Winner and Losers - @Philadelphia Eagles

[pbmax]

All apologies to Nutz who started this tradition (I think) and to others who contributed to it in his absence. However, I didn't see one on the first pages of thread. Caveat, heard the first quarter on radio before parking on a couch for the rest of the game.

Winners:

Brandon Jackson - picked up some tough yards and was tough to bring down. In preseason he seemed far more decisive and today he reverted at times to hesitating when choosing a hole. Missed a couple of cutbacks but overall hard to complain.

Josh Sitton - Welcome to the Packers. Stand by for a Pro Bowl.

Jordy Nelson - Great running on kick returns and good ball security.

Clay Matthews - Sitton will accompany you to Hawaii this year. I never doubted you. OK, I did. Not anymore.

Zombo - Gets a mention if only for his first sack and of Vick, no less. Nice to see them trust him, though I think that had as much to do with fatigue as his readiness.

Tramon Williams - Not much on punt returns but solid in coverage.

Charles Woodson - Never have been happier to be proven wrong and I don't even mind you went to Michigan.

McCarthy - Sticking to running game even when it wasn't dominant. Good adjustment. Still like the full house backfield. No one in football runs the fullback dive like the Green Bay Packers. Probably a direct result of Sitton, but someone has to call the play. Good job.

First Half Sam Shields - Never heard your named called. Good work.


Losers

Second Half Sam Shields - Here is a tip rook: follow your receiver and don't look back until everyone screams to turn around.

Aaron Rodgers - Suddenly you are Prince Fielder with the slow start. Two ints, one may have slipped on a route adjustment off a blitz you weren't expecting but the other into triple coverage for Finley? Ooof.

Clifton and Tauscher - This pains me. Pass pro horrible. Everyone has bought into the Tauscher saved the O line last season and ignores McCarthy and Rodgers changes to the offense. Both of you got schooled and looked old and slow at times. Colledge outplayed you.

Blitzers - See QB. Hit QB. Take QB to ground. Stop sticking out an arm like you are flagging a taxi.

McCarthy - I do not like judging play calling. But two runs and a 3rd and long pass with over 5 minutes left and the Eagles with 3 timeouts? That isn't a four-minute offense we can believe in. Also, should have challenged the Eagles catch to the (TV's) far side of the field (Packer's side I think) in the fourth quarter. Not sure of the receiver, but that ball hit the ground and moved. You didn't need the TOs. Should have challenged.

[digitaldean]

Pure and simple, no CM III, no W today.

Monster game from him today. Special teams did not look like special ed today. Jordy hit the holes and got some very good returns. Great FG by Mason. Only gaffe is the OB kickoff.

A-Rod had a subpar game and he admits it. Sitton was a rock while Cliffy was whiffing on his assignments. Kuhn was tough to bring down on his TD drive.

[Little Whiskey]

thought grant was playing well until he went down.

[Joemailman]

I'd add Kuhn. Great 12 yard run to set up his own 3 yard TD run to give Packers their first 17 point lead.

[gbgary]

for it being the first game of the season, in a very hostile environment, i'll call everyone winners...except poor justin harrell. i don't think anyone played badly considering everything.

[Little Whiskey]

thought the D got a bunch of pressure on the qb. more than we've seen in years past

[Scott Campbell]

I thought Raji was a monster today.

[pbmax]

I should have listed Slocum under winners. Perhaps Capers as well.

I almost believe I saw the Eagles start drives after kickoffs behind their own 25 without a penalty. Twice.

Capers kept pressure on. Even adjusted when Vick started to run through it. Did revert to one 3 man pressure too many when Vick scrambled for a 19 yard first down.

Kudos also to McCarthy. 2 penalties and only one first down surrendered on penalties.

[MJZiggy]

I should have listed Slocum under winners. Perhaps Capers as well.

I almost believe I saw the Eagles start drives after kickoffs behind their own 25 without a penalty. Twice.

Capers kept pressure on. Even adjusted when Vick started to run through it. Did revert to one 3 man pressure too many when Vick scrambled for a 19 yard first down.

Kudos also to McCarthy. 2 penalties and only one first down surrendered on penalties.

You forgot Crosby and Masthay. Decent special teams. Who'da thunk it?

[imscott72]

I should have listed Slocum under winners. Perhaps Capers as well.

I almost believe I saw the Eagles start drives after kickoffs behind their own 25 without a penalty. Twice.

Capers kept pressure on. Even adjusted when Vick started to run through it. Did revert to one 3 man pressure too many when Vick scrambled for a 19 yard first down.

Kudos also to McCarthy. 2 penalties and only one first down surrendered on penalties.

You forgot Crosby and Masthay. Decent special teams. Who'da thunk it?

I was just going to add those two to the list. Crosby seems to have fixed his problems.

[mission]

I thought Raji was a monster today.

He has 3-4 plays where he pushed his guy back 4+ yards into the backfield. A straight force out there. Wonder if he had anything to do with their center getting injured -- I wouldn't want to face Raji. :lol:

[packers11]

Loser : A.J. Hawk... Didn't play 1 snap on defense

[HarveyWallbangers]

Loser : A.J. Hawk... Didn't play 1 snap on defense

Because of the health of the DL (and probably Philly's propensity to abandon the run), Capers did call a single snap out of base defense this game. I think that happened in one game last year, as well.

[Bossman641]

Loser : A.J. Hawk... Didn't play 1 snap on defense

is this true? I honestly didn't remember seeing him once.

[pbmax]

Loser : A.J. Hawk... Didn't play 1 snap on defense

is this true? I honestly didn't remember seeing him once.
No. Hawk is credited with a tackle. But once Harrell was unavailable (and Jenkins had to go to the locker room), they played much less base.

[Bossman641]

Loser : A.J. Hawk... Didn't play 1 snap on defense

is this true? I honestly didn't remember seeing him once.
No. Hawk is credited with a tackle. But once Harrell was unavailable, they played much less base.

Actually, while reading through some articles tonight I saw this mentioned.


Inside linebacker A.J. Hawk didn’t play a snap on defense because the Packers were in their nickel or dime personnel on every play. Hawk is a starter in the Packers’ base defense but is replaced by Brandon Chillar in the nickel.

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100912/PKR01/100912053/Notebook-Injury-may-signal-end-for-Harrell

[packers11]

Loser : A.J. Hawk... Didn't play 1 snap on defense

is this true? I honestly didn't remember seeing him once.
No. Hawk is credited with a tackle. But once Harrell was unavailable (and Jenkins had to go to the locker room), they played much less base.

that was on special teams... A kick off I believe... He wasn't on the field on D ... I kept looking for him

[rbaloha1]

Loser : A.J. Hawk... Didn't play 1 snap on defense

Because of the health of the DL (and probably Philly's propensity to abandon the run), Capers did call a single snap out of base defense this game. I think that happened in one game last year, as well.

Hawk Apologist. Chillar is the #1. Did see Hawk for one nickel play. Matthews and Chillar throw their bodies around unlike Hawk.

Matthews is playing like Hawk is supposed to as a #1.

[Guiness]

How is it the base defense if they don't play it?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hawk Apologist. Chillar is the #1. Did see Hawk for one nickel play. Matthews and Chillar throw their bodies around unlike Hawk.

Matthews is playing like Hawk is supposed to as a #1.

This happened last year. Doesn't mean Hawk isn't good in base. We were down to three DL (two of which were completely healthy). We couldn't kill them, so we went nickel on almost every play.

[pbmax]

Repeat from Game Day Thread, but for the sake of completeness:

McGinn isn't buying my argument. He gives Shields a pass with a mention of the TD as the only bad play.

He knocks Burnett for not getting to Celek on the long completion over the middle and for missing a tackle on the screen.

[Joemailman]

He's right about Burnett on the screen. Burnett has a problem with cutbacks. He has all the good and bad traits of a young Darren Sharper.

[Fritz]

Winners:

Mason Crosby. Well, he hit his FG's and set the team record for the longest field goal - with room to spare.

BJ Raji - showed why he was picked in the top ten. A monster.

Mathews, of course.

Tramon Williams. That dude played lights-out.

Losers:

Poor Justin Harrell. And that injury hurt the team today. Imagine had he been available - you could've rotated and had fresh legs. And the few snaps Harrell played, people said he did just fine.

Brandon jackson - I was very disappointed in his hesitations at the line of scrimage. Grant was ripping off runs because he hit the hole fast and hard. Jackson has been doing the same in preseason, but today he danced a lot and it cost him.

MM's late game play calling. You're trying to run out the clock. You run on first down, okay. But second down is the fake-the-handoff-and throw short. So could third down be. I mean, a short pass is fairly safe and would be more unexpected than the run.

Rodgers - Didn't look like his usual self

Tauscher/Clifton. They looked old and slow, like Favre on Thursday. Ruh-roh, Rastro.

[3irty1]

From Bedard's Twitter: Rodgers: "I played terrible, probably about as bad as I can play. It has got to get better...Missed throws I could make in my sleep."

Agreed.

Also Same Shields will lose the nickle job before the end of the year. He was worse than Jarrett Bush today. At least Bush stays with the guy who he can't cover. Shields was out of position constantly. Burnett over pursued on a couple of big run plays but held his own in coverage. Not sure if Bigby takes his old job back.

Noticed that we ran a bunch of 3-3 pass defense before our DL started getting hurt. Looked about like this:

............................52.....79.....90...... .77
.
....38.........................56.......54........ .......21......................37
.
.
..........................42
.................................................. .36

In this formation Clay is standing up. This formation was what won Jason Taylor the DPOTY with capers in Miami. Personally I like the look a lot and I feel it puts our 3 best DL on the field at once. Pickett and Raji get one hell of a push up the middle.

When we were in the 4-2 I thought Brad Jones played well. I expect that he might be a gamer. He was beaten to the sideline by Vick but I won't hold that against him. He's a decent pass rusher and seems to be able to shed blockers. He must be weak in practice or I can't understand why he wasn't a lock to start from day one of TC.

I thought the tackles played about as poorly as they've ever played, especially Tauscher. Had no success running off tackle and a couple of times they were beaten terribly by Phi pass rushers. On another note, if I'm PHI I feel great about my defense. Two good looking pass rushers who can also contain the run. I wouldn't mind giving Lang some play time.

Finally I thought the refs gave both teams a license to hold last night and also in the Bears games. A couple of times BJ Raji was just tackled but nothing was called. Clifton spun his guy around by the jersey more than once.

[mraynrand]

Tauscher/Clifton. They looked old and slow, like Favre on Thursday. Ruh-roh, Rastro.

Worrisome, but not panic button time yet. They both looked old and slow mostly against Cole, who makes young guys look old and slow. As older vets, it may take a couple of games for them to get warmed up to regular season speed.

[red]

I thought Raji was a monster today.

yes

[mmmdk]

Winners:

CLAY - A star already.

BJ RAJI - Taking huge steps to All star level.

Chillar - Energy'n'guts...but don't lose it like last season.

Chuck - Bad toe, bad cold can't stop Woodson.

Tramon - Like a pro.

Zombo - Cool name & I like sacks!

Mashtay - Nice but Lambeau & Chicago are another ballpark.

Crosby - First baby step to making doubters into believers.

Sitton - "Follow me, Kuhn!".

BJ - Okay game but he showed he can be a # 1 back when needed.

Jordy - Steady is good!

Kuhn - I said: 'Steady is good!' :lol:

Losers:

Hawk - Too harsh call but he's sliding on the depth chart.

McCarthy - Throw the flag??? :shock: Gameplan; is "just ok" your best!?

Burnett - Ah, he's a rookie.

Shields - Same as above.

Tausch - Get into gear!

Cliffy - Looking old!

Defense - Without Clay we lose to Mike Vick. 60 minutes please.

Rodgers - 3-0 in week 1 and that's your worst? :D Not worried here!

[pack4to84]

My Biggest Loser Is MM. Why did he not go back to Kuhn after he torched them for 2 big runs. Eagles had no answer for him. Their DL was under sized. MM should have pounded them with Kuhn like a Badgers Coach would have.

[channtheman]

My Biggest Loser Is MM. Why did he not go back to Kuhn after he torched them for 2 big runs. Eagles had no answer for him. Their DL was under sized. MM should have pounded them with Kuhn like a Badgers Coach would have.

Agree with this. Also did you guys notice that Jackson ran timid UNTIL Kuhn busted off his 13 yard run? Immediately after that Jackson was hitting the hole hard and looked like a running back for about the next 5-6 carries. Then we stopped running Kuhn and Jackson was back to being timid. Disappointed in MM from going away from what was working.

[pbmax]

My Biggest Loser Is MM. Why did he not go back to Kuhn after he torched them for 2 big runs. Eagles had no answer for him. Their DL was under sized. MM should have pounded them with Kuhn like a Badgers Coach would have.
How many fullback runs have you seen from the Badgers? :)

[sharpe1027]

How many fullback runs have you seen from the Badgers? :)

Berstein did pretty well back in 2005 against Penn State. :lol:

[pbmax]

How many fullback runs have you seen from the Badgers? :)

Berstein did pretty well back in 2005 against Penn State. :lol:
It took 2 injuries to get him the ball, but yes, he was phenomenal.

[vince]

Calling the head coach the biggest loser in a tough win on the road because he didn't give the emergency 3rd string running back the ball enough seems to be missing the forest through the trees to me.

[Freak Out]

No offense to PBMAX because I always enjoy your posts....but I have to put NUTZ on the losers list for not coming around and starting this thread anymore.

[retailguy]

Calling the head coach the biggest loser in a tough win on the road because he didn't give the emergency 3rd string running back the ball enough seems to be missing the forest through the trees to me.

So glad we're accomodating of other opinions around here. :lol:

McCarthy's play calling is always a damn mystery to me, and I agree with the original point. Trotting Kuhn out on a series each drive until they compensated for him, wouldn't have been a bad idea, in fact, not much else they did in the 4th quarter went any better.

Jackson is a complete head case. On one drive, Jackson looks like Chris Johnson, on the next, it looks like he's worried his ballet slippers are going to get dirty. I don't think there is another Packer that frustrates me as much except for my buddy Ted.

[pack4to84]

Calling the head coach the biggest loser in a tough win on the road because he didn't give the emergency 3rd string running back the ball enough seems to be missing the forest through the trees to me.MM calls the plays. I'm not saying MM as head coach, I'm saying MM as OC was the biggest loser. Eagles biggest weakness is undersized DL. With a bruser of a runner like Kuhn would have worn them out.

[pack4to84]

My Biggest Loser Is MM. Why did he not go back to Kuhn after he torched them for 2 big runs. Eagles had no answer for him. Their DL was under sized. MM should have pounded them with Kuhn like a Badgers Coach would have.
How many fullback runs have you seen from the Badgers? :)Badgers RB are NFL fullbacks. Gray 260 lbs and running style is not a HB in the NFL. Badger coach would have pounded the Eagles with Kuhn and then went back to Jackson to change thing up.

[vince]

So glad we're accomodating of other opeinions around here. :lol:
By the laugh I assume you're being sarcastic. Not sure what you're getting at here. We perhaps have different opinions. Who's not accommodating?

[rbaloha1]

Winners

LBs -- Flying around making plays
Corners -- Good coverage
Burnett -- Rarely beat deep
D-Line -- Good penetration
Sitton -- Great movement and assignment sure
Jackson -- Showed good power and vision
Kuhn -- Showed explosion and versatility
Nelson -- Nice returns
Crosby -- Accurate with nice power

Losers

OTs -- Starting to show age
Rodgers -- Interceptions
Finely -- Comments about being a decoy

[retailguy]

So glad we're accomodating of other opeinions around here. :lol:
By the laugh I assume you're being sarcastic. Not sure what you're getting at here. We perhaps have different opinions. Who's not accommodating?

Vince, we've been down this road before. I read your comment, don't have a clue what you intended to mean, but what I read told me that pack4to84 can't see the forest through the trees because you disagreed with his point.

I found it extremely condensending, and my lol smiley meant I was laughing at the absurdity.

I'd have loved to see Kuhn get three more runs in the 4th quarter on each of the drives, and more, if they had no answer and his runs were successful. It would have burned the clock in any event, and if it was successful, might not have had our defense so gassed by the end of quarter. Did you not see Clay on the sidelines gasping for breath after his sack?

I recognize that we (the collective "we", including me) don't see the other perspective very well most of the time, but I thought it had validity and for you to tell the guy he was so blind he couldn't see the forest through the trees was ridiculous. This blind guy agreed with him...

[mraynrand]

With all due disrespect and mockery towards Joemailman, I agree with Vince. Not running Kuhn is a minor quibble, and 'missing the forest for the trees' is an effective metaphor. Retail, with all due hatred and cynicism towards your myopic perspective, I think you are 'making a mountain out of a molehill.'

note the attempt at humorous sarcasm with brutal dressdowns. I can just feel the loss of the flood of new posters turned off by the horror of by my misanthropic marginalization of fellow Packerrats Joe and Retail. More Rat on Rat crime! Oh, The Humanity!

[Patler]

So glad we're accomodating of other opeinions around here. :lol:
By the laugh I assume you're being sarcastic. Not sure what you're getting at here. We perhaps have different opinions. Who's not accommodating?

Vince, we've been down this road before. I read your comment, don't have a clue what you intended to mean, but what I read told me that pack4to84 can't see the forest through the trees because you disagreed with his point.

I found it extremely condensending, and my lol smiley meant I was laughing at the absurdity.

I'd have loved to see Kuhn get three more runs in the 4th quarter on each of the drives, and more, if they had no answer and his runs were successful. It would have burned the clock in any event, and if it was successful, might not have had our defense so gassed by the end of quarter. Did you not see Clay on the sidelines gasping for breath after his sack?

I recognize that we (the collective "we", including me) don't see the other perspective very well most of the time, but I thought it had validity and for you to tell the guy he was so blind he couldn't see the forest through the trees was ridiculous. This blind guy agreed with him...

So now we've gotten to the point that if we disagree we aren't allowed to express our disagreement?
We can respond only if we agree?
If we disagree, we can only remain silent?

Vince's disagreement seems about as milk-toast as they come, yet somehow you have to complain?

His "forest for the trees" comment is condescending and unacceptable, but you calling his "ridiculous" is not, and it is OK?

What IS ridiculous is this constant whining and bitching just because someone disagrees with someone else. I'm not particularly good at walking on eggshells, so.......

Yes, I'm calling your position ridiculous, as in stupid, unfounded, dumb, etc.

How's that??? :lol: (I will let you guess as to whether I am laughing with you or at you.)

[vince]

My opinion that there is a bigger picture to look at than is not condescending. Calling someone's opinion ridiculous or pathetic might be though.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=21003&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

What is really getting old is listening to you guys tell me for the last 4 years that this team was getting set up and ready, and now, just weeks before we enter the season, hearing the very same people scale back their predictions.

Fretting about Finley getting injured is ridiculous. Fretting about Hawk? Pathetic. He's started for the past 4 seasons, and is solid but not spectacular.

Legitimate concern at the number 3 corner perhaps, but if it was an issue, TED WOULD HAVE SOLVED IT. HE HAS HAD THE WHOLE OFFSEASON. He has therefore assessed that we have adequate personnel to man the position.

As in prior years, our team goes as far as the OL takes us. I believe you, THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED. You have assured me that I will be impressed, and I am watching with great expectation.
After that gem, you complain about being the victim and under attack and accuse others of being condescending? Please.

It's a legitimate opinion that McCarthy screwed up the game yesterday, and that Kuhn is a better runner than Jackson. I happen to disagree with both those opinions. It happens.

[Joemailman]

I think Vince's point had some validity. As head coach, MM has many responsibilities, and to suggest he was the biggest loser because of his 4th quarter playcalling seemed to me to be missing the bigger picture. Now, pack4to84 did say later that he was criticizing MM the OC, not MM the HC, but I don't see how you can call him the biggest loser based on one aspect of his job responsibilities. That would be a little like calling Matthews a loser because he dropped what should have been an interception.

[retailguy]

Well guys, I guess we watched a different game. I saw our defense on the field too much and very gassed by the end of the game. I also saw us give up 10 of our 17 point lead, and have no answer for Vick, other than Clay who was a beast all over the field.

I was grateful we escaped with a win, was further grateful that there wasn't a 5th quarter, because I'm not so sure that we would've escaped with a win. I thought Kuhn played fantastic with the options he was given, and thought more would've been a good thing.

None of this was a complaint against the team, just an observation that I thought the momentum was swinging. I'm very grateful that time ran out and that Matthews & Jones teamed up for a wonderful play to end it.

Obviously my "myopic viewpoint" isn't welcome, so I'll refrain from sharing. You guys can think whatever you'd like. I laughed, Vince asked, and I explained what I was thinking. If the shoes were on the other foot, I kind of think he'd have responded in much the same way.

[Joemailman]

With all due disrespect and mockery towards Joemailman, I agree with Vince. Not running Kuhn is a minor quibble, and 'missing the forest for the trees' is an effective metaphor. Retail, with all due hatred and cynicism towards your myopic perspective, I think you are 'making a mountain out of a molehill.'

note the attempt at humorous sarcasm with brutal dressdowns. I can just feel the loss of the flood of new posters turned off by the horror of by my misanthropic marginalization of fellow Packerrats Joe and Retail. More Rat on Rat crime! Oh, The Humanity!

Hey wait a minute! I didn't criticize anyone. It was that other guy. :D I praised Kuhn, but I didn't say he should have gotten the ball more.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Unbelieveable. Now, we can tell somebody their opinion is "missing the forest through the trees to me." Give me a friggin' break.

[mraynrand]

With all due disrespect and mockery towards Joemailman, I agree with Vince. Not running Kuhn is a minor quibble, and 'missing the forest for the trees' is an effective metaphor. Retail, with all due hatred and cynicism towards your myopic perspective, I think you are 'making a mountain out of a molehill.'

note the attempt at humorous sarcasm with brutal dressdowns. I can just feel the loss of the flood of new posters turned off by the horror of by my misanthropic marginalization of fellow Packerrats Joe and Retail. More Rat on Rat crime! Oh, The Humanity!

Hey wait a minute! I didn't criticize anyone. It was that other guy. :D I praised Kuhn, but I didn't say he should have gotten the ball more.

If I got the wrong guy, I don't apologize. You probably deserved to be run down for something else, anyway.

[vince]

If the shoes were on the other foot, I kind of think he'd have responded in much the same way.
Why don't you click on that link up there and see how I DID respond when you called my opinion ridiculous.

[ThunderDan]

Calling the head coach the biggest loser in a tough win on the road because he didn't give the emergency 3rd string running back the ball enough seems to be missing the forest through the trees to me.

So glad we're accomodating of other opinions around here. :lol:

McCarthy's play calling is always a damn mystery to me, and I agree with the original point. Trotting Kuhn out on a series each drive until they compensated for him, wouldn't have been a bad idea, in fact, not much else they did in the 4th quarter went any better.

Jackson is a complete head case. On one drive, Jackson looks like Chris Johnson, on the next, it looks like he's worried his ballet slippers are going to get dirty. I don't think there is another Packer that frustrates me as much except for my buddy Ted.

Get off your high horse and let this forum be a forum.

So what? Now ever post in every thread has to agree with the original poster? If you want to disagree you start a whole new thread on which every one can only agree with your opposite point of the first thread?

People can watch the same game and come up with different conclusions. Isn't that what you have been encouraging in the Favre thread? I mean the intolerance for BF drove away all of your virtual friends. Now you are doing the exact same thing. You are a hypocrite!

[gbgary]

if vick hadn't come into the game and been vick i don't think anyone would have any real complaints. we were on our way to a 20+ point victory.

[Tony Oday]

Vick was a stud...he looked like Vick of old and if ANYONE remembers he burned a lot of good defenses.

[mmmdk]

Gump! :lol:

[swede]

if vick hadn't come into the game and been vick i don't think anyone would have any real complaints. we were on our way to a 20+ point victory.

Good point.

The Eagles are to be respected for their physical play and for their resurgent 2nd half under a Michael Vick who had two years in Club Fed to lift weights and run during yard time. It was valiant that we survived. In the past a team like the Eagles or Steelers would hit us in the mouth and we'd quit.

Not this time. What doesn't kill the Packers will make them stronger.

[mmmdk]

if vick hadn't come into the game and been vick i don't think anyone would have any real complaints. we were on our way to a 20+ point victory.

Good point.

The Eagles are to be respected for their physical play and for their resurgent 2nd half under a Michael Vick who had two years in Club Fed to lift weights and run during yard time. It was valiant that we survived. In the past a team like the Eagles or Steelers would hit us in the mouth and we'd quit.

Not this time. What doesn't kill the Packers will make them stronger.

...somebody tried to kill the Packers!? When? Where? I won't have it!

[Smidgeon]

So glad we're accomodating of other opeinions around here. :lol:
By the laugh I assume you're being sarcastic. Not sure what you're getting at here. We perhaps have different opinions. Who's not accommodating?

Vince, we've been down this road before. I read your comment, don't have a clue what you intended to mean, but what I read told me that pack4to84 can't see the forest through the trees because you disagreed with his point.

I found it extremely condensending, and my lol smiley meant I was laughing at the absurdity.

I'd have loved to see Kuhn get three more runs in the 4th quarter on each of the drives, and more, if they had no answer and his runs were successful. It would have burned the clock in any event, and if it was successful, might not have had our defense so gassed by the end of quarter. Did you not see Clay on the sidelines gasping for breath after his sack?

I recognize that we (the collective "we", including me) don't see the other perspective very well most of the time, but I thought it had validity and for you to tell the guy he was so blind he couldn't see the forest through the trees was ridiculous. This blind guy agreed with him...

So now we've gotten to the point that if we disagree we aren't allowed to express our disagreement?
We can respond only if we agree?
If we disagree, we can only remain silent?

Vince's disagreement seems about as milk-toast as they come, yet somehow you have to complain?

His "forest for the trees" comment is condescending and unacceptable, but you calling his "ridiculous" is not, and it is OK?

What IS ridiculous is this constant whining and bitching just because someone disagrees with someone else. I'm not particularly good at walking on eggshells, so.......

Yes, I'm calling your position ridiculous, as in stupid, unfounded, dumb, etc.

How's that??? :lol: (I will let you guess as to whether I am laughing with you or at you.)

Bingo. Dissenting opinions are attacked and ridiculed, as are the posters who voiced the dissenting opinion.

[Fritz]

I dunno RG. I didn't see Vince's remark as a criticism of the poster, but a disagreement with the post itself. The basic idea I saw was that in the big picture, Vince finds that criticizing the coach for not using the third string running back enough misses the point that the team won with Jackson and that he finds that not using the third string running back enough is really not worthy of that great a criticism. That's how I read it and saw no animosity from Vince.

I disagreed with the very first post here when the poster said he though B-Jack was a winner. I disagreed - I think the guy started dancing and hesitating instead of hitting it hard immediately. I would have liked Kuhn, who seems to hit it hard, play more. I don't quite agree with Vince. But that's not a personal attack.

I'm just not seeing anything in Vince's post that is uncalled for or offensive.

[DannoMac21]

The way ESPN and every other media outlet is talking about Vick, it feels as though the Eagles won the game by 21. I feel like we're 0-1.

[Fritz]

I feel that way after reading the article about the game in the JSO. Look at the headline.

I guesss this answers the question "when is a win a loss?" without the answer being "when there is a major injury."

A win is a loss when the team doesn't play well for the entire game against an opponent. Even if that opponent is playing at home and appears to have a good defense and pretty good weapons on offense.

[sharpe1027]

IMO, missing the forest from the trees means that you agree with the point, but think there are other, larger issues. Maybe a tad disagreeable, but relatively tame.

I don't think Jackson will ever be the same as Grant when it comes to hitting the hole, but he brings something different in that he has the ability to bounce outside. It can be frustrating because he'll get stopped up more often, but nobody complains when he hesitates, draws the defenders in and then pops outside for a big gain. I also like that when he does run up the middle he has been driving the pile. IDK. I am still undecided if he could be good given a chance.

[Sparkey]

Doesn't matter if its dominating, effective, ugly or just plain lucky. A win is a win. Personally, considering they were on the road, playing at a venue that they have historically struggled at, and thrown a curve with their gameplan in regards to Vick, I thought they played a pretty good game.

My only critique would be the blocking by the Tackles. However, 2nd half they looked better. Shields and Burnett, taking into account they are rookies I thought they played pretty well. Sometimes, I think people expect perfection in a game that is designed to not allow it.

Nitpicking - Minute, trivial, unnecessary, and unjustified criticism or faultfinding.


That is just my opinion! 8-)

[HarveyWallbangers]

Brandon Jackson. Was he a winner or loser? Personally, even though he had some nice runs, I was disappointed. Looked like the Brandon Jackson of old. I thought he looked better in the preseason, and I was hoping he had improved. I think he is what he is. That's not bad. He's a good all around player--considering his ability to block and catch. He has good balance and can break one on one tackles, but he lacks vision and dances too much. Polar opposite of Grant. Grant has vision and hits holes like a runaway train, but has a hard time breaking tackles. I think Grant is more the RB that this offense needs. Too bad you can't combine the two. You'd have a hell of back. That being said, I don't think we are in terrible shape with Jackson instead of Grant. Just hope Grant isn't out for long.

[swede]

IMO, missing the forest from the trees means that you agree with the point, but think there are other, larger issues. Maybe a tad disagreeable, but relatively tame.

I don't think Jackson will ever be the same as Grant when it comes to hitting the hole, but he brings something different in that he has the ability to bounce outside. It can be frustrating because he'll get stopped up more often, but nobody complains when he hesitates, draws the defenders in and then pops outside for a big gain. I also like that when he does run up the middle he has been driving the pile. IDK. I am still undecided if he could be good given a chance.

Doesn't it seem as if the backs all need to see the blocking schemes unfold and open at different times? Grant likes to float along and see a clearly open hole which he then hits quickly. He is very gifted at accelerating into the next level. BJack is more of a puzzle. Sometimes he nudges along looking for a bit of a seam in order to get 2-4 yards off of his leg drive in a big crowd. Sometimes he bangs into a little hole and pops out the other side for a 5-10 yard game. At other times he runs a lot like Grant, picking, cutting, and accelerating for 10-20 yard gashes.

Too much of the time we get the nudging and driving for short gains, but I don't think we're sunk with BJack as the primary back for a few weeks or months. As someone else noted, this offense is only too happy to throw it 50 times a game.

[swede]

Brandon Jackson. Was he a winner or loser? Personally, even though he had some nice runs, I was disappointed. Looked like the Brandon Jackson of old. I thought he looked better in the preseason, and I was hoping he had improved. I think he is what he is. That's not bad. He's a good all around player--considering his ability to block and catch. He has good balance and can break one on one tackles, but he lacks vision and dances too much. Polar opposite of Grant. Grant has vision and hits holes like a runaway train, but has a hard time breaking tackles. I think Grant is more the RB that this offense needs. Too bad you can't combine the two. You'd have a hell of back. That being said, I don't think we are in terrible shape with Jackson instead of Grant. Just hope Grant isn't out for long.

There. You said it better.

[3irty1]

Brandon Jackson. Was he a winner or loser? Personally, even though he had some nice runs, I was disappointed. Looked like the Brandon Jackson of old. I thought he looked better in the preseason, and I was hoping he had improved. I think he is what he is. That's not bad. He's a good all around player--considering his ability to block and catch. He has good balance and can break one on one tackles, but he lacks vision and dances too much. Polar opposite of Grant. Grant has vision and hits holes like a runaway train, but has a hard time breaking tackles. I think Grant is more the RB that this offense needs. Too bad you can't combine the two. You'd have a hell of back. That being said, I don't think we are in terrible shape with Jackson instead of Grant. Just hope Grant isn't out for long.

Well put. Jackson is indecisive as though the game is still moving too fast for him. It was clear that giving him carries made him more of a weapon in the passing game on 1st and 2nd downs. He is a slightly shiftier runner than Grant but a major downgrade.

[sharpe1027]

I am still undecided. I am about ready to give up on him ever being a starter, but I have this nagging feeling that if he started getting significant carries, he might better.

Part of it is that I've seen Grant struggle early in the game and then suddenly start ripping of big chunks in the second half, which tells me something changes as he gets more carries during the course of the game.

[The Leaper]

Jackson will be more of a weapon on this team if he is an integral part of the gameplan. Did we even run one screen pass yesterday? Can't remember one. Seems odd to not run one when Jackson is such a capable receiver.

That said...he isn't a great runner, and is a borderline starter at best IMO. However, that isn't much of a downgrade from Grant...who I also find mediocre, mostly due to hands of stone and propensity to get tackled by the chalk on the field at times.

Was not a fan at all of the offensive playcalling...couldn't get the offense going in the first half, then got way too conservative and gave the Eagles a chance to get back into it in the second half. On top of that, I'll throw in that the timeout was called ridiculously late prior to that final drive of the first half. The Eagles 3rd down play ended with about 1:05 left...and McCarthy let the clock roll all the way down to :45 before calling a time out? WTF was that? I also would have liked to see McCarthy challenge the last TD by the Eagles...not completely sure that was a catch. Probably wouldn't win the challenge, but I think you take the chance there under 6 minutes in the game and little need for 3 timeouts. It doesn't cost you much...and if the call WAS overturned, it makes a huge difference.

With our offensive weapons, running on 1st and 2nd down with 5 minutes left in the game is dumb. Do you think the Patriots, Colts or Saints will run the ball like that in those situations? Hell no. That was some serious dumbass there.

[pbmax]

Brandon Jackson. Was he a winner or loser? Personally, even though he had some nice runs, I was disappointed. Looked like the Brandon Jackson of old. I thought he looked better in the preseason, and I was hoping he had improved. I think he is what he is. That's not bad. He's a good all around player--considering his ability to block and catch. He has good balance and can break one on one tackles, but he lacks vision and dances too much. Polar opposite of Grant. Grant has vision and hits holes like a runaway train, but has a hard time breaking tackles. I think Grant is more the RB that this offense needs. Too bad you can't combine the two. You'd have a hell of back. That being said, I don't think we are in terrible shape with Jackson instead of Grant. Just hope Grant isn't out for long.
Given that we have seen him do better in preseason, I think he is likely to become more decisive as he gets to see starting defenses more and more. He clearly can make those decisions and has the physical ability to hit the hole hard. My best guess for the difference between BJack preseason and yesterday is that yesterday looked a whole lot less clean, in terms of picking a hole.

He had, what, less than six starts in his rookie campaign and since then has been on 3rd down duty. He won't be the same back as Grant, but I expect his decision making speed to improve.

[Fritz]

I think I liked the idea of the new, hit-the-hole Jackson we saw in preseason, and when that didn't happen against Philly, I was disappointed.

I agree with the point someone made above, too, about the screen game. I laugh out loud when announcers (I'm thinking the Indy preseason game this year) blather on and on about how good a screen team the Packers are. I have to get up and check my calendar to see if it's 2003 or something. Cuz the Packers haven't been a good screen team since Ahman Green ran it and Shermy called it.

But Jackson is built for it. And at the end of the game instead of running on second and ten or passing long on third and ten, how about a screen?

[digitaldean]

IMO, we caught a break when Vick pulled a braincramp when he could have run the ball in, instead of throwing into double coverage in the endzone.

Vick still has the mobility, no doubt. But he still one hopped and over threw a couple of wide open receivers.

Kuhn was underused and yes, Jackson did look a little timid in hitting the hole. If Grant is out for an extended period of time, he has to hit the hole or step aside. They need decisive, forceful running.

Kuhn may not work most of the time, but he would have worked yesterday if used a lot more.

[Freak Out]

Jackson will be more of a weapon on this team if he is an integral part of the gameplan. Did we even run one screen pass yesterday? Can't remember one. Seems odd to not run one when Jackson is such a capable receiver.

That said...he isn't a great runner, and is a borderline starter at best IMO. However, that isn't much of a downgrade from Grant...who I also find mediocre, mostly due to hands of stone and propensity to get tackled by the chalk on the field at times.

Was not a fan at all of the offensive playcalling...couldn't get the offense going in the first half, then got way too conservative and gave the Eagles a chance to get back into it in the second half. On top of that, I'll throw in that the timeout was called ridiculously late prior to that final drive of the first half. The Eagles 3rd down play ended with about 1:05 left...and McCarthy let the clock roll all the way down to :45 before calling a time out? WTF was that? I also would have liked to see McCarthy challenge the last TD by the Eagles...not completely sure that was a catch. Probably wouldn't win the challenge, but I think you take the chance there under 6 minutes in the game and little need for 3 timeouts. It doesn't cost you much...and if the call WAS overturned, it makes a huge difference.

With our offensive weapons, running on 1st and 2nd down with 5 minutes left in the game is dumb. Do you think the Patriots, Colts or Saints will run the ball like that in those situations? Hell no. That was some serious dumbass there.

I remember him making a great catch on a swing pass but the one (?) screen I remember was blown up.

I was screaming for some runs throughout the game but you are correct on the runs at the end....should have mixed it up.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Brandon Jackson. Was he a winner or loser? Personally, even though he had some nice runs, I was disappointed. Looked like the Brandon Jackson of old. I thought he looked better in the preseason, and I was hoping he had improved. I think he is what he is. That's not bad. He's a good all around player--considering his ability to block and catch. He has good balance and can break one on one tackles, but he lacks vision and dances too much. Polar opposite of Grant. Grant has vision and hits holes like a runaway train, but has a hard time breaking tackles. I think Grant is more the RB that this offense needs. Too bad you can't combine the two. You'd have a hell of back. That being said, I don't think we are in terrible shape with Jackson instead of Grant. Just hope Grant isn't out for long.
Given that we have seen him do better in preseason, I think he is likely to become more decisive as he gets to see starting defenses more and more. He clearly can make those decisions and has the physical ability to hit the hole hard. My best guess for the difference between BJack preseason and yesterday is that yesterday looked a whole lot less clean, in terms of picking a hole.

He had, what, less than six starts in his rookie campaign and since then has been on 3rd down duty. He won't be the same back as Grant, but I expect his decision making speed to improve.
I am a B-Jack fan and agree with the geezer that he'll get better as he gets more starts and gets a better feel. He needs a bit of time to get more comfortable in the new role.

[Pugger]

Tauscher/Clifton. They looked old and slow, like Favre on Thursday. Ruh-roh, Rastro.

Worrisome, but not panic button time yet. They both looked old and slow mostly against Cole, who makes young guys look old and slow. As older vets, it may take a couple of games for them to get warmed up to regular season speed.

They (Mark and Cliffy) seemed to improve their play as the game unfolded, but they were brutal in the beginning for sure.

[Pugger]

Calling the head coach the biggest loser in a tough win on the road because he didn't give the emergency 3rd string running back the ball enough seems to be missing the forest through the trees to me.

Yes, but Jackson does dance around back there too much at times...

[Pugger]

if vick hadn't come into the game and been vick i don't think anyone would have any real complaints. we were on our way to a 20+ point victory.

And the D got gassed chasing Vick all over the field when we only had 4 D linemen in uniform and able to run onto the gridiron. As I read online earlier today it might not have been the best thing for CM3 to knock Kolb out of that game... :wink:

[Pugger]

The way ESPN and every other media outlet is talking about Vick, it feels as though the Eagles won the game by 21. I feel like we're 0-1.

Let them crow about Vick and let us fly under the radar. 8-)

[gbgary]

IMO, we caught a break when Vick pulled a braincramp when he could have run the ball in, instead of throwing into double coverage in the endzone.

i said this in the game thread. had an easy td and tossed it away. he said he did it because he's "not a selfish player." don't know what he was thinking but i bet that never entered his head.




The way ESPN and every other media outlet is talking about Vick, it feels as though the Eagles won the game by 21. I feel like we're 0-1.

Let them crow about Vick and let us fly under the radar. 8-)

we were the darlings of preseason and now on everyones short list of superbowl winners..."under the radar" ain't happenin'.

[HarveyWallbangers]

After rewatching the game, I'd go with:

WINNERS

WR Greg Jennings

DE Cullen Jenkins - Warrior

DT B.J. Raji - Played much better than in the preseason

DE Ryan Pickett - He actually gets off blocks and makes some plays down the line.

LB Clay Matthews - Lights out

CB Tramon Williams - he had an exceptional game

CB Charles Woodson

K Mason Crosby - the team record FG before the half was HUGE.

KR Jordy Nelson - huge momentum swings on his returns.

LOSERS

QB Aaron Rodgers - I didn't really want to put him on here because he made enough plays for the offense to score 27 points against what I think will be a good defense in a hostile environment with poor protection. However, he missed several throws that he usually makes

OT Chad Clifton - it was mostly a couple of bad plays

OT Mark Tauscher - he was worse than Clifton. He had a horrible game. He gave up sacks and tons of pressures.

GAME BALLS

Offense - Greg Jennings.
Defense - Clay Matthews.
Special Teams - Mason Crosby.

OTHER NOTES

Josh Sitton almost made the winners list. The way Ryan Grant was starting to run the ball, we might have been able to run it down their throats when we got the big lead. Brandon Chillar was active. He almost made the winners list. I thought Sam Shields held up pretty well. Morgan Burnett almost made the losers list because of his tackling, but did well in coverage. I couldn't judge Colledge and Wells too much. Colledge made a couple of mistakes and there was some pressure up the middle, but he made some good plays too. Tim Masthay almost made the winners list, but blew his final punt.

[pbmax]

Brandon Jackson. Was he a winner or loser? Personally, even though he had some nice runs, I was disappointed. Looked like the Brandon Jackson of old. I thought he looked better in the preseason, and I was hoping he had improved. I think he is what he is. That's not bad. He's a good all around player--considering his ability to block and catch. He has good balance and can break one on one tackles, but he lacks vision and dances too much. Polar opposite of Grant. Grant has vision and hits holes like a runaway train, but has a hard time breaking tackles. I think Grant is more the RB that this offense needs. Too bad you can't combine the two. You'd have a hell of back. That being said, I don't think we are in terrible shape with Jackson instead of Grant. Just hope Grant isn't out for long.
Given that we have seen him do better in preseason, I think he is likely to become more decisive as he gets to see starting defenses more and more. He clearly can make those decisions and has the physical ability to hit the hole hard. My best guess for the difference between BJack preseason and yesterday is that yesterday looked a whole lot less clean, in terms of picking a hole.

He had, what, less than six starts in his rookie campaign and since then has been on 3rd down duty. He won't be the same back as Grant, but I expect his decision making speed to improve.
I am a B-Jack fan and agree with the geezer that he'll get better as he gets more starts and gets a better feel. He needs a bit of time to get more comfortable in the new role.
Geezer?! I only play one on the internet.

[Iron Mike]

Who was the Eagles player who ran into Tramon Williams after he signaled for a fair catch?? Dude belongs on the loser list.

[RashanGary]

Thanks for the write ups guys. . . .


Now we have 5 more weeks to get the rookies trained before Harris and Bigby come back. I have a feeling both Shields and Burnett will be replaced. But, the bright side is the experience they get over the first 6 weeks of the season is going to be valuable later in the season of we have injuries in the secondary. Both guys are rookies, but I don't get the feeling yet that either of them just can't play.

[Tarlam!]

I'd love to go back to JSO archives and find out what we were writing about Nick Collins' beginnings in the NFL. Even vets get burned. I'll never forget TO lighting Harris up against Dallas or Plax lighting him up in the NFCCG. It happens.

The Packers did enough to win. Sure the injuries are worrying. But I remember in my own business career that I had to step up one day - I passed with flying colours. So, now others will have to step up - including Wynn.

If Slocum has turned the STs around, I guess anythiing is possible.

My concern is that A-Rod loses his nerves if the OL is porous. Now, that worries me.

[vince]

Brandon Jackson. Was he a winner or loser? Personally, even though he had some nice runs, I was disappointed. Looked like the Brandon Jackson of old. I thought he looked better in the preseason, and I was hoping he had improved. I think he is what he is. That's not bad. He's a good all around player--considering his ability to block and catch. He has good balance and can break one on one tackles, but he lacks vision and dances too much. Polar opposite of Grant. Grant has vision and hits holes like a runaway train, but has a hard time breaking tackles. I think Grant is more the RB that this offense needs. Too bad you can't combine the two. You'd have a hell of back. That being said, I don't think we are in terrible shape with Jackson instead of Grant. Just hope Grant isn't out for long.Ditto. Jackson has a little bit of shake, runs hard once he hits a hole, and is solid in 3rd down situations, Yeah he tiptoes around too much when he doesn't find a hole, so you can question his vision and decisiveness. Some people commented that this could improve with a game or two playing and practicing a lot more as the feature guy. That's conceivable. He's serviceable through the next few weeks IMO. We need Grant for the tough stretch run.

I can't find anything to argue with on your winners and losers either. Kuhn certainly ran hard when given the ball. He also had huge holes to run through the line and build up a head of steam on both of his runs, which is awfully helpful for a guy with no elusiveness.

[Smidgeon]

IMO, we caught a break when Vick pulled a braincramp when he could have run the ball in, instead of throwing into double coverage in the endzone.

i said this in the game thread. had an easy td and tossed it away. he said he did it because he's "not a selfish player." don't know what he was thinking but i bet that never entered his head.

My best guess: he still hears people in his head saying he's not a good passing QB. So he still takes these chances on occasion to try to prove he can do what everyone else can do instead of focusing on what he's good at: killing opponents with his feet.

[vince]

A largely overlooked point about Sunday's game (I think JH mentioned it here.) were the penalties.

The Packers had 2 for 15 yards, while the Eagles had a previously-Packer-like 10 for 80 yards. While his play-calling and personnel can be debated, if it was McCarthy's fault for the team's penalties in years past, you have to credit McCarthy for getting that cleaned up.