Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Yes, Burnett is an Upgrade. No, It Wouldn't Have Helped.

By Category

Yes, Burnett is an Upgrade. No, It Wouldn't Have Helped.

No single player on the roster received as much ire from the Packer faithful as Jerron McMillian, the fill-in safety that found himself beat in coverage and grasping air on tackles. As is the case after any emotional loss, social media lit into the poor kid Sunday night, coupled with the oft-repeated claim, "If we only would have had Casey Hayward and Morgan Burnett playing, we would have won that game."

Naturally, the emphasis was placed on Burnett, who would have taken the place of McMillian in the lineup.  He's the starter, and he's a an immediate upgrade over what we had in there, it was claimed.

First of all, I agree with that last sentiment. I really don't like hammering on any young player thrown to the wolves in a high-pressure game against a superior opponent. I watched Jeremy Ross get saddled with the majority of the blame for the loss in last season's playoff game from some quarters, though I still have to wonder how a punt return fumble somehow accounted for a quarterback rushing for 181 yards.

But, let's be honest. McMillian had a rough game. He's shown a lot of promise in his time in the Green and Gold, but he's not ready for that kind of prime time responsibility. Indeed, the veteran Burnett would be an upgrade over him, and I am eager for his return. Putting McMillian back into a support role (and, perhaps, against more middling competition than the NFC favorites) will do wonders for him. Personally, I'm going to root for him to silence his critics the rest of this season.

However, I do not agree--in the least--that Burnett would have made a difference in the final score of the game against the 49ers. And, I'll tell you why.

The Packers, with Morgan Burnett in the backfield, were shellacked against the 49ers last January. They played a more traditional dime defense against the 49ers in that game, and were wiped out on the ground. Burnett's skills at free safety didn't do much to stop the 323 rushing yards San Francisco put up against them.

So on Sunday, the Packers made the best adjustment they could, schematically, to play the 49ers differently. Instead of simply putting a spy on Colin Kaepernick as they tried to do in the playoff game, they kept 6-8 bodies in the box and forced Kaepernick to stay in the pocket and beat the Packers with his arm. As you could see by the final score, the Packers fared much better with this strategy. I'd even be willing to call it a winning strategy.

Except they didn't win. The Packers compensated for containing the run by playing a loose zone in the secondary Without instant pressure on Kaepernick, we were treated to a display of Rodgers-esque accuracy and velocity. Yes, kids, Colin can throw as well as run. And when the middle of the field is left wide open, someone is going to catch the ball.

In this game, Burnett would have upgraded the wrapping up, for certain. He's a solid tackler and you wouldn't have the whiffs that McMillian gave us. But Burnett would have been playing the same zone defensive assignments that McMillian was, and Anquan Boldin would still be catching the ball 14 yards deep.  Maybe we drastically reduce Boldin's yards-after-catch numbers, but it doesn't change the fact that he continually got open, no matter how the Packers adjusted.

As the Packers continue with their season, and face more traditional defenses, Burnett's skill set will become more valuable than playing a zone. In the end, no matter how Packer fans want to rationalize it, a missing safety wouldn't have fixed that final score.

The truth is--as hard as it is to face it--that the 49ers are a better team than the Packers, and our best game isn't good enough to beat their best game at this point, three games running. Trust me, I wouldn't trade my quarterback or head coach for San Fran's any day. I don't like Kaepernick or Harbaugh and am starting to hate the 49ers the same way I hated the Cowboys back in the early 1990's.

But they are the team the Packers need to learn how to beat. Period.

And that's going to take more than just a safety.

-------------------------------

C.D. Angeli is a lifelong Packer fan and feature writer at CheeseheadTV.  He is the co-host of the weekly Packers podcast Cheesehead Radio and is the good cop running PackersTalk.com. He loves it when people point out his articles are too long.  Follow him on Twitter at @TundraVision.

 

  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (84) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Rob's picture

My thoughts exactly, except better articulated. Thanks for the great post.

Jamie's picture

Read the headline, and so emphatically disagree with the assertion that having Burnett wouldn't have helped to be so preposterous, ignorant and ill-informed, I won't waste my time reading.

tundravision's picture

Please. You refuse to read my articles if they are more than 100 words long, Jamie.

Jamie's picture

Touché

JakeK's picture

Jamie
The major of Doucheville.
Go-Away.

aNEWpackersJERSEY's picture

MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY! Those seam routes to Boldin and Davis would've been better challenged by Burnett, and having him would've also allowed McMillan to play in space near the line of scrimmage, where he does his best work.

trvs's picture

You actually should have read the article.

The D could have played much better, but they also gave the offense a nice chuck 49er 3rd and out's to work with and they stalled.

This game will define the season. Just need to be 2010 clutch...

Longshanks's picture

In my best John Wayne voice, "like hell it wouldn't have!!"

L's picture

agreed.

themasterfake's picture

Not quite sure how he would not have helped since he "would have helped with the wrapping up"
Is Cow writing these headlines lately?

Evan's picture

I dunno. It's obviously impossible to say definitively. But since the game was so close and you even concede that Burnett's presence would have eliminated some of the missed tackles, YAC and late coverage to Vernon (I added that last one) I don't think it's a stretch to conclude the Packers would have won with him.

But, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Bring on the Skins.

RC Packer Fan's picture

I agree...
Another way to look at it is, on 3 TD's Bush, Jennings, and I believe McMillan? gave up TD's. If Burnett and Hayward play, maybe they don't have those TD's or maybe not all 3. You just don't know how the game would have been played had Burnett and Hayward played.
The best way you can look at it is that if Burnett and Hayward plays, that means that Bush doesn't play, which is huge no matter how you look at it.

jeremy's picture

Sorry CD, I like your articles but your just plain wrong. Burnett would have made a huge difference. McMillen and Jennings were a step slow reading the play all game and it opened huge areas for Boldin to operate in.

tundravision's picture

I don't deny that a healthy Hayward would have made a difference. The biggest thing missing was aggressive, ball-hawking, disruptive play, and a healthy Hayward brings that. Burnett is a hard hitter, but he's not a natural free safety, and he wasn't playing a traditional defense where the FS is able to come up in coverage and take angles to the ball.

Evan's picture

Yeah...the argument that Burnett would have been playing the "same zone" as McMillian strikes me as silly. As if Burnett, an all-around vastly superior player, wouldn't have executed the defense more adeptly.

Brian Lee's picture

Exactly!

zub's picture

MM accepting the penalty on the goal line and replaying the 3rd down cost the game. IMO MM got out coached, the talent is even, 49ers have a better coach

Juice Maloose's picture

Niners may very well have gone for it on fourth an inches there. I don't necessarily agree with MM's call there, but the outcome likely would have been the same regardless.

aNEWpackersJERSEY's picture

And ANOOTTHEER thing (lol) I refuse to believe that Micah Hyde doesn't at least deserve a look at the safety position. He clearly has more ball skills and and better overall coverage abilities than Jennings or McMillan, and just may be a better tackler.

tundravision's picture

Could be. I do want to write a piece later this week on the role of a free safety, and how the Packers defense has struggled without one (since Collins retired). Have to understand the role as the quarterback of the defense, have the game slowed down enough to make those calls and take the right angle.

I see Hyde as a Charles Woodson/LeRoy Butler type. Still need that Nick Collins/Eugene Robinson guy back there, and I don't think Burnett is tailor-made for that role.

Satori's picture

Thanks for the discussion CD, always enjoy your work.
Your comment above about the defensive QB offers some insight. Burnett is the only one who has enough experience where the game slows down for him. MD and Jerron aren't there yet. And with an entire offseason for the 9ers to prepare, it puts a lot of pressure on the young safeties.
Burnett's role as defensive QB might have made a difference, especially since the change didn't come until the 11th hour. McMillian and Jennings battled all summer to be the Strong Safety - they got very little time in that FS role and very little time together in TC

Burnett's experience and acumen at lining everybody up - especially with all the shifts and motions...shouldn't be underestimated.

Thanks again for your great work

jmac3444's picture

GB lost by 6 points and Burnett (who you even said was a better player) would not have made a difference?

tundravision's picture

Did you read the article? Feel free.

denniseckersley's picture

Agree, sort of. The game was winnable without Burnett. Our offense was just as effective against their defense as their offense was against our defense.......Except for the turnovers. The game was lost on the turnovers, the terrible return game, and some really brutal penalties. Morgan Burnett would not have had an effect on any of those things.

Oppy's picture

This. Except, well, the additional talent that Burnett brings to the table -could- have an effect on the turnover ratio.. He could have snagged a T/O himself and helped level the playing field, so to speak. ;)

denniseckersley's picture

true

Jamie's picture

???

Did you really just list the reasons the game was lost and not list the torching the backend of the defense took??

The biggest reason the outcome of the game is likely different with Burnett instead of McMillian is NOT due to how talented and proficient Burnett is, but rather just how piss poor McMillian was on Sunday.

McMillian was HORRIBLE. An average or better game by Burnett would have stopped a couple of the big plays/drives in which McMillian was culpable.

RC Packer Fan's picture

I will say that the Packers didn't lose the game because they didn't have Burnett and Hayward.
However, they would have made a huge difference in the game.
IMO the Packers lost because the offense failed to sustain long enough drives, had way to many 3 and outs, in which gave the 49ers the ball 17 minutes longer then the Packers. The defense simply wore down. To me the blame for the loss on this game should go to the offense more then the defense.
But again, Burnett and Hayward would have made a huge difference.

davyjones's picture

Not to mention starting most of their drives at, what, the 10??

RC Packer Fan's picture

And honestly, the blame can be on the special teams, but at the same time if the offense doesn't go 3 and outs so many times, they would have been able to change the field position bit as well.

MarkinMadison's picture

+1

No running game = 3rd and long = short drives = - POS

Uptempo offense = - POS

= Gassed at the end of the game.

Scott's picture

.

RC Packer Fan's picture

1 play such as the one where the refs blew the 3rd down play and gave the 49ers a retry...

One thing that not many people want to talk about is that McMillan had a perfect opportunity to tackle Boldin short of the 1st down line. Instead he misses the tackle and Boldin goes in for the TD.
Maybe that is the 1 play in which Burnett makes the play and 49ers have to settle for a field goal which changes everything.
Its hard to speculate on those plays, but you can't deny that Burnett would have had made more plays then Jennings and McMillan were able to.

Oppy's picture

"..you can’t deny that Burnett would have had made more plays then Jennings and McMillan were able to."

False...

--> "..you can’t deny that Burnett COULD have had made more plays then Jennings and McMillan were able to."

True.

RC Packer Fan's picture

nope. liked my way better. :)

Oppy's picture

While I can not make a silly statement like, "Burnett would have been the difference between losing and winning", I can not see the wisdom in claiming, "Burnett would not have changed the outcome because he played when CK ran for 181 yards."

All game long, we were treated to clips of either Jennings or McMillian standing deep in space, painfully slow to read and react to the receivers crossing in front of them, not breaking on the ball while it was in the air, but rather, waiting until it was in the hands of a WR (mostly, A. Boldin), before taking an angle to the action. That is an issue that talent could have certainly played a large factor in, and yes, it could have even been the difference between a reception and an incomplete pass.

I've seen Burnett on the far hash make a break on a ball when it left the QB's hands and break up a pass on the far sidelines. That's the kind of range that only Nick Collins had possessed, and I think if a guy can make a break on a pass like that, he could probably been a factor in containing and limiting a team's passing underneath the coverage in the middle of the field.

Again, Capers stated that he had called for doubles on Boldin during the game that were not executed. When you translate that, it reads, "Guys out there were making mental mistakes." Now, he didn't name anyone, but usually you're looking at a S to supply that bracketed coverage... So, again, I have to contend that Morgan Burnett's presence on the field would have had a tangible, positive effect on the defense.

Just my opinion.

Oppy's picture

BTW, CD, always love your posts

tundravision's picture

Thanks, Oppy. I think this is a great conversation.

lebowski's picture

I just hate that the basic premise of this post is, sadly, true... that the 9ers are just a better team than we are right now.

Jamie's picture

But what does that really have to do with the fact we almost beat them?

It's one thing to say they are the better team, which is debatable, but another to say replacing the two weakest players on the weakest part of the DEF could not have changed to outcome of the game Sunday.

If we were talking about replacing Bush with House and McMillian with Jennings, then I would agree. But we're talking about exchanging two major weaknesses with likely strengths.

Not buying it...

tundravision's picture

Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, slow dancing, and hits out of bounds.

Point is, we didn't beat them. We can claim we played them better than last time, but we still lost.

I'm not in the mood to take any type of "moral victories", and neither is Mike McCarthy, according to his presser.

We got beat, and we got beat in the fourth quarter when the game was on the line.

MLecl0001's picture

Yeah I am sorry CD, love your articles however completely disagree here. I am not saying having Burnett would have guaranteed a Packers win but I think would have made it much more likely. And I think that if Burnett and Hayward had played we win this game.

Burnett does more than just stand back there playing center field picking his nose and waiting until some one catches a ball in front of him, which is basically what our safetys were doing Sunday. He calls defensive back field alignments and assignments and he has a lot better range than people give him credit for. Now I am not saying he is the next Collins, however I think if he had better hands people wouldnt be as down on his range as they are now.

I also think with his experience he can read, decipher, and react to plays much faster than the 2 young guys they had out their Sunday. As they say this is a game of inches, and I think Burnett would have given the Packers the edge on some of those battles lost by inches on Sunday.

Brian Lee's picture

MLec, I agree! Nice post.

VApackerfan's picture

Agree 100%. Burnett is the QB of the defense. He sees everything and commands everything. Plug in inexperienced safeties and you get what we saw on Sunday. DL, LB's, Shields and Tramon did their jobs at containing the run and the option play. It was constant abuse in the zone coverage secondary. I'm not gonna claim win with Burnett back there, but considering it was only a six point win, it's hard to think why not.

tundravision's picture

Thanks, ML.

I will be posting a piece later this week on my thoughts on exactly how exceptional of a FS I think Burnett is, which does color my belief on how much he would have impacted Sunday's game.

I find him to be talented, but as a free safety, he's just part of the machine, not a true quarterback that elevates everyone around him.

I hope this is the year that, like Nick Collins in 2009, it all clicks for him and you see the entire defense metamorphize into the kind of D we had when we won the Super Bowl.

But just believing in it really hard doesn't mean its true...yet.

hump's picture

once again overlooked in this chatter is...... neither mcmillian nor jennings should be on the field ever!! laron landry... 15 tackles sunday. 5 mil a year, maybe a bit pricey but not if we go to met life in february. sorry cd,but your argument is like saying that....the packers defense could funtion with erik walden just as good as with clay. thats how much better burnett is than mcmillian or jennings. we all know jennings and mcmillian are not nfl caliber, but our gm's roster contains 50 of 53 players that have never played a single down for any team other than our packers....and he is gonna make sure that its 53 of 53 by next year no matter how bad our safetys are,just for the sake of his ego!!teds only weakness

Jamie's picture

Any person claiming Ted's ego is his weakness has no concept of who Ted is and should refrain from commenting on such matters.

He is widely considered among his peers as having virtually no ego.

Christian's picture

But you realise that there is a salary cap? And that Rodgers and CM3 take up a lot of that cap on their own? It will get worse in the next years too.
Wait for the 49ers to have the first contracts of their star players run out. They will have to let guys go and will come down again.

The 49ers had years and years of high draft picks, and it shows today. Of course they hit on a lot of those picks (kudos to them), but that's how parity in the NFL works, and I personally like that.

themasterfake's picture

Ego?
Pony league football and our coach is a real "Yes COACH..NO COACH" guy. One day during warmups coach is yelling, "Do any of you know why I make you yell, 'Yes, Coach?"

My older brother raises his hand and says, "Ego, Coach?"

I don't think any of us knew what the word meant, but it was bad, since my brother ran laps all practice. .

packsmack25's picture

Referencing the "last three" meetings is pointless, as 2013 features far different rosters for both teams. Green Bay is now the better team. They lost by what should have been two on the road and home field is worth three points. Throw out last year. It doesn't matter any more than 2010 matters.

JakeK's picture

Keep saying it to yourself. ... Maybe by the end of the week the NFL will reverse the decision (Yea!! GB Wins!!) & then packsnack will be happy again.

You really need to move on and quit the crying. ... It's a long season.

hump's picture

now thats funny!! all due respect to ted thompson(as he is amoung the best) but there is not one packer lover that can look me in the cheesehead tv eye and explain why jennings and mcmillian are on that roster for any reason other than TEDS EGO !!!!!! AND THAT FK $&%$&$N EGO is costing us WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!! if you read the previous comment in full.... 50 of our 53 players have never played a down for another nfl team other than green bay!! that my friend is ego!!!!! YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT THERES NOT ONE MID LEVEL FREE AGENT IN THE FOOTBALL WORLD THAT TED COULD HAVE SIGNED,THAT WOULD NOT BE A HUGE UPGRADE OVER JENNINGS OR MCMILLIAN!!! WATCH TAPE, THAN TALK FOOTBALL,DONT LISTEN TO TEDS PEERS(WHICH NONE OF US KNOW!!!)

Franklin Hillside's picture

Lol...okay...wait, let me...Lol.

Nevermind.

Christian's picture

Some people sound like Burnett was error free last year and played like an all-pro.

Newsflash: He wasn't!

It's mood to guess if the Packers would have won against the 49ers if he had played. It's a typical "monday morning uarterback" discussion. All teams have to deal with injuries and have to play inferior players. You deal ith it and help those players cover their weakness and play to their strengths. And that's what the Packers fail to do regularly.

Bomdad's picture

So Burnett, who has two or three seasons of experience directing the coverages in this defensive scheme, would not have called a timeout when he sees Nick Perry lined up on Boldin? It's not there same defense. You really underestimate leadership and experience of players.

tundravision's picture

By the way, thanks for all the discussion on this article. I admit I do get frustrated at time when I put 2.5 hours researching and writing a feature-length piece and the only responses I get are people telling me not to write too much, or just disagreeing with a topic they don't like.

But, going to bed and waking up to 42 intelligent comments debating a point that I made, whether they agree with me or not? That's why I write. That's why I chose to bring my writing to CHTV to begin with. And I did cut myself off on this one, stopping at 700 words. Seeing the benefit.

Evan's picture

TL; DR

mudduckcheesehead's picture

CD, I've enjoyed reading your articles for a long time. Their (sometimes overly) verbose character is a strength, not a weakness.

I do have to disagree with you when you say that our best game isn't good enough to beat their best game at this point. They might have played their best game on Sunday; they looked pretty tight. We, however, did not. Leaving the defensive performance and creative officiating aside, our offense and special teams were sloppy. Poor play calling, poor decision making and poor execution plagued these units for much of the game. If screw our heads on straight, we win this game.

Brian Lee's picture

Yep!

Bert's picture

Very well articulated article. I agree that Burnett would have helped but I'm afraid the result would have been the same. We just don't have the horses on defense to match up with the 49ers offense on most days. Depending on 1 guy (Clay Mathews) to provide a pass rush with a zone defense just won't cut it. But that's probably what we are stuck with given the talent level. Against most teams we will match up OK. 49ers, not so much. Just have to hope for a day where the offense can just out score them.

Robert's picture

Brian you suck. You said "49ers are a better team than the Packers ". Well… you should stop calling this Cheeseheadtv because you are obviously not a Packers fan, you’re a dammed reporter. The Packers are publicly traded; their most esteemed coach has the Super Bowl trophy named after him; our quarterback has brought us to the playoffs 3 years running, but… I can see that to you the 49ers are the best team. The one you think about when you go to sleep at night hoping that Colin will sign your 49ers panties. You need to stop calling yourself a Packers fan. YOU ARE NOT, you’re a dumb reporter looking for a story for people to read.

Lou's picture

The record shows the 49ers beat the Packers 3 times within a years time, they are the better team - period no matter if you are a Packer fan or not. The Packers have a full season and playoff period to change that fact. The article is viable and timely in reference to the difference having arguably the Packers 2 best defensive backs on the field for the game (assuming Williams is still not 100%). Further yet to this point, even the casual fan had to realize that the teams weakest link entering 2013 was the safety position (assuming either Crosby rebounds or is replaced as the place kicker). This topic as well as whether the offense can run the ball better will continue to be the most discussed topics of the season provided no important starter are lost for the season early. This reporter is doing his job well.

tundravision's picture

*looks around*

Do you think Brian Carriveau wrote this article?

Seriously. Don't rip on someone else's ability as a "reporter" when you can't take the time to "investigate" the name on the by-line and the bio at the end of the article you just read.

Tarynfor12's picture

Whether Burnett would/could have changed the game or at least some play results,what many fail to understand is....for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction....the play and calls of the Niners would/could have changed based on the personel...Burnett.

There are no 'if'happens in football..just 'did' happens.

madmanJack's picture

sorry, but i find many of your articles to be off base logically. how can you say that taking your best safety out of the game doesn't make a difference?

and to say that the niners and packers played their best games and the packers lost is baseless. the Packers turned the ball over twice to the niners 0. tack on all the penalties and this game was from from the best for the Packers and they only lost by 6.

tao li's picture

exactly, he must get a charge by putting a different kind of article out there

Hank Scorpio's picture

In a one score game, replacing an atrocious player that was heavily exploited with a competent one can very easily make the difference.

And citing last year's games with Burnett as "evidence" he is not difference maker is an utterly ridiculous point. Last January, the Packers got man-handled in SF. Last week, they stood toe to toe with a tough team on the road and came up a play or two short. Maybe Burnett would not have changed the outcome but it sure is within his range of ability to have made the difference.

tao li's picture

What kind of weed do you smoke?

Brian Lee's picture

While I tend to agree with most of your analysis, this time your argument is not sound.

Yes, you cannot guarantee that the Packers would have won with Burnett and Hayward, but it is very likely they would have.

The tackling probably have been better causing the 49ers to have to execute more plays in their drives, but more importantly the margin for error would have been much smaller for Kaep.

Yes they would have played the same zone, but because of Burnett's and Hayward's experience and talent level and the corresponding confidence that goes with it the zone itself would have been a little tighter. Most importantly would be they would react to the play much quicker and cover a lot more ground from throw to catch. This would have made the windows much tighter for Kaep to throw through.

Normally the Packers have 1 hole in their defensive backfield - Strong Safety. Strong safety is the easiest hole to cover as the SS generally stays close to the line of scrimmage. A defensive backfield can cover one hole most of the time. With three holes in the defensive backfield, as we saw, you can not hide the holes.

By adding the 4th best corner back in the NFL (last year) and a safety that will probably be in consideration for the pro bowl this year, the probability of a turnover is much higher.

Also, I do believe the Packers definitely have the team now to beat the 49ers. They came close with an inefficient offensive performance and down two top tier starters in the defensive back field. When we see the 49ers in the playoffs, I really like the Packers chances if the team is healthy.

tundravision's picture

Actually went back and looked at most of the big plays on DVR. The only play that I really thought McMillian/Burnett should have truly made a play on the ball was the touchdown following Matthews' personal foul on Kaepernick. Otherwise, the missed tackles would still have been on receptions.

Don't get me wrong...as the Packers move to a more traditional defense based on the offenses they face, Burnett will be in a position to have more of an impact on the game.

I just don't think he would have been in the position to influence the game in such a way that it would have prevented TDs from going up on the scoreboard.

THEMichaelRose's picture

The Packers' chances of winning would have increased had Burnett been on the field. Would they have won? Maybe not. But saying it definitively wouldn't have helped is wrong.

You account for the missed tackles, I believe McMillian had 4 or something (could be wrong). That's a lot. In a game that was essentially decided by one 4th down conversion in the end, one less conversion of any sort throughout that game could've made the difference. Maybe with a better tackle. Or maybe Burnett wouldn't allowed guys he was responsible for to catch 6 balls on 6 targets, yes it was a zone, but Burnett's instincts and reaction time are better.

Burnett COULD have changed the final score, for sure, no doubt.

jc's picture

Maybe with Burnet and Hayward in the game the Packers would have played more man to man defense and blitzed a little more. It seemed like the Packers were very concerned about Kaepernick running and forgot to rush the passer, or maybe they just couldn't get any pressure. Either way Tim Tebow could pick apart a defense with that much time to throw.

Evan's picture

They didn't "forget" to rush the passer, but often were being smart about not being overly aggressive and opening up lanes for him to run.

Lars's picture

This is just an outstanding analysis, one of the best I've seen here or anywhere else on the game, and the simple truth that SF is just a better team now.

Packer fans have trouble admitting it (McCarthy's "we're nobody's underdogs") but that's the way it is.

KennyPayne's picture

100% agree SF is the better team and that if Burnett played the Niners still win.

But can you explain the contention that McMillian has "shown a lot of promise in his time in the Green and Gold?"

Really? When exactly? Safety is a position of need and he has done nothing to show he is capable of playing the position. Do we wait until year 3 before we expect him to contribute like a NFL player?

Lou's picture

Agreed on McMillon, he is now the "new" D. J. Williams as far as expectations vs. game production. He underachieved all training camp and was beaten out by Jennings who continues to be too small to play at a high level in the NFL. At least Bush can tackle, however both McMillon and Jennings, like Bush couldn't find the ball in the air with a GPS.

Concerned Fan's picture

For the record; I don't think I'd be able to find a ball in the air with a GPS either.

tundravision's picture

Can't base a negative review on just one game.

http://jerseyal.com/GBP/2013/02/10/jerron-mcmillian-2012-green-bay-packe...

h/t to Jason Perone.

Jake - State Farm's picture

I'm confused. Your saying we did better stopping the 333 yards on the ground versus them putting up an astonishing 333 yards in the air this time.

Bottom line for me is last year their plan was to run and run they did. Record setting.

This year their plan was to pass and pass they did, astonishling well.

So we apparently did a much better job at losing this year than last? due to our improved defensive play?

JakeK's picture

“If we only would have had Casey Hayward and Morgan Burnett playing, we would have won that game.”

This is only an excuse that ill-informed fans of the game came up with to soothe their anguished souls because the Pack lost 1 lousy game (a bit of sarcasm).

CD, your objective analysis was spot on. ... But, remember, most of the posters here are subjective people who want the make-believe version so they can sleep well at night.

Nerd's picture

Burnett would have made a difference, imo. He's better in coverage.

But what would REALLY have made a difference is a little time of possession.

If Kaepernick had as much ToP as we did, he'd only have thrown for 264 yards, because he would have had fewer plays.

But Mike and Aaron are obssessed with this "no huddle" crap. I don't know if it's because they're trying to rack up stats to break Favre's records. But I do know that it gave the Niners THAT MANY more plays on offense. And it seemed to me our defense wore down at the end, badly.

"Rodgers led fast-paced touchdown drives of 6 plays, 80 yards (1:47); 8 plays, 62 yards (1:16); 7 plays, 69 yards (2:48) and 8 plays, 76 yards (2:30)."

THEMichaelRose's picture

I think it's pretty clear their goal would not be to be breaking records.

But I hear ya. The TD drives were efficient, but there's obviously costs associated with it, the TOP and defense fatigue.

That said, if the no-huddle "crap" makes the Packers that much more advantaged on offense, they should keep doing it, no question. I think the Packers kept more guys on D partly because of this issue they anticipated.

themasterfake's picture

to change the subject....a bit, srry. How is it with over 40 seconds left in first and third quarters the 49ers commit two presnap penalties and the clock is restarted resulting in over 40 seconds of football time and no play?
I ask this since the heavyweights seem to be following this post.

madmanJack's picture

i hope Banjo gets more playing time against the Skins.....at least he can tackle.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Tickets

Must Read

Quote

"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "