Bad Bob McGinn...His Usual Positive Self

GBP1Member

As expected he offers not much positive on the eve of the big game. Still, I like reading what he has to say.

Anyways, I hope he aint laying a jinx on the Packer, especially their "D".

http://www.jsonline.com/sports...3p0vp-137361578.html

Here is some of it:

Calling players out in front of their peers made sense. If Capers struck a nerve, the Packers could be the better for it. Certainly, his defense can get no worse.

Even in this era of high-tech football, emotion still counts. This unit has exacerbated all of its many personnel shortages and communication breakdowns because it just played soft.

You almost never saw seven, six, even four or five players at the ball. You almost never saw wild, 100-mph long pursuits. You almost never sensed esprit de corps within the group. You almost never saw smashing, vicious hits.

Instead, there have been too many instances of defensive backs turning down tackles, players swiveling their heads instead of flat-out chasing in the open field, teammates giving each other the cold shoulder when asked for help, the back seven risking way too much to make a big play and players showing up on Sunday not having prepared sufficiently during the week.

But let's not take an overly Pollyannaish approach here. The intangible factors are open to subjective judgment, and a lot of that simply vanishes 3 minutes into the game, anyway.

In order to judge if this defense has what it takes to win another Super Bowl, three offensive assistant coaches who played Green Bay this season were consulted last week. At least one was an offensive coordinator and at least one was an offensive line coach.

In return for anonymity, they assessed what they saw from the Packers' defense in 2011.

"There are some days they play pretty damn good," one coach said. "Then there are inexplicably days they don't.

"It all comes back to one thing. Pressure. That's what I don't see. The secondary is the weak link sans (Charles) Woodson. How do you compensate? You compensate with pressure. And their pressure isn't nearly effective enough."

1/14/1211:17 PM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

GBP1Member

This is the first Bad Bob write-up I have read all season since JSOnline designated him for their PPV on Packer Insider.

Since they are going to online subscription I have had access to several of his articles online. I suppose my 15 free-views are soon to be up.

Anyways, he seems not to have lost his knack for poor timing of worrisome news just before kickoff.

1/14/1211:32 PM

slowmoMember

Actually, he is only a little more negative than he was four weeks ago when he had the Packers gunning for 19-0.

"They don't run the ball very well. Their pass protection can be spotty. The run defense is marginal. They've blown too many coverages and yielded too many long passes. And the pass rush must be Clay Matthews or manufactured by Capers."

"You write this and then the mind goes back two weeks. Less than a minute remained at MetLife Stadium. For the first time since the 2010 regular-season finale, the Packers found themselves tied in the fourth quarter. The Giants were jacked and their 80,000 fans had that New York roar going.

.....

Bing. Bing. Bing. Sixty-eight yards. Field goal. Game over.
That's not destiny. That's just a young but experienced team sweeping down the field in the clutch like nobody else today can."

"Bolstered by even more draft choices coming from compensatory picks and an off-season of work, the Packers could very well improve in 2012. Just watch how much better that secondary will look a year from now with a legitimate rusher playing across from Matthews."

So, not really anything he hasn't written before. Just a bit more focused on the negative the night before the game.

1/14/1211:46 PM

Pack-ManMember

I'm already starting to feel bad about tomorrow's game, and here comes McGinn to make me feel worse. Thanks, Bob. Anyway, as far as the article goes, I think the flaws with the secondary were just not visible last year due to the team having a credible pass rush. Williams and the rest haven't gotten worse, the pass rush is just pretty useless and has been for most of the season. A new DE and OLB would push those 20+ yard plays way down. I still even think that they can get it pulled together for the post season if everyone is healthy (healthier, I guess) now.

1/15/1212:46 AM

michiganjoeMember

quote:
Originally posted by GBP1:
As expected he offers not much positive on the eve of the big game.

When you're doing a piece on the defense the positives are pretty limited. They haven't played well and I don't have any problem whatsoever with the article.

1/15/122:05 AM

HenryYou rang?

Agreed.

I am hoping for a defense heavy draft.

1/15/128:41 AM

fightphoe93Member

quote:
Originally posted by michiganjoe:
When you're doing a piece on the defense the positives are pretty limited. They haven't played well and I don't have any problem whatsoever with the article.

It's hard to be extremely positive about a defense that was the 2nd worst of all time in terms of yards allowed in NFL history. That said, the good news is, they did help the offense out in terms of turnovers, and they did tend to stiffen in the red zone. If the Pack wins the Super Bowl, nobody will care that they had a shaky defense. If they don't, then this defense will probably take the brunt of the blame for it.

1/15/129:03 AM

chickenboyTic Toc

soem think the defense is very good since they were good enough for the team to win 15 of 16 games.

1/15/129:11 AM

fightphoe93Member

quote:
Originally posted by chickenboy:
soem think the defense is very good since they were good enough for the team to win 15 of 16 games.

I don't think anyone thinks the defense is extremely good. But I think most fans think the yards allowed stat is a little deceptive. The Pack's defense has made just enough stops in every game except 1 to come out with a win. That's all that matters.

Edit: Let's just hope that trend continues...

1/15/129:15 AM

18c3vMember

Positives:

1. 21-1 in last 22 games.

2. #1 in interceptions.

3. Generally have a knack of making key stop at the end of the game.

Negatives:

Everything else.

1/15/1210:30 AM

hof1991Member

End of the game, the team with the most points win, not the team with the most yards. If we were bottom of the league in points allowed, that would be different.

1/15/1210:56 AM

Grave DiggerMember

I'm sorry I don't give a flip what McGinn THINKS is going on or what he perceives the energy/effort level to be or whatever, you don't win 15 games with one of the worst defenses in NFL history. It just doesn't happen. I don't care how good our offense is, some people act like we're fielding a college football defense and they're just going to get run over. Yet somehow, despite they're apparently extreme lack of heart/effort/energy/talent/balls, they are only giving up 20 points a game and did enough for us to win 15 games. I don't care how many yardage stats you throw out, truly bad defenses don't do enough to win, they cause you to lose. We were in what, 3 true shootouts this year (New Orleans, San Diego, NYG)? I don't count the Lions game because we were playing mostly back-ups really. 3 shootouts out of 16 games...3 times the defense didn't do enough for us to win. If you think that means this is a bad defense then you're a spoiled fan. Is it a great defense? No it's not in the same league as some of the great defenses in NFL history or even deserving of being in the top 10 in the NFL now, but what they are is good enough to win a championship with. That's what it's all about. It's not about winning yardage stats or winning by the most points, it's about winning a championship. This defense is absolutely good enough to win a championship with.

1/15/1211:07 AM

trumpMember

quote:
Originally posted by chickenboy:
soem think the defense is very good since they were good enough for the team to win 15 of 16 games.

really, who?

1/15/1211:12 AM

CUPackFanMember

I'm surprised there hasn't been some defensive stat that shows how a team is playing defense when the game is still undecided. For example, the Packers gave up 21 points and 441 yards against the Bears. But 14 of those points and about 145 of those yards came in the 4th quarter, with the Packers up 35-7. Those garbage time points and yards factor into their defensive ranking, but they really didn't affect the outcome of the game. To really figure out how the defense played, why even factor in the 4th quarter? Shouldn't you be looking only at the first three quarters, when the game was undecided?

I think having a great offense and having so many games being decided before the clock showed triple zeroes led to a significant amount of garbage time points and yards. How has no one in the media or one of those sabermetrics guys not developed a real way to rank defenses?

1/15/1211:28 AM

HenryYou rang?

quote:
Originally posted by trump:
quote:
Originally posted by chickenboy:
soem think the defense is very good since they were good enough for the team to win 15 of 16 games.

really, who?

His wife.

1/15/1212:43 PM

HenryYou rang?

Good point CU. Still, they have given up enough in the course of the first 3 quarters as well. Turnovers and decent red zone defense with a explosive offense = 15-1

1/15/1212:45 PM

MaynardPathetic, an embarrassment to true Packer fans

quote:
Originally posted by CUPackFan:
I'm surprised there hasn't been some defensive stat that shows how a team is playing defense when the game is still undecided. For example, the Packers gave up 21 points and 441 yards against the Bears. But 14 of those points and about 145 of those yards came in the 4th quarter, with the Packers up 35-7. Those garbage time points and yards factor into their defensive ranking, but they really didn't affect the outcome of the game. To really figure out how the defense played, why even factor in the 4th quarter? Shouldn't you be looking only at the first three quarters, when the game was undecided?

I think having a great offense and having so many games being decided before the clock showed triple zeroes led to a significant amount of garbage time points and yards. How has no one in the media or one of those sabermetrics guys not developed a real way to rank defenses?

Sounds like a possible research project. I smell a federal grant!!!

1/15/1212:46 PM

HenryYou rang?

I think this is the year "defense wins championships" takes a hit. Evolution of the game and the rules.

1/15/1212:47 PM

Fond Du ArrigoNostradamus

Excellent post, GD.

1/15/1212:51 PM

TimpranilloMember

quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
His wife.

1/15/1212:52 PM

"We"-Ka-BongYou ungrateful biscuit eating son of a bitch

CASUALS!!!!!

1/15/122:58 PM

PackdogMember

quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
I think this is the year "defense wins championships" takes a hit. Evolution of the game and the rules.

If GB or NE win it all I think that's true.

But if SF or Baltimore win it, it's about D_E_F_E_N_S_E

1/15/123:20 PM

GBP1Member

Negative vibe put out there.

1/15/127:07 PM

Pack-ManMember

quote:
Originally posted by Packdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
I think this is the year "defense wins championships" takes a hit. Evolution of the game and the rules.

If GB or NE win it all I think that's true.

But if SF or Baltimore win it, it's about D_E_F_E_N_S_E

Baltimore is going to win next week, and the 49ers are going to blast the Giants. Dog**** defenses don't get to the Super Bowl.

1/15/127:14 PM

titmfatiedNo Code

I think it would have been easier to deal with a 41-38 defensive flop than what it ended up being.

1/15/127:14 PM

Pack-ManMember

Letting Cullen Jenkins go has proven to wreck the season in the end. I like Ted, but he was trying to be too cute by letting him go on that small contract. Peprah having to start 14 games was just frosting on the ****ty cake.

1/15/127:16 PM

GBP1Member

quote:
Originally posted by Pack-Man:
Letting Cullen Jenkins go has proven to wreck the season in the end. I like Ted, but he was trying to be too cute by letting him go on that small contract. Peprah having to start 14 games was just frosting on the ****ty cake.

If I recall correctly, Jenkins did not play down-the-stretch in the last several games. So I am not sure his absence proved fatal for the Packers.

I think...I think, some players on defense were not playing up to their potential...start looking some of the DBs first.

1/15/127:44 PM

johnnie grayMember

i'm pretty sure having cullen jenkins out there in a packer uniform last night would not have kept the packers from fumbling five times and dropping numerous passes. this loss is on the offense.

1/16/1212:36 PM

YATittleMember

I agree--there were some defensive brain farts such as the poor Peprah tackler and the Hail Mary as well as the secondary coverage mistakes on third down. But they played well enough to win if the turnovers and dropped passes weren't there.

1/16/1212:59 PM

michiganjoeMember

The defense looked pretty much like it has all season. I think we can safely say that Dom's little film session didn't have the desired effect.

1/16/121:05 PM

fightphoe93Member

While there's no guarantees that the defense will have a ton of new guys on it next year, I'd be shocked if the Packers don't bring in a ton of competition to challenge the underachievers on defense. Some of these guys looked a little too comfortable all year and didn't play as hard as they did in 2010. It's human nature to have ascended the mountain and relax after getting to the top.

The relaxing for a number of these guys is over. There's going to be some competition brought in for 2012 and some of these guys will have to step up or their careers as Green Bay Packers is over.

1/16/122:05 PM

chickenboyTic Toc

Nice (or bad) write up by Bob discussing the lack of pass rush all year...

1/17/126:58 AM

Grave DiggerMember

Why is that a nice write up? It's nothing the rest of the football world didn't already know. He's beating a dead horse in my opinion. It doesn't take an NFL coach to see that we had trouble stopping the pass because QBs had all day to throw. I don't think it would have taken Cullen Jenkins specifically to improve the whole thing, that's just the easiest thing to point to. If even 1 of our DL was winning 1-on-1's on a consistent basis then we would still be in the playoffs...just 1. That's what Cullen Jenkins did so well was win 1-on-1's. I don't know what the change is though, Raji was winning 1 on 1's last season, but not this season, that has nothing to do with Jenkins. Same for Pickett. Clay was getting the attention of 2, sometimes 3 blockers which is a HUGE advantage, but it means nothing if Raji or Wynn or Walden or Zombo can't win a 1 on 1. Jenkins was a great player for us, but we didn't need him to win a championship. We needed the guys we have to step up and get it done and they didn't do it. Plain and simple.

1/17/128:20 AM

"We"-Ka-BongYou ungrateful biscuit eating son of a bitch

look how much Cullen Jenkins improved the Eagles

1/17/128:21 AM

chickenboyTic Toc

What I found most interesting is Capers felt he had go away from the strengths of his DBs (man-to-man, aggressive play) and sit in zones because of the lack of pass rush. I also found it interesting that the players had no problem saying Jenkins was a big loss after playing 17 games without him.

I agree Collins was also a big loss but the DL or lack of attention to the position made this defense and a guy who was almost the defensive player of the year in 2010 (Clay) shells of themselves. They had injuries up the wazoo in 2010 as well but the line stayed healthy (and they also added Green during the season). They lost a player, counted on an unhealthy player and added no one.

1/17/128:50 AM

Grave DiggerMember

Hindsight's 20/20 when you're talking about Mike Neal vs. Cullen Jenkins. And honestly it didn't even really come down to Neal vs. Jenkins, it came down to the rest of the DLine (including Neal) making up for the lost production.

Our DLine (DE's and NT's...not OLBs) produced 18 sacks last year. 7 from Jenkins, 6.5 from Raji, and 4.5 from Pickett, Wynn, Wilson, Neal, and Green. So if you count on Raji to produce at or around 6.5 sacks, that means the other 5 guys had to produce 11.5 sacks or 2.5 sacks each to match our 2010 production. 2.5 sacks each, over 16 games. That's really not unrealistic to think they could make up that production, especially with a healthy Mike Neal that teams had almost no tape on. But Neal wasn't healthy, Raji didn't produce close to 6.5 sacks and only Jarius Wynn did what was expected of him by producing 3 sacks. How could Ted Thompson have seen all of that coming? To just say Jenkins was the key element missing from our pass rush is narrow minded IMO, guys just didn't step up and that's why our season is over.

If our receivers don't drop passes, if our DLine produces close to what they're capable of, and Collins doesn't get hurt then this team would have annihilated the Giants, 49ers, and whoever wins the AFC. It's that simple.

1/17/129:57 AM

chickenboyTic Toc

I definitely will agree with you on guys possibly not playing up to an expected level, but they still went into the season short a player (I am including Neal as part of 2010, even though it was only was two games) and that player was arguably their best.

Bottom line is they made a mistake buy not bringing in some more bodies to compete. Now, I'm sure they were scouring the waiver wires for another Howard Green type pickup but I suspect they expected another James Starks-like contribution to bail them out (like he did for the running game the year before) from Neal which, IMO, seemed like too big a gamble. Hindsight is 20/20 but personally I have been consistent on my opinion all year long.

1/17/1210:31 AM

IowacheeseKeen Insight

I think Javon Walker will be a 50-60 = 900 guy

1/17/1212:11 PM

Grave DiggerMember

But again was it that much of a stretch to think maybe Neal, Pickett, Wynn, Wilson, and Green could produce 11.5 sacks between the 5 of them? I don't think anyone was expecting Neal to produce 7 sacks, but was 3 or 4 really out of the realm of possibility? It may seem so now, but he showed a lot of promise in 2010 and seemed to be 100% coming into the season. And they probably assumed Matthews and Raji would occupy 3, sometimes 4 blockers between the two of them leaving Walden, Wynn/Neal/Pickett/Wilson/Green, and Zombo all in 1-on-1's that were winnable. I would have thought that those guys could produce some numbers getting those kind of favorable match-ups and I'm sure the coaches did too.

So no they didn't need to bring in potential starters into camp to compete. They had what they thought was a winning formula with the rotation they had, but clearly they didn't.

1/17/1212:28 PM