Originally Posted by Rusty:
I think it was a couple of years ago he was also battling a shoulder injury.
I remember the injury, but wasn't he a sloppy tackler before the injury as well?
No. He was tough in the running game. That shoulder injury messed him up for a solid two years. He seems to be over that now. He may be a smidge slower than he was in 2010, but he's having his best year now since that season, IMHO.
Originally Posted by PackLandVA:
Originally Posted by cuqui:
@WesHod: According to CB coach Joe Whitt, Tramon Williams allowed seven catches but kept it to only 28 yards..."I don’t think that’s ever happened"
Another vet stepping up.
Tramon's tackling over the past few years has really, really improved. Wasn't it just a couple of years ago he was afraid to tackle anyone. Now he's pretty solid.
are you referring to AP(kid beater) embarrassing him? That was a dark time for Tramon. I suspect AP may have done more to stimulate Tramon to improve his game than any coach.
Originally Posted by JJSD:
He may be a smidge slower than he was in 2010, but he's having his best year now since that season, IMHO.
I think he's playing well enough to get another couple years in GB. It seems like a foregone conclusion that he'll probably be with another team in 2015, but I'd love to see a decent offer made to keep him here. The secondary is doing so well, and I'd like to see them keep the band together a bit longer, if possible.
Tramon did have that shoulder injury whose healing includes nerve regeneration and that is a very slow healing process.
Originally Posted by RatPack:
are you referring to AP(kid beater) embarrassing him? That was a dark time for Tramon. I suspect AP may have done more to stimulate Tramon to improve his game than any coach.
You nailed it, Rat.
He had poor games against AP in both meetings that year, and was really hurting from the beating that last game. Starting that next season, he finally started appearing healthy, and by mid-season had started playing very well against both the pass and run.
He's built on that this year. Not really "shutdown", but close.
I do think healing from injury, and overcoming it mentally had a big effect on his play, but an opposing team laughing at how big a pussy you are is strong motivation.
I don't see a reason for Tramon to walk, nor a reason for the Packers to let him. Barring further injury, of course, he should have several good years left. CWood, part deaux?
Originally Posted by Fond Du Arrigo:
Originally Posted by JJSD:
He may be a smidge slower than he was in 2010, but he's having his best year now since that season, IMHO.
I think he's playing well enough to get another couple years in GB. It seems like a foregone conclusion that he'll probably be with another team in 2015, but I'd love to see a decent offer made to keep him here. The secondary is doing so well, and I'd like to see them keep the band together a bit longer, if possible.
I hope they let House walk and Tramon gives us a discount. House can't catch a cold and we thrive on turnovers.
Yet he can cover. Too many corners that can do neither. He's worth a reasonable "prove it" contract. I would split the difference with Tramon, a proverbial 70/30 deal between the two.
Yeah, he is rarely beat and usually finds the ball, just can't secure it. I guess it depends on what the market is willing to pay him but I can't see us being able to afford both as well as lock up Cobb and Bulaga.
Before the season started I would have said let Bulaga walk because I figured Sherrod would grow as he got healthy. We no longer have a replacement on the roster unless you want to roll with Tretter at RT.
In theory, Don Barclay could play RT.
(I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, mind you.)
(I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, mind you.)
Once again the Interweb Cool guy has nothing to add.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Just win, baby. (Interesting takes on the Seahawks and other teams, too.)
http://bleacherreport.com/arti...y-statistics-told-me
We all know that the stat sheet can fib a little. Those lies can mislead us when we try to sort out the playoff picture. Is an offense or defense, passing game or running game, pass rush or secondary really as good as the numbers say? Or has the team gotten better or worse over the year, used one strength to conceal another weakness, or just faced the Tampa Bay Buccaneers a bunch of times?
There are dozens of lies and misconceptions lurking in this year's numbers, so let's just focus on five of the biggest and most misleading of the whoppers. The numbers may say one thing about these playoff hopefuls, but listen more closely and you may hear something completely different.
Packers Yards Allowed
The Numbers: The Green Bay Packers defense ranks 26th in the NFL with 374.4 yards allowed per game. The Atlanta Falcons nearly came back on it Monday night. At first glance, the defense looks very vulnerable over the long haul.
The Truth: No one will mistake the Packers defense for the Seattle Seahawks defense. But there is an incredible amount of fluff in its yardage allowed totals, due to the fact that the Packers offense is so good that opponents rack up gobs of garbage yardage against a prevent defense.
Opponents have accumulated 1,126 passing yards and 359 rushing yards when trailing by 17 or more points (all stat splits come from the Football Outsiders internal database unless noted otherwise). Those 1,485 yards work out to an average of 114.2 yards per game, over 30 percent of the Packers total yardage allowed! It's safe to assume that the Packers defense can tighten up and cut down on that 114.2 yard figure if it has to. After all, those 17-point leads never happen if the defense does not make a few early stops.
Coming at it another way, Football Outsiders ranks defenses by quarter in its Premium Database. Here is how the Packers defense shakes out on a quarter-by-quarter basis:
<caption>Packers Defense Rank by Quarter</caption>
Quarter Rank First 10th Second 14th Third 14th Fourth 28th
Football Outsiders' methodology adjusts for late-game blowouts, but it does not completely ignore them; scares like the Packers received on Monday night are a reminder that so-called "meaningless" drives can pile up and cause a problem. But the quarter-by-quarter analysis shows a better-than-average defense through three quarters with a habit of letting up when it enters the fourth leading 48-7. That's as good a defense as the Packers need to remain Super Bowl contenders. When the games are tighter, the Packers are less likely to let up.
Great find!!!!
This is what some of us have been saying about the D. The D is predicated on having an Offense that puts up Tecmo Bowl numbers.
Originally Posted by BrainDed:
Originally Posted by JJSD:
He may be a smidge slower than he was in 2010, but he's having his best year now
I hope they let House walk and Tramon gives us a discount. House can't catch a cold and we thrive on turnovers.
Tramon has had a real problem holding onto INT's himself this year. I can think of 3 off the top of my head that were right in his hands. It's frustrating because he usually has really good hands.
Originally Posted by PackerRuss:
This is what some of us have been saying about the D. The D is predicated on having an Offense that puts up Tecmo Bowl numbers.
Yes and no.
I think you are missing part of the point here and you have lots of company in that assessment. What F.O. is saying is that the Packers defense is doing their job too, and its not solely because of, or predicated on, the offense - they are getting the ball back for them early and often of their own volition
The ATL game is a fine example:
In the first half GB scores on their opening drive, and so does the ATL.
But then the Packer defense stops Matty 3 times in a row and the Packers offense capitalizes.
Drive 2 first half, GB gets ATL into a 3rd down and Tramon almost holds on to the INT, but they stopped 'em on that 3rd down forcing a punt.
Drive 3 in the first half, Morgan Burnett picks off Ryan and sets up the offense at the 14 yard line. Packers score.
Drive 4, Guion almost picks off Ryan, GB forces a 3rd and long and then Shields defends the pass to Julio, ATL has to punt. Packers take the short field and score again.
Now its 31-7 at the half with 3 defensive stops, an INT and a near-INT
Packers defense got multiple stops- not just because the offense was scoring but because they made the stops. Offense & defense work hand- in- hand and while there is no doubt that a bend/don't break defense that thrives on turnovers is a very good fit for this offense- they are clearly holding their own with or without Rodgers' assistance imo and F.O. too
Early in the game teams haven't abandoned their game plans -
ATL spent all week scheming to beat the GB defense and scored on 1 of 5 drives they had in the first half.
( one of those 5 was right before the half and led to a missed FG)
http://www.pro-football-refere...res/201412080gnb.htm
Its too bad you can't win a game at halftime.
Originally Posted by FreeSafety:
Its too bad you can't win a game at halftime.
Nope, but you sure can lose it by digging yourself too deep of a hole. That's exactly what ATL did the other night. 30 points in the second half wasn't enough.
Only because the Packer offense put up more than that.
37 points is enough to win a lot of NFL games. That game was a good example of PackerRuss' point. "The D is predicated on having an Offense that puts up Tecmo Bowl numbers."
So is 43. That's the point. The stops in the first half made it possible for GB to win with 12 points in the second half. There isn't one without the other.
Exactly.
"The D is predicated on having an Offense that puts up Tecmo Bowl numbers."
Just get a few stops during the game and the offense will outscore the other team. Even the worst defenses in the NFL can function with those requirements.
Short answer...almost a great team...not yet elite.
Yet the week before the defense needed to hold the Great Tom Terrific to 21 points to win, as the Tecmo Bowl offense only put up 26. Only is obviously a relative term, but once again, one needs the other on different levels in different games.
More unscouted looks to come from the defense. Season ain't over yet.
Here's a terrific article in the Chicago Sun-Times about the Packers. Tons of quotes. highly recommended.
Having Banjo on the roster makes this an elite team.
He likes to hit. No fiddling around with him.
And as was the case with the Packers in the early ‘90s, the frustration of the fan base is growing. And their ire is aimed closer to the top of the organization, where chairman George McCaskey — a former director of ticket operations — and team president Ted Phillips — a former director of finance — are under pressure to find somebody who can find their Ron Wolf.
Nothing a good head-hunter couldn't solve.
(I'm sure Harlan availed himself of their services in locating Wolf, no?)
Originally Posted by Hungry5:
He likes to hit. No fiddling around with him.
I like to have a Banjo on my D.
Originally Posted by antooo:
You come from Lou'siana?
Actually, yes.
Originally Posted by cuqui:
Here's a terrific article in the Chicago Sun-Times about the Packers. Tons of quotes. highly recommended.
My favorite from that great article. (Thanks for linking btw)
"While the Packers have missed the playoffs just five times since 1992, the Bears have made the playoffs just five times in that span — a record of failure exceeded by only three other NFL teams (the Cardinals, Redskins and Raiders)."
Stupendous.
TBSS!
Cards record is understandable. The Bidwells are the tightest of the tight when it comes to spending.
Redskins are understandable too. Synderbrenner is the worst owner when it comes to meddling and not understanding football. Yes, even worse the Jerry Jones.
As for the Raiders, Al Davis was Al Davis. Brilliant in the early ownership, senile at the end.
