Week 4 thoughts - Random musings - media stuff
Posted: Wed Oct 3, 2007 9:57 pm
- Not really thrilled with the defense. I haven't been for two weeks now.
For all the talk that it's the strength of their team and that they'd keep us in games while the offense simply has to avoid mistakes, I'm seeing a unit that I believe to be pretty overrated.
The biggest gripe is that they seem to take away one aspect of an opposing offense while allowing the other to be pretty exceptional. I understand that most defenses want to make the opposition one dimensional, but you don't want to make that opposition excel at that dimension.
In three of the four Packer victories, I think we can safely say that the opposition abandoned the run when they probably shouldn't have, or they didn't go to it enough. I'm talking about the Eagles (Westbrook: 20 carries, 4.3 ypc), Giants (Ward: 15 rushes, 6.0 ypc) and the Vikings (Peterson: 12 rushes, 9.3 ypc). Had the Eagles, Giants and Queens gone to what was working for them, maybe we're not 4-0. Maybe we don't even have a winning record. I held my breath every team Peterson had the ball and was relieved every team he left the game. He got 12 carries to Taylor's 8. If he gets a handful of those, I'm not sure we win.
Right now the Packers are 24th against the run in terms of yards per carry. In the coming weeks we're going to see teams that love to run the ball. Oakland (2nd in Rushes/Game), Washington (4th), Dallas (8th), Denver (9th), Carolina (12th).
I'm a bit worried the one of these weeks we're going to see a team that decides that they're going to run the ball and make us consistently stop them.
- That said, in regards to the Vikings...
Peterson is a freakin' stud. I was pissed when the Queens took him last April and I'm certainly no happier now. Injuries are the only things I can see curtailing a potentially hall of fame type career. He's just a really special back and I have a feeling that once the Vikings get the rest of their offense figured out, we're going to be looking up at them in the standings unless we find ourselves a 1500 yard back. This next draft is runningback heavy. Nothing would help this team more than a legit threat at runningback. I'm crtainly not ready to give up on Jackson and Wynn. Some backs just need a bit of time. But look at what Chester Taylor did behind the Vikings line and then look at what Peterson did. Taylor looked like what our backs were doing. Maybe you put Peterson behind this line of our and he's still putting up 100 yard games. I don't know.
- What I do know is that if Thompson think a certain first round back could be a dynamic player in the NFL and he's available, he'd better take him. My darkhorse is Arkansas's Felix Jones. Only a junior, I think you could end up seeing a situation similar to what happened in 2005, where to RBs from the same team go in the first round. I like Jones a lot. He gets massively overshadowed by McFadden, but he might be the 2nd or 3rd best back in the nation. As a freshman he averaged 6.3 ypc. As a sophomore he averaged 7.6. This year he's averaging 10.4. He's also among the nation's best kick returners. I think he'd be stupid to go back to school and risk injury if he goes over 1100 yards, something he's very likely to do.
- Can anyone remember another offense like the one we're seeing from the Packers? It's like watching a version of the run and shoot that heavily utilizes the tight end. Favre must be in heaven. I wonder how long they keep it up. While I think that Favre could continue to pass for 300 plus yards each game, the cold weather is probably going to become a factor and convention says that cold weather teams need to be able to run the ball (and stop the run).
However, this isn't the 'frozen' tundra of old. Most home games I can remember over the last few seasons have been pretty mild. Should we get some home games in January, though, that might change. You never know I guess.
- Where would you rank our set of wide receivers now?
Driver is still the same reliable Driver he's always been. Jones and Jennings catch it if it's around them and both have shown the ability to get by their man. Even Ruvell Martin made some impressive catches last week. One thing I consistently see from him is he catches the ball out and away from his body with his hands. He's got great hands. Like xTitan said, this unit is a strength. If we can get anything out of Koren Robinson when he gets back it's just a nice bonus.
- Would you rather have any TE in the North right now than Donald Lee? Until you start to see something out of the kid Olson in Chicago, the answer has to be no.
Sportsline:
For all the talk that it's the strength of their team and that they'd keep us in games while the offense simply has to avoid mistakes, I'm seeing a unit that I believe to be pretty overrated.
The biggest gripe is that they seem to take away one aspect of an opposing offense while allowing the other to be pretty exceptional. I understand that most defenses want to make the opposition one dimensional, but you don't want to make that opposition excel at that dimension.
In three of the four Packer victories, I think we can safely say that the opposition abandoned the run when they probably shouldn't have, or they didn't go to it enough. I'm talking about the Eagles (Westbrook: 20 carries, 4.3 ypc), Giants (Ward: 15 rushes, 6.0 ypc) and the Vikings (Peterson: 12 rushes, 9.3 ypc). Had the Eagles, Giants and Queens gone to what was working for them, maybe we're not 4-0. Maybe we don't even have a winning record. I held my breath every team Peterson had the ball and was relieved every team he left the game. He got 12 carries to Taylor's 8. If he gets a handful of those, I'm not sure we win.
Right now the Packers are 24th against the run in terms of yards per carry. In the coming weeks we're going to see teams that love to run the ball. Oakland (2nd in Rushes/Game), Washington (4th), Dallas (8th), Denver (9th), Carolina (12th).
I'm a bit worried the one of these weeks we're going to see a team that decides that they're going to run the ball and make us consistently stop them.
- That said, in regards to the Vikings...
Peterson is a freakin' stud. I was pissed when the Queens took him last April and I'm certainly no happier now. Injuries are the only things I can see curtailing a potentially hall of fame type career. He's just a really special back and I have a feeling that once the Vikings get the rest of their offense figured out, we're going to be looking up at them in the standings unless we find ourselves a 1500 yard back. This next draft is runningback heavy. Nothing would help this team more than a legit threat at runningback. I'm crtainly not ready to give up on Jackson and Wynn. Some backs just need a bit of time. But look at what Chester Taylor did behind the Vikings line and then look at what Peterson did. Taylor looked like what our backs were doing. Maybe you put Peterson behind this line of our and he's still putting up 100 yard games. I don't know.
- What I do know is that if Thompson think a certain first round back could be a dynamic player in the NFL and he's available, he'd better take him. My darkhorse is Arkansas's Felix Jones. Only a junior, I think you could end up seeing a situation similar to what happened in 2005, where to RBs from the same team go in the first round. I like Jones a lot. He gets massively overshadowed by McFadden, but he might be the 2nd or 3rd best back in the nation. As a freshman he averaged 6.3 ypc. As a sophomore he averaged 7.6. This year he's averaging 10.4. He's also among the nation's best kick returners. I think he'd be stupid to go back to school and risk injury if he goes over 1100 yards, something he's very likely to do.
- Can anyone remember another offense like the one we're seeing from the Packers? It's like watching a version of the run and shoot that heavily utilizes the tight end. Favre must be in heaven. I wonder how long they keep it up. While I think that Favre could continue to pass for 300 plus yards each game, the cold weather is probably going to become a factor and convention says that cold weather teams need to be able to run the ball (and stop the run).
However, this isn't the 'frozen' tundra of old. Most home games I can remember over the last few seasons have been pretty mild. Should we get some home games in January, though, that might change. You never know I guess.
- Where would you rank our set of wide receivers now?
Driver is still the same reliable Driver he's always been. Jones and Jennings catch it if it's around them and both have shown the ability to get by their man. Even Ruvell Martin made some impressive catches last week. One thing I consistently see from him is he catches the ball out and away from his body with his hands. He's got great hands. Like xTitan said, this unit is a strength. If we can get anything out of Koren Robinson when he gets back it's just a nice bonus.
- Would you rather have any TE in the North right now than Donald Lee? Until you start to see something out of the kid Olson in Chicago, the answer has to be no.
Sportsline:
4 Packers
Posted: Thu Oct 4, 2007 12:56 am
In three of the four Packer victories, I think we can safely say that the opposition abandoned the run when they probably shouldn't have, or they didn't go to it enough. I'm talking about the Eagles (Westbrook: 20 carries, 4.3 ypc), Giants (Ward: 15 rushes, 6.0 ypc) and the Vikings (Peterson: 12 rushes, 9.3 ypc). Had the Eagles, Giants and Queens gone to what was working for them, maybe we're not 4-0. Maybe we don't even have a winning record.
Eagles game--I was at that game and pretty drunk,so i can't recall much of that games besides the big plays.
Giants game--If i remember correctly,in the first half Ward ripped off a pretty long run that helped inflate the ypc,but in general they weren't gashing our run defense on most carries.Then in the second half they got behind and when teams get behind by more than a TD,it's usually pass alot time.
Vikings--No doubt that Childress has some Ned Yost like qualities in him.Peterson was running wild on our run defense and yet only got 12 carries.It sure looks like the Packers dodged a big bullet by the Vikes not letting Childress interview in Green Bay.Maybe Ted wouldn't have hired him,thankfully though he never had the chance.Plus,i'm a fan of McCarthy and think his hiring might end up being the best move made by Thompson.
Right now the Packers are 24th against the run in terms of yards per carry. In the coming weeks we're going to see teams that love to run the ball. Oakland (2nd in Rushes/Game), Washington (4th), Dallas (8th), Denver (9th), Carolina (12th).
It would help if AJ Hawk started making some plays instead of getting caught in the wash so often or being a second late figuring out where the run is going.I thought he's was going to blow up this season and have a great year,so far it's not the case.
What I do know is that if Thompson think a certain first round back could be a dynamic player in the NFL and he's available, he'd better take him. My darkhorse is Arkansas's Felix Jones. Only a junior, I think you could end up seeing a situation similar to what happened in 2005, where to RBs from the same team go in the first round. I like Jones a lot. He gets massively overshadowed by McFadden, but he might be the 2nd or 3rd best back in the nation.
I'm a big fan also,that dude is quick as hell and would be a great fit in the ZBS.That Razorback RB combo is not only the best in college football,it might be better than any combo in the NFL also.
Can anyone remember another offense like the one we're seeing from the Packers?
The Patriots utilize a fairly similar spread offense quite a bit except they don't completely ignore the run.
Posted: Thu Oct 4, 2007 3:05 am
I'm not as down on the defense. To me they've made adjustments so that by the fourth quarter of every game, they are on lockdown and frustrating the opponent even though said opponent may have been gaining yards and scoring in the first half of the game.
I think our defense is more smart than outright physical. The physical D's can usually take a team down in the first or second quarter....for us it takes until halftime for adjustments to be made.
I'm more concerned on the running game.....somehow that has to get going in some way.
The other comment relates to the guy who said our opponents are only 5-11. We can only play who is on the schedule and a month earlier, those first four games looked brutal. But we've hung tough with all those teams and won. I don't think bad teams get "bad" until week 5 or 6 when they realize they have no hope. Right now all those teams we played were clawing hard to get a win, even if they may not prove out to be as strong as thought.
I think our defense is more smart than outright physical. The physical D's can usually take a team down in the first or second quarter....for us it takes until halftime for adjustments to be made.
I'm more concerned on the running game.....somehow that has to get going in some way.
The other comment relates to the guy who said our opponents are only 5-11. We can only play who is on the schedule and a month earlier, those first four games looked brutal. But we've hung tough with all those teams and won. I don't think bad teams get "bad" until week 5 or 6 when they realize they have no hope. Right now all those teams we played were clawing hard to get a win, even if they may not prove out to be as strong as thought.
Posted: Thu Oct 4, 2007 7:58 am
This has the potential to be a really disappointing season. And I say that because of the way expectations have changed from a month ago at this time. Think of the way you felt heading into that game against the Eagles. "Hope we can just look competitive," was my thought heading in and "hope they don't demolish us in the second half," were my thoughts at halftime.
Now we're less than a month removed and, for some, anything less than a victory on February 3rd will be a disappointment. And the same high expectations have been thrown upon the defense. We all knew we had a competent D going into this year but in a matter of a few weeks (pre-season and first two games), we were being called one of the best defenses in football. We might be at some point but we're not quite the overwhelming D that some great defenses are. We do, however, seem to pick up the D when we really need it. Zero running touchdowns is a great stat and I'd like to see that continue. Only giving up a couple really big plays a game, and not all for TDs, is also an improvement. And on the ground we don't continually give up 5-7 per rush, which is also good.
Overall, not a lot to complain about except for the (possibly) unrealistic heightened expectations (by fans and media alike).
Now we're less than a month removed and, for some, anything less than a victory on February 3rd will be a disappointment. And the same high expectations have been thrown upon the defense. We all knew we had a competent D going into this year but in a matter of a few weeks (pre-season and first two games), we were being called one of the best defenses in football. We might be at some point but we're not quite the overwhelming D that some great defenses are. We do, however, seem to pick up the D when we really need it. Zero running touchdowns is a great stat and I'd like to see that continue. Only giving up a couple really big plays a game, and not all for TDs, is also an improvement. And on the ground we don't continually give up 5-7 per rush, which is also good.
Overall, not a lot to complain about except for the (possibly) unrealistic heightened expectations (by fans and media alike).
Posted: Thu Oct 4, 2007 12:30 pm
We're 19th in yards allowed but 9th in scoring defense.
We've played the following offenses so far (PPG rank/yard rank):
Eagles: 15/14
Giants: 10/19
Chargers: 23/24
Vikings: 24/26
So we really haven't played a great offense yet, but we're 19th in yards. The D is definitely playing well in the red zone so far, but I would like to see us stop teams drives quicker more often and shift field position to our side. The D was definitely not good in the Vikings game, we allowed a very poor offense to put up nearly 400 yards of offense.
I'm waiting on Hawk and Collins to start making some plays, and for us to consistently stop the run better than we are. Given our size and depth at DT and speed at LB, NO ONE should be running on us.
We've played the following offenses so far (PPG rank/yard rank):
Eagles: 15/14
Giants: 10/19
Chargers: 23/24
Vikings: 24/26
So we really haven't played a great offense yet, but we're 19th in yards. The D is definitely playing well in the red zone so far, but I would like to see us stop teams drives quicker more often and shift field position to our side. The D was definitely not good in the Vikings game, we allowed a very poor offense to put up nearly 400 yards of offense.
I'm waiting on Hawk and Collins to start making some plays, and for us to consistently stop the run better than we are. Given our size and depth at DT and speed at LB, NO ONE should be running on us.