Nonstopdrivel
16 years ago
I hate prevent offenses even more than I hate prevent defenses.
UserPostedImage
djcubez
16 years ago

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
16 years ago


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
16 years ago

They didn't sustain it.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:


blank
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
16 years ago

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.
UserPostedImage
all_about_da_packers
16 years ago

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
16 years ago
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.
UserPostedImage
djcubez
16 years ago

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
16 years ago

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
16 years ago

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 Mike McCarthy 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 Mike McCarthy 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.
Fan Shout
beast (8h) : Seems like he was just pissed because he was no longer the starter
beast (9h) : Campbell is right, he's rich and he doesn't have to explain sh!t... but that attitude gives teams reasons to never sign him again.
dfosterf (22-Feb) : I have some doubt about all that
dfosterf (22-Feb) : I read De'Vondre Campbell's tweet this morning (via the New York Post) Florio says that if he invested his earnings wisely, he will be good
beast (20-Feb) : I haven't followed, but I believe he's good when healthy, just hasn't been able to stay healthy.
dfosterf (20-Feb) : Hasn"t Bosa missed more games than he has played in the last 3 years?
Mucky Tundra (19-Feb) : He hasn't been too bad when healthy but I don't feel like I ever heard much about when he is
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Felt like he was more interested in his body, than football. He flashed more than I expected
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : When he was coming out, I thought he'd be flash in pan.
Mucky Tundra (19-Feb) : Joey seems so forgettable compared to his brother for some reason
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : NFL informed teams today that the 2025 salary cap will be roughly $277.5M-$281.5M
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Los Angeles Chargers are likely to release DE Joey Bosa this off-season as a cap casualty, per league source.
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : If the exploit is not fixed, we'll see tons of "50 top free agents, 50 perfect NFL team fits: We picked where each should sign in March" lo
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Issue should be solved, database cleaned and held strong working / meeting. Boom!
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : It should be halted now.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : usually spambots are trying to get traffic to shady websites filled with spyware; the two links being spammed were to the Packers website
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : you know when you put it that way combined with the links it was spamming (to the official Packers website)
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yep. You can do that with holding down ENTER on a command in Console of browser
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : even with the rapid fire posts?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I'm not certain it's a bot.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I've got to go to work soon which is a pity because I'm enthralled by this battle between the bot and Zero
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, I see what that did. Kind of funny.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : now it's a link to Wes Hodkiezwicz mailbag
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Now they're back with another topic
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : oh lol
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I have a script that purges them now.
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : 118 Topics with Message.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : what's 118 (besides a number)?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : They got 118 slapped in there.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : that's why it confused the hell out of me
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, but this is taking a headline and slapping it into the Packers Talk
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Wasnt there a time guests could post in the help forum?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : lol good question, kind of impressed!
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : So how is a guest posting?
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Tell them its an emergency
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Working. Meetings.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Lots of fun; the spam goes back 4 or 5 pages by this point
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought you'd look for yourself and put 2 and 2 together lol. I overestimated ya ;)
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought Guests couldnt post?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : And gosh that's gonna be fun to clean up! hahaa
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Oh. Why not just say that then? Geez.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : check the main forum, seems a spam bot is running amok
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : What?
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Is the Packers online game "Packers Predict" now available for 2024? I can't tell
Zero2Cool (17-Feb) : Bengals planning to Franchise Tag Tamaurice Higgins
Zero2Cool (14-Feb) : Packers are hiring Luke Getsy as senior offensive assistant.
Martha Careful (12-Feb) : I would love to have them both, esp. Crosby, but either might be too expensive.
Zero2Cool (12-Feb) : Keisean Nixon is trying to get Maxx Crosby and Davante Adams lol
Mucky Tundra (11-Feb) : Yeah where did it go?
packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : or did you resctrict access to that topic?
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
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

15-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.