More Banjo: Week 8 @ Falcons

[pbmax]

Nelson hurt hand late, came back in to fall down.

Packers still not getting open versus man and Rodgers still waiting to throw early against it. Its better than earlier in the year, but not fixed yet.

Still might have been their best offensive showing. Defense played like it was short handed. Not enough pressure.

[pbmax]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwDYjQFWIAADC6K.jpg:large

[Teamcheez1]

Nelson hurt hand late, came back in to fall down.

Packers still not getting open versus man and Rodgers still waiting to throw early against it. Its better than earlier in the year, but not fixed yet.

Still might have been their best offensive showing. Defense played like it was short handed. Not enough pressure.

I don't see this as the their best offenseive showing. The offense could have sealed the deal by scoring more in the seond half. Only putting up one TD is also a fail.

[Rutnstrut]

Rodgers choked in the end.

[pbmax]

In what game has the offense been better this year? They need to improve and they did. Wast enough, but it was better.

[pbmax]

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 20m20 minutes ago
McCarthy: I thought Aaron was outstanding. Offensive line played well. We got a lot of production from our receivers. #GBvsATL

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 6m6 minutes ago
Rodgers: I'm really proud of those (young WRs) who made plays today. #GBvsATL

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 4m4 minutes ago
Rodgers on injuries: There are no excuses. We are all professionals out here & expect to play well. Proud of our guys. #GBvsATL

[pbmax]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwDdhDrWcAAdNi5.jpg:large

[Teamcheez1]

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 20m20 minutes ago
McCarthy: I thought Aaron was outstanding. Offensive line played well. We got a lot of production from our receivers. #GBvsATL

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 6m6 minutes ago
Rodgers: I'm really proud of those (young WRs) who made plays today. #GBvsATL

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 4m4 minutes ago
Rodgers on injuries: There are no excuses. We are all professionals out here & expect to play well. Proud of our guys. #GBvsATL


Moral victories make me feel so warm and fuzzy inside.

[Pugger]

Rodgers choked in the end.

Bull shit. If Rodgers didn't play as well as he did today we would have been blown out of the Georgia Dome. A depleted secondary and not enough pressure on Ryan on their last drive is what killed us.

[Pugger]

In what game has the offense been better this year? They need to improve and they did. Wast enough, but it was better.

If you consider we didn't have 4 starters on offense and 2 green RBs - one who was on the PS and another who has only been in town for a little over a week - it was remarkable we were in the game at all.

[esoxx]

The Packers fucked up not calling timeouts at end of half when ATL was down inside the five yard line. ATL burned clock and couldn't believe their luck. Was the difference, likely, between 3 pts and 7 points once GB got their hands on the ball after ATL eventually scored.

MM = FAIL at end of 1st half.

[Harlan Huckleby]

nm

[esoxx]

finally, a soulmate

I thought Maxie the Taxi was your soulmate.

[KYPack]

Esoxx, you I'll listen to. You kicked some major ass in the Pickem.

I always believe in keeping all 3 TO's in the last two minutes.

Would we have advanced the ball as far in the last drives at the half and game with NO TO's?

I don't know.

But I'll argue about it, just to cheer myself up.

[esoxx]

Well, when you possess the ball, you're in control of clock. You can throw down the middle and spike the ball for a quasi-time out. They would have had extra time if they had used their TO's at first and goal ATL.

When you're on D and the clock is winding and the opposing offense is glad to run it, they are burning clock.

Think MM screwed up on this one.

[King Friday]

I did not think the use of timeouts was the issue. Atlanta's offense was doing ANYTHING they wanted to our defense in the 2nd half. Timeouts wouldn't have changed anything...Atlanta wasn't going to give us the ball back with lots of time left when they took the ball back with 4 minutes left in the game.

The issue to me was our final TD drive. The Packers used far too much clock themselves on that drive. We had 1st and 10 at the Falcon 24 with over 7 minutes left in that game...it took us 3 minutes to go 24 yards. That 3 minutes left us no time to make something happen at the end of the game when Atlanta did the predictable and dinked and dunked their way downfield in 3-4 minutes. We had to leave 5+ minutes on the clock so we stood a decent chance of getting the ball back with enough time just in case Atlanta went down and scored.

[King Friday]

I also don't understand going for 2 to make at a 6 point game. Yeah, I know it makes the extra point a must...but in a dome against a good kicker, even the longer extra point is going to be made 98%+ of the time.

If Green Bay fails on that 2 point conversion...and Atlanta puts up 7 points...then a FG no longer wins the game, only ties.

Unless you are in a game where wind/weather/field conditions are making the extra points much less automatic, I don't get going for 2 to make it a 6 point game there.

[esoxx]

Talking 1st half, not 2nd.

[King Friday]

Talking 1st half, not 2nd.

They got a FG to end the first half, so I don't see what your point is. That everything would've been markedly different if we had another minute? Hell, in that scenario, we probably go three and out and punt.

[Rutnstrut]

Bull shit. If Rodgers didn't play as well as he did today we would have been blown out of the Georgia Dome. A depleted secondary and not enough pressure on Ryan on their last drive is what killed us.

Yes but he missed throws in the end when the pressure was on. Also known as choking.

[esoxx]

They got a FG to end the first half, so I don't see what your point is. That everything would've been markedly different if we had another minute? Hell, in that scenario, we probably go three and out and punt.

The point is, if TO's were taken there would have been more time on the clock to operate. The way the Packers were cooking on offense in the 1st half, that may have resulted in 7 instead of 3. Get it?

[esoxx]

I'm not saying they would have won the game if TO's were utilized as they should have been. But it was a coaching mistake not to take them. Period.

[pbmax]

I did not think the use of timeouts was the issue. Atlanta's offense was doing ANYTHING they wanted to our defense in the 2nd half. Timeouts wouldn't have changed anything...Atlanta wasn't going to give us the ball back with lots of time left when they took the ball back with 4 minutes left in the game.

The issue to me was our final TD drive. The Packers used far too much clock themselves on that drive. We had 1st and 10 at the Falcon 24 with over 7 minutes left in that game...it took us 3 minutes to go 24 yards. That 3 minutes left us no time to make something happen at the end of the game when Atlanta did the predictable and dinked and dunked their way downfield in 3-4 minutes. We had to leave 5+ minutes on the clock so we stood a decent chance of getting the ball back with enough time just in case Atlanta went down and scored.

C'mon. You can't complain about the go ahead scoring drive for a TD AND two point conversion. I am not sure extending the game (until the Falcons had the clock below 3 minutes on offense) would be a wise decision given the way the second half was playing out. It was their only points of the second half.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I thought Maxie the Taxi was your soulmate.

For the record: I called you a soulmate when I thought you were bitching about timeout non-usage at end of the game. When I figured out you were enraged about the end of first half I defriended you. (Actually there may be merit to your grievance, but I can't remember that far back.)

[Pugger]

I'm not saying they would have won the game if TO's were utilized as they should have been. But it was a coaching mistake not to take them. Period.


Had we used the 2 TOs how much more time do you think we could have had at the end of the game, maybe 60 seconds?

[pbmax]

I also don't understand going for 2 to make at a 6 point game. Yeah, I know it makes the extra point a must...but in a dome against a good kicker, even the longer extra point is going to be made 98%+ of the time.

If Green Bay fails on that 2 point conversion...and Atlanta puts up 7 points...then a FG no longer wins the game, only ties.

Unless you are in a game where wind/weather/field conditions are making the extra points much less automatic, I don't get going for 2 to make it a 6 point game there.

If a 2 point conversion is 50% (which is has proven to be over time, actually about 48% last I read) then there are two equal scenarios forthcoming:

You miss 2 pointer, have four point lead, ATL scores and kicks PAT. You need a FG to tie.

You make 2 pointer, lead by six, ATL scores TD, even of they go for two and succeed, you win game on FG.

Contrast to XP:

You make XP for 5 point lead, ATL scores TD and 2 pointer, need TD to win

You make XP, five point lead, ATL scores TD misses 2 pointer, need FG to win


Wth the two point option, Atlanta cannot force you to score TD unless their coach is willing to try a 2 pointer plus TD, passing on XP to make it a three point game. Your odds of being within 3 are objectively better.

[King Friday]

C'mon. You can't complain about the go ahead scoring drive for a TD AND two point conversion. I am not sure extending the game (until the Falcons had the clock below 3 minutes on offense) would be a wise decision given the way the second half was playing out. It was their only points of the second half.

There is a reason they came up with the phrase "whoever has it last is going to win" and this game felt like that ever since the first half. Atlanta basically had it last...and they won.

You aren't sure extending the game would be a wise decision? Well, shortening it sure as hell didn't work, did it? Lengthening it guarantees you have a real chance to drive down the field for a winning FG.

[King Friday]

You make XP for 5 point lead, ATL scores TD and 2 pointer, need TD to win

Is there ANY example in the NFL of a team going for 2 in a situation when they are up 2 points like you suggest...potentially leaving themselves open to LOSING to a FG?

Your scenario above is a virtual impossibility...it would NEVER happen.

EDIT...well, I suppose it could've happened in a game where weather/field conditions made kicking a near impossibility. However, in a dome, I'm guessing this has NEVER happened and feel confident enough to bet my house that it would never happen in my lifetime.

[King Friday]

Yes but he missed throws in the end when the pressure was on. Also known as choking.

So you are going to blame the loss on Rodgers being unable to drive the team 50 yards down the field in 30 seconds? Really?

[KYPack]

The "coaches chart" says to go for 2 if you lead by 4 OR 5 points.

it's only an indicator, but it isn't something that MM pulled out of his ass.

[Smidgeon]

Honestly, down 4 CBs on the end of the Falcon's final drive, I expected the score. With 31 seconds left, the Packers needed a miracle. There wasn't one this week, but the offense was better than before.

In fact, they actually got one long pass completed. Now they need two of those every quarter...

[texaspackerbacker]

I still have a fairly positive feeling going forward. The offense is shaping up as grudgingly, McCarthy is doing what he should have done all along: pass first rather than run first.

Rodgers played a great game - they may all be professionals, etc., but injuries ARE an excuse - a reason for sure. The offense did well in spite of missing key players - Cobb and Montgomery at the top of the list. The D not so much. Not having Matthews was the key to the pass rush not being enough, and of course all those DBs out - although I like Gunter better than anybody we have other than Shields.

The timeout situation wasn't mishandled. Even though I am getting increasingly disgusted with McCarthy in general, I don't blame him for that. You just can't assume your opponent is gonna take it down the field and score a TD. If that was the case, the logical thing to do is just fall down and let them score a minute or two earlier - which obviously ain't gonna happen, even though it might actually have been good if it did. Calling the timeouts woulda been just a lesser version of that. You have to respect your own D in that circumstance.

8 or 9 times out of 10, we beat a team like Atlanta, even though they have an outstanding offense. The schedule is still fairly easy; The Vikings are still gonna implode - maybe even tonight, and the season is still gonna be a great one.

R-E-L-A-X!

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

I'm on the other side of the coin. I am starting to get the feeling the packers aren't going anywhere this year. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe some of the younger players will step up, we started to see that yesterday and I hope it continues.

W-O-R-R-Y!

[Teamcheez1]

I'm on the other side of the coin. I am starting to get the feeling the packers aren't going anywhere this year. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe some of the younger players will step up, we started to see that yesterday and I hope it continues.

W-O-R-R-Y!

At this point the glass is half empty. As you say, there is some hope that things could come together by the end of the season with returning players, and the younger players gaining more experience/confidence.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

8 or 9 times out of 10, we beat a team like Atlanta, even though they have an outstanding offense. The schedule is still fairly easy; The Vikings are still gonna implode - maybe even tonight, and the season is still gonna be a great one.

R-E-L-A-X!

Remember 2010? Eerily similar. Pack visited the lost city of Atlanta, Rodgers threw awesome TD to Nelson in the clutch to tie game (ererily similar to that awesome TD to my dawg, Janis, yesterday). Oh fie, it was not enough as D allowed my favorite non-Pack QB, Ice Ice Ryan, to lead the Falconers to victory...in da clutch.

Plus, 2010, the Packers also had a shitload of players KIAed. That 2010 team had better receivers, though. And a better defense, especially in the secondary. Didn't lose a game by more than 4 points. This year's team laid a titanic egg against Dallas.

Who knows, this might be 2010 all over again. Oh fie, the pessimist in me is saying I have a better odds of scoring with the beauteous Jennifer Lawrence than the Packers have of scoring another SB title this season.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Moral victories make me feel so warm and fuzzy inside.

Sarcasm?

I feel better about the Pack going forward with this loss than I did with the win against Jacksonville. Looks like the Great Arm of Butte and his mojo are back together.

Then again, I am probably delusional.

[pbmax]

Allow me to point out that when Atlanta switched to a man to man defense in second half, the offense stagnated again.

They still don't have that figured out AND there were a LOT of ISO routes again, very little combo. I think I saw Jordy line up in a bunch twice.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Yes but he missed throws in the end when the pressure was on. Also known as choking.

McGinn:


The preponderance of statistical weight shows Rodgers hasn’t been successful in the clutch when compared to his peers...Rodgers has 14 (game-winning drives) in a 12-year career, including nine as a starter...Tom Brady is third on that list with 48, and Brett Favre is fifth with 45. Two of Rodgers’ contemporaries, Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning, each have 37. Ryan improved to a tie for 11th on the list with his 33rd. Jay Cutler has 24 and Russell Wilson already has 20.


I agree with Skip Bayless: Rodgers is unclutch.

Btw, pbmax: Have you seen Geronimo's misogynist tweets? Whadda he say 'bout the female race?

[Patler]

So you are going to blame the loss on Rodgers being unable to drive the team 50 yards down the field in 30 seconds? Really?

For me, it's not blaming him for the loss, that falls more on the defense, shorthanded as it was.

However, it is not insignificant that once again they generated nothing in their last opportunity on offense. If they had moved the ball down the field, but come up short, I would feel better about it. Instead, once again they ended the game with a mere whimper from the offense. They did nothing, and that is a concern because we have seen it often before.

[pbmax]

McGinn:

I agree with Skip Bayless: Rodgers is unclutch.

Btw, pbmax: Have you seen Geronimo's misogynist tweets? Whadda he say 'bout the female race?

The offense is unclutch. Rodgers didn't help by bailing early again but no one was open early. Again. There are still a lot of bad habits to break. And the coach has to start by coming up with a new plan versus man coverage. Its just ridiculous.

The focus on the drive is misguided. The offense managed one drive the entire second half. Is that unclutch or bad offensive design?

[pbmax]

Btw, pbmax: Have you seen Geronimo's misogynist tweets? Whadda he say 'bout the female race?

Don't follow any players, what did he say?

[ThunderDan]

Is there ANY example in the NFL of a team going for 2 in a situation when they are up 2 points like you suggest...potentially leaving themselves open to LOSING to a FG?

Your scenario above is a virtual impossibility...it would NEVER happen.

EDIT...well, I suppose it could've happened in a game where weather/field conditions made kicking a near impossibility. However, in a dome, I'm guessing this has NEVER happened and feel confident enough to bet my house that it would never happen in my lifetime.

How about this explanation?

With us up 5. ATL has to score a TD to win. If they do they are going to go for a 2 point conversion. ATL O gets to determine if Packers FG wins or ties the game.

With us up 6. ATL has to score a TD to win. ATL goes for 1 point no matter what. GB needs a FG to win.
With us up 4. ATL has to score a TD to win. ATL goes for 1 point no matter what to go up 3 and force GB to kick a FG to tie.

By going for the 2 we get to control what the last possession looks like goof or bad verses letting ATL make the choice.

Either way I don't think you chase points until late in the game and was surprised ATL went for 2 earlier.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Don't follow any players, what did he say?

Looks like a bunch of humorous/offensive/sexist (depends on one's sense of humor, if one has one) stuff about having coitus with chicks. (Note: Alotta young black folks today are inspired by rap music, and some rap lyrics aren't too appealing to feminists.) Allison deleted that account soon after the tweets were uncovered, it appears. A little googling....

http://www.totalprosports.com/2016/10/30/green-bay-packers-wr-geronimo-allisons-nsfw-tweets-have-surfaced-are-hilarious/

[Rutnstrut]

So you are going to blame the loss on Rodgers being unable to drive the team 50 yards down the field in 30 seconds? Really?

No I blame the loss on a shitty defense. They would have lost even had no one been hurt on the D. However I blame the shitty throws at crunch time on the person that made the shitty throws. Funny how when Favre was QB, none of you Rodgers nut huggers had trouble calling him for the same shit Rodgers does.

[Clayish]

This one hurt a lot. Still stinging this morning.

We need to start a winning streak next weekend.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm on the other side of the coin. I am starting to get the feeling the packers aren't going anywhere this year. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe some of the younger players will step up, we started to see that yesterday and I hope it continues.

W-O-R-R-Y!

+1

It's the same ol' same ol' with this team. We can play with average to weak teams, but we figure out ways to lose to upper tier teams, i.e., teams with either an elite defense and/or an elite QB.

The problem is there is nothing elite about us.

Yes, we have injuries. Our starting CB's were out, as was Clay. To tell you the truth, Clay's loss didn't mean much considering how he's been playing this year (not to mention how little he's played). And people here were ready to lynch Randall for his poor play, now we're using his absence to excuse losing.

To compensate for the loss of our cornerbacks, we gave the youngsters help by playing a vanilla -- pseudo-prevent defense: rushing the passer with 2-4 players and dropping the rest into coverage. I suppose that's one way to handle it. But it wasn't working. At the half Atlanta was on pace to score 38 points. Another defensive coach might have endeavored to adjust, i.e., go all in on pressuring the QB in the second half. But that didn't happen. Apparently, Stubby and Dom were content with our defensive performance in the 1st half.

Except for Clay, the front seven were healthy AND I keep being told that we can generate pressure on the passer with the best of them. I just don't see it. It's kind of like being told time after time after time that we have the best QB in the league but not seeing much evidence of it, especially in the clutch.

Maybe I'm too old and cynical, but I've seen and heard all this crap before. We went into the season being hyped as a Super Bowl contender. Considering the strength of the schedule, some were even predicting we wouldn't lose a game. Now it looks like we'll be 8-8 with maybe a chance to limp into the playoffs.

People will say injuries are part of the game. Yup, and injuries seem to be the only part of the game we excel at. And injuries will be one of the biggest reasons we go nowhere this year.

P-A-N-I-C!

[Rutnstrut]

+1

It's the same ol' same ol' with this team. We can play with average to weak teams, but we figure out ways to lose to upper tier teams, i.e., teams with either an elite defense and/or an elite QB.

The problem is there is nothing elite about us.

Yes, we have injuries. Our starting CB's were out, as was Clay. To tell you the truth, Clay's loss didn't mean much considering how he's been playing this year (not to mention how little he's played). And people here were ready to lynch Randall for his poor play, now we're using his absence to excuse losing.

To compensate for the loss of our cornerbacks, we gave the youngsters help by playing a vanilla -- pseudo-prevent defense: rushing the passer with 2-4 players and dropping the rest into coverage. I suppose that's one way to handle it. But it wasn't working. At the half Atlanta was on pace to score 38 points. Another defensive coach might have endeavored to adjust, i.e., go all in on pressuring the QB in the second half. But that didn't happen. Apparently, Stubby and Dom were content with our defensive performance in the 1st half.

Except for Clay, the front seven were healthy AND I keep being told that we can generate pressure on the passer with the best of them. I just don't see it. It's kind of like being told time after time after time that we have the best QB in the league but not seeing much evidence of it, especially in the clutch.

Maybe I'm too old and cynical, but I've seen and heard all this crap before. We went into the season being hyped as a Super Bowl contender. Considering the strength of the schedule, some were even predicting we wouldn't lose a game. Now it looks like we'll be 8-8 with maybe a chance to limp into the playoffs.

People will say injuries are part of the game. Yup, and injuries seem to be the only part of the game we excel at. And injuries will be one of the biggest reasons we go nowhere this year.

P-A-N-I-C!

Yup they just aren't very good. But imo most of that is coaching or lack there of and TT being TT.

[Zool]

Funny how when Favre was QB, none of you Rodgers nut huggers had trouble calling him for the same shit Rodgers does.

You have exactly nothing to back this statement up. Literally nothing but a dark room, a Costco sized bag of Cheetos, an odd anger toward the team you are a "fan" of, and your mom yelling at you to get off the 'puter so she can use the phone.

[yetisnowman]

Well, when you possess the ball, you're in control of clock. You can throw down the middle and spike the ball for a quasi-time out. They would have had extra time if they had used their TO's at first and goal ATL.

When you're on D and the clock is winding and the opposing offense is glad to run it, they are burning clock.

Think MM screwed up on this one.

This really shouldn't even be debateable. Every qb in the nfl wants an extra minute as opposed to one or two timeouts.
Atlanta gains 4 yards on first down, so it's 2nd and goal from the 6, with about 1:05 left, we let the clock roll and they score with 27 seconds left. If they hadn't scored on 2nd down, would we have called TO then? Or let the clock keep running? Keep two timeouts and have 5 seconds left after they score or kick a field goal? There is zero logic to letting the clock run. You have multiple ways to stop the clock on offense, but zero ways to add time.
It's like some of you guys have been watching MM so long you have become unaware of what smart clock management looks like.

[Patler]

I guess then the mistake was keeping them out of the endzone for three plays?????
Then Rodgers could have had time AND timeouts left.

Having timeouts lets you use the whole field offensively, and you should keep one to bring on the field goal team. Yes, there are ways to stop the clock offensively, but how many times have we seen teams frantically trying to get set to spike the ball, and being unable; or wasting agonizing seconds getting everyone to the line of scrimmage to do it. Plus, every time you do spike the ball, you waste a play. So now you are giving yourself fewer opportunities to get first downs that will be needed.

Having a timeout is like adding time to the clock, perhaps 5-7 seconds that can be wasted trying to get set to spike the ball, plus it gives back to you the wasted play used for spiking the ball. Two timeouts can add 2 or 3 plays plus opportunities wasted on the spike, perhaps the difference of a 50+ yard field goal attempt with the team rushing to get on the field, or a 30 yard field goal attempt following a 3rd time out.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This really shouldn't even be debateable. Every qb in the nfl wants an extra minute as opposed to one or two timeouts.
Atlanta gains 4 yards on first down, so it's 2nd and goal from the 6, with about 1:05 left, we let the clock roll and they score with 27 seconds left. If they hadn't scored on 2nd down, would we have called TO then? Or let the clock keep running? Keep two timeouts and have 5 seconds left after they score or kick a field goal? There is zero logic to letting the clock run. You have multiple ways to stop the clock on offense, but zero ways to add time.

You are right, and it is not a debateable point. A hurry up offense can run three plays in 30 seconds, maybe more. A timeout on offense buys you exactly 1 snap, plus some lineup time.

Atlanta played Mike. They must have been giddy that GB let them drain the clock.

Listen to Bill Scott on the Mike Lucas show this morning, about 23 minutes in:
http://thebig1070.iheart.com/media/play/27438031/
He largely blames the loss on MM for his indefensible clock management. Lucas agrees that MM dropped the ball.

[yetisnowman]

I said it was dumb right after Atlanta's first down play. Again say they get stopped on 2nd down.....What's the plan? Great they kept two timeouts but they only have time to run one or two plays. The offense plays well, MM manages the clock like a pussy. The offense plays like shit then he gets bizarrely aggressive, calling timeouts when the other team has the ball with and undermined amount of plays remaining.
I guarantee guys like Brady, Rodgers, Brees want 1 minute 1 timeout , vs 25 seconds and 2 timeouts....or 1 minute zero timeouts vs less than 20 seconds and two timeouts.
More time gives you more flexibility. Good qbs don't panic about clocking the ball or getting out of bounds. I said it in the game thread before Atlanta scored, this isn't hindsight. Keep your opinion, that's fine, but my opinion proved correct at the end of the half. We ran out of time

[hoosier]

You are right, and it is not a debateable point. A hurry up offense can run three plays in 30 seconds, maybe more. A timeout on offense buys you exactly 1 snap, plus some lineup time.

Atlanta played Mike. They must have been giddy that GB let them drain the clock.

Listen to Bill Scott on the Mike Lucas show this morning, about 23 minutes in:
http://thebig1070.iheart.com/media/play/27438031/
He largely blames the loss on MM for his indefensible clock management. Lucas agrees that MM dropped the ball.

It's not cut and dried at all. If MM had started using his TOs he gives Atlanta more clock to play with and more time to get the right play called--and he ensures that he won't have them to use on offense. If he refrains from using his timeouts, and the defense does its job, it's entirely conceivable that Atlanta puts itself in the position of having to rush things at the end--or that it simply runs out of time. At the very worst, they will have them to use on offense, assuming that someone can actually get open and that Rodgers can actually throw him a catcheable ball. (Anecdotally, I remember watching a Packer game some years ago, maybe it was 2008 or 09, when the Pack was moving the ball and got into the red zone with 2:00 left in the half. McCarthy suddenly went into slow-down mode, killing most of the clock, but then on third down the other team stopped them--only to have a defensive holding call go against them. That gave the Packers a 1st-and-10 at the 5...but they didn't have enough time left to do anything with it.) If circumstances had been slightly different--say, 1:30 left and the Packers stop a running play to bring up third and goal--then using the TO would have made sense. But when you're starting a new set of downs with 2:00 left, there is a reasonable argument to be made for not using them.

[Pugger]

I think what really killed us yesterday was no real running game to speak of. Rip got a couple of decent runs but it is never a good thing when your QB is your leading rusher.

[ThunderDan]

Funny how when Favre was QB, none of you Rodgers nut huggers had trouble calling him for the same shit Rodgers does.

Funny how you Favre nut huggers had trouble calling him out for averaging 17.5 INT per season when he was a starter. Rogers in only 1 season has more INTs than Favre did in his best season.

Favre's best year was 2009 as a Viking throwing 9 INTs. His best ever season with the Pack was 13 INTs (done 3 times early in his career). Rogers has only had 13 INTs in his career once, his first year starting for the Pack.

And this is so ridiculous, people here have been complaining about ARod for the last year.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's not cut and dried at all. If MM had started using his TOs he gives Atlanta more clock to play with and more time to get the right play called--and he ensures that he won't have them to use on offense.

Atlanta had timeouts and all the clock they needed. If memory serves, they were around the 45 with 2 minutes left. There is a reason that Atlanta was not in a hurry-up mode. The need for taking timeouts continued all the way down to 31 seconds.

[pbmax]

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 2m2 minutes ago
The #Packers have released RB Knile Davis, source said. That’s a bit of a surprise.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 2m2 minutes ago
The #Packers have released RB Knile Davis, source said. That’s a bit of a surprise.Not if it means TT gets his draft choice back.

[Pugger]

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 2m2 minutes ago
The #Packers have released RB Knile Davis, source said. That’s a bit of a surprise.

Does this mean Starks is ready to return?

[gbgary]

tt better have someone lined up. maybe a trade...with dal...for mcfadden.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Wasn't Monty more or less cleared to return? Maybe that was enough for TT. Davis wasn't all that impressive.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Does this mean Starks is ready to return?

Starks has looked no better than Knile or Action Jackson. He has had a real rough season. Maybe, just maybe, he was dealing with a nagging injury all along. He certainly didn't have his old burst.

I wish the Packers would cut Starks, but maybe they have reason to believe he can rebound.

[gbgary]

Wasn't Monty more or less cleared to return? Maybe that was enough for TT. Davis wasn't all that impressive.

they need a real running back. Monty is surprisingly good in the duel roll but with his condition they/he will really have to manage his hydration, oxygen, etc.
the extra work he's received the last few weeks probably brought this on.

[pbmax]

Does this mean Starks is ready to return?

That was my first thought. Not sure they want to trade more picks away.

[Freak Out]

Bull shit. If Rodgers didn't play as well as he did today we would have been blown out of the Georgia Dome. A depleted secondary and not enough pressure on Ryan on their last drive is what killed us.

Please don't feed the trolls.

[gbgary]

Does this mean Starks is ready to return?

they can only bring back one from ir. why would it be starks?

[gbgary]

That was my first thought. Not sure they want to trade more picks away.

to get better NOW. if min had thought that way they wouldn't have bradford.

[Joemailman]

they can only bring back one from ir. why would it be starks?

Starks isn't on IR. Lacy and Shhields are.

[Teamcheez1]

Someone will have to rename future threads of this type. Banjo has been released.

[vince]

Say NO to More Whitehead.

[texaspackerbacker]

+1

It's the same ol' same ol' with this team. We can play with average to weak teams, but we figure out ways to lose to upper tier teams, i.e., teams with either an elite defense and/or an elite QB.

The problem is there is nothing elite about us.

Yes, we have injuries. Our starting CB's were out, as was Clay. To tell you the truth, Clay's loss didn't mean much considering how he's been playing this year (not to mention how little he's played). And people here were ready to lynch Randall for his poor play, now we're using his absence to excuse losing.

To compensate for the loss of our cornerbacks, we gave the youngsters help by playing a vanilla -- pseudo-prevent defense: rushing the passer with 2-4 players and dropping the rest into coverage. I suppose that's one way to handle it. But it wasn't working. At the half Atlanta was on pace to score 38 points. Another defensive coach might have endeavored to adjust, i.e., go all in on pressuring the QB in the second half. But that didn't happen. Apparently, Stubby and Dom were content with our defensive performance in the 1st half.

Except for Clay, the front seven were healthy AND I keep being told that we can generate pressure on the passer with the best of them. I just don't see it. It's kind of like being told time after time after time that we have the best QB in the league but not seeing much evidence of it, especially in the clutch.

Maybe I'm too old and cynical, but I've seen and heard all this crap before. We went into the season being hyped as a Super Bowl contender. Considering the strength of the schedule, some were even predicting we wouldn't lose a game. Now it looks like we'll be 8-8 with maybe a chance to limp into the playoffs.

People will say injuries are part of the game. Yup, and injuries seem to be the only part of the game we excel at. And injuries will be one of the biggest reasons we go nowhere this year.

P-A-N-I-C!

I saw Gunter in single coverage on Jones most of the game and Goodson often single coverage on the other side too. Both were not great, but were fairly decent. I would liken most of our pass rushers to hitters in baseball with warning track power. They almost get the sack - almost only counting in horseshoes and hand grenades. Our home run hitter is Matthews, and I'd say we missed him yesterday. I'm one of those ready to lynch Randall, and I don't see our secondary as missing him much. Rollins, however, is a different story, as, of course, Shields is.

The past two weeks, the team has played the kind of offense they need to play - both type and quality. If the D just gets back to near what it was before last week, the team will be way better than all right. I still say, everything is within reach - division championship, go to and win the Super Bowl.

[gbgary]

Starks isn't on IR. Lacy and Shields are.

my bad. thought he was. thx

[pbmax]

We here at Banjo's Inc. are sticklers for legacy. Chances of a change this season are minimal.

You could say we are stubborn.

[Pugger]

Starks has looked no better than Knile or Action Jackson. He has had a real rough season. Maybe, just maybe, he was dealing with a nagging injury all along. He certainly didn't have his old burst.

I wish the Packers would cut Starks, but maybe they have reason to believe he can rebound.

With only one other HB on the roster that is not on IR I don't think we can afford to let Starks walk right now.

[pbmax]

Blown coverage on Sanu's TD.


No one would identify who was responsible for giving up the game-winning touchdown pass the Falcons’ Matt Ryan threw to Mohamed Sanu with 31 seconds left in the game.

McCarthy said he wasn’t going to blame it on a single player, but admitted a mistake was made.

“There’s adjustments in each and every coverage and in particular on alignments and so forth,” McCarthy said. “I’ve never corrected players here in the media. We looked at this morning. We’ll go through it thoroughly.”

Defensive coordinator Dom Capers described it as a zone coverage and also wouldn’t identify what went wrong. He did not say he regretted the call, which left linebacker Jake Ryan trying to cover Sanu.

[gbgary]

Blown coverage on Sanu's TD.

yup...thought so. jones was standing in the end zone with two Packers on him...middle of the field was vacant.

[pbmax]

yup...thought so. jones was standing in the end zone with two Packers on him...middle of the field was vacant.

ILBs were short looking for crossers/hitches and ins. I bet a safety or biting CB was supposed to be back there but moved off to someone else. Same thing Burnett did earlier on that long TD.

[Maxie the Taxi]

You wonder, with all the hard-hitting Safeties on the active roster, why Spic and Span were even in there as much as they were.

[yetisnowman]

Atlanta had timeouts and all the clock they needed. If memory serves, they were around the 45 with 2 minutes left. There is a reason that Atlanta was not in a hurry-up mode. The need for taking timeouts continued all the way down to 31 seconds.



The arguments for letting the clock burn keep making less and less sense. Now we didn't call the timeouts to try and rattle or rush Atlanta. Good lord. Yeah that was the plan!!! Atlanta had timeouts, at home, and are perfectly comfortable uptempo. It was easy situational football. You want to keep time over timeouts. Having no time makes the timeouts irrelevant. It isn't complicated.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Starks has looked no better than Knile or Action Jackson. He has had a real rough season. Maybe, just maybe, he was dealing with a nagging injury all along. He certainly didn't have his old burst.

I wish the Packers would cut Starks, but maybe they have reason to believe he can rebound.

Starks certainly is a-looking like he's over-the-hill.

Action Jackson isn't fast but he hits the hole hard and falls forward, from what I've seen. He's the guy they should call in short-yardage situations.

Bebop and Rocksteady can't gain an inch to save Tyrion Lannister's life when an inch is needed. Guess which one is Bebop and which one is Rocksteady. Hint: Starks looks like a Rhyno, Lacy a hog.

[pbmax]

You wonder, with all the hard-hitting Safeties on the active roster, why Spic and Span were even in there as much as they were.

Freeman can run. They didn't get far versus nickel, but versus dime and all those pass rushers, they could had made hay.