Jump to content

Random Packer News & Notes


Leader

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, vegas492 said:

...Our offense is average at best.  O-line is a work in progress.  We have plusses at RB and QB.  Average at TE, WRs are at best average, but probably below average.  

...If you play more man, or run more blitzes, you open yourself to more big plays that can happen very quickly.  If you play more zone and run a conservative scheme, you should force the offense to be more meticulous when going down the field.  A sack or penalty can kill a drive.

With how our offense is right now, this is the right move.  We are not going to win many shootouts.  We cannot afford to give up big scoring plays quickly, as we are not going to match that.

I do not care for this style of defense, but I do feel like it is 100% the right way to play the game given this offense.

Agree, more man and more blitz obviously increases big-play risk.  The logic that zone and bend-don't-break defense allows the opposing offense to goof up has logic and has been around forever.  A lot of smart winning teams do it.  MLF has gone with bend-don't-break defense for three 13-win seasons.  I assume he's committed to that.  

I'm not sure it relates much to our offense, though?  You're trying to limit scoring whether your offense is good or bad.  If soft-zone reduced points-per-drive, do it whether your offense rocks or struggles.  And if soft-zone does NOT reduce points-per-drive, then how weak our offense may be has no relevance.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cannondale said:

I'll remember that the next time you say Rodgers sucks after an incomplete pass where he ends up on his *** after 1.8 seconds of protection from his OL. 

Regardless, you're a little late to the party talking about defense. I've been harping on it since giving up 50 in the desert, or 250 yards rushing to Kap, or Capers being dumbfounded and having to visit the local high school to figure out how to stop the veer, or drafting DL 5 years ago. I was always told it was just Rodgers' fault. 

At this point with Rodgers I’m mostly just trolling the people who blame EVERYTHING on anyone but Rodgers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Go with the defense, that’s fine, but do something different on opening drives.

If everyone can script a TD every ****ing game…

I don’t remember the last time a team didn’t score on their first drive.

That is ****ing stupid.

Its been 2 games in a row with opening drive TDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, cannondale said:

So what you're saying is making "solid points" and having "legit conversation" doesn't apply to you. Got it

No, that’s different.

Trolling is a completely different concept than debate.

If I’m pointing out a single terrible throw, that’s trolling.

If I point out legitimate faults in his games when there are players open and he’s not throwing to them and citing visual evidence as well as comparing his performance to that of other quarterbacks against similar schemes or teams, that’s debate.

I don’t really bother with the debate aspect of Rodgers anymore because anyone here with half a brain realizes that Rodgers does, in fact, have very legitimate flaws to his game and anyone who doesn’t see that now isn’t worth the trouble.

Thus, trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Listen, you can call me anything and I’m not offended. I’ve heard it all before.

I am offended though when I put forth an argument and all anyone does is attack me, and they’re too literally brain dead idiotic to counter it.

I appreciate the people who bring up the solid points. Different teams have been to the postseason different amounts of times in this era. Different eras make for different points. Granted.

But if you’re not going to have a legit conversation and you’re going to point out single hyperbolic lines in multiple paragraphs…

I don’t like Arthur and I never have, but Ray… Be better.

The whole point of the post is to show precedent for a recurring defensive issue that has existed regardless of current or former talent born from the type of players two very similar GMs have decided to bring in.

The other explanation is luck and coincidence. When you can point to other teams as performing better over longer periods of time…

That’s where you’ve got evidence that maybe it’s not luck. Maybe it’s not coincidence.

When you can point to our team putting LOADS of resources into the defense, that points to it being something that’s maybe not a talent question.

 

Problem is, that your comparing defenses from different eras, with different coaches and different players. There’s no correlation  between those other than they have under performed. Nothing more nothing less

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MantyWrestler said:

Problem is, that your comparing defenses from different eras, with different coaches and different players. There’s no correlation  between those other than they have under performed. Nothing more nothing less

Just think though…

The Packers over the past 25 playoff games have been worse than the Lions entire postseason history.

Lions games going back to the 60’s. THE 60’s.

If you can’t see there’s an issue there when 40 points was unheard of back then…

It is a significant point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Just think though…

The Packers over the past 25 playoff games have been worse than the Lions entire postseason history.

Lions games going back to the 60’s. THE 60’s.

If you can’t see there’s an issue there when 40 points was unheard of back then…

It is a significant point. 

I actually agree with the overall premise that we just don't have an aggressive defense mindset, but isn't that point actually against your argument? You're comparing Packers in the modern era, where scoring averages are much higher, with Lions in the 60s, when scoring averages were much lower. Of course the modern one will have a higher average of points against.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Leader said:

Paul Bretl -   The Packers 319 total yards after the catch on receptions is the second most in football through 2 games per PFF.

I wonder what fraction of Aaron's throws have been more than 2 yards beyond the line of scrimmage?  And what fraction of the completions?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, craig said:

I wonder what fraction of Aaron's throws have been more than 2 yards beyond the line of scrimmage?  And what fraction of the completions?  

Additional data...

Paul Bretl -   According to Marcus Mosher of PFF and other sites, the Packers have 18 big plays through two weeks, tied with Philadelphia and Cleveland, while trailing only the Lions, who are at 19.

For those wondering, a big run play is a rush of 10-plus yards, and a big passing play is a reception of 20-plus yards.

Of those 18 big plays that the Packers have tallied, 10 have come in the run game, which is the fifth most in that category, along with another eight coming in the passing game, and is tied for the fourth most.

Of the 10 big runs, Jones has accounted for six of them, according to PFF ($$). Meanwhile, AJ Dillon has three of his own, while Romeo Doubs has one.

The eight big passing plays, however, may come as a bit of a surprise considering that the offense was stifled for much of Week 1, while Matt LaFleur and company leaned on the run game heavily in Week 2. But nonetheless, this unit has found success via the big passing play.

Sammy Watkins has two of those plays, collecting a 24-yard and a 55-yard reception against Chicago. Randall Cobb also had 20-yard reception during that game on a deep crossing route.

Doubs has had one big play each game, while Christian Watson had a 25-yard catch from Jordan Love during garbage time in Minnesota. Rounding out this list is Robert Tonyan and Jones, with one 20-plus yard reception each–and both against the Vikings.

 

Edited by Leader
  • Like 2
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...