Quote Originally Posted by bobblehead View Post
OK, last point. I went through the season looking to see if any "good" teams have problems in close games like the packers do. Problem is that I keep seeing teams like atlanta and the Jets (first two I looked at) who win some close games....and lose others by 14 or even 42 points. I guess we could say they have problems in close games if they would have at least been competitive in games like that, but by getting completely man handled they proved they can win close ones.

EVERYONE on this board (save one or two posters) thought we would lose and lose bad to the patriots. The fact that we were in it to the last play means MM is a bad coach in close games....anyone see a flaw in this logic? And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.
I agree with this and feel that a good part of what they need to win close games is on the players. After Rodgers's play at the end of the Atlanta game, I felt like he was there. It seems like a circular thing to say they just need to win some close games to win some more close games but I feel that is the case. It's like w/Minnesota and Favre, once they got that out of the way they seemed to have a bit more confidence. Now they need to do the same in close games.