Week 10 Postgame Musings

by Mitchell Maurer on Nov 9, 2008 3:36 PM CST in Green Bay Packers Analysis

There are few things worse than getting your clock cleaned by a division arch-rival. It turns out that regaining the lead late, then giving it up again because your run defense is less effective than a New Orleans levee, then getting a chance to take the lead back with 30 seconds left and having your big leg kicker miss it by mere inches...yeah, that feels much worse.

So where did we go wrong? Shoot, where didn't we go wrong?

Deactivating Brandon Chillar: I ask, why? He's our best coverage linebacker and was sorely missed when Nick Barnett got hurt in the second half. I don't want to get bogged down in conjecture, but I will say this: Chester Taylor's TD reception would not have happened had Chillar been on him instead of the lead-footed Desmond Bishop.
Derrick Frost's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day: Gave the Vikes great field position all day, where All Day was able to capitalize all day. Why is he here again?
Run defense: Yes, Adrian Peterson is an absolute monster, but he had a big day even for him. 30 carries for 192 yards? That's why they call him "All Day". And that's why they call the Packers' run D "Swiss Cheese".
Pass protection: Was there any? Four sacks in the first half and five overall against a one-armed Jared Allen point to some issues on the O-Line (what else is new?)
Lack of commitment to the run game: Ryan grant ended up with 75 yards, but he had less than 10 carries before halftime. He was achieving moderate success against a tough Vikings run defense, and could have definitely taken some pressure off of the passing game.
Aaron Rodgers: Yes, he took a beating, but looking at his stat line makes me react in one way and one way only: Ewww. 15/26 for 142 yards? At least he didn't turn it over, but he certainly didn't play well.
Challenging Peterson's TD: Having not watched the game, I don't know how bad of a challenge it was, but it cost the team a timeout it may have been able to use in the final drive.

In the end, it was a superb performance by the defense wasted. Tramon Williams, Charles Woodson, Nick Collins, and Will Blackmon gave us hope. Even Ryan Grant looked good today. But even with Gus Frerotte playing just like Gus Frerotte, the Vikings won because of their superior run offense and their stifling defense. The Packers could not execute basic football, and when you can't do that, there's no way you can win.

Today, the Vikings were superior. It may have seemed close in the box score, but it was not even close. They earned their win today. And we earned our loss. Blech.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Credit where credit is due

Unfortunately, I’m not going to be able to watch the game until later this week, if at all, so thanks to everyone who made a bunch of good comments in the open thread.

You mentioned it, but I wanted to chime in too, that the Packers would have been completely blown out, in no position to even attempt a last second, game winning field goal, if it weren’t for all the members of defensive secondary who had big INTs (Woodson, Williams, and Collins) and one big punt return (Blackmon).

It was a dismal offensive game for Rodgers. You mentioned most of it above, but missed out on his two safeties and 1 for 11 on 3rd down. But Minnesota is a brutal place to play. How many lousy games did Favre had in the dome in the 1990s? Favre eventually found some comfort level there, and I have no doubt Rodgers will too. I’m willing to give him a mulligan.

The run defense is making me sick. The Packers arguably have the best secondary in the NFL. I say arguably, not as a slight against them, but there are some good ones out there, including in Minnesota. But they arguably have the worst run defense in the NFL, and that is low praise when you consider there are some awful, awful defenses in the NFL this season (Houston, Detroit, St. Louis). There is no one player to blame or one single fix to make, but the Packers’ coaches are good, defensive coordinator Bob Sanders included, and the fact that they haven’t been able to make adjustments to fix this problem, at least turn them into a below average group instead of worst in the NFL, is a major failure on their part. Allowing nearly 200 yards to Adrian Peterson, and allowing him to run for the game clinching TD, isn’t a sin itself, but this has been happening all season long (Tampa, Atlanta, Tennessee, and now Minnesota). The only thing the run defense did right was allow Peterson to score too easily because it gave the offense, although mostly it was the special teams (another nice return by Blackmon) and a dumb luck bounce off a defender’s helmet, that set up the game winning field goal attempt. Surprisingly, I didn’t see any mention of the poor run defense in news conferences with Mike McCarthy last week. I really want to read what McCarthy has to say about it.

by Brandon on Nov 9, 2008 4:19 PM CST reply actions

Run Defense Fixable?

Of course, anything is fixable. But how soon can the Pack’s run defense be reasonably fixed?

1. If it is just a matter of the players we have playing better, then it could happen fairly soon. But that presumes that they are capable of it, and just aren’t getting it done for whatever reason. You could argue that Barnett’s drop-off in production means he is capable, but unproductive. On the other hand, hoping for what hasn’t happened could merely result in a lot more waiting. And more disappointment.

2. Maybe a scheme adjustment—such as more safety help in the box, or some such—is in order. That could also get things improved fairly soon, if the adjustments are effective. I’m not optimistic about this idea, though—against Minnesota, there was a lot of safety help, and there were a lot of stops for short or no gain; but there were also a lot of big gains. And if it is simply a matter of adjustment, why would they not do it in-game?

3. The other option, of course, is a need for better players against the run. Do they really miss Corey Williams that much? Is there another tackle on the roster that would help? Is Barnett (assuming he’s healthy) the best option on running plays? Is this performance just a by-product of having so many young players on the roster? Will they get better with age (and practice)? What useful free-agents will be available in the offseason?

4. Is the performance this year really the same as last year? I haven’t done analysis on the topic, so this is just conjecture, but: the Packers seem to be playing from behind more often this year than last. Opponents with a lead will generally run more, exposing what (presumably) has already been a weak point in the defense. When the Packers have had the lead, especially late in the game, the opponent throws more, but has difficulty because of the (presumably) superior pass defense.

Any other ideas?

It's called "playing the percentages."

by hilbelink on Nov 10, 2008 1:27 PM CST up reply actions

though loss

I hate loosing to the Vikings !!!
several things went very wrong today.
The run defense was up against AP, he’s very good, but they gave up way to many big plays to him. The problem with the run defense as I see it, is the D-line, there are to many blockers getting down on the backers. The backers and safeties needs to make some more tackles.
The Pass defense did great, picking of Gus Ferotte 3 times.
Penalties, they’re killing them selfs out there. Although some of them (the holding on Colledge and Ill. contact on Harris) were ticky-tack calls, the rest of them were monstly dumb misstakes. The intentional grounding in the endzone, was also quite questionable, I wonder if Mike Pereira will comment on that this week.

The offense, well, passblocking were somewere between horrible and none existent.
Aaron Rodgers had a horrible game as well, might be the “curse” of the Metrodome that got him, it’s a very though place to play for a first year starter. The Vikings had clearly gameplanned to come after him, and they did. Rodgers needs to see those blitzes pre-snap, and call the proper protection and go with the hot read, he’s holding the ball way to long today, and he payed for it as well. He didn’t throw any interceptions, but that was only by pure luck. he had two horrible passes that could easily have been picked. One early that was dropped, and the one late that were tipped, and luckyly caugth by Driver.
The running game, wasn’t great, but decent, concidering the Vikings run defense.

Special teams were good,.

by Jarlsberg on Nov 9, 2008 4:40 PM CST reply actions

Clifton needs to go

I said it before and I’m sticking to it. It doesn’t need to happen now or even next year, but TT needs to start courting a suitor, whether that’s through the draft or FA. Jared Allen had a field day against him.

"stay (green and) gold"

by Green and Bold on Nov 9, 2008 5:06 PM CST reply actions

You have to admit, Allen was due against Clifton. Clif pretty much shut him out in week 1 and in the game against the Chiefs last year. It could just be a bad game against a highly motivated player. I do agree the future of his position needs to be addressed in this offseason

One thing we do know is that Ted doesn’t let a little thing like sentimentality get in the way of his off season decisions

by juggernaut400 on Nov 9, 2008 9:46 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Possible suitor?

He’s one of those long armed, lanky former b-ball guys. I’d say he was more likely to succeed Clif.

Breno Giacomini

by PackaCracka on Nov 10, 2008 1:01 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah...

but he’s raw as hell…I think the front office should bring in a more proven player regardless, either through the draft or FA. Breno’s got a lot of upside, but a lot of risk as well.

"stay (green and) gold"

by Green and Bold on Nov 10, 2008 1:21 PM CST up reply actions