Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
4 Pages<1234>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline doddpower  
#51 Posted : Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:05:08 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,093
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
I can blame Rodgers. He is suppose to have such a great grasp of the offense. If he does, he should be seeing that the line is having difficulty and getting with McCarthy and saying, we need to do something to help these guys. But all I see are the same type plays over and over. 10 yard routes, or simple stops. We should be running screens, instant slants, drags underneath the LBers.

The entire offense seems to be, go deep. And if the throw isn't there, scramble and try to play ground it and get open. We use to run a slant from any WR position and defenses had to gamble if they could guess who was running it on a particular play.



Of course Rodgers deserves some blame. But most of the things you suggested weren't working either. Most the screen plays were terrible. "Instant" slants were largely neutralized by the receivers inability to get off the press. In fact, a strong press at the line can destroy almost any play call when Rodgers has no time to throw. I still think a better run game is the best option, considering how bad the Packers seem to be at screens. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, either.

It's just not as simple as instantly getting the ball out or Rodgers hands when the receivers are being jammed at the line and have no chance to catch the ball. They either have to back the defense off some or pass protect better.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 11/26/2012(UTC)
Offline buckeyepackfan  
#52 Posted : Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:07:53 PM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2014

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Lima, Ohio

Applause Given: 355
Applause Received: 457

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
I put a lot of the offensive struggles on the panic of Mike McCarthy jumping to the spread formations and basically allowed the defense to pin their ears back on a line that struggles with speed. Stay with formations that at least threaten the run.. you have to get that defense to at least pause... didn't happen. We have to get mut tore physical at the point of attack running the ball... but we have known that since.. what 2005/2006. We cannot be a one dimensional team to beat this type of defensive team.. one built on speed.

But the defense, that looked like a game out of last season. Sloppy tackling, spotty coverage, just getting popped in the nose snap after snap.

Couple that with 2 turnovers early that gave the Giants field position..


It all spelled a ass kicking.. hopefully one that benefits them moving forward.

I think if the Packers were ever going to shit can Campen.. this game should be a final nail.



Got to agree. IMHO this game turned when Mike let Crosby try the 55yd FG. Instant flip of field position. Short field Giants score.

Turnover..short field Giants score

Turnover.... you all know the rest.

With the way the rest of the games turned out this weekend, Packers are no worse off.

They still control their own destiny, at least they won't be cruising into the playoffs this year thinking all they have to do is show up to win.

I'm not even gonna break this game down, no reason, total fail everywhere tonight.

Throw the tape away and move on, get ready for divisional games!!!
Enjoy the ride – It kicks and just keeps on kickin’. "Stats are for Losers"
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#53 Posted : Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:17:20 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
Of course Rodgers deserves some blame. But most of the things you suggested weren't working either. Most the screen plays were terrible. "Instant" slants were largely neutralized by the receivers inability to get off the press. In fact, a strong press at the line can destroy almost any play call when Rodgers has no time to throw. I still think a better run game is the best option, considering how bad the Packers seem to be at screens. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, either.

It's just not as simple as instantly getting the ball out or Rodgers hands when the receivers are being jammed at the line and have no chance to catch the ball. They either have to back the defense off some or pass protect better.


They were jamming about 3 yards off the LOS, the problem is, that on most of those plays, we were not running short routes, or slants or drags. One time they showed, was Cobb on a slant, and it gained 4-5 yards. Which I will take 10 of 10 times.

One problem is the shotgun. Quick slants go off 1 step drops. by the time the ball gets to Rodgers in the shotgun, it is to late. Which is the biggest reason we don't run them. There are other ways to counter being jammed. Line the WR off the LOS, so they have a couple yards extra cushion. Motion them. The problem is not being jammed. It is that defenses play us tight off the line and have help sitting 10-15 yards where most of the routes go.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Wade on 11/26/2012(UTC), play2win on 11/26/2012(UTC)
Offline doddpower  
#54 Posted : Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:30:35 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,093
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
They were jamming about 3 yards off the LOS, the problem is, that on most of those plays, we were not running short routes, or slants or drags. One time they showed, was Cobb on a slant, and it gained 4-5 yards. Which I will take 10 of 10 times.

One problem is the shotgun. Quick slants go off 1 step drops. by the time the ball gets to Rodgers in the shotgun, it is to late. Which is the biggest reason we don't run them. There are other ways to counter being jammed. Line the WR off the LOS, so they have a couple yards extra cushion. Motion them. The problem is not being jammed. It is that defenses play us tight off the line and have help sitting 10-15 yards where most of the routes go.



I think a big part of the problem in this game is the receivers being pressed. Of course there are ways to counter that, but they didn't happen this game and often don't. This has been the same recipe to beat up on the Packers for awhile now: get physical with the WRs on the line of scrimmage, pressure with 4 down linemen, and keep the safeties deep. Doing so mostly takes away the deep balls and pressing at the line mostly takes away the quick pass. Even if bunch formations or motion is used, that's only likely to free up one WR from the press on the line of scrimmage, and line backers or even tall defensive linemen batting the passes are tough to counter. Even if we completed more short passes, it wasn't going to get the Packers back in the game, and it's easy to lose patience in that situation, understandably. McCarthy has been trying to get the screen game going, it's just not working.

Quicker passes would help, but if the offensive line doesn't hold up better, they're not going to be very effective in the long run unless the Packers WRs get more physical. A combination of a much better running game, the threat of a screen game, and most importantly, better pass protection cumulatively would help, but most of those things are not likely to happen this season against great defenses. If the pass protection will hold up just a little longer, there are likely to be some open areas in the defenses to hit as the wide receivers fight through the press battle.
Online Zero2Cool  
#55 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 5:31:46 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,968
Applause Received: 2,228

The Packers, like everyone, have a plan until punched in the face. They got punched in the face and didn't know what else to do. The Giants just seem like men compared to the Packers boys.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 11/26/2012(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#56 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 7:24:53 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
Of course Rodgers deserves some blame. But most of the things you suggested weren't working either. Most the screen plays were terrible. "Instant" slants were largely neutralized by the receivers inability to get off the press. In fact, a strong press at the line can destroy almost any play call when Rodgers has no time to throw. I still think a better run game is the best option, considering how bad the Packers seem to be at screens. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, either.

It's just not as simple as instantly getting the ball out or Rodgers hands when the receivers are being jammed at the line and have no chance to catch the ball. They either have to back the defense off some or pass protect better.


That should have been the script in both of our losses where we were completely crushed, SF and NYG, along with the first half against SEA. We were their bitches, because we did not force a sound rushing attack to wear down their extremely potent DLs.

McCarthy has to figure this out, and get his offense running a power running attack. He has to know it is the only way to control a premiere pass rush, and take the heat off his QB. Without that, we don't score, and our D wears down from all the 3 and outs.

A steady dose of BOTH Green and Starks would have made this a different game, and would have given us a chance to win. Our OL and our play calling simply were not up to the task.
Offline play2win  
#57 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 7:30:08 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
The Packers, like everyone, have a plan until punched in the face. They got punched in the face and didn't know what else to do. The Giants just seem like men compared to the Packers boys.


I could not agree more. Zero adjustment. How can a head coach not anticipate a resurgence by the Giants DL after the bye? How do you call those dogs off? Always, always, by running the football. It opens everything else up. We were not up to that challenge, apparently.
Offline musccy  
#58 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 7:41:00 AM(UTC)
musccy

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 5/7/2009(UTC)
Location: Pennsylvania

Applause Given: 251
Applause Received: 234

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
That should have been the script in both of our losses where we were completely crushed, SF and NYG, along with the first half against SEA. We were their bitches, because we did not force a sound rushing attack to wear down their extremely potent DLs.

McCarthy has to figure this out, and get his offense running a power running attack. He has to know it is the only way to control a premiere pass rush, and take the heat off his QB. Without that, we don't score, and our D wears down from all the 3 and outs.

A steady dose of BOTH Green and Starks would have made this a different game, and would have given us a chance to win. Our OL and our play calling simply were not up to the task.


I disagree - the first two plays out of the gates were runs if I'm not mistaken, and the Packers were still honoring the running game even down 28 points.

The issue is Rodgers was on the run and being hit within 2 seconds, yet so little of the playcalling was devoted to quick developing routes - slants, screens, etc. I thought the 30 yd pass to Kuhn was great - release FBs and TEs out of protection for quick passes and gains, but I can count on my hand how many times this was attempted last night.

This ultimately boils down to our OL getting completely manhandled, but so few adjustments were made to counter this.

Offline flep  
#59 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 7:47:50 AM(UTC)
flep

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United Kingdom
Joined: 8/14/2008(UTC)
Location: UK

Applause Given: 58
Applause Received: 60

Optimism mode on in full.

Let's put this down to just being one of those games.

3 division games on the bounce coming up and we can win them and guarantee the playoffs.

Then it's the Titans at home so that would be at least 11 wins and chance of a division title.

Let's not get too downhearted.
Formed Merseyside Nighthawks. British Champions 1992. Packer fan for 30 years

UserPostedImage


I feel very wrong now!!!!!!!!!
Offline play2win  
#60 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 7:58:27 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: musccy Go to Quoted Post
I disagree - the first two plays out of the gates were runs if I'm not mistaken, and the Packers were still honoring the running game even down 28 points.

The issue is Rodgers was on the run and being hit within 2 seconds, yet so little of the playcalling was devoted to quick developing routes - slants, screens, etc. I thought the 30 yd pass to Kuhn was great - release FBs and TEs out of protection for quick passes and gains, but I can count on my hand how many times this was attempted last night.

This ultimately boils down to our OL getting completely manhandled, but so few adjustments were made to counter this.



We disagree greatly here. 22 carries for 82 yds is not what I consider an overt dedication to running the football. Lets be real here too, Starks got 8 of those carries, AFTER the damage was already done.

You want to keep Aaron on his feet with time to throw? Have your OL ready to pound the frickin ball at the Giants front 7, mercilessly. Have both of your backs ready to run in rotation.

Neither happened last night. This is the 3rd time we put up a FAIL against a top tier defensive front. All 3 times we lost because we did not do this: perform a power rushing assault.

We can do it, but we choose not to. Our OL is not prepared to run it, and our play callers fail to call it. It is the recipe for success against a formidable pass rush. Why keep doing something over and over again when it doesn't work?
Offline musccy  
#61 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 7:59:21 AM(UTC)
musccy

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 5/7/2009(UTC)
Location: Pennsylvania

Applause Given: 251
Applause Received: 234

Originally Posted by: flep Go to Quoted Post
Optimism mode on in full.

Let's put this down to just being one of those games.

3 division games on the bounce coming up and we can win them and guarantee the playoffs.

Then it's the Titans at home so that would be at least 11 wins and chance of a division title.

Let's not get too downhearted.


The problem is that this and the 49ers game exposed the Packers. This game wasn't an abberation that you can just burn the tape. As has been noted by others, the OL is awful, and this team will continue to be demolished if they face a quality front 4 and corners willing to press at the line. Great, the Packers beat the lowly Titans and Vikings - but once they face the '9ers and Giants again, it'll be the same demolition.
Offline musccy  
#62 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 8:12:04 AM(UTC)
musccy

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 5/7/2009(UTC)
Location: Pennsylvania

Applause Given: 251
Applause Received: 234

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
We disagree greatly here. 22 carries for 82 yds is not what I consider an overt dedication to running the football. Lets be real here too, Starks got 8 of those carries, AFTER the damage was already done.

You want to keep Aaron on his feet with time to throw? Have your OL ready to pound the frickin ball at the Giants front 7, mercilessly. Have both of your backs ready to run in rotation.

Neither happened last night. This is the 3rd time we put up a FAIL against a top tier defensive front. All 3 times we lost because we did not do this: perform a power rushing assault.

We can do it, but we choose not to. Our OL is not prepared to run it, and our play callers fail to call it. It is the recipe for success against a formidable pass rush. Why keep doing something over and over again when it doesn't work?


I'm too lazy to look up all the stats and sequence of play calls from last night, but this team was down 24-7 early in the 2nd quarter. There isn't a team in the NFL that will run the ball as you suggest if faced with that circumstance. On a bigger scale I agree with you. Somehow this finess approach won a super bowl, but it seems to have given a false sense of security to this team. The Falcons, '9ers, and Giants all have the ability to ground and pound, and whether or not the team commits to it, I question if they have the meat up front effectively do so.

M.M's approach is focused on OL protection waiting for late developing downfield routes, and the team does not have the ability to do that right now.

Offline play2win  
#63 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 11:05:43 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: musccy Go to Quoted Post
I'm too lazy to look up all the stats and sequence of play calls from last night, but this team was down 24-7 early in the 2nd quarter. There isn't a team in the NFL that will run the ball as you suggest if faced with that circumstance. On a bigger scale I agree with you. Somehow this finess approach won a super bowl, but it seems to have given a false sense of security to this team. The Falcons, '9ers, and Giants all have the ability to ground and pound, and whether or not the team commits to it, I question if they have the meat up front effectively do so.

M.M's approach is focused on OL protection waiting for late developing downfield routes, and the team does not have the ability to do that right now.



OK, here is the first half summary of our rushing attempts:

12 rushes for 55 yds. And that is WITH Rodgers 2 scrambles.

I don't know how many times I have said this here this season, but McCarthy has got to get a better handle on committing to the run. Especially against a team with a dominant pass rush.

http://www.packers.com/a...21125gamebook-giants.pdf

10 attempts. 10 run plays called for an entire half. Yeah, we're gonna lose. That is precisely the kind of shit that will get any team down 24-7 early in the 2nd quarter... against a fierce NYG front seven looking to get their team back on track.

Those downfield routes work best when the opposing D is forced to honor the run.
Offline play2win  
#64 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 12:40:13 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Well, Jason Wilde had a good run at it:

'But the fact of the matter was this Sunday night: The Packers (7-4) loss to the Giants (7-4), in the grand scheme of things, did not matter.

Oh, winning certainly would have been preferred, but it was hardly essential to the Packers’ long-term goals. If you don’t believe that, consider the cautious way coach Mike McCarthy approached the game injury-wise (not playing wide receiver Greg Jennings despite Jennings’ Friday claim that he was “ready,” not pushing Matthews to return from his hamstring injury) and the fact that the Giants lost last year’s regular-season meeting here (38-35 on Dec. 4).

With that result, the Packers improved to 12-0 and the Giants fell to 6-6 … and went on to beat the Packers in the playoffs and win Super Bowl XLVI. In fact, the Giants walked out of MetLife Stadium talking about how much confidence they'd gained -- by losing.

So maybe the Packers’ quality of play reflected that relative unimportance?

“Maybe it’s a good reminder of what happens when you don’t come to play,” veteran defensive tackle Ryan Pickett said. “I’m telling you, we’re going to take this as a positive. We didn’t have enough energy. They played harder than us. That’s not going to happen again. If we lose, it’s not going to be because a team played harder than us.

“That’s just not going to happen. It’s not acceptable around here. It definitely won’t happen again. This will be motivation for us the rest of the year.”"

http://www.espnmilwaukee...mp;id=5001&is_corp=1

Hey, maybe this loss proves to be more of a catalyst to winning the big stuff, the important stuff, like many of you had mentioned earlier.
Offline millertime  
#65 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 12:40:46 PM(UTC)
millertime

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3
Applause Received: 7

We really are more banged up than I imagined.

Clay Matthews
Charles woodson
Des bishop
Dj smith
Nick perry
Sam shields

That's half our starters on D! Did you really expect walden and Moses to be able to get pressure? Our o-line also had no chance against that NY d-line. We match up terribly with the giants. We have to hope that Chicago, san Fran, new orleans, or atlanta can knock them out for us come playoff time. We just have no answer for them.
People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defenses, or the problems of modern society.
-Vince Lombardi
Offline play2win  
#66 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 1:04:18 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: millertime Go to Quoted Post
We really are more banged up than I imagined.

Clay Matthews
Charles woodson
Des bishop
Dj smith
Nick perry
Sam shields

That's half our starters on D! Did you really expect walden and Moses to be able to get pressure? Our o-line also had no chance against that NY d-line. We match up terribly with the giants. We have to hope that Chicago, san Fran, new orleans, or atlanta can knock them out for us come playoff time. We just have no answer for them.


I'm just throwing this out there, but did you see how many times the Giants OL were holding our pass rushers, without penalty? I saw quite a few, especially involving Moses. The kid was playing pretty well I thought. Looked like at least a half dozen times the Giants were -not- called for holding our players.

And, yes, I do expect Walden and Moses to get pressure on Eli, along with Worthy, Daniels, Pickett, Raji and Neal. Our front 7 played horribly, and they were being held frequently.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 11/26/2012(UTC)
Offline all_about_da_packers  
#67 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 3:29:39 PM(UTC)
all_about_da_packers

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 86

Originally Posted by: millertime Go to Quoted Post
We match up terribly with the giants. We have to hope that Chicago, san Fran, new orleans, or atlanta can knock them out for us come playoff time. We just have no answer for them.


I'd like to add a correction to your post, millertime:

"We just have no answer for [any team that decides to play 2-deep safety with man coverage underneath]".

Frankly, it's astonishing that we still cannot find some solution to this coverage. Teams, when they generally play this, have success against us.

I'm at a loss to explain why we cannot figure this scheme out. Is McCarthy an idiot for not being able to utilize his vast array of talent (namely, Finley) to attack 1-on-1 mismatches underneath? Are the players (collection of O-line + RBs) really that crappy that they cannot run against only 6 or 7 men in the box? Obviously players are not winning 1-on-1 battles, but this seems to be the recurring theme whenever we struggle. I'm really interested in the "why do we struggle" seemingly any time teams scheme us in this specific way.

This is a recurring theme from last season: teams decide to get physical and play to take away our deep stuff, then we struggle. Frankly, after still not getting any feeling that some solution is imminent or the coaching staff has a workable counter-plan of attack, I'm about ready to say that this team (namely coaches) should be in panic mode about being 1-and-done in the playoffs again.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
Offline Porforis  
#68 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 3:33:05 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 333

To be fair, we haven't been getting much of any deep stuff this season. This game we got the intermediate stuff taken away by being dominated at the line and having our WRs jammed all over the place.
UserPostedImage
Offline DarkaneRules  
#69 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 3:39:33 PM(UTC)
DarkaneRules

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/15/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 211
Applause Received: 357

It is unfortunate to watch your team and know deep down that they are outmatched (mostly physically) in the conference. Offense and defense are both average with moments of good play but no consistency. Giants and 49ers have our number unfortunately.
Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance
Offline porky88  
#70 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 4:12:09 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 195
Applause Received: 409

The Packers have been thoroughly defeated twice in the last four in half years. That's a remarkable fact. It just shows how competitive Green Bay's been with Aaron Rodgers and Mike McCarthy. Both losses, however, were at the expense of the Giants.

There is a fundamental problem in matching up with them. They simply overpower Green Bay along the line of scrimmage and Eli does a good job of managing the clock. He ran the play clock down quite a bit in the first half. I’m sure Clay Matthews makes a difference, but the Packers are going to have to make fundamental changes to their game plan if these teams meet again. For starters, a short and precise passing game that centers on Jermichael Finley helps. In addition, the Giants would have difficulties guarding both Jennings and Cobb in the slot. The Packers should learn from this experience.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 11/26/2012(UTC)
Online nerdmann  
#71 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 4:36:26 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,712
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules Go to Quoted Post
It is unfortunate to watch your team and know deep down that they are outmatched (mostly physically) in the conference. Offense and defense are both average with moments of good play but no consistency. Giants and 49ers have our number unfortunately.


I disagree.

We can beat either of those teams.

The Cowboys had our number in the 90s. These teams our not insurmountable.

We lost this game because 1: The Giants were coming out fresh off a bye, 2: Were doing so AT HOME and 3: We played like we did against the Lions.

Take away any one of those factors and it's a different game. We've shown we can beat this team, they've just won the last two, that's all.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline Cheesey  
#72 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 5:30:47 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 200
Applause Received: 439

The Packers got their collective butts handed to them in every aspect of the game.
The Pack looked totally unprepared.
Our defense looked like last year'd defense, and out offense suked big. It was like watching a replay of the playoff loss last year.
You'd think after getting pummeled more then once by the Giants that the Packer coaches would get a clue.
UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#73 Posted : Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:27:52 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

How about a different take on what happened Sunday night against the Giants?

Was McCarthy holding his cards closer to the vest? Did he start the "...Not a Must Win" thread? I've read some commentary along those lines recently, implying that he certainly was not trying too hard to get a win in NY. Holding out a bunch of players that could have played might be shining a new light on his approach. Maybe they simply tossed this game, especially after it had gotten beyond reasonable for a come back attempt. Maybe they were going to play a limited game from the start, and let what happens happens.

McCarthy and his team did not show a lot. That is for sure. I've got to agree that if we're going to win one, it might as well be in the playoffs.

Do I agree with this kind of tact? No. Can I see it as a possibility? Yes. Limited personnel to protect against further injury. Limited gameplan to protect your future intentions.
Offline DarkaneRules  
#74 Posted : Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:45:09 PM(UTC)
DarkaneRules

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/15/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 211
Applause Received: 357

Plus we were on the road. Still. The whole KC Chief game plan continues to beat us.
Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#75 Posted : Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:33:17 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
How about a different take on what happened Sunday night against the Giants?

Was McCarthy holding his cards closer to the vest? Did he start the "...Not a Must Win" thread? I've read some commentary along those lines recently, implying that he certainly was not trying too hard to get a win in NY. Holding out a bunch of players that could have played might be shining a new light on his approach. Maybe they simply tossed this game, especially after it had gotten beyond reasonable for a come back attempt. Maybe they were going to play a limited game from the start, and let what happens happens.

McCarthy and his team did not show a lot. That is for sure. I've got to agree that if we're going to win one, it might as well be in the playoffs.

Do I agree with this kind of tact? No. Can I see it as a possibility? Yes. Limited personnel to protect against further injury. Limited gameplan to protect your future intentions.


The thought has crossed my mind, and it doesn't make me happy. If it was just resting players, I could live with that, but he seemed to be calling vanilla plays as well which I don't like. And would hate if I was a player.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
4 Pages<1234>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
40m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

57m / Green Bay Packers Talk / macbob

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / packman82

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / rabidgopher04

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / polargrizz

25-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Rios39

25-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra