Studs and Duds Lion game

[TJV]

… and I am going to watch our offensive line that you said "I was being way to optimistic about" open up holes for Lacy and protect Rodgers and I am going to watch our "53 man roster that you said I was crazy for touting so much" get it done among all the other things that I could on and on about at the beginning of the season that you said I was wrong about.

If I am moderately objectively wrong when disrespecting opponents that have earned respect then I can't even put into words how wrong you were and are when it came to your evaluation of our team at the beginning of the year

You really want to boast about what you posted before this season? Within a month of opening day here’s a sample of what you posted:

I've been saying were gonna out-smash them for awhile now and some people just don't get it.

Well I don't listen to commentators. I watch film. The Seahawks played 4-3 base or there nickle package almost all year last year. My point is the same it's been for awhile now. They simply don't have the personnel upfront to disrupt with 4 anymore. They lack explosive twitch up front.
Were going to smoke these fools.

These cocky-*** fraudsters are primed for an *** whooping. We have the team to deliver one. I will say it again as we are going to smoke these fools.

A couple of weeks before the opener, captainWIMM directed this post to you:

I just don't understand why a lot of you can't give credit to a pretty damn good team when it's deserved. The Packers will have a chance to win at Seattle, but it won't be a cakewalk by any means as some of you have suggested for quite some time.

Sound familiar? Here’s your reply:

Sorry Captain. The Seahawks don't even win there division this year. We are going to beat the Seahawks upfront on both sides of the ball, plain and simple. Write it down. Save it. Repeat it. Bet it. Remember it. Meditate it if you want. The thing is it's not even that bold of a prediction because the Seahawk defense Kool-Aid is running out of sugar.

In addition you had multiple posts about all the players the Seahawks lost, how Lynch was out of shape, about all the injuries on their OL, how their player acquisitions looked like they were in panic mode, and about how foolish their GM was (who BTW has the same number of championship rings as Thompson).

You don’t need a reminder of how that game turned out, do you? Fast forward to the end of this season and there’s no question the Packers are a much better team. But so are the Seahawks, particularly on defense. Over the first ten games of the season their opponents averaged 21.5 ppg, over the last six, 6.5 ppg. They went from leading the league in points surrendered and yards surrendered last season to leading the league in points surrendered and yards surrendered this season. So much for their “defense Kool-Aid is running out of sugar”, huh?

Of course if the Packers travel to Seattle they have a chance to win. And the Seahawks are the one team in the playoffs I am most rooting against. But you looked like a fool disrespecting their team. And to the extent your posts were read your contribution to this forum made Packers fans here look foolish.

 

[yooperpackfan]

In a double digit win, how can you give coaching a dud for just one series of play?

Because it was so boneheaded it was beyond belief.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think your right about this West Coast style game plan. I went back and watched the Seahawks vs Giants and the Giants moved the ball on them and they run the west coast offense. They had receivers open but of course the problem was Eli was erratic at times, they have a limited running game, and it's well known about there OL issues. The only real piece they have in place is Odell Beckham with Cruz out. Still, they were able to have some very good success moving the ball on that Seahawks defense. Elie threw for almost 300 yards.

It looks like MM is really on to something here.

I would caution that both Wagner and Chancellor did not play in the Giants game. Those guys, together with Thomas, are capable of closing down the middle of the field.

I'm not saying the Packers can go out and run short slants, seams and timing routes all day against these guys. The point was that in recent years we'd "show" those routes a couple times a game, seemingly never willing to use them as a staple of the offense when the match ups dictated, counting on money plays at the perimeter and in the deep zones.

These last two games showed a willingness to be patient and use the short middle of the field to move and control the ball together with a heavy mix of the run game. I'm encouraged by this development because it signals a willingness to take what the defense gives. If nothing else, it's been at least two games since we've seen those frustrating 3rd. and 1 shots down the field.

What Seattle chooses to give up remains to be seen. But a willingness to make available all options in the arsenal is encouraging. I would hope the experience of the last two games will make for a more flexible game plan than we've seen in the past.

If this shift back to West Coast principles is simply concern for Rodgers mobility, ability to extend plays and risk of aggravating the injury, I'll be sorely disappointed.

 

[Carl]

It was a low kick, Crosby said himself.

Also, remember Crosby in 2012...missed the 51 yarder on the carpet in Indianapolis. It is amazing how people trust him. I don't and Mike McCarthy doesn't.

That kick would have to have been as high as that safety punt in order to not be blocked.

Also, I could find one good kick and call him good, like the 53 yarder recently vs. Atlanta.

 

[Carl]

Because it was so boneheaded it was beyond belief.

We can disagree that it makes him a dud for the whole game. Clearly, most of his other decisions worked out based on the results.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You're right. It was a bit over the top.

It's just that we've seen the same thuggish behaviour from the Lions over the years.

I'm supposed to get riled up when the Pack plays the Bears. Frankly that rivalry is passe' to me. Maybe it's because I have or used to have very strong ties to Chicagoland.

It's the Lions that get me going.

You wrote and the deleted the following, addressed to me, from this post:

"In the context of a football game against the Green Bay Packers and the Detroit Lions, it is quite understandable and acceptable to say "Detroit" and anyone with standard intelligence should be able to understand that we are talking about the Lions and not the actual city of Detroit."

Do I need to address this or not?

 

[Narveson]

Late to the party but I did some research. Eddie Lacy rushed for 100 yards in the game. It's the first time all year that Detroit gave up a C note to a rusher. #1 rush defense in terms of yardage and the Pack ran up 152 for the game. I think it's a statement going forward in the playoffs and maybe it'll open some eyes that "Hey, we can run the ball on anyone".

 

[brandon2348]

You really want to boast about what you posted before this season? Within a month of opening day here’s a sample of what you posted:A couple of weeks before the opener, captainWIMM directed this post to you: Sound familiar? Here’s your reply: In addition you had multiple posts about all the players the Seahawks lost, how Lynch was out of shape, about all the injuries on their OL was, how their player acquisitions looked like they were in panic mode, and about how foolish their GM was (who BTW has the same number of championship rings as Thompson).

You don’t need a reminder of how that game went, do you? Fast forward to the end of this season and there’s no question the Packers are a much better team. But so are the Seahawks, particularly on defense. Over the first ten games of the season their opponents averaged 21.5 ppg, over the last six, 6.5 ppg. They went from leading the league in points surrendered and yards surrendered last season to leading the league in points surrendered and yards surrendered this season. So much for their “defense Kool-Aid is running out of sugar”, huh?

Of course if the Packers travel to Seattle they have a chance to win. And the Seahawks are the one team in the playoffs I am most rooting against. But you looked like a fool disrespecting their team. And to the extent your posts were read your contribution to this forum made Packers fans here look foolish.

You really want to boast about what you posted before this season? Within a month of opening day here’s a sample of what you posted:A couple of weeks before the opener, captainWIMM directed this post to you: Sound familiar? Here’s your reply: In addition you had multiple posts about all the players the Seahawks lost, how Lynch was out of shape, about all the injuries on their OL was, how their player acquisitions looked like they were in panic mode, and about how foolish their GM was (who BTW has the same number of championship rings as Thompson).

You don’t need a reminder of how that game went, do you? Fast forward to the end of this season and there’s no question the Packers are a much better team. But so are the Seahawks, particularly on defense. Over the first ten games of the season their opponents averaged 21.5 ppg, over the last six, 6.5 ppg. They went from leading the league in points surrendered and yards surrendered last season to leading the league in points surrendered and yards surrendered this season. So much for their “defense Kool-Aid is running out of sugar”, huh?

Of course if the Packers travel to Seattle they have a chance to win. And the Seahawks are the one team in the playoffs I am most rooting against. But you looked like a fool disrespecting their team. And to the extent your posts were read your contribution to this forum made Packers fans here look foolish.

I was wrong about the the opener in the Seahawks game and expected a different outcome. I was probably being a little too aggressive with my predictions in a season opener with us having so many rookies and young guys playing together so early. Let's call it "season opening excitement". I expected the Packers team that is playing the way they are today to be that team earlier in the season which didn't just let me down in the Seahawks game early on. I suppose that was just too much to ask. The vision was there but the development was not yet and some re-tooling needed to take place. Regardless, I have already been razzed about this game already so I don't know why it's being brought up again. I am not gonna sit here all day and pull up posts that were written and were hammered and tortured by you and a couple others that look pretty darn foolish right now as well. I know what was said and what others said. If you want to get right down to it I would rather be right about NFC Championship game then the season opener any day.

As far as the Seahawks I can come to an agreement that making three consecutive trips to the divisional round along with a Super Bowl is a pretty darn good accomplishment. Lynch obviously has some more left in the tank then I thought and I wasn't jumping out on a tiny limb that a 28 year old physical running back would show some decline. I can't blame the Seahawks as they don't make there schedule but they won that division because Carson Palmer got hurt. Go look up the list of QB's they played against the last 6 games and I don't think it would be that hard for our defense to put up similar numbers. I am sure I am going to get hammered and tortured again for saying it but "right now" I believe we are the better team from top to bottom then the Seahawks. I am not buying there last 6 game run as they haven't played anyone with the horse's to beat them. I thought maybe at Philly but Sanchez and Philly's secondary is a joke.

Overall I just don't see the Seahwks as stout upfront and if you put together a defensive game plan like the Rams did last week and take away Wilson's feet forcing him into a high volume passer you can shut them down. Score 20 plus and there gone.

I will never respect the Seahawks, there organization, there fan base or anything that involves them. I suggest you go spend a season in Seattle and get back to me.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That kick would have to have been as high as that safety punt in order to not be blocked.

Also, I could find one good kick and call him good, like the 53 yarder recently vs. Atlanta.

If memory serves, that 53 yarder against Atlanta was another of those Crosby 2014 semi-line-drive kicks that could have been blocked with a well-timed leap.

For nearly all kickers, and especially Crosby, making a 52 yarder in 20 degree weather is a low probability affair. The difference between dome kicking and 20 degree weather is about 5 yds. at that distance, making the attempt effectively 57 yds. Kickers know this and tend to over swing, at which point the odds of something good happening are fairly low.

4th. and 6 at the opponents 34 under those conditions? You go for it. The odds of making a first down are somewhat better than making that kick. If you happen to get that first down you've kept control of the ball deep in the opponents territory with momentum; if you don't get the first down, you've at least picked up 7 or 8 yards in field position compared to a missed FG, which is the prohibitive odds outcome.

Trying that kick is "hoping"; going for the first down is the better risk/reward proposition.

 

[brandon2348]

I would caution that both Wagner and Chancellor did not play in the Giants game. Those guys, together with Thomas, are capable of closing down the middle of the field.

I'm not saying the Packers can go out and run short slants, seams and timing routes all day against these guys. The point was that in recent years we'd "show" those routes a couple times a game, seemingly never willing to use them as a staple of the offense when the match ups dictated, counting on money plays at the perimeter and in the deep zones.

These last two games showed a willingness to be patient and use the short middle of the field to move and control the ball together with a heavy mix of the run game. I'm encouraged by this development because it signals a willingness to take what the defense gives. If nothing else, it's been at least two games since we've seen those frustrating 3rd. and 1 shots down the field.

What Seattle chooses to give up remains to be seen. But a willingness to make available all options in the arsenal is encouraging. I would hope the experience of the last two games will make for a more flexible game plan than we've seen in the past.

If this shift back to West Coast principles is simply concern for Rodgers mobility, ability to extend plays and risk of aggravating the injury, I'll be sorely disappointed.

Yeah I would have to agree. The 3 and 1 missile down field ending the drive get's old if it isn't there. I really like the consistency of the shorter passing game. Especially with teams that play more deep zone. I think as you posted somewhere else were going to need Jordy, Cobb and the others to really put there big boy pants on and not let there will get broken cause there gonna get hit a lot. If they can hold up I like our chances.

 

[yooperpackfan]

We can disagree that it makes him a dud for the whole game. Clearly, most of his other decisions worked out based on the results.

You must have me confused with someone else.
I never said McCarthy was a dud period.
His boneheaded play calling near the goal line cost us a touchdown.
Looking back at the response to another post I guess you could construe that I also regarded MM as a dud for the game.
I assure you that is not the case.
But he did go brain dead during those 4 particular plays. IMHO.

 

[brandon2348]

You must have me confused with someone else.
I never said McCarthy was a dud period.
His boneheaded play calling near the goal line cost us a touchdown.
Looking back at the response to another post I guess you could construe that I also regarded MM as a dud for the game.
I assure you that is not the case.
But he did go brain dead during those 4 particular plays. IMHO.

both in the Tampa game and in the Detroit game he went to an empty set on the 1 yard line that sometimes I don't understand.

 

[yooperpackfan]

both in the Tampa game and in the Detroit game he went to an empty set on the 1 yard line that sometimes I don't understand.

I don't understand either.
Not only are you telegraphing you intentions but you are taking away options at the LOS.

 

[Cwoodson21]

Matt Stafford was a stud for the Packers and a dud for his own team. I don't have the count on how many throws he missed but it saved the Packer defense's butt more than a few times. He had 21 incompetions, one more than completions, and threw only 3 more passes than Rodgers even with ARod out for the beginning of the second half.

I agree. It could have been a completely different game if Stafford had been more accurate. But on some of his throws that appeard to be inaccurate he was just getting rid of the ball because of good coverage by Williams and Shields.

 

[brandon2348]

After further review it is safe to say our offense completely dominated the Lions defense on Sunday. At least as much as they did to our offense in the first meeting.

It all started up front where the offensive line came out and "manhandled" the no.1 rated run defense in football. The push up front was incredible and surpassed even my expectations. Lacy and Starks combined for 126 yards on 31 carries for 4 yards a carry with the average getting brought down a little due to some runs late in the game to eat the clock.

It even gets better as Rodgers I think was touched maybe one time back there other then Suh stepping on him which I believe came out of pure frustration from getting dominated by a 5th round rookie all day. Linsley took this guys lunch money. TT can still draft everyone.

Rodgers threw with pin point accuracy going 17-22 and hitting Cobb and Nelson mostly on underneath routes that the Lions just had no answer for. You can only take away so much from the way MM is running this "Rodgers, Nelson, Cobb, Lacy Show" right now. I hate to throw the word out unstoppable but it really is "pick your poison" the way the offensive line is playing.

Here is the dagger. The Lions have only given up 30 points one time this season to the Pat's. If we convert on goal line and don't get FG blocked we put up 40. Lacy also fumbled on another drive that should of brought 3 points at the least.

* I understand Hyde TD was a special teams score

All this and our QB played most of the game on one leg and we spotted them two possessions with Rodgers getting treatment in locker room. If this performance against the no.2 rated defense in the NFL doesn't get you "all in" I don't know what will.

I may be homer but at least I am "Green Bay Packer Homer"

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[TJV]

I was probably being a little too aggressive with my predictions in a season opener …

Read what you wrote “Were going to smoke these fools.” “These cocky-*** fraudsters are primed for an *** whooping.” “…the Seahawk defense Kool-Aid is running out of sugar.” You weren’t just a little too aggressive, you were being a *******.

I have already been razzed about this game already so I don't know why it's being brought up again.

This was brought up again because you criticized other Packers fans as being ridiculous when you were just as guilty of being ridiculous yourself.

I am not gonna sit here all day and pull up posts that were written and were hammered and tortured by you and a couple others that look pretty darn foolish right now as well. I know what was said and what others said. If you want to get right down to it I would rather be right about NFC Championship game then the season opener any day.

Two things: Go pull up anything you want and you won’t find anything like the ridiculous BS you posted. It’s not just because you were wrong or optimistic: You were obnoxious. And you weren't posting about the NFC Championship game - if you were you wouldn't have included the Seahawks, would you?

I suggest you go spend a season in Seattle and get back to me.

I suggest you post as if you were an adult.

 

[brandon2348]

Read what you wrote “Were going to smoke these fools.” “These cocky-*** fraudsters are primed for an *** whooping.” “…the Seahawk defense Kool-Aid is running out of sugar.” You weren’t just a little too aggressive, you were being a *******. This was brought up again because you criticized other Packers fans as being ridiculous when you were just as guilty of being ridiculous yourself. Two things: Go pull up anything you want and you won’t find anything like the ridiculous BS you posted. It’s not just because you were wrong or optimistic: You were obnoxious. And you weren't posting about the NFC Championship game - if you were you wouldn't have included the Seahawks, would you? I suggest you post as if you were an adult.

I wasn't talking about the NFC championship game back then and never said I was. I basically said if we get em again were going to get em this time and I am going to go to the game if it happens in my recent post. Don't I have a right to feel that way or is that being too obnoxious for you? All I can really say is there were some Seahawks fans in here egging me on some and I can see I took it a little too far with my posting with some Packer fans as well regarding the matter. If you found it be obnoxious I do apologize. It's really not worth arguing over and over about something that happened back in August. I think I have pretty much toned it down since the build up to that game so I really don't know what your ongoing complaint is here other then to just beat something over and over again. If you wanna tee off and call me a Jack *** then go for it. Obviously you have been holding some deep resentments regarding the matter for some time. I hope this helps.

I can give you some examples where I have posted of other teams that we played where I warned of the opponent despite others being a overly-confident. Most recently I was one of the ones that talked of the Bills and how they could be a threat. I gave the Bills nothing but high remarks of there defensive front and this was done well before we played them. I didn't go on a temper tantrum because some people thought the Bills were a joke. But yes I have been right and wrong just like anyone else on here.

I have not posted as much as you but I have made about over 1300 posts and maybe I don't have as much as some I do have over 300 of those receiving a positive rating. I have had 18 posts where someone has rated my post with a disagreement rating. I really don't feel that constitutes obnoxious behavior over a pretty decent sample size. I don't feel I have been on here bullying people. I think the moderator gave me a warning regarding something last winter.

Are you done? If your not and you don't like my insight and opinions then just turn me off and put me on ignore.

 

[brandon2348]

Read what you wrote “Were going to smoke these fools.” “These cocky-*** fraudsters are primed for an *** whooping.” “…the Seahawk defense Kool-Aid is running out of sugar.” You weren’t just a little too aggressive, you were being a *******. This was brought up again because you criticized other Packers fans as being ridiculous when you were just as guilty of being ridiculous yourself. Two things: Go pull up anything you want and you won’t find anything like the ridiculous BS you posted. It’s not just because you were wrong or optimistic: You were obnoxious. And you weren't posting about the NFC Championship game - if you were you wouldn't have included the Seahawks, would you? I suggest you post as if you were an adult.

One more thing. Were two games away from the Super Bowl and your going on and on about some petty *** crap that happened 5 months ago. Can't you find anything else to focus on with us just being two games from a Super Bowl?

I make a comment because several people have been complaining about the game day chat box and you go on this witch hunt about a game back in August.

RELAX

 

[MichiganSportsTalk]

If we convert on goal line and don't get FG blocked we put up 40. Lacy also fumbled on another drive that should of brought 3 points at the least.

Here is the problem with "if"....

If this gets called, there is no TD.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

If Bell doesn't fumble in the 4th quarter, Green Bay doesn't have short field for an easy score.

If Bell's 2 point conversion counted, game was still winnable.

If Stafford doesn't get called for grounding (with receivers in the area), there is no safety, no need for 2 pt conversion that was called off.

If Lombardi kept Bush on the sidelines where he belonged and kept running Bell who was averaging 4.6 YPC, Detroit might have held the ball longer giving them more opportunity to score.

The point is this, we can talk about the "if" factor all day, but what happened happened. Green Bay played better and won the game. Rather than focus on "if", both teams will focus on the "why" of their missed opportunities.

 

[brandon2348]

Here is the problem with "if"....

If this gets called, there is no TD.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

If Bell doesn't fumble in the 4th quarter, Green Bay doesn't have short field for an easy score.

If Bell's 2 point conversion counted, game was still winnable.

If Stafford doesn't get called for grounding (with receivers in the area), there is no safety, no need for 2 pt conversion that was called off.

If Lombardi kept Bush on the sidelines where he belonged and kept running Bell who was averaging 4.6 YPC, Detroit might have held the ball longer giving them more opportunity to score.

The point is this, we can talk about the "if" factor all day, but what happened happened. Green Bay played better and won the game. Rather than focus on "if", both teams will focus on the "why" of their missed opportunities.

Hey I am all for the Lions beating Dallas and handling Seattle up in the Link and setting up a 3rd game. I am one of the few that think they can pull it off. I wouldn't be shocked. Plus, I am tired of the NFC North getting no love.

The fact is that on Sunday we dominated. I mean common. Your big "wrecking ball" D-line couldn't even get close to a our one legged QB. You should know by now your chances of beating Aaron Rodgers with that happening is next to zero.

You needed a big game from Stafford and didn't get it Sunday.

 

[GhostofCurly]

Trying that kick is "hoping"; going for the first down is the better risk/reward proposition.

That decision to attempt a 53 yarder darn near caused my head to explode. I'll agree going on 4th down would have been the better call at that area of the field. Even if you get stuffed you save 10 yards as opposed to a missed/blocked FGA.

 

[GhostofCurly]

Can someone tell me what is considered "in the area"? There was no Lion receiver within 12 yards of that throw that Stafford was flagged for. That hardly seems like "in the area".

 

[MichiganSportsTalk]

Hey I am all for the Lions beating Dallas and handling Seattle up in the Link and setting up a 3rd game. I am one of the few that think they can pull it off. I wouldn't be shocked. Plus, I am tired of the NFC North getting no love.

I think the Lions have a better chance in Dallas than they did in Green Bay. One, it's in a dome. Two, they have done well against the Cowboys in recent years. Having Suh will certainly help the defensive side, but the offense needs to start clicking.

The fact is that on Sunday we dominated.

We have different definitions of "dominated" it would seem.

You needed a big game from Stafford and didn't get it Sunday.

On this I disagree. I think we needed less Stafford in that game. It wasn't explosive, but the run game was doing fine in the first half. The game was still close when Lombardi abandoned it and basically told Stafford "go win this with your arm". That might have worked against lesser teams, but why he thought that would work against the Packers in Green Bay I'll never know.

 

[MichiganSportsTalk]

Can someone tell me what is considered "in the area"? There was no Lion receiver within 12 yards of that throw that Stafford was flagged for. That hardly seems like "in the area".

It's not as much about where the receivers are as it is about where they are heading.

"Intentional Grounding of Forward Pass
Intentional grounding of a forward pass is a foul: loss of down and 10 yards from previous spot if passer is in the field of play or loss of down at the spot of the foul if it occurs more than 10 yards behind the line or safety if passer is in his own end zone when ball is released.

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line)."

The second part of the rule is what is applicable. Johnson and Ebron are the two in the area. Johnson wasn't moving, so he doesn't count. Ebron was running towards where the ball landed before it was thrown, but he stopped running while the ball was in mid air.

Most of the time leeway/benefit of the doubt is given in this type of play. For example receiver runs a route in which he is to run 10-15 yards and turn back for the ball. QB thinks he is running a deep route. QB launches the ball. Receiver turns expecting the pass, and instead watches it sail 15 feet over his head. Some would argue that is simply mis-communication, and not the same thing, but it technically falls into the grounding rule because of the wording. This is one of the instances where officials make a judgment call rather than enforce the rule to the letter.

After he throws it, Stafford stares at Ebron and points to the sideline as if he expected him to be there. To me, that would indicate simple mis-communication.

That's just my take on it though. One that is probably biased. But only a touch

 

[GhostofCurly]

No realistic chance of completion on that play. If the officials went off of a QB motioning that it was a miscommunication it would never be called. I was reading detroitlionsforum.com, and believe me, you are nothing like that bunch.