Studs and duds KC

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
756
Location
***** Gorda, FL
Studs-
Nixon, it's getting to be a habit but he comes to play every week.
Watson, he's a huge weapon. Other than Love, he's the player the Packers are least able to lose.
Love- best game yet.
Duds- Walker and Campbell. Didn't get it done. Poor coverage, tackling and playing way too far from the LOS.
I hope Watson isn't out very long.
 

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
756
Location
***** Gorda, FL
A stud I forgot. Clements for working Jordan and helping him develop into a Good QB. Not ready to call him great, yet.
Yup, we have to remember it was Clements who developed Rodgers and is doing it again with Love. Maybe we should call Coach Clements the QB Whisperer!
 

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
756
Location
***** Gorda, FL
Stud
Aaron Rodgers

While this might sound funny. There were more indirect but contributing factors to Loves success. That’s one thing I did appreciate about #12. He gets an honorable mention Stud for supporting Jordan through this process. I could be wrong, but I think Rodgers was also indirectly responsible for getting Clements back in house. Aaron has done nothing but offer compliments about Love all along. That takes some fortitude imo
From the beginning it appears Love and Rodgers have had a good relationship. One thing we can see in Jordan is how calm and under control he seems out there no matter what happens. I think he got some of that from AR (but one thing I'm glad Love doesn't do is yell at his teammates when they screw up).
 

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
756
Location
***** Gorda, FL
I've always believed a new QB needs at least two years sitting, and learning, so they don't lose their confidence. It isn't always the most talented QB who is the best one on the field. It's quite often the smartest one, who knows how to move the team, despite not being as good as the other guy. A prime example is Bart Starr. He was a fairly accurate passer, but most of all, he knew how to insure the Packers were all on the same page, play after play. It's called "leadership," and it isn't something the new kid on the block automatically can step in and offer. It takes time, and patience, getting there.

The problem, in today's game, is that if you don't win it all this year as a coach, you're in serious danger of being fired. So, they throw the kids to the wolves, and it's either sink or swim, from day one. Because of it, way too many fail miserably. When the self confidence, almost bordering on arrogance, is gone, so is that little margin of difference between them being a really good QB, and one who isn't going to be around too long.
You are right and this might be why so many young QBs these days bomb behind terrible OLs and on lousy teams.
 

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
756
Location
***** Gorda, FL
It should but historically on Hail Marys nothing is called unless it is egregious and that means obviously extreme and probably a foul other than pass interference. Now on that scenario the league is consistent and teams understand that. On the MVS play that probably gets called in the 2nd quarter. Before the famous Rodgers Hail Mary there was the foul on Detroit the previous play which many Lion fans argue should have been let go. It may not have been a face mask but it was unnecessary roughness. Had Rodgers been a big guy like Daniel Jones the defender does not have the leverage to reach or pull the collar and the QB does not go down.
But even on the famous Rodgers Hail Mary pass interference could have been called on both sides as is usually the case when you get down to it.
Speaking of facemask penalties I recall that infamous non-call in Phoenix in that WC game back in OT in 2009!
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,239
Reaction score
1,530
Speaking of facemask penalties I recall that infamous non-call in Phoenix in that WC game back in OT in 2009!
Yes, no doubt. I think the refs may have deemed the ball was out and Rodgers no longer mattered.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
1,631
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
From the NFLs own rulebook. There are many situations where a 10 second runoff applies. One is a situation where a replay occurs, and the correct ruling (Rice down in field of play), would have resulted in the clock still running.

A 10 second runoff should have applied, and the clock should have been running at the whistle, not the snap.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/play-clock/
Thanks
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
I've always believed a new QB needs at least two years sitting, and learning, so they don't lose their confidence. It isn't always the most talented QB who is the best one on the field. It's quite often the smartest one, who knows how to move the team, despite not being as good as the other guy. A prime example is Bart Starr. He was a fairly accurate passer, but most of all, he knew how to insure the Packers were all on the same page, play after play. It's called "leadership," and it isn't something the new kid on the block automatically can step in and offer. It takes time, and patience, getting there.

I think this is totally case by case and dependent on the individual. Some prospects simply are raw and aren't ready to step onto an NFL field in their first 2 years.

Then you have your CJ Strouds and Brock Purdys that are basically ready to be leaders from Day 1. It takes time to get there....but not always.

Obviously, situation and supporting cast plays a big part of whether they can have success off the bat or not too.
 

pacmaniac

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,085
Reaction score
571
Their official statement after the game, was that they didn't see anything that materially impeded MVS' ability to go for the ball. I don't think that anyone believes that, but it was their official statement:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
The officials would have more credibility if they simply said "Since MVS was the receiver, the ball was deemed uncatchable."
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
I think this is totally case by case and dependent on the individual. Some prospects simply are raw and aren't ready to step onto an NFL field in their first 2 years.

Then you have your CJ Strouds and Brock Purdys that are basically ready to be leaders from Day 1. It takes time to get there....but not always.

Obviously, situation and supporting cast plays a big part of whether they can have success off the bat or not too.
I totally agree. There are those who are ready, those who aren't.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,456
Reaction score
1,315
I think this is totally case by case and dependent on the individual. Some prospects simply are raw and aren't ready to step onto an NFL field in their first 2 years.

Then you have your CJ Strouds and Brock Purdys that are basically ready to be leaders from Day 1. It takes time to get there....but not always.

Obviously, situation and supporting cast plays a big part of whether they can have success off the bat or not too.
It seems there are more younger players and backups that are just playing with more confidence and able to move the ball. A light turned on for a bunch of them that tells them they just have to make the throws. Purdy is a great example. No fear right from the start.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,239
Reaction score
1,530
I totally agree. There are those who are ready, those who aren't.
But recall what Jerry Glanville once said. The NFL, Not For Long. The lifespan of a pro football player is comparatively as short as an insect. Every season of development is one year closer to retirement. So in this sport you better grow quickly unlike others that have farm systems and minor leagues. Those 3 or 4 years in the NCAA is where the NFL depends on development.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,496
Reaction score
5,832
Most champion teams rarely put the blame on referees or on one call.
He’s correct he should’nt have imo. First of all and foremost. Rarely do flags get thrown on a Hail Mary. Unless you blatantly tackle someone or just isn’t happening. Secondly when I reviewed that play? Kelce overran position on the ball with a Defender trailing him. He tried to recover by stopping to change directions but Campbell had momentum behind him. No way was Kelce catching that ball as it was Waaaay behind him. That should be factored. That ball was 3-4 yards behind him into a crowd and he knows it. O% chance he overcomes a ball that wasn’t even near him and is surrounded by bodies. His best chances could’ve been a 1% chance at a deflection at best.

The MVS play was a clear foul. Although not as egregious as everyone is making it. Once the DB looks back for the ball he regains the ability to try to catch it. He was reaching over to slap the ball and made some incidental contact. Bordering on a foul, but because he actually hit the ball first with his hand shows his intent to go after the ball, not the player. Once the Defender is seeing touching the ball in an attempt to catch or deflect? It becomes a matter of Referee discretion. Could it be called? Yes. Was it egregious? No.

I’ll agree that the MVS play looked more blatant in slow motion and if you didn’t watch the whole game might vary your opinion too much. In real time sfter the Packers being robbed on near back to back plays? It wasn’t a bad no call. Those are bang bang and the Ref is given discretion to allow leniency for both players to go after the catch. MVS stopped in stride to adjust backwards and you could say interfered with our DB going for an INT. Those are 50/50 balls and had the placement been better and MVS not had to stop on a dime to reach backwards in an awkward attempt to track the ball behind him?

Defenders are receivers as long as they focus on playing the ball they are granted leniency by rule. I don’t believe the contact (which. Agreed happened) was egregious level or purposeful. This is football and these are bang bang plays.

I did see 2 egregious level holding on KC with Preston and Karl that allowed KC to continue drives. Neither got called and both resulted in Chiefs 1st downs at midfield or at the Packers 45 instead of 2nd 18 and 3rd n 28 from inside the KC30
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,496
Reaction score
5,832
One thing we can see in Jordan is how calm and under control he seems out there no matter what happens. I think he got some of that from AR (but one thing I'm glad Love doesn't do is yell at his teammates when they screw up).
Can you imagine. I think they’d all be yelling at each other!! There’s been enough mistakes they’d Possibly even be yelling at the Coaches and fans. This year could’ve been one big YELL session :laugh:
 
OP
OP
longtimefan

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,382
Reaction score
4,105
Location
Milwaukee
Stud NFL HOF getting Vince his ring
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1895.png
    IMG_1895.png
    434.6 KB · Views: 38

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
12,984
Reaction score
2,853
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
3 - The Rice overturned non-fumble should have resulted in a 10 second clock runoff AND the clock being run before the snap. Again, an egregious oversight by the officiating crew.
[Where the officials did get it right was in the timing following the Rashee Rice fumble, Isiah Pacheco ejection and officiating review sandwiched between the other two controversial plays.
Allen reset the clock to 50 seconds – the time of the tackle on Rice – but there was not a 10-second runoff.
“It’s interesting. It’s a good question and it came up,” Blandino said. “Normally, had there not been a foul during the play, there would be a runoff. But because there was a flag during the play, the clock would have stopped, anyway.”
The clock wasn’t put into motion pre-snap, either, so the Chiefs got to treat a tackle-inbounds play as if the tackle were out of bounds. Again, that was officiated correctly.
“By rule in the last 5 minutes of the fourth quarter after a penalty, the clock starts on the snap. It’s just an unusual situation,” Blandino said.]
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,239
Reaction score
1,530
[Where the officials did get it right was in the timing following the Rashee Rice fumble, Isiah Pacheco ejection and officiating review sandwiched between the other two controversial plays.
Allen reset the clock to 50 seconds – the time of the tackle on Rice – but there was not a 10-second runoff.
“It’s interesting. It’s a good question and it came up,” Blandino said. “Normally, had there not been a foul during the play, there would be a runoff. But because there was a flag during the play, the clock would have stopped, anyway.”
The clock wasn’t put into motion pre-snap, either, so the Chiefs got to treat a tackle-inbounds play as if the tackle were out of bounds. Again, that was officiated correctly.
“By rule in the last 5 minutes of the fourth quarter after a penalty, the clock starts on the snap. It’s just an unusual situation,” Blandino said.]
For a moment I thought you were referring to another Rice non-fumble. The 1998 playoff with Jerry Rice fumbling on the game winning drive against us but the refs missed it and there was no replay that year.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
[Where the officials did get it right was in the timing following the Rashee Rice fumble, Isiah Pacheco ejection and officiating review sandwiched between the other two controversial plays.
Allen reset the clock to 50 seconds – the time of the tackle on Rice – but there was not a 10-second runoff.
“It’s interesting. It’s a good question and it came up,” Blandino said. “Normally, had there not been a foul during the play, there would be a runoff. But because there was a flag during the play, the clock would have stopped, anyway.”
The clock wasn’t put into motion pre-snap, either, so the Chiefs got to treat a tackle-inbounds play as if the tackle were out of bounds. Again, that was officiated correctly.
“By rule in the last 5 minutes of the fourth quarter after a penalty, the clock starts on the snap. It’s just an unusual situation,” Blandino said.]
So an offensive player can, in theory, save his team in the final seconds of a game in which a tackle is made in the field of play and they would have not gotten another snap off, by quickly throwing a punch, thus costing his team 15 yards but also killing the clock until the next snap?
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,239
Reaction score
1,530
So an offensive player can, in theory, save his team in the final seconds of a game in which a tackle is made in the field of play and they would have not gotten another snap off, by quickly throwing a punch, thus costing his team 15 yards but also killing the clock until the next snap?
Sounds like something out of tag team wrestling.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
So an offensive player can, in theory, save his team in the final seconds of a game in which a tackle is made in the field of play and they would have not gotten another snap off, by quickly throwing a punch, thus costing his team 15 yards but also killing the clock until the next snap?
Essentially that's Blandino is saying. But, as far as I'm concerned, he's a shill who doesn't tell it like it really is. He sugar-coats everything in a way that makes it sound like the officials can do no evil, and that they, along with him, are geniuses when it comes to "interpretation of rules." Reality is, they're bumbling idiots at times, and they cover for each other like they were cohorts in a bank robbery. Even the reviews are tainted in favor of them "being right on the call," and they act like it's a personal affront if a call is changed half the time.

Anyhow, they've become primadonnas, who believe they have the right to determine the outcome of the game. Repeatedly, you can see offensive linemen hold right in the face of officials, and it springs ball carriers, or prevents sacks. On the next play, they'll call a questionable hold on someone who is on the complete opposite side of where the play is going, and has no bearing on the outcome. The same applies with passes. You'll see them call ticky tacky penalties of holding and interference when the receiver is one of the best, and the defender is a relative unknown, then allow a well known defensive player to maul a receiver if the receiver is an unknown. It's the same BS as we see in college and pro basketball.

Anyhow, that's my opinion of those who have plush part-time jobs that pay six-figures in football and basketball. Baseball ain't far behind I'm afraid, when it comes to calling balls and strikes.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,456
Reaction score
1,315
I rewatched the 2nd half last night and I have to say that I don't think Collinsworth is that bad. He calls the game as he sees it and at times makes good comments. No one is always right. But he certainly was right about the PI to MVS. And though they never call PI on the hail mary; I think we should be careful in the future. And to help, start by rushing four!! I hoped when LaFleur called the time out near the end that it was because he saw a 3 man rush out there and was going to change it. But no. I hope to get rid of Barry just because he is stupid enough to use the 3 man rush. Not that there are not other things.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top