Jump to content

Week 4: Detroit Lions (2-1) at Green Bay Packers (2-1)

Old Guy

By Old Guy
in Green Bay Packers

 Share

Recommended Posts

{Family Ghost}

{Family Ghost}

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Mr Bad Example said:

I remember early on McCarthy's teams were trying to be "tough" and would take lots of stupid penalties

At some point - maybe two or three years in? - he realized that all this attitude did was give the opposing teams, free opportunities and yards and his teams for the most part after that were pretty disciplined and avoided dumb penalties.

We take a lot of dumb penalties now, but are anything but tough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
packfanfb

packfanfb

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Agreed. The "soft" talk only pops up after a lose. Somehow we're tougher when we win.

There is not a softness problem with the team at all. It's really just that our OL backups are struggling and that our DC plays small defensive fronts too often trying to stop the pass (which ends up too often being irrelevant because we're THAT bad against the run).

I think "soft" is the wrong word but there's an undeniable philosophy that we lean towards players who are "less physical" in areas of the game.

Two easy examples: GB is drawn to OL prospects who typically grade much higher as pass blockers vs. run blockers. We don't have any true "run grader" OL and we are consistently a better pass blocking unit than running the ball. Now that's not necessarily a terrible thing given it's a passing league, but that doesn't make it any less true. 

Second example: we don't value CBs (or even safeties) who are good tacklers or otherwise physical players. Instead again, we typically value athletes who run well. Our CBs are borderline awful in run support ( see exhibit Atlanta game). Our safeties aren't much better. This, together with a typically bad run defense scheme culminates in record-type games we have given up in the run game over the years. 

Edited by packfanfb
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HokieHigh

HokieHigh

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I think "soft" is the wrong word but there's an undeniable philosophy that we lean towards players who are "less physical" in areas of the game.

Two easy examples: GB is drawn to OL prospects who typically grade much higher as pass blockers vs. run blockers. We don't have any true "run grader" OL and we are consistently a better pass blocking unit than running the ball. Now that's not necessarily a terrible thing given it's a passing league, but that doesn't make it any less true. 

Second example: we don't value CBs (or even safeties) who are good tacklers or otherwise physical players. Instead again, we typically value athletes who run well. Our CBs are borderline awful in run support ( see exhibit Atlanta game). Our safeties aren't much better. This, together with a typically bad run defense scheme culminates in record-type games we have given up in the run game over the years. 

Ja was good in run support until he broke his collarbone

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...