More Banjo: Week 2 versus Vikings

[deake]

Wonder why Jackson wasn't on Diggs rather than House after King went down?

[Teamcheez1]

Packer Report @PackerReport

Working on my postgame numbers piece, a bit belatedly. Amazingly, the Packers ran 49 plays on the Vikings' side of the 50 and went 1-of-5 in red zone. Talk all you want about penalties but this is why they didn't win.

Of course one of those missed opportunities was the "holding" by Lane Taylor.

This is what cost us the game along with some other issues. The offense and defense will continue to get better as the season rolls along. I like our odds at their place.
It's unfortunate that we don't have the players to compete with the Vikings as heard in the echo chamber all week.

[3irty1]

the Packers would have won if the rules were correctly enforced.

But I don't feel that bad about it because the Vikings played a good second half, they made big plays. It's not like the Packers dominated them if you look at big picture. So packers got fucked, but vaseline was used.

This is pretty much how I feel. With so many missed opportunities to win despite the poor officiating, there is something unseemly about getting too upset.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

This is pretty much how I feel. With so many missed opportunities to win despite the poor officiating, there is something unseemly about getting too upset.

Well, then color me unseemly cause I'm upset. Cause it doesn't matter if NFL reviews the call and says sorry, we blew it, that is a win we ain't gonna get back this year.

[mraynrand]

This is pretty much how I feel. With so many missed opportunities to win despite the poor officiating, there is something unseemly about getting too upset.

The missed opportunities are like salt in the blown call wounds.

[ThunderDan]

Well, then color me unseemly cause I'm upset. Cause it doesn't matter if NFL reviews the call and says sorry, we blew it, that is a win we ain't gonna get back this year.

That's how I feel also. I am not sure why. I know in my mind that I have absolutely no affect on the game. But it sure is fun to make believe that wearing your Packers gear and sitting in the same spot influences the game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm a little upset at the common take here, "The rules suck. Just blame the rules." If you look at the rules they do not suck if they are imposed as written. Rushers shouldn't be able to hit the QB taking two steps or more. You shouldn't be able drive the QB body into the ground. The problem is that it is hard for referees to judge in real time. The refs aren't dummies, they aren't seeing all the TV angles and slo-mo that we are.

What do you want the NFL to do differently? Some seem to want the old days before pussification. But pussification is here to stay, football has to protect players health in order to survive.

Maybe we could have refs in the booth validate these difficult roughing calls by examining TV, like college does with targeting. Not a dumb idea, if I must say so myself.

[pbmax]

I don't mean to go all time traveling Orwellian on a Packers Board, but this is all avoidable if we don't let instant replay be invented.

Would Mike Renfro's career been a lot different if we didn't know he got jobbed in Pittsburgh?

[mraynrand]

^^^ Because they narrowed the window of what is roughing, it seems more difficult to call with consistency, and more difficult for defenders to comply. It could be that it will just take time for both defenders and officials to adjust, but it could also be that they set the threshold at a level that will make judgment more difficult than the catch rule. Also, we may not like the adjusted game - some people do actually like defense - collisions and tackling - to the extent that what Matthews (and Richardson) did was no big deal.

[mraynrand]

I don't mean to go all time traveling Orwellian on a Packers Board, but this is all avoidable if we don't let instant replay be invented.

Would Mike Renfro's career been a lot different if we didn't know he got jobbed in Pittsburgh?

so no recordings of games, no replay, no slow-mo? It was inevitable. People love the highlights especially in 'reverse angle' and in 'slow motion' Some of us actually remember when this stuff - and VHS tape recording - was first 'invented' and brought to the game. Certainly made the games more exciting and memorable.

[pbmax]

I'm a little upset at the common take here, "The rules suck. Just blame the rules." If you look at the rules they do not suck if they are imposed as written. Rushers shouldn't be able to hit the QB taking two steps or more. You shouldn't be able drive the QB body into the ground. The problem is that it is hard for referees to judge in real time. The refs aren't dummies, they aren't seeing all the TV angles and slo-mo that we are.

What do you want the NFL to do differently? Some seem to want the old days before pussification. But pussification is here to stay, football has to protect players health in order to survive.

Maybe we could have refs in the booth validate these difficult roughing calls by examining TV, like college does with targeting. Not a dumb idea, if I must say so myself.

In the end, refs in the booth are going to have to have a bigger role, as terrible as that sounds. College has this down pretty well so the delays are minimized (there are exceptions).

But that is the point about these rules now. They all make sense in the abstract and maybe under video review. But can human refs make these calls consistently?

Morelli is a good head ref. You can sorta see how Matthews did cause Cousins to get lifted up*. If he can't review it and is expected to side on player safety, what percentage of theses calls are going to be correct?


* Cousins went flying backward, though in as much of a defensive collapse as from a terrible blow. One foot left the ground, which should be almost exculpatory unless the defender is somehow twisting the QB to get a drilling into the turf effect.

[pbmax]

so no recordings of games, no replay, no slow-mo? It was inevitable. People love the highlights especially in 'reverse angle' and in 'slow motion' Some of us actually remember when this stuff - and VHS tape recording - was first 'invented' and brought to the game. Certainly made the games more exciting and memorable.

Not serious. But just as replay was almost inevitable because of replay, booth review has to become a bigger part of the game to help slow it down for the guys on the field.

[Fritz]

This is what cost us the game along with some other issues. The offense and defense will continue to get better as the season rolls along. I like our odds at their place.
It's unfortunate that we don't have the players to compete with the Vikings as heard in the echo chamber all week.

While you can count me in amongst those who are absolutely pissed at the Matthews call (I've been watching football for fifty years no and in no universe I've inhabited, even the LSD one, is that a penalty) and the Lane Taylore call. I also don't like that the Packers lost steam, though I do not mind MM's aggressiveness in trying to get to the end zone toward the end of the game. It's a game they ought to have won, and would have if Matthews hadn't had that shitty call against him. But you can also say Pettine's defense failed at the end, like so many of Dom's, and we were hoping for a different vibe. And Kevin King having an injured groin does NOT bode well, either short-term or long-term.

However, I will also say that it's a long, long season, and while this may have some impact somewhere, we don't know how it will all end up. We were very competitive with a team that most of us on this board thinks is much more talented than the Packers at all but one or maybe two positions. So all the doomsday calls about "35 - 17 Minnesota" were flat-out wrong, and there are a lot of games to play. Anything could happen.

[mraynrand]

In the end, refs in the booth are going to have to have a bigger role, as terrible as that sounds. College has this down pretty well so the delays are minimized (there are exceptions).

But that is the point about these rules now. They all make sense in the abstract and maybe under video review. But can human refs make these calls consistently?

Morelli is a good head ref. You can sorta see how Matthews did cause Cousins to get lifted up*. If he can't review it and is expected to side on player safety, what percentage of theses calls are going to be correct?


* Cousins went flying backward, though in as much of a defensive collapse as from a terrible blow. One foot left the ground, which should be almost exculpatory unless the defender is somehow twisting the QB to get a drilling into the turf effect.

You know what would make football even more fun? Have the two political parties, each with a lawyer in the booth, with each supporting one of the teams. The 'booth review' could be the two arguing over the call using language like 'exculpatory evidence' 'precedent' and 'emanations of penumbras' of the NFL rules, until an 'impartial' judge and jury (6 fans each) rules on each call. Could rename the whole enterprise "Law and Order: NFL"

[pbmax]

You know what would make football even more fun? Have the two political parties, each with a lawyer in the booth, with each supporting one of the teams. The 'booth review' could be the two arguing over the call using language like 'exculpatory evidence' 'precedent' and 'emanations of penumbras' of the NFL rules, until an 'impartial' judge and jury (6 fans each) rules on each call. Could rename the whole enterprise "Law and Order: NFL"

Byron Donzis predicted that fans would have handheld devices that allowed them to bet on what happens next in the game.

We could just use those, plus fans at home, to vote on the correct call.