Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PackAttack12" data-source="post: 850133" data-attributes="member: 11933">Another thing you have to take into consideration is the quarterbacks in these sets of games that you reference.In the first 3 games, we played Trubisky, Cousins, and Flacco. Not necessarily guys that strike fear in you. Also, the Packers could ill afford to play soft zone and allow sustained drives because we didn't know if the offense could keep up yet in games like that.Since then, we've played against Wentz (far better than any of the above), Dak (after getting up 31-3, put up a lot of yards in 2nd half), Stafford (played well for much of the game), Oakland (Rodgers was dialed in, much easier to play zone), and Matt Moore (but their playmakers are insanely good).As I mentioned previously, the defensive approach against Kansas City was sound and smart. Measuring defensive performance isn't always about looking at points scored. It's how to we minimize the potency against guys like Tyreke Hill. And guess what? He never broke loose for a big one, by design.The Packers would have really been in a bad way if Hill burnt us deep a couple of times.</blockquote>

Total: 142 (members: 3, guests: 139)