Packers Re-Sign Mike Neal

[wist43]

Fading fast with the #1 defense. But you don't look at stats like that.

They had a good defense... I didn't say they were junk - they were just fading, and you could see some serious cracks in the armour.

As SB's go, it was a good matchup, and a good game.

We continued on a good run the next year - even though we fielded one of the worst defenses in NFL history; whereas the Steelers haven't been a threat since.

[bobblehead]

Atlanta wasn't a "road grader" team in '10, they were a ZBS team, and had smallish OL. They put up good rushing stats with Turner, but they certainly weren't a power team. I didn't fear their offense; and I thought their defense was vastly overrated.

As #1 playoff seeds go, they were as weak as they come.

As for Chicago, just throw that one out... b/c it's Chicago, we know each other so well, they might as well attend our team meetings, and we theirs.

As for Pitt - they were fading fast by the time they got to the SB, and they've not been very good since then.

We had a nice run there from game 13 in '10 on thru the 2011 season, which during late in that season, KC exposed us. It's been tough sledding ever since that KC game in '11. Physical power teams have consistently beaten us up... we seem to have gotten a little tougher of late though. MM has incorporated some power running, and Lacy has helped.

Wist, you lose credibility here. KC "exposed" us? Seriously, we went 15-1. We let down for a game. We were not "exposed." You can't take a year we won the superbowl and discount every team we beat. No team, other than the '72? dolphins wins them all. Did you see seattle get exposed by AZ at home in about the same point in the season last year? AZ went in and knocked their dicks in the dirt. Totally outphysicalled them. The seahawks are a joke and just got on a run at the right time.

[bobblehead]

Fading fast with the #1 defense. But you don't look at stats like that.

Look at the run statistics from that season...don't think anyone was able to get rush yards against that old fading D that year.

[mraynrand]

Wist, you lose credibility here. KC "exposed" us? Seriously, we went 15-1. We let down for a game. We were not "exposed." You can't take a year we won the superbowl and discount every team we beat. No team, other than the '72? dolphins wins them all. Did you see seattle get exposed by AZ at home in about the same point in the season last year? AZ went in and knocked their dicks in the dirt. Totally outphysicalled them. The seahawks are a joke and just got on a run at the right time.

The '72 Dolphins might have lost to the Redskins if the pass to the gay guy in the end zone hadn't careened off the upright!

[mraynrand]

Neal before Zod!

[wist43]

Wist, you lose credibility here. KC "exposed" us? Seriously, we went 15-1. We let down for a game. We were not "exposed." You can't take a year we won the superbowl and discount every team we beat. No team, other than the '72? dolphins wins them all. Did you see seattle get exposed by AZ at home in about the same point in the season last year? AZ went in and knocked their dicks in the dirt. Totally outphysicalled them. The seahawks are a joke and just got on a run at the right time.

To be sure a team can have a let down... as Seattle did; but the KC game was different b/c of the style of team they were. We don't match up with that style at all - physical power teams can simply beat us up - which is what KC did, and which is what SF has done to us 4 times since then.

I think TT/MM/Capers have gotten their head out of their ass a little bit when it comes to the overall finesse nature of the team, and have tried to address it by becoming more physical. Even Spraypaintedhair has actually been playing 3-4 base against power teams - whodda thunk??

We have gotten more physical from the beginning '12 to now. It was the KC that exposed us. I taped that game went thru the tape a few times, KC simply beat the living hell out of us physically - and that is not something that anything to do with a "let down". It was the style of play, and the fact that we couldn't match up to that style of play. SF has certainly proven that over the past couple of seasons.

[Fritz]

This looks like it'll probably get glossed over, but it's a very good point. The only thing that separated them that year from a team like SF was a more dynamic QB. I've never been convinced that Matt Ryan will ever be a real franchise guy.

I don't believe a team "like" SF or Seattle would have stopped us that year either - though none of us could never prove it one way or another. After all, Pittsburgh was kinda like those teams too and we beat them pretty handily, really.

I think we were on such a tear that we couldn't be stopped. All I saw from our guys was laser-like focus, and that extended to our coaching staff, who called a handful of really brilliant games and handled all of the off-the-field pressure stuff absolutely perfectly. I was really impressed with MM's approach that year.

People like to say it was "luck", but getting "hot" is not the same as getting lucky. And it also undersells the quality job that everyone on our staff did, too.

Whether it's through retirement or a firing, MM and TT won't be in charge in a few years, I'd reckon, but I'll never take away or try to diminish what I saw as a very well-constructed run to our 13th championship.

As far as Mike Neal goes, I'm happy to see a relatively positive forum with regards to his signing. I'd like to point out something, just because I thought it was interesting:

Mike Neal 2013: 47 tackles, 5 sacks, 1 INT.
Lamarr Houston: 69 tackles, 6 sacks
Arthur Jones: 53 tackles, 4 sacks

Houston got $35 mil over 5 years, 15 mil guaranteed
Jones got 33 over 5 years, 10 guaranteed.

Seeing what we got Mike Neal for, I have to say I'm glad that TT stays away from the first few days of FA. Fans see Houston and Jones' names on a NFL.com "top FA" list and think they'll help our team. Well, they might have helped us, but what is the net gain? There's an opportunity cost of signing them and letting a guy like Neal go - or giving him less playtime - that goes deeper than just adding talent because you have the CAP space.

Don't get me wrong - I'm nervous as hell about the safety position. I'd have gone for SOMEONE out of that 1st day group, even if it was for more than you'd want to pay, because with Burnett as our only stable safety on the roster, the opportunity vs. cost is high.

I hope the safety thing works out for TT, because while I'd love an upgrade at ILB and NT - safety is the only place I can really say he's dropping the ball, talent-acquisition-wise.

This is a thoughtful, reasonable post. What it's doing in the middle of this thread, I do not know.

[Zool]

Look at the run statistics from that season...don't think anyone was able to get rush yards against that old fading D that year.

2010 Steelers Playoff stat cherry picking by me

Ravens
16-30 125 passing yards
18carries 35 rushing yards
12 first downs
3 TOs

Jets
20-33 233 passing yards
20carries 70 rushing yards
17 first downs
1 TO

Packers
24-39 304 passing yards
13carries 50 yards
15 first downs
0 TOs

[Pugger]

This looks like it'll probably get glossed over, but it's a very good point. The only thing that separated them that year from a team like SF was a more dynamic QB. I've never been convinced that Matt Ryan will ever be a real franchise guy.

I don't believe a team "like" SF or Seattle would have stopped us that year either - though none of us could never prove it one way or another. After all, Pittsburgh was kinda like those teams too and we beat them pretty handily, really.

I think we were on such a tear that we couldn't be stopped. All I saw from our guys was laser-like focus, and that extended to our coaching staff, who called a handful of really brilliant games and handled all of the off-the-field pressure stuff absolutely perfectly. I was really impressed with MM's approach that year.

People like to say it was "luck", but getting "hot" is not the same as getting lucky. And it also undersells the quality job that everyone on our staff did, too.

Whether it's through retirement or a firing, MM and TT won't be in charge in a few years, I'd reckon, but I'll never take away or try to diminish what I saw as a very well-constructed run to our 13th championship.

As far as Mike Neal goes, I'm happy to see a relatively positive forum with regards to his signing. I'd like to point out something, just because I thought it was interesting:

Mike Neal 2013: 47 tackles, 5 sacks, 1 INT.
Lamarr Houston: 69 tackles, 6 sacks
Arthur Jones: 53 tackles, 4 sacks

Houston got $35 mil over 5 years, 15 mil guaranteed
Jones got 33 over 5 years, 10 guaranteed.

Seeing what we got Mike Neal for, I have to say I'm glad that TT stays away from the first few days of FA. Fans see Houston and Jones' names on a NFL.com "top FA" list and think they'll help our team. Well, they might have helped us, but what is the net gain? There's an opportunity cost of signing them and letting a guy like Neal go - or giving him less playtime - that goes deeper than just adding talent because you have the CAP space.

Don't get me wrong - I'm nervous as hell about the safety position. I'd have gone for SOMEONE out of that 1st day group, even if it was for more than you'd want to pay, because with Burnett as our only stable safety on the roster, the opportunity vs. cost is high.

I hope the safety thing works out for TT, because while I'd love an upgrade at ILB and NT - safety is the only place I can really say he's dropping the ball, talent-acquisition-wise.

The ONLY reason IMO the Steelers stayed close in that SB was because our WRs kept dropping passes and most importantly Woodson got hurt.

[Bossman641]

To be sure a team can have a let down... as Seattle did; but the KC game was different b/c of the style of team they were. We don't match up with that style at all - physical power teams can simply beat us up - which is what KC did, and which is what SF has done to us 4 times since then.

I think TT/MM/Capers have gotten their head out of their ass a little bit when it comes to the overall finesse nature of the team, and have tried to address it by becoming more physical. Even Spraypaintedhair has actually been playing 3-4 base against power teams - whodda thunk??

We have gotten more physical from the beginning '12 to now. It was the KC that exposed us. I taped that game went thru the tape a few times, KC simply beat the living hell out of us physically - and that is not something that anything to do with a "let down". It was the style of play, and the fact that we couldn't match up to that style of play. SF has certainly proven that over the past couple of seasons.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the OL being down their top 3 tackles.

And on the other side of the ball, they had 139 rushing but averaged under 4 ypc. That game was lost by the battered OL.

[woodbuck27]

+1

That was a solid post by PlantPage55.

[Bretsky]

I might get close if we factor in cap inflation.

I already factored in cap inflation and I was being liberal with my JAG numbers
50% would be 2.5MIL a year; that is still too high

[3irty1]

I already factored in cap inflation and I was being liberal with my JAG numbers
50% would be 2.5MIL a year; that is still too high

2.5M is extremely close the the average NFL salary. Special teams play alone can earn you that cash. Brad Jones is a injury prone shit bird, but I think the hyperbole has run its course.

[woodbuck27]

I think Capers is a fine coach - I think he is capable of putting a good gameplan together, and producing good results.

But then there is Mr. Spraypaintedhair - call it a Jekyl and Hyde situation. Capers cannot be trusted - period. He is just as capable of putting together an absolute stinker of a gameplan and riding it all the way to defeat.

He's exactly the coach I thought he was, and I've said right from the beginning, that we won't be able to trust the guy - that certainly has proven to be true. He's put up some horrid numbers the past few years - I don't expect that to change.

and yet he survives...."only" in this Green Bay Packers...We're ALL FAMILY" thingy .... can this sort of thing go on and on and .....on.

[bobblehead]

To be sure a team can have a let down... as Seattle did; but the KC game was different b/c of the style of team they were. We don't match up with that style at all - physical power teams can simply beat us up - which is what KC did, and which is what SF has done to us 4 times since then.

I think TT/MM/Capers have gotten their head out of their ass a little bit when it comes to the overall finesse nature of the team, and have tried to address it by becoming more physical. Even Spraypaintedhair has actually been playing 3-4 base against power teams - whodda thunk??

We have gotten more physical from the beginning '12 to now. It was the KC that exposed us. I taped that game went thru the tape a few times, KC simply beat the living hell out of us physically - and that is not something that anything to do with a "let down". It was the style of play, and the fact that we couldn't match up to that style of play. SF has certainly proven that over the past couple of seasons.

I simply don't buy it. NYG beat us in the playoffs, but go back a few weeks and we beat them up. They were a very physical team that went on to win the big one, but week 10 (or so) we punked them. There are a number of reasons teams win or lose games, and physicality has a lot to do with it, but its not the beginning and end of every story. If we played KC the very next week after they beat us that season vegas would have made the line -14.