[2012] Green Bay Packers at New York Giants· Page 7

musccy
Veteran Member

12 years ago

Optimism mode on in full.

Let's put this down to just being one of those games.

3 division games on the bounce coming up and we can win them and guarantee the playoffs.

Then it's the Titans at home so that would be at least 11 wins and chance of a division title.

Let's not get too downhearted.

Originally Posted by: flep

The problem is that this and the 49ers game exposed the Packers. This game wasn't an abberation that you can just burn the tape. As has been noted by others, the OL is awful, and this team will continue to be demolished if they face a quality front 4 and corners willing to press at the line. Great, the Packers beat the lowly Titans and Vikings - but once they face the '9ers and Giants again, it'll be the same demolition.

musccy
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#62

We disagree greatly here. 22 carries for 82 yds is not what I consider an overt dedication to running the football. Lets be real here too, Starks got 8 of those carries, AFTER the damage was already done.

You want to keep Aaron on his feet with time to throw? Have your OL ready to pound the frickin ball at the Giants front 7, mercilessly. Have both of your backs ready to run in rotation.

Neither happened last night. This is the 3rd time we put up a FAIL against a top tier defensive front. All 3 times we lost because we did not do this: perform a power rushing assault.

We can do it, but we choose not to. Our OL is not prepared to run it, and our play callers fail to call it. It is the recipe for success against a formidable pass rush. Why keep doing something over and over again when it doesn't work?

Originally Posted by: play2win

I'm too lazy to look up all the stats and sequence of play calls from last night, but this team was down 24-7 early in the 2nd quarter. There isn't a team in the NFL that will run the ball as you suggest if faced with that circumstance. On a bigger scale I agree with you. Somehow this finess approach won a super bowl, but it seems to have given a false sense of security to this team. The Falcons, '9ers, and Giants all have the ability to ground and pound, and whether or not the team commits to it, I question if they have the meat up front effectively do so.

M.M's approach is focused on OL protection waiting for late developing downfield routes, and the team does not have the ability to do that right now.

play2win
Senior Member

12 years ago

#63

Originally Posted by: musccy

OK, here is the first half summary of our rushing attempts:

12 rushes for 55 yds. And that is WITH Rodgers 2 scrambles.

I don't know how many times I have said this here this season, but McCarthy has got to get a better handle on committing to the run. Especially against a team with a dominant pass rush.

http://www.packers.com/assets/docs/gamebooks/2012/121125gamebook-giants.pdf

10 attempts. 10 run plays called for an entire half. Yeah, we're gonna lose. That is precisely the kind of shit that will get any team down 24-7 early in the 2nd quarter... against a fierce NYG front seven looking to get their team back on track.

Those downfield routes work best when the opposing D is forced to honor the run.

play2win
Senior Member

12 years ago

#64

Well, Jason Wilde had a good run at it:

'But the fact of the matter was this Sunday night: The Packers (7-4) loss to the Giants (7-4), in the grand scheme of things, did not matter.

Oh, winning certainly would have been preferred, but it was hardly essential to the Packers’ long-term goals. If you don’t believe that, consider the cautious way coach Mike McCarthy approached the game injury-wise (not playing wide receiver Greg Jennings despite Jennings’ Friday claim that he was “ready,” not pushing Matthews to return from his hamstring injury) and the fact that the Giants lost last year’s regular-season meeting here (38-35 on Dec. 4).

With that result, the Packers improved to 12-0 and the Giants fell to 6-6 … and went on to beat the Packers in the playoffs and win Super Bowl XLVI. In fact, the Giants walked out of MetLife Stadium talking about how much confidence they'd gained -- by losing.

So maybe the Packers’ quality of play reflected that relative unimportance?

“Maybe it’s a good reminder of what happens when you don’t come to play,” veteran defensive tackle Ryan Pickett said. “I’m telling you, we’re going to take this as a positive. We didn’t have enough energy. They played harder than us. That’s not going to happen again. If we lose, it’s not going to be because a team played harder than us.

“That’s just not going to happen. It’s not acceptable around here. It definitely won’t happen again. This will be motivation for us the rest of the year.”"

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=5001&is_corp=1

Hey, maybe this loss proves to be more of a catalyst to winning the big stuff, the important stuff, like many of you had mentioned earlier.

millertime
Member

12 years ago

#65

We really are more banged up than I imagined.

Clay Matthews
Charles woodson
Des bishop
Dj smith
Nick perry
Sam shields

That's half our starters on D! Did you really expect walden and Moses to be able to get pressure? Our o-line also had no chance against that NY d-line. We match up terribly with the giants. We have to hope that Chicago, san Fran, new orleans, or atlanta can knock them out for us come playoff time. We just have no answer for them.

play2win
Senior Member

12 years ago

#66

Originally Posted by: millertime

I'm just throwing this out there, but did you see how many times the Giants OL were holding our pass rushers, without penalty? I saw quite a few, especially involving Moses. The kid was playing pretty well I thought. Looked like at least a half dozen times the Giants were -not- called for holding our players.

And, yes, I do expect Walden and Moses to get pressure on Eli, along with Worthy, Daniels, Pickett, Raji and Neal. Our front 7 played horribly, and they were being held frequently.

all_about_da_packers
Senior Member

12 years ago

#67

We match up terribly with the giants. We have to hope that Chicago, san Fran, new orleans, or atlanta can knock them out for us come playoff time. We just have no answer for them.

Originally Posted by: millertime

I'd like to add a correction to your post, millertime:

"We just have no answer for [any team that decides to play 2-deep safety with man coverage underneath]".

Frankly, it's astonishing that we still cannot find some solution to this coverage. Teams, when they generally play this, have success against us.

I'm at a loss to explain why we cannot figure this scheme out. Is McCarthy an idiot for not being able to utilize his vast array of talent (namely, Finley) to attack 1-on-1 mismatches underneath? Are the players (collection of O-line + RBs) really that crappy that they cannot run against only 6 or 7 men in the box? Obviously players are not winning 1-on-1 battles, but this seems to be the recurring theme whenever we struggle. I'm really interested in the "why do we struggle" seemingly any time teams scheme us in this specific way.

This is a recurring theme from last season: teams decide to get physical and play to take away our deep stuff, then we struggle. Frankly, after still not getting any feeling that some solution is imminent or the coaching staff has a workable counter-plan of attack, I'm about ready to say that this team (namely coaches) should be in panic mode about being 1-and-done in the playoffs again.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

Porforis
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#68

To be fair, we haven't been getting much of any deep stuff this season. This game we got the intermediate stuff taken away by being dominated at the line and having our WRs jammed all over the place.

DarkaneRules
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#69

It is unfortunate to watch your team and know deep down that they are outmatched (mostly physically) in the conference. Offense and defense are both average with moments of good play but no consistency. Giants and 49ers have our number unfortunately.

Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance

porky88
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#70

The Packers have been thoroughly defeated twice in the last four in half years. That's a remarkable fact. It just shows how competitive Green Bay's been with Aaron Rodgers and Mike McCarthy. Both losses, however, were at the expense of the Giants.

There is a fundamental problem in matching up with them. They simply overpower Green Bay along the line of scrimmage and Eli does a good job of managing the clock. He ran the play clock down quite a bit in the first half. I’m sure Clay Matthews makes a difference, but the Packers are going to have to make fundamental changes to their game plan if these teams meet again. For starters, a short and precise passing game that centers on Jermichael Finley helps. In addition, the Giants would have difficulties guarding both Jennings and Cobb in the slot. The Packers should learn from this experience.

http://www.row12.com/

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Rude!

beast (2h) : Martha? 😋

Zero2Cool (6h) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.

dfosterf (8h) : I'm going with a combination of the two.

beast (10h) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC

Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no

Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.

beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?

beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you

wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.

wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.

wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.

Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down

Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious

beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere

beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.

beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.

beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...

beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered

wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.

wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.

wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet

beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury

beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State

beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.

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