GB vs PHI : Post Game Recap

[HighCalebR]

6 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

Depends on how we're defining it.  I think it's hard to call this a whiff only because I don't think Quay even gets as far as attempting a tackle.  Herman's not wrong that Quay is trying to take on a block from 69 and 69 slips, but I think we're all in agreement that the real question he's not asking is why Quay is even trying to take on a block in the first place?  69 isn't actually even trying to block him; he slips when Brooks extends to sheds his block and his feet just slide away as he tries to take the impact.  Quay's already in the gap when he goes to 'take on a block' from an OL who doesn't even reach his way.

Quay needed to just shoot this low and clear hands if the OL tried to down block on him as he entered the gap.  Granted he couldn't have known the C and the LG would get hung up so long on their double teams, but I just don't love the instinct to make priority one hitting a blocker.

That being said, I will say I kinda hate this alignment and this wasn't a good look for Clark either obviously.  Looks like the double team caught him completely off guard which is weird.  And alignment-wise, I don't know the down and distance, but this seems like they're lined up roughly like 7-3-4-7 with the LBers aligned in the same gaps as the DTs.  I mean maybe it's just me but I don't super love having no DL even adjacent to either A-gap in a situation where the run is still on the table.  The C and LG both kinda screw up their jobs on this play and it doesn't even matter because there's just so much empty space in the middle of the line.

MLF referenced this play as a missed alignment. Not 100% sure but pretty confident on that.

But i think he sayd edg was the misaligned player. Not really sure i guess 

Edited September 10 by HighCalebR

[Brat&Beer]

What's going on with this play? McDuffie run the wrong way? Bullard (out of the picture when the play starts) supposed to come up and cover the TE? 

 

[Leader]

26 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

That being said, I will say I kinda hate this alignment and this wasn't a good look for Clark either obviously.  Looks like the double team caught him completely off guard which is weird.  And alignment-wise, I don't know the down and distance, but this seems like they're lined up roughly like 7-3-4-7 with the LBers aligned in the same gaps as the DTs. 

1st & 10 at GB 11

(5:34 - 2nd) (No Huddle, Shotgun) S.Barkley right guard for 11 yards, TOUCHDOWN.J.Elliott extra point is GOOD, Center-R.Lovato, Holder-B.Mann

[PACKRULE]

3 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

If you get upset by people properly identifying straw-man arguments, all you have to do is stop using that sort of rhetoric.

You can say “we seem overly upset in the defense” without pretending people aren’t satisfied unless it’s top-2. 

 

I posted this on a f**king football forum dude like seriously take a breather. I don't care much just had to laugh and noted that my own disappointments are often due to my expectations. or the correlation. Then I hit posted and remembered that someone will be hurt. I never called anyone a strawman, strawhat, or strawberry. So give it all you got bro maybe i'm a strawwhateveryou called me beats the hell out of me......maybe it wasn't even too you and to the masses but whatever there I'm told old to give a strawpoo about your strawissues with this or that bahaha. Take care.  

[PACKRULE]

3 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

If you get upset by people properly identifying straw-man arguments, all you have to do is stop using that sort of rhetoric.

You can say “we seem overly upset in the defense” without pretending people aren’t satisfied unless it’s top-2. 

 

Just for your knowledge i had to go look up the starman stuff. Just so you know pal, i didn't put that much thought into the comment to argue it. Just a random post and my statement is true. Humans disappointments are often correlated to their expectations. So any way get a laugh at my expense I had no idea what our stroman comments were even about haha. Freaking hilarious. Enjoy your day I sure am now:). 

[craig]

19 hours ago, HighCalebR said:

It reall didnt take awhile. There were some penalties that negated solid runs and forced us into passes. On the 3rd drive jacobs had an 8 yard run in the RZ negated by a Kraft hold that didnt need to happen for the play. He had 4 carries previous that that werent great. If thats taking a while to get going, the whole leagues a diesel.

....

Semantics, I guess.  I think taking till the 4th possession is taking a while.  The running game whiffed and the Packers whiffed on their first three possessions.  Those three failed possessions cost them the game, IMO. 

It took until their 4th possession for the running game to start working, after which it worked really well.  (Obviously it wasn't just the running game.  Penalties and passing game whiffed on those first three possessions, too.  Kinda lose-lose-lose.)

On the first three offensive possessions, the runs went:  -1, +4, 0, 0, -10, -1, +2.  Kraft caused the -10, that looked like a beautiful run otherwise, as you noted.  The +2 was the one short-yardage run that worked on 4th-and-2, after they lost ground on short-yardage 3rd-and-1. 

Tangent:  The run game has different components.  I think it's possible to be have excellent running in many situations, while still being average or below-average in short-yardage situations?  I'm not convinced that short-yardage is a strength area for our run game.  Hope the ensuing season proves we're excellent in short-yardage, as well as lots of other scenarios.  

 

 

[HighCalebR]

13 minutes ago, craig said:

Semantics, I guess.  I think taking till the 4th possession is taking a while.  The running game whiffed and the Packers whiffed on their first three possessions.  Those three failed possessions cost them the game, IMO. 

It took until their 4th possession for the running game to start working, after which it worked really well.  (Obviously it wasn't just the running game.  Penalties and passing game whiffed on those first three possessions, too.  Kinda lose-lose-lose.)

On the first three offensive possessions, the runs went:  -1, +4, 0, 0, -10, -1, +2.  Kraft caused the -10, that looked like a beautiful run otherwise, as you noted.  The +2 was the one short-yardage run that worked on 4th-and-2, after they lost ground on short-yardage 3rd-and-1. 

Tangent:  The run game has different components.  I think it's possible to be have excellent running in many situations, while still being average or below-average in short-yardage situations?  I'm not convinced that short-yardage is a strength area for our run game.  Hope the ensuing season proves we're excellent in short-yardage, as well as lots of other scenarios.  

 

 

When 2 of those drives start on the oppenents 20? 4 carries previous to a large gain yeah missed me with that opinion i guess.

3 runs on those first 3 possessions. Yep run game whiffed.

Those #s are exactly how the run game works. Do everyones across the league theyll have stretches EXACTLY like that. Saquons was -5 0 4 3 or some ****.

You can be unconvinced by solid evidence to the point thats fine. Thats how confirmation bias works.

Edited September 10 by HighCalebR

[vegas492]

9 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

When 2 of those drives start on the oppenents 20? 4 carries previous to a large gain yeah missed me with that opinion i guess.

3 runs on those first 3 possessions. Yep run game whiffed.

Those #s are exactly how the run game works. Do everyones across the league theyll have stretches EXACTLY like that. Saquons was -5 0 4 3 or some ****.

You can be unconvinced by solid evidence to the point thats fine. Thats how confirmation bias works.

Like, I'm not arguing with you about the run game.  At all.

It is about attempts early on, for sure.  Cowher has said that many, many times.

I just want to see a little more early on.  Little cleaner.  Little more creative.

Guess I feel like part of it, a big part of it, is o-line cohesion and getting used to Jacobs.  He ain't Jones and we can't compare him to Jones, he's his own back.  And I'm not really sure what that is right now.

[HighCalebR]

24 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Like, I'm not arguing with you about the run game.  At all.

It is about attempts early on, for sure.  Cowher has said that many, many times.

I just want to see a little more early on.  Little cleaner.  Little more creative.

Guess I feel like part of it, a big part of it, is o-line cohesion and getting used to Jacobs.  He ain't Jones and we can't compare him to Jones, he's his own back.  And I'm not really sure what that is right now.

Jacobs can make the first guy miss in the open field thats what good backs do. Hes not quite as skinny through the hole no maybe not quite as explosive.

Line cohesion will come but we got the ponies. gotta give a little commitment. We had like a 34:21 pass:run on a 50% pass completion vs a 7ypc. 

[Mazrimiv]

3 hours ago, craig said:

Semantics, I guess.  I think taking till the 4th possession is taking a while.  The running game whiffed and the Packers whiffed on their first three possessions.  Those three failed possessions cost them the game, IMO. 

It took until their 4th possession for the running game to start working, after which it worked really well.  (Obviously it wasn't just the running game.  Penalties and passing game whiffed on those first three possessions, too.  Kinda lose-lose-lose.)

On the first three offensive possessions, the runs went:  -1, +4, 0, 0, -10, -1, +2.  Kraft caused the -10, that looked like a beautiful run otherwise, as you noted.  The +2 was the one short-yardage run that worked on 4th-and-2, after they lost ground on short-yardage 3rd-and-1. 

GB's 4th possession began with 12:38 remaining in Q2, and you are frustrated by MLF taking too long to make adjustments?  MLF has acknowledged that PHI caught him off guard with how they were defending the run.  In my mind, MLF deserves a lot of credit for making his adjustments so quickly.

[HighCalebR]

also Wahle doesnt show but some REAL solid plays from Slaton after finally getting the 22.

Not time to panic.

[Leader]

 

[packfanfb]

23 minutes ago, Leader said:

 

Tom is a stud. 

Jenkins is a stud.

Walker didn't have a great night and needs to be better moving forward. Can't have the penalties. 

Myers was okay in the passing game and had some major gaffes in the run game. He needs to be more consistent. 

Morgan will be the full-time RG starting this week or fairly soon thereafter. 

[packfanfb]

Hafley 1 for 1 on those opposing offensive player of the week awards. Avoid that this week and we're making progress!

[MrBobGray]

I've been trying to get through a re-watch on the All-22 for days and it just keeps not happening.  My notes from the first quarter only aren't anything not already said, but mostly what's stood out for me:

1. Rasheed Walker is routinely pretty awful.  Just does not look like he knows what's going on way too often and isn't making up for it physically.  Hoping he settles down as the game goes on.
2. That early play by Bullard was the kind of play that makes me an instant fan.  Came downhill on what was either a blitz or a good read and cut on a dime the instant he saw it was a bubble screen outside.  Just no hesitation and ran it down so fast he beat Walker to the tackle despite Walker being probably five yards closer and no slouch himself in the speed department.  6/5 stars.
3. Honestly the DL generally looks as advertised.  Gonna be an inconsistent group but man can they take over a game when they turn it on.  Don't have a lot in my notes on specifics though.  Slaton had a nice play against the run early, shocked his guy into the backfield and shed him to make the tackle.  Gary had some nice bull rushes.  Wyatt remains scary explosive and hard to knock off his rush.  I'll try to take more notes here on the rest of the game.
4. Eric Wilson might suck?  I feel like he had some better moments, but all I really remember is the play where he had a run come right at him and he was literally the last player on the field to move, and only because the OL engaged him first.  He was four yards back from the Line of Scrimmage.  0/5 stars.
5. I just don't think this group of TEs blocks well enough for some of what LaFleur wants to do.  Musgrave is willing but just does not have a chance against most of the LoS guys in the NFL.  Kraft is better but honestly not currently good enough to be worth giving up what he could give you in space blocking or receiving.  Sims exists I guess?  I honestly have no idea what his game is at all.  But it just feels like LaFleur wants to run a lot of this 12 personnel, two TEs close to the line stuff, and they just don't seem capable of blocking at the level needed for that to be worth what you give up.

Edited September 12 by MrBobGray
I'm dumb