McCarthy's play calling-let's discuss it

[Patler]

I've seen numerous complaints in various threads about MM's play calling against the Bears. To me the second half was derailed more by turnovers and penalties than by play calling.

For those who have complained, I'm curious, what upset you about it? Please, let's talk more specifically than just "too conservative". I don't intend to argue with you about it, but likely I will ask questions to better understand your viewpoint.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I will ask questions to better understand your viewpoint.

I smell a trap.

[Brainerd]

On the surface

I'm not sure I would call it conservative. It seemed like MM might have been hoping for lightning to strike twice. IE, the running game to break a few longer ones as it had in the 1st half. MM waited way too long for it to happen.

MM whimped out on ST's. Kicking away from Hester once in awhile is fine in order to confuse Chicago but it looked as though he was giving Chicago field position without a fight.

Between the lines

MM was visibly upset with Favre at the end of the 1st half when Favre challenged his authority on the timeout call. The 2nd half was reflective of a kind of tension between Favre and MM. Did Favre lose faith in MM and decide to go it alone? Did the playcalling of MM in the 2nd half have more to do with showing Favre who was boss or did he really think forcing a run game was the way to win the game? I saw a different Favre and MM as soon as the 2nd half started. A different MM before Favre tossed that little gift to Urlacher. Favre wasn't calling many audibles in the 2nd half and I don't know the reason.

Then again it may have just been the Packers were unable to beat Cover 2.

[Bretsky]

I've seen numerous complaints in various threads about MM's play calling against the Bears. To me the second half was derailed more by turnovers and penalties than by play calling.

For those who have complained, I'm curious, what upset you about it? Please, let's talk more specifically than just "too conservative". I don't intend to argue with you about it, but likely I will ask questions to better understand your viewpoint.


The game was a chess match between the offense and defense

In Half One MM kept the Bears off balance. A lot of the successful runs were fake passes and a few mis directionals. He did a great job mixing those up with effective use of screens.

At Halftime Lovie made adjustments that put Green Bay's offense off balance; MM did not counter those adjustments well, obviously.

I really didn't like the three series of consecutive calls.
Run Run Pass
Run Run Pass
Run Run Run

Very bland playcalling in those three consecutive series. In the first two he left Favre with third and five or longer. Bears had a decent pass rush on those third down plays. The run run run series was truly sickening

In half one we attacked; in half two the playcalling was passive. I've hailed MM for his playcalling; in half two he let us down

[mmmdk]

I've seen numerous complaints in various threads about MM's play calling against the Bears. To me the second half was derailed more by turnovers and penalties than by play calling.

For those who have complained, I'm curious, what upset you about it? Please, let's talk more specifically than just "too conservative". I don't intend to argue with you about it, but likely I will ask questions to better understand your viewpoint.


The game was a chess match between the offense and defense

In Half One MM kept the Bears off balance. A lot of the successful runs were fake passes and a few mis directionals. He did a great job mixing those up with effective use of screens.

At Halftime Lovie made adjustments that put Green Bay's offense off balance; MM did not counter those adjustments well, obviously.

I really didn't like the three series of consecutive calls.
Run Run Pass
Run Run Pass
Run Run Run

Very bland playcalling in those three consecutive series. In the first two he left Favre with third and five or longer. Bears had a decent pass rush on those third down plays. The run run run series was truly sickening

In half one we attacked; in half two the playcalling was passive. I've hailed MM for his playcalling; in half two he let us down

Everybody wants the head of JJ for this game - not so. Bretsky brings a very important observation; the playcalling series by McCarthy (see above). Favre can feel those things too; McCarthy was playcalling to preserve a POSSIBLE win and Favre, the gunslinger, tries to make things happen. Favre throws an int. with a 20-10 Packers lead??? But that's Favre yet McCarthy should've been playcalling to CLAIM THE WIN. A 10 point lead is NOTHING in the NFL; it was kinda disrespectful to the winning ways - and how hard it is to win in this league. Bears are NFC champs not the poor 49ers offense.

Favre has been awesome! The dumbass 1st int. is part of Favre and McCarthy really needs to be the smart one here.

Please prove me wrong, Packer Team & coaches, that this team is not just Favre. If Favre has that feeling that he has to "do-it-all" then we won't even make the playoffs. I'm serious.

[Patler]

I really didn't like the three series of consecutive calls.
Run Run Pass
Run Run Pass
Run Run Run

Very bland playcalling in those three consecutive series. In the first two he left Favre with third and five or longer. Bears had a decent pass rush on those third down plays. The run run run series was truly sickening


When were those?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Throw the ball downfield on first down.

The Packers should have tried to make it a high scoring game, not a field position struggle where the Bears have a chance.

[Patler]

Throw the ball downfield on first down.

The Packers should have tried to make it a high scoring game, not a field position struggle where the Bears have a chance.

40 passes were too few?
22 rushing attempts were too many?

[mmmdk]

I really didn't like the three series of consecutive calls.
Run Run Pass
Run Run Pass
Run Run Run

Very bland playcalling in those three consecutive series. In the first two he left Favre with third and five or longer. Bears had a decent pass rush on those third down plays. The run run run series was truly sickening


When were those?

Actually it was:

Long KO return-Pass-Run-Run-Run-FG

Run-Run-Pass (intercepted)

Run-Run-Run

BEARS BACK IN THE GAME; WHAT WORKED IN FIRST HALF IS ABANDONED



9-R.Gould kicks 68 yards from CHI 30 to GB 2. 38-T.Williams pushed ob at CHI 33 for 65 yards (81-R.Davis).
1-10-CHI 33 (11:53) 4-B.Favre pass short right to 42-D.Wynn to CHI 20 for 13 yards (36-B.McGowan).
1-10-CHI 20 (11:15) 42-D.Wynn up the middle to CHI 14 for 6 yards (92-H.Hillenmeyer).
2-4-CHI 14 (10:42) 42-D.Wynn right end to CHI 11 for 3 yards (95-A.Adams).
3-1-CHI 11 (10:06) 42-D.Wynn right tackle to CHI 14 for -3 yards (55-L.Briggs).

Packers score ONLY A FG.

Packers lead 20-10; the Bears punt on next drive, Pack has the ball again.

1-10-GB 10 (5:58) 42-D.Wynn right tackle to GB 15 for 5 yards (55-L.Briggs).
2-5-GB 15 (5:19) 42-D.Wynn left tackle to GB 15 for no gain (54-B.Urlacher).
3-5-GB 15 (4:35) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass intended for 89-J.Jones INTERCEPTED by 54-B.Urlacher at GB 19. 54-B.Urlacher to GB 19 for no gain (88-B.Franks).

Score now 20-17 Packers lead.

Packers get the ball.

1-10-GB 21 (4:14) 42-D.Wynn right end to GB 22 for 1 yard (55-L.Briggs).
2-9-GB 22 (3:42) 42-D.Wynn left end to GB 25 for 3 yards (55-L.Briggs).
3-6-GB 25 (3:05) 42-D.Wynn left tackle to GB 29 for 4 yards (55-L.Briggs). GB-63-S.Wells was injured during the play.

Bears Get it then 3 and out but Woodson fumbles onpunt return.

Bears score FG; tied at 20-20.

THERE! The Packers are not elite and hence needs to put the dagger in their opponant or they come back. Our D is only average.

[RashanGary]

The only problem I really had was the fake draws in the 2nd half. It's not like our pass protection was getting killed. We didn't even need to neutralize them, but McCarthy was calling plays to neutralize the pass rush.

Favre was screwing around with that fake draw crap when he could have been surveying the field and if anything it gave the defense extra time to get to him. I just thought those were senseless plays.

I would guess he doesn't do that very often just because of how grossly ineffective it was. We'll see though.

[Sparkey]

In my opinion, the change in play calling coincided with Wells leaving the game with an injury.

[Maxie the Taxi]

In my opinion, the change in play calling coincided with Wells leaving the game with an injury.

You may be right. Losing Wells was huge. Whether or not Wells' loss affected MM's playcalling, though, is questionnable.

My impression of MM's playcalling is that he was too "scripted." By this I mean that he went into the game intending to emphasize the run and he never went away from that plan as game conditions changed.

Calling a bunch of runs in the first quarter when your field position is good and momentum is on your side, along with the fact that the Bears were caught by surprise, is one thing. Calling a bunch of runs in the fourth quarter when momentum had switched the other way, field position was atrocious and the Bears were expecting and had adjusted for the run is another.

I thought in the fourth quarter and maybe in the third -- after Favre's bonehead interception -- MM should have done exactly the opposite of what he did, i.e., revert back to the spread formation, forget the run, and go with what got them through the last several games.

[BallHawk]

As long as MM can learn from his playcalling and in future games know how to adjust, then one complete screw-up is OK. We can't have these type of games happen often, however, if we want to be a playoff team.

MM first half gameplan- 8.5

MM second half gameplan- 3.5

[Patler]

They only ran the ball 9 times in the second half.

[BallHawk]

They only passed it 12 times, which is a far cry from the 28 Favre had in the 1st half. We were winning when Favre was throwing the ball. DeShawn Wynn gave us a big boost at the beginning, but Favre was winning the game for us at the beginning. That and the Bears offense. :wink:

However, it is not the amount of runs that MM called, but when he called them. As Bretsky pointed out, those 3 drives were just painful to watch. It was so conservative, as pointed out previously, he was playing not to lose.

We had numerous opportunities to get something going, but we'd get nothing on first down and then we'd have 2nd and 10 from our own 20. The reason why we had such a great 3rd conversion rate is because earlier in the game we were giving ourselves manageable 3rd down situations. Later in the game, it was almost always 3rd and 5+. That's going to put you in a position where Favre is going to start and try to force things and when he does that we lose.

[Bretsky]

They only passed it 12 times, which is a far cry from the 28 Favre had in the 1st half. We were winning when Favre was throwing the ball. DeShawn Wynn gave us a big boost at the beginning, but Favre was winning the game for us at the beginning. That and the Bears offense. :wink:

However, it is not the amount of runs that MM called, but when he called them. As Bretsky pointed out, those 3 drives were just painful to watch. It was so conservative, as pointed out previously, he was playing not to lose.

We had numerous opportunities to get something going, but we'd get nothing on first down and then we'd have 2nd and 10 from our own 20. The reason why we had such a great 3rd conversion rate is because earlier in the game we were giving ourselves manageable 3rd down situations. Later in the game, it was almost always 3rd and 5+. That's going to put you in a position where Favre is going to start and try to force things and when he does that we lose.

I had posted this after getting back at about 2:00 in the morn after watching the game with Nutz,HW, SF,and Skin. I'll have to look up the series later but I'm sure mmdk was right in showing the sequence

It noticeably hurt the rhythym of the offense. We never got that rhythym back.

This game reminded me of the Saints game last year.

We dominated the first half
Halftime adjustments were made
We were dominated in the second half when the opposition made the adjustments. We had no answer for the adjustments.

[run pMc]

I think the Bears made good adjustments at halftime and took away some things GB wanted to do on offense. They also played more ball-control with their offense, which kept GB's passing attack on the sidelines. Penalties really helped CHI. The INT and then a fumble on consecutive possessions sure didn't help GB either.

I don't know that 9 runs is too conservative...when you call them is part of the equation. I think GB didn't have the ball enough (and played too sloppy) to get in a good rhythm in the 2nd half.

I didn't like the field position M3 gave away on kickoffs. GB punted to Hester...why not let Crosby boot it as far as he can? It's not like it's January and the ball is an ice cube. Odds are he would have kicked 6-7 yards deep in the endzone. I agree kicking right to Hester is risky, but I'd also agree that giving the the ball at the 40 was a too conservative.

[wist43]

McCarthy lost this game... pure and simple.

McCarthy has to understand the fundamental weakness of his team - they can't run the ball - and no amount of trying the same thing over and over again is going to fix that. If this team is going to win consistantly, they're going to have to pass to set up the run; and, they're going to have to pass to run out the clock.

[BallHawk]

So is the consensus here that the run worked at the beginning because we caught the Bears offguard?

[Scott Campbell]

They only ran the ball 9 times in the second half.


As it turned out, that was 7 times too many.

[Carolina_Packer]

There is the whole playcalling vs. execution argument that discussions like this always brings to my mind.

If any play succeeds, was it a good play call? If a play fails, was it bad play calling or bad execution of the play call?

I guess that depends on what the situation would typically dictate. If you have a 3rd and long and decide to do a delayed hand-off and get two yards and have to kick, that might just be a bad call, because it's too conservative, even though the thinking is, they are expecting us to pass.

If you call a good play for the right situation and something bad happens, either a turnover, incompletion, sack or no gain/loss of yardage, was it still a bad play call, or bad execution?

Seems to be a fine line you walk between calling something a bad play call and bad execution of a play call. I don't claim to understand necessarily what that is, but it's more of a gut feeling when you're watching it.

[Scott Campbell]

McCarthy lost this game... pure and simple.

McCarthy has to understand the fundamental weakness of his team - they can't run the ball - and no amount of trying the same thing over and over again is going to fix that. If this team is going to win consistantly, they're going to have to pass to set up the run; and, they're going to have to pass to run out the clock.


I'm in agreement. We killed them with slants in the first half. While this team can't run conventionally, they have been able to replace their run game with the short passing game.

[Patler]

McCarthy lost this game... pure and simple.

McCarthy has to understand the fundamental weakness of his team - they can't run the ball - and no amount of trying the same thing over and over again is going to fix that. If this team is going to win consistantly, they're going to have to pass to set up the run; and, they're going to have to pass to run out the clock.

I don't necessarily think that was the situation last night. Three of the runs came after the long kickoff return. The first play was a 13 yard pass and a first down. The next was a run that picked up 6. Second down was a run for 3. They ran again on 3rd and 1, whicjh I can't fault as a call....BUT I believe that was the play in which Madden was amazed that Favre didn't audible to a slant. Two LBs moved into the gaps before the snap, and as Madden said the run was doomed from the snap.

Why didn't Favre audible in that situation is a good question. They still got the FG, but...

The next series started at their own 10. A run on first picked up 5. A run on second and 5 from the 15 was for no gain. On third Favre threw the int. I'm not sure I can fault the two runs in that situation. Certainly 1st down was effective.

The series after that I kind of have problems with, 3 runs for 1, 3 and 4 starting at their own 21.

After the Bears tied it, the Packers only ran twice and threw 8 times even before the last drive in which they threw 8 more.. So in the 4th qtr it was 2 rushing attempts and 16 pass attempts.

There were so many things that went wrong in this game, all of which contributed to it, including shooting themselves in the foot with penalties. With 12 penalties and 5 turnovers, that's 17 plays they screwed up. Pretty hard to win that way.

[mraynrand]

It's always pretty useless to question specific playcalling, considering the Packers scout out all the alignments and design plays to best match up with the defense. How would anyone outside the organization know what their game plan was except Bill Belichick? And you never know, unless you have access to the coaching tape, what the secondary looked like and who executed properly, etc. I'm much more interested in coaching philosophy. A few observations.

1) When Favre throws an INT, McCarthy has now (at least to my recollection) run three or more straight times, directly following. He did so on Sunday night. Is this the best decision?

2) The idea of benching Jones long-term after fumbles could be questioned. What good does it do to bench Jones? He knows he screwed up. He's got to get back on that horse. Keeping him out breaks up whatever consistency they had, especially with Jennings out as well.

3) Field position - you won't run the same plays in different areas of the field - at least not typically

4) Special teams strategy, kicking away from Hester - Hester was kept in check, but the Packers had poor field position partly because of it (see 3). Yes he could have run one back, but was this the wisest strategy?

5) Run game - the run game was designed to attack the middle of the Bear's defense, so that Urlacher can be isolated and blocked - he's much better running sideline to sideline - he can be neutralized with off tackle running. The Bears D line is also a quick aggressive line, that is easier bull rushed. The game plan was to take the run directly at them. It worked. Wells being out hurt that plan. But with Wells out, do you scrap the game plan? And even if you do, what's to say that Spitz will be able to pass block any better than run block at center?

[Scott Campbell]

2) The idea of benching Jones long-term after fumbles could be questioned. What good does it do to bench Jones? He knows he screwed up. He's got to get back on that horse. Keeping him out breaks up whatever consistency they had, especially with Jennings out as well.


I thought Jones was lucky just to get back into the game after the two fumbles. I wouldn't have faulted MM for sitting him out the remainder of the game. And I had Jones starting on my fantasy team.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's always pretty useless to question specific playcalling, considering the Packers scout out all the alignments and design plays to best match up with the defense.

I agree. Which is also why you can't debate the playcalling in detail.

But a fan can tell when the coach is playing not-to-lose, when the offense loses its agression over a period of several drives.

[mraynrand]

2) The idea of benching Jones long-term after fumbles could be questioned. What good does it do to bench Jones? He knows he screwed up. He's got to get back on that horse. Keeping him out breaks up whatever consistency they had, especially with Jennings out as well.


I thought Jones was lucky just to get back into the game after the two fumbles. I wouldn't have faulted MM for sitting him out the remainder of the game. And I had Jones starting on my fantasy team.

Then why not sit him for the rest of the season or forever? What's the correct amount of time to sit, and what criteria will you use for reinstatement. I'm not blasting your point of view, I just want to know what people really think is the answer. My opinion is to pull him out, get in his face, and put him back in. Don't lose more than a series. every player is different, but what you want to do is solve the problem. You've got to re-establish Jone's confidence, and Favre's confidence in Jones, right away.

[Freak Out]

It's always pretty useless to question specific playcalling, considering the Packers scout out all the alignments and design plays to best match up with the defense. How would anyone outside the organization know what their game plan was except Bill Belichick? And you never know, unless you have access to the coaching tape, what the secondary looked like and who executed properly, etc. I'm much more interested in coaching philosophy. A few observations.

1) When Favre throws an INT, McCarthy has now (at least to my recollection) run three or more straight times, directly following. He did so on Sunday night. Is this the best decision?

2) The idea of benching Jones long-term after fumbles could be questioned. What good does it do to bench Jones? He knows he screwed up. He's got to get back on that horse. Keeping him out breaks up whatever consistency they had, especially with Jennings out as well.

3) Field position - you won't run the same plays in different areas of the field - at least not typically

4) Special teams strategy, kicking away from Hester - Hester was kept in check, but the Packers had poor field position partly because of it (see 3). Yes he could have run one back, but was this the wisest strategy?

5) Run game - the run game was designed to attack the middle of the Bear's defense, so that Urlacher can be isolated and blocked - he's much better running sideline to sideline - he can be neutralized with off tackle running. The Bears D line is also a quick aggressive line, that is easier bull rushed. The game plan was to take the run directly at them. It worked. Wells being out hurt that plan. But with Wells out, do you scrap the game plan? And even if you do, what's to say that Spitz will be able to pass block any better than run block at center?

If he is running the ball to somehow discipline #4 then that is stupid. If he thinks he needs to be calmed down then call a damn timeout because you are only going to get so many chances against the Bears.

Jones needed to be back in the game. Sit him for a series but he is needed on the field.

On a side note....it bothers me to see #4 out there yelling at teammates after they have made a mistake or blown an assignment, talk to them, get in there face a bit but getting borderline hysterical and humiliating someone usually does not help the situation.

[Brohm]

If Jones takes the benching to heart the way Edgar Bennet took it after Holmgren benched him for fumbling, I will be very happy :D

[Patler]

On a side note....it bothers me to see #4 out there yelling at teammates after they have made a mistake or blown an assignment, talk to them, get in there face a bit but getting borderline hysterical and humiliating someone usually does not help the situation.

Me too. I mentioned it earlier in the season. Last night he really got after Clifton one time. Did any team mate get in his face after the gift to Urlacher?

[Maxie the Taxi]

On a side note....it bothers me to see #4 out there yelling at teammates after they have made a mistake or blown an assignment, talk to them, get in there face a bit but getting borderline hysterical and humiliating someone usually does not help the situation.

Me too. I mentioned it earlier in the season. Last night he really got after Clifton one time. Did any team mate get in his face after the gift to Urlacher?

I'm not gonna say that Brett was mugging for the cameras. I will say he was well aware the whole nation was watching him. I thought before the game he was a bit too solemn. That usually doesn't bode well. Then, he played well in the first half and I thought he was OK. But as the game progressed I thought he got a little hysterical at times, losing his cool. I noticed him go off on Clifton. In fact, I even noticed him go off on Driver early in the game for not coming back to him in a scramble situation. Brett plays better when he's loose, not strung as tight as a violin. Of course, his "gift" to Urlacher was the last straw.

[BallHawk]

Brett's very obvious before the game on how he feels about their chances of winning. If he's fine he'll be laughing and smiling and cracking jokes. If he's nervous, like he was last night, he'll have the solemn, glazed look in his eyes. It's a dead giveaway.

[Partial]

Harv and Superfan did not see it on TV, but the OL was getting destroyed every time they dropped back to pass it seemed.

Ogunleye was unblockable in the 4th quarter and this is why they had to run the ball in some odd situations. Even with a three step drop Favre was looking around hoping to find a target and was not getting one.

The 3rd and 6 was a questionable run call but it was unpredictable and with Wynn averaging 4-5 ypc (discounting his big long run) it didn't seem that far fetched considering they'd be in a nickel or dime set-up to stop the pass.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Brett's very obvious before the game on how he feels about their chances of winning. If he's fine he'll be laughing and smiling and cracking jokes. If he's nervous, like he was last night, he'll have the solemn, glazed look in his eyes. It's a dead giveaway.

Self-fulfilling prophecy or something like that?

[Scott Campbell]

Then why not sit him for the rest of the season or forever?


Forever is a long time, especially if he's taking up a roster spot.

I don't think the play falls off so far when Martin is in there that you can't afford to sit a guy after 2 fumbles.

My thinking is that his confidence would have already been shaken after the two fumbles, and not by anything the coach said or did at that point.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Then why not sit him for the rest of the season or forever?


Forever is a long time, especially if he's taking up a roster spot.

I don't think the play falls off so far when Martin is in there that you can't afford to sit a guy after 2 fumbles.

My thinking is that his confidence would have already been shaken after the two fumbles, and not by anything the coach said or did at that point.

You know what, I can understand MM's anger during the emotion of the game (even though I don't agree with his actions as a result of that anger), but I'm sure that once MM sees the film he won't be as emotional with JJ.

I just watched both catches and fumbles in slow motion once again. The two plays were almost identical. The ball was thrown waist high and slightly behind JJ. He reached behind and backhanded both balls. Made a couple of great catches, actually. But because he backhanded the ball in both cases, he couldn't tuck it away immediately. As he turned to move up the field, the CB punched the ball out. All happened in a split second.

A receiver with ordinary hands wouldn't have made those catches. If the ball had been thrown higher and out in front of JJ, he could have snagged the pass with a normal motion and tucked it away in stride with his extended arms and body between the ball the defender.

I'm not excusing the fumbles, but they weren't fumbles caused by carelessness or lack of concentration. They were errors of a rookie player trying to make a play as best he could.

JJ was simply snake bit twice by circumstance and a cagey, veteran CB. I hope MM eventually sees it that way. I did.

[Carolina_Packer]

I just watched both catches and fumbles in slow motion once again. The two plays were almost identical. The ball was thrown waist high and slightly behind JJ. He reached behind and backhanded both balls. Made a couple of great catches, actually. But because he backhanded the ball in both cases, he couldn't tuck it away immediately. As he turned to move up the field, the CB punched the ball out. All happened in a split second.

Kind of like where McGee is catching the ball in your avatar, huh, Maxie? :!:

[privatepacker]

I think two reasons contributed to the Packers play calling:
1. Field Position
2. Getting their asses beat by the Bears D-Line
It's very hard to open the offense when you keep starting between your 15 to 20 yard line. Hard then to run when you get no push on the D-line and they are pressuring your QB when he does drop back. Because of the age I would say that the 2nd half the Packers O-Line got very complacient.

[mraynrand]

Then why not sit him for the rest of the season or forever?


Forever is a long time, especially if he's taking up a roster spot.

I don't think the play falls off so far when Martin is in there that you can't afford to sit a guy after 2 fumbles.

My thinking is that his confidence would have already been shaken after the two fumbles, and not by anything the coach said or did at that point.

OK, but then for how long? One series, one half, one game, one season, trade him immediately? HOW LONG?

[mraynrand]

Brett's very obvious before the game on how he feels about their chances of winning. If he's fine he'll be laughing and smiling and cracking jokes. If he's nervous, like he was last night, he'll have the solemn, glazed look in his eyes. It's a dead giveaway.

You guys who can read Favre's expressions and predict the future are wasting your time here. Take out a second mortgage, sell the car, whatever but go somewhere and lay the bet. Also, I'm sure you could co-host with John Edward or something. Maybe run a psychic hotline or something.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I just watched both catches and fumbles in slow motion once again. The two plays were almost identical. The ball was thrown waist high and slightly behind JJ. He reached behind and backhanded both balls. Made a couple of great catches, actually. But because he backhanded the ball in both cases, he couldn't tuck it away immediately. As he turned to move up the field, the CB punched the ball out. All happened in a split second.

Kind of like where McGee is catching the ball in your avatar, huh, Maxie? :!:

Yeah, almost exactly. Funny I didn't notice that. Of course, there was a CB hanging on JJ's back.

[Him8123]

I`m fine with MM to a certain point. I understand that we need to establish the run game. But in the second half it`s like we reversed from throwing 75 percent and running 25, to running 75 and passing 25. He almost completely abandoned the passing game. The last drive we had we marhed down the field passing. Why did we not do that more?? God I`m still throwing up in my mouth. :bang:

[BallHawk]

I`m fine with MM to a certain point. I understand that we need to establish the run game. But in the second half it`s like we reversed from throwing 75 percent and running 25, to running 75 and passing 25. He almost completely abandoned the passing game. The last drive we had we marhed down the field passing. Why did we not do that more?? God I`m still throwing up in my mouth. :bang:

The Bears were playing to stop the TD on that last drive. That's why the middle of the field was wide open, unfortunately.

[esoxx]

Brett's very obvious before the game on how he feels about their chances of winning. If he's fine he'll be laughing and smiling and cracking jokes. If he's nervous, like he was last night, he'll have the solemn, glazed look in his eyes. It's a dead giveaway.

I've never bought into this concept. It's actually pretty silly.

If Jones doesn't fumble at the Bears 16 they're likely going in for another 7 and it's 14-0. That changed the entire complexion of the game. The Bears had been reeling, especially after getting lit up for 35 in the 4th quarter last week against the Lions. Another score there and a big deficit and I'm pretty sure the rout is on.

The two 1st half fumbles game them hope and life.

The Packers dominated the Bears in the first half and only had a 10 point lead to show for it. I'm not sure how the look on Brett Favre's face before the game had anything to do with it.