A Somewhat Depressing Blowout
Green Bay had several things going for it this week. In no particular order, they were:
- Coming off the bye week
- Getting Chad Clifton and Atari Bigby back from injury
- Playing Detroit at home
- Playing against a team missing it's best QB (Matthew Stafford) and WR (Calvin Johnson)
All together, these things pointed to a dominant Green Bay victory. And, in the end, it was, if you consider only the final score (26-0). So then why did this feel like a letdown? Short version: we saw the same old problems surfacing again. Long version: after the jump.
Here are some things that I saw that I didn't like. As usual (sadly), these are all impressions that I got despite not watching the game.- 13 penalties for 130 yards. Green Bay netted 435 yards. They allowed Detroit to gain 149. Their 130 yards lost to penalties were over 25% of their offensive gains and nearly 90% of Detroit's. That is absolutely unacceptable. Let's do a rundown of how many of what penalty there were:
5 personal fouls - 75 yards
3 false starts - 15 yards
2 holding - 20 yards
2 illegal formation - 5 yards
1 illegal contact - 5 yards
False starts happen, even though they shouldn't. Holding happens way more than it's called. Illegal contact happens almost as much as holding. Even illegal formation happens, even though it's a stupid penalty that you should get out of your system in high school. But personal fouls? Absolutely ridiculous. Unless there's a brawl, there's no way any team should get called for five personal fouls in one game. I have no idea whether or not these were legit penalties, but the fact that Packer players were in position to have these penalties called in the first place infuriates me.
You know what that says to me? On-field discipline is a major problem. In a way, that's almost worse than off-field issues. Personal fouls cost the team 3/4 of a football field, while the rest of the penalties combined for 1/2 a field. This will kill you against an opponent with a better offense. I don't care how young a team is; you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be whistled five times for 15 yard penalties. I cannot express in a family friendly manner how angry I am over these penalties.
Of course, penalties have been a problem all year. The Packers have been flagged 43 times (4th in NFL) for 359 yards (3rd in NFL). Mike McCarthy said that it was something they would have to fix. You had a bye week, coach. And even that didn't keep the team from putting up a season-worst performance penalty-wise. Ugh. - Five sacks for 30 yards. If the penalty yardage wasn't bad enough, tack on the losses to Detroit's pass rushers. Now, I have respect for Julian Peterson and Cliff Avril. They are the best pass rushers on a team that doesn't perform well in this department. Still, they combined for 3.5 sacks, which is not good. But Turk McBride, a player who had one tackle all season before Week 6 and isn't even listed on Detroit's depth chart on NFL.com, had 5 tackles and 1.5 sacks.
I know Clifton was dealing with an injury. I know the offensive line has been all shuffled and jumbled around this season. I know Mark Tauscher isn't ready yet. But you cannot give up five sacks a game! Yet that's exactly what they're doing (5 games + 25 sacks = 5.0 sacks/game average)!
In other news, Aaron Rodgers' contract was renegotiated to include extended medical coverage, a personal chiropractor, yoga classes, and sleep therapy. Because if the season continues this way, he will end up more messed up than Ryan Leaf. If there was any debate as to whether the Packers' O-line is broken, I think this should settle it. - 30 rushes for 107 yards. This statistic isn't even that bad. But then you consider that the majority of the yards were gained by Ryan Grant (24 carries for 90 yards), which still isn't that bad. But then you look at the drive chart for the game, and you realize that nearly half of his yards came on the game's final drive, when Green Bay simply took advantage of a tired Lions' defense for the final 7 1/2 minutes (where Grant totalled 41 yards on 7 attempts, including a 22-yarder, resulting in his final stat line). Before the 7:52 mark in the 4th quarter (when the score was already 26-0), Ryan Grant had 14 carries for 49 yards.
Again, I didn't watch the game. I don't know if the lackluster running performance was the fault of Grant, the O-line, or just good run defense by Detroit. But surely the Packers can do a better job establishing the run against a team that is less than notorious for it's run-stopping. Even with Jason Spitz as a surprise inactive, you have to take it to a team that boasts Grady Jackson as their primary run defender.
Again, this falls to Mike McCarthy. For someone who still uses a workhorse back approach, why didn't he give Grant more carries in the first three quarters of the game? Detroit was a team ripe for the pounding, and Green Bay desperately needs to foster some sort of momentum for their rushing attack to build off of for the remainder of the season. They certainly haven't developed any momentum in the first 4 games. Unless, of course, the season is destined to end on January 3rd, which I sincerely hope it does not.
Okay, so those were all the things that bothered me. Here's what impressed me:
- Zero. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. As a former defensive player, nothing quite compares to the feeling you get when you shut out an opponent. I think the best analogy in sports is a no-hitter in baseball, where everyone from the catcher to the pitcher to the outfielders does their job just right. That's what happened today on defense for Green Bay.
The Lions' quarterbacking duo of Daunte Culpepper and Drew Stanton combined to produce this line: 11/25 for 105 yards and 3 INTs. While that might be a good day for Jamarcus Russell, that's a terrible day for an NFL quarterback, and that's exactly what Dom Capers' 3-4 defense is designed to do. It's fitting that Atari Bigby got the final interception in the end zone to seal the shutout, considering his absence forced the defense into a more conservative (read: more crappy) approach. - Clay Matthews. I know I already talked about how well the defense played as a whole, especially against Detroit's passing game. And of course Matthews wasn't the only one responsible, as Aaron Kampman, Al Harris, Nick Barnett, and Michael Montgomery all came away with sacks. But Matthews' 2 sacks were just another example of how dynamic of a player he is becoming. I barely knew who he was before the draft, and I was clueless as to why Ted Thompson would trade back into the first round to grab him. But I am glad he did. Now the question is: which linebacker has to lose snaps in order to get Matthews on the field more?
- Another interception for a defensive lineman. Remember my whole tirade above about poor discipline? Cullen Jenkins' read of the screen pass was the exact opposite. When an end or tackle gets that much penetration with minimal resistance, that means he either beat his man beyond recognition, or there's something unusual happening. In this case, it was the latter, and Jenkins immediately halted his rush to disrupt the screen pass. A wonderful play.
- Green Bay's receivers. I made a big deal out of the erratic and sometimes frustrating play of the Packers' receiving corps. Well, today they all came to play. Greg Jennings' one-handed grab in the first quarter was a beautiful play, as was James Jones' juke of Marquand Manuel for a 47-yard TD. Even Jermichael Finley continued his development, putting up 54 yards on 5 catches.
But the big story from Lambeau was Donald Driver's record-setting catch in the first quarter, leaving him as the sole leader in receptions in Green Bay history. Of course, his 7 catch, 107 yard performance on the day was nice, but there's something about the story of a 7th round pick becoming a franchise leader in a major category that makes you smile, win or lose. Congratulations, Donald. You're a class act both on and off the field, a true role model, and a top receiver in the history of one of the NFL's premeire franchises. - Aaron MF'ing Rodgers. Of course, someone has to get Donald the ball so he can break that record. And Aaron Rodgers did that, and so much more.
Now, let's not go crazy, because Rodgers wasn't perfect. His fourth quarter interception to former Badger LB DeAndre Levy was simply underthrown, and Jones was closely covered anyway. Rodgers also danced around too much when faced with a collapsing pocket, which led to his fifth sack and a fumble recovered by Larry Foote.
But there was little else Rodgers did poorly. He bought time when he had to, and met with thrilling success on two occasions in the third quarter (especially the play where he faked one way, started out the other direction, then went back in the original direction and, as he was falling backwards, fired a strike to Jermichael Finley off his back foot). All his throws were crisp, and he did an excellent job providing space for his recievers to work after the catch. His 78.4% completion rate and his 113.7 passer rating were stellar, despite his protection issues.
Altogether, this was a decent game all-around. Not great, because the offense surely could have played better. But the defense was outstanding, and even the special teams performed well after Jordy Nelson got hurt. There were things we can take away from this games as positives, but still significant flaws that must be addressed before visiting Cleveland. I'm torn between optimism and pessimism, but perhaps you could sway me one way or the other in the comments section.
0 recs |
88 comments
|
Comments
Missing third party and presidential face palms
otherwise spot on.
also, is TJ Lang going to start as LT next game? because I would like to see more of him.
Kind of a shame the Rockies aren't around to win it for Balloon Boy
-billyok
by blackoutsox on Oct 18, 2009 10:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If the ankle makes it so
If Clifton is healthy, he’ll start. No way does McCarthy bump a healthy Clifton for Lang no matter how bad he played on Sunday. But right now, the ankle doesn’t look good. I bet he’s out next week and Lang would be the starter.
by Brandon on Oct 18, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clay did look good today.
Hopefully Clifton is back before the Min game in November. Do you think we do something before the deadline?
They want power, We want respect...
by SenorChuckles on Oct 18, 2009 10:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good question
I was thinking about this as well. I would say no, but if it looks like Clifton will be out for a while then maybe TT will try and do something.
by packallday555 on Oct 18, 2009 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even Jesus hates our O-Line.

I always loved that one.
by FoulJack on Oct 18, 2009 11:00 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I was at the game today
Only have a quick 2 things to say.
1- I think the running game was slow for the first 3 quarters simply because the Lions didn’t seem to be able to cover any of our receivers. No need to push the run if the opponents can’t stop your forte. I’m pretty sure Rodgers had some sort of obscene line at halftime like 18/21 and 200 yards. He was on fire.
2- Clay Freaking Matthews. The man played like a monster today. Even when he wasn’t making the tackles, he was attacking the ball, pressuring the quarterback, taking up 2 blockers. I have no idea where he suddenly found this momentum, but I think Mr. Hawk could learn a lesson or two from him about being an aggressive defender. It seemed like he was affecting every play.
by sicklebeat on Oct 18, 2009 11:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This was the Clay Matthews we saw at USC
At USC, even when he wasn’t making tackles, he was flowing to the ball beautifully and taking on blockers. Clay made Cushing and Mauluga look good alot of the time. Today, he helped make the rest of the defense look really good.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
by jobe on Oct 18, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice review
I loved to see the defense play as well as they did. There really isn’t much of a difference between Pepper and Stafford at this point in their careers, but the Lions not having Johnson obviously hurt them. The pass defense was stellar, and we finally got some good pressure. And most importantly to me Kampman was down in a 4 point stance for MUCH of the game, and he did a tremedous job rushing the passer, despite being double teamed nearly every play. The run defense was good though I think Smith finished averaging 4+ ypc because of a late 20 yard run. It was such a relief to see Bigby back in there. I loved not seeing a gaping hole in the middle of the field haha.
I thought the offense was pretty good as well. Now I know we came away with more FGs then we would like but a lot of that was just us beating ourselves. Lang again looked surprising good coming in for Clifton. He looks like he has a bright future in this league, even the announcers were very impressed with him, and normally you don’t hear announcers talking about o-lineman unless their doing something bad. He has good explosion of the ball, and plays physical. Also James Jones had a good day today. He showed some of that explosiveness he had displayed in his 07’ rookie year today.
Haha and how about Clay Matthews? The guy does it all. He was responsible for that 4th and 1 stop on the pitch play, and was a monster rushing the passer. Looks like TT may know a little about football after all huh? And as I mentioned above Kampman lined up as a down lineman a lot today. This was great to see as it clearly helped our pass rush, along with Bigby’s return.
by packallday555 on Oct 18, 2009 11:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh and I forgot
Barnett played great today. Looks like he is back at 100%, which is great for us.
by packallday555 on Oct 18, 2009 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
indeed, as did Atari Bigby.
Green and Gold / Black, and White
by OznCoop on Oct 19, 2009 8:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very true
The return of a fully fit Barnett & Bigby is so big for us. It just makes the defence so much more dangerous because they can play considerably more aggressive.
by forkboy on Oct 19, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Agression is the key too our defense. When we play with it, we are very good. It’s when we get passive when we tend to struggle.
by packallday555 on Oct 19, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Silly Packers
You might have one this game, but I am counting down the days till the undefeated division leaders the Minnesota Vikings come to slay you once again. It will be an easy defeat. Silly silly packers
You thought you could beat my team, but yours decided to go have ice cream. Bow to my awesomeness
by packerslayer on Oct 19, 2009 12:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Troll Fail
One =/= won
"You have no honor!" - McClung to Fukudome
by zsxander567 on Oct 19, 2009 2:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can we get a boot?
This guy has nothing to offer but negative comments.
by StephanL on Oct 19, 2009 2:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're counting now? Good boy!
The only thing you might slay from Wisconsin is a cheddar stuffed brat or two. You are a giant nerd, and neither you nor the franchise you are a fan of have honor or class.
Please take a moment to excuse yourself from humanity.
by PackaCracka on Oct 19, 2009 5:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
what a loser…comes in here and says nothing thinking he said so much. Yeah the Vikings who barely beat ANYONE they played now are SO scary. They could be 3-3 as easily as they are 6-0. Eventually the luck runs out just like in the 98 season…I remember that call from PA.
Perfect year becomes loser!
by TrevorR on Oct 19, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully it will be
an easy defeat for the Vikings. You may have one the first won, but it should be a different story at Lambeau.
All kidding aside, if you’re gonna troll, at least try and sort out your grammar issues.
When I get bubbly I do it in moderation,
1 brew, 1 brew, I said 1 brew at a time
by MadisonWino on Oct 19, 2009 1:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Tough to insult someone
when I can’t even reply to them. I fail.
When I get bubbly I do it in moderation,
1 brew, 1 brew, I said 1 brew at a time
by MadisonWino on Oct 19, 2009 1:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems like there's a theme going here each week
First, Brandon recaps the game from an optimistic point of view, then Mitchell recaps it from a pessimistic point of view. Is that intentional, or are you guys just like that?
by Donald Driver on Oct 19, 2009 2:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Ha
Totally unintentional. I might be more emotional than Brandon, but honestly, all three wins had more than a few ugly spots. We haven’t simply dominated a game in all phases like the top teams do, and I believe that focusing on what needs to be improved is more important than raining praise down for what we did do right.
If I come off too pessimistic, then that’s just poor writing on my part. But I am legitimately worried about the chances this team has against a high-level opponent, like Minnesota.
If you look back at my preseason recaps, you’ll probably find a much more pleasant view of the team. That’s because they were dominating everything at the time.
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell_M on Oct 19, 2009 2:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brandon is Mr. Sunshine, but I think too much of a cheerleader. As in WAY too much.
Mitchell — you are right. We beat up on a beat-up team that continually gets beaten. In some ways it was a no-win game — we should have blown them out, and I guess we did. But I’m with you in that the effort reinforced my growing uneasiness.
Thank goodness for the soft schedule.
by ktenreb on Oct 19, 2009 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hold on...
The lions have been competitive in a few games this year including last week against the steelers. They are NOT the 0-16 Lions. However, they also are NOT a good team so we have a LONG way to go before I feel good about where we are right now.
by TrevorR on Oct 19, 2009 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this was a bad win
.. a win is a win is a win … but this one was ugly.
No. 1, Packers outpossessed the Lions 40.48 to 19.12 and only got 26 points on the board. compared to the Pats who outpossessed the Titans 39 to 21 scored 59 ! it’s easy to see the Packers should have scored at least 40 points in this one, especially since they were playing againts a lot of backups !
No.1, 5 sacks !!!! how the h*** do you give up 5!! sacks to the Lions ???
one, you have a bad offensive line (thank you TT…) two, your QB holds the ball for ever, Rodgers, you’re a pretty darn good QB, but you need to make a freakin’ decission and throw the ball !!!
Looks like McCarthy and Rodgers both want to go for the big play all the time, well, I got news for them, the west coast offense is based on short safe passes, taking what the defense gives you, and occationally taking a shot down field. They should not try to make plays that are not there, especially with the state of the O-line !
No.1 Penalites ! 130 yds, that’s one and one third of the field of play ! I can live with two holdings, as Mitchell_M stated, holdings happens more often than they are called, but a holding will only be called if it affects the play. The false starts and Ill. Formation is just bad focus. BUT 5 !! Personal fouls, that’s just brain dead, and yes they were all legit calls, the Facemask, ok, that stuff happens, it’s not good, but it happens. Driver hit an opponent clearly out of the play, so did Colledge… those are the brain dead penalties you can’t have.
Yes, I know all my points are “No.1” I did it on purpose, they are equally bad.
The good stuff, the defense shut out the Lions, however, the Lions offense were without some of theire best, but it’s still a shut out, I have no doubth that Woodson would have made Calvin Johnson insignificant if he played.
Does TT and MM know that even though their running game isn’t allways great, that their defense has some lapses, but still, that other guy keeps tearing up their opponents defenses, and the Viqueens are 6-0 ??? The guy they didn’t want !!!
Yes, I know Favre will never be a Packer again, and that Rodgers is a pretty darn good QB, but there’s a big difference between pdg and beyond great, Favre makes things happen, he makes players around him (both linemen and receivers) better, most importantly he wins football games. Now he’s winning them for the wrong team !
by Jarlsberg on Oct 19, 2009 3:36 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
We didn't play against Favre this week,
and we don’t next week.
There is no need to mention him, especially in this capacity.
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell_M on Oct 19, 2009 3:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A player that TT turned down that's causing Minny to win?
Did Ted Thompson really tell Adrian Peterson “no thanks, we don’t want you”? Because that’s who Minnesota are winning behind. Maybe their big name quarterback has added some drive to the team, and the ability to throw that late gamewinning pass but if he didn’t have AD then all you’d find is that the starting Minny QB would be throwing the same knuckleheaded interceptions by the barrel load that plagued his last few years in Green Bay, and last half of his season in New York. I genuinely struggle to believe that there are still Packer fans that are wishing we didn’t trade him away, that wish we just let Rodgers walk in free agency at the end of last season, and end up having to endure the same old “I’m retiring, oh wait no, I just don’t want to practice” nonsense, unsettling the whole team and ultimately, it would have been a ridiculously shortsighted move. We needed to evaluate Rodgers and see if he was capable of starting at some point, and he didn’t want to spend an entire career stuck on the bench. Do you think we should have hung onto Brett so that it’s him getting smashed with 5 or 6 sacks a game this year? Lets not be stupid here. Aaron Rodgers is a better fit for Green Bay at this point in time than the previous incumbent of the QB job. Time to move on, it’s been long enough now to accept that keeping Rodgers & trading #4 was in cold rational terms the smart move.
by forkboy on Oct 19, 2009 4:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Be real
This isn’t a Favre-forum so I can’t respond. However, it was Brett Favre who beat the Packers on the Monday night game.
by ktenreb on Oct 19, 2009 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine then don't
forget the zebras. And the zero pass rush. You sure that didn’t have an effect?
He’s talking about the main force who is responsible for your guy to have the open receivers and tight ends to throw too.. AP. Its why they win games.
by PackaCracka on Oct 19, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Be real
Just like Bedard said, if F***e was the QB of the Packers they would have the same record they do right now, 3-2. The Vikings could very well be 4-2 right now. Missed field goals, dropped interceptions, and holding holding holding that never seems to be called by the refs are a HUGE reason they’re 6-0. Plus if you look at the last pass of the 49ers game from behind the QB’s view, the ball was thrown up for grabs with four 49ers in the end zone and they let Lewis drag all the way over. It was a prayer that turned out to be a miracle.
by GGGamer on Oct 19, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give credit where credit is due
They are a good team and Favre has played well for them.
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Oct 19, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is that?
Couldn’t be because of AP, could it?
by PackaCracka on Oct 19, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do
Some people on here, basically one in particular, accuse me of being unfair, but that isn’t the case. I do give credit where credit is do. I’ve said repeatedly that in the last many years the man is a great QB through the first three months of the season, but he fades badly at the end. That is a statistical fact. He has looked really good in three of the six games this year but the 49er game is not one of them. If the 49ers secondary caught anything that game would have been done with long before the last drive and if you look at the last play from the QB’s view, that pass was a prayer, it really was. On the other hand he absolutely killed the Packers. A lot of that was soley on Derrick Martin, but he still killed them.
by GGGamer on Oct 19, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the Vikings are a good team. I think they will win the division, but I think they will start to fade down the stretch and lose in the playoffs to a New Orleans or New York team that I feel are better than them. Their secondary gets torched by everyone and that is saying a lot since their pass rush gets to the QB in short time play after play. I think they’re a really solid but not great team. We will wait until they play the Steelers, the Packers again, the Bengals, the Bears, the Giants and then a good team in the playoffs. As far as I’m concerned their schedule, the refs, and some of the injury luck (Frank Gore) has helped them to 6-0. I could be wrong or right but we probably won’t know until we see F***e against the Giants in week 17 and in the playoffs.
by GGGamer on Oct 19, 2009 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vikings...
are a very good team…not just a good team. They were before Favre got there too. They have some real talent on that team. I am not convinced they are set up well for the playoffs to be honest, but Favre has done better than I expected. He has yet to have “one of those games” which is pretty crazy…this week could be one of them though with the Steelers on the docket. The offense is playing better than the D which is surprising. Not sure whats going on with the Minny D but they are being run and pass on this year. TEs and RBs out of the backfield are TEARING their LBs up. They have a good LB group but they must be terrible in coverage.
The Vikes are the most put together team in the division…I think the Packers COULD match them if they can get the line to play better and eliminate some dumb penalties. If that can happen it should be a GREAT game in two weeks!
by TrevorR on Oct 19, 2009 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
I agree with you that the difference between the Packers and Vikings is the o-line. If you flip flopped o-lines, I truly believe F***e would have about 35 sacks on him through 6 games and the Vikings would be 3-3 and Rodgers would be 5-0 with the Packers. F***e has had a couple of really good games, but Rodgers is also lighting up secondaries with half the time to throw. The o-lines are the deciding factor.
by GGGamer on Oct 19, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't get me wrong
I’m a Brett Favre fan. I mean at the end of the day, what Packers fan won’t hold Favre in high esteem, even after a season (or even 2) with Minnesota at the end of his career? But I also like to think I’m reasonably objective when it comes to sports and honestly, yeah, Favre’s throwing against us was a huge thing. But he is able to play in a much more relaxed manner, much less gunslinger, than he would if he was on the Packers, because of the constant threat that AD provides that calls on getting 8 men or more in the box to try to stop the mere threat of him. That in turn opens things up for Brett to do his thing without feeling that the whole game is on his shoulders which then forces him into all the really enfuriating mistakes.
Favre has been able to play so well because the threat of the running game opens up the passing game. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t made some clutch plays this year, just that AD makes his job alot easier than Ryan Grant would.
by forkboy on Oct 19, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Completely different situations
Rodgers went for 385 yards despite being sacked 8 times, and having to make pretty much everything happen on his own. Favre had all day to throw everytime. Not too take anything away from Favre but any good Qb would have put up the same numbers Favre did.
by packallday555 on Oct 19, 2009 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
FAAAARK!!!
Can you EVER post without mentioning Favre. Good freakin night…I can’t even read this crap from you I just scan waiting for the Favre comment. Geez. Get over it.
by TrevorR on Oct 19, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I know Favre will never be a Packer again, and that Rodgers is a pretty darn good QB, but there’s a big difference between pdg and beyond great, Favre makes things happen, he makes players around him (both linemen and receivers) better, most importantly he wins football games. Now he’s winning them for the wrong team !
Ridiculous and so far off base. Favre would be out for the year with an injury already if he were still playing for us. I don’t care who the Qb is. Once teams start jumping the short routes and the pass rush is getting to the Qb in 2 seconds there isn’t much for them to do.
Rodgers is a very good Qb and it’s only his second year. If he had even an average o-line he would be mentioned with the best of them, though he already has been.
by packallday555 on Oct 19, 2009 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A.P ?
yes, A.P is a big part of Minnesotas offense, but with Rosenfeld or Jackson at QB, the Viqueens would have lost to the 49’ers, Packers and Ravens.
Without Favre, shut down A.P and you beat them, even if the Ravens didn’t shut down A.P like the Packers did, there’s no way one of their, now backups, would have been able to make that 58 yd pass that set up the winning FG, first, they would not attempt it, they can’t throw the ball like that and they would get sacked on a play like that.
You also need to consider, that the Packers are overloaded with great recievers, or did you not see Drivers one handed grab, or Jennings one hander on a sligthly overthrown ball. + all the great plays made by Finley ? haveing Favre with a player like Finley would definatly cause defenses to think very differently vs the Packers. The Viqueens don’t have anything close to the Packers receivers. In total, that would also benefit the running game, however, I still think TT should have found another RB combination than the current.
But yes, Favre has thrown more than one bonehead int in his career, but a lot of them were just a gamble to try to win a game that was almost lost already, sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. With a gunslinger like that, a team would really benefit from a big wr like Randy Moss who’s great at going up for a toss up throw in traffic.
If Rodgers is able to be a long term solution for the Packers remains to be seen, the biggest question is how long will he endure the punishment of 4 + sacks a game, many of them the result of him holding on to the ball way too long.
There are many good QB’s, but the truely great ones are very few and Favre between, and a team should hold on to one for as long as possible.
Yes, I know he can’t make up his mind on the retirement issue, but that’s mostly his competitevness and love for the game.
Favre had earned his rights and then some to ponder his future in the offseason.
To say the Packers would have been better of with Favre than Rodgers is just a toss-up, but they surely would not have done any worse either.
The biggest bonus, Favre’s legacy in Green Bay would have been unscratched !
by Jarlsberg on Oct 19, 2009 5:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You really need
to focus on the now, instead of being the party crashing Vikings proponent like the media about how mr wonderful will take them to the promise land. Its a little ridiculous to see your adoration of a player on “the wrong team” match the malevolence towards the Packers, considering you call yourself a Green Bay fan.
by PackaCracka on Oct 19, 2009 5:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate talking about Favre
because he’s no longer a Green Bay Packer, and until he’s no longer a Viking, that’ll hurt. All I’ll say is that I think the organisation is bigger than anyone player (or member of the coaching staff or any other one individual, including the GM) and I think that after saying he’s retired, the team got on with planning for the first season without first. He had retired. It’s not like he’d left the decision hanging in air.
As for the point about Rodgers, yeah, he does hold on too long in some cases, but I would argue that saying “many” of his sacks have been his fault is going too far, this is primarily an offensive line problem. If our line actually worked out how to pass block then Aaron holding on to the ball “too long” (he doesn’t really, he just does in context of how ridiculously quickly the pocket breaks down) wouldn’t be nearly as big an issue.
It’s also fair to point out that he’s only in his second year as a starter so he gets a little bit of slack on that front, we all acknowledge he’s got room to improve.
by forkboy on Oct 19, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious
Jarlsberg? “But yes, Favre has thrown more than one bonehead int in his career, but a lot of them were just a gamble to try to win a game that was almost lost already.”
Try to win a game that was almost lost already. So being up or tied in the playoffs and throwing up a pick year after year is the same as gambling in a game that is almost lost already? Throwing multiple picks in overtime playoff games are games that are already almost lost? You have to take off the Favrefocals man. The guy was a great QB and he still is a really good QB through the first 3 months of the season but just look at the stats and his history. He hasn’t been just bad but absolutely terrible in the last month of the season and the playoffs for years now. Let it go already because I want to but I have to keep replying to ignorant posts like yours because they rile me up unfortunately. Every analysts and unbiased person in the league said the Packers did the right thing in going with Rodgers. You have such a man crush that you just look at the 6-0 record of the Vikings and don’t throw into account anything else.
by GGGamer on Oct 19, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
Not one of Rodgers five sacks today was a result of him holding on to the ball too long so I don’t know why a couple people (F***e fans) have said that. Go look at the tape. His red zone fumble was the only one that he should’ve gotten rid of quicker.
by GGGamer on Oct 19, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
See?
GGGarner, you are such a Favre hater and Thompson worshiper.
But we can’t talk about Favre, so let’s drop it.
by ktenreb on Oct 19, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
See ktended
“However, it was Brett Favre who beat the Packers on the Monday night game.” ~ktended
ktended, you are such a Thompson hater and a F***e worshiper.
How bout you take into account that Derrick Martin was the worst player on the field (and yes that is Thompsons fault) against the Vikings and F***e took full advantage, then take into account the Packers o-line with Colledge at LT gave Rodgers no time to throw the ball. There were a lot of reasons the Vikings beat the Packers and F***e was once again a piece in that puzzle but guys like yourself make him out to be the entire puzzle. Let’s also take into account the fact that people say F***e won the 49ers game when he actually played terrible until the final prayer and the 49ers without their best player dropped not one, not two, not three, but four interceptions that would have easily sealed the game.
by GGGamer on Oct 19, 2009 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude!
We can’t talk about Favre today, so drop it already! We can’t talk about his three TD passes and being named Player of the Week. It’s not relevant! We can’t discuss how McCarthy sold out to stop Peterson with his Rhyno D, daring Favre to beat him, which is what happened!
It’s NOT a Favre week! Stop talking about it already! Mitchell and Brandon are going to get upset!
by ktenreb on Oct 19, 2009 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
It’s not a Favre week.
Do you have a problem with me trying to keep discussion relevant, or do you insist on supporting the rampant threadjacking?
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell_M on Oct 19, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not me man!
Well, I did keep it going off track, just sort of for fun. I will stop. I apologize.
I liked your analysis, I don’t think you are a “prick” (although that post made me chuckle) I just have an uneasy feeling about this team. The Packers may make the playoffs, but I just don’t see them going very far this year with so many questions. 5 personal fouls does not speak well for the coaching. You can argue that a couple of them were cheap calls, but unfortunately when you get a reputation as a semi-dirty team, the referees go looking for trouble.
by ktenreb on Oct 19, 2009 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I just have an uneasy feeling about this team."
ktenreb – you and every other rational Packer fan shares this feeling. But it doesn’t mean we have to descend into another tired Favre vs. Ted threadjack. And I say this as a person who’s just as guilty of throwing into those pointless battles as anyone else. Both camps need to just agree to disagree and stick to what’s relevant to the topic of the post; e.g., how fundamentally unsound the Packers’ offensive line looks.
What I find interesting right now is how everybody agrees that Ted hasn’t drafted well re: OL, but then we have well-regarded veterans like Clifton committing mental errors galore and apparent NFL-caliber tackles like Meredith being cut. These are coaching errors, not drafting. When are we going to hear more criticism of McCarthy?
by 400metres on Oct 19, 2009 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How did McCarthy "sell out"?
I suppose you had a better game plan going into the game than “contain AP and hold him under 100 yards and see if Favre (who hadn’t shown much of anything up until that point) can beat us”?
The bottom line is that the Packers had a great game plan going into the Vikes tilt and Favre put together one of the best games of his career. All you can do is shrug your shoulders and tip your cap to the guy.
Man, you really are bitter about the Packers-Favre divorce.
by 400metres on Oct 19, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oooh
Wrong thing to say, 400metres. Let the name calling begin. He bashes Thompson and McCarthy and always stands up for F***e, but you gone and done it calling him bitter about the messy divorce lol.
by GGGamer on Oct 19, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Enough
Need I remind you of the APC policy on this sort of thing?
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell_M on Oct 19, 2009 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I apologize
Mitchell. I’m sincerely just kidding around even though it sounds a little bit harsh so I’ll knock it off. I just want to remind you though that the reason I was upset was because when I initially came on here posting, I was immediately met with crap from him and nothing was ever said, yet now when I start giving it back in a joking manner I’m asked to stop it at every turn. I don’t understand the double standard especially considering I haven’t called him a terrorist or assasin as he has to me.
I completely understand that you don’t want any more flame wars but a little poking and prodding isn’t gonna hurt this great site. Everyone is sick of the ridiculous F***e debates but the fact of the matter is they probably won’t cease until he retires or you ban his name from ever being discussed. If the man does really well this year were gonna hear it from his supporters and if he and the Vikings fade then were gonna hear it from his dectractors. As long as no more personal attacks are thrown out there, I think everything will continue to run fairly smoothly.
by GGGamer on Oct 19, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Fair enough
But if you’re gonna mess with someone, at least make it somewhat clearer. I’ve got e-mails up to my eyeballs with people who are sick of the commenter-on-commenter violence, so I have to come down hard.
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell_M on Oct 19, 2009 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand
Obviously if anyone has been reading this they can see that a lot of it has been between myself and ktenreb, and I usually put his name down in my comments so I hope that no one else feels like they’re being attacked because frankly I feel it’s pretty clear, but I will make it more clear from here on out.
I sincerely try not to buy into the flame wars but I’ll fully admit I’m a prideful person and when he comments directly to many of my posts, I have a hard time not responding. It sucks that you’re getting emails from people possibly because of some of my comments so let me know what I need to do to help that stop.
by GGGamer on Oct 19, 2009 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd e-mail you directly, but I don't have that info.
So I’ll just put my advice here.
Stop responding.
Pride is all well and good, but it does nothing for you on an anonymous forum like this one. I don’t care if you feel like you’re being baited, just don’t click that ‘reply’ button.
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell_M on Oct 19, 2009 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I clicked on this thread so I could see what people thought about our football game vs. the Detroit Lions. You yourself Mitchell have asked people to stick to the point, and when people come on here talking about Favre (who has nothing to do with our week 6 game) it is frustrating.
by packallday555 on Oct 19, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You also need to consider, that the Packers are overloaded with great recievers, or did you not see Drivers one handed grab, or Jennings one hander on a sligthly overthrown ball. + all the great plays made by Finley ? haveing Favre with a player like Finley would definatly cause defenses to think very differently vs the Packers. The Viqueens don’t have anything close to the Packers receivers. In total, that would also benefit the running game, however, I still think TT should have found another RB combination than the current.
But when the pass rush is getting there in 2-3 seconds is doesn’t matter how good your wr’s are. They do need time to run routes just like Rodgers needs time.
Honestly, if Favre were our Qb we probably would be 2-3. And I don’t say that because he I don’t think he is good anymore because I do. I say that because his movement is very limited now. If Rodgers weren’t mobile we probably would have given up 35 sacks by now, and that’s probably what the numbers would like look if Favre were here.
Do you need to mention Favre EVERY time you post? It’s really getting old. He isn’t our Qb and won’t be again. Rodgers is, and most of us are very happy about this. Rodgers is better then Favre right now, and judging off the way he has played these first two years he has a shot to be really special. Assuming at some point we put an o-line in front of him.
by packallday555 on Oct 19, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And... we're here.
The other positive I took from this game was Crosby’s kicking, which was perfect. The offense certainly gave him enough chances to screw one up, but he was accurate the entire game. Would be nice for him to continue that trend. Of course, I’d rather that he not have to step on to the field except for point afters.
by Danwood on Oct 19, 2009 6:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Personal fouls
The two personal fouls that I remember were borderline. On one, Brady Poppinga slipped and fell on a kickoff. The Lion guy tripped over him for a personal foul.
The second one was a block by driver that was slightly after Rodgers went into a slide. It was a late block, but really close.
I don’t remember the other three…
by grant76 on Oct 19, 2009 9:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The DD flag
I thought I had heard the official call it taunting, which made no more sense than a late hit. So it was called a late hit?
I mean, I think the reason it was called was because the Lions player had let up on the play and was just trotting in. If he was coming in towards Rodgers at full speed I don’t think that gets called.
by Danwood on Oct 19, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The PF flags
The flag on Colledge in the first half, was a hit after the play was over, it was on an opponent who was just hanging around the pile, clearly a legit flag, my only problem with this is with Colledge.
The flag on Driver, is like Danwood said, the Lions player is trying to stop his momentum so he doesn’t fall on Rodgers who has slid. Driver should not touch him no matter what, he has to see Rodgers sliding, therby ending the play. Mental laps by Driver, he hit a player who had obviously stopped playing after the ball was dead. Very legit flag.
The IBBW by Poppinga, I forgot about this one my previous post, it’s borderline at best in my book, unless the NFL have some sort of officiating philosphies regarding low blocks on kicking plays that I don’t know. They might have something that he’s responsible for his hit no matter what causes him to hit an opponent low, Poppinga clearly slips, I don’t think it was a purpously hit. I really hope Mike Pereira will explain this one in this weeks official review, he might even say it’s a bad call.
However, I’m not going to complain about the call to any further extent than the official who threw the flag has a horrible flag throwing technique.
The Facemask calls were both correct calls.
by Jarlsberg on Oct 20, 2009 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you prick
you don’t even watch the games!? and don’t give me “I never saw world war 2 happen, but I know how it went!” you’re a miserable nincompoop who couldn’t write his way out of a wet paper bag, michell- you asked for it, mr important bloggerman. go write about stuff you know- there’s an opening at “grown men who play with action figures.com”
by warvette on Oct 19, 2009 9:52 AM CDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
wow
what action figures? my local comic book store is having a moving day sale, 90 percent off action figures!
by PackaCracka on Oct 19, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grownmenwhoplaywithactionfigures.com
Just a forewarning, this website is NSFW
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 19, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll pass on that link...
thanks though.
by TrevorR on Oct 19, 2009 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a sample of the dialogue I create
with my action figures:
G.I. Joe: They’re surrounding us! It’s all over!
Stretch Armstrong: Over? Over?! WAS IT OVER WHEN THE GERMANS BOMBED PEARL HARBOR?!
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell_M on Oct 19, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great line from a great movie
But about football and that team from Green Bay . . . .
by ktenreb on Oct 19, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about. . . .
Ken: Hey Barbie, you and Skipper ever seen anything like this before?
by ktenreb on Oct 19, 2009 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
now..
if half the commenters to this site would just stop holding tightly to their favre bobblehead in inappropriate ways, we could concentrate on.. aw, screw it, now we’re discussing dolls. sorry.
by warvette on Oct 19, 2009 12:01 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Now and again
If half the commenters (cool word) to this site would just learn how to post once . . . .
by ktenreb on Oct 19, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love this reply
This was great! You’re going to get banned, but way to go out in a blaze of glory!
by ktenreb on Oct 19, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OMG!!!! I LOVE JON BON JOVI!!!!
"Remember kids......... petty and cheap shot-ish doesn't make you a true fan, it just makes you petty and cheap shot-ish."
by Themanthemyththelegend on Oct 19, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wot
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Oct 19, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love this comment
I don’t agree with it at all, but you gotta love the passion. “Miserable nincompoop.” Priceless.
by ktenreb on Oct 19, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has a point, though
I have no idea how one would manage to write one’s way out of a wet paper bag. Quite perplexing.
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell_M on Oct 19, 2009 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow
I can’t believe I just used up calories to scroll through these comments…
by Acme on Oct 19, 2009 2:41 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Scrolling calories
yup, same here
Clark Osborn - PackerHaiku.com | FavreHaiku.com | BadgerHaiku.com
by PackerHaiku on Oct 19, 2009 8:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 



















