I'm So Angry...at the JSO

[Fritz]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/79761282.html

Y'know, I expect fans to get angry and react emotionally the day of a loss. I have no problem with people in game threads calling for MM's head after a loss. That's the emotion of being a fan (though I would hope people would cool off a little by today).

But the first third of Silverstein's JSO article - the supposed article about the game - was an awful, awful piece of work.

Let me give the context: The Packers had won five games in a row. At 9-4, they were the top seed for the playoff wild card spot in the NFC. They were playing the Super Bowl champions on the road - admittedly losers of five straight. Nonetheless, last year's champion - and one that had extra time to prepare.

The Packers lost by one point. The defense was not at all at its best, for sure. Jarrett Bush gave up some big plays, and many others did not play up to par - Hawk and Woodson and Chillar are three examples. It's unnerving that Mason Crosby missed another - to the right. The consistency of his misses is some small but cold comfort.

The Packer offense, despite a case of first-half dropsies, put up 36 point. They marched down the field with less than five minutes remaining and scored the go-ahead touchdown. They converted a two pointer.

A tough loss. But if you read the first third of the article, the Packers' defense "showed exactly where it's vulnerable and where it will be exposed if its lucky enough to play one of the aforementioned offensive juggernauts in the playoffs."

Yup, it's sure to be exposed. If they're lucky enough to get in. Christ, what a crappy team! As Silverstein also notes, "You can only imagine how many playoff quarterbacks are drooling over an opportunity to play against the Packers."

Jaysus, what the hell kind of Chicken Little garbage is this? Do I want it sugar coated? No. But your team dropped one game after winning five, to the Super Bowl Champions, on their home field. It happens. Silverstein sounds like a whiny, bitchy seventh grade girl.

Why can't these writers get it into their heads that the season is a long, arching narrative, with twists and turns like any story? Suddenly, the same team that was 9-4 two days ago is now a horrible team, a laugher for any team that plays it in the playoffs?

I can't tell you how pissed off I am. What shoddy, crappy journalism.

[pbmax]

The 'lucky enough' part seems a ridiculous choice to describe the situation.

But his overall point is a common view. Now it may simply be this week's narrative and therefore overcovered and overcredited, but the collective wisdom across the web, newspapers and radio is that the Packers pass defense was exposed when there was not enough pass rush. People, to one degree or another have been waiting for this since Al Harris was injured.

The Steelers, everyone feels, finally had the talent to expose the weakness.

Personally, other than the first touchdown when Bush got torched fast, I thought the Packers had more of a problem with their pass rush than with coverage.

[SkinBasket]

Write him and tell him. These guys aren't greek gods. They read their mail. Not saying that the greek gods didn't, but... I digress. A critical letter is often times responded to with a thanks for your input, I appreciate your readership, form response, but that's never stopped me.

[Patler]

Take a deep breath Fritz! We should be used to this by now.

According to the writers, no Packer ever has just a bad day, its always a sign of their real ability when they play poorly. It's what we should expect from them all the time. The past month has been a sham. The defense is really awful, and now everyone knows it!

No opponent ever has an outstanding day. Their performance is always due to the total ineptitude of the Packers. Now, others will do the same.

My question to Silverstein would be this: Would he have written the same article if the last pass had slipped through the receivers hands? Or, would he have written an article about the Packers persevering on a day when things didn't go well defensively? Would he have written about a team that is battle tested heading into the emotional playoff weeks?

Did the tone of his article really come down to just one play?????

[Pugger]

He sounds like some of the Negative Nellies on Packer fan internet forums...

[SkinBasket]

[pbmax]

Take a deep breath Fritz! We should be used to this by now.

According to the writers, no Packer ever has just a bad day, its always a sign of their real ability when they play poorly. It's what we should expect from them all the time. The past month has been a sham. The defense is really awful, and now everyone knows it!

No opponent ever has an outstanding day. Their performance is always due to the total ineptitude of the Packers. Now, others will do the same.

My question to Silverstein would be this: Would he have written the same article if the last pass had slipped through the receivers hands? Or, would he have written an article about the Packers persevering on a day when things didn't go well defensively? Would he have written about a team that is battle tested heading into the emotional playoff weeks?

Did the tone of his article really come down to just one play?????

No. The tone of the article was written throughout the game as the Packers trailed for most of the game. Writers write the story as the game goes along. If that pass was dropped or defended, then it would have been the good fortune of an onside kick and the defense hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

Writers are limited in time and have their memory as their only reference. They don't stay employed if they cannot craft a narrative. This is the result of the poorer writers. McGinn takes the defense apart much more specifically.

But as you say Patler, this topic is the story of the game. The Packer defense had a bad game. There is no time for the gamestory writer to parse it completely. That's why we come here.

[Fritz]

Just so, Patler. Exactly.

I agree with PB that it was the pass rush - more specifically, the three man rush called over and over on that last drive. If the strength of your team is your line and linebackers and the weakness is depth at the corners, then put more pressure on Rothlisberger by rushing four or even five.

[Patler]

Take a deep breath Fritz! We should be used to this by now.

According to the writers, no Packer ever has just a bad day, its always a sign of their real ability when they play poorly. It's what we should expect from them all the time. The past month has been a sham. The defense is really awful, and now everyone knows it!

No opponent ever has an outstanding day. Their performance is always due to the total ineptitude of the Packers. Now, others will do the same.

My question to Silverstein would be this: Would he have written the same article if the last pass had slipped through the receivers hands? Or, would he have written an article about the Packers persevering on a day when things didn't go well defensively? Would he have written about a team that is battle tested heading into the emotional playoff weeks?

Did the tone of his article really come down to just one play?????

No. The tone of the article was written throughout the game as the Packers trailed for most of the game. Writers write the story as the game goes along. If that pass was dropped or defended, then it would have been the good fortune of an onside kick and the defense hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

Writers are limited in time and have their memory as their only reference. They don't stay employed if they cannot craft a narrative. This is the result of the poorer writers. McGinn takes the defense apart much more specifically.

But as you say Patler, this topic is the story of the game. The Packer defense had a bad game. There is no time for the gamestory writer to parse it completely. That's why we come here.

They write the body of the story as the game unfolds, but the lead-in and conclusion are written after the game, and it is the lead in short paragraphs that set the tone in this article, as Fritz noted. I respectfully submit that if the last pass had simply been dropped, those paragraphs and the tone of the article would have been different.

[sharpe1027]

What do you expect? People are upset about the game and specifically the defense. People like to hear things with which they agree. The article probably accomplishes its primary goal of getting more readers. Many people will skim the headline and first paragraph and feel good that their frustration is noticed. They may even use the article as a talking point at the office/bar later that week.

Serious football fanatics will read every article they can get there hands on regardless, why cater to them? They're an already guaranteed audience.

[pbmax]

500 yards of passing surrendered, this point still gets made. And its an attractive comparison considering several of the likely playoff participants. Too juicy to pass up. Its the story of the game, regardless of the conclusion one thinks can be drawn from it.

What might be different is the subject of this article. If they win, they may go with another angle for the big feature alongside McGinn's writeup. The Rodgers piece probably gets higher treatment. Then this writeup gets chopped down to the Notes column or some other space. But that conjecture writes itself.

[Sparkey]

Just so, Patler. Exactly.

I agree with PB that it was the pass rush - more specifically, the three man rush called over and over on that last drive. If the strength of your team is your line and linebackers and the weakness is depth at the corners, then put more pressure on Rothlisberger by rushing four or even five.

But Roethlisberger already had 440+ yards before that last drive, and then the Packers were rushing 4, 5 or 6. It was a slippery field and those conditions usually make it difficult for the pass rush. Look at Pittsburgh as they were ranked #4 in sack percentage but only got Rodgers once.

The passing game always has an advantage on a slippery field. Receivers know where they are going and defenders are reacting. Perfect example is the Rodgers to Jones TD for the lead. Jones put a great move on him, but the defender slipped reacting to that move. He would not have been nearly as open on a solid field.

[Bossman641]

Haven't read the article but based on the description I'm not sure if I want to.

If we are lucky enough to get in? Opposing QB's salivating? What about Rodgers and the offense salivating at the thought of moving up and down the field on the Saints, Cardinals, or Vikings? Outside of the Eagles, no NFC team has looked particularly imposing over the past 3-4 weeks. One loss isn't shaking my belief that the Packers will be dangerous come playoff time.

[pbmax]

Press Gazette's game story, 3rd paragraph. Too big a target to pass up, though the Press Gazette does not stray into the "lucky" route and leaves it open ended.

The bigger issue is whether Roethlisberger’s 503-yard game was an anomaly, or whether it exposed flaws in the Packers’ pass defense that could be a major problem the next time they face an elite quarterback surrounded by some good weapons. That's inevitable in the NFL playoffs

[Patler]

Press Gazette's game story, 3rd paragraph. Too big a target to pass up, though the Press Gazette does not stray into the "lucky" route and leaves it open ended.

The bigger issue is whether Roethlisberger’s 503-yard game was an anomaly, or whether it exposed flaws in the Packers’ pass defense that could be a major problem the next time they face an elite quarterback surrounded by some good weapons. That's inevitable in the NFL playoffs

A big difference in presenting it as a question for discussion rather than as a fact exposed in the game.