Who can beat Seattle in Seattle?

[Sunshinepacker]

The coach didn't lose the Bills game. Almost 10 dropped passes, some very crucial ones that resulted in punts rather than 1st downs, missed TD's, and turnovers rather than moving the chains cost us the game. Toss in some questionable penalties on big plays and we get what we got, beat.

Coaches lost the game. Yeah, the dropped passes hurt but their wouldn't have been that many dropped passes if the coaches had decided to RUN THE DARN BALL! Averaging 6.5 yards per carry but we have Rodgers throwing the ball 42 times in his worst career game. At some point the coaches need to wake up and realize, "hey, this just isn't our day for passing" and run the ball.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Well this team hasnt had a decent run game in a damn decade. We have developed one, and I believe the Bills game was the slap in the face we needed. and the Lions game was the first time we used the run to beat a great defense.

In the past the great defenses have been able to play the pass, and disrupt us. Now when they play the pass, we know they will lose. Nobody can stop our O-line, and Lacy, with 4 down linemen. Even the dominant Lions D-line got smashed. Buffalo has Darius, and Mario Williams, and we smashed them for 6.5ypc...

I want the Seahawks to use the tried and tested recipe to beat us... We are going to steam roll them!!! Then when they move the defenders up, we will place the dagger.

 

[red4tribe]

Hey, as I said, MM is a great Monday-Saturday coach and we have a terrific QB. Look around the league, there isn't an unbiased observer that would say MM is a good gameday coach. He's just not. He's one of the best at developing the players, getting the guys to play together and building a gameplan during the week. However, if his gameplan doesn't work like he wanted it to, he's NOT very good at adjusting on the fly. Luckily we have a VERY GOOD quarterback that means we rarely don't succeed with the initial gameplan.

Why can I not say a guy is a good coach but not a good gameday coach? The Bills game friggin proves my point for me!!! Maybe you could tell me how a "great" gameday coach can't adjust his pass-first gameplan when the team is averaging over 6 yards per carry and his QB is having a terrible day? In a game that, as it turns out, might be HUGELY important to whether or not the Packers make it to the Superbowl?

Can you cite a source where others say MM is not a good game day coach? All I ever read is people praising him for being a great play caller.

 

[Carl]

Hey, as I said, MM is a great Monday-Saturday coach and we have a terrific QB. Look around the league, there isn't an unbiased observer that would say MM is a good gameday coach. He's just not. He's one of the best at developing the players, getting the guys to play together and building a gameplan during the week. However, if his gameplan doesn't work like he wanted it to, he's NOT very good at adjusting on the fly. Luckily we have a VERY GOOD quarterback that means we rarely don't succeed with the initial gameplan.

Why can I not say a guy is a good coach but not a good gameday coach? The Bills game friggin proves my point for me!!! Maybe you could tell me how a "great" gameday coach can't adjust his pass-first gameplan when the team is averaging over 6 yards per carry and his QB is having a terrible day? In a game that, as it turns out, might be HUGELY important to whether or not the Packers make it to the Superbowl?

I also never said we couldn't run on Seattle, I actually implied that I think we SHOULD run on them since I don't want MM and Rodgers to try and prove something out there. I didn't try and compare our oline at the start of the season to Dallas', the Dallas oline is the best in the NFL, the Packers are top-10 but not close to the best. I also don't think the Packers' coaches will or want to run the ball as much as Dallas (which is totally weird to say considering Garrett's history).

He's a very good coach, at no point have I ever said he's a poor coach. He's one of the best in the NFL. That doesn't mean he's perfect. I also don't ever recall saying that the Packers can't win in Seattle but if it makes your argument stronger by making things up, so be it. I simply raised a concern that I would have going into that game. If you think MM will make every adjustment necessary and be perfect in the game, more power to you and I hope you're right.

One game is "proof" of your point? Out of all the games MM has coached, that's pretty weak evidence.

I can counter that easily just using one game by saying whatever adjustments made vs the Jets worked.

One game is a not a trend of him being bad at changing game plans.

Besides, as fans we have no idea if he made any adjustments that made the Bills game closer or how many runs he called that Rodgers audibled out of.

 

[jaybadger82]

Assuming the Cowboys beat the Lions, it looks like Carolina will be going to Seattle next weekend. Newton has a bad back and I don't foresee them beating the Seahawks.

I'm assuming Dallas will win this evening and I prefer see Carolina squaring off against Seattle over Arizona. They have played Seattle tough the last couple years (granted, at home) but Arizona ran out of momentum at toward the end of the season. I just like Carolina's chances of pulling the upset more.

 

[adambr2]

For me it's not just about the record.
Yes, one could pick out a few poor performance games. But in each of those games we played D+ C- to our ability at that point against very solid defenses. If our play had been just C+ B- range itbwouldve made a major impact on momentum swings
The difference now is our Defense has improved substantially since week 1 of a defensive "Pilot" program. We went from bottom 3rd D ranking to top 3rd D in the ensuing games.. we just pounded 150 yards against Arguably the #1 rushing D albeit at our home, but we had Suh frustrated big time.
In a mock scenario.. I'm gonna go against the grain here and say GB trails Seattle by 1-4 points mid 4th. thats hardly enough to shutter and tremble over here.
Especially if GB produces a turnover on D late in the game.
Listen. Do we wanna go to Seattle? Of course not. But IF we do business and get there... We will be in this game end of the 4th qtr GB 26 Seattle 24

Saying we will trail Seattle by 1-4 points mid 4th is just an arbitrary guess. No one knows how this will go, could be similar to last year against San Fran down to the wire, or the year before where we were pretty much out of it by the 4th. Or like neither.

So I don't think anyone is shuddering or trembling, just a recognition that Seattle is of course the biggest obstacle in the way between us and SB49.

I could see a possible gameplan from Seattle where they mix in a good deal of read option similar to 2 years ago in SF to throw us off defensively, but we'll see. Obviously, we'd need to continue to play good run D to have a chance and I'd expect to see Matthews inside plenty.

Of course, let's see what happens against Dallas/Carolina first. And also see if Seattle gets that far.

 

[adambr2]

I'm assuming Dallas will win this evening and I prefer see Carolina squaring off against Seattle over Arizona. They have played Seattle tough the last couple years (granted, at home) but Arizona ran out of momentum at toward the end of the season. I just like Carolina's chances of pulling the upset more.

Definitely, AZ had no chance. I like Carolina's better, but not much. I like Detroit's better than either, so for sure I'll be rooting for them (using that phrase loosely) to pull the upset today.

 

[jaybadger82]

RE: Mike McCarthy:

I agree with much of SoonerPack's post on MM:

...Yes, he does make some mistakes and some games he does get out-coached. On the other hand he has lead this squad to a bunch of wins and has a nice even temperament which is what I myself like in a leader. He was stubborn in Buffalo and as I mentioned he has his share of off days but I guarantee you that if he were let go tomorrow there would be 20-something teams finding a way to have him at the helm of their teams. He is very highly respected in the industry and his name is constantly mentioned when the "NFL Insiders" talk about the upper echelon of head coaches...

I also agree with the observations that MM's greatest strengths are steady leadership, game preparation during the week, and player development. I am also inclined to agree with opinion that his in-game coaching is nothing special:

The coach didn't lose the Bills game. Almost 10 dropped passes, some very crucial ones that resulted in punts rather than 1st downs, missed TD's, and turnovers rather than moving the chains cost us the game. Toss in some questionable penalties on big plays and we get what we got, beat.

Obviously, MM didn't drop those passes and he has no control over the officiating, but his failure to adjust to what was going on by leaning on the run game was disappointing. He may not have lost that game but he didn't do enough to win it, either. It cost us home field and made our path to the Super Bowl, likely through Seattle, extremely difficult.

Whatever the case, our odds of replacing MM and improving on our overall success and consistency over the past couple years are pretty low. On the balance, he's a very good coach, better than 75% or more of NFL coaches but not amongst the most elite, IMO.

 

[adambr2]

I don't get too upset thinking that we could have had HFA if we had won in Buffalo. Yeah, it sucks, but going into that game I think most of us thought it was one that could very well go against us. The way we lost it left a lot to be desired, but pretty much every team has a game or two that went that way.

Consider if the Cowboys hadn't blown an extremely winnable game at home against Colt McCoy and the Redskins this year. It would be 1) Dallas 2) Seattle 3) Green Bay. We'd have to beat Detroit yet again this week, and then if we won we'd have to go to Seattle next week in the divisional round. Much better the way it worked out, and I'd say all 6 teams in the NFC are seeded pretty appropriately relative to their likelihood of winning the NFC (though Arizona isn't a shell of who it was mid-season)

 

[jaybadger82]

Definitely, AZ had no chance. I like Carolina's better, but not much. I like Detroit's better than either, so for sure I'll be rooting for them (using that phrase loosely) to pull the upset today.

Meh. That Detroit team is so much worse than their record: they've looked shaky the last few weeks and their QB has never won on the road against a team with a winning record. I prefer Carolina's miniscule chances in Seattle.

I don't get too upset thinking that we could have had HFA if we had won in Buffalo. Yeah, it sucks, but going into that game I think most of us thought it was one that could very well go against us. The way we lost it left a lot to be desired, but pretty much every team has a game or two that went that way.

Consider if the Cowboys hadn't blown an extremely winnable game at home against Colt McCoy and the Redskins this year. It would be 1) Dallas 2) Seattle 3) Green Bay. We'd have to beat Detroit yet again this week, and then if we won we'd have to go to Seattle next week in the divisional round. Much better the way it worked out, and I'd say all 6 teams in the NFC are seeded pretty appropriately relative to their likelihood of winning the NFC (though Arizona isn't a shell of who it was mid-season)

If we had won in Buffalo, we wouldn't have been the third seed behind Seattle, and that's the problem. The Seahawks at CenturyLink are going to be a mother****er for our Packers. It was about avoiding Seattle on the road even more than HFA...

 

[adambr2]

Meh. That Detroit team is so much worse than their record: they've looked shaky the last few weeks and their QB has never won on the road against a team with a winning record. I prefer Carolina's miniscule chances in Seattle.



If we had won in Buffalo, we wouldn't have been the third seed behind Seattle, and that's the problem. The Seahawks at CenturyLink are going to be a ************ for our Packers. It was about avoiding Seattle on the road even more than HFA...

Neither Carolina or Detroit is likely to win in Seattle...I like Detroit better simply because of having much better offensive weapons, and a defense that can likely at least make it a close low scoring game. Obviously it also has to do with the fact that I like our chances much better at home vs Carolina than Dallas.

Certainly the Buffalo game was costly for us, but having the 2 seed still means we get HFA until the NFC Championship Game. The 2 is certainly a much better spot to be in than the 3.

Will it be tougher to win in Seattle than it would if they came to Lambeau, of course. But it's hard for me to wring my hands over the loss in Buffalo when it was a game that I very well thought we may lose in the first place.

Did we have a bad game, yes. It happens, and not just to us. I just don't get all the angst over looking back at the Buffalo loss. It was on the road against a winning team with a really good defense. It's not like we dropped one to Jacksonville. Certainly it's a game we win if we have our best game, but that's not going to happen for 16 weeks in the NFL.

 

[PackerDNA]

Neither Carolina or Detroit is likely to win in Seattle...I like Detroit better simply because of having much better offensive weapons, and a defense that can likely at least make it a close low scoring game. Obviously it also has to do with the fact that I like our chances much better at home vs Carolina than Dallas.

Certainly the Buffalo game was costly for us, but having the 2 seed still means we get HFA until the NFC Championship Game. The 2 is certainly a much better spot to be in than the 3.

Will it be tougher to win in Seattle than it would if they came to Lambeau, of course. But it's hard for me to wring my hands over the loss in Buffalo when it was a game that I very well thought we may lose in the first place.

Did we have a bad game, yes. It happens, and not just to us. I just don't get all the angst over looking back at the Buffalo loss. It was on the road against a winning team with a really good defense. It's not like we dropped one to Jacksonville. Certainly it's a game we win if we have our best game, but that's not going to happen for 16 weeks in the NFL.

That's life in the NFL.

 

[Mklangelo]

Just the same as Green Bay, the only team that can beat Seattle in Seattle is Seattle.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

McCarthy is a great coach. He follows the game plan, and see's things through. Some would rather flip flop every aspect of the team based on any number of things. McCarthys method is like building a solid foundation, one block at a time. Not every game will be a win, but we get better every year. Our stars, core, and young players get better every year. Our strategies are built on top of one another to the point where we are now. A fine tuned dynamic, and multi-dimentional team from top to bottom.

Its not like they do not see the faults and problems. They simply look at those things as something you fix the following 3 years through the draft and coaching. Meanwhile they manage to retain most of what we learned the last decade. As a scheme, and keeping their core intact. This allows for a learning environment where the veterans are still learning how to get better. And that learning environment is very healthy for young players. Our coaches are very good teachers. And all that is McCarthy.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Just the same as Green Bay, the only team that can beat Seattle in Seattle is Seattle.

Im not buying it. The so called 12th man, is an advantage. But you still have to play the game. And to be honest. Seattle has been over acheiving so long that they finally have to get respect. Carrol is a great coach that seems to be a step ahead of most everyone else. But the Packers are led by MVP Aaron Rodgers, and we have an answer for every player they can put up.

I think we are going to go in there and beat them fair and square. I also believe there is a chance the Seahawks under estimate us, and play the usual 4 down drop 7. Where Lacy and Starks could put them on the ropes early. They counter, and there will be a heavy dose of pissed off MVP to put them down for the count.

 

[Mklangelo]

Im not buying it. The so called 12th man, is an advantage.

Lots of teams have that 12th man advantage. Denver, Kansas City, Seattle and what have you. They all have that rep. Very loud places. I guess you just have to deal with it as a team.

If a team looses in those places, it can be no excuse.

 

[HardRightEdge]

After watching that dismal AZ/CAR game, the answer to the OP question is "not Carolina".

It will be the Packers or nobody.

 

[Packerlifer]

Biggest problem for the Packers in Seattle isn't the "12th Man" noise but the FieldTurf artificial surface. For a team that plays at home on real grass.

 

[jaybadger82]

Will it be tougher to win in Seattle than it would if they came to Lambeau, of course. But it's hard for me to wring my hands over the loss in Buffalo when it was a game that I very well thought we may lose in the first place.

Did we have a bad game, yes. It happens, and not just to us. I just don't get all the angst over looking back at the Buffalo loss. It was on the road against a winning team with a really good defense. It's not like we dropped one to Jacksonville. Certainly it's a game we win if we have our best game, but that's not going to happen for 16 weeks in the NFL.

Given the playoff picture that was developing heading into week 16, the significance of that Buffalo game in avoiding a hot Seattle team at CenturyLink seemed obvious. I'm not calling the Bills pushovers or denying that teams have bad games, but if Green Bay is serious about winning another championship, that's a win they have to get. Nonchalance toward that blown opportunity is odd.

Maybe we lose next week to Dallas or Carolina pulls off a miracle and it's a moot point anyway, but perhaps we should revisit this after the NFC Championship.

 

[Carl]

Biggest problem for the Packers in Seattle isn't the "12th Man" noise but the FieldTurf artificial surface. For a team that plays at home on real grass.

The Packers practice inside on field turf and often play on it in other away games. It's a non issue.

 

[Packerlifer]

The Packers practice inside on field turf and often play on it in other away games. It's a non issue.

Not according to what the players themselves have said. The grass field is their advantage in Lambeau's home field advantage.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Can you cite a source where others say MM is not a good game day coach? All I ever read is people praising him for being a great play caller.

Greg Bedard from MMQB: "On the rare occasions when his game plans are wrong he’s slow to adapt, if he adapts at all. He can get way too pass-happy. Calling the plays causes him to miss some game-management situations. McCarthy can coach emotional, whether it’s challenging plays or being too aggressive with play calling" http://mmqb.si.com/2014/12/01/mike-mccarthy-green-bay-packers/

Bill Barnwell: scroll down to worst call of the week #3. Should be noted that Barnwell has also cited other MM errors, not the least of which was MM's dumb idea to call a draw with something like 4 seconds left in the half from the Packers' own 30 yard line (those are probably off slightly) which resulted in Lacy hurting his ankle, something that bothered Lacy for the rest of season. Apparently MM thought there was a legit chance of Lacy running for a 70 yard TD right before halftime. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/t...in-ahem-curious-strategic-sideline-decisions/

Not going to look for any more but I would think the first quote should be enough.

Edit - mistook the first article as being written by Peter King but was actually written by Greg Bedard, a frequent contributor for Peter King.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

One game is "proof" of your point? Out of all the games MM has coached, that's pretty weak evidence.

I can counter that easily just using one game by saying whatever adjustments made vs the Jets worked.

One game is a not a trend of him being bad at changing game plans.

Besides, as fans we have no idea if he made any adjustments that made the Bills game closer or how many runs he called that Rodgers audibled out of.

The Bills game was the perfect encapsulation of where MM can fail on game day, it's the perfect example of issues that have arisen at other times. He went into the game with the idea of throwing the ball and never adjusted when that didn't work. The vast majority of the time his game plan going into a game is good and we have the best QB in the NFL, that's enough to win most games. In this game he refused to alter his approach and if Rodgers is audibling out of that many run plays then the coach needs to control his QB.

I'm very happy that you think he's basically amazing at every element of coaching. In my opinion he's one of the best at developing a game plan and developing an atmosphere that allows players to improve (two of the most important elements of coaching). I think his QB-guru label might be a little premature until I see someone other than Rodgers progress substantially (Tolzein hasn't really helped his case and it's apparent that Flynn's supposed skill was illusory). MM's biggest weakness is that during the game he can be slow to adjust and stubborn. Couple an above-average coach with the best QB in the NFL and guess what? You'll win a TON of games. That doesn't mean he's the best coach in the NFL nor does it mean I think he sucks or I want to see him leave. It just means I'm trying to be objective.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Lots of teams have that 12th man advantage. Denver, Kansas City, Seattle and what have you. They all have that rep. Very loud places. I guess you just have to deal with it as a team.

If a team looses in those places, it can be no excuse.

Yeah, I always find it oddly coincidental that the "12th man" only really becomes a problem when a team is REALLY good.

 

[Mondio]

nvrm