For the Packer Denialists

[RashanGary]

I'm hoping you are right about this, Justin, and you have some good points. Although it makes me barf in my mouth to say this, I agree with Wist's general point. I.e.: the Niners were more physical than the Pack in both games last year. I disagree with Wist's over-generalization that the team, From TT down are a bunch of ballet watching Nancies.

Yeah, I partly agree with Wist on the general front-line toughness of our team too. I do think not having a running back was a huge part of our problem. I've heard it said from old-school football-wise people that the RB makes the line, not the other way around. Adrian Peterson would have had a great year with us. Cedric Benson/James Starks/D Harris would have had a shitty year with them. I would say the same with Frank Gore or any other great back. I think they would break tackles nobody else breaks and make yards nobody else makes no matter what team they're on. Defensively, I think it's scheme softness more than player softness. We play an afraid style of defense. 2-4 nickle, man outside with 2 safeties over the top. It's small. It has aggressive underneith coverage and aggressive over the top coverage. It would require a dominant front 6 to work. We don't have that.

That said, I look at the 49ers, and I see a team with bigger worries. Justin Smith, Dashon Gholston, Frank Gore and Michael Crabtree are all really big parts of why they were good. One is gone for good. One is gone for a long time. One is 34 years old and one of the oldest players still able to function at his position and the other is 30 years old and one of the oldest players still able to function at his position. Those are major concerns, bigger concerns than we have IMO.

[George Cumby]

You are courageous to say this since the denialsists/apologists/excusemakers keep attempting to disguise this fact.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Uhhhhhh...... Thanks?

[Fritz]

Dude -- give me your paypal account info and I will give you $1000 to spare us from your garbage about the read option stuff.

I read this about Mike Neal in another forum: "Last season Neal ranked 3rd among all 3-4 DE's in pressures per snap, and he finished the year with 4.5 Sacks despite missing the first 4 games of the season due to suspension."

I wonder where that stat came from. But if it's true....then that's pretty good for a guy who is pretending to be tough but is actually faking it. If it's not true, well, in my estimation he's still a guy who has plenty of potential and flashes it, but needs to stay healthy this year.

[Pugger]

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Uhhhhhh...... Thanks?

You are better off not responding because if you disagree with him he'll resort to a large font or call you names like a child.

[pbmax]

Dude -- give me your paypal account info and I will give you $1000 to spare us from your garbage about the read option stuff.

I learned from hard experience not to hand that information out to Nigerian Princes such as yourself. You'll have to send a money order to Mad and then he can forward it.

[rbaloha1]

I read this about Mike Neal in another forum: "Last season Neal ranked 3rd among all 3-4 DE's in pressures per snap, and he finished the year with 4.5 Sacks despite missing the first 4 games of the season due to suspension."

I wonder where that stat came from. But if it's true....then that's pretty good for a guy who is pretending to be tough but is actually faking it. If it's not true, well, in my estimation he's still a guy who has plenty of potential and flashes it, but needs to stay healthy this year.

My nickname for Neal is based on those tats and acting like he won the lottery after making a play (Hawk does the same).

Then on the next play he gets destroyed.

[rbaloha1]

LARGE FONTS ARE RESPONSES TO STUPIDITY.

The cash offer is null and void.

[rbaloha1]

You are better off not responding because if you disagree with him he'll resort to a large font or call you names like a child.

Ignore me then Ward Cleaver.

Stop acting like the Dalai Lama.

[hoosier]

Kind of makes me nostalgic for the days of Tank. At least he had a sense of humor.

[rbaloha1]

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Uhhhhhh...... Thanks?

Good move.

The denialists continue to deny a legit dimension and resort to cliches, misquoting me and useless stats.

Many posters watch the game drunk, get angry, never played the game and follow the crowd in order to sound like they know football. As different legit wrinkles arise they are lost and look like fools.

Keep going braddah with independent thinking and ignore the crybay crowd.

[pbmax]

I'm hoping you are right about this, Justin, and you have some good points. Although it makes me barf in my mouth to say this, I agree with Wist's general point. I.e.: the Niners were more physical than the Pack in both games last year. I disagree with Wist's over-generalization that the team, From TT down are a bunch of ballet watching Nancies.

My basic disagreement with everyone on talk radio, McGinn and several on the board is what tough (or more physical) means in this context and how you correct it. Tough to most of the viewing public means the opposition ran on you. But no one claims the 1997 Packers D line wasn't tough even though it got run over by the Broncos. Similarly, no one claim the Packer O line in that game wasn't tough, even though they could not deal with a blitz by the weak safety. And as zool has pointed out, no one has called the Ravens D not tough for giving up a ton of running yards to the 49ers as well. Tough and not physical are vague and emotional reactions to (a) specific problem(s).

I am under no illusions about how the Packer Defense played in either the 49er games or versus the Vikings the first 2 times. And its the third Viking game that I think best illustrates what ails the Packer D. It could have been all about Webb versus Ponder, but given the adjustments the Packers seemed to make, I think it argues for execution of the scheme.

1, Personnel. I give wist credit here for pinning some of the blame for Raji and envisioning a scenario where he is not as valuable (or vice versa) to the Packers because of fit. That means wist sees two positions that could do with an upgrade on the line. But most fans want Raji back. So they are looking to replace Wilson alone. But Wilson's one talent is run defense and holding his ground. There is not another player on this defense that does that better than him other than Raji and Pickett. I would be surprised (pleasantly so) if 285 lbs Datone Jones supplants him in Base D. I think he is here to rush the passer and rest Raji/Pickett by having them play fewer DE snaps.

2. Scheme or lack of adjustments. On its face, this claim falls short to me. Two defenses, Ravens and Falcons, one bigger and one smaller, one more multiple and one more static, than the Packers contained the read option not by simply being bigger or faster, they attacked Kap on the mesh and forced a give to the RB in read option. Gore had good games against them because of this. But big plays were limited. Given a redo a week later, I think Capers would make the same choice. As for adjustments in game, Capers listed several that were made in game post mortems. And it was an adjustment that seems to have caused Kap to go from scrambling through the Packers D (on pass plays) to running wide on read option through the Packers D.

3. Bigger. Two problems with this: one, while McGinn's article keeps mentioning size requirements, he fails to draw a correct inference from the players on the Packers roster. They are not too light, they are too short compared to Caper's 3-4 ideal body types. One man, D Jones, in the draft class addressed this and he addressed it by being one inch taller than Neal and two more than Worthy. If Jones pans out, it will be his talent that is mainly responsible not a 1-inch height and reach advantage.

4. Injuries. Lacy's draft by the Packers proves Thompson is willing to live with some medical yellow flags. Smith and possibly Bishop's release do seem to point to the Packers being less forgiving about injuries and waiting with mid-level talent, though this might be the future under the Rodgers and Matthews contracts until the cap goes up. If it were all about zero tolerance for injuries, Derrick Sherrod would be looking for work.

5. Execution. This came up during Vikings prep before the playoffs. And it has come up again in reference to college coaches advising the pros on the read option (or any option). Assignment football with no free lancing. I think this is the bigger factor. I think the Packers allow their defense to get out of shape when trying to be aggressive and force turnovers. We'll get to see if its a switch that can be flipped.

All of the above have a point or two to recommend them. Raji and Pick, despite better run D in 12 than 11, played disappointingly at times. We all would like 6' 5" trees at DE who cannot be rooted out of their spot. It would be nice to have a break from injuries, or at least return to 2011 levels. Its also clear the Packers failed to anticipate the risk of read option in their prep work for the 49ers. Raji said they spent next to no time on it in practice and Capers said they touched on it but it wasn't a focus. But read option totaled 7 (or 9?) plays in a game with 76 offensive plays. I don't think a failure to anticipate 9.2% of snaps is unusual in this League. but those 7 (or 9) plays average 15 yards, several first downs and a TD. Remember though, that Kap merely scrambling cost the Packers almost as dearly in the first half. So the greater failure was not the read option prep, it was failing to recognize the weapon Kaepernick was. That he was worse than Gore or Davis.

They should have watched more Bears-49ers game film in prep week.

But the one area that fits most with the pattern of failure is execution and technique. Wilson is solid in base but he is not Jolly circa 2009, holding ground is not the same as making the tackle. Jones did better than we had a right to expect, but his reactions to plays in front of him were slow too often. Raji, when frustrated, free lanced and caused as much trouble as he solved. And they need better play from their secondary. MD Jennings might not offer enough the correct skill set versus the 49ers. And Matthews cannot pass rush in such a way that the entire right side of the defense is open for the QB to scramble through. He needs to stick with the Power Rush more often versus fleet footed QBs.

All very fixable, but we have been waiting for years to solve the zone problem and its still around. So other than Patler, how many people are worried that the position coaches are not maximizing the return on the players in all facets of the game? That too much emphasis is placed on specific skills? McCarthy spent this years OTAs going back to individual work and less full team drills. I think he recognizes it too.

[pbmax]

Holy crap that is long. Sorry, didn't mean to go Full Manifesto on you.

[rbaloha1]

579

[Upnorth]

LARGE FONTS Indicate STUPIDITY of large fonts.

The cash offer is null and void.

Fixed

[pbmax]

579

76