Week 16: Remember the Titans at Packers

[skibrett15]

This is the kind of team we haven't faced since the vikings - one who is simply willing to run the ball until the final whistle, and one with the horses to back up that strategy.

Jonnu smith is a YAC problem over the middle.  Our pathetic ILBs will have a huge problem with him.

[Leader]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

This game should be a good barometer for the playoffs. If we can man up and stop the Titans, (and stop is a relative word, we're not shutting them out, anything under 27 will be a win for the defense) I'll have hope for the playoffs. If this is one of those 41-38 games, or we get the doors blown off us, it'll be another year of hoping Rodgers gets white hot for 3-4 games or we'll be embarrassed again.

Agreed. The only thing this TEN team seems to be lacking is the dominant front 5-6 on defense - that simply crushes the GB OL and gets in ARs face. Not that its unique, but thats the method to beat AR. Chase him....hit him frequently....sack him. Well - they apparently cant do the latter - so good for us. Hopefully our OL will hold up against their DL and AR can dissect that secondary.

On the other side of the ball......our defense needs to *bring it*. Be "within the rules" vicious. Mean, nasty, gang tacklers.

Dont want to hear the players talking about the cold.....or the MVP chase.....or how the game isnt all that important. Only want to hear how they're gonna kick the **** out of the guys on the other side of the LOS.

[Leader]

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

If this is one of those 41-38 games, or we get the doors blown off us, it'll be another year of hoping Rodgers gets white hot for 3-4 games or we'll be embarrassed again.

Not to dwell on the negative.....but it seems that dating back to our handling MN and winning the NFCN - on (I think) SNF - since then, every nationally highlighted or broadly covered game against a top opponent - the Packers have had their lunch handed to them.

The Chargers, San Francisco (a few times...), Tampa Bay.....not sure thats all of them, but thats all I can think of. The games havent been pretty and the Packers didnt represent.  Hopefully we can reverse that trend Sunday night.
 

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

Not to dwell on the negative.....but it seems that dating back to our handling MN and winning the NFCN - on (I think) SNF - since then, every nationally highlighted or broadly covered game against a top opponent - the Packers have had their lunch handed to them.

The Chargers, San Francisco (a few times...), Tampa Bay.....not sure thats all of them, but thats all I can think of. The games havent been pretty and the Packers didnt represent.  Hopefully we can reverse that trend Sunday night.
 

We beat New Orleans. Really it's only been SF last year and Tampa this year. Not enough for me to call that a trend.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

We beat New Orleans. Really it's only been SF last year and Tampa this year. Not enough for me to call that a trend.

The Charger game stunk and the Indy game turned embarrassing.  Not a rant. Just something thats bugged me.
Hopefully - even if we lose - we can look at the result with some pride.

[Joe]

I'm just going to say it: the only way we win this game is if we get the ball first, come out hot, don't let off the gas, and control the clock forcing Tannehill to throw; even then, we're only going  to win by maybe 6 points - 10 if we're lucky. If we whiff on the first couple of series or let off the gas if we get a lead, King Henry will run all over us and it'll be San Fran all over again.

 

I think we lose this game too for the same reasons I thought going into the Indy game though the way they beat us was different than I expected...

[davekenya]

For the playoff picture, this game is somewhat irrelevant.  For #1 NFC seed, we just need to be da Bears no matter what happens vs Titans.  So...what will that mean for GB Packer player mindsets?  (It also more means week 17 vs the Bears is a big 'playoff' game -- both teams could have playoff implications at stake and will be playing 'all out'.)

So...for the Titans game, does this mean more experimenting with 8 in the box/hybrid safetyLB instead of safety or a different defensive scheme/personnel more geared to stopping a run-oriented team?  Seems that would be good practice for playoffs when they'll likely face some run-strong team they  need to figure out how to stop or slow down. 

This seems like the game to try a few new ideas on the d-side.  I don't know what that might be...I'm not a D coordinator. 

[dwaye50327]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

Agreed. The only thing this TEN team seems to be lacking is the dominant front 5-6 on defense - that simply crushes the GB OL and gets in ARs face. Not that its unique, but thats the method to beat AR. Chase him....hit him frequently....sack him. Well - they apparently cant do the latter - so good for us. Hopefully our OL will hold up against their DL and AR can dissect that secondary.

On the other side of the ball......our defense needs to *bring it*. Be "within the rules" vicious. Mean, nasty, gang tacklers.

Dont want to hear the players talking about the cold.....or the MVP chase.....or how the game isnt all that important. Only want to hear how they're gonna kick the **** out of the guys on the other side of the LOS.

I'm going with the standard "bad week of practice and they'll have to go back and look at the film"

[skibrett15]

22 hours ago, coachbuns said:

Yup, both offenses are pretty darn good.  Difference between the 2 teams ... the defense.  Although GB's defense isn't all world, it's so much better than the Titan defense.  Going to be a shoot out .. looking forward to it. 

Packers have a significant edge on offense as well.

 

While the titans have just as many raw points scored, they have had more drives.  Packers score 3.1 points/drive while titans score 2.85, a difference of about 8%.

 

When you factor in defense, it's 0.75 net points/drive to 0.37 for Ten.  So GB is clearly the better team on paper.  Will the matchups between the teams change that?

[dwaye50327]

12 minutes ago, davekenya said:

For the playoff picture, this game is somewhat irrelevant.  For #1 NFC seed, we just need to be da Bears no matter what happens vs Titans.  So...what will that mean for GB Packer player mindsets?  (It also more means week 17 vs the Bears is a big 'playoff' game -- both teams could have playoff implications at stake and will be playing 'all out'.)

So...for the Titans game, does this mean more experimenting with 8 in the box/hybrid safetyLB instead of safety or a different defensive scheme/personnel more geared to stopping a run-oriented team?  Seems that would be good practice for playoffs when they'll likely face some run-strong team they  need to figure out how to stop or slow down. 

This seems like the game to try a few new ideas on the d-side.  I don't know what that might be...I'm not a D coordinator. 

Say the Packers lose this game, beat the bears, finish 12-4. Wouldn't the seahawks still need to lose a game? Seems like they have the tie breaker on us, could be wrong tho. Also I think, if GB loses this game, the Bears game is a must win if the Seahawks win out, can't afford to go 11-5.

Might as well just win these next 2 games to be safe.

[-Hope-]

i'm shocked at how unconfident you guys are lol. now i think we'll give you a fight and maybe if we really, really bring it we'll even win, but i don't think you realize how bad our defense is. it is worst in the NFL-level bad. historically bad on 3rd down. rodgers is going to vivisect us.

[incognito_man]

DVOA Matchup:

GB Offense (2) vs TEN Defense (28)

GB Defense (18) vs TEN Offense (3)

[skibrett15]

22 minutes ago, dwaye50327 said:

Say the Packers lose this game, beat the bears, finish 12-4. Wouldn't the seahawks still need to lose a game? Seems like they have the tie breaker on us, could be wrong tho. Also I think, if GB loses this game, the Bears game is a must win if the Seahawks win out, can't afford to go 11-5.

Might as well just win these next 2 games to be safe.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/machine/_/factor/wins/results/401220296~2~401220250~1

[skibrett15]

4 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/machine/_/factor/wins/results/401220296~2~401220250~1

You'll notice that if we beat tennessee and LOSE to chicago, they drop to the 3 seed.  The tie breaker in a 3 way tie is conference then division record I think, so this is playing a big part.  AFC team Tennessee plays almost no role in this tiebreaker.

GB can clinch the bye with a WIN, and a Seattle LOSS.  That would give us a H2H tie breaker over new orleans, and no other team could reach 12-4

Edited December 22, 2020 by skibrett15

[Spartacus]

13 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

GB can clinch the bye with a WIN, and a Seattle LOSS.  That would give us a H2H tie breaker over new orleans, and no other team could reach 12-4

We will know before the Packers even play if this game means anything. But then again Seahawks could also lost week 17 and this game would then matter as well I think.