Studs and Duds vs Da Bears

[Pokerbrat2000]

They would both be 9-6 with one game left. GB vs Det. winner take all.

I believe in that situation, a tie would also give the Packers the division based on their previous win against the Lions. Bottom line, no matter what Detroit does next week, Packers win out, the division is theirs.

 

[Chris398]

I have never posted a negative comment about Capers before, but the fourth quarter prevent defense against the Bears was horrible. Blowing a 17 point lead really soured what was a good performance up to the fourth quarter. The Bears were within one play of winning that game. If they had scored a TD on their last drive instead of kicking a FG it would have left the Packers in a four point deficit with 1:13 left.

 

[Half Empty]

I have never posted a negative comment about Capers before, but the fourth quarter prevent defense against the Bears was horrible. Blowing a 17 point lead really soured what was a good performance up to the fourth quarter. The Bears were within one play of winning that game. If they had scored a TD on their last drive instead of kicking a FG it would have left the Packers in a four point deficit with 1:13 left.

So, you're a new Packers fan?

 

[Robert Mason]

I realized that as well. No way the Packers have enough time to spike the ball after the long completion to Nelson if Fox had decided to let 10 seconds run off the clock after Taylor´s injury.



The Packers averaged 7.52 yards on first down plays vs. the Bears. That number is significantly higher than the team´s average of 5.02 yards for the season.

Maybe a few big gains on first down skewed that average. How many 2nd and long and 3rd and longs ?

 

[XPack]

Stud: TyM

Dud: Randall

 

[DarkHelmet]

Studs:
- Rodgers, Monty, Jordy, Peppers, Clinton-Dix, Michael, Cook, Crosby, O-line.

- Packers in control of their destiny. Win and you're in. Keep winning and you hoist the Lombardi Trophy.

Duds:
- not taking the 3 points to go up by ten. In bad weather, on the road, no punishing RB like Lacy -- TAKE THE POINTS!

- defense in the fourth quarter, partially redeemed by holding the Bears to a FG on their last drive. Not sure if was Capers' scheme or players failing to do their jobs (probably a bit of both) but that was really pathetic and frustrating.

- offensive play calling in the fourth quarter, especially the next to last series. Long bomb on 1st down?! WTF? How about feeding Monty and/or running quick slants to move the chains? BTW, that shovel pass was almost a disaster.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Duds:
- not taking the 3 points to go up by ten. In bad weather, on the road, no punishing RB like Lacy -- TAKE THE POINTS!

While I agree with you, do you know how many posters would be here today talking about how MM being too conservative cost us the game if he had attempted a FG there and it wasn't good, or probably even if it was good and we lost by 4. There are always going to be people on both sides of that fence.

 

[swhitset]

While I agree with you, do you know how many posters would be here today talking about how MM being too conservative cost us the game if he had attempted a FG there and it wasn't good, or probably even if it was good and we lost by 4. There are always going to be people on both sides of that fence.

I was ok with going for it.... but I did get very frustrated with the short yardage plays on 3rd and 4th down where the routes seemed to be run too deep. If you need 2 yards... why is Rodgers looking 15-20 yards down field.... especially with his bad wheels .... the plays needed to be quick hitters.... and if the answer is "nothing was open underneath .... then my answer is why were there routes going downfield instead of just overwhelming the D underneath?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I was ok with going for it.... but I did get very frustrated with the short yardage plays on 3rd and 4th down where the routes seemed to be run too deep. If you need 2 yards... why is Rodgers looking 15-20 yards down field.... especially with his bad wheels .... the plays needed to be quick hitters.... and if the answer is "nothing was open underneath .... then my answer is why were there routes going downfield instead of just overwhelming the D underneath?

Agreed.

That has been a frustration to me as well. When its 3rd/4th down and you need a certain # of yards to keep a drive going, call and run the plays that get you the yards needed. This also doesn't include throwing to Richard Rodgers 2 yards before the sticks. I get it, those plays aren't always there, but as you pointed out, far too often it seems like AR is looking too far down the field, where there really shouldn't even be a WR.

Yesterday was a window to something the offense needs to adjust for going forward. Prior to his injuries, AR had a lot of success scrambling around, tucking the ball and running if he needed to in order to pick up the first down. Without his legs, AR is not going to be able to scramble as well, nor will he have much success running when forced to. I hope we don't see the Vikings D taking advantage of that on Saturday.

 

[DarkHelmet]

While I agree with you, do you know how many posters would be here today talking about how MM being too conservative cost us the game if he had attempted a FG there and it wasn't good, or probably even if it was good and we lost by 4. There are always going to be people on both sides of that fence.

Usually I'm fine with being aggressive. And you're right that he would have taken flak for playing it conservatively, especially if the FG went wide or got blocked. In that game, in that situation I think you take the (nearly) certain points to go up by two scores.

If you're going to go for it on fourth down, make it a quick throw, not a long wait in the pocket.

 

[DarkHelmet]

I was ok with going for it.... but I did get very frustrated with the short yardage plays on 3rd and 4th down where the routes seemed to be run too deep. If you need 2 yards... why is Rodgers looking 15-20 yards down field.... especially with his bad wheels .... the plays needed to be quick hitters.... and if the answer is "nothing was open underneath .... then my answer is why were there routes going downfield instead of just overwhelming the D underneath?

Agree completely. Whether called by MM or decided at the line by AR, those play when you need 8 or 9 yards -- go for 8 or 9 yards! Not 15-20. Longer routes take too long to develop when the QB is too gimpy to scramble effectively.

West Coast offense: short slants to WR, toss to RB out in the flat, hit the TE, feed the RB when he's getting yards, throw downfield on 2nd and short once in a while to keep the D honest, move the chains, burn the clock, win the game.

And keep the highly inconsistent defense off the field.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you're going to go for it on fourth down, make it a quick throw, not a long wait in the pocket.

The part that made me go "uggg" on that play is taking the sack. It's 4th fricking down, obviously don't throw it up for a pick 6, but at minimum throw it into coverage and hope for a catch, penalty or at worst an interception that results in the ball even closer to the Bears own goal line.

 

[Vince Lombardi]

Studs:
Rodgers - Beautiful 60 yard pass at clutch time
Nelson - He's back
Monty - Eddie who?
Michael - Thanks Seattle

Duds:
Adams - come on man catch the fricken ball!
Defense - Matt Barkley! He looked like Dan Marino in the 4th quarter. Capers is a joke. Secondary is a joke. Its just amazing watching them blitz time and time again and they just get stonewalled. or if they somehow do manage to get there they miss the tackle.

Someday MM & the coaching staff is going to figure out how to really put a team away. Not let up and let the opponent crawl back into the game.

 

[Carl]

Agreed.

That has been a frustration to me as well. When its 3rd/4th down and you need a certain # of yards to keep a drive going, call and run the plays that get you the yards needed. This also doesn't include throwing to Richard Rodgers 2 yards before the sticks. I get it, those plays aren't always there, but as you pointed out, far too often it seems like AR is looking too far down the field, where there really shouldn't even be a WR.

Yesterday was a window to something the offense needs to adjust for going forward. Prior to his injuries, AR had a lot of success scrambling around, tucking the ball and running if he needed to in order to pick up the first down. Without his legs, AR is not going to be able to scramble as well, nor will he have much success running when forced to. I hope we don't see the Vikings D taking advantage of that on Saturday.

Agree completely. Whether called by MM or decided at the line by AR, those play when you need 8 or 9 yards -- go for 8 or 9 yards! Not 15-20. Longer routes take too long to develop when the QB is too gimpy to scramble effectively.

West Coast offense: short slants to WR, toss to RB out in the flat, hit the TE, feed the RB when he's getting yards, throw downfield on 2nd and short once in a while to keep the D honest, move the chains, burn the clock, win the game.

And keep the highly inconsistent defense off the field.

So do you two disagree with the call on the deep ball to Jordy also?

The 60ish yards sure was a lot more than the needed 11.

What about the 20ish yard gain to Cook on the first drive on 3rd down or the long TD to Adams last week?

It's worth noting the Packers very often have success throwing deeper than they need for a first down and that's probably why they do it often.

 

[Carl]

Studs:
- Rodgers, Monty, Jordy, Peppers, Clinton-Dix, Michael, Cook, Crosby, O-line.

- Packers in control of their destiny. Win and you're in. Keep winning and you hoist the Lombardi Trophy.

Duds:
- not taking the 3 points to go up by ten. In bad weather, on the road, no punishing RB like Lacy -- TAKE THE POINTS!

- defense in the fourth quarter, partially redeemed by holding the Bears to a FG on their last drive. Not sure if was Capers' scheme or players failing to do their jobs (probably a bit of both) but that was really pathetic and frustrating.

- offensive play calling in the fourth quarter, especially the next to last series. Long bomb on 1st down?! WTF? How about feeding Monty and/or running quick slants to move the chains? BTW, that shovel pass was almost a disaster.

That shovel pass should have been a big gain.

Ty had three lineman out front and the defensive line was completely fooled.

The Bear defender made a great play while Taylor and Lang whiffed on him.

If either does their job, Ty gets a big gain, and that play call looks good.

 

[Mondio]

So do you two disagree with the call on the deep ball to Jordy also?

The 60ish yards sure was a lot more than the needed 11.

What about the 20ish yard gain to Cook on the first drive on 3rd down or the long TD to Adams last week?

It's worth noting the Packers very often have success throwing deeper than they need for a first down and that's probably why they do it often.

It makes it tough. It's k e if those things where everything has its pros and cons. You can't have the good without the bad. You try and limit the bad and balance it out, but these are humans playing the game, and we're just fans.

I think Rodgers does need balancing in how often he looks down field compared to when we run a short pass timing offense and then hit the big ones after churning out first downs.

But every offense has a weakness and I don't really pay a lot of attention to how defenses are playing is after the snap of the ball to know how it would best be attacked or what they are trying to take away.

I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt that he makes a good decision most times. But not always

 

[swhitset]

So do you two disagree with the call on the deep ball to Jordy also?

The 60ish yards sure was a lot more than the needed 11.

What about the 20ish yard gain to Cook on the first drive on 3rd down or the long TD to Adams last week?

It's worth noting the Packers very often have success throwing deeper than they need for a first down and that's probably why they do it often.

Actually .... yes. Now the last play... considering the time constraint made that play more necessary, but otherwise... yes I disagree with going for it all most of the time. Sure Rodgers is great and has a better than average success rate withe the long ball. That doesn't make it the right call for the situation. We had a lot of drives end because he didn't take the higher percentage play. And frankly, with the Packers suspect defense... I would much rather have long sustained drives than quick scores or quick 3 and outs. Now that doesn't mean I don't want him to ever try the long ball, but I would rather see them on 2nd and 4 or 5 than on 3rd and 1 or 2

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So do you two disagree with the call on the deep ball to Jordy also?

The 60ish yards sure was a lot more than the needed 11.

What about the 20ish yard gain to Cook on the first drive on 3rd down or the long TD to Adams last week?

It's worth noting the Packers very often have success throwing deeper than they need for a first down and that's probably why they do it often.

There wasn't enough time on the clock to warrant just picking up a first down (11 yards does us nothing) and really no other option but to try to complete a long pass in that situation yesterday, so not really a good example in this situation.

While you are correct, that the Packers have had some success converting long passes on 3rd down, they have also had their failures. While I don't have stats to back me up, I would guess that the probability of picking up a 3rd and 5 is higher if you throw a 6 yard pass vs a 20+ yarder. Sure, take your chances when they present themselves, but throwing to a well covered man 20+ yards down the field on 3rd and 5 just doesn't seem prudent.

 

[Carl]

There wasn't enough time on the clock to warrant just picking up a first down (11 yards does us nothing) and really no other option but to try to complete a long pass in that situation yesterday, so not really a good example in this situation.

While you are correct, that the Packers have had some success converting long passes on 3rd down, they have also had their failures. While I don't have stats to back me up, I would guess that the probability of picking up a 3rd and 5 is higher if you throw a 6 yard pass vs a 20+ yarder. Sure, take your chances when they present themselves, but throwing to a well covered man 20+ yards down the field on 3rd and 5 just doesn't seem prudent.

Actually .... yes. Now the last play... considering the time constraint made that play more necessary, but otherwise... yes I disagree with going for it all most of the time. Sure Rodgers is great and has a better than average success rate withe the long ball. That doesn't make it the right call for the situation. We had a lot of drives end because he didn't take the higher percentage play. And frankly, with the Packers suspect defense... I would much rather have long sustained drives than quick scores or quick 3 and outs. Now that doesn't mean I don't want him to ever try the long ball, but I would rather see them on 2nd and 4 or 5 than on 3rd and 1 or 2

I just happen to see comments like this all the time when the Packers throw longer than they need and don't pick it up, but there is nobody complianing about a deep call that worked.

Also, Packers are 3rd in the league in 3rd down conversions (.6 percent away from number one).

Their third down calls while balancing deep balls is good based on that.

 

[Robert Mason]

There wasn't enough time on the clock to warrant just picking up a first down (11 yards does us nothing) and really no other option but to try to complete a long pass in that situation yesterday, so not really a good example in this situation.

While you are correct, that the Packers have had some success converting long passes on 3rd down, they have also had their failures. While I don't have stats to back me up, I would guess that the probability of picking up a 3rd and 5 is higher if you throw a 6 yard pass vs a 20+ yarder. Sure, take your chances when they present themselves, but throwing to a well covered man 20+ yards down the field on 3rd and 5 just doesn't seem prudent.

Yes, you don't need a degree in statistics to realize that the chances of completing a pass diminishes as the distance gets longer. In my opinion if you need a crucial 5 yards on third down a 6 to 10 yard attempt is enough. You can attempt 20 to 40 yard passes on first and second downs.

 

[swhitset]

I just happen to see comments like this all the time when the Packers throw longer than they need and don't pick it up, but there is nobody complianing about a deep call that worked.

Also, Packers are 3rd in the league in 3rd down conversions (.6 percent away from number one).

Their third down calls while balancing deep balls is good based on that.

you weren't in my living room or you would have seen exactly that. I am happy that they won, but my initial reaction to that throw to Jordy was actually irritation mixed with elation followed by acceptance when I realized how little time was left on the clock when the attempt was made.

 

[Robert Mason]

you weren't in my living room or you would have seen exactly that. I am happy that they won, but my initial reaction to that throw to Jordy was actually irritation mixed with elation followed by acceptance when I realized how little time was left on the clock when the attempt was made.

That deep throw to Jordy was necessary because of the short time left and had to get into FG range. It would have been better if he had scored a TD, then you would not have the risk of a missed FG.

 

[swhitset]

That deep throw to Jordy was necessary because of the short time left and had to get into FG range. It would have been better if he had scored a TD, then you would not have the risk of a missed FG.

pretty sure we already came to that conclusion lol

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It would have been better if he had scored a TD, then you would not have the risk of a missed FG.

AND......I would have won my $5 bet, I mean 5 jelly bean bet, with one of my friends who is a HUGE Bear fan....had to spot the poor guy 5 1/2 points.

 

[DarkHelmet]

So do you two disagree with the call on the deep ball to Jordy also?

The 60ish yards sure was a lot more than the needed 11.

What about the 20ish yard gain to Cook on the first drive on 3rd down or the long TD to Adams last week?

It's worth noting the Packers very often have success throwing deeper than they need for a first down and that's probably why they do it often.

Obviously the throw to Jordy on the last series was necessary because they had very little time, no time outs and a long way to go to get into field goal range. With two minutes on the clock and two or three timeouts I absolutely would be unhappy with that play call on third down.