Perspective, Concerns, our Line, & Choking

[armand34]

Well, that's true for every draft class though.

so, kinda goes without saying it or pointing it...

 

[RepStar15]

My thoughts: The Packers have the most overrated offense and the most underrated defense.

Other teams have been preparing effectively for our offense, but are caught off guard by the physicality and preparation of our defense. I hope Mike and Aaron really are working on some things, because for the first time in a long time I have been more impressed with the defense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

My thoughts: The Packers have the most overrated offense and the most underrated defense.

Other teams have been preparing effectively for our offense, but are caught off guard by the physicality and preparation of our defense. I hope Mike and Aaron really are working on some things, because for the first time in a long time I have been more impressed with the defense.

There´s no denying the offense struggled in 2015 after losing Nelson. The Packers led the league in scoring just two years ago and return all of the starters from that season so considering them the most overrated offense in the league is foolish. The defense has developed into a unit close to the top 10 in the NFL but is for sure not good enough to be considered the most underrated either.

 

[El Guapo]

I buy into the "underrated" defense opinion. Search this forum from last fall and you'll see the majority (not all) of people talking about the defense with scorn. We do have a good defense but they spent a lot of time on the field last season in bad situations because the offense couldn't move the ball. We didn't have the glossy stats and I think that leads to the notion of an underrated defense.

There's no right or wrong answer in this one.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We do have a good defense but they spent a lot of time on the field last season in bad situations because the offense couldn't move the ball. We didn't have the glossy stats and I think that leads to the notion of an underrated defense.

Great defenses are able to put up glossy stats with their offense putting them in difficult situations though.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Three Top concerns for me:

OLine: We have a screen door not a wall. Bulaga can't stay healthy, Bakhtiari was atrocious (Even though he was playing hurt), the interior allows D-Lineman to get close enough to Aaron at times to check for cavities. This group has to show me it's fixed. I can't believe it sight unseen.

ILB position: Ryan seems okay at times. Barrington we've seen 7 games of in three seasons and Martinez is new. Jake Ryan basically is our most experienced inside linebacker game wise. If Martinez and Ryan can quit thinking and play, we'll do really well and may have the best linebacking corps in the league. Alternately if Barrington can come back and play up to expectations we should at least have a great corps. However if these things don't happen I'd probably be hitting the panic button next year and wanting Ted to trade up to #1 to get BOB from 34th street in Canarsie (i.e. ANYBODY).

Jordy: They say the knee is fixed. The problems are he's now 31, recovering from an ACL, hasn't played football in almost a year, and won't be in "football shape" at the very least until sometime during pre-season.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

OLine: We have a screen door not a wall. Bulaga can't stay healthy, Bakhtiari was atrocious (Even though he was playing hurt), the interior allows D-Lineman to get close enough to Aaron at times to check for cavities. This group has to show me it's fixed. I can't believe it sight unseen.

The starters on the offensive line are one of the best units in the NFL, especially in pass protection. The Packers added much needed depth at the position this offseason so I expect them to be fine.

ILB position: Ryan seems okay at times. Barrington we've seen 7 games of in three seasons and Martinez is new. Jake Ryan basically is our most experienced inside linebacker game wise. If Martinez and Ryan can quit thinking and play, we'll do really well and may have the best linebacking corps in the league. Alternately if Barrington can come back and play up to expectations we should at least have a great corps. However if these things don't happen I'd probably be hitting the panic button next year and wanting Ted to trade up to #1 to get BOB from 34th street in Canarsie (i.e. ANYBODY).

There's absolutely no doubt that inside linebacker is the weakest position group on the Packers roster. Even if a combination of Ryan, Barrington and Martinez proves to be serviceable there's absolutely no way the team ends up with the best LB corps in the league.

I still have a hard time understanding that Thompson passed on Myles Jack in the first round.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

I can understand why he passed on Jack, microfracture surgery is a huge red flag. Reggie Ragland again with a medical red flag was the guy I was looking at Ted taking in round 1.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I can understand why he passed on Jack, microfracture surgery is a huge red flag. Reggie Ragland again with a medical red flag was the guy I was looking at Ted taking in round 1.

Jack hasn't had microfracture surgery so far. Doctors told him it's a possibility down the road but I would have liked Thompson to take a gamble on a possible game changer like him.

 

[tynimiller]

Jack hasn't had microfracture surgery so far. Doctors told him it's a possibility down the road but I would have liked Thompson to take a gamble on a possible game changer like him.

Agreed, I'd take 2-4 years of game changing ability in the middle over just an "upgrade" in Martinez (who I love)...but he is only an upgrade because how low we are on skill and experience (Ryan will continue to grow and could be solid..but never game changer).

Myles Jack is a game changer....Martinez and Ryan will never grow into a Game Changer. Good news is they don't have to be in order for us to be good, they just need to be solid and not lose games for us....I think we are good enough around them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Good news is they don't have to be in order for us to be good, they just need to be solid and not lose games for us....I think we are good enough around them.

I agree the defense has enough talent to end up within the top 10 in scoring. A lot of it depends on the performance on whoever ends up playing nose tackle though.

 

[Half Empty]

Jack hasn't had microfracture surgery so far. Doctors told him it's a possibility down the road but I would have liked Thompson to take a gamble on a possible game changer like him.

Since I just read one of your comments replying to the Pack going for 2 (i.e., "what if they didn't make it?"), would this be the same sort of thing in reverse (i.e., if Jack never plays, or never plays up to expectations, would TT be crucified?). Probably wouldn't have made the connection if not coming directly from that thread, but it just sort of reared its ugly head.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Since I just read one of your comments replying to the Pack going for 2 (i.e., "what if they didn't make it?"), would this be the same sort of thing in reverse (i.e., if Jack never plays, or never plays up to expectations, would TT be crucified?). Probably wouldn't have made the connection if not coming directly from that thread, but it just sort of reared its ugly head.

I really have no clue what point you're trying to make.

I guarantee that fans would have wanted to run McCarthy out of town if the Packers went for two against the Cardinals and didn't make it. If the Packers had drafted Jack Thompson would for sure have been criticized if he wouldn't have lived up to expectation because of his injured knee but I would have liked the team to take that risk.

 

[Half Empty]

I really have no clue what point you're trying to make.

I guarantee that fans would have wanted to run McCarthy out of town if the Packers went for two against the Cardinals and didn't make it. If the Packers had drafted Jack Thompson would for sure have been criticized if he wouldn't have lived up to expectation because of his injured knee but I would have liked the team to take that risk.

You pretty much covered the point I was trying to make, even without sufficient clues. Had MM gone for 2 and missed, he would have been roundly criticized, but there would have been people who would have liked him to take the risk, much like the bolded part of your reply (emphasis on the "I").

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Had MM gone for 2 and missed, he would have been roundly criticized, but there would have been people who would have liked him to take the risk, much like the bolded part of your reply (emphasis on the "I").

There were several posters around here criticizing McCarthy for not going for two. While some numbers support taking the risk in a situation like that I understand McCarthy kicking the extra point.

Passing on a potential game changer at the team's weakest position is extremely tough to grasp though.

 

[Ogsponge]

You pretty much covered the point I was trying to make, even without sufficient clues. Had MM gone for 2 and missed, he would have been roundly criticized, but there would have been people who would have liked him to take the risk, much like the bolded part of your reply (emphasis on the "I").

I for one would have considered McCarthy the greatest head coach in the history of the NFL had he gone for two, regardless of the outcome. Too many coaches are afraid to risk losing in order to win. After years of dismal defensive failures in the biggest spotlight, Mike certainly could not have been relying on the defense to win the game, if he was, then he is actually a horrible coach as that defense has not proven it can win the big game. So in the end, kicking the extra point is in fact relying on winning the coin toss for overtime to be the first ones with the ball and score a touchdown.

So not only was he relying on 50/50 coin flip, he was also relying on getting the ball first and then having the anemic offense drive the length of field to score a touchdown. The packers had 9 drives in that game, two of them ending in touchdowns giving them a percentage of 22% of drives ending in a touchdown.

So, to recap, a 50/50 change on winning a coin flip and a 22% chance of scoring a touchdown after winning a coin flip vs. a 66.7% chance (the packers 2 point conversion rate in 2015) of converting a two point try.

Now I am not a big math guy but it seems to me that the Packers had a much higher mathematical chance of winning on a two point conversion then they did in winning in overtime.

With all of that said, as captain mentioned above, i completely understand why MM kicked the extra point, it is the safe thing to do. Going for two and failing would certainly put your job on the hot seat. However, i personally would have considered a great thing to do and would not have faulted him in the slightest if he had in this particular situation.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I for one would have considered McCarthy the greatest head coach in the history of the NFL had he gone for two, regardless of the outcome. Too many coaches are afraid to risk losing in order to win. After years of dismal defensive failures in the biggest spotlight, Mike certainly could not have been relying on the defense to win the game, if he was, then he is actually a horrible coach as that defense has not proven it can win the big game. So in the end, kicking the extra point is in fact relying on winning the coin toss for overtime to be the first ones with the ball and score a touchdown.

So not only was he relying on 50/50 coin flip, he was also relying on getting the ball first and then having the anemic offense drive the length of field to score a touchdown. The packers had 9 drives in that game, two of them ending in touchdowns giving them a percentage of 22% of drives ending in a touchdown.

So, to recap, a 50/50 change on winning a coin flip and a 22% chance of scoring a touchdown after winning a coin flip vs. a 66.7% chance (the packers 2 point conversion rate in 2015) of converting a two point try.

The numbers you use to prove your point here are pretty skewed though.

First of all the Cardinals offense was anemic as well during the game scoring a TD on only 20% of their drives, one coming of an extremely lucky bounce.

While the Packers offense did a good job on two point conversions in 2015 (5-of-7 including playoffs) it's an extremely small sample size and the unit struggling mightily in short yardage situations on third and fourth down, ranking 31st in the league at 46.2%.

I agree that overall the numbers suggest going for two is the better decision in a situation like that but it's not as lopsided as you suggested.

In addition you completely ignore that the offense not scoring a TD on the first possession of overtime doesn't automatically result in the team losing the game.

 

[PikeBadger]

I for one would have considered McCarthy the greatest head coach in the history of the NFL had he gone for two, regardless of the outcome. Too many coaches are afraid to risk losing in order to win. After years of dismal defensive failures in the biggest spotlight, Mike certainly could not have been relying on the defense to win the game, if he was, then he is actually a horrible coach as that defense has not proven it can win the big game. So in the end, kicking the extra point is in fact relying on winning the coin toss for overtime to be the first ones with the ball and score a touchdown.

So not only was he relying on 50/50 coin flip, he was also relying on getting the ball first and then having the anemic offense drive the length of field to score a touchdown. The packers had 9 drives in that game, two of them ending in touchdowns giving them a percentage of 22% of drives ending in a touchdown.

So, to recap, a 50/50 change on winning a coin flip and a 22% chance of scoring a touchdown after winning a coin flip vs. a 66.7% chance (the packers 2 point conversion rate in 2015) of converting a two point try.

Now I am not a big math guy but it seems to me that the Packers had a much higher mathematical chance of winning on a two point conversion then they did in winning in overtime.

With all of that said, as captain mentioned above, i completely understand why MM kicked the extra point, it is the safe thing to do. Going for two and failing would certainly put your job on the hot seat. However, i personally would have considered a great thing to do and would not have faulted him in the slightest if he had in this particular situation.

Very well put Osponge. The game was there for the taking. Arizona defense was reeling, in complete shock, without timeouts, in disarray and shock. Call the play quickly get up to the line, snap it, execute the play and go home and get ready for Carolina. It was there to be had. The setup doesn't get any better. The best player on the field is your trigger puller and he's three yards away from victory. Win the game and go home!

 

[Ogsponge]

The numbers you use to prove your point here are pretty skewed though.

First of all the Cardinals offense was anemic as well during the game scoring a TD on only 20% of their drives, one coming of an extremely lucky bounce.

While the Packers offense did a good job on two point conversions in 2015 (5-of-7 including playoffs) it's an extremely small sample size and the unit struggling mightily in short yardage situations on third and fourth down, ranking 31st in the league at 46.2%.

I agree that overall the numbers suggest going for two is the better decision in a situation like that but it's not as lopsided as you suggested.

In addition you completely ignore that the offense not scoring a TD on the first possession of overtime doesn't automatically result in the team losing the game.

All valid points, i did want to find other numbers as well such as % of overtime games that end on the first drive. But I have another set of numbers for you. Before that game, Rodgers and the Pack were 0-6-1 in overtime games. So by going to overtime they are relying on a coin toss win, a low chance of 1st drive TD and Rodgers and McCarthy doing something they have never done, winning an overtime game.

Again, I do understand kicking the extra point, I really do, but in this exact situation I firmly believe that while kicking is the safe bet, it did not in any way give the Packers the best chance to win that game and I am not saying that going for two gave them a 90% chance to win the game or anything like that, I simply believe going for two was more of a coin flip proposition than trying to win the game in overtime which i believe their chances were incredibly low, like single digit percentage low.

The Pack just had too many things going against them, not the least of which was a decimated offense and a defense lacking confidence and poise in crunch time.

Anyway, my whole point was that I am definitely not one of the people that would have been screaming for McCarthy's head on a failed 2 point conversion.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Very well put Osponge. The game was there for the taking. Arizona defense was reeling, in complete shock, without timeouts, in disarray and shock. Call the play quickly get up to the line, snap it, execute the play and go home and get ready for Carolina.

The Packers didn't have any chance to snap the ball quickly because it took the referees some time to confirm that Janis caught the ball on the Hail Mary.

All valid points, i did want to find other numbers as well such as % of overtime games that end on the first drive. But I have another set of numbers for you. Before that game, Rodgers and the Pack were 0-6-1 in overtime games. So by going to overtime they are relying on a coin toss win, a low chance of 1st drive TD and Rodgers and McCarthy doing something they have never done, winning an overtime game.

I didn't realize that Rodgers has never won a game in overtime during his career before you mentioned it. Actually he's currently 0-7 in those situations as Matt Flynn was the team's QB during the tie vs. the Vikings in 2013.

Since the NFL changed the league's overtime rules 15 out of 76 games (19.7%) going to overtime have ended on the first drive. On two of these occasions the defense scored a TD.

Anyway, my whole point was that I am definitely not one of the people that would have been screaming for McCarthy's head on a failed 2 point conversion.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have advocated for firing McCarthy in that situation either but I'm quite convinced a lot of people would have.

 

[PikeBadger]

The Packers didn't have any chance to snap the ball quickly because it took the referees some time to confirm that Janis caught the ball on the Hail Mary.

True, I still think the time to win the game was right there and then. Keep your best player on the field with three yards to go for instant victory. The Arizona defense was in disarray and on their heels. We had a big advantage at that moment in time.

Arizona getting the ball meant that Fitzgerald was the best player on the field.

Someone on the Packer's sideline should have already had this figured out before the hail mary play was run.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Someone on the Packer's sideline should have already had this figured out before the hail mary play was run.

I'm convinced McCarthy decided way before the succesful Hail Mary play to kick the extra point in case the Packers scored a touchdown on that drive. In hindsight it was the wrong decision.