23

September

Packers Face Another Early Turning Point

Rodgers and McCarthy

McCarthy and Rodgers have not fared well when playing from behind late in games

Last season and after the loss to the Seattle Seahawks, I wrote about how the Green Bay Packers were facing a turning point in their early season.  It seemed like a knee-jerk reaction to what was a huge debacle by the replacement officials and the NFL because it was after only three games.  Turns out, the Packers did get it together enough to win the NFC North and win a playoff game.  In looking back at last season, the Seattle loss still looms as the turning point in 2012.

Here we are, three weeks into the 2013 season and seemingly at what could be this season’s turning point.  Sure, some will say it’s too early, I’m being hasty, I’m a downer on Twitter and when this team gets all of its injured guys back, the Packers will be fine.

The “problem” that the Packers have, as far as fans are concerned, is that with a quarterback like Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay will always be a contender who can win any game.  Therefore, the expectation to win is high.  When the Packers don’t win, there is usually an adverse reaction that ranges from mild displeasure to profanity laced rants on twitter to some jumping out the 10th story window.  Emotional responses by fans, players and coaches are a part of football.  It’s contagious when we are watching a game that thrives on emotion and so we respond in kind.

But let’s try to take the emotion out of the equation for a minute and look at a few things that are happening now that could play into how the Packers respond after today’s loss and the upcoming bye week.

Tough Opponents

What is a “tough opponent”?  For the purposes of this discussion, I’m talking about playoff-caliber teams.  So far, the Packers have faced, and lost to, two such opponents.  Last season, four of the Packers’ five losses were to playoff teams.  Their fifth loss was to the New York Giants, who were the defending Super Bowl champions.  They beat only two teams who made last year’s playoffs (Houston Texans and Minnesota Vikings).

Granted, many of those losses came on the road, but to get over the cusp of being a good team and enter the great or elite category, a team has to win the tough games.  Home or road.  I am not discounting external factors such as travel and an unfamiliar environment, but every team has to face that during their season.  The great teams win most of those games.  Good teams win some of them.  The rest fall into a category that we don’t want to even think about.

I’m not suggesting that the Packers aren’t good because they have already lost two tough games this season, but they will need to get a few before it’s all said and done if they want to be true contenders in the NFC.  Can they?  Of course they can.  Like I said earlier, with Rodgers, the Packers always have a fighting chance.  But when the star quarterback has an off day, great teams still find a way to get it done.  Green Bay had a chance to do that today, but didn’t.  So it’s another loss that could have been a win on the road, against a quality opponent.  There are no moral victories, only wins and losses.  Some may be encouraged by what they saw, but that doesn’t change the record.  They’re still 1-2.

With road games against Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas and the Giants, there are most tests coming.  I threw Dallas and New York in there because while both are struggling this season as well, they are teams that have given the Packers fits on the road.  In order to get that monkey off their back, Green Bay has to win these matchups that they have previously not been able to.

Playing From Behind

The Packers are not a team built to play from behind.  We have seen this time and time again over the past two years.  Yes, they have overcome deficits and won.  But against tough opponents (see previous paragraph), they are not getting it done when falling behind.  There is a stat floating around that Rodgers has never beaten a playoff team when the Packers are trailing entering the fourth quarter.  I can’t bear to look that up and find it to be true, but I can believe it.  I have to rack my brain to think of a late comeback win against a good team.  The only recent example I can think of is last year’s win at Detroit against the Lions, but do we all consider Detroit to fall into that “good” category?

While Rodgers the $20 million man has to step it up late in games and make plays, this doesn’t all fall on Rodgers.  Head coach Mike McCarthy calls the offensive plays and I’m starting to get a little weary of his decision-making when his team falls behind.  McCarthy seems to have several versions of a panic button.  If he’s not abandoning the run early in the 3rd quarter, he’s trying gadget plays (surprise onside kick, fake punt/pass, reverse pass) or refusing to put the ball in the hands of his best player in crunch time.  Our own Adam Czech already wrote about the fourth down call at the end of today’s game that gave the ball to rookie running back Johnathan Franklin with a single yard to gain.  A single yard.  Even the most casual fan would suggest that you let your best player handle those three pesky little feet, Mike!

Culture and leadership start at the top of any organization.  I can’t help but think that when the Packers tighten up on the field and get flustered, that the same isn’t happening on the sidelines or up in the press box (Dom Capers).  While it’s warranted and football is an intense game, the Packers don’t show any signs of being loose and confident in those tight situations.  That, I put squarely on McCarthy.  Yes, players execute while coaches can only stand aside, but attitude is contagious.  I am now wondering what the majority of that locker room feels when they are behind late in a game and know that every snap is being called by their head man.

Facing Adversity

Players play and coaches coach but as soon as the players start questioning what the coach is doing, it usually spells trouble.  At one point in the second quarter, Rodgers and McCarthy could be seen having a very spirited discussion on the sidelines.  There was clear frustration coming from both as they were either discussing the previous drive or the overall game plan.  Defensive lineman B.J. Raji had to step in to try and calm the situation down.

Many have already dismissed this as “typical” and “just emotions riding high”.  That may be true and perhaps we are just not privy to these types of discussions being had prior to today, but it was a very uncomfortable thing to see.  Anytime there is bickering on the sidelines, and especially between a head coach and his All-Pro quarterback, it doesn’t bode well for the rest of that day.

Both McCarthy and Rodgers will go in front of the media and downplay today’s incident and say all of the right things.  But let’s not be fooled.  Where there’s smoke, there’s fire and this won’t just blow over without today’s events being addressed.  Their relationship is a huge part of this turning point.  I expect the two to sit down and realize that they have a common goal.  McCarthy needs Rodgers to emulate his belief in that goal in the locker room, otherwise, some of the others may continue to question the direction that this team is headed in.

I tweeted, after the game, that days like today are starting to define Mike McCarthy as a head coach.  Seemingly not able to adjust when his game plan isn’t working.  Calling plays that cry “desperation” or that are so predictable that it’s almost as if he truly believes his team can execute any play even if the defense knows it’s coming.  Too many times in recent memory, the opposing defense did know it was coming and quickly thwarted the effort.  Eventually, the rest of the league catches up with and figures out what a good offense is doing.  It’s McCarthy’s job to put the same players who are struggling in position to get results in a different way.  Otherwise, we start talking about the true definition of insanity.

I’m not a football guru, but I do know that McCarthy has to find a way to get his team over the hump when his team is up against it late in games.  If he cannot, it’s 2008 all over again and a handful of games that could have been won, are lost.

What Now?

The Packers have the earliest bye week of any team this season.  For a team that is constantly nursing injuries, having a week off later in the season would seem to be of most benefit.  But this year’s bye comes at an ideal time.  With several players nursing hamstring issues and with two now dealing with concussions, this extra week off will have the Packers returning to action with most of those bodies back in action.

Returning should be safety Morgan Burnett, cornerback Casey Hayward, fullback John Kuhn, linebacker Clay Matthews, running back Eddie Lacy and tight end Jermichael Finley.  With a home game against the 2-1 Detroit Lions up next, I like Green Bay’s odds of getting back on the winning track.

Much will be made of today’s game and with 14 days until their next game, today’s events will be discussed, analyzed, churned, burned and ground into a sausage.  In the end, all that matters is how the Packers play the next time that it counts.  In the end, it’s about wins and losses.

 

 

 

 

——————

Jason Perone is an independent sports blogger writing about the Packers on "AllGreenBayPackers.com

Follow Jason at:

Jason Perone
                Add to Circleson Google+

——————



55 Responses to “Packers Face Another Early Turning Point”

  1. NYPACKER says:

    Bengals DC (Zimmer) & DB’s coach really have to be complinmented. With injuries to DB’s they still did an excellent job in coverage & gave us very few opportunities for big plays in the passing game. Perfect example was AR’s second INT. Looked like they thought they had DB set up, Cobb ran an out (that they tought DB would undercut) and then turned the route upfield. DB did not bite at all & Cobb got no seperation. AR threw the ball anticipating that Cobb would beat the DB, but that was not the case. Not having Finley did seem to hurt.On the 4th & 1, I would have loved to see the play that we used a lot with Favre & Chimura with Favre run faking one way, reverse pivoting, bootlegging the other way with the TE blocking then releasing. If the DE comes to QB he throws to TE, if he stays with TE, QB runs it.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    • Dobber says:

      They just don’t run the waggle anymore…but it’s also been done to death and good defensive teams can beat it.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • NYPACKER says:

        I relooked at the play in slow motion & it appears that the Bengal dlineman all slanted to the middle, if Quarless could have secured the edge on the one defender outside of him, AR would still be running:)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Archie says:

        Does MM have any “go to” plays that work? Doesn’t seem it. Shows no imagination in his Xs and Os. When was the last time you saw a defense fooled by MM’s play-calling? He’s a meat and potatoes guy trying to run a new age offensive attack. He’s not a good fit for his own offense.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • Stroh says:

      The DC and DL coaches deserve the credit. The pass rush is what didn’t allow the Pack to get downfield to take advantage of the secondary. I put that on Barclay and Bahktiari mostly. The Packers will only go as far as their blocking allows. And right now its just not good enough.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  2. Rymetyme81 says:

    detroit is 2-1, not 1-2. they beat Minnesota and Washington, lost in AZ.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Outis says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11

    • JH9 says:

      I wouldn’t say TT blew the last three drafts. There is no way anyone could predict the injuries to Sherrod and Bulaga. However, TT could be blamed for not taking corrective action through free agency to get o-line replacements when his draft picks could no longer play.

      Now we have a weak o-line and I think that more than anything else is causing the frustration between MM and AR. Since our o-line can’t really hold their blocks, MM and AR have been forced into the short drop, quick passing game. It worked against Washington but Cincy knew it was coming and played press coverage against the receivers and their d-lineman came in with hands up to deflect the short pass.

      If TT doesn’t do something to address the lack of talent on our o-line, I believe the Packers will only continue to be going through the motions of being a contender. For me that’s not good enough.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

      • Sven says:

        I think TT has put a great team together. The O-line has issues, but that is not why the Packers lost yesterday. Bahk was drafted in the 4th round, likely to be a back-up this year and he has stepped up, now the expectation is that he will be flawless against Pro-Bowlers?

        Rodgers had a lot of time in the pocket on a lot of plays, and for whatever reason, had trouble finding open guys and getting them the ball.

        The O-line provided good running room for both Starks and Franklin against a defense that is known for being stingy against the run.

        I blame the loss more on Rodgers taking the big shot down field as opposed to taking a short but sure passes that were available. I saw many plays where that was the case.

        The pack is not in that bad of a hole, and they have climbed out one just like it before. Have more faith.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

        • JH9 says:

          Once we overcome the hamstring injuries, I believe we have the talent now with our defense to take us to the SB. I know we have the QB, the receivers, and now the RBs to take us to the SB. The only weak link in this team is the o-line. We simply do not have the talent to beat a true contending’s team defensive front seven.

          Whether through free agency and/or a trade, I believe we must upgrade our o-line. If we fail to do so, the Packers will be known as pretenders.

          For all those who say look what we did in 2010, I say: “Yes, but we had Clifton and Wells.”

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

      • JH9 says:

        For those who think our o-line is going to be okay, please read this article from Lombardi Ave.
        http://lombardiave.com/2013/09/23/cincinnati-bengals-defense-stops-green-bay-packers/

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Doug Glassman says:

        Totally agree , this game was all about the oline not being able to handle an athletic dline , not unlike the mess we had in Seattle a year ago (remember 8 sacks) . Of course we had Bulaga then, will never forget Irvin throwing Bulaga across the field .. Lacy and Franklin may hold the key to this season , if they can run on a consistent basis it may give Rodgers the needed breathing room to operate in the pocket .

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • NYPACKER says:

      How different our oline would look if we had Bulaga at RT, Sherrod at LT, Tretter at Center, Sitton at LG, & Bakhatari at RG? TT has spent two first round draft choices at tackle, is it his fault that both are not on the field?

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

      • Dobber says:

        Why do we all seem to assume that Tretter would have walked in and won the OC job outright?

        …and that Bakhtiari would have beaten out Lang?

        …and that Sherrod, who was just a bigger Newhouse during his limited audition before being hurt, would be any more than just that?

        The bottom line is that at this point, the pieces are on the board for the Packers. These are the guys they have to play with, and I would argue it’s generally a better group than in 2012. It looks like they’ll be close to full strength coming out of the bye assuming Finley is OK. CMIII seems to think he could’ve finished yesterday’s game, so I don’t worry about him too much with the exra week. They’ll be playing the “same old Lions”. As said: this really is a must-win game.

        That 2010 team didn’t start well, but they brought it together as the season wore on. You can’t tell me that people were any less hard on them than we are now. It’s not how you start the season, it’s how you finish. The key is not to play yourself out of it before then…

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

        • NYPACKER says:

          Don’t think Tretter would walk in and start, but having him available & a healthy Bulaga & Sherrod would certainly give us a lot more to work with. Bakhatari seems physically more suited for G or C, couyld push Lang, who to me has been disappointing.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

          • Dobber says:

            All good. :)

            I just look at it from the perspective of there being a lot of football to play, and those guys aren’t going to help you…it’s just the guys who are in the locker room now.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

          • Archie says:

            I think Bakhtiari is our LT for the next 10 years. I don;t think Bulaga will beat him out next year. And, after missing the better part of three seasons with serious leg injuries, I doubt TT resigns Bulaga once his rookie contract runs out.

            Tretter would seem likely as our C of the future.

            Sherrod could end up as our swing tackle, if we are lucky.

            Newhouse is in last year of his contract and will be let go in free agency.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Jason Perone Jason Perone says:

      “As I predicted in an earlier post, the Pack would go into the bye week 1-2 with a loss to the Bengals who would get “at least” three sacks against our inept OL. If you recall, you denigrated my prediction, noting that the Bengals couldn’t get a sack against the Steelers.”

      I did? I know I didn’t because I watched the Bengals sack Roethlisberger.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • Archie says:

      I’m a mega Packer fan and every year I make one big bet on a Packer game. I usually win my bet. Yesterday was my big bet – CINCY +2.5.

      Why did I think CINCY would win?

      (1) Pack has no pass rush other than 52 and occasional DB blitzes.

      (2) Pack secondary are easy to beat.

      (3) Cincy has a balanced offense with many weapons.

      (4) The CINCY defense was the best unit on the field. They generate pressure from their tall front 4 while their secondary covers like a blanket.

      I assumed Pack would be TD underdog. When they were giving points, it was time to act.

      For first 7 minutes of the game, things went as expected. However, for next 30 minutes, game played out very differently than I assumed as CINCY turned it over 4 times and GB scored 30 consecutive points (should have been much more). Then, things returned to normal over the last 20 minutes as both teams reverted to form. With little pressure on the CINCY QB, Shields and Williams gave up two easy TD passes. Then the CINCY defensive line stuffed and stripped Packer RB on 4th down and inches. Fumbled was returned for a TD. CINCY defensive line sealed the victory by batting down Rodgers’ passes in what could have been a game winning drive. CINCY came back from a 16 point deficit by scoring 20 points in the final 20 minutes of the game while also shutting out GB in the same 20 mins.

      BOTTOMLINE: This should have been a big and easy win by CINCY. Instead, the CINCY TOs made it close. For me, a $2K profit, but one I had to sweat out. Final spread was 2.5 so my hope was the Pack wins by two. That was a good possibility until the extra point got blocked.

      If the Pack and CINCY played 10 times, @CINCY, I’d expect CINCY to win at least 8 of those times and by and an average margin of more than 7 points.

      DET is coming to town next. They too have a tough 4 man DL. If Reggie Bush is healthy, I expect our defense to have major problems slowing them down as Stafford is a better QB than Dalton and Megatron is even better than AJ Green. This will be a pivotal game for GB. A home loss to DET, and 1-3 start, would all but end their divisional hopes and most likely, even their wildcard chances. MM better come up with some better plays to call in short yardage situations.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  4. Savage57 says:

    So much of what the Packers need to address to ensure that the “Turning Point” they are facing comes out facing in a positive direction goes to mental toughness.

    Defined, it’s the attributes that allow a person or persons to persevere through difficult circumstances and hold on to the confidence in themselves and others around them in their ability to overcome the challenge that those same circumstances create.

    In reaching the pentultimate level in 2010, the Packers displayed mental toughness in spades. ‘Next man up’ became the rallying cry and it had some legs because the next guy up was additive to the team’s efforts, not a liability. Injuries, hostile environments, must-win scenarios were the difficulties that this team overcame to win it all.

    So what’s changed? Executive management, coaching staff and the players roster all have to start asking themselves that question and go back to find whatever ‘mojo’ that they had then that seems to be sorely missing the past few years.

    Not the ‘mojo’ that wins a slew of regular season games – the stuff that enabled them to win when it counted, when the stakes were highest and winning was the only way to ensure survival.

    Has the effectiveness of the personnel department been affected by the loss of three key contributors? If so, what’s the fix?

    Has the coaching staff held themselves to the same level of accountability that they hold the players to? If so, what’s the fix?

    Have the key players that remain become so comfortable in the trappings of success that they’ve lost the hunger to really dig down and carry the day in the toughest of times? If so, what’s the fix?

    Lots of questions, so far, few answers. And we all know where doing the same thing but expecting different results leads.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • Sven says:

      You make good points, but I see a lot of promise from this team, and still expect them to improve greatly and make a playoff run. 2010 started not-so-great but ended in triumph.

      I think yesterdays game showed both complete failure and total domination in all three phases of the game, against a team that looks to be very good right now, and Rodgers never got going as he usually does.

      I think if the Packers do what they usually do they will have a good season and make the playoffs. I think this team is better than last year’s.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Since '61 says:

    For me this loss to Cincy is more frustrating than the loss to the 9ers because the 9ers game we could have won but the Cincy game we should have won going away. We gave away a 16 point lead with less than 20 minutes to play. There is plenty of blame to go around for the coaches, O-line, defense, injuries, AR, etc… The recurring theme over the last few seasons in losses to playoff teams is poor O-line play against strong defensive lines, whethers it’s Giants, 9ers, and now the Bengals. If we had our starting tackles and Tretter at center it might be a different story. As for building a team the Packers have been trying to go in the right direction. First you need a good GM,coach and QB. They have them. Then you need OTs, Wide receivers, Pass Rushers and a shut down corner. These 5 positions are paid the highest salaries, obviously with QB being the highest paid. The game is driven by the pass these days. The packers have their QB, they have drafted 2 OTs in the 1st round, both hurt, they have 1 pass rusher, maybe another with DJones, we’ll see. Tramon Williams was the shut down corner before he was hurt, we need another. Wide receivers we have had great ones for years now. With today’s salary cap restrictions a team can’t possibly do better than this. Going the free agency route only creates cap problems down the road. Remember SF and Seattle pay theirs QB’s less than 1 mil each for now. And SF is now 1-2. Thanks, Since ’61

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • NYPACKER says:

      Good post ’61, only thing I would disagree on is CB. Shields is playing great & Williams is better than he was last season (at least he isn’t afraid to tackle this season). Hayward is a very good slot defender & House has his moments. Safety, opposite Burnett, is the position of need on the defense.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      • Bearmeat Bearmeat says:

        Not TT’s MO: But why the heck not give Buffalo a 3rd rounder for Byrd? How much would that help?

        A TON!

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Sven says:

        Since ’61, Great post!

        I think Perry is showing good promise across from Mathews. As for Safety along side Burnett, I am really excited to see how Banjo continues to develop, there could be a lot of promise to him.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  6. JRMD says:

    Since61′
    I disagree! FA’s are absolutely required in small doses, especially when your high draft picks get injured and can’t see the field! If not, you are trying to win a SB with low round back ups who usually haven’t been adequately developed. Other teams appear to get this. Ron Wolf understood this. TT is a stubborn arse who just refuses to even consider a quality FA or 2! We have a narrow window with Rodgers and we should win at least 2 more SB’s before he retires. You can’t overcome setbacks in your draft picks in time, without considering FA’s who can contribute at a high level immediately. A few key FA’s can make the difference between a SB and mediocrity. When the Pack won it all in 97′, we relied heavily on FA’s. You may recall a player by the name of Reggie White? How much worse would the Pack have been if he had never come to GB?! Food for thought…The Bears brought in quite a few experienced players from other teams, as have the Falcons, Niner’s, and Seahawks! I think it’s working out pretty well for those clubs. These players also seem to know how to take care of their bodies and stay on the field! I’m just sayin…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

    • Dobber says:

      The Bears and Seahawks are 3-0, but the Niners and Falcons are both 1-2…

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Bearmeat Bearmeat says:

        The Bears barely beat Cincy at home. With their full team in health.

        We barely lost to them on the road. With 1/3 of our starters out. (again)

        GB is better than the Bears and it’ll be proven by the end of the year.

        Seabags? Who knows.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

        • Dobber says:

          They (Seattle) have to prove they can win on the road. They were nowhere near the same team away from home a year ago.

          Just as they did under Lovie, the Bears win if their defense generates turnovers and points. They aren’t overwhelming offensively.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  7. Dobber says:

    I wonder what they’re writing on the SF blog pages these days…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • BartySmith says:

      That they sure are happy they got to face the Pack in week 1, because their O can’t put up double digits against legitimate defenses.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Razer says:

    Not sure what to think about this team. We have a enough talent to be 3-0 at this point. The only thing in our way seems to be ourselves. Yes, we have some key injuries but I think that most teams are facing similar scenarios. We do have enough depth to help back-fill the injure problem. While this is a strength, we can’t expect a tight team performance with a bunch of young subs. Two things:

    1. This is a young team with a significant annual turnover. We will have mistakes and we will have inconsistency as a team. You see this in our backfield, O-line and secondary. We should expect that inexperience will bring mistakes and uneven performance.

    2. Play-calling has lost ground since the departure of Joe Philbin. Not to bash MM, he is competent but this offense has enough talent to be at the top of the league. This offense should be dictating games not trying to find ways to win a couple of yards. The MM/Rodgers sideline dispute is the tip of a problem that is just under the surface of this skirmish.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3

    • Dobber says:

      My hope, based on 1, is that this team will grow and gel either as younger players mature or as injured players return.

      The thing that worries me is that there are no real “lulls” in the schedule: spans of 3-5 games where you say, “these are softballs”, and anticipate the building of momentum for a stretch run. Initially I thought Cleveland–>Thanksgiving could be that, but I’m not sold on that now.

      This team is going to scratch and claw for every bit it gets this season. It’s nice to see them legitimately threaten with the run for the first time in three years, but unless the defense can generate key stops (and play effectively when CMIII is not on the field), this team will have to outscore opponents this year…much like 2011.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  9. Chad Toporski Chad Toporski says:

    I don’t think people really understand why the Packers lost this game… They’re pointing to all the comfortable scapegoats, but they don’t all apply to what happened on Sunday. Maybe I’ll write a post to expand on this thought…

    In the meantime, I have to no problem with the flare-up between McCarthy and Rodgers. That stuff happens in any work environment, and it’s not uncommon at all for emotions to boil over in a game like that. The most important thing is that both Rodgers and McCarthy were able to cool down and talk it out on the sidelines. Had the tension remained, then we would have a problem… but two individuals who are able to communicate and work through their differences like that is a sign of success, not failure.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

    • Dobber says:

      “I don’t think people really understand why the Packers lost this game…”

      …because they had fewer points when time ran out?

      They lost because Cincinnati made the plays they needed to, when they needed to, to overcome the Packers. We want to point to the 4th down, we want to point to pressure and sacks, we want to point to a defense that went flaccid in the last 20 minutes, but in the end it comes down to the fact that Cinci overcame its issues and made the plays they needed to make.

      How many times does a team get that key fumble on 4th down and turn it into the winning score….aside from the Bears, I mean? Not to say that Cinci wouldn’t have made the stop, taken the ball, drove 40 yd and forced OT, anyway, but…GET THE 3 POINTS MIKE!!!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      • Come on, Dobber… They “made the play they needed to make”? That’s such a BS answer to why they lost.

        If you were a coach, how could you fix problem areas with that kind of analysis? I can only imagine the calls from parents I would get if their student earned a “D” grade and the only reason I gave them for his performance was “he didn’t do what he needed to do.”

        And therein is my point… Are we actually analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of this team objectively, or do we just keep grinding the ax(es) we’ve been grinding all along?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Dobber says:

          “I can only imagine the calls from parents I would get if their student earned a “D” grade and the only reason I gave them for his performance was “he didn’t do what he needed to do.””

          The reason I teach college and not high school is so that I can do just that! ;)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Tarynfor12 Tarynfor12 says:

      “I don’t think people really understand why the Packers lost this game….. Maybe I’ll write a post to expand on this thought…”

      WOW!…Save us from the ‘comfortable scapegoats…..C’mon Chad..just a tad to much ego.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      • Sven says:

        The readers and the Authors of the articles on this site seam to be equally knowledgeable on Packer’s football. That is what makes this site so fun, especially for reading people’s comments.

        With that said, I am looking forward to your article, Chad. …and the comments that will surely follow.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        • NYPACKER says:

          Agree, people here actually want to talk about the technical aspects of football. So many of the forums turn into guys who want to constantly post “witty graphics” & totally ignore what others post unless it is to attack it.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      • Should have put “some” people… obviously doesn’t apply to all. But I’m hearing the same sirens being sounded that I always hear, and they’re not all applicable. (Though, yes, a couple are.)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Kurt the Turk says:

      I’d say GB lost for the same reasons you’ve pooh-pooh’ed since the 49ers game. The offensive line is bad and that is dramatically restricting GB from running it’s full playbook. And GBs defense is quite soft, especially the pass defense.

      Meanwhile the mighty 49ers, the uber-opponent, have scored a total of 10 points in the next two games. Looks like almost beating the “best team in football” on the road doesn’t count for much. But having defenders in Rodger’s face 2 seconds after the snap, play after play, does.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  10. Since '61 says:

    First, Thank you to NY Packer and Sven for your supporting comments and I also agree with your points. To JRMD, I am not against bringing in a FA or two when appropriate, but remember the cap rules have changed since Ron Wolf was GM. Given the current salary structure and what the packers are now paying AR and CM3 and a few other players, they could not afford to bring in a Reggie White type of player without cutting at least a few of the current starters, they probably couldn’t afford to bring in Woodson with the current rules. Today requires that you manage the cap or you blow up your team for a long time. I would just like to see this team with all their starters play through a season healthy. Then we could see what we have and if appropriate criticize TT and MM. Until then I need to accept they are doing the best with what they have. As for remembering Reggie White, et al, I remember very well. I go back to the Lombardi days and came through the ’70s and ’80s. There is not too much I don’t remember about the Pack. Enough said for now. Thanks, Since ’61

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  11. packett says:

    I predicted a 0-4 start to the season…so I’m happy GB got one win. I think they’ll lose to Detroit too. But, I believe the early adversity is very good, and will focus the team in October-December. I’m not worried by these September losses. In 2010, there was no margin for error down the final stretch. Amazing how people can respond to necessity. Look at the seasons when it was just assumed GB would win 14 or 15 games. I have faith in the element of determination during adversity. No post-season for pansy win teams.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • Epy says:

      You’re predicting the Lions beat the Packers at home the first time in 20+ years? Really?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. GBPDAN says:

    This team lost 2 , close, tuff road games to SB contenders. Its unfortunate that they didn’t do enough to win either game. There were many factors on the field why they lost, but, I still can’t help believing that injuries had a lot to go with it. I know that injuries are part of the game and that every team has them, but damn the Packers have a lot. Sherrard, Bulaga, Harris, Burnett, Hayward, Mathews, Finley, kuhn, Lacey, Starks…these are starters, or potential starters. If we had a few of these key guys, we would be at least 2-1. I also agree that the coahes need to do a better job with their in game coaching, good article,

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • BartySmith says:

      What is amazing is that Cincy did not have any injuries — not to their first round CB Kirkpatrick, CB Ghee, and DLineman Geathers.

      Only the Pack has injuries and they should get a pass for all losses because of it.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  13. Jason Perone Jason Perone says:

    This conversation thread is why I do this and why I love our fans. Awesome conversation and more importantly, it’s educated and not hostile. Well done and thanks for reading!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  14. Since '61 says:

    Jason – I totally agree. There are bad 1-2 records and goodv1-2 records. In spite of everything the Packers Areca good 1-2. They are literraly 2 plays from being 3-0 losing 2 close games on the road. If the Packers win out at home and I think they will, then 2-3 road wins gets us in the playoffs. This is still within reach for this team, especially if we get healthy. Go Pack Go. Thanks, Since ’61

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Icebowler says:

    Settling for three field goals instead of at least one or two touchdown off of Bengals turnovers in the first half didn’t help our effort. We should have demoralized them in the second quarter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  16. Archie says:

    The Pack was very fortunate on Sunday. Had it not been for the 4 CINCY TOs, they might have won 48-14. As it was, first 7 minutes they were up 14-0 and last 20 minutes they scored 20-0. Thus, for half a game, they were ahead 34-0. The other half? They lost the ball four times in a row and GB scored 30 points. Take away those 4 TOs and assume the two teams battled even for middle half at 14-14 and “normal” final score would have been 48-14. Instead, they lost 34-30. So Pack was very lucky.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3