Recap: Green Bay Packers Defeat Rams 36-17
by Brandon on Sep 28, 2009 6:01 AM CDT
in News
81 comments
Though the Rams have lost their last 13 games (ugh!) it was still a good looking win. They led the entire game, and although the Rams got within 6 points in the 3rd quarter, they pulled away with 2 TDs in the 4th quarter. Despite the comfortable win they could have played better and there are still some holes on the team.
The defense looked weak at times, and allowed 17 points to a team only had scored 7 in their first two games. But a lot of writers were expecting a slow start for the defense as they get used to all the new schemes from Dom Capers. At least they can fall back on big plays CB Charles Woodson in the meantime. The offensive line might be struggling all season long, as they find it hard to protect QB Aaron Rodgers and open up rushing lanes for RB Ryan Grant, but at least Rodgers is playing well despite the pressure and a few drops from his receivers. The offense showed off it's big play ability again in this game. The special teams struggled, but at least they can hang their hat on a blocked FG.
And they also came out of the game with only a couple injuries, according to Mike McCarthy. I don't think WR James Jones returned, but WR Greg Jennings did return after apparently re-injuring his wrist early in the 3rd quarter.
The Packers almost ended the week tied a top the NFC Central, but QB Brett Favre had a big game winning TD pass to improve the Vikings to 3-0. Although we should all feel better about last week's loss to the Bengals since they just upset the Steelers.
Packers vs Rams coverage; Packers vs Rams recap; Packers vs Rams boxscore; Turf Show Times
Play-by-play recap from NFL.com:
First Quarter:
(11:03) 3-Josh.Brown 48 yard field goal is BLOCKED (97-J.Jolly), Center-45-C.Massey, Holder-5-D.Jones, RECOVERED by GB-27-W.Blackmon at GB 25. 27-W.Blackmon to GB 43 for 18 yards (5-D.Jones).
It was a little discouraging to see the Rams move the ball down the field fairly easily to start the game, but DE Johnny Jolly had a great game, starting with this blocked FG attempt.
(10:20) (Shotgun) 25-R.Grant right end to SL 46 for 10 yards (96-J.Hall). SL-37-J.Butler was injured during the play.
Nine first half carries for RB Ryan Grant, and six of them were for 2 yards or less. This was the only carry over 10 yards. It was a good play; a power running play where RT Allen Barbre pulled right and created a running lane for Grant. But for most of the half, Grant would run one direction, and then look for a cutback lane. I'm not sure if it's by design to get the defense to go one direction and have him cut back the other direction. Or if he doesn't trust his blockers, and is looking for daylight where ever he sees it. Either way, it's not working.
(7:13) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at SL 34 for -7 yards (91-L.Little).
DE Leonard Little just beat Barbre for the sack. It was a weak effort by Barbre, but at least it was only 1 of 2 sacks allowed all game. Unfortunately it's still not a great showing since the Rams only had 1 sack in their previous 2 games. Barbre does seem to be improving, which is more than can be said for the rest of the offensive line (Jason Spitz excluded). Actually I don't know what to make of RG Josh Sitton; it seems like he's getting shoved around sometimes, but otherwise holding up.
(5:52) 39-S.Jackson right tackle to SL 38 for 19 yards (36-N.Collins). PENALTY on SL-73-A.Goldberg, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at SL 19 - No Play.
This was the first play I noticed DL B.J. Raji. He played mostly at left defensive end, but he played so often inside the offensive tackles that he was really playing like a defensive tackle. RB Steven Jackson ran right at Raji, and the blocker had to hold Raji to keep him out of the way. He doesn't receive a stat for it, but Raji moved them back 10 yards on his first play.
(4:09) (Shotgun) 10-M.Bulger sacked at SL 10 for -5 yards (74-A.Kampman). FUMBLES (74-A.Kampman) [74-A.Kampman], RECOVERED by GB-97-J.Jolly at SL 15. 97-J.Jolly to SL 15 for no gain (60-J.Brown).
Nice play all around, although QB Marc Bulger was injured on the play. Unfortunately it led to just another FG.
(2:46) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at SL 20 for -12 yards (91-L.Little).
In the early going, QB Aaron Rodgers was under a lot of pass pressure. Daryn Colledge was moved to LT for this game due to the injury to LT Chad Clifton, and as blueguitarbob points out, he's playing high and getting overpowered. I lost track of all the times the pocket collapsed when Colledge got shoved into it.
(2:08) 39-S.Jackson left guard to SL 14 for 3 yards (77-C.Jenkins). FUMBLES (77-C.Jenkins), RECOVERED by GB-31-A.Harris at SL 12. 31-A.Harris to SL 12 for no gain (70-A.Barron). SL-10-M.Bulger was injured during the play.
Another great play and the 2nd turnover of the half. Unfortunately the offense stalls (again) and they settle for a FG (again); the 3rd FG of the quarter.
Second Quarter:
(13:09) 12-K.Boller pass incomplete short right to 11-L.Robinson.
QB Kyle Boller came in when Bulger was hurt, and turned this game into a matchup of two ex-Cal Golden Bears. He was high on his first two passes, but he got much better after he settled down.
(12:10) 12-A.Rodgers pass deep left to 80-D.Driver to SL 30 for 46 yards (32-B.Fletcher). Penalty on SL-32-B.Fletcher, Defensive Pass Interference, declined.
Just an amazing one-handed catch by WR Donald Driver, his other hand was being held by the defender.
(9:55) 30-J.Kuhn up the middle for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.
It was like the Rams completely ignored FB John Kuhn on the play, although he had a wide open running lane due to a great block by Colledge.
(9:42) 39-S.Jackson right end to SL 22 for no gain (56-N.Barnett).
LB Nick Barnett is still the best of the inside linebackers. LB A.J. Hawk gets shoved around too much. LB Brandon Chillar always seems a step behind the play (see next play). Although Barnett is still being held to a 40 play limit, according to Mike McCarthy, so LB Desmond Bishop got some playing time in the 2nd half.
(4:51) 12-K.Boller pass deep right to 46-D.Fells for 16 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
(:08) (Shotgun) 12-K.Boller pass deep left to 46-D.Fells for 19 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Chillar covered Fells one-on-one on both TDs. He was there, but as I mentioned above, he's always a step behind the play. It looked like he was expecting to have some help in coverage deep. The Packers defense played a lot of 2-5-4 and it seems to be causing them some trouble in pass coverage. I'm not sure what the advantage to having 5 linebackers in the game is. The pass rush is weak, they only had one sack in the game, whether 5 linebackers are in or not. It doesn't seem to give them any advantage with the run defense either.
(2:33) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass deep right to 85-G.Jennings to SL 21 for 50 yards (24-R.Bartell).
I'm slightly out-of-order, lumping both Chillar allowed TDs in one post. WR Greg Jennings has been pretty quiet this season, but if all he does is catch one or two 50 yard passes per game, I guess I can live with that.
(2:00) 12-A.Rodgers pass deep left to 80-D.Driver for 21 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Rodgers makes up for a missed TD to Driver in the first quarter with this one. He is having trouble with his accuracy this season. He's been long on some passes, but a lot of it has to do with the lousy pass protection.
Third Quarter:
(12:09) 12-K.Boller pass short right to 39-S.Jackson to SL 47 for 13 yards (50-A.Hawk, 36-N.Collins).
Pick your Steven Jackson poison on the Rams first drive of the 2nd half. After a Packer 3-and-out, Jackson had 4 carries and a pass reception to move them into Packer territory and set up a FG. It wasn't pretty, but at least it was their last scoring drive of the game.
(8:12) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete deep right to 87-J.Nelson.
I don't recall if this particular pass that WR Jordy Nelson dropped, but he dropped one that he should have had. WR James Jones was running in a fog and ended up with zero catches. I'm not sure what's going on with him. At least Nelson seemed to come around on the next drive.
(4:17) 25-R.Grant right tackle to SL 44 for 10 yards. PENALTY on GB-63-S.Wells, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at GB 46 - No Play.
Probably a perfect example of why C Scott Wells was benched. He was run over on this play.
Fourth Quarter:
(15:00) 12-A.Rodgers pass deep middle to 85-G.Jennings to SL 17 for 53 yards (24-R.Bartell).
The offense did a good job to get out of a hole when the Rams pinned them down at the 2 yard line during the 3rd quarter, but otherwise it was a very quiet half. Two good runs by Grant to end the 3rd quarter, and this big reception gets the offense back on track.
(12:18) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers up the middle for 4 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Rodgers did a lot with his legs on this drive, and this was a nifty open field move to juke the only defender in the area and run right up the middle for the TD.
2-M.Crosby extra point is No Good, Wide Left, Center-61-B.Goode, Holder-10-M.Flynn.
Yes, K Mason Crosby isn't supposed to miss those, but he's battling an abdominal injury that has to be effecting him.
(9:57) 25-R.Grant up the middle to GB 28 for 17 yards. PENALTY on SL-98-C.Ah You, Illegal Use of Hands, 5 yards, enforced at GB 28.
That was a nice zone blocking play. It's good to see Grant get on track, but the running game still looks like it's going to be inconsistent going forward.
(6:19) (Shotgun) 12-K.Boller pass short middle intended for 16-D.Amendola INTERCEPTED by 21-C.Woodson [97-J.Jolly] at SL 26. 21-C.Woodson to SL 26 for no gain (16-D.Amendola).
It's just not a Packer game without an INT by CB Charles Woodson. I can't believe the Rams didn't challenge him deep at all since Woodson had some trouble with going deep during the win over the Bears.
(4:50) 12-A.Rodgers pass short right to 30-J.Kuhn for 10 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Again, the Rams seemed to ignore Kuhn. Time to drop Grant in your fantasy league for Kuhn :)
0 recs |
81 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It was a W, which we desperately needed going into next week. However, it was very disheartening to see the first 3 field goals and not have them be touch downs. We really needed a statement game going into the Metrodome; being up 21-0 at the end of the first quarter (and 28-0 before the Rams even scored) would’ve really done that.
I really hope the D has an epiphany this week, because if they don’t, the Vikings could probably run the wildcat with AP the entire game and win next week. Nobody looked like they could tackle today; there were several runs where someone had Jackson in the backfield and just reached out their arm, trying to trip him up.
More dropped passes today, but Rodgers seemed more errant than usual. The aforementioned one-armed grab by Driver was made even more spectacular because the ball was overthrown. The second field goal came after an overthrow to a wide open receiver in the end zone. Several more deep balls sailed high. I guess he didn’t throw a pick (and the Pack leads the NFL with a +8 turnover margin), but man, going to the #4 defense in the NFL next week, those passes have to be there. I don’t remember exactly, but it was either deep into the second quarter or the third quarter before we even converted a 3rd down.
I’m trying to be positive, but I just did not get the feel-goods I was hoping for from the game yesterday. I’ll take the win for the scorecard, but I’m definitely worried for next week.
by Danwood on Sep 28, 2009 6:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That errant play is soley because of the oline. As the game went on and our oline improved, Rodgers started to look more and more comfortable. MM will HAVE to do a better job of mixing up the run and pass otherwise we will struggle. The way to beat the Vikes is the play-action.
Nearly every time the 49ers ran a play-action it worked. The Vikes also looked vulnerable right in the middle of their defense, so we should run Grant a lot directly over Spitz. Pat Williams looks like he has began to decline.
Finely should also have a big day as the Vikes have struggled against te’s with good speed.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you're right
A win over the Vikings would be a good confidence booster for all parties involved- fans AND team! Plus, with the bye week following the Vikings game, the joy of victory or sting of defeat is going to linger on for an extra week.
by Danwood on Sep 28, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good sign for the Pack...
You’re right, Pat Williams looks to be on the decline. He basically hunkers down and doesn’t move which is why they had trouble in the first two games against the run, and against very bad teams. Jared Allen’s a great pass rusher but not that good against the run either.
I think the Packers are like the Brewers this season. Homeruns win both teams games. If Grant can break a huge run, like he always seems to do against the Vikings, and Rodgers can hit for a deep TD, I think they stay in this thing til the end.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Vikes defense doesn’t look as stout as previous years. Their high ranking is surely influenced by the talent (or lack thereof) of their opponents so far. I am not saying Grant is gonna run wild… just that he might be able to have some success and keep the Vikes off balance.
"I agree but dont agree"
by juggernaut400 on Sep 28, 2009 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
The Vikes defense is good but let’s face it, whether they want to admit it or not, they have benefited by going against mediocore to poor QBs thus far. Grant won’t run wild, but as FavreSucks said above, he always does seem to break a long one against them.
He averaged like 6+ ypc in our two match-ups last year, so that is promising. If we can run and Grant can average around 4 ypc, then mixing in the PA will be very effective.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was impressed by Rodgers mobility yesterday,
40yards and a TD! With an O-Line as bad as ours, this helps a bunch
Green and Gold / Black, and White
by OznCoop on Sep 28, 2009 8:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that was an improvement
Although there were at least 2 plays I recall that he didn’t seem committed to running the ball. He’d run up to the line of scrimmage, then stop, wanting to throw it one last time, then decide to run. Some more decisive abortions of the play would be nicer, although I don’t know if it would’ve given him any more than one or two more yards.
But a scrambling quarterback, while not Rodgers’ specialty, is one way to stop a d-line.
by Danwood on Sep 28, 2009 8:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think its mostly the O-Line that is preventing Grant from be productive,
or is this a case of a RB gone bad?
Green and Gold / Black, and White
by OznCoop on Sep 28, 2009 8:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
never mind,
just looked at the box score, somehow the fact that Grant had 99 yards completely escaped me.
Green and Gold / Black, and White
by OznCoop on Sep 28, 2009 8:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's both
The interior offensive linemen are just not very good (although I’ll give Sitton an incomplete because he’s still pretty green after missing a bunch of time last year), and even moving Colledge back to guard isn’t that much of an upgrade. I think the more interesting question, however, is whether the linemen are poorly coached or whether they simply lack talent. I think the latter, but I’d like to hear other thoughts.
Grant is an average feature back, but the coaches obviously think he is the best running back we have on the roster. Again, are the running backs simply short on talent? What do you think?
by ktenreb on Sep 28, 2009 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yup, its both
The line and grant are both average at best. None of the lineman were high picks or big FA pickups. Grant was an afterthought from the Giants.
I believe that unless you’re talking about a prime LT, AP type guy that RB’s are an easily replaceable part in the NFL. So I don’t really have any problem with Grant…i’d rather not spend big money or a high pick on that position. However the OLine is certainly worth that investment, just look at KC. They had a fantastic line and their backs ran wild, no matter who it was.
by gangstaff on Sep 28, 2009 9:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clifton and Colledge were 2nd rounders...
Spitz was a 3rd, Sitton and Barbre were 4th, and Wells was a 7th rounder picked up via free agency. I don’t know what you consider a high pick, but the second round is on the first day. I think most people would consider Clifton and Colledge to be high draft picks, and maybe even Spitz.
I don’t know if Grant was an “afterthought,” but we spent a 6th round pick on him in the trade with the Giants. He was a undrafted free agent signing with them.
I wouldn’t have any problems with the Packers drafting an elite tackle (I was praying that Eugene Monroe would fall to them this year), but I think you may be unfairly discounting the current roster. The RG and RT are starting their first year, so they are going to need a little time to evaluate. On the left side, Spitz and Colledge are currently playing out of position due to injury. From such a young unit, I expect to see improvement each week.
There are some advantages to having such a young line. If even most of them elevate their game through experience, Green Bay has the makings of an above-average line that will be together for years.
by RobertArthur on Sep 28, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
O-Line
I’m just not sold on Spitz and Colledge. Colledge is a better tackle than guard because he just isn’t built like a guard — he plays high. I truly think that the zone blocking scheme was implemented because Colledge, and to a lesser extent Spitz, just are not physical enough to play in a conventional blocking scheme (yes, I understand that left guards, unlike right guards, typically need to be quicker in a conventional blocking scheme, but they still need to be able to drive block). They both were relatively high draft picks for which I don’t think the team received fair value.
As for Sitton and Barbre: If the team had quality offensive linemen on the roster they wouldn’t be in the position of having to learn on the job. That’s a terrific way to get your quarterback killed. Rodgers did a great job of avoiding pressure, and even running with the ball, but I really don’t want to see an NFL quarterback have to rely on his feet that much. That’s for college, or if you’re Michael Vick.
by ktenreb on Sep 28, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Spitz isn't physical?
Spitz took over for Wells because he’s a very physical center.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Spitz took over for Wells because he’s better than Wells, who is not very good. That doesn’t mean that Spitz is physical. He really isn’t.
by ktenreb on Sep 28, 2009 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every season since Spitz has been a rookie the coaches have said he’s the most physical offensive lineman. I know you don’t like a lot of the coaching and management but I don’t think they sit up there and lie to reporters and beat writers about Spitz’s physicality.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The sky is blue and water is wet
There, I wrote some other stuff for you to disagree with, Mr. “FavreSucks.”
You really need to give up the whole Favre thing. He hasn’t been here for over a year. Change your name to something like “MandarichSucks,” it makes just as much sense.
by ktenreb on Sep 28, 2009 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Douche Bag
Do you really need to comment on my name every single post? Get a life, good Lord. For every reply I’ve disagreed with you, you probably have double that on me.
I already told you, or maybe it was someone else, that I tried to change my name cause it must offend people like you who bring it up everytime and SB Nation has yet to send me an email. I’ve tried it at least 3 times so shut up about my name already. Good Lord does it really hurt you or something?
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When the coaches say that Spitz is the most physical lineman, that might not mean as much when he is compared to the other lineman on the roster.
"I agree but dont agree"
by juggernaut400 on Sep 28, 2009 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very True
But the best player on the worst line in the league is still a good tough player, whether you think the Pack have the worst o-line or not. I’ve watched back all three games on DVR this season after the games and Spitz is a physical player. He seems like one of the only ones who holds the point of attack most often especially when he was at center.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that he is probably better at center. There is a lot of potential in Sitton and I think Barbre might be better suited at LG due to his problems with speed rushers. Colledge has disappointed me since day 1 and Clifton is on his last legs (literally and figuratively)
"I agree but dont agree"
by juggernaut400 on Sep 28, 2009 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah they definitely need a LT through FA or the first or second round in the draft. They tried Barbre at LG last season however, and said that he does better in space so they moved him to RT. I don’t know if he’ll be more than a backup at any position on the line.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really like Raji but IMO I think Michael Oher would have been a better fit for our needs.
"I agree but dont agree"
by juggernaut400 on Sep 28, 2009 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This year you’re right, next year I think Raji is a better fit. If a team runs a 3-4 the biggest position is NT and Raji is a once in a decade type NT. Pickett’s a FA so they need Raji there for sure next season. Once Raji gets into it and starts making plays people will love that pick. All of his coaches and teammates said the guy is a 350 lb. version of Warren Sapp. That excites me.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
average running backs are easily replaced...
Game changing backs are planned and groomed. We don’t have the line to get by with a Ryan Grant type of back. Teams like New England and Denver have given this attitude but we can see what happens when an oline starts to play poorly. NEP have been terrible running this year (though this week it was improved). That way of thinking is predicated on having a GREAT oline which means you need to invest in one which we haven’t.
by TrevorR on Sep 28, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coaching
I really truly think it all comes down to coaching. They’re coaching a zone blocking scheme when not one coach on the Packers has a history in that scheme. The zbs is successful in Denver and Atlanta because Alex Gibbs himself taught it to the coaches and the lineman.
I don’t think any of us can say for sure whether Grant or the offensive line lack talent. What we do know for sure is that not one coach on the Packers has roots in the running scheme that they’ve installed and that is not good. I would bet anything that if Alex Gibbs came to Green Bay for one season, the Packers would have a top 10 ground game.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point...
I wonder if we need to just write up the zone blocking as a bust. Our oline has been TERRIBLE ever since we made the switch!
by TrevorR on Sep 28, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
The Packers either need to scrap the zbs and do a power scheme or they need to get someone in here that has roots in the zbs.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually they did
I believe they are back to man to man blocking this season. That is why they started the line the way they did at the begining of the season it was suppose to be a bigger stronger OL
by bizzle4 on Sep 28, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wish you were correct but you're not
I didn’t mean that to sound offensive at all but the Packers have only run a couple of power run plays the last two games and Grant’s biggest run against the Bengals came on it but almost all of their runs are still zone runs.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Playcalling is still bad
Is it me, or did the playcalling go in a different direction from the West Coast? It seems on every passing play we are looking for a big play (Vertical Passing Attack). That does not help our defense. It also doesn’t help our very bad OL. Ryan Grant is overrated. He lacks speed. I think he would be used most effectively in a dual threat attack with Brandon Jackson.
by Jabooty on Sep 28, 2009 9:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Right
We need to go short, short, deep. Instead of deep, deep, short. If we run our quick slants, ins and outs, and some comeback routes the deep routes will be there. I haven’t seen any slugos this year, and last year that was very successful for us. There has been a lot about Rodgers holding the ball too long but I think a lot of that is on MM and his play-calling. Vertical routes take time to run, and time is not something that our offense has given Rodgers for the most part.
We need to run the shorter routes, and then when Jennings or Driver put a double move on a defender they’ll have them burned by 2-3 steps. Right now teams are playing us deep, and Rodgers is having to make the perfect throw 30+ yards downfield.
I did like that MM ran the ball more. It sounds like we looked inconsistent still but it’s promising that we were able to end the game running the ball.
One positive of having Colledge at LT, is he is a better run blocker then Clifton is. He has more explosion off the line then Clifton does.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rodgers is currently 6th in the NFL for yards/attempt at 7.9...
among QBs that have started 3 games. Peyton Manning is first with 10.2. So the Packers have taken their shots upfield. Rodgers can make that throw, however, so it isn’t as big a gamble as you’d think. When I saw him play his first rookie season, I never though he would be so accurate. He’s underrated as a deep threat.
On any given play, not every receiver runs long routes. They may not be the primary read, but you can be certain that there are options underneath for shorter gain. It’s just that we have three receivers (Driver, Jennings, and Nelson) who are capable of getting behind most defenses. Rodgers is seeing them open, and taking the shots. In a few weeks, opposing defenses will start covering over the top. Then those quick hot-read slants will be open, along with play action runs. Offenses have to adapt to what the defenses are giving them. I’m glad we have the personnel to do it.
by RobertArthur on Sep 28, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying we shouldn’t throw deep balls. We should because it plays to our receivers strengths, I just think we should do a better job of setting the deep ball up. In our case there may not always be underneath guys, and if there is there is probably only one guy. (Because we’re having to leave guys back to protect). We have been trying to go deep for 3 weeks now and it doesn’t seem like teams are playing us deep thus far.
Rodgers throws a very, very nice deep ball. He has great touch, and a strong arm. The deep ball he had to Jennings he threw while sliding to his left and the ball couldn’t have been anymore perfect.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Wynn should see more playing time. He looks to be the most instinctual runner that we have and also has the best speed and agility.
I don’t think Jackson brings anything to the table. He is a smaller version of Grant.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
how?
I can think of one important thing that makes him different…he can catch a ball.
by TrevorR on Sep 28, 2009 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
I don’t think Brandon Jackson is a premier back by any means but for all the dislike people have for him the guy averaged 5.5 yards a carry last season and he’s solid at catching out of the backfield. That’s pretty good, 5.5.
I don’t think he’s a great third down back because he’s not super explosive but I think he’s above average and a better change of pace back.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He can catch but after the catch he can’t do anything with it. He is probably slower then Grant and isn’t nearly as strong as Grant.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More wiggle though
Sutton was the slowest RB on the roster but he made people miss. BJ averaged 5.5 yards a carry, far more than Grant. Once again I don’t think he’s a starting RB by any means but you can’t deny a full season of 5.5 yards a carry behind a poor offensive line.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The zone running plays...
But for most of the half, Grant would run one direction, and then look for a cutback lane. I’m not sure if it’s by design to get the defense to go one direction and have him cut back the other direction. Or if he doesn’t trust his blockers, and is looking for daylight where ever he sees it.
Yep, that’s the design. Flow with the line in one direction, find the cutback lane, and explode vertically through the hole into the second level. The basic difference between inside and outside zone plays is where the ball carrier is looking for the lane to form. On inside zones, he’s looking to the inside of the play. On outside zones, he’s looking to the outside. It’s that simple.
The whole idea is to use the defensive front’s size against them. If you force those big guys to move in one direction, their momentum works against them when they try to tackle the cutback in the other direction. Also, you can tire them out by making them move laterally on running plays. That’s one reason why zone runs seem to work better as the game goes on. At their best, zone running plays attack the defensive front by forcing tempo and movement.
At their worst, however, zone running plays look about as organized as recess at a kindergarden. If the frontside gets stalled, the line becomes a trainwreck. If backside pursuit doesn’t get cut off, the ball carrier gets tackled for a loss. If the blockers don’t keep their heads up, they can’t follow their assignments and block the second level. If the ball carrier picks the wrong lane, the whole play dies in a pile of bodies. If the ball carrier gets impatient, he runs into the back of his blockers for no gain. Zone runs are a machine, with 7-8 moving parts. If one of those parts breaks down, so does the play.
That said, I saw the Packers execute some really nice, almost textbook, zone runs in the Rams game. I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw the scheme work that well for them for several plays in a row. They still need to work on cutting the backside pursuit, because that killed some nice runs. However, it looks like the right side of Sitton and Barbre are doing very well in executing the frontside of zone right plays. Something to build on.
by RobertArthur on Sep 28, 2009 11:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Same here
I saw the same thing. At the start of the game nobody was doing much. By the middle of the game they had the D-line moving, but they couldn’t block the backside, particularly the left side of the O-line on plays moving right. By the end of the day it was sweet.
by 50 years and Counting on Sep 28, 2009 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The scheme worked well
It was more obvious last Sunday, and Grant did almost have a couple big gains but the backside pursuit just got their in time. The fact that they’re mixing in an occasional power run is helping me notice the difference.
by Brandon on Sep 28, 2009 11:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Capers' defensive personnel groups...
are driving me crazy. I’m not complaining, because the variability of his defense makes it hard to counter… but I honestly can’t tell what I am seeing, sometimes.
For anyone, what the heck was up with the Packers’ nickle in the Rams game? I swear that I saw a 2-6-3 (2 defensive linemen, 6 linebackers, and 3 defensive backs) at least once. I guess it has really 5 LBs and 4 DBs, because Chillar was playing part of a safety. Once, I saw a linebacker group of Barnett, Hawk, Kampman, Matthews, Chillar, and Havner. Did anyone else see that? They might have been using one of those groups on Kampman’s sack. I know they were in a 2-lineman front, and only rushed 3 on that play. I’d love to see a breakdown on that thing.
by RobertArthur on Sep 28, 2009 12:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Seriously
If I see us with 5 LBs out there again I might kill myself.
I know Capers is being more conservative with Bigby out, but he needs to go back to his aggressive, blitz 75% of the time attitude. Watching the Bears game it was clear that it was working for us. We need to get pressure on Favre next Monday and seeing that their oline struggles to pick up blitzes it really shouldn’t be a problem.
Favre falls anytime a defender comes close to him. He also struggled yesterday against the 49ers 3-4, despite what he did at the end of the game. He threw for 300 yards, but nearly 100 of those were because the 49ers were giving their wrs the underneath routes towards the end of the game. He also only completed around 50% of his passes.
We need to blitz. Not only will it probably cause a few INTs or sacks but it will also help stop AP.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
But in order to blitz you need to stop the run and get longer down and distances, which the Pack did against the Bears but not the Bengals or Rams. Capers said as much.
I think they need to do more 4-3 against the Vikings to stop AP even though I like the 3-4. If you have Kampman, Raji, Pickett, and Jenkins all on that line, AP isn’t gonna have many lanes to run through. 700lbs. of girth in the middle and Kamp and Jenkins are great run stopping DE’s. If they stop AP with the 4-3 then they can pin their ears back and blitz Favre.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if...
Capers has been game planning for Favre these last two weeks by not blitzing? Think about it, Favre was sacked 9 times this year. We complain about Rodgers being sacked 12 times, Favre is right up there. By not blitzing these past two weeks the Vikings don’t have a lot of tape on it.
by Danwood on Sep 28, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It depends what you call a "blitz"...
depending on your answer, Capers’ defenses are either always blitzing or rarely blitzing.
The traditional definition of “blitz” is when the defense overloads the pass rush with more men than can be accounted for by the offense’s protection scheme. Capers rarely does that.
NFL teams are very good at beating a traditional blitz. The defense has to sacrifice coverage to get the men to overload the line. If a blitz doesn’t get home, the coverage gaps can lead to a big gain. We’ve all seen that show… cue up some tapes of the Bob Sanders defense, if you need a reminder.
There’s another way to pressure the QB without blitzing. You don’t need to overload the offense’s protection with brute force (overload). You can do it by exploiting weaknesses in the protection scheme through surprise, confusion, speed, and timing. You can have an effective pass rush by only rushing 3 players, as long as the offense doesn’t know which 3 players until after the snap. The offense has to account for all the players that appear to be showing blitz, even if they end up dropping into coverage. Kampman’s sack (that knocked the Rams starting QB out of the game) came on a 3 man rush, which didn’t reveal itself until a couple beats after the snap. That wasn’t a blitz, at least traditionally.
We’ve all seen Pittsburgh’s defense, right? When that scheme is really running well, it looks like the defense is playing with 14 guys. There are bodies coming from everywhere. Wacky personnel groups, wacky fronts, shifts, crosses, stunts, delayed rushes… it’s confusing enough to watch on television. You have to be very disciplined to ignore all that craziness and make any sense out of it, as an opposing QB.
McCarthy is playing down Monday’s game. But that’s for the press. All the units will have something a little special in store for the Vikings. It’s going to be an epic game.
by RobertArthur on Sep 28, 2009 7:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I say blitz
I mean overloading one side of the line like we did against the Bears. We need to rush more then 3 guys. We have rarely had success doing that this year. Capers should consistently bring 4-5 guys, and then occasionally bring 6.
Favre looked confused against the 49ers 3-4 this past week. The 49ers did a couple of stunts with their ILBs and a couple of CB blitzes, which all worked very well. Favre really could have thrown 3-4 picks that game, and as long as Capers doesn’t go all conservative on us we should have a couple of picks on defense which will help us out a ton.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I think you can count on a few INTs from Favre...
like I can count on the sun coming up tomorrow. That’s about as sure a bet as you can make. What’s the over/under on #4’s gifts? Five, maybe? However you value his strengths, his weaknesses have not gone anywhere. Being a Favre fan is all about the peaks and the valleys.
by RobertArthur on Sep 28, 2009 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll say 3
Simply because I don’t think they’ll want Favre to throw downfield that much. They let him go a little more yesterday, but I think we’ll see an offensive plan more like weeks 1 and 2 (IE AP early and often).
by Danwood on Sep 28, 2009 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never underestimate #4's tendency to audible into the ill-advised pass.
Ask Mike Sherman.
by RobertArthur on Sep 28, 2009 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's Bad Brett
I’m not expecting him to show up until the second half of the season. No, I think “good Brett” will show up next Monday. He’ll wander around the back yard, but no matter how much he wants to, he won’t go digging into that garden just yet. He still is minding the owner working in the yard. But give it a little more time, curiosity will get the best of him, and those carrots are getting uprooted.
by Danwood on Sep 28, 2009 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wonderful analogy
The glass is more than half-full.
by NorthStarr on Sep 29, 2009 12:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly
I think he could throw 3 to 4. Our secondary is much better then the 49ers is. Of course how many he throw will depend on our ability to force the Vikes to throw.
I would say under 5 though.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
O-Line Blues
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a young, hole filled, injury riddled, O-Line in 40+ years of watch the Pack. Thinking back, the answer was always so simple. Roll out to the QB strong side, complimented by weak side screens. Use the D-line aggressiveness against them. Sell the scramble, make it work FOR you with designed Chinese fire drills. You burn a D-line a few times and they’ll start to stay home.
A sticker I have in my fishing boats says it all “K.I.S.S” and below it in small letters “Keep it simple, STUPID”
by BJIverson on Sep 28, 2009 12:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Driver = underrated?
SportsMumboJumbo.com
Everytime I watch him he makes a sick play. That 1 hand catch could be the best of the year so far. the guy has as solid hands in the NFL as it gets.
by EricFeld on Sep 28, 2009 12:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
definitely was
an amazing catch!!! one handed and the DB all over him with the PI call too! And if any one has ever played WR or just throwing the ball around they know that those balls over the shoulder like that are probably the hardest ball to catch and it was done left handed!
by bizzle4 on Sep 28, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barnett is a cancer
Barnett is a cancer in this locker room. He doesn’t care what is best for the team, he just cares that he doesn’t get subbed out.
Wanting to play is understandable, complaining about it last game, then by twitter, then again yesterday after a victory just shows me that Barnett does not care about the Packers.
Trade him for a o-lineman or a 3rd round pick (that is all we could get).
Also, Hawk is waaaaay to slow. Best effort I have seen from him in a few years, but just does not have the speed to chase RB’s to the sideline, got burned multiple times yesterday.
Coaches need to man up and play the best players, not the highest draft picks.
by Acme on Sep 28, 2009 1:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree...
His attitude needs adjusting, that is for sure, that doesn’t mean he’s a cancer though…there is no way for us to know that! He was on the cusp of being a top notch linebacker in the past so I bet we could get more than you think. He’s a playmaker and he’s young.
by TrevorR on Sep 28, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree with all of what you said
I think that calling Barnett a “cancer” is too strong. Yes, it would be better if he didn’t grumble publicly about his playing time, but I don’t think he’s a “cancer.” Oh, and by calling him a “cancer” you are guarantying that nobody will give you a third round pick for him!
And I’m not sure I’d call Hawk too slow. Frankly, I think he has outstanding speed, especially for an ILB. Unfortunately, he doesn’t play well in traffic, and he is not good at shedding blockers.
by ktenreb on Sep 28, 2009 2:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I agree with that about Hawk
he’s always had well above average speed. It’s not his feet that fail him, it’s his failure to trust his instincts.
He’s steady but he just doesn’t pop out at you while watching him like a James Farrior or Stephen Cooper would.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
by jobe on Sep 28, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
by the way
Hawk lead the team in tackles yesterday…
by TrevorR on Sep 28, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, he played well yesterday
He’s definitely improved from last year.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
by jobe on Sep 28, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's supposed to lead the team in tackles
The 3-4 is designed to allow the LBs to make plays. Chillar and Barnett split time, so if Hawk DOESN’T lead the team in tackles it would be because a safety did. And we don’t want that.!
by ktenreb on Sep 28, 2009 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hawk had some plays yesterday where he looked fantastic.
None of them stand in my memory, but they were in the second quarter… about the same time that Barnett looked like he was really clicking also. It didn’t last long, but it was a taste of what that unit could be like, if their reaction speed ramps up.
by RobertArthur on Sep 28, 2009 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think they look slow at times? Because like you said, they have looked great sometimes and then not so great other times. I think Hawk thinks to much when he is out there.
You seem to be a pretty knowledgeable football mind, so I’m curious as to what you think our ILBs problems have been thus far.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
New system + young men = inconsistency
The star unit of Capers’ 3-4 is the LB unit. They have to rush the passer, cover receivers in both man and zone, fill run lanes, and switch between those assignments in perfect concert with each other and the other units. They make those switches based on pre-snap and post-snap cues. They play everywhere, and do everything. They will be the last unit to fall into place.
It probably doesn’t help that almost all of them played last year in Bob Sanders’ defense, which is about as opposite from Capers’ scheme as you can get. They all have to read and react much more than they are used to, and that will slow them down until they master it. The brain improves the speed of pattern recognition only through repetition.
Just keep this in mind: even with the inconsistency, the defense has been effective so far. We’ve seen glimpses of how scary this defense can be in spots. Consistent play is just around the corner.
by RobertArthur on Sep 28, 2009 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Just keep this in mind: even with the inconsistency, the defense has been effective so far. We’ve seen glimpses of how scary this defense can be in spots. Consistent play is just around the corner.”
This is a great point. We’ve had our struggles in the new defense but we have also looked great at times. The biggest thing for a defense to do is too force TOs and we have been doing that. So far they have forced 9 TOs in just 3 games.
Facing teams with great rb’s hasn’t made things any easier on our defense. And yes, I consider Benson a very good back, and if anyone else watched the Steelers game I think they would know why. The guy has averaged 4.5 ypc, and has been averaging 97 yards a game on the ground.
You make good points about all the new assignments of the LB unit in the 3-4. These reasons would certainly explain why Barnett has looked a little slow thus far, and all of our other LBs for that matter. By the time week 10 rolls around, our defense very well could blossom into one of the better ones in the league.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the deal in my opinion:
The Vikings, while not a great team (yet), are better than we are right now. They just are. They might not be by the end of the season, but they are right now.
The Packers chance to win lies in turnovers. Somehow, as unlikely as it seems, they have to stop AP and force the ball into Favre’s hands. Minny’s pass protection is flawed, much moreso than their run blocking. They’ve got to force Minny into 2nd and 8+, 3rd and 6+ situations where they have to throw and then they have to hit Favre and/or make the picks we all know will be available. If he beats us, he beats us.
The choice is simple. AP WILL beat us if he’s the centerpiece of Minny’s offense. Favre MIGHT beat us if we force him to be the guy making the plays, like the Niners did. So you have to put 8 guys in the box and hope you can pick Favre off a couple of times. If they do that, they’ve got a shot, even with our porous OL.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 28, 2009 5:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed
We need to stop AP! I think having Raji finally in there will help the run D. I liked him at DE Jolly has made some big plays to not give him PT. So if we stop AP I dont think Favre and his WR Corps can beat even our banged up secondary. Anyone know if Bigby has a chance to come back early? Even without him I still like our chances with Collins, Woodson, and Harris back there. As long as Chillar doesnt get beat every time he covers a TE we should beable to pick off and stop Favre
by bizzle4 on Sep 28, 2009 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bigby is out
They said Clifton has a chance to play on Monday but Bigby will be out until after the bye week.
by FavreSucks on Sep 28, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having Raji should help a ton. Sullivan, the Vikes new C, has struggled so far. McDonald of the 49ers was tossing him around like a rag doll yesterday, and I expect Pickett and Raji to be able to do the same. If we can force some 3rd and 6+ for them then we’ll have a great chance. Kampman should have a field day going against Loadholt as RT as well.
We should consider having a cb cover Taylor or AP, as a lot of their first downs come from Favre throwing 1-2 yard dumps to them, and having them make a LB miss and get the 1st.
As far as offense goes, so far the Vikes have been playing press at the line, and have been blitzing more then usual. I hope they do this against us, as Griffin can’t cover Driver 1-on-1 and Winfield can’t guard Jennings 1-on-1. We should also try and exploit, their 3rd and 4th cbs as they are the big weakness on defense.
by packallday555 on Sep 28, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree. Well said sir
battlekow: Bill is having an oppo-gasm
by Michael M on Sep 29, 2009 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Packer Viking Haiku
Packers and Vikings
Favre tries to be old teammates
Monday night football
http://FavreHaiku.com
Clark Osborn - PackerHaiku.com | FavreHaiku.com | BadgerHaiku.com
by PackerHaiku on Sep 28, 2009 9:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nothing to do with the game
I’m sure I’ll get heat for this, but it must be said. I look for an exciting game on Monday night, but with the way everything seems to be lined up, I expect a Packer loss, I hope not, but expect. Now I’m not a Favre hater, I respect the player, despise the man. I followed him for years and cheered him, amazed by what he did, pulling amazing wins out of thin air. I felt lost as the team (and he) battled over what was to become of the two. I respected him as he left for New York and even cheered him on his last year. But now this year, I feel that he has not “taken it to the team” as everyone states, but rather thumbed his nose at the fans. I will cheer on the Packers this year, and when or if the are no longer in the running for the Superbowl, then at that time I will more than likely cheer on the aging QB out of respect for anything he has done. I hope (if no the Packers) he has a chance to go and win one more Superbowl. But now the question must be asked. Is it time for the Packers to put number 4 on someone else. In what is only my opinion, he has no right to in the Packers ring of fame, he does not belong with the other great Packers that have had thier names lifted up on that ring. I for one will be happy to see, (when IT DOES HAPPEN) Farve recieving his Hall of Fame ring in some other jersey. He stated in an interview, even Mike Holgrom went some where else, yes he went to Seattle, not the division rival. The Packers need to make a choice, I believe the best choice would be to give that number to some rookie. Once again, mush repect to Brett Farve the player, tough as nails, exciting to watch. Not much to say about the man that was willing to SPIT on every Packer fan who came out to watch and cheer for him for so many years…
by ShawnH on Sep 29, 2009 12:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
So for all the contempt you have for Favre going to the Vikings, saying he spit on every Packer fan, why would you root for him to win the Super Bowl? I never ever ever ever ever ever want to see the Bears or the Vikings win the Super Bowl with or without Favre. I’m a Packer fan which makes me a Bear and Viking hater.
by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 1:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand what you say, but as stated above, 1st) the Packers have to be out, 2nd) I would do it out of respect for the football player he was for us. Would have love to see him win another Superbowl with Greenbay, but that is now a mute point, so I would not mind seeing him win one somewhere else. But as stated, he himself (the man) I believe that the Packers should pass over his number, he wanted to do what was unthinkable, then he should retire that way. He, the man, is not worthy to be able to enter Canton in a Greenbay jersey.
by ShawnH on Sep 29, 2009 4:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
Related FanShots on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
