Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
2 Pages12>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Greg C.  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:55:49 AM(UTC)
Greg C.

Rank: Pro Bowl

Joined: 8/9/2008(UTC)
Location: Marquette, Michigan

Applause Received: 48

I'm still not especially keen on Sanders as DC, but there are major personnel problems with the defense this year, as explained in this article. I did not realize that only 5 of our last 20 draft picks have been defensive players:

http://www.greenbaypress...ferrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL
blank
Sponsor
Online macbob  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:22:55 AM(UTC)
macbob

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Silver: 2012

Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 284
Applause Received: 235

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
I'm still not especially keen on Sanders as DC, but there are major personnel problems with the defense this year, as explained in this article. I did not realize that only 5 of our last 20 draft picks have been defensive players:

http://www.greenbaypress...ferrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL


Yeah, but Vandermause is conveniently picking his years to support his argument. The two preceding years (2005/2006) 12 of the 23 draft picks were defensive players, and there were two other defensive players acquired through draft-day/draft-pick trades, so we acquired a total of 14 defensive players out of 25 total during Thompson's first two drafts. Add them all up, and you've got 19 out of 45 picks went to defense in Thompson's first 4 drafts.
UserPostedImage
Offline bozz_2006  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:46:03 AM(UTC)
bozz_2006

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 7/15/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 20
Applause Received: 13

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
I'm still not especially keen on Sanders as DC, but there are major personnel problems with the defense this year, as explained in this article. I did not realize that only 5 of our last 20 draft picks have been defensive players:

http://www.greenbaypress...ferrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL


Yeah, but Vandermause is conveniently picking his years to support his argument. The two preceding years (2005/2006) 12 of the 23 draft picks were defensive players, and there were two other defensive players acquired through draft-day/draft-pick trades, so we acquired a total of 14 defensive players out of 25 total during Thompson's first two drafts. Add them all up, and you've got 19 out of 45 picks went to defense in Thompson's first 4 drafts.


Boom! +1
UserPostedImage
Offline Greg C.  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:58:38 AM(UTC)
Greg C.

Rank: Pro Bowl

Joined: 8/9/2008(UTC)
Location: Marquette, Michigan

Applause Received: 48

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
I'm still not especially keen on Sanders as DC, but there are major personnel problems with the defense this year, as explained in this article. I did not realize that only 5 of our last 20 draft picks have been defensive players:

http://www.greenbaypress...ferrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL


Yeah, but Vandermause is conveniently picking his years to support his argument. The two preceding years (2005/2006) 12 of the 23 draft picks were defensive players, and there were two other defensive players acquired through draft-day/draft-pick trades, so we acquired a total of 14 defensive players out of 25 total during Thompson's first two drafts. Add them all up, and you've got 19 out of 45 picks went to defense in Thompson's first 4 drafts.


Nice catch. But the lack of talent on the defensive line is obvious, regardless of the reasons for it. I still like our DB's and LB's, and I think this defense would be much better with a couple more quality players on the line.
blank
Offline porky88  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:04:42 AM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 186
Applause Received: 363

Vandermause was also a main supporter of Thompson not to long ago or so his articles seemed to lean towards positive opinions of Thompson.

I don't understand this blame him or him or whatever. How about multiple people accept responsibility? Personally Thompson and Sanders are two guys to start with.

I know this or so I heard this. Bob Sanders is a well liked guy and perhaps writers will hold back on harsh criticism of him due to maybe him giving them details for articles in the past and maybe future. Just a guess.
Offline Greg C.  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:31:33 AM(UTC)
Greg C.

Rank: Pro Bowl

Joined: 8/9/2008(UTC)
Location: Marquette, Michigan

Applause Received: 48

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Vandermause was also a main supporter of Thompson not to long ago or so his articles seemed to lean towards positive opinions of Thompson.

I don't understand this blame him or him or whatever. How about multiple people accept responsibility? Personally Thompson and Sanders are two guys to start with.


Vandermause is a reporter who calls it like he sees it, for the most part. He is neither a "supporter" of Ted Thompson nor is he "against" Thompson. I think he makes a good point that people may be scapegoating Sanders too much here. You may not like the word "blame" being thrown around, but it is important to try to analyze where the real problems are so they can be fixed.

Personally, I still think Sanders' job is on the line. But if Thompson can't beef up the D-line, the defense will probably continue to struggle no matter who the DC is.
blank
Offline digsthepack  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:20:59 AM(UTC)
digsthepack

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 7

I HOPE Sanders' job is one the line!! OK....players got injured, and some showed precipitous drop off. What tram in the league is not dealing with the same issues to varying degrees?

To me, this defense only works when things are damn near perfect, and Sanders is not creative enough to manufacture pass rush when needed. Today's game is about disrupting the QB, and this defense just does not do it.
State Motto: "Wisconsin, our serial murderers eat their kill!"
Offline MassPackersFan  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:30:13 PM(UTC)
MassPackersFan

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/16/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 7

At the start of the year (i.e. before injuries) I would have had a hard time naming a player on the defense that I wanted replaced. Losing Cullen Jenkins was a huge blow, but still, I'm happy for the most part with the talent we have. I honestly have to say that they're just not being used well. Show me a good defense in this league that gives up huge gains because one player was out of position. If you look at Pittsburgh's or Tampa's defense, they are aggressively schemed and flow to the ball. If one guy is out of position, it doesn't lead to a 45 yard gain. It leads to 3 guys tackling the ball carrier instead of 4.

Something is fundamentally flawed with our defensive scheme. It's a zero error design with not enough positive to outweigh the negative of huge plays given up when there is one mistake.
UserPostedImage
Offline dfosterf  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:01:18 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: All Pro

United States
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 177
Applause Received: 394

This is a team game, last time I checked. The consensus going into this season was our biggest variable was Aaron Rodgers replacing Brett Favre. That is where we were. All the rest smacks of a continued agenda. Blame? Ya, there's plenty of blame to be handed out. The utter collapse of a pass rush. The failure of the offensive line to protect the quarterback, to open a hole for our running back to get through. The linebackers regressing. The consensus variable, Aaron Rodgers...well, Ted Thompson made the right decision, in the TEETH of all the blame-game haters. I didn't like our offensive line, for example, but I understood why a GM might stand pat with it. Our defensive line...well, I though Johnny Jolly was going to be a big cog in it's return to early season form from the previous year... bet the Packers saw and thought the same thing. I mean, why wouldn't they? The play of the D-line fell off, ESPECIALLY Williams' play, once Jolly was out of the equation.

It all continues to sound and feel like pure revisionist history, classic 20/20 hindsight, further fueled by the BF crotch-sniffing Ted Thompson haters (an industry term). Is it TT? Is it Winston Moss? Is it Sanders? Is it the players? Is Justin bustin? Is it MM? Is it injuries that knocked people out? Is it injuries that some gutty football players are quietly playing through, still? Is it some shitty luck? These are questions, not answers, and I'm sure we will all be discussing them at length, all with our own personal agendas.

The Ted Thompson didn't draft enough defensive players compared to the offense is incredibly humorous. What happened to the Ted Thompson didn't get enough weapons for his bitching quarterback supporters? I guess in order to be the GM of the Pack, you need to learn how to be two places at once, at least in some circles amongst us.
UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Offline MassPackersFan  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:20:31 PM(UTC)
MassPackersFan

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/16/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 7

Yep, you have to trade up for more picks and draft star offensive and defensive players.
UserPostedImage
Offline Greg C.  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:22:53 PM(UTC)
Greg C.

Rank: Pro Bowl

Joined: 8/9/2008(UTC)
Location: Marquette, Michigan

Applause Received: 48

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
This is a team game, last time I checked. The consensus going into this season was our biggest variable was Aaron Rodgers replacing Brett Favre. That is where we were. All the rest smacks of a continued agenda. Blame? Ya, there's plenty of blame to be handed out. The utter collapse of a pass rush. The failure of the offensive line to protect the quarterback, to open a hole for our running back to get through. The linebackers regressing. The consensus variable, Aaron Rodgers...well, Ted Thompson made the right decision, in the TEETH of all the blame-game haters. I didn't like our offensive line, for example, but I understood why a GM might stand pat with it. Our defensive line...well, I though Johnny Jolly was going to be a big cog in it's return to early season form from the previous year... bet the Packers saw and thought the same thing. I mean, why wouldn't they? The play of the D-line fell off, ESPECIALLY Williams' play, once Jolly was out of the equation.

It all continues to sound and feel like pure revisionist history, classic 20/20 hindsight, further fueled by the Brett Favre crotch-sniffing Ted Thompson haters (an industry term). Is it Ted Thompson? Is it Winston Moss? Is it Sanders? Is it the players? Is Justin bustin? Is it Mike McCarthy? Is it injuries that knocked people out? Is it injuries that some gutty football players are quietly playing through, still? Is it some shitty luck? These are questions, not answers, and I'm sure we will all be discussing them at length, all with our own personal agendas.

The Ted Thompson didn't draft enough defensive players compared to the offense is incredibly humorous. What happened to the Ted Thompson didn't get enough weapons for his bitching quarterback supporters? I guess in order to be the GM of the Pack, you need to learn how to be two places at once, at least in some circles amongst us.


I was hoping to have some reasonable discussion about the extent to which the problems with the D are due to scheme vs. the extent to which they are due to personnel. But you just want to turn it into pro-Thompson vs. anti-Thompson.

20-20 hindsight is what you use to look back on a season. Maybe it's a little early, because the Packers have not been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs yet, but I don't think so. These are the things fans talk about. I don't have a personal agenda. I don't think Mike Vandermause does either. And I'm not going to assume that everybody else has one. I'd like to assume that we can discuss these things without reading too much into each other's comments.
blank
Offline Blank402  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:24:36 PM(UTC)
Blank402

Rank: 7th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 1

I don't quite understand this article. He says we should keep Sanders because he oversaw a top ten defense last year, but he also says that this years defense (which is almost identical to last years) is terrible because of a lack of talent.

Am I just misunderstanding something here, or does that not make sense at all.
blank
Offline brnt247  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:25:08 PM(UTC)
brnt247

Rank: Fresh Cheesehead

Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)


Going into this season our defenses biggest problem was coverage from the safeties. Collins has certainly helped that cause out. We thought Bigby would be the player he was last season and he isn't.

I'm not going to blame Thompson for sticking to nearly an identical defense, minus Corey Williams, and expecting them to be at least comparable to last seasons. Pretty stupid article.
blank
Offline brnt247  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:29:32 PM(UTC)
brnt247

Rank: Fresh Cheesehead

Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)


Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
This is a team game, last time I checked. The consensus going into this season was our biggest variable was Aaron Rodgers replacing Brett Favre. That is where we were. All the rest smacks of a continued agenda. Blame? Ya, there's plenty of blame to be handed out. The utter collapse of a pass rush. The failure of the offensive line to protect the quarterback, to open a hole for our running back to get through. The linebackers regressing. The consensus variable, Aaron Rodgers...well, Ted Thompson made the right decision, in the TEETH of all the blame-game haters. I didn't like our offensive line, for example, but I understood why a GM might stand pat with it. Our defensive line...well, I though Johnny Jolly was going to be a big cog in it's return to early season form from the previous year... bet the Packers saw and thought the same thing. I mean, why wouldn't they? The play of the D-line fell off, ESPECIALLY Williams' play, once Jolly was out of the equation.

It all continues to sound and feel like pure revisionist history, classic 20/20 hindsight, further fueled by the Brett Favre crotch-sniffing Ted Thompson haters (an industry term). Is it Ted Thompson? Is it Winston Moss? Is it Sanders? Is it the players? Is Justin bustin? Is it Mike McCarthy? Is it injuries that knocked people out? Is it injuries that some gutty football players are quietly playing through, still? Is it some shitty luck? These are questions, not answers, and I'm sure we will all be discussing them at length, all with our own personal agendas.

The Ted Thompson didn't draft enough defensive players compared to the offense is incredibly humorous. What happened to the Ted Thompson didn't get enough weapons for his bitching quarterback supporters? I guess in order to be the GM of the Pack, you need to learn how to be two places at once, at least in some circles amongst us.


I was hoping to have some reasonable discussion about the extent to which the problems with the D are due to scheme vs. the extent to which they are due to personnel. But you just want to turn it into pro-Thompson vs. anti-Thompson.

20-20 hindsight is what you use to look back on a season. Maybe it's a little early, because the Packers have not been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs yet, but I don't think so. These are the things fans talk about. I don't have a personal agenda. I don't think Mike Vandermause does either. And I'm not going to assume that everybody else has one. I'd like to assume that we can discuss these things without reading too much into each other's comments.


How could you possibly expect this not to turn into a pro-Thompson vs. anti-Thompson thread when you look at the title of the article?
blank
Offline dfosterf  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:44:12 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: All Pro

United States
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 177
Applause Received: 394

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
This is a team game, last time I checked. The consensus going into this season was our biggest variable was Aaron Rodgers replacing Brett Favre. That is where we were. All the rest smacks of a continued agenda. Blame? Ya, there's plenty of blame to be handed out. The utter collapse of a pass rush. The failure of the offensive line to protect the quarterback, to open a hole for our running back to get through. The linebackers regressing. The consensus variable, Aaron Rodgers...well, Ted Thompson made the right decision, in the TEETH of all the blame-game haters. I didn't like our offensive line, for example, but I understood why a GM might stand pat with it. Our defensive line...well, I though Johnny Jolly was going to be a big cog in it's return to early season form from the previous year... bet the Packers saw and thought the same thing. I mean, why wouldn't they? The play of the D-line fell off, ESPECIALLY Williams' play, once Jolly was out of the equation.

It all continues to sound and feel like pure revisionist history, classic 20/20 hindsight, further fueled by the Brett Favre crotch-sniffing Ted Thompson haters (an industry term). Is it Ted Thompson? Is it Winston Moss? Is it Sanders? Is it the players? Is Justin bustin? Is it Mike McCarthy? Is it injuries that knocked people out? Is it injuries that some gutty football players are quietly playing through, still? Is it some shitty luck? These are questions, not answers, and I'm sure we will all be discussing them at length, all with our own personal agendas.

The Ted Thompson didn't draft enough defensive players compared to the offense is incredibly humorous. What happened to the Ted Thompson didn't get enough weapons for his bitching quarterback supporters? I guess in order to be the GM of the Pack, you need to learn how to be two places at once, at least in some circles amongst us.


I was hoping to have some reasonable discussion about the extent to which the problems with the D are due to scheme vs. the extent to which they are due to personnel. But you just want to turn it into pro-Thompson vs. anti-Thompson.

20-20 hindsight is what you use to look back on a season. Maybe it's a little early, because the Packers have not been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs yet, but I don't think so. These are the things fans talk about. I don't have a personal agenda. I don't think Mike Vandermause does either. And I'm not going to assume that everybody else has one. I'd like to assume that we can discuss these things without reading too much into each other's comments.


Interesting that I want to turn it into a pro-vs. anti Ted Thompson thread...the title of the thread is Blame Ted, not Sanders. I'm not trying to turn it into anything it wasn't already. I would agree to the concept that Mike V normally does not come in with an agenda, but this article sure seems to indicate one, and I find it uncharacteristic of him. The reason I ranted on about such agendas is becasue I find them unfair...just like I found the criticism of the very tough decision he had to make in the offseason. I will be more than happy to discuss solutions to our team's troubles, and have proposed many of them in the past few days. For example, I have a thread started in the draft section that has been up for days. It goes largely ignored, imo, because it is forward thinking instead of a backwards, and dare I say revisionist...again... critique of the staff and players on this team. I meant no offense, as I have stated elsewhere repeatedly, I am fully aware of my own prejudices as regards those that don't share my point of view, and was and will continue to try and make others aware of my biases. If you would like a discussion on personnel versus schemes, I submit that this was not the ideal way to go about it, as it certainly got my dander up more than a bit, and I bet I'm not alone...maybe at noon on a Wednesday in the Packershome forum, but not alone in the GBP fanbase. I was casting no aspersions upon you, btw.
UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
12m / Around The NFL / DakotaT

22m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

23m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

44m / Green Bay Packers Talk / cheeseheads123

47m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

50m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

53m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

59m / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules


Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.