Official Packers at Lions Game Day Thread

[Lurker64]

Thanks Ted!

I am so glad that the Lions drafted Titus Young in the 2nd round in 2011 instead of Randall Cobb.

So very, very, very, very glad.

[mraynrand]

But it's not luck. It's the kind of play that separates one team from another. When the Packers won the Superb Owl, it was player after player making spectacular plays - unusual, game changing plays. It's what wins games between evenly matched teams.

[pbmax]

Fantastic.

[Bossman641]

He wasn't really open though and it was a great catch by Cobb, so while everyone obviously loves the result of the play, that play in particular doesn't help your argument.

My entire point was that when you have a chance to make a big play, you take it. Cobb had a few steps on his man. It wasn't the greatest throw by Rodgers, he put too much air under it.

[Noodle]

But it's not luck. It's the kind of play that separates one team from another. When the Packers won the Superb Owl, it was player after player making spectacular plays - unusual, game changing plays. It's what wins games between evenly matched teams.

I hear what you're saying, and I've found there are two schools of thought on this -- one which believes (like I do) that sometimes, you just get lucky and another that believes luck has little to do with winning. I think that a lobbed, underthrown 21-yard pass to a tightly covered Cobb had a low likelihood of success without the assistance of a little luck (DB not playing the ball, Cobb making a sick catch), whereas a run or a quick slant can be executed with a higher likelihood of success without the help of luck.

And yeah, I do think Detroit was lucky to have Jordy drop that third-down ball and to have Burnett not defense the pass to Johnson. I don't think that the Detroit coaching staff was saying to its DBs after that play -- "yeah, let's keep leaving Nelson open" or "Stafford, you keep relying on Burnett not getting his hands on the ball."

They got lucky on those plays, and we got lucky on a bigger play.

[KYPack]

I am so glad that the Lions drafted Titus Young in the 2nd round in 2011 instead of Randall Cobb.

So very, very, very, very glad.

Me too, pal.

I had lost track of players during the second round tht draft. When the Pack grabbed Randall, I let out a whoop.

He's got the heart of a lion, a coach on the field.

That stuff about Randall sitting in on our QB meetings is no bullshit. He's a natural born leader. He automatically does all the small things it takes to be a winner.

MM ran him out of the backfield vs the Lions. The next step is a quick option pass from that set. Cobb has a great arm, he can make up his own play grouping as he gets comfortable moving around the field for us.

[Smidgeon]

Fantastic.

*Superb

[Smidgeon]

I am so glad that the Lions drafted Titus Young in the 2nd round in 2011 instead of Randall Cobb.

So very, very, very, very glad.

Seconded.

EDIT: Thirded.

[Guiness]

Seconded.

EDIT: Thirded.

That word that you used...I do not think it means what you think it means.

[pbmax]

I hear what you're saying, and I've found there are two schools of thought on this -- one which believes (like I do) that sometimes, you just get lucky and another that believes luck has little to do with winning. I think that a lobbed, underthrown 21-yard pass to a tightly covered Cobb had a low likelihood of success without the assistance of a little luck (DB not playing the ball, Cobb making a sick catch), whereas a run or a quick slant can be executed with a higher likelihood of success without the help of luck.

And yeah, I do think Detroit was lucky to have Jordy drop that third-down ball and to have Burnett not defense the pass to Johnson. I don't think that the Detroit coaching staff was saying to its DBs after that play -- "yeah, let's keep leaving Nelson open" or "Stafford, you keep relying on Burnett not getting his hands on the ball."

They got lucky on those plays, and we got lucky on a bigger play.

There is some value in pushing the issue of big plays. Everyone involved in offense would like them to organically grow from scheme, execution and surprise. But that is a hard row to hoe, even with great players. Especially for this Packers offense without a dynamite rushing game and missing some key middle of the field pieces (Finley and Jennings), they have had a hard time making team's pay deep when everyone is extra deep with two safeties.

When playing it safe, the result can be lots of completions for minimum gains. There have been games this year where the offense has yielded exactly that and underperformed as a result. At some point, you need to take a shot. I think Rodgers is a good judge of when and with whom to do that, as evidenced by his low INT total. The downside here is that he takes a lot of sacks to keep the INT total down and allow plays to develop and that can lead to a lot of hits and lost yardage. But those minuses are offset by a lack of turnovers and the occasional lucky big play.

I would love to see the Packers attack the middle of the field with slants and Finley, but like screens a few years ago, they just don't seem comfortable doing that. Jones and Jennings might be the best players on slants, so perhaps Jennings return will help there.

But in the meantime, I don't mind taking shots down the field.

[MadtownPacker]

And I have to admit that I screamed at the TV when A-Rod went back to pass, then threw my cheesehead wedge at the TV when I saw that A-Rod was going with a deep throw. It did work out, but there was a lot of luck in that one, and I don't like having to rely on luck.

Hey how's it going?

Quit being a lil chavala, it was close but so what. Rodgers shouldn't feel like he cant take some shots. I thought it was a sick throw and like you said IT PAID OFF. Like Chann said, Cobb wasnt really open but the ball got in anyways. It's better to be lucky than good right?

Fuck no, it's better to be both.

[MadtownPacker]

My entire point was that when you have a chance to make a big play, you take it. Cobb had a few steps on his man. It wasn't the greatest throw by Rodgers, he put too much air under it.

Screw those pole smokers, it was a great throw.

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Packers-Lions-game-highlights/96dd1939-cde4-4f0a-a503-a58b6bf55d89

[Fritz]

There is some value in pushing the issue of big plays. Everyone involved in offense would like them to organically grow from scheme, execution and surprise. But that is a hard row to hoe, even with great players. Especially for this Packers offense without a dynamite rushing game and missing some key middle of the field pieces (Finley and Jennings), they have had a hard time making team's pay deep when everyone is extra deep with two safeties.

When playing it safe, the result can be lots of completions for minimum gains. There have been games this year where the offense has yielded exactly that and underperformed as a result. At some point, you need to take a shot. I think Rodgers is a good judge of when and with whom to do that, as evidenced by his low INT total. The downside here is that he takes a lot of sacks to keep the INT total down and allow plays to develop and that can lead to a lot of hits and lost yardage. But those minuses are offset by a lack of turnovers and the occasional lucky big play.

I would love to see the Packers attack the middle of the field with slants and Finley, but like screens a few years ago, they just don't seem comfortable doing that. Jones and Jennings might be the best players on slants, so perhaps Jennings return will help there.

But in the meantime, I don't mind taking shots down the field.

I do wonder what happened to that slant play. It was gold for several years in GB with Favre throwing it - seemed almost impossible to defend, and sometimes could go big if the DB missed the tackle.

Why they abandoned it when teams seem to be leaving the middle open is beyond me. Same with running Finley in the middle. Why not force teams to pay for playing safeties to the outside?

[pbmax]

I do wonder what happened to that slant play. It was gold for several years in GB with Favre throwing it - seemed almost impossible to defend, and sometimes could go big if the DB missed the tackle.

Why they abandoned it when teams seem to be leaving the middle open is beyond me. Same with running Finley in the middle. Why not force teams to pay for playing safeties to the outside?

They have used it in some games. A couple of games it was clear they were emphasizing it. But its not the favorite of Rodgers/McCarthy that it was for Favre.

[Upnorth]

But it's not luck. It's the kind of play that separates one team from another. When the Packers won the Superb Owl, it was player after player making spectacular plays - unusual, game changing plays. It's what wins games between evenly matched teams.

The last time we won the suberb owl trophy it brought a little tear to my eye, just look at its beauty!


Regarding the slant discussion, I wonder if we are saving that for times when we need a win. When the game is on the line we have switched to quick slants (drive against bears comes to mind) and using JMike in the middle (last game in 4th quarter). It is still on the play book and it seems we dust those plays off when we HAVE to score. IS MM setting up defences so they ignore these routes when times are critical?