Wild Card Weekend Game Day Thread(s)

[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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

5 TDs and 4 incompletions is just mind-boggling. Especially when a) he didn't have Boldin and b) the Packers have Charles Woodson. And I don't think Leinart is a bad QB but the gap between him and Warner is staggering.

It's crazy to think we may have never witnessed any of this if Trent Green hadn't gotten hurt and forced Warner into action. Just makes you wonder about all the 3rd string/practice squad QBs over the years that might have been in the same boat

I wonder if he would have had 7 kids if he was still a bag boy?

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[irish]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

5 TDs and 4 incompletions is just mind-boggling. Especially when a) he didn't have Boldin and b) the Packers have Charles Woodson. And I don't think Leinart is a bad QB but the gap between him and Warner is staggering.

It's crazy to think we may have never witnessed any of this if Trent Green hadn't gotten hurt and forced Warner into action. Just makes you wonder about all the 3rd string/practice squad QBs over the years that might have been in the same boat

That's a great point Smoot. Had Green not been hurt it is unlikely we would have seen Warner. I forgot about that. The amazing thing about that was how he just came in a lit it up. Instead of a drop off because Green wen down there was an upswing because Warner was in.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by irish

That's a great point Smoot. Had Green not been hurt it is unlikely we would have seen Warner. I forgot about that. The amazing thing about that was how he just came in a lit it up. Instead of a drop off because Green wen down there was an upswing because Warner was in.

And not to mention it took Green himself until his 6th year to get his shot

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

5 TDs and 4 incompletions is just mind-boggling. Especially when a) he didn't have Boldin and b) the Packers have Charles Woodson. And I don't think Leinart is a bad QB but the gap between him and Warner is staggering.

It's crazy to think we may have never witnessed any of this if Trent Green hadn't gotten hurt and forced Warner into action. Just makes you wonder about all the 3rd string/practice squad QBs over the years that might have been in the same boat

Agreed. What if NE didn't keep 4 QB's the year they drafted Brady and he started 4th on the depth chart? What if Bledsoe didn't get hurt the next year?

What if Green got hurt with Collins as his backup instead? One can only wonder.

[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.

[CultBrennan59]

Sam Bradford = could be the next kurt warner

[DBUCHANON101]

Of all the NFC teams playing now i hate to say it but i think the Cowgirls will be the team to beat. It seems they are the only team left that plays defense. aahh the pain!!