Green Bay Packers Thread

Arawn

Deleted User wrote: »

:eek:

I don't think I ever said I was "hoping and cheering" for the Packers to lose?

I think I said "defeat might not be such a bad thing". And then I said that for me it's an unwanted distraction when the focus must be the Superbowl. We have seen one team screw it up in the most spectacular fashion. I'd hate to think there was any possibility of history repeating itself.

such as going undefeated? after all that would be history repeating itself

Neil3030

What's the secret of Packers' success?

The Green Bay Packers have won 18 consecutive games, and Sunday required just 58 seconds to drive 68 yards for the game-winning kick against Jersey/A, overcoming the defense and the home-crowds din as though neither were there. Next Sunday, if Green Bay defeats Oakland, the Packers will get to a 19-0 streak -- similar to the barrier the 2007 Patriots couldn't pass. Green Bay's offense is ultra-efficient, with Aaron Rodgers on a pace to set the quarterback rating record. Green Bay's defense gets the job done. Odds of a Lombardi Trophy repeat are strong.

What are the Packers' secrets? First, the personnel:

• Great players: All championship teams must have a few. Rodgers and Charles Woodson will be Hall of Famers. If they continue to perform at their current levels, Clay Matthews and B.J. Raji could be, too. Donald Driver and Chad Clifton have had great careers, and Greg Jennings is getting into that territory.

• Undrafted players: The Packers have 16 on their roster -- Jarrett Bush, Tom Crabtree, Evan Dietrich-Smith, Ray Dominguez, Rob Francois, Brett Goode, Ryan Grant, John Kuhn, Jamari Lattimore, Tim Masthay, Brandon Saine, Sam Shields, Shaky Smithson, Vic So'oto, Tramon Williams and Frank Zombo. Football is a team sport, and for team sports, little-known role players are as important as great players. Unlike highly drafted crybabies who think the rules don't apply to them -- Exhibit A, the Detroit Lions -- undrafted players listen to the coaches and give you what they've got.

• Home-grown: Since Ted Thompson took over as general manager in 2005, he has rarely traded away draft choices. All NFL general managers say they want to build through the draft, then many blink and give up picks. Thompson never blinks, holding his picks and trading for others. In Thompson's seven drafts, he has selected an average of nine players per draft, versus seven that the league hands each club. He has had 17 first- or second-round choices in that period, versus the 14 the league hands out. And the Packers scout the sixth and seventh rounds as intently as the first. Many Green Bay players were late choices, selected by a point in the draft where many teams were just winging it.

• Green Bay won the Brett Favre mess: Had the Packers not shown Favre the door, Rodgers would have departed. Offloading the franchise's most accomplished player was wrenching. Leaders make decisions for the future rather than the present -- if only those in Washington, D.C., thought this way -- and Green Bay made a smart decision for the future regarding Favre.

• The only NFL roster with five tight ends, as TMQ has noted before: Green Bay has five tight ends, and has won 18 straight games. Why don't other NFL teams notice this rudimentary fact? Multiple tight ends allow for multiple offensive sets that confuse defensive game plans. All contemporary defensive coordinators have some experience dealing with multiple wide receiver sets. Most don't have experience dealing with multiple tight end sets.

• Aaron Rodgers: Quarterback is the most important position in football, and Rodgers is football's best quarterback. Accuracy and decision-making are the key attributes of an NFL quarterback -- practically all of them have strong arms -- and Rodgers excels at both. He throws accurately while moving, creating roll-out opportunities. He runs, but only in an efficient manner, mainly when he sees a clear lane to the sidelines. On a third-and-5 against the Giants, Rodgers saw a clear lane to the sidelines and ran for the first down, then stepped out of bounds. This is the way Joe Montana used to run. When the quarterback consistently picks up first downs by efficient runs that don't expose him to hard hits, the offense prospers.

Plus Rodgers is handsome. Just as the football gods are propitiated by cheerleaders with sex appeal, the gods also smile on handsome quarterbacks. Rodgers, Tom Brady, Cam Newton, Drew Brees -- it may not be fair, but this seems to be the way it is.

Now Green Bay's tactical secrets:

• Sideline passing: Both Manning brothers excel at hitting receivers along the sidelines; for Rodgers, this has become his forte. Twice against the Giants, Rodgers hit Jordy Nelson with perfect strikes smack on the sideline for big gains. On the Packers' touchdown drive that made the score 35-27 Green Bay, both big plays were sideline receptions.

The deep sideline pass is the hardest throw in football, so only the best offenses feature this action. When a receiver is smack at the sideline, the quarterback knows there will be only one defender -- by definition, there's no defender on the sideline side. Working the sideline is a way to create one-on-one matchups. The throw must be perfect. If it is, the sideline route is the hardest for even the best cornerback to defend.

• Pass first, then rush: Victory can happen with a rush-first offense, as the Broncos are showing. But passing plays gain more yardage per attempt than rushing plays. Green Bay employs this simple insight to start most games pass-wacky; once the Packers have a lead, they switch to rushing to grind the clock. Passing early to build a margin, then running late after the opposition defense begins to tire, is an ideal formula. It's the Packers' formula.

• Canadian influence: Green Bay quarterbacks coach Tom Clements played quarterback for Ottawa, Hamilton, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg of the Canadian Football League. In the CFL, it's move the chains or lose. First downs matter more than deep strikes. The Packers' offense operates as though it assumes only three downs, like in Canada. Plus Joe Philbin has been the offensive coordinator in Green Bay for eight years. The Indianapolis Colts and New England Patriots offenses of the past decade were successful partly because of coaching stability.

• Funky defenses: Pittsburgh, Baltimore, the Ryan Brothers and others have been using oddball fronts with two or one defensive linemen, married to a zone rush. Green Bay employs this tactic too. In a zone rush -- a better term than zone blitz -- five to eight defenders are in a position to rush. Only four actually do, but the offense doesn't know which four will be coming. At least one defender who looked like a rusher before the snap drops into one of the slant lanes, since every quarterback's standard anti-blitz tactic is the quick slant.

Against the Giants, on one down Green Bay showed a conventional 3-4 front. Then two defenders walked up for what appeared to be a six-man blitz. At the snap only four rushed, with Matthews dropping into a slant lane that Eli Manning thought would be uncovered. The Giants had a receiver open deep, but because a rusher was in Eli's face -- after the choreography, Jersey/A had five to block four but lost track of one rusher who came toward Manning unopposed -- he never looked deep. Manning threw what he thought would be a safe quick out; Matthews intercepted the pass and returned it for a touchdown.

Lots of funky fronts and jumping around pre-snap cause Green Bay to surrender yardage -- statistically, the Packers' defense is not flashy. But these tactics also generate defensive touchdowns, against Jersey/A, against the Steelers in the Super Bowl and in other games. Nothing drops a 16-ton weight on your head like watching the opponent's defense score.

There are two other big factors:

• Mystique: The Packers have won four Super Bowls, 13 conference and/or league titles. Green Bay has the oldest consistent winner in football. The place is Titletown. Vince Lombardi is looking down. The Packers exist in a college-town atmosphere -- they are even the sole NFL franchise with college cheerleaders, not professional cheerleaders, on the sidelines. The aura around the Packers is unmatched by any other NFL organization.

• Bicycles: Packers players ride bicycles to the opening of camp, an annual summer ritual attended by thousands of children. Cheesy? Well, it is Wisconsin. Corny? Gets the season off on a fun note. And Packers faithful sure are having fun.

UnitedIrishman

McCarthy says Bishop will be challenged to get back on the field this week and Walden will start Sunday. Hawk is progressing.

kmart6

Deleted User wrote: »

:eek:

I don't think I ever said I was "hoping and cheering" for the Packers to lose?

I think I said "defeat might not be such a bad thing". And then I said that for me it's an unwanted distraction when the focus must be the Superbowl. We have seen one team screw it up in the most spectacular fashion. I'd hate to think there was any possibility of history repeating itself.

Are you saying the Patriots?! Hard to say they screwed up after the miracle catch in that game!

WakeyTyke

So the Packers have placed Andrew Quarless on IR and have signed QB Graham Harrell from the practice squad

This begs the question - why do we need a 3rd QB at this stage of the season?

Could it be that once the Pack has secured no. 1 seeding Rodgers could be rested against the tough Bears (and possibly Lions) defences?

Or given the number of QB's going down injured maybe McCarthy was worried that Harrell may be signed to another club's active roster and he is too valuable an asset to lose!

SantryRed

That game against that scumbag Lion's D could be a worry for Rodgers to play him.

kmart6

Well he only got sacked twice in the first game so nothing out of the ordinary! I'd imagine the officials will be watching the Lions for any little thing for the rest of the year so I'd say he'll be safe enough!

SnoopyD

WakeyTyke wrote: »

This begs the question - why do we need a 3rd QB at this stage of the season?

Could it be that once the Pack has secured no. 1 seeding Rodgers could be rested against the tough Bears (and possibly Lions) defences?

Or given the number of QB's going down injured maybe McCarthy was worried that Harrell may be signed to another club's active roster and he is too valuable an asset to lose!

It's the exact same play as last year. Harrell was introduced into the roster for the final 2-3 games of the regular season (he may have come in a little ahead of schedule because of Rodgers concussion) and remained there for the rest of the way.

There was talk the Bills might pick him up but I doubt there was much to that.

There's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about this whatsoever

Arawn

Arawn wrote: »

such as going undefeated? after all that would be history repeating itself

No no, by going undefeated through the season and then blowing it in the game that mattered most.

That was done once and once only.

And I suspect that if Pats fans were asked about it now, they would far rather to have shipped a few defeats along the way if it meant they went into the final with less hype and hysteria, rather than build up all that pressure and lose when it mattered most.

Of course they would rather have both. But for me the prospect of a perfect season pales into insignificance with the prospect of winning the Superbowl.

kmart6 wrote: »

Are you saying the Patriots?! Hard to say they screwed up after the miracle catch in that game!

They screwed up in the sense they lost.

It may have been close, it may have been an amazing catch, they may have been the very best losers ever.

But they lost.

me-skywalker

Deleted User wrote: »

:eek:

I don't think I ever said I was "hoping and cheering" for the Packers to lose?

I think I said "defeat might not be such a bad thing". And then I said that for me it's an unwanted distraction when the focus must be the Superbowl. We have seen one team screw it up in the most spectacular fashion. I'd hate to think there was any possibility of history repeating itself.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it.

Just concerned that the wheels come off as they focus on "making history" rather than "winning the Superbowl". It would be nice, but in the context of winning the Superbowl it really is only a little fluff on top as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see them make history by establishing the greatest dynasty the game has seen, and for me that is not done by unbeaten seasons but by winning the Superbowl multiple times. Of course they are not necessarily exclusive, just that one worries about the focus.

For the record, I was pleased Tipp stopped Kilkenny's "drive for 5", I didn't like seeing Sampras and then Federer break all those records on the tennis courts, I hope Woods does not surpass Nicklaus, I don't like the way 147s in snooker and 9 dart finishes have become almost common, the Man Utd "treble" did not interest me and so on and so forth.

Your opinions are very cynical and negative. The best way to prepare for the SB is by winning every single game. Take each one at its own value and prepare and practice in the right way. Winning breeds confidence and confidence allows the players to achieve their potential because they are not psychologically barriered by fear; fear that if they try the difficult thing it might not work out, fear that they will make a mistake, fear they will lose. They are going to try the difficult things more often and they will excute tehm better with confidence and not have that restriction. Yes you learn from defeat and must not be complacent but that seems to be the jist of your point, but I've no fear of this team getting complacent.

me-skywalker

me-skywalker wrote: »

Your opinions are very cynical and negative.

Sheesh, the amount of fellows around here who weigh in with psychoanalysis when someone has an opinion with which they disagree! I'll laugh it off, especially from a person who consciously or unwittingly reads into my posts comments that I never made...what was that one again about wondering if I would cheer the Packers losing?!!

I really do not care that much about perfect seasons. I care very much about winning the Superbowl. The last time we saw enormous hype about the perfect season the wheels came off in spectacular fashion and that side ended up as one of the games most famous losers. That is all. You may think that gives an insight into my psyche, good for you.

me-skywalker

Deleted User wrote: »

Sheesh, the amount of fellows around here who weigh in with psychoanalysis when someone has an opinion with which they disagree! I'll laugh it off, especially from a person who consciously or unwittingly reads into my posts comments that I never made...what was that one again about wondering if I would cheer the Packers losing?!!

I really do not care that much about perfect seasons. I care very much about winning the Superbowl. The last time we saw enormous hype about the perfect season the wheels came off in spectacular fashion and that side ended up as one of the games most famous losers. That is all. You may think that gives an insight into my psyche, good for you.

Firstly I'm not sayign anythign on a personal level merely your post was negative and if you are goign to put words in my mouth that I'm putting wrds in your mouth quote the full post and not take it out of context please:

necessarily exclusive, just that one worries about the focus.

me-skywalker wrote: »

If the Packers went unbeaten thsi season and went half-way through next season unbeaten and considering how they ended last season on a streak, would you at some point next season be hoping and cheering for your own team to loose?

NOT

YOU ARE hoping and cheering for your own team to loose

[/QUOTE]For the record, I was pleased Tipp stopped Kilkenny's "drive for 5", I didn't like seeing Sampras and then Federer break all those records on the tennis courts, I hope Woods does not surpass Nicklaus, I don't like the way 147s in snooker and 9 dart finishes have become almost common, the Man Utd "treble" did not interest me and so on and so forth.[/QUOTE]

Peyton Manning

PFT are reporting that Greg Jennings has torn his MCL.

spiralism

Peyton Manning wrote: »

PFT are reporting that Greg Jennings has torn his MCL.

They reported it as a sprain, which is naturally a tear by definition. The grade tear determines the injury and layoff. Grade 1 or two could possibly have him back for the playoffs. Grade 3 is a complete tear and long term layoff

spank_inferno

I really really hope its not too bad.
I know we have a lot of receiver weapons, but Jennings does a lot of work.
Think, all those 'straight up the middle' bullets from Rogers when all else seems covered...

Good win last night, against a deplorable Raiders team

I heard the Sky guys talking about Matt Flynn wanting a move away from GB?
He wasn't that impressive in the 1/4 game he got last night.

me-skywalker

Didnt see any of the game last night night but Rodgers throwing an INT and a QB rating of under 100 I'm assuming he was awful

Bad news about Jennings its gonna be a big miss; he's a big moment player with the experience and skill to matter even in a receiving set thats bulging with players Jennings is one of our most vital since he takes some coverage away from the others. Nelson will be getting plenty more ball now.

Can only comment on the stats for Flynn so won't say anything but what happened?

kmart6

How do you mean?! What's wrong with Flynn's stats?!

Pherekydes

According to packers.com, Jennings will be back for the play-offs.

Good news.

me-skywalker

kmart6 wrote: »

How do you mean?! What's wrong with Flynn's stats?!

Ah just meant against the games against Raiders, not much to read into as he enterred the fray when it was irrelevant, I got to see the game yesterday evening. BTW his stats for the period he did play:

Pass: Att:2 Com:0
Rush: Car:3 Yrds: -2

If he's considering leaving is he gonna be missed hugely? Is this just a non-story

I don't want to read too much into his short and sparse appearances but I watched him over the years and thought he was a great backup to have, last season he done well against the Pats, over 250 yrds and 3TD's but not so well against the Lions 2 games we lost incidentally. Is he good enough to be a starter in the NFL? Is he happy enough to just sit behind Rodgers knowing he's not gonna have any chance in the next 10years of being a Packers starter? How is he generally rated by McCarthy, Clements and Rodgers?

EDIT: Actually who cares.. he could go we still have Rodgers, he could stay: we still have Rodgers.

cooker3

Deleted User wrote: »

Sheesh, the amount of fellows around here who weigh in with psychoanalysis when someone has an opinion with which they disagree! I'll laugh it off, especially from a person who consciously or unwittingly reads into my posts comments that I never made...what was that one again about wondering if I would cheer the Packers losing?!!

I really do not care that much about perfect seasons. I care very much about winning the Superbowl. The last time we saw enormous hype about the perfect season the wheels came off in spectacular fashion and that side ended up as one of the games most famous losers. That is all. You may think that gives an insight into my psyche, good for you.

Are you suggesting the Patriots going 16-0 in some form contributed to losing the Superbowl?

Either way 16-0, 13-3 whatever it doesn't really affect losing the Superbowl. I remember Superbowl XXXII, it feels **** irrespective.

cooker3

Good news that Jennings will be back for the post-season. I hope his injury, although I fear it might, doesn't make it less likely we go for 16-0.

Arawn

me-skywalker wrote: »

Ah just meant against the games against Raiders, not much to read into as he enterred the fray when it was irrelevant, I got to see the game yesterday evening. BTW his stats for the period he did play:

Pass: Att:2 Com:0
Rush: Car:3 Yrds: -2

If he's considering leaving is he gonna be missed hugely? Is this just a non-story

I don't want to read too much into his short and sparse appearances but I watched him over the years and thought he was a great backup to have, last season he done well against the Pats, over 250 yrds and 3TD's but not so well against the Lions 2 games we lost incidentally. Is he good enough to be a starter in the NFL? Is he happy enough to just sit behind Rodgers knowing he's not gonna have any chance in the next 10years of being a Packers starter? How is he generally rated by McCarthy, Clements and Rodgers?

EDIT: Actually who cares.. he could go we still have Rodgers, he could stay: we still have Rodgers.

Unlrss he gets hurt.


I'd much rather have a back up that kows the system rather than having to retrain someone

cooker3

cooker3 wrote: »

Are you suggesting the Patriots going 16-0 in some form contributed to losing the Superbowl?

We'll never know. They may have been complacent, they may not. One thing is for sure, they were overwhelming favourites and it would have been hard to keep complacency in check.

I'll say this much, the unbeaten issue added much to the glee of those who just don't like the Pats!

I would also much prefer to see them let players sit out games now, give Matthews, Rodgers, Nelson etc. or anyone carrying any tiny niggle or strain extended time on the sidelines, at least in divisional games where meetings have often produced bruising battles, rather than lose anyone through injury chasing 16-0.

kmart6

me-skywalker wrote: »

Ah just meant against the games against Raiders, not much to read into as he enterred the fray when it was irrelevant, I got to see the game yesterday evening. BTW his stats for the period he did play:

Pass: Att:2 Com:0
Rush: Car:3 Yrds: -2

If he's considering leaving is he gonna be missed hugely? Is this just a non-story

I don't want to read too much into his short and sparse appearances but I watched him over the years and thought he was a great backup to have, last season he done well against the Pats, over 250 yrds and 3TD's but not so well against the Lions 2 games we lost incidentally. Is he good enough to be a starter in the NFL? Is he happy enough to just sit behind Rodgers knowing he's not gonna have any chance in the next 10years of being a Packers starter? How is he generally rated by McCarthy, Clements and Rodgers?

EDIT: Actually who cares.. he could go we still have Rodgers, he could stay: we still have Rodgers.

Had a feeling that was your point!

Your reading way too much into irrelevant stats!!

He came into the game when the Packers were miles ahead....if you look at the play by play they running the ball nearly every play and settling for FG's....game was won, they were running down the clock and being respectful towards the Raiders! As for the -2 on Rushing...kneel downs at the end!

cooker3

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll never know. They may have been complacent, they may not. One thing is for sure, they were overwhelming favourites and it would have been hard to keep complacency in check.

I'll say this much, the unbeaten issue added much to the glee of those who just don't like the Pats!

I would also much prefer to see them let players sit out games now, give Matthews, Rodgers, Nelson etc. or anyone carrying any tiny niggle or strain extended time on the sidelines, at least in divisional games where meetings have often produced bruising battles, rather than lose anyone through injury chasing 16-0.

And did this help the Colts win in 09? 72 dolphins coped. You can make this argument both ways.
Bottom line we don't have big enough sample size to say either way.

me-skywalker

2 notes from the game yesterday and last week: dropped passes and our LT.

Dropped passes % has spike in the last 3weeks whether we had injuries or not both sides of the ball. A factor to dropped passes is a drop in concentration could be complacency. Having a 'belief' that you have caught the ball while its on its way to you rather than making the catch then believing. Not concentrating at the final second, whereas before we've made sure it was caught then celebrated.

The LT position has been a problem area for us, Clifton was a miss previously, but Newhouse been a huge disappointment over the last few weeks also. How many of the sacks have come from his side? We had 4 in this game, 2 at clutch moments very frustrating.

In saying that I have to say well done to Chiefs they played a great game both sides of the ball and made us look ordinary.

Its the monkey off the back and we can push forward and focus on winning the big one. REPEAT!!!

spank_inferno

Agreed young skywalker.
That Newhouse fella seems a fat tub of weakness.
Much smaller men are able to outmuscle seemingly at will.

But the boss man watches the same footage we do, so I dont doubt good coverage in that position will be a priority come end of season.

Another point on last night, as mentioned on 5live, had the Chiefs red-zone performance been in anyway good, the points defecit could have been embarassing

fisgon

Packers' offense still looking slick, but I'd be a bit worried about their D. It seems you can now run on them at will. Kalil Bell had almost 100 yards by half time last night, and that's with McCown at QB when GB knew the Bears were going to run.

Thinking of the Saints in the Champ game, they now have a decent running game. Packers must be a bit concerned, though that would be one hell of an NFC champ decider.

WakeyTyke

The Defense has not only been a big disappointment this season it has also been an enigma.

Whilst the secondary has been generally poor defending the big plays and the pass-rush has been mediocre from the line-backers the D-line has at times held-up very well against the run but at other times it's been woeful.:(

Consistency has been totally lacking - why?!

McCarthy says we have been losing too many one-on-one match-ups - why?!

Certain players have not been able to attain and maintain the level that was expected of them - Neal, Zombo, Hawk, Burnett, Shields, all spring immediately to mind.

Is it too much to hope that the play-off's can create the necessary focus to produce the consistent performances that have been lacking all season?

spank_inferno

WakeyTyke wrote: »

Is it too much to hope that the play-off's can create the necessary focus to produce the consistent performances that have been lacking all season?

I hope and think that they can.

with the 2 final home games and then the playoffs being in Lambo, I hope it gives the D-fence oppertunity to improve on the training ground.

Interceptions have been impressive though, especially from Pepprah, so its not all bad.

I really don't fancy the Saints should that game come to pass.