Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Heating Up: Miami Evens Series; LeBron, Wade Take Charge

Packers Game Ball: Packers Lose Another Close One, 17-20

Photo

The Green Bay Packers have lost four games this season. They've lost them all by exactly three points. 

If QB Aaron Rodgers isn't the player of the game for doing everything on offense, then I don't know who deserves it. Nice game tying catch by WR Jordy Nelson.

There weren't a lot of flashy stats on defense, but I picked CB Charles Woodson and CB Tramon Williams because they took WR Roddy White out of the game. Five receptions for 49 yards is nice, but White's arguably the best receiver in the NFL, and the Falcons were forced to dink-and-dunk their way down the field.

Poll
Who was the game MVP for the Packers in their 17-20 loss to the Falcons?
Aaron Rodgers
654 votes
Jordy Nelson
73 votes
Charles Woodson
9 votes
Tramon Williams
18 votes

754 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 231 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

DUR DUR FIRE MCCARTHY LOLZ

I just…please pass me the shotgun so I can avoid games like this in the future. Rodgers was gold, defense played alright. Thought the play calling on the last drive was spot on. Ridiculous loss against a great team. If Slocum has a job with the Packers next year at least I have a new team to go to.

by sicklebeat on Nov 28, 2010 3:08 PM CST reply actions  

Well played, Atlanta

One major miscue (fumble on the ATL 1 yard line) and one last-stand fail (4th-and-1 TD by Turner) turned this game from a solid win into a close loss. If they played this game 10 times, both teams would win 5 of them.

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell Maurer on Nov 28, 2010 3:10 PM CST reply actions   2 recs

rodgers

he played well for the most part. no one stood out on defense. man our running game sucks. our line doesn’t block well enough to allow our poor rb’s to do much.

by gangstaff on Nov 28, 2010 3:14 PM CST reply actions  

Rodgers

The only reason we even hung around this game was because of Rodgers. He was a one man offense for most of the game. If he doesn’t fumble that TD push Packers win.

MVP of the game is totally Rodgers.

by PackApologist on Nov 28, 2010 3:16 PM CST reply actions  

Can we give the game ball to Slocum as a going away present?

***Free FreeBradshaw***
Photoshop Gallery: http://img704.imageshack.us/g/ggbg.jpg/

by Jedi Master A-Rod on Nov 28, 2010 3:19 PM CST reply actions  

lol nice

"Coach Gundy, why was Oklahoma able to march right down the field against you?" --Erin Andrews

by dishingoutdimes on Nov 28, 2010 3:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Okay, we didn't win

but this can still be a productive sunday. Let’s go Ravens and Eagles.

"Tragedy is what happens to me. Comedy is what happens to you." -Mel Brooks

by jobe on Nov 28, 2010 3:29 PM CST reply actions  

Football is a game of who makes the fewest mistakes

And that is why we cannot close out games. The mistakes were numerous. The long conversions on 3rd and 4th down for Atlanta alone were reason to lose. Remember the 3rd and 15 where we had two chances to tackle and make it 4th and 5+ and instead let them get within 2 yards, they convert and go on to score on the possession? How about 3rd and 8 where Roddy White (pretty sure it was) caught the ball at the Line of Scrimmage, juked 2 of our guys, then plowed through 2 more to get the first down?

Yeah, it’s a moral victory to lose by 3 points to the top team in the NFC. But at the end, unless we clean up our act, teams like Atlanta will clean our clock if we make the playoffs, just like the Cards more or less did last year.

by Danwood on Nov 28, 2010 3:30 PM CST reply actions  

There was some slight sarcasm in that statement

I don’t believe in moral victories, but I did hear the Vikings won the moral superbowl last year.

by Danwood on Nov 28, 2010 5:29 PM CST up reply actions  

yeah

but this is the 4th tuff loss this yr. 4th game that we beat ourselves. We play just good enough to lose.

by bigbill992001 on Nov 29, 2010 2:29 AM CST up reply actions  

Damn another heart breaker! Now let’s root for the Eagles to beat the Bears! Great game Aaron!

"Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect."

Vince Lombardi

by CaliSeth on Nov 28, 2010 3:31 PM CST via mobile reply actions  

Give it to the entire team: EXCEPT SPECIAL TEAMS

3 losses that packers can blame completely on the special teams. Poor field position all game due to poor returning. Poor kick coverage, and terrible penalties. Everyone gets the ball except special teams

by Ryanweiss13 on Nov 28, 2010 3:32 PM CST reply actions  

Does anyone else miss Ryan Grant as much as I do?

Awesome game by Rodgers, but it’s also embarrassing when your QB has the most rushing yards (unless you’re Philly with Vick). I think the biggest thing that hurt us was the fact that we had to turn to the damn passing game on those 2nd-and-short and 3rd-and-short plays….

by LambeauLeap12 on Nov 28, 2010 3:33 PM CST reply actions  

I do. Brandon Jackson has not made that step up.

It would be nice to have a running game, but that also includes having linemen to block for it as well. A lot of times it seemed like Bjack was getting hit almost immediately after getting the ball.

by Bush League All Star on Nov 28, 2010 3:35 PM CST up reply actions  

He had a glimmer of hope, but that shut down pretty quick.

I think the coaches need to dumb down his responsibilty when running the ball. Make it simple, and have him just run straight with minimal brain usage. As much as that sucks to take away a lot of the playcalling, someone needs to get to BJack, who we have for now, to have him just run hard and get to the hole quicker.

by Bush League All Star on Nov 28, 2010 3:41 PM CST up reply actions  

So well said

I wish I could double-rec this

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 3:51 PM CST up reply actions  

I'll rec it for you

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Nov 28, 2010 11:54 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but....

… GB lost this game because they can’t run the damn ball, particularly in short yardage situations. IF they could, they would have converted a 3rd and 1 and maybe got 6 instead of 3 on their first drive, they wouldn’t have had to call consecutive QB sneaks resulting in Rodgers fumble and 0pts in the 2nd quarter, and they would have converted on short yardage instead of throwing two incomplete passes on 3rd and 4th and 1 in the second half.

Yes, the special teams sucked. They always will until they fire some people, which lcearly isn’t going to happen. But if they could run the damn ball when they need to they would have won. Atlanta could and they won.

That’s it.

The o-line is part of the problem, but Brandon Jackson is the worst featured-back in football right now. It’s a shame that Thompson stuck McCarthy with that albatross when Grant went down, but it’s hard to blame McCarthy from ignoring the ground game in the second half after Brandon Jackson turned 2nd and 1 into 3rd and 7 by ignoring a hole in the middle of the line, running to the right, and then running backwards to lose 6 yards.

That guy sucks and he’s a big reason why they lost today’s game.

BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 28, 2010 3:34 PM CST reply actions  

I think the lack of a good running back

hamstrings McCarthy’s playcalling. That being said, he still shouldn’t call two QB sneaks. Use the pass a bit more. This Packers team is best when they are spread out.

"Coach Gundy, why was Oklahoma able to march right down the field against you?" --Erin Andrews

by dishingoutdimes on Nov 28, 2010 3:36 PM CST up reply actions  

I mostly agree with that...

.. but when you have to tear out half the playbook to accommodate an inadequate player you’re going to get some strange calls as a result.

And to be fair, now that I think of it, the first QB sneak on that series was probably an audible by Rodgers;

BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 28, 2010 3:40 PM CST up reply actions  

Re: the first sneak

I agree that was most likely an audible. Looked like Rodgers saw a gap in the front, walked up from the shotgun, and tried to quick-snap it. I think he would have made it too if College executes anything that even resembles a block on the play.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Nov 28, 2010 11:57 PM CST up reply actions  

+1

They only had three down linemen, and we somehow couldn’t get that. I thought it was a good audible by Rodgers. But I really didn’t like the second sneak. God, I hope we find a good run-blocking interior lineman (or two) to go along with Sitton.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 11:59 PM CST up reply actions  

From McCarthy's

post game presser:

(On the quarterback sneaks, we both of those called by you?)
One was a check, the first one was a check, the second one was called.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Nov 29, 2010 1:05 AM CST up reply actions  

No flames only agreement

really there is no reason why they lost this game other than lack of special teams play and running game.

Crap, all they need to do is tackle the returner after the last touchdown on the right side of the 50 yard line.

On the running game, well, if they have a running back who can get that tough yard here and there they are able to seal the deal on the goal line and convert key downs.

by PackApologist on Nov 28, 2010 3:43 PM CST up reply actions  

Only and idiot would flame you

I’m sick of seeing people on here DENYING that we need a REAL…….BONIFIED……NFL nrunning back. A guy like Turner, that can get you 2nd or 3rd and short most of the time. And, please shut up about Starks, Starks, Starks. B.S. Nance sucks. 3rd & 1=0 and settle for field goal. BJ..what can I say? He’s a guy that comes in for 1 play to give your REAL back a breather. Grant? Average to death. And, don’t tell me about 1200 yrds. That’s 75 yrds/game on 20-25 carries, people. When was the last time he broke a big run? When was the last time ANY Packer back broke a big run? And, he’s coming off a season ending injury. Good luck with that. I’m really sick of seeing this team lose games because we can’t get 1 or 2 yards when we need it. The D played well for 3 qtrs., then give up 10 in the 4th. Also, does anyone know how many games AR gave us a lead or tying score only to watch the D fail? Mr. Red Flag Mike mysteriously DOESN’T throw the flag today. AR mysteriously DOESN’T cover up at the goal line, something they teach you from PeeWee ball on. On the goal line, we mysteriously forget that Gonzales, who has caught more TD passes than any T.E, is on the field. This team could easily be undefeated right now, except for stupid mistakes at crucial times.
There, I feel better now. Not really.

by bigbill992001 on Nov 28, 2010 5:40 PM CST up reply actions  

Well I'm glad you got that out of you system

Grant’s last big run was one of his last runs. He had a good one against Philly right before he was hurt. Really I think that this season has shown Grant’s value. He would of converted that TD and helped balance out our attack.

I think RB needs to be on the shopping list for next year definitely, but Grant has been solid and good for a while and our total lack of a running game without him this year shows that it was really more good than we thought.

by PackApologist on Nov 28, 2010 5:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Last big run by a Packers RB

Brandon Jackson against Washington, 71 yards. Got caught from behind, but DeAngelo Hall is pretty fast. I’d love to see us get a Steven Jackson/Michael Turner type back, but I’d also like to see us run block much better. But we barely lost to the team with the best record so I would take a few deep breaths and thank God we’re not Vikings fans. The aspect of the game that most disappointed me was the total lack of pass rush.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 6:47 PM CST up reply actions  

i thank god i'm not a chokings fan every day

i thank god i’m not a bears fan every hour

by fn_cold_ak on Nov 28, 2010 6:49 PM CST up reply actions   3 recs

+1

rec-diculously good

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 6:50 PM CST up reply actions  

The Bears

They’re 8-3 and leading the division.

by MetalGearPeaceWalker on Nov 28, 2010 8:43 PM CST up reply actions  

They also have three division games in their last

five games, all of them on the road, along with the Jet and Patriots at Soldier Field.

by TarHeelHawk on Nov 28, 2010 8:45 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't know

Is Grant better than BJ? Probably. But, averagind 75 yds/game is not my idea of a good back. And, by that I mean a guy that can break a big run now and then(doesn’t have to be an AP type good) and can get that 3rd and 1 or 2 when needed. 1st qtr., 3rd & 1, we give to Nance for no gain, settle for a field goal. 2nd qtr., 1st and goal at the 2, we get an inc. and 2 sneaks for zip and a fumble. 3rd. qtr., 2nd & 1, BJ for -6. Again 3rd. qtr., 2nd & 1, BJ for -1. 4th qtr., 3rd & 1, BJ for 12. So, on 7 attempts at 1 or 2 yrds., we get one 1st down, 1 incomplete pass and 5 runs for a total of MINUS 7 yrds. and a fumble. Either one of those plays is a game changer. Someone suggested giving Lang a shot. Why not, can’t get much worse. I still wonder why we never gave JK even 1 chance in those situations.

by bigbill992001 on Nov 29, 2010 2:48 AM CST up reply actions  

Is 75 yards a game bad?

I looked up some #‘s on Pro Football Reference.com. Turns out 75 yards a game by one RB is pretty good…Grant ran for 1203 and 1253 in ’08 and ’09. In those two seasons only 14 other RBs ran for over 1200 yards…and only Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson and Thomas Jones did it twice. He isn’t elite by any means and needs a short yardage bruiser and a change of pace speed guy and a 3rd down back with good hands to compliment him…do we have any of those…?

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 29, 2010 12:15 PM CST up reply actions  

Only 14?

that’s almost half the teams, dude. I can live with 75/game if we get the tuff yrds. when needed. I know you can’t make every 3rd/1, but jeez, we should be able to make 2 out of 5. Hell, we pass as often on 3rd/1 as we run for a reason. I gotta believe a lot of it is attitude. The RB says that he is not gonna be denied and the Oline is determined to push their man.

by bigbill992001 on Nov 29, 2010 6:20 PM CST up reply actions  

It's 14 RBs in 2 seasons though...

I’m on your side. The good teams convert those 3rd and 1s most of the time. The Packers have only converted 48% this year on 3rd and 4th and 1…Our running game sucks and it has sucked for a LONG time. Last year we only gained about 19 more yards a game with Grant. The top Rushing teams gain at least 130 a game, the Packers haven’t been close to that since 2003 (159 ypg). I think it would help the O-Line’s performance if they just committed to running the ball 25 times a game but with the current RBs that’s probably pointless.

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 29, 2010 8:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Grant? Average to death. And, don’t tell me about 1200 yrds. That’s 75 yrds/game on 20-25 carries, people.

When I was a boy, the NFL played a 14 game schedule, and 1,000 yards was THE standard for whether or not a running back was a good running back.

Nothing else.

Just, whether or not a back gained 1,000 yards in a season.
Sure, the 1,000 yard season has since been watered down by the increase, in 1978, from 14 to 16 games, but, when they only played 14 games, 1,000 was IT!

Now, do the math.
When a back, in a 14 game season, gained 1,000 yards, he averaged …

71.4 yards per game.

And, that was back when the NFL was, allegedly, primarily a running league, before the rules were changed to make it a more passing-friendly league.

So, when you complain about Grant getting “only” 1200 yards, and averaging “only” 75 yards a game, and call him “average to death,” I don’t buy it.
Don’t buy it at all!

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Nov 29, 2010 10:16 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Big runs
When was the last time he broke a big run?

December 27, 2010: 56 yards for a touchdown vs. Seattle.
December 20, 2010: 24 yards for a touchdown at Pittsburgh.
December 13, 2010: 62 yards for a touchdown at Chicago.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Nov 29, 2010 10:24 PM CST up reply actions  

*2009, not 2010

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Nov 29, 2010 10:38 PM CST up reply actions  

btw

check out Eric’s column in the GBPG

by bigbill992001 on Nov 30, 2010 2:56 AM CST up reply actions  

Red Flag
Mr. Red Flag Mike mysteriously DOESN’T throw the flag today.

See my links to McCarthy’s post-game presser, and what he said about that, below.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Nov 29, 2010 10:28 PM CST up reply actions  

undefeated
This team could easily be undefeated right now, except for stupid mistakes at crucial times.

There are no teams with less than two losses,
and what you say can easily be applied to a half dozen teams, at least!
So, your point is?

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Nov 29, 2010 10:35 PM CST up reply actions  

my point is.........

we’ve made enough mistakes(18 penalties in a game) and failed on 3rd/short(I can’t begin to tell you how many, but there were 5 attempts for a total of minus 7 yrds. and a fumble last game) and missed field goals and coaching mistakes that it’s hard to overcome them. When we win, we win in spite of ourselves. Sure, lots of teams have lost close games. I don’t give a damn about other teams probs. We have lost 4 by 3 pts. btw, maybe it’s just ME, but Grant just doesn’t do anything for me. According to your stats, he’s done better than I thought.

by bigbill992001 on Nov 30, 2010 2:34 AM CST up reply actions  

BTW would anyone else have dialed up a squib kick on the last kickoff?

"Coach Gundy, why was Oklahoma able to march right down the field against you?" --Erin Andrews

by dishingoutdimes on Nov 28, 2010 3:37 PM CST reply actions   2 recs

Yeah, I was surprised they didn’t.

But not that surprised. It’s Green Bay special teams, after all.

Eagle Totem - Comprehensive EMU coverage.

by cmadler on Nov 28, 2010 4:24 PM CST up reply actions  

Nope

A squib gives them the ball around the 40 yard line with about 1 minute and a timeout and I don’t think that’s acceptable.

Yeah the result sucked… but there’s very few QBs I’d OPT to give the ball to needing about 30 yards w/ 1 minute and 1 Timeout EVER

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 6:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Sigh

"Coach Gundy, why was Oklahoma able to march right down the field against you?" --Erin Andrews

by dishingoutdimes on Nov 28, 2010 3:38 PM CST up reply actions  

Looks like Chicago left the sprinklers on...

… to get a slow track. That field looks pretty bad.

BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 28, 2010 3:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Afternoon game thread up!

Come on over!

I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.

Possibly hiking up Mount Marcy during the weekend of October 23-24. State high point count: 3/50

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Nov 28, 2010 3:40 PM CST reply actions  

Maybe I'm being a homer

But I really was not that impressed with Matt Ryan. Maybe it’s because Rodgers was playing SO well that it made Ryan look pedestrain. He handed the ball off to one of the best RBs in football most of the time, and he didn’t make any passes that made me go “wow, that was incredible”. And driving 20 yards to get in field goal range because of a special teams fail? Not impressed.

Going into this game, the big story was how comparable Rodgers & Ryan are and I just didn’t see it.

by bluejazz04 on Nov 28, 2010 3:48 PM CST reply actions  

Did you see Ryan make any mistakes?

I didn’t see a single mistake out of him, and that wins football games. I’d love for Rodgers to have a Michael Turner, though.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 3:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah if we had Turner and they had Brandon Jackson..

there’d be no question about who would win the game.

by vitaminx on Nov 28, 2010 3:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Lets not blame Jackson

not much he can do when there are 4 guys in the backfield at the snap… out run blocking looked horrible this game… not even Turner could’ve done much w/ the push we were getting

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 4:00 PM CST up reply actions  

I just don't think that's an accurate analysis of today's game.

The zone blocking scheme, which GB still uses, frequently allows penetration. It’s almost supposed to because it calls for the oline to block on the edges to get movement and then to seal off the back side pursuit with cuts. I don’t disagree that their DL handled the OL today, but there were opportunities there, and until that last drive when Atlanta’s DL was firing off the line looking to sack Rodgers, Jackson did little with the holes that were there.

BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 28, 2010 4:08 PM CST up reply actions  

The problem is that without Grant, GB doesn't seem to have an RB that can run it.

It’s not Jackson’s fault that he isn’t succeeding in the zone running scheme, but it’s the coaches’ (ultimately McCarthy’s) fault that they haven’t adjusted by either 1) picking up an RB who can do it or 2) changing to a scheme that works with the RBs the Packers have.

I’m no TT/McCarthy hater, but continuing to run plays that you no longer have the players to make work is idiocy.

Eagle Totem - Comprehensive EMU coverage.

by cmadler on Nov 28, 2010 4:29 PM CST up reply actions  

The fact that they didn't pick anyone else up isn't McCarthy's fault.

Jackson’s awful as an every down back. That’s just the truth.

BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 28, 2010 8:47 PM CST up reply actions  

I stand corrected on that point.

But with TT not picking anyone else up, McCarthy should have adjusted the offensive schemes to make best use of the players they have.

Eagle Totem - Comprehensive EMU coverage.

by cmadler on Dec 9, 2010 6:54 AM CST up reply actions  

idk what it is

i cant figure out why we have no running game..i personally think its a combo and not all jacksons fault. a lot of times i see him miss a cut or a hole and thats all on him. but other times i sit there and wonder if our line can even run block. lastly if the run game isnt productive on the first 5 carries MM loses confidence very quickly (although can we blame him sometimes). i just dont know what exactly it is

by packers34 on Nov 28, 2010 4:12 PM CST up reply actions  

Oh that's easy

Grant was underrated and no one is stepping up. Mix that with Bulaga taking a bit of a rookie slump that typically happens in the back half of the year and that equals a very bad running game.

by PackApologist on Nov 28, 2010 4:49 PM CST up reply actions  

Bulaga is an Iowa guy

They know all about slumping the second half of the season…

by Danwood on Nov 28, 2010 4:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Fair enough

I’m very open to being wrong about this

by bluejazz04 on Nov 28, 2010 4:04 PM CST up reply actions  

i dont think

its a fair comparison…ryan is very good but he has the luxury of a balanced offense and a very good line

by packers34 on Nov 28, 2010 4:13 PM CST up reply actions  

Ooh

I think this guy’s got the right answer. I was most impressed with how consistent Ryan was and how he never made mistakes. I’d still take Rodgers in a heartbeat, but it’s really apples and oranges.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 4:17 PM CST up reply actions  

He played a little better than Rodgers...

… but it was close, I thought. He had a couple of overthrows early that could have been picked off and he missed an open deep man. Rodgers’ fumble was crippling, or course. To me the primary difference was that Ryan was under little pressure in part because Atlanta could run the ball and take the edge off the Packers rush.

BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 28, 2010 4:10 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah I know.

That’s why I said he played better than Rodgers.

BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 28, 2010 8:45 PM CST up reply actions  

Ryan

I had the same thoughts… he isn’t flashy, didn’t throw a deep ball, just managed the game.

But having said that, thats ALL the Falcons need. They have a solid D and a good o-line and RB. I would not like Ryan as our starting QB, simply because it’s like watching the Spurs (kinda boring). But I respect that he is doing exactly what the system tells him to do.

by Chief Oshkosh on Nov 28, 2010 4:06 PM CST up reply actions  

Easier to win games

When all you have to do is be a game manager and be a play maker, I guess.

by bluejazz04 on Nov 28, 2010 6:53 PM CST up reply actions  

Here's the thing

Rodgers is the better quarterback. As a Falcons fan, I can and will admit that. He’s elite.

But consider what Ryan was up against: A great pass rush and a very good secondary. For the first time all season, you largely took Roddy White away from him. Great quarterbacks adjust to that, and that’s exactly what he did. Sure, he wasn’t launching any deep balls to take your breath away, but he found the open man all day long, completed 86% of his passes and made no major mistakes.

If that’s what constitutes a ho-hum quarterback, then by god, I’ll take it.

Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!

by Dave Choate on Nov 28, 2010 10:26 PM CST up reply actions  

yep, he did better today

4 hours 5 minutes? Is that all? Buehrle coulda pitched three CGs and the bottom of the 14th in Houston by then. FTMFYITA! - RWShow

by blackoutsox on Nov 28, 2010 10:31 PM CST up reply actions  

pretty much agree

sounds about right..and u know what those qbs are usually successful..sure rodgers may have more talent and i think he truly is better..but ryan did everything he had to do..and has a very balanced offense..and thats what makes good qbs

by packers34 on Nov 28, 2010 10:35 PM CST up reply actions  

He got help from his receivers too.

There were 3 plays that I quite literally could not believe the receiver managed to catch the ball (and on one of those, I’m pretty sure he didn’t). Great coverage, Ryan putting the ball where only his guy could catch it, and on 3 occasions they pulled it in for first downs, resulting in eventual TDs. If even one of those drops, 7pts turns to 3 and it’s a different game.

You guys have some nice hands in that receiver corps. Ryan played well. Played better than Rodgers in my opinion, but at the risk of getting yelled at again, I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that you guys could run the ball while we couldn’t. If you couldn’t, his ass would have been on the deck a lot more.

BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 28, 2010 11:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...

just called a time-out on that false fourth down conversion.
Do not let them run a play until the previous play is reviewed.
WTF, seems so simple.
Those occasional mental lapses with the coaches keeps me questioning if they have intelligence needed to compete at the elite levels.

by docg on Nov 28, 2010 4:16 PM CST reply actions  

If you call a time out, then challenge and lose the challenge, you lose two time outs

That’s called the Lovie strategy. In case you hadn’t seen that one before, let me spoil the ending for you: it doesn’t work.

by Danwood on Nov 28, 2010 4:20 PM CST up reply actions  

A simple time out

gives them a chance to review things upstairs, with no other risks. If the review shows the catch was made, you give your defense a breather.
You put way too much value on a first half time out, compared to the ultimate cost of not forcing that turnover. Bottom line, that was a Packers turnover caused by a coaching/game-management mistake.
Not smart.

by docg on Nov 28, 2010 5:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Challenging does not guarantee the call is overturned

The fact that a couple of camera angles were shown before the suspect one adds a possibility that the call is upheld because of inconclusive evidence. It was not a gimme challenge. It’s actually very similar to the Quarless TD in the first Vikings game.

by Danwood on Nov 28, 2010 7:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Yea calling a timeout does nothing since it was before the final 2 minutes. Challenge it from the get-go and the Packers win this game.

Favre 4 Ever
I Believe In Chris Drury

by Plusch on Nov 28, 2010 4:33 PM CST up reply actions  

I can see calling a t.o.

if it gives you time to assess whether or not you want to challenge. Any time a receiver has to lay out for a catch, odds are that the ball will hit the ground. Who cares if you end the game with 2 or 3 t.o. in your pocket?

by bigbill992001 on Nov 28, 2010 5:50 PM CST up reply actions  

NFC North Blog:
Packers used 5 WR on 14 snaps Sunday. Formation had only been used on four snaps by the entire league before Sunday. #norunninggame

"Coach Gundy, why was Oklahoma able to march right down the field against you?" --Erin Andrews

by dishingoutdimes on Nov 28, 2010 4:21 PM CST reply actions  

Nope, teams use 4 WR with a TE more than the 5 WR set this season.

It’s weird. But that sort of offense would suit Drew Brees perfectly.

Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
For all the crap we give Wil Wheaton, he can still tackle better than Asante Samuel...

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Nov 28, 2010 5:05 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not complaining about that

I think it was nice to see the return of the 5 WR’s. It’s different from the league and we had success with it in 2007. We simply put didn’t execute on 3rd downs as often as we should’ve. Struggled mightily on 3rd and short.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Nov 28, 2010 9:37 PM CST up reply actions  

anyways, we'll finish 11-5 at worst.

this loss is comparable to the Pittsburgh loss last season. We’ll beat San Francisco and Detroit (9-4), could go either way at NE, and we’ll beat NY and Chicago at home.

by ThroughBeingCool on Nov 28, 2010 4:24 PM CST reply actions  

At the risk of being ridiculed

I’m now worried about the Chicago game. Against Philly today they got GREAT pressure with just their front four, letting them drop 7 into coverage. Chicago is clearly a team on the upswing right now, and that game will be anything other than a walk in the park.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Nov 29, 2010 12:04 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't think it's a stretch to be worried about ANY game these days

Even the Buffalo Bills are making teams sweat. Also, the Bears D is really, really good. They shut down the run, which means we’ll be one-dimensional; they have great special teams, which means we’ll be ****** in that department; except for Cutler they play pretty mistake-free. And Cutler certainly has his moments.

I still think we’ll beat them, but I’m definitely glad it’s a home game.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 29, 2010 12:58 PM CST up reply actions  

Radio announcer for MNF just said,
I still don’t trust the Bears’ offenive line.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Nov 29, 2010 10:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Some awful decisions today. You have literally nothing to lose by challenging that 4th down pass to Gonzalez. Nothing. They ended the half not using their 2 timeouts to conserve time so why not challenge the damn play? Stupid. It’s the first half and was a crucial play, if McCarthy challenges it this could have ended very differently. And Mike should not need confirmation from a coach seeing a replay, that’s an instinctual decision to make when a receiver falls ontop of the ball and catches it in a trap…especially on 4th down.

Didn’t like 2 QB sneaks inside the 1 back to back either, but oh well.

Favre 4 Ever
I Believe In Chris Drury

by Plusch on Nov 28, 2010 4:31 PM CST reply actions  

Wha?

You have:

1. A challenge to lose
2. A timeout to lose
3. A possible third challenge to lose

You don’t challenge every 4th down conversion. McCarthy NEEDS confirmation from upstairs before challenging, you don’t randomly throw challenge flags in the heat of the moment. The looked like a catch live, it looked like a catch on the first couple of replays. There was no replay that raised doubt until several plays later.

You sir would make a horrible, horrible coach. Know why you need that third challenge? How about the last INT in the Jets game when the Jets couldn’t challenge an apparently bad call because they foolishly used up their challenges in the first half.

by Danwood on Nov 28, 2010 4:37 PM CST up reply actions  

Really?
1. Challenge to lose? I believe they would have won that challenge. The ball hit the ground.
2. It’s a 1st half time out, and they decided not to use the 2 timeouts they had left at the end of the half to conserve time for a last minute drive before half.

Favre 4 Ever
I Believe In Chris Drury

by Plusch on Nov 28, 2010 4:42 PM CST up reply actions  

Hindsight

you don’t know what they’ll have in terms of timeouts and time left at that point… looking at it now, yes they had timeouts to waste, but they didn’t know that then… and again, their was NO replay showing it as a non catch until after the next play… <40 seconds to get through all the angles of the replay, and the first ones showed it as a catch

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 4:45 PM CST up reply actions  

Yup

Lose that challenge, it negatively affects your ability to challenge at the end of the game, when you arguably would be more reliant on a challenge (less time to make up from a missed call you couldn’t challenge).

It was no gimme that the call was overturned. There were enough camera angles to call it inconclusive and allow the call on the field to stand.

And there are plenty of times you need all of your timeouts at the end of the half. Maybe Atlanta is driving within 2 minutes and throws an INT and we get the ball at midfield with 30 seconds left.

by Danwood on Nov 28, 2010 4:45 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not positive that play would have been overturned

I’m more unhappy with the QB sneaks than the non-challenge

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 6:55 PM CST up reply actions  

The ball came out and hit the ground...!

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 28, 2010 6:56 PM CST up reply actions  

And sometimes they don't overturn that

Just because it hits the ground does not mean it’s incomplete. That hasn’t been the rule for years. Only in the end zone, when it’s considered part of “the process.” But that wasn’t in the end zone, so it’s about whether or not he controlled it, not whether or not the ball hit the ground.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 6:58 PM CST up reply actions  

From the transcript of

McCarthy’s post-game presser:

(On the fourth down reception Gonzalez made, were you ever given an indication that it might not have been caught?)
It came too late.

(Did the coaches upstairs have a chance to see that? The televisions where we were, were late on that.)
They got the information, but it is always a little different when you’re on the road. I don’t know how it is where you guys sit.
(Did any of the players see it?)
The information that I was given was late.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Nov 29, 2010 1:22 AM CST up reply actions  

turnovers....

falcons -—0———packers——1———game over…

by hermitcrab on Nov 28, 2010 9:20 PM CST up reply actions  

Agree 100%

we criticized MM earlier in the year for challenging plays he didn’t like (see James Jones fumble in Chicago) as opposed to ones he could win… The replays showed a catch until about 2 plays later and THEN everyone second guesses it… Sorry guess, the review team had <40 seconds to see ALL the angles and make a call, they didn’t see a reason in the first few so you can’t challenge

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 4:43 PM CST up reply actions  

I fault the guys upstairs on this one, not McCarthy so much although he is at blame too

The guys upstairs have access to the reviews and tell him the scenario.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Nov 28, 2010 9:39 PM CST up reply actions  

I give credit to the Falcons

They got the next play off quick so there wasn’t enough time to find a good replay.

by Zundar on Nov 28, 2010 10:01 PM CST up reply actions  

As said previously,

just call a damn time out to give the booth coaches a chance to review. At worst, you give your defense a (needed) breather.
You can’t allow an opposing team to cheat you out of a turnover.
It was not smart, neither is trying to defend the missed opportunity.
 

by docg on Nov 28, 2010 6:19 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

So you get a chance to look at it

and then it’s questionable and you challenge… and lose… now you’re out 2 TO

Can we get over this please… hindsight makes it look like a bad move by MM… during the game… it wasn’t anyone that thinks it was a bad move to not challenge it at the moment it happened is a delusional liar honestly

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 6:21 PM CST up reply actions  

In hindsight

we should have gone for two-point conversions every time, or gone for it instead of kicked the FG. So yes, hindsight argument is too easy.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 6:59 PM CST up reply actions  

Or

kicked an onsides instead of kicking off the last time.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 7:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Agreed

lets just get rid of punters and placekickers.

Do nothing but onside kicks, 2pts and go for it on 4th downs

and go back to challenging plays that we don’t like the outcome of (especially if they’re in a hurry up offense… they must be trying to cheat it) and just use timeouts for the hell of it since we have them to burn

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 7:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Hey, Golden

there’s a high school team in Ohio that does just that. No matter the score, they go for 2 and go for it on 4th down. Needless to say, they have some huge scoring games. Last weekend, they decided to kick PATs and missed 4/5 and lost by 3. Go figure.

by bigbill992001 on Nov 29, 2010 3:06 AM CST up reply actions  

Do they ever blitz?

‘Cuz if not, that’s the exact prescription that Gregg Easterbrook (Tuesday Morning Quarterback) recommends, especially for younger players.

"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root

by Clutch16 on Nov 29, 2010 6:05 PM CST up reply actions  

Gregg Easterbrook

greggeasterbrook.com :D

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Nov 29, 2010 10:51 PM CST up reply actions  

OK, here's his football side.

Gregg Easterbrook,
Tuesday Morning Quarterback

his latest TMQB column.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Nov 29, 2010 11:08 PM CST up reply actions  

BINGO!

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 28, 2010 6:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Wrong-o

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Nov 29, 2010 12:07 AM CST up reply actions  

Awful?

I know the loss is a bit raw at the moment, but I didn’t see any awful calls on MM’s part. The play calls were pretty good generally. There was one missed challenge…but that happens in games. It’s just tough because when the game is close sometimes that can be the difference.

As for the confirmation from above…well all coaches have that. And as someone else pointed out that we’ve had the opposite in the Chicago game so I don’t see this as a large problem.

When we boil down this loss it comes out to two parts bad luck and one part horrible special teams. That happens in the season. Really this is still a great team with good to great coaching when you consider the adversity that they have overcome and closeness of all of the losses so far.

by PackApologist on Nov 28, 2010 5:00 PM CST up reply actions  

THe defense was suspect at numerous times

As I mentioned above, the play before the 4th and 3 that might have been challengable, we had two changes to make it 4th and 8 and 4th and 11 and missed two tackles. Those plays hurt us FAR more than a challenge.

by Danwood on Nov 28, 2010 5:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Is it the defense being bad or their offense being great?

This was the most challenging offense that the Packers have faced. It’s also the first truly elite QB they’ve faced….outside of possibly Cutler. He didn’t shred us, but they didn’t exactly stuff them up either.

Really this was a hard fought game between two very good teams and in the end one lost. Unfortunately for us that one was us.

by PackApologist on Nov 28, 2010 5:10 PM CST up reply actions  

yeah

there were a lot of missed tackles in this game…………….or maybe they just didn’t wanna put their hat on Turner.

by bigbill992001 on Nov 29, 2010 3:08 AM CST up reply actions  

OMG FIRE MCCARTHY

your entire first paragraph is wrong. they were in a no huddle so there was no time. even the announcers, who probably see this at the same time as those in the booth, didnt catch it until it was too late.

4 hours 5 minutes? Is that all? Buehrle coulda pitched three CGs and the bottom of the 14th in Houston by then. FTMFYITA! - RWShow

by blackoutsox on Nov 28, 2010 6:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Did I say fire McCarthy? Nope. And like I said, it’s an instinctual decision. Later parts of the 1st half and if the call holds up they’re in good position to score…if you challenge and it gets overturned you take over on about your 35. And they did not use the 2 timeouts so what were they saving them for? Win that challenge and you still have your timeouts.

Favre 4 Ever
I Believe In Chris Drury

by Plusch on Nov 28, 2010 6:03 PM CST up reply actions  

You're using way too much hindsight

again, at the time, you don’t know if you need the timeouts or not… and again, there wasn’t an angle shown that showed it dropped until 2 plays later… looking at it now, yeah he should’ve challenged… but at the time, it was a bad move

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 6:05 PM CST up reply actions  

+1

the people in the booth get the television feed..and they didnt show the ball was dropped until after the play had run..not MM especially since the call to challenge doesnt even come from him

by packers34 on Nov 28, 2010 6:25 PM CST up reply actions  

I think it does have to be somewhat instinctual

especially when a guy lays out for a ball, it almost always moves when it hits the ground. It certainly warranted a t.o. and closer look, imo. Afterall, it was 4th down.

by bigbill992001 on Nov 29, 2010 3:12 AM CST up reply actions  

I can't agree w/ this logic

by that stance, we should challenge every big play just because it’s a big play… when you get 3 feeds between the plays and 3 of them show either a good catch or not enough evidence to overturn it, how do you challenge it… how do you know that the 4th feed will show it as being incomplete?

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 29, 2010 3:35 AM CST up reply actions  

My logic is this

I played WR, not very well I admit, and when you lay out, unless you manage to get your hands under the ball odds are it’s gonna move. The impact/force of the ball hitting the ground and your added body weight would take a very strong set of hands to keep the ball from moving. Also, this was a change of possession situation(4th down).

by bigbill992001 on Nov 29, 2010 6:31 PM CST up reply actions  

The point I'm making though

is if the you have time to look at 3 replays before the next snap and all three show it as a catch or inconclusive which means you can’t overturn it… there is no way to know or expect the 4th replay/angle to show an incompletion… I mean here’s a basic layout of what happened

Angle 1 – Complete
Angle 2 – Inconclusive
Angle 3 – Inconclusive
Either Challenge or let Atlanta snap the ball
Angle 4 – Incomplete

I don’t think based on the what the initial replays showed that you can justify throwing the flag

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 29, 2010 8:57 PM CST up reply actions  

the guy has thrown the flag many times on calls that had no chance

like the fumble against the Bares. It’s kinda frustrating that here he doesn’t and doesn’t call a t.o. to look it over. But, that’s just me. I realize that in any close game there’s lots of 2nd guessing. We’ve come up short on way too many close games. Even if we’d won half of those we’d be 9-2 and looking good.

by bigbill992001 on Nov 30, 2010 2:45 AM CST up reply actions  

and he was absolutely blasted for that challenge to

He used to challenge plays he didn’t like the result of and people hated him for… now he challenges plays he can win and people still aren’t happy

Again, Replay 1-3 = Complete or inconclusive
How do you justify making a challenge or even calling a timeout to decide on challenging at that point… Why would there be any reason to believe that the 4th replay shows something completely different???

The conversation would have to go something like this
MM to the booth: Well guys what do you think about challenging
Booth: Well Mike, the first angle showed it pretty complete
MM: Damn how bout the second or third replay?
Booth: Well, they’re both pretty inconclusive, Gonzo’s body blocks the angle so we can’t see much… probably won’t get overturned based on that
MM: Oh well… its an important 4th down play that I don’t like the result of and I’m feelin pretty good that, despite the first 3 looks showing nothing, that 4th feed you get shows it incomplete so I’m gonna challenge anyways

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 30, 2010 10:55 AM CST up reply actions  

Not to mention

The Bears challenge was at the end of the game, in our own territory, when the Bears needed only a FG to win. It was a poor challenge but the desperation factor was miles above the situation of the 4th down conversion in the first half.

by Danwood on Nov 30, 2010 10:58 AM CST up reply actions  

^This

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Nov 30, 2010 8:54 PM CST up reply actions  

No shame in today's loss, IMO.

The Falcons were the better team and did what they had to in order to win.

This game is on the defense, IMO. The defense should have made a stop somewhere. Matt Ryan is good, but going 14-15 in the final quarter against our secondary is…astonishing.

Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
For all the crap we give Wil Wheaton, he can still tackle better than Asante Samuel...

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Nov 28, 2010 5:04 PM CST reply actions  

Well he never really stretched the field.

They got enough stops to keep us in the game. Really it comes down to the fumble and mistakes. The falcons played near error free football. I think we win this game at home…..

Or we could just blame special teams. I mean who didn’t see a special teams fail coming?

All is vanity.

by levnclf on Nov 28, 2010 5:08 PM CST up reply actions  

We never stretched the field

Because Rodgers rarely had time in the pocket today. Tends to happen when you can’t run or use the screen pass.

Speaking of, what the heck happened to our screen execution? It was pretty awful today when we tried it.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Nov 29, 2010 12:10 AM CST up reply actions  

the game

turnovers——packers 1 —falcons 0——simple.

by hermitcrab on Nov 28, 2010 6:11 PM CST up reply actions  

Ran out out time.... again ....

so freaking close !!!! but yet so far away.

First a question for McCarthy:
where the H*** was John Kuhn on those 3rd&1s ????

then one for Ted Thompson..
Why didn’t you sign Michael Turner when he was available in FA ????

other than that, this game could just as easily have gone our way, sometimes it doesn’t in these close games.
Falcons also got a little lucky.
Had that endline shot of the 4th down convertion come a little quicker, the coaches responsible for reviewing might have been able to tell McCarthy to throw the flag, and that would have been overturned.Would that have been enough for the Packers to win? don’t know.
This sucks, and the flags will be half-way down in Wisconsin tomorrow …

by Jarlsberg on Nov 28, 2010 5:08 PM CST reply actions  

Yup

The Bears are unfortunately a force to deal with.

by Danwood on Nov 28, 2010 5:37 PM CST up reply actions  

We'll see

The Bears are for real. I’ll give them that. I think we can still make up the games on them with their schedule and ours. It’s not over. The road is a bit tougher now though, especially if the Bears win.

by PackApologist on Nov 28, 2010 6:01 PM CST up reply actions  

we needed a turnover

never got one

4 hours 5 minutes? Is that all? Buehrle coulda pitched three CGs and the bottom of the 14th in Houston by then. FTMFYITA! - RWShow

by blackoutsox on Nov 28, 2010 6:01 PM CST reply actions  

I missed most of this game

caught some of the 3rd, most of the first half on gamecast. There is definitely a formula for our losses this season. When we fumbled on the 1, I immediately was thinking about the WAS game. It really seems like we’re going to need to win the turnover battle to win the game.

From what I saw we were destroyed in field position all game (thank you special teams). Shields needs to learn he can’t just run around the whole defense, he needs to cut up the field. Special teams are bad, but I don’t think they’ll cost us our season.

B jax had a pretty lousy game I guess, I really don’t think he’s being used effectively. I love him for draws, screens, and blocking. I think the fact that Bjax is running on 1st and 2nd shows we probably don’t have a lot there in Nance and Starks, though I’d probably prefer to see them on the early downs just so that jacksons more effective on 3rd. …i tend to think they must not be at all comfortable with their pass protection skills.

I predicted at the beginning of the year that these teams would meet for the nfc championship… and i’m sticking to that

by ctxsix on Nov 28, 2010 6:14 PM CST reply actions  

it seems like we’ve always got the same problems. we lose (under MM) because of penalties, special teams, and inability to pick up short yardage situations. I like him a lot as a coach, but I’ve never really liked his goal line offense. (especially w/o Finley)

by ctxsix on Nov 28, 2010 6:24 PM CST up reply actions  

What in the hell is it going to take to get Slocum fired...?

The un-Special Teams have been among the worst in the NFL for Slocums entire career in Green Bay…they’ve probably lost two games this year because of them…

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 28, 2010 6:28 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes Slocum needs to go

but ST hasn’t single-handedly lost us any games this year.

Chicago – Penalties all over the place Offense, Defense and ST
Washington – Offense was completely stagnant
Miami – Same thing as above
Today – Fumble on the goal-line

ST hasn’t necessarily helped us much but to blame them solely for the losses is rediculous

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 6:33 PM CST up reply actions  

what about the hester returns in the chicago game? or the blocked field goal

not to mention the st penalty lining up over the center or the constant 30+ yard staring position on kiskoffs

by nfcnorth21 on Nov 28, 2010 6:39 PM CST up reply actions  

ST has had mistakes yes

but those losses weren’t SOLELY on them… again, the penalties were brutal in Chicago

Miami, we put up what 10 points on offense??? thats on the offense just as much as the Special Teams gaffe there

How often do you see a team be stellar in all 3 phases of the games (ST, OFF, and DEF)? If there’s one facet I’d rather be poor in it’s ST hands down.

I’m not saying ST is immune from blame… but they don’t deserve SOLE blame in any of the games

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 6:42 PM CST up reply actions  

And I started it off by saying Slocum needs to go

but I can’t stand the people who try to solely blame losses on the ST and almost seem oblivious to the poor Offensive or Defensive play at times… I’ve spent way to many years being oblivious to poor play from our QB and understand that no game is lost by 1 facet of the game ever

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 6:48 PM CST up reply actions  

when you lose by 3

there’s prolly 12-15 plays you can look back on and say that any one of those plays would be game changers. But, ST, are a recurring example in our case.

by bigbill992001 on Nov 29, 2010 3:21 AM CST up reply actions  

Yes, but...

The ST should be listed today as well. Returning a kickoff from 5 yards deep and getting tackled on the 10, bad ST. Having a lane and a chance for a big return, maybe even a TD, and decided to run over the kicker instead of trying to go around, bad ST. Scoring to tie with under 1 minute left and letting your opponent start from midfield after the kickoff? More bad ST. If it wasn’t for the face mask on that return it may have been a TD there. When the other team only needs to go 20 yards for the game winning FG, it’s not good.

So that’s 2 of the 4 losses where ST should be listed. And didn’t the Packers miss a game winning FG attempt against Washington?

by Zundar on Nov 28, 2010 6:50 PM CST up reply actions  

ST lost this game...

when they gave up a huge return and tacked on a PF to give Atlanta the ball at midfield at the END of the game….they lost the Bears game, too – Hester’s TD return, blocked FG, stupid penalties…it’s on them for those two games.

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 28, 2010 6:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Really?

the loss has nothing to do w/ the fumble on the goal-line? or the failed 4th down stops? or the failed 4th down conversion in the 4th?

Yeah, you’re probably right… not one of those plays factored into the end… it all goes to the ST… seriously… No 1 facet of the game can SINGLE HANDEDLY LOSE YOU A GAME

In Chicago, you’re right, the JJ fumble didn’t do anything to help the outcome, the Def PI interferences didn’t play a role in the outcome… nor did the multiple times we started w/ 1st and 20 or 1st and 15 from penalties… you’re right ALL SPECIAL TEAMS neither of the other facets of the games have made any mistakes to cost games

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 6:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Rodgers fumble didn't happen at the end of the game and it didn't give the Falcons a cakewalk for a game winning FG...

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 28, 2010 6:58 PM CST up reply actions  

If that's your arguement

then you can’t claim the Chicago game because ST had nothing to do w/ the end of that game… it was the Fumble then a few Def PIs

Not to be “that guy” because the whole game changes from that point, but Aaron doesn’t fumble then we see 3 more points and OT minimal, maybe a TD on 4th and we win by 4

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 7:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Really?

None of these replays are sayings the fumble wasn’t a key part or that it was all on the ST. We’re just saying we think the ST deserves some blame also.

You sre correct that no single facet has costs them any of the games this year.

by Zundar on Nov 28, 2010 7:00 PM CST up reply actions  

And I'm not saying their exempt

I’m saying that we can’t blame only them and that people who are trying to do that are oblivious to the rest of the game

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 7:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Cool

The confusion came about because you only listed the fumble on your list above. It looked to me like you were basically blaming that 1 play on the lose. Now I know what you mean and argee with you. I don’t think the Packers were the better team today.

by Zundar on Nov 28, 2010 7:06 PM CST up reply actions  

No worries

I think emotions are running a bit high right now and probably didn’t state my position as well as I could’ve.

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 7:10 PM CST up reply actions  

Ditto

I’m just saying that at the end of the game, after we scored the kickoff team HAS to keep them inside their 25…and this bunch almost let them score. besides, I’m annoyed and I have to blame something…

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 28, 2010 7:12 PM CST up reply actions  

we need a new bus driver

do the special team ride the short bus to games?

goodbye slocom

by fn_cold_ak on Nov 28, 2010 7:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Hopefully Shawn's gone

Sometimes ST looks good showing we have the skill/talent

There’s just no real consistency in them

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 7:09 PM CST up reply actions  

ST

you think we’ll kick to Hester again?

by bigbill992001 on Nov 29, 2010 3:17 AM CST up reply actions  

Yes

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 29, 2010 11:42 AM CST up reply actions  

About the fumble

FINALLY saw the replay, and now I’m even more annoyed. I know “a fumble is a fumble”, but had it not been a sneak, into a huge pile of guys, I don’t think the ball gets punched out. Any time you call a play like that, the chances of something happening in the pile are pretty high. But hey, it’s one more of his stats now and he’ll get blamed for it even though under normal circumstances, he’s stellar at protecting the ball.

by bluejazz04 on Nov 28, 2010 6:50 PM CST reply actions  

I blame MM on that one

If you want Rodgers to snek then spread out the filed and give him more room. And if you want to go jumbo and tight like that let Kuhn run it from FB, he’s more likely to plow through for a yard or 2, same on the 3rd and 1’s.

by Zundar on Nov 28, 2010 6:54 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Let's not forget the play before the fumble

On 2nd down the Packers appeared set and one of the Falcons was trying to get off the field. Rodgers had enough time to get the ball snapped and have a free play. Instead it looked like he changed the call to a QB draw that didn’t score. Snap the ball and run whatever play you have called, it’s a free play. Worst that happens is it’s now 2nd and Goal from the 1.

by Zundar on Nov 28, 2010 7:03 PM CST reply actions  

Again

I said it above… but I HATE any designed QB run whether its the draw, sneak, or option… I think they are horrible plays and usually when I play Madden or NCAA, one of the first things I do is remove them

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 28, 2010 7:06 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree

Especially after the Miami game where he didn’t play as well after getting stuffed on a sneak at the goal line.

I don’t like the idea of letting your QB get hit any more than he has to.

I understand why he ran it in today on his TD, there wan’t anyone in the middle behind the line.

by Zundar on Nov 28, 2010 7:09 PM CST up reply actions  

Wasn’t that the Washington game?

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 11:46 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm with you on that...

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 28, 2010 7:10 PM CST up reply actions  

Is Aaron Rodgers legacy going to be

a QB that leads his team to take the lead or tie a game in the 4th quarter only to have the D and/or ST blow it at the end?

I’m tired of watching that, and then hearing about how he hasn’t had any come from behind wins.

by Zundar on Nov 28, 2010 7:08 PM CST reply actions   1 recs

hes come back against the bears last year

and thats just off the top of my head

4 hours 5 minutes? Is that all? Buehrle coulda pitched three CGs and the bottom of the 14th in Houston by then. FTMFYITA! - RWShow

by blackoutsox on Nov 28, 2010 7:25 PM CST up reply actions  

Rodgers will just have to learn

to let the clock run all the way down to zero before scoring so our special teams/defense don’t give up the loss in the last minute.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 11:47 PM CST up reply actions  

Hard to do

on 4th and goal w/ over a minute left :-P

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Nov 29, 2010 12:15 AM CST up reply actions  

The ol’ quadruple option flea flicker takes a lot of time off the clock. But it’s difficult to execute, some call it the Triple Lindy of football.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 29, 2010 1:05 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

And I'm sick of

The superlatives being thrown Matt Ryan’s way after winning games in the last 60 seconds because the opposing team fucks up and they get a field goal.

by bluejazz04 on Nov 29, 2010 12:16 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

I hate to say it

but he got the job done… he didn’t have to go far, but he still went far enough for them to kick the game winner… kind of like a few weeks ago in Miami (it might have been Washington) Aaron didn’t get them close enough for Mason’s kick to be good.

Did we give them a great chance to get into position? yes… but he still was able to finish the job and you can’t hate on him for that

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Nov 29, 2010 3:38 AM CST up reply actions  

Kuhn needs to run it in short gains

not Nance

4 hours 5 minutes? Is that all? Buehrle coulda pitched three CGs and the bottom of the 14th in Houston by then. FTMFYITA! - RWShow

by blackoutsox on Nov 28, 2010 7:25 PM CST reply actions  

Just wanted to say..

I was at the game and there were a lot of Pack fans (myself included) at the Dome. When Kuhn touched the ball there was a very loud KUUUUUHHHNNNN, and it was awesome. For me, Rodgers was sensational today. I was down by the end zone directly in front of him when he scored, spiked the ball, and did his title belt celebration. This was the first time I’ve seen the Packers in person and other than the final score, I wasn’t disappointed.

Jason Heyward is so good, he makes David Wright piss in Ryan Howard’s pants

by heap16 on Nov 28, 2010 7:52 PM CST reply actions  

Tramon Williams

and king charles Woodson played their a@#‘s off. Zombo deserves a kudo too. AR is….over the top good. game ball to Tramon though. we would not have even been in the game without them. an extra 40 sec’s off of the clock would have been good 2.

ps….when do we get a real special team coach?

cpocraig

by cpocraig on Nov 28, 2010 8:11 PM CST reply actions  

Green Bay lost this game because they turned the ball over.

I understand that Rodgers was the only reason the Packers were able to stay in the game in the first place, but he also deserves his share of the blame for the loss. Not only was it a turnover at the worst possible spot on the field, Atlanta burned the rest of the 1st half and got a TD out of it. 14 point swing.

McCarthy pulled a Childress today by not challenging (or at least calling timeout) what was turned out to be a fairly obvious drop by Gonzalez on 4th down.

He decided that going for it on 4th down was a better option than having Crosby try a long field goal, and this was after going for the deep ball on a 3rd and 1. I know it would have been a long field goal, but in a dome and with Crosby’s leg, why not give him the chance?

Green Bay made too many mistake to win today, and that’s the bottom line.

by TarHeelHawk on Nov 28, 2010 8:34 PM CST reply actions  

The Rodgers fumble was weird

who knows? Maybe he was too focused on doing “the belt.”

by MetalGearPeaceWalker on Nov 28, 2010 8:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Oh well, bad game for us, good game for the Falcons

Hopefully, they can meet again because at the very least it was entertaining. On a sad note, it appears Leslie Nielsen has passed.

by Charlie Kelly on Nov 28, 2010 8:52 PM CST reply actions  

I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

R.I.P. Mr. Nielson…

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 28, 2010 9:11 PM CST up reply actions  

Falcons fan here

Just wanted to take the time to say great game guys! I dont want to meet the Pack again because you guys scare me!
I have always respected your organization (especially after you guys releasing Chmura after his issue) an I wish you the best for the rest of the season (unless we meet again).
And I would like to say thanks to your fans. Several of you came to our forums and I have nothing but respect for how they were there.

Dont cloud the issue with facts!

by muuzilla on Nov 28, 2010 9:07 PM CST reply actions   1 recs

Thanks

It’s nice to see posts like this from the opponents fans, too bad it takes a loss to make it possible…

Congrats on the win, the Falcons deserved it.

by Zundar on Nov 28, 2010 9:38 PM CST up reply actions  

I concur with muuzilla

Everyone I interacted with has been classy, and I respect that. Awful good football team you’ve got here.

Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!

by Dave Choate on Nov 28, 2010 10:28 PM CST up reply actions  

Thanks guys

If it makes you feel better I don’t look forward to playing you again, but I also totally expect it at some point in the playoffs. The bad news? It will probably be in the dome again.

by PackApologist on Nov 28, 2010 11:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Now that's classy. Nice to see that from an opposing fan base.

You guys played a good game too. If it wasn’t for that dumb penalty toward the end, as it’s 11:00 CST here now, they still might be fighting it out. I was nervous about this game for a reason, and Ryan showed it. You guys down south have a great team, and if we can’t, please beat the ever lovin’ blue and orange crap outta Duh Bears in the post season. Good luck to you guys during the rest of the year too.

When life gives ya lemons, shut up and eat your damn lemons.

by P-Townfan on Nov 28, 2010 11:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Please yes

If we can’t beat the Bears out of the playoffs, I will root for any team that does. And I think Atlanta could do that because Mike Smith’s teams just don’t seem to make any mistakes, and that’s what the Bears feed on. Good luck, Falcons!

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 11:50 PM CST up reply actions  

Tough game

Big mistakes on both sides. 4th down conversion for the Falcons was actually an incompletion. And a dropped interception for the falcons was actually an INT.
If one was challenged, this may have been a completely different game.

In the end, no one was really out coached. It came down to one mistake which led to the game winning FG.

SF next week. I’d love it if GB won every game they have left, but I am afraid the Patriots may be too good.

by UncleJustice on Nov 28, 2010 9:41 PM CST reply actions  

Tramon Williams...

There was a lot of standing around from number 38 today! The Falcons caught him flat footed on the Gonzo TD and a catch on the final drive.

The guy has been solid all year and was for the most part of todays game, but he let us down when we needed him the most.

by Linzmo on Nov 28, 2010 10:30 PM CST reply actions  

are u sure?

overall the secondary did pretty damn well as did our defense only allowing 20 points..but as for that play id like to know what happened because fox said someone blew a coverage but they never showed it again

by packers34 on Nov 28, 2010 10:39 PM CST reply actions  

The O-line

played pretty bad in the run game, but played solid in the pass game. They’re just not physical enough to run the football. Wells gets manhandled all day everyday. Grant being out is part of it, but the O-line just can’t run block. Bulaga will develop into a great run blocking tackle. They ran the ball a lot at Iowa. Maybe we can go steal a guy like Marcus McNeil or somebody with some toughness that can move people.

by SoCal19 on Nov 28, 2010 10:53 PM CST reply actions  

Rodgers was the pass game and the run game

And that’s where it killed us. We were one dimensional. I didn’t see a hell of a lot of the game due to work, but can somebody answer me this: How in the friggin’ hell do we catch up with Duh Bears? I already have the sister humping retard sub-human drooling mongoloid idiots at work (I wore my CMIII jersey today, who looked about as impotent as Abe Vigoda without the Viagra) saying “DRRRRR, WERE GOING TO DUH SOOPERBOL!!!11111” so, what the F? Will Duh Bears be able to lose against the Motor City Kitties as we take on The Pats or what?

When life gives ya lemons, shut up and eat your damn lemons.

by P-Townfan on Nov 28, 2010 11:09 PM CST reply actions  

We can catch the Bears because

They still have to play New England and the New York Jets. Unfortunately, both games are in Chicago, and we also have to play the Giants. However, they also play a possibly re-born Viking team in the Mall of America, have to play a presumably revenge-hungry Lions team on the road, and then have to finish out the season in Lambeau.

And I know they beat the Eagles today, but Cutler is taking a lot of hits, which will hopefully trigger another interception binge for ol’ number (pick) 6.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 11:58 PM CST up reply actions  

How exactly

did Jordy Nelson get votes? He played okay, and maybe I missed something, but he didn’t seem to have anything resembling a “player of the game”-type day.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 28, 2010 11:53 PM CST reply actions  

Since I'm still in a bitchy mood

Georgia Dome: not impressed. The Humpty-Dumpty Dome is a FAR more hostile environment. Even at the loudest moments it didn’t even come close. I would not be scared of playing them again in that done.

by bluejazz04 on Nov 29, 2010 12:21 AM CST reply actions  

i'll say it

rodgers fumble was a mistake.

wasn’t in the 4th, but was the difference in the game hands down.

by hermitcrab on Nov 29, 2010 1:48 AM CST reply actions  

Whatever happened

to faking a handoff and rolling out…you can throw or you can run and you probably don’t fumble or get freakin injured when 53500 pounds of DL fall on you….

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.

by snibbodmot on Nov 29, 2010 11:42 AM CST up reply actions  

That play and the screen pass are two things that we used to be great at but have pretty much disappeared in the post-Holmgren era.

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Nov 29, 2010 1:12 PM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed



Manager

Img00243_small Kevin McCauley

Editors

Texbucky_small texwestern

Author

Rubberducky_small Mitchell Maurer

Ayrton_senna_1988_canada_small Vermont Cubs Fan

Fallout-3-1010_small PackApologist

Gassertaylor_small OBrienSchofieldismyHero

Linkedin_picture_small Zack Ward

Carson-palmer-hot-dog_small MatthewJStein