Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports

Forums  Register  Login  My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums 

Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ  Ticket List  Log Out

RE: RE:The Packers

  		Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk >> RE: RE:The Packers Page: <<   < prev  62 63 [64] 65 66   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/16/2009 1:14:21 PM   
Cheesehead Craig


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline
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.
Post #: 1576
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/16/2009 1:20:59 PM   
Lynn G.


Posts: 33037
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Put our country back in the hands of people who actually want to do things to help everyday citizens. Elect Democrats.
Post #: 1577
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/16/2009 1:39:30 PM   
Trekgeekscott


Posts: 39282
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: online
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.



_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”
Post #: 1578
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/16/2009 3:05:47 PM   
Cheesehead Craig


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline 		So then every play that doesn't work is by definition a stupid play?
Post #: 1579
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/16/2009 3:29:14 PM   
Jake Carlson

 

Posts: 1348
Joined: 8/21/2007
From: Northern CA
Status: offline 		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.
Post #: 1580
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/16/2009 3:32:11 PM   
Trekgeekscott


Posts: 39282
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: online
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. 



_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”
Post #: 1581
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/16/2009 3:39:52 PM   
Cheesehead Craig


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline
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.
Post #: 1582
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/16/2009 4:24:44 PM   
David Levine


Posts: 77939
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline 		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.
Post #: 1583
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/16/2009 7:15:47 PM   
marty


Posts: 13049
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline 		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. 

Post #: 1584
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/16/2009 7:31:20 PM   
David Levine


Posts: 77939
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
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.
Post #: 1585
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/17/2009 7:55:26 AM   
Trekgeekscott


Posts: 39282
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: online
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.





_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”
Post #: 1586
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/20/2009 7:33:40 PM   
Duane Sampson


Posts: 14200
Status: offline 		    Newest shirt in Packerland


Post #: 1587
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/20/2009 7:37:04 PM   
Duane Sampson


Posts: 14200
Status: offline
Post #: 1588
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/20/2009 8:00:54 PM   
hrerikl

 

Posts: 1636
Joined: 8/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

    Newest shirt in Packerland





That's what we experience after a certain type of TD celebration performed by Randy Moss in GB.
Post #: 1589
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/20/2009 8:02:52 PM   
David Levine


Posts: 77939
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hrerikl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

    Newest shirt in Packerland





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?
Post #: 1590
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/20/2009 8:07:22 PM   
hrerikl

 

Posts: 1636
Joined: 8/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: hrerikl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

    Newest shirt in Packerland





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.
Post #: 1591
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/20/2009 8:14:15 PM   
Cheesehead Craig


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline 		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.
Post #: 1592
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/20/2009 8:24:54 PM   
TheGonz


Posts: 4353
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

    Newest shirt in Packerland




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

_____________________________

The question is not "Who will let me?" Rather, the question is "Who will stop me?"
Post #: 1593
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/20/2009 8:26:31 PM   
TheGonz


Posts: 4353
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

The question is not "Who will let me?" Rather, the question is "Who will stop me?"
Post #: 1594
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/20/2009 8:29:40 PM   
David Levine


Posts: 77939
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
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.
Post #: 1595
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/20/2009 8:39:40 PM   
Cheesehead Craig


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline 		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.
Post #: 1596
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/21/2009 5:44:12 AM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!
Post #: 1597
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/21/2009 10:42:51 AM   
David Levine


Posts: 77939
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
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.
Post #: 1598
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/21/2009 10:58:32 AM   
Trekgeekscott


Posts: 39282
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: online
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.

_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”
Post #: 1599
RE: RE:The Packers - 9/21/2009 10:59:10 AM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		I guess the problem with Romo wasn't Owens after all.

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!
Post #: 1600
Page:   <<   < prev  62 63 [64] 65 66   next >   >>
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk >> RE: RE:The Packers Page: <<   < prev  62 63 [64] 65 66   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode