RE: RE:The Packers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/16/2009 1:14:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

They seemed more disciplined and physical than the Pack. 

Based on what exactly?  You've offered no proof of this. 

quote:

I have to disagree with Craig, I think the bomb on 3rd and 1 (on 3rd and THREE it might have made sense) was a boneheaded call.  Passes that deep are low percentage, just like the ones Rogers was missing on earlier in the game, probably because he was rattled.  All the defender needed to do on the 3rd and 1 deep pass to Jennings was stay in the same zip code and he could have knocked the ball away. 

The play was originally intended for a short pass to the TE, but Rodgers saw the one on one coverage with a poor CB on an elite Jennings and it was an easy decision as they knew Vasher couldn't hang with Jennings one on one and he was proven more than correct.  The yardage situation has no relevance on what was presented to the Packers offense on the field.  10 men in the box and we should just run it with the aforementioned coverage situation?  Seriously? 

quote:

I remember the Vikings under Tice doing a deep throw on 3rd and 1 and it backfired, and I also remember several other teams doing it over the years, and it usually backfires.

Vikings under Tice 4 yrs ago has no relevance to a game today.

quote:

Had the Packers missed on that play, they would have been stuck with a 4th and 1 late in a game where they were behind.  The Bears probably would have stuffed the 4th and 1, assuming the Packers would NOT have gambled with a deep pass on the 4th and 1, as that REALLY would have looked stupid should it have failed.

Probably stuffed the 4th and 1, based on what?  The fact the Bears were holding Grant to nearly 5 ypc in the second half? 

quote:

The Packers with a 3-4 defense and all that speed, seem like they are more built for a Dome than the Vikings, and the Vikings are now looking like a team that is more built for the outdoors than the Pack.  The Vikings are VERY big on both the OL and the DL, and you might end up seeing the Packers win at the Dome, while the Vikings win at Lambau.  IF the Vikes win at home the Pack could be in trouble of getting swept by the Vikes, with Favre getting back at Ted Thompson in Lambau.    

So speed = only good in domes?  Disagree entirely.  Packers got lots of pressure and did excellent vs the run in an outdoor game.
 
We'll see how the season plays out between the two teams.  Should be fun games.



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/16/2009 1:20:59 PM)

I take the side of the Packer call on this. On 3 and 1 the Bears are expecting a run. Surprise is one of the reasons that call worked. A receiver that got wide open was the other reason.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/16/2009 1:39:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty


I have to disagree with Craig, I think the bomb on 3rd and 1 (on 3rd and THREE it might have made sense) was a boneheaded call.  Passes that deep are low percentage, just like the ones Rogers was missing on earlier in the game, probably because he was rattled.  All the defender needed to do on the 3rd and 1 deep pass to Jennings was stay in the same zip code and he could have knocked the ball away. 

The play was originally intended for a short pass to the TE, but Rodgers saw the one on one coverage with a poor CB on an elite Jennings and it was an easy decision as they knew Vasher couldn't hang with Jennings one on one and he was proven more than correct.  The yardage situation has no relevance on what was presented to the Packers offense on the field.  10 men in the box and we should just run it with the aforementioned coverage situation?  Seriously? 



Let's simplify this.

Since the play worked,  It was brilliant.

Had if failed.  They would have looked REALLY STUPID.




Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/16/2009 3:05:47 PM)

So then every play that doesn't work is by definition a stupid play?



Jake Carlson -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/16/2009 3:29:14 PM)

It's not easy for me to compliment the Pack but that was a great play-call all around, not just because it worked. Even if it hadn't worked, they still have another shot to pick up 1 yard at midfield for the first.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/16/2009 3:32:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

So then every play that doesn't work is by definition a stupid play?


No.  Just the ones late in the game on 3rd and short where you take a big risk by throwing down the field when only a little behind. 




Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/16/2009 3:39:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

So then every play that doesn't work is by definition a stupid play?

No.  Just the ones late in the game on 3rd and short where you take a big risk by throwing down the field when only a little behind. 

Well, I've given my reasons as to why this wasn't all that risky of a play.  We'll just leave it at that.



David Levine -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/16/2009 4:24:44 PM)

I thought it was a good play. he had the easy completion underneath if he wanted it, but he had Jennings wide open deep. And that is a throw that any NFL QB should feel comfortable making.

If the play call had been "3rd ans 1 - throw a bomb", it would've been a bad call.



marty -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/16/2009 7:15:47 PM)

It's not easy for me to compliment the Pack but that was a great play-call all around, not just because it worked. Even if it hadn't worked, they still have another shot to pick up 1 yard at midfield for the first.

I think it was stupid because it was a VERY high risk play when you only needed one yard.  Rogers could have been hit as he threw causing a fumble or bad pass, the pass could have been picked, and was most likely to be deflected or off the mark as deep passes like that are low % plays. 

Calls like that give me hope that the Vikes can beat the Packers, maybe even sweep them.

It was a stupid call, and I hope if the Packers play the Vikes and get in the exact same situation, they do EXACTLY the same thing. You might see Jared Allen knocking a ball loose, but probably will just end up with an incompletion and then a 4th and 1. 

It is MUCH smarter to take 2 shots running the ball to pick up 1 yard.  IF you can't gain one yard in 2 shots, you must not have much of a run game.    

Probably stuffed the 4th and 1, based on what?  The fact the Bears were holding Grant to nearly 5 ypc in the second half? 
 
Should the Pack have missed on the deep pass, I think they WOULD probably have been stuffed on the 4th and 1 because the Bears had momentum, the Bears DL was dominating the Packers Ol most the game, and because it would have been quite expected.  Grant getting almost 5 yards a carry on 1st and 2nd downs would mean NOTHING when it comes to 4th down and short. 




David Levine -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/16/2009 7:31:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

IF you can't gain one yard in 2 shots, you must not have much of a run game.    



Unless you can, you know, score a TD.

If there would've been ANY pressure on Rodgers, or if Jennings hadn't been WIDE open, he would've dumped it off to the TE. But Rodgers had NO pressure and Jennings was WIDE open.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/17/2009 7:55:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

So then every play that doesn't work is by definition a stupid play?

No.  Just the ones late in the game on 3rd and short where you take a big risk by throwing down the field when only a little behind. 

Well, I've given my reasons as to why this wasn't all that risky of a play.  We'll just leave it at that.


Anytime you throw a ball that far...it is a big risk.  Risk of incompletion or interception.  In that situation, it could have meant losing the game...

But Jennings caught the ball...so it's brilliant.  If there would have been PI, then it would have been brilliant.  I am pretty sure a lot of Packers fans would have been really pissed if that ball were picked or incomplete and then then they failed to get the 1st down on 4th and 1.






Duane Sampson -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/20/2009 7:33:40 PM)

    Newest shirt in Packerland

[image]http://www.shortarmguy.com/buckfrett.jpg[/image]



Duane Sampson -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/20/2009 7:37:04 PM)

[image]http://www.shortarmguy.com/domafavre.jpg[/image]



hrerikl -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/20/2009 8:00:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

    Newest shirt in Packerland

[image]http://www.shortarmguy.com/buckfrett.jpg[/image]



That's what we experience after a certain type of TD celebration performed by Randy Moss in GB.



David Levine -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/20/2009 8:02:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hrerikl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

    Newest shirt in Packerland

[image]http://www.shortarmguy.com/buckfrett.jpg[/image]



That's what we experience after a certain type of TD celebration performed by Randy Moss in GB.


Do you think Joe Buck is outraged by it?



hrerikl -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/20/2009 8:07:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: hrerikl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

    Newest shirt in Packerland

[image]http://www.shortarmguy.com/buckfrett.jpg[/image]



That's what we experience after a certain type of TD celebration performed by Randy Moss in GB.


Do you think Joe Buck is outraged by it?


A shirt celebrating his hysteria?  No,  probably feels vindicated.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/20/2009 8:14:15 PM)

Packers lose the Bungles 31-24
Holy shit that OL is bad. As your OL goes, so goes your offense. This is going to be a long season and Rodgers will get killed if this continues.

The defense missed a lot of tackles and some seriously bad playcalling didn't help either. They convert after a 3rd and 34?

MM and the staff sure as hell didn't have this team ready to play today, that was obvious.

No defense for this loss, just a plain crappy day.



TheGonz -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/20/2009 8:24:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

    Newest shirt in Packerland

[image]http://www.shortarmguy.com/buckfrett.jpg[/image]


That is a disgusting act.  I'm sorry that everybody had to see that.



TheGonz -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/20/2009 8:26:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

Packers lose the Bungles 31-24
Holy shit that OL is bad. As your OL goes, so goes your offense. This is going to be a long season and Rodgers will get killed if this continues.

The defense missed a lot of tackles and some seriously bad playcalling didn't help either. They convert after a 3rd and 34?

MM and the staff sure as hell didn't have this team ready to play today, that was obvious.

No defense for this loss, just a plain crappy day.

Have they said how bad the Clifton injury is yet?

Because, at the risk of sounding biased. . .if Jared Allen gets to go four quarters against the guy that replaced Clifton and made Antwan Odom look like Reggie White, you guys are in for some trouble, methinks.



David Levine -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/20/2009 8:29:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

Packers lose the Bungles 31-24
Holy shit that OL is bad. As your OL goes, so goes your offense. This is going to be a long season and Rodgers will get killed if this continues.

The defense missed a lot of tackles and some seriously bad playcalling didn't help either. They convert after a 3rd and 34?

MM and the staff sure as hell didn't have this team ready to play today, that was obvious.

No defense for this loss, just a plain crappy day.


If Antwan Odom (who had 15.5 career sacks in 5 years) was able to get 5 today, Jarred Allen must be licking his chops.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/20/2009 8:39:40 PM)

No word on Clifton yet that I know of.

I don't doubt right now that Allen is stoked to go against our OL.

Rodgers is on pace to be sacked more in a single season than Carr was in Houston. That's how bad this pass protection is right now. That's gotta get fixed otherwise we're an 8-8 team at best. AT BEST.



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 5:44:12 AM)

Our offensive line isn't much better! 

A big part of your problem Craig is you throw the ball too much.  39 passes for Rodgers to 14 carries for Grant is Andy Reid sickness.  When you add in sacks and Rodgers scrambles the ratio is even worse.  Stop passing every down and your O line will look and play better.



David Levine -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 10:42:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

Our offensive line isn't much better! 

A big part of your problem Craig is you throw the ball too much.  39 passes for Rodgers to 14 carries for Grant is Andy Reid sickness.  When you add in sacks and Rodgers scrambles the ratio is even worse.  Stop passing every down and your O line will look and play better.


Its a good point. This was a game that Green Bay was either tied or leading most of the way. Or at worst, down 1 score.

Dallas has had the exact same problem under the "golden boy" Jason Garrett.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 10:58:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

Packers lose the Bungles 31-24
Holy shit that OL is bad. As your OL goes, so goes your offense. This is going to be a long season and Rodgers will get killed if this continues.

The defense missed a lot of tackles and some seriously bad playcalling didn't help either. They convert after a 3rd and 34?

MM and the staff sure as hell didn't have this team ready to play today, that was obvious.

No defense for this loss, just a plain crappy day.


If Antwan Odom (who had 15.5 career sacks in 5 years) was able to get 5 today, Jarred Allen must be licking his chops.


I wouldn't count on Allen getting 5 sacks against the Packers.  The Packers left their LT all alone with Odom...There is no way they will do that with Allen.  And I doubt after the day he had that they will run the same guy out there again if Clifton is out for awhile.    Allen has looked a little bit pedestrian the first two games...but then everyone is double teaming him.  I would expect the Packers to do the same.



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 10:59:10 AM)

I guess the problem with Romo wasn't Owens after all.



Page: <<   < prev  62 63 [64] 65 66   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode