On The Officials and The Secondary: Wild Card Playoffs - Packers at Cardinals
by Brandon on Jan 12, 2010 2:02 AM CST
in Analysis
64 comments
That's about the best shot of the facemask penalty (that wasn't called) on Green Bay Packers' QB Aaron Rodgers that I can imagine.
First a congratulations from Aaron Schatz (and indirectly Bill Simmons) from Football Outsiders:
Aaron Schatz: I would like to bow to the Packers. As Bill Simmons just pointed out on Twitter, even if they don't pull off a win here, they went down huge early and fought back. The Patriots, on the other hand, rolled over and died. Advantage: Packers fans.
And then onto the officials:
Aaron Schatz: I don't mean to take away from a very strong pass rush by Arizona, or the quality of the Arizona offense, but... wasn't that facemask and roughing the passer on Adams? He made that sack by grabbing Rodgers' facemask. It's completely obvious, to the point where Joe Buck SAID "hands to the face" as the play was going on.
Doug Farrar: They also missed a helmet-to-helmet that would have wiped out the holding penalty on Daryn Colledge. Arizona should be congratulated for pulling the game out, but Scott Green’s crew was truly abysmal today.
My basic take was that the officials did an awful job in this game. The Cardinals got away with more when the official kept the flag in his pocket on the final play of the game. And I still can't believe the play where WR Larry Fitzgerald shoved CB Charles Woodson down in the end zone. But the Cardinals also got hit with two questionable horse collar 15 yard penalties. It was the worst officiated game I've seen all season, even if the Packers took the brunt of it.
I apologize but my "day" job has me working 8am to 11pm this week. My plan had been to re-watch the game and do an extensive play-by-play recap, but I don't have the time right now. But I expect to be talking about this game all offseason because it, along with the loss to the Steelers and the earlier losses to the Vikings, are how you beat the Packers: you attack the secondary and win a shootout. Even in their two other losses vs. the Bengals and Buccaneers, they surrendered 3 TD passes in each game. Overall the secondary was great this season, but they were a weak link in all 6 losses.
If anyone has something on their mind about the game, please consider writing a Fan Post. I'm checking in periodically during the day, and I'd love to promote a Fan Post to the front page. Thanks.
0 recs |
64 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I'm still depressed
And I’m too tired to play chess. I think I’ll do some reading and go to bed.
As for the Packers bad calls, we’ve discussed that in length on other posts already. The refs were terrible. Someone should have been there throwing flags at them. Next home pre-season game at Lambeau, the fans should bring flags and throw them on the field at the refs. The only problem with that is I HOPE the fans would show a little more class than that. Then again…
by starmark on Jan 12, 2010 2:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
It's a shame
It was a terrific offensive game, it’s too bad that the officiating is generating so much controversy. Perhaps the NFL should consider hiring full-time officials?
by ktenreb on Jan 12, 2010 7:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
That idea has come and gone a few times now…would it REALLY help though? I don’t think its a matter of them knowing the rules…they just missed calls. There’s only so many eyes and many players on the field. I don’t know what the solution is…maybe they can do something with a ref in the booth or something???
by TrevorR on Jan 12, 2010 8:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Refs weren't the problem...
Obvious I know, but lets keep the fact our defense decided to take a day off in perspective.
That being said, I agree the officials are inconsistent and sometimes downright incompetent. If they’re not going to call a penalty one time then they should never call it and vice versa. There should be no gray area. I’m tired of these guys having so much influence on a game. That includes the college level as well.
I don’t know what the answer is to this problem, but it seems to come up every year that the refs are an issue. I think until technology and tighter procedures take more and more out of the human’s hands you’ll always have the controversy.
by pvilleWIcheezhed on Jan 12, 2010 7:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
This is irresponsible journalism
The NFL league official has reviewed this play exhaustively and issued a very specific press release yesterday declaring unequivocably that it was NOT a penalty, per the rule change instituted in 2008. The EXACT text of their clarification is below:
A “facemask” penalty is a judgment call that is not reviewable by replay.
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 5 of the NFL Rule Book (page 81) states that “no player shall twist, turn, or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.”
The Rule Book describes the penalty as follows:
“Penalty: For twisting, turning or pulling the mask: loss of 15 yards. A personal foul. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be of a flagrant nature.”
The Rule Book describes an approved ruling as it relates to facemask penalties (page 81).
“A.R. 12.12 – Third-and-10 on A30. Runner A1 runs to the A33, where he is tackled by B1, who incidentally grasps A1’s facemask on the tackle, but it is not a twist, turn or pull. Ruling: A’s ball, fourth-and-seven, on A33. No foul.”
Prior to the 2008 season, a rule change was approved that eliminated the foul for the incidental grasp of the facemask.
The language of the rule as it relates to a facemask penalty through the 2007 season:
“Penalty: Incidental grasping of the mask — five yards. Not a personal foul (if by the defense there is no automatic first down). Twisting, turning, or pulling the mask — 15 yards. A personal foul. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be of a flagrant nature.”
I cannot believe you have chosen to fan the flames of a false controversy with this post. You don’t even acknowledge that the league has already addressed this specific question! Instead you cite some other blogger. There are many bad calls for the Packers (and all other teams), to be upset with over the years, for example the non-called Jerry Rice fumble in the late 90s playoff game. But this is not one of them, the NFL has clearly stated. Stop misleading people that it is.
There, someone had to say it. Let the flaming begin. Shoot the messenger and ignore the message if you wish.
by puddnhead on Jan 12, 2010 7:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Take a look at the picture.
Rodgers’ helmet is almost down over his eyes. Either he like the Lone Ranger helmet look, or it’s being pulled.
"no player shall twist, turn, or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction."
"That's not baseball; little numbers in the paper, that's soduki or whatever you call it."
by Thaddeus? on Jan 12, 2010 7:49 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe you should watch the video (look on youtube) instead of trying to deduce a pull from a still photo?
You do know these helmets are not glued onto players heads, right? If you watch the video of that play, you can even see Rodgers’ helmet “pull down” as he attaches his chine strap before taking the snap! If it was truly pulled, the helmet would have come a lot further down over his eyes than that.
What happened is that Adams’ hand contacted Rodgers helmet on the facemask. Like the action of snapping the chinstrap before the snap, the pressure of Adams’ hand contacting the facemask shifted the helmet down. This was probably further exacerbated by Rodgers trying to lift his head to look up at the ball (and for whatever reason, kick it?) as he was going down.
I don’t know what more I can say, so I probably should stop.
by puddnhead on Jan 12, 2010 8:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We're mourning
Hey puddnhead. We’re mourning. Please don’t come here and cite a rule book. We know the rules. The rules aren’t the issue. Go over to Blogging the Boys, talk a little smack. Go to the DN and talk up your team a bit, and stuff like that.
Come back when the vikings draft somebody and you want to brag about how much he’ll add to the team that is looking to win the north again. That would be a legit comment at an appropriate time.
by Tim V on Jan 12, 2010 8:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps you are right
I apologize. I probably should have just stopped at my first post, after merely providing the information Brandon, for whatever reason, chose to exclude.
Thanks for talking me down from escalating further against some of the less reasoned responses. This is a tough, awkward emotional position to be in, believe it or not, and sometimes I’m not even sure myself why I react the way I do.
by puddnhead on Jan 12, 2010 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well . . . .
I think I agree that it was a good no call. But that doesn’t give you license to be a dick.
by ktenreb on Jan 12, 2010 10:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL would NEVER say something JUST to cover themselves
Am I mistaken or did the NFL not also claim the the Music City Miracle play was correctly called, despite the video showing that the “lateral” was pretty clearly one yard forward?
My point is that I was not nearly as ticked off when the nature of the play was what led the official not seeing the facemask. The NFL trying to tell me that my eyes are not seeing what I am seeing in the video irks the heck out of me. That facemask was lengthy, forceful, and contorting enough to mandate a flag IF THE REFEREE SAW IT.
For whatever reason, the NFL is determined to skimp in the area of referees— refusing to make them full-time or considering adding another member to crews to see more. The Packers DID NOT lose because of that one call— there were other earlier calls that were bad in our favor. However, I do not understand how the greatest sports league in our country can be fine with also being arguably the worst refereed. Heck, the NFL will not even make their rule book generally available as the NBA, MLB, NHL, and NCAA do. That entire playoff game was shoddily refereed. What is sad is that I expect nothing better, since good refereeing is the exception, not the rule in the NFL.
by NYCPac on Jan 13, 2010 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
DIE, MESSENGER! DIE DIE DIE!!
(heh)
The problem with facemask penalties is that the whole “twist-turn-pull” qualification is applied very arbitrarily by the refs, even within a game. It’s a reflex call by the ref, and they’re generally pretty reluctant to pick up a facemask flag that shouldn’t have been thrown.
Besides, it could also have been a roughing the passer type call, since the refs seem to love calling that every time a defensive player happens to do anything more to the face of the QB than tickle his chinny-chin-chin.
And the fact that the league nearly bent the time-space continuum to get ahead of this “controversy” doesn’t prove a whole heckuva lot on whether it was the right call.
Still, I wouldn’t point to this debatably bad non-call as the backbreaker. I’m still stuck on the non-call on Offensive Pass Interference by Fitzgerald. Anyone remember offhand if that was on 3rd down, by chance?
by swilldog on Jan 12, 2010 11:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
oh, and
I’m still not in the camp that any of the horrible officiating really affected the outcome of the game.
We lacked the defensive personnel to cover the middle of the field, and Warner was playing his A game. We did a masterful job of getting to OT, and from there it was anyone’s game. Unfortunately, the ball bounced their way in the end.
by swilldog on Jan 12, 2010 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is my take on it all. The missed penalties suck…but really we just didn’t play well enough defensively to win and made a few key mistakes on O. We spent the season winning the turnover battle in just about every game (for sure in every win), even tying an old Packer turnover margin record in the process…but on that day we lost it and coincidentally (or not) lost the game.
by TrevorR on Jan 13, 2010 9:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a reflex call by the ref, and they’re generally pretty reluctant to pick up a facemask flag that shouldn’t have been thrown.
Exactly. While by rule it technically was not a facemask, I would say 5 out of 10 times that gets called.
Besides, it could also have been a roughing the passer type call, since the refs seem to love calling that every time a defensive player happens to do anything more to the face of the QB than tickle his chinny-chin-chin.
Kind of like the personal foul called on Jenkins..
by packallday555 on Jan 12, 2010 6:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What
Are you saying that a fast-moving 280 pound man wrapped his fingers around Rodgers’ facemask and did not pull in some direction? I think YOU need to look at the replay, he clearly DID pull downwards. Rodgers’ was looking downfield, and the guy’s hand went on his facemask, then Rodgers’ acted as if he were looking at his shoe.
by jonohull on Jan 12, 2010 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He definitely did pull down but it wasn’t a 280 lb. guy. It was Adams who is one of their Cb’s, who ironically enough had been abused by Rodgers all game.
by packallday555 on Jan 12, 2010 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Adams was their Bush…if the game went the other way, he’s the guy people would have been going after in the Cards boards.
by TrevorR on Jan 13, 2010 9:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Look again
Rodgers head goes back…and to the right. Back…and to the right…Back…and to the right…
So, here's some advice I wish I woulda got when I was your age: Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by snibbodmot on Jan 12, 2010 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
and the refs
were on the grassy knoll so wrapped up in the Arizona fans celebrating that they were too scared to call an obvious penalty.
In the end, with the holes in our defense, we weren’t going to go far this year, but it would be nice to see the game called consistently and fairly.
"...to the home of the brave, the land of the free, and the dooooooooormat of the National League." -Steve Goodman
by LAcarl519 on Jan 12, 2010 5:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
From today's TMQ
3 points.
1. Flag thrown for Warner’s RTP was in a similar situation.
2. Rodgers was not a runner, he was not a passer. Therefore the runner rules do not apply, but instead the passer rules do. From TMQ:
There are special rules that protect only the quarterback, becomes someone in a passer stance is defenseless. One — Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12, Paragraph 3 — makes any contact to the passer’s “head, neck or face” a personal foul.
Based on defense, neither team should’ve won the game, but just looking for a little consistency. That penalty not only gave them a TD, it cost us a first down (no matter when the penalty occurs, it negates the entire play).
by Danwood on Jan 12, 2010 6:11 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Honestly, what do you think the league is going to come out and say? It was a call that probably gets called 5 out of 10 times. Obviously if it’s a tweener like it was the league is going to come out and say it’s correct. They don’t want a big reffing controversey like the NBA had.
That being said I am fine with the no call but am disappointed with some of the other no calls throughout the game. Rodgers got hit helmet to helmet a couple times this game and got no calls, while Warner was simply touched by Jenkins and got a call. I’ve seen Favre, Brady, and Manning pretty get breathed on this year and had personal fouls called for them. The no calls on Fitzgerald were also a bit ridiculous. I realize the rules now-a-days favor the offensive players heavily but he blatantly pushed Woodson to the ground twice. And even had his arms fully extended once, yet still nothing was called. The personal foul call on Jenkins when he was being clearly held was also disappointing.
I don’t in anyway want to come off as blaming the refs for the loss because our defense was downright horrid but there is no question they didn’t do a great job.
by packallday555 on Jan 12, 2010 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you really
think that the NFL is going to come out and state publicly that a call or no-call made by one of their officials in OVERTIME of a PLAYOFF game that decided the outcome of that game was erroneous? If you think it wasn’t a penalty, fine. But don’t hide behind the NFL’s statement and its “integrity.”
by sidtheelf on Jan 12, 2010 7:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Do you really
think that the NFL is going to come out and state publicly that a call or no-call made by one of their officials in OVERTIME of a PLAYOFF game that decided the outcome of that game was correct, if it really wasn’t, and issue a knowingly false statement? Serioulsy, how many times has the NFL made a statement like this after a controversial call? They don’t make these statements very often. Give me ONE other example where they came out with a statement to say a call was right, when it was actually wrong.
If you think it was a penalty, fine. But don’t hide behind the idea that the NFL is always issuing bogus, lying statements statement and has no “integrity” unless you can actually produce other examples of this happening. NFL officials screw up, it’s an unfortunate fact of life, but being human because they err is a LOT different than suggesting they are intentionally covering up a bad call with a knowingly false statement, implying intentional corruption. That is a very serious charge, which should not be thrown around so lightly. You’re basically calling into question the entire integrity of the NFL.
You are talking about the NFL not issuing a statement to support a call. that is not what is going on here. This is a case where the NFL is issuing a statement to confirm a call.
In any case, my original point was that this was irresponsible journalism for Brandon to publish this piece without even acknowledging the NFL has already officially addressed his specific concerns. That this is irresponsible journalism does not change whether you agree or disagree with the call itself.
by puddnhead on Jan 12, 2010 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Funny how a troll Vikings fan is talking about integrity.
Go back to DN and gloat there.
"That's not baseball; little numbers in the paper, that's soduki or whatever you call it."
by Thaddeus? on Jan 12, 2010 8:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
First of all
who said anything about corruption? There is no doubt that the call is widely debated and has people pretty much split down the middle. My point is that in a case like this, of course the NFL is going to say the officials made the right call. I’m not saying they did or didn’t because I’m still not sure myself and it makes no difference at this point anyway. I just think the NFL’s statement should be taken with a 100lb. grain of salt.
by sidtheelf on Jan 12, 2010 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hey puddnhead…why are you so obsessed with this? let it die…go back to your norseman board and talk about your own game this week. let us worry about our team…quit being a jag!
by TrevorR on Jan 12, 2010 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, you're probably right
I just hate people using selective information to create conspiracy theories & misleading people about what really happened. I hated it when Bush did it over the WMDs, and although this is a much less serious subject, I still despise it being done here. I would despise it even if I were not a Viking fan.
I know many doubt it, but I wanted the Packers to win. I was bummed they didn’t. I just don’t get irrational and start grasping for straws whenever they don’t win. If it’s legitimate, clear botch, like that 98 playoff game against the 49ers, then I do get upset. But when Packers lost fair and square, like against the giants in 07, Eagles in ‘03, or Denver in the superbowl, I don’t go looking for excuses. The team that played better in those games won, just like on Sunday.
I don’t pretend that I don’t have an agenda. My agenda is that the Packers need to clean out their GM and coaching offices, and then some of their roster. This crap about “it’s ok that we have these meltdowns because 3-4 takes three years to switch to” is BS that is being used to pacify people from demanding real issues be dealt with. And this “the refs cost us the game, not the defense!” is just another manifestation of techniques to make people avoid confronting the problem.
by puddnhead on Jan 12, 2010 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well you’ve probably noticed that I am one of the ones that isn’t getting caught up in blaming a shoulda/woulda/coulda penalty for us losing the game. We were outplayed and managed to make it a game and push it to overtime but ultimately I was pretty happy that it was even a game after that start. I wasn’t expecting a Lombardi trophy this year… but I have high hopes for future years.
We’ll have to continue to disagree on the management though…
by TrevorR on Jan 13, 2010 9:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We were outplayed?
Last I checked, both defenses gave up the same number of points. If Arizona had lost on the first play of OT, they would’ve been saying the exact same things and nobody would’ve thought any different.
Let’s be serious. Both teams played wide open. Either neither team deserved to win, or both teams deserved to win.
by Danwood on Jan 13, 2010 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree…the Cardinals played the more complete game. Their offense was virtually unstoppable the entire game. Their QB threw FOUR incomplete passes. They rushed for over 150 yards. Their D forced 3 turnovers and many sacks. Our team may have caught up in points but we were outplayed in that game on both sides of the ball. They played a perfect game and that is what it took to beat us!!
by TrevorR on Jan 13, 2010 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Drive Results:
TD: GB 6, AZ 6
FG: GB 1, AZ 1
Missed FG: GB 1, AZ 1
Sure looks like their defense couldn’t stop our offense either most of the game either. Their defense was one errant pass from giving away the game too.
They too lost a fumble, fell asleep on a kick off, and shanked a gimme figgie. So I think you’re giving them way too much credit when you say they played a perfect game.
Perspective, Trevor, perspective. It only LOOKS like we were outplayed simply because we lost. It’s impossible to outplay someone and have the game go to OT, either the opposing team was not outplayed or you too were outplayed, and a double outplaying means just a regular play :)
by Danwood on Jan 13, 2010 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Perspective is right...
It has nothing to do with who won actually. Our D was on its heels all game. Theirs was swarming…we just have a good enough QB to survive and thrive in that environment.
They lost A fumble, we lost 2. They lost 0 ints, we lost 1. Rushing yards, us 90ish, them 150 ish (on only 3 more carries). Sacks us 1, them 5. I could go on but honestly they played the more complete game…its okay to admit it. We tied it up at regulation which is what makes you feel like we matched them but they played the most complete game including TDs in every quarter and an almost perfect QB performance.
Its NOT impossible to outplay someone and go to OT…not at all. I’ve seen plenty of teams get outplayed and WIN.
Anyway, not a big deal…jsut a difference in perspective. Just don’t hang onto this whole “we had the game stolen from us” stuff though…its going to get really old!
by TrevorR on Jan 13, 2010 8:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Packers outscored or matched the Cardinals in every regulation quarter except the first.
We had more rushing first downs than Arizona, 9 to 7.
Both teams had 3 fumbles, but yes, we lost one more.
TOP was nearly equal (within a minute and a half).
The rushing stats are slightly skewed because Wells busted a 46 yarder. Without that the stats are much closer, especially since the Packers abandoned the run early in the game.
Total yards are within 7% of each other.
Oh, and Kapinos outpunted Graham on their one punt each ;)
I still maintain it was a close game all around. Yes, the -2 turnover differential proved to be the deciding factor, but that aside, the game was pretty evenly matched. The Packers started weakly and ended strong, the Cardinals the opposite (until OT).
by Danwood on Jan 13, 2010 10:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
dude, this isn't journalism
or at least it’s not journalism in any form that requires anyone getting their panties in a wad over anything “irresponsible.”
by swilldog on Jan 12, 2010 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
puddnhead: if you don't think that the refs
spend as much time looking at the name on a jersey before a call is made, you are high.
Refs are human, they go out of their way to call roughing the passer when the “elites” are in the game. The refs also have a tendency to keep their flag in the pocket when the QB is low paid or has the ability to run. A guy like Rodgers is considered “more durable” than Brady or Favre, so he gets less calls. That roughing call on the Packers when the guy was clearly blocked into Warner was a joke.
We had no defense on Sunday, but the bad calls didn’t help.
"...to the home of the brave, the land of the free, and the dooooooooormat of the National League." -Steve Goodman
by LAcarl519 on Jan 12, 2010 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Abissmal Officiating
The offociating in at least 2 of the weekends game was completely awful. calling invisisble penalties and not calling the obvious. I was sitting in my living room watching that Packer game aand from western Pa I saw the facemask and saw the “PULL” on the facemask. How could the official not see it. Or the roughing the passer penalty that wasnt called. Leading with the crown of his helmet going for a helmet to helmet hit. Or how about the invisible holding penalty on Colledge. or the holding call not made as Clay Matthews was about to get to Warner. How about the invisible pass interference call in the Dallis game. I believe in letting the boys play, but , this was too extreme. And all you will her is we apologise and "OOPS " we missed that one. Each of the NFL referees is a professional off the field. they do this so they will recieve no partiality on either team. Bull puckey!!!!!! Obviously the rules have to be interpreted as they see fit in each game from each team of officials. But some consistancy is required somehow. Changing the rules to suit certain players is nonsense. Seems pretty positive that Aaron Rodgers is not one of the QB’s that the NFL wants to “PROTECT” Tom Brady is as is Peyton Manning. Had that been one of those 2 QB’s you can bet there would not have been a holding call on Colledge and you can bet there would have been a penalty on AZ for that facemask. The rules have to be consistant for everyone even the pretty boys of the league. Hey Puddinhead the league only gave excuses not what they need to do to make everyone equal. Nor did they fine or suspend their professional referee. These guys have been very bad all year and there should be consequenses for their actions. The NFL doesnt hesitate to fine or suspend players when they done play fair. The Same should go for the officials of the game
by graygoose41 on Jan 12, 2010 8:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the post
I’m still very depressed. I know the refs cost us a few (including roughing the passer, first play from scrimmage for the pack), but I’m still amazed by two things.
1. Our defense just couldn’t get a stop.
2. Our offense scored a TD on 100% of their 2nd half possessions.
by Tim V on Jan 12, 2010 8:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I am with you. Focusing on the refs is loser talk…lets move on guys. We had chances to win and we didn’t. Its not like we played a perfect game and had it stolen away…
by TrevorR on Jan 12, 2010 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
next they'll be saying....
Adams has a very short finger and it was not wrapped around Rodgers face mask. Give me a break! It’s quite clear the helmet was being pulled over Rodger’s eyes at the time the pisture was snapped. As a fan, I’ll get over it , as I’m well aware that referees miss calls and complaining about it will not change the final score at this point. ARodg took the high road and put the blame on himself. It’s time for the refs to man-up and admit they made a mistake too!
by Ratz on Jan 12, 2010 8:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Totally depressed still!
Here is the funny thing with me: I am constantly doing things with work, with just surfing the web, but whenever I catch a glimpse of a picture showing THAT LAST PLAY or showing anything involving that game, I still get that queasy sick feeling in my stomach and I have to let out a sigh!
The thing is this, for us to comeback from a 21 point deficit, a comeback of epic proportions and for it to end on THAT LAST PLAY. wowsers…
But I love the Aaron Shatz quote, they most certainly showed the heart and courage of a lion (not to be confused with that team over in Detroit).
I am wearing the green and gold very proudly, thank you very much.
by PackFaninFL on Jan 12, 2010 9:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The play that makes me sick
is the first play of the overtime, and AR (great game, not dogging him) missed the wide-open Jennings with the overthrow.
That would have been the (outplayed team) winner. I went to bed that night and THAT’S the play I couldn’t get out of my head.
Best game I ever attended was the 163rd game last year in 2008.
by NorthSidePaulie on Jan 13, 2010 8:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Even some of the pro-Patriots guys I work with were saying that it was an obvious face mask.
I sure hope Goodell sits down with officials during the off-season, I have noticed the games occasionally have very inconsistent calls.
And this game surely was one of them.
And Brandon, there was also this link on Yahoo.com.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 12, 2010 10:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
all the Vikings fans I work with in MN
say the Packers got screwed by the refs… and they’ve been hating on every word I’ve said about the Pack since I got hired haha
by uofmike on Jan 12, 2010 9:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All of the Patriots fans I work with in Vermont,
They largely feel the same way.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 12, 2010 10:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve gotten a lot of sympathy from Viking fan friends and co-workers. They’ve all been there…too many times. In fact, my Viking fan wife feels like the Vikings are poised for something like this to happen to them this year too. They are all fatalists after years of seeing stuff like this happen to them.
by TrevorR on Jan 13, 2010 9:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey everybody
I’m new to APC. Reading the posts here over the last couple of days I felt compelled to join. I’m from NJ but have been a Packers fan since I was 7 in ’89. Looking forward to lots of intelligent and passionate debate, commiseration, and hopefully celebration in the future.
by sidtheelf on Jan 12, 2010 10:39 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I know
complaining about officiating is loser talk. I do. But in close games where the talent level is matched pretty even, I think in some respects it does come down to officiating. I mean how many games have we watched where officiating was the difference maker? My answer is alot. I just wish they would be a little more consistant. I mean something in my gut just tell’s me that if it was Brady or Manning— it would have been called. I hope that something is done to address issues in our secondary, OL and special teams in this offseason. It would be a disservice to our offence if those things are not corrected.
by turd on Jan 12, 2010 11:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
If it was Brady,
it would have been called if a defensive player simply touched him.
See the Patriots’ game against the Ravens in October. Or their game against Atlanta in late September.
In the Falcons game, an Atlanta DL fell down behind Brady and got his hands on Brady. It was called roughing the passer.
In the Ravens game, Brady took a light hit on his shoulder and threw himself to the ground to get the penalty. A little while later, Brady side-stepped Terrell Suggs and another phantom RTP was called.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 12, 2010 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Blaming refs for a loss is "loser talk"...
HOWEVER, I do not think that acknowledging that the NFL has a major problem with the refereeing overall and in general is anything close to “loser talk.”
by NYCPac on Jan 13, 2010 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
officiating
I have always said that the NFL is the worst officiated league in the whole world. After watching two weeks of college bowl games and then the NFL playoffs it sometimes looks as if it is another sport entirely. The people who run the NFL need to watch some college and high school football and see how the game is supposed to be run by the refs and then go and fire everybody they have in black and white stripes and start all over again. As long as they let the refs dominate the games they will have an inferior product.
packer wannabe http://maxsportsplus.com
by packer wannabe on Jan 12, 2010 5:02 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
MLB put forth a strong case for the "worst officiated league" in October.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 12, 2010 10:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so does the NBA pretty much every single second it exists
2010 White Sox - Benching our way to the playoffs.
by blackoutsox on Jan 13, 2010 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with your comments on the Packer secondary (in terms of "we didn't have the D to win this year"
but I think the secondary doesn’t look so weak when we get linebackers and linemen who can really play the 3-4 defense. Capers needed to rush 1-2 linebackers almost every play because our pass rush was too weak most of the time. If we can improve the defensive line and the two middle linebackers, I think the secondary will be viewed in a much more favorable light.
This was the first year of the 3-4 and over time, the skills of the defense will be matched to the style needed.
"...to the home of the brave, the land of the free, and the dooooooooormat of the National League." -Steve Goodman
by LAcarl519 on Jan 12, 2010 5:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere but aside from Jenkins our d-line really generated no pressure, especially Jolly. He played pretty poorly against the Cardinals, and was a large part of why they were able to run on us.
Matthews and Jones got pressure of the edges a number of times, but it didn’t matter because on those plays we got nearly no push from the middle and Warner was simply able to step up in the pocket and buy some extra time for himself.
by packallday555 on Jan 12, 2010 7:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
and because Matthews had to rush so hard off the edge, it made running the ball by him so easy.
Pass rush, DB, OL for the offseason and it’s a Super Bowl next year
by uofmike on Jan 12, 2010 9:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
D-Linemen in a 3-4 aren't supposed to be pass rushers
They are space-eaters and linemen-occupiers. Jolly played just fine this year. Jenkins, in truth, is really an end for a 4-3 defense — he has enough size to get the job done in a 3-4, but, frankly, his talents are wasted in that defense. He can rush a passer. Kampman is in the same boat, except he isn’t really suited for a 3-4 at all.
by ktenreb on Jan 13, 2010 9:13 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
THANK YOU!
How do people STILL not know this after a full year with the system.
by TrevorR on Jan 13, 2010 9:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I knw they aren’t supposed to be pass rushers but when their getting pushed backwards 2 steps that is going to have an effect on the pass rush. Watch some of the game back if it’s a possibility for you. There were actually quite a few times that we generated some good pressure off the edges but Warner simply stepped up in the pocket because Pickett and Jolly were consistently getting pushed backwards.
I think he is better in the 4-3 as well, but because of his size, like you stated and his talents he is a very good 3-4 DE.
by packallday555 on Jan 13, 2010 10:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on who you are
You better believe that the facemask penalty would have been called if the quarterback would have been Tom “I wear a dress” Brady or Brent “I must be God” Fahrt.
by Hinder on Jan 13, 2010 1:55 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
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 © 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.
