Yeah the QBs essentially erased each other as deciding factors and it came down to the line, which GB dominated. This is why football is a wonderfully intricate sport and a lot of things need to work properly in order to make successful plays. GB’s offense did that spectacularly in the first quarter.
It’s not about getting lucky, it’s about effective teamwork. Calling something that’s difficult and rare a fluke is severely discrediting the sport. I’m not ready to call Cobb’s kick return a fluke quite as we don’t really know if he would have gone to ground without Kuhn there. But if we do assume that he would have, then we can say he got lucky and that the play was a little flukey, but only because players aren’t normally trained to prop up their teammates when they execute barrel-rolls. I’m pretty sure that’s not one of the drills during practice. Designing schemes and training special teams players with the goal of getting into the opponent’s end zone however, is a part of every team’s preparation. Even though Josh Cribbs only has about a 2.5% chance of scoring on a return, he practices with the intent of scoring every time. Saying Sproles got lucky on his return because something bad could have happened, is like saying he’s lucky he hasn’t been hit by a satellite or swept away in a tornado. Rarity isn’t a sign of undeserved happenstance, it’s a sign of the competition and difficulty of the game. Getting an interception off of a thrown ball batted into the air is also rather rare, yet it doesn’t prevent defensive squads from practicing tip drills. Coaches almost never call for a 60yd field goal attempt because the odds are so poor, yet every kicker tries them in warm-ups.
Satellite impact is a leading cause of special teams mishaps, you can’t call that a fluke.
But do we want to know the terrifying truth, or do we want to see Mark McGwire sock some dingers?
And I see what you’re saying; it’s just, when the Packers win a game in which Rodgers plays phenomenally and they have 42 points, it doesn’t seem accurate to me to say that he wasn’t responsible for their victory. Yes, they needed the defense to make some stops; yes, it was convenient that they had a bit of a running game; yes, it’s good that special teams were a net neutral. But without Rodgers in that game, the Packers get blown out, full stop. Ground game aside, having a top-notch QB was an absolute prerequisite for winning that game.
Which is to say, Rodgers gets the credit for winning, but Brees doesn’t get the blame for losing.
And frankly, I think the reason Green Bay are defending champions is that there is more to the team than just a great passing attack.
According to the statheads, it’s also because they have a good passing defense, with the running stuff a trivial irrelevancy.
Why do you hate football so much?
Shadarr
1786
True enough. Charles Woodson doesn’t get nearly enough press for being one of the top cover men in the league. They showed him a couple times with coverage so tight it looked like a three-legged race.
Zuwadza
1787
Aaaand Colston is out with a broken collar bone. Fack. Hopefully Lance Moore will be back by next week.
Shadarr
1788
Huh, when did he break it? They didn’t mention anything during the game, but I guess with the Saints it’s less obvious when a receiver leaves the game and stays out.
Der Sweatshirt is the only stathead you should be looking at with regard to American Football. We could get into a lot of arguements with stats in fluid vs non-fluid team sports, but that’s not the point of this thread.
I’d like to point out that I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a lot of high scoring games tomorrow, because I think defenses are going to have a rougher time getting up to speed in the wake of the lockout rather than offenses. I think that is part of what we saw Thursday. That and poor clock management/play calling by both in the waning moments of the 4th quarter.
Also, welcome to the NFL, Mark Ingram! Try to score on a 1 yard run up the middle with BJ Raji waiting for you!
That was a terrible call.
Hammet
1791
I kinda liked what Ingram showed on Thursday, overall. As for the call, it certainly turned out to be terrible, but great credit must go to the guys up front for Green Bay on that play. All six guys basically shotblocked the Saints O-line below the knees, doesn’t matter then if you have the biggest O-line in the NFL.
Edit: Oh, I think your theory on offense vs defense preparation is spot on.
Thanks! Also I did not mean to imply Ingram played poorly, as I think he did quite well. That’s just a tough assignment at the end of the game there.
I’ve always been under the impression that it takes a lot longer for offenses to get up to speed due to having more complex plays and more reliance on timing. I have no evidence of this but it’s what I’ve always heard the talking heads say at the start of every season (i.e. when everyone is rusty, defense tends to trump offense)
Man I even looked that up and still got it wrong :(
Hammet
1796
And it has been true. But these days when good offensive teams (like GB and NO) has all these different packages they throw in, I think it’s changed. I thought it was obvious during the first half that NO didn’t know what GB was going to do, what packages they’d use at certain downs and what they wanted to do out of them. GB finished 2010 without a running game and won it all, but now they had their star RB’s and a great TE back in.
So yeah, maybe it only applies to really good offenses with multiple weapons at their disposal and maybe this kind of advantage fades during the course of that first game. I just really took what GB did to NO in the first half to heart I guess. The way it looked and felt to me was that Rodgers had complete control whatever Vilma et al threw at him, just damn impressive.
sluggo
1797
Every time Ingram tries to go over the top at the 1 I’m going to imagine it in slow motion and hear “On the Wings of Love” in my head. :)
Two points on this:
-Defenses can be pretty damn complex these days. Zone blitzing, drop-off coverage, etc. Look for teams that have new coordnators and/or multiple changes (LOOK AT DALLAS) to have growing pains on defense as everyone learns the playbook. The playbook they didn’t even have until something like 6 weeks ago.
-Offenses can practice without having the defense there; most of the good (leadership wise, and yes, I’m including Romo in here) teams did practice the playbook as of last season. Defenses need to be in pads and against someone to get everyone on the same page. In-season pad time has been reduced this year (from something like 17 practices to 14 IIRC).
sluggo
1799
If you throw 22 players on a field with minimal practice or preparation, I think the pendulum swings to the team with the most raw talent. In this case, Brees and Rodgers just chewed up defenses who are probably still a little rusty. They found the open guys and picked the secondaries apart.
Shadarr
1800
That would imply no carry over from previous seasons. It’s pretty obvious that teams like the Saints and the Packers, who have the same coaches and the same system and a lot of the same players are going to be less impacted by the lack of minicamps. Teams like the 49ers and Broncos are going to feel the lockout a lot more, and it’s not just talent. If you don’t have to install a new system, you don’t need the OTAs as much.
