Official Game Day Thread: Packers @ Cardinals 1/10: LOSE 51 - 45

NYPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
36
The refs are not to blame for this loss. Sure there were some bad calls or some non-calls, but it definitely wasn't one sided. How about that horse collar penalty against Arizona? It wasn't a horse collar. As for the "facemask"... well it did not occur until after the ball was knocked out of Rodgers' hands. Adams' hand knocked the ball out of Rodgers' hand and as his hand kept moving forward it got the facemask. I believe that had it been called the ball still would have belonged to Arizona and the penalty would have been assessed at that point giving Arizona a 1st and 10. Doesn't really matter, the facemask did not cause the fumble. That's not on the refs, unfortunately it's on Rodgers. And if the facemask had been called the refs would have had to penalize Rodgers for intentionally kicking the ball after it left his hand. If you watch the replay you can see that Rodgers was trying to kick the ball away from the defender.

Exactly! I was about to point this out myself. Look we understand that we all make mistakes. Rodgers his human so he will do stuff like that. Overall we just didn't deserve to win.
 

cantstop12to85

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
142
Reaction score
2
Location
Virginia
I think there are two things we need to do in the off season

1. replace driver
2. replace crosby

and a partial third take bush out back and beat him within an inch of his life

keep crosby and driver...i kno driver's old and has lost a lot of swag and his numbers dropped but he is still extremely good and he fights for every yard. Now the Bush thing im totally down with, in fact it needs to be done but truthfully he's all we had because of injuries. We relly just need to go for a secondary this offseason and hopefully someone not nearly as bad as bush someone whose alreddy good and has even more potential.
 

Pat4DaPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
136
Location
Lincoln, Nebraska
Bush and T. Williams need to go ASAP! U just know the opposing QB will attack them most of the game.

Driver has lost it a bit, just doesn't seem like himself.

Crosby is a toss up. We have seen the Pro Bowl Crosby and the WTF? Crosby
 

Hauschild

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
10
About the refs, I like how the answers to nominated plays are countered with hypoteticals... "It happens everytime". GIVE ME A BREAK! There were pointed plays were we were hurt by the officials, key plays, that would've altered the result of the game, and until there's nominal evidence of were we were beneficiated by the refs, and evidence that it was in the same intensity we were prejudicated by them, it's undisputable that the officiating influenced in favor of the Arizona Cardinals.

Again, as it happened in the Steelers game, in the key drive of the match, more than one time, we were prejudicated by the officials.

This is ridiculous. It really is.
 

NYPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
36
Bush and T. Williams need to go ASAP! U just know the opposing QB will attack them most of the game.

Driver has lost it a bit, just doesn't seem like himself.

Crosby is a toss up. We have seen the Pro Bowl Crosby and the WTF? Crosby

Driver only screwed up once! He was playing brilliantly today and even though he was called on for holding once he still made some good blocks later on. Tramon Williams isn't so great either but I would have him as our nickel any day instead of bush. I think bush got picked on even more today. Most of todays catches were made by receivers who were covered by bush: doucet and breaston.
 

Cardsmc25

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
212
Reaction score
7
PEOPLE CALLING FOR DRIVER TO BE REPLACED... PLEASE READ THIS...

BE QUIET! Are you kidding me... you sound like idiots... let me give you some numbers... Since 2002 DD has averaged 76 receptions a year. Since 2002 DD has missed 2 games (So basically he comes TO PLAY EVERY YEAR). In 2009 (1061 yards) DD had the most most recieving yards since 2006 (1295 yards). DD had 6 touchdowns in 2009 which is the most since 2006 when he had 8.

You really want to dump the guy who is Mr. Packer. You know what, we should cut Greg Jennings too because he only had 4 touchdowns in the regular season in 2009. Come on folks. I realize we're emotional, but really???
 

tahoebum

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
Nevada.
The refs are not to blame for this loss. Sure there were some bad calls or some non-calls, but it definitely wasn't one sided. How about that horse collar penalty against Arizona? It wasn't a horse collar. As for the "facemask"... well it did not occur until after the ball was knocked out of Rodgers' hands. Adams' hand knocked the ball out of Rodgers' hand and as his hand kept moving forward it got the facemask. I believe that had it been called the ball still would have belonged to Arizona and the penalty would have been assessed at that point giving Arizona a 1st and 10. Doesn't really matter, the facemask did not cause the fumble. That's not on the refs, unfortunately it's on Rodgers. And if the facemask had been called the refs would have had to penalize Rodgers for intentionally kicking the ball after it left his hand. If you watch the replay you can see that Rodgers was trying to kick the ball away from the defender.


I agree that the refs were not responsible. Woodson got schooled by a stud receiver. Dom Capers and the pack need to figure out how to stop veteran QB's who get rid of the ball quickly. Warner had more TD's than he did incompletions!!! Farve tore them up this year as well. I'm guessing Brees, Manning, Rivers and other great QB's would do the same to this defense. The only decent QB with a good team that the pack beat this year was Romo. Last weeks game against Warner hardly counts as the Cardinals were obviously not showing their hand. The pack gave up 9.3 yards per play and over 11 yards per pass play!!! They aren't going to win many playoff games with those kind of stats. As they say, defense wins championships. :tomato:
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
The refs are not to blame for this loss. Sure there were some bad calls or some non-calls, but it definitely wasn't one sided. How about that horse collar penalty against Arizona? It wasn't a horse collar. As for the "facemask"... well it did not occur until after the ball was knocked out of Rodgers' hands. Adams' hand knocked the ball out of Rodgers' hand and as his hand kept moving forward it got the facemask. I believe that had it been called the ball still would have belonged to Arizona and the penalty would have been assessed at that point giving Arizona a 1st and 10. Doesn't really matter, the facemask did not cause the fumble. That's not on the refs, unfortunately it's on Rodgers. And if the facemask had been called the refs would have had to penalize Rodgers for intentionally kicking the ball after it left his hand. If you watch the replay you can see that Rodgers was trying to kick the ball away from the defender.
I agree that one horse collar was very questionable.

However, nothing about the helmet to helmet hit on the holding penalty? Nothing on the offensive interference on Woodson on the last offense scoring drive of Arizona???
 

hummyjohnson

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
About the refs, I like how the answers to nominated plays are countered with hypoteticals... "It happens everytime". GIVE ME A BREAK! There were pointed plays were we were hurt by the officials, key plays, that would've altered the result of the game, and until there's nominal evidence of were we were beneficiated by the refs, and evidence that it was in the same intensity we were prejudicated by them, it's undisputable that the officiating influenced in favor of the Arizona Cardinals.

Again, as it happened in the Steelers game, in the key drive of the match, more than one time, we were prejudicated by the officials.

i have to point out here, this is EXACTLY the type of whiny, pissy attitude that gives GB fans a poor reputation. to suggest some sort of vast conspiracy against the packers is simply ludicris.
 

sardeekay

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
Florida
I don't know if you's have seen it, but the photo on the front page of 1-11-10 Tampa Trib. sport page was the last play of the game...( OT fumble..) and A. Rodgers is being FACEMASKED during this play !! If it can be seen on the front page of our paper then why in H.... can't the official(s) see it... it's super obvious !! This should have been called, and it would have changed the outcome of that play, and the game!! Thanks alot NFL refs !!! Bob-Fla.
 

Green_Bay_Packers

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
5,613
Reaction score
113
Location
Blackburn, England, United Kingdom
I don't know if you's have seen it, but the photo on the front page of 1-11-10 Tampa Trib. sport page was the last play of the game...( OT fumble..) and A. Rodgers is being FACEMASKED during this play !! If it can be seen on the front page of our paper then why in H.... can't the official(s) see it... it's super obvious !! This should have been called, and it would have changed the outcome of that play, and the game!! Thanks alot NFL refs !!! Bob-Flass/QUOTE]

Its so true, You could see it but we cant change what has happened sadly
 

Quientus

Oenophile
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
792
Reaction score
23
Location
Denmark, Scandinavia
I have to agree that it looked rather dubious at best ..., however, I disagree that it would have changed the outcome of that particular play ...

The ball never hit the ground (one reason why some say that the "Tuck-Rule" didn't/shouldn't apply), and Rodgers also (seemingly, clearly) actually kicked the ball ... - If anything ... if that penalty had been called, it should have been a 15 yard penalty from the endzone, still giving the Cardinals possession ... - But then again, Rodgers should probably have been called for a penalty also (for kicking the ball), thus negating the two fouls, and still ending up in a defensive TD ... ?
 

nelanator

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
142
Reaction score
0
I have to agree that it looked rather dubious at best ..., however, I disagree that it would have changed the outcome of that particular play ...

The ball never hit the ground (one reason why some say that the "Tuck-Rule" didn't/shouldn't apply), and Rodgers also (seemingly, clearly) actually kicked the ball ... - If anything ... if that penalty had been called, it should have been a 15 yard penalty from the endzone, still giving the Cardinals possession ... - But then again, Rodgers should probably have been called for a penalty also (for kicking the ball), thus negating the two fouls, and still ending up in a defensive TD ... ?

If they called both penalties they would have offset and they would have to replay the down. Even if there were 3 separate penalties on the Cards and the one on Rodgers the penalties would offset. It would be 3rd and 5 for the Packers from the original line of scrimmage. But you're right that in no way did the facemask (or illegal hands to the face or roughing the QB, whatever the penalty should have been) change the outcome of the play. To call a penalty on the game winning play on an act that had no effect on the outcome of that play would be a little hard to swallow for Cards fans, just like the no call is for Packer fans.
 

cantstop12to85

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
142
Reaction score
2
Location
Virginia
If they called both penalties they would have offset and they would have to replay the down. Even if there were 3 separate penalties on the Cards and the one on Rodgers the penalties would offset. It would be 3rd and 5 for the Packers from the original line of scrimmage. But you're right that in no way did the facemask (or illegal hands to the face or roughing the QB, whatever the penalty should have been) change the outcome of the play. To call a penalty on the game winning play on an act that had no effect on the outcome of that play would be a little hard to swallow for Cards fans, just like the no call is for Packer fans.

Very well put, but at least if the penalty had been called we wouldnt be complaining right now like we are and sharing the same misery that we've been feeling since that fetid OT play happened. I wish I could take it back but whats done is done...the best we can hope for is that the league fires those refs for not calling things that led to shifts in the lead as well as momentum for the cards. (Fitzgeralds offensive intereference being the biggest of these no calls)
 

Quientus

Oenophile
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
792
Reaction score
23
Location
Denmark, Scandinavia
If they called both penalties they would have offset and they would have to replay the down. Even if there were 3 separate penalties on the Cards and the one on Rodgers the penalties would offset. It would be 3rd and 5 for the Packers from the original line of scrimmage. But you're right that in no way did the facemask (or illegal hands to the face or roughing the QB, whatever the penalty should have been) change the outcome of the play. To call a penalty on the game winning play on an act that had no effect on the outcome of that play would be a little hard to swallow for Cards fans, just like the no call is for Packer fans.


I believe there is alot who are saying that the facemask happened *AFTER* the fumble, in which case, even if the Penalty had been called, it would probably still have been Cardinals ball ...

- Or so I understand from what I've seen and read ... ?

Also here is an article on that particular play and why it wasn't called, Click Here ...

In any case, I recall another incident where Fitzgerald was facemask'ed without it drawing a penalty either ...

In any case ... when a defense gives up 51 points ... you can't really expect that team (with that kind of defense) to win ... no matter what ...
 

NYPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
36
Quientis you are dead on about everything. Look if the defense had played like the number 2 ranked that they are we wouldn't have to think about penalties, facemasks or even OT. Looks like Dom Capers is back to square one just like he was last offseason.
 

Hauschild

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
10
I have to agree that it looked rather dubious at best ..., however, I disagree that it would have changed the outcome of that particular play ...

The ball never hit the ground (one reason why some say that the "Tuck-Rule" didn't/shouldn't apply), and Rodgers also (seemingly, clearly) actually kicked the ball ... - If anything ... if that penalty had been called, it should have been a 15 yard penalty from the endzone, still giving the Cardinals possession ... - But then again, Rodgers should probably have been called for a penalty also (for kicking the ball), thus negating the two fouls, and still ending up in a defensive TD ... ?

If you wanna get REAL technical, I was also thinking that since the - shall we call - "incident" occurred BEFORE any recovery was made by the Arizona defense, wouldn't it still be Packers football, with 15 yards tacked on from the spot of the foul??? I'm just sayin'.

But, the defense really blew it, so one or two calls "shouldn't" affect the outcome of the game. A few more punts in the 3rd and 4th quarters would have been the serum for this virus.
 

jmichael7753

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Ok guys ill admit i am a cardinals fan, but you packer fans that were saying the refs were behind the cardinals the whole game obviously wasnt watching the game. The refs missed at least 8 holding calls on the packers offensive line. Also two of the three pass interferences on Michael Adams where complete BS in fact it should have been offensive PI. Ill admit Fitzgarald got away with some offensive PI's but they were missed just like the holding calls on the packers.
 

A-Rod_is_God

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
233
Reaction score
16
Location
Maryland
I have to agree that it looked rather dubious at best ..., however, I disagree that it would have changed the outcome of that particular play ...

The ball never hit the ground (one reason why some say that the "Tuck-Rule" didn't/shouldn't apply), and Rodgers also (seemingly, clearly) actually kicked the ball ... - If anything ... if that penalty had been called, it should have been a 15 yard penalty from the endzone, still giving the Cardinals possession ... - But then again, Rodgers should probably have been called for a penalty also (for kicking the ball), thus negating the two fouls, and still ending up in a defensive TD ... ?

Clean hands rule, bro. If your team commits a foul on a play where you recover a turnover, the turnover is negated.
 

nelanator

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
142
Reaction score
0
Clean hands rule, bro. If your team commits a foul on a play where you recover a turnover, the turnover is negated.

Not necessarily. If there is an interception or a fumble recovery and there is a hold, block in the back, or other penalty that occurs AFTER the defense gains possession of the ball then the turnover stands and the penalty is assessed from the spot of the foul. However, in this case, since the penalty began occurring before Dansby had possession of the ball, the Packers would have kept the ball.

That is my understanding at least.
 

Forget Favre

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
9,115
Reaction score
1,807
i have to point out here, this is EXACTLY the type of whiny, pissy attitude that gives GB fans a poor reputation. to suggest some sort of vast conspiracy against the packers is simply ludicris.
Nah.
We have that "whiny, pissy attitude" because our waffle headed QB went to play for one of our rival teams.
Can ya blame us?
There ain't nuthin like a Packer fan. If our loyalty seems "whiny and pissy" to you then so be it.

Just watch. Waffle Head is gonna quit from Minny and end up replacing Tony Romo!
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top