More Banjo: @ Saints Week Oh Who the *$%&! Cares

[Patler]

All said above is true, but the key, I think, was when Rodgers tweaked his hamstring.

Tie game at half with the teams matching each other TD for TD and FG for FG.
NO takes possession with the 2nd half kickoff to a first down, but then the Packer "D" holds on 4th down for a huge change of possession without a score in a puntless game.
Packers drive down field quickly, have 1st and goal from the 6, but with Rodgers clearly a bit hobbled.
With Rodgers out of sync, the expected run on 1st goes no where, Rodgers quickly gets rid of the 2nd down pass on a play he would normally have extended, then tries another quick, no movement pass that is intercepted.

A chance to go up by 7, or at least 3 evaporates, and the Packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best.

Not saying they would have won, but until Rodgers' injury, I think the game looked like a classic shoot-out with teams matching score for score, but with the Packers looking to be in the leadership role and NO playing catchup, at least for a while. Up to that point, there was no evidence that the NO defense could stop the Packers any more than there was evidence GB could stop NO.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

"The packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best."

Sadly this is very true. I had a bad feeling about this game. Since 2009, I have far too many memories of packer defenses under Dom Capers allowing 40+ points when playing the elite QBs in the league. Warner, Brees, Manning, Brad, etc. The QBs who know where to go with the football before the snap always kill us. Against the next QB tier down, the defense usually plays very well. See 2010 superbowl run: Vick, Ryan, Culter, Big Ben. I know we are in for a long game when I see Brady, Manning, Brees, and now Kap and Wilson (b/c of read option). Avoid those five somehow in the playoffs and I think we have a decent chance at winning the superbowl.

[Patler]

They say you make your own luck, and to a large extent in athletic contests, I think that is true. Skill and all out effort make a lot of things look "lucky".

That said, did any "thing" go the Packers way all night?
On the first long pass to Stills, House actually dislodged the ball. Stills fell with the ball completely out of his control, but it fell on his inside forearm, and he was able to clutch it.
Later, of course, was the "pop-up" deflection that came straight down to the receiver.
Two onside kicks each looked like decent opportunities for GB to recover, and both end up in NO hands.
Two deflections off GB receivers bounce straight to NO defenders.

One week Lang gets a Rodgers fumble in a sea of opponents.
Another week everything goes the other way.
I guess that's what makes sports exciting.

[Patler]

"The packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best."

For all but a season here and there, that has been the story in GB under both Favre and Rodgers ever since 1997. Most seasons the team went only as far as the offense carried it, and the offense went only as far as its QB could take it. This has been going on a long time.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Still would have lost. Its just one of those games were the QB snaps the ball and as fast the WR can run down the field its a 30 yard completion with no packer in sight. I always scratch my head wondering way this always happens against the elite QBs we face. Obviously one explanation is simply that they are elite, but why does it seem that guys are always wide open uncovered.

[Cheesehead Craig]

All said above is true, but the key, I think, was when Rodgers tweaked his hamstring.

Tie game at half with the teams matching each other TD for TD and FG for FG.
NO takes possession with the 2nd half kickoff to a first down, but then the Packer "D" holds on 4th down for a huge change of possession without a score in a puntless game.
Packers drive down field quickly, have 1st and goal from the 6, but with Rodgers clearly a bit hobbled.
With Rodgers out of sync, the expected run on 1st goes no where, Rodgers quickly gets rid of the 2nd down pass on a play he would normally have extended, then tries another quick, no movement pass that is intercepted.

A chance to go up by 7, or at least 3 evaporates, and the Packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best.

Not saying they would have won, but until Rodgers' injury, I think the game looked like a classic shoot-out with teams matching score for score, but with the Packers looking to be in the leadership role and NO playing catchup, at least for a while. Up to that point, there was no evidence that the NO defense could stop the Packers any more than there was evidence GB could stop NO.

Now you're starting to sound like Collinsworth and his broken record last night. Too much was made about it, IMO. Just a whole load of bad play/luck turned the game.

* INT on a deflected pass, not on the hammy just bum luck. Stopped GB from going up at least 3 as you said. Not the hammy.
* Defense simply couldn't slow down, let alone stop NO on the next drive. Not on the hammy.
* Rodgers looked fine the next drive but Adams loses where the first down marker is and then the OL completely botches the 4th down run blocking. Not on the hammy.
* Defense again gets plastered by the NO offense. Not on the hammy.
* Next drive, the Packers are moving down the field and magically the hammy isn't mentioned by Collinsworth. Adams then stops running his route and Rodgers assumes he's going to keep running and another deflected ball is intercepted. Not on the hammy.

Boom. There's your game. Defense was putrid. The offense came up short too often in the red zone in getting TDs. They score one on 2 of those drives instead of FGs and they could have afforded some bad luck turnovers.

[denverYooper]

Still would have lost. Its just one of those games were the QB snaps the ball and as fast the WR can run down the field its a 30 yard completion with no packer in sight. I always scratch my head wondering way this always happens against the elite QBs we face. Obviously one explanation is simply that they are elite, but why does it seem that guys are always wide open uncovered.

They called House for a long DPI when he was in perfect position. Why bother covering people if they're just going to call a penalty?

[Patler]

Still would have lost. Its just one of those games were the QB snaps the ball and as fast the WR can run down the field its a 30 yard completion with no packer in sight. I always scratch my head wondering way this always happens against the elite QBs we face. Obviously one explanation is simply that they are elite, but why does it seem that guys are always wide open uncovered.

On a lot of plays last night, the receivers were not "wide open uncovered". Open? I suppose, but on many it took excellent throws to get the completion and not a batted ball or an interception. That is what the elite QBs give you that guys like Cutler do not give you on a consistent basis.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Yes House had good coverage on that play. I'm talking about the other 500 yards of offense I guess.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

On a lot of plays last night, the receivers were not "wide open uncovered". Open? I suppose, but on many it took excellent throws to get the completion and not a batted ball or an interception. That is what the elite QBs give you that guys like Cutler do not give you on a consistent basis.

Hmm were we watching the same game? I remember at least 10 passes with no packers within 5 yards. At least 10.

[Cheesehead Craig]

They called House for a long DPI when he was in perfect position. Why bother covering people if they're just going to call a penalty?

That call was junk. Also the OPI by Adams which was the same thing Graham did on his TD catch. All-Pros get the benefit that the rooks don't.

[denverYooper]

Now you're starting to sound like Collinsworth and his broken record last night. Too much was made about it, IMO. Just a whole load of bad play/luck turned the game.

* INT on a deflected pass, not on the hammy just bum luck. Stopped GB from going up at least 3 as you said. Not the hammy.
* Defense simply couldn't slow down, let alone stop NO on the next drive. Not on the hammy.
* Rodgers looked fine the next drive but Adams loses where the first down marker is and then the OL completely botches the 4th down run blocking. Not on the hammy.
* Defense again gets plastered by the NO offense. Not on the hammy.
* Next drive, the Packers are moving down the field and magically the hammy isn't mentioned by Collinsworth. Adams then stops running his route and Rodgers assumes he's going to keep running and another deflected ball is intercepted. Not on the hammy.

Boom. There's your game. Defense was putrid. The offense came up short too often in the red zone in getting TDs. They score one on 2 of those drives instead of FGs and they could have afforded some bad luck turnovers.

What you say is true, and points to several moments where the team could have rallied but before the hammy, Rodgers was pretty well in the driver's seat. He can play from inside the pocket, and still play like a top 5 QB, but there was clearly a bit of adjustment for him and for the offense during which the Saints just took over.

[Bossman641]

All said above is true, but the key, I think, was when Rodgers tweaked his hamstring.

Tie game at half with the teams matching each other TD for TD and FG for FG.
NO takes possession with the 2nd half kickoff to a first down, but then the Packer "D" holds on 4th down for a huge change of possession without a score in a puntless game.
Packers drive down field quickly, have 1st and goal from the 6, but with Rodgers clearly a bit hobbled.
With Rodgers out of sync, the expected run on 1st goes no where, Rodgers quickly gets rid of the 2nd down pass on a play he would normally have extended, then tries another quick, no movement pass that is intercepted.

A chance to go up by 7, or at least 3 evaporates, and the Packers can no longer keep up without Rodgers at his best.

Not saying they would have won, but until Rodgers' injury, I think the game looked like a classic shoot-out with teams matching score for score, but with the Packers looking to be in the leadership role and NO playing catchup, at least for a while. Up to that point, there was no evidence that the NO defense could stop the Packers any more than there was evidence GB could stop NO.

I agree with a lot of what you said. It's not hard to imagine a situation where the Packers would have been up 10-14 points in the third quarter.
- Better red zone production early on, Peppers not dropping the TD
- The tip drill pass to Cooks that somehow fell between 3 Packers directly into Cook's chest
- If Rodgers doesn't tweak his hamstring, he most likely steps up into the pocket and hits Adams running across the back of the end zone

Oh well, it is what it is. 6-2 sounds a whole lot better than 5-3 but the Packers still control their destiny. Detroit still has to play at NE, AZ, and GB and they are extremely lucky to be 6-2 right now.

[Patler]

* INT on a deflected pass, not on the hammy just bum luck. Stopped GB from going up at least 3 as you said. Not the hammy.
* Defense simply couldn't slow down, let alone stop NO on the next drive. Not on the hammy.
* Rodgers looked fine the next drive but Adams loses where the first down marker is and then the OL completely botches the 4th down run blocking. Not on the hammy.
* Defense again gets plastered by the NO offense. Not on the hammy.
* Next drive, the Packers are moving down the field and magically the hammy isn't mentioned by Collinsworth. Adams then stops running his route and Rodgers assumes he's going to keep running and another deflected ball is intercepted. Not on the hammy.

Boom. There's your game. Defense was putrid. The offense came up short too often in the red zone in getting TDs. They score one on 2 of those drives instead of FGs and they could have afforded some bad luck turnovers.

Rodgers at full speed extends the play on 2nd down instead of quickly throwing it away without even moving. Rodgers on the move is his most dangerous. A TD on 2nd down with Rodgers on the move, and you don't even get to the play resulting in the first interception.

After the hamstring tweak, Rodgers was not as accurate, nor were things as in sync in the passing game as they had been. The first interception wasn't a bad throw, but it could have been better, and if better maybe not tipped by the DB for the interception. We have all seen Rodgers deadly accurate many, many times. He was early in the game, but not after the hamstring.

No, the defense could not stop NO after that, but the NO defense showed no signs of being able to stop GB until the injury and watered down passing game thereafter.

Rodgers didn't look right for the remainder of the game. Adams didn't lose awarenes of where the first down was, he had to shift his momentum backward to catch the pass that was just a bit off. Rodgers at his best makes a better throw for the 1st down.

Rodgers made some plays work the rest of the game, but it wasn't the Rodgers of the first half + the drive before the injury, and therefore a different passing offense.

The complexion of the game changed with the tweaked hamstring. Maybe the result didn't change, but the run-away victory would not have been as dramatic, in my opinion.

[denverYooper]

Yes House had good coverage on that play. I'm talking about the other 500 yards of offense I guess.

Green Bay had over 500 yards of offense too... 515 to NO's 504, and 7.8 yards/play to NO's 7.6. The offensive numbers were very similar. Rodgers threw for 418 yards.

Also, 2 interceptions and 8 penalties for 84 yards, where NO had 0 and 4 for 35