Jump to content

craig

Members
  • Content count

    436
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

81 Starter

1 Follower

  1. Pack at Dallas Post Game: Four and One

    Yes. Adams should NOT be used as the example for experience-based growth. He should be used as an example of how injury impacts performance. He had no ankles and played bad as a result, not because he was young.
  2. Random Packer News & Notes

    I get the concept of the defense needing to account for everybody. Still if you're only completing 4 passes to WR's, how much "accounting" do they need to do for WR's? A concern is that defenses can single-cover our WR (other than Adams) and not get punished for doing so. A lot easier to create space underneath if defenses are tied up covering WR's.
  3. Random Packer News & Notes

    Lazard and Shepherd both were playing on the last drive. Shepherd ended up wide open on the interception. (Although maybe that's because his defender anticipated that Rodgers was committing to MVS... That was actually a nice play design, I thought. If Rodgers had waited another two steps, Shepherd had an easy TD. Or if MVS had gotten his hands up to catch the pass. Not sure if this was mentioned, but in Philly game Jones looked kind of limpy/gimpy, at least to me.
  4. 2019 WR Corps

    The comments about Shepherd were interesting. ["In fact, early in training camp, then-backup quarterback DeShone Kizer said Shepherd was "probably the first guy in this locker room to learn the playbook -- before any quarterback learned it." Adams, at one point this offseason, said Shepherd "literally knows protections that I don't know."]
  5. Random Packer News & Notes

    How did Redmond look, and how much did he play?
  6. Random Packer News & Notes

    TO has carried us, for sure. And that's not going to be a sustainable, every-week occurrence, of course. But one other positive has been red-zone. For all the trouble they've had getting first downs, they've done well in the red-zone for getting TD's, not just FG's. Not sure that will be sustainable either, we'll see. While the positive TO's and red-zone effectiveness will not be sustainable, it's also possible that some negative stuff will likely be non-sustainable? Might not the terrible 3rd-down conversion rate be non-sustainable, too? Reversion to the mean, and all that? Of course the other fabulously positive thing is the great JK Scott! :):)
  7. 3-0

    Being forced into uncomfortable decisions due to cap constraints is probably a good sign, and inevitable for a good team. That means you've accumulated too much desirable talent to all comfortably fit. The Packers haven't had enough uncomfortable decisions, because D+D wasn't producing. This was the first year with lots of cap space to spend. That's because we hadn't been D+D'ing guys good enough to be worth keeping. I hope we don't have that kind of cap space again in the foreseeable future. And I hope we get squeezed again soon, because we've got too many worthwhile D+D guys reaching 2nd contract to afford them all.
  8. Random Packer News & Notes

    With all of the concerns with the Packers offense, one thing that's really clicked thus far has been red zone. Only 3 scores versus Minne, but all three were 7's, not 3's. Yesterday they didn't move the ball much, but the first three times in red, they scored TD's each time. That may be unsustainable and maybe kinda lucky, beats me. But perhaps the amount of time they spent on red zone in camp, maybe some of that is paying off? Hope they can keep that rolling.
  9. Random Packer News & Notes

    heh heh, after every game, Rodgers is saying we've got to the ball to X more often. Last week, he said it about MVS and Graham, got to get those guys going. This week it's ADams. He got some MVS targets this week. You can see that Allison has not been on that "got to get X going" list.... yet. *IF* Rodgers completed more of the passes that he does throw, he'd be able to get more guys more targets and get them going. But hard to get lots of guys lots of targets when you're not converting on 3rd down, and not running many plays, and so many of the plays you do run you're running!
  10. packers selcet mAtt leFleUr as head coah

    My recall is probably poor and I haven't rewatched or re-analyzed, so I'm asking. But it kind of seemed to me that the early-down running game remained relatively effective throughout the second half. So a significant fraction of the heavy usage was probably on first downs, which seemed to be working fine. (Or is that recall wrong, and the heavy first-down plays weren't really getting much 2nd half?) So, *if* my premise is true that 1st downs went OK, then the problem was primarily 2nd-and-3rd downs. They'd get decent down-and-distance, but they couldn't convert. Yes, probably troubling that heavy was still used ≥50% on 2nd/3rd downs. I wonder what the heavy/light distribution was on 2nd/3rd? I guess I'm maybe wondering whether the concern isn't that they should have used more light plays on 2nd/3rd; my bigger concern is that their light plays were bad. And their heavy 2nd/3rd down stuff didn't work either. All the "run-sets-up-the-pass" philosophy didn't really set up the pass, either when they passed from light or passed from heavy. In terms of use of heavy on 1st downs: *if* heavy was working pretty well on 1st downs, and if that's what the defense was giving, maybe it's not dumb to keep using heavy and getting decent gains on first downs and setting up decent down-and-distance? I'm asking. Maybe Yes, that is dumb? Because any defense will be happy to let you waste your first down getting 4-5 yards; and 1st down is really the best opportunity down for making bigger plays that are necessary to score, and you're wasting those chances? Or maybe no, if you can usually get 4-5 on first down, then it's OK to keep taking what the defense allows and taking your chunks on first and setting up favorably down-distance?
  11. Great point, you are 100% correct. But man, if only you could make your guys do it penalty-free, it would sure help. I think the big problem with ST, as you've alluded to, is that coaches want to make big plays; receivers want to make big plays and take too many risks; and the other guys get too juiced up and try to hard to do something impactful and getting some coach's notice. Just being conservative and playing it cool and safe on teams isn't going to get anybody's attention; and when it's the only chance you get to play, I can see how they'd get all fired up and amped up and try too hard and end up making the obnoxious penalties as a result.
  12. Packers IR Lane Taylor, bring back Pankey

    Yikes, that's terrible. OK, not terrible. But, I was rally hopeful the line would be healthy, and we'd have an extra quality-guy all season inside. Now we're basically back to being one injury away at any position from needing to start a bad player. Really disappointed to hear the injury was that bad. Bummer.
  13. Packers Trade Trevor Davis to Raiders

    Thanks. Yeah, seems like a sensible idea for sure. And perhaps preventing complacency for guys 48-53 on the roster is nice nuance. But, if Redmond turns out to be an anti-awful snaps guy, then I guess it does have some impact sometimes? When choosing for the bottom of the roster, normally the D+D philosophy wants guys who have potential to grow into more than bottom-of-the-roster guys. D+D is supposed to be looking at and developing guys who might develop into decent regular not-to-bad-or-maybe-actually-even-kinda-good snaps guys. And if they make it, if they don't progress towards that goal you release them and bring somebody else in with that same goal, rinse and repeat. I think often the "churn" guys have already burned up some of the +D time, and have been deemed unpromising by their former team(s). I suspect in most such cases, their +D potential tends to be pretty limited. I suspect Redmond is perhaps a higher-potential case, where it was injury that snuffed his previous +D. So perhaps his upside was and is respectable?
  14. It's been noted that not running out kicks is best. What is the data on punt returns? My jaded perspective is that the Packers lose more yards to on punt-returns via penalty than they gain via returns. If you told all your punt-return team to lie down so they can't commit any penalties., and let the return guy fair-catch the ball, would you be better off than having them try to block and set up returns?
  15. How much has Fadol played, if any, thus far? Maybe he'll get some play without Adams?
×