Lets talk about anything EXCEPT Adrian Hubbard. (formerly Adrian Hubbard feels some MM love)

[Deleted member 6794]

I didnt say he had the perfect instincts. I said ILBs depend on instincts. . MAYBE he has them, and we wouldnt know until we try. The numbers on the 20 yd dash dont translate as much if hubbard runs faster during the game, and he gets a better jump on the ball because of speculated instincts..What does hawk have to do with anything?

Hawk had good instincts and a fundamental knowledge of the playbook yet he wasn't fast or agile enough to make any plays during last season. Hubbard, who hasn't played a single down for the Packers, doesn't have any experience at ILB, isn't quicker than Hawk yet you continue to preach for the Packers to move him inside.

He was like Janis. a developmental steal In my book. He was projected a 3-4 rounder with upside before they discovered a heart condition.

Yeah, he was projected to be drafted but as an outside linebacker. He would have never made it to an FBS school as an ILB.

What do you mean what am i talking about???

40 yard dash - 20 yard dash shows how fast the player is in the second 20 of the 40 yard dash. Hubbard is much faster. Its like Jordy Nelsons top end speed not registering at the combine on the 40 yd dash. I bet Hubbard flat out flies when not starting from a 3 point sprinters stance. The over all top end speed and athleticism is worth something.

Geez, you should really try to get some knowledge on specific football related topics. The 20-yard shuttle is a specific drill during the combine which measures agility and change-of-direction ability and has absolutely nothing to do with the 40-yard dash.

 

[TJV]

I'm not a big fan of stats except one - SB championships. If GB doesn't do something to shore up the D and STs, then Rodgers best years will have been wasted. I don't care if Capers wants to coach until he's 100. 1 good season doesn't guarantee anything. GB needs a shot of youth and imagination in the coaching team responsible for this D. D wins championships. Ask Peyton Manning.

I was just responding to your hunch about Capers retiring if the Packers win a title. And ask captainWIMM about defenses winning championships: Something like 3 of the last 10 title winning teams had bottom third Ds. You don't like stats but they should be considered when evaluating whether to fire or retain coordinators IMO.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

I was just responding to your hunch about Capers retiring if the Packers win a title. And ask captainWIMM about defenses winning championships: Something like 3 of the last 10 title winning teams had bottom third Ds. You don't like stats but they should be considered when evaluating whether to fire or retain coordinators IMO.

I know and that 3 out of 10 SB teamS w sub third Ds suggests that this represents a minority of SB winners. I just believe that defense wins championships. Again IMO, more often than not a superior D will defeat a superior O at the championship level. The Packers have proven that a great O will win conference titles, and maybe a playoff game, but D is the difference maker. Look at the goal-line interception in the last SB, or better yet, the utter dominance of Seattle's D in their obliteration of Peyton Manning and the rest of the Broncos O.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I know and that 3 out of 10 SB teamS w sub third Ds suggests that this represents a minority of SB winners. I just believe that defense wins championships. Again IMO, more often than not a superior D will defeat a superior O at the championship level. The Packers have proven that a great O will win conference titles, and maybe a playoff game, but D is the difference maker. Look at the goal-line interception in the last SB, or better yet, the utter dominance of Seattle's D in their obliteration of Peyton Manning and the rest of the Broncos O.

Last year´s Super Bowl is a perfect example of a great offense beating a superior defense though.

 

[Half Empty]

Then again, if that defender doesn't pick off the last pass...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Then again, if that defender doesn't pick off the last pass...

True, but teams don´t have to have a dominant defense for that to happen.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Hawk had good instincts and a fundamental knowledge of the playbook yet he wasn't fast or agile enough to make any plays during last season. Hubbard, who hasn't played a single down for the Packers, doesn't have any experience at ILB, isn't quicker than Hawk yet you continue to preach for the Packers to move him inside.



Yeah, he was projected to be drafted but as an outside linebacker. He would have never made it to an FBS school as an ILB.



Geez, you should really try to get some knowledge on specific football related topics. The 20-yard shuttle is a specific drill during the combine which measures agility and change-of-direction ability and has absolutely nothing to do with the 40-yard dash.

i hate being wrong. but im wrong. i forgot it was a shuttle run not a sprint... Just looking to accentuate Hubbards strength, and size vs the small ILBs. Which you have yet to consider in any way. Hawk is a horrible comparison to anything because he back pedaled and kept the play in front of him until someone else came to help. I want a powerful ILB who can hold the front.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

i hate being wrong. but im wrong. i forgot it was a shuttle run not a sprint... Just looking to accentuate Hubbards strength, and size vs the small ILBs. Which you have yet to consider in any way. Hawk is a horrible comparison to anything because he back pedaled and kept the play in front of him until someone else came to help. I want a powerful ILB who can hold the front.

I want to get way better performance out of the ILBs in 2015 as well but Hubbard won´t be part of the rotation. There wasn´t a single inside linebacker being taller than 6-3 who played at least 25% of the snaps, the reason being guys 6-4+ being not agile enough for the position.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I want to get way better performance out of the ILBs in 2015 as well but Hubbard won´t be part of the rotation. There wasn´t a single inside linebacker being taller than 6-3 who played at least 25% of the snaps, the reason being guys 6-4+ being not agile enough for the position.

I understand he wont be part of the plan at ILB. I believe the question that started this, on this thread or another... Was with Perry/Neal on their way out possibly. and Barrington /Ryan basicly starting and #1 depth... Question was what if someone gets hurt inside? I said we have a dozen LBs on the roster and im sure one could play ILB. Hubbard and his impressive 38.5 verticle on a 6'6" frame... Inside front and center... He will knock alot of balls up, just like peppers did...

Mind you, if Peppers isnt making big impact plays, he isnt quite worth it anymore. But with the tipped balls and ints returned for TDs and forced fumbles, he is a huge difference maker... I thought Hubbard could easily have that sort of non-conventional impact... Non-conventional in that Peppers is pushing 290 and had his knuckles in the dirt his entire hall of fame career... Everyone who said he couldnt do it was wrong.

 

[Half Empty]

Last year´s Super Bowl is a perfect example of a great offense beating a superior defense though.

Then again, if that defender doesn't pick off the last pass...

True, but teams don´t have to have a dominant defense for that to happen.

I hate long posts, so I often assume people will read things the way I do. In this case, you say the better offense beat the better defense, my point was that the better offense wouldn't have been enough without great goal-line defense, and then you bring in the dominant defense thing, which takes the discussion in a different direction. In sum, the great offense would have lost without their defensive showing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I hate long posts, so I often assume people will read things the way I do. In this case, you say the better offense beat the better defense, my point was that the better offense wouldn't have been enough without great goal-line defense, and then you bring in the dominant defense thing, which takes the discussion in a different direction. In sum, the great offense would have lost without their defensive showing.

Well, it´s pretty obvious an offense can´t win a game on their own without the defense showing up. I responded to Joe Nor Cal arguing a team needs an elite defense to win the Super Bowl.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I understand he wont be part of the plan at ILB. I believe the question that started this, on this thread or another... Was with Perry/Neal on their way out possibly. and Barrington /Ryan basicly starting and #1 depth... Question was what if someone gets hurt inside? I said we have a dozen LBs on the roster and im sure one could play ILB. Hubbard and his impressive 38.5 verticle on a 6'6" frame... Inside front and center... He will knock alot of balls up, just like peppers did...

Mind you, if Peppers isnt making big impact plays, he isnt quite worth it anymore. But with the tipped balls and ints returned for TDs and forced fumbles, he is a huge difference maker... I thought Hubbard could easily have that sort of non-conventional impact... Non-conventional in that Peppers is pushing 290 and had his knuckles in the dirt his entire hall of fame career... Everyone who said he couldnt do it was wrong.

The Packers currently have seven inside linebackers on the roster in Sam Barrington, Nate Palmer, Carl Bradford, Jake Ryan, Joe Thomas, Tavarus Dantzler and Josh Francis with the team continuing to play Clay Matthews inside. One of those guys would most likely get playing time in case of an injury to one of the starters.

Peppers made all these plays last season either playing OLB or DE. It´s possible Hubbard will get some snaps rushing from the edge but he will have to show improvement over last season for that to happen.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Last year´s Super Bowl is a perfect example of a great offense beating a superior defense though.

Ummmmm, no. The play that won the game was made by the NE D. And actually, brilliant game management by Bellichik. With all respect it boggles my mind how many people on this forum think O will carry the day. That has not worked for the Packers.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Well, it´s pretty obvious an offense can´t win a game on their own without the defense showing up. I responded to Joe Nor Cal arguing a team needs an elite defense to win the Super Bowl.

WIMM you and I seem to be in the majority believing that , more often than not, teams with elite Ds win SBs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ummmmm, no. The play that won the game was made by the NE D. And actually, brilliant game management by Bellichik. With all respect it boggles my mind how many people on this forum think O will carry the day. That has not worked for the Packers.

Of course a defense has to make plays to win a Super Bowl. Nobody would suggest the Patriots defense being superior to the Seahawks one though, which is what this discussion is all about.

Belichick got extremely lucky with his time management. If the Seahawks had scored from the 1-yard line he would have rightfully been criticized for not using a timeout.

WIMM you and I seem to be in the majority believing that , more often than not, teams with elite Ds win SBs.

I thought I was pretty clear about it that I don't think teams need an elite defense to win the Super Bowl.

 

[Half Empty]

Evidently not as clear as you thought.

 

[TJV]

Ummmmm, no. The play that won the game was made by the NE D. And actually, brilliant game management by Bellichik. With all respect it boggles my mind how many people on this forum think O will carry the day. That has not worked for the Packers.

Would it have been brilliant game management if the Seahawks handed the ball to Lynch for a TD (the obvious call IMO) instead of throwing that pass? And I think you are misstating the opinions of "many people". I don't think any Packers fan is arguing the D doesn’t matter much and the "O will carry the day". The issue raised in this thread is does the D have to be elite or not.

captainWIMM has posted 3 of the last 10 champions had bottom third Ds, but how many of those teams had elite Ds? If being a top 5 D in scoring defense during the regular season is a fair measure, according to nfl.com, the 2005 Steelers (tied 3rd), the 2008 Steelers (1st), the 2010 Packers (2nd), and the 2013 Seahawks (1st) qualify. Those teams averaged surrendering 14.85 ppg. The average of the other six teams was finishing 17.5 in the league surrendering about 22 ppg. The best finish of those 6 teams was the Pats last year, finishing 8th. That’s just the top quartile, good but hardly elite. None of the rest (of those six) finished top 10. So over the past 10 years, teams with elite Ds did not win the Super Bowl more often than not.

WIMM you and I seem to be in the majority believing that , more often than not, teams with elite Ds win SBs.

In the future you may want to include a smilie or two or people will think you haven’t been following the conversation.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Of course a defense has to make plays to win a Super Bowl. Nobody would suggest the Patriots defense being superior to the Seahawks one though, which is what this discussion is all about.

Belichick got extremely lucky with his time management. If the Seahawks had scored from the 1-yard line he would have rightfully been criticized for not using a timeout.



I thought I was pretty clear about it that I don't think teams need an elite defense to win the Super Bowl.

OK WIMM we respectfully disagree.

Jack I would hardly say Bellichik "got lucky" with his time management. Every NE fan watching and even the commentators were screaming for Bellichik to take a timeout at 1:06. He didn't because he knew that's 1) what Pete Carroll was expecting and 2) it would have given Marshawn Lynch three attempts to move the ball one yard instead of two. Bellichik knew the Hawks had only one timeout, forcing them to throw a pass. Carrill idiotically said they were trying to "waste a play" which means Wilson should have spiked the ball or thrown a deep fade to either corner. In his panic, Wilson threw the ball right into the middle of the D. It was brilliant game management by Bellichik, and I grudgingly admit that because I really don't care much for him.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Well, it´s pretty obvious an offense can´t win a game on their own without the defense showing up. I responded to Joe Nor Cal arguing a team needs an elite defense to win the Super Bowl.

Sorry Wimm, I read this out f context I guess:

"I responded to Joe Nor Cal arguing a team needs an elite defense to win the Super Bowl.[/QUOTE]"

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Jack I would hardly say Bellichik "got lucky" with his time management. Every NE fan watching and even the commentators were screaming for Bellichik to take a timeout at 1:06. He didn't because he knew that's 1) what Pete Carroll was expecting and 2) it would have given Marshawn Lynch three attempts to move the ball one yard instead of two. Bellichik knew the Hawks had only one timeout, forcing them to throw a pass. Carrill idiotically said they were trying to "waste a play" which means Wilson should have spiked the ball or thrown a deep fade to either corner. In his panic, Wilson threw the ball right into the middle of the D. It was brilliant game management by Bellichik, and I grudgingly admit that because I really don't care much for him.

As you correctly mentioned the Seahawks still had a timeout left so there was absolutely no reason for them to throw the ball on second down. Belichick got lucky.

 

[TJV]

Jack I would hardly say Bellichik "got lucky" with his time management. ... It was brilliant game management by Bellichik, and I grudgingly admit that because I really don't care much for him.

Completely disagree and I have a lot of respect for Belichick. IMO it was Carroll's brain fart, not Belichick's brilliance that decided that game at the end.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Completely disagree and I have a lot of respect for Belichick. IMO it was Carroll's brain fart, not Belichick's brilliance that decided that game at the end.

OK well to WIMM and whatever your name is, if BB calls timeout at 1:06, Seattle, with ONLY one TO left can give the ball to Marshawn Lynch three times from the one yard line. Now just think about that for one minute. In fact, Carroll was counting on BB calling that timeout. When he didn't, he put the Seahawks in the position of having to throw the ball once. Maybe Carroll did have a brain fart. But he had to throw a pass. In the panic created by BB's non-call, Carroll panicked and either called the wrong pass play, or Wilson just made a colossal mistake. None of this would have happened if BB did what everyone, including Michaels and Collinsworth, thought he was going to do, and that was call a TO at 1:06, giving Marshawn Lynch three tries at the end zone from the 1 yard line. He didn't call that TO, forcing Carroll into a hurried and bad call. BB's non-TO call was deliberate and strategic and it got him and the Pats another SB ring. I don't like BB, but that was brilliant play calling. People who hate BB and the Pats can deny it all they want, including on this forum. None of the denial that will soon come again on this forum will change the fact that it was maybe the best call ever made in a SB.

 

[TJV]

whatever your name is, after his run to the one-yard line, Lynch was on his feet with 59 seconds on the clock. Carroll had at least two downs and one time out to punch it into the EZ. Thinking Carroll or Bevell were panicked makes no sense: Bevell has said they were trying to use "all the time" and look at the time they wasted - from 50-some seconds down to 26 for proof. Carroll/Bevell got too cute. Run Lynch on second down. If you don't make it, call time out immediately, call two plays in the huddle and run Lynch on third down. Maybe you can line up quick if you don't make it but in any event, Lynch's chances of making one yard in two attempts are pretty damn good.

Think of all the great calls and all the great plays in Super Bowls over the years. To think Belichick not calling a time out was brilliant and "maybe the best call ever made in a SB" is ridiculous IMO.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

OK well to WIMM and whatever your name is, if BB calls timeout at 1:06, Seattle, with ONLY one TO left can give the ball to Marshawn Lynch three times from the one yard line. Now just think about that for one minute. In fact, Carroll was counting on BB calling that timeout. When he didn't, he put the Seahawks in the position of having to throw the ball once. Maybe Carroll did have a brain fart. But he had to throw a pass. In the panic created by BB's non-call, Carroll panicked and either called the wrong pass play, or Wilson just made a colossal mistake. None of this would have happened if BB did what everyone, including Michaels and Collinsworth, thought he was going to do, and that was call a TO at 1:06, giving Marshawn Lynch three tries at the end zone from the 1 yard line. He didn't call that TO, forcing Carroll into a hurried and bad call. BB's non-TO call was deliberate and strategic and it got him and the Pats another SB ring. I don't like BB, but that was brilliant play calling. People who hate BB and the Pats can deny it all they want, including on this forum. None of the denial that will soon come again on this forum will change the fact that it was maybe the best call ever made in a SB.

Even with Belichick not calling a timeout the Seahawks would still have been able to get off three plays, most likely even three rushes if they hadn't decided to let the clock run down. While handing off to Lynch should be their preferred option Wilson is capable of throwing a TD pass in that situation as well.

The stats regarding a situation like that support the theory that Belichick got extremely lucky. During the 2014 season two of 318 plays (0.6%) from the 1-yard line resulted in a turnover, none of them an interception. The last time the Seahawks turned the ball over from the 1 before that play happened during the 2004 season.

I'm with TJV that it's ridiculous to call Belichick not taking a timeout the best call in Super Bowl history.

 

[Mondio]

I think it was brilliant in that fact that BB didn't try and outcoach his own team. He saw that Seattle was trying to score with no time left, he used that to his advantage. Torture the stats all you want to paint a picture, while you're at it, mash them around enough and tell me what the stats say about calling the time out to save 10 seconds and then have enough time to drive down and score enough to win the game with that time?? I'm guessing they're pretty low too. Running Lynch from the 1 was less than a 50/50 proposition as well. Pretty good chance they run it twice and don't make it on either, with time running down, it greatly increased the odds that 1 play would be a pass, and it would be early.

Calling a timeout insures the Seahawks have all the time to think and do what they want as it would open up their entire playbook. Anyway, to me it boiled down to nothing more than BB trusting his players when he saw what Seattle was trying to do. Seattle gambled that BB would use his timeouts for their benefit and he didn't, he basically told his defense that this was it, and they did it.

But anyway, I prefer to think of it as the football gods righting a great injustice from the week before , or even the play before. Seattle had no business even being in that position.