Official Packers vs. Patriots Discussion Thread

[woodbuck27]

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-locker-room-report/article-1/Packers-defense-geared-up-for-more-than-just-Gronkowski/730ea033-8b88-44bd-9020-3b1d87786edd?campaign=email_141128

Packers defense geared up for more than just Gronkowski

Posted Nov 27, 2014

Mike Spofford ... packers.com senior writer


** “When it’s all said and done, it’s not just about Gronkowski,” cornerback Tramon Williams said. “He imposes his will on defenses, but Tom spreads the ball around. He gets the ball to his backs, to his receivers, everybody. So you can’t just pinpoint one guy. Certain guys make bigger plays, but you can’t pinpoint one guy.”

** “The biggest thing with a guy like him is you have to find a way to get him down once he catches the ball,” linebacker A.J. Hawk said. “His yards after catch, I don’t know what the stats might be on him, but he breaks a lot of tackles and gets downfield, and their team gets energized when he does that.”

** So, is it tougher to cover Gronkowski or tackle him?

“I can’t even answer that for you,” Hyde said. “You can see on tape he breaks a lot of tackles. Guys have trouble getting him down. But at the same time, guys are trying to limit his touches and he’s still catching the ball. I’ll have to answer that after the game on Sunday.”

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/receivingYardsAfterCatch/qualified/false

NFL Player Receiving Statistics - 2014

Note see YAC for Packers Vs Pats.


GO PACK GO !

[Pugger]

I don't know what your point is... I don't think even the most homey homers on here would argue that our OL is anywhere in the same league as the Cowboys.

They can run the ball - they do run the ball; and we cannot. The only way we can run the ball is by using the pass to set up the run... the Cowboys are good enough that they don't have to do that, they can simply line up and run it down your throat more often than not... they just had a bad game yesterday.

Our OL is there to pass block... anything that gets accomplished in the running game is an afterthought. They're not knee-benders at all, there's no pulling or trapping - we have 3 running plays, and that's it.

If we had Dallas's OL, and the Vikings defense?? We'd be in business

Dallas' line is very good at run blocking but I don't think they are a hell of lot better than us at pass blocking. I'd also like to have a defense that is much better than the queens'.

[Pugger]

How does Dom Capers counter Tom Brady?

I don't think Capers is going to try to trick Brady. That would be a waste of time. What would really help is to have all hands on deck and play sound fundamental football. Tackle well and try to get turnovers. IMO the team that wins tomorrow is the one who wins the turnover battle.

[pbmax]

I don't think Capers is going to try to trick Brady. That would be a waste of time. What would really help is to have all hands on deck and play sound fundamental football. Tackle well and try to get turnovers. IMO the team that wins tomorrow is the one who wins the turnover battle.

Actually I am all for disguising a look pre-snap. Packers don't do a lot of that. Wist may be haunted by the 2-4, but I am haunted by Eli Manning saying its not like he had a tough time figuring out what the Packers were doing (Kurt Warner also said this) in coverage.

Hide it, show zone then run man. Show single high then retreat to two deep. Reverse it. Stand everyone is the same position every snap then have them run to assignment at the snap. Change all the uniform numbers. Maybe camouflage.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Actually I am all for disguising a look pre-snap. Packers don't do a lot of that. Wist may be haunted by the 2-4, but I am haunted by Eli Manning saying its not like he had a tough time figuring out what the Packers were doing (Kurt Warner also said this) in coverage.

Hide it, show zone then run man. Show single high then retreat to two deep. Reverse it. Stand everyone is the same position every snap then have them run to assignment at the snap. Change all the uniform numbers. Maybe camouflage.

I'd like to see them do the same thing on offense, not camouflage but a dose of misdirection, reverses, counter plays and the like. Rodgers simply reaching back and putting the ball in Lacy's belly is getting mighty old.

[pbmax]

I'd like to see them do the same thing on offense, not camouflage but a dose of misdirection, reverses, counter plays and the like. Rodgers simply reaching back and putting the ball in Lacy's belly is getting mighty old.

They run the boot for that, so the DE/OLB can't cheat down the line like Matthews to tackle Lacy from behind.

But I did think I saw Cobb run one fly sweep earlier this year.

[Maxie the Taxi]

The "boot?"

[Fritz]

Years of ineptitude is trumped by 5 good runs, lol...

You guys are such a hoot

Here's your exact quote, Wist:

"The only way we can run the ball is by using the pass to set up the run..."

Notice your word choice: the "only" way. You didn't say, except sometimes they do it. You said "only," and when someone calls you on it, you excuse it as the exception and fall back on your usual namecalling - we're all "homers."

So if you don't mean "only," then don't choose that word.

You argue, over and over again, that you are spot-on correct in your analysis. Any evidence counter to your ideas you excuse as irrelevant, or so occasional as to not count, or sheer luck. Like your infamous claim that the whole 2010 SB run was luck.

So you're always right because you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions.

And you talk about other people being unrealistic.

[mraynrand]

Keep up. Second Chicago game, Perry at OLB in 2-4. Bears went 24-55 in run game.

I like Wist a lot, but this obsession with 2-4 is over the top. I got tired of this and left. I have analysis somewhere of several more games showing Capers adjusts the 2-4 to essentially a 3-3 for run heavy teams, and runs the 2-4 primarily on (predicted) passing downs (last year). Chicago obviously can do both, so Capers went with a 2-4 that included Perry.

I think that Capers took the new pass interference rules to heart and that the 2-4 this year was an acknowledgement that team were going to be pass-happy. results have been mixed. Obviously Seattle is getting away with a lot of contact and in the playoffs, like last year against SF, the refs are gonna swallow their whistles.

Unfortunately for the Packers, Capers' schemes do require the flexibility of a lot of specialized players, and if guys get hurt, he becomes limited very quickly. It's not like injuries don't hurt other teams (see SF for example), it's just missing a guy here or there can totally kill Dom's schemes (See at Saints, for example).

[wist43]

Here's your exact quote, Wist:

"The only way we can run the ball is by using the pass to set up the run..."

Notice your word choice: the "only" way. You didn't say, except sometimes they do it. You said "only," and when someone calls you on it, you excuse it as the exception and fall back on your usual namecalling - we're all "homers."

So if you don't mean "only," then don't choose that word.

You argue, over and over again, that you are spot-on correct in your analysis. Any evidence counter to your ideas you excuse as irrelevant, or so occasional as to not count, or sheer luck. Like your infamous claim that the whole 2010 SB run was luck.

So you're always right because you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions.

And you talk about other people being unrealistic.

Like I said... years of ineptitude is erased with 1 instance in which they ran for a 1st down - and this is what you guys hang your hat on??

In a court of law circumstantial evidence can be dismissed if it is thread bare and does not amount to weight. The weight in this case however, is on my side of the argument - it is you guys who are in denial.

In terms of running the ball, we can't consistently do it b/c of philosophical reasons; and in terms of stopping the run, the same is true. When the coaching staffs on either side of the ball get their heads of out their asses, i.e. MM incorporates some power running plays, and dunderdummy gets away from his beloved 2-4 and actually schemes an effort to hold down the LOS - then we can at least be average on both sides of the ball; but that doesn't happen very often, does it??

It is you guys who are trying to defend the blind squirrel.

[wist43]

I like Wist a lot, but this obsession with 2-4 is over the top. I got tired of this and left. I have analysis somewhere of several more games showing Capers adjusts the 2-4 to essentially a 3-3 for run heavy teams, and runs the 2-4 primarily on (predicted) passing downs (last year). Chicago obviously can do both, so Capers went with a 2-4 that included Perry.

I think that Capers took the new pass interference rules to heart and that the 2-4 this year was an acknowledgement that team were going to be pass-happy. results have been mixed. Obviously Seattle is getting away with a lot of contact and in the playoffs, like last year against SF, the refs are gonna swallow their whistles.

Unfortunately for the Packers, Capers' schemes do require the flexibility of a lot of specialized players, and if guys get hurt, he becomes limited very quickly. It's not like injuries don't hurt other teams (see SF for example), it's just missing a guy here or there can totally kill Dom's schemes (See at Saints, for example).

What Capers has been doing the past few years is fundamentally unsound - and the results bear that out.

We've had one of the worst defenses in the league for 4 years running - and when he did manage to stop the bleeding a little bit during '12 season, he got us completely embarrassed and bounced out of the playoffs in infamous record setting fashion.

Everyone knows the weakness of the Green Bay Packers is defense - you guys complain a little bit here and there, but for the most part you see it as substandard players. With respect to the ILB's, yes I'm in complete agreement there, but everywhere else on defense - I like most of the players and see that they can be used to much better effect than what dunderdummy has been doing.

When he did go to the 3-3, our defense looked like an actual NFL calibur defense. It disrupted the LOS, created pressure, and put our best defensive players on the field together - in terms of the nickel?? The 3-3 is the answer for our team given our personnel.

You guys don't want to look at reality - you'd rather shoot the messenger. Given our personnel?? The 2-4 is a recipe for disaster, and that is born out every game we run a lot of 2-4, i.e. we get eaten alive, and give up tons of yds and pts - that is undeniable.

[smuggler]

So you're always right because you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions.

Modern political strategy ITT; Who cares if it works, so long as it fits my team's ideology!!

[wist43]

Keep up. Second Chicago game, Perry at OLB in 2-4. Bears went 24-55 in run game.

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?27285-Packer-weaknesses&p=807270&viewfull=1#post807270

You mean a "2-4" look similar to this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ one??

Max: "Well, its nice to know I haven't lost my mind. Packers did use a Bear front versus Eagles. That's 4 linebackers (Peppers, Hawk, Perry and Matthews) and 2 lineman (Daniels and Guion)."

If Perry is a "LB" in that presnap shot - wouldn't Danels and Guion be "LB's" as well; and if that is the case, isn't that 0-6 alignment by your reckoning??

Since you like to call that a "2-4", then what in God's name would be a 3-3??

Perry played a lot of the Chicago game with his hand in the dirt, i.e. as a DL - which is where he belongs.

The only problem I have the alignment that you posted there is that Hawk is still on the field... I'd much rather see Neal in Matthews spot, and Matthews playing the middle where Hawk is, and Hawk standing on the sideline along with Brad Jones.

[wist43]

Modern political strategy ITT; Who cares if it works, so long as it fits my team's ideology!!

The example of being able to run for a couple of 1st downs at the end of the Viking game is an outlier - outliers are just that, and have to be dismissed. They are called outliers b/c they lie outside the set of observed data that give you your trend and are therefore unreliable and invalid.

[denverYooper]

Rodgers is going to have a legacy game tomorrow.