Official Winners and Losers Week 4

[MJZiggy]

Here it is, folks!

by Deputy Nutz

On a day when an historic record fell, that feat was quickly set aside to review defense alignment and scheme and to get ready for the next series of offensive downs. Brett Favre's play today backed up his statement that he isn't playing for the records. He is and always has been about winning football games and READ MORE (www.packerrats.com).

[Partial]

Bigby forced that fumble, too. He had a really great game. Great article!

[RashanGary]

Nice summary. I'll 3rd the Bigby love. I can't believe how far he's stepped up. He has to be the most pleasant suprise so far this season.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Good writeup. Four things I disagree with or would add onto:

1) Jon Ryan should be on the winner's list. Three really good punts, and one poor one. Great play on the fake.
2) As mentioned above, Bigby also forced the fumble by Dugan.
3) Harris is tough, but I think Double D has the second toughest Packer category wrapped up.
4) Minnesota had 1 timeout with around 1:55 left when Green Bay took over, so Green Bay had to go for a first down. If you kneel down, you leave around 30-35 seconds left on the clock for them to get something fluky. You can't expect a fumble there.

Bigby has been mostly solid, so have the TEs and James Jones. Of the four positions (WR, TE, S, and RB) that Packer fans were clamoring for FAs to be signed, the only position that looks noticeably weak is at RB. We need Vernand Morency and/or Ryan Grant to step up. I think they have the potential to do so.

[the_idle_threat]

Well done, Deputy.

Although i think the 'queens had one timeout left when Grant fumbled, which might explain why McCarthy was calling run. They may have needed one more 1st down in order to take a knee.

Edit: Harv beat me to it.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Great write up, I agree with just about everything.

Also, I agree that Harris has to be at least tie with Driver as second toughest. That guy just refuses to leave the game. If we had 53 guys like Favre, Driver, and Harris, this team would scare the living hell out of people.

If we didn't have Harris on defense we would be nothing. I really wish he was younger, but hopefully he plays like this for at least one more season.

[Deputy Nutz]

The Packers had a minute 50 left and the Vikings had no time outs when Grant fumbled.

[pittstang5]

Great analysis Nutz.

I'm really worried about Bush's play lately. It's obvious that QBs are throwing to him and with good reason...his man is always open. Maybe it's time to see what Blackmon or one of the other back ups can do.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think Bush will be all right, the coaches have faith in him at this point and if they truly felt Blackmon was better he would be playing right now. Bush doesn't have a lot of experience so he is learning on the fly, as long as he corrects his mistakes and learns from them I guess I am alright with that.

[Partial]

I also think Mason Crosby is 7/8, not 6/7. I could be wrong, though. And not that it really makes any difference at all. Just my analness.

[MJZiggy]

I also think Mason Crosby is 7/8, not 6/7. I could be wrong, though. And not that it really makes any difference at all. Just my analness.

You need to stop talking about your anal considering you're going to be spending the weekend sleeping in a room with another man...

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Packers had a minute 50 left and the Vikings had no time outs when Grant fumbled.

By then, it was second down though. Grant had already run up the gut for 2 yards. Any way you shake it, if you kneel down, the Vikes get the ball back with 30 seconds left.

[Little Whiskey]

The Packers had a minute 50 left and the Vikings had no time outs when Grant fumbled.

By then, it was second down though. Grant had already run up the gut for 2 yards. Any way you shake it, if you kneel down, the Vikes get the ball back with 30 seconds left.

30 sec. left and you have to go 80 yards is better than a fumble on the 40 yard line


:lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Packers had a minute 50 left and the Vikings had no time outs when Grant fumbled.

By then, it was second down though. Grant had already run up the gut for 2 yards. Any way you shake it, if you kneel down, the Vikes get the ball back with 30 seconds left.

30 sec. left and you have to go 80 yards is better than a fumble on the 40 yard line

:lol:

You can as easily get a punt blocked or hike the ball over the punter's head or fumble the snap to the QB, for that matter. They can't played scared. The exchange should have been handled.

[Harlan Huckleby]

as long as you got Woodson listed as a loser, I will pile on. (I like to kick 'um when they're down.)

His punt returns often consist of him making a bee-line for the sideline. (When he does attempt to gain yardage, he's pretty decent at it, but he doesn't try very often.)

In the grand scheme, this might be the best move. But if he's too valuable to return punts, surely there is somebody else on the team who can catch a ball and run forward. Activate Chris Francies and give him extra padding.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Once Will Blackmon gets the cast off, say goodbye to Chuck on returns. I expect they don't trust anybody else enough to do it. Francies? Funny. Maybe Bodiford.

[Partial]

Once Will Blackmon gets the cast off, say goodbye to Chuck on returns. I expect they don't trust anybody else enough to do it. Francies? Funny. Maybe Bodiford.

I was wondering why Bodiford wasn't back there since reactivated. I for one cannot wait to see what Will Highlight Blackmon does when activated. Kid has some shake and bake to him. I wouldn't mind seeing him used on some end arounds on offense either.

[Deputy Nutz]

The Packers haven't had a decent punt return team since early in the Sherman era with Allen Rossum. Its pretty disappointing but I just don't see any seams for our returners. I don't know if Mike Stock likes good field position off of punts, but that page of the special teams hand book must be missing.

[The Leaper]

4) Minnesota had 1 timeout with around 1:55 left when Green Bay took over, so Green Bay had to go for a first down. If you kneel down, you leave around 30-35 seconds left on the clock for them to get something fluky. You can't expect a fumble there.

I've always disagreed with this logic. Handing the ball off INCREASES the chance for a fumble exponentially, because multiple areas for mistake are now entered into the scenario besides the QB/center snap.

- The handoff itself can be screwed up, which clearly was the issue on Sunday.
- The footing of the players involved (bothQB and RB) can become compromised. Any slip or trip, either because of footing or getting stepped on by an OL player, could result in a fumble.
- The ability for the defenders to have a chance to swipe at the ball greatly increases the chance for a fumble.

Let me be perfectly clear about this...IT MAKES ZERO SENSE TO HAND THE BALL OFF IN THAT SITUATION. Zero.

If there is no reason to hand the ball off, then why do it? You take two knees, run the clock down to under 40 seconds, and punt it away. Even by handing it off, you essentially will be doing the same thing anyway...especially with our current running game. You might use up another 4 or 5 seconds on the actual play itself as opposed to taking a knee, but the chances of a fumble increase so dramatically over taking a knee that I don't see why you risk it.

Clearly, if the other team has timeouts that can stop the clock, then you hand the ball off and try for a first down. In this case, Minnesota had no timeouts remaining after the first down play. So you take a knee twice and punt the ball away (and out of bounds to prevent the chance for a return) and force Minnesota to go 70 yards in 40 seconds with no timeouts.

[Partial]

Leaper, you don't play scared. You run the ball each play and take the maximum amount off that you can. If you get the first down you win the game for sure. Mac made the right call, definitely.

[The Leaper]

You can as easily get a punt blocked or hike the ball over the punter's head or fumble the snap to the QB, for that matter. They can't played scared. The exchange should have been handled.

That isn't the point. Even had they run the ball two more times, a punt was likely still going to happen.

The point is REDUCING the chance of error. By taking a knee, you greatly limit the chance of a fumble prior to the punt. Clearly, we did not do this, and look what happened. Minnesota had a far greater chance to win the game because we did not actively attempt to limit the chances of error.

You don't let the defenders get free swipes at the ball, and you don't risk the chance of a bumbled handoff...not when the other team has no timeouts remaining and you can reduce the clock to well under 1 minute before you have to punt.

[The Leaper]

By then, it was second down though. Grant had already run up the gut for 2 yards. Any way you shake it, if you kneel down, the Vikes get the ball back with 30 seconds left.

And we would've gained 8 yards in two plays running up the gut to prevent a punt otherwise with our running game against the Viking DL?

I think you are about 99.9% incorrect on that one. We were going to be punting regardless...so at least take the chance of a fumbled handoff or stripped ball out of the equation and take a knee twice.

[Deputy Nutz]

Leaper, you don't play scared. You run the ball each play and take the maximum amount off that you can. If you get the first down you win the game for sure. Mac made the right call, definitely.

Nobody ever said anything about playing scared, thats stupid, you play it smart, meaning you don't hand the ball off to a guy that has less than ten carries in his NFL career. That is stupid. Logic might indicate trying to get a first down, but you have to run it and the most seasoned back you have is still recovering from injury. I even question having Grant in there and not Wynn.

[The Leaper]

Leaper, you don't play scared. You run the ball each play and take the maximum amount off that you can. If you get the first down you win the game for sure. Mac made the right call, definitely.

Bottom line...there was NO WAY our run game was getting a first down there, and we greatly increased the chances of a mistake or great defensive effort by handing off instead of taking a knee.

It isn't playing scared...it is limiting risk to give you a greater chance to succeed. No different that diversifying your financial portfolio. Sure, you can throw all your eggs in one basket and hit it big...or lose it big. But by identifying the risk factors and limiting them, you have a greater chance of success long term. That is why you take a knee in that situation.

Now, if the Vikings had 3 timeouts at the start of our possession, then I agree that you run and try for a first down...since they would've gotten the ball back with plenty of time to move into TD range for a couple hail marys.

[Partial]

I disagree with that logic because each time you kneel you lose two yards. So they would have lost 6 yards and punted. The odds of something going wrong in one of those 4 plays is just as likely as running it for 3 plays and punting. Say we got 8 yards running. Then net effect was 14 more yards they had to go. 14 more yards is a HUGE difference is that short amount of time.

[oregonpackfan]

I agree with virtually everything on Nutz's fine post.

One more "Winner" has to be Bubba Franks. He started the season with renewed effort and focus. He has continued that effort and production through week 4. Therefore, I consider him to be on the "Winning" track.

[The Leaper]

The odds of something going wrong in one of those 4 plays is just as likely as running it for 3 plays and punting. Say we got 8 yards running. Then net effect was 14 more yards they had to go.

That is simply devoid of logic.

Taking a knee requires a QB/C exchange only.

Running it requires a QB/C exchange, a proper handoff, and then allows defenders to take free shots at knocking the ball out of the RBs hands for a couple seconds...not to mention grabbing or punching a guy's junk to cause a fumble. It also increases the chances of a potential holding or false start penalty. Yes, I've seen it happen before (can't recall when...I think it was college, not the NFL) but I've never seen it when someone took a knee.

In other words, it is impossible to argue that the chances for fumbling when taking a knee are similar to when you handoff and run into a group of defenders. There are far more potential things that can go wrong, as we readily saw on Sunday.

Would the fumble on the handoff have happened if Favre took a knee? Obviously not...because Favre took the exchange from center cleanly. I think he could handle dropping to a knee without incident.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?


Say we got 8 yards running. Then net effect was 14 more yards they had to go. 14 more yards is a HUGE difference is that short amount of time.

14 yards is entirely meaningless in terms of the situation, Partial. We recovered an onside kick at midfield. Even if we lost ten yards, Ryan should have no problem angling a punt OOB at the Vikings 25-30 yard line.

That would force the Vikings to go over 70 yards in 40 seconds with no timeouts. One completion over the middle of the field basically eliminates over half of that time. At that point, 70 yards or 90 yards is equivalent...both would take several miracles to achieve. I don't have an NFL database in front of me, but I'll bet the probability of success in that that situation from past history is less than 1%.

After the turnover we had, the Viking's chances were significantly greater than 1%...probably at least ten times greater.

A turnover was our enemy, not the clock or field position. In that scenario, you do what is necessary to minimize ALL factors that could potentially cause a turnover.

[KYPack]

I disagree with that logic because each time you kneel you lose two yards. So they would have lost 6 yards and punted. The odds of something going wrong in one of those 4 plays is just as likely as running it for 3 plays and punting. Say we got 8 yards running. Then net effect was 14 more yards they had to go. 14 more yards is a HUGE difference is that short amount of time.

No, Partial.

(BTW who do you have playing QB that loses two yards a knee, Andre the Giant)

Your "youngblood" is showing.

There's a very famous NFL play in which journeyman Giant QB Joe Pisarcik fumbled a "run out the clock play" trying to hand off to Larry Csonka in the last second. The fumble was returned for a game winner by Herman Edwards, now HC of the Chiefs, then an Eagle DB.

For years afterward, everybody took knees to run out the clock

Now, some teams are handing off, bc ya might make the first. It's dumb and will go away.

Watch McCarthy. He'll have the QB take knees to run out the clock for the rest of his career.

Handing it to a kid is double dumb.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I disagree. I personally think a majority of coaches would have done the same thing. But I'm done arguing my point over and over.
:D

[MJZiggy]

I agree with virtually everything on Nutz's fine post.

One more "Winner" has to be Bubba Franks. He started the season with renewed effort and focus. He has continued that effort and production through week 4. Therefore, I consider him to be on the "Winning" track.

Good point, OPF and I agree. Nutz, how could you not think of Bubba??? (kidding)

Of all the things I thought people would take issue with this week, taking a knee was a big surprise...

[Deputy Nutz]

Bubba has had a fine season so far but he really didn't do anything spectacular, didn't catch a td pass, and the one tough play he had to make he couldn't hold on to the ball.

[Little Whiskey]

you have to run it and the most seasoned back you have is still recovering from injury. I even question having Grant in there and not Wynn.

hell, it would have made more sense to give the ball to Ryan. second longest run of the day and he took a pounding not only from the vike defenders but from his own guys as well!

[Partial]

snip

I don't buy into the huey about more likely to have a turnover. I don't think I would play the odds of that if I am a coach because I want to show confidence in my team and put that other team away.

Worst case scenario is the Vikes score and tie. We can either give them a chance to for sure w/ 30 seconds left, or we can try to develop some confidence and suck the life out of them. I go for the kill every time.

I would be curious to hear what Ras thinks about this. I agree w/ his opinions on the preseason stuff and it seems our attitudes would be the same on this issue.

I'm not saying its right or wrong. Just saying what I would do as a coach. But maybe that is why I am not an NFL coach :D

[Deputy Nutz]

Here is the deal, it is not that big of a deal whether or not they decided to hand the ball off or take a knee, the point is, is why give the ball to a guy that has less than 10 carries in the NFL?

[Partial]

Here is the deal, it is not that big of a deal whether or not they decided to hand the ball off or take a knee, the point is, is why give the ball to a guy that has less than 10 carries in the NFL?

Now that I agree with. Stupid move. Morency is your guy there. Injured or not, you have to go with the vet.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Here is the deal, it is not that big of a deal whether or not they decided to hand the ball off or take a knee, the point is, is why give the ball to a guy that has less than 10 carries in the NFL?

I'm down with that position also, but that's not what I disagreed with. I disagreed with this:


Why McCarthy called a running play with a one minute and forty five seconds left in the game, when the Vikings didn't have a time out is beyond me

Butler had a comment about this. He said the Packers are searching to find roles for each of their RBs, and they may think Grant can fill that role. Maybe Grant is sure-handed in practice.

[Deputy Nutz]

I wish I would have done a better job at stating my true feelings and intentions in the article, I guess I am just a hack.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I wish I would have done a better job at stating my true feelings and intentions in the article, I guess I am just a hack.

Yeah, but you are our hack.

[MJZiggy]

:hrt: :hug:

[Patler]

There was a reason to hand off rather than take a knee.

Watch the clock sometime at the end of a game when teams take a knee three times. You will be surprised how little time is run off the clock. Assuming you run the play clock to 0 each time, the additional game time used in the interval between when the ball is snapped on one play to when the play clock is re-set for the next play is very short when the QB takes a knee. If you hand off and run an actual play, much more time is used up for the play itself. The clock time used between the snap on first down to when the play clock is reset for 2nd down is much longer. Multiplied by three such intervals before you punt, it can use a lot more play clock.

I'm sure McCarthy was trying to reduce the number plays they could run after receiving the punt. If you can limit it to 1 or 2, that is certainly preferable to letting them run 4 even if they don't get a first down.

If you can take a knee, punt and limit them to 1 or 2 plays, do it. But if by taking a knee you will give them time for 4 plays, you hand off and run a real play at least a couple times.

[Tarlam!]

I wish I would have done a better job at stating my true feelings and intentions in the article, I guess I am just a hack.

I love all the beat writers work. You guys/gals are really entertaining and better than a lot of those "experts".

I miss the name A.J. Hawk, Nutz. Is he a perpetual loser, because he's not on the winners list each week?

Is he sophomore slumping?

Am I an idiot to even ask?

[The Leaper]

I'm sure McCarthy was trying to reduce the number plays they could run after receiving the punt. If you can limit it to 1 or 2, that is certainly preferable to letting them run 4 even if they don't get a first down.

If you can take a knee, punt and limit them to 1 or 2 plays, do it. But if by taking a knee you will give them time for 4 plays, you hand off and run a real play at least a couple times.

I can see the logic in that...but I still think it is impossible to discount the increased probability for error by running vs. knee.

1:50 left...second down. If you take a knee, no less than 35 seconds is run off the clock by the time the play clock gets back down to zero again. So, at worst, we would be punting with 40 seconds remaining in the game around midfield to a team with no time outs.

At that point, I don't think the Vikings chances are statistically any better if there are 40 seconds left or 30 seconds left. Either way, they are extremely unlikely to score the tying TD.

However, by increasing the chance of a turnover, you open up the potential to give the Vikings the ball back with PLENTY of time to score...which is precisely what we saw. Suddenly, the Vikings have a 10-20% chance of scoring that TD. You MUST eliminate that potential at all costs.

Personally, I would always take a knee in those situations. I've seen too many screwups on running plays, and rarely have seen a screwup on taking a knee.

However, if you want to argue that you should still handoff, I still think you would be second guessing that considering our current situation at RB with no strong reliable veteran to turn to. Morency fumbled late in the game trying to pick up extra yards that weren't necessary!

Don't take the ball out of Favre's hands...even if you are running out the clock.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You might pick up a first down. I know getting 10 yards on 3 carries seems tough for our run offense, but it could happen. Ryan Grant did break off a 15 yard run earlier in the 4th quarter.

[The Leaper]

You might pick up a first down. I know getting 10 yards on 3 carries seems tough for our run offense, but it could happen. Ryan Grant did break off a 15 yard run earlier in the 4th quarter.

You might make a first down PASSING the ball too. So why not continue to play as you normally do to win the game?

The point of the matter is that running up the gut to run out the clock is no less "scared" from that vantage point than taking a knee. You are trying to win the game by micromanaging and doing something other than you normally would.

To me, eliminating a potential game changing turnover is far more important at that point in the game than gaining a first down in that instance. You should rely on your strong legged punter and defense rather than a running game that is clearly the weakness of the entire team.

[Deputy Nutz]

I wish I would have done a better job at stating my true feelings and intentions in the article, I guess I am just a hack.

I love all the beat writers work. You guys/gals are really entertaining and better than a lot of those "experts".

I miss the name A.J. Hawk, Nutz. Is he a perpetual loser, because he's not on the winners list each week?

Is he sophomore slumping?

Am I an idiot to even ask?

Hawk hasn't really played well for 4 straight games. I really don't know what the difference is between Hawk the last four games last year, and the first four this year. Even in Pre-season he was making plays all over the place.

I am guessing he could have a nagging injury that nobody wants to bring to attention.

Maybe he is thinking too much out there instead of relying on his instincts.

He is making tackles, but sort of like how Barnett made tackles, way to far down field at this point.

[Patler]

You should rely on your strong legged punter and defense rather than a running game that is clearly the weakness of the entire team.

You mean the strong legged punter who still seems to shank one every game? I like his potential, but Ryan doesn't give me a lot of comfort/confidence yet either.

[The Leaper]

You mean the strong legged punter who still seems to shank one every game? I like his potential, but Ryan doesn't give me a lot of comfort/confidence yet either.

The funny thing is that I can't recall too many times Ryan has failed miserably in a pressure situation. Granted, shanks and line drives are never going to come at a "good" time...but if the team is backed up or it is a needed kick late in the game to pin the opposition deep, Ryan has seemed to come through more than not.

That's just from my memory though...perhaps I'm crazy.

[Little Whiskey]

they were at the 40 or 45 yard line. he would have to have had an amazing shank to give them favorable field postition.

[Patler]

they were at the 40 or 45 yard line. he would have to have had an amazing shank to give them favorable field postition.

Or a low liner returned for 20-30 yards.

[Patler]

The funny thing is that I can't recall too many times Ryan has failed miserably in a pressure situation. Granted, shanks and line drives are never going to come at a "good" time...but if the team is backed up or it is a needed kick late in the game to pin the opposition deep, Ryan has seemed to come through more than not.

That's just from my memory though...perhaps I'm crazy.

Well, not a miserable failure, but somewhat similar situation in Philly game: 4th qtr, 1:09 remaining, score tied;
4th down at the GB40
Ryan punts 29 yards to the Philadelphia 31.

We forget this bad punt because it was muffed, GB recovered and kicked the winning FG. Had it been fielded cleanly the game could have ended quite differently if McNabb completed a few passes.

[MJZiggy]

The funny thing is that I can't recall too many times Ryan has failed miserably in a pressure situation. Granted, shanks and line drives are never going to come at a "good" time...but if the team is backed up or it is a needed kick late in the game to pin the opposition deep, Ryan has seemed to come through more than not.

That's just from my memory though...perhaps I'm crazy.

Well, not a miserable failure, but somewhat similar situation in Philly game: 4th qtr, 1:09 remaining, score tied;
4th down at the GB40
Ryan punts 29 yards to the Philadelphia 31.

We forget this bad punt because it was muffed, GB recovered and kicked the winning FG.

Is muffed being a little generous? Didn't the returner get cremated upon catching it and simply dropped the ball? (Or am I thinking of the other one?)

[HarveyWallbangers]

Is muffed being a little generous? Didn't the returner get cremated upon catching it and simply dropped the ball? (Or am I thinking of the other one?)

The other one. This one, the returner ran up the field 20 yards and tried to make a diving grab on a bad punt.

[The Leaper]

We forget this bad punt because it was muffed, GB recovered and kicked the winning FG. Had it been fielded cleanly the game could have ended quite differently if McNabb completed a few passes.

True, that is an instance where Ryan faltered in the clutch. A 30 yard net punt isn't the end of the world in that situation, but it wasn't exactly a success either...until the punt returner decided to play hot potato.

[Patler]

The funny thing is that I can't recall too many times Ryan has failed miserably in a pressure situation. Granted, shanks and line drives are never going to come at a "good" time...but if the team is backed up or it is a needed kick late in the game to pin the opposition deep, Ryan has seemed to come through more than not.

That's just from my memory though...perhaps I'm crazy.

Well, not a miserable failure, but somewhat similar situation in Philly game: 4th qtr, 1:09 remaining, score tied;
4th down at the GB40
Ryan punts 29 yards to the Philadelphia 31.

We forget this bad punt because it was muffed, GB recovered and kicked the winning FG.

Is muffed being a little generous? Didn't the returner get cremated upon catching it and simply dropped the ball? (Or am I thinking of the other one?)

Just my obsession with accuracy! It was ruled a "muff" - meaning he never had control of it. This is important because you can not advance a muffed punt that you recover, but if he catches it and "fumbles" instead, you can advance it if you recover. The officials ruled a "muff".

[Patler]

We forget this bad punt because it was muffed, GB recovered and kicked the winning FG. Had it been fielded cleanly the game could have ended quite differently if McNabb completed a few passes.

True, that is an instance where Ryan faltered in the clutch. A 30 yard net punt isn't the end of the world in that situation, but it wasn't exactly a success either...until the punt returner decided to play hot potato.

Thinking back on that game, GB was very fortunate to win in many ways. But as "they" say, often you make your own good-fortune!

[The Leaper]

I just can't get that first punt recovery out of my mind...mainly because of the angle where Siragusa was standing there, looking as if he really wanted to jump right on top of the pile himself.

Perhaps he should vie for the KC Chiefs mascot job.

[SkinBasket]

Thinking back on that game, GB was very fortunate to win in many ways. But as "they" say, often you make your own good-fortune!

"They" being fortune cookies?

[The Leaper]

But as "they" say, often you make your own good-fortune!

in bed?

[woodbuck27]

You should rely on your strong legged punter and defense rather than a running game that is clearly the weakness of the entire team.

You mean the strong legged punter who still seems to shank one every game? I like his potential, but Ryan doesn't give me a lot of comfort/confidence yet either.

Patler you know better than that.

If you do not, then the rag here is that MM simply made an error in judgement, and we (slash - I) believe that he will not go there again and certainly NOT as our running game exists at the present time.

Our running game thus far into the schedule:

We have had the grand total of 11 first downs rushing in 4 games (32nd in the NFL) on only 79 rushes (30th in the NFL).

We avg. a whooping 2.7 yards per carry (again last in the NFL).

3 x 2.7 = 8.1 yards.

Patler . . . you would consider a rush again on 4th down because Jon Ryan might shank a punt (question mark)

John Ryan is punting for a 42.5 yard avg. (18th in NFL) with a net avg. of 40.4 yards ( 5th in NFL ). That is relatively very good compared to all NFL teams to date in 2007.

Statistics fr. NFL.COM. :

The best net avg. in the NFL belongs to the Raiders at 44.1 yards.

2nd is the 49ers at 42.6.

3rd is the Rams at 40.9

4th is the Redskins at 40.5

Jon Ryan and the Packer ST punt coverage is 5th best in the NFL.

With the state of our pathetic running game Vs the comparitive success of the Packer punting. See above.

The decision not to rush, rather on three downs to kneel (Center and FAVRE only) and punt on 4th down is clearly the most protective means of preventing the Vikings an opportunity for better field position.

More opportunity to score a TD, and a 2 Pt. conversion sets us in the loss column as well as a Viking score first in OT.

It is OK.

MM is on a learning curve. :)

and he just almost paid for his error in judgement. :) :)

GO PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

An excellent write up Deputy Nutz.

A heads up for all here.

GO PACKERS !

[Patler]

Patler . . . you would consider a rush again on 4th down because Jon Ryan might shank a punt (question mark)



HUH???? Where did you ever get that idea???

Of course not. I was just referring to the comment about taking a knee three times and "relying" on our "strong legged punter" to point out that giving up all opportunities to use additional time and perhaps gain a few yards and .possibly a first down by taking a knee and punting is not fool proof either.

As I said, I like Ryans potential; but he is still inconsistent, and a 30 yard punt from him in that situation was certainly a possibility. (See the end of the Philly game for verification.)

Your blind defense of Ryan, ignoring his shortcomings, is a little ridiculous.