dhazer
14 years ago

So the lesson we get from this is that the Falcons won the game because they have a better running game? Give me a break. This is not the 1970s, folks. The pass-happy Packers moved the ball more effectively today then the Falcons did. The Falcons won because they made a couple of big plays and the Packers kickoff coverage team made the big mistake.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



Things are easy to overlook when running smoothly; certainly our passing game has been clicking since the Cowboys game.

Still, that should not diminish the point that had we any real RB worth a damn in terms of speed, we'd be able to take advantage of some of the opportunities that are out there.

We didn't lose because of a lack of a running game; it's wrong to suggest that.

However, there is a shitload of yardage to gain through the run because teams are playing to take the pass away. Especially when we start working our way towards the sidelines, it is surprising how much open field there is to be exploited.

The Packers, had they any sort of speed-threat at RB, would make life for Rodgers a hell of a lot easier.

Again, we did not lose because we couldn't run the ball. But that should not lead us to dismiss a very valid observation (regardless of packer98 making it) that we have been short-changed at the RB position by Ted.

"Greg C." wrote:



I have to disagree with the part that is bolded. we need a power back not a speed back. We do play on the frozen tundra not inside a dome. In the 90's we had power backs just for the late months of the year. Dorsey Levens, Ahman Green, Edgar Bennett all were power backs. You bring in a guy like Chris Johnson with that speed he is a fail in December and January. Look how we made (sorry Zero) Barry look on the frozen tundra
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
14 years ago
Well, it was nice knowing you Hazer.

(Hazer has now been banned from PH).
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
blueleopard
14 years ago

I knew this thread was coming, especially with Brian Billick, the king of the coachspeak announcers, calling the game. He was harping on the difference in the running games all day long, and yet, with less than one minute left, the score was tied, and that was with the Packers having committed the game's only turnover--a fumble at the Falcons' one yard line.

So the lesson we get from this is that the Falcons won the game because they have a better running game? Give me a break. This is not the 1970s, folks. The pass-happy Packers moved the ball more effectively today then the Falcons did. The Falcons won because they made a couple of big plays and the Packers kickoff coverage team made the big mistake.

"Greg C." wrote:



You forgot to mention that we played right into their gameplan.

Atlanta thrives on time of possession and controlling the game. They were in control the entire time. Sure, we moved the ball. But they had control.

Example? They were winning the entire time.
Danreb Victorio A Believer of Greg Jennings
mi_keys
14 years ago

So the lesson we get from this is that the Falcons won the game because they have a better running game? Give me a break. This is not the 1970s, folks. The pass-happy Packers moved the ball more effectively today then the Falcons did. The Falcons won because they made a couple of big plays and the Packers kickoff coverage team made the big mistake.

"dhazer" wrote:



Things are easy to overlook when running smoothly; certainly our passing game has been clicking since the Cowboys game.

Still, that should not diminish the point that had we any real RB worth a damn in terms of speed, we'd be able to take advantage of some of the opportunities that are out there.

We didn't lose because of a lack of a running game; it's wrong to suggest that.

However, there is a shitload of yardage to gain through the run because teams are playing to take the pass away. Especially when we start working our way towards the sidelines, it is surprising how much open field there is to be exploited.

The Packers, had they any sort of speed-threat at RB, would make life for Rodgers a hell of a lot easier.

Again, we did not lose because we couldn't run the ball. But that should not lead us to dismiss a very valid observation (regardless of packer98 making it) that we have been short-changed at the RB position by Ted.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



I have to disagree with the part that is bolded. we need a power back not a speed back. We do play on the frozen tundra not inside a dome. In the 90's we had power backs just for the late months of the year. Dorsey Levens, Ahman Green, Edgar Bennett all were power backs. You bring in a guy like Chris Johnson with that speed he is a fail in December and January. Look how we made (sorry Zero) Barry look on the frozen tundra

"Greg C." wrote:



I'm with you on this one. In addition to the elements we play in favoring a power back, we don't have good enough blocking to get anyone outside anyway. If we had someone like a Mike Tolbert or Peyton Hillis who could just run someone over or push the pile we could alleviate our woes on third and short and help this team out.
Born and bred a cheesehead
mi_keys
14 years ago

I knew this thread was coming, especially with Brian Billick, the king of the coachspeak announcers, calling the game. He was harping on the difference in the running games all day long, and yet, with less than one minute left, the score was tied, and that was with the Packers having committed the game's only turnover--a fumble at the Falcons' one yard line.

So the lesson we get from this is that the Falcons won the game because they have a better running game? Give me a break. This is not the 1970s, folks. The pass-happy Packers moved the ball more effectively today then the Falcons did. The Falcons won because they made a couple of big plays and the Packers kickoff coverage team made the big mistake.

"blueleopard" wrote:



You forgot to mention that we played right into their gameplan.

Atlanta thrives on time of possession and controlling the game. They were in control the entire time. Sure, we moved the ball. But they had control.

Example? They were winning the entire time.

"Greg C." wrote:



The time of possession was almost dead even at 28:20 to 31:40.

And that is in spite of the fact that we lost possessions to the end of both halves.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Greg C.
14 years ago

I knew this thread was coming, especially with Brian Billick, the king of the coachspeak announcers, calling the game. He was harping on the difference in the running games all day long, and yet, with less than one minute left, the score was tied, and that was with the Packers having committed the game's only turnover--a fumble at the Falcons' one yard line.

So the lesson we get from this is that the Falcons won the game because they have a better running game? Give me a break. This is not the 1970s, folks. The pass-happy Packers moved the ball more effectively today then the Falcons did. The Falcons won because they made a couple of big plays and the Packers kickoff coverage team made the big mistake.

"blueleopard" wrote:



You forgot to mention that we played right into their gameplan.

Atlanta thrives on time of possession and controlling the game. They were in control the entire time. Sure, we moved the ball. But they had control.

Example? They were winning the entire time.

"Greg C." wrote:



As mi_keys mentioned, the time of possession was almost even, so I don't see how the Packers played right into their game plan. Citing the fact that the Falcons led most of the way doesn't really qualify as analysis. I think you need to explain yourself more. What should the Packers have done differently in order to avoid playing right into the Falcons' game plan?
blank
dfosterf
14 years ago
Time to shove Mr. Starks into the breech.

My bet is that the biggest concern with him would be pass-blocking.

His running ability at this level is pretty much an unknown, but I personally have no problem with that. I believe from what I HAVE seen of him that he has some real potential to be something great.

I know what I had with Grant behind this shit-box line, and I liked it. I always liked how he hit a hole (or our unreasonable facsimile of one)

I know what I have with Jackson behind this shit-box line, and I don't like it. He's a chronic stutter-stepper.

I never got a real chance to see what Nance had behind this shit-box line, but I was starting to like it...he LOOKED like he could make some tough yards, even if the numbers don't necessarily reflect that perception.

This Starks kid could EASILY be something special as a running back. That is NEVER going to happen with Jackson, imo...Not with this shit-box line. I've seen more than enough to arrive at that conclusion regarding Jackson.

Maybe Starks is our dose of pure luck this year. 4 losses by a cumulative 12 points, also with a total of under 30 seconds left in regulation, and the GD OT's, we DESERVE some disgusting luck, getting tired of eating out of the sh#t-box.

Sorry for the cursing as regards our shit-box line, it was solely in the interest of laser-like accuracy with only the English language available in the repertoire. :tongue3:

I know our pass-blocking is improved. Save it. Not interested for the purposes of this thread.
Since69
14 years ago
I agree. Put in Starks on 1st & 2nd down, and let BJack be what he is: a third-down back.

I'm not saying Starks will be an improvement - I just want to see him get a chance (THIS YEAR).

Starks could be our 2010 version of the 2005 Samkon Gado...
UserPostedImage
dfosterf
14 years ago
JSOnline- Silverstein; Ground work 

...
That rate might not doom the Packers, but in three of their four losses, the result might have been different had they gotten another yard. For example:

Washington, 16-13, OT: The offense failed threw times to score from the 1 in the second quarter, giving up the ball on downs, and in the third quarter failed on third-and-2 at the Washington 18, settling for a field goal. Later in the quarter, it failed on third-and-1 at the Washington 29, settling for a 48-yard field goal, which Mason Crosby missed.

Miami, 23-20, OT: In the fourth quarter, it failed to convert a third-and-3 at the Dolphins 8, settling for a field goal, and gave up a sack on third-and-2 at its 30 with the game tied.

Atlanta, 20-17: Failed twice on quarterback sneaks near the end zone in the second quarter, losing the ball on Aaron Rodgers' fumble on the second one, and failed to complete passes on third and fourth downs with 1 yard to go inside Atlanta territory in the fourth quarter.

The loss to the Falcons has brought those short-yardage failures to light.

"Obviously, I'm not happy with our production from our group," offensive line coach James Campen said. "Last week was not acceptable."



I think a fair characterization of that article is that the offensive line is directly responsible for 3 of our 4 losses this year.

What was it, 17 penalties in that Bears game ? (not one of the three cited)

I'm gonna go back and look at that game too. I bet I can come up with some good reasons to blame them for that one, also. :tongue3:
That being said, and my LONG history of hating our o-line and anger at Ted for waiting too long to try and fix things, imo-

I'd be good with drafting the Alabama kid if he was still on the board-- I don't think I have ever been OK with such a thing in the past, but he looks too good to me to pass up (Mark Ingram)- And he just might be there.
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
    dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
    dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
    Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
    dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
    dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
    Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
    dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
    Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
    Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
    Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
    Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
    dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
    Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
    Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
    Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
    Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?
    Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Van Ness played most of season with broken thumb
    wpr (9-Apr) : yay
    Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy says Steelers likely to protect Packers game. Meaning, no Ireland
    Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Struggling to figure out what text editor options are needed and which are 'nice to have'
    Mucky Tundra (8-Apr) : *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP*
    Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : WR who said he'd break Xavier Worthy 40 time...and ran slower than you
    Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Who?
    Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Texas’ WR Isaiah Bond is scheduled to visit the Bills, Browns, Chiefs, Falcons, Packers and Titans starting next week.
    Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Spotting ball isn't changing, only measuring distance is, Which wasn't the issue.
    Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : The spotting of the ball IS the issue. Not the chain gang.
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    30 - 17
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    31 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    30 - 13
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    34 - 0
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    25 - 27
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    22 - 24
    Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
    Eagles
    10 - 22
    Recent Topics
    19h / Random Babble / wpr

    16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    15-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

    2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

    28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.