Forget Favre
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,115
- Reaction score
- 1,807
Things change.
That only says exactly what I'm saying. He's playing the run much better.
And he gives NO explanation why he isn't concerned with the sack totals.
And, BTW, I'm not concerned with sack totals. I'm concerned Matthews isn't winning one-on-ones regularly.
And, again, NOBODY has been able to argue that Matthews is winning one-on-ones regularly.
I don't think Matthews lost it, that would be just ignorant. Magical explanations are for children.
But it has not been there for the first 3 games. Against Cam, I can understand, he was playing with contain principles. But against NO and CHI, against AWFUL offensive tackles, he did not win 1-on-1s constantly.
That only says exactly what I'm saying. He's playing the run much better.
And he gives NO explanation why he isn't concerned with the sack totals.
And, BTW, I'm not concerned with sack totals. I'm concerned Matthews isn't winning one-on-ones regularly.
And, again, NOBODY has been able to argue that Matthews is winning one-on-ones regularly.
I don't think Matthews lost it, that would be just ignorant. Magical explanations are for children.
But it has not been there for the first 3 games. Against Cam, I can understand, he was playing with contain principles. But against NO and CHI, against AWFUL offensive tackles, he did not win 1-on-1s constantly.
Yes, when it's generic it's moronic.That's your opinion. There are different ones on Matthews play so far this season. Moronic?
That really is all I ask. And I really hope we see more production from him.Ok,
Next week I am going to pay attention to the one on ones.
Woodson is playing well. Haven't watched him every play of every game, but he was a guy I was paying attention to in these 3 games.Speaking of Woodson how does he stack up after three games vs. last year? I know he has two interceptions and 10 tackles. He also has got beat some this season and has some holds called on him. I may be wrong but I don't think he has played quite as well.
Ok,
Next week I am going to pay attention to the one on ones.
Jack mentioned this above, but Bob McGinn is the most respected and unbiased Packer reporter. He makes Nagler look like Pee-Wee Herman. Nagler is a nobody anyway. How does his name enter in this thread anyway?That's just not true Frank.
Is he getting double teamed a lot? Yes, 44% of last game, according to McGinn.
And is Matthews still impacting the game? He still got 2 1/2 tackles for loss and 4 hurries.
But against Omyale, he should be getting more than that. He HAD the opportunity to get more than that. He USED TO get more than that against those subpar OTs. He used to force them to being benched with his dominance.
Clay Matthews is NOT winning most of his 1-on-1s in the passing game.
Would he benefit from MORE 1-on-1s? ABSOLUTELY.
But he's getting them. And he's not winning them. And he used to. And not because of Jenkins.
Mind you, noone is saying Matthews isn't playing well. He's playing very well. He's playing like Aaron Kampman did in his glory years. And he's playing much better against the run.
Very well, "Kampman-like", is not good enough for what we've seen of CM3.
Matthews had one of his finest games as a Packer, registering four hurries, 3½ knockdowns and 2½ tackles for loss. On the rush, he did almost equal damage against Omiyale and Spencer. The Bears double-teamed Matthews on 44% of dropbacks and did hold him without a sack. Despite exerting far more energy because of the nature of his position, Matthews tends to wear out blockers in the fourth quarter. On a pair of aborted counter plays, Matthews shot across the line and beat the pulling guard (Williams) to the punch, which probably demoralized Forte and coordinator Mike Martz.
Because YOU just said it...Jack mentioned this above, but Bob McGinn is the most respected and unbiased Packer reporter. He makes Nagler look like Pee-Wee Herman. Nagler is a nobody anyway. How does his name enter in this thread anyway?
Absolutely there is. Like winning 1-on-1s.Matthews is fine. Some people think a game in which he gets 2 sacks but doesn't make any other plays, is a great game. He played great this week, and there are more to his position than registering sacks.
Already talked about McGinn.Here's what, again, McGinn wrote after replaying and replaying, focusing in, on Matthews. I believe Bob gets film that we didn't see from Fox, which only focuses in on the football. Except that punt.
This is simply not true. And just a generical response. Are you Vic? Seriously, that is just not true. Look at what Jared Allen and Freeney did this week and then come tell me with a straight face that the OT is supposed to win most of the time. Specially considering the kind of OTs Matthews has faced.As far as winning the one-on-ones consistently go:
The OT is supposed to win the one-on-ones most of the time.
Bulaga and Clifton played amazing games. Bulaga IIRC actually allowed 3 pressures, but he was playing against Woodley. And Clifton was a MONSTER the last 6 games of last season. When I say MONSTER, I mean best football of his life. He didn't allow a single pressure in the SB.We passed, what, 40 times in the Super Bowl. How many times did James Harrison win his one-on-one against Clifton?
How many times did Woodley win his one-on-one versus Bulaga?
According to the new article and front page cover of this months Muscle and Fitness, not a damn thing is wrong with him.
Smiley face here.It's all air brush.. I could look like that.
Jack, that is a heckuva memory to remember stats like that, from an article, a year ago. In the NY Times mind you. Impressive to remember random numbers like that.I haven’t read much of either Nagler or Ketchman. Nothing against either I just have other authors/sources ahead of them when it comes to Packers media. But I do know Nagler co-created and helps run Cheesehead TV. And a year ago he was the subject of a NY Times article which said Cheesehead TV was averaging 152,000 visits and 370,000 page views a month. Not that I believe everything (or much of anything) that is written in the NY Times but that’s still not bad for a “nobody” IMO.
Jack, that is a heckuva memory to remember stats like that, from an article, a year ago. In the NY Times mind you. Impressive to remember random numbers like that.
It appears everyone now understands despite Clay's sack #'s being down, he's been playing great still.
I also saw that magazine cover today. Clay definitely loves the publicity.