So Homer and Company on Pack Attack give Hawk "Defense Player of the Game"
How 'bout that!
It wasn't really Homer, he is too honest to join the AJ is under appreciated by all you ungrateful fans club and has called out Hawk's limitations for years.
It was the other guy, Neitzel who was praising Hawk for his first turnover play in 4 years and ignoring the blatant face-maks on Peterson.
AJ gives the soft Wisco press quotes and they, in turn, never criticize him.
+
Flynn's back in GB, because for whatever reason, he does well here
It's not a win, but it's a gasp of life
Obvious: Lacy
-
The tie may get us into the playoffs where Dom's defense will be destroyed once again
Flynn was running for his life
MM's playcalling in the OT when we had first-and-goal at the 7. Get Lacy to the outside where he can get up some steam and turn it upfield cuz no DB is going to bring him down without a posse.
And be glad we're not Vikings fans for two reasons: First, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Frazier give us the ball first in the OT despite winning the coin toss? What kind of coach would do that when even a fluke TD wins it outright and we had all the momentum? Secondly, Ponder played just well enough again to keep Freeman on the bench. 
we won the toss in OT.
We won the toss in OT.
I'll be rooting for the Vikes next Sunday. Hope AP runs wild!
Wouldn't that be 0-3-1?
Lol. I don't know, but to me it looks like the hypothesis is winning.
Thanks for the correction on the coin toss. Too bad we couldn't capitalize on that one with a TD. Our red zone offense stinks. I wish MM would learn how to use Lacy down there or at least the threat of Lacy. A little play action to Lacy would work wonders inside the 10.
As good as Lacy has been, Green was better. Just a fact.
Disagree
Then you need to go back and watch some old Ahman Green film. Lacy is very good, but to put him on the same level as Green at this point is absurd. In his prime, Green was one of the top two running backs in the game.
Green had 2,250 yards in 2003 (1,883 rushing yards (117.7 ypg) and 367 yards receiving...and 20 touchdowns). He had eleven 100 yard games, including 218 against Denver, 192 and 156 against Philly, 176 against Chicago, 160 against Detroit, and 154 against San Francisco.
I am not sure what pictures of some of you Dom Capers must have, but this defense has frankly sucked for almost 3 seasons. I get it, the players blah blah blah... We were a train wreck in 2011, we were barely adequate for parts of 2012, and we suck again in 2013. It doesn't matter if Burnett or Heyward or CMII or Jolly or anyone. We've sucked for 2+ seasons. Offenses have figured out Dom's schemes, regardless of who is playing. If he's around in 2013-14, it will be a travesty. New Orleans adds no players of significance, and by changing schemes and DC, they improve dramatically from the abomination they were last year. They've had many injuries as well. It's called life in the NFL.
CMIII and Raji apparently told Tyler Dunne from JSO that by lining up in certain packages, Queens players told them they knew precisely what GB's D would do and therefore knew where gaping holes would be, etc. That Toby Gerhart ripped off ridiculous runs with a 11.4 avg is inexcusable. And I don't care who's injured or not.
I assume by looking at film, indeed opposing OC's are seeing exactly what Capers is doing but just as importantly they are not seeing wrinkles, adjustments, new looks etc. to make them wonder if they see the same package will Capers and the D change it up. And that says to me that his defense has gone stale.
Very similar to the comments from the Giants following last week's game. If true, that's awful.
Has not been a banner month for the Packer brain trust. Obviously the injuries are difficult, but that's life in the NFL. But each passing game underscores three serious miscalculations by the brain trust:
1) The back-up QB situation. They had how many cracks at Flynn this past year? Flynn isn't a world beater, but we saw today how much more effective he is than the other guys they trotted out. Why it took them so long to sign Flynn is a real head scratcher.
2) Giving Dom another year.
3) Preaching "next man up" but not rewarding the guys that stepped up. Lattimore played great in Jones's absence…why exactly isn't he playing more? Makes no sense.
I'm not so sure I believe these "reports" of our opposition knowing what plays we would run and the like verbatim, but I would believe they are seeing tendencies on film, and run plays to exploit them when they see certain formations/players. And, apparently, often enough that there are several opportunities each game to run those plays.
The biggest thing I take away from this game comes down to two words: Christian Ponder. He is so bad, it's literally a week-to-week decision whether he'll play or not, but against the Packers...he looks like the second coming of Fran Tarkenton. AGAIN!
Now, people can argue about our injury situation, which players suck or are studs, or how the refs jobbed us, but we're literally talking a QB slightly better than Flynn...maybe. A team of scrubs should be able to defend him without much problem.
Sadly, he's just the latest in what's becoming a fairly long list of opposing QBs who shred us for 100's of yards, yet produce very little against the rest of the league. Trends can't be ignored forever.
With all that said, there still were some positives from yesterdays game; none bigger than Clay Matthews. How he was imposing his will was reminescent of how Reggie used to carry the defense.
Mike Daniels is a player.
Lacy played every bit as hard as Clay.
Flynn played well, especially given the situation he was in.
MM's playcalling in the OT when we had first-and-goal at the 7. Get Lacy to the outside where he can get up some steam and turn it upfield cuz no DB is going to bring him down without a posse.
This! Instead, into the middle of the line TWICE. Ridiculous. Sending him to the outside and let him do his thing would've got the win.
Shoulda coulda woulda. It never should have come to OT. There were a few opps where GB could have won this in regulation. If House hangs onto an easy pic, had the D made just one more stop, kicking the extra point vs going for two , perhaps going with Flynn earlier than they did etc. That's the frustrating part of this game. It wasn't just one facet of the game that you can place blame for not getting a win.
- This game and the last 3 games reminds me a lot of the 70s and 80s teams.
+ I agree with most of the positives and negatives listed but thought GBs punting and punt coverage teams did a great job holding MN to zero ( I believe) punt return yards.
I was ok with going for two. Make it and it's a one possession game. Miss it and a a TD and FG tie it. I understand the reasoning for going for it.
Seeing Packers fan do the "Jump-Around" at the start of the 4th quarter. Seeing Clay Matthews bopping on the bench too.
I understand the reasoning too but thought it was too early to try for two. Then again, I didn't think GB was going to score they way they did in the 4th either. Oh well.
If they can beat the head stommpers on T Day (and they can) then things will look much brighter.
Another bad omen. As I type this the game thread has 666 replies.
Ooh, the sign of the anti-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster! Shivers....
MM's playcalling in the OT when we had first-and-goal at the 7. Get Lacy to the outside where he can get up some steam and turn it upfield cuz no DB is going to bring him down without a posse.
This! Instead, into the middle of the line TWICE. Ridiculous. Sending him to the outside and let him do his thing would've got the win.
Yep. with everyone packed in tight, just cutblock the defenders and pitch it outside to Lacy. Even the DBs that beat him to the corner would not prevent him from powering in.
- MM's decision to go for two. I said it (to myself) at the time.
We kick the extra point and its 23-14 with 11+ minutes to go. If there is only 5-6 minutes left going for two would have been fine, but a team will get two possessions with that much time left.
MM has been very mediocre this year. Even with AR out, we can't go 0-3-1 over this stretch.
Flynn is a veteran player that should have been at least worked out as soon as he was released from Oakland. Ted and Mike hang their hat on rookies or second or third year players. They might need to rethink some of their philosophy going into next year. Having a young team is great and all until players start dropping like flies like they have done the past few years. And to have to consistently depend on those green newbies to carry on like more seasoned players is asking for trouble.
I have a lot of the same negatives that have already been said. I think the most glaring weakness is in leadership. No I don't mean the front office or the coaches I mean leadership among the players.
If Charles Woodson and Cullen Jenkins were still here there would have been a players only meeting called after the Eagles loss, definitely after the Giants loss. I don't see anyone on the sidelines getting guys hyped up or getting in their faces when they make mistakes. It's almost like everyone on the team is too professional, they're there to do their jobs and don't want to step on toes by getting in someone's face. This is a team that lives and dies by the momentum swing, that much was clear yesterday. Once the team got close then the D tightened up even though they couldn't quite finish. When the game was all Vikings, they looked like they had given up. They need a Ray Lewis type (minus the murder) to get in people's faces and get them hyped up. No leadership.
GD,
If lack of leadership is the case, then I think you have to look directly at CMIII. He's the one who is getting paid to be a leader and is a major force on the D.
I don't necessarily believe that they need to have players only meetings, etc. Some teams work that way, I like our team because the leadership tries and take out the highs and lows and everything is even keel. Having said that, by trying to stay even, it might take some of the emotion out of the team.
How can players be leaders when they are on the PUP or IR or not playing for multiple weeks.
- MM's decision to go for two. I said it (to myself) at the time.
We kick the extra point and its 23-14 with 11+ minutes to go. If there is only 5-6 minutes left going for two would have been fine, but a team will get two possessions with that much time left.
MM has been very mediocre this year. Even with AR out, we can't go 0-3-1 over this stretch.
The way our D was getting shredded, it's hard to imagine we would get two possessions without getting an on-side kick.
Watch AJ Hawk on the Gerhart runs late in the game.
Hawk flows with the lead blocker and the motion of the play, stands around behind the other defenders and then Gerhart cuts back right to where Hawk just was and Hawk chases from behind for 10+ yards.
The front side of those plays was pretty much bottled up. I am sure Hawk is coached to flow with the play, but if he'd just shot up in his gap he could have at least closed off a huge cutback lane and maybe even tackled Gerhart for a loss as he was looking for a hole.
+ Bush actually played fairly well on defense and was a Special Teams stud, as usual.
+ Masthay was, well, Masthay.
+Starks stepped in for Lacy and ran well.
+Boykin has stepped up as much as possible.
+Jordy showing he's really a premier receiver rather than a system guy.
-James Jones does appear to be a system/QB guy.
-AJ Hawk is a waste of skin...
-...but at least he's better than Newhouse.
-MD Jennings fits in there someplace.
-Are you sure you want to turn down $8m Raji?
-Blew a golden opportunity to re-gain first place in the division. In the stretch most likely to let them pull away in teh division they haven't gotten a win.
This is why I didn't have a problem going for two. I also thought that if they fail, hey, we can still tie. But truthfully, even though there was about 11 minutes left when we scored, I wondered if we'd see the ball more than once without some incredible luck. Given the way the previous couple games went where we let the other team go on 9-minute drives, I can see why MM went for two and I didn't have a problem with it. In hindsight, sure, a TD and FG win it, but what were the odds we would do that based on the previous couple games? MM was danged if he did, danged if he didn't.
Negatives:
The Pack played against one of the bottom 5 teams in the NFL at Lambeau Field and couldn't beat them. That shows how far they've fallen in a few short weeks.
Positives:
I was impressed with Matt Flynn. How he flamed out on all those other teams I will never know because to me at the very least looks like a quality backup.
Lacy and Starks seem to be a really nice 1-2 punch at RB.
As depressing as the last month has been, the NFC North is so awful the Pack still might win it. I certainly wouldn't expect much from the Pack in the playoffs if they got there, but if they get there, there's still some fleeting hope just by merely participating.
I think we got a participation trophy the last couple of years.....
just like my 5 year old's soccer team
Everybody wins. Unless you tie.
Flynn is a veteran player that should have been at least worked out as soon as he was released from Oakland. Ted and Mike hang their hat on rookies or second or third year players. They might need to rethink some of their philosophy going into next year. Having a young team is great and all until players start dropping like flies like they have done the past few years. And to have to consistently depend on those green newbies to carry on like more seasoned players is asking for trouble.
I couldn't have agreed more. TT and MM have to start looking at the free agency market, or trades for that matter.
I don't have a problem with going for 2. I was a bit surprised they didn't go for it on 4th down in OT though. The Vikings were reeling and the way the defense had been getting gashed (and the upcoming short week) I thought MM would stay aggressive and (try to) end it there.
Our short week is even shorter after 5 quarters. Not just the time but the extra quarter of wear and tear on an already worn and torn team.
I don't have a problem with going for 2. I was a bit surprised they didn't go for it on 4th down in OT though.
This. Completely agree.
I don't get this two-point controversey. You're down by 16 in the 4th. Of course you go for two to try and make it a one possession game.
The OT situation was interesting. I don't think coaches are used to these new rules, but I absolutely would go for it on 4th and goal from the 2 on the first possession. There's probably a 40% chance you win the game right there. But, even if you don't get it, you have them pinned back that if you can force a three and out, you really only have to get one first down to have a try and a game winning FG.
Of course, you are assuming a defense can stop a Christian Ponder led offense when they are backed up. Unfortunately, nothing is that simple with this defense. And that's the big issue over the past month.
There are legit criticisms of TT and MM on the back-up QB spot and not securing Flynn earlier, as well as play calling, and not trying someone else at RT. But at least they are battling on offense. At some point you have to have your defense step up and help you. And they haven't done that at all...
Going for two points and kicking a field goal in OT boils down to one thing...McCarthy not trusting the way the defene is playing.
I don't think anyone on this board trusts the Defense right now, so in all likelihood, we would be making the same decisions.
I don't think anyone on this board trusts the Defense right now, so in all likelihood, we would be making the same decisions.
The 2 point decision really has nothing to do with trusting defense or not. It's simply an understanding that you won't have many more possessions in the game so you need to make it a one score game if you can.
In OT, I'd argue that if you don't trust your d, even more reason to go for it on 4th. You can win the game outright without putting your D on the field. You kick the FG, you are now entrusting your special teams to not give up a return + your D to not allow Minnesota to drive 50 yards into FG range. And as a bonus, they have four downs to convert now instead of the usual three.
I don't think anyone on this board trusts the Defense right now, so in all likelihood, we would be making the same decisions.
The 2 point decision really has nothing to do with trusting defense or not. It's simply an understanding that you won't have many more possessions in the game so you need to make it a one score game if you can.
In OT, I'd argue that if you don't trust your d, even more reason to go for it on 4th. You can win the game outright without putting your D on the field. You kick the FG, you are now entrusting your special teams to not give up a return + your D to not allow Minnesota to drive 50 yards into FG range. And as a bonus, they have four downs to convert now instead of the usual three.
Good point about having the 4 downs instead of 3 to convert. I don't think anyone thought that the Packers D would hold them to 3 in OT. We should have won it, but teh fact that they held them to 3 in OT is somewhat positive?
