Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 11:27

Just wanna put it out there that the most teams struggle with a really good front 7.

Agree with Yoop. The team and Rodgers need to be willing to let our stars be decoys and beat them with our supporting cast. We need to be able to apply the aspects of the game plan and execution that we utilize successfully in games when Adams has been out in games when Adams is still there.

granted Rodgers over threw MVS last week, but the only consistent one in that bunch is Tonyan, and all 3 struggle to win 1x1, so it's not as simple as just decoying Adams and Jones.

I think I agree some with GPG, we have to run more option with 21 sets, jet sweep Jones, and smash Dillon, Newman struggled last week, so that could be a problem, in order for Dillon to have success, Newman will have to do well to, and we have to have Cobb do well in the slot, a little success and he could also freeze a Lber or safety, I think with the Lions we where just starting to get back to what we can become on offense.

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 11:54

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 11:27

Just wanna put it out there that the most teams struggle with a really good front 7.

Yeah. And that's why I think the 49ers will win. Because I think they are a good football team and our defense has not shown it can stop the run which is the lifeblood of their offense - no matter who is tailback which allows them to have long sustaining drives and keeping Rodgers on the sideline.

Suddenly the first 2 drives that accumulate 1 1st down leads to us being behind 14 to 0 and the Packers start sweating and start doing more drop back throws.

We have seen this movie over and over. The Packers, like most other teams, struggle vs this type of team. Just as opposing offenses struggle against our defense when we get a double digit lead.

best tackling team so far in the short season, hope that continues.

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 12:00

I think I agree some with GPG, we have to run more option with 21 sets, jet sweep Jones, and smash Dillon, Newman struggled last week, so that could be a problem, in order for Dillon to have success, Newman will have to do well to, and we have to have Cobb do well in the slot, a little success and he could also freeze a Lber or safety, I think with the Lions we where just starting to get back to what we can become on offense.

I think a lot of the Lions success is because Jamie Collins sucks and Aaron Jones was able to eat his lunch.

But we did also see a concerted effort to stick with the MLF offense basics. Kind of looked like the October 2019 offense. What I was proud about the playcalling is they stuck with it for the most part even when trailing in the 1st half.

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 12:01

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 11:54

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 11:27

Just wanna put it out there that the most teams struggle with a really good front 7.

Yeah. And that's why I think the 49ers will win. Because I think they are a good football team and our defense has not shown it can stop the run which is the lifeblood of their offense - no matter who is tailback which allows them to have long sustaining drives and keeping Rodgers on the sideline.

Suddenly the first 2 drives that accumulate 1 1st down leads to us being behind 14 to 0 and the Packers start sweating and start doing more drop back throws.

We have seen this movie over and over. The Packers, like most other teams, struggle vs this type of team. Just as opposing offenses struggle against our defense when we get a double digit lead.

best tackling team so far in the short season, hope that continues.

They have been good at tackling. I don't believe there has been a run over 20 yards allowed yet. But we are also allowing 140 rushing yards per game.

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 12:04

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 12:01

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 11:54

Yeah. And that's why I think the 49ers will win. Because I think they are a good football team and our defense has not shown it can stop the run which is the lifeblood of their offense - no matter who is tailback which allows them to have long sustaining drives and keeping Rodgers on the sideline.

Suddenly the first 2 drives that accumulate 1 1st down leads to us being behind 14 to 0 and the Packers start sweating and start doing more drop back throws.

We have seen this movie over and over. The Packers, like most other teams, struggle vs this type of team. Just as opposing offenses struggle against our defense when we get a double digit lead.

best tackling team so far in the short season, hope that continues.

They have been good at tackling. I don't believe there has been a run over 20 yards allowed yet. But we are also allowing 140 rushing yards per game.

Which is why this constant quoting of PFF is so maddening. This defense has major problems going forward. If PFF grades make u feel better than that's a good thing I guess.

Realist wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 12:20

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 12:04

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 12:01

best tackling team so far in the short season, hope that continues.

They have been good at tackling. I don't believe there has been a run over 20 yards allowed yet. But we are also allowing 140 rushing yards per game.

Which is why this constant quoting of PFF is so maddening. This defense has major problems going forward. If PFF grades make u feel better than that's a good thing I guess.

haha ya most people recognize PFF sucks, yet many people share them when they want their biases confirmed.

Realist wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 12:20

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 12:04

Yoop wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 12:01

best tackling team so far in the short season, hope that continues.

They have been good at tackling. I don't believe there has been a run over 20 yards allowed yet. But we are also allowing 140 rushing yards per game.

Which is why this constant quoting of PFF is so maddening. This defense has major problems going forward. If PFF grades make u feel better than that's a good thing I guess.

I like some of what PFF does. Like I love their offensive line and edge rusher stats but I hate their coverage stats because they don’t know what the players are being coached to do in certain coverage. Example being them putting the blown assignment on Stokes when the coach said it was on King. Tackling is a pretty straight forward grade. Either you made the play or you didn’t.

If PFF sucks why is it that everyone from college to pro pay for there grades

PFF began collecting data for every NCAA Division-I college football game in 2014. As of 2021, PFF provides customized data to all 32 NFL teams, 102 NCAA FBS teams, 7 CFL teams, national/regional media (i.e. Washington Post, The Athletic, ESPN) and sports agencies/agents.

People have to stop thinking in absolutes. PFF isn't perfect or awful. But it's another set of info to combine with other sources to help determine a bigger picture.

If anyone uses 1 set of data from 1 source they are dumb and don't deserve a job or to be listened to.

paco wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 16:30

People have to stop thinking in absolutes. PFF isn't perfect or awful. But it's another set of info to combine with other sources to help determine a bigger picture.

If anyone uses 1 set of data from 1 source they are dumb and don't deserve a job or to be listened to.

good point, I imagine all grade a bit differently, specially with pass rush, missed tackles, or coverage design, obviously only the players and coaches know who's assigned to who, none of these grading sources know everything, I just think people slam PFF as though there some back yardy since that is basically how it started, now it's become one of the best

https://profootballfocussupport.zendesk ... -position-

heres another concerning Chris Collonsworth and some stuff on data gathering.

https://nbcsportsgrouppressbox.com/2019 ... ports-com/

with some 400 staff employees this is no longer a hobby farm operation that it started out to be.

paco wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2021 17:45

This is what I was saying with the coverage rating they use because they dont know what the responsibilities are that are being coached. I do believe grades for receivers getting open are valid, blocking grades are valid, I think they do very well rating QBs. I think they do a horrible job rating LBs because again in coverages they dont know what the responsibilities are being coaches or the run fits. They have historically rated many LBs poorly who have had good seasons and been incredibly impactful.

As for the chat GPG and I were starting to have about leverage, i thought it was best to bring that convo over to hear.

Gutted defense? With all of the injuries we have, it may not be too different from what we are playing with now.

Stokes, Jaire, Savage, Kenny, Gary, are all under contract.

Preston hasnt given us a ton this year anyways, Z has been out all year anyways.

The only major loss I see is probably Amos who is rock solid, and then we could quickly lose our finally quality ILB core.

But, my point is that i dont think its an automatic our Defense is awful next year. We still have some staples. Slayton looks good too.

On offense, we still have Jenkins, Bahk, A Jones, Dillon, Big Dog, a fresh crop of young OLmen....

I mean IF Rodgers wants to stay...he can work with what we will have.

Those “under contract” players is ignoring the cap casualty cuts that would likely need to happen. Yes, those players are under contract but the team is way over cap budget. Sacrifices will likely need to be made beyond cutting/not resigning those players you mentioned.

Don't know if any of you caught the Collinsworth-Michaels discussion last night about Rodgers and his summer rift with Packers brass but both announcers agreed their impression after this week's interviews leading up to their SNF coverage was that Rodgers relationship with the Packers had improved dramatically. Collinsworth was particularly imbued with the thought of Rodgers being a Packer beyond 2021.

So there's that.

APB wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2021 08:28

Don't know if any of you caught the Collinsworth-Michaels discussion last night about Rodgers and his summer rift with Packers brass but both announcers agreed their impression after this week's interviews leading up to their SNF coverage was that Rodgers relationship with the Packers had improved dramatically. Collinsworth was particularly imbued with the thought of Rodgers being a Packer beyond 2021.

So there's that.

Rodgers felt the front office was not being all they could be, after Guty took Aarons advice and brought Cobb back, all is forgiven

so much Gossip, seriously how much incite could Collinsworth or Michaels possibly have, I think most announcers think Rodgers staying a Packer is a great story line, I know I do.

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2021 08:45

APB wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2021 08:28

Don't know if any of you caught the Collinsworth-Michaels discussion last night about Rodgers and his summer rift with Packers brass but both announcers agreed their impression after this week's interviews leading up to their SNF coverage was that Rodgers relationship with the Packers had improved dramatically. Collinsworth was particularly imbued with the thought of Rodgers being a Packer beyond 2021.

So there's that.

Rodgers felt the front office was not being all they could be, after Guty took Aarons advice and brought Cobb back, all is forgiven

so much Gossip, seriously how much incite could Collinsworth or Michaels possibly have, I think most announcers think Rodgers staying a Packer is a great story line, I know I do.

They've got zero insight into the situation. Every sees Rodgers playing well and seemingly happy, the Packers winning and thinks how could they not stay together? That's the shallowest possible way to look at things. And that's what the media does for the most part.

He's still gone.

They could certainly not see the full picture...like our salary cap and etc. But i think they have more that 0 incite. They dont just watch him from the booth on Sundays. They had a lengthy meeting with him and their discussion sprung from impressions they walked away with after that meeting.

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2021 08:45

seriously how much incite could Collinsworth or Michaels possibly have...

Side note: I think [mention]Yoop[/mention]'s use of this particular spelling version is dead on, whether intentional or not.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2021 09:02

They could certainly not see the full picture...like our salary cap and etc. But i think they have more that 0 incite. They dont just watch him from the booth on Sundays. They had a lengthy meeting with him and their discussion sprung from impressions they walked away with after that meeting.

Collinsworth also remarked how honest Rodgers seemed to be during that meeting about, well basically about everything, so I think there impressions where tainted some what by simply being in his presence.