Paws / Negs Bear Game

Neal is a decent rotational/situational pass-rusher. That's literally all the Packers have outside of Matthews at OLB right now. Perry has one more season to prove he's not a Harrell, but I'm not optimistic that he will.

Perry has been hurt since day 1, so hard to judge him--but he has shown flashes of pass rush ability and violence in sacking the QB..  Erik Walden was turned from a a street free agent into a starter, let him go in free agency because we expected Perry to play.

Plus too

Jarrett Bush...recovered Hyde's fumble and big pass defense too

+

After ALL the trials and tribulations during this season, the Packers picked themselves up from the mat, and delivered a knockout blow of their own.

Lacy gutting it out.

Starks. I think he really became a 'team' player this year, and it's worked very well for everybody.

Jordy. He has really been in the 'zone' this year! I don't know that any other WR is playing better.

I'm even going to throw the OL a bone. For as much grief as I have heaped on them this year, they were pretty solid.

ARod. He is not only good enough to overcome his own mistakes, he can indeed overcome those from others.

Hyde. Had another great game, and was as solid as anyone in pass coverage today. I sincerely hope he gets consideration for DROY.

Crosby. He is kicking as solidly as he ever has, and has really found his groove over the last half of this season.

-

ST. I'm not even gonna start...

Rush defense. I thought I was seeing today what we saw last year in the playoffs vs San Fran; all LBs crashing to the middle of the defense with absolutely no regard for outside containment. Is this actually the game plan?

Pass Rush. Remains woeful, and once a QB steps up in the pocket, he has all day  to throw. Blitzes are practically useless even if they are called.

Pass Defense. Mis-communications and/or blown coverages have existed all year long. These happen to all teams, but where a better defense might have 1 or 2 per game, we may have 1 or 2 per series !

Walden was only the starter because they had no one better. He wasn't very good.  Perry has shown nothing. Neal is okay. Better than Walden I suppose. Nothing to get excited about.  And there were a bunch of guys that started well but never managed to progress (Zombo, Moses, etc).

Personally, I think it's about talent, not coaching.  I think Greene is fine. I've just never understood the huge love he gets from so many fans. I haven't seen that he's done anything to establish himself as a great coach, but he sure gets talked about like he is on the boards. 

I swear to baby jebus, listening to the replay of Buffone and OB is the greatest thing of 2013.  Buffone is ANGRY.

Seems rather specific what you're trotting out.  Almost like you're stroking yourself boxedup.

+++

Kuuuuuhhhhhhn. Without him, no final-throw heroics as Peppers would have buried Rodgers. And Kuhn got that first down -- barely, but he did it!

We get the Niners and our D will probably get us killed quickly, but at least we're going to the dance!

Breaks went our way. Odd TD by Boykin, but more heads-up than the Bears guy who actually had the ball in his hands and dropped it again!

---

Red zone offense stinks. 

Defense stinks.

quote:

Erik Walden was turned from a a street free agent into a starter, let him go in free agency because

Least you forget.....without Lattimore the Packers might not even be playing next week.

Soft-spoken Lattimore stirred up the locker room at halftime

Arlington- If somebody else hadn't mentioned it, LB Jamari Lattimore would never have mentioned that his impassioned halftime speech got his teammates so fired up that they came out expecting to overcome a 26-3 Dallas Cowboys lead Sunday at AT&T Stadium.

Lattimore, who would prefer to let his play do the talking but almost always thanks reporters for stopping by his locker and asking him a few questions, had seen all he could stomach in the first half. He and DE Johnny Jolly, who was knocked out of the game early with a shoulder injury, offered some words.

But Lattimore, whose main role is to play special teams, was an unlikely orator who dug deep inside and challenged his team to respond to its most difficult challenge of the season.

"Jamari really spoke from the heart, got real emotional," NT B.J. Raji said. "I think the guys really felt him on that. I think everybody talks in their own way. But those guys stand out. Jolly was hurt early in the game and he kept encouraging us and Jamari was just letting his emotions take over."

The Packers needed something after giving up 332 first-half yards and allowing Cowboys RB DeMarco Murray to slice through them for 93 yards on 11 carries. It wasn't all the defense's fault, given the horrible offensive performance to start the game and the four times Dallas had to settle for field goals after driving into Packers territory.

But somebody had to turn this game around and Lattimore thought it should be the defense.

Little did he know, the offensive players huddled in the other half of the locker room felt his energy.

"He's on the quiet side, but we definitely could hear what he was saying on the other side and we definitely took what we heard as if he was talking to us even though he was on the other side," RB Eddie Lacy said.

"It's just part of stepping up," Lacy added. "A lot of guys are emotional. He came in and didn't like how things were going in the first half and voiced his opinion. I think it was perfect timing for him to do that."

Typical of the soft-spoken Lattimore, he preferred not to get into what his speech meant to the team.

"I don't want to speak on it," Lattimore said.

Soft-spoken Lattimore stirred up the locker room at halftime - JSOnline

Just saying......          

For the record, I like Lattimore, I would take him over Jones any day.

Plus:

*Kuhn…what an incredible play by him with Peppers. Think about how the AR narrative changes in the media if he doesn't make that play

*Nelson…so many great catches…find a way to extend that man TT

*Starks…I love Lacy, but if he's going to be this hesitant and limited by that ankle, feed Starks the ball more

*Rodgers…he didn't even have that great of a game by his standards, but what a difference he makes for this team with his arm and his legs

*Shields & Williams…those Bears WRs are a handful and I thought these two battled wonderfully…Marshall had a couple of great catches, and there was the blown safety help on the long Jeffrey pass

*The fans…no matter what happens next week, you could not ask for a more entertaining past month of Packer football

Negatives:

*MM decision to kick XP in 4th…what on earth was he thinking? That's as close to a no-brainer go for 2 decision as you'll get in this league.

*Rush defense…to say they need to improve here is putting it mildly

*Safety play…Chris Conte is getting raked across the coals for that blown coverage on Cobb, but at least he had zero help. WTF was Morgan Burnett doing on that long pass to Jeffery? Terrible. And Doc is just so bad. After seeing Lattimore play so poorly after begging for him to start, I suppose Richardson isn't a slam dunk to play better, but come on.

*Pitch outs on 3rd down and short. I don't get it…I'll take my odds with Lacy or Starks going right put the gut in short yardage

*Red zone offense

*Special teams…really getting frustrating to see these return yards

*Media lazy narrative. It's incredible to me to read the fawning over Rodgers simply b/c that last pass was completed and they made a 4th quarter comeback. Newsflash - Rodgers has made plays like that his whole career. That 4th down throw to Nelson in Atlanta a few years ago was just as clutch, but special teams and D kept them from winning.

Playing with house money now…we can move the ball on SF. Just finish those drives and keep the pressure on them.

Positive:  MM for creative play design. The fake fumble that went for a TD, brilliantly conceived and executed.

+ beating the Bears----this is always an important thing for me---just 4 behind in  head to head standing versus 6 if we lose---if I don't have a heart attack during a 4th quarter comeback---I'll live to see the Packers overtake them----this didn't seem remotely possibly in 1986

- Having to listen to Aikman and Buck----Marshall's touchdown catch is 'eye-popping'....the spectacular pitch and catch to Quareless....is nothing but Conte's fault for not intercepting the ball---this was one of Aikman's 'best called' games and I still wanted to throw him to the turf.

Kicking the XP that early in the 4th to pull within 1 was the right call IMO.

After watching that pass to Alshon, Burnett was late coming over cause he was motioning/yelling at MD about something. The Dr. can't be trusted.

The Chicago radio stations are really questioning McCarthy, too.  I kinda agreed with MM on the XP as well. 

To me, with so much time left, I think MM thought the Bears would score again, either a TD or a FG.  If he misses the 2-pt. and the Bears score a TD, the Pack are down by two scores.  But he's within only one score regardless of what the Bears do. 

At a minimum, I don't think MM made the absolute wrong call on kicking the XP.  If memory serves correctly, Aikman agreed with the decision FWIW.

I said in chat that I loved he took the "1". It was the call I would've made in that situation so it must be right

Aikman agreeing with it is worth less than a matchstick in hell, but at the time I wanted him to go for two. But, he made the right call in the end although if the Bears had scored in the last 30 seconds, MM would have been crushed under all the criticism.

Why would he have been crushed if the Bears scored.  There was no guarantee they make it, and on the last TD, they went for 2 and didn't make it. 

If he goes for 2 on the first and makes it, there's no need to go for 2 on the second TD. I guess I wasn't very clear.. 

*Pitch outs on 3rd down and short. I don't get it…I'll take my odds with Lacy or Starks going right put the gut in short yardage"

That was brutal on many levels.   A power back on a gimpy ankle running to the weakness of the oline.    The strenght of the line and the back is up the middle.  I know Bobby Bushay is the weak link in that run D, but the Bears were crashing the Safety down and ready for it. 

Play to your strength, thats Lang / Sitton and power back. 

I don't see how it's even debatable whether to go for two or not in that situation. All arguments in favor of the XP are outcome based -- it backfired in Minnesota or it didn't end up mattering yesterday. But that's after the fact. Before the fact, you're basically choosing between being behind 1 point or a chance of being down 2 or tied. There isn't much difference between being behind 1 or 2 points at that stage of the game. There's a huge difference between being tied and down 1.

There have been a ton of studies on this using dynamic models. Here's one such example:

http://www.footballcommentary.com/twoptchart.htm

According to that chart, the Packers should have gone for 2 when down 2 with 12 minutes left if the odds of them converting were above 14%. And that's for an average team -- that's not Aaron Rodgers going against the Bears defense.

McCarthy knows his weaknesses.  He would have called the back corner fade and it wouldn't have worked, like is hasn't worked all year.  Either you kick the XP or bring TOLZIEN in to dance his way into the EZ. 

Pie charts, graphs, studies, whatever... going for 1 was the right call. The game was going back and forth so keeping it to a FG for the Win kind of score was the right choice at that point.

The "1" was the correct call in that situation with our $hitty defense & that much time left on the clock

  That data is from 10 years ago. I'm sure nothing has changed in the game over that time. Something tells me marklawrence is behind that site.

Mathematics hasn't changed over the last 10 years. If anything, offenses have become more dynamic which makes it more compelling to go for the 2. But I'm confident other more recent models will affirm the 2 pointer is the way to go.

Look at it another way...at that point of the game, let's assume you don't make it; the Bears likely have one more possession. Here are the possibilities:

1) We stop them...in which case what's the difference between being down 1 or 2? In either case a FG wins it for you

2) They kick a FG...in which case what's the difference between being down 4 or 5? In either case a TD wins it for you

3) They score a TD...now obviously in this case you'd rather be down 8 than 9...but keep in mind you already tried a 2 point conversion and failed to be down 9. Every game situation isn't the same, but if you advocate kicking the XP after the first TD, you are basically banking on not making the 2 pointer after the first TD but making the 2 pointer after the second TD. While that has some emotional benefit of still being a one-possession game, I guess I'd rather know earlier if I need another possession or not so I can plan accordingly (hurry up offense, onside kick, etc.)

The Packers went for one and won.

Lattimore had a rough game overall, but he did make a couple really nice tackles. There was one play I remember where there was no one between Forte and another 20 or 30 yards on a run a Latt managed to get a shoestring tackle on him to save the big play. Granted it was already 5 or 6 yards down field, but it could have been a lot worse. Much like Bishop, Latt seems to have more natural instincts for playing ILB. Hawk and Jones just don't have that, they read and react and chase the ball carrier...problem is they either take terrible angles or don't have the athleticism to get there in time. Latt seems to have a better feel for that and has the athleticism, but he's lacking in the football smarts and the coverage ability. 

CHI had it 1st and 10 at the GBP 39 and had a false start. 1st and 15 with a run to Forte for 3. 2nd and 12 Latt drops Forte on a run for 5 yard loss. 3rd and 17 and Cutler misses Alshon (I think). CHI punts and the Packers go 87 in 15 plays for the win. Other than the game ending INT that was the only GBP D stop of the 2nd half. 

That takes bend but don't break to ear popping levels.

I'm not sure I understand this point. It was 28-26 at time of decision...if they failed at the 2 pointer, it's still a FG to win score.

I can't find a more recent two point chart -- I just don't think they do the analysis that much because it probably doesn't change much. But for what it's worth, I saw a quote from Brian Burke of NFL Advanced stats who said he should have gone for two.

But whatever...it worked out and we move on.

I still think MM thought the Bears would score on their next possession (as they did the previous 3).  The PAT meant the Packers, at worse, would be down by 1 score.  Missing the 2-pt conversion meant a TD by the Bears (like they did on the previous 3 possessions) iced the game with a GB loss.  He knew being down only by 8 and some time left meant the Packers and ARodg had a shot.

Lengthen the game.  If you go for two at 26-28 and fail, a touchdown puts you down 9 points (aka 2 scores).  If you give up a TD down 27-28 you are still in a one possession game (albeit requiring a 2 point conversion which is not a given with the Pack).

You're correct, still was a FG game. Maybe McCarthy understood this?

If only McCarthy was as smart and savvy as Kuhn.