How about a little love for the Packers dominating line during the Ahman Green days?! That was some seriously fun football for a good while until Sherman stabbed them in the back and pussed out on the 4th and 1. I'd put them against any of the lines of the last 15 years. They were really, really, good back then.quote:Admittedly, these were all time great lines, but I don't think the Packers have the philosophy of building a line like the Redskin hogs or the early 90's Cowboys.
quote:Originally posted by titmfatied:
Burnett drives me nuts cause every so often he plays like an animal for a play or two and then you don't see anything from him for a couple quarters.
I have a feeling he'll improve in 2013. We've seen it before. It takes 3-4 years for a Safety to develop into a top flight NFL player. Collins had some of the same type moments his first 2 years.
One thing after every big defeat there should be some reflection or analysis and surprisingly many times the wrong conclusion are reached. I see much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the defensive squad and what should happen.
I read at Packer update that GB should switch to a 4-3, we need better players and the scheme is poor. Lots of agreement about portions of that with most Packer fans, and of course there is the why didn't GB hire Ray Horton group.
In one of the comments at PU was a kernel that I felt better addressed the situation, in Az they had Calais Campbell and Darnell Dockett and a very stout front 7. So I am more into getting a legitimately tall 3-4 end (6'5" +) and a Johny Jolly type of end.
As many of you who read Bob Mcginn know he considered Nick Perry gamble on greatness (I did too) but he seems to use the Vernon Gholston tag on Perry which I think unfair. VG was a p___y, he never hit anybody and surely did not like contact, nobody can accuse Perry of that.
Although there were only flashes of it if the lightning sack of Russel Wilson and that crushing sack of Luck are the upside then the indifferent play the downside. As fans we don't know how bad Perry's wrist was and for how long before they shut him down and how the transition from DE to OLB hindered him as well. The effort questions are legit and only the Packer staff and tape can dispel that allegation, but I do think he can be one of the keystones to the Packer D if those questions are resolved.
Instincts are so important, Perry played this season very tentatively because he was attempting to do something on the fly that he had about 6 weeks of practice with. In Walden GB has a good athlete lacking instincts. It is a primary reason he has been on more rosters than herpes cream, he cannot determine, in that millisecond that football play's provide the correct answer and complete his assignment more times than not and especially in critical
situations.
Accountability is important, I believe for the last two years GB has suffered from the "big play syndrome" lots of splash plays (pick sixes, great interceptions, stripped balls etc) and not enough of tackling the runner or receiver where they catch the ball and wrapping them up. I watch most games 2 or 3 times and often players appear out of position in spite of the fact that the defense is the correct call to counter the offensive play in question, appearing to me that players are trying to help somebody else rather than accomplish their own assignment.
So in closing I am hoping next year:
1) Perry proves he is the real deal or that GB has drafted a replacement who can actually man the position
2) Find a real 3-4 end.
3) Joe Whitts call for open competition at CB may force certain players to a lesser role or to a more aggressive posture.
4) A solution to the LT dilemma must be found. Newhouse is middle of the road but GB needs an elite pass protector who can run block as well. Nothing would make Rodgers scarier than a legitimate running attack. This is probably the bets year for big guys in a long time and GB should take advantage of it
I read at Packer update that GB should switch to a 4-3, we need better players and the scheme is poor. Lots of agreement about portions of that with most Packer fans, and of course there is the why didn't GB hire Ray Horton group.
In one of the comments at PU was a kernel that I felt better addressed the situation, in Az they had Calais Campbell and Darnell Dockett and a very stout front 7. So I am more into getting a legitimately tall 3-4 end (6'5" +) and a Johny Jolly type of end.
As many of you who read Bob Mcginn know he considered Nick Perry gamble on greatness (I did too) but he seems to use the Vernon Gholston tag on Perry which I think unfair. VG was a p___y, he never hit anybody and surely did not like contact, nobody can accuse Perry of that.
Although there were only flashes of it if the lightning sack of Russel Wilson and that crushing sack of Luck are the upside then the indifferent play the downside. As fans we don't know how bad Perry's wrist was and for how long before they shut him down and how the transition from DE to OLB hindered him as well. The effort questions are legit and only the Packer staff and tape can dispel that allegation, but I do think he can be one of the keystones to the Packer D if those questions are resolved.
Instincts are so important, Perry played this season very tentatively because he was attempting to do something on the fly that he had about 6 weeks of practice with. In Walden GB has a good athlete lacking instincts. It is a primary reason he has been on more rosters than herpes cream, he cannot determine, in that millisecond that football play's provide the correct answer and complete his assignment more times than not and especially in critical
situations.
Accountability is important, I believe for the last two years GB has suffered from the "big play syndrome" lots of splash plays (pick sixes, great interceptions, stripped balls etc) and not enough of tackling the runner or receiver where they catch the ball and wrapping them up. I watch most games 2 or 3 times and often players appear out of position in spite of the fact that the defense is the correct call to counter the offensive play in question, appearing to me that players are trying to help somebody else rather than accomplish their own assignment.
So in closing I am hoping next year:
1) Perry proves he is the real deal or that GB has drafted a replacement who can actually man the position
2) Find a real 3-4 end.
3) Joe Whitts call for open competition at CB may force certain players to a lesser role or to a more aggressive posture.
4) A solution to the LT dilemma must be found. Newhouse is middle of the road but GB needs an elite pass protector who can run block as well. Nothing would make Rodgers scarier than a legitimate running attack. This is probably the bets year for big guys in a long time and GB should take advantage of it
quote:DISCLAIMER: Not sure what my opinion on this is. Just providing a quote I thought was appropriate in this thread. Chickenboy has the right to form an opinion on this later and maybe even revise that opinion down the road.
FYI...chickenboy has the right to have his balls stomped by me.
Form an opinion & stick to it, even if it sucks.
Quit being softer than the Packers
Never got the respect he deserved for how good he was from the fans or the Packers, but he gave it all to the team even knowing the writing was on the wall that season. Not to open up old wounds but they should have found a way to sign that guy. When Rodgers talks about all those things up there Cullen gave all of them, the hunger you want, played through pain, and lifted the play of the guys around him. Hasn't missed a game in two years either.quote:Cullen Jenkins
Sometimes it's a lot tougher to replace a guy than you think it's going to be. Food for thought on Jennings.
Physical is not rah rah. I don't know where anyone getting that from.
And hopefully Burnett does make the quantum leap. It was year 3 for Collins IIRC.
I don't think this is on Capers, and while the OL being able to push teams around at times is ideal, the '10 line wasn't a bunch of road graters out there. The 2012 D just kept getting pushed around, and that's not what '10 was like.
So get back to that. If CJ Wilson is the best we have to start, he's not good enough anymore. If Hawk isn't good enough, or if Bishop isn't coming back, or if Perry is a Gholston clone, get someone in there that is better. It may be time for the Packers to seek an impact defender that is established. Capers D is at its best when they can attack- right now we're read/react. Pistol eats up read/react as we saw. Need some snot-bubblers out there...
And hopefully Burnett does make the quantum leap. It was year 3 for Collins IIRC.
I don't think this is on Capers, and while the OL being able to push teams around at times is ideal, the '10 line wasn't a bunch of road graters out there. The 2012 D just kept getting pushed around, and that's not what '10 was like.
So get back to that. If CJ Wilson is the best we have to start, he's not good enough anymore. If Hawk isn't good enough, or if Bishop isn't coming back, or if Perry is a Gholston clone, get someone in there that is better. It may be time for the Packers to seek an impact defender that is established. Capers D is at its best when they can attack- right now we're read/react. Pistol eats up read/react as we saw. Need some snot-bubblers out there...
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:DISCLAIMER: Not sure what my opinion on this is. Just providing a quote I thought was appropriate in this thread. Chickenboy has the right to form an opinion on this later and maybe even revise that opinion down the road.
FYI...chickenboy has the right to have his balls stomped by me.
Form an opinion & stick to it, even if it sucks.
Quit being softer than the Packers
Why not lump the fans in this as well?
And are the fans who go getting "soft"? Is Lambeau becoming like Wrigley Field, where the party in the bleachers or the bar across the street is more important that the game between the lines?
Are too many of us going there to tweet pictures, to do a big "dig-me-I'm-at-the-Packers-game" social media dance while dialing out of the action?
Are you one of those people in the seats whose face is constantly in their phone, ignoring what's happening right in front of you?
Do you have to consult McGinn's column the next day to find out what you missed because you were too busy yakking/texting/drinking?
And are the fans who go getting "soft"? Is Lambeau becoming like Wrigley Field, where the party in the bleachers or the bar across the street is more important that the game between the lines?
Are too many of us going there to tweet pictures, to do a big "dig-me-I'm-at-the-Packers-game" social media dance while dialing out of the action?
Are you one of those people in the seats whose face is constantly in their phone, ignoring what's happening right in front of you?
Do you have to consult McGinn's column the next day to find out what you missed because you were too busy yakking/texting/drinking?
quote:It took the feared Green Bay Packers to pull out the best game the Niners have played in probably 15 years or so. The Niners are a talented team. They have been for about 5 years now. But it was US that brought their best out of them.
Well, my instinct is to take out a scalpel and cut this thought in two pieces. One, the alleged respect the 49'ers had/have for the Packers and two, the disparity in quality of play of the game itself.
They took the Packers to the woodshed, thoroughly undressed them, and spanked them. 300+ rushing yards? Almost 600 total yards?
I lend less significance to whatever a team thinks and more significance to the fact the Packers were thoroughly outplayed.
Yup, I hear ya.quote:How about a little love for the Packers dominating line during the Ahman Green days?!
And should have gone on 4th and 1.
It's not rah rah but it is a mindset regardless of your skills and abilities. Rodgers summed it up perfectly. The team in 2010 wanted it more. That kind of motivation can make the difference between winning and losing and does.
SF did both things against the Packers. They physically manhandled GB and they outsmarted and outplayed the Packers as well. They would not be denied and having Bishop and Wells and Collins and the other guys probably would not have mattered enough to win.
They need to find a way to tap those kind of guys in the draft. The Mark Tauschers and Donald Drivers. Guys that overachieved and carried that Russell Wilson type chip on their shoulder. We have some guys now that work that way- namely Rodgers and Jordy and Jennings and Bishop but we need more of them.
SF did both things against the Packers. They physically manhandled GB and they outsmarted and outplayed the Packers as well. They would not be denied and having Bishop and Wells and Collins and the other guys probably would not have mattered enough to win.
They need to find a way to tap those kind of guys in the draft. The Mark Tauschers and Donald Drivers. Guys that overachieved and carried that Russell Wilson type chip on their shoulder. We have some guys now that work that way- namely Rodgers and Jordy and Jennings and Bishop but we need more of them.
I agree with the article, but don't understand the love fest for Wells. Wells was better than Saturday but he was also more expensive and ended up hurt the entire year. That, and Wells was not this mauler in the run game that McGinn makes him out to be. In fact, Wells was more liability than asset in the run game. He was good at getting to the next level but was incredibly weak at the point of attack, which happened to be the Packers biggest issue. The Packers couldn't pick up 3rd and 1 this year, but it was the same last year.
McGinn sometimes overvalues players. He did that with Wells, who barely got a sniff as a free agent. The Rams were one of the only teams to show interest. He also did that with Walden earier this season.
McGinn also fails to point out that the 49ers have been drafting the cream of the crop over and over and over. I believe it's 6-7 players that have been drafted no less then 11th overall. Add to that I believe's it's 3 of their 5 OL are all first rounders as well.
So yes, physical play certainly plays a role but let's also cut the crap Bob. If Ted Thompson could sit back and pluck top 10 draft picks year after year (plus remember they are also drafting at the very top of the 2nd round as well) then yes, unless your name is Matt Millen you're going to assemble quite the roster. GB's success, unlike the 49ers, has not allowed TT to draft anywhere near that level year after year.
As much as the Packers D were flat out beat on that Saturday, if Jeremy Ross catches that punt and GB goes onto score and makes it 21-7, I don't give a rat crap about being soft....It becomes a completely different game.
So yes, physical play certainly plays a role but let's also cut the crap Bob. If Ted Thompson could sit back and pluck top 10 draft picks year after year (plus remember they are also drafting at the very top of the 2nd round as well) then yes, unless your name is Matt Millen you're going to assemble quite the roster. GB's success, unlike the 49ers, has not allowed TT to draft anywhere near that level year after year.
As much as the Packers D were flat out beat on that Saturday, if Jeremy Ross catches that punt and GB goes onto score and makes it 21-7, I don't give a rat crap about being soft....It becomes a completely different game.
Yes.quote:As much as the Packers D were flat out beat on that Saturday, if Jeremy Ross catches that punt and GB goes onto score and makes it 21-7, I don't give a rat crap about being soft....It becomes a completely different game.
If the Packers did score supposing not muffing the punt and the game was 17-7 or 21-7 -and- they basically consumed the rest of the first half and would receive the kickoff in the 2nd...
As much as they were outplayed, I think the Pack would have won.
The change in atmosphere following the muff and 49'er TD was astonishing.
I agree Phaedrus.
What gets me is before that muff, Ross had already been smart enough to fake a fair catch to the point that the ball got in for a touchback. Here he's on the five, has a Niner bearing down on him and thinks somehow this is one he can return.... Had he faked it again I wonder if we'd have had it on the 20.
What gets me is before that muff, Ross had already been smart enough to fake a fair catch to the point that the ball got in for a touchback. Here he's on the five, has a Niner bearing down on him and thinks somehow this is one he can return.... Had he faked it again I wonder if we'd have had it on the 20.
quote:Originally posted by Esox:quote:Originally posted by Orlando Wolf:
Feeding the team nutraloaf during training camp would fix everything.
Well that's just too foolish! It's about the beer, Dude! They need to man up and trade in that girly beer for IPAs! Sorry about being a bit harsh on yah tis mornin, but jeez!
Starts at the top. Bud Light on the rocks may need a rest.
quote:Originally posted by YATittle:
...Ross had already been smart enough...
I thought he had dodged a couple of bullets on punt returns since he has had the job.
I really think it was a mistake not to use Cobb back there in the playoffs. Ross is a keeper and I want him back there next season but you need experience and Cobb is a good returner. This isn't Holmgren using Freeman back there for ball security purposes. Cobb can be a game changer.
I know Cobb had some health issues but he was in uniform. He should have been back there, IMO...
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
Why not lump the fans in this as well?
And are the fans who go getting "soft"? Is Lambeau becoming like Wrigley Field, where the party in the bleachers or the bar across the street is more important that the game between the lines?
Are too many of us going there to tweet pictures, to do a big "dig-me-I'm-at-the-Packers-game" social media dance while dialing out of the action?
Are you one of those people in the seats whose face is constantly in their phone, ignoring what's happening right in front of you?
Do you have to consult McGinn's column the next day to find out what you missed because you were too busy yakking/texting/drinking?
we are aware of what your opinion is.
(1/20/2013 11:41:00 AM) - Al
Any pretense Green Bay fans ever had of somehow being "special" left years ago as they flocked out of a Monday Night game in which they trailed. The cameras caught the en masse defection, and the excuses flowed.
A little extreme to compare Cubs fans to Packers fans I think.
Cubs fans are all about the "look at me" experience because what else do you do? The place smells like a urinal and if you had to live through having to watch a bad product year after year you would need to get drunk and indifferent to put up with that as well. Wrigley Field is a tired novelty but it's been that way for a long time.
Cubs fans are all about the "look at me" experience because what else do you do? The place smells like a urinal and if you had to live through having to watch a bad product year after year you would need to get drunk and indifferent to put up with that as well. Wrigley Field is a tired novelty but it's been that way for a long time.
quote:Originally posted by Fedya:quote:It is interesting in college that spread offense teams that rack up points all have at best average defenses.
The defensive talent is rather more concentrated among 32 professional teams than it is among ~120 1A teams, never mind the smaller number of 1AA and below players who wind up in the NFL (no, I'm not going to use the new nomenclature).
There are good D's, just never on the pass happy teams spread teams with no running game, that was the point. The tough teams be it college or pro run the ball.
quote:Originally posted by packerboi:
McGinn also fails to point out that the 49ers have been drafting the cream of the crop over and over and over. I believe it's 6-7 players that have been drafted no less then 11th overall. Add to that I believe's it's 3 of their 5 OL are all first rounders as well.
So yes, physical play certainly plays a role but let's also cut the crap Bob. If Ted Thompson could sit back and pluck top 10 draft picks year after year (plus remember they are also drafting at the very top of the 2nd round as well) then yes, unless your name is Matt Millen you're going to assemble quite the roster. GB's success, unlike the 49ers, has not allowed TT to draft anywhere near that level year after year.
As much as the Packers D were flat out beat on that Saturday, if Jeremy Ross catches that punt and GB goes onto score and makes it 21-7, I don't give a rat crap about being soft....It becomes a completely different game.
How have the Patriots continued to win for over a decade drafting low?
Probably the same way the Packers do.
By not employing Mike Sherman.
By not employing Mike Sherman.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
How have the Patriots continued to win for over a decade drafting low?
Zero Super Bowl championships in 8 years. One less than the Packers.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
How have the Patriots continued to win for over a decade drafting low?
Ultra intense preparation. Green Bay has more skill players than NE. But they are tougher.
I don't usually like Colin Cowherd, but he had a particularly poignant statement this past week: "Football is easy. You need to make the other team's qb uncomfortable and keep your qb comfortable." I know the Packers D improved in total number of sacks, but not enough to scare many teams. On offense, the Packers o-line did not keep AR comfortable.
In terms of NE being so good, keep in mind that they play in a terrible division, and have one of the best coaches in NFL history.
I think the Packers, because of their skilled players, will continue to compete for division championships and make the playoffs. However, I agree that something is missing with this team and they better find it if they want to get back to a superbowl.
In terms of NE being so good, keep in mind that they play in a terrible division, and have one of the best coaches in NFL history.
I think the Packers, because of their skilled players, will continue to compete for division championships and make the playoffs. However, I agree that something is missing with this team and they better find it if they want to get back to a superbowl.
That's 
Like Rodgers said they're missing the hunger/passion because they won one.
I'm not concerned.
Like Rodgers said they're missing the hunger/passion because they won one.
I'm not concerned.
Our D is soft. I would love a Steelers/Ravens type D. We need some nasty and I can't think of one player right now who has that. Not dirty but in your face nasty. We need some Nitschke.
quote:Originally posted by CUPackFan:quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
How have the Patriots continued to win for over a decade drafting low?
Zero Super Bowl championships in 8 years. One less than the Packers.
And three in 12 years, two more than the Packers. Also four more conference titles than GB with one more pending. You'd have to be an infant to minimize what N.E. has done.
quote:Originally posted by Packy:
Our D is soft. I would love a Steelers/Ravens type D. We need some nasty and I can't think of one player right now who has that. Not dirty but in your face nasty. We need some Nitschke.
If there was just one thing I could change about this team, that would be it - I want mean, nasty guys on both sides of the ball, but especially on the D. I want someone in the front 7 who has a Mike Tyson personality. A healthy dose of mean would make up for a lot of other shortcomings on this team.
quote:Originally posted by CitizenDan:
Also four more conference titles than GB with one more pending.
Not so fast grasshopper.
quote:I want mean, nasty guys on both sides of the ball, but especially on the D.
Try whipping them.
quote:Originally posted by Fedya:quote:I want mean, nasty guys on both sides of the ball, but especially on the D.
Try whipping them.
God... there should be, like, dozens of San Francisco jokes in there, but I can't quite think of a single one right now. Damn!
I'll put this one right next to other brilliant McGinn analyses, such as:
"Offensive lines are not important"
http://www.jsonline.com/sports...7lrit-179830621.html
or his call in Jan, 2011 that the Packers were on the verge of being a dynasty (with the core of the team being the same as today's now "soft" team):
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/114876244.html
No doubt every team wants to believe they play physical. However, his article is easily picked apart. For example, he says the Packers can't win with " thin" players like Tramon Williams or Sam Shields trying to tackle people. Um, Bob, I believe both of them played on our Super Bowl team and had big games in the playoff run with a defense you now hold up as a physical defense.
Likewise, while Newhouse may be somewhat soft at tackle, his predecessor (Clifton) was a terrible run blocker, never known for being physical, and was getting beaten quite often at the end of his career-including that Super Bowl run-- because of all his injuries.
There are just so many flaws in his rather disjointed analysis. For example, he touches on how signing Saturday was a mistake, and if the Packers had paid up for (in his opinion) a more physcial Wells and he stayed healthy for them, they might have secured the #1 or #2 seed. Multiple analysis problems here. First, Wells was an undersized center, never considered a physical player---which is supposedly the thrust of the article. Second, EDS is more physical player than Wells. And, lastly, Bob, this non-physical Packer team did in fact secure the #2 seed--if the refs hadn't blown the call in Seattle. So, what exactly is the point of Bob's argument here.
Likewise, the argument that "having the best amenities and finest food can be counterproductive in a quasi-militaristic culture" is just stupid on so many levels. Treating players like dirt might make some believe that is what it takes to make them "tough." Except, Bob failed to point to the NFL teams that are sucessful in this approach, and providing them as an example we should copy. How, for example, do the Ravens or 49ers treat their players---any different than the Packers? I recall a coach of the 49er's who ranted and raved at his players,ran the old nutcracker drills in practice, etc--Mike Singletary. He stunk as a coach, but with the pretty much the same group of players, Harbaugh got them to a championship game last year and the Super Bowl this year. Does Harbaugh treat the 49ers in the manner Bob thinks we should? Or, what if players revolt against a coach and demand e be fired---say like what happened a few weeks wih a near player revolt by Flacco and others on offense. That got theiroffensive coordinator fired. Should this be the model for teams to follow with their coaching staffs, Bob?
Their might be a point to the Packers needing to play more physical, but to try to work it into an entire columm calling this team (and even a shot at the end at their fans) as too soft and coddled---that column was by Bob was a steaming heap of mush.
"Offensive lines are not important"
http://www.jsonline.com/sports...7lrit-179830621.html
or his call in Jan, 2011 that the Packers were on the verge of being a dynasty (with the core of the team being the same as today's now "soft" team):
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/114876244.html
No doubt every team wants to believe they play physical. However, his article is easily picked apart. For example, he says the Packers can't win with " thin" players like Tramon Williams or Sam Shields trying to tackle people. Um, Bob, I believe both of them played on our Super Bowl team and had big games in the playoff run with a defense you now hold up as a physical defense.
Likewise, while Newhouse may be somewhat soft at tackle, his predecessor (Clifton) was a terrible run blocker, never known for being physical, and was getting beaten quite often at the end of his career-including that Super Bowl run-- because of all his injuries.
There are just so many flaws in his rather disjointed analysis. For example, he touches on how signing Saturday was a mistake, and if the Packers had paid up for (in his opinion) a more physcial Wells and he stayed healthy for them, they might have secured the #1 or #2 seed. Multiple analysis problems here. First, Wells was an undersized center, never considered a physical player---which is supposedly the thrust of the article. Second, EDS is more physical player than Wells. And, lastly, Bob, this non-physical Packer team did in fact secure the #2 seed--if the refs hadn't blown the call in Seattle. So, what exactly is the point of Bob's argument here.
Likewise, the argument that "having the best amenities and finest food can be counterproductive in a quasi-militaristic culture" is just stupid on so many levels. Treating players like dirt might make some believe that is what it takes to make them "tough." Except, Bob failed to point to the NFL teams that are sucessful in this approach, and providing them as an example we should copy. How, for example, do the Ravens or 49ers treat their players---any different than the Packers? I recall a coach of the 49er's who ranted and raved at his players,ran the old nutcracker drills in practice, etc--Mike Singletary. He stunk as a coach, but with the pretty much the same group of players, Harbaugh got them to a championship game last year and the Super Bowl this year. Does Harbaugh treat the 49ers in the manner Bob thinks we should? Or, what if players revolt against a coach and demand e be fired---say like what happened a few weeks wih a near player revolt by Flacco and others on offense. That got theiroffensive coordinator fired. Should this be the model for teams to follow with their coaching staffs, Bob?
Their might be a point to the Packers needing to play more physical, but to try to work it into an entire columm calling this team (and even a shot at the end at their fans) as too soft and coddled---that column was by Bob was a steaming heap of mush.
But in general the narrative applies. You can argue what "physical" means. But when your team gets facemashed in a playoff game in back to back seasons, you have to acknowledge that the other team beat your ass- i.e., they were more physically dominant.
The "passing league" think needs to evolve in GB. Sure, you have to have a great QB (we do) and a good passing offense (we do) to challenge in the modern NFL. But you still have to have the ability to run the ball because the benefits of running the ball effectively are too numerous to ignore.
I am no longer convinced that you can run an offense the way the Packers have run their offense the last 2 years. Each season, they were exposed by a punishing, physical team that too them out of their game. You cannot win against a team that holds the ball for 21 minutes in a half and wears your D out so badly that by the 4th Q you cannot even stop a QB running the "Pistol". The concept of ball control has to be more prevalent in the Packers attack going forward. Maybe they can accomplish that with some good old fashioned WCO, or maybe they can start running the ball more. Maybe both. But it's gotta evolve or we'll see the same result every year.
On the D side, it's unquestionable that they no longer win the battle at the LOS consistently. Can't win the LOS if you're too soft... and they are.
The "passing league" think needs to evolve in GB. Sure, you have to have a great QB (we do) and a good passing offense (we do) to challenge in the modern NFL. But you still have to have the ability to run the ball because the benefits of running the ball effectively are too numerous to ignore.
I am no longer convinced that you can run an offense the way the Packers have run their offense the last 2 years. Each season, they were exposed by a punishing, physical team that too them out of their game. You cannot win against a team that holds the ball for 21 minutes in a half and wears your D out so badly that by the 4th Q you cannot even stop a QB running the "Pistol". The concept of ball control has to be more prevalent in the Packers attack going forward. Maybe they can accomplish that with some good old fashioned WCO, or maybe they can start running the ball more. Maybe both. But it's gotta evolve or we'll see the same result every year.
On the D side, it's unquestionable that they no longer win the battle at the LOS consistently. Can't win the LOS if you're too soft... and they are.
quote:The concept of ball control has to be more prevalent in the Packers attack going forward. Maybe they can accomplish that with some good old fashioned WCO, or maybe they can start running the ball more. Maybe both. But it's gotta evolve or we'll see the same result every year.
We simply need better players on defense. Our offense is Super Bowl quality. Our defense isn't with all these 6th, 7th rouders & street free agents.
CJ Wilson, Brad Jones, Erik Walden etc. aren't cutting it
Agree!
Agree!
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:The concept of ball control has to be more prevalent in the Packers attack going forward. Maybe they can accomplish that with some good old fashioned WCO, or maybe they can start running the ball more. Maybe both. But it's gotta evolve or we'll see the same result every year.
We simply need better players on defense. Our offense is Super Bowl quality. Our defense isn't with all these 6th, 7th rouders & street free agents.
CJ Wilson, Brad Jones, Erik Walden etc. aren't cutting it
Agree!