Plus / Minus Atlanta Game

Hungry5 posted:

Really good defenses get beat by really good offenses.

Again, going back to SB 45, I think PIT D was 1 or 2 in the league and GBs offense had a pretty successful day.

Last year. NEP defense was 8th in yards allowed and 1st in pts allowed in the regular season. ATL had a very productive 2+ qtrs vs them in the SB.



I like what we saw week 1, not so much week 2. Let's see where they are after 6 or so weeks.

In SB XLV the #1 ranked (in points) Steelers D gave up just 24 points (Collins had a pick 6). The Pack's #2 ranked D, got 3 key turnovers in that game.

Last year, NE's #1 ranked defense held the Falcons offense to 21 points (a pick 6 by Brady accounted for the other 7 points). This was the very same offense that put up 44 points against Green Bay and 36 points against Seattle in the NFC playoffs.

Defense matters if you want to win a Super Bowl no matter how much some Packer fans wish it were not so.

BrainDed posted:

That's a pretty simplistic view of the data.   Here is surprising stat, all people who ate carrots in 1884 are now dead.  

Do you think it's possible that the Packers could have won those games in spite of the poor clock mgt choices?   Do you think those poor souls possibly could have died from other factors?

I think they charged him with debatable poor clock management in 18% of the games he has coached in GB and there any correlation at all between his pre-half clock management and the outcome of the game. Here's a look at the games they have flagged:

2006 – Week 3 – Lions ran out the clock Packers win 31-24
2006 – Week 10 – Vikings picked up first down, no score Packers win 23-17
2008 – Week 11 – Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers win 37-3
2008—Week 15—Packers got ball back, no score Packers lose 16-20
2008—Week 16—Crosby missed 69 yard FG attempt Packers lose 16-20
2009—Week 6—Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers win 26-0
2009—Week 10—Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers win 17-7
2009—Week 11—Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers win 30-24
2010—Week 5—Redskins picked up 1st down, kicked a FG Packers lose 13-16 (OT)
2010—Week 7—Vikings picked up 1st down, ran out clock Packers win 28-24
2010—Week 14—Packers got ball back, punted Packers lose 3-7
2011—Week 6—Rams picked up 1st down, kicked a FG Packers win 24-3
2011—Week 15—Packers got ball back, punted Packers lose 14-19
2012—Week 14—Lions picked up first down, ran out clock Packers win 27-20
2012—Week 16—Packers got ball back, turnover on down Packers win 55-7
2013—Week 5—Lions picked up first down, kicked a FG Packers win 22-9
2013—Week 11—Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers lose 13-27
2013—Week 14—Packers got ball back, pick 6, touchdown Atlanta Packers win 22-21
2014—Week 3—Lions picked up first down, missed 41 yard FG Packers lose 7-19
2014—Week 11—Eagles picked up first down, kicked a FG Packers win 53-20
2014—Week 15—Bills picked up first down, ran out clock Packers lose 13-21
2014—Week 16—Buccaneers picked up first down, scored a TD Packers win 20-3
2015—Week 1—Bears picked up first down, kicked a FG Packers win 31-23
2015—Week 13—Packers got ball back, punted Packers win 27-23
2015—Wild Card—Packers got ball back, scored a TD Packers win 35-18
2015—Divisional—Cardinals picked up first down, ran out clock Packers lose 20-26
2016—Week 1—Jaguars picked up first down, scored a TD Packers win 27-23
2016—Week 6—Cowboys picked up first down, scored a TD Packers lose 16-30
2016—Week 11—Redskins picked up first down, scored a TD Packers lose 24-42
2016—Week 12—Eagles picked up first down, kicked a FG Packers win 27-13
2016—Wild Card—Packers got ball back, scored a TD Packers win 38-13
2017—Week 1—Seahawks picked up first down, kicked a FG Packers win 17-9

So if you look at the 19 games which Q2 mismanagement actually resulted in scores:

2008 – Week 11 – Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers win 37-3
2009—Week 6—Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers win 26-0
2009—Week 10—Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers win 17-7
2009—Week 11—Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers win 30-24
2010—Week 5—Redskins picked up 1st down, kicked a FG Packers lose 13-16 (OT)
2011—Week 6—Rams picked up 1st down, kicked a FG Packers win 24-3
2013—Week 5—Lions picked up first down, kicked a FG Packers win 22-9
2013—Week 11—Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers lose 13-27
2013—Week 14—Packers got ball back, pick 6, touchdown Atlanta Packers win 22-21
2014—Week 11—Eagles picked up first down, kicked a FG Packers win 53-20
2014—Week 16—Buccaneers picked up first down, scored a TD Packers win 20-3
2015—Week 1—Bears picked up first down, kicked a FG Packers win 31-23
2015—Wild Card—Packers got ball back, scored a TD Packers win 35-18
2016—Week 1—Jaguars picked up first down, scored a TD Packers win 27-23
2016—Week 6—Cowboys picked up first down, scored a TD Packers lose 16-30
2016—Week 11—Redskins picked up first down, scored a TD Packers lose 24-42
2016—Week 12—Eagles picked up first down, kicked a FG Packers win 27-13
2016—Wild Card—Packers got ball back, scored a TD Packers win 38-13
2017—Week 1—Seahawks picked up first down, kicked a FG Packers win 17-9

We can eliminate games that the final score was greater than 7 points because the point of this analysis is that McCarthy's mismanagement resulted in either GB losing an opportunity at a TD or gave the opponent and opportunity for a TD. In 15 games a TD either way would not have affected the final score. So we're left with:

  • 2009—Week 11—Packers got ball back, kicked a FG Packers win 30-24
  • 2010—Week 5—Redskins picked up 1st down, kicked a FG Packers lose 13-16 (OT)
  • 2013—Week 14—Packers got ball back, pick 6, touchdown Atlanta Packers win 22-21
  • 2016—Week 1—Jaguars picked up first down, scored a TD Packers win 27-23

So we have 4 games where you can actually point to McCarthy's Q2 mismanagement possibly affected the score. Either the score was closer than it needed to be or they lost by the margin his screw up caused. We arguably only lost 1 game because of his screw up. We ended up winning a SB in that year, so there was a silver lining to him blowing it that one time. 4 screw ups that affected the game does not a weakness make. All players and coaches make mistakes, Rodgers has thrown INTs in a game and generally it affects nothing. If Rodgers threw INTs in 4 games and we won 3/4 of those, even though his INT may have cost us a game, would you call INTs a weakness in his game? 

SteveLuke posted:

In SB XLV the #1 ranked (in points) Steelers D gave up just 24 points (Collins had a pick 6). The Pack's #2 ranked D, got 3 key turnovers in that game.

Last year, NE's #1 ranked defense held the Falcons offense to 21 points (a pick 6 by Brady accounted for the other 7 points). This was the very same offense that put up 44 points against Green Bay and 36 points against Seattle in the NFC playoffs.

Defense matters if you want to win a Super Bowl no matter how much some Packer fans wish it were not so.

Pittsburgh gives up 24 to a great offense, NE gives up 21 to a great offense, GB just gave up 27 to that same great offense and defense is an issue in 2017? 7 of that 27 was from a short field. No one here thinks defense doesn't matter, I don't think our defense has yet shown it is bad enough to cost us a championship in 2017. 

I'm not ready to say this defense is bad enough to cost us a championship - at least not after 2 weeks and all the injuries incurred last week.  Time will tell. 

The 2010 D was significantly better IMO compared to this D healthy or not.  This is where I have the concern with Dom and the coaching.   Unless he has a high level of talent I'm not convinced he can be successful.  

Grave Digger posted:
SteveLuke posted:

In SB XLV the #1 ranked (in points) Steelers D gave up just 24 points (Collins had a pick 6). The Pack's #2 ranked D, got 3 key turnovers in that game.

Last year, NE's #1 ranked defense held the Falcons offense to 21 points (a pick 6 by Brady accounted for the other 7 points). This was the very same offense that put up 44 points against Green Bay and 36 points against Seattle in the NFC playoffs.

Defense matters if you want to win a Super Bowl no matter how much some Packer fans wish it were not so.

Pittsburgh gives up 24 to a great offense, NE gives up 21 to a great offense, GB just gave up 27 to that same great offense and defense is an issue in 2017? 7 of that 27 was from a short field. No one here thinks defense doesn't matter, I don't think our defense has yet shown it is bad enough to cost us a championship in 2017. 

Can you please find somewhere, anywhere in the text that you quoted from me above where I say that the Packers "defense has [already] shown it is bad enough to cost us a championship in 2017."

Because not only did I not say that, I do not believe it.

I will go on record as believing the Packers D must improve significantly from what was on display Sunday night for the team to compete for a championship, but I still have hope that might occur.

What I won't do, is pretend that a D that gave up over 200 yards & 24 points before halftime does not have issues and rationalize away the obvious deficiencies by emphasizing that 7 of the points came from a short field while simultaneously ignoring that Atlanta chose to go into an offensive shell for the entire second half after going up 31-7.

 

I think the phrase "Defense matters if you want to win a Super Bowl no matter how much some Packer fans wish it were not so." implies you do not believe we do not have a championship defense. Then you follow that up with explaining away our D holding ATL to 100 yards and 3 points in the 2nd half as merely a "shell" by ATL's offense...as if any team up by 17 on Aaron Rodgers would back off after losing in the SB in the same way. 

Tschmack posted:

The 2010 D was significantly better IMO compared to this D healthy or not.    

Significantly? This is how I see it right now.

DB - 2010

ILB - push

OLB - 2017

DL - 2010, but with a healthy Daniels it is a lot closer

Players or coaching?

RBs should never go untouched against a 10 man box for 35 yards on 1st and 10. 

I have no earthly idea what House is trying to accomplish here. But beyond that there is virtually no gap responsibility going on. Brice, Martinez, and Burnett all start to collapse to the middle. Clark and Dial do their job. Clay sets the edge and forces this inside. This play should have been shut down at the line. House was never blocked and just ran himself out of the play on his own. I don't think he diagnosed run until the RB was off and running. Same goes for Brice. The net result is that the defense tried to put three defenders into an inside gap already being defended by two defensive players. 

IMO this defense still looks like they aren't being prepared properly to play effective, consistent defense. That many players doing what they shouldn't be doing points to a coaching issue. 

Looks like neither (House/Brice) recognized run as they both chased Sanu (#12) as if it was PA.

I think a lack of discipline is a 50/50 issue. Players have to execute, but if discipline is not something position coaches are drilling into their brains in practice then that's a problem. That specific play also tells me there is a preparation issue with the players and position coaches. I'm not sure how often ATL is passing out of that Ace, but my hunch would be not often. House and Brice have to see Julio on a crossing route and understand they have outside containment. If they're not recognizing that balanced formation and expecting run then their film study was lacking. The DC expected run otherwise I doubt we see 3 DL and Martinez on the field. 

It's just ugly, undisciplined defense with a lack of awareness. The same thing happened with House and Rollins last week on Seattles only explosive play. 30 yard run by Carson. House and Rollins completely collapsed inside which created a wide open outside lane for Carson. 

Either House doesn't want to listen to what the coaches are telling him or they're not telling him. 

It just gets old watching the same mistakes on film week after week. 

2010 they were a lot better on D 

DL- We forget how good Raji was that year.  He and Daniels are a push.  Jenkins and Pickett were better than anyone else we have on the current roster 

DB- not even close 

LB-  I would say Clay and Perry combined are better today at OLB but the CMIII of 2010 was dominant. He's still good but not what he was.   We have no current ILB as good as Bishop either. 

King and Hawkins outside. House in the slot. Dix and Burnett roaming. Jones in the nitro.

Tschmack posted:

2010 they were a lot better on D 

DL- We forget how good Raji was that year.  He and Daniels are a push.  Jenkins and Pickett were better than anyone else we have on the current roster 

DB- not even close 

LB-  I would say Clay and Perry combined are better today at OLB but the CMIII of 2010 was dominant. He's still good but not what he was.   We have no current ILB as good as Bishop either. 

Regarding DL. Kenny Clark is a push with Jenkins (they are actually used differently) and better than Pickett. Clark played 81% of the snaps Sunday night and absolutely held his own against constant double teams. Clark just keeps getting better each week. 

Ryan Pickett was awfully good at what he did for us. Spaceeater who freed up Raji and Jenkins to penetrate. Great leader by example, too. Never saw him give up on a play despite working in the most violent part of the field.

Having said that, Kenny Clark is already a damn good player and he's only going to get better. Only 21 still!

Kenny Clark has the potential to be a very good player but he's not (today) what Cullen Jenkins was in 2010.  

Pickett was overlooked in so many ways and was a great locker room guy.  A lot like William Henderson and Leroy Butler.  

I like the makeup of this D and their potential but still do not like the ILBs one bit.   Ideally it would be great if Brooks secured one of the OLB spots and Matthews moved back inside.  

I would compare Daniels or Lowry to Jenkins, Clark to Raji, Dial to Howard Green. Daniels is better and more disciplined than Jenkins who was basically a penetrator only...he blew up a lot of plays, but he wasn't a disciplined player. Clark has the same ceiling as Raji, they might be a wash. Pickett is the difference between the lines, he was an outstanding grinder in there. He did a lot of dirty work for our D, but he was a combination of talented and huge. Dial has only proven to be a big body like Green. RJF is wash with guys like CJ Wilson.

Hungry5 posted:

Looks like neither (House/Brice) recognized run as they both chased Sanu (#12) as if it was PA.

Actually, this has been showing up since pre-season.  Ben Fennell (on Twitter, a Packers and Eagles fan) has been harping on this, which is crack-and-replace.  Sanu crack blocked on Brice and House didn't replace (I think that's how it is supposed to go).  This is similar to what got Randall knocked out in preseason, with Randall not seeing the crack block by the WR.  Teams are exploiting this weakness and it's going to keep happening until the Packers stop it.

If it was just House/Brice then it's fair to say it's those two not understanding and/or not communicating well enough. If multiple players are not understanding or communicating then it's an issue that Whitt and Perry are not spending enough time on this in the classroom and on the practice field. 

ChilliJon posted:

Players or coaching?

RBs should never go untouched against a 10 man box for 35 yards on 1st and 10.  

Uh oh. Communication, play awareness, coaching?

This play looks identical. Jesus ****!

Grave Digger posted:

 it's an issue that Whitt and Perry are not spending enough time on this in the classroom and on the practice field. 

I'm curious to hear more about your "it might be coaching" theory.  It sounds awfully "the earth is flat" to me, but I am willing to listen.  

You can look back when we've gone back and forth about this issue, many times I've laid out exactly where I believe coaches responsibility and player responsibility each begin and end. You have not and seem to indicate all problems are the DC's fault regardless. I'm not blind to coaching issues, they do exist, I just don't bring up my issues with coaching in every thread because generally they're talked about by others IN EVERY THREAD. I actually have a lot to say about Dom Capers, scheme and player utilization. 

Tschmack posted:

2010 they were a lot better on D 

 

DB- not even close 

 

Sam Shields was the 3rd corner and was one of the fastest guys in the league (4.26 in the 40). Nick Collins was one of the fastest safeties in the league.

As about what it seems like a few hundred people have said, get King and Jones in there ASAP. They are superior athletically to Rollins and Randall (who plays much slower than his track speed). If your goal is to win the Super Bowl, you have to have guys to match up with Julio Jones, Dez Bryant, etc. Better to have them make some rookie mistakes in September than in January. It is a proven fact that Randall and Rollins can't even begin to slow down elite receivers. Let's find out if King can do so now.

I think the opposite is true actually Boss, I think he's too focused on innovation and not focused enough on a defensive identity. The only reason we get labeled as a 34 defense is because of Capers history with it, the truth is we aren't a 34 D anymore. We're a hybrid, but not a hybrid in the way NE and Baltimore have successful used hybrid 34/43 schemes in recent years. We're a hybrid 34/Nickel scheme I guess you would say, but I don't even feel like that's an apt description. I think that kind of ambiguity in scheme doesn't truly allow for principled approach to building a D. We have an array of players who fit better in different schemes...Daniels belongs in a 1 gap 43, Clay belongs in a pure 34, Perry belongs in a 43, Clark belongs in a 2 gap 43, Martinez is a 34 ILB, Ryan is a SLB in a 34, Thomas is a WLB in a Tampa 2, Dix and Burnett belong in a Tampa 2, etc. It's a hodgepodge of talent lumped together in scheme that relies heavily on individual performance rather than schematic opportunities. In theory it works well, it's a blend of speed, power, and aggression, but in practice it only works when 1) all 11 do their job and 2) when the opposing offense can't take advantage of individual players weaknesses...it falls apart when opposing offenses scheme heavily to attack individual players weaknesses. I think if he made made a radical shift toward a more true hybrid 34/43 more closely resembling Baltimore I think at least the front 7 could be elite. 

As a coach, you need to understand the players you have. Their strengths & weaknesses. Then put the players in the best position to succeed, thereby limiting the ability of the opposing offense to attack their weaknesses. 

That's the innovation I'm referring to & unless I'm mis-reading your post, you just made my point. 

I don't think ATL necessarily "went into a shell" intentionally.  Unless you really have a fire lit under your ass or have something to prove, I can imagine it's tough to keep that level of intensity once you're that far ahead.  No matter your history of giving up leads.  These guys aren't footbots.

Intent doesn't really matter in the end.  When the GB offense started creepin up and ATL got the ball back, they did what they needed to do in the final minutes to ice it away.

When choosing scheme / style of play, a coach must ask themselves:                      1) Are the players physically able to carry out their responsibilities                         2) Are the players mentally able to carry out their responsibilities                          My question with Capers' over the years has always been with the mental aspect. Tentativeness  is often observed, generally with our DBs. The age-old challenge in coaching is "how much structure is too much?" . When given too much, many athletes become overwhelmed with choice and play slow. Even though our defense is much faster this season, they looked slow vs. Atlanta. They looked unsure, tentative, & reactionary. Hoping it was just a bad match-up, game plan, night, and will rectify itself by perhaps getting King & Jones on the field more. 

 

The real issue lies in the clip H5 posted above. That's the same run to the same hole that opened up because the defense made the same mistakes in Atlanta Sunday. Seattle found that hole last week. 

Until GB shows it's figured out how to defend plays like this they'll keep seeing it. Can't make new tape until you show you've corrected old tape. Which I guess is actually creating new tape. 

Brainwashed Boris posted:

As a coach, you need to understand the players you have. Their strengths & weaknesses. Then put the players in the best position to succeed, thereby limiting the ability of the opposing offense to attack their weaknesses. 

That's the innovation I'm referring to & unless I'm mis-reading your post, you just made my point. 

I think he's putting them in a position to succeed, I think his preparation and play calling are generally on-point. Fundamentally though I think his scheme is flawed relying too much on individual success. All schemes rely on execution, but as you can tell by the long run Atlanta had, all it takes is 1 CB getting sucked inside to blow up a whole play call. That's not true in every scheme IMO. I guess it's a high risk, high reward scheme.  

Scheme plays a role in success, obviously. Just look at Belichick.

However, it comes down to players. In 2010, when Capers perhaps the best secondary the Packers have ever had (a HOFer in Woodson, two other Pro Bowl-level players (Collins and Tramon) and probably the best 3rd CB in the league (Shields), the defense was great. Not to mention Pickett, a peak level Raji, and C. Jenkins on the line and CM3 coming into his prime. Dom's schemes drive us nuts, but it really comes down to the fact that the ILBs and Randall/Rollins/Gunther haven't been good enough. Maybe that's talent, maybe it's coaching, but there is a lot of evidence they aren't good enough to beat good teams with. If you replace the 2016 team with the same level of talent as the 2010 team, they'll probably look great again.

Many of us have deified Fritz Shurmur for when he was the DC during the mid-1990s. From 1990 to 1993, Shurmur coordinated some of the worst ranked defenses in the league for the Cards and Rams. He comes to Green Bay, gets to work with one of the best defensive lines in history (Reggie, Sean Jones, S. Dotson, and Gilbert Brown) and an outstanding secondary and he runs a dominant defense. It's usually about the players.

A bad defensive coordinator takes good talent and schemes them to be lesser than the sum of their parts. We've seen many of these.

A good defensive coordinator takes good talent and doesn't screw it up.

A HOF-level DC takes good to great talent and makes it elite.

I'd say Dom is in category 2.

 

 

Add Reply

Likes (1)
YATittle
×
×
×
×