Post Game: Dolphins

LUKE23 · Post #141 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:25 pm

Packers have had the ball an average of 17:41 the last three games. So our DECIMATED D has been on the field around 42 minutes per game the last three, and all three games they did enough to where the offense could win it.

I'm still stunned to see anyone criticize the D whatsoever (it hasn't been much on this site I admit) given the circumstances they are currently playing under. They are 9th in PPG allowed despite the most injuries in the NFL and the offense not being able to sustain any kind of long drives.

crkone · Post #142 » by **crkone** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:38 pm

That blown ST call still irks me a bit. I mean can these refs pull their heads out their asses or what?

Newz · Post #143 » by **Newz** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:41 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Packers have had the ball an average of 17:41 the last three games. So our DECIMATED D has been on the field around 42 minutes per game the last three, and all three games they did enough to where the offense could win it.

I'm still stunned to see anyone criticize the D whatsoever (it hasn't been much on this site I admit) given the circumstances they are currently playing under. They are 9th in PPG allowed despite the most injuries in the NFL and the offense not being able to sustain any kind of long drives.

Yeah the defense has been really good this year.

chuckleslove · Post #144 » by **chuckleslove** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:18 pm

Our defense has been awesome considering all the injuries and how long they have been forced to be on the field. Our offense isn't even close to in sync.

The bad news is that we are 3-3 and off to another slow start.

The good news is that McCarthy teams have a history of playing better down the stretch and we are only 1 game behind the top record in the NFC so if we can figure things out soon our season is far from over.

There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about our team but it is far too early for me to jump ship.

Post #145 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:07 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Packers have had the ball an average of 17:41 the last three games. So our DECIMATED D has been on the field around 42 minutes per game the last three, and all three games they did enough to where the offense could win it.

The fact that they're on the field for 42 minutes a game tells me they can't get off the field. They are a bend-but-don't-break defense. When your offense only has the ball for 17 minutes a game, they don't have many opportunities to score, and thus, we spend too much off our time on offense taking quick shots downfield rather than grinding it out.

It's cyclical.

LUKE23 · Post #146 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:10 pm

The fact that they're on the field for 42 minutes a game tells me they can't get off the field. They are a bend-but-don't-break defense. When your offense only has the ball for 17 minutes a game, they don't have many opportunities to score, and thus, we spend too much off our time on offense taking quick shots downfield rather than grinding it out.

It's cyclical.

The defense is injured as hell, so them playing "bend but don't break" and succeeding in that is all they have at the moment. They deserve zero blame right now given their personnel. What % of 3rd downs have the Packers converted to stay on the field in their three losses or in the last four games total? My guess is the number is horrid.

The offense is the side that has to step up. They have less injuries, and according to everyone before the year, arguably the most talent in the NFL. Start playing like it.

Post #147 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:43 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
The fact that they're on the field for 42 minutes a game tells me they can't get off the field.

I think you make a good point and it goes back to the point I've been trying to make about the defense for the last couple months that I think Luke is always misinterpreting as me saying the "defense sucks."

It doesn't suck, but this is not a traditional 4-3 Fritz Shurmer "three and out" physical defense which I much prefer. Our current 3-4 is a "big play defense" that reminds me of the 1990's Vikings, whereby you rely on play-makers to force turnovers.

I think all the big plays this defense has made have masked some of the holes on this team the past couple years. Holes like lack of a diverse running game, poor offensive line and horrible special teams have always been "bailed out" by a Charles Woodson pick that he returns for six.

And if those defensive big play guys aren't forcing turnovers or are injured, the defense is not going to win us ball-games and those other holes in the team are now on display for all to see.

Luke--does that make sense?

Newz · Post #148 » by **Newz** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:45 pm

They wouldn't be on the field for 42 minutes if our offense could move the ball at all either.

Our offense has been awful.

LUKE23 · Post #149 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:50 pm

I think you make a good point and it goes back to the point I've been trying to make about the defense for the last couple months that I think Luke is always misinterpreting as me saying the "defense sucks."

It doesn't suck, but this is not a traditional 4-3 Fritz Shurmer "three and out" physical defense which I much prefer. Our current 3-4 is a "big play defense" that reminds me of the 1990's Vikings, whereby you rely on play-makers to force turnovers.

I think all the big plays this defense has made have masked some of the holes on this team the past couple years. Holes like lack of a diverse running game, poor offensive line and horrible special teams have always been "bailed out" by a Charles Woodson pick that he returns for six.

And if those defensive big play guys aren't forcing turnovers or are injured, the defense is not going to win us ball-games and those other holes in the team are now on display for all to see.

Luke--does that make sense?

I understand what your'e saying PP, I just don't necessarily agree with it. To me, when this D is HEALTHY, it's a D that can both man up and stop the run and get to the QB and cover in the secondary. I'm not saying I wouldn't take upgrades in certain areas (better OLB opposite Matthews would be the #1 thing), but I think overall this D when healthy has as many as five pro bowl players (Woodson, Collins, Tramon, Matthews, Jenkins). I don't think it's a D that has to force TO's to stop people.

I know you're partial to the 4-3. But there is no evidence that any scheme works better for stopping people. It's about your personnel. We have that, it's just all on the sidelines or in the training room.

Post #150 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:51 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
The fact that they're on the field for 42 minutes a game tells me they can't get off the field. They are a bend-but-don't-break defense. When your offense only has the ball for 17 minutes a game, they don't have many opportunities to score, and thus, we spend too much off our time on offense taking quick shots downfield rather than grinding it out.

It's cyclical.

The defense is injured as hell, so them playing "bend but don't break" and succeeding in that is all they have at the moment. They deserve zero blame right now given their personnel. What % of 3rd downs have the Packers converted to stay on the field in their three losses or in the last four games total? My guess is the number is horrid.

The offense is the side that has to step up. They have less injuries, and according to everyone before the year, arguably the most talent in the NFL. Start playing like it.

I recognize that they're playing without a lot of key starters and contributors. However, that does not mean that they're performing well. When you're on the field for 42 minutes a game, you're taking away opportunities for your offense to score. You're preventing them from gaining any momentum. Your defense gets tired, and more people get hurt. It's entirely cyclical.

crkone · Post #151 » by **crkone** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:52 pm

If the offense can sustain a drive at all that number comes down considerably. We have had just brutal play calling and QB play. I was at the point of wanting Flynn to come in just to get a change in offensive philosophy and a set of new eyes.

Newz · Post #152 » by **Newz** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:55 pm

It boggles my mind that some people don't seem to understand that the defense is on the field a lot not only because right now they are having to play 'bend but don't break' type of football... But also because the offense cannot put a decent drive together.

What was our longest drive yesterday? We were (and have been for most of the year) terrible on the offensive side of the ball.

Post #153 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:55 pm

Newz wrote:They wouldn't be on the field for 42 minutes if our offense could move the ball at all either.

Our offense has been awful.

That's true, but I think our approach on offense has been dictated by how little they have the ball. We've never been a grind it out offense, and we can't be with BJ as our starting back. So, because the offense only gets the ball for such a short period of time, they have no momentum or rhythm on offense, they become impatient, and that's to their detriment.

LUKE23 · Post #154 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:57 pm

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/ ... ownConvPct

Packers have only converted 36.2% of their 3rd downs. 22nd in the league.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/ ... on/defense

Defense has held to 40.2%, 19th in the league.

So even with the most injuries on one side of the ball in the entire NFL, the D is still outperforming the O in that category.

Post #155 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:59 pm

Newz wrote:It boggles my mind that some people don't seem to understand that the defense is on the field a lot not only because right now they are having to play 'bend but don't break' type of football... But also because the offense cannot put a decent drive together.

Yes, it's cyclical. That was my point. One's faults feed into the other's.

Newz · Post #156 » by **Newz** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:04 pm

humanrefutation wrote:Yes, it's cyclical. That was my point. One's faults feed into the other's.

The offense isn't doing anything different because of the defense... The offense is just playing like total garbage and the defense is suffering for it.

I don't see how our defense is effecting our offense at all is basically what I'm getting at.

LUKE23 · Post #157 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:06 pm

The defense can't change how they play or realistically expect to play any better than they are, due to various factors. The offense can make adjustments and play better but hasn't. There is a big difference here. If you had to assess blame it's at minimum 80% O/20% D, and that is probably being generous.

I'm not even going to take the time to list the defensive injuries. It's plain as day. They, given the circumstances, are 100% doing their job right now.

Post #158 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:08 pm

Newz wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:Yes, it's cyclical. That was my point. One's faults feed into the other's.

The offense isn't doing anything different because of the defense... The offense is just playing like total garbage and the defense is suffering for it.

I don't see how our defense is effecting our offense at all is basically what I'm getting at.

I think the fact that the defense can't get off the field is effecting the offense. And I don't mean just that they're forced onto the field by several sputtering offensive drives, which the D can't be blamed for, but that when they get on the field, they're on for long, time consuming, rhythm-killing drives. Sitting on the bench for an 8 minute drive waiting to get the ball kills any momentum you have on offense, and makes you impatient when you get on offense. You can see that in Rodgers play - more harried, more downfield shots, less patience. And thus, the offense sputters and the D is put right back on the field for another long drive.

That's how they're related.

Post #159 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:10 pm

LUKE23 wrote: I don't think it's a D that has to force TO's to stop people..

I think this D does need TO's to stop the really good teams. When we were healthy and faced teams with good QB's or coordinators, they figured out how to carve up the middle of the field. (See Arizona, Pitt games last year or the Lions game a couple weeks back).

I still though think this team overall has been bailed out a lot the past few seasons by super-human big-play performance by Charles Woodson and I'll add Nick Collins for good measure. And those have masked holes in a number of different areas on the team. If you don't want to agree that they have masked holes on the D, that is fine. But IMO they have masked holes on special teams and with the O-line and ground game. In other words, the crap special teams and MM meltdowns we saw the last two weeks were also occurring last year but a "pick-six" from Woodson allowed us to win those games.

Do you have the stats on how the Packers ranked on TO differential and points off turnovers when compared to the league over the last five years? My recollections may be off here. Did we rely as much on TO's and scores off such in 2007 as we did in 2009?

LUKE23 · Post #160 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:12 pm

You can see that in Rodgers play - more harried, more downfield shots, less patience. And thus, the offense sputters and the D is put right back on the field for another long drive.

That is his and MM's fault then, because regardless of how long the D has been on the field, they have kept the games one score (or kept the lead). There is no reason to feel "harried".

How many chances in the last four games did our D give our offense to either get the lead, or put the game away? Yes, the D has been on the field a ton, but how does that matter if they kept it a one possession game? It's the O's job to capitalize.