Brady Poppinga

[FritzDontBlitz]

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060924/PKR07/609240679/1959

like others have suggested, i think columnists are stealing their ideas from this board. same stuff we discussed after the first exhibition game....

[FritzDontBlitz]

"he just looks really really lost in space"

Yes. He reminds me of Dr. Smith, particularly. Or maybe Penny.

WARNING! WARNING! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON... DANGER!

nah, that was the robot's line.

dr. smith's line was "oh dear! oh dear! oh dear!"

he also called people a "ninny" a lot and uttered a scream that most hetero men could never possibly duplicate.

[wist43]

After going over the tape (quickly, not indepth) here is what I saw - I would add that I missed taping some of it - not much, but I did miss some.

--------------

Poppinga was decent in coverage. He had the interfence call, but that was for short yardage.

Poppinga's good plays, i.e. tight coverage, solid run defense, good support, etc...

Qtr Time Play
1 11:55 Got outside quickly, forced the play, made the tackle
9:22 Very good zone drop, tackled WR
2 6:34 Penaly on Harris, but Popp had good cvg on Jones
3 5:33 Came off backside to make tackle at LOS
4 8:09 Barnett and Popp both attacked LOS, tackle for no gain
4 ???? Good coverage... Woodson burned on play


Popp's bad plays:
Qtr Time Play
1 6:26 Pass interference, short yardage
1 5:40 Lost contain, resulted in approx 12 yd gain
4 7:05 Not bad coverage, got good jam/trail position, but got beat

Of course, he wasn't on the field in the nickel or dime, and they played nickel a lot.

Poppinga did not play poorly. 3 negative plays, none of which were earth shattering.

------------------------------

Barnett on the other hand, for what he's being asked to do, was generally a liability. He made a few plays here and there, but down in and down, he's going to get your defense beat.

By my count, Barnett had:
8 bad plays, and 3 good plays.

The rest were a wash... Barnett really is one of the most unistinctive LB'ers I've ever seen. Has a ton of ability, but just not a very good player. Long term, he needs to be replaced.

------------------

Hawk was pretty invisibile for the most part:
3 good plays, 1 bad.

------------------

As I've said before, it's difficult to evaluate the Packers defense b/c there tends to be a lot of confusion and blown assignments... How much blame to you assess to the player, and how much to the coaching staff???

At this point, I think you have to assign most of the blame for the dismal performance to the coaching staff. It's their job to put players in positions to make plays, and they're not doing that.

[The Leaper]

I agree with wist...the coaching staff is our biggest problem right now. Jim Bates...if you are out there...COME BACK NOW! Sanders and Shotty aren't giving me much confidence. There is no way Poppinga should be left out there on an island.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wist,

You've lost your mind. Any analysis that says Poppinga played decent, Barnett was poor, and Hawk was invisible is analysis that I can't take serously. Wonder what you'll say when the coaches bench Poppinga for Taylor.

[wist43]

The Packers played nickel an awful lot, so Poppinga/Taylor weren't on the field a whole lot.

Hawk made a couple of plays - the sack was very nice. But overall, he really didn't do much.

Barnett's biggest problem is he takes terrible angles and doesn't play downhill... Those two shortcomings cost the Packers tons of yards and lots of 1st downs.

If Poppinga is benched, it shouldn't be based on the Detroit game... As I've said, the Packers have so many problems on defense, and I think most of it is coaching related, that it's difficult to place the blame.

I do know that down in, and down out, Barnett is not a very good football player... When you're watching a game live, it doesn't stand out as much b/c, you're watching the game, but when you go back and look at the tape, and watch him every play, and roll the tape back and forth - it isn't pretty.

Out of 32 starting MLB's in the league, PFW didn't even have him rated in the top 25 in 2005... In 2006 they had him rated 20th - I think that's being generous.

[Bossman641]

I gotta agree with Harvey here.

I've always suspected Wist just had something against Barnett, but for him to claim that Poppinga played fine while Barnett was terrible and Hawk was invisible is absurd.

[Bretsky]

I gotta agree with Harvey here.

I've always suspected Wist just had something against Barnett, but for him to claim that Poppinga played fine while Barnett was terrible and Hawk was invisible is absurd.

Sometimes preconceived notions can be so strong they may cloud overall judgement. One could say the same thing about my view of Ferguson. I've criticized the guy for so long it's hard for me to see much if anything bright about him anymore.

[wist43]

Just not true fella's... if Barnett plays well, or makes a good play - I'll call a spade a spade - although I admit that "good" for Barnett is, IMO, average.

Poppinga didn't play great, but he wasn't terrible either - by my count, 3 negative plays... Barnett on the other hand - 8 negative plays... go back and look at the examples I gave.

Oh, that's right - you guys just shoot from the keyboard w/o actually looking at tape...

Sorry, I thought you guys were actually trying to make an legitimate argument.

[Zool]

Just not true fella's... if Barnett plays well, or makes a good play - I'll call a spade a spade - although I admit that "good" for Barnett is, IMO, average.

Poppinga didn't play great, but he wasn't terrible either - by my count, 3 negative plays... Barnett on the other hand - 8 negative plays... go back and look at the examples I gave.

Oh, that's right - you guys just shoot from the keyboard w/o actually looking at tape...

Sorry, I thought you guys were actually trying to make an legitimate argument.

Im with you on the Barnett assesment. He's trailing the play far too often, but to compare 3 bad plays by Pop to 8 bad plays by Barnett, after stating that Pop wasnt on the field much due to a nickle, is self defeating.

That being said, I got your back Wist. I'm getting tired of the drag down tackles and celebrating a tackle 5 yards down field. Barnett isnt terrible, but as people like to say about other positions on the field "he sure doesnt play like a 1st rounder".

[wist43]

I agree... I was going to make the point that Barnett is, in fact, on the field for every defensive snap and his negative plays will be disproportionately higher as a result.

[Guiness]

If GB allows more than 5 vs. Philly, it's a sure L for them.

Westbrook is going to eat this defense alive. Unless we find a way to clone Hawk twice to fill the other two LB spots, find a vampire who can bring Reggie back from the dead, and teach Woodson how to play football in the next week, we're screwed.

So we have three choices? Let's get to work on them then.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Poppinga isn't in the same league as Barnett at this point. I'd guess that 99.9% of the people that get paid to evaluate would say the same thing. I think some people don't like Barnett on a personal level (e.g. his celebrations at stupid times) and it clouds their judgement. Poppinga is a great guy and he's a try hard guy. Barnett is a good guy who celebrates at the wrong times, but he is also a try hard guy with a lot more athleticism then Poppinga. Name one play, other than Poppinga's one sack last year, where you thought "damn, that guy is a good player." I see a guy who has a hard time covering average RBs and TEs, and who is still caught out of position in the run game a lot. Unfortunately for him, he doesn't have the speed to make up for his false moves.

[wist43]

Poppinga isn't in the same league as Barnett at this point. I'd guess that 99.9% of the people that get paid to evaluate would say the same thing. I think some people don't like Barnett on a personal level (e.g. his celebrations at stupid times) and it clouds their judgement. Poppinga is a great guy and he's a try hard guy. Barnett is a good guy who celebrates at the wrong times, but he is also a try hard guy with a lot more athleticism then Poppinga. Name one play, other than Poppinga's one sack last year, where you thought "damn, that guy is a good player." I see a guy who has a hard time covering average RBs and TEs, and who is still caught out of position in the run game a lot. Unfortunately for him, he doesn't have the speed to make up for his false moves.

They're completely different types of players, and Poppinga isn't an every down player. For what he should be, I like Poppinga for his upside as a tough run defender who can hold the point, take on and shed, and provide some pass rush.

Barnett, for all his athletic ability and speed, should be a difference maker - and he isn't.

I'm not saying Poppinga is pro bowl material, he's a situational player IMO; but, one that can very valuable if used properly. If they keep trying to turn him into a cornerback; then, of course he will fail.