Recap: Green Bay Packers Stunned By Buccaneers 38-28
by Brandon on Nov 9, 2009 7:00 AM CST
in Analysis
133 comments
Writing this recap has been brutal. Losing to an 0-7 team is always hard. But looking back at the game, they did so many things right.
| Team | First Downs | Yards | Yards/Carry | TOP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Packers | 20 | 404 | 5.3 | 35:17 |
| Buccaneers | 17 | 279 | 3.2 | 24:43 |
But then the special teams failed them (blocked punt for TD; 83 yard kickoff return allowed) and the defense, which played great outside the red zone, allowed 3 TDs on all 3 Tampa trips into the red zone. It's bad to have 6 sacks (and 12 QB hits), as the offensive line continues on it's historically awful pace, yet they still scored 28 points. You should win the game if you score 28 points.
In that sense, this loss was very similar to the loss last week to the Vikings. Awful special teams gave the Bucs (and Vikings) a huge field position advantage, and the inability of the defense to hold their opponents to FG attempts in the red zone put the score out of reach. The offense has scored 26 and 28 points in those 2 losses. But it's seemingly impossible for the offense to score more than that with the awful pass protection.
I have a hard time blaming QB Aaron Rodgers. Despite 3 INTs, he did score 3 TDs. They have to be able to win games even when he has a couple turnovers. And I don't count the last INT that was returned for a TD against him since it was a 4th down desperation play.
"We've got to get to work as soon as possible on Dallas," said Mike McCarthy at his post-game press conference. What else can they do? They aren't going to find a consistent pass rush sometime this season. Maybe they can find someone to do a better job on kick coverage and special teams blocking. And the good news is that RT Mark Tauscher's knee injury does not appear to be serious, according to the Press-Gazette, so once he returns (again) and they bench LG Daryn Colledge, the offensive line could actually improve. I'm just fed up with Colledge. He mixes in a couple good games with a stinker like this. He's been doing that in each of his 4 seasons. Though as I mention above, it's not exactly the offense that's the problem.
The remaining schedule is a little rougher. Next week against the Cowboys looks tough. The game in Pittsburgh on December 20 is another bad one. But the rest of them are all winnable games against teams with problems of their own (49ers, Lions, Ravens, Bears and Seahawks). I'd put the Cardinals into the tough category, but it's hard to tell with them since they mix in good wins (Giants, Bears) with a stinker loss (Panthers).
Just focus on a win each week and battle for a Wild Card spot. Play-by-play recap after the jump.
Packers vs Buccaneers coverage; Packers vs Buccaneers recap; Packers vs Buccaneers boxscore.
The play-by-play from NFL.com:
First Quarter
(12:27) 12-A.Rodgers pass deep right to 89-J.Jones for 74 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Obviously it was a great pass, and a great run by WR James Jones. It's really disappointing to remember how good the pass protection was early in the game, and how it deteriorated as the game went on.
(9:48) 12-A.Rodgers pass deep middle intended for 80-D.Driver INTERCEPTED by 33-E.Mack at GB 44. 33-E.Mack to GB 8 for 36 yards (12-A.Rodgers).
Mike McCarthy said in the post-game press conference that Rodgers just didn't see the cornerback in Tampa's base defense.
(8:52) (Shotgun) 5-J.Freeman pass short right to 28-D.Ward for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Yes, LB Aaron Kampman isn't very good in pass coverage. But obviously it's really hard for the defense to prevent a score when the Bucs only have to go 8 yards after the INT.
(8:02) 25-R.Grant left tackle to TB 44 for 20 yards (36-T.Jackson).
There were a couple times when RB Ryan Grant almost broke a big run. It was a horrible game for the offensive line, but they did manage to open up some running lanes against the Bucs awful run defense.
Second Quarter:
(12:09) (Punt formation) 7-J.Kapinos punt is BLOCKED by 54-G.Hayes, Center-61-B.Goode, RECOVERED by TB-20-R.Barber at GB 31. 20-R.Barber for 31 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Tom Silverstein said that FB John Kuhn failed to pick up the LB who blocked the punt.
(7:46) 12-A.Rodgers pass deep right to 80-D.Driver for 32 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
A great route by WR Donald Driver. He faked CB Ronde Barber into believing a slant route, and then sprinted down the sideline. And made a difficult over the shoulder catch while dancing around in the pylon.
(6:49) 5-J.Freeman Aborted. 52-J.Faine FUMBLES at TB 3, recovered by TB-5-J.Freeman at TB 3. 5-J.Freeman to TB 3 for no gain (77-C.Jenkins).
I thought QB Josh Freeman had 2 botched fumbles, but apparently this was the only one. It was 1 of 2 recorded fumbles, the other was a botched lateral, but neither fumble bounced the Packers' way.
(5:21) (Shotgun) PENALTY on GB-70-T.Lang, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at TB 45 - No Play.
McCarthy had talked about rotating tackles, and at this point LT T.J. Lang came in for LT Chad Clifton for 2 plays. Rodgers wasn't sacked at all during the 1st half, but then Lang committed this penalty, allowed a hit on Rodgers, and was pulled for Clifton by 3rd down. I don't recall seeing him the rest of the game.
(3:11) 5-J.Freeman pass deep left intended for 85-M.Stovall INTERCEPTED by 36-N.Collins at GB 41. 36-N.Collins to TB 46 for 13 yards (85-M.Stovall).
Freeman's accuracy was bad, he only completed 45% of his passes, but this was his only INT. His accuracy did seem to improve in the red zone.
(2:49) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete short middle to 80-D.Driver.
Then the offense did nothing with their best starting field position of the day. It also gave the Bucs another opportunity on offense and Freeman had his best drive of the 1st half which led to a FG. This was easily a 6 point swing if the Packers could have gotten a couple 1st downs after the INT.
Third Quarter:
(14:17) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at GB 1 for -5 yards (sack split by 91-S.White and 95-C.Hovan). Tampa Bay challenged the safety ruling, and the play was Upheld. (Timeout #1.)
Though RT Allen Barbre came in for Tauscher, the 1st sack, and most pressure thereafter, came from the left side. It wasn't anything complicated; they just went in for the bull rush and overpowered the left side (Colledge and Clifton) of the line. DE Stylez White doubled his sack total from 1.5 to 3 in this game.
(10:20) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at GB 27 for -5 yards (71-M.Bennett).
A defensive tackle the Bucs picked up off waivers a few weeks ago threw TE Donald Lee out of the way for the sack.
(8:17) 12-A.Rodgers pass deep middle intended for 85-G.Jennings INTERCEPTED by 25-A.Talib (41-C.Lynch) at TB 1. 25-A.Talib to TB 16 for 15 yards (80-D.Driver).
Another missed opportunity on offense. A 1st down in Tampa territory and Rodgers lofts this one into triple coverage. Though Driver put a huge hit on CB Aqib Talib. Just a bad decision by Rodgers. It took potential points away from the Packers, but the Bucs didn't do anything with the ball on offense.
(6:40) 5-J.Freeman pass incomplete short right to 34-E.Graham.
(1:51) (Shotgun) 5-J.Freeman pass incomplete short right to 18-S.Stroughter (24-J.Bush).
The Packers run defense was very good again in this game. The Bucs have been able to run the ball a little this season, but they didn't do anything against the Packers. On 2 consecutive 3rd and short plays, the Bucs decided to throw instead and failed to convert either.
Fourth Quarter
(13:39) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at TB 12 for -6 yards (93-R.Miller).
This was a coverage sack. Rodgers was just waiting for something that never opened up.
(13:04) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers scrambles left end for 12 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
But he made good on the next play with the TD run. They ran 6 of 9 plays on this drive out of the shotgun.
2-M.Crosby kicks 70 yards from GB 30 to TB 0. 22-C.Smith to GB 17 for 83 yards (38-T.Williams).
No 11 point lead is safe from the Packers' special teams. K Mason Crosby was supposed to kick it left, according to Tom Silverstein, but it went straight down the middle where the coverage was weak.
(11:44) (Shotgun) 5-J.Freeman pass short left to 82-K.Winslow for 7 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The big problem in the red zone was Freeman just too well protected. He had time to wait, on this TD he rolled to his left with no pressure. The Packers have been burned this season on the blitz, but rushing only 4 down lineman has produced so little pass pressure. It really hurt that Kampman was out by this point with a head injury. LB Brady Poppinga did nothing as his replacement.
(7:29) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete short middle to 41-S.Havner [91-S.White].
After the Tampa TD, the Packers call 6 straight running plays, and this 3rd down pass fails. An awful punt nets them only 22 yards.
(5:58) (Shotgun) 5-J.Freeman pass deep left to 80-M.Clayton to GB 13 for 29 yards (31-A.Harris).
(4:20) (Shotgun) 5-J.Freeman pass short right to 18-S.Stroughter for 7 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Again, I don't recall any noticeable pressure on Freeman during this drive. It's not like Freeman's accuracy was greatly improved, I thought that pass to WR Michael Clayton was tipped except it was just under thrown. Though the TD pass was well thrown.
(4:14) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at GB 13 for -7 yards (98-R.Sims).
(3:05) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers scrambles right end ran ob at GB 32 for 8 yards. PENALTY on GB-73-D.Colledge, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at GB 24 - No Play.
(2:57) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at GB 14 for 0 yards (96-T.Crowder).
The first sack should be on RG Josh Sitton. The lineman knocked him back, ran around him up the middle, and collapsed the pocket. Rodgers recovers for a 1st down run, but Colledge only prevented a sack by committing a holding penalty. Last week, Barbre was benched after a critical late holding penalty ended any chance at a rally. This week, Colledge did the same thing and should get benched too. As far as I remember, the final sack on this series (it's hard to keep them all straight) was a total collapse but DE Tim Crowder got credit for it.
(1:31) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at GB 4 for -9 yards (91-S.White).
(:52) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass deep left intended for 80-D.Driver INTERCEPTED by 36-T.Jackson at GB 35. 36-T.Jackson for 35 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Another sack is one of the reasons, on 4th and 12, Rodgers has to throw a desperate pass to Driver in double coverage that's picked off. The defense gave them another chance, but the o-line couldn't stop the bull rush and the receivers couldn't get open.
0 recs |
133 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It's weird...
We seem to have a better game if you look at the stats, but in reality what lost us the game lies between the lines – the field position, the penalties, the inability to make a stop on defense when you need it the most. Same goes for the game against the vikes. It sheds a light on a problem bigger than this game or the other, and this problem is Mike McCarthy.
by A-Rodge12 on Nov 9, 2009 8:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Stats don't mean squat
Winning games is what matters. We are 4 – 4 against a soft schedule.
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 8:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Of course they don't mean squat
But you still expect to win when you have a better stat line than your opponent, and when you don’t it’s disappointing. The great teams find a way to win even when things don’t go their way (i.e. the Colts against the Dolphins in week 2), and the lousy teams find a way to lose even when things do go their way (i.e. us).
by A-Rodge12 on Nov 9, 2009 8:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Finding a way to lose
Its what they did last year. After a defensive scheme change, the defense is still finding a way to lose (like getting a penalty when you pick a guy off in the fourth Q). The problem here is the defense, which Mike McCarthy has no control over. Rodgers holds the ball too long, the O Line sucks, and thus you get fans like ktenreb who spout the same rhetoric about proving to be a winner. Even tho Rodgers should have 7 more wins because of late game defensive collapses or missed field goals, it doesn’t matter. He should just win. Period. Just go out and Jedi mind fuck everyone. And play defense too, Rodgers should be stopping the run, whats wrong with him? How come he can’t cover ANY of the Bucs receiver? what a loser right?
"Are we doing everything we can to win games, or are we doing everything we can to run a certain thing that we want to run? I want to win, and I want to do whatever it takes to win. At some point you have to take the handcuffs off and let the boys play." - Cullen Jenkins 11/01/09
by PackaCracka on Nov 9, 2009 8:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
With three and a half minutes left and down by three, Rodgers didn’t deliver. Again. this is what leads to 10 – 14 records.
Quarterback isn’t the only problem on this team, but it certainly is one of them.
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 8:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's hard to deliver
when the only green you see is that of the grass.
by A-Rodge12 on Nov 9, 2009 9:05 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
True
ktended is a Favre lover and a Rodgers hater so don’t worry too much about him. Rodgers didn’t play that well yesterday but two of the INT’s were off of receivers hands and he once again had little time to throw. QB is the least of the Packers concerns. 1. Offensive Line 2. Coaching 3. Special Teams, is what we should be really concerned with.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The INTs aren’t even a concern for me. He’s usually VERY good about taking care of the ball. The only thing that scares me is the times where I am seeing him hanging onto the ball for 6, 7, 8 seconds and longer. They’ve got to reinvent his internal clock that the ball needs to be out before 6 seconds. Even when he is on the run he’s getting chased down for sacks rather than throwing it. I think Rodgers can be a top 5-8 QB in the league, but he’s GOT to keep this from becoming part of who he is!! I blame the sacks for this happening so its a result of the system but he’s not helping himself out there.
by TrevorR on Nov 9, 2009 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And here's a Hall of Famers thoughts on Rodgers
Leroy Butler whose has a little bit more credibility than ktended said:
Q. Give me one reason why you think the Packers can beat the Dallas Cowboys Sunday?
A. Aaron Rodgers. Let me address him first before people jump off his bandwagon. He’s 10-14 as a starter, which is not very good. What you saw Sunday you might not see again with him, a three-interception game, a bunch of passes that should not have been thrown, holding onto the ball a little too much. This guy’s an accurate quarterback, but he’s accurate down the field. He has to get back to being sharp and quick and crisp with his passes. Anytime you have No. 12 in there, you have a chance. I still thing he’s a great quarterback – not a good one – and the future is bright for the Green Bay Packers. That lets me know they have a chance against the Dallas Cowboys. But I think the Cowboys are going to be like the big guy and we’re the little pipsqueak on the block and they’re bigger and faster and more physical than the Packers. But if Aaron plays well, they have a chance.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I love LeRoy Butler
He’s a man. Always was.
But he isn’t a very good judge of quarterbacks.
Please go back to working the nightshift at the convenience store. We really enjoyed your absence.
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
So a Hall of Fame safety isn’t a good judge of QB play but you are?
Nice one about the nightshift at the convenience store. I always forget that I’m talking to a lawyer who is so much smarter than the rest of us peons including Leroy Butler. And I was never absent, always present, I just quit responding to your dumb bias comments until you brought TervorR into it.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry sorry
I forgot how thin-skinned you are. I will stop picking on you.
Though you started it this time.
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
I actually don’t mind arguing with you if you don’t bring politics into it and personal attacks, I just thought it was a little bunk that I would be told to stop a flame war when it was clearly evident that you started it with your patented stupid comments and you would never be told anything. Those were the only things I had problems with.
And I’ll say it again, you would have a completely different tone if this wasn’t over the internet. I take offense to criticism when there is a person sitting at a computer screen knowing that they can say and do what they want with no consequences. That is you my friend.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You want to meet in person again?
Want to buy me a beer while you sip a Cosmo?
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
I thought an apple martini was more your flavor but we could get you a Natty Light.
Yes, like you told people before I want to meet you to beat you up lol. No I would not like to meet you I just know you wouldn’t be such a jack ass in person. And if you are that big of a jack ass in person then you probably have been beat up quite a few teams already and don’t need my help.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He also said
That Daryn Colledge needs to step it up if he wants to be a pro bowler.
The words “Daryn Colledge” and “pro bowl” don’t go together. Sort of like “pizza” and “chocolate.”
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Stats don't mean squat
but they help you understand the game and what transpired. For instance, looking at the stats this week will tell you the special teams led directly to 14 points.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 9, 2009 8:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Except
other times he did deliver? whats your excuse for that? Nobody wins every game on the last drive. And I’m sure they’d do better if they weren’t getting sacked 6 times a game, don’t you agree?
"Are we doing everything we can to win games, or are we doing everything we can to run a certain thing that we want to run? I want to win, and I want to do whatever it takes to win. At some point you have to take the handcuffs off and let the boys play." - Cullen Jenkins 11/01/09
by PackaCracka on Nov 9, 2009 8:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
my bad
meant to reply
"Are we doing everything we can to win games, or are we doing everything we can to run a certain thing that we want to run? I want to win, and I want to do whatever it takes to win. At some point you have to take the handcuffs off and let the boys play." - Cullen Jenkins 11/01/09
by PackaCracka on Nov 9, 2009 8:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
T.T..M.M. and MORONIC FOLLOWERS
As a Packer’s Fan of 50+ years I can’t root hard enogh for The Greatest Q.B. who ever lived. T.T. and M.M. and their moronic decision to go “in a differnt direction” has set The Pack back 10 years. T.T./M.M. and my “fellow” Pack fans who loved Rogers can either slither under a rock, or ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG. Roger’s can and will never be able to carry FAVRE’S JOCK IN A WHEEL BARREL !
by Favre 4 on Nov 9, 2009 9:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I guess we'll have to wait and see
since you won’t.
"Are we doing everything we can to win games, or are we doing everything we can to run a certain thing that we want to run? I want to win, and I want to do whatever it takes to win. At some point you have to take the handcuffs off and let the boys play." - Cullen Jenkins 11/01/09
by PackaCracka on Nov 9, 2009 9:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No
Staying with Brett (if at all it was an option, he wanted to be a viking from the start) would’ve set the franchise back even 20 years. He gave ya 1-2 more seasons with this average team, maybe contend for a wild-card at best, and then what? Aaron Rodgers is long gone in this scenario, and your QB situation is no better than that of the Browns.
by A-Rodge12 on Nov 9, 2009 9:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rodgers doesn't have to
…cause you already are carrying Favre’s jock in your mouth!
Go away…unless you can talk about something besides former Packers. I don’t mind the coach and gm talking but we are now a week removed from the Viking game so lets leave that crap out of it!!!!!!
by TrevorR on Nov 9, 2009 9:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 9, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Favre would be dead meat if he were still there
No way he would survive the pounding Rodgers is taking. The team would actually be in sadder shape IMO if roles were reversed, Fave still there and Rodgers gone. He would not be able to run away from some of the things that Rodgers has, although that is probably more than offset by him getting rid of the ball quicker.
Seriously, what things are today has nothing to do with Rodgers vs. Favre. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Or worse yet, do not throw out the baby (Rodgers) and keep the bathwater (TT & coaching staff).
All this Rodgers talk is keeping people from focusing on the real problem. If there is anything that has to be about Favre in discussing the state of the Packers today, I hope it is some of the Favre haters & boo birds of last week, that are now ranting about TT’s personnel decisions, will maybe have a Eureka moment and say:
“OMG this is EXACTLY what Favre was talking about for years, as he became increasingly uncertain about whether he wanted to keep playing. He talked about not paying the $ to keep the good O line that Thompson inherited, he talked about not going out and going after any FA difference makers, he talked about being frustrated about being put on the hot seat each offseason about what HE would do, while TT kept refusing to make moves, leaving tens of millions of cap space unutilized, and people licked THOMPSON’S boots but pissed all over Favre’s. Maybe I can’t quite wish the guy luck, since he is now a Viking, but, now that I get what he was saying, and suddenly am seeing it myself, maybe I can stop ripping him a new one every chance I get because he was battling with the FO, he was uncertain he wanted to keep putting up with what they were (and weren’t) doing. Maybe now that I too see what he saw, and feel what he felt, I can understand him being uncertain if he should keep putting up with it”
by puddnhead on Nov 9, 2009 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Your best post on here to date! We finally agreed completely on something! Though I’d like to see MM go and give TT one more year to see how this team performs with a good coach before we get rid of TT.
Favre would be absolutely busted up right now if he took all the hits Rodgers is. That much is for sure!
by TrevorR on Nov 9, 2009 10:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Glad to hear that
But this is really nothing different than what I’ve posted all along. Maybe I emphasize more that it’s not about Rodgers, and less that people need to “walk a mile in Favre’s moccasins” before criticizing him, and made it less personal about where I am on it all, but … this is what I’ve said all along. Like I said in one of my final posts after last week’s game at Lambeau, “Don’t think it’s just me, I’m actually the canary in the coal mine.”
I hope people can come around to at least my POV on Favre as a person (I’m not expecting many to go as far as I have as far as the Vikes). It will be so much healthier for the Packer fanbase if they can.
The analogy with Favre & fans has repeatedly been that “it’s like seeing your Ex with another guy.” Well, let me change that POV a little: “It’s liking seeing your mom run off with another guy, after she was ignored, yanked around, and treated like crap by your dad.” Lots of mixed emotions there, but, once you can get to the point where you can see why your mom had to “abandon” you, you can still love and respect her.
Hope that analogy wasn’t too weird ;)
by puddnhead on Nov 9, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the the ex with another guy is a pretty accurate analogy actually. Even if you were a jerk to her (your words) and you dumped her, you don’t want to see her happy with another guy (usually). I don’t get the mom version of that but I think the ex one makes a lot of sense.
The problem you have is the OTHER people in here talking about Favre who try to tell us that if Favre was here we’d instantly be 13-3 and in the super bowl. They imply that QB is the problem on this team ignoring the the real problems. Maybe you don’t feel this way, but then you need to distance yourself from them with posts like the one one above.
I don’t HATE Favre for wanting to play. I get it. But I don’t get people who don’t fault HIM either for his part. He did his share of screwing with US, the fans, over the years with his on again off again drama over the past few years. When he retired (the first time), everyone here (I live in MN) asked me how I feel and my response to all of them was that I was relieved as I felt it was the right time. He put up a GREAT year, went down pretty close to on top and on his own terms. I loved that part. I was also relieved that there was finality to the drama. I was sick of the off season couple months of waiting for him to decide and the media hype machine around it. So I’ve soured a little on favre for the past 3-5 years now.
I still think he’s GREAT, and he’ll always have a special place in my heart but right now he feels like the ex who left me for my brother!
by TrevorR on Nov 9, 2009 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"the mom version"
What I was trying to get across was, maybe your mom ran away because your dad was a jerk. You feel abandoned & upset, but if you are objective you can see why she wanted out.
aka favre quit, even when he really did not want to quit because he was not interested in putting up with the crap any more, not interested in going down with the S.S. Thompson. It’s not the most horrible crime in the world that Brett Favre thought of his own self interest. Don’t we all, in our jobs? And our jobs — well, at least mine! — don’t involve 350 pound guys plowing full speed into my blindside! Surely you’ve known 65+ yo people who want to keep working, enjoy what they do, but retire anyway because there is too much BS at work getting in the way of the fulfillment?
hence that “i know I can still play… i just don’t know if i want to” comment even at his retirement conference. Think about those comments in the light of where we now know the packers are talent wise on that line. Possible translation: “what’s the point in sticking around, of risking getting myslef killed, if TT just sits in the office and wanks because he’s too shy, too cheap, too lazy to meet with FAs that would improve our team?” you do realize that Favre announced his retirement — a very abrupt retirement, texted late at night to someone at ESPN — the same day Moss extended his 1 year contract with the Patriots? Not a coincidence IMO. Favre’s frustration probably boiled over with tht reminder of what didn’t get done the previous offseason & he made a rash decision.
as for the rest you wrote, my opinion is already stated below:
Packers paid Favre for what he did on the field, if some of the off field stuff was tiresome, well it can be overlooked in that context. Packers however pay Ted Thompson however for what he does off the field, so I’m much less toleratn of him handling that badly.
by puddnhead on Nov 9, 2009 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Um . . .
Mom’s and divorces and jerks for dads and feelings of abandonment?
We’ve taken this analogy far enough, don’t you think?
We are all upset that last summer was a circus. I’m still in therapy over it (’Baby steps . . . baby steps . . . ").
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
aka favre quit, even when he really did not want to quit because he was not interested in putting up with the crap any more, not interested in going down with the S.S. Thompson. It’s not the most horrible crime in the world that Brett Favre thought of his own self interest.
So by this logic, how do the Raiders or Browns have anyone on their team? If it is ok to just quit when you don’t like the management, then come back and feel you deserve to go wherever you want, why would anyone stay with teams that have no hope in sight? No, the Favre issue became an issue when he started to think that he was above the team as a whole and didn’t need to held to the same standards.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 9, 2009 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Knock it off verno
You can’t compare Favre to any other player or any other teams situation because he is the Greatest (sarcasm). Seriously though, those that love Favre think he is beyond reproach so nothing logical or any comparison doesn’t really gel with their thought process. The guy could do no wrong and if he wants to sleep with your wife than he has earned the right to do so.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he quit? Because he wasn’t happy with management? And that is supposed to make me respect him MORE?
How did we all react when Randy Moss started quitting on his team when he was on the Raiders?
by TrevorR on Nov 10, 2009 8:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well said
I thought it was more like your wife marrying your next door neighbor and coming over to visit once twice a year whether you like it or not.
by cheddarhead on Nov 9, 2009 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, get rid of TT too!
If we have to rebuild and move on, then it is better to do it now. Do not give this guy another year. He has proven what he can do and I do not want to see Rodgers get hurt or whatever else TT would do to this team. The Packers will never win if he is GM.
There is no PR guy to spend money on to help save his butt now (they could try, but it wouldn’t help). I think most Packers fans should see these people for what they are (Ted Thompson, Mike McCarthy and Mark Murphy). They are losers hurting the team. Get rid of them.
As for GB staff slandering Favre, you can read all about it here:
Favre was right all along.
by starmark on Nov 9, 2009 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What?
That’s as bad as those moon landing conspiracy believers. Completely ridiculous.
by jonohull on Nov 9, 2009 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm surprised
Even with comparisons to other Packers greats who retired and unretired (more times than Favre) we still bash Favre far more. The evidence is in plain view. This is not just a blog. This is an article normally found on jsonline. Unfortunately, you have to be a member (I think paid member) to view it. This was the only other way I could find a copy of the article. Favre leaving Green Bay may not be one-sided, but I always thought there was something fishy about the hiring of Ari Fleischer.
by starmark on Nov 9, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I love conspiracies
The Packers had Fleischer booked before Favre even retired and they hired Fleischer before Favre said he wanted back in. That article has been ridiculed by everyone in the know since it was published.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Like you?
You’re in the know? Do tel thenl? Why precisely was Ari Fleischer hired? Motivational speaker?
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My bad
I should’ve asked you. You know the answers to everything. You are a lawyer…
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 4:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But I don't know
You, however, have insights from swiping debit cards to cover slurpee purchases.
Please elaborate on all those people “in the know.” Who are they? And how have they discredited the story? And how is it that they have told you?
Why was Ari Fleischer hired?
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 4:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Go to the national football post
Andrew Brandt (you do know who that is right?) can help you out a little bit. He has a completely unbiased view point and was actually fired by Thompson so if he was on anyone’s side it probably wouldn’t be Thompson’s.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't see anything in Brandt's blogs about Ari Fleischer
Did I miss it? I did read about how Brandt thought that Thompson is cold and has poor communication skills. But nothing about Media Consultants.
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Every time you say Brandt is unbiased
I point out that Brandt himself has said at NFP, repeatedly, that he IS biased. And you ignore it.
At some point he wrote that he believed that Aaron Rodgers was someone special the moment he walked into his first Packers training camp. And he wrote that last summer, before Rodgers had his first start.
by puddnhead on Nov 9, 2009 11:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and ps this statement by you is completely wrong:
The Packers had Fleischer booked before Favre even retired
by puddnhead on Nov 9, 2009 11:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you don't feel like reading his stuff
You can email him as well. He thinks Favre wanted to play for the Vikings since 2007.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing is perfect and I only see what I see (read)
Why at those moments? According to the article, they booked him in May. That would be two months AFTER Favre retired. I am sure the rumors were flying by then about a potential comeback for Favre. The Packers had already chosen to move on. In June (25th), Favre calls and says he wants to come back. The Packers, supposedly under the advice of Fleischer, go on the offensive and attack Favre’s character. (For those of you who have not read the article) Many accusations are made in newspapers and such about Favre, name-calling (diva and prima donna) pop up. For Favre, he lost the PR battle. Those newspapers and journalists were pro-Bush and knew nothing about the Packers. They were in with Fleischer.
The reason why Fleischer was hired is sketchy at best, but it doesn’t really matter. I think it there is little doubt as to how he was used during that time. The Packers were aggressive in their campaign to attack Favre, the legend QB of their own organization. This is no conspiracy, it is simply TT and Mark Murphy trying to cover their behinds by waging a PR war. We fans bought it all.
Read the article. Seriously, it will not take long. You do not need me to tell you everything. The biggest reason is because I do not know everything. I only show you what I found. If the article is faulty, then it is. Yet there is feeling of truth to it. I think people are so used to hating Favre that they are so quick to judge anything that might support him.
Besides, it is hard to find an article that is actually positive about this whole mess. This isn’t one, I know. Yet it is from a different perspective than all the ones we usually used to see that bashed Favre.
by starmark on Nov 9, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone I know has already read the article
For every Cliff Christl aricle there is 20 more stating the other side. You’re gonna believe what you want and others are gonna believe what they want. Reading that article didn’t change my opinion which is different than yours, it actually made me think that Christl is grasping for straws. He rips on Bart Starr who only lost one playoff game in his career. That was sad.
A handful of the Green Bay Press and Journal Sentinel writers basically laughed off the article and one of them even said Christl needed to stay retired. That article isn’t gonna change anyone’s mind. If you want an inside opinion read all of Andrew Brandt’s articles. He is the least biased on the subject and has nothing to gain or lose.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So
Are you saying that the Packers did not hire Ari Fleischer?
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 5:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I love your lawyer questions
They’re exciting. The Packers had Ari booked before Favre retired. He was actually hired and working with the Packers before Favre said he wanted to come back. I stated this already so I don’t know why you’re asking me again.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 5:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And where you do get this info?
The article disagrees with you.
by starmark on Nov 9, 2009 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right kntended
Cause that’s exactly what I said, that I’m in the know. I said those in the know meaning really smart lawyers like yourself. Don’t you find it interesting that every beat writer, Packer columnist, former Packer employees, and former Packer greats are of the same opinion on this matter, but there are guys like Christl who are known Favre lovers who come out with random articles that go against what everyone else has stated?
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 5:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The article which is completely bias
which you can conclude from Christl ripping on Bart Starr who not only is a great man but a great football player, even states that Fleischer was officially hired in May and Favre didn’t call McCarthy until the end of June.
This is one of the most one sided pro-Favre articles that has been written and even Christl said that Fleischer was hired before Favre made it known that he wanted to un-retire.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Media bias
That’s the funny this about the media. While Christl may be biased towards Favre, it does not change the fact that his article brings up some interesting points about other articles that may have been biased against Favre.
In this world where you can turn on CNN or FOX News (or any news source), what are you supposed to believe? It seems like everyone has their own agenda.
The article I brought up paints a grim picture of the Green Bay staff. Maybe it is not perfect because the author is slanted in one direction. The point I am trying to make with all this is to say there is more than one side. We cannot blindly follow TT and staff just because of what they say. Instead, we should follow what we see. The evidence is what is important.
What is the evidence? Look at the team. What is happening on the field? Our best players are getting banged up because our GM can’t put an o-line on the field. A terrible decision to switch to 3-4 ruined an otherwise decent defense (that was decimated by injuries last year—not the fault of the scheme), and took out our best pass rusher’s chance to do what he does best. Lack of discipline in the form of penalties and execution that points directly to the coaches in general and head coach in particular. Most important of all, the Packers are losing.
So we can put all articles out of our minds for the moment and realize that the mistakes are obvious and the people who are making them need to leave Green Bay.
by starmark on Nov 9, 2009 5:56 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The point I am trying to make with all this is to say there is more than one side. We cannot blindly follow TT and staff just because of what they say. Instead, we should follow what we see. The evidence is what is important.
And, likewise, we cannot blindly follow an article that may as well have been written by Favre himself. There are certainly two sides to the argument. By now anyone involved in following this team or player has developed their opinion and feel that they have evidence to justify their position. It would typically be something that we can agree to disagree on and move on but this subject comes up seemingly eternally. If people are critical of coaching/management in any way (the O-line, lack of depth at Safety, the situation at RB, etc.) the subject ALWAYS comes back up. “TT should be fired because he failed to find a way to improve the O-line. He’s gonna get Rodgers killed! But what do you expect from a guy who ran out a legend.” It…just…never…ends
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 9, 2009 6:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
lol maybe you are right
It certainly wasn’t what I was trying to say. Yet I can see how it looks like it. Thanks for all the comments, everyone. It’s been fun.
by starmark on Nov 9, 2009 6:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We aren't blindly
following Thompson. That is what I love about the Favre lovers. Most of us don’t like Thompson and I personally think he is good at developing a young teams talent but an organization needs someone else to get them over the hump after that because he doesn’t take risks.
The reason you pro-Favre guys hate Thompson so much is because he supposedly “kicked” your boy out of town so you think those that aren’t on Favre’s side then have to love Thompson. That isn’t the case. We aren’t blindly following him and at this point I want to see McCarthy and Thompson go unless they pull off a remarkable run, which they probably won’t.
The problem is you guys attack Thompson by mentioning Harrell without talking about Jennings. You guys mention Brohm without talking about Rodgers and maybe even Flynn. You guys talk about Rivera and Wahle when neither of them really did anything for more than a year. I know ktended will say that I’m bias as well but that’s funny to say when I’m calling for McCarthy’s head. I look at it from both sides but you guys are so caught up that the God of your life, Favre, was not welcomed back that your extreme bias taints everything that you think and feel.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
a general statement taken too literally
I do not accuse you, GGGamer of being blind. We all have our opinions and I respect that. You do make some good points. Understand that I appreciate it. Thank you for your contributions to a polite debate.
by starmark on Nov 9, 2009 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Were obviously gonna have to agree to disagree because there really is no common place between those who think Favre going to the Vikings was ridiculous and those that love Favre so much that they are rooting for him no matter what, but I do appreciate that you state your points politely and I respect that. I’m a little bit more of a punk about it so I appreciate your level head.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 6:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the majority of your post here, puddn, I really do. But Favre started debating retirement before TT came to the Packers. I understand the points you make in there about his terminal decision-making process but he was contemplating retirement before TT. I don’t think there has been a Eureka! moment as much as a continuation of the problems we have seen with the team since the first game this season. O-line troubles, penalties, a D that isn’t as aggressive as it was billed to be, lack of breakout RB, etc.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 9, 2009 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't claim that Favre was completely blameless
But I think you’re wrong in saying that Favre was a PITA about retirement before Thompson. Yeah he said whenever asked that he didn’t know how much longer he would play, but that was only because media asked & the guy just can’t blow off a question for his life. He said what he was genuinely thinking IMO, that he really didn’t know if it woudl be much longer. Thompson was hired at the end of 2004, I don’t recall the full blown retirement drama began til after that. There was actually little IMO after 2004 and 2005, considering all the churning over Sherman and then the bad 2005 record
Anyway, Packers paid Favre for what he did on the field, if some of the off field stuff was tiresome, well it can be overlooked in that context. Packers however pay Ted Thompson however for what he does off the field, so I’m much less toleratn of him handling that badly.
by puddnhead on Nov 9, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Favre retirement drama was going on from about the time TT showed up…maybe a year earlier. Sure it wasn’t him bringing it up but if he just said “I have a lot of football in me, I’ll be back” then they would have shut up about it and it wouldn’t have kept coming up. Instead he would just say…well I don’t know we’ll see. He invited the drama…he didn’t start it but he could have ended it hundreds of times and chose not to. To say he was just too ignorant to realize what he was doing is crap though. He knew it…he is very deliberate in how he uses the media.
by TrevorR on Nov 9, 2009 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
gotcha
good points. I do remember there being discussion both during and after the 2003 season, though with understandable circumstances considering his dad had just passed away among other things. But it wasn’t covered daily on Sportscenter, though it was the beginning of the transformation of the team from the Green Bay Packers to the Green Bay Favre’s. Every draft pick, free agent acquisition, and roster move was viewed as how will this help Brett Favre win another Super Bowl. Remember how upset everyone was when guys like Barnett, Kenny Peterson, Ahmad Carrol, Joey Thomas, and Donnell Washington were drafted because they couldn’t catch passes from Favre?
But I get completely what you are saying.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 9, 2009 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rodgers
is a Great QB … He can’t help the play calling… he can get rid of the ball faster, but he needs better protection. I’ve moved on from Favre… I was sick of his retiring, then un-retiring… crying, sobbing, he loves the game, knows he can still play but doesn’t want to hooplah…. He gave us one Super Bowl win then nothing but loses in the post-season after that… In big games he was sure to throw a minimum of 3 INTs… His last game as a Packer he broke our hearts by throwing the ball at a wide open Giant….
by Drew C on Nov 9, 2009 10:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
10th post in and we're already derailed by a F#$# post
Seriously, this site is quickly becoming worthless. The other two post-game threads already are. Do something about the trolls or something to facilitate intelligent discussion, please!
by Danwood on Nov 9, 2009 9:21 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
If people want to discuss that guy then go to a Vikings blog.
by Charlie Kelly on Nov 9, 2009 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Danwood wins.
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Nov 9, 2009 2:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to thread jack this post
But has the ST been a problem all year or has it recently been a problem due to other factors:
injury, change of players, change of ST coach, etc?
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
by cowboy78 on Nov 9, 2009 9:26 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I haven't been able to watch every game this year but in our two more recent ones against MN and TB
It has been a very big problem. Harvin destroyed us on kickoffs and Tampa got that 85 yard play yesterday. Also, our punters have been bad since we got rid of Jon Ryan for unknown reasons.
by Charlie Kelly on Nov 9, 2009 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Something lost
in the shuffle of this atrocity was that Spitz was placed on I.R. also! Yay fun times for Scotty Wells.
"Are we doing everything we can to win games, or are we doing everything we can to run a certain thing that we want to run? I want to win, and I want to do whatever it takes to win. At some point you have to take the handcuffs off and let the boys play." - Cullen Jenkins 11/01/09
by PackaCracka on Nov 9, 2009 10:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I missed the post
sorry, this was already covered. apparently I’m the one who’s lost!
"Are we doing everything we can to win games, or are we doing everything we can to run a certain thing that we want to run? I want to win, and I want to do whatever it takes to win. At some point you have to take the handcuffs off and let the boys play." - Cullen Jenkins 11/01/09
by PackaCracka on Nov 9, 2009 10:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Brandon
The big problem in the red zone was Freeman just too well protected. He had time to wait, on this TD he rolled to his left with no pressure. The Packers have been burned this season on the blitz, but rushing only 4 down lineman has produced so little pass pressure. It really hurt that Kampman was out by this point with a head injury. LB Brady Poppinga did nothing as his replacement
See in the other post, Our O-line is a true asset in the league, We could handle the pressure Dallas, Phili, and the Giants gave us- not sure how you can compare your D-line to our O-line in that respect.
Why do you kill threads????
by Some other guy who does not care on Nov 9, 2009 10:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I thought the OL weren't too horrible
this time around. Rodgers was holding the ball for a long time and quite often; that’s why I repeatedly asked if it was possible TB were playing such awesome coverage. Without hearing from someone who was there I guess I’ll never know…
by rudi on Nov 9, 2009 1:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't go THAT far
Rodgers hung onto the ball too long but that line was FAR from being “not horrible”. They were still terrible but Rodgers wasn’t helping the case out either.
by TrevorR on Nov 10, 2009 8:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought that the O-line
was somewhere between “bad” and “really bad.” I wouldn’t put them in the “horrible” category. Except for Colledge. And for Barbre. And for Lange, for the three plays he was in there.
Hmm, maybe “horrible” isn’t so far off after all . . . .
by ktenreb on Nov 10, 2009 9:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The way I see it
if Rodgers is being given 8 seconds to hold the ball they must be doing something right (well, less wrong). Previously he was getting caught within 5, after all…
by rudi on Nov 10, 2009 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not saying rodgers get 8 seconds on everyplay. Also him having the ball for 8 seconds doesn’t mean he’s not running for his life during that time or taking his eye off the receivers to dodge big mean D linemen.
by TrevorR on Nov 10, 2009 1:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh for sure
It just seemed to me that, for the first time this season, we had bigger problems than the O Line.
Perhaps I’m seeing silver linings when it’s just the cloud’s getting bigger….. :-)
by rudi on Nov 10, 2009 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not that he would have had any impact on the outcome of yesterday game, but
does anyone know the timetable on Jordy Nelson’s knee injury?
Green and Gold / Black and White
by OznCoop on Nov 9, 2009 1:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Future is next week
And thats the Lions….looking pretty good : )
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson
by RileysCannibalJct on Nov 9, 2009 3:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
You're Right
The Lions and Packers futures are both brighter than your Vikings. Peterson and Harvin are your talented young players. Pat Williams, Favre, Hutchinson, McKinnie’s even on the wrong side of 30 now, Winfield, Leber, all of them are coming close to the end and half of them are right at the end. So keep bragging cause if you don’t win the Super Bowl this season you might be screwed for a while.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Favre might come back next year...or not...or maybe...or retire...and unretire...lol
by starmark on Nov 9, 2009 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take one more year of Favre
playing at this level, waffling and all, than three of Tarvaris Jackson and/or Sage Rosenfels.
"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."
--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre
by MilCardFan on Nov 9, 2009 5:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He's not coming back
That’s a pipe dream and would set the franchise back. It can’t happen at this point.
by ktenreb on Nov 9, 2009 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But if he wants to play
(minus training camp, of course), how can Brad Childress push him out the door? I mean, the guy’s Brett-freakin-Favre! He’s earned the right to do whatever he wants at any time. If he wants to wait until 30 minutes before the first game before he makes a decision, that’s his right.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 9, 2009 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He has a two year contract, which I know means nothing
I could see a scenario in which he comes back—if he’s healthy, the Vikes keep their talent, and he wants to come back. He seems happy and/or content in Minnesota, and they are a legitimate Super Bowl contender.
And if he does come back, I don’t see him ‘setting the franchise back’. Hell, Favre at 50 and with one arm is better than Jackson or Rosenfels. So I’ll take one more year of Favre as opposed to three of TJ or Rosie.
"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."
--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre
by MilCardFan on Nov 10, 2009 6:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the odds are in favor
of Favre retiring again. It’s almost a guarantee. The issue is whether or not he’ll make this up coming retirement a phony one again. He has proven in the past that worrying about “setting the franchise back” is never a concern for him. I can’t imagine he would suddenly develop a genuine concern for a franchise if he isn’t part of it anymore (even if it is only until training camp ends).
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 11, 2009 9:06 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
who knows if he’ll play at the same level. Eventually his age will catch up and it will probably happen fast.
by TrevorR on Nov 10, 2009 8:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh, maybe, maybe not
Yes, alot of guys are near or north of 30, but the Vikings have done a really good job of drafting since 2006, believe it or not. Jared Allen is still only 26 or 27, Peterson and Harvin will kepp the offense comptetitive as long as they can get a QB that can get them the ball without tripping all over himself, and Chad Greenway and EJ Henderson still have a lot of mileage left on them.
Transition is a ntural part of the NFL now, and the VIkings have done a pretty good job of filling holes both in the draft and in free agency.
"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."
--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre
by MilCardFan on Nov 9, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You’ll run into the same problems every team does as they get more years together. These contracts are going to start catching up to you. What happens when its time to resign AP and Allen?
Upcoming 2010 FAs: Tavaris Jackson (gone?), Chester Taylor (gone), Tahi, Ryan Cook, Ray Edwards, Fred Evans, Paymah (gone haha won’t miss him right?)
The big year though is 2011, your time to win is this year or next year after taht this team is going to start getting blown up…check out THIS list:
Brett Favre, Sidney Rice, Radovich, Robison, Jayme Mitchell, Pat Williams (gone), Greenway, Leber, Erin Henderson, and Longwell.
Due big deals: Rice, Greenway, Leber, Longwell, Edwards?. Now they are going to have to start moving into preservation mode to see how long they can hang onto what they have…
by TrevorR on Nov 10, 2009 8:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
After this year the Vikes will be right back to where they were in 08’, and that’s not having a legit starting Qb. Their run defense has already started to decline because of Pat’s decline, and when he, Leber, and Winfield are gone it’s going to be trouble..
It’s going to be soo satisfying seeing the Vikings lose all their close games with Jackson as their starting Qb.
IMO- The Vikes would have lost to the 49ers, Ravens, and us twice with Jackson at Qb.
by packallday555 on Nov 9, 2009 10:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Vikes fan here, and I do not post to troll
From my perspective, for whatever that’s worth, is that a combination of Bart Starr and Brett Favre couldn’t succeed behind that offensive line, so the folks who are pointing at TT and MM for ‘letting the wrong guy go’ are off the mark. Favre would already be on IR if he had to absorb the pounding that Rodgers is taking.
My outrage would be switching to the 3-4 and neutralizing your best pass rusher in Aaron Kampmann—that was the only way that would happen, short of injury. That guy is as good as Jared Allen coming off the edge, and now he’s dropping back in coverage (at least it seems that way) more than he’s rushing the passer. I don’t question going to the 3-4, but I question the way they’re using Kampmann. Completely baffling.
The other thing I don’t get is not upgrading your offensive line. It was an area of weakness last season, and games are won in the trenches, but the Pack did nothing, other than to sign Mark Tauscher when it was far too late, to upgrade that unit.
Hope you guys turn it around, but I just don’t see it happening this year.
"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."
--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre
by MilCardFan on Nov 9, 2009 4:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the non-trolling post
You are right and we don’t understand it either. I don’t think anyone here thinks it can be turned around either.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What 3G just said
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 9, 2009 5:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree completely.
Our defense was really bad last year but it’s because injuries decimated our front four making us unable to really get any pressure. But I think the defensive scheme should fit your personnel, not the other way and Kampman is being wasted in the prime of his career as an OLB. I hope this failed experiment gets turned around next year.
by Charlie Kelly on Nov 9, 2009 4:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wanna see
how Winston Moss would do as DC. After getting mopped up by Favre and then having Freeman say that he knew what the defense was gonna do, I’ve lost hope in Capers. A freakin first game starter knew what was coming, my God. The guy isn’t getting it done.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 4:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One other thing
Is it me, or your corner guys playing off more? I haven’t really seen a lot of Green Bay games, but Harris and Woodson, who are a top 5 tandem, really have been burned a lot this year. Are they having to play different roles and responsibilities in the 3-4? It just seems anecdotally, anyways, that they aren’t nearly as aggressive this season as they’ve been in recent years.
"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."
--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre
by MilCardFan on Nov 9, 2009 5:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't answer that with complete certainty as I haven't gotten to watch a whole lot of games this year
But I believe because of the change in scheme, both have been asked to play more zone when each of them are better at press coverage.
by Charlie Kelly on Nov 9, 2009 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Seems dumb that you ask
a pure pass rusher to play a majority of his game in coverage, and then ask two really good press-coverage guys to play zone.
Just sayin…
"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."
--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre
by MilCardFan on Nov 9, 2009 5:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
It doesn’t make much sense too me. We had ONE bad year on defense last year, and it was because we had significant injuries and lost Corey Williams, who was our run stopping Dt. Many of those problems were solved with guys coming back from injuries (Jenkins, Barnett, Harris, Bigby, Collins.) Plus we solidified some our 4-3 problems by drafting a run stopping Dt in Raji, and a playmaker at OLB in Matthews.
by packallday555 on Nov 9, 2009 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your right MilCardFan
The secondary has been playing mostly zone and they are clearly use to man to man. Harris has been completely out of place so they have actually had him doing more bump and run the last couple of weeks but Woodson is playing off. Woodson can do either way and still be great but Harris and Williams have struggled.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 5:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, stunning
As a Vikes fan, I hope Capers stays four or five years. I just don’t understand completely neutralizing your best defensive players for the good of ‘the scheme’. Childress did that with the WCO when he first got to Minnesota, and it was maddening watching the ‘square peg, round hole’ offense week in and week out.
Seems like there’s a lot of that going on on the defensive side of the ball..
"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."
--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre
by MilCardFan on Nov 9, 2009 5:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes sir
I thought Capers would do what Williams has done in New Orleans but it seems like he’s stuck in his ways. The guy has a great resume as a DC and the Packers have a few Pro Bowlers on defense so it isn’t like he’s working with Cleveland Browns talent. He definitely is trying to fit square pegs into round holes. He’s doing a terrible job. Everyone knows you have to blitz Favre to unglue him and Capers hardly blitzed either game.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 5:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
26 & 28 points?
you can say that those are enough points to win against the buccs and you are right but that is not enough to beat the vikes who average 31 a game as of right now. I mayb be a Viking fan but i do feel for you guys giving up tampa’s first win of the season. have fun bickering amongst yourselves while I enjoy a three game lead in the division
by purpdavis on Nov 9, 2009 5:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Once Again
Come on here and brag when you win the NFC Championship game. I don’t have the midway season trophy ready for you guys yet and even then I think the Saints and Colts would probably get that.
by GGGamer on Nov 9, 2009 5:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear you there
In no way have i said anything about being able to take on the Saints or Colts, they are both excellent teams, i was just commenting on what was written in the article about 26 points being enough to beat the Vikes, is all and maybe i rubbed a little salt in the wound of the three game lead, more or less i am actually worried about Rodgers, i don’t know how much more he can take and keep standing.
by purpdavis on Nov 9, 2009 5:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Man...cant pick on anyone
sensitivity in this blog…..
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson
by RileysCannibalJct on Nov 9, 2009 6:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
72 new comments
and nearly all of them about an ex-player in a thread about a game he probably didn’t even watch on TV. Woo.
Move the fuck on or fuck the fuck off, eh? There’s a love…
by rudi on Nov 9, 2009 6:11 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
my work here is done
bye all see you next year!
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson
by RileysCannibalJct on Nov 9, 2009 6:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Conversion to the darkside is complete
I’ve been giving the front office and coaches the benefit of the doubt thus far, but the recent trend has been swaying me in favor of a regime change and this game just confirmed it.
Thompson needs to go for being too stubborn in his ways. It’s great to build through the draft but he underestimates the value of experience and leadership that quality free agents can bring to a team. I cannot name one player who I would regard as a veteran leader on this team. Donald Driver? Woodson? Harris? Great veterans but not really leaders.
This lack of veteran leadership is one of the reasons this team cannot play an entire game consistently. It’s the reason there are constant mental lapses like all the penalties, dropped balls, blown assignments, miscommunications in blocking, special teams, and the secondary. There’s no sense of urgency because they think they are young and have a win later attitude, a stance that is reinforced by a GM who insists on building exclusively through the draft.
The young guys lack discipline and the lockerroom needs veteran leadership to keep guys inline, especially when the coach has demonstrated that he is incapable of discplining guys. Which leads me to my next point.
McCarthy needs to go. He’s shown that he is only capable of spewing buzzwords and promising to make adjustments and “clean things up” only to have the same stupid mistakes appear over and over again. Regardless of his actual coaching abilities, he’s already starting to lose control of this lockerroom and a change is in order to get everyone back in line. Perhaps we can get someone with an iron fist.
Rodgers has been playing well, and I don’t mind that he holds the ball every now and then, but I think the dude is way too mellow. He’s been cautious about blaming people and I understand he’s just trying to be a good teammate and doesn’t want to throw anyone under the bus, but as a leader he needs to show some emotion and call these linemen out to demand a higher level of play. He’s lead through actions, playing well and playing tough. Now he needs to be vocal. Yeah, you might not be everyone’s friend if you get on people, but shit needs to get done. Let these guys know that 37 sacks so far is definitely not ok. Who knows, he may have already called them out in private, but he’s publicly defended them long enough and we’ve all seen that they have not responded.
by chewie on Nov 9, 2009 7:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Calling out teammates via the media more often creates more problems than it fixes. I’m sure there have been talks in private, and maybe semi-public via team meetings. If they still haven’t responded, and all indications are that they haven’t, then it’s up to TT to make a change (or whoever succeeds him next year).
by Danwood on Nov 9, 2009 7:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate to say it, but when Green broke Jimmy Taylor’s record I think it jinxed the Packers.
Why did we not re-sign Jimmy ?
Should not have had to end his career with the Saints.
Sorry, but that’s been bothering me for a while ….
by WarWolf on Nov 9, 2009 8:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I took a day off from this site after yesterday.
And I come back after being asked to give the site another chance, only to find…. another thread hijacked by Vikings trolls, pseudo Packer fans and Favrophiles (even though Favre wasn’t the topic of the article that generated the comments).
But do the site administrators act? Not from what I can tell. There goes the second chance and I don’t see much reason for their to be a third. There are other places to engage intelligent football and Packer conversation on the internet, and I doubt many people here will miss me anyway. I know I won’t miss the newly christened Viking fans who turn up here to tell me how to think…
Later all, and God Bless.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 9, 2009 9:47 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
TSSC!
Don’t leave!
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Nov 9, 2009 10:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I couldn’t have said it any better myself. But don’t leave.
by packallday555 on Nov 9, 2009 10:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
I banned one and warned another yesterday, and then they pop up today like weeds while I’m at my day job. I’m trying to stay on it.
by Brandon on Nov 9, 2009 11:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is what I would be doing all day!
FIRST I WOULD ISSUE WARNINGS LOL!
THEN I WOULD LOLBAN!
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Nov 10, 2009 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't leave Ted
I think part of the problem is that we need the site admin’s to be more vocal in the threads, however, with only two admin’s that is probably difficult.
But, I agree, it’s tiresome to find the threads in the shape they’re in.
battlekow: Bill is having an oppo-gasm
by Michael M on Nov 9, 2009 11:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bears defense
makes the Pack defense look like the ’78 Steel curtain.
People who don’t care don’t respond, and people who do care do respond. Does that make sense Bronco fans trying to validate the trade?
by propheteer on Nov 9, 2009 9:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Losing Urlacher did leave a big hole and leadership.
Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge
by Bush League All Star on Nov 9, 2009 10:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Certainly
Not sure if his presence would ensure another victory in the win column or not, but the pass-defense wouldn’t be as horrible.
People who don’t care don’t respond, and people who do care do respond. Does that make sense Bronco fans trying to validate the trade?
by propheteer on Nov 9, 2009 10:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a little tired of hearing about the defense...
For the most part, it’s been strong. Our special teams leave the boys on D with a short field. I might just be the only one who supports the scheme change. The defense is better than last year. Every week the coaches are tweeking the scheme to fit our players. They’ve been getting Kampman’s hand in the ground and letting Al man handle recievers at the line more and more. (Freeman made Al look really silly this past Sunday after Al taunted the kid, he threw one right at him and completed a big gainer)
The offensive line and special teams are our real problems. Oh, and could we get a friggin break with all these penalties?! I’d like to see just one kick return without a holding penalty.
by StephanL on Nov 10, 2009 3:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
