Studs n Duds vs The Vikings

[gopkrs]

You are correct on the long snapper taking the ball back and it appears to be almost 1/2 a yard. I watched it in real time again and the ball is spotted at the 37 after Hochenson's catch and before the long snapper moves it back. Below are snapshots of where he moves it to and where everyone is the moment the ball leaves his hands. Guessing if you change the angle of my shot, almost the entire Packer defense is lined up in the neutral zone, based on original line of scrimmage and not where the LS brought the ball back to.

So that begs an interesting conversation. Is a LS/Center allowed to do that? If yes, does it move the neutral zone back? The Neutral zone defined as the area from the front of the football to the back of it. Could the LS move it back the ball back a full yard, 2 yards? Forcing the defense to lineup at the line of scrimmage not at the spot of where he moves it? Can the snapper move the ball forward before the snap? How far?

Do coaches tell the defense "Do not get baited into lining up off the nose of the ball, remember where the line of scrimmage is and ONLY line up behind that and the neutral zone.

For me, if the snapper moves the ball, he has now moved the neutral zone.

Anyway you cut it, was a ticky-tack call and for me, a very marginal one. I am anxious to see the final stats of penalties called this season. Just a gut feeling from watching more games than I used to, but seems like the refs are dominating the air time.

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

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

The center moving the ball does seem like it complicates things. That is the way all centers do it though. What I saw was Cooper moving literally 1/2 an inch about 4 really quick times in succession just before the snap. It was bizarre looking. So I think it was called on him, though I doubt those little movements put him in the neutral zone. But probably did catch the eye of the ref.

 

[tynimiller]

That said, there's a part of me who wonders how good Willis could be and what Love's trade value might also be.

In Madden a ton....in real life, this type of move would require Gute be fired and Lambeau be burned down....just not smart move in so many ways.

I LOVE Willis, dude is a HIGH HIGH class character of a man, but he proved in Tennessee he was NOT ready even in the slightest for the NFL...and no that cannot all be blamed on the team he was one because I can watch Caleb Williams and see the ability and the potential - Willis did not show the same. Now this year for GB, and not having the pressure of the team being his, it was almost like Willis could go be naturally what/who he is without pressure and he showed a lot more - but if you watch the games he played in he was not asked a lot to make NFL caliber throws; yes when asked he hit a LOT of them but there isn't anywhere close to enough actionable information to substantiate a move to him over Love.

 

[Pugger]

Pivotal divisional game with direct influence on playoff seeding, should have made an impression on this young team, which makes me question the communication from coaches.

Love is indecisive in critical moments and outside of Jacobs, there isn't a playmaker that demands the ball.

It's becoming apparent that Packers need to acquire a true WR1.

Tee Higgins would transform this offense. Is DK Metcalf available?

I think Green Bay should consider moving Jayden Reed if he's not utilized properly.

Packers' defense is rounding into playoff form despite the negative big plays.

Vikings offense is elite and to hold them under 30 is respectable.

Cooper gives Ray Lewis vibes.

Its curious to not have placed Jaire Alexander on IR in hindsight and seriously looking at a veteran free agent at CB would be a wise choice.

That Jacobs fumble was deflating in real time, and costly in hindsight.

Can't beat the great teams; moral victories don't count.

Realistically, Green Bay is a year away from true playoff contention.

I don't know if winning this game would have improved our playoff seeding or not. If we would have won and then beat Chicago on Sunday would we have had a shot at the #1 WC seed?

So just for Sh1ts and giggles, I watched the whole sequence of that final first half FG by the Queens, 3 kicks in all. First was an offsides on Packers, 2nd was kicked after MLF called a timeout and the 3rd actually counted. On all 3 plays, the long snapper pulls the ball back quite a bit, on all 3 plays, the Packers defense is lined up in what would be the "previous neutral zone", based on the spot of the ball before the LS moved it back. So why didn't they call offsides again on the Packers?

Another thing I noticed in looking at this whole play, several times. Take note of Vikings RG, David Quessenberry. He appears to be lined up even with or almost ahead of Andrew DePaola, the Vikings LS.

Is the LS moving the ball back a legal action? I would think if the center or LS moves the ball like that before the snap isn't that technically a false start??

 

[Pugger]

The center moving the ball does seem like it complicates things. That is the way all centers do it though. What I saw was Cooper moving literally 1/2 an inch about 4 really quick times in succession just before the snap. It was bizarre looking. So I think it was called on him, though I doubt those little movements put him in the neutral zone. But probably did catch the eye of the ref.

I've seen centers move the ball some but I can't believe a half inch would change the neutral zone much. But they shouldn't be moving it by several inches.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The center moving the ball does seem like it complicates things. That is the way all centers do it though. What I saw was Cooper moving literally 1/2 an inch about 4 really quick times in succession just before the snap. It was bizarre looking. So I think it was called on him, though I doubt those little movements put him in the neutral zone. But probably did catch the eye of the ref.

I agree on the fact that it seems like most centers/long snappers reposition the ball by pulling it closer to them. That said, I can't find a clear interpretation of the rules and if this changes the "neutral zone". The Neutral Zone is defined this way:

"A virtual area that runs from sideline to sideline bounded by the forward and backward points of the football after it has been made ready for play. The offense and defense line up on opposite sides of the neutral zone and cannot enter it until the ball is snapped for the next play."

The logical part of my brain says that the snapper, after moving the ball, has now created a new neutral zone, since that is the only thing that defenders can look at (placement of ball) to line up. However, if the refs and the NFL define the neutral zone as the imaginary area of the length of the football, from where they originally marked the ball (ready for play) and not where the snapper moved it to, then there is not doubt that most of the Packer defense was lined up offsides on that play.



If anyone finds a clear definition, please post it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Is the LS moving the ball back a legal action? I would think if the center or LS moves the ball like that before the snap isn't that technically a false start??

The center is allowed to put his hand on the ball and reposition it without picking it up off the ground. I believe this must be done before everyone else is set or its considered illegal procedure. Repositioning the ball as he comes down on it, seems to be a move which most centers do. However, how far he can pull it back/move it forward, is my question, but more importantly, does doing so, create a newly defined neutral zone?

 

[Pugger]

The center is allowed to put his hand on the ball and reposition it without picking it up off the ground. I believe this must be done before everyone else is set or its considered illegal procedure. Repositioning the ball has he comes down on it, seems to be a move which most centers do. However, how far he can pull it back is my question, but more importantly, does doing so, create a newly defined neutral zone?

Did MN's LS move it back more than inch on that FG play when we were called for being in the neutral zone? If he did then we really got screwed.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Did MN's LS move it back more than inch on that FG play when we were called for being in the neutral zone? If he did then we really got screwed.

He most definitely did. I can't be exact, but he moved the ball at least a foot, if not 2.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So if the MN LS moved the ball forward 1-2 feet, can the defense line up in the "original neutral zone" which the referee created when the ball was spotted?

If the neutral zone does not change with the centers moving of the ball, then if they aren't looking at the center when he initially moves the ball, how is the defense supposed to know where the neutral zone is?

 

[gopkrs]

What I see the centers do is get down on the ball and then move it forward a little for their comfort. I think the neutral zone is determined by where the ball was originally marked and by where the helmets are. I imagine the refs are all aware of that. Not very scientific but you can usually see when someone is in that zone. Again, I thought Cooper moved forward a bit while trying to get a mini second advantage. And the ref called it incorrectly because Cooper did not move forward into the neutral zone imho.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What I see the centers do is get down on the ball and then move it forward a little for their comfort. I think the neutral zone is determined by where the ball was originally marked and by where the helmets are. I imagine the refs are all aware of that. Not very scientific but you can usually see when someone is in that zone. Again, I thought Cooper moved forward a bit while trying to get a mini second advantage. And the ref called it incorrectly because Cooper did not move forward into the neutral zone imho.

If the neutral zone is determined by where the ref originally marked the ball (37 yard line), than most of the defense was lined up in the neutral zone.

This is my point. If the defense can only line up according to the neutral zone established by where the ref marks the ball, but the center is allowed to move the ball back or forward as much as the Viking LS moved it, than the defense needs to be told by their coaches "DON'T pay any attention to the new ball placement, only pay attention to the old ball placement." Which between you, me and the fence post, would be a lot to ask a bunch of players who may not be paying close attention to what the center initially does with the ball (moves it back or forward a foot or more).

 

[Sanguine camper]

I'm not so sure I'd call the Packers chokers. The Lions and Vikings just have better teams, much as I hate to admit it. And you're right, the Vikings were dominant in every phase of the game for 52 minutes. That was good enough for the win. I can't stand the Vikings, but they do have a good team this year, mostly due to a rebirth for Sam Darnold. They also have a very good HC and GM.

One single game doesn't make a team a choker but when that team comes up short over and over again in the biggest games, I think that label fits.

 

[Voyageur]

You are correct on the long snapper taking the ball back and it appears to be almost 1/2 a yard. I watched it in real time again and the ball is spotted at the 37 after Hochenson's catch and before the long snapper moves it back. Below are snapshots of where he moves it to and where everyone is the moment the ball leaves his hands. Guessing if you change the angle of my shot, almost the entire Packer defense is lined up in the neutral zone, based on original line of scrimmage and not where the LS brought the ball back to.

So that begs an interesting conversation. Is a LS/Center allowed to do that? If yes, does it move the neutral zone back? The Neutral zone defined as the area from the front of the football to the back of it. Could the LS move it back the ball back a full yard, 2 yards? Forcing the defense to lineup at the line of scrimmage not at the spot of where he moves it? Can the snapper move the ball forward before the snap? How far?

Do coaches tell the defense "Do not get baited into lining up off the nose of the ball, remember where the line of scrimmage is and ONLY line up behind that and the neutral zone.

For me, if the snapper moves the ball, he has now moved the neutral zone.

Anyway you cut it, was a ticky-tack call and for me, a very marginal one. I am anxious to see the final stats of penalties called this season. Just a gut feeling from watching more games than I used to, but seems like the refs are dominating the air time.

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

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

This definitely was a game deciding play, and the replay officials should have been able to see it. I have no idea why these people are making the kind of wages they do, then not having the guts to make the tough decisions. If an official blows a call, he blows it, and they need to change it on the spot. The idea that it "destroys the integrity of the game" is pure BS.

The front office whines that it will take too long to play a game. They say people were complaining. So, they changed the out of bounds ruling on plays. They run the clock on a lot of plays which would have stopped the clock. Did it actually shorten the game?

Yes. They shortened the game itself. What they didn't shorten is the time that it takes to play a game, on our clocks. The roughly 15 to 20 minutes they shaved off the game itself was then added in as officials time outs, and stoppages of play where they could insert more advertising. In fact, the time outs are two-minutes long. Check it on a stopwatch. They are longer. There is at least two-minutes of commercials during each time out, and there is time before, and after it was called as well. In fact, if you time the commercials, you'll find that the time outs are often about 3 minutes long, and sometimes even longer. The networks stick as many commercials as possible in, and stretch that 2 minutes constantly, to give them more advertising dollars. An additional thing that has existed for 60 years is a person on the sideline, from the network, who wears a cap, and when they can resume play, removes it. The network determines the actual time consumed, and nobody challenges it.

They shortened the game, but the time is just as long from start to finish as it was 60 years ago. They're lying to us. The complaint that games will run too long with more reviews is them saying they aren't going to do it unless they get to use that extra time to sell more commercials and get more money from the networks. It's coming though. Wait for it.

 

[McKnowledge]

Also, draft football players, not RAS scores.

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This definitely was a game deciding play, and the replay officials should have been able to see it. I have no idea why these people are making the kind of wages they do, then not having the guts to make the tough decisions. If an official blows a call, he blows it, and they need to change it on the spot. The idea that it "destroys the integrity of the game" is pure BS.

The front office whines that it will take too long to play a game. They say people were complaining. So, they changed the out of bounds ruling on plays. They run the clock on a lot of plays which would have stopped the clock. Did it actually shorten the game?

Yes. They shortened the game itself. What they didn't shorten is the time that it takes to play a game, on our clocks. The roughly 15 to 20 minutes they shaved off the game itself was then added in as officials time outs, and stoppages of play where they could insert more advertising. In fact, the time outs are two-minutes long. Check it on a stopwatch. They are longer. There is at least two-minutes of commercials during each time out, and there is time before, and after it was called as well. In fact, if you time the commercials, you'll find that the time outs are often about 3 minutes long, and sometimes even longer. The networks stick as many commercials as possible in, and stretch that 2 minutes constantly, to give them more advertising dollars. An additional thing that has existed for 60 years is a person on the sideline, from the network, who wears a cap, and when they can resume play, removes it. The network determines the actual time consumed, and nobody challenges it.

They shortened the game, but the time is just as long from start to finish as it was 60 years ago. They're lying to us. The complaint that games will run too long with more reviews is them saying they aren't going to do it unless they get to use that extra time to sell more commercials and get more money from the networks. It's coming though. Wait for it.

Spot On!

Basically the NFL is a Money Making Machine Monopoly and they know it. The little things they do to placate fans, usually is tied in with ways they can make more money. Do you think a 17th game was added just so fans could be treated to an extra game? Do you think playoffs were expanded to 14 teams to give more teams a shot? Instant replays just to get it right or have a chance to run more commercials? Do you think that the TV coverage of the schedule release is a big event? Was flex scheduling enacted for the benefit of fans?

On and on and on....and yes...I am a hypocrite for bitching about it, while still being a fan. Some day I will join PFA, Packer Fans Anonymous, and kick the habit, hopefully I don't doink that kick or it will be shown over and over again.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Also, draft football players, not RAS scores.

I think there can be a healthy balance between both. Just like there is between drafting someone that scores a 6 VS a 50 on the Wonderlic Test.

 

[McKnowledge]

I don't know if winning this game would have improved our playoff seeding or not. If we would have won and then beat Chicago on Sunday would we have had a shot at the #1 WC seed?

No.

A victory would have little to no value for us (Packers). But it would've definitely hurt Minnesota.

Would've forced the Vikes to play outdoors in the first round as a wildcard.

However, with the upcoming game vs the Lions, there is a possibility that Green Bay avoids both teams until (hopefully) the NFC Championship.

 

[Magooch]

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

Thank goodness for this. I've said it before but I think we often err WAY too far in the direction of "potential" vs "production" - we will almost always take a "high ceiling, low floor" guy ahead of a "lower ceiling, high floor" player, if that makes sense.

And there is certainly some room for those players but when we are constantly spending high draft capital on players who look to be "projects"...it seems like a great way to ensure you're always right there "in the conversation" but rarely enough to push you over the top, so to speak.

It's like...say you have two guys coming out of college. Same position, relatively equal "grades" attached to them.
Player A has been a multi-year starter and had consistent production throughout his college career. He's playing like a "7/10" player right now, but is close to a finished product. With a little more refinement you might get a guy who could be an 8/10 or 9/10 player if you're lucky.
Player B is perhaps slightly younger, had less of a concrete role in college and overall has far less production to show for his collegiate career. Currently he's only looking like a "5/10" NFL player but has tons of potential and his physical gifts and "raw material" are off the charts. If he gets put in the right situation he might develop into a 9/10 or 10/10 all-Pro type of guy.

Anyways, I feel like we often get really enamored with RAS and athleticism and potential to the point that we would almost ALWAYS choose player "B" over "A". And like I said, sometimes there's a place for that, but sometimes it seems like having a lot of "projects" ends up being too many irons in the fire.... I dunno, rambling...

 

[BrokenArrow]

In Madden a ton....in real life, this type of move would require Gute be fired and Lambeau be burned down....just not smart move in so many ways.

I LOVE Willis, dude is a HIGH HIGH class character of a man, but he proved in Tennessee he was NOT ready even in the slightest for the NFL...and no that cannot all be blamed on the team he was one because I can watch Caleb Williams and see the ability and the potential - Willis did not show the same.

This makes no sense. You say Willis sucks because Tennessee and Caleb Williams? So you completely discount how well he has played in GB? Is Sam Darnold still a bad QB too?

 

[McKnowledge]

I've said it here before and I'll say it again. I went into the season thinking we'd be a handful for anyone but still a year away. I think now it might be more, unless this team goes all in this offseason.We need impact players at wr, CB the lines among others.We can have 75 M plus in cap room, and none of our impending free agents are must sign.Also, draft football players, not RAS scores.

I totally agree. Honestly, it's time to get a "big dog" in the WR room.

Nobody has separated from the...Pack...and claimed WR1 amongst all the young WRs.

There is definite talent, but I don't see that desire. Nobody has said "give me the damn ball!!!"

CB is a position that needs an overhaul. CB1 either thru draft or free agency...

I like Alexander, but I think he would be lethal as CB2.

O-Line and D-Line need young veterans (26-30), players that will instill toughness and some nastiness.

The Packers will have more than enough cash to get this team to Super Bowl contention.

Targeting pass rushers should be a priority.

Singles and doubles in free agency...homeruns in the draft.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I totally agree. Honestly, it's time to get a "big dog" in the WR room.

While I don't fully disagree with this idea, if you do bring in say, Davante Adams, what does your depth chart look like?

Basically, who of Reed, Doubs and Watson gets a lot few snaps?

Also, does that mean you give up on Wicks, because now he is 5th on the DC.

I like all 4 of the WR's we have right now. However, I agree with you, to this point, none of them are a strong #1. Will that change in 2025? Do you find that #1 through Free Agency, the draft or a trade?

What I am not in favor of is committing a ton of money to a guy like Tee Higgins and then have that hurt our depth chart.

 

[OldSchool101]

I guess it depends on how you define mediocre. Is a lower level playoff team mediocre? Right now it looks like we're the fourth best team in the NFC (at best - maybe I'm biased) out of 16 teams. Is that mediocre? I'd say we're probably top ten in the NFL, although that is arguable, I suppose. Is that mediocre? I'd say we're good, not great or mediocre.

I agree. I think it’s obvious we are NOT the best team in the NFC. For myself? I think the Lions and Vikings are both playing high level ball. Detroit is like a machine that doesn’t stop. I’m amazed how physical they play I wish we played more like them in Defense. Branch and Joseph are REALLY good players. I can’t believe everyone passed on Branch last draft. Joseph has 9 INT and he’s not even done. That’s crazy. He might have double digits INT and some teams don’t have that.

I know people mostly won’t agree. I have Detroit and Minnesota #1-2
I think Philly is a very close #3 and GB is just a hair behind Philly. Philly is Like -1.5 on a betting scale over us. I think Detroit is -2.5 and MN -3.5 favorites against us. Washington or LA is a shave under GB like +1.5 behind us. I welcome playing at Philly, actually matched up really good last meeting. Our Run D mitigated Saquon to 3.8 per carry which was impressive.

 

[tynimiller]

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

Also, draft football players, not RAS scores.

I hear this complaint a lot....let's look at the past five drafts:

no particular order

2020
Jordan Love 8.43
AJ Dillon 9.15
Josiah Deguara 8.51
Jon Runyan 9.45
Vernon Scott N/A
Jonathan Garvin 8.98
Kamal Martin N/A
Jake Hanson 3.72*

2021
Stokes - 9.37
Amari Rodgers - 5.35
Tedarrell Slaton - 7.96
Shemar Jean Charles - 4.24
Cole Van Lanen - 8.49
Kylin Hill - 7.28
McDuffie - 7.32
Royce Newman - 8.69
Josh Myers - N/A

2022
Quay - 9.60
Watson - 9.96
Doubs - 8.28u
Devonte Wyatt - 9.6
Sean Rhyan - 9.35
Rasheed Walker - N/A
Zach Tom - 9.92
Enagbare - 6.26
Tariq Carpenter - 9.06
Jonathan Ford - 3.53
Toure - 6.15

2023
LVN - 9.39
Musgrave - 9.78
Reed - 6.74
Kraft - 9.68
Wooden - 9.24
Clifford - 9.04
Wicks - 9.17
Brooks - 5.87
Carlson - N/A

2024
Morgan - 9.24
Cooper - 9.13
Bullard - 8.25
Lloyd - 8.62
TyRon Hopper - 7.42
Evan Williams - 8.20
Monk - 9.74
Oladapo - 8.18
Glover - 4.71
Pratt - 8.28
King - 6.68


The odd thing is folks fail to realize is that 'most' of your top flight prospects are naturally going to be your better athletes and testing will illustrate this. RAS however historically seems to be a better indicator once you get past the TOP TOP prospects as it seems to correlate with might become or could be. Gute however especially of late has hit on some arguably sub-par athletes if speaking only to RAS - Brooks, Enagbare and Reed all were leaving RAS as a piece behind and it didn't bite him like it has in previous years.

I still think Gute and his staff don't yield to RAS, they may have a metric they've devised that does something similar to place a numeric value on physical attributes but I don't believe RAS is directly it. It is however one of the most widely used and accessible by pundits, fans and sure some teams as well to be cognizant of.

I for sure get the rub against RAS but it is usually solely based on a fan's feelings of disliking a pick or hindsight ability to hate a pick - which we all are guilty of.

 

[tynimiller]

This makes no sense. You say Willis sucks because Tennessee and Caleb Williams? So you completely discount how well he has played in GB? Is Sam Darnold still a bad QB too?

Um....clearly you didn't read the entire context/post also I didn't say Willis sucks because of Caleb Williams LOL

In Madden a ton....in real life, this type of move would require Gute be fired and Lambeau be burned down....just not smart move in so many ways.

I LOVE Willis, dude is a HIGH HIGH class character of a man, but he proved in Tennessee he was NOT ready even in the slightest for the NFL...and no that cannot all be blamed on the team he was one because I can watch Caleb Williams and see the ability and the potential - Willis did not show the same. Now this year for GB, and not having the pressure of the team being his, it was almost like Willis could go be naturally what/who he is without pressure and he showed a lot more - but if you watch the games he played in he was not asked a lot to make NFL caliber throws; yes when asked he hit a LOT of them but there isn't anywhere close to enough actionable information to substantiate a move to him over Love.

 

[Heyjoe4]

One single game doesn't make a team a choker but when that team comes up short over and over again in the biggest games, I think that label fits.

Well yeah. Look at how often GB lost to the Niners in the playoffs. They managed to lose a playoff game at home where the Niners didn't score a single offensive TD. That one was a collective choke.