3-0

[CWood21]

16 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

We'll be fine.

I'm not saying they're going to get ran over, but Dallas is easily by far the worst matchup against the Packers.  In terms of the teams we've played this far, the Vikings are probably the second toughest matchup for the Packers.  The Broncos' offense is mediocre.  Not totally sure what to make of the Eagles tbh.

[Kepler]

1 hour ago, beekay414 said:

I'm saying you're reading far too much into a select few occurrences to justify your opinion rather than taking the whole thing at face value. Brady gets visibly upset with McDaniels at times, doesn't mean he never bought in or "partially" bought in. Just means they disagreed about something. It's a relationship and no relationship, no matter what anyone wants you to believe, is perfect. There's zero indication that Rodgers hasn't bought in. Not in his demeanor, not in his pressers/interviews, and not in his on field play. Kinks just need to be worked out. It's game 3 of a first time head coach. We got shut out twice and held to, or under, 10 points 4 other times in Mac's first year. Let's be patient. 

I'm typically critical of Rodgers but I agree with this. If anything it seems like he feels more free to express himself around LaFleur, which is probably a good thing.

[Leader]

8 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Remember when the excuse for Clay and Perry not getting sacks last season was that "Pettine's scheme" did not prioritize sacks out of his OLBs?

Actually, no.

8 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

And remember when free agents were a bad thing and only bad teams signed them?

Actually, no.

8 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

And remember when free agents would never sign with Green Bay anyway so we could never expect the "front office" to pursue free agents?

Actually, I still dont think GB is the preferred "garden spot" destination for many/most FAs - but that doesnt interest me at this juncture. Rather, I think the recent signings are a "win" for analytics. From what I've been able to glean Z and Preston Smith were analytics monsters. Not stat monsters in terms of being recognized as "leaders" of their D's / ProBowl caliber talent - but just below the radar talents that put constant pressure on the QB. It was considered they fit our defensive scheme - and its clicked perfectly so far.

Please, please, please stay healthy. I know theres a drop off behind ya and I dont want to look down it.  

[KManX89]

3-0 baby!

And to think we did it on the back of our D instead of ARodg putting up 30+ PPG. Unbelievable.

Just imagine how scary good this D (and team as a whole) would be if our O was able to generate long drives and put up points, keeping the D well-rested. 

Can you say, Super Bowl?

[AlexGreen#20]

If you play a Cover-2 3-4 against 12 or 21 personnel, you're going to get run on to some extent. You're just going to lose on numbers, but if you give up an average of 4.5 yards per play on those runs, you're still ahead of the game. That seems to be our run defense strategy so far.

Sorta ugly, but an interesting approach.

[Leader]

9 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If you play a Cover-2 3-4 against 12 or 21 personnel, you're going to get run on to some extent. You're just going to lose on numbers, but if you give up an average of 4.5 yards per play on those runs, you're still ahead of the game. That seems to be our run defense strategy so far. Sorta ugly, but an interesting approach.

Peter Bukowski:  Broncos averaged 4.2 yards per play and only scored 16 points despite 72 Denver plays. The defense deserves a lot of credit.

(Green Bay ran 52 plays @ average 6yds per play)

Edited September 23, 2019 by Leader

[Arthur Penske]

 

[MacReady]

I have a feeling we might be trading Graham.  He's just not being used at all right now.  His one "target" was when Rodgers was under pressure and he threw it thirty yards away from Graham. 

[{Family Ghost}]

33 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If you play a Cover-2 3-4 against 12 or 21 personnel, you're going to get run on to some extent. You're just going to lose on numbers, but if you give up an average of 4.5 yards per play on those runs, you're still ahead of the game. That seems to be our run defense strategy so far.

Sorta ugly, but an interesting approach.

There were a couple drives yesterday where it looked like they might run us off the field, but in the second half it seemed like the Packers stiffened.  I was afraid we were going to have a gassed defense in the 4th quarter, but the Packers turned in a great quarter.

[Dubz41]

What a brutal thread to read all the way from page one.  Always humorous to see the guys who think their IQ goes up when their team wins. (mostly a viking fan thing).  I think we watched a Packer team that just came off two HUGE division games undefeated and came into this game a little flat.  Classic trap game against the other conference.  But unlike the last two years, we won the turnover category and made enough plays to pull it out.  Like good teams should.

Offense looks rough, but does seem to get a little better each week.  Defense looked flat, but took the ball away just enough to stay in control late.

Unsung kudos to JK Scott again!  The kid is flipping the field for us and that has been missing for a long time.

[vegas492]

16 hours ago, Norm said:

Second ignore list add of the day lol

Please.  Tell me.  Where is this "ignore list"?  I've tried finding it and it seems like it's hiding on me.

[Packerraymond]

45 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If you play a Cover-2 3-4 against 12 or 21 personnel, you're going to get run on to some extent. You're just going to lose on numbers, but if you give up an average of 4.5 yards per play on those runs, you're still ahead of the game. That seems to be our run defense strategy so far.

Sorta ugly, but an interesting approach.

I think Pettine's approach versus the 3 QBs we've played this far has been to play the bend, don't break game. Basically more plays for them on the field equals more chances for us to take the ball away and make a game changing play. Granted I'm not saying we're not aiming for 3 and outs but you catch my drift. If they want to play the short game, eventually our guys will make a 1st-2nd down play and we'll get a 3rd and long and make a play. It's worked this far, but the level of QB play in this next stretch is increasing. Luckily the level of defense in the same stretch decreases.

[Uffdaswede]

3 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Please.  Tell me.  Where is this "ignore list"?  I've tried finding it and it seems like it's hiding on me.

I'd tell you but I can't see your posts.

 

J/K  Hover the cursor over username above avatar.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Uffdaswede

[vegas492]

13 hours ago, Sasquatch said:

Thanks for this information.  Ironically, the tweet I saw said basically the same thing “Rodgers is making himself tough to coach”.  Really hope this changes.

I don't know if he is tough to coach.

Offense really didn't have a rhythm.  

It was weird.  Like they'd go up tempo, get a few good plays, then all of a sudden.  Slow tempo.  And drive done.

It was kind of a weird offensive performance.  Highlighted by a few absolutely perfect Rodgers throws, an overthrow or two and a couple of drops.

Personally, I feel like they need to motion Adams into good matchups more often.  We didn't use him as much as we could have.  

Byproduct to that motion is it could free up MVS 1:1 more often and that is a dangerous thing.

[Pugger]

3 hours ago, Leader said:

Actually, no.

Actually, no.

Actually, I still dont think GB is the preferred "garden spot" destination for many/most FAs - but that doesnt interest me at this juncture. Rather, I think the recent signings are a "win" for analytics. From what I've been able to glean Z and Preston Smith were analytics monsters. Not stat monsters in terms of being recognized as "leaders" of their D's / ProBowl caliber talent - but just below the radar talents that put constant pressure on the QB. It was considered they fit our defensive scheme - and its clicked perfectly so far.

Please, please, please stay healthy. I know theres a drop off behind ya and I dont want to look down it.  

FAs will go to a team willing to pay them.  If you have a winning culture all the better.   We just didn't sign FAs in their prime when Ted was running things like Gute is willing to do now.