Bend but don't break approach

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm criticizing MM for his history of abandoning the run. You really think 9 carries is trying to establish the run?! Or was it the four carries he gave Michael that put the team over the top?

I'm questioning how you criticize (besides force of habit) MM's play calling against the Vikings. The run wasn't working, the pass was. Why would you keep running the ball? As I said, I think this whole notion of "establishing the running game" gets in some fans heads and a game like you saw on Saturday should prove to you that it isn't always necessary. Also, besides the Bear game 2 weeks ago, what other games did Monty get more than 9 carries in?

And as I pointed out, Rodgers did most of his damage in the first half, when the Vikings' corners ignored the gameplan that Zimmer had. Once the corners actually started doing what they were supposed to (that is, having Rhodes shadow Jordy) the Packers offense stopped lighting it up and the game got a LOT closer.

Actually, your post talked about how this was all done in the second half, maybe a typo on your part? When did the game ever get close?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Depending on who you believe the Vikings players ignored the game plan on 1 to 3 drives in the first half. Some say it was just the first when the Packers didn't score.

I'm thinking the coach telling the story right after the game is more believable than the player (Rhodes) trying to cover up a terrible decision on his part. After the game, when Rhodes held Nelson to two catches for nine yards in the second half, Zimmer said, "That's what he was supposed to do the whole game".

Again, sounds like Rhodes is just trying to minimize his role in undermining the coach.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

The pass rush has been weak with Perry/Mathews hurt. And the ILBs hurt made the whole defense weak. That made us change our scheme IMO. Now that everyone is back, we can let the pass rushers do their thing, and the Dline will get an extra guy back some times. When the rush is on, our secondary looks 100x better.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How is that confusing? The Packers scored 28 points in the first half of the game. Nelson TD reception and Adams TD reception in first quarter, another Nelson TD catch and a Rodgers TD run in the second quarter.

Does that unconfuse the issue?

Read your original post below......I think everyone was confused by what YOU were saying.

It would be nice if the coaching staff would actually make a commitment to Ty and the running game. I know everyone is super pumped that the Packers scored so much against the Vikings but let's remember that most of those points came in the second half, when the Vikings corners decided to ignore the gameplan. It would have been nice for the coaching staff to stick the running game to keep the defense off the field (remember, the offense only scored 10 points in the second half so the "but what they were doing was working" argument doesn't work) but, yet again, MM shows that he has no clue how to use Ty. The guy ran for 162 yards last week and, as an encore, let's give him 9 carries.

What worries me is that this is a pattern for MM. He lucks into a tremendous game from Ty and then, when he has other options, he ignores him. When the Packers need to play the Falcons in the playoffs, an established run game would be VERY helpful in keeping one of the more potent offenses in NFL history off the field....but instead the Packers will throw it a lot and then people will complain that the Packer's defense couldn't stop one of the best offenses of all-time and ignore games like this one against the Vikings, where the Packers had a chance to get their running game going and decided not to.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm questioning how you criticize (besides force of habit) MM's play calling against the Vikings. The run wasn't working, the pass was. Why would you keep running the ball? As I said, I think this whole notion of "establishing the running game" gets in some fans heads and a game like you saw on Saturday should prove to you that it isn't always necessary. Also, besides the Bear game 2 weeks ago, what other games did Monty get more than 9 carries in?



Actually, your post talked about how this was all done in the second half, maybe a typo on your part? When did the game ever get close?

You'd run the ball in a game like this, when the team has a huge lead, to give the offense a chance to get comfortable running the ball. Teams don't do live tackling during the season so the only time these players are really getting the chance to establish a run game is IN the game. Against the Vikings the Packers didn't need it because the Vikings are bad. Do you think the Packers can just turn the run game on against a good team in the playoffs?

The game got closER I said. It was never that close but it certainly tightened up quite a bit in the second half.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Read your original post below......I think everyone was confused by what YOU were saying.

Yup, my bad. However, based on the context I think it could be pretty well known what I intended to say. That's one of the problems with forums sometimes. You make a mistake and everyone goes off on that rather than actually paying attention to the point of what you're saying. So yeah, my entire point is invalidated because of a typo.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I'm thinking the coach telling the story right after the game is more believable than the player (Rhodes) trying to cover up a terrible decision on his part. After the game, when Rhodes held Nelson to two catches for nine yards in the second half, Zimmer said, "That's what he was supposed to do the whole game".

Again, sounds like Rhodes is just trying to minimize his role in undermining the coach.

I can try to. Find it but a vikings reporter went and watched the first half and said Rhodes followed nelson after the 3rd series and in the 2nd series nelson was in the slot so Rhodes wouldn't have covered him there.

Rhodes had a pff ranking of 51. He had a bad game in coverage according to them so it wasn't like he wasn't some shutdown corner Saturday

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You'd run the ball in a game like this, when the team has a huge lead, to give the offense a chance to get comfortable running the ball. Teams don't do live tackling during the season so the only time these players are really getting the chance to establish a run game is IN the game. Against the Vikings the Packers didn't need it because the Vikings are bad. Do you think the Packers can just turn the run game on against a good team in the playoffs?

The game got closER I said. It was never that close but it certainly tightened up quite a bit in the second half.

So you run the ball, just to run the ball, even though the yards don't seem to be there on that given day? Establishing the running game one week, doesn't automatically set it up for the next week for success. If the Packers aren't comfortable running the ball by week 16, not sure how continually to pound the ball into a good Vikings front 7 is going to change that.

I just have to shake my head on this one. In the past MM gets criticized for being too conservative and going 3 and out on 3 straight running plays. So now he is being criticized for building a 38-13 lead through the air and not keeping his foot on the pedal?

 

[Carl]

You may be the first person I've heard in a long time call this defense "ok". I guess average would mean "ok" to you? ..the thing is they are just a tad below average imo. If they had at least one corner who could cover I'd be willing to call them "ok"...but they don't. Giving up all those yards to no name WRs, and blowing big leads isn't being to harsh at all. Those are facts.

They lost one big lead all season.

They kept a big lead in 4 of the last 5 games.

I would think 4 games carries more weight than a one.

One quarter of blowing a big lead has lead to people blowing it out of porportion as if it happens constantly.

Not that it's not a concern, but it's not as bad as the forum makes it out to be.

 

[Carl]

It would be nice if the coaching staff would actually make a commitment to Ty and the running game. I know everyone is super pumped that the Packers scored so much against the Vikings but let's remember that most of those points came in the second half, when the Vikings corners decided to ignore the gameplan. It would have been nice for the coaching staff to stick the running game to keep the defense off the field (remember, the offense only scored 10 points in the second half so the "but what they were doing was working" argument doesn't work) but, yet again, MM shows that he has no clue how to use Ty. The guy ran for 162 yards last week and, as an encore, let's give him 9 carries.

What worries me is that this is a pattern for MM. He lucks into a tremendous game from Ty and then, when he has other options, he ignores him. When the Packers need to play the Falcons in the playoffs, an established run game would be VERY helpful in keeping one of the more potent offenses in NFL history off the field....but instead the Packers will throw it a lot and then people will complain that the Packer's defense couldn't stop one of the best offenses of all-time and ignore games like this one against the Vikings, where the Packers had a chance to get their running game going and decided not to.

They just put up 38 points against a very good defense.

I think Mike knew what he was doing.

 

[swhitset]

Actually yeah, if you read the stories the corners didn't follow the gameplan. Rhodes was supposed to follow Jordy on either side but the corners ignored that and stayed on their respective sides. It wasn't until the second half that Rhodes began shadowing Jordy. However, I did enjoy your misplaced outrage.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...-plan-covering-jordy-nelson-green-bay-packers

No outrage... but my confusion was certainly not misplaced .... nothing in your post made any sense. You said most of the points were scored in the second half and then followed it up with saying The Packers only scored 10 points in the second half. You also said that the Vikings defense ignored the coaches in the second half.... when it clearly happened in the first.... maybe as you say this was a typo ..... but it was a pretty big one that made everything else that followed muddy to say the least.

 

[sschind]

So you run the ball, just to run the ball, even though the yards don't seem to be there on that given day? Establishing the running game one week, doesn't automatically set it up for the next week for success. If the Packers aren't comfortable running the ball by week 16, not sure how continually to pound the ball into a good Vikings front 7 is going to change that.

I just have to shake my head on this one. In the past MM gets criticized for being too conservative and going 3 and out on 3 straight running plays. So now he is being criticized for building a 38-13 lead through the air and not keeping his foot on the pedal?

Normally I am one to agree with Sunshine's premise that MM tends to abandon the run too quickly but that is mostly in games where they get down early and he just gives up on it without giving it a chance. This is different. In this case we got up early and kept it up. I also agree with you (PB) that to run just to run makes no sense if the passing game is working especially when the running game isn't. The time to keep trying the run even though it may not seem to be working is when the passing game is also struggling because IMO running opens up the passing game. If the passing game is working however I see no reason to keep piling up the rushing attempts when they are not working.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Normally I am one to agree with Sunshine's premise that MM tends to abandon the run too quickly but that is mostly in games where they get down early and he just gives up on it without giving it a chance. This is different. In this case we got up early and kept it up. I also agree with you (PB) that to run just to run makes no sense if the passing game is working especially when the running game isn't. The time to keep trying the run even though it may not seem to be working is when the passing game is also struggling because IMO running opens up the passing game. If the passing game is working however I see no reason to keep piling up the rushing attempts when they are not working.

Because you have no established running back. The guy who looked dominant against the Bears hasn't worked with the oline consistently and it would be nice to give them some rhythm. The Packers are going to be going against some REALLY good offenses and being able to figure out a running game before playing the Cowboys or Falcons would be really nice.

The Packers won the game going away. Perhaps I'm making a mistake by pointing to this one game; my bigger issue is that the team has not given ANY running back consistent carries for the last 10 weeks of the season and that's the kind of thing that could come back to hurt the Packers during the playoffs.

 

[OldSchool101]

Apparently an eye doctor... as you see a completely different defense out there than I do.

Yes. Don't confuse Optometrist and Optimist with this D

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Because you have no established running back. The guy who looked dominant against the Bears hasn't worked with the oline consistently and it would be nice to give them some rhythm. The Packers are going to be going against some REALLY good offenses and being able to figure out a running game before playing the Cowboys or Falcons would be really nice.

The Packers won the game going away. Perhaps I'm making a mistake by pointing to this one game; my bigger issue is that the team has not given ANY running back consistent carries for the last 10 weeks of the season and that's the kind of thing that could come back to hurt the Packers during the playoffs.

I get your point, but who says the Packers can't establish the running game during the playoffs, if the opportunity presents itself? It will come down to each game and each defense they are facing. I think they have seen enough of Monty, Michaels and the Oline to know what they have. Also, why give the opposing defenses more film? Both Michaels and Monty can continue to learn plays during film study, the playbook and practice. I think part of the reason Monty was having so much success was that defenses didn't know how to play him. The Vikings came out looking for him to run and it showed. I was most worried about Monty fumbling the ball as well as getting hurt, he has proven me wrong with both. I think you will see the Packers taking the yards on the ground when they are there, but continue to take whatever defenses give them through the air.

Our offense really doesn't concern me anymore, at least as much as it once did, I worry much more about our defense.

 

[OldSchool101]

You'd run the ball in a game like this, when the team has a huge lead, to give the offense a chance to get comfortable running the ball. Teams don't do live tackling during the season so the only time these players are really getting the chance to establish a run game is IN the game. Against the Vikings the Packers didn't need it because the Vikings are bad. Do you think the Packers can just turn the run game on against a good team in the playoffs?

The game got closER I said. It was never that close but it certainly tightened up quite a bit in the second half.

We've always kept close during the holidays. Let's not run away now. Oh! You meant football!
Seriously though I think the answer lies somewhere in between and knowing when to exploit the run or pass Defenses depending on their strengths game to game.

The pass rush has been weak with Perry/Mathews hurt. And the ILBs hurt made the whole defense weak. That made us change our scheme IMO. Now that everyone is back, we can let the pass rushers do their thing, and the Dline will get an extra guy back some times. When the rush is on, our secondary looks 100x better.

Yes. And that is exactly what our chief ingredient is this year. We will have to see an aggressive pass rush to help out the young secondary if we want to make a deep push. These young guys ARE opportunistic if given some help and they've shown that during the last quarter of the season

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I feel you may be a little harsh. Our defense is "ok". Our pass rush is good, but the D Backs are obviously very much in question. Hopefully they can hold it together to pull out the victory.

The Packers defense needs to create turnovers otherwise the unit struggles mightily. It's essential for the front seven to pressure opposing quarterbacks as the secondary isn't able to cover receivers with the passer having time to throw the ball. While the defense performed better in the red zone vs. the Vikings it has struggled on that area all season long as well ranking 30th in points per red zone possession at 5.40.

Giving up all those yards to no name WRs, and blowing big leads isn't being to harsh at all. Those are facts.

The Packers are one of only 10 teams in the league that hasn't lost a game in which they were up by at least nine points at some point.

It would be nice if the coaching staff would actually make a commitment to Ty and the running game. I know everyone is super pumped that the Packers scored so much against the Vikings but let's remember that most of those points came in the second half, when the Vikings corners decided to ignore the gameplan. It would have been nice for the coaching staff to stick the running game to keep the defense off the field (remember, the offense only scored 10 points in the second half so the "but what they were doing was working" argument doesn't work) but, yet again, MM shows that he has no clue how to use Ty. The guy ran for 162 yards last week and, as an encore, let's give him 9 carries.

What worries me is that this is a pattern for MM. He lucks into a tremendous game from Ty and then, when he has other options, he ignores him. When the Packers need to play the Falcons in the playoffs, an established run game would be VERY helpful in keeping one of the more potent offenses in NFL history off the field....but instead the Packers will throw it a lot and then people will complain that the Packer's defense couldn't stop one of the best offenses of all-time and ignore games like this one against the Vikings, where the Packers had a chance to get their running game going and decided not to.

It's ridiculous to suggest the Packers should have continued to run the ball vs. the Vikings as it was pretty obvious Minnesota put an emphasis on stopping it and Montgomery and Michael averaged only 2.1 yards on 13 attempts while the passing offense was on fire.

There will be opportunities to run the ball against other teams going forward as they will scheme differently but it for sure wasn't the way to go against the Vikings.

Minnesota's cornerbacks ignored the gameplan through the first play of the third series (NFL Media analyzed it) with the Packers scoring obly seven of their 38 points during that span.

Of the teams right now in playoff position the Packers are the #1 team overall in Sacks.
The Packers are also #1 in defense interceptions amongst the playoff teams.
#1 in sacks #1 in interceptions.

Moral of the story:
The defense is good enough if they can get pressure on the qb. Clay must be 100%. Pressure leads to INT's. Just get off to a good start offensively and acquire the lead. Control the clock. Don't FUMBLE cuz teams like Dallas live off fumbles this year. Look for the pressure to produce INT's.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/defense/sort/sacks
http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/defense/sort/interceptions

Unfortunately the Packers are ranked 13th out of 14 teams still in the running for the playoffs in opponents passer rating, dead last in passing touchdowns allowed as well as tied in 12th in points allowed.

There's absolutely no chance the Packers make a successful playoff run without getting constant pressure on opposing quarterbacks as well as timely turnovers.

 

[weeds]

They lost one big lead all season.

They kept a big lead in 4 of the last 5 games.

I would think 4 games carries more weight than a one.

One quarter of blowing a big lead has lead to people blowing it out of porportion as if it happens constantly.

Not that it's not a concern, but it's not as bad as the forum makes it out to be.

Certain topics just grind my beans ... obviously, the Pack's "rubber band defense" is one of them. I gurgle about it as much as the next guy with unreasonable expectations. Still, every time I'm ready to have the top of my head blow up ... you post something like this, and I calm back down. I think I need you where I work ... just to keep me from going off the ledge on an hourly basis.

 

[Mondio]

with a name like weeds, I figured you were pretty laid back every day, all day

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Sky King]

Certain topics just grind my beans ... obviously, the Pack's "rubber band defense" is one of them. I gurgle about it as much as the next guy with unreasonable expectations. Still, every time I'm ready to have the top of my head blow up ... you post something like this, and I calm back down. I think I need you where I work ... just to keep me from going off the ledge on an hourly basis.

Maybe you need an office in the basement.

 

[Mavster]

Once again, this Packers defense is totally reliant on getting turnovers since they can't get off the field on 3rd downs, and they hardly ever force punts. Which is a recipe for disaster against half way competent offenses - even more so in the playoffs (where the D unsurprisingly gives up an average of 35ppg in our losses)

Bend don't break defenses aren't good. I sometimes wonder what this team could have been if they would have drafted well on defense since that SB win.

 

[PackerDNA]

The bottom line for me is that while I'm enjoying the ride, this team isn't going far with this defense. Trust them to make a big stop or hold a lead late? I don't. And if they have to go to Dallas in the playoffs, they're likely going to get destroyed.

 

[longtimefan]

Once again, this Packers defense is totally reliant on getting turnovers since they can't get off the field on 3rd downs, and they hardly ever force punts. Which is a recipe for disaster against half way competent offenses - even more so in the playoffs (where the D unsurprisingly gives up an average of 35ppg in our losses)

Bend don't break defenses aren't good. I sometimes wonder what this team could have been if they would have drafted well on defense since that SB win.

Packers have 22 punt returns, tied for 13th

 

[Mavster]

Packers have 22 punt returns, tied for 13th

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-punt-attempts-per-game

According to this we're bottom 5 overall and worst in the NFL on the road.

Not sure if your stat is just returns and not fair catches or what.

 

[weeds]

Maybe you need an office in the basement.

Nay...I say.... That's too close to the heat distribution venue. Very noisy. I really need a "ledge whisperer".