Packers on record setting pace for missed tackles

From 65 under Capers 1st year to 126?

 

WTF!

 

 

So, what's the reason?

 

Not coaching technique?

 

Not enough talent?

 

Not the getting the players in the right place? (But then they wouldn't be missed tackles, would they?)

 

Sorry all...I have to go with the lack of talent and play making ability.  Injuries are part of it, but this still has to be an indictment of some of the players (I am thinking specifically of the positions of safety and inside linebacker).

 

 

I hear a lot on the radio about lack of padded practices being a reason.  Players just don't practice tackling enough anymore.

Is that the least-squares line of best fit or is it a different regression.  What is the coefficient of correlation? Did you make a residual plot to look for curvature in the regression?

 

Actually a pretty cool representation...if real.  I only ask because the years don't line up.

 

Player talent yes factors in. MD Jennings has NO business being a starter and Davon House was awful yesterday and missed a golden opportunity at a pick 6 the week before.

 

But accountability factors heavily as well. If MM and Capers do nothing when AJ Hawk or Brad Jones or Jennings can't tackle worth a sh** then tell me what these players incentives are to suddenly man up and tackle? They keep starting. They keep playing and in the case of Jones, they even give him a contract extension. There is no threat to them whatsoever.

 

No one from MM to Capers to Winston Moss is telling these guys "until you figure out how to tackle, enjoy the bench".

 

The Packers need a DC who will lite a fire under these players asses. And right now, that's not Don.

JAPF, it is the default "trendline" in MS Excel, whatever that is.

 

The plotted points are directly above the number of the year in which they occurred.

 

The data is from an article from a Packer beat writer, I can't remember who, from earlier this year.

 

I put that quote in here http://translate.google.com an got nothing.

It is interesting that the ups and downs in the chart on games missed by preferred starters has little relation to the number of missed tackles each season--by the defense or special teams. 

One possible explanation: The players consistently on the field just aren't any good. Hard to see that evaluation doing more than correcting some for the (lack of) misses by preferred starters. Neal is not a preferred starter, but whenever he is on the field I cringe. None of the starting DBs or Ss help this statistic when they are on the field. Never have, and probably never will.

Another possible explanation: Injuries to players who play anyway. Hawk is notorious for this. Neal right now has a bad shoulder. Jones has not been the same since coming back. Shields is playing on one leg. Perry is playing on one foot. CMIII starts with one hand. Jolly and Hyde play with groin injuries and look like it. Of course, who else can step on the field?

Another possibility: As mentioned by PLVA, lack of padded practice. Hard to see how a guy like Shields (who never played defense until his senior year in college) or Mulumba (who didn't play at all as a kid) can get better at tackling without real practice. 

Whatever the real reason (maybe all, and more) this is the defense Capers and MM have to work with. This is the squad Slocum has to put on the field. 

Does it count if the opposing player just blows past the defender without even being touched (whiff)?  Is that a missed tackle.  Because the Packers have plenty of those.

Aaron Rodgers isn't supposed to be making any tackles.

Defensively, A.J. Hawk leads the Packers with 13 missed tackles this season, though Mike Neal has the highest ratio with 22 tackles against 11 misses.

This!  So much this!  I imagine practices where a defensive player throws out an arm tackle and the whistle is blown. 

We've now found a second position Neal can't play.

I'm surprised the number of tackles from Thursday are so low.  Heck, on one of the Ross plaes (either the reverse or the punt return) I thought there were 4 missed tackles on that one play.

I feel like the missed tackles and complete whiffing is more of a result of an overall poor defensive scheme or lack of preparedness. Our defense no longer attacks and attempts to dictate what the offense does but rather is somewhat flat footed and reactionary. When you are not dictating what the offense is allowed to do you will look flatfooted because everything happens so fast in the speed of todays game. Once you realize what is going on it is too late. I guess what I am saying is; I blame mostly Dom for unimaginative and uninspired defensive game plans and just playing not to lose or bend but don't break. Give me some attack attack attack and don't get scared when your blitz gets burned....it happens.

Has Capers changed philosophies over the years? Now we often hear him say that the main goal is to "not give up big plays"....as others have said, this does not appear to lend itself to the attacking/zone blitz/causing turnovers type of defense that Capers appeared to implement when he first came to GB. 

This is how wide open Calvin Johnson was on his third quarter TD. Not a Packer within five yards: pic.twitter.com/UoiM1gvelc

bad execution of scheme?Bad scheme? or just bad players?

Looks like 2 wide open guys to me......

Looks to me like it's probably one of the reoccurring "communication issues". Not terribly surprised that the pass defense isn't particularly good, but the complete collapse of the rush defense is shocking.

Aikman said that it was a clear breakdown in execution...half the DB's were in man coverage / the other half were in zone. Common theme, this is why we've had such difficulty with bunch formations & crossing routes. Much like defending screens in basketball, some guys are "switching" and others are staying with their men. hard to say which ones are wrong/right, but speaks to a lack of awareness to carry out the scheme. 

pretty sure Hawk calls the defenses as good as anyone in football, so it can't be that

I spoke earlier in the season about how this team needed a good bare bottom spanking to get itself back on track, and I think these past few games are exactly that.

You just like watching men get bare-bottomed spanked.

 

No worries, we don't judge.

If you have to make sh*t up, you really don't have a point. That's just patently false, and you know it. But I understand your need to be "liked", so carry on.

Is that your way of spanking me?

I see what you did there! You took the word East and changed it to Least! Oh man, who writes your material?!?! That right there is OUTSTANDING! And it's something the whole family can enjoy!

Step away from the keyboard.

I don't really want to get into a pissing match with you Blair Kiel, but that last paragraph is pure BS and you know it. You lurk in the game threads and POUNCE whenever someone even suggests something that isn't all butterflies and kisses. I understand getting pissed off at the people who only show up when the Packers are losing, but I would bet they aren't even Packer fans to begin with.

But you like to lump everyone into the same pile and start with the "whiner", "piss pants", etc. sophomoric name calling if someone even questions a play call. To be honest, you're the worst kind of fan. You seem to want to accept anything that is in front of you and expect others to do as well, almost like Cubs fans. I prefer fans that demand the best. Fans of a team are like family...we can denounce them, but don't let fans of other teams do it.  

 

So now you're now proclaiming that the games really don't matter, that you have a happy life, and question other people's "mental state of happiness"? Jesus Christ, BK, you started a goddamned THREAD on it! https://packers.timesfour.com/t...elp-blair-understand 

 

Your obsession isn't with the Packers...your obsessed with being right. I would rather question a call/play and be proven wrong because my team came back and won the game. You, on the other hand, really don't care if the Packers win. You just want to be able to say, "I told you so!" That's what you're obsessed with.

 

But now since we're on a 3 game losing streak, you want to take on this "it really doesn't matter that much to me since I have a life and none of you do" persona? Really? Sorry, you don't get to do that. Just because you haven't gotten an "I told you so" moment in a month doesn't allow you to all of a sudden pretend you don't give a schit.

 

I, like other Packer fans on this board, watch the Packers because it's 3 1/2 hours of watching your team play and to have some bragging rights with co-workers, family, and friends. Most of us, if not all, have "lives" outside of the Green Bay Packers. The difference is we're upset that our team isn't winning. YOU'RE upset because YOU aren't winning.

 

BTW, you're right about Newhouse. He sucks. Have a good day.

You act like I don't have feelings.

It should be noted that I've upvoted every single person who's disagreed with me here, as far as I know.

 

That said:

 

In 7th grade, I took an SAT test without preparing for it at all, it was spur-of-the-moment, I knew about it about an hour ahead of time and didn't do any research or anything. I scored higher on it than the average person using it to apply for college in my area.

 

An IQ test has shown me to be in the 99.9th percentile for IQ. This is the highest result the test I was given reaches; anything further and they'd consider it to be within the margin of error for that test.

 

My mother's boyfriend of 8 years is an aerospace engineer who graduated Virginia Tech. At the age of 15, I understand physics better than him, and I owe very little of it to him, as he would rarely give me a decent explanation of anything, just tell me that my ideas were wrong and become aggravated with me for not quite understanding thermodynamics. He's not particularly successful as an engineer, but I've met lots of other engineers who aren't as good as me at physics, so I'm guessing that's not just a result of him being bad at it.

 

I'm also pretty good at engineering. I don't have a degree, and other than physics I don't have a better understanding of any aspect of engineering than any actual engineer, but I have lots of ingenuity for inventing new things. For example, I independently invented regenerative brakes before finding out what they were, and I was only seven or eight years old when I started inventing wireless electricity solutions (my first idea being to use a powerful infrared laser to transmit energy; admittedly not the best plan).

 

I have independently thought of basically every branch of philosophy I've come across. Every question of existentialism which I've seen discussed in SMBC or xkcd or Reddit or anywhere else, the thoughts haven't been new to me. Philosophy has pretty much gotten trivial for me; I've considered taking a philosophy course just to see how easy it is.

 

Psychology, I actually understand better than people with degrees. Unlike engineering, there's no aspect of psychology which I don't have a very good understanding of. I can debunk many of even Sigmund Freud's theories.

 

I'm a good enough writer that I'm writing a book and so far everybody who's read any of it has said it was really good and plausible to expect to have published. And that's not just, like, me and family members, that counts strangers on the Internet. I've heard zero negative appraisal of it so far; people have critiqued it, but not insulted it.

I don't know if that will suffice as evidence that I'm intelligent. I'm done with it, though, because I'd rather defend my maturity, since it's what you've spent the most time attacking. The following are some examples of my morals and ethical code.

 

I believe firmly that everybody deserves a future. If we were to capture Hitler at the end of WWII, I would be against executing him. In fact, if we had any way of rehabilitating him and knowing that he wasn't just faking it, I'd even support the concept of letting him go free. This is essentially because I think that whoever you are in the present is a separate entity from who you were in the past and who you are in the future, and while your present self should take responsibility for your past self's actions, it shouldn't be punished for them simply for the sake of punishment, especially if the present self regrets the actions of the past self and feels genuine guilt about them.

 

I don't believe in judgement of people based on their personal choices as long as those personal choices aren't harming others. I don't have any issue with any type of sexuality whatsoever (short of physically acting out necrophilia, pedophilia, or other acts which have a harmful affect on others - but I don't care what a person's fantasies consist of, as long as they recognize the difference between reality and fiction and can separate them). I don't have any issue with anybody over what type of music they listen to, or clothes they wear, etc. I know that's not really an impressive moral, but it's unfortunately rare; a great many people, especially those my age, are judgmental about these things.

 

I love everyone, even people I hate. I wish my worst enemies good fortune and happiness. Rick Perry is a vile, piece of **** human being, deserving of zero respect, but I wish for him to change for the better and live the best life possible. I wish this for *everyone*.

 

I'm pretty much a pacifist. I've taken a broken nose without fighting back or seeking retribution, because the guy stopped punching after that. The only time I'll fight back is if 1) the person attacking me shows no signs of stopping and 2) if I don't attack, I'll come out worse than the other person will if I do. In other words, if fighting someone is going to end up being more harmful to them than just letting them go will be to me, I don't fight back. I've therefore never had a reason to fight back against anyone in anything serious, because my ability to take pain has so far made it so that I'm never in a situation where I'll be worse off after a fight. If I'm not going to get any hospitalizing injuries, I really don't care.

 

The only exception is if someone is going after my life. Even then, I'll do the minimum amount of harm to them that I possibly can in protecting myself. If someone points a gun at me and I can get out of it without harming them, I'd prefer to do that over killing them.

 

I consider myself a feminist. I don't believe in enforced or uniform gender roles; they may happen naturally, but they should never be coerced into happening unnaturally. As in, the societal pressure for gender roles should really go, even if it'll turn out that the majority of relationships continue operating the same way of their own accord. I treat women with the same outlook I treat men, and never participate in the old Reddit "women are crazy" circlejerk, because there are multiple women out there and each have different personalities just like there are multiple men out there and each with different personalities. I don't think you do much of anything except scare off the awesome women out there by going on and on about the ones who aren't awesome.

That doesn't mean I look for places to victimize women, I just don't believe it's fair to make generalizations such as the one about women acting like everything's OK when it's really not (and that's a particularly harsh example, because *all humans* do that).

 

I'm kind of tired of citing these examples and I'm guessing you're getting tired of reading them, if you've even made it this far. In closing, the people who know me in real life all respect me, as do a great many people in the Reddit brony community, where I spend most of my time and where I'm pretty known for being helpful around the community. A lot of people in my segment of the community are depressed or going through hard times, and I spend a lot of time giving advice and support to people there. Yesterday someone quoted a case of me doing this in a post asking everyone what their favorite motivational/inspirational quote was, and that comment was second to the top, so I guess other people agreed (though, granted, it was a pretty low-traffic post, only about a dozen competing comments).

 

And, uh, I'm a pretty good moderator.

 

All that, and I think your behavior in this thread was totally assholish. So what do you think, now that you at least slightly know me?

You got a Cliff note version of that?

 

I lost interest after "It".

Rusty, did you stay at A Holiday Inn last nite? 

You forgot to include "humble" in your rant.

He once started a thread. Without a needle.

He's chased off trolls by contemplating a response.

He doesn't post. He archives.

God Bless us, everyone.

I've learned I can tell people I've wrestled an anaconda and keep a straight face.

Glad I swung by this thread.