Will somebody please define the difference between not playing to lose and playing to win?
"Greg C." wrote:
Playing to win would be goin for the juggler, the knockout punch. Taking a risk by throwing one deep a time or two trying to catch the team off guard.
Playing not to lose, is not taking those chances cuz they could be intercepted or what not and just doing safe run plays to eat clock.
I could go more in depth, but I'm tired.
"Zero2Cool" wrote:
What if they try to throw deep, but the QB gets sacked because one or two linemen can't hold their blocks? Then the fans complain that they should've run the ball or thrown a short pass.
These play-calling debates can go around and around forever. When the Packers lose (and even when they win, for that matter) fans will say one of two things:
1. The play-calling was too conservative.
2. They gave up on the running game too soon.
Sometimes the fans say both of those things at the same time. Sometimes there is some truth to the criticisms, but what it really comes down to is that the players have to win their battles. And they're not winning those battles enough, especially on the offensive line.
"obi1" wrote: