Favre Disappoints

[pbmax]

I don't believe that McCarthy called any plays tonight that called for the QB to underthrow it to the deepest receiver who was double covered.

Favre clearly had a below par game. To many guys came free on pressure packages, but Rodgers demonstrated that sometimes its best to to take the sack. Twice he kept drives alive by simply going down.

Sanders, not Schottenheimer, deserves to have his bell rung for either playing zone with his man to man corners or not assigning Harris to TO all over the field, regardless that Woodson was hurt. It killed us that TO could lose Harris by moving to the slot and then the adjustments in the 2nd half freed Witten.

Loved the run D most of the night. Most rush yardage seemed to be against nickle. Bush seemed to take a huge step backward.

ARod is no Favre, but he may be good enough to be effective. Greg Jennings is scary in the open field.

Game was depressing, probably feel better about in the am.

[Partial]

He looked tense before the game. Never a good sign.

[Pacopete4]

i dont think mccarthy put favre in a position to succeed either.. where were the slants? quick passes that we've ran every week.. all of a sudden it was play action heeve hoe down the field.. it was dumb and not packer football..

favre and mccarthy need to do a better job with play selection and i say favre too because he has options to check out of certain things and he needs to see that blitz that got him injured

[Pacopete4]

and lets not forget this offense still put up 27... THE DEFENSE ALLOWED 37!!!



37 mother fing points.... THAT IS NOT WHAT TOP TIER TEAMS DO!!


FIX IT NOW!

[pbmax]

Another thread said McCarthy wanted to challenge the Cowboys deep, that can't mean you throw it regardless of coverage and reads. The one INT that was way short to his left was thrown under duress. Just take the damn sack.

[pbmax]

One of the first plays was a slant. (to Martin?)

And Rodgers put up a good chunk of those points by not throwing it to the other team.

Too often the Defense was playing with a short field. We've all heard this song before.


i dont think mccarthy put favre in a position to succeed either.. where were the slants? quick passes that we've ran every week.. all of a sudden it was play action heeve hoe down the field.. it was dumb and not packer football..

favre and mccarthy need to do a better job with play selection and i say favre too because he has options to check out of certain things and he needs to see that blitz that got him injured

[The Leaper]

I don't believe that McCarthy called any plays tonight that called for the QB to underthrow it to the deepest receiver who was double covered.

He still called far too many play action passes against a team that clearly wasn't going to respect the run. McCarthy certainly deserves a fair share of blame for the offensive woes early. Favre did not play well either, refusing to look at mid-level routes and always going deep. However, McCarthy admitted that was his goal, so he probably TOLD Favre to look deep.

That is not smart. Always tell Favre to look short...he'll look deep on his own.


Sanders, not Schottenheimer, deserves to have his bell rung for either playing zone with his man to man corners or not assigning Harris to TO all over the field, regardless that Woodson was hurt. It killed us that TO could lose Harris by moving to the slot and then the adjustments in the 2nd half freed Witten.

I'm not sure who to blame. Sanders get a hunk for a poor game plan that allowed Owens to run wild. Schotty can't seem to coach the young kids into improvement in the secondary. Name one young DB that has shown any kind of real improvement in the last 2 years? I can't. That's on Schotty IMO.

[pbmax]

I thought Bush had shown improvement during this year. Bigby has gotten better. Rouse played OK. Outside of Bush, I was more concerned about scheme.

[SD GB fan]

mm gambled and he lost. had the long ball executed, the dallas D would have been off balance for the rest of the night. think about this, if the long ball connected early and then they went back to the short passing game with the danger of the long ball at any time, it would be hard to contain the offense. instead, the long ball didnt work and the pressure got to favre early.

[RashanGary]

Another thread said McCarthy wanted to challenge the Cowboys deep, that can't mean you throw it regardless of coverage and reads. The one INT that was way short to his left was thrown under duress. Just take the damn sack.

Very true. I think MM made mistakes by trying to attack the way he did over and over but Brett is the last check. He doesn't have to just throw it up. He had a bad game. The best thing was AR came in and showed him it can be done with check downs. I honestly think this could be a good learning experience for Brett. I just don't want to blame it all on him. I know MM wanted him ot take shots.

[b bulldog]

The entire team looked bad

[pbmax]

Actually, I thought Hawk, Poppinga and Pickett played well.

Another question, who was beating the wedge to death on kickoffs? Robinson and Williams were getting decked.


The entire team looked bad

[RashanGary]

Actually, I thought Hawk, Poppinga and Pickett played well.

Another question, who was beating the wedge to death on kickoffs? Robinson and Williams were getting decked.


The entire team looked bad

Jolly used to play on the wedge. He was good at it too. Nobody could get through him.

[RashanGary]

The entire team looked bad

I thought Rodgers, Grant, Jennings, Driver and JOnes looked pretty good when they weren't asked ot jsut air it out. The offense put up a lot of points despite the shit defense and it's not like Dallas wasn't playing well. They were getting pass rush.

EDIT: Crosby kicked FG's well too.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Favre did disappoint. I'm not sure how the night would have gone if he stayed in. I've seen him start off slow, but turn it around and light it up. I'm not too discouraged, but I hope it's not mental (playing in Dallas). Favre has had two bad games, two average, and about eight great ones--and that's way better than almost anybody but Tom Brady. Let's not forget that Peyton Manning threw 6 picks and Tony Romo threw 5 picks in a game this year. Again, hopefully it's not mental. I actually think the success ARod showed could help in a small way if we play them again.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The entire team looked bad

I thought Rodgers, Grant, Jennings, Driver and JOnes looked pretty good when they weren't asked ot jsut air it out. The offense put up a lot of points despite the shit defense and it's not like Dallas wasn't playing well. They were getting pass rush.

EDIT: Crosby kicked FG's well too.

Hawk had a good game. He played great run defense, and the couple of times Witten had a completion on him, he had good coverage on him. That happens when you are playing guys like Witten. Of course, he shouldn't have had to cover Owens 30-40 yards down the field. He gets a free pass on that one.

[b bulldog]

Not starting anything but that is what makes Brady so damn good. Hawk made some good tackles and was exposed tonight in coverage but so was everyone else.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Not starting anything but that is what makes Brady so damn good. Hawk made some good tackles and was exposed tonight in coverage but so was everyone else.

Hardly. He gave up a couple of completions to Witten. Even then, he had good coverage on one and got pushed on the other (although not enough to call a penalty).

[pbmax]

We couldn't expect everything to go right with youngsters and a young coach this season.

I am less concerned though about the Defense because they played on a short field in the first half and on a couple of drives in the second on big returns. Not happy about the coverage design in the first half though.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Good point, pbmax. Favre, the pass blocking, and special teams were as much a part of our early hole as anything. What's with Jones slipping 2-3 times (on a dry surface) and dropping balls early. Nerves?

[b bulldog]

hARV, YOUR A TRUE hAWK LOVER AND THAT IS FINE BUT HE GAVE UP SOME BIG CATCHES IN COVERAGE AND IF YOY THINK THAT IS FINE, WHATEVER. Hawk was OK tonight, nothing special.

[pbmax]

That was the unfortunate thing about the second half adjustment to keep safeties on top of the WRs. Hawk had a lot of single coverage on Witten. He is going to lose many of those. You have to pick your spots, disguise and play against tendencies.

Crosby's 51 yarder to make it a seven point game was a bomb.

[b bulldog]

Both teams were slipping in the first half.

[wist43]

I don't believe that McCarthy called any plays tonight that called for the QB to underthrow it to the deepest receiver who was double covered.

Favre clearly had a below par game. To many guys came free on pressure packages, but Rodgers demonstrated that sometimes its best to to take the sack. Twice he kept drives alive by simply going down.

Sanders, not Schottenheimer, deserves to have his bell rung for either playing zone with his man to man corners or not assigning Harris to TO all over the field, regardless that Woodson was hurt. It killed us that TO could lose Harris by moving to the slot and then the adjustments in the 2nd half freed Witten.

Loved the run D most of the night. Most rush yardage seemed to be against nickle. Bush seemed to take a huge step backward.

ARod is no Favre, but he may be good enough to be effective. Greg Jennings is scary in the open field.

Game was depressing, probably feel better about in the am.

My two keys to the game were Favre and Woodson.

Favre was awful, his going out actually helped the offense.

Woodson's absence was magnified by the moronic game plan Sanders put together. Wow, can't begin to fathom what he was thinking coming up with a game plan where TO could be isolated on Barnett or Hawk.

Confusion seemed to reign in the secondary w/o Woodson in there locking down one side of the field. I actually think Woodson might be a better matchup with TO than Harris b/c he's taller, has longer arms, and has easier acceleration than Harris.

We'll see em again.

[b bulldog]

I do think our secondary was more in tune with each other when Rouse and Bigby were the S's.

[The Leaper]

hARV, YOUR A TRUE hAWK LOVER AND THAT IS FINE BUT HE GAVE UP SOME BIG CATCHES IN COVERAGE AND IF YOY THINK THAT IS FINE, WHATEVER. Hawk was OK tonight, nothing special.

Bulldog.

How many LBs in the NFL can shut down Witten one-on-one?

Hawk played a very good game tonight. He was always around the ball, and was a force against the run. Witten torched him when the Packers left him on an island in the 2nd half...but 98% of NFL LBs would've been in the same boat.

[The Leaper]

I do think our secondary was more in tune with each other when Rouse and Bigby were the S's.

Hard not to be in tune against the Vikings and Lions.

[pbmax]

Collins looked healthy and OK, but not having seen that coverage before, I am not sure if it was safeties or just execution of a new scheme.

[b bulldog]

The Lions O isn't bad. Collins probably would have struggled.

[pbmax]

One thing I did like from McCarthy, sitting Woodson and KGB meant that he sees the bigger picture. And is not afraid to game it. Would have been easy to call all hands on deck and take a chance on ruining someone's season.

This game was important, but not the whole season.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Your hatred of Hawk makes me want to puke.


M.Barber up the middle to GB 33 for 2 yards (50-A.Hawk).

M.Barber up the middle to DAL 41 for -1 yards (50-A.Hawk).

T.Romo pass incomplete deep left to 82-J.Witten. Pass incomplete on curl at the Green Bay 42; Hawk closest defender.

T.Romo pass short right to 82-J.Witten to DAL 19 for -1 yards (50-A.Hawk).

T.Romo pass short right to 24-M.Barber to DAL 16 for -3 yards (50-A.Hawk).

M.Barber left tackle to DAL 41 for 4 yards (50-A.Hawk).

[Joemailman]

hARV, YOUR A TRUE hAWK LOVER AND THAT IS FINE BUT HE GAVE UP SOME BIG CATCHES IN COVERAGE AND IF YOY THINK THAT IS FINE, WHATEVER. Hawk was OK tonight, nothing special.

Little trouble with the Caps key Bulldog, or have you been drowning your sorrows? :wink:

[HarveyWallbangers]

In 6 of his previous 11 games, Witten scored a TD.
In 7 of his previous 11 games, Witten had at least 67 receiving yards.

Witten had 66 receiving yards and 0 TDs in this game. We did better than average against Witten. He's good. He wasn't the difference maker, at all.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

hARV, YOUR A TRUE hAWK LOVER AND THAT IS FINE BUT HE GAVE UP SOME BIG CATCHES IN COVERAGE AND IF YOY THINK THAT IS FINE, WHATEVER. Hawk was OK tonight, nothing special.

Bulldog.

How many LBs in the NFL can shut down Witten one-on-one?

Hawk played a very good game tonight. He was always around the ball, and was a force against the run. Witten torched him when the Packers left him on an island in the 2nd half...but 98% of NFL LBs would've been in the same boat.

Yeah, damn Hawk for not shutting down a pro bowl TE when his QB has ALL DAY to pass.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

In 6 of his previous 11 games, Witten scored a TD.
In 7 of his previous 11 games, Witten had at least 67 receiving yards.

Witten had 66 receiving yards and 0 TDs in this game. We did better than average against Witten. He's good. He wasn't the difference maker, at all.

Stop posting facts and stats.

They prove nothing. :roll:

[Cleft Crusty]

Harvey,

I saw just on bad play all night from Hawk, when he filled the wrong hole on a run. Hawk is the last guy you'd look to blame for this loss (well, maybe Jennings would be the last guy).

I disagree with those who think it was smart to play for the season, if that really was the consideration for inactivating Woodson and KGB. If they were at 80-90% or better they should have played. Win this game and you can rest them all the way through the Oakland game - for two and half weeks. Winning this game would put you a game up over Dallas with the tie breaker. It should have been an all out game.

[FritzDontBlitz]

wist said


Woodson's absence was magnified by the moronic game plan Sanders put together. Wow, can't begin to fathom what he was thinking coming up with a game plan where TO could be isolated on Barnett or Hawk.


Dude, I am in agreement there. I could see it if a corner or safety was assigned to blitz Romo. But I'm guessing they weren't.

I also agree that its idiotic to make Al Harris play zone when man is his specialty. Just knowing they were in zone lets me know that Bob Sanders was scared shitless about having so many inexperienced players in the secondary, but instead of hiding them by applying pressure he just sat them out there lin zone so they could be picked apart. Tell Sanders to quit reading Ed Donatell's playbook. "7 Cover Slice" is a sucky defense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harvey,

I saw just on bad play all night from Hawk, when he filled the wrong hole on a run. Hawk is the last guy you'd look to blame for this loss (well, maybe Jennings would be the last guy).

I saw that also, Cleft. He made a bad play there and got in the wrong lane. Giving up 2-3 catches to Witten is going to happen. He shut down the run, and made two very good plays in coverage on back-to-back plays in the 4th quarter, but Al Harris blew the coverage on a 3rd and 19 and Dallas converted. Possibly the biggest play in the game. What do you think Cleft?

[Cleft Crusty]

Harvey,

I saw just on bad play all night from Hawk, when he filled the wrong hole on a run. Hawk is the last guy you'd look to blame for this loss (well, maybe Jennings would be the last guy).

I saw that also, Cleft. He made a bad play there and got in the wrong lane. Giving up 2-3 catches to Witten is going to happen. He shut down the run, and made two very good plays in coverage on back-to-back plays in the 4th quarter, but Al Harris blew the coverage on a 3rd and 19 and Dallas converted. Possibly the biggest play in the game. What do you think Cleft?

Absolutely. Harris not only didn't cover well, he remained standing in the flat covering no one. Crayton had no one on him. I can't imagine what was going on in Harris' head on that one. That would have been a nice play to send Harris on a corner blitz.

[b bulldog]

Never blamed Hawk for the loss but if two tackles for a loss has him playing well I'd just like to point out that he gave up some big plays in coverage and than missed tackles afterwords. Hawk apologists :lol:

[b bulldog]

I thought the stats didn't matter when we talk about AJ :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hawk had a good night. I'm thinking only a bitter Wolverine fan wouldn't notice. How are Vernon Davis and Vince Young performing?

[FritzDontBlitz]

Harvey,

I saw just on bad play all night from Hawk, when he filled the wrong hole on a run. Hawk is the last guy you'd look to blame for this loss (well, maybe Jennings would be the last guy).

I disagree with those who think it was smart to play for the season, if that really was the consideration for inactivating Woodson and KGB. If they were at 80-90% or better they should have played. Win this game and you can rest them all the way through the Oakland game - for two and half weeks. Winning this game would put you a game up over Dallas with the tie breaker. It should have been an all out game.

Bingo. My sentiments exactly.

Also, after playing such a shitty game on the national stage we might have a bunch of shellshocked young DB's come playoff time. This is where I fault Bob Sanders and his lack of imagination. From what I was hearing leading up to the game I got the impression Woody was planning to play. Had it been me, I would have brought a compromise plan to M3 and Woody: we let him play, but he has to play safety rather than corner. That way, we have him as the ballhawking deep man, we keep him out of harm's way and we protect the young guys by having him watch their backs. The position isn't foreign to him, I just think Woody doesn't like the idea - but, if he really wanted to play I would have offered him that choice.

[b bulldog]

i never liked Davis, I liked Mario and I would still take Mario over hawk and Young, the ROY last season, is taking his lumps but as witnesses in the Denver game, he is progressing and has started playing better again. By the way, since you mentioned that draft class, how does it feel for your big, bad Hawk to be at best the fourth best LB in that class? Ryans is definitely better, Sims is definitely better and McINTOSH is better also. Best LB in the class :wink: :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Move Woodson to safety after he hasn't practiced all week, and wouldn't have had any practice at safety?
:crazy: :D

[b bulldog]

Oh yeah, look at the stats :lol:

[Joemailman]

The decision not to play Woodson was made after the teams went through their warmups. I wonder if the decision to play zone was made at the same time. There really did seem to be a lot of confusion in the secondary for the first time this year.

[HarveyWallbangers]

i never liked Davis, I liked Mario and I would still take Mario over hawk and Young, the ROY last season, is taking his lumps but as witnesses in the Denver game, he is progressing and has started playing better again. By the way, since you mentioned that draft class, how does it feel for your big, bad Hawk to be at best the fourth best LB in that class? Ryans is definitely better, Sims is definitely better and McINTOSH is better also. Best LB in the class :wink: :lol:

I think McIntosh is better. I'm not sure about Ryans. He plays on an awful defense... led by some guy who hasn't shown much since getting picked #1 last year. Hawk is better than Sims. Vince Young blows goat. 5 TDs and 14 inteceptions this year.

[b bulldog]

Sims is way better and if you can't see it your ignorant. 91 tackles, 1 sack, 2 ff and 1 pic, ggod one Harv :oops: Your boy may be better than Greenway but that may be open for debate. Ryans is also way better. Your wrong, you mentioned stats in regards to Whitten, look at the stats for the LB's :lol: Larinitas will be overrated also at this level

[HarveyWallbangers]

To be honest, Mario is playing better and still has a shot at being a good NFL player. That defense is still horrible. I'm starting to think I was correct about Vince Young being a taller Mike Vick. He throws the ball horribly. Like he's throwing a shot put. Teams adjust to the running.

[HarveyWallbangers]

We'll see how Sims does against Witten next week... at Detroit. I'm sure he's a real difference maker on a defense that gives up 25 points and 365 yards/game. That's after giving up 25 points and 346 yards/game last year. Kind of funny that they only gave up 21 points and 322 yards/game the year before adding him.

[b bulldog]

You think I have this big hangup for the Buck's who are in the NFL, I don't at all. I like some and dislike others. I will say this, like USC, when players are surrounded by talent at the college level, a lot of people think the players are better than what they are because everyone around them is so talented. I bet Hawk will never be a great LB and will struggle to ever make it to a probowl.

[b bulldog]

look at his stats, he makes plays. try to BS it all you want but he makes plays. Detroit does have a woeful D but they will most likely be addressing that in future drafts since they have been addressing the O in recent drafts.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You think I have this big hangup for the Buck's who are in the NFL, I don't at all. I like some and dislike others. I will say this, like USC, when players are surrounded by talent at the college level, a lot of people think the players are better than what they are because everyone around them is so talented. I bet Hawk will never be a great LB and will struggle to ever make it to a probowl.

Doesn't take away from the fact that he's a good NFL starter. I bet Hawk will be better than Vince Young. He's better than Mario Williams up to this point.

[HarveyWallbangers]

look at his stats, he makes plays. try to BS it all you want but he makes plays. Detroit does have a woeful D but they will most likely be addressing that in future drafts since they have been addressing the O in recent drafts.

He makes plays? He has 1.5 sacks, 1 interception, 2 forced fumbles, and 4 pass deflections in 27 NFL games. Hawk has 3 sacks, 3 interceptions, 2 forced fumbles, and 11 pass deflections. You can talk about tackles, but Bates' scheme caters to the MLB--even then Hawk had more tackles than Barnett last year and that hasn't happened in any other year of Barnett's career. Not often you'll see a WLB have more tackles than a MLB in this scheme. Hawk's played very well for about the last 4-5 games... or about the time you started ripping him. Keep doing it.

[Partial]

The top 10 of the 2006 draft looked amazing before the draft, solid in its first year, and brutal thus far this year. Huff doesn't play, Bunkley is OK, Leinart wasn't playing full-time before he got hurt, Sims looks to be solid, Hawk looks to be solid, Davis looks like a bust, Ferguson looked unimpressive against Dallas last week, Young is having a terrible year, Bush isn't accomplishing anything, and Williams looks god awful this far. That safety from Buffalo is pretty good from waht I hear but I haven't seen him closely.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The top 10 of the 2006 draft looked amazing before the draft, solid in its first year, and brutal thus far this year. Huff doesn't play, Bunkley is OK, Leinart wasn't playing full-time before he got hurt, Sims looks to be solid, Hawk looks to be solid, Davis looks like a bust, Ferguson looked unimpressive against Dallas last week, Young is having a terrible year, Bush isn't accomplishing anything, and Williams looks god awful this far. That safety from Buffalo is pretty good from waht I hear but I haven't seen him closely.

Williams is actually improving. Right now, I'd take Mario, Hawk, and then Sims or Bush in a re-do. Donte Whitner is the safety--an Ohio State product that drew near universal criticism when Buffalo drafted him. He's been okay. Probably amongst the top half of players from that top 10. Huff plays, and he's been decent too. Neither safety makes many big plays. None of these guys have played at Pro Bowl level, but that's not unusual. Give them another year or two and let's see where they stand.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Harvey,

I saw just on bad play all night from Hawk, when he filled the wrong hole on a run. Hawk is the last guy you'd look to blame for this loss (well, maybe Jennings would be the last guy).

I disagree with those who think it was smart to play for the season, if that really was the consideration for inactivating Woodson and KGB. If they were at 80-90% or better they should have played. Win this game and you can rest them all the way through the Oakland game - for two and half weeks. Winning this game would put you a game up over Dallas with the tie breaker. It should have been an all out game.

McCarthy at his postgame press conference:

(Is Woodson close?)
He is close. It was a decision made, basically, because we have a lot of football left. If this was a playoff game, Charles would have been out there tonight.

We'll see how this decision plays out in the next four games. McCarthy can't have it both ways. If protecting Woodson from injury is so valuable, why allow him to return punts? In another question from his postgame press conference McCarthy said:

(How difficult was this loss?)
I look at it as an opportunity that we didn't take advantage of. We're 10-2. That tells you exactly where we are. They're a good football team. This game may affect the playoff seed. That's fine but we still have a lot of football left. I think you need to keep it in perspective there and we have as a football team. We're disappointed because this is an environment that we have not played in as a young football team. I thought it was very important for us to come in and win this football game because we will be playing in a lot of championship atmospheres as we move forward. This is an opportunity that we need to learn from this because we did not play our best football tonight.

More double-speak? If it was "very important" to win this game, why sit Woodson? Maybe we didn't play our "best football" because we didn't play our best players.

Is the goal of this team really to win the Super Bowl? If so, McCarthy just underestimated (in my opinion) the value of home field advantage throughout in the playoffs. Something like the last three NFC Super Bowl representatives had home field all the way. It's difficult to win without it.

On the other hand...

I think the Packers can go back into Dallas and beat the Cowboys in the playoffs assuming the Pack is healthier than it is now. Maybe McCarthy was doing the right thing considering this is a very young and inexperienced team. They needed to experience the big game atmosphere and they probably needed to experience a tough loss in a big game in order to gain perspective and the will not to let it happen again. I don't think McCarthy's purpose was to have them lose -- a win would have been huge, but I do think McCarthy feels a loss ain't the end of the world and may help them in a return match with Dallas or whoever.

[RashanGary]

Everyone doom and glooming about the secondary needs to remember 1 thing "ROMO HAD ALL DAY". With those weapons, someone is eventually going to get open. The problem today was our Dline didn't get pressure on the QB.

We'll have another game and we'll have all of our dlineman. Let's see how that goes. I don't want to say Dallas can have this, but if we win the next one, this one won't matter. There is no way Dallas can be healthier than they were tonight. They had a couple football bruises, but everyone who is going to play for the rest of the season was with them tonight. Next time we face them, we have an oppertunity to have 3 very valuable defenders on our side. Two dlineman that when added to our other 4, make it possible to have a consistant pass rush and run stopping unit and our best corner. I think it's far from determined who is going to be the NFC rep in the superbowl.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Everyone doom and glooming about the secondary needs to remember 1 thing "ROMO HAD ALL DAY". With those weapons, someone is eventually going to get open. The problem today was our Dline didn't get pressure on the QB.

We'll have another game and we'll have all of our dlineman. Let's see how that goes. I don't want to say Dallas can have this, but if we win the next one, this one won't matter. There is no way Dallas can be healthier than they were tonight. They had a couple football bruises, but everyone who is going to play for the rest of the season was with them tonight. Next time we face them, we have an oppertunity to have 3 very valuable defenders on our side. Two dlineman that when added to our other 4, make it possible to have a consistant pass rush and run stopping unit and our best corner. I think it's far from determined who is going to be the NFC rep in the superbowl.

I agree with everything you said except I don't know if our d-line -- even when it's healthy -- is enough by itself to put adequate pressure on Romo. I really do think that in a rematch we have to pay attention to what New England did against the Cowgirls and design some creative blitz/stunt packages. Bigby, Collins, Barnett, Poppinga and Rouse (especially) can blitz in situations. When Woodson is back I'd even send him on occasion.

Why keep all the guys mentioned above back in the secondary if they can't cover anyway? Wouldn't they be more valuable blitzing, with the exception of Barnett?

[swede]

I blame McCarthy for taking a risky field goal shot with five minutes left and an inch to go for first down. The field goal did nothing but put Dallas back in the driver's seat to eat time and score. A touchdown would have put a lot more psychological pressure on Dallas.

By the time we got to that point in the game it was clear that the offense would be the key to winning--not the D.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Once again, Swede, ditto. This was a learning experience for McCarthy too. I felt his second challenge was a waste. Even though he won the challenge, Dallas still got the ball deep in Packer territory. He could have used that challenge on the play you mentioned. I thought Ryan Grant had that first down and I think a challenge would have been successful. The inch short was bogus.

[The Leaper]

look at his stats, he makes plays.

Who cares?

Is Sims' defense any good? Does he make it better, or improved it in any way since he arrived?

The stats say not really. He's a big hitter. He plays well against the run. He's much more of a liability in man coverage than Hawk is, although he can be OK if he's just sitting in zone covering underneath stuff. Sims hasn't proven to be any more of a playmaker than Hawk either.

Sims gets more tackles than Hawk because he plays on a defense with fewer good players...so he can pile up stats more easily, even though the defense itself shows no improvement because of it. Hawk has to fight to get his tackles from Barnett and Woodson...who are both around the ball a lot in the middle of the field.

[The Leaper]

Once again, Swede, ditto. This was a learning experience for McCarthy too. I felt his second challenge was a waste. Even though he won the challenge, Dallas still got the ball deep in Packer territory. He could have used that challenge on the play you mentioned. I thought Ryan Grant had that first down and I think a challenge would have been successful. The inch short was bogus.

I didn't mind the second challenge. It was a good one to slow the Cowboys momentum on a key drive.

The boneheaded challenge was the first one. There is no point in challenging a 15 yard catch in the first 5 minutes of the game.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Leaper, I respectfully disagree. The first challenge had the potential of turning the reception into a turnover. I don't think McCarthy would have challenged the reception if getting a turnover out of it wasn't part of the possibilities.

[The Leaper]

Leaper, I respectfully disagree. The first challenge had the potential of turning the reception into a turnover. I don't think McCarthy would have challenged the reception if getting a turnover out of it wasn't part of the possibilities.

McCarthy could not challenge change of possession...because of the refs ruling that Owens forward progress was stopped.

The challenge on that first play was simply whether or not it was a catch. Even had we won that challenge, we would not have gotten the ball.

The first challenge was a HUGE error.

[Bossman641]

Leaper, I respectfully disagree. The first challenge had the potential of turning the reception into a turnover. I don't think McCarthy would have challenged the reception if getting a turnover out of it wasn't part of the possibilities.

Wrong

Once forward progress has been called on the field you cannot challenge the turnover. No matter what, there is no way that we could have ended up with the ball in that situation.

The refs were challenging to see if TO even had possession long enough to call it a reception. The best situation we could have gotten there is that they call it no catch and it's second down.

Dumb challenge, I think MM was confused as to what he was challenging. You don't challenge a 15 yard catch that early in the game.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Let's see the post title is "Favre disappoints" and now we are arguing if Sims or Hawk is the better four letter LB.

Favre made piss poor decisions last night. He had underneath guys open, but he chose to go for the big haymaker early. Sure, MM may have put in a deep passing gameplan, but it's up to Favre to make the correct decision on where to throw it. Favre choked.

[mmmdk]

Favre was bad last night but I see fling of hope for a possible second meeting with Dallas. Why? Favre had to watch Rodgers outplay him at Dallas; that's gotta have him fired up, right!?

But let's get that division crown and 1st round bye locked up first. Then we have to beat who ever comes to Lambeau THEN we might meet Dallas again...at Dallas.

[Chester Marcol]

I watch our team methodically pick apart defenses and march the ball down the field. 9 times out of 10, we win those games. Hell, 10 times out of 11. Against most teams, we were able to move the ball down the field and consume clock. Against the VIkings, that meant keeping the ball away from Pederson. Even if we had the deep ball working, how on earth did we think we could win a shootout against the Cowboys without Woodson and Baja in the game. We needed to keep the ball out of Romo's hands. Especially with TO making everyone, including Harris, look like they were pissing in the wind.

It would be like Lombardi shelving the sweep. Do what you do best until the opposing teams prove they can stop you. We have the best YAC and yet we were airing it out. Favre is getting burried, yet we are calling plays that require Favre to hold onto the ball. McCarthy is getting credit for keeping Favre under control. Well, if Favre has a play called to go deep, do you really think he wants to check out of that play? It's on McCarthy to see we need to get the ball out quicker and take our shots later. Kind of like what's worked for us all season.

I never felt this game would decide who goes to the Super Bowl. We can win anywhere. It most likely has killed any MVP talk for Favre and will put a ding in McCarthy's chance at coach of the year. Not that either of those matter as much as learning from this debacle and coming back stronger. But for now, this loss is on McCarthy for not letting the team do what they do best until it was to late.