nerdmann
15 years ago

I think Dallas is better than Green Bay. The only way the Packers win is if McCarthy out coaches Phillips and Capers out-coaches Garrett. Beyond that, I expect a pretty solid win for the Cowboys.

The Packers defense is better than last year which is what I guess realistically is all you can ask for, but they need a pass rusher opposite of Clay Matthews and they need some better thumpers inside at linebacker.

"porky88" wrote:




I'd love to see Bishop in place of Kampy. You think he'd be worse in coverage?
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
nerdmann
15 years ago

I think Dallas is better than Green Bay. The only way the Packers win is if McCarthy out coaches Phillips and Capers out-coaches Garrett. Beyond that, I expect a pretty solid win for the Cowboys.

The Packers defense is better than last year which is what I guess realistically is all you can ask for, but they need a pass rusher opposite of Clay Matthews and they need some better thumpers inside at linebacker.

"warhawk" wrote:



The biggest problem for the Pack Sunday is what to do at RT. I think we were much better on sunday with Tauscher in there. In the 4th quarter it looked like Clifton was out of gas and when Tauscher went down we went back to a disfuntional offense based on to much pressure.

I don't really have a problem with the defense. We GAVE the Bucs 28 points from what I count. The blocked punt, the 85 yard kickoff return, the INT for a TD, and the INT that they took down to the seven.

I know from what I recall the ST's entered into placing a lot on the shoulders of the D in most of the games we lost. They also haven't gotten a lot of help when our offense takes a half to get going and after we punt the opposing team is starting from around the 40 yard line the whole first half.

I don't recall the D playing necessarily poorly in the losses as much as they were always having to fight uphill against poor field position to start so many drives in those games. I would say they have been responsible for about 4 or five TD's that it would be nice to have back that were actually on them. The worst TD allowed was the one to the Vikes after we got back in that game and the one to the Bengals after we had them deep in their own territory on third down.

A lot of things far worse than the way our defense has played has happened in the games we have lost. If the other phases played as respectfully as the D we would be no worse than 6-2 right now.

"porky88" wrote:




The worst thing about this defense is it's "reputation."
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
nerdmann
15 years ago

A weird thought just occurred to me. Is it possible the reason why we have a top-five defense is because our opponents start out with such excellent field position that our defense just doesn't have too any yards to give up? As has been pointed out in other threads, the Bucs had all of two drives of more than 50 yards. Our defense may not have given up many yards, but they didn't have many yards to give. Maybe the numbers are deceiving. I'm not sure how this could be analyzed, though.

"djcubez" wrote:


That's exactly what it means.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:




They get alot of turnovers. They stuff the run. They do well.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

A weird thought just occurred to me. Is it possible the reason why we have a top-five defense is because our opponents start out with such excellent field position that our defense just doesn't have too many yards to give up? As has been pointed out in other threads, the Bucs had all of two drives of more than 50 yards. Our defense may not have given up many yards, but they didn't have many yards to give. Maybe the numbers are deceiving. I'm not sure how this could be analyzed, though.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Yes. Short field will always yield less yards. It's simple math. As has been said by several, the Special Teams are not helping us out at all.

The poor special teams is far more the factor in our high rank than the poor teams we've played.
ILikeThePackers39
15 years ago

A weird thought just occurred to me. Is it possible the reason why we have a top-five defense is because our opponents start out with such excellent field position that our defense just doesn't have too many yards to give up? As has been pointed out in other threads, the Bucs had all of two drives of more than 50 yards. Our defense may not have given up many yards, but they didn't have many yards to give. Maybe the numbers are deceiving. I'm not sure how this could be analyzed, though.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:




Try spinning it around, though - perhaps some of us aren't seeing the improvements on defense because of the scores and are discounting that field position effect? Thus the top-5 rating isn't misleading, but is an indicator that the defense is playing well, but those short fields are screwing the end result?

Tampa put together, what? One long drive? As someone astutely pointed out in another thread, between the int returns (one pick 6, one to the 7 yl) and the ST fuckups (blocked punt returned for TD, the ridiculous return after Rodgers' rushing TD), the defense was 'responsible' for 14 of 28 points, and those came on drives that started inside our 20. Would I love to think our defense could go in and shut those short-field drives down? Absolutely. Is it realistic or even fair to expect that? Hell, no.

The defense has plenty of room for improvement - there's no question about that, and one key piece to that puzzle is getting the pressure home and getting sacks. But they ARE improved and continuing to get better.

I don't know - perhaps I'm trying to hard to illuminate areas where the team is good. Perhaps you're right and the high ranking is because the yardage totals are artificially low, due to the short fields. Maybe somehow ST will perform well this week and we'll get a better sense of how the defense can perform against a good offensive team.
blank
dhazer
15 years ago
It also doesn't hurt your stats much when your playing against 3 very bad offensive teams and then you put their backups in besides that, this alone i think helps with the yards allowed stats. But thats just my opinion. Sorry at work so i can't check their rankings i don't think
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

It also doesn't hurt your stats much when your playing against 3 very bad offensive teams and then you put their backups in besides that, this alone i think helps with the yards allowed stats. But thats just my opinion. Sorry at work so i can't check their rankings i don't think

"dhazer" wrote:



Other teams have had to play them as well. I'm really sick of this attempt to discredit the defense. There's better rationale to it than that. Our division mates play or played those same teams too.
ILikeThePackers39
15 years ago

It also doesn't hurt your stats much when your playing against 3 very bad offensive teams and then you put their backups in besides that, this alone i think helps with the yards allowed stats. But thats just my opinion. Sorry at work so i can't check their rankings i don't think

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Other teams have had to play them as well. I'm really sick of this attempt to discredit the defense. There's better rationale to it than that. Our division mates play or played those same teams too.

"dhazer" wrote:



+1. I'm sick of the attempts to discredit anything on the team that's working halfway decently. The haters are getting what they all wanted - two losses to the 'Queens, a loss to the 0-7 Bucs, a .500 record - you'd think they would be happy and shut their cake holes, but no.

Like you said, but more specifically: The Bears have played these shitty teams, as well - what's their defensive ranking? How'd their defense fare against the Bengals as compared to ours?

<Cue Hazer making excuses for the Bears, because that's how it works - make excuses for any other team that can be demonstrated to be worse than the Packers, but none at all for 'his' team>
blank
Zero2Cool
15 years ago
I'm not aiming for excuses. Just trying to look at the big picture. Rankings are set by teams that play other teams. When we are a head of other teams who've played the same bad teams, I don't see the point in discrediting our success against them.

Our special teams is BAD for our TEAM, but is making our defense look good.

I'm all about pointing out the good and the bad. I'm just wanting us to be real. That's all.
dhazer
15 years ago

It also doesn't hurt your stats much when your playing against 3 very bad offensive teams and then you put their backups in besides that, this alone i think helps with the yards allowed stats. But thats just my opinion. Sorry at work so i can't check their rankings i don't think

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:



Other teams have had to play them as well. I'm really sick of this attempt to discredit the defense. There's better rationale to it than that. Our division mates play or played those same teams too.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



+1. I'm sick of the attempts to discredit anything on the team that's working halfway decently. The haters are getting what they all wanted - two losses to the 'Queens, a loss to the 0-7 Bucs, a .500 record - you'd think they would be happy and shut their cake holes, but no.

Like you said, but more specifically: The Bears have played these shitty teams, as well - what's their defensive ranking? How'd their defense fare against the Bengals as compared to ours?

<Cue Hazer making excuses for the Bears, because that's how it works - make excuses for any other team that can be demonstrated to be worse than the Packers, but none at all for 'his' team>

"dhazer" wrote:




So im a hater because i brought up a very good point? Where do we rank in sacks or points allowed and turnovers? Also look at the top 2 defenses by yds per game they arent a winning team either hell washington is ranked 6th in least yds per game. we rank 15th in points allowed 29th in sacks and turnovers we are actually pretty good at with 23 of them. Now lets see what it looks like in a few weeks after we play some real offenses.
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    beast (2h) : Someone pointed out, with Raiders hiring Carroll, the division games between Carroll and Jim Harbaugh are back on (who can whine more games)
    beast (7h) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab
    Zero2Cool (10h) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
    Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
    Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
    beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
    Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
    dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
    beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
    Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
    Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
    beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
    beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
    wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
    wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
    wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
    beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
    beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
    beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
    beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
    beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
    wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
    wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
    wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
    beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
    beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
    beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
    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
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
    Eagles
    Recent Topics
    10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.