Jump to content

craig

Members
  • Content Count

    1,251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by craig

  1. Heh heh. Vegas, you're a great poster. But personally, I kinda hope I never ever see another "remember Adams" post again! :):):). I get it, Adams is great now, but wasn't PRODUCTIVE as a 2nd-year guy. So he's an obvious default reference whenever any young player isn't productive. But in retrospect, Adams does NOT represent "it takes time". Instead, he represents the "guys playing injured don't produce like they can when healthy." Adams was used heavily already in year 1, and was already productive then. He was great in year 3, as a healthy player. MM kept playin
  2. Not sure I see it that way. Deguara is fine, and if you give him some throws that work and that get you first downs or TD's, great, terrific, I love it. But it's not like he's some playmaker explosive guy that you've got to prioritize. If the passing game is working and you're throwing for 300+ yards a game, as has been true these last two games even with only 2 completions per game to Deguara, I'm not sure I see any urgency to prioritize throwing more to Deguara. If he's getting ignored and is open, and the defense is instead doubling and surrounding both Adams and MVS, sure, then ta
  3. I'm seeing a number of posts praising and advocating for EQ > Lazard posts. What did he do that we're enthused about? (Yesterday's game was blacked out for me, so I only got it via radio). He made the one catch, a little wide-open 7-yard pass coming out of the backfield. And he had one other incomplete target downfield, in which he was unable to get himself open at all and Aaron threw it up to him in double-coverage. On the radio, they had him with several good ST plays. But those wanting more EQ > Lazard, what are you seeing? To my eyes, he's usually used as a
  4. That's the premise, but I wonder if it's actually true? His RAS was mediocre, one of the lowest by a Packers draft pick in years, no? He's not fast, for a receiver or return specialist or a jet-sweep threat or whatever. His on-the-field speed has looked as JAG as his clock time. He doesn't look like he's going to outrun any safeties or opponent special-teamers. Kinda JAG runner? His hands haven't looked notably talented in the punt game. He's a short man, I'm not sure his hands are big or unusually configured to be unusually good? College scouting reports wer
  5. True. Conversely, the discussion is also different if we don't recover two fumbles deep in their territory for 10 points, and get a pick 6 for 7 more. They got 3 off turnovers, we got 17, right? Not sure it's correct, but I thought I'd heard somebody say we're 0-3 when we don't get an INT, undefeated when we do? (I do understand that defense can force turnovers, to some degree; and that being ahead can also cause turnovers, since teams playing catchup take more risks.) But man, of all of Rodgers' skills, his ability to not turn it over is an important one.
  6. Super good to have Gary and Jones back. Savage said he's OK. We often find out differently tomorrow, but basically was Cobb the only significant injury for the game? Would be fun to have gone a whole game without any more crushing injuries than that.
  7. It's hindsight now, I now. But I thought the decision to go for 2 was unwise. The TD made it 36-17. Even at the time, I thought that failing would allow two 8-point TD's and a FG to tie. Seemed to me that I'd like to take the one point PAT, in anticipation that if needed the offense could produce one FG. 19 point lead + PAT + FG => 23 points for Rams to need to catch. That would require the Rams to score three TD's plus a couple of 2-point conversions. (A single unsuccessful 2-point conversion and even 3 TD's could get 23 points.). My feeling is that when largely in
  8. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Seems like offensively, that's kind of an extension of some of the red-zone problems they've had throughout the season.
  9. Getting the big turnover advantage sure helps. 36 points is great and seems like the offense is great. But a pick six, a TD drive of <10 yards, and a couple of other possessions starting at ~30 yard line, the offense could have again been more efficient.
  10. Agree. Lazard seemed better when he not only blocked but also caught more passes.
  11. Sul is Rasul Douglas. Dillon was really carrying the load in that 4th-quarter clock-eater drive. Agree, EQ has been involved in some successful plays from scrimmage. And he seemed to an effective part in several special teams plays. There was a time when people said he didn't really contribute on special teams, but that's no longer true. Great win. Defense was strong. Getting Gary back, huge.
  12. I thought he got it stomped or injured during the 2nd quarter versus Seattle?
  13. Maybe. It might also be that if we gave Taylor the ball 50 times, he might average 1.5...
  14. Jefferson is really, really good. Credit to him, what a player. For Packers, I thought it was fun that for a team whose passing has been so limited this year, bottom-3rd passing team, I thought it was fun to throw more and to be making completions. Lot of guys with catches, non-trivial ones. MVS, EQ, Deguara, Dafney, Cobb, Dillon, a bunch of guys involved in completions beyond just Adams. For the team to win playoff games, I don't think they can count on having a shut-down defense and a running game that's going to just plow over playoff defenses. Need the passing game to get
  15. Wow, was that an exciting, thrilling game. Tough to lose it, particularly after seeming to have the interception clean and done and off to commercial with no doubt about it. With Gary gone, the absence of pass pressure was really telling. Cuosins had SO much time, and he's a good passer when he does. I liked that they pulled a couple of blitzes in the 4th quarter. I just think you've got to have pressure, and if you're straight front doesn't provide any, you kinda need to take the risks associated with blitzing some to create at least a little. That 3rd-down pressure that set
  16. I'd love to see him used, I think the Packers could use a receiver with some quickness and who is as much receiver as he is blocker. But with Rodgers having not hardly practiced in a month, I don't really imagine Winfree is going to get used unless Adams is too injured to play.
  17. Hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing Taylor is pretty JAG 4th-stringer type guy. If the o-line blasts him a big hole he can move forward. If not, he'll lean in, give effort, and get swallowed. But I don't imagine him creating much that isn't created for him. And I imagine him missing some of the plays that were created for him. The impression I kinda had was a guy who's a nice, try-hard guy, and whose effort and playbook-study and stuff coaches like. But that in the game, he's strong but he's not powerful enough to bull/drag out extra yards like Dillon can. And that he's not super qui
  18. Will be an interesting one. Kinda hard to get any easy ones when our passing game is so limited. But you never know. Aaron, Adams, and MVS haven't practiced together in a while, I assume. So maybe a week back and a couple of practices and they'll get a little better. Obviously Vikings have better offense than us. Per game, they are 7th in yards; 9th in passing; 9th in rushing yards. Packers are 20th, 19th, and 19th. Need the offense to put some scores on the board, and complete enough passes so that the box has some holes and so Dillon can get some productive
  19. https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/by-the-numbers/2021/11/15/22783092/packers-week-10-snap-counts-king-douglas-rotate-as-corners-shut-down-seattle-wrs Snap counts vs Seattle. Packers played at least 5 DB's on every snap, and 6 on about half. As a result, Black played 28 snaps. Slaton 12/Lancaster 6. With Clark back, and Lowry playing 42. (Last week Slaton was 42.). 45/25/12 for Lewis, Degaura, Davis. 36 for Dillon. 50/49/44/3 for Cobb, MVS, Lazard, Rodgers. I was curious how much MVS was actually used, since he made the big catch but otherwise
  20. Packers keep getting injuries, but these last two weeks it's been "coulda-been-worse". Last week when Clark went out, I was super nervous. That he was already back and ready yesterday was great. Last week when Stokes was out, I was nervous. That he, too was back yesterday, that was great. Yesterday I feared that both Jones and Gary might be season-enders. The idea that Jones might be only a few weeks and perhaps back after the bye, and that Gary might be braced-up perhaps able-to-play even before the bye, that's super good.
  21. Slaton was back down to only 12 snaps, after 42 last week against Chiefs. The fact that he made a couple of noteworthy plays, and that the defense was terrific last week with him playing in place of Clark, suggests that he's already turned into a usable guy. Very fun.
  22. He's been really good. I never would have dreamed he'd be this good already as a rookie. He's also really easy to like. Seems like he plays hard, competes hard, and always seems to be loving it and having fun.
  23. Defense was great. Wilson wasn't. Seattle's O-line wasn't. Packers got variably good pressure throughout the game, and did a great job in not allowing many frustrating scrambles. It's board policy to minimize the impact of ILB, but sometimes I feel like the weakest link somehow gets exposed. I think the Campbell factor has been significant. He had a couple of strong tackles, on plays when a guy might almost make a first, or get loose. He was good in kind of keeping an eye on Wilson and keeping him from going into full scramble mode. On most of the deep balls, th
  24. We'll see. Hopefully the Packers come out and play well, and win the game. I'd like to see Rodgers and the Packers able to score some points. Packers are league-average in scoring, and in the bottom-3rd-of-league in passing yards per game. Hoping that Bojo doesn't get a lot of touches.
×
×
  • Create New...