Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
4 Pages«<234

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
DoddPower  
#61 Posted : Tuesday, September 10, 2013 1:30:31 PM(UTC)
TheKanataThrilla said: Go to Quoted Post
As long as we are all ranting at least let me say that I have been asking for a top safety in the draft for 2 years now. I wanted Harrison Smith (you can check the archives) and I wanted one this year. I was told because we didn't address the need in the draft it is because they didn't see it as a problem. Well guess what they were completely wrong twice. Our safeties need help big time. We may never find another Nick Collins, but we cannot go from his level of talent to what we have now and expect another Super Bowl.


I get the point, but the safety play will improve with Burnett back there. A team missing their best safety will always leave something to be desired.

The other safety position could still be improved, but hopefully McMillian can develop into that role one Burnett is back. I have no faith in Jennings though, and wish we had better depth there. To be fair though, it's always a trade off. Had the Packers possibly upgraded the safety position, it could leave another position thin, such as OLB or DL. Jolly is certainly helping with the defensive line issues, but no one could truly expect that. The jury is still out on Nick Perry, but without him, the Packers would be in even worse shape. At least he played decent against the run and contained the outside fairly well against the 49'ers.
DoddPower  
#62 Posted : Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:12:05 PM(UTC)
play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
Based on these numbers, add the two sacks (I counted 3, but I guess they called it a tuck and run for a loss), there were 41 drop backs, of which there were 7 pressures and 2 sacks. So, Kaepernick was under pressure 22% of his pass plays, instead of the 0% (all day) many have intimated.


My bigger point is much more comprehensive. Very few conclusions can be drawn off of one game, especially Week 1. The 49'ers offensive line is unquestionably better in my opinion, and Aaron Rodgers has basically never had a very good one. There's a reason he was the most sacked QB last season. True, some of those are his fault, but a lot of the success the Packers have had is attributable to those same qualities that Rodgers has that leads to some sacks. I would trade offensive lines in a heart beat with the 49'er's if I could. You seem to be very interested in drilling down to the details of a single game. That's fine, but it ultimately doesn't mean much, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions can't even be drawn from Kapernick's entire sample size, to date, but it's much better than a single game.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a fact that Aaron Rodgers is very often under very quick pressure, more so than most quarterbacks in the NFL, especially the good teams, and definitely more than Kaepernick. It seems to be even worse in critical situations. Many of the organizations moves reflect that sentiment too. Aaron Rodgers could be much more effective if he had a better offensive line, such as what Tom Brady has enjoyed for much of his career.

Also, I'm confident that Rodgers would play much better against the Packers defense than he would against the 49'ers, despite any knowledge of the schemes. If Rodgers could play behind the 49'ers offensive line AND against the Packers defense, I would be betting some cash on the outcome of that game, and I don't think I need to explain why. Ultimately, this is why direct comparisons are futile and somewhat silly, although they do seem to sell and draw ratings, so the talking heads love it. It's very fair to compare teams, and the 49'ers are a much better team than the Packers from top to bottom, imo. I think if both teams played their best ball, the 49'ers would win the majority of the games, probably something like 70-80%. However, things change fast so that statement could change within a season or so.
sschind  
#63 Posted : Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:59:47 PM(UTC)
Someone said it before and I am too lazy to go back and find out who (sorry) but I think a major difference between Rodgers and Kaepernick in this game were Boldin and to a lesser extent Davis. These guys were wide open all game long and when you have wide open receivers it is going to be much easier to throw the ball. I don't recall seeing any Packers receivers as wide open as regularly as these two guys were. I guess that means our secondary made CK look better than he may be.

Going into the game I was convinced that CK was a runner that would be and average QB if this was taken away from him. I have changed my mind a bit on that. I'd still like him to show what he can do against a team that doesn't leave guys wide open all the time.

The stats for Rodgers and Kaepernick were not that much different. If it weren't for the INT, which wasn't Rodgers fault, I'd dare say they were pretty much equal. The 49ers outplayed us in pretty much every other aspect of play and that is why we lost. This game was not won or lost by either team based on the play of the QBs.
play2win  
#64 Posted : Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:06:45 PM(UTC)
DoddPower said: Go to Quoted Post
My bigger point is much more comprehensive. Very few conclusions can be drawn off of one game, especially Week 1. The 49'ers offensive line is unquestionably better in my opinion, and Aaron Rodgers has basically never had a very good one. There's a reason he was the most sacked QB last season. True, some of those are his fault, but a lot of the success the Packers have had is attributable to those same qualities that Rodgers has that leads to some sacks. I would trade offensive lines in a heart beat with the 49'er's if I could. You seem to be very interested in drilling down to the details of a single game. That's fine, but it ultimately doesn't mean much, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions can't even be drawn from Kapernick's entire sample size, to date, but it's much better than a single game.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a fact that Aaron Rodgers is very often under very quick pressure, more so than most quarterbacks in the NFL, especially the good teams, and definitely more than Kaepernick. It seems to be even worse in critical situations. Many of the organizations moves reflect that sentiment too. Aaron Rodgers could be much more effective if he had a better offensive line, such as what Tom Brady has enjoyed for much of his career.

Also, I'm confident that Rodgers would play much better against the Packers defense than he would against the 49'ers, despite any knowledge of the schemes. If Rodgers could play behind the 49'ers offensive line AND against the Packers defense, I would be betting some cash on the outcome of that game, and I don't think I need to explain why. Ultimately, this is why direct comparisons are futile and somewhat silly, although they do seem to sell and draw ratings, so the talking heads love it. It's very fair to compare teams, and the 49'ers are a much better team than the Packers from top to bottom, imo. I think if both teams played their best ball, the 49'ers would win the majority of the games, probably something like 70-80%. However, things change fast so that statement could change within a season or so.


Well, first, I'm not looking to draw any difinitive conclusions from a single game, but the thread was discussing that game last played. I've seen enough of Kaepernick to believe he is the real deal. Maybe not a better pure passer than Rodgers, but pretty close, and better on the run.

Second, Rodgers and Keaepernick both made some pretty quick throws. Would I take their OL? Probably. But, ours actually played pretty well. Something not many here wanted to admit, that he had a clean pocket to throw from 77% of the game.
play2win  
#65 Posted : Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:09:01 PM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
Someone said it before and I am too lazy to go back and find out who (sorry) but I think a major difference between Rodgers and Kaepernick in this game were Boldin and to a lesser extent Davis. These guys were wide open all game long and when you have wide open receivers it is going to be much easier to throw the ball. I don't recall seeing any Packers receivers as wide open as regularly as these two guys were. I guess that means our secondary made CK look better than he may be.

Going into the game I was convinced that CK was a runner that would be and average QB if this was taken away from him. I have changed my mind a bit on that. I'd still like him to show what he can do against a team that doesn't leave guys wide open all the time.

The stats for Rodgers and Kaepernick were not that much different. If it weren't for the INT, which wasn't Rodgers fault, I'd dare say they were pretty much equal. The 49ers outplayed us in pretty much every other aspect of play and that is why we lost. This game was not won or lost by either team based on the play of the QBs.


Great post sschind. Yes, our S play was severely lacking, and I agree that is what lost this game for us.
DoddPower  
#66 Posted : Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:02:02 PM(UTC)
play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
Would I take their OL? Probably.


If you actually have to think about that one, it tells me everything I need to know. No need to continue.
play2win  
#67 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:58:55 AM(UTC)
DoddPower said: Go to Quoted Post
If you actually have to think about that one, it tells me everything I need to know. No need to continue.


Well, now what is that? Seems like you are just pissed that Rodgers wasn't actually running for his life like you and steveishere had intimated.

Whatever.

I think our OL played very well, against one of the top defensive fronts in the NFL. I believe they deserve a chance to gel as a unit before completely writing them off. Against that D they gave Rodgers a clean pocket to throw from 77% of the time.

Yeah, I guess I don't know anything DoddPower. It was nothing personal, but I just did not agree that Kaepernick had all day, and Rodgers was under constant pressure. Both statements were wrong.
steveishere  
#68 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:49:48 AM(UTC)
play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
Well, now what is that? Seems like you are just pissed that Rodgers wasn't actually running for his life like you and steveishere had intimated.

Whatever.


My only comment on Rodgers in this thread was that Kaepernick had cleaner pockets and not once did I say or "intimate" he was "running for his life" so once again you are completely full of shit. Seriously you just can't argue with something a person actually said you have to sensationalize it into something else.

What you do would be like me saying that you are trying to argue that Kaepernick is a 10x better qb than Rodgers is and then calling you an idiot for thinking that. It's ridiculous.
Zero2Cool  
#69 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:51:32 AM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
What you do would be like me saying that you are trying to argue that Kaepernick is a 10x better qb than Rodgers is and then calling you an idiot for thinking that. It's ridiculous.


Food for thought. Aaron Rodgers won more games in 2011 than Colin Kaepernick has started in his career.
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#70 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:41:57 AM(UTC)
DoddPower said: Go to Quoted Post
My bigger point is much more comprehensive. Very few conclusions can be drawn off of one game, especially Week 1. The 49'ers offensive line is unquestionably better in my opinion, and Aaron Rodgers has basically never had a very good one. There's a reason he was the most sacked QB last season. True, some of those are his fault, but a lot of the success the Packers have had is attributable to those same qualities that Rodgers has that leads to some sacks. I would trade offensive lines in a heart beat with the 49'er's if I could. You seem to be very interested in drilling down to the details of a single game. That's fine, but it ultimately doesn't mean much, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions can't even be drawn from Kapernick's entire sample size, to date, but it's much better than a single game.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a fact that Aaron Rodgers is very often under very quick pressure, more so than most quarterbacks in the NFL, especially the good teams, and definitely more than Kaepernick. It seems to be even worse in critical situations. Many of the organizations moves reflect that sentiment too. Aaron Rodgers could be much more effective if he had a better offensive line, such as what Tom Brady has enjoyed for much of his career.

Also, I'm confident that Rodgers would play much better against the Packers defense than he would against the 49'ers, despite any knowledge of the schemes. If Rodgers could play behind the 49'ers offensive line AND against the Packers defense, I would be betting some cash on the outcome of that game, and I don't think I need to explain why. Ultimately, this is why direct comparisons are futile and somewhat silly, although they do seem to sell and draw ratings, so the talking heads love it. It's very fair to compare teams, and the 49'ers are a much better team than the Packers from top to bottom, imo. I think if both teams played their best ball, the 49'ers would win the majority of the games, probably something like 70-80%. However, things change fast so that statement could change within a season or so.


You make a lot of valid points, Dodd. Just the same, I still have to disagree about the Niners winning the majority, etc.

Sunday's game was certainly within range of a win for the Packers. And that was with the rare freaky miscues on offense (I bet Lacy never gets victimized that way again), with the officials' screwup, with Kaepernick arguably playing over his head - based on the games he has played with everybody but the Packers, with Burnett and Hayward out, and with the O Line that, well, let's say has to improve cuz it can't get any worse.

With all of that, one minute more on the clock and we undoubtedly would have pulled it out.
Zero2Cool  
#71 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:48:37 AM(UTC)
Colin K played WAY over his head, no question about it. And for fans wanting to face the 49ers again, I will say it like I said after the first of the last three times they beat the Packers. You're nuts. 49ers are the Cowboys of the 90's, skip over them if ya can.

Some mention no Burnett or Hayward, well, consider they will have their #1 WR next time the Packers might face them.
steveishere  
#72 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:54:07 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
Colin K played WAY over his head, no question about it. And for fans wanting to face the 49ers again, I will say it like I said after the first of the last three times they beat the Packers. You're nuts. 49ers are the Cowboys of the 90's, skip over them if ya can.

Some mention no Burnett or Hayward, well, consider they will have their #1 WR next time the Packers might face them.


I would rather let them have Crabtree back if it meant us having Burnett and Hayward. There was just too big of a drop off with those 2 out to their replacements.
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#73 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:08:01 AM(UTC)
True - at most, Crabtree would cut into the catches Bolden got. I think Hayward might be the kind of DB to handle Bolden a lot better, and Burnett probably would cover center field a lot better than Jennings/McMillian. For that matter, most days I think Jennings/McMillian would do the job better.

Z2C, I'm not saying "bring 'em on" like I'm anxious to play the Niners again. It really is between them and us as to who is the best in the NFL. I'm just saying I think it's US by at least a small margin.

I DO, however, want to see us play them in the NFC final - preferably at Lambeau.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages«<234
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

Fan Shout
uffda udfa (9h) : Packers re-sign Christine Michael
Smokey (10h) : Easier said than fixed .
Nonstopdrivel (11h) : The web version lists who started the thread; the mobile version lists who last updated it.
Nonstopdrivel (11h) : Also, there's a weird disparity between the web version and online version of this site.
Nonstopdrivel (11h) : ;-)
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : Packers wanted D. Ware in 2005. Thank you Cowboys!
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : lol Rourke
Nonstopdrivel (21-Mar) : I HATE HATE HATE the way all threads get marked as read after viewing a few of them in one session. It's obnoxious.
Smokey (21-Mar) : Check out this site, NFLdraftscout.com , a great resource site.
Smokey (20-Mar) : Jared Cook signs with Raiders .
Smokey (20-Mar) : I did watch SB 45 on YouTube the other night, very eye opening .
Smokey (20-Mar) : Watching Spring Training Baseball, Nationals vs Yankees, very interesting .
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : B1G making some noise in that bracket
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : The more join, the more talk, the better. including John
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : no forum should need one person, we have others, speak up!
gbguy20 (19-Mar) : slow forum needs more uffda
Smokey (19-Mar) : There's always next year .
Smokey (18-Mar) : Virginia is still in it !
Smokey (18-Mar) : On Wisconsin
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Down goes Villanova!! Badgers!!!
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Might have went into your SPAM or JUNK folder??
yooperfan (18-Mar) : Funny I never got the invite
wpr (17-Mar) : Ignoring the Signing Bonus, Jones' base is only $725K above the vet min
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Not many seem interested, but I did invite those from last year.
dhazer (16-Mar) : no bracket challenge Kevin?
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Blame twitter on the /home page here lol
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Datone Jones Vikings deal $3.75M, $1.6M signing bonus, $1.5M salary, $31,250 per game active, $150K workout bonus, $1.25M sacks-pt incentive
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Nope. I don't care to read up on Vikings players. :-)
Bnoble (15-Mar) : Anyone see any numbers on Jones deal?
uffda udfa (14-Mar) : Datone to Minnesota.
musccy (14-Mar) : A more $ than I'd prefer, but still glad Elliott is back
uffda udfa (14-Mar) : Jayrone back on a one year 1.6 deal.
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Martellus Bennett Contract Details: New Packers TE has just $3.85M cap hit in 2017
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Packers have $28 under cap yet
hardrocker950 (13-Mar) : Walden would be a nice pickup...
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
7m / Fantasy Sports Talk / Alisha Connolly

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / blueleopard

4h / Announcements / Smokey

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

8h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

17-Mar / Around The NFL / Smokey

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

Headlines