We'll get that fixed

[Freak Out]

That was more like a fullback trip.

A pool salesman would go with fullback flop.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: We'll get that fixed

^^^^^^^ Dumb and Dumber

If I were you gex, I wouldn't be commenting on anyone else’s intelligence.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty...

RE: Mason Crosby...It IS a big deal. If Crosby booms the kick deep into the end zone, maybe Harvin doesn't come out with it and, more than likely, the Vikes don't wind up with choice field position. On the last kickoff, Stubby said Mason slipped. He was supposed to hit a ground ball. I'm curious is all. The ball sailed like hell on the 51 yard field goal miss, so I'm thinking there's nothing wrong with his leg.

What part of LEGITIMATE QUESTION didn't you understand?

I'm just trying to figure out MM's kickoff strategy. If I had to choose between Crosby booming one into the end zone or kicking a ground ball to the 35 yard line, I choose the boomer.

Ok. And?

RE: Jolly incident...I'm not saying MM should have benched Jolly for the rest of the game, just a series or two. And I don't give a damn how valuable the guy is or how much better he is than everyone else. By his actions and comments after the game, Jolly is basically saying he doesn't give a rip what coach thinks. And that kind of thing has a more destructive effect on the team than sitting out a few plays.

You are now changing your story. Ok.

See, it is very easy for me to then say, "what kind of discipline is it to have him sit out a series or two. Doesn't teach him anything."

And, judging someone from a presser or comments made after a bad loss is really stupid.

Lastly, you don't know what is more destructive. Nor do you even know how the team feels about jolly. They may already know he is a knucklehead.

Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe nowadays head coaches have to worry about players' hurt feelings, damaged pride or diminished self-esteem or the players won't perform at a high level. What garbage!

Yeah, it is garbage. Another one of your value judgements.

Stop living in the past. The players today arent' the same. The coaches today arent' the same. The owners arent' the same. The money isn't the same.


... ..."Humiliating him [Jolly] in front of the whole team?" Are you kidding me? Is Jolly that much of a prima donna? Has MM lost that much control of his team?

Oh, you are a prima dona for not wanting to be humiliated in front of your fellow employees and on national TV. Listen up General Patton, NOBODY likes being humiliated.

Do you consider the effects of doing that? Some players may like or appreciate it, but i PROMISE you that plenty on the pack won't, they will lose respect for the staff..and plenty of other players on other teams will take note when it comes to FA.

Control of the team? Dude, you have some funny ideas of what is needed for control.

In my judgement, MM needed to show some fire, to show some passion. If he doesn't show positive emotion, than guys like Jolly show negative emotion and that is not good.

Ok. Your opinion. Baseless, but it is yours. Chuck Noll didn't show emotion. Landry didn't show much emotion, etc.

What is hilarious is that if MM showed emotion and they lost you and others would be screaming about "MM has this team on an emotional roller coaster. He needs to be more even keeled."

RE: MM not liking confrontation...It's only my opinion based on observing these managerial types over the years. I could be wrong.

Dude, I guarantee you that in order to get to this position in life MM had to do plenty of confronting.

RE: MM's running game or lack thereoff...How many times did we run the ball in the first half? Five? And because we didn't gain a ton of yards on those five attempts, you write the running game off as a failure? If that's the case, you don't understand why teams need to run the ball. After we rush the ball 25 or 30 times a game, then talk to me about whether or not the rushing game is successful.

No. I didn't write it off. If it was only 5 times then according to the stats we musta run 14 times in the 2nd half..cause the box shows 19 rushes. LOL

Look, ty is trying to be respectful towards you, but when you can't even get the BASICS right, it is hard. We rushed 5 times in the FIRST QUARTER.

The fact is that we tried running in the first half and it wasn't successful. We have tried running all year and it has RARELY been successful..and certainly not against good teams.

And, i get why you want to run..and why it is important. However that doesn't mean you can't win without doing things your way. Plenty of teams have won without a strong running game. You might want to review the first couple of years with Holmgren..and even in his most successful he didn't like running. Andy Reid prefers to pass, etc.

Yes, on that key drive with six minutes or so left I was calling for the run and I'm not nuts. Running (or short dump off passes, dinks and dunks) have a high percentage of gaining positive yards. They keep the defense honest. We had the Vikes on their heels at that point. We were punishing them physically and emotionally. Then MM goes for the quick strike.

Ty sees. We have scored repeatedly and doing what has worked we get to the 35. Damn MM.

By your own admission we had them on their heels. How did we get that situation? Somehow we did it without running and dinking and dunking. Do you not see the HUGE gap in your logic? LOL

Your point is foolish. You go with what is working. You also don't know what MM called vs. what Arod chose to to do. And, i dont' believe MM called for the line to whiff on Allen.

Rushing the ball for sure runs time off the clock so Favre gets the ball with less time. We got back in the game with shorter passes and YAC. Rodgers got sacked trying to throw a home run ball.

Rushing, if you can runs time off. If you cant'...we are still losing. Which woulda happened.


You say Packers will never be a running team with MM, Grant and our OL. Then MM himself is delusional because he CONSTANTLY says the Packers are a rushing team first! All I'm saying is: "NO THEY AREN'T. SO, MM, STOP SAYING THEY ARE!"

MM pays lip service. We will never be a run first team. Do you believe everything people say. Geez, show some ability to determine when someone is blowing smoke up your ass.

Find the quotes where MM says we are a rushing team first. I would be most interested in them.


Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the LACK of rushing attempts negatively affects the performance of the OL and Grant? A 90% pass attack puts the OL into a position to fail, not succeed.

Nice Hyperbole on the 90%, you are really bolstering your argument. Yeah, it is now the lack of attempts that is stopping our line. It couldn't be that they aren't very good, lack experience, or that CC or Tausch arent' what they use to be.

RE: Getting personal....Ty should learn that calling people "nuts" IS getting personal and is NOT a valid argument.

Asking the question isn't calling you nuts. And, funny you don't someone getting personal...when half your arguments about MM are personal.

[bobblehead]

Re: We'll get that fixed

What will Stubby fix this week? Will it get fixed? What will the Packers still suck at following the Tampa game? What will be improved?

^^^^^^^ Dumb and Dumber

heh, first thing I noticed is you pointed up towards your avatar.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Ty...

RE: Mason Crosby...It IS a big deal. If Crosby booms the kick deep into the end zone, maybe Harvin doesn't come out with it and, more than likely, the Vikes don't wind up with choice field position. On the last kickoff, Stubby said Mason slipped. He was supposed to hit a ground ball. I'm curious is all. The ball sailed like hell on the 51 yard field goal miss, so I'm thinking there's nothing wrong with his leg.

What part of LEGITIMATE QUESTION didn't you understand?

This part: "Problem in relation to other issues. Small."

I'm just trying to figure out MM's kickoff strategy. If I had to choose between Crosby booming one into the end zone or kicking a ground ball to the 35 yard line, I choose the boomer.

Ok. And?

See Patler's answer in another thread.

RE: Jolly incident...I'm not saying MM should have benched Jolly for the rest of the game, just a series or two. And I don't give a damn how valuable the guy is or how much better he is than everyone else. By his actions and comments after the game, Jolly is basically saying he doesn't give a rip what coach thinks. And that kind of thing has a more destructive effect on the team than sitting out a few plays.

You are now changing your story. Ok.

I didn't change my story. Ty ASSumed and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

See, it is very easy for me to then say, "what kind of discipline is it to have him sit out a series or two. Doesn't teach him anything."

I see. Maxie don't know how the team feels, but Ty does. Ty sounds like the type of kid who threw a tantrum in the grocery store and was never slapped upside the head for it.

And, judging someone from a presser or comments made after a bad loss is really stupid.

Ty's response isn't a value judgement? Ty isn't getting personal here? What evidence does Ty have that McCarthy is insincere or a liar?

Lastly, you don't know what is more destructive. Nor do you even know how the team feels about jolly. They may already know he is a knucklehead.

Yes. I don't know, which I freely admit, but apparently Ty thinks he does know. Then again, does it take a knucklehead to know a knucklehead?

Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe nowadays head coaches have to worry about players' hurt feelings, damaged pride or diminished self-esteem or the players won't perform at a high level. What garbage!

Yeah, it is garbage. Another one of your value judgements.

I got an idea: Let's change the rules of this forum and ban value judgements. We could then discuss recipes or the techniques of basket-weaving about which I'm sure Ty knows a lot.

Stop living in the past. The players today arent' the same. The coaches today arent' the same. The owners arent' the same. The money isn't the same.

The the number of Packers' championship titles is not the same either. :P

... ..."Humiliating him [Jolly] in front of the whole team?" Are you kidding me? Is Jolly that much of a prima donna? Has MM lost that much control of his team?

Oh, you are a prima dona for not wanting to be humiliated in front of your fellow employees and on national TV. Listen up General Patton, NOBODY likes being humiliated.

If nobody likes it, then maybe the threat of doing it will motivate these nobodies to refrain from their modern, childlike, tantrum-throwing behaviors.

Do you consider the effects of doing that? Some players may like or appreciate it, but i PROMISE you that plenty on the pack won't, they will lose respect for the staff..and plenty of other players on other teams will take note when it comes to FA.

Again, Ty the mentalist knows but I don't. Ty can make value judgements, I can't. Is Ty nuts? Or is Ty merely a moron?

Control of the team? Dude, you have some funny ideas of what is needed for control.

They're not funny ideas. They're tried and true motivational techniques. They're merely forgotten by the Dr. Spock generation.

In my judgement, MM needed to show some fire, to show some passion. If he doesn't show positive emotion, than guys like Jolly show negative emotion and that is not good.

Ok. Your opinion. Baseless, but it is yours. Chuck Noll didn't show emotion. Landry didn't show much emotion, etc.

Don Shula showed emotion. Jimmy Johnson showed emotion. Bill Parcells showed emotion. Vince Lombardi showed emotion. Ty must learn that correlation is not cause.

What is hilarious is that if MM showed emotion and they lost you and others would be screaming about "MM has this team on an emotional roller coaster. He needs to be more even keeled."

This is what Ty usually refers to as a "red herring." Ty must learn to recognize colored fish in his own posts.

RE: MM not liking confrontation...It's only my opinion based on observing these managerial types over the years. I could be wrong.

Dude, I guarantee you that in order to get to this position in life MM had to do plenty of confronting.

Ty guarantees? Oh, sorry. If Ty guarantees, then what Ty says must be true -- baseless or not. Ty must learn that arguments appealing to authority confront logic.

RE: MM's running game or lack thereoff...How many times did we run the ball in the first half? Five? And because we didn't gain a ton of yards on those five attempts, you write the running game off as a failure? If that's the case, you don't understand why teams need to run the ball. After we rush the ball 25 or 30 times a game, then talk to me about whether or not the rushing game is successful.

No. I didn't write it off. If it was only 5 times then according to the stats we musta run 14 times in the 2nd half..cause the box shows 19 rushes. LOL

19 rushes? Does Ty know that includes 5 scrambles by Rodgers? Box score shows Packers rushed 9 times in the first half (not including 2 scrambles by Rodgers). Now if Ty knows math, that means Packers rushed 5 times in the second half. Ty needs to brush up on math and to learn how to read a box score.

Look, ty is trying to be respectful towards you, but when you can't even get the BASICS right, it is hard. We rushed 5 times in the FIRST QUARTER.

Ty needs to try harder.

The fact is that we tried running in the first half and it wasn't successful. We have tried running all year and it has RARELY been successful..and certainly not against good teams.

Ty needs to define terms. "Successful" in what regard?

And, i get why you want to run..and why it is important. However that doesn't mean you can't win without doing things your way. Plenty of teams have won without a strong running game. You might want to review the first couple of years with Holmgren..and even in his most successful he didn't like running. Andy Reid prefers to pass, etc.

See above re: coaches that show emotion. Does Ty care to argue that the king of dinks and dunks, Mike Holmgren, could have been "successful" without a certain running back named Dorsey Levens?

Yes, on that key drive with six minutes or so left I was calling for the run and I'm not nuts. Running (or short dump off passes, dinks and dunks) have a high percentage of gaining positive yards. They keep the defense honest. We had the Vikes on their heels at that point. We were punishing them physically and emotionally. Then MM goes for the quick strike.

Ty sees. We have scored repeatedly and doing what has worked we get to the 35. Damn MM.

Ty forgets my point: YAC got us to the 35.

By your own admission we had them on their heels. How did we get that situation? Somehow we did it without running and dinking and dunking. Do you not see the HUGE gap in your logic? LOL

The passing game is useful at times. I freely admit that. Though we weren't chucking a lot of those passes deep downfield. Can Ty spell Spencer Havner? Does Ty know what YAC means?!!

Your point is foolish. You go with what is working. You also don't know what MM called vs. what Arod chose to to do. And, i dont' believe MM called for the line to whiff on Allen.

Kind of hard for the line to whiff on Allen if they had been running right at Allen, as I recommend. Ty can't know what MM called either. That's why we speculate in this forum. With all due respect, Ty's point is idiotic and fatuous.

Rushing the ball for sure runs time off the clock so Favre gets the ball with less time. We got back in the game with shorter passes and YAC. Rodgers got sacked trying to throw a home run ball.

Rushing, if you can runs time off. If you cant'...we are still losing. Which woulda happened.

Ty needs to listen and learn. We KNOW what happened. Packers lost. We CAN'T KNOW what "woulda" happened. We CAN only speculate what might have changed the outcome of the game. [This is basic epistemology. Ty must have skipped that class.]


You say Packers will never be a running team with MM, Grant and our OL. Then MM himself is delusional because he CONSTANTLY says the Packers are a rushing team first! All I'm saying is: "NO THEY AREN'T. SO, MM, STOP SAYING THEY ARE!"

MM pays lip service. We will never be a run first team. Do you believe everything people say. Geez, show some ability to determine when someone is blowing smoke up your ass.

It sounds like I shouldn't have taken the time to respond to Ty.

Find the quotes where MM says we are a rushing team first. I would be most interested in them.

Ty should find them himself. All Ty has to do is read the transcripts to just about every press conference MM has had since day one in Green Bay.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the LACK of rushing attempts negatively affects the performance of the OL and Grant? A 90% pass attack puts the OL into a position to fail, not succeed.

Nice Hyperbole on the 90%, you are really bolstering your argument. Yeah, it is now the lack of attempts that is stopping our line. It couldn't be that they aren't very good, lack experience, or that CC or Tausch arent' what they use to be.

Yes, reality could be as Ty says. On the other hand, it seems to be a well know football truth that lineman prefer run blocking to pass blocking. I'm merely suggesting that a heavy dose of run blocking might be what is needed to mold our OL into a cohesive unit. It is also a well known football truth that pass blocking is easier when the DL must respect the run. This truth is known as "play action" and it's at least as old as Hank Stram, of whom Ty may not know because today the players aren't the same, the coaches aren't the same, the owners aren't the same, forum posters aren't the same,... blah blah blah.

RE: Getting personal....Ty should learn that calling people "nuts" IS getting personal and is NOT a valid argument.

Asking the question isn't calling you nuts. And, funny you don't someone getting personal...when half your arguments about MM are personal.

Nice hyperbole on Ty's part. Ty must admire hyperbole even though he criticizes it. Ty must learn to apply critical logic to his own posts.

/i

[mraynrand]

Wow, what a beatdown!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty...

RE: Mason Crosby...It IS a big deal. If Crosby booms the kick deep into the end zone, maybe Harvin doesn't come out with it and, more than likely, the Vikes don't wind up with choice field position. On the last kickoff, Stubby said Mason slipped. He was supposed to hit a ground ball. I'm curious is all. The ball sailed like hell on the 51 yard field goal miss, so I'm thinking there's nothing wrong with his leg.

What part of LEGITIMATE QUESTION didn't you understand?

This part: "Problem in relation to other issues. Small."

And, compared to the OL, running the ball, overall defense, Arod's sacks, etc...it is small.


I'm just trying to figure out MM's kickoff strategy. If I had to choose between Crosby booming one into the end zone or kicking a ground ball to the 35 yard line, I choose the boomer.

Ok. And?

See Patler's answer in another thread.

I read patler, what does he have to do with your choice of boomer or 35. You aren't the coach. Nor were the two you presented MM's choices.

RE: Jolly incident...I'm not saying MM should have benched Jolly for the rest of the game, just a series or two. And I don't give a damn how valuable the guy is or how much better he is than everyone else. By his actions and comments after the game, Jolly is basically saying he doesn't give a rip what coach thinks. And that kind of thing has a more destructive effect on the team than sitting out a few plays.

You are now changing your story. Ok.

I didn't change my story. Ty ASSumed and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Dude, when you say MM's response to benching Jolly is pathetic...one tends to believe that is what you want. You might think about what you are writing and how it is received.

See, it is very easy for me to then say, "what kind of discipline is it to have him sit out a series or two. Doesn't teach him anything."

I see. Maxie don't know how the team feels, but Ty does. Ty sounds like the type of kid who threw a tantrum in the grocery store and was never slapped upside the head for it.

No. that is the point. Ty doesn't know. You are the one presenting your views as the way to do things...and calling MM pathetic.

Ty merely points out how inconsistent your statements are. If you can't see that...well, that is your problem.

And, judging someone from a presser or comments made after a bad loss is really stupid.

Ty's response isn't a value judgement? Ty isn't getting personal here? What evidence does Ty have that McCarthy is insincere or a liar?

Yes. I am making a judgement. It is stupid. No, it isn't personal. It is a statement that applies to everyone.

Do i know MM is insincere? That is the POINT. Ty doesn't know. I dont' judge someone on a few minutes that they present themselves. And, the point was also about Jolly.

And, finally, you missed the key point...AFTER A BAD LOSS.

Lastly, you don't know what is more destructive. Nor do you even know how the team feels about jolly. They may already know he is a knucklehead.

Yes. I don't know, which I freely admit, but apparently Ty thinks he does know. Then again, does it take a knucklehead to know a knucklehead?

Here we go again. Ty has stated he DOESN'T know. You speculate and create gossip like an old woman. It is embarrassing.

And, look who is name calling.

Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe nowadays head coaches have to worry about players' hurt feelings, damaged pride or diminished self-esteem or the players won't perform at a high level. What garbage!

Yeah, it is garbage. Another one of your value judgements.

I got an idea: Let's change the rules of this forum and ban value judgements. We could then discuss recipes or the techniques of basket-weaving about which I'm sure Ty knows a lot.

Missed the point completely. You can have an opinion, but you are CALLING the others GARBAGE.

So, only your thoughts and methods are good. The rest..GARBAGE.

But, you are on to something...recipes and techinques...why dont' you confine your analysis of the pack to that...techniques, not trying to psychoanalyze situations that you observe on your TV. You are worse than Dr. Phil.

Stop living in the past. The players today arent' the same. The coaches today arent' the same. The owners arent' the same. The money isn't the same.

The the number of Packers' championship titles is not the same either. :P

Yeah, maybe because they acted like you when they needed to get up to date. It was prolly garbage that they had to coddle black players with special food and a barber. Your type of thinking is what doomed us for most of the 80s. Do you realize how stupid you sound?

In fact, your sentence makes absolutely no sense.

I wish you had told lombardi that what he was doing was wrong since he only put up 2 championships compared to what they did 40 years prior. Idiotic.



... ..."Humiliating him [Jolly] in front of the whole team?" Are you kidding me? Is Jolly that much of a prima donna? Has MM lost that much control of his team?

Oh, you are a prima dona for not wanting to be humiliated in front of your fellow employees and on national TV. Listen up General Patton, NOBODY likes being humiliated.

If nobody likes it, then maybe the threat of doing it will motivate these nobodies to refrain from their modern, childlike, tantrum-throwing behaviors.

Yeah, that is good ploy. Ty knows many successful bosses and companies that run that way.

Funny, you call the players acting childlike...yet, ty can't think of anything more childlike than humiliating someone in front of their peers. Only losers do that.

Your whole point is ridiculous. You handle business internally. We expect that from the players and the coaches.

Do you consider the effects of doing that? Some players may like or appreciate it, but i PROMISE you that plenty on the pack won't, they will lose respect for the staff..and plenty of other players on other teams will take note when it comes to FA.

Again, Ty the mentalist knows but I don't. Ty can make value judgements, I can't. Is Ty nuts? Or is Ty merely a moron?

No. there is no judgement. I said that some may like it or appreciate it. DO YOU ACTUALLY READ. Ty also said that others won't like it. Hmm, a fair and balanced observation.

Your response shows either a complete lack of understanding of interpersonal relations..or you just have nothing to counter it with..so you rant.

Control of the team? Dude, you have some funny ideas of what is needed for control.

They're not funny ideas. They're tried and true motivational techniques. They're merely forgotten by the Dr. Spock generation.

Tried and true motiviational techniques. There are no such things. Maybe we should employ beatings and torture..those are tried and true techniques.

Yeah, no new techniques have been used or employed.

When you finally figure out that players and people today are motivated differently than 40 years ago it will be a glorious day. It really shouldn't be this hard for you.

In my judgement, MM needed to show some fire, to show some passion. If he doesn't show positive emotion, than guys like Jolly show negative emotion and that is not good.

Ok. Your opinion. Baseless, but it is yours. Chuck Noll didn't show emotion. Landry didn't show much emotion, etc.

Don Shula showed emotion. Jimmy Johnson showed emotion. Bill Parcells showed emotion. Vince Lombardi showed emotion. Ty must learn that correlation is not cause.

Sure they did. But, that doesn't mean you have to do that to be successful. This is another of your bs psychoanlyzing based on what you see on tv. It is always that kind of stupidity about somebody if they are demonstrative that they arent' "into it." You are the kind of dope that thinks Tim Duncan isn't passionate.

What is hilarious is that if MM showed emotion and they lost you and others would be screaming about "MM has this team on an emotional roller coaster. He needs to be more even keeled."

This is what Ty usually refers to as a "red herring." Ty must learn to recognize colored fish in his own posts.

Red herring? Dude, i'm simply pointing out that one can find a multitude of reasons to criticize a coach. The stoic guys arent' emotional. the emotional guys are too emotional.

Ty notes that you can't argue against it. You KNOW that if we were losing and MM was emotional, that you and others would criticize that.

RE: MM not liking confrontation...It's only my opinion based on observing these managerial types over the years. I could be wrong.

Dude, I guarantee you that in order to get to this position in life MM had to do plenty of confronting.

Ty guarantees? Oh, sorry. If Ty guarantees, then what Ty says must be true -- baseless or not. Ty must learn that arguments appealing to authority confront logic.

Ty isn't appealing to authority. Appealing to common sense. MM is a coach. He has had to confront players about their performance. Or, are you suggesting that at every stop in his career that when their were problems that were his responsibility, that the HC did all the confrontation.

It really is that simple.

RE: MM's running game or lack thereoff...How many times did we run the ball in the first half? Five? And because we didn't gain a ton of yards on those five attempts, you write the running game off as a failure? If that's the case, you don't understand why teams need to run the ball. After we rush the ball 25 or 30 times a game, then talk to me about whether or not the rushing game is successful.

No. I didn't write it off. If it was only 5 times then according to the stats we musta run 14 times in the 2nd half..cause the box shows 19 rushes. LOL

19 rushes? Does Ty know that includes 5 scrambles by Rodgers? Box score shows Packers rushed 9 times in the first half (not including 2 scrambles by Rodgers). Now if Ty knows math, that means Packers rushed 5 times in the second half. Ty needs to brush up on math and to learn how to read a box score.

Dude, first it was 5 times in the first half, now it is 9. I was fully aware of Arod's rushes..the point is that YOU SAID 5. They rushed enough in the first half to see that is wasn't working.

Nice of you to try and weasel into talking about the 2nd half. Your argument was that we didn't run enough in the 2nd half AND that we hadn't run enough in the first half to make a determination..you SAID 5 times in the first half wasn't enough. But, it wasn't 5 times.

FAIL.

Look, ty is trying to be respectful towards you, but when you can't even get the BASICS right, it is hard. We rushed 5 times in the FIRST QUARTER.

Ty needs to try harder.

You need to get your facts straight before posting. It really isn't hard since they have EVERY play listed on espn. Live it, learn it, love it.

The fact is that we tried running in the first half and it wasn't successful. We have tried running all year and it has RARELY been successful..and certainly not against good teams.

Ty needs to define terms. "Successful" in what regard?

In gaining yards.

But, if we are gonna play that type of game. Let's use it on your strategy. LOL

And, i get why you want to run..and why it is important. However that doesn't mean you can't win without doing things your way. Plenty of teams have won without a strong running game. You might want to review the first couple of years with Holmgren..and even in his most successful he didn't like running. Andy Reid prefers to pass, etc.

See above re: coaches that show emotion. Does Ty care to argue that the king of dinks and dunks, Mike Holmgren, could have been "successful" without a certain running back named Dorsey Levens?

You are making this about Holmgren? Dude, look at last year's SB..both teams had average to below average running games.

You can't argue or even admit that your way is the way YOU LIKE, not the way that has to lead to winning.

Ty likes pounding the rock as much as anybody..but, that doesn't preclude him from understanding that you dont' have to do it well to win.

Maybe it is time for you to realize that the NFL is a pass first, run second league. That is the way the game is played now. Sorry.

Yes, on that key drive with six minutes or so left I was calling for the run and I'm not nuts. Running (or short dump off passes, dinks and dunks) have a high percentage of gaining positive yards. They keep the defense honest. We had the Vikes on their heels at that point. We were punishing them physically and emotionally. Then MM goes for the quick strike.

Ty sees. We have scored repeatedly and doing what has worked we get to the 35. Damn MM.

Ty forgets my point: YAC got us to the 35.

What point? YAC? Where have you previously stated anything about YAC. And, so what..it wasn't dinks and dunks. It wasn't running that scored those points.

By your own admission we had them on their heels. How did we get that situation? Somehow we did it without running and dinking and dunking. Do you not see the HUGE gap in your logic? LOL

The passing game is useful at times. I freely admit that. Though we weren't chucking a lot of those passes deep downfield. Can Ty spell Spencer Havner? Does Ty know what YAC means?!!

Translation: Oops. Ty is right. We got them on their heels as i said but not by running or dinks and dunks.

And, now, you want to say that it was Havner and YAC. So, which is it..ty thought he wasn't doing the dinks and dunks...cept when he was calling Havner's #?

You have been ranting about MM and play calling and passing deep, but now you say we werent' chucking it deep. Are you schizophrenic? Seriously? Have you read your prior posts?

And, the passing game is useful at times. Which times? Times like when we are down by multiple scores?

And, why can't we say that the running game is useful at times..and dismiss it like you do the passing game.

You have no descended into lunacy.

Your point is foolish. You go with what is working. You also don't know what MM called vs. what Arod chose to to do. And, i dont' believe MM called for the line to whiff on Allen.

Kind of hard for the line to whiff on Allen if they had been running right at Allen, as I recommend. Ty can't know what MM called either. That's why we speculate in this forum. With all due respect, Ty's point is idiotic and fatuous.

Have you seen our line. Hard to whiff? LOL

yeah, because running in the first half was so successful..and because we hadn't scored at all in the 2nd half.

How about instead of talking about what you woulda called and pretending that the blocking woulda been executed we just execute the plays that are called.

It is hilarious watching you spin.

And, you aren't speculating. You are blaming MM.

Rushing the ball for sure runs time off the clock so Favre gets the ball with less time. We got back in the game with shorter passes and YAC. Rodgers got sacked trying to throw a home run ball.

Really? previous posts were all about deep balls. Now we got back by shorter passes. Must be nice to switch your stance.

And, Arod didn't get sacked trying to do anything...he got sacked before he could even think.

Rushing, if you can runs time off. If you cant'...we are still losing. Which woulda happened.

Ty needs to listen and learn. We KNOW what happened. Packers lost. We CAN'T KNOW what "woulda" happened. We CAN only speculate what might have changed the outcome of the game. [This is basic epistemology. Ty must have skipped that class.]

We can make educated guesses about what woulda happened. There is nothing to base your assumption we could run on them. We didn't do well in either half, we haven't rushed well against a good defense all year.

Jesus, what more evidence do you need?

Yeah, what might have changed the game is not whiffing on blocks.

But, following your logic...Ty suggests that we abandon the run game. We know that we lost the game by running to many times in the first half.

See, it is that easy to play with your "basic epistemology"

You say Packers will never be a running team with MM, Grant and our OL. Then MM himself is delusional because he CONSTANTLY says the Packers are a rushing team first! All I'm saying is: "NO THEY AREN'T. SO, MM, STOP SAYING THEY ARE!"

MM pays lip service. We will never be a run first team. Do you believe everything people say. Geez, show some ability to determine when someone is blowing smoke up your ass.

It sounds like I shouldn't have taken the time to respond to Ty.

Sounds like you still haven't learned.

Find the quotes where MM says we are a rushing team first. I would be most interested in them.

Ty should find them himself. All Ty has to do is read the transcripts to just about every press conference MM has had since day one in Green Bay.

You made the statement. Back it up.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the LACK of rushing attempts negatively affects the performance of the OL and Grant? A 90% pass attack puts the OL into a position to fail, not succeed.

Nice Hyperbole on the 90%, you are really bolstering your argument. Yeah, it is now the lack of attempts that is stopping our line. It couldn't be that they aren't very good, lack experience, or that CC or Tausch arent' what they use to be.

Yes, reality could be as Ty says. On the other hand, it seems to be a well know football truth that lineman prefer run blocking to pass blocking. I'm merely suggesting that a heavy dose of run blocking might be what is needed to mold our OL into a cohesive unit. It is also a well known football truth that pass blocking is easier when the DL must respect the run. This truth is known as "play action" and it's at least as old as Hank Stram, of whom Ty may not know because today the players aren't the same, the coaches aren't the same, the owners aren't the same, forum posters aren't the same,... blah blah blah.

Some lineman prefer run blocking more. Some do not. Which do you think Clifton prefers? Which is he better at?

Cohesive unit? Dude, get a grip. In order to have a cohesive unit you need to have 5 guys playing the same position for a 1-2 years together. You are putting the cart way in front of the horses.

Nice, try at patronizing. Yeah, play action and hank stram are unknown. You can say the exact same thing...passing sets up the run. Running is easier when you have the threat of a good passing attack.

It is called the WEST COAST offense..you might not have heard of it...turn off the victrola.

And, pretending that the game hasn't changed just shows how ridiculous you are. The rules have changed, what lineman can grab has changed, how DBs can play is changed, etc.

The 20s were great. The 50s were great. Vince was great. But, what worked then doesn't mean it will work now. And, what works now doesn't mean it woulda worked then.


RE: Getting personal....Ty should learn that calling people "nuts" IS getting personal and is NOT a valid argument.

Asking the question isn't calling you nuts. And, funny you don't someone getting personal...when half your arguments about MM are personal.

Nice hyperbole on Ty's part. Ty must admire hyperbole even though he criticizes it. Ty must learn to apply critical logic to his own posts.

which part is hyperbole? Calling half is hardly hyperbole, might be off, but far from an exaggeration.

as for logic, physician heal thy self.

/i

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wow, what a beatdown!

I know, i feel bad for maxie.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Ty,

Great read!! ROFLMAO!!

The rules have changed, what lineman can grab has changed

Priceless!!!

[mraynrand]

Good beat down Maxie, but you had to know you'd never get the last word. I got off that train. I have enough of that attitude dealing with my 13 year old daughter every day.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Good beat down Maxie, but you had to know you'd never get the last word. I got off that train. I have enough of that attitude dealing with my 13 year old daughter every day.

Yes, I was fully aware of the moral hazard entailed.

[Smidgeon]

Stop living in the past. The players today arent' the same. The coaches today arent' the same. The owners arent' the same. The money isn't the same.

The the number of Packers' championship titles is not the same either. :P

Oh, Snap!

(No offense, Ty. I just liked the comeback.)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty,

Great read!! ROFLMAO!!

The rules have changed, what lineman can grab has changed

Priceless!!!

Are you really that slow? Are you going on the record that HOW OL can block and what/where they can grab HASN'T changed.

http://www.nfl.com/history/chronology/1971-1980

70s

The penalties for offensive holding, illegal use of the hands, and tripping were reduced from 15 to 10

Rules changes were adopted to open up the passing game and to cut down on injuries. Defenders were permitted to make contact with eligible receivers only once; the head slap was outlawed; offensive linemen were prohibited from thrusting their hands to an opponent's neck, face, or head

The pass-blocking rule was interpreted to permit the extending of arms and open hands, March 17.

Dude, wake up. It hasn't been the 60s in 30 plus years.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Good beat down Maxie, but you had to know you'd never get the last word. I got off that train. I have enough of that attitude dealing with my 13 year old daughter every day.

Ty always wondered what happened to that USSR vs. USA basketball official.

[SnakeLH2006]

Fire MM. Snake liked him early on...but got this talent, and my biggest peeve is how MM don't care about penalties or hard-line shit when anyone messes up. And oh yeah.....his playcalling is pathetic. Yeah, down at half in a few games.....lets run a draw/kneel down. BOMB IT UP! WTF? Get rid of this clown. With this talent, I'd bet Cowher would love our blue-collar team. Give him $8 million yearly....why not? Dude is a winner. MM has one winning team in several years....Fuck MM. His wife looks like a man.