Printable View
A difference without a distinction. Either way you lose. Besides, having 1st and 10 at the 36 likely was not yet in FG territory. That would have been a 54 yard attempt, perhaps not reachable in the rain and swirling winds at Seattle.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Don't start this bullshit Woody. Talk, fight, whatever the fuck you want but don't for one second think you run shit here in any way, shape, or form. Pug can cuss if she wants. Are we clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbuck27
USame applies to you. If you don't like something that was done here then go to the top right of your screen and click where it says "log off" and don't bother coming to this place since such a huge injustice occurred. Whatever is done and over. This site is not here for you to voice your opinion about how shit is dealt with here. Back the fuck off KYPack. He is a good member of this place and you aren't going to dog him. Yes? No?? Let me know.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
Not at all. Virtually any risk is worth taking to get in FG range. To fail to get there is a loss. A turnover is loss. The only differential is making enough yardage to get a FG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
Once there, then incomplete or failed runs may ruin your chance to win, but only a turnover prevents you from an attempt to tie and play on. I don't know what Crosby's range was that day, but at the 36 its better odds than in the other half of the field.
So, play to tie in bad whether in perhaps the most difficult environment in the league, just because you are at the 36 rather than the 40 or 42? Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Especially on the road, play to win and settle for the tie if you must.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
dog eat dog, you know I speak the truth. But, as I've said before, go ahead and ban me whenever you please. You'll be doing me a favor. But for Crissakes, make it permanent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadtownPacker
I don't care if Pugger curses Mad.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadtownPacker
I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'run shit here'?
Did I really break some rule here with that post to Pugger? If so what rule was that?
That was merely a joke (a little dig) nothing more.
seemed like a reasonable question to me; he wasn't telling her not to cuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadtownPacker
I still put almost all of the blame on the coaching staff... Rodgers played fine IMO. Seattle is a tough defense, bullets are flying - what killed us was idiotic decisions from the sideline and being choked with caution - that also eminated from the sidelines.
Both MM and dunderdummy went completely stupid in the final 5 minutes, and flubbed the game away. Unfortunately, I'm sure they've learned nothing, and will do the exact same things next time we are in that situation - if we are lucky enough to ever get back to that situation again with this regime.
They largely wasted Favre's career, and they are largely wasting Rodgers' career - it is what it is. We got two SB's out of 2 HOF QB's... we should have had more.
Who are you talking about? McCarthy saved Favre's sinking career, as did TT. Capers never coached with Favre.Quote:
Originally Posted by wist43
Favre was just as responsible as Packer leadership for 'wasting' his career (of course I would never consider his career wasted, since I don't based my evaluation on SB wins alone, as it seems many other do). What do they say - a leopard never changes it's spots - and neither did Favre, even with MN leadership.
But I agree, the coaches, the entire team did a face plant after the Burnett INT.
If any blame is to be laid it most deservedly should go right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by wist43
Mike McCarthy and Dom Capers screwed up terribly in Seattle.
Dom Capers exists as the Packers DC because Mike McCarthy admires him.
Shawn Slocum exists because Mike McCarthy accepts comparative poor performance on ST's.
Going forward it's Mike McCarthy's responsibility to end the nonsense.
This is where it gets hard to parse. How much of the entire game's playcalling was an effort to protect that calf? His one big run cost him as he was even more immobile after it. In Dallas in the second half, moving more seemed to limber up his leg. In Seattle, it seemed to get worse from a movement standpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
The 35 is the most commonly cited yard marker for FG range, not including game and kicker conditions. So I don't think changing the plan at the 36 is far fetched at all. They have done it before immediately after entering scoring range.
Game decisions absolutely have to take into consideration the existing conditions. To ignore them is idiotic. I believe most of the coaches use the pregame opinion of the kickers and ST coaches to determine FG range for that day, and even modify it as conditions change. The 35 is for broadcasters and fans, not rule of thumb for coaches.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
When trailing with less than two minutes left, there is nothing to protect. At that point, Rodgers himself needed to throw out caution, and do whatever he was able to, no matter how compromised by injury he was. There is no longer reason to be "smart" with it, as MM and his players are prone to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
How do you know he didn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
I don't, anymore than you know he did. BUT, on first down, with a few yards ahead of him even at a slow trot, he elected to throw a pass into Lacy's back. That was very atypical Rodgers. On second down, according to some (haven't checked myself) he had another large running lane, but threw to a covered rookie instead. Again, atypical for Rodgers. So, I chose to surmise based on appearance, for the purpose of discussion on a fan site.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
If you limit us to what we know for sure, none of us, including you, will have much to write on here.
If throwing caution to the wind drops you to the ground (see Lions game), it has gained you nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
Here we go again. Thanks for the lecture, Dad, I didn't know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
Both those moves are completely consistent with Rodgers being unable to run. On the game tying drive it was clear to me that he was laboring mightily to run. Both the toss to Lacy (not to his back) and to Rodgers (not on the same page, don't know who missed the check) made senseQuote:
Originally Posted by Patler
to me. Either way, he wasn't playing for the FG, that much I feel certain about, and I think he was trying to make the best plays he could, knowing his running was extremely limited. The Lacy toss was unfortunate, because I think Lacy was turning and blocking expecting Rodgers to run, which happened enough before the injury that Lacy was probably reacting naturally.
Rodgers delivered just fine, especially based on the effect of the injury on formations, throwing, and running. Had he been totally healthy and played like he did, I would have been disappointed.
As mentioned no one is asking for your truth or anyone elses regarding how things are done here. Your permission is not required just make another comment on it or towards KY about it and you can get what you desire. For all your accounts right?Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
heee heee heeeQuote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand