1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Our porous secondary

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Timmons, Sep 29, 2006.

  1. Timmons

    Timmons Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    623
    Ratings:
    +1
    Does anyone have any stats on how many 'explosive' (over 16 yards or something like that) passes were completed against our zone vs. our man to man coverage?

    It seems to me that we've got a lot of problems with the transition in the zone. I'd like to see more one on one press coverage from the corners, with safety support only after the ball is thrown.

    I'd also like to ask why we don't stagger our corners more and bring Manuel closer to the line to help more with run support and let Collins help on the long ball. If this is where they are good, then let them shine.

    I like to see our corners covering deep with Collins coming to help.

    If we're not going to bench Manuel, then we should at least hide him in the traffic near the line of scrimmage.

    Btw, Woodson needs to start tackling receivers during the catch and NOT after, and for god sakes, hit someone like you mean it. His barnacle tackling technique of lacking on for the ride doesn't scare any receivers.
     
  2. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    Our main problem, in my opinion, is that both our safeties are best in run support and hitting, they are too much alike. It was a mistake to bring in Manuel when we already had Collins, they aren't a good duo because they don't complement each other.
     
  3. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0
    We should be using Manuel like Denver uses Lynch. Expecting a slowing safety to cover receivers is bad coaching. I would even let Manuel play some SSLB if it ends up Poppinga or Taylor can't cover tight ends or stay with RBs. The greatest quality a coach has is the ability to make adjustments on the field and in the film room. The elite coaches do it in both places. We haven't had an elite coach for a while.
     
  4. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
     
  5. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    How about SIGNING "a slowing safety"? Don't blame the coach. He didn't sign this stiff.
     
  6. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I see your point, and agree, but is Ted forcing Mike to play that safety over his draft pick? :shrug:
     
  7. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Over his 6th round draft pick that isn't making close to the kind of money that Manuel is making? I'd say it's a possiblity, but I'm not into conspiracy theories.
     
  8. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    He hand picked Culver!! :)
     
  9. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0

    Point taken De, but from what Manuel did on the field last year when Hamlin went down, he was a good choice. In hind sight though, it was too much money. We've had about a ten year cycle of being Santa Claus. Apply whichever GM you want, they all do it.
     
  10. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Manuel is good against the run and bad against the pass. It's pretty obvious. I wish Green Bay would have the coaching to utilize Manuel against the run and bring Culver in against the pass. Cutting Mark Roman was a mistake as he could of been that sub in SS on nickel and dime packages.
     
  11. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0
    Porky, was Roman cut before or after Underwood got hurt? If it was before, I agree with getting rid of Roman.
     
  12. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0
    Really? Underwood didn't look very good at all in preseason before he got hurt
     
  13. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, I didn't actually see the practices, but the reports I read said he was about to earn the starting job. I know he wasn't up to speed last year, but it was reported a very noticeable improvement by Underwood.
     
  14. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    He was release before Underwood got hurt.

    Although Underwood was receiving a lot of praise for his play in training camp before he got hurt. He was actually the talk of the defense and Greg Jennings was the talk of the offense.

    With that said Roman was good against the pass and we new Manuel's weakness was the pass. In the right situations both could of helped us. Manuel has helped against the run but his play against the pass is as bad as Roman's is against the run. So releasing Roman was done prematurely in my opinion.
     
  15. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Are you serious? Underwood got hurt on the very first defensive series in preseason. Holy smokes are you quick to judge.
     
  16. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    He isn't judging, he is guessing stuff he doesn't know jack**** about and hopes that nobody discovers it. Common thing in these kind of forums
     
  17. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    And Culver was a long shot to make the team at first. Manuel is making alot more money and was expected to be the starter. I personally think Culver has way more upside and I wish underwood wouldn't have gotten hurt because he may have unseated Manuel.
     
  18. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    That was still pretty bad. His hated for TT must know no bounds.
     
  19. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    Personally I know Culver will get his chance, maybe not before the end of this season or next season, but he will get it.
     
  20. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hopefully we are smart enough to be that team that gives him a chance or else he goes elsewhere and we lose out on potentially a very good player.
     
  21. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0
    Excuse me, but he did play in the Televised scrimmage. He didn't look very good, sorry.


    And Gakk you don't know jack**** about anything so please keep your opinions to yourself
     
  22. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm not gonna get down with you pyle, forget about it.

    And btw, listen to this:

     
  23. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Lol I take it you are afriad of debate with Gakk. Anyways, you base your judgement off of a televised scrimmage. Ironic you tell someone else they don't know "jackshit about anything"......
     
  24. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    About the scrimmage, you can't judge anyone based on that. If it's true, that Underwood was "the talk of the defense", he must have done something right. Did you watch him practice every day like the coaches did?
     
  25. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0
    First off I quit watching Star Wars along time ago Gakk, so please explain what that means?


    Secondly Cory I didn't hear he was the "talk of the defense". Provide me a link please.

    I also was using the "you don't know jack**** comment as a comeback to his little childish rant.


    You want to debate it thats fine but Gakk would rather resort to childish comments instead, par for the course on here.

    I ask you when the last time you saw Underwood play well? Not what you heard, what you saw. I eagerly await your response
     

Share This Page