The glass half full and half empty· Page 2

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

Doesn't "Chmurization" require a hot tub and a baby sitter? (sorry hahahaha)

Rodgers (the other one) is getting better. I have seen him as equal to Quarless in the past, but he now has achieved some separation.

HHCD is also making progress - nowhere near what I had hoped for yet, but some flashes.

I very much agree, Jayrone Elliot should get the snaps that Perry is getting. Down with the seniority system!

Raji Power was nice to see, but it only lasted about a quarter. He needs to go all out all the time, or else he is very ordinary.

I don't know what to think about Burnett. Maybe he plays Safety like the original definition - the last line of defense, and if we don't see him much, it means others are doing their job. He just doesn't seem very instinctive, though - like Nick Collins used to be.

Shields was a little bit more like Shields this week.

Hayward may shy away from tackles - I didn't really see that. What I did see, though, was he was late or too far off in pass coverage several times. I'd like to see a lot more of Randall and some of Rollins gradually worked in. Gunter too.

Montgomery was good, but I wouldn't get too excited about him. He seems a little less fast than I hoped. I'd rather see the guy so many in here hate getting a few of those WR snaps. I bet he'd get regular season TDs just like the preseason.

I'm sure I will get an ass-kickin' for saying this, but I like Starks/a Starks type runner BETTER than Lacy/a Lacy type runner. Find a crease and get 5 instead of running into the butt of your O Lineman/get into the open and get 30 or 35 instead of get into the open and get 10 or 15.

The glass is ALWAYS gonna be 99 and 44/100% full as long as Aaron Rodgers is healthy and mobile. Just ask Sitton and the rest of the O Line who makes them look decent instead of moderately shitty.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

sschind
Senior Member

9 years ago

#12

- Hayward: I know several people like him but I would like to sit down with them and watch every snap Hayward has played for us, it is crystal clear to me that he is afraid of contact. There's a Wilson run where Hayward was in front of him and tried to avoid tackling him! I'm not talking about missing a tackle I'm talking about trying not to tackle at all!. Wilson, for whatever reason, went down and Hayward carefully touched him to put it down by contact. Please watch the play it is sad and funny at the same time.

Originally Posted by: luigis

So Wilson went down and Hayward avoiding piling into him and drawing a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Yeah I hate it when players do that too. Nail the guy and give up the yards who cares.

luigis
Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#13

So Wilson went down and Hayward avoiding piling into him and drawing a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Yeah I hate it when players do that too. Nail the guy and give up the yards who cares.

Originally Posted by: sschind

I never said that. But please watch the play, Wilson carries the ball and Hayward backpedals instead of running towards him to tackle. If you see the play you will realize Wilson would have probably been able to run over Hayward but he instinctively went down.

Luis

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

9 years ago

#14

Originally Posted by: luigis

Never one to make excuses but Wilson is much quicker than Casey Hayward. Maybe Hayward was trying to take the right line and needed to backpedal to make sure he was going to tackle him rather than completely whiff? I'm asking because I do not recall the play. Could that be possible?

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#15

I'm sure I will get an ass-kickin' for saying this, but I like Starks/a Starks type runner BETTER than Lacy/a Lacy type runner. Find a crease and get 5 instead of running into the butt of your O Lineman/get into the open and get 30 or 35 instead of get into the open and get 10 or 15.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

Lacy will get more tough yards, Starks is more dependent on the Oline. But Starks has more speed once in the open field. I not sure one style is better than the other. I like the combination of them because nothing has to change offensively and neither is a situational back.

Combined they remind me of 96 with Bennett and Levens.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Barfarn
Senior Member

9 years ago

#16

Hayward: I know several people like him but I would like to sit down with them and watch every snap Hayward has played for us, it is crystal clear to me that he is afraid of contact. There's a Wilson run where Hayward was in front of him and tried to avoid tackling him! I'm not talking about missing a tackle I'm talking about trying not to tackle at all!. Wilson, for whatever reason, went down and Hayward carefully touched him to put it down by contact. Please watch the play it is sad and funny at the same time.

Originally Posted by: luigis

Luis, if you’re talking about the play at 2:37 3Q [If referencing plays you should notate where they are in the game]; I have to disagree. Hayward has Kearse man- with no hope of help over the top. This shows Whitt and Capers trust Hayward implicitly, just like Tramon! The mistake Hayward made is he left Kearse too soon. Had Wilson pulled up and thrown to Kearse, it’s an easy TD; Wilson is NOT a 20M QB. And if this situation arises if we play again, it will be a TD; but Hayward will get his butt chewed out today for it, if he didn’t get a talkin’ to on the sideline Sunday. So I expect it won’t happen again. If asked, I bet Carroll blames the refs for Wilson’s gaff.

Getting back to the "issue," I don’t see the “back-peddling.” Hayward sees Wilson running [BTW, an amazing feat for a CB playing man w/ no help] stops and turns and squares up at the 34. He takes 3-4 baby steps and each one is closing, before taking one last lateral step inside at the 32.5/33 yrd line as Wilson starts to slide, which caused the contact w/ Hayward’s foot.

look at the replay: Seattle’s line is moving left and every Packer, except Hayward and the one deep safety [Dix, who’s positioned OUTSIDE the LEFT HASH], is moving the same direction and is positioned at or near the LOS as Wilson sprints out right. Hayward’s WR [believe it’s Kearse] would be out there to block Dix. Hayward knows if Wilson gets outside, it’s likely a TD. Hayward knows where his help is coming from and that is inside.

Wilson is shaking and baking as he runs right and Hayward is breaking down perfectly. Each and every move Hayward is making is designed to incrementally close; without losing contain on the outside. Wilson went down, because Hayward didn’t over commit, kept Wilson as inside as possible and the cavalry was about to arrive and splatter him. I suspect Hayward gets an F for coverage and an A for run support on this play.

DoddPower
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#17

I suspect Hayward gets an F for coverage and an A for run support on this play.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn

Well that average would seem to summarize Hayward's play so far this year to me: A good 'ole "C." Nothing horrible, but definitely not great either. Hopefully he improves. I haven't been that impressed with him ever, really. Average player, maybe a decent-to-good slot corner.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#18

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

I disagree. Give Lacy a BIG hole - which this O Line very seldom does - and Lacy rumbles straight ahead like a buffalo - fairly hard to bring down but not that much for NFL defenders. Otherwise, he often has a hard time getting going when the blocking ain't there - maybe almost half the time, and he isn't much for finding that opening a hole or two over from where the play is called i.e. running into his lineman's butt as I mentioned. Starks - and really a LOT of RBs do find that opening, and often get a LOT farther down field on the occasions when there is a nice hole - as well as the quick cutbacks we saw from Starks - and many other NFL RBs, but very seldom from Lacy.

Sometime in the not too distant future, we will undoubtedly have a big controversy over whether Ted should pay BIG money to keep Lacy. Let me be the first to come out AGAINST that idea. Give us a breakaway threat with moves instead.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

luigis
Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#19

Originally Posted by: Barfarn

Yes that play sorry for not referencing the play correctly.

I disagree with your assessment of the play, Wilson immediately crosses the LOS so a pass is no longer an option Hayward does well leaving the WR because Wilson can't pass but instead of running towards Wilson to tackle him he stays put at his position and as you say does some baby steps to the sides. If Wilson runs towards Hayward with decision the play might be a TD for Seattle, logically he assumed he was going to get downed and just slided in front of Hayward.

You can say Hayward didn't over commit, but I see he was afraid of contact, once again.

I'd give him an A in coverage and an F for fear.

Anyway I really appreciate that you took time to look at the play I'd like to go over many other Hayward plays with you or anyone to decide what kind of player Hayward really is. I think it is an interesting exercise.

Luis

macbob
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#20

Lacy's a BEAST.

Starks is a very good RB as long as he can stay healthy.

I'm glad we have both.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (7m) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (1h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (1h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (2h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (11h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (11h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (11h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (15h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other

beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)

Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.

beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs

packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.

beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating

Zero2Cool (20-Dec) : There is a rule that if your name starts with 'b' you lose 15 points. Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them!

wpr (20-Dec) : and then there is Beast. Running away with it all.

beast (20-Dec) : As of tonight, 3 way tie for 2nd in Pick'em, that battle is interesting!

beast (20-Dec) : Lions vs Vikings could be the main last game as it could determine division winners or #1 vs #2 seed

Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Or if KC needs to win for the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Right now it looks like the only prime worthy games are Det-Minny and KC-Denver (if Denver can clinch a wild card spot)

Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : The entirety of week 18 being listed as flex is weird

Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Matt LaFleur today says unequivocally "Ted Thompson had nothing to do with the drafting of Jordan Love."

Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Apparently, the editing is what pieces comments together. That Ted thing ... fake news.

Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : LaFleur "opportunity that Ted Thompson thought was too good to pass up"

Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Jordan Love pick was Ted Thompson's idea.

Mucky Tundra (19-Dec) : Kyle Shanahan on signing De'Vondre Campbell as a FA last offseason: “We obviously made a mistake.”

packerfanoutwest (19-Dec) : Alexander’s last season with GB

Martha Careful (18-Dec) : if I were a professional athlete, I would probably look to see who the agent is for Kirk Cousins and then use him

beast (18-Dec) : $100 million fully guaranteed Kirk Cousins gets benched for rookie

Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : a lower case b

Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : The real lie is how beast capitalized his name in his message while it's normally spelled with

packerfanoutwest (18-Dec) : haha that's a lie

beast (17-Dec) : Despite what lies other might tell, Beast didn't hate the Winter Warnings, it felt refreshing to Beast for some reason.

Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : whiteout uniforms in general are pretty lame and weak. NFL greed at it's worst

Martha Careful (17-Dec) : The Viking uniforms, the whiteout uniforms specifically absolutely suck

beast (17-Dec) : Thanks Zero2Cool, looks a lot better now

beast (17-Dec) : Seems like someone has a crush on me, can't stop talking about me

Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : Should be gooder now. The forum default theme went to goofy land.

Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : What the hell

packerfanoutwest (17-Dec) : yeah beast hates the Winter Warning Unies

Mucky Tundra (16-Dec) : Okay I'm glad to know it's not just something happening to me lol

Mucky Tundra (16-Dec) : Zero, did you copy the Packers uniforms from last night and white out the board?

beast (16-Dec) : Oh crap, is the board going to the Winter Warning Uniforms too?!? It's all white on white right now!

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS