PackManDan
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2014
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 7
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.
Observations from a neutral fan
- Thread starter NHPatsFan
- Start date
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.
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
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.
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
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
The Packers ranked 8th in TD percentage in the red zone and 9th in points per red zone appearance.
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.
Live and play without fear. The old saying that if you play not to lose you will lose was proven again Sunday.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
He is the best...
NorthWestCheeseHead
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2012
- Messages
- 1,127
- Reaction score
- 103
By the username I'm guessing he enjoys Brady's flat balls quite a bit.
Half Empty
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 604
Please define 'best' so we can properly evaluate the alternatives.
Quit being silly...next I suppose you'll want me to define the word "the"....
yooperpackfan
Cheesehead
Not just at the end.
yooperpackfan
Cheesehead
I was second guessing him during the game.
I know his tendancies from past history.
Half Empty
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 604
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?
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.
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
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 604
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...
Similar threads
