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

Manuel

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by gbfan4, Oct 8, 2006.

  1. gbfan4

    gbfan4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    13
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sucks. He is absolutely terrible in coverage. WHen Woodson slipped and Holt made the catch in packer territory manuel looked like a clown. Why hasnt Culver gotten a chance to play more? He cant be any worse than #22.
     
  2. gbfan4

    gbfan4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    13
    Ratings:
    +0
    Juked by Tony Fisher, unreal.
     
  3. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    Tony Fisher should have been called back.

    And for Manuel, he can't even cover Klopfenstein, a slow ROOKIE TE.
     
  4. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    This guy likes to injur his own teammates. :-?

    Woodson first, then Collins.

    Newsflash: THEY AREN'T THE PROBLEM! :x
     
  5. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree. Put Culver in there. For one, he can't be any worse. For another, he needs playing time. I don't want to see Manuel next year in a Packer uniform.
     
  6. umair

    umair Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    923
    Ratings:
    +0
    on that big play by fisher their sould have been a flag on that play.

    i guess the rams got a luckey break.
     
  7. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree. The refs were awful today. As many mistakes the Rams made there were more that were uncalled.

    None the less GB had a chance to win the game and they blew it. No excuses. Pack gave this one away on their own. The refs didn't take it.
     
  8. kmac

    kmac Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    849
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'll just be another guy in the "Yes" column of the "Marquand Manuel is trash" voting. I agree with all of you, just awful.
     
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have been saying it since the first day he was rumored to be on TT's short list of free agents he was interested in.

    He is every bit as bad in coverage as I thought and even weaker in run support -- unless the guy stays right in front of him.

    He was a terrible free agent signing and a downgrade who is costing this team greatly each week.
     
  10. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes Bruce, I remember you saying from the beginning that Manuel was a bad signing. I had no opinion, as I was unfamiliar with him, but I never expected him to be so slow. He looks like he's running in wet cement out there. It's painful to watch.
     
  11. 4thand26

    4thand26 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,555
    Ratings:
    +0
    Then let me ask this question: A Carrol at Safety??? He was fast and good tackler. Maybe they didn't think that he could pick up the position.
     
  12. kmac

    kmac Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    849
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't know about you, but I haven't seen to many 5'9 starting safeties in the NFL
     
  13. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    Carroll's biggest problems were with positioning, reading the play and playing in space. These are keys to being a good safety. Add his height to the equation and it's obvious why he was never tried at safety.
     
  14. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    Bruce I was right with you. Of course we got ripped for being too negative, but people should go back and read those posts and man up.

    I also thought about Carroll at safety. I'm sure TT and MM thought about that and figured it wouldn't work. Please, oh God , please don't jump my arse. I am not ripping either, it is a compliment. I'm sure they looked into it.

    Kmac you are correct there aren't many that small but Bob Sanders is 5'8" I think and he's done allright in Indy, but he is an exception.
     
  15. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bob Sanders anyone (although he's only 5'8")?
     
  16. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    As I stated above, Carroll's mismatch as a safety is about more than just his height.
     
  17. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree, height is not the reason why he can't play safety but kmac was asking for an example of short safeties in the NFL and Bob Sanders is one (and a pretty good one).
     
  18. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's fine. It's just tiring to read such suggestions over and over again. Carroll's short comings at CB are a perfect example of why he'd be even worse at safety!

    If we're going to talk about moving players to new positions, then I propose moving Manuel to LB. He doesn't have the speed to play safety and he's best against the run. Sounds like a LB to me. The problem here is that he'd most likely be a backup LB at best on this team, which is definitely not fitting of that ridiculous contract he signed.
     
  19. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    I had that same thought, but dismissed it for the same reason. My only defense of Manuel (and it's not a very enthusiastic one) is that he replaced Roman in order to strengthen the run defense, and the run defense HAS improved. But the pass defense has declined, and more importantly, so has the overall defense. Maybe Thompson thought that the other DB's were good enough to make up for Manuel's slowness in pass coverage. But they aren't.
     
  20. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    I had that same thought, but dismissed it for the same reason. My only defense of Manuel (and it's not a very enthusiastic one) is that he replaced Roman in order to strengthen the run defense, and the run defense HAS improved. But the pass defense has declined, and more importantly, so has the overall defense. Maybe Thompson thought that the other DB's were good enough to make up for Manuel's slowness in pass coverage. But they aren't.[/quote:1k935p1u]

    The run defense is better because of improved play from the DL and LBs, not because of Manuel. You may be right on TT's intentions, but that is not how it has played out. Now we're just waiting to see how long it takes everyone to realize that and fix the problem.
     

Share This Page