UDFA showcase showdown 2020 (MNF)

[Donzo]

2 hours ago, Joe said:

So you're telling me that Lowry, Lancaster, Keke, and Adams are at least serviceable in the run game with a now departed Blake Martinez behind him? C'mon... unless a miracle happens, this team will once again be in the bottom half of the league in rush defense. 

Of course not. I'm not making a statement about those guys at all. I've made statements about all four of those players since the season ended. I could talk more about them if something interesting was said about them.

What you quoted me posting (No... That's not even really close) was strictly specific to the post I quoted you on (The only reason we weren't 32nd in rush defense last year was because Kenny Clark made a few plays here and there).

[Joe]

On 5/9/2020 at 3:42 PM, AlexGreen#20 said:

So?

That's how was lost every game last year. Power running teams came in and punched us in the mouth. That's the formula to beating us: run the ball up right side A-gap and double-team Clark.

[vegas492]

2 hours ago, Joe said:

That's how was lost every game last year. Power running teams came in and punched us in the mouth. That's the formula to beating us: run the ball up right side A-gap and double-team Clark.

Eh.

Beat Minnesota twice, despite them becoming a rushing offensive team.

Beat Chicago twice, despite them wanting to run the ball.  Okay, that may be a stretch, their offense was terrible on every level.

No more feared running game in the league than the Cowboys.  Great o-line, receivers, great running back.  And they lost.  At home.

We did lose to the Eagles.  Not sure I'd ever call them a running team.

Beat the Panthers and McCaffrey with a goalline stand.  Stuffed that run.

Raiders sure liked to run it with Jacobs....and lost.

Not sure I'd call the Chargers a running team, but I'd call them balanced.

So pretty much, what you mean is that we matched up poorly with the 49ers.  

Hopefully our DC learned how to count gaps this off-season. 

[Joe]

41 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Eh.

Beat Minnesota twice, despite them becoming a rushing offensive team.

Beat Chicago twice, despite them wanting to run the ball.  Okay, that may be a stretch, their offense was terrible on every level.

No more feared running game in the league than the Cowboys.  Great o-line, receivers, great running back.  And they lost.  At home.

We did lose to the Eagles.  Not sure I'd ever call them a running team.

Beat the Panthers and McCaffrey with a goalline stand.  Stuffed that run.

Raiders sure liked to run it with Jacobs....and lost.

Not sure I'd call the Chargers a running team, but I'd call them balanced.

So pretty much, what you mean is that we matched up poorly with the 49ers.  

Hopefully our DC learned how to count gaps this off-season. 

If you look at every example I emboldened, those teams lost because they decided to start passing to set up the run and both our secondary and pass rush stopped them. Then our offense took control, mainly with Aaron Jones running the ball and catching short passes. This was true of the Cowboys game in particular and that was the big discussion amongst the experts afterwards - that game may have been a big factor in the decision to move on from Garrett.

The Eagles became a running team when all their receivers got hurt, but they learned that Jordan Howard could bowl over our middle fairly easily late in that game.

Coach Lynn of the Chargers was very clear in stating that they wanted to establish the run and use it almost exclusively in the week leading up to our game. That game was a statement game for them and they clearly wanted it more than we did.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Joe

[vegas492]

18 hours ago, Joe said:

If you look at every example I emboldened, those teams lost because they decided to start passing to set up the run and both our secondary and pass rush stopped them. Then our offense took control, mainly with Aaron Jones running the ball and catching short passes. This was true of the Cowboys game in particular and that was the big discussion amongst the experts afterwards - that game may have been a big factor in the decision to move on from Garrett.

The Eagles became a running team when all their receivers got hurt, but they learned that Jordan Howard could bowl over our middle fairly easily late in that game.

Coach Lynn of the Chargers was very clear in stating that they wanted to establish the run and use it almost exclusively in the week leading up to our game. That game was a statement game for them and they clearly wanted it more than we did.

I think you are reaching for straws that aren't there.

Jones outrushed Zeke.  Zeke was held to under 75 yards on the ground.

Dak, though, threw for over 400.

Yet the concern is over the rush defense?

Tell yah what, just give credit when it is due.  We got up 17-0 and played to run out the clock.  Which happened.  If you want to cite a game when power running beat GB, point to a game that was actually lost due to he power run.  Both 49er games.

Because then we get to look at scheme and see how outmanned we were on the line.  And how pathetic our offense was, which was typical for our west coast road trips.

Concerning the Chargers?  Look at the Rivers stat line, 21-27 for almost 300 yards.  Sure RB's got 150 on top of that.  But that was another total collapse, not just the run D.

Then look at those two Viking games when they wanted to run it down our throats.  And lost, twice.

Again, I feel like you are reaching for straws that simply aren't there to support some narrative you have come up with.

Seems like Packer fans just aren't happy unless they are unhappy about something.

[Joe]

On 5/12/2020 at 10:35 AM, vegas492 said:

I think you are reaching for straws that aren't there.

Jones outrushed Zeke.  Zeke was held to under 75 yards on the ground.

Dak, though, threw for over 400.

Yet the concern is over the rush defense?

Tell yah what, just give credit when it is due.  We got up 17-0 and played to run out the clock.  Which happened.  If you want to cite a game when power running beat GB, point to a game that was actually lost due to he power run.  Both 49er games.

Because then we get to look at scheme and see how outmanned we were on the line.  And how pathetic our offense was, which was typical for our west coast road trips.

Concerning the Chargers?  Look at the Rivers stat line, 21-27 for almost 300 yards.  Sure RB's got 150 on top of that.  But that was another total collapse, not just the run D.

Then look at those two Viking games when they wanted to run it down our throats.  And lost, twice.

Again, I feel like you are reaching for straws that simply aren't there to support some narrative you have come up with.

Seems like Packer fans just aren't happy unless they are unhappy about something.

Again, when Kirk started throwing the ball.

Here's a quote from Anthony Lynn pre-Packer game:

"You have to give guys the chance to get into a rhythm and flow,” Lynn said. “Sometimes, you can do that through play calling. We’ll see moving forward if we can get into that rhythm, if the offensive line can take over a game on the ground and stay on the field.”

https://www.latimes.com/sports/chargers/story/2019-11-03/chargers-vs-packers-matchups

They ran to set up the pass. This is how Coughlin beat us in the 2011 loss: run the ball to control the clock and pass when you can or need to.

Again with the Dallas game, it doesn't matter that Jones outrushed  Zeke. Our offense got up by quite a margin, don't you think the other team is going to feel forced to turn to the pass? I mean, that's usually what happens when you're behind by multiple scores.

 

I'll also put it this way to you. When Peyton Manning beat Cam in the Super Bowl a couple years ago, did he do it with his arm or did his defense throttle Cam? You're going to be sore about how bad our run defense is this year whether you want to admit it or not...

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Joe

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Joe said:

Again, when Kirk started throwing the ball.

Here's a quote from Anthony Lynn pre-Packer game:

"You have to give guys the chance to get into a rhythm and flow,” Lynn said. “Sometimes, you can do that through play calling. We’ll see moving forward if we can get into that rhythm, if the offensive line can take over a game on the ground and stay on the field.”

https://www.latimes.com/sports/chargers/story/2019-11-03/chargers-vs-packers-matchups

They ran to set up the pass. This is how Coughlin beat us in the 2011 loss: run the ball to control the clock and pass when you can or need to.

Again with the Dallas game, it doesn't matter that Jones outrushed  Zeke. Our offense got up by quite a margin, don't you think the other team is going to feel forced to turn to the pass? I mean, that's usually what happens when you're behind by multiple scores.

 

I'll also put it this way to you. When Peyton Manning beat Cam in the Super Bowl a couple years ago, did he do it with his arm or did his defense throttle Cam? You're going to be sore about how bad our run defense is this year whether you want to admit it or not...

 

 

"This is how Coughlin beat us in the 2011".....What about 2011 is in any way related to 2019???

"Our offense got up by quite a margin, don't you think the other team is going to feel forced to turn to the pass?"   Isn't that what we want to do?  Stop the run enough to get up and then play the pass?  You cited power running teams "running it down our throats".  No better running game than the Cowboys, given their o-line and their RB.  Yet we took it to them at their place and won.  They did not run it down our throat.  Not hardly.  Neither did Minnesota despite them wanting to really, really bad.

"You're going to be sore about how bad our run defense is this year whether you want to admit it or not..."   Again, Packer fans aren't happy unless they are unhappy about something.

But that's cool.  You have your narrative.  I have mine.  Mine is 14-4.  Beaten by 3 teams.  Beat quite a few teams who tried hard to "run it down our throats".  Failed against two teams that did it.  Again, I don't consider Philly a "run it down your throat" kind of offense.  No doubt 49ers are and did.  Twice.

 

[beekay414]

9 hours ago, vegas492 said:

Again, Packer fans aren't happy unless they are unhappy about something.

Have not read anything more true on this site, ever.

[Uffdaswede]

On 5/12/2020 at 9:35 AM, vegas492 said:

Seems like Packer fans just aren't happy unless they are unhappy about something.

The entirety of your post was very good, reminding us that our problems and virtues as a team are not as simple as a quick reading of our 4th loss in 2019 suggests.

As to your pithy final point which I quoted—yep!

Bengston, Devine, the Hadl trade, and then on to a legend without any experience coaching and short two first and two second round draft picks. Some say that Starr was finally figuring out the head coaching gig he had been thrust into abruptly just as they fired him. At that point Forrest Gregg came along with his favorite player Mo Lester, then Lindy Infante and Tony Mandarich, and finally a real GM, Ron Wolf, and a return to a more sane way of running a football team without interference from a group of community leaders with all the football acumen of a dysfunctional PTA. The 70s and 80s played out like a Scrabble game in which the Packers kept dumping their letters and skipping turns.

So, yeah, despite all of the real pain that comes along with 5 interceptions, 4th and 26, interceptdown, Fail Mary, snapped collarbones, and embarrassing final drubbings by Atlanta and the 49ers, we are fortunate to have a long run of success about which we are happy to complain.

 

[vegas492]

9 hours ago, beekay414 said:

Have not read anything more true on this site, ever.

 

1 hour ago, Uffdaswede said:

The entirety of your post was very good, reminding us that our problems and virtues as a team are not as simple as a quick reading of our 4th loss in 2019 suggests.

As to your pithy final point which I quoted—yep!

Bengston, Devine, the Hadl trade, and then on to a legend without any experience coaching and short two first and two second round draft picks. Some say that Starr was finally figuring out the head coaching gig he had been thrust into abruptly just as they fired him. At that point Forrest Gregg came along with his favorite player Mo Lester, then Lindy Infante and Tony Mandarich, and finally a real GM, Ron Wolf, and a return to a more sane way of running a football team without interference from a group of community leaders with all the football acumen of a dysfunctional PTA. The 70s and 80s played out like a Scrabble game in which the Packers kept dumping their letters and skipping turns.

So, yeah, despite all of the real pain that comes along with 5 interceptions, 4th and 26, interceptdown, Fail Mary, snapped collarbones, and embarrassing final drubbings by Atlanta and the 49ers, we are fortunate to have a long run of success about which we are happy to complain.

 

To be fair, I get caught in that trap, too.  Not being happy unless I'm unhappy about something related to the Packers.  Especially when I was younger and pretty much a "rabid" fan.

I've mellowed with age.  A little.  But I can totally see how someone can get obsessed with this poor run defense narrative.  To me, though, there's smoke there, which means there could be fire, but we kept that fire at bay fine last year, with the exception of 3 games.  Unfortunately, one of those games was the biggest of the season and a season ender.

Guess I'll have to trust that Pettine gets it straightened out.  Just like I had to trust that Gute knew what he was doing when he hired MLF.  Just like I have to trust that they drafted well.  

Me?  I've got bigger fish to fry.  Literally.  Having a fresh fish fry again tonight.  Can't think of anything better than a good beer with a fresh fish fry.

[Shanedorf]

8 hours ago, vegas492 said:

I've mellowed with age.  A little.

yer pretty much a barrel - aged whiskey at this point

[MrBobGray]

This is always going to be the issue with teams built around Rodgers though.  You can't do everything in today's NFL, and especially not with $30 mil going to your QB, so you pick your poisons.  Basic assumption with Rodgers at the helm is that you'll need to stop the pass more often than the run, as you can generally assume you'll score some points and probably have the lean at QB.  Of all the areas of the team that matter, run defense matters the least when you have an elite QB because it's just really difficult to lose to the run if you're able to pass the ball on O.

Of course, that's sort of been the issue of late.  Everyone talks about the team getting run over by the 49ers, but that was only possible because the offense did less than nothing in the first half of both games.  The Packers managed 4 first downs and 0 points in the first half of the November game; they managed 6 first downs and 0 points in the first half of the NFC Championship game.  They also turned the ball over 4 times in the first half, 2 in each game.  The Packers have put nearly all their value in terms of draft picks and FA signings into OL, WR, secondary and EDGE in the past 7 years; this team is built to go as Rodgers goes.  They are not built to play a contender on the road with no run support.

And here's the thing: that's not a bug.  It's by design.  Again, to hammer this point home: you can't do everything in the NFL.  This starts with the salary cap but is also due to the fact that positions are just too specialized.  A LB who can stuff the run probably can't cover, and if he can your team probably can't afford him.  You're building the best rube goldberg machine you can from the parts you have, but there's always going to be stuff you just have to live without.  

Edited May 15, 2020 by MrBobGray

[Joe]

On 5/14/2020 at 8:11 PM, MrBobGray said:

This is always going to be the issue with teams built around Rodgers though.  You can't do everything in today's NFL, and especially not with $30 mil going to your QB, so you pick your poisons.  Basic assumption with Rodgers at the helm is that you'll need to stop the pass more often than the run, as you can generally assume you'll score some points and probably have the lean at QB.  Of all the areas of the team that matter, run defense matters the least when you have an elite QB because it's just really difficult to lose to the run if you're able to pass the ball on O.

Of course, that's sort of been the issue of late.  Everyone talks about the team getting run over by the 49ers, but that was only possible because the offense did less than nothing in the first half of both games.  The Packers managed 4 first downs and 0 points in the first half of the November game; they managed 6 first downs and 0 points in the first half of the NFC Championship game.  They also turned the ball over 4 times in the first half, 2 in each game.  The Packers have put nearly all their value in terms of draft picks and FA signings into OL, WR, secondary and EDGE in the past 7 years; this team is built to go as Rodgers goes.  They are not built to play a contender on the road with no run support.

And here's the thing: that's not a bug.  It's by design.  Again, to hammer this point home: you can't do everything in the NFL.  This starts with the salary cap but is also due to the fact that positions are just too specialized.  A LB who can stuff the run probably can't cover, and if he can your team probably can't afford him.  You're building the best rube goldberg machine you can from the parts you have, but there's always going to be stuff you just have to live without.  

This was my initial thought when we picked Jordan Love. I agree with your take in that the roster is "by-design." The fact is that we don't like the design.

As for the 49ers, we all know their offense is a newer version of Father Shanny's power-running attack. It wouldn't have mattered if we hung up 21 in the first half, they were going to power run the ball to control the clock regardless of who they were playing. That's their offense: run to set up the pass.

[OneTwoSixFive]

On 15/05/2020 at 1:11 AM, MrBobGray said:

And here's the thing: that's not a bug.  It's by design.  Again, to hammer this point home: you can't do everything in the NFL.  This starts with the salary cap but is also due to the fact that positions are just too specialized.  A LB who can stuff the run probably can't cover, and if he can your team probably can't afford him.  You're building the best rube goldberg machine you can from the parts you have, but there's always going to be stuff you just have to live without.  

That is so cogent I feel you should be writing film scripts, the film industry has been is desperate need of good dialogue for decades.

[mikemike778]

On 15/05/2020 at 1:11 AM, MrBobGray said:

  The Packers have put nearly all their value in terms of draft picks and FA signings into OL, WR, secondary and EDGE in the past 7 years; this team is built to go as Rodgers goes.  They are not built to play a contender on the road with no run support.

And here's the thing: that's not a bug.  It's by design.  Again, to hammer this point home: you can't do everything in the NFL.  This starts with the salary cap but is also due to the fact that positions are just too specialized.  A LB who can stuff the run probably can't cover, and if he can your team probably can't afford him.  You're building the best rube goldberg machine you can from the parts you have, but there's always going to be stuff you just have to live without.  

And this is where the problem lies and the strategy is flawed. We had one legitimate receiver last season.  It doesn't really make any sense to build your team around the passing game and stopping the pass but neglect having someone to catch the ball. Stacks of draft capital was thrown at the secondary but nothing meaningful at receiver for a long time.  Maybe peak Rodgers can have a high powered passing game with just Adams but its a bit optimistic to expect that of a regressing Rodgers.

The team last season didn't really have an identity. A combination of luck, Adams,  the defence having its moments and Rodgers doing just enough got us to a 13-3. I don't like the draft but it does seem a more coherent strategy.