Yes or no?
So Rodgers didn't revolt against the game plan this time? Well that was very nice of him.the only coaching decision i think that was glaring was carroll deciding to punt with 3 minutes left. that potentially cost them the game because they weren't getting the ball back.
i voted yes. the Packers did several unPackers-like things that impacted the game. his game plan was the difference.
the only coaching decision i think that was glaring was carroll deciding to punt with 3 minutes left. that potentially cost them the game because they weren't getting the ball back.
i voted yes. the Packers did several unPackers-like things that impacted the game. his game plan was the difference.
yes. but wilson had torched them all 2nd half. it just kinda surprised me that he punted. i know the odds say to punt though.I could understand why Carroll decided to punt. It was 4th and long and their defense did stop us a few times in the second half. Pete did say in his post game presser that they were going to go for it until we sacked Russell. Didn't they also have 3 TOs?
If Rodgers doesn't convert on a couple of great 3rd and longs, they get another opportunity. 4th and 11 after you just got sacked is a dicey proposition. It's always a tough decision to give that ball back to an all time great quarterback who has a reputation for being clutch, but it wouldn't have been a real high percentage decision to go for it there. IMO.yes. but wilson had torched them all 2nd half. it just kinda surprised me that he punted. i know the odds say to punt though.
yeah i get the percentages and those conversions were huge. it just kinda surprised me. the Packers have been good at closing when they have the ball last.If Rodgers doesn't convert on a couple of great 3rd and longs, they get another opportunity. 4th and 11 after you just got sacked is a dicey proposition. It's always a tough decision to give that ball back to an all time great quarterback who has a reputation for being clutch, but it wouldn't have been a real high percentage decision to go for it there. IMO.
idk...i think as a whole he's done well with HT adjustments...at least for the O he has imo. several games this season he's scaled back the O at half time after it went into a ditch after the scripted plays ran out. sometimes it might not take effect until the halfway through the 3rd qtr but it eventually does. sometimes i wish he'd give pettine the evil eye when he's running the soft zone.What MLF is still missing is the halftime adjustments. For some coaches, that easier said than done. If MLF is one of those, I would suggest having multiple game plans drawn up for various scenarios so he can switch plans quickly. It's a lot to ask of a young head coach who barely has any experience as a playcaller as well.
Didn’t you say “let’s be honest” ??Let’s be honest. Carroll and the Seahawks OWNED us in the second half. We got the benefit of a probably overly generous spot at the end without enough evidence to CLEARLY overturn it. I hate Pete Carroll but he’s a great coach and MLF has a long way to go.
Let’s be honest. Carroll and the Seahawks OWNED us in the second half. We got the benefit of a probably overly generous spot at the end without enough evidence to CLEARLY overturn it. I hate Pete Carroll but he’s a great coach and MLF has a long way to go.
Wilson is a huge handful and he deserves his due. But the Packers did a little more as a team when it mattered most and hung on by the skin of their teeth. Come to think of it, that' pretty much describes many of their wins this season.The only reason it appeared they owned us is because of Wilson and his improvisational abilities out there. Once they abandoned the run and let Wilson run wild he wore out the defense - like he does to everybody else. But we got the stops on Wilson when we needed to and got enough plays on offense to close out the game.
Without Wilson, the Seahawks are a 4 or 5 win team.