Tagged With "Week 3"
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
Neg or pos, 3 winnable road games coming up. We shall see what the team is made of.
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
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
Positive: It was a beautiful fall day in Wisconsin yesterday. Negative: I wasted 3+ hours of it, inside, watching a dumpster burn. Not sure if + or -: I'll do it again next week
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
I just don't know if its coaching and/or playcalling...when I see AR missing guys that he should have hit. It's a quick hit offense, or at least it appears that is the way he should be playing it...he had SOOO many open guys that if he followed the design of the play, would work - he either :1. can't do it anymore, 2. has no faith in the system, 3. has no faith in wr's, 4. is not into the game. At every point in the game, I had said all of those things to myself. I get a bad game, everybody...
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
+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
I don't get the "we have so much talent argument." Do we have a legit #1 wide receiver right now? I don't think so. Perhaps laden with decent 2's and 3's. With Lacy out, do we have a legit #1 RB right now? No. With Cook hurt, do we have a legit #1 TE right now? No. Three top DB's out. Matthews out.
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
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
Yes. R.Rodgers was open on every target. His drop, falling down, and AR missing was the problem. That and he goes nowhere after the catch, but he was open. Monty getting only 3 targets (and had 3 recpts) was pathetic.
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
Actually, I didn't ****** all over the hiring of MM, although I did prefer Sean Peyton, but feel free to project. Sherman needed to go because, after being dumped as GM, he was clearly feuding with TT and the two weren't on the same page. Kind of reverse of what happened when Sherman was hired, when he was given the GM job because the Packers didn't want to upset the apple cart and hire a new GM who would want his own guy and get rid of Sherman after he had only been head coach one year.
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
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: Playoffs
Need MICH to win last 2 then lose to WI in the title game. IMO, that is what the Badgers need for a shot into the playoffs. Also having Louisville drop another would be great just to be sure. My CFP projection after yesterday 1 - Alabama 2- Mich 3 - Ohio St 4 - Louisville 5 - Wisconsin 6 - Washington 7 - Clemson Wash and Clem were losses at home. Clemson to an unranked Pitt.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
Exactly, Cavetoad! Penn State, Michigan, or O$U. It doesn't matter to me. The Badgers have no say who will win the East now. Any of those 3 teams will be tough. Let's get there first.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
If UW wins out and beats Penn St in the title game. 1.Alabama 2. Ohio St 3. Clemson 4. Wisconsin The Big 10 champ (best conference by far outside of the SEC) that only lost to OSU and MI....each by a TD and one in OT is not going to be kept out of the top 4......even if OSU is still in the #2 spot. Two Big 10 teams will be in the top 4. Mark it down.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
Badgers control it themselves. If they win out and win the Big Ten they are not going to be shut out of the playoff. Two Big Ten teams will be in. MI lost to an unranked team and remained at #3?????? That will be corrected in the vote next week. Then if MI loses to OSU.....MI will drop down to around 10 or 11 in the rankings.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
This weeks rankings just came out: 1. Bama 2. O$U 3. Michigan 4. Clemson 5 Washington 6. Bucky 7. PSU 8 Oklahoma 9. Colorado 10. Oklahoma St. So it kind of shakes out like this I guess. OSU or Michigan will have 2 losses after their game but will the committee drop down either of them if the game is close? I kind of wonder if they will? Bama has Auburn but it is at Bama so I don't expect an upset Clemson has a so so South Carolina team Washington has the apple cup with Wash St. If Bucky...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
WHEN OSU beats MI.....MI will have a loss to OSU and a loss to unranked Iowa. WI will have losses to #2 OSU and #3 MI and have beaten Iowa. You cannot lose to an unranked team and be #3 ahead of WI IMO. If WI beats PS...Bucky will have ANOTHER Top 10 win. Washington's reseme isn't even close....if WI beats PS and wins the Big Ten.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
This is what kind of gets me. There is now a mentality in things I have been hearing and reading that now apparently they also want a "better game". So is it the whole body of work or is it who would give a better game? It seems to shift around constantly if they are talking about a blue blood program. And no one will say it but I guarantee you that they want as many blue bloods in the playoff as they possibly can and will use any excuse in the book to make it happen. Think about if for a...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
I'm not sure there is truly a path for Bucky to make the playoffs anymore. If they beat PSU and Clemson AND Washington both lose then you're talking about Michigan moving back into the playoffs and I just don't think the committee will put 3 B1G teams in a 4 team playoff...especially when the Pac12 winner (in this scenario Colorado) is also a top 10 team with 2 losses. If Oklahoma (also 2 losses) won convincingly over OK St., becoming the Big 12 champ, then I believe they would also be in...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
I completely agree that they should be in for winning the best conference in the country. But, we better brace ourselves for not getting in and the committee picking O$U instead. We are going to see what the committee values more head to head matchup, conference titles, or the "eye test". They are going to pick O$U because they can use the excuse that they beat UW and have a good resume. Also, I just cant see a scenario that they drop Ohio St. 3 spots to #5 to leave them out. With all that...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
Good point. I don't know so I looked at a few of them. Colley Matrix , Sagarin and Congrove OSU 4, 15, 3 Average 7.33 Alabama 10, 7, 6 Ave 7.66 Wisconsin 25, 20, 4 Ave 16.33 Penn St 28, 39, 15 Ave 27.33 Colorado 42, 23, 17 Ave 27.33 Michigan 11, 33, 41 Ave 28.33 Oklahoma 54, 18, 29 Ave 33.66 Clemson 21, 47, 47 Ave 38.33 Washington 69, 60, 43 Ave 57.33 My point remains: Washington hasn't been tested anywhere near what the other top teams have. And when they were, they lost by two scores at...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
I think the committee factors in multiple criteria, but at the end of the day they pick who they believe are the best 4 teams in the country. I agree that the B1G winner SHOULD go, along with the SEC and PAC12 winners as those teams have gone through a gauntlet of inter-conference play AND won a championship outright. The Big 12 needs a championship game to legitimize their champion. If you want to compare quality wins: -Michigan has the best argument with 4 wins vs. Top 25 teams with 3 of...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
If you're just looking at numbers next to their team names, sure. But who have these teams played? What are their strength of schedules? You will see that WSU got beat by E. Washington and doesn't have a single good win on their record- I don't even know how they're ranked. They fattened up on the weak underlings of the conference and lost every game against a team that didn't suck. Utah has losses to Cal and Oregon (both really bad teams) in addition to losses to Washington and Colorado.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
I heard what might be the most logical argument so far on the Big Ten contenders, but it's not necessarily good for Wisconsin. If you were to rank the top 4 teams in the Big Ten (forget West v East) right now UW is 3rd. Even with a win v Penn State I'm not sure they leapfrog Michigan. Why? They've already beaten 3 top 10 teams including both UW and Penn State. The other factor is Michigan is just a better team and more equipped to handle an Alabama or Clemson or even Ohio State in the...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
I find that impossible to believe. In all the SOS stuff that I looked at and posted earlier in this thread shows WASH miles behind everybody else in SOS. Looking at an average, MI's SOS was around 28th in the country and WASH's SOS was around 58th. That is out of 128 teams. WASH is bearly in the top half of the country in terms of SOS. And MI already pounded Colorado earlier this year. No way WASH SOS improves 30 spots on one game. MI already has 3 top 10 wins against WI, PS and Colorado.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
8 team playoff. 5 Power 5 conference champs plus 3 at large teams. That way winning your conference means something and WIS/PS, OSU and MI all get in. Oklahoma gets in.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
A 12 team tournament would be the way to go to make the conference championships mean something, but the problem is there are 5 Power conferences instead of 4. You could award the top 4 rated POwer Conference champions an automatic bye, and then have the 5th go into an 8 team First Round playoff to see which four teams play the conference champs. I agree that this year will expose the fact that the conference championship is not that important. It's very likely that Penn State/Bucky winner...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
I agree with you about the conference consolidation, but I think they need to adopt the NFL playoff system and go to a 6 team playoff. 4 conference winners, 2 wildcard teams. 1 and 2 get a BYE, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5. That way you're not penalizing teams for getting bumped out of a major conference, and good teams who lose competitive divisions still have a shot.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
Washington is up 31-7 in the 3rd quarter. There in. 1. Alabama (win or lose the SEC championship) 2. Ohio State 3. Washington Clemson if they beat Virginia Tech
Reply
Re: Playoffs
Chris Peterson, James Franklin and Paul Chryst are pleading with the committee to rank them no higher than fifth. Relax, I know they aren't. Wisc/Penn State Vs Wash in the Rose Bowl would be a good game. Badgers would of course be my preference. I hope Clemson has a rough time tonite, dropping them to 4. Put Mich at 3 vs 2 OSU. Bama, OSU, Mich and Clemson are IMO the best 4 teams.
Reply
Re: Dos A Cero
3-5-2 fukkin kraut slurping motherfukker! (It's OK my mom is German, I can drop the K-word)
Reply
Re: Since No One Else Has The Stomach For It....Pos/Neg
You are right man, that just goes to show how bad our division is right now. If they can take care of business in division (win all 3 at the end of season) and win 3 of the next 4 games. They finish 10-6 and that would be good enough. 9-7 might be cutting it.. so 2-2 coupled with winning the last 3 might be good enough too... but they need to win those division games for certain.
Reply
Re: Since No One Else Has The Stomach For It....Pos/Neg
I agree with you, and yet I'm not sure if that's a positive or a negative. I will say that Seattle made the playoffs as a 7-9 division champ in 2010, then won a Super Bowl 3 years later. That said, if the Pack were to win this division at 7-9, I don't feel like that would be a springboard to anything other than a quiet whimpering of a quick and dirty playoff exit.
Reply
Re: Since No One Else Has The Stomach For It....Pos/Neg
No sir, if anything it was worse. The dagger was just when the defense finally makes a stop and we are supposed to get the ball back down "only" by 13, Daniels gets an Unsporstmanlike Conduct penalty to keep the drive alive. Titans scored a play or 2 later to go up by 20 late in the 3rd quarter and you could tell it was over at that point. A putrid ending to a putrid performance. Before that, the Titans made the defense look like high schoolers and the offense looked like granny did in fact...
Reply
Re: Since No One Else Has The Stomach For It....Pos/Neg
+ Individual performances by Adams and Cobb. Starks did reasonably well. Spriggs did pretty good for coming in cold. He's still got work to do, though. Hell, I'm even going to give Barclay a '+'. At least he wasn't a turnstile today! - Lost to a 4-5 team, after losing to a 3-5 team the week before. No pass rush. None. No defense. None. 7-0 before folks have found their seats, 21-0 at the end of the 1st qtr, and 5 TDs by halftime is NOT good football. Yeah, being fairly decimated by injury is...
Reply
Re: #9 Wisconsin @ #22 Crieghton
Creighton doubling in the post, tempting Bucky to hit 3's. An 0-10 run to end the half puts em' down 3. I think that they just need to keep shooting when they are open, and they'll fall in the 2nd half.
Reply
Re: Interesting Post From an ND Football Board
Brian Kelly would also have to be fired. In 2015, Brian Kelly's ND went 10-3 and ended up #11 in the final poll. They lost by 2 points at Clemson (#2 in final poll), by 2 points at Stanford (#3), and to Ohio State in the bowl game (#4). Yes. Notre Dame is down this year, but I can't imagine them firing him less than a year removed from an outstanding season.
Reply
Re: Interesting Post From an ND Football Board
Brian Kelly is much like MM....very stubborn, overly loyal to terrible assistant coaches, can't commit to the run game, and is not able to adjust during a game. Just watch tape of the game they played in near hurricane conditions a few weeks ago at North Carolina State (a game that should have never been played) and explain why Kelly was compelled to stick to a shotgun formation, empty backfield and continue to throw the ball. Then he threw the center under the bus after the game for some...
Reply
Re: 2 years ago...
Passing 2014 Player Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD TD% Int Lng Y/A Y/C Y/G Rate Sk% Aaron Rodgers 341 520 65.6 4381 38 7.3 5 80 8.4 12.8 273.8 112.2 5.1 2016 Player Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD TD% Int Lng Y/A Y/C Y/G Rate Sk% Aaron Rodgers 233 369 63.1 2410 22 6.0 7 58 6.5 10.3 267.8 93.9 5.6 Not a huge dropoff, TD% is lower and Yards/Attempt is lower. INTs are up, telling me he's forcing the ball more or someone else is fukking up. There have been a couple tipped passes that have been picked which aren'this...
Reply
Re: 2 years ago...
The Houston Texans are 6-3 and in first place but have a -27 point differential.
Reply
Re: Our not so Special Teams
You are far more forgiving than I am, not to mention Mike McCarthy wasn't forgiving either. McCarthy made the correct call in sacrificing Slocum after that game. The truth is, as a coaching staff, Seattle completely humiliated the Pack from a special teams point of view that day. Special teams wasn't the only reason for that loss but probably 2 of the 3 or 4 biggest gaffes of that game were all from the ST crew.
Reply
Re: Our not so Special Teams
MM forgave Slocum's terrible STs for years before they were so bad, in such a big game, in front of the entire nation, that he finally, finally fired the son of his buddy RC Slocum. He then hired another buddy and the STs remain anything but special.
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
Hey, offense, how abouts you guys warm up before the game instead of using the typical first 3 drives of 3nOuts to do that? Thanks Barclay for getting hurt so the better player could play. You'd think the coaches would know that beforehand but... With Jake and Blake out it won't happen but jesus christ please cut ****ing Bradford and replace him with a real player as soon as possible. He has no clue, knocked on his ass each time he was blocked, played scared. With the D in complete triage...
Reply
Re: Our not so Special Teams
And the note above blaming it on young UDFAs ignores the fact that Hawk and Bostic, the two responsible for the biggest stupid plays, don't fit that category. Brad Jones on the field goal doesn't either.