Yes it's game 3, but should PC pull the starters in GB

[13thMan]

We still have no idea what we have got.

Against San Diego, we were getting gashed up the middle and having a problem getting pressure on the QB.

Against Denver, we were still giving up rushing yards in large chunks and having problems getting to the QB. I know that was Payton and he gets rid of the ball quickly, but I do notice in other games that other teams are getting pressure. I also am aware that Clemons, Avril and a few of our other players did not play in that game.

But Denver did walk up the field twice, we just forced turnovers. It was actually an evenly matched yardage total.

We need to see something out of our defense, and thus far we aren't showing that great against the run (that are many cases not even the starting RBs) and we are not getting QB pressure against the 1s.

We need to play better and Green Bay is a good test.

Plus this team might as well get more practice in for playing in a hostile environment because we need to be good on the road, considering how we seem to have so many games against the stronger teams in their house. Our guys need to get used to getting the energy from the team, not just feeding off the crowd.

We need to be ready, I believe the 1st game is Carolina and that is a game we narrowly won last year. Isn't the game after that SF? If we start 2-0 we have good momentum but if we start 0-2 there is going to be a lot of pressure on this team. It will be really hard to keep this team on course if that happens because then the Seahawks will be a "disappointment".

Excellent post and great insight... I will go back and rewatch the SD and Denver games and pay particular attention to what you have laid out here... and hopefully we show terrific improvement vs. GB in these areas...

As far as the start of the season, yeah, the first two games from a purely psyche standpoint will be crucial... I have said before, we need to come out of the first two 1-1 at the minimum.... If we lose both, the wheels could come off early for just the reason you have alluded to.....

 

[Sarlacc83]

I'd have to go with Matt Stafford if we're not counting the playoffs. Otherwise, RGIII and Matt Ryan are up there in the top tier of QBs.

2011 Matt Stafford maybe, but he was the epitome of average last year

So you can make a case that Jay Cutler was better? In the regular season, Stafford was the best QB we faced on the road, and honestly, the only QB who might have an argument is Cam Newton. The dude threw for almost 5000 yards again, and if not for his WRs getting tackled something like a ridiculous 10 times inside the 5, he would've had 30 TDs which would've raised his QB rating fairly significantly.

 

[onanygivensunday]

We still have no idea what we have got.

Against San Diego, we were getting gashed up the middle and having a problem getting pressure on the QB.

Against Denver, we were still giving up rushing yards in large chunks and having problems getting to the QB. I know that was Payton and he gets rid of the ball quickly, but I do notice in other games that other teams are getting pressure. I also am aware that Clemons, Avril and a few of our other players did not play in that game.

But Denver did walk up the field twice, we just forced turnovers. It was actually an evenly matched yardage total.

We need to see something out of our defense, and thus far we aren't showing that great against the run (that are many cases not even the starting RBs) and we are not getting QB pressure against the 1s.

We need to play better and Green Bay is a good test.

Plus this team might as well get more practice in for playing in a hostile environment because we need to be good on the road, considering how we seem to have so many games against the stronger teams in their house. Our guys need to get used to getting the energy from the team, not just feeding off the crowd.

We need to be ready, I believe the 1st game is Carolina and that is a game we narrowly won last year. Isn't the game after that SF? If we start 2-0 we have good momentum but if we start 0-2 there is going to be a lot of pressure on this team. It will be really hard to keep this team on course if that happens because then the Seahawks will be a "disappointment".

Seems like your sky is falling.

I'm proud to announce that mine is still intact.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Get ready, guys. Packers fans already have their excuse for losing to us this week available.

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 8m
RT @packers: McCarthy: Aaron Rodgers was held from practice due to illness. #Packers

 

[Smelly McUgly]

But I'm fairly certain he meant face, since the best QB we faced on the road last year (in the regular season) was probably... Jay Cutler??

Matt Stafford, who also played out of his mind against us as well as being the best road QB we saw all last year in the regular season.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Get ready, guys. Packers fans already have their excuse for losing to us this week available.

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 8m
RT @packers: McCarthy: Aaron Rodgers was held from practice due to illness. #Packers

Reading up on their comments from last packers game and clearly they are high on Lacy. It should be a better test for us then we think even though they lack depth at RB. The way we be rollin we could see a repeat of last game.

 

[AF_Hawk]

I was to believe this is the dress rehearsal for the season, starters usually play 3 qrters in this one.. This is the perfect challenge to test those road whoes.. On the road, in GB against arguably the best QB in the game. I can't wait to see how our offense does, but more so hopefully we'll have a few more of our defensive starters back to see how they stack up against Rogers and company.

You always want to sit your starters in week 4, to recover from all the little dings going into week one, plus this is the game where a lot of players will have one more chance to show what they can do before the cut deadline. Play your starters week 3, sit them week 4....

I agree with this. Road game against a legit playoff contender is a must to play starters IMO.

 

[themunn]

I'd have to go with Matt Stafford if we're not counting the playoffs. Otherwise, RGIII and Matt Ryan are up there in the top tier of QBs.

2011 Matt Stafford maybe, but he was the epitome of average last year

So you can make a case that Jay Cutler was better? In the regular season, Stafford was the best QB we faced on the road, and honestly, I don't even think an argument can be made against that. The dude threw for almost 5000 yards again, and if not for his WRs getting tackled something like a ridiculous 10 times inside the 5, he would've had 30 TDs which would've raised his QB rating fairly significantly.

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting Matt Stafford was elite last year. Yes, he was probably better than Cutler, but still only at a push. Yes, they got stopped inside the 5 a lot last year (far more than 10 times), but they still scored a TD 66% of the time on those drives (and Stafford threw 3 interceptions inside the 5 yard line - that's certainly unimpressive)

 

[seedhawk]

Plainly and simply, most NFL teams keep things vanilla, (simple), in preseason, to EVALUATE PLAYERS. Most anyone can game plan to give say an Irvin a better chance. By keeping things basic, teams learn just WHO they have that play with fundamental soundness.

All teams will keep a guy or 2 who have the big play ability a couple times a game, but what they want to identify, are the other 40 or so guys who do everything correctly.

As fans, we all tend to identify with the entire 53 man roster plus practice squad. However, every team can only suit up 45 guys a week, (46 if you choose to use the 3rd Qb exemption). Those extra 8 spots can make one hell of a difference.

I think B Allen from the Skins had it right a year ago. Exempt your teams long snapper, punter and kicker from the 45 day game roster. Would give every team every week 3 more position players to use, especially in situational matchups. Cost would be negligible and the on field product would be better.

 

[13thMan]

I was to believe this is the dress rehearsal for the season, starters usually play 3 qrters in this one.. This is the perfect challenge to test those road whoes.. On the road, in GB against arguably the best QB in the game. I can't wait to see how our offense does, but more so hopefully we'll have a few more of our defensive starters back to see how they stack up against Rogers and company.

You always want to sit your starters in week 4, to recover from all the little dings going into week one, plus this is the game where a lot of players will have one more chance to show what they can do before the cut deadline. Play your starters week 3, sit them week 4....

I agree with this. Road game against a legit playoff contender is a must to play starters IMO.

This +1

 

[RolandDeschain]

Plainly and simply, most NFL teams keep things vanilla, (simple), in preseason, to EVALUATE PLAYERS.

I think this is dumb, antiquated thinking. (I'm referring to the majority of NFL head coaches, not you; no personal insult, there.)

How are you supposed to evaluate a player fully and properly if you're not doing what you would NORMALLY do in the regular season? Do you test a math whiz with basic algebra when they would only ever be called upon to do advanced algebra and calculus if you make them a starter? Kind of an awkward analogy, but I think it fits. How can you kick the tires on a vehicle if you keep it going straight on a flat highway at 55 miles per hour, rather than racing that beast as fast as you can around sharp corners and such? Ok, enough with the analogies, but I think I have gotten my point across. I don't get this whole "vanilla preseason" mindset in the NFL, I really don't. We sit here and watch some people skate by on athleticism or whatever in the preseason and have a monster showing, only to watch them be perennially worthless in the regular season.

It seems to me that teams would benefit their own depth charts more by playing like it's the regular season. Maybe someone like Kearly, Scotte, or English can correct me here if I'm wrong, and why?

I think a fair part of our awesome depth that we are building up is due to playing in the preseason like it matters. We evaluate our own guys better that way.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Plainly and simply, most NFL teams keep things vanilla, (simple), in preseason, to EVALUATE PLAYERS.

I think this is dumb, antiquated thinking. (I'm referring to the majority of NFL head coaches, not you; no personal insult, there.)

How are you supposed to evaluate a player fully and properly if you're not doing what you would NORMALLY do in the regular season? Do you test a math whiz with basic algebra when they would only ever be called upon to do advanced algebra and calculus if you make them a starter? Kind of an awkward analogy, but I think it fits. How can you kick the tires on a vehicle if you keep it going straight on a flat highway at 55 miles per hour, rather than racing that beast as fast as you can around sharp corners and such? Ok, enough with the analogies, but I think I have gotten my point across. I don't get this whole "vanilla preseason" mindset in the NFL, I really don't. We sit here and watch some people skate by on athleticism or whatever in the preseason and have a monster showing, only to watch them be perennially worthless in the regular season.

It seems to me that teams would benefit their own depth charts more by playing like it's the regular season. Maybe someone like Kearly, Scotte, or English can correct me here if I'm wrong, and why?

I think a fair part of our awesome depth that we are building up is due to playing in the preseason like it matters. We evaluate our own guys better that way.

I think part of it is that it adds extra tape for opposing coaches to use during the season.

Moreover, I also think the term gameplanning and 'vanilla' might be a bit of misnomer. The coaches are certainly going to ask the players to do specific things in order to properly evaluate them, but that doesn't mean the players and coaches are spending hours sitting down looking for weaknesses to exploit because they are more interested in evaluating their own team rather than the others. (Which is also done in practice when the plays are less 'vanilla'.) I think it's a question of priorities and time more than anything.

 

[themunn]

Put it this way, if your NFL players can't do basic algebra, then there's no point keeping them around for the advanced stuff. That's what they're evaluating, since they already know that 80-90% of their roster can do that advanced algebra, and right now they're just giving them some basic stuff to get them warmed up for the advanced stuff that's coming. Once they've identified which of their 10-20% remaining that can do the basic stuff best, they can cut the rest and work on getting the remainder up to the advanced level


ahem

 

[13thMan]

Put it this way, if your NFL players can't do basic algebra, then there's no point keeping them around for the advanced stuff. That's what they're evaluating, since they already know that 80-90% of their roster can do that advanced algebra, and right now they're just giving them some basic stuff to get them warmed up for the advanced stuff that's coming. Once they've identified which of their 10-20% remaining that can do the basic stuff best, they can cut the rest and work on getting the remainder up to the advanced level



ahem

Excellent analogy and SPOT ON!!! Well done sir....

 

[kearly]

Wilson showed signs of rust in the first two games, though his performances were still good (IMO). But yeah, until he shakes the rust off completely I don't want to see his reps diminished.

Green Bay is a good test for him. They have an aggressive, blitzing type defense that tries to win with turnovers. They gave Wilson a ton of trouble last year. Should be good practice for him.

I am not worried about injuries. I think in any given game Wilson has less than a 1% chance of being seriously hurt, and it's less than that in the preseason. The only place we don't have quality depth is TE, so we can weather some injuries if they happen.

 

[Largent80]

I want the starters clicking in Carolina, and they need the work.

You can't worry about injuries. It is football and the injuries are going to happen.

 

[13thMan]

Yes, these posts are on point..... We will get the best indication of where we stand after a trip to Wisconsin, to be sure... injuries be damned! Let's see what the starters look like for 3 quarters in a hostile environment!

 

[Scottemojo]

I think some of our depth players, like McGrath and Willson, need Wilson to play as much as possible. I don't see any way offensive rhythm carries over from the 3rd PS game to the first real game, so to me Wilson does not need the reps. It isn't like he is going to have his real offense out there, no Sid, no Zach most likely. But for the sake of these guys who need the experience, I want Starters out there as much as possible, 2 quarters, and the first series after halftime.

 

[chris98251]

Well new CBA has everyone limited as far as contact, we have went as far to the line as we can as a team in that arena getting warnings I read for being to aggressive. the pre season games are our live scrimmages and we are going all out in place of the contact in practice we have lost and getting into real game shape, at least in my opinion, playing soft and half speed gets more guys hurt then being aggrressive and playing like it means something.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Yeah, we have a lot of bubble roster guys we need to see as much as possible, but I bet the coaches have seen enough of them that we can continue with the "dress rehearsal" plan. Let the last cuts fight it out in the 4th game while our 1's rest up for the real deal against Carolina.