Skip to main content

Originally Posted by lambeausouth:

Part of the problem is we went into the season relying on Bulaga to be "the guy", and we don't have a lot behind him if he gets hurt. Well, he's hurt, and the guy behind him, Sherrod, who himself suffered a terrible broken leg, is that the guy you want starting for 16 games?

 

Signing Peppers might help the pass rush, but I'd have rather we spent money actually improving the offensive line, because once again, Rodgers is running his butt off trying just to get his passes off. 

 

If Bulaga is hurt, and it didn't look good, then I am concerned about the whole line again. We already have a rookie at center, who I thought did well under the circumstances. But I don't see Sherrod staying healthy for 16 games, let alone playing effectively. 

How many guys can you expect to have who can play quality RT in this league? The loss of Barclay was a problem, they had  a solid backup.

 

Can Lang move to RT? I think that is the stop gap anyway.

Originally Posted by GBFanForLife:

McCarthy **** the bed. Rodgers **** the bed, the defense is the least of our worries. The offensive game plan was offensive. If they just play smash mouth football. The game is a lot closer.

Yeah, well the game plan wasn't great, Rodgers looked skittish before Bulaga went down. But Lacy got hurt, then removed for a possible concussion. Lacy is smash mouth and he was hurting.

 

My problem is that this was the game. They knew for months where it was, that is was the first game on the schedule, had all that time to prep for the game, then this. Losing two starters on offense in the first half, on the same freaking play(!) did not help.

Last edited by excalibur

My non-emotional reaction to this game...

  this game was more about seatles defense over matching our offense.  

  The obvious offensive gameplan was to establish the run and have Rodgers play conservatively   In fact I don't remember a game where it seemed the gameplan "required Rodgers to be a game manager.

  As everyone noted...run defense is a problem...

  I like Dix, but he needs to keep his feet when he tackles

  Hayward nowhere near a ball tonight

  without lynch, I think Seattle is in trouble with that receiving corps. 

 

 

Originally Posted by excalibur:
Originally Posted by lambeausouth:

Part of the problem is we went into the season relying on Bulaga to be "the guy", and we don't have a lot behind him if he gets hurt. Well, he's hurt, and the guy behind him, Sherrod, who himself suffered a terrible broken leg, is that the guy you want starting for 16 games?

 

Signing Peppers might help the pass rush, but I'd have rather we spent money actually improving the offensive line, because once again, Rodgers is running his butt off trying just to get his passes off. 

 

If Bulaga is hurt, and it didn't look good, then I am concerned about the whole line again. We already have a rookie at center, who I thought did well under the circumstances. But I don't see Sherrod staying healthy for 16 games, let alone playing effectively. 

How many guys can you expect to have who can play quality RT in this league? The loss of Barclay was a problem, they had  a solid backup.

 

Can Lang move to RT? I think that is the stop gap anyway.

There aren't a lot of quality tackles, you're absolutely right. But if your starting right tackle goes out in week 1, and misses the rest of the season again, you have to find somebody, anyway. Maybe make a trade. Spend a little bit of money. I don't know. I'm not Ted Thompson, but I kind of expect him to be able to do something. I want Bulaga and Sherrod to stay healthy, and play well. But it's looking less likely they're going to be long term solutions for us.

 

I guess we'll have to wait and see, and keep our fingers crossed.  

Originally Posted by 50k Club:

The rants about the defense have been well-covered, but the offense strategy was very strange.  Short range passes, stretch runs. only one or two screens, odd low-percentage routes to Cobb (2 one-hand grab attempts???).  They practiced indoors to keep that hidden???  Yikes.

At one point, Rodgers was 14 of 18 for like 86 yards. Was that the game plan, or was it that Aaron didn't have enough time for the receivers to run routes that were any longer?

I've maintained this since we lost to San Fran in the opener 2 years ago: the difference whenever this team loses is the MLB play. Bobby Wagner vs Brad Jones was the difference in this game. Bobby Wagner was sharp, he tackled very well, he covered receivers well, and he was never out of position. Jones tackled poorly, drew coverage penalties because he was beat, and he was constantly out of the runners way. The OLBs crashed inside and the ILBs were supposed to contain the outside and outside is where Seattle gashed us. There's no getting around that, scheme wise. Your other option is to relegate Clay and Pepp to containment duty which hurts their pass rush.
Originally Posted by vitaflo:

They played scared on both sides of the ball.  From the first snap there was no rhythm. Seattle dictated the entire game.

That was my problem with the offense before Bulaga went down. They had months to prepare for this game, then they had this game plan? Rodgers at times, before Bulaga went down, looked like Manning in the last SB.

These comments on the offense are puzzling. The first half the offense was fine. They were being patient which is what you need to do against a defense that elite. This is the same defense that completely annihilated the Broncos last year.

 

The 2nd half was a problem -- you had the fluke turnover on Jordy, and then Sherrod just couldn't compete out there.

 

But the bottom line is when you play a top rated defense like that, you are relying on your defense to keep it reasonable. You can't compete in a game like this if you give up 220 yards in a half, blow coverages, allow over 200 yards rushing at 5.5 yards a carry, and don't create any turnovers.

 

You play a no-d team like the Bears or Cowboys, then you can gripe about an offense not moving it up and down the field. But not against these guys. Not against the 49ers of the past couple of years. Your offense isn't going to roll those squads -- no offense will. So your defense just needs to be competitive and they were not today. Same story, different year.

Well, disappointing loss for sure.  Score looks lopsided but I don't think all hope is lost.

 

The pass rush looked legit.  We have waves of guys that can get after the QB and I think that will show against teams not named Seattle.  Peppers showed he can still make some plays and Clay is playing like an animal.

 

The cornerback play was stellar.  Sam Shields looked like an elite CB and Tramon was solid as usual.  HHCD looks like he has the potential to develop into a special safety.  Will likely be starting by mid-season.

 

The run defense was rough but Lynch has made many teams look like this.  Also, Percy Harvins is one of the most dynamic playmakers in the NFL.  Those 2 combined with R. Wilson who is developing into an elite QB will give lots of teams heartburn.  If we look like this against the Jets, then I will be concerned.

 

The offensive line looked nasty, they were going after people.  Losing Bulaga is unfortunate (I am assuming it is a blown ACL given his history) and Sherrod looks very rusty but I think with a couple more games he has the potential to round into shape.

 

Seattle one of the most aggressive, hard nosed but disciplined defenses I have seen in quite a while.  They have virtually no weaknesses and I underestimated how dominant R. Sherman is, I don't remember AR throwing a single pass his way. 

 

Tough loss to a dominant team at their house.  I think the Packers are going to have a very good team and would love to see a rematch, hopefully for the NFC championship.

I agree the pass rush looked much better…as did the secondary. But if teams can run for 5 yards a carry on 1st and 2nd down, you're not going to force many 3rd and longs where you can unleash the pass rush. Teams can just throw quick passes, especially isolating one of our awful ILBs.

 

Assuming Bulaga is out, Sherrod will be okay on grass against power guys. But anything with speed, especially on turf, is going to be a problem. And they are going to have to scheme to give him serious help -- can't leave him on an island in those situations.

 

I'm assuming TT will not get additional O-line help…he didn't do it last year when his LT went down and went with a 4th round rookie. He'll let a former 1st round pick learn on the job.

That shouldn't be the case, but it sounds like McCarthy has that mind-set.

(How did the game change when you lost Bulaga?)

β€œIt changed a couple of things. We really had to kind of flip our plan, based on what they were doing. We got caught a couple of times on some uphill situations as far as the way the protection was set. … That’s what caught us on the safety. That’s football. It happens all the time.”

 

I understand back-ups aren't starters, but should the loss of an OL really make you change (kind of flip our plan) significantly?

Originally Posted by GBFanForLife:

       

McCarthy **** the bed. Rodgers **** the bed, the defense is the least of our worries. The offensive game plan was offensive. If they just play smash mouth football. The game is a lot closer.


       

I disagree 100%. If the defense plays, these holes are alleviated. This loss is on the defense. It dictates how "our" offense plays. Eff me
Originally Posted by Hungry5:

That shouldn't be the case, but it sounds like McCarthy has that mind-set.

(How did the game change when you lost Bulaga?)

β€œIt changed a couple of things. We really had to kind of flip our plan, based on what they were doing. We got caught a couple of times on some uphill situations as far as the way the protection was set. … That’s what caught us on the safety. That’s football. It happens all the time.”

 

I understand back-ups aren't starters, but should the loss of an OL really make you change (kind of flip our plan) significantly?

The problem is that it is the third stringer that was in there. They had a solid guy in Barclay, so maybe after he went down weeks ago TT should have tried to make a move, pick someone up. But Sherrod is not a prime backup. But that is who they went with so far.

 

I thought the offense looked meh before Bulaga went down, it got worse after.

Last edited by excalibur
Originally Posted by MN Backthepack:

Well, disappointing loss for sure.  Score looks lopsided but I don't think all hope is lost.

 

The pass rush looked legit.  We have waves of guys that can get after the QB and I think that will show against teams not named Seattle.  Peppers showed he can still make some plays and Clay is playing like an animal.

 

The cornerback play was stellar.  Sam Shields looked like an elite CB and Tramon was solid as usual.  HHCD looks like he has the potential to develop into a special safety.  Will likely be starting by mid-season.

 

The run defense was rough but Lynch has made many teams look like this.  Also, Percy Harvins is one of the most dynamic playmakers in the NFL.  Those 2 combined with R. Wilson who is developing into an elite QB will give lots of teams heartburn.  If we look like this against the Jets, then I will be concerned.

 

The offensive line looked nasty, they were going after people.  Losing Bulaga is unfortunate (I am assuming it is a blown ACL given his history) and Sherrod looks very rusty but I think with a couple more games he has the potential to round into shape.

 

Seattle one of the most aggressive, hard nosed but disciplined defenses I have seen in quite a while.  They have virtually no weaknesses and I underestimated how dominant R. Sherman is, I don't remember AR throwing a single pass his way. 

 

Tough loss to a dominant team at their house.  I think the Packers are going to have a very good team and would love to see a rematch, hopefully for the NFC championship.

They never even tried to do anything to Sherman's side.  It's a lot easier to play defense when you only have to defend about half the field.  I'm not saying they should have thrown many Sherman's way but you can't just give up on half the field.

 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×