Mike Vandermause: Only stat that matters is final score

[FritzDontBlitz]

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071217/PKR07/712170565/1989

(Post has been edited per copyright considerations.)

[Joemailman]

Anyone who thinks the Packers had an unimpressive win yesterday should look at what the other top teams did. Dallas lost at home to a 5-8 Eagles team. Indy struggled to beat a Raiders team that the Packers blew out the week before. New England struggled to beat a poor Jets team. The top teams have a bullseye on their back right now, and most games are going to be a dogfight. Any win is a good win, especially if you come out of it more or less healthy, which I think the Packers did.

[the_idle_threat]

Great point, Joe. I wish I had thought to say it first.

[b bulldog]

the idea of any win being unimpressive is crazy in the NFL but trends begin to emerge and some of those like the total lack of a passrush are very troubling.

[The Leaper]

Goes to show how important field position is.

Green Bay dominated in terms of field position, which reduced the amount of yardage they could pile up...but increased the amount of points they could put up.

[The Leaper]

but trends begin to emerge and some of those like the total lack of a passrush are very troubling.

Total lack of a pass rush? WTF are you talking about?

When we decided to apply pressure yesterday, we did. 4 sacks, 6 QB knockdowns...0 second half points.

[SkinBasket]

but trends begin to emerge and some of those like the total lack of a passrush are very troubling.

Total lack of a pass rush? WTF are you talking about?

When we decided to apply pressure yesterday, we did. 4 sacks, 6 QB knockdowns...0 second half points.

Against 4 back-ups and an out-of-position starter who's struggling.

[The Leaper]

Against 4 back-ups and an out-of-position starter who's struggling.

Regardless...are 4 sacks and 6 knockdowns a TOTAL LACK OF A PASSRUSH, as offered by bulldog?

[oregonpackfan]

Anyone who thinks the Packers had an unimpressive win yesterday should look at what the other top teams did. Dallas lost at home to a 5-8 Eagles team. Indy struggled to beat a Raiders team that the Packers blew out the week before. New England struggled to beat a poor Jets team. The top teams have a bullseye on their back right now, and most games are going to be a dogfight. Any win is a good win, especially if you come out of it more or less healthy, which I think the Packers did.

The Seahawks also lost to Carolina which started rookie Matt Moore.

It is indeed difficult to keep momentum going towards the end of the season.

Joe's post illustrates the saying, "Good teams find a way to win..." The Packers did just that.

[Carolina_Packer]

I liked some of the blitzing they did yesterday. Obviously they didn't do it as much as St. Louis who seemed to live off of it, which I think had an affect on Favre. I think St. Louis is much healthier, Skin, but they are obviously not a top-flight O-line still. Hey, we got mauled by Steven Jackson, and still won going away, which was in large part due to our field position, even when we couldn't put up TD's and had to settle for FG's. I think they were much better when they were the aggressor defense vs. the read/react defense. Obviously they held them in check in the second half too.

[FritzDontBlitz]

We can't apply pressure with just our front 4. So what. You apply pressure any way you can. I have never liked the concept of dropping 7 guys back into zone coverage anyway. Send a guy after the QB every now and then to disrupt his rhythm. That's what Philly did to Romo, that's what Detroit was almost successful in doing. When our D-line is healthy, we can get away with just using the front 4 to pressure people Unfortunately, everyone on the defensive line is nursing some kind of injury so why not give them some help with a blitz or two? And excuse me for noticing, but I seem to remember Favre getting knocked out of the game on a corner blitz? So, Dallas blitzes too. Very few teams can pressure the QB with their front 4, so I dont understand why using the blitz to apply pressure is supposed to be perceived as a negative.

I love how some tend to completely miss the point. The writer says Green Bay had all this stuff go against them, yet they won anyway. That's what good teams do. The Packers' defense took their lumps in the first half, then completely shut the Rams out in the rest of the game to help their offense turn a 3 point lead into a 19 point one. I'll take it...

[The Leaper]

Very few teams can pressure the QB with their front 4, so I dont understand why using the blitz to apply pressure is supposed to be perceived as a negative.

I agree.

Claiming we have no pass rush because our front 4 alone couldn't get much pressure in the first half yesterday is ridiculous. When we decide we want to get pressure, we can. If there is a problem, it is with the coaching staff not being aggressive enough...not that we lack the players on the field to get it done.

[CaliforniaCheez]

I don't see anyone calling the Cowboy's win over the Packers unimpressive because Brett Favre was out most of the game, Woodson did not play, and KGB was out.

11-2 and 1 unimpressive.

That would be a valuable win 2 years ago. What fickle unimpressive fans!!
Are you suffering from the "standings bends"??

Some Packer fans spent hundreds of dollars to attend the game. They appeared to be impressed as they enjoyed themselves.

The world is more beautiful after yesterday.

[Chester Marcol]

Some Packer fans spent hundreds of dollars to attend the game. They appeared to be impressed as they enjoyed themselves.

How could you tell the fans were enjoying themselves? Was it the "Go Pack Go" so loud you thought the game was at Lambeau?

[b bulldog]

No pressure at all against a bunch of stiffs with our f4. Remember the Dallas game and how long Romo had to throw?? You can get away with this deficiency against the struggling teams but against top notch O's, you get exposed.