Zero - What Dodd said is what I was trying to say.

doddpower;202010We'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.

So, you're saying a good pass rush is better than a good secondary? Boy, that sounds familiar, like when I've said I don't want the Packers to face the Giants because they have a really good pass rush! :)

You're not saying anything I haven't said already or believe, but hey thanks for lecturing me as if I wasn't already aware of it! :P

Let's see if I can fix my error in clarity here ...

Good pass rush > Good secondary.
Nick Collins > Cullen Jenkins.


The thing is, opposing QB's are getting rid of the ball fairly quick because the middle of the field is generally available. That's not something a pass rush would do a lot to fix, but damn right a pass rush would help!

Anyone know if there's a stud pass rusher in this years draft that the Packers can nab with the 32nd pick? :)

zombieslayer;202017Zero - What Dodd said is what I was trying to say.

and what I've said as well. So?
](*,)

Zero2Cool;202023So, you're saying a good pass rush is better than a good secondary? Boy, that sounds familiar, like when I've said I don't want the Packers to face the Giants because they have a really good pass rush! :)

You're not saying anything I haven't said already or believe, but hey thanks for lecturing me as if I wasn't already aware of it! :P

Let's see if I can fix my error in clarity here ...

Good pass rush > Good secondary.
Nick Collins > Cullen Jenkins.


The thing is, opposing QB's are getting rid of the ball fairly quick because the middle of the field is generally available. That's not something a pass rush would do a lot to fix, but damn right a pass rush would help!

Anyone know if there's a stud pass rusher in this years draft that the Packers can nab with the 32nd pick? :)

Wait.
That kind of contradicts.
Collins = secondary.
Jenkins = pass rush.

Yet you're saying the loss of Collins > loss of Jenkins?

zombieslayer;202033Wait.
That kind of contradicts.
Collins = secondary.
Jenkins = pass rush.

Yet you're saying the loss of Collins > loss of Jenkins?

Collins is a better player in general than Jenkins.
To use an exaggerated case it would be like saying losing Charles Woodson would be a bigger loss than losing Mike Neal.
Simply because a pass rush is generally more important than coverage doesn't mean a secondary player can't be more important than a defensive lineman.

I'm pretty sure I've posted these before but we played 5 games last year without Cullen Jenkins (Minnesota, at Detroit, at New England, New York, and Chicago).
Here are the defensive passing statistics on a per game basis for those five games compared to our season averages:

Without Jenkins

Comp: 16.0
Att: 31.2
Comp %: 51.3%
Yards: 192.2
TD: 1.2
Int: 2.2
QB Rating: 53.9
Points Allowed: 15.6

With Jenkins

Comp: 18.5
Att: 32.9
Comp: 56.2%
Yards: 215.0
TD: 1.0
Int: 1.5
QB Rating: 67.2
Points Allowed: 15.0


The caveat of course is that in football you don't get the large sample sizes that you can in other sports to do conclusive statistical analysis.
That said, those numbers are strikingly similar and outside of Drew Stanton we played some good quarterbacks in that group.
Brady was the only one to even be efficient against us and he benefited from 3 dropped picks and a 70 yard kickoff return from an offensive lineman to set up a score.

I think losing Jenkins hurts but we played significantly better last year with essentially the same personnel available for the defensive line and linebackers.
Hell, Raji had 3 of his 6.5 sacks last year when Jenkins wasn't playing.
Other players like Jarius Wynn and Erik Walden got on the box score with sacks in his absence.
There's a lot more to this than Jenkins leaving.

Zero2Cool;202023So, you're saying a good pass rush is better than a good secondary? Boy, that sounds familiar, like when I've said I don't want the Packers to face the Giants because they have a really good pass rush! :)

You're not saying anything I haven't said already or believe, but hey thanks for lecturing me as if I wasn't already aware of it! :P

Let's see if I can fix my error in clarity here ...

Good pass rush > Good secondary.
Nick Collins > Cullen Jenkins.


The thing is, opposing QB's are getting rid of the ball fairly quick because the middle of the field is generally available. That's not something a pass rush would do a lot to fix, but damn right a pass rush would help!

Anyone know if there's a stud pass rusher in this years draft that the Packers can nab with the 32nd pick? :)

I am very aware that you were aware of what I was saying, if you will.
However, I was stating my opinion once more.
Just because you were quoted doesn't mean I'm speaking to you directly either.
In this case, I was speaking in general terms about similar arguments one sees across various message boards for every team in the league.
Besides, you need some heavy lecturing more anyway.
It'd be good for ya!
Keep you in line!

mi_keys;202040Collins is a better player in general than Jenkins.
To use an exaggerated case it would be like saying losing Charles Woodson would be a bigger loss than losing Mike Neal.
Simply because a pass rush is generally more important than coverage doesn't mean a secondary player can't be more important than a defensive lineman.

I'm pretty sure I've posted these before but we played 5 games last year without Cullen Jenkins (Minnesota, at Detroit, at New England, New York, and Chicago).
Here are the defensive passing statistics on a per game basis for those five games compared to our season averages:

Without Jenkins

Comp: 16.0
Att: 31.2%
Comp %: 51.3%
Yards: 192.2
TD: 1.2
Int: 2.2
QB Rating: 53.9
Points Allowed: 15.6

With Jenkins

Comp: 18.5
Att: 32.9
Comp: 56.2%
Yards: 215.0
TD: 1.0
Int: 1.5
QB Rating: 67.2
Points Allowed: 15.0


The caveat of course is that in football you don't get the large sample sizes that you can in other sports to do conclusive statistical analysis.
That said, those numbers are strikingly similar and outside of Drew Stanton we played some good quarterbacks in that group.
Brady was the only one to even be efficient against us and he benefited from 3 dropped picks and a 70 yard kickoff return from an offensive lineman to set up a score.

I think losing Jenkins hurts but we played significantly better last year with essentially the same personnel available for the defensive line and linebackers.
Hell, Raji had 3 of his 6.5 sacks last year when Jenkins wasn't playing.
Other players like Jarius Wynn and Erik Walden got on the box score with sacks in his absence.
There's a lot more to this than Jenkins leaving.

Those are great points Keys.
Hopefully we get Collins back.
I really think Burnett is gonna be elite.

doddpower;202041I am very aware that you were aware of what I was saying, if you will.
However, I was stating my opinion once more.
Just because you were quoted doesn't mean I'm speaking to you directly either.
In this case, I was speaking in general terms about similar arguments one sees across various message boards for every team in the league.


Besides, you need some heavy lecturing more anyway.
It'd be good for ya!
Keep you in line!

A little forum etiquette. When you quote someone, it's a strong implication you are responding directly to them, it's actually why people quote them in the first place.

I agree with the last portion of your post as well! :)

Zero2Cool;202052A little forum etiquette. When you quote someone, it's a strong implication you are responding directly to them, it's actually why people quote them in the first place.

I agree with the last portion of your post as well! :)

I understand that, but it's also a good opportunity to respond to a general argument.
That's like if someone posts something like "All non-religious people are evil and are going to hell!"
While it's certainly possible to reply directly to that person, it's also an opportunity to go on a soapbox about related rhetoric.
It happens all the time.
But thanks for the update on forum etiquette overlord Zero.
I'll be sure to take it to heart, you bet!

lol @ overlord ... nice. I should start using that avatar again.