Packers v Titans Game Thread: Thursday Night Football Edition

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
4,264
Reaction score
684
Packers Defense makes another average QB look like a FHOF'er!
Tannehill was on fire. He threw the ball extremely well. The thing I hated was his receivers would get to the 1st down line and our Defenders were playing deeper than that. Barry did not have them playing tight enough coverage plain and simple. And pretty much the opposite when we had the ball.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,734
Reaction score
5,289
Location
Madison, WI
Tannehill was on fire. He threw the ball extremely well. The thing I hated was his receivers would get to the 1st down line and our Defenders were playing deeper than that. Barry did not have them playing tight enough coverage plain and simple. And pretty much the opposite when we had the ball.
Which seems to happen quite a bit with the Packer defense. I think when the season started, a lot of us viewed the secondary as potentially one of their best ever and strength of the Defense. Now, I would say they are either poorly coached or underachieving. Truth be told, it is probably both.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
3,009
Don’t put Sammy Watkins back in. Not even running full
Speed and doesn’t even attempt to lay out and make a play. Can’t believe they signed This bum in the first place.
He's been a disappointment. I'm not sure what going on with him but if he's a stock he's way underperforming
 

Team Ronny

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
396
Reaction score
136
I also think that both a DC and an OC have to adapt to the players they have each year. Whether that group changes due to injuries, free agency or other factors. In other words, play to your players strengths. Not to mention that if you run the same offense or defense every year, you become stale and predictable.

Putting the defense aside, since IMO they are woefully underperforming, the offense never adapted this season to the loss of Davante Adams and MVS. They came out day 1 looking pretty much like the same offense that we have seen for the last 3 or so seasons. Guessing they just expected one of the WR's to step up and be Davante and another, MVS. The offense has still not found an identity, nor consistency. Right now, they seem to have the most success when they use motion and change of direction, pre and post snap.

Seems the Packers have gotten very predictable and vanilla on both sides of the ball, maybe thinking they had the talent to pull it off. Time for someone to inject new life into this team and I think that needs to come from the coaching side. Stop bringing in old washed up DC's that bring in a mixed bag of failure and success, as well as tired energy. I think MLF is still a solid coach, but its time for him to start thinking about the rest of his coaches and shake it up.
That's the problem with this organization!! They preach Superbowl or bust..but their actions prove otherwise! They often settle for being good enough..instead of trying to be great!!
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
283
Last edited:

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,113
Reaction score
1,015
Every dc has a thread here to fire him

At some point it isn’t the coach
well… while I see your point, the players have also changed throughout the years… Right now the defense has a lot of players that are supposed to be above average…If its not the coaching then what ?
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
283
wow! Right in front of you and you still can't see the play.

So explain to me how that Doubs catch was incomplete then?

They both tucked the ball then dropped it when they hit the ground. Ford didnt take it out of Hoopers hands. Rather the ball lands right in ford's lap as he's laying on his back. I guess I may not be aware of what the current rule is...but same play reviewed with replay and called opposite ways

How does that work?

Ive discussed this with Titans fans that agree, it was an interception. They chalk it up to "oh well Rodgers Packers finally didn't get a call for once..."
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
14,782
Reaction score
2,750
It's one of those things, by the rules, I don't know LOL. By my eyes, he did catch it briefly and since it was in the endzone that's all it needs to be it seems. I remember the Jordy play years ago. Both feet down and then instantly knocked out by a defender standing there. But that was different, not going to the ground. he was staning firmly on 2 feet at the back of the endzone.

In the reality of the game and with the rules, when going to the ground, the receiver must survive going to the ground and maintain possession.

In the Doub's case, He caught it same as Hooper, and hit the ground and lost it. Ground seemed to cause it. With Hooper's it did not. Is that in the rules somewhere to differentiate? But neither "survived" going to the ground with possession maintained. It's not like Ford ripped the ball out as he was standing up after wrestling for it, he was rolling over from the ground and lost it almost immediately.

I have a feeling if that would have happened at lets say, the 23 yard line and it didn't end up in Ford's lap but instead on the grass, it's called an incomplete pass.

On another note, I had no idea the NFL had expanded replay to include automatic instances like that one
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
3,009
It's one of those things, by the rules, I don't know LOL. By my eyes, he did catch it briefly and since it was in the endzone that's all it needs to be it seems. I remember the Jordy play years ago. Both feet down and then instantly knocked out by a defender standing there. But that was different, not going to the ground. he was staning firmly on 2 feet at the back of the endzone.

In the reality of the game and with the rules, when going to the ground, the receiver must survive going to the ground and maintain possession.

In the Doub's case, He caught it same as Hooper, and hit the ground and lost it. Ground seemed to cause it. With Hooper's it did not. Is that in the rules somewhere to differentiate? But neither "survived" going to the ground with possession maintained. It's not like Ford ripped the ball out as he was standing up after wrestling for it, he was rolling over from the ground and lost it almost immediately.

I have a feeling if that would have happened at lets say, the 23 yard line and it didn't end up in Ford's lap but instead on the grass, it's called an incomplete pass.

On another note, I had no idea the NFL had expanded replay to include automatic instances like that one
I agree with that interpretation. At some point the ruling is left to interpretation. By the rule you could easily argue the Ford INT was not a catch but an INT. He didn't retain control "through the ground". Watching the replay? you could rule it was a catch but wasn't it initially ruled incomplete? If so, it should not have been overturned because it's an interpretation and ruled incomplete.
To me it's really no different than the Dez no catch, when you watch that he has control and is making a football move (turned to reach for the chalk) and is even already touched by Shields when going down. The second he touches the ground that should've stopped the play because he turned and reached (although that "no catch" did not decide that game as there was a ton of time left in the contest, so it was immaterial either way)
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
311
Reaction score
238
I must admit the "maintain control to the ground" at least as it relates to the end zone has never made a lot of sense to me. If a runner dives for the pylon, stretches out his arm and the tip of the ball touches the pylon, it's done. Touchdown, play is dead and finished the instant the ball touches the pylon ("breaks the plane"). Whatever happens after that is completely meaningless as to whether it's a touchdown or not. It seems to me like receptions into (or entering) the end zone should be treated the same way. As soon as a player possesses the ball the play is dead and it's over. Catch the ball and as soon as you have two feet down in the end zone it's done. They have muddied the waters a bit with the "football move" requirement but even that's largely inconsistent as a sideline catch where the player catches the ball, taps his toes, and immediately falls out of bounds would seem to only meet the most broad "football move" requirements but it's universally accepted as a clean catch.

So it's just a mess. By the NFL's own precedent I can say with confidence if that ball had came out of Hooper's hands and hit the ground it would have 100% been ruled an incompletion, written off as "didn't maintain control to the ground" as we've seen before. Ironically, it really seems to be the case that Ford winding up with the ball is what made it ruled a catch and TD, whereas if he'd simply batted it and it wound up hitting the ground it probably would've been called incomplete.

In whatever case 99% of the time I think it's one of those "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law" cases. Just about every catch that has been overturned for "did not maintain control to the ground" is one that I see and my gut immediately says "That's a catch". And until the NFL made its standard in the "Dez Caught It" incident (or at least publicized it widely) I think that was the case for most people. It feels like they've tried to write in legislation to address every possible circumstance with the intention of removing doubt but in doing so have sown far more doubt and confusion than they've ever cleared up.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
3,009
Ironically, it really seems to be the case that Ford winding up with the ball is what made it ruled a catch and TD, whereas if he'd simply batted it and it wound up hitting the ground it probably would've been called incomplete.
Good point. Had it been knocked out the incomplete call would’ve stood. I 100% believe that. What’s the difference idk.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
423
I agree with that interpretation. At some point the ruling is left to interpretation. By the rule you could easily argue the Ford INT was not a catch but an INT. He didn't retain control "through the ground". Watching the replay? you could rule it was a catch but wasn't it initially ruled incomplete? If so, it should not have been overturned because it's an interpretation and ruled incomplete.
To me it's really no different than the Dez no catch, when you watch that he has control and is making a football move (turned to reach for the chalk) and is even already touched by Shields when going down. The second he touches the ground that should've stopped the play because he turned and reached (although that "no catch" did not decide that game as there was a ton of time left in the contest, so it was immaterial either way)
I believe they modified the rule slightly after the Dez play. I was at that game. If you were on the front side of the stadium you see the ball come out. If you were on the back side you could not and you wondered if it was a touchdown or inches away.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
1,401
Reaction score
664
It's one of those things, by the rules, I don't know LOL. By my eyes, he did catch it briefly and since it was in the endzone that's all it needs to be it seems. I remember the Jordy play years ago. Both feet down and then instantly knocked out by a defender standing there. But that was different, not going to the ground. he was staning firmly on 2 feet at the back of the endzone.

In the reality of the game and with the rules, when going to the ground, the receiver must survive going to the ground and maintain possession.

In the Doub's case, He caught it same as Hooper, and hit the ground and lost it. Ground seemed to cause it. With Hooper's it did not. Is that in the rules somewhere to differentiate? But neither "survived" going to the ground with possession maintained. It's not like Ford ripped the ball out as he was standing up after wrestling for it, he was rolling over from the ground and lost it almost immediately.

I have a feeling if that would have happened at lets say, the 23 yard line and it didn't end up in Ford's lap but instead on the grass, it's called an incomplete pass.

On another note, I had no idea the NFL had expanded replay to include automatic instances like that one
I know my eyes aren't what they used to be, but to me Ford did take the ball away from Hooper while he was on the ground after completing his TD catch. IMO.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
14,782
Reaction score
2,750
I know my eyes aren't what they used to be, but to me Ford did take the ball away from Hooper while he was on the ground after completing his TD catch. IMO.
Yes, his arm was in there and knocks it out. But if that happened at the 23 instead of the end zone and then the ball goes to the ground I have a feeling there’s very little probability they call that a catch fumble.

It’s a catch only because they have some different rules in the end zone.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top