Skip to main content

Tagged With "2017 Week 2"

Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Va. Packer ·
Positives: Not sure Negatives: You could throw a dart and hit someone on the offense, defense, ST's and coaches that deserve some criticism. Maybe a vendor or two also. The lack of someone with a chloroform soaked rag ready to prevent MM from deferring won coin tosses. It was kind of consequential in the last 2 losses.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Goldie ·
C U next week.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

PackLandVA ·
Twenty-five continuous years of a HOF QB behind center and they'll probably only have 2 SB wins to show. Wow.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Pikes Peak ·
Muns man is not in yet...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Hungry5 ·
Neither QB wins their SB without the team around them.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Timpranillo ·
The "standard" offense continues to look predictable, stale, and overmatched by NFL teams that continue to adjust to things that work. They don't have WRs that can consistently just "get open" and "beat their man". Sometimes the do, but not anything close to consistently. Haven't for the last 2 seasons, yet they simply tell the WRs to beat their man. When they play in a spread formation they at times have more success. But, they use it sparingly until in desperation mode. Manbeaters are not...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

BrainDed ·
..and you just witnessed what a MM/TT team looks like without elite QB play. Did you like what you saw?
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

PackLandVA ·
My statement is not an indictment of either QB. The teams 'built" around them should've been capable of winning more than one each IMO. There's plenty of blame to go around.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Pack-Man ·
- Another depressing loss from a team that should be 6-2, at worst + Mike McCarthy, Dom Capers and Ron Zook won't be in Green Bay much longer
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

fightphoe93 ·
That was one of my 2 positives. The squirrel made me laugh and so did Jeff Janis' pathetic attempt at catching a perfect deep pass from Rodgers that bounced off his facemask and will probably make a bloopers reel. 2 lighter moments in a sea of crap.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Pack-Man ·
There's more than enough talent on this team to be 6-2 right now, injuries or not. Aaron Rodgers is still an MVP caliber player, the problem is coaching. McStupidface is content to run this team into a brick wall; doing the same things week after week, year after year. McCarthy is an incredibly overrated coach. He's no better than Mike Sherman, not in any respect. Considering how awful Mike Sherman's GM was (himself), you can make a strong case that McCarthy is an inferior coach (and don't...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

slowmo ·
Perhaps those who call for firing MM can identify the candidate who will replace him. No, it won't be Cowher, Gruden, or Dungy...they aren't leaving the broadcast booth. Harbaugh?? Not leaving Michigan, his alma mater, 2 years in (unless he wins a national championship this year). So who is the wonder coach to be brought in?
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Timpranillo ·
The argument of those that have no argument.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

justanotherpackerfan ·
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

pkr_north ·
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

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

CHEEZE ·
I have missed the majority of the last (2) games because of other commitments. At this point, the Packers have relieved me of the feeling that I NEED to watch every moment of every game. Not that I will not watch, but my dog needed to go out late in the 4th quarter and I was just fine taking him out without even once thinking that I had to get back and see what was going on. It is a positive for me being ok with disconnecting myself and a negative for the Packers.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

phaedrus ·
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

mrtundra ·
We are in third place in our division after this loss. If we had won, we'd be tied for first. HHCD gets two INTs in the first half and Indy goes to the locker room at half time up 2 TDs. Detroit beats MN at MN and we can't seemingly get pumped up for the chance to own a share of first place in the division. Eight games left in our season and I cannot hazard a guess at the outcomes of those games, or the make-up of this team after that.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

MichiganPacker ·
If they win out, they probably need one other thing to happen to get in. They were at #7 last week and Texas AM lost, so they should bump up to #6. If they win out that means that both OSU and Michigan will have lost, so the only other teams currently ranked above them are Alabama, Clemson, Washington, and Louisville. If all those teams win out, they would be out of the playoff. If Alabama, Clemson, and Washington lose once, they still might stay in front of a two loss Wisconsin team. There...
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: Positives and negatives

Pikes Peak ·
From Peter King today..... Stat of the Week In their past 20 games, Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers are: a. 9-11. b. 4-5 at Lambeau Field. c. Two wins worse than the Oakland Raiders. d. Three wins worse than the Detroit Lions. e. Owners of the same number of 300-yard passing games (three) as Cleveland.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

ChilliJon ·
After sleeping on yesterday's debacle. I'm really effing sour on MM. I can't get past the halftime comment. Last week. On the road. Nick effing Foles went 16-22 for 230 and two TDs in what essentially amounted to one half of work when he stepped in for Alex Smith. Twice. TE Travis Kelce did the most damage. That's about the only reason I can come up with for why MM would cobble together a plan that makes Richard Rodgers the focus in the first half Does it matter that Travis Kelce is a...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Henry ·
There's something to be said about being hasty but 2 years (after this season) is pretty sizable sample of ****.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Timpranillo ·
There is no point naming names. First off, no one has been fired. Secondly, there are no names that anyone that could list that would satisfy you. Hell, you already listed off 4 coaches that you *know* won't come and it would be stupid to suggest. How about we suggest an OC with no head coaching experience of a sub .500 team? Would that work for you as an answer for your "simple question"? Of course not. You'd **** all over that. YOU WANT TO FIRE A GUY THAT WON THE SUPER BOWL FOR A...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

PackerBackerDPM ·
Something about that last paragraph rings true with me. Yeah there is a multitude of ways to fix a bunion but I know what works for me and that's how I fix it. Do "what you do" if you will but at least do it well and the Packers simply are not. There is just no identity. I know much of this discussion about the coaching both on offense and defense and to be honest it wouldn't be upset to see come changes but yesterday it is an execution thing for me. Offensive, you have a Jordy over throw...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

slowmo ·
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

Two weeks ago conservative killed us. Loss. This week a blitz burned us. Loss There is no compensation like overcompensation, I assume Dom will break out the 11 drop back in zone (10 on the perimeter, 1 shadowing the QB. He'll call it the inverted "U") defense next week. It will cause 7 turnovers and the Pack will win by 30. Dom commits to it because it works, defense will get crushed for the rest of the season. Side note, I think Fackrell will be a player for us. High BFI
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

Hungry5 ·
McCarthy has a week to get his team back. TEN won't be a push over if the Packers play next Sunday like they did yesterday.
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: Playoffs

ammo ·
So if Wisconsin wins the next 2 weeks and Penn State wins the next 2 weeks and Ohio State beats Meeechigan Badgers and Penn State play for the Big Ten Championship. How sweet would that be? Can a 2 loss Badger team leap a 1 loss Ohio State for the playoffs?
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Hungry5 ·
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

ammo ·
See, Badgers still get NO respect. A 2 loss Penn State makes the playoff if they win the BIG 10 but a 2 loss Badger team is replaced by Ohio State if Bucky wins the Big Ten. Talk about bullschit!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.landof10.com/big-t...wisconsin-penn-state
Reply

Re: Playoffs

MichiganPacker ·
First things first. Let's win the next 2. I can't see them losing to Purdue, but Minnesota is going to be tough. If Bucky wins 2 the fact that the Michigan QB is out complicates this even more. That makes it more likely that UM will lose to OSU and put Penn State in the Big 10 title game. Best case scenario is that OSU beats UM and then MSU shocks Penn State (which is not impossible, but unlikely). Then Bucky gets OSU and a "revenge" win and both Penn State and MSU will have more or as many...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Pikes Peak ·
Anything can happen as we have seen in the last 2 weeks, down goes 2,3,4,5. My feeling is the Badgers need to win out and beat OSU in the title game to make it. Could have made it a lock if they had beat them earlier.....they didn't.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

FreeSafety ·
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

Tschmack ·
If they don't win the next two games - not to mention the Big Ten championship game- it really doesn't matter. Take care of your business first. Louisville losing was a big deal as was the Washington loss last week. I see the Huskies probably losing one more game either against WSU or in the conference championship game. Also have to pull for another Clemson loss but that is less likely than Washington losing another game.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

FreeSafety ·
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

The Heckler ·
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

FreeSafety ·
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

Cavetoad ·
**** yeah! Preach Free!!
Reply

Re: Playoffs

SanDiegoPackFan ·
hmmm....being able to give an opinion without being criticized or shouted down is now "stupid" ? but, I digress.... Goldie: I feel just the opposite. If this was a Gary Anderson-led team, then yes, I would be worried. But I do believe Chryst has this team very focused on one thing: winning this game. If anything Illinois and Purdue might have been let downs....but over the past 2 weeks we've seen this team as taking on game at a time. We are a better TEAM than Minnesota. Our defense will...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Goldie ·
A blowout?? Now that's what I'm talking about...it's all I've ever wanted with all my teams....a crushing if you will. Thanks SDPF.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Music City ·
It's a foregone conclusion that they have to win next week in Indy. So that said, if they win they're in. The winner of the B1G title game is in. Period. ESPN is touting chaos but I don't think so. Washington is not in, even if they win next weekend in the Pac12 title game. Their schedule doesn't warrant it. They don't have a signature win, and until they beat WSU Friday, they didn't have a win against a ranked opponent. Really, OSU is already in. Their win today sealed it. There's no way...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Music City ·
No they haven't... and their "signature win" is over a Washington State team that has a loss to Eastern Washington on their resume. The only other ranked team they played is USC, and lost. But if they finish with one loss, they'll be more appealing than any of the "Wild Card" 2 loss teams.
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...
 
×
×
×
×