GB - ARZ (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Interesting to me that the GB-ARZ game is universally hailed as a great one.

The thought I had watching it was how terrible the defenses were.

But watching the response from the masses, it's easy to see why the league is handcuffing the defenses more and more. If you're a guy that hates seeing the defenders limited, yesterdays game (or specifically, the frothing responses to it) is bad news.

But I'm thinking I'm probably in small company on this. What do you say?

J

 

[S.K.A.]

I voted great offense, but I can see how 'both' will be the choice.

It was ironic that the game started and ended with stellar defensive plays, though.

 

[dgreen]

It was both. It reminded me of the Texas-USC BCS National Championship.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I think the offenses played at an elite level and the defenses for whatever reason had off games. The missed tackles, and bad plays on defense were there. But many times even with the defenders in perfect position the throws and catches being made were great.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Just imagine how many points the Cardinals would have scored if they weren't facing the 2009 NFL Defensive Player Of The Year...

It's announced tomorrow, right? I wonder if people can change their votes.

J

 

[gianmarco]

I honestly don't see how any defense could have stopped either of those QBs yesterday. They were both simply playing at another level. Some offenses are just too good for what a defense can throw at them and I think that's what we saw. Both QBs felt pressure all night long and handled it. Receivers made spectacular catches. There was a huge lead to start. There was an amazing comeback. There were 4th down conversions. Onside kicks. Missed FG's. An overthrow that took your breath away. And ultimately a defensive play (ironic) in OT to end the game suddenly.

Even if you're a defensive fan, what more could you ask for in a game that has a HOF QB with arguably the most impressive postseason resume in NFL history against one of premier young QBs in the league engineering an amazing "almost" comeback in his 1st playoff game on the road?

Epic game no matter how bad the defenses "looked".

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I lean toward "great offense". Warner's performance was unreal. Jennings made two catches that are difficult to believe happened, even after multiple viewings on replay. There were numerous other similar examples of stellar offensive play. Not great defense of course, but I can't call it pathetic either - not by a long shot.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Even if you're a defensive fan, what more could you ask for in a game that has a HOF QB with arguably the most impressive postseason resume in NFL history against one of premier young QBs in the league engineering an amazing "almost" comeback in his 1st playoff game on the road?

Really? I wouldn't classify myself as a defensive guy but I got tired of the video game feel. It was just too easy. Guys were way too wide open. It looked like a Spurrier Florida game. I know I'm way in the minority but that wasn't great football to me. It was horrible defense. But I know I'm in small company.J

 

[scrumptrulescent]

The D's were pathetic. The O's were very good.

 

[dgreen]

It's pretty much impossible to get to 90+ total points without "pathetic defense" AND "great offense".

 

[ATC1]

Thought about a new thread, but it asks the question that could be tied into this poll.

Did the Week 17 game play a roll in the outcome of the playoff game?

GB looked like they played at full strength week 17. Did they show their hand too much with defensive scheme against ARZ in the week 17 game?

I did not watch the week 17 game, I'm curious if it seems GB had a similar gameplan, they just faced Leinart instead of Warner.

 

[smackdaddies]

Pack D was pathetic, but in great part because of the match up with Warner - you look at thier D, QB's that could handle a 3 step drop and make quick decisions had their number - Favre, Rothlesberger and Warner. So yes, bad D game - but in part because of the match up

 

[Gr00vus]

Guys were way too wide open.

I voted both. Definitely plenty of great plays on offense, but plenty of plays where receivers were getting the ball with no-one within 10 feet of them as well.

 

[JJP]

The coverage was dreadful. GB better address the corner opposite Woodson. Al Harris is getting up in age and coming off injury. His replacement cannot cover at all.

 

[gianmarco]

Even if you're a defensive fan, what more could you ask for in a game that has a HOF QB with arguably the most impressive postseason resume in NFL history against one of premier young QBs in the league engineering an amazing "almost" comeback in his 1st playoff game on the road?

Really? I wouldn't classify myself as a defensive guy but I got tired of the video game feel. It was just too easy. Guys were way too wide open. It looked like a Spurrier Florida game. I know I'm way in the minority but that wasn't great football to me. It was horrible defense. But I know I'm in small company.J

By video game feel, does that include the 1 handed circus catches the WR's were making? Fitz's TD? Jennings TD?

 

[Go Pack]

Voted both. Some of the highlight reel catches that the receivers were making and great throws were outstanding. The defenses were poor, but some fo that had to do with the elite offenses. On the other hand there were way too many receivers running wide open and missed tackles.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Even if you're a defensive fan, what more could you ask for in a game that has a HOF QB with arguably the most impressive postseason resume in NFL history against one of premier young QBs in the league engineering an amazing "almost" comeback in his 1st playoff game on the road?

Really? I wouldn't classify myself as a defensive guy but I got tired of the video game feel. It was just too easy. Guys were way too wide open. It looked like a Spurrier Florida game. I know I'm way in the minority but that wasn't great football to me. It was horrible defense. But I know I'm in small company.J

By video game feel, does that include the 1 handed circus catches the WR's were making? Fitz's TD? Jennings TD?

Sure there were some beautiful catches. No denying that. I'm talking about the guys being 5-10 feet wide open as others have noted. J

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

The coverage was dreadful. GB better address the corner opposite Woodson. Al Harris is getting up in age and coming off injury. His replacement cannot cover at all.

I disagree completely. Tramon Williams can cover just fine.The problem wasn't Williams, it was the fact that Atari Bigby went out, on top of already missing Harris. So now you have Matt Giordano on the field with Jarret Bush. Easy matchups to exploit for an offense as good as Arizona.Not to mention, the guys Green Bay actually drafted to help in the secondary, Pat Lee and Will Blackmon, are both on IR.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Just imagine how many points the Cardinals would have scored if they weren't facing the 2009 NFL Defensive Player Of The Year... It's announced tomorrow, right? I wonder if people can change their votes.J

For the record the Packers have 3 CBs on IR right now. Bigby missed a good portion of the game due to injury and his backup was out due to injury as well. So they had to go with backup FS Giordano at SS. So the reality is that 2 guys signed at midseason off the street played huge amounts of time in the secondary yesterday. Their 3rd corner yesterday (Jarrett Bush) was supposed to be a special teams player and last resort at CB. I know it sounds like excuses, and maybe it is because almost all teams have injury problems at this point. However, I saw major breakdowns in coverage. That's what happens when a QB like Warner gets to pick apart a piecemeal secondary. As to the initial premise, I thought it was both. Lousy tackling and breakdowns in coverage, matched by two elite passing offenses.

 

[gianmarco]

Even if you're a defensive fan, what more could you ask for in a game that has a HOF QB with arguably the most impressive postseason resume in NFL history against one of premier young QBs in the league engineering an amazing "almost" comeback in his 1st playoff game on the road?

Really? I wouldn't classify myself as a defensive guy but I got tired of the video game feel. It was just too easy. Guys were way too wide open. It looked like a Spurrier Florida game. I know I'm way in the minority but that wasn't great football to me. It was horrible defense. But I know I'm in small company.J

By video game feel, does that include the 1 handed circus catches the WR's were making? Fitz's TD? Jennings TD?

Sure there were some beautiful catches. No denying that. I'm talking about the guys being 5-10 feet wide open as others have noted. J

Well, I think part of it was that the offensive gameplans studied film and found weaknesses to exploit. They talked about it all night long. Green Bay brought in the #5 passing defense and sporting the potential DPOY and Warner surgically cut them up in the middle of the field. Was it bad defense? Well, it was a defense that up until then was very, very good that other offenses weren't able to do the same thing. It was obviously a focus of the offense. Does that make it bad defense or does that mean the offense found an area to work over and executed it to perfection? Again, there were guys that were open, but a big part of that was how exceptional the offenses were that were run. Let's not forget there were several forced fumbles, 5 sacks of Rodgers with an INT and constant pressure in Warner's face and blitzes that the vast majority of the QBs in the league couldn't handle. I just don't think ANY defense could have stopped those 2 offenses last night.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Did anyone else think like I did, that When AZ scored with 4-5 mins left in the game, they were thinking "That's just enough time so that when GB scores again, we can get the ball back in the last minute or two to win it"

 

[PolishNorbi]

I don't think that was actually horrible defense. 31 out of 96 points came off of TOs.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Did anyone else think like I did, that When AZ scored with 4-5 mins left in the game, they were thinking "That's just enough time so that when GB scores again, we can get the ball back in the last minute or two to win it"

But yes, that's exactly what I was thinking MB. Too funny.J

 

[dgreen]

I don't think that was actually horrible defense. 31 out of 96 points came off of TOs.

I think only 24 came off turnovers. There were 4 turnovers, so there couldn't be 31 points (5 scores). (ETA: Are you counting the onside kick as a TO?) Regardless, I think most people are referring to the 2nd half when they talk about poor defense. There weren't any turnovers in the second half. If you remove GB's kneel down to end the 4th quarter, I believe the 2nd half had 9 drives and 8 TDs.

 

[Restricted]

<-------- Pack fan, voted D. Surprised there weren't more.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Even if you're a defensive fan, what more could you ask for in a game that has a HOF QB with arguably the most impressive postseason resume in NFL history against one of premier young QBs in the league engineering an amazing "almost" comeback in his 1st playoff game on the road?

Really? I wouldn't classify myself as a defensive guy but I got tired of the video game feel. It was just too easy. Guys were way too wide open. It looked like a Spurrier Florida game. I know I'm way in the minority but that wasn't great football to me. It was horrible defense. But I know I'm in small company.J

By video game feel, does that include the 1 handed circus catches the WR's were making? Fitz's TD? Jennings TD?

Sure there were some beautiful catches. No denying that. I'm talking about the guys being 5-10 feet wide open as others have noted. J

Well, I think part of it was that the offensive gameplans studied film and found weaknesses to exploit. They talked about it all night long. Green Bay brought in the #5 passing defense and sporting the potential DPOY and Warner surgically cut them up in the middle of the field. Was it bad defense? Well, it was a defense that up until then was very, very good that other offenses weren't able to do the same thing. It was obviously a focus of the offense. Does that make it bad defense or does that mean the offense found an area to work over and executed it to perfection? Again, there were guys that were open, but a big part of that was how exceptional the offenses were that were run. Let's not forget there were several forced fumbles, 5 sacks of Rodgers with an INT and constant pressure in Warner's face and blitzes that the vast majority of the QBs in the league couldn't handle. I just don't think ANY defense could have stopped those 2 offenses last night.

Of course they studied and gameplanned. Every team does that. And certainly every team makes that a focus. In the same way, one can point to the failure of the defense to be able to gameplan how to slow down (forget about stopping) the offense. For me, it stopped being good football and crossed over the line to being comical at points with the defenders allowing the receivers to just run free.I hear you on the "don't think any team could have stopped them". I'll be interested to see how they fare going forward. J

 

[CrossEyed]

Definitely both, IMO. Clearly both offenses, particularly the QBs, are elite right now. But that defensive effort was just brutal.

 

[Da Guru]

Interesting to me that the GB-ARZ game is universally hailed as a great one. The thought I had watching it was how terrible the defenses were. But watching the response from the masses, it's easy to see why the league is handcuffing the defenses more and more. If you're a guy that hates seeing the defenders limited, yesterdays game (or specifically, the frothing responses to it) is bad news.But I'm thinking I'm probably in small company on this. What do you say?J

I had a group over my house yesterday talking about this very topic. It seemed to a man we kind of missed the defense stopping teams, grinding out a tough first down, punting for field position, when a gain of 20 yards meant something. Yesterday seemed like a flag football game when I was in college.It was to the point yesterday that I thought that GB should go for it in OT had it come to 4th and 5 from their own 25.

 

[LHUCKS]

With today's NFL rules if you you can't get to the QB your defense has no chance against top passing teams. Packers never came close to Warner and when the Cards did get in the backfield they couldn't get a hold of the athletic Rodgers (Pac10).

...except for the last play of the game of course.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

There were several outstanding throws fit into extremely well covered recievers who made spectacular plays on the ball. Most of these were on outs or gos along the sidelines. There was a complete breakdown in zone coverage in the middle of the field by both teams. They were willing to give up slants so as not to be beat by sluggo's. The Packers compounded their poor defensive play across the middle by trying to strip the ball rather than by tackling. That was, I believe, a function of desperation from being behind. It kind of snowballed on them.

On running plays the Packers got sealed on the edge time after time. That is something they have not allowed all year. I believe that was a gameplanning problem by the Packers and a gameplanning win by the Cardinals.

In the end I believe the Packers defense likely would show better if they played a series, but I believe they were out game planned in that game. I also believe the Cardinals might have showed better on the middle of the field passes had they had their starting safeties. I think about half the scores were done in spite of tight coverage. half, well very poor coverage and very poor tackling.

 

[RBM]

Any offense can be stopped. That was pathetic defense yesterday.

 

[dgreen]

Any offense can be stopped. That was pathetic defense yesterday.

Sure, but not any offense can explode for 500 yards and 45 points against pathetic defense. Sure, receivers were running wide open most of the 2nd half. But, you know what, the QBs hit them. That doesn't always happen. Wide open receivers are missed more often than we think they should be in the NFL.

 

[paydrt]

If these types of games were a weekly occurence then it wouldn't have the same appeal. I dont think the game was classic however it was the most entertaining of the weekend. Hey, it was a damn good shootout, they happen once in a while and with the importance of the game that gave it some drama. NO/ARZ this weekend might be the same....

 

[sho nuff]

Thought about a new thread, but it asks the question that could be tied into this poll.Did the Week 17 game play a roll in the outcome of the playoff game? GB looked like they played at full strength week 17. Did they show their hand too much with defensive scheme against ARZ in the week 17 game? I did not watch the week 17 game, I'm curious if it seems GB had a similar gameplan, they just faced Leinart instead of Warner.

I think "game plan" was similar...but I don't think they tipped anything.I don't think their game plan was any different than all year long.And I don't think they threw much at them in week 17.It obviously did not affect the offense for the Packers either.