- Messages
- 47,997
- Reaction score
- 27,917
A choice thread from a Packer board...
big ror Yesterday, 11:06 PM Post #1
Obviously, home field advantage—barring the Cowboys going on an unexpected losing streak—was at stake. Yes, I understand that.
However, I feel that the Packers potentially could gain more from this loss than the Cowboys could gain from the win.
Home field advantage aside, the Packers can look at this game as viable proof that they are a complete team. Consider the context. KGB is out. Woodson is out. Favre goes out in the second quarter. The team is down by 17. To be down three in the early part of the fourth quarter, and seven in the later part of the fourth quarter under those circumstances is something to build upon.
The Packers proved tonight that they are not a one man show. Yes, Favre is indubitably a significant reason why this team is 10-2 (after tonight), but this game proved that the Packers are a good TEAM. When their leader left the game, the Packers responded—big time.
Rodgers did not play outstanding, but he played very well (one might say very, very well), especially considering the circumstances. The future looks much brighter after tonight than it did yesterday, and for those of you clamoring for A-Rod to get more playing time *cough*GBP4EVER*cough* this game provided empirical evidence that he can carry the load. To be honest, if you wanted to subject A-Rod to the most severe circumstances, tonight would be thee night. More importantly, I think he responded beautifully. He proved that he is a viable option at quarterback when Favre retires. Some people believed he was the real deal after his preseason performance; others still had their doubts. To be honest, after tonight, my doubts have dissipated. Consider the magnitude of tonight’s game, Rodger’s displayed not only the moxie and confidence I want from my quarterbacks but also the desire to win. Rodgers knew that most people thought the game was over when he came in—he was the backup quarterback facing a 17 point hole on the road.
Considering the outcome, those people were right, but Rodgers nontheless took that challenge head on, and he proved why the 49ers made a monumental mistake drafting Alex Smith rather than him three years ago. He showed Packer fans that he could be the Packers’ version of Steve Young to Joe Montanta.
Regardless of Aaron Rodgers’ play, this game was more important because the loss puts the proverbial chip on the Packers’ shoulder. Aside from the Patriots/Cowboys game, this was the most hyped game of the season. That, coupled with the fact that it was on the NFL network definitely made ol’ Roger Goodell giddy. Still, the Packers, I assume, feel as though they have something to prove. If the Packers believe that they were beaten by a better team tonight, then they are completely ignorant and will go nowhere the rest of the season.
After Favre left the game, I expected a lopsided finish. And to some, 10 points might seem as such. However, the Packers showed far more heart in the second half than the Cowboys.
I am never one to make excuses, but to deny that KGB’s and Woodson’s absences were not prevalent is simply fatuous. Romo had success today, but his success was predicated on having time to throw the ball. Watching Romo sling the ball around today reminded me of practically every single Patriots’ game I watched this year.
Romo had absolutely no pressure.
Now I will give credit where it is due. The Cowboys did a tremendous job blocking. More significant, however, was how the Cowboys used T.O. Many on this board assumed that Al Harris would marginalize T.O.—I was one of those people. However, Jason Garret was prepared, as he put T.O. in motion constantly throughout the night. T.O. beat Harris a couple times, but T.O.’s production came on mismatches. If Woodson would have been in the game, those mismatches would have not nearly been as available.
I do not want to use injuries as excuses, but reality is reality. Woodson would have made a huge difference—and I am putting those “pass interference” calls, notice the quotations marks, in a separate category. In addition, KGB would have enhanced what was an anemic pass rush. Aside from the three or four times Kampman put pressure on Romo, the rush was insignificant.
Speaking of the rush, this is where I thought Mike McCarthy and his staff game planned for the future.
From the first series, it was obvious that Dallas was trying to compensate for their weakness. Everyone knows they have a suspect secondary, and to accommodate it, they blitzed—incessantly. The Cowboys, typically, are not a blitzing team, but they sure did away with that trend tonight. They brought the house on Favre—one blitz in particular put him out of the game.
The Packers, contrarily, opted not to blitz. At first, I was incensed. Romo had too much time to throw, and I figured in the second half the Packers would come with elaborate blitz schemes, knowing they needed to apply pressure on Romo. Instead, they stuck to their bread and butter: the four-man pass rush. Yes, they blitzed a little more in the second half, but nothing too extraordinary or intricate; it was pretty mundane
Thus, this strategy got me thinking. Did Mike McCarthy intentionally plan a vanilla package? Do not misinterpret me: this game was important; it was the biggest game of the year. McCarthy knew this. However, considering the injuries to KGB and Woodson, and then taking into account the injury to Favre, do you think that McCarthy—from the moment Favre went down—intentionally went to a basic package on offense and defense?
I am not trying to construe this as a fault against McCarthy. If the Packers were to win any of these two games—yes, I am counting the NFC Championship game—I would rather them lose now and win come January. So, did McCarthy have this in mind, and if so, did he go bland? Moreover, after removing myself from this loss, I think that if he did, it is a good thing.
Yes, I wish the Packers had won. I would be lying if I said otherwise.
However, after digesting the game and letting it marinate. I think the Packers came away with this game with more to gain than the Cowboys did. Sure, the Cowboys won and they have the inside track to the playoffs. Yes, barring a collapse on their part, they will be the number one seed.
But, to be honest, the Packers saw what the Cowboys have to offer. The Cowboys brought all of their intricate blitzes; they ran all of their intricate pass formations—I wholeheartedly do not think the Cowboys can play better than they did tonight. That was them at their peak.
The Packers, contrarily, ran a more vanilla defense—a defense that was missing two very significant contributors. Furthermore, they ran an offense that was essentially dumbed down. This is not a knock on Rodgers, but McCarthy did not feed Aaron the plays he normally would Favre—be realistic. Thus, considering these factors, I feel the Packers can come out of this game better than the Cowboys.
The Packers are a passing team. Yes, playing in Lambeau in January is a plus, but the Packers can win in Dallas. Over the past two years, they proved that they are a better team on the road than at home. They put up a fight tonight under circumstances when they had no business even being in the game.
Come January, I feel confident in this Packer team. Mike McCarthy has a moment lying before him. He can capitalize on this moment, and put this team in the direction to go to the Super Bowl. Or, he can ignore the moment. Regardless of what he does, I feel this moment is evident; incredibly palpable. The Cowboys won, and they deserved to win. But taking this game—as a whole—into consideration, the Packers have much, much, much more to gain from this loss than the Cowboys do from this win.
Therefore, I say this, Cowboy fan. The Packers may have lost, but in losing, they illustrated teamwork, confidence, and desire. Despite the loss of their fearless leader, # 4, they showed that they are not a team that will simply roll over and concede, a team to walk over in the face of adversary.
This is a good football team. And, analogous to the Bears’ game, the Packers can learn and improve from this loss.
So Romo, T.O. and Mr. Phillips (whom I think is a horrible coach, but that is a different diatribe on a different day), heed this caveat carefully: you won tonight, and I advocate that you enjoy this win because in January, when it matters the most, you are going to see a different team—a healthy team that has something to prove.
Batman21 Yesterday, 11:20 PM Post #2
I know this may sound like sour grapes, but the Packers also were playing against 3 completely lousy game changing call or non-calls.
1) When Driver was going for the ball on the first drive near the endzone, the Dallas Defender put his arm in his face and never looked for the ball. If I remember correctly this is face guarding and is a penalty.
2) Al Harris clearly took the ball from Owens and his progress was clearly not stopped.
3) The Pass Interference on Williams when the players legs were tangled.
These are all significant as they could have obviously changed the course of the game.
Randolph Hiedler Yesterday, 11:26 PM Post #3
Did you just say Rodgers didn't play outstanding?! He was looking like Brett Favre out there compared to Brett Favre who was looking like Doug Pederson. Rodgers single handedly got us back in the game.
Wolfman Yesterday, 11:30 PM Post #4
Thanks for posting this. I did not get to see the game, so I appreciate you and Arrigo putting your collective thoughts here. Sounds like the Pack will be just fine with Aaron Rogers at the helm. That was a good pick. I was watching ESPN and they kept giving updates. Once Aaron went into the game, it looked like the Packers kept their heads and went after it. That bodes very well for the future, imho.
I was disappointed watching the Detroit game, when all those key players went down with injuries. It'll be interesting to see what happens if these two teams meet again with KGB, Woodson, Rouse, Jolly, maybe Cole, and others back in the lineup.
One thing though, I am VERY concerned about the lack of a pass-rush. I'm not sure why the Packers don't blitz more or try to mix it up. Perhaps they are saving it all for the play-offs...but that doesn't make much sense to me. This is a game they would MUCH rather have won. I'd like to see more pressure on the opposing QB's. It drives me nuts to see an opposing QB stand back there all day. ANY NFL QB will pick your eyes out with that kind of time, let alone a good QB like Romo.
Thanks again to you and Joe. It was nice reading all the positive notes from this game.
FarveToBrooks Today, 01:23 AM Post #5
Thus, this strategy got me thinking. Did Mike McCarthy intentionally plan a vanilla package? Do not misinterpret me: this game was important; it was the biggest game of the year. McCarthy knew this. However, considering the injuries to KGB and Woodson, and then taking into account the injury to Favre, do you think that McCarthy—from the moment Favre went down—intentionally went to a basic package on offense and defense?
Interesting that you had the same thought that I did, but I kind of thought going into this game that we might see some pretty vanilla stuff from the Pack since the pressure really was on Dallas to win as homefield favorites....if I were coach, I would have game-planned this way from the start. You try to win, but you know you are almost surely going to have your second chance even if you lose....so, you tell your guys that this game is as much about learning what to expect from Dallas in every given formation/attack as it is about winning the game. With Woodson, KGB, Franks, Rouse out, that was enough reason to think the psychology of losing isn't all that bad if we learn how to smash them next time.....the added bonus for the psychological part of this (if it is actually true) is that Favre went down too and they actually battled back closer, didn't fall apart....let's just hope it's not too serious, I feel comfortable with ARod, but would rather see #4 in a NFC Championship rematch....
I think we saw both a definite desire to win, but generally base packages plus a few little tricks (onside kickoff, flea-flicker) to see how Dallas reacts to certain situations....a lot of deep balls, maybe to see on film where coverages roll out of various formations, etc......
kanadianpackerfan Today, 04:26 AM Post #6
This may be entirely superfluous, but the offensive game planning seemed to shift away from what they have been doing so well lately. I would have like to see Brett using more checkdowns and more runs from Grant. I saw a few too many five WR packages. I like this package but it was used just a little too much it seemed. I hope the coaching staff reverts back to what they were doing, or what they did when Rodgers was in the game.
rpiotr01 Today, 05:44 AM Post #7
QUOTE(kanadianpackerfan @ Nov 30 2007, 07:26 AM)
This may be entirely superfluous, but the offensive game planning seemed to shift away from what they have been doing so well lately. I would have like to see Brett using more checkdowns and more runs from Grant. I saw a few too many five WR packages. I like this package but it was used just a little too much it seemed. I hope the coaching staff reverts back to what they were doing, or what they did when Rodgers was in the game.
Not sure it was the packages fault, to me it was on either Favre or Mccarthy. Favre kept going for those big shots when there was no need to. I mean, I understand the sentiment, he wanted to take the crowd out, but all it did was accomplish two things - waste downs, and expose him to injury because he had to hold the ball longer for receivers to get downfield. They went COMPLETELY away from what brought them this far. Rodgers came in and rant that type of game and they responded with two TD drives. Next time dance with the one who brought you!
ray Today, 06:01 AM Post #8
Why did Brett abandon the offense and start heaving footballs? Rogers would have done better and stuck with what got the team there. Was that Brett or was that the gameplan.
big ror Yesterday, 11:06 PM Post #1
Obviously, home field advantage—barring the Cowboys going on an unexpected losing streak—was at stake. Yes, I understand that.
However, I feel that the Packers potentially could gain more from this loss than the Cowboys could gain from the win.
Home field advantage aside, the Packers can look at this game as viable proof that they are a complete team. Consider the context. KGB is out. Woodson is out. Favre goes out in the second quarter. The team is down by 17. To be down three in the early part of the fourth quarter, and seven in the later part of the fourth quarter under those circumstances is something to build upon.
The Packers proved tonight that they are not a one man show. Yes, Favre is indubitably a significant reason why this team is 10-2 (after tonight), but this game proved that the Packers are a good TEAM. When their leader left the game, the Packers responded—big time.
Rodgers did not play outstanding, but he played very well (one might say very, very well), especially considering the circumstances. The future looks much brighter after tonight than it did yesterday, and for those of you clamoring for A-Rod to get more playing time *cough*GBP4EVER*cough* this game provided empirical evidence that he can carry the load. To be honest, if you wanted to subject A-Rod to the most severe circumstances, tonight would be thee night. More importantly, I think he responded beautifully. He proved that he is a viable option at quarterback when Favre retires. Some people believed he was the real deal after his preseason performance; others still had their doubts. To be honest, after tonight, my doubts have dissipated. Consider the magnitude of tonight’s game, Rodger’s displayed not only the moxie and confidence I want from my quarterbacks but also the desire to win. Rodgers knew that most people thought the game was over when he came in—he was the backup quarterback facing a 17 point hole on the road.
Considering the outcome, those people were right, but Rodgers nontheless took that challenge head on, and he proved why the 49ers made a monumental mistake drafting Alex Smith rather than him three years ago. He showed Packer fans that he could be the Packers’ version of Steve Young to Joe Montanta.
Regardless of Aaron Rodgers’ play, this game was more important because the loss puts the proverbial chip on the Packers’ shoulder. Aside from the Patriots/Cowboys game, this was the most hyped game of the season. That, coupled with the fact that it was on the NFL network definitely made ol’ Roger Goodell giddy. Still, the Packers, I assume, feel as though they have something to prove. If the Packers believe that they were beaten by a better team tonight, then they are completely ignorant and will go nowhere the rest of the season.
After Favre left the game, I expected a lopsided finish. And to some, 10 points might seem as such. However, the Packers showed far more heart in the second half than the Cowboys.
I am never one to make excuses, but to deny that KGB’s and Woodson’s absences were not prevalent is simply fatuous. Romo had success today, but his success was predicated on having time to throw the ball. Watching Romo sling the ball around today reminded me of practically every single Patriots’ game I watched this year.
Romo had absolutely no pressure.
Now I will give credit where it is due. The Cowboys did a tremendous job blocking. More significant, however, was how the Cowboys used T.O. Many on this board assumed that Al Harris would marginalize T.O.—I was one of those people. However, Jason Garret was prepared, as he put T.O. in motion constantly throughout the night. T.O. beat Harris a couple times, but T.O.’s production came on mismatches. If Woodson would have been in the game, those mismatches would have not nearly been as available.
I do not want to use injuries as excuses, but reality is reality. Woodson would have made a huge difference—and I am putting those “pass interference” calls, notice the quotations marks, in a separate category. In addition, KGB would have enhanced what was an anemic pass rush. Aside from the three or four times Kampman put pressure on Romo, the rush was insignificant.
Speaking of the rush, this is where I thought Mike McCarthy and his staff game planned for the future.
From the first series, it was obvious that Dallas was trying to compensate for their weakness. Everyone knows they have a suspect secondary, and to accommodate it, they blitzed—incessantly. The Cowboys, typically, are not a blitzing team, but they sure did away with that trend tonight. They brought the house on Favre—one blitz in particular put him out of the game.
The Packers, contrarily, opted not to blitz. At first, I was incensed. Romo had too much time to throw, and I figured in the second half the Packers would come with elaborate blitz schemes, knowing they needed to apply pressure on Romo. Instead, they stuck to their bread and butter: the four-man pass rush. Yes, they blitzed a little more in the second half, but nothing too extraordinary or intricate; it was pretty mundane
Thus, this strategy got me thinking. Did Mike McCarthy intentionally plan a vanilla package? Do not misinterpret me: this game was important; it was the biggest game of the year. McCarthy knew this. However, considering the injuries to KGB and Woodson, and then taking into account the injury to Favre, do you think that McCarthy—from the moment Favre went down—intentionally went to a basic package on offense and defense?
I am not trying to construe this as a fault against McCarthy. If the Packers were to win any of these two games—yes, I am counting the NFC Championship game—I would rather them lose now and win come January. So, did McCarthy have this in mind, and if so, did he go bland? Moreover, after removing myself from this loss, I think that if he did, it is a good thing.
Yes, I wish the Packers had won. I would be lying if I said otherwise.
However, after digesting the game and letting it marinate. I think the Packers came away with this game with more to gain than the Cowboys did. Sure, the Cowboys won and they have the inside track to the playoffs. Yes, barring a collapse on their part, they will be the number one seed.
But, to be honest, the Packers saw what the Cowboys have to offer. The Cowboys brought all of their intricate blitzes; they ran all of their intricate pass formations—I wholeheartedly do not think the Cowboys can play better than they did tonight. That was them at their peak.
The Packers, contrarily, ran a more vanilla defense—a defense that was missing two very significant contributors. Furthermore, they ran an offense that was essentially dumbed down. This is not a knock on Rodgers, but McCarthy did not feed Aaron the plays he normally would Favre—be realistic. Thus, considering these factors, I feel the Packers can come out of this game better than the Cowboys.
The Packers are a passing team. Yes, playing in Lambeau in January is a plus, but the Packers can win in Dallas. Over the past two years, they proved that they are a better team on the road than at home. They put up a fight tonight under circumstances when they had no business even being in the game.
Come January, I feel confident in this Packer team. Mike McCarthy has a moment lying before him. He can capitalize on this moment, and put this team in the direction to go to the Super Bowl. Or, he can ignore the moment. Regardless of what he does, I feel this moment is evident; incredibly palpable. The Cowboys won, and they deserved to win. But taking this game—as a whole—into consideration, the Packers have much, much, much more to gain from this loss than the Cowboys do from this win.
Therefore, I say this, Cowboy fan. The Packers may have lost, but in losing, they illustrated teamwork, confidence, and desire. Despite the loss of their fearless leader, # 4, they showed that they are not a team that will simply roll over and concede, a team to walk over in the face of adversary.
This is a good football team. And, analogous to the Bears’ game, the Packers can learn and improve from this loss.
So Romo, T.O. and Mr. Phillips (whom I think is a horrible coach, but that is a different diatribe on a different day), heed this caveat carefully: you won tonight, and I advocate that you enjoy this win because in January, when it matters the most, you are going to see a different team—a healthy team that has something to prove.
Batman21 Yesterday, 11:20 PM Post #2
I know this may sound like sour grapes, but the Packers also were playing against 3 completely lousy game changing call or non-calls.
1) When Driver was going for the ball on the first drive near the endzone, the Dallas Defender put his arm in his face and never looked for the ball. If I remember correctly this is face guarding and is a penalty.
2) Al Harris clearly took the ball from Owens and his progress was clearly not stopped.
3) The Pass Interference on Williams when the players legs were tangled.
These are all significant as they could have obviously changed the course of the game.
Randolph Hiedler Yesterday, 11:26 PM Post #3
Did you just say Rodgers didn't play outstanding?! He was looking like Brett Favre out there compared to Brett Favre who was looking like Doug Pederson. Rodgers single handedly got us back in the game.
Wolfman Yesterday, 11:30 PM Post #4
Thanks for posting this. I did not get to see the game, so I appreciate you and Arrigo putting your collective thoughts here. Sounds like the Pack will be just fine with Aaron Rogers at the helm. That was a good pick. I was watching ESPN and they kept giving updates. Once Aaron went into the game, it looked like the Packers kept their heads and went after it. That bodes very well for the future, imho.
I was disappointed watching the Detroit game, when all those key players went down with injuries. It'll be interesting to see what happens if these two teams meet again with KGB, Woodson, Rouse, Jolly, maybe Cole, and others back in the lineup.
One thing though, I am VERY concerned about the lack of a pass-rush. I'm not sure why the Packers don't blitz more or try to mix it up. Perhaps they are saving it all for the play-offs...but that doesn't make much sense to me. This is a game they would MUCH rather have won. I'd like to see more pressure on the opposing QB's. It drives me nuts to see an opposing QB stand back there all day. ANY NFL QB will pick your eyes out with that kind of time, let alone a good QB like Romo.
Thanks again to you and Joe. It was nice reading all the positive notes from this game.
FarveToBrooks Today, 01:23 AM Post #5
Thus, this strategy got me thinking. Did Mike McCarthy intentionally plan a vanilla package? Do not misinterpret me: this game was important; it was the biggest game of the year. McCarthy knew this. However, considering the injuries to KGB and Woodson, and then taking into account the injury to Favre, do you think that McCarthy—from the moment Favre went down—intentionally went to a basic package on offense and defense?
Interesting that you had the same thought that I did, but I kind of thought going into this game that we might see some pretty vanilla stuff from the Pack since the pressure really was on Dallas to win as homefield favorites....if I were coach, I would have game-planned this way from the start. You try to win, but you know you are almost surely going to have your second chance even if you lose....so, you tell your guys that this game is as much about learning what to expect from Dallas in every given formation/attack as it is about winning the game. With Woodson, KGB, Franks, Rouse out, that was enough reason to think the psychology of losing isn't all that bad if we learn how to smash them next time.....the added bonus for the psychological part of this (if it is actually true) is that Favre went down too and they actually battled back closer, didn't fall apart....let's just hope it's not too serious, I feel comfortable with ARod, but would rather see #4 in a NFC Championship rematch....
I think we saw both a definite desire to win, but generally base packages plus a few little tricks (onside kickoff, flea-flicker) to see how Dallas reacts to certain situations....a lot of deep balls, maybe to see on film where coverages roll out of various formations, etc......
kanadianpackerfan Today, 04:26 AM Post #6
This may be entirely superfluous, but the offensive game planning seemed to shift away from what they have been doing so well lately. I would have like to see Brett using more checkdowns and more runs from Grant. I saw a few too many five WR packages. I like this package but it was used just a little too much it seemed. I hope the coaching staff reverts back to what they were doing, or what they did when Rodgers was in the game.
rpiotr01 Today, 05:44 AM Post #7
QUOTE(kanadianpackerfan @ Nov 30 2007, 07:26 AM)
This may be entirely superfluous, but the offensive game planning seemed to shift away from what they have been doing so well lately. I would have like to see Brett using more checkdowns and more runs from Grant. I saw a few too many five WR packages. I like this package but it was used just a little too much it seemed. I hope the coaching staff reverts back to what they were doing, or what they did when Rodgers was in the game.
Not sure it was the packages fault, to me it was on either Favre or Mccarthy. Favre kept going for those big shots when there was no need to. I mean, I understand the sentiment, he wanted to take the crowd out, but all it did was accomplish two things - waste downs, and expose him to injury because he had to hold the ball longer for receivers to get downfield. They went COMPLETELY away from what brought them this far. Rodgers came in and rant that type of game and they responded with two TD drives. Next time dance with the one who brought you!
ray Today, 06:01 AM Post #8
Why did Brett abandon the offense and start heaving footballs? Rogers would have done better and stuck with what got the team there. Was that Brett or was that the gameplan.
