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

[yourout]

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.

 

The glaring missing piece is a stud linebacker. Pretty much every really good defense has one cat in the middle that is an absolute beast.

[brewcrewdue80]

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.

 

The glaring missing piece is a stud linebacker. Pretty much every really good defense has one cat in the middle that is an absolute beast.

 

Absolutely correct! An actual defensive leader while being a stud himself up the middle. Steelers seem to run with 1 if not 2 for 3decades now. Yet here we are never-ending cycle of mediocre LB play.

Just a reminder-Linebackers: Malik Harrison had a couple of hard hits and Patrick Queen was dominant at times. Queen tied for the team lead with six tackles, including a sack. This a little tidbit off a Ravens site rating their team's performance.

 

Also the other Devin. Bush seems to be making a middle LB impact.

Yet we run out late round or udfa pretending to be starters vs addressing this.

[adambr2]

The combination of ideas here, in that we do have good players on defense, but our defense is poorly constructed, seems valid to me.

 

As homer pointed out, this defense is designed to play with a lead. That's their strength.

 

We don't have the personnel to do anything about it when the defense doesn't have a lead and/or has been out on the field too long. We have no answers when a team can just jam the run game down our throat.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

A defense that has to have a lead would strike me as not a very good one. That's essentially the same as saying the offense is the defense.

[SoCalBrewfan]

I think it's a matter of, in today's NFL, you have to make choices...the salary cap etc mean you can't do everything well. So the brain trust (such as it is) has said, this is a passing league, we're going to use resources for the passing game. (Both offense and defense, I think, though investments of late on the offensive side might make you question that.)

 

So they've invested in DBs and edge rushers, and left the interior to Kenny Clark and a bunch of scrubs (relatively speaking...some of those guys are promising and/or do a thing or two well but have other weaknesses). Sure, a team that can run the ball will gash us all day long, but if our offense is doing what it generally does, opponents aren't in a position to run, and the pass defense can ignore that threat. This seems to work most of the time, until it doesn't. When it doesn't, it looks ugly.

 

I am not endorsing or rejecting this, necessarily, but I think that's the team building plan.

[adambr2]

If you're going to invest in DBs and edge rushers than invest in DBs and edge rushers. Don't throw 6 million dollars at a replacement level CB and expect that he's going to be an acceptable #2 corner.

 

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2021/3/23/22346534/grading-analytics-say-packers-re-signing-of-kevin-king-is-a-poor-investment

 

The Kevin King re-signing was an unacceptably bad move now and continues to look like an unacceptably bad move now. It looks even worse because of how the market was this last offseason for cheap CBs on short term deals. It is possible that our defense could function much more adequately with a passable #2 corner but the fact remains that until Stokes develops into that guy, we don't have one.

 

I know this is an apples to oranges comparison but I am going to make it anyway -- the Brewers front office would have not re-signed Kevin King.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

King sucks. But it was a bunch of other washed up garbage names that were being tossed around as a replacement. I guess you could have just gone with the guy you drafted, but that doesn't always yield great results. There's still 16 games to play and honestly you just have to win about 10 games and be playing well at the end. But the Packers don't really deserve the benefit of the doubt on defense. If they continue to be bad this year, I think the reality is that a lot of that "talent" isn't really THAT talented.

 

HHCD is a perfect example in a long line of Packer defensive "stars" that everyone can see blows chunks immediately upon leaving town. It's not unique to GB but fans a) overestimate their own players and b) never account for regression.

 

And the DC might also suck too. I don't know where the blame is, but all of these things are possible to me.

[PeaveyFury]

King was likely expected to be the guy to hold the #2 position in name only until he either got hurt again or Stokes was ready. They didn't draft him with their first for nothing. The eventual intention is that he's on the field and King is not.

[adambr2]

Well I'm sure that was the plan for Josh Jackson too, it doesn't always work out. I certainly have high hopes for Stokes, but Kevin King as your transition/fall back guy just seems like a really terrible choice. There were other options.

 

King, like HHCD, is someone I expect to likely see on someone's practice squad in a year or two.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Well I'm sure that was the plan for Josh Jackson too, it doesn't always work out. I certainly have high hopes for Stokes, but Kevin King as your transition/fall back guy just seems like a really terrible choice. There were other options.

 

King, like HHCD, is someone I expect to likely see on someone's practice squad in a year or two.

 

Like OSS pointed out, the other options in the Packers' price range were garbage. Not hitting on Josh Jackson continues to hurt.

[adambr2]

Well I'm sure that was the plan for Josh Jackson too, it doesn't always work out. I certainly have high hopes for Stokes, but Kevin King as your transition/fall back guy just seems like a really terrible choice. There were other options.

 

King, like HHCD, is someone I expect to likely see on someone's practice squad in a year or two.

 

Like OSS pointed out, the other options in the Packers' price range were garbage. Not hitting on Josh Jackson continues to hurt.

 

Kyle Fuller signed for 1/9.5, AJ Bouye signed for 2/7, Xavier Rhodes for 1/4.5, Patrick Peterson for 1/8.

 

I understand that these guys aren't Jalen Ramsey but most have had various levels of success rather than just being generally a perennial bad player like King has. They were absolutely better options. It was actually quite a good market for cheap CBs where we didn't need to resort to bringing someone like King back.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Well I'm sure that was the plan for Josh Jackson too, it doesn't always work out. I certainly have high hopes for Stokes, but Kevin King as your transition/fall back guy just seems like a really terrible choice. There were other options.

 

King, like HHCD, is someone I expect to likely see on someone's practice squad in a year or two.

 

Like OSS pointed out, the other options in the Packers' price range were garbage. Not hitting on Josh Jackson continues to hurt.

 

Kyle Fuller signed for 1/9.5, AJ Bouye signed for 2/7, Xavier Rhodes for 1/4.5, Patrick Peterson for 1/8.

 

I understand that these guys aren't Jalen Ramsey but most have had various levels of success rather than just being generally a perennial bad player like King has. They were absolutely better options. It was actually quite a good market for cheap CBs where we didn't need to resort to bringing someone like King back.

 

There was no way Rhodes wasn't going to re-sign with the Colts after his renaissance year last season. He looked like the worst CB in the NFL in his last year with the Vikings. I also see his deal at $6.5 million for 2021. Bouye is currently serving the rest of a 6-game suspension, which plummeted his value. He was also bad last year when he did play. I personally wanted the Packers to sign Peterson, but he ended up going for more than I thought he would. Also, he looked washed last week. Fuller would have been a nice signing, but he's also making almost double what King is.

[adambr2]

The difference in salary between King and Fuller is not such a large gap that it couldn't have been afforded. They could have easily used voidable years like they did with other guys to fit it in. If they wanted Fuller they could have had Fuller.

 

I just don't really know what the point is of spending out of the budget for that spot at all if you're just going to invest it in replacement level junk. Might as well just throw the young guys into the fire and see what you got.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

The difference in salary between King and Fuller is not such a large gap that it couldn't have been afforded. They could have easily used voidable years like they did with other guys to fit it in. If they wanted Fuller they could have had Fuller.

 

I just don't really know what the point is of spending out of the budget for that spot at all if you're just going to invest it in replacement level junk. Might as well just throw the young guys into the fire and see what you got.

 

I think that is going to happen sooner rather than later with Stokes.

[brewcrewdue80]

King sucks. But it was a bunch of other washed up garbage names that were being tossed around as a replacement. I guess you could have just gone with the guy you drafted, but that doesn't always yield great results. There's still 16 games to play and honestly you just have to win about 10 games and be playing well at the end. But the Packers don't really deserve the benefit of the doubt on defense. If they continue to be bad this year, I think the reality is that a lot of that "talent" isn't really THAT talented.

 

HHCD is a perfect example in a long line of Packer defensive "stars" that everyone can see blows chunks immediately upon leaving town. It's not unique to GB but fans a) overestimate their own players and b) never account for regression.

 

And the DC might also suck too. I don't know where the blame is, but all of these things are possible to me.

 

I always believed HHCD was overrated. Like he made a Pro Bowl and I was over here asking myself why?

[roadcrew3]

King sucks. But it was a bunch of other washed up garbage names that were being tossed around as a replacement. I guess you could have just gone with the guy you drafted, but that doesn't always yield great results. There's still 16 games to play and honestly you just have to win about 10 games and be playing well at the end. But the Packers don't really deserve the benefit of the doubt on defense. If they continue to be bad this year, I think the reality is that a lot of that "talent" isn't really THAT talented.

 

HHCD is a perfect example in a long line of Packer defensive "stars" that everyone can see blows chunks immediately upon leaving town. It's not unique to GB but fans a) overestimate their own players and b) never account for regression.

 

And the DC might also suck too. I don't know where the blame is, but all of these things are possible to me.

 

I always believed HHCD was overrated. Like he made a Pro Bowl and I was over here asking myself why?

 

A lot of the "Packers have talent on D" talk I think comes down to how Gary & Savage play. There has been a lot of talk about these guys being pro-bowl level players and if they play at that level, then I do think the Packers have enough talent on D to win big games. Those guys are in their third year now and if this team wants to take the next step then they can't continue to just be "high potential" guys...as we know potential just means "they haven't done it yet" but the clocks starting to tick on the "yet"

 

Kenny Clark is another guy who just needs to be better. They are paying him to be a stud and against NO he wasn't close to that. What was more frustrating then his missed tackles though was his effort. For subscribers, The Athletic posted a few screenshots of plays this weekend where Clark's effort pursuing the ballcarrier was terrible. Can't have that from a guy who is supposed to be one of your top players

[nodakfan17]

Elgton Jenkings graded out as the 3rd best OL in the league during Week 1:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/packers-elgton-jenkins-finished-third-201215644.html

[brewcrewdue80]

King sucks. But it was a bunch of other washed up garbage names that were being tossed around as a replacement. I guess you could have just gone with the guy you drafted, but that doesn't always yield great results. There's still 16 games to play and honestly you just have to win about 10 games and be playing well at the end. But the Packers don't really deserve the benefit of the doubt on defense. If they continue to be bad this year, I think the reality is that a lot of that "talent" isn't really THAT talented.

 

HHCD is a perfect example in a long line of Packer defensive "stars" that everyone can see blows chunks immediately upon leaving town. It's not unique to GB but fans a) overestimate their own players and b) never account for regression.

 

And the DC might also suck too. I don't know where the blame is, but all of these things are possible to me.

 

I always believed HHCD was overrated. Like he made a Pro Bowl and I was over here asking myself why?

 

A lot of the "Packers have talent on D" talk I think comes down to how Gary & Savage play. There has been a lot of talk about these guys being pro-bowl level players and if they play at that level, then I do think the Packers have enough talent on D to win big games. Those guys are in their third year now and if this team wants to take the next step then they can't continue to just be "high potential" guys...as we know potential just means "they haven't done it yet" but the clocks starting to tick on the "yet"

 

Kenny Clark is another guy who just needs to be better. They are paying him to be a stud and against NO he wasn't close to that. What was more frustrating then his missed tackles though was his effort. For subscribers, The Athletic posted a few screenshots of plays this weekend where Clark's effort pursuing the ballcarrier was terrible. Can't have that from a guy who is supposed to be one of your top players

 

Clark maybe was just gassed in the heat after 2 15play drives to start the game. I mentioned I seen him be better or at least making plays as game progressed.

 

Savage had the Int and a nice return only to get reffed out of it with that terrible PF on sack. There needs to be accountability on bad ref calls. Fines to the refs or even suspensions. A Team should have ability to challenge what was perceived a bad call after a game to be looked at and decided if indeed it was or not. If it was fine that official. Or suspend him from being part of the crew at the teams discretion when assigned to Ref another Packer game. Have it be a running tally and the refs that called games the most correctly are who partake in the Super Bowl and Championship games. Maybe you split the fines to be distributed among that crew rewarding them with higher pay for being good that season.

[nodakfan17]

NO being held to 7 points (as of the 4th quarter) against CAR is not making me feel any better about last week’s loss.

[PinaMadness]

If you look at the stats it's even more embarrassing. Through three quarters they had 99 total yards on 25 plays, including just 12 rushing yards for Kamara.

 

EDIT: Kamara with 5 rushing yards on 8 carries with 5 minutes left the fourth.

[PeaveyFury]

Football is strange sometimes.

[nodakfan17]

Jameis was 11/22 with 0 TD’s and 2 INTs.

 

The Packers could have really used that Jameis last weekend.

[brewcrewdue80]

What a difference when being ahead versus being behind. Also having DEs that add pressure to the QB while maintaining containment of the pocket. Brian Burnes left that impact on Winston.

Green Bay was on the trade lookout for a LB. Just make the defense a 4-3 already. This team has terrible middle Linebackers and you run a scheme that requires 2 of them. Insanity.