Tagged With "Game 1"
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
Janis watching a TD bounce off his chin was comical. I have to give credit to the Colts. With three minutes left, McStupidface would have run two dives and a sweep for negative 1 yards. Colts went for the jugular and threw killer passes (granted, they were to the middle of our defense, so, it was a pretty safe play). 4-4, time to stop being stupid and start kicking ass. Dom Capers sucks
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
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
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
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
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
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
It's admirable that he defends them like this in public. But, he better be sticking his foot up their ass in private if he actually believes it is a winning 1-on-1's issue. I'm fairly certain he isn't doing the latter. There might not have been a schism between Rodgers and McCarthy before, but there may be one festering. While Rodgers hasn't been Rodgers much over the past 20 games, when he's had success it is when they've gone off script. I don't believe school yard is sustainable, but when...
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
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
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: Playoffs
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
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
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
Oklahoma is not making the playoff. They have W.VA and OkSt., I see them losing at least 1 of these.
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
The more I think about it and hear pundit's blathering, the more I think this is the case. Item 1: Beat Purdue this weekend. As noted, it's really out of our control. Obviously nobody was impressed by the huge win over IL. We need to keep getting huge wins and dominating defensive play even with all the injuries. Now with Meeechigan loosing their QB, it's going to make this harder for us as far as the polls go. Fact is, we have to win the B1G. No way about it and we can't control the rest.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
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
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
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
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
The Badgers have to beat Penn State no matter what. I also think Washington has to beat Colorado for them to be safe. Same thing with Clemson but their path is easier than either Wisconsin or Washington. Washington beating a top 10 Colorado team cancels out UW beating a top 10 Penn State team. That's where it could get interesting in the comparisons. Washington has one loss to a top 15 USC team. The Badgers have two losses to top 10 teams. The Badgers beat LSU and Iowa and Nebraska - all...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
This makes no sense. If Washington beats Colorado they have only 1 loss. How does this make Badgers safe except safely in the Rose Bowl?
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
Colley looks like they give a quality rank to each win or loss. Look at them side by side in the link. The Utah win has a quality rank below Bucky's win vs Minnesota and way below the wins over Iowa and Nebraska. Wisconsin's loss to OSU is very near the quality rank of Washington's win vs Portland St. WI total quality number is 344 Washington is at 361 Lower is better.....OSU is at 275 My point every which way you look to compare Wisconsin and Washington....WI looks to have the better reseme.
Reply
Re: Playoffs
1. I don't think beating PS is going to be easy, not at all. But if WI loses then none of this talk matters, so I think we are just assuming a WI win for the sake of this discussion. 2. I think the media talks about PS winning so much because they beat OSU and would have a better argument for being in the playoff. They won the division that both OSU and MI are in, they won the conference and they beat OSU head to head. It is just a more interesting scenario for the committee if PS wins the...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
It'd be a really bad precedent to put OSU and Michigan in and leave out the real Big 10 champ. For that reason, I think Michigan is done. And I actually don't like OSU being in - if you can't win your own conference, you don't deserve a chance to play for the national title. Not that anyone cares, but they should get rid of the Big 12, sending Texas and TCU to the Pac 12, West Virginia and Kansas to the ACC, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to the SEC. Iowa St, Kansas St, Texas Tech, and Baylor...
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
#1 and #2 get the byes, that seems pretty simple. Teams who win their conference SHOULD be ranked in the top 5, it's not easy to win a gauntlet of interconference play, even the PAC12.
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: Since No One Else Has The Stomach For It....Pos/Neg
Pos: I got to air out my house in Mid-November in Sconnie Land. Neg: Major changes are warranted on this team, including Ted if Mark Murphy feels it's time. This is just a poorly talented team IMO. When you have guys like Brice, Hawkins, Goodson, Fackrell, Perillo, Davis etc playing key roles on this team...these are just guys. Period. You can find a slew of these kind of players all over the NFL. Not to mention 1st round players in Datone Jones and Nick Perry who also look like, well, just...
Reply
Re: Since No One Else Has The Stomach For It....Pos/Neg
+ I did get to wash and wax the car and change the oil in the snowblower, so there's that. - like others have said, i didn't even try to watch the game, only listen to it on radio, that is not really a good thing for the packers. there is no excitement right now, its spreading and I am not sure how the team will change things...seems beyond 1 or 2 players or even the coach, it seems like its systemic. it pains me to say this. it hurts.
Reply
Re: Hitler vs Stalin game thread (NE vs Seattle)
Just because he played 1 year for Wisconsin doesn't make him elite.
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...
I know, pts. are the only thing that really matter, however I find it pretty amazing that if a team wins those two stats; 1) Which team won the turn over battle 2) Which team had a higher "average yards per pass attempt", they win the game over 90% of the time. We can talk about all the other stuff but if; 1) Our defense was forcing more turnovers 2) Our offense was making more big plays in the passing game, we would not be in the situation we are in. I think last year we were 7-0 when this...
Reply
Re: TNF Football: Pantera vs. Orleans
I didn't watch 1 second of this game so I'll focus on Pantera. Sadly, I never knew much about Pantera until after the murder of Dimebag. They had a couple of excellent tunes in the early '90s that quite frankly, I either ignored or never heard during that time period. It wasn't until after the shooting incident that I realized I had missed something pretty good and started listening to more Pantera maybe 10-15 years after they were at their peak.
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
Defense just can not make a play. 2 plays last night could have swung the game; 1) If the ball that Peppers batted in the air had been located 2) If Joe Thomas was a split second quicker in getting to the ball that bounced up off a Redskin on the sideline, we would have had 2 Turn overs. All game I kept thinking that we were going to need to force a TO to win......it just does not happen.
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
Show us where he in particular has "played very poorly" this year. Getting beat a couple times deep? Happens to the best of them, especially when your safeties are already on the plane. Early in the year Shields was still starting and Randall and Rollins were being rotated in regularly. He showed more than enough as a rookie to suggest he will be a player. But again, with all the injuries (and he may still be injured), he has been CB#1 since getting back on the field. And being surrounded by...
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
The Good: Passing offense came to life after miserable first three series. Here's a thought - start the game thinking you're down three scores. The Bad: Special teams continue to be awful. Pretty amazing when you consider the positional breakdown of this roster. The Ugly: 1) You have a GM who's entire philosophy is to draft, develop, and resign his own for good deals. He's failing on all three of those. Meanwhile, 31 other GMs have figured out that you can also trade and use free agents to...
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
Show you? While Randall played well as the other starter against the Jaguars, Rollins was benched midway through the game in favor of Gunter, who also struggled.-ESPN Quinten Rollins allowed two touchdowns on three targets while Kentrell Brice allowed two catches for 49 yards with 33 yards coming after the catch.-Washington Post THUMBS DOWN The Packers used Randall in the slot for much of camp, but inexplicably they went with Quinten Rollins there in the nickel package. It might have been...
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
The Good. 1. Cook showed how much the offense can benefit when you have a TE that is a receiving threat. They really haven't had that since Finley. 2. Rodgers missed a few, but it was clear that Cousins was also having problems with balls thrown in the flat because of the wind. A couple of those moved several feet when thrown in that direction. Other than that, Rodgers played pretty well. The OL can't run block and can't really protect, so Rodgers is what's keeping them somewhat respectable.
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
The problem is that they are more than 1 player away from being a top flight contender again. They are about 4 players away and that's if those players are Ezekiel Elliott, Richard Sherman, Joe Thomas, and a healthy JJ Watt.
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
After 10 years with Rodgers and 1 Super Bowl, do we still think the draft and develop philosophy (with almost no free agency) is the best long term philosophy?
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
Agree, this team is far from one player away. Which is why it continues to be so damn frustrating Ted is so obsessed with the draft and completing his roster with UDFA's and almost never considers free agency. The one thing we know about Ted's "tree" of exec's that have since left him...Reggie McKenzie, John Dorsey, and Schneider is that these guys will use and sign veteran free agents to fill their rosters. Ted simply refuses to. And considering he's missed on key players in his last 3...
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
Yes but with more flexibility in FA. The build through the draft strategy is sound when you stop holding onto "development" projects like Bradford and Janis. But when those picks bottom out, yes, the team needs to find some flexibility with strategic FA pickups. But the base approach should absolutely to build through the draft. Especially in the salary cap era.
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
Exactly. Saying the philosophy failed because of the results is like saying democracy doesn't work because you don't like the outcome of an election. (For analogy purposes only - please no politics.) As others have mentioned, TT coming up essentially empty on the last three drafts and making some questionable personnel moves along the way brought this on. Keeping Pep, letting Hayward walk, making the league's 12th best kicker it's 3rd highest paid and the timing of the Sitton move were all...
Reply
Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?
Only if you hit about 3 home runs in a row. They got a HOF QB with the 23rd pick, a guy who played at a HOF level for several years with the 26th pick (CM3), and a HOF DB who came to Green Bay on a discount because everyone else thought he was washed up (Woodson). That's 3 HOF-level players at 3 of the 4 most important positions (QB, edge rusher, CB) without having a top 5 pick. That coupled with having 2 of your other top 3 CBs being UDFA that played like Pro Bowlers on small contracts...
Reply
Re: I am starting to get excited about our top 10 draft pick next spring
The Packer 2016 Draft Shopping List: 1) A remake of the TE position. (3 picks) 2) Durable RBs who can make people miss. (2 picks) 3) A WR that combines both speed and quickness (1 pick) 4) Another OL who can replace Barclay (1 pick) 5) A couple CBs who combine speed with size and don't get injured every 4.2368 tackles. (2 picks) 6) A guy whose every dream is about decking every NFL QB on game day - and has the size, speed, talent, and will to make it happen. (1 pick) That is 10 draft picks.
Reply
Re: The Invisible Man known as Ted Thompson
If you're not drafting at the top of the first round, you're not getting elite talent and your team will be relatively worse. Draft and develop is a concept to avoid taking players with major flaws to fill out your roster but it cannot make your team dominant. Beginning with the 1976 draft 46 first round draft choices have made the HOF. That compares with 26 other players from all other rounds (AND free agents) combined. What's more, 38 of those first rounders were chosen in the top half of...
Reply
Re: I am starting to get excited about our top 10 draft pick next spring
I hate to say it, but they have to draft BPA. This team needs a significant talent infusion, especially on the defensive side of the ball, and it's not going to be a one year process. It's likely the last year for Shields (10 million), Peppers (9 million), Lacy (1 million), Starks (3 million), Datone Jones (million) and Lang (6 million) and they'll have to make big money decisions about Perry (5 million) and Cook (3 million). That's 39 million of cap money, most of which will become...
Reply
Re: I am starting to get excited about our top 10 draft pick next spring
THIS (Best post of the week)