Post Game: Dolphins

[Balls2TheWalls]

This defense has put the offense in a position to win all 3 games.

Jones coughed up the ball against the Bears.
Crosby boinked a FG against the Redskins.
Rodgers couldn't get it done against the Dolphins.

This offense, which was once considered an unstoppable train of talent, has to learn how to close the games out. The offense needs a running back that can make first downs so that we aren't on the 12 minute end of a time of possession battle. We also need play calling that a 14 year old couldn't easily counter-scheme.

[Newz]

I just don't see why Rodgers would feel rushed or anything...Not any more than normal at least.

"OH GOD! THEY JUST HAD A 6 MINUTE DRIVE AND WE GAVE UP A FIELD GOAL! QUICK I HAVE TO THROW A 80 YARD TD OR WE ARE GOING TO LOSE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST QUARTER!"

No, the offense has just been playing like trash, period. We are supposed to have one of the best offenses in the league... If they can put together some longer drives, it will help the defense get fresher, play better and get the offense back onto the field faster.

Yes, the offense is effecting the defense... I see no way you can blame the defense for any of our offensive struggles though.

[LUKE23]

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?

Last year, consistent pressure on the QB was definitely a weakness. We were a dominant run stopping unit and we had a very good secondary in terms of covering WR/TE's, but QB's had a lot of time. This year, we've gotten to the QB very well, but it's been dependent on Clay Matthews either getting the sack, or getting the attention where someone else does. But we have 21 sacks through 6 games with quite a few injuries. But we need Clay healthy.

This is how I evaluate this D as of this moment in time:

DL: Pickett, Raji, Jenkins, Neal. Low on depth, but to me, one of the better foursomes in the NFL. Dominant run stuffing unit when healthy. One proven pass rusher (Jenkins), and one who has shown flashes (Neal). Would like a better #5 DL but I like this DL. I think all four are above average starters and Jenkins and Raji are both Pro Bowl caliber.

OLB: Matthews is the best pass rusher in the NFL as of today. No proven other option. Poppinga practices well but it never shows on the field. Jones is fast, but always nicked up and in game production is iffy. Zombo should never be starting or getting significant snaps. To me, the #1 priority in next years draft.

ILB: Lots of depth here but no stars. Bishop is the best against the run, Chillar is the best against the pass, Barnett is the best overall. Hawk plays hard but at this point seems unlikely he'll ever be an impact player. Would like an upgrade at the opposite ILB from Barnett and keep Chillar/Bishop for depth, cutting Hawk.

S: Collins is one of the best in the game. Too many minor injuries, but when on field can play both the pass and the run. Perennial Pro Bowler if healthy. Haven't seen enough of Burnett or Bigby (lately) to really comment on them, but Burnett didn't appear to be a liability in coverage. Would draft another safety next draft.

CB: Woodson hasn't been at 2009 level but is still covering well. Too many penalties, but is asked to do a lot right now with the injuries. Tramon has been arguably the best player on the D outside of Matthews and might make the Pro Bowl. Shields, not enough info. Underwood and Lee have been irrelevant. Would love to get Harris back and also add another CB in the first three rounds next draft.

In summation, I like our defensive personnel a lot. I think it has a DL capable of stopping the run, a secondary capable of covering, and the best pass rusher in the league. They need another pass rushing threat and more secondary depth, but I think that can be addressed in one offseason. I don't think it's a D reliant on TO's to win games. The problem is that our O is asking them to hold teams to 20 or less EVERY GAME, and that isn't going to happen.

[humanrefutation]

I just don't see why Rodgers would feel rushed or anything...Not any more than normal at least.

"OH GOD! THEY JUST HAD A 6 MINUTE DRIVE AND WE GAVE UP A FIELD GOAL! QUICK I HAVE TO THROW A 80 YARD TD OR WE ARE GOING TO LOSE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST QUARTER!"

No, the offense has just been playing like trash, period. We are supposed to have one of the best offenses in the league... If they can put together some longer drives, it will help the defense get fresher, play better and get the offense back onto the field faster.

Yes, the offense is effecting the defense... I see no way you can blame the defense for any of our offensive struggles though.

Come on, Luke. It's not that cut-and-dry. Sitting and watching your defense get slowly decimated, losing any momentum or rhythm you have (even after a successful drive) will definitely effect your offensive play.

Mind you, I agree the offense has been horrible these last few weeks. But I think the D's performance has contributed in some way, even a small way, to their poor play, and vice versa.

[trwi7]

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.

Seriously, why is this so hard for some people to admit?

Look at what our offense has done the last three games.

Average time of a drive 2:26.

15 punts
6 TDs
3 INTs
4 FG
2 Missed FGs
1 Fumble
1 Turnover on Downs
1 Drive that ran the clock out

A punt or a turnover on 73% of the possessions. Only scoring on 30.3% of possessions. Our supposedly great offense is playing like **** and there's no excuse for it.

[Newz]

A punt or a turnover on 73% of the possessions. Only scoring on 30.3% of possessions. Our supposedly great offense is playing like **** and there's no excuse for it.

Yep, if our offense was playing like a top 5 offense in the NFL, we would be 6-0. (IMO we should be a top 5 offense. With all that talent, with all the hype, everyone was projecting us to be... And instead we look horrid on that side of the ball)

There is absolutely no excuse for us being as bad as we are on the offensive end of the ball. McCarthy and Rodgers are the primary guys to get the blame. The offensive line has also been shaky and the WRs have had some HUGE drops as well.

Overall the offense has just been crap and it has put our defense in a horrible situation. Yet the defense continues to give the offense opportunities and they continue to fail.

[trwi7]

Rodgers has thrown 7 INTs this year. He threw 7 last year.

[Reddeye]

I'm not sure if this has been posted. I didn't read the whole thread.

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/includes/news_items/40/news_items_more.php?id=4562&section_id=40&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[trwi7]

It was pretty obviously not a penalty. Bedard had a post about on the blog with a picture.

[humanrefutation]

Cite all the stats you want, but you're not proving anything. No one is saying that the offense isn't playing poorly. The only thing we're disagreeing about is the cause.

We clearly have the talent. I also think our scheming is generally very good. So where's the problem?

My argument is that the loss of Finley and Grant have had a big impact on our offense, especially Grant, who was a key to helping us grind-it-out if we wanted to.

I also think Rodgers is playing poorly, somewhat because of impatience, somewhat because of more pressure on his shoulders.

I also think the fact that our defense hasn't been great has effected our offense is well in causing a loss of rhythm and momentum, which has lead to haggard play, short drives, and thus a tired defense. A circular relationship between the two.

[trwi7]

Cite all the stats you want, but you're not proving anything. No one is saying that the offense isn't playing poorly. The only thing we're disagreeing about is the cause.

Really? So the Packers offense having the ball for an average of less than 2 and a half minutes and not getting points 70% of the time doesn't prove anything? Seriously, even when we've scored the last three games the average drive has been 2:51. Not that scoring is a bad thing, but the offense is either 3 and out or quick score. There's barely any time for the defense to get a rest and the depth has taken a huge hit which means guys have to play more which tires them out faster.

The offense deserves much more blame than the defense right now.

[LUKE23]

I also think our scheming is generally very good.

Based on what, exactly? We ran the ball pretty effectively in both the Skins and Dolphins game, but we're lining up 4 WR on 3rd and 2. MM needs to learn to adjust run/pass vs. what is happening on the field, not what is happening in his mind. That is the problem with MM, no adjustments. That is why we don't win close games.

[humanrefutation]

Cite all the stats you want, but you're not proving anything. No one is saying that the offense isn't playing poorly. The only thing we're disagreeing about is the cause.

Really? So the Packers offense having the ball for an average of less than 2 and a half minutes and not getting points 70% of the time doesn't prove anything?

It proves exactly what everyone is saying, which is that the offense is contributing poorly. You're preaching to the choir. So when you cite statistics like that, all you're only proving something we're all agreeing about to begin with.

It doesn't solve the problem, which is why we're playing so poorly. And I'm arguing that in addition to other issues, our defense not getting off the field has contributed to the stagnation in our offense. Sure, the short drives and injuries have contributed to a tired defense, but this defense isn't making any big plays either, and thus, they're not getting off the field when they need to.

[LUKE23]

I still need to have it explained to me how the length of time the D is on the field negatively impacts the offense. If the D's play was putting the O in huge scoring holes, forcing us to go for big plays and completely abandon the run, then I'd agree with you, but that isn't the case. The only thing the offense has to worry about is the scoring margin when they are developing a scheme for that drive.

So that logic really fails, IMO.

[humanrefutation]

I also think our scheming is generally very good.

Based on what, exactly? We ran the ball pretty effectively in both the Skins and Dolphins game, but we're lining up 4 WR on 3rd and 2. MM needs to learn to adjust run/pass vs. what is happening on the field, not what is happening in his mind. That is the problem with MM, no adjustments. That is why we don't win close games.

Scouts and analysts usually give major props to the scheming on our offense. Should we run the ball more? Sure, but just because we're successful in a short spurts in the running game doesn't mean we can rely upon it to bail us out when we need to. It's unclear how effective our running game would be if we relied upon it, especially seeing as much of the success of our running game has been set up by our passing game.

Our strength on offense is the weapons in our passing game, and MM is playing to those strengths and A-Rod audibles to those strengths. Isn't that what a good offense should do...play to its strengths? We just haven't been executing - Rodgers, our WR, and our O-Line are to blame, there.

[humanrefutation]

I still need to have it explained to me how the length of time the D is on the field negatively impacts the offense. If the D's play was putting the O in huge scoring holes, forcing us to go for big plays and completely abandon the run, then I'd agree with you, but that isn't the case. The only thing the offense has to worry about is the scoring margin when they are developing a scheme for that drive.

So that logic really fails, IMO.

No, it doesn't. Not having the ball for 8 minutes at a time effects the rhythm and momentum of our offense. It invigorates the opposing fan base when we're on the road or quiets our fan base at home, and it also allows the opposing defense to rest on the sidelines, which is huge in it's own right.

It also puts us in scoring holes, too. Small ones, but holes nonetheless. Is the offense at fault? Certainly, but like a majority of conversations on this message board, this isn't black-and-white like you're trying to make it out to be. The defense's inability to get off the field contributes to poor offensive production in some way.

[LUKE23]

No, it doesn't. Not having the ball for 8 minutes at a time effects the rhythm and momentum of our offense. It invigorates the opposing fan base when we're on the road or quiets our fan base at home, and it also allows the opposing defense to rest on the sidelines.

It also puts us in scoring holes, too. Is the offense at fault? Certainly, but like a majority of conversations on this message board, this isn't black-and-white like you're trying to make it out to be. The defense's inability to get off the field contributes to poor offensive production in some way.

A lot of abstract things here that I not only don't agree with whatsoever, but none that are provable by anything either. "Rhythm", "momentum" and "crowd out of it"? Give me a break. If this offense was really as good as they are supposed to be, none of those factors matter.

How does it put them in scoring holes? The score is what it is, that's not something that is up for debate. We either were at the point where a TD WON or ICED the game vs. Bears, Lions, Skins, and Dolphins. We won one of those games, barely.

The Packers have not been down by more than a TD all season long, if I recall correctly.

[Newz]

Another thing we have to do is stop going with an empty backfield consistently when the opposing team has an elite pass rusher.

You HAVE to give guys like Bulaga and Clifton help or Rodgers is going to continuously get lit up.

[humanrefutation]

No, it doesn't. Not having the ball for 8 minutes at a time effects the rhythm and momentum of our offense. It invigorates the opposing fan base when we're on the road or quiets our fan base at home, and it also allows the opposing defense to rest on the sidelines.

It also puts us in scoring holes, too. Is the offense at fault? Certainly, but like a majority of conversations on this message board, this isn't black-and-white like you're trying to make it out to be. The defense's inability to get off the field contributes to poor offensive production in some way.

A lot of abstract things here that I not only don't agree with whatsoever, but none that are provable by anything either. "Rhythm", "momentum" and "crowd out of it"? Give me a break. If this offense was really as good as they are supposed to be, none of those factors matter.

How does it put them in scoring holes? The score is what it is, that's not something that is up for debate. We either were at the point where a TD WON or ICED the game vs. Bears, Lions, Skins, and Dolphins. We won one of those games, barely.

The Packers have not been down by more than a TD all season long, if I recall correctly.

Is the fact that it's not quantifiable through statistics make it irrelevant? No. Momentum, rhythm, and crowd noise all have an effect on your offense, as well as the huge issue which you conveniently ignored, the fact that the opposing defense gets to rest on the sidelines during those long drives.

I'm not saying the offense hasn't played poorly. It has. But the defense has also not been able to get off the field, and the fact that you can't see how that would effect the offense is mind boggling.

Or maybe it isn't mind-boggling, but typical. It's one thing to have an argument, and it's another thing to be so committed to your point that you entirely reject someone else's position, without rational consideration, because it doesn't entirely conform with yours.

[humanrefutation]

Another thing we have to do is stop going with an empty backfield consistently when the opposing team has an elite pass rusher.

You HAVE to give guys like Bulaga and Clifton help or Rodgers is going to continuously get lit up.

+1