align the defense at the LOS.

Or it could fundamentally alter the scheme the Packers employ versus the 49ers.

But that was not my point. Every scheme has strengths and weaknesses, even ones focused on balance. The far more important factor is how the players execute the scheme no matter what schematic choice the DC makes. My point wasn't that Capes scheme was perfect. It was that the execution of that scheme was worse than any alignment or personnel choices they made. It made the difference against Peterson, it will make a difference against CK.

I will get on Mcginn for a response since you are challenging his findings. Trust me -- he will find it amusing that a message board poster is capable of such claims.

Bottom Line: Capers is not equipped to handle modern offenses which is part of the problem along with personnel. This along with free agent interest demonstrate a big problem and not fixed with magic fairy dust as you like to claim.

Stay tuned for the draft.

Again, why did TT take 6 d guys with the first 6 picks last season?

[rbaloha1]

In 2010, Raji+Pickett+Green was considered huge, even too big for what was desirable for a 3-4 line. Now, Raji+Pickett+Wilson or anyone else is considered too small.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog. Writers want to focus on height, weight, arm length, hand size and think that a half-inch here or there makes a huge difference. I think they focus on the wrong things.

Keep spinning and denying.

[Patler]

Keep spinning and denying.

That certainly supports your argument that they are too small. Now I am convinced.

The only one spinning here is you, and when you have no response you reply insults.

[pbmax]

Again, why did TT take 6 d guys with the first 6 picks last season?

Because the secondary and pass rush were terrible in 2011. Neither of those two facts are true anymore, certainly not to the same degree. In fact, I think the D backfield is in great shape at corner and simply is in need of a safety to step up.

[Fritz]

1. Interest in D lineman can not only be driven by the soft (headed?) and small (minded?) critique. As you yourself pointed out (I think it was you), the Packers have 5 DL who will be FAs next year. A restocking of some sort will need to happen over the next year + a couple of months regardless of soft and small. It also gives you another reason why McGinn's report about Thompson and McCarthy being "aware" of a perception and prepared to address a particular position group does not mean they agree with soft&small.

2. If McCarthy would never admit to soft, how do you (rb) know he doesn't agree with me?

3. Casey Hayward. And we are not criticizing Thompson's draft because virtually the entire board wanted defense, defense, defense. But that focus and in particular the demand for more pass rush, is precisely the basis for McGinn's small critique.

4. Addendum to my point about match ups and scheme. The execution of a scheme, is what I should have written. I don't think any particular alignment is the issue here. Its the execution of an assignment by a player who in most other circumstances, is being asked to be aggressive.

It's the last point I find intriguing. I wonder if a scheme like Capers asks too much of many athletes. I'm amazed that we are so critical of players (I am one of those critics) when they get a stupid penalty because they're overaggressive, yet we expect them to be exactly disciplined in Capers's scheme. It must be hard to balance the need to be aggressive and violent (sack the QB! Hit the player so he remembers next time he comes into your area!) with the need to stay in your lane, not just chase the guy with the ball automatically, don't go into a gap that would lead you to the QB because it's not your gap - all of that.

I also would love to know what sources shared with McGinn the idea that MM and TT have admitted the team was too soft. Not that they wouldn't recognize this - they're not idiots - but that someone would leak that to McGinn.

[rbaloha1]

That certainly supports your argument that they are too small. Now I am convinced.

The only one spinning here is you, and when you have no response you reply insults.

No insults only the truth moron.

[rbaloha1]

It's the last point I find intriguing. I wonder if a scheme like Capers asks too much of many athletes. I'm amazed that we are so critical of players (I am one of those critics) when they get a stupid penalty because they're overaggressive, yet we expect them to be exactly disciplined in Capers's scheme. It must be hard to balance the need to be aggressive and violent (sack the QB! Hit the player so he remembers next time he comes into your area!) with the need to stay in your lane, not just chase the guy with the ball automatically, don't go into a gap that would lead you to the QB because it's not your gap - all of that.

I also would love to know what sources shared with McGinn the idea that MM and TT have admitted the team was too soft. Not that they wouldn't recognize this - they're not idiots - but that someone would leak that to McGinn.

Ask Desmond Bishop and C-Wood about the softness.

[wist43]

I think some of you guys are missing the point about what makes the Packers a soft team.

It's philosophy that leads them to acquire certain types of players on offense; and God knows what the hell they're trying to accomplish on defense, but it sure aint standing toe-to-toe with the bullies on the block.

The Packers readily admit this - they want offensive linemen that are mobile and versatile. None of our offensive linemen are good drive blockers - not one. McCarthy loves zone blocking and spreading the field; how much of our running game comes out of passing formations where all the offensive linemen are doing is inviting the DL upfieild and sealing him? McCarthy rarely calls power plays.

On defense we're soft to begin with b/c we only have one 2-gap DL and that is Pickett. Raji is not a good 2-gap player. Everybody knew that when he came out - he is actually more athletic in his lower body than he is stout, and he should be used accordingly - Capers completely misuses Raji, not to mention overuses him.

Beyond that, Capers makes us small by going to his ballyhooed 2-whatever gimmicks. It isn't that he's going to that alignment on 3rd and 13, he's going to it on 2nd and 6 - pisses me off to no end!! I offer up that example from the Seattle game - no excuse for that kind of stupidity.

We desperately need another 2-gap DL - I'm hoping for Hankins or Brandon Williams; and we need another DE. Not holding my breath on either.

[Patler]

No insults only the truth moron.

Uh huh.