PackerChatters News Update

PackerChatters Op/Ed Launched

2006-01-13T04:51:00.000-08:00

Announcement
By PackerChatters Staff
October 10, 2006

With the re-launch of our website all PC staff writers articles have been incorporated into PackerChatters Op/Ed.

Future articles will be posted there and we hope you enjoy what we do.

PackerChatters Opinion/Editorials

Double Speak

2006-01-10T12:13:00.000-08:00

By Bruce Smith
PackerChatters Staff
Tuesday, 10 January 2006

I admit I am surprised to read people who felt free to use words like idiot, incompetent, fat-assed… in expressing their “opinions” about Mike Sherman are now suddenly shocked and outraged that anyone would express displeasure or dare to question Ted Thompson. I just don’t get it?

I would guess that some would try to pigeon-hole me into an anti-Ted Thompson camp; I would argue they were dead wrong.

Read more

Bates to Interview Today

2006-01-10T09:39:00.000-08:00

By PackerChatters Staff
Tuesday, 10 January 2006

According to Sports Radio 107.5 TheFan in Green Bay Jim Bates, Defensive Coordinator of the Green Bay Packers, will interview today with GM Ted Thompson for the Head Coaching postion.

Story on

The Legend of Brett Favre

2006-01-09T18:38:00.000-08:00

By Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Tuesday, 10 January 2006

As the Green Bay Packers’ fans settle into their team’s off-season many are struck with the realization that this may have been the last time we see Favre grace Lambeau Field. For some people they see it as a good thing, a player who has stayed a couple years to long and should have left before his skills diminished. For the rest they see Favre as a player who simply had a bad year being asked to carry the load of the offense without a running game or a top-flight receiver to throw the ball to. No matter which side you are on, there is no debating that Favre will someday settle into the Hall of Fame, but in the meantime where does this season leave him?

Read more

Packers Season Ending Review

2006-01-08T18:34:00.000-08:00

By Patty
PackerChatters Staff-Green Bay Draft Sheet
Monday, 09 January 2006

What do the Green Bay Packers realistically need to do in this off-season?

First, they must address their own Free Agents. Which ones to bring back and which ones to allow to go.

My personal direction is this;

1) Resign Kenny Peterson DL: He finally began exerting himself and showed some talent especially late in the season. A RFA that I would resign. Good rotational player.

Read more

Final Roster Cut Days

2006-01-07T20:55:00.000-08:00

By C.D. Angeli
Packerchatters Staff
Sunday, 08 January 2006

Most people wait for these cutdown days with anticipation. I know on many occasions we have favorite players we hope make the team, though they are hanging by a thread. Most times, we?re happy with the decisions, because the players we love, whether they be named Moss or Favre, make the team. Sometimes, we're a little sad, because that young kid we saw giving his all at a practice or making a key play in the fourth quarter of a pre-season game goes.

But most of the time, the names of the cut get read and forgotten. Names that disappear from memory once the season starts.

One name has always remained in my head. His name was Louis Berry.

Read more

2006 PC Draft Tracker

2006-01-07T20:52:00.000-08:00

Announcement
By PackerChatters Staff
Saturday January 7, 2005

PackerChatters has released its first annual 2006 Draft Tracker.

This years draft takes place on April 29-30, 2006.

PackerChatters will bring you the official press releases of each of the players taken by the Packers as well as discussions of the complete coverage of the draft in our Forums.

Announcement

Frank Coyle will join us in Draft Chat

2006-01-06T14:04:00.000-08:00

Announcement
PackerChatters Staff
Friday, January 6th, 2005

We are pleased to announce that Frank Coyle has joined our team of excellent Draft guest hosts.

Frank is a nationally known pro football scout who publishes Draft Insiders' Digest and www.draftinsiders.com . In it's 15th season, Draft Insiders' Digest is dedicated to year round coverage of NFL and NCAA Football.

Read Complete Announcement

The next Packers coach doesn’t need to be a fiery motivator

2006-01-06T03:49:00.000-08:00

By Rick Cina
PackerChatters Staff
Friday, 06 January 2006

As the search begins for a new head coach for the Green Bay Packers, it has recently been suggested that GM Ted Thompson may be looking for a fiery, dynamic coach who can inspire and motivate players to play with more passion and intensity. Which may lead one to believe that perhaps Thompson didn’t think that Mike Sherman was enough of that kind of coach. And perhaps he wasn’t.

The prototype for the kind of coach we think of when we talk about the fiery motivator is, of course, Vince Lombardi. And there probably will never be another Lombardi. But while many have directly associated Lombardi’s intimidating, combustible personality with his skills as a motivator, it may be alternatively true that player motivation primarily comes from two main sources: a) extreme confidence that the coach knows what he’s talking about and what he’s doing, and b) from deep within himself, or from a player’s own personal will and sense of pride.

Read more

Chat Transcript: Great Blue North Draft Report with Colin Lindsay

2006-01-05T20:06:00.000-08:00

By PackerChatters Staff
Friday, 06 January 2006

Due to a recovery problem (now fixed) we are only able to publish the last 1/3 of last Tuesday's Draft Chat with Colin Lindsay.

Chat Transcript: Great Blue North Draft Report with Colin Lindsay

[LMG]: Have ONLY Draft related questions ready and entered into the text box ready for submission when called on. This will help speed things up
so Colin can answer as many of your questions as possible. If you do not have a question when called on please reply with 'no question' so we can
move on.

[Colin.GBNDraftReport]: I'm a big Huff fan in that he has 4.35 speed but really likes to hit, question is whether he is a CB or more likely safety. I
suspect he falls into the early to mid 20s. A guy I have real questions about is Ngata. Some people are talking about him as a possible top 5-10
type but while he is tough to move off the LOS plays way too high; isn't quick and doesn't make many plays upfield.

Read transcript

The End Of Sherman/Favre

2006-01-04T17:55:00.000-08:00

By Mark Quarderer
PackerChatters Staff
Thursday, 05 January 2006

The Sherman/Favre era ended with a thud on at a Monday morning press-conference. Following a grand tradition in Green Bay that includes Bart Starr and Ray Rhodes, the head coach was fired less than 24 hours after their final game.

I thought that TT would be deliberative and take time to evaluate the coach, the staff, and the players before moving. I guess I was wrong on that, and it certainly lends credence to the contention that this decision had been made quite a while ago.....contrary to what Ted Thompson stated in the press conference. I haven't had time to research this yet, but I believe that Sherman/Favre is one of the longer pairings of a Head Coach/ Quarterback in league history, logging 96 regular season games in tandem. Lombardi/Starr didn't achieve that, not Johnson/Aikman. I can think of a few that did, like Landry/Staubach , Noll/Bradshaw, and Walsh/Montana, but the fact of the matter is that very, very few HC/QB tandems had the longevity of Sherman/Favre.

Read more

Thompson, Coaches, and Balance

2006-01-04T17:22:00.000-08:00

By C.D. Angeli
PackerChatters Staff
Thursday, 05 January 2006

The search for a new coach of the Green Bay Packers, and already, names have been harvested, celebrated, disdained, and dissected. With Monday's unceremonious firing of Mike Sherman, already many have pinned new hopes on such prospects as Childress, Williams, Saunders, and Lewis...hopes for a very uncertain future.

One thing is for certain, however. Whether you liked Sherman or not, his firing was not cut and dry. His dismissal after compiling the fourth best winning percentage among Packer coaches (take out 2004 as an abberation and its even better), winning three straight division titles, and making the playoffs four times out of six seasons has been confusing to many of those out of the Green Bay circles. This is not a man with health issues and a history of clashes with ownership, like Mike Martz, or simply season after season of dismal effort, like Dom Capers or Jim Haslett. No reason was given, to Sherman or to the fans.

Read more

Mike Sherman finds himself out of a Job

2006-01-02T17:39:00.000-08:00

By Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Tuesday, 03 January 2006

Before this season, Mike Sherman was considered one of the best young coaches in the NFL. His 53 wins and 27 losses put him in a tie for the 5th best record for a coach's first 80 games, and fourth best winning percentage in Green Bay Packer history. Only 2 other coaches ever led the Green Bay Packers to three straight division titles and they are Vince Lombardi and Mike Holmgren, which isn't bad company. After one unfortunate season filled with injuries and a 4-12 record, Mike Sherman found himself left out in the Wisconsin cold.

Read complete article

Green Bay Packers Defeat Seattle Seahawks 23-17

2006-01-02T05:21:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Monday January 2, 2006

The Green Bay Packers started the year of 2006 by finishing off the 2005 season on a high note against the Seattle Seahawks. With several thousands of fans praying for loss for a chance at one of the top picks, the Packers played the way they were paid to, those fans will have to settle for the 5th overal pick come April.

Read complete Review

Game Preview: Seattle Seahawks at Green Bay Packers

2005-12-30T18:19:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Friday December 30, 2005

The Seattle Seahawks will make their fourth trip in the last three years to Lambeau Field to face the Green Bay Packers. The Seahawks find themselves playoff bound and in high spirits coming off a win against the Indianapolis Colts’ backups while the Packers have found themselves in the type of season they can’t wait to escape.

Read complete Preview

"Reading Between The Lines"

2005-12-29T05:23:00.000-08:00

by C.D. Angeli
PackerChatters Staff
December 29, 2005

I’m very excited for Sunday. For two reasons.

One is a good reason: I am going to my first (and only) Packer game of the 2005 season, to see the final game against the Seahawks. I don’t get to many games in a season, so when I walk around the Atrium and the concourse, I really do cherish the time.

The other reason, however, is probably less exciting than it is a sense of foreboding, because I’m waiting for a press conference from Ted Thompson that may come as early as Sunday night, making an announcement that will set the Packers’ future in motion.

Read complete article

What do we football fans know about the play calling?

2005-12-28T06:16:00.000-08:00

by Rick Cina
PackerChatters Staff
Wednesday December 28, 2005

If some of the biggest names in football, men like Jim Mora, Ron Wolf, and Bill Polian, believe that the subject of plays or play calling isn’t something that the casual observer can definitively and decisively comment upon, why is it so common for fans like us to do just that?

Read complete article

Chicago Bears Escape the Green Bay Packers 24-17

2005-12-26T10:22:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Monday December 26, 2005

In a year that has been full of many disappointing firsts for the Green Bay Packers, the trend continued on a chilly December night at Lambeau Field. In the first game ever on Christmas Day for the Packers, they were swept for the first time since 1991 by the Chicago Bears. For the first time in Brett Favre’s hall of fame career he went a 4th straight game without a touchdown pass.

Read complete Review

Game Preview: Chicago Bears at Green Bay Packers

2005-12-23T13:28:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Friday December 23, 2005

For the first time in the history of the storied Green Bay Packer franchise, the Packers will play on Christmas Day. It is only fitting that they will face their most historical and bitter rival in the Chicago Bears.

Read complete Preview

Lets Make a Deal

2005-12-22T04:56:00.000-08:00

by C.D. Angeli
PackerChatters Staff
December 22, 2005

Anyone else remember the game show “Let’s Make a Deal”?

Monty Hall was the host, and it ran seemingly forever in the 1970’s. Like “The Price is Right”, this show constantly gave contestants a shot at winning great products of the time, except, instead of having to guess prices, they just had to guess at the unknown.

Read complete article

Patty's 2006 Green Bay Draft Sheet-Mock Draft

2005-12-20T19:14:00.000-08:00

Update
by PackerChatters Staff
December 20, 2005

2006 NFL 2 ROUND MOCK DRAFT

The positioning is some speculating on my part of what could happen the next two weeks. Of course when the season is over and the order is established there will be a revision to the mock draft.

Complete Mock Draft

Game Review: Packers @ Ravens

2005-12-20T12:11:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Tuesday December 20, 2005

Green Bay Packers Demolished by the Balitmore Ravens

There are a lot of adjectives that could be used to describe the performances from the game. Pathletic, awful, and painful are definitally at the top of the list.

In a game that was predicted as low-scoring and competitive, the Balitmore Ravens steamrolled the Green Bay Packers by a final score of 48-3. It was the worst lost for the Packers since a loss to the Chicago Bears in 1980.

Read complete Review

Game Preview: Green Bay Packers at Baltimore Ravens

2005-12-16T17:35:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Friday December 16, 2005

The Green Bay Packers will make their final road trip of the 2005 season as they take on the Baltimore Ravens at M&T Bank Stadium on Monday Night Football. It will be the first time since 1983 that the Packers will travel to Baltimore their last meeting 23 years ago resulted in a 20-20 tie with the Baltimore Colts.

Read complete Preview

Patty's 2006 Green Bay Draft Sheet

2005-12-14T05:07:00.000-08:00

Update
by PackerChatters Staff
December 14, 2005

We have just re-launched the 2006 Green Bay Draft Sheet.

2006 Green Bay Draft Sheet

Gado’s fumble-pass more fortunate than heads-up

2005-12-13T19:49:00.000-08:00

by Rick Cina
PackerChatters Staff
Tuesday December 13, 2005

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel called it an “alert” play.

Mike Sherman suggested that if he knew what he was doing, it was a “heads-up” play.

In the Green Bay Press-Gazette, it was suggested fans might conclude that Samkon Gado is “the smartest man in America.”

Just as likely, though, it could be said that what Gado did in his own end zone with 7 minutes left in the 4th quarter of a tied game was, well, just plain foolish.

Read complete article

Passion of the Pack

2005-12-13T04:22:00.000-08:00

by C.D. Angeli
PackerChatters Staff
December 13, 2005

Given the title of this article, you might think this is about "The Passion of the Christ". It was definately an interesting movie, and, avoiding any political controversy surrounding it, it must be stated that the endless, brutal torture endured by Christ was something you couldn't watch, and yet had to watch the screen at the same time.

Our Packer season draws some similarity this season, a train wreck of a season, endless frustration, and yet, week after week, we continue to tune in, despite hopes of redemption fading more and more each week. It's like a car accident: no matter how brutal, you still stare, blankly, looking for some hope, more moreso to evaluate the damage.

Read complete article

Live Green Bay Packers and NFL Draft Chats kick off soon.

2005-12-08T15:48:00.000-08:00

PackerChatters Staff
Thursday December 8, 2005

Colin Lindsay of the Great Blue North Draft Report will kick off our annual Live Draft Chats on January 3, 2006 @8:00pm CST.

More Schedule updates coming soon.

Game Preview: Detroit Lions at Green Bay Packers

2005-12-08T12:47:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Thursday December 8, 2005

In a rivalry that has covered 75 years and nearly 150 games the Green Bay Packers and the Detroit Lions will face off for one final time in the 2005 NFL season. The Packers hold the all-time edge with a record of 78-62-6, but realistically, history means nothing in the December months of Pro Football.

Read complete Preview

Job Postings: Are the jobs really as easy as some would have you believe?

2005-12-07T04:37:00.000-08:00

by Bruce Smith
PackerChatters Staff
December 7, 2005

I know we live in an age of instant gratification, where information access is instantaneous and our attention-deficit culture demands we hit the reset button hit as soon as the going gets tough. Yet, knowing all of this, I still find myself asking – do most fans really believe that being a GM or HC is as easy as it seems to be when playing Madden 20??, could they truly be so clueless?

Read complete article

5 Big Questions about the Green Bay Packers

2005-12-06T16:32:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Tuesday, December 6, 2005

As we come to the end of the 2005 NFL season and the Green Bay Packers clearly being out of the running for the playoffs, I thought I’d take some time to answer some questions that have been posed to me based on the Packers’ season to date. I took 5 of the questions and answered them for you.

Javon Walker recently cut ties with Drew Rosenhaus, What does that mean for Walker’s future with the Green Bay Packers?

This is a move that can be seen from both sides.

Read complete article

How to measure a pass rush

2005-12-05T04:48:00.000-08:00

by Rick Cina
PackerChatters Staff
Monday December 5, 2005

Is counting the sacks enough?

In 2004, the Green Bay Packers registered 40 sacks, good enough to tie for 10th best in the NFL. Armed with that information, we can conclude that the Packers had a better-than-average pass rush last year, right?

No, we probably shouldn’t conclude that. It’s a good bet that very few followers of the 2004 Packers would agree that Green Bay defenders were able to generate a consistent, or even respectable, pass rush throughout the season last year. Measuring how good at pass rushing a team or a player is involves more than just counting the number of sacks. Probably a better way to statistically assess a pass rush is to also consider how many hurries (or pressures, as they are also called) and quarterback knockdowns a team or player had, in addition to the sack numbers.

Read complete article

Game Review: Green Bay Packers at Chicago Bears

2005-12-04T17:11:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Sunday, December 4, 2005

Tennessee at Indianapolis – Repeat after me… I will not pick against the Colts again this season, I will not pick against the Colts again this season, keep repeating that. Not too much to say about this game, the Colts’ Peyton Manning is having another MVP year and this time he’s not alone as the Colts defense and Edgerrin James have had great years as well. Colts by 17.

Read complete review

The Coaching Hot Seat

2005-12-04T11:10:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Sunday December 4, 2005

As we inch closer and closer to the end of the 2005 NFL regular season schedule, there is no better time than the present to evaluate the all important coaching position. The coaching hot seat puts these coaches on notice and lets them know now that their time is near if not here already. Coaches with two years or less with their current team are left off this debate for obvious reasons.

Time to start packing

Jim Haslett (New Orleans Saints) - The real question is why wasn’t he fired years ago? With respect to the natural disaster situation in New Orleans and that it’s amazing for them to have remained this competitive; this is not a one year struggle. Since taking over the Saints he has posted 46 wins against 47 losses. While the numbers appear average, there has been much disappointment with the results the Saints have achieved under his tenure. All together, the situation in New Orleans is grim from every view and the first step to rebuilding this franchise starts with a new coach.

Dick Jauron (Detroit Lions) – Yes I’m aware he is an interim coach for the Lions, but the fact is that Matt Millen will not accept Jauron as the head coach next season. This is Jauron’s opportunity to show the league he is worthy of considerations to return to a head coaching position elsewhere in the NFL, all while Matt Millen searches for his next coach.

Norv Turner (Oakland Raiders) – I highly doubt that Al Davis will accept the excuses that come from this season. Turner failed to produce an offensive attack with a great set of receivers and a strong line. This is his official call to the hot seat and the only thing that might save his job is if the Raiders win out to the end of this season or at least show some type of progress under Turner.

Coaches who will get one more year to win

Read complete article

Grading Favre in the Sherman-era Playoffs

2005-12-04T11:08:00.000-08:00

by C.D. Angeli
PackerChatters Staff
December 4, 2005

I've heard many anti-Favre rants that say he hasn't been successful in the playoffs in the last five years or so, and because of him, we will never win a Super Bowl.

To me, its a lot of hemming and hawing, but in order to say that I've taken a good look at each game, I'm going to see if each game should be placed on Favre or on Sherman.

My premise is simple. Did Favre underplay the rest of the roster? Did only he come not ready to play and win, or did the whole team not come in? Let's look statistically and with intilligent observation at each playoff game of the 2000's.

First of all, the assumption is that Brett Favre has only gotten bad in playoff games since the start of this millennium (of course, they missed the playoffs in 1999 and 2000). I won’t even go into his stats before that time, then. Let’s take it one game at a time.

Read complete article

I Vote No on Lienart

2005-12-04T11:03:00.000-08:00

by C.D. Angeli
PackerChatters Staff
December 4, 2005

Just a passing thought.

I was thinking about some discussion lately about Roethlisberger and Orton, how they are young QBs who have played fairly well, though they are generally asked to do little more than manage the team and the running games, and let the defenses do the bulk of the work.

To be a young QB (or heck, any QB) in a position of having a great line in front of you, a great stable of productive running backs, and a solid top 5 defense...you can't do much wrong. Favre was in this position in his MVP years, and it allowed him to as successful as he was.

Lienart, though, is playing that role in college. Don't get me wrong, I'm not cutting on the kid, and I know he's probably as special of a QB as we'll see in the next several drafts. But he is surrounded by talent, including two great RB, one of whom will probably be taken ahead of him in the draft.

Read complete article

NFL Week 13 Preview

2005-12-03T11:35:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Saturday, December 3, 2005

Tennessee at Indianapolis – Repeat after me… I will not pick against the Colts again this season, I will not pick against the Colts again this season, keep repeating that. Not too much to say about this game, the Colts’ Peyton Manning is having another MVP year and this time he’s not alone as the Colts defense and Edgerrin James have had great years as well. Colts by 17.

Read complete Week 13 Preview

The Dirt in Detroit

2005-12-01T04:38:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Thursday December 1, 2005

By now we’ve all heard about the firing of Steve Mariucci, and as simple as this sounds, the problems in the Detroit Lions’ organization goes much deeper than their head coach.

We first need to start at the very top of the organization, which first and foremost brings us to general manager Matt Millen. Millen was appointed in January of 2001. Since he took over, just three players remain from pre-Millen era (Jared DeVries, Jason Hanson, and Cory Schlesinger).

Read complete article

Green Bay Packers (2-9) @ Chicago Bears (8-3)

2005-12-01T04:15:00.000-08:00

by Mason A. Wood
PackerChatters Staff
Thursday, December 1, 2005

Green Bay - Welcome to one of the most famous, oldest rivalries in NFL history!

No matter what their records are, these games always provide a flash back to the days of the old “black and blue division.”

Read complete article

The Crystal Ball of Reality

2005-11-30T08:54:00.000-08:00

by C.D. Angeli
PackerChatters Staff
Wednesday, November 30, 2005

It is times like these, when your team has gone 2-9, that the media and fans grow rabid and demand change. With the Green Bay Packers on their way to a losing season, everyone and their brother has a theory as where to place blame, and their own personally designed “want list” that will fix the franchise and return the team to glory.

Alas, what we want and hope don’t always match up with reality. We want Brett Favre to be an efficient game manager…it’s just not going to happen. We want Mike Sherman to put down the charts and beat the opposing coach to the checkmate. It’s a rarity, especially this year. We want Ahmad Carroll to not hold, we want KGB to dominate like he should, we want Nick Barnett to take that next step, we want Robert Ferguson to play like a solid starter…and alas, it’s just not reality.

Read complete article

Football 101-Scat El Paso

2005-11-28T03:34:00.000-08:00

by Reckless

Scat El Paso

This weeks play of the week is the second Packer TD vs. the Vikings. Shortly before half time the Vikings returned an interception for a TD. On the Packers next possession they were in their 2-minute offense. They had the ball at their 47 yard line and had “eagle” personnel in, or 4 WRs and a RB. The full call was, “Scat El Paso Trips Right Nasty B Left”. Here’s the diagram on the board:

-----------------------------S
--------S1
----CB1-------W--------M--------B---------CB
---------E1---T----T---E
----WR----O--O--O--O--O----80
----------------O---------------83---------O

----------------40

“Scat” is the protection scheme. That means “5 on 5 inside” where the 5 OL block the five “most dangerous” defenders rushing. The most dangerous are the five “most interior”. In other words, if the defense sends all four DL, W over the center and B, the Packers couldn't block all 6 so B would not be blocked. On this play the Vikings only rushed the four DL.

Tony Fisher (40) went in motion toward the QB and then to the left of the formation. WR ran a smash route straight ahead and then angling toward the left sideline. The motion and WR’s route pulled W in that direction and occupied CB1 and S1. Donald Driver (80) ran a post route which Sherman drew as a straight line to where S lined up then angling toward the goal post. “We brought Antonio Chatman (83) underneath”. Sherman drew 83’s route toward B and then angling toward where M lined up. Sherman mentioned that S was “cheating” toward the outside – toward the middle of the three receivers on his side of the field. M was starting to cover (I think Sherman used the word “pair”) 80 but when 83 broke toward him, he “leveled” a little bit to cover 83, allowing 80 to get past him.

The tape showed B taking a bad angle. Driver caught the ball at about the Vikings 32 yard line. B dropped back to about the 40 yard line then broke inside. He was at about the 37 yard line when Driver caught the ball beyond him. It didn’t look like it was S’s job to cover Driver. He looked to be playing deep zone against the other two receivers. He never got closer than 5 yards to Driver. M did start to cover Driver and came off of him to pick up Chatman. He leaped at about the 40 yard line in an attempt to tip the ball. This looked like the perfect play against this defense. The LBs didn’t have a chance to cover Driver deep and neither did S who lined up farther to the outside (toward the right sideline) than Sherman’s diagram showed. In fact, S lined up close to the numbers while Driver lined up on the hash marks. The middle of the defense was wide open - more open than the diagram shows.

2006 Green Bay Packers and NFL Draft Chats

2005-11-26T05:25:00.000-08:00

ANNOUNCEMENT

by Staff

November 25, 2005

Welcome to PackerChatters 2006 annual Draft Chat page.

The 2006 NFL Draft looks to be a very interesting event for the Green Bay Packers and their fans. Even though the Draft is not until April we have been working on coming up with a schedule of selected well known draft people to host our 'live' Chats.

What would our 'live chats' be without Colin Lindsay! Colin has been a regular in our 'live chats' for years and his Great Blue North Draft Report is one of the most read and respected on the Internet.

Colin is confirmed for a 'live chat' from the Senior Bowl in Mobile, Alabama on January 26th, 2006 at 8:00 pm Central. We are also working on an earlier date in January for Colin to 'kick off' our 'live chat' season.

Update 'live chat' announcements will be posted on our home page.

Announcement

Meaningful or Meaningless Game???

2005-11-25T02:54:00.000-08:00

by Bruce Smith
PackerChatters Staff
Friday, November 25, 2005

Oh how times have changed.

Coming into the 2005 season the November 27th Green Bay Packer Vs Philadelphia Eagles rematch was a game that many had marked on their calendars. The NFL, nodding to this fact, slotted it into the prime doubleheader 3:15 time, expecting to cash in on a ratings bonanza.

Most preseason prognosticators saw the Eagles as the ‘Crème de la Crème’ of the NFC and their return to the Super Bowl a near certainty. By looking at the outcomes from the previous 3 tilts between the two clubs, most doubted the Packers ability to block the Eagles coronation run, but with Brett Favre at the helm and the Packers potent offense, the Packers were seen as a test game that would lend clarity to the NFC race in week 12 (game 11) of the 2005 season.

Read complete article

Let Us Give Thanks (And Take a Step Back)

2005-11-23T23:49:00.000-08:00

by Curt Angeli
PackerChatters Staff
Thursday, November 24, 2005

It is Turkey Time, that great traditional holiday celebrated here in America, where families get together to celebrate each other and give thanks for all that they have received.

However, in Packerville, this is a different Thanksgiving. For so many years, the Packers have given us a bountiful harvest to be thankful for: great players, memorable plays, dramatics wins, and dominating performances. Yes, Thanksgiving was a virtual Packer Cornucopia of Bounty. Not Matt LaBounty, just Bounty.

Read complete article

Waving the white flag

2005-11-22T07:15:00.000-08:00

by Curt Angeli
PackerChatters Staff
Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Well, give the Vikings credit. They crushed us twice.

No, not in the game. One can make the case in both games they didn't deserve to win any more than we did. But they crushed our hopes and dreams twice.

After a bad start, we had every bit of momentum going after crushing the Saints. Everything seemed upbeat, all the way through halftime. And then, the improbable comeback and more improbable field goal.

Read complete article

Initial look at personnel needs for next year

2005-11-17T19:06:00.000-08:00

by Mark Quarderer

Although things can certainly change in a hurry in the NFL, some clear areas of need are starting to make themselves known.

First, let's look at our own free agents......

On the defensive line, Grady Jackson, Colin Cole, Cullen Jenkins, and Aaron Kampman will all be free agents, although Cullen Jenkins will be a restricted rights free agent who can only negotiate with Green Bay essentially. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see all of the remaining guys attract interest in the free agent market. Kampman, according to footballoutsiders.com, is one of the more difficult DEs to run against in this league. He's smart, high energy, and has a great work ethic. Cole has limitations but he's pretty damn solid at the point of attack. And of course Grady.........I just think we're going to have to bite the bullet and sign him.

We'll also need to resign Ryan Longwell. These are the easy calls, and now some of the hard ones.......

Mike Flanagan and William Henderson should not be offered contracts. Neither should Najeh Davenport. If Ahman Green is able to come back from his injury we should try to make him our 3rd down back and offer him a contract commensurate with that role. If he accepts, it's the end of the line for Tony Fisher.....otherwise, Fisher might hang around another year. Clearly, we need a feature running back. I like what I've seen from Gado but I think he'd be better suited to a backup/change-of-pace role.

I don't think the Packers have any need at TE or WR, but at OT we're going to have to make a decision about Kevin Barry. He didn't attract much interest last year and so there's no reason to believe he will this year either. At this point, it looks as though his future in Green Bay is as a backup tackle, period. Adrien Klemm will backup the the LG and LT positions, Whitticker will start at one guard. Scott Wells will also start but we'll either need a new starting center or new starting guard. Reugamer could hang around another year as a backup. Junius Coston and Chris White are our two best bets for a starter next year.

Personally, I think the Packers are going to have to fill the hole in the interior of their offensive line with a free agent or Day One draft pick next year, and we've got some other holes to fill with those draft picks. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense to let Wahle leave in free agency and then get another guy in via free agency, but it looks to me like our best course of action

So that takes care of our free agents. Now let's look at the holes:

Our defensive line might well return quite a few of this year's guys, but it could really benefit from a quality 3 down defensive end who could replace KGB on run downs and compliment him on pass downs.

At linebacker.......Barnett is perhaps a little above average but the other guys aren't. Manning and Poppinga might help out, but if a playmaking LB like AJ Hawk is available he'd be a good acquisition for us and would help our team against both the run and pass.

But the biggest weakness on this team.....other than their inability to hang onto the ball.....is in the secondary, particularly at corner. Al Harris is our best guy and he's on the wrong side of 30. Carroll is a work in progress and isn't exactly inspiring confidence. Behind them is essentially nothing but projects.

This problem is amplified in the nickel and dime packages when we're putting minimum wage
FAs and Day Two rookies out there against some prety good WRs. So I would think that a substantial upgrade in that regard would be something that should take apriority in this year's offseason.

So that's the view from here. Not an insurmountable problem, but clearly the Packers' need to have a good draft and be a little more active in free agency than they were last year......and not just the bargain guys. We could use some upper echelon free agent type guys, too.

Running the table

2005-11-17T08:41:00.000-08:00

by Mark Quarderer

There's been a certain amount of (nonsensical) talk about the Packers running the table, winning all their remaining games, and finishing the season 9-7, winning the division, and making the playoffs.

On the face of it, it certainly seems plausible. With the exception of Seattle (which we play at home), none of the remaining teams is that formidable. Chicago, at 6-3, is the only other team with a winning record. Philadelphia is limping, Baltimore is having a lost season of their own, Detroit just doesn't seem to be able to get it going.

So it could happen.....but it won't. The first obstacle is that we just don't do very well against good defensive teams and Chicago fits that description, as does Seattle. The two best defensive teams we faced this year were Pittsburgh (10 points, 2 turnovers) and Cincinnati (14 points, 5 turnovers), and I just don't see any evidence that we're going to do a lot better against chicago or Seattle.

The return of Ferguson will help, no doubt, but the Packers aren't exactly struggling through the air this year. Footballoutsiders.com rates them as the 9th best passing attack in the league after being 8th last year (so much for the "Javon Walker makes a hugh difference" school of thought). But we run the ball poorly (trust me....Samkon Gado is not as good as Atlanta's 29th ranked run defense made him look), our pass defense is among the league's worst, and we simply turn the ball over too often on offense.

We're not going to run the table. We probably won't win more than 4 of our remaining 7. But we will win enough of our remaining games to prevent us from having a shot at one of the top 5 players in the draft this year.

This is what Christl wrote about last year when he indicated that you have to get bad before you can get good. The impact players that can turn a team around are found early in the first round for the most part and when you are continuously successful.......like the Packers have been.....you don't get opportunities to get these guys.

Of course, I'd play Rodgers some against these remaining teams because I think he could use the experience. I think it's nuts to not develop the guy who is one broken leg from being our starter, and yes, that could happen despite Favre's unparalleled durability. Not only would it be good for Rodgers and good for the future of the franchise, but it would actually probably increase our odds of getting one of the premiere players in the draft.

I can't really fault the team for trying as hard as they can to win every game as long as they're mathematically alive.....which the Packers certainly are. But I just don't see this team as a legit contender this year, or next year......and that's why I think our focus should be a little more in the future as regards developing players and getting them on the field.

How Important is Durability?

2005-11-17T05:03:00.000-08:00

by Curt Angeli

Those who try to poke holes at Brett Favre's play on the field often try to compare him to the hot QB of the moment, insisted we'd be better off with that player. Over the last 14 years, we've seen many QBs come and go who were the "better option" than Favre.

But he hasn't missed a game. The only guy who can match him right now is Peyton Manning, in terms of durability over a quarterbacking career.

And two guys that always got attention as a "better option" than Favre, Ben Roethlisberger and Donovan McNabb, are both missing some serious time at QB.

Starting for the Steelers is Tommy Maddox, and starting for the Eagles is Mike McMahon. This is something else we haven't had to deal with in 14 years. I'm guessing if the TJ Rubely incident showed us, replacing Favre from the bench may not be all that successful.

Incidentally, Maddox is throwing for a 32.0 passing efficiency rating since replacing Roethlisberger.

Mike McMahon will be bringing a swaggering 55.2 rating to the Eagles this week, and that makes him a better option than Koy Detmer. Apparently.

Sometimes, the "best option" of the moment is just that. There's something to be said for being the most reliable good option, year in and year out.

Giving the little man some props… Speaking of HEART...

2005-11-16T13:05:00.000-08:00

by Bruce
For PackerChatters.com

There is a little man on the Packers squad who has played with a target on his back that has drawn plenty of criticism from the fan base. “He is too small,” “Yeah, he doesn’t fumble, but he never does anything either”… a just a couple of the complaints leveled against him.

Let me disclose that I have been one of the people hoping he would be replaced with someone a little more “Special” especially in his special team’s responsibilities. However, in the interest of fairness I believe it is important to give props where they are earned – thus this thread.

Antonio Chatman is 4th in the NFC in punt returns.

Big deal you say? Ok, let’s look league wide – he is 7th in the NFL in punt returns.

Yeah but, he never gives the big game changing returns that take it to the house – I anticipate some of you thinking. If you look at the top 21 punt returners in the league, only 4 men: Wade – Chicago, Morton – NYG, Mathis – Houston, and Randle El – Pitts have taken it to the house; and even then only once each. Add to that the fact that he is reliable and does not fumble and I think you start to get the idea of why I decided that it was past due time to give the little man some well earned ‘love’.

He has also delivered as a wide-receiver. Yes, I agree he is not big enough to be a wide receiver. Then again I have been doing a lot of mentoring work with Leo Lewis lately and he never listened to those charges that he was “too small” while he was catching passes and returning punts for the Vikings for 12 seasons and I still hear from people I introduce him to – “no way that guy was a NFL player.

Antonio may be small in stature but he is a giant in heart. Before any of you get too worked up I will say that he is much better suited to being a number 4 receiver – which is where he started the season behind Walker, Driver, Ferguson. But let’s not forget he has stepped up in his role as a starter. His 29 catches for 353 yards averages (12.17 per catch) for 3 touchdowns may not draw player of week accolades, but are stats of a man who prepares himself to do whatever the team calls upon him to do. (BTW Donald Driver our current #1 receiver also has 3 TD catches).

Each season many of us join the front office and coaches in hoping to find a talent that will beat this young man out. So far each season Antonio reminds us of the old adage, “It is not the size of the dog in the fight, rather the size of the heart/fight of the dog that matters most.” As Chatman said coming into camp, “all I ask for is an opportunity to compete, I will let my play determine the outcome.”

With Fergy slated to return on Monday against the Vikings, Chatman will benefit from moving back to the #3 receiver spot. I want to add my thanks for his courage and determination that makes me proud to call this young man, Antonio Chatman, a Green Bay Packer.

The heart of the team... It's not who you think!

2005-11-15T04:58:00.000-08:00

by Curt Angeli

I've been watching these games, and many of you know that I tend to place a high value on intrinsic values...mental preparedness, winning attitude, playing to win, heart. At least, I probably do so more than others.

Week in, week out, there's a guy that I have decided is the "heart" of this team, because he plays with passion on every play, winning or losing.

No, it's not Brett Favre. He is up there, though...I would tend to call him the "soul" of the team, because I think his quiet leadership still is a central part of this team (20 FHC members just puked upon reading that...).

However, the heart of this team is Donald Driver.

That catch he made over the middle Sunday exemplified what I've been seeing from him all year...an ability to make a tough catch, and not settle for anything the defense tries to limit him to. He fights for yardage on every play, and does it with a consistent intensity that I simply see it as inspirational.

When a little wide receiver wills himself to break out of three tackles, just to gain another seven yards, there is something many other players on this team who go "aw shucks" after missing an interception or a block should be watching closely.

Yes, he tanked some plays, contributed to some interceptions by not being totally in sync with his quarterback, or allowing a ball to tip off his hands. But, when that happens, I see him do two things. He takes it very much to heart. We remember that Donald Driver has publically taken accountability for many of the tips and/or interceptions, and after he dropped the pass (can't remember who it was) on fourth down in the fourth quarter, he was mentally beating himself up for not making that one catch.

The other thing he does is he comes out resolved to make up for any mistake. This isn't the usual, smiling Donald Driver we've become accustomed to in past seasons. This is an intense individual focused on doing everything he can for the team. He has watched the two starters fall on either side of him, and instead of shrinking for the occasion, a la Ferguson, he has raised his game to a new level. One can guess that Antonio Chatman has followed his lead, judging from his stepping up in play, too.

Donald Driver, who at one point was written off as a "nice #3" receiver, is playing every down, often double covered, and making play after play after play. He isn't just trying to be the go-to guy, he's demanding to be that guy. He wants this team to win.

We've all commented how lucky we've been to watch Brett Favre play over the course of his career.

Take some time and enjoy watching Donald Driver this season. He is something special out there.

Football 101---99 G Lead

2005-11-14T17:47:00.000-08:00

by Reckless

99 G Lead

This weeks play of the week is the TD play that culminated a 12 play drive that opened the second half of the game against the Steelers. It pulled the Packers within 3 points at 13-10. It was called on 3rd and goal from the one yard line. It was the first TD scored by RB Samkon Gado. The Steelers play a 6-2 goal line defense with gap principals that Sherman said is very sound.

-----S1--------B2----B3------S
--------B1--E1--T1--T---E---B---CB
--------71--O--O--O--O--O--O
------------------O----------88

------------------O
------------------O

Kevin Barry (71) has to get a very solid block on B1. “Barry jumped on that defender and did a great job for us”. The LT has to block down on E1 – blocking him to the inside, or to the right of the offense. The C has a difficult job on this play. His responsibility is to “reach block” T1. In other words he is supposed to keep a defender who is lined up to his left from getting to the play which is going to the left. The LG, Adrian Klemm, pulls to the left and “blocks the first force off the edge”. Sherman drew a line showing S1 coming across the line of scrimmage and the LG pulling and blocking him.

“The backside is the trick.” The RG “reach” blocks T and “somehow some way” the RT has to get to B3. Sherman drew a line from the RT to the middle of where B2 and B3 lined up. “It doesn’t always happen but in this case Mark Tauscher, the RT, got a push on B3 and pushed him into a pile”. The FB, Vonta Leach, searches out the front side LB, B2. Sherman drew the FB’s path between 71 and the LT. Leach did make that block and created the “pile” that Tauscher pushed B3 onto. The TE and 88 on the right side are responsible for cutoff blocks against E and B.

The RB, Samkon Gado, wants to take this on an “outside course because many times we can’t get this guy” (B2). Sherman drew the RB’s path right through where B1 lined up.

The tape showed 71 didn’t get push on B1 but got position. By the time the RB went by him, 71 was completely between the defender and the RB but the defender was still at about the one-yard line. The LG met S1 at the goal line and delivered a good block knocking him backwards. The pile created by the FB’s block occurred at about the one-yard line as well. And the RT just pushed B3 onto the pile. The RB got into the end zone untouched. In fact, the only player to touch him at all was S who was not blocked but didn’t get to the RB until he was a couple of yards into the endzone.

Game Review: Packers @ Falcons

2005-11-13T18:36:00.000-08:00

by Curt Angeli (aka LosAngelis)

Well, if you read the pages of the Green Bay Press-Gazette this morning, you would have thought it was 1988 again. Fun little features on little-known players. Pete Dougherty skewering the team in his opinion piece. Every writer not only predicting the Packers to lose, but predicting them to get blown out.

Surprise!

The 1-7 Packers went to their least favorite place to play (a dome, on the road) against one of their least favorite opponants in recent years (the Falcons) against a chip-on-his-shouldered quarterback who makes us look silly (Michael Vick). And the did exactly what we didn't expect them to do.

Establish a running game with a street free agent.

Play a well-executed passing game with only reasonable risks taken.

Rely on our kicking game to score points.

Stop one of the best returners in the league.

Contain Michael Vick.

Stop the run.

Win. 33-25.

Was it perfect? Ho, ho, ho, far from it. There were plenty of menacing little fingers to be pointed on this team for silly errors and mental mistakes. But amazingly, when you're 1-7, and you win...those errors seem a little less painful than they do after yet another loss.

The Packers started the first quarter in impressive fashion, stopping Atlanta on a 3 and out, and then driving 74 yards for a Samkon Gado touchdown. Favre seemed to return to his early-90's days, dinking and dunking short passes left and right before striking upfield to Donald Driver on the drive. Gado did just enough on the drive to insure the defense had to respect the run.

On the ensuing possession, a usually invisible Kbaja-Biamila caught Dunn from behind and made a sparking forced fumble that flew into Mark Roman's hands, as if guided by fate.

What? Could this be a TAKEAWAY? Sit back, grasshopper, we're going to see a lot of strange things today. The most amazing stat is that the Packers are THIRD in the NFL in average points scored off of takeaways. However, that doesn't seem like a whole lot when you've only forced 10 in your first 8 games.

Then, Brett Favre turned around and handed the ball to Ahman Green, Najeh Davenport, Tony Fisher, Walt Williams, Rashaun Lee, ahh SAMKON GADO, who crashed and smashed his way 18 yards to the one yard line of the Falcons. He then scored impressively on a shovel pass from Favre in which he was stopped two yards from the goal line, then on pure heart and effort, bulled his way into the end zone. 14-0 Packers.

At this point, I was almost in tears. The Packers were winning, yes. That's good enough. But the team was playing with HEART and passion. Some guys that we've been critical of, like KGB and Nick Barnett, were playing as if this were the Super Bowl.

The Packers continued defensive strength for a possession after that, ending a short Falcon drive with a smart shot by Al Harris on a seemingly lost Michael Vick, who was taking the time to wind up for a pass one foot from the sideline on third down. Luckily for Vick, the ensuing fumble landed right out of bounds, otherwise, the score would have been even further apart.

However, as we entered the second quarter, we entered a period we shall call "The Dark Ages" where suddenly the offense and defense reverted to 1-7 form.

Favre and Co. went three and out, then the Falcons generated a 52 yard drive, punctuated by a nasty catch and run by Warrick Dunn, who caught a short pass and made everyone miss, juking and jiving and even leaping over people in a single bound for a 21 yard TD.

Then, on the next GB possession, Brett Favre threw another batted-ball interception on a crossing pattern to Driver, in which it was evident that the two were not on the same page. Atlanta's Demarrio Williams made a great lunge for a ball that looked to be 5 yards away from him, then caught his own deflection for an interception.

At this point, the doubt begins draining into your stomach like liquid nitrogen, slowly freezing your insides and you pray "this doesn't happen again". Shades of the Viking game, just quicker.

On the next Atlanta drive, it was back to boxing-gloves-boy himself, AHmad Carroll's pass interference penalty that gave the Falcons 43 yards. When you consider they started on their own 38 yard line, that's quite a chunk of field to give up.

On the play, Carroll did not get his head turned back in time before he made contact with his hands. It looked as though he reached up and literally grabbed the reciever by his collar, then turned around and made a perfect deflection of the pass with his other hand. The touching was simply unnecessary, and while the announcers suggested that without the contact, he would have scored, I disagree. Soon, Ahmad Carroll has to trust his abilities to play the ball without grabbing a reciever. Otherwise, he made a brilliant-looking play on the ball.

A Warrick Dunn jaunt for 15 yards, and then Michael Vick made one of the best play-action handoffs I've ever seen. He literally relaxed his body for nearly a full second as the defense converged on Duckett, then broke for the sideline. Brady Poppinga made a heckuva run, but Vick never really bothered to run upfield...he just dove out of bounds with his left arm outstretched over the pylon, and wala, it was 14-14.

I'm breaking out in a cold sweat now. Please, please, please...not again...

The teams traded punts, then with the 2nd quarter winding down, the Packers generated a drive from their own 8 yard line to the Atlanta 17. On second and 4, Brett Favre went back to pass, scanned the field, and then ended up scampering away from Mark Tauscher's man, then two other rushers being chased by a red-faced Wil Whittaker. At this point in time, it would have been wise for Favre to toss it out of bounds and settle for 3rd and 4, but instead, evaded sack after sack until he could evade no more, and took a 12 yard loss.

However, Ryan Longwell came in and, with Sander holding, knocked in a 46 yard field goal for only the Packers' third halftime lead of the season.

The third quarter opened with the Packers getting the ball, and starting on their own 35, thanks to a nice runback by Rashaun Lee. Samkon Gado, like much of the second quarter, seemed a bit invisible on this drive, as Favre began chipping away at the Falcon defense with short swing passes and bullets over the middle for chunks of yards. Favre passed 8 times on the drive, completing 6 and ending up in another Ryan Longwell field goal, after the Falcon defense stiffened in the red zone.

Sidebar: watching Allan Rossum returning punts and kicks reminded me why I never liked him that much. He always gets up the tremendous speed, but it always seemed like someone would bump him, and he'd fall down. Then, once out of every 10 returns, he'd break one for 20-30 yards. With him on the other side of the field, I found I didn't miss it that much.

On the next play, Michael Vick appeared to be getting his running legs going, running for 5 yards when he was hit by Kenny Peterson, and the ball again came bouncing out of his arms. Nick Barnett, Johnnie-on-the-Spot, picked it up.

What do you think about that, eh? Another takeaway? COULD it be possible that with Brett Favre throwing interceptions, we could actually win the turnover battle? Unbelievable.

Well, this had better get this team going! I'm getting all excited, rubbing my hands and my Lucky Vince bobblehead, thinking...aha! The Packers will do something with this turnover. I can just feel it!!

Well, it was 3 and out. Well, not 3 and out, but 3 and field goal attempt. At least we'll make this a two-score game. Longwell's got it going. What can go wrong???

Oops. I remember watching that snap and waiting for the ball to appear where it should, and it didn't. It was like a magician holding something behind his back, waiting for that wonderful moment of timing to bring it out and say "TADA!". But this wasn't a magician, it was BJ Sander. And, he bobbled the snap (which did look a little low and behind Sander). So, what does he do? He picks it up and looks to pass!

NO! Shades of TJ Rubely!!! I can hear Frankie Winters now..."Don't do it, kid!"

Sander evades a rush from the right, then from the left, then breaks right and throws (NO!) and completes it (YES!) to Bubba Franks (YES!) who runs for 4 yards (YES!!!). However, it was 4th and 6 (CRAP!!).

BJ Sander, please prepare your spot under the bus. The silver lining is that you couldn't blame Longwell for that one, so he gets a week of building up some confidence.

The Falcons, however, didn't build any confidence, punting it back to the Packers.

The Packers then rediscovered Gado, who rushed 3 times for 16 yards, and Favre completed a great pass to Donald Driver, who rolled, and spun, and forced his way for another 7 yards after first contact. Once again, we're talking players playing with heart.

I found this particular play very similar to the play that Favre was intercepted on last week, where he came under criticism for throwing the ball too hard for Driver. On this play, I would say the ball was thrown even harder. Seriously, after it left his hand, it stayed on a line and never went above 6 feet off the ground. It was lower, and Driver not only caught it, but immediately continued to make a drive against would-be tacklers. He shook off three guys before running into a safety.

Heart.

The drive then stalled on the 35, but Ryan Longwell, with BJ Sander in tow, came out and kicked a beautiful 53 yard field goal. Seeing Longwell patting Sander on the side of the helmet was a class move.

Both teams then traded punts, but finally, Allen Rossum made an excellent return on a ball that had to be punted from deep in GB territory. His 29 yard return set the team up on the GB 26. It looked to be curtains for our big lead.

But, an error on the Falcons and a good play by Nick Barnett ended any touchdown threat. On third and 9 on the GB 19, a bad snap bobbled from the center and out of Vick's grip. This is often the kind of play Vick could make something happen from. However, Nick Barnett exploded through the line and made sure that the ball not only hit the turf, but wrestled Vick away from the ball so he had no chance to recover it. The center, McClure, fell on the ball, but by that time, that's all he could do, and it was fourth down.

A field goal cut the lead to 6, and again, those icy feelings in the stomach were returning.

However, the Packers again took the ensuing kickoff and made a nifty little drive out of it. With 10 minutes left in the game, the Packers needed to get a nice, long, time-consuming drive that would result in at least a field goal to make it a two score game again. On this drive, Gado started becoming a little inconsistent again, rushing 5 times for 16 yards (and, um, one of the rushes was for 15, so go figure the rest).

However, Favre completed two critical third downs, one to Chatman, and one to Driver before the drive stalled at the Atlanta 33. Enter Longwell for another 50+ field goal attempt, on 4th and 1. I found this a very interesting call, as one might suggest that they go for it. However, the field goal was necessary, but nowhere near a certainty.

Doubts aside. Longwell drained a 51 yarder. Again, heart shown by our kicker, who has spent more time making excuses and blaming others for his problems. Now, he's going out and being the old Longwell we remember, giving a thumbs up on a 60 yard attempt, if needed.

Now, with a nine point lead, the defense needed a major stop to hang on and put this one away. They got more than they expected, and from the most unlikely spot.

On second down, Vick completed a 10 yard curl to Roddy White, who turned upfield only to have the ball knocked out of his hands by....AHMAD CARROLL? Yes, the dimunutive cornerback made the critical play, and Nick Barnett picked up the ball and defied anyone to tackle him, rumbling and juking for 20 yards before being pushed out at the 2 yard line of Atlanta.

Mora threw the red flag, but we all knew better. We were going to win that replay, and win that game.

Gado took the ball and easily scored his third touchdown of the day, and the kid's smile was almost too big for his face. The fact that in a game of TO's and Chad Johnsons, seeing a kid hand the ball to the referee after a TD is one of the most heartwarming and inspiring sights you will see.

With the score 33-17, and 3:30 left, you pretty much could figure the game was over, right?

Wrong.

With the defense playing back and keeping the middle of the field open, Vick and Co. starting taking big chunks of yardage through the air and on the ground, at one point gaining 3 first downs in a row.

Ooooohhhh...that sick feeling. Where's my Tums?

Vick finished the drive with a jump ball that even Robert Ferguson couldn't miss. Roddy White got revenge on Ahmad Carroll by outjumping (okay, outstretching) Batman for the touchdown.

Suddenly, I realized that the Packers had been leading by 16. Ha ha, I had thought...that's a three score game!

Oh, wait...that's two TD's and two 2-point conversions. Crap.

Well, they won't do that, will they? But alas, instead of picking on Carroll, Vick picked on Horton, who didn't hear a who and didn't see the ball, either. Either way, Finneran caught it for 2 points and suddenly, we were looking at an 8 point game.

Now, it came down to an onside kick. They lined up, and using the double kicker formation I rued we never used when we had two punters on the roster, one faked a kick to draw the Packers offsides (which I have to admit, I was very proud they didn't), and the other popped it up to Nick Collins, who wisely stayed down with it despite not being touched, and waited until he was.

I thought that the onside kick was the epitome of everything our season hasn't been. We could have gotten outsmarted or out-disciplined on that kick, as we've done so many times this season, and we didn't. Hats off to what many people may have dismissed as just another onside kick recovery. When you're 1-7, nothing is easy, and a play like is especially worrisome.

The Packer ran out the clock and celebrated.

In all, the Packers went on the road against a 6-2 team, in a dome, coming off a bye, and did nothing less than beat them.

As was mentioned often by the television commentators, Mike Sherman may not be a lot of things, but one thing he hasn't done this season is lose his locker room. For whatever reason, the Green Bay Packers came out in the game they should have had the least chance to win, and executed on both sides of the ball.

But most of all, you saw something we haven't seen in weeks, and that was heart.

Thoughts on the league at the halfway point

2005-11-10T12:52:00.000-08:00

by Mark Quarderer

With the 2005 season at the halfway point, the contenders are separating themselves from the pretenders and also-rans......

In the AFC, undefeated Indy looks to have all the pieces in place....QB, running game, passing game, defense, coaching. This could be the year for Tony Dungy.

Indy looks to be joined in the playoffs by Pittsburgh and Cincinnati.....one as a division champ, the other as a wild card. New England still appears to me to be the favorite in the AFC East because they've got the experience, the coaching, and the QB that should keep them ahead of the rest of that weak division.

In the West, I think you have to like Denver. They're a pretty solid team on both sides of the ball, they've got the QB and the coaching, and they play well at home. KC just took a bad hit when Priest Holmes took a season injury but KC is still in a three way race for the second wild card spot with San Diego and Jacksonville. No predictions there, but the six AFC teams in the playoffs will be Indy, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, New England, Denver, and the winner of the Jacksonville/San Diego/KC race for the last spot.

In the NFC, there just aren't any teams that jump out at you as being a lot better than the rest. The Giants are playing well and I think they're the favorites in the NFC East. Dallas also has a very good shot at making the playoffs but so do Washington and Philly. This division is just too early to call other than I think the Giants will be in either as a division champ or wild card., This division will have two teams make the playoffs..

Somebody has to win the NFC North and since the Bears have a two game lead on everyone I'll pick them, but I wouldn't be surprised if Detroit made a run now that Jeff Garcia has taken over for Joey Heatherington.

I think Atlanta and Carolina are both in the playoffs, one as division champ and one as a wild card. Tampa Bay is finished, IMO, as they are just too one dimensional on offense.

In the West, you have Seattle as the only decent team. I actually think that Seattle may have the conference's best record by the end of the season. Their remaining schedule has a couple of real tests against the Giants and Indy---in fact, that could be the game (in Seattle) that costs Indy the perfect season. Seattle has always been good at home and I really like their chances to finish with home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

Super Bowl? Indy avenging the only blemish on their 18-1 record by beating Seattle. If Peyton Manning can't pass his team to the title this year then it's just not possible to pass your team to a title.

Thoughts on Javon Walker

2005-11-10T11:27:00.000-08:00

by Bruce Smith

Javon Walker has worked hard during each season and offseason to become an elite talent at WR. He did not miss a moment of training camp and went all out in every practice in his career in Green Bay. Brett Favre said the same of JW and stated he agreed that he deserved more money but that he was going about it the wrong way. Brett also said he wanted him in camp because he is so talented that he didn't need to worry about a big contract, because with his talent it would take care of itself. Disagree with JW's tactics, but it was all about business and looking out for his future -- and his injury demonstrates why he was no fool to be concerned. When camp started many of you predicted that he would not show -- but show he did. He has never been a trouble maker and was injured trying to make a play that many receivers would have run out of bounds on. You can question his strategy but it is unfair to question his heart.

His injury while serious it is unlikely to be one that will end his career. He is big, strong and dedicated to being a top tier receiver. His knee surgery is reported to have gone well and there is no reason not to expect a full recovery. He has just about everything going for him: advanced technology on ACL surgery, youth, incentive, a good history of healing and pushing through pain...

As for his intelligence, he did not seem to struggle learning the WC offense and quickly earned Brett's trust as his go to guy. I know he did not have the best wonderlic score, but he seemed to have good football instincts and handled a complicated offense very well.

Finally, there is mention of Daunte Culpepper and his prognosis in this thread. I fully expect Daunte to recover and resume his career as a QB. However, he will never be the running threat he once was, tearing all three ligiments is a far more serious and threatening injury than Javon suffered. Many QB's with good arms like Daunte have continued their careers with knee braces and no ability to run. However it was such a big part of what made Daunte a true threat, it is questionable whether he will ever reach his once seemingly great potential. This season without Randy Moss, before he was injured, he struggled with decision making, seemed to be easily confused by defensive switches, got happy feet when blitzed and continued to have trouble holding on to the football(very small hands). His surgery is far more complex and involves a complete rebuild. Daunte's road to recover is far more daunting than Javon's.

The Defensive Line

2005-11-10T04:38:00.000-08:00

by Mark Quarderer

Rob Demovsky, of the GB Press-Gazette, handed out his midseason grades. They weren't pretty, as you might imagine. But I think he missed the target by quite a bit when he handed out a C to our defensive line.

If you go to footballoutsiders.com and look at the exclusive stats for our defensive line, it sure looks like they're better than an average group.

The Packers defensive line comes in 7th against the run and 8th against the pass. Pittsburgh and Miami are the only other teams in the top 8 in both categories. Although we're still doing poorly against the power run (a run of 2 yards or less on third or 4th down)---we're rated 29th on that----we're the 4th best team in the league at limiting long runs.

Additionally, they're giving up a measly 3.32 yards/carry against running backs. This is not average, it's well above average.

Against the pass, we're ranked 8th in terms of sacks/pass ratio. Our total sacks are only 17, but you have to remember that teams aren't finding themselves in a "must pass" situation against us very often. In terms of percentage of passing attempts that end in a sack.....we're right up there.

Considering that the defensive line was viewed as one of the weaknesses of the team last year you have to give an awful lot of credit to the position coach and the defensive coordinator. I also applaud TT's refusal to spend a high draft pick on yet another young, unproven lineman. We cut chronic cancer Cletidus Hunt, cut the clueless James Lee, cut R Kal Truluck. In their place we plugged in guys like Colin Cole and Corey Williams and Kenny Peterson.

Just about every member of this defensive line will be a free agent at the end of this season or be heading into the last year of their deal. Grady Jackson and Aaron Kampman will both be UFAs. Kenny Petersen will be a RFA. Cole and Jenkins I believe will both be exclusive rights FAs. Corey Williams and Donnell Washington will both be in the last year of their contract.

I like this group but I think they could use some help. We're very thin at DE and we could certainly use a 3 down DE who could compliment KGB on the pass rush and replace him on run downs. Unless Donnell Washington suddenly buys a clue, we've got a big problem at DT if Grady departs. As I've said before, I think it's nuts to commit big money to a guy with his history but if we don't resign him then we'll be looking at spending money in free agency on his replacement, or spending a high draft pick on a guy who probably isn't as good.

I'd offer this guy the moon in incentives but I'd be really terrified of giving him guaranteed money because I think the only thing I'd be guaranteeing is that he'd spend time soaking in the tub.

Anyway, I just think Demovsky kind of lowballed this group. I think they're the strength of the team right now.

Is the Defense really any better?

2005-11-08T04:03:00.000-08:00

by Mark Quarderer

This is probably a weird time to say this, considering they just had a pretty good game against the Steelers, but I continue to hear this drum beat of "Bates.....Bates....Bates.....Bates....." and people believe he's been like this major miracle worker.

Let's look at some facts. Halfway through the season we're on pace to have fewer sacks than last year and although we'll have a few more takeaways we're still second worst in the NFC in that regard.

We're giving up almost 20 ppg which means we'd give up 320 for the season which would be an improvement over last year's 380.

We've held 1 team to 14 or less. Last year, we held 7 opponents to 14 or less.
We've held 3 teams to 17 or less. Last year, we held 8 to 17 or less.
We've held 5 to 21 or less. Last year, we held 10 to that mark or less.

We're clearly better at stopping the run, and we've done a lot better at limiting long plays. But we are not going to hold 7 teams to 14 or less this year.

The guys at footballoutsiders.com rate our defense towards the bottom of the league and I just don't see any empirical evidence that this defense is dramatically improved over last years. We gave up 30+ points 5 times last year, twice to the Vikings, once to Philly, once to Tennessee (with the help of 6 turnovers) and once to Indianapolis. In other words, only high powered offenses got to 30 on us unless we helped them with multiple turnovers.

This year, we surrendered 32 to a mediocre offense (Carolina).

Again, my eyes tell me we're better, but I'm just not seeing the numbers to support what my eyes are seeing and that makes me think that maybe we aren't as improved as we think......that maybe we just haven't faced a lot of good offenses yet this year

Football 101-H7 Y Corner

2005-11-07T07:19:00.000-08:00

by Reckless

H7 Y Corner

This play was the second TD scored by the Packers in the Cincinnati game. The Packers had the ball at the 1 yard line of the Bengals and were trailing by 14 points with about 3 minutes left in the game.

The formation and personnel were Green Right Tight with “Y 71” personnel in – which is Kevin Barry (71) in as a TE and two additional TEs.

----------------------------S
------------B1------B
-----S1------------------------S
--------E1---E---T-T--E-----E
--------88--O--O--O--O--O--71
------------------O-----------V

------------------O
-----------------40

This play requires very aggressive blocking by the OL. The OL “gap block” to their right (the linemen from LT to RT each block the defender nearest to them, to their right. This play is blocked as if it were a run. Sherman, “The FB comes right off the edge and blocks the end (E1) and the safety (S1) and goes into the flat.” Sherman drew the FB’s route right at E1 and then continuing into the left flat. I think he meant to say he fakes blocking one of those defenders as if it were a run. The goal on this play is to get B1 to take a step forward and they try to accomplish that by making this look like a run to the offense’s left. 40 (Tony Fisher) is the RB and Brett fakes to him and he “cuts” or blocks E1.

“Bubba comes off and runs a high angle corner route to the back pylon”. Sherman draws a route for 88 (Bubba Franks) which goes straight to about the level the LBs are lined up (B1 and B) and then draws a straight line at about a 45 degree angle towards the back left of the end zone. The FB runs his route toward the front left pylon. The formation and play design put a lot of pressure on S1 and tries to get B1 to take a false step forward so 88 can beat him on the corner route.

Sherman did not explain why the second TE is represented by a “V” on the board. And he didn’t say anything about 71 or V’s responsibility on the play except to say that side of the formation protects the QB’s blindside. This is the first play of the week that involves a run fake but the name of the play doesn't indicate that fact. The OL has to be sure that while they are blocking the play as a run, they can't get downfield since it is a pass. (It wasn't as big a concern on this play as it is on some because this is a quick developing play.)

The tape showed Franks took four steps and then angled toward the back pylon. B1 was former Packer LB Hannibal Navies and he took about 3 and one-half steps forward and then almost grabbed Franks with his right hand as he went by him. The throw was right on the money. The line blocking was very good. Fisher got a great cut block against E1 who ended up completely prone. Vonta Leach was in at FB and he didn’t fake anything. He ran a route directly toward the front left pylon. S1 came up without hesitation to cover him. There wasn’t much of a fake to 40 but there really wasn’t much time for a fake. It looked as if the play action of the FB and RB got B1 to bite hard on the fake.

Same Old Story, Same Ole Song and Dance

2005-11-07T07:17:00.000-08:00

by Mark Quarderer

"How many times do we have to see this before it's not unexpected anymore?"

We had three turnovers that were converted into 17 points in a game we lost 20-10. We are now 16-33 in games where we have multiple turnovers, including 0-6 this year. We lead the league in interceptions. Our quarterback has been sacked 10 times....one of the best in the league.....and has four fumbles. In constrast, David Carr has 9 fumbles and has been sacked over 40 times. Our field goal kicker, once widely regarded as money in the bank, suddenly can't hit an easy one. Either he's got the yips, or there's a problem with the holder, or both.

I have, since the middle of the 2003 season, railed against what I eventually came to call "The Culture of Carelessness". Against Pittsburgh, that culture was on full display. As Donald Driver said..."Nobody's beaten us....we've done it to ourselves."

Accurate. But what is going to be done to fix it?

My prediction is that we'll see more of the same. If the season ended today, we'd have the #1 overall pick by virtue of a worse record against common opponents. We cannot take care of the ball. We just cannot. It's not something that is possible for us to do.

Turnovers remain the story

I have maintained for quite sometime that turnovers are the single biggest factor in football. Not takeaways, not turnover margin. Simply taking care of the ball. About a year and a half ago, in an article that I wish I'd archived, I researched back over the past ten years to see which was a better predictor of wins and losses: turnovers, takeaways, or margin of difference. It was turnovers, and it remains turnovers. Naturally, if you turn the ball over a lot you're going to have a bad margin unless you get a lot of takeaways, and if you take it away infrequently you're going to have a bad margin unless you take very good care of the ball.

But we aren't losing these games because we aren't getting enough takeaways (yes, more would help), we're losing because of the turnovers. Over half the points that have been scored on this team this year have followed turnovers. We've had 19 drives stopped in 7 games by turnovers.....that's almost three per game. Hell....we've only PUNTED 31 times (2nd fewest in the league).

When we had stud playmakers like Ahman and Walker, and a killer offensive line, we had enough firepower to still roll up points on weak teams. Not any more. Although we need to upgrade personnel, IMO, we've simply got to address the turnovers, what is causing them, and how to get them under control. We're on pace to have 38 turnovers this year.

Game Preview: Pittsburgh Steelers (5-2) at the Green Bay Packers (1-6)

2005-11-03T19:39:00.000-08:00

by Thomas Pyc

Is blood pressure down yet? It would probably be easier to digest this season as a Packer fan if the games were completely lopsided but so far that has not been the case. As long as Brett Favre is running the offense and the defense plays solid the Packers can keep it close but Packer nation does not accept close games as satisfactory and there’s not a football fan in the world that can blame them. Maybe you have gotten to the point where you are numb to losses and expecting every good play to be penalized. That’s where I am. The games are not nearly as anticipated as they once were and skepticism is found in every comment out of my mouth.

This week the Super Bowl contending Steelers will step onto Lambeau field without any fear for the mystique of Lambeau or the opposition. But they will do so without their quarterback and top-rated passer (112.6) in the NFL, Ben Roethlisberger. Charlie Batch, former Detroit Lion, will conduct the offensive attack for Pittsburgh. The Steelers main focus, with or without Big Ben, is running the ball. Their offensive line is arguably the best in the league and several of their opponents would not argue that label. Batch will get his first start this season by default due to the miserable performance that previously second string quarterback Tommy Maddox put on when he replaced Roethlisberger against Jacksonville.

The Steelers also have a crew of running backs to go along with that stellar offensive line. Jerome Bettis is listed as questionable on the injury report but Willie Parker has been leading the charge this season. Vernon Haynes is there third down back and if that’s not enough to muster a rushing attack old-pro Duce Staley is waiting in the wings. The Steelers also have a rookie of the year candidate at tight end with Heath Miller who already has 6 touchdown receptions this year. In addition to Miller the Steelers have a legitimate group of receivers with Hines Ward, Antwaan Randle El (both former college quarterbacks) and Quincy Morgan. The Packers’ defense will have their hands full with or without Ben Roethlisberger on the field.

The Jim Bates lead group of defenders has definitely raised some eyebrows this year but that might be more because they have went from a horrendous defense to a mediocre group (15th in yards and 19th in points allowed in the NFL). The bright spot this season, if you need one, would have to be the defense’s performance. The best part of the group is not necessarily their ability to keep things close but the overall age of the group. Old pros Al Harris and Grady Jackson have made their contributions but the younger players have come to play as well. Joey Thomas, a second-year corner, was released this week after some dismal showing but the players who are replacing him are full of potential and can hardly do worse. The two Packer defenders that seem to be benefiting the most from Jim Bates’ scheme is probably defensive end Aaron Kampman and middle linebacker Nick Barnett. But it is going to take a group effort to keep the Steeler offense from running up the score.

If you are in search of seeing a good defense this game will definitely have one to offer but they will be wearing the black and yellow Steeler uniform. Pittsburgh runs the 3-4 attack but depending on the down and distance can turn it into a 3-5 attack by bringing Troy Polamalu closer to the line of scrimmage. Considering the Packers offense is down to Favre, Donald Driver and a good group of tight ends it is hard to imagine Green Bay running up the score or even breaking 20 points for that matter. The Steelers will most likely keep Driver in double coverage and pay little attention to the Packers running game. Blitzing early and dropping into mixed coverages later will keep Brett guessing and struggling while he tries to get the pedestrian offensive threats around him to perform. Fortunately for Favre the offensive line appears to be coming together and should help him continue his Hall of Fame career unscathed (knock on wood).

Overall, this game could play out much like the 6 losses that Green Bay has endured. If things are going to turn around someone is going to have to step up huge in the running game. That might be undrafted rookie Samkon Gado from Nigeria (via Liberty University). He flashed briefly with a toss play against the Bengals but appears to have the size and speed to build on. Outside of the young Gado it will most likely take another meltdown from the backup quarterback in Pittsburgh but even then Green Bay has to find a way to score.

Pittsburgh is THE game of the year

2005-11-03T15:44:00.000-08:00

by LosAngelis

It's just my humble opinion, but I think this game will shake out the season for the Packers. It's a big game.

The previous "big game" was Minnesota, a game where we had fans back in the saddle and hopeful, and had a chance to win and actually be back in the thick of the NFC North. I think we'll look back and realize exactly how devastating that 2nd half meltdown was...not just for the game, but for the season.

This game, to a lesser degree, probably will truly extinguish any remaining "hope" for success with a loss. The Packers, with a win, will be 2-6, .250, and still out of the hunt, but at least we can remember back to the year in the 80's when the Pack started out 2-6 and finished 6-2. That's not impossible.

1-7 is pretty much impossible.

This game is also critical, I believe, in keeping this team together. We've had several situations just this week that make us suspicious that the wheels may be loosening.

The cutting of Joey Thomas, who has probably generated the fastest fall from grace in Packer history (pre-season starter to cut in Week 7).

Increasing off-field issues, including, yes, cell-phone-gate. Sherman's statement about this being his "Best season of coaching" is certainly up for debate, but out of context, that's something you don't normally hear out of a 1-6 coach.

I am a strong believer in this team's ability to stay in games. I think there are some elements of the team that aren't putting in 100% effort, and that is hurting our team a bit. While the Packers haven't done enough to win, they've done enough to always be close. The wheels are off when we lose the second part of that equation.

Much has been ballyhooed about the Packers ability to win at home. After establishing themselves against the Saints, this game, against a quality opponent, will be a test to see if the Saints were a fluke. The fans are growing more temperamental, and if the team starts falling behind, expect a mutiny from the stands.

I think a loss means we shift to "next year", or, at least, the offseason. It's a pretty big blow, and knowing the Steelers are hurting at a key position should hopefully be some incentive for the Packers to believe in themselves.

I do believe the Packers, for the most part, believe in themselves and have stayed in a lot of games. That doesn't mean there aren't some sandbaggers in the midst. But it's easy to lose a couple close ones and be 1-4 and still believe in yourself. It's a lot harder at 1-8, 1-9, 1-10....

If there is a game to be mentally prepared for, this is the one. It's a quality opponent that is beatable. Our defense has contained many running games this season, and hopefully, our secondary will keep Batch in check.

It may come down to our offense's ability to conquer a very good defense. It may be a very low-scoring game.

But, it's our biggest one.

Joey Thomas Waived

2005-11-03T08:38:00.000-08:00

by Joe Lacey

There are a few things I think we can realistically conclude from this move, and I also think there are some more that we simply can't, at this point.

1) Bates, Sherman, and TT are interested in putting the best players on the field, and with being on the field for the GB Packers, comes a responsibility to play as well as you can.

In the past, we've heard Sherman talk and talk about "that's a problem and we're going to get it corrected...". I don't think that MS has not been capable of getting through to the players, but I think that his dual role simply did not allow him enough time to accurately take care of everything that the two jobs demanded. For whatever reason, his messages were not translating into consistent championship-style play from many Packers. I think that getting rid of Joey Thomas is important to put into practice the fact (not just SEND A MESSAGE) that the Green Bay Packers need to play like pros.

2) Joey Thomas worked enough to get released. No one "had it out for him", or "wanted him gone."

It's like a student who fails a class. It's one thing to not pass... it takes a certain amount of negative effort to actually fail. Sherman is NOT interested in being judged as a terrible GM. Bates is NOT interested in being left out to dry with inferior DBs. TT is NOT interested in altering his 2006 draft strategy because "we need to set an example." Any intelligent GM and NFL coach wants to build on the existing team they have, and be able to expect more from the talent that stays with the team. It's no coincidence that MS wants Favre to play; the WHOLE offense depends on Favre's abilities and knowledge. Coaches do NOT prefer to start over, and GMs do NOT prefer to keep trying different people at a single position.

3) Joey Thomas did NOT get treated unfairly.

He played as a rookie. He got hurt as a rookie. He produced some as a rookie, and made his share of rookie mistakes. He was told (along with everyone else) that the starting #2 CB spot was up for grabs, and apparently, he wanted to grab it. He got hurt prior to the season. When he came back, he had several opportunities to continue as a starter. He has not put up NEARLY as many positive plays in 2005 as he has contributed to negative plays. The one game in which our defense really dominated the other team (the Saints), he was getting regularly beat as the nickel back... and the Saints did not have their best WR in Joe Horn on the field, nor their starting RB for much of the game. In other words, he couldn't match up. He was given specific instructions on how to help the team, and he didn't come through (Minnesota, Cincy). When it came time to talk with a reporter, he vented. I think that MS has proven in several cases that he has more patience than many coaches and GMs concerning guys who need time to develop.

We cannot conclude that...

1) We know ANYTHING about what Joey Thomas said or did to make this decision more than a consideration in MS's coaching mind. It's internal. We're external.

2) This was a MESSAGE, or an attempt to set an example. I have read MS say repeatedly that he treats his players with respect and expects them to treat one another with respect. I cannot believe that he would sandbag this young man's livelihood as a Machiavelliani tactic for short-term results. MS expects the Green Bay Packers to use their brains in order to understand the repeated verbal and non-verbal messages that the coaches DO send daily.

3) This will not reflect upon the previous scouting team. My understanding is that TT's forte is scouting. I believe that he will choose his moment(s) to make the necessary adjustments to the folks in the Packers front office.

Considering the deals that TT made this April with his 3rd-rd picks, the reality is that last year's 3rd-rd picks were a disaster. Thomas essentially wasted the organization's time, and BJ Sander is still causing more harm than good, at this point. He'll need several years to get his stock in the black, at the rate he's going. True, he's punting better, but he has participated in several missed PK attempts in games that were lost by less than one score.

Stresses and challenges in our life...

2005-11-02T18:07:00.000-08:00

Each one of us reacts differently to the stresses and challenges in our life and its the same way on the football field.

by Satori
For PackerChatters

I have often noted that the players/coaches/fans have an immense reaction to a turnover, when in reality it is often no different than a punt. If it isn't returned for a score....

Why is an INT or fumble such a huge momentum swing regardless of where it happens on the field ?

Drives stall all the time and teams give up posession to the other team. There is no gnashing of teeth, no crowd eruption, just a stalled drive and a punt. Teams often take over at midfield several times per game and its not nearly as big a deal as it would be of it were a turnover.

Its the same in every aspect of your life- its not the challenge, its how you react to it.

And this is why Favre is different than many of us, especially the "turnover is everything crowd".

He shrugs it off and immediately gets busy trying to win the game. At the end of the day, he laments the INTs and wishes he didn't throw them.

But at the moment of truth, he knows only one thing- full speed ahead and keep pushing the envelope. He doesn't care how many times you knock him down, he is still getting back up and getting after you. Thats why you see such admiration from fans/players/coaches, because of his demeanor and perseverence.

Brett is not a chess player, and todays' NFL is more of a game of chess than in yesteryear- tons of substitution, time-outs, packages, formations etc all in an attempt to play chess.

Brett is a checkers player and he doesn't care if you jump him a couple of times, he is still coming at ya.

He doesn't react to INTs the same as most of us, and thats why many get so upset with him.

Brett is just different than most of us and that's one reason why he is on the field and we are in cyberspace.

Its not the INTs that are the sole problem, its the reaction to them by the fans and the players that gives them their immense power.

Now INTs that go for TDs are a different story....and I understand that. But I believe his reaction to an INT is similar to a CB getting beat for a TD- short memory and get back to getting after the opponent.

I will make no debate about whether a checkers player or a chess player is the better option, I am just suggesting that we are led by a checkers player, and to lament his lack of fortitude in chess might be misplaced.

Sherman is a chess player and requires immesne amounts of time to mull over each option, Favre makes gut- feeling calls in an instant. They both make mistakes.

But its silly to ask Sherman to play checkers, and equally unlikely that Brett will take up chess.

It would be nice...but thats who they are.

Joey Thomas/The Steelers

2005-11-02T15:25:00.000-08:00

by Mark Quarderer

I didnt see the Joey Thomas thing coming but I have to say, I like it.

It is arguable that no other single individual contributed less positive to our effort and made more serious mistakes that hurt.

On the balance ledger, his account was decidedly in the red.

It was Joey Thomas who badly misplayed a pass against Cleveland that led to a long TD in a game that we narrowly lost. It was Joey Thomas who inexplicably (and inexcusably) failed to keep the receiver inbounds with two seconds on the clock at Minnesota that led to the winning field goal. It was Joey Thomas' stupid penalty away from the ball that kept a drive alive against Cincinnati which ultimately resulted in a TD.

Three plays, three games, and in every case you could make the argument that a solid performance would have helped a great deal and maybe even made THE difference.

Apparently, he had a fine offseason, staying in Green Bay, working with the coaches, attending the opportunity sessions. He was penciled in as a starter heading into training camp. But he got injured and lost his spot to his nemesis and wrestling partner, Ahmad Carroll. Apparently, that didn't sit well with him. And it didn't sit well with him when he was benched after his poor play in Cincinnati, allegedly saying words to the effect of "Carroll makes all kinds of mistakes and doesn't get benched".

Carroll makes mistakes, no doubt, but he's not making the critical mistakes that are costing us games. And there's something else: Carroll CAN cover. Whether Thomas was injured or not I don't know but it certainly looked to me as though he was just not able to cover NFL receivers.

Coming out of college he was considered to have good speed but it didn't look that way this year. Also, coming out of college, he had a reputation as kind of cocky smart mouth with an attitude. Perhaps it was his mouth as much as his brain and legs that got him off the team.

In any event, it's a nice step in the direction of accountability and I wonder if this means they're ready to hold other, more veteran players accountable for poor play as well. Time will tell but I'm not holding my breath. This was a cheap way of getting everybody's attention, cutting a second year dime back. Sitting veteran starters is something else.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Brian Cox was on Fox radio today talking about the Steelers and he said "They come into the game with Plan A, and if you stop Plan A, they don't adjust very quick and go to Plan B. It's like it takes them until the middle of the third quarter to realize that what they're doing isn't working."

I suppose that you could say this means Bill Cowher commits to the run........or that he's slow to make gametime adjustments. Depends on your point of view I guess. In any event, I'm actually thinking this might be a game the Packers win. Pittsburgh's defense isn't quite the crusher they had last year, and they've given up 20 points to a couple of below average offenses already this year. Roethlisberger is dinged and may not play, or may not play as well. They have the short week and then they travel. And they have a history of playing down to their competition.

My suspicion is that Favre has played his worst game of the year (and his best) and that we'll be in for a stretch of games now where he does a little better job taking care of the ball. He'll still make bad decisions and he'll still lock on receivers instead of progressing through reads, but I don't think we'll see anymore 4 and 5 INT orgies this season. We can still win games if he throws one, maybe even two if we get a takeaway or two to balance it out.

If cutting Thomas sends the right signal.....and the team gets the message......we could see the Packers play their best game of the season against Pittsburgh.

Still Rebuilding......

2005-10-31T17:40:00.000-08:00

by Mark Quarderer

And so we find ourselves now at 1-6 and preparing for next week's game against one of the very strongest teams in the NFL, the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Who could have predicted we'd be 1-7 at the halfway mark? Certainly not me. I thought we'd struggle a little more this year on offense because we'd be facing better defenses with a weaker line and a diminished running attack but I certainly didn't foresee the rash of injuries at WR and RB that have gutted us at the skill positions.

Woulda.....coulda.....shoulda......

Of all the sad words of tongue and pen, these are the saddest: It might have been. I think that was Rudyard Kipling but it certainly applies to the Green Bay Packers.

If only Longwell and Sander had been able to get the ball through the uprights.
If only Carroll OR Thomas could cover and not make critical mistakes.
If only we hadn't had the injuries.
If only we could get solid, consistent quarterbacking.

But that's all water under the bridge now. We're 1-6, headed to 1-7, and very possibly to something like 3-13.

We're Rebuilding

Earlier this year, in training camp, I posted a piece that said that we were clearly rebuilding and surprisingly it actually provoked people who had a dissenting view. From my perspective, I don't see how you can look at this team and not see that it is in a rebuilding mode. You can call it remodeling or a transition year or whatever you want but the bottom line is that the team that takes the field in September of 2006 is going to bear very little resemblence to the one that walked off the field 20 months earlier after the playoff loss to Minnesota.

Although there are still people...solid, thoughtful people....who insist that Sherman's dismissal is not a foregone conclusion, I'd be willing to put a pretty good bet down that he will not be the head coach of this team after this year. As I've mentioned earlier, it would be human nature for TT to not want his predecessor and his cronies driving from the backseat. It would be human nature for Sherman's pride to be hurt after his demotion. It would be human nature for him to want to go elsewhere and prove that he can get the job done.

The offensive line, which got off to kind of a rocky start, is slowly but surely improving. Mike Flanagan is hurt and not the player he once was and in all probability he won't be back next year. Heir apparent Scott Wells is undersized and stumpy but plays with a lot of energy and tenacity and certainly shows signs of being a guy who will grow into a starting NFL center. Waiting in the wings are Junius Coston and Chris White, a guy who looked pretty good in training camp this year. Adrian Klemm is not Mike Wahle but he's not Morty Feinbaum either. His pass blocking has been pretty good and as a straight ahead run blocker he's not bad. He doesn't pull as quickly as Wahle but that doesn't mean he's a loser. Will Whitticker is continuing to look like a rookie at the other guard but you've got to like his size, his smarts, and his work ethic. I don't know if he'll ever be a Pro Bowler but I tend to think he can develop into a solid starting offensive lineman. Clifton and Tauscher are in the prime of their career and one of the best pairs of tackles in the league.

Our TE situation looks better than it has in years. Bubba Franks is signed for several seasons and David Martin and Donald Lee both look like they can fill the backup roles.

At WR, we're decimated by injures but conventional wisdom would say that every one of our injured receivers can make it back from their injuries by next season. I'm not so certain and I wouldn't be surprised if we drafted a WR on the first day as insurance. I also remain unconvinced that Ted Thompson is going to be willing to part with the kind of money that Walker will be seeking and so we may lose him to free agency after the 2006 season......and there's always the possibility of a holdout as well.

The main problem on offense is in the offensive backfield. Henderson certainly looks finished to me and shouldn't be invited back next year. I wouldn't invite Davenport back either. If Green can come back from his injury (and quite frankly, I'm very skeptical about this) he'll never be able to be a guy that you can count on to carry the load of a feature back. Best case scenario for the Packers is that he plays next season as a backup for a backup's salary and plays well. Tony Fisher is a fine 3rd down back but I really think the Packers need to revamp the running back spot by getting a new feature back, a more reliable backup than Davenport (like Green, perhaps), and a #3 RB who can return kicks.

And of course, you have to talk about our quarterback. So far, through seven games, he's had one good game (vs. New Orleans), a good half against Carolina and MInnesota, a good quarter against defenses protecting the lead (Tampa Bay and Cleveland) and he played so poorly against Detroit and Cincinnati that he gave the team very little chance of winning. This is a phenomenon that I've been tracking since 2003 and to put it plainly............you generally aren't going to get four good quarters of quarterbacking out of Favre anymore. He'll be on fire for a quarter or a half but he appears to lose focus during stretches and the offense doesn't end up moving the ball or scoring points.

It very much reminds me of the current Toby Keith hit: "I aint as good as I once was, but for once I'm as good as I ever was." He still shows stretches where he gives us some great quarterbacking......but it just doesn't happen consistently anymore. His lack of weaponry is clearly a factor in that but the interceptions he threw against Cincinnati had a lot less to do with weaponry than they did with judgment. Currently, he leads the league in interceptions and with Culpepper and Bulger both sidelined with injuries that could well be a lead he'll hang onto this season.

Again, I'm wondering why this team would want to rebuild around a 36 year old error-prone guy like Favre who'll be 39 or 40 when the rest of the team peaks. From my perspective, the team would be better off to get Rodgers ready to be our QB next season and take the salary cap savings that Favre's retirement would bring and fill a hole or two in free agency. I know the thought of sitting Favre to play Rodgers is anathema to true Acolytes, but if we don't get Rodgers some time on the field and Favre DOES retire then we're going to regret not having Rodgers make some of his mistakes this year when they don't hurt us. (in fact, they'll probably help us get Reggie Bush.)

Defensively, as I mentioned in my last blog entry, you're only as good as your weakest link and currently our weak links are at the corneback spot opposite Harris and at the nickel back. In other words, Joey Thomas and Ahmad Carroll. Thomas just doens't look like he can cover NFL guys; Carroll clearly can but just makes so many mistakes that it hurts the team. Better play at those two positions would have made the difference in at least two games this year, maybe three.

We continue to stop the run pretty darn well. Currently, we are 4th in the NFL in average yards/rush at 3.4. Next week, we face another one of the best running attacks in the league......probably the stiffest test we'll have all season. Truthfully, I didn't think we'd be this good against the run this year and I have to give all credit to Bates and his assistants for the work they've done with this group. It kind of bolsters my argument that it's not about "playmakers" as much as it's about having solid guys playing together and executing their assignments without making critical mistakes. This group could use a 3 down defensive end to compliment KGB on passing downs and replace him on running downs, thereby strengthening us against the run and pass.

The Long Dry Spell

I remember the Long Dry Spell from 1972 to 1992. If you ask most Packer fans, they'll tell you that we were bad during that stretch but the truth is that we were mediocre for the most part with some bad teams and some good teams that just never realized their promise but teased us into believing that prosperity was just around the corner.

Favre is given a great deal of credit, rightly so, for bringing the Long Dry Spell to an end. We've enjoyed over a decade of pretty good teams that made the playoffs for the most part. We got another Lombardi trophy.

But we're going nowhere now, and we've really been on a treadmill to nowhere for quite a while, having won exactly two playoff games in the last seven years and I don't think we're going to win any this year.

Are we headed for another Long Dry Spell? Some apparently believe so, but I'm not one of them.

How long before we'll be legitimate challengers for the trophy again? I think that depends on how soon the team starts focusing on the future instead of clinging to the past.

Brett Favre, At what point would we sit him and play Rodgers?

2005-10-31T17:27:00.000-08:00

by LosAngelis

I'm a little bothered when people cite what Favre has done in the past and that he should never be benched.

I don't think that's right, or fair, or intelligent.

He should remain the starter because of the tangibles and intangibles he brings to the team. Yes, he's struggled at times, and like this past game, some inexplicable mistakes happen. But we've still never been blown out. And this is with massive injuries on both sides of the ball.

He gives us out best chance to win now. Look how beat up he got on Sunday...can you imagine Rodgers and his happy feet trying to evade those rushers? He'd be put on the IR today.

He still gave us our best chance, and gave every last ounce of strength he had to the very end. How many other players give that amount of heart for a losing team?

He provides leadership in a time where players showing leadership and the right way to play the game will become scarcer and scarcer, either because they are injured or are just giving up.

He will know when it is time to go. And I think it will be the end of this season, not because he cant' play, but because its time to move on and for us to begin our 10 years of losing football.

Football 101- Quick Scat Dino U Angle

2005-10-31T05:05:00.000-08:00

by Reckless
PackerChatters Staff

This week's play of the week is the TD pass to Chatman during the game at Minnesota. The Packers had the ball at the MIN 4 yard line after gaining a couple of yards on a draw play. “Formationally it’s called spread right B right” (I’m not certain he said “B” but it sounded like it). This play was called using Tiger personnel – 2 TDs, 2 WRs and one back. MIN was playing a 3-4 defense with “quarters” coverage (zone coverage with each DB covering a quarter of the field), which “really equals about 7 across down there in their zone” (Since they are so close to the end zone.)

------S1----------------------------S
CB1-----W---------P-----M-------B--------CB
---------------E1----T-----E
--------86-----O--O--O--O--O-----87
80-------------------O-------------------83

---------------------40

Tony Fisher (40) was the FB on the play. He went in motion by taking a couple of steps forward and then running to the right parallel to the line of scrimmage. That motion caused P and M to move toward 40’s motion to the right. The Plugger, P, blitzed up the middle and the rest of the LBs stayed back in coverage. “Scat” is the protection the Packers were in. It means that the OGs “use inside to outside reads”. The LG blocks P if he is coming on a blitz. If not, he “peeks” or looks outside for W coming on a blitz. The RG does the same thing: He looks to M and blocks him if he’s blitzing. If not, he looks to B to see if he’s coming. On this play, only P blitzed and he was blocked.

“Dino” means double post. Sherman drew a line from David Martin (87) to the post (the goal post) and said this route is designed to “drive hard inside on the middle post” route. 87 was the primary read on this play. Antonio Chatman’s (83) route involves a “shake and bake” move (he draw a route toward CB with some squiggles to show the “shake and bake” and then drew a straight line on an angle from just in front of where CB lined up going slightly behind where S lined up, parallel to 87’s route. 83 was the second read on this play.

40, “we call him the FB on this play”, continues his route (he was in motion) into the right flat, trying to “displace” or draw B to cover the right flat. On the left side of the formation, “we have three over two” - the Packers have two receivers but there are 3 defenders, “so it’s not a good combination to win with” (it isn’t a favorable match up). 86’s route is a toward S1 and then towards the left corner of the end zone and 80’s route goes toward where P lined up. Sherman, “Brett stayed on the strong side where we had three on three. Because P blitzed and B went to the flat, we were able to get over the top of the S.”

The tape showed how spread out the formation was. Donald Driver (80) was about three yards outside (to the left) of the numbers and 83 was about that far to the right of the numbers on the other side. There was a good five yards between the OTs and the TEs. 87’s route was not as Sherman described it. He went straight to the goal line and once he was in the end zone he just went to the left. S seemed to be really fooled by 40’s route to the right flat. Even as Brett is releasing the ball, S took a false step toward 40. Even so, there was very little room to squeeze the ball between S and B because CB covered 40 and after B took a step or two toward the right flat he then went back into his spot in the zone. It took a great throw to complete the pass.

What I believe about Defense

2005-10-29T04:16:00.000-07:00

by Mark Quarderer

There are some things about defense that I believe are true, regardless of what team or what level you're talking about. Chief among these are:

You must stop the run. If you don't stop the run, nothing else is really going to matter very much. Your pass rush isn't going to be able to help you if teams never pass. Your secondary isn't going to make any plays for you if they keep it on the ground. Your offense isn't going to be able to bail you out if they're on the sideline watching the clock...and the chains....move. You simply have to stop the run; there isn't any alternative.

I'm aware that there are isolated cases of teams that aren't very good against the run who've had some success, most recently Philadelphia, but these are exceptions and not the rule and I always think that an argument that's based on the exception is not as strong as one based on the rule.

In this area, the 2005 Packer defense is doing well. They're yielding a miserly 3.4 yards/rush which is good for a #5 league ranking. This is a pleasant surprise and if the Packers can continue being successful in this area it'll give us something to feel good about during what is going to be an unpleasant off-season.

You are only as strong as your weakest link. If Reggie White is your defensive end, and Bhawoh Jue is your safety, your defense isn't as strong as Reggie White; it's as weak as Bhawoh Jue. If you have three Pro Bowlers in your secondary and Ahmad Carroll, then teams are going to go after Ahmad Carroll and that's how strong your defense is. You improve your defense by upgrading weak links. Last year, we had a number of weak links, particularly in the secondary. We got rid of a number of weak links in the offseason: Sharper, Hunt, Jue, Hawthorne, Lee. And as a result we aren't giving up so many huge plays as we did. But there are still some weak links on this team that are going to need to be addressed. Our linebacking corps doesn't look like they have any playmakers and our nickel and dime backs aren't helping us get off the field. This is an area we'll need to upgrade in order to be a top defense.

Most drives will stop themselves....if you just give them the chance. Seriously, there's a lot of things which will kill a drive: A missed block, a bad throw, a dropped pass, a penalty. And this is without any help from the defense. But if your defense keeps the other team on the field by committing penalties and failing to do the deed on third down then you are just breathing life into your opponent

The Packers are very much average in this regard by permitting opponents to convert 39.2% of their third downs. But only four teams in the league have fewer defensive penalties than the Packers at this point.

Coverage is more important than pressure. For as long as I've been associating with Packer fan boards, people have bitched about our pass rush, even in years when we had a pretty good one. Last year, for example, our 40 sacks put us in 10th place, only 8 sacks behind the league leader. IOW, just a half-sack a game more and we'd have had the best pass rush in the league----statistically. And this despite having a secondary that couldn't cover my grandma.

The reality is that sacks have been declining league-wide in recent years as blocking schemes have become more sophisticated and tackles have become more massive and more skilled. A good offensive tackle can pretty much neutralize those speedy edge rushers, as Packer fans should well know. Clifton and Tauscher routinely neutralize good DEs; KGB routinely disappears against quality tackles.

No, your best hope is to keep people covered long enough for your defensive line to get a good four man push and collapse the pocket. Eventually the QB either has to run or throw it to somebody who is covered.

So far this year, the Packers rank right in the middle of the league with 15 sacks tying them with three other teams. But our coverage is an area that's going to need some improvement. We're allowing opponents to complete over 60% of their passes against us, which is below the league average and we're 25th in the league in yards/attempt average.

There's a lot of places to put the blame for this: Our linebackers haven't been able to contain TEs or cover backs out of the backfield and our nickel and dime backs have looked like weak links. When Collins went out with an injury in the second half our secondary was exposed and shredded. I think the Packers are going to have to upgrade their nickel and dime backs in the offseason because it just doesn't look like the guys that are out there...usually Thomas, sometimes Underwood or Horton....or even Hawkins.....aren't helping us get off the field when we get teams in third and long.

The best defense is a good offense that can control the ball, eat the clock, and put points on the board to put pressure on the opponent. I think we're going to have a lot of trouble this year from here on out in this regard.

Over half the points that have been scored on the Packers so far this year have followed a turnover or a three and out, because both help create short fields for the opponent. When the Packers have had a long field to defend they've done pretty well. Last week, in our collapse against Minnesota, our offense went three and out, missed field goal (which is pretty much the same as a fumble, field position and momentum-wise) and another three and out. And Minnesota scored after every one.

I think the Packer defense is in for a rugged couple of weeks and we'll find ourselves declining in several statistical categories, especially scoring and total defense. But take heart in how we do against the run, and how well we get off the field after third down, because this team needs to establish something it can build on for next year.

The "Playing Not To Lose" myth and "The Well-Executed Bad Play"

2005-10-26T18:49:00.000-07:00

by Rick
For PackerChatters

The “Playing Not To Lose” myth

I don't buy into the emphasis on the "playing not to lose," weak-kneed mentality that our coaches and players are accused of having. I don't think there is a mindset that says "play scared," or "take your foot off their throat," or "don't play aggressively" that seeps into the hearts and minds of the coaches and players, and then consumes and corrupts them, causing them to do terrible things like whiff tackles, blow assignments, lighten the pressure in the gameplan, or call a run play on 3rd and short. It just doesn't work like that. Instead, I think "playing not to lose" probably doesn't look much different than "playing very badly" or "making a coaching decision that just didn't work out."

When our team plays well, it looks like we're playing aggressively, that we're playing relentlessly, that we're playing with confidence and that we're "taking the bull by the horns." In other words, we're "playing to win." When we play poorly, though, it looks like we lack confidence, that we're hanging back, that we're cowering, that our coaches aren't adjusting or playing to our strengths or exploiting the opposing team's weaknesses. In actuality, though, what may be happening is that we’re simply playing bad football, getting beat by the other team, and making mistakes. Because that’s also what "playing not to lose" looks like.

It’s my contention that there is no need to place so much emphasis on uncovering the mentality behind what we see transpiring on the field. This game is more about Player A beating Player B, Player C making the key play that affects the outcome of the game, or Player D royally screwing up his assignment than it is about the thoughts or mindset of the coaches or players.

The Well-Executed Bad Play

Having said that, it’s difficult not to notice all the angst about the 3rd and 2 call that took place with a minute left in the game. Many here insist that that play call was a bad one, that it was an example of what the “playing not to lose” mentality looks like. Well, for the record, I didn’t like a running play in that situation either, as, even though we had passed the ball 8 times in the previous 9 plays, I thought we should have made it 9 out of 10. If it works, don’t fix it, I’d say.

I’d like to get a little philosophical, though, about whether or not the play itself was indeed a “bad” one. Specifically, I’d like to discuss if anyone here has ever witnessed a well-executed bad play.

Yes, a well-executed, bad play. Is there such an animal?

If a play is called, and it is executed correctly, should that necessarily mean that the play called was a good one? And if a play is called, and it is not executed properly (it doesn’t get the job done), does that necessarily mean the play called was a bad one? See, in my opinion, the play itself is, with rare exception, neutral. That's because a play is designed to do one thing: gain the necessary or hoped-for yardage. And, in my opinion, the called play stays neutral--neither good nor bad---both before and after we witness what happens on the play.

I think it's generally true that only when the execution doesn't happen do we say the play that was called "bad." It's only after the execution does happen that we say the play that was called was "good." I just don’t happen to think those qualifiers should necessarily be used in such an ad hoc fashion.

Put into the context of the notorious 3rd and 2 this past Sunday, had Wells not snapped it early, had Fisher ran behind the prescribed blocking the play called for, and had he gained 4 yards instead of -1, this entire discussion wouldn't exist. We'd all say that the play called was a good one. We wouldn’t even have remembered it. There would be no discussion about the coaches or players “playing not to lose.” And that is the difference that execution makes in framing our perceptions of what happens on the field.

And that’s also why “playing not to lose” is just another way of saying that our guys weren’t executing. The 3rd and 2 play wasn’t executed properly: bad snap, bad block, bad run. But just because it wasn’t executed doesn’t mean that it was a bad play.

To summarize, then, “playing not to lose” is more of a physicality (getting beat, making mistakes, etc.) than it is a mentality (playing it safe, playing the clock, etc.). The Vikings quite simply played better than we did in the 2nd half on Sunday. And that’s the main reason why we lost.

State of the Packers

2005-10-26T16:48:00.000-07:00

by Mark Quarderer

The Packers are 1-5 right now heading into their game with Cincinnati, and given their record, their injury status, and their schedule I think it's pretty obvious that were looking at not having a very good record this season. I think it was Tomm Mixx, a Packer historian of some note, who said that in the last 50 years the Packers have gotten off to an 0-4 start four different times and every time they've ended up with 4 wins.

That sounds about right to me. Put me down for a 4-12 season and the 4th overall draft pick in the 2006 draft.

Although some people will make claims to the contrary, the fact is that nobody could have really foreseen a collapse of this magnitude. This was the #1 offense in the NFC in 2004 but the injuries to Javon Walker and Ahman Green.....and their backups, Murphy and Davenport.....plus the rapid decline of Flanagan and Henderson, combined with the introduction of two new guards has rendered this offense pretty anemic.

The NFL is a league of injuries, and the injured don't win. Give us a healthy Walker, a healthy Green, a healthy Murphy and Ferguson and this team would have won at least 8 games. But that's all coulda-shoulda-woulda at this point. The reality is that our running game isn't going to be very good for the remainder of the year, we're going to be kind of one dimensional, Driver is going to face constant double teams and our TEs aren't going to be able to pick up much of the slack because teams won't respect the play action.

From here on out, folks, points are going to be hard to come by. Not only do we just not have the horses but we're going to run into some of the better defensive teams in the NFL from here on out: Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Baltimore, the Bears (twice). The fat stats that we rolled up by crushing the hapless Saints will melt away like pounds on the grapefruit diet and by the end of the season we'll see this offense near the bottom of the conference in quite a few of the important statistical categories.

Defensively, there was some early giddiness about what Mr. Bates has accomplished with threads celebrating our #9 defensive ranking, but wiser heads were urging caution. This defensive unit hadn't played a top flight offense and the best quarterback they'd faced, Jake Delhomme, had put 32 on the board. Last Sunday, Daunte Culpepper put 23 on them in one half.

And now, we've got Carson Palmer, Ben Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, Culpepper again, and Donovan McNabb coming up. These are good quarterbacks that are running solid offenses and I'd be surprised if every one of these teams doesn't go over 20 on us.......maybe even a couple will go over 30.

This is not an indictment of the defense. They've actually played pretty well against the run this year and they've improved in the area of limiting big plays. But we're still getting killed in the area in front of the safeties, our linebackers just aren't making plays, and the guys we put out on the field in the nickel and dime packages just aren't real good and that's part of the reason we're giving up so many third and long conversions.

Additionally, now that the offense is going to have trouble staying on the field and even moving the ball, I'd suspect that we'll start losing time of possession and field position battles. All this will combine to put added stress on a defense that's really only average and will make it appear as though it isn't even as good as that

Our special teams can only be described as disappointing. We've given up long returns, missed field goals, and our blocking on returns is just not very good. I was an early fan of Coach Bonamego but I'm not so certain anymore.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

So that's where we are. Where are we headed and what should be done?

Obviously, we need to develop our young talent. Play Underwood in spots. Play Hawkins in spots. Continue with the Whitticker experiment until it's clear it isn't working. Play Wells instead of Flanagan. Put Rodgers in for a series or two every game to get him used to the speed of the game. It's very possible he'll be our starting QB next year and if he is, we should use this season to try to get him as ready as we can. These people who insist that the best way to develop a rookie QB is to not let him anywhere near a game are just wrong. It's like insisting that the best way to learn how to screw is to watch film and take notes but under no circumstances should you be allowed anywhere near an actual girl. biggrin.gif

Unless we enjoy taking huge beatings, I'd kind of take the air out of the ball a little and try to keep the clock moving. Tell your skill position guys to stay in bounds. Defensively, I'd play the nickel as our base and encourage teams to run instead of passing. I mean, whether you bleed to death slowly or quickly.......you're still bleeding to death. I just don't like to see us losing by 30 points.

I think we're going to have to pass on first down a lot. It's the best down to pass on and it's our best chance of getting a few first downs and maybe scoring a point or two. Since our running game isn't going to be much of a threat to anyone, I'd think we'd go with a lot of empty backfield stuff and dare people to try to get to Favre before he gets rid of the ball to an open guy.

I'm really not expecting much out of this team except that they play hard and with pride. I think that we can be pretty competitive again next year if we get people back healthy, have a good draft, and make a few solid moves in free agency. I also think we need a change at the Head Coach position but that's a subject for another post.

Anyway.....that's the view from the pool..........

Football 101-Scat Detroit X Shallow

2005-10-23T21:22:00.000-07:00

by Reckless
PackerChatters Staff

Scat Detroit X Shallow

--------S1--------------------------S

CB1--------W------------M--------------B-------------CB
-------E1-----T-----T-------E
---------86--O--O--O--O--O--87
89-----------------O-------------------80-------------WR

Because this show occurred after the bye week, this is another TD play vs. the Saints. The Packers had the ball 2nd and 20 at the Saint’s 26 yard line after the phantom holding call on Mark Tauscher. The play is called out of Tiger personnel (2 TEs). “Scat” means “free release by everyone”. The five down linemen have to block the 5 “most dangerous” rushers, none of the receivers have blitz pickup responsibility and this is the first “empty backfield” formation in the plays of the week so far, so no back is available to help the pass blocking. “Detroit” is a term they’ve used to describe a certain concept. Sherman guesses they’ve used it for 5 years and it was probably first used against Detroit, so they called it Detroit. “X Shallow” describes what the X receiver is going to do on the play.

N.O. was in quarters coverage – each DB had zone responsibility for one-quarter of the field. That was the predominate coverage by the Saints in the game.

Robert Ferguson (89) is the X receiver and he ran a shallow “over the middle” route. He ran to about where CB1 lined up and then cut toward where W lined up. He was the #1 read on the play. Sherman, “Ferguson pushed it up (he drew the beginning of 89’s route to the point in front of CB1 before he cut inside) which allowed Donald Lee (86) to get an outside release on a high angle corner route.” Sherman then drew 86’s route which looped outside (to the left) of E1 and then angled directly toward the corner of the end zone at about the midpoint between where CB1 and S1 lined up. Sherman then finished drawing 87’s route toward W. On the other side, David Martin (87) ran a vertical route trying to beat M on a post route. Donald Driver (80) ran a corner route toward the right corner of the end zone and WR ran a “smash” route. Sherman, “A smash route is an angle route run to about 4 to 5 yards from the sideline and it just stops there”. It sounds like what we used to call a “button hook” (run straight ahead a certain distance and stop and turn toward the QB) only run on an angle.

89 was the primary receiver but Favre recognized what the D was doing. CB1 “squatted a little before he got depth” meaning that CB1 hesitated before he went back to cover the deep quarter of the field he was responsible for. S1 took a step to the offense’s right because Favre was looking right at the snap. As a result, CB1 was late getting back and S1 took a step to the right. That left the deep left corner of the field vulnerable and that’s where 86’s route was going.

There was something written on the top right of the board. I believe it was “Solo Rt Empty F…” The entire board was never shown and Sherman didn’t mention it. I assume it referred to the alignment on the right side of the field and “empty” referring to the empty backfield. Sherman also never explicitly said what concept “Detroit” referred to.

The tape showed CB1 hesitated as 89 cut to his inside. 86 had him beat the entire route and CB1 never got closer than about 2 yards to him. S1 backed up a few steps and then took a step to his left (the offense's right). He ended up not covering anyone on the play. WR was wide open on the smash route – the nearest defender was more than 5 yards away when the ball was thrown. 87 just ran a straight route right down the field. Mark Tausher (RT) was beaten on a pass rush to the inside. His man did not hit Favre but was right in his face as the ball was released. Chad Clifton (LT) was beaten to the outside but his man also arrived just late enough for Favre to get the pass off. The pass hit 86 in stride.

Some reflections on the Packers season!

2005-10-23T14:21:00.000-07:00

This is NOT the Packers year (DUH!)

by ricky
For PackerChatters

First- this loss really hurt. The dominant first half followed by the dominated second half. Ugh. I took my dogs for a long walk before posting this, so I could clear my head of the rants that threatened to erupt. I'm better now.

1. Injuries are killing the Packers. Obvious, yes. But the loss of first Walker, then Ferguson (on a terrific catch- wrestling it away from the defender!) hurts. Then, the loss of Davenport, then Green gone- good grief. The only thing to do is "hunker down", not claw at other Packer fans in frustration at the team and the games, and hope the young players gain valuable experience for next year.

2. I thought the loss of Rivera and Wahle would be significant. I was roundly chastised, and sometimes even condescended to by others, who claimed that replacing guards is difficult. Tackles? A dime a dozen. Well, maybe not. Still, this offensive line has picked up pass blocking, though the run blocking is sadly lacking. Wahle in particular was known for this skill- the ability to pull and "play in space". Maybe next year...

3. Favre continues to amaze me. A few years ago (when he was having his "down years"- during the time of the broken thumb, and other nagging injuries), I urged "trading him now and getting something of value for him." My goodness- I was totally and completely wrong. The man is still one of the top five QB's in the league. Yes, he can still miss open receivers- but he still has an incredible arm, an amazing ability to elude the rush and the ability to move and throw that no other QB possesses. Amazing.

4. At this point, I don't think the Packers can win this division. Even if they did, considering how many "skill" players they have lost- what would be the point? Many on here have said if the Packers had a chance to draft high- well, this could be the year. They could very well end up with a top-ten pick. Before anyone asks, or charges, no, I'm not "jumping off the band wagon". I jumped on this particular bandwagon approximately 45 years ago, when I was ten. I've never jumped off, and never will. However, reality has to be faced, and hard truths must be admitted.

5. The defense continues to be on the rise. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Vikings were able to make half-time adjustments, and the Packers didn't.

6. IF Green and Ferguson are gone for extended periods of time, the Packers have virtually no chance of winning. Why? The defense will double team Driver, and with Chatman as the only other viable WR, game over. The only chance they'll have is to go to double and triple TE formations- bring in Lee, Franks and Martin (in the slot?) to challenge the shorter, lighter DB's- because I don't believe the linebackers could keep up with them. A ray of hope- but as far as the Packers are concerned, I may get discouraged, but I never give up (an obvious contradiction of what I've posted earlier- but as time passes, I still look for that "silver lining").

So how was this Favre's fault?

2005-10-23T13:37:00.000-07:00

My post-game rant!

by LosAngelis

PackerChatters Staff

Well, Favre Haters...we lost again. Somehow or another, Favre must be held accountable for this, right?

I mean, he's the HOF quarterback. He should never lose.

Must be all those intercept....oh, wait. He didn't throw one. Man, that's like only 1 in the last 3 games. Hey The GM/Bob/Other...have you figured out how many interceptions he's projected to throw this season now? How about if we project the last three games over the season?

How about his FUMBLE! Right? The one from Wells that bounced of his own butt and never reached Favre? Rodgers would have caught it, though, right?

Aha! Craig Nall!! Where's ibatiger to tell us how Nall would have thrown for 7 TDs in the second half without the season's starting #1 and #3 receiver, the season's starting #1 and #2 running backs, and without the season's #1 center? Somehow, Favre messed that up, right? Stupid ol' Favre.

Bring it on, FHC. You know who you are, and so do I. Do I need to do a role call and find out why so many of you have lurked over the last three weeks, when you were so vocal the three weeks before that? We can only criticize him when he does poorly? So, we'll wait until the next interception, perhaps 3 weeks from now, and start the accusations anew because now you have "proof"? And all his heroics between interceptions are again, worth nothing, which is why you can't speak anymore.

Perhaps it was the third quarter that did us in. Why didn't Favre manage to throw like he did on the final drive throughout the entire third quarter? Pay no mind to the reversion to "Playing not to lose" attitude, both on offense and defense, rushing only 4 down linemen against the Vikings, which wasn't enough, and allowing Culpepper to completely rediscover his own confidence. Pay no mind that we generated only 50-odd total yards in the third quarter, both rushing and passing. Could it be that we didn't take chances down the field, cradling our wounds from the losses of Ferguson and Green? Or, do you just open it up and find Bubba Franks, Tony Fisher, Donald Driver, and anyone else who is willing to give it up for this team?

It's a pity that Favre went out and stomped on both Ferguson's and Green's knees personally to insure they left the game. I know the cameras didn't show it, but obviously, everything bad that happens comes back to Brett Favre. Right? Somehow, we must prove in any way shape or form, whether it makes sense or not, that Brett is the worst thing for this team, and that he must be let loose like a ballast bag in a hot air balloon. Chucked aside like manure in a cow barn. Ejected like an audio cassette after the advent of CDs.

Is this your case? Somehow, Brett Favre was NOT Tom Brady and could NOT lead us back in the fourth quarter (oh, interesting stat about his 34 4th quarter comebacks in his career, funny how that gets overlooked). Gosh, I wish we had Tom Brady instead of Brett Favre. I wish we had TJ Rubely instead of Brett Favre, right?

Or, will you take the hand-wringing "no mas" approach, saying..."See! I told you if he'd just play mistake free, we'd win! I was right all along!!!"

Except we didn't win. We lost.

He played as mistake-free of a game as I've ever seen him play in recent years. He also MADE PLAYS, and led the team AGAIN when the defense allowed 23 POINTS IN A HALF, and the RUNNING GAME DISAPPEARED, with only TWO EXPERIENCED WR's and ONE EXPERIENCED RB.

And it still came down to a 58 yard field goal made on the same field where OUR beloved kicker, who we MUST sign to some hefty contract extension this offseason, missed TWO field goals of lesser distance earlier.

So, Favre Hate Cult, make your hypotheses. I'm dying to hear them.

Regale me with fairy tales on how Favre lost this game for us today.

The Chatman Effect

2005-10-23T05:26:00.000-07:00

by LosAngelis

PackerChatters Staff

Just a theory I was bouncing around in my head last night. I was listening to Chris Havel torching Antonio Chatman on the sport talk radio last night (he makes no bones about how useless he thinks Chatman is), and I started thinking about my "playing not to lose" assertation.

Chatman, in a way, is kind of the lynchpin of this theory. For several seasons, now, we've grown used to having a non-playmaker returning punts. However, we always justify this by saying "at least he doesn't fumble". And we consider this a good thing.

I don't. Well, let me rephrase that...I don't see it as much of a "good thing" as a "not bad thing". In other words, we're rewarding players for NOT making a mistake instead of doing the positive things. We're rewarding playing it safe instead of taking the risks needed to be a playmaker.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that almost any returner over the last 4 years or so is partially handcuffed, because our return blockers just don't do enough to put the returner in position to make plays...but once again, we're content, because we didn't fumble the ball. We fair catch after fair catch.

Obviously, this is a microcosm, and open for debate. My point (trying to be clear on it) is that playing it safe and focusing on NOT making mistakes doesn't equate to winning.

Obviously, any coach will tell you that a team has to minimalize or "stop" making mistakes in order to win. No doubt there. But you also have to make plays. When I look at our team over the first four games, I saw a lot of focusing on NOT making those mistakes. And, I do believe there is a high frustration level that comes along with that. The reward for trying to win is winning. What's the reward for trying not to make the mistake that will lose the game for the team?

Apply that mentality to nearly any other job or profession...focusing on not making mistakes instead of getting the job done. What if police officers focused only on not arresting the wrong person, letting cars get away for fear there might be a car crash, not shooting when needed because they might miss?

The media focuses very hard on when the police make mistakes. The recent problems in New ORleans are examples. But we normal humans take it with a grain of salt and recongize that those men also make many sacrifices, take necessary risks, and do a whole more good than harm. And we encourage them....DON'T let that punk driving at 100 MPH get away, because he'll be free to commit crimes again some other day.

The Chatman Effect personifies my concen with the Packers, and moreover, with people who look to point fingers on every mistake. The people who condemn Carroll and want him to focus on not making mistakes. The people who condemn Green and want him to focus on not fumbling. The people that condemn Favre and want him to focus on not throwing interception.

Carroll is starting to come around. He's realizing he can minimalize his mistakes, but still make one...and allow that to motivate him to make a play to make up for it later. Donald Driver does this very well. David Martin has shown his ability to do this. Brett Favre has done it for years.

PLEASE...don't make this a Favre issue. I'm not trying to make it that. But, I am focusing on the effects of playing NOT to lose instead of playing to win....recognizing that you can't sacrifice the risks you need to make to win games to serve the "no mistake" god. Favre is a part of that discussion, indeed, but you can apply it to this entire team, and how we criticize the team for mistakes, looking to place blame and point fingers at an individual mistake.

When Carroll has 5 penalites in a game and makes no plays of note, then there is a problem.

When Carroll has 1 penalty in a game, even a big one, but makes it up with solid tackles, and maybe an interception or key defensed pass...you have to see those things even out, instead of focusing on the negative.

I've noticed a couple times the improbable...Chatman has geared up to catch the ball and immediately take off, sometimes directly into a defender on punt returns. I've been trying to figure out if the shock I had was because it was so risky, or because its been so long since I've seen Chatman take a risk I was that surprised.

Who the heck wants to watch a non-risk taking, anal-retentive football team, even if they win? Point is, unless they are incredibly talented, head-and shoulders above all others...they won't win.

Sherman march-repeat or defeat?

2005-10-22T03:36:00.000-07:00

It's fustrating but understandable

by oletimer
For PackerChatters

I think many fans have been premature in proclaiming the Packers are dead after a 1-4 start, but one can also understand the frustration that feeds that thought process. Last season Sherman righted a sinking ship (1-4 start) and went on to win the Division title for the third consecutive year along with a short appearance in the playoffs-not a totally bad effort never-the-less? But can Sherman and company recreate that effort once again? Without question, there is unanswered questions’ remaining that feeds that doubt, but not mine!

First of all, I expect the 2005 season would come with some early struggles, reasoning:

a. Loss of the middle of the OL (Whale, Rivera and for all practical purpose Flanagan as well (injured and playing likewise). Why some fans didn't expect a major impact of such losses, I can only suggest they should have taking a reality test; many other fans realized the problem, but didn't want to accept the reality that such struggles has reasons attached?

Yes, Beightol has worked wonders in the past, therefore, one must assume he can and will do it again this year? While I hope for the same, its never-the-less such effort is not an easy task and would take time (at most, mid-season is a reasonable target that may be achievable-like it or not). Patience has venture and merit here; therefore I wait and remain hopeful. When all is said and done, I honestly believe the OL will be corrected because Beightol likes such challenges, and he is quite capable of finding a solutions from where-ever his magic is found! But even so, having Brett at the helm nothing impossible by years end! Brett is a difference maker, so let patience prevail.

b. Bates factor and the youth movement created allot of hype, which all Packer' fans should relish-watching as Bates and company develops a quality Defense from a group of unknowns? Personally, I always believed the problem wasn't a lack of talent on the Defensive side of the ball that manufactured the problem (a weak Defense effort in 2004 and the question mark going into 2005 season). The real problem was the past DC’s and their respective schemes that did a lousy job utilizing the available talent and preparing the players to get the job done. Bates appears to be making that point obvious for me. That said, the Defense is a work-in-progress and Bates has them guided in the right direction-thanks God! SO from a Defensive view point, fans have been given something that positive to look forward too! It may surprise all Fans alike that the Defense happens to becoming the strength of the team, and not the Offense. A funny bounce of the ball can change many truths! It doesn’t take much to make the elite Offense-normal, the normal Defense being among the elite!

c. If that not enough, add into the formula the fact that Brett’s losses his key weapons in Walker, Davenport, Bubba and Murphy each hit with major injuries, adding to the woes of the OL that must protect Brett already under stress!

What exactly is Sherman and staff to do, but plowing ahead while they try to find answers to all the above? So the Pack got off to a dismal 1-4 record, dishearten to all Packer’ fans no doubt! But remember 3 of the 4 Packer’s loss when down to the wire with the players never given up and fought a brave battle- with the total point difference for those three losses was but a total of 6 points. Sherman, Bates and company have been dealt a tough hand too play, personally I give them credit for keeping the ship heading in the direction in the mist of a major storm!

Can’t wait till Sunday and the Vikings!

Game Preview: Packer (1-4) at Vikings (1-4)

2005-10-21T04:10:00.000-07:00

by Thomas Pyc
PackerChatters Staff

Anxious? Most Packers’ fans are ready to see their team take the field again. Especially when it involves playing a controversy-ridden team like the Minnetonka Vikings. The Packers are still 1-4 with plenty of questions surrounding their own franchise but the last time they took the field they posted 52 unanswered points. That’s the first time an offense has done that in 16 years. (Elias Sports Bureau)

The Packers’ Offense vs. The Vikings’ Defense

Green Bay has been experiencing its share of injuries this season. Both TE Bubba Franks and RB Ahman Green being listed as questionable (50% chance of playing) but after the past bye week they are both expected to contribute. Second year center Scott Wells will start in place of Mike Flanagan and despite not having the same experience and athleticism Wells plays with a solid base. Wells knows how to use leverage, that same leverage helped him win the state championship in high school wrestling at the heavyweight class. Who is lining up under center still has not changed this season despite the cries of those who are ready to leave the Favre era. Entering this game No. 4 is second in the NFL in touchdown passes (12) but to be fair he is ranked just as high for his interceptions (8). A big part of Favre’s continued success is the development of tight ends David Martin and Donald Lee. Lee was recently acquired but his Mississippi background and his all-out play has put him and Brett on the same page quickly. With Franks back in the fold the tight end position does not appear nearly as bleak as it did during the offseason.

For eight years Vikings’ safety Darren Sharper faced Brett Favre in practice and definitely got his hands on his fair share of passes. But outside of Sharper’s past history on the Packers practice field the Vikings’ defense is anything but threatening. In fact, up until last week the Vikings were using a 4-3 defensive scheme. In a surprise move after just four games the Vikings used a 3-4 scheme against the Bears last week. Without knowing the move was coming until game time the Bears struggled. One paper the Vikings’ secondary looks good but with cornerback Antoine Winfield underachieving the entire group is struggling. Underachieving youthful talent coupled with some injury has kept this group ranked towards the bottom of the league.

The Vikings’ Offense vs. The Packers’ Defense

The only quarterback in the league with more interceptions than Favre is Viking QB Daunte Culpepper (12). When arguably the best receiver in the league, Rrrrrandy Moss, leaves your team there will be repercussions. But when you also lose your best running back, the offensive coordinator, a Pro Bowl center and an All-Pro guard thing are bound to get ugly. Matt Birk and David Dixon were two of the best at their position and the opposition is exploiting the weakness every week. The Vikings should be getting WR Nate Burleson back after spraining a knee ligament and that will help keep Daunte off his back. Outside of Burleson the biggest threat has been TE Jermaine Wiggins. The running game and the pass protection have hindered Minnesota’s ability to produce points.

Improving the defense was probably the top priority of the Packer organization this offseason. It all started at the top of the unit with the hiring of defense coordinator Jim Bates. After that move, the staff and the roster got some fresh faces and kept on developing the youthful talent. Cornerback Al Harris was named the NFC player of the week for his performance against the Saints. But before this group is dubbed ‘fixed’ they will have to show some consistency in the areas of quarterback pressure and turnovers. Another veteran, besides Harris, who looks to be performing up to par, is DT Grady Jackson. According to Jackson he’s right on schedule to have a solid season since he missed most of training camp. Then again, he will have to have another good performance to prove his last game was not merely an effort to get back at his former team. Grady’s impact improves this entire defense and helps MLB Nick Barnett utilize his speed and add to his total of 69 tackles.

The Bottom Line

Let’s not sugarcoat this matchup, both of these teams are 1-4 and are in serious contention for a top draft pick. The winner of this game will have a chance to salvage their season, especially in the NFC North. The Vikings have no where to go but up and should be fighting like a cornered animal but if the Packers can strike early and keep any big plays from happening they can add to Minnesota’s sorrow.

Football 101- Pass 96 Coun86r Gap Solid Z Runback

2005-10-17T04:21:00.000-07:00

by Reckless
PackerChatters Staff

Pass 96 Coun86r Gap Solid Z Runback

This week’s play is the TD pass to Ferguson (89) vs. the Saints, a play Sherman said was a key play in the game. It is run out of “Solo Left” formation using Tiger (2 86s, 2 WRs, 1 RB) personnel. The Packers had the ball at the Saints’ 25 yard line.

------------S1--------------------------S
------------------B-----M------W
CB------------E1----T-----T------E----------CB
80-----------87--O--O--O--O--O--86
-----------------------O--------------------89

-----------------------RB

Sherman made the point that they have run a lot out of Tiger and they changed it up by passing a lot out of Tiger vs. N.O. This play is a “play pass”: It is a fake of the run “96 Coun86r Gap”. The LG pulled to the right and blocked E. Donald Lee (86) ran an “over route”. He ran around E to the outside (right) to run up the field and then cut left behind where the LBs lined up running parallel to the line of scrimmage (LOS). The play action (fake of the run) is designed to get the LBs to take a step toward the LOS and to the right of the offense. Favre faked to the RB who ran toward where E lined up. After the fake, Favre bootlegged to the left. “Solid” in the play call means David Martin (87) blocks E1. On many of the bootlegs to the left, the TE on that side releases into the left flat. But on this play, they want Favre to have time to look for Driver (80) who ran a “run back” route. His route is to run about 25 yards straight down the field and then cut back toward the left sideline at a sharp angle.

The Saints were playing “quarters coverage” on this play – the four DBs each cover a quarter of the field. Ferguson’s (89) route had him run inside the CB, Mike McKenzie, and “over” S and then angle toward the back line along the back of the end zone. Sherman drew the route going up the field to the left of where CB lined up and then continuing to a spot behind where S lined up and then continuing to angle, going deeper, toward the left. CB had “over coverage” and S had “under coverage” on 89. (CB was behind 89 and S was in front of 89). S1 came up to cover 86 on the over route, and that created a void in the coverage and the ball was delivered right on the money.

The tape showed that the LG, Klemm, missed his block on E. Martin (87) sustained his block pretty well but E1 did pressure Favre just as he released the ball. Driver (80) ran a step or two into the end zone and as he was cutting back, the ball was thrown. S had pretty good coverage – Ferguson was behind him but it took a great throw to complete the pass. Sherman didn’t say it but from the name of the play, my guess is Driver was the primary read on the play as he was the “Z” receiver running the “run back”.

The run/pass ratio, Why all the fuss?

2005-10-16T03:46:00.000-07:00

by Rick
For PackerChatters

I've been reading some Eagles forums lately and have found an oft-stated theme: Virtually no fans are happy with the offensive play selection (the run/pass ratio). Actually, they're peeved, to put it politely. Here's the breakdown:

Philadelphia Eagles 2005
88 rushes
214 passes
Ratio 29/71

Now, I'm wondering. Why is it that there is so much fuss about having a near 50/50 ratio anyway? Teams that run the ball more are typically teams that can run the ball more, or teams that do it well. The Eagles, at this point, aren't a particularly good running team (they currently rank last in the league in rushing yards and 24th in yards per attempt). On the other hand, they are a good passing team (#1 in the NFL currently with 307 passing yards a game), as they have one of the top QB-WR tandems in the NFL. Also, their little scatback seems to be a better receiver than he is a runner anyway.

Relating this to our own team, I'd like to know why there so much concern about having the Packers establish the the run (and not abandon it) if, when we do try to run, it doesn't work well anyway, and our passing game is working so much better.

Right now we have two guards who haven't been run blocking especially well. Our C position is occupied by either an apparently declining player or a 2nd year player (who's better). We have a gimpy #1 RB who may or may not play in a week against Minnesota. We have lost our #2 running back for the season. Our #3 back has averaged 2 yards per carry (8 carries for 9 yards and one 9-yard run) and is playing poorly this year. And our "starting" fullback has to come out on running plays in favor of a guy who didn't make the final cut (but who's probably a better blocker). On the other hand, we have two really good pass blockers at T, a Hall of Fame QB who can routinely get rid of the ball in 1.5 seconds, and respectable receivers. Given those contextual factors, I'd much rather hang my hat on the passing game than the running game.

Of course, if you can run the ball, you have more options in the passing game. More roll-outs. More play-action. Brett's really good when he's on the move. But if we try to establish the run early in the game and can't, we've then limited our chances of having our passing game work well too. Maybe we should worry less about establishing the run in our gameplanning, and concentrate more on getting our passing game going, as the odds now are that we're going to be more successful passing than running anway.

So, what would be so wrong about coming out throwing the heck out of the ball these next several games? What do we have to lose?

Hindsight is great but just does not equate honestly.

2005-10-13T03:39:00.000-07:00

by Patty
PackerChatters Staff

I for one cannot understand the audacity of those in the media who lie and portray their thoughts to the negative.

When the draft was going on almost all the major media types were saying the Packers had better serve up a QB. They insisted that the Packers mike Sherman had been foolish in not selecting a QB in round 1 or 2 the last couple of years. Many seem to think the Packers should select either Jason Campbell or Charlie Frye.

Now of course since Brett Favre is playing well the tone has turned caustic and the blame game is out in full force. Now it sells papers to criticize Green Bay for not getting Brett more help. Yeah right! Just what kind of help would Brett need that was there at 24 that would ignite the fire to pass on the best player available at pick 24? Please anyone tell me right now just who that miracle player was.

There are some out there who claim the Packers were idiots for not getting another defensive player. OKAY, I agree a defensive player was a need but of all the players still on the board who would be better selection right now. Mike Patterson statistically the best going right now but please tell me would Patterson be playing ahead of Grady Jackson or Cullen Jenkins right now? Jenkins has played better than Patterson so far this season with better stats and more big plays.

Some are saying a DB but when you really take an honest and open look at the DB play for the Packers no one that was on the board would be playing right now. Mark Roman has had 4 really solid games and the other game was 3 and ½ quarters solid. Nick Collins is playing well but we selected him at 51. Can you imagine the reach hollering that would have resulted if we had selected him at 24!!!!! – The truth people is that the safety play has not been bad this year.

Maybe an OL should have been the selection? Seriously thinking needs to be ushered in right about now. Very few OL taken in a class where OL were not considered the strength of the draft usually do not make difference makers. Maybe Spencer or Mankins or Baas are going to be solid but they are struggling just as mightily as Adrian Klemm and Will WHittiker right now.

As many who know my posting about the draft, Aaron Rodgers is not my ideal of a QB. I like a QB like Phillip Rivers and wanted the Packers to move up for him in the 2004 draft. Can you imagine the Sherman hating that would have ensued if Sherman would have done just that (traded up for Rivers) – But, Aaron Rodgers represents a quality promising QB with a winning attitude and solid skills. He is not your golden arm slinger but he is the type that will slice and dice a team to pieces. He is a winner. Sort of the mold of a Bob Griese and somewhat a Bart Starr. Do not be fooled though as Rodgers does have a better than average arm and can throw the deep out.

I am not going to get into the love relationship of Brett Favre and fall prey to no one can replace Brett syndrome that seems to have taken over some on this board. When you objectively look at what Rodgers is about you can not get past the talent and skills he possesses. He represented total value. A serious reasoning suggests that Rodgers was more than just value. Green Bay was one of the teams that had a cause to look at QB during the draft. I cannot find a single writer or reporter who did not say so before the draft. It is convenient and unethical that they are now saying it was a foolish selection.

To criticize Ted Thompson for selection of Aaron Rodgers holds very little credence when you honestly look at every angle. I believe this selection was as close to a no-brainer as there possibly can be with a draft selection. Again I say to anyone, name me a player who was still on the board between pick 25 and 51 any better and who would be making a difference right now?????

Now if you want to throw out any criticism there is some room for what happened in round 3 for maybe some criticism. Maybe Thompson got a little trade happy and wanted more selections be it lower round selections. But, was there anyone (player) that is making a huge difference right now? Marviel Underwood is not my kind of player but he does represent speed. And we did get other selections with other trades using what he got from the original 3rd round trade.

But it still comes back to the premium selection at 24. Was selecting Aaron Rodgers a waste?

1) he is a top QB prospect and fell for no reason other than most of the teams selecting ahead of Green Bay had no QB needs
2) he represents very good value
3) Rodgers is a winner and has ability (he is no stiff)
4) Rodgers has mobility and is the kind of QB the Packers need in 2007 and beyond

And I keep coming back to one simple thought. Who was on the board at the time that would have represented being a difference maker for the Packers right now? A LB, a DT, a DE or a DB. I look hard and long and cannot find such player. Sure there are some nice prospects like Barrett Ruud, Mike Patterson, Logan Mankins and Shaun Cody but none of them I believe would be a major force for the Packers right now. Mike Patterson has a couple of sacks but has made errors for the Eagles as well, but again I point to Cullen Jenkins who is playing better.

As most GM’s will explain their objective in every round is to get quality and value. Sometimes that value is represented not current but for future. The question is this. Would Green Bay before this season ever thought they would be in position to get a top 5 player that low in the drafting order? Sure it is easier now that Green Bay sits 1-4 in the standings to say “see there Green Bay should have selected Marling Jackson or Mike Patterson and waited till this year to get their QB”. THAT IS JUST NOT A FAIR WAY TO LOOK AT IT!!! Hindsight is great but just does not equate honestly.

Are 'Stats' garbage?

2005-10-12T03:20:00.000-07:00

by Rick
For PackerChatters

Hrm, I did not mean to call all stats 'garbage' but to call passer rating a 'garbage stat.'

First of all, just about every stat can be dismissed as garbage because sometimes they (stats) don't reflect what happens on the field adequately. But my two primary responses to that criticism of the passer rating stat in particular are: 1) What other measurements do we have (or can we create) that are better? 2) Most of the time, the passer rating actually does reflect on-the-field performance; there is a great deal of validity between the number and the perception of a passer's performance, especially when measured over the course of an entire season.

What measurements do we have that are better?

Back in the 1930s, our own Arnie Herber was widely considered the best passer in the game, and the NFL needed a number to cement it. He could throw nearly the length of the field and he had a cannon on him. But he only completed about a third of his passes, and he threw plenty of interceptions with his high risk bombs. No matter. Arnie won 3 passing titles in the 1930s because, back then, all one needed to do was add up a guy’s passing yards to win the passing title. Throw enough passes, and you win.

Then the pinpoint accurate Sammy Baugh came along in the late ‘30s, and many thought he was the best. So, suddenly the short pass and completion percentage was in. From 1938 to 1940, the passing title was given to the quarterback with the best completion percentage. (Baugh completed 70 percent of his passes one year.)

Then, in the ‘40s, the NFL chose to rate passers by ranking them against each other (the best in a category gets a 1, the second best gets a 2, etc.). They did away with completion percentage as the only measure, and instead used completions, passing yards, touchdowns, and interceptions as categories.

That was scrapped in the 1950s, when the NFL went with the yards gained per attempt as its measure of who won a passing title. Problem with that was, there were plenty of role players or running backs who threw occasionally (like Paul Hornung), but who typically had high yards per attempt percentages, and they won the passing titles. Bobby Layne never won any passing titles in the ‘50s, but he was considered the best passer back then (until Unitas came into prominence in the late ‘50s). Something had to change.

Then, in the early ‘60s, they put a minimum number of attempts in there, and they changed to the current 4 categories and weighed them equally: completion percentage, yards per attempt, total touchdowns (it didn’t become a percentage until the ‘70s), and interception percentage. That seemed to more accurately reflect what happened on the field, as the Unitas’ and Starr’s and Tittle’s and Jurgenson’s could now win or come close to winning passing titles, and those passers were indeed considered among the best in the game.

There are plenty of people who criticize the passer rating system, especially because the decision to weight the 4 categories equally is far from perfect, and it's unfair to passers from different eras. But it's an evolving science, and there hasn't been anything better that has been able to come along and stick better than the current system we have. If something better is out there, it probably won't be long before we'll start using it.

Besides, a passer rating is just one number among many other ones that are probably far more important when considering the greatness of a player. Tom Brady now has led 19 4th quarter comebacks in a little over 4 seasons, and he has thrown thrown just 3 total interceptions in 9 playoff games. Johnny Unitas threw a TD pass in 47 straight games. Brett Favre has started 200-and-some straight games. Dan Marino threw for 5,000 passing yards and 48 TD passes in 1984. Joe Montana threw 45 TD passes in the playoffs and won 4 Super Bowls. Those are stats that are going to be remembered when pondering the greatness of those quarterbacks. Few people care what John Elway's career passer rating was just 79.9. He's still considered by many to be one of the top 5 to ever play the game. That's because it's understood that passer rating, while helpful, doesn't come close to giving us all the information we need to decide how good a quarterback is. And it shouldn't be expected to either.

Most of the time, passer rating does reflect the perception of on-the-field performance.

Last year, for example, which passers were recognized as having the best statistical seasons if you were just looking at their TDs, INTs, passing yards, or completion percentages, but never looked at their passer ratings? Peyton Manning. Daunte Culpepper. Donovan McNabb. Drew Brees. Ben Roethlisberger. Tom Brady. Brett Favre. Interestingly, all 7 of those quarterbacks had passer ratings in the top 10 in the league. Very rarely you’ll get some exceptions.

It’s kinda like the Pro Bowl. Every once in a while a guy will get selected who doesn’t deserve it, and another guy who does deserve selection will get overlooked. It’s a popularity contest, they say. Well, of course it’s a popularity contest. The guys who are popular do indeed get selected for the Pro Bowl. But how do they become popular? Because they’re good. The better a player you are, the more likely you are to get noticed. Similarly, there’s a heavy correlation between a passer’s stats and the perception of how good he is. The passer rating puts a stamp of numerical approval on the perception that Peyton Manning was 2004’s best quarterback, for example, and that Mark Brunell was one of the worst. And, not surprisingly, Manning had a 121.1 passer rating, and Brunell had a 63.9 in 2004.

Now, that’s not to say that the passer rating statistic hasn’t become outdated considering the changes in the passing philosophies across eras. Back in the ‘60s, for example, having a 5.5% interception percentage (11 interceptions every 200 attempts) was considered dead average when the current passer rating system was created. That would mean that a quarterback who today throws the typical 500 times a season could throw 28 interceptions before he’d have sunk below the average mark in the ‘60s. In 2002, by comparison, the average interception percentage across the entire NFL was 3.05%, which would mean that the average quarterback threw just 15 interceptions every 500 pass attempts that season. Also, with today’s emphasis on short, safe passes over higher risk bombs, today’s passers are given undue credit for being superior than their predecessors (i.e., of the 20 quarterbacks with the best passer ratings, 13 are currently playing, including Jeff Garcia at #9, Brian Griese at #15, and Brad Johnson at #17). But comparisons between eras is another discussion. I could go on and on about that, so I’ll just leave it here.

That means it takes a bunch of things and mixes them all together without trying to weight them properly. Kinda like if I took singles, doubles, triples and homeruns and rated each of them on a scale and then considered them of equal value. I think that's foolish--homeruns are obviously of greater value than singles.

I don’t think that having a high TD percentage is far superior to avoiding interceptions in nearly the same way as homeruns are far superior to singles. TDs and INT avoidance are much closer to equal in their value, in my opinion. Now, I do agree if you are suggesting that completion percentage is given too much weight. It’s essentially given double weight because the yards per attempt percentage is very similar to completion percentage. If they de-emphasized completion percentage and just measured yards per attempt with TD and INT percentage, I think that would be a fairer system. Otherwise you’re heaping rewards on the weak-armed dinkers and punishing the strong-armed bombers. Other than that, I think the weighting system isn’t nearly as inequitable as saying homeruns are the same as singles in their value.

I think that TDs are generally a better indication of a QB's performance, because TDs matter most and they tell you two important things: how many points a QB can put on the board, and whether he's trusted enough to throw the ball regularily in the red zone.

Well, then what about a QB like Troy Aikman? Or Bart Starr? Neither QB ever threw many TD passes. And it had nothing to do with whether or not their coaches trusted them. Heck, Bart called his own plays. It’s just that when those QBs got inside the 10 yard line, they typically just handed the ball off several times because they had Hall of Fame runners who could get the job done too. Had 2 of the goal line plays been shovel passes to Fisher rather than handoffs to Davenport this past Sunday, Brett could have had 5 TD passes and an extra 15 points added to his passer rating. Do you think that shovel passes are that much more superior to handoffs that Brett deserves that much more credit for making the play?

The bottom line in my view is there's very little that is truly individual about a QB's 'statistics' they are a record of the offense's performance and all the other players out there as well as the gameplan and playcalling impact on it, and trying to seperate such things is very difficult, if not nigh impossible, and consolidating everything down to a number that mushes things of varying importance together (that will often by extremely affected by conditions of era) to get a single number isn't very helpful, though I must admit it can be convienant.

I think the baseball pitcher comparison is apt here. Yes, in order for Bob Gibson to have compiled a 1.12 ERA with 13 shutouts and 22 wins in 1968, he had to have fielders who could record outs for him and as well as drive in some runs to give him a lead. Like a quarterback has to rely on his line and his receivers (and his running back and the defense) to compile the passing statistics he does, Bob Gibson did have to rely on the other 8 players on the field to experience his individual statistical success. But does that mean that Bob Gibson’s on-field performance wasn’t the most important, most critical factor in whether or not the Cardinals won the game when he pitched?

Finally, I tend to think about a passer rating as something like an IQ score. An IQ test consists of several subtests involving content areas like processing skills, memory skills, experiential knowledge, and reasoning skills. These subtests are standardized are weighted equally and then the scaled scores are combined and divided to produce a number, our IQ. Our intelligence probably does involve much more than what these tests measure, and maybe our reasoning skills should be weighted much more than our recall skills when figuring our IQ score rather than equally. An IQ test isn't going to be close to perfect. But an IQ score probably does tell us something about how intelligent a person is. It isn't just a motley assortment of numbers that are derived from unrelated sources. It's not a reality, but it's a good guide, anyway. I think similarly about a passer rating. It's a score. A grade. And right now, it's probably the most convenient statistic we have to compare one passer to another. And convenience is good.

The weeding out process

2005-10-10T10:09:00.000-07:00

by Bamapackerfan
For PackerChatters

Here are some random thoughts on this issue;

Diggs stays only if he takes a very big cut. He is scheduled to make something like $2.9M next year, including a pretty substantial roster bonus. He is hurt too often and not worth the money. Does he fit this defense, assuming we still have the same system next year, and that is something I don't assume any more. Any way, I think he's gone.

We are going to need to find so many starters, that we truely can draft the BPA in every round, because that player will almost certainly be a need. Having said that, we still need DBs: the best CB we can find and another young S. We just have to improve the defensive backfield. The other spot that could be high impact is at RB. We are going to need at least two new RBs and a new FB. The third area of importance, although not nececessarily in that order is the interior of the DL. We might be able to find a decent LB or two in FA, along with a S, and maybe a more solid OL. If walker and Murphy come back we could have a very decent receiving corps.

The way Kampman is playing, I'm not so sure we don't have two legitimate starters at DE now. What we need is solid play in the interior, and for the back 7 to be something other than vulnerable.

On the OL, we might be pretty decent with Clifton, Wells, Whittiker and Tauscher. We need to find a LG. I could see Klemm sticking for the second year of his contract providing solid depth at LG and LT, and maybe starting. I don't know if Costin might become a contributor, but this kind White is intriguing if he can fill out. We need a young guy or two and a solid if not pricey veteran. I don't know what to make of Barry. He doesn't appear to be starting material. So do you sign him for the veteran's minimum or look for a younger player with upside?

If Favre returns, which is oh so iffy, we will be fine at QB, but assuming he doesn't, which is what I assume, we are going to need a young one to develop and a veteran in case Rodgers isn't ready.

We need an impact running back and to strenthen the DB and interior of the DL. If we can do that, we are going to start to improve. If Rodgers starts, and has a solid OL, a good RB, and the current crop of WRs healed up, we might just surprise a few people next year.

How did we win? We played not to lose.

2005-10-10T04:13:00.000-07:00

by LosAngelis
PackerChatters Staff

We've gotten whupped many times. Conservative playcalling, predictable formations, into the "Favre can save us at the end" mindset again.

It all started with 4th and 1 vs. Philadelphia two years ago. We had that game and the Eagles by their talons. Then, instead of going for the win, we trusted our punter and shaky defense to win it for us.

If you want to win in this league, you go for the jugular. You don't use your punter as a "weapon". Losing teams use their punter as a weapon. Winning teams use the best all-around RB in the league running bechind the best OLine package in the league.

We played not to lose. And we lost.

We've seen this through a lot of 2004 and the first part of 2005. Thinking too much about not holding, not throwing interceptions, not missing tackles, not fumbling...not making mistakes.

Then, 4th quarter Carolina, the team said "screw it" and played to win. They did the same thing today. Mixed it up. Hit them from every angle. Didn't throw a ball into the endzone hoping someone might make a play in coverage, but throwing it confidently to a confident receiver who didn't try to make a play....he MADE a play.

One writer said the Packers should have benched Favre earlier and not demoralized the Saints so much.

I feel bad for what they've gone through, but that's tough. No one cuts us any breaks, and no one cuts anyone any breaks.

If we want to continue to win ball games, we have to continue to play to win. If we make a mistake, just come back like David Martin did last week and make up for it. Twice.

Quit carping and micromanaging every little error. Repeated errors that don't get made up for should be dealt with. But this team is finally starting to believe in itself and each other. They're playing and having fun, which is what the game was originally about.

Winning is risk. Unless you have the #1 offense (we don't) and the #1 defense (we don't). We can't methodically run the ball every play and make safe, 1 yard passes to win games.

I don't know if this is Sherman or if this is the players picking up the ball and making the plays. Whomever it is, they need to keep it up, keep the faith, believe in themselves, and mostly, worry about putting points and the board and stopping the other team from doing it, instead of worrying about how many interceptions they have or how many missed tackles they have.

Football 101- Hound2 Y Choice

2005-10-07T18:38:00.000-07:00

by Reckless
PackerChatters Staff

This weeks play of the week was the Packer’s 3rd TD in the game against Carolina. The Packers had the ball at the Carolina 16 yard line, first and ten. The play is “Green right slot (formation) U (personnel – 2 TEs and 2 RBs) Short, Hound2 Y Choice”.

------------S1---------------S
CB1---CB--------W------M
------------E1--T-----T---E---B
------80-----O--O--O--O--O--86
87-----------------O

-------------------O

-------------------O

(Sherman drew four “check marks” where CB1, CB, S1 and S lined up.) David Martin (87) lined up wide left, which is a “unique position for a big TE”. “We got quarters coverage which is kind of a four deep coverage.” 87 went in short motion to his right, parallel to the line of scrimmage (LOS), to about where Donald Driver (80) lined up. At the snap he went back to the left and angles toward where CB1 lined up. 80 runs a “smash route” which is similar to a “go route” only toward the left corner of the end zone. The read on this side of the field is the “flat coverage guy”, CB1, who went back in coverage as CB covered 87 in the left flat. S1 “covered 80” on his route.

The play is a “play pass” (includes a run fake) : The FB goes to the right flat and the RB runs a route between where W and M lined up and stops there. Brett faked a handoff to the RB. Donald Lee (86) ran a “choice route” – his route depends upon the “leverage” of S. He ran a skinny post route (runs straight and then angles toward the goal post) but would have run a corner route (toward the right corner of the end zone) if S applied “inside leverage”, or didn’t allow 86 to get to the inside. B covered the FB in the right flat and M was influenced that way too. W covered the RB.

The tape showed a pretty good run fake. The FB was open in the right flat, he was at about the LOS when the ball was thrown and B was at least five yards off him. 80’s route started up the field but to the left a little and did end up near the left corner of the end zone. M covered 86 about 7-8 yards beyond the LOS. 86 got inside S but S1 did not cover 80, CB1 did. S1 didn’t really cover anyone but he was influenced toward 80 until it was too late. He was the player who delivered a hard hit on 86 right after he caught the ball. The protection was pretty good with the exception of RG Will Whitticker, who allowed the DT to get penetration on a bull rush and hit Favre after he released the ball.

Game Review: Panthers 32 Packers 29

2005-10-04T01:25:00.000-07:00

by Mark Lawrence
PackerChatters Staff

The 0-3 Packers traveled to the 1-2 Panthers for a repeat of last season's MNF game. Last year, the Packers exposed the Carolina offensive line as unable to handle blitzes, and Carolina receiver Steve Smith was knocked out of the game and out of the season. This year it was the Panther's turn.

As has become all too typical this year, Green Bay left their running game somewhere in the '04 season. Ahman Green ran 14 times for 36 yards for a completely uninspiring 2.6 yard average, with a long run of 10 yards. He was knocked out of the game in the 3rd quarter with a bruised knee. His replacement, Najeh Davenport, was equally unimpressive with 10 yards on 4 carries.

The Packers found themselves deep in a whole for most of the game - a 19 point hole, to be precise. Of course this plus the absence of anything approximating a running game turned them completely one dimensional. What was needed, clearly, was superb pass protection and an incredible performance by the Packers wide receivers.

Bubba Franks, the Packers superlative blocking TE, missed his first game as a Packer ever. About halfway through the 1st quarter left tackle Chad Clifton and center Mike Flannigan were injured and removed from the game on successive plays. This lead to a completely makeshift left side of the line, with Klemm moving over the tackle, Ruegamer coming in at guard, and Wells taking over at center. The new guys did a really poor job for the rest of the first half as they settled in. However, by the 4th quarter, their performance seemed to me to be substantially better than the starters. While I hate to judge before all the facts are in, it would appear to the casual observer that the Packers would be best served by keeping Wells at center, and possibly by keeping Ruegamer at left guard. Klemm did a perfectly creditable job at left tackle, but I see no indication that he was an improvement over Clifton.

Just before halftime rookie WR Terrance Murphy was taken off the field on a back board due to a severe helmet to helmet hit and numbness in his hands and legs. It seemed at the time that there were almost no wide receivers left in Green. #2 Robert Ferguson had a really quite distressing play where Favre put the ball right into his hands, only to watch a Carolina DB wrestle it out and cause a turnover. It has become abundantly clear that Ferguson simply doesn't get the idea of fighting for the ball. It seemed the Packers were down to two functional WRs, the undersized Donald Driver and the positively diminutive Antonio Chatman. Down 19 points, makeshift OL, no running game, and more or less no WRs. It was getting difficult to see how things could become worse.

Meanwhile, the Packers defense allowed 16 unanswered points in three Carolina possessions. There was absolutely no pass rush, and the coverage seemed to consist almost entirely of making certain that anyone would be allowed to catch the ball except for Steve Smith.

However, Favre is fond of saying that in times like these other players simply have to step up, and some did. To my personal astonishment, KGB caused a game-changing turnover which Favre converted into 8 points in two plays taking about 1 minute of real time. Suddenly the Packers seemed to be awakening from the dead.

Previously the Packers backup TEs have been noteworthy mostly for their poor practice sessions and complete absence from game day. On this day, David Martin finally showed up and caught 5 passes for 53 yards and a TD. He actually caught what was thrown at him and looked like a legitimate starter in the NFL, clearly for the first time in his career. 3rd string TE Lee even caught a pass for a TD.

Bret Favre, who has not been very good at comebacks this millennium, managed to get the Packers to the Carolina 48 yard line with 1:39 on the clock and needing 3 points to tie up the game. Things were getting positively exciting. He promptly threw two incompletions and a short completion, leaving the Packers at 4th and 3 with the game on the line and 1:04 remaining. Inexplicitly he chose to run a no-huddle play, and in the confusion Driver was unable to beat his coverage to convert the first down. Inexplicable because it's axiomatic in the NFL that when on the road you play for the tie and overtime, and the Packers had over a minute to make about 20 yards to get into solid field goal range.

The Packers are not playing like a particularly good football team, and yet they have lost their last three games by 2, 1, and 3 points. It would not be rational to think this team is a couple good breaks away from being a contender for the championship, but it is certainly true that this team is very close to being competitive.

Packers fans can take several good points away from this game. Favre seems to be consciously taking better care of the ball, taking fewer risks and making fewer interceptions. The backup OL and TEs seem to have stepped up their games, and look to me to be ready to give this team some new options. The Packers defense continues to be pretty good against the run.

Unfortunately Packers fans must temper this with some more negative observations. There continues to be an almost complete lack of pass rush, and the Packers DBs are not very successful in providing solid shut-down coverage. The Packers continue to have almost no running game, and it's becoming clear that this is substantially due to Ahman Green losing half a step and his backups not being able to provide a suitable replacement.

Next up is the very inconsistent New Orleans Saints coming to Lambeau field. In any other year out of Favre's career I would consider this a relatively easy game. This year, it's simply impossible to count on much of anything from the Packers.

Football 101: Two Jet Aggie

2005-10-04T01:16:00.000-07:00

by Reckless
PackerChatters Staff

This weeks play of the week is the Packer’s second TD from the Tampa Bay game. After a penalty, the Packers had the ball on the Buc’s 20 yard line, 2nd and goal. (Sherman didn’t identify the personnel package or the protection.)

--------S1---------------------S

CB----W------------M----------B------C
------------E1--T1----T---E
89-----------O--O--O--O--O-----------85
-----83------------O----------80

-------------------30

The Tampa Bay defense was playing a cover two in which the safeties stay back and “get a lot of width”. Sherman drew arrows showing them going deeper and toward their respective sidelines at about a 45 degree angle. He made the point that it was really a three deep zone as their “fast mike linebacker” (M) drops back to the deep middle. So even though it’s called a “Tampa two” (cover two) it may end up being a three deep zone with four underneath (CB, W, B, & C). And on this play, they dropped T1 into coverage to about where M lined up, so the defense on this play was a three deep zone with five underneath. Also on this particular play, M “really cheated” to the wide side of the field toward the offense’s right (the ball was close to the left hash mark) and got a lot of depth. In other words, instead of dropping straight back, M dropped toward where S lined up. Only three defensive linemen rushed the passer on this play

Sherman: “Our receivers have landmarks on this play”. Against zone coverage we want 89 (Ferguson) lining up about four yards from the sideline. Fergy pressed to get outside (to CB’s left), couldn’t get there and came inside and then was able to get back outside. That was critical because they want to hold S1 so he stays to the outside on 89. 85 (Murphy) does the same thing on the other side – his job is to get outside to hold S. Sherman draws 80 and 83's routes: “We’re up in the seam right here”. 80’s (Driver) landmark is the edge of the numbers (yard lines - 10, 20, etc. - drawn on the field and Sherman draws a route that looks like a go route. 83's (Chatman) route looks the same and he, too, uses the edge of the numbers as a landmark. The idea is to stretch the field vertically and horizontally. The RB is a key player on the play. Sherman shows him taking a couple of steps to his right and then running toward where M lined up. His job is to run an option route against M but since M is really playing safety and T1 has taken his place, 30 (Green) runs a route right where M lined up (but where T1 is when he gets there) and then cuts to his right. “If we don’t have it vertically, we have a check down to Ahman Green running away from a defensive tackle”. 83 gets a “great get off” and Favre does a wonderful job of looking off M – that's the reason M “cheats” - goes toward the right of the offense - because Brett "looked him off" in that direction.

On the play, S1 is going to the left and deep, M who ordinarily would be in the deep middle is going deep to the right which, as Larry says on the radio call, “you talk about finding a seam in the Buccaneer zone defense, that seam was about a half a mile wide”. Chatman got behind W on what looked like a “skinny post” route (not a go route) for an easy TD. W, who should have had safety help on the play, made a futile attempt to knock the pass down.

Game Preview: Packer (0-3) at Panthers (1-2)

2005-09-30T15:24:00.000-07:00

by Thomas Pyc
PackerChatters Staff

After three disappointing games the Green Bay Packers have a total of ZERO rushing touchdowns. To add to the underachieving statistics that the Packers have generated to this point is the amount of interceptions the defense has mustered, one. If you cannot run the ball or create turnovers then winning football games is not easy to come by. A total of three points is the difference between a winless team and being above .500 in Green Bay. For the Packers to have success this season they need to execute efficiently. No more driving ending penalties, drive extending penalties (for the opposition), more ball control, more defensive playmaking and some sustainable offensive drives are all areas that this team has to improve in order to turn their season around. Impossible? No. Will this happen sooner than later? Let’s hope.

The Panthers’ Offense vs. The Packers’ Defense

Last week the 5’9” receiver Steve Smith racked up 170 yards and three touchdowns against the Miami Dolphins. Smith shredded the Dolphins’ secondary before and after the catch. Smith’s favorite defense is press coverage, something that the Packers frequently use. After Smith the receiving corps are performing at a mediocre level. Newly acquired Rod Gardner and second year man, Keary Colbert, have the potential to take their game up a notch but have not done so to this point. Quarterback Jake Delhomme is definitely feeling the departure of Mushin Muhammed (Chicago) and appears to be somewhat in a lull. The running back situation has been solid so far this season. Old pro Stephen Davis runs in tandem with DeShaun Foster which brings a thunder and lightning attack to the field. Davis has lost some speed but Foster’s continued development makes up for that. Former Packer, Mike Wahle, will face off against his old teammates and there is little doubt that the Panther’s coaching staff did not pick his brain for the Packers’ offensive tendencies.

Last week, the Packers’ defense held up very well for three and a half quarters versus the Bucs. But in the end the defense wore down and the Cadillac rolled his team to victory. This defense is going to keep getting better with time. Building a cohesive group takes time and practice and Jim Bates has the knowledge and experience to do it. You can see the improvement by Ahmad Carroll and Kenny Peterson. Aaron Kampman and Nick Barnett have raised their play level as well. Offenses are throwing away from Al Harris and noticing that they cannot run through KGB’s side anymore. This week is Na’il Diggs second week back on the field. Both Diggs and fellow outside linebacker Robert Thomas should be working at full speed soon and really start-wreaking havoc on the opposition. Unfortunately for this growing group there are several individuals showing up on the injury report. Carroll, Hawkins, Kampman, Manning, Roman and Thomas are all currently listed.

The Packers’ Offense vs. The Panthers’ Defense

For the second week in a row Favre and Co. will get to face off against a Cover 2 defense. Led by defensive end Julius Peppers this group has playmakers at every level. Middle linebacker Dan Morgan has been healthy and making a difference and in the secondary veteran free safety Mike Minter keeps the group in line and on task. Linebacker Will Weatherspoon is currently listed as questionable but he can also make a difference if the medical staff allows him onto the field. But with as many playmakers as this group has they have surrendered over 22 points in each of their losses. Last week they were lit up for 27 points by the Dolphins who are far from an offensive juggernaut.

If rookie running back Ronnie Brown and journeyman Gus Frerotte can light up the scoreboard on this Panthers’ defense than both Brett Favre and Ahman Green have to be licking their chops at the chance. But with Mike Wahle spilling the beans on the Packer offense it is going to be on Sherman and Rosselly to inject some new twists into the gameplan that will render Wahle’s expertise worthless. The Packers offensive line out weighs the Panthers’ defensive line without their all-pro Kris Jenkins and should have the muscle to open some holes for the running game but the difference is going to be whether or not tight end Bubba Franks and fullback William Henderson are playing well. Those two gentlemen are going to be expected to get to the linebacker level and take them out of the play. For the second week in a row Packer receivers will face cornerbacks without top speed. Hopefully they worked more on the deep ball with Brett this week.

The Bottom Line

An 0-4 start would be traumatic to this team’s ego. Right now, there is still time for the Packers to rebound and make a run at the division. If Favre can stretch the field with Fergie and Driver the running room should improve for Ahman. On the other side of the ball it is all about stopping Steve Smith. Al Harris typically takes the opposition’s number one receiver but Ahmad Carroll matches up better against Smith physically. The game might feature two teams that are under .500 but it has the makings of a great matchup. The Packers can win this game simply by playing mistake free football, something that is easier said than done.

Favre isn't the problem!

2005-09-27T22:27:00.000-07:00

by fan4life
For PackerChatters

Last year I read where one writer chastised the Packers for not bringing in better talent to support Favre. I took offense at the remark, and thought to myself: we have players.

*This year, we lost JWalk in the first game - our only legitimate premier receiver.
*Our remaining starting receivers are legitimate 2nds and 3rds; one of them rapidly putting to rest any doubts about why his greatest value to the team has been on special teams - not at flanker.
*We have a rookie, a born-again never-was and a recovering member of the hot tub club keeping guard on the O-line. It appears that they are improving. Or is it that Favre has given up on 7-step drops, in favor of keeping his tusch off the ground? (Bevell has been seen timing Favre's releases; wants to get them down from 1.3 seconds to 1.2....)
*Perhaps, because of the aforementioned O-line studs, our running game has no punch; without Rivera and Wahle, it appears to have no wiggle, either.
*Yesterday, Ben "hands of" Steele was our best option at TE (excluding the great pretender, #71, of course.) Need I say more?

I look at this team and think, "I finally understand what that writer meant. We have no players."

Yet the offense took on one of the best defenses in the NFL Sunday and somehow managed enough scoring opportunities to win. Sure, they missed some, too. But Favre, Fergy, Donald, Chatman, Murphy, Green and Hendu didn't leave 4 pts on the field. Special Teams did.

Favre hurting this team?

Get real. Go watch some other games. Find another QB who will score 6 points by hitting his #2 (formerly special teams standout) receiver with a perfectly thrown 39-yd pass on 4th-and-4. It surely makes the ESPN highlight reel when it happens.

"Oh, but if he would just manage the game and quit making those risky decisions......"

He'd manage 6 or 7 possessions per game, with exactly 3 plays each. And the highlight of GB football would be watching B J Sander do his thing in the Pro-Bowl.

This team has no margin for error. But that is not Favre's fault. He is a victim of his own success: he lead the team to such success that GB has only had one high draft pick in 10 years; propped up a marginal coach who has ridden him to respectable regular season records, but had his inadequacies exposed in post-season competition; and spoiled a generation of GB fans into believing that there is nothing extraordinary about making the playoffs year after year. In fact, it's Super Bowl or bust.

Favre isn't perfect, so he isn't blameless. But he surely isn't the biggest reason this team is 0-3. Unfortunately, until Ahmad Carroll manages to run into the end zone with his booty, Favre's willingness to try to make something out of nothing may be the only hope that this team won't go 0-16.

Game Review: Bucs 17 Packers 16

2005-09-26T23:24:00.000-07:00

by Mark Lawrence
PackerChatters Staff

Tampa Bay, a 2-0 team on the rise, came to play the Green Bay Packers at Lambeau field. Tampa Bay was favored by 3 points - an insult the Packers have not faced at home in several years, and very few times in the past decade.

Tampa Bay is a team that had been in free fall since their SB win three years ago. However, just before hitting the ground they drafted a rather extrordinary RB, Cadillac Williams. This young man has seemingly single handedly turned the Bucs around.

The Packers are a team that has been an offensive juggernaut for a decade, and struggled on defense for several years. This too has been turned around. The Packers, having hired a new DC and drafted several defensive players, are now playing respectable if not dominating defense. Today, the Packers defense held the Buccs offense to 20-24 points (making allowances for the Bucs shutting down with a two minutes to go at the Packers 20 yards line). More to the point, the Bucs were held to 17 points until the last 5 minutes of the game.

Green Bay's offense is starting a rookie at right guard, a rather pedestrian FA at left guard, and a far less then 100% and possible over the hill veteran at center. There are few things in the NFL that are tolerated less than being soft up the center. Javon Walker, the Packer's pro-bowl WR is lost for the year to an ACL injury. Ahman Green, the Packer's pro-bowl RB, was held to 58 yards on 20 carries, a bit under 3 yards per carry. Traditionally the Packers have handled the Bucs defense with a healthy dose of running. Why so few carries this day?

24 carries, 24 passes for Green Bay, 38 carries, 26 passes for Tampa Bay. Numbers like these make you wonder immediately about time of possession and turnovers. As well they should. Green Bay's 11 possessions resulted in a fumble, TD, 3&out, int, TD, 3&out, bad FG, 6&out, int, FG, int. Two of the three interceptions were off the hands of Green Bay WRs who neither caught the ball nor batted it down. One cannot survive long on offensive performances like this.

Defensively, Green Bay help up well for most of the game, holding Tampa Bay scoreless for a bit over two quarters and holding Cadillac to 80 yards on 24 carries, a very respectable 3.3 yards per rush average. However, in the 4th quarter with the game on the line, the Green bay defense having been on the field for 29 minutes finally folded up, yielding 92 yards in 11 carries to Cadillac for a rather crushing average of 8.3 yards per carry.

What is holding up the 0-3 Packers? There is no long runs to force the safeties up into the box. Green had a long run on the day of 13 yards, and indeed that 13 yard run was his longest of the season to date. Since losing Walker, defenses have had no particular reason to honor the Green Bay long passing game. Playing without a threat of a big offensive play has choked Green Bay's opportunities down to nearly nothing.

The defense continues to improve each game - this game they held the opponent scoreless for a bit over half the game, there were only two plays of over 20 yards given up and both those in the 4th quarter, and the defense committed only 4 penalties, none of which were committed by the defensive backs. Indeed, Ahman Carrol redeamed himself with a very impressive interception.

The Offense continues to sputter due to poor blocking, poor protection, lack of downfield threat, and lack of breakaway speed. The offensive line seems to be slowly improving. However, the loss of playmaker Javon Walker and the poor performance of playmaker Ahman Green have hamstrung this offense. The outlook for improvement is mixed: as the temperature comes down, one can hope that Green's asthma eases up and that his performance improves. As rookie Terrance Murphy improves, one can hope that he can provide a much needed downfield threat. The outlook for winning a game soon is not completely hopeless.

Next up, the Carolina Panthers on MNF. Both teams desperately need a win, the Packers so that they have some hope of salvaging their season, and the Panthers to keep their playoff hopes alive. The Panthers will no doubt be motivated to avenge their rather embarassing home loss to the Packers on MNF a year ago. One must expect that the Las Vegas line will favor the Panthers by about 5 points. However, Packers HC Mike Sherman has a long proven record of winning difficult games in difficult circumstances, especially on the road.

The Future, 2006 and beyond

2005-09-26T18:23:00.000-07:00

by Bamapackerfan
For PackerChatters

We do not have the personnel to do anything this season. Thirteen years of winning football have finally caught up to us. At best we win a very weak division and lose our first playoff game.

I don't care what anyone says, we are rebuilding, and have been doing so since TT came on board. The lack of FA moves, and the moves to fix the cap, along with keeping young ball players instead of veterans for depth confirms that to me. It will take at least another couple of drafts to challenge for a divisional title (assuming we aren't the weakest division in the NFL).

Reckless is right about our personnel. We need players every where. We are going to need a completely new backfield, anywhere from 1-3 new starters on the OL, and a couple of quality DL. We may need another quality DB, as I don't think Harris will be around when ever this team regains it competiveness. The thing about a 3-4 is that it is easier to find LBs than quality DL, and you have a lot of potential special teams players. Even so, you've still got to have good ball players. And the secret to that is simply you have got to draft well. NE had a down year before its SB run and selected Seymour, who anchors the DL. I'd suggest that without him NE wouldn't have won three SBs and maybe not one. We are going to need a couple of drafts and hopefully hit on one.

To me, the key to MS is not the number of wins this year. It is how well he develops the young ball players on the team. If the young guys come along and play well at the end of the year, and seem to be developing, then TT I think will keep him. If the young guys are not developing we need some one else.

I'd like to see Rodgers start to play some, perhaps a series a half, and in any situation in which we are way behind or way ahead.

The Patriots vs. the Packers, Similarities and Differences

2005-09-26T08:40:00.000-07:00

by Rick
For PackerChatters

Numbers-wise, the 2005 Patriots don’t look all that much different than the Packers in several categories. The Patriots have committed 29 penalties for 250 yards. The Packers have committed 28 penalties for 206 yards. The Patriots rank 10th in total defense and 18th in scoring defense, while the Packers rank 16th and 15th respectively. The Patriots have just 1 interception on defense. The Packers have 1 interception on defense. The Patriots’ defense has allowed a 3.4 yards per carry rushing average. The Packers’ run defense has held opponents to 3.3 yards per carry. The Patriots have turned the ball over 6 times. The Packers have turned it over 9 times. The Patriots have one of the NFL’s worst ranked running games, with 64 rushing yards a game and 2.5 yards a carry. The Packers have rushed for 79 yards a game and 3.3 yards per carry. The Patriots have run the ball 25.7 times a game. The Packers have run the ball 24 times a game. Corey Dillon has 160 yards rushing through 3 games. Ahman Green has 170.

Those are quite a few similarities. The primary differences can probably be narrowed down to two factors: The Packers have allowed Joey Harrington, Trent Dilfer, and Brian Griese---three mediocre-at-best quarterbacks---to compile a combined 105.8 passer rating in 3 games, while the Patriots have held Collins, Delhomme, and Roethelisberger to a combined 78.3 passer rating.

The other difference is, of course, the performance of the quarterbacks. Yesterday, for example, Brady went 12 for 12 for 168 yards and no interceptions in the 4th quarter against one of the NFL’s best defenses. Favre was 2 for 6 for 10 yards and 2 interceptions in the 4th quarter against one of the NFL’s best defenses. Brady played brilliantly in the first game against the Raiders. The Patriots lost their only game when Brady played poorly in the 4th quarter of the game against the Panthers (8 of 16 for 62 yards and a lost fumble). But that’s what usually happens: Games usually come down to how well or poorly the quarterbacks play. Especially in crunch time.

And it’s been Brady, the AFC’s current passing yards leader, who has made Belichick look like a genius for 4 years now.

Football 101-Three Jet Toledo

2005-09-25T01:59:00.000-07:00

by Reckless
PackerChatters Staff

Three Jet Toledo

This week’s Play of the Week is Driver’s TD vs. the Browns. Zebra (three WRs, TE and one RB) 3 Jet “which is a term protection”, trips left (formation).

--------S1-------------------S
---------------M--------W
CB-----N----E1----T-----T---E-------C
-----------87--O--O--O--O--O-------89
85----80-------------O

---------------------30

CLE had shown a tendency to play a “two man coverage” on third down, meaning CB was “manning up” (covering) Terrence Murphy (85), N was “manning up” Donald Driver (80) and C was “manning up” Robert Ferguson (89). Also, M was “locked up on” David Martin (87) and W was 'locked up on" Ahman Green (30). In other words, the five receivers were all covered one-on-one by the CBs and the LBs. The two safeties “expanded” to play “half safeties” (on the diagram, Sherman showed the safeties going deeper and toward their respective sidelines in order to play two deep zone.

Sherman, “On this play we pushed 87 through here”. He then drew an arrow going straight up the field. 80 ran what we used to call a “square in”. He “pushed it up” to where N lined up – about 4 yards beyond the line of scrimmage (LOS) - and made a sharp cut to his right. 85 ran a deeper square in – cutting to his right at about the level of where S1 lined up, about 14 yards beyond the LOS. 30 ran a “check wide” to his left (Sherman drew an arrow showing Green going to his left), which drew W to the offense’s left. 89 ran a go route.

Sherman said if Brett sees a single safety defense instead of the 2-deep they anticipate, he can go to 89 who is single covered. Otherwise, they are working the combination on the left side of the formation. He referred to the routes as “levels” 80 runs a route at the first level and 85’s route is at the second level. What happened, Sherman explained, is 87 actually ran a pick (Sherman said he “ran interference”). As N tried to cover 80, he was “rubbed off” and unable to cover 80. Against this defense, 80 is Brett's first read and 85 is his second read. Sherman made the point that something they did well during the game was coverting 3rd downs: They were 10 for 14 on 3rd down including, of course, this play.

The tape showed a couple of discrepancies. First, Sherman said Bubba Franks was the TE when it was Martin. Also, Green didn’t go directly to his left as the diagram showed but stepped forward, angling to his left a little and then came back to help Clifton as E1 got by Clifton’s outside shoulder. The tape showed a big gap open between Clifton (LT) and Klemm (LG) which gave W a clear path to Favre. But he followed Green as he went to block E1. The threat of Green going to the left flat kept him from rushing Brett.

The play took longer to develop than the diagram indicated. Brett took a 5-step drop. The ball was placed on the left hash mark and Driver lined up more than 10 yards to the left of that hash mark. He caught the ball about 5-yards to the right of the right hash mark. The tape did show that the two defenders almost ran into each other and M definitely got in N’s way. It also showed 87’s route – he kind of worked his way up field but to the inside a little. It wasn’t a “clean” route.

The play worked because of the pick (which certainly was legal by the way) but it turned into a TD because Robert Ferguson sustained his block downfield for a very long period of time.

Game Preview: Buccaneers (2-0) vs. Packers (0-2)

2005-09-24T00:33:00.000-07:00

by Thomas Pyc
PackerChatters Staff

The Battle of the Bays is back again for the first time since November 2003. The two teams enter this game with opposite momentum but obviously similar goals, winning this game. Winning games in Packer country is the only acceptable way to play (or coach) in Green Bay and unfortunately that’s not the way the season has started. Down in Tampa, people are talking about getting back to the Super Bowl. A sound football philosopher would tell you that you need to run the ball and play good defense to win on Sundays, the Bucs are definitely doing both those things very well. But no game in the NFL is a foregone conclusion in these days of parity and that’s why they play on Sunday.

The Buccaneers’ Offense vs. The Packers’ Defense

Tampa Bay’s offense has been running as smooth as a Cadillac this season, one they got right off the NFL Draft lot. Carnell “Cadillac” Williams has been a solid contributor to their attack and currently leads the NFL in rushing. The kid runs hard, fast and without regard for anyone’s health including his own. Head coach, John Gruden, used plenty of beef last week and grounded out a victory against the Buffalo Bills. The Bucs do have some threats in the passing game with second-year man Michael Clayton, speedy vet Joey Galloway and surprising rookie tight-end Alex Smith but quarterback Brian Griese has not been put into two many tough situations. Between Griese and an overachieving offensive line there is room for error on the offensive side of the ball.

Jim Bates’ defense followed up a pleasant performance with one bad enough to give Packer fans a migraine. Shoddy tackling, miscommunication and a lack of playmaking caused this group’s progress to stop. Another shaky performance might send them directly into reverse. Na’il Diggs will be on the field for the first time this season and his contributions are definitely needed.

The entire Packers front seven will need to be on top of their game and ready to get physical if they want to slow the Buccaneer running attack. The importance of group tackling in order to slow down Williams was hopefully stressed early and often this week and practice. An important key to putting themselves in a position to take on Williams as a team will be coping with the heavy dose of motion and shifting the Bucs’ offense uses. Rookie safety Nick Collins and fellow safety Mark Roman have to work to alleviate the communication problems that put the Packers at a disadvantage last week.

The Packers’ Offense vs. the Buccaneers’ Defense

Brett Favre is not talking like he cares about the history he is currently making but if the Packers offense cannot put together some clock-consuming scoring drives those historical records might be the only positive thing fans have to talk about after this year.

The Green Bay offense looks exactly like an offense that has two new guards and is missing their top wide receiver should look like, impotent. Now tight end Bubba Franks is listed and questionable (has yet to practiced this week) and disappointing veteran David Martin will be expected to help the Packers’ rushing attack improve. Speaking of disappointing veterans, wide receiver Robert Ferguson needs to help keep the opposition from cheating up on the running game. Ferguson has lacked any sort of consistent contribution that is going to be necessary for the Packers’ offense to give opposing defenses unfavorable matchups.

In Tampa, defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin has his group leading the NFL in defense. The unit as a whole has been fast and physical. Former Vikings’ defensive lineman Chris Hovan has reinvented himself as a threat to offenses in Kiffin’s defense. The front four of the Buccaneers is playing better than any other defensive line in the NFL. The linebackers (lead by Pro Bowler Derrick Brooks) are filling accordingly and creating turnovers and using the Cover 2 approach Kiffin has solidified a slow-than-average secondary. Well-timed pressure and playing with an attitude is what gives this unit its identity. From defensive end Simeon Rice to Super Bowl MVP safety Dexter Jackson this unit appears to be ready to make Tampa Bay a serious contender early in the 2005 season.

The Bottom Line

The Packers’ rushing attack has to have a great game to pull up Tampa’s safeties and allow for Donald Driver and friends to give Favre an opportunity to attack down the field. On defense, the Packers obligation to the run might put them in a position to give up plays in the passing game. They cannot afford to give Brian Griese the time that Trent Dilfer had last week to pick apart the secondary. The defensive line has to have a stellar performance.

Football 101-Three Jet Double Go Zebra Arrow

2005-09-20T05:21:00.000-07:00

by Reckless
PackerChatters Staff

Three Jet Double Go Zebra Arrow

This is the first “play of the week” from a regular season game. Unfortunately it didn’t result in a TD and even more unfortunate, this is the play on which Javon Walker was injured. It was called on third down. This is the play call: East Right (formation) Minus (RB is in “minus” position) Three Jet (personnel) Double Go (two “go” routes) Zebra Arrow (83’s route).

----------S1------------------S
-------------B1----E*-----B----N
C1-------E1-----T------E-------------CB
80--------O--O--O--O--O------83
----------------O--------??----------84
---
---------RB

Mike Sherman did not put any of these numbers on the board, I have included them in an attempt to make it easier to describe the play. I could not identify the player who lined up at the “??” position. It may have been Robert Ferguson or more likely a fullback, since "three jets", 80, 83, and 84 were already on the field but I just couldn’t tell.

Detroit had shown a tendency to play “middle safety” (one deep safety) on 3rd and medium and Sherman called this play anticipating that would be the defense on this play. Detroit lined up in “two shell” (two safeties deep, or cover two) but at the snap they brought S1 “down weak” (came toward the line of scrimmage (LOS) on the weak side of the formation) to “marry up” (cover) the RB and S went to the deep middle (deep behind T). The CBs were “locked up in man coverage” so Sherman got the defense he was anticipating.

B and N “banjo” the routes of 83 (Chatman) and ??. This coverage is like a “switch” in basketball where two defenders simultaneously switch to cover the other’s man. It’s man-to-man coverage with B covering the “inside” route (of either ?? or 83) and N covering the outside route of either. This coverage is designed to prevent the defenders from being “picked”. Again, a “pick” in basketball is a good analogy: If B was supposed to cover ?? and N was supposed to cover 83 no matter what and ?? and 83 did a cross, the defenders might run into one another. Switching allows them to avoid hitting each other and the “other” receiver.

Sherman said Detroit ran a “spinner” defense with E1, B1, T, E*, and E all rushing the passer on this play. By the way, E* is a rush end lined up as a linebacker. RB (Green) picked up B1 and although T got some penetration, Favre had time to throw.

80 (Driver) and 84 (Walker) each ran “go” routes and run straight down the field. ?? ran a basic crossing route: He looped behind where 83 lined up and ran to whereS lined up and then cut toward the middle of the field (to his left), about 10 yards beyond the LOS. 83 ran a "zebra arrow" route. He makes it look like he’s running a “drive route” by looping toward where E* lined up. By “looping” I mean 83 doesn’t make a “square”, 90 degree, cut as ?? does on his cut where S was lined up. Instead he ran a “rounded” route. His job is to sell the defenders on the idea that he’s going to continue to his left. When he gets to about where E* lined up he stopped and went to his right, parallel to the LOS and just a couple of yards beyond the LOS. By faking an inside route and then going toward the right flat, he “gains leverage” on B.

84 (Walker) is single-covered and he “presses” the CB, “stacked him” and went right by him. By “stacked him” I believe Sherman is referring to a fake Walker made - as if he was going to break to the inside. Sherman comments that he didn’t see Walker commit the penalty he was called for. He saw the CB reach out for Walker and Walker just pushed his hands away. Walker beat the one-on-one coverage and caught the pass and was forced out of bounds inside Detroit's 5-yard line.

The Sharper Analogy, For those who feel Favre hurts us

2005-09-20T02:11:00.000-07:00

by losangelis
PackerChatters Staff

I did some thinking lately. The latest barrage of Favre-is-bad really made me sit and think about the arguments. As usual, I can only express myself intelligently in analogy, so allow me to go...

Last season, the argument was presented that Favre threw too many interceptions for us to win, and we needed a more efficient, safe passer, like Tom Brady.

This argument suddenly hit the skids when it was pointed out that Tom Brady finished with 14 interceptions (which was above the magic interception total, which was then raised slightly).

Then, the argument switched to Favre threw too many interceptions in the POST-season (not to be confused with the regular season, where it apparently now was okay to throw interceptions).

Now, it being the regular season, the argument has come back, except what we hear now is that Favre shouldn't throw ANY interceptions. Why? Because he is a highly-paid leader that eats up too much salary cap room to throw interceptions.

I gave this some thought.

True, he is a leader, and should be expected to live up to his pay. After all, every player for the Packers who has signed a lucrative contract in the past several seasons has lived up to that contract, with the exception of Favre, of course.

Ha. Done.

Interceptions are an accepted part of the game. Even the most thrifty of passers must still expect to throw one at least every other game, and most nearly one a game, if not more.

Last year, Brett Favre finished fifth in interceptions in the league (17). However, he finished 14th in interception percentage (3.1%). That's about middle of the pack, and goes to prove that Brett is again throwing the ball too often. By the way, his percentage was better than Matt Hasselback's, Ben Rothlisburger's, and Michael Vick's, and Tom Brady's was 3.0%.

In addition, he was 10th in passer rating (92.4), 5th in yardage, and 4th in touchdowns.

Yes, yes, yes...the anti-Favre excuse-o-meter kicks in. He had a great o-line, he had all-pros all around him, the sun was in all the other quarterbacks' eyes.

His one bugaboo, however, seemed to have some positive balance. Towanda made the comment earlier today that 2 goods for 1 bad isn't good enough. Luckily for Brett, with an interception percentage of 3.0%, his percentage of goods/bads is much better than that.

Anyway, I digress. The Sharper analogy.

Last season, the Packers ranked 15th in giveaways (27). About middle of the pack.

Last season, the Packers ranked LAST in takeaways (15). That's LAST, if you missed it.

So, let's do the Favre analogy on last year's defense.

It is suggested that, because Favre is an overpaid leader, that his interceptions make us a worse team.

So, let's look at last year's miserable defense, which, if interceptions and turnovers are the end-all, be-all, should be just as important to us winning games as making other teams lose.

(Of course, this isn't actually true. Turnovers only affect Brett Favre and the Packers.)

So, we had an overpaid defensive leader last season, who did not produce many turnovers. Yep, Darren Sharper, a former all-pro, a former team leader and playmaker, had 4 only interceptions. Sure, two were returned for touchdowns, but screw it...he didn't make enough of them.

He's an overpriced player making too many dumb plays and not enough turnovers.

And remember, turnovers make the world go round.

So, what do we do? We get rid of him. Ha ha! That will show him, that overpriced leader, that if you don't get enough turnovers, we will use that money elsewhere!! Ha ha! We win!

Except...

We now have 0 takeaways in two games. If you are an expert mathmatician, you can calculate we are on pace to have 0 takeaways for the year. More math: that is less than the 15 we had last season.

BUT...at least we're not overpaying the person to NOT make interceptions!!!!

Yes, sir, Nick Collins will drop interceptions that fall into his lap! But, he's not being overpaid to do it, so it's okay.

Mark Roman will fall on his face being faked out by a tight end still 10 yards away, but at least we're not overpaying for it!!!

In other words, we're happier with low-priced mediocrity. Right?

This is the odd disease I fear with Brett Favre. People are on some sort of agenda to prove his four interceptions this year make him such a liability to the team, that they are unwilling to take into account the positives that he contributes.

But, we can also get rid of Favre. And Rodgers or Nall can come into the starting role and throw 14-17 interceptions themselves.

BUT...at least we wouldn't be overpaying for the interceptions!!!

Good grief! Are we shopping for our players at Wal-Mart???

Do you honestly think that Nall is going to be able to do any better if asked to pass 44 times a game? Do you honestly think Rodgers is going to not throw interceptions when the running game is abandoned, and defenses can sit back and wait for the ball? Do you honestly think either guy can truly lead the team in a better way than Favre?

Do you honestly think that Brett's two interceptions were the sole reason we lost last week?

This latest argument from the Favre Hate Agenda is simply ludicrous, and as soon as this is read, the agenda will switch to something else to paint a black mustache on the face of #4.

Does he take up a good chunk of salary cap room? Absolutely.

Did the Minnesota Vikings prove that if you go out and spend $15 million dollars on defensive free agents, your team is instantly better? Well, in the offseason, sure, but funny how money doesn't buy a good team when you actually get on the field. Or leaders.

I've always said that Favre shoulders a good share of blame in a loss. He takes some blame for two throws he'd like to have back against the Browns.

But to classify what he did in the second half as "garbage time" is biased and unfair.

To say his interceptions are hurting the team is true. To say they are the biggest reason this team is losing is complete and utter bias.

I have no problem with people stating opinions about Brett, suggesting that he's washed up, too old or crippled, too distracted to lead the team. Who knows, you might be right. I just wish this team had half his fight in them.

But you better be prepared to place Aaron Rodgers under the same intense microscope that Favre is under. I know I will place the same expectations on Rodgers that people do on Favre, counting his every misread and dumb throw, keeping a tally of his interceptions, and posting his efficiency rating in my signature.

I really don't care how much salary cap room he takes up. If a quarterback is to blame for the entire loss if he throws an interception, then that is the expectation for the heir apparent, too.

If that sounds unfair and immature, you're absolutely right.

Game Review: Browns @ Packers

2005-09-20T00:51:00.000-07:00

by Mark Lawrence
PackerChatters Staff

The lowly Browns (30-66 since rejoining the NFL) came to Lambeau field, in what looked like a good tune-up game for the Packers. The Browns, quarterbacked by Trent Dilfer (0-7 in Lambeau field), are perhaps the least talented team in pro football. Their only noteworthy assets would be new wide receiver Braylon Edwards and new coach Romeo Crennel.

Meanwhile, the Packer, coming off a very painful loss in Detroit, were misfiring on all eight cylinders. The part-new secondary continued with their well established inability to play an effective zone coverage. The new linebackers are also having assignment troubles. The new o-line is having problems with pass protection, with run blocking that involves pulling, and with the Packers signature U-71 package. In addition, the Packers are effectively playing without two of their three play makers: wide receiver Javon Walker is out for the year with a torn ACL, and running back Ahman Green is apparently struggling with asthma and is unable to play more than a couple quarters of football.

Romeo Crennel, previously the defensive coordinator for the New England Patriots, has well established tendencies and put these to good use against the Packers. The Patriots believe in defending run downs and passing downs very differently. For running downs, they favor the 3-4 alignment with seven DLs and LBs in the box. For passing downs, they favor either a 4-3 alignment with 4 DLs rushing the passer, or a quarter package where they rush three, put a linebacker into close coverage, and drop seven into a cover-two zone defense. Crennel's philosophy is clearly that top NFL quarterbacks are rarely phased by the blitz anymore, so he rarely blitzes. Instead, he doubles every receiver and waits for the Bledsoes, Mannings, Roethlisbergers and Favres of this world to make their inevitable mistakes.

The listless Packers continued their offensive ineffectiveness left over from the Detroit game for three quarters. With Green unable to shoulder more than a half load, and Walker unavailable to stretch the field, Crennel's job was to stop the run, bull rush Favre, and drop so many men into zones that where ever Favre looked there were two defenders salivating over the prospects of an interception.

The Packers OL continued their poor run blocking, limiting Green to 54 yards on 16 carries, a very pedestrian 3.4 yards per carry average with a long run of 10 yards. This kind of running game will never pull a safety up into the box and free up the middle of the field. One could hope that in time the Packers running game would take its toll on the defenders; unfortunately Green ran out of breath before the defense. So much for a dominating running game.

In pass protection, the Browns said they found looking at tape that the Packers center and guards could be bull rushed. The Packers OL was considerably better in pass protection than against Detroit, but still Favre was hurried and moderately harassed by the 3 or 4 man rush, and his receivers proved completely unable to beat the 7 and 8 man zones for three full quarters.

On defense, the Packers held up reasonably well. On the last play of the Browns first drive, Packers DC Jim Bates grew frustrated by his DLs inability to reach Dilfer. This frustration was a bit difficult to understand - in the previous week the Browns faced the far stronger defense of the Ravens, and did not yield a single sack. None the less, Bates called for a blitz. The Packers DBs spend essentially all their practice time working on press and man coverage, and seem completely clueless in a zone. Sure enough, when called upon to play a zone behind a blitz, they promptly lost track of the Browns TE and gave up an easy TD. However, that mistake was not repeated for a long time - for the next 40 minutes of football, the Packers defense was able to keep the Browns out of the end zone, and keep the game to a one score difference.

The Packers all but lifeless offense, however, was completely unable to produce points. Their next 6 possessions ended in an interception, a false start / punt, a bull rush sack and punt, 3 and out, an interception in the end zone, and a botched snap and pair of incompletions followed by a field goal,

Most of this time, the Packers bend but don't break defense bent but didn't break, holding the score to a very manageable 13 to 7. Unfortunately, in spite of the earlier lesson, a blitz was called in the late third quarter, and 12 year veteran Trent Dilfer was inexplicably able to pick it up and exploit the Packers zone confusion, resulting in an 80 yard score and a lead of 19 to 7 (extra point blocked).

The Packers offense, after some 8 quarters of near complete ineffectiveness, finally found a rhythm and managed to score a field goal and a touchdowns - doubly impressive when you figure in that they had to eliminate the false start penalties, stop the Browns bull rush, and work with no running back (Ahman was all but completely unavailable in the second half apparently due to the aforementioned asthma) and no deep threat WR. In the middle of the fourth quarter, the score was a very competitive 19 to 17, and the game was suddenly looking very winnable.

Then another blitz. They say in the NFL "Live by the blitz, die by the blitz." My response is that for the last 18 games, the Packers blitzing is the football equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with Dirty Harry's .44 magnum. The Packers third blitz on the day resulted in a third Browns TD on the day, another quick pass to the TE outlet receiver and a 57 yard TD. This time we were treated to the sight of 355 pound Grady Jackson being the only Packer trying to chase down the TE. Although Favre was able to marshall up the troupes for another touchdown, it was a case of too little too late.

Absent the three poorly thought out and ill-fated blitzes, the Packers defense held the Browns to 50 yards on 20 carries, and 18/21 for about 200 yards. These are perfectly reasonable numbers. But three big mistakes, three big plays, one painful loss.

The Packers have proven completely inept at playing zone, which means they are completely unable to blitz. I don't see this as a major problem: it's very difficult to rattle experienced NFL quarterbacks with a blitz package, but the Patriots have shown clearly that it's very to stop even Payton Manning with 8 men in coverage. The Packers have more than enough man power to implement this strategy: CBs Carroll, Harris, Thomas, and Horton are quite accomplished at playing the press front end of such a package, and safeties Roman, Little, and Collins should be very adequate to back them up, leaving Barnett to roam the middle of the field for quick runs or outlet passes. It's completely beyond me why a bend but don't break defense doesn't fall back on this very tried and true defense against top notch passers.

Next week, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, rising phoenix-like from the ashes of their post-SB self destruction, come to Green Bay. The Bucs are excellent at playing the cover-2 zones that have historically given Favre so much trouble, and with Green most likely unavailable for 25+ carries the Packers will not be able to wear down the undersized Bucs front four. The outlook for the Packers scoring more than 17 points is poor. Fortunately, the Bucs have a below average passing game, and the Packers are not too bad at stopping the run. If we manage to make it through a game without feeling lucky and blowing our defensive heads clean off, it should be very possible to limit the Bucs offense to 13 to 17 points. The Packers have all the tools it takes to win this game, if they play smart and stay patient.

The Packers also have all the tools they need to lose this game, if they force passes and call blitzes in an artificial panic.

Point: Counterpoint:

2005-09-19T16:53:00.000-07:00

by Rick
For PackerChatters

Point:

Most of us expected the D to be problematic. It won’t get better overnight.

Counterpoint:

So Bates is off the hook because he’s the new DC, and expecting immediate results with limited talent is expecting too much. I completely agree.

Point:

But the O? The one unit on the team that most thought would have the fewest issues, has performed lousy against two of the poorest Ds in the league (you see, your argument works both ways). There’s NO excuse for the poor O play. I don’t care if we’re missing 2 Pro bowl guards - that’s no excuse.

Counterpoint:

So Larry Beightol has no excuse for failing to immediately remake Klemm and Whitticker into Pro Bowl caliber guards? Why doesn’t your “it won’t get better overnight” approach apply with Beightol and his ability to “coach up” our new guards?

By the way, I, for one, expected the offense to regress this year without Wahle and Rivera. Now that we’ve lost Walker, our 2nd best playmaker on the team, my expectations for the offense have taken another huge hit.

Point:

We lost Taylor and Timmerman before and it didn’t kill us.

Counterpoint:

In 1998, after we lost Taylor, the Packers’ rushing attack averaged 3.4 yards per carry, 29th in the league, 95 rushing yards a game (25th), and Brett threw 23 interceptions. In 1999, after we lost Timmerman too, our rushing attack averaged 94.9 rushing yards a game and Brett threw 23 interceptions. But back in 1997, with both Taylor and Timmerman as our guards, the Packers finished 12th (119.3 yards per game) in rushing yards and 11th (4.2) in yards per attempt, and Brett threw 16 interceptions. The Packers also allowed only 26 sacks in 1997. They allowed 39 and 36 in ’98 and ’99. While losing Timmerman and Taylor didn’t “kill us,” I think there’s chance that breaking in two new guards in two years probably disrupted the chemistry on that line. But now we’re breaking in two new guards in the SAME year, with one being a journeyman and the other a rookie. And the guys they’re replacing were, unlike Timmerman and Taylor, some of the best regarded in the NFL at their positions. Already Brett’s been sacked 6 times in 2 games, and he’s been knocked down 10 other times, and our running game has petered out by the second half of each game. I think it’s quite possible there’s a connection.

Point:

Fact of the matter is, this offense is REGRESSING under Mike Sherman’s "leadership".

Counterpoint:

Brett’s getting older, talking openly about retirement yet again. Henderson is nearly washed up. Walker is out for the year. Flanagan looks like his injuries have finally caught up with him, and he maybe on a downward spiral. We have two very mediocre guards who replaced two excellent ones. We have only one legitimate starting receiver. Those are some of the reasons why this offense is likely to continue to regress in 2005. Look, Minnesota lost Moss and Birk, and now see what’s happened over there (Culpepper has 10 turnovers, 0 TD passes). That’s the impact that even ONE player can make. I’d expect that Green will have trouble running all season. The fact that the Packers currently rank 9th in total offense and are tied for 3rd in 3rd down conversion percentage (50%) is astonishing considering how poorly they’ve played on offense.

The Packers have lost 4 Pro Bowl players since last season. Take away 4 Pro Bowlers from any team and you’re likely to see some regression. That’s because when you don’t have the players, when you don’t have the talent, it’s difficult to perform well or win. That applies to Bates and Beightol (whom you like, because they're high-energy types) as much as it applies to Sherman and Rossley (whom you don't, because they're not).

(Rick's response to a post in our Forums)

TACKLES in 2005, Defensive Analysis

2005-09-16T20:08:00.000-07:00

by joepackjoe
For PackerChatters

In my limited experience, the players who make tackles can say a lot about the quality of the defensive effort as a team.

The best situation is when the Defensive Linemen make the tackles. The entire defense is usually designed so that the Linebackers amass the highest totals, and when they DON'T, it's easier to conclude there is a problem. If the LBs have the most tackles, IMO, the yards per carry stat can tell us whether they're making tackles facing the opponent's goaline, or chasing after a ball carrier downfield.

I think if the Free Safety is making more tackles than the Strong Safety, you've got a poor pass defense, meaning you're letting the receivers catch the ball versus "bringing someone up on running plays". I might be totally wrong about that.

Looking at last year's stats, we saw,

Nick Barnett total 123 tackles.
an average of 7.66 per game

Na'il Diggs total 80 tackles
an average of 5 per game

Mark Roman total 72 tackles
an average of 4.5 per game

Darren Sharper total 70 tackles
an average of 4.375 per game

Aaron Kampman total 67 tackles
an average of 4.1875 per game

Al Harris total 62 tackles
an average of 3.875 per game

Ahmad Carroll total 49 tackles
an average of 3.0625 per game

Michael Hawthorne total 49 tackles
an average of 3.0625 per game

Hannibal Navies total 47 tackles
an average of 2.975 per game

KGB total 47 tackles
an average of 2.975 per game

Bhawoh Jue total 42 tackles
an average of 2.625 per game

Cletidus Hunt total 32 tackles
an average of 2 per game

Paris Lenon total 28 tackles
an average of 1.75 per game

Corey Williams total 23 tackles
an average of 1.4375 per game

Grady Jackson total 23 tackles
an average of 1.4375 per game

Joey Thomas total 19 tackles
an average of 1.1875 per game

Jason Horton total 19 tackles
an average of 1.1875 per game

Cullen Jenkins total 18 tackles
an average of 1.125 per game

Ben Steele total 15 tackles
an average of less than 1 per game

R-Kal Truluck total 13 tackles
an average of less than 1 per game

William Henderson total 11 tackles
an average of less than 1 per game

So then we're definitively into the Special Teams' tackles.

We can see we had a back-up TE record more tackles (on special teams) than our back-up DE... supposedly a "pass rushing specialist".

Ouch.

We can see we had defensive backfield (Sharper, Roman, Harris, Carroll, Hawthorne, Jue) accounted for 342 tackles. That's just under 33% of the team total. Considering that we had the worst defense in terms of giving up the greatest number of long TD plays (which would plays that NO one tackled anyone), that tells me that they basically got worked, week in and week out.

Kampman (67) by himself was more productive than Hunt and Grady combined (55). If you consider that Hunt sat for 4 games, substituted by Corey Williams, we could add 50% of Williams' total to the mix (11.5) and Kampman STILL was more productive than both DTs...

Ouch.

KGB had 13.5 sacks, which means that 33.5 of his take-downs were NOT sacks.

That's more productive than either Hunt or Grady... and a little better than 50% of what Kampman does "against the run".

Our starting LBs combined for 250 tackles, less than 25% of the team total.

Ouch. That means that Barnett (one player) was about as productive as the other two LBs... combined.

If you consider that he plays on "all 3 downs", while the others play on 2-3 downs (Diggs) and 1 down (Navies), then it MIGHT make a little sense. When you consider that other teams were running outside (to avoid our "stout" interior in Hunt and Grady), then our outside LBs should have had more tackles last year, IMO.

Considering that the opponents' average per carry versus these guys was
4.6 yds/carry...
I think that the low totals for our LBs denote a serious problem was afoot.

Considering that the opponents' average passing completion was for
7.61 yds...
I think that opponents were able to drive on the Packers at will.

Think about it...

If the opponent ran the ball three times... the average was a total of 14 yards and a new first down.

If the opponent threw the ball three times... the average was a completion 60% of the time (314 completions to 518 attempts). That's ALMOST two out of three, and it's DEFINITELY 3 out of 5.

That means that the average series for the opponents (if they ONLY threw the ball) was advancing about 23 yards every five plays. If they ONLY ran the ball, it was to advance about 23 yards every five plays... on average.

Looking at the first game against the Lions, we saw

Mark Roman total 10 tackles

Nick Barnett total 9 tackles

Aaron Kampman total 5 tackles

Robert Thomas total 5 tackles

Colin Cole total 5 tackles

Paris Lenon total 4 tackles

KGB total 4 tackles

Cullen Jenkins total 3 tackles

Al Harris total 3 tackles

Robert Ferguson total 3 tackles

Roy Manning total 2 tackles

Mike Montgomery total 2 tackles

Kenny Peterson total 2 tackles

Brady Poppinga total 2 tackles

Joey Thomas total 2 tackles

Corey Williams total 2 tackles

Ahmad Carroll total 1 tackle

Nick Collins total 1 tackle

Rob Davis total 1 tackle

Grady Jackson total 1 tackle

Earl Little total 1 tackle, and

William Whitticker total 1 tackle.

We punted 6 times, and kicked off twice. That's a total of 8 tackles on special teams, and 2 more from INTs... as well as 2 more from lost fumbles.

So, defensively, we had 59 tackles against the Lions.

The starting LBs accounted for 18, or just under 31%.

All the DBs accounted for 17, or just under 29%.

The entire D-line accounted for 25, or just under 43%.

I know it's MUCH too early to extend these totals or percentages into season-long averages.

I also know that averages do NOT tell the story completely.

I also know that statistics can be manipulated.

My thinking in posting this information (and my very simplistic reactions to it) is that my expectations for the 2005 defense are not to be the best in the NFL, the NFC, or necessarily our division, the hallowed NFC Norris.

I expect this defense to tackle better, to NOT give up as many disastrous long-play "just threw Brett Favre in a 'come-back' position" TDs, and to give up fewer first downs to our opponents.

I think the personnel that we have on defense is already better than last year, and I think they'll improve as the season progresses.

I think the D-line will get better, and that the secondary is ALREADY better than what we saw last year.

I'm anxious to see Robert Thomas play with more knowledge about his responsibilities, and to see how Diggs recovers from his injury.

I'll try to keep up with this info during the season, and hopefully it'll lead me to conclude that the defense is realistically helping our team to win.

Anybody else who's interested is more than welcome to intercede with defensive stats they think pertinent.

Game Preview: Browns @ Packers

2005-09-16T09:52:00.000-07:00

by Thomas Pyc
PackerChatters Staff

The Cleveland Browns (0-1) at the Green Bay Packers (0-1)

After a disappointing opening weekend at Ford Field the Green Bay Packers might be getting just what the doctor ordered when the Cleveland Browns arrive at Lambeau Field. The Packers not only managed to not manufacture a single touchdown with a penalty prone attack they also lost their star wide-receiver, Javon Walker, for the year to a devastating ACL injury. Cleveland enters this game in full rebuilding mode complete with a new coaching staff, general manager, defensive scheme, defensive personnel, starting quarterback, and starting running back. The Browns’ enter this season with 26 new players on the roster in total.

The Packers’ Offense vs. The Browns’ Defense

The Browns’ have worked all summer to put new head coach Romeo Crennel’s 3-4 defensive scheme (three defensive linemen and four linebackers) into place. The glaring problem with the Browns’ defense is the lack of talent it can put on the field. The three starting defensive linemen were very ineffective versus the Bengals mainly because they are undersized. Defensive tackle Orpheus Roye is arguably the Browns biggest defensive threat but with little else to worry about he will constantly be double-teamed this year. Behind the front three is a group of linebackers with some excellent athletic ability but have more working against them (the small front line and new scheme) than with them. A good combination of time, practice and better players in front of them will eventually allow this unit to thrive but probably not this week. In the secondary the only thing close to a household name is cornerback Gary Baxter (signed from Baltimore this offseason) but he remains questionable for Sunday after suffering a concussion during the preseason. A familiar foe for Packer fans is free safety Brian Russell (formerly a Viking) who is now starting for the Browns but has not quite cured the problem of missing tackles.

Without Javon Walker on the field for the Packers’ offense the two wide receivers out of Texas A&M are going to have to showcase the talent that got them drafted into the NFL in the second round. Fifth year veteran Robert Ferguson and rookie Terrence Murphy will get an excellent opportunity to start getting in tune with Brett Favre this Sunday. Ferguson made several comments this offseason regarding his readiness to become a legitimate number one receiver in the NFL. Now’s the time number eighty-nine!

The only thing that should restrict the Packers from getting a decent amount of work with the two Aggies is going to be the irresistible opportunity to control the ball (and clock) by running right at Cleveland’s defense. The standard way to attack a 3-4 defense is to run right at them. And with the lack of size on Cleveland’s front line it only makes sense to maintain that standard. In addition, Ahman Green averaged 4.8 yards per carry last week against Detroit before the running game was prematurely abandoned by the offensive playcallers.

The Browns’ Offense vs. The Packers’ Defense

Former Giants’ running back from the 80s, Maurice Carthon, has more to work with talent-wise than the other side of the his team’s depth chart. Of course, that’s including quarterback Trent Dilfer who has won as many Super Bowls as Brett Favre. Outside of that Super Bowl season Dilfer has never been more than a serviceable backup and has thrown more interceptions in his career than touchdowns (96 TDs to 107 INTs). New GM, Phil Savage, picked up two impact players in the offseason in running back Reuben Droughns (1,240 yards for Denver last year) and wide receiver Antonio Bryant who possesses solid receiving ability is starting to blossom. The Browns’ offensive line is adequate and consists of mostly veterans with the exception of second year center Jeff Faine who has not lived up to his first round stature. Last week the Browns tried to spread out the Bengals defense using three or more receivers which was a curveball from the two-back sets they had been using during the preseason. Who knows what’s in store for the Packers’ defense this week?

The bright spot (if you saw one) last week against the Lions’ last week for the Packers had to be the overall play of the defense. But do not start thinking that onlookers will see the same performance from this unit this week because last year’s ‘new’ defensive scheme also looked good during the first week of the season but failed miserably in the long run. If defensive coordinator, Jim Bates, wants to win over Packer nation he’s going to have to keep this unit performing on a consistent basis with the solid fundamentals he preaches. Both middle linebacker Nick Barnett and safety Mark Roman racked up 11 tackles last week and might have had their best games as Packers.

But to go along with the good is the bad. The unanimous decision is in and cornerback Ahmad Carroll was definitely the ‘bad’ last week. Whether you place the blame for his four-penalty performance on him or his reputation with the referees is your call but the Packers can ill afford to let that continue. The Packer depth chart still appears undecided between Carroll and fellow second year corner Joey Thomas. The logical choice is clear after Week 1. A couple other changes showed up on the defensive side of the depth chart this week, Cullen Jenkins is the other starting tackle next to Grady Jackson and recent acquisition, linebacker Robert Thomas, has moved into the starting role for the weakside linebacking position. Time for episode two of the Jim Bates’ experiment.

The Bottom Line

The Packers cannot afford to let the Browns think they can play with them at home, especially not this early in the season. The majority of the NFL analysts have went on record saying that Green Bay is in decline and after losing Javon Walker the chance of that being a legitimate claim only increases. Head coach Mike Sherman needs to realize that he abandoned the running game too early last week and he can control this game by sticking with it from start to finish. The aforementioned undersized defensive line of the Brown’s will only get worse as the game goes on and they start to wear down from the Packers front line (who could also use a confidence boost). Overall, there’s several ways Packers can outshine the Browns but the most beneficial way is going to be with Ahman Green’s legs

The Idealizing of Jim Bates and the Coaching Influence

2005-09-16T05:57:00.000-07:00

by Rick
For PackerChatters

Because I tend to be a glass-half-full fan when it comes to discussing the Packers, I generally try to shy away from a lot of naysaying. But while there seems to be quite a bit of optimism about the Packers’ defense that has swelled ever since Sherman hired Jim Bates, I am not convinced that it is his presence alone that will catapult the Packers’ defense from the shameful to the respectable. That is not to say that I think the Packers’ defense won’t improve this next year under his direction, even with many of the same players. I do. But if and when the defense does improve, I think giving all or even most of the credit to the influence of Jim Bates is probably overdoing it.

Defense as system
Why? First of all, it should be noted that the nature of defense is that each player is very dependent upon his teammates to do their jobs so that he can do his job. Defense is very system dependent---probably more so than offense. It's the nature of offense to find a weakness and attack it, so if even one defensive player can't cover well, doesn't tackle well, doesn't know his assignments, etc., it negatively affects the play of the rest of his defensive teammates, as they have to scramble to cover up the weaknesses rather than play their game.

That's probably what happened last year with Carroll (and Hawthorne) replacing the solid, well above average McKenzie as the team's top cornerback. Sharper and Roman had to not only play their positions, they had to keep an eye on their inexperienced, grabby teammate. Can one player make that kind of a difference in how well the rest of the defense performs? Yes. And the opposite can be true as well---when a good player is added, it can have ripple effect on the entire defense. Consider the example of Grady Jackson, a good, solid player at an important position for any defense. In 2003, the Packer defense had ranked 30th in total defense through the first 8 games of the season. Their run defense was abysmal, and their pass defense was worse. But then Grady Jackson was claimed off waivers in the middle of the season to replace the ailing Gilbert Brown, and the Packers jumped from 30th to 17th in total defense over the course of just the next 8 games. KGB played better. Cletidus Hunt played better. Harris and McKenzie played better. With the same coaches and same scheme, the Packers' defense went from allowing 117.3 rushing yards per game and 4.4 yards per carry without Jackson to 97.6 yards per game and 3.97 yards per carry with Jackson manning the middle.

Now, I realize that it’s not as simple as adding or subtracting a good player or two when explaining how well or poorly a team plays from one year to the next. Losing McKenzie and replacing him with unproven, inexperienced players wasn’t the sole reason the Packer defense was awful last year. Other factors, such as lingering injuries to Navies and Sharper and Jackson might explain some of the drop-off from 2003 to 2004 too. And Slowik’s questionable strategies and schemes were an important factor in the poor defensive showing. But sometimes I think the inter-dependent nature of playing good defense is underappreciated, as is the impact of a good player or two.

Mean regression
Besides what appears to be a modest upgrade in overall defensive talent/player hunger in 2005 as opposed to 2004 (the secondary already looks like it’s going to be manned better this year than last, and replacing Hunt with hungrier players could spur the line to play better), I think another of the main reasons the Packers’ defense is likely to improve this next year is not necessarily because of Bates, but because it will be very, very difficult for it to get worse. Now this may sound like a rather glib and trite explanation….and maybe it is. But this phenomenon, technically referred to as “regression towards the mean,” is likely to have a rather powerful effect on where the defense goes this next year---at least statistically.

Take the pass defense from 2004 as a for-instance. The Packers’ secondary allowed 33 touchdown passes (ranked 32nd), picked off just 8 passes (ranked 31st), allowed 3,663 passing yards (ranked 25th), and opposing QBs averaged about a 100 passer rating against them, the worst in Packers' history. (The previous worst passer rating allowed by a Packer defense was 86.1 back in 1958.) In my opinion, there just isn’t any way that the pass defense could get any worse than that. In other words, even if we were unfortunate enough to have Slowik as our defensive coordinator again in 2005, the likelihood that the Packer secondary would collect more than 8 interceptions, allow fewer than 33 TD passes, or even rank higher than 25th overall is very high. It’s also quite likely that the linebackers would be involved in more than merely one turnover play all season long even had Slowik remained our DC in 2005. Extreme statistical rankings/figures like that just have a way of eventually evening out, or winding up closer to the middle of the pack. And that isn’t necessarily all—or even most---of the coach’s doing.

What happened in Atlanta?
In my opinion, this regression-to-the mean phenomenon had something to do with what happened in Atlanta this past season. In 2003, Atlanta’s defense ranked 32nd in yards allowed (381.8 per game), 30th in points allowed (26.4 per game), 32nd in passing yards allowed (250.3 per game), and 30th in passing TDs allowed (28). Put simply, the 2003 Atlanta defense was atrocious. So I don’t think it’s all that surprising that the Atlanta pass defense jumped from 32nd to 22nd from ’03 to ’04, or that both the total defense and scoring defense leapt to a much more respectable 14th. It was highly unlikely it could have gotten any worse.

But weren’t Jim Mora and Ed Donatell the ones almost exclusively responsible for that turnaround? That’s what we’re led to believe anyway. But consider the Atlanta Falcons further. Back in 2001, the Falcons had Don Blackmon as their DC, and they ranked 30th in yards and 24th in points, which led to Blackmon’s ouster. Dan Reeves was able to recruit Wade Phillips to lead the defense in 2002, landing him despite great interest from many other teams (it also may have helped that Reeves made him the 2nd highest paid assistant coach at the time). By week 13 of 2002, the Falcons were ranked 4th in scoring defense, 4th in interceptions, and 2nd in sacks. Phillips, as the first year coordinator, was given much, if not all, of the credit for the dramatic turnaround.

But then 2003 and the dead-last-in-total-defense thing happened. Phillips was still the DC for that debacle, but he (like Bates) was made interim head coach near the end of the year (winning 2 of 3 for a 5-11 team) before being passed over for the head coaching job. Now what’s intriguing to me about this is that Phillips was given nearly all of the credit for the immediate defensive turnaround from ’01 to ’02, but he wasn’t given much of any blame for Atlanta’s shameful defensive performance in 2003. That seems to be the way it goes once a coach---especially a defensive coordinator---has established a reputation. If his team has a good year or two defensively, that’s considered his doing. If it doesn’t, it’s either considered a fluke, or other variables (injuries, less talent in the lineup) are thought to be responsible.

The 2004 Miami defense
That’s probably what happened with the 2004 Miami defense, which wasn’t nearly as good as it was made out to be. They lost too many good players to be all that good. The main reason why the Dolphins could even rank 8th in yards allowed defense in 2004 (but 20th in points allowed) is that they easily had the most rushing attempts against them in the NFL (539), and because they simultaneously had the fewest number of passes thrown against them (434). As would be expected given those disparities, the run defense ranked 31st, and the pass defense ranked 2nd. And because the average yards gained per rush attempt is always going to be almost half of the average yards gained per pass attempt, the number of total yards yielded is naturally going to be lower if there are far more rushing attempts than passing attempts. Thus, teams that play from behind a lot are probably going to be helped in the defensive rankings by the end of the year.

The validity of defensive rankings
Which brings me to the validity of the defensive rankings themselves. Just pointing to position rank alone as measurement of defensive performance can sometimes be misleading. For example, the 2001 Dolphins' defense allowed 290 points, but ranked 11th in scoring defense. The next year, the Miami defense allowed 301 points, but ranked 4th in scoring defense. It would appear they substantially improved in '02 by looking at the ranking figures, but actually their defense gave up more points than they did the year before.

Also in 2001, there was a 53-points-allowed difference between the 3rd (212 points) and 4th (265 points) best scoring defenses. But there was only a 17-points-allowed difference between the 4th best defense (265 points) and the 9th best defense (282 points). Allow just one or two fewer touchdowns in a season and a team can move up 4 or 5 slots in the rankings.

Or consider the case of the 2004 Buccaneers. The offense had 5 turnovers returned for touchdowns this past season, resulting in an extra 35 points that the defense gets the blame for allowing. Instead of 304 points allowed in '04, the Buccaneers could have allowed only 269 points, which would have put them within 10 points of the #2 ranking instead of their actual #9 ranking.

The fragility of defensive rankings
Nose-dives in defensive rankings with the same defensive coordinator (and head coach) are probably rather common. We just don’t hear about them too often, as they don’t usually mesh with the perspective that it’s the coaches that make up most of the difference between the winners and losers. Consider that the Dallas Cowboys ranked 2nd in scoring defense in 2003. In 2004, after losing Darren Woodson and a few others (again, the loss of even one good player can make a big difference), they plummeted to 28th in scoring defense. This happened despite having the same head coach and the same defensive coordinator (Zimmer). Greg Blache was the Bears’ defensive coordinator in 2001, when Chicago had the #1 scoring defense in the NFL. He was still the Bears’ DC in 2002, when they ranked 25th. The New York Giants ranked 3rd in scoring defense in 2002, only to drop to 29th in 2003 with the same coach and DC. Even the Miami Dolphins dropped from 3rd in scoring defense in 2003 down to 20th in 2004 with, yes, Jim Bates coordinating the defense.

Wade Phillips is a highly regarded defensive coordinator (and sometimes head coach) who probably would rival Jim Bates in terms of the respect he carries around the league as a defensive coach. But here's a statistical summary of his coaching career and the defenses he either coordinated or was a head coach of. Notice the leaps---sometimes giant leaps---from one year to the next in terms of defensive ranking during the last 15 years.

Denver (ranked 20th in scoring defense in 1988, the year before Phillips arrived; Phillips was head coach in '93 and '94)
1989: 1st 1990: 23rd 1991: 3rd 1992: 19th 1993: 10th 1994: 25th

Buffalo (ranked 22nd in scoring defense in 1994, the year before Phillips arrived; Phillips was head coach from '98-'00)
1995: 13th 1996: 6th 1997: 23rd 1998: 15th 1999: 2nd 2000: 18th

Atlanta (ranked 24th in scoring defense in 2001, the year before Phillips arrived)
2002: 8th 2003: 30th

San Diego (ranked 31st in scoring defense in 2003, the year before Phillips arrived)
2004: 11th

To summarize with just the ranking numbers (with the first number being the ranking the year before Phillips arrived), here's an overview:

20th-1st-23rd-3rd-19th-10th-25th

22nd-13th-6th-23rd-15th-2nd-18th

24th-8th-30th

31st-11th

The average jump (up or down) in team defensive ranking during Wade Phillips' recent career as a DC or HC (including the season-before rankings) is a whopping 15.3 slots a year. While that may be more fluctuation than usual, I think that demonstrates just how fragile the defensive ranking statistics can be.

Why is this noteworthy? Because I think one has to wonder why it is that teams with the same defensive coordinator or head coach can have that extreme level of variance from one year to the next if the coaching factor means so much. Put simply, if the coaching factor, or how good your defensive coordinator is, makes that significant of an impact on how your team performs on the field, then I would think the defensive rankings would be much, much more stable than an average of 15.3 slot movements a year with the same coaches, wouldn't they?

Credit, not blame
When Wade Phillips took over the Denver defense in 1989 and helped it to land a #1 ranking (after having ranked 20th the season before), he was likely given much, if not most of the credit for that turnaround. Likewise in Buffalo from 1994 to 1995/1996 (22nd to 13th/6th), and in Atlanta from 2001 to 2002 (24th to 8th). The thing is, I highly doubt that Phillips was given much of the blame when his 1st ranked defense (Denver) plummeted to 23rd the following year, or his 6th ranked defense (Buffalo) plummeted to 23rd the following year, or when his 8th ranked defense (Atlanta) plummeted to 30th the following year. As I mentioned earlier, for some reason we give coordinators and head coaches most of the credit when the team's (defensive) performance improves, but when they play poorly, or when they fall in the rankings, we tend to look elsewhere (injuries, loss of talent, etc.) rather than point the finger at the DC or HC. This is especially true if the DC or HC has already established a solid reputation as a coach, as both Phillips and Bates have. To me this is an example of how we tend to overestimate the contribution of coaching to the winning equation.

Jim Bates
Back to Bates. He sure does seem to be a solid coach, and his schemes, from all appearances, seem to be very effective. But there seems to be a perspective that he, through his vocal and demanding and Shurmur-like coaching style alone, can take average or worse players and turn them into above average players, or that he can take a shameful defense and turn it into a respected one. But that’s not usually how it works. While I realize there are exceptions, it is generally the case that a coach is either limited or aided by the talent he has to work with.

When Bates was the defensive coordinator for the Falcons in 1994, his defense ranked dead last (28th) in passing defense, 24th in yards per rushing attempt, dead last (28th) in total defense (6,058 yards allowed), and 24th in points allowed (24.1 points per game). He was fired after the season. Then he went 6 years before he got another shot as a defensive coordinator, when he was hired by Wannstadt in 2000 to be the DC for the Dolphins. Now, consider that the 1998 Dolphins defense led the NFL in interceptions and fewest rushing TDs allowed, and they finished 3rd in total defense. The 1999 Dolphins defense finished 4th in total defense. Bates and Wannstadt had not only inherited a top 5 defense when they arrived in 2000, they had inherited the following players: Trace Armstrong (18 total sacks in '98 and '99); Tim Bowens (Pro Bowler in '99); Sam Madison (8 INTs in '98, 7 INTs in '99 and Pro Bowl starter); Patrick Surtain (2 INTs, 48 tackles, and 9 passes defensed despite starting just 6 games in '99); Jason Taylor (9 sacks, 4 forced fumbles, and 9 passes defensed in '98 ) ; Brock Marion (112 tackles in '98, 100 tackles in '99---tops among defensive backs); and Zach Thomas (160 tackles, 3 INTs in `98, 167 tackles in '99 and Pro Bowl starter). With that kind of lineup, it would have been difficult NOT to turn out some pretty good defenses in Miami in the last several years.

Two more examples: Johnson and Shurmur
Jimmy Johnson (Philly's DC) was the DC for Indianapolis in '96 and '97. The year before he was hired by Infante to be the DC (1995), Indianapolis had ranked an impressive 5th in scoring defense. By 1996 under Johnson, however, the Indy defense sunk to 18th. Then, in 1997, Johnson's defense ranked 26th, and he was fired as DC. But when Johnson was hired by Reid to be the DC in Philadelphia in '99, he had inherited Taylor, Vincent, Dawkins, Douglas, and Trotter on his team---all 5 Pro Bowlers. Since 2000, Johnson's scoring defense has ranked 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 7th, and 3rd.

Fritz Shurmur was a DC for 11 seasons before he came to Green Bay in '94. In those 11 previous seasons, his defenses ranked in the top 10 in total defense (yards) just 2 times. When he came to Green Bay in 1994, he inherited a Packer defense that had already jumped from 21st in total defense in 1992 to 2nd in total defense in 1993. A good chunk of the reason for the Packers’ acute rise to the #2 ranking in 1993 was probably related to the arrival of Reggie White that year. In the 5 seasons (’94-’98) Shurmur coordinated the defense in Green Bay, the Packers ranked in the top 10 in total defense 4 times. So Shurmur’s defense spent 4 of 5 years in the top 10 with Reggie White, and 2 of 11 years in the top 10 without Reggie White. I think it’s likely there’s a connection.

You can't make chicken salad....
There’s no denying that good coaching is important to good player performance. Even the most talented players can’t completely overcome inadequate preparation and rickety schemes. But having good players on the roster who have the capacity to consistently execute and limit their mistakes through effort and concentration is more important than coaching is when determining what contributes most to the winning equation. In other words, coaches are more limited or aided by the talent (or lack thereof) on the roster than players are aided or limited by poor coaching.

It’s always possible we’ll see an exception to this. For example, it’s possible that the Packers could have a defense that is above average or even well above average this season despite the apparent dearth of significant new talent this year. That’s possible, but it’s probably unlikely. I’d expect the Packers to be better defensively than they were last year, but not dramatically so. Some of their improvement may be due to coaching and schemes, some may be due to some slightly better or more experienced talent, some may be due to a better chemistry between certain players, some may be due to luck and happenstance (such as playing a larger share of weak offensive teams), and some may be due to the tenet that it’s not possible for them to get any worse. That said, it will be very tempting to give Bates all or most of the credit if the Packers play substantially better defensive football. I will be tempted to give him much of the credit too. But history has taught us that, for the most part, the notorious chicken salad principle is at work here, and therefore tempering our idealism about the impact that a new, energetic coach can have may be prudent.

Football 101-The 3-4 Defense

2005-09-14T16:26:00.000-07:00

by Mark Lawrence
PackerChatters Staff

The Basic 3-4 Defensive Alignment

Another popular defensive alignment is the 3-4. This defense was used by Bill Parcels and his N.Y.Giants to win a couple of superbowls. From 2000 to 2004 it was also used by Bill Parcels' former defensive coordinator and now head coach of the New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, to win three more superbowls. This defense is now becoming quite popular again. The NFL is very much a copy-cat league.

In the 4-3 defense, you need two very large and athletic defensive tackles and two somewhat large and very athletic defensive ends. These guys are very hard to find. It seems there's about one excellent defensive end prospect in each draft, which is not nearly enough to go around. If you can't find a couple of good defensive ends, you're in for a long season of living and dying by the blitz.

One reaction to this has been to develop the 3-4 defense. In this defense, you need one really large nose tackle. This NT has to be a real monster of a guy, 350 pounds or so, because his job is to take on the center and one of the guards simultaneously on every single play. Then you get two more defensive tackles at around 300 pounds each, and play them up against the offensive tackles. All three of the defensive tackles have what is called two-gap responsibility. They are expected to hit the offensive linemen head on, and watch the play to make sure the running back doesn't come through on either side of them. Also, they're expected to hold their block so that the offensive linemen can't get out and block a linebacker.

In the 3-4 system, the linebackers are expected to make most of the plays. In the 3-4 system, the DTs play a more physical game as they are taking on one or two offensive linemen directly, play after play. Unlike the DTs in the 4-3, the DTs in the 3-4 are responsible for every single gap in the offensive line. Although the DTs get relatively few chances to make tackles or sack the quarterback, anything bad that happens is still ultimately their fault.

In the 3-4, you have four linebackers. Two of these guys are inside linebackers, and are expected to weigh roughly 240 pounds and be quite athletic. You also have two outside linebackers. These guys are sometimes called "tweeners," as they are in between the normal size of defensive ends and linebackers. These guys should weigh perhaps 255-265 pounds and also be quite athletic. Because these are linebackers, they tend to be faster than the heavier defensive ends. Their presence makes it much more difficult for the quarterback to roll out, as he will be rolling out directly into the path of one of these linebackers.

In the NFL there are many running backs who are incredibly athletic. O.J.Simpson was perhaps the first of these, but today there are perhaps a dozen of them. These guys are very shifty and hard to chase down. Defensive linemen simply can't do it. So the solution was to remove one of the DL from the defense and substitute a fourth linebacker. These linebackers have the speed to chase down such running backs. The 3-4 defense was motivated by two factors: the difficulty in getting good defensive ends, and the need to stop very fast running backs. This is the strength of the 3-4. The DTs keep the offensive linemen off your linebackers, leaving them free to roam the field and bring down runners.

Unfortunately, the 3-4 has a weakness. Three DTs cannot reliably collapse the five offensive lineman pocket on the quarterback, so it becomes much harder to pressure the quarterback. Traditionally, the 3-4 has struggled against the pass. The modern solution to this problem was worked out by Dick LeBeau, and it's called the Zone Blitz. In a normal blitz package, you have five or six guys rushing the passer. The remaining linebackers and defensive backs often played man coverage, which is relatively dangerous. Wide receivers in the NFL tend to be taller than defensive backs, so they often win the one-on-one battles.

In the 3-4, you select your four linebackers for the speed to drop back and cover a zone. Since there are four linebackers, the quarterback cannot guess which one of the four will rush on any given play. Whichever linebacker rushes, it's relatively easy for the other three to shift around a bit and fill in the zones. Sometimes the defense will rush two linebackers on the same side, so there are two defensive tackles and two linebackers attacking three offensive linemen. The remaining two linebackers again can quickly shift over to fill in the gaps left by the two who are blitzing.

If the 3-4 defense finds itself late in a game protecting a lead, there is no need to switch to a prevent defense. Since all four linebackers are skilled in coverage, you can just drop all four of them into zones, playing eight men in zone coverage. It's next to impossible to do this with a 4-3 defense.

The 3-4 defense can have trouble matching up against a very fast offense. It's important for the success of the 3-4 in these cases for the defense to play an extremely physical game, jamming the receivers hard at the line of scrimmage. In the 2002 superbowl, the Patriots looked like their defense matched up poorly with the numerous fast receivers of the Rams, but by playing an intensely physical game the Patriots managed to slow the Rams enough to eke out a win. Similarly, in the 2004 playoffs the Patriots hosted the Colts, and again it looked like a bad match up for the Patriots. But by making the Colts play a more physical game than they were used to, the Patriots managed to almost completely shut down the Colts offense. Had this game been played indoors in Indianapolis on carpet instead of outdoors on grass in cold weather, it's quite plausible the Colts would have found a way to exploit the lack of speed in the Patriots secondary.

So in summary, the more traditional 4-3 defense seems better suited to the modern pass-friendly NFL rules, while the 3-4 defense seems more geared to stop the run based offenses of the 70s and 80s. However, by mixing up the rushers and zone coverages to confuse the quarterback and by forcing the receivers to play a far more physical game than they would wish, the 3-4 has been successful at the highest levels, in spite of it's apparent drawbacks.

Breakdown in Motor City

2005-09-12T11:45:00.000-07:00

by Mark Quarderer
PackerChatters Staff

Prior to the season opener, I opined that this was going to be a very difficult game for us because I knew that historically speaking, Detroit is not a place where we generally play very well. Sunday was no exception. This was a game that I had us picked to lose when I predicted 9-7 so we're still on track and there's no reason for people to be jumping off of bridges. There were many areas of the team that performed in a postive manner but right now we can't see them very clearly because we're blinded by the glare of the turnovers, penalties, and mistakes that really made us look pretty inept at times.

The Offensive Line

Let's start here because it was one of the bigger question marks going into the game and because if the big eaters up front don't get the job done then nothing else is going to matter very much.

Although one of the prevailing schools of thought is that Favre was under pressure every time he passed, I'm afraid that I just can't go along with that. Favre was sacked four times including twice on the final drive and for the most part he enjoyed protection that was as good as what Harrington was getting. We've been spoiled the past couple of years with an outstanding line.....possibly the best in team history......that was able to keep anybody from getting close to Favre most of the time. That's not the case anymore, and Favre is going to get the same protection that quite a few other QBs in the league get, which means he's going to get sacked a couple times a game, he's going to get hit a couple of times a game, and he's going to be pressured on a number of his passes.

Although I expect the line to improve during the season, I didn't think they play that badly. People who are expecting Favre to never be sacked, hit, or pressured are going to need to revise their expectations.

The Running Game....

I'm very disappointed that we didn't stick with the run more. Green had 8 rushes for 45 yards in the first half...that's over 5 yards per carry...and we're only down 7-3 at the half. So why did he only get four more rushes in the second half? I generally try to not be critical of play calling, but if your opponent doesn't stop the run you keep running. That's Football 101. And Detroit wasn't stopping our run but we repeatedly let them off the hook by showing how balanced and unpredictable we can be on offense.

It is my opinion that to win at any level you have to establish that you can do something well enough that the defense has to adjust. We didn't do that, and we saw what happened.

Although Green ran well, Davenport and Fisher were ineffective. Fisher, in particular, had about the worst game I've ever seen him have. He dropped a pass and fumbled and he's normally a pretty sure-handed guy. The people who think that we could trade Green away and keep Davenport as a feature back are hallucinating. Even with a broken leg Green is a much more effective runner. Personally, I'm kind of wondering why we kept Davenport and cut Williams.

The Passing Game

201 yards on 44 attempts is less than 5 yards per attempt, or less than Ahman was averaging on the ground. I believe we only had four completions of over 10 yards and folks......this Detroit secondary is not the best secondary that we're going to face this year. We had a couple of costly drops....Ferguson kind of short armed the pass that was ruled an interception......a couple of guys got open deep but we couldn't connect.

All in all, the passing game was pretty ineffective. We never hurt them through the air at all and you had to think that going into this game that if there was one thing we could count on doing well it would have been moving the ball through the air.

The Defense

Actually, overall the defense played a little better than I thought they would, and I thought they'd be improved over last year. They surrendered two passes over 20 yards and no big runs. In fact, they controlled the first down run better than I thought they would. They got some pretty decent pressure on Harrington and sacked him twice, but as usual they didn't do a real good job of keeping him in the pocket and he got loose and hurt us. As I've stated in the past, I think sacks are overrated and don't help you as much as QB scrambles hurt you but people really like and want those sacks.

Thomas is going to be fine for us although he looked like a guy who's only practiced a week. Lenon wasn't able to maintain coverage on the TE and Detroit exploited that for their first TD. Barnett......sadly, people, Barnett is starting to look more and more like just a guy to me. It doesn't appear that he's improved an iota since his rookie year and he just never causes fumbles or gets in the passing lanes. He had a bad penalty, too.

You didn't see Detroit receivers running free in the secondary for the most part. I though Ahmad Carroll got jobbed by the refs but he's probably offended them as badly as he's offended his teammates and now that he's made his bed he's going to have to lay in it. I believe I'd start Joey Thomas this week, activate Hawkins for the nickel, and play Carroll in the dime. He's plenty fast enough to cover receivers without using his hands. And he's going to have to keep his mouth shut. Going after refs with "Why you doin'me like that Dawg?" isn't going to endear him to them.

Game Review: Packers @ Lions

2005-09-12T04:37:00.000-07:00

by Mark Lawrence
PackerChatters Staff

The Packers, with two new offensive guards and a retooled defense, went into the Detroit dome where Favre is now 5-12, I believe. Both teams entered the season with many questions. On the Packers side, the biggest questions seemed to be "Do they have a defense?" and "Do they have any special teams?" On the Lions, the question seemed to be "Do they have an offense?" The answers turned out to be rather surprising, and there was an important question which was missed.

Favre was rushed all game. There were only a few plays on which he seemed to have the time to be a proper quarterback, and on those plays it seemed that there was almost inevitably a penalty. The Packers wracked up a total of 14 penalties, split with beautiful symmetry between the offense and the defense. On the offensive side, there were false starts by Clifton, Franks, and Whitticker; holding by Barry and Flannigan; illegal blocking on Ferguson; and pass interference on Walker. There were a certain number of yards assessed for these penalties, but much more importantly it seemed they came particularly on big gains and negated a disproportionate amount of the Packers offensive gains.

At least as bad was the profoundly poor pass protection given to Favre. It seemed he was hit, rushed, or sacked on nearly every pass. Favre seemed to keep up his demeanor for about two and a half quarters, sitting on the sideline with a neutral to very slightly positive expression on his face. Late in the third quarter that expression turned into the thin lipped expression we all know and dread. In spite of this, I thought he had a decent, if not outstanding game.

Favre threw one interception which was challenged and upheld (I thought it clear the ball hit the ground). He had one "fumble," which fumble was a ball that came out of his throwing motion early. The ball travelled forwards about 5 yards and sideways about 10 yards. Those of us who happen to have been mislead by the "laws" of physics think this is a clear indication that his hand was moving forwards and it was an incompletion. Ah well, tuck rules, forward moving fumbles, what do I know. Favre had a clear chance to rush for a 1st down and possibly a TD, but chickened out. Apparently he still feels old, the Favre of '96 would certainly have taken on a safety one on one without hesitation. There was a final "interception" on a desperation hail mary with 12 seconds left in the game - I don't count those.

Ahman Green had a creditable game. He rushed 12 times for 58 yards, not counting another 32 yards on three rushes that were called back by the aforementioned penalties. His average of 4.8 yards per rush (6 ypr if there were no stupid penalties) was heartening. Incomprehensibly, however, this production was never followed up and there were only a total of 18 rushing attempts to 44 pass plays. It's difficult to understand, when your rushing game is working well and your passing game is troubled why your play calling would be over 2/3 passing. By contrast, Pittsburgh beat the Titans today 34 to 7, and Ben Roethlisberger threw only 11 passes all game long.

It would seem that the Packers offense is having serious troubles, and those troubles start right in the center of the line. The two guards and the center are playing with very poor coordination, and having a lot of trouble with stunts and slants. Forget blitzes, that's football 201. They're still flunking football 101. The straight ahead U71 running package never got on track. Green's good runs were all off tackle.

The Packers special teams had one disturbing miscue, when new punted and field goal holder Sander failed to make a placement on a field goal. This was apparently first game nerves, however, as on his next try Sander and Longwell cooperated to make a very nice 50 yard field goal. The Packers punting game got a depressingly good workout and was very good - six punts for an average of 41 yards, an average return of 2 yards and a long return of 5 yards. It would seem that drafting Sander is going to work out well. The enormous problems demonstrated by the Packers coverage units never materialized in this game. Special Teams are not an issue, in my opinion.

The Packers defense had a rough 1st quarter, showing decent run coverage but a lot of confusion on pass rushing and pass coverage. The defense, however, settled in as the game proceeded and gave a reasonably creditable showing overall. There were two big pass plays given up, one in the 1st quarter and one in the 4th quarter. The Packers defensive line, which has recently been called "four guys picked out of the phone book," played well, holding Detroit's running back to 87 yards on 25 carries, 3.5 yards average, 15 yards long. On pass plays the pass rush was better than it has been in a couple of years, with newcomer Colin Jenkins clearly outplaying chronic under performed C.Hunt, and Aaron Kampman hustling all game long and showing very reasonable effectiveness.

Mark Roman, the much maligned Packers strong safety, had a very creditable game with 8 tackles and two assists. The Packers new defensive backs had some teething pains, but surprisingly few - this is a group which has the look of coming together in only a few weeks and being ready for challenged like Minnesota. Ahmad Carroll was flagged for three of the defenses seven penalties. I thought that one of these flags was well deserved, and two were substantially due to his reputation and not so much due to his actions. It's clear that Carroll has to clean up his act dramatically for at least a couple of months just to get back to even.

The Packers linebackers played a mediocre game overall. Nick Barnett played an average game, with a few high spots and a few low spots, including a roughing the passer penalty. I found the penalty incomprehensible. Paris Lennon played an excellent game given his lack of experience starting. Robert Thomas, who joined the Packers only a week ago, looked very athletic and very confused. He will be good, but this week would not be highlight reel material for him.

The Packers new defense did do a wonderful job of swarming to the ball, and agressively attacking the offense. There is little sign of them agressively going for turnovers yet, but there was clearly a bit of confusion in the LBs and CBs. I'm ok with the notion that we get the confusion on basic responsibilities cleared up first, then we can try to add new responsibilities.

Overall, the second big question of the Packers, do they have a defense, was answered with a resounding "almost." They held the somewhat toothless Lions to 17 points, which should be a very adequate performance when you have Favre, Green, Walker, and Franks to run up the score. This defense looks very much like it will perform perfectly reasonable this year, and only improve as time goes on and the new guys settle in. On this basis of this one game, one would certainly not say it was the defense holding the Packers back from a good showing in the post season.

Pro bowl wide receiver Javon Walker apparently suffered a complete tear of his ACL in this game, and will almost certainly miss the rest of the season. The Packers run a very complicated set of receiver routes, and it is simply not credible that new draftee Murphy will be able to play an important part in this offense this year. Perhaps he can be taught a few plays from flanker, a couple of go and post routes that make use of his speed, but to hope he can replace Walkers productivity is unrealistic. Donald Driver and Robert Ferguson are simply going to have to step up into the #1 and #2 roles. A.Chatman is already a quite reliable #3 WR.

The Packers offensive line must become much better at working together, and they must do this very quickly. There is little evidence that there is a lack of individual talent or strength - there are questions about how completely Packers center Flannigan has recovered from his knee surgery last year, but guards Whitticker and Klemm have all the tools. It makes no sense to me to talk of replacing the guards when it seems clear that what is needed is better cooperation and communication, not better athleticism. The other sloppy penalties must also stop, and they must stop now.

On defense, the Packers had five pass interference calls. These must be cleaned up. The Packers defensive backs were faced today with perhaps the NFL's most athletic receiver trio, and the Packers backs ran with them step for step. These young men must learn to trust in their athletic skills and play the ball instead of pushing the boundaries of holding. I believe this will happen, but unfortunately it's not likely to happen in the next six days. If the Packers nickle and dime backs develop the reputation that Carroll already has, it will be a long November.

The Packers were seemingly lucky this week, as the Detroit Lions simply do not have the look of a playoff team so their one game lead is not crushing at this time, and the Vikings also lost. Next up, another toothless team, the Cleveland Browns. This is both a "should win" and a "must win" for the Packers if they want to keep pace with the Vikings and make progress towards catching the Lions. There are those who say the Packers players don't think games really count until October. One can only hope those people are mistaken.