Observations from a neutral fan

PackManDan

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
78
Reaction score
7
I disagree. The conservative play calling that hurt was in the first half. The Packers had 4 and 1 three times and they settled for FG's each time. If they went for it all three times, made it twice and scored 14, that's still better than 9.

And what if they had went for it all three times and missed all three times? You can't sit there and say they would have made it twice. Not the way they've been playing.
 

Raptorman

Vikings fan since 1966.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
3,169
Reaction score
439
Location
Vero Beach, FL
And what if they had went for it all three times and missed all three times? You can't sit there and say they would have made it twice. Not the way they've been playing.
At the same time, the points from the field goals were not guaranteed. It' the downside to playing "what if" scenario's after the fact. What if on the two 4th and ones from the Seattle 1, they scored two TD's and on the 4th and 1 from the 22 yard line a Field Goal. That's 17 points compared to 9. Or say they end up scoring TD's on all three, that makes the halftime score 28-0. The thing with "what ifs" is they work both ways. So those 3 plays make up somewhere between 0 and 21 points.
 

PackManDan

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
78
Reaction score
7
At the same time, the points from the field goals were not guaranteed. It' the downside to playing "what if" scenario's after the fact. What if on the two 4th and ones from the Seattle 1, they scored two TD's and on the 4th and 1 from the 22 yard line a Field Goal. That's 17 points compared to 9. Or say they end up scoring TD's on all three, that makes the halftime score 28-0. The thing with "what ifs" is they work both ways. So those 3 plays make up somewhere between 0 and 21 points.

Obviously the FG's aren't guaranteed but they are a hell of a lot more "guaranteed" than trying to punch it in at the goal line. Terrible red zone offense this year. No play is guaranteed but when you are on the road in a playoff game I think you take the points. I don't think you can fault a team for just taking the 3 points in the first quarter. As I said, if the Packers lost by 2 everyone would jump down McCarthy's throat telling him he should have gone for the FG instead of trying to get a TD.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
No kidding, we kind of stunk all year in the Redzone and it wasn't for lack of opportunities or attempts, and here we are against the number one Defense in the league a defense that had already stuffed us a few times on previous downs, and they act like getting 7 was even likely.
 

NorthWestCheeseHead

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
103
I disagree. The conservative play calling that hurt was in the first half. The Packers had 4 and 1 three times and they settled for FG's each time. If they went for it all three times, made it twice and scored 14, that's still better than 9.
MM's been going for those all year and people have ragged on him when it hasn't worked out. This shouldn't be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Terrible red zone offense this year.

No kidding, we kind of stunk all year in the Redzone and it wasn't for lack of opportunities or attempts, and here we are against the number one Defense in the league a defense that had already stuffed us a few times on previous downs, and they act like getting 7 was even likely.

The Packers ranked 8th in TD percentage in the red zone and 9th in points per red zone appearance.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,451
Reaction score
1,507
For me, I had no problem with taking the points on the 1st 4th and goal. On the second one, I go for it. If you want to use 'no guarantees' as a reason not to do something, then why bother doing anything at all ever? Stay home.
Live and play without fear. The old saying that if you play not to lose you will lose was proven again Sunday.
 

Jdeed

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
187
Reaction score
1
The Packers were handed this game in the first Qtr and failed to score enough points off turnovers.
Seattle got their chances at the end of the game and took FULL advantage of them and Won.

In the end neither team played well and the teams swapped Gaffs at the beginning and end of the game.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,087
Reaction score
1,332
I disagree. The conservative play calling that hurt was in the first half. The Packers had 4 and 1 three times and they settled for FG's each time. If they went for it all three times, made it twice and scored 14, that's still better than 9.


I can do math too. If they went for it all three times made it once and scored 7 that's not as good as 9.
 

grampi

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
246
Reaction score
15
Just some observations from a fan who was just curious who May team could meet in the SB:

1. Settling for 3 twice in the first quarter was a killer. IMO have to go for a TD at least one of those two times and trust your D.

2. IMO got to conservative with the lead, you guys have the 2nd best QB in the NFL ! They pack needed to trust him a bit more in the second half.

3. Russell Wilson absolutely STUNK! You guys had his number all game! The D game plan was amazing and executed perfectly for 55 minutes.

All and all the Pack played well and the mishandle on the on side kick shouldn't have mattered if IMO YOUR O coordinator had played less scared.. Ie he was afraid to risk losing it this losing it.

2nd best QB? Name an active qb that's better, or even as good RIGHT NOW as Rodgers is...
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,451
Reaction score
1,507
2nd best QB? Name an active qb that's better, or even as good RIGHT NOW as Rodgers is...


A lot of the sports world/ media right now, if asked who would you want to have in a big spot in a big game would answer Russel Wilson. Some might say Brady. I don't read/hear Rodgers much now, or even recently.
 

dbain21

Chicagoland Packer Fan
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
535
Reaction score
67
A lot of the sports world/ media right now, if asked who would you want to have in a big spot in a big game would answer Russel Wilson. Some might say Brady. I don't read/hear Rodgers much now, or even recently.

I think the question bares a lot of circumstance. Heres what i mean:

With a good team around him a lot of people will say Wilson...He does seem to have a good comeback gene. Most people if asked who they would rather have as the number one pick in a fantasy draft, would probably pick rodgers. Most people are in agreement that Rodgers on a bad team would be better than Wilson on a bad team.

I realize you were kind of talking about pure big game moments...but I have heard plenty people who realize Wilson success has come from having one of the best RB's in the league and a great defense.
 

grampi

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
246
Reaction score
15
A lot of the sports world/ media right now, if asked who would you want to have in a big spot in a big game would answer Russel Wilson. Some might say Brady. I don't read/hear Rodgers much now, or even recently.

The OP said the Packers have the 2nd best QB in the NFL...he didn't say anything about who you'd want in a big game...two completely different things...Russel Wilson isn't even close to being in the same category as Rodgers...Brady has more rings and bigger stats (mainly because he's played a lot longer), but he certainly isn't as good as Rodgers is right now...
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,451
Reaction score
1,507
The OP said the Packers have the 2nd best QB in the NFL...he didn't say anything about who you'd want in a big game...two completely different things...Russel Wilson isn't even close to being in the same category as Rodgers...Brady has more rings and bigger stats (mainly because he's played a lot longer), but he certainly isn't as good as Rodgers is right now...


It speaks directly to your assertion that Rodgers is the best.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,491
Reaction score
615
Quit being silly...next I suppose you'll want me to define the word "the"....

Rally? That's what you're going with? There is an objective way to evaluate the 'best' athlete, and I'm just not aware of it? No chance that your definition of 'best' isn't the same as others?
 

PackerXLV

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
38
Reaction score
3
Location
Michigan
Just some observations from a fan who was just curious who May team could meet in the SB:

1. Settling for 3 twice in the first quarter was a killer. IMO have to go for a TD at least one of those two times and trust your D.

2. IMO got to conservative with the lead, you guys have the 2nd best QB in the NFL ! They pack needed to trust him a bit more in the second half.

3. Russell Wilson absolutely STUNK! You guys had his number all game! The D game plan was amazing and executed perfectly for 55 minutes.

All and all the Pack played well and the mishandle on the on side kick shouldn't have mattered if IMO YOUR O coordinator had played less scared.. Ie he was afraid to risk losing it this losing it.


I disagree with number 1. His decisions to take the points and help quiet the crowd and build a lead, to me, were good decisions. The Packers offense failing to convert was the real issue.

I disagree with a portion of number 2. We have THE best Quarterback in the NFL. Don't come around here trying to dispute that, especially after our defense thrashed Mr. Brady earlier this year. Not sure how you can even state that lol.

I agree with number 3. Our defense was not the cause. I can point out some mishaps, but overall, they played more than well enough to win.

At the end of the day, coaches call plays that are meant to work. If we block well enough and Lacey actually bursts for once, maybe we get a first down in the final 5 minutes. Hindsight is always 20/20, and we ALL need to remember that an NFL coach is on a level most, if not all of is will ever see in regards to football IQ.

The Packers played well enough to win up until 5 minutes to go. That's ultimately where it all came unraveled.
 

grampi

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
246
Reaction score
15
Rally? That's what you're going with? There is an objective way to evaluate the 'best' athlete, and I'm just not aware of it? No chance that your definition of 'best' isn't the same as others?

Okay, here is my definition of "best"....if I had a pro football team and I could pick any of the current QBs in the league to be my QB, it would be without question Rodgers....how would you define the best?
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,491
Reaction score
615
That's as good as any, just so folks can work off the same scoresheet. I could certainly see people defining 'best' by stats, wins, championships, 'doing the most with the least', et. al. Hard to knock AR as the one you'd like to have, but I think people can make a case for Wilson, Brady, Luck, and that's why your flat-out assertion that AR is the best confused me.
 

grampi

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
246
Reaction score
15
That's as good as any, just so folks can work off the same scoresheet. I could certainly see people defining 'best' by stats, wins, championships, 'doing the most with the least', et. al. Hard to knock AR as the one you'd like to have, but I think people can make a case for Wilson, Brady, Luck, and that's why your flat-out assertion that AR is the best confused me.

True, but I could also tell you why I'd pick Rodgers over these guys...most of Wilson's success stems from SEA's awesome defense...without it Wilson ain't winning any rings...Brady WAS one of the best in the business, but he's definitely past his prime...yes he's still better than most, but he's not as good as Rodgers is right now, and Luck, tough as nails, but he lacks the awareness to protect the ball...in other words, he throws way too many picks...he will be there some day, but he's not there yet...
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top