Packers to be More Physical

[13 Times Champs]

About damn time. Some of us have been saying the Packers were too soft.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rs-bound-and-determined-to-get-more-physical/

 

[Jordyruns]

I personally think they have been too physical the past couple of seasons.


In all seriousness if this actually happens I will be ecstatic

 

[HyponGrey]

McGinn can be an @ when it comes to the draft. It's the only time of the year I stop reading his articles. Deadspin did a piece on it.

We have little clue if he's conjecturing, or what the FO means by that if he's not.

 

[GeeDogWarrior]

Great - start by making the oline run block.
An Oline that can bust opposing defenses in the nose - practices against our D - makes our D tougher.
It's science.

 

[rodell330]

Team hasnt been tough for some time now. Talk is cheap.

 

[Sunshine885500]

I totally agree with the getting more Physical philosophy. If you look at the good 3-4 Defenses the Front 7 sets the tone. Other then Mathews GB hasn't had anyone in the front 7 that Offenses have to concern themselves with, as a matter of fact our next biggest playmaker was Charles Woodson at Safety to blitz off the corner. This has been the problem with our defense from the beginning. The Defensive Line and Linebackers have to set the tone.

 

[HyponGrey]

Great - start by making the oline run block.
An Oline that can bust opposing defenses in the nose - practices against our D - makes our D tougher.
It's science.

You can run block or you can pass block. Very rarely can you have both. It's reality.

I'm fine with what we have run blocking. Sitton is good, EDS Bulaga and Lang are more than serviceable, and a LT doesn't have to run block IMO. Let's pass block and keep Aaron off his rear and not let him get hit 51 times.

 

[bozz_2006]

Sick of hearing this company line.

 

[okcpackerfan]

^ bozz is such a boss...usually says exactly what I am thinking. Hopefully it's more than just talk this year. Hopefully.

 

[Shawnsta3]

I don't think at this time Jolly makes the team. Mulligan is only on the edge of making it also, so throw both these guys out the window.

So now we want Ted to draft more physical players? More physical= more injuries.

If we didn't have half our team on I.R. every year and third stringers starting I have a feeling we would be more "physical" not that I really buy our physicality of being a problem at all anyways.

 

[7thFloorRA]

I thought they said this last off season. I will believe it when I see it on the field.

 

[PWT]

I don't think at this time Jolly makes the team. Mulligan is only on the edge of making it also, so throw both these guys out the window.

So now we want Ted to draft more physical players? More physical= more injuries.

If we didn't have half our team on I.R. every year and third stringers starting I have a feeling we would be more "physical" not that I really buy our physicality of being a problem at all anyways.

"

Shawnsta3 I agree with you. Packers cannot play "musical chairs' with Packer OL, because on injuries during the 2012 season. and have backups take the place of Starters during the 2012 season.

 

[El Guapo]

Atari Bigby was probably the last physical player that we had on the team. He couldn't stay on the field because of the injuries.

The Packers have the ability to play physical, and as I've mentioned in the past they absolutely did against Seattle. However, the key is answering why they don't play that way predominantly. Do we really need all new players or is it a team/coach/player philosophy that encourages it? I don't know

 

[bozz_2006]

Our players can play physical. But they don't because they don't know how. When we get physical, we get undiscilined. We need to figure out a way to get physicality out of our guys without getting burned. You brought up Seattle; it's a nit-picky point, but even on the final play, if we played disciplined, that ball should've just been batted down. That's a microcosm of the greater issue. All these guys have the ability to play physical. The trick is getting them to play smart-physical, not stupid-physical. And that's no secret. Unfortunately, our coaching staff hasn't figured out how to implement that.

 

[rodell330]

^^^^BINGO!!

 

[jaybadger82]

Our players can play physical. But they don't because they don't know how. When we get physical, we get undiscilined. We need to figure out a way to get physicality out of our guys without getting burned. You brought up Seattle; it's a nit-picky point, but even on the final play, if we played disciplined, that ball should've just been batted down. That's a microcosm of the greater issue. All these guys have the ability to play physical. The trick is getting them to play smart-physical, not stupid-physical. And that's no secret. Unfortunately, our coaching staff hasn't figured out how to implement that.

...seriously?

 

[bozz_2006]

yep. like i said, nit-picky. super nit-picky. but the rule on a Hail Mary is you knock the ball down. Physical plays and splashy plays are the same mentality; knock-out blow, home-run cut, monster drive, same thing. Tough. We needed a smart play there. He went for the splashy play. There's a time for smart, there's a time for splashy. He went for splashy, actually made the play, but got scew'd because he didn't act definitively, and he left it to a judgment call.

 

[jaybadger82]

Now you're just stringing together cool football phrases...

yep. like i said, nit-picky. super nit-picky. but the rule on a Hail Mary is you knock the ball down. Physical plays and splashy plays are the same mentality; knock-out blow, home-run cut, monster drive, same thing. Tough. We needed a smart play there. He went for the splashy play. There's a time for smart, there's a time for splashy. He went for splashy, actually made the play, but got scew'd because he didn't act definitively, and he left it to a judgment call.

You don't know what the Packers secondary was coached to do on that play. Knocking down the ball doesn't always work (see link). Stupid **** happens. Fact is, we definitively intercepted the ball in front of God and a national television audience. Apparently, intercepting the ball doesn't always work either. The refs ****** that one up.

To your original point: not sure why that makes it exemplary of the Packers' lack of toughness last season. The whole fail Mary episode as symbolic of the Packers' lack of toughness makes about as much sense as a bath tub being symbolic for "perseverance" (none whatsoever).

In fact, I thought the Packers showed some guff in the Seattle game. They got punched in the mouth by a tough team on the road, falling behind 7-0 in the first half, when the offense couldn't buy a first down. The Packers rallied out of halftime by abandoning the three WR sets in favor of more hard-nosed two TE sets and scored twelve unanswered points. The defense held Seattle to just seven points all night but for the mother of all botched calls on the final play. (Seattle wouldn't have been in field position to run that Hail Mary but for a couple of botched calls- roughing the passer and pass interference- earlier in the fourth quarter.) On the whole, I thought Green Bay played a good Seattle team pretty tough that night. [Box Score]

I agree that the Packers need to get tougher but I think pointing to the "fail Mary" episode as symbolic of team's lack of toughness in 2012 is a mistake.

 

[bozz_2006]

I agree with you on the toughness. I addressed Seattle because it was brought up in the post right before mine. And I'm of the mindset that there is a superfine line to walk regarding playing tough and playing smart. Collectively as a team, we don't do that very well.

Yes I overstated the situation, and i did offer the caveat that I was being nit-picky. Yes we did intercept that pass, but it was an overly aggressive play; not smart. I doubt you'd argue that aggressiveness and toughness aren't related. If you'll re-read my post fairly, I think you'll see the point I was making. And I didn't say exemplary; I said it was a microcosm. Over and over our players show that they don't know when to step up and make the big play and when to step back and make the smart play. How many times did our defense whiff because they either exhibited too much or too little aggressiveness? That was my point.

There are tough players who can't hack it because they can't calculate when to be make the smart play. There are smart players who can't back it because they don't know when to make the tough play. Yes w made the pick and yes we got hosed. But if he would've made the smart play there, the probability of us getting hosed decreases dramatically.

And no I wasn't there when players are coached on how to react to a Hail Mary attempt. But that's 101 stuff; you knock it down. Get the ball to the ground as quickly as you can. Cause the incompletion. Game over.

Of course I've seen the play that you linked to; we all have. But how many times have you seen that happen; the defender successfully knocking the ball down and directly into the hands of the receiver for a touchdown? I'm sure there are a few, but no others jump to the front of my mind. I'll wager that it happens less often than a player going up for the interception and getting it snatched away by the receiver, whose job it is to snatch the ball away just so. Stick to what you're good at. Receivers catch the ball. Defenders beak up the play.

If you're accusing me over grossly over-analyzing that play, you'll get no argument. I just made that case to prove the point. But if you're saying that point is wrong, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[13 Times Champs]

I never understood why the Packers would draft a 6-0 defensive lineman..... Daniels.

 

[Shawnsta3]

I never understood why the Packers would draft a 6-0 defensive lineman..... Daniels.

He's got some pass rushing ability. While him and Neal are both awfully one-dimensional, I wouldn't sleep on either of them.

 

[jaybadger82]

There are tough players who can't hack it because they can't calculate when to be make the smart play. There are smart players who can't back it because they don't know when to make the tough play. Yes w made the pick and yes we got hosed. But if he would've made the smart play there, the probability of us getting hosed decreases dramatically.

It seems like you've been talking about playing smart more so than about playing tough.

And no I wasn't there when players are coached on how to react to a Hail Mary attempt. But that's 101 stuff; you knock it down. Get the ball to the ground as quickly as you can. Cause the incompletion. Game over.

Of course I've seen the play that you linked to; we all have. But how many times have you seen that happen; the defender successfully knocking the ball down and directly into the hands of the receiver for a touchdown? I'm sure there are a few, but no others jump to the front of my mind. I'll wager that it happens less often than a player going up for the interception and getting it snatched away by the receiver, whose job it is to snatch the ball away just so. Stick to what you're good at. Receivers catch the ball. Defenders beak up the play.

Here's another example of a failed knock down that also happened in the last couple years. There are certainly others. Outside of the Green Bay/Seattle game, I don't recall any hail mary plays ending with an interception being ripped from a defender's hands and ruled a touchdown. Perhaps you can find some examples for me.

Armchair fans like to think it's easy for a defender to knock down a Hail Mary like they're spiking a volleyball. It isn't that easy. There are lots of moving parts/physics at work, often a gaggle of players in the vicinity of the football, and there are plenty of things that can and do go wrong. Basically, the "just knock it down" strategy isn't nearly as axiomatic as some like to think in these situations.

The game ends when the ball is intercepted too. And in some circumstances, intercepting the ball is more intelligent than attempting the knock down. Why rely on effectively batting the ball- or that an opposing player won't grab the ball before it hits the turf- when a defender can secure the football (and the outcome) in his own hands and chest? -If the ball hits a member of my secondary in the chest, I sure as hell want him to wrap it up rather than try to knock it down and hope nobody's around to grab the rebound. The officials cost us that game, not Jenning's decision to catch and hold a ball that basically hit him in the face.

I still get incredibly pissed when I think about the end of that Seattle game... I'll stop talking about this.

 

[bozz_2006]

I think you're side-stepping much of what I've said and ignoring my point.

I very thoroughly covered the piece about "smart" play and how strongly I think it is tied to "aggressive" play or "tough" play. Yes, it's good to play tough. But not if you can't do it smartly. Of course I want "tough" players, but a player that isn't tough but doesn't give up gouge plays is better than one who plays tough but gives up many gouge plays. And to be clear, I'd prefer to have neither of those guys on the field, ever. In a perfect world, you'd have super-tough-and-super-smart players. But those guys don't exist. The best ones are those who find the a balance that best maximizes their strengths while shielding their weaknesses.

Also, I didn't bring up Hail Mary's being ripped from defenders' hands, but rather passes in general. So, it would stand to reason it can happen on a Hail Mary. If they're throwing it, there's probably nothing to gain by going for an INT. And there certainly wasn't at the end of the Seattle game.

I never said it was easy. There's a reason they're playing and I'm not. But since they ARE, I'd hope that they would perform like the elite player they are.

I agreed that the officials screwed up. I said that. And i also said, if Jennings knocked it down, there was less chance of putting the game in the hands of the official. It's an infinitesimal chance that it would've come to a judgment call in the first place, but it would've been even more infinitesimal had he knocked the ball down. Again, nitpicky. But I think I'm right here. It wasn't a bad choice that Jennings made; you're right, (see how often I'm agreeing with you? I'm splitting hairs here, but if these guys are the best players in the world, don't you think they got there by splitting the hairs in their game?), but the unfair benefit of hindsight shows us that his "not bad" choice was likely not the best choice. If nobody's around to catch the rebound.... It was a Hail Mary..... I didn't rewatch it just now to be certain, but I'm going to guess that there.... 3? 4? Seattle players with rebounding distance of that jump ball. Nobody was going to catch it clean. So why not knock it down and be done?

Having said all that; I understand you're frustrated about how that game ended. So am I. Still, calling me an armchair fan is completely unnecessary. Isn't the "armchair" part pretty much assumed? I suppose former coaches and players are some kind of fan other than "armchair" fans. But I'd say that pretty much everyone on this site is what you so patronizingly refer to as "armchair". Don't be a ****, there's no need for that. I'm not trying to fight with you.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Collins then Bishop, two physical players in the middle of the field, were not adequately replaced. I think that about covers it.

 

[JBlood]

"Bigger is better". Even little kids know this.