Zero2Cool
9 years ago
Packers were 11th in Red Zone TD Scoring percentage.
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct/ 

And this link here is going to make everyone realize the sky is indeed ... falling.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff 


BTW, 2008 Detroit Lions went 4 - 0 in the exhibition games and 0 - 16. That's just something to consider when reacting in the excessive category. šŸ˜
UserPostedImage
musccy
9 years ago



BTW, 2008 Detroit Lions went 4 - 0 in the exhibition games and 0 - 16. That's just something to consider when reacting in the excessive category. šŸ˜

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Did you read Vic Ketchman yesterday?
Zero2Cool
9 years ago

Did you read Vic Ketchman yesterday?

Originally Posted by: musccy 



I can't even remember the last time I read something he wrote. He does the Packers mailbag questions, right?
UserPostedImage
uffda udfa
9 years ago

Whenever I read complaints I try to picture them in context so can you tell us where the Packers ranked in red zone efficiency relative to the rest of the NFL?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I don't. Not concerned with the rest of the NFL. Concerned with how we do and how we should do. We have the same players who weren't as effective as they should've been last year.

Tell me...what has changed? Clements?

If you saw the same failures in an exhibition as you saw in regular season and playoff games that is not cause for any concern whatsoever? I keep forgetting...it's all just luck, anyway. If we only get luckier in the RZ we can relax but sadly with luck one can never relax because you can never count on it.

UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because theyā€™ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


sschind
9 years ago

Every Packer Fan I know was pissed, some deal with adversity differently better than others.



NO! ya take it like a big big guy! You keep your head and evaluate with calmness and scholarship. Go ahead shoot them, YOU end up in prison. You evaluate if you should stay married, live in the neighborhood, what's bets for the kids. Of course the best friend, coincidentally his name is Bostic Slow-cum, has gotta go...LOL

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



Maybe if you weren't so quick in the sack she wouldn't have had to turn to another man. I don't know if there is an NFCC game analogy in there anywhere, it just popped into my head when I read Slow-cum.

Zero2Cool
9 years ago

I don't. Not concerned with the rest of the NFL. Concerned with how we do and how we should do. We have the same players who weren't as effective as they should've been last year.

Tell me...what has changed? Clements?

If you saw the same failures in an exhibition as you saw in regular season and playoff games that is not cause for any concern whatsoever? I keep forgetting...it's all just luck, anyway. If we only get luckier in the RZ we can relax but sadly with luck one can never relax because you can never count on it.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



I know you do not think in relative terms at all. You seem to think the Packers should be playing All Madden while the rest of the NFL is on Novice or Rookie. That's simply unrealistic. If the Packers are are doing better than a good portion of the league, they must be doing something right. Does this mean they can't improve? Absolutely not and I think that is where you are sit firmly. Regardless of how good they are, you demand they do better. I find no qualms with that.

I would say you see Aaron Rodgers, Eddie Lacy, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb and a pretty damn good OL and think "you can't punch it in for six at least 75% of the time?". I'm with you on that, however, I also know that when the field is shorter, you have less options. When you're in the red zone you have 22 men packed into just 30 yards of space at most. That limits your options dramatically.

One problem I have with your "style" is if the Packers punched it in each time, you'd be crowing "it is just exhibition, doesn't matter". Truth. šŸ˜ I've said before and will again. I want to see improvement from game to game in exhibition. If the Packers falter again on 8 attempts inside the 5 yard line with the starting offense. It will be curious to ponder... are they just experimenting? are they holding back? are they trying to set something up for regular season?

As you can see, many variables here.
UserPostedImage
+3
uffda udfa
9 years ago

I know you do not think in relative terms at all. You seem to think the Packers should be playing All Madden while the rest of the NFL is on Novice or Rookie. That's simply unrealistic. If the Packers are are doing better than a good portion of the league, they must be doing something right. Does this mean they can't improve? Absolutely not and I think that is where you are sit firmly. Regardless of how good they are, you demand they do better. I find no qualms with that.

I would say you see Aaron Rodgers, Eddie Lacy, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb and a pretty damn good OL and think "you can't punch it in for six at least 75% of the time?". I'm with you on that, however, I also know that when the field is shorter, you have less options. When you're in the red zone you have 22 men packed into just 30 yards of space at most. That limits your options dramatically.

One problem I have with your "style" is if the Packers punched it in each time, you'd be crowing "it is just exhibition, doesn't matter". Truth. šŸ˜ I've said before and will again. I want to see improvement from game to game in exhibition. If the Packers falter again on 8 attempts inside the 5 yard line with the starting offense. It will be curious to ponder... are they just experimenting? are they holding back? are they trying to set something up for regular season?

As you can see, many variables here.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I might. Would depend on circumstances.

My belief is most of you think that being great is unrealistic and good is as good as it gets. The question is simple...should we do better down there than we do? It's a YES or NO question not a "how does the rest of the NFL do" type of a thing. If you want to be "the rest of the NFL" you sure aren't thinking about being a conquering champion. So, should we be better? If yes...then there is much to type about. I find it hard to believe anyone would say NO. The ones who are good is good enough types don't want to say the RZ is an issue when it is even to them when pressed. It is more fun to live in good is good enough and to not think in terms of anything being wrong. How could anything be wrong with the Packers? It's avoidance trait thinking. Some are just happier in that created world. I get it. The real world is the Packers aren't as good down there and there are reasons like not having a real TE, or Guards who are true maulers. It's not rocket science. We have the same ineffective players as we had last year for the RZ. Nothing has changed yet the gooders think that a year later makes a difference. It doesn't. You're counting on the rest of the NFL's defenses to get worse while reciting the fact our starters are all back...Yup, the same ineffective ones from last year. Hooray.

BTW, way OT, I had a dream last night that was actually clear and vivid. Packers won the SuperBowl. Rodgers threw a 50+ yard rope to a WR with the last name BROUTON who wore #12. I know, Rodgers is 12. I recall the announcer saying the kid was pure speed and from somewhere in Texas. I saw RC18 dancing with him. So, some UDFA WR is going to catch the winning score for us in SB 50. Must be Larry Pinkard. šŸ˜


UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because theyā€™ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


texaspackerbacker
9 years ago

Yeah, let's just rest on LUCK... that way it's not anyone's fault. It's just plain dumb luck. I'm sure the past 49 SB Winners all won because they just got lucky? Our Packers dominated the first two SB's...no luck involved at all. We rocked New England...there was no luck involved in that one.

Pittsburgh was interesting. We had lost so many guys to IR and then during the game. When Jarrett Bush makes a play anytime there must be an element of luck so I'm confused now. We barely got in that year. Had the Bears had something to play for we likely aren't in the playoffs that year at all. Rodgers got hot and we rolled behind him.

None of these luck or no luck debates has a thing to do with having nobody at your TE position or a poorly performing D loaded with high picks in it. Those are things you can do something about.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



Uffda, how can you me my "mini-me" and still disagree so vociferously hahahaha?

The Pittsburgh game certainly was luck. Running the gauntlet at the end of the season and coming from the last wild card spot, that takes a large degree of luck. Philadelphia completing the 4th and 26 pass - a game of inches, I'd call that luck. All the stuff Barnfarn mentioned, that too, and it isn't just what happens to our team; Luck consists of shit happening or not happening to the opponents too.

Unless one team is clearly head and shoulders better like Super Bowls I and II, LUCK often is the difference maker.

And nobody is saying RELY on Luck (only the Colts do that hahahaha). You still gotta dominate enough to get to the point where you are going up against the final few elite teams.

As I said, Uffda, I expected both sides in your brouhaha to downplay Luck as a factor. However, I figured YOUR position would be the less negative about it - it give you a plausible explanation for how Ted Thompson could be so bad, yet the Packers have had such great long term success.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Barfarn
9 years ago

My belief is most of you think that being great is unrealistic and good is as good as it gets.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



I don't know what you mean by great; but to me Great is GB in 60's, Pitts in 70s. Maybe a third of the starters HOFers; another third perennial pro-bowlers; the other third plus 5 or 6 on the bench part time or almost all-pro; many of whom have played together for 8-10 years. Teamwork and talent so cohesive, good and dominant mindset, their play overcomes [as Tex says] much more than the average amount of luck. Loading and reloading is really really hard, that's why dynasties are special, and it is not just about front office talent, they need luck. And luck even prevented the great teams of Pack in 63 and 64 and of Pitts in 76 and 77 from winning.

Today Great is not only unrealistic; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The closest a team in Cap era has come to Great is NE in early 2000s [aided by luck of getting Brady in rd 6; but once they paid him reloading has been sporadic] and the Seattle example, 3 consecutive drafts chalked full of really good players including a cheap QB, w/ a blend of good vets. With proper cap management and average drafts over the next 3 years, Seattle could have been dominant for 5-6 years, before having to rely more on luck to reload. Instead Schneider's unbridled aggression has limited his team's dominance to one year [2013]. Schneider tired to force a dynasty with aggression and wrecked it!

Harbaalke had a solid core to compete for a few more years; but unbridled on the field and front office aggression dismantled that team 2-3 years before its time.

To sacrifice being good in future years and be super aggressive to achieve unachievable greatness this year is patently idiotic. And you'll find out as most teams do: after being aggressive and being more "talented" the team isn't even as good in the aggressive year as it was the year before. Controlled and steady wins 99% of any race; but it wins 100% of NFL races.
uffda udfa
9 years ago

I don't know what you mean by great; but to me Great is GB in 60's, Pitts in 70s. Maybe a third of the starters HOFers; another third perennial pro-bowlers; the other third plus 5 or 6 on the bench part time or almost all-pro; many of whom have played together for 8-10 years. Teamwork and talent so cohesive, good and dominant mindset, their play overcomes [as Tex says] much more than the average amount of luck. Loading and reloading is really really hard, that's why dynasties are special, and it is not just about front office talent, they need luck. And luck even prevented the great teams of Pack in 63 and 64 and of Pitts in 76 and 77 from winning.

Today Great is not only unrealistic; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The closest a team in Cap era has come to Great is NE in early 2000s [aided by luck of getting Brady in rd 6; but once they paid him reloading has been sporadic] and the Seattle example, 3 consecutive drafts chalked full of really good players including a cheap QB, w/ a blend of good vets. With proper cap management and average drafts over the next 3 years, Seattle could have been dominant for 5-6 years, before having to rely more on luck to reload. Instead Schneider's unbridled aggression has limited his team's dominance to one year [2013]. Schneider tired to force a dynasty with aggression and wrecked it!

Harbaalke had a solid core to compete for a few more years; but unbridled on the field and front office aggression dismantled that team 2-3 years before its time.

To sacrifice being good in future years and be super aggressive to achieve unachievable greatness this year is patently idiotic. And you'll find out as most teams do: after being aggressive and being more "talented" the team isn't even as good in the aggressive year as it was the year before. Controlled and steady wins 99% of any race; but it wins 100% of NFL races.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



I would call the 2 year run the Hawks have been on GREAT. Yes, I know... we woulda, shoulda, coulda beaten them... WE DID NOT, though. Back to back SB's is the sign of a great team. The Holmgren Favre White monster that won and went back was a GREAT team. This one we have now isn't. It's a very good team. It had one, I'll say fortuitous, run and that's it. When you have the best ever at QB, and I do believe that, then you should be in more than 1 SB in a decade. Yes, Favre was here for a few of them but he wasn't too shabby either. ONE SUPERBOWL APPEARANCE. ONE. That ain't enough... that is not anything to say...well, Cleveland would love to be us...they've never been there. That smacks of talk of a loser. I hate that word but it fits here. Not reaching YOUR personal best and looking out and saying at least you aren't somebody else is PATHETIC. Absolutely PATHETIC. Our Packers should be able to make it to more than one bowl with Aaron Rodgers. He has no defense...none. It's shameful. I just don't understand all of you patient, it's okay, this is fun, we're not Cleveland type fans. I remember the 70's blah, blah, blah. Yeah, the 70's might be right back here in a few years. Kill it now. Make HEY...don't dawdle and say other teams wish they were us and it's fun winning divisions...c'mon, man!!!!
UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because theyā€™ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


+1
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (14h) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
    Mucky Tundra (14h) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
    Mucky Tundra (14h) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
    Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
    Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
    dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
    dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
    wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
    Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
    dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
    Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41Ā° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt ā€œice coldā€
    Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
    Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
    Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
    beast (20-Jun) : Hmm šŸ¤” re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
    Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
    Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
    Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
    Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
    Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
    Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
    dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
    dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
    dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
    Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
    Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
    wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
    Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
    Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
    Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚
    Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
    Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers
    Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR
    Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025
    Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jaire played in just 34 of a possible 68 games since the start of the 2021 season
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    5h / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

    1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

    23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

    14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

    13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    Headlines
    Copyright Ā© 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.comā„¢. All Rights Reserved.