December 05, 2019, 07:07:12 PM

Author Topic: Early Observations R&V  (Read 24701 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SSG

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3433
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Observations
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2015, 07:12:43 AM »
If you want to shift your argument now that it's clear you are wrong then fair enough.  I'll not bother wasting more of my time.

That's a good idea...

The guy doesn't want to talk about the Packers. He just wants to cause a stink and drag the board down...

why do you hate any and all negative critiques? Why is talking about their flaws from last year "dragging this board down"? i think posters like yourself that trash any and all opinions that don't perfectly line up with your very narrow view are much more detrimental to the board. Insulting others because you can't tolerate another opinion is very much so your attempt to cause a stink.
Act your age, not your shoe size.

Offline Donzo

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Karma: +35/-110
  • Living the Dream
Re: Early Observations
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2015, 08:43:58 AM »
why do you hate any and all negative critiques? Why is talking about their flaws from last year "dragging this board down"? i think posters like yourself that trash any and all opinions that don't perfectly line up with your very narrow view are much more detrimental to the board. Insulting others because you can't tolerate another opinion is very much so your attempt to cause a stink.


As I previously mentioned, you are very comfortable with your hypocrisy... You just perfectly described yourself...

I know you enjoy disrespecting threads and Packer topics, but I'll still bring it back on topic here... As pointed out by Troy Aikman, shown and re-plaid by Fox, your observation of Josh Boyd is wrong. It doesn't matter how much you now spin it, and as Brit Pack said, shift your argument, you've been proven wrong about Josh Boyd; 100% wrong...

Enjoy that...

Offline SunshinePacker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1234
  • Karma: +0/-1
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2015, 10:59:49 AM »
And still no actual specifics....I assumed this didn't need to be said but I'm not counting the third string NT when I talk about the same guys from last year.

Really strong points though on the Googling of Packers-related phrases though, it's gonna be tough to refute that! Mainly because you didn't actually make any points but I'll try nonetheless!

Packers last year (2014) were going to start Raji at NT. This year (2015) the Packers are planning to start Raji at NT. Packers last year (2014) signed Guion to backup Raji at NT. Packers this year (2015) signed Guion to backup Raji but will probably use Guion more often because Guion is actually better than Raji (but Raji has the "potential" of a first round pick!). Last year (2014) the Packers had Josh Boyd and Mike Pennel that moonlighted at NT occasionally. This year (2015) the Packers have Boyd and Pennel to moonlight occasionally at NT if needed (and if both are on the roster).

So, in analyzing your statement, apparently your entire argument (term used loosely) about the NTs being different this year is that the Packers roster currently features Lavon Hooks?


My reply was just as specific as your post was... All you did was state flawed opinion as fact.

Did you really count Raji as a DT for 2014?!?.... Too funny!

You can ignore the Packers' draft and develop process all you like, but it doesn't change the process.

Yeah, Raji was on the roster last year at DT. He also hasn't been any good at DT since 2010, so it's dubious at best that he'll be any good this year.

I'll try one last appeal, can you give me specifics on why the Packers are set at NT? I mean actual statements, not vague attempts at sarcasm in a weak attempt to derail the conversation.

Offline SunshinePacker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1234
  • Karma: +0/-1
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2015, 11:04:09 AM »
Obviously the Packers don't share your views/opinions.

Apparently the Packers haven't shared my opinion in four years and yet the team has still never fielded a league average NT in that time. I just think the team doesn't attach that much importance or they're bound and determined to prove Raji isn't actually a bust or the front office doesn't do a good job of protecting guys at that position. Don't know what it is but saying the team doesn't share my opinion when the team has been awful at NT since 2010 isn't a very strong argument.

Offline LMG

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4654
  • Karma: +14/-5
    • Where are we?
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2015, 11:25:25 AM »
Quote
Fully healed and expected to fully contribute for the 2010 season, Raji earned the starting position at nose tackle in Capers' defense, moving previous starter Ryan Pickett to defensive end. 2010 was a breakout season: starting in all 16 games, Raji became the defensive anchor that the Packers had envisioned, accumulating 39 tackles with 6.5 sacks, along with 3 passes defended.


On December 28, 2011, he was elected to his first Pro Bowl appearance. In 16 games of the 2011 season, Raji registered 3 sacks and 2 passes defended on 24 tackles.


Raji played in 14 games of the 2012 year making 26 tackles and 2 passes defended.


The Packers' defensive line became short-handed in 2013 due to injuries; Raji was transitioned to defensive end, in which he accepted. He started all 16 games at defensive end making 19 tackles.


Looking forward to seeing him back at NT this year.
If you are not the lead dog the view never changes.

Offline Kepler

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2015, 12:28:30 PM »
The packers run defense gave up an average of 119.9 yards a game with a 4.3 ave per rush. In 2010 their defense which was one of the best in the entire league gave up 115.5 yards a game with a 4.7 ave per rush. They won the superbowl that year.

What makes this that much more interesting is looking at the 2009 packers. They ranked first in run defense and yet were shredded by the vikings,cardinals, and steelers. While their run defense was way better in 2009, their improved pass defense in 2010 is what helped them win the superbowl.

While it's true the packers run defense struggled late in some football games, it is equally true that their pass defense also struggled late in football games. The Seattle game is a perfect example. When they broke down, their entire defense broke down. It wasn't just their run defense. Their pass defense was equally bad in the New Orleans game. The Atlanta game was a prime example of the packers defense breaking down after playing well to start the game. The packers 2009 defense which ranked 2nd in the nfl overall and first in run defense, had a similar problem with breaking down in big games.

While we all understand the packers could improve in a lot of areas, the focus on the run defense alone is a little strange. Their pass defense was just as much an issue. The packers have not had a player in their secondary make a probowl in the last three seasons. While they have some solid players in their secondary they haven't had any impact players back their for the past couple seasons. Seattle has three probowlers in their secondary. Greenbay had three in 2010. I would say TT's search for play makers in the secondary may prove to be a much wiser move than you may realize.

This post needs to be read and re-read. It essentially ended the thread.

Offline Pugger

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5324
  • Karma: +4/-1
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2015, 12:55:46 PM »
And still no actual specifics....I assumed this didn't need to be said but I'm not counting the third string NT when I talk about the same guys from last year.

Really strong points though on the Googling of Packers-related phrases though, it's gonna be tough to refute that! Mainly because you didn't actually make any points but I'll try nonetheless!

Packers last year (2014) were going to start Raji at NT. This year (2015) the Packers are planning to start Raji at NT. Packers last year (2014) signed Guion to backup Raji at NT. Packers this year (2015) signed Guion to backup Raji but will probably use Guion more often because Guion is actually better than Raji (but Raji has the "potential" of a first round pick!). Last year (2014) the Packers had Josh Boyd and Mike Pennel that moonlighted at NT occasionally. This year (2015) the Packers have Boyd and Pennel to moonlight occasionally at NT if needed (and if both are on the roster).

So, in analyzing your statement, apparently your entire argument (term used loosely) about the NTs being different this year is that the Packers roster currently features Lavon Hooks?


My reply was just as specific as your post was... All you did was state flawed opinion as fact.

Did you really count Raji as a DT for 2014?!?.... Too funny!

You can ignore the Packers' draft and develop process all you like, but it doesn't change the process.

Yeah, Raji was on the roster last year at DT. He also hasn't been any good at DT since 2010, so it's dubious at best that he'll be any good this year.

I'll try one last appeal, can you give me specifics on why the Packers are set at NT? I mean actual statements, not vague attempts at sarcasm in a weak attempt to derail the conversation.

Has Raji played DT since 2010?

Offline SSG

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3433
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2015, 05:41:35 PM »
And still no actual specifics....I assumed this didn't need to be said but I'm not counting the third string NT when I talk about the same guys from last year.

Really strong points though on the Googling of Packers-related phrases though, it's gonna be tough to refute that! Mainly because you didn't actually make any points but I'll try nonetheless!

Packers last year (2014) were going to start Raji at NT. This year (2015) the Packers are planning to start Raji at NT. Packers last year (2014) signed Guion to backup Raji at NT. Packers this year (2015) signed Guion to backup Raji but will probably use Guion more often because Guion is actually better than Raji (but Raji has the "potential" of a first round pick!). Last year (2014) the Packers had Josh Boyd and Mike Pennel that moonlighted at NT occasionally. This year (2015) the Packers have Boyd and Pennel to moonlight occasionally at NT if needed (and if both are on the roster).

So, in analyzing your statement, apparently your entire argument (term used loosely) about the NTs being different this year is that the Packers roster currently features Lavon Hooks?


My reply was just as specific as your post was... All you did was state flawed opinion as fact.

Did you really count Raji as a DT for 2014?!?.... Too funny!

You can ignore the Packers' draft and develop process all you like, but it doesn't change the process.

Yeah, Raji was on the roster last year at DT. He also hasn't been any good at DT since 2010, so it's dubious at best that he'll be any good this year.

I'll try one last appeal, can you give me specifics on why the Packers are set at NT? I mean actual statements, not vague attempts at sarcasm in a weak attempt to derail the conversation.

Has Raji played DT since 2010?

He's made 19 starts at NT since the start of the 2011 season.  In 2011 he made 16 starts at NT, PFF had him rated 155 out of the 156 NTs they evaluated.  He's a guy living on the nice playoff run he had playing next too Cullen Jenkins and Ryan Pickett and the fact that he was a highly hyped 1st round pick.
Act your age, not your shoe size.

Offline SSG

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3433
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Observations
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2015, 05:53:13 PM »
why do you hate any and all negative critiques? Why is talking about their flaws from last year "dragging this board down"? i think posters like yourself that trash any and all opinions that don't perfectly line up with your very narrow view are much more detrimental to the board. Insulting others because you can't tolerate another opinion is very much so your attempt to cause a stink.


As I previously mentioned, you are very comfortable with your hypocrisy... You just perfectly described yourself...

I know you enjoy disrespecting threads and Packer topics, but I'll still bring it back on topic here... As pointed out by Troy Aikman, shown and re-plaid by Fox, your observation of Josh Boyd is wrong. It doesn't matter how much you now spin it, and as Brit Pack said, shift your argument, you've been proven wrong about Josh Boyd; 100% wrong...

Enjoy that...

How did I describe myself?  I'm not jumping from thread to thread to thread calling everyone that doesn't share my opinion "power whiners" or "bellyachers".  All one has to do is go through you post history and they'll literally find dozens of references to those personal attacks.

I'm glad that you  can form an opinion on 1 or 2 plays that Troy Aikman commented on.  Seeing that PFF has him rated 70 out of the 89 3-4 DEs last season, I guess they aren't basing their opinion on just 2 or 3 plays in a game in which Green Bay gave up 3 yards short of 200 yards.   Are you really basing your entire opinion on a guy that's played in the NFL for 2 seasons on 2 or 3 plays that Fox and Aikman commented on?  Is that what you are basing your opinion on that Josh Boyd is this great player? 
Act your age, not your shoe size.

Offline SunshinePacker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1234
  • Karma: +0/-1
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2015, 07:49:24 PM »
And still no actual specifics....I assumed this didn't need to be said but I'm not counting the third string NT when I talk about the same guys from last year.

Really strong points though on the Googling of Packers-related phrases though, it's gonna be tough to refute that! Mainly because you didn't actually make any points but I'll try nonetheless!

Packers last year (2014) were going to start Raji at NT. This year (2015) the Packers are planning to start Raji at NT. Packers last year (2014) signed Guion to backup Raji at NT. Packers this year (2015) signed Guion to backup Raji but will probably use Guion more often because Guion is actually better than Raji (but Raji has the "potential" of a first round pick!). Last year (2014) the Packers had Josh Boyd and Mike Pennel that moonlighted at NT occasionally. This year (2015) the Packers have Boyd and Pennel to moonlight occasionally at NT if needed (and if both are on the roster).

So, in analyzing your statement, apparently your entire argument (term used loosely) about the NTs being different this year is that the Packers roster currently features Lavon Hooks?


My reply was just as specific as your post was... All you did was state flawed opinion as fact.

Did you really count Raji as a DT for 2014?!?.... Too funny!

You can ignore the Packers' draft and develop process all you like, but it doesn't change the process.

Yeah, Raji was on the roster last year at DT. He also hasn't been any good at DT since 2010, so it's dubious at best that he'll be any good this year.

I'll try one last appeal, can you give me specifics on why the Packers are set at NT? I mean actual statements, not vague attempts at sarcasm in a weak attempt to derail the conversation.

Has Raji played DT since 2010?

Yes. He played NT in 2011 and was, by a wide margin, one of the worst starting dlinemen in the entire league.

Offline SunshinePacker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1234
  • Karma: +0/-1
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2015, 07:52:52 PM »
The packers run defense gave up an average of 119.9 yards a game with a 4.3 ave per rush. In 2010 their defense which was one of the best in the entire league gave up 115.5 yards a game with a 4.7 ave per rush. They won the superbowl that year.

What makes this that much more interesting is looking at the 2009 packers. They ranked first in run defense and yet were shredded by the vikings,cardinals, and steelers. While their run defense was way better in 2009, their improved pass defense in 2010 is what helped them win the superbowl.

While it's true the packers run defense struggled late in some football games, it is equally true that their pass defense also struggled late in football games. The Seattle game is a perfect example. When they broke down, their entire defense broke down. It wasn't just their run defense. Their pass defense was equally bad in the New Orleans game. The Atlanta game was a prime example of the packers defense breaking down after playing well to start the game. The packers 2009 defense which ranked 2nd in the nfl overall and first in run defense, had a similar problem with breaking down in big games.

While we all understand the packers could improve in a lot of areas, the focus on the run defense alone is a little strange. Their pass defense was just as much an issue. The packers have not had a player in their secondary make a probowl in the last three seasons. While they have some solid players in their secondary they haven't had any impact players back their for the past couple seasons. Seattle has three probowlers in their secondary. Greenbay had three in 2010. I would say TT's search for play makers in the secondary may prove to be a much wiser move than you may realize.

This post needs to be read and re-read. It essentially ended the thread.

Numbers are nice but we need to put them in context. Packers last year didn't lose a single game because of the other teams passing game. However, loses to New Orleans and both games to Seattle were mainly due to the Packers being unable to stop the run.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5356
  • Karma: +45/-2
Re: Early Observations
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2015, 08:26:09 PM »
You are aware that the Seahawks Offence did nothing in the first 3 quarters aren't you?  Most of their drives were 3 and out; ended with an INT or resulted in negative yardage.  Yet you still maintain that Boyd was abused by the Seahawks O-Line!

Their only offensive scores were in the 4th quarter when Boyd (playing with an injured ankle) was on field for just a couple of plays. But we can't form an opinion on a couple of snaps can we?

I'm maintaining that Seattle ran for just short of 200 yards and that the entire defensive line was mauled by Seattle's O-Line.  Are you stating that we got a good performance from our defensive line in the NFC Championship game? 

I never said you couldn't form an opinion on 1 or 2 snaps. If you want to look at those 2 snaps and say that Boyd was the missing piece then so be it.  What happened against Seattle is a lot like what happened late in a lot of games last year.  Against Seattle, Detroit (1st gm), New Orleans, New England, Buffalo and even Dallas.  Our run defense late in games last year was terrible.

Your argument started by saying Boyd was mauled by the Seattle O-Line In the NFCCG  The facts and eye test don't bear that out.

If you want to shift your argument now that it's clear you are wrong then fair enough.  I'll not bother wasting more of my time.

You are 100% incorrect. Where is that opinion stated as it surely isn't anywhere on this message board. My original comment was about the entire defensive line getting mauled and the poster asked me about my opinion of Josh Boyd, who I think is JAG. No where did I say just say just Boyd was mauled as he was on the bench for the majority of the game (the fact that he got fewer than 30 snaps in both playoff games combined was mentioned) I suggest you read all the posts before you start making accusations and putting words into others mouths. The OP felt the need to "rant and rave" in his reply so he moved his reply of a thread in the normal forum to this section.

Can you tell me that the defensive front played a good game in support of the run against Seattle?


Again....................it was the last 3:52 of regulation and the overtime where the Packers collapsed. If that's what you want to hang your hat on for an honest discussion, then I think we can find some common ground because that scenario happened on more than a couple of occasions last year (as you have noted).

Green Bay did collapse in the last few minutes of the game, but otherwise the defense (including the DL) more than held it's own against SEA.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=400749519

Up to that 3:52 mark of the 4th quarter, the Packers defense had held SEA to 172 yards of total offense on 52 plays (3.3 yds/play), and most importantly, zero points, which I would say was more than respectable. The one TD SEA scored was on the fake field goal. That's a special teams issue, not the defense.

Why the defense tanked after that point in the game is still something that is yet to be honestly explained by the Packers. In my mind I think the players & coaches thought they had the game in the bag and "took the boot off their neck", which was a mistake that still haunts all of them...............and it should.

But, up to that 3:52 mark in the 4th quarter, I do not see any discernable evidence that the Packers DL was being mauled by SEA through that game.

Offline Leader

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13020
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2015, 12:49:57 AM »
This post needs to be read and re-read. It essentially ended the thread.

Mr. Kepler - Its become abundantly clear to me at least that one if not more posters are in fact basing their Doctoral Thesis's on the GBP running game in relation to (fill in the blank). I dont believe this water will ever reach the sea.  LOL   

Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2015, 04:30:00 AM »

Numbers are nice but we need to put them in context. Packers last year didn't lose a single game because of the other teams passing game. However, loses to New Orleans and both games to Seattle were mainly due to the Packers being unable to stop the run.

Oh, I don't know-  seems to me big plays by Cooks and Graham, combine with a bunch of turnovers by the Packers had a lot to do with the New Orleans loss.  The whole team played poorly in New Orleans.
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Offline Kepler

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2015, 06:53:55 AM »
This post needs to be read and re-read. It essentially ended the thread.

Mr. Kepler - Its become abundantly clear to me at least that one if not more posters are in fact basing their Doctoral Thesis's on the GBP running game in relation to (fill in the blank). I dont believe this water will ever reach the sea.  LOL

Very true. It may be time to bow out of this thread and allow the insecure their need to be right at all costs.