Tweet
I watched the game in Madison and on the way home listened to Pack attack and these were among questions homer was asking callers:
1) What aspect of the Packers' play were you most disappointed in?
2) Were the officials to blame for the loss?
3) If the Packers play the 49ers in the same circumstances 10 times, how many times would the Packers win?
- As for #1 popular answers included the offensive line, lack of running game, and defensive efforts. Personally I thought that Rodgers was the difference. The offensive line played pretty decent against as good a font as there is in football. Rodgers played good enough to beat a lot of teams but had he even had an average game I think the future would lie before us in a much more favorable light.
- For #2 it was pretty much a resounding no from callers and I agree. Bad calls went both ways but not more than with the regular refs, and I felt like overall the bulk of the poor officiating benefited the Packers.
- Most callers agreed that the 49ers beat the Packers 7 or 8 times out of 10. As good as they looked I don't think anyone beats the Packers 7 or 8 times out of 10, that's an overreaction. To me this looked like the regular season Falcons game from 2010. We faced a very balanced offense who never beat themselves and shorten the game with long drives that eat a ton of clock. Their defense is a classic smothering one, forcing you to dink and dunk and take what's there and sustain a long and time consuming drive yourself. These teams are always tough to play but the Packers are a better team and my reason is a philosophical one.
As much as it appeals to have a team similar to the 49ers who are very balanced and play a very efficient brand of ball their team is built for upsets. Their strategy is an underdogs strategy--shorten the game on both offense and defense. The philosophy here is that if you can make the game shorter, the better team has its advantages minimized and thus its more likely that when the clock runs out the worse team will be on top. Of course this means that the 49ers will also let a lot of bad teams hang around and are prone to upsets themselves. The best you can hope for with a team like this in the playoffs is what we hope for Bo Ryan's Badgers every March--every game is a coin flip.
The Packers play it the opposite. They are blessed with the best weapon in football and look to maximize that advantage by passing as much as possible and pushing the ball down the field. This is much more desirable come playoff time providing Rodgers and McCarthy manage to oil the machine by the time the games matter most. Typical superbowl winners are teams that faced and overcame adversity during the season and the Packers have some things to fix. All I'm saying is that the pieces are still there and healthy and if we were to run into the 49ers again in the playoffs, I like our odds. This team has the biggest advantage in football and knows how to use it.
1) What aspect of the Packers' play were you most disappointed in?
2) Were the officials to blame for the loss?
3) If the Packers play the 49ers in the same circumstances 10 times, how many times would the Packers win?
- As for #1 popular answers included the offensive line, lack of running game, and defensive efforts. Personally I thought that Rodgers was the difference. The offensive line played pretty decent against as good a font as there is in football. Rodgers played good enough to beat a lot of teams but had he even had an average game I think the future would lie before us in a much more favorable light.
- For #2 it was pretty much a resounding no from callers and I agree. Bad calls went both ways but not more than with the regular refs, and I felt like overall the bulk of the poor officiating benefited the Packers.
- Most callers agreed that the 49ers beat the Packers 7 or 8 times out of 10. As good as they looked I don't think anyone beats the Packers 7 or 8 times out of 10, that's an overreaction. To me this looked like the regular season Falcons game from 2010. We faced a very balanced offense who never beat themselves and shorten the game with long drives that eat a ton of clock. Their defense is a classic smothering one, forcing you to dink and dunk and take what's there and sustain a long and time consuming drive yourself. These teams are always tough to play but the Packers are a better team and my reason is a philosophical one.
As much as it appeals to have a team similar to the 49ers who are very balanced and play a very efficient brand of ball their team is built for upsets. Their strategy is an underdogs strategy--shorten the game on both offense and defense. The philosophy here is that if you can make the game shorter, the better team has its advantages minimized and thus its more likely that when the clock runs out the worse team will be on top. Of course this means that the 49ers will also let a lot of bad teams hang around and are prone to upsets themselves. The best you can hope for with a team like this in the playoffs is what we hope for Bo Ryan's Badgers every March--every game is a coin flip.
The Packers play it the opposite. They are blessed with the best weapon in football and look to maximize that advantage by passing as much as possible and pushing the ball down the field. This is much more desirable come playoff time providing Rodgers and McCarthy manage to oil the machine by the time the games matter most. Typical superbowl winners are teams that faced and overcame adversity during the season and the Packers have some things to fix. All I'm saying is that the pieces are still there and healthy and if we were to run into the 49ers again in the playoffs, I like our odds. This team has the biggest advantage in football and knows how to use it.
.
Comment