gbguy20;201969the entire defense has suffered from the loss of jenkins. his force on the line opened up opportunities for players all over our defense.

If Jenkins truly was what made this defense so good last season, letting him go was a major mis-calculation.
I know there's more to it than that, but I'm not exactly sure what is it.

Cullen Jenkins presence did help, but he took less money to sign with the Eagles. Granted, he probably would have taken even less if the Packers secured him prior to free agency and left more out of spite. I had assumed since he had a ring he'd take top dollar. Shows what I know.

I think saying Cullen Jenkins is why the Packers defense ranked last in yards is more hyperbole than accurate. When you go from say Nick Collins and Charlie Peprah to Charlie Peprah and Morgan Burnett, you lose a LOT of experience and communication. And you can see communication breakdowns all of the time in the Packers secondary. That is why teams are able to pass on the Packers so often and also because this season teams are trying to play catch up knowing they are in a shoot out with the Packers.

So yes, losing Cullen Jenkins hurt, but let's be realistic here ... losing Nick Collins hurt far more and his absence has more to do with the low ranking than Cullen Jenkins. Packers would have liked to have those 5.5 sacks from Cullen Jenkins, no doubt.

Edit, whoa, Cullen Jenkins only had 0.5 in the last 11 games he played this season.

It's losing Mike Neal that hurt us.
Letting Jenkins go was part of the plan.

Zero2Cool;201978Cullen Jenkins presence did help, but he took less money to sign with the Eagles. Granted, he probably would have taken even less if the Packers secured him prior to free agency and left more out of spite. I had assumed since he had a ring he'd take top dollar. Shows what I know.

I think saying Cullen Jenkins is why the Packers defense ranked last in yards is more hyperbole than accurate. When you go from say Nick Collins and Charlie Peprah to Charlie Peprah and Morgan Burnett, you lose a LOT of experience and communication. And you can see communication breakdowns all of the time in the Packers secondary. That is why teams are able to pass on the Packers so often and also because this season teams are trying to play catch up knowing they are in a shoot out with the Packers.

So yes, losing Cullen Jenkins hurt, but let's be realistic here ... losing Nick Collins hurt far more and his absence has more to do with the low ranking than Cullen Jenkins. Packers would have liked to have those 5.5 sacks from Cullen Jenkins, no doubt.

Edit, whoa, Cullen Jenkins only had 0.5 in the last 11 games he played this season.

My thought process is while Jenkins gets his own sacks, he certainly would have brought the sack total of everyone else up as well.
With his pass rush + the improved pass rush of those around him, who knows how much the loss of nick collins would have affected us then.
I'm not trying to downplay the importance of nick collins at all, because i completely agree with you, his loss was huge.
But I just feel like when the quarterback has all day to sit in the pocket, no matter how good our secondary is they are going to get torn up.

nerdmann;201984It's losing Mike Neal that hurt us.
Letting Jenkins go was part of the plan.

I'd like to say, the thing that hurt us was relying on an unproven guy to replace the large presence that jenkins was.
Letting Jenkins go was part of the plan....but the plan was awful, in my opinion.
Hindsight, I guess.

gbguy20;201985But I just feel like when the quarterback has all day to sit in the pocket, no matter how good our secondary is they are going to get torn up.

I agree with this.
Improved secondary play would definitely help us, but with an anemic pass rush, an elite QB will throw someone open much more so than not.
I think our coverage would hold up better with Collins in there, but in the end, just like at the beginning of the season, teams would move the ball at will on us with this pass rush.
I would expect even more interceptions with Collins on the field, though, which would changes things a little.
The bottom line is we HAVE to generate more pressure, especially with the play of our secondary.

I think it was a two-pronged problem.
C Jenkins brought a lot of pressure and I actually rated him as Elite when it came to 3-4 DL.
I had the stats to back up my Elite rating but that was last year.
Not in the mood to go digging for them.

Then as Zero mentioned, let's not forget Nick Collins.
Collins was an INT machine and had excellent communication skills.
Yes, I too have seen communication breakdowns in the secondary this year.
A lot.

So we lost 2 of our top 5 D players.
C Jenkins > Raji, despite the hype Raji generates.
Raji is Good, but he isn't Elite.
Collins is Elite as well.
The only other 2 defenders I'd rank as Elite are Woodson and CM3.


T Williams has the potential to be an Elite player.
Sam Shields does as well.
Neither have reached that status yet though but they're young.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Raji seemed like he was considerably better in '10 than in '11.

I should be clear, by pointing out Cullen Jenkins sacks and mentioning his last 11 games, I'm not saying he wouldn't have helped. I think his presence opposite Clay Matthews III would have helped the defense overall. Right now, offenses can load up on Clay and worry not about much else in the box. I still feel the loss of Nick Collins is far more reason for the Packers defense giving up more yards this season than last. Without solid communication, you won't get far. Hell, look at the Patriots when they were doing good on defense. They didn't have any real big name players, but they communicated well and were smart players. I think the biggest name they had was Rodney Harrison ... you guessed it ... good communicator!!

But you can make up for an average to below average secondary with QB pressure, as we saw in the Giants vs Pats SB.
The Giants' secondary was average at best.
They won because Brady never had time to exploit it.

So I stick with the problem is two-fold.

zombieslayer;202001But you can make up for an average to below average secondary with QB pressure, as we saw in the Giants vs Pats SB.
The Giants' secondary was average at best.
They won because Brady never had time to exploit it.

So I stick with the problem is two-fold.

I believe I stated it was as well two fold. I just feel the bigger ... ah ... fold? is Nick Collins absence. :)

Zero2Cool;202002I believe I stated it was as well two fold. I just feel the bigger ... ah ... fold? is Nick Collins absence. :)

We've been down this road several times before, and while I don't mean to minimize the significant of losing Collins, I still disagree.
The best communication and coverage in the world will only last so long.
Eventually, an elite QB is going to throw someone open, especially the likes of a Jimmy Graham, Sproles, Nicks, Cruz, Calvin Johnson, etc.
That's why you always hear the "plan" to disrupt elite QBs like Brady et. al. is to pressure them and make them uncomfortable.
If they're standing still taking their time in the pocket, they're going to hit someone enough to score significant points.
Defenses HAVE to find some way to make the QB uncomfortable in the pocket or it's going to be a LONG day for them.


Pass rush can mask a weak secondary, but a great secondary can only mask for a lack of pass rush to a certain extent.
Eventually, some type of pressure is going to be necessary to make some key stops.
Obviously that's just my opinion and there is no right or wrong, but there it is.