Game Thread: Wild Card: Packers @ Redskins

[redskinsfan]

i dont think he could with dunbar and blacmon and the 3 day old signing williams . with goldston hurting and hall new to the position

we are all good at second guessing but i believe barry and the staff just couldnt do what they wanted to do to personnel. much like we couldnt open up the offense with a young o/line

I think we could. Everyone was healthy coming into the game and we were able to do the same thing to the Giants.

 

[skinsdad62]

I think we could. Everyone was healthy coming into the game and we were able to do the same thing to the Giants.

yeah ? where was culliver ? nacho ? jarret ? . who cares about the giants game ? differnt team different time . and dunbar wasnt exactly a model of health vs the packers either

 

[Sportster 72]

Pretty much my point. When guys want to fire a coach or blame a game plan that is fine, everyone is entitled to opinion. I just like to see if you know what you are talking about.

 

[j_y19]

yeah ? where was culliver ? nacho ? jarret ? . who cares about the giants game ? differnt team different time . and dunbar wasnt exactly a model of health vs the packers either

Dad, apparently none of that makes any difference. See, according to some, all you have to do is blitz the best QB in the league and he won't figure that out. Who we have actually covering the receivers is immaterial. Just blitz and Rodgers will just fall apart. I guess Rodgers has never been blitzed before.

 

[redskinsfan]

yeah ? where was culliver ? nacho ? jarret ? . who cares about the giants game ? differnt team different time . and dunbar wasnt exactly a model of health vs the packers either

Culliver and Nacho, two of our key defenders, were out by the Giants game. Jarrett was in there, but the key here is that the Giants passing attack was far more potent than Green Bay's. What you don't get is the fact that when Green Bay morphed into its hurry-up / short passing game and it started working, you can't just do nothing. And, as the Giants game showed, there was something we could do, and that's play press coverage on WRs who paled in comparison to those like OBJ, Reuben Randle, and Dwayne Harris. How you can countenance a coach that did zip in response to that change in pace is mind-boggling.

Just listen to people like Grant Paulsen on this point in his show this morning. Paulsen, as you may know, was a Redskins beat reporter for 106.7 until he got a talk show gig in the mid-morning on that station and is widely-respected commentator on the Redskins. His observations mirrored mine: why didn't Barry play bump-and-run to combat WRs who scared no one? Cobb, Adams and Jones couldn't stretch the field to save their lives. And Rodgers had problems trying to connect with them when then got downfield. And Paulsen and my observations are hardly isolated views on this issue. Other commentators put it pretty bluntly: no need to get scared of the Packers passing game, crowd the box to stop the run and short passing game, and dare Rodgers to beat you. On the latter point, some noted how ridiculous that sounded but they were quick to emphasize that their views on the matter were based on how the Packers were playing going into the game.

In all, crediting Barry's game plan from the second quarter on is complete nonsense. The guy froze and continued to employ the same stratagem he started the game with. That's just plain stupid. It basically gave Rodgers the spark he needed and he continued to make us pay time and time again until our defense got gassed. He then turned to a running game -- which had basically been shut down up to then -- which ripped our exhausted defense to shreds. This is nothing different than newbie / crap litigators that have a list of questions they want to ask at a trial based on how they think certain testimony and evidence will be presented. When that doesn't turn out as planned, you've got to change up your questioning, think on your feet, and make adjustments. Those litigators can't or won't do that and then they end up getting embarrassed. I know this because I did them the favor of being embarrassed. As stupid as they were for failing to shift gears on a case which had radically changed direction, so too was Joe Barry when things changed himself.

This really isn't rocket science and it's based on how the Pack's offense was playing at 3:59 p.m PT on January 10. Citing me stats for Rodgers entire season or anything that doesn't take into account how they were playing up until kickoff yesterday is incredibly short-sighted. Let's face it: while there were several factors contributing to our loss yesterday, Barry's failure to adjust was one of the biggest of them all.

 

[redskinsfan]

Dad, apparently none of that makes any difference. See, according to some, all you have to do is blitz the best QB in the league and he won't figure that out. Who we have actually covering the receivers is immaterial. Just blitz and Rodgers will just fall apart. I guess Rodgers has never been blitzed before.

That's just plain stupid and countless other commentators would disagree with you. You play press coverage just like we did in the Giants game. Did you happen to watch that?

How about citing me Rodgers stats for the entire season? Or how about his career? Or what pointing me to Cobb's stats last year when he had Jordy Nelson drawing coverage away from him?

Any other insight you can provide?

 

[redskinsfan]

Pretty much my point. When guys want to fire a coach or blame a game plan that is fine, everyone is entitled to opinion. I just like to see if you know what you are talking about.

I guess people like other NFL players and respected commentators don't know what we're talking about. Got it.

 

[redskinsfan]

Let me be amply clear here: there are two points supporting my view -- (1) Barry did nothing to respond to the short-passing game and (2) that he had alternatives to combat that short-passing game. My principal difference with some in this thread is their assertion that, when Rodgers changed up the Pack's offense and Barry did nothing to respond to it, that was completely okay. And please don't walk back your position on this issue; man up that that's what you're advocating. I also provide an alternative Barry could've resorted to, one which has worked before on a more potent passing offense and one which has been endorsed by others. But that's beyond what I'm talking about here. For those who've backed Barry on this issue, the rationale underlying your position was that Barry's insistence on sticking to his original gameplay was okay. And that, my friends, is absurd.

 

[skinsdad62]

i dont give a crap what grant paulson has to say . his opinion is no better then anyone elses as the sherf draft pick showed us

 

[redskinsfan]

i dont give a crap what grant paulson has to say . his opinion is no better then anyone elses as the sherf draft pick showed us

He's got a lot more cred than anyone here does. And what does Scherff have to do with anything he said?

Like I just mentioned, you're one of several here that are arguing that you're fine with Barry doing simply nothing -- zip -- when Rodgers and McCarthy switched over to small ball. And keep in mind that others who assert that "well, there's nothing else Barry could've done" or "what was Barry supposed to do? blitz?" are articulating variants of the same argument. For those satisfied with that, that says a lot more about them than anything else.

 

[Sportster 72]

LOL at Grant Paulsen having cred. Next you'll be quoting Steve Czaban. He is certainly a better sports talk radio host than than I am. Let us know how many years of playing or coaching football he has. Here is a hint, I already know.

 

[j_y19]

LOL! Grant Paulson is your expert witness! That football genius? Exactly where did he learn the game? Oh yeah, the same place as you. On his living room couch. and that is your go to guy.....dad is right he has an opinion but he is no expert.

 

[Sportster 72]

I will give Grant this, he is probably one of the most knowledgeable guys at the Fan when it comes to football. His partner Danny is an ex college baseball player so he is strong when it comes to baseball and Lurch played hoops at Dematha and a couple colleges.

Funny note. One of my nieces met her husband through the Junkies. One of my co-workers is marrying the brother of one of the on air radio guys there. There are much stronger football people on ESPN 980 but I think the Fan appeals to younger folks.

 

[j_y19]

I will give Grant this, he is probably one of the most knowledgeable guys at the Fan when it comes to football. His partner Danny is an ex college baseball player so he is strong when it comes to baseball and Lurch played hoops at Dematha and a couple colleges.

Funny note. One of my nieces met her husband through the Junkies. One of my co-workers is marrying the brother of one of the on air radio guys there. There are much stronger football people on ESPN 980 but I think the Fan appeals to younger folks.

I listen to them from time to time. I like that they are mostly all sports, but I don't find either Grant to Danny as any more knowledgable than, well, you or I or a dozen others on this board. They do have access to some guests that we don't have, so they have got that going for them. But to be able to analyze a play or a defensive scheme and who is responsible for what....not the guys I look to for that insight.

 

[redskinsfan]

Yes, Grant does have a lot of cred, and one of the guys to openly note that publicly in a presser was Shanahan itself. And note that I didn't quote someone like Czaban, who can be a loud-mouthed tool and who also openly admits he doesn't know word one about football. But Grant only buttresses the view I've been making here, and others have echoed this point. If you want to a good pre-game take on this, just listen to all the Packers beat writers like Rob Demovsky of ESPN, Wayne Larrivee (their color commentator), and others that cover them about this issue.

 

[redskinsfan]

LOL! Grant Paulson is your expert witness! That football genius? Exactly where did he learn the game? Oh yeah, the same place as you. On his living room couch. and that is your go to guy.....dad is right he has an opinion but he is no expert.

I see, so people like Mark Bullock of the post, who's from the UK to boot, don't merit any respect. Give me a break. And like I said before, Paulsen has earned his chops. At the very least, he's got an opinion far better than yours or anyone else's here.

 

[j_y19]

I have no idea who Bullock is as I stopped reading the Post years ago. At least you understand that Grant's position is an opinion, not a fact. If I want real analysis, I turn to guys like Chris Cooley as he not only can diagnose a play, but can also discuss the whys and what the team was trying to do. Brian Mitchell is another that can do it quite well, but he doesn't do it often. As for wether Paulsen's opinion is better than anyone else's here, that again is your opinion...and you are welcome to it. I disagree. That's my opinion.

 

[skinsdad62]

I see, so people like Mark Bullock of the post, who's from the UK to boot, don't merit any respect. Give me a break. And like I said before, Paulsen has earned his chops. At the very least, he's got an opinion far better than yours or anyone else's here.

i hugely beg to differ ANY pundits opinion is better then mine period . that doesnt mean mine is better either

 

[Sharkinva]

Can I point out two things??


1. Most of the Pudnicks proclaimed Griffin a franchise QB before he was even drafted, and swore by it after his rookie year.

2. Most of the SAME Pudnicks proclaimed Cousins as nothing more than a backup, called it a flat out mistake to start him over Griffin. And proclaimed that the Skins would be LUCKY to not go 0-16 with Cousins as the starter.


So while they actually get paid for thier opinion, and because its their job may in some cases actually get to put a little MORE research into it before they spew their shit..... Us old farts like me and Skinsdad do on occasion get to make a valid point based on our limited research ability and information.

 

[Sportster 72]

I see, so people like Mark Bullock of the post, who's from the UK to boot, don't merit any respect. Give me a break. And like I said before, Paulsen has earned his chops. At the very least, he's got an opinion far better than yours or anyone else's here.

First I haven't seen you around here until two or three weeks ago. Secondly you have no idea what I know and don't know since you don't know me. Third I know Grant Paulsen's background and lastly if you don't believe me then maybe you'll agree with Chris Baker:

The Redskins lost to Green Bay 35-18, so one call wasn’t going to make or break the outcome. But it was a series in which the Packers started to generate offensive momentum. They had been forced to punt on three consecutive possessions before using more up-tempo offense – and before catching the Redskins with 12 men on the field.

Rodgers actually did this twice on the same drive, forcing Washington to alter its defensive strategy and preventing the Redskins from subbing more.

“That tempo messed up our defensive strategy,” Redskins end Chris Baker said. “We had to stick with our nickel so we didn’t get caught in bad passing situations.”

I am sure someone said this same thing a couple of days ago in thread on here. Now I am betting you will argue with Baker also and that is fine. I am arguing with a guy that thinks there is a "dink and dunk offense" and that is really sad on my part.

I'll stand on my point that Barry doesn't deserve to be fired after one year. That was your original thread.