Hater's Take III, Packer Fan, "16-0, I don't see a team beating us!"

[Deputy Nutz]

Hold your horses you dimmed light bulbs, the Packers have played three games this season, all wins but none of them perfect. The Packers have flaws, but so does every team out there. The lock out has really led to some shotty defense around the league and the Packers need to get theiir tackling clean up. Over the past three games the Packers defense has blown coverages, and missed too many tackles. The reason this defense was some dominant at the end of last season was that the Packers did a very good job at keeping everything in front of them. They made tackles. Hawk and Bishop are not great in coverage, but they are not as bad as all the talking heads in Packerland make them out to be. It is difficult for any linebacker to cover Darren Sproles or Matt Forte out of the backfield and it was a match up that both opponent exposed in their games against the Packers. The biggest thing that Hawk and Bishop need to do is make the tackles when they are given the opportunity. Same goes for the Packers secondary.

So far this season I am not impressed with Sam Shields, Eric Walden and the entire linebacking crew. Raji isn't getting pressure up the middle as of yet but I think he will turn it on in a couple of weeks just like the rest of the Packers defense.

Penalties again were a problem. Packers are going to have to play mistake free football if they are going to go 16-0, and they are not doing it on offense. The Packers finally got Ryan Grant going. It seems he always runs well against the Bears, but he has lost a gear, he wasn't a burner to begin with but he almost has no shot at breaking a runs longer than 20 yards this season unless he pops a 4th and 1. Starks looked like crap, dancing all over the place and you can't do that against the Bears defense, they are too fast at their linebacker position. Rodgers looked good but not as good as Finley. Finley is an amazing talent who is becoming the best tight end in football.

Newhouse did a fantastic job, but as soon as Bulaga went down the Packers went into an offensive comma for about ten plays. Talk about conservative play calling. Bulaga is going to be on the shelf for a few weeks so the Packers are going to have to find some depth on the offensive line.

The Punt team were made to look like fools, but luckily a bogus holding call was made. The Punter needs to yell which direction the punt was heading. Football players have learned that since pee wee. They looked like a bunch of sheep.

16-0, you dumb bastards.

[Pugger]

If you are a hater I'm surprised you took the time to start this thread. I doubt more than one person has declared the Pack will go 16-0.

[retailguy]

If you are a hater I'm surprised you took the time to start this thread. I doubt more than one person has declared the Pack will go 16-0.

I did, that makes 2, Iron Mike did as well. That's 3, and we haven't even left the forum yet. Maybe you're the real hater?:taunt::lol:

[pbmax]

Urban legend. That penalty was right as rain.

[vince]

Right now (barring unforeseeable injuries) there isn't a team in the league that should beat the Packers, but that oblong ball doesn't always bounce the way it should as Brady witnessed this week. The Saints and Pats present the biggest threats IMO, and they appear to have the same weaknesses, perhaps bigger than the Pack's. The Packers' CB's are better, but I think Woodson's best days may be in the past. He's still plenty good enough and a great leader, but not the dominant force he was a couple years ago. I'd love to eat those words.

Long live Aarogant Rodgers (http://www.foxsportswisconsin.com/09/26/11/Packers-Rodgers-lacks-glitz-but-he-is-th/landing_packers.html?blockID=569206&feedID=5196).

[pbmax]

2-1-GB 31 (7:07) (No Huddle, Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to G.Jennings to GB 39 for 8 yards (D.Moore). GBB.
Bulaga was injured during the play. His return is Questionable.
Timeout at 06:54.
1-10-GB 39 (6:47) PENALTY on GB-J.Sitton, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at GB 39 - No Play.
1-15-GB 34 (6:23) J.Starks left guard to GB 37 for 3 yards (B.Urlacher).
2-12-GB 37 (5:44) (Shotgun) J.Starks left tackle to GB 39 for 2 yards (L.Briggs).
3-10-GB 39 (5:06) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to J.Starks to GB 42 for 3 yards (T.Jennings).
4-7-GB 42 (4:32) T.Masthay punts 47 yards to CHI 11, Center-B.Goode. D.Hester to CHI 32 for 21 yards (M.Burnett; B.Jones).

Green Bay Packers at 4:12
1-10-GB 32 (4:12) R.Grant left tackle to GB 34 for 2 yards (A.Okoye).
2-8-GB 34 (3:34) (Shotgun) J.Starks left tackle to GB 35 for 1 yard (L.Briggs; A.Okoye).
3-7-GB 35 (2:52) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers sacked at GB 33 for -2 yards (J.Peppers).
Penalty on GB-C.Clifton, Offensive Holding, declined.
4-9-GB 33 (2:29) T.Masthay punts 38 yards to CHI 29, Center-B.Goode, downed by GB-J.Kuhn.

Green Bay Packers at 0:43
1-10-GB 40 (:43) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short left to D.Driver.
2-10-GB 40 (:39) A.Rodgers pass short right to J.Kuhn to GB 47 for 7 yards (T.Jennings; L.Briggs).
3-3-GB 47 (15:00) (Shotgun) PENALTY on CHI-J.Peppers, Neutral Zone Infraction, 5 yards, enforced at GB 47 - No Play. X8
1-10-CHI 48 (15:00) R.Grant right tackle to CHI 39 for 9 yards (B.Urlacher).
2-1-CHI 39 (14:23) R.Grant right tackle to CHI 40 for -1 yards (B.Urlacher).
3-2-CHI 40 (13:38) A.Rodgers pass deep right to J.Finley to CHI 16 for 24 yards (C.Steltz). P9
1-10-CHI 16 (12:52) R.Grant right tackle to CHI 7 for 9 yards (T.Jennings).
(12:07) A.Rodgers pass short middle to J.Finley for 7 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Play Challenged by Replay Assistant and Upheld.

After Bulaga got hurt, Sitton collected a penalty the very next play. First and 15, 2 runs after that with a virtual rookie at RT makes sense. Then an immediate INT leaves the O with no time for adjustment. Another two runs (six total plays, 2 passes, one complete) for next to nothing. And its not yet clear that Newhouse will be better in protection than run blocking.

Seventh play (not counting punts) they start a touchdown drive. Six plays to adjust to an unknown starter is pretty reasonable.

[pbmax]

Here is a reason for some alarm, though it would seem to be eminently correctable:

McGinn claims in his Insider Article today (Rating the Packers) Capers was forced to abandon zone coverage underneath the safeties after Knox caught his 40 yard pass on Peprah. He points to Woodson and Shields for failing to get proper depth on the play and leaving Peprah with little help from underneath coverage. The safety then got turned around and then beat. According to Bob, it was man coverage under the safety shell when the Packers were in 2 deep after that.

This is the downside of CBs gambling and jumping to routes before the ball is in the air. Everyone has seen Woodson do this, but Williams and Shields committed this sin versus the Bears as well. Someone has to play the zone straight for a while, or those big plays will keep happening.

[Deputy Nutz]

2-1-GB 31 (7:07) (No Huddle, Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to G.Jennings to GB 39 for 8 yards (D.Moore). GBB.
Bulaga was injured during the play. His return is Questionable.
Timeout at 06:54.
1-10-GB 39 (6:47) PENALTY on GB-J.Sitton, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at GB 39 - No Play.
1-15-GB 34 (6:23) J.Starks left guard to GB 37 for 3 yards (B.Urlacher).
2-12-GB 37 (5:44) (Shotgun) J.Starks left tackle to GB 39 for 2 yards (L.Briggs).
3-10-GB 39 (5:06) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to J.Starks to GB 42 for 3 yards (T.Jennings).
4-7-GB 42 (4:32) T.Masthay punts 47 yards to CHI 11, Center-B.Goode. D.Hester to CHI 32 for 21 yards (M.Burnett; B.Jones).

Green Bay Packers at 4:12
1-10-GB 32 (4:12) R.Grant left tackle to GB 34 for 2 yards (A.Okoye).
2-8-GB 34 (3:34) (Shotgun) J.Starks left tackle to GB 35 for 1 yard (L.Briggs; A.Okoye).
3-7-GB 35 (2:52) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers sacked at GB 33 for -2 yards (J.Peppers).
Penalty on GB-C.Clifton, Offensive Holding, declined.
4-9-GB 33 (2:29) T.Masthay punts 38 yards to CHI 29, Center-B.Goode, downed by GB-J.Kuhn.

Green Bay Packers at 0:43
1-10-GB 40 (:43) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short left to D.Driver.
2-10-GB 40 (:39) A.Rodgers pass short right to J.Kuhn to GB 47 for 7 yards (T.Jennings; L.Briggs).
3-3-GB 47 (15:00) (Shotgun) PENALTY on CHI-J.Peppers, Neutral Zone Infraction, 5 yards, enforced at GB 47 - No Play. X8
1-10-CHI 48 (15:00) R.Grant right tackle to CHI 39 for 9 yards (B.Urlacher).
2-1-CHI 39 (14:23) R.Grant right tackle to CHI 40 for -1 yards (B.Urlacher).
3-2-CHI 40 (13:38) A.Rodgers pass deep right to J.Finley to CHI 16 for 24 yards (C.Steltz). P9
1-10-CHI 16 (12:52) R.Grant right tackle to CHI 7 for 9 yards (T.Jennings).
(12:07) A.Rodgers pass short middle to J.Finley for 7 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Play Challenged by Replay Assistant and Upheld.

After Bulaga got hurt, Sitton collected a penalty the very next play. First and 15, 2 runs after that with a virtual rookie at RT makes sense. Then an immediate INT leaves the O with no time for adjustment. Another two runs (six total plays, 2 passes, one complete) for next to nothing. And its not yet clear that Newhouse will be better in protection than run blocking.

Seventh play (not counting punts) they start a touchdown drive. Six plays to adjust to an unknown starter is pretty reasonable.

Bullshit. The Packers put points on the board attacking defenses not sitting tight to allow for adjustment. Adjustments are when you add an extra blocker to the right side. Getting the ball out quick is another adjustment, not running plodding draw plays. The Packers had the Chicago Bears' defense on the ropes and they took their foot off the gas pedal because of a injury to offensive linemen. I was not in favor of it, and like great Coach Hissler once said, "You put your foot on their balls and believe in it, because that is what wins championships. Not jumping offsides like a bunch of wimps and faggots."

[Deputy Nutz]

If you are a hater I'm surprised you took the time to start this thread. I doubt more than one person has declared the Pack will go 16-0.

I have heard it multiple times on sports talk radio and also on a morning radio program. I am hearing it enough to mention it. I don't make things up

[denverYooper]

Here is a reason for some alarm, though it would seem to be eminently correctable:

McGinn claims in his Insider Article today (Rating the Packers) Capers was forced to abandon zone coverage underneath the safeties after Knox caught his 40 yard pass on Peprah. He points to Woodson and Shields for failing to get proper depth on the play and leaving Peprah with little help from underneath coverage. The safety then got turned around and then beat. According to Bob, it was man coverage under the safety shell when the Packers were in 2 deep after that.

This is the downside of CBs gambling and jumping to routes before the ball is in the air. Everyone has seen Woodson do this, but Williams and Shields committed this sin versus the Bears as well. Someone has to play the zone straight for a while, or those big plays will keep happening.

Somewhat related, "Paul Ott Carruth" broke down the Davis TD (http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/xs-os-busted-coverage-maybe-not) at CHTV.

[pbmax]

Bullshit. The Packers put points on the board attacking defenses not sitting tight to allow for adjustment. Adjustments are when you add an extra blocker to the right side. Getting the ball out quick is another adjustment, not running plodding draw plays. The Packers had the Chicago Bears' defense on the ropes and they took their foot off the gas pedal because of a injury to offensive linemen. I was not in favor of it, and like great Coach Hissler once said, "You put your foot on their balls and believe in it, because that is what wins championships. Not jumping offsides like a bunch of wimps and faggots."

The Packers are able to attack defenses because of a collection of all star talent. And the way to keep that talent at an all star level is to keep its QB healthy, not to risk pass protection to a virtual rookie starter. As a former O lineman, you know that having a TE help or a RB chip is actually quite a technical feat and involves different timing and technique than a standard one on one.

The worst thing to do is to give that lineman something complicated. Fours runs, two third down passes to get his head in the game, adjust for speed and a couple of shots to the body didn't hurt a thing on the TD drive 4 minutes later.

[denverYooper]

Right now (barring unforeseeable injuries) there isn't a team in the league that should beat the Packers, but that oblong ball doesn't always bounce the way it should as Brady witnessed this week. The Saints and Pats present the biggest threats IMO, and they appear to have the same weaknesses, perhaps bigger than the Pack's. The Packers' CB's are better, but I think Woodson's best days may be in the past. He's still plenty good enough and a great leader, but not the dominant force he was a couple years ago. I'd love to eat those words.


Mostly agree but I'd add the Ravens in that mix. Despite the loss to the Titans, they look pretty tough.

[SkinBasket]

Someone needs to sober you up before you write your next article.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I personally haven't heard anybody think 16-0--except in jest on here.

[Harlan Huckleby]

McGinn claims in his Insider Article today (Rating the Packers) I posted that article under title "Splt Wet Beaver", which was name of a lesbian band in the 90's. I want to apologize to packerrats for this lapse in judgement.

I'd be dissappointed if the Packers went 16-0. I want to have some weeping and gnashing of teeth along the way, that's part of the fun.

[Upnorth]

16-0? Would love to see it but my jaw would hit the ground if it happened.
if they go 10-6 and win the SB to me that is better than 16-0.

[Deputy Nutz]

Someone needs to sober you up before you write your next article.

Big words from a key board jockey. If we ever met face to face I would kick your ass. You think you are so stinking tough on these boards but in real life you are probably a total dork.

[mraynrand]

I'd be dissappointed if the Packers went 16-0. I want to have some weeping and gnashing of teeth along the way, that's part of the fun.

Are you out of your mind? Pay attention! Winning doesn't EVER prevent weeping and gnashing of teeth on this forum.

[Partial]

I personally haven't heard anybody think 16-0--except in jest on here.

Lots of homers on the radio are saying this. I don't think they'll go 16-0, but looking at their schedule I can't help but think "who can beat us?". The offense is scary good, and I think they can match just about anyone. I'm sure they'll lay an egg for a game or two.

[Pugger]

I did, that makes 2, Iron Mike did as well. That's 3, and we haven't even left the forum yet. Maybe you're the real hater?:taunt::lol:

:lol:

[Pugger]

I have heard it multiple times on sports talk radio and also on a morning radio program. I am hearing it enough to mention it. I don't make things up

I was talking about on those on this forum.

[Deputy Nutz]

I was talking about on those on this forum.

This place is actually filled with people that actually understand something about football. No matter how good your team looks, it is very difficult to go undefeated in the regular season, even tougher to go undefeated for an entire season and win the Super Bowl.

So the Packers look really good, but they do look beatable on defense. Their defense is not as good as it was last year and that is going to either get much better, or cost them some football games down the road.

[Jimx29]

As long as M3 is in charge, the Pack will never go 16-0

[MJZiggy]

As long as M3 is in charge, the Pack will never go 16-0

Oh cool! You said the same thing about winning the Super Bowl and it happened the very next season!

[MJZiggy]

Are you out of your mind? Pay attention! Winning doesn't EVER prevent weeping and gnashing of teeth on this forum.:lol:

[Joemailman]

As long as M3 is in charge, the Pack will never go 16-0

I hear ya. I once said the same thing about Lombardi, and I was right, dammit. :thank:

[Smeefers]

I personally haven't heard anybody think 16-0--except in jest on here.

I have linked just a few of the forum's and news agencies debating if the Packers can go 16-0. It all started with Rob Parker on ESPN's first take saying that the Pack could go undefeated and ever since then, it's starting to filter out into all the other media's. I've heard it talked about on local green bay sports radio (the fan) and read it in a few other places.

http://www.prosportsblogging.com/2011/05/12/can-the-green-bay-packers-go-16-0/
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/857045-the-elephant-in-the-room-can-the-packers-go-undefeated
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6992013
http://timesfour.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/938109321/m/3154095408
http://www.mysportsarena.com/content.php?805-Can-Packers-Go-Undefeated
http://packeranalysis.areavoices.com/2011/09/05/2011-nfc-north-preview/

[Lurker64]

I suspect that a large part of the reason that they went super-conservative after Bulaga went down is that you wanted to let Newhouse (who is coming into the game cold) get his feet under him before you ask him to do something tough like "block Peppers without help on a 5-step drop". Since if you give him the hard stuff right away, and he struggles out of the gate (since, you know, he wasn't expecting to play) then that could result in the All-Star QB getting pasted, and we can't have that.

I totally forgive McCarthy for going into a shell for 2-3 series after Newhouse came in. I probably would have done the same thing until I had seen enough out of Newhouse to be confident.

[Guiness]

I suspect that a large part of the reason that they went super-conservative after Bulaga went down is that you wanted to let Newhouse (who is coming into the game cold) get his feet under him before you ask him to do something tough like "block Peppers without help on a 5-step drop". Since if you give him the hard stuff right away, and he struggles out of the gate (since, you know, he wasn't expecting to play) then that could result in the All-Star QB getting pasted, and we can't have that.

I totally forgive McCarthy for going into a shell for 2-3 series after Newhouse came in. I probably would have done the same thing until I had seen enough out of Newhouse to be confident.

Agreed.

OL generally find run blocking easier, or at least most straightforward. That has been more or less confirmed by some of the old men around here who played it. Better to have him just try and beat the guy in front of him and push him back a couple of yards - just like a 1 on 1 drill in camp, then to try and dance.

[Upnorth]

If we can win @ det, @ sd, @nyg and home vrs oak we might make 16-0, but seriously I can't see everything clicking that way for that long. Just the way we came out flat against Carolina in a trap game and our amazingly awesome punt coverage (sarcasm) makes me think it is impossible for this team to go 16-0.

Regarding Newhouse, he was left 1 on 1 against Peppers a couple of times and did not suck. That is very promising. However if there is one more injury on the Oline we are kind of stuck. Does TT have Tauscher on speed dial?

[Jimx29]

As long as M3 is in charge, the Pack will never go 16-0
Oh cool! You said the same thing about winning the Super Bowl and it happened the very next season!
Sorry Ziggy, This is A bookmark i'm not overly proud of making, but there's somethings that are a given.

[Bossman641]

Sorry Ziggy, This is A bookmark i'm not overly proud of making, but there's somethings that are a given.


Wow, you really went out on a limb there predicting a team wouldn't go 16-0. Is the sun going to come up tomorrow??

[Jimx29]

Wow, you really went out on a limb there predicting a team wouldn't go 16-0. Is the sun going to come up tomorrow??
More specifically, I said they'd never go 16-0 with MIII in charge.

[mraynrand]

More specifically, I said they'd never go 16-0 with MIII in charge.

You were right. They went 19-0.

[Upnorth]

I hope I was wrong about the whole oline and another injury.

Also Rand you spoke a little bit incorrectly, they went 19-0 and set a whole crap load of league and packer records to boot!

Yet MM is definatly the problem in Green Bay

[Jimx29]

I hope I was wrong about the whole oline and another injury.

Also Rand you spoke a little bit incorrectly, they went 19-0 and set a whole crap load of league and packer records to boot!

Yet MM is definatly the problem in Green BayWhen a team can go out and totally dominate a team such as the raiders, then follows that up with a game plan like what we had getting beat by a much worse than raider team, the chiefs, that lies directly on the head coaches head. Yep. he's the problem

[Zool]

When a team can go out and totally dominate a team such as the raiders, then follows that up with a game plan like what we had getting beat by a much worse than raider team, the chiefs, that lies directly on the head coaches head. Yep. he's the problem

Total domination. Nothing else is acceptable.

Are we really back to bitching about the coach again? WTF does a guy have to do to get respect with some people? There will never again be a Lombardi style dominance.

If Sherrod doesnt make it back from injury is TT the problem because he drafts injury prone guys in the first round?

[ThunderDan]

MM has coached 101 total games in GB.

He is 66-35. 65.4%, 65.5% during the regular season and 71.4% in the playoffs.

In 101 games the Packers have only lost by more than 7 points 13 times. It has been 44 games since we lost to TB on November 8th, 2009 by 10 points. GB loses by 8 or more 12.9% of the time.

BB had coached 291 total games.

He is 188-103. 64.6%, 64.1% during the regular season and 71.4% in the playoffs.

In 291 games BB team's have lost by more than 7 points 48 times. BB got blown out in a playoff game after the 2005 season. BB loses by 8 or more 16.5% of the time.



Appartently the line between genius and idiot is razor thin in the idiots favor.

[bobblehead]

When a team can go out and totally dominate a team such as the raiders, then follows that up with a game plan like what we had getting beat by a much worse than raider team, the chiefs, that lies directly on the head coaches head. Yep. he's the problem

The amazing thing is that you don't realize that YOU look like the idiot here. No team has EVER gone perfect with anyone other than Don Shula at the helm. M3 had as good a chance to pull that off as anyone. For you to somehow try and make this loss about him instead of simply the game of football where teams actually lose makes you look like a tool.

[George Cumby]

The amazing thing is that you don't realize that YOU look like the idiot here. No team has EVER gone perfect with anyone other than Don Shula at the helm. M3 had as good a chance to pull that off as anyone. For you to somehow try and make this loss about him instead of simply the game of football where teams actually lose makes you look like a fool.

fixed

[Pugger]

The amazing thing is that you don't realize that YOU look like the idiot here. No team has EVER gone perfect with anyone other than Don Shula at the helm. M3 had as good a chance to pull that off as anyone. For you to somehow try and make this loss about him instead of simply the game of football where teams actually lose makes you look like a tool.

No chit.

[Jimx29]

blahblahblah....