In many ways, the Packers' loss this afternoon to the Atlanta Falcons had the makings of a moral victory. The Packers were on the road against an excellent team, gave up 100 yards rushing, failed to force a turnover, failed on a fourth down conversion, fumbled the ball at the goalline, got nothing from their star defensive players, and reverted to their penalty-prone ways, but still had a chance to win the game. This demonstrates that they can, indeed, compete with anyone in the league on any given day. What held them back today? Coaching, specifically McCarthy's boneheaded clock management decisions.
At the end of the first half, Atlanta had a first and goal with roughly 80 seconds left on the clock. The Packers had two timeouts remaining. But as the last minute of the half ticked away, McCarthy chose to use neither of his timeouts, and the Falcons went on to score a touchdown with 8 only seconds left. Why, in God's name, would McCarthy not call timeout in that situation? The Packers had moved the ball in the first half. You know Atlanta is either going to kick a field goal, turn the ball over, or score a touchdown. If you use your timeouts, you give Rodgers and company a minute on the clock and see if they can get somewhere close to field goal range. And Atlanta had all three timeouts left. You know they're not going to run out of clock, even if you stop them on third down. So there was ABSOLUTELY no reason not to use your timeouts. Terrible, terrible mismanagement of the clock. And three points (what Crosby could have gotten at the end of the first half) turned out to be the margin of victory.
Then, at the end of the game. Unless Rodgers is constantly audibling into passes, the Packers' failure to call at least one run play during the goal-to-goal series was inexcusable. Have confidence that you're going to score. Think ahead, milk the clock, and make sure that Atlanta does NOT have enough time to march down and kick a field goal. By not running at least once on those four downs, McCarthy essentially lost the game. He gave Atlanta, with a great quarterback, and an excellent offense, playing at home, in a dome, more than a minute to march down and at least attempt a makeable field goal. Of course, Wilhem (who should be booted off the team for his double-penalty performance today) and the special teams made it easier. But the Packers have done this before in recent years--- they don't pay attention to the clock and end up shooting themselves in the foot, undermining what are often heroic offensive performances.
The NFL is a highly competitive league. Any offense in it has the ability to move the ball forty yards in a minute and kick a field goal. Every week games are decided by who has the ball last with some time to move down the field. And so, so often, McCarthy has ignored this fact. He's been a head coach for over five years now. He needs to learn. If he doesn't, the Packers' terrible record in close games (in his tenure) will only continue.
McCarthy should man up, learn from his mistakes, and apologize to the team for this loss. It's on him.
Showing posts with label Green Bay Packers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Bay Packers. Show all posts
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Well!
It's been a while, and that's because life's been moving pretty fast over here, to reference Ferris Bueller. Life was moving pretty fast last night though, no? What a crazy flippin' game.
We're all going to remember the sudden, anti-climactic last play for a long, long time. (More on that play in a moment.) But it's worth noting the heroic effort of the offense, and the huge doses of good luck, that got the Packers back into the game in the first place. That ridiculous bomb to Finley where he just jumped over an interfering defensive back that had him smothered. The perfectly executed and recovered onsides kick (Underwood jumping on the ball just two yards past the forty). Warner inexplicably throwing to a well-covered Fitzgerald on one of the Cardinal few third downs, leading to the lone punt of the game. And, of course, the utterly makeable, but missed field goal by the Cards in the closing seconds of the game.
The Packers' offense, after the first five minutes, generally played magnificently in facing a very aggressive, experienced, and talented (Rogers-Cromartie, Wilson (who looks and plays like a modern-day gladiator), Dockett, Berry, two two ex-Michigan DTs) Cardinals defense. But boy, in contrast, didn't it seem like Rodgers and the Packers had to work a lot harder for their points than the Kurt Warner and the Cardinals? How many wide open receivers did Warner hit? Heck, how many tough throws did the Packers force? (Three maybe?) How many times were they really in his face? How many times did he have to wait more than four seconds to throw the ball because people were covered? As my official little brother put it, it seems like the Packers--with the safety shuffle with Anthony Smith (cut), then Derrick Martin (generally ineffective in the defensive backfield), and injured for this game), then cutting Aaron Rouse, and Bigby getting injured yesterday and playing poorly before that, and with the mounting injuries at corner with Lee being presumptively placed on IR, and Blackmon, and then Al--- had a "war of attrition" in the secondary. And the Pittsburgh game and this then game demonstrated that they had lost that war. Especially with the pass rush, outside of Clay Matthews the XLVII (my wife likes to call him "Barbie"), generally being iffy. (Maybe a healthy Kampman coming off the other side on passing downs would have helped?)
But who could have predicted a defensive outing this abysmal. Think of it. One forced turnover on Woodson's karate chop. One forced punt when Warner chose to risk a deep throw to a covered receiver on third down. That was it. Every other Cardinal drive ended in points (except for the missed short field goal, of course). I think it's safe to say, this was the worst defensive performance in the playoffs in the team's history. Warner had more touchdowns than incompletions, folks. This against a team that, while explosive and excellently quarterbacked, was starting a journeyman at left tackle and was missing its third-best offensive player (Boldin). I can't explain what happened. Certainly, whatever blitzes that were brought were ineffective. (I remember many inside linebacker blitzes being picked up well by the Cards.) But the culprit seemed to be the secondary, and our players' inability to cover every man coming out of a bunch formation. It would be fascinating to hear or read a long interview with Capers about his tactics and decision-making during the game, and why he chose to do what he did. (That's never going to happen, of course. At least you could see that he was mad, on one of the camera cuts to Capers in the booth.) Part of it, no doubt, was lack of depth. But part of it must have been schematic or lack of preparation. That stings, and hopefully will drive the defensive coaching staff to improve and reevaluate during the offseason.
And, of course, here's hoping that Woodson remains an excellent player next season, that Lee and Blackmon recover and become solid contributors, that Underwood turns into a decent nickle back, and that we draft a capable safety to work into the mix. And, of course, that we draft someone to put some pressure opposite Barbie. My personal candidate would be Wisconsin's O'Brien Schofield, who looks tailor-made to be a 3-4 outside linebacker-- 6'2", 250, explosive, instinctive, great at shedding blocks, a leader, a fine tackler, never gives up on a play. Here's hoping he's available in the second round.
Back to the last possession of the game. First off, that missed deep throw. Wow. How different things could have been had Rodgers read where Jennings was going just a little bit better. Then, who else thought we were sunk when Colledge (who I unfanned on Facebook in October) got called for holding on that nice pass to Grant? Especially when the replay showed that Rodgers got nailed with a helmet-to-helmet on the same play, and that there should have been offsetting penalties? Plus, although that was a hold, it wasn't the most blatant you've ever seen. Worse stuff goes uncalled pretty often. Maybe it was Colledge's god-awful arm tatoos. In any event, good pass play to Jones to make it a reasonable third down, and then the final play.
It was an empty backfield, and Mike Adams, the whipping boy for the Packers all day (he had what, four penalties called on him?) and the previous week, comes off on a corner blitz from the right side. First off, this was a great call by the Cardinals. As Football Outsiders has demonstrated, when an offense empties the backfield teams should blitz, and blitz heavily. Statistics show that empty backfields fair poorly against the blitz. Blitzes against empty backfields force quick throws by the quarterback, and if the rest of the defense plays press man, the throw is often rushed and the pass is contested. Usually, unless you have a great receiver who can easily beat press coverage, any completed pass results in an immediate tackle. So on third and decent distances, blizting an empty backfield is a smart strategy.
For an offense to even get close to winning the down, the quarterback needs to recognize and respond to the blitz. Rodgers, sadly, appeared to fail on this initial step. Maybe Adams was too small for him to notice (he's only 5'8"), maybe Tauscher blotted him out, but Rodgers never looks in his direction. Rodgers needs to see Adams coming, go to his hot read, get the ball out, and hope his receiver can make a play for the first down. In this situation, with an unblocked man coming at you, your hand is forced. But none of these things happen. Rodgers fails to see him, though he's not coming from his blind side. Aaron does some sort of a pump fake, or a double-clutch. Adams jars the ball loose, and Karlos Dansby, who had been behind every other one of the Cardinals turnover plays, is in the right spot once again. Game over, season over. Even the post-fumble facemask that Adams pulls on Rodgers (had it been called) wouldn't have made a difference. What a game.
We're all going to remember the sudden, anti-climactic last play for a long, long time. (More on that play in a moment.) But it's worth noting the heroic effort of the offense, and the huge doses of good luck, that got the Packers back into the game in the first place. That ridiculous bomb to Finley where he just jumped over an interfering defensive back that had him smothered. The perfectly executed and recovered onsides kick (Underwood jumping on the ball just two yards past the forty). Warner inexplicably throwing to a well-covered Fitzgerald on one of the Cardinal few third downs, leading to the lone punt of the game. And, of course, the utterly makeable, but missed field goal by the Cards in the closing seconds of the game.
The Packers' offense, after the first five minutes, generally played magnificently in facing a very aggressive, experienced, and talented (Rogers-Cromartie, Wilson (who looks and plays like a modern-day gladiator), Dockett, Berry, two two ex-Michigan DTs) Cardinals defense. But boy, in contrast, didn't it seem like Rodgers and the Packers had to work a lot harder for their points than the Kurt Warner and the Cardinals? How many wide open receivers did Warner hit? Heck, how many tough throws did the Packers force? (Three maybe?) How many times were they really in his face? How many times did he have to wait more than four seconds to throw the ball because people were covered? As my official little brother put it, it seems like the Packers--with the safety shuffle with Anthony Smith (cut), then Derrick Martin (generally ineffective in the defensive backfield), and injured for this game), then cutting Aaron Rouse, and Bigby getting injured yesterday and playing poorly before that, and with the mounting injuries at corner with Lee being presumptively placed on IR, and Blackmon, and then Al--- had a "war of attrition" in the secondary. And the Pittsburgh game and this then game demonstrated that they had lost that war. Especially with the pass rush, outside of Clay Matthews the XLVII (my wife likes to call him "Barbie"), generally being iffy. (Maybe a healthy Kampman coming off the other side on passing downs would have helped?)
But who could have predicted a defensive outing this abysmal. Think of it. One forced turnover on Woodson's karate chop. One forced punt when Warner chose to risk a deep throw to a covered receiver on third down. That was it. Every other Cardinal drive ended in points (except for the missed short field goal, of course). I think it's safe to say, this was the worst defensive performance in the playoffs in the team's history. Warner had more touchdowns than incompletions, folks. This against a team that, while explosive and excellently quarterbacked, was starting a journeyman at left tackle and was missing its third-best offensive player (Boldin). I can't explain what happened. Certainly, whatever blitzes that were brought were ineffective. (I remember many inside linebacker blitzes being picked up well by the Cards.) But the culprit seemed to be the secondary, and our players' inability to cover every man coming out of a bunch formation. It would be fascinating to hear or read a long interview with Capers about his tactics and decision-making during the game, and why he chose to do what he did. (That's never going to happen, of course. At least you could see that he was mad, on one of the camera cuts to Capers in the booth.) Part of it, no doubt, was lack of depth. But part of it must have been schematic or lack of preparation. That stings, and hopefully will drive the defensive coaching staff to improve and reevaluate during the offseason.
And, of course, here's hoping that Woodson remains an excellent player next season, that Lee and Blackmon recover and become solid contributors, that Underwood turns into a decent nickle back, and that we draft a capable safety to work into the mix. And, of course, that we draft someone to put some pressure opposite Barbie. My personal candidate would be Wisconsin's O'Brien Schofield, who looks tailor-made to be a 3-4 outside linebacker-- 6'2", 250, explosive, instinctive, great at shedding blocks, a leader, a fine tackler, never gives up on a play. Here's hoping he's available in the second round.
Back to the last possession of the game. First off, that missed deep throw. Wow. How different things could have been had Rodgers read where Jennings was going just a little bit better. Then, who else thought we were sunk when Colledge (who I unfanned on Facebook in October) got called for holding on that nice pass to Grant? Especially when the replay showed that Rodgers got nailed with a helmet-to-helmet on the same play, and that there should have been offsetting penalties? Plus, although that was a hold, it wasn't the most blatant you've ever seen. Worse stuff goes uncalled pretty often. Maybe it was Colledge's god-awful arm tatoos. In any event, good pass play to Jones to make it a reasonable third down, and then the final play.
It was an empty backfield, and Mike Adams, the whipping boy for the Packers all day (he had what, four penalties called on him?) and the previous week, comes off on a corner blitz from the right side. First off, this was a great call by the Cardinals. As Football Outsiders has demonstrated, when an offense empties the backfield teams should blitz, and blitz heavily. Statistics show that empty backfields fair poorly against the blitz. Blitzes against empty backfields force quick throws by the quarterback, and if the rest of the defense plays press man, the throw is often rushed and the pass is contested. Usually, unless you have a great receiver who can easily beat press coverage, any completed pass results in an immediate tackle. So on third and decent distances, blizting an empty backfield is a smart strategy.
For an offense to even get close to winning the down, the quarterback needs to recognize and respond to the blitz. Rodgers, sadly, appeared to fail on this initial step. Maybe Adams was too small for him to notice (he's only 5'8"), maybe Tauscher blotted him out, but Rodgers never looks in his direction. Rodgers needs to see Adams coming, go to his hot read, get the ball out, and hope his receiver can make a play for the first down. In this situation, with an unblocked man coming at you, your hand is forced. But none of these things happen. Rodgers fails to see him, though he's not coming from his blind side. Aaron does some sort of a pump fake, or a double-clutch. Adams jars the ball loose, and Karlos Dansby, who had been behind every other one of the Cardinals turnover plays, is in the right spot once again. Game over, season over. Even the post-fumble facemask that Adams pulls on Rodgers (had it been called) wouldn't have made a difference. What a game.
Monday, November 02, 2009
It's the Players, Stupid
Let's be frank. Childress may have some awful personal grooming, and definitely needs someone to take him aside and tell him not to wear polo shirts that highlight his man-boobs. (McCarthy, whose own rack is likely far more prodigious, has the good sense to wear nylon jackets.) But for all the fun that's been made of Childress, the coaching between the two teams is basically a draw, even with Capers at the defensive helm. Childress may not take advantage of the most obvious gimmie in football (Peterson on short-distances behind Hutchinson and McKinnie) as often as he should, but McCarthy keeps letting Rodgers take 7-step drops with two neophyte tackles and has allowed his team to become utterly penalty-ridden. Who's dumber? I can't tell.
Given the draw in equally-dunderheaded coaches, the difference between the Vikings and the Packers is personnel. Namely, the Vikings are on a ridiculous hot streak in player acquisition, especially compared to the Packers.
Consider the Vikings' hit list. First, the draftees: Harvin (1st rd. 2009), Loadholt (2nd rd. 2009), J. Allen (acquired for 2008's 1 and 2), Peterson (1st rd. 2007), Rice (2nd rd. 2007), Greenway (1st rd. 2006). Peterson is a superstar, maybe the best player in the league, certainly the best back. Favre has turned Rice into an All-Pro wideout. Harvin may be the best returner in the game. Loadholt stoned Aaron Kampman twice now, as a rookie. Greenway is a well-above average starter. Jared Allen is simply a great pass rushing right end and is in the prime of his career. He's at a much higher level than Kampman. And even the year they traded for Allen, they found two other starters in late rounds that year. They haven't had a "bad draft" since 2005.
And in the years' prior to current GM Rick Spielman (Chris's brother) taking over, the Vikings made some excellent free agent signings-- notably Pat Williams and Antonio Winfield, and, of course, Steve Hutchinson, who even though he's fading this season, is still the best guard in the division, at the least.
Plus, they've held onto prior draft hits, like E.J. Henderson, Bryant McKinnie, and Kevin Williams, and managed to get some adequate starters out of random picks, like starting safety Tyrell Johnson, and starting center John Sullivan (who has replaced former Pro Bowl Center Matt Birk without a hitch). And, of course, getting Favre at no cost took their offense to an entirely higher level.
Now compare the Packers. No impact free agents since Woodson and Pickett several years ago. Chillar is pretty good, but not great. So the drafts have needed to produce excellent players. But, until Matthews this season, Thompson's five drafts have produced exactly two above-average players-- Rodgers and Jennings. Take a look at the other high picks: 2006-- Hawk, Colledge; 2007-- Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson; 2008-- Jordy Nelson, Brian Brohm, and Pat Lee. Ooof. Not one even one "solid starter" in that bunch. The Vikings kicked the Packers' asses in those drafts.
This is why you saw what you did on the field last night. The Vikings are simply, top to bottom, a better team. Favre is the cherry on top of the sundae. Thompson's been excellent at improving the team's depth, no doubt, and a disproportionate number of discarded Thompson draft picks have found places in the league (like Hunter Hillenmeyer, Aaron Rouse, David Clowney, Tony Moll, and Dave Tollefson). But he just hasn't found many top of the line players. He needs to do better.
Given the draw in equally-dunderheaded coaches, the difference between the Vikings and the Packers is personnel. Namely, the Vikings are on a ridiculous hot streak in player acquisition, especially compared to the Packers.
Consider the Vikings' hit list. First, the draftees: Harvin (1st rd. 2009), Loadholt (2nd rd. 2009), J. Allen (acquired for 2008's 1 and 2), Peterson (1st rd. 2007), Rice (2nd rd. 2007), Greenway (1st rd. 2006). Peterson is a superstar, maybe the best player in the league, certainly the best back. Favre has turned Rice into an All-Pro wideout. Harvin may be the best returner in the game. Loadholt stoned Aaron Kampman twice now, as a rookie. Greenway is a well-above average starter. Jared Allen is simply a great pass rushing right end and is in the prime of his career. He's at a much higher level than Kampman. And even the year they traded for Allen, they found two other starters in late rounds that year. They haven't had a "bad draft" since 2005.
And in the years' prior to current GM Rick Spielman (Chris's brother) taking over, the Vikings made some excellent free agent signings-- notably Pat Williams and Antonio Winfield, and, of course, Steve Hutchinson, who even though he's fading this season, is still the best guard in the division, at the least.
Plus, they've held onto prior draft hits, like E.J. Henderson, Bryant McKinnie, and Kevin Williams, and managed to get some adequate starters out of random picks, like starting safety Tyrell Johnson, and starting center John Sullivan (who has replaced former Pro Bowl Center Matt Birk without a hitch). And, of course, getting Favre at no cost took their offense to an entirely higher level.
Now compare the Packers. No impact free agents since Woodson and Pickett several years ago. Chillar is pretty good, but not great. So the drafts have needed to produce excellent players. But, until Matthews this season, Thompson's five drafts have produced exactly two above-average players-- Rodgers and Jennings. Take a look at the other high picks: 2006-- Hawk, Colledge; 2007-- Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson; 2008-- Jordy Nelson, Brian Brohm, and Pat Lee. Ooof. Not one even one "solid starter" in that bunch. The Vikings kicked the Packers' asses in those drafts.
This is why you saw what you did on the field last night. The Vikings are simply, top to bottom, a better team. Favre is the cherry on top of the sundae. Thompson's been excellent at improving the team's depth, no doubt, and a disproportionate number of discarded Thompson draft picks have found places in the league (like Hunter Hillenmeyer, Aaron Rouse, David Clowney, Tony Moll, and Dave Tollefson). But he just hasn't found many top of the line players. He needs to do better.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Imagine if...
So this weekend is the Minnesota-Wisconsin football showdown on both the amateur and professional levels. In both instances, the games occur on the Western side of the Mississippi. In both instances, the home teams are breaking out a shiny new bauble that they are certain will propel them to victory over their hated rivals. In the Gophers' case, it's their brand new (minature) stadium. And maybe those repellent all golden uniforms that show the sweat stains so nicely. In the Queens' case, well, it's the tarnished, dated, but still shiny penny that is Brett Favre (pronounced like Ben Stiller says it in "There's Something About Mary"). Vegas certainly values these new playthings, as it favors the home teams by about the same margin (Vikings by 3.5 and Gophers by 3).
The blunt truth is, that's probably right. A neutral third-party would likely say that the Gophers rely on their passing game (and the crotch-puncher) to win a close one in an emotional game to take back the axe for the first time in several years. That same "reasonable man" would note that the Packers haven't played a complete game this season, can't really run the ball or pass protect, are missing their left tackle, and made Cedric Benson look like a superstar two weeks ago in concluding that the Vikes will likely take this round. Maybe by more than the line.
Knowing this, let's approach this football weekend (that includes Monday night) with an open mind. If the Wisconsin teams lose, really, so what, it's expected. The tide is turning on the Northeastern prairie. The past is prolouge and all that. This is what Minnesota is telling itself. So if they sweep, expect some crowing come Tuesday, but don't be downtrodden. A sweep is what the genius odds-makers are predicting.
For now, instead, think about the other option. Given these shiny new toys that have finally addressed each team's most deep-seeded excuses, imagine if they fail. Oh boy. If the long-sought, on-campus, outdoor, non-Metrodome stadium doesn't lead to axe reclamation. If the HOF-bound, grizzly-bear quarterback doesn't cure all your football team's ills. A reverse sweep. A Minnesota flop of epic proportions. That idea is just so delicious, I could chew on it all day. Of course, it probably won't come to fruition, but it is a tasty treat to imagine while we wait out the next 45 hours. Hoooo, nelly.
The blunt truth is, that's probably right. A neutral third-party would likely say that the Gophers rely on their passing game (and the crotch-puncher) to win a close one in an emotional game to take back the axe for the first time in several years. That same "reasonable man" would note that the Packers haven't played a complete game this season, can't really run the ball or pass protect, are missing their left tackle, and made Cedric Benson look like a superstar two weeks ago in concluding that the Vikes will likely take this round. Maybe by more than the line.
Knowing this, let's approach this football weekend (that includes Monday night) with an open mind. If the Wisconsin teams lose, really, so what, it's expected. The tide is turning on the Northeastern prairie. The past is prolouge and all that. This is what Minnesota is telling itself. So if they sweep, expect some crowing come Tuesday, but don't be downtrodden. A sweep is what the genius odds-makers are predicting.
For now, instead, think about the other option. Given these shiny new toys that have finally addressed each team's most deep-seeded excuses, imagine if they fail. Oh boy. If the long-sought, on-campus, outdoor, non-Metrodome stadium doesn't lead to axe reclamation. If the HOF-bound, grizzly-bear quarterback doesn't cure all your football team's ills. A reverse sweep. A Minnesota flop of epic proportions. That idea is just so delicious, I could chew on it all day. Of course, it probably won't come to fruition, but it is a tasty treat to imagine while we wait out the next 45 hours. Hoooo, nelly.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
What does 3-0 mean?
So I don't usually care about preseason NFL football, and I still don't really. The Lions were 4-0 in the preseason last year, and that turned out pretty well for them. However, I can't ignore the success the Packers have had in their first three games. I have only managed to see bits and pieces of games, so I can't make a completely legitimate analysis. That said here are some thoughts:
1. Offense: I believed from the start last year, and I continue to believe, that Aaron Rodgers is the real deal. Is he going to be the Packers version of Steve Young? I don't know. Is he going to be a top 5 NFL QB? Yes. He is top 10 now, and he will get better. The O-line is a work in progress, and it will be interesting to see how they do when opposing defenses play more than their base packages. The running game, as always, is the key. Grant looks better this year, and we need a full year out of him. I was impressed by Tyrell Sutton, who heretofore shall be known as Wildcat. He runs downhill, and has a good sense of space and how to read the zone blocking schemes. I hope Jermichael Finley continues to show the promise he has shown this preseason. TE seems to have been our weak spot in the receiving game, so we could us another presence down the middle.
2. Defense: So far so good. If we can force 3-4 turnovers per game, we will have no problem winning games. Obviously that won't happen. However, in the interview I saw with Charles Woodson he seems happy with the new system. He is more comfortable in read coverage than the previous press coverage. I'm hoping for a huge season from him. Nick Collins is motivated by his contract situation, he fortunately is not named Brandon Marshall, and is out to prove that he fits the new system. Kampman is still learning, but I remain hopeful that he can make the same transition that Jason Taylor made and continue to destroy people. As I said, so far so good, but I'm a bit more reserved in my enthusiasm for the defense. I think more will be revealed in the early regular season. That said, I did draft the Packers D as my back up in Fantasy this year.
3. Special Teams: I have not paid enough attention to make a comment. I continue to wait for Crosby to be given a shot at a 65 yarder. He will make one.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A Theory
So. Before the '07 football season, you know, the season where Favre played like a rock star (except for any game with inclement weather), and was runner-up in the NFL MVP voting (only because one smart ass sportswriter decided to protest the deserved Tom Brady unanimity), he apparently spent the off-season working with a personal trainer. I believe this was a personal trainer the Packers paid for, whom they sent down to Mississippi to live with Favre and hound him on a daily basis. Allegedly, he then came into training camp "in the best shape of his life."
Then, before the '08 season, he seemed to spend most of his free time sending vague texts to Peter King and Chris Mortenson, and then occasionally worked out with a local high school team. He then played decently before getting injured and stinking up the joint the back third of the season, blowing the Jets' playoff chances.
And now, before the '09 season, the one where he wants to, allegedly, sign with the Vikings, make them into legitimate Super Bowl contenders, and shove his Peter Panology down Ted Thompson's throat ("Hey, Ted: Fame! I'm gonna live forever!"), he's . . . occasionally working out with a local high school team again. In cargo shorts. And he's another year older, and coming off shoulder surgery. On his throwing arm. Hmmm . . .
Then, before the '08 season, he seemed to spend most of his free time sending vague texts to Peter King and Chris Mortenson, and then occasionally worked out with a local high school team. He then played decently before getting injured and stinking up the joint the back third of the season, blowing the Jets' playoff chances.
And now, before the '09 season, the one where he wants to, allegedly, sign with the Vikings, make them into legitimate Super Bowl contenders, and shove his Peter Panology down Ted Thompson's throat ("Hey, Ted: Fame! I'm gonna live forever!"), he's . . . occasionally working out with a local high school team again. In cargo shorts. And he's another year older, and coming off shoulder surgery. On his throwing arm. Hmmm . . .
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Neat Look Inside Tryout Process
So the Washington Post followed a University of Maryland senior, offensive lineman Dane Randolph, through his tryout (and eventual signing) with the Packers. Of course, Randolph faces seriously long odds in making the Packers regular season roster, but the story's a neat look inside the tryout process, and a decent read for the fellow football-starved. See here.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
I Feel a Draft In Here
I enjoyed this draft immensely. The junction of college football and pro football (my two favorite spectator sports) is tons of funs to watch. The NFL will soon air the first round on its own night and then show round 2 and 3 the next night. And for good reason, because it's good football fun at the halfway-until-football-comes-back mark.
Now I'm not a paid NFL talent evaluator, but I thought several teams did well. I will start with the ACME Meat Employees.
I wanted Raji a month ago. Of all weakness, I hate to be run on the most. Getting the biggest fattest guy in the draft was my hope. I am glad to have had the choice and I am glad we selected him. Give me D-line depth please. He was the consensus #1 D-Linemen. Ours. Minnesota has led the lead in rushing D for 3 years because they have 2 huge fat guys. It's not even disputed. Glad to have a highly rated fat guy.
When the jingle came on and I heard (of all things!) the Packers traded up I was all aflutter.
The Packers select Clay Matthews
Warrior of Troy
Son of Clay, and Clay before him
Nephew to Bruce Matthews, Master of Durability
Needless to say, I love this pick. He plays like a downhill long jump skier, with a forward lean. We need a blitz/cover OLB and we TRADED up to get him. With our first 2 picks we filled 2 major holes. The defense became so much easier to envision in 2 hours. Matthews as weak OLB, opposite of Kampman playing over the tight end. Hawk and Nick in the middle. Viola. Raji, Pickett, Jenkins, Jolly, Harrell. On the line. I like it.
Then in later rounds we get bigger. Big strong tackle, and then we sneak up and get another big tackle. Big FB to lead Block. Then a D-Line pick.
I also like the Underwood pick. Underwood was on his way to being a stud at Ohio State, but he flunked out. That's what we need is guys who are too dumb to stay at Ohio State. That's talent.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Draftiness
What a wild moment with Michael friggin' Crabtree and BJ Raji still on the board, eh? Fun stuff. I kind of wanted Crabtree, thinking about him on one side and Jennings on the other for the next six years, but Raji makes far more sense. Honestly, I think drafting another wideout would have forced the Packers to make a losing trade of either Driver, Jones or Jordy Nelson, and probably would have ruffled Jennings' feathers in a serious manner-- not good given the team and his agent are in the middle of contract negotiations. Plus, I read somewhere that Jennings and Crabtree have the same agent. What weirdness that would be. Finally, if the team drafted Crabtree and reupped Jennings, that would be devoting a ton of money to the two players at the same position. Kind of a weird scenario.
My main concerns with Raji were (after reading far too many comments from Greg Bedard over at the Journal-Sentinel's Packer blog) (1) I was skeptical that he'd make a good 3-4 nose tackle, and was more suited to be a run stopped in a 4-3 front, and (2) the general fact that defensive tackles have a pretty high bust rate. (Ahem.) But he was the consensus top defensive tackle in the draft, and the Packers d-line totally let them down last season. Plus, that for someone who loathes Notre Dame, that remarkable highlight against the Irish is about the funniest thing ever.
The Clay Matthews pick is fascinating. First, there's just him as a player-- three immediate relatives were great NFL players, a walk-on at USC, redshirting, kicking ass on special teams, growing taller and gaining a ton of good weight, earning a schollie and then turning into a stud in his last season. Yeah, and he graduated with an International Relations degree four months ago. Whoa. His tapes make him look pretty relentless, with fine change of direction, and good ability to flight off blocks-- a big weakness for the team's current crop of linebackers. I suppose he's someone who could eventually supplant Poppinga, or replace Kampman after this next season, if the plan to move him to an LB position doesn't work out. Cool stuff.
My enthusiasm for the pick is tempered by the opinion of a close friend who covers USC football as a beat writer for a SoCal paper. He didn't trust Matthews, in large part, because of his lack of experience (he only started about 80% of one season), and because of his sudden weight gain-- something like 20 pounds of muscle in about a year. Of course, the three top notch USC linebackers were drafted in the exact opposite order of how he thought they should have gone-- since he also thought Cushing was injury prone, dumb, and on a Bill Romanowski like regime of performance-enhancing substances.
Then there's the cost of the Matthews pick-- both third round picks and the team's second rounder. Pretty damn steep. And when you hear it's the Pats on the other side-- well, you have to think your guys have been hood-winked. Hell, even Thompson said the way things worked out on the draft value chart weren't "great." But two things make me okay with it. First off, Thompson (and some other folks) seem to believe that the Packers have a pretty solid core, and don't have a ton of holes. (Whether this is an accurate view is something to be debated.) Second, there was the cacophony of opinions that this was a historically weak draft. If that's the case, and Matthews, as Thompson said, was a guy they had been talking about for weeks and thinking of ways to acquire, then I applaud their decision. Seriously. When confronted with a weak draft, moving up and sacrificing quantity for quality makes sense. What good are three picks in a crappy draft? How do they compare to one pick for a guy that you viewed as a legitimate talent and have been targeting and thinking about for weeks? Makes good sense to me. Of course, history will be the ultimate judge. It's quite likely some guys taken after Matthews or when the Packers would have picked in the second and third round will turn out to be excellent players.
But in defense of my theory, this morning, after taking a hard look at the guys available, the Pats went out and traded away two of their third round picks, for two second round picks next year. Maybe this draft is weak, and the Matthews trade did make sense, eh?
My main concerns with Raji were (after reading far too many comments from Greg Bedard over at the Journal-Sentinel's Packer blog) (1) I was skeptical that he'd make a good 3-4 nose tackle, and was more suited to be a run stopped in a 4-3 front, and (2) the general fact that defensive tackles have a pretty high bust rate. (Ahem.) But he was the consensus top defensive tackle in the draft, and the Packers d-line totally let them down last season. Plus, that for someone who loathes Notre Dame, that remarkable highlight against the Irish is about the funniest thing ever.
The Clay Matthews pick is fascinating. First, there's just him as a player-- three immediate relatives were great NFL players, a walk-on at USC, redshirting, kicking ass on special teams, growing taller and gaining a ton of good weight, earning a schollie and then turning into a stud in his last season. Yeah, and he graduated with an International Relations degree four months ago. Whoa. His tapes make him look pretty relentless, with fine change of direction, and good ability to flight off blocks-- a big weakness for the team's current crop of linebackers. I suppose he's someone who could eventually supplant Poppinga, or replace Kampman after this next season, if the plan to move him to an LB position doesn't work out. Cool stuff.
My enthusiasm for the pick is tempered by the opinion of a close friend who covers USC football as a beat writer for a SoCal paper. He didn't trust Matthews, in large part, because of his lack of experience (he only started about 80% of one season), and because of his sudden weight gain-- something like 20 pounds of muscle in about a year. Of course, the three top notch USC linebackers were drafted in the exact opposite order of how he thought they should have gone-- since he also thought Cushing was injury prone, dumb, and on a Bill Romanowski like regime of performance-enhancing substances.
Then there's the cost of the Matthews pick-- both third round picks and the team's second rounder. Pretty damn steep. And when you hear it's the Pats on the other side-- well, you have to think your guys have been hood-winked. Hell, even Thompson said the way things worked out on the draft value chart weren't "great." But two things make me okay with it. First off, Thompson (and some other folks) seem to believe that the Packers have a pretty solid core, and don't have a ton of holes. (Whether this is an accurate view is something to be debated.) Second, there was the cacophony of opinions that this was a historically weak draft. If that's the case, and Matthews, as Thompson said, was a guy they had been talking about for weeks and thinking of ways to acquire, then I applaud their decision. Seriously. When confronted with a weak draft, moving up and sacrificing quantity for quality makes sense. What good are three picks in a crappy draft? How do they compare to one pick for a guy that you viewed as a legitimate talent and have been targeting and thinking about for weeks? Makes good sense to me. Of course, history will be the ultimate judge. It's quite likely some guys taken after Matthews or when the Packers would have picked in the second and third round will turn out to be excellent players.
But in defense of my theory, this morning, after taking a hard look at the guys available, the Pats went out and traded away two of their third round picks, for two second round picks next year. Maybe this draft is weak, and the Matthews trade did make sense, eh?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Hope against Hope
I am holding out hope, my fingers tightly crossed, that the Packers will be in position to use the ninth overall pick to draft this guy:
I'm not joking.
I'm not joking.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Draft in the Attic
Momentous events, like the signing of ex-Steeler safety Anthony Smith, the tendering of Atari "Sega" Bigby, and, yes, the blockbuster trade of triple J, aka JJ Jansen Golden Domer long-snapper extraordinaire, have passed without comment on this website. For that, I apologize fecitiously. I do somewhat regret letting the UW Spring Game and the build up to the NFL Draft (the best "watch while lifting weights" sporting event ever) go by without comment. But, what can you do? Life jumps up on you like a drooling, overeager Neapolitan Mastiff, and certain things fall by the wayside.
Anyhow, I'll try to make up for the hiatus by starting some discussion on the Spring Game, the general state of the UW football program and the NFL Draft over the next few weeks. I suppose I'll begin by being lazy and sharing what I'm reading and enjoying, these days.
To begin, I found this "scout's take" on the Packers and their draft needs, as related by Bob McGinn, to be quite fascinating. Whoever McGinn talked to didn't see a lot of holes in the team, which is encouraging. But at the same time, although this might not have been what McGinn asked him to do, he didn't ladle out strong praise for any Packer players. That seems to be the problem with this team. Solid, but lacking in the star/difference-maker department. Or maybe I'm wrong and Woodson, Collins, and Jennings are all legitimate stars, and A-Rodg is on his way? Hmmm.
I also stumbled across this fascinating piece in Football Outsiders, doing a full-on rehashing of the '03 draft, six years down the road. That was the draft where the Packers tabbed Nick Barnett at the end of the first round. Although they misstate Barnett's accomplishments slightly (he was not a Pro Bowl alternate this past season), they seem to think that the choice was a solid one. They also liked the Javon Walker pick in the '02 draft. I guess Sherman's picks weren't always so bad, eh? Anyhow, the analysis suffers a bit by only doing comparisons of picks within each position-- thus concluding that Barnett was a good pick for '03 linebackers, and Walker was the best of the '02 receiver class. A more critical look might redo the entire draft based on actual contributions, or, more harshly, show which players your team could have had at their spots instead of the guys they took. For example, instead of Barnett, Sherman could have drafted the league's current top corner Nnamdi Asomugha, current top tight end Jason Witten, or the agitating but fabulous wideout Anquan Boldin. Or, hell, even repeat Pro Bowl LB Lance "Rance" Briggs. (It looks like FO thinks Barnett's career has topped Rance's. I don't buy that one.)
Anyhow, I'll try to make up for the hiatus by starting some discussion on the Spring Game, the general state of the UW football program and the NFL Draft over the next few weeks. I suppose I'll begin by being lazy and sharing what I'm reading and enjoying, these days.
To begin, I found this "scout's take" on the Packers and their draft needs, as related by Bob McGinn, to be quite fascinating. Whoever McGinn talked to didn't see a lot of holes in the team, which is encouraging. But at the same time, although this might not have been what McGinn asked him to do, he didn't ladle out strong praise for any Packer players. That seems to be the problem with this team. Solid, but lacking in the star/difference-maker department. Or maybe I'm wrong and Woodson, Collins, and Jennings are all legitimate stars, and A-Rodg is on his way? Hmmm.
I also stumbled across this fascinating piece in Football Outsiders, doing a full-on rehashing of the '03 draft, six years down the road. That was the draft where the Packers tabbed Nick Barnett at the end of the first round. Although they misstate Barnett's accomplishments slightly (he was not a Pro Bowl alternate this past season), they seem to think that the choice was a solid one. They also liked the Javon Walker pick in the '02 draft. I guess Sherman's picks weren't always so bad, eh? Anyhow, the analysis suffers a bit by only doing comparisons of picks within each position-- thus concluding that Barnett was a good pick for '03 linebackers, and Walker was the best of the '02 receiver class. A more critical look might redo the entire draft based on actual contributions, or, more harshly, show which players your team could have had at their spots instead of the guys they took. For example, instead of Barnett, Sherman could have drafted the league's current top corner Nnamdi Asomugha, current top tight end Jason Witten, or the agitating but fabulous wideout Anquan Boldin. Or, hell, even repeat Pro Bowl LB Lance "Rance" Briggs. (It looks like FO thinks Barnett's career has topped Rance's. I don't buy that one.)
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Julius Peppers Wet Dream Has Been Permanently Interrupted
For all of you Packer fans, like myself, who were salivating at the thought of getting a premium defensive lineman in free agency this year, it may be time to, err, eat a few saltines or something. Not only does the implementation of the 3-4 mean the team probably won't be going after Albert Haynesworth (who's far more suited to be a traditional 4-3 defensive tackle, as opposed to a 3-4 nose guard or end), but the Packers just hired Carolina's former defensive coordinator as their defensive line coach. Yes, this is the same guy who coordinated Carolina's defense the past several years, the same defense that burgeoning free agent Peppers said had failed to help him reach his potential. If teams are throwing equal money at Peppers, do you think he's going to want to run out and be directly coached by the same guy who he says has been holding him back? Yeah, I doubt it.
But whatever. The ex-Carolina D-coordinator, Mike Trgovac, sounds like a pretty good catch anyway. Seriously now, the chances of getting Peppers in the first place were slim. He's a Southern guy and will probably want to stay in the South, and Carolina will likely franchise him and try to trade him for several first round picks-- something the Packers will not be willing to give up. And under Trgovac, the Panthers had several excellent d-line units-- like the dominating Kris Jenkins, Brent Bucker, Mike Rucker, and Peppers group of a few years back. So I'm relatively confident in his ability to coach the line decently well. (Much more confident than I am in his ability to coordinate a good defense-- not the greatest job against Larry Fitzgerald there, Mike.) Anyhow, I think this is a good time to wake up to reality and realize that the Peppers free agency daydream (a daydream which fans of every other team in the NFL with cap room are also having) is essentially over. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to online reading mock drafts and hoping that Texas defensive end Brian Orakpo falls to 9th.
But whatever. The ex-Carolina D-coordinator, Mike Trgovac, sounds like a pretty good catch anyway. Seriously now, the chances of getting Peppers in the first place were slim. He's a Southern guy and will probably want to stay in the South, and Carolina will likely franchise him and try to trade him for several first round picks-- something the Packers will not be willing to give up. And under Trgovac, the Panthers had several excellent d-line units-- like the dominating Kris Jenkins, Brent Bucker, Mike Rucker, and Peppers group of a few years back. So I'm relatively confident in his ability to coach the line decently well. (Much more confident than I am in his ability to coordinate a good defense-- not the greatest job against Larry Fitzgerald there, Mike.) Anyhow, I think this is a good time to wake up to reality and realize that the Peppers free agency daydream (a daydream which fans of every other team in the NFL with cap room are also having) is essentially over. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to online reading mock drafts and hoping that Texas defensive end Brian Orakpo falls to 9th.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Mike Lucas is dumber than I thought
http://www.madison.com/tct/blogs/lucas/433444
Seriously? These two situations are comparable?
1. Kurt Warner does not have a consecutive games played streak. Brett Favre was not coming back to compete for a job. His ego would not allow that. Anybody who suggests otherwise is delusional or disingenuous. Additionally, it would be unfair for the Packers to say to Brett, "Well, you've been our starting QB for 15 years, but now you have to compete for your job." It just doesn't work like that in the NFL.
2. Matt Leinart and Aaron Rodgers are in different situations. If the Pack had not played Rodgers this year they would, in all likelihood, have lost him to free agency. The same cannot be said of the Prince of LA.
3. The Packer's atrocious defense and spotty running game would not have improved with Brett at QB. The Pack missed the playoffs because of those inadequacies, not because of poor QB play.
So I ask myself the question, "Would the Packers have been in the same position as the Cardinals with Favre (as the starter) and Rodgers (as the backup), if they would have adhered to the same fundamental concept of competition, "We'll play the best players and the quarterback who gives us the best chance of having success in 2008"?
Ummmmmm, no.
Seriously? These two situations are comparable?
1. Kurt Warner does not have a consecutive games played streak. Brett Favre was not coming back to compete for a job. His ego would not allow that. Anybody who suggests otherwise is delusional or disingenuous. Additionally, it would be unfair for the Packers to say to Brett, "Well, you've been our starting QB for 15 years, but now you have to compete for your job." It just doesn't work like that in the NFL.
2. Matt Leinart and Aaron Rodgers are in different situations. If the Pack had not played Rodgers this year they would, in all likelihood, have lost him to free agency. The same cannot be said of the Prince of LA.
3. The Packer's atrocious defense and spotty running game would not have improved with Brett at QB. The Pack missed the playoffs because of those inadequacies, not because of poor QB play.
So I ask myself the question, "Would the Packers have been in the same position as the Cardinals with Favre (as the starter) and Rodgers (as the backup), if they would have adhered to the same fundamental concept of competition, "We'll play the best players and the quarterback who gives us the best chance of having success in 2008"?
Ummmmmm, no.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Thank Goodness
An experienced defensive hand has arrived in Packerland-- Dom Capers. My best memory of Capers was his blitz-heavy Carolina Panthers team that the Packers beat in the '97 NFC championship game. He head-coached that surprising squad, taking an expansion team and turning it into a contender in just a few years. Anyhow, Capers has a pretty solid career record as a defensive mind, coordinating defenses in Pittsburgh, Miami and Jacksonville. His record as a head coach is not so great, having helmed two expansion teams in Carolina and Houston. But whatever. This is exactly the kind of guy I wanted-- an old hand, a guy who's happy as a coordinator, and someone who has a huge body of work and experience to inform his decisions.
What's especially interesting is the announcement, made today at McCarthy's press conference, that the Packers will run a 3-4 system under Capers. That will definitely shake-up the team's front seven, and perhaps change the Packers' drafting and free agent philosophy. The 3-4 depends on having a big run-stopping, block-absorbing, nose guard. Looks like that role will be Ryan Pickett's, though the team will immediately enter the market for a capable back-up. Smaller DTs like Colin Cole, Johnny Jolly, and Justin Harrell may switch to ends in a 3-4, as those guys tend to be bigger and serve more as designated run-stoppers than pass rushers. What will happen to the team's ends, specifically Aaron Kampman, Cullen Jenkins, and Jeremy Thompson, remains to be seen, however. Then there's the linebacker jumble. Will it be Hawk and Barnett (or Bishop, if Nick's unable) in the middle, with Poppinga and Chillar on the outside? Surprisingly, this Packers' press release has a good outline of the personnel issues raised by the implementation of the new scheme. Then there's this concern--good 3-4 defenses seem to have a stud-hybrid rusher, like Kevin Greene on the Panthers, Jason Taylor on the Dolphins, or Terrell Suggs on the Ravens, and the Packers don't have anyone like that right now. Then again, I think Suggs might become a free agent in a few weeks.
Anyhow, I take this as a big positive development. Grizzled, well-respected former head coach and coordinator signs up with the Pack, and looks to bring in a more versatile style of defense. Changes are afoot and it'll be fascinating to see what happens.
What's especially interesting is the announcement, made today at McCarthy's press conference, that the Packers will run a 3-4 system under Capers. That will definitely shake-up the team's front seven, and perhaps change the Packers' drafting and free agent philosophy. The 3-4 depends on having a big run-stopping, block-absorbing, nose guard. Looks like that role will be Ryan Pickett's, though the team will immediately enter the market for a capable back-up. Smaller DTs like Colin Cole, Johnny Jolly, and Justin Harrell may switch to ends in a 3-4, as those guys tend to be bigger and serve more as designated run-stoppers than pass rushers. What will happen to the team's ends, specifically Aaron Kampman, Cullen Jenkins, and Jeremy Thompson, remains to be seen, however. Then there's the linebacker jumble. Will it be Hawk and Barnett (or Bishop, if Nick's unable) in the middle, with Poppinga and Chillar on the outside? Surprisingly, this Packers' press release has a good outline of the personnel issues raised by the implementation of the new scheme. Then there's this concern--good 3-4 defenses seem to have a stud-hybrid rusher, like Kevin Greene on the Panthers, Jason Taylor on the Dolphins, or Terrell Suggs on the Ravens, and the Packers don't have anyone like that right now. Then again, I think Suggs might become a free agent in a few weeks.
Anyhow, I take this as a big positive development. Grizzled, well-respected former head coach and coordinator signs up with the Pack, and looks to bring in a more versatile style of defense. Changes are afoot and it'll be fascinating to see what happens.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
More Randomness
Again, too much nunsense out there for a coherent post. Here's another grab-bag.
- Former Packer O-coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski was "fired" from his position as the Boston College football head coach yesterday, after refusing to not interview with the Jets. Apparently UW-Whitewater alum Jagod failed to tell his AD that he was talking with the J-E-T-S, and that didn't sit too well with his boss. And the Globe reported some informal agreement that Jagod would not pursue other jobs for the first three years as BC chieftan. So there. But what a wacky way to get fired, eh? "If you do not-very-outlandish thing A, I'll can you!" "Alright, well I'm doing it." "You're canned!" That's a pretty quick trigger. And can Boston College really afford to be so choosey? It's not like the goofy Wisconsin native hadn't gotten BC (the smallest school in the ACC) to the ACC title game two straight years. Oh, wait. (I guess they did just gift Vandy its first bowl win in 50 odd years.) Anyhoo, Jagod is a friggin' weirdo. If you don't like recruiting 16-year-olds and want to go back to the NFL, just quit already. Further proof that you just can't trust a Warhawk. They're shifty.
- So, awesomely, UW men's basketballers totally pounded Northwestern last night. What a contrast to the PSU game on Saturday. NU had been doing quite well so far this year (they were in the top 25 in Pomeroy's ratings), but UW carved up their defense and forced miss after Wildcat miss. The dominant final score (by 29 points in a 62 possession game), jumped UW 15 slots in the Ken Pom ratings. Awww, yeah. Number 34, bitches! Whoop!
- Seriously now, UW sophomore forward Jon Leuer is getting smoother and smoother on offense, and his rebounding and D really have picked up. Or they at least looked excellent against NU's nearly all-white frontcourt. (It's like being back in Minnesota!) Sadly, fellow soph Keaton Nankivil continues to start but play less than Leuer. The young Madisonian just keeps looking a bit timid, though he has bursts of effectiveness. (What is it with these Madison Memorial alums? Are they all nancies or is it just me?) Hell, lower ceilinged walk-on Kevin Gullickson got about the same number of minutes as Nankivil last night. And don't get me wrong, I effing love kids like KG who are academic badasses (Academic All-Big Ten two straight seasons with a "business finance" major) and have multiple drinking citations. That is doing Wisconsin proud, my young friend. But schollie sophs should be earning more minutes that walk-ons, regardless of how bad ass they are. Can I blame the math teacher/head coach at Memorial for stunting the Nanker's development?
- Also, third soph Tim Jarmusz ran about the ugliest fast break I have ever seen last night. He bricked a mildly contested one on one lay up. The Leuer missed a tip, then Krabby missed a tip, then the ball got knocked out of bounds, I think. Yeesh. I thought Tim could shoot. There were a couple of ugly fast breaks last night-- there was another where Pop missed a lay in, Bohannon tipped it back up, and it was goaltended. Bizarre. Apparently, NU is the only team unathletic enough that Wisconsin can run on them (or is unafraid of the consequences of trying to run).
- Last UW basketball note: I'm convinced that UW's kick ass offense against NU was partly due to the fact that NU is the third straight team UW has played who primarily plays zone defense. (Michigan and NU are 1-3-1 teams, and PSU plays a lot of 2-3.) Meaning they just finished their second straight week of preparing to play against zone Ds. This has me worried they're going to be out of practice for the pressure man to man D Purdidn't will throw at them this weekend, and accordingly are going to look ugly on offense. Whatever. Number 34! Whoop!
- I have no idea who the Packers will hire to replace now deposed D-coordinator Bob Sanders. I do like, a lot, this line from a Journal-Sentinel article about the search. "McCarthy, a source said, wants someone who could adapt to his talent and not be tied to one way of doing things." Exactly. If you need perfect personnel to coordinate an effective defense, you're going to be in trouble, because people get old and incompetent and/or get injured quite quickly in the NFL. Hire somebody who makes decent lemonade.
- Getting back to college football, I will not be watching this evenings faux-national championship game as I have more interesting and important crap to do. In addition, I have opted to not even Tivo the game, as Grey's Anatomy and 30 Rock hold more allure than watching two "schools" try to run up the score on each other. (How can a team be seen as a formal representive of a school, if less than half of said team actual matriculates from said school?) Plus, Florida and the Pope should win by double digits. OU got into the championship game by losing early in the season (thus resulting in being higher ranked than Texas Tech and Texas, which was the tie-breaker for getting into the Big 12 Championship game), and by running up the score. Karma is a bitch. As is the fact that the Big 12 has gotten exposed this postseason. True, Nebraska managed to beat a terribly quarterbacked Clemson team, and Kansas bombed a floundering Minnesota team as predicted but Mizzou needed overtime to beat friggin' Northwestern, top ten team Texas Tech got pounded in Dallas by Ole Miss, Oklahoma State got burned by Oregon, and Texas needed all sorts of help to barely squeak past the Ohio A&M. Not looking so strong there, El Grande Doce. Plus, Florida actually has a defense and an offense, and Bob Stoops has laid several BCS eggs since winning his national championship eight plus years ago. I say the Pope, his balanced team, Tim Tebow (and his remarkably built ladyfriend), win by two touches. 30 something to 20 something. Predictable, cheesy and boring, especially with Fox's awful production values. (ABC does the Rose Bowl so much better, it's not even funny.)
Watching the lady from Knocked Up debate the moral dillema of her illicit affair with a dead boyfriend's ghost (worst plot development ever) on Grey's Anatomy will be far more entertaining. Or maybe not. Well, if it's a good game it'll be rebroadcast soon enough anyway.
- In all seriousness, not watching that game is actually an effective way you can show your displeasure over the stupid BCS system. If the ratings start to suffer, the university presidents (whose hands must be chapped from all the rubbing together they do at the thought of the financial payout from the current deal) may start to come around. Either that, or we'll have to wait for them to all die off. Or at least for Big 11 commish Jim Delaney to die off.
- Finally, UW running back PJ Hill and his prodigious posterior have opted to try to take his game to the next level. Good luck to the young man. Despite assorted injuries, PJ has been a fine college back, and is actually third in career rushing yards at UW, behind Anthony Davis and Ron Dayne. In addition, PJ has always seemed like a good teammate and an amiable young man. (For example, I didn't see him grumble or sulk a bit after John Clay started getting more carries this season.) As far as his decision to leave "early" goes, I can't blame him a bit. He redshirted after breaking his leg in preseason camp as a frosh, so he's been here for four whole seasons. He doesn't have much left to prove, and Clay (and Zach Brown and Montee Davis) would have been champing at the bit behind him next season. I don't know where (or if) he'll be drafted, but he has always been great at getting yards in tough spots, maximizing what he can get after contact. He'd make a solid short yardage back, I'd wager. Godspeed.
- Former Packer O-coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski was "fired" from his position as the Boston College football head coach yesterday, after refusing to not interview with the Jets. Apparently UW-Whitewater alum Jagod failed to tell his AD that he was talking with the J-E-T-S, and that didn't sit too well with his boss. And the Globe reported some informal agreement that Jagod would not pursue other jobs for the first three years as BC chieftan. So there. But what a wacky way to get fired, eh? "If you do not-very-outlandish thing A, I'll can you!" "Alright, well I'm doing it." "You're canned!" That's a pretty quick trigger. And can Boston College really afford to be so choosey? It's not like the goofy Wisconsin native hadn't gotten BC (the smallest school in the ACC) to the ACC title game two straight years. Oh, wait. (I guess they did just gift Vandy its first bowl win in 50 odd years.) Anyhoo, Jagod is a friggin' weirdo. If you don't like recruiting 16-year-olds and want to go back to the NFL, just quit already. Further proof that you just can't trust a Warhawk. They're shifty.- So, awesomely, UW men's basketballers totally pounded Northwestern last night. What a contrast to the PSU game on Saturday. NU had been doing quite well so far this year (they were in the top 25 in Pomeroy's ratings), but UW carved up their defense and forced miss after Wildcat miss. The dominant final score (by 29 points in a 62 possession game), jumped UW 15 slots in the Ken Pom ratings. Awww, yeah. Number 34, bitches! Whoop!
- Seriously now, UW sophomore forward Jon Leuer is getting smoother and smoother on offense, and his rebounding and D really have picked up. Or they at least looked excellent against NU's nearly all-white frontcourt. (It's like being back in Minnesota!) Sadly, fellow soph Keaton Nankivil continues to start but play less than Leuer. The young Madisonian just keeps looking a bit timid, though he has bursts of effectiveness. (What is it with these Madison Memorial alums? Are they all nancies or is it just me?) Hell, lower ceilinged walk-on Kevin Gullickson got about the same number of minutes as Nankivil last night. And don't get me wrong, I effing love kids like KG who are academic badasses (Academic All-Big Ten two straight seasons with a "business finance" major) and have multiple drinking citations. That is doing Wisconsin proud, my young friend. But schollie sophs should be earning more minutes that walk-ons, regardless of how bad ass they are. Can I blame the math teacher/head coach at Memorial for stunting the Nanker's development?
- Also, third soph Tim Jarmusz ran about the ugliest fast break I have ever seen last night. He bricked a mildly contested one on one lay up. The Leuer missed a tip, then Krabby missed a tip, then the ball got knocked out of bounds, I think. Yeesh. I thought Tim could shoot. There were a couple of ugly fast breaks last night-- there was another where Pop missed a lay in, Bohannon tipped it back up, and it was goaltended. Bizarre. Apparently, NU is the only team unathletic enough that Wisconsin can run on them (or is unafraid of the consequences of trying to run).
- Last UW basketball note: I'm convinced that UW's kick ass offense against NU was partly due to the fact that NU is the third straight team UW has played who primarily plays zone defense. (Michigan and NU are 1-3-1 teams, and PSU plays a lot of 2-3.) Meaning they just finished their second straight week of preparing to play against zone Ds. This has me worried they're going to be out of practice for the pressure man to man D Purdidn't will throw at them this weekend, and accordingly are going to look ugly on offense. Whatever. Number 34! Whoop!
- I have no idea who the Packers will hire to replace now deposed D-coordinator Bob Sanders. I do like, a lot, this line from a Journal-Sentinel article about the search. "McCarthy, a source said, wants someone who could adapt to his talent and not be tied to one way of doing things." Exactly. If you need perfect personnel to coordinate an effective defense, you're going to be in trouble, because people get old and incompetent and/or get injured quite quickly in the NFL. Hire somebody who makes decent lemonade.
- Getting back to college football, I will not be watching this evenings faux-national championship game as I have more interesting and important crap to do. In addition, I have opted to not even Tivo the game, as Grey's Anatomy and 30 Rock hold more allure than watching two "schools" try to run up the score on each other. (How can a team be seen as a formal representive of a school, if less than half of said team actual matriculates from said school?) Plus, Florida and the Pope should win by double digits. OU got into the championship game by losing early in the season (thus resulting in being higher ranked than Texas Tech and Texas, which was the tie-breaker for getting into the Big 12 Championship game), and by running up the score. Karma is a bitch. As is the fact that the Big 12 has gotten exposed this postseason. True, Nebraska managed to beat a terribly quarterbacked Clemson team, and Kansas bombed a floundering Minnesota team as predicted but Mizzou needed overtime to beat friggin' Northwestern, top ten team Texas Tech got pounded in Dallas by Ole Miss, Oklahoma State got burned by Oregon, and Texas needed all sorts of help to barely squeak past the Ohio A&M. Not looking so strong there, El Grande Doce. Plus, Florida actually has a defense and an offense, and Bob Stoops has laid several BCS eggs since winning his national championship eight plus years ago. I say the Pope, his balanced team, Tim Tebow (and his remarkably built ladyfriend), win by two touches. 30 something to 20 something. Predictable, cheesy and boring, especially with Fox's awful production values. (ABC does the Rose Bowl so much better, it's not even funny.)
Watching the lady from Knocked Up debate the moral dillema of her illicit affair with a dead boyfriend's ghost (worst plot development ever) on Grey's Anatomy will be far more entertaining. Or maybe not. Well, if it's a good game it'll be rebroadcast soon enough anyway. - In all seriousness, not watching that game is actually an effective way you can show your displeasure over the stupid BCS system. If the ratings start to suffer, the university presidents (whose hands must be chapped from all the rubbing together they do at the thought of the financial payout from the current deal) may start to come around. Either that, or we'll have to wait for them to all die off. Or at least for Big 11 commish Jim Delaney to die off.
- Finally, UW running back PJ Hill and his prodigious posterior have opted to try to take his game to the next level. Good luck to the young man. Despite assorted injuries, PJ has been a fine college back, and is actually third in career rushing yards at UW, behind Anthony Davis and Ron Dayne. In addition, PJ has always seemed like a good teammate and an amiable young man. (For example, I didn't see him grumble or sulk a bit after John Clay started getting more carries this season.) As far as his decision to leave "early" goes, I can't blame him a bit. He redshirted after breaking his leg in preseason camp as a frosh, so he's been here for four whole seasons. He doesn't have much left to prove, and Clay (and Zach Brown and Montee Davis) would have been champing at the bit behind him next season. I don't know where (or if) he'll be drafted, but he has always been great at getting yards in tough spots, maximizing what he can get after contact. He'd make a solid short yardage back, I'd wager. Godspeed.
Monday, January 05, 2009
New Year, New Thoughts
The state of the sports world currently calls for a random, classic Larry King style post. Here goes:
- An early report states that the Packers are firing defensive coordinator Bob Sanders. By all accounts, Sanders is an excellent human being. Unfortunately, his defensive tactics, while occasionally very effective, are somewhat simplistic and predictable, and he hasn't shown much ingenuity or flexibility during games. With workaholic players and coaches flooding the league, more and more it feels like you need a defensive scheme that will confuse the other side. The Packers haven't had that. So it's probably time to try something new. What'll be especially interesting to see is who replaces Sanders, and what kind of defense that coach will bring. And, of course, how much personnel turnover the new system will require and how quickly the players will be able to pick up the new scheme. Remember, one of the worst defenses in recent Packer history came in the first (and only) year of a new d-coordinator (Bob Slowik).
- If reports are true, Sanders will be joining Packers Special Teams coach Mike Stock on the way out of town. The sextagenarian Stock opted to retire a few days ago. This was probably a good reading of the tea leaves, as the Packers' kickoff coverage unit was awful this season and directly contributed to some close losses, particularly the loss at Chicago and the home loss to Carolina. Plus, Crosby seems to have stalled in his development, and some of the blame for the atrocious decision to release punter Jon Ryan and rely on (and stick with) the horrid Derrick Frost fell on Stock's shoulders. Of course, some blame must go to Thompson, who jettisoned Ryan, stuck with Frost for more than half the season, and released several special teams leaders, like Tracy White. Hopefully, he learned some lessons as well. Trivia-- did you know Stock had been the head coach at Brown?
- This year's Badger men's basketball team just doesn't let you get comfortable, do they? After a very solid victory over a pretty darn good Michigan team in Ann Arbor, they have to duke out a close one against Penn State in Madison. Yeesh. PSU is definitely improved over last season (although it'll probably be a one-year blip, as Pringle and Cornley are seniors), but still. A double digit victory would have been nice.
- Speaking of UW hoops, does it just feel like every game some guy goes off from long range against the Badgers? I mean, there was that swingman from Va Tech (6 for 9), this guard from San Diego (5 for 8), McShneal from Marquette (4 for 7), Zack Novak at Michigan (5 for 8), and on Saturday, Stanley Pringle (4 for 6, with all the makes in the second half). Last season the Badgers were at the top of the league in three defense, and were in the top 25 nationally. This year they're in the middle of pack nationally--174th out of 340 odd teams. They lost Michael Flowers, who was a great perimeter shot contestor, and the line has been moved back, which might actually have increased the shooting percentage on long-range attempts by creating more space (and by reducing the raw number of threes taken). Anyhow, the numbers (and personnel) say they're worse on the perimeter defensively compared to last season. But at the same time, I can't remember a lot of uncontested threes. It seems like guys (especially the guy at Va Tech) have just been on fire at times. So maybe it's luck? Whatever it is, I hope it turns around.
- Speaking of random stats, here's Ken Pomeroy's statistical summary of Wisconsin's season so far. Things look fine offensively, though you'd like them to grab a few more offensive boards and shoot a little better from the line. And the lack of steals and turnovers will always be a black mark against UW's defense, as they're far more focused on avoiding stupid fouls than nabbing stray passes. (Flowers' departure also hurts here though.) But what really sticks out is the opponent's free throw percentage-- against us, opposing teams are nailing their free throws. Totally weird. (The Texas loss and their ridiculous free throw shooting come to mind.) Hopefully, that rate will return a bit closer to the mean sometime soon.
- Did anyone reading this not love watching the Cowboys look like total garbage 8 days ago? Man, that was hilarious. And they can't get much better-- they gave away almost their entire 2009 draft for Roy Williams, the receiver, "offensive guru" Jason Garrett may very well abandon his head-coaching apprenticeship for a real gig somewhere else, and the front office still has the team-killing headache of Terrell Owens and the underperforming nuisance of Pacman Jones to deal with. That's totally the way you want to transition to a billion dollar stadium (one built with $475 million of tax money) that still has a stupid hole in the roof, where you'll be asking many fans to cough up 100 grand for a personal seat license. And it's not like the economy is not awesome or like the wealthy have seen their net worths shrink by half. Oh wait. Smooth moves, Skeletor. And it couldn't happen to a nicer, more humble guy.
- The playoffs have been very odd so far. Arizona winning a game? In the playoffs? The Dolts get a bunch of lucky scores, but still can't beat the 8-8 Chargers and their formerly sieve-like defense, even with LT on the sidelines? Weirdness. The ViQueens lines looked pretty dominant against the Eagles, but they give up two huge plays and thus lose. Fitting that their special teams looked like garbage, as it has all season. (They tied the record for most punt return touchdowns given up in a season-- thanks in large part to the Pack's Will Blackmon.) Personally, I'm rooting for Jimmy Leonhard and the Ravens. Even with the lack of talent on offense, at least they try to be entertaining on that side of the ball, employing lots of bizarre shenanigans.
- Did anyone else laugh when former Ohio A&M cover boy Ted Ginn, Jr. dropped the (admittedly stressed) exchange on that fourth quarter end around, effectively sealing the Dolphins' playoff loss? Thank goodness the AFC East has been eliminated from the postseason. That division was dreadfully overrated this season, mostly due to a flaccid schedule. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of the national media's East Coast-centricity.
- I still can't bring myself to write about the UW football team. The beatdown is too fresh, the program seems adrift, wandering in the wilderness, as it were. Maybe I'll hold out until national signing day, hoping for some encouraging developments.
- An early report states that the Packers are firing defensive coordinator Bob Sanders. By all accounts, Sanders is an excellent human being. Unfortunately, his defensive tactics, while occasionally very effective, are somewhat simplistic and predictable, and he hasn't shown much ingenuity or flexibility during games. With workaholic players and coaches flooding the league, more and more it feels like you need a defensive scheme that will confuse the other side. The Packers haven't had that. So it's probably time to try something new. What'll be especially interesting to see is who replaces Sanders, and what kind of defense that coach will bring. And, of course, how much personnel turnover the new system will require and how quickly the players will be able to pick up the new scheme. Remember, one of the worst defenses in recent Packer history came in the first (and only) year of a new d-coordinator (Bob Slowik).
- If reports are true, Sanders will be joining Packers Special Teams coach Mike Stock on the way out of town. The sextagenarian Stock opted to retire a few days ago. This was probably a good reading of the tea leaves, as the Packers' kickoff coverage unit was awful this season and directly contributed to some close losses, particularly the loss at Chicago and the home loss to Carolina. Plus, Crosby seems to have stalled in his development, and some of the blame for the atrocious decision to release punter Jon Ryan and rely on (and stick with) the horrid Derrick Frost fell on Stock's shoulders. Of course, some blame must go to Thompson, who jettisoned Ryan, stuck with Frost for more than half the season, and released several special teams leaders, like Tracy White. Hopefully, he learned some lessons as well. Trivia-- did you know Stock had been the head coach at Brown?
- This year's Badger men's basketball team just doesn't let you get comfortable, do they? After a very solid victory over a pretty darn good Michigan team in Ann Arbor, they have to duke out a close one against Penn State in Madison. Yeesh. PSU is definitely improved over last season (although it'll probably be a one-year blip, as Pringle and Cornley are seniors), but still. A double digit victory would have been nice.
- Speaking of UW hoops, does it just feel like every game some guy goes off from long range against the Badgers? I mean, there was that swingman from Va Tech (6 for 9), this guard from San Diego (5 for 8), McShneal from Marquette (4 for 7), Zack Novak at Michigan (5 for 8), and on Saturday, Stanley Pringle (4 for 6, with all the makes in the second half). Last season the Badgers were at the top of the league in three defense, and were in the top 25 nationally. This year they're in the middle of pack nationally--174th out of 340 odd teams. They lost Michael Flowers, who was a great perimeter shot contestor, and the line has been moved back, which might actually have increased the shooting percentage on long-range attempts by creating more space (and by reducing the raw number of threes taken). Anyhow, the numbers (and personnel) say they're worse on the perimeter defensively compared to last season. But at the same time, I can't remember a lot of uncontested threes. It seems like guys (especially the guy at Va Tech) have just been on fire at times. So maybe it's luck? Whatever it is, I hope it turns around.
- Speaking of random stats, here's Ken Pomeroy's statistical summary of Wisconsin's season so far. Things look fine offensively, though you'd like them to grab a few more offensive boards and shoot a little better from the line. And the lack of steals and turnovers will always be a black mark against UW's defense, as they're far more focused on avoiding stupid fouls than nabbing stray passes. (Flowers' departure also hurts here though.) But what really sticks out is the opponent's free throw percentage-- against us, opposing teams are nailing their free throws. Totally weird. (The Texas loss and their ridiculous free throw shooting come to mind.) Hopefully, that rate will return a bit closer to the mean sometime soon.
- Did anyone reading this not love watching the Cowboys look like total garbage 8 days ago? Man, that was hilarious. And they can't get much better-- they gave away almost their entire 2009 draft for Roy Williams, the receiver, "offensive guru" Jason Garrett may very well abandon his head-coaching apprenticeship for a real gig somewhere else, and the front office still has the team-killing headache of Terrell Owens and the underperforming nuisance of Pacman Jones to deal with. That's totally the way you want to transition to a billion dollar stadium (one built with $475 million of tax money) that still has a stupid hole in the roof, where you'll be asking many fans to cough up 100 grand for a personal seat license. And it's not like the economy is not awesome or like the wealthy have seen their net worths shrink by half. Oh wait. Smooth moves, Skeletor. And it couldn't happen to a nicer, more humble guy.- The playoffs have been very odd so far. Arizona winning a game? In the playoffs? The Dolts get a bunch of lucky scores, but still can't beat the 8-8 Chargers and their formerly sieve-like defense, even with LT on the sidelines? Weirdness. The ViQueens lines looked pretty dominant against the Eagles, but they give up two huge plays and thus lose. Fitting that their special teams looked like garbage, as it has all season. (They tied the record for most punt return touchdowns given up in a season-- thanks in large part to the Pack's Will Blackmon.) Personally, I'm rooting for Jimmy Leonhard and the Ravens. Even with the lack of talent on offense, at least they try to be entertaining on that side of the ball, employing lots of bizarre shenanigans.
- Did anyone else laugh when former Ohio A&M cover boy Ted Ginn, Jr. dropped the (admittedly stressed) exchange on that fourth quarter end around, effectively sealing the Dolphins' playoff loss? Thank goodness the AFC East has been eliminated from the postseason. That division was dreadfully overrated this season, mostly due to a flaccid schedule. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of the national media's East Coast-centricity.
- I still can't bring myself to write about the UW football team. The beatdown is too fresh, the program seems adrift, wandering in the wilderness, as it were. Maybe I'll hold out until national signing day, hoping for some encouraging developments.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Completely Unsurprising
Other Jet players complain about Favre's special treatment, aloofness, and lack of accountability? Shocking, just shocking. It's not like the Jets didn't know that they were trading for a soon to be 39 year-old quarterback, who had been treated like a demi-god for a solid decade by the entire populations of Wisconsin, Mississippi, Louisiana and Bristol, Connecticut. And given that the moronic Jets management publicly lauded Favre as the savior of the Jets' franchise, is it at all surprising that Favre was barely criticized in the locker room and had no fear of being benched, despite leading the league in intereceptions? Not to me. I actually feel bad for now-deposed coach Eric Mangini. Jets GM Sam Tenenbaum put him in a horribly weak position.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Two more cents...
Without looking at stats, which can often be misleading in this type of situation, I think the Packers finished with about the right record +/- 2 games. As has been previously stated, AR had good stats, which is partially reflective of the fact that we threw the ball a lot to catch up/keep up, but his relatively low number of INTs is encouraging. Another part of that equation is that McCarthy is inconsistent in his willingness to stick with the running game. When the Pack is successful on the ground we win; when we are unable to run, we lose (More on this later).
I think the fact that we played multiple playoff caliber teams close down to the last drive, won the games we should have won, and lost the games we should have lost places the Pack squarely in the middle of the overall NFL picture. We had some bad breaks/lapses that led us to lose a couple games that we might have won, but we finished right about where we belonged: somewhere between 8-8 and 6-10. In the long run, it is better for us to have a worse record if we do miss the playoffs so we get better draft picks.
I will not get into what are needs are, because they have been and will be discussed at length in other posts. Needless to say, our needs are obvious and we have the capability to fill them if we so choose.
Back to the non-personnel part of the Packs struggles: It seems to me that part of the Pack's problems on offense (sputtering on many drives) is our inability/unwillingness to commit to a running game. Some of this has to do with our O Line, but another part has to do with play calling. McCarthy, it seems to me gives up on the run too easily, if it doesn't work early. Case in point is last year's divisional playoff and NFC championship game. Against the Seagulls, we ran, and ran, and then ran some more. We dominated the entire game and won easily. One week later, granted against a monstrous front 4, I think we ran the ball maybe 4-5 times in the first quarter before McCarthy jumped ship on running the ball as a legitimate game plan. This was in freezing, windy conditions with a QB who clearly wanted nothing to do with playing that day. Would we have been successful running against Strahan, et al? Maybe not, but I think it would have been wise to try a few more times. Perhaps then the Fearsome Foursome would have had to think more about pinning their proverbial ears back and going after Brett. When I look back at that game, it wasn't much different than this entire season. Play a quality opponent close, and then lose at the end with unclutch plays.
So apart from personnel changes, I think McCarthy needs to use the quality he has in the offensive back field, even if we have a couple of 3 and outs in the first quarter. Running = winning.
I think the fact that we played multiple playoff caliber teams close down to the last drive, won the games we should have won, and lost the games we should have lost places the Pack squarely in the middle of the overall NFL picture. We had some bad breaks/lapses that led us to lose a couple games that we might have won, but we finished right about where we belonged: somewhere between 8-8 and 6-10. In the long run, it is better for us to have a worse record if we do miss the playoffs so we get better draft picks.
I will not get into what are needs are, because they have been and will be discussed at length in other posts. Needless to say, our needs are obvious and we have the capability to fill them if we so choose.
Back to the non-personnel part of the Packs struggles: It seems to me that part of the Pack's problems on offense (sputtering on many drives) is our inability/unwillingness to commit to a running game. Some of this has to do with our O Line, but another part has to do with play calling. McCarthy, it seems to me gives up on the run too easily, if it doesn't work early. Case in point is last year's divisional playoff and NFC championship game. Against the Seagulls, we ran, and ran, and then ran some more. We dominated the entire game and won easily. One week later, granted against a monstrous front 4, I think we ran the ball maybe 4-5 times in the first quarter before McCarthy jumped ship on running the ball as a legitimate game plan. This was in freezing, windy conditions with a QB who clearly wanted nothing to do with playing that day. Would we have been successful running against Strahan, et al? Maybe not, but I think it would have been wise to try a few more times. Perhaps then the Fearsome Foursome would have had to think more about pinning their proverbial ears back and going after Brett. When I look back at that game, it wasn't much different than this entire season. Play a quality opponent close, and then lose at the end with unclutch plays.
So apart from personnel changes, I think McCarthy needs to use the quality he has in the offensive back field, even if we have a couple of 3 and outs in the first quarter. Running = winning.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Excellent Michael Hunt Quote
Unfortunately, the whole piece is only available if you have ponied up the big bucks for a Packer Insider subscription, but I wholeheartedly agree with this point by Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel columnist Michael Hunt---
"And now that the painful season is over, it bears repeating that the Packers did the right thing at quarterback. Of all the things that went wrong this season, Rodgers was the least of their problems. He played through a shoulder injury. He was on the field for all 16 games. He threw for 4,000 yards. And he's coming back with a gifted set of skill players that suddenly includes DeShawn Wynn and Jermichael Finley.
"And now that the painful season is over, it bears repeating that the Packers did the right thing at quarterback. Of all the things that went wrong this season, Rodgers was the least of their problems. He played through a shoulder injury. He was on the field for all 16 games. He threw for 4,000 yards. And he's coming back with a gifted set of skill players that suddenly includes DeShawn Wynn and Jermichael Finley.
So even as you hold Thompson and McCarthy accountable for upgrading the defense and the special teams and the offensive line, know that their most difficult decision of all has put the Packers in a position to compete for years to come at the most important position."
We're Number Nine!
In the April 2009 draft that is. By virtue of the Packers not becoming "a footnote in history" (as Wayne Larrivee put it on the radio yesterday afternoon) and losing to the Detroit Lions, they have clinched the ninth pick in next spring's NFL draft. That's pretty solid, although losing to the Lions would have put them into a tie for seventh. What am I saying? Losing to the Lions would have been franchise-crushing. As a friend recently noted, the Lions are not only a terrible team. They're history-making 0-16 record is actually reflective of how historically gawd-awful they've been. Specifically, according to the stat-crunchers at footballoutsiders.com, the Detroit defense is the worst defense an NFL team has fielded since 1995. (See here, and scroll down to the last bullet point before the comments section.) And that's only after Week 16. One can only imagine that giving up 100 yards rushing to Deshawn Wynn on 6 carries, 100 yards rushing to Ryan Grant, and three hundred passing yards to A-Rodg will further worsen those ratings. That same Football Outsider post notes that the Packers have shown the biggest discrepancy between performance on the field and wins and losses. This should come as no surprise to Green Bay fans.
Anyhow, I feel like the win against the Lions sort of summed up the season, in a way. Explosive but inconsistent and sputtery (giving up 3 sacks to the Lions?) offense, somewhat confused looking defense that relies on picks to get it out of trouble, mediocre special teams. The huge offensive numbers would give you some hope for the future, but it was a bit of a sloppy performance, and, as I just mentioned, the Detroit defense is historically bad.
The real question is-- what lies ahead in the offseason? I'm hoping for some coaching turnover (I know it's the knee jerk fan's demand), some free agent signings (particularly on both lines, where they may be some good depth players available), some further development from the team's young players, and a good draft with some impact players (Michael Oher, perhaps?). More on this later.
Anyhow, I feel like the win against the Lions sort of summed up the season, in a way. Explosive but inconsistent and sputtery (giving up 3 sacks to the Lions?) offense, somewhat confused looking defense that relies on picks to get it out of trouble, mediocre special teams. The huge offensive numbers would give you some hope for the future, but it was a bit of a sloppy performance, and, as I just mentioned, the Detroit defense is historically bad.
The real question is-- what lies ahead in the offseason? I'm hoping for some coaching turnover (I know it's the knee jerk fan's demand), some free agent signings (particularly on both lines, where they may be some good depth players available), some further development from the team's young players, and a good draft with some impact players (Michael Oher, perhaps?). More on this later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)