The Sky Is Falling

[4and12to12and4]

Re: The Sky Is Falling

A first round loss in the playoffs and this season is still a success.

ummm NOOOOOOOOO

I couldn't disagree more. finishing 13-3 or 12-4 w/ a bye and a home playoff game, losing that game would be a huge failure. This team is very good and should pose a serious threat for being the NFC team to get beat by the Pats...losing that first game would be extremely disappointing because the NFC sucks outside of the Pack and Cowboys.

Na na na na, many here would take the 13-3 or 12-4 with a bye and losing a home playoff, yes we'd feel bad for sure, but it sure beats MANY of the predictions we predicted very early in the season, go dig 'em up, we hoped we'd be better off than '06 but how much ??? Huge surprise!

Yeah, someone should dig up the preseason threads showing what we were talking about before the season began. Most here would've been elated to be in a position that the Vikings are in right now. Have a chance for a winning season and make the playoffs in the final week. As I looked at the schedule this offseason, the Bears game last week scared me, because I thought that losing it would probably mean they knocked us out of playoff contention and won the North all in the same day. Instead, the game meant nothing to them, and not much to us either, we had already won the division two weeks earlier which is unbelievable, we have already exceeded EVERYONES expectations, so we can't "fail" at this point. The fact that we get to watch the first week of playoff football while our team waits to see who they play at Lambeau in week 2 is already a great season. It is going to be so much fun these next two weeks, the Detroit game, not meaning anything, the first week of the playoffs, not having to worry about who we are playing, and winning three postseason games on the road, etc.. This has been an awesome season regardless of what happens from here. And, we have almost guaranteed Brett coming back, and we have great leverage in the free agent market now, plus our team will be one year older next year. All is good in Green Bay, and if you are disappointed if we lose, remember where we were the last two years.

[FritzDontBlitz]

D did a good job, how many rushing yards did we give up and too say this was a meaningless game is pure foolishness, the Cowboys will and would have lost to the Skins next weekend and homefield would have gone through Lambeau, what a silly comment.

You are a psychic, right? You already know what Dallas will do this coming Sunday?

[b bulldog]

yes I am

[Zool]

yes I am

I knew you were going to say that.

[The Leaper]

oUR d STUNK, COULDN'T STOP THE bears. tHE d had the ball run right down their throats.

The biggest plays of the day for the Bears were mostly passing plays...a huge 3rd and 9 conversion on a screen pass on the first drive, two big pass plays for about 50 yards combined on their TD before halftime, a 3rd and 7 pass conversion on the Bears first TD in the second half (Olsen beating Barnett). Our defense really only gave up 21 points...and some of those points were aided by giving Chicago good field position by stupid special teams play/INTs. Those scoring drives typically had several big pass play conversions.

On a day without our best run defender, I thought our defense held up reasonably well against the run. The one big run play we gave up was the 20 yard run on the Bears second scoring drive when we blitzed and they hit a seam. We stuffed their run THREE TIMES after Ryan's first blocked punt that gave Chicago the ball inside the Packer 10 yard line, but then screwed up on our pass defense AGAIN...but were bailed out by Muhammad's hands of stone. Other than that, the Bears averaged about 2.5 yards per carry. The run defense did enough to keep this team in the game until our SPECIAL TEAMS gave the game to the Bears by refusing to accept that the weather conditions demanded a change in their approach.

Honestly, anyone claiming the Packer run defense was a failure this week is stupid. Sure they did give up a few short yardage conversions on the ground...but you can't stop a team on every short yardage conversion. It is more important to be able to stop 3rd and 7 or 3rd and 9...that was where we failed on Sunday. Our pass defense is what should be criticized, not the run defense.

[AtlPackFan]

Re: The Sky Is Falling

Just had to say that. Mostly for Bretsky and bulldog. I haven't been able to read many threads, but it sounds like some hamstrings are being pulled jumping off the bandwagon--although bulldog is never really on the bandwagon.

IMHO, no one posting on this site is jumping off the bandwagon. Bandwagon jumpers disappear (like Falcon fans)...I don't see anyone disappearing.

[AtlPackFan]

Re: The Sky Is Falling

It doesn't matter what happens; we're 12-3 and that's far better than I ever expected.

A first round loss in the playoffs and this season is still a success.

A 13-3, 12-4 team should not loose in the first round of the playoffs on their home field. IMHO, I would consider a first round playoff a failure.

[AtlPackFan]

The kind of offense the Packers have, where they are at their best by spreading things out and throwing most of the time, I suspect is not what M3 had in mind. He's done a good job of adjusting his offense to fit the reality of the situation. I suspect he and TT are going to take a close look at the OL in the off-season, and try to figure out what changes need to be made for the Packers to be a consistent running team.

I think this will tell us alot about TT. We have not seen consistency from Colledge, Spitz or Moll. Is this coaching? Is this scheme (I am not a fan of the ZBS)? Are they perhaps playing out of position?

If they don't consider either of the above to be the problem, then TT has to swallow his pride, admit these picks are not working out and bring adequate competition in either thru FA or the draft.

[AtlPackFan]

Re: The Sky Is Falling

A first round loss in the playoffs and this season is still a success.

ummm NOOOOOOOOO

I couldn't disagree more. finishing 13-3 or 12-4 w/ a bye and a home playoff game, losing that game would be a huge failure. This team is very good and should pose a serious threat for being the NFC team to get beat by the Pats...losing that first game would be extremely disappointing because the NFC sucks outside of the Pack and Cowboys.

I don't care what the predictions were at the beginning of the year the fact is we are 13-3 or 12-4. A team with that record shouldn't lose at home in the first round of the playoffs...especially in the NFC...unless you simply aren't as good as your record and 13-3/12-4 is pure luck.


Na na na na, many here would take the 13-3 or 12-4 with a bye and losing a home playoff, yes we'd feel bad for sure, but it sure beats MANY of the predictions we predicted very early in the season, go dig 'em up, we hoped we'd be better off than '06 but how much ??? Huge surprise!

[AtlPackFan]

The positive from this game for me: in all likelihood, this game was meaningless to us. However, the Bears winning gives them a worst draft position. The Bears victory also made it about twice as likely the Vikings don't make the playoffs. If the Cowboys were playing for something this weekend, they'd probably have 2/3 chance of winning. Now, the Redskins probably have 2/3 chance of winning. For me, that's a good thing.

I think the fact that we were playing for a chance at homefield throughout the playoffs made this game meaningless. Even if the likelihood is that the Cowboys would win out anyway, it might have at least forced them to play T.O against Washington giving him one less week to nurse his high ankle sprain.

[AtlPackFan]

NicThis team could be a better team next season and have a worse record.

Totally agree!

[AtlPackFan]

oUR d STUNK, COULDN'T STOP THE bears. tHE d had the ball run right down their throats.

Honestly, anyone claiming the Packer run defense was a failure this week is stupid. Sure they did give up a few short yardage conversions on the ground...but you can't stop a team on every short yardage conversion. It is more important to be able to stop 3rd and 7 or 3rd and 9...that was where we failed on Sunday. Our pass defense is what should be criticized, not the run defense.

Wolfe and Peterson combining for more than 130 yards isn't a factor! That is a lot of yards and a lot of clock. But then what do I know...I'm stupid!

[AtlPackFan]

The positive from this game for me: in all likelihood, this game was meaningless to us. However, the Bears winning gives them a worst draft position. The Bears victory also made it about twice as likely the Vikings don't make the playoffs. If the Cowboys were playing for something this weekend, they'd probably have 2/3 chance of winning. Now, the Redskins probably have 2/3 chance of winning. For me, that's a good thing.

I think the fact that we were playing for a chance at homefield throughout the playoffs gave this game meaning. Even if the likelihood is that the Cowboys would win out anyway, it might have at least forced them to play T.O against Washington giving him one less week to nurse his high ankle sprain.

Correction in bold above....sorry. [/b]

[The Leaper]

Wolfe and Peterson combining for more than 130 yards isn't a factor! That is a lot of yards and a lot of clock. But then what do I know...I'm stupid!

139 rushing yards is not a lot of yards...especially if you run the ball 40+ times. Green Bay racked up 125 yards...apparently the Bears defense must have really stunk it up.

I don't see where Chicago really controlled the clock much either outside of that first drive...which ate up almost 11 minutes, but only netted the Bears 3 points. Green Bay actually possessed the ball MORE after that first drive...so it wasn't like the Bears were playing keep away from our offense when the game was on the line.

Green Bay lost because we had 4 fumbles and 2 INTs which cost us field position and points. Green Bay lost because we had 2 blocked punts, which cost us field position and points. We did not lose because our run defense was a sieve.

[AtlPackFan]

Wolfe and Peterson combining for more than 130 yards isn't a factor! That is a lot of yards and a lot of clock. But then what do I know...I'm stupid!

139 rushing yards is not a lot of yards...especially if you run the ball 40+ times. Green Bay racked up 125 yards...apparently the Bears defense must have really stunk it up.

I don't see where Chicago really controlled the clock much either outside of that first drive...which ate up almost 11 minutes, but only netted the Bears 3 points. Green Bay actually possessed the ball MORE after that first drive...so it wasn't like the Bears were playing keep away from our offense when the game was on the line.

Green Bay lost because we had 4 fumbles and 2 INTs which cost us field position and points. Green Bay lost because we had 2 blocked punts, which cost us field position and points. We did not lose because our run defense was a sieve.

Over the first 16 weeks of the season (including byes), Green Bay is ranked 16th in rushing defense allowing 106.9 YPG. I would say giving up a 139 is a lot...I don't care how many rushes it took.

No, the rushing D did not cost us the game. The turnovers are what killed us. But to me, the rushing D was not good. The Bears weren't exactly running Stephen Jackson or Adrian Peterson at us.