More Banjo: Week 8 @ Falcons

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm on the other side of the coin. I am starting to get the feeling the packers aren't going anywhere this year. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe some of the younger players will step up, we started to see that yesterday and I hope it continues.

W-O-R-R-Y!

+1

It's the same ol' same ol' with this team. We can play with average to weak teams, but we figure out ways to lose to upper tier teams, i.e., teams with either an elite defense and/or an elite QB.

The problem is there is nothing elite about us.

Yes, we have injuries. Our starting CB's were out, as was Clay. To tell you the truth, Clay's loss didn't mean much considering how he's been playing this year (not to mention how little he's played). And people here were ready to lynch Randall for his poor play, now we're using his absence to excuse losing.

To compensate for the loss of our cornerbacks, we gave the youngsters help by playing a vanilla -- pseudo-prevent defense: rushing the passer with 2-4 players and dropping the rest into coverage. I suppose that's one way to handle it. But it wasn't working. At the half Atlanta was on pace to score 38 points. Another defensive coach might have endeavored to adjust, i.e., go all in on pressuring the QB in the second half. But that didn't happen. Apparently, Stubby and Dom were content with our defensive performance in the 1st half.

Except for Clay, the front seven were healthy AND I keep being told that we can generate pressure on the passer with the best of them. I just don't see it. It's kind of like being told time after time after time that we have the best QB in the league but not seeing much evidence of it, especially in the clutch.

Maybe I'm too old and cynical, but I've seen and heard all this crap before. We went into the season being hyped as a Super Bowl contender. Considering the strength of the schedule, some were even predicting we wouldn't lose a game. Now it looks like we'll be 8-8 with maybe a chance to limp into the playoffs.

People will say injuries are part of the game. Yup, and injuries seem to be the only part of the game we excel at. And injuries will be one of the biggest reasons we go nowhere this year.

P-A-N-I-C!

[Rutnstrut]

+1

It's the same ol' same ol' with this team. We can play with average to weak teams, but we figure out ways to lose to upper tier teams, i.e., teams with either an elite defense and/or an elite QB.

The problem is there is nothing elite about us.

Yes, we have injuries. Our starting CB's were out, as was Clay. To tell you the truth, Clay's loss didn't mean much considering how he's been playing this year (not to mention how little he's played). And people here were ready to lynch Randall for his poor play, now we're using his absence to excuse losing.

To compensate for the loss of our cornerbacks, we gave the youngsters help by playing a vanilla -- pseudo-prevent defense: rushing the passer with 2-4 players and dropping the rest into coverage. I suppose that's one way to handle it. But it wasn't working. At the half Atlanta was on pace to score 38 points. Another defensive coach might have endeavored to adjust, i.e., go all in on pressuring the QB in the second half. But that didn't happen. Apparently, Stubby and Dom were content with our defensive performance in the 1st half.

Except for Clay, the front seven were healthy AND I keep being told that we can generate pressure on the passer with the best of them. I just don't see it. It's kind of like being told time after time after time that we have the best QB in the league but not seeing much evidence of it, especially in the clutch.

Maybe I'm too old and cynical, but I've seen and heard all this crap before. We went into the season being hyped as a Super Bowl contender. Considering the strength of the schedule, some were even predicting we wouldn't lose a game. Now it looks like we'll be 8-8 with maybe a chance to limp into the playoffs.

People will say injuries are part of the game. Yup, and injuries seem to be the only part of the game we excel at. And injuries will be one of the biggest reasons we go nowhere this year.

P-A-N-I-C!

Yup they just aren't very good. But imo most of that is coaching or lack there of and TT being TT.

[Zool]

Funny how when Favre was QB, none of you Rodgers nut huggers had trouble calling him for the same shit Rodgers does.

You have exactly nothing to back this statement up. Literally nothing but a dark room, a Costco sized bag of Cheetos, an odd anger toward the team you are a "fan" of, and your mom yelling at you to get off the 'puter so she can use the phone.

[yetisnowman]

Well, when you possess the ball, you're in control of clock. You can throw down the middle and spike the ball for a quasi-time out. They would have had extra time if they had used their TO's at first and goal ATL.

When you're on D and the clock is winding and the opposing offense is glad to run it, they are burning clock.

Think MM screwed up on this one.

This really shouldn't even be debateable. Every qb in the nfl wants an extra minute as opposed to one or two timeouts.
Atlanta gains 4 yards on first down, so it's 2nd and goal from the 6, with about 1:05 left, we let the clock roll and they score with 27 seconds left. If they hadn't scored on 2nd down, would we have called TO then? Or let the clock keep running? Keep two timeouts and have 5 seconds left after they score or kick a field goal? There is zero logic to letting the clock run. You have multiple ways to stop the clock on offense, but zero ways to add time.
It's like some of you guys have been watching MM so long you have become unaware of what smart clock management looks like.

[Patler]

I guess then the mistake was keeping them out of the endzone for three plays?????
Then Rodgers could have had time AND timeouts left.

Having timeouts lets you use the whole field offensively, and you should keep one to bring on the field goal team. Yes, there are ways to stop the clock offensively, but how many times have we seen teams frantically trying to get set to spike the ball, and being unable; or wasting agonizing seconds getting everyone to the line of scrimmage to do it. Plus, every time you do spike the ball, you waste a play. So now you are giving yourself fewer opportunities to get first downs that will be needed.

Having a timeout is like adding time to the clock, perhaps 5-7 seconds that can be wasted trying to get set to spike the ball, plus it gives back to you the wasted play used for spiking the ball. Two timeouts can add 2 or 3 plays plus opportunities wasted on the spike, perhaps the difference of a 50+ yard field goal attempt with the team rushing to get on the field, or a 30 yard field goal attempt following a 3rd time out.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This really shouldn't even be debateable. Every qb in the nfl wants an extra minute as opposed to one or two timeouts.
Atlanta gains 4 yards on first down, so it's 2nd and goal from the 6, with about 1:05 left, we let the clock roll and they score with 27 seconds left. If they hadn't scored on 2nd down, would we have called TO then? Or let the clock keep running? Keep two timeouts and have 5 seconds left after they score or kick a field goal? There is zero logic to letting the clock run. You have multiple ways to stop the clock on offense, but zero ways to add time.

You are right, and it is not a debateable point. A hurry up offense can run three plays in 30 seconds, maybe more. A timeout on offense buys you exactly 1 snap, plus some lineup time.

Atlanta played Mike. They must have been giddy that GB let them drain the clock.

Listen to Bill Scott on the Mike Lucas show this morning, about 23 minutes in:

http://thebig1070.iheart.com/media/play/27438031/

He largely blames the loss on MM for his indefensible clock management. Lucas agrees that MM dropped the ball.

[yetisnowman]

I said it was dumb right after Atlanta's first down play. Again say they get stopped on 2nd down.....What's the plan? Great they kept two timeouts but they only have time to run one or two plays. The offense plays well, MM manages the clock like a pussy. The offense plays like shit then he gets bizarrely aggressive, calling timeouts when the other team has the ball with and undermined amount of plays remaining.
I guarantee guys like Brady, Rodgers, Brees want 1 minute 1 timeout , vs 25 seconds and 2 timeouts....or 1 minute zero timeouts vs less than 20 seconds and two timeouts.
More time gives you more flexibility. Good qbs don't panic about clocking the ball or getting out of bounds. I said it in the game thread before Atlanta scored, this isn't hindsight. Keep your opinion, that's fine, but my opinion proved correct at the end of the half. We ran out of time

[hoosier]

You are right, and it is not a debateable point. A hurry up offense can run three plays in 30 seconds, maybe more. A timeout on offense buys you exactly 1 snap, plus some lineup time.

Atlanta played Mike. They must have been giddy that GB let them drain the clock.

Listen to Bill Scott on the Mike Lucas show this morning, about 23 minutes in:

http://thebig1070.iheart.com/media/play/27438031/

He largely blames the loss on MM for his indefensible clock management. Lucas agrees that MM dropped the ball.

It's not cut and dried at all. If MM had started using his TOs he gives Atlanta more clock to play with and more time to get the right play called--and he ensures that he won't have them to use on offense. If he refrains from using his timeouts, and the defense does its job, it's entirely conceivable that Atlanta puts itself in the position of having to rush things at the end--or that it simply runs out of time. At the very worst, they will have them to use on offense, assuming that someone can actually get open and that Rodgers can actually throw him a catcheable ball. (Anecdotally, I remember watching a Packer game some years ago, maybe it was 2008 or 09, when the Pack was moving the ball and got into the red zone with 2:00 left in the half. McCarthy suddenly went into slow-down mode, killing most of the clock, but then on third down the other team stopped them--only to have a defensive holding call go against them. That gave the Packers a 1st-and-10 at the 5...but they didn't have enough time left to do anything with it.) If circumstances had been slightly different--say, 1:30 left and the Packers stop a running play to bring up third and goal--then using the TO would have made sense. But when you're starting a new set of downs with 2:00 left, there is a reasonable argument to be made for not using them.

[Pugger]

I think what really killed us yesterday was no real running game to speak of. Rip got a couple of decent runs but it is never a good thing when your QB is your leading rusher.

[ThunderDan]

Funny how when Favre was QB, none of you Rodgers nut huggers had trouble calling him for the same shit Rodgers does.

Funny how you Favre nut huggers had trouble calling him out for averaging 17.5 INT per season when he was a starter. Rogers in only 1 season has more INTs than Favre did in his best season.

Favre's best year was 2009 as a Viking throwing 9 INTs. His best ever season with the Pack was 13 INTs (done 3 times early in his career). Rogers has only had 13 INTs in his career once, his first year starting for the Pack.

And this is so ridiculous, people here have been complaining about ARod for the last year.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's not cut and dried at all. If MM had started using his TOs he gives Atlanta more clock to play with and more time to get the right play called--and he ensures that he won't have them to use on offense.

Atlanta had timeouts and all the clock they needed. If memory serves, they were around the 45 with 2 minutes left. There is a reason that Atlanta was not in a hurry-up mode. The need for taking timeouts continued all the way down to 31 seconds.

[pbmax]

Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 2m2 minutes ago
The #Packers have released RB Knile Davis, source said. That’s a bit of a surprise.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 2m2 minutes ago
The #Packers have released RB Knile Davis, source said. That’s a bit of a surprise.

Not if it means TT gets his draft choice back.

[Pugger]

Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 2m2 minutes ago
The #Packers have released RB Knile Davis, source said. That’s a bit of a surprise.

Does this mean Starks is ready to return?

[gbgary]

tt better have someone lined up. maybe a trade...with dal...for mcfadden.