What Went Wrong With The Packers Pass Defense
by Brandon on Dec 19, 2011 10:00 AM CST
in Green Bay Packers Analysis
Email
PrintHow could the Green Bay Packers let Kyle Orton and screen pass tear their defense apart? Well, Orton was pretty good against the Packers the last time he played against them (as a member of the Broncos) but this time they weren't able to force any interceptions. Also, the pass defense has been getting burned by running backs and tight ends all season long, so this game was really no exception.
The pass rush doesn't have much bite outside of LB Clay Matthews, and the only player to record a pressure against the Chiefs was S Morgan Burnett. The pass defense gives up short passes and crossing routes (to make the offense work slowly down the field) and the Chiefs took it. Arguably the defense succeeded because they forced the Chiefs to settle for so many field goals. Holding the Chiefs to under 19 points should have been good enough.
If they haven't been able to fix these problems so far this season, I don't know what they can do to fix it now. The only thing that could change is that they could play the safeties and linebackers closer to the line of scrimmage and take away those short passes. And that might be something they can do in their (hopefully) four remaining games this season at Lambeau because the cold weather will make it more difficult to complete deep passes. There isn't much to be done about the pass rush until they can get Matthews some help next season.
99 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think you've hit the nail on the head here
This defense has settled into its identity, and while we can collectively bemoan the number of yards it gives up, there’s not much that’s going to change between now and the end of the year. Losing Jenkins was one blow, but we had the tools to cover for that. The loss of Collins has really transformed this D into what it is now – a team that struggles against the pass, except in the red zone. So long as the long drives don’t translate into TDs (as indeed, they didn’t yesterday), the offense should be more than capable of making up for it.
In short, what we saw yesterday from the D is the exact thing we’ve been seeing from them for weeks, and it’s resulted in a W more often than not. The defense has been consistent, which is not something that can be said for the other side of the ball yesterday.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Same old, same old
Defenders out of position, terrible pass rush, inability to get off the field on 3rd down. Oh, and the added bonus yesterday of not forcing any turnovers.
no turnovers
Good point about the lack of turnovers. This is again an indication of vulnerability. The Packers have all season given up a ton of yardage, but made up for it by forcing more turnovers than anyone else. But in this game, as I recall, there were never close to getting one. I honestly can’t remember a single KC pass that was challenged, let along nearly picked. KC receivers were WIDE open – often there was no Packer in the picture. The biggest fumblers are QBs who get blindsided, but GB never got close to Orton. Hard to force turnovers if the other team takes what you give them and doesn’t try to force things. That’s why the best defense for GB is a good offense – by building leads, they oblige the other team to force the ball downfield, and INTs become much more likely. KC just showed the recipe for beating GB. Control the ball, even if it means settling for FGs, and overwhelm a swiss-cheese O-line to keep the Packers off the board. They’re the first team this season to hold GB under 20 pts, but the way they did it, and the fact that they injured both right tackles for future games, means that GB will have more trouble scoring going forward. They’ll need to keep more guys in to block, and then if WRs can’t win one-on-ones quickly, Rodgers will spend the game running for his life.
I'm ok with Rodgers scrambling
He can still be accurate on the run, but we have to do a better job of giving him that relief valve. Both the Giants and the Chiefs did one thing consistently well on D, and that was bring pressure from both sides of the line, limiting Rodgers’ ability to extend the play.
I don’t think I made the turnover comment, but I absolutely agree with you here. I recall Tramon having one shot at a deep ball, and that was it all game. For the high-risk, high-reward defensive style we’ve been playing lately, not creating a turnover to give our offense a short field at least once in the game was a hurdle that was just too high.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Hard to force turnovers if the other team takes what you give them and doesn’t try to force things. That’s why the best defense for GB is a good offense – by building leads, they oblige the other team to force the ball downfield, and INTs become much more likely.
Yeah, this is what worries me come playoff time.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 19, 2011 12:07 PM CST up reply actions
Losing Jenkins was one blow, but we had the tools to cover for that.
I’m not sure we do. I think a big part of the problem is how much time opposing teams QB’s ahve against us. Last season, we were a predominantly man coverage team. It seems like we’ve been shifting to play more and more zone and I’d guess it’s because Capers knows that know CB can cover a receiver for 5 or 6 seconds. Only, we’re not very good in zone (Tramon has looked horrible in it to me). It seems like teams just send a couple guys deep, pull our LB’s back, and then dump it off over the middle to a TE or RB who usually has enough space to run for a first down.
It’s frustrating really. I expected losing Jenkins to hurt us on defense, and expected Collins to hurt us (though I was confident Peprah could at least do enough) but I didn’t expect it to take us from a top 3 defense to a bottom 10 defense, which even that could be lower had our offense not helped tremendously by our offense being able to give us big leagues.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 19, 2011 12:14 PM CST up reply actions
Interesting take
But I think the game-plan going into the Jenkins-less season was to rely more heavily on nickle. Shields and Peprah had proven themselves capable of operating in that mode last year, and Collins solidified that set. If I read Capers’ mind properly, that’s the way he was leaning when Collins went down.
I think the gradual shift to more zone is a response to the long season. All our remaining defensive guys have logged a lot of time on the field, and I think it’s starting to show. If we can secure home-field throughout the playoffs (or if Pittsburgh can do it for us tonight), I’d expect to see some more subs in there during the remaining game(s) to give our starters a little rest.
And to finish off the “woe is us” injury update, losing Bishop did us no favors, either. He was quietly having a good-to-very good season there and I’ve missed seeing his ability to get to the ball-carrier. Smith has been serviceable, but it feels like a pretty significant step back when compared to Bishop’s previous output.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Could be, but all Jenkins really played in last season was nickel — or towards the end of the season at least.
Yeah, fatigue could definitely be a factor. It’d be nice to give the guys rest but then again should we maybe play them? It’s kind of concerning for me that we had such a bad game so late in the season.
Yeah, Bishop being out hurts and I didn’t initially realize that Pickett was out yesterday too. The drop off from he to CJ Wilson is pretty steep.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 19, 2011 6:07 PM CST up reply actions
Howard Green was the starter in place of Pickett, I believe
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
Yeah, he was but he was on a rotation with Wilson. Green looked pretty gassed later in the game. And I don’t think either Wilson or Wynn are stout enough to hold up against the run very well.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2011 12:22 PM CST up reply actions
Hello McFly!
Did U not notice that the Packers were this bad even WITH Nick Collins in the lineup before his injury?
They have 0 pass rush from the D-Line! They pay way too much zone & not enough man. Their zone coverage, guys are way off receivers & often cant make a play until after the catch!
by Forrest Miller on Dec 19, 2011 12:41 PM CST up reply actions
Hello McFly!
Hello McFly! Did U not notice that the Packers were this bad even WITH Nick Collins in the lineup before his injury?
They have 0 pass rush from the D-Line! They pay way too much zone & not enough man. Their zone coverage, guys are way off receivers & often cant make a play until after the catch!
by Forrest Miller on Dec 19, 2011 12:42 PM CST up reply actions
Gotta' love Biff
Whattaya’ think’s gonna’ happen if we hand in this defense in the playoffs? We’ll get kicked out of the playoffs. And you don’t want that to happen, do ya’? DO ya??
[Well, now, of course not, Biff; I don’t want that to happen. So, I tell you what, Dom’ll go ahead and fix that defense up and we’ll shoot it over there first thing in the morning, okay? hahah, real good, okay, you take care, m’buh-bye.]
by Curly Lambeau on Dec 19, 2011 12:52 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, we looked the exact same weeks 1 and 2 as we have all season.
I’m with you on the zone. At first, I just thought we were playing it to help out Tramon’s shoulder injury but that shouldn’t be a problem anymore. Like I said above, I’m convinced it’s because our pass rush is so inconsistent. It seems like we’re blitzing a lot too and almost none of them every seem to get home.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 19, 2011 6:04 PM CST up reply actions
Anybody besides me?
Anybody else besides me with the protection issues the Packers have? Yet McCarthy is like Mike Martz in the sense he wont adapt to his players! McCarthy refuses to keep a TE in for added protection to help the tackles block the edge rushes which are the ones who often put the pressure on Rodgers & hits/sacks him! Better start protecting Rodgers better or it will be a short postseason for the Packers!
by Forrest Miller on Dec 19, 2011 12:45 PM CST up reply actions
The defense has been consistent, which is not something that can be said for the other side of the ball yesterday.
Consistent? What were they consistent at? Both sides consistently sucked…that is the only thing I can think of that either side were consistent at.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
LOL Brandon
busy day today, eh? I get it, though… it does boggle the mind.
What I noticed about the game is that the Chiefs did a lot to game defenders out of position. There was a lot of head game in this one, and I tip my hat to Romeo Crennel for some pretty creative looking stuff. A lot of routes took really sharp turns or were designed to get the ball out before defenders could figure out where the play was going, they used their running backs in a way that played to their strengths… Jackie Battle, for instance, was practially invisible this last month; McCluster was given some outside running that played to his speed… and Orton was given the chance to just play his game.
Another thing is that this is the best I’ve seen the Chiefs look in at least 6 weeks. This was a pride game for them and they came in there to win. Their receivers worked really hard to get separation, they were tight on their routes… this was a must win for them. The Packers just didn’t expect that out of them. Good for the Chiefs!
My hope is the Packers realize they have to step their game up in the secondary and play a little tighter in coverage because they’re going to see teams play their best in the playoffs and they just can’t rely too much on take-aways at the expense of tackling. As for the running game: no surprise there – the Packers best defense against the run is to jump ahead with a big lead and force opponents to throw.
"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi
concerns
An earlier headline stated that “everything that could go wrong did.” I actually think that’s too optimistic. This wasn’t a loss due to bad luck or fluke plays. The Packers were absolutely dominated on both sides of the ball. Both lines are in disarray. Sure, holding the opponent to 19 isn’t bad, but if there was any luck in this game, it was good luck that 4 FGs weren’t TDs.
I said before that what worried me about the offense was that Rodgers had to be perfect, because his protection is mostly terrible. This game started with nearly a half-dozen drops (doesn’t matter if the QB is perfect if the receivers are dropping passes), and then it became clear that nobody was getting open downfield. Hard to believe Jennings made that much of a difference, but maybe he did. Now with injuries to Bulaga and Sherrod, there’s not must prospect of the O-line improving.
On defense, no pressure on the QB, no linebackers in the middle of the field ever. It’s like 60 minutes of prevent defense, which again, has to be perfect in the red zone. Against a good offense, that’s too much to ask. I believe the defense can improve if Bishop comes back healthy, although I don’t see any prospects of either a pass rush or run-stopping.
I figured they wouldn’t win ‘em all. But this loss showed up all of the Packers’ flaws, and I’m a lot less confident than I had been that they can always score enough to compensate.
pass defense
The loss of Cullen Jenkins,and believe it or not .Yes he was hurt alot but when he was in the game he was a game changer!
Defense
Peprah is a liability, Williams isn’t the same guy, Raji is running out of gas or something, TT didn’t get a pass rusher to go opposite Matthews so they get no pressure. it’s been the same all year for the D, however, this time Rodgers didn’t put up 35 points.
Pretty much
They did hold them to 19. If the offense scores its usual 24, this is a win. If the D would have forced just one TO, it’s probably a win, also. This is the first game they’ve failed to force a TO this year. In fact, only 3 games had only one forced: NO, StL & Min (45-7)
This is an opportunistic defense, which uses turnovers to mask its deficiencies. Usually it works, Sunday it did not.
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
by Wiedmann on Dec 19, 2011 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
just imagine what the score would have been if we weren’t playing the Chiefs who hadn’t scored more than 10 points in about 2 months…allowing 19 to the chiefs is like allowing 30-35 to most teams.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Even if that were the case (I think you're underselling the Chiefs)
we’ve allowed 30+ points three times this season & haven’t lost.
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
and we’ve allowed under 15 points three times this season and won…who cares.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
What I'm saying is if the offense is in sync, allowing 30 points is not a concern.
When we’ve scored 24+ we’re 13-0, when we’ve scored less than 24, we’re 0-1.
Your stat is an obvious one & clearly shifting the argument. Of course you’re going to win when you allow that few points. You’re looking at the wrong end of the spectrum.
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
The poor defensive play had a big part in the offense not being able to get going, imo. They killed us on ToP, and I think it greatly effected the rhythm of the offense. Too me, Sunday’s defensive showing was easily one of the worst. It didn’t matter what the down and distance was. Most of the time it was 2nd and 6 but even when we’d make a play on first down to make in 2nd and long, we’d just give up a first down right away.
I understand that the offense should score more than 19 points but when the Chiefs are able to slow down and dictate the tempo of the game like they did, it just wasn’t going to happen.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2011 12:27 PM CST up reply actions
Sure when you score a lot of points you win most of the time…yeah real profound. Your argument that the defense deserves no blame is just piss poor man. Sorry. Doesn’t change the fact that our D allowed a very bad team to go up and down the field and control the clock. No one here is saying the O doesn’t deserve a big share of the blame.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
I. NEVER. FUCKING. SAID. THIS.
Your argument that the defense deserves no blame is just piss poor man.
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
by Wiedmann on Dec 21, 2011 6:12 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
I've noticed that
you see a lot of this kind of thing (posters accusing others of saying something more extreme than what they actually said) on Acme.
Sort of like this past summer, when those who were saying that the Packers shoud move on without Grant and/or Driver (and/or others) after this season were accused of sating that those players should’ve been cut then (last summer).
"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."
"We're nobody's underdog!"
"We don't play scared!"
Peprah’s been garbage all season long. And yeah, we need an upgrade opposite Clay. Not only does he NEVER get any goodd pressure, he also almost always gets washed out and loses contain in the running game.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 19, 2011 6:10 PM CST up reply actions
Play the safeties closer to the LOS
It’s not like they (mainly Peprah) are that effective when dropping back! Plus we really haven’t been tested deep that often this season. I think our CBs have the cover skills to hang with their man without safety help.
SUPER BOWL CHAMPS
I didn’t understand the big cushions Williams and Shields were giving yesterday either. I would have liked to know the reasoning behind that. It basically led to three first downs.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 19, 2011 12:15 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah that is frustrating
It must be a part of the play call. I don’t want to be that guy that points figures at coaches… but Dom needs to do SOMETHING to turn things around.
SUPER BOWL CHAMPS
by Chief Oshkosh on Dec 19, 2011 12:32 PM CST up reply actions
I think he may be saving a lot of looks for the playoffs
Why tip your hand against an AFC team in an essentially meaningless game?
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
by Wiedmann on Dec 19, 2011 12:45 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
What could they possibly not have shown in 14 games though. I think it was just a bad gameplan. I suppose coaches can have those too!
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
I kind of got the same feeling
Everything on offense and defense was so vanilla. Very little blitzing no early no-huddle. Seemed like we were trying to get through this game doing everything as basic as we could. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle between not showing our tendencies, poor gameplanning and in general not showing up to play a more motivated opponent.
Francois or Hawk
anyone think that Francois would have done better than Hawk yesterday?
From what I saw, Hawk didn’t do much.
DJ Smith and Bishop would be a great duo, IMO.
I wouldn't mind rotating Hawk & Francois for obvious run/pass situations
Francois seems a little better in coverage than Hawk (which, I guess isn’t saying much).
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
sky is not fallin
Starks, Clifton, Bulaga, Sitton, Jennings.
Those are big time players. With them in I think we score at least 20 pts.
My prediction for next game, A LOT more Cobb. He is the only one that can consistently beat a CB one on one due to his Jennings like route running and quickness. Even AR pointed out his performance yesterday. Sorry, but DD is just not a #2 anymore and should only come on when we go 4 or 5 wide.
Sitton played, but Sherrod's season is over
which really sucks, especially considering Clifton & Bulaga were already out. We had to shuffle the line because of it:
LT Newhouse
LG EDS
C Wells
RG Sitton
RT Lang
Playing a G at T is never good.
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
by Wiedmann on Dec 19, 2011 12:52 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Walden
Was benched for his performance, and not setting the edge. Something to look at next week, how Zombo does, and who else gets playing time (So’oto or Jones).
It was being asked all week: Who would step up ...
with Jennings out?
We got our answer! NO ONE!
Just remembered this
How did you like it when on at least 2 or 3 plays yesterday, Orton rushed to the line of scrimmage and threw a quick pass to the receiver down the line of scrimmage without even dropping back (because the Packers were too slow or lazy in figuring out their assignments)? Someone better get ripped in the film sessions for that. Unacceptable.
What went wrong with the pass defense?
WHAT PASS DEFENSE?!
They werent at the game
"Football isn't a contact sport, it's a collision sport. Dancing is a contact sport."
I was wondering about this on draft day
I thought it was odd that they spent so many draft picks on offense. TT had to know that if they weren’t going after Cullen, the pash rush was going to need work. I’m sick of hearing about Mike Neal as the potential answer. Sure, he could be the most talented D-lineman on the team, but if he never plays, whats the difference? The Packers need a solid complement to Clay at the other OLB spot desperately. Walden and Zombo can do a serviceable job by committee, but neither guy offers much pass rush.
Like my post? Well, follow me on Twitter anyways. @LenBarson
yeah I think the Neal injury really affected what they thought was going to be the solution for losing Jenkins. You can’t gameplan for injuries. They happen, sometimes a guy is injury prone but before this season you couldn’t make the argument for Neal…the argument is popping up now though.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
A couple points in defense of the defense
1) As of this week, teams (all teams) are 150-74 this season when holding their opponent to 19 points or less. Yeah, the D gave up a lot of yards, and let the Chiefs hang on to the ball more than they should have (especially in the first half), but this was not an awful performance by the defense.
2) As of this week, teams are 10-214 when scoring 14 points or less. The reality of this situation is, 14 points is very rarely enough to secure a win in the NFL.
Yeah, it would be nice if we had last year’s defense, where we could win games 9-0 or 10-3, but the reality is that’s not where the Packers are right now. As long as the offense can’t put up at least 3 scores, it’s going to be trouble.
by DaveInTucson on Dec 20, 2011 11:56 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
good stats
Tend to agree. They kept showing time of possession etc during the game. Really the TOP didn’t mean much as the Pack was only down 6 points
I love wins. Wins are good for the soul.- Barry Alvarez Sep 25, 2005
We expect to win.- Ted Thompson July 28, 2011
by White92 on Dec 20, 2011 12:28 PM CST via iPhone app up reply actions
Really the TOP didn’t mean much as the Pack was only down 6 points
I disagree with this statement. With the Chiefs dominating the TOP, they kept Rodgers and our offense from ever getting into rhythm. Their dominating 1st Half in TOP ultimately was the dagger for the defense, which was too exhausted to do anything in the 2nd Half. The Chiefs’ goal wasn’t to win a shoot-out, it was to control the game. They were successful.
One game at a time...
It certainly played out that way..
I guess what I was trying to point out was that they(the Chiefs) could dominate those type of statistics (TOP, yards etc) and still lose the game on one play.
I give the Chiefs a ton of credit. They had to play a perfect game, and got it done.
I love wins. Wins are good for the soul.- Barry Alvarez Sep 25, 2005
We expect to win.- Ted Thompson July 28, 2011
Yeah, the D gave up a lot of yards, and let the Chiefs hang on to the ball more than they should have (especially in the first half), but this was not an awful performance by the defense.
Why are we so willing to write off yards given up as not a big deal? If they’re racking up yards it means they’re driving the ball and keeping our offense off the field. It’s awesome that they’ve toughened up in the redzone but our terrible defense allowed the Chiefs to control the flow of the game.
If you don’t consider that awful, then I’d like to know what awful looks like. We had too many blown assignments to count, and got totally gashed. Anytime you allow 32 yards on 4 carries when you know they’re going to run every play, something is not right.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2011 12:31 PM CST up reply actions
Why are we so willing to write off yards given up as not a big deal?
Because yards allowed is not points allowed. There is a mountain of data that proves yards allowed is a poor measure of how good a defense is. Last year, the San Diego Chargers finished with the fewest yards/game of any defense in the NFL. Did it seem to you like they had the best defense? Even close to the best defense?
If they’re racking up yards it means they’re driving the ball and keeping our offense off the field.
You’ll also notice that (until last week), that didn’t really matter. The offense was very productive with their opportunities, and opponents were mostly playing from behind.
If you don’t consider that awful, then I’d like to know what awful looks like.
How about like in the second half of 2008, when the Packers were tied or leading in the 4th quarter in six games, but lost because the defense couldn’t stop the run? How about a defense that couldn’t get a stop on 4th+26?
The defense held the Chiefs to 19 points. If the offense had been as productive as they were in every game this season prior, that would’ve been easily enough to secure a win. But the offense had a bad day (7 punts, 1 missed fg, and 1 failed 4th down conversion). And that is not the defense’s fault.
This is just the 4th time (and only the 3rd time starting) Rodgers has had a completion rate under 50%.
by DaveInTucson on Dec 21, 2011 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
How about a defense that couldn’t stop a 33 year old 3rd string running back averaging 3.0 yards a gain on the season and a below average backup RB who prior to the last drive had 20 yards rushing…allowing them to rush for over 30 yards on 4 consecutive runs with the 4th quarter expiring and the entire world knowing the run was coming (and three timeouts).
Where would that rank?
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
…again with the yards allowed. Did you even read my post?
by DaveInTucson on Dec 21, 2011 3:42 PM CST up reply actions
Did you read mine? I am talking about the last drive of the game. \
allowing them to rush for over 30 yards on 4 consecutive runs with the 4th quarter expiring and the entire world knowing the run was coming (and three timeouts).
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
I am talking about the last drive of the game.
The game was more than just the last drive. The game was the result of 60 minutes of play by both teams, it’s not fair to cherry-pick out one drive and lay the blame for the loss on that one sequence.
by DaveInTucson on Dec 23, 2011 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
You know how many games end like that?
Where the offense can grind out the last 3-5 minutes, all on the ground? It’s happened to the Steelers, the Ravens, the 49ers, and every team out there.
"couldn’t stop a 33 year old 3rd string running back averaging 3.0 yards a gain on the season"
He averaged 3.2 against the Packers. Not sure how that qualifies as “couldn’t stop.”
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
I know that it’s not points allowed but it generally means a higher ToP and field position being flipped. I honestly don’t care about the defensive stats or the offensive stats really for that matter. I like to go by the good ol’ eye test, and what I saw last Sunday was some piss poor play by the defense. They allowed the Chiefs offense to control the game, and I think it had a negative effect on our offense.
The reason it hasn’t mattered in prior weeks is because they normally force a couple TO’s every game and usually are good for forcing some punts too. Neither were really the case Sunday.
How about like in the second half of 2008, when the Packers were tied or leading in the 4th quarter in six games, but lost because the defense couldn’t stop the run?
Actually, the end of Sunday’s game was eerily similar to that of 2008. We needed them to stuff the run (which everybody knew was coming), and they couldn’t. They gave up 32 yards on 4 carries. How do you allow 8 ypc when you KNOW that the offense is going to run? My guess is they were all probably gassed which is a direct result of them not being able to get off the field for the entire game.
This defense is basically the 2009 defense. They can’t defend the pass, can’t really defend the run, and most of it is due to guys not executing. They force turnovers but that’s about all they do well. The problem with this is, you run into trouble when you a play a team who has a QB who doesn’t make stupid decisions.
The big difference is Rodgers 2011 >>>>>>> Rodgers 2009, and 2011 receiving corps > 2009 receiving corps. It’s resulted in our offense being absolutely ridiculous for most of the season. And it’s also resulted in our defense being put into position to get all those interceptions they’ve got.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2011 10:35 PM CST up reply actions
the 2009 defense was top 5 in the league in yards allowed though
so they weren’t exactly that similar… The only games where they really got shredded like this year’s D were Pittsburgh and Arizona
football does not build character, it reveals character.
Because it totally ruins their argument!
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
So, what—you think the defense is obliged to hold opponents to zero yards, zero points, and zero time of possession?
Seriously, if you think the offense did a good enough job scoring 14 points, you really need to support your argument.
by DaveInTucson on Dec 21, 2011 3:49 PM CST up reply actions
ARGH!
Dude I’ve said like 25 times in various places that the offense DIDN’T do a good enough job. Where have I said that? Why do you try to put words in my mouth when I’ve said the opposite so many times?
How ridiculous.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Dude I’ve said like 25 times in various places that the offense DIDN’T do a good enough job.
Then why do you keep blaming the defense? They had pretty much the same performance they’ve had all year. The Panthers (475 yards), Rams (424), Vikings(W7 435 yards), and Bucs (455 yards) are all pretty bad teams, and they all torched the defense for 400+ yards. The Chiefs (438 yards) is just another line item on that list.
by DaveInTucson on Dec 23, 2011 7:15 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
The points allowed don't always reflect on how poor the defense played
Common Sense: A pass oriented offense will score more points than a run oriented offense. The Chiefs live and die by the run.
The Chiefs ran the ball at will and passed the ball at will. They owned our defense all game long, having a commanding control over the TOP. When the defense can’t get off the field, the offense will only have 2 possessions in the first half. Those 2 possessions didn’t result in anything, and that’s not abnormal for offenses around the league. The result: the defense exhausted itself and the offense didn’t get things going until the 2nd Half.
Using the score to defend the defense is extremely short sighted. The objective of a run heavy offense isn’t to score a lot of points, it’s to control the clock and the game. It’s to take as much time off the clock as possible. The defense failed miserably at stopping the run and the pass, which killed us in the end. No, I’m not pinning the loss entirely on the defense, because the offense played poorly too. The point is: everybody played really bad. There is no defending the defense, they were horrible. They made a couple nice stops in the Red Zone, but that was it. They still allowed the Chiefs to control and dominate the game.
One game at a time...
"The Chiefs ran the ball at will"
Did they?
39 rushes; 139 yards, 3.564 yards per carry
KC’s season average: 3.9 ypc
NFL teams who allow fewer than 3.564 ypc: 2 (Baltimore Ravens, San Francisco 49ers)
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
They ran it well enough to almost always be in a favorable distance on 2nd down, and then ran it 4 times at the end of the game to end — when we knew they were going to run it! Their offense totally controlled the game.
Fire Slocum
by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2011 10:19 PM CST up reply actions
bear in mind the kneeldowns at the end detracted from the YPC
but yeah, point taken.
football does not build character, it reveals character.
okay, that's fair
36 rushes; 143 yards, 3.972
KC’s season average: 3.9 ypc
NFL teams who allow fewer than 3.972 ypc: 8 (Ravens, 49ers, Dolphins, Seahawks, Bengals, Vikings, Steelers, Jets)
Holding them the about their average, still better than most teams.
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
yeah I wasn't disagreeing, just pointing out that it took away a bit from the YPC
they did a solid enough job against the run much of the game, particularly in the red zone, but the problem was that the one time they really needed a stop, and they knew the run was coming, they couldn’t even slow it down
football does not build character, it reveals character.
No, I understood
I was just posting stats without the kneel-downs for clarity.
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
[The Chiefs had] a commanding control over the TOP
In the first half, sure, KC 20:33, GB 9:27, better than 2-1. In the second half, the advantage was marginal: KC 15:38, GB 14:22.
They owned our defense all game long,
The defense gave up 438 yards to the Chiefs, which is just a bit over the D’s season average (428 yards per game). If the defense got owned by the Chiefs, they’ve been getting owned all season long. Face it, this was a pretty typical outing for our defense this year.
by DaveInTucson on Dec 21, 2011 7:54 PM CST up reply actions
at halftime it was 6-0
Not bad for a team getting DOMINATED in the time of possession, and it’d be 6-3 if not for the missed FG. and the missed FG set up a KC FG drive. If it’s made & we get a TB on the KO, they start at the 20, not the 44. The missed FG not only cost us 3 points, but 24 yards of field position.
*The D’s season average is 397.8, not 428, but the point remains.
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
*The D’s season average is 397.8, not 428, but the point remains.
D’oh! You’re right. I was dividing by 13 instead of 14 when I took my average. Mentally blocking out the 1 loss, I guess :-(
by DaveInTucson on Dec 22, 2011 4:59 AM CST up reply actions
yep..
that was my point above. The defense usually gets a turnover, but this game it didnt happen. A pick 6 or fumble recovery would have made the TOP in the first half meaningless.
The defense held those long drives to only 3 points and a failed 4th and inches attempt. It should have been enough to win the game.
I think that as much to blame on the run defense, was defending the short passing game. A couple of times they had the Chiefs at 3rd and 8 or so and they let Orton complete a short pass to a back or tight end for a first down.
I love wins. Wins are good for the soul.- Barry Alvarez Sep 25, 2005
We expect to win.- Ted Thompson July 28, 2011
Screens killed us.
Much more so than the running game, IMO.
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
In the first half, sure, KC 20:33, GB 9:27, better than 2-1. In the second half, the advantage was marginal: KC 15:38, GB 14:22.
This goes back to my first post. After dominating the TOP stat, our D was too tired to do anything in the 2nd Half.
If the defense got owned by the Chiefs, they’ve been getting owned all season long. Face it, this was a pretty typical outing for our defense this year.
Good point, but to be fair the Chiefs have one of the worst offenses in the league. So it’s pretty embarrassing. Granted, maybe Orton is the perfect QB for that offense. We’ll see soon enough.
The point is the defense was at just as much fault as the offense for our loss. I can’t believe some people are saying it’s not the D’s fault when giving up over 400 yards to a horrible offense is ok. Are some of us lowering our standards on the defense? So if you give up 500 yards, that’s considered a below average game?! Come on now! You can’t expect the offense to bail the defense out EVERY time. Thank goodness this was against the Chiefs. I’ve been saying all year that this game could happen in the playoffs. It just happened now, which is better than any other game coming up. We lost on both sides of the ball. NOBODY played good. I wish I had some answers as to why our D is so much worse compared to last year. All I can think of are Jenkins and Collins, but then I reflect on how our CB’s aren’t playing bump and run. Then we are playing so much zone. What exactly is the problem??? Should we panic? No, it was one loss to a non-conference team. Should we be concerned? With the playoffs coming…absolutely.
One game at a time...
After dominating the TOP stat, our D was too tired to do anything in the 2nd Half.
Well, too tired to do anything except maintain a pretty equal time of possession, and hold the Chiefs to 13 points scores. Other than that…
maybe Orton is the perfect QB for that offense.
Certainly, Orton is better than Palko. Note that when we played the Broncos with Orton, their offensive numbers (273 yds passing, 119 yds rushing) at Lambeau were really not that far below what Orton and the Chiefs did at Arrowhead.
Yeah, in terms of yards allowed, this was a below-average performance for the defense, even by the standards of other games this year. (But note that in terms of points allowed, it was better than average!) But to expect them to come out and absolutely shut down an opponent is to expect them to do something they haven’t done since last season.
by DaveInTucson on Dec 22, 2011 6:46 PM CST up reply actions
Again though, the reason the numbers are so bad is because it was the Chiefs who (not to be "disrespectful) are running on fumes this season. Clearly Orton gave them a spark but it was a QB in his first game with a new team and a team with a bunch of 3rd string RBs. This is the kind of team that should have been much lower than the average, not above it.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Not sure how a guy one year removed from 1000 scrimmage yards could be considered "3rd string"?
Tyler Palko is 3rd string, Thomas Jones is not.
13.
Build Lasers And Stuff For More Ownage, Dude!
by Wiedmann on Dec 23, 2011 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
We lost to the Chiefs!
Doesn’t matter that we tied the franchise record for most wins in a season first!
"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."
"We're nobody's underdog!"
"We don't play scared!"
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.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
- Having finally landed, Kellen Winslow looks for a fresh start in Seattle
- Tim Tebow teased with chants of ‘Lolo!’ in Jets locker room
