The Defense - Again, the Defense :(

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Wake up chuggin kool-aid this am??

How in heavens name are we a top 4 team in the conference?? We're 9-11-1 in our last 20 games - Rodgers being out be damned, we're just not that good.

Seattle is light years better; and San Francisco has come back to us a bit with the losses on defense, but they are still better than we are; New Orleans is better; Carolina is better; Philadelphia is probably better - they certainly kicked the crap out of us last year in Lambeau...

The Lions completely embarrassed us last year 40-10... I don't care if Rodgers was out or not, a good team finds a way to at least compete; and I'm sorry, I hate the Bears too, but they are probably better than we are too.

That puts us at being competetive in the middle of the NFC.

That is what our record indicates, that is what our pathetic defense indicates, that is what our head scratching GM and coaching decisions indicate. We're simply not as good as Packer fans want to think we are. You guys are riding on the coat tails of a good run 3-4 years ago, and the fact that we have a franchise QB.

NFL games are won in the trenches, and the Packers are horrid on both the offensive and defensive lines. I think we had some good DL talent, but the cast off any run defenders we had on the roster, and of course dunderdummy is our DC and is committed to misusing everyone.

No, you're on drugs if you think the Packers are a legit SB contender. I think we have the talent to be that good, and I think MM will round the offense into decent form; but I view the defense as being completely hopeless.

I had higher hopes a few weeks ago... hopes that MM would force Capers into actually doing his job - but alas, the Seattle game showed that very little has changed - and what has changed has been for the worse... as if that were possible.

As good as our offense can be, there is no way the Packers can be considered a legit contender as long as dunderdummy is our DC, and the organization continues to believe that gimmicks on defense is a substitute for playing solid, fundamental football.

Got to say I agree with you on this. Usually you are way to negative for me, but realistically I would say we are somewhere in the middle. I see the Hawks, Saints, and 49ers as clearly better teams and I see the Bears, Lions, Eagles, Falcons, and Redskins as teams that will be a lot better than last year. I think the Panthers will suck though. So the very best we are number 4, but could be as low as 9.

I think TT should be held accountable for his drafts since 2010. He has been missing and missing early. While teams like the 49ers and Seahawks are hitting on all top picks and finding studs in the later rounds. Seattle for example has drafted Chancellor, Sherman, Lane, Maxwell, kj wight, Bladwin, Wilson, and most of there oline in the 3rd round or later. The Packers in the meanwhile have drafted Bulaga, Sherrod, and Jones in the first and they all haven't played the way you expect first rounders to play.

Plain and simple we can complain about Capers (and we should bc he sucks), but we just simply aren't as talented as the elite teams in the league. I hate to even think about the teams TT would be fielding had he not drafted Rodgers with his first pick.

[wist43]

The 9-11 metric is as bad a measure of this team's quality as any other devised by the criminally insane or Bears fans.

If you expect Rodgers to miss 40% of the next 14 games, speak up.

We were 27th in run defense, 25th in defense... Capers is a gimmick DC, and what we got in the opener was more of the same. Those are just facts.

We can compete with anyone on offense... and I have faith that MM will get the offense straightened out, but the defense simply is not championship calibur.

It is what it is... hopefully, Capers will be shown the door at years end.

[wist43]

The Bears? I know you hate our defense but their defense is worse than ours.

Well, between us and the Bears?? It's a race to the bottom... we are bad, bad, bad - guess it just depends on what flavor of bad you like

[Rutnstrut]

The 9-11 metric is as bad a measure of this team's quality as any other devised by the criminally insane or Bears fans.

If you expect Rodgers to miss 40% of the next 14 games, speak up.

I don't know about 40%, but I would be surprised if he doesn't miss a game or two this season.

[wist43]

I don't know about 40%, but I would be surprised if he doesn't miss a game or two this season.

I didn't look at the offense that much, but I didn't notice any power running plays... if that is the case, then it would seem MM has reverted to his nature, i.e. reducing his run play list to his default 3 plays. Student body right, left, and middle.

With no run to respect, defenses will be teeing off on Rodgers - if that is the case?? Yes, Rodgers will end up missing time.

[Rutnstrut]

I didn't look at the offense that much, but I didn't notice any power running plays... if that is the case, then it would seem MM has reverted to his nature, i.e. reducing his run play list to his default 3 plays. Student body right, left, and middle.

With no run to respect, defenses will be teeing off on Rodgers - if that is the case?? Yes, Rodgers will end up missing time.

Exactly, Stubby as usual will be Mr.predictable,

[Joemailman]

Wake up chuggin kool-aid this am??

How in heavens name are we a top 4 team in the conference?? We're 9-11-1 in our last 20 games - Rodgers being out be damned, we're just not that good.

Seattle is light years better; and San Francisco has come back to us a bit with the losses on defense, but they are still better than we are; New Orleans is better; Carolina is better; Philadelphia is probably better - they certainly kicked the crap out of us last year in Lambeau...

[/B]

Saints gave up 37 points and 568 yards. It wasn't 579 yards but still... I guess you can cross them off your list.

[Striker]

Wake up chuggin kool-aid this am??

How in heavens name are we a top 4 team in the conference?? We're 9-11-1 in our last 20 games - Rodgers being out be damned, we're just not that good.

Seattle is light years better; and San Francisco has come back to us a bit with the losses on defense, but they are still better than we are; New Orleans is better; Carolina is better; Philadelphia is probably better - they certainly kicked the crap out of us last year in Lambeau...

The Lions completely embarrassed us last year 40-10... I don't care if Rodgers was out or not, a good team finds a way to at least compete; and I'm sorry, I hate the Bears too, but they are probably better than we are too.

That puts us at being competetive in the middle of the NFC.

That is what our record indicates, that is what our pathetic defense indicates, that is what our head scratching GM and coaching decisions indicate. We're simply not as good as Packer fans want to think we are. You guys are riding on the coat tails of a good run 3-4 years ago, and the fact that we have a franchise QB.

NFL games are won in the trenches, and the Packers are horrid on both the offensive and defensive lines. I think we had some good DL talent, but the cast off any run defenders we had on the roster, and of course dunderdummy is our DC and is committed to misusing everyone.

No, you're on drugs if you think the Packers are a legit SB contender. I think we have the talent to be that good, and I think MM will round the offense into decent form; but I view the defense as being completely hopeless.

I had higher hopes a few weeks ago... hopes that MM would force Capers into actually doing his job - but alas, the Seattle game showed that very little has changed - and what has changed has been for the worse... as if that were possible.

As good as our offense can be, there is no way the Packers can be considered a legit contender as long as dunderdummy is our DC, and the organization continues to believe that gimmicks on defense is a substitute for playing solid, fundamental football.

The only team that is "light years better" right now is Seattle. And this is the Packers playing possibly the worst football they can.

The Saints? Umm, yeah. Their vastly improved defense just had Atlanta move almost at will against them. The 49ers aren't going to be the powerhouse they normally are.

The Panthers offense is stipped. Philly "destroyed" us with Tolzien at the helm. And I think their offense and Foles is going to be a bit less effective this season.

The Bears? Yeah. Cutler is still their QB. And the Lions, despite destroying the inept Flynn led Packers, couldn't seize control of the division either.

I know it's trendy to be a front runner off the bandwagon, but jeez man.

[Joemailman]

The only team that is "light years better" right now is Seattle. And this is the Packers playing possibly the worst football they can.

The Saints? Umm, yeah. Their vastly improved defense just had Atlanta move almost at will against them. The 49ers aren't going to be the powerhouse they normally are.

The Panthers offense is stipped. Philly "destroyed" us with Tolzien at the helm. And I think their offense and Foles is going to be a bit less effective this season.

The Bears? Yeah. Cutler is still their QB. And the Lions, despite destroying the inept Flynn led Packers, couldn't seize control of the division either.

I know it's trendy to be a front runner off the bandwagon, but jeez man.

That's unfair. Wist has never been on the bandwagon.

[wist43]

That's unfair. Wist has never been on the bandwagon.

Thank you Joe... I resemble that remark

[wist43]

The only team that is "light years better" right now is Seattle. And this is the Packers playing possibly the worst football they can.

The Saints? Umm, yeah. Their vastly improved defense just had Atlanta move almost at will against them. The 49ers aren't going to be the powerhouse they normally are.

The Panthers offense is stipped. Philly "destroyed" us with Tolzien at the helm. And I think their offense and Foles is going to be a bit less effective this season.

The Bears? Yeah. Cutler is still their QB. And the Lions, despite destroying the inept Flynn led Packers, couldn't seize control of the division either.

I know it's trendy to be a front runner off the bandwagon, but jeez man.

For the most part - I don't care how many yds someone else gives up... more than likely they have competent coaches that will address those issues. The Packers?? No, dunderdummy will continue to flail around with his gimmicks and exotic looks, all the while his perpetually young defenders are in a complete daze.

There is a complete disconnect between TT and dunderdummy, and dunderdummy and the players.

I think other coaches are smart enough to realize what their players strengths and weaknesses are, and will adjust accordingly; while dunderdummy is completely obtuse to designing his defense to his players strengths.

New Orleans may have given up a lot of yds today, but I have absolutely faith in Rob Ryan - whereas I have absolutely no faith in dunderdummy. There is no excuse, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for what dunderdummy has been doing for 3+ years.

Dunderdummy is hands down the worst def. coordinator in the league.

[Zool]

Carolina is better; Philadelphia is probably better - they certainly kicked the crap out of us last year in Lambeau...

The Lions completely embarrassed us last year 40-10... I don't care if Rodgers was out or not, a good team finds a way to at least compete; and I'm sorry, I hate the Bears too, but they are probably better than we are too.

The first few yes, NO maybe, but these no. That's just trying to seem smarter than everyone else by yelling the loudest.

[Guiness]

I think running a 4-3 is viable given the Packers lineman. I am not sure they have the backers for it. Hawk is no MLB and I am not sure Jones is a Sam.

But put that aside for a minute. I haven't watched the film so it could have been some hybrid deal.

If your elephant is in the 9 gap, a 2 point stance makes little difference as even with a TE, no one is getting a direct shot at you unlike a NT, DT or 5 gap power end.

But having only seen the write-ups and a few plays, its hard to say.

Are you saying if they have a DE/OLB (Neale or Peppers) lined up on wide on the line, in a 2 point stance, that counts as a DL? Not sure I buy that.

[pbmax]

Are you saying if they have a DE/OLB (Neale or Peppers) lined up on wide on the line, in a 2 point stance, that counts as a DL? Not sure I buy that.

Not sure how wide you mean by your wide, but yes it changes things.

Its dependent on alignment (and I still haven't reviewed the game) but if that player is attacking the LOS and with no coverage responsibilities (unless zone blitz) then yes, he is behaving like a lineman. The stance might be an issue, but its less of an issue wide.

Remember the argument against the 2-4 nickel and dime is that its vulnerable to the run in the middle due to size. Replacing Matthews and Perry with Neal and Peppers is a size increase that offsets the lost size of a NT. Each guy wist wanted to put on the field in his 3-3 nickel was a 280-285 pound guy so that you could have beef and a little pass rush.

[Guiness]

Not sure how wide you mean by your wide, but yes it changes things.

Its dependent on alignment (and I still haven't reviewed the game) but if that player is attacking the LOS and with no coverage responsibilities (unless zone blitz) then yes, he is behaving like a lineman. The stance might be an issue, but its less of an issue wide.

Remember the argument against the 2-4 nickel and dime is that its vulnerable to the run in the middle due to size. Replacing Matthews and Perry with Neal and Peppers is a size increase that offsets the lost size of a NT. Each guy wist wanted to put on the field in his 3-3 nickel was a 280-285 pound guy so that you could have beef and a little pass rush.

Wide as in the 9 alignment (outside shoulder of TE). I tend to think if he's that wide and standing up, I don't care if it's Howard Greene, he's an LB, not a DL.