Wild Card Weekend Game Day Thread(s)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

There's also a big difference between Bridges blocking for Kurt Warner and Bridges blocking for Jason Campbell. And this really isn't a knock on Campbell as much as it is praise for Warner. Dude is just redonkulous. His pocket awareness and ability to get rid of the ball at just the right moment is uncanny. He can make even the most routine of linemen look like all-pros.

When Warner is at his best, pass rushers can't seem to get anywhere near him. But there was a time when he was thought to be a flash-in-the-pan product of the Martz/Vermeil offense, when Warner was fumbling 20-30 times in a season. Certainly, at some point, Warner's offense was such a chain around his neck that he wasn't feeling the pressure the way an NFL quarterback should have been.

So, with a guy that's been on both extremes, perhaps there are external reasons that the same player can look clueless in the pocket, and can be excellent there, both for long periods of time, over the same career.

Anyway, I think you are right on here that you don't get to see the weakness of the Arizona tackles because Warner always seems to be two steps ahead of the defense (and because they are protected in the scheme). I just think there's a reason that Warner is so far ahead right now that goes beyond, "well, that's just Kurt Warner".

[SBXVII]

Looks like the Bills are wanting to interview everyone....

Grimm:
Bills want to interview Russ Grimm | ProFootballTalk.com

Schottenheimer:
Bills ask to talk to Brian Schottenheimer | ProFootballTalk.com

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Looks like the Bills are wanting to interview everyone....

Grimm:
Bills want to interview Russ Grimm | ProFootballTalk.com

Schottenheimer:
Bills ask to talk to Brian Schottenheimer | ProFootballTalk.com

Schott, to my surprise, has turned down the chance to interview. And apparently Grimm isn't so interested either.

No one wants to be in Buffalo I guess...except for Gmanc

Guess Leslie Frazier is the clubhouse leader now

[SmootSmack]

I think B Schott has been the leading candidate for a while now, and he called a great game on Saturday which I doubt went unrecognized by the Bills. Both he and Grimm would be strong choices

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think B Schott has been the leading candidate for a while now, and he called a great game on Saturday which I doubt went unrecognized by the Bills. Both he and Grimm would be strong choices

I think Shottenheimer is a no brainer. I even wanted the same situation here with the Shottenheimer's like we are getting with the Shanahan's. I guess now that I'm hearing more either family would have been decent. I was just hoping one of the dads would HC for a short while leading into their sons taking over.

Grimm I would wonder about. He's definitly one of the best OL coach's. I, as an owner, would want to know more about whether he's calling the plays or not. I guess it's not a requirement to call the plays and he could pick up an excellent OC to do that.

[CRedskinsRule]

One thing about "pocket presence", if you have the same line every down, you develop a knowledge of how each OL guy is going to handle their responsibilities. One of the big problems with the shuffling that we did is that Campbell, and the backs who had to pick up blitzers could not comfortably develop an idea of who would pick up which defender. Cohesion along the OL is as important as the quality of any individual player. Campbell certainly missed opportunities, and stepped up when he should have rolled out etc etc, but the OL flux we had this year would have given the best quarterbacks difficulties.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

One thing about "pocket presence", if you have the same line every down, you develop a knowledge of how each OL guy is going to handle their responsibilities. One of the big problems with the shuffling that we did is that Campbell, and the backs who had to pick up blitzers could not comfortably develop an idea of who would pick up which defender. Cohesion along the OL is as important as the quality of any individual player. Campbell certainly missed opportunities, and stepped up when he should have rolled out etc etc, but the OL flux we had this year would have given the best quarterbacks difficulties.

Yep, you've hit on the biggest issue here. In Campbell's case, it's not really pocket presence vs. not pocket presence (all staticstics show that Campbell is average to below average in these respects going back to college. he's obviously no JaMarcus Russell back there), it's the wild week-to-week fluctuations in what the line can and can't do.

In Warner's case, neither Bridges nor Mike Gandy is a better left tackle option than, say, Levi Jones or Stephon Heyer. But because the rest of the line does a fairly good job (particularly Lutui and I think Sendlein and Wells are underrated), Warner can compensate for having a weak pair of pass blocking tackles with his great feel for the offense and a quick release.

If Bugel hadn't fallen in love with a guy who obviously wasn't NFL caliber (Will Montgomery), and we had gone with Rinehart immediately, things may have been different in terms of the line. Injuries forced our hand at RG, but we also spent the entire month of October just not playing our best line, which is perhaps the one thing that happened to this offense that can't be pinned on non-coaching related factors.

[MTK]

Warner was in such a zone it wasn't even funny. And to think how well Rodgers played too, but Warner still upstaged him - amazing.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Warner was in such a zone it wasn't even funny. And to think how well Rodgers played too, but Warner still upstaged him - amazing.

Maybe the thing that's hardest to understate is that he (and Big Ben as well) made the 2nd ranked Packers D look like the Lions D.

And that's a legitimate 2nd ranking as well. Not a Redskins-type inflated ranking.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Maybe the thing that's hardest to understate is that he (and Big Ben as well) made the 2nd ranked Packers D look like the Lions D.

And that's a legitimate 2nd ranking as well. Not a Redskins-type inflated ranking.

2nd in Yds allowed, 26th in scoring. GBs D is solid, but before we put the pedestal up too high let's consider the teams they faced this year: Lions-2X, Bears-2X, Rams, Browns, Bucs, 49ers, Seahawks, Cards (with playoff seeding locked up). That's 10 games against some poor offensive teams. When they played teams that could score: Bengals - 31, Vikings - 30, Vikings - 38, Dallas - 7 (warms my heart), Ravens - 14 Steelers - 37.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

2nd in Yds allowed, 26th in scoring. GBs D is solid, but before we put the pedestal up too high let's consider the teams they faced this year: Lions-2X, Bears-2X, Rams, Browns, Bucs, 49ers, Seahawks, Cards (with playoff seeding locked up). That's 10 games against some poor offensive teams. When they played teams that could score: Bengals - 31, Vikings - 30, Vikings - 38, Dallas - 7 (warms my heart), Ravens - 14 Steelers - 37.

Interesting. I'll do some research to see why there's such an abnormal discrepancy between yards allowed and points allowed because the two generally correlate pretty well. I can guarentee you that the second rating in yardage is not an empty ranking, but certainly the quantity of 30 point games allowed is quite alarming. But again, it doesn't seem to be supported by long clock-consuming drives. I'll come back to this.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

2nd in Yds allowed, 26th in scoring. GBs D is solid, but before we put the pedestal up too high let's consider the teams they faced this year: Lions-2X, Bears-2X, Rams, Browns, Bucs, 49ers, Seahawks, Cards (with playoff seeding locked up). That's 10 games against some poor offensive teams. When they played teams that could score: Bengals - 31, Vikings - 30, Vikings - 38, Dallas - 7 (warms my heart), Ravens - 14 Steelers - 37.

Figured it out. Three main reasons: 1) the Packers have a poor punting game that puts their defense in poor situations where only a few yards against can result in points. 2) The Packers rank 6th overall in points against per drive. That's a pretty good rate stat, even if they face more drives in the second half of games than the average team due to a quick strike offense and having the luxury of protecting a lead. 3) the Packers give up a disproportionately high percentage of touchdowns to field goals. A lot of this is just bad luck. If you only let a team onto your half of the field twice in an entire game, but they score both times, that's a better performance than allowing them deep in your territory four times, but holding them to all field goals. But it's more points. It could also speak to a situational defense issue.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Figured it out. Three main reasons: 1) the Packers have a poor punting game that puts their defense in poor situations where only a few yards against can result in points. 2) The Packers rank 6th overall in points against per drive. That's a pretty good rate stat, even if they face more drives in the second half of games than the average team due to a quick strike offense and having the luxury of protecting a lead. 3) the Packers give up a disproportionately high percentage of touchdowns to field goals. A lot of this is just bad luck. If you only let a team onto your half of the field twice in an entire game, but they score both times, that's a better performance than allowing them deep in your territory four times, but holding them to all field goals. But it's more points. It could also speak to a situational defense issue.

It's good to flush things out from our different perspectives.

I disagree with thefirst bolded point, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is points. One scenario you give up 14, the other 12. That's often the difference between a W & L. Over the course of a season, luck is factored in equally for all teams so I'd take that out of the equation. But your point about situational defense is the first place I'd look (Red Zone/Goal Line D).

GB's D is definitely a top 10 overall D, but not great.

[GTripp0012]

I'd say they are the second, or perhaps third best defense in the NFL. The Jets are clearly head and shoulders above them at number one, and once you consider who they have played, I don't think they are head and shoulders above Baltimore and Philadelphia, and even Carolina and San Francisco. But If I had to pick one of those defense, just subjectively, I'd go with either the Eagles or the Packers this year.

[CultBrennan59]

Sam Bradford = could be the next kurt warner