Extended Recap: Green Bay Packers Defeat 49ers 30-24
by Brandon on Nov 23, 2009 8:15 AM CST
in Green Bay Packers Analysis
Email
PrintThe Packers needed this win to stay ahead in the crowded NFC wild card race. That it was against another team battling for a wild card spot is an added bonus.
But the season ending injuries to LB Aaron Kampman and CB Al Harris really hurt. I covered that in an earlier post. Another injury to keep an eye on is that Mike McCarthy said RB Ryan Grant suffered a stinger late in the game.
It was a tale of two halves. The Packers dominated the 1st half on both sides of the ball. But in the 2nd half, the 49ers went to the spread offense with QB Alex Smith almost exclusively in the shotgun. They were able to protect Smith and give him time to find anyone mismatched in single coverage against TE Vernon Davis down the middle. Their defense made stops on 3rd downs, forcing four 2nd half punts by the Packers, but on the Packers final drive, they converted twice on 3rd down and were able to run out the final 6 minutes of the clock.
The overall stats were in the Packers favor vs. the 49ers: 484 yards on offense vs. 284, 10 for 18 on 3rd down vs. 3 for 11, and 41:39 time of possession vs. 18:21.
In the end, a good game leaves a bad taste in my mouth after the 2nd half letdown and the injuries to Kampman and Harris. My complete game recap is after the jump.
49ers vs Packers coverage; 49ers vs Packers recap; 49ers vs Packers boxscore; Niners Nation
Play-by-play from NFL.com:
First Quarter:
(13:55) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass short right to 88-J.Finley to SF 47 for 20 yards (26-M.Roman).
It was the first game back for TE Jermichael Finley and he made a big catch and run on 3rd down to keep the first drive alive.
(13:10) 25-R.Grant right guard to SF 37 for 10 yards (38-D.Goldson).
(12:33) 25-R.Grant left end to SF 11 for 26 yards (25-T.Brown, 38-D.Goldson).
I expected RB Ryan Grant would have trouble running against a very good 49ers run defense. But the offensive line opened up some big lanes for him early, and controlled the line of scrimmage for most of the game. This was certainly the best game of the season for the offensive line.
(10:21) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to 88-J.Finley (52-P.Willis).
(2:35) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete short left to 32-B.Jackson.
Two 1st quarter drives went inside the 49ers 10 yard line and ended on two incomplete passes on 3rd down. They were forced to settle for 2 FGs. I wouldn't say the red zone offense has been a problem for the Packers this season, but it sure wasn't in the 1st half.
(10:07) 21-F.Gore up the middle pushed ob at GB 38 for 42 yards (36-N.Collins).
I point out this play because it was basically the entirety of the 49ers offense for the first half. They settled for a FG 3 plays later. The 49ers had 3 more possessions in the 1st half for a total of 6 yards on 12 plays.
(1:31) 4-A.Lee punts 51 yards to GB 32, Center-86-B.Jennings. 38-T.Williams to GB 38 for 6 yards (26-M.Roman). Penalty on GB-33-B.Underwood, Running Into the Kicker, declined.
P Andy Lee is very good, so it's not surprising that 4 of his 5 punts went for over 50 yards. The only one that went for under 50 was returned by CB Tramon Williams for 27 yards and set up their final FG of the half. But the punt coverage really struggled in the 1st half, and bailed the 49ers out of some bad field position.
Second Quarter:
(12:59) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right. PENALTY on GB-12-A.Rodgers, Intentional Grounding, 15 yards, enforced at SF 33.
The complaints that QB Aaron Rodgers is holding on to the ball too long won't go away after this game. Just a terrible decision to run backwards 15 yards before getting called for the penalty. And this wasn't the only time it happened. It's too bad because it took away from his otherwise fantastic game. The penalty killed a good drive, deep in 49ers territory, and they punted on the play after.
(8:59) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass short middle to 85-G.Jennings for 64 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
All the lost yardage on punt returns is sometimes easily made up by Rodgers to Jennings. Just a fantastic play by WR Greg Jennings, as he made a move at mid-field that caused two members of the 49ers secondary to run into each other. Great downfield blocking by his teammates too (Jordy!!!). The replay is here.
(8:47) 11-A.Smith sacked at SF 11 for -9 yards (77-C.Jenkins).
After 49ers starting LG David Baas was hurt near the end of the 1st quarter, DE Cullen Jenkins had a big 2nd quarter against the backup.
(7:29) 4-A.Lee punts 54 yards to GB 29, Center-86-B.Jennings, downed by SF-46-D.Walker. PENALTY on GB-94-J.Wynn, Illegal Block Above the Waist, 10 yards, enforced at GB 29.
More bad punt coverage. This non-catch, the punt must have rolled 10 yards, and penalty gave the 49ers almost 60 net yards on this one.
(6:33) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass short left to 32-B.Jackson to GB 34 for 16 yards (36-S.Spencer).
On 3rd and 11, Rodgers dumped off to RB Brandon Jackson for a 16 yard gain and a 1st down. I've been waiting for Jackson to break out as a receiver for 3 seasons now. A single game with 6 catches for 65 yards doesn't equal a breakout, but this might be the start of things to come. TE Donald Lee was only targeted for 2 passes, both incompletions, including another dropped pass. Maybe the running backs will be used more for checkdown passes going forward. Or maybe sure handed TE Spencer Havner will be replacing Lee in the future.
(2:33) 12-A.Rodgers pass short right to 87-J.Nelson for 7 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
After Jackson's catch-and-run kept the drive alive, it eventually led to a TD for WR Jordy Nelson, his 2nd of the season. He's another player I'd love to see more involved in the offense. Here's the replay.
(:09) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers right end ran ob at SF 9 for 4 yards (25-T.Brown).
(:01) 2-M.Crosby 27 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-61-B.Goode, Holder-10-M.Flynn.
I thought Rodgers was going to run out of bounds too late, but he did manage to leave 1 second on the clock. Unfortunately it led to the 3rd FG of the half. The Packers settled for FGs on 3 drives that were inside the 49ers 10 yard line. The half could have gone even worse for the 49ers than just 23-3.
Third Quarter:
(11:28) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass incomplete short right to 21-F.Gore [52-C.Matthews].
This incompletion on 4th down was one of the few big stops for the Packers defense in the 2nd half. The two big differences in the 2nd half were that the 49ers only ran the ball twice in the half, and QB Alex Smith only ran one play from under center. Nearly every play was out of the shotgun. Mike McCarthy agreed that the shotgun gave Smith just enough time to start finding the open receivers.
(11:17) 25-R.Grant right end to GB 39 for 11 yards (38-D.Goldson). PENALTY on GB-63-S.Wells, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at GB 28 - No Play.
The Packers weren't plagued by penalties, but this turned out to be a costly one in hindsight. The 49ers offense was getting warmed up, and an extended drive would have kept them off the field. Instead, it turned into 2nd and 20. They punted 2 plays later.
(8:53) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass deep middle to 85-V.Davis to GB 28 for 29 yards (24-J.Bush).
The biggest beneficiary of the shotgun and extra protection for Smith was TE Vernon Davis. He beat CB Jarrett Bush on this play, but he burned others too.
(7:35) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass deep left to 15-M.Crabtree for 38 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
On the first play after LB Aaron Kampman tore his ACL, WR Michael Crabtree got past CB Al Harris deep for the TD. He was right there on the coverage, but Crabtree got a little separation at the end to get open. At first, it looked like he shoved Harris, but on the replay it looked like he just timed his leap better.
Fourth Quarter:
(15:00) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at SF 49 for -12 yards (98-P.Haralson).
Here's the other sack (technically the first one was an intentional grounding) when Rodgers held the ball too long. LT Chad Clifton had the linebacker blocked way out of the play, but Rodgers ran right into it as he scrambled to his right instead of stepping up into the pocket. And for the 2nd time in the game, another good drive into 49ers territory is sacked back into a punt.
(13:40) 7-J.Kapinos punts 38 yards to SF 1, Center-61-B.Goode, downed by GB-29-D.Martin. Yard marker changed due to change of possesssion.
(13:31) 11-A.Smith pass deep left intended for 85-V.Davis INTERCEPTED by 36-N.Collins at SF 21. 36-N.Collins to SF 11 for 10 yards (46-D.Walker).
(11:15) 25-R.Grant right guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.
A rare great special teams moment pinned the 49ers down at their 2 yard line. Due to the field position, Smith had to line up under center (for the only time in the half), he overthrew his receiver, and right at FS Nick Collins. It led to a TD 4 plays later. These three plays within this 3 minute span pulled the game out for the Packers when it looked like they might collapse again like they did back in Tampa.
2-M.Crosby kicks 70 yards from GB 30 to SF 0. 84-J.Morgan to GB 24 for 76 yards (33-B.Underwood).
Unfortunately the previous great punt coverage is almost entirely wiped out by the awful kick coverage. And the 49ers return game had been in the dumps all season long.
(10:42) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass deep middle to 85-V.Davis for 24 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Although LB Clay Matthews couldn't have done much better in coverage, maybe the safety was late helping deep, and Smith threw a perfect pass. Davis burned nearly everyone who covered him. Except, after this TD, I thought I noticed CB Charles Woodson covering Davis. Whatever changed after this TD reception, it was his last catch of the game.
(9:11) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at GB 25 for -6 yards (99-M.Lawson).
This was a big sack on 3rd down. LB Manny Lawson got RT Mark Tauscher back on his heels, and ran inside on him for the sack. Though we could give Tauscher a mulligan on it because this was the longest he had played all season, in only his 2nd game back. I don't think he came back in the game, and I thought RT T.J. Lang, who subbed for Tauscher on at least one earlier series, finished off the game.
(8:02) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass deep middle to 88-I.Bruce to 50 for 20 yards (38-T.Williams).
(7:20) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass deep right to 15-M.Crabtree to GB 15 for 35 yards (38-T.Williams). Green Bay challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld. (Timeout #2.)
(6:02) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass short right to 21-F.Gore for 10 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The wide receivers of the 49ers only had 110 yards combined in this game, but 55 on those two plays alone. This was the 1st drive when it seemed like they missed Harris, and some players might have been confused in coverage. The TD pass to RB Frank Gore was definitely a blown coverage as Woodson was frantically pointing to Gore's spot before the play.
(4:22) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass short right to 88-J.Finley to GB 20 for 5 yards (32-M.Lewis).
(2:32) 12-A.Rodgers right guard to SF 48 for 2 yards (56-S.McKillop).
Finally the offense was able to convert on two big 3rd down plays, and eat up the rest of the clock.
87 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
After a great first half, they fell into sleep-mode in the 2nd. Yes, the 49’ers stepped up their play too, but that was also possible because the Packers went to sleep.
The only points scored by the Packers after halftime was after the interception which gave them the ball with a very short field, that’s the bad part that somewhat overshadows what was actually a pretty good win. The 49’ers are a pretty good football team.
Rodgers played a very good game, finally makeing quicker decissions and throwing, sacked “only” twice, + that int. grounding call that is pretty much the same. That is not the same as he will not fall back to his “old” mistakes later this season when Packers play the better teams like Steelers and Ravens.
Did it help to have Taucher, Clifton and Finley back, absoultely. Finley made some great playes. Taucher/Clifton know how to pass-block, as Barbre does not. They also helped pave the way for Grants big day.
The things that really worries me, was how the team almost fell apart after halftime, after a first half like that, they should be able to put the opponent away early in the second half.
But the offense weren’t really able to move the ball, the playcalling got to conservative again, and the penalties piled up again.
This again reflects on the less than good coaching by McCarthy.
The other thing is the ineffectiveness in the redzone, too many trips to the RZ, ends in a FG. With a big athletic target like Finley, they should have a lot more TDs.
I know that guy has nothing to do with this game, but Favre is continueing to play great up in Minnesota, I really wonder how freaking good the Packers would be with him still on the team, he could definatly have saved some of the bad losses this year, he also has the ability to put away a team early.
What does TT / MM think about that move now…..
So QB is the problem on this team.
Rodgers has been sacked 43 times to Favre’s 21. They are nearly identical in most other categories. Favre has 2 more TDs and two less picks, Rodgers has more yards, and more rushing tds/tds.
They are both top 5 qbs in the league, Rodgers has done it taking a drubbing a 40 yr-old body would have hard time taking. Having Favre on this team this year would have made no difference. And what bad losses would he have saved? Unbelievable.
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Nov 23, 2009 11:05 AM CST up reply actions
If you are familiar with Jarls
you won’t find it all that unbelievable
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
And what bad losses would he have saved? Unbelievable.
We would have beat the Bengals if Favre played for us…oh wait never mind Favre has NO control over Grant fumbling that pass and Lee’s inability to line up onsides.
We would have beat the Vikings week 4 if Favre played for us…oh wait never mind Favre again has NO control over whether or not Lee catches that Td pass. And last I checked he never has played Lt or Rt so I don’t think he could have helped us out there.
We would have beat the Vikings the second time we played if Favre played for us…oh wait I don’t think Favre has ever served as a special teams player so he probably wouldn’t have helped us out there.
We would have beat the Bucs if Favre had played for us…oh wait never mind Favre has never played on punt protection and has never played on defense so I don’t think he would have helped out us there. Oh and again he has never played Rt.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions
And that
Summarizes it as nicely as I’ve seen
+1
What was with Kendall's shaved head?....looks like a fist with eyes.
scsteve (Pirates fan)
Correction: Jason Kendall IS a fist with eyes.
Derek (Brewers fan)
Well, duh ! I know Favre never played RT/LT
But if you look at the 43! sacks taken by Rodgers this year, a lot of them, I would say at least half of them are mostly because of Rodgers not getting rid of the ball, he holds on WAY to long. Favre has taken more sacks than previouse years as well, and he too holds on too long some times, but still, only half the sacks, and his sacks are down for the 5-6 games. Some of those were aslo sacks he took on purpose, instead of throwing one up for grabs.
The difference is what Favre brings to his team knowledge and experience wise, the reasons why the Packers would have a much better record with him, is he gets rid of the ball much quicker, he reads defenses pre-snap WAY better, and therby he would have changed some of the dumbest MM playcalls.
Oh, and T. Jackson would be the QB in Minnesota, meaning they would only have A.P to rely on offensively, thereby the Packers would have won both of those games. Favre has also made a household name out Sidney Rice, an average WR …
My guess is both Vikings games and the Bucs game would have been W’s with Favre as the Packers QB.
PS… I don’t remember that Grant play, but you never fumble a pass, a pass, backwards or forward, is either complete or incomplete. you can not fumble without haveing had possession. True, a incpl backwds pass is a loose ball, and similar to a fumble in that sence, but in certain situations there are huge differences between an incpl backw pass and fumble :-)
Some of those were aslo sacks he took on purpose, instead of throwing one up for grabs.
Are you really suggesting that Favre took sacks INSTEAD of throwing one up for grabs? For such a devotee of Favre you really must not have paid much attention to his actual play.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Haha
It’s when they say things like you pointed out above that make it obvious their just saying anything they can. Favre did the exact opposite of taking sacks on purpose.
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions
My guess is both Vikings games and the Bucs game would have been W’s with Favre as the Packers QB.
We would have beat the Vikings if Favre wasn’t their Qb simply because Jackson is a bad Qb.
On the Grant play he caught a 7 yard pass on 1st down out of the backfield and then was hit and fumbled the ball.
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions
Knew you couldn't go an entire post
without referencing your hero. Do you really envision that TT and MM think about Favre every day like you? I mean come on, the Packers are 6-4 and sitting in decent shape as far as playoff contention goes. As long as they handle their business they have a good shot at getting there. Winnable games with the Lions and the Ravens the next two games and then the Bears. Good shot at going into the Steeler game at either 9-4 or 8-5. Just get over Favre already. I’m not suggesting you have to dislike him, continue to fawn over him if you want. But just leave him out of discussions about the Packers when we aren’t playing the Vikings.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 23, 2009 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
But, but, but ...
Favre can magically heal Kampman and Harris with a wave of his enchanted hand!
Honestly, I think some of the Favre lovers actually think he could heal Kampman and Harris. It’s unbelievable how much Favre has tainted some peoples abilities to look at what has happened realistically.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 11:20 AM CST up reply actions
Man...
Is the Favre thing ever gonna end for you?? I guarentee you MM and TT are 100% happy with the move they made just like they should be. No matter what some people think Favre couldn’t have made our defense better in 08’. I’ve pointed it out time and time again, our offenses put almost IDENTICAL numbers from 07’ to 08’. The defense went from 6th in scoring to 23rd in scoring. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why we only won 6 games last year.
It’s just crazy how critical people are of Aaron Rodgers this year and last. The guy has the WORST o-line in the league by far this year. He has been sacked 43 times, and while some of them may be his fault, the reason he has started too hold onto the ball too long is because our o-line is so bad. We have had to leave 2 extra guys in too block, so when Rodgers is still under pressure despite this he doesn’t have a Rb out on a route and can’t just throw it at his feet like pretty much every other Qb is able to do.
The guy is 2nd in the league in Qb rating this year and that’s with the worst o-line in the league! And sacks do negatively effect his Qb rating..He has only thrown 5 INTs, compared too 19 Tds. That’s a little above a 3:1 Td:Int ratio. Considering 2:1 is normally the goal for Qb’s, I’ll take 3:1 all day. And that’s not even talking about how he has only thrown 5 INTs despite being under the most pressure of any Qb in the league.
Aaron Rodgers is an elite level Qb. He has everything you would want in a Qb. He has a strong arm, is extremely accurate, is smart, and can scramle (he leads the league in rushing yards for Qb). If we had an average o-line in front of him we would likely be undefeated right now, or maybe have one loss.
he could definatly have saved some of the bad losses this year, he also has the ability to put away a team early.
The only losses that would have been saved are the two against the Vikings and that’s simply because that would mean Jackson would be starting for them.
Favre likely would have been sacked 55+ times by now, and probably hurt. Rodgers ability to scramble around has saved us from so many more sacks and potential TOs.
Oh so I guess Rodgers getting us a 23-3 lead at halftime wasn’t putting them away enough?
You CANNOT compare Favre’s situation with the Vikings to Rodgers situation with the Packers. Favre has the best Rb in football to lean on, and yes he has leaned on him. Imagine what Rodgers would do if teams had 8 in the box against him all game, and weren’t dropping 7 into coverage every play. Favre also has one of the better o-lines in the league. McKinnie and Hutch = a top 3 Lt+ Lg tandem and Loadholt has faired much better then many people thought he would at Rt.
I know you love Favre but look at our situations realistically. Rodgers is a top 5 Qb right now with the worst o-line the league.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I know you love Favre but look at our situations realistically.
That, sir, is where Jarls runs into a problem. The only reality he knows is Favre. All situations must be looked at through Favre-colored glasses.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Exactly
That is the problem for many people who are just so enamored by Favre. Many would call me a Rodgers lover because of my post, and while I do love Rodgers, I would just say my post is based off of reality. Any football fan, who truly knows football and is able to look at situations realistically should be able to see that getting rid of Favre absolutely turned out to be the right move.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions
Yes, for the long term
But uprooting Favre turned out to be like turning over a rock. We got to see lots of things that his presence covered up before. Things that, for whatever reason, Rodgers cannot (yet) make disappear, or at least seem to make disappear for the fans with smoke and mirrors.
Think about it, almost every player (except Driver?) played poorly in that NFC championship game, played worse than the QB, and yet somehow, for so many people, it seemed to be the QB’s & only the QB’s fault.
It’s kinda the flip side of what you are criticizing “many Favre lovers” for: Many “Favre haters” couldn’t see that, for them, he was an elephant in the room that was actually hiding from view the bigger elephants behind him.
by puddnhead on Nov 23, 2009 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The QB's fault
that comes with the position… They get the credit when they win and they get the blame when they lose. Perfect example Tom Brady…. The super bowl wins he won them those games! So everyone thinks.. But it was Vinitarri who made the FGs noboby cares about him just Brady who moved the ball 50+ yards to set up a FG
puddnhead
Who threw that awesome interception in overtime? Favre stood out as playing bad on offense and Harris stood out as playing bad on defense. If those two guys tighten up their play on one or two throws either way, the Packers would’ve won and been back to the Super Bowl.
Just like bizzle states, Favre always gets the credit when his teams win so why shouldn’t he get the blame also? I don’t remember who it was on here but they told me the 13-3 season two years ago was all because of Favre and the 4-12 season two years before that was all Thompson’s doing. How does that make sense?
Because
4 – 12 was a result of having no legitimate interior offensive linemen and no healthy running backs. 13 – 3 happened with no legitimate interior offensive linemen and no legitimate running backs for the first half of the season but a QB and a head coach who figured out how to cover it up.
Haha ya..
I’m sorry but having “no interior offensive lineman” isn’t something you just “cover up”. And why weren’t Favre and a head coach able to do this the year before?
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 7:40 PM CST up reply actions
How 'bout Grant maybe getting more than 26 yards?
And so on.
Look, here’s the deal, painful but true: the better team won that day. Frankly it was a miracle that it even went as far as overtime.
This not something I am just thinking now, I distinctly remember having that exact thought even as they were flipping the coin to see who would receive in OT.
The Packers did not win that game with Favre, obviously. But I very much doubt they win it with Rodgers either. And before you start saying he could have thrown one pass more accurately, etc, etc, that was the only difference … remember, there were probably balls that Favre gets rid of that Rodgers gets sacked on, etc etc. Even if Rodgers had not already been knocked out for the season by that point.
bizzle says the credit always goes to the QB, win or lose. Well, not for me. The Giants beat the Packers that day. Eli did not beat Brett. Eli did not win. The Giants won. Brett did not lose. The Packers lost. And, as hard as it is to say, they deserved to lose. They were the worse team.
And as far as this comment “Favre always gets the credit when his teams win so why shouldn’t he get the blame also” … I don’t know what to say. It’s weird taht I am defending Rodgers now, in the context of the “blame game” for this season, and you are saying he should get that blame. Unless you say the rules of the blame game are different for Favre than Rodgers.
All I know is that I have been consistent, I have never assigned blame to either Favre or Rodgers for the two recent losing seasons. I have no idea what you are saying.
by puddnhead on Nov 23, 2009 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'll agree with you
that the Giants game wouldn’t necessarily have been a win with Rodgers at QB. I’m not sure how that comes up at all. I am in complete agreement with you that Favre was FAR from the only one who had a bad night that night. McCarthy, Grant, Al Harris to name just a few. But even with all of those guys playing poorly they were still in OT. They still were tied at the end of regulation. But when you are in OT and make an absolutely inexcusable throw that ends up being picked and gives them another chance at a game-winning FG then yes, you do get blame for the loss. The same way he gets the credit that he totally deserved from winning the Broncos OT game earlier in the season. That is the way the QB position is handled, for better or worse. I agree that the QB gets too much credit and too much blame from the fans and the media but unless you can convince them to handle it differently that is the way it will be viewed.
I’m not sure how you can say they were the worse team that day so definitively though. If they were clearly the worse team then why did it take the Giants till OT, after a WTF INT, to prove that. Does that mean that the Giants played poorly that day too, since they needed OT and a terrible pick to prove that?
And you’re right, Eli did not beat Brett that day. Eli just wanted to win more than Brett did. Brett wanted no part of playing in that cold when he looked like he was having a blast out there the last week in the snow. I mean, he was like a kid out there! That was the shocking thing to me. Favre, who for years was the guy who had the great record when the temp was below 34 degrees, looked he wanted to be anywhere but there at that moment, while Eli, the kid from Ole Miss, looked like the elements didn’t bother him a bit.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Brett wanted no part of playing in that cold when he looked like he was having a blast out there the last week in the snow. I mean, he was like a kid out there! That was the shocking thing to me. Favre, who for years was the guy who had the great record when the temp was below 34 degrees, looked he wanted to be anywhere but there at that moment, while Eli, the kid from Ole Miss, looked like the elements didn’t bother him a bit.
Yeah, it was evident against the Giants and evident against the Bears a few weeks earlier.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 7:53 PM CST up reply actions
what really sucks is that those are my two career packer games
See, this is what happens when the Sox bunt.
Discord is sown. Brother fights brother. Misunderstandings abound.
-TAEG
Haha no way!
That really does suck man, I feel awfully bad for you.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 8:10 PM CST up reply actions
yeah the final scores were lacking
but Lambeau does have a great atmosphere and it was fun rooting for the Pack in the playoffs at overtime
the game in Chicago had its moments too and I had fun visiting my family at the game and telling Bears fans to see them in the playoffs
See, this is what happens when the Sox bunt.
Discord is sown. Brother fights brother. Misunderstandings abound.
-TAEG
Giants game sucked
I was at Seattle the week before and it was two different atmospheres (not because it was -15131515134589 degrees.
Giants game sucked. The entire game felt weird and it did seem like Favre didn’t want to be there. Everyone sitting around us thought the same thing but we couldn’t talk because our mouths were frozen shut.
Good points
This not something I am just thinking now, I distinctly remember having that exact thought even as they were flipping the coin to see who would receive in OT.
I had this exact feeling as well. I remember watching the game with my girlfriend, and she said too me, “It’s ok, their going to overtime and they get the ball.” And in return I said, “It doesn’t matter we’re not going to win.”
The Packers did not win that game with Favre, obviously. But I very much doubt they win it with Rodgers either. And before you start saying he could have thrown one pass more accurately, etc, etc, that was the only difference … remember, there were probably balls that Favre gets rid of that Rodgers gets sacked on, etc etc. Even if Rodgers had not already been knocked out for the season by that point.
I don’t think we would have won it with Rodgers and I think it would be a stupid argument for people to try to make. Favre was great for us in 07’. Unfortunately for us he just played his worst game of the year in a less then ideal time.
I get what your saying about how one player should not be blamed for a loss. My only thing is, we won games that year because of our offense, and particulary because of our passing game. Our defense was good during the year and of course that helped but I don’t think anyone would dispute that it wasn’t because of our high powered offense that we were 13-3 in 07’.
Now against the Giants that day, the defense played mediocore. They didn’t do great, and Harris played extremely poorly. Grant had a poor game but I personally think that’s more on our passing game then our o-line. It wasn’t like we had a fantastic o-line in 07’, it was the passing game that opened things up for Grant.
The Giants knew this, and they game planned for it. They probably saw the way Favre played against the Bears in below freezing weather and said we’re going to make sure they can’t run the ball and we’re going to force their 5 Wr sets to beat us in below freezing weather. And that was exactly what they did and Favre and the passing game just couldn’t get it done.
The weather conditions heavily favored the Giants style of play and they definitely fed off of the weather.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 7:52 PM CST up reply actions
I hear ya
But when one player gets the majority of the credit when we win then he will likely get the majority of the credit we lose. Especially when that player plays poorly himself. We won a lot of games because of Favre and the offense, and in my opinion we lost that game because of Favre and the offense. But because the Qb is the leader of the offense and in our case the offense went directly through the Qb I think he deserves the majority of the blame.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 7:38 PM CST up reply actions
I also love ...
how he needs to include insults to Rodgers even when complimenting his play.
It should also be pointed out ...
This is Rodgers’ second year as a starter. Things like pocket presence will almost certainly improve, and he is already a great quarterback. Check out the comparison of Favre and Rodgers in their second years:
Favre: 60.9% 6.3 YPA 19 TD 24 INT 72.2 QBR
Rodgers: 64.8% 8.2 (!) YPA 19 TD 5 INT 102.6 QBR
I’ll admit Favre is having a fantastic season this year. But QB’s simply do not have career years at the age of 40 – regression to the mean will be a bitch.
I think it's because he has a running game and O-Line in Minnesota.
For Rodgers to put up the kind of numbers he is despite the O-Line (wait, what O-Line?) in front of him, and the lack of running game GB has, is truly commendable.
I wait for Minnesota’s QB to regress. And I wait for Jarlsberg to return to being sane.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Nov 23, 2009 12:25 PM CST up reply actions
I can't help it
In the same breath (post) you can compliment Rodgers for what he is doing this year despite having no running game or O line, then rip the guy who achieved even more two years ago with an even worse run game, and who you probably ripped back then & ever since for saying publicly that the Packers need to get more talent on the very O line that your are now bashing?
[In my best SNL Seth Meyer voice] Really?
Just accept it & then try to move on: Favre was right to be upset about what Thompson was (not) doing.
I never said Brett should be GM or that Thompson had to do as Favre said
So stop putting words in my mouth.
All I said is that, in hindsight, Brett’s POV about what the team needed seems to be better than Thompsons. You can twist the topic again to make it an arguement about whose duties where whose, but I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about who was right.
I think I was agreeing with you
At least to a certain extent. Thompson = failure vis-a-vis interior offensive linemen and running backs (punters too, maybe).
I'm just happy
that we are FINALLY getting to talk about Brett Favre! I can’t believe that on a Packers blog this is the first time the subject has come up. Amazing!
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 23, 2009 6:14 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't get it ...
Looks, things obviously worked out for your Vikings. Can’t you leave well enough alone? Picking Rodgers over Favre was the right decision for the long term, and Favre is clearly an improvement for the Vikings. Nobody on this board is bashing Favre – I freely admit he’s having a fantastic season. This isn’t rocket science, both are good QBs, but one is 26 and the other is 40. Where is the argument?
Too be fair
Clifton and Tauscher were both above average in 07’ and they certainly haven’t been so far in 09’. Colledge also was much better in 07’ then he has been in 09’.
And I have been quick to bash Grant but really looking at it we do have a running game this year. Grant ranks 8th in the league in rushing yards this year and has averaged 4.4 ypc, which is only .4 less then AP. He has been good this year and our o-line has actually been decent run blocking this year. The real problem is McCarthy. He gets so pass happy sometimes that he singlehandedly makes us a one dimensional team.
But the o-line from 07’ to 09’ is MUCH different even though it is a lot of the same names.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 7:58 PM CST up reply actions
So, what do you think about Favre being 7:1 in TD/int ratio this year ? (still 3:1 is very good)
No, Favre would not have been sacked 55+ times if with the Packers, he has “the clock” in his head, he has a “6th-sence” for feeling the rush, he buys time with his pumpfake or feet, yes Rodgers is WAY better at scrambling than Favre now … but Favre gets rid of the ball so much quicker !
And please, no more QB rating !!! Even though Favre leads the NFL in passer rating now. (woops !!) First of all, it is PASSER RATING, it is a way to rate passer efficency, NOT overall performance for a QB, and passer rating is a far from perfect system for rating a passers, it does not consider dropped passes for one.
Oh, and there are far worse offensive lines in the NFL than the Packers !
Care to list those teams that have far worse offensive lines? Seriously Jarls, just accept the fact that Favre is no longer a member of the Packers and move on. Not saying you can’t still love the guy but he is not a member of the team anymore. If you just want to follow him then become a Vikings fan.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Lions, Rams, Raiders, Redskins, Chiefs….. just of the top of my head…
Seriously, if I wanted to become a Vikings fan, I would go shoot my self instead, doesn’t matter who plays there, I hate them !
PS … has people forgotten how great the defense played vs the Cowboys, or the first half vs the 49ers ? that was a major part of those wins !
Seriously, if I wanted to become a Vikings fan, I would go shoot my self instead, doesn’t matter who plays there, I hate them !
Well there’s something we can agree on.
has people forgotten how great the defense played vs the Cowboys, or the first half vs the 49ers ? that was a major part of those wins !
Am I to assume that the defense never played a part in any wins with Favre at the helm? Rodgers just has no chance with you at all, does he? You do realize that saying something good about Rodgers doesn’t mean that Favre won’t love you anymore, right? It’s not like cheating on Favre. Again, I understand you think Favre is the best of all time and that anyone who denies this is insane but Rodgers and this years Packers team has NOTHING to do with Brett Favre. Are you gonna do this for the next 10 years? Claiming that if Favre was still around we would have won every game we lost, and every game we won would have been settled earlier if Favre was the QB or that the team won in spite of Rodgers due to the defense? No one forgot the performance of the defense the past two weeks. No one said that Rodgers is solely responsible for the wins and that we would have lost if Favre had been playing.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
"I understand you think Favre is the best of all time "
He’s not even the best Packer QB of all time…that would be Bart Starr.
We'll never forget you, Brent Farve.
by LowlyPackerFan on Nov 25, 2009 6:45 AM CST up reply actions
Haha careful..
Too some of these guys Favre isn’t only the best Qb of all time, he is the greatest human being of all time.
by packallday555 on Nov 25, 2009 5:52 PM CST up reply actions
So ...
In 2019, are you still going to be complaining every time Rodgers gets sacked that a 50 year old Favre would have gotten rid of the ball quicker? How hard is it to figure out that a quality 26 year old QB is more valuable than a 40 year old one, no matter who it is? You also ignore the fact that it seems pretty damn likely that Favre didn’t want to play in GB in 2007 anyway. I’d love to drop this, because I’ve actually moved on, but you can’t keep spouting this BS and get away with it.
Wow
Favre’s 7:1 ratio is great and I’m not trying to say it’s not but it’s a lot easier to be successful when you have the best Rb in the league, a top 10 o-line, and only have to throw 7 yard passes 70% of the time.
No, Favre would not have been sacked 55+ times if with the Packers, he has "the clock" in his head, he has a "6th-sence" for feeling the rush, he buys time with his pumpfake or feet, yes Rodgers is WAY better at scrambling than Favre now … but Favre gets rid of the ball so much quicker !
Yes he would have. On most of Rodgers sacks this year, the defender has reached him within 2 seconds and that’s not an exaggeration. Many times he is able to elude the rush but not always. Favre wouldn’t be able to do that, and he would likely just throw passes up like he always liked to do. Either Favre would have 55+ sacks this year or he would have 15 INTs at this point if he were playing for us.
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions
Favre vs Rodgers
Rodgers is only in his 2nd year starting. Why are some people expecting him to play at the level of Favre right away? That is impossible. Our biggest problem is not at the QB position, it is Special Teams. We are not winning the battle of field position. Yes, Favre’s interception ratio is 7:1. That is with a very good OL and the best RB in the NFL. Of course he would succeed in that situation. Would he be that good in Green Bay? No chance, cause like Rodgers now, he would have to air it out and carry the team on his shoulders. The difference between the 2: Favre would have fewer sacks, but not that much fewer as the majority of Rodgers’ sacks came in under 3 seconds. To be exact after the TB game, 28 of the 37 sacks were in under 3 seconds. Therefore, the difference would not be significant. Also, Favre would be interception happy again, and Rodgers is the complete opposite of that.
The difference between the 2: Favre would have fewer sacks, but not that much fewer as the majority of Rodgers’ sacks came in under 3 seconds. To be exact after the TB game, 28 of the 37 sacks were in under 3 seconds. Therefore, the difference would not be significant. Also, Favre would be interception happy again, and Rodgers is the complete opposite of that.
Exactly!
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 9:31 PM CST up reply actions
I don't agree with your data
Rodgers did not get sacked in less than 2 seconds on most of the sacks this year. Several of the quicker sacks were on three-step drops where he was supposed to throw a slant (if available) or throw it away (if the slant was not available). Linemen aren’t supposed to engage on three-step drops the same as on a five or seven-step drop. Note that I am NOT defending the offensive line, which is among the worst in the league. You cannot realistically absolve Rodgers of blame either, however.
I agree
that Rodgers did not get sacked within 2 seconds on most of the sacks this season but is this data any more convincing?
I would say at least half of them are mostly because of Rodgers not getting rid of the ball, he holds on WAY to long.
The truth is neither of these are examples of data. They are pure generalizations. And this whole discussion is pointless. Next I say we tackle how we would do if Peyton Manning was our QB, and then Jamarcus Russell. Brett Favre simply is not the QB of the Packers this year and never could have been. I’m not saying that you are bringing up Favre again or that your analysis of the Oline on these sacks is incorrect, but the whole point of this discussion makes no sense.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
I agree it’s pointless but it’s hard to hold my tongue when people come on here and say that if we still had Favre we would have far less sacks because that just is NOT the case. And those of us who have watched the games know this.
I got carried away with saying 2 seconds. I just kept picturing the Bears game week 1, seeing Ogunleye run by Barbre untouched. But 28 of Rodgers 37 sacks after the Tampa Bay game came under 3 seconds. I don’t care how fast Favre gets rid of the ball. When your getting sacked in 3 seconds or less there isn’t a whole lot you can do. And while Favre might get rid of the ball, it would also likely result in many more INTs which Rodgers would not do.
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 9:38 PM CST up reply actions
I got a little excited with the 2 seconds but the majority of them were in 3 seconds or under. According to Jabooty above, 28 of his 37 were under 3 seconds.
I’m not trying to take all blame away from Rodgers, but when 75% of your sacks come in under 3 seconds there isn’t much you can do. He definitely holds onto the ball too long at times but even that is largely because of how our o-line has performed this year, and us having to go max protection blocking on a lot of our pass plays.
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 9:34 PM CST up reply actions
Exactly
And when you combine failing max protection with opposing teams having 7 guys to cover our 3 or 4 guys, the Qb is going to look like he has some issues with holding onto the ball.
Oddly enough Rodgers holding onto the ball is actually one of his good attributes. Because of his athleticism, and ability to elude pass rushes he can wait for things to happen. Kinda what like Big Ben has become known for. And in 08’ this worked for Rodgers because we had an average o-line who could manage to give him time pretty consistently.
This year it doesn’t work for him because our o-line has been so bad. So I’m sure it’s been hard for him to adjust to. Especially since he has likely displayed this attribute all of his football career and done it pretty successfully.
by packallday555 on Nov 25, 2009 12:08 AM CST up reply actions
end ?
Is the Favre thing ever gonna end for you??
at least not until MM and TT are both fired ! like they should be, not just for the Favrepalooza, but for their poor job.
I also wish that more people here would just respect that other people have other opinions. I have nothing against Aaron Rodgers, and I really hope he does well, but I think that for the 2008 (and now 2009) the Packers would have been better of with Favre as QB. there is more that goes into the evaluation of a QB than just stats. It does not matter if Rodgers has 6500 yds of passing if the record is below or at .500 ! I know that there’s other players that has to perform as well.
Right now the intagibles that always seemed to be there with Favre, seems to be in Minnesota with Favre. It is what Favre brings to the team in total, in form of leadership, experience and performance. I’m not trying to rip Rodgers as a team leader, that’s something he’s done well. But the Green Bay Packers were only a good RB away from the SB in 2007, and getting one for 2008 + getting Favre back would have been a very realistic shot at going to the SB, TT cheated us fans out of that !
The NFL is a win now business, not five years down the road. That being said, I do hope the Packers will be great in 5 years as well, but the way TT /MM runs the team, I don’t see that happening on their watch !
If some people here can compare Favres two first years to Rodgers first years, it sure as hell is ok to compare the situation Favre has in Minnesota to Rodgers in GB. Sure A.P is better than Grant, their O-line seems better, or is that partaly because Favre gets rid of the ball and makes them look good, and Rodgers holding it too long an getting sacked ? how would the Minnesota O-line look with Jackson as a starter ?
The facts of history show that Brett Favre will come up with a big play when his team needs it more often than he would throw a pick to end the game.
You're getting there
Your point that a quarterback can cover up other problems on a team is a good one. It’s the kind of attribute that does not show up in passer ratings (somebody posted earlier that the NFL posts “passer ratings” and not “QB ratings”). It’s the kind of attribute that separates a good quarterback from a great one. People bash Brett Favre because he made some poor decisions on the field, or he appeared to them to have made poor decisions, but he is truly one of the very best quarterbacks of all time. It’s not fair to compare him to Aaron Rodgers (a fifth-year quarterback, by the way, who had the enormous advantage of having no expectations placed on him while he watched one of the best ever play ahead of him for three years), because for all of the Rodgers fans’ efforts to convince themselves otherwise, NOBODY will ever be Brett Favre.
I am less disappointed in McCarthy than I am in Thompson. I think that McCarthy has shown good imagination dealing with a dysfunctional roster. Thompson has not provided adequate talent at the interior offensive line positions, and as I mentioned in a previous post, it is REALLY hard to win without legitimate guards. Thompson also has whiffed on safeties, defensive line depth, and draft evaluations. He is playing with fire by not having a veteran QB on the roster (opting instead for three fullbacks), and he hasn’t drafted any tackles capable of taking over for the aging Clifton or the aged (hopefully rejuvenated?) Tauscher (we witnessed that earlier this year). Special teams continue to underwhelm, and even cost games. Some argue that McCarthy has to take the blame, but I disagree. I put more on Thompson.
The Packers have the easiest schedule in the NFL, and yet they must scramble to make the playoffs. Next year’s schedule won’t be based on a 6 – 10 record (leave us hope!), so this is the year the team needs to make a deep playoff run. Remember, this team went 13 – 3 two years ago. Thompson has had five years, which is plenty of time. If the Packers don’t make the playoffs and win at least one game, Thompson should be gone.
I have nothing against Aaron Rodgers, and I really hope he does well, but I think that for the 2008 (and now 2009) the Packers would have been better of with Favre as QB. there is more that goes into the evaluation of a QB than just stats. It does not matter if Rodgers has 6500 yds of passing if the record is below or at .500 ! I know that there’s other players that has to perform as well.
Your right about the stats things, but the W-L column is 08’ was a direct result of defensive injuries. We lost 5 guys, and all of them were some of our better players. It’s not like Favre being on our team could have magically kept all of them from being injured.
But the Green Bay Packers were only a good RB away from the SB in 2007, and getting one for 2008 + getting Favre back would have been a very realistic shot at going to the SB, TT cheated us fans out of that !
Again, getting a good Rb for 08’ wouldn’t have changed the fact that our defense was absolutely killed by injuries. I promise you if Favre were Qb in 08’ we still wouldn’t have made the playoffs.
The NFL is a win now business, not five years down the road. That being said, I do hope the Packers will be great in 5 years as well, but the way TT /MM runs the team, I don’t see that happening on their watch !
How? We have the players at the skill position spots on offense to be very good, and have a good young defense. All they need to do is get two solid T’s, and everything should be great. We’ll eventually have to replace Woodson but with the way he is playing it looks like that won’t be for 2-3 more years.
If some people here can compare Favres two first years to Rodgers first years, it sure as hell is ok to compare the situation Favre has in Minnesota to Rodgers in GB. Sure A.P is better than Grant, their O-line seems better, or is that partaly because Favre gets rid of the ball and makes them look good, and Rodgers holding it too long an getting sacked ? how would the Minnesota O-line look with Jackson as a starter ?
Well it’s not fair for us to compare Favre’s first 2 years to Rodgers first two years so this a moot point. The Vikings o-line doesn’t appear better because Favre is the Qb. McKinnie and Hutchinson is the BEST LT+LG tandem in the league and Loadholt has been a very pleasant surprise for them this year. They have a top 10 o-line and then factor in they also have what is probably a top 5 Rb of all time only 4 years into his career.
Think above Rodgers having Clifton and Colledge blocking his blind side, and then think about Favre having McKinnie and Hutchinson..There’s NO comparison there besides the Qb’s.
The facts of history show that Brett Favre will come up with a big play when his team needs it more often than he would throw a pick to end the game.
This is true but Favre had 17 years to show us this. Rodgers is more then capable of leading us on a key drive and making a big play and he did it week 1 this year.
I know you love Favre, and I loved him when played ofr us too. But he is gone now, and in my opinion he acted awfully immature when leaving us. I know you think if we had him these past 2 years would have turned out differently but the fact remains, our offense has NOT been the problem whatsoever. It has been our defense and special teams, which are both things the Qb has no control of.
by packallday555 on Nov 25, 2009 6:06 PM CST up reply actions
Daily Norseman is the place for you Favre stalkers
Brent Farve is a VIKING…go discuss him there with the other VIKING fans. He plays for another team now-who cares what he says or does? As for the coulda, shouda, woulda comments-you have NO way of knowing what would have happened if the Barry Bonds of football would have stayed. Why not concentrate on reality. If you thought THIS Packer team was going to the Super Bowl based on the Pre-Season hype, you were not being realistic. We have a GOOD team, one of the youngest in the NFL. Even with the many injuries and inexperience they’re 6-4 and in the playoff picture…They are somewhere around $16 million under the cap. It’s a good YOUNG team that’s financially healthy. Enjoy!!
We'll never forget you, Brent Farve.
by LowlyPackerFan on Nov 23, 2009 8:13 PM CST up reply actions
The debate whether we'd have a better record if Favre was still here...
The only reason why we’d have a better record if Favre was still here would be because we’d have beaten the Vikes twice b/c he wouldn’t be on their team. But then again, Aaron Rodgers probably wouldn’t have accepted a contract extension with The Packers and would probably be wearing purple for the next ten years. Which leaves us in a much, much worse position.
If you think the franchise would be better off with Favre, you’re an idiot. Please do us a favor and stop posting crap like this.
You nailed it
Rodgers would not have resigned as he hinted in Training Camp. Seeing him in purple for the next decade would kill us after Favre finally does retire.
Seriously, still?
Favre would change absolutely nothing – he can’t magically create pass protection or improve the play calling. Get it through your damn skull: the Packers made the right move; Favre didn’t even want to play here, and a decade of Aaron Rodgers is a hell of a lot more valuable than one of Favre. Honestly, just leave. Go to Daily Norseman.
by jglowack on Nov 23, 2009 10:59 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
I'd rather take ten years of Aaron Rodgers over one year of The Traitor.
If you like him so much, please go over to Daily Norseman. He’s not with Green Bay and the Vikings don’t play the Packers anymore this year.
As a result, it is logical to not make him an issue anymore.
Or is all logic lost on you?
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Nov 23, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions
Oh my, so sorry.
Meant to reply to Jarls.
BIG-TIME reply fail on my part.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Nov 23, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions
he can’t magically create pass protection or improve the play calling
well, he can definatly improve playcalling !! it is called an audible, Brett Favre did it all the time in 2007 (and before) making MM look better than he was/is. He does it in Minnesota now, and Peyton Mainning does it all the time.
Rodgers does not.
Favre can’t magically create pass protection, but even how horrible it has been some games this year, it has actually been good enough for the last three games.
But he can buy time with his pumpfakes and feet. Rodgers sometimes buys a little with his feet, but mostly ends up running.
But he can buy time with his pumpfakes and feet. Rodgers sometimes buys a little with his feet, but mostly ends up running.
Rodgers actually uses pump fakes a fair amount, and is leading the league in rushing yards for Qb’s so I don’t really mind him running. Especially since he has had many runs of 3rd downs which have been crucial conversions for us.
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 9:41 PM CST up reply actions
It must not be lost on us to give props to the Packers running game yesterday.
Green Bay rushed 32 times for 158 yards against SF. That averages out to just under 5 YPC.
Grant had 21 rushes for 129 yards, or just over 6 YPC. This has to give the Packers OLine some confidence despite the sackfests they’re allowing other teams to have.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Nov 23, 2009 1:15 PM CST reply actions
The o-line really has been ok run blocking this year and Grant has had a pretty good year. Grant is on pace now for right under 1, 400 yards for the season which would be great. The only thing is our o-line hasn’t been able to pass block to save their lives.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 8:01 PM CST up reply actions
Rodgers
Rogers is good. period. I would rather see a field goal in the red zone than an interception. Despite some thinking he holds it—— I am glad sometimes because he takes care of the football. Limited turn overs is the name of the game. It was also nice to see the ground game going. I was waiting to take a look at Brandon Jackson, he showed a little fire. He was really starting to come alive last year. I hope we can keep pounding it to open up more play action.
Reagrding the intentional grounding/"holds on to the ball too long" comments
I really think that call exemplified what I’ve been saying all season about the supposed problem with Rodgers “getting rid of the ball”: Mainly, the majority of the pass rush is coming at the tackles (IIRC this was actually a move that the Niners NT stunted to the left side of our line, breaking through Clifton and-surprise, surprise- Daryn Colledge) which gives Rodgers no times to get outside the tackles and throw away the ball. Thus, what do you do- take a 7-yard sack or a 15 yard penalty?
He really has very little choice in the matter. I’ve only seen a couple games this year where he actually has held on to the ball too long and they came in the Bucs game and Vikings game.
Intentional Grounding
Unless I’m misremembering, I think he did get outside the tackles, but the ball didn’t quite make it back to the line of scrimmage, and that’s why it was IG. But I’m not 100% sure because they never showed a good angle of where the ball ended up, just Rodgers getting taken down.
But yes, I agree with the rest. It would have been nice to see him scramble OUT instead of BACK. But that’s easy for me to say, sitting in a recliner…
What was with Kendall's shaved head?....looks like a fist with eyes.
scsteve (Pirates fan)
Correction: Jason Kendall IS a fist with eyes.
Derek (Brewers fan)
I think your right, though from the replay it did look like the ball did reach the line of scrimmage. Either way, it was awfully close.
But yes, I agree with the rest. It would have been nice to see him scramble OUT instead of BACK. But that’s easy for me to say, sitting in a recliner…
Yeah, this is another thing that seems easy but can be difficult when your in the situation yourself. The 49ers De didn’t bite at all on the playfake (which is what he is supposed to do) and was coming at an angle that made it so the only thing Rodgers really could do was run backwards and eventually hope to outrun him and turn the corner and make his way back upfield. But he wasn’t able turn the corner on him as we saw.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 8:09 PM CST up reply actions
Well I was watching it from an online stream, so it wasn’t exactly the best quality but from what I saw and what the announcers said it seemed awfully close.
by packallday555 on Nov 24, 2009 1:15 PM CST up reply actions
That is correct
The ball never made it past the line of scrimmage. It wasn’t an issue of getting outside the tackle box.
EXACTLY
Haha I have said this so many times and it really is true. I know it seems like a really easy concept to simply throw the ball away, and seems like it would be easy to do but it’s actually quite hard to do. Especially when the pressure pretty consistently is coming from the outside. And like I have pointed out before we leave our Rb’s back to block so Rodgers doesn’t have the option of simply throwing that ball at the Rb’s feet.
He does take some unnecessary sacks sometimes but it is better then a TO. The majority of his “holding onto the ball too long” problems will go away when there is a good o-line in front of him.
by packallday555 on Nov 23, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions
The only surprising thing about this game
Was that we gashed the 49ers with the running game. Grant was picking up 8 yards a rush through gigantic holes every time I looked at the television.
Should we be surprised that Crabtree made a couple great plays on perfect passes from Alex Smith? (well maybe surprised that the passes were that perfect, but Crabtree is good). Should we be surprised that Vernon Davis shredded us up this middle on any play where Woodson wasn’t covering him? No – he’s great, and Woodson is the only guy that can contain him.
Should we be surprised that the 49ers D stepped up and did some damage in the 2nd half? No – they’re good.
We got out to a very unexpected early lead, and we hung on. We didn’t “fall asleep” in the 2nd half, SF just started playing better and Davis did his thing when our scheme (anyone but Woodson on him) let him. You aren’t going to drop two 20-3 halves on the 49ers.
by Archibaldcrane on Nov 23, 2009 7:31 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Oops. Apparently I am not familiar with this site’s strikethrough coding – pretend I’m really trying to emphasize those struck words, not eliminate them.
by Archibaldcrane on Nov 23, 2009 7:32 PM CST up reply actions
Ryan Grant did good
His stats this year are very deceiving, but his performance against SF was solid. He was consistently picking up about 5 yards a pop, which is what a good RB does. That is what we need if we are to win games in December.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
Related FanShots on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
