Injury Recap: Green Bay Packers Lose To Redskins In OT, 16-13
by Brandon on Oct 11, 2010 7:01 AM CDT
in Green Bay Packers News
Email
Print
My very brief recap: For the second week in a row, the Green Bay Packers offense looked great for a stretch in the 1st half, and then goes missing in the 2nd half (plus OT vs. the Redskins). Aren't they making the proper adjustments? Are they getting tired? Are they losing their focus? I'm willing to listen to any suggestions. Once again, the special teams were bad with 2 missed FGs, and the team had bad penalties on key plays. The only big difference was Mike McCarthy blew it by going for it on 4th down at the goal line, instead of taking the easy 3 points, which would have been the difference in winning the game. He stands by his "good call."
They're starting to remind me of the team from 2009 that started out 4-4. For what it's worth, they obviously turned it around to finish 11-5, make the playoffs, and put dreams of a Super Bowl in our heads a few months later. The injury situation isn't exactly the same, but injuries on the offensive line were a big problem at the start of last season, and overall injuries are certainly holding them back now.
I haven't been too worried about all the injuries before this weekend, but now they've spread to important players at nearly every position. The biggest name is of course QB Aaron Rodgers. From Mike McCarthy:
Jermichael Finley had a knee and did not return. He’ll have testing done tomorrow. Ryan Pickett had an ankle injury and did not return. Donald Lee had a shoulder injury and did not return. Clay Matthews had a hamstring strain and did not return. Derrick Martin had a knee sprain and did not return and Aaron Rodgers had a concussion there at the end of the game.
As I'm writing this, it's too early to tell how serious these are until everyone is tested on Monday, and then try to practice this week. Greg Bedard speculated that these are all short term injuries, and Martin's might be the most serious. Is it possible Rodgers will be cleared to practice next week? While everyone probably knows that QB Jay Cutler had to sit out this week because he wasn't cleared to practice, another example is RB Ryan Grant, who was cleared to resume practice a couple days after he suffered a concussion during the preseason. Hopefully the severity is similar to Grant, so Rodgers can return to practice this week and play next week when they host the Dolphins.
248 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
in retrospect
its easy to say we shoulda took the 3 pts when it was 3rd/goal, but I cant blame MM for going for it. Hell, we cant make 1 yrd ? This O-line HAS to come thru in that situation. But, then why didnt we give it to Kuhn? There’s lots of reasons we lost this game, but all yr. this team has been sloppy and unfocused. That falls back to coaching, imo.
I disagree completely
Kick the field goal and it’s a 10 – 0 game, which means the Skins need two touchdowns to take the lead. It was a no-brainer decision and McCarthy boned it.
I am extremely concerned about the injuries at this point. Some are hitting at positions where there was some depth (TE, for example), but others are hitting at areas where Thompson has made some (more) bad decisions by not providing adequately (RB and QB, and DL to some extent). If Rodgers is out for a few games, we are hurting big time.
Ok
I’ll give you TT not having great depth at RB. But at QB? Name me a team that has good QB depth.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Cowboys
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
by Kevin Ewoldt on Oct 11, 2010 8:41 AM CDT up reply actions
sigh…the Vikings? I think i just got electrocuted after typing that. The Bea…oh nevermind on that one.
Others: The Lions, Eagles, Ravens (Bulger?), Giants, Dolphins, Steelers, Chargers, and Titans. Those are all teams with for sure good quality depth. There’s more but they aren’t OBVIOUSLY better…just arguably.
lol on the bears
more interceptions than yards per attempt
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
by blackoutsox on Oct 11, 2010 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions
The Cardinals.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions
Going for TDs (or even first downs) on 4th an inches are no-brainers
Even if you think it’s only 50-50 it’s still worth your while to go for the TD
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
I agree
The Oline has to get some push on that QB sneak. They all played a pretty bad game. I think if they called a short run there they lose yards just based on how bad the blocking was and how obvious a running situation that was. The play after it would’ve been nice if Rodger’s had had a full second or two to get the ball accurately to his receiver. The Oline has avoided the absolute implosion of last year so they’ve improved, but they’re still the weakest part of the team. Last year, the team figured out how to function with a poor line. This year I think the schedule’s just much tougher. I’m still optimistic they’ll figure something out, whether it’s sitting Clifton until he’s healthy, sitting Colledge, and putting Bulaga back on the left side where he seems much more comfortable.
WHAT? No its NOT a no brainer which is why most coaches kick a FG there. You drive all the way down the field and get NOTHING out of it, they might as well have thrown a pick. The same thing happened in the Chargers game. They went for it on 4th with Tolbert and he fumbled, the ball was returned to the 20 something and he raiders went down and put up 7. It was a HUGE momentum shift that lead to the first Raiders win over the Chargers in like 7 or 8 years. IF they kicked the FG, its a 10 point shift and the Raiders are losers.
Agree.
I think the only times it’s worth going for it on 4th is a.) with time expiring and the team down in points, b.) with 14 point or more lead or c.) most importantly with a healthy, consistently playing offensive line that can play power football, which this team is not even at 100%.
I like McCarthy’s play calling because he’s not gun-shy, but right now, the only important thing is to rack up the wins because the losses can pile up pretty quick – just ask Mike Singletary.
My best argument is to look at that Colts win yesterday. Sure they’ve got an offense that can generate a lot of points, but with nagging injuries, a tough defense from their opponent and an inability to gel in the red zone, they took mostly field goals and won.
"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi
Yeah...
I think if our offense was going at full tilt, I might have applauded the 4th down and goal effort. Put the boot on their throat early but honestly this offense has looked just average so far and we still don’t have much of a running game despite a few nice rushes here and there so I take the points and kick it to them. That isn’t a hindsight thing either…I felt that way when the call was made too.
I thought our offense was looking pretty good at that point in the game
I was calling for McCarthy to go for it and I still think that was the right call. For a team that has lacked a killer instinct I applaud going for the jugular early in a game like that.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Put the boot on their throat early but honestly this offense has looked just average
All the more reason to go for it… You have to get the most out of you scoring chances when you can if your not moving the ball very well… Losing Finley and Lee (who is the only other TE capable of adequately replacing Finley, Didn’t I say that all offseason when everyone wanted Lee released?) certainly cost us a HUGE part of our game plan… We probably use 2 TE as much or more than any NFL team!
Have to take into account the flow of the game… 2nd guessing is a dangerous game. One best not played…
I actually think Quarless can adequately replace Finley
He looked pretty good catching balls out there yesterday. The cupboard isn’t completely bare at TE by any means.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
I was with you on Lee actually. We need his experience…now we don’t have that either. What is his injury by the way??
AS I said in my previous post…it wasn’t an after the fact 2nd guessing thing…I sat there watching and said gotta kick it here and they didn’t. I don’t want to lose out on points when they are tough to come by and as we see now, those three points are the difference between winning and going to OT. Rodgers wouldn’t have suffered that blow to the head as well if we would have those three points.
I get why he did it …I just didn’t agree. Its okay, I don’t blame MM for the loss. The game didn’t hinge on that decision.
Up to that point
our offense had been clicking. I think the call to go for it was a good call and won’t change my thoughts because it failed. I think the play calling was atrocious though. Aaron isn’t a jump and dive QB so that sneak is entirely dependent on the line getting push. Why, when Kuhn is a power drive to the hole back, does he not see the ball in both or at least 1 of those plays?
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions
You are right to a degree
That the fourth down play failed is not the reason it was a bad decision. That kicking a field goal would have given the Packers a 10-point lead is the reason that going for the TD was a bad decision.
But
then wouldn’t scoring a TD giving the Packers a 14 point lead be the reason that going for a TD would be a good decision? That’s not really an argument.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
We already did this
10 point lead means they have to score two TDs to take the lead. I’d rather have a sure 10-point lead at that stage of the game than risk getting no additional points, and I think most coaches would agree. And I don’t accept your 3.5-point theory either.
My question
and it’s pretty hypothetical, but would you still feel that it was a bad call if it worked? I personally feel it was the right call even though it failed I still think that way. If you think itd have been a bad call if it had worked then we’re just going to have to agree to disagree and I’m ok w/ that lol
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes
I think it was a bad call. Success isn’t the measuring stick — game strategy at the time of the decision is what matters, and I think that with the score being what it was, 3 sure points was the best strategy decision. Easily.
That wasn't my theory
Given the way our defense was playing, I felt like if we didn’t score on 4th down, we would still get the ball in good field position. We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because I feel like this team needs to gain something resembling a killer instinct and going for it on 4th and goal to go up two touchdowns is a step in the right direction.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
IMO
It was the right call to go for it and I didn’t think the play called was bad either! Easy to say otherwise in hindsight!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
over and over…not hindsight…sometimes people just have different opinions than you and that OKAY!!!!! :-)
Did I try to change his mind?
I offered my opinion just like you!!! We’re looking back at the game now… Not during it. So that makes it hindsight.
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Well, yes...
but you saying “Easy to say otherwise in hindsight” suggests that you think Trevor thought going for it was a good idea at the time and changed his mind after the game, which is not how he felt.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
No hindsight
the ability to understand, after something has happened, what should have been done or what caused the event
It doesn’t mean just looking back at the game now…it means second guessing because you know the results. The point is that SOME of us didn’t like the call before we knew the results…that is NOT hindsight. Sorry.
There is a reason why coaches take the FG about 90% of the time in that situation…and the 10% is usually in situations where the game is winding down and they need the points.
Not sayin’, just sayin’
The right play
The right play was to take the field goal and a 10-point lead. McCarthy boned it. If the Packers had scored a touchdown on the 4th down play, McCarthy still boned it. The decision isn’t judged on the outcome; it is judged on the situation at the time. For example: Thompson boned it when he drafted Justin Harrel, NOT because Harrell turned out to be a dud, but because at the time he was drafted Harrell was an injury-marred prospect that was not a first-round talent.
oy vey
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
by blackoutsox on Oct 12, 2010 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
This will probably be an unpopular opinion
But I think the reason that coaches kick field goals “90% of the time in that situation” is that they like to avoid criticism at all costs. Very few people are going to criticize a coach kicking a FG in a situation like the one faced this week, whereas going for it and failing creates a lot of criticism (not saying people on here have that hindsight bias, just the public in general, kind of like how Sean Peyton kicking an onside kick to start the second half of the Super Bowl was hailed as brilliant because it worked).
Through week 7 of the 2008 season (I tried to find information for last year and couldn’t find any, if anyone has a good database for this stuff let me know!), teams went for it on 4th down and converted 97 of 176 times (55% success rate). On 4th and 1 teams converted at a rate of 72%. Thus on 4th and goal from the 1 yard line, on average a team scores slightly more than 5 points when they go for it and slightly less than 3 points when they kick a field goal.
Statistically, the correct call is to go for it on 4th and goal from the one.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Statistically you aren't comparing the same things...
What is the percentage of FGs made in that situation?
You can’t count a 4th and 1 on the 50 just like a 4th and 1 from the one though. The playbook on the goalline is truncated due to the small area you have to work with which makes it much easier to defend. I’ve seen a LOT of 4th and 1 on the 1s stopped this year.
I get where you are going with it but its not just about statistics…its about situations…its about execution…its about players…its about the defense you are playing. That is why coaches make the big bucks, they have to take all that stuff into account and make the right decision.
Well
The percentage of FG made in that situation has to be less than 100%, although I’m sure barely less. You can’t possibly average more than 3 points on a FG attempt. When I said “slightly less than 3 points” I’m talking about averaging probably around 2.99 points in that situation.
I’ll give you that the playbook is truncated, so that conversion percentage goes down somewhat, but the break even point for going for it on 4th and goal from the one would be a conversion rate of 42.9%, which would be a 40% lower rate than the field position independent conversion rate. I just don’t think there would be that big a drop-off in success at the goal line.
Again, situationally I thought it was the correct call to go for it, but that’s obviously very subjective.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Its not just a truncated playbook, its a more congested field. Defenders are closer to the line so if the sniff out a run, they can make a play more quickly (LB and safeties specifically). Also, passes must be even more precise due to the smaller area as there are more guys crammed into a small space. Angles and distances to make plays by the defense are greatly altered. The percentage changes a LOT which is why most teams take the points.
Changes by 40%?
I doubt it, but I also don’t have the information to back that up. On 4th and short plays on other parts of the field, LBs I’m sure are typically closer to the line than normal as well.
Again, it’s a difference of opinion and I’m ok with that. I’m just stating my case because I don’t think that the decision to kick a FG there is a “no-brainer” as some people have said.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
You are right
Sabremetrics is it’s own science, but it isn’t football (or baseball, where the sabremetric geeks love to play). You can’t score “slightly more than 5 points” on any single play in the NFL — the options are 2, 3 or 6 (plus 1 for an extra point). The situation in the game is what matters. Obviously, if you are down by two with five seconds left and it’s 4th-and-1 from the opponent’s 1 yard line, you kick the field goal (for “slightly less” than 3 points, I suppose); conversely, in the same situation but trailing by “slightly more than 5,” you go for the touchdown.
The point of avoiding criticism may be valid, but I don’t think that is the motivator. If you can expand your lead to 10, you should do it.
you are missing the point of sabermetrics
and I dont know how it works in football, but it is quite accurate in baseball
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
by blackoutsox on Oct 12, 2010 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions
By your logic
We should just throw out the fact that the Packers average 23.8 points per game because you can’t score 0.8 points in a game.
That’s a very close-minded argument. I would think you would realize that we’re talking about probabilities, and there is absolutely no reason that probabilities need to be whole numbers.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Again
Sabremetrics is its own game. It’s not good and it’s not bad, but it’s also not football and it’s not baseball. It’s something else entirely. Sabremetrics derives from underwriting principles that were developed originally for the insurance industry. I can rattle off sports statitistics with the best of you (BABIP anyone?), probably better, but that’s not the point.
For the last time, I will maintain that when a team has a chance to go up by 10 in the second quarter of a REAL FOOTBALL GAME, it should do so.
by ktenreb on Oct 12, 2010 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oh, wait
We’re talking about a REAL football game? I wish someone would have told me. *eyeroll
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Question
Quick, and wthout lookig it up, who was the best pitcher in MLB this year (regular season only), based on:
WHIP?
BABIP?
WAR?
CERA?
dERA?
ERA+?
You will get a different answer for all of them. The point is that all of these statistics are terrific, but they are only statistics.
Your point appears to be that it is always better to go for the touchdown when under your formula statistically doing so would result in better than 3 points. I disagree, and instead state that your formula has to be modified to take into consideration the score and the time remaining in the game. Coaches do this to a degree now when deciding whether to go for a two-point conversion.
Alright then
If you prefer, someone much smarter than me developed this formula for win expectancy. Using the second quarter information and SRS taken from here, a 10 point lead in the second quarter gives the Packers a 83.7% chance of winning, a 7 point lead gives them a 78.4% chance of winning, and a 14-point lead gives them a 89.15% chance of winning. The break even point for going for it on 4th down is 49.3%.
Is that a reasonable success rate for a 4th and goal from the one? I don’t think it’s unreasonable at least.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
by GoGregGo on Oct 12, 2010 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Plus this was pretty early in the game
and we didn’t know what our defense was going to do. It’s touch to assume 16 points will win you game when you’re fielding a 2nd string defense. If we’re fielding starters then maybe its a different story
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I guess we will just disagree
If it were 0 – 0 at the time, then yes I’d go for the TD. But it was 7 – 0 and a field goal gives us a 10-point lead. Now they have to score two touchdowns to take the lead. This was an obvious decision and, as I said, McCarthy boned it.
by ktenreb on Oct 11, 2010 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I completely disagree
We were up 7-0 at the time. A touchdown there completely takes the crowd out of the game and puts GB firmly in the driver’s seat. A FG is still a win for the defense in that situation; it’s really not that much more of a momentum shift kicking a FG vs. being stopped inches short of the goal line IMO.
The reward of going up 14-0 was significantly greater than the risk of giving Washington the ball at the 1 yard line at 7-0.
This isn’t directed at anyone in particular, but it seems like lots of people have been complaining about McCarthy being too conservative and are now turning around and saying we should have kicked a FG in that situation. Well which is it?
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Plus
Let’s not forget that Clay was BLATANTLY held on the next play and should’ve pulled a safety after the failed conversion. I can’t fault the decision to go for it but I will fault the play selection. Kuhn is a POWER back who grinds through people. Why does he not see the ball in their 2 attempts?
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions
terrible
every week I wonder if these games are rigged, that was a Safety. He was looking at the ref like Hello.
by Matthew Grassinger on Oct 11, 2010 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
If it is the Packers who do it, it's called.
If the Packers are the victims, it’s legal. Seriously, this is not sarcasm. I’m tired of seeing shows about crazy zebras when I turn on NFL games.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
I'd agree to an extent
I think it’s our own fault because under the MM regime we’ve set a precedence for being a highly penalized team and since we have that reputation, they’re quicker w/ the laundry then on other teams that are known for discipline. Does it suck? Yes. Do we have anyone else to blame but ourselves? Nope
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Excellent point.
Seems like the coaches haven’t taught the guys not to commit penalties. The best teams in the NFL are usually the ones who play clean games.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions
they coach them on technique all offseason
And used officials all during training camp to call penalitiis too. What more are they supposed to do? Teach them to play afraid of getting a penalty? That kills aggressiveness…
No idea.
You’d think they’d learn after a while.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions
sigh…the Vikings? I think i just got electrocuted after typing that. The Bea…oh nevermind on that one.
Others: The Lions, Eagles, Ravens (Bulger?), Giants, Dolphins, Steelers, Chargers, and Titans. Those are all teams with for sure good quality depth. There’s more but they aren’t OBVIOUSLY better…just arguably.
Injury list...
PUP: Bigby, Harris, Starks
IR: Grant, Harrell, Burnett, JOsh Bell, Blackmon
Injured: Rodgers, Finley, Matthews, Pickett, Barnett, Chillar, D Lee, Shields, Q Johnson, D Martin, Did I miss anyone else important
This is just sick…
eh yeah we might have…he was put on IR first and then I think we did an injury settlement or something.
The Packers are having trouble getting the ball to Greg Jennings against Cover-2 defenses, according to beat writer Greg Bedard.
Opponents are playing with two deep safeties to take away Green Bay’s vertical game, which has led to three straight two-catch games for Jennings. The playmaking wide receiver is clearly frustrated, declining to talk to the media following Sunday’s loss to the Redskins. Look for the Packers to make a concerted effort to get Jennings the ball over the next few weeks, although Aaron Rodgers’ concussion is a major concern.
How can we NOT adjust to this? So they are taking away the deep stuff so then you call different plays to get him open! This kind of crap is really annoying to read. We HAVE to learn to make better adjustments.
The obvious adjustment
The obvious adjustment is to run the ball. We aren’t doing that, and I’m not sure why. I wonder if McCarthy simply doesn’t believe in hs running backs or his O-line (I could understand that).
That’s the only thing I can think of but at the same time, did he really believe in the line to pass block? Having Rodgers drop back 46 times is never a good thing, especially since it was pretty clear that our OT’s were struggling more and more as the game went on. I just don’t think McCarthy is a very good coach. Whether it’s his inability to motivate and discipline the team or it’s his X’s and O’s, he just doesn’t seem to get it done.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2010 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
I still want to see Kuhn be the main back for a game and see how it works and then use JAckson as we always have…
Jackson was alright yesterday
I liked seeing him get more touches, even if it seemed a bit forced at times. Necessary to make play action work, so I’m all for some kind of running game, even if they’re decidedly in favor of BJax.
But I’m really wondering why Kuhn hasn’t been utilized the way he could be. You know you’re not going to get breakaway runs with him, but just to power into defensive lineman and make them a little hesitant.
And again – too much time in the huddle. Can’t give strong defenses the kind of time to set up, make replacements, etc…
"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi
And what makes that even worse is that Rodgers STILL tried to force the ball in to him (on his INT especially).
Our adjustments are shit. Ever notice we ALWAYS struggle in the 3rd quarter? I’m guessing that has a lot to do with our brilliant, innovative head coach/offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy.
Anybody else sick of this team constantly not living up to expectations? The defense played lights out most of the game, and had we put up at least 20 points (which shouldn’t have been hard to do), it wouldn’t have even been a game.
Our offensive game plan was a horrible one. Back and forth between I-Form sets and 5 wide sets. I know it was hard to believe, but the run game was actually working. Jackson averaged 11.5 ypc on 10 carries for 115 yards. And aside from that 71 yard gallop, he had 9 carries for 44 yards, well over 4 ypc. And Kuhn was averaging 4 ypc too. So why in the hell do we only run the ball 15 times?
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2010 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions
said it before and I'll say it again:
Packers’ conditioning coach needs to go.
Lots of “out of gas” injuries, past couple of games where players go out with cramps. I can maybe see this toward the end of a long season, but it’s unforgivable at this point in the season.
This brings up an interesting point
Is the failure to play as well in the second half of games due to poor overall conditioning or inability to make adjustments at halftime? I’ve up until now been in the camp of poor adjustments but that certainly is food for thought.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
both
it is definetly both, sometimes when you go into the half with a lead you make fewer adjustments because you feel successful in your scheme. Obviously the conditioning is terrible, this team won’t even make the play offs. I’m not pleased Martin was called for a chop, but Pickett got chopped right in front of a ref. He got tackled by the knee.
by Matthew Grassinger on Oct 11, 2010 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Playoffs? Don't talk about playoffs! You kidding me??? PLAYOFFS????
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Sloppy and Unfocused!
I couldn’t agree more! But.. I’m sure we all noticed the lack of pressure on McNabb with Clay “The Beast” Mathews sitting on the sidelines with an icepack. Along with all the other injuries to both our offensive weapons, and defensive headhunters. with Clay on the sidelines it allowed the Skins to move the ball. Yep, I would have given the ball to Kuhn and let him pound it on 4 and goal or even on 3rd and goal. It almost seems like MM gets too conservative in his playcalling, and Capers has his D flying all over the place.
That was on Dom imo
We switched to only 3 man rushes on like every play for some reason. It’s almost like we were up by 10 and went into prevent mode and we all know how that works. As you saw on the drive near the end when he started bringing pressure again we got to the QB.
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions
I’ve been saying this forever now, it’s classic Capers. He always goes into those ultra-conservative style defenses in late game situations. Rush three and drop the rest into zone coverage. It’s a problem when we have all of our guys healthy but it’s an even bigger problem when our best pass rusher is out, and our other two are tired (Jenkins and Raji).
Finally, in overtime he seemed to realize that blitzing was going to be the only way for us to stop them, and what do you know, we actually stopped them.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2010 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions
I know
It’s actually been a lot of your posts that started me down this line of thinking and I’ve actually been looking for it and noticing it in the past few games a lot
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions
Let's have a group therapy session
Everyone take a deep breath. Exhale.
Now everyone say “This is a mediocre team.” Deep breath. Exhale.
This team, as just about every other team under MM, has no grit or killer instinct. They prey on bad teams and roll over when the going gets tough. We’re now two games behind the Bears who, despite their paper-based flaws, are winning games. That’s more than this team can say.
We are the NFC equivalent of the Denver Broncos.
It's not a mediocre team
But it is constructed poorly. It relied on an average running back who is now injured (no surprise, since RBs regularly get injured), and there is no replacement. It relies on aging offensive tackles who played okay last year, and while Bulaga was a nice pickup, he is getting bounced all over the line (LT, LG and RT so far), which is not good for his development. The offense relies almost exclusively on the QB, who has a concussion, and there isn’t any experienced depth.
In 2008 McCarthy and Favre had no running game, and so they went with the 5 WR sets and Favre had one of his best years. Rodgers doesn’t seem to have the ability to read coverages that quickly. I think that Rodgers needs to have some sort of threat at RB to play at a superior level, and when he doesn’t have that threat he doesn’t have the same success.
Very rarely.
A lot of that depends on them having a set of Finley, Driver, Jennings, Nelson, and James Jones going out wide.
To be honest, I haven’t seen it all that often.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions
apparently only in 3rd and long. Why not come out in a 5w on first or 2nd. do we even run a 4 wide single back anymore? Yeah I didn’t care for the GL play calling.
by Matthew Grassinger on Oct 11, 2010 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions
Good question! The 5 wide set is one that requires the Qb getting the ball out quick. So why did we line up in it on third down’s yesterday? Especially considering they blitzed us almost every time we lined up in it. Just stupid game planning and play calling by McCarthy.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2010 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Everyones complaining that McCarthy called a poor game, but if he goes 5 WR against all out blitzes, think he did 4 WR, it makes it all the more likely to get Rodgers hit! Which is what caused his concussion!
I know Favre did it early in 07, but he was a 15 yr vet… Rodgers is a 3rd yr starter! Little different.
Which is it? Should he be more aggresive and go 5 WR? or should he keep TE and RB in the game to pick up the blitz and keep Rodgers clean but have fewer playmakers to help us move the ball, when we needed to move it to win!
SIck of all the 2nd guessing and questioning McCarthy’s game plan/play calling!
I don’t 2nd guess it cuz I know he is better at it than most HC and better than EVERY one of us fans!!!
Maybe if he showed some commitment to the run
then the defense can’t afford to all out blitz because they have to watch for the run a little bit
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions
See I don’t see the proof for you feeling that way. What makes you think he’s better than most (and don’t say cause some analyst said so please)?
I don’t mind if you are okay with him, that is your right, just like its our right to feel like he deserves his share of the blame (not Necc. for the 4th down decision though).
Yes it is my opinion
And yes… It does Seem to me that every time I hear someone talking about McCarthy’s offense he get credit for being an innovative and aggressive playcaller! And it is also my opinion that he is good…
The only place/time I ever hear of his playcalling being poor is by Packer fans! NO one else says that and mostly say just the opposite! I’ll go w/ the analysts like Young and Dilfer over you guys… Sorry!
I know an expert that doesn’t like the playcalling, his name is Aaron Rodgers…heard of him?
http://host.madison.com/sports/columnists/jim_polzin/article_d5ea93b2-d1b4-11df-84bb-001cc4c03286.html
All QB's would always like to throw more!
I remember Rodgers kinda being critical w/o actually saying it. He said something to the effect of putting the ball in the playmakers hands. That means more throwing and even less running! Everyone I’ve been hearing is complaining that the Packers aren’t running enough. So the fans are also being critical of the playcalling but for entirely different reasons! Rodgers wants to throw more and fans want to run more.
From what I remember thats Rodgers only beef w/ the playcalling.. He wants more passing!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
I dont know if he's better then most in the league
His teams seem to always under-preform which is the sign of a bad coach. And he’s better then all of us. That doesn’t make him good at his job. It makes him better then people who arent doing that for a living. I bet you I’m better at running an NMR spec then most people here. That doesn’t make me good at it, just better then others who aren’t doing it for a living
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions
...
But it is constructed poorly. It relied on an average running back who is now injured (no surprise, since RBs regularly get injured), and there is no replacement. It relies on aging offensive tackles who played okay last year, and while Bulaga was a nice pickup, he is getting bounced all over the line (LT, LG and RT so far), which is not good for his development. The offense relies almost exclusively on the QB, who has a concussion, and there isn’t any experienced depth.
You say potato, I say potato…
Mediocre doesn’t mean each individual player is mediocre. A mediocre team means that the sum of all its parts is mediocre. And you pretty much just agreed with me. This team, as a whole, is mediocre. Individually, sure, there are some good parts. But football is less of an individual game and more of a team effort.
what, no hate on Rodgers now?
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
by blackoutsox on Oct 11, 2010 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Totally agree. We have high level talent but the way the team is constructed and used is flawed. You can’t drop back 40+ times with Clifton and Tauscher. They just can’t handle it. Both always seem to start slow, warm up a bit and play well, and then they seem to slow down towards the end of games. There just has to be more balance but even that’s a problem, because we have an average offensive line and average running back. That’s not a good combo. Often times, either the offensive line doesn’t open anything up, or the offensive line does open something up and our running back doesn’t see it.
It happened with Grant all the time, and now we’re seeing it happen with Jackson and Kuhn. Though, Jackson actually ran the ball pretty well yesterday. But ultimately, it just results in a pretty poor running game, which in turn makes the offense one dimensional.
Agreed on the 5 wide sets. It’s either Rodgers doesn’t read things well, or he just likes to lock into certain guys. I personally think it’s a little of both. I noticed quite a few instances where he had underneath guys open when we lined up in our 5 wide sets but he instead tried to force the ball down field.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2010 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions
Going for it on fourth down was the right call
Even if you say it’s a 50/50 shot (which it definitely is more), you expect to score at least 3.5 points (0.50 * 7 points for the TD and PAT). 3.5 > 3.0, so McCarthy made the right decision.
The play call on third down (the QB sneak) was subpar. It’s even worse if Aaron Rodgers was potentially concussed on the play, which was pointed out by Greg Bedard. Consider this:
Prior to the QB sneak — 13/16 for 149 yards and 1 TD (9.31 AYPA)
After the failed sneak — 14/30 for 144 yards, 4 sacks, and one INT (2.53 AYPA)
No matter how you slice it, something was dramatically different about the offense after that play.
by CommissionerDan on Oct 11, 2010 9:38 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Maybe it goes without saying, but those stats pre- and post-sneak are Aaron Rodgers’ passing numbers.
by CommissionerDan on Oct 11, 2010 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions
OMG
A sebremetrics geek. Um, I played college ball and I have been watching the Packers since 1967 (I was 6 years old at the time), and I have never seen a team score 3.5 points on any play.
Sabremetrics is not football, just like it is not baseball. It’s something else — not the real game.
If you would rather look at it from a subjective, non-logical standpoint — let me ask you this question:
Did you ever play in a football game you deserved to win when your offense couldn’t gain one yard? (Even worse, on two plays?)
by CommissionerDan on Oct 11, 2010 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions
LOL
I’m guessing your one of those people who determine whether a pitcher is good by looking at their win total.
Look, no one is saying sabermetrics are the end-all be-all, but they are extremely useful in helping us understand certain aspects of sports. And pulling out the “I played football” card makes you look even more silly.
by All Day, All Night on Oct 11, 2010 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions
So, the best way to determine who's a good baseball player is to look at a player's batting average?
Or a pitcher’s win total?
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree with you that I would have like to see the FG kicked because it would have made it a two score game but the offensive line should be able to get enough push for us to get one yard.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2010 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions
I think halftime happened
Shannahan made adjustments, MM didn’t
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree 100%
Every game so far we’ve run up 2 score leads (except Buffalo they are that bad) only to have them vanish in the second half. It’s like our coaches think the other team is’nt going to adjust at the half. Just because it worked in the fierst half doesn’t mean it’ going to work in the second half. You have to put your self in thier shoes. And have two different game plans.
I’m not a fan of going for it unless your desperate, points on the board are better than points off the board. And I don’t know why we abandonded the running game especially after Finley went out? Finley is what keeps the passing game going DUH!!. Look at last year before and after Finley. When Finley came in the passing game opened up huge. I wish MM would have some faith in his running backs, TJack was having the game of his career I don’t know what game everybody else was watching but just about every time we ran the ball we had possitive yards!! The Skins were practically living in our back field in the second half. where’s the screen play the dink and dunk. They should use Khun on 3rd and short. I’ m Very frustrated with being out coached every sunday. I hope we don’t make Childress look like genius again. This is looking like an 8-8 team right now?
BJack**
TJack is the Vikings hope after Favre retires
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions
That is a matter of opinion. lol
-
TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!
Wow, here is a very interesting stat...
Before the QB sneak on third and goal, Rodgers was 13-16 for 149 yrds 1 TD after 14- 30 144 yards 1 INT…
Bedard is speculating that Rodgers may have been concussed earlier than the last play on offense in OT. That makes sense. Maybe even during that 3rd and goal sneak.
It’s speculation, we will get the definitive answer soon.
I heard the announcers say that Rodgers looked “woozy” after that play. It is absolutely my belief that if he is, in fact, concussed - that it happened during the QB sneak.
"False start: the whole offensive line." -Hocculi
Have to disagree
The INT play toward the end of the game it was clear that Rodgers got his head snapped back and into the turf, and then Orakpo hit his helmet back into Rodgers too. That had to be the play he got concussed. Not some play where he allegedly looked “woozy”… Rodgers got up and yelled at the ref soon as the hit to his head!
It is probably both
A concussion doesn’t have to happen on a single hit. It can be the result of a series of hits to the head, which seems to be a possibility in this case.
by Danwood on Oct 11, 2010 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
He was probably a little shaken after that sneak
but I don’t think it was the concussion. I think the drop off in play was a direct result of Shannahan out-coaching MM and making good halftime adjustments when we didn’t
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions
woodson
chuckie duckie isn’t as impressive when he doesn’t use his aggressive style to force a TO, if you get called for PI twice you better get one INT. it looked like our guys were getting hatched out there, too. I can’t remember the last time I saw so many drops. the QB sneak on 3rd anG was stupid not only predictable but injurious. Rodgers wasn’t very good after that play. he could’ve run out of bounds with a first down and 31 seconds but he stayed in bounds. u better have brain damage for that one.
by Matthew Grassinger on Oct 11, 2010 11:11 AM CDT reply actions
defense was gassed
I just think the defense was dog-tired by the end. Woodson never skips a play, and Washington was throwing non-stop. All those injuries mean not only inferior players, but probably less rotation, since the backups’ backups are not NFL-ready. Those PIs were all correct calls, and Woodson just looked like a tired 35 yr old reaching. Indeed, I thought the Packers got away with at least 3 other PIs that weren’t called.
I’m sure the defense was tired, and it was probably because once again our offense (the "strength of our team mind you) couldn’t move the ball at all in the second half. It’s just unacceptable for our offense to look that bad.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2010 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions
one of the disadvantages of not having a strong running game…time of possession isn’t as good and our D can get tired. Good observation.
The lack of a good run game hurts us in a lot more aspects
No run game is why we suck on short yardage situations, which leads to lots of 3 and outs which kills our field position which is why when we have long 60-70 yard drives we’re not in the endzone and have to settle for fgs instead of tds
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, exactly. How many third and shorts did we fail on yesterday? Way too many.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2010 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think it is so much as a lack of a run game.
It is a lack of COMMITMENT to the run game. We ran the ball 17 times for 157 yards, which in and of itself is pretty good. Now let’s discount the 71 yard run on the big one by Bjack. That leaves us with 16 carries at 86 yards which is about 5.4 yards a carry. At least in this game, the run game was having some success outside of the big run.
Attempts by game:
Detroit – 22 rushes 92 yards 4.4 ypc
Chicago – 15 rushes 63 yards 4.2 ypc
Buffalo – 27 rushes!!!! 91 yards 3.4 ypc :(
Philadelphia – 33 rushes!!! 132 yards 4.0 ypc
Our commitment has definately trailed off in the latter games, which could demonstrate why we may be having some troubles. Rodgers has 19 carries for 99 yards at 5.2 ypc clip.
by Bush League All Star on Oct 11, 2010 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Thats true
I meant to put that in I promise. Even commitment to a poor run game at least makes defenses think we could run it. I’ve mentioned it elsewhere here but its def the fact that we run 10-15 times and then we’re done
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions
That much I will agree with...
Even w/ that though I don’t know that the Packers are that much more pass heavy than Indy and New Orleans just to name a few… BTW they were the participants in the SB last year!
They play in domes
so the weather isn’t a big factor for them and allows them to have a bigger gap between pass/run. We can’t win games in november/december/january in Green Bay dropping back 50+ times
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions
IMO, early in seasons McCarthy purposely uses the passing game alot more and then starts using the run more late in the year! Seems to have been that way since he arrived! And I don’t think its by accident!
I agree that he does use the run more later
we’ll have to see if he does it again
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
When your offense doesn't control the ball..
In that heat it starts to take it’s toll on the defense to stay out there
What you see is what you get
I had pretty high hopes before the season, but the current Packers team – the one with all the backups and backups to backups starting – is mediocre or worse. I agree that TT should have gone after Lynch once Grant went down, but in retrospect, it wouldn’t have mattered. No team can survive this many injuries to starters (and now, if Finley/Matthews/Rodgers miss any more time, to stars) and contend for a title. Kevin Greene is now their best pass rusher.
To me, the injuries are just awful luck – it’s moved past disappointing to surreal. Blaming the conditioning coach is ridiculous. You think CMIII wasn’t in good shape? Knees/ankles/shoulders/concussions – just bad luck.
What really annoyed me yesterday more than anything was all the dropped passes. I stopped counting at 8, but I think there were more. Driver had 4. If Rodgers has no running game and no TEs, his WRs MUST make the routine catches. That was, quite literally, adding insult to injury.
I think he still should have gone after Lynch
If we have a decent run game then I’m betting some of these injuries (especially the Aaron one) don’t happen. Also, didn’t Ryan go down w/ something striking similar to what took Dorsey Levens down and pretty much ended his career. Why do we all think Ryan will come back 100% next year, and even if he does, I still think Lynch is a better back then Ryan and would rather have him starting next season
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions
The only way we would've got Lynch
Is if by some quirk he was allowed to enter the 2011 draft and get drafted again.
At this point, Packers Fans need to realize that TT is not going out to get any sort of big name/position FA. Even if Rodgers and Flynn both were out for multiple weeks at the same time TT would be signing some practice squad guy after 4 games of Kuhn at QB.
idk
how you don’t score in a goalline situation, you did in the first quarter. line up 4 wide if the go heavy jpass to the missmatch, if they go dime or nickel run up the gut. is there anything worse in the run game then getting flagged for holding on a dive, if you have Quarless in don’t run. if we don’t make the playoffs, can we fire MM.
by Matthew Grassinger on Oct 11, 2010 11:19 AM CDT reply actions
LA cheese should comment on someone elses post.
You are obviously a fair weather fan.
by Matthew Grassinger on Oct 11, 2010 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions
I hope so. He’s a bonehead. The team never improves in any aspect, or in any of it’s weak aspects. It’s the same damn thing over and over and over again. What will it take for Thompson to realize enough is enough?
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2010 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions
No idea.
The Packers have tried letting four of their opponents pull comebacks. Two of those comebacks worked, the other two did not.
Enough is enough.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions
return game
I am convinced that our conditioning is awful, tramon williams should have had 2 tds yesterday, one punt return and the INT return. His blockers ran outta gas slowed down and blocked him in, you don’t see alot of NFL teams denying there own returners
by Matthew Grassinger on Oct 11, 2010 11:24 AM CDT reply actions
Whoa there!
Strohman is extremely annoying and I certainly understand getting frustrated at him (his excessive use of exclamation points grates on me), but YOU CANNOT USE LANGUAGE LIKE THIS. Assuming you don’t get banned (probably a bad assumption on my part), you have to engage in respectful dialogue, but you cannot resort to offensive name calling.
seriously! That was uncalled for. Wow.
By the way Matthew Grassinger, I would avoid using your real name for stuff like this, it pretty easy to find info about you out there…
Seriously,
CALM DOWN. I can understand getting upset by the game yesterday, but this is overboard. End of story.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Also ... flagged.
Very inappropriate.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions
a good chuckle
http://www.theonion.com/articles/randy-moss-frustrated-to-learn-he-was-traded-for-b,18225/
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
offense
The only thing wrong w/ the offense yesterday was that it lost its top 2 TE too injury very early in the game! Packers offense is very heavy on TE! It took away all the gameplanning done during the week… We use so many multiple TE looks that half the playbook was taken away after the first 2 series! Think about this:
2 WR, 2 TE looks can become 3 WR 1 TE just by moving Finley out. Or it can be a power run play! Defense can’t adapt to that easily, especially w/ Finleys ability! We use soo much 2 TE allignment that when they were both lost it cost us a HUGE part of our weekly gameplan! Wish you guys would understand that kinda logic!!!
Football is a team game
And good teams step up when someone goes down. Good teams find ways to work around issues when their game plan fails for whatever reason.
All I hear around here are excuses because something happens mid game that changes from “what they planned for.” You will never hear MM say that because that points to a mentally week team. Football is a fluid game. Any team that cannot adapt to changing in-game scenarios deserves to lose, period.
true but...
Football is a team game
And good teams step up when someone goes down. Good teams find ways to work around issues when their game plan fails for whatever reason.
True. But when half the team goes down, you eventually run out of stepper-uppers. The Packers are like the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail. No arms, no legs, but still trying to fight.
u r a moron
that is a deep position, did you watch yesterdays game little kid. Maybe you should get back to your schoolwork.
by Matthew Grassinger on Oct 11, 2010 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Was Finley or Lee on the field at the time?
Deep yes, but we needed playmakers at the time! The only ones left were the WR… So I guess we would have won if you were HC, cuz you know soo much more about game planning than McCarthy! Or do you think they don’t specifically game plan for ways to utilize Finley?!
So the “kid” is the one that didn’t call someone else names!!! Mommy called you to beddie bye!!! Go to bed now litttle BOY!!!
Don't stoop to his level
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
by GoGregGo on Oct 11, 2010 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Do you do anything besides call people names?
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions
The problem though is that these problems have been there before the injuries. I will agree that in this game, losing Finley and then Lee put us in a tough spot (good thing TT kept 4 TEs huh? haha) but its not like this went from being a 350 yard a game passing team to nothing. The passing attack continued to look the same…just not right. We lost Finley last year and our team didn’t shut down and we have better TEs behind him now that can still create some mismatches.
Exactly. No doubt losing them hurt but it still doesn’t change the fact that we’ve looked out of sorts on offense all year long.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2010 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
As bad it looks some times good things happen..
the second string players get a rare chance to shine, maybe BJack, Quarless, Khun, etc… get there time in the lime light that they never would of other than preseason. It would look good in a future sense. Just saying.
OK so losing two TE works for yesterday?
what about Detroit the previous week? at what point will you admit that maybe this offense isn’t as dynamic as it should be whether thats because the players are over-rated or the coaching isn’t game planning/play calling properly?
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions
GA, you must not be wearing your Green and Gold tinted shades
This is an elite offense /sarcasm
I know I'm a horrible fair weather fan for it lol
maybe I can get Stroh to send me a pair… Dude’s gotta be rockin like 5 or 6 sets right now
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not happy, but I'm not freakin either.
Offense just hasn’t gotten it going yet! Why is anyone guess… And everyone has an opinion why!
Can I ask what your opinion is
Going back to opening week in Philly, most people can agree we played a poor game offensively. The only decent game we’ve had on offense this year was in Buffalo and we probably should’ve gotten more in that game. So back when we were relatively healthy the offense still wasn’t clicking
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Opening game most offenses struggled.
Look at New Orleans this season… They’re stuggling to score as much as we are.
Like I said in another comment a little while ago. Lots of reasons… Aging OT can’t run block as well, maybe defenses are getting better. I know we haven’t been as good as I thought we would be. But putting a finger on just one thing is impossible.
I just know nobody was questioning McCarthy’s play calling when we were scoring alot last year and McCarthy wouldn’t change his play calling if he isn’t forced to by injuries. So I don’t think his play calling is lacking.
Can’t say I know the answer… Probably means its not an easy question to answer or that its more than just one thing.
When did we score bunches last year?
I only count three games: Polamalu-less Steelers and hapless Seahawks, then Cards in the playoffs. I’m pretty sure there was a lot of second guessing of MM last year.
Take out the statistical outlier (Seahawks)
And that’s down to 28 points, which is in line with the total season average for 2009. Not my definition of bunches of points.
My definition of “bunches of points” is the 2007 Patriots, who averaged nearly 37 points a game.
Leage average was 21 points last year
- in absolute scoring. #30 in strength of schedule, however. Again, not my definition of “bunches of points.” Good, yes.
That is # 1
Sometimes I hate SB Nations’ autoformatting…
So they were #1 in absolute scoring and #3 in strength of schedule?
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions
3 in absolute scoring, 30 in SOS
Sorry for the mixup
Ah, gotcha.
I’ve never tried autoformatting like that.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd agree w/ that
it’s definitely a combo of several different things. I know we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this. And I think it’s winner’s syndrome (I’m sure it has some other name) but when things are working everything is good but when things start go south people express their concerns more (see the Jets 8-3 start w/ Favre). I think a lot of people’s complaints this year are MM is staying the course w/ his play calling and not adjusting, but it’s not working and it’s on him as a HC to change things to make them work then to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result (isn’t that the definition of insanity?
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Not speaking for Stroh
But the dominant opinion on here seems to have been:
Week 1: First week jitters, loss of Grant ruined “game plan”
Week 2: Played down to competition, everyone else in the NFL looks horrible too
Week 3: Couldn’t get into a rhythm due to penalties, blame MM
Week 4: Detroit was just that good
Hey I never said the offense has been stellar or even sufficient! Theres lots of explanations. Losing Grant has for now cost us a adequate running game. OT not being able to run block anymore. Blame the zbs too…
Not just that easy to say its one thing. Lots of contributing factors, IMO.
I think we just all assume that cause we haven’t seen a comment leading us to think you think anything is wrong. Maybe we just need a little more balance from you to get the true feel for what you are thinking about the team. I think you are just overcompensating on the rosiness due to all the negativity, right?
possible
I know we haven’t play up to our abiltiy on offense. I don’t know the answer and as much as I think I know about Football I know the HC and players know a hell of a lot more than I do… And if they’re having trouble figuring it out, how can an armchair QB know?!!
2nd guessing doensn’t help matters any.
to state the obvious
we are the detroit lions now, did you see their score. There was a transition last week: Detroit learned what it takes to dominate and GB perfected losing.
by Matthew Grassinger on Oct 11, 2010 12:06 PM CDT reply actions
Yes, the 1-4 Lions learned what it takes to dominate
The Packers are now the Detroit Lions? That’s quite the overreaction you’ve got there.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
He's a troll
Brandon will deal with him. Don’t argue with him any more.
I don't know
There are some sites where the moderator loves nothing better than to play to his 10 or so loyal homies and make a big show of banning somebody. Usually, such moderators are creepy and from Iowa where they once were political wannabes. The much better way of dealing with posters who are truly out of line would be to quietly suspend or ban them; I assume that this is Brandon’s approach.
I got warned once on this site for messing with some whiner whose name was “FavreSucks,” but the warning to me was in a private message (and come to think of it, I believe it was from Mitchell, not Brandon). That was a good way to handle it.
You must be one of the 10
Give my regards the next time you’re in Des Moines.
I know
All about being banned from a blog… Got it from the DN… For saying that Rodgers was a better QB than TJack… Back when Rodgers was about to start his first season.
On APC, I have never heard of anyone being banned… Ever… Would actually like to see Brandon be a little more strict… I just haven’t ever heard it or seen it… Think Brandon is entirely too easy on them.
I think
we should have a tax on exclamation points and elipses.
That post didn't have any.
And I’m in withdrawl from lack of usage in general lately. Rehab is rough! LOL
...
that
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
Let's not tax the elipses
I love using those things to separate points
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions
packerslayer got banned
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
hes emailed others and told them to clean it up
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
Revenge4Favre?
dsludo?
Either is a possibility.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions
GGGarner was another
Actually, his name was “GGGamer” but it got under his skin to call him the wrong name. I’m sure he still participates, albeit under another name.
oh my god
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
I don't really remember him.
What was he like?
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions
he was fine, ktenreb was trolling him specifically
and drove him away
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
haha yeah that was him R4F! Dsludo is right up there…seems like they are multiplying out there these days. I just stopped by for the first time in a month and it seemed like 1 of 4 was a flame throwing crazy person…including the guy who runs it who went from being cool to crazy at some point early in the season. I don’t know how guys like PJ and the others put up with it.
Adam Lawson?
Our favorite troll from last January? Do you remember him, or not really?
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Brandon usually is no-nonsense about this sort of thing.
Those of you around during the playoff game thread last January might remember Adam Lawson, or whatever his name was. He was about the same as Matthew above.
Brandon kept banning AL, and he kept coming back. Eventually, AL ran out of names and just gave up. He was banned of APC no fewer than three times.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Finley out 3 weeks after surgery
Jason La Canfora on Twitter:
\
Jermichael Finley has minor knee scope. Expected to be out three weeks. More Pack injury news to come
Fukudometer: Created 3/31/08 Wrigley Debut 4/5/08 WGN and Japan TV Debut 4/6/08 Sun Times Debut: 4/20/08 Coffee Table Debut: 7/17/08 (http://www.wearecubsfans.com)
Ugh.
Sure would have been nice to have an earlier BYE week this season. Oh well. Here’s hoping Quarless can do more next week – I thought he was decent in the passing game yesterday despite little preparation. But I imagine the extra week of 1st-team practice snaps will improve his blocking.
OUCH! That sucks, I wonder if they’ll just keep him out until the bye then. Not sure if its worth it to rush him back for one week and then have the bye.
Alright so is Quarless or Crabtree going to be THE GUY while he’s out?? I think on of these guys could step in and create a name for themselves! Crabby had a nice catch in the game yesterday.
Was Finley ready to do it as a rookie?
Like Quarless alot, he has all the physical ability to do it… But he just isn’t ready to take on that kinda role, IMO… Whats the word on Lee… He’s the only one who’s adequately capable of taking on a Finley-like role in the offense!
They will likely try to get Quarless more playing time, but he isn’t ready for anything like that…
OH I agree…but we don’t have a choice now…he’s getting his time whether he’s ready or not! haha My point was that he’s going to get some extended PT and hopefully he’ll be learning on the job. If things go well it would be really fun to march him and Finley out as the scariest 2 TE set out there!
So you throw him to the wolves and make him sink or swim? Or isn’t it better to gradually get him more involved and rely on the WR more in the passing game? Seems thats a better alternative… We know the WR are more than capable!
8 dropped passes is sure capable lol
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions
I think the dropped passes are important here. When one WR drops passes, you figure they’re having an off day. Maybe you think the same for two, but when virtually all of them do, something may be wrong with the QB. It looked like Rodgers was pushing the ball a bit, with too much “zing” on it maybe. Looked like Rodgers was trying to force a win singlehandedly, which is not a good thing (think all those Favre INTs over the years).
Instead of speculating that Rodgers was concussed on the sneak, I’d wager he was frustrated from that play forward.
Maybe having more runs would’ve calmed him down, maybe not as we’ll never know.
I know that blaming Rodgers is likely to get my fancard and secret decoder ring revoked, but there it is.
You can't compare Finley to Quarless
because Quarless played in college for 4 years, whereas Finley came out early.
by ceverettsdinosaurs on Oct 11, 2010 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Hardly
I’ve been rooting for the Packers since the early 1970s – when they absolutely stunk. I heard tales from my father about the Lombardi teams, but was born too late to enjoy them. Pointing out that the Packers have been reduced to a B-team due to injuries is hardly being a fair-weather fan. It’s being realistic. I’m still a fan. I’ll still watch every play of every game, and root hard for success. But with the practice squad starting, I won’t expect as much. Indeed, lower (more realistic) expectations will make every success that does come that much sweeter.
Sorry again
That was supposed to be a reply to Matthew Grassinger on Oct 11, 2010 9:55 AM PDT. The page didn’t reload, and when it did, it put my comment in the wrong place.
My level of dedication doesn’t change either…just cause I am upset about where things are doesn’t mean I don’t love them or watch any less of the games. I think we have a pretty loyal fan base and I do still think we can turn this ship around but the injuries are going to make it really tough.
anger/frustration
From a fans perspective is normal… But completely useless! you can’t do anything about any of it… Let it go…
From McCarthy's Press Conference Today
(Would you have to move Harrell up from the practice squad?)
I don’t feel that way today, but that is definitely an option.
(Who would be your emergency quarterback?)
I really wouldn’t want to get into our third quarterback because I think it would be pretty clear probably on how we would go about that situation, but we do have a third-quarterback plan that we have been operating with for the last two years.
So, what kind of third-quarterback plan could they’ve had for two years if they just signed Harrell to the PS this season? Can Kuhn play QB? Woodson? WTH is going on here?
As to Finley and Barnett, looks like we may have a timeline for recovery as early as tomorrow on Finley and Wednesday for Barnett. MM says they have a local doctor available for the independent review of Rodgers, so who knows when we’ll hear on that, but we might not get any advanced notice without him having to fly out.
I think he may be referring to having Brohm before Harrell
Though I could be wrong about that because I remember a receiver (I think Ruvell Martin) was slated at one time as capable of being a QB though he has also been gone for over a year.
How can he not address that
our line is pretty porous and is leading to a lot of rushes and QB pressure. To go into a game w/ 1 healthy QB is rediculous
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
I think if it comes down to Rodgers being out we probably need to bring in some veteran talent to back up Flynn. We can’t march Harrell out there…maybe Garcia or someone with a west coast offense background (geez though he’s got to be ancient!)
Bring Back Flutie
he can kick for us ( he was the one that did the drop kick thing right?)
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Time to break out the flag button here
Thome Walks-Off Sox, Twists Knife, Continues To Make Sox Brass Look REALLY Stupid - White Sox Season Recap
SHOcking stat I heard on ESPN radio this morning...
The Packers have had 17 4th quarter possessions this year — and just one touchdown. And the Packers, the longer the game goes on, do worse.
that’s one of things I miss about Ryan Grant, he seem to get better and better as the game wore on.
But I’m also wondering, is this a large enough sample size? I mean, Rodgers did direct THREE touchdown drives up in Pittsburgh in the 4th quarter last year (fell short because we had a street free agent playing corner, josh bell)
I think it goes back to play calling
We get these leads and then take our foot off the gas and let teams come back into the game. We play to not lose the game in the 3rd and 4th Q and with all the 3 and outs we get kill any rhythm we have so we’re not scoring in the 4th because we have no rhythm built up
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Oct 11, 2010 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
^ This ^
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
Mount Washington conquered July 5, 2010! State high point count: 3/50
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 11, 2010 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Wow according to Bedard...
Finley is out 3 to 6 weeks…big loss
sorry for stating the obvious...
This is just one of those years. We have so much potential. Just one of them years.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Report: Tebow sends cease and desist letter to maker of Jesus-y Jets T-shirts
- Joe McKnight says too much McDonald’s helped him gain 16 pounds in offseason
- Nick Mangold says goodbye to some chest hair on ‘Late Night with Jimmy Fallon’
- Saints will honor suspended Sean Payton with empty chairs
- Junior Seau’s home burglarized just days after his death
