The Official Gameweek Discussion thread: 2013 Season Opener: Packers v 49ers

[pbmax]

Weaker teams find ways to lose.

Ross never should have been out there fielding that punt - yet MM would never admit that. Just as he will never admit that 12 yds rushing/gm is a problem, or that playing soft defense is an issue.

When presented with a relative question, he got defensive and said they score enough points. That's ego.

They're going to keep doing what they've been doing - only, seemingly according to MM, they're going to do it better. That is ego standing in the way of self scouting and honesty.

He really should read Sun Tzu's Art of War.

I expect this game will go very similar to our opening day loss last year.

Any team that loses a game finds a way to lose a game. Its a tautology and reveals nothing. They are the 3rd winningest franchise over the last 10 years. Something works there.

Cobb had been injured as had Woodson. Cobb is loose with the ball. How many deep should your punt return position be?

[MadtownPacker]

At a birthday party. Bunch of shit 49er fans here. Then even fucked up the cake with a whiner logo.

[wist43]

Any team that loses a game finds a way to lose a game. Its a tautology and reveals nothing. They are the 3rd winningest franchise over the last 10 years. Something works there.

Cobb had been injured as had Woodson. Cobb is loose with the ball. How many deep should your punt return position be?

Not saying we're not a winning a team - I'm saying that we're a weaker team than the Niners, which I think is obvious to almost everyone.

[Rastak]

Hit him every play. If we get 15 we get 15. AR will marchthe Pack down to a score on 80% of the drives and we will have one pick six.

Read option is like the Wildcat...over

I think they could employ that same strategy, but you guys would be fucked. Hit Rodgers every play and take the 15 until he's out.

[Rastak]

I came by here to post that. Harbaugh wants the QB protected with a 'strike zone' until he leaves the pocket, the same as he would be if he was dropping back to pass. I thought about that for 2 seconds, then decided it's ridiculous. If the QB is in a running posture, he is not defenseless and the defense should be allowed to hit him without having to inspect his hands to make sure he's got the ball. By the time K leaves the pocket he's in full stride.

Rule says if he might have the ball you can blast him. He hands off and demonstrates he doesn't have the ball you can't. Same as play action. This isn't really new. If it's clear he doesn't have the ball then what justification do you have to drop him like he was a ball carrier?

[mraynrand]

Rule says if he might have the ball you can blast him. He hands off and demonstrates he doesn't have the ball you can't. Same as play action. This isn't really new. If it's clear he doesn't have the ball then what justification do you have to drop him like he was a ball carrier?

what if he's blocking?

[Rastak]

what if he's blocking?

Knock him on his ass.

[Patler]

They're going to keep doing what they've been doing - only, seemingly according to MM, they're going to do it better. That is ego standing in the way of self scouting and honesty.

That philosophy did, however, work pretty well for a GB coach in the '60s.

[mraynrand]

That philosophy did, however, work pretty well for a GB coach in the '69s.

'69s?

[Iron Mike]

[Fritz]

Not saying we're not a winning a team - I'm saying that we're a weaker team than the Niners, which I think is obvious to almost everyone.

So if the Packers lose, it proves your point. If the Packers win, it's luck.

You just can't lose with that world view. Way to go.

[wist43]

So if the Packers lose, it proves your point. If the Packers win, it's luck.

You just can't lose with that world view. Way to go.

Believe it or not, I do think we can win - but it would take a Sun Tzu approach, as opposed to the definition of insanity, i.e. doing the same thing over and over again...

If we do the same things we did last year, we will produce the same result. Sometimes it's just not that complicated.

On offense we need to shorten up the passing game into the intermediate range, be patient, and take shots as we set them up for those shots. Incorporate power running plays into the game plan. It is possible MM will do the former, just about zero chance he will do the latter.

On defense - absolutely no 2-4; run a 3-4 mixed in with 4 down linemen. Zone the short stuff, and concentrate on Davis and Bolden. If we do those things we can hold them under 30pts and we would have a shot.

I don't expect any of those things to happen. What I do expect is a repeat of game 1 from last year. 30-22 sounds about right, maybe 34-17.

We know what SF is going to do - the questions are, how will MM and Mr. Spraypaintedhair respond?? I think they throw the same old shit out there.

[Fritz]

I agree with your assessment of the preferred offensive strategy. Too many times last year Rodgers passed up a wide-open short or intermediate running back/receiver to take a shot downfield. Sometimes I had to change my "Goddamn you Rodgers!" to "Way to go Rodgers" right in mid-sentence, but most of the time it didn't work. I'd like to see Rodgers throw at least a few more of those check-downs to wide open guys and let them run. But I don't fault MM for that; those are Rodgers' choices.

Defensively, I don't like the 2-down-lineman thing; I don't really even like the 3-4. But I have come to understand this is not because the 3-4 isn't good and somehow as a casual fan I know more than professional coaches; it's because I grew up in the 70's when people ran the 4-3 and so that's the look I'm used to. I also think that as fans we sometimes make too much of the manliness issue - this business of being tougher and rougher and all that. I'd go so far as to suggest that perhaps we fans are working out our own manliness issues when we fret that our teams aren't rough or tough or big enough. Maybe that's why the female fans seem less bothered by all that.

I mean really, can you argue that any of those guys is some kind of pussy? I doubt it. Sure, some of the corners who weigh 190 would rather not take on the 230 lb running back, or at least they'd rather not try to out-man them but would rather just get them down, but that's not necessarily being a puss. Besides, I think that many NFL corners would have this same attitude, not just Packer corners.

I have been convinced by the posters here that if the Packer defense - and I trust that Capers has done all the prep he can and is not just throwing "the same old shit out there" - executes and stays disciplined, it can slow the SF attack.

I watched parts of the Michigan/ND game last night. It looked to me that ND controlled the line of scrimmage, both offensively and defensively. Michigan running backs got nailed behind the LOS many times, and the ND QB often had plenty of time to throw.

But Michigan won, somehow. So while I love the idea of controlling the LOS, I think if you have better skill players and can at least get enough push on your lines to hang on, your team can still win without being the more dominating team on the LOS.

And since Crabtree is gone, and Gholston is gone, and Manningham is gone, maybe the Packers have an edge in some skill positions.

We'll see.

[pbmax]

The Packers have been running Power plays for a few years, though its as a changeup to the ZBS. Why they are running them is another question because that line is not exactly built for that except possibly Lang. Might be schematic, but I have never heard M3 or Campen address it.

[wist43]

I agree with your assessment of the preferred offensive strategy. Too many times last year Rodgers passed up a wide-open short or intermediate running back/receiver to take a shot downfield. Sometimes I had to change my "Goddamn you Rodgers!" to "Way to go Rodgers" right in mid-sentence, but most of the time it didn't work. I'd like to see Rodgers throw at least a few more of those check-downs to wide open guys and let them run. But I don't fault MM for that; those are Rodgers' choices.

Defensively, I don't like the 2-down-lineman thing; I don't really even like the 3-4. But I have come to understand this is not because the 3-4 isn't good and somehow as a casual fan I know more than professional coaches; it's because I grew up in the 70's when people ran the 4-3 and so that's the look I'm used to. I also think that as fans we sometimes make too much of the manliness issue - this business of being tougher and rougher and all that. I'd go so far as to suggest that perhaps we fans are working out our own manliness issues when we fret that our teams aren't rough or tough or big enough. Maybe that's why the female fans seem less bothered by all that.

I mean really, can you argue that any of those guys is some kind of pussy? I doubt it. Sure, some of the corners who weigh 190 would rather not take on the 230 lb running back, or at least they'd rather not try to out-man them but would rather just get them down, but that's not necessarily being a puss. Besides, I think that many NFL corners would have this same attitude, not just Packer corners.

I have been convinced by the posters here that if the Packer defense - and I trust that Capers has done all the prep he can and is not just throwing "the same old shit out there" - executes and stays disciplined, it can slow the SF attack.

I watched parts of the Michigan/ND game last night. It looked to me that ND controlled the line of scrimmage, both offensively and defensively. Michigan running backs got nailed behind the LOS many times, and the ND QB often had plenty of time to throw.

But Michigan won, somehow. So while I love the idea of controlling the LOS, I think if you have better skill players and can at least get enough push on your lines to hang on, your team can still win without being the more dominating team on the LOS.

And since Crabtree is gone, and Gholston is gone, and Manningham is gone, maybe the Packers have an edge in some skill positions.

We'll see.

I think we do have better skill position players - I thought that last year as well.

The problem is that the disparity on the LOS is so wide, that it destroys our ability to be successful - moreso on defense.

McCarthy says he scores pts, and that's his defense for not running the ball successfully - perhaps, but it comes at a cost. We'd be better off winning a game 3-0, than losing a game 45-31. As far as I'm aware, MM isn't involved with the defense at all - he's only concerned with "scoring pts", he seems to be missing the big picture.

From reading the comments of the Packers brain trust, and from what I saw on the field in the preseason - I see nothing which would lead me to believe they've made the necessary adjustments to deal with a power team like the Niners.

I hope they got it figured out, but I really don't think so.

We'll find out in a few hours.