Packers Huddle

I don't think it is making excuses for Barry, but you may want to check out Justis Mosqueda's twitter feed. Several videos like this (only going to post a couple). He's not wrong. Barry isn't the only problem. The players aren't doing their part either.

Yoop is so used to people disagreeing with him, he cannot even realize that on this one, he's right and no one is defending Barry.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 14:47

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 14:44

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 14:35

Except he did something unexpected in week 1. It is possible.

ahh, if we'd have played any team besides Chicagos RPO QB and weak ol we'd have gotten tramped for big plays the same way we did yesterday, your already defending the guy, and Barry seems incapable of getting these players to play accountable football.
the offense made it easy against the Bears, Atlanta had almost twice as many offensive plays as we did, it's Joes job to make those stats more equal.

I just don't want to go the whole season with mediocre Joe.

Defending? No. Saying he can devise a more aggressive game plan, yes.

Barry has shown to be incapable of adjusting in game an devising a game play that plays to the strengths of his players on a week to week basis.

So yoop, who is making excuses for Joe Barry? Who is making you so tired?

I will not mention names of members of this forum, so your continued question goes to deaf ears, but again you and others are perpetual FO defenders, and years ago you blamed Capers when it was beyond obvious that we did have poor talent, and now you and others have been pretty passive concerning Barry till yesterday.
I'am sure Lafleur will have some excuse, and I'am tired of your attempt to pin me down for a answer.

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 15:00

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 14:47

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 14:44

ahh, if we'd have played any team besides Chicagos RPO QB and weak ol we'd have gotten tramped for big plays the same way we did yesterday, your already defending the guy, and Barry seems incapable of getting these players to play accountable football.
the offense made it easy against the Bears, Atlanta had almost twice as many offensive plays as we did, it's Joes job to make those stats more equal.

I just don't want to go the whole season with mediocre Joe.

Defending? No. Saying he can devise a more aggressive game plan, yes.

Barry has shown to be incapable of adjusting in game an devising a game play that plays to the strengths of his players on a week to week basis.

So yoop, who is making excuses for Joe Barry? Who is making you so tired?

I will not mention names of members of this forum, so your continued question goes to deaf ears, but again you and others are perpetual FO defenders, and years ago you blamed Capers when it was beyond obvious that we did have poor talent, and now you and others have been pretty passive concerning Barry till yesterday.
I'am sure Lafleur will have some excuse, and I'am tired of your attempt to pin me down for a answer.

I don't give a &%$@ if you're tired of being pinned down for an answer. You claim things or point fingers, but when asked for proof, you tuck tail run away or deflect by bringing up your favorite pet topics.

How is not making excuses for Joe Barry defending the FO? Also, if you are tired of hearing the excuses for Barry, wouldn't that be aligning yourself with these same people? So who are these people that are making the excuses for sleepy Joe? You won't mention names, because there are no names. You could even mention anyone outside the forum, yet you can't even do that.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 14:57

Yoop is so used to people disagreeing with him, he cannot even realize that on this one, he's right and no one is defending Barry.

people here would defend this FO or coaches for any reason, thats what I'am use to, and people defended Barry last season, and mostly those that ragged on Capers every year as Thompson missed on high pick defenders, and I wont even get started on WR's

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 15:04

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 15:00

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 14:47

Defending? No. Saying he can devise a more aggressive game plan, yes.

Barry has shown to be incapable of adjusting in game an devising a game play that plays to the strengths of his players on a week to week basis.

So yoop, who is making excuses for Joe Barry? Who is making you so tired?

I will not mention names of members of this forum, so your continued question goes to deaf ears, but again you and others are perpetual FO defenders, and years ago you blamed Capers when it was beyond obvious that we did have poor talent, and now you and others have been pretty passive concerning Barry till yesterday.
I'am sure Lafleur will have some excuse, and I'am tired of your attempt to pin me down for a answer.

I don't give a &%$@ if your tired of being pinned down for an answer. You claim things or point fingers, but when asked for proof, you tuck tail run away or deflect by bring up your favorite pet topics.

How is not making excuses for Joe Barry defending the FO? Also, if you are tired of hearing the excuses for Barry, wouldn't that be aligning yourself with these same people? So who are these people that are making the excuses for sleepy Joe? You won't mention names, because there are no names. You could even mention anyone outside the forum, yet you can't even do that.

you and others do the same &%$@, and thats all you ever do is take the side of the GM, countless arguments of defending that stupid Rashad Gary pick, or neal, or the other 2 doz defensive draft busts, or doz of WR we passed on to do that over the last 10 years..

you had to get rid of Capers then cried over Pettine, and now your defense is that you never defended Barry, seriously pretty hard to figure you out, I actually gave up trying years ago.

As I said, bringing up pet topics when this has nothing to do with them. This is about Joe Barry [mention]Yoop[/mention] . Who is making excuses for him so much so that you are tired of it?

Read your last paragraph again. It's pure yoop gold

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 15:11

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 15:04

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 15:00

I will not mention names of members of this forum, so your continued question goes to deaf ears, but again you and others are perpetual FO defenders, and years ago you blamed Capers when it was beyond obvious that we did have poor talent, and now you and others have been pretty passive concerning Barry till yesterday.
I'am sure Lafleur will have some excuse, and I'am tired of your attempt to pin me down for a answer.

I don't give a &%$@ if your tired of being pinned down for an answer. You claim things or point fingers, but when asked for proof, you tuck tail run away or deflect by bring up your favorite pet topics.

How is not making excuses for Joe Barry defending the FO? Also, if you are tired of hearing the excuses for Barry, wouldn't that be aligning yourself with these same people? So who are these people that are making the excuses for sleepy Joe? You won't mention names, because there are no names. You could even mention anyone outside the forum, yet you can't even do that.

you and others do the same &%$@, and thats all you ever do is take the side of the GM, countless arguments of defending that stupid Rashad Gary pick, or neal, or the other 2 doz defensive draft busts, or doz of WR we passed on to do that over the last 10 years..

you had to get rid of Capers then cried over Pettine, and now your defense is that you never defended Barry, seriously pretty hard to figure you out, I actually gave up trying years ago.

I think you're in such a "Me vs The Forum" mode that you're creating an argument that doesn't exist. People aren't defending Barry at all. And when you look up the majority of the posts leading up to the season, they were all ala "Hopefully the defense does well in light of Barry".

Acrobat wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 15:24

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 15:11

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 15:04

I don't give a &%$@ if your tired of being pinned down for an answer. You claim things or point fingers, but when asked for proof, you tuck tail run away or deflect by bring up your favorite pet topics.

How is not making excuses for Joe Barry defending the FO? Also, if you are tired of hearing the excuses for Barry, wouldn't that be aligning yourself with these same people? So who are these people that are making the excuses for sleepy Joe? You won't mention names, because there are no names. You could even mention anyone outside the forum, yet you can't even do that.

you and others do the same &%$@, and thats all you ever do is take the side of the GM, countless arguments of defending that stupid Rashad Gary pick, or neal, or the other 2 doz defensive draft busts, or doz of WR we passed on to do that over the last 10 years..

you had to get rid of Capers then cried over Pettine, and now your defense is that you never defended Barry, seriously pretty hard to figure you out, I actually gave up trying years ago.

I think you're in such a "Me vs The Forum" mode that you're creating an argument that doesn't exist. People aren't defending Barry at all. And when you look up the majority of the posts leading up to the season, they were all ala "Hopefully the defense does well in light of Barry".

lol. yoop.

My only real defense for Joe Barry is I am at the point where I expect such suckiness from the Packers and its defense that I am starting to believe it doesn't matter who plays defense or who coaches defense.

The Packers will always suck on defense. Well. We may have a honeymoon year. 2 honeymoon years maximum before we do the not-so-gentle slide to 25th or worse defense in the league.

Absolutely unbelievable we are worst in the league with the players we have vs the teams we have played. What a joke.

Part of me grieves a bunch that we’re upset about having a bad defense, a mere two games into the season. The real problem, I think, is that it’s actually been bad for well over a year and just plain disappointing for longer than that. They keep making promises to change something and they don’t.

So, I’m not much shocked if the pitchforks have already been deployed. I think that Joe Barry should explain what he’s really going to change. Because we can’t seem to see any difference, at least not after that first game against da Bears.

ADD ON: I just want the Packers to play like they want to go far into January, not just go through the motions! The newness of our youthful offensive weapons will have some shine the rest of the year. But we really need to do better than we did in the 4th yesterday.

Not sure if it was mentioned here. But Jaire, and other players on this D, seem to only play up to the marquee match up.

Jaire can lock down the best, but mails it in, at times, in lesser games.

I think this can be a problem for lots of top end players. It's not a good thing. Unfortunately not everyone are like the Watts.

My expectations would be that we got one additional turnover and held the team to one fewer FG. 22 points on a day when the team we played can run all over most non-elite defenses but the passing game struggles.... that would suit my expectations for this game. We almost hit them. One of the dropped INTs. One stop in the 4th Q. Those two things are the level above my expectations they played.

paco wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 17:52

Not sure if it was mentioned here. But Jaire, and other players on this D, seem to only play up to the marquee match up.

Jaire can lock down the best, but mails it in, at times, in lesser games.

I think this can be a problem for lots of top end players. It's not a good thing. Unfortunately not everyone are like the Watts.

I think that's being generous to Jaire. I think he genuinely matches up poorly with a 6'5" physical WR who can run routes and ha strong hands at the catch point. If the guy lumbered about, sure. But London is a matchup challenge for Jaire and I think he lost the matchup fair and square; not because he wasn't "up" for it.

And I love Jaire. This team just has two BIG guys as their primary WR weapons and another big fast as the primary TE weapon. Doesn't align well against our personnel for us.

paco wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 14:52

I don't think it is making excuses for Barry, but you may want to check out Justis Mosqueda's twitter feed. Several videos like this (only going to post a couple). He's not wrong. Barry isn't the only problem. The players aren't doing their part either.

I guess when we are this talented a team, individually, for so long, where is the mismatch.

Looking like X’s & O’s for the most part. Guys are where they need to be more often than not. Don’t think that is the issue. But at some point between LaFleur and Barry, why are guys continually on the ground during run plays, why do they continually have bad tackling form and missing tackles, why do they continually lack motivation, why do guys continually not control their gaps, why do they continually get punched but can’t punch back?

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 22:52

paco wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2023 17:52

Not sure if it was mentioned here. But Jaire, and other players on this D, seem to only play up to the marquee match up.

Jaire can lock down the best, but mails it in, at times, in lesser games.

I think this can be a problem for lots of top end players. It's not a good thing. Unfortunately not everyone are like the Watts.

I think that's being generous to Jaire. I think he genuinely matches up poorly with a 6'5" physical WR who can run routes and ha strong hands at the catch point. If the guy lumbered about, sure. But London is a matchup challenge for Jaire and I think he lost the matchup fair and square; not because he wasn't "up" for it.

And I love Jaire. This team just has two BIG guys as their primary WR weapons and another big fast as the primary TE weapon. Doesn't align well against our personnel for us.

I can see that as well. But he was dogging it in other aspects of game as well, not just against London or Pitts. Overall bad matchup and just a poor game from him. I expect a big bounceback at home this week.

BF004 wrote: ↑

19 Sep 2023 07:13

I guess when we are this talented a team, individually, for so long, where is the mismatch.

Looking like X’s & O’s for the most part. Guys are where they need to be more often than not. Don’t think that is the issue. But at some point between LaFleur and Barry, why are guys continually on the ground during run plays, why do they continually have bad tackling form and missing tackles, why do they continually lack motivation, why do guys continually not control their gaps, why do they continually get punched but can’t punch back?

You solve that and we may win a Super Bowl.

This is the stuff that drives me crazy, because as Uglem says, it is so elementary. This one is all about numbers. Basic defensive principle calls for your numbers to match or at least be within a half man of the offense on each side of the ball. In the case of this play we are within a half man before motion, but we don't adjust properly to motion. We are STILL at 5.5 and 5.5 at the snap of the ball and the offense had become 7 to the motion, so they out leverage us by a man and a half. That is just basic football and we fail miserably. And to top that, we are so set on this 2 high or quarters coverage that we don't even have a flat defender to our defensive left. It's far too easy for the offense. It is NOT schematically sound defense. It just pisses me off how BAD it really is.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

19 Sep 2023 09:55

This is the stuff that drives me crazy, because as Uglem says, it is so elementary. This one is all about numbers. Basic defensive principal calls for your numbers to match or at least be within a half man of the offense on each side of the ball. In the case of this play we are within a half man before motion, but we don't adjust properly to motion. We are STILL at 5.5 and 5.5 at the snap of the ball and the offense had become 7 to the motion, so they out leverage us by a man and a half. That is just basic football and we fail miserably. And to top that, we are so set on this 2 high or quarters coverage that we don't even have a flat defender to our defensive left. It's far too easy for the offense. It is NOT schematically sound defense. It just pisses me off how BAD it really is.

Exactly.

Yes, players need to make plays but the DC also needs to consistently put them in position to make plays! Playing predominantly this style of defense against THAT offense is criminal!