Green Bay Ravens?

[BallHawk]

Anyone who would argue that our RB's are "comparable" to the rest of the league has some serious issues with non-removable kool-aid goggles.

Yeah, I'm sure that the Titans are light years ahead of us.

[cheesner]

I don't know how you can say we are in the bottom 5 RB duos. I would say we are in the 'unproven' category. There are too many variables in the equation last year to determine how good Morency is. OL generally make a big jump in their 2nd year after a year in the system and gaining some strength in the offseason. As far as Jackson goes, RB is the one position where you don't really need experience to excel. What is there to learn - especially in the ZBS? Success is mainly based on a player's natural talent.

I could see us having problems this year rushing the ball, but I can also see a scenario where it takes off and we run the ball very effectively.

[wist43]

In getting back to the title of the thread - defense...

You guys know my arguments on this subject - far too passive and static to ever truly be a dominant unit. Therefore, the Packers may draft defense in the first round every year from now until the cows come home, but there's a ceiling to how effective a defense can be in this scheme.

Pressure is the key to good defense, and the Packers can be ok against the league's lower life forms, but against good offenses, they'll continue to get smoked. It's hard to watch, but go back and look at the NE and NYJ games... when the front 4 couldn't get pressure, they were dead meat in the back seven. It's hard to put the onus on the players in those situations - it's the job of the coaches to put players in positions to make plays... this scheme doesn't allow for that. It's just line up, rush 4 straight up (with an occassional stunt), not much pre-snap movement, and little threat of the blitz (whether they come or not) - the scheme doesn't lend itself to creating any confusion for the OL or QB.

Ironically, I've used the Ravens as an example in making my points of deficiency wrt the Packers defense. The Ravens run a very aggressive, multi-front, mult-blitz scheme. The Packers just send 4 guys snap after snap, and occassionally send one of their backers, who are always in the same position and are not effective blitzers anyway.

The Packers would have to make drastic modifications to the scheme for them to have any chance of having a dominant unit.

[The Leaper]

The Packers would have to make drastic modifications to the scheme for them to have any chance of having a dominant unit.

I believe we ran pretty much the same general scheme for the most part back in 1996. The difference is that we had a much more dynamic front four back then...plus we had a much better defensive coaching staff.

The scheme can be successful...Miami's defense in the same scheme has put PLENTY of pressure on opposing offenses over the years. Running a multi-front defense is no way to guarantee superior defensive performance. In fact, with the pitiful defensive coaching staff we have, it would be an utter failure.

[wist43]

The Packers would have to make drastic modifications to the scheme for them to have any chance of having a dominant unit.

I believe we ran pretty much the same general scheme for the most part back in 1996. The difference is that we had a much more dynamic front four back then...plus we had a much better defensive coaching staff.

The scheme can be successful...Miami's defense in the same scheme has put PLENTY of pressure on opposing offenses over the years. Running a multi-front defense is no way to guarantee superior defensive performance. In fact, with the pitiful defensive coaching staff we have, it would be an utter failure.

That's one of my chief complaints about the scheme, is that to have any shot at being a dominant unit you have to have 4 absolute studs up front - how likely is that happen, and how expensive??? That '96 team had such an awesome front 4, they didn't need to blitz. That said, when they did blitz, they had players that were very adept at it - Simmons, Williams, and Butler. The current Packers have no one on their team that can match any one of those guys.

As for Miami, Taylor is a stud, and they've had a history of some decent DT's going thru there, but it's not like their defense has even come close to carrying them. Certainly not championship calibur.

Perhaps the scheme can be successful - depending on how you define "success" - but in no way do I ever see it has having the potential to be dominant. I agree that switching defenses at this point would mean wholesale personnel and coaching changes and would be a failure - at least in the short term... but, that isn't going to happen. Changing schemes at this point would be akin to admitting that they were wrong in implementing it to begin with; that combined with everything they have invested in terms of draft picks and money - no way will there be any changes.

We're stuck with what we've got.

[The Leaper]

As for Miami, Taylor is a stud, and they've had a history of some decent DT's going thru there, but it's not like their defense has even come close to carrying them. Certainly not championship calibur.

Comparing ANY team to the Ravens of 6-8 years ago is insane. That defense was quite possibly the best ever. It is one of the few that could actually carry their team to a title. The Patriots defense didn't win any Super Bowls without the last minute offensive drives and clutch kicks. Even the Packer defense in 1996 didn't win a title on its own. So, most of the time, you can have a championship caliber defense and still fall short if other aspects of the game aren't strong.

Miami's offensive shortfalls are well documented. Their defense has been plenty good enough on a consistent basis in the last 10 years to give the team a chance to field a title contender...but the offense never stood up to their end of the deal behind a steady line of lame QBs, spotty OLs, and lackluster skill position players.

To win a title, the best way is BALANCE from all three aspects of the game...led by a franchise/system QB.

[CaliforniaCheez]

1) I think some of you are selling Jackson short.

2) You also sell Jones short. If Brett gets the ball near he will come down with it.

3) You have not seen how Korey Hall catches the ball out of the backfield.

4) The Packer Receivers who make the team from last year will be improved.

The big thing is so many of you have a negative opinion of the unknown. That is incorrect thinking.

The new players will be

a) Better than those they replace.
b) The same as those they replace or worse.

If a it is good. If b then they will be gone soon.

[retailguy]

The big thing is so many of you have a negative opinion of the unknown. That is incorrect thinking.

The big thing is that so many of you have a positive opinion of the unknown. That is EQUALLY incorrect thinking.

ALL NFL players have talent. Will they use it? Right now, no one knows. This blog entry (which I've bolded sums up my line of thinking pretty well. I suppose this makes me NEGATIVE, but "C'est la vie"):

http://pu2006.typepad.com/packer_update/2007/06/index.html

June 04, 2007
OFFENSE COULD BE OFFENSIVE IN '07

How one views the Packers offense largely depends on what one thinks of GM Ted Thompson and head coach Mike McCarthy. Supporters probably expect things to be very much improved on that side of the ball. Skeptics, on the other hand, probably expect to see another season of stumbling around in the red zone. So who’s correct? While we won’t know for sure until the fall, as of right now, it’s tough to be overly optimistic. “I like both Thompson and McCarthy and there’s definitely some good young talent at the skill positions, but everything - and I mean everything - is going to have to go right for this offense to score points on a consistent basis,” said a scout for another team. “And that’s an awful lot to expect.”

So what exactly constitutes the idea of “everything going right?” For starters, the only two proven playmakers have to fight off the ravages of age for yet another season. “While [quarterback] Brett Favre has clearly slipped in recent years, the wheels haven’t fallen off just yet,” said the scout. “But at 37, he’s kind of playing Russian Roulette with his career. It remains to be seen if his luck can hold out for a 17th round.” And while Driver, 32, showed absolutely no signs of slowing down last season, he too is performing on borrowed time. “Most wide receivers begin to lose a step or two once they hit the wrong side of 30,” added the scout. “And while it hasn’t happened yet with this particular player, it will. It’s just a matter of when.”

And even if Favre and Driver are able to hold off Father Time for another season, the offense still needs to find a quality running back, a useful tight end and a reliable third receiver from among an anonymous group of recent draft choices and castoffs. “Thompson obviously has a lot of faith in his own ability to judge talent and his coaching staff’s ability to develop young players,” said the scout. “That’s good, but I just don’t know how realistic it is - at least for right now. Remember, Bill Walsh didn’t become a certified ‘genius’ until he had guys like Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, etc. I doubt even Walsh could put together a consistently productive offense with what McCarthy currently has at his disposal.”

[MJZiggy]

The big thing is that so many of you have a positive opinion of the unknown. That is EQUALLY incorrect thinking.

Yet a whole lot more fun...

[Bretsky]

The big thing is that so many of you have a positive opinion of the unknown. That is EQUALLY incorrect thinking.

Yet a whole lot more fun...

But more disappointing in the end

Expect nothing; can't get disappointed then. I'm waving the white

[MJZiggy]

But then you're miserable and spewing negativity on everyone else all offseason (some of us are trying to enjoy the party...)

[Bretsky]

But then you're miserable and spewing negativity on everyone else all offseason (some of us are trying to enjoy the party...)

To be fair, I've been spewing much less negativity after giving up hope.

[wist43]

The big thing is that so many of you have a positive opinion of the unknown. That is EQUALLY incorrect thinking.

Yet a whole lot more fun...

I'm sure I'm in the "negative" catagory, but I don't view it that way. I view it as solving a puzzle - and solving puzzles is fun. Of course our puzzle is always changing from year to year, so the fun never ends.

As for the negativity label, I think scouts and GM's have to look at team building in that way... "where is our team deficient, what needs to be fixed and rebuilt, etc. Of course, TT doesn't look at it that way, and that makes for some very interesting arguments for us - and that's fun too!!!!

[Scott Campbell]

This blog entry (which I've bolded sums up my line of thinking pretty well. I suppose this makes me NEGATIVE, but "C'est la vie"):

I believe this blog entry identifies you as a "skeptic", as opposed to the more positive thinking "supporters".

[MadtownPacker]

This blog entry (which I've bolded sums up my line of thinking pretty well. I suppose this makes me NEGATIVE, but "C'est la vie"):

I believe this blog entry identifies you as a "skeptic", as opposed to the more positive thinking "supporters".

Wouldn't skeptic mean he at least had some hope? I would put him down as more of a doom & gloomer waiting for the walls to collapse and the wheels to fall off.

In that light I guess I am a sheep following the herder to greener pastures that might not exist. But that's OK because I will still enjoy the journey.