Joe Barry'd again

[Brat&Beer]

Packers defense is last in the NFL with 7 passes defensed. Next worst is Pats and Bears with 14. Not surprisingly, Packers have just 1 INT. Hard to get INT's when you're not making any plays on the ball.

[CWood21]

22 hours ago, coachbuns said:

So far, he'd be losing his butt in Vegas betting like he has.  Packers D haven't had many qb's making mistakes .. hard to make one when their furthest throw is 10 yards.   

I mean, aside from the Minnesota game the defense has been fine.  The loss against the Giants to me falls on the offense.  We're 5th in oYPG, 11th in oPPG, and 4th in o3rd down %.  And we're 11th in sacks.  We haven't exactly played a murder's row of opponents by any means.

[MrBobGray]

21 hours ago, incognito_man said:

That and Bob Gray 

Conveniently I'm only here to watch you and @Norm needle Outpost so we got us a nice little Ouroboros eh.

[packfanfb]

58 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

The loss against the Giants to me falls on the offense.  

You're joking right? 

[Norm]

21 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

You're joking right? 

Yeah I don't agree myself tbh but if you had to split the blame, where's your percentages of each fall? It was no landslide either way. 

[CWood21]

12 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

You're joking right? 

Not in the slightest.  Let me guess, you expect the defense to hold them to 0 points all game, right?  New York ran 25 plays in the first half for 130 yards (5.2 yards per play) and 10 points allowed.  Comparatively speaking, the offense ran 38 plays for 228 yards (6 yards per play) and 20 points.  In the second half, the defense was in for 36 plays and gave up 200 yards (5.6 yards per play) and gave up 17 points.  The offense ran 24 plays (not including the last play of the game) for 115 yards (4.8 yards per play) and 0 points scored (not including the intentional safety by the Giants).  The Packers' offense went ice freaking cold in the second half.  They were worse than the Giants were in the 1st half by a hefty margin.  The Packers' defense in the second half played pretty similarly to the Giants' defense in the first half.  So tell me which was worse, the Packers' offense in the 2nd half or the Giants' offense in the first half?  Look at their 3rd down situations in the second half.

D1 - 3rd & 8 (Punt)
D2 - 3rd & 10 (Punt)
D3 - 3rd & 1 (Downs)

With the exception of the final drive, the Packers' offense were in 3rd and long consistently in the second half.  And with it being 4 down territory to begin with, it's astounding that neither the 3rd or 4th down plays were runs.  Compare that to the Giants' 3rd down situations in the first half.

D1 - 3rd & 4 (Punt)
D2 - 3rd & 13 (Punt)
D3 - 3rd & 7 (FG)
D4 - 3rd & 9 (TD)

The Packers' defense finally broke down in the second half.  Feels like TOP really was hurting the Packers in the second half.  Prior to the 3rd drive in the second half, the Giants' defense had been on the field for 7:08.  The Packers' defense was on the field for 18:44.  That's nearly 2.5x the amount of time it was on the field.  The defense deserves some blame, but the Packers' offense laying a goose egg in the second half was the biggest reason.  Especially when you have a former MVP and one of the highest paid players in NFL history playing QB.

[Jaire_Island]

Just remember that we played our best D against Bucs. We looked as good as Bucs D that too without Jaire. 

In short my analysis is it comes down to preparation. 2 weeks in a row we played sub par QB’s and might have thought we will handle them without much preparation and that showed up on the field.

R E L A X

 

[Maverick]

The defense has 57 first round picks and a few FAs. They need to be better. Especially against crap offensive teams. The excuses crack me up. 

Wanna know how you can get off the field on defense? It's called forcing a punt or a turnover. Not getting dogwalked down the field by Danny Dimes. 

[packfanfb]

25 minutes ago, Norm said:

Yeah I don't agree myself tbh but if you had to split the blame, where's your percentages of each fall? It was no landslide either way. 

85-15 defense. 

Why even though the offense was blanked in the 2nd half? Easy, because football is about momentum and rhythm. When your offense is sitting on the sidelines for 15-20 minutes (real time, not game clock time) at a time after long, 10+ play drives by the opposing team over and over again, that matters, more than probably most fans realize. It takes you out of a rhythm both collectively and individually. While giving up "17 points" in the 2nd half, in a vacuum doesn't sound extremely terrible, that was probably one of the worst defensive performances from the Packers I have seen in a long time due to the circumstances, namely (1) the quality (or lack thereof) of the offense we were playing, and (2) the manner in which we let them control the ball and dictate the entire 2nd half. It literally would have been better overall if we would have given up those points in 3-5 big plays, versus the 32 plays we allowed (that doesn't even include the last drive of the first half where the Giants scored on another 11-play drive). 

[CWood21]

7 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

85-15 defense.

We are spending 20% of our cap on Aaron Rodgers and David Bakhtiari.  There are only 2 players on defense taking up 5%+ of the cap: Preston Smith and Adrian Amos.

[packfanfb]

36 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Not in the slightest.  Let me guess, you expect the defense to hold them to 0 points all game, right?  New York ran 25 plays in the first half for 130 yards (5.2 yards per play) and 10 points allowed.  Comparatively speaking, the offense ran 38 plays for 228 yards (6 yards per play) and 20 points.  In the second half, the defense was in for 36 plays and gave up 200 yards (5.6 yards per play) and gave up 17 points.  The offense ran 24 plays (not including the last play of the game) for 115 yards (4.8 yards per play) and 0 points scored (not including the intentional safety by the Giants).  The Packers' offense went ice freaking cold in the second half.  They were worse than the Giants were in the 1st half by a hefty margin.  The Packers' defense in the second half played pretty similarly to the Giants' defense in the first half.  So tell me which was worse, the Packers' offense in the 2nd half or the Giants' offense in the first half?  Look at their 3rd down situations in the second half.

D1 - 3rd & 8 (Punt)
D2 - 3rd & 10 (Punt)
D3 - 3rd & 1 (Downs)

With the exception of the final drive, the Packers' offense were in 3rd and long consistently in the second half.  And with it being 4 down territory to begin with, it's astounding that neither the 3rd or 4th down plays were runs.  Compare that to the Giants' 3rd down situations in the first half.

D1 - 3rd & 4 (Punt)
D2 - 3rd & 13 (Punt)
D3 - 3rd & 7 (FG)
D4 - 3rd & 9 (TD)

The Packers' defense finally broke down in the second half.  Feels like TOP really was hurting the Packers in the second half.  Prior to the 3rd drive in the second half, the Giants' defense had been on the field for 7:08.  The Packers' defense was on the field for 18:44.  That's nearly 2.5x the amount of time it was on the field.  The defense deserves some blame, but the Packers' offense laying a goose egg in the second half was the biggest reason.  Especially when you have a former MVP and one of the highest paid players in NFL history playing QB.

First, allowing more than 15-20 points (that's generous) to that Giants' offense that was on the field on Sunday would be a gross disappointment for any NFL defense, especially one with 20 first round picks (7 to be real). 

Second, see my response below to Norm's post. 

Third, your position that this loss somehow tilts towards the offense is mind boggling to me, but hey, more power to you. I think we're at complete opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. 

Fourth, your comment about our defense breaking down "in the 2nd half" isn't accurate either. After the first two drives of the game (so from the end of the 1st quarter on) the Giants scored points ON EVERY DRIVE, including the following drives: 

• 8 plays, 45 yards - FG
• 11 plays, 86 yards - TD
• 11 plays, 56 yards - FG
• 15 plays, 91 yards - TD
• 6 plays, 60 yards - TD

I mean, my God dude. Does it get worse than that? 

[packfanfb]

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

We are spending 20% of our cap on Aaron Rodgers and David Bakhtiari.  There are only 2 players on defense taking up 5%+ of the cap: Preston Smith and Adrian Amos.

This means absolutely nothing. We have literally built our team this year around our defense. That's not even a secret, it's been openly talked about, even by the players. We have dedicated just about every single high-end resource towards the defense, especially in the draft. We built an offense to feature the run game and purposely neglected to use any big $$ or high draft picks (expect for Watson this year) on any WRs or TEs. That's the direction our front office has decided to go. This isn't the 2011 GB Packers, in fact, it's the direct opposite. 

Edited October 13, 2022 by packfanfb

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, packfanfb said:

First, allowing more than 15-20 points (that's generous) to that Giants' offense that was on the field on Sunday would be a gross disappointment for any NFL defense, especially one with 20 first round picks (7 to be real). 

Second, see my response below to Norm's post. 

Third, your position that this loss somehow tilts towards the offense is mind boggling to me, but hey, more power to you. I think we're at complete opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. 

Fourth, your comment about our defense breaking down "in the 2nd half" isn't accurate either. After the first two drives of the game (so from the end of the 1st quarter on) the Giants scored points ON EVERY DRIVE, including the following drives: 

• 8 plays, 45 yards - FG
• 11 plays, 86 yards - TD
• 11 plays, 56 yards - FG
• 15 plays, 91 yards - TD
• 6 plays, 60 yards - TD

I mean, my God dude. Does it get worse than that? 

I get that the Giants were a joke of a franchise for the last few years, but they're currently averaging more PPG than the Packers are right now (by 1.2 PPG fwiw).  Let that sink in.

We're paying Aaron Rodgers $50M/year, and we're currently the 22nd best offense in the NFL.  You want to point to all the FRPs we've invested in our defense, yet you're completely ignoring the fact that we have one of the highest paid players in NFL history under contract and he's playing at a non-MVP level.  I don't know about you, but I don't call that good value.

And for the record, I'm not saying the Packers' defense played great.  I thought they played okay.

[vegas492]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

 

 we're currently the 22nd best offense in the NFL. 

 

Yesterday we were 8th and I was told that I make ridiculous statements when I say there is no way we are the 8th ranked offense in the NFL, because I have not watching every game from all other 31 teams.

We must have played a Wednesday night game that I missed.

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

This means absolutely nothing. We have literally built our team this year around our defense. That's not even a secret, it's been openly talked about, even by the players. We have dedicated just about every single high-end resource towards the defense, especially in the draft. We built an offense to feature the run game and purposely neglected to use any big $$ or high draft picks (expect for Watson this year) on any WRs or TEs. That's the direction our front office has decided to go. This isn't the 2011 GB Packers, in fact, it's the direct opposite. 

And we're also committed to running the ball consistently and Aaron Rodgers being able to produce with lesser WRs, and neither of those have happened to be true.