Game 1: Packers @ Saints (in Jacksonville) - Sunday, September 12th, 3:25pm

[thebruce44]

The Saints ran about 40 running plays to only 20 passes (Depends on how technical you want to be regarding jet sweep forward passes). The Packers defensive front consistently could not stop the run as they were manhandled by New Orleans offensive line. The Saints scored on all but one possession until late in garbage time. That's the game. It's not Rodgers playing poorly, not Winston playing well, not crowd noise, or any other nonsense. When an offensive line wins the battle this decisively vs a defensive front, that team will win.

 

Agreed on the defense getting manhandled in the trenches being a key to them getting trounced yesterday....but that has nothing to do with Rodgers basically having his worst game as a pro statistically that he didn't leave early due to injury. His and the offense's terrible day also contributed to the defense living on the field, too, and turned a loss into a curb-stomping.

 

The offense certainly performed poorly as well for many reasons including the QB and that's definitely bad. I just don't care because I don't think it matters much if the defensive front is this bad.

 

There can be multiple reasons for a loss and those reasons can vary in terms of how important/impactful they were. That being said, it seems kind of pointless to figure out which reason was the most egregious and then pretend the others didn't exist. I understand if you don't care, but this is a sports message board, so you might want to mentally prepare yourself for topics outside of what you deem most important.

[brewcrewdue80]

The defense led to Rodgers poor start that included abandoning the running game. Not clearing Rodgers with his performance but MLF gave Jones what? 7 carries? Dillon? Rookie Center-Guard combo and O-line wasn't effective.

But the #1 glaring hole was once again LBs. I didnt feel like any of the 4 made a big play. TFL or pass defended. If it happened it was in garbage time not first 3quarters. Caldwell is it? Gave me flashbacks of Summers last season. Like 8-13yards backed up only to be a part of the play 6 to 10yeards downfield. Embarrassing how Winston just had gobs of yardage to run up the middle of the field.

Clark was solid imo after the first drive. I thought he was the best of the front 7 and did what you expect of him.

Stokes the rookie had a play I recall that was good. Not sure he was out there much.

 

On O i thought Lazard was a disappointing 0 factor. Not effective blocking and was flagged on a big gain. Didn't look ever to be an option for Rodgers as always defender glued on him.

MVS had an MVS game. Couple decent receptions. But nothing on deeper end this time and didnt appear to have any separation for a speedster.

H-Backs usage seemed a waste not fooling or beating the defense with blocks. Deguara injury once again just ruining that selection even more.

 

Need to look markedly better on both sides, especially Defense as Barry is immediately on a hott seat with a weak game plan. I just cant fathom how open the middle of the field was at least a dozen times for Winston. Talking 5yards down field to 15yards downfield and at least 20yards wide! Yet no pressure on QB. These guys had to of misplayed the defense called multiple times being confused.

[adambr2]

If your DC is on the hot seat one game into his tenure, he was probably not a very good hire. And I don't disagree that he might be.

[SomewhereInTime]

There can be multiple reasons for a loss and those reasons can vary in terms of how important/impactful they were. That being said, it seems kind of pointless to figure out which reason was the most egregious and then pretend the others didn't exist. I understand if you don't care, but this is a sports message board, so you might want to mentally prepare yourself for topics outside of what you deem most important.

 

No, it seems rather pointful to try to figure out the biggest reasons a team losses. The front 7 getting demolished is really bad and basically always losses the game. You can't quarterback your way out of that one.

[SomewhereInTime]

The defense led to Rodgers poor start that included abandoning the running game. Not clearing Rodgers with his performance but MLF gave Jones what? 7 carries? Dillon? Rookie Center-Guard combo and O-line wasn't effective.

But the #1 glaring hole was once again LBs. I didnt feel like any of the 4 made a big play. TFL or pass defended. If it happened it was in garbage time not first 3quarters. Caldwell is it? Gave me flashbacks of Summers last season. Like 8-13yards backed up only to be a part of the play 6 to 10yeards downfield. Embarrassing how Winston just had gobs of yardage to run up the middle of the field.

Clark was solid imo after the first drive. I thought he was the best of the front 7 and did what you expect of him.

Stokes the rookie had a play I recall that was good. Not sure he was out there much.

 

On O i thought Lazard was a disappointing 0 factor. Not effective blocking and was flagged on a big gain. Didn't look ever to be an option for Rodgers as always defender glued on him.

MVS had an MVS game. Couple decent receptions. But nothing on deeper end this time and didnt appear to have any separation for a speedster.

H-Backs usage seemed a waste not fooling or beating the defense with blocks. Deguara injury once again just ruining that selection even more.

 

Need to look markedly better on both sides, especially Defense as Barry is immediately on a hott seat with a weak game plan. I just cant fathom how open the middle of the field was at least a dozen times for Winston. Talking 5yards down field to 15yards downfield and at least 20yards wide! Yet no pressure on QB. These guys had to of misplayed the defense called multiple times being confused.

 

Since you bring up big plays,

 

As a whole unit, the Packers had one pass broken up (Stokes). There was not one TFL, Sack, Fumble, INT, Blocked Kick, etc. Only other stats were just tackles.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Any DC that had the Packers defense middling or worse would be on the hot seat. People are sick of this brand of defense. But yes there were embarrassing. I just think the Packers time in the sun may be over. I'm ready to see an approach outside of the $50 million QB plan. Maybe a great defense and a ball control offense for a change.

 

I think it's likely they get it going and are a playoff team this season. But I think that's probably all they can be as constructed.

[SomewhereInTime]

Any DC that had the Packers defense middling or worse would be on the hot seat. People are sick of this brand of defense. But yes there were embarrassing. I just think the Packers time in the sun may be over. I'm ready to see an approach outside of the $50 million QB plan. Maybe a great defense and a ball control offense for a change.

 

I think it's likely they get it going and are a playoff team this season. But I think that's probably all they can be as constructed.

 

The thing is, in today's NFL, capable QBs are a dime a dozen and there's generally a couple more good ones drafted every year. Building a great defense and playing ball control football is tough, but as the Saints showed, it can be done.

[PeaveyFury]

The front 7 getting demolished is really bad and basically always losses the game. You can't quarterback your way out of that one.

 

But that has basically been the story with this defense for the last 9 seasons, and Rodgers has been able to quarterback his way out of it a lot. The offense has been able to overcome generally average to poor defensive performances for most of Rodgers' career. The concern is that the offense looked absolutely horrendous as well, which is leading people to question what the issue was there.

[SomewhereInTime]

The front 7 getting demolished is really bad and basically always losses the game. You can't quarterback your way out of that one.

 

But that has basically been the story with this defense for the last 9 seasons, and Rodgers has been able to quarterback his way out of it a lot. The offense has been able to overcome generally average to poor defensive performances for most of Rodgers' career. The concern is that the offense looked absolutely horrendous as well, which is leading people to question what the issue was there.

 

Find me a game where the opponent runs the ball at a 2-1 run to pass play call ratio and scores on all but one drive before garbage time where the Packers somehow win.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

There have been too many games to count over the years where the Packers did in fact win despite never stopping the other team's offense. I'm sure there were a few in which they were gashed on the ground, but usually it doesn't matter and the other team could run the ball, but isn't because they can pass just fine. I don't think it really matters if they pass or run. We don't have a great track record with either and spend lots of Rodgers's career just trying to score 38 points. Our front 7 has been mostly embarrassing for a couple decades.

[SomewhereInTime]

There have been too many games to count over the years where the Packers did in fact win despite never stopping the other team's offense. I'm sure there were a few in which they were gashed on the ground, but usually it doesn't matter and the other team could run the ball, but isn't because they can pass just fine. I don't think it really matters if they pass or run. We don't have a great track record with either and spend lots of Rodgers's career just trying to score 38 points. Our front 7 has been mostly embarrassing for a couple decades.

 

You think it's a common occurrence for the Packers to win games while getting 0 defensive stops? Could you maybe find me a box score from one of these games?

[homer]

The Packers as they are currently built have to get out to a lead to force the other team to throw.

[SeaBass]

The Packers as they are currently built have to get out to a lead to force the other team to throw.

I honestly don't know which team won the coin toss on Sunday, but if this is true they should never defer and always choose to receive the ball first when they have the option.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

That would probably be tough to do even if one existed because I don't know how to find "stops" in the box score. But I think you're being hyper-analytical about one awful blowout loss. Would it really matter if the Packers had forced one stop? 2? Because I likely could find several games like that in the past decade in which they won. That's kinda what they have been for 10 years. "If we score 30 first, we'll probably win!"

 

I don't know what your point is anyway. That their defense sucks? Their front 7 is bad?

[PeaveyFury]

Yeah, I don't know if it's worth the time to sort through ten years' worth of box scores to determine how this performance ranked amongst a decade of mostly bad performances. But, just from last years' various game threads shows that when teams were willing to commit to the run, the defense was completely unable to stop them and led to shoot-outs, many of which our offense was able to overcome. Historically, that's been the M.O. of the team basically since the Super Bowl win- poor defense that can't stop the run at all, but an elite offense that wins in spite of said defense.

 

So, I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the performance of the front seven was a major failure and a key contributor to why they lost. But arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand and saying it's the "only" reason is a little unreasonable. Historically, they've overcome poor defensive performances, even when they've gotten down significantly. Sunday, the offense wasn't up to the task and bumbled their way through the bulk of the game. Understandably, there's a lot of concern that if the defense continues to be poor and that offense is going to be relied upon to carry the team as it has so many times before, it needs to function significantly better than it did this weekend.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

There have been games in which a team is leading the Packers and then turtles and you'd end up fist pumping every time they ran the ball because there was at least a chance they'd tackle them after 3 yards. A lot of the last decade has felt like we can moderately contain the pass or run, but never both in the same year. Sunday looked like neither.

[SomewhereInTime]

That would probably be tough to do even if one existed because I don't know how to find "stops" in the box score. But I think you're being hyper-analytical about one awful blowout loss. Would it really matter if the Packers had forced one stop? 2? Because I likely could find several games like that in the past decade in which they won. That's kinda what they have been for 10 years. "If we score 30 first, we'll probably win!"

 

I don't know what your point is anyway. That their defense sucks? Their front 7 is bad?

 

It's generally pretty easy to figure out https://static.clubs.nfl.com/image/upload/packers/mag1baeviqzjd6txcjc4

 

But you don't have to look back through a bunch of old box scores, the packers aren't winning games where they get no stops. Last year they did not have a bad defense, not the best in football, but above average is good enough.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

It's easy to comb through that document for 10 years worth of games? Why don't you just do it? You're the one that apparently wants to know so bad.

 

This is such an odd thing you're doing lol.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

For the record I didn't think their defense last year was very good. They got run over by Tampa twice, lucked into playing SF in a covid joke injury-riddled year and generally had a pretty favorable schedule when it came to playing good offenses. They rounded out nicely in December but I think the "soft" moniker still applied to last year's team. If I could sum up the Packers of the last 10 years in a word, it's soft.

[SomewhereInTime]

It's easy to comb through that document for 10 years worth of games? Why don't you just do it? You're the one that apparently wants to know so bad.

 

This is such an odd thing you're doing lol.

 

No I quite literally said you don't have to because it doesn't happen. I already know this. It is a false narrative that the Packers were winning tons of games in the past while getting no stops and scoring on every drive. Their defense last year was actually pretty good and I wouldn't have called their front seven a weakness at all. The complete annihilation of it in week 1 of this year is very, very alarming. So much so, that I don't really care who the QB is or what the offense does until this can be fixed because it doesn't matter.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

False narrative? Who made that narrative? You are just being pedantic. When I said "couldn't stop", I assumed you could figure out I meant their defense has been historically bad and for most the past decade has won largely by scoring a bunch of points. There are literally tens of games the Packers have won while an opposing QB throws for 400 yards and completes 65-75% of his passes. I mean that's practically all they did the literal year after winning the SB. Maybe they had a stop in each game, but I would still say they were incapable of stopping teams.

 

And again I am selling on last year's supposedly "pretty good defense." Look at that regular season schedule. There are almost no juggernauts on it and still plenty of games they gave up huge yards and points. And again, like every year, when they needed to show up against the elite teams they got run over.

 

I'm not understanding your thesis here though. Like, the Packers defense isn't bad? But it is...? But the offense was worse last week? Like what are you trying to say other than they've never won a game in which they didn't force a stop? Because it doesn't seem worth pointing out.

[SomewhereInTime]

False narrative? Who made that narrative? You are just being pedantic. When I said "couldn't stop", I assumed you could figure out I meant their defense has been historically bad and for most the past decade has won largely by scoring a bunch of points. There are literally tens of games the Packers have won while an opposing QB throws for 400 yards and completes 65-75% of his passes. I mean that's practically all they did the literal year after winning the SB. Maybe they had a stop in each game, but I would still say they were incapable of stopping teams.

 

And again I am selling on last year's supposedly "pretty good defense." Look at that regular season schedule. There are almost no juggernauts on it and still plenty of games they gave up huge yards and points. And again, like every year, when they needed to show up against the elite teams they got run over.

 

I'm not understanding your thesis here though. Like, the Packers defense isn't bad? But it is...? But the offense was worse last week? Like what are you trying to say other than they've never won a game in which they didn't force a stop? Because it doesn't seem worth pointing out.

 

You see that 2011 defense, though they gave up a lot of yards and certainly didn't play to the level they hoped to, did create an absolute ton of turnovers. That was a big reason why that team went 15-1. Another good example of false narratives.

 

I'm sure you think they got "run over" when they faced the elite Bucs in the playoffs. Do you remember the three second half INTs they forced? Is Tom Brady not a good enough QB for those to count as a good thing?

 

Let me try to help you understand the thesis and simplify things for you here. They have good players on defense. Last year they had defensive success. It is very alarming to watch that defensive front get annihilated in week 1.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Every team has good players on defense. The Packers have a bunch of mediocre ones too. Including some that are probably considered "good" but really are closer to average as is typically the case when it comes to fans vs. reality on a bad defensive team.

 

Splitting hairs as I haven't looked up the Bucs game or remember it too well, but I do know at least one of Brady's INTs was a punt he just tossed up on 3rd and long.

[SeaBass]

Every team has good players on defense. The Packers have a bunch of mediocre ones too. Including some that are probably considered "good" but really are closer to average as is typically the case when it comes to fans vs. reality on a bad defensive team.

 

Splitting hairs as I haven't looked up the Bucs game or remember it too well, but I do know at least one of Brady's INTs was a punt he just tossed up on 3rd and long.

I guess I'm not a fan of the "that interception was just like a punt" because I literally thought one of Rodgers' picks on Sunday looked exactly like that but then nobody tackled the guy and he returned it almost back to the original line of scrimmage. I guess punts get returned too but at least your special teams have a plan for how to cover a return instead of guys scrambling to compensate for an offensive mistake.

 

Anyway, I'm mostly outside the debate you are having, I think a bad loss can simply be a bad loss so I suppose I'm more on your side of it. It's how they respond to this loss that will provide the context in the next few weeks, along with what the Saints will look like as well. New Orleans was a legitimate Super Bowl contender last season, just because Brees retired doesn't make their team terrible. I fell into that line of thinking as well even though I knew their defense has been pretty good for a while and they still have an offense that features Kamara. Brees really wasn't very impressive last season, it doesn't shock me that they're capable of having a really good day on offense, especially if Jameis Winston can play with this type of control and isn't just flinging the ball around willy nilly.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I suppose it's all the same anyway because a punt is a stop.

 

The point of the "debate" is still unclear to me. The Packers have great players but didn't get a stop. But their defense is actually pretty good or was last season? The DC sucks? Is that it? I can buy that the DC isn't good. I just don't think the personnel is all that good either. They have some good players for sure, but that's not saying much. But their defense IMO typically has way too many guys who are doing next to nothing productive. And not so much recently, but Ted Thompson had a love affair with doling out 6 year careers to guys who probably would otherwise out of the league in 2 or 3.

 

I see Jaire, Clark I guess? Amos seems OK. I'm starting to fear Z has reached the "my back hurts and I'm decent for half the season" stage. P. Smith is a formidable player. Gary seems alright. The rest of them are just guys to me. I'm sure I missed one or two.