Moral Victory

[BorderRivals.com]

I think yesterday was a moral victory for this squad (http://wp.me/p29VCs-iC). I usually hate making such a statement because a team as good as the Packers should not have to rely upon moral victories. But, with that being said, there were a number of positives that make it a moral victory for me. Despite losing the turnover and field position (Ross was terrible) battles, and really not being able to sustain drives consistently, the Packers showed a toughness and resiliency that has been severely lacking the last two years.

Do you guys believe in moral victories? Does this game qualify as one?

 

[easyk83]

I think so, unlike our playoff disaster this was a very Coachable loss and quite frankly I think our team has more room to grow than the 49ners. I also think that our absent players had a more significant impact on our team than their absences had on them. Some of those long completions by Kap just don't happen against even a mediocre Safety tandem, they had a lot of help from Jennings and McMillan.

 

[Dan115]

It is not how you start the season but how you finish.

 

[GoPGo]

It is not how you start the season but how you finish.

Some people are acting as if they expected us to go 19-0 this year. This was the toughest game we'll play this year and we had a lot of rookies, second year players and first time starters out there. These Packers will only get better as the season goes on.

 

[tynimiller]

I will say this much, I'd rather return (if we should have to) to San Fran in the playoffs having lost a winnable game early than having won this one at their house and have to face them in the playoffs there seeking to defend/revenge the home field loss.

 

[12theTruth]

I think yesterday was a moral victory for this squad (http://wp.me/p29VCs-iC). I usually hate making such a statement because a team as good as the Packers should not have to rely upon moral victories. But, with that being said, there were a number of positives that make it a moral victory for me. Despite losing the turnover and field position (Ross was terrible) battles, and really not being able to sustain drives consistently, the Packers showed a toughness and resiliency that has been severely lacking the last two years.

Do you guys believe in moral victories? Does this game qualify as one?

If it turns out that we had no serious injuries than I'd be willing to look at it like that. It depends on what we feel the Packers are capable of this season. What do we expect? I expected the Packers to lose yesterday but not to give up 400 yards through the air to the 49ers. Thats why you have depth. Will we get better at LT? Sure! Other teams got better though too. The Lions may give us fits now that they have Reggie Bush. Will the Packers improve enough to offset the improvements made by fellow rivals?

The Packers will most assuredly fair better against teams which don't have the dominant offensive and defensive lines as did the 49ers. So I do look forward to growth this season. This team just has a couple of positional groups that aren't good enough to contend for a championship I.M.O.

 

[ExpatPacker]

That was true largely of the first half, but in the second half, particularly the 4th quarter the defense gave up too many big plays and the offense had critical 3-and-outs. I'll be negative for a moment to highlight why the moral victory line doesn't cut it:

- 3rd time in a row beaten by SF. That's not a moral victory.
- 9ers gained almost 500 yards on offense. Yes Packers stopped the run but an ineffective pass rush combined with a poor secondary made Kaepernick look like the best QB in the NFL.
- MM and Capers could not make adjustments and were out-coached again by their counterparts. We have seen this before. It's getting harder and harder for me not to jump on the Fire Capers bandwagon. Good teams torch this defense and SF did again yesterday.
- Poor run blocking and a running game again. Lacy showed something late, but that doesn't hide the fact that this OL was ineffective at opening holes. Same ol same ol.

Of course there are positives from this game, but moral victories are for teams that have been stomped on regularly and need to show themselves something. The Packers are not that kind of team. They are a playoff team with SB potential that has suffered from poor defense for years, and yesterday didn't change that all that much. The DL looked better, but the secondary was terrible.

 

[GoPGo]

I will say this much, I'd rather return (if we should have to) to San Fran in the playoffs having lost a winnable game early than having won this one at their house and have to face them in the playoffs there seeking to defend/revenge the home field loss.

I also don't see anyone beating us 4 times in a row, especially if it's at Lambeau. There's no reason we can't come very close to winning out from here, and it starts with a convincing win over Washington next week.

 

[easyk83]

That was true largely of the first half, but in the second half, particularly the 4th quarter the defense gave up too many big plays and the offense had critical 3-and-outs. I'll be negative for a moment to highlight why the moral victory line doesn't cut it:

- 3rd time in a row beaten by SF. That's not a moral victory.
- 9ers gained almost 500 yards on offense. Yes Packers stopped the run but an ineffective pass rush combined with a poor secondary made Kaepernick look like the best QB in the NFL.
- MM and Capers could not make adjustments and were out-coached again by their counterparts. We have seen this before. It's getting harder and harder for me not to jump on the Fire Capers bandwagon. Good teams torch this defense and SF did again yesterday.
- Poor run blocking and a running game again. Lacy showed something late, but that doesn't hide the fact that this OL was ineffective at opening holes. Same ol same ol.

Of course there are positives from this game, but moral victories are for teams that have been stomped on regularly and need to show themselves something. The Packers are not that kind of team. They are a playoff team with SB potential that has suffered from poor defense for years, and yesterday didn't change that all that much. The DL looked better, but the secondary was terrible.

I disagree, they were physically dominated the first game last year and then dominated and blown out in the Playoffs. Yesterday showed that the Packers could play with them physically. IMHO the problem is that the team was so amped up about proving they weren't soft that they forgot to play well. In spite of Offensive miscues, turnovers and ST mistakes they were still in position to win the game down until the final minutes. Besides a lot of those big gainers in the 49ners passing game just don't happen against a mediocre Safety tandem, yes Morgan Burnett would have made a big difference.

 

[12theTruth]

I disagree, they were physically dominated the first game last year and then dominated and blown out in the Playoffs. Yesterday showed that the Packers could play with them physically. IMHO the problem is that the team was so amped up about proving they weren't soft that they forgot to play well. In spite of Offensive miscues, turnovers and ST mistakes they were still in position to win the game down until the final minutes. Besides a lot of those big gainers in the 49ners passing game just don't happen against a mediocre Safety tandem, yes Morgan Burnett would have made a big difference.

One player is going to cover up the glaring weakness that was the secondary yesterday? I'm not buying it. They'd have been better but big difference. I don't think so.

 

[GeeDogWarrior]

We weren't completely manhandled up front like last year's season opener - our oline wasn't completely curb stomped by their front seven.

Our defense actually showed up against the Run - shut down their scrambles and such.

So we held up in our front lines against the best Oline and Dline in the league right now - so I guess the moral victory is that we'll have a smooth sailing going against any other oline/dline we come across this year, so there's that.

 

[Chicocheese]

I will say this: A Packers team laced with mistakes and stupid penalties hung in there with a flawless 49ers team. The penalties can be coached down, the mistake like the dropped pass turned INT can be fixed with a bit more focus, and I think Lacy learned his fumbling lesson.

 

[Ceodore]

I was surprisingly pleased by our D-line and thought we did well to contain Kap (although I didn't think he made very many attempts to break free and run), but thought the secondary was embarrassing. I think it's time we stop trying to mold every one of those guys and go after one of the studs when they're available.

 

[easyk83]

One player is going to cover up the glaring weakness that was the secondary yesterday? I'm not buying it. They'd have been better but big difference. I don't think so.

Like Ive been saying a lot of those big gainers wouldn't have happened against even a mediocre safety tandem. McMillan was so bad and the cause of so many big plays that replacing him with Burnett would have made a huge difference. For instance on the much discussed 3rd and 6 McMillan was in perfect position to stop Davis well short of the first down marker, instead he hesitated and we all know what happened next. McMillan was also in perfect position to stop Boldin around midfield on his long 40 yard gainer, instead he froze and let his man run right around him across his face. Those two mistakes led to 14 points for the opposition.Don't get me started on the deep balls where he was out of position.

Again to flog a dead horse, it's not just the ability but also having a veteran back there to help keep the unit calm focused and in position.

 

[12theTruth]

Like Ive been saying a lot of those big gainers wouldn't have happened against even a mediocre safety tandem. McMillan was so bad and the cause of so many big plays that replacing him with Burnett would have made a huge difference. For instance on the much discussed 3rd and 6 McMillan was in perfect position to stop Davis well short of the first down marker, instead he hesitated and we all know what happened next. McMillan was also in perfect position to stop Boldin around midfield on his long 40 yard gainer, instead he froze and let his man run right around him across his face. Those two mistakes led to 14 points for the opposition.Don't get me started on the deep balls where he was out of position.

Again to flog a dead horse, it's not just the ability but also having a veteran back there to help keep the unit calm focused and in position.

Burnett wouldn't have been targeted as often and Kaepernick would have went to other option. It wasn't like anyone in the secondary was having an A game.

 

[easyk83]

Burnett wouldn't have been targeted as often and Kaepernick would have went to other option. It wasn't like anyone in the secondary was having an A game.

That's an irrelevant argument. Whether other players weren't particularly effective does not detract from one player's terrible performance. Nor did you even acknowledge whether or not Morgan Burnett would have an effect on the rest of the Secondary. If anything Id argue that McMillan's play made the rest of the secondary look much worse. Other options, how many downfield options of 20+ or more do you think he had on a given play? I'll trade 40 yard completions for 5-12 yard completions every day of the week.

 

[12theTruth]

That's an irrelevant argument. Whether other players weren't particularly effective does not detract from one player's terrible performance. Nor did you even acknowledge whether or not Morgan Burnett would have an effect on the rest of the Secondary. If anything Id argue that McMillan's play made the rest of the secondary look much worse. Other options, how many downfield options of 20+ or more do you think he had on a given play? I'll trade 40 yard completions for 5-12 yard completions every day of the week.

So Burnett is going to make Williams tackle better? Burnett is going to ensure that Hyde doesn't make rookie mistakes?

I said simply the QB would look elsewhere if Burnett had been in their instead of McMillian.

By big improvement, maybe you should quantity that with stats. Would the Packers only give up 250 yards through the air and only 100 yards to Boldin?

I simply disagree with Burnett making a substantial difference in what transpired in the secondary. I acknowledged he would have helped but as far as big improvement, I'd say no

 

[BorderRivals.com]

I think your both right. Burnett would have made a big difference in the game - Wilde even said a healthy Burnett and Hayward was the difference between winning and losing. But, it's hard to quantify how much. I think the intangible aspect of having Burnett there was almost missed more than his physical play. We played a lot of zone yesterday. Having a communicator that knows the defense getting everyone in the right position makes a difference. In addition to McMillian and Jennings not playing well, I thought there were few plays that seemed to result from mis-communication - circa 2011 squad.