Vic Ketchmab calls a spade a spade with fans who live in fantasy

[pbmax]

That run that Spriggs whiffed on was unsuccessful in gaining yards. It was successful in keeping them within field goal range and it forced Dallas to use their second timeout which was most important.
.

But it made the FG more difficult. It was already at the end of his effective range.

I like being aggressive here, especially facing another 50 yard FG. So I don't want him to kneel. But run-run-run in heavy packages invites the kind of loss of yardage that happened to the 4 minute offense in Seattle. This was a repeat. And even more predictable. The D is going to shoot gaps to make this happen.

Tactically, I understand. Lowest possible chance of turnover, still chance of gaining yards, drain the clock/TO. But when you telegraph your play AND you stink out loud in short yardage, you seriously lower any chance of yardage gained and increase the risk of losing yardage for your kicker.

You have to match the tactics to the opponent and to the game situation. The Packers have seen Crosby miss these long ones before. Its not a done deal from 50+ yards out and they do not have a lead to fall back on.

Trust your QB while calling a conservative, heavier run package. Don't pull the plug once you hit 50 yard FG range.

[pbmax]

And another thing: this is Jason Garrett we are talking about. He is very conservative in game management.

The Seahawks and Patriots aren't going to clock the ball on first down.

[ThunderDan]

And another thing: this is Jason Garrett we are talking about. He is very conservative in game management.

The Seahawks and Patriots aren't going to clock the ball on first down.

Maybe, maybe not. Since the Seahawks and Pats weren't in the game we will never know. Let's leave it there.

[ThunderDan]

By releasing Sitton and playing Taylor and saving a ton in salary cap money the Packers now have the ability to pay Jared Cook. Thanks Ted!

[Fritz]

But it made the FG more difficult. It was already at the end of his effective range.

I like being aggressive here, especially facing another 50 yard FG. So I don't want him to kneel. But run-run-run in heavy packages invites the kind of loss of yardage that happened to the 4 minute offense in Seattle. This was a repeat. And even more predictable. The D is going to shoot gaps to make this happen.

Tactically, I understand. Lowest possible chance of turnover, still chance of gaining yards, drain the clock/TO. But when you telegraph your play AND you stink out loud in short yardage, you seriously lower any chance of yardage gained and increase the risk of losing yardage for your kicker.

You have to match the tactics to the opponent and to the game situation. The Packers have seen Crosby miss these long ones before. Its not a done deal from 50+ yards out and they do not have a lead to fall back on.

Trust your QB while calling a conservative, heavier run package. Don't pull the plug once you hit 50 yard FG range.

What he say.

This is the best-articulated criticism I've seen of that second run call.

And is this the second time Jason Spriggs has missed a block on one of these types of runs in the last two weeks? That big, "this is it" moment?

[texaspackerbacker]

The key question to ask is what would the Packers be like without Aaron Rodgers - or if he was merely a good QB instead of as great as he is? I'm not talking Cutler quality, but let's say maybe Eli Manning or Alex Smith, like that. My answer would be that looking down the rest of the roster, we'd have a pretty bad team - overall, worse that just about anybody else you can name. THAT tells the tale about Ted Thompson. Anybody disagree?

[ThunderDan]

I completely disagree. TT has shown he knows how to draft a QB when needed. MM has shown to be able to coach up QBs.

We wouldn't be nearly as good at QB but we would be stable. The organization and team are so important in the NFL. Stability and continuity are so important. Look at the 3 best franchises in the last 20 years. PITT, NE and GB have stayed the course and have been rewarded with above average to excellent play for a long stretch. You can say look at their QBs. But we have seen PITT and NE be able to pop QBs in and out of the lineup with success. We had Wallace and Tolzien losing for us but TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back.

[ThunderDan]

People on this forum were jokingly calling for ARod to be traded mid-year and play Hundley. I feel confident that Hundley could come in and hold the fort down (which means go 2-2 or 3-1) for a 4 game stretch if needed during the regular season. Looking forward to seeing his growth in next year's preseason.

[yetisnowman]

The key question to ask is what would the Packers be like without Aaron Rodgers - or if he was merely a good QB instead of as great as he is? I'm not talking Cutler quality, but let's say maybe Eli Manning or Alex Smith, like that. My answer would be that looking down the rest of the roster, we'd have a pretty bad team - overall, worse that just about anybody else you can name. THAT tells the tale about Ted Thompson. Anybody disagree?

We don't see eye to eye on much....but I agree 100% here. I think we might win 3 or 4 games with Eli on our roster. Our team is built on Aaron being dominant, precise, and winning the turnover battle. We are not a very talented team top to bottom. Look at the Giants this year. Eli was like 29th in QBR this season and they still won 11 games. Look what happens for stretches when Aaron plays mediocre-good...we lose a lot.

[texaspackerbacker]

So maybe we might come up to Browns or Bears quality? The Bears have been pretty stable.

Don't take it back just twenty years, as Favre did approximately what Rodgers does now in his era to keep the team near the top. Consider the 80s. I would suggest that's what we'd be like without Aaron Rodgers and with the present rest of the team.

[pbmax]

So maybe we might come up to Browns or Bears quality? The Bears have been pretty stable.

Don't take it back just twenty years, as Favre did approximately what Rodgers does now in his era to keep the team near the top. Consider the 80s. I would suggest that's what we'd be like without Aaron Rodgers and with the present rest of the team.

With a mediocre QB, the Packers would be much better than the Browns. And a step above the Bears even if you just swap QBs rather than spend the $20 million per year elsewhere.

But a more important point is what QB would Ted have drafted in first three rounds prior to Hundley without AR holding down the fort.

[vince]

But it made the FG more difficult. It was already at the end of his effective range.

I like being aggressive here, especially facing another 50 yard FG. So I don't want him to kneel. But run-run-run in heavy packages invites the kind of loss of yardage that happened to the 4 minute offense in Seattle. This was a repeat. And even more predictable. The D is going to shoot gaps to make this happen.

Tactically, I understand. Lowest possible chance of turnover, still chance of gaining yards, drain the clock/TO. But when you telegraph your play AND you stink out loud in short yardage, you seriously lower any chance of yardage gained and increase the risk of losing yardage for your kicker.

You have to match the tactics to the opponent and to the game situation. The Packers have seen Crosby miss these long ones before. Its not a done deal from 50+ yards out and they do not have a lead to fall back on.

Trust your QB while calling a conservative, heavier run package. Don't pull the plug once you hit 50 yard FG range.

What you have to do is win the game. A 5-yard loss as a result of a complete whiff of a block still helped win that game. The way the game played out from there, an incompletion in that same circumstance may well have helped lose it. At minimum, it very likely would have eliminated the Packers final game-winning drive.

[yetisnowman]

I completely disagree. TT has shown he knows how to draft a QB when needed. MM has shown to be able to coach up QBs.

We wouldn't be nearly as good at QB but we would be stable. The organization and team are so important in the NFL. Stability and continuity are so important. Look at the 3 best franchises in the last 20 years. PITT, NE and GB have stayed the course and have been rewarded with above average to excellent play for a long stretch. You can say look at their QBs. But we have seen PITT and NE be able to pop QBs in and out of the lineup with success. We had Wallace and Tolzien losing for us but TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back.

And again that speaks to the talent level difference. The Packers are 3-7-1 without Rodgers over the years. Pats without Brady are 14-6. That's no coincidence. You think we win more than a couple games with an entire season of Hundley at qb?

[vince]

This is all meaningless hypothetical conjecture. Ted did draft Rodgers.
If Ted Thompson had not drafted Rodgers, his entire situation would be different - and his approach regarding how he would have composed the team from there on would have been a reflection of that difference.

[texaspackerbacker]

If so, that QB is out there somewhere now. I certainly don't see another Aaron Rodgers or even close. Without him, we might not be Browns quality - this years team, but we very well might be Bears quality - consistently mediocre. Whether it's bad luck or whatever, with the exception of Rodgers and maybe Clay Matthews, Thompson hasn't drafted any top level players. Look around at other teams; Just about everybody - with a few lame exceptions - has drafted at least a few more than that. It's not even just about hating to sign high level free agents. It's about just barely getting by instead of maximizing things.