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
    packerfanoutwest (1h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
    Martha Careful (3h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
    Mucky Tundra (13h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
    buckeyepackfan (13h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
    buckeyepackfan (13h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
    Mucky Tundra (13h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
    Zero2Cool (13h) : Watson gonna be OK???
    packerfanoutwest (17h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
    packerfanoutwest (17h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
    packerfanoutwest (17h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
    Zero2Cool (19h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
    Zero2Cool (19h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
    bboystyle (19h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
    Zero2Cool (19h) : Ahh, ok.
    bboystyle (19h) : yes due to tie breaker
    Zero2Cool (19h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
    Zero2Cool (19h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
    bboystyle (20h) : 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 (21h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
    beast (21h) : 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 (21h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
    Zero2Cool (21h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
    bboystyle (21h) : 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 (22h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
    Zero2Cool (22h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
    beast (22h) : 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 (22h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
    Zero2Cool (23h) : I see what you did there Mucky
    Zero2Cool (23h) : dammit. 3:25pm
    Zero2Cool (23h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
    Mucky Tundra (23h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
    Mucky Tundra (23h) : Yeah baby!
    Zero2Cool (23h) : 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
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.
    packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
    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
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    2h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    9h / GameDay Threads / Mucky Tundra

    12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    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

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.