From the post game quotes it does not sound like Hayward "blew" a coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by Pakrz:
While he hasn't set the world on fire, he has played pretty good football over the past month...

His average rating of 65 in December before the Packer game really reflects that. So he has an average rating of 65 through December (75 overall) combined with an impressive average rating of 51 vs. the Packers (including a 41 rating stinker at the beginning of December) and suddenly turns it on for 120 rating against a team already in the playoffs and suddenly I'm to believe that he just shredded the Packers D because he's that good and they all the sudden suck? He found his game all the sudden? The Packers D got exposed by this previously underrated dynamo? Maybe he was sandbagging in the first meeting!

Did the Packers play poorly? Yes absolutely. Execution was very poor aside from a couple guys (Raji in particular). Was the defenses attention squarely on Peterson? Definitely. This wasn't Capers first rodeo against a good RB or even against Peterson. He knew how to call that kind of game. He held back with the creative stuff and there's NOTHING wrong with it.

The idea that a mediocre QB can't have a great game is silly. Happens all the time.

I didn't say he didn't have a great game. Facts are facts though. The guy has consistently poor games and then all the sudden he has an amazing game, there's more to the story than something just clicking for him. He threw the ball well, but he had a ton of time against a statistically top pass rush which normally includes 5 or 6 rushers at times, yet Capers seemed constantly satisfied with 3 and 4 rushers.

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:

quote:

Originally posted by Pakrz:
While he hasn't set the world on fire, he has played pretty good football over the past month...

His average rating of 65 in December before the Packer game really reflects that. So he has an average rating of 65 through December (75 overall) combined with an impressive average rating of 51 vs. the Packers (including a 41 rating stinker at the beginning of December) and suddenly turns it on for 120 rating against a team already in the playoffs and suddenly I'm to believe that? He found his game all the sudden? The Packers D got exposed by this previously underrated dynamo? Maybe he was sandbagging in the first meeting!

Did the Packers play poorly? Yes absolutely. Execution was very poor aside from a couple guys (Raji in particular). Was the defenses attention squarely on Peterson? Definitely. This wasn't Capers first rodeo against a good RB or even against Peterson. He knew how to call that kind of game. He held back with the creative stuff and there's NOTHING wrong with it.

Disagree. They knew Peterson could flatten them and he did. They have no way of stopping him, and they're idiots if they think they can; we aren't his only victims. The only recourse is to go after Ponder.

One sack yesterday. One. And we needed a review to get it.

I'll wait for you to tell me how much of an idiot I am for disagreeing with you.

Why would you think I would call you an idiot for disagreeing?

In Ponder's last three games, he's thrown 4 tds and 0 ints...against the Rams, Texans and Packers. Three pretty good defenses IMO. I think he got quite lucky on a few throws yesterday but he's clearly playing better than he was the first time GB played them.

quote:

Originally posted by Va. Packer:
But rather the Viking receiver found a so called "window" in the pass coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger: He held back with the creative stuff and there's NOTHING wrong with it.

Disagree. You are doing your team a disadvantage if you are holding back. No way I think they would be content not using all their bullets and playing in 6 days again instead of two weeks. If that was their plan, they should be ashamed.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Sorry guys I'm not buying the "this defense sucks" mantra. Capers didn't throw the playbook at the Vikings, he was very conservative. The execution was poor definitely, but I don't think they were looking to give anything away that they didn't have to. They weren't giving the game away, not at all what I'm saying, I don't think they showed all their cards though./QUOTE]


Think about what you are saying, at least how I understand it. Why would Capers hold anything back? Why not use all weapons/plays/blitzes yesterday? What is to gain by saving them? Seems to me that winning yesterday was very important. What gain was there for the Packers by not showing all his cards?

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger: He held back with the creative stuff and there's NOTHING wrong with it.

Disagree. You are doing your team a disadvantage if you are holding back. No way I think they would be content not using all their bullets and playing in 6 days again instead of two weeks. If that was their plan, they should be ashamed.

Hell, if he WAS holding back (an unprovable idea and frankly pointless discussion IMHO), he ought to be fired for that reason alone!

Ultimately I think it was that first quarter that doomed us. The defense had already dug a huge hole long before our offense finally woke up.

It's hard to speculate on what his motivation is, but it seemed to me we didn't see nearly the creativity that we are accustomed to. I didn't see any of the gameplan we saw at the beginning of December against Ponder or Peterson, so why is that? A new sense of fear of Christian Ponder? Doubtful. I don't think they want to give anything away that they don't have to. The offense looked perfectly capable of winning the game without Capers diving deep into the playbook, and they almost did. If he doesn't have to give Minnesota film on how he blitzes them, why would he? What's the motivation to do that? A week off would be nice sure, but teams have proven over the years that while the BYE is good, it's not a necessity.

Looked to me that if Hayward went all the way with the receiver, Ponder would have run for the first down....no one else would have been out there.

I get it. The Packers didn't show all their cards because of the possibility they might face Minnesota again?

That is almost as good as the suggestion we replace Tramon with Jarrett Bush.

The Packers had a bad day defensively. It happens. Peterson has made just about every team look stupid and while I think Ponder is average he is still an NFL quarterback and without a pass rush he can (and did) make some big plays.

Let's cut Casey Hayward while we are at it too.

are the packers going to want to tackle Peterson if it is 20 degrees.

After reading the thread title:


Who's Coverage?

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:
What's more likely, Capers played a vanilla gameplan or Christian Ponder beat the Packers because he's just that good.

Maybe Ponder's not "just that good", but happened to have a better than average game (for him). And that passer rating comes down a bit if the duck in the 2nd quarter is intercepted and/or the TD to Jenkins is intercepted. Neither were good throws.

quote:

Originally posted by Pakrz:
I like your football takes GD and they are mostly spot on.. but it's silly to me to even suggest GB went into that game with anything but winning on their mind. MM made it very clear it was a playoff type game and the team was full speed ahead with a goal of obtaining the bye. Come on now... GB went to Minny and ran into a football player in AP that they couldn't stop...again.

This.

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Sorry guys I'm not buying the "this defense sucks" mantra. Capers didn't throw the playbook at the Vikings, he was very conservative.

I don't think the defense "sucks" but they sucked yesterday. Their tackling (or lack thereof) was horrendous.

quote:

Originally posted by Reagenz:

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger: He held back with the creative stuff and there's NOTHING wrong with it.

Disagree. You are doing your team a disadvantage if you are holding back. No way I think they would be content not using all their bullets and playing in 6 days again instead of two weeks. If that was their plan, they should be ashamed.

Hell, if he WAS holding back (an unprovable idea and frankly pointless discussion IMHO), he ought to be fired for that reason alone!

This.

Too much riding on the game to "play vanilla". I just think the scheme and execution were poor combined with a great effort byt the RB and a better-than-expected game from a below-average QB.

Ponder was on Mike & Mike this morning. When asked about the 3rd & 11 conversion, he said the coaches had seen the tendency of the Packers d in this situation and Compers obliged. So it wasn't a blown coverage by Heyward. Still, he played like a rookie for much of the game. Very disappointing effort by the defense after they had played so well in previous games. They reverted to 2011 form in the Humpty Dump.

quote:

Originally posted by FLPACKER:
Looked to me that if Hayward went all the way with the receiver, Ponder would have run for the first down....no one else would have been out there.

Didn't even think of that angle... Makes sense. Now whether or not he'd have made the tackle on Ponder is up for debate.

All in all, I think you have to give Musgrave some credit. He seemed to have Capers' number all day -- they knew what we were going to do and countered; we did a poor job mixing it up and tackling. If there's one certainty to take away, it's that Capers has to mix up his tendency to call certain plays that have always worked for him in the past. Listen to what Ponder said: he knew what the D was going to do. If that's not a wake-up call to switch up, I don't know what is.

Play of the Game
jsonline.com
by Tom Silverstein

you can eat the foods

quote:

Originally posted by titmfatied:
Play of the Game
jsonline.com
by Tom Silverstein

Grave Digger, reading through this thread I find your take an interesting one. But with the score tied at 34, 2 minutes remaining, the Vikings facing 3rd and 11 deep on their side of the field, and our offense smoking hot, why would McCarthy/Capers want to do anything other than force the incompletion, get them to punt and position yourself for high odds at that point of winning the game and securing the #2 seed? At that point in the game, that to me is the only logical conclusion. And if you agree with that, then why the hell wouldn't Capers rush at least 4, covering the Vikings' pedestrian receivers man-to-man with his more than capable stable of CBs??? That is what I cannot fathom. Rushing 3, giving Ponder all the time in the world, making your DBs play zone, is just mind-boggling in that situation. To me, that's not an aggressive, play-to-win defensive mentality that I thought Capers brought with him from the Steelers. That single play cost the Packers the bye, and even Silverstein's analysis falls far short of explaining why Capers would call it this way in this situation. Frustrating as hell.

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Sorry guys I'm not buying the "this defense sucks" mantra. Capers didn't throw the playbook at the Vikings, he was very conservative. The execution was poor definitely, but I don't think they were looking to give anything away that they didn't have to. They weren't giving the game away, not at all what I'm saying, I don't think they showed all their cards though.

As far as Ponder, he came into the game with a 75 rating, 15 TDs, and 12 INTs to his name and leaves with 3 TDs and a 120 rating? Again, what's more likely, something clicked and he finally found his game or the Packers were playing soft (both scheme wise and execution wise)?

Let's cut to the chase. They sucked on Sunday. If Capers schemed to lose, he should be fired. I don't believe that to be the case.

The whole team didn't execute and Ponder made some good plays. Doesn't make the defense "suck" for the whole season. It was a **** game. Unfortunately, we see these **** games at very inopportune times.

So you can go through the laundry list of injuries, rookies, scheme, opponent, environment, etc. Doesn't make either side of the argument close to true.

I happen to like Stephen Smith, the guy who debates Bayless.

Here's a 3rd party observer who I think is pretty smart and objective. As an example, yesterday he said Rodgers is the man, the best QB in the game today.

He also said he is rescinding his original SB prediction of Packers in the SB due to their now more difficult road and the defense.

He said he was hoping for Rodgers versus Brady, but said if Rodgers scored 50, against the Packer's defense, Brady might lay 60 on them.

I think it's hard to argue his overall sense of things. This defense cannot be trusted to enable a victory.

quote:

Originally posted by sschumer:
That single play cost the Packers the bye,

No certainty in this statement. Even if the Packers forced a punt there is no ceertainty they would have scored in regulation. Once the game goes into overtime it's almost a crap shoot as to who wins.

Disagree with that. Rodgers was in a zone and would have had us near the goal line for a chip shot field goal that Mason would have made.

And then Minnesota would've gotten the ball (assuming the Packers won the flip) and would've had a chance to score a TD. Or Minnesota gets the KO and scores a TD sealing a victory.

Once in OT, it's a crapshoot. Ask Pittsburgh fans.

found on internet

"Mason Crosby misses field goals."

quote:

Originally posted by YATittle:
Disagree with that. Rodgers was in a zone

Then we should had the lead and not been tied. I wish I was always right like you want to be.

quote:

Originally posted by michiganjoe:
Dom's 4th and 26? Whether it was a bad call/scheme, poor execution or a combination thereof it was inexcusable.

You are correct. That play was disgraceful. Three defenders ten yards from the one receiver. Definitely bone head city.

quote:

Originally posted by ammo:

quote:

Originally posted by YATittle:
Disagree with that. Rodgers was in a zone

Then we should had the lead and not been tied. I wish I was always right like you want to be.

And we would've had it without the fumble numbnuts.

Adding this. Boy, you'd think Capers, even if he was going to rush only 3, wouldn't allow his coverage in such a critical situation to be so easily identified!

Jenkins said the Vikings noticed on film that Packers cornerback Casey Hayward played the flats in that coverage. Green Bay rushed three and dropped players into zone. Minnesota had been saving that play for the right time. When Hayward crept up, Jenkins found the sweet spot. "Yeah, just waiting," Jenkins said. "They run a certain coverage in that situation and they jumped into it. Just found a soft spot in the zone and it was a big play for us. ...We saw the coverage they run. He takes care of the flat and the other guy has a deep third. So we knew there was a spot on the sideline to fit in.”

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/185370281.html

One more take on this, from Packers.com's Vic Ketchman:

Dan from Metamora, IL: Sir, please try to make me feel better about the prevent defense. Why do defensive coordinators go into this bend-don’t-break defense when it’s not what that got them the lead in the first place? I’m beside myself as to why Dom Capers went into prevent with the game on the line.

The Packers weren’t in a prevent defense during the Vikings’ game-winning drive. All three-man rush schemes aren’t prevent defense. The Packers rushed three and dropped eight on the third-and-11 play, which is a logical approach to that down and distance, but they weren’t playing a true prevent-style defense in the secondary. Somebody blew the coverage on Mike Jenkins that allowed him to get wide open along the sideline 25 yards downfield. A true prevent is meant to deny the 25-yard completion and allow the 11-yard gain. It appears Jenkins found a soft spot between two layers of coverage. Casey Hayward was underneath and flattened out. Sam Shields was over the top but elected to help double a receiver running up the seam. The scheme didn’t allow that completion. Lack of execution of the scheme did. There were five defenders to that side of the field. It’s inexplicable as to how a receiver could get so open between five men. That play and the second-and-27 Adrian Peterson converted with a 28-yard run were, in my opinion, the two biggest plays of the game for the Vikings.

http://www.packers.com/news-an...13-88b1-665621a3acaf

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
If Capers schemed to lose, he should be fired. I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't believe that either. They don't scheme to lose in the preseason either, they don't show all their cards though.

Do you really believe GB has "cards" Minny hasn't seen before?

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:
I don't believe that either. They don't scheme to lose in the preseason either, they don't show all their cards though.

From a scheme standpoint, I don't think Capers was necessarily holding back. What he was trying he genuinely thought would work. He might even do the same thing again this coming weekend and just hope the players execute better.

One thing you could say is that maybe some of the defenders underestimated Ponder and relaxed when he was throwing the ball just assuming he would throw it up for grabs like he did at Lambeau. It might not have been scheme so much as a mental thing by some guys who just didn't completely sell out for this game like the Viking guys did. Maybe after a 55-7 victory they thought they could just walk into Minnesota and win no matter what.

I see a lack of focus by the guys on D as more of the issue than pure scheme by Capers. That said, I hated the 3 man rush in a couple of critical situations too.

Compers holding stuff back again...like last year? Got it! Hopefully, he doesn't "hold stuff back" in the playoff game like he did against the Giants last year and the Cardinals a couple of years ago.

We need to stop with the excuses and just hope the defense shows up on Saturday, because this is far from a great defense.

quote:

Originally posted by Pakrz:
Do you really believe GB has "cards" Minny hasn't seen before?

Yes.

Don't let me dampen the sad sack convention though.

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
If Capers schemed to lose, he should be fired. I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't believe that either. They don't scheme to lose in the preseason either, they don't show all their cards though.

This isn't preseason.

the benifit to holding back cards was significantly less than the benifit of an extra week off.

My arguement will be invalid after they win the superbowl, so I will shut up now.