Chongo posted:

Glad MLF made the decision quickly...this thing could have dragged on a la McVince. 

He's coming back, now focus on how to fix what's broken.

The absolute right decision.

Now, if San. Fran beats KC, I'm assuming the NFL will schedule the Packers to open the season on Thursday night at San Fran just because. If KC wins, I'm assuming the NFL will schedule the Packers to open the season on Sunday night at San Fran just because.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Last edited by NumberThree

Shanahan is arguably the best offensive play caller in the league.  

Again, thereโ€™s no shame in losing to the Niners.  There is concern that they got worked over twice this year by SF and got destroyed by the Falcons in the playoffs 3 years ago when Shanahan was their OC. 

I still think the old adage of running the ball and stopping the run holds when it comes to being successful in football.  The Packers ran it well but did not stop it very well.   

I think the sacks and turnovers hid a lot of the problems on the defense because quite honestly they gave up a shit ton of yards and got bailed out a lot at key moments.  

There is still a talent and speed gap to deal with especially at the DL and ILB positions.   Lowry and Lancaster are not starting caliber players and while Martinez knows how to tackle heโ€™s slow and canโ€™t cover.  They have no other competent ILB beside Martinez so he probably is less impactful than he should be. 

Last edited by Tschmack
Tschmack posted:

Shanahan is arguably the best offensive play caller in the league.  

Again, thereโ€™s no shame in losing to the Niners.  There is concern that they got worked over twice this year by SF 

Not ok with it. Game should've been more competitive but Niners are definitely more talented. Again....they've drafted in the top 10 for the last 7 years. Their coaching staff has been in place for 3 years. SF is pretty much where they're supposed to be. 

Tschmack posted:

Shanahan is arguably the best offensive play caller in the league.  

 got destroyed by the Falcons in the playoffs 3 years ago when Shanahan was their OC. 

Have a big problem with this statement. 

Julio Jones was being covered by the Packers 7th string DB. (Gunter?) A guy that is currently out of the league. Not really sure what you're expecting but in 2016 NFC CG the Packers did not have their preferred starters like they did this year. 

This has a lot less to do with Shanahan & a lot more to do with players not plays. 

Last edited by Boris

There were teams as talented as GB (or less talented) that competed or beat the Niners this year.  

You think 37-8 or 37-20 was much different than the ATL beatdown?  A blowout is a blowout.  GB wasnโ€™t in any of those games regardless of talent or injuries. 

I do not think the Packers match up well against the Niners and yes I think some of that has to do with Shanahan.  Thatโ€™s not a knock on MLF but it might be on Pettine. 

But Gute also needs to keep adding the talent and I think he can. 

This may also be a good thing anyway as I think GB may have gotten smoked by Mahomes and their WRs.   Their team speed on offense is better than the Niners and Mahomes would have picked them apart.  Hell, Matt Moore picked them apart. 

Last edited by Tschmack
ChilliJon posted:

Matt Ryan killed the Falcons vs New England. Got nothing to do with Shanahan. Matt will never be the same either. 

Perhaps, although Ryan completed 72% of his passes in that game, two touchdowns, no interceptions, passing rating of 144.

  But the play calling by Shanahan with from the New England 22, up 8 with 4:40 to go, was horrible clock management.  Run on first down, then pass attempt that ended in sack, then holding call, then incomplete pass and the Falcons punted from their 45.  Run the ball three times, use all of New England's timeouts, and then have a 33 yard field goal try to go up 11. with 4:20 or so left.

NumberThree posted:
Chongo posted:

Glad MLF made the decision quickly...this thing could have dragged on a la McVince. 

He's coming back, now focus on how to fix what's broken.

The absolute right decision.

Now, if San. Fran beats KC, I'm assuming the NFL will schedule the Packers to open the season on Thursday night at San Fran just because. If KC wins, I'm assuming the NFL will schedule the Packers to open the season on Sunday night at San Fran just because.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Yup, fans can't wait for another massacre.

Something to consider when looking at this year's stats:
Just a couple or so years ago, teams would regularly have 300+ yards passing/game. An exceptional day might be close 400 yards. Average teams would be around 250 yards.
Teams that had a good rushing attack would be around 75-80 yards/game.
Exceptional teams would be just over 100 yards; average teams were around 55-60 yards/game.

The trend over the last couple of years is the opposite.
Today, good teams are around 250 yards passing, exceptional is 300+.
Rushing is around 110-120 yards/game for the better teams, and average teams are around 100-110 yards.

In spite of it being a "passing league", the tendency is teams are running more. Or everybody is getting a lot better at it....

Pikes Peak posted:
NumberThree posted:
Chongo posted:

Glad MLF made the decision quickly...this thing could have dragged on a la McVince. 

He's coming back, now focus on how to fix what's broken.

The absolute right decision.

Now, if San. Fran beats KC, I'm assuming the NFL will schedule the Packers to open the season on Thursday night at San Fran just because. If KC wins, I'm assuming the NFL will schedule the Packers to open the season on Sunday night at San Fran just because.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Yup, fans can't wait for another massacre.

I believe it might be KC vs. Vegas. 

Just a thought for the brand new stadium. 

SF may be the best balanced team in the league as far as talant. That said, you really have to take away their ground game to stand a chance. Examples:

TB:      98 yds rushing, but Winston had 3 INTs and one pick-six, I believe. 31-17 SF
Cincy: 259 yds rushing, 41-17 SF
Pitt:    168 yds rushing, 24-20 SF
Browns: 275 yds, 31-3 SF
Rams: 99 yds, 20-7 SF
Skins: 137 yds, 9-0 SF
Carolina: 232 yds, 51-13 SF
Cards: 101 yds, 28-25 SF
Seattle: 87 yds, 24-27 Seahawks
Cards:   34 yds, 36-26 SF (Cards must have worst DBs; gave up 408 in air)
GB:       112 yds, 37-8 SF (several short fields after that mess)
Ravens: 174 yds, 17-20 Baltimore
Saints:   162 yds, 48-46 SF (this was a passing game all the way around)
Falcons: 120 yds, 22-29 Atlanta
Rams:    119 yds, 34-31 LA
Seattle:  128 yds, 26-21 SF
MN:       186 yds, 27-10 SF
GB:        285 yds, 37-20 SF

In the three games they lost, they averaged 127 yds rushing; games won it was 157 yds. While it's only 30 yards, it's the TOP that also hurts. You could look at that 30 yards as three more drives. Their average TOP was 31:37, with only the Saints and Eagles higher. (GB was better than I would have guessed at 31:28.)

I'm not sure what it means other than KC's DL has to be better than SF's OL. Then leave it up to Mahomes, and they have a chance.

 

Fandame,  I think KC's offense will matchup much better against SF than the Packers do right now.  The difference is that they have playmakers all over the place, Mahomes is a younger Rodgers, Kelce is a great TE, and they have a ton of speed.

Where I think KC might struggle is the DL matching up with SF OL.  If KC has one flaw is that I think their defense can really struggle at times.

 

Fandame posted:

SF may be the best balanced team in the league as far as talant. That said, you really have to take away their ground game to stand a chance. Examples:

TB:      98 yds rushing, but Winston had 3 INTs and one pick-six, I believe. 31-17 SF
Cincy: 259 yds rushing, 41-17 SF
Pitt:    168 yds rushing, 24-20 SF
Browns: 275 yds, 31-3 SF
Rams: 99 yds, 20-7 SF
Skins: 137 yds, 9-0 SF
Carolina: 232 yds, 51-13 SF
Cards: 101 yds, 28-25 SF
Seattle: 87 yds, 24-27 Seahawks
Cards:   34 yds, 36-26 SF (Cards must have worst DBs; gave up 408 in air)
GB:       112 yds, 37-8 SF (several short fields after that mess)
Ravens: 174 yds, 17-20 Baltimore
Saints:   162 yds, 48-46 SF (this was a passing game all the way around)
Falcons: 120 yds, 22-29 Atlanta
Rams:    119 yds, 34-31 LA
Seattle:  128 yds, 26-21 SF
MN:       186 yds, 27-10 SF
GB:        285 yds, 37-20 SF

In the three games they lost, they averaged 127 yds rushing; games won it was 157 yds. While it's only 30 yards, it's the TOP that also hurts. You could look at that 30 yards as three more drives. Their average TOP was 31:37, with only the Saints and Eagles higher. (GB was better than I would have guessed at 31:28.).

 

This really points out the biggest key to their offense. The two games I highlighted were the games with their lowest production on the ground. 

Guess who was out injured - George Kittle. 

He's the best TE in football right now and, if he's playing, it forces you to adjust your defense to stop him (usually by playing an extra DB or dropping a LB deeper into coverage). The challenge is that he's also a great run blocking TE so it makes it even harder to stop the run when you put an extra DB on the field to stop the seam routes and you end up with Kittle blocking him (or the linebacker playing deeper). 

The fact that the two remaining teams have arguably the two best TEs in the league is saying something. Tom Brady also changes from having some of the best stats of all time to just an above average QB over the last decade without Gronk on the field. 

It's really weird. Exactly what SF did. Using Kittle as a 6th OL was what I thought MLF would do with Lewis & run Aaron Jones down their throats. 

Now Jones had a couple nice outside runs. But when you turn the ball over 3 times & fall behind 27-0, the run game goes out the window. 

It's not a surprise but if KC wants to win on Super Sunday they'll need to figure out a way to stop it. 

Timmy! posted:

Something to consider when looking at this year's stats:
Just a couple or so years ago, teams would regularly have 300+ yards passing/game. An exceptional day might be close 400 yards. Average teams would be around 250 yards.
Teams that had a good rushing attack would be around 75-80 yards/game.
Exceptional teams would be just over 100 yards; average teams were around 55-60 yards/game.

The trend over the last couple of years is the opposite.
Today, good teams are around 250 yards passing, exceptional is 300+.
Rushing is around 110-120 yards/game for the better teams, and average teams are around 100-110 yards.

In spite of it being a "passing league", the tendency is teams are running more. Or everybody is getting a lot better at it....

It's just the pendulum swinging back and forth.  Teams loaded up and schemed to stop the crazy passing and left themselves vulnerable to the run.  Just like GB/SF last Sunday in a nutshell.

When you're constantly playing dime or even 7DBs or regularly employ a S/LB, you run right at them.  So teams started building running games that work. 

It's another reason this SB will be really interesting.  KC has gone peak passing game with their offense and SF, though really not bad at throwing the ball, has shown a strong ability to run.  We got the "run vs. pass" matchup last weekend with KC/TEN but SF is probably the best balanced offense in the league right now.  Can't wait!

Last edited by DH13

There is nothing more demoralizing than a team that can RTFB and you canโ€™t stop or slow them down.  The issue is durability and in this day and age itโ€™s hard for a RB to survive the pounding.  But I agree a back that is big and physical and can catch thatโ€™s  a unicorn.  Think someone like Johnathan Taylor. 

To me, the most valuable player on defense is a LB that can hit and tackle and cover or a DB that can do the same.  You donโ€™t have to mix up your schemes or sub them out.  

Offenses have done the same thing with the versatile TEs like Gronk and Kelce and now Kittle.  Feature a guy that can block and run and catch and itโ€™s hard to match up with them. 

Quarterbacks are the most important position on the field until they hit that big contract and itโ€™s hard to build enough talent around them to survive. 

 

The problem SF is going to have with KC is if they canโ€™t get to Mahomes then Hardman and Hill will blow the top off that defense and Kelce will have a field day underneath.  That 4-3 cover 2 bullshit doesnโ€™t work well against teams that feature speed and no one has more team speed on offense than KC. 

The Niners are slow in the defensive backfield and GB couldnโ€™t exploit it.  They have no TE threat and MVS is a pussy.   If the Chiefs get time they most certainly will and they get extra chances on special teams returns. 

Unless KC turns it over a bunch I see them winning by 10+ points 

Last edited by Tschmack

I can see KC trying to get Hill matched up with Sherman and turning loose the speed. Any hesitation on the part of Sherman, and Hill blows by him. On the one GB TD, and I think one other play, Adams was running away from Sherman pretty easily, and while Adams has sufficient speed, he's not Hill. A double move or even a good post move could mean some big plays for Hill. KC has to worry only about giving Mahomes enough time to find Hill and Hill time to pull away. SF would be forced to roll over help and then Kittle and other receivers have more room to work. At least, that's how I'd play it, especially later in the game when Sherman is already tired. Some explosive plays could be had.

 

Really good analysis on how Shanahan out-schemed Pettine. The author largely praises Shanahan....but also bashes Pettine for staying in Bear Front too much , and points out some bad play by Savage, Martinez, etc....

Pretty masterful - and scary - how well schemed the 49ers were.  

It's never one thing - players got whipped in their one-on-ones, but Pettine also bears part of the blame for not having any answers. 

IMO would like to think Pettine just doesn't have the horses yet. But at this point, Shanahan stole his lunch money

Boston Jim posted:
mrtundra posted:

CBS Sports ticker says the Packers will retain Mike Pettine for next season

 


This is very disappointing. Pettine has had bad defenses since he arrived in GB.

I honestly don't know if this is the dryest of dry sarcasm or people buying into the new narrative that seems to have replaced "Rodgers sucks".

2 whole years of "bad" defenses.

Hopefully, FO can bring in more legit talent.  If they have the horses but still stumble along fire Pettine and trade Rodgers.

Last edited by Henry