tynimiller
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
- Messages
- 14,936
- Reaction score
- 5,570
We agree there!
Packers vs Buccaneers Game Thread
- Thread starter Zartan
- Start date
We agree there!
McKnowledge
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 272
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
I don't mind reminding you. I have to remind my dad about a lot of stuff lately too. I don't know, maybe because of the most wins of any coach in the NFL over the last 3 seasons or something like that.
Thankfully it was a real win. I hate those pretend wins.
I actually believe you answered your own question. GB probably played slow as to not tire themselves out in the heat since they were the team that was not used to it.
Okay I'll play. I believe going from a colder environment to a hotter one is harder on the team doing so. Incredibly I also believe going from a hotter environment to a colder one is harder on the team doing so.
mradtke66
Cheesehead
I find these kind of statements overly simple, but I find most statements overly simple.
To my eye, MLF came in with a good plan and caught the Bucs on their heels. 3 great drives and a likely 21 points if Jones doesn't fumble ( hard to tell exactly where he would have landed had he retained possession.) The Bucs understood how we were attacking them and clamped down.
I think we can all agree on the above.
To you who say we didn't adjust: What things did the Bucs take away? How did they do so? What openings did the Bucs' adjustments create? How did we fail to attack those resulting openings? What should we have done instead?
My opinion: The Bucs identified our biggest weakness (RG), played tight and forced us to beat them over the top. The remaining options were limited. Our running game was largely stuffed the entire game (2.0 ypc?), we lacked our two deep threats (Watson and Watkins), and were able to pass rush over the RG without concern. In short, the usual counters to these situations were taken away due to our lack of personnel and excellent play by the Bucs. Even the kinds of plays that worked against Chicago were unlikely to work here due to the excellent speed of the Buc linebackers.
The two small things that I think could have helped, but I'm not 100% on since I haven't seen (and likely won't see) All-22 camera footage, were lineup in base (Dillon at TB, Deguara at FB, Big Dog at TE) and try to run some lead plays up the gut. This plays into Tampa's strength (defensive line, NT in particular) but might negate the speed at ILB. If that works out, try to run a little play action from that same grouping.
I thought about replying to that post…. and then decided against arguing with idiocy lol.
Most wins of any coach in 3 years without getting to a super bowl. Two and three in the playoffs. Lost last two games both at home. So there's that too.
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,707
- Reaction score
- 1,437
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,707
- Reaction score
- 1,437
Yes the bucs tightened up. They even changed up from a 6 man line to a 5 man with usually one of the 5 stepping back. You are pretty much saying that unless we have for sure superior personnel; then we cannot do anything about it. Possibly. But I don't believe it and it is a bad attitude. We normally win because we are usually the better team. We rarely if ever make definite adjustments. But we should (the coaches) practice doing so for playoff time imho. And just to be better.
milani
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 4,870
- Reaction score
- 1,899
I have a hard time believing the early line on the Pats game is 9 1/2 points. Now if the coach on the other sideline were someone else then maybe. It is not like we are the Packers of the 60's.
mradtke66
Cheesehead
I think you're reading into the wrong part of what I was harping on.
It sounds like your position is, summarized: The Bucs played better, Packers did not. Therefore, the Packers must not have made adjustments.
I disagree with that premise. I'd like you to explain to me how you concluded that. If I have your premise wrong, please correct me.
In the specific case against the Bucs vs Packers week 3 2022, I think they did adjust. I didn't see as many rollouts and designed plays around Doubs. I saw less Jones and Dillon in the backfield at the same time. Personnel impacted our ability to execute the gameplan and/or any adjustments made. Coach can draw up all the adjustments he wants, call the best game in the history of that game, but if your right guard is getting abused by Vita Vea, all of that will be for naught.
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,707
- Reaction score
- 1,437
I'll bite one last time because you deserve a response. I guess I do kind of think like that. They played us better in the 2nd half and therefore they adjusted. Better than us or just adjusted and we didn't. Some of things you pointed to I'm not sure I would consider adjustments. I guess the Jones/Dillon comment is right, though a real adjustment would have led to something positive. And the adjustment away from Doubs, the thing that was working best? Why would they adjust that? And anyway, both those examples are negatives. What positive adjustment? How many 3 and outs before you know you gotta try something. They don't even try and use Deguara and don't use Tonyan like they used to. They are pretty predictable and that makes it easier to play tight. I admit it is tough when you cannot run worth a dam.
mradtke66
Cheesehead
The flaw is assuming a change or adjustment must be positive. Or that a positive change is possible in all situations. The cold, harsh reality of life is that one can do everything right and still lose. MLF could have made every correct change and the Bucs could have just done it better.
So again, what is the tangible evidence that the Packers did not make adjustments?
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,707
- Reaction score
- 1,437
Thanx for the life lesson
milani
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 4,870
- Reaction score
- 1,899
That is not good. It makes the game appear too easy.
I've been reading the exchange between you and mradtke. I didn't think the Packers adjusted in the second half - but I realize I don't have any instances that come to mind to illustrate it. A game plan is put in place, an overall strategy, I think for every opponent. Straying too far from that could lead to mistakes and turnovers. And the Bucs have a great D and maybe they finally decided the Packers were for real.
That said, this seems to happen a lot - where the Packers start out on fire and then, nada. So that leads me to believe that MLF and his coordinators aren't very good at making adjustments. Or maybe opponents are better at it.
When was the last time the Packers went wire to wire and won a game by 21 or more points? I'm an't say mradtke is wrong. I just haven't seen much evidence of the Packers ability to change direction, or more importantly, to maintain momentum. That fumble by Jones near the gold line seemed to suck all the air out of the team. They never really recovered on offense.
We'll get a better idea of what this team will become when they play the Pats, a clearly inferior opponent. The Bucs are a very good team, especially on defense. So that was a good win. I hope they have that "wire to wire" win I've been looking for, because my heart can't take another game likeliest Sunday!
tynimiller
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
- Messages
- 14,936
- Reaction score
- 5,570
If making adjustments in game was as easy as some expect, I feel like scores should always been like 7-7 or 0-0 or 70-70. These are professional teams at the highest level of their sport. It isn't as simple as making adjustments and the other team stays the same...
mradtke66
Cheesehead
Now that I'll agree with, though I'm not sure of the cause. I try to remind myself they pay the other team too.
True enough. More like a chess match. And it gets more complicated when a Packer player or coach is now on an opponent's team, and vice versa. As long as the Packers keep winning, I'll leave those fine details to guys who make a lot more money than I do......
The Bucs played us well, they match up well. They played us in the 2nd half how I thought they would the entire game, brought that extra safety down, played everything fast and hard downhill. Run game suffered. short passes to augment run game were stopped for nothing or negative yards etc. we made some mistakes, we were in unfavorable down and distances more because the run game wasn't working, etc. We built no momentum or rhythm.
It's not that they adjusted and we didn't. They can just play what beats us very, very well. They can beat a lot of offenses very well. But we don't have the stoutness up front yet or the experience with the WR's to be in 3rd and longs against great defenses like that. It doesn't happen just because you call a different play.
It's not that they adjusted and we didn't. They can just play what beats us very, very well. They can beat a lot of offenses very well. But we don't have the stoutness up front yet or the experience with the WR's to be in 3rd and longs against great defenses like that. It doesn't happen just because you call a different play.
Well said. They were ready to go up 21-3 and I think anybody watching thought it was inevitable. Shoulda known better. Nothing is inevitable in the NFL. And now that I think about it, there aren't that many blowout wins. There have been a lot of close games and an OT game or two already. I guess that's called parity.
Anyway, the win against the Bucs was huge. In 3 months no one will remember the score or that Evans, Godwin, and JJ weren't playing, or that Bakh returned or that Alexander missed most of the game and Watkins didn't play and on and on... It will be what it is - a great win against a great team.
