Packers Defense - 2024

[Crazylegs Starks]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I believe McKinney has been a bit of a disappointment the last month.

Maybe not so unpopular. Someone brought him up as one of the under-performers on one of the radio shows this morning, but I couldn't listen to it all.

I feel like he's been pressing to make up for Williams' absence and Bullard's shortcomings. Either that or he's trying too hard to get picks.

[Scott4Pack]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I believe McKinney has been a bit of a disappointment the last month.

Maybe not so unpopular. Someone brought him up as one of the under-performers on one of the radio shows this morning, but I couldn't listen to it all.

I feel like he's been pressing to make up for Williams' absence and Bullard's shortcomings. Either that or he's trying too hard to get picks.

That might be a good point.

Another point might have to do with his taking risks. Since the beginning of the season, he has taken more risk that most Safeties perhaps, so that he can get a jump for potential INTs. In the first weeks of the season, it paid off. Now it hasn't, as he has fewer INTs. It was more tolerable because of the early payoffs. Without those INTs, it becomes painful, at least in moments like these.

Even so, he got burned cleanly on the TD that he gave up. Whether he wanted to jump a route or not, he gets paid to cover that back end. Looked like they were in two-high. He needed to cover his zone.

[Yoop]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I believe McKinney has been a bit of a disappointment the last month.

Maybe not so unpopular. Someone brought him up as one of the under-performers on one of the radio shows this morning, but I couldn't listen to it all.

I feel like he's been pressing to make up for Williams' absence and Bullard's shortcomings. Either that or he's trying too hard to get picks.

That might be a good point.

Another point might have to do with his taking risks. Since the beginning of the season, he has taken more risk that most Safeties perhaps, so that he can get a jump for potential INTs. In the first weeks of the season, it paid off. Now it hasn't, as he has fewer INTs. It was more tolerable because of the early payoffs. Without those INTs, it becomes painful, at least in moments like these.

Even so, he got burned cleanly on the TD that he gave up. Whether he wanted to jump a route or not, he gets paid to cover that back end. Looked like they were in two-high. He needed to cover his zone.

another thing to consider is pass rush, earlier (yesterday too) QB's had more time to read their routes and Williams was flashing rookie of the week ability, so his coverage support allowed Z to bait QB's more effectively when the pass rush has been more effective, QB's have to get the ball out quicker, that IMO limits time to set up the QB for a pick, his tackle numbers are still good

[APB]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I believe McKinney has been a bit of a disappointment the last month.

Maybe not so unpopular. Someone brought him up as one of the under-performers on one of the radio shows this morning, but I couldn't listen to it all.

I feel like he's been pressing to make up for Williams' absence and Bullard's shortcomings. Either that or he's trying too hard to get picks.

That might be a good point.

Another point might have to do with his taking risks. Since the beginning of the season, he has taken more risk that most Safeties perhaps, so that he can get a jump for potential INTs. In the first weeks of the season, it paid off. Now it hasn't, as he has fewer INTs. It was more tolerable because of the early payoffs. Without those INTs, it becomes painful, at least in moments like these.

Even so, he got burned cleanly on the TD that he gave up. Whether he wanted to jump a route or not, he gets paid to cover that back end. Looked like they were in two-high. He needed to cover his zone.

Boy, last week’s shutout already feels like a lifetime away…

[lupedafiasco]

I don’t believe that TD was McKinneys responsibility. It looked like it was either cover 3 or robber. McKinney rotated down to play the middle hook zone and jump the Jefferson pass.

I felt Bullard was probably the center fielder in the cover 3 and played to dar right and was slow to cover back over the middle. Even the. There should have been a CB over there in his deep zone.

Tough to say though without knowing the call but I find it hard to believe X jumped that far forward if he had deep zone responsibility.

[salmar80]

I don’t believe that TD was McKinneys responsibility. It looked like it was either cover 3 or robber. McKinney rotated down to play the middle hook zone and jump the Jefferson pass.

I felt Bullard was probably the center fielder in the cover 3 and played to dar right and was slow to cover back over the middle. Even the. There should have been a CB over there in his deep zone.

Tough to say though without knowing the call but I find it hard to believe X jumped that far forward if he had deep zone responsibility.

Agree, McKinney was in too perfect a position to take out the deep in route by Jefferson. Dunno for sure if the outside corner (Valentine) was supposed to pass it off and continue deep, and/or whether Bullard was supposed to be more in the deep middle. Based on the graphic below, looked like Bullard was definitely too far to the right. We kinda triple-teamed Jefferson: Coop and Valentine took out a quick pass and outside release, then X took out the deep in. Stokes and Nixon were in good position vs Addison.

Gotta say, if Darnold hadn't fired it to Nailor, Hock was WIDE open for a 1st down due to Wilson dropping deep over the middle, tho Wooden may have had a chance to bat it down and Darnold may not have had time for another read 'cause LVN was real close.

Either way, it was a good route combo by the Vikings. Woulda been tough to defend in any case, except for fast pressure. I did notice they used Jefferson as a decoy on many plays, and their other WRs didn't mess up their opportunities like ours did. Nailor caught all 5 of his targets.

[williewasgreat]

I don’t believe that TD was McKinneys responsibility. It looked like it was either cover 3 or robber. McKinney rotated down to play the middle hook zone and jump the Jefferson pass.

I felt Bullard was probably the center fielder in the cover 3 and played to dar right and was slow to cover back over the middle. Even the. There should have been a CB over there in his deep zone.

Tough to say though without knowing the call but I find it hard to believe X jumped that far forward if he had deep zone responsibility.

I believe this is the case too. The Packers were really focusing on Jefferson and that's the choice X made. It seems like it was a very well designed play by the Vikes. X and the rest of the secondary hasn't gotten turnovers as much since Jaire has been out. Jaire has a huge impact on how the secondary plays. It's too bad he's become as fragile as a china doll.

[Scott4Pack]

Maybe not so unpopular. Someone brought him up as one of the under-performers on one of the radio shows this morning, but I couldn't listen to it all.

I feel like he's been pressing to make up for Williams' absence and Bullard's shortcomings. Either that or he's trying too hard to get picks.

That might be a good point.

Another point might have to do with his taking risks. Since the beginning of the season, he has taken more risk that most Safeties perhaps, so that he can get a jump for potential INTs. In the first weeks of the season, it paid off. Now it hasn't, as he has fewer INTs. It was more tolerable because of the early payoffs. Without those INTs, it becomes painful, at least in moments like these.

Even so, he got burned cleanly on the TD that he gave up. Whether he wanted to jump a route or not, he gets paid to cover that back end. Looked like they were in two-high. He needed to cover his zone.

Boy, last week’s shutout already feels like a lifetime away…

Notwithstanding...
:-)

I'm only reflecting on what some consider about X. I'd share that before, during, or after last week. I actually LIKE it that X is a ball hawk. Our D has needed one since, what, Woodson?

Maybe we could have a couple more too. We'd make our share of mistakes, like that TD that X gave up this week. But we'd also stop a bunch of drives when other defenses can't.

[salmar80]

Feast yer weary eyes on this sweet tape of Coop wrecking:

[go pak go]

I really hope we can see some Quay and Edge time this year yet. I want to know how these guys gel

[Cdragon]

That might be a good point.

Another point might have to do with his taking risks. Since the beginning of the season, he has taken more risk that most Safeties perhaps, so that he can get a jump for potential INTs. In the first weeks of the season, it paid off. Now it hasn't, as he has fewer INTs. It was more tolerable because of the early payoffs. Without those INTs, it becomes painful, at least in moments like these.

Even so, he got burned cleanly on the TD that he gave up. Whether he wanted to jump a route or not, he gets paid to cover that back end. Looked like they were in two-high. He needed to cover his zone.

Boy, last week’s shutout already feels like a lifetime away…

Notwithstanding...
:-)

I'm only reflecting on what some consider about X. I'd share that before, during, or after last week. I actually LIKE it that X is a ball hawk. Our D has needed one since, what, Woodson?

Maybe we could have a couple more too. We'd make our share of mistakes, like that TD that X gave up this week. But we'd also stop a bunch of drives when other defenses can't.

Casey Hayward's rookie year. 6 INTs 20 PDs

[APB]

Man, if only Jaire were available for the playoff run. Jaire and Valentine, paired together, would make a formidable duo.

[musclestang]

Not having Jaire on the field sucks. If we can at least get Williams and Quay back on the field and be healthy we still have a shot.

If not, I don't think we overcome not having Jaire back there. Not unless we see a pass rush just erupt out of nowhere. Then maybe. Otherwise we spend too much time covering for weakness and not letting play makers like X do his thing back there. He's gotta spend to much time helping others do their thing and it hurts the entire defense.

[Yoop]

Man, if only Jaire were available for the playoff run. Jaire and Valentine, paired together, would make a formidable duo.

not to be a negative nancy, but, you or even I could have made that pick, and both of us would have had the wearwithall to take a knee so the offense could have started at the 25.

Valentine against a #1 would not get this type of recognition

[Pckfn23]

Valentine has been against #1s. Jaire hasn't really played since Oct. 27th.

[Yoop]

Valentine has been against #1s. Jaire hasn't recalled played since Oct. 27th.

according to comments here and elsewhere Nixon has been the Number one, and our pass rush is IMHO the main reason their stats are what they are, any time we play an offense with talent, and we can't get good pass rush our secondary is toasted, so I'am not sure how much faith I have in this report.

[Pckfn23]

Valentine has been against #1s. Jaire hasn't recalled played since Oct. 27th.

according to comments here and elsewhere Nixon has been the Number one, and our pass rush is IMHO the main reason their stats are what they are, any time we play an offense with talent, and we can't get good pass rush our secondary is toasted, so I'am not sure how much faith I have in this report.

There isn't a "#1 corner" without Jaire. We don't play match man even when Jaire is in there. Nixon is not following the other team's top WR.

[APB]

Man, if only Jaire were available for the playoff run. Jaire and Valentine, paired together, would make a formidable duo.

not to be a negative nancy, but, you or even I could have made that pick, and both of us would have had the wearwithall to take a knee so the offense could have started at the 25.

Valentine against a #1 would not get this type of recognition

Holy smokes, Yoop.

I honestly think you just like to be contrarian for the sake of argument.

That highlighted play is a single play among many on the season that the post was speaking to. Valentine has been very solid at CB this entire year.

But since you insist on nitpicking...

Valentine was covering another receiver, read the developing route combination, came off his guy at just the right moment and created a red zone turnover. That's a very instinctive and heady play for a 2nd year CB forced into a starting role because of injury. That's exactly what you love to see in a developing player. As far as running it out, the Packers already had a 14 pt lead. He had just saved a TD. I have no problem with him trying and make a big play even bigger with the team already enjoying a comfy lead.

[Yoop]

Man, if only Jaire were available for the playoff run. Jaire and Valentine, paired together, would make a formidable duo.

not to be a negative nancy, but, you or even I could have made that pick, and both of us would have had the wearwithall to take a knee so the offense could have started at the 25.

Valentine against a #1 would not get this type of recognition

Holy smokes, Yoop.

I honestly think you just like to be contrarian for the sake of argument.

That highlighted play is a single play among many on the season that the post was speaking to. Valentine has been very solid at CB this entire year.

But since you insist on nitpicking...

Valentine was covering another receiver, read the developing route combination, came off his guy at just the right moment and created a red zone turnover. That's a very instinctive and heady play for a 2nd year CB forced into a starting role because of injury. That's exactly what you love to see in a developing player. As far as running it out, the Packers already had a 14 pt lead. He had just saved a TD. I have no problem with him trying and make a big play even bigger with the team already enjoying a comfy lead.

don't mean to be contrite, it's not on purpose, but you are elevating Valentine above what he has actually accomplished, for instance he's played twice as many games as Jaire and still has two less PD, 5 to Jaire 7, but what says most about the weakness at CB is that our FS leads the defense in PD's with 10, Nixon has 7 PD's, these stats tell me exactly what I've said, the pass rush has made our CB's appear better than they are because they are targeted less, and these PD stats are not something that gives me hope they will improve to the point of being much better

[Pckfn23]

Richard Sherman had 8 PDs in his 2014 All-Pro year.
Regis had 10 in his 2010 All-Pro year.

PBs are but 1 stat don't tell us all that much without context, which PFF is trying to provide.