Scathing JSO Article

[Smidgeon]

And I kind of agree with it:

http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/104218968.html

[curtis loew]

It says for insiders only

[Joemailman]

That article is garbage. It clearly belongs in the Garbage Can :wink:

[gbpackfan]

99% of people can not read it. Why post this?

[bobblehead]

That article is garbage. It clearly belongs in the Garbage Can :wink:

I disagree. that article is dead on. McGinn is usually pretty right in these kind of peices.

Every time we start to truly believe this team is ready they fall flat. Chicago was just another example. AZ last year was a prime example. We are becoming the San Diego of the NFC.

I expect to beat the lions. But if you can't go into Chicago and beat a suspect team you aren't at that next level.

Looking ahead we have to spank a few big boys before we can say we arrived. We need to blow out teams like the Lions and Bills. We can't continue to sweat games like Phi when we had a 17 point lead in the 4th.

If we don't destroy the Lions thats bad. But even if we do, we need to beat the Jets, Vikes, someone of consequence, and its hard to do when your HC is playing "tight".

[ThunderDan]

That article is garbage. It clearly belongs in the Garbage Can :wink:

I disagree. that article is dead on. McGinn is usually pretty right in these kind of peices.

Every time we start to truly believe this team is ready they fall flat. Chicago was just another example. AZ last year was a prime example. We are becoming the San Diego of the NFC.

I expect to beat the lions. But if you can't go into Chicago and beat a suspect team you aren't at that next level.

Looking ahead we have to spank a few big boys before we can say we arrived. We need to blow out teams like the Lions and Bills. We can't continue to sweat games like Phi when we had a 17 point lead in the 4th.

If we don't destroy the Lions thats bad. But even if we do, we need to beat the Jets, Vikes, someone of consequence, and its hard to do when your HC is playing "tight".

I can't read the article but no way are we the San Diego of the NFC. We finally have the talent from 2009 on to be one of the top contenders. We have completely rebuilt from 2004. I think 2007 was the "blip" that was unexpected. I believe we should have been 8-8 in 2007 and 9-7 in 2008 when we lost so many close games.

[MJZiggy]

The only thing I agree with in that article is that we let up when we have a good lead. You can't blame M3 that we don't have Lumpkin, and if he runs complete, precision practices, then making the assumption that we can't win against top-notch teams is flawed. They're top notch because they tend to win a lot of games. They're harder to beat than teams with losing records. Duh.

Regardless how long the "footballs" rating system is used, I'd like to know how it is decided. It it an objective system, or is it some guy's subjective grading system. If it's the latter, then the likelihood is that the grader is being harder on the team because I've seen stellar performances since 2008.

I'd like to see a similar analysis of another team similar to the Packers to see how they stack up.

And don't tell me that a team that was so recently in the NFCC Championship game can't make the SB. I don't buy it.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Why is every attack article written by Bob McGinn??

[MJZiggy]

Why is every attack article written by Bob McGinn??

Because he's wist in disguise.



Just kidding, wist. I wouldn't accuse you of such villainy.

[Scott Campbell]

I can't blame anybody for writing an attack article after that loss. I hate the Bears.

[pbmax]

I am less concerned about letting up with a lead than doing stupid things with one (Zig, you may have meant this as well, if so, then apologies). M3 does go to that clock killing 4 minute drill, run twice and then throw incomplete mode too soon. More often, they start fast, get a lead and then fritter it away with stupid penalties.

San Diego (used to, probably not so much this year) thrashes good teams regularly, then fall flat in the playoffs. Not the same thing as McGinn is arguing. Too close for comfort, but not the same.

And I do not think the problem with the team is tightness. If anything, they play too loose, especially on 3rd down defense.

I don't buy the "We can't put Brian Urlacher on his back" argument of the run game. It would be a fool's errand to plan your running game against one player in the division. Bob might remember things differently, but I remember plenty of Urlacher blowing up plays during Sherman's tenure. He did it by being fast, but he still presented problems.

Otherwise, its hard to argue with most of the points.

[MJZiggy]

To clarify, what I was referring to is getting a solid lead and then moving away from the kind of play that got you the lead in the first place. Say the other team is having fits stopping the rush on the outside and all of a sudden once we get a good lead, we abandon it.

[Patler]

There was a stretch of games under Sherman during which the Packers seemingly ran at will against the Bears (167, 124, 181, 187 in four successive games from the second game of '01 through the first game of '03) That was followed by games of 97 yards and 152 yards. Green had a couple of huge games, and Urlacher was pretty well neutralized in many of those games.

I remember an article written about it after several rather stunning running performances against what was supposed to be a good rushing D of Chicago. The writer said Flanagan sort of chuckled when asked about Urlacher and said they had figured out how to use Urlacher's speed and aggressiveness against him, and no longer worried about him. One lineman (don't remember who) said Urlacher didn't tackle well when laying on his back or 5 yards away from the ballcarrier.

Watching those games, I developed a strong opinion that Urlacher was very much overrated, and argued that frequently. Watching more Bear games since then I have backed off from that and have a stronger regard for his play. I now think Sherman and his staff really did have a running game that Urlacher struggled against, for whatever reason. Just one of those things. Perhaps in part because the Packers had some pretty athletic guys in Wahle and Flanagan and another pro-bowler in Rivera to deal with Urlacher. Henderson was in his prime, and often pounded Urlacher run after run. No matter what they ran, the Packers had a quality run blocker taking on Urlacher.

[Freak Out]

That article is garbage. It clearly belongs in the Garbage Can :wink:

I disagree.

:)

Wake up Bobblehead.

[NewsBruin]

I was able to read it off my BlackBerry.

I like the article, but I wish, in addition to the stats, they would have included some specific stats/anecdotes about McCarthy's playcalling. I don't disagree that something happens to the team/coach when the pressure ratchets up, but it would be nice for them to give more detail (with statistical backing) about how the play selection changes when we're playing winning teams or playing with the lead.