Insert Upbeat Title Here
by Mitchell Maurer on Oct 6, 2009 12:07 AM CDT
in Green Bay Packers Analysis
Email
Print
So Green Bay kind of got crushed. So what? AT LEAST JERMICHAEL FINLEY HELPED MY FANTASY TEAM! Other than that, I haven't seen a game where everything went so wrong so quickly in a long, long time. If you want to read on, go ahead. But beware, all ye who enter here, for there is no good news to follow.
Every once in a while, there comes along a matchup that is almost too easy to exploit. Your opponent has a shaky offensive line made shakier by injuries to their best pass protector? Use your already superb pass rush to get after the quarterback. The other team's starting safety is out, leaving inexperienced and mistake-prone backups in his place? Take a shot down the field when you recognize a miscommunication. Your rival's starting MLB is coming off an ACL injury and is still regaining his mobility? Wait til he's matched up with a TE or WR, and then isolate him.
These mismatches and countless more were all present in Monday night's 30-23 shellacking in the Metrodome. I don't care if you're rolling with Brett Favre, Adrian Peterson, and Jared Allen or JaMarcus Russell, Larry Johnson, and Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila (post-injury); if you have mismatches and you manage to exploit them, you're going to succeed. And the Vikings succeeded while the Packers did not.
Exactly how poor was this week's performance? Well, Rodgers was sacked a season-high 8 times. David Carr cringes at that statistic. He also took a safety, lost a fumble, and threw his first interception. Donald Lee flat-out dropped a TD pass that could have closed the gap to 28-21 in the third quarter. Mike McCarthy wasted a challenge in the first quarter and used another one to turn a fumble into a safety against Green Bay. Daryn Colledge got hurt, inserting T.J. Lang into the game at left tackle. Antoine Winfield upended Ryan Grant as if Grant were a high schooler AND jumped a hitch-out route like it was in slow motion, getting an admittedly nice pick. Al Harris let Bernard Berrian go free on a deep route because Derrick Martin was supposed to help over the top...but was nowhere to be found. Chris Kluwe put the Packers at the 1 and 4 yard line to start two fourth-quarter drives, resulting in a safety for Minnesota and an eventual TD for Green Bay. Will Blackmon messed up his knee, leaving Green Bay's already iffy return units even thinner.
And it wasn't even just that Green Bay played awful. Minnesota played outstanding. Favre put on a clinic on how to exploit the defensive mismatches (see section above), putting up 271 yards and 3 scores. Adrian Peterson was limited (55 yards on 25 carries), but still made life difficult for the defense. Bernard Berrian, Percy Harvin, and Sidney Rice simply got open. Jared Allen got more than his fair share of sacks (4.5). The Vikings line did a better job protecting Favre than the Secret Service.
Look at it this way: Green Bay's 14 meaningful points came on fluky plays. Nine times out of ten, Jermichael Finley doesn't break a pair of tackles on his way to a 62-yard score, and nine times out of ten, Clay Matthews doesn't manage to rip the ball out of Adrian Peterson's hands. Rodgers' fourth quarter drive culminating in a 33-yard score to Jordy Nelson was impressive because it went 96 yards in less than a minute-and-a-half. But the failed conversion and ensuing onside kick left the score at 30-20 with little hope of regaining possession. They even teased us by getting the ball back and converting a field goal with :55 seconds left. But another failed onside kick (despite a pair of GREAT attempts by Mason Crosby) sealed the deal.
So, yeah, the margin of victory wasn't evident of a blowout, but let's be honest: it was a blowout. A blowout with a valiant effort at the very end, but a blowout nonetheless. Green Bay got beat like they stole something. Plain and simple.
(Now that all that is out of the way...a much-overlooked detail in this game was penalties. 7 for 57 yards for Green Bay compared to 2 for 10 for Minnesota...and there were a TON of missed calls when the Vikings had the ball. I'm not saying penalties scuttled Green Bay's chances, but the officiating wasn't even close to evenly distributed. If you're gonna call Donald Driver for holding outside the shoulder pads, you have to call Percy Harvin for the exact same thing on the very next possession.)
206 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I rarely disagree with you
But I couldn’t possibly agree with you less here. The Packers kept this game from being an embarrassment despite being hopelessly over matched in many ways. Rodgers deserves all the credit in the world, he is amazing. Stopping Adrian Peterson? Not easy to do. They have injuries and some problems they need to fix, but to stay in the game despite all the mismatches was something else. I don’t think this game was a blowout. Minnesota is among the best teams in the league, and Green Bay showed they could challenge them even in bad circumstances.
It was a disaster as far as the Packers’ season goes. At 2-2 they are in third place and the Vikings and Bears both look strong. They don’t have an easy schedule. It’ll be an interesting season.
Once more, Rodgers is really something else. He’s the only reason that was a game.
by Pack Man on Oct 5, 2009 11:20 PM CDT reply actions 4 recs
Don't get me wrong, I'm just as impressed with him
and there’s nobody else I’d rather have as a franchise QB for the next decade or so…but he’s still only one guy. As a team, this game was downright dismal.
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell Maurer on Oct 5, 2009 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions
So...
… every thing the Packers did well was fluky and lucky, but everything the Vikings did well was the product of their superior play?
Come on, Mitchell. You’re better than that.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Mitchell, unfortunately you are right
Trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear on this one, but I can’t seem to do it.
Basically, everything bad we fretted about during the week prior to the game occurred. Colledge couldn’t handle the LT spot, and then he got hurt when Spitz got blown up and shoved his guy into Colledge’s knee. TJ Lange did NOT play well (some people have tried to say he did, but they must be drinking) as Allen continued on his rampage, even with a TE and a running back (sometimes even 2!) also assigned to keep him away. I don’t remember thinking that Wells had any bad plays, and Sitton basically worked to a draw against Pat Williams (which is commendable). Barbre had help on pass blocking at first, which is what left Colledge vulnerable. One positive is that Sitton and Barbre were fair-to-good in run blocking.
At the risk of being called a “troll” and being threatened by the moderators with banishment again, the score is not indicative of the game. The one consolation I draw from this game is that Childress will not win a Super Bowl. His original game plan — which as I predicted was to let Favre throw the ball after playing possum for the past three weeks — was sound, but in the third quarter while up by two scores he inexplicably tried to milk the clock by utilizing an ineffective running game (ineffective because the Packers had 8 guys, including 5 linebackers, in the box, McCarthy obviously feeling that his probowl corners could handle the Vikings pedestrian wide receivers by themselves). It didn’t work and had no chance of working, and predictably resulted in a couple of 3-and-outs. I also was scratching my head at the third-and-10 bomb thrown late in the fourth quarter — that had to be Childress sopping to Favre to give him a chance to stick it to Thompson. It was a nice throw, though.
Did anybody see Greg Jennings last night?
So where are we? The offensive line will kill this team. Eight sacks, for crying out loud! I think it was Mitchell, maybe Brandon, who is trying to argue that Spitz, Colledge (as a guard) and Sitton are “above average.” That’s just plain wrong. Sitton might develop, but the rest of the group is not very good. Spitz and Colledge have been around long enough for final grades to be in. Clifton returning will help, assuming he is healthy, but he alone isn’t going to turn things around.
by ktenreb on Oct 6, 2009 6:32 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The 3 and 10 bomb by Favre
Was Favre checking out of a run, that wasn’t Childress’ call
dickie_thon: Third baseman Bill Hall / Watches the third strike go by / Gamel grabs his glove
i think it
was the ignorant call by the man on the field. it was his chance to “stick it” to the the man up in the booth…
You could have added...
That Jermichael Finley looks like the real deal, who may very well make more plays like those tonight for seasons to come.
I tip my hat to Rodgers for his efforts. No QB could have fought harder or better in a losing cause.
the main reason I didn't mention Finley
was because half his yards came on a fluky play. He wasn’t consistent enough for my tastes, but boy oh boy does he look promising.
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell Maurer on Oct 5, 2009 11:27 PM CDT up reply actions
I do not know that it was fluky
The man has sick speed for a big man. He simply split the seem and broke tackle attempts by smaller players while outrunning the slower ones. :-)
If Lee had made the same play, THAT would strike me as fluky, since it is outside of his normal skills.
That's utter crap.
That was a superior play by an athletic player with a combination of size and speed and hands that the Vikings couldn’t manage. There’s plenty of things to be pessimistic about without diminishing the great plays the Packers did make.
Jeez.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions
Huh?
Fluky? It was a great play by Rodgers to step up and make that throw and then for Finley to outrun two CB’s is very impressive. We saw some flashes of brilliance tonight from Finley. To be his size and have the athletic abiltiy he does is impressive.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions
Fluky plays are the one by Greg Jennings catching a tip that nearly hits the ground...
Finley’s catch was not a fluky play. Give credit where it is due. ;/
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Oct 6, 2009 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
Under McCarthy and Thompson
The O-line has NEVER really been all that good. It is now looking bad enough that both of them may be pointing to the failure to get and meld good offensive linemen into units as the one thing that more than anything else could cost them their jobs if it does not gel over the bye.
A storyline we'll be paying more attention to as the season goes along
but I want to go on record saying that I support keeping both McCarthy and Thompson around to at least give them a chance to fix the mess at offensive line. After all, Sitton, Spitz, and Colledge (as a guard) are above-average to good linemen. Let’s not be hasty just yet.
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell Maurer on Oct 5, 2009 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
To clarify
I am not calling for anyone’s head by any means. I am just noting that they cannot seem to sort out how a line should play and if this season disintegrates because of the O-line, they have no one to blame but themselves. (See the seasons wasted using an ill-matched zone blocking scheme and the rarity that has a high O-line draft pick under TT.)
fair enough
i agree
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell Maurer on Oct 5, 2009 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions
hasty?
How many years is being too hasty? Four? Five? 30?
How many years do you want to see the Packers keep losing?
Since Ted Thomspon showed up, the Packers have made the playoffs once. Guess who the QB was then? I’ll give you a hint: He plays for the Vikings now and just ripped apart the Packers revamped D, all because Ted Thompson thought Favre would be better off elsewhere. Don’t get me wrong, I like Aaron Rodgers. But TT is killing this team. One or two good choices in the draft (with a list of draft mistakes) do not make up for his many failures. The Packers GM has to go. He has needed to go for a LONG time.
by starmark on Oct 5, 2009 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Um...
We have had exactly one season since Favre left, so that is hardly a condemning stat.
TT has brought in a large amount of talent, but he has been a bit overconfident in his own abilities I think, believing that he could build an effective line without EVER spending high picks on O-line… which was my point. I hope that this season can be salvaged, which it might if the coaches can figure something out and someone on the O-line steps up.
Perhaps you are right
I was a bit emotional after tonight’s loss. Still, I think Ted Thompson has been a failure so far. Maybe we should at least give him to the end of the season to see what he and the staff can do with what we have. Mid-season firings rarely work out.
Ron Wolf style
TT follows in Wolf’s stylebook. Clifton was a #2 but Wolf got most of his better linemen in the mid-to-late rounds. Flanagan was a 3, Rivera a 5, Timmerman a 7. The style is the same, but Wolf was just better at it. Also, Wolf wasn’t afraid to improvise and amend. TT seems a bit rigid and dogmatic in comparison.
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Oct 6, 2009 2:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Would you stop
with the Favre was QB back when we were good. Rogers did a great job tonight, even more impressive by the fact that he spent the night running away from Jared Allen.
People seem to forget the team game aspect...
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Oct 6, 2009 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions
that playoff
game was the NFC championship, guess who lost US that game? I’ll give you a hint: He plays for the arch enemies whom he said he never would.
Your god also threw a stupid pick in the endzone last night which luckily, the officials bailed him out again
Trenches
People like to pin that NFC title game loss on Favre, but the Packers as a team got pushed around in that game. Burress vs. Harris, remember that? The o-line did not play well (and yet it was better than this year’s version), and the defensive line had a tough time with the Giants, too.
The addition-by-subtraction theory did not work out because there were other serious flaws with that team. In fact, Favre’s quick release and pocket awareness masked some of the problems with the o-line.
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Oct 6, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Excuse me, but
you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Packers vs Giants ended in OT, when on the last Packer possession Brett Favre failed to find every open receiver except one, DD, and threw an easy…. EASY pick to end the game.
Favre lost the game, plain and simple.
Bailed Out????? WHAT
No, someone on the line jumped offside… even without the PI penalty the play was dead.
STFU IF YOUR POINT IS NOT VALID, AND IF IT AIN'T MY POINT, IT AIN'T VALID.
he still
caught that pick. It happened. penalty or no it was a bad throw.
I hope you get used to those
It's odd, but the last few years
when there’s a “transition period” with the starters, it just absolutely goes to crap. 2005, the year after Rivera and Wahle left, Favre gets destroyed most of the year and forces a huge number of his throws (which is equivalent to Rodgers taking sacks instead). Now that Clifton and Tauscher are gone, Rodgers pays the price for it.
Admittedly, Josh Sitton is playing very well at RG. I haven’t heard from him at all and he hasn’t let anyone beat him for a sack, and that’s good enough for me. Scott Wells does look like he’s regressed a lot, so good benching there and Spitz looked out of position at LG. Barbre hasn’t even been that bad since that nightmare against Ogunleye, but he’s been at least adequate if not impressive or anything.
I think the best thing we can do is to just take our chances with Lang at LT until Clifton is healthy, and put the offensive line back together as we started the year. And we could use that 2-TE set a lot more to help out with the blocking (Lee as a blocker and Finley going out to catch or change his assignment to block if defense shows blitz). I don’t think things are at a loss yet, but now we know what the worst thing that could happen to us looks like.
I rarely disagree with Mitchell but...
It wasn’t a blowout. They had almost 100 more yards of offense. They gave up points on the 4th and goal, and also handed back points on both of Rodgers’s turnovers deep in Viking territory. This despite playing the game with an overmatched strong safety and a tag team revolving door at left tackle. Sure they could have played better, and won the game, but it was a big improvement over the game last year in the Dome.
by Brandon on Oct 5, 2009 11:26 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
agreed
The Oline simply can’t give up 8 sacks for crying out loud. And Rodgers has to help them out. At times last night it looked like he was just waiting for the pass rush to get to him. At least 3-4 of those sacks after he had a chance to get rid of the ball and inexplicably held on to it so he could take a sack. If eliminate the turnovers and Donald Lee can catch a freaking pass then we are in that game without having to make a big comeback attempt at the end. That said, even though it was futile, I loved the way that we fought back and were in position to have a chance at the end. Considering the beating that Rodgers took I was impressed with that at least.
Oh, and bring back Greg Jennings!
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
I'm with Brandon here...
Any loss is a bad loss, but I felt much worse about the Bengals loss than this one.
The offense line is a mess, but the right side has been much better since the first week, and a return of Clifton would help solidify the line. Remember last year, Clifton completely shut down Allen. He didn’t even get on the stat sheet with so much as a tackle in last year’s opener.
There are two things that are new for this Packers team this year. 1) The offensive line. They will improve as the season goes on. At least they had better. 2) The 3-4 defense which will also get better as the season goes on. Getting Bigby back will help and the coverage breakdowns will get cleaned up as they become more familiar with the scheme.
There are some positives. We know what we have in the offensive skill positions, the defense looks like they will be able to stop the run at times, and we know the secondary has some ball hawking abilities. I think this is a team that will improve as the season goes on and there are some very winnable games coming up in the next few weeks leading to a Minnesota rematch.
Good assessment
I will share my thoughts tomorrow. I am not as downtrodden as most. Away game in a place the Pack doesn’t fair too well, poor defense, and O-Line play, and we didn’t get blown out. Would be better to take a W, but this isn’t all that bad. Usually, you don’t want a bye-week early in the season, but this is one that is needed at this point. Need to get healthy.
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Oct 5, 2009 11:27 PM CDT reply actions
Piggybacking this from the other thread...
Packers
First Downs 19
Total Yards 424
Passing Yards 342
Rushing Yards 82
Penalties (Yds) 7(57)
Turnovers 2
Punts (AVG) 2(30)
Time of Pos. 28:16
Vikings
First Downs 22
Total Yards 334
Passing Yards 271
Rushing Yards 63
Penalties (Yds) 2(10)
Turnovers 1
Punts (AVG) 5(42)
Time of Pos. 31:22
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Oct 5, 2009 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Mark Twain once noted
There are lies, damned lies… then there are statistics!
I take no solace from stats when the score is against the Pack.
true but
its not much about solace as it is about not allowing yourself to be too downtrodden after the loss. when you look at the stats its clear that we didn’t get destroyed. doesn’t mean we can feel good about the loss, but it does mean that we didn’t get shutout 34-0 like they did in 2007
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Fair enough, but...
Most situations where the stats look nice in a losing effort come from passing against a prevent defense and defending against an offense trying to take the air out of the ball. Both of those effects started early last night, down by 16 in the early fourth. For that reason, I think that nice stats are useless to us.
I am certainly not wishing for a 34-0 result, but the 30-14 score before “long-shot-comeback-attempt” time is not really all that much better. Especially when eyeballs tell us that our O-line and pass coverage failed miserably last night.
However, the game was in Minnesota, which is not an easy place to win. A sweep over Minnesota was never a strong possibility this season, so if we can find players to step up and fill those holes before week 8, we can still get the split. I think that I am less upset about this loss than the one to Cincinnati, to be honest.
agreed
the Bengals loss ticked me off, I was just mad about this one cuz its the Vikes
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
You are dead on
The score was 30 – 14, and 7 of the Packers’ points came on a great/fluke play by Matthews. The offense was doing nothing. At that point, the Vikings changed their offensive and defensive philosophies. The final score is not indicative of the game being close. It wasn’t.
How is that a fluke play? And really does it matter? What is the grey area between great play and fluke play?
Applying that logic, Favre threw a TD against a CB that blew his assignment. To me that is a fluke play and shouldn’t count. The game was closer than you give credit for. Where is Debbie Downer?
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Oct 6, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
That's why I called it a "great/fluke" play.
The definition is a play that is not likely to be replicated. I give Matthews credit, but I don’t expect him to do it again next week (I’ll take it if he does, though).
Finley’s catch and run is a great play, not a fluke, because he is likely to repeat the play.
Jennings’ catch is a fluke — it is not likely to be repeated.
07? Really? 07
You’re bringing up 07? OK then, what about the shutout of ’71 where the Vikes torched the Pack 3-0? Huh? Come on.
STFU IF YOUR POINT IS NOT VALID, AND IF IT AIN'T MY POINT, IT AIN'T VALID.
I would assume most of us that post here weren't born then.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 7, 2009 5:54 AM CDT up reply actions
my point was
that we lost the game Monday but we weren’t destroyed in the game. The reference to the 34-0 game in ’07 was an example of a team getting destroyed in this rivalry. The only time in recent memory too, btw, since almost every Pack/Vikes game is extremely close. Thats what I was going for.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Got Ya.
That was a blow out. I cried that day. And took off the next. However a loss by 1 point hurts just as bad. Sometimes worse. Been there, hated it.
You are right, tight rivalry. But that’s what makes this one fun to watch. I hope the next one is just as close and entertaining.Really, would you watch if you knew it was a 34-0 blow out? Me neither. No matter which way it went.
As much as a viking fan I am, I am a bigger fan of football. And it would be crap without the rivalries, and us bench tackling each other!
Peace
STFU IF YOUR POINT IS NOT VALID, AND IF IT AIN'T MY POINT, IT AIN'T VALID.
where to begin....
i would not say we got blown out for starters. So I will first look at the positives of the game. If you look at most of the stats the Pack had the advantage… 1st downs 16-14 Pack total yards 424-334 Pack Passing 342-271 Pack Rushing 82-63 Pack… that all sounds great and is. To hold AP to 55 yards is incredible I dont think any of us thought that was going to happen. But the next stat is the one thing that killed us.. Redzone td/ att 0-2 Pack 3-3 MN. Bad play calling? or just bad execution? that involves both.
You have the ball inside the 1 and Kuhn (good call) cant run it in. Bad execution. Next play a pass to the flat.. BAD CALL. and also bad execution. I forget who it was but run the route in the endzone not at the 2! And then the drop pass! Lee you have to make that grab especially when your calling for the ball!!!! bad execution..
Heres the next stat that killed us. Sacks. 0 for the Pack 8 for MN. We know our OL sucks! MM had great playcalling on the first drive quick passes and screens were working. Then he went away from them… The D without any pressure no wonder why the secondary got torched! But Al Harris looked like Ahmad Carrol out there. He was not the lock down corner we have all become accustomed too! And we have to give credit to Brett he saw the troubles Al was having and exposed it. He simply took our best CB (Woodson) out of the game because he didnt have to go his way with Harris playing so poor.
Now this I may get some rift from but how much can one man do? Rodgers! He played very well. Minus the pick…. The fumbles I blame on the OL. On the first drive he didnt even get out of his drop back and was hit! But he still stepped up and played the whole game knowing he was going to take a beating! He threw for a career high 384 and had a 110 passer rating!
Overall I dont think we played like complete garbage but we didnt play well enough to overcome a better team. I think we are going to be saying that every week until we fix our OL. Players are not stepping up on the line. The D still has holes but as the season wears on and we become healthy things should work themselves out. Time for TT to make a few phone calls we have 2 weeks to find someone and get them in practice.. do work! earn your money TT
by bizzle4 on Oct 5, 2009 11:36 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
love the analysis
You have the ball inside the 1 and Kuhn (good call) cant run it in. Bad execution. Next play a pass to the flat.. BAD CALL. and also bad execution. I forget who it was but run the route in the endzone not at the 2! And then the drop pass! Lee you have to make that grab especially when your calling for the ball!!!! bad execution.
I thought for sure Kuhn would make it in but that was a great play by Greenway. Finley ran the pattern to the 2 and not in the end zone. And there is no excuse for Donald lee’s drop. None at all. Can we make him second string now officially?
Now this I may get some rift from but how much can one man do? Rodgers! He played very well. Minus the pick…. The fumbles I blame on the OL. On the first drive he didnt even get out of his drop back and was hit! But he still stepped up and played the whole game knowing he was going to take a beating! He threw for a career high 384 and had a 110 passer rating!
i really thought he played well considering, but he held on to the ball for far too long. Throw it away and save yourself the sack.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Let's be honest...
Did anyone here NOT expect Favre to have one of his best games in his first game against the Packers after the whole spat last season?
On a completely unrelated topic— if I had to listen to that hideous ESPN play-calling team gush one more time about Jared Allen as if he was doing something phenomenal, when he was actually hardly touched on most of his sacks, I was going to barf. He got ole blocking on most of his sacks, which is less to his credit and more to our discredit.
Thank god
Someone else noticed this as well. He played against a guy who is really a G, and a rookie RT, who had to move to LT. The guy is good no doubt, but it wasn’t like he was going against great competition.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions
The plays that broke me in half;
-The first fumble after a very good drive.
-All the sacks that were caused by poor O-line play. (Some were coverage and on Rodgers)
-The Chuck Woodson interception that was called as interference. (No way, no how)
-Brent’s surgical west coast passing.
I just wish it had been a blowout. Keeping it close makes those missed opportunities hurt much more.
I always loved that one.
We need to get over the Chuck Woodson call.
Yeah he had the pick, but there was another penalty on the play (offsides) which was legit and would’ve negated the call regardless.
that's not the point
the point is we got jobbed hardcore by the refs, the fact that they would call that is ridiculous. Seemingly every big play or kick return in the first half had holding and I can recall at least 5 blatantly obvious holding calls not called against MN.
The refs alone didn’t lose us the game, we did a nice job of that. But I certainly think a well called game would have ended in a W for us
As I pointed in the game thread
Yes, there may be off sides, but there’s a big difference in stopping an offense (and AP) from the 5 yard line or where ever that penalty would’ve put the ball, than there is from the 1 yard line.
Passing up the field goal on fourth and goal did two things
1) Cost the Pack a chance to win the game.
2) Cost me my fantasy game (I lost by TWO FREAKING POINTS)
Didn't even think about that
But you’re absolutely right. The Madden gamer in me was yelling for McCarthy to go for it, but not to only see Jennings make that crazy circus catch and the ensuing interception. Smart thing to have done there was to take the points and keep moving. You shouldn’t do that on the road against an extremely hyped team with a superior defense.
But...
I lost by TWO points in fantasy because my kicker didn’t kick a 20 yarder! Don’t you understand what is important here? :)
Sorry, this missed my reply
This was supposed to be on the post that said “Sorry, but…” my bad
Sorry, but...
… if the Packers had that FG, I’m pretty sure the Vikes don’t inexplicably break out the wildcat when they’re regular packages are killing us, and they don’t throw a low percentage bomb to Berrian on 3rd and 10 at midfield. You can’t change one play and expect everything that followed to play out the sam way again. I’d have taken the 3, but if you’re looking to rip someone, try Donald Lee. That pass hit him in the hands and he should have caught it, and if he had, we’d have been +7 on that drive instead of +3.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
You're right
The strategy changes entirely based on the score. What happened would not have happened if the score had been different. For example, when the Vikings got up by 2 scores, they tried to run the ball to milk the clock. Prior to that, Favre had been killing them. If the score had been closer, the Vikings would have played offense differently, which may or may not have worked for them. The point, though, is that the final score is not what you look at. The score is the result of the plays, but the plays depend on the score during the game.
wasn’t lee’s drop on 4th down? we got 0 points out of that drive, not 3
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
In going for the TD's defense
1. You’re 3 yards away
2. You’re down by one score
3. Your defense has, to that point, only forced one three and out on the first set of downs
4. Your defense has not had an answer for the Vikings offense all night.
The only shot the Packers had of winning this game was to match the Vikings score for score and hope they could get a lead in there somehow. I didn’t have a problem with going for it.
on the penalties
I saw many holds on the vikings defensive linemen but I guess if they would have been calling those ones it could have been 10+ sacks
I would have a signature... but it could cause a schism on this site
Haha
Well it makes up for the very one sided games the referees called. The two penalties on Woodson were bogus. Of course the one in the endzone didn’t matter because the offsides was legit but the holding call was ridiculous.
Gruden, who used to be a head coach in the league, was actually commending Woodson on how well he played the bump n run, and then disagreed with the call as did Jaworski and Tirico.
Of course it wasn’t like any of the calls were game-changing but still it was very one sided and you would have to be very blind to not see that.
by packallday555 on Oct 5, 2009 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions
This wasn't a blow out
We lost by 8 points. We had 100 more total yards then them and held Peterson to 2.2 ypc. The pass defense was a liability, which is ironic because many of us thought that, that and our passing game are our only real strengths. Having Bigby out really messes things up. We have to play much more conservative, and I would like to think he wouldn’t have made the same lapses in coverage that Martin did tonight.
We had 3 possessions where we got the ball down to at least their 30 yard line and didn’t get any points. Our offense moved the ball pretty easily against them, despite our oline again giving up a ridiculous amount of sacks. Rodgers really is amazing.
There were good moments...
I was happy that they shut down Adrian Peterson. They forced Brett Favre to win it. Unfortunately, it seems that Favre has become comfortable with his receivers. The Vikings are a passing team, not just a running team. Unfortunately, for the other NFC North teams, the Vikings are now the strongest team in the NFC (if not the NFL). As long as they protect Favre, that team can beat anyone if every one is clicking. It was an exciting ending. “Too little too late” seems to be the theme here. The Packers let themselves get into a hole far too deep to crawl out of. If they could have gotten an onside kick, but that’s a prayer that is rarely answered.
I think that calling the Vikings the best team in the NFC is premature
The Vike secondary sure showed some holes tonight. Also, the Vike brain trust sure looked untrustworthy when they threw that bomb to stop the clock and allow the Packers to get a shot to stay in the game. Even if none of these issues were there, it is only week 4 and few teams have a bigger history of collapsing when it counts than the Vikings. (Not that past performance ever guarantees future performance, but that will be a monkey to shed for them.)
Ya
The passing defense has to be a concern for the Vikes. Giving up 384 yards to a team who has virtually no o-line is somewhat alarming. I think the Saints are the best team in the NFC right now, and really in the NFL.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree that calling the Vikes the best team in the NFC is premature.
Tim will tell.
They’re good, no doubt. Probably the best in the North. But I bet they’d struggle against both New Orleans and the Giants, and let’s not forget that they needed a damn miracle to beat the Niners last week.
Especially the Saints, man. Outside of Winfield, their secondary is awful. Brees would light them up because they don’t have revolving doors at tackle. Minny would have to score 40 to have a shot against the Saints.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 12:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Tim will tell.
Where is this Tim and when will he make an appearance? :)
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
All I know
Is that this legendary Tim character NEVER tells me anything. :-D
Tim the Enchanter.
Duh.
Look at the bones.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Ravens, Saints, Jets, Giants, Patriots, Eagles, Colts
are all better in my opinion. Yes, Favre looked good but the Packers also got no pressure on him whatsoever, teams like the Jets, Giants, and Eagles won’t let that happen. Also, like someone said giving up 400 yards passing to a QB who was on the run all day is a very bad sign. Add in the fact that Childress is a terrible coach who almost gave away that game.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 6, 2009 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions
I almost agree
Jets are playing well enough on offense but I think Sanchez’ inexperience will catch up with them (but I’ve been wrong in the past).
Ditto with the Eagles. A less than 100% healthy McNabb doesn’t do well (see the last 5 years for references), I’m waiting a couple of weeks with him back to see where they really are going. Kolb does well enough, but I think he too will get hit with the inexperience bug when they play some of the better teams.
Neither I would put above the Vikings. But I can definitely understand putting the other four above the Vikings. I’ll be curious to see how the Bears play the Vikings, but with that being the end of November who knows where either team will be at that point in time.
I agree on the inexperience of young QBs
But if Ryan, Flacco, and Roethlisberger have shown us anything, it’s that they can exceed with enough talent around them and a somewhat limited role. The Jets have an amazing defense that just got done holding Drew Brees to under 200 yards and no TDs. Obviously Sanchez wasn’t ready for that atmosphere and his play reflected that, but I think they have a strong enough team around him, the Jets will be solid. As for the Eagles, I was talking about them with a healthy McNabb which seems pretty rare but if McNabb is healthy, I feel they’re better.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 6, 2009 9:26 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm also curious about the Bears
especially now that Jay Cutler appears to be playing at a higher level than the first game.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 6, 2009 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions
derrick martin
was terrible. 2 of the tds were on him. i believe chuck was saying sometjing in the lockerroom about how anthony smith should have made the team
by chewie on Oct 6, 2009 12:07 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Yep
He was supposed to have over the top help on the Berrian TD, and arrived horribly late. Smith definitely should have been on the team. The guy might not have been the most physically talented but he knows the system. Just disappointing that we cut him.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:09 AM CDT up reply actions
I think Al Harris threw Martin under the bus
He had absolutely 0 coverage on that play. In fact, I don’t understand why he even stops there. There wasn’t anyone in front of him. Perhaps he stopped because of the pump fake, but that would be the very same pump fake that Martin got fooled on.
True
I don’t know whether it was man coverage or zone, but Harris went and screamed at Martin like it was zone coverage. Harris fell for the pump fake but if he was in zone coverage there really is nothing wrong with that. But again, I don’t know what he was supposed to be in.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:14 AM CDT up reply actions
With Harris
I give him a little more leeway with other players. He’s almost like another assistant coach out there. It’s not good form to chew out your teammate on the field, but it’s an emotional game.
He's essentially our 4th string safety.
It’s disappointing, but hardly surprising.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions
Well
Aaron Rouse could have given up two TD passes just as easily as Martin. In fact, he frequently did! I still scratch my head over cutting Rouse two games into the season. Martin isn’t an upgrade, and Rouse was no worse in week 2 than he had been for the entire training camp.
if there was ever a "moral victory"
it was here. We more than likely will never play this bad again, they will never play that well again, and we played at the dome with poor reffing and still only lost by 7. Grant looked great, the run D finally wasn’t a sieve, and Brett Favre played perfect and quite simply won’t play that well ever again.
Plus we get them next before a bye week, right after games against Baltimore and Pittsburgh… so you gotta like a return whooping in our favor at home
“Grant looked great….”
What Grant were you watching? I think Grant is probably one of the softest starting running backs in the NFL. He always get lit up, and chooses to run out of bounds or away from contact a lot of the time.
On a side note..we should cut Wynn. He sucks. He couldn’t catch a pass to save his life.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions
that dropped pass by Wynn was annoying, but he has to do without Jackson. Grant averaged almost 5 a carry against the Vikings D (although I really don’t think much of their run D anymore, they still are seen as great). He got a huge run at the end of the game to get us away from our endzone and almost got the TD on a nice run. If we didn’t get down so much and get away from the running game, he could have put up some real numbers
True
It’s just so hard to see him run to the exact opposite place of where he should run. He just has no vision. Sometimes he runs hard, sometimes he doesn’t. It’s just disappointing.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:21 AM CDT up reply actions
!?!?!
“We more than likely will never play this bad again, they will never play that well again”
With that kind of confidence, who needs analysis? Might as well booking a flight to Miami right now!
by captaindustbone on Oct 6, 2009 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll try to be positive
-Rodgers played really well. Favre and the Vikings won this battle, but anyone who still thinks Thompson made the wrong choice is “touched”.
-Nothing went the Packers way, and they lost by 7 points.
-They stopped Adrian Peterson.
-Jermichael Finley
-Ryan Grant broke his first tackle in a year and looked pretty good.
-Clay Matthews made a big time play.
-Mason Crosby might be the best onside kicker of all time.
The negatives include more dropped passes and terrible o-line play. I expect the former to end, but the latter is going to be an issue all season.
guys stepping up
can’t say enough about the matthews play that was just raw power and determination. also jordy nelson has been subtly stepping up
by chewie on Oct 6, 2009 12:49 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I disagree
The linemen have size, and have the potential, but they are just simply not executing the way they are supposed to. That’s part coaching and part inexperience. It is totally possible to fix.
And the dropped passes haven’t been nearly as big of an issue. They happen to every team, Best WR Corps In The League (tm Green Bay) or not.
"Totally impossible to fix?"
You do not think that your assessment there might be a little too strong? O-lines have often gelled in NFL history. In fact, the mid-90s Packer teams had lines that played much more poorly early in the season, then worked up to top caliber by the end of the season…
I am not saying that our O-line gelling is going to happen, just that it is not impossible for them to improve.
Correction
The part about “much more poorly” was intended to mean that those lines played much more poorly than they eventually became, not more poorly than the eight sacks allowed last night!
He said it is possible, not impossible.
He was disagreeing with rmlumley above who said the o-line play will be an issue all season.
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Oct 6, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions
Lighten up, Mitchell.
You’re overreacting. We moved the ball on them all damn night. We had two turnovers inside their 25, and a turnover on downs inside the 5. And we had about a half-dozen dumb ass penalties, and they kept us from putting up the points that the offensive production we generated normally would have put up.
The blew us out? No, that’s not what I saw. I saw GB make a number of mistakes that eventually created separation in the score. They’re better than we are right now. They might be all year. But we didn’t get beat as bad as your post suggests.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 12:11 AM CDT reply actions
Right
And honestly I think we could be better then them later in the year. The defense has potential and getting Bigby back will make all the difference in the world.
Say we get at least a FG on all those turnovers inside their 25 (which really isn’t too much to ask for). The game could have been completely different. We actually sustained drives, against a top 5 defense in the league, and has been something we haven’t done all year. Their were definitely some improvements tonight.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions
I do not know if it is fair to change one early even like that
A single early change of events would alter those that followed. I think that Mitchell’s point was that one never got the sense that the Pack was getting the better of play. Had we gotten an extra field goal, that might have simply meant that they would have gone into a shell later. We lost physically tonight. No change in events alters that fact.
Of course
I understand Mitchell’s point and know the whole game would have changed had we gotten a FG out of at least one of them.
It just was definitely a positive to see our offense sustaining drives and Rodgers managing to throw for almost 400 yards depsite our oline blocking no one virtually every play.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Agreed on Rodgers
I wanted to see if he would step up under pressure and scrutiny. He did. Big time. Too bad he got too little support to win.
Honest to God:
If they offered us a #1 pick and Favre right now for Rodgers, I’d have to think about it.
The kid is damn good. He fumbled and threw a pick in the biggest game of his career, and he held the ball to damn long on 3 or more of the sacks he took. But he stayed accurate all night, and if Lee catches that TD pass that hit him in the hands, the 4th quarter plays out a lot differently. this was his 21st start. His 21st. I said it before, but it bears repeating: Favre nearly got benched for Brunell midway through 94, when he was 30 starts into his career. Rodgers is going to be a good one if we can somehow keep him upright and healthy.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 12:15 AM CDT reply actions
If Cutler was worth multiple firsts
So is Rodgers, easily. I’d suggest that Rodgers is worth more.
Thus, I would NOT even consider an offer of one first and Favre for Rodgers.
You have to be kidding me.
He left, get over it!!!! I am so sick and tired of all the people who say they cut Farve. The talked they offered, he wanted unlimited freedom. He wanted to pick and choose when he practiced, etc.. They told him point blank “we want you back”, Rogers said “bring him back again, I’ll wait”. His final answer was " I don’t know if I have it in me"! That was during “Family Night” last year, 1st pre-season game coming up in a week. He left, they didn’t kick him out. He went to the Jets, fine wish him well, hope you do good. Then he suckers the Jets and departs of to the Vikings …… The Vikings of all people, and he dosn’t understand why people are upset? He went to the rival. He stated on Joe Buck on his announcement that he might come back, “nobody got upset when Holgrem left”, yes he went to a different division. He pulled the rug right out from under every Packer fan. Who, by the way, are the ones who eat at his steakhouse. As far as I think, they should take that nomber 4 and give it to the next rookie that comes along. His name dos not belong in that stadium with the other greats. He needs to take someone else’s jersey in to the Hall of Fame. And now you say if you could you would take him back, Sorry I feel he has proven himself “disloyal enough” to not even be considered a Packer.
by ShawnH on Oct 6, 2009 12:27 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's not what I meant.
Believe me, I’m over it. I was trying to emphasize how glad I am that Rodgers is my QB (Favre PLUS a #1, and I’d probably say no!). Should have made the fictitious deal more lopsided to make it clearer.
Seroiusly, I love Rodgers and was trying to illustrate the exact opposite point of how you took it. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 12:30 AM CDT up reply actions
The only thing that might be more difficult than finding a franchise QB...
might be figuring out a way to say “goodbye” to one without creating a mess.
Probably true...
… almost all of them end up in a mess. Montana went to the Chiefs. Bradshaw left bitter and refused to go to Pittsburgh for close to a decade. Miami went the “let em play as long as he wants” route with Morino and it ended up dooming them to a handful of painful seasons where they knew they had no shot but went through the motions anyway. Elway’s departure was picture perfect.
But, it’s probably easier to say goodbye gracefully when they say they’re leaving and stay gone, or if they say they’re staying instead of waffling for months on end year after year.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 12:52 AM CDT up reply actions
But even in all those examples
Not a single one of them went to a division rival. There are just certain lines you don’t cross. In the end, yes it was a mess, mistakes on both sides, and had he stayed with the Jets, wish him all the luck in the world, to jump to the Vikings, uncalled for.
I think because QB's, like receivers are often very egotistical prima donnas
and it’s only gotten worse since the NFL has gotten so strict with rules to protect these players.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 6, 2009 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions
I totaly agree
I just I,m tired of hearing how they dumped Favre, IMO they did everything they could last year, as well as Rogers, to keep him happy. Short of letting him just basically cast of the season. In fact I’ll go one further, Favre should thank the Packers, it was this mess that cause him to have the season (1st half) he had last year, and this year. It wasn’t until he got “fired” as everyone says, that he started to “manage” his game more. TSSC, sorry if I misunderstood you 1st post, it not just you, it listening to everyone say how Favre showed up the Packers for cutting, and like I said, I feel he left. I STAND BY MY STATEMENT, GIVE THAT GREEN #4 TO THE NEXT ROOKIE QB, THAT COMES ALONG, that traitor is UNWORTHY.
Last night
he stated that he “knew people were upset” and that fans and other people either disagreed or agreed with his decisions, Favre stated that Its the guys inside the locker room are the only people that matter.
That really gave me better insight to Brett.
I know he doesn’t care about the fans, or his current team, or former teams, but at least he cares a whole lot about winning.
Incidentally, since you mentioned the post-game interviews...
Am I the only one who thought it awfully weak in post-game interviews for Favre to refer to Aaron Rodgers as only “their QB” like he had only met him at official league functions? I mean, Rodgers was his backup for three seasons…
At least he showed some genuine care after the game for Donald Driver, who passed a big milestone last night.
Wha Wha Wha Get over you trying to Judge Favre
THOMPSON IS A MORON
by 4 where-ever on Oct 6, 2009 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Exactly!!!
Agree on all points other than #4 should be assigned to our punter or it could be our “utility” number, given to the lowest guy on the roster.
Have to admit that I'd find that pretty funny.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions
It would be funnier
if they retired #4…and then gave it to a punter…then retired it again…then gave it to the 3rd string QB…then retired it again…
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Rodgers
before this game i said, win or lose i just wanted to see aaron rodgers play his heart out and id be vindicated as a packer fan, he did just that. now we just need to find a way to protect him.
by chewie on Oct 6, 2009 12:27 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Same here
I found myself feeling bad for the guy causse of our oline. Even my buddies who are Vikes fans said they felt bad for him and think he is pretty amazing. Which I personally think is pretty amazing haha.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions
yep
and aside from the oline the receivers need to step it up and help out their qb (looking at you donald lee) jennings has been inconsistent, overall the receivers are underachieving
by chewie on Oct 6, 2009 12:36 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
On the INT
Jennings should have been ashamed for that sloppy route he looked like he ran.
Right
But was also poor play calling by MM. You don’t run a comeback route to the short side of the field.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:41 AM CDT up reply actions
True enough
But regardless, there is no way Jennings should ever allow that ball to get to the DB there. Jennings has looked like he has taken a step back from the level he showed last season.
Seriously
Lee’s drop is just inexcusable. It wasn’t like it was a poor pass or anything. He was wide open, called for the ball, and then just dropped it.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions
Mission accomplished then
the parallels to the game where Young played Montana’s Chiefs (and got hunted like a wild animal) are eerie. If Rodgers has the force of personality and will, he & the team can come out of this stronger.
However, before someone reads too much into it, I’m not saying the outcome will be the same as it was for that 1994 49ers team (winning the superbowl). I’m thinkng more of future years.
Once Packers understand & fix mistakes they’ve made in building O line.
Once Packers get rid of Ted Thompson.
Nice.
But to be fair, you should probably throw w/l record in there.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 6, 2009 12:54 AM CDT up reply actions
What I see
I see some people that want MM out, some people say he’s doing fine. All I know is that before MM, we had Sherman, and every player looked like he could really care less about what was going on. When MM stepped in the 1st couple of years, I saw a renew energy, a fire, and was I glad to see that. But now, last year and this year, I see players that are not motivated. Someone needs to step in and fire these boys up. I mean they only get paid millions to play, so play!! I can except not winning, but poor effort I can’t. MM needs to get that old fire back, or if he can’t, we need someone else.
MM
I don’t think he is the problem. His play-calling has been improving so far but he still has mental lapses in crucial situations. We need to see how our o-line progresses. I thought Lang looked pretty good (considering it was his first ever game against a premier DE in the league). He forced Allen inside, which is what you want and opens things up on the outside for Rodgers. I say we put him at RT when Clifton comes back. Spitz, Colledge, and Sitton have all shown potential thus far, and we need to give them a chance.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:53 AM CDT up reply actions
That's fine
but as I stated, I am more concerned about the energy level and the passion I see on the field, and that is directly coach related.
Oh I agree
With your points. I was just branching out a bit.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 12:57 AM CDT up reply actions
discipline
plus the penalties, enforce some discipline!
by chewie on Oct 6, 2009 12:55 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Here, Here
and what is up with the Conditioning coach, last year INJURIES, this year INJURIES. I know you can’t stop them all, but we sure do seem to have a lot of them.
AGREED
Holmgren and Gruden will be available after the season…..now that would be a GM-HC combo! I think some things are and need to be addressed but MM needs to do something…..of course they have to have a chance. If our season goes down the pooper….revert back to what I first said.
Sherman was a winner
Maybe you see fire or energy or whatever with McCarthy. One thing you do not see is winning. Mike Sherman was a winner, and there is no denying that. Before all these other people came around and started messing things up (Ted Thompson, Mark Murphy…etc.), Sherman won four straight NFC North titles with the Packers. With Mike Sherman in control, the Packers were almost guaranteed to win and make the playoffs. At least he knew what was important, PUTTING AN OFFENSIVE LINE TOGETHER! The first thing TT does when he comes in? Glad you asked. He tears that line apart. The results? Glad you asked. The Packers go 4-12 with the worst injury-plagued season I have ever seen. Sherman gets the axe. The Packers hire a new head coach and have been losing ever since (with one excellent Favre season and run through the playoffs being the only exception).
Sherman was an ok coach...
…until the 4th & 26 game. That game tore him apart. He was a gutless coach after that game in my opinion. His decisions during the 2005 season had me questioning whether he was trying to get fired mid-game. He was challenging plays that couldn’t be considered remotely close and had no spine. As a coach I liked him to some degree and don’t think he should be exiled from GB history for the reason you brought up (4 division titles) but I think that was his ceiling. He could get you to the playoffs but no further. As a GM he absolutely deserved to be fired. he never should have been put in that position to begin with.
The first thing TT does when he comes in? Glad you asked. He tears that line apart. The results? Glad you asked. The Packers go 4-12 with the worst injury-plagued season I have ever seen.
The results if TT had allowed Brett to play GM like his predecessor? Glad you asked. We would in all likelihood have signed Rivera and Wahle to huge contracts when both guys ended up out of the league within a few years. Rivera did nothing for the Cowboys. Wahle had one good season with the Panthers and ended up cut and out of the league since. And I still have never heard an explanation as to the relation between the line being “torn apart” being the cause for the injury plague that hit in 2005, yet the two are rarely mentioned apart from each other.
The Packers hire a new head coach and have been losing ever since (with one excellent Favre season and run through the playoffs being the only exception).
Well thats a pretty small sample size there. 2006: 8-8 2007: 13-3 (solely because of Favre apparently) 2008: 6-10 2009: 2-2 so far. That’s a total record of 29-21. Explain to me how that is “losing ever since.”
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Shermie
I agree. Shermie was a guy who could get you to round 1 of the playoffs, but that was his ceiling.
But…
I think it might be time to turn the same sort of analysis on TT & MM. Are these guys capable of putting the team on the next level? Where was the team after 5 years of Ron Wolf and Mike Holmgren? In the Super Bowl, that’s where. Don’t tell me that TT has had a tougher job, because the hole Braatz had dug was pretty deep. Wolf had a great drive to win and seems to have had about zero ego investment in his moves. TT doesn’t have it.
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Oct 6, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions
good point
we are definitely approaching that time where analysis of these guys is necessary. a gm like wolf doesn’t come along that often, because as you said, he had no sense of ego at all. i don’t always think that thompson has the ego that many seem to accuse him of, but he certainly is no ron wolf in regards to ego. i won’t say that thomspon doesn’t have the drive to win though. i would find that hard to quantify.
the combo of wolf & holmgren also did have the benefit of having a great defense and possibly the best defensive lineman of all time in reggie white. fritz shurmur’s defense doesn’t get as much credit as it deserves, in my opinion, for its role in the Super Bowl years. as great as favre was playing then it sure helped having such a great d to back him up. when you consider that one of the main reasons we lost the game to the broncos is because of how tired the d was in that game, you can see the importance they had.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
but that said
we may have a similar situation with mccarthy as far as being good enough to get you to the playoffs but not much further. we’ll have to see
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
So far
McCarthy and Thompson have gotten the Packers to the playoffs once in four years. And the team they inherited was not as bad as the one Wolf and Holmgren inherited.
FINALLY
ktenreb, you need a job in pack’s front office dude. Really, I said that that on another thread. Holmgren and Gruden are free now. I can’t speak for any other pack fan and won’t but I would like to see Holmgren come back as GM and Gruden as coach. They have our beloved Packers’ championship experience and and know how to win. They have that drive and are not afraid to put players in check.Thats all Im saying man.
Are you trying to be my friend?
Thanks for the love, but you’d better stay away from me. I’m the troll, already threatened with banishment for being too negative and disagreeing with the homers.
LOL
Thats funny…no dude, but you have some really good points from what I have read. Like GGGamer and some of the guys…there is alot of good points some of you bring out. We are all biased to some point, some GREATER than others. I try to look between the lines and try not to get wrappred around the axle on things. All Im saying is there are some “free agents” after the season with the name Holmgren/Gruden…..who better than this duo?? At least currently….
Gruden's not the guy
Gruden had a stormy tenure in Tampa Bay. Many players called him dishonest and duplicitous. Being a GM in the NFL isn’t the easiest job in the world, but in Green Bay, the GM simply can’t afford to have a bad reputation among players.
LeRoy Butler was mildly unhappy with his contract. Wolf wasn’t in a position to renegotiate at that particular point in time, but he gave Butler his word he would take care of him when he could. Wolf kept his word and gave Butler a bonus that was probably more than Butler was worth at the time since he was starting to get past his prime. That’s an example of what a Packers’ GM needs to do. Gruden’s public spats with Keyshawn Johnson and Jeff Garcia and Tim Brown just won’t work in Green Bay.
Totally!
But Wolf went out and got those guys. Reggie White, Dotson, Sean Jones… he drafted some guys and when he thought he could improve, even if it meant signing a free agent or making a trade. He put together a great team on both sides of the ball in 4-5 years.
TT’s motivations for what he does are as much a mystery to me as anyone else. I can only look at the results and the patterns.
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Oct 6, 2009 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions
You need to give credit where it is due
Wolf and Holmgren didn’t have the benefit of a great defense. Wolf signed the players, and Holmgren and Shurmur turned them into that great defense.
I wasn't trying to short change them
Shurmur had the personnel (thanks to Wolf) to make his system work here and did a fantastic job. No question. I don’t think Holmgren had as much to do with the D besides allowing Shurmur to do what he did, but thats a different point (and I’m not trying to short change Holmgren at all). A guy like Reggie White is a once in a lifetime player, the fact that he was available and that we got him is a true testament to Wolf, not really a criticism of Thompson, imo. But guys like Dotson and Sean Jones are likely available and that is a criticism that can apply to Thompson, no question.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
As a Gophers fan, Sherman reminds me a lot of Glen Mason
Mason would have adequate Gophers teams that might win a big game or two during the season, get enough wins for a mid level bowl and then get beaten in said bowl. Sherman was usually good for about a 9 to 10 win season and a first or second round playoff exit.
That being said, I don’t think McCarthy is the coach to take us to the next level. He seems too soft and emotionless. I would much rather see a hard nosed coach like Cowher or Singletary that would bring that type of mentality to this team.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 6, 2009 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, in defense of Sherman
Cowher was like that for the Steelers. Took him how many years to win a SB? Not saying Sherman would’ve eventually won one or not, but a guy who wins 9 or 10 games a year is at least doing something right.
as much as i wanted him to lose tonight
brett favre has always and, more than likely, will always be my favorite athlete of all time.
lets go dodgers
by BoeJouma on Oct 6, 2009 12:49 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Beg to differ
I know I’m not the only one to see that Favre didn’t beat the Pack; the Packers beat themselves.
What I keep reminding myself of is that the Packers defense completely shut down the Vikings offense since the middle of the 3rd quarter. Even with great Vikings field position (a punt return after the safety past the 40, and an onside kick recovery in Packers territory), the defense clamped down and didn’t allow even a field goal. Aside for Brett exploiting some very blatant (and downright bad) blown coverage down field earlier in the game, the Vikings offense really wasn’t that stellar.
It doesn’t take excellent quarterbacking to throw the ball to wide-open receivers, especially when you have all day to throw it. And anyone who tries to portray this game as some magical Favre moment or the Packers being outclassed by the Vikings is simply a revisionist.
What I take from this game is extreme confidence in the Packers. We have a quarterback who can throw for 370 yds with the most porous O-line in the league, and would have ended the day with 3 TDs if Donald Lee learned how to hold onto the ball. We have a defense that held the most dominant running back that this league has ever seen to 55 yds. The Packers are their own worst enemy right now, and I’m confident they’ll stop shooting themselves in the foot by the end of the season.
p.s. It looked like Chillar was quick to get off the ground after stuffing AP in the first quarter. Anyone else wondering what he said that warranted a 15-yd Taunting call? Or can we chalk this up to the one-sided refs (7-57 vs 2-10, sheesh!)?
The Vikings beat the Pack
What planet were you on?
THOMPSON IS A MORON
by 4 where-ever on Oct 6, 2009 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions
apparently
not the same plant you live on, Brettopia
Hey ole pete, how’s my creativity level?
following my posts yet?
I couldn't agree more
I know Gruden couldn’t stop gushing about him (Looks like we found a replacement for Madden) but I wasn’t all that impressed by Favre’s performance. Did he play well? Yes, But you give any QB in the league not named Tavaris that much time in the pocket and he’ll make some throws. I’m far more impressed by Rodgers doing what he did with that sieve of an offensive line and receivers dropping passes.
Anyways, the Packers are getting a bye week at the perfect time, hopefully they’ll be able to figure something out before coming back for a couple of easier games.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 6, 2009 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Pessimism entirely warranted
The Vikings simply had more weapons than the Packers had answers for.
As for mistakes, they happen more frequently when opponents apply pressure. Considering the way the battle of the trenches went, mistakes were almost inevitable.
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Oct 6, 2009 3:23 AM CDT reply actions
Blame Favre if you want, but the Pack is in deep trouble
The Packers lost due to two turnovers that led to 14 points. Think about it. If they hadn’t lost those two possessions and scored points instead of having them scored against them, the Packers would have been in a much better position to win the game.
You can rant & rave all you want about Brett Favre, but the Packer organization is in deep trouble. They turn the ball over too much, they had too many stupid penalties called against them, their offensive line does not protect Rodgers, and they were kept out of the end zone more times than they got in it…
by FavreFanNL on Oct 6, 2009 4:46 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
true
FavreFanNL,
You bring up some really good points. Stop blaming (Favre), your right, he’s not here anymore to be blamed…..the Pack made some mental errors, turned over the ball and the couldnt score in the red zone. AR is a very talented pocket passer and will run if need be to buy time. But, with the OL not PROTECTING HIM?? I dont care who’s behind center! 8 freakin’ sacks?? WTF….how many other QB’s in the league could respond as well as he did in that game?? I give him lots and lots of credit, he played quite well for what he had to work with….The pack need to fix that OL problem with that said, what are TT/MM gonna do about it? Thats the million dollar question…..
I don't think anyone is blaming BF for this loss
Any more than we blamed Carson Palmer for the Bengals loss. The Packers imploded, yes. It was ref assisted to be sure, but the Rams could’ve beaten us if we had played like this against them.
Damn stats.
What they illustrate, ultimately, is we choked at crucial times, repeatedly.
Sacks, ints, drops, lack of penetration: all played their parts last night.
by rudi on Oct 6, 2009 6:06 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Though the HD feed on ESPN quit half-way though the fourth quarter last night, I saw enough of the game to know what mattered.
Bad points:
O-line. Can’t run the ball consistently, can’t adequately pass-protect. DOOOOOOM. Grant got nearly 5 YPC (11-51) which is a good start, but it’s hard to run from two scores down. LT is obviously a huge hole, and one that will have to be addressed in either free-agency (hah!) or the draft – Clifton is on his last leg health-wise. Barbre is up & down at best. Spitz, Colledge and Sitton may be suitable starters inside or not – I’m not an expert there. What I do know is that the Packers were able to play and play well with Clifton & Tauscher when they were younger, and they need to find comparable O-line talent again.
Pass defense, specifically the pass rush. We didn’t have one last night – end of story. As a unit, the Vikings O-line was a fortress behind which BF did pretty much whatever he wanted. If this is what switching to a 3-4 gives us, that ain’t much. Where’s Aaron Kampman when we need him?
IMO, those two elements pretty much make the loss.
Good points:
Aaron Rodgers. Win or lose, he’s got all the tools to be the next great Packers quarterback, and cutting ties with BF was the correct call by McCarthy & Thompson. If he were Tarvaris Jackson they’d be looking for a stop-gap and would have begged BF to tide them over until they found a capable successor; since they had one, they moved on. He’s holding the ball too long, which magnifies the O-line’s protection issues, but from what I see he’s a player, and this loss isn’t primarily on him or his talents.
Rushing defense. Holding Adrian Peterson under 2.5 ypc and getting a fumble-return for a TD is a darn good day.
It seemed to me that the Packers were competitive, but on the theory that you’re only as strong as your weakest link, they will go as far as their offensive line can carry them. Last night, that wasn’t far enough. You can scheme around that a little with screens and draws and play-action, but sooner or later you have to be able to run when you want to and pass when you want to, and I don’t see that this year’s squad can do that.
Four games in, they seem like an average team – not a good one, not a bad one – with the potential to improve this year and next due to their youth.
OH GOD
A few observations
*I had to laugh to myself after Al Harris bit HARD on the pump fake and as soon as he watched HIS guy go into the endzone he threw his hands up like the safety let him down. Nice try Al. If I have to hear how he is a lockdown corner again I am gonna vomit.
*For all of the people who like to regurgitate the “Where would we be with Brett?” and similar lines regarding Purple Judas – Where we would have been is sacked 20 times. I would really like to see Favre playing behind this line. Maybe that is why he didnt want to come back….
*Tell Jennings & Grant the season has started and it is time to play
by jreg on Oct 6, 2009 8:51 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs
its exactly why he did not come back
TT has been dismantaling the packers for a couple years.
THOMPSON IS A MORON
by 4 where-ever on Oct 6, 2009 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions
leave
Or if Peterson's "troublesome" back gives out. Because he's, you know, carrying the team. And some of those guys are heavy.
Mitchell M
SAD
Need a new O cord,play calling stinks .TT get off yer a## and get some quality o lineman,OFFICATING WAS WORSE THAN THE WWF .
REFS DONT DECIDE THE GAME
just admit it the packers are a overrated team
bengals beat you, nuff said
Good input. Thanks for your thoughts.
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Oct 6, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions
and he didn't even charge us for the insight
i am considering myself fortunate
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Well . . .
As obnoxious as the comment was intended to be, I think the point is that whiners and losers blame referees. We should not.
point taken but
there is a difference between blaming the ref’s for costing us the game and making an observation that the disparity between the penalties assessed to each team was rather large. i haven’t seen anyone saying that the ref’s cost us the game. i think the packers lost the game, but that there were some dubious calls in the game does not lessen the role that the packers played in the loss. at least that’s my view.
but i agree that blaming the ref’s for a loss is weak, unless it was a call on the very last play of a game where you aren’t given the chance to overcome the call on your own, which was not the case last night.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Bengals aren't as bad as people think
They did beat the world champs as well.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 6, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Typical ignorant Vikings fan comment
Bengals are 3-1. They beat the Steelers.
We’re not overrated and that should be clear. Rodgers threw for 384 yards against you guys. Now just imagine what he could have done had the oline blocked for him.
And getting the ball down to your opponents 25 yard line twice and the 1 yard line another time, and coming away with no points is unacceptable. We really kind of beat ourselves. If we score on even one of those possessions the the whole game changes.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions
My take:
Packers lost. Vikings won. Simple.
It does not matter who we had at the helm there. Check that, it did. Rodgers kept us in the game.
Problems
Playing calling – I think the Pack got away from what was working too early. The screens and draws were working. The quick 3 step drops were working. Once we went into full blown air-it-out mode is when we found the brunt of the rush. Ryan Grant, to my surprise, looked good for once when he did get the touches. But with the line we have right now, we need to go with the quick hits, screens, and draws to keep the DL on their toes. Otherwise they just are putting their head down and playing the straight up rush game.
Defense – To me, they seem lost, emotionless, and lack desire to rush a passer. Part of this can be on play calling. Maybe someone can help me out with this since I am not going to bang my head on empirical evidence for my opinion here. But are we not blitzing with as much frequency? Preseason and against the Bears, it seemed like we were live and die by the blitz. It seemed to work for the most part.
p(. I would like to see Desmond Bishop get some reps. I don’t know what his deal is and maybe the coaches are seeing something I am not, but he should get some reps as for a spark. The DB’s, outside of Woodson, are not grasping the 3-4. Been reading some things about the 3-4 and usually people are saying that it doesn’t really take until the 6th-7th game. Hopefully the DB’s can grasp it. The Line…get some pressure please. Did great stopping the run, just get through some blocks though on the pass rush. I hope to see Raji healthy soon.
Penalties – As much as people want to say “oh this was a fluke play blah blah blah.” You do realized if the Packers don’t get penalized on a few of their defensive series, they may have fared better than what appeared. If fluke plays are in play, so are fluke penalties :P
p(. Packers need to cut down on stupid penalties that keep other team drives alive. I am sorry, but I feel if we cut down on these the game is a different story. I don’t care that the refs call them, they should. It should be on the Packers to stop having mental lapses.
O-Line – If we can get this unit together, a lot of things will fall into place. I really am not a fan of the zone blocking scheme. But it shouldn’t be an excuse for these guys, they should have 2 years practice with it. I just don’t feel the zone blocking scheme falls in line with Grant’s straight at ’em style. We see the problems here so there is no need to continue.
WR’s – Paging Greg Jennings. I think this will be a DD year though. Jennings probably is getting #1 duty from the CB’s and maybe a double team or a shadow from wherever. The big two have been okay though. I am pretty surprised by the supporting cast. Jordy, Finley, Jones (meh) primarily look better than what I expected. The biggest downfall is dropping a lot of passes. I thought these guys were pretty sure handed.
But that is it. Need to shore up and improve on the problem areas. I believe that is where coaching and communication come in. Players need to have a little more focus. They did seem to have fire when it came to stopping the run. It was nice to have them flying to the ball, but they need that spark when rushing and covering in pass defense. Same goes for the line.
The Pack needs to take this loss personally. It was a good game on both sides, give the Pack more credit considering how bad things they had to overcome to be close. I am not terrified of the Vikings. They are more beatable than I thought.
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Oct 6, 2009 11:43 AM CDT reply actions
I think the injuries at S
have really changed the blitzing mindset. Without having both Bigby and Collins back there I think Capers is less likely to turn loose the blitz. Now I did see Woodson blitzing a few times last night but overall they have certainly been less attacking in their style.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Penalties
I usually hate to go this route but I’m still amazed at how few penalties the Vikings got, I noticed several blocks from behind and holds but no flag. None of the calls were as bad as Woodson’s interference though.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 6, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Penalties
The penalties are there every week. Every week MM says the same damn thing, and the next week, the penalties are there again. You can’t say “if the refs hadn’t thrown all those flags…” because they do, every week. It’s a given with this team.
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Oct 6, 2009 12:21 PM CDT reply actions
remember that
when the bengals beat the vikings
by warvette on Oct 6, 2009 2:06 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
That goddamn FG cost me a fantasy matchup by .66 of a point
Having troubles with wrapping my mind around Kirbir listening to T.I.
by Dikembe Meiztombo on Oct 6, 2009 3:50 PM CDT reply actions
I lost my first game by .03 points
In my league, simply having a QB/WR/TE/RB, anyone, get one more yard would’ve gotten me the win. I feel for ya.
Actually
If you want to call the Refs on bad calls the strip fumble of Peterson, the whistle should have been blown as his forward progress had been stopped and he was being dragged backwards.Seen some holding on Def side of G.B. and a few facemasks that wasnt called.
Rogers played well considering that O-line of yours,but you gotta admit if you plan on making him your long term Q.B.get him some protection.The 8 sacks dont tell half of abuse that Rogers is taking each week from anybody you guys face.If things dont change you might not have a Q.B. left at end of Season.
Your Def played well considering a new Scheme,but cant understand Why you guys arent using Kampman to his strengths.
Get that o-line fixed and G.B. could be a Team to watch for,maybe add a true pounding bruising R.B.
All in all I thought Rogers played well,he carrys your Team a lot on his shoulders.To tell the Truth I had hoped Favre would have Returned and Rogers would have left and we picked him up.
+1
But that was not forward progress on that play. AP was moving forward still, and had a soft grip on the ball. He is fumble prone (15 in the last 2 years). Did you watch the Sunday night game where the Steelers punt returner had the ball taken from him? That was forward progress, not APs fumble.
Nailed it on Rodgers, our oline needing to get better, our defense playing relatively well besides on 3rd down, and about us not utilizing Kampman’s strength.
by packallday555 on Oct 8, 2009 12:56 AM CDT up reply actions
That's what would have most likely happened had we brought Favre back
Then we could get all sorts of fun stories on ESPN about Rodgers trying to exact revenge on Thompson and Favre.
This was actually a pretty damn even game I thought
I’m sure we’ll beat them at Lambeau. As far as Clay Matthews’s play being lucky, no it absolutely wasn’t. He just tore the football out of there AP never even had a chance of hanging onto that.
+1
muscle vs muscle… Clay won! And I espcecially loved the 10 minutes of the lovefest of AP on ESPN on how strong AP’s hands are instead of saying how great and what strength Clay must have afterwards… I think the points on the board vindicated whose hands/ mind was stronger or thinking in that moment not ESPN
McCarthy's second challenge
This is a few days late, but…
“…used another [challenge] to turn a fumble into a safety against Green Bay.”
Would you rather have let the play stood as called? That would have given Minnesota the ball on the one. Even if the defense makes a heroic stop, the fieldgoal is almost certain and worth more points than a safety. Also, the clock was the Packers’ enemy at that point in the game, was it not?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
