beast
10 years ago


Even IF the catch was really a catch... the end result shouldn't of been a touchdown.


Tate CLEARLY pushed Shield out of the play and onto the ground.

Also add in the horrible call roughing the QB call earlier which kept one of the last two drives alive when, Walden or Perry legally hit Wilson...
UserPostedImage
SINCITYCHEEZE
10 years ago
We can discuss this till the Milk-Makers come home. It won't change a thing. All we are doing is 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴🐴 🐴
Of Course it is the off-season and we don't have much to discuss right now. So beat away👅 👅 👅
Wisconsin Born, Packer Bred
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

Part of the running game is cumulative. You have to wear a defense down. Normally this comes with Time of Possession, if your coach is even concerned about that sort of thing.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



That would b true if winniñg % went up with TOP.

But it doesn't.So I wouldn't be concerned either.

You can't wear a D down if the running game can't move the chains.

You have to actually gain yards. They don't give you first downs just for rushing attempts.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
macbob
10 years ago

The 3 runs in the first half included a 20 yard run by Cobb. Leaving Benson with 2 per.

Whenever Benson got the ball, he got little or nothing. Including the dump off passes.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



What was Rodgers numbers that first half? 58 yards on 27 passes...hey, 2 yards per attempt!

On the TD scoring drive, other than the TD run, Benson had 2 runs for -3 yards in the other 16 plays. You can give him credit for the TD run, but giving him any credit for the running game making being the difference is total BS.

Dexter_Sinister wrote:



Benson: 10 rushes for 49 yards in the 3rd quarter, and we have drives of 70 and 66 yards.

You are saying the only adjustment they made in the second half was running the ball. Not in protecting Rodgers better.

Dexter_Sinister wrote:



No, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I said was running the ball helped our OL protect Rodgers better by not letting the DL, etc tee off on the QB like they did in the first half, when we abandoned the run. Which helped our passing game in the second half.

Running in the 4th quarter didn't help us generated a critical first down. So you can say "if" all you want to conjecture how effective more running might have been. But when they really needed the yards, running DID let them down. No ifs about it.

Dexter_Sinister wrote:



I did not say the running game won the game for us. Or that all we should do is run the ball. Or that we should have run the ball more in the second half. Or that we should become primarily a running team.

What I said was that our lack of balance on offense in the first half made it easier on the D to concentrate on and shut down our passing game (58 yards passing) because McCarthy abandoned the run without having even seen if we could run it against Seattle (1x carry first quarter, 2x 2nd quarter= abandoned in my book). Result = 0 points, 58 yards passing, 82 yards total offense in the first half.

Scoring drives first half = 0 out of 5. Scoring drives second half = 3 out of 4.
UserPostedImage
DoddPower
10 years ago


No, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by: macbob 



Dex likes to do that so that every scenario fits his narrative.
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

Dex likes to do that so that every scenario fits his narrative.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



What is the logical conclusion if you say, they didn't run so they didn't score. They started to run so they did score.

The conclusion is you are crediting the running for the scoring and conversly blaming the lack for not scoring.

Even though the only TD scoring drive had 3 runs for negative yards. Pretty much the same ratio of the first 2 drives of the game.

Ignoring any other protection adjustments they made.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
macbob
10 years ago

What is the logical conclusion if you say, they didn't run so they didn't score. They started to run so they did score.

The conclusion is you are crediting the running for the scoring and conversly blaming the lack for not scoring.

Even though the only TD scoring drive had 3 runs for negative yards. Pretty much the same ratio of the first 2 drives of the game.

Ignoring any other protection adjustments they made.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



The logical conclusion is stated in my previous post. I just re-read it, and it looks pretty clear to me.

The 'logical conclusion' I would draw from your arguments is that you obviously preferred the offense of the first half of that game over the second half, where we wasted handing the ball off to Benson 10 times in the 3rd quarter alone.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
10 years ago
FACT: It was a horrible call.
But we can't change it.
There are calls all the time that are bad and make the difference in a game. This one stood out because of the fake refs, which were making bad calls left and right. Being at the end of the game, being the deciding score, just made it stand out more then all the other lousy calls.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

The logical conclusion is stated in my previous post. I just re-read it, and it looks pretty clear to me.

The 'logical conclusion' I would draw from your arguments is that you obviously preferred the offense of the first half of that game over the second half, where we wasted handing the ball off to Benson 10 times in the 3rd quarter alone.

Originally Posted by: macbob 



None of that is accurate. I prefer the drive they had in the 4th quarter that produced a TD. Not wasting downs on ineffective rushing and protecting Rodgers better.

I have said we needed to run more many times. But I also said we couldn't because we didn't have a decent running back. So there wasn't much option. Benson's poor running was not helping them score. We didn't need a crappy POS back that averaged 2 per getting 25 touches. We needed a solid back averaging 4 per getting 25 touches. Unfortunately, that wasn't an option.

You guys seem to be saying that they should have handed it off more because they did in the 3rd quarter and scored 2 FGs.

The only TD drive they had was with the same rushing ratio that you blame for not scoring any points in the first 2 quarters. They scored as many points not running the ball (and not getting sacked) as they did running the ball in the 3rd quarter. Yet all the credit is given to the running game.

Even though they did run more in the final drive and had negative rushing yards. Your useless rushing attempts produced a 3 and out.

Benson's lack of ability and the teams lack of viable alternatives prevented them from being able to run as much as they wanted too is my point.

Your point seems to be they didn't want to run and Benson sucking was only incidental.




I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

What was Rodgers numbers that first half? 58 yards on 27 passes...hey, 2 yards per attempt!



Benson: 10 rushes for 49 yards in the 3rd quarter, and we have drives of 70 and 66 yards.



No, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.



I did not say the running game won the game for us. Or that all we should do is run the ball. Or that we should have run the ball more in the second half. Or that we should become primarily a running team.


Scoring drives first half = 0 out of 5. Scoring drives second half = 3 out of 4.

Originally Posted by: macbob 



Now who is putting words in?

Because I didn't any of that either. I only said you are blaming the loss on the not running the ball enough in the 1st half.

You only blamed the not running in the first half for the offensive problems. You didn't credit anything else as contributing to the better 3rd quarter and 1 drive in the 4th (where they actually didn't run any more than the 1st half). When you say the protection was better, you credit the running game. All the improvements you attributed to the running game. You may not have stated "they didn't make any other adjustments." But you did take all the credit for them and gave it to the running game. Even when they were not running any more than the first half and still scored a TD.

Points scored on drives with 80% or more passing, 6. Points scored on drives with a more balanced pass/run ratio, 6.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (4h) : Chase Young to sign $13M contract with Saints
Zero2Cool (4h) : Yosh to Panthers what noooo. Wait he didn't do crap
wpr (18-Mar) : I say that he is technically HER BIL as he married her sister. I checked it out, he's considered my BIL as well. Sad.
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : wpr, I assume its your BIL via marriage to your wife? If so, I can figure out where the smarts in the family went ;)
wpr (18-Mar) : Mucky my B-I-L is Bare Stupid. I could write a book.
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : As a teenager in Rockford IL I would get heckled by adults in public for wearing GB gear
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : if you think the online ones are bad, try *living amongst* them
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : Never doubt wprs loyalty. Poor guy is surrounded by Bears fans in Northern IL
wpr (17-Mar) : pass Martha. Thanks for the invite though.
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : blog * as the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Baer
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : WPR, perhaps you should be joining the Bears fans blog has the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Bears
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : Ah a fellow U of Illinois hater. I can respect that though I imagine it's for different reasons
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : BTW. I didn't catch the game. I just hate Illinois.
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : They're your Big Ten Chumps and you will like it!
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not for the record. Referee's handled that BS. Orange team was trash ass
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : *Your* Big Ten Chumps for the record
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not Big Ten Champs. IL is big ten CHUMPS
wpr (17-Mar) : Big Ten Champs
wpr (17-Mar) : !!!
wpr (17-Mar) : INI
wpr (17-Mar) : ILL
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : Wisconsin with an outstanding on in the men’s Big Ten basketball tournament. Let’s hope it continues in the NCAAs
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : Almost like taking QB in 2020 even if you don't need one is good move.
Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : 2021 QB Draft class looking like a real clunker
Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : A conditional 6th rounder? I remember Bears fans arguing they'd get a day 2 pick at worst lol
dfosterf (16-Mar) : So I got the no extension part right and the have to wait on the CW physical wrong
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Bears are trading Justin Fields for a 2025 6th-round pick that goes to a 4th-round pick based on playtime, per sources.
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Former Packer Jarrett Bush opens Wisconsin’s first blow dry bar in Green Bay
dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are not doing a deal with Washington, they also cannot trade Fields until Williams physical with them. All hail Caleb Williams!
dfosterf (16-Mar) : The talent is undeniable, but the (advertised) haul is obscene.
dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are cutting a deal with the Commanders, in either scenario, cannot happen until williams passes a Commanders physical
dfosterf (16-Mar) : My guess is no to the Fields extension, but yes to the trade back with the Commanders.
dhazer (15-Mar) : I think the Bears do a Love extension and they will trade out of the 1st pick and take the haul
Martha Careful (15-Mar) : that might make sense
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Justin Fields to Steelers?
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Kenny Pickett. Eagles. Done.
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : They can claim best two WR tandem.
Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : Aaron Donald retiring
dhazer (15-Mar) : Campbell signing with 49ers
dhazer (15-Mar) : I love how the Bear Fans are now claiming they have the best skill players in the NFC North lol
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Vikings made a move to get a 2nd first round pick
Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : That's a not a bad deal for the Bears
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Bears have traded for WR Keenan Allen sending Chargers a fourth rounder.
Martha Careful (15-Mar) : *signs
Martha Careful (14-Mar) : MLB Devon White science with the Eagles
Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : But that was before FA started
Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : Dhaze, I thought Kurls would be their #1 target when I read that he was an Amos comp (jack of all trades guy)
dhazer (14-Mar) : I would like to see the Packers target 2 more FA still available Kamren Curl Safety and Chase Young edge
Martha Careful (14-Mar) : wow...didn't see that coming
Zero2Cool (14-Mar) : AJ Dillon re-signing with Packers.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
52m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Mar / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

16-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

16-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.