Packers better than any team Cards faced last post-season?

[DanThePackerFan]

Dan your pretty umm I guess clueless if you don't think Rodgers was in there to pad stats! They got him over 4000 yards and beat a couple of Farve passing records and also played the starting D most of the game to keep the rushing yrds record. This was a total BS game for us yet your great coach kept his starters in for nearly the entire game to reach some numbers period! And no you did not beat us as you say, again as you said we conceded it before the game even started! Once the Vikings were up big we decided to not play and show our hand, you will get to see these teams really play for the first time this year on Sunday! Oh don't forget your little yellow cheese towel to wipe your tears.

There was one stat to be padded, and that was getting Grant over 1250 yards to ensure his $1.5 million bonus for that incentive. McCarthy said all week he wanted to throw things out there for them to see, and maintained that he (and, by my estimation, any offensive minded coach worth his salt) has a playbook deep enough to call a double or even triple header against a given opponent.

He wanted to see how Wisenhunt would respond, and he did so by putting in every undrafted free agent under the sun and letting them get kicked square in the gut. Now Wisenhunt has an entire game's worth of film to plan from, and has to wonder what else McCarthy has under his sleeve.

Let me ask you a question. Given recent circumstances (not only this game, but the second half of the season as a whole) which team is coming into Sunday's game playing better football? I think we'd both be fooling ourselves if we didn't give the same answer to that question. And as such, what makes a majority of Cardinals fans so confident that elite play can be turned on and off like a light switch? Last year? Maybe, but that's a loooong time ago.

 

[DanThePackerFan]

Oh, and all these Bucs and Vikes posts are cute, but there's a cognitive disconnect occurring here that won't allow you guys to see the first half Packers versus the second half Packers. Two entirely different teams. And the current version is playing football as well as any team in the NFC (save maybe the Cowboys) entering the playoffs.

 

[nashman]

We shall see on Sunday Dan. We have been playing good football most of the season, with a few hiccup games here and there but we seem to respond well after games like Sunday. Say what you will but OUR team has proven in the playoffs they show up and play well, can you say the same? You have a young team thats playing well, I will take our more veteran team with playoff experience and proven success. Your team may still be a year away. Should be a great game don't expect a blowout one way or the other.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Oh, and all these Bucs and Vikes posts are cute, but there's a cognitive disconnect occurring here that won't allow you guys to see the first half Packers versus the second half Packers. Two entirely different teams. And the current version is playing football as well as any team in the NFC (save maybe the Cowboys) entering the playoffs.

Agreed. Your team is a very good football team, and there is proof that many Cardinals fans agree with that statement all over this board.

Yet, you fail to realize that our Jekyll and Hyde team is in the same boat.

When the Cardinals are playing well, they can beat anybody, and when they are playing poor they can lose to anybody. So, the "cognitive disconnect" goes both ways here. To think your team is just going to show up and easily cut through the Cardinals is a grave mistake that many, many teams on thier high horse have made.

To tell you the truth I would like to see both teams bring there "A" game and see what happens.

Finally, you guys are WAY better than the Cowboys, who will be one and done this year once again.

 

[az1965]

The Packers are playing very well and is a scary good team... I hope we bring our A game if we want to be successful this Sunday. I did not like the effort this last game from our team even from the backups. Some of the injuries happen when you are half-assing the effort and get careless. We should have at least hit hard and put some dents and bruises on Packers we were not even trying that.

And, btw, I hated the smirk on Whiz's face during the post-game media conference. I hope he prepares his team for the win this Sunday or it will be an utter embarrassment.

 

[Houdini]

We beat Minnesota, Minnesota beat the Packers twice. Paper, rock, scissors.

The Packers beat the 49ers, the Cardinals lost to the 49ers twice. None of those games mean anything to me now.

If the Cardinals play like they did against the Vikings, the Cardinals will beat the Packers. If the Cardinals turn the ball over like they did against the 49ers, the Cardinals will lose. That's why I think it comes down to if Warner is protected and on his game. If he is on, I think the Cardinals win. If he's off and turns it over, I think the Packers win. The game is a coin flip to me.

 

[82CardsGrad]

The Packers beat the 49ers, the Cardinals lost to the 49ers twice. None of those games mean anything to me now.

If the Cardinals play like they did against the Vikings, the Cardinals will beat the Packers. If the Cardinals turn the ball over like they did against the 49ers, the Cardinals will lose. That's why I think it comes down to if Warner is protected and on his game. If he is on, I think the Cardinals win. If he's off and turns it over, I think the Packers win. The game is a coin flip to me.

I agree... I think. For me, I am not as much worried about Kurt being "on" or "off". In the post season, I think he's proven that he is almost always "on" and is bigtime, money QB. The issue will be more about protection and can Fitz get open against Woodson. If Kurt is given time, and if he can get the ball in Fitz's hands 7-8 times, we will win. If Kurt is constantly being pressured and forced to move out of the pocket, and if Woodson is able to shut down Fitz, we're toast...

 

[DanThePackerFan]

I agree... I think. For me, I am not as much worried about Kurt being "on" or "off". In the post season, I think he's proven that he is almost always "on" and is bigtime, money QB. The issue will be more about protection and can Fitz get open against Woodson. If Kurt is given time, and if he can get the ball in Fitz's hands 7-8 times, we will win. If Kurt is constantly being pressured and forced to move out of the pocket, and if Woodson is able to shut down Fitz, we're toast...

I don't think it's that simple..

Fitz will get his. Woodson isn't a "shut down" guy in the mold of Revis. But he has a higher propensity for game changing plays. I believe he's responsible for multiple turnovers in three games this year.

The bigger worry should be how you're going to stop the Packers offense.

Since Jermichael Finley returned to the lineup, the Packers have scored 30, 34, 27, 21, 36, 48, and 33.

 

[82CardsGrad]

I don't think it's that simple..

Fitz will get his. Woodson isn't a "shut down" guy in the mold of Revis. But he has a higher propensity for game changing plays. I believe he's responsible for multiple turnovers in three games this year.

The bigger worry should be how you're going to stop the Packers offense.

Since Jermichael Finley returned to the lineup, the Packers have scored 30, 34, 27, 21, 36, 48, and 33.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't be as concerned about your offense as our defense has a propensity for stepping up and playing great in bigtime games. However, the injuries to both DRC and Campbell could be gigantic issues for the Cards as we are extremely thin at both those positions. Normally, it would boil down to a simple equation: Protect Warner and we win. Don't protect Warner and we lose... I still think it will come down to this. Although, here again we could suffer greatly from another key injury - Boldin. If Boldin isn't healthy and can't contribute, we don't have others who have the type of experience and big-play ability that Boldin possesses...
Still, we have often won games without Boldin. Though, the Packers clearly present one of the biggest challenges the Cards have had to face in a post-season game. It's hard to believe that we can win, that Warner can work his magic without a productive Anquan Boldin...
Should be interesting... I think we'll know very early in this game which way it will go. If any of the following are immediately noticeable: Boldin ineffective, Warner running for his life, Rogers having all day to sit back in the pocket... it could be a very long day for the Big Red. However, if Boldin is able to contribute, if Warner is provided the time he needs, I like our chances...

 

[Assface]

Fitz will get his. Woodson isn't a "shut down" guy in the mold of Revis. But he has a higher propensity for game changing plays. I believe he's responsible for multiple turnovers in three games this year.

From what I've seen this year I don't know if it's even accurate to describe the position he's playing as CB. Dom Capers is using him very creatively.

 

[Russ Smith]

Let me ask you a question. Given recent circumstances (not only this game, but the second half of the season as a whole) which team is coming into Sunday's game playing better football? I think we'd both be fooling ourselves if we didn't give the same answer to that question. And as such, what makes a majority of Cardinals fans so confident that elite play can be turned on and off like a light switch? Last year? Maybe, but that's a loooong time ago.

Here's the problem Dan, that doesn't seem to matter with the Cards. The Cards lost 4 of their last 6 last year going in the playoffs including losses of
48-20, 35-14 and 47-7! Everyone agreed they were the weakest team in the playoffs if not weakest EVER in the playoffs. Yet they came within 2 miracle plays by Pittsburgh of winning the Super bowl.

Doesn't mean it will happen this year but as Skip Bayless said today, the Cards are the most unpredictable team he's ever seen, when they play well they're the best team in the NFC, you just don't know what team you're going to get.

The Packers are good you don't have to convince us of that, but that doesn't mean the team that absolutely throttled the same Viking team that beat you twice, won't be the team the Packers are up against on Sunday.

 

[Assface]

Every team in the NFC playoffs this year has a legit chance to win the Superbowl and I have a hard time saying that any one team is more or less dangerous than the next. All 6 teams have looked unstoppable at times this year.

 

[DanThePackerFan]

Here's the problem Dan, that doesn't seem to matter with the Cards. The Cards lost 4 of their last 6 last year going in the playoffs including losses of
48-20, 35-14 and 47-7! Everyone agreed they were the weakest team in the playoffs if not weakest EVER in the playoffs. Yet they came within 2 miracle plays by Pittsburgh of winning the Super bowl.

Doesn't mean it will happen this year but as Skip Bayless said today, the Cards are the most unpredictable team he's ever seen, when they play well they're the best team in the NFC, you just don't know what team you're going to get.

The Packers are good you don't have to convince us of that, but that doesn't mean the team that absolutely throttled the same Viking team that beat you twice, won't be the team the Packers are up against on Sunday.

I've heard this a few times in the two days on this forum about how the Cards are hot and cold, on and off. I'm failing to understand why this is a positive, other than a potential excuse for turning an ass kicking one week into a better effort the next.

And the references to last year's Super Bowl team? Come on, the evolution of a football team in twelve months is vast. Players evolve. Schemes evolve. Injuries happen. Coaches add and take away. If I were talking about my team by referencing how the Packers looked in December of 2008, I can assure you I wouldn't be as confident as I am now.

The Cardinals are statistically better against the passing game than they were last season, but from what I'm seeing Dansby and Hayes aren't playing close to the level that they did during the playoff run. The unit as a whole is more lopsided and and less complete than last year's.

The strides Dom Capers has made with this ever-evolving defense make us more dangerous as the weeks go by. Heck, he may have sub packages and formations that we haven't seen yet this season. He seems to unveil something new every week.

I'm interested to see how the Cardinals handle it.

 

[DanThePackerFan]

From what I've seen this year I don't know if it's even accurate to describe the position he's playing as CB. Dom Capers is using him very creatively.

Absolutely true. He plays some safety, he covers the slot, he blitzes. And he's always around the ball.

 

[devilalum]

I think Philly was a better team last year than the Packers are this year.

 

[ajcardfan]

I've heard this a few times in the two days on this forum about how the Cards are hot and cold, on and off. I'm failing to understand why this is a positive, other than a potential excuse for turning an ass kicking one week into a better effort the next.

I don't think anybody is really saying that the Cards being either "on or off" is a positive. It is what it is. it was true last year, and has continued throughout this year, so it is relevant to Sunday's game.

Look, this team has made most all of us look silly trying to predict how they will do from week to week. And, we're mostly hardcore fans here who read about this team 365 days a year. So, if you want us to admit that the Packers are the hotter team, and therefore much more likely to win, we CAN'T, because most of us thought that about a dozen times over the past two seasons only to be proven wrong.

We've never gotten a lot of attention until the past two years, but you should know Cardinals fans, for the most part, have never had a problem saying their team doesn't measure up. We're not ****** Cowboys or Giants fans.

 

[DanThePackerFan]

Well, that's always tough to quantify, but I would say yes, I agree with you, marginally.

The Eagles faced 9 winning teams last year during the regular season, and finished 5-4. The Packers faced 7 this year, finishing 3-4.

The Packers excel in turnover differential, finishing at +24 for the year compared to just +3 for the Eagles last year.

The Packers finished the year allowing 3.59 Yards/Passing attempt, forcing negative pass plays (INT/sacks) on 11.61% of opposing passing plays, and allowing 36.02% of 3rd down conversions.

The 2008 Eagles allowed 3.51 yards/passing attempt, forced negative pass plays on 11.00% of dropbacks, and held opponents to 32.2% on 3rd downs.

The 2008 Eagles allowed 3.5 yards per rushing attempt to Green Bay's 3.6.

The 2008 Eagles averaged 3.97 yards per passing attempt, encountered a negative pass play on just 6.3% of dropbacks, and converted 3rd downs at a 41.3% clip.

The 2009 Packers averaged 4.27 yards/passing attempt, had a negative pass play on 9.62% of dropbacks and convert 3rd downs at a rate of 47.03%.



It would be even more interesting to me to boil the numbers down to the stretch run of the season for the two teams, to further isolate how the Packers and 2008 Eagles were playing at that time. The Eagles went 4-3-1 down the stretch to the Packers' 7-1.


For what it's worth, the Cardinals held more or less the same from '08 to '09 in these categories. Zero turnover margin last year to minus 7 this year, slightly better at holding teams on third down, slightly better at forcing negative pass plays, but allowing larger chunks of yardage per play. That tells me the defense is higher risk/higher reward than last year.

On offense, the same trends follow. In the lower third of the league on yards per passing attempt, good at eliminating negative pass plays, and a drop from the upper third in '08 to the lower third in '09 at converting 3rd downs.

Last year's Cardinals were also much more battle tested, going 2-6 in 8 games against teams with winning records versus just 2-2 this season.

Another noteworthy troubling statistic I saw while watching the Cardinals-Rams game from a few weeks back is that the Cards are allowing 5.5 yards per carry since week 8, which was (at the time) the worst mark in the NFL. I'm sure with three RBs going over 200 in a game since then, that's changed, but it isn't an encouraging number.



A lot to take in, I know. I also know we can't figure out the results until the game is played, but a lot can be learned from putting context to how teams perform. Long story short, I agree with whoever said the 2008 Eagles were a bit ahead of the 2009 Packers, but I don't think the 2009 Cardinals are as good as the 2008 version, either.

Love to hear your thoughts.

 

[daves]

We beat Minnesota, Minnesota beat the Packers twice. Paper, rock, scissors.

I'm not sure rochambeau is the analogy you wanted to use there, as it is NOT a transitive game. Paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, and scissors beats paper. But i'm sure you wanted to imply, transitively, that since the Cardinals beat the Vikings, and the Vikings beat the Packers, the Cardinals are likely to beat the Packers.

But even that kind of argument has already been reversed in favor of the Packers, with the 49ers in the middle.

It's going to come down to the matchups and game plan this weekend....

...dave

 

[Duckjake]

And the references to last year's Super Bowl team? Come on, the evolution of a football team in twelve months is vast. Players evolve. Schemes evolve. Injuries happen. Coaches add and take away. If I were talking about my team by referencing how the Packers looked in December of 2008, I can assure you I wouldn't be as confident as I am now.

I don't think teams change vastly even over 5-10 years because they usually have the same core of players for a long time and especially if their QB stays the same. Look at your own team, 10 playoff appearances in 12 years from '93-2004 and back to back SB appearances with Farve.

Colts 10 of the last 11 years with Manning.

Eagles 8 in the last 10 with 5 NFC Championship game appearances with McNabb.

Chargers 4 years in a row with Rivers.

Patriots 7 of the last 9 with 4 SB appearances with Brady.

None of those teams looked vastly different to me from one year to the next.

The Cowboys and 49ers dominated the NFL for years playing the same way every year.

Some teams like the Bears and Cardinals for instance don't change much over decades. The Bears, until trading for Cutler, played defense and ran the ball but couldn't pass almost every year going back to the 60s.

The Cards still play the same brand of football they have since the 70s. Great WRs and passing game with a weak running game and defense.

Sure teams change some from year to year and of course even game to game but not as dramatically as many people think.

 

[DanThePackerFan]

I don't think teams change vastly even over 5-10 years because they usually have the same core of players for a long time and especially if their QB stays the same. Look at your own team, 10 playoff appearances in 12 years from '93-2004 and back to back SB appearances with Farve.

Colts 10 of the last 11 years with Manning.

Eagles 8 in the last 10 with 5 NFC Championship game appearances with McNabb.

Chargers 4 years in a row with Rivers.

Patriots 7 of the last 9 with 4 SB appearances with Brady.

None of those teams looked vastly different to me from one year to the next.

The Cowboys and 49ers dominated the NFL for years playing the same way every year.

Some teams like the Bears and Cardinals for instance don't change much over decades. The Bears, until trading for Cutler, played defense and ran the ball but couldn't pass almost every year going back to the 60s.

The Cards still play the same brand of football they have since the 70s. Great WRs and passing game with a weak running game and defense.

Sure teams change some from year to year and of course even game to game but not as dramatically as many people think.

The only teams I can buy really sticking through philosophies for long periods of time are ones with excellent coordinators.

The Eagles held the same identity on defense under the late Jim Johnson, the same goes with the Steelers for LeBeau and (until recently) Tampa under Kiffin.

The offensive system put in place for Manning in Indy has gone through fluctuations in balance since he got there. Sure, he's a rock at QB, but they finally realized that they need to be able to run the ball effectively (and stop in on the other side of the ball) to really succeed. He only had one QB rating over 80 in their three game march to a championship in '06.

Reid, I suppose, is an exception to the rule. When he carried Holmgren's West Coast system over to Philly and put Johnson in control of the defense, they fielded a very similar team year after year. But a closer look shows that even during their NFC championship runs, shifts in philosophy existed with the addition of Owens (and more recently Desean Jackson) to a much more downfield focused passing game compared to how they started (in the Reggie Brown, Todd Pinkston, Fred Ex days).

The 49ers and Dallas dynasties from the late 80's through the mid 90's existed in a much different time of roster turnover. That was my favorite era of the NFL, and I wish teams were still built like that. It's not like that today anymore.

And as far as our rivals to the south here in Wisconsin... I can assure you that through any number of coaches and vastly different offensive philosophies, the Bears continued to "feature" the run merely because they have been unable to find a QB capable of passing effectively.


How does this all relate to the Cardinals being the same from last year to this year? Hard to tell. In Wisenhunt's third year, they've kept generally the same trends statistically, with the exception of becoming more aggressive on defense (more prone to the big play, but more likely to make it, too) and not as effective on third downs. I'm interested to see how this team looks compared to what I saw last year and the year before.

 

[Duckjake]

And as far as our rivals to the south here in Wisconsin... I can assure you that through any number of coaches and vastly different offensive philosophies, the Bears continued to "feature" the run merely because they have been unable to find a QB capable of passing effectively.

That's partly what I'm talking about. Look at us. Since OJ Anderson left for the Giants, through numerous coaches etc., the Cards simply couldn't find a way to run the ball effectively.

And with the exception of one year under Buddy Ryan have never been able to really field a stout defense. This year is only the 4th time since 1981 that the Cards have not finished in the bottom 10 in the NFL in either points allowed or yards allowed.

Meanwhile even in 2003 when the 4-12 Cards finished dead last in points scored Anquan Boldin still had 101 catches for over 1300 yards and 8TDs.

Its why new coaches #1 priority when taking over losing teams is to "change the culture".

What has always struck me as odd it that teams like the Bears have continued to be able to run the ball even though they had no passing game. The reverse being true of the Cards.

 

[CardLogic]

I don't think the 2009 Cardinals are as good as the 2008 version, either.

Stats, schmats...

Most Cardinals fans (myself included) that watch the team each and every week will tell you, the '09 season Cards are a better team than the '08 season Cards. What remains to be determined is: are the '10 playoff Cardinals better than the '09 playoff Cardinals.

 

[Russ Smith]

A few comments on your stats Dan. Surely you realize the reason the Pack has scored so many points this year is that +24 takeaway number? in general a possession in the NFL is worth about 4 points, so a +24 is worth about 96extra points. Take away is the single most conclusive stat in the NFL, generally speaking the team that turns it over the least wins.

In several of the Cards losses this year and last year they were very TO prone, like Carolina and Sf(second game) this year. When the Cards protect the ball they usually win.

I don't think that stat is luck for the Pack they force turnovers, but if they don't get them Sunday they probably won't win, because if the Cards don't turn it over, they usually win.

I don't see how anybody could suggest the 08 team was better than the 09 Cards unless they just don't see enough games. The only stat that was better last year was points scored 426to 375 this year, but they allowed 425 points last year to only 325 this year. Last year the Cards were only +1 in points scored to allowed, this year they're plus 50. And that's with the injuries to Boldin, Breaston and having Ben Patrick suspended the first 4 games of the season. It was also plus 76 before the last game where the Cards didn't care what the outcome was.

The Cards were -7 in takeaways this year that's why they scored less points but they still had way better defensive numbers. The run game is substantially better and the offense is MUCH more balanced. If they play catch with the QB DB's again GB will win, if they don't, I just don't see GB being able to stop the Cards from scoring and winning on the road will be very tough.

 

[Russ Smith]

Stats, schmats...

Most Cardinals fans (myself included) that watch the team each and every week will tell you, the '09 season Cards are a better team than the '08 season Cards. What remains to be determined is: are the '10 playoff Cardinals better than the '09 playoff Cardinals.

Exactly, if the Cards play as well sunday as they did in the playoffs last year they will win. It's just no possible to know if they will play that well, even the coaches and team don't know that.

 

[DanThePackerFan]

Stats, schmats...

Most Cardinals fans (myself included) that watch the team each and every week will tell you, the '09 season Cards are a better team than the '08 season Cards. What remains to be determined is: are the '10 playoff Cardinals better than the '09 playoff Cardinals.

If your handle suggests that you enjoy logic, I think we'll get along.


My major weakness in analyzing teams previously is that I was unable to conduct the "eye test" outside of maybe a few national games. Too small of a sample size. Recently I bought the NFL Game Rewind package from NFL.com which gives access to every NFL game (pre, regular, post season) from the past two years in their entirety on demand. I think it's $14.99/month.

So I've actually been able to watch some Cardinals games from last year compared to this year. I'm interested in my findings. My impression is that they took an already up and down team and made them even more high risk, high reward on defense. DRC is progressing extremely well as a cover man, Wilson's still a rock deep in the secondary, but the play of your interior linebackers (Dansby and Hayes) has taken a step back from the playoff run last year, and they were a key to making that entire defense run. Allowing 5.5 yards/carry over the final 8 games this year is bad news for the Cardinals going into the playoffs.

On offense, things aren't too different. Wells adds another playmaker, but I don't get the impression Kurt is as sharp or as consistent as last year. It's shown on third downs.

The first half Green Bay Packers wouldn't have matched up with this team. The current version can and will play with any team in the NFL. Every negative that plagued the Packers early on in the season has been quelled, from offensive line protection issues to Rodgers holding on to the ball too long to penalties to special teams coverage break downs. We're peaking right now, and I couldn't be happier about it.