1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

What did we learn in Week 2?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by GreenBlood, Sep 13, 2012.

  1. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    I don't see how MM bears any responsibility for that play. You have to mix it up because the Bears are still good enough to bottle up your run if they know that's all you're going to do.
     
  2. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,094
    Ratings:
    +1,429
    Several things.

    1. For the first time in a long time I have absolutely no complaints about our defense.

    2. Benson and the running game looked solid but keep in mind the Bears are not SF. It's apple and oranges run D.

    3. O-Line. Needs work. Not much more I can say.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +445
    Beating the Bears is my favorite thing about being an NFL fan second only to winning a Lombardi. Every victory over them is a dance.
    I'd like to be "that guy" and tell everyone I told you so after last week's debacle against the 9ers. But I'm not. So I won't.
     
  4. MiamiBeachPacker

    MiamiBeachPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    631
    Ratings:
    +257
    I'll just repeat what I already said earlier in this thread. We learned that we shouldn't overreact based on how the offense or defense performs in a single game. I think the offense is going to finally get in sync during the Seahawks game, and the defense will have a performance somewhere in between what they did during the 49ers game and the Bear game.
     
  5. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,247
    Ratings:
    +3,289
    I agree about overreacting either way.

    Regarding the INT, I don’t place any of the blame on Rodgers – it’s one of many timing routes in which the QB has to trust the WR to make the proper break. Rodgers threw the ball before Jones screwed up his route. BTW McCarthy gave the reasoning behind the call. Because of the game situation the Bears were playing inside leverage knowing the Packers didn’t want to catch a ball at the sidelines and be forced out of bounds, stopping the clock. McCarthy was attempting to take advantage of the Bears over-playing the inside. On that play, the CB was behind Jones as the pass was being thrown, perhaps protecting against a deep move. I still don’t like it but McCarthy did have a reason for that route.

    Another thing learned: It’s hard to objectively evaluate anything when you have preconceived ideas about that thing. Of course that goes for me too and no one can be completely objective, but here are a couple examples IMO of preconceived ideas coloring Packers fans opinions.

    Someone posted, “I think Dom Capers deserves at least a little credit for this one”. Preconceived idea: Capers is a bad DC and deserves to be fired. Another poster who has been adamant about Capers' firing spells it out: When the D is good/great it’s the players, when it’s bad/stinks its Capers fault. That's as subjective as it gets.

    Preconceived idea: Jones and Finley struggle with drops. So when Jordy Nelson has two drive/momentum killing drops they don’t get mentioned. On the first series Jordy dropped a third down pass that hit him in the hands. That resulted in a three-and-out. On the next series Nelson didn’t catch what I considered a very catchable deep pass at about the Bears’ 25 yard line. Nelson has good hands but when he drops catchable balls he deserves to be criticized just like everyone else.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,757
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    I am learning that SOME Giant fans that post here have a had time finding the forum again to back up their 1st week predictions
     
  7. FrankRizzo

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,889
    Ratings:
    +1,679
    Another thing I learned, saw, witnessed today was that Eli can take an ugly game, down by double digits most of the game into the 4th quarter, can turn it around and play his best in the game's final quarter, and produce wins.

    I think we saw a study about that on Cold Hard Football Facts this summer... and Eli did it again.

    And the Eagles just got another lucky close win to go to 2-0. They should have lost both games.
    Patriots almost pulled a rabbit's foot out of their arses too. Was JUSTICE that their kicker choke-shanked the kick at the end!

    Vikings almost pulled another one out too.
    After the Lions lose at San Fran tonight (or is it tomorrow), all 4 of our division teams will be 1-1.
     
  8. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Vernon Davis learned that he can't spike on the goalpost.

    The #1 threat in the league is a bunch of panhandlers, who, quite frankly, will handle your pans all the way back to the locker room.
     
  9. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    It's fine if the Bears "bottle up the run". You're up 20 with seven minutes left. You call halfback dive three times and take two full minutes off the clock. The Bears now have the ball down 20 with five minutes to go and need to drive 70 or 80 yards for a TD. An incomplete pass stops the clock and an interception kills field position. A simple run was the correct call.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    That may be, but he didn't throw the INT, did he? Rodgers had the option to pick up 2 or 3 yards and slide to keep the clock running. I still fail to see how MM is to blame for Rodgers and Jones messing up a play.
     
  11. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    Because he called a pass play in a run situation. That's as simple of an explanation I could give.

    With that said, I already said the play was the combined fault of McCarthy, Jones and Rodgers. McCarthy for calling a pass play in a running situation, Jones for running the wrong route and quitting on the route and Rodgers for throwing the ball directly to a corner.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  12. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    I disagree with your premise. You're saying the INT is partly MM's fault because he called for a pass in what you deem to be a running situation, right? But the situation on the field is irrelevant to the argument. If you're going to say that this INT was partly MM's fault, then you must also conclude that ANY INT where he also had the option to call a run play is also partly his fault. In other words, every INT ever thrown was partly the coach's fault for calling a pass play (unless the QB audibles to it, in which case the coach still is to blame for giving his QB the option). So the only way for a coach to not catch blame for an INT is to run the ball 100% of the time. Whether you intend to or not, that's the case you're making here.

    Here's a question for you. If we had run the ball on that play and Benson had fumbled, would that have been partly MM's fault? Why or why not? If that happened, the argument could be made that if he hadn't called a run and instead had his QB simply kneel on the ball, the fumble never would have happened. If the goal is only to take 2 minutes off the clock, as you mentioned before, and not to keep the chains moving, then running the ball at all would be foolish, would it not? You see where I'm going here?

    You don't stop competing just because you want the clock to run.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Approach every game as important. Bring the same level of intensity that was shown by the defense in the Bears game to every game.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    This is my face when reading your post: :eek:

    The situation on the field can't be irrelevant because it's the basis for the entire arguement. In THAT situation, MM shares blame for the INT by calling a pass play in a run situation. Without the play call, Jones doesn't run the wrong route and Rodgers doesn't throw an INT (IN THAT SITUTATION).

    And running the ball at the end of the game doesn't mean you stopped competing, it means you know what is going on in the game. You run to end the game. Drain the clock and make the other team drive the length of the field for any/all points.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  15. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    Regarding this hypothetical: If a run play was called and Benson fumbled, the fault rests 100% on Benson. A run play was still the CORRECT PLAY CALL FOR THE SITUATION. Benson was brought in to be a closer. He should have been given the chance to close.

    My comment regarding "taking two minutes off of the clock" is a worse case scenario where Benson doesn't gain a first down in 3 tries. Running the ball starts the clock. You give a Bears offense that has been struggling to get past mid-field the whole game less time and more ground to cover. The Bears aren't a great run-stuffing defense any more. Urlacher can't shed blocks or move any more.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  16. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    The Bears defense is good enough that if they KNOW you are running the ball, they can still stuff you. The point is you MUST continue to mix it up. Otherwise, you may as well take three knees and punt. CASE IN POINT: On the ensuing possession following the touchdown the Bears got after the interception, Benson and Green combined to have 3 carries for -1 yards.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  17. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    So what? Are you telling me if he had called that play in the 3rd quarter and it played out exactly the same way, it would NOT be MM's fault but because there was 8:30 left in the 4th quarter when it happened, somehow that means it IS his fault? Nonsense. It's a false pretense.

    I don't think you understand that we simply don't have the horses up front to play that game. For our run game to be effective, we MUST use the threat of a pass to keep the defense from putting 8 in the box. For us, if you're not willing to throw it every few plays, you might as well take that knee. And we're not talking about the last 4 minutes of the game here, BTW. We're talking about 8 minutes on the clock, which is PLENTY of time for your opponent to score 3 touchdown if you keep going 3 and out. At that point of the game you still want to keep those chains moving. Running ALONE isn't going to do that for us. The play call by MM was perfectly reasonable, even within the context of the game situation.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  18. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    And like that *poof* I'm done with this conversation (kaiser soza style)
     
  19. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    I think you mean Keyser Soze.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    I find it hilarious that my original post (#30) which started this "arguement" got three likes... but since you can't wrap your head around the play call, just disagree with every post in the whole thread.
     
  21. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    You started that, not I. I made two points that you can't refute so you instead just disagree and run.
     
  22. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    You actually made zero points I couldn't refute. I talked about one play in one game. I was looking at a play in a vacuum. You wanted to take what I was talking about and apply to every situation of every game. You compared apples to giraffes and declared yourself the winner.
     
  23. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    I made the case that we were NOT able to run against them when they knew it was coming and I used statistical facts to back it up.

    I also made the argument that there was plenty of time for an NFL (even the Bears) to score 3 touchdowns if we simply kept going 3 and out. We're NOT a team that can run out the clock by running every single play.

    Then for some reason you bailed and started hitting "Disagree" on everything. So instead of disagreeing for the heck of it, how about articulating WHY you disagree? Do you disagree because you think we CAN use our running game exclusively to run out the clock (even though we had -1 yds on 3 carries on the following posession?) Is it because you assume the Bears could never score 3 TDs if we simply kept going three and out? What part did you disagree with?
     
  24. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    Post #89 and #90 pretty much sums up the entire arguement about why a running play was appropriate.

    And BTW, you didn't provide stats showing that the Packers can't run when a team knows they're going to run. All you did was list the yardage of the next three rushing plays. If that's statistical proof, you need to go back to stats class.
     
  25. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    I didn't "bail". I just realized that no matter how many times I tried to focus on the conversation on one single play of one single game, you'd keep expanding the discussion. Once again, I was talking apples and you were talking giraffes. There was not point in continuing a discussion that was going to continually go off subject.

    I disagree with everything you said. Anybody who's played football or has been around football knows you need to get the clock running. A team cannot score with 00:00 on the clock after four quarters. Not to mention, the Packers defense kept the Bears on their own side of the 50 the entire game. It is unreasonable to believe that the Bears would all of a sudden be able to put together three 70-80 yard drives in seven minutes. A run play, whether the Bears knew it was coming or not, was the correct call on first down.
     

Share This Page