Another QB's late game performances

[Patler]

Lest we think Rodgers failures are something we haven't seen in recent years, with the team having opportunities within a single score (FG or TD) of a tie or lead, the last possessions went this way:

Game 1 - Interception, FG, interception.
Game 2 - QB fumble, QB fumble, interception, end of game.
Game 3 - Punt, interception.
Game 4 - Interception, FG.
Game 5 - QB fumble before punt, interception, downs, downs.
Game 6 - punt, interception, interception, interception, interception, punt, TD, end of game.
Game 7 - punt, missed FG, punt, FG.
Game 8 - interception, FG, interception.
Game 9 - Punt, interception, interception.

These 9 games were all lost, all in a single season. Some were lost by more than one score, but at one time late in the game the score was within 7 points or less. The QB was Brett Favre.

[channtheman]

Is this from the 4-12 season? I knew Favre hadn't been the best in his 4th quarter comebacks for a long time until last year and I always laughed at that stat because for like 5 years it was stuck on 32 4th quarter comebacks. I just didn't want to post it because everyone would think I'm trying to stir shit. Now I hope some people don't come here and tell us that we never blamed the defense on those games because it isn't the same.

[Deputy Nutz]

umm, how many wins does Favre have? Grow up. This season certainly isn't about Favre vs Rodgers. That was an argument for preseason, the fact is Rodgers has played above my expectations. He has kept the Packers competitive all season long, he has done his job for a first year starting QB.

Favre is cut out of a different mold, when he was a first year starter in 1992 he had several come from behind wins in the fourth quarter, right away I think of the Bengals game, and the Philly game where he won the game in the fourth with a seperated shoulder. I don't expect this out of Rodgers, simply because there is and will only ever be one Favre, just like there will be only one Bart Star.

Rodgers will carve his spot in Green Bay lore before his time in Green Bay is done, it just won't be for the 2008 season.

[Zool]

umm, how many wins does Favre have? Grow up. This season certainly isn't about Favre vs Rodgers.

Earth calling Nutz....come in Nutz.


Look around the board. Patler has an extremely valid point.

[Patler]

Ya, it was the 4-12 season. What bothered me at the time was the excuses I heard that "Favre was just trying to win" even though he made some terrible plays on early downs with plenty of time remaining and the score close. Several times it was his turnovers that put the game out of reach.

In fairness, Favre did have a comeback win that season against Detroit and he scored enough 4th quarter points to hang on against Atlanta and thwart their comeback attempt. But 9 times he had quite poor late game performances.

[Deputy Nutz]

umm, how many wins does Favre have? Grow up. This season certainly isn't about Favre vs Rodgers.

Earth calling Nutz....come in Nutz.


Look around the board. Patler has an extremely valid point.

Sure if you want to scribe out a small portion of Favre's career, go ahead. I mean really, I guess Favre was all bullshit anyways. If it makes all of you feel better to keep ragging the guy and talking down on him because he is no longer a Packer go ahead.

One losing season in 16 years as a starter with the Packers.

Rodgers one losing season in one year as a starter.

[Deputy Nutz]

Ya, it was the 4-12 season. What bothered me at the time was the excuses I heard that "Favre was just trying to win" even though he made some terrible plays on early downs with plenty of time remaining and the score close. Several times it was his turnovers that put the game out of reach.

In fairness, Favre did have a comeback win that season against Detroit and he scored enough 4th quarter points to hang on against Atlanta and thwart their comeback attempt. But 9 times he had quite poor late game performances.

That was a fucked up season all the way around. They were so close in so many games against good teams that they had no business playing competitive football against and yet Favre would overdue it. I think of the Bengals game again where he threw 3 or 4 picks, yet they only lost by 7 and the game was tied when Favre threw his last pick.

[Zool]

umm, how many wins does Favre have? Grow up. This season certainly isn't about Favre vs Rodgers.

Earth calling Nutz....come in Nutz.


Look around the board. Patler has an extremely valid point.

Sure if you want to scribe out a small portion of Favre's career, go ahead. I mean really, I guess Favre was all bullshit anyways. If it makes all of you feel better to keep ragging the guy and talking down on him because he is no longer a Packer go ahead.

One losing season in 16 years as a starter with the Packers.

Rodgers one losing season in one year as a starter.

Yeah thats obviously his point. Welcome back?

[Patler]

umm, how many wins does Favre have? Grow up. This season certainly isn't about Favre vs Rodgers. That was an argument for preseason, the fact is Rodgers has played above my expectations. He has kept the Packers competitive all season long, he has done his job for a first year starting QB.

Favre is cut out of a different mold, when he was a first year starter in 1992 he had several come from behind wins in the fourth quarter, right away I think of the Bengals game, and the Philly game where he won the game in the fourth with a seperated shoulder. I don't expect this out of Rodgers, simply because there is and will only ever be one Favre, just like there will be only one Bart Star.

Rodgers will carve his spot in Green Bay lore before his time in Green Bay is done, it just won't be for the 2008 season.

I am just trying to put some perspective on what can happen in the short time of a single season. People are getting all over Rodgers for failing to engineer comeback wins and I agree, he has failed. But, as I pointed out in another thread, 5 times in the last 6 minutes of losing games he has either tied the score (twice), gotten the lead (twice) or extended a lead AND gotten into position for a winning FG attempt (once). All for naught. As I am pointing out in this thread, in a single season even a future HOF QB can fail with the game on the line, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. (9 times, in fact!).

It's all a matter of looking at it with a frame of reference, because a team's failure or success at the end of a game is more than just the performance of the QB, it generally includes successes or failures by many players and the coaches.

[channtheman]

umm, how many wins does Favre have? Grow up. This season certainly isn't about Favre vs Rodgers.

Earth calling Nutz....come in Nutz.


Look around the board. Patler has an extremely valid point.

Sure if you want to scribe out a small portion of Favre's career, go ahead. I mean really, I guess Favre was all bullshit anyways. If it makes all of you feel better to keep ragging the guy and talking down on him because he is no longer a Packer go ahead.

One losing season in 16 years as a starter with the Packers.

Rodgers one losing season in one year as a starter.

This really isn't the point of the thread. It's more to say to the guys who think that Rodgers is the problem that Favre had way worse late game collapses in some games and he didn't even give the defense a chance to blow the lead.

[Patler]

umm, how many wins does Favre have? Grow up. This season certainly isn't about Favre vs Rodgers.

Earth calling Nutz....come in Nutz.


Look around the board. Patler has an extremely valid point.

Sure if you want to scribe out a small portion of Favre's career, go ahead. I mean really, I guess Favre was all bullshit anyways. If it makes all of you feel better to keep ragging the guy and talking down on him because he is no longer a Packer go ahead.

One losing season in 16 years as a starter with the Packers.

Rodgers one losing season in one year as a starter.

Subtlety is really lost on you, isn't it?
Read my immediately preceding post.

[Patler]

Ya, it was the 4-12 season. What bothered me at the time was the excuses I heard that "Favre was just trying to win" even though he made some terrible plays on early downs with plenty of time remaining and the score close. Several times it was his turnovers that put the game out of reach.

In fairness, Favre did have a comeback win that season against Detroit and he scored enough 4th quarter points to hang on against Atlanta and thwart their comeback attempt. But 9 times he had quite poor late game performances.

That was a fucked up season all the way around. They were so close in so many games against good teams that they had no business playing competitive football against and yet Favre would overdue it. I think of the Bengals game again where he threw 3 or 4 picks, yet they only lost by 7 and the game was tied when Favre threw his last pick.



Is this season really so different? In its own way it is as screwed up as 2005 was.

[Deputy Nutz]

umm, how many wins does Favre have? Grow up. This season certainly isn't about Favre vs Rodgers.

Earth calling Nutz....come in Nutz.


Look around the board. Patler has an extremely valid point.

Sure if you want to scribe out a small portion of Favre's career, go ahead. I mean really, I guess Favre was all bullshit anyways. If it makes all of you feel better to keep ragging the guy and talking down on him because he is no longer a Packer go ahead.

One losing season in 16 years as a starter with the Packers.

Rodgers one losing season in one year as a starter.

Subtlety is really lost on you, isn't it?
Read my immediately preceding post.

I was writing while you posted that. I guess I am not one of the people that is focusing on Rodger's supposed inability to win games in the 4th quarter, he has put the Packers ahead late in games, but I can only think of two maybe three games where Rodgers play could be considered the focal point in late game loses, the Tampa game, the Atlanta game, and the rest not so much considering the offense as a whole couldn't pull their head out of their ass and score touchdowns. You certainly can't blame Rodgers for the Carolina loss, this last loss, the Houston loss, or the Vikings loss although he wasn't having a very good game against the Vikings.

[Deputy Nutz]

Ya, it was the 4-12 season. What bothered me at the time was the excuses I heard that "Favre was just trying to win" even though he made some terrible plays on early downs with plenty of time remaining and the score close. Several times it was his turnovers that put the game out of reach.

In fairness, Favre did have a comeback win that season against Detroit and he scored enough 4th quarter points to hang on against Atlanta and thwart their comeback attempt. But 9 times he had quite poor late game performances.

That was a fucked up season all the way around. They were so close in so many games against good teams that they had no business playing competitive football against and yet Favre would overdue it. I think of the Bengals game again where he threw 3 or 4 picks, yet they only lost by 7 and the game was tied when Favre threw his last pick.



Is this season really so different? In its own way it is as screwed up as 2005 was.

Yes but reversed? playing down?

[Patler]

That was a fucked up season all the way around. They were so close in so many games against good teams that they had no business playing competitive football against and yet Favre would overdue it. I think of the Bengals game again where he threw 3 or 4 picks, yet they only lost by 7 and the game was tied when Favre threw his last pick.


Is this season really so different? In its own way it is as screwed up as 2005 was.


Yes but reversed? playing down?

Maybe, but I'm not sure they "played up" to good competition in 2005. Both years were a jumble of a few key injuries, the infamous "miscommunications" and key meltdowns in winnable games.

[prsnfoto]

Ya, it was the 4-12 season. What bothered me at the time was the excuses I heard that "Favre was just trying to win" even though he made some terrible plays on early downs with plenty of time remaining and the score close. Several times it was his turnovers that put the game out of reach.

In fairness, Favre did have a comeback win that season against Detroit and he scored enough 4th quarter points to hang on against Atlanta and thwart their comeback attempt. But 9 times he had quite poor late game performances.

That was a fucked up season all the way around. They were so close in so many games against good teams that they had no business playing competitive football against and yet Favre would overdue it. I think of the Bengals game again where he threw 3 or 4 picks, yet they only lost by 7 and the game was tied when Favre threw his last pick.



Is this season really so different? In its own way it is as screwed up as 2005 was.


Not even close they had no WR's for part of that season and were on the 7th or 8th string RB and playing with no offensive line, I admit no coach or GM can plan for that it would be like losing Woodsen, Kampman and all the LB for the whole season. THAT has not happened this year had twinkle toes had one legit backup for Jenkins and not completely fucked up the special teams by cutting Ryan and letting Tracy White go this team is fighting for a playoff spot. The defense is the problem this year because of a lack of depth and horrible drafting by TT(twinkle toes) if Harrell doesn't suck,Hawk doesn't suck and all the D-linemen and Poppinga are better than D players that he has drafted this season is a lot different. The O has been pretty healthy Grant has a 1000 yards Rodgers has the best WR's ever as a group in Packers history(as did Brett for his last season) again because of Twinkle Toes the only weakness is the line which is a little better than the D-line a C, they have had a couple injuries but they are all average at best as a group with 8 guys all about the same no dropoff if someone gets hurt there are no excuses for the offense this year.

[Patler]

Not even close they had no WR's for part of that season and were on the 7th or 8th string RB and playing with no offensive line, I admit no coach or GM can plan for that it would be like losing Woodsen, Kampman and all the LB for the whole season. THAT has not happened this year had twinkle toes had one legit backup for Jenkins and not completely fucked up the special teams by cutting Ryan and letting Tracy White go this team is fighting for a playoff spot. The defense is the problem this year because of a lack of depth and horrible drafting by TT(twinkle toes) if Harrell doesn't suck,Hawk doesn't suck and all the D-linemen and Poppinga are better than D players that he has drafted this season is a lot different. The O has been pretty healthy Grant has a 1000 yards Rodgers has the best WR's ever as a group in Packers history(as did Brett for his last season) again because of Twinkle Toes the only weakness is the line which is a little better than the D-line a C, they have had a couple injuries but they are all average at best as a group with 8 guys all about the same no dropoff if someone gets hurt there are no excuses for the offense this year.

I think it is a closer parallel than you are willing to admit, but perhaps more on the defensive side than on the offensive side.

No offensive line in 2005? True, but why? Poor play, not injuries. They "lost" two guards iin the off season, but Clifton and Tauscher started all 16 and Flanagan 14. The did not lose others to injury. This year Clifton and Tauscher had significant declines, especially Clifton, and overall the line has played as poorly as in 2005, with more games lost to injuries than in 2005. Driver started all 16 games in 2005 and had 86 receptions. The Packers had significant injuries in 2005, but some other teams lost more "starts" that year due to injuries than the Packers did.

Losing Jenkins for 12 games and Barnett for nearly half the season are similar to losing Walker and Green in 2005, but on the other side of the ball. Was Frost much different than BJ Sander in 2005? In 2008 the Packers have had so many safeties hurt that they don't even have enough to practice with at times, similar to the situation with WRs or RBs in 2005. Bigby has 7 starts and has played hurt in most of those. Essentially, he has been out most of the season. Harris missed 4..

It is starting to look like Packer starters will miss in the neighborhood of 40-45 games in 2008, which I think is fairly close to what the starters missed in 2005.

[Partial]

I think this team has 5x the talent of '05. We have two pro bowl receivers this year with great depth... We had Taco Wallace in '05. We have a first round pick as a third receiver... our second receiver in '05 was the midget returner from the CFL that is on the Bengals now.

in '05 we had an injured Ahman Green.. In '08 we have two healthy backs entering their prime, though Grant did start out unhealthy.

In '05 we had an aging, slow TE in Bubba.. in '08 we have a borderline pro-bowl TE in Donald Lee.

I could continue, but it would be tough to dispute that this team does not have more individual talent.

[prsnfoto]

Not even close they had no WR's for part of that season and were on the 7th or 8th string RB and playing with no offensive line, I admit no coach or GM can plan for that it would be like losing Woodsen, Kampman and all the LB for the whole season. THAT has not happened this year had twinkle toes had one legit backup for Jenkins and not completely fucked up the special teams by cutting Ryan and letting Tracy White go this team is fighting for a playoff spot. The defense is the problem this year because of a lack of depth and horrible drafting by TT(twinkle toes) if Harrell doesn't suck,Hawk doesn't suck and all the D-linemen and Poppinga are better than D players that he has drafted this season is a lot different. The O has been pretty healthy Grant has a 1000 yards Rodgers has the best WR's ever as a group in Packers history(as did Brett for his last season) again because of Twinkle Toes the only weakness is the line which is a little better than the D-line a C, they have had a couple injuries but they are all average at best as a group with 8 guys all about the same no dropoff if someone gets hurt there are no excuses for the offense this year.

I think it is a closer parallel than you are willing to admit, but perhaps more on the defensive side than on the offensive side.

No offensive line in 2005? True, but why? Poor play, not injuries. They "lost" two guards iin the off season, but Clifton and Tauscher started all 16 and Flanagan 14. The did not lose others to injury. This year Clifton and Tauscher had significant declines, especially Clifton, and overall the line has played as poorly as in 2005, with more games lost to injuries than in 2005. Driver started all 16 games in 2005 and had 86 receptions. The Packers had significant injuries in 2005, but some other teams lost more "starts" that year due to injuries than the Packers did.

Losing Jenkins for 12 games and Barnett for nearly half the season are similar to losing Walker and Green in 2005, but on the other side of the ball. Was Frost much different than BJ Sander in 2005? In 2008 the Packers have had so many safeties hurt that they don't even have enough to practice with at times, similar to the situation with WRs or RBs in 2005. Bigby has 7 starts and has played hurt in most of those. Essentially, he has been out most of the season. Harris missed 4..

It is starting to look like Packer starters will miss in the neighborhood of 40-45 games in 2008, which I think is fairly close to what the starters missed in 2005.


I respect the research Patler but I just don't see it the same losing the best RB in football over the previous 4-5 years and a top 5 WR at that time combined with a crappy O-line because TT has never thought G's are worth any $ is a far cry from losing a top 25 MLB and a top 50 DE-DT. I blame this season on poor coaching and poor planning(TT). Funny thing is with Favre I think they have a couple more wins but it would not have made the difference most thought, Rodgers has played good enough, management has let us all down and I have said this for weeks now, if they lose to the Lions they all gotta go now not after next year. That would be embarrassing beyond belief.

[Patler]

I think this team has 5x the talent of '05. We have two pro bowl receivers this year with great depth... We had Taco Wallace in '05. We have a first round pick as a third receiver... our second receiver in '05 was the midget returner from the CFL that is on the Bengals now.

in '05 we had an injured Ahman Green.. In '08 we have two healthy backs entering their prime, though Grant did start out unhealthy.

In '05 we had an aging, slow TE in Bubba.. in '08 we have a borderline pro-bowl TE in Donald Lee.

I could continue, but it would be tough to dispute that this team does not have more individual talent.

Kind of inaccurate in your comparison. In 2005 Driver had been to a Pro Bowl and was coming off a 2004 season with 80+ receptions for 1200+ yards, and performed comparably in 2005. Walker had been to a Pro Bowl, but was lost for the season. Bubba Franks was only 27 and actually had been to a number of Pro-Bowls. Are you really suggesting Lee is a borderline Pro Bowl player and better than Franks was in 2004/2005? In point of fact, only Driver on the 2008 team has actually been to a Pro Bowl among the receivers, but I will agree Jennings seems to be deserving. Tauscher and Clifton were in their prime in 2005. Flanagan was a year removed from the Pro Bowl. The guards were in flux, but the line had its leaders in the best years of their careers.

But more importantly, you are comparing only offense to offense. In 2005 I don't remember losing a starting DE, starting MLB, starting corner, a starting safety, etc. Injuries took a lot away from the offense in 2005. Injuries have taken a lot away from the defense in 2008.

[Patler]

I respect the research Patler but I just don't see it the same losing the best RB in football over the previous 4-5 years and a top 5 WR at that time combined with a crappy O-line because TT has never thought G's are worth any $ is a far cry from losing a top 25 MLB and a top 50 DE-DT. I blame this season on poor coaching and poor planning(TT). Funny thing is with Favre I think they have a couple more wins but it would not have made the difference most thought, Rodgers has played good enough, management has let us all down and I have said this for weeks now, if they lose to the Lions they all gotta go now not after next year. That would be embarrassing beyond belief.

I do not rate Walker as high as you, and I rate the losses of Jenkins and Barnett as more significant than you seem to.

I think it is unfair to say TT has never thought guards were worth any money. More accurately, within the salary cap available, he could not afford to pay Wahle and Rivera the kind of money they got on the open market. He was openly negotiating with both, and wanted to keep at least one, but with Sharper refusing to any salary cap concessions, he just had very little to work with at that time of the year. While it was not a huge contract by any means, he did pay more than a little to bring in Adrian Klemm at guard (which many thought was a shrewd deal at the time). It just didn't work as hoped.

[dissident94]

Lets stop comparing the two Qbs. Just because Favre broke down late in games doesn't mean squat right now.
I guess it is acceptable to lose and its acceptable to throw late games ints every time because two years ago Brett did.

When did Rodgers earn enough credibility not to be critisized. If he cannot deliver better in late game situations he will never be a great Qb.

I just do not understand where this comes from. The only people who bring up favre all the time are the Favre haters. But if you critisize Rodgers that means you are a Favre lover.

No it means Rodgers isn't playing well late in games. That is simple truth.

[Bossman641]

Lets stop comparing the two Qbs. Just because Favre broke down late in games doesn't mean squat right now.
I guess it is acceptable to lose and its acceptable to throw late games ints every time because two years ago Brett did.

When did Rodgers earn enough credibility not to be critisized. If he cannot deliver better in late game situations he will never be a great Qb.

I just do not understand where this comes from. The only people who bring up favre all the time are the Favre haters. But if you critisize Rodgers that means you are a Favre lover.

No it means Rodgers isn't playing well late in games. That is simple truth.

I agree with the gist of your post. There is no use in excusing Rodgers' failures because Favre failed before him.

I think what has many of us riled up is the fact that many here are blaming the losses solely on Rodgers or mostly on Rodgers. If the defense had held up a few times we wouldn't be having these discussions. Instead we would be hearing how Rodgers brought the team down the field for the game-winning FG or TD with 3 minutes left. That is where myself and others get sick. There's this general feeling here from many posters that Favre would have brought us back in every single one of these games, time and time again no matter how many times the defense blew it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He can be criticized. He's failed on a number of last drives. I think a lot of people think it's pretty unfair though. He's put the team in position to win games in the 4th quarter numerous times. That gets forgotten because the defense has been an even bigger failure in crunch time. It seems those that criticize Rodgers fail to acknowledge that we were behind against Detroit in the 4th quarter and Rodgers led them back. They fail to acknowledge that he brought the team back from a deficit in the 4th quarter against Atlanta, only to see the defense give up points on the next drive. They fail to acknowledge that he twice drove the team to game tying scores late against Tennessee only to see the defense not get the ball back for him. They fail to acknowledge that he got the team in position to win late against Minnesota (although mostly due to luck), only to watch the coach get conservative and the kicker miss the kick. They fail to acknowledge that he brought the team back from a deficit in the 4th quarter against Carolina, only to have the defense give it up. He put them in position to win against Houston, but a bad call led to a squandered opportunity.

He's failed on last drives, but in MANY of these games, he's not only been asked to bring the team back, but he's been asked to bring the team back twice in the 4th quarter. He's been very successful the first time bringing them back. Not very successful the second time. Not many QBs would be all that successful if they have to create, in essence, two "game winning-type" drives in the 4th quarter in half of their games.

[sharpe1027]

Lets stop comparing the two Qbs. Just because Favre broke down late in games doesn't mean squat right now.
I guess it is acceptable to lose and its acceptable to throw late games ints every time because two years ago Brett did.

When did Rodgers earn enough credibility not to be critisized. If he cannot deliver better in late game situations he will never be a great Qb.

I just do not understand where this comes from. The only people who bring up favre all the time are the Favre haters. But if you critisize Rodgers that means you are a Favre lover.

No it means Rodgers isn't playing well late in games. That is simple truth.

Late-game INTs when huge chunks of yards in limitted time are necessary to win the game should generally be expected. When, the QB needs to start taking some chances there will be more INTs. That was true for Favre and it is true for Rodgers and any other QB.

Rodgers has scored late in the 4th several times to put the Packers ahead. He has also thrown are few INTs with the clock running down. Thos type of INTs are neither a terrible thing, nor completely acceptable, but should be expected.

[Partial]

Harv the detroit example is horrible. They scored 6 offensive points in the second half after dominating the first against an horrendous unbeaten team.

That was a severe offensive failure in the second half.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harv the detroit example is horrible. They scored 6 offensive points in the second half after dominating the first against an horrendous unbeaten team.

That was a severe offensive failure in the second half.

They scored 34 points before the defense scored their first TD. How's that for offensive production? They had a bad third quarter. Big deal. They scored 24 points in the first half (of course, Rodgers gets no credit for those three first half TD passes), had a comfortable lead, and the defense gave it up. When they fell behind in the 4th quarter, did the Packers offense reclaim the lead or not on the next possession?

[Patler]

Lets stop comparing the two Qbs. Just because Favre broke down late in games doesn't mean squat right now.
I guess it is acceptable to lose and its acceptable to throw late games ints every time because two years ago Brett did.

When did Rodgers earn enough credibility not to be critisized. If he cannot deliver better in late game situations he will never be a great Qb.

I just do not understand where this comes from. The only people who bring up favre all the time are the Favre haters. But if you critisize Rodgers that means you are a Favre lover.

No it means Rodgers isn't playing well late in games. That is simple truth.

I could just as easily say that if you criticize Favre or say anything good about Rodgers you are classified a Rodgers lover and a Favre hater.

I started separate threads because I was not comparing the QBs. I was simply pointing out facts relating to each. I was hoping to get people to think more broadly by showing what a truly miserable year Favre had at the end of games in 2005. Favre, a future HOF'er and he threw interceptions galore and repeatedly fumbled in trying to rally his team from behind when the game was close. It happens.

On the other hand. Rodgers has not been totally incompetent at the end of games either. He has tied and gone ahead very late in the 4th quarter on numerous occasions. For various reasons, the offense, defense and special teams have just not been able to seal the deal. It happens.

[Partial]

Harv the detroit example is horrible. They scored 6 offensive points in the second half after dominating the first against an horrendous unbeaten team.

That was a severe offensive failure in the second half.

They scored 34 points before the defense scored their first TD. How's that for offensive production? They had a bad third quarter. Big deal. They scored 24 points in the first half (of course, Rodgers gets no credit for those three first half TD passes), had a comfortable lead, and the defense gave it up. When they fell behind in the 4th quarter, did the Packers offense reclaim the lead or not on the next possession?

Of course the defense blew it.

BS about the 34. What a crock. The D picks off a ball and puts them in prime position for their first second half TD.

They had 27 points before the D took over. The Packers D let Detroit back in the game without a doubt, but why did the offense suddenly fail against such a poor team?

[Zool]

Harv the detroit example is horrible. They scored 6 offensive points in the second half after dominating the first against an horrendous unbeaten team.

That was a severe offensive failure in the second half.

They scored 34 points before the defense scored their first TD. How's that for offensive production? They had a bad third quarter. Big deal. They scored 24 points in the first half (of course, Rodgers gets no credit for those three first half TD passes), had a comfortable lead, and the defense gave it up. When they fell behind in the 4th quarter, did the Packers offense reclaim the lead or not on the next possession?

Of course the defense blew it.

BS about the 34. What a crock. The D picks off a ball and puts them in prime position for their first second half TD.

They had 27 points before the D took over. The Packers D let Detroit back in the game without a doubt, but why did the offense suddenly fail against such a poor team?

Holy shit P, now there's qualifiers on the O scoring points? Did you research that in your posts on how many points the O has scored league wide? At the same time you say stats dont tell the tale. You cant have it both ways.

[Patler]

Harv the detroit example is horrible. They scored 6 offensive points in the second half after dominating the first against an horrendous unbeaten team.

That was a severe offensive failure in the second half.

You also have to recognize that when the defense or special teams score touchdowns, the offense has little opportunity to score points because they don't even get possession of the ball. It goes right back to the other team. In the second half against Detroit the offense had only 7 possessions not counting the clock killer at the end. They scored two FGs and a TD in those seven possessions. That's not really so awful.

[cpk1994]

Harv the detroit example is horrible. They scored 6 offensive points in the second half after dominating the first against an horrendous unbeaten team.

That was a severe offensive failure in the second half.

They scored 34 points before the defense scored their first TD. How's that for offensive production? They had a bad third quarter. Big deal. They scored 24 points in the first half (of course, Rodgers gets no credit for those three first half TD passes), had a comfortable lead, and the defense gave it up. When they fell behind in the 4th quarter, did the Packers offense reclaim the lead or not on the next possession?

Of course the defense blew it.

BS about the 34. What a crock. The D picks off a ball and puts them in prime position for their first second half TD.

They had 27 points before the D took over. The Packers D let Detroit back in the game without a doubt, but why did the offense suddenly fail against such a poor team?There you go with excuses to try to bolster your failing argument.

[prsnfoto]

Harv the detroit example is horrible. They scored 6 offensive points in the second half after dominating the first against an horrendous unbeaten team.

That was a severe offensive failure in the second half.

They scored 34 points before the defense scored their first TD. How's that for offensive production? They had a bad third quarter. Big deal. They scored 24 points in the first half (of course, Rodgers gets no credit for those three first half TD passes), had a comfortable lead, and the defense gave it up. When they fell behind in the 4th quarter, did the Packers offense reclaim the lead or not on the next possession?

Of course the defense blew it.

BS about the 34. What a crock. The D picks off a ball and puts them in prime position for their first second half TD.

They had 27 points before the D took over. The Packers D let Detroit back in the game without a doubt, but why did the offense suddenly fail against such a poor team?

Holy shit P, now there's qualifiers on the O scoring points? Did you research that in your posts on how many points the O has scored league wide? At the same time you say stats dont tell the tale. You cant have it both ways.


Actually they do keep track of points scored off TO and as of last week the Packers led the league, most teams and stats freaks don't count those as O points hence you will see many color guys and even posters on here will give you two seperate points scored numbers like last week some would say the TEAM was averaging 28.3 a game and the O was averaging 20.3 a game. The Houston game for example the O scored 0 points the team scored 21. Not saying it is the best way to do things because they may get the ball at the 2 yard line and have to go 98 yards to score I would give the Offense the points but on the other hand just as the defense has played like shit and lost games there are many games this year that they are completely blown out without the D creating TO the Minnesota and Houston games come to mind the Offense was atrocious in both games.

[Patler]

Harv the detroit example is horrible. They scored 6 offensive points in the second half after dominating the first against an horrendous unbeaten team.

That was a severe offensive failure in the second half.

They scored 34 points before the defense scored their first TD. How's that for offensive production? They had a bad third quarter. Big deal. They scored 24 points in the first half (of course, Rodgers gets no credit for those three first half TD passes), had a comfortable lead, and the defense gave it up. When they fell behind in the 4th quarter, did the Packers offense reclaim the lead or not on the next possession?

Of course the defense blew it.

BS about the 34. What a crock. The D picks off a ball and puts them in prime position for their first second half TD.

They had 27 points before the D took over. The Packers D let Detroit back in the game without a doubt, but why did the offense suddenly fail against such a poor team?

Holy shit P, now there's qualifiers on the O scoring points? Did you research that in your posts on how many points the O has scored league wide? At the same time you say stats dont tell the tale. You cant have it both ways.


Actually they do keep track of points scored off TO and as of last week the Packers led the league, most teams and stats freaks don't count those as O points hence you will see many color guys and even posters on here will give you two seperate points scored numbers like last week some would say the TEAM was averaging 28.3 a game and the O was averaging 20.3 a game. The Houston game for example the O scored 0 points the team scored 21. Not saying it is the best way to do things because they may get the ball at the 2 yard line and have to go 98 yards to score I would give the Offense the points but on the other hand just as the defense has played like shit and lost games there are many games this year that they are completely blown out without the D creating TO the Minnesota and Houston games come to mind the Offense was atrocious in both games.


If you are talking about points scored directly on the turnover (an interception or fumble returned for the TD) I will agree. Those are not considered offensive points. But the offense gets credit for the points even if the defense turns it over in "prime position" to score. Otherwise, when does the offense get credit and when not? If they drive 90 yards after a fumble recovery at the 10, or 80 yards after an interception in the end zone, is that not to the credit of the offense? What if it is a 50 yard drive to a TD? 40 yards? 20 yards? 1 yard?

[prsnfoto]

Harv the detroit example is horrible. They scored 6 offensive points in the second half after dominating the first against an horrendous unbeaten team.

That was a severe offensive failure in the second half.

They scored 34 points before the defense scored their first TD. How's that for offensive production? They had a bad third quarter. Big deal. They scored 24 points in the first half (of course, Rodgers gets no credit for those three first half TD passes), had a comfortable lead, and the defense gave it up. When they fell behind in the 4th quarter, did the Packers offense reclaim the lead or not on the next possession?

Of course the defense blew it.

BS about the 34. What a crock. The D picks off a ball and puts them in prime position for their first second half TD.

They had 27 points before the D took over. The Packers D let Detroit back in the game without a doubt, but why did the offense suddenly fail against such a poor team?

Holy shit P, now there's qualifiers on the O scoring points? Did you research that in your posts on how many points the O has scored league wide? At the same time you say stats dont tell the tale. You cant have it both ways.


Actually they do keep track of points scored off TO and as of last week the Packers led the league, most teams and stats freaks don't count those as O points hence you will see many color guys and even posters on here will give you two seperate points scored numbers like last week some would say the TEAM was averaging 28.3 a game and the O was averaging 20.3 a game. The Houston game for example the O scored 0 points the team scored 21. Not saying it is the best way to do things because they may get the ball at the 2 yard line and have to go 98 yards to score I would give the Offense the points but on the other hand just as the defense has played like shit and lost games there are many games this year that they are completely blown out without the D creating TO the Minnesota and Houston games come to mind the Offense was atrocious in both games.


If you are talking about points scored directly on the turnover (an interception or fumble returned for the TD) I will agree. Those are not considered offensive points. But the offense gets credit for the points even if the defense turns it over in "prime position" to score. Otherwise, when does the offense get credit and when not? If they drive 90 yards after a fumble recovery at the 10, or 80 yards after an interception in the end zone, is that not to the credit of the offense? What if it is a 50 yard drive to a TD? 40 yards? 20 yards? 1 yard?


I think I said that in my post but on the other hand if there is no TO how would they score those points? Better yet the other team may have scored making it a 14 point swing. All I am trying to point out is the problems on this team run deeper than just the D they play like they are the youngest team in Football and SHOCK they are!

[RashanGary]

In 2005 we lost 3 of our top 5 offensive lineman with nobody adequate to replace them.
In 2008 we lost 3 of our top 6 defensive lineman with nobody adequate to replace them.

In 2005 we lost are top running backs
In 2008 we lost our top strong safeties

In 2005 we lost a probowl receiver (walker)
In 2008 we lost Barnett

I see the mirror. I agree that 2005 was worse, but we're not doing as badly now as we did then either.

[Gunakor]

I think this team has 5x the talent of '05. We have two pro bowl receivers this year with great depth... We had Taco Wallace in '05. We have a first round pick as a third receiver... our second receiver in '05 was the midget returner from the CFL that is on the Bengals now.

in '05 we had an injured Ahman Green.. In '08 we have two healthy backs entering their prime, though Grant did start out unhealthy.

In '05 we had an aging, slow TE in Bubba.. in '08 we have a borderline pro-bowl TE in Donald Lee.

I could continue, but it would be tough to dispute that this team does not have more individual talent.

What about the DEFENSE Partial? You haven't said a word in this entire post about the defense. Do they not count? Or do you just not care?

By the way P, just to set the record straight, we do not have a WR drafted in the first round on our entire roster. You might want to check your info before posting.

And you would be hard pressed to find a single AP writer that would even nominate much less vote for Donald Lee as a Pro Bowl TE. Where did you ever get the idea that he was even borderline PB quality?

[Partial]

I think this team has 5x the talent of '05. We have two pro bowl receivers this year with great depth... We had Taco Wallace in '05. We have a first round pick as a third receiver... our second receiver in '05 was the midget returner from the CFL that is on the Bengals now.

in '05 we had an injured Ahman Green.. In '08 we have two healthy backs entering their prime, though Grant did start out unhealthy.

In '05 we had an aging, slow TE in Bubba.. in '08 we have a borderline pro-bowl TE in Donald Lee.

I could continue, but it would be tough to dispute that this team does not have more individual talent.

What about the DEFENSE Partial? You haven't said a word in this entire post about the defense. Do they not count? Or do you just not care?

By the way P, just to set the record straight, we do not have a WR drafted in the first round on our entire roster. You might want to check your info before posting.

And you would be hard pressed to find a single AP writer that would even nominate much less vote for Donald Lee as a Pro Bowl TE. Where did you ever get the idea that he was even borderline PB quality?

Donald Lee was spectacular last year. I can't help it our quarterback doesn't know how to use the middle of the field, and or coach doesn't trust him to. He was a pro-bowl alternative last year. He was an epic playmaker for our team.

The D in 2005 was pretty damn similiar. KGB on the end getting gashed for rushing yards, Kamoman starting to come into his own, Gravy at tackle, a young Barnett, Robert Thomas is a huge step back from Hawk, and Poppinga is a MUCH better player now (although still bad). We had Ahmad Carroll, a rookie Nick Collins, Al Harris, and Turnstyle Mark Roman at the other safety spot.

Is that not enough evidence for you?

Kampman today >>>>>>> Kampman of 05
Pickett > Gravy Jackson
Jolly == a young Corey Williams
Turnstyle KGB == Monty (both are horrible)

Hawk today >>>>>> Robert Thomas
Poppinga Today > Poppinga '05
Barnett today > Barnett 05

Collins Today >>>>>> Collins as a rookie
Harris Today > Harris of 05 (JSO is saying he is playing his best ball this year though)
Chuck >>>>>>> Ahmad Carroll
Rouse/Bigby >>>>>> Roman


So... With that said, we have a clearly superior offense, and a clearly superior defense, yet the record is almost the same? The difference is intangibles and leadership.

[sharpe1027]

Donald Lee was spectacular last year. He was an epic playmaker for our team.


You can do better than that to stir the pot! I expect more.

[Gunakor]

Donald Lee was spectacular last year. He was an epic playmaker for our team.


You can do better than that to stir the pot! I expect more.

I know, right? He was SO good last year that TT drafted a NEW tight end in the draft right after his epic playmaking performance. Swell.

[Gunakor]

Kampman today >>>>>>> Kampman of 05
Pickett > Gravy Jackson
Jolly == a young Corey Williams
Turnstyle KGB == Monty (both are horrible)

Hawk today >>>>>> Robert Thomas
Poppinga Today > Poppinga '05
Barnett today > Barnett 05

Collins Today >>>>>> Collins as a rookie
Harris Today > Harris of 05 (JSO is saying he is playing his best ball this year though)
Chuck >>>>>>> Ahmad Carroll
Rouse/Bigby >>>>>> Roman


So... With that said, we have a clearly superior offense, and a clearly superior defense, yet the record is almost the same? The difference is intangibles and leadership.

Kampman of '05 and Kampman today are equal. Kampman of '05 had way more sacks and QB pressures, but I think that had something to do with a healthy KGB rushing the passer on the other side. Even though KGB had his problems against the run, he was still WAY better than Monty will ever be. What the hell has Monty done all season that makes you think he'll ever be more than a solid career backup? And DT? You think our DT's this year are better or equal to those we had in '05? Partial, I've been following the Packers for nearly 20 years and I can't remember a worse performance from our DT's than I've seen this year. They can't collapse a pocket to save their lives, and they can't even get in the way of a RB on a consistent basis. Overall, this line is SHIT compared to '05.

You might be right about the LB's, if only our LB's were lined up that way still. Where has AJ Hawk played during this late season meltdown? MLB, that's right. Barnett of '05 >>>>> AJ Hawk of '08 at MLB. The next mistake you made was putting Robert Thomas and Brady Poppinga in your arguement, because our OLB's in 2005 were Na'il Diggs (OLB for the NFC leading Carolina Panthers) and Paris Lenon. So remembering that Hawk has been at MLB during this meltdown, the comparison should be whether Poppinga is better than Lennon was (I think he is) and is Brandon Chillar better than Na'il Diggs was (no fucking way).

You are absolutely correct in your comparisons of our DB's. Note the DB's have been one of the lone bright spots on our defense this year. I'm not arguing that with you at all. Every one of them is better than what we had in 2005, though an arguement could be made that Woodson has been playing SS for the last 3 weeks, not cornerback. Which changes little, because I think Tramon Williams is still better than Ahmad Carroll, but I'm not sure Woodson is a better SS than Mark Roman was. Certainly not a whole lot worse, but probably not better either.