Skip to main content

Tagged With "Fedya's Good Taste"

Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Fedya ·
Positives: Tretter didn't have any bad snaps. Schum had at least one good punt. Negatives: Offense Defense Special Teams Coaching
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

michiganjoe ·
+ HHCD Really good game until he whiffed at the worst possible time. A relatively small positive and the only one. - Everything. Poor play in all three phases and Colts looked like they had more energy and wanted it more. Inexcusable and goes right to MM.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

BrainDed ·
Positives. + A couple young guys looked good. Ryan taking a jump, Dix making impact plays and Adams starting to look like a NFL caliber WR. Negatives - Rodgers back to beyond bad QB play. Staring down his guy and not reading the D. - Special teams cost us 13 points. TD return for 7, long return for 3 and missed FG for 3. - Defense has no heart two weeks in a row. Can't make a play when it matters most. - Pass rush. Colts can't pass protect for ****. Our front 4 couldn't get home. What...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Music City ·
Ok- I agree with that. When a team isn't ready to play, it's on the coaches. I have gone back and forth on this subject- if McCarthy's time has come. I guess I just don't understand why a guy who used to be so ahead of the game, so innovative, and right there with the best coaches in the game suddenly loses it. Last year the play-calling debacle it was "They miss Jordy"... this year not much has changed. And I go back to that Bleacher Report article- is Rodgers seeing ghosts? Today's game...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

PackerPatrick ·
+ Monty is one tough WR + A good learning experience - what others have said
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Eddie ·
Positives: We have a very talented team, we have a HOF QB (that is in a slump), good young talent at WR with Ty Montgomery, Randall Cobb, Davante Adams, Jordy Nelson (for another year or so) and Trevor Davis. One of the best offensive lines in the league. There is a question at TE, hopefully Jarred Cook can get healthy but not much after him. Rodgers can catch the ball but blocks worse than I do. Eddie Lacy when healthy if a credible threat a RB and Rip is improving at FB. On Defense we have...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

BrainDed ·
Because all of you were calling for MM to get the gig when we wanted Sherman out. No, we don't know who the best candidates are right now. That doesn't disqualify the argument that MM isn't doing a good and should be replaced. If I'm managing a sales team and the supervisor sucks, I don't need to know who his \ her replacement will be to determine he\ she isn't performing at a level I deem acceptable.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

pkr_north ·
I also have wondered if the coaches preaching about how many 'stat' plays they have and that is what matters to them, that they are + this and - that, maybe they need to scrap that bs and go play some good 'eye candy' football.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

DH13 ·
+HHCD finally playing like a playmaker +Ryan showing glimpses of a good ILB +Montgomery showing what an x factor can do for an offense +Adams showing progress - losing to a 3-5 Colts team that deserves to be 3-5. That's a bad omen. Game wasn't as close as score. -middle of the D again proving fatal -OL. Our OL was getting a lot of praise through 5 or 6 weeks because D's were rushing 2 or 3. Now that they're sending more, we see that really are average. -MM. Glimpses of creativity to bust out...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Henry ·
If I remember correctly I would say half the board **** their pants over hiring the OC from one of the worst offenses in the NFL. Translation: shiny, pretty new ponies usually are a product of their system, not their individual coaching "genius". Seriously, did anyone really think Philbin would make a great coach? Point being TT actually did a damn solid job in picking MM. I don't know what the reality is of Peyton vs MM but both went on a pretty similar path and had some success. While MM's...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Herschel ·
Again, I'm not sure he deserves this position without also listing him as a negative at least. He was in the lane on the opening kickoff and was blown out. He also missed Luck for the sack on a great playcall to give them a chance to score and win the game. Those were two huge plays had he made either one they have a good chance to still win the game. IoW: He had the chance to make four big plays, he made two.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Maynard ·
With the injuries, obviously they don't have the legit #1 tallant. But I would argue that if there was a different offensive system in place, more of the true west-coast offense that the skill positions would be just fine. I don't believe for a second that Jordy, Cobb, Monty, and even Adams are not as good as Freeman, Brooks, and Rison. Lacy and Rip are likely as good as Bennett and Hendo. They are missing the catching threat out of the backfield with Levens, but Monty might fill that.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

chickenboy ·
In regards to M3 discussion. Did half or more of this board poop the bed when he was hired? Yes, including me. Does half or more of this board in hindsight think it was a very solid hire? Yes, including me. Does half or more of this board think his time may have passed and that this team needs a new 'voice' (or whatever term you want to use). Yes (I suspect), including me. Of course none of us know all the good names our there but I will toss one out. Josh McDaniel. Guys lately with their...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

phaedrus ·
Maynard: I don't believe for a second that Jordy, Cobb, Monty, and even Adams are not as good as Freeman, Brooks, and Rison. Lacy and Rip are likely as good as Bennett and Hendo. They are missing the catching threat out of the backfield with Levens, but Monty might fill that. Biggest weakness is TE, but Cook could provide that. OK, I'll stick to the 96 team which I admit may not be fair, but here goes. At receiver, Brooks is out (hurt against SF regular season game). Freeman was a #1 level...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

fightphoe93 ·
Agreed Phaedrus, that '96 team was very good in the skill positions. Maybe the only thing this 2016 team does better than the '96 team is pass block. Could you imagine what the '96 special teams unit alone would do against the '16 unit? Favre might never even get on the field as the special teams might get like 3 TDs alone against Zook's boys. What's Nolan Cromwell up to these days?
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

50k Club ·
I have no doubt that MM is a very good coach, but his team is in a rut since Game 7 last year. The same issues with the O keep cropping up, and the insistence on going with 11 personnel and iso routes is purely coaching. The same issues with the D not being capable of carrying off-days for the O under Dom, middle of the field being open, giving up last second scores, etc. is again on coaching. The coaches understandably may not see the forest for the trees as well - who gets playing time,...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Music City ·
I disagree- I think the Badgers can win out and get in the playoffs, and it just depends on who they beat in the B1G title game. If its an undefeated Michigan team, I think they're in. There's no way to ignore what they've done. Wins over (what would then be) 4 top 10 teams in 6 contests against top 10 teams would garner a lot of support. But if its OSU then that's not as good. Then Washington and Louisville are in play. But I think Washington loses before then. To me the real threat is...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Grave Digger ·
Saying McCarthy should be fired is easy. Offering a real solution is the difficult part. Who do you replace McCarthy with is a legit question? Go to perennially underachieving HC lIke Lovie Smith? Bring in an up and comer with no HC experience like Darrell Bevell? Or steal from the Belichick tree with Matt Patricia or retread Josh McDaniel? Yeah it's been 6 years since McCarthy won a SB, Bill Cowher went a decade after losing a SB before he even went to another. He kept his team in the hunt...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Maxi54 ·
First of all, pay me like the Packers top brass who's job it is to live, study, and know these kinds of things. I'll quit my current job and spend from now until the end of the playoffs researching, studying, turning over every rock, consulting with every good football mind I can find, etc.. I'll look into every assistant currently in the NFL, every viable college coach, any head coaches who I think could become available, and every ex-head/assistant coach who is currently not employed and...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Maxi54 ·
Slowmo... Seriously considering some changes doesn't in any way mean that I think M.M. has been a complete failure or that he's not a good coach. His record and accomplishments speak for themselves and put him right up there with other very successful coaches. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he went on to do well with another team at some point in his career. In addition, I'm not sure that I'm completely enamored with the way T.T. has done everything throughout his tenure with the Parkers...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Music City ·
I have thought about him as well. Big article a little while back with SI or ESPN about how much he learned. Basically an entire article is his mea culpa about his time in Denver. And having been around Bellichik and Brady for as long as he has been, he would have credibility. But I think he's a pretty well qualified candidate...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Grave Digger ·
Don't you think being around Belichick and Brady is exactly why he looks good? Historically that has been the case with Belichick assistants and players...being around those two makes them look good. Same goes for the Pete Carroll tree, being around them doesn't mean you can replicate the success. If I'm looking for a new HC then it needs to be someone who has been successful under different coaches...McCarthy cut his teeth under multiple HCs in his career as did Belichick and Saban and...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Johnson ·
Positives As I almost always do-I taped the game, even though I didn't know the outcome, it is a quicker, less painful alternative to live action Montgomery is turning into a hell of a player The offensive comeback showed that they are still alive and kicking Better draft position and no doubt a new D-Coordinator for 2017 The whole league other than the Pats seems pretty average. Negatives That was a 1970s style loss...we received two unforced gifts and still took a beating......not good...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Maxi54 ·
I always liked the way Lovie's Chicago teams played D and special teams too GD. Good grief...he got them to the Super Bowl with Rex Frickin' Grossman at QB of all people. I didn't pay any attention to why he flamed out so badly in T.B. so I don't know what happened during his tenure there. Not saying he would be my next head coach, I just like the way his team was built around D and special teams. I agree that having a decent/good Q.B. and OC's were the thing that held him back in Chicago.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Pakrz ·
Disagree.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

ChilliJon ·
Today Mike said "it's a man to man game. Didn't do enough to win those matchups". He also said after watching the tape again he felt the energy yesterday was actually pretty good. Look. It's admirable stuff that Mike thinks his recievers are capable of more and he just needs to unlock their inner greatness. But that isn't a young Jordy, engaged Jennings, and crafty Driver running ISO routes. It's Adams, a not yet back Jordy, Janis and Dick Rodgers. If the plan is to have those guys work...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Henry ·
I've got no beef with that. Lovie knows defense but he really would need to be accompanied by an experienced OC. I could see his input with TT forming a solid defensive team. You have a controlled offense with Rodgers? That would be a hell of a team.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

The GBP Rules ·
Bingo. The game management in that game cost them a Super Bowl. They had already beaten the Patriots and I think they'd have beaten them again. Oh they did fire Shawn Slocum though, maybe that was good enough.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

PackerBackerDPM ·
I thought he was the one washed out on the opening kickoff IIRC? I will defer to you H5 as you got a good head on your shoulders and remember things better than most on the board. your last two posts on the offense needing a fresh start thread agree a 100%.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

El-Brundlefly-Bong ·
Elite defense and mediocre offense. CC is a pretty damn good player. Peavy and 9 fingers are nice players, Ram is the only elite player on offence. Line and rest of WR crew is pretty pedestrian. If the defense could play with a lead early on (and the special teams win a few battles like they did on Sat) this team belongs in the playoffs. If the D has a bad day...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Timpranillo ·
Re: Positives and negatives
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

MichiganPacker ·
Good rationale post. The personnel issues related to the RBs have to come under some scrutiny for TT/MM did there. Letting go of Sitton might have been the right choice, but somehow thinking that Barclay was an adequate option was shortsighted at best. This is still a borderline playoff team, but I think that's the ceiling this year. At best, this is a team that will likely just miss the playoffs this year or limp in and get beat in the first round. I agree with others, this team has never...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

slowmo ·
Why, thank you
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Esox ·
Are you ****ing kidding me? I thought the energy was actually the worst part of the game. Whatever.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Fandame ·
Rodgers said the energy was horrible. Just more evidence that Rodgers and MM are not on the same page. This is not a happy group of players and/or coaches right now...
Reply

Re: Sneaky Pete vs I Suck Feet game thread (Sea vs Buff)

Blair Kiel ·
Grahm with quite the catch as the corner held his arm. TT can't even find an almost white good tight end.
Reply

Re: Sneaky Pete vs I Suck Feet game thread (Sea vs Buff)

ChilliJon ·
Thank-you for your reply but I think you called the rong radio show.
Reply

Re: Sneaky Pete vs I Suck Feet game thread (Sea vs Buff)

Orlando Wolf ·
No one is confusing RichRod with Darnell Coles.
Reply

Re: Sneaky Pete vs I Suck Feet game thread (Sea vs Buff)

Orlando Wolf ·
Too bad Richard isn't good.
Reply

Re: Sneaky Pete vs I Suck Feet game thread (Sea vs Buff)

Blair Kiel ·
Roger will send a nice apology letter to Rex. It's all good.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

RoyalWulff ·
Good Lord, Man! He who must not be named! And you said his name! Please, please, please!! The initials D.B. Are not welcome here! The fact that this loser even made our roster makes me even more skeptical of this coaching staff. Thank you!
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

BrainDed ·
Luck is no slouch, let's give him a little credit for that play. He's good sized and athletic despite his goober looks. It's not like he couldn't wrap up Tom Brady, Luck makes people miss every week.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

BrainDed ·
He is failing them by refusing to help them beat the man coverage. We see a bubble screen now and then and that's the extent of the man beaters. Well, let me say from what we can see. I'm not watching from the birds eye so I just have to assume that when Rodgers is holding the ball for 6 seconds it's because it's the stale asa plays that we've seen for 20 games now.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Grave Digger ·
I love this group of interior DL. They all play their butts off and are stout against the run. I think they have found the right mix of good starters Daniels, Guion, and Pennell and good backups with guys like Clark (only a backup for now), Lowry and Ringo. All 6 seem to be unselfish grinders who consistently clog lanes. They need to improve the pass rush from the interior, seems like a lot of bull rush and not a lot of technique coming from everyone but Daniels. Clark has some serious...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Tschmack ·
I think there is a good chance if they win out they are in. However, a 1 loss Clemson and 1 loss Washington team in the mix would make things a lot more interesting. I think you still have to hope one of those teams loses another one. Then there is a team like Oklahoma that is coming on strong at the end of the year. If it came down to OU and UW as two loss teams that could be a problem. UW isn't sexy and that's always a concern. Still fun to even be in a position to talk about it. Nice...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Tschmack ·
I think Ohio State is in no matter what. I hate that team but 4 wins against top 10 teams is nothing to sneeze at. Where it could get interesting if it's Penn State that wins the BT championship game and Clemson and Washington don't lose but Penn State beat Ohio State so I think they are also in and in that scenario Washington is probably out. The Wisconsin resume doesn't look as strong now as LSU and Michigan State and Nebraska aren't as good as their rankings were when they played them and...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Tschmack ·
Pretty sure Washington beat Stanford and they are ranked 17 this week. Utah probably should be ranked and that's a quality win. Colorado is a top 10 team and if they beat them I think it's going to be hard for the committee to keep them out instead of a 2 loss UW team. The Iowa win is looking better now (they are ranked this week) but LSU and Nebraska wins don't look nearly as good. The Michigan State win now is meaningless. Beating Penn State would be their best win of the year and I think...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Tschmack ·
I also have to think Michigan is still in the discussion regardless of the BT championship game especially if a Clemson or Washington loses again. UM might have 2 losses, but they own head to head comparisons by beating UW and throttling Penn State. That's 2 top 10 wins not including the Colorado win that looks pretty good right now.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Music City ·
Michigan does have a pretty strong case. They have a better case than Washington does. You gotta play good teams, and teams that don't should be punished for it. The top of the B1G has done that. OSU played Oklahoma, Michigan played Colorado, Wisconsin played LSU... the only team that didn't schedule a quality non-conference opponent is Penn State. Their rise to the B1G championship game is really quite flukey. Really that's what the conversation should be about- not about if Wisconsin/Penn...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

MichiganPacker ·
As much as I'd like Bucky to get to the playoff, I think it's unlikely they get in. I think they'll either take Ohio State or the UW/Penn State winner, but not both. I think it's Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Big10 team. If they are really serious about the conference championship games, then Ohio State should be out, but I think they'll take OSU over Wisconsin or Penn State. Even if Clemson or Washington lose, I think they'll be a lot of momentum for Oklahoma to go if they beat Oklahoma...
 
×
×
×
×