Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Mike Daniels could propel the Packers defense
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DoddPower" data-source="post: 449018" data-attributes="member: 809"><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman'">Did you read my post? Specifically this part?</span></span></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman'">As I noted, I said it was a BAD defense. Not the worst, but still not good. I'm sorry, but simply not being the worst defense in the league doesn't reassure me in any sense. I never want to be in a situation where I'm comparing the Packer's to the Vikings. I can live with the Packer's not being the best defense, but simply not being the worst isn't good enough for me. Maybe I'm too picky, but it is what it is. Different things appease us all.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman'">As to Jaybadger's response, I also responded with some numbers. Sure, perhaps I disagreed with the wrong post, but oh no, forgive me for not using the disagree button as you see fit! How horrible! It was more a response to his earlier post in that I simply disagree with the fact that the defense wasn't bad. As I said in a previous post, the Packer's only intercepted the ball ~ 3% of the plays. I conceded that I would prefer more solid play for the other ~90% of the plays (giving some room for sacks in addition to that 3%) and a few less interceptions (I specifically said somewhere around >20). I also never meant to convey that they have to sacrifice interceptions for third down stops entirely. I only meant that a few less interceptions and many more sacks and third down stops would be preferable. It amazes me how some of you are missing my point. The main point is interceptions are always going to make up a small percentage of the defensive snaps. I think the defense would be better overall if they played significantly better for the other 90% of the plays they defend. Yes, I would gladly take a <em>few</em> less interceptions for more sacks, more third down stops, and many more three and outs. Why? Because I believe such things would be more easier to consistently achieve than the constant gambling for interceptions. When fundamentally sound defense is played, the interceptions come along with 3rd down stops, sacks, etc. When the fundamentals get sloppy, some big highlight plays may happen, but more highlight plays will be made for the opposing offense. The 2011 Packer's played too much of a gamble defense. It produces some wonderful highs, but also some miserable lows. The tackling, pass rush, communication, and talent all must get much better. Once again, as I said, I think it will. Unfortunately, it didn't happen last season.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman'">Additionally, this is forum. It's a place for opinions. I'm not writing a survey of the literature for a grant proposal. I do that enough during the 9-5. Most of the things I'm saying are my opinion, and that should be rhetorical. I am completely justified in saying that I think the Packer's defense was bad based on what I saw upon the field. It was my experience, and I'm speaking to it. No one else has to agree with me, but one doesn't only have opinions that others agree with (at least I hope not). There are statistics available to support the argument that the Packer's defense was bad, but I find those as more of a given (in fact, some have already been posted in this same thread. I didn't feel the need to repeat them, but maybe I should have. 32 in total yards, passing yards, yards per game, net passing yards per game, 30th in 1st downs per game, tied for 20th in 3rd downs made but 7th in percentage, 2nd worst in penalties, 20th in forced fumbles, tied for 26th in recovered, etc. Enough to say they weren't very good). So the defense was 19th (I previously said 18th) in points allowed and got lots of turnovers. That's great and in no way am I attempted to diminish that. But the number of obvious communication breakdowns, the lack of pass rush, amount of yards given up, etc. were inexcusable, at times. I'm not sure if there are statistics that track communication breakdowns in the secondary, but any average viewer could tell that was a major issue. I have seen it discussed in detail around several forums, also. Some even argued that it was a bigger problem than the pass rush, although I still firmly believe a great pass rush resolves most other issues.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman'">My central argument remains the same: I want and expect better play from the Packer's overall and less reliance on gambling for interceptions. A league leading 3% of defensive snaps resulting in interceptions, or even a hypothetical 5-8% isn't enough to justify a good defense, <em>per se. </em>Significant improvement is needed throughout the other 90%+ of the defensive snaps. Continue to be assignment sure, communicate effectively, rush the passer consistently, wrap up when tackling, and the interceptions will still be there in significant quantities in addition to getting the opposing offense off the field in several other ways. The cumulative effect will be much greater than simply a lot of interceptions. Mostly, just like the 2010 Packer defense.</span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DoddPower, post: 449018, member: 809"] [SIZE=3][FONT=times new roman]Did you read my post? Specifically this part?[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=times new roman]As I noted, I said it was a BAD defense. Not the worst, but still not good. I'm sorry, but simply not being the worst defense in the league doesn't reassure me in any sense. I never want to be in a situation where I'm comparing the Packer's to the Vikings. I can live with the Packer's not being the best defense, but simply not being the worst isn't good enough for me. Maybe I'm too picky, but it is what it is. Different things appease us all.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=times new roman]As to Jaybadger's response, I also responded with some numbers. Sure, perhaps I disagreed with the wrong post, but oh no, forgive me for not using the disagree button as you see fit! How horrible! It was more a response to his earlier post in that I simply disagree with the fact that the defense wasn't bad. As I said in a previous post, the Packer's only intercepted the ball ~ 3% of the plays. I conceded that I would prefer more solid play for the other ~90% of the plays (giving some room for sacks in addition to that 3%) and a few less interceptions (I specifically said somewhere around >20). I also never meant to convey that they have to sacrifice interceptions for third down stops entirely. I only meant that a few less interceptions and many more sacks and third down stops would be preferable. It amazes me how some of you are missing my point. The main point is interceptions are always going to make up a small percentage of the defensive snaps. I think the defense would be better overall if they played significantly better for the other 90% of the plays they defend. Yes, I would gladly take a [I]few[/I] less interceptions for more sacks, more third down stops, and many more three and outs. Why? Because I believe such things would be more easier to consistently achieve than the constant gambling for interceptions. When fundamentally sound defense is played, the interceptions come along with 3rd down stops, sacks, etc. When the fundamentals get sloppy, some big highlight plays may happen, but more highlight plays will be made for the opposing offense. The 2011 Packer's played too much of a gamble defense. It produces some wonderful highs, but also some miserable lows. The tackling, pass rush, communication, and talent all must get much better. Once again, as I said, I think it will. Unfortunately, it didn't happen last season.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=times new roman]Additionally, this is forum. It's a place for opinions. I'm not writing a survey of the literature for a grant proposal. I do that enough during the 9-5. Most of the things I'm saying are my opinion, and that should be rhetorical. I am completely justified in saying that I think the Packer's defense was bad based on what I saw upon the field. It was my experience, and I'm speaking to it. No one else has to agree with me, but one doesn't only have opinions that others agree with (at least I hope not). There are statistics available to support the argument that the Packer's defense was bad, but I find those as more of a given (in fact, some have already been posted in this same thread. I didn't feel the need to repeat them, but maybe I should have. 32 in total yards, passing yards, yards per game, net passing yards per game, 30th in 1st downs per game, tied for 20th in 3rd downs made but 7th in percentage, 2nd worst in penalties, 20th in forced fumbles, tied for 26th in recovered, etc. Enough to say they weren't very good). So the defense was 19th (I previously said 18th) in points allowed and got lots of turnovers. That's great and in no way am I attempted to diminish that. But the number of obvious communication breakdowns, the lack of pass rush, amount of yards given up, etc. were inexcusable, at times. I'm not sure if there are statistics that track communication breakdowns in the secondary, but any average viewer could tell that was a major issue. I have seen it discussed in detail around several forums, also. Some even argued that it was a bigger problem than the pass rush, although I still firmly believe a great pass rush resolves most other issues.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=times new roman]My central argument remains the same: I want and expect better play from the Packer's overall and less reliance on gambling for interceptions. A league leading 3% of defensive snaps resulting in interceptions, or even a hypothetical 5-8% isn't enough to justify a good defense, [I]per se. [/I]Significant improvement is needed throughout the other 90%+ of the defensive snaps. Continue to be assignment sure, communicate effectively, rush the passer consistently, wrap up when tackling, and the interceptions will still be there in significant quantities in addition to getting the opposing offense off the field in several other ways. The cumulative effect will be much greater than simply a lot of interceptions. Mostly, just like the 2010 Packer defense.[/FONT][/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
G
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: GleefulGary
54 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 1st Rd pick #25 Jorden Morgan OL
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 3:00 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 2:51 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: rmontro
Today at 2:03 AM
Draft Talk
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: AKCheese
Today at 12:51 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Mike Daniels could propel the Packers defense
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top