The Elephant In The Room

[red]

i wouldn't say we got "hammered" at running back

we lost our starter, thats it

starks was worthless when healthy early on and should have been replaced right off the bat

losing lacy was big, but a lot of teams lose their #1 rb's

and at CB, we lost our #1, but IMO we should have known that he was probably done last year when he took forever to get over his last concussion. and like RB, we had our #2 and 3 healthy at the beggining of the year and they already looked lost before any injuries

[RashanGary]

We got hammered at 2 positions - CB and RB. It also didn't help to get an early bye this year. We've been going nonstop since week 4. You could see the guys were running out of gas once we got behind by 2 scores. We've been playing playoff type games for 2 months and we finally collapsed.

Really good summary of our run and collapse. Succinct but so true and telling.

[vince]

Two comments:

One, no the game wasn't lost by the coaches. But the problem with this argument is that neither can you argue that games are won by coaches. It's never that simple.

Two, What coaches can control and what they can be held accountable for is game planning, strategy and adjustments during the game. I didn't see anything yesterday that credited the Packer brain trust in these areas. IMO the coaches went into the game with the attitude: "We beat Dallas by playing well. If we play well, we'll beat Atlanta." After the game: "We didn't play well."

That's not good enough. I think we all felt we matched up well against Dallas, but that Atlanta was a different animal that required different, out of the box tactics.

I'm an ignorant fan so I don't know for sure, maybe Stubby and company did install a dynamic game plan and innovative strategy and player errors blew up the plan. I can't deny those occurred. But that doesn't mean Stubby doesn't have some 'splainin" to do.

So you're saying McCarthy's strategy consisted of "playing well." No it's not that simple you're right about that.

Nor is it as simple as, "We'll do whatever it takes to pressure Ryan." He reads things very well and gets the ball out quickly to a whole bunch of guys who are very difficult to guard and tackle. Selling out to get pressure is equally as foolish as always rushing three and dropping eight.

I'm not saying Thompson, McCarthy, et al are infallible by any stretch. It just seems that I find myself responding to what I find to be unrealistic criticism a lot. Sometimes guys get beat despite the best laid plans...

[Pugger]

Two comments:

One, no the game wasn't lost by the coaches. But the problem with this argument is that neither can you argue that games are won by coaches. It's never that simple.

Two, What coaches can control and what they can be held accountable for is game planning, strategy and adjustments during the game. I didn't see anything yesterday that credited the Packer brain trust in these areas. IMO the coaches went into the game with the attitude: "We beat Dallas by playing well. If we play well, we'll beat Atlanta." After the game: "We didn't play well."

That's not good enough. I think we all felt we matched up well against Dallas, but that Atlanta was a different animal that required different, out of the box tactics.

I'm an ignorant fan so I don't know for sure, maybe Stubby and company did install a dynamic game plan and innovative strategy and player errors blew up the plan. I can't deny those occurred. But that doesn't mean Stubby doesn't have some 'splainin" to do.

The ONLY chance we had yesterday was our offense had to play yet another flawless game to keep up with Atlanta and hope we had the lead at the end or/or a couple of turnovers. But our offense wasn't flawless and we turned it over.

[Pugger]

i wouldn't say we got "hammered" at running back

we lost our starter, thats it

starks was worthless when healthy early on and should have been replaced right off the bat

losing lacy was big, but a lot of teams lose their #1 rb's

and at CB, we lost our #1, but IMO we should have known that he was probably done last year when he took forever to get over his last concussion. and like RB, we had our #2 and 3 healthy at the beggining of the year and they already looked lost before any injuries

When you have to resort to moving a WR to RB that position was indeed a mess. It was stupid to go into the season with only Lacy, a slow 30 year old Starks and a FB.

[red]

The ONLY chance we had yesterday was our offense had to play yet another flawless game to keep up with Atlanta and hope we had the lead at the end or/or a couple of turnovers. But our offense wasn't flawless and we turned it over.

to hammer that home

we needed to score 45 points, or 7 TD's or 6 td's and a FG. but we needed to score of at least 7 possessions

we had the ball 9 times

if we had settled for more then 1 FG, we would have had to score on all but 1 possession

so really, once rip fumbled, we had no chance to catch them

[red]

When you have to resort to moving a WR to RB that position was indeed a mess. It was stupid to go into the season with only Lacy, a slow 30 year old Starks and a FB.

no doubt about that

[gbgary]

i've been saying that for awhile

when you're offense is that much better then your D, why not let them set the tone?

yup.

[Smidgeon]

didn't we give up a ton of yards every game that year, but also ended up with a ton of takeaways?

the bend, don't break days

or like i use to say. bend, bend, bend, bend, bend, NOW TRY NOT TO BREAK!

2010 Packers

#2 Scoring Defense
#5 Yards Defense
#6 Turnovers
#4 First Downs Allowed
#4 Passing Touchdowns Allowed
#2 Interceptions
#2 Rushing Touchdowns Allowed
#2 Sacks

I think you may be thinking about 2011 when we went 15-1 due to offense but gave up a lot of defensive yards.

[Guiness]

DITTO; while I continue to believe Capers has done a decent job, I am fine with the logistics it's time to move on as well. No DC could have done anything with all of the talent mismatches we had on the field today though.

We need a lot more talent on defense

There's a lot of money and talent on that defense. I keep hearing 'having to use a UDFA to cover Jones'. There was a first and second round choice on the field at CB. Not playing well to be sure, but the 'talent' was out there.

[red]

There's a lot of money and talent on that defense. I keep hearing 'having to use a UDFA to cover Jones'. There was a first and second round choice on the field at CB. Not playing well to be sure, but the 'talent' was out there.

like i said in the GDT yesterday

we had 6 first round picks on the field yesterday on defense (our first round picks, 7 if you include peppers)

[Carolina_Packer]

I just heard on Mike and Mike this morning that 7 of 11 Falcons starters on defense are either first or second year players. They clearly have found some fast athletes on that side of the ball who have learned to come together in Quinn's scheme fairly quickly. What I recall from him being in Seattle is that he wanted to keep things simple and let the defenders react. They are not yet a great defense, but they show signs of building a very good one. Damn, I'm jealous. We play a lot of youth as well, but our 2015 first rounder, while possibly bothered by his groin surgery during the season looks lost in coverage. I sure hope he can develop more of a feel for the game and be able to take his game to a higher level. It looks like the mental part of the game is too fast for him to process, and he gives up way too much cushion the way he plays off the receiver. Does he do that because his groin is not really healed properly and he can't cut like he would when healthy? I guess that's possible. We'll see when he's back to full strength next season. Their secondary needs some better injury luck next year, and an infusion of talent.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I just heard on Mike and Mike this morning that 7 of 11 Falcons starters on defense are either first or second year players. They clearly have found some fast athletes on that side of the ball who have learned to come together in Quinn's scheme fairly quickly. What I recall from him being in Seattle is that he wanted to keep things simple and let the defenders react. They are not yet a great defense, but they show signs of building a very good one. Damn, I'm jealous. We play a lot of youth as well, but our 2015 first rounder, while possibly bothered by his groin surgery during the season looks lost in coverage. I sure hope he can develop more of a feel for the game and be able to take his game to a higher level. It looks like the mental part of the game is too fast for him to process, and he gives up way too much cushion the way he plays off the receiver. Does he do that because his groin is not really healed properly and he can't cut like he would when healthy? I guess that's possible. We'll see when he's back to full strength next season. Their secondary needs some better injury luck next year, and an infusion of talent.

That's been one of the bigger problems between Capers and TT and why they are not a good match. If Capers' system runs best with vets, he cannot be aligned with a GM who lives by the draft and develop philosophy.

[red]

That's been one of the bigger problems between Capers and TT and why they are not a good match. If Capers' system runs best with vets, he cannot be aligned with a GM who lives by the draft and develop philosophy.

DING DING DING

[Freak Out]

This packer team just lost the NFCC game. They've won a sb with this coaching staff. The problem was players, not coaching. RB and CB hurt this team this year. Good team, but need to do a little better.

How much pressure did they generate on Ryan yesterday?