beast
10 years ago


Even IF the catch was really a catch... the end result shouldn't of been a touchdown.


Tate CLEARLY pushed Shield out of the play and onto the ground.

Also add in the horrible call roughing the QB call earlier which kept one of the last two drives alive when, Walden or Perry legally hit Wilson...
UserPostedImage
SINCITYCHEEZE
10 years ago
We can discuss this till the Milk-Makers come home. It won't change a thing. All we are doing is 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴 🐴🐴 🐴
Of Course it is the off-season and we don't have much to discuss right now. So beat away👅 👅 👅
Wisconsin Born, Packer Bred
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

Part of the running game is cumulative. You have to wear a defense down. Normally this comes with Time of Possession, if your coach is even concerned about that sort of thing.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



That would b true if winniñg % went up with TOP.

But it doesn't.So I wouldn't be concerned either.

You can't wear a D down if the running game can't move the chains.

You have to actually gain yards. They don't give you first downs just for rushing attempts.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
macbob
10 years ago

The 3 runs in the first half included a 20 yard run by Cobb. Leaving Benson with 2 per.

Whenever Benson got the ball, he got little or nothing. Including the dump off passes.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



What was Rodgers numbers that first half? 58 yards on 27 passes...hey, 2 yards per attempt!

On the TD scoring drive, other than the TD run, Benson had 2 runs for -3 yards in the other 16 plays. You can give him credit for the TD run, but giving him any credit for the running game making being the difference is total BS.

Dexter_Sinister wrote:



Benson: 10 rushes for 49 yards in the 3rd quarter, and we have drives of 70 and 66 yards.

You are saying the only adjustment they made in the second half was running the ball. Not in protecting Rodgers better.

Dexter_Sinister wrote:



No, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I said was running the ball helped our OL protect Rodgers better by not letting the DL, etc tee off on the QB like they did in the first half, when we abandoned the run. Which helped our passing game in the second half.

Running in the 4th quarter didn't help us generated a critical first down. So you can say "if" all you want to conjecture how effective more running might have been. But when they really needed the yards, running DID let them down. No ifs about it.

Dexter_Sinister wrote:



I did not say the running game won the game for us. Or that all we should do is run the ball. Or that we should have run the ball more in the second half. Or that we should become primarily a running team.

What I said was that our lack of balance on offense in the first half made it easier on the D to concentrate on and shut down our passing game (58 yards passing) because McCarthy abandoned the run without having even seen if we could run it against Seattle (1x carry first quarter, 2x 2nd quarter= abandoned in my book). Result = 0 points, 58 yards passing, 82 yards total offense in the first half.

Scoring drives first half = 0 out of 5. Scoring drives second half = 3 out of 4.
UserPostedImage
DoddPower
10 years ago


No, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by: macbob 



Dex likes to do that so that every scenario fits his narrative.
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

Dex likes to do that so that every scenario fits his narrative.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



What is the logical conclusion if you say, they didn't run so they didn't score. They started to run so they did score.

The conclusion is you are crediting the running for the scoring and conversly blaming the lack for not scoring.

Even though the only TD scoring drive had 3 runs for negative yards. Pretty much the same ratio of the first 2 drives of the game.

Ignoring any other protection adjustments they made.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
macbob
10 years ago

What is the logical conclusion if you say, they didn't run so they didn't score. They started to run so they did score.

The conclusion is you are crediting the running for the scoring and conversly blaming the lack for not scoring.

Even though the only TD scoring drive had 3 runs for negative yards. Pretty much the same ratio of the first 2 drives of the game.

Ignoring any other protection adjustments they made.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



The logical conclusion is stated in my previous post. I just re-read it, and it looks pretty clear to me.

The 'logical conclusion' I would draw from your arguments is that you obviously preferred the offense of the first half of that game over the second half, where we wasted handing the ball off to Benson 10 times in the 3rd quarter alone.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
10 years ago
FACT: It was a horrible call.
But we can't change it.
There are calls all the time that are bad and make the difference in a game. This one stood out because of the fake refs, which were making bad calls left and right. Being at the end of the game, being the deciding score, just made it stand out more then all the other lousy calls.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

The logical conclusion is stated in my previous post. I just re-read it, and it looks pretty clear to me.

The 'logical conclusion' I would draw from your arguments is that you obviously preferred the offense of the first half of that game over the second half, where we wasted handing the ball off to Benson 10 times in the 3rd quarter alone.

Originally Posted by: macbob 



None of that is accurate. I prefer the drive they had in the 4th quarter that produced a TD. Not wasting downs on ineffective rushing and protecting Rodgers better.

I have said we needed to run more many times. But I also said we couldn't because we didn't have a decent running back. So there wasn't much option. Benson's poor running was not helping them score. We didn't need a crappy POS back that averaged 2 per getting 25 touches. We needed a solid back averaging 4 per getting 25 touches. Unfortunately, that wasn't an option.

You guys seem to be saying that they should have handed it off more because they did in the 3rd quarter and scored 2 FGs.

The only TD drive they had was with the same rushing ratio that you blame for not scoring any points in the first 2 quarters. They scored as many points not running the ball (and not getting sacked) as they did running the ball in the 3rd quarter. Yet all the credit is given to the running game.

Even though they did run more in the final drive and had negative rushing yards. Your useless rushing attempts produced a 3 and out.

Benson's lack of ability and the teams lack of viable alternatives prevented them from being able to run as much as they wanted too is my point.

Your point seems to be they didn't want to run and Benson sucking was only incidental.




I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

What was Rodgers numbers that first half? 58 yards on 27 passes...hey, 2 yards per attempt!



Benson: 10 rushes for 49 yards in the 3rd quarter, and we have drives of 70 and 66 yards.



No, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.



I did not say the running game won the game for us. Or that all we should do is run the ball. Or that we should have run the ball more in the second half. Or that we should become primarily a running team.


Scoring drives first half = 0 out of 5. Scoring drives second half = 3 out of 4.

Originally Posted by: macbob 



Now who is putting words in?

Because I didn't any of that either. I only said you are blaming the loss on the not running the ball enough in the 1st half.

You only blamed the not running in the first half for the offensive problems. You didn't credit anything else as contributing to the better 3rd quarter and 1 drive in the 4th (where they actually didn't run any more than the 1st half). When you say the protection was better, you credit the running game. All the improvements you attributed to the running game. You may not have stated "they didn't make any other adjustments." But you did take all the credit for them and gave it to the running game. Even when they were not running any more than the first half and still scored a TD.

Points scored on drives with 80% or more passing, 6. Points scored on drives with a more balanced pass/run ratio, 6.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (11m) : No.
Mucky Tundra (2h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (3h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (5h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (6h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (17h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (23h) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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