Studs vs Duds against the Lions

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
Two offensive studs and the defense is a total dud? D played well enough to win.

Duds on Clements, MM, Rodgers in the first half, the officials, and Crosby for kicking like he was so nervous he was going to pee his pants with the game on the line.

I'm sure there are some studs on D, but I'm not in the mood to recognize any.

D did more than that and had them shut down for much of the game, probably would have held them to single digits if the offense managed more than a fart in the wind.
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
Here's a thought Clay Matthews just isn't the edge rusher he used to be when he was mostly an OLB. Playing inside so much has hurt part of his game.
 

7thFloorRA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
331
Location
Grafton, WI
Clay is still better playing out of position than anyone else on that D is playing in position. He was also 1 dimensional on the edge. Teams were starting to run him off to the side and out of the play.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
ARodgers: he is ducking and starting to move even before the pressure arrives. His fundamentals have gone down the tubes because of that. He's looking for the pass rush rather than at his receivers. I saw this several times during the game and because of that he failed to see an open receiver several times. His feet aren't planted, his follow-through is not good. He looks simply bad out there. Unfortunately, the pressure often does arrive too son.
I don't think he's "starting to" do this, he has been doing it as some of us have mentioned. I have no idea what's going on with him, just as I have no idea what's going on with the middle of the OL. But if Rodgers doesn't recapture his confidence and accuracy and if the coaching staff doesn't do something different scheme-wise with the offense, the Packers are at best the third best team in their division (giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're better than the Lions in spite of yesterday).
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
Just pure speculation here, but Rodgers looked to be pissy, flustered and out of sorts from the word go yesterday.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,473
Reaction score
604
yes title hopes seem to be fading especially if the Vikings win next week. Are the Vikings Lions for real? They do not have a QB like Rogers, how can they defeat the Green Bay Packers? With their defense??? Oh well I smell a victory coming this week.

Interesting how changing the one word makes this appropriate for posting last week. :)
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,197
Reaction score
7,974
Location
Madison, WI
Dud: I apologize if someone else posted this, but I didn't see it. At the 2:25 mark, Lions on offense, clock running, no timeout called by the coaches, clock runs down to 2:00. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it coaching 101 to use a timeout on defense before the 2 minute warning when your team is down, especially with 25 seconds and 2 timeouts. The lack of using a timeout at that point in the game showed me that maybe even MM is off his game right not.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Dud: I apologize if someone else posted this, but I didn't see it. At the 2:25 mark, Lions on offense, clock running, no timeout called by the coaches, clock runs down to 2:00. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it coaching 101 to use a timeout on defense before the 2 minute warning when your team is down, especially with 25 seconds and 2 timeouts. The lack of using a timeout at that point in the game showed me that maybe even MM is off his game right not.
What actually happened goes against your argument. The Packers didn't lose because they ran out of time, they had a chance to tie the game with a two-point conversion. BTW, the Packers only had two time outs because they wasted one on defense (for a change).
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,197
Reaction score
7,974
Location
Madison, WI
What actually happened goes against your argument. The Packers didn't lose because they ran out of time, they had a chance to tie the game with a two-point conversion. BTW, the Packers only had two time outs because they wasted one on defense (for a change).

I'm not talking about what happened after not using a timeout. Basic coaching philosophy in that situation, you call a timeout to conserve the 25 seconds. This point has been proven over and over again through history to be the way to give your offense more time if they get the ball back.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top