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

Sunday's Loss Proves Green Bay Packers Playoff Success Hinges on Earning Home Field Advantage

Discussion in 'Green Bay Packers Fan Forum' started by JLW_51, Sep 19, 2017.

  1. JLW_51

    JLW_51 Cheesehead

    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2016
    Location:
    MN
    Packer Fan Since:
    1980
  2. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Messages:
    4,151
    Likes Received:
    466
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Location:
    Land 'O Lakes
    Packer Fan Since:
    1976
    2002 showed that we are not invincible at Lambeau. 2010 showed that we can do it on the road. I agree that homefield advantage obviously helps, but nothing 'proves that our success hinges on securing homefield advantage.'
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. PackerfaninCarolina

    PackerfaninCarolina Cheesehead

    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    It all depends on the level of play that's seen once we get to the playoffs. As of right now ... the Falcons would seem to be at a higher level than us, but that could change at any time as the season goes on. Aside from them ... hard to say who else may be the team to watch out for in the NFC unless what Tampa Bay did Chicago means the old 2002 Bucs are back in form all the sudden.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. mongoosev

    mongoosev Cheesehead

    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    55
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Ok...didn't think people would really take this loss as if it's the end of the world. again, rod's top two linesmen out for the game, his number one receiver gets hurt, his second receiver gets hurt(granted towards the end of the game), our best DE is out, Bennett does worse than Cook, the CBs played like sh008t, etc. I'm sure they had to change the play book for Rod considering he had two rookie tackles guarding his behind. yes those excuses do take into account of our performance during that game. if you think it doesn't then I suppose you would rather keep those two tackle rookies over bak and bul the whole season. we played a tough opponent and lost. if we lose to the bengals and bears then will I start to panic and eat crow.

    btw...which is why I respect rod, he didn't blame the loss on injuries just his "poor" performance. yes he did perform terrible but....
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. PackerDNA

    PackerDNA Cheesehead

    Messages:
    3,886
    Likes Received:
    285
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    I think they'll handle the Bengals and Bears. My wish list for now is get healthy and go into the bye week 6-1.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. PackerfaninCarolina

    PackerfaninCarolina Cheesehead

    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    I would say there is a sense though that this team really needs to capture that 1st or 2nd seed because the teams that have been getting the top seeds lately ... well more or less seem to be on par with their record. I mean ...

    Maybe last year's Cowboys team wasn't nearly as good as their 13-3 record would've indicated, but aside from that it's been pretty telling.

    I'm not going to revise history here, but I felt like the 2010 Packers were at least a 13-3 team in a 10-6 record. That Bears team that finished 11-5 and got that bye week would have never even made the playoffs in other years, and the Falcons of that year were more like a 10-6 team that ended up 13-3. I'd say Green Bay winning on the road all the way to the Superbowl was kind of a correction of misplaced teams' records, just as the 2006 Colts team was actually a better team than the 2005 Colts but just didn't have the record reflecting it.

    It may be a bit too early to assume Atlanta will be the team vying for the no. 1 or no. 2 seed considering there's a lot at play down in their division and corrections end up happening all across the board as a season wears on. BUT ... if we did get them in the playoffs, I would prefer playing them at home up here in Lambeau because as was already stated in their near loss against Chicago, they seem much less effective on real grass, and I can't picture Matt Ryan being able to stay on the mark too well up in the freezing temperatures, or Julio being able to keep his footing on the snowy turf. Same thing with Cam Newton. Those players are the worst in cold weather I've ever seen.

    We lost to Atlanta in 2002 because our defense was so banged up it was limping, and Brett Favre just did what ole Big Game Brett always did. And the 2007 and 2011 Giants games ... well the Giants play in cold weather too so it doesn't affect them.
     
  7. OldSchool101

    OldSchool101 Peerless Beer, Lacrosse WI

    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    390
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    IDK. 2011 was a complete massacre at Lambeau by the Giants after a 15-1 #1 seed season. The year before we were a 10-6, #6 seed and won 4 straight on the road to bringing home the Lombardi.
    Many of us, myself included would rather see us play in Lambeau. I would almost take a healthy team that is gelling at the right time on the road over that. There is nothing like stomping another team in their house and the confidence that brings..and that all but eliminates any opposing teams' fans saying they would've won at home
     
  8. 906Fan

    906Fan Former Dancer

    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    19
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Packer Fan Since:
    1991
    I think going into the playoffs hot is wayyyyy better than home-field advantage.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Ogsponge

    Ogsponge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    153
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
    What this should read is:

    Sunday's loss proves Green Bay Packers playoff success hinges on their cornerbacks miraculously becoming NFL caliber players
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  10. Dantés

    Dantés Gute Loot

    Messages:
    5,830
    Likes Received:
    700
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2017
    Packer Fan Since:
    2017
    Great title. Pithy.
     
  11. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Messages:
    4,151
    Likes Received:
    466
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Location:
    Land 'O Lakes
    Packer Fan Since:
    1976
    Moments after the end of the Falcons game, I remembered thinking in the off-season that getting through the first two weeks 1-1 was a reasonable expectation. Beating both really good teams would have been gravy. We're 1-1, so I'm not even close to thinking about home-field advantage.

    We just need to run the table from here on out ..... :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  12. pizzle

    pizzle Cheesehead

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    20
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Packer Fan Since:
    1982
    I do agree that the formula for a Packers Super Bowl berth probably centers around them clinching home field advantage throughout the playoffs with a #1 seed/13-3 record. But it's not because GB has NO shot of winning on the road. We've already seen them do it before under this regime (i.e. 2010). Heck, they beat Dallas in Jerry World last year for Pete's Sake.

    It's because of the play style we have, or at least are trying to attain, this season. As observers we only have an 8 quarter sample of the team, but considering the off-season moves/pre-season foreshadowing, MM and AR have bought into the idea of victories in time of possession=more wins than losses come January. In order to help the defense out by keeping them as fresh as possible, and to also accentuate our team advantage over opponents (Offense-QB) we need to have as many 10+ play drives as possible, resulting in our team chewing up the clock and also scoring points while doing it.

    I think it's a good idea. Actually, a great idea. And it's gonna work more times than not if we can field our top offensive tackles/keep our top skill position players on the field. For example, Martellus Bennett is the epitome of the offensive philosophy this year. As a tight end he can be inline and detached; he can both block and catch. He's smart, but also physical. Him shoving Wright when he tried to take a helmet shot on AR's scramble vs Seattle shows that. Ty is actually decent at getting yards after contact between the tackles in order to pick up first downs-a key to extending drives. As long as he gets better at pass pro, and we can get/stay healthy on O-we're gonna be fine at home or on the road.

    The reason why we need to be in Lambeau in January is our defense. They need the crowd, the cold, and the friendly confines in order to make it. Simple and plain. The defense is not a dominant unit. Our hope is they can be schemed/coddled/lucked into a Top 10-15 level unit that won't hold us back from the promised land. Without elaborating on the home field thing when it comes to our defense, here is what I think needs to happen for the D to get there:

    Right now, we're essentially running a 2-3-6 dime as our "base" defense. This is the quintessential "Nitro" package out of a 2-4-5 front look that Dom has moved to over the past few seasons. I haven't seen much All-22 of our defense yet, but my naked eye tells me that close to 65% of our defensive snaps have been in 2-4-5 with Morgan Burnett replacing one of the ILBs in the box. The problem is-OUR 2-4-5 gets TORCHED BY POTENT OFFENSES!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Let me be clear-this isn't a rant/lost Fire Dom Capers thread post. I have been on record saying Dom has been hamstrung by the lack of consistency in play/talent with the unit. But for the life of me I do not understand why he insists on playing a 2 man front 75%-85% of the game when it is pretty apparent to me that it screws us over.

    Before I give my opinion on what I'd hope Dom/the defensive coaches/the team are gonna try to do by playoff time, I wanna elaborate on why Dom had been hamstrung. That way, when I speak on what we should be trying to move to as a unit schematically there will be some established reasoning behind it.

    Dom is a stalwart of the 3-4 defense as a scheme. All respect due there. When I think of the 3-4, and Dom's defenses, I see the need for 2 things.

    1) A Top 3-5 EDGE rusher (preferably OLB)
    2) A hybrid defensive back (a fast, physical playmaker that can cover like a corner, provide run support like a LB, and blitz/be rangy like a safety)

    Dom has had players like that in the past (Kevin Greene, Greg Lloyd, Rod Woodson, Charles Woodson) and he doesn't have one on this GB roster right now. Bottom line. Therefore, he is hamstrung in what works-especially now when teams are running 11 personnel as the standard offense with versatile weapons to attack a defense in the passing game. This is why he's running a 2 man front, to keep a nickel package on the field but still have the soul of a "3-4" front. But this causes two issues-you are always susceptible to inside running (especially later in games) and it drains the pass rush capabilities. OLBs are good pass rushers in 3-4 fronts when they get 1-on-1 opportunities. 3 down lineman gives the 2 EDGE guys that. 2 man fronts are easier to pick up, even when there is a blitz called (refer back to the slot corner blitz Rollins tried in ATL last Sunday that got stuffed/resulted in a big play for if I'm not mistaken Julio Jones). Though I have been pleasantly surprised at how well our 2-4-5 has defended the run over the past 25 games or so, it shouldn't be considered blasphemous to state that in the majority of situational football downs (like one of the goal line stands ATL hit paydirt on in MB Stadium) 2 down lineman get engulfed when an offense lines up in a power formation.

    Fixing it will mean that we lower the amount of 2-3-6 dime snaps we run. It will still be our "base" defense since it will be run the most. But we have to keep it to no more than 50% of the defensive snaps. When Dom gets lazy and puts out 2 lineman on the goal line I want to punch the TV I'm watching. IDC if he's tryna test the guys-don't put them in such a disadvantage that they're gonna fail. Then, we add more 3-2-6 snaps. Have Daniels, Clark, Lowry, Perry, and Clay in there for about 85% of those particular formation snaps-rotating Brooks/Odom/Fackrell/Adams in there when it makes sense. This gives us a formation that offenses have to really think about. Why? Well, at first they're gonna be worried about pass pro. Then after they get some tape on it-they'll think they can exploit it by either running up the gut or hitting it for big passing plays using alert quick slants/smoke/screens/go routes. This is where we utilize Clay's experience playing inside LB in the past...

    It's 3rd and 12. Opponent's ball on their own 26. We ran 2-4-5 on 1st down, they ran it up 3 hole and only gain 3 yards. On 2nd down, we line up in 2-3-6 with the usual suspects we saw this Sun and the O tries a smash route concept that results in an incompletion out-of-bounds due to an overthrow. On 3rd down, we come out with a 3-2-6 formation featuring Mike, Kenny, Dean, Nick, Clay, Morgan, JOSH JONES, R&R, Brice, and HHCD. Confused and ******** bricks, the opposing O gets a false start. On the next snap, we attack-all 5 front guys rush. Brice and HHCD start in a 2-man shell, but HHCD lurks to the middle of the field near the first down marker as the play develops, keying the eyes of the QB. Brice gets deep where HHCD lurked from. Randall lines up over the tight end inline but is 3X5. He bails out and is essentially the second safety rotating with Brice. Rollins lines up in front of the lone slot receiver 1X1 and plays a 2-man under concept. The kicker is Jones and Burnett. They are in the box but backpedaling wide and deep to clean up anything short-to-intermediate.

    The 3-2-6 can have 3 safeties and 3 corners like the 2-3-6, or 4 safeties and 2 corners based upon the match-ups and game situation. When teams try to quick hit us out of it, u can do a myriad of things such as a) before the snap have Clay position himself as a middle linebacker ready to play the run as a dimebacker b) have Clay "WHEEL" into the middle of the field from an EDGE position like he did on a play last year at Detroit, c) zone blitz using Mike Daniels/Ahmad Brooks if he was subbed in as an elephant.

    If the defense averaged 50 snaps per game-it should look like this:

    2-3-6 (25 snaps)
    3-2-6 (15 snaps)
    Goal Line/3-4-4/3-3-5/2-2-7/1-3-7 (10 snaps)

    I think that simply playing less 2-3-6 and more varied 3-2-6 (especially on 3rd down) gives the D a chance to be effective enough to solidify us as a contender. Home or road. Barring health.

    P.S. On the outside I only want to see King, House, and Hawkins. King should be starting with a snap count limit. Randall starts at the STAR, but every other possession you play Rollins. Randall is a smaller, quicker version of Micah Hyde. Hyde is a safety with some corner abilities. Stop putting Randall outside unless a team goes empty. Rollins is a slot corner who can hit and blitz well, but gets beat by good wideouts often in space. Treat him as such.

    GPG...
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2017
  13. rmontro

    rmontro Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    109
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2017
    Packer Fan Since:
    1960
    We did it on the road in 2010, but I think there's a specific problem at play here: Atlanta. Right now, Atlanta is probably a better team than we are. And if they get us on turf, their speed is a terrible matchup for us. For us to beat Atlanta, we need to be:
    1) healthy
    2) on grass, to negate their speed advantage.

    People have been saying Atlanta will have Super Bowl hangover this year, but I don't know. Atlanta is a legitimately good team, and the scary thing is they may be on the rise. We've had trouble getting past the elite NFC teams during the past six years, and for us to beat Atlanta in the playoffs, we could really use the grass. Unfortunately, this loss puts us TWO games behind them in the race for home field. El Guapo was joking, but we may just need to run the table, or close to it.
     
  14. PackAttack12

    PackAttack12 R-E-L-A-X

    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    359
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2016
    Packer Fan Since:
    1919
    The Packers were the hottest team in football having won 8 games in a row heading into Atlanta and got molly whopped in the NFCCG.

    Give me Lambeau field with the best quarterback in football all day every day.
     
  15. PackerDNA

    PackerDNA Cheesehead

    Messages:
    3,886
    Likes Received:
    285
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    Dude. Just don't Bogart it.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. PackerfaninCarolina

    PackerfaninCarolina Cheesehead

    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Bottom line is no team from the NFC South is currently built to win in cold weather
     
  17. Mike McCarthy

    Mike McCarthy Cheesehead

    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    58
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Location:
    The Deep South
    Packer Fan Since:
    1985
    Games like last Sunday have, and will continue to bite us come playoff time. The slow starts and early season meltdowns we have experienced have played a factor in how the last few years ended. There is no doubt imo, home games at playoff time are a huge advantage.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Patriotplayer90

    Patriotplayer90 Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    112
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Packer Fan Since:
    1987
    We need a better team, not grass, to help us win.

    The good news is that the rest of the NFC looks bad. The biggest competition could be within our own division. But Atlanta looks like the much faster, superior coached team. We look like we're running the same tired schemes which were exposed years ago with slower players.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. PackerfaninCarolina

    PackerfaninCarolina Cheesehead

    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    The artificial turf will do that. You probably just haven't seen them play outdoors, which is why the AWFUL Bears almost beat them in week 1.

    As to being superior coached, well maybe now people realize Kyle Shannahan was a non-factor in their success last year and actually cause the SB loss. Dan Quinn runs the show that nobody gives him credit for.
     
  20. PackerDNA

    PackerDNA Cheesehead

    Messages:
    3,886
    Likes Received:
    285
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    If they played the Bears again, they'd probably blow them out. That's why I never use such scores as a barometer.
    Like MM said, it's not who you play, it's when you play them.
     
  21. Patriotplayer90

    Patriotplayer90 Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    112
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Packer Fan Since:
    1987
    Why didn't we look faster then?

    I think it's no coincidence that the Atlanta defense is now full of young talent which is not only fast, but takes well to coaching and produces. Quinn obviously knows the guys he needs and influences the picks made in the draft. Unlike our staff, whose offensive and defensive scheme are dependant on man matchups, yet we get smaller guys who run 4.6s . King was obviously an exception, and he's the only one who looked to show the same speed that Atlanta did.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. PackerfaninCarolina

    PackerfaninCarolina Cheesehead

    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Likely because practicing on it is not a regularity for us.

    And another thing, this D is not built to cover the offense's mistakes when they turn the ball over. That's why I been calling the offense out for our slow starts.

    I'm sorry but only scoring 7 points in a half against a team who lost Vic Beasley is unacceptable. Offense shoulda had at least 21. They're underachieving.
     
  23. PackAttack12

    PackAttack12 R-E-L-A-X

    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    359
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2016
    Packer Fan Since:
    1919
    I'll have to disagree a little here. Dan Quinn has been given a ton of credit in the media for what he's been able to do.
     
  24. rmontro

    rmontro Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    109
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2017
    Packer Fan Since:
    1960
    It would be great to have a better team, but this is what we have for this year.
    And if we're going to have a realistic chance of beating Atlanta, the grass sure couldn't hurt (along with being healthy).
     
  25. Patriotplayer90

    Patriotplayer90 Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    112
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Packer Fan Since:
    1987
    So the defense shouldn't ever be expected to cover WRs? So many draft picks have been put into this defense that they should be expected to perform at an NFL level.
     

Share This Page

-->