Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 09:29

remember, pass rush fails over, way over 50% of the time,

I know you like citing this little blurb - been doing it for several years - but this, again, is also waaaaaay too overly simplistic.

If coverage fails from the outset, there is no way pass rush will succeed. The QB will simply hit the open receiver and away they go. Pass rush, for the most part, is WHOLLY dependent on coverage having at least initial success. If coverage fails within those first 1-2 seconds, there is no way in hell your rush will be successful with a competent QB. It's a completely skewed and dependent stat.

Coverage does not need pass rush to succeed, at least not initially. Conversely, pass rush is wholly dependent on coverage to at least initially succeed otherwise it's a losing battle no matter how good your pass rushers are.

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 10:05

go pak go wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 09:58

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 09:29

more successful per play, remember, pass rush fails over, way over 50% of the time, I brought this and that other article to show how football evolves, defense is always trying to catch up with evolving offensive schemes, 4 plus years ago DC went to the hybrid safety, coupled with a Wagner type ILB if they had one, we did it with Hawk (first) and Burnette, Hawk had lost speed, but was rarely out of position, and Burny was stout against the run, but also pretty dang good in coverage.

since then it's been a revolving door at the hybrid position, and our MLB seems tasked with trying t6o do not only his job but also to try and help the scrub hybrids we've used, Green seems the best, but now he's hurt.

I brought it because I think both articles describe pretty well our dilema.

How is Bobby Wagner and his defense more successful per play when his pass defense is the worst in the NFL?

why are you so concerned with the team Wagner plays on versus what this article is about, which is the position he plays, I don't know why I even both er to bring stuff, since all you want to do is prove me or the article wrong.

to funny, we support the findings of PFF, but only when it supports our pre conceived opinion

No I didn't read the article. I don't have a Gannett subscription so I am not going to use my 3 freebie reads on that.

I absolutely agree that we need ILB. ILB was my number one wish in last year's draft.

My wish list was Murray, Jefferson and Queen, in that order for a reason. Your top want was Jefferson.

But do you not agree that my question of how a player can have high win rate when he is on the worst passing defense in franchise history and worst pass defense in the league is strange?

The concept of "we need a blue here" or we need a blue there is sexy. Obviously we want the best players everywhere. Like. duh. But the Seahawks is an interesting case study because they have a top ILB and per PFF, the best in the league at pass coverage and yet he is on the worst pass defense in the league at an historic rate.

APB wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 10:18

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 09:29

remember, pass rush fails over, way over 50% of the time,

I know you like citing this little blurb - been doing it for several years - but this, again, is also waaaaaay too overly simplistic.

If coverage fails from the outset, there is no way pass rush will succeed. The QB will simply hit the open receiver and away they go. Pass rush, for the most part, is WHOLLY dependent on coverage having at least initial success. If coverage fails within those first 1-2 seconds, there is no way in hell your rush will be successful with a competent QB. It's a completely skewed and dependent stat.

Coverage does not need pass rush to succeed, at least not initially. Conversely, pass rush is wholly dependent on coverage to at least initially succeed otherwise it's a losing battle no matter how good your pass rushers are.

I've said what you just said for years to, yet people here disagreed and said pass rush is the key, I've even explained that it cost more for coverage then it does pass rush unless you pay big for the 4 man front, most teams can't, neither can they afford to purchase guys like Wagner along with the CB's and safety's to provide steller coverage, and actually e3ven if you did have all those pieces guys like Rodgers etc. will beat out both often enough to win, did you miss this in my previous post?

coverage has to support the pass rush till the pass rush is able to pressure the QB, and rarely does that happen in under a 2 count, Wagner (other ILB) with coverage skills take away the first route read or two just as these hybrid safety's are, to often though these hybrids are not stout enough to be of value stopping the run, and become a liability when OC go to no huddle looking a defense into that lighter package

I wouldn't say our pass coverage has been the issue this year. I think our overall larger issue is our pass rush has not been effective generating the pressures and getting to the QB's face quick enough while at the same time our front 7 also doesn't contain the run well enough.

go pak go wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 10:23

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 10:05

go pak go wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 09:58

How is Bobby Wagner and his defense more successful per play when his pass defense is the worst in the NFL?

why are you so concerned with the team Wagner plays on versus what this article is about, which is the position he plays, I don't know why I even both er to bring stuff, since all you want to do is prove me or the article wrong.

to funny, we support the findings of PFF, but only when it supports our pre conceived opinion

No I didn't read the article. I don't have a Gannett subscription so I am not going to use my 3 freebie reads on that.

I absolutely agree that we need ILB. ILB was my number one wish in last year's draft.

My wish list was Murray, Jefferson and Queen, in that order for a reason. Your top want was Jefferson.

But do you not agree that my question of how a player can have high win rate when he is on the worst passing defense in franchise history and worst pass defense in the league is strange?

The concept of "we need a blue here" or we need a blue there is sexy. Obviously we want the best players everywhere. Like. duh. But the Seahawks is an interesting case study because they have a top ILB and per PFF, the best in the league at pass coverage and yet he is on the worst pass defense in the league at an historic rate.

well we know PFF grades each play, what should be obvious to you is that WAgner wins on more individual plays then Donald does, which should not surprise you, sense DL lose far more then they win, simply beating a block does not compare to a tackle or pass defensed, havn't even checked the stats of either player, however I'd imagine Wagner has 3 times the tackles and PD's as Donald, obvious ya'd want to have both on your team, but I'd take Wagner over Donald in a NY minute.

chit, I had that article, but ended up deleting it, I brought it special for you because your the most interested in improving ours, another I didn't bring was about building modern day defenses, and how these hybrid safety's are the future simply because there is such a shortage of Wagners, and Requim Smiths, both Bush and (what was that others top 10 pick lber a year or so back, Nelson????) are smaller more agile, basically just big safety's, DC have to first cover, and then think about stopping the run.
If I new you didn't have Gannet or JSonline (cheap packer info) I would have printed the whole article, possibly I'll find time later to look for it, but those are archive articles, Prisco's was from 2016, not to easy to find.

go pak go wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 10:46

I wouldn't say our pass coverage has been the issue this year. I think our overall larger issue is our pass rush has not been effective generating the pressures and getting to the QB's face quick enough while at the same time our front 7 also doesn't contain the run well enough.

sure it has, not so much deep or on the edge, but LBer ally is a sieve, and GPG pass rush is rarely fast enough, thats the point I'am trying to make, it never has been, hense APB's response of me saying this always, I've been saying it since satan developed ice machines

I think so much about about offense has changed the last 4 to 5 years, no longer are teams trying to duplicate ( just a couple, KC, Saints, us some still) the spread iso verticals that made Rodgers famous years past, now we are seeing more uptempo on schedule schemes, and naturally the ball comes out faster, the routes are shorter, and often we see crossing routes in Lber zones, hard routes to cover for 240lb or plus size lbers, that means both your primary MLB and your will backer have to be near interchangable, otherwise you see player mismatches that we often see with us, like Kirksey on a RB or TE etc.

Something to keep in mind.

paco wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2020 22:34

Something to keep in mind.

This is true but also short sighted. It would be "irrelevant" if we look at Week 16.

But if the Saints drop to KC and we beat TN but lose to CHI, we still are the #1 seed if whoever wins vs the Rams/Hawks on Week 16 loses their game week 17 which is not out of the possibility.

OR, if Washington beats the Hawks this week, we could very well have the #1 seed clinched with a victory over TN if the Packers, Chiefs and Washington wins Week 15 and Hawks beat the Rams week 16.

Also, the team with the LONGEST winning streak right now in the NFC is the Washington Football Team.

I don't think there is a scenario in play where week 16 would be meaningless for seeding but week 17 vs Chicago would.

Thereby I don't think there is a situation where it would be considered to rest Rodgers last minute because again, either LA or SEA could in theory lost week 17 which would mean a week 16 win would be helpful.

go pak go wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 06:59

Also, the team with the LONGEST winning streak right now in the NFC is the Washington Football Team.

Some pretty impressive wins, too.

I think the best move may be to activate Stephaniak this week and hope we can have Linsley Week 16.

Packers defense seeing a little boost from yesterday:

Overall Defense Yards per Game: 8th - 336 yards per game
Overall Passing Yards per Game: 12th - 226 yards per game
Overall Rushing Yards per Game: 12th - 110 yards per game
Overall Points Allowed per Game: 16th - 24.8 points per game

Really strange we are 8th overall but then 12th when we isolate Passing and Rushing.

If we held the Lions to 21 points yesterday, we would be 14th in points allowed.

go pak go wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 11:07

Packers defense seeing a little boost from yesterday:

Overall Defense Yards per Game: 8th - 336 yards per game
Overall Passing Yards per Game: 12th - 226 yards per game
Overall Rushing Yards per Game: 12th - 110 yards per game
Overall Points Allowed per Game: 16th - 24.8 points per game

Really strange we are 8th overall but then 12th when we isolate Passing and Rushing.

If we held the Lions to 21 points yesterday, we would be 14th in points allowed.

I think a tremendous trend we are starting to see is how we are allowing a lot of TDs on drives (instead of FGs) and how special teams is starting to hurt the defense as we go from 8th in yards to 16th in points allowed.

go pak go wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 11:08

go pak go wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 11:07

Packers defense seeing a little boost from yesterday:

Overall Defense Yards per Game: 8th - 336 yards per game
Overall Passing Yards per Game: 12th - 226 yards per game
Overall Rushing Yards per Game: 12th - 110 yards per game
Overall Points Allowed per Game: 16th - 24.8 points per game

Really strange we are 8th overall but then 12th when we isolate Passing and Rushing.

If we held the Lions to 21 points yesterday, we would be 14th in points allowed.

I think a tremendous trend we are starting to see is how we are allowing a lot of TDs on drives (instead of FGs) and how special teams is starting to hurt the defense as we go from 8th in yards to 16th in points allowed.

Great points - was just thinking about how 8th in YPG but 16th in PPG doesn't jive with our 'bend but don't break' mantra.

kyle.mccarroll wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 11:10

go pak go wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 11:08

go pak go wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 11:07

Packers defense seeing a little boost from yesterday:

Overall Defense Yards per Game: 8th - 336 yards per game
Overall Passing Yards per Game: 12th - 226 yards per game
Overall Rushing Yards per Game: 12th - 110 yards per game
Overall Points Allowed per Game: 16th - 24.8 points per game

Really strange we are 8th overall but then 12th when we isolate Passing and Rushing.

If we held the Lions to 21 points yesterday, we would be 14th in points allowed.

I think a tremendous trend we are starting to see is how we are allowing a lot of TDs on drives (instead of FGs) and how special teams is starting to hurt the defense as we go from 8th in yards to 16th in points allowed.

Great points - was just thinking about how 8th in YPG but 16th in PPG doesn't jive with our 'bend but don't break' mantra.

I think it's two things.

1. We really suck at allowing TDs instead of forcing FGs. Yesterday the Lions were 3 of 4 essentially in converting TDs on their drives in scoring range.

2. Our STs, and offense for a 4 game stretch, really hurts us by spotting the opponent unnecessary points. There is at least 37 points that are directly the fault of the offense (TB game. Indy game) or STs. It's honestly probably closer to 40+ points.

We would be around 8th to 10th if we took away Rodgers two pick 6's, (the 2nd pick was essentially a pick 6), the two PR's for TDs, the MVS fumble, the Adams fumble, and the DET kickoff return.

Again. Not prefect science because this happens to other teams too. But it does give some insight that our defense is being hurt by STs and offense at least a little.

You could also state that the defense is getting "bailed out" and their defensive yards rank is better than reality because they are put in shorter fields and therefore don't have to give up the yards which would have been inevitable.

Here is what I have seen over the past month and a half... and this is only my opinion. The Defense + ST is not good enough for us to win the Super Bowl even with our offense humming along like it is. At some point, we need better play, collectively, from those two units to allow our offense to carry us to the top. The offense I can say with full conviction (and I don't think it's going out on a limb) is championship level. The defense, I believe is talented enough to get there over the next month or so, if they just eliminate the lapses and the lack of fire and play like they are capable. The ST is on a whole new level of suck outside of Crosby, but luckily that is the easiest area to fix with minor tweaks. Just get it done.

NCF wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 11:44

Here is what I have seen over the past month and a half... and this is only my opinion. The Defense + ST is not good enough for us to win the Super Bowl even with our offense humming along like it is. At some point, we need better play, collectively, from those two units to allow our offense to carry us to the top. The offense I can say with full conviction (and I don't think it's going out on a limb) is championship level. The defense, I believe is talented enough to get there over the next month or so, if they just eliminate the lapses and the lack of fire and play like they are capable. The ST is on a whole new level of suck outside of Crosby, but luckily that is the easiest area to fix with minor tweaks. Just get it done.

I guess the thing I don't get about these sorts of comments isn't that, like, I think we're a perfect team at all. OF COURSE I wish our D was better and our ST wasn't a return game sieve.

But, like, we could win a Super Bowl 41-37 over the Chiefs in a game in which we've given up a punt return for a TD and 2 long bombs and consistently terrorized by Kelce in the intermediate game. We'd be the same flawed team, and we'd be Super Bowl champs.

Like you said, we've seen the defensive talent flash enough to know we could do better than the recent stretch, and we know ST mistakes should be fixable, so there's reason to want to see improvement and to believe that maybe we can.

But to be the top team in the conference and still be typing things like "this unit or that unit isn't good enough to win a Super Bowl" just seems weird to me. Like, yes it could be good enough to win a Super Bowl. But, again, it probably won't, because that's how probability works.