Week two: Falcons blowout studs and duds.

[Pokerbrat2000]

I do believe that a more complete Packer lineup can beat the Falcons, even on the road.

Is that the optimist in you or do you really believe it? The only way the Packers take down the Falcons in the playoffs this year is if The Falcons are injured at 1-2 key positions/players (Ryan, Jones, Sanu, half their defense) and/or they play flat and turn the ball over multiple times. IMO, these 2 teams are not currently on the same playing level, even healthy.

The Packers will have to get much better on both offense and defense in the next 15 weeks or so, if they hope to play at the level of a quality team like Atlanta. Of course, during that time, the Falcons will probably be improving too.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Our defense held them to about 360 yards. They were only held under 375 once all of last season. The defense will be fine. Daniels is the catalyst.

Don't let the final stats fool you, the Falcons took their foot off the gas in the second half, on both offense and defense. Also, Daniels was on the field for that first series, when Atlanta rammed the ball right down the field and our defenses throat. I get what you are saying, Daniels might have helped make somewhat of a difference, but not enough IMO.....unless he can also play in the secondary.

 

[Dantés]

Is that the optimist in you or do you really believe it? The only way the Packers take down the Falcons in the playoffs this year is if The Falcons are injured at 1-2 key positions/players (Ryan, Jones, Sanu, half their defense) and/or they play flat and turn the ball over multiple times. IMO, these 2 teams are not currently on the same playing level, even healthy.

The Packers will have to get much better on both offense and defense in the next 15 weeks or so, if they hope to play at the level of a quality team like Atlanta. Of course, during that time, the Falcons will probably be improving too.

Of course I believe it. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that being without Bakhtiari, Bulaga, Nelson, and Daniels could have been the difference in a win or a loss. The Falcons struggled last week against the freaking Mike Glennon led Bears.

They drew Atlanta for their home opener. That was always going to be tough, health aside. Then they lost a slew of guys. It happens. Yes, they must play better to win. And they absolutely can. Of course it would help the Packers' chances if the Falcons were dealing with a slew of injuries, just like it helped the Falcons that the Packers found themselves in that position last night.

I expected a road loss here given the circumstances. Once the injuries happened, I took it for granted. In a rematch, one that isn't the home opener in a new facility and one in which GB isn't missing most of its key players, I give the Packers every chance to win.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I was talking about appearances. There aren't a whole lot of ways to explain phantom calls against one team, especially by an official who was not in position to make an accurate call, and then blatantly obvious penalties of the same nature being ignored for the other team. It's especially troubling because all three calls/no-calls came on game-changing plays and accounted for at least a 14 point swing and possibly up to a 21 point swing depending on what we might have done from the 50 with 35 seconds to go.



I think it would have been a very different game with Daniels, Nelson and our tackles on the field.

Point taken, it just read a bit sour grapes sorry.

 

[rodell330]

I doubt McCarthy has final say on the matter.

He's the HC. He should

 

[AmishMafia]

Is that the optimist in you or do you really believe it? The only way the Packers take down the Falcons in the playoffs this year is if The Falcons are injured at 1-2 key positions/players (Ryan, Jones, Sanu, half their defense) and/or they play flat and turn the ball over multiple times. IMO, these 2 teams are not currently on the same playing level, even healthy.

The Packers will have to get much better on both offense and defense in the next 15 weeks or so, if they hope to play at the level of a quality team like Atlanta. Of course, during that time, the Falcons will probably be improving too.

But the Packers were down 4 key players, why does that not factor into an evaluation of their performance?

Daniels is our defensive leader and his loss was huge. As it turned out, IMHO, it was bigger than the loss of our OTs.

Duds:

Rodgers. Even when he had protection, he made uncharacteristically bad throws and poor decisions.

Bennett, this is his negative. Throughout his career he has had stretches where he drops passes. He gets back on track though.

Studs
Starting OTs- thought they provided decent protection. Only 3 sacks and he has averaged 2.5 sacks the last 2 years. Saw some decent run blocking as well. To my eye, the protection was worse than the sack total shows, but not as bad as many here are claiming. We could weather loss of 1 OT, but 2 at the same time was tough. Murphy did okay most of the game and the other fella did better early and faded later. Keep in mind, they were really Teeing off/ focusing defensively on the OTs and they mostly held their own.

Kevin King - what a game. Nice coming out party.

Adams. He looked focused and determined.

More duds
Some posters - ridiculing those who were happy with the defense after 1 game for jumping to conclusions when they themselves are prematurely jumping to conclusions over 1 game. Also, posters i have never seen before posting how much the Packers suck. These people are the moral equivalent of bears fans. If you don't post when they are doing well, I don't care what you have to say when they are not.

 

[PackAttack12]

Our defense held them to about 360 yards. They were only held under 375 once all of last season. The defense will be fine. Daniels is the catalyst.

Again, Matt Ryan only threw the football 8 times in the second half. The Falcons let their foot off the gas with the big lead.

You cannot just look at a final number and make a determination. Context is important. Ryan threw for 201 in the 1st half, and I can't remember how many rushing yards they compiled, but had they not of changed up their game plan, it would have really got out of hand.

 

[PackAttack12]

More duds
Some posters - ridiculing those who were happy with the defense after 1 game for jumping to conclusions when they themselves are prematurely jumping to conclusions over 1 game. Also, posters i have never seen before posting how much the Packers suck. These people are the moral equivalent of bears fans. If you don't post when they are doing well, I don't care what you have to say when they are not.

You couldn't be more off base on that comment.

We're basing our opinions on the past Green Bay Packers defensive performance. All last night did was confirm our skepticism about this defense. It's much more plausible to base an opinion off of games and seasons worth of data, as opposed to one game.

This secondary is the exact same unit, plus House and rookies. It's no wonder that essentially the same Falcons team blew through essentially the same Packers team which played in this past year's NFC Championship game. Not to mention, House essentially replaced Micah Hyde so that's effectively a wash.

If we don't see marked improvement from Randall and Rollins (not looking pretty right now) and/or breakout seasons from rookies, we're screwed in the secondary just like we were last year. Just like many, including myself, feared we would be dating back to the beginning of the offseason. The only hope would be for the defensive front to continue getting pressure on the quarterback, because this secondary is absolutely no better than it was last year.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The secondary looked like the same Pop Warner unit which got torched in the same game last year. Not an NFL unit. King looks like the only CB who has any business playing in man coverage. He had an excellent game.

I'm not understanding the criticism of Rodgers. They had no trouble moving it on the first drive before Jordy went down. Allison hesitated on the route which led to an INT.

Other than that, he missed a few throws, but otherwise, he did as well as he could considering that the line looked like Swiss cheese, the defense sucked too much to establish a running game, and the CBs could cover our WRs while running backwards.

Missed a few throws...that's kind of the reason people are saying he had a bad game. The Falcons dropped two other interceptions that he threw them and the fumble that was returned for a TD should probably be considered a bad play on his part as well.

Rodgers was not the biggest problem on the night (the lack of good defensive players and injuries were the biggest culprits) but Rodgers was at fault in last night's game.

 

[AmishMafia]

This secondary is the exact same unit, plus House and rookies. It's no wonder that essentially the same Falcons team blew through essentially the same Packers team which played in this past year's NFC Championship game. Not to mention, House essentially replaced Micah Hyde so that's effectively a wash.

Our #1 CB last season, Gunter, was just cut. And you think we are essentially the same at CB? Riiiiight. Gotcha.

 

[easyk83]

Eh we'll see with this team but injuries aside we need some significant growth to make a serious run. With our secondary the fire might be out but it's still a dumpster back there. Rollins is too slow to play outside and Randall, despite having the talent, is a complete basket case at the position. Some games he looks and plays well and others he's just terrible. He has the physical ability to matchup with a Julio Jones but mentally it was like he came in beat, he never tried to actually jam Jones at the line and constantly bailed out allowing Julio to pretty much run free whenever Randall was on him. Rollins was just awful, I saw him do the twirl atleast once and that was when he just got beat mentally, physically guys were just running by him. He's footslow on the outside and doesn't have the instincts or technique to make up for it.

King looked good but that 8 yard cushion on 2nd and 13 was ridiculous, he should have stayed on his man. We needed a stop in that series and giving up 12 yards to set up 3rd and short was one of the final nails.

 

[bigbubbatd]

Terrible game no doubt. However I do t get why some are acting like injuries can be factored in. What nfl offense is going to function well minus its two tackles (who are also their two best lineman) and their best wr. Don't let the lack of sacks for you. Rodgers was getting rid of the ball extremely quickly last night. The offense could not go down field and without jordy it really couldn't. No doubt in my mind the offense puts up much better numbers with those guys out there.

Just like there is no doubt it is a close game without the horrible call on Bennett. Or with Daniels playing.

It also would have been closer if Rodgers played well and if we didn't have a ton of penalties and turnovers. And if the Falcons made mistakes or our dbs were better. Lots of factors. All played a part.

 

[Dantés]

I don't understand how people say these two things at the same time without seeing the contradiction:

"We could only beat the Falcons if they were down a bunch of important players"

and

"Injuries should not be mentioned as a factor in the Packers' performance"

Which is it? Do they matter or do they not? If the Falcons had been without Jake Matthews, Julio Jones, Ryan Schraeder, Ty Sambrailo, and Grady Jarrett by the 5 minute mark of that game, that wouldn't have made any difference?

I think people feel like bringing up injuries excuses poor play on the field. It doesn't. It's just a reasonable acknowledgement of a real factor that contributed to the outcome of the game. For that reason, and because of other factors that I've mentioned (opening night in a new stadium on the road), I believe that the cards were stacked against the Packers in this game and expected the loss. With some of those factors alleviated potentially in a PO rematch, I would absolutely give GB a chance to win. That is not to be confused with a guarantee, but I wouldn't expect a loss as I did with last night's situation.

 

[RRyder]

I don't think it would have made much, if any, difference. All of the above played 8 months ago in the NFCCG.
And if they didn't lay off once the game was out of hand, they could have put up 660 yards.

While I do agree Atlanta would've racked up more yards had the game been closer I'd just add that I think we did at least look a little better on D and this game was lost on Rodgers gift wrapping 14 points to Atlanta and Ha Ha having the worst game I can remember him having was the main reason I saw the D struggling.

Pretty much I agree. Just wanted to say if our MVP QB and Pro Bowl Saftey didn't suck the game takes a drastically different turn

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If memory of last nights game serves me correct, Daniels was on the field for the entire first drive by Atlanta, I don't think him being on the field for the whole game would have altered things enough to have changed the final outcome of that game. Daniels is a really good player, but right now, he and Perry are about the only 2 difference makers on that defense.

I for one am not throwing my hands up and saying "this Packer team sucks", they are a good team, just not at the level of Atlanta, the last 3 games should tell people that. Can it be fixed? Perfect or close to perfect health would be a plus, but I don't expect that. TT going out and finding someone to shore up the OL depth might help this year. Matthews continues to be an all or nothing one trick pony, even when healthy. I like King, but wishing the Packers would have pulled the trigger on Watt. Oh well.

Besides the poor play last night and facing the reality of "this team hasn't improved from last year", my biggest frustration was once again with MM and the end of both the halves. First half, why put your offense into a position of giving up the ball and handing the Falcons an easy 7? I kind of get the initial part of that series and the penalty hurt us, but after that penalty.....take your lumps into the locker room and stop giving the other team momentum to close the half. Second half.....why do you expose your FHOF QB to hits when the game is already lost? That final series down 11, with no timeouts and not enough time to do jack squat.....why MM...why?

 

[Mondio]

So you think the defense got better with Daniels off the field? because the 2nd drive was -11 yards and a 3 and out. and on the fumble return for a TD I thought both tackles were cut blocking which tells me that ball was designed to come out quickly. blame MM all you want, but Rodgers is smarter than that. He has to know if he doesn't, the heat is going to be on him and act accordingly. my recollection is he had pressure up middle and both sides, the play obviously didn't work. And it was obviously a play designed to get the ball out quick. Plays designed to get the ball out quick aren't plays designed to expose your QB to hits.

 

[PackAttack12]

Our #1 CB last season, Gunter, was just cut. And you think we are essentially the same at CB? Riiiiight. Gotcha.

Gunter was an undrafted rookie who was able to outperform two high round picks. Doesn't really feed into your argument very well. You're acting like we really cut someone loose.

 

[AmishMafia]

Gunter was an undrafted rookie who was able to outperform two high round picks. Doesn't really feed into your argument very well. You're acting like we really cut someone loose.

Okay. Try to think. Maybe some bullet points will help you understand.

• Gunter was our top CB and assigned to cover Julio Jones last year.
• We drafted Kevin King
• We signed House
• Gunter was no longer our #1 CB
• There were 6 other CBs that Packers felt were greater value to the team.
• We cut Gunter

Now, follow with me, if Gunter was #1 and now is #7, and he didnt regress or get injured, then our CB position probably got significantly better.

Don't let one game against a great passing offense early in the season be your benchmark.

 

[bigbubbatd]

The Packer's offense's inability to stay on the field in the first half did not do the defense any favors. The defense is not great but any defense having to go back out that quickly against that offense will struggle. That first drive was great but after that almost nothing. When the defense did get a stop the offense never answered.

Also majorly impressed with Bryant. Those two 50 plus harder were big for Atlanta because the Packers defense had held and even knocked Atlanta back.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I understand optimism and trying to focus on the positive things, but I'm having a hard time finding many positives from last night's game, plain and simple, we got beat by a much better team and my optimism about an improved defense is trending downward.

Sorry to those posters who might be finding themselves annoyed at reading about negative thoughts. The most positive things I can say about last night:

1. Rodgers didn't appear to get injured.
2. King showed some skills.
3. Vogel can punt.
4. Murphy and Pankey weren't as bad as I expected.
5. Our draft needs on defense will be wide open to choose from.

 

[PackAttack12]

Okay. Try to think. Maybe some bullet points will help you understand.

• Gunter was our top CB and assigned to cover Julio Jones last year.
• We drafted Kevin King
• We signed House
• Gunter was no longer our #1 CB
• There were 6 other CBs that Packers felt were greater value to the team.
• We cut Gunter

Now, follow with me, if Gunter was #1 and now is #7, and he didnt regress or get injured, then our CB position probably got significantly better.

Don't let one game against a great passing offense early in the season be your benchmark.

Your attempt at being condescending was pretty cute.

Greater value to the team moving forward doesn't necessarily equate to being the best player as of the present. Even after all of those points being brought to the table, the Falcons still scorched the Packers defense just the same as it did this past January. Your point would be more valid if the argument could be made that Randall and Rollins looked considerably better last night than they did several months ago. They didn't. And they even had a better pass rush to assist them last night! Even in the Seattle game, there were multiple plays where guys got beat by the Seattle receivers. And got bailed out because the pass rush altered the throws from Russell Wilson.

There are going to be games in which the Packers defense performs quite well. The following games from last season would qualify:

Week 2 at Minnesota
Week 5 v.s. New York
Week 7 v.s. Chicago
Week 12 at Philadelphia
Week 13 v.s. Houston
Week 14 v.s. Seattle
Wild Card round v.s. New York

But when it's time to perform on the biggest stage, they have come up small (31 points to Dallas, 44 to Atlanta).

And you can challenge my intelligence all you want if that makes you feel superior, but silly me, I refuse to believe that you can essentially replace Hyde with House, which for the sake of argument lets call that a wash. You lose Gunter. And you only add rookies to a bad defense, things aren't going to be much better. And it proved to not be better last night.

But I'm supposed to believe that, because of our Week 1 performance against Seattle, that our secondary is somehow vastly improved? The same team that scored 12 points v.s. San Francisco at home?? No way.

This team has yet to prove it can perform at a high level v.s. an elite offense and until it does, I'm going to continue being skeptical.

Again, silly me. But I'm all about results. And I currently see no results that suggest improvement. When I see results v.s. an elite offense, I'll be the first to acknowledge it.

 

[PackerFanLV]

Duds -Bennett, there was a reason the bears and New England had him mostly blocking and I hope McCarthy saw that last night.
CM3- this dude been mia that last 3 seasons I'm tired of watching him over run plays and can't get off blocks.
Rollins and Randall- I don't think these guy camera play corner at this level and Dom keeps putting the in man 2 man coverage but I guess I would to so MM and TT can see these are not the guys for this defense.

 

[Arthur Squires]

Now does everyone see why I kept mentioning Kareem Hunt and how he would change our offense. No sense in really mentioning it I guess but it really makes me upset we are still doing same old thing. Hopefully JWilliams starts to come on so we dont have to keep pounding TyMo and putting it all on Rodgers shoulders.

 

[PackAttack12]

Now does everyone see why I kept mentioning Kareem Hunt and how he would change our offense. No sense in really mentioning it I guess but it really makes me upset we are still doing same old thing. Hopefully JWilliams starts to come on so we dont have to keep pounding TyMo and putting it all on Rodgers shoulders.

Unfortunately, that's been our home run swing for the majority of the past 6+ seasons.

 

[mradtke66]

and on the fumble return for a TD I thought both tackles were cut blocking which tells me that ball was designed to come out quickly. blame MM all you want, but Rodgers is smarter than that. He has to know if he doesn't, the heat is going to be on him and act accordingly. my recollection is he had pressure up middle and both sides, the play obviously didn't work. And it was obviously a play designed to get the ball out quick. Plays designed to get the ball out quick aren't plays designed to expose your QB to hits.

The whole line actually cut block.

Murphy and Linsley did their job. Evans didn't have a man to block, because they overloaded the offensive left. Taylor did a poor job, and McCray missed his.

Regardless, this is correct. That should have been 3-steps, ball out, play over. I put about 70% of the blame on Rodgers on that play going wrong up to that point. 90% percent as he should have just eaten the ball when he realized he had two free rushers.