Offical studs and duds lions

[easyk83]

The Packers have more talent at running back than the 2010 team but the current receiving corps is inferior compared to six years ago.

Maybe I think that our O-line is better with both run blocking and in pass pro. Lang isn't quite as good as Sitton, Bakh is better than Clifton was at the end of his career, Bulaga's improved markedly, Tretter is better than Wells was and Lane Taylor is a lot better at LG than the Matador.

If Jordy Nelson is back to form we might even have a comparable receiving corps. None of the guys in the 2010 receiving corps were as dominant as a prime Nelson. I think Randall Cobb is as good as DD was at the end of his career and our third best Adams is a push with the inconsistent 2010 incarnation of James Jones. At TE Richard Rodgers is better than Andrew Quarless was in the 2010 campaign.

 

[sschind]

Well we'd be ok without him but Randall isn't seasoned enough yet. I love that the bye is coming after Randall's last two games, get him locked in and there's no reason that he can't turn into a legit number 1 corner. His issues are very basic and very fundamental. His confidence and swagger are strengths... to a point. We don't need heroes on the back end. As Dr. Leroy said we just need to cover receivers a bit longer and we'll start racking up the sacks. It's crazy how many sacks we've produced given how bad our coverage is.

You have to wonder, with young kids like this, if all the hype goes to their heads. Prior to the start of the year so many people were looking at the Packer D-backs and claiming they were the most under rated unit in the league. Based on what? the rookie play of two young guys and two years of another. It's the same as what happened to the WRs, it was pronounced as great by so many people with nothing to base it on except a few flashes by the young guys. Both units were anchored by veterans (Nelson and Cobb and Shields and Burnett) but nothing but unproven youngsters behind them.

Or maybe the hype doesn't go to their heads maybe they are just undeserving of it. They play their hearts out as rookies when everything is new and exciting but once they have the chance to take it all in their true abilities come through and they turn out to not be as good as we thought they were after all.

 

[Royal Pain]

We need Shields back. He makes this secondary SO much better it's insane, and we're going to desperately need him for the Giants game.

I think we need to consider the possibility that Shields may never play again. After suffering 5 concussions he has to take his long term health in mind. Even if he does come back it seems he is more susceptible to another head injury, which might be more reason to retire. Regardless, we need to spend the bye coaching up these young db's, especially with Cruz, Beckham and Bryant on the horizon.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think we need to consider the possibility that Shields may never play again. After suffering 5 concussions he has to take his long term health in mind. Even if he does come back it seems he is more susceptible to another head injury, which might be more reason to retire. Regardless, we need to spend the bye coaching up these young db's, especially with Cruz, Beckham and Bryant on the horizon.

I'll go one step further, if the Packers staff has any indication that Shields may not be back anytime soon or his career is in jeopardy, its time to start talking trades or combing the FA market for a capable DB. While I'm not ready to give up on either Randall, Rollins or Gunter, I think we saw that they may not be ready to handle the load alone.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Packers two drives ending in a punt were a result of a terrible drop by Davis as well as an off throw by Rodgers to Cobb. There's no reason to blame McCarthy for it.

And yet there always seems to be an excuse for why McCarthy is a great offensive coach that just hasn't been able to field a great offense in a year. Every team drops balls. Great offenses have enough other plays to overcome those drops.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't see anybody saying MM called a terrible first half. That first half was really good only due to player execution right? While I get there have been games where fans can get on MM for his play calling, and you can start accumulating enough examples to question his play calling, but I'm kind of scratching my head how people want to include this last game as part of that portfolio/discussion.

 

[Mondio]

And yet there always seems to be an excuse for why McCarthy is a great offensive coach that just hasn't been able to field a great offense in a year. Every team drops balls. Great offenses have enough other plays to overcome those drops.

and so does green bay, very often. What they don't have, is someone to overcome every single miscue on every single play. And neither does anybody else. and your vaunted Steelers example doesn't work this week. Find a new one for now.

 

[gopkrs]

Actually, I don't know why what worked in the 1st half so well, did not go so well in the 2nd half. Did detroit make adjustments? If so, we should counter those adjustments and quickly. The same goes for Dom except nobody thinks he will even try to change in the 2nd half because, well, he just doesn't do that.

 

[Mondio]

9 rookies playing double digit snaps on defense wouldn't have anything to do with the defensive performance would it? Stupid Dom LOL

 

[sschind]

9 rookies playing double digit snaps on defense wouldn't have anything to do with the defensive performance would it? Stupid Dom LOL

I'm going to play devils advocate and say weren't those rookies playing in the first half as well? Detroit didn't do much then and even the 1 TD was a long pass against one of those rookies. What happened in the second half that changed. I'm not saying you are wrong because I absolutely think that had something to do with it but obviously something did change. Was it our D or their O?

 

[PackerDNA]

Studs- Rodgers, Nelson, Lacy, the O line, Perry, run D, ILB's
Duds- Secondary, especially Randall.

Nelson progressing much faster than I thought he would, and the timing between him and Rodgers is improving by leaps and bounds.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

and so does green bay, very often. What they don't have, is someone to overcome every single miscue on every single play. And neither does anybody else. and your vaunted Steelers example doesn't work this week. Find a new one for now.

Oh, my theory shattered by a bad week! You're correct, the Steelers are obviously a terrible offense! I'll continue waiting for the Packers offense to consistently play well and continue hearing excuses why this week doesn't count when the Packers have a bad week.

 

[swhitset]

I'm going to play devils advocate and say weren't those rookies playing in the first half as well? Detroit didn't do much then and even the 1 TD was a long pass against one of those rookies. What happened in the second half that changed. I'm not saying you are wrong because I absolutely think that had something to do with it but obviously something did change. Was it our D or their O?

I'm going to say that I don't think as much changed as it appeared. I think game situations magnified an already dicey defense. In the first half the lions did show the ability to move the ball, however the strip/pick by Randall and an explosive Packers offense obscured that. Then the touchdown by the lions at the end of the first half followed by another to open the second half really changed the way the game appeared. In reality, I think the Packers terrible pass defense in this game was apparent throughout the game. The dominant run defense combined with the fact that the lions were still feeling things out in the beginning of the game, allowed the Packers offense to take initial control of the game.

 

[Mondio]

Oh, my theory shattered by a bad week! You're correct, the Steelers are obviously a terrible offense! I'll continue waiting for the Packers offense to consistently play well and continue hearing excuses why this week doesn't count when the Packers have a bad week.

I know the excuses are what you look forward to. Sunshine my eye LOL. You can't wait to pick out what's wrong.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Flip the two halves of this game, Packers down 17-3 at halftime. Does it change the discussion? Just curious.

 

[Mondio]

Flip the two halves of this game, Packers down 17-3 at halftime. Does it change the discussion? Just curious.

other than changing what half they're complaining about? Probably not

 

[Poppa San]

other than changing what half they're complaining about? Probably not

Wrong-o
MM becomes a genius for making whatever halftime adjustments needed to be done. And Capers for tightening up the defense. More fans would be ecstatic that they are finally out of the slump.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Maybe I think that our O-line is better with both run blocking and in pass pro. Lang isn't quite as good as Sitton, Bakh is better than Clifton was at the end of his career, Bulaga's improved markedly, Tretter is better than Wells was and Lane Taylor is a lot better at LG than the Matador.

If Jordy Nelson is back to form we might even have a comparable receiving corps. None of the guys in the 2010 receiving corps were as dominant as a prime Nelson. I think Randall Cobb is as good as DD was at the end of his career and our third best Adams is a push with the inconsistent 2010 incarnation of James Jones. At TE Richard Rodgers is better than Andrew Quarless was in the 2010 campaign.

You forgot about Greg Jennings though who was an elite receiver in 2010.

I think we need to consider the possibility that Shields may never play again. After suffering 5 concussions he has to take his long term health in mind. Even if he does come back it seems he is more susceptible to another head injury, which might be more reason to retire. Regardless, we need to spend the bye coaching up these young db's, especially with Cruz, Beckham and Bryant on the horizon.

According to several reports Shields is planning on playing again. Unfortunately I expect his chances of suffering another concussion are pretty high though.

 

[gopkrs]

Just watched Leroy Butler. He says (and I am sure it is true) that if you tackle with your head up; you have a much better chance of avoiding injury. I suppose that is sometimes easier said than done. Like a receiver turning his head b4 securing the ball.

 

[Mondio]

head up is always safer, especially when considering traumatic spinal cord injuries. Cervical flexion and compression is a recipe for disaster

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I know the excuses are what you look forward to. Sunshine my eye LOL. You can't wait to pick out what's wrong.

And yet I'm constantly upbeat on the defense, Rodgers, Adams, etc. I've just never really seen McCarthy prove himself as an exceptional coach.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You forgot about Greg Jennings though who was an elite receiver in 2010.



According to several reports Shields is planning on playing again. Unfortunately I expect his chances of suffering another concussion are pretty high though.

Every concussion increases the risk of future concussions.

 

[OldSchool101]

You have to wonder, with young kids like this, if all the hype goes to their heads. Prior to the start of the year so many people were looking at the Packer D-backs and claiming they were the most under rated unit in the league. Based on what? the rookie play of two young guys and two years of another. It's the same as what happened to the WRs, it was pronounced as great by so many people with nothing to base it on except a few flashes by the young guys. Both units were anchored by veterans (Nelson and Cobb and Shields and Burnett) but nothing but unproven youngsters behind them.

Or maybe the hype doesn't go to their heads maybe they are just undeserving of it. They play their hearts out as rookies when everything is new and exciting but once they have the chance to take it all in their true abilities come through and they turn out to not be as good as we thought they were after all.

Yeah I know it didn't look pretty that second half. I think we will see a slight improvement as the season progresses though. Also, although the run D was stellar our pass rush didn't get to Stafford often enough. I've gotta think Having CM3 in would've resulted in a few more QB hurries at the very least and having Shields in would've resulted in a few more contested throws to incompletion. We were missing arguably our best NT, LB, CB and an experienced S. IMO, if those guys get inserted into the same situation we wouldn't have looked so soft
Stafford can be a very formidable and accurate passer if given time and he showed that again last Sunday

 

[Packerlifer]

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...dominated-field-position-battle-against-lions

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Guess after reading this article, I would have to say "Starting Field Position" was a "Stud" during the Lions game. That was one area that seemed to continually hurt us in the Viking game.

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...dominated-field-position-battle-against-lions