Yet another "soft" article

[wist43]

You guys give me shit about knocking the team for being soft - but the fact remains, the national media makes the charge, and there are regular articles run about the team being soft.

This article says the players are pissed, that the coaches post these articles on the bulletin board, and they're gonna prove they're not a soft team, blah, blah, blah...

They need to take it up with MM and Capers.

They play soft schemes - there's simply no way around that fact. If the OL is pissed that they're being called soft - well get in your coaches ear to call an occasional power running play.

If the defense is pissed b/c they're accused of being soft up front - well, get in Mr. Spraypaintedhair's face, and tell him you don't like playing with 1 DL on the field!!!

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/soft-label-is-one-hard-knock-for-packers-players-b9977422z1-220446531.html

[Fritz]

You guys give me shit about knocking the team for being soft - but the fact remains, the national media makes the charge, and there are regular articles run about the team being soft.

This article says the players are pissed, that the coaches post these articles on the bulletin board, and they're gonna prove they're not a soft team, blah, blah, blah...

They need to take it up with MM and Capers.

They play soft schemes - there's simply no way around that fact. If the OL is pissed that they're being called soft - well get in your coaches ear to call an occasional power running play.

If the defense is pissed b/c they're accused of being soft up front - well, get in Mr. Spraypaintedhair's face, and tell him you don't like playing with 1 DL on the field!!!

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/soft-label-is-one-hard-knock-for-packers-players-b9977422z1-220446531.html

If they say it is so, and say it often, and say it nationally, then it must be true.

Now there's some logic for ya.

[pbmax]

Most of the work on the soft charge has been done close to home. I don't read much national football coverage but other than radio and local papers, the closest I have read was Ben Muth expressing wonderment at the way Raji was getting destroyed by the San Fran double teams. Of course, Muth, a Stanford grad, has had a tough time wrapping his head around the read option and regularly gets consults from other bloggers about what he was seeing from blockers. For instance, he did not understand or bother to explain why Gore did not get the ball when Raji got rocked out of his gap.

Smart Football wrote that the Packers were completely bamboozled by the 49ers and that the scheme was not read option sound. Unfortunately for soft core porn peddlers, he didn't want more beef on the line, he wanted more bodies in the alleys and better assignment execution. In fact, the reason its probably only being parroted nationally and is not a BIGGER story is the fact that national pro football writers barely grasp the read option as a concept, much less understand how to judge a defense facing it. For much of the preseason, Denver beat guys were telling the world that Denver was in a pistol formation when in actuality, it was a shotgun with a back offset. You know, the formation Manning has been throwing and running out of for better than a decade.

Soft is the easiest, most emotional charge to level at a team. Its like complaining about energy, leadership and body language. Its an expression of the viewers uneasiness, not analysis. If a team is getting its hat handed to it, you can find evidence of each of these from any game. It never explains WHY, just expresses the frustration of the fan. Unfortunately, it also passes for sports reporting these days. Its hard to defend a defense after seeing 183 yards put up against you on the ground. But the fact remains that the team didn't give that up because its soft; it execution and alignment were not up to snuff.

And Lang should shut up about playing with an edge and just run block better. Its dopey confusing cause for effect thinking like that which will cost him his job soon.

[King Friday]

Strange cure has been identified for the "soft, squeezable" Packer defense...

Lots of defensive players in their contract year.

[wist43]

Mark Wahlberg is light on his feet though, huh... and in boots no less

Love that movie... the cop telling him what they found in his car?? LOL

Hal and Christinith?? LOL... too funny

[Pugger]

We're doomed!

[Cheesehead Craig]

PB, love the take on "soft".

So what makes a team soft? Is it if they rely on the pass on offense moreso than with the run? If you win, what's the difference? If you can run the ball on offense does that make you tough? So does that mean that KC, Buffalo, and the Jets are tougher, better teams because they can run the ball? The W's are not there to support that and I don't think anyone considers them tough.

On defense it seems that you're soft if you cannot stop the run. But if you do stop it, you're tough. If you can stop the pass, it's not toughness, it's credited to players executing a scheme and not blowing an assignment. Why cannot that not be the same theory applied to stopping the run? It seems that if your players are where they are supposed to be on defense and don't blow their assignment, you're going to stop the run as well.

The Ravens with all their talk of how tough they are on D are middle of the pack in stopping the run and pass stats-wise. The Packers gave up fewer yards than the Ravens did both vs the pass and run, fewer points, and had more 10 more sacks but yet the Ravens are considered tough but the Packers are not. Why is that? The stats don't back it up. Perhaps it was just a fluke year where they won the SB when their offense had a real hot stretch.

[mraynrand]

Soft is the easiest, most emotional charge to level at a team. Its like complaining about energy, leadership and body language. Its an expression of the viewers uneasiness, not analysis.

Everyone stop the softness!! Now!!

[Zool]

Wist, you fucking hate the media. Well at least in the other forum you do. Here they are your ally? Maybe Harv should start a Wist Inconsistent thread.

[wist43]

Wist, you fucking hate the media. Well at least in the other forum you do. Here they are your ally? Maybe Harv should start a Wist Inconsistent thread.

Sports media aint media - except in terms of political correctness.

Still, they need to be burned at the stake along with Tom Brokaw and Rachael Madness - just b/c

[wist43]

Everyone stop the softness!! Now!!

Yes ayn, yes!!!

[denverYooper]

Sports media aint media - except in terms of political correctness.

Still, they need to be burned at the stake along with Tom Brokaw and Rachael Madness - just b/c

My wife likes to say that sports (and NFL, in particular) media is just soap opera for men.

[mraynrand]

My wife likes to say that sports (and NFL, in particular) media is just soap opera for men.

If she had an ID on this website, she would get repped. You, sir, get nothing.

[KYPack]

It's got to be hard to be good, boys.

That goes for the for the girls, too.

[bobblehead]

PB, love the take on "soft".

So what makes a team soft? Is it if they rely on the pass on offense moreso than with the run? If you win, what's the difference? If you can run the ball on offense does that make you tough? So does that mean that KC, Buffalo, and the Jets are tougher, better teams because they can run the ball? The W's are not there to support that and I don't think anyone considers them tough.

On defense it seems that you're soft if you cannot stop the run. But if you do stop it, you're tough. If you can stop the pass, it's not toughness, it's credited to players executing a scheme and not blowing an assignment. Why cannot that not be the same theory applied to stopping the run? It seems that if your players are where they are supposed to be on defense and don't blow their assignment, you're going to stop the run as well.

The Ravens with all their talk of how tough they are on D are middle of the pack in stopping the run and pass stats-wise. The Packers gave up fewer yards than the Ravens did both vs the pass and run, fewer points, and had more 10 more sacks but yet the Ravens are considered tough but the Packers are not. Why is that? The stats don't back it up. Perhaps it was just a fluke year where they won the SB when their offense had a real hot stretch.

So many bad points, where to start. You picked three good running teams with GOD AWFUL QB's. QB play is still the most important aspect in pro football.

As to all the rest, it goes like this. In the passing game the recievers can't actually push you, or hit you, or physically dominate you to get open...its finesse by definition. Faster, precise, hard cuts. Defensively you mimick the offense and stay with them....but DON'T TOUCH!!!

Why is a running team considered "tougher". Because to create a run lane I must knock you back and control you. I am allowed to push, pull, grab and steamroll. Very different than the passing game. Physical hard football.

Now, here is where I agree with you and part from Wist. I don't think you have to be physically dominant to win. You can win with finesse, but one way or the other you must get positive yardage and be able to run the ball. QB play is still king, because even a good running team gets 3rd and 7 and needs to convert. However, a bad running team gets 3rd and 10...and never keeps a defense honest which makes it harder to pass block.

Balance is king in the NFL. If you have a weakness they will gameplan for it. You must play the run well, you must run well; same for the pass. If you are fundamentally flawed you will lose.

The packers are called "soft" because MM forgets to run and handicaps his offense. When they do run, guys blow assignments (and sometimes get beat). We don't run well. It may be a soft thing, but it also has to do with assignments.

For my money, I value the OL. I would NEVER have let Wells walk. Imagine an OL of Sherrod, Lang, Wells, Sitton, Bulaga. A little luck and one FA choice different and our OL might be top 10....but one bad call and 2 bad injuries and we are just another "soft" team.