Improve This Article: Reasons Packers Retreated To 6-10

[pbmax]

I watched the games and found this to be the biggest problem. This team is soft when it matters and can't stomp on the throat of the enemy. They can take them to the ground but are too gutless to finish the job.

Please give me an example of a player being gutless on the team. Please give me an example of a player being soft. Otherwise, this is a bland generalization of an emotional reaction to losing a game. This does not tell me why they lost, just how someone felt about it. You need to break this down to a finite act, something we can observe and measure. Otherwise its just announcer twaddle that sounds convincing because you are finding fault with the team that lost. It tells us nothing about WHY. Did Hawk struggle because he soft or injured? Did Pickett struggle because he suddenly became soft, injured, or without adequate help at the other DT?

My beef with the team is the lack of mental toughness, which is a reflection on the coach.

Please show me a concrete example, a finite one, of mental toughness. Or the lack thereof. Did Tramon Williams struggle after going back to the nickel spot because of toughness? Where did you see it?

his play calling with the lead could provide some doubt.

This gives us something to work with. But it has nothing to do with toughness or softness or aggression. The strategy used works most of the time. There is a reason people as diverse as Bill Parcells, Belicheck, Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs and Mike Holmgren have used it. Tell me why it failed with McCarthy and the 08 Packers, don't just remind me that it did.

Unless you can point to the event on the field, these are just emotionalisms. Provide us with something specific, more than the fact that the Packers were getting outscored in the 4th quarter. Why did it happen?

[pbmax]

Waldo, I think the comment you are critiquing belongs to wist and not Justin H.

But I think both Waldo and wist are right, and the reason is the fifth round. A team drafting for pass rush at end in the fifth round cannot be choosers, but beggars. You take the best that is left. That Jeremy Thompson has a role in the 3-4 probably has less to do with Ted committing to the 3-4 a year early, and more to do with best player available. Much the same as Kampman. Neither look ideal as 4-3 ends compared to higher round prospects, but each had skills that could be developed. Better skills than the players left at their draft position, regardless of body type.

[Scott Campbell]

Waldo, I think the comment you are critiquing belongs to wist and not Justin H.

But I think both Waldo and wist are right, and the reason is the fifth round. A team drafting for pass rush at end in the fifth round cannot be choosers, but beggars. You take the best that is left. That Jeremy Thompson has a role in the 3-4 probably has less to do with Ted committing to the 3-4 a year early, and more to do with best player available. Much the same as Kampman. Neither look ideal as 4-3 ends compared to higher round prospects, but each had skills that could be developed. Better skills than the players left at their draft position, regardless of body type.

Didn't the Packers trade up to take Thompson in the 4th?

Not that it changes your point, which I agree with.

[pbmax]

Waldo, I think the comment you are critiquing belongs to wist and not Justin H.

But I think both Waldo and wist are right, and the reason is the fifth round. A team drafting for pass rush at end in the fifth round cannot be choosers, but beggars. You take the best that is left. That Jeremy Thompson has a role in the 3-4 probably has less to do with Ted committing to the 3-4 a year early, and more to do with best player available. Much the same as Kampman. Neither look ideal as 4-3 ends compared to higher round prospects, but each had skills that could be developed. Better skills than the players left at their draft position, regardless of body type.

Didn't the Packers trade up to take Thompson in the 4th?

Not that it changes your point, which I agree with.

Yep, my mistake, I read the draft chart wrong.

[Scott Campbell]

Yep, my mistake, I read the draft chart wrong.

It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't the 2007 draft guru.

[pbmax]

Yep, my mistake, I read the draft chart wrong.

It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't the 2007 draft guru.

My title covers the first round only.

[falco]

At one point in the season, Ryan was ranked right at the bottom in the major statistics. Not sure how he finished out.

Maybe you could look that up falco? You were never on board with Jon Ryan as I recall.

GO PACKERS!

This is too funny. In other thread, you said that I was a poster with an axe to grind and a long and selective memory. I didn't post back, because I was at work, but couldn't figure out what the heck you were talking about, since you and I have never really exchanged words.

Then I read this post and remembered that at one point in time you had flipped out at back at JSO (ca 2005?) because I made a joke about Jon Ryan being Canadian. For the record, I was never against him, but you seemed to lash out at me regardless.

And yet, I am the one with the long memory...

[falco]

I think it would be fair to say injuries and a lack of depth on D caused our downfall. We just didn't have the depth on the d-line to rotate guys, and despite our secondary that just rocked the house the first half of the year, our d-line broke down in the second half of games.

[Partial]

I watched the games and found this to be the biggest problem. This team is soft when it matters and can't stomp on the throat of the enemy. They can take them to the ground but are too gutless to finish the job.

Please give me an example of a player being gutless on the team. Please give me an example of a player being soft. Otherwise, this is a bland generalization of an emotional reaction to losing a game. This does not tell me why they lost, just how someone felt about it. You need to break this down to a finite act, something we can observe and measure. Otherwise its just announcer twaddle that sounds convincing because you are finding fault with the team that lost. It tells us nothing about WHY. Did Hawk struggle because he soft or injured? Did Pickett struggle because he suddenly became soft, injured, or without adequate help at the other DT?

My beef with the team is the lack of mental toughness, which is a reflection on the coach.

Please show me a concrete example, a finite one, of mental toughness. Or the lack thereof. Did Tramon Williams struggle after going back to the nickel spot because of toughness? Where did you see it?

his play calling with the lead could provide some doubt.

This gives us something to work with. But it has nothing to do with toughness or softness or aggression. The strategy used works most of the time. There is a reason people as diverse as Bill Parcells, Belicheck, Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs and Mike Holmgren have used it. Tell me why it failed with McCarthy and the 08 Packers, don't just remind me that it did.

Unless you can point to the event on the field, these are just emotionalisms. Provide us with something specific, more than the fact that the Packers were getting outscored in the 4th quarter. Why did it happen?

That raises the question of why does anything happen? How can anyone quantify anything like that.

[Lurker64]

That raises the question of why does anything happen? How can anyone quantify anything like that.

There are reasons that you believe the things you do. You claim that the Packers went 6-10 because they weren't mentally tough and displayed poor second half play calling, so you apparently believe that. Now potentially your reason for believing this is "they went 6-10 and they're talented, so it's got to be something..." in which case this is circular reasoning; the Packers did not go 6-10 because they went 6-10.

But if there's something else to it, if you have specific reasons that you believe what you claim to believe, and specific examples that reinforce your beliefs, we would love to hear it. At the very least, it would dispell all doubts that your reasoning is circular.

After all, if the Packers truly lacked mental toughness, someone else who watched the same games you did should be able to spot this if you informed them what "lack of mental toughness" looks like.

[Administrator]

To the OP - I've split the non-football related stuff out of this topic. You can find it in a similar named thread in the Romper Room.


To everyone - Back to a good discussion.

[Waldo]

That raises the question of why does anything happen? How can anyone quantify anything like that.

Often there is no why. The Carolina game is a perfect example. Try to wrap your head around reasons for that lost, and you are left spinning your wheels looking for something that doesn't exist. You must face the reality that the ball bounced the wrong way for the Packers, that 5 or so critical plays in that game near the end had to happen exactly like they did for Carolina to win. In 100 iterations of the same events, with the same teams, those 5 plays would likely have the same results that lead to the Carolina win easily a single digit % of the time.

The first bomb to S Smith, beating good double coverage. Perfect throw, spectacular catch.

The stuff of the RB's 2 plays in a row on the 1, including the fullback dive, which had worked nearly flawlessly to that point all season for getting a yard.

The second bomb to S Smith, beating good double coverage with Wood in primary coverage, and it was darn good coverage. Again Delhomme threw 50 yards on the money, and Smith hauled in a very difficult catch.

Aaron's int by Beason. That was a spectacular int by Beason, the throw was money for Driver, LB's aren't supposed to even be able to break up plays like that, much less intercept them. Few WR's would have caught that ball the way he did (Jones is the only Packer I would have confidence catching it), and he is a LB. High point catching a ball at full extension at full jumping height is incredibly difficult.

Any one of those plays go differently and there is a good chance that GB wins. No matter what you want to say about "killer instinct" or "gutless" or whatever, the ball just didn't bounce our way.

There is no why. It just happens sometimes, there is nothing that anybody can do about it.

[Scott Campbell]

In 100 iterations of the same events, with the same teams, those 5 plays would likely have the same results that lead to the Carolina win easily a single digit % of the time.

Amen to that. How many times out of 100 would we have beaten Philly in the 4th and 26 game?

There's nothing more painful to me than to lose one that we should have won.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I'm going to dip into the TexasPackerBacker's playbook:

Injuries. Every team has 'em, sure. No doubt. However, to lose Jenkins and Barnett and to have AJ Hawk and Atari Bigby playing one-armed or one-legged is a lot to overcome.

I'm still glad that Sanders got fired (no glad in terms of wishing him ill), but I do think that maybe 8-8 or perhaps - perhaps - 9-7 was possible if injuries had not played such a major role.

Well, if Mason Crosby makes two kicks(vs. Bears & Vikings), they would have been 8-8. Not blaming him for the losses mind you, but it does show you this team wasn't as bad as the 6-10 record indicates.

Seriously dude you have to let this line of thinking go. Missed FGs? That's football. I could just as easily say the Vikings were a missed FG away from sweeping the pack last year. I could point out a handful of plays that, had they been different by only inches would have resulted in many more wins for the Vikings, or any othe team.

[Waldo]

I'm going to dip into the TexasPackerBacker's playbook:

Injuries. Every team has 'em, sure. No doubt. However, to lose Jenkins and Barnett and to have AJ Hawk and Atari Bigby playing one-armed or one-legged is a lot to overcome.

I'm still glad that Sanders got fired (no glad in terms of wishing him ill), but I do think that maybe 8-8 or perhaps - perhaps - 9-7 was possible if injuries had not played such a major role.

Well, if Mason Crosby makes two kicks(vs. Bears & Vikings), they would have been 8-8. Not blaming him for the losses mind you, but it does show you this team wasn't as bad as the 6-10 record indicates.

Seriously dude you have to let this line of thinking go. Missed FGs? That's football. I could just as easily say the Vikings were a missed FG away from sweeping the pack last year. I could point out a handful of plays that, had they been different by only inches would have resulted in many more wins for the Vikings, or any othe team.

That right there is why close games are nothing more than.....



When all that takes place on the field is considered, random chance moreso than anything else decides the outcome, it cannot be replicated, long term consistent success or failure cannot be sustained, it is what it is, the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 for most teams is nothing more than a little luck.

No coach can bring it, they cannot teach it, try as they might, no special "clutch" players can do it consistently. A team may get hot or cold for a year or two, but as the picture gets wider, the "clutch" factor disappears into nothingness. Fans want to assign why to things. There is no why, it is just the way the game is. Football is a game of skill and a game of luck.