Green Bay Packers Forum
7 Pages«<23456>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline rabidgopher04  
#46 Posted : Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:37:25 PM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon said: Go to Quoted Post
FLIP FLOP THOSE! NOW! Smile


2000 Baltimore Ravens. Outstanding D, Trent Dilfer as QB, Super Bowl champs. D is number one. QB was irrelevant in this case.
Offline RajiRoar  
#47 Posted : Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:38:07 PM(UTC)
for the record, I am not part of the "we need an elite RB crowd".

would it be nice to steal one undrafted? OF COURSE!

but we need a PRODUCTIVE RB, Green is not getting it done.

IMO anyone who is not upset about our running production has gotten too used to the crap we've had for the last 6(?) years, (Grant's 8-game stretch in 07' excluded). or is starting to believe MM's spin doctoring on what a RB is for.

or maybe im just bitter because I hated Green as a draft prospect.

is Jackson a long term answer? no.

is Benson? no.

we will be dafting one anyway and if Brandon Jackson(2nd), Starks(6th), and Green(4th) are any indication, Ted Thompson doesnt have much of an eye for RBs.

why not just use the pick now instead of waiting for the draft?
Offline nerdmann  
#48 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 12:34:14 AM(UTC)
RajiRoar said: Go to Quoted Post
for the record, I am not part of the "we need an elite RB crowd".

would it be nice to steal one undrafted? OF COURSE!

but we need a PRODUCTIVE RB, Green is not getting it done.

IMO anyone who is not upset about our running production has gotten too used to the crap we've had for the last 6(?) years, (Grant's 8-game stretch in 07' excluded). or is starting to believe MM's spin doctoring on what a RB is for.

or maybe im just bitter because I hated Green as a draft prospect.

is Jackson a long term answer? no.

is Benson? no.

we will be dafting one anyway and if Brandon Jackson(2nd), Starks(6th), and Green(4th) are any indication, Ted Thompson doesnt have much of an eye for RBs.

why not just use the pick now instead of waiting for the draft?


My beef isn't that Green sucks. It's that we're not utilizing his skill set.

This is a dude who's Cobb-like in the open field, but all we wanna do is bam him into the pile.
Offline Gaycandybacon  
#49 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 1:04:05 AM(UTC)
rabidgopher04 said: Go to Quoted Post
2000 Baltimore Ravens. Outstanding D, Trent Dilfer as QB, Super Bowl champs. D is number one. QB was irrelevant in this case.


Still QB>D

You'll rarely see soley a Defense win a Championship.

I don't understand the whole defense wins championships thing. Cause last time I checked your offense scores the most points not the defense. And if you don't have a QB it's gonna be tough. I still like the odds with a QB.
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#50 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 8:14:48 AM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon said: Go to Quoted Post
Still QB>D

You'll rarely see soley a Defense win a Championship.

I don't understand the whole defense wins championships thing. Cause last time I checked your offense scores the most points not the defense. And if you don't have a QB it's gonna be tough. I still like the odds with a QB.


The reason for the saying is because when you get to the play offs you normally end up with good and closely matched offenses, and defense makes the difference.
Offline macbob  
#51 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 8:27:41 AM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon said: Go to Quoted Post
I don't understand the whole defense wins championships thing. Cause last time I checked your offense scores the most points not the defense. And if you don't have a QB it's gonna be tough. I still like the odds with a QB.


Those saying D > QB aren't saying that QB isn't important, just that D is more important.

There were a number of statistical analyses done in previous threads looking at past SB winners. The #1 correlator was Def, the #2 correlator was QB. Hence the argument that QB is extremely important but not as important as D.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
zombieslayer on 10/29/2012(UTC)
Offline Yerko  
#52 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 8:54:08 AM(UTC)
It just doesn't matter what RB you have in the backfield when the offense line cannot run block. Sitton and Bulaga give us the best run block combo and that is all. TJ Lang and Jeff Saturday either stall at the line or get pushed backwards on run blocking assignments.

RB is not the only problem to the Packers run game...
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Cheesey on 10/29/2012(UTC), dfosterf on 10/30/2012(UTC)
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#53 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 8:59:11 AM(UTC)
Yerko said: Go to Quoted Post
It just doesn't matter what RB you have in the backfield when the offense line cannot run block. Sitton and Bulaga give us the best run block combo and that is all. TJ Lang and Jeff Saturday either stall at the line or get pushed backwards on run blocking assignments.

RB is not the only problem to the Packers run game...


Agree it is the line not blocking, but not that the lineman are bad at it. More of a scheme issue. When we run from the shotgun, it is either a stretch run, and the defense knows exaclty what they need to do, get to the edge before the oline. Or it is a draw, and the oline is trying to sell pass blocking so they are not pushing as much as holding ground.

The couple times we actually line up in a run formation, and let the Oline come off the ball forward, we have success.
thanks Post received 2 applause.
yooperfan on 10/29/2012(UTC), dfosterf on 10/30/2012(UTC)
Offline Cheesey  
#54 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 9:05:01 AM(UTC)
Yerko said it.
I don't care who is running the ball.....if your O-line can't open any holes, you won't gain yards.

I think Starks will be OK, if he can stay healthy. He's a bigger guy who can get a few yards on his own. Again though, ONLY if he can remain healthy. That's a HUGE "if" of course.

Offline zombieslayer  
#55 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 9:50:37 AM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
Those saying D > QB aren't saying that QB isn't important, just that D is more important.

There were a number of statistical analyses done in previous threads looking at past SB winners. The #1 correlator was Def, the #2 correlator was QB. Hence the argument that QB is extremely important but not as important as D.


Thanks Macbob.

I was one of the people who did the research and concluded that D is #1 and QB is #2 (and RB is irrelevant).

Gay is new to the site so probably hasn't seen that stuff. Long story short, Gay. I had an argument with RaiderPride awhile back. He said "Defense wins championships" and I said he was full of it. So I did research to prove him wrong and ended up proving him right.

If you look at all the SB winners, they generally are in the top 5 in Defense (counted by Points Allowed, the most important defensive stat). Our 4 SB winners were #1,#3,#1, and #2 respectively. No coincidence. Of course, having an elite QB is the #2 factor. In all four of those games, we had elite QBs - Bart Starr, Bart Starr, Brett Favre, and Aaron Rodgers respectively.

The one SB we lost, our D was #5. We didn't get the sacks we did the year before when we were #1. Which of course brings us to 2010 vs 2011. 2010, we had the #2 D and high 40s in sacks. 2011, we had the #19 D and high 20s in sacks. Our 2011 QB was better than our 2010 QB, but there is no doubt in my mind that the 2010 team would have slaughtered the 2011 team if they met in the Playoffs.

So yes, QB is the most important position. No argument there. But as a unit, D is more important than the QB position when it comes to winning Championships.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Gaycandybacon on 10/29/2012(UTC)
Offline Pack93z  
#56 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 10:01:21 AM(UTC)
The evolution of Zombie... makes me smile.

thanks Post received 1 applause.
zombieslayer on 10/29/2012(UTC)
Offline zombieslayer  
#57 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 11:05:07 AM(UTC)
Pack93z said: Go to Quoted Post
The evolution of Zombie... makes me smile.



Got a degree in History. You have to refute your thesis with fact after fact and if your thesis ends up being factually incorrect, you have to change your thesis.

This degree translated to real life very well. Simply applied it to football.
Offline play2win  
#58 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 1:31:35 PM(UTC)
I would trade Finley for jackson and a pick or other players. Not jones. No way. James Jones has become too valuable. Before the start of the season, I thought he would give us the most value in trade, because of his talent and relatively low salary cap #. I don't thinks we can afford to part with a player so valuable to Rodgers as is Jones.

I question whether we need Jackson. ??? If we trade, I might rather add DL depth into our rotation.

Anybody else amazed at the numbers? Thompson keeps a dearth of WRs and RBs, unprecedented numbers on the final 53 to start the season. We look to be needing every last one of them!
Offline Yerko  
#59 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 2:00:45 PM(UTC)
play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
I would trade Finley for jackson and a pick or other players. Not jones. No way. James Jones has become too valuable. Before the start of the season, I thought he would give us the most value in trade, because of his talent and relatively low salary cap #. I don't thinks we can afford to part with a player so valuable to Rodgers as is Jones.

I question whether we need Jackson. ??? If we trade, I might rather add DL depth into our rotation.

Anybody else amazed at the numbers? Thompson keeps a dearth of WRs and RBs, unprecedented numbers on the final 53 to start the season. We look to be needing every last one of them!


Packers are still supposedly eyeing Jackson with the trade deadline being pushed to Thursday now...

LINK- ESPN
Offline nerdmann  
#60 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2012 2:24:24 PM(UTC)
Shoulda pulled the trigger on Marshawn.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 10/30/2012(UTC)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
7 Pages«<23456>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Recent Topics
13m / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann


Tweeter