The Green Bay Packers look loaded and powerful on offense, but they still have a porous defense that looks like it will give up a lot of points this season.
Like last season, opposing teams will be able to score fairly easily on Green Bay. New Orleans was not playing that well Thursday night, for example, but was still able to put plenty of points on the board.
I know the Packers had a fine, fine game offensively, but the defense, while OK, was hardly a force.
Superbar?
NT
Quote from: MU Avenue on September 08, 2011, 10:20:45 PM
The Green Bay Packers look loaded and powerful on offense, but they still have a porous defense that looks like it will give up a lot of points this season.
Like last season, opposing teams will be able to score fairly easily on Green Bay. New Orleans was not playing that well Thursday night, for example, but was still able to put plenty of points on the board.
I know the Packers had a fine, fine game offensively, but the defense, while OK, was hardly a force.
The defense looked pretty bad tonight, yes. But the Saints are one of the favorites to come out of the NFC this year, and won the Super Bowl 2 years ago. Drew Brees is still a top 5 quarterback in the NFL, and the Saints offense is very, very good.
Just like last year, teams will score fairly easily though? I guess if ranking 2nd in opponent's points per game in the regular season last year is them scoring "fairly easily" on our defense, then you are right.
You mean the GB defense that was number 2 in the league in points allowed last year?
Brillant observation as usual.....
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame/position/defense
Quote from: MU Avenue on September 08, 2011, 10:20:45 PM
The Green Bay Packers look loaded and powerful on offense, but they still have a porous defense that looks like it will give up a lot of points this season.
Like last season, opposing teams will be able to score fairly easily on Green Bay. New Orleans was not playing that well Thursday night, for example, but was still able to put plenty of points on the board.
I know the Packers had a fine, fine game offensively, but the defense, while OK, was hardly a force.
Quote from: MuMark on September 08, 2011, 11:04:36 PM
You mean the GB defense that was number 2 in the league in points allowed last year?
Brillant observation as usual.....
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame/position/defense
Beat ya ;)
Quote from: wadesworld on September 08, 2011, 11:02:20 PM
Just like last year, teams will score fairly easily though? I guess if ranking 2nd in opponent's points per game in the regular season last year is them scoring "fairly easily" on our defense, then you are right.
Then again, right... in only 6 games did the opposition score less than that 'wonderful' opp ppg average... and what games were those? Well, 4-game winner Buffalo had backup Trent Edwards in, kudos to Green Bey. So impressive.
Dallas, a 6-game winner, had Kitna in at QB. Hats off, bro.
Detroit, another 6-game winner, had Drew Stanton, another backup, in...
They did hold Minnesota under the average in one game when GB's hero FaRVe was absolutely broken down and spent. Another 6-game winner.
But.. hey, there were two teams that made the playoffs who GB held to the season average or less.. New York Jets, who are prone to such a game.. but, good job. And Chicago on the last game of the regular season, when Chicago wasn't trying, not to mention the Bears were the lowest scoring playoff team not named Seattle by a large margin.
In other words, Grean Bay blows big time. Bring it on, the NFC North is ours! SKOL VIKINGS!
Quote from: MU Avenue on September 08, 2011, 10:20:45 PM
The Green Bay Packers look loaded and powerful on offense, but they still have a porous defense that looks like it will give up a lot of points this season.
Like last season, opposing teams will be able to score fairly easily on Green Bay. New Orleans was not playing that well Thursday night, for example, but was still able to put plenty of points on the board.
I know the Packers had a fine, fine game offensively, but the defense, while OK, was hardly a force.
No excuses for the Packers defense, but... really? They weren't playing that well? What are you basing that on? I mean, sure, the Packers really didn't put a ton of pressure on him and were making mistakes, but it takes a good offense to exploit the mistakes the Packers were making. I simply don't buy what you are selling here. It takes relatively poor defense AND an efficient offense to put up 34 points, and the Saints have been one of the better offenses in the NFL for the past 4-5 years.
Let's set aside the smart-alecky, meaningless responses from a few posters here and misleading statistics from last season and, instead, just watch the Green Bay Packers this season. I think we will see a team that regularly puts up a lot of points but that gives up a lot of points, too.
The Packers have a potent offense and a porous defense. I expect that most Packers games this season will be high-scoring affairs for both teams.
That is my point, my only point.
You were the one that brought up last year. The Packers defense is highly dependent on pressure leading to turnovers. The Saints did a very good job of keeping pressure off their quarterback, and only turned the ball over once. And face it, Brees was very very good. Yeah, I am a little worried especially if Williams is injured, but bringing up last year is bizarre.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 09, 2011, 12:03:39 AM
Then again, right... in only 6 games did the opposition score less than that 'wonderful' opp ppg average... and what games were those? Well, 4-game winner Buffalo had backup Trent Edwards in, kudos to Green Bey. So impressive.
Dallas, a 6-game winner, had Kitna in at QB. Hats off, bro.
Detroit, another 6-game winner, had Drew Stanton, another backup, in...
They did hold Minnesota under the average in one game when GB's hero FaRVe was absolutely broken down and spent. Another 6-game winner.
But.. hey, there were two teams that made the playoffs who GB held to the season average or less.. New York Jets, who are prone to such a game.. but, good job. And Chicago on the last game of the regular season, when Chicago wasn't trying, not to mention the Bears were the lowest scoring playoff team not named Seattle by a large margin.
In other words, Grean Bay blows big time. Bring it on, the NFC North is ours! SKOL VIKINGS!
Ya and I'm sure the other teams in the top of opp ppg average had schedules that were no harder than that. If I didn't recognize you for the NFL troll you are I'd gather some stats on the final standings of all the opponents of the teams in the top 5 of opp ppg avg.
Aaron Rogers got hit by a car this morning. his career is over.
Having watched the game last night, as a non vested fan in either team, wouldn't be worried about the Green Bay defense. The Packers aren't going to face Brees 16 times this year, and the guy was outstanding last night. Pack D made plays when they needed to and it mattered most, give them credit. Special teams gave NO a TD last night as well, that wasn't on their defense. It's Week 1 as well on a national stage, I'd be shocked if the Pack has more than 2 more games of giving up 30 points.
Quote from: MUDish on September 09, 2011, 10:45:29 AM
Having watched the game last night, as a non vested fan in either team, wouldn't be worried about the Green Bay defense. The Packers aren't going to face Brees 16 times this year, and the guy was outstanding last night. Pack D made plays when they needed to and it mattered most, give them credit. Special teams gave NO a TD last night as well, that wasn't on their defense. It's Week 1 as well on a national stage, I'd be shocked if the Pack has more than 2 more games of giving up 30 points.
Saints also have a very good offensive line. The Pack stopped the Saints very good offense when they had to.
All I'd say is that was a hell of a football game - and as a fan you couldn't ask for a better game. It had it all. The league office had to be thrilled with the result. What a showcase!
Green Bay looks even better, more potent than last year. Their potential with Cobb in the mix, Finley - is downright scary. Starks will eventually get 80% of all carries - and he's got some serious upside too.
Hard to believe they re-signed James Jones to relatively big $$$ given the depth they have, and knowing what they knew they had in Cobb.
The NFL isn't college football... there are no points for style, no voters, no computers, no clamoring for one of two "playoff" spots. How you perform doesn't matter. What matters is what's on the scoreboard when it goes to triple-zero.
A win is a win and a loss is a loss. Yogi Berra couldn't make it any simpler than that.
Quote from: MUDish on September 09, 2011, 10:45:29 AM
Having watched the game last night, as a non vested fan in either team, wouldn't be worried about the Green Bay defense. The Packers aren't going to face Brees 16 times this year, and the guy was outstanding last night. Pack D made plays when they needed to and it mattered most, give them credit. Special teams gave NO a TD last night as well, that wasn't on their defense. It's Week 1 as well on a national stage, I'd be shocked if the Pack has more than 2 more games of giving up 30 points.
I completely agree.
Quote from: Ners on September 09, 2011, 11:19:58 AM
Green Bay looks even better, more potent than last year. Their potential with Cobb in the mix, Finley - is downright scary. Starks will eventually get 80% of all carries - and he's got some serious upside too.
Going into last night I thought the same thing. I think Starks is definitely the better running back, definitely runs harder and has more explosiveness. But in an offense that is a pass-first offense, I really did not mind the split carries between Grant and Starks at all. I thought it worked well. Grant is a bit more patient with his runs and relies on his blockers to get him where he is going, while Starks just runs and makes people miss/runs people over more. Having both get carries will keep each other fresh not only over the course of one game, but also the course of a season. It also creates kind of a change of pace, 2 different styles of running. I think the platoon might last all year, and I don't mind it either. I think that was 1 thing that helped Starks succeed in the playoffs last year...he had fresh legs from not playing all year and he was a surprise to other teams, not your every down back.
Quote from: MUDish on September 09, 2011, 10:45:29 AM
Having watched the game last night, as a non vested fan in either team, wouldn't be worried about the Green Bay defense. The Packers aren't going to face Brees 16 times this year, and the guy was outstanding last night. Pack D made plays when they needed to and it mattered most, give them credit. Special teams gave NO a TD last night as well, that wasn't on their defense. It's Week 1 as well on a national stage, I'd be shocked if the Pack has more than 2 more games of giving up 30 points.
This is accurate. They aren't afraid to give up yards. They just don't often give up points. They led the league in Red Zone defense last year, and showed it again last night. They were also near the top of the league in take aways, and I think its safe to assume they will be there again this year.
Not sure what some people were expecting. There aren't a whole lot of offenses in the league like the one NO has (and fortunately, the Packers don't have to face themselves), but those of you who wish to cling to this as some glimmer of hope, go for it. I think its pretty clear that the only thing likely to stop the Packers this year is injuries (even though they couldn't do it last year).
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 09, 2011, 12:03:39 AM
Then again, right... in only 6 games did the opposition score less than that 'wonderful' opp ppg average... and what games were those? Well, 4-game winner Buffalo had backup Trent Edwards in, kudos to Green Bey. So impressive.
Dallas, a 6-game winner, had Kitna in at QB. Hats off, bro.
Detroit, another 6-game winner, had Drew Stanton, another backup, in...
They did hold Minnesota under the average in one game when GB's hero FaRVe was absolutely broken down and spent. Another 6-game winner.
But.. hey, there were two teams that made the playoffs who GB held to the season average or less.. New York Jets, who are prone to such a game.. but, good job. And Chicago on the last game of the regular season, when Chicago wasn't trying, not to mention the Bears were the lowest scoring playoff team not named Seattle by a large margin.
In other words, Grean Bay blows big time. Bring it on, the NFC North is ours! SKOL VIKINGS!
You're insufferable. Wake me up when your team finally wins a championship.
Quote from: mugrad2006 on September 09, 2011, 12:40:12 PM
You're insufferable. Wake me up when your team finally wins a championship.
How many Super Bowls have the ViQueens lost again?
Quote from: Ners on September 09, 2011, 11:19:58 AM
All I'd say is that was a hell of a football game - and as a fan you couldn't ask for a better game. It had it all. The league office had to be thrilled with the result. What a showcase!
Green Bay looks even better, more potent than last year. Their potential with Cobb in the mix, Finley - is downright scary. Starks will eventually get 80% of all carries - and he's got some serious upside too.
Hard to believe they re-signed James Jones to relatively big $$$ given the depth they have, and knowing what they knew they had in Cobb.
Agreed. I didn't like the Jones resigning from the start, in part because I was so high on Cobb when we drafted him. Even in college he just seemed like he's the next DD: Perfect slot receiver, and now we see that he has the best open field skills of any Packer in a while. Loved the kickoff return, but I was actually more impressed by the juke and stiff arm on that long TD reception/run. No one else on the team except Jennings could've done that.
Also thought Starks looked better than Grant. Grant wasn't very sharp on his cuts like he used to be and just looked a little slower. That said, I'm thrilled to have him back in the lineup, and real me loves the split carries even if fantasy football team owner me wishes Starks would get more.
Quote from: ringout on September 09, 2011, 02:47:01 PM
How many Super Bowls have the ViQueens lost again?
Don't they need to actually have the lead first? 4 Superbowls and never had the lead! NEVER! They were tied 0-0 at one point in each game, though.
Getting past the embarrassing "ViQueens" nonsense -- really, really lame -- and some peoples' abilities to find excuses, the fact remains: Green Bay's defense has issues that could prove problematic as the season progresses.
This will be a season where the Packers score and give up a lot of points. That is not an ideal scenario.
Packers coaches and players agree their defense provides cause for concern: www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/129630488.html
Quote from: MU Avenue on September 12, 2011, 05:19:17 AM
This will be a season where the Packers score and give up a lot of points. That is not an ideal scenario.
Packers coaches and players agree their defense provides cause for concern: www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/129630488.html
Concern with they way they played the other night? Sure, somewhat. I did not see even a hint of the suggestion that they feel they are going to give up a lot of points. Again, hang onto this if it makes you feel better, but as a fan, I am not concerned about the Packer's D.
Well, it is a cause for concern moving forward. But the original post referenced last year when they were the #2 scoring defense in the league...and won the Super Bowl. (And then Jay Bee and others tried to write that off statistically.) The question of whether it was a trend, or simply that the Saints have a high powered offense, will be answered in time.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on September 12, 2011, 08:07:22 AM
Well, it is a cause for concern moving forward. But the original post referenced last year when they were the #2 scoring defense in the league...and won the Super Bowl. (And then Jay Bee and others tried to write that off statistically.) The question of whether it was a trend, or simply that the Saints have a high powered offense, will be answered in time.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but as the thread progressed, it became obvious that some people's football I.Q. would be challenged by pee-wee football. Extrapolating a prediction of a team's season based merely upon the outcome of the first game of the season is a tried and true fail.
Now, if you want to offer some specifics as to why the Green Bay defense is down (e.g. Matthews is playing out of position, the front three aren't getting any penetration, the linebackers aren't picking up the screen, Woodson has lost 0.5 seconds on his 40, Capers isn't reacting to different sets, etc.) something that at least offers a logical basis as to why - if left unchecked - it would contribute to a team's demise, you wouldn't necessarily be immune from counterpoint, but at least you're contributing to the debate.
However, to surmise after week 1 that a team's defense sucked and is reason for concern simply because the other team scored points is ridiculous... that is, unless you actually believe that SBXLVI is going to feature the Bears coming up short against the Bills, in which case, I will take that bet.
I answered this earlier, but the Packer's defense is high risk/high reward. Get to the quarterback...make him make mistakes...force a lot of turnovers. The Saints have the same philosophy. The Packers won because they caused a turnover and because they were better on short-yardage. If you have a good quarterback, who doesn't make mistakes, this defense is difficult.
Remember one of the reasons the Packers won the SB was because of a butt-load of turnovers in the playoffs. There were three INTs for touchdown in the entire playoffs last year - the Packers had all three of them. They were +3 in the TO margin in the SB and still had to stop the Steelers on the final drive. If this defense doesn't cause turnovers, it is not built to make another team grind it out. I mean, they wouldn't run a 2-4-5 more than half the time if that were the case.
Quote from: MU Avenue on September 12, 2011, 05:19:17 AM
Getting past the embarrassing "ViQueens" nonsense -- really, really lame -- and some peoples' abilities to find excuses, the fact remains: Green Bay's defense has issues that could prove problematic as the season progresses.
This will be a season where the Packers score and give up a lot of points. That is not an ideal scenario.
Packers coaches and players agree their defense provides cause for concern: www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/129630488.html
I agree, the defense is a concern at present. I felt the same last season as well. I don't think there is an appreciable difference in the defense from last season to this. That said, the speed of New Orleans is not matched throughout the league. That is where the defense had their biggest problems Thursday Night. I do not expect the Packers to shut down teams, but I also don't expect them to give up 30+ either. Brees and the speed NO has is the reason for the points & yards allowed.
Cause for concdern? Yes. But that does not mean it cannot be fixed. A healthy Neal is VERY important. He was the reason they allowed Jenkins to go via Free Agency. Also, Shields is important. Was that a Sophomore Slump or one bad game? I am hoping the later.
I'm slightly intrigued to see the Pack/Panthers game this week. Not that the Panthers are going to pull the upset, but I want to get a better idea of what "that" was in Arizona yesterday. My expectation is that Newton will be humbled this week, but for whatever reason, this game catches my eye now as a fan.
Quote from: MUDish on September 12, 2011, 12:03:14 PM
I'm slightly intrigued to see the Pack/Panthers game this week. Not that the Panthers are going to pull the upset, but I want to get a better idea of what "that" was in Arizona yesterday. My expectation is that Newton will be humbled this week, but for whatever reason, this game catches my eye now as a fan.
I don't know if Arizona was expecting the 2-14 team or if Newton makes them that much better. He is the type of QB, though, that typically gives the Packers fits - especially on the road. Strong, mobile, quick with a strong arm.
At least the Packers have some film to study now.
I agree, though, this game is intriguing. Maybe not in week 12, but in week 2, definitely.
I really thought Newton was going to massively struggle (not that he still can't/won't). I watched a lot of Panthers/Cards (the other afternoon games were pretty boring) and was really caught off guard with Newton's play. I wasn't so much caught up in his final stat line (which was impressive), but his instincts and reads were really pretty good. He didn't run as much as I thought he would, and he had a fairly good touch on his deep ball. Not building a wing in Canton for him, but have to give him credit for an impressive start.
Just too bad for him his paycheck from the Panthers is lower than it was at Auburn.
Newton messed up when Arizona made him make more than just a blitz hot read.
He still looks like a TE that has a very strong arm.
Why Arizona was blitzing him the whole game and going man to man on Steve Smith is beyond me. I mean, double that guy and play zone and no way Newton passes for 250 yards, much less 400+.
/my hyperbolic arm-chair analysis
//I was also enjoying several beverages throughout the afternoon
Quote from: MUDish on September 12, 2011, 12:36:47 PM
I really thought Newton was going to massively struggle (not that he still can't/won't). I watched a lot of Panthers/Cards (the other afternoon games were pretty boring) and was really caught off guard with Newton's play. I wasn't so much caught up in his final stat line (which was impressive), but his instincts and reads were really pretty good. He didn't run as much as I thought he would, and he had a fairly good touch on his deep ball. Not building a wing in Canton for him, but have to give him credit for an impressive start.
Just too bad for him his paycheck from the Panthers is lower than it was at Auburn.
On the plus side, he doesn't have to directly share it with his father, so thats good.