Tagged With "Game 2"
Reply
Re: Positives and negatives
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
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
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
..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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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: Positives and negatives
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
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
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
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
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: Positives and negatives
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I do not think so. Washington plays in a down conference and has no signature wins. The Badgers beat LSU, who was the only team to compete with 'Bama. And while the MSU win is no longer a factor, beating Nebraska and Iowa on the road, and taking OSU to overtime and Michigan to the brink is better than anything Washington has done. To then complete it with a win over Penn State to be Conference champion in the toughest conference in football this year clinches it. There will be 2 B1G teams in...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
I don't get this Wisconsin would lose to Michigan stuff. If Speight throws 2 int's and fumbles once like he just did...
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 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 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
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 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
I have to agree. Best case scenario was Michigan winning and Bucky winning the title game. Now even if Bucky wins, they are still going be be considered a lesser 2 win team. And, TBH, Michigan did beat both the B1G champs regardless. My argument would be that Bucky did not lose at Iowa like Michigan did... but head to head should count too. I would have loved a Michigan/Bucky title game. It would have been epic. But, it's not what is.... I can see the national arguments for what it should be...
Reply
Re: Playoffs
PS. Great thread. When all is said and done, even with a Bucky win, I don't think we get in---and I can't complain. 2 losses is 2 losses. Michigan and Ohio St. were better than us this year. Period.
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...