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!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

WHAT was the Biggests reason for this Loss? [Merged Threads]

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by tkpckfan, Oct 8, 2007.

  1. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    The Bears changed in the 2nd half, and MM was calling plays according to their set. Here's MM's quote-
    You think that Jones killing two early drives and Woodson handing the ball back to the Bears after we'd stopped them, and Brett giving it to Urlacher inside the 30 is MM's fault? For being emotional? I fail to see the logic there.
     
  2. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    and that's a crock of crap if I've ever read one. The Bears didn't change? No they just came out in the same defense Brett torched them with in the first half.

    And their safeties weren't sitting back in the cover two either. They were up and aggressive. With us holding every friggin play and sitting on first or second and twenty the whole second half they got better pressure to. Imagine that?

    The question is what game were you watching? I know what game I watched.

    We screwed ourselves the whole second half on down and distance and field position. I am glad we picked up Rouse but I have to tell ya I was ready to punch him in the face after putting us way back there twice with holding calls. Then Tausher? He never holds anybody. I could halfway understand Spitz who had just come in at center for getting one. He hasn't played in awhile.

    Blame the coach all you want but those were bad mental errors on our part and that's what cost us the game. Putting this on the coach is just a real transparent view of this ballgame.
     
  3. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0
    With all due respect Warhawk you are just wrong. The Cover 2 prevents anything deep. What does that have to do with the quick slants that we run religously?

    The 2-Deep takes away deep go routes. You line 2 WR one side and make the saftety make a decision. We threw into cover 2 several times in the first half.
     
  4. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0

    Whats transparent is saying the cover 2 eliminates every bit of passing. It's not the PREVENT! I guess everytime we play a team that goes into 2-Deep we should just ineffectively pound the ball.

    I'm not trying to be rude, but do some research on the cover 2. Thats a very generic term because there are many defenses that incorporate 2 safeties in deep zones. You can have man under, zone under, etc.

    The 2 deep safeties are not going to take away the stuff underneath. Did McCarthy even try that? I just fail to realize how the cover 2 takes away the pass game.
     
  5. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    You make a good point about the cover-2 being over-generalized into the belief that you can absolutely, never ever pass against it. However, the Bears run it almost better than anyone in the game has.

    Here's my take on Mac not trying underneath routes.
    After penalties, we're backed up inside our own 20. We have 1st or 2nd and 15+, it's hard to take a 4-yard underneath route. Two deep safeties limit anything beyond 15 yards or so. Jennings was out hurt, and Jones is struggling to hold onto the ball. So you can go to Driver, who's probably got one man-on and whoever's zone he runs into, so he's essentially doubled.
    You can go to Ruvell, but he's better along the sidelines.

    My point is, with GJ and JJ limited options, facing a stifling pass defense, I would've gone with the running game that had been clicking early in the game. That's JMO, but I think I would've expected exactly that from almost any HC.
     
  6. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0
    At that point though you can throw a screen underneath, get something to a TE,or take the 5-6 yards underneath and live with it. It would seem to get you in better position for 3rd down. Let's say it 1st and 20

    Run for 2 yards - 2nd & 18
    Run for 3 yards - 3rd & 15
    Unmanageable against 2 deep safeties

    Now

    Pass for 6 yards - 2nd & 14
    Pass for 5 yards - 3rd & 9
    Slightly more manageble

    Of course this is highly subjective but it just one way to look at it. You can also hit a Deep post against cover 2 for nice yardage. The Cover 2 didn't take us out of our game, McCarthy's playcall did, IMO
     
  7. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    You should read the transcript of MM's p.c. today. They ask quite a few questions related to this, and MM has a bunch to say about it.

    I think that those passes that you are looking for were attempted on one drive, and it ended with the ball in Brian "I'm a complete a-hole d-bag" Urlacher's hands.
     
  8. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0

    I read it. That was the only pass attempted besides the shovel pass. It got picked and he completely went away from it. Thats what I am saying. The cover 2 didn't get that pass picked off, a bad decision did. Then he didn't even attempt to test it. He got ultra conservative even though we shredded the Cover 2 several times in the first half
     
  9. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    At the end of the transcript, he mentions that they were in a 3-shell in the first half (when we shredded them). They weren't in that defense once in the 2nd half.

    Favre gets panicky and jumpy almost every time he's pinned deep in his own end against the bears, and makes bad decisions for some inexplicable reason. It's tough to expect a HC in the NFL to pass on every play when his offense is pinned inside their own 25. The runs had to have been in part due to a need for ball security, and we paid dearly when we did risk the pass.
     
  10. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: WHAT was the Biggests reason for this Loss? [Merged Thre

    I don't think you can put it all on McCarthy but he was most certainly part of the puzzle. When you have your veterans making costly mistakes things tend to go wrong. McCarthy didn't fumble the ball on a punt return and didn't make a costly mistake in our own red zone up 20 to 10. He didn't fumble on the slants either. McCarthy was part of the problem but like I said with James Jones, he was just a piece of the puzzle to last nights debacle. Same goes for McCarthy.
     
  11. HatestheEagles084

    HatestheEagles084 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,423
    Ratings:
    +1
    I'm a lot more collected than the last 24 hours but I said "I'd be surprised if James Jones gives it up like that again" after the first fumble.

    Yes teams target Brett you even heard Al Michaels quote Lovie Smith saying that Brett's gonna throw it to us at least once this game.

    And at the same time, if a guy has a fumbling problem (I'm not gonna look it up here, so...) 15(?) touches and 2 fumbles you're damn right a defensive back is gonna go for the ball ...
     
  12. WinnipegPackFan

    WinnipegPackFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,943
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: WHAT was the Biggests reason for this Loss? [Merged Thre

    Note of interest:

    Cowgirls commit six turnovers today ( 5 picks by Romo alone ) and still manage to win the game.

    That's all this is, a note of interest !!!
     
  13. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    We should have won, simple as that. We didn't.

    Discussion > Redskins...
     
  14. WinnipegPackFan

    WinnipegPackFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,943
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: WHAT was the Biggests reason for this Loss? [Merged Thre

    Agreed, time to move on Z2Z !!!
     
  15. axelred13

    axelred13 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    172
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think MM is a stubborn man. He decided he was going to come out and run in order to protect the lead and take time off the clock. But that is what the Bears wanted us to do. They were trying to take away the passing game because they knew we couldn't run if the game depended on it. It was like running into a brick wall and MM thought eventually that wall would move. It didn't.

    We moved the ball on the ground in the first quarter solely out of surprise, which in turn opened up the passing game and Brett threw the ball all over the field. But when something doesn't work an head coach has to be willing to be flexible in order to find something that works. MM didn't do that. He insisted on running the ball which hasn't worked all season except for one quarter.

    Take away one turnover I think we win. But even with the turnovers we still had a shot at winning that game but MM limited us winning with his stubborn playcalling.
     
  16. PackerChick

    PackerChick Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,143
    Ratings:
    +1
    It was definitely those two early turnovers that hurt us for sure. We also let our guard down as well.

    Let's learn from this and move on to the next challenge and have a better game next time.
     
  17. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Thank You. The Bears run an aggressive form of cover two and the safeties are closer to the line then normal or at least did that Sunday. The down and distance and poor field position we created for ourselves put us in a hole.

    If Washington comes with this we have to be able to run the ball and get favorable down and distance situations. That means we cannot afford holding penalties on the returns or on first and second downs.

    We cannot afford to let the Dbacks sit on the routes like that and running it affectively is the way to break it down.

    You can bet Washington was watching Sunday night. It's the only half our offense has been held down.

    If Washington comes out in a similar defense the question is will we run it like we did in the first half or like we did in the second half? I'm thinking we will be fine if we don't keep shooting ourselves in the foot with penalties and poor field position which definately lets defense be more aggressive.
     
  18. IGHPack

    IGHPack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    Ratings:
    +0
    I not see any one complaining about the plays by Bush. I thought he could have been doing a better job on some of the passes he had to defend.
     
  19. Buckeyepackfan

    Buckeyepackfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +0
    The biggest reason that The Bears beat The Packer is that The Bears scored more points.
    Simple as that.
    Funny thing I looked at the standings this morning and it still showed The Packers in first place in The North division.
    We gave one away, so what, there are 16 weeks in the season, I sometime forget that some on this forum expect every Packer to play perfect every game and The Packers are supposed to win every game or changes should be made.
    I suggest to some of you who is letting Sunday night just eat at you, to step away for a day or two and get ready for this Sunday.
    I am sure the players and coaches both know that there are improvements that need to be made and mistakes to be eliminated, so try to enjoy the fact that he Packers are 4-1 after five and have a good chance of being 5-1 going into their bye week.
    I would have taken 3-3 at the bye week looking at the schedule at the beginning of the year and I bet most of you would have to.
    If you can't enjoy the journey arriving at your destination will be a big dissapointment.
     

Share This Page