Defense being tired

[PikeBadger]

I'm quite sure the defense not getting a lot of three and outs doesn't help either.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Forcing only two punts and getting one turnover makes for a tight game.

 

[sschind]

We were out of position, and seem to often be out of position, because it looks like we run a lot of soft zone coverage. Not sure why it looks that way, as I have no way of really knowing the play call. When it was Shields and Tramon a few years back, we ran a lot of man with cover 1 because Collins was a boss in the middle. I have no idea what we do anymore, but it results in defenders being nowhere near the ball. It can be a bit frustrating to watch.

A bit frustrating? From the sounds of it you don't like anything we do. Defense is nowhere near the ball. Offense is a bunch of arrogant diva's. No one takes responsibility for their actions and blames everyone else. No one gives credit to the other team if we lose. You must be real uptight during the game.

 

[jrock645]

A bit frustrating? From the sounds of it you don't like anything we do. Defense is nowhere near the ball. Offense is a bunch of arrogant diva's. No one takes responsibility for their actions and blames everyone else. No one gives credit to the other team if we lose. You must be real uptight during the game.

How about you worry about you, and Ill worry about me, ok? Thats some kindergarten ish, but Ill get on that level with you if thats what you need. How old are you, anyway?

 

[sschind]

The Packers defense was actually pretty good on third down allowing the Jaguars to only convert four out of 15 attempts (26.7%). Unfortunately they weren't as good on fourth down though.

I read one article that said the same thing (being pretty good) only they had it 11-15 and I thought "that's pretty good?" Fortunately I had read elsewhere that they were 4-15 so I knew it was a misprint.

 

[sschind]

How about you worry about you, and Ill worry about me, ok? Thats some kindergarten ish, but Ill get on that level with you if thats what you need. How old are you, anyway?

I'm not worrying at all, I'm just making an observation. I haven't read anything positive from you yet. I just wonder if there is anything you do like about the Packers? Other than complaining that is.

 

[jrock645]

I'm not worrying at all, I'm just making an observation. I haven't read anything positive from you yet. I just wonder if there is anything you do like about the Packers? Other than complaining that is.

Whats your favorite brand of toilet paper? Why?

None of my business, and you dont have to justify anything to me, right?

NOYB.

 

[Royal Pain]

No defense is immune to that. Jax D was gassed after our long drive, but unfortunately our D didn't get them off the field to take advantage of that.

When we were on that 9 minute drive spanning the 3rd and 4th quarter I was thinking that with the defense having a chance to rest, this was our chance to take control of the game. They didn't get it done this time, which was disappointing. The Jaguars have an underrated offense and it is early in the season, but we need to learn to take advantage of these situations and put teams away.

 

[JBlood]

pick numbers to support a theory is about all this is.

I'm not saying the analysis has been proven correct in the FO article, but it would seem to negate the energy differences on offense vs defense in, what appears to me, an analysis which takes into consideration many variables. To me this beats a simple opinion, until proven wrong. People used to believe the earth was flat, and to believe otherwise was grounds for execution.....

 

[Mondio]

I never sailed off the edge of the earth, I have played offense and defense in football

 

[JBlood]

I never sailed off the edge of the earth, I have played offense and defense in football

Nor did anyone else, but there were many people who sailed who were convinced the earth was flat.

I also played on both sides of the ball in high school and can't remember being more tired either way. But, then, the memory isn't what it used to be.....

 

[Sunshinepacker]

When we were on that 9 minute drive spanning the 3rd and 4th quarter I was thinking that with the defense having a chance to rest, this was our chance to take control of the game. They didn't get it done this time, which was disappointing. The Jaguars have an underrated offense and it is early in the season, but we need to learn to take advantage of these situations and put teams away.

They held the Jags to a field goal and then forced the Jags to turn the ball over on downs...what were you hoping for? The Packers aren't the Broncos from last year. The Packers were missing their #1 corner, had depth issues on the dline and were starting a ROOKIE at ILB. Taking those factors into consideration, it's frankly AMAZING that the Packer's defense held the Jags to 1.8 yards per carry and that it took Bortles 39 attempts to pass for 320 yards...oh, and the defense held Bortles to one TD and one INT.

The defense wasn't the scary part, the offense was the scary part. It took Rodgers 34 attempts to pass for 199 yards, that's terrible. The running game averaged 3.8 yards per carry (lower than that if you remove Rodgers' scrambles), that's terrific compared to the Jags but disappointing relative to the rest of the NFL. Jordy averaged a truly awful 5.3 yards per reception...that's not Tavon Austin bad but it's pretty terrible. Cobb averaged only 9.5 yards per reception as well. The offense was really disappointing in this game and it's a little concerning considering that the team will be playing an actually good defense this week against Minnesota. Now, is it possible that the heat was affecting the offense? I don't know, but Rodgers and Nelson need to knock the rust off pretty quickly, the run game needs to improve and the offense needs to find some big plays somewhere if the Packers don't want to look terrible against the Viking's defense (which is FAR better than the Jaguar's defense).

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'd be interested in research that shows energy expense in defensive players vs offensive players. I doubt there is much of a difference, and players on both sides of the ball are more or less equally tired at the end of a series. In fact, defensive linemen get to kneel down between plays, while offensive linemen sit only on the sideline, which may give the defense an energy break. D backs run the same routes that receivers run, more or less. And if a receiver takes a play off (he is said to Moss the play) the D back does the same.

A guy looked at this at Football Outsiders in 2011, and here is what his analysis resulted in:

"Conventional wisdom holds that offenses affect the performance of their defense through their ability to extend drives, and allow the defense additional time to rest. This conventional wisdom does not seem to be supported by the data. As shown here, the number of plays an offense runs per drive has very little impact on the performance of the defense. One simple explanation for this result is that a team's defensive players aren't the only ones that rest while their offense drives down the field. The opposing offense gets to rest too. The net impact, as shown here, is negligible." (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2011/keeping-defense-field)

Seems to make sense to me.

When looking at different sides of the ball on different teams I guess I could see FO's point but it's obvious and proven that defensive players expend more energy per play by the simple fact that they are reading and reacting to every play and, more importantly, running MUCH further on every play. The dlinemen are running around the olinemen who, if they are doing their jobs well, are simply standing in one place. If the ball goes to a RB, WR, or TE then every player on the defense is sprinting after that guy while only a few members of the offense are running that far (the guy with the ball and perhaps a couple of offensive players near him).

 

[Royal Pain]

They held the Jags to a field goal and then forced the Jags to turn the ball over on downs...what were you hoping for? The Packers aren't the Broncos from last year. The Packers were missing their #1 corner, had depth issues on the dline and were starting a ROOKIE at ILB. Taking those factors into consideration, it's frankly AMAZING that the Packer's defense held the Jags to 1.8 yards per carry and that it took Bortles 39 attempts to pass for 320 yards...oh, and the defense held Bortles to one TD and one INT.

The defense wasn't the scary part, the offense was the scary part. It took Rodgers 34 attempts to pass for 199 yards, that's terrible. The running game averaged 3.8 yards per carry (lower than that if you remove Rodgers' scrambles), that's terrific compared to the Jags but disappointing relative to the rest of the NFL. Jordy averaged a truly awful 5.3 yards per reception...that's not Tavon Austin bad but it's pretty terrible. Cobb averaged only 9.5 yards per reception as well. The offense was really disappointing in this game and it's a little concerning considering that the team will be playing an actually good defense this week against Minnesota. Now, is it possible that the heat was affecting the offense? I don't know, but Rodgers and Nelson need to knock the rust off pretty quickly, the run game needs to improve and the offense needs to find some big plays somewhere if the Packers don't want to look terrible against the Viking's defense (which is FAR better than the Jaguar's defense).

How about a 3 and out? That's what championship defenses do (especially when they had time to take a trip to Disney and back). Once again, it was week 1. I'll be concerned if it's December and we are still unable to put teams away.

 

[Half Empty]

January is where it's really painful to see them not doing it.

By the way, don't the other teams expect to get better after week 1, also.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Wrong thread, since this one is about the defense, but Sunshine brought it up so....the one big thing I did not like coming out of the Jag game was the notion of "The offense was out of sync, timing was off and it might take some time to get that back" (my quote/observation based on reading comments by players, media and fans). Wasn't this the same thing we heard most of last season? I understand the starting offense didn't get many reps together in the preseason, but is this really going to be the problem with the offense again? If it is, how and when do you get them in sync?

While I did not fully expect a well greased offense after the way they treated the preseason and the return of Jordy, I expected more then what I saw on Sunday. I really don't want another season of excuses and finger pointing with an offense that has the kind of talent it appears to have.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Wrong thread, since this one is about the defense, but Sunshine brought it up so....the one big thing I did not like coming out of the Jag game was the notion of "The offense was out of sync, timing was off and it might take some time to get that back" (my quote/observation based on reading comments by players, media and fans). Wasn't this the same thing we heard most of last season? I understand the starting offense didn't get many reps together in the preseason, but is this really going to be the problem with the offense again? If it is, how and when do you get them in sync?

While I did not fully expect a well greased offense after the way they treated the preseason and the return of Jordy, I expected more then what I saw on Sunday. I really don't want another season of excuses and finger pointing with an offense that has the kind of talent it appears to have.

I guess the coaching staff condoned the possibility that it would take the offense some games to get in sync by mostly resting the starters during the preseason. On a positive note the unit was healthy entering the season.

Hopefully the offense improves over the course of the season and doesn't follow the path of last year's team.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

On a positive note the unit was healthy entering the season.

Except for Jeff Janis

 

[longtimefan]

They held the Jags to a field goal and then forced the Jags to turn the ball over on downs...what were you hoping for? The Packers aren't the Broncos from last year. The Packers were missing their #1 corner, had depth issues on the dline and were starting a ROOKIE at ILB. Taking those factors into consideration, it's frankly AMAZING that the Packer's defense held the Jags to 1.8 yards per carry and that it took Bortles 39 attempts to pass for 320 yards...oh, and the defense held Bortles to one TD and one INT.

The defense wasn't the scary part, the offense was the scary part. It took Rodgers 34 attempts to pass for 199 yards, that's terrible. The running game averaged 3.8 yards per carry (lower than that if you remove Rodgers' scrambles), that's terrific compared to the Jags but disappointing relative to the rest of the NFL. Jordy averaged a truly awful 5.3 yards per reception...that's not Tavon Austin bad but it's pretty terrible. Cobb averaged only 9.5 yards per reception as well. The offense was really disappointing in this game and it's a little concerning considering that the team will be playing an actually good defense this week against Minnesota. Now, is it possible that the heat was affecting the offense? I don't know, but Rodgers and Nelson need to knock the rust off pretty quickly, the run game needs to improve and the offense needs to find some big plays somewhere if the Packers don't want to look terrible against the Viking's defense (which is FAR better than the Jaguar's defense).

Jags def could be very good... That would ld explain it?

 

[sschind]

Nor did anyone else, but there were many people who sailed who were convinced the earth was flat.

I also played on both sides of the ball in high school and can't remember being more tired either way. But, then, the memory isn't what it used to be.....

I believe we now know that the earth is banana shaped.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

How about a 3 and out? That's what championship defenses do (especially when they had time to take a trip to Disney and back). Once again, it was week 1. I'll be concerned if it's December and we are still unable to put teams away.

Then the problem might not be the defense, the problem might be unrealistic expectations.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Jags def could be very good... That would ld explain it?

Nelson averaged less than 6 yards per catch. Rodgers threw the deep ball about as much as Alex Smith does....unless you think the Jags are the Broncos from last year then that was a terrible job by the offense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Then the problem might not be the defense, the problem might be unrealistic expectations.

I don't think it's unrealistic to expect the Packers defense to force a three-and-out occasionally.

Nelson averaged less than 6 yards per catch. Rodgers threw the deep ball about as much as Alex Smith does....unless you think the Jags are the Broncos from last year then that was a terrible job by the offense.

The Packers offense for sure didn't perform on an elite level but scoring 27 points on the road against an upcoming defense is far from terrible though.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I don't think it's unrealistic to expect the Packers defense to force a three-and-out occasionally.

The Packers offense for sure didn't perform on an elite level but scoring 27 points on the road against an upcoming defense is far from terrible though.

The Packers gave up six points in the second half. If people are unhappy with that, then it might be unrealistic expectations.

The offense was not explosive against the Jags. The first TD was a product of the "underwhelming" defense forcing a turnover and giving the offense a short field. The two TD drives at the end of the first half were great. 9 plays and 5 plays to cover 75 yards each time. The second half is where things fell apart; two drives ended in FGs and took 13 and 16 plays each to cover about 70 yards. No offense in the NFL will consistently be good if it takes that many plays to cover that amount of yardage. So, yeah, the offense was not very explosive and there is no argument that can make Rodgers' yards per attempt look respectable.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers gave up six points in the second half. If people are unhappy with that, then it might be unrealistic expectations.

There's no doubt the defense played pretty well in the second half vs. the Jaguars.

The offense was not explosive against the Jags. The first TD was a product of the "underwhelming" defense forcing a turnover and giving the offense a short field. The two TD drives at the end of the first half were great. 9 plays and 5 plays to cover 75 yards each time. The second half is where things fell apart; two drives ended in FGs and took 13 and 16 plays each to cover about 70 yards. No offense in the NFL will consistently be good if it takes that many plays to cover that amount of yardage. So, yeah, the offense was not very explosive and there is no argument that can make Rodgers' yards per attempt look respectable.

I don't mind the offense needing more than 10 plays to march down the field as there are other ways than explosive plays to move the ball. I'm worried about the miscommunications in the second half resulting in the unit struggling in the red zone with both drives inside the 20 ending in field goals only though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't mind the offense needing more than 10 plays to march down the field as there are other ways than explosive plays to move the ball. I'm worried about the miscommunications in the second half resulting in the unit struggling in the red zone with both drives inside the 20 ending in field goals only though.

agreed

While 1-5 play drives for touchdowns are more "exciting" for a fan, they do nothing for keeping your defense rested and off the field. I would rather have a dominating offense that can consistently push the ball down the field for TD's then one that strictly relies on a few "fortunate" long plays/penalties, that probably won't be there against good defenses. As Captain said, we just can't beat ourselves with miscommunications and being out of sync.

Did I just say "beat ourselves"?