...and a defense.
quote:didn't have to, he had a running game
I see what you're getting at- but if you want to compare Favre's and Brady's big game/playoff/championship performances, you won't like the results.
quote:Originally posted by Music City:quote:didn't have to, he had a running game
I see what you're getting at- but if you want to compare Favre's and Brady's big game/playoff/championship performances, you won't like the results.
You must compare the talent each QB had surrounding him also.
There are all kinds of wild speculations going on out there, so I will throw one out as well.
During the Sherman years (AKA Brett's prime years) the talent on those teams was terrible and depth was non existent. Coaching was awful. Still, with these terrible conditions, Brett managed, by his shear greatness, to carry those teams to the playoffs. This would be comparable to taking this years Raiders to an 11-5 record. His numbers were only held in check due to only being able to elevate the talent around him so far.
Now, its pretty easy to see how stupid those statements are, why is it so hard to see the shortcomings of the other side of the spectrum?
During the Sherman years (AKA Brett's prime years) the talent on those teams was terrible and depth was non existent. Coaching was awful. Still, with these terrible conditions, Brett managed, by his shear greatness, to carry those teams to the playoffs. This would be comparable to taking this years Raiders to an 11-5 record. His numbers were only held in check due to only being able to elevate the talent around him so far.
Now, its pretty easy to see how stupid those statements are, why is it so hard to see the shortcomings of the other side of the spectrum?
I think before this year I may have agreed. But this Packer team has as much talent as the Giants, or any other team in the NFC- yet it still took a Favre INT in OT to lose. The Packers didn't have less talent than the Eagles in '03, or the Giants this year. They simply made the mistakes that the other team didn't. It wasn;t a lack of talent that caused Favre to chuck one up for grabs against Philly, and it wasn't a lack of supporting cast that caused him to throw a sideline out pass behind a tightly covered WR, causing an INT. It was poor judgement/throws that did. At the critical moment, when the other team is searching for a big break, Favre obliged.
Oh, I certainly agree that Favre has made some very horrendous mistakes and I don't mean to make light of them either. But the fact still remains that Brett's recent "big game" experiences have been with more inferior talent than the Super Bowl years or even Tom Brady's recent teams. I think this years team had the talent, just not the experience. Still, I understand your point and think it certainly has some validity. For many reasons, Brett has had some bad performances along the way.
Shut up!
I'm gonna send my germs in your direction.
quote:Originally posted by Music City:
But this Packer team has as much talent as the Giants, or any other team in the NFC- yet it still took a Favre INT in OT to lose.
I don't know about this on both counts (that the Packers have more talent than the Giants or that all it took was a Favre INT to lose).
On the talent size, that sounds good, but really, how do you know the Packers are more talented than the Giants? For example, the Packers starting RB was traded by the Giants because they thought they had three more talented running backs. Perhaps they made a mistake, but Bradshaw and Jacobs looked pretty good. Plaxico Burress looked like the most talented receiver on the field. Eli Manning is a #1 pick and looked awfully talented. The point is, the Giants have plenty of talent in their own right. And moreover, talent doesn't always equate to execution and winning games.
Regarding the Favre INT, sure that was the final act before losing. But there certainly was plenty of set-up to that final act. Giving up 10 points and a combined 15 minutes of TOP in the Giants 1st drives of each half is pretty bad. Rushing for only 28 yards is pretty bad. Staying in the game because of two missed chip shot field goals in the 4th is pretty bad. While the Favre interception was the straw that broke the camel's back, there was plenty of contributing factors to that loss.
I think the one consistent with Favre post Mike Holmgren (and even a little bit while he was with Holmgren) is he feels compelled to force the issue when other parts of the team are failing. In those Minnesota, Atlanta, and Philly games, the defense was just so poor those years. Surely that contributed to Favre's mentality that he has to force the issue to put points on the board. Last Sunday, you could really sense that as the running game got worse and worse, Favre pressed more and more. The first three quarters, actually, he played pretty well. He wasn't necessarily sharp (and he didn't really have a ton of opportunities because the defense couldn't get off the field), but he wasn't awful considering the conditions. But starting with that heave at the end of the 3rd quarter to Jones, you could tell he started pressing, putting all the pressure on him to make a play.
quote:On the talent size, that sounds good, but really, how do you know the Packers are more talented than the Giants? For example, the Packers starting RB was traded by the Giants because they thought they had three more talented running backs. Perhaps they made a mistake, but Bradshaw and Jacobs looked pretty good. Plaxico Burress looked like the most talented receiver on the field. Eli Manning is a #1 pick and looked awfully talented. The point is, the Giants have plenty of talent in their own right. And moreover, talent doesn't always equate to execution and winning games.
The Packers beat this team 35-13 in week 2. The Packers rolled to a 13-3 record.
The game we saw on Sunday was most certainly not reflective of individual talent- it was of one team that played their best, and another that peed down its leg. Talent gets negated when a team loses its edge, and the Packers lost theirs.
Well, I thought the Giants were pretty good. Said so last week. The week 2 game was 14-13 in the fourth quarter. They won in Chicago and Dallas, neither of which we managed. Talent at RB, WR, DL, LB. And a QB who put it together down the stretch. Granted, it took us playing a horrible game for them to beat us, but I didn't think it was as sure a thing as so many did, and I think they'll give the Patriots a game (again) in the Super Bowl. Not that I care, really; I might not even watch the thing.
quote:Originally posted by Music City:
The Packers beat this team 35-13 in week 2. The Packers rolled to a 13-3 record.
Besides what Max said (which I totally agree with), a lot can change since Week 2. If I recall, didn't the Packers in 1995 look shaky the first month of the season before hitting their stride?
I'd also disagree with the comment that the Packers rolled to a 13-3 record. After 8 weeks their record was 7-1. I'd argue that all 8 of those games were hotly contested. The Giants was the biggest blowout, and as Max noted, it was a 1 point game in the 4th quarter. With the exception of Chicago, the Packers pulled out every other close game:
*They beat Philadelphia on two punt fubmles
*They beat San Diego on a bomb to Jennings in the 4th. Ditto on KC. Ditto on Denver, except that was in ovetime
*They beat Washington on a fumble recovery by Woodson
I don't mean to suggest that they didn't have a great year or deserve to be 13-3. But I do want to point out how easily this team could have been 9-7 if a few bounces go the other way in the 1st half of the year. The bottom line is that even with the 13-3 record and even if you give the Packers an edge in talent level, this was not a team that could just show up and win. You factor in how well New York has been playing on the road and the weather conditions that likely hurt our passing attack more, and this was hardly a sure thing. The difference between the two teams was not large enough that the Packers could expect to play a poor game and still move on.
The obscenely lopsided offensive numbers, coupled with the pathetic play on the field by the Packers offense amounts to a victory in OT on a FG for the Giants just doesn't say "powerhouse" to me.
The Giants are a good team and peaked at the right time but the simple fact is one half decent series by the Packers offense and this conversation isn't happening.
The Giants are a good team and peaked at the right time but the simple fact is one half decent series by the Packers offense and this conversation isn't happening.
quote:The Packers beat this team 35-13 in week 2
I watched that game again and the score was deceiving. Mannings shoulder was messed up and they had big plays missed downfield (Shockey drop for sure). That game broke open in the 4th quarter on some turnovers. The Giants were playing poorly and then turned it around in game three against the Skins. September and January football are two different animals.
quote:The obscenely lopsided offensive numbers, coupled with the pathetic play on the field by the Packers offense amounts to a victory in OT on a FG for the Giants just doesn't say "powerhouse" to me.
The Giants are a good team and peaked at the right time but the simple fact is one half decent series by the Packers offense and this conversation isn't happening
Who's calling them a powerhouse? If they were, they wouldn't be 14 point dogs in the SB. They beat us across the board and the score should have been much worse. It should not have gone to overtime. You need to run the ball (somewhat) effectively and not let your opponent double your time of possession.
Talant:
Giants have better defensive line
Giants have better offensive line
Giants running backs are better (one two punch with Jacobs and Bradshaw)
Giants receivers played better (see Plaxico)
Giants linebackers played better (see Pierce blowing up the screen)
Giants QB played better
Giants secondary played better (Harris used, Collins bonehead play, Woodson average)
With Manning raising his play...they are just a more talented team. Maybe that's why they won nine in a row on the road, beat Dallas in Dallas and are going to the Super Bowl...time to own up Green Bay Packer fans. This board sounds like Bum Phillips.
quote:Originally posted by The Crusher:
With Manning raising his play...they are just a more talented team. Maybe that's why they won nine in a row on the road, beat Dallas in Dallas and are going to the Super Bowl...time to own up Green Bay Packer fans. This board sounds like Bum Phillips.
You go with that. The Giants are a decent enough team but more talented? BS. The Packers got beat because they played like pussies. Call a spade a spade.
So break it down Hank, where are we more talented than the Giants?
quote:Giants have better defensive line
Giants have better offensive line
Giants running backs are better (one two punch with Jacobs and Bradshaw)
Giants receivers played better (see Plaxico)
Giants linebackers played better (see Pierce blowing up the screen)
Giants QB played better
Giants secondary played better (Harris used, Collins bonehead play, Woodson average)
Played better. Big difference, IMO. They came to play with their A game- the Packers didn't. The Packers have more talent than the Ginats team does. They do. Better offense, better D. But they didn't play like it. The loss on Sunday was mental, not physical and not talent.
You can say with confidence the Packers have younger talent than the Giants
quote:You can say with confidence the Packers have younger talent than the Giants
Perhaps that's the reason they lost their mental edge- the edge that allowed them to overcome close games during the season. But looking at both teams, the Packers are better, proved they were better for 17 games- then choked.
quote:Originally posted by The Crusher:
So break it down Hank, where are we more talented than the Giants?
QB, RB, FB, WR, defensive backfield, wash at LB, Offensive tackles. Don't try to tell me how the Giants have a better run game either when the Packers have a RB who put up just short of 1200 yards in 12 games and behind a relatively average line.
Where the Giants have a excellent D line, that is the only area in which they truly exceed the Packers talent. Other than that the Giants are either on par or below the talent level of the Packers.
I do agree that youth was a issue but lack of preparation was big. You couple those two together with some poor game planning and you get a game that's won in OT on a FG. If you're a good team and put up those numbers with the balanced game they played, you destroy the opposing team.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
QB, RB, FB, WR, defensive backfield, wash at LB, Offensive tackles. Don't try to tell me how the Giants have a better run game either when the Packers have a RB who put up just short of 1200 yards in 12 games and behind a relatively average line.
Where the Giants have a excellent D line, that is the only area in which they truly exceed the Packers talent. Other than that the Giants are either on par or below the talent level of the Packers.
I do agree that youth was a issue but lack of preparation was big. You couple those two together with some poor game planning and you get a game that's won in OT on a FG. If you're a good team and put up those numbers with the balanced game they played, you destroy the opposing team.
A couple of thoughts here:
1) Talent is a pretty nebulous item to compare. It's highly subjective to define, it's a function of other pieces on the team (e.g., is an effective running game the product of a talented running back or offesnive line, scheme, etc.) and it's not static. And perhaps most importantly, even if you could conclusively figure out what team has the most talent, it doesn't necessarily mean a team would be more effective. The Redskins from a few years ago had a lot of talent but were constantly underachieving. On the flip side, the Patriots are on the brink of being called the best team in history. And while they certainly have talent, I'm not confident it's the best talent in history. I think the key point isn't that the Packers are clearly more talented than the Giants or vice versa, but rather the Giants have enough talent that they can compete in any game. Eli Manning comes from a line of great QBs and was a #1 pick. Plaxico Burress is a physical freak who is capable of monster games. Brandon Jacobs is a 260 pound running back who's quick on his feet. This wasn't the Bad News Bears the Packers were playing -- it was a team with legit talent. Whether it's more than what the Packers had is awfully hard to determine and doesn't really matter IMO. It was enough.
2) Certainly there are times when Team A is less talented than Team B and Team A plays a perfect game while Team B lays an egg and Team A wins by a narrow margin. Villanova / Georgetown is a perfect example of this. The Colts / Packers in 1997 is another good example. One could even argue the Bills / Giants Super Bowl is another good example of this. I don't think the Giants / Packers game fits the bill though. While I would agree that the Packers laid a stinker, I think the narrow margin (3 points in OT) was a function of unforced errors by the Giants; not a perfect game by a flawed and inferior team. They missed two chip shot FG's in the 4th. They had a TD called back. They had a fumble after an INT that resulted in Green Bay points. They had a personal foul penalty after the play (that was never really shown) that resulted in Green Bay points. They dropped a pass at the two yard line for a TD. The bottom line is that the score was the only stat in the game that wasn't lopisided. 380 yards to 260 yards. 24 first downs to 13. 40 minutes TOP to 22 TOP. The Giants dominated that game in every way but the scoreboard and should have won the game in regulation, if not by a more comfortable margin. This wasn't an example of a perfect game by one team resulting in a narrow win of another. We're in agreement that the Packers played poorly; but if the Giants played perfectly, they would have won this game by 2 TDs or more.
quote:Originally posted by RB87:quote:Originally posted by Henry:
QB, RB, FB, WR, defensive backfield, wash at LB, Offensive tackles. Don't try to tell me how the Giants have a better run game either when the Packers have a RB who put up just short of 1200 yards in 12 games and behind a relatively average line.
Where the Giants have a excellent D line, that is the only area in which they truly exceed the Packers talent. Other than that the Giants are either on par or below the talent level of the Packers.
I do agree that youth was a issue but lack of preparation was big. You couple those two together with some poor game planning and you get a game that's won in OT on a FG. If you're a good team and put up those numbers with the balanced game they played, you destroy the opposing team.
A couple of thoughts here:
1) Talent is a pretty nebulous item to compare. It's highly subjective to define, it's a function of other pieces on the team (e.g., is an effective running game the product of a talented running back or offesnive line, scheme, etc.) and it's not static. And perhaps most importantly, even if you could conclusively figure out what team has the most talent, it doesn't necessarily mean a team would be more effective. The Redskins from a few years ago had a lot of talent but were constantly underachieving. On the flip side, the Patriots are on the brink of being called the best team in history. And while they certainly have talent, I'm not confident it's the best talent in history. I think the key point isn't that the Packers are clearly more talented than the Giants or vice versa, but rather the Giants have enough talent that they can compete in any game. Eli Manning comes from a line of great QBs and was a #1 pick. Plaxico Burress is a physical freak who is capable of monster games. Brandon Jacobs is a 260 pound running back who's quick on his feet. This wasn't the Bad News Bears the Packers were playing -- it was a team with legit talent. Whether it's more than what the Packers had is awfully hard to determine and doesn't really matter IMO. It was enough.
2) Certainly there are times when Team A is less talented than Team B and Team A plays a perfect game while Team B lays an egg and Team A wins by a narrow margin. Villanova / Georgetown is a perfect example of this. The Colts / Packers in 1997 is another good example. One could even argue the Bills / Giants Super Bowl is another good example of this. I don't think the Giants / Packers game fits the bill though. While I would agree that the Packers laid a stinker, I think the narrow margin (3 points in OT) was a function of unforced errors by the Giants; not a perfect game by a flawed and inferior team. They missed two chip shot FG's in the 4th. They had a TD called back. They had a fumble after an INT that resulted in Green Bay points. They had a personal foul penalty after the play (that was never really shown) that resulted in Green Bay points. They dropped a pass at the two yard line for a TD. The bottom line is that the score was the only stat in the game that wasn't lopisided. 380 yards to 260 yards. 24 first downs to 13. 40 minutes TOP to 22 TOP. The Giants dominated that game in every way but the scoreboard and should have won the game in regulation, if not by a more comfortable margin. This wasn't an example of a perfect game by one team resulting in a narrow win of another. We're in agreement that the Packers played poorly; but if the Giants played perfectly, they would have won this game by 2 TDs or more.
The base of this whole argument is the Giants are a superior team vs. the Packers were unprepared. I'm not taking anything away from the Giants but you cannot tell me the Packers could've easily handled this team if they pulled their heads out their collective asses. The Giants were inconsistent in their play throughout the season. The Packers have been the epitome of solid TEAM play which is what got them to the championship game in the first place. Individual talent means beans if you don't play as a team.
We can quibble all day about the subjective nature of the argument, which is inevitable, but the "superior team" schtick is patently false to anyone who watches the games with a skeptical eye. I had Burress on my fantasy football team and watched that guy disappear for whole stretches of the season, same with Manning. Inconsistency does not make a team superior to another. I am absolutely convinced if this team was ready for the weather and stuck with what got them there game plan wise, they would've destroyed the Giants like they did the Seahawks.
This goes back to the whole crux of this thread. Favre and the team were beat by the weather. I'm not ready to give Favre a pass and say I want TT and MM to shape the team to give him a shot at a title. Right now Favre should be happy to be a part of this TEAM. If he stays, fine. If not, thanks for the memories. He was the QB of the team that should've easily dismantled the Giants. What makes it worse is the manner in which they lost. The Giants played well but the defense did enough to limit points only to have Favre mail it in. They needed one half way decent drive for Crosby to seal it and he crapped the bed. He doesn't deserve a pass in the least and all the "Giants are superior" smacks of excuses to me.
LOL....looks like the Giants just keep getting lucky.
If they beat the Pats, will see this garbage logic all over the Pats boards.
If they beat the Pats, will see this garbage logic all over the Pats boards.
The Giants beat the two best NFC teams on the road if that means anything. I think it does and in reality I don't believe it's ever happened in the NFC playoffs before.
Still, I think if GB and the Giants played 10 times the Packers would probably win 7 or 8 times. The bottom line is that the Giants have played virtually mistake free football in the playoffs while teams like the Cowboys and Packers did not. If you want to say that makes the Giants the "better" team so be it but I don't buy it.
The Giants simply played better games but there is no way you can convince me that they have better talent (and coaching) than the Packers.
Still, I think if GB and the Giants played 10 times the Packers would probably win 7 or 8 times. The bottom line is that the Giants have played virtually mistake free football in the playoffs while teams like the Cowboys and Packers did not. If you want to say that makes the Giants the "better" team so be it but I don't buy it.
The Giants simply played better games but there is no way you can convince me that they have better talent (and coaching) than the Packers.
quote:Originally posted by The Crusher:
LOL....looks like the Giants just keep getting lucky.
If they beat the Pats, will see this garbage logic all over the Pats boards.
You want to make excuses for Favre and Packers you go right ahead. I find it funny that you have to suck the balls of Giants to make yourself feel better. The Giants peaked at the right time and good for them but save the "Favre is sooper dooper can do no wrong bull****" because I ain't buying.
quote:Originally posted by Tschmack:
The Giants beat the two best NFC teams on the road if that means anything. I think it does and in reality I don't believe it's ever happened in the NFC playoffs before.
Still, I think if GB and the Giants played 10 times the Packers would probably win 7 or 8 times. The bottom line is that the Giants have played virtually mistake free football in the playoffs while teams like the Cowboys and Packers did not. If you want to say that makes the Giants the "better" team so be it but I don't buy it.
The Giants simply played better games but there is no way you can convince me that they have better talent (and coaching) than the Packers.
Exactly. I'm not taking away anything from the Giants run in the playoffs but the excuse making for a 1st ballot HOF QB and a young team that got whipped by the weather AT HOME where the weather is supposed to be a advantage is a f'ing joke.
I'm sick of "do it for Favre" bull****. If Favre wants to puss out, get on your tractor. I want the team to "do it" for guys like Driver, Tauscher, Clifton, Harris. Favre mailed it in along with MM's horse**** playcalling and considering all of the circumstances of this season the loss is inexcusable. A FG in OT, christ.
If its true that championship teams are built along both lines, than the Giants' success in January should come as no real surprise. They have a quality, veteran OL and a dynamic DL. The Packers clearly have better talent at the "skill" positions (QB, WR, LB, CB), but the interior of our OL was shaky all season and the DL didn't play nearly as well late as it did early. All that said, we still should've won that game.
quote:Originally posted by heyward:
If its true that championship teams are built along both lines, than the Giants' success in January should come as no real surprise. They have a quality, veteran OL and a dynamic DL. The Packers clearly have better talent at the "skill" positions (QB, WR, LB, CB), but the interior of our OL was shaky all season and the DL didn't play nearly as well late as it did early. All that said, we still should've won that game.
This is true. The difference between the Packers OL and Giants OL is not significant. Anybody that says the Giants tackles are better than the Packers is huffing paint. The Giants are not a superior team.
The Giants DL is fantastic but the Packers DL is solid and did show up enough to limit the points on the Giants drives. Add in the fact the defense lived on the damn field because of the inept offense and it's hard to lay blame on the front seven.
As far as the Packers O-line, Favre wasn't getting the snot knocked out of him in the passing game and MM completely dumped the run game even though the Giants did well in containing it. Without a doubt the Giants won in the trenches but they did not dominate the trenches.
Penalties killed the Packers. Only 3 teams in the league had more penalties than the Packers 113. The penalty on Collins when the Packers stopped the Giants on third down led to a score, hardly the fault of the weather. Throw in no pass rush, an anemic running game, poor special teams play and an inability to cover Burres and you're in real trouble. But if you want to lay the whole thing on the weather and Favre's one errant throw in a tie game so be it. Regardless of the weather, Favre is not a stranger to throwing interceptions.
If you look purely at matchups the Packers are the better team in every area with the exception of possibly their DL. I think the Giants depth is probably better but with a healthy Jolly and Cole I don't know that I'd make that comment.
I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop with Eli Manning as well. I have a hard time believing he's arrived and he's due for one of those clunker games that Favre has once in a while. My guess is that it'll happen against New England because Belicheat is an expert at exploiting matchups and taking advantage of weaknesses and my guess is that he will throw a lot of different coverage schemes at the Giants.
I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop with Eli Manning as well. I have a hard time believing he's arrived and he's due for one of those clunker games that Favre has once in a while. My guess is that it'll happen against New England because Belicheat is an expert at exploiting matchups and taking advantage of weaknesses and my guess is that he will throw a lot of different coverage schemes at the Giants.
I actually think the Giants OL is quite a bit better than Green Bay's. All five of NY's linemen are tough SOBs who fight like heck as run blockers and pass protectors. Our tackles are outstanding pass blockers, but neither Clifton nor Tauscher is particularly physical in the running game. And the interior of our line is young, a little undersized and way too inconsistent.
quote:Originally posted by pacfan:
Penalties killed the Packers. Only 3 teams in the league had more penalties than the Packers 113. The penalty on Collins when the Packers stopped the Giants on third down led to a score, hardly the fault of the weather. Throw in no pass rush, an anemic running game, poor special teams play and an inability to cover Burres and you're in real trouble. But if you want to lay the whole thing on the weather and Favre's one errant throw in a tie game so be it. Regardless of the weather, Favre is not a stranger to throwing interceptions.
I'm not laying it all on Favre, the playcalling sucked but Favre looked exactly like he did in the Chicago game, old and ready for another hand warmer. I didn't see Driver out there in long sleeves and pussing out on catches. The Packers have had many penalties all season because of the style of defense and still went 14-3. Trying to pin the game on one Collins penalty is just as asinine considering the Packers offense STUNK THE WHOLE GAME. To me that's the ultimate in shifting blame.
Many on this board saw Favre in the tunnel with his facemask on and said "oh ****". Why? Because you have to try really hard to see that the weather wasn't getting to him just like the Chicago game. Watching him jam handwarmers all over the place during the course of the game sure didn't do anything to alleviate that concern either. No announcer, no stats can spin away that a bunch of Wisconsites who deal with this type of cold looked at him and knew exactly what state he was in. I don't even see how that's remotely disputable. He was cold and wanted to get warm, he wasn't cold and said "**** it, this isn't going to stop me".
Once again, Favre is great player and a legend but after this performance I am absolutely amazed that anyone can be a "Favre fan first". Seems to me the rest of the team is trying to win in spite of him in circumstances of the last game.
Ultimately I'm pissed that MM DIDN'T PRACTICE OUTSIDE and completely brainfarted on the playcalling. If he learns, great. If he pulls a Sherman that's one big strike against him.
quote:Originally posted by heyward:
I actually think the Giants OL is quite a bit better than Green Bay's. All five of NY's linemen are tough SOBs who fight like heck as run blockers and pass protectors. Our tackles are outstanding pass blockers, but neither Clifton nor Tauscher is particularly physical in the running game. And the interior of our line is young, a little undersized and way too inconsistent.
And that's definitely open for debate but Grey Ruegamer was in for a injured guard. They can play tough but watching games throughout the season they've been absolutely dominated as well. As far as the physicality of the Packers O-line, the ZBS doesn't exactly lend the mauler style that Tauscher is great at. Clifton has always been a excellent pass protector and decent enough run blocker, but he's also a LT. Wells has been consistent at a minimum and Spitz is working his way into a legit starter at guard. He is a strong SOB. Once again, the Packers O-line does fit the offense they run right now and why MM abandoned it I simply don't know. Favre was not getting that roughed up in that game so his passing decisions were even more inexcusable.
Like I said, the "Favre first" crap just doesn't sit well after a performance like that.
quote:And that's definitely open for debate but Grey Ruegamer was in for a injured guard. They can play tough but watching games throughout the season they've been absolutely dominated as well. As far as the physicality of the Packers O-line, the ZBS doesn't exactly lend the mauler style that Tauscher is great at. Clifton has always been a excellent pass protector and decent enough run blocker, but he's also a LT. Wells has been consistent at a minimum and Spitz is working his way into a legit starter at guard. He is a strong SOB. Once again, the Packers O-line does fit the offense they run right now and why MM abandoned it I simply don't know. Favre was not getting that roughed up in that game so his passing decisions were even more inexcusable.
Like I said, the "Favre first" crap just doesn't sit well after a performance like that.
The Giants line is better. If you watched the Giant/Cowboy game, the Cowpokes were not able to pressure Manning at all...whereas Favre was getting crunched when our OL faced Dallas front seven.
Colledge is awful at guard, Spitz is average at best. I like Wells but he can have trouble in the run game too.
quote:Penalties killed the Packers. Only 3 teams in the league had more penalties than the Packers 113. The penalty on Collins when the Packers stopped the Giants on third down led to a score, hardly the fault of the weather. Throw in no pass rush, an anemic running game, poor special teams play and an inability to cover Burres and you're in real trouble. But if you want to lay the whole thing on the weather and Favre's one errant throw in a tie game so be it. Regardless of the weather, Favre is not a stranger to throwing interceptions.
Exactly, Favre's last throw sucked but he had no run game at all and that's when he starts to panic. Maybe Manning or Brady could have won that game but even they would have had a tough time pulling that out. We should have lost that game at the end of regulation but Favre's floater in OT is giving fans that chance to pin it on him.
I mean, what Packer's made plays in that game...Crosby, Driver maybe Lee? Nobody stepped up.
http://www.espn1070.com/cc-common/mlib/1276/01/1276_1201285257.bmp
A picture is worth a thousand words...darn it Brett
A picture is worth a thousand words...darn it Brett
Favre just had that "look" from the get go and whether it was the pressure to perform or the weather/conditions or other factors he stunk up the joint especially in the second half. I guess you could blame MM for abandoning the running game but even when Favre did have a chance to throw it he was WAY off for most of the game.
He had "one of those games" that we have all become used to over the years and it's unfortunate. Somehow you had to know the way the game was unfolding toward the end that he would make a bad throw to cost them the game and that's exactly what happened. It doesn't make him a bad player but I also don't want to hear him making comments about how guys need to be mentally tough (like he said after the Chicago game). For once in a blue moon he looked rattled and uncomfortable.
He had "one of those games" that we have all become used to over the years and it's unfortunate. Somehow you had to know the way the game was unfolding toward the end that he would make a bad throw to cost them the game and that's exactly what happened. It doesn't make him a bad player but I also don't want to hear him making comments about how guys need to be mentally tough (like he said after the Chicago game). For once in a blue moon he looked rattled and uncomfortable.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:...Seems to me the rest of the team is trying to win in spite of him in circumstances of the last game...
They did that by committing stupid penalties, not covering fumbles, dropping passes, not establishing a running game, having no pass rush, and being unable to stop Burres...????? None of those factors had anything to do with Favre or the weather, but collectively had a huge negative impact on the game.
Unscientific evaluation for this game:
Giants won the following:
Coaching, QB play, RB play, WR/TE play, OL play, secondary, PR/KR, and field position.
Packers won the following:
LB play and kicker battle
Push:
DL play and punting battle
Final tally:
Pack 2 Giants 8
This TEAM loss was clear and evident. To pin an extraordinary amount of blame on Favre for this game is ridiculous. Hell, it was his two great throws/decisions (and a hell of an effort by Driver) that helped put the team in a position to win, when it had no business even making it to OT.
Giants won the following:
Coaching, QB play, RB play, WR/TE play, OL play, secondary, PR/KR, and field position.
Packers won the following:
LB play and kicker battle
Push:
DL play and punting battle
Final tally:
Pack 2 Giants 8
This TEAM loss was clear and evident. To pin an extraordinary amount of blame on Favre for this game is ridiculous. Hell, it was his two great throws/decisions (and a hell of an effort by Driver) that helped put the team in a position to win, when it had no business even making it to OT.
I strongly disagree about Favre looking like an "old guy" or having "the look" out there.
I have watched two replays of the game. Favre did not look worse than any other Packer player on the field. The guy had a runny nose...so what? Driver looked incredibly "into it". The other receivers looked slow and hindered by the game intensity and the cold. They played as though there was another game next week...overconfidently. Youth and inexperience got'em.
That said, Favre's poor throw in OT was a mistake of huge consequence. The playcalling was abysmal though. It seemed the coaches were "off" too that evening. No adjustments and no inspiration from the sidelines.
At one point in the fourth quarter the 2nd stats showed the NYGs with well over 100 yds offense and the Packers had a mere 31. The 2 series late in the 4th quarter were pathetic. 3 and outs. The tying FG should have been a TD instead. But again playcalling and execution were terrible.
The real story is the Packers "D" could not stop the NYGs "O". And when the Giants were halted, the playcalling stunk and players other than Favre did not execute correctly. WRs were trying to shake and bake for extra yards rather than catching the ball and going straight ahead. The footing made for north/south running and nothing much else. Blocks were late or missed. Spitz and Lee come to mind most.
On the ill-fated INT, my guess is that Favre looked for Driver because DD was the only receiver consistently making plays and playing tough.. Unfortunately, the Giants knew that too and hung close to him.
BTW, the entire game was on NFLN last night. Midnite to 3 AM. yawn....ugh!
I have watched two replays of the game. Favre did not look worse than any other Packer player on the field. The guy had a runny nose...so what? Driver looked incredibly "into it". The other receivers looked slow and hindered by the game intensity and the cold. They played as though there was another game next week...overconfidently. Youth and inexperience got'em.
That said, Favre's poor throw in OT was a mistake of huge consequence. The playcalling was abysmal though. It seemed the coaches were "off" too that evening. No adjustments and no inspiration from the sidelines.
At one point in the fourth quarter the 2nd stats showed the NYGs with well over 100 yds offense and the Packers had a mere 31. The 2 series late in the 4th quarter were pathetic. 3 and outs. The tying FG should have been a TD instead. But again playcalling and execution were terrible.
The real story is the Packers "D" could not stop the NYGs "O". And when the Giants were halted, the playcalling stunk and players other than Favre did not execute correctly. WRs were trying to shake and bake for extra yards rather than catching the ball and going straight ahead. The footing made for north/south running and nothing much else. Blocks were late or missed. Spitz and Lee come to mind most.
On the ill-fated INT, my guess is that Favre looked for Driver because DD was the only receiver consistently making plays and playing tough.. Unfortunately, the Giants knew that too and hung close to him.
BTW, the entire game was on NFLN last night. Midnite to 3 AM. yawn....ugh!