Nonstopdrivel
16 years ago

You want the courageous, "go for it all" mentality to prove they have balls

"warhawk" wrote:



I disagree. It's not like were were pinned inside our own 20 and needed a couple of Hail Marys to get into field-goal position. We were on the Bears' 18 and needed to get to the 8 for a first down. All it takes is a couple of the same passes we'd thrown to great effect the entire game -- you know, the 6- to 8-yard kind -- and we'd have the first down. We didn't need to throw a deep bomb or anything heroic.

I've said it before; I'll repeat it here. People like wpr and I aren't advocating that Rodgers toss it into the end zone on every play. We're advocating that Mike McCarthy call plays to the Packers' strengths: play action passing that would have gotten us closer to the end zone, probably would have gotten us another first down, and could easily have given us a chance for a game-winning touchdown. At worst, we would have gone three-and-out and kicked the field goal. I don't understand these strange lateral runs that aren't designed to gain yardage -- or the runs up the middle, into one of the best defensive lines in football, that have been shown time and time again not to work this season.
UserPostedImage
Fred
16 years ago

I disagree with the playcalling on a philosophical level. It has nothing to do with whether it succeeds or fails -- I just don't like it. Had Crosby's FG attempt split the uprights, I still would have complained that it was a boring and anticlimactic way to limp into a victory. Given the choice between a game-winning TD pass from Rodgers and a game-winning FG from Crosby, I'll choose the TD pass every single time.

I could understand playing the percentages if we had a mediocre QB; but we have a fantastic, top-ten QB -- who's a first-year starter at that. I could understand the concern about a possible red-zone turnover if Rodgers had a history of screwing up in the red zone, but he is the best red-zone quarterback in the NFL this year.

We just have to agree to disagree, because my objections have nothing to do with the fact the FG attempt failed. I was vociferously protesting the play choices as they lined up. It was the same tired, old formula that's taken us nowhere this season.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



I gather than that you like a risk taking, high reward, gun-slinger type QB who can win games for the team rather than a boring, game manager who has to depend on others to win the game?

Am I hearing you right?

Just for clarification purposes.
blank
Nonstopdrivel
16 years ago

I gather than that you like a risk taking, high reward, gun-slinger type QB?

"Fred" wrote:



Uh, no.

Let's review what I said:

All it takes is a couple of the same passes we'd thrown to great effect the entire game -- you know, the 6- to 8-yard kind -- and we'd have the first down. We didn't need to throw a deep bomb or anything heroic.

"Nonstopdrivel wrote:



Or this:

I could understand the concern about a possible red-zone turnover if Rodgers had a history of screwing up in the red zone, but he is the best red-zone quarterback in the NFL this year.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



High-risk quarterbacks tend to have histories of INTs in the red zone.

I advocate a choice of plays that plays to the team's strength, not a reliance on some superhuman quarterback to take the entire success or failure of the team on his own shoulders through the mystical might of his omnipotent aura.
UserPostedImage
Fred
16 years ago
How about winning by his "Hall of Fame" talent, then?

He's a winner, that you can't deny.
blank
Nonstopdrivel
16 years ago
He's also prone to be reckless. That's what I love about Rodgers: He rarely is.
UserPostedImage
warhawk
16 years ago

You want the courageous, "go for it all" mentality to prove they have balls

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



I disagree. It's not like were were pinned inside our own 20 and needed a couple of Hail Marys to get into field-goal position. We were on the Bears' 18 and needed to get to the 8 for a first down. All it takes is a couple of the same passes we'd thrown to great effect the entire game -- you know, the 6- to 8-yard kind -- and we'd have the first down. We didn't need to throw a deep bomb or anything heroic.

I've said it before; I'll repeat it here. People like wpr and I aren't advocating that Rodgers toss it into the end zone on every play. We're advocating that Mike McCarthy call plays to the Packers' strengths: play action passing that would have gotten us closer to the end zone, probably would have gotten us another first down, and could easily have given us a chance for a game-winning touchdown. At worst, we would have gone three-and-out and kicked the field goal. I don't understand these strange lateral runs that aren't designed to gain yardage -- or the runs up the middle, into one of the best defensive lines in football, that have been shown time and time again not to work this season.

"warhawk" wrote:




Nonstop, Nonstop, Nonstop. I just really don't know what to tell you.

McCarthy DID everything you just asked of him above.....to GET the ball to the twenty. He threw it and called the plays to move the chains. What your saying here is "yeah, but if he would have just done it one more time for one more first down." C'mon man.

You know darn well the field tightens up down there and the defenders don't play as deep and the opportunity for something bad happening increases. I recall a pass of the "six to eight yard variety" tipped and intercepted in the first half.

Oh boy. Would the heads be rolling if that had happened.

Why? Why when the ball is sitting on "game over."
"The train is leaving the station."
zombieslayer
16 years ago

It all sounds great and everything but then again I can just imagine what would happen on this forum if McCarthy did turn him loose and there was a misfortunate turnover. A tipped ball at the LOS or INT that bounces off the receiver or a fumble after the catch and people here go APE crap on McCarthy AND Rodgers.

I can understand the thinking "hey, let's get the monkey off Rodgers back" logic but the bottom line here is the OL is payed to block, Crosby is paid to make FG's, and Mike McCarthy is paid to win football games.

I think the team is in a lot bigger trouble if they start changing WHY they make the decisions they should make. What's ironinc about this thread with a "help the young QB" theme is that if everything worked out the way they should have last night there would have been a LOT of people saying "oh yeah, he played it conservative to get Rodgers the win."

I don't understand why every time something doesn't work the way it's supposed there is something WRONG and so many are off in far, far places looking for the answers.

It's Rodgers arm, it's Rodgers head, it's Rodgers inability to produce late in games, it's because Rodgers ain't Favre, it's McCarthy who can't call plays, McCarthy who can't coach, McCarthy who can't whatever.

I could swear all I saw was an offensive line that didn't block very well and a kick that didn't appear to get high enough fast enough in a place on the field where it should have been ROUTINE. At least the other guy made the same kick look pretty routine to me a couple of minutes later.

Didn't that look routine to you?

"warhawk" wrote:



OK. Looking at it from another angle then.
Let's say someone needs to be blamed for this loss. Who failed? You and I agree it's not Aaron Rodgers. He did his job. He performed well, threw 2 TDs, 260 yards in the miserable cold (which is actually quite a feat).

The OL? Someone missed their block and allowed a defender to block the kick. Well, then the blame goes to Ted Thompson for having four years to build a line and it still sucks.

I'm just saying if we had to blame someone...
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Nonstopdrivel
16 years ago
You raise valid points, warhawk, and if we were, say, battling for a postseason berth I might even agree. (I still wouldn't like it, but I am a pragmatic person.) However, our season was over last week, so I don't see the harm in letting the guys audition for next year.

But I'm clearly in the minority on this issue, and I accept that.
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
16 years ago
The premise of this thread is off in any means..

The duty of the Head Coach is to lead the team to victory.. not bolster the confidence or stats of a young QB.

He got the ball into reasonable FG range, milked the clock and set the team up for a decent shot at a victory.. textbook.

More aggressive or less is subject for on going debate.. but Mike McCarthy did what is logically sound.. eat time off the clock, protect the ball and set yourself up for a solid scoring opportunity.. we failed on that play. Period.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
TengoJuego
16 years ago
We had our kick blocked...PERIOD. NFL overtime rules suck balls.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (2h) : Merry Christmas!
beast (11h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (19h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
4m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

15h / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21h / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

Headlines