Monday night Football v Falcons official thread

[MichiganSportsTalk]

Well, as we have seen time and again for as long as any of us have been watching sports, anyone has a chance on any given Game Day.

True. And while the Lions have done well this year, I've been watching them for almost 25 years now. Any optimism I have will be of the VERY cautious variety

The Lions had a couple of key injuries on the O line (Warford and someone else) but they are back now so it's a big deal for any team to have it's O line intact with starters.

The past 2 weeks were encouraging. Granted, it was the Bears and Bucs, but players were making plays. The Cardinals game was a dumpster fire, but they were near full strength for the first time in a while, I chalked that up to an adjustment period. The Pats game was awful, but there were some bright(ish) spots. Yes, there were 3 dropped passes in the end zone, and another 5 or 6 drops between the goal lines, but overall they moved the ball well, and Stafford was sharp on his passes. The defense did as well as they could against Brady considering how often they had to be on the field, and they gave Detroit a chance at winning, but the offense floundered.

I see on NFL.com that DT Fairley did not practice. What's the prognosis on him?

Sprained MCL and PCL. He didn't tear anything, so no surgery required. They say that injury takes about 6 weeks to heal, and it happened in London, which was 6 weeks ago. Even if he is recovered from it, it will still take a couple weeks to get him back to playing form. My guess, the Lions are going to see what happens in weeks 15 and 16. If they win both, and week 17 is for the division and HFA, then I expect they will play him. I like Aaron Rodgers, but with Suh and Fairley both hounding him, that only increases the Lions chances of a win. If they lose prior to week 17, my bet is that they rest him, hope for a wild card and save him for the playoffs.

 

[PFanCan]

For the "a win is a win" crowd, I respectfully submit the 2011 season.

For the half empty crowd, I respectfully submit over two decades of Packer seasons from 1968 - 1991. Wins during those lean seasons were not plentiful then.

A win on Sunday is a good thing.

 

[adambr2]

That Atlanta offense is better than people realize. I dont we gave them enough credit.

Our defense def decided to take the 2nd half off and mail it in. Disappointed in Shields and Peppers performance among several others. Props to starks tonight.

Maybe this will put them on notice to not do this crap again.

Shields needs to play a lot better than he played last night.

I don't expect him to completely shut down every elite WR he plays, but we're not paying him $10M a year to get completely undressed by top WR's. He better not make that a habit if he wants to see the last couple years of this contract.

 

[Mklangelo]

Shields needs to play a lot better than he played last night.

I don't expect him to completely shut down every elite WR he plays, but we're not paying him $10M a year to get completely undressed by top WR's. He better not make that a habit if he wants to see the last couple years of this contract.

Do the Pack even have such an option? Not saying they will need to exercise it but just curious.

 

[brandon2348]

As a Lions fan, the worst part about last night was not that the Falcons lost after coming so close, it's that those bastards have now given us hope that the Lions have a chance in week 17.......

199* what ? You jumping in your time machine?

 

[brandon2348]

No "Fire Capers" talk from me. He has been able to make useful adjustments this year to the nagging ILB issue because we are pretty healthy this year. (Of course it did take him quite some time to realize that Hawk is a liability)

But the D is not one you can have faith in. One week they can look great against the best team in the AFC. The next week an "also ran" from the NFC South can hang 37 on them.

Just sayin...
The Pack are without a doubt playoff material and on any given day can beat anyone, and I mean anyone.
The problem is, you just never can know which Defense will show.

I'll let others more knowledgeable than I talk about what the match-up problems are for this D that allow them to do great against a team like the Pats or the Eagles, then become a piece of Swiss cheese against a mediocre team from the NFC South.

Is it scheme or is it personnel?

Next week it's the Bills in their house after a short week.
They have a pretty stout defense over there and we may not be able to hang 43 on them.

I don't think it was anything special the Falcons did as far as match ups or scheme. Our guys just got beat and had a hard time containing them in the second half. It just happens sometimes and the good thing is we have an offense that can out score people if needed. Once again most experts have Matt Ryan as a top 10 QB in the league and Atlanta has pro-bowl talent receivers. The Falcons could of done that to any team in the League on a day they have it clicking. We just couldn't get enough pressure on Ryan last night to disrupt him IMO.

Buffalo is completely different monster. I really don't see a Kyle Orton led offense throwing 43 up on us. Buffalo like to grind it out and play tough defense.

 

[pacmaniac]

I can't believe this quote from Clay Matthews:

"Write it. Put it in there so we have something to talk about, so that way we can overcome it and be like, 'I told you so.' Write it."

People have been writing it for 4 years now, and the Packers D rarely steps up and says "I told you so."

 

[Mklangelo]

I'm not thinking they'll hang 43 on us. I'm thinking we may not be able to hang it on them if need be.

I really don't see a Kyle Orton led offense throwing 43 up on us. Buffalo like to grind it out and play tough defense.

Well, I guess that all depends on which Green Bay Defense show up on Sunday. And about who can put up 43 points or not, I'm more worried about us having to.

 

[adambr2]

Do the Pack even have such an option? Not saying they will need to exercise it but just curious.

Every team has that option. Most NFL contracts aren't fully guaranteed.

Shields cap number goes up to $12.125M for 2016 and 2017. There would be some dead money, but he needs to be playing at a reasonably high level to see the last 2 years.

 

[brandon2348]

Shields needs to play a lot better than he played last night.

I don't expect him to completely shut down every elite WR he plays, but we're not paying him $10M a year to get completely undressed by top WR's. He better not make that a habit if he wants to see the last couple years of this contract.

Shields is our best "cover corner". I think he is actually a bit underrated and Patrick Peterson got undressed by the same connection of Ryan to Jones. Should the Cards get rid of him too?

This is where our corners get no love as they play mostly straight up man to man like the Cards do. If our pass rush doesn't disrupt with bringing guys there jobs become unbelievably difficult.

This is why I get so upset at times when people hype up the Seahawks secondary so much as there corners play a "deep cover 3" over 90 percent of the time. I would love too of seen Richard Sherman try to man up on Julio Jones straight up last night.


It happens to those guys too. Check Roddy White out in a playoff game and Sherman was lined 10 yards off the ball.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[adambr2]

Shields is our best "cover corner". I think he is actually a bit underrated and Patrick Peterson got undressed by the same connection of Ryan to Jones. Should the Cards get rid of him too?

This is where our corners get no love as they play mostly straight up man to man like the Cards do. If our pass rush doesn't disrupt with bringing guys there jobs become unbelievably difficult.

This is why I get so upset at times when people hype up the Seahawks secondary so much as there corners play a "deep cover 3" over 90 percent of the time. I would love too of seen Richard Sherman try to man up on Julio Jones straight up last night.

I didn't say the Packers should get rid of Shields. I said if he wants to see the last couple years of his contract ($12.125M in 2016 and 2017 each), he needs to be playing at a reasonably high level. Not being benched in games for guys like Davon House.

I like Shields and can certainly just chalk it up to a bad game for now, but he needs to play better.

I'm also not going to criticize the Seahawks for a scheme that works. Like you said, our coverage only works with a pass rush. When you're getting none, you better adjust and get out of the single high safety with no help over the top on Jones. That's on Capers as he never adjusted last night. They never schemed to take Julio out of the game. They were going to let him beat us and they're lucky he didn't.

 

[brandon2348]

I didn't say the Packers should get rid of Shields. I said if he wants to see the last couple years of his contract ($12.125M in 2016 and 2017 each), he needs to be playing at a reasonably high level. Not being benched in games for guys like Davon House.

I like Shields and can certainly just chalk it up to a bad game for now, but he needs to play better.

He just had a concussion. I am not worried about Sammie.

 

[Mklangelo]

He just had a concussion. I am not worried about Sammie.

Don't get me wrong about asking what the terms of Shields contract are as far as the Packer's options.

I like Shields as well. I was just curious.

Now I've seen the term "dead money" mentioned in descriptions here about contract money and how it works against the cap.

Am I correct in thinking that Dead Money is that which counts against your Cap limit, regardless of whether or not a player is kept, released or traded?

 

[TJV]

Am I correct in thinking that Dead Money is that which counts against your Cap limit, regardless of whether or not a player is kept, released or traded?

Dead money refers to the accelerated signing bonus of a player who is no longer on the team. For example, if a player signs a 5 year contract with a $10M signing bonus and is released after the third year, the team would have $4M in dead cap money due to his release. OTOH, Rodgers' cap hit - both his salary and prorated bonus aren't referred to as "dead" money.

 

[Mklangelo]

Dead money refers to the accelerated signing bonus of a player who is no longer on the team. For example, if a player signs a 5 year contract with a $10M signing bonus and is released after the third year, the team would have $4M in dead cap money due to his release. OTOH, Rodgers cap hit - both his salary and prorated bonus aren't referred to as "dead" money.

So your example assumes 2M per each of the 5 years and the remaining 4M goes to the released player and counts against the Cap?

Rodgers money is not Dead because it's being paid to a player that the Packers still have?

 

[TJV]

So your example assumes 2M per each of the 5 years and the remaining 4M goes to the released player and counts against the Cap?

Not exactly, the bonus was paid to the player at the time he signed the contract. For cap purposes, it gets prorated over the length of the contract. Since the player didn't make it to the end of the contract, the "unused" prorated bonus gets accelerated when the player is waived.

Rodgers money is not Dead because it's being paid to a player that the Packers still have?

Yes, it's not "dead" because the player is still on the roster.

BTW, when players like Hawk reach the last year or last couple of years of their contracts, the total compensation they are due to receive under the contract many times is a larger cap hit than waiving them and taking the dead money cap hit. That's why if both Hawk and Brad Jones are released after this season, the Packers would gain about $7.25M in cap space even though they represent about $2.6M in dead money (I'm not sure if those are the correct numbers, but they're close).

 

[melvin dangerr]

Welcome to your personal house of horror.

Thats and interesting quote, May I add this, "Stupidity is also a gift of God", "But one must not misuse it"

 

[Mklangelo]

Not exactly, the bonus was paid to the player at the time he signed the contract. For cap purposes, it gets prorated over the length of the contract. Since the player didn't make it to the end of the contract, the "unused" prorated bonus gets accelerated when the player is waived.
Yes, it's not "dead" because the player is still on the roster.

BTW, when players like Hawk reach the last year or last couple of years of their contracts, the total compensation they are due to receive under the contract many times is a larger cap hit than waiving them and taking the dead money cap hit. That's why if both Hawk and Brad Jones are released after this season, the Packers would gain about $7.25M in cap space even though they represent about $2.6M in dead money (I'm not sure if those are the correct numbers, but they're close).

Thanks for the info!

 

[Half Empty]

For the half empty crowd, I respectfully submit over two decades of Packer seasons from 1968 - 1991. Wins during those lean seasons were not plentiful then.

A win on Sunday is a good thing.

And, as the other guy said, it's better to win than to lose. My point is throughout 2011, a lot of us were saying the wins were smoke and mirrors, and that if the offensive steamroller ever slowed down, the defense would lose it for us. The two games that year in which they scored less than 20 were the losses to KC to end the perfect season and to the Giants to end the whole season. Just saying the only game were 'a win is a win' is the Super Bowl - for all the rest, style points do count if you're looking for a Lombardi.

 

[grampi]

The problem is the defense has developed the habit of just coasting after being up three scores or mroe at half. That needs to stop, they need to play four quarters all the time, every time, and give a damn about points allowed.
Hopefulyl this is a wakeup call.

It's not just the defense, they go ultra conservative on offense too. The offense was scoring at will in the 1st half and they basically did nothing in the 3rd qtr. Why McCarthy and Capers continue to go the complete opposite direction after they get a big lead is beyond me. Both the offensive and defensive game plans were working to perfection in the 1st half, why not continue playing exactly the same way in the 2nd half? You stick with what's working until it doesn't work anymore. As much as I can't stand the man, Billichick has the right philosophy; keep the pedal to metal the entire game no matter how big a lead you may have. This garbage of getting big leads and then trying to coast to a victory is going to bite this team in the ***...

 

[Half Empty]

Do the Pack even have such an option? Not saying they will need to exercise it but just curious.

If you mean do they have the option to cut him, always. It's just going to be painful to either keep or cut him http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/sam-shields/

 

[E. Wolf]

It's not just the defense, they go ultra conservative on offense too. The offense was scoring at will in the 1st half and they basically did nothing in the 3rd qtr. Why McCarthy and Capers continue to go the complete opposite direction after they get a big lead is beyond me. Both the offensive and defensive game plans were working to perfection in the 1st half, why not continue playing exactly the same way in the 2nd half? You stick with what's working until it doesn't work anymore. As much as I can't stand the man, Billichick has the right philosophy; keep the pedal to metal the entire game no matter how big a lead you may have. This garbage of getting big leads and then trying to coast to a victory is going to bite this team in the ***...

Well, Belichick does run up scores needlessly. Still it is not time to take the foot off the gass until the 4th quarter. And you are right, they do it on both sides.
Hopefully this will be a wake up call. A sort of loss, but with a win.

 

[ivo610]

Shields needs to play a lot better than he played last night.

I don't expect him to completely shut down every elite WR he plays, but we're not paying him $10M a year to get completely undressed by top WR's. He better not make that a habit if he wants to see the last couple years of this contract.

agreed. Cant be paid that much and be on the wrong end of records. I think everyone expects more. Hopefully this is an outlier and he continues to grow as a player

 

[E. Wolf]

The 25 plus years in the wilderness is not the standard to hold ourselves. Do not settle for mediocrity.

 

[XPack]

agreed. Cant be paid that much and be on the wrong end of records. I think everyone expects more. Hopefully this is an outlier and he continues to grow as a player

Not that Tramon was any better. Still can't figure out why we didn't have a dedicated safety when it was obvious Jones was running riot!