Who's To Blame for Packers' Playoff Loss to the Cardinals?

[SnakeLH2006]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/325902-who-to-blame-packers-playoff-loss-to-the-cardinals-and-kurt-warner

Kurt Warner came into the Cardinals-Packers playoff game with the second best lifetime QB rating in NFL history. Only Bart Starr is better. Did everyone forget about that?

During the Sunday pregame shows on CBS, NBC, and ESPN, only one football analyst picked the Cardinals to defeat the Packers (Bill Cowher). Everyone else picked the Packers. 14 out of 15 of the so-called experts were swayed. Swayed by what? The Packers' meaningless win the week before against Arizona? The Cardinals lackluster play over the last four meaningless games of their season?

And a host of Packer fans were wrong. The prevailing sentiment in the week leading up to the game was that the Packers would win going away. I kept scratching my head at that. When I predicted the Packers pulling out a close victory (31-27), I was putting on a brave face, but inside, I feared Kurt Warner. In my mind, a close win would be the best-case scenario. Packer fans kept telling me it wouldn't be that close. I wanted to believe, I really did.

Yet I feared that Warner would pick apart the Packers secondary like he did the Vikings secondary in Week 13, the last meaningful game the Cardinals had played. Although his numbers in that game came nowhere near those from this past weekend's spectacle, I gained a healthy respect for his decision-making and timing. Kurt Warner delivers the ball to the right receiver, at the right time, and in the right spot.

Enter the Packers secondary, an injury-depleted and seemingly easily-confused mish-mosh of overrated players and waiver-wire pickups. There, I said it. Excluding, of course, NFL Defensive Player of the Year, Charles Woodson. Can you picture the Packers secondary without him?

Certainly, Kurt Warner and Ken Wisenhunt's eyes must have popped out like Marty Feldman's when they studied Packers game films. There was plenty there for them to like. From a supposed All-Pro safety that will make the occasional big play but struggles with consistency to the infamous Jarret Bush, helplessly chasing after his man while trying to locate the ball. Throw in the suspiciously disappearing Atari Bigby, athletic but mentally unprepared Brandon Underwood, and just not NFL-caliber Matt Giordano, and there was bound to be a Cardinal party in the Packers defensive backfield.

The only hope for the Packers, of course, would be to make Kurt Warner uncomfortable. But it had to happen from the base defense, which the Packers have not been able to do against quality opponents. With the 4-5 receiver sets the Cardinals dialed up, blitzing a DB was not a good option. Blitzing another linebacker may have helped, if the Packers had a linebacker besides Clay Matthews that can get to the quarterback. Unfortunately, they don't.

Career Stats
Barnett 15 sacks: 7 years
Hawk 8.5 sacks: 4 years
Chillar 7.5 sacks: 6 years

Without the ability to put real pressure on Warner, the Packers were forced to mostly play their nickel and dime packages, putting the defense's fate in the hands of the secondary. It was a lose-lose proposition.

I expected the Packers offense to be able to put up enough points to win the game, and certainly 45 points would normally qualify. And yet, it wasn't enough. Plenty of fingers are being pointed. The fault lies with Dom Capers, Aaron Rodgers' turnovers, Nick Barnett, Jarret Bush, etc.

But there's really only one man to blame for this loss; The man who once before threw five TDs in a playoff game, the man with a 9-3 playoff record, the man with the second best playoff QB rating in NFL history. Kurt Warner, the quiet desert assassin who always saves his best for the big games.

And yes, his bust will one day reside in Canton.

----------------------------------------

Granted I thought the Pack would play better D, and ARod was lights out and gives us hope in the future....I only say this...I knew Warner was gonna ball out and have a top notch (completion percentage game), but those early Pack turnovers made it too easy for the old man.

Warner is good, but other than Clay Matthews, where is our pass rush? What happened to Jenkins...where was my man Raji to offer pressure up the gut? Jolly? Are we to rely on a 7th rounder (who by Snakes estimations was better than Kampy at OLB)?

Lots of questions, but if we get to the playoffs and can't supply QB pressure, does it matter if our D player of the year CWood and his comrades in the secondary play well? No. We need more pressure at DE.

Snakes has been advocating all year we upgrade the OT's (old dudes, but they played balls out to solidify our OL....Cliffy and Tauch when they got healthy)....? I still say draft the top OT in 2010 as Cliffy was random, but somehow Tauch was solid over Barbre (human sieve/sack machine) at RT.

We aren't that far from elite, but need only one immediate need....more cowbell...and passrush from the DE/OLB position. Too many times we didn't supply pressure vs. elite offenses...Yeah, upgrade both OT spots (esp. since Tauch and Cliffy are UFA), but we really need to get a consistent pass rush from our DL (what happened to Jenkins??).

Thoughts?

[Gunakor]

The analysts were swayed by the fact that the Packers won 7 of their last 8 games, facing some good competition along the way. 2 of the teams they beat over that stretch still have games to play this weekend. And the only team that beat us was the defending Super Bowl Champion, at the final horn, at their place. I don't think their confidence in the Packers was unwarranted.

Blame for this loss can't be shouldered by one person. This was a collective loss. Every phase of the game contributed. It wasn't just the defense, the offense turned it over early and spotted AZ 14 points before we could even get settled in our seats. It wasn't just the offense, we couldn't get a decent return out of Nelson or Williams to provide favorable field position all afternoon. It wasn't just the special teams, the officiating wouldn't throw a flag to protect Rodgers even if his life depended on it. There were tons of things that didn't go right for us, and yet we still almost won. Another reason I don't think the analysts were overconfident in Green Bay.

[SnakeLH2006]

The analysts were swayed by the fact that the Packers won 7 of their last 8 games, facing some good competition along the way. 2 of the teams they beat over that stretch still have games to play this weekend. And the only team that beat us was the defending Super Bowl Champion, at the final horn, at their place. I don't think their confidence in the Packers was unwarranted.

Blame for this loss can't be shouldered by one person. This was a collective loss. Every phase of the game contributed. It wasn't just the defense, the offense turned it over early and spotted AZ 14 points before we could even get settled in our seats. It wasn't just the offense, we couldn't get a decent return out of Nelson or Williams to provide favorable field position all afternoon. It wasn't just the special teams, the officiating wouldn't throw a flag to protect Rodgers even if his life depended on it. There were tons of things that didn't go right for us, and yet we still almost won. Another reason I don't think the analysts were overconfident in Green Bay.

Don't get me started on Jordy Nelson...That dude has to be worst ST return man I've EVER seen in 20 years in watching NFL football. Just awful.

I was concentrating on the Defensive Pass Rush...The old OT's played ok, but to stay true, what keeps us from greatness? The pass-rush...Can you really rely on a 22 year old OLB in the playoffs and expect to win? No. The pass-rush was inconsistent all year. Jenkins was supposedly healthy (and I was on the bandwagon) to where he was supposed to "beast out". Nope. Little pass rush. Little chance for post season success. Warner is a rhythem beast. Don't fluster him....he tears it up. That's what happened...It was like a Madden game with 91 points. I could care less what the analysts thought....if we can't pass-rush...Arod could have 6 TDs passing...we couldn't stop Warner.

[ThunderDan]

Don't get me started on Jordy Nelson...That dude has to be worst ST return man I've EVER seen in 20 years in watching NFL football. Just awful.

I was concentrating on the Defensive Pass Rush...The old OT's played ok, but to stay true, what keeps us from greatness? The pass-rush...Can you really rely on a 22 year old OLB in the playoffs and expect to win? No. The pass-rush was inconsistent all year. Jenkins was supposedly healthy (and I was on the bandwagon) to where he was supposed to "beast out". Nope. Little pass rush. Little chance for post season success. Warner is a rhythem beast. Don't fluster him....he tears it up. That's what happened...It was like a Madden game with 91 points. I could care less what the analysts thought....if we can't pass-rush...Arod could have 6 TDs passing...we couldn't stop Warner.

That's a great point Snake. I think you can't rely on any one player to generate pass-rush an expect to win 22 year old or not. We need to be able to get push from all our rushers. The DL played horrible on Sunday and allowed Warner to pick us apart. When the inside guys can win their one-on-one match ups the whole defense looks great.

Here is to hoping Raji grows into his frame in year 2 and that we can find more push either in the draft or FA.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Snake is usually pretty right on the money, but I don't like coronating Warner as King of the NFL QB's.

If Warner is so unbeatable, why play the next few games? Just hand Kurt the Super Bowl trophy and be done with it. :) :)

Seriously, if I had to blame someone, I'd blame McStubby. That's where the buck stops. And here's why:

1. The Pack is playing a playoff game away from home. It's the first playoff game for a lot of our guys. We're the youngest team in the league. Our QB is real good, but it's his first playoff game. Arizona tricked us up and closed the roof instead of leaving it open as advertised. In short, you've got a bunch of young guys chomping on the bit, bursting with adrenylin. McStubby should have deferred after winning the coin toss. If he was going to not defer, he should have came out running the ball for the first series or two, punted if he had to and then the butterflies are gone and Warner starts with less than stellar field position. By coming out cold, throwing, McStubby was asking for trouble. The running game's been stellar lately and the Cards were ranked low in run defense so we might not have had to punt.

2. Related to #1. After the first interception by Rodgers on the first play of the game, and after Warner gets the Cards into the end zone with no problem, why not play to keep Warner off the field? Why not use the run to allow Rodgers time to settle down? The first play after the Pack gets the ball, Grant gashes the Cards for 10 yards! Cool! I figure, "Now we're cooking!" The Cards can't stop the run, yet McStubby has to get greedy, goes to the shotgun and Rodgers gets sacked.

3. Related to #1. Everyone knows playoff games are all but decided on turnovers. After the first Packer turnover, McStubby should have played more conservative, especially close to our goal. When he didn't and we turned it over again, the slide downhill was on.

4. The Pack played four games against elite QB's and lost them all by doing what they did Sunday against Warner. Why did McStubby not decide to do something different? They say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I hear all the talk about if we would have blitzed heavy, Warner would have killed us. Dah! He killed us anyway! Why not send the LB's and try to force the Cards into a turnover. If Warner gashes us on a big play, so be it. We don't have the horses yet to play cover defense on a guy like Warner or Favre or Big Ben.

5. Why didn't McStubby insist that Capers adjust immediately to Warner's success over the middle. It was obvious to all watching that something was amiss. Why wait till half time when even then Capers didn't really change much.

6. Why did McStubby go for the long-shot 54-yd field goal at the beginning of the second half? Especially given Crosby's recent crappy kicks? Why give a hot Warner the ball on a short field? Why not try to pin the Cards in the shadow of their own goal posts? Maybe something good would happen on defense. In fact, on the next series Fitzgerald DOES fumble and Matthews recovers! Or just maybe Warner would play a bit more conservative. Maybe we stop the run and they punt. McStubby's been giving up field position like this all season long.

7. Why didn't McStubby go for the win at the end of the game. He's played shoot-the-lights-out, go-for-broke football all game long, why play conservative at the end of the game and send the game to OT? They're playing IN Arizona. Warner IS hot as hell. You KNOW the Packers are going to score. Why score with a minute and 46 seconds left on the clock? GB has the ball, 1st and 10 on the Arizona 25 with 3:12 left. Grant runs on 1st down and gains 5 yds! Why go to the shotgun on the next three plays? Why not keep it on the ground and wind the clock down to where Warner has only 15 or 20 seconds?


I KNOW this is a lot of if's and it sounds like second-guessing now, but it wasn't second-guessing for me when all of the above was going through my mind DURING the game!

The biggest fear I have for next year is that our players will improve to the point where we can match up with the big guys, but we'll still be saddled with a head coach who is stubborn, brain-dead strategy-wise and still insistent on calling the plays.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Seriously, if I had to blame someone, I'd blame McStubby. That's where the buck stops. And here's why:

1. The Pack is playing a playoff game away from home. It's the first playoff game for a lot of our guys. We're the youngest team in the league. Our QB is real good, but it's his first playoff game. Arizona tricked us up and closed the roof instead of leaving it open as advertised. In short, you've got a bunch of young guys chomping on the bit, bursting with adrenylin. McStubby should have deferred after winning the coin toss. If he was going to not defer, he should have came out running the ball for the first series or two, punted if he had to and then the butterflies are gone and Warner starts with less than stellar field position. By coming out cold, throwing, McStubby was asking for trouble. The running game's been stellar lately and the Cards were ranked low in run defense so we might not have had to punt.

The Pack came out as they normally do. I really didn't have a problem with the early on playcalling. Rodgers throws a dumb pass and Driver gets stripped. Exactly how is that bad playcalling when this general philosophy worked all season?


2. Related to #1. After the first interception by Rodgers on the first play of the game, and after Warner gets the Cards into the end zone with no problem, why not play to keep Warner off the field? Why not use the run to allow Rodgers time to settle down? The first play after the Pack gets the ball, Grant gashes the Cards for 10 yards! Cool! I figure, "Now we're cooking!" The Cards can't stop the run, yet McStubby has to get greedy, goes to the shotgun and Rodgers gets sacked.

That is incorrect. The next play was a very safe short pass to Driver which he fumbled.


3. Related to #1. Everyone knows playoff games are all but decided on turnovers. After the first Packer turnover, McStubby should have played more conservative, especially close to our goal. When he didn't and we turned it over again, the slide downhill was on.

He did go more conservative, see the above answer. It wasn't like we came out the second drive throwing bombs.


4. The Pack played four games against elite QB's and lost them all by doing what they did Sunday against Warner. Why did McStubby not decide to do something different? They say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I hear all the talk about if we would have blitzed heavy, Warner would have killed us. Dah! He killed us anyway! Why not send the LB's and try to force the Cards into a turnover. If Warner gashes us on a big play, so be it. We don't have the horses yet to play cover defense on a guy like Warner or Favre or Big Ben.

5. Why didn't McStubby insist that Capers adjust immediately to Warner's success over the middle. It was obvious to all watching that something was amiss. Why wait till half time when even then Capers didn't really change much.

Agree here. He should have done something to force Capers to switch things up. Don't know if he tried or not, but it was obvious what was being called wasn't working.


6. Why did McStubby go for the long-shot 54-yd field goal at the beginning of the second half? Especially given Crosby's recent crappy kicks? Why give a hot Warner the ball on a short field? Why not try to pin the Cards in the shadow of their own goal posts? Maybe something good would happen on defense. In fact, on the next series Fitzgerald DOES fumble and Matthews recovers! Or just maybe Warner would play a bit more conservative. Maybe we stop the run and they punt. McStubby's been giving up field position like this all season long.

Agree as well. I thought the FG call was stupid.


7. Why didn't McStubby go for the win at the end of the game. He's played shoot-the-lights-out, go-for-broke football all game long, why play conservative at the end of the game and send the game to OT? They're playing IN Arizona. Warner IS hot as hell. You KNOW the Packers are going to score. Why score with a minute and 46 seconds left on the clock? GB has the ball, 1st and 10 on the Arizona 25 with 3:12 left. Grant runs on 1st down and gains 5 yds! Why go to the shotgun on the next three plays? Why not keep it on the ground and wind the clock down to where Warner has only 15 or 20 seconds?

I would have liked to have seen a run play as well on first down to eat up some clock. But I'm not going to turn down a TD though when the opportunity presents itself.

[KYPack]

This whole thread takes me way back to my college days. I was a history minor. After the Civil War, a leading Southern newspaper did a study attempting to determine who was to blame for the South losing the Civil War. They arrived at a number of conclusions after interviewing the surviving principals of the War. The whole thing ground to a halt when they spoke to one old general. When asked who he thought was to blame for the South's loss, the old guy said, "Well, I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it".

I finally fired up the DVR and did some tape study. We played really well and had our moments good and bad. It was a mark for our club to tie the game and take 'em to overtime. Big up to Rackers for his clutch last second miss, BTW.

I worked backwards. Our DLine didn't do much. What happened, who sloughed off and accounted for the lack of production up front? The Cardinal line whipped every one of our front 4 except for Matthews and Jenkins. Jenkins won a few battles, but got very little production from it. Everybody else got whipped. Pickett and Raji both were rendered ineffective by the Cards. Did both of 'em forget how to play? Not really. Card center Lyle Sendlein is no All-pro candidate. But him (and RG Duece Luitui on the slide) had an All-Pro day. Pickett and Raji were 100% handled all day long by those two.

I've dumped on LOLB Brad Jones. Did he screw off and not give 100%? No, he got trashed by a huge 6'5" 330 monster in his third year, Levi Brown. Levi flat out dominated Jones and allowed the Cards to help on Matthews and Jenkins, to make the vast majority of their slides to go to the left. Johnny Jolly was putting a max effort, but we got nothing from him thanks to stellar play by the Card OLine.

There were other things that you might not have noticed. We did blitz. None of 'em got home. That 4th quarter pass to Early Doucette for a touchdown. That was a perfectly executed hot read, a shallow cross. Early was wide open after Woodsen's fire zone blitz was picked up and Kurt Warner hit him on the 3 step drop. Kurt only had a 154 passing efficiency rating.

Who was to blame for the Packers loss to the Cardinals?

Well, I always thought the Cardinals had something to do with it.

[bobblehead]

I'm gonna cop out and blame injuries in part. Injuries forced us to start an OLB that has minimal pass rush skills and injuries absolutly killed our secondary. Harris, Lee, and Blackmon going down had us using our 6th DB (bush) in the nickel. Sorry, but your 6th DB isn't supposed to be much more than developemental or special teams guy. Add to that the cards stacking 3 and using 4 WR much of the game and we had our 7th DB on the field.

AZ isn't seattle and spotting them 14 points spelled our doom. Killed a running game that was effective and might have kept warner off the field long enough to break his rythem. Forced our guys to press to make big plays which led to some mistakes. You just can't spot a good team 14.

All that being said, I'm optimistic for next year. We might very well return 22 starters and every important back up. Lang might win the LG job. We could bring in a rookie or FA to man LT (hard to fill that spot, but we might). Harris and Kampman could return and play well. I for one, think Kampman was just starting to be effective in this system when he was hurt.

Cheer up Packer fans, we won't lose another game for at least 5 months.

[Administrator]

This whole thread takes me way back to my college days. I was a history minor. After the Civil War, a leading Southern newspaper did a study attempting to determine who was to blame for the South losing the Civil War. They arrived at a number of conclusions after interviewing the surviving principals of the War. The whole thing ground to a halt when they spoke to one old general. When asked who he thought was to blame for the South's loss, the old guy said, "Well, I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it".

I finally fired up the DVR and did some tape study. We played really well and had our moments good and bad. It was a mark for our club to tie the game and take 'em to overtime. Big up to Rackers for his clutch last second miss, BTW.

I worked backwards. Our DLine didn't do much. What happened, who sloughed off and accounted for the lack of production up front? The Cardinal line whipped every one of our front 4 except for Matthews and Jenkins. Jenkins won a few battles, but got very little production from it. Everybody else got whipped. Pickett and Raji both were rendered ineffective by the Cards. Did both of 'em forget how to play? Not really. Card center Lyle Sendlein is no All-pro candidate. But him (and RG Duece Luitui on the slide) had an All-Pro day. Pickett and Raji were 100% handled all day long by those two.

I've dumped on LOLB Brad Jones. Did he screw off and not give 100%? No, he got trashed by a huge 6'5" 330 monster in his third year, Levi Brown. Levi flat out dominated Jones and allowed the Cards to help on Matthews and Jenkins, to make the vast majority of their slides to go to the left. Johnny Jolly was putting a max effort, but we got nothing from him thanks to stellar play by the Card OLine.

There were other things that you might not have noticed. We did blitz. None of 'em got home. That 4th quarter pass to Early Doucette for a touchdown. That was a perfectly executed hot read, a shallow cross. Early was wide open after Woodsen's fire zone blitz was picked up and Kurt Warner hit him on the 3 step drop. Kurt only had a 154 passing efficiency rating.

Who was to blame for the Packers loss to the Cardinals?

Well, I always thought the Cardinals had something to do with it.

Well, this ought to about sum it up. Thanks, General. :wink:

[Patler]

duplicate

[Patler]

Who was to blame for the Packers loss to the Cardinals?

Well, I always thought the Cardinals had something to do with it.

Well said, my friend! Whether you win or lose often has as much to do with your opponent as yourself.

[MOBB DEEP]

Well, I always thought the Cardinals had something to do with it.

he he he....funny thing is that after i read the 3rd sentence i immediately started "talkn" with a southern drawl

I wasnt history major but i LOVE documentaries more than anything else..wana discuss the potato famine KY? u hard-drinkn irish bum

[pbmax]

Career Stats
Barnett 15 sacks: 7 years
Hawk 8.5 sacks: 4 years
Chillar 7.5 sacks: 6 years
This stat from the bleacher report article is meaningless. They have been regular blitzers in one system for one year. Hawk wasn't on the field in nickel for a good portion of the year and Chillar was in coverage when he was.

That said, lack of interior pressure was a big problem. You would hope that these numbers (Barnett's especially) trend up. And I agree that Jolly, Raji and Jenkins weren't getting home. Against better O lines, the D also needed to defend the run better.

[KYPack]

Well, I always thought the Cardinals had something to do with it.

he he he....funny thing is that after i read the 3rd sentence i immediately started "talkn" with a southern drawl

I wasnt history major but i LOVE documentaries more than anything else..wana discuss the potato famine KY? u hard-drinkn irish bum

Minor, me boy. History minor

Hard drinkin? Absolutely.

Irish? Erin go braless, & all that shit.

Bum? That would be some of the other lads on the forum.

The potato famine?, me relatives purchased farm land in an outpost in the colonies known as Wisconsin before the blight hit the Isle.

[red]

jarrett bush

nuff said

[Maxie the Taxi]

Seriously, if I had to blame someone, I'd blame McStubby. That's where the buck stops. And here's why:

1. The Pack is playing a playoff game away from home. It's the first playoff game for a lot of our guys. We're the youngest team in the league. Our QB is real good, but it's his first playoff game. Arizona tricked us up and closed the roof instead of leaving it open as advertised. In short, you've got a bunch of young guys chomping on the bit, bursting with adrenylin. McStubby should have deferred after winning the coin toss. If he was going to not defer, he should have came out running the ball for the first series or two, punted if he had to and then the butterflies are gone and Warner starts with less than stellar field position. By coming out cold, throwing, McStubby was asking for trouble. The running game's been stellar lately and the Cards were ranked low in run defense so we might not have had to punt.

The Pack came out as they normally do. I really didn't have a problem with the early on playcalling. Rodgers throws a dumb pass and Driver gets stripped. Exactly how is that bad playcalling when this general philosophy worked all season?


2. Related to #1. After the first interception by Rodgers on the first play of the game, and after Warner gets the Cards into the end zone with no problem, why not play to keep Warner off the field? Why not use the run to allow Rodgers time to settle down? The first play after the Pack gets the ball, Grant gashes the Cards for 10 yards! Cool! I figure, "Now we're cooking!" The Cards can't stop the run, yet McStubby has to get greedy, goes to the shotgun and Rodgers gets sacked.

That is incorrect. The next play was a very safe short pass to Driver which he fumbled.


3. Related to #1. Everyone knows playoff games are all but decided on turnovers. After the first Packer turnover, McStubby should have played more conservative, especially close to our goal. When he didn't and we turned it over again, the slide downhill was on.

He did go more conservative, see the above answer. It wasn't like we came out the second drive throwing bombs.


4. The Pack played four games against elite QB's and lost them all by doing what they did Sunday against Warner. Why did McStubby not decide to do something different? They say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I hear all the talk about if we would have blitzed heavy, Warner would have killed us. Dah! He killed us anyway! Why not send the LB's and try to force the Cards into a turnover. If Warner gashes us on a big play, so be it. We don't have the horses yet to play cover defense on a guy like Warner or Favre or Big Ben.

5. Why didn't McStubby insist that Capers adjust immediately to Warner's success over the middle. It was obvious to all watching that something was amiss. Why wait till half time when even then Capers didn't really change much.

Agree here. He should have done something to force Capers to switch things up. Don't know if he tried or not, but it was obvious what was being called wasn't working.


6. Why did McStubby go for the long-shot 54-yd field goal at the beginning of the second half? Especially given Crosby's recent crappy kicks? Why give a hot Warner the ball on a short field? Why not try to pin the Cards in the shadow of their own goal posts? Maybe something good would happen on defense. In fact, on the next series Fitzgerald DOES fumble and Matthews recovers! Or just maybe Warner would play a bit more conservative. Maybe we stop the run and they punt. McStubby's been giving up field position like this all season long.

Agree as well. I thought the FG call was stupid.


7. Why didn't McStubby go for the win at the end of the game. He's played shoot-the-lights-out, go-for-broke football all game long, why play conservative at the end of the game and send the game to OT? They're playing IN Arizona. Warner IS hot as hell. You KNOW the Packers are going to score. Why score with a minute and 46 seconds left on the clock? GB has the ball, 1st and 10 on the Arizona 25 with 3:12 left. Grant runs on 1st down and gains 5 yds! Why go to the shotgun on the next three plays? Why not keep it on the ground and wind the clock down to where Warner has only 15 or 20 seconds?

I would have liked to have seen a run play as well on first down to eat up some clock. But I'm not going to turn down a TD though when the opportunity presents itself.

I hear what you're saying, Cheesehead, but I do have a few things to add:

1. The Pack did come out as they normally do, and that's my point. It DIDN'T work all season. Sure, it worked against the weaklings (except for Tampa), but it didn't work when they played against an elite QB who could best Rodgers in a shootout. Rushing game = ball control = less time for an elite QB on the field. (Sorry for the broken record, but you asked. :) )

2. You are correct, but the play before that was a run by Grant that gained 10 yards. Grant don't fumble and the Cards couldn't stop him. That's my point. Why put it up in the air at all. What's the urgency?

7. Just to be clear, what I wanted the Packers to do here was eat up some more clock, then go for 2 points and the win. There wasn't a person at my house watching the game who didn't think Warner could get the Cards at least a field goal with a minute 46 left on the clock. We should have lost right then and there, but guy missed the FG and gave us a gift. I would have liked to see Warner do that with 15 seconds left. And I would have respected McStubby for putting it all on the line going for 2.

[Maxie the Taxi]

KY, great post. :D Maybe we weren't going to beat the Cards Sunday no matter what we did.

On the other hand, maybe we could have given ourselves a better chance of upsetting the Cards if McStubby would have made a few changes like the ones I suggest...especially RUNNING THE BALL!!!!

For crying out loud, the Cards ended the season 25th in the league in Rushing defense, giving up 4.5 yards per carry. And guess what? That's exactly the yardage they gave up against the Packers Sunday!

[KYPack]

KY, great post. :D Maybe we weren't going to beat the Cards Sunday no matter what we did.

On the other hand, maybe we could have given ourselves a better chance of upsetting the Cards if McStubby would have made a few changes like the ones I suggest...especially RUNNING THE BALL!!!!

For crying out loud, the Cards ended the season 25th in the league in Rushing defense, giving up 4.5 yards per carry. And guess what? That's exactly the yardage they gave up against the Packers Sunday!

Well Maxie, you'll never hear me say that running the ball more/better might not have helped in a close loss. I'm sure every coach thinks the same thing when they break down film after losing a close one.

I started looking at our D on the recorded copy I have of the game. Naturally, I started with the Dline. I was really struck at the job the Cardinals did in the OLine. They did the job and most of our guys on our Dline didn't piss a drop in that game . Levi Brown, for instance, pitched a no-hitter. There were plays that Brad Jones barely got out of his stance. Brown just whipped his ass all day long.

One thing that did stand out was what a badass CMIII is. That kid is one of the best OLB's in the NFL right now. He's strong, quick, active and plays with fire every single snap. Just like his daddy. The Cardinals recognized this, and accounted for him almost every snap. That's a helluva compliment for a rookie OLB.

You have to give credit where credit is due. The Cards won the battle in the trenches and it's tough to win games when that happens.

[SnakeLH2006]

Snake is usually pretty right on the money, but I don't like coronating Warner as King of the NFL QB's.

Snake never said Warner was the end all QB, but given time (aka no pass rush) he's still elite tossing the pigskin around the field. That was the whole point. PB reiterated my whole point. No DL pass rush (our DL guys got manhandled for the most part at the POA), made it damned hard to disrupt the old man Warner. It looked like he was tossing balls around in training camp practice for much the game.

All season long we manhandled (for the most part) lesser opposing QB's/offenses, but got killed by the big time QB's (Favre twice, Big Ben, Warner, etc.). McFatty plays it safe and gets killed by big time QB's by not bringing the heat, or the lack of effectiveness in execution with his gameplanning.

I do agree with your McFatty assessments for the most part though, Maxie. The early passing with spread formations made it tough for Arod early. We should have ran the ball more on the porous Cardinal D. The late game mismanagement of the clock really baffled Snake, as well. McFatty should have taken more time off the clock (yeah they missed the FG), and me and my buds were hoping we'd have gone for 2pts instead of the PAT. Strike while the iron is hot and sneak out of there with a win.

In retrospect 5 things stood out in the loss for Snake:

1) McFatty should have deferred possession early in the game in a loud stadium with a young team.
2) When falling behind early (or even before that occurred), he should have stuck with the run game better. It's a miracle after 17-0 we even had a chance to catch up late (god bless Arod and his coolness...sky is the limit for that kid).
3) When gaining so much momentum late, he ought to have thought about going for 2 points, esp. with Warner in such a rhythm.
4) Why is Jarrett Bush still on this team? (Snake gives credit to Red for his tenacity on the subject)
5a) Bottom line...As I stated immediately, and ThunderDan and PB followed up on, our lack of a pass rush from any interior lineman on D killed us.
5b) I was thinking of getting rid of my mid-season avatar of TT eyeballing McFatty (adopted after we were 4-4). Not gonna happen.

[pbmax]

OK, here we go:

1. I don't buy the notion that McCarthy should have deferred (a strategy I cannot recall being used in the NFL - except by the Lions in error) or run more early to calm down the nerves of his team or take the crowd out of it. Given the way the Cardinals moved the ball, the crowd would have been at an even higher pitch if the Packers defer and the Cardinals open by scoring. Not an attractive option. And given the way the game played out, the odds of a Cardinals' score is much higher than a Packer turnover.

Rodgers has shown to be very good at dealing with the pressure to play well and Driver is a playoff vet, I don't think a logical case can be made for predicting this would happen. Philbin said he may have been tight and his first throw was a bad decision, but it was not his only odd decision of the year and no one was claiming nerves on the other ones.

2. Running the football. Running the football limits possessions, eat clock and depresses scoring by both sides (assuming you can be effective). Running more after being down by 17 would have made the comeback less likely to happen. Even with the lead, the Cardinals ran just 23 times compared to the Packer 20.

Running to help give the defense a breather, I am not buying this either. Time of Possession was 1:34 in favor of the Cardinals. Even with the lead, they ran only 23 times. Whether the Packers run more or not, they face the same ratio of pass attempts, and the pass rushers are just as blown. 33 pass attempts was nothing extraordinary this year for the Packer D to face. The problem was the number of yards those throws covered. Not fatigue.

I do buy Maxie's argument that running early would have led to less exposure to a turnover risk. But given how careful the offense had been all season, there was no reason to expect them to lose the handle at a greater frequency.

3. In short, I don't think this was coaching. McCarthy has his flaws. But Driver fumbling and Rodgers throwing where he had no business throwing are not coaching errors. They are player errors.

The fault for the loss is the defense, even if the offense could have saved their bacon with one or two fewer errors.

[Fritz]

KY, great post. :D Maybe we weren't going to beat the Cards Sunday no matter what we did.

On the other hand, maybe we could have given ourselves a better chance of upsetting the Cards if McStubby would have made a few changes like the ones I suggest...especially RUNNING THE BALL!!!!

For crying out loud, the Cards ended the season 25th in the league in Rushing defense, giving up 4.5 yards per carry. And guess what? That's exactly the yardage they gave up against the Packers Sunday!

Well Maxie, you'll never hear me say that running the ball more/better might not have helped in a close loss. I'm sure every coach thinks the same thing when they break down film after losing a close one.

I started looking at our D on the recorded copy I have of the game. Naturally, I started with the Dline. I was really struck at the job the Cardinals did in the OLine. They did the job and most of our guys on our Dline didn't piss a drop in that game . Levi Brown, for instance, pitched a no-hitter. There were plays that Brad Jones barely got out of his stance. Brown just whipped his ass all day long.

One thing that did stand out was what a badass CMIII is. That kid is one of the best OLB's in the NFL right now. He's strong, quick, active and plays with fire every single snap. Just like his daddy. The Cardinals recognized this, and accounted for him almost every snap. That's a helluva compliment for a rookie OLB.

You have to give credit where credit is due. The Cards won the battle in the trenches and it's tough to win games when that happens.

This analysis, and I do trust KY's analysis, suggests to me that MM and TT have some serious food for thought this offseason.

How can they counter a team (Arizona, NO, Minnesota, Indy, San Diego, Pitt) that features a very good QB and an offensive line that can put up a wall for that QB? What's the answer?

One point would be the side opposite Matthews. Is Brad Jones going to get better as time goes, or would Kampman have provided a better alternative against Ariozona had he been healthy?

If the defensive line could not get pressure, do you draft more, or do you think about better (faster?) inside linebackers who can get pressure up the middle?

Is Lee an answer or does the coaching staff not know yet?

Lots and lots to consider this offseason. It's clear this is a good defense against teams that don't feature a star QB and a wall of an offensive line. But those are the teams, the ones with that QB and line, that you'll face in the playoffs.

What to do, what to do? A few games ago, per the draft I was thinking offensive line, safety, running back. Now, I'm wondering if a new inside or outside linebacker taken high is a need.

Hmmm. I don't know. I just don't know.

[pbmax]

I am not sure Arizona puts up a wall like, say, the Cowboys could a year or two ago. NO got to Warner.

Also, on the Packers offensive struggles in the first half, we might refer back to the combo coverages that flummoxed the offense against the Bears in Week 1.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/walkthrough/2010/walkthrough-combo-coverage

[denverYooper]

Lots and lots to consider this offseason. It's clear this is a good defense against teams that don't feature a star QB and a wall of an offensive line. But those are the teams, the ones with that QB and line, that you'll face in the playoffs.

What to do, what to do? A few games ago, per the draft I was thinking offensive line, safety, running back. Now, I'm wondering if a new inside or outside linebacker taken high is a need.

Hmmm. I don't know. I just don't know.

I've been thinking about this. I think they foritfy the O-Line by bringing in some tackles and focus on making a fortress for Rodgers. Then let him throw for 200 yards apiece per game to Finley and Jennings. One more year of experience and good protection and just let Rodgers out throw the other guy.