Hey folks, Ryan Wood here. Ready to discuss the Packers season-opening win against the Seahawks. Lets get to your questions.
For one, that bounce-back season "so far" accounts for four quarters against a Seahawks offense that is lacking for receiving talent. So it's way to early to make any evaluations on whether Damarious Randall and Quinten Rollins have bounced back. But they responded well in camp, and they earned the snaps they get Sunday. Regardless, I don't think it changes Ted Thompson's approach. He wanted to create more competition at the corner position, and needed to protect against the possibility Randall and Rollins don't improve. If they do improve, one potential reason might be the pressure Thompson put on them by drafting Kevin King. So, no, I don't think his perspective would change either way.
Here's the worst part about that: the Packers would not have gotten the ball back even if they stopped Seattle on third down. McCarthy used his final timeout to stop the clock with 43 seconds left. The Seahawks had a third-and-3, and that play lasted three seconds. There's a 40-second play clock between snaps. So if the Seahawks don't convert, they simply run out the clock instead of giving possession back to the Packers. Somebody clearly missed something on the sideline there, and it cost them three points. Very odd.
Later in the season, perhaps. For their first game together, I thought it was the type of moment that builds chemistry. Sometimes, those sorts of plays are necessary. Aaron Rodgers seemed surprised by Martellus Bennett's reaction. He did not make much of what K.J. Wright did to receive the shove. But you could tell the quarterback appreciated his tight end coming to his defense. Those moments are not forgotten.
Probably warranted some kind of penalty, but I did not see a punch either. After the game, Adams said he couldn't recall every detail of the play because things happened so fast, but said he did not remember a punch. Without a punch, hard to understand why Jeremy Lane was ejected. I don't think that cost the Seahawks the game. Their defense still played very well, and the Packers defense dominated the Seahawks offense. But Lane's ejection certainly didn't help Seattle.
There were two big calls that went against the Seahawks, and I thought both were questionable at best. So I understood the broadcast booth pointing that out. What was worse, to me, was their criticism of the Packers offensive line. It wasn't protection issues leading to Aaron Rodgers' sacks. Those were coverage sacks.
I don't think it was in hopes of hitting a home run, more that the Seahawks secondary is very good and there wasn't a lot open downfield. We'll find out if it was more matchup or tendency in the coming weeks. My guess is it was matchup.
Maybe both? The Packers defense was exceptional. I think their interior defensive line could be a difference maker. Their disruption instead sets the table for the Packers using so much of their nitro package. But ... 3 yards on 5 carries? No, Eddie Lacy did not look good. The Seahawks eventually had to go to Chris Carson to find something in the run game. Not what they envisioned from Lacy's debut, I'm sure.
You're right. The defense was great. You can take nothing away from that effort, but it doesn't mean it translates indoors against an explosive Falcons offense. If the defense duplicates what it did yesterday next week, that will really be something.
Wait, Packers fans can't say nice things about Ted Thompson. Thought that was in the bylaws or something.
When has Dom Capers ever played rookies a lot of snaps early. Best players will play, and if the results are what they were yesterday, there's nothing to question.
I'm sure it will. They did not sign those guys to not play. Of course, Ahmad Brooks has a concussion now, so we'll have to see how he goes through protocol.
Or Marty can do it himself. When I asked him about it yesterday, he said he'd do the same for any teammate, if he felt an opponent crossed the line. It's important to have a guy like that on offense.
Exactly the type of clock-killing, game-sealing drive they could've used in Seattle around January of 2015, am I right?
A terrible Seahawks offensive line sure helped. One of the worst units in the league. Clearly, they could not block Daniels.
I'll disagree Rodgers wasn't blocked in the back. He was, indeed, shoved in the back. Whether it was hard or not doesn't matter. It was a dumb decision. I'll agree Jeremy Lane should not have been suspended, but perhaps his reputation hurt him there. Doesn't make it right, but a player who develops a dirty reputation does not get the benefit of the doubt. As for the PI on Jimmy Graham, completely agree. A lot of contact, and Graham had zero chance of catching that football if he had the ability to jump is a big stretch. Every team gets away with calls. It's part of the game. Somewhere, Sam Shields was not feeling bad to see the Packers get away with pass interference in the end zone against Seattle.
I think the offense is filthy loaded with weapons at the skill positions, to an extent they haven't been since 2011. Anyone worried about how the offense looked Sunday needs to realize the Seahawks are one of the NFL's best defenses, and defenses often are ahead of offenses in a season opener.
My guess would be the Packers kept Bryan Bulaga sidelined to give him a better chance for next week, wanting to minimize the chance for him to miss multiple games with a re-injury. Getting an extra week certainly doesn't hurt.
Again, it wasn't a lack of protection, more a byproduct of the Seahawks secondary buckling down. There weren't a lot of open windows.
Judging what I've seen in his two camps, he's certainly better in games than practice.
Well, yeah. It's the team broadcast.
Well, there is the other upside of limiting the chance for catastrophic, season-derailing injuries.