Packers Huddle

Packers:
Inside Runs:
106 carries for 450 yards. 4.25 yards per carry.

Outside Runs:
56 carries for 295 yards. 5.27 yards per carry.

Steelers
Inside Runs:
77 carries for 315 yards. 4.09 yards per carry.

Outside Runs:
61 carries for 245 yards. 4.02 yards per carry.

Buccaneers:
Inside Runs:
73 carries for 199 yards. 2.73 yards per carry.

Outside Runs:
64 carries for 201 yards. 3.14 yards per carry.

Saints:
72 carries for 279 yards. 3.88 yards per carry.

Outside Runs:
87 carries for 283 yards. 3.25 yards per carry.

Cowboys:
Inside Runs:
108 carries for 526 yards. 4.87 yards per carry.

Outside Runs:
122 carries for 687 yards. 5.63 yards per carry.

Texans:
Inside Runs:
113 carries for 618 yards. 5.47 yards per carry.

Outside Runs:
79 carries for 470 yards. 5.95 yards per carry.

I took out QB runs as that tends to skew it depending on if the team played a running QB or not. I looked at 3 top run defense teams and 2 bottom run defense teams. We are not a good run defense team by any stretch. I am putting some numbers to the fact that our OLBs are bad in the run game. More than a yard per carry more running to the outside than running inside. I would love to compare to more teams.

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 06:58

Christo wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 22:04

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 13:27

This misses the point.

It's not just about education for current players now. It's about the fact that the players in 70s - early 2000's built this game. They built the passionate fanbases and put the game on the map. Their sacrifice is why the players have the opportunities they have today.

The thing is, for that 30 year period, the game had a LOT less revenue then they do now. I don't care about players now and "putting enough away." I care about the NFLPA not being a bunch of selfish pricks and ensure in their CBA that they make concessions from their cut of the revenue to take care of the players who used to play this game build this game.

Come to the bargaining table and even say, "Hey owners...we will pay for half and you pay for half but we need to do the right thing and take care of the players who built this game."

There are just too many players who contribute and give everything they have and are left behind and it's absolute garbage. This is a distribution issue and I just feel for the families who have beg and scrape to get by because of all the expenses on their health decades later.

OK, your right, I'm an idiot. But why just go back to the 70s. The players before then don't count?
In my simple mind, I just suggested a change to the current players, I didn't realize I had the ability to time travel and change things in the past, what a dumb ass I am.

You're not an idiot. I was a jerk who was crabby due to being in a foul mood because of the game yesterday.

I wrote it at halftime when the end result was clearly pointing to a Vikings victory at that point and it ticked me off.

No problem, yesterdays stink bomb put plenty of people in a foul mood.

49ers week just got more interesting.

NCF wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 10:15

49ers week just got more interesting.

Rumor is A.J. Dillon tested positive

Edit: I guess I typed too slow

I started its own thread for this.

Borderline statistical anomaly here.

Let's cover up tighter, not be so petrified of the big play, and just get a little better play of our extremely expensive big 3 up front.

We are not 'far' away.


Adding JJ Watt wouldn't hurt.

BF004 wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 11:13

Borderline statistical anomaly here.

Let's cover up tighter, not be so petrified of the big play, and just get a little better play of our extremely expensive big 3 up front.

We are not 'far' away.


Adding JJ Watt wouldn't hurt.

Does adding JJ Watt change the way Pettine calls a defense?

Christo wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 11:29

BF004 wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 11:13

Borderline statistical anomaly here.

Let's cover up tighter, not be so petrified of the big play, and just get a little better play of our extremely expensive big 3 up front.

We are not 'far' away.


Adding JJ Watt wouldn't hurt.

Does adding JJ Watt change the way Pettine calls a defense?

No, but if we can start getting an acceptable pass rush with 4 with even a slight impovement on the run D, that will change the entire D.

I don't think JJ Watt would really add anything to be honest.

If you can't get any penetration from Clark, the Smiths and Gary on the roster, adding JJ Watt won't add anything here.

BF004 wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 11:31

Christo wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 11:29

BF004 wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 11:13

Borderline statistical anomaly here.

Let's cover up tighter, not be so petrified of the big play, and just get a little better play of our extremely expensive big 3 up front.

We are not 'far' away.


Adding JJ Watt wouldn't hurt.

Does adding JJ Watt change the way Pettine calls a defense?

No, but if we can start getting an acceptable pass rush with 4 with even a slight impovement on the run D, that will change the entire D.

I'll settle for a guy that can tackle consistently.

Not April 1st, but what the hell, could use a little levity today.

paco wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 11:39

I'll settle for a guy that can tackle consistently.

Barnes and Martin have impressed me with their physicality. Unfortunately, they also filled the wrong gaps about 200 times yesterday.

Don't tease us like that.

NCF wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 12:00

paco wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 11:39

I'll settle for a guy that can tackle consistently.

Barnes and Martin have impressed me with their physicality. Unfortunately, they also filled the wrong gaps about 200 times yesterday.

Yup agreed. Or they were late getting there. Barnes in particular was really bad yesterday.

But blame the coaches! Shame on them for not having an undrafted rookie and a 5th round rookie ready to play with no real training camp. Blame the outside linebackers! Roar!

No way.

NCF wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 12:00

paco wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 11:39

I'll settle for a guy that can tackle consistently.

Barnes and Martin have impressed me with their physicality. Unfortunately, they also filled the wrong gaps about 200 times yesterday.

Yep, I think the arrow is still pointed up for those 2. But both need work. Not really surprising for an UDFA and a 5th rounder coming off an injury.

Barnes and Kamal both would be ideal ILB 2s as a quality player anchors the position at ILB1 and mentors Barnes or Martin, both in there and playing with no mentor is just not a situation that high quality defenses find themselves in.

I'm actually a little excited for Kirksey to come back. All reports showed he was looking good in TC and he is the best coverage linebacker we've had in a long time.

I do like both Barnes and Martin, but I think they will also be more valuable if we limit their responsibility right now and let them focus on what they do best.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 12:17

NCF wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 12:00

paco wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2020 11:39

I'll settle for a guy that can tackle consistently.

Barnes and Martin have impressed me with their physicality. Unfortunately, they also filled the wrong gaps about 200 times yesterday.

Yup agreed. Or they were late getting there. Barnes in particular was really bad yesterday.

But blame the coaches! Shame on them for not having an undrafted rookie and a 5th round rookie ready to play with no real training camp. Blame the outside linebackers! Roar!

Ya, don't blame the coach who schemes an OLB man up on a TE who is split wide. MULTIPLE TIMES.

Ya, don't the OLBs who continually up field or don't set the edge or don't squeeze the B/C gap.

Martin was good yesterday. Barnes wasn't bad. The blame isn't there.