McGinn - Packers too soft for NFL Elite

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:


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

The skill position players on our offense are Super Bowl quality. I'm still not sold on the offensive line, though much of that has to do with the injuries to Bulaga and Sherrod. If they come back strong, and we truly address the center position, then the offense will be ready to go.

I think a featured running back will help immensely. If it's DuJuan Harris, or if it's somebody we draft, a more balanced attack will make the unit downright scary.

If they'd just not turn the ball over it would help immensely. Not gonna win many playoff games losing the turnover battle.

ATL and NE are soft too then. How many times since 2004 has NE been a SB contender and won...............zero.

quote:

Originally posted by CitizenDan:
You'd have to be an infant to minimize what N.E. has done.

or at least gay all day.

quote:

Not gonna win many playoff games losing the turnover battle.

This. Always this. To me it's the reason GB lost to SF and it's also the reason Atlanta lost to SF.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:

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

Reading the article the name Howard Green stuck out to me. I think I underestimated what he meant to the run defense.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:

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

I agree- but the offense still needs to do a better job keeping hat defense off the field than they have. The D needs to give the offense more opportunities in these playoff games. The TOs were killer, but the collapses we have seen defensively (your point) were compounded by the offenses' anilability to sustain drives (my point). To be a SB team, they definitely need both to improve.

I am intrigued by his criticism of the Packers fans at Lambeau Field. Cameos and complacency? Could be he is right?

I finally just read badbob's sour grapes article. what a waste of time.
talk about searching and not quantifying. was he told he had to write an article like this or something?

note to Bob: I don't care how loud the fans are or not, the players either win or lose the game. Not one single fan has ever determined the outcome of a football game. I wish the same could be said of the zebras. Fans can make it more difficult to operate but, by and large, NFL teams have figured out how to deal with this.

Like us, sportswriter's get to express an opinion and it easy to beat up on our running game and defense...but he also makes some utterly ridiculous statements.
He's gonna say that the crowds at Lambeau are too hospitable? We are 23-3 at home in the past 3 years.....one of the losses was in overtime and the other 2, to eventual Super Bowl champs (provided San Fran wins this year)...whatever is happening at Lambeau needs to stay the same...My one trip this year was loud and not hospitable to the Jags...

He ends his article espousing the Toughness of Belichek and could we impress him?...did you see yesterday's game? The Pat's were absolute cream puffs....
He blasts Jerel Worthy's toughness? He is a light player for the 3-4, but he is a tough s.o.b. and will be an outstanding situational player.

San Fran's corners talk a good game, but are no tougher than ours....I'd easily take ours, especially with the return of House.. Williams has not been the same since his shoulder ding...and pound for pound, Shields is as tough as anyone. Run stuffing corners all have one thing in common--short careers.

The 49ers have a great team--and Kaepernick spreads out a defense....but a big part of their success is good fortune with injuries and unforced turnovers...the Falcons win if not for the fumbled snap and that chicken sh*t roughing the passer call......likewise, our game is different if we don't give them 7 points on the unforced muff.

Add Collins, Perry, Bishop, House, Dj Smith, Sherrod, Bulaga, Starks to our squad and they are as tough as anybody.
You don't have to be a homer, but get your facts straight--There are several good reporters that accurately point out the Packers faults--McGinn is not one of them

Great post!

AR is one of the all time best at not turning the ball over.

quote:

Originally posted by titmfatied:
If they'd just not turn the ball over it would help immensely. Not gonna win many playoff games losing the turnover battle.

Great post, Johnson. I think there's some merit to the "toughness" argument, but it certainly doesn't have the impact McGinn suggests. The 2010 team wasn't tougher, it just played better.

I will say he is dead on about Lambeau. It didn't really make sense in this column, and the team has done just fine there, but it has to be the quietest stadium of any contending team. I was routinely asked to sit on defensive third downs this year and I've seen more waves break out than ever before. I've always blamed the quiet on having a considerably older fan base, but I'm not so sure it isn't an invasion of casual fans as Bob suggests.

Good points Johnson. Now I ask this: why does GB experience so many serious injuries? What four years in a row our injuries rant near the top in the league.

McGinn with a chat in 40 minutes...have at him!

quote:

What four years in a row our injuries rant near the top in the league.

Perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnson:
Like us, sportswriter's get to express an opinion...

Good post. When San Francisco win, and they will, we can boast of either a Superbowl win or a loss to the eventual champions over a three period. This is a well built team in need of a tweak here and there and some luck.

Let's take a look at the history of Super Bowl winners since 2000 and ask, which was the more physical team:

2000: St. Louis over Tennessee
2001: Baltimore over Giants
2002: New England over St. Louis
2003: Tampa Bay over Oakland
2004: New England over Carolina
2005: New England over Philly
2006: Pittsburgh over Seattle
2007: Indy over Chicago (TBSS -- Indy's D was historically horrible; offset by best O)
2008: Giants over New England
2009: Pittsburgh over Arizona
2010: N.O. over Indy
2011: Packers over Pittsburgh
2012: Giants over New England

I think you can argue, and I'm sure we will , the more physical team came out on top. In yesterday's games, the more physical team wore down and beat down their opponent, and yes, they also had complementary offenses. One guy who played SF said he was more beat up after playing them than any other team at any time in his career. Think he won't think about that if they play next year?

I think that especially late in the year, when everyone is beat up, the more physical team has a real advantage.

There are only 1900-ish NFL players out of pool of over 5000 (annually) college players. I'd guess all of these guys that make it to the top of this game/profession are not soft.

quote:

Asked what made 2010 so special, Rodgers said:

"I think there were two things in particular most people would agree with. One, there was a very strong appreciation for the opportunity. For whatever reason the appreciation wasn't the same this year. The guys [in 2010] were just really thankful to have a job in some cases, some of the guys we brought in, but also thankful to get into the playoffs and be somewhere where they felt special and they felt important. It was very united group, more than we've had in any of the eight years here I've been a part of.

"And the second is we were hungry. We hadn't done it before. There were a lot of doubters out there. It's hard, I think, when you have success to be able to have that same amount of hunger that you had when you haven't had that kind of success before. We need to figure out how to do get back to that place."

Q: George Nast, Mineral Point, WI - Bob. Your piece about the Packers being soft hit the nail on the head. I have been thinking this since the first 49'rs game. I'd also submit that Mcarthy is also guilty of not "going for the throat" as Belichick does. The question is " how does this culture get changed"? Thanks.

A: Bob McGinn - George: Belichick hasn't won it all in eight years but people in the industry still feel he is the best at what he does, which is everything. If he can't win in eight years, that should tell you how brutally competitive the league is.

I know GB fans think the Packers ought to be competing for the SB every year but it's unrealistic. I covered the Packers from 1979-'92 before Wolf, Holmgren and Favre arrived. It doesn't have to be like this and won't always be like this.

As for McCarthy, he has the pelts on the wall. Great record. SB ring. Develops players. Terrific motivator. No, he isn't great on game day, but we all have weaknesses.

Even those fans who rip everyone, yes, they have weaknesses, too. Whatever your occupation is, I wonder how you'd enjoy the scrutiny that goes with being an NFL head coach. The 49ers punched GB in the mouth on opening day and on a Saturday night in SF. Now it's up to the powers that be in GB to develop a more physical team and environment so the next time the teams meet (at the Stick in 2013) the results will be different.

quote:

I think you can argue, and I'm sure we will , the more physical team came out on top.

I really don't see that. I can count maybe half or 50/50 as to who came out on top. Which leads one to conclude that winning the SB isn't about toughness over all other factors.

Part of the injury rant---the Pack had an unusually long and tough run of injuries--that all teams will suffer eventually...the result of a very brutal game....all will even out or regress back to the mean over time.

Grant and Starks are upright runners that are more prone to injuries....Sherrod, Bulaga, Bishop, Green were bad luck---injuries to House, Smith, Collins, Nelson, Jennings, Lang, Mathews, Perry were the result of their willingness to sacrifice their bodies....the epitome of the toughness McGinn says is absent.

And Fandame-----I think you're mostly right about the tougher team winning the Superbowl, but 60-40 at best and close to 50-50...

I'd put it more at 70-30. Another stat I found interesting but didn't include is that six of those teams were ranked in the top three in sacks the year they won it (2011 Giants, 2010 Packers, 2008 Steelers, 2007 Giants, 2005 Steelers, 2004 Patriots, 2003 Patriots). Indy, which had the worst D that year, sacked Brady three times in the AFCC to help them win. Coincidence? I think not.

Packers were 4th in the NFL in sacks.

SF was 11th

Ravens were 15th

2013 Green Bay Packers Opponents
Home Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Washington, Cleveland,
Pittsburgh, Atlanta
Away Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Dallas, N.Y. Giants, Baltimore, Cincinnati, San Francisco

The "toughness" issue will be tested some next year.

I see 3 home games that will be tough (WAS, PIT, ATL), but all 3 are winnable. Trestman, Kelly, and Chudzinski will have growing pains I think.

San Fran will be a tough away game, as will the Giants. Baltimore and Cincy are schizo teams, you will either get an elite team or a boneheaded team. Baltimore will be A LOT different without Lewis and possibly Reed. Paul Kruger may also bolt as a free agent which would be another big blow.

I think GB has enough toughness to get double digit wins for the 6th time in McCarthy's 8 years.

Don't sleep on Cleveland. Defense is pretty good and Trent Richardson is one of the hardest RBs to get to the ground in the league. Cleveland can play plenty physical.

Hmmm, GB currently has a 2/16 chance of playing the champ on opening night. Probably closer to 2/10 when you eliminate the crap home games BAL and SF will have.

side bet:
GBP plays Atlanta in Sept - very surprised if that's not the case.
GBP plays SF in Oct at the latest - any later and the football overlords don't want SF to repeat.

quote:

Originally posted by titmfatied:
Don't sleep on Cleveland. Defense is pretty good and Trent Richardson is one of the hardest RBs to get to the ground in the league. Cleveland can play plenty physical.

I do agree about their defense and Richardson. It is in no way a "gimme", but top to bottom Cleveland isn't ready to compete with a team like GB. I envision it being one of those games where Cleveland comes out and plays their butts off early, but GB just wears them down by the 4th.