Green Bay Packers Forum
2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline wpr  
#1 Posted : Saturday, September 28, 2013 5:24:59 AM(UTC)
JSOnline said:
Three games into the 2013 season, the Green Bay Packers are half the team they want to be defensively.

They have been great at limiting long runs but are among the NFL's worst at allowing pass plays of 20 or more yards.

They rank in the top 10 in fewest first downs allowed on third and 5 or more but sit tied for 29th in passing touchdowns allowed.

They have committed just two competitive penalties (non-personal foul or roughness) but have given up nine touchdown drives of 80 or more yards.

They have played the entire season without safety Morgan Burnett and cornerback Casey Hayward because of hamstring injuries, but they have not missed a start anywhere else on the unit


I hope the return of Burnett and Hayward will solve all ills but I am not so sure. his may be Capers last season if he doesn't get things turned around. He is out of chances and excuses.
Sponsor
Offline nerdmann  
#2 Posted : Saturday, September 28, 2013 6:03:59 AM(UTC)
Capers is on the hot seat.

But we all know that if Kaepernick and Dalton had only run 2/3 as many plays as they did, we'd be 3-0 and the defense would be ranking much higher.

Time of Possession, Mike. Get some.
Online Mucky Tundra  
#3 Posted : Saturday, September 28, 2013 6:18:48 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Capers is on the hot seat.

But we all know that if Kaepernick and Dalton had only run 2/3 as many plays as they did, we'd be 3-0 and the defense would be ranking much higher.

Time of Possession, Mike. Get some.


Packers 31:51
Bengals 28:09

How much more do they need? Think

(The San Fran game is another matter though)
Offline nerdmann  
#4 Posted : Saturday, September 28, 2013 6:27:09 AM(UTC)
Mucky Tundra said: Go to Quoted Post
Packers 31:51
Bengals 28:09

How much more do they need? Think

(The San Fran game is another matter though)


About another 5:00.
Offline hardrocker950  
#5 Posted : Saturday, September 28, 2013 6:44:23 AM(UTC)
We have heard this before. I think injuries are part of the problem, but a DC's job is to make the most is of what he has to work with - and I'm not convinced he has done this.

I can't imagine our coverage getting any worse, but the way we have looked on D the past couple of years - this is his last chance to make me think he is as good as the talking heads claim. If I see another game like week 1 - I will officially be on board the "fire Capers" campaign.

EDIT - Nerdmann makes a valid point, the offense has not exactly helped out our D by extending ToP. Having our offense on the field longer gives us a better chance at winning.
Offline gbguy20  
#6 Posted : Saturday, September 28, 2013 7:36:58 AM(UTC)
This is definitely his last year to prove his worth.

EDIT: HOW BOUT THAT FUCKING OLINE COACH
thanks Post received 1 applause.
yooperfan on 9/29/2013(UTC)
Offline Gaycandybacon  
#7 Posted : Saturday, September 28, 2013 10:55:26 AM(UTC)
I think we would of won that game if Rodgers didn't throw one of those 2 picks. If he doesn't throw that one to Cobb we definitely win. 31 minutes is a lot. You can't blame the Coach for the other 2 Interceptions that would of kept the drive going if not thrown to extend that 31.
Offline Laser Gunns  
#8 Posted : Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01:26 PM(UTC)
Mucky Tundra said: Go to Quoted Post
Packers 31:51
Bengals 28:09

How much more do they need? Think

(The San Fran game is another matter though)


With how many turnovers they coughed up. We could have done a lot better.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 9/28/2013(UTC)
Offline buckeyepackfan  
#9 Posted : Sunday, September 29, 2013 5:54:19 AM(UTC)
YEAR..........PACKERS T.O.P.......OPP. T.O.P......TURNOVER RATIO......RECORD

2008................31:37................28:56....................+7.....................6-10
2009................33:02................26:57..................+24.....................11-5
2010................32:01................28:46..................+10.....................10-6
2011................30:29................29:31..................+24.....................15-1
2012................30:26................29:33..................+07.....................11-5

Another 5 minutes in Time of possession? That would make The Bengals game 36:51, a number that isn't reached very often in The NFL.

I hate bringing facts and stats into these conversations, the only STAT that counts is W-L record.

Time of possession does not calculate into winning games, there are too many variables that goes into who has the ball for how long.

It's all about winning the turnover battle, it always has been and it always will be.

Offline nerdmann  
#10 Posted : Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:30:53 AM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan said: Go to Quoted Post
YEAR..........PACKERS T.O.P.......OPP. T.O.P......TURNOVER RATIO......RECORD

2008................31:37................28:56....................+7.....................6-10
2009................33:02................26:57..................+24.....................11-5
2010................32:01................28:46..................+10.....................10-6
2011................30:29................29:31..................+24.....................15-1
2012................30:26................29:33..................+07.....................11-5

Another 5 minutes in Time of possession? That would make The Bengals game 36:51, a number that isn't reached very often in The NFL.

I hate bringing facts and stats into these conversations, the only STAT that counts is W-L record.

Time of possession does not calculate into winning games, there are too many variables that goes into who has the ball for how long.

It's all about winning the turnover battle, it always has been and it always will be.



We did win the turnover battle.

Offline buckeyepackfan  
#11 Posted : Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:56:31 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
We did win the turnover battle.



One of the rare occasions, break the game down and this more than most was all about turnovers, not time of possession.

Packers fumble kickoff, go down 14-0, Packers force 4 straight turnovers, pull to 14-13.

The one glaring point here is that The Packers did not take advantage of the turnovers, only getting 13 points.(or it could be said The Bengals D stepped up)

Packers go up 30-14, while controlling the ball and the clock, then comes the 2 turnovers which The Bengals scored td's after each.

So yes, this one game, The Packers won the turnover battle but lost the game, that is a rarity, but it is what the teams did after the turnovers that determined the outcome.

The Bengals capitalized on them The Packers didn't.

When the Packers were +3 in turnovers they cut the lead to 14-13 then stretched it to 30-14.


Once again, all you can focus on are 2 things, time of possession and my favorite, The Packers, as a team or individually "shitting" themselves.

Once again I have to show you that neither has a huge determination on the outcomes of games.

Time of Possession, most of the time is altered by turnovers.

Shitting yourself I HAVE NEVER HAD A CLUE how that pertains to a football game, and have never found an official stat called by that name.

In your world I am sure it exists, not in mine.
Offline DakotaT  
#12 Posted : Sunday, September 29, 2013 8:28:34 AM(UTC)
The Packers shit themselves because they handed the ball off to a 180lb running back instead of letting the quarterback dive under their 320lb LG for the first down. Everything Buckeye just said has merit, but he always gives our coaches a pass. That loss is on the person that called the fourth down deep draw for a first down.

I'm on Buckeye's ignore list so somebody will have to let him know how clueless he is.
Offline nerdmann  
#13 Posted : Sunday, September 29, 2013 8:36:27 AM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan said: Go to Quoted Post
One of the rare occasions, break the game down and this more than most was all about turnovers, not time of possession.

Packers fumble kickoff, go down 14-0, Packers force 4 straight turnovers, pull to 14-13.

The one glaring point here is that The Packers did not take advantage of the turnovers, only getting 13 points.(or it could be said The Bengals D stepped up)

Packers go up 30-14, while controlling the ball and the clock, then comes the 2 turnovers which The Bengals scored td's after each.

So yes, this one game, The Packers won the turnover battle but lost the game, that is a rarity, but it is what the teams did after the turnovers that determined the outcome.

The Bengals capitalized on them The Packers didn't.

When the Packers were +3 in turnovers they cut the lead to 14-13 then stretched it to 30-14.


Once again, all you can focus on are 2 things, time of possession and my favorite, The Packers, as a team or individually "sh!tting" themselves.

Once again I have to show you that neither has a huge determination on the outcomes of games.

Time of Possession, most of the time is altered by turnovers.

sh!tting yourself I HAVE NEVER HAD A CLUE how that pertains to a football game, and have never found an official stat called by that name.

In your world I am sure it exists, not in mine.


Ok wait, we actually didn't win the turnover battle.

Ross's fumble, Franklin's fumble, two INTs by Aaron.

Four turnovers each way?

Anyway, no one's arguing that we shouldn't win the turnover battle.

Fact is, if time ran out, the game would have been over, and there would have been no comeback. Mike and Aaron like the no-huddle offense. We've had drives of 10 plays that burn less than 3 minutes. Fact is, even with the no-huddle, they could still run the clock down in between plays.

They don't do that, and it results in the other team getting more plays on offense and our defense getting worn down.
Offline buckeyepackfan  
#14 Posted : Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:17:26 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Ok wait, we actually didn't win the turnover battle.

Ross's fumble, Franklin's fumble, two INTs by Aaron.

Four turnovers each way?

Anyway, no one's arguing that we shouldn't win the turnover battle.

Fact is, if time ran out, the game would have been over, and there would have been no comeback. Mike and Aaron like the no-huddle offense. We've had drives of 10 plays that burn less than 3 minutes. Fact is, even with the no-huddle, they could still run the clock down in between plays.

They don't do that, and it results in the other team getting more plays on offense and our defense getting worn down.


Did I not say, The packers did win the turnover battle this game, and it is a rarity that they would lose this game.

Packers scored 13 pts off 4 Bengal turnovers.

Bengals scored 17 pts off 3 Packer turnovers.

That's a 4 pt swing, hhmmm what was final score? oh yea 34-30.

Packers don't turn the ball over in 2nd half they win the game, the outcome has nothing to do with time of possession.

Offline gbguy20  
#15 Posted : Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:54:36 AM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan said: Go to Quoted Post
Did I not say, The packers did win the turnover battle this game, and it is a rarity that they would lose this game.

Packers scored 13 pts off 4 Bengal turnovers.

Bengals scored 17 pts off 3 Packer turnovers.

That's a 4 pt swing, hhmmm what was final score? oh yea 34-30.

Packers don't turn the ball over in 2nd half they win the game, the outcome has nothing to do with time of possession.



you missed one
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 9/29/2013(UTC)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
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
4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

28-Mar / 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