If the Packers are going to beat the Falcons.........

dgreen1

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
13
Reaction score
3
Mike McCarthy needs to be more aggressive and stop being so damn conservative. He has done a good job at least getting us in the playoffs (I guess) but we need to finish games.

There is no excuse for giving the Eagles the ball back with 2:00 minutes left in the 4th Quarter. How many games have we lost because of this. Our running game was pretty good last night, but 3 straight run plays at the end of the game could have cost us big. Running the ball is a great way to run the clock down, but you also need to get first downs. I understand you don't want to get an interception or fumble, but we need to be aggressive and finish games without giving our opponent another shot to win games.

Good job Pack, now lets finish games without any possibility of our opponent winning on the last drive.
 

Incubes12

Bay Harbor Butcher?
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,757
Reaction score
316
Location
Buffalo, NY
really, if Akers had made one of his two missed kicks, they would have easily gotten in position to kick a game winning field goal with that last drive...

Again, woulda coulda shouldas are never really practical. Akers making either of those FGs could've changed our offensive game plan entirely.
 

Forget Favre

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
9,115
Reaction score
1,807
Should have taken advantage of the Eagles not having any time outs.
Keep making first downs with short passes and you win the game without making fans do unexpected bodily functions.
It's a good thing Michael ***** got cocky and went for the end zone like that.
 

Fundamentals

Cheesehead
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
I was hoping for a quick play action. The Eagles were packing the box practically begging to get burnt. A play action quick pass on second down ends the game and we don't have to punt. I hope given a similar situation McCarthy throws a curve ball and doesn't go conservative three plays in a row. If we have such a potent offense we need to be able to utilize it to kill clock. Playing overly conservative in the final minutes of the game should worry any Packer fan.
 

Wood Chipper

Fantasy Football Guru
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
4,180
Reaction score
1,028
Location
Virginia
Or at least use the last 30 seconds of the half to see if we can put some extra points on the board rather than just letting the clock run off for no reason.

yeah why not? nothin bad could of happened. like a pick six, a fumble, or someone getting hurt.
 

PackAttackUK

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
689
Reaction score
26
Location
Liverpool, UK
I hate all this hindsight ********.

Say Rodgers threw a pick-6 or sack-fumbled in the last 30 secs of the first half? You'd be calling for MM's head and saying they should've just went into the locker room! Same thing had the Packers been aggressive late in the 4th quarter.
 

red4tribe

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
1,342
Reaction score
345
Location
New York
I do think that we should have at least tried getting into field goal range at the end of the first half. Even though we were going into the wind, Crosby has a heck of a leg(as he proved by making a 56-yarder in Philly in week 1) and it couldn't have hurt to at least give him a shot.

And in MM's defense, even though he did call a few running plays, he did call a running play on our last offensive play of the game. The offensive line failed to picked up the blitz, thus we did not convert. If Rodgers gets the 1st down there this thread wouldn't exist.
 

gatorpack

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
235
Location
Florida
I do think that we should have at least tried getting into field goal range at the end of the first half. Even though we were going into the wind, Crosby has a heck of a leg(as he proved by making a 56-yarder in Philly in week 1) and it couldn't have hurt to at least give him a shot.

And in MM's defense, even though he did call a few running plays, he did call a running play on our last offensive play of the game. The offensive line failed to picked up the blitz, thus we did not convert. If Rodgers gets the 1st down there this thread wouldn't exist.
Yes but on first down everyone in that stadium knew it was going to be a run on second down everyone knew it was going to be a run, on 3rd down everyone knew it had to be a pass. See the trend? Playaction would have been great on second down. The eagles were all down in the box.
 

gmann001

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
190
Reaction score
17
Again, woulda coulda shouldas are never really practical. Akers making either of those FGs could've changed our offensive game plan entirely.

I'll go one step further... woulda coulda shoulda, if Underwoods foot didn't touch the ball on ST giving the Eagles the ball. There probably wouldn't have even been a first field goal attempt.As I've said in many posts... it's the "butterfly effect". Change one thing of the game, chances are the whole game would've been different. just my 2 cents
 

IluvGB

I <3 Packers!!!!
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
4,409
Reaction score
653
I'll go one step further... woulda coulda shoulda, if Underwoods foot didn't touch the ball on ST giving the Eagles the ball. There probably wouldn't have even been a first field goal attempt.As I've said in many posts... it's the "butterfly effect". Change one thing of the game, chances are the whole game would've been different. just my 2 cents


I guess there was no call available for Underwood being pushed into the ball... but somehow butterfly effect seems too cute for that chain of action. hmmmm I'll have to think of a new one!

But your right,... changing one thing would of, could of , should of....
 
OP
OP
D

dgreen1

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
13
Reaction score
3
This isn't meant to be a woulda, coulda, shoulda thread. Turnovers can occur anytime, even while running the ball, so I don't see a play action short pass to be any riskier than a run play.

And some of you are right, maybe this thread wouldn't have been created if:

A). We got the first down and killed the clock essentially guaranteeing our victory. But the fact is we didnt becuase we were being to cautious.

or

B). We were winning by 20 points in the 4th quarter with 4 minutes to play.


My main point here is we need to finish games strong. Putting our playoff hopes in the hands of our defense (which has been lights out) might not be the worst idea but I'd rather win games without giving our opponent time to muster up a miracle game winning drive. I have been rather harsh of MM in the past but players seem to be responding well and Dom Caper has done an amazing job on defense.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
This isn't meant to be a woulda, coulda, shoulda thread. Turnovers can occur anytime, even while running the ball, so I don't see a play action short pass to be any riskier than a run play.

And some of you are right, maybe this thread wouldn't have been created if:

A). We got the first down and killed the clock essentially guaranteeing our victory. But the fact is we didnt becuase we were being to cautious.

or

B). We were winning by 20 points in the 4th quarter with 4 minutes to play.


My main point here is we need to finish games strong. Putting our playoff hopes in the hands of our defense (which has been lights out) might not be the worst idea but I'd rather win games without giving our opponent time to muster up a miracle game winning drive. I have been rather harsh of MM in the past but players seem to be responding well and Dom Caper has done an amazing job on defense.
Also add if James Jones catches the ball in the deep pass.

I understand the sentiment, believe me, and I would agree in most instances.

But in THIS instance, because we have such a great D, and the running game was working, it was the right thing.

What gave us the best chance of winning? Counting on our D, giving our D the best chance of stopping them by killing the clock? Or counting on our O, that has given up on us before this season, to milk the clock all by itself?

I think, with this kind of D, and because the running game was working (that's a big reason), it was the right time.
Now, the 3rd and one play to Kuhn, that was wrong, it should've been a PA, or a quick handoff with Kuhn at FB, not at RB.

But the principle of the time and the game as a whole, I think it was the right thing.
 

JCpackers04

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
415
Reaction score
17
If the Packers are going to beat the Falcons...they need to

A) Shut down the run

which will

B) Make Matt Ryan have to beat us

The run game is detrimental to Atlanta's offense and it sets up Ryan's efficient pass game. Ryan does not throw the ball deep or make huge pass plays. He is a check down quarterback and has been all season, hes also pretty good at it. If the Packers take away the run game and makes Ryan pass the team to victory, we could see some mistakes from him and ultimately win the game. Turner needs to be stopped, held under 100 yards preferably.
 
OP
OP
D

dgreen1

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
13
Reaction score
3
I agree - Jones needs to step up his game but he also makes some good plays. Great debate, and I understand everyone's point of view lets just hope against Atlanta that we start strong and finish strong

Like Woodson says "no regrets".
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top