go.pack.go.
16 years ago
No, I remember this year I think the Browns didn't punt even one time against the Giants.
UserPostedImage
Roddyboy
16 years ago
What's Defensive "Master" Bates doing these days...?
blank
all_about_da_packers
16 years ago

I still can't beleive that we only stopped Brees once the whole game ... I mean ya I know Brees is good but how is it possible to stop a team in a whole game only 1 time ... Can someone check up if that's actually a record a team stopping the opposing team only once 3 and out ...

If Brees did that to our defense ... scary ... :(

"krazygangsta" wrote:



Not as bad as giving up an 11 minute drive, which the Saints did against the Jets a couple of weeks back.

I read about that stat on the weekend and couldn't believe it. I mean a frickin 11 minute drive!!!

Link to drive summaries 

^ Look at the fourth Q. drive. 11 frickin minutes and 09 seconds for a total of 67 yards. Damn!
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
all_about_da_packers
16 years ago
Getting back on topic, it's pretty sad we didn't blitz more. Our pass rushers simply fail to get the job done (besides Kampman, who gives it his all).

The last person that should be getting any time to throw is Drew Brees. Sanders should've understood that getting beaten wasn't simply because of the blitz, but rather bad angles and probably a less than top speed Atari Bigby covering.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
shield4life
16 years ago
lol 11 mins ... damnnn loool thats terrible
Glad To Be A Packers Fan.
longtimefan
16 years ago

Williams, meh. He's not doing crap in Cleveland. He's got .5 sacks, with a supposedly good supporting cast. they broke the bank for him and gave up a 2nd round (i think) pick for him. Right now, it still looks like we got the better end of that deal. I don't fault Sanders for not blitzing. my problem with him is an inability or unwillingness to amend the gameplan during the game. a good coach needs to be able to roll with the punches.

"Packnic" wrote:



This year we are 25th in the league with 18 sacks through 11 games...last year we were 13th in the league with 36 sacks for the season. Now tell me williams 6 sacks from the nt possition wasn't a factor.

"gotarace" wrote:




or maybe cullen jenkins being out is the bigger factor. couple that with KGB total ineffectiveness and then being cut. Williams wasn't worth what he wanted to be paid and its showing this year. It was a good trade.

"bozz_2006" wrote:



We do not have the depth on the line anymore to generate a pass rush, which in turn COULD help a LB/CB blitz..

Teams had to double team lot on our line last year....

They do not have to double team this year, which in turn allows a o-lman to concentrate on a blitzer more easily.
doddpower
16 years ago

Williams, meh. He's not doing crap in Cleveland. He's got .5 sacks, with a supposedly good supporting cast. they broke the bank for him and gave up a 2nd round (i think) pick for him. Right now, it still looks like we got the better end of that deal. I don't fault Sanders for not blitzing. my problem with him is an inability or unwillingness to amend the gameplan during the game. a good coach needs to be able to roll with the punches.

"pack93z" wrote:



This year we are 25th in the league with 18 sacks through 11 games...last year we were 13th in the league with 36 sacks for the season. Now tell me williams 6 sacks from the nt possition wasn't a factor.

"gotarace" wrote:



Exactly.. Williams did one thing that we are missing right this moment from the interior.. push the pocket, he was able to beat a man straight up and shoot the gaps...

In Cleveland, watch how they are using Corey.. they are asking him to take on the double team and eat up blockers for the 3-4 Backers have the ability to penetrate the backfield.. he is doing that decently.. but I thought on the outside he would be better than he is showing right now.

Don't get me wrong.. the trade wasn't a bad one, it basically brought Nelson here.. but we are missing that element from this defense right now.. a guy that can collapse and push the pocket from the inside.. that along with consistent pressure from Monty/Thompson/Hunter combo.

"bozz_2006" wrote:



Exactly. Williams was good. From my understanding of a typical 3-4 system, the Defensive Ends rarely generate eye-popping stats. They are asked to take on blockers in order to free up the linebackers so that they can make plays. Basically, the 3 down lineman are supposed to consume the offensive line and the linebackers clean up.

So, don't look at Williams stats alone. They don't tell the whole picture. Perhaps he wasn't worth the money he was wanting, but who really is?? That's the the NFL today. However, he is a good player, and generating pressure from the 4-3 defensive tackle position is crucial. Just see our defense now. I have no doubt we would be much more improved if we still had him.

With that being said, we still got a decent value for him. But it no doubt hurt our defense this season, which appears to be struggling, especially in the pass rush.
Greg C.
16 years ago
In order to keep Corey Williams, the Packers would have had to pay not just starter's money, but high-end starter's money, for a player who was not even a starter. He was an interior pass rushing specialist. I wonder if some of the people who have complained about losing Williams are the same people who complained about Mike Sherman's big contract for pass rushing specialist KGB.

I think Thompson's reasoning was sound in trading away Corey Williams. Remember how last year we had so many DT's that fans complained about Thompson drafting Justin Harrell? Unfortunately, the DT position, and the defensive line in general, has blown up in Thompson's face this year. Williams and Daniel Muir were let go, and Pickett and Jolly have not been as good as last year. Then with Cullen Jenkins getting hurt and KGB failing to get his mojo back, the right DE position, which looked so strong coming into the season, has become a weak link.

I don't think anyone will disagree that the defensive line needs major fixing in the off-season. In the meantime, Bob Sanders needs to improvise. Hint: If the other team is scoring on every single possession, as the Saints were, you have nothing to lose by blitzing.
blank
DarkaneRules
16 years ago
Losing Jenkins really hurt us this year on defense and I don't think that can be overstated.
Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance
bozz_2006
16 years ago

I have no doubt we would be much more improved if we still had him.

"doddpower" wrote:



that's a pretty big assumption.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (9m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (29m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (38m) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (49m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (4h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (5h) : Packers will get in
beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
5m / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

26m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.