A NEW TREND FOR RB's from the U in the NFL...COMING SOON

[rbaloha1]

Simple enough when you get down to it!

More Laurel and Hardy logic.

[rbaloha1]

Dumb and Dumber have resurfaced.

[Patler]

I would love to see the D lineman that would have caught Kapernick on his 50+ yard TD run around Erik Walden.

I brought this up once before, and got shot down very quickly; but, I'll say it again anyway!

We all hang on the poor play by Walden that resulted in a 50 yard TD. That run stuck out like a sore thumb on a hand without any fingers.

But, there was an almost identical play to the other side, and Matthews did almost the identical thing as Waldon did. Reacted the same way. The difference was a DB came up and made the tackle after a much shorter gain. But as for Matthews on that play...no different than Walden.

My point being that Walden wasn't all that was wrong on that play or in that game. Your simple but eloquent post that the answer is to play better defense is very true. Better doesn't have to be "tougher", although many will see it that way. In all sports, if you play defense correctly you are more effective. Effective defense is equated with "toughness" even if the players are not more physical.

[rbaloha1]

If you can't get off blocks better means nothing.

Obviously the Colts agree with you.

Walden is only good for being the first guy off the bus.

If TT called you and said -- "please help me with 579" your response "is play better defense."

Sorry Hawk & company shall get massacred again against the niners.

Maybe the defensive guru capers learned something from tamu.

[pbmax]

I do not know enough about the pro game to break down the X and Os with any authority. But for an example, I give you the 2012 Packer defense versus Adrian Peterson.

In two games (one of them with Percy Harvin I believe) Packer D gets ripped for 400 yards on the ground by Purple Jesus. With Harvin out, Packers still gave up nearly 200 yards. So I deduce that defensive focus, scheme or multiple weapons have little to do with Peterson's success.

I also observe that Peterson's biggest runs were 2nd choice runs, where he putted along, biding his time and waited for an opening. And most of those openings were cutbacks from the original direction, often not just cutting to the backside by a hole or two, but taking around the opposite end.

Game 3 in playoffs could have been about Joe Webb. But Packers were worried about Webb and a read option package, so the safeties were cheating to the edges not filling in the middle of the field. And Peterson was getting yards against 8 in the box anyway. But what happened was that Peterson spent most of his day hitting the hole that was originally called. His few cutbacks were non-descript and not nearly as productive as they had been previously.

Now you could claim it was merely a bad game for All Day. That the Vikings weren't used to cold weather. Or that the Packers were "up" for this game unlike the others. I find all of this to be hogwash, used to explain results that don't fit the narrative.

Far more reasonable and a better fit for available facts is that all week the coaches had stressed staying in their lanes and not trying to make a play versus Peterson one on one. Raji was the most guilty party here with Matthews second from the previous two games. There is nothing mysterious about the Vikings running Peterson out of a I formation. Everyone knows where the ball is headed after 2 steps.

But if the defense tries to converge on that one spot and 3 players are in one gap trying to get their mitts on AP while fending off a blocker, that means that there are unoccupied gaps elsewhere. And the guy most often left to defend those unoccupied gaps was Walden who had a habit of taking a bad line too quickly from the backside and getting sucked underneath a cutback.

In that playoff game, the Packer D did not acquire better personnel and Capers did not consult Bill Arnsparger about how to play a new variety of 3-4. They stuck to their most basic of assignments. It meant that Peterson average over 4 yards per run to the called hole, which isn't the best result ever, but it was an improvement. It also mean that Peterson was running into the teeth of a defense where five players could get their hands on him during that 4 yard run. No one had to run stride for stride with him down the sideline. He broke fewer big plays and if the Packers stuffed him on 1st or 2nd down, then Webb would have to make a play to get a first.

Now, could the Packers use a bigger DE with a little pass rush or another CJ Wilson or Jolly to stuff the run? Sure. They have Neal and Wilson and one of those guys is average and the other is just recovering his pass rush and is somewhat unknown against the run in base. Daniels and Worthy might just be for pass rush. Could the Packers use a NT to keep Raji from having to play there and guard against his departure? Sure.

But the Packers don't need to be anything other than smarter and more patient to prevent the 49ers from getting 579 again.

[rbaloha1]

Boy some people like to hear themselves talk.

[rbaloha1]

Smarter and patient does not negate physical superiority or word count.

[Bretsky]

I do not know enough about the pro game to break down the X and Os with any authority. But for an example, I give you the 2012 Packer defense versus Adrian Peterson.

In two games (one of them with Percy Harvin I believe) Packer D gets ripped for 400 yards on the ground by Purple Jesus. With Harvin out, Packers still gave up nearly 200 yards. So I deduce that defensive focus, scheme or multiple weapons have little to do with Peterson's success.

I also observe that Peterson's biggest runs were 2nd choice runs, where he putted along, biding his time and waited for an opening. And most of those openings were cutbacks from the original direction, often not just cutting to the backside by a hole or two, but taking around the opposite end.

Game 3 in playoffs could have been about Joe Webb. But Packers were worried about Webb and a read option package, so the safeties were cheating to the edges not filling in the middle of the field. And Peterson was getting yards against 8 in the box anyway. But what happened was that Peterson spent most of his day hitting the hole that was originally called. His few cutbacks were non-descript and not nearly as productive as they had been previously.

Now you could claim it was merely a bad game for All Day. That the Vikings weren't used to cold weather. Or that the Packers were "up" for this game unlike the others. I find all of this to be hogwash, used to explain results that don't fit the narrative.

Far more reasonable and a better fit for available facts is that all week the coaches had stressed staying in their lanes and not trying to make a play versus Peterson one on one. Raji was the most guilty party here with Matthews second from the previous two games. There is nothing mysterious about the Vikings running Peterson out of a I formation. Everyone knows where the ball is headed after 2 steps.

But if the defense tries to converge on that one spot and 3 players are in one gap trying to get their mitts on AP while fending off a blocker, that means that there are unoccupied gaps elsewhere. And the guy most often left to defend those unoccupied gaps was Walden who had a habit of taking a bad line too quickly from the backside and getting sucked underneath a cutback.

In that playoff game, the Packer D did not acquire better personnel and Capers did not consult Bill Arnsparger about how to play a new variety of 3-4. They stuck to their most basic of assignments. It meant that Peterson average over 4 yards per run to the called hole, which isn't the best result ever, but it was an improvement. It also mean that Peterson was running into the teeth of a defense where five players could get their hands on him during that 4 yard run. No one had to run stride for stride with him down the sideline. He broke fewer big plays and if the Packers stuffed him on 1st or 2nd down, then Webb would have to make a play to get a first.

Now, could the Packers use a bigger DE with a little pass rush or another CJ Wilson or Jolly to stuff the run? Sure. They have Neal and Wilson and one of those guys is average and the other is just recovering his pass rush and is somewhat unknown against the run in base. Daniels and Worthy might just be for pass rush. Could the Packers use a NT to keep Raji from having to play there and guard against his departure? Sure.

But the Packers don't need to be anything other than smarter and more patient to prevent the 49ers from getting 579 again.

Given our needs/aka deficiences......I AM CURIOUS

Can Green Bay afford to drafta RB in round 2 or 3 ?
In other words, if Monte Ball is the BPA, who in here thinks TT should draft him ?

[rbaloha1]

Given our needs/aka deficiences......I AM CURIOUS

Can Green Bay afford to drafta RB in round 2 or 3 ?
In other words, if Monte Ball is the BPA, who in here thinks TT should draft him ?

BPA is a smoke screen not to give away who you really want.

579 is what this draft is about -- simply playing better defense is not possible with the current roster.

[pbmax]

If you can't get off blocks better means nothing.

Obviously the Colts agree with you.

Walden is only good for being the first guy off the bus.

If TT called you and said -- "please help me with 579" your response "is play better defense."

Sorry Hawk & company shall get massacred again against the niners.

Maybe the defensive guru capers learned something from tamu.

I am not arguing that they cannot get better. CJ Wilson is a role player, though it is an important role in a 3-4 base D. Raji, Worthy and Daniels all seem to be miscast in one way or another.

But that wasn't what caused 579. The 49ers beat a lot of other teams with worse personnel without that kind of offensive performance.

They need to play their defense better. Patler above mentions a case where Matthews whiffed on Gore and got spun around (I will say this for Matthews over Walden: I think Matthew had the dive guy on that play and Walden had the keeper). But the play did not hemorrhage worse because a DB made a good play for a tackle. That is all, a simple tackle.

[Patler]

Given our needs/aka deficiences......I AM CURIOUS

Can Green Bay afford to drafta RB in round 2 or 3 ?
In other words, if Monte Ball is the BPA, who in here thinks TT should draft him ?

If Monte Ball is the BPA in round 2, the Packers should trade down. (Boy, I'll bet this one comes back to bite me!)

[rbaloha1]

Who cares about other teams? The Packers have a major weakness the whole league knows about and shall continued to be exploited until they can stop the pistol and spread option.

[Bretsky]

If Monte Ball is the BPA in round 2, the Packers should trade down. (Boy, I'll bet this one comes back to bite me!)

He very well may be........but I appreciate you giving a solid answer. Other needs outweight taking a RB in round 2; I may be making as assumption but that is your take. Most are projecting Ball to go mid to end of 2 or early 3. What if he fell to 3 ? Do you take him there or take something of greater need (there will be OL help there) ?

[rbaloha1]

If Monte Ball is the BPA in round 2, the Packers should trade down. (Boy, I'll bet this one comes back to bite me!)

Agree only if Teo is still available.

[pbmax]

Given our needs/aka deficiences......I AM CURIOUS

Can Green Bay afford to drafta RB in round 2 or 3 ?
In other words, if Monte Ball is the BPA, who in here thinks TT should draft him ?

My fear about Ball (or any RB who is not Peterson or Gore) is that he might be Brandon Jackson. Who was a solid pro but was not going to win you any games by himself. What he did offer (and Ball would offer) was solid play in all three phases, running, blocking and receiving. So unless there is a physical marvel there like Nick Collins in the second round to help the D or O line, I would say take him. Nothing better than young talent.