did it, cover six is bound to help coverage, I think your being deceived do to that, the pass rush had to have that coverage to get any pressure at all, it's why I said we had coverage pressures and sacks.Drj820 wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023 06:03There is a reason I said “most” not all…Washington, jets, and Nola all have defensive head coaches who are really good at coaching defense. All far better than anyone on our team…the trade off for that is their offenses are atrocious.LombardiTime wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023 23:48Packer defenses have sucked for most of the past 12 years.
In 4 of those 12 years, Rodgers won the MVP and in most of the past 12 years the Packers offense has not sucked.
At this point, the indisputable record reveals that the Packers defense pretty much sucks, or is at best mediocre, no matter the level of play of the Packer offense.
Furthermore, Baltimore, NY Jets, Washington, and New Orleans all had top 10 scoring defenses this season. Their scoring offenses finished 19th, 22nd, 24th, and 29th this season. Green Bay's offense finished 14th.
Indeed, despite Wilson/Hackett leading the Bronco offense to the worst/32nd ranked scoring offense, Denver still had a much better scoring defense than the one in Green Bay in 2022.
Blaming the poor performance of the Packer defense in 2022 on the Packer offense is about as persuasive as contending that the defense does not have enough resources despite the 7 1st round picks and 4 free agents and more $ being paid to members of the defense than all but one other team.
For a deeper dive into just how much this defense declined even from 2021, see https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2023/0 ... -joe-barry[/b]/
As for us, yea I know the packers d has been sub par even the offenses have been great…I explained why in another post..for years we had Whiff after whiff high in the draft on the defensive side of the ball. That’s also the number one reason why the offense bled talent..all the resources were going to try to fix a broken defense.
My only point still stands tho…most defenses aren’t great when their is no complimentary football. Most aren’t great when put in bad spots all year long. We saw glimpses of the defense when the O was adequate in the last 4 games..it looked a lot better to me than at other times in the year.
again, who initiated the change, Barry defended himself by saying player input has always been a process of his defense, I didn't buy into that because of the way Alexander became so vocal after the loss to the Vikes week one, and we basically saw zero adjustments till 2 months later, it's why I believe during the bye there was a players meeting and they forced Barry to change it up.
a big deal was made of the decrease of 5 man rush plays, it probably is the reason QB's had more time to throw, we did that because, rushing 5 didn't succeed and Barry's cover 3 zone was getting torched, my point is Barry was given a very good group even minus Gary and Stokes, yet with the likes of Clark and Reed,
Smith, Enagbare, Slaton/ Wyatt couldn't get quick enough pressure for the 5 DB's to stop the pass, so he stuck to 4 man rushes to add a guy in coverage, it helped, except now we became weaker to stop the run, would having Gary helped, of course, but he wouldn't have made the holes in Barry's zone coverage any smaller, obviously quicker pressure Gary could provide would help any coverage scheme, but we replaced some of what Gary would have given with Adding Reed, and his 35 (guess) or so pressures, my point is Barry actually failed at just about everything.