1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

For those of you expecting a quiet offseason...

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by TOPackerFan, Jan 28, 2008.

  1. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    From Bob McGinn, Jsonline:

    "Big changes might be necessary
    Time to face cold facts about Favre

    Green Bay - When a team absorbs a defeat of the magnitude that the Green Bay Packers absorbed a week ago, everyone and everything within an organization gets the third degree.

    And rightly so.

    It has been almost 30 years since a more surprising team than the New York Giants represented the NFC in a Super Bowl. The Giants are going at the Packers' expense, having stunned them before an expectant record throng at Lambeau Field.

    Those who wield the power for National Football League teams have been known to turn on coaches and players at a moment's notice. Fear and paranoia always bubble just beneath the surface in pro football, and often they bubble over after catastrophic defeat.

    The general manager in Green Bay, Ted Thompson, comes across outwardly as always in control of his emotions. But as competitive as Thompson is, you know well his guts are churning and probably won't stop churning until he makes a move that in his mind helps prevent this from ever happening again.

    Brett Favre's awful performance in the second half and overtime of the NFC Championship Game will no doubt spur debate about cutting the cord and going with promising QB Aaron Rodgers.


    If I were Thompson, in no particular order, my agenda would be three-pronged:

    1. What to do about quarterback Brett Favre?

    2. What to do about defensive coordinator Bob Sanders?

    3. What to do about coach Mike McCarthy's zone running scheme?

    The internal debate on Favre began late Sunday night and isn't going to end any time soon, even if he decides to return for an 18th season. For perhaps the first time, there are advocates within saying it's time to move on.

    NFL people get very narrow-minded when Super Bowl berths are denied. In Green Bay, they know that Favre was awful in the second half and overtime (44.1 passer rating) and that Eli Manning's passer rating was 118.5 in the same span. And people like Thompson undoubtedly wonder if the time is right to cut the cord and go with promising Aaron Rodgers, who entered the league just one year after Manning but now is 59 starts behind him.

    Rodgers is Thompson's guy. Don't forget that.

    Thompson's confidence should be at an all-time high, too. By and large, this is his team, and he has been proven right time and again on young players. It's just a hunch, but it seems only logical to assume that he'd like to get on with the Rodgers era.

    From this point forward, Thompson and McCarthy will have to live with the fact that nothing short of the Super Bowl will be good enough for fans. And having watched Favre look so cold and so old twice in the last month, they probably have doubts how in the world he could ever win another NFC Championship Game in frigid weather.

    After leading a short touchdown drive in the third quarter, Favre participated in five more series. Until you examine those five series play-by-play, it's hard to realize just how poorly he played.

    Of the 13 passes that Favre threw, a strict evaluator might give him two pluses, seven minuses and four OKs. Despite solid protection, he was locking onto his first read almost regardless of down and distance. The bottom line was three first downs, 63 yards, a field goal, two interceptions and two punts. Given how efficiently the often rattled Manning was performing regardless of the harshest weather and pressure, Favre's failures were startling, to say the least.

    On the decisive play, Favre took a rare seven-stop drop as his six blockers stopped a six-man rush. It was second and 8 from the New York 28 to start overtime. A lifetime of quarterbacking should have guided him toward a wise decision and the proper read.

    Ryan Grant leaks out on the check-down as Donald Lee leaks out and takes the only linebacker in coverage with him. Flip it to uncovered Grant and it's a first down at the 40.

    On the left outside, Greg Jennings is sprinting beyond aging R.W. McQuarters and away from the safety on a deep post-corner route. There's also separation for Favre to see between Lee and linebacker Reggie Torbor. There is almost no separation between Corey Webster and Donald Driver, who hasn't gotten a clean release and is trying to turn it back into a 15-yard out.

    Favre selects the worst of four options, throws a semi-floater to Driver that's both short and on the wrong side, Webster intercepts it and the rest is history. So is Favre's composite rating of 59.5 in his last six playoff losses.

    For most of 2007, Favre performed at a magnificent level some never thought possible at his age. But in the moment of truth, with a precious Super Bowl berth at hand, he was horrible.

    One of the reasons why Manning aced his rite of passage was the failure of Sanders both to disrupt Manning in the pocket and disrupt his receivers.

    Plaxico Burress ate Al Harris for dinner, but that's Al Harris. Sanders has coached him for two years. What really did he expect?

    Just before kickoff, Harris told the Fox sideline reporter, "I'm going to do what I do. . . . They know when they come to Green Bay, we play bump-and-run."

    All night long Harris basically lined up across from Burress using inside technique and played man-to-man with no help.

    It might have been worth trying Charles Woodson on Burress, and Sanders should have done so after Harris went in the tank, but with Woodson's bad knee the results probably wouldn't have been much better.

    Obviously, Sanders couldn't play Cover 2 because Harris cannot play zone. He might have had Harris play an outside technique and had Atari Bigby overplay toward that side. Burress would have had his bell rung by Bigby on slants, and the back-shoulder fades wouldn't have been possible because Harris could have seen them coming.

    But Sanders didn't use much if any of that. His run defense was so porous that he needed Bigby in the box. But when Bigby kept giving his intentions away by committing too early, Manning had an easy read to sit back and keep playing catch with Burress.

    Sanders did rush more than usual (five or more on 34.8% of passes), but his vanilla blitz package isn't exactly cutting edge.

    Across the field, Giants coordinator Steve Spagnuolo kept Favre off-balance with a daring, multiple package. He kept blitzing slots and cornerbacks, something Sanders almost never does.

    If Harris would have blitzed from the edge, the linebacker would have rushed out to the flat and Nick Collins would have come over from the deep middle. Collins has more than enough speed to cover deep, too.

    Under Jim Bates in 2005, Harris was an effective blitzer with three sacks, three knockdowns and three hurries. Before that, Ed Donatell successfully incorporated safeties into his rushes.

    In two years under Sanders, Harris and Woodson have combined for one sack, no knockdowns and two hurries. Granted, it's better to have Harris covering than rushing, but defense is about being unpredictable and the Packers were fatally predictable against New York.

    Early in the season, the contention here was that this would be a top-five defense by year's end. It finished 11th (tied for sixth in points, tied for 17th in takeaways) despite playing just two teams with top-10 offenses.

    In most walks of life, an exemplary employee such as Sanders would have done nothing to be let go. But the NFL often is a cruel, unfair business.

    With Gregg Williams being fired in Washington, he'll be looking to take the best available coordinator's gig. The Redskins were paying him a king's ransom, but the Packers can spend with anybody, especially for someone of Williams' proven ability to customize Bill Belichick-like game plans and to inspire players.

    Favre was operating at a distinct disadvantage when compared to Manning because the Giants had a rushing attack and the Packers didn't. For all the lip service McCarthy has paid the run, he continues to be too easily frustrated as a play-caller and thus forfeits chances to wear down opponents in the fourth quarter with a steady diet of rushes in the first three.

    Packers-Giants spoke volumes about the two running games.

    With their finesse-based zone scheme and more athletic linemen, the Packers couldn't knock anybody off the ball. Moreover, the precision and timing necessary to execute zone plays went haywire amid the scrums of an arctic night.

    The Giants, on the other hand, ran the power and gap-type plays that Green Bay ran so well with Mike Sherman and Larry Beightol. Coach Tom Coughlin persisted with his run, and by the end his bigger blockers were in control of the line of scrimmage.

    In New Orleans, McCarthy's run game featured both power and zone plays minus the back-side cutting used by Denver and now the Packers.

    At McCarthy's behest, Jeff Jagodzinski brought the zone scheme to Green Bay in 2006 but the Packers still used some power plays (double-team on the play side with a back-side puller) largely because of Ahman Green. All the power was eliminated this year, and the zone plays worked once Ryan Grant put on the saddle.

    Still, there's a reason why the Packers converted an NFL-worst 35.7% on third-and fourth-and-1, and why McCarthy passed on 17 of 19 third-and-2 situations. And it's the same reason they couldn't even function last Sunday.

    The Packers have made some strides becoming a more physical team, but strength coach Rock Gullickson recently made the point they're not yet where they want to be. All or at least some of a power-based ground game, the kind of which works in short-yardage and cold weather and can be implemented in an off-season, has to be the way to go in Green Bay. Even if it does require finding a more robust fullback and thicker, more explosive guards that still are proficient pass blockers.

    Thompson and McCarthy brought the franchise to the precipice of glory in 2007. On a fast track, the bet is they would have performed exceedingly well against New England, a team with no better personnel than their own.

    The squandered opportunity last Sunday will long be remembered, but such an opportunity could come again sooner than later. Whether it does or not rests on how well Thompson fares with the hard decisions ahead."
     
  2. Fuzznuts

    Fuzznuts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    561
    Ratings:
    +1
    This guy is a ****** moron who doesn't understand the game of football...

    Why would anybody listen to him..??

    (Unless they have the same stupid, idiotic, Favre bashing agenda..imo)

    There's another way to look at it...

    Favre brought an over-achieving, youngest team in the league, that was not supposed to be better than 9-7 to the NFC Championship Game (1 win away from the SuperBowl, and if he would have had even a LITTLE help from the rest of his team (and coaches) in that game, they'd be IN the SuperBowl....

    This guy should resign from the paper for writing such nonsense..
     
  3. yooperfan

    yooperfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,900
    Ratings:
    +0
    Make no mistake I'm a Favre fan and My only agenda is to see the Packers win another Super Bowl before (as Cheesey says) " the ground hogs start delivering my mail".
    I think the article is spot on, Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy have some very tough decisions ahead.
    The Packers are close to the pinnacle but some adjustments need to be made to get to the top.
    It will be interesting to see what this offseason brings.
     
  4. packersfan4life

    packersfan4life Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    43
    Ratings:
    +0
    You know the more I think of it. If the Packers could somehow get Gregg Williams that would pretty much make my offseason. I know it is not going to happen, but I think that move alone would make our defense so much better. Vanilla Bob just doesn't cut it. I think we have the core for a much better defense. The players just aren't used right.
     
  5. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Maybe McGinn is privy to some inside information that I don't have, but it seems to me that he's overreacting.

    The suggestion that the ZBS is at a disadvantage in cold weather is curious to say the least, and does not explain why Ryan Grant gained 201 yards against Seattle in the snow the week before.

    Favre made at least a couple of bad throws, but I didn't see the second half collapse that McGinn and others claimed to see.

    I also find it odd that he looks back fondly to the good old days of Mike Sherman, when our defenses were mediocre at best.

    I'm not expecting to see any of the big changes that McGinn suggests, but who knows what will happen.
     
  6. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bingo!

    This writer didn't get enough attention as a child.

    We'll be fine. We're going in the right direction. No major changes are needed. Just continue to get better and build from within every year and we'll be a perennial playoff team with an SB win or 2.
     
  7. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    I think the article is pretty spot on in its recap of the NFC champ game.

    Favre played a terrible second half, and if you cant see that, im not worried about you because you will be gone when Favre retires.

    And the defensive scheme for that game was lacking, and the changes that needed to be made during the game werent made.

    I dont like his comments about the zone and oline. I think they played well that game. Favre had plenty of time back there, the run game didnt work well because they were stacking the box. thats just football. we need to go the other way and be able to pass and couldnt do so.


    Bottom line... we dont need MAJOR changes. However, if we get Gregg Williams it will be a red letter day for us. Not because Sanders sucks necessarily but because Williams is that good. I have no doubt he could make us into a top 5 defensive team. I also have no doubt that with a top 5 defense we would be in the Super Bowl next year.
     
  8. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,571
    Ratings:
    +650
    The thoughts on Bob Sanders hurt. And they hurt because they strike a nerve with me. and the reason they strike a nerve is because, as much as it pains me, i agree.

    And, i don't know if McCarthy "gets too frustrated as a playcaller", but i know he got frustrated during that particular game. Young team. Young coach. better luck next year.
     
  9. bigfog

    bigfog Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    242
    Ratings:
    +0
    I second this. McCarthy will learn from this as well as the youngsters on the team.
     
  10. Fuzznuts

    Fuzznuts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    561
    Ratings:
    +1
    You're hysterical.

    "The run game sucked but the offensive line played well"..??

    Care to explain that contradiction?

    I guess you don't understand the concept that footballs a team game, so I will disregard your posts from now on because they are useless...

    (PS..Here's a hint: If a team shuts down your O-Line's running game, then they may have a pretty good clue that your going to switch to your passing game, which may give the defensive an ADVANTAGE, don't you think?)

    :lol:
     
  11. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Quiet offseason.. heck no.. it is actually as I pictured in my nightmare.. at least in terms of the Packer boards go.
     
  12. packer_backer

    packer_backer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    83
    Ratings:
    +0
    bob sanders sucks, bring williams in.
     
  13. Fuzznuts

    Fuzznuts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    561
    Ratings:
    +1
    McCarthy and Williams would be "killer", baby....

    Sanders sucks, as does Shottenheimer...

    If the Defense could have made at least ONE stop against the Giants, we'd be going to the Superbowl!

    Time to clean house on D....
     
  14. PackOne

    PackOne Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    Ratings:
    +4
    Great article. Obviously, that guy knows football.
     
  15. Fuzznuts

    Fuzznuts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    561
    Ratings:
    +1
    He's a moron who never played the game.....
     
  16. Timmons

    Timmons Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    623
    Ratings:
    +1
    I never gave it much thought, but as the writer states, our defense is and was predictable.
     
  17. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6

    Packers win : because of Brett Favre
    Packers lose: because of everyone but Brett Favre.
    yeah im the guy who cant understand that football is a team sport.

    This team was meant to be balanced. Run to pass, pass to run.

    Running games get shut down by stacking the box. That is when you need the pass. The oline gave Brett plenty of time, the offensive skill players just couldnt get it together.
     
  18. Fuzznuts

    Fuzznuts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    561
    Ratings:
    +1
    Well at least this time you admitted it was more than just one player....

    (I'll give you credit for that.)

    But it's pretty hard to get it together when everyone knows you're going to pass the ball because you can't run it at all...

    Fire Sanders...Hire Williams!
     
  19. TheKanataThrilla

    TheKanataThrilla Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    320
    Ratings:
    +0
    If we are basing our off-season on the last game against New York I still think that we were not blitzing enough and sticking with the 4 man rush that was not working. Eli is known to throw picks and more pressure on him could have helped with our pass defence which was not working and a turnover or two. I think we have the talent to do this, in my mind it was a question of play calling.
     
  20. eap33

    eap33 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Ratings:
    +0
    Our defensive playbook is definitely lacking, but we have the personel. It'd be really cool to a see a new coorinator come in and shake things up a bit.
     
  21. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sanders sucks? How'd you come to that conclusion? That he called plays for a defense that lacked a nickel CB, a Sam LB, solid production from the FS position and yet still finished in the top half of the league?

    Granted Sanders had his flaws this season, but he is still learning to be a DC.

    Also, cut Schottenheimer some slack, he did a good enough job with the DBs this year. Bigby played as well as any SS has for us in the last decade, and Rouse didn't look out of place when asked to step in for Collins. Schottenheimer is responsible for those two players, and they played solid. Ergo Schottenheimer must be doing something right.




    Oh come on.

    The defense was on the field for almost 40 minutes. THATS 40 OUT OF A POSSIBLE 60 MINUTES. They were on the field for 66% of the game. Do you really think that any other defense in this league would have played out of this world if forced to be on the field for a shade under 40 minutes?
     
  22. Fuzznuts

    Fuzznuts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    561
    Ratings:
    +1
    Williams is alot better...

    C'mon AADP...you don't think the defense underachieved this year?

    I remember people here saying we were going to be a "top 5 defense" this year..!

    And 40 minutes or not. They could have made at least ONE stop that would have changed the complexion of the game.

    The Giants drove on us at will!
     
  23. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0

    Well I like Williams, but I also remember the past few years where we had a new DC every year.

    I don't think it is a coincidence that someone like Barnett had a stellar year this year, the first time in his career where he had the same DC for two years in a row.

    With Williams, you are looking at someone who will always be in a position to get head coaching interviews. That means during playoffs, Williams might lose time to prepare for the playoff match-up or create a distraction. Then there is the risk of needing a new DC after Williams leaves, meaning you are starting from near scratch yet again. I really think we can do without that.


    Against the Giants,there were quite a few plays where you'd have thought the momentum would have shifted. Bigby's hit on Burress, Collin's (late) hit on Manning, but nothing seemed to work. Add to that the defensive penalties, which you can't fault the coaches on.

    The D didn't play to its potential, that is for sure. Part of that is on the coaches, a part of that is on the defensive players, but a part of that is also on the offensive players for not moving the ball as well as the Giants for some how finding a way to keep the chains moving.
     
  24. Fuzznuts

    Fuzznuts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    561
    Ratings:
    +1
    I think Jim Bates could have gotten more out of this group...

    Is he still with Denver?

    (Maybe he would swallow his pride if TT made him an offer that paid him really, really well....)
     
  25. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sanders is ok, but Schott needs to go. He's doing well because he has a lot of talent to work with. A good coach would bump that talent way up.
     

Share This Page