I would LOVE the see the grade for the Vikings' center, whose descendants will tell the tale of the horrific monster called Kenny Clark for generations, and their other OL for that game.
In the game, our secondary players were in position to make several big plays, many of which enabled by the pressure leading to Cousins to throw risky ones, which is encouraging for the future. But they didn't make 'em. Other times they got flat out beat, and unfortunate often on key plays like 3rd downs and explosive plays..
The pressure wasn't peak Packers overall. There was inside pressure, but the outside pressure was limited in the long run. Garvin and Galeai battled, but are a several steps below our starters. I have a feeling Barry was like, "c'mon, we WILL get one of these INTs if we keep pressuring Kirk", and so he blitzed late in the game to help the rushers out. I don't blame him, since we did get those opportunities.
I think this one hurts so much, because we had an opportunity despite being banged up beyond all recognition, and the opponent basking in Lady Fortuna's favor. Woulda been a great story, had we won.
Packers @ Vikings GDT: Sunday, Nov. 21st, NOON CST
Moderators: NCF, salmar80, BF004, APB, Packfntk
actually I believe we had only 16 pressures, I can't account for the other 5 that where reported, thats half the pressures we had against Seattle, and some of those where coverage pressures, our coverage while poor at times was also good enough had the rush been even mildly better.
every game there are coverage breakdowns or simply poor coverage, we've over come a lot of that because we get pressure, and if you would rewatch you would see that Cousins often had a 3 count to throw the ball, so when you complain about coverage I have to ask, how long do you think the coverage is suppose to hold up.
saying all this, I agree we did have coverage issues, but imho they where magnified because our base rushers couldn't get pressure on Cousins, night and day compared to when Barry started bringing extra rushers
I did rewatch the game.
Last edited by Yoop on 23 Nov 2021 08:56, edited 1 time in total.
I think that must be a error, 16 pressures seems about right, Cousins beat the pressure.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑22 Nov 2021 17:14From the same set of statistics... Was someone else under center for those 5 other pressures?
The beautiful thing about football yoop is it is such a team and interconnected game you can quite literally point blame on anything you want.Yoop wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021 08:49actually I believe we had only 16 pressures, I can't account for the other 5 that where reported, thats half the pressures we had against Seattle, and some of those where coverage pressures, our coverage while poor at times was also good enough had the rush been even mildly better.
every game there are coverage breakdowns or simply poor coverage, we've over come a lot of that because we get pressure, and if you would rewatch you would see that Cousins often had a 3 count to throw the ball, so when you complain about coverage I have to ask, how long do you think the coverage is suppose to hold up.
saying all this, I agree we did have coverage issues, but imho they where magnified because our base rushers couldn't get pressure on Cousins, night and day compared to when Barry started bringing extra rushers
and I know damn well I'am not wrong, I did rewatch the game.
When Rodgers was struggling and you liked him because you thought he was vaccinated, you can easily blame the receivers for running bad routes because who is gonna know.
When Rodgers was struggling and you don't like him because he wasn't vaccinated, you can easily blame Rodgers for not finding the open recievers or making a decision quick enough.
When you want to defend the coverage, you can blame the front 7 for making them play too long.
When you want to defend the front 7, you can blame the coverage for not holding up and of course they will get beat.
What I describe is alomst 90% of the discussion on every football board.
I will let you think what you want. I will disagree. I won't say you're wrong but I will disagree.
I am far more in alignment with [mention]salmar80[/mention] than with you on this point. But to each their own.
b u l l s h i tgo pak go wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021 08:55The beautiful thing about football yoop is it is such a team and interconnected game you can quite literally point blame on anything you want.Yoop wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021 08:49actually I believe we had only 16 pressures, I can't account for the other 5 that where reported, thats half the pressures we had against Seattle, and some of those where coverage pressures, our coverage while poor at times was also good enough had the rush been even mildly better.
every game there are coverage breakdowns or simply poor coverage, we've over come a lot of that because we get pressure, and if you would rewatch you would see that Cousins often had a 3 count to throw the ball, so when you complain about coverage I have to ask, how long do you think the coverage is suppose to hold up.
saying all this, I agree we did have coverage issues, but imho they where magnified because our base rushers couldn't get pressure on Cousins, night and day compared to when Barry started bringing extra rushers
and I know damn well I'am not wrong, I did rewatch the game.
When Rodgers was struggling and you liked him because you thought he was vaccinated, you can easily blame the receivers for running bad routes because who is gonna know.
When Rodgers was struggling and you don't like him because he wasn't vaccinated, you can easily blame Rodgers for not finding the open recievers or making a decision quick enough.
When you want to defend the coverage, you can blame the front 7 for making them play too long.
When you want to defend the front 7, you can blame the coverage for not holding up and of course they will get beat.
What I describe is alomst 90% of the discussion on every football board.
I will let you think what you want. I will disagree. I won't say you're wrong but I will disagree.
I am far more in alignment with @salmar80 than with you on this point. But to each their own.
first off I didn't pick a fight with 23, simply made a correction/addition to his comment, he's the one who went off half cocked.
on this topic I simply pointed out the decline of pass rush, which obviously did lead to exposing less then perfect coverage against two very good receivers, but we've dealt with poor coverage before in this season, diff. is either the QB and receivers weren't as good, or our pass rush forced the QB into poor throws or other mistakes.
right away you took near the opposite point of view blaming the secondary and supporting this nonsense that we won the war in the trenches, and neither are a accurate picture of what happened in this game, Cook pounded us for near a buck, and we did not pressure cousins with our base 4 rush group, at least not quick enough, some where there is a stat that will show Cousins had over a 2.5 count to get rid of the ball
as to Rodgers, he's a liar, and he put himself above the team, that aside he's played like &%$@ most of the year, and did for a 1/3 of this game, I defend him when he deserves defending, and I still think he should have been given better receivers to work with.
If we expect to win or go far in the PO's he'll have to continue to play as he did the last half Sunday
-
YoHoChecko
- Reactions:
- Posts: 9694
- Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34
This is a fairly easy disagreement to disentangle.
Yoop believes that the Packers got less pressure against the Vikings (21 or 16 pressures, by his own stats from the same source, confusingly) than we did against the Chiefs and Seahawks. Objectively, this is true.
Yoop believes, and has always believed, that teams should be pressuring opposing QBs like half the time, 50%. We did not achieve that Sunday, so for Yoop, this is why the secondary failed.
Others, who have been having this debate for years believe that pressuring the QB 16 or 21 times in a game--or 42% of dropbacks--is enough to "check the box" for having enough pressure. For them, the pressure did their job, forced errant throws, and the secondary simply didn't take advantage of it.
Yoop has somewhat unrealistic notions of how often opposing QBs can be pressured, but he is also right that a slight decline in pressures led to our worst defensive outing in ages.
Both camps seem to agree that the secondary let us down. Yoop says the lack of pressure exposed a weakness in our secondary that had been covered up by high pressure the past couple of weeks, while others say the secondary was in position to make plays, but simply didn't. Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive takes. Ball skills were, for instance, the biggest knock on Stokes pre-draft. Rasul Douglas, despite being a bright spot, was available on the street. Chandon Sullivan is a streaky player with a limited ceiling who sometimes gets exposed, but often plays above his stature.
So yeah, our secondary let us down this week. But they also have been playing above their depth for a while. And maybe having pressures on 58% of the dropbacks instead of 42% helped them accomplish that. But also, without Gary in there, to still get 42% pressure rate and to still see a number of bad forced throws--well that's a pretty good outing by the pressure packages.
The whole of the bickering just really stems from whether our secondary isn't good enough, and gets exposed without pressures, or they're good enough, but missed their chances and thus didn't play well enough today.
It's like people are genuinely debating if our passing game problems were 60/40 on the pass rush or 60/40 on the secondary. I mean, sure, have at it. But it's a pretty small debate to be all consternated.
Yoop believes that the Packers got less pressure against the Vikings (21 or 16 pressures, by his own stats from the same source, confusingly) than we did against the Chiefs and Seahawks. Objectively, this is true.
Yoop believes, and has always believed, that teams should be pressuring opposing QBs like half the time, 50%. We did not achieve that Sunday, so for Yoop, this is why the secondary failed.
Others, who have been having this debate for years believe that pressuring the QB 16 or 21 times in a game--or 42% of dropbacks--is enough to "check the box" for having enough pressure. For them, the pressure did their job, forced errant throws, and the secondary simply didn't take advantage of it.
Yoop has somewhat unrealistic notions of how often opposing QBs can be pressured, but he is also right that a slight decline in pressures led to our worst defensive outing in ages.
Both camps seem to agree that the secondary let us down. Yoop says the lack of pressure exposed a weakness in our secondary that had been covered up by high pressure the past couple of weeks, while others say the secondary was in position to make plays, but simply didn't. Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive takes. Ball skills were, for instance, the biggest knock on Stokes pre-draft. Rasul Douglas, despite being a bright spot, was available on the street. Chandon Sullivan is a streaky player with a limited ceiling who sometimes gets exposed, but often plays above his stature.
So yeah, our secondary let us down this week. But they also have been playing above their depth for a while. And maybe having pressures on 58% of the dropbacks instead of 42% helped them accomplish that. But also, without Gary in there, to still get 42% pressure rate and to still see a number of bad forced throws--well that's a pretty good outing by the pressure packages.
The whole of the bickering just really stems from whether our secondary isn't good enough, and gets exposed without pressures, or they're good enough, but missed their chances and thus didn't play well enough today.
It's like people are genuinely debating if our passing game problems were 60/40 on the pass rush or 60/40 on the secondary. I mean, sure, have at it. But it's a pretty small debate to be all consternated.
If I win the lottery, I will book seats for Yoop and go pak go to a game together. And one for myself 2 rows behind to observe.
I think I would see good things.
I think I would see good things.
Hahaha. On game days my language is very simple.
It consists of a lot of swear words and hitting things, pouting (loooots of pouting) and worst case scenario thoughts, and screaming the last name of a player (when it is a good play) really loud and in a high pitched voice while running around in my living room. If I'm at the game, it usually involves shaking the person next to me, high fives and hugs all around.
I'm a pill on game days. It's why I don't let very many people watch the game with me. College sucked because people would always want to watch the game with me just to see how I react. I hated that. I am not there for someone's entertainment.
thanks for simplifying our points of view Yoho.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021 09:23This is a fairly easy disagreement to disentangle.
Yoop believes that the Packers got less pressure against the Vikings (21 or 16 pressures, by his own stats from the same source, confusingly) than we did against the Chiefs and Seahawks. Objectively, this is true.
Yoop believes, and has always believed, that teams should be pressuring opposing QBs like half the time, 50%. We did not achieve that Sunday, so for Yoop, this is why the secondary failed.
Others, who have been having this debate for years believe that pressuring the QB 16 or 21 times in a game--or 42% of dropbacks--is enough to "check the box" for having enough pressure. For them, the pressure did their job, forced errant throws, and the secondary simply didn't take advantage of it.
Yoop has somewhat unrealistic notions of how often opposing QBs can be pressured, but he is also right that a slight decline in pressures led to our worst defensive outing in ages.
Both camps seem to agree that the secondary let us down. Yoop says the lack of pressure exposed a weakness in our secondary that had been covered up by high pressure the past couple of weeks, while others say the secondary was in position to make plays, but simply didn't. Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive takes. Ball skills were, for instance, the biggest knock on Stokes pre-draft. Rasul Douglas, despite being a bright spot, was available on the street. Chandon Sullivan is a streaky player with a limited ceiling who sometimes gets exposed, but often plays above his stature.
So yeah, our secondary let us down this week. But they also have been playing above their depth for a while. And maybe having pressures on 58% of the dropbacks instead of 42% helped them accomplish that. But also, without Gary in there, to still get 42% pressure rate and to still see a number of bad forced throws--well that's a pretty good outing by the pressure packages.
The whole of the bickering just really stems from whether our secondary isn't good enough, and gets exposed without pressures, or they're good enough, but missed their chances and thus didn't play well enough today.
It's like people are genuinely debating if our passing game problems were 60/40 on the pass rush or 60/40 on the secondary. I mean, sure, have at it. But it's a pretty small debate to be all consternated.
what makes you think your different then the rest of usgo pak go wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021 09:31Hahaha. On game days my language is very simple.
It consists of a lot of swear words and hitting things, pouting (loooots of pouting) and worst case scenario thoughts, and screaming the last name of a player (when it is a good play) really loud and in a high pitched voice while running around in my living room. If I'm at the game, it usually involves shaking the person next to me, high fives and hugs all around.
I'm a pill on game days. It's why I don't let very many people watch the game with me. College sucked because people would always want to watch the game with me just to see how I react. I hated that. I am not there for someone's entertainment.
-
YoHoChecko
- Reactions:
- Posts: 9694
- Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34
I'm boring AF on gamedays. I generally am chill and don't press or freak out for the entire first half as long as things are reasonable. Then it's a slow build into the 3rd quarter before becoming an edge of my seat for the 4th. I'm not great at games because I hate loud cheering and noise-making, not to mention standing up. I like to sit, chill, and take in the experience up until the portion of the game when winning and losing are clearly in sight.
You and I would not be good together.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021 09:58I'm boring AF on gamedays. I generally am chill and don't press or freak out for the entire first half as long as things are reasonable. Then it's a slow build into the 3rd quarter before becoming an edge of my seat for the 4th. I'm not great at games because I hate loud cheering and noise-making, not to mention standing up. I like to sit, chill, and take in the experience up until the portion of the game when winning and losing are clearly in sight.
I move positions on couches depending on what seat position has lead to Packers success. I wear the same thing over and over on win streaks. I change clothes when things aren't working. I have to stand up on defense to make my effort known and show how important it is to me. Especially on 3rd down. No relaxing allowed. I constantly say Get off the field boys get off the field. Come on Gary make a play. Get a sack Rashan go get em Rashan. Offense I am super chill.
I have to throw a football in the air or throw at walls so it can bounce off and I catch it.
And finally, after every touchdown I play this to the loudest setting and dance with my dog.
Game day is a job. I have to go to work the next day just so I can relax.
And yes. My game day viewing is obsessed with Rashan Gary. There is no other player I want to see succeed more than Rashan Gary. It's personal with Rashan Gary.
just reading your mind
I also like to watch the game alone or with my brother, where both kinda quiet and concentrate on the game, probably because we are older, we where both more excitable years ago, when I can't, I DVR so I can watch later, to many distractions when I watch with others
Good watch and gets into the detail of just how bizzare this Vikings win was.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."