Big Mac

[George Cumby]

I once knew a guy who decided that his nephews were not tough enough because sometimes they came home from school complaining that other kids were picking on them. Uncle told them to buck up and punch the bullies in the nose next time they bothered them. The kids didn't do it, and next time they came home crying he decided to take them on a hike across the Grand Canyon with no water in mid July. That'll toughen em up.

Did they live?

[Patler]

You've been wrong on much of your analysis of the game, Leroy Butler has forgotten more about football than you know.

I agree, he has; and maybe that's the problem. He has forgotten it, gravitating instead to the media personality type, trying to maintain an edge of controversy as many do. I think he makes some odd comments quite often, and saying the Packers were not aggressive enough in the last drive is one.

i am absolutely convinced that had they used their timeouts early, then gotten into a situation of having to clock the ball, or were limited to passing only and sideline plays with no way to stop the clock, he would have lambasted them for wasting their timeouts early, because that is what he does with some regularity, criticize rather than analyze. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much he knows about football. It's for the "show". Many in the media do it.

Does Butler know more about this particular game plan specifically, and game management generally than Aaron Rodgers does? More than MM does? Just because Butler said it, doesn't mean it's right. He can be absolutely wrong, too; just as he thinks AR and MM were.

The simple fact is this. The first three plays of the last drive worked beautifully. They chewed up yards like crazy to get within scoring range, with all their timeouts remaining and more than enough time to use them with their entire arsenal of plays in their game plan available to them to get the TD. If the Packers failed in the drive because their play was disorganized, I would agree they should have used timeouts to get settled. But, they executed more successfully in hurry up, and failed following clock stoppage for out of bounds and two incompletions.

[mraynrand]

If they were going for TD, they call TO after Cobb pass.

Stubby has never done it that way before. He always prefers the hurry up snap to using TOs. He always saves them for last, and often they end up with 1 or more left over. If they had completed to Lacy or R.Rodgers, they call TO. And then on the next play, if it stays inbounds, etc. The difference is that they din't convert on two straight passes, so they couldn't use the TOs - Too bad! ouch. But the sequence was totally consistent with what Stubby's done before.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Packers' use of timeouts on final drive is small issue, I did not choose to make a big deal out of it. It was mentioned as one of the many straws of cautious play that ultimately broke the camel's back.

You can go through each and every one of the 100 conservative moves the Packers made in that game and make a strong argument in favor of them. Heck, even a smart football guy like Erik Baranzyk sees Burnett's slide as prudent!

The point is that when you play an entire game with so much caution, the team loses confidence, the opposition is emboldened. Predators can smell fear.

[mraynrand]

I love LeRoy Butler - he has a lot of passion for football and was a great player. But he's not a great football mind, strategy-wise. He misses a decent amount of pretty obvious stuff.

[mraynrand]

The Packers' use of timeouts on final drive is small issue, I did not choose to make a big deal out of it. It was mentioned as one of the many straws of cautious play that ultimately broke the camel's back.

I don't think this fits. It wasn't cautious or incautious, it was just what the offense always does under Stubby. They run the clock, save their TOs and use them when they have to. They ran a great set of three plays and then didn't get the chance to use the TOs when they normally would have. Part of it was play selection, part execution, part bad luck. I wish they'd tried a run. I think Starks coulda busted on to get them in close for a few shots at the end zone. Maybe not risking a run could be called too cautious, but that's opinion and a minor quibble.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I love mraynrand. He's so passionate, so enthusiastic. A good chap. Just not the brightest bulb on the tree.

[Patler]

I think Butler & Silverstein are as sharp as they come.

I'm surprised Butler isn't coaching. Maybe he doesn't want to, or maybe he is boat rocker.

Actually, that is somewhat of an indictment against him, if I am remembering correctly. As I recall, early in his retirement, he desperately wanted to coach, talking about it quite often. I recall a story of him contacting the Packers and volunteering to come in for nothing to work with GB's young safeties. The Packers seemed totally disinterested. I recall him saying in an interview that he had some talks with other teams and might have something soon. Usually it is easy for players to get training camp times, coaching internships, etc. Nothing ever developed for Butler, even though he seemed to want it.

Odd, for a guy who was a great player, and worthy of the HOF, in my opinion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Butler has a thousand times more football sense than armchair generals Rand or Patler. He doesn't have the polish - he;s a Florida State man - but he's a ton smarter than these guys about football. Throw Vince on the know-it-all list.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Now, as Rev Reggie White might explain, Leroy may not have been gifted in the area of financial management.

http://www.wisn.com/news/former-packer-leroy-butler-looks-to-repair-his-image/24779336

[mraynrand]

I love mraynrand. He's so passionate, so enthusiastic. A good chap. Just not the brightest bulb on the tree.

I have my limitations. But since I care, you should take everything I write as gospel truth.

[Patler]

You've been wrong on much of your analysis of the game, .

Probably true, especially on the aspects when I agreed with you that they should have been more agressive in some situations. For example, like you I have said:

- While I was OK with the first FG, because it is important to get some points, the early lead, etc., on subsequent fourth and shorts I would like to have seen more agressiveness. (Probably not at midfield, however.)
- I still think Burnett should have run at least for a while. He was in no danger at all. He should have run at least enough to see if a clear lane opened. It looked like reaching the sideline would be no problem, and there he could step out to protect himself and the ball. Going down that soon made sense only if he didn't feel he had good control of the ball, which i acknowledge was wet and different for a guy not used to handling it. (Note, returing any interception has to feel quite odd for Burnett. )

As the game unfolded, it would be foolish to have thrown all caution to the wind, but I like to see teams take wins, not back into them. So yes, I think that generally more aggressiveness might have locked up the game earlier.

[hoosier]

Did they live?

One did.

[Patler]

At least I am willing to take stands agreeing with some of what they did and disagreeing with other things they did.
Monday morning QBs like HH just disagree with everything, because, after all, they lost.

[Harlan Huckleby]

At least I am willing to take stands agreeing with some of what they did and disagreeing with other things they did.
Monday morning QBs like HH just disagree with everything, because, after all, they lost.

I disagree with everything? I gave the Packers, Capers and MM plenty of credit. I was also criticizing the play-not-to-lose signs as they were happening, not in hindsight.