Packers outplay Bears, still lose

dd80forever
50.25% (Neutral)
Registered

16 years ago

9-6 in the Packers division is tied for first place.

At least the Jets have a reason to play on Sunday other than to try to keep the Detroit Lions winless.

It's more than Favre, though you like to turn it directly into that. I still don't agree with the Favre move but believe me my list of grievances goes way beyond that. Justin Harrell anyone?

"djcubez" wrote:

First game of the season Miami was ready to win the game against the Jets but what happened? The defense stepped up and made a pick IN THE END ZONE.

Against the Bills this season, the Bills should have ran the clock out but Losman rolled out and lost the football which Ellies returned for a TD in the last two minutes.

If the Packers had defensive stands like this in the end of games we would be in the playoffs.

"dd80forever" wrote:

In a Black and White world that makes sense however there are lots of variables in play.

Perhaps had the Offense controlled the ball more with less 3 and outs, the Defense would have been relieved of some pressure. Perhaps had we had A QB who wasn't gun shy we could have converted some more first downs, controlled the ball, scored more points, and kept the Def. off the field, etc.

I have no desire to debate the Favre issue as the records IMO, speak for themselves. It's not all on Rodgers, alot of it has to do with mismanagement in other areas of the team, however to not explore that aspect is foolish.

"djcubez" wrote:

I don't understand how you can just defer my opinion as "black-and-white", and then proceed to throw a bunch of "ifs" and "buts" onto yours. I had factual evidence as to why the Jets have more wins.

"dd80forever" wrote:

I belive the Packers Def. scored quite a few points this year as well. That what defenses are for.

So the Jets Def. won all the games for them this year and the Packers Off. one all of the games for GB this year?

It's not that simple, sorry.

Is it all Rodgers, no, but does he have nothing to do with it?

blank

djcubez
65.25% (Friendly)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#102

If Crosby had made that kick, would everyone still be questioning McCarthy's decision to run 3 straight times at the end?

"wpr" wrote:

I absolutely would have.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

That'd be your right, but his decision would've led us to a win.

At the end of the day, as Holmgren would say you have to take the sure points each and every time.

Mike McCarthy was doing that, well at least a FG is surer than attempting to throw for a TD.

We're not talking about a 50+ yarder or something, we're talking about a FG around 35 yards. That's very makable.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Crosby has shown all year long that there is no such thing as a sure FG.
Keep in mind I am not asking for GB to try to pass on a TD on any one particular play. I am asking them to try and move the sticks by passing the ball. I am not saying to pass every single down either. But a 35 yard kick in sub zero weather is anything from a sure kick even if the ball is not blocked.
The coach can not say that he isn't going to call a pass because it might be intercepted. They could say we don't want to run the ball because it might be fumbled just as easily.
As long a they had the time and the field position they could call any play. pass on 1st down and get 4 yards and run on 2nd down. Pass again on 3rd down. Rodgers has shown that he completes a high % of his passes. If the receiver breaks a tackle he is going to get a 1st down or more. A run up the middle with 8-9 guys in the box is most likely going to get 3-4 yards if you are lucky. And we have seen all year that GB is not a good running team.

"djcubez" wrote:

I don't understand then. You pass but you don't do it to get a TD? If you're going to get a FG run out as much clock as you can first. Why pass and give the Bears time only to get a FG?

dd80forever
50.25% (Neutral)
Registered

16 years ago

#103

9-6 in the Packers division is tied for first place.

At least the Jets have a reason to play on Sunday other than to try to keep the Detroit Lions winless.

It's more than Favre, though you like to turn it directly into that. I still don't agree with the Favre move but believe me my list of grievances goes way beyond that. Justin Harrell anyone?

"Stevetarded" wrote:

First game of the season Miami was ready to win the game against the Jets but what happened? The defense stepped up and made a pick IN THE END ZONE.

Against the Bills this season, the Bills should have ran the clock out but Losman rolled out and lost the football which Ellies returned for a TD in the last two minutes.

If the Packers had defensive stands like this in the end of games we would be in the playoffs.

"dd80forever" wrote:

In a Black and White world that makes sense however there are lots of variables in play.

Perhaps had the Offense controlled the ball more with less 3 and outs, the Defense would have been relieved of some pressure. Perhaps had we had A QB who wasn't gun shy we could have converted some more first downs, controlled the ball, scored more points, and kept the Def. off the field, etc.

I have no desire to debate the Favre issue as the records IMO, speak for themselves. It's not all on Rodgers, alot of it has to do with mismanagement in other areas of the team, however to not explore that aspect is foolish.

"djcubez" wrote:

less 3 and outs? you know they only had 1 of those right?

"dd80forever" wrote:

Umm, I was referring to the season as a whole per your discussion of the Jets season.

They scored 17 points tonight. 3 or outs or not it wasn't an offensive showcase

blank

djcubez
65.25% (Friendly)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#104

9-6 in the Packers division is tied for first place.

At least the Jets have a reason to play on Sunday other than to try to keep the Detroit Lions winless.

It's more than Favre, though you like to turn it directly into that. I still don't agree with the Favre move but believe me my list of grievances goes way beyond that. Justin Harrell anyone?

"dd80forever" wrote:

First game of the season Miami was ready to win the game against the Jets but what happened? The defense stepped up and made a pick IN THE END ZONE.

Against the Bills this season, the Bills should have ran the clock out but Losman rolled out and lost the football which Ellies returned for a TD in the last two minutes.

If the Packers had defensive stands like this in the end of games we would be in the playoffs.

"djcubez" wrote:

In a Black and White world that makes sense however there are lots of variables in play.

Perhaps had the Offense controlled the ball more with less 3 and outs, the Defense would have been relieved of some pressure. Perhaps had we had A QB who wasn't gun shy we could have converted some more first downs, controlled the ball, scored more points, and kept the Def. off the field, etc.

I have no desire to debate the Favre issue as the records IMO, speak for themselves. It's not all on Rodgers, alot of it has to do with mismanagement in other areas of the team, however to not explore that aspect is foolish.

"dd80forever" wrote:

I don't understand how you can just defer my opinion as "black-and-white", and then proceed to throw a bunch of "ifs" and "buts" onto yours. I had factual evidence as to why the Jets have more wins.

"djcubez" wrote:

I belive the Packers Def. scored quite a few points this year as well. That what defenses are for.

So the Jets Def. won all the games for them this year and the Packers Off. one all of the games for GB this year?

It's not that simple, sorry.

Is it all Rodgers, no, but does he have nothing to do with it?

"dd80forever" wrote:

I never said the Jets defense won all their games. I'm saying that the difference in the W-L column between the Packers and Jets could have been opposite if the Jets defense had choked as much as the Packers have in the end of games, and the Packers defense had played as solid as the Jets defense had in end of games. That's all. I never said Rodger's is not at fault for anything.

all_about_da_packers
100% (Exalted)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#105

They scored 17 points tonight. 3 or outs or not it wasn't an offensive showcase

"dd80forever" wrote:

They dominated the TOP (at least first half) and picked up a ton of first downs.

Offensive showcases don't just come in the form of 35-7 blow-outs.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

djcubez
65.25% (Friendly)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#106

given the tendency of our D to blow leads, you really wanted to put the game in the hands of our D then?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

But we wouldn't have been putting it back in the hands of the D. If we had gotten the first down at the 8 yard line, we could have burned up the clock and left the Bears no time left after we scored. If we failed to score the TD on third down, we'd kick the field goal as time expired.

I'm willing to say that 9/10 the Mike McCarthy play calling will result in a win.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

Except that it hasn't. Every time we go into that mode, every single one of us knows we're going to lose. And we do. Every single time.

It's a no win situation.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

You're right. We haven't won in weeks.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

I do not entirely disagree with you drivel. I'm just saying for all the bad luck, terrible endings and heartbreaking losses we've had this season, wouldn't you just want to play smart, go for the percentage and just have a win? That's all I'm saying. Play it safe so you can actually start reversing your fortunes.

Cheesey
100% (Exalted)
Preferred Member

16 years ago

#107

I myself am hoping we have used up all our bad luck this season, and will tear up the league next year.
With our lousy year, we should have a pretty easy schedule next season.

wpr
100% (Exalted)
Preferred Member

16 years ago

#108

Yes i would have. During the commercials i looked at my wife and said just that. Even if they kick the FG if they run the ball 3 times it is still poor play calling. They did it and lost.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

I don't think so.

While you certainly could be more aggressive, there is a time and place for it. I really don't think that would've been the time nad place.

The last trip inside the red-zone for the Packers vs the Bears, Rodgers threw to Driver who was well covered. The Bears LB covering Driver had the ball hit him in the biceps. It was a dangerous throw, one that should've been picked off.

I think at that point in time, it's better to play the odds. Trying a FG is a safer bet than trying for a TD.

"wpr" wrote:

Do you realize you just called me a liar?
In another season I would have been more willing to play it safe but I still would have understood it if the coach played to win and instead of playing not to lose.
I am tired of coaches who are afraid to take a chance from time to time. Since the 70's I have had my belly full of them. It seems like GB has lost more than they have won those kinds of games.
I hate the "prevent defense".

dd80forever
50.25% (Neutral)
Registered

16 years ago

#109

They scored 17 points tonight. 3 or outs or not it wasn't an offensive showcase

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

They dominated the TOP (at least first half) and picked up a ton of first downs.

Offensive showcases don't just come in the form of 35-7 blow-outs.

"dd80forever" wrote:

33:43 to 26:17. Not exactly a huge difference. It's the Bears for god's sake. I would be surprised if they EVER held the TOP advantage.

blank

djcubez
65.25% (Friendly)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#110

Yes i would have. During the commercials i looked at my wife and said just that. Even if they kick the FG if they run the ball 3 times it is still poor play calling. They did it and lost.

"wpr" wrote:

I don't think so.

While you certainly could be more aggressive, there is a time and place for it. I really don't think that would've been the time nad place.

The last trip inside the red-zone for the Packers vs the Bears, Rodgers threw to Driver who was well covered. The Bears LB covering Driver had the ball hit him in the biceps. It was a dangerous throw, one that should've been picked off.

I think at that point in time, it's better to play the odds. Trying a FG is a safer bet than trying for a TD.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

Do you realize you just called me a liar?
In another season I would have been more willing to play it safe but I still would have understood it if the coach played to win and instead of playing not to lose.
I am tired of coaches who are afraid to take a chance from time to time. Since the 70's I have had my belly full of them. It seems like GB has lost more than they have won those kinds of games.
I hate the "prevent defense".

"wpr" wrote:

I'm with you wpr, on the fact that McCarthy is stubborn, settles for field goals too often and plays not to lose. However, I do not think that the exact situation we are talking about pertains to this. It was the smart decision to win the game, and for some reason, it turned out unfavorably.

Nonstopdrivel
100% (Exalted)
Preferred Member

16 years ago

#111

I hate prevent offenses even more than I hate prevent defenses.

djcubez
65.25% (Friendly)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#112

I myself am hoping we have used up all our bad luck this season, and will tear up the league next year.
With our lousy year, we should have a pretty easy schedule next season.

"Cheesey" wrote:

Anyone know what divisions we get? Being in third place we play every third place team in the NFC which is right now, Seattle, Tampa Bay and the Eagles. Not exactly easy.

all_about_da_packers
100% (Exalted)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#113

They dominated the TOP (at least first half) and picked up a ton of first downs.

Offensive showcases don't just come in the form of 35-7 blow-outs.

"dd80forever" wrote:

33:43 to 26:17. Not exactly a huge difference. It's the Bears for god's sake. I would be surprised if they EVER held the TOP advantage.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

They dominated the TOP IN THE FIRST HALF!

Something like 20:00 - 10:00.

That's call domination. They didn't sustain it. But the Packers dominated the Bears for 45 minutes in the game, and they dominated the TOP in the first half.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

dd80forever
50.25% (Neutral)
Registered

16 years ago

#114

They didn't sustain it.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

blank

wpr
100% (Exalted)
Preferred Member

16 years ago

#115

If Crosby had made that kick, would everyone still be questioning McCarthy's decision to run 3 straight times at the end?

"djcubez" wrote:

I absolutely would have.

"wpr" wrote:

That'd be your right, but his decision would've led us to a win.

At the end of the day, as Holmgren would say you have to take the sure points each and every time.

Mike McCarthy was doing that, well at least a FG is surer than attempting to throw for a TD.

We're not talking about a 50+ yarder or something, we're talking about a FG around 35 yards. That's very makable.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

Crosby has shown all year long that there is no such thing as a sure FG.
Keep in mind I am not asking for GB to try to pass on a TD on any one particular play. I am asking them to try and move the sticks by passing the ball. I am not saying to pass every single down either. But a 35 yard kick in sub zero weather is anything from a sure kick even if the ball is not blocked.
The coach can not say that he isn't going to call a pass because it might be intercepted. They could say we don't want to run the ball because it might be fumbled just as easily.
As long a they had the time and the field position they could call any play. pass on 1st down and get 4 yards and run on 2nd down. Pass again on 3rd down. Rodgers has shown that he completes a high % of his passes. If the receiver breaks a tackle he is going to get a 1st down or more. A run up the middle with 8-9 guys in the box is most likely going to get 3-4 yards if you are lucky. And we have seen all year that GB is not a good running team.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

I don't understand then. You pass but you don't do it to get a TD? If you're going to get a FG run out as much clock as you can first. Why pass and give the Bears time only to get a FG?

"djcubez" wrote:

Others were implying that if GB was not running the ball in order to wind the clock down and then go for a FG that ment that they HAD to be trying to throw the ball into the end zone for a TD on nearly every single play.
I was saying that they needed to run the same kind of passing plays that they had been doing and succeeding with all game long. Short passes off of play action. Screens and down and outs. Passes that we 6-10 yards down field. Mix them up a little and not play right into the strenght of the Bears defense. If they kept moving tha ball down field they would have eventually gotten the TD. If not kick the ball from the when the line of scrimage is the 3 instead of the 20. It may have made a difference.
I want to see a coach and team that tries for TDs 1st and FG only after they run out of options. This team, This coach tries to get FGs 1st and if they luck out and get a TD well so be it.

all_about_da_packers
100% (Exalted)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#116

Do you realize you just called me a liar?

"wpr" wrote:

Whoa, really bad choice of words to start my post you quoted.

What I meant to refer to, with the "I don't think so" bit is the part where you said: "Even if they kick the FG if they run the ball 3 times it is still poor play calling."

I don't think so, with regards to that. It'd be completely idiotic (and out of character for me) to call you a liar when you say you would do something regardless. Didn't mean to imply that at all. Sorry.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

Nonstopdrivel
100% (Exalted)
Preferred Member

16 years ago

#117

This is exactly what I've been advocating as well. I don't understand why everyone assumes that when we say "Go for the TD," we mean toss the ball into the end zone on every play. All we're saying is make a concerted effort to keep moving toward the end zone, instead of deliberately stalling to kill time and kick a field goal.

If you happen not to get it into the end zone on third down, so be it -- you kick the field goal. But at least you TRIED to put it out of reach. And you've killed time off the clock to boot.

djcubez
65.25% (Friendly)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#118

If Crosby had made that kick, would everyone still be questioning McCarthy's decision to run 3 straight times at the end?

"wpr" wrote:

I absolutely would have.

"djcubez" wrote:

That'd be your right, but his decision would've led us to a win.

At the end of the day, as Holmgren would say you have to take the sure points each and every time.

Mike McCarthy was doing that, well at least a FG is surer than attempting to throw for a TD.

We're not talking about a 50+ yarder or something, we're talking about a FG around 35 yards. That's very makable.

"wpr" wrote:

Crosby has shown all year long that there is no such thing as a sure FG.
Keep in mind I am not asking for GB to try to pass on a TD on any one particular play. I am asking them to try and move the sticks by passing the ball. I am not saying to pass every single down either. But a 35 yard kick in sub zero weather is anything from a sure kick even if the ball is not blocked.
The coach can not say that he isn't going to call a pass because it might be intercepted. They could say we don't want to run the ball because it might be fumbled just as easily.
As long a they had the time and the field position they could call any play. pass on 1st down and get 4 yards and run on 2nd down. Pass again on 3rd down. Rodgers has shown that he completes a high % of his passes. If the receiver breaks a tackle he is going to get a 1st down or more. A run up the middle with 8-9 guys in the box is most likely going to get 3-4 yards if you are lucky. And we have seen all year that GB is not a good running team.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

I don't understand then. You pass but you don't do it to get a TD? If you're going to get a FG run out as much clock as you can first. Why pass and give the Bears time only to get a FG?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Others were implying that if GB was not running the ball in order to wind the clock down and then go for a FG that ment that they HAD to be trying to throw the ball into the end zone for a TD on nearly every single play.
I was saying that they needed to run the same kind of passing plays that they had been doing and succeeding with all game long. Short passes off of play action. Screens and down and outs. Passes that we 6-10 yards down field. Mix them up a little and not play right into the strenght of the Bears defense. If they kept moving tha ball down field they would have eventually gotten the TD. If not kick the ball from the when the line of scrimage is the 3 instead of the 20. It may have made a difference.
I want to see a coach and team that tries for TDs 1st and FG only after they run out of options. This team, This coach tries to get FGs 1st and if they luck out and get a TD well so be it.

"djcubez" wrote:

+1. Despite my disagreement, I know you and drivel had been saying it all along, but if we had gotten that extra first, not only would the field goal have been closer and easier but we could run the clock down to 3 seconds if we needed. There's no reason to break off from what's worked the entire game. I mean, even if they DO run 3 straight times, why go directly up the middle for no gain every time? At least be a little creative and try to gain extra yards with maybe a misdirection or draw.

djcubez
65.25% (Friendly)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#119

This is exactly what I've been advocating as well. I don't understand why everyone assumes that when we say "Go for the TD," we mean toss the ball into the end zone on every play. All we're saying is make a concerted effort to keep moving toward the end zone, instead of deliberately stalling to kill time and kick a field goal.

If you happen not to get it into the end zone on third down, so be it -- you kick the field goal. But at least you TRIED to put it out of reach. And you've killed time off the clock to boot.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

That's exactly spot on. I've seen this scenario so many times.

1. We get the ball and we throw a pass for maybe 3-5 yards. Second down we throw for the first.

2. Another first and ten but this time we run it. Loss of 2. So on 2nd and 12 we do the obvious and pass, but Rodger's gets sacked/throws an incompletion/throws it away. 3rd and 12 we do a run or dump off pass. Fourth down we punt.

Stubborness. It's costing us so much. If only we could call plays a little more aggressive. I believe Rodger's playing style as a QB is much more aggressive than his coaches, and they're not using it to their advantage.

all_about_da_packers
100% (Exalted)
Senior Member

16 years ago

#120

This is exactly what I've been advocating as well. I don't understand why everyone assumes that when we say "Go for the TD," we mean toss the ball into the end zone on every play. .

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Well that clears things up.

I honestly didn't have a problem with MM's play calling, but I can see your point.

I've always said it's so easy to criticize the play calling when players don't execute, but you and wpr do make a valid point.

I don't know, I guess because we were well within Crosby's range + the INT's Aaron has thrown late in games (note: not saying they were all his fault) I can't blame MM for sticking with the run and playing it a little safe.

If I worry about the players losing confidence with this losing streak, it's only fair to wonder whether MM has gone into his shell, so to speak, with regards to play calling.

I'd have said no, but having your point cleared up... it's an interesting question to ponder.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

Important Information: