This "pistol" offense is going to be null and void by next season. Its like Cam Newton, you come into the league and show something different, teams arent prepared. Give defenses an off-season to scheme and they will shut it down and make it obsolete. Its a fad IMO and next year, these teams relying on it are going to be in for a big surprise. Teams like SF have a good team outside of the QB, but teams like Washington and Seattle are not going to repeat this years run.
I believe the Seahawg farce of a game hurt Packers in the end. Season ending as it did and call is reversed then Packers are a 2 seed. Queens are playing for a 6th seed in last game of season, Packers can rest starters after 3 quarters. SF has to scheme for AP, instead of Packers 2 weeks in a row. SF wins then comes to frigid Lambeau.... who knows.
quote:The Packers need healthy bodies but they need better players.
I agree but those players that were injured ARE better players. The Niners aren't head & shoulders better than us. They're not some dynasty all of a sudden.
The Packers have good players & coaches too which is why they are competing for a title every year. It didn't work out this year. I'm not happy with the loss & some changes need to be made but this team isn't that bad.
quote:I believe the Seahawg farce of a game hurt Packers in the end. Season ending as it did and call is reversed then Packers are a 2 seed.
The Packers had the chance not to blow an 18-point halftime lead @IND, or to beat Christian Ponder in week 17.
True that Fedya, Seahawg game was on the officials call. Colts were playing on emotion for their coach.
quote:Originally posted by h_i_mcdonnough:
True that Fedya, Seahawg game was on the officials call. Colts were playing on emotion for their coach.
The game happened in week 3. The Packers slumped to 2-3 then won nine of ten games. They overcame that game. They also had their shot at a bye in week 17. I won't put this outcome on a game that happened four months ago. They did a great job of rallying after 2-3. They have themselves to thank for yesterday.
quote:Originally posted by CUPackFan:
But you shouldn't have to rely on your DB's to consistently have to tackle in the run game. They should be able to tackle, but your front seven should be able to make 90% of the tackles in the run game. The reason why our DB's poor tackling is so obvious is b/c the LB's aren't making the tackles themselves.
The only benefit of last night is that it should be the nail in the coffin for Hawk and Walden. This defense will never be elite with guys like that in the front seven.
There it is ... and to go along with fightinpho93, you beat a an Oline like SF's is with a good front7 not just DLine.
Our Dline and DB's make up for a lot for what we do not get out of the LB's.
Injuries or not, IMO thats where the problem is for the most part on the D.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
I swear, sometimes I think this fan base wants to have some losing seasons so the draft can be more fun again
quote:Originally posted by fightphoe93:
The biggest mismatch in week 1 and yesterday was the 49ers offensive line vs. the Pack's front 7. That offensive line has reached a point where I would say they're the most physical line I've seen in a long long time. The Pack's front 7 just doesn't have enough juice to deal with it. Frankly, almost nobody can deal with them, they're just that good.
Apparently so.
When CM3 can't beat a guy playing with one arm, that guy must be pretty damned good.
In the week 17 game at Minny. Clay launched himself over AP's back, twisted, and landed on his back right on someone's foot. Might have been Gerhart.
Apparently he's been hurting ever since. Kevin Greene made a comment that it was something that would take Clay some time to completely get over.
I think whatever injury he had has slowed him down the past couple weeks.
Apparently he's been hurting ever since. Kevin Greene made a comment that it was something that would take Clay some time to completely get over.
I think whatever injury he had has slowed him down the past couple weeks.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MichiganPacker:
I think the underlying problem is that our defense is built to beat teams like the Saints, Lions, and Patriots (and the Cardinals in 2009 with Kurt Warner).../QUOTE]
I have to respectfully disagree, MP.
Our team has to be built to compete within our division first.
However, with that said, that should prepare us well for conference foes; we need to be strong against the pass (Detroit), and strong against the run (Vikings). I guess the Bears fall somewhere between those two.
I think the underlying problem is that our defense is built to beat teams like the Saints, Lions, and Patriots (and the Cardinals in 2009 with Kurt Warner).../QUOTE]
I have to respectfully disagree, MP.
Our team has to be built to compete within our division first.
However, with that said, that should prepare us well for conference foes; we need to be strong against the pass (Detroit), and strong against the run (Vikings). I guess the Bears fall somewhere between those two.
Two factors I have not seen mentioned much:
1) Turnovers: -1. Ross's muffed punt was an absolute killer. We had just scored to go up 14-7 and our defense had just stopped SF after 5 plays. This was our opportunity to go up by two scores and get SF out of its game plan. Instead you give SF the ball back at the 9. Rodgers's INT was also bad. Nelson was open, but A-Rod put the ball in the wrong place. SF again has a short field (after a good runback on the INT), and scores again. Back-to-back turnovers leading to 14 SF points. We take care of the ball like we usually do, this game is at least much closer, if not having a different outcome.
2) TOP: 38:01 vs 21:59. Over 2/3rds of this difference was won by SF in the 1st quarter. We had two possessions in the 1st quarter totaling 3:40 in TOP for a 3 and out and a TD drive. No matter how undermanned our defense was or was not, this unit was on the field for way too long too early in the game to compete against a physical team like SF. SF had 75 plays to our 56, and they were 61% on 3rd down vs our 41%. Offense needs to sustain drives, which we did not do.
If we don't turn the ball over and we have better 3rd down efficiency, we at least make this game closer if not win it. But through turnovers and losing the TOP game, our defense was close to being gassed half way through. Yeah we had guys out on IR, yeah our front seven seven is undermanned vs SF, but we didn't help ourselves out at all by stupid turnovers and an inability to keep the ball for a longer period of time.
1) Turnovers: -1. Ross's muffed punt was an absolute killer. We had just scored to go up 14-7 and our defense had just stopped SF after 5 plays. This was our opportunity to go up by two scores and get SF out of its game plan. Instead you give SF the ball back at the 9. Rodgers's INT was also bad. Nelson was open, but A-Rod put the ball in the wrong place. SF again has a short field (after a good runback on the INT), and scores again. Back-to-back turnovers leading to 14 SF points. We take care of the ball like we usually do, this game is at least much closer, if not having a different outcome.
2) TOP: 38:01 vs 21:59. Over 2/3rds of this difference was won by SF in the 1st quarter. We had two possessions in the 1st quarter totaling 3:40 in TOP for a 3 and out and a TD drive. No matter how undermanned our defense was or was not, this unit was on the field for way too long too early in the game to compete against a physical team like SF. SF had 75 plays to our 56, and they were 61% on 3rd down vs our 41%. Offense needs to sustain drives, which we did not do.
If we don't turn the ball over and we have better 3rd down efficiency, we at least make this game closer if not win it. But through turnovers and losing the TOP game, our defense was close to being gassed half way through. Yeah we had guys out on IR, yeah our front seven seven is undermanned vs SF, but we didn't help ourselves out at all by stupid turnovers and an inability to keep the ball for a longer period of time.
Great post Lim.
Which highlights the need to find an elite runner.
Which highlights the need to find an elite runner.
point 1 is dead on
quote:Originally posted by jazalin:
Keep it simple, spy CK and quit the idiotic man coverage on a running QB.
But, remember how well this secondary plays zone? I'd take my chances one on one.
Why bother running the ball? Frank Gore, Ray Rice, Michael Turner and Ridley really don't make that much of a difference.
The Packers shouldnt waste another draft pick on a runner
The Packers shouldnt waste another draft pick on a runner
They don't if they are running behind scrubs.
Who would you like to see replaced on the OL Hank? EDS?
Yes. EDS is depth at best. Center, must have.
I would agree. I think a healthy OL of Newhouse, Lang, New C, Sitton and Bulaga is pretty good. Sherrod and Barclay are fine as backup T's and I wouldn't count out the PS kid from FSU either. We need to add a G too.
Speaking of undermanned:
TT - IT. IS. TIME.
Hawk, 29, has been a starter in his seven seasons with the Packers but hasnât been involved in a turnover play in the last two seasons.
How in the **** can a guy who is involved in the majority of football plays not even be involved in a turnover play in two years? I don't care if Hawk agrees to a pay cut or not... Dude has to go.
TT - IT. IS. TIME.
Hawk, 29, has been a starter in his seven seasons with the Packers but hasnât been involved in a turnover play in the last two seasons.
How in the **** can a guy who is involved in the majority of football plays not even be involved in a turnover play in two years? I don't care if Hawk agrees to a pay cut or not... Dude has to go.