Jump to content

Round 1: Pick #29; Eric Stokes, CB, Georgia


Packerraymond

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Leader said:

Yup. It wasnt scheme. King just let Miller blow his doors off.

I mean, the scheme sucked too. Not putting a safety overtop on that side of the field? A 5-year old could have told you that was dumb. Literally the only thing you don't allow on that play is a TD. The whole play was one of the worst plays by a defense, given the situation, in NFL playoff history. Packers own a lot of those "worst defensive plays" over the last 20 years unfortunately. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, packfanfb said:

I mean, the scheme sucked too. Not putting a safety overtop on that side of the field? A 5-year old could have told you that was dumb. Literally the only thing you don't allow on that play is a TD. The whole play was one of the worst plays by a defense, given the situation, in NFL playoff history. Packers own a lot of those "worst defensive plays" over the last 20 years unfortunately. 

Nope. I'd rank the SF TO TD pass at the end of whatever game that was as worse.

THAT was the definition of a dagger play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leader said:

Nope. I'd rank the SF TO TD pass at the end of whatever game that was as worse.

THAT was the definition of a dagger play.

As I said, you could make an entire video just of the mind-boggling plays our defense has surrendered in the playoffs since the late 90s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

As I said, you could make an entire video just of the mind-boggling plays our defense has surrendered in the playoffs since the late 90s. 

You didnt actually say that :)

Regardless......Favre had more than his fair share of mind-bogglers on the offensive side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

That was just horrible football ... knew the game was over after allowing that gift of a score.

I ... disliked #42 since that play. How he decided to play behind TO in that situation was beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Packers own a lot of those "worst defensive plays" over the last 20 years unfortunately. 

Most of the time it was a lack of personnel, but on the other hand, we haven't had a DC worth a $#!^ since Fritz Shurmur left. I'd say Bates was a great DC but he only got one year before the entire coaching staff was canned with Sherman.

I blame the front office for this as well because they've succumbed to the idiocy of thinking that the best defense is an elite offense. We've seen that play out in 2003, 2011, and I'll even throw 2014 and 2016 into the mix there. This is also why I hated the Barry hire as well; hire someone new, hire someone young and innovative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Leader said:

Yup. It wasnt scheme. King just let Miller blow his doors off.

Healthy Stokes obviously has catchup-speed, and explosive acceleration to get to it, that King didn't have the Sunday.  Josh Jackson didn't either. 

I wonder how much King's inability to flip and run was just King, versus King-playing-hurt?  Players always want to play, and to earn hero-badge for playing even when hurt, because they sincerely "want to help the team".  But playing hurt doesn't "help the team" if it precludes playing well.  On that Sunday, though, I wonder if Josh Jackson could have played any better?  Or Hollman?  Maybe yes, very possibly not. 

This is partly where increasing depth helps a lot.  If next-man-up is half the player the healthy starter is, playing a 70% starter might still be better than next-man-up.  But if next-man-up is almost as good as the starter anyway, or arguably perhaps even better, going to a 95% next man up is better than a 70% or 80% starter.  Stokes could help in this area this year.

That was a do-or-die game, of course.  But can also be that if 70% starter can sit and heal for two weeks, then he can play 100% subsequently, rather than playing hurt at 70% health and 70% effectiveness, but never having chance to get healthy, so that you're stuck with 70% for the duration.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, craig said:

Healthy Stokes obviously has catchup-speed, and explosive acceleration to get to it, that King didn't have the Sunday.  Josh Jackson didn't either. 

I wonder how much King's inability to flip and run was just King, versus King-playing-hurt?  Players always want to play, and to earn hero-badge for playing even when hurt, because they sincerely "want to help the team".  But playing hurt doesn't "help the team" if it precludes playing well.  On that Sunday, though, I wonder if Josh Jackson could have played any better?  Or Hollman?  Maybe yes, very possibly not. 

This is partly where increasing depth helps a lot.  If next-man-up is half the player the healthy starter is, playing a 70% starter might still be better than next-man-up.  But if next-man-up is almost as good as the starter anyway, or arguably perhaps even better, going to a 95% next man up is better than a 70% or 80% starter.  Stokes could help in this area this year.

That was a do-or-die game, of course.  But can also be that if 70% starter can sit and heal for two weeks, then he can play 100% subsequently, rather than playing hurt at 70% health and 70% effectiveness, but never having chance to get healthy, so that you're stuck with 70% for the duration.  

 

 

Hard to say if King was hurt, but he wasn't running with Miller regardless; Miller's a legit 4.3 flat guy, and King at his current weight is probably a 4.5 guy.  That play was largely determined pre-snap, and everyone on both sides of the ball knew it.  King is creeping back even before the snap and for his part Tom never looks anywhere but Miller.  Ball is out of his hands before Miller is even fifteen yards downfield.  They got the match-up they wanted and needed, and I think the only person in the stadium that day that didn't know it was Mike Pettine.  And possibly Will Redmond, as I cannot figure out for the life of me why Redmond is shaded to the short side of the field in Cover-1 when the bunch set is on the open side.  King is in no man's land here: he probably should have just full on bailed as soon as the ball was snapped, but then you're essentially asking Will Redmond to defend Miller 1v1 because you're giving up the post route completely for free.  Aat the end of the day asking a CB to defend a receiver that fast 1v1 with safety help on the opposite hash, without being able to press or redirect is a doomed play-call from the start.  Stokes is a better fit for that role than King to be certain, but it's an awful, awful role regardless and I hope the team isn't making personnel decisions based on King's inability to play the worst coverage ever.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...