Either side of the line?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Need somebody like Nitschke. After Reggie, have we had anyone else that teams feared?
Matthews could be that guy if he added 20 lbs. and paired it with a little more edge.
No, and nothing personal, but the premise behind this thread is silly. Soft teams don't go 15-1, even if they lay a turd in the playoffs. Soft teams don't set records for points and production either. The DL held a lot of good RB's to bad days, such as Forte and DeAngelo Williams among others, including what they did with the ground game on Sunday. I guess they just balleted themselves into the proper holes and talked the RB's into falling down on those days. Did they do it every week? No, but not because they were soft.
They lacked a pass rush. That's it. When you combine that with not showing up for a home playoff game somehow, you get bounced. The 49ers under Walsh and Seifert used to get accused of being soft too, but somehow they just kept winning games year after year.
They lacked a pass rush. That's it. When you combine that with not showing up for a home playoff game somehow, you get bounced. The 49ers under Walsh and Seifert used to get accused of being soft too, but somehow they just kept winning games year after year.
Soft? No. I don't even know what being soft or being hard nosed means anymore in today's NFL. With all the rules tending to favor protecting the QB and allowing for explosive offense, I don't think defenses can afford to take the approach of punching the opponent in the mouth.
Our pass rush needs to improve, plain and simple. Once Compers can consistently put opposing QBs under duress like he did in 2010, nobody will think we're a soft team.
Our pass rush needs to improve, plain and simple. Once Compers can consistently put opposing QBs under duress like he did in 2010, nobody will think we're a soft team.
quote:Originally posted by Fandame:
Matthews could be that guy if he added 20 lbs. and paired it with a little more edge.
Clay Matthews is fine as he is. An extremely talented pass rusher with the ability to drop back into coverage. When he's the only guy that offenses have to account for, he can be neutralized, however.
A team can go 15-1, but getting to carry home the Lombardi usually means you have to impose your will in the playoffs when you need to smash the other team in the mouth. We are primarily a finesse team (maybe soft is a bad description), and I think we lack the guy who can blow someone up consistently. Under Holmgren, we not only had White, but Henderson and some other road graders up front who could impose their will on the other team late in the game and during the playoffs. Last year Jenkins was a big help and that attitude carried over to Raji.
Baltimore has Lewis, Suggs, Reed. 49ers: almost every D player, to say nothing of Gore. Giants: Tuck, Osi, Canty, and Jacobs and Bradshaw (they may not get many yards, but they are a load). Pats: an aberration that I wouldn't be too surprised to see lose this weekend, although in the past they had Vrable and the safety I can't recall.
Look what Polamalu did in his prime and what an influence he was. Under Walsh, the 49ers did have some hitters on D and guys who were all about hitting on O, for example, Ronnie Lott and their fullbacks Rathman and Willard. Who's our Lott or Rathman? I think Bishop could be a hitter, but he needs to do it with more consistency and willpower. Almost any guy can do it once in awhile, but we lack a guy who can do it consistently. It could be that guys don't like to do it for the risk of injury (Bob Sanders, for example), but it really helps set the tone when you have one or two on both sides of the ball.
Baltimore has Lewis, Suggs, Reed. 49ers: almost every D player, to say nothing of Gore. Giants: Tuck, Osi, Canty, and Jacobs and Bradshaw (they may not get many yards, but they are a load). Pats: an aberration that I wouldn't be too surprised to see lose this weekend, although in the past they had Vrable and the safety I can't recall.
Look what Polamalu did in his prime and what an influence he was. Under Walsh, the 49ers did have some hitters on D and guys who were all about hitting on O, for example, Ronnie Lott and their fullbacks Rathman and Willard. Who's our Lott or Rathman? I think Bishop could be a hitter, but he needs to do it with more consistency and willpower. Almost any guy can do it once in awhile, but we lack a guy who can do it consistently. It could be that guys don't like to do it for the risk of injury (Bob Sanders, for example), but it really helps set the tone when you have one or two on both sides of the ball.
quote:I don't even know what being soft or being hard nosed means anymore in today's NFL.
After watching the SF defense saturday, I know it ain't that.
quote:I think Bishop could be a hitter, but he needs to do it with more consistency and willpower.
I think that also is related to this year's DL. They were getting handled more this year and when they're handled, the ILBs rarely get clean shots at the ball carrier. I think he had to sift through a lot more wash this year to vs. last year.
I think this team may have gotten mentally soft i.e. possibly going through the motions and expecting to intimidate simply based on a 15-1 record. The secondary especially comes to mind in quite a few games, as far as lack of effort in tackling a ball carrier after they've given up a big catch. Whereas last year there were many players looking to prove their worth, i think it bit them this playoff game as they were odds on favorites of any team left.
ARE WE SOFT ?
Depends - what do you by mean WE ?
Depends - what do you by mean WE ?
quote:I think this team may have gotten mentally soft i.e. possibly going through the motions and expecting to intimidate simply based on a 15-1 record.
I think that had a lot to do with their not playing any "adversity games" since wk13 vs. NYG. Maybe vs. KC but that game may have been more of an indicator of where they were mentally than a cause. So it was more than just the 2wks or 3wks off, it was actually almost 6 wks since the whole starting team had been in any kind of "do or die" situation where they had to play clean precise football. I'm also starting to think that win over DET did more harm than good. When you can beat a playoff team with half your starters on the bench and your backup QB, I can see how overconfidence could start to creep in.
So as a lesson learned, how does one prevent that from happening in the future? Don't know. Somehow the coaching staff and the players need to find a way to keep focused and maintain a fighting edge when they are no longer challenged. I remember MM at the beginning of the season talking about their biggest challenge being "how they handle success". They did it well through the regular season but got fat and happy by playoff time. I hope they figure out how to fix that next year.
quote:Originally posted by Satori:
ARE WE SOFT ?
Depends - what do you by mean WE ?
Best thing to ever out of Columbia.
quote:Originally posted by Fandame:
Baltimore has Lewis, Suggs, Reed. 49ers: almost every D player, to say nothing of Gore. Giants: Tuck, Osi, Canty, and Jacobs and Bradshaw (they may not get many yards, but they are a load). Pats: an aberration that I wouldn't be too surprised to see lose this weekend, although in the past they had Vrable and the safety I can't recall.
And GB has Sitton, Lang, Bulaga, Kuhn, Grant, Starks, Jones, Nelson, Crabtree and Quarless before he got hurt. That's just on offense. Go ask DC's around the league if they're soft.
The defense has Raji, Pickett, Bishop, Matthews, Woodson, Williams and Burnett. Go ask OCs if they're soft. Shields is soft - that one is beyond debate.
This is just goofy. No bigger a gray/subjective area exists than 'they're soft' for innerwebs geenyouses trying to put some label, to wrap some bow around crapping the bed in a game that meant everything. Sometimes that's just what it is - they stunk.
quote:Originally posted by DH13:quote:I think this team may have gotten mentally soft i.e. possibly going through the motions and expecting to intimidate simply based on a 15-1 record.
I think that had a lot to do with their not playing any "adversity games" since wk13 vs. NYG. Maybe vs. KC but that game may have been more of an indicator of where they were mentally than a cause. So it was more than just the 2wks or 3wks off, it was actually almost 6 wks since the whole starting team had been in any kind of "do or die" situation where they had to play clean precise football. I'm also starting to think that win over DET did more harm than good. When you can beat a playoff team with half your starters on the bench and your backup QB, I can see how overconfidence could start to creep in.
So as a lesson learned, how does one prevent that from happening in the future? Don't know. Somehow the coaching staff and the players need to find a way to keep focused and maintain a fighting edge when they are no longer challenged. I remember MM at the beginning of the season talking about their biggest challenge being "how they handle success". They did it well through the regular season but got fat and happy by playoff time. I hope they figure out how to fix that next year.
Well done.
quote:Originally posted by JJSD: Sometimes that's just what it is - they stunk.
...all year (defense).
Funny, I was watching the 49er vs Saints game and the questions arose for me..."are the Packers soft?"
At this point, I do not think that is a fair question. Any team that wins 15 games and loses two in one season plus the wins from the 2010 and throw in the Super Bowl is not a "soft" team.
But certainly you do not get the sense the Packers are a hard-hitting, head-splitting and nail-spitting team on the either side of the ball.
Even watching the 49ers, I did not get the impression that they were a hard-nosed, brash-butt, head-banging team. The 49ers are just fundamentally good on defense. Minimal missed tackles. The coverage was precise, the pursuit quick and their positioning was spot-on. In that game vs the Saints, rarely did you see any defensive player out of position or caught-off guard.
I do not know if there are any "mean" teams left and feared in the NFL. The Bears hit hard. Steelers do too. Lions are scrappy and dirty. Cowboys are athletic. But most every team nowadays just plays football according to the rules or protocol set forth by the NFL.
The one thing the Packers do have is alot of young players. And IMHO, many of the younger players in the present-day NFL, are too busy worrying keeping their style, tweating or living the good life. Plus many of these guys are friends with other players on other teams and most likely dont want to creat bad-blood.
Clay Matthews could become a head-banger. But I dont see him in that role. He seems cut from the mold as Reggie White. Plays 110% between the lines and up until the whistle blows. But is not dirty and intent on hurting opponents.
Certainly though, the Packers do need to get more fierce on both sides of the ball. However, I think you cannot sign or draft some head-hunters with the sole purpose to transform the team into something which really does not win consistently. To be successful like that it has to become "homegrown".
At this point, I do not think that is a fair question. Any team that wins 15 games and loses two in one season plus the wins from the 2010 and throw in the Super Bowl is not a "soft" team.
But certainly you do not get the sense the Packers are a hard-hitting, head-splitting and nail-spitting team on the either side of the ball.
Even watching the 49ers, I did not get the impression that they were a hard-nosed, brash-butt, head-banging team. The 49ers are just fundamentally good on defense. Minimal missed tackles. The coverage was precise, the pursuit quick and their positioning was spot-on. In that game vs the Saints, rarely did you see any defensive player out of position or caught-off guard.
I do not know if there are any "mean" teams left and feared in the NFL. The Bears hit hard. Steelers do too. Lions are scrappy and dirty. Cowboys are athletic. But most every team nowadays just plays football according to the rules or protocol set forth by the NFL.
The one thing the Packers do have is alot of young players. And IMHO, many of the younger players in the present-day NFL, are too busy worrying keeping their style, tweating or living the good life. Plus many of these guys are friends with other players on other teams and most likely dont want to creat bad-blood.
Clay Matthews could become a head-banger. But I dont see him in that role. He seems cut from the mold as Reggie White. Plays 110% between the lines and up until the whistle blows. But is not dirty and intent on hurting opponents.
Certainly though, the Packers do need to get more fierce on both sides of the ball. However, I think you cannot sign or draft some head-hunters with the sole purpose to transform the team into something which really does not win consistently. To be successful like that it has to become "homegrown".
Both lines don't knock anyone backwards. How many running plays did you see where if by chance there was a hole, you didn't see an opposing player on the ground? How many long hand offs did you see where Grant or Starks would get the ball and half the defense was in the backfield? How often did you see a Packer linemen get to the 2nd level and start hitting DB's like ol Bag of Donuts?
How many time did you see AR ,even on successful plays have not only defensive players in his lap but his own linemen as well.
Now how often did you see the opposite on defense? I didn't see the giant linemen laying at Manning feet the few times there was pressure. All year long I saw the other teams offensive line take a set on pass plays and pretty much built a wall. CMIII always had to go around the wall and by the time he got near the QB it was too late.
I will give the defensive line credit in the Giant game they did play the run very well for the most part. They had that play to Bradshaw before the half stopped. He just made a great play.
How many time did you see AR ,even on successful plays have not only defensive players in his lap but his own linemen as well.
Now how often did you see the opposite on defense? I didn't see the giant linemen laying at Manning feet the few times there was pressure. All year long I saw the other teams offensive line take a set on pass plays and pretty much built a wall. CMIII always had to go around the wall and by the time he got near the QB it was too late.
I will give the defensive line credit in the Giant game they did play the run very well for the most part. They had that play to Bradshaw before the half stopped. He just made a great play.
quote:Originally posted by JJSD:
.....to wrap some bow around crapping the bed in a game that meant everything....
Agree completely and difficult losses tend to do that.
Jenkins on this board is like Tebow on ESPN.
quote:Originally posted by Pakrz:
15-2 = Soft?
They were a "soft" 15-2 while say the 85 Bears were a "hard" 18-1.
You and another weak ass analogy. Stop with the analysis Cris Collinsworth.
The '85 Bears never had to play the 49'ers as the "soft" Dynasty 49'ers were upset by the Rams.
Yeah 15-2 = soft. right.
Good analogy by FDA about Jenkins being the Tebow of x4.
Bottom line, the Packers didn't play well enough to win and they didn't deserve to win. Ask the Giants def line if they think the Packers OLine is soft.
Some of you guys really need to just stfu and move on to another topic.
YOTDD is a new x4 lexicon word I think & a good one.
The '85 Bears never had to play the 49'ers as the "soft" Dynasty 49'ers were upset by the Rams.
Yeah 15-2 = soft. right.
Good analogy by FDA about Jenkins being the Tebow of x4.
Bottom line, the Packers didn't play well enough to win and they didn't deserve to win. Ask the Giants def line if they think the Packers OLine is soft.
Some of you guys really need to just stfu and move on to another topic.
YOTDD is a new x4 lexicon word I think & a good one.
Bears did beat San Fran in the regular season that year rather easily. I don't even think 49ers won the division that year.
Look at all the mental mistakes all game long. 6 or 7 dropped passes. Nobody covers Nicks on a hail mary to the end zone - have you ever seen such an easily completed hail mary before? All the fumbles. Rodgers missing wide open Jennings on first series for a TD, he was shaky most of the day too. You can get by with a few mistakes but that many in 1 game just doesn't cut it.
They just were not prepared to play on Sunday while the Giants were fully prepared.
Look at all the mental mistakes all game long. 6 or 7 dropped passes. Nobody covers Nicks on a hail mary to the end zone - have you ever seen such an easily completed hail mary before? All the fumbles. Rodgers missing wide open Jennings on first series for a TD, he was shaky most of the day too. You can get by with a few mistakes but that many in 1 game just doesn't cut it.
They just were not prepared to play on Sunday while the Giants were fully prepared.
When are some of you going to realize the Philbin tragedy had way more to do with the game than any player or coach is going to say? To their credit they have not used that as an excuse, but it certainly is a reason for the poor play. Not they are soft, thought they could beat the Giants with one hand tied behind their backs, or any other reason. They simply were not focused on the task at hand.
curious how many times stfu has been typed on x4 compared to the word tebow?
I would not be suprised if there were a correlation between the two, for obvious reasons.
We need coaches that breathe fire and shoot blood from their eyes!
A cursory search of the 2 terms "stfu" & "tebow" on x4
stfu = 202
tebow = 953
I wish it was reversed.
stfu = 202
tebow = 953
I wish it was reversed.
Interesting results. I would have thought there would be at least one stfu per Tebow. Wishfult thinking I guess.
The secondary and the D-Line were soft. Only Ryan Pickett on the D-Line wasn't soft. Even B.J. Raji, wow I was shocked at how easily he got moved out on a number of occasions. He's way too talented to play as poorly as he did at times this year.
Guys like Pickett, Matthews, and Bishop were not soft. The rest of the defense, they sure looked soft and a bit care-free to me this year. Even Woodson seemed to miss way more tackles than I was used to. I'll say that Tramon Williams and Morgan Burnett both had pretty major in-season injuries which may have contributed to their inconsistent play. But I would have thought by the end of the year Williams would have been playing better.
Guys like Pickett, Matthews, and Bishop were not soft. The rest of the defense, they sure looked soft and a bit care-free to me this year. Even Woodson seemed to miss way more tackles than I was used to. I'll say that Tramon Williams and Morgan Burnett both had pretty major in-season injuries which may have contributed to their inconsistent play. But I would have thought by the end of the year Williams would have been playing better.
I'm not going to call him soft, but Hawk is way too tentative and I'd like to see more of DJ Smith. The defense needs a major retooling and TT and Dom have their work cut out for them.
Pillows are soft
So is a bed
Some things are softer
Starting with this thread
So is a bed
Some things are softer
Starting with this thread
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
When are some of you going to realize the Philbin tragedy had way more to do with the game than any player or coach is going to say?
That is what I think.
Bulaga's comments after the game about the death on Monday, the funeral on Friday, and they tried to prepare for the game in between. Aikman's comments about how he thought the Packers did not like they were focused on the game when they arrived at the stadium, etc. I took that as an honest assessment by Aikman.
I had a suspicion that it wasn't going to be a good day because of the JP situation - and confirmed by a guy here at work that has connections in GB and what he was reporting through those connections wasn't encouraging.
The 3 fumbles (had 6 all year), 8 dropped passes (I re-watched the game and counted them), 1 interception, bad tackling generally speaking, and three golden opportunities for big plays that never materialized for various reasons are all just symptoms of that event from where I sit.
Ghost,
I agree. They attended the funeral for God's sakes.
I am heavily leaning this way.
We are talking the elite of the elite competing in an elimination game. In other words, the mental focus to the task at hand is supposed to be intense. Why does EVERYBODY drop passes in the same game? Why is Rodgers off? Why fumbles from so many different players in the same game.
What rises to the top, in terms of likelihood, in my opinion, is DISTRACTION.
Gee, I wonder why they were distracted?
Just really lousy timing, but if we defer to what really counts (tragedy versus a sporting event) - that sure softens the blow.
On a related note, this week Bayless dismissed the tragedy when it was brought up. What a complete TOOL.
The Packers are taking the high road and good for them.
I agree. They attended the funeral for God's sakes.
I am heavily leaning this way.
We are talking the elite of the elite competing in an elimination game. In other words, the mental focus to the task at hand is supposed to be intense. Why does EVERYBODY drop passes in the same game? Why is Rodgers off? Why fumbles from so many different players in the same game.
What rises to the top, in terms of likelihood, in my opinion, is DISTRACTION.
Gee, I wonder why they were distracted?
Just really lousy timing, but if we defer to what really counts (tragedy versus a sporting event) - that sure softens the blow.
On a related note, this week Bayless dismissed the tragedy when it was brought up. What a complete TOOL.
The Packers are taking the high road and good for them.