OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

From Lambeau to Lombardi, Starr to Favre and now Aaron Rodgers, we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby yoop » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:04 pm

APB wrote:It's completely NOT unrealistic to expect competent defensive play year in and year out, especially if the GM is supplying the unit with talent through the draft and free agency. To accept bottom level performance year after year is just plain dumb.

Amazing how you continue to drag this asinine argument into thread after thread.


amazing you fail to see the relevance a few missing positions make on a defense, even after admiting players at those positions played so poorly in the past.

Many of the draft picks didn't pan out, some have been hurt and are just now making a impact, I thought the situation IN SF was a good example of what happens to a defense when you lose players, or simply don't have good players, and thats been the case here at DL, ILB and safety, or should I just say the heart of the defense, excuse me for pointing out something real, versus firing the DC, to me thats whats asinine.
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 18862
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby APB » Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:52 pm

yoop wrote:
APB wrote:It's completely NOT unrealistic to expect competent defensive play year in and year out, especially if the GM is supplying the unit with talent through the draft and free agency. To accept bottom level performance year after year is just plain dumb.

Amazing how you continue to drag this asinine argument into thread after thread.


amazing you fail to see the relevance a few missing positions make on a defense, even after admiting players at those positions played so poorly in the past.

Many of the draft picks didn't pan out, some have been hurt and are just now making a impact, I thought the situation IN SF was a good example of what happens to a defense when you lose players, or simply don't have good players, and thats been the case here at DL, ILB and safety, or should I just say the heart of the defense, excuse me for pointing out something real, versus firing the DC, to me thats whats asinine.

The 49er situation is not at all like the Packer situation of the past four years. The 49ers turned over seven starters from last years defensive lineup as well as their DC. Struggle was inevitable. The Packers faced no such turnover in personnel or staff.

It's a completely false narrative.

There's another thread currently active on the forum that credits the continued Packer success with the ability to draft quality players and retain those players on second/successive contracts. The Packers lead the league in that category with 14 such players. Six of those players are on the defensive side of the ball. Two more are veterans signed from FA (Peppers/Guion) and yet another six are first contract players drafted in the 1st or 2nd round.

And you're convinced it's a lack of talent on the defensive side of the ball that's caused the continual defensive failures year after year. And you're willing to bring it up in thread after thread, whenever and wherever you can find any semblance of relation to your flawed logic. This thread is just the latest example.

We disagree. That's fine. That's what happens on these discussion forums. But for Christ's sake, do you really need to side-track every damn thread with this tired and convoluted argument?
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby yoop » Sat Oct 24, 2015 2:51 pm

APB wrote:
yoop wrote:
APB wrote:It's completely NOT unrealistic to expect competent defensive play year in and year out, especially if the GM is supplying the unit with talent through the draft and free agency. To accept bottom level performance year after year is just plain dumb.

Amazing how you continue to drag this asinine argument into thread after thread.


amazing you fail to see the relevance a few missing positions make on a defense, even after admiting players at those positions played so poorly in the past.

Many of the draft picks didn't pan out, some have been hurt and are just now making a impact, I thought the situation IN SF was a good example of what happens to a defense when you lose players, or simply don't have good players, and thats been the case here at DL, ILB and safety, or should I just say the heart of the defense, excuse me for pointing out something real, versus firing the DC, to me thats whats asinine.

The 49er situation is not at all like the Packer situation of the past four years. The 49ers turned over seven starters from last years defensive lineup as well as their DC. Struggle was inevitable. The Packers faced no such turnover in personnel or staff.

It's a completely false narrative.

There's another thread currently active on the forum that credits the continued Packer success with the ability to draft quality players and retain those players on second/successive contracts. The Packers lead the league in that category with 14 such players. Six of those players are on the defensive side of the ball. Two more are veterans signed from FA (Peppers/Guion) and yet another six are first contract players drafted in the 1st or 2nd round.

And you're convinced it's a lack of talent on the defensive side of the ball that's caused the continual defensive failures year after year. And you're willing to bring it up in thread after thread, whenever and wherever you can find any semblance of relation to your flawed logic. This thread is just the latest example.

We disagree. That's fine. That's what happens on these discussion forums. But for Christ's sake, do you really need to side-track every damn thread with this tired and convoluted argument?


you brought it up for 3 years every time the defense was discussed, and your the guy that refuses to look at the reality of the situation, just look how SD was able to target a couple positions and come away with 500 yrds passing, thats exactly what opposing offenses did to us for 3 years, it's not so much how many good players you have on a defense, obviously that helps, but it's the 1 or 2 positions that are weak, because thats where the opposing team will target, and as with SD, if you don't have the players, you can't stop the snow ball effect.
I regress, sure I can and will stop, Ted finally got him a couple players he had lacked for years, and thats the difference where seeing, Capers didn't all of a sudden become a better DC, he always was a good one, he just needed a few better players at some key positions.

where both being stubborn, and you havn't given a inch any more then I have, I just tagged your post on another forum where you still insinuate Capers was and is still the problem, it's been a tit for tat conversation for forever, I'am ready to bury the hatchet, and agree I shouldn't have made this last comment, but when someone doesn't recognize the improvement came about because of the increased talent it tends to rile me.
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 18862
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby APB » Sat Oct 24, 2015 5:09 pm

yoop wrote:just look how SD was able to target a couple positions and come away with 500 yrds passing, thats exactly what opposing offenses did to us for 3 years, it's not so much how many good players you have on a defense, obviously that helps, but it's the 1 or 2 positions that are weak, because thats where the opposing team will target, and as with SD, if you don't have the players, you can't stop the snow ball effect.

Oh dear god. So you're saying Capers still doesn't have the necessary players to field a dependable defense? That's why Rivers and Co. were able to throw to the tune of 500+ yards last weekend? It had nothing to do with scheme or technique being employed?
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby Pugger » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:19 pm

APB wrote:
yoop wrote:just look how SD was able to target a couple positions and come away with 500 yrds passing, thats exactly what opposing offenses did to us for 3 years, it's not so much how many good players you have on a defense, obviously that helps, but it's the 1 or 2 positions that are weak, because thats where the opposing team will target, and as with SD, if you don't have the players, you can't stop the snow ball effect.

Oh dear god. So you're saying Capers still doesn't have the necessary players to field a dependable defense? That's why Rivers and Co. were able to throw to the tune of 500+ yards last weekend? It had nothing to do with scheme or technique being employed?


I don't toot Capers' horn like yoop does but not having Raji, Perry and Burnett in the SD game made a difference IMO. Our D has been playing better than any of us thought they would up until Sunday. I hope the SD game was just a bad day for that squad and not a sign of things to come.
Image
User avatar
Pugger
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:36 pm
Location: Green Bay for the summer.

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby yoop » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:22 pm

APB wrote:
yoop wrote:just look how SD was able to target a couple positions and come away with 500 yrds passing, thats exactly what opposing offenses did to us for 3 years, it's not so much how many good players you have on a defense, obviously that helps, but it's the 1 or 2 positions that are weak, because thats where the opposing team will target, and as with SD, if you don't have the players, you can't stop the snow ball effect.

Oh dear god. So you're saying Capers still doesn't have the necessary players to field a dependable defense? That's why Rivers and Co. were able to throw to the tune of 500+ yards last weekend? It had nothing to do with scheme or technique being employed?


very little, Rivers and there OC found the weak links, and you saw the snow ball effects, we where missing 3 starters, your simply trying to twist what I said, yes he does now have better players, 3 of those didn't play last week though did they, Perry is playing better then he ever has, Burnett is a better coverage safety then Hyde is, and Raji would have opened some rush lanes for Mathews.

we see Aaron pick apart weak positions on good opposing defenses all the time,why is it you can't see how opposing offenses have done that to us.

we watch Aaron put up 40 plus and 5 TD games on good defenses often the last few years, he does that because he has a receiver or two the defense has no ability to stop, and no scheme can compensate, how is that different then the situation Capers has dealt with here? it's not, It's identical to what Capers has dealt with here, you can't bandaid positions on defense and expect opposing OC not to take notice, and thinking you can adjust your way around weak positions and hid them is a joke, that stuff only works against poor passing teams.

and don't throw 2010 with the myried of backups playing then either, we had two HOF bound players in that secondary making sure players where in the right positions, I believe that was the major diff. on that unit, young players tend to make mistakes, now go Watch Hyde try and deal with Gates, and he's a vet, same with Shields, he got beat by Allen no matter what tech he played, scheme doesn't fix that, better play does, but I'am rambling now, and have more important things to do then trying to change your unchanging mind on this matter.
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 18862
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby Ghost_Lombardi » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:31 pm

Hey yoop, this thread is about the SeaChickens and the Sack-or-picks game.

Start your very own Capers thread if you like.
Meh.
Ghost_Lombardi
 
Posts: 12595
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:19 pm

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby Papa John » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:37 pm

APB wrote:It's completely NOT unrealistic to expect competent defensive play year in and year out, especially if the GM is supplying the unit with talent through the draft and free agency. To accept bottom level performance year after year is just plain dumb.

Amazing how you continue to drag this asinine argument into thread after thread.



Then why keep responding? If the comments genuinely bother you that much, why do you continue to respond to them? You're like, 1 of maybe 2 people left at this point who still fuel the fire.
Image
User avatar
Papa John
 
Posts: 4267
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby Half Empty » Sat Oct 24, 2015 7:03 pm

yoop wrote:
APB wrote:
yoop wrote:just look how SD was able to target a couple positions and come away with 500 yrds passing, thats exactly what opposing offenses did to us for 3 years, it's not so much how many good players you have on a defense, obviously that helps, but it's the 1 or 2 positions that are weak, because thats where the opposing team will target, and as with SD, if you don't have the players, you can't stop the snow ball effect.

Oh dear god. So you're saying Capers still doesn't have the necessary players to field a dependable defense? That's why Rivers and Co. were able to throw to the tune of 500+ yards last weekend? It had nothing to do with scheme or technique being employed?


very little, Rivers and there OC found the weak links, and you saw the snow ball effects, we where missing 3 starters, your simply trying to twist what I said, yes he does now have better players, 3 of those didn't play last week though did they, Perry is playing better then he ever has, Burnett is a better coverage safety then Hyde is, and Raji would have opened some rush lanes for Mathews.

we see Aaron pick apart weak positions on good opposing defenses all the time,why is it you can't see how opposing offenses have done that to us.

we watch Aaron put up 40 plus and 5 TD games on good defenses often the last few years, he does that because he has a receiver or two the defense has no ability to stop, and no scheme can compensate, how is that different then the situation Capers has dealt with here? it's not, It's identical to what Capers has dealt with here, you can't bandaid positions on defense and expect opposing OC not to take notice, and thinking you can adjust your way around weak positions and hid them is a joke, that stuff only works against poor passing teams.

and don't throw 2010 with the myried of backups playing then either, we had two HOF bound players in that secondary making sure players where in the right positions, I believe that was the major diff. on that unit, young players tend to make mistakes, now go Watch Hyde try and deal with Gates, and he's a vet, same with Shields, he got beat by Allen no matter what tech he played, scheme doesn't fix that, better play does, but I'am rambling now, and have more important things to do then trying to change your unchanging mind on this matter.


"Sent from my Smartphone"? :)
Half Empty
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:29 pm

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby yoop » Sat Oct 24, 2015 9:19 pm

Ghost_Lombardi wrote:Hey yoop, this thread is about the SeaChickens and the Sack-or-picks game.

Start your very own Capers thread if you like.


sorry for my part in derailing the thread.
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 18862
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: OT: SeaChickens vs Crapernicks

Postby APB » Sat Oct 24, 2015 9:21 pm

Papa John wrote:
APB wrote:It's completely NOT unrealistic to expect competent defensive play year in and year out, especially if the GM is supplying the unit with talent through the draft and free agency. To accept bottom level performance year after year is just plain dumb.

Amazing how you continue to drag this asinine argument into thread after thread.



Then why keep responding? If the comments genuinely bother you that much, why do you continue to respond to them? You're like, 1 of maybe 2 people left at this point who still fuel the fire.

Well, ignoring his continual references to this asinine argument only seems to encourage him to continue polluting thread after thread with this obsession of his. Yes, I'm probably overly sensitive to it by now but, for Christ's sake, enough is enough.
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Previous

Return to JustJeff's Packers Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests