1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

coulda, shoulda, woulda

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by warhawk, Oct 8, 2007.

  1. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Not trying to sound deragotory as this is, after all, a forum. The cyber-space barber shop.

    I have heard a lot of people question MM's play calling of the second half and why he didn't do more of what was working for us in the first half.

    The answer is that the Bears CHANGED UP in the second half and went cover two and they went cover two the WHOLE HALF.

    MM was RIGHT running the ball against this D. Our guys did not respond and I'm not going to say it's because we aren't capable of running it.

    You can run the ball against this but not when its always first and TWENTY.

    We lost our rythm and we lost our focus and we shot ourselves in the foot way to often with those holding calls AND guys like Rouse also getting called for holding on the returns putting us waaaaay to far back everytime.

    This went right into the wheel house of what the Bears needed to happen.

    Many are saying now he should have been passing it and that's exactly what a poor coach would have done. Not adapted to what was happening.

    Not his fault the players weren't up to it last night.
     
  2. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0
    so are you saying everytime a team plays cover two against us we should run?
     
  3. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    I'm saying when we start out every series on about our own 12 yard line and first and twenty you are asking for trouble.

    We ready-made the recipe for a very poor second half.

    We SHOULD have been able to run it and get reasonable down and distance situations where we could do more things.

    It's not like we ran every play. We passed it too. It just wasn't going to work that great in the situations we put ourselves in and the defense they were in.
     
  4. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0
    what do you think of the play calling to start the second half?
     
  5. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    To start the second half we got the great return on the kickoff and I think Brett should have checked out of the third and one on the eleven. He knows to do that in that situation.

    The second possession was Brett's INT.

    From there we averaged starting at about our own 15 and twice with twenty yards to go.

    Also I would like to point out that by this time Brett was not just standing back there with plenty of time. They were starting to get after him pretty good.

    So to start out the second half I would have taken out a couple (the only) bad decisions from Brett all night and I believe we would have been up 24-10.
     
  6. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    If you read MM's transcripts from today he essentially said what I thought he would say. The matchups to run it were there and we failed to execute it. The fact that they WERE in cover two the whole second half, etc,.

    You can read his latest press interview on Green Bay Packers.com

    I thought it was great that he said his discussion with the team probably won't vary that much from last week and at the end he talked about how sloppy we were and that had to get fixed.

    He seems like an an extremely consistant taskmaster to me. The deal is in the detail as far as his focus and the final score has little to do with the final grade each week.
     
  7. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Then why in the heck didn't they take any shots down field? I just don't get it.
    Looks like we are dead now, as every team will play that D and we won't be able to move the ball.
     
  8. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0

    They played cover two in the first as well. Cover two is not a killer for the pass. It can be exploited. It's not like the Prevent defense. If you are going to run everytime you see cover two you are doomed
     
  9. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    The Packers were playing C+ to B games the last four weeks and that was enough to win. Last night they played grade D and it wasn't enough to win.

    Simply put, the Packers lost the game to a some good plays by the Bears. We cut ourselves, the Bears smelled blood and killed our perfect record.

    4 - 1
    It's not over.
     
  10. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Read the transcripts.
     
  11. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Don't need to. I watched the game and the video's of the press conferences.
     
  12. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    But the Packers have been spreading the ball all over the field with their passing attack. Long, short, sidelines, middle, even behind the line of scrimmage with screens and dump-offs. Cover 2 is a very good defense against the deep ball, but the Packers still should've been able to succeed with the short stuff.

    It's true that the poor field position was a huge factor, and the players themselves are largely to blame for this loss. But it looked to me like McCarthy lost confidence in his players, which was strange because I've never seen that happen to him before. Let's hope it's the last time this happens.
     
  13. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0

    Perfect Greg! Thats why I blame McCarthy. McCarthy didn't fumble the ball, commit penalties, etc but he let his own team dictate his playcall. You have to have confidence in your boys. The 2nd half playcall was astrocious. I like McCarthy but he got tight, his playcall got conservative, and the team fed off of it. He has to get more aggressive and confident.
     
  14. abztractmynd

    abztractmynd Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    272
    Ratings:
    +0
    field position played most likely the biggest role in yesterdays loss. only 1 possession in the 2nd half began beyond the 20 yard line for the packers. why kick it away from hester? they automatically assumed he would be able to score a TD on the packer special team. everytime we kicked it short or away, the bears ended up with field position anywhere from the 30-50 yard lines. eventually they scored on the pass to desmond clark. the defense stopped every other drive almost completely out of field goal range, thus setting us up for bad field positioning. one of the stories of last years struggle was bad field positioning and how it affected the offense.

    add this in with turnovers and penalties....we deserved the loss for playing recklessly conservative -if that makes any sense.
     

Share This Page