JS ARTICLE "WITH SB IN SIGHT< RODGERS DOES NOT DELIVER

[Smidgeon]

Some people still hate 12 because he's not 4, it appears.

What I don't understand is why Aaron Rodgers didn't prevent slavery in the United States. What a fucking dick move and an example of his me-first attitude.

And this is why I love Skin: lending absurdity to the opposition by extrapolation of a parallel to the extreme.

[Patler]

I missed this. No, that comment wasn't snide - it (was intended to) illustrate the point that it's unknowable whether Rodgers gave all he could. So we differ (I think?) on the point of whether Rodgers was going all out - or not: "Whether or not he could/should have is anyones guess."

I'm OK with not knowing for sure.

Well, I said in my very first post about this that I was stating the questions that one can ask about his performance in that final drive; but that I didn't know the answers to those questions. I have repeated it in several later posts.

Rodgers was physically compromised, not question about that. You might recall that I was one of the first to correlate his inaccuracy and lateness on passes to his slower and modified footwork. On the other hand, I do not believe that he was able to scramble 40 yards on one play to pick up 12 and go out of bounds, and then suddenly be incapable of going 5 yards or more that were right in front of him when he threw to Lacy. We should be able to discuss his decision on that play, even with his calf injury as a given. The injury is not an excuse for every decision made.

We should be able to discuss his decision on second down to throw to Rodgers, when he had an uncovered WR on the opposite side who had a sure few yards and perhaps more. The calf injury had no impact on that decision whatsoever.

We should be able to discuss his decision on third down to throw to Nelson well short of the first down when he had at least that much gain (and perhaps much more) available to him running the ball even at his compromised trot that he used three plays earlier.

I have no idea if any of those three decisions was a bad one or not, because I am not knowledgeable of the factors and routines he uses when making those decisions. But, it is easy to see that different decisions could have had profound impacts in the game. As I have said several times, that drive alone was the type of situation from which legends are made. Unfortunately, the result ended 30 yards short of the legend because of two failed and one inadequate play, each of which seemed to have a more positive alternative.

Therefore, I thought we might discuss the plays. Apparently, we can not, so I won't try any longer.

[mraynrand]

Apparently, we can not, so I won't try any longer.

why do you do this? *SIGH*

Well, I said in my very first post about this that I was stating the questions that one can ask about his performance in that final drive; but that I didn't know the answers to those questions. I have repeated it in several later posts.

Rodgers was physically compromised, not question about that. You might recall that I was one of the first to correlate his inaccuracy and lateness on passes to his slower and modified footwork. On the other hand, I do not believe that he was able to scramble 40 yards on one play to pick up 12 and go out of bounds, and then suddenly be incapable of going 5 yards or more that were right in front of him when he threw to Lacy. We should be able to discuss his decision on that play, even with his calf injury as a given. The injury is not an excuse for every decision made.

We should be able to discuss his decision on second down to throw to Rodgers, when he had an uncovered WR on the opposite side who had a sure few yards and perhaps more. The calf injury had no impact on that decision whatsoever.

We should be able to discuss his decision on third down to throw to Nelson well short of the first down when he had at least that much gain (and perhaps much more) available to him running the ball even at his compromised trot that he used three plays earlier.

I have no idea if any of those three decisions was a bad one or not, because I am not knowledgeable of the factors and routines he uses when making those decisions. But, it is easy to see that different decisions could have had profound impacts in the game. As I have said several times, that drive alone was the type of situation from which legends are made. Unfortunately, the result ended 30 yards short of the legend because of two failed and one inadequate play, each of which seemed to have a more positive alternative.

Therefore, I thought we might discuss the plays. Apparently, we can not, so I won't try any longer.

My answer is that viscerally, his injury affects all of these choices, in ways I'm not sure of - Maybe his gawddamn calf was on fire after his run and he knew he couldn't run again. Unless he tells us, we'll never know. So I kinda throw up my hands and say - yeah, maybe he left a lot on the field and maybe he coulda done something different, but maybe not. Had he been healthy, I probably discuss this with you til March or April, but given the unknowable, I'm done. Maybe Rodgers will talk about the injury in the future and we'll know more.

The thing that fascinates me much more is the psychology of the apocollapse and how the entire team kinda tanked it. But nobody (on the team) is talking about that so it's a dead issue too. Possibly on purpose. It will be interesting to see how the team responds.

[Maxie the Taxi]

mraynrand:

The thing that fascinates me much more is the psychology of the apocollapse and how the entire team kinda tanked it. But nobody (on the team) is talking about that so it's a dead issue too. Possibly on purpose. It will be interesting to see how the team responds.

I'm with you. I don't know if the psychology is all that mysterious, though. I wish I had a dime for every NFL game that ends contrary to the defeated team's expectations. Celebrating with a minute or two left is virtually always the kiss of death for the celebrating team.

TJ Lang said that, with 5 minutes left, NOBODY on the Packer sideline felt they could lose that game. That's unacceptable and it's not unusual or abnormal psychology. SOMEBODY on that sideline at that point in time HAS to have his head in the game, HAS to be in touch with the reality of the situation.

Hmmm...I wonder who that person should be? I also wonder what he was doing at the time that was more damn important than popping the air out of his team's false and stupid expectations?

Could it be that at the time Stubby's nose was glued to his play sheet and he was occupied calling plays (three Lacy dives into Seattle's stacked defense)?

[mraynrand]

^^^ Really what you need are a few guys with the killer instinct, who don't want to let up until they have to drag 'em off the field. See for example, the Ravens, the Steelers. Not that these guys are more or less talented, etc., but that they want to finish other teams off. This mentality:

[woodbuck27]

It comes down to end game and how to properly close out.

Championship teams have that down pat.

The leadership of the Green Bay Packers is obviously lacking in this vital response. This wasn't just one of those things. This is a proof of why the Mike McCarthy era will be dominated by such mistakes. As soon as that sideline celebration got started someone had to stop it and get the entire team focused on finishing the game.

That's Basic Understanding of Pro Sports 101. What happened in Seattle was just ridiculous. Taken as a whole it falls on the head of Mike McCarthy. He must now react correctly. There has to be certain change.

I want to see a head coach in Green Bay that is strong in his understanding of solid team defense and ST's play. I want an OC that can call a better offensive game.

I'm realistic and know that as long as Ted Thompson is in place as the Packers GM that won't happen. My only realistic hope is that somehow Mike McCarthy quits. Observing McCarthy's ways, manners and attitude that doesn't seem like that will happen.

Rah rah rah !

Another NFCN Championship in 2015 and more playoff futility. It's easy to predict failure and certainly so when your team has a head coach with his head in the sand. Who has a neat and easy explanation coming from a deameanor that fails right here.

Mike McCarthy doesn't absolutely HATE to lose. A total team collapse was "a fun game" to Mike McCarthy.

The two are incongruent.

I'm absolutely positive that when Aaron Rodgers observed Mike McCarthy's response and 'a fun game' he must have:

a) been in total shock and simply threw his hands in the air.

b) Screamed and cursed.

c) broke something that was handy to get his hands on.

Mile McCarthy and Aaron Rodgers are just not close to one another in terms of intelligence. Their miles apart in terms of being honest and direct with the truth. Unless Mike McCarthy somehow arrives right there fast ...you can count on more of what you've been seeing since the green bay packers last won a Super Bowl.

NO...another NFCN championship isn't enough ! Not now or certainly not after blowing it in Seattle.

[pbmax]

Celebrating with a minute or two left is virtually always the kiss of death for the celebrating team.

I would wager this is the exact reverse of reality. Vast majority of team's celebrating late end up winning the game. The reason we remember is that its rare.

[pbmax]

Just curious, what evidence, beside Lang's confidence, do we have of an actual celebration?

Now winding down to clock killing mode (play calls, Peppers and Burnett) we have ample evidence of. But of outright celebration?

[mraynrand]

Just curious, what evidence, beside Lang's confidence, do we have of an actual celebration?

Now winding down to clock killing mode (play calls, Peppers and Burnett) we have ample evidence of. But of outright celebration?

None. There was a lot of celebrating and back-slapping after the Burnett INT, but that's SOP following a killer INT.

[mraynrand]

"Mike McCarthy doesn't absolutely HATE to lose. A total team collapse was "a fun game" to Mike McCarthy."

1) It was a damn fun game for 55 minutes - for Packer fans that is.
2) Stubby hates to lose. I guarantee it.

[pbmax]

"Mike McCarthy doesn't absolutely HATE to lose. A total team collapse was "a fun game" to Mike McCarthy."

1) It was a damn fun game for 55 minutes - for Packer fans that is.
2) Stubby hates to lose. I guarantee it.

I still love that a Packers team just beat the crap out of someone. I will never forget that about this game and it will not be the worst experience for me as a fan because of it. Most disappointing because it was there for the taking? Sure. But I loved the way the team played for 55 minutes. Heck, I even loved the last O drive for a FG.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I would wager this is the exact reverse of reality. Vast majority of team's celebrating late end up winning the game. The reason we remember is that its rare.

I'll take that bet. It's not "rare." All I have is my own experience to go on.