Packers chat with Ryan Wood
Oct. 31 transcript
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
-
Hey folks, Ryan Wood here. Welcome to our live chat. The Packers certainly blitzed Sunday afternoon. They just couldn't knock Matt Ryan off his spot consistently enough. That was the biggest problem they had on defense. It was hard to see the Packers winning if they didn't get consistent pressure with the defensive front, and they didn't. Of course, Clay Matthews' absence didn't help matters.
-
You could argue that if you compare it to other coaching staffs, but each staff is different. Mike McCarthy still sees value in what Tom Clements brings to the team, so he's reserved a role for him. It is odd to have a former offensive coordinator on a staff in a different role, but the Packers have worked it out.
-
-
-
McCarthey's insistence on "establishing the run" and playing the base offense cost us the game; 2 drives of nothing in the 3rd Q playing base. The 4-5 WR sets were working in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Q. Is there any rationale explanation in not running what is working. If passing works then pass 45 times, if running is successful, then run 45 times. I believe that is the New England formula...and it works. This Head Coach can be very frustrating.....
-
Mike McCarthy was just talking today about the importance of establishing the run, how this team views it as mandatory. Made me think of the third quarter. You're right, it was certainly quite odd to see the Packers revert to traditional personnel after their spread game worked so successfully in the first half. When the returned to the spread game in the fourth quarter, it worked again. Ultimately, the Packers need to run what works, but McCarthy also believes they won't be successful without a run game to keep defenses honest.
-
-
Good question, Ralph. We'll see what Dom Capers says later today about the final touchdown, but it looked as though Ha Ha Clinton-Dix did what the game plan dictated, which was leave the middle of the field to double team Julio Jones. Even with a bum ankle, it's hard to fault the Packers for constantly double teaming the NFL's best receiver. First of all, it worked. Jones was largely ineffective. Secondly, bum ankle or not, he's still extremely dangerous in the secondary. What I'm wondering is how Jake Ryan got in a position where he was even matched up against Mohamed Sanu. Again, we'll see what Dom Capers says later.
-
-
-
Hi Ryan…so while I was disappointed in the loss and the defense in the second half, I did not feel completely miserable about the game, because for the second game in a row the offense showed life. When you score 32 points you would expect to win I think. Is this the norm for the offense in the future, and what about the defense? Which way are they trending?
-
Good question about where the defense is trending. It has clearly been the Packers strength this season, but yesterday resembled a step back. As for your reaction to the loss, I largely agree. In my view, it was a big opportunity lost, not only because it would have improved them to 5-2, but also because their schedule would set up nicely for a potential 7-2 start. Regardless, there were clearly positive signs. If the offense plays like this consistently, the defense won't be playing the NFL's top-scoring offense on the road each week, as they did yesterday. Bottom line: there's a lot of season left to play, and while winning and losing is all that matters, the Packers need to play better, period. On Sunday, their offense finally did.
-
-
-
Will Packersnews ever do a study on how many times the Packers questionable players end up being inactive compared to the other teams over the past few years? I'm sure on an individual situation basis, there's always a reason but year after year the unspoken story of the Packers season is the doctors and trainers and how the Packers are amongst the league leaders in starters games missed to injuries. Our 2 week injuries always seem to end up 4 weeks or season ending, our major injuries turn into career ending injuries. Too much of a year-in year-out pattern to chalk it up to "bad luck" don't you think??
-
Do you have any hard numbers on the Packers being among the league leaders in starters missing games with injuries? Seems to me it's a problem for all 32 teams, because football is a violent sport. Guessing you're just more aware of it with the Packers because you follow them more closely. Check out what Minnesota has had to deal with on the injury front this year.
-
-
-
Ryan, how much longer do we have to endure the Mcarthy train-wreck? Each season we fall further and further from the play-offs and all we have to show it is that D-A look on Mikes face like he can't be leave why his so predictable play calling doesn't work. I watched Atlanta offense plays and I thought why can't we have an OC like that instead of the one we have who still thinks fullbacks belong in the NFL; really? Only 2 teams have one and guess MM thinks we should. Its an old and predictable offense with nothing new. And don't start me on Capers and why he has a job. Everything has a shelf-life; milk, eggs, even water. Time to go MM before you continue to run us into the gutter.
-
-
-
-
-
Ideally, I think there would be a good mix of power and slash. The Packers thought they had that with Eddie Lacy and James Starks, but both got hurt. Plus, you have to wonder if Starks just got old. I expect running back to be one of the foremost positions the Packers focus on in their next draft. So that boost could be coming.
-
-
Mike McCarthy was in a really tough spot. No, it isn't ideal to get the ball back with 31 seconds left after giving up the lead, but the Packers needed to save those timeouts for offense. Ultimately, the timeout situation was not what hurt them. It was their inability to connect on downfield passes during their last-ditch drive.
-
Hey Ryan, Not to bash our injury-depleted secondary, but consider this: HaHa, Hyde, Gunter, Goodson, Rollins, Brice, Evans, Hawkins and Whitehead (not to mention Shields) have combined for a grand total of zero interceptions. Randall and Burnett each have one, giving our secondary two interceptions in seven games (more than 400 defensive plays). What gives, and what can be done about it? If they can begin capitalizing on opportunities, we will be in much better shape moving forward. We also would have had a win yesterday, for what it's worth. (BTW - Casey Hayward has four - twice what our entire secondary has - all by himself, including a Pick 6 yesterday.)
-
Yeah, it wasn't a great visual for Casey Hayward to have a pick 6 around the same time LaDarius Gunter failed to convert a golden pick-6 opportunity that would have ended the Packers' game. I thought Ted Thompson made the right decision to move on without Hayward this offseason, and I still think it was the right call long term. The Packers have young, talented corners. The secondary just hasn't made splash plays this season. That needs to change quickly, of course. But there's still a second half of the season to play. Will be interesting to see where it stands in January.
-
-
-
-
-
Hi, Ryan, thanks for the chat. I'm less concerned about the defensive effort (minus so many starters) against Atlanta than I am about the lack of turnovers. Can this defense really be considered one of the better defenses in the league without producing more turnovers? What do you think?
-
No, they can not. It's exactly what Mike Daniels was talking about yesterday when he said it's not enough to just do your job. Defenders need to make plays, create turnovers, swing momentum. For all the strengths this defense has had, their lack of takeaways has been troubling. It needs to change.
-