Game 1 - Packers @ Vikings - Sunday, Sept. 13th @ 3:25 PM

[OldHeidelberg]

7 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I can't believe I'm defending MLF even slightly but I thought that choice was fine. Run a 5-wide quick slant to get 2 yards. Not a QB sneak. That's a jugular decision so I will not hate him when I normally hate what a turtling goon he is. 

But I disagree - 3rd and 11 was the turn. That was the point everything crumbled.

Considering the state of our oline and no proven short yardage RB I don't see much difference between 4th and 6 and 4th and 1. Either way even if you convert you may end up kicking the FG 4 downs later. It was not a good decision and I agree it turned the game. We got reffed the next drive to be sure but it was an all hands on deck meltdown in the second half, I am getting used to it.  

[adambr2]

I’ll save you the trouble of going back and watching the postgame interview and give you the most notable quotes:

”We didn’t answer”

”It’s all of us”

”We gotta play cleaner”

”We’re going to be aggressive”

”I don’t even know about analytics”

”That doesn’t even factor in”

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

5 minutes ago, OldHeidelberg said:

Considering the state of our oline and no proven short yardage RB I don't see much difference between 4th and 6 and 4th and 1. Either way even if you convert you may end up kicking the FG 4 downs later. It was not a good decision and I agree it turned the game. We got reffed the next drive to be sure but it was an all hands on deck meltdown in the second half, I am getting used to it.  

It puts them up by 8. It's one possession. Even if the sequence unfolds as badly as possible you are down 3 with the ball and plenty of time. The benefits of scoring a touchdown on that drive far outweighed the benefit of being up by 8. 

Their oline is precisely why 4th and 1 is different from 4th and 6. You don't need 2.5 seconds to throw a 2 yard pass. You don't even need separation. With 6 yards, you do.  It's a big difference. 

And if they hadn't missed their 5th PAT in a year, there's no way he takes that penalty over being up 9. 

I'd jump for joy for MLF were fired before 8pm. But this one seems very revisionist. It was the exact kind of step on the throat decision people constantly criticize him for not making. I think Johnson and Campbell make the exact same call. There were so many chances to salvage the game after that decision I just can't get on board with it being this alleged horrible choice. 

 

[adambr2]

Super reassuring in the modern NFL where analytics dominates to hear our head coach acknowledge that it doesn’t factor in for him at all. 

[HarryDoyle]

9 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

I dont know how Policy cant see how toxic the culture is within the organization and be ok with leaving the guys responsible for creating it in charge.

 

No accountability on this roster at all

Policy is running this proud franchise into the ground.

[yourout]

30 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

It should be literally impossible to outgain a team 419 to 239 and lose. To lose by three scores is something I'm not even sure science or mathematics has a word for.

MLF math.....will  be a book about it someday.

[Yaz]

2 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

Policy is running this proud franchise into the ground.

Seriously, he has only been Packers President for a very short time. The same problems that plagued the Packers at the end of last season came back at about the same time of the game today.   And today, the final score was not as close.   Oh well.  

[NeedMoreFans]

I won't question taking points off the board, but I will question the call on 4th & 1.  It wasn't a QB sneak situation.  Any other play is more likely to succeed with our o-line.  If you're going to be aggressive by taking points off the board, then be aggressive with the play call.

I don't recall if it was before or after that play, but they had a 3rd and 11 or 12, and he called a run.  A RUN.  That's about as timid as you get if you are claiming to be more aggressive.  

[HarryDoyle]

15 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Not a primary reason they lost...but the officiating was replacement level fail Mary bad.  Its a shame the packers found plenty of other reasons to blow a game  a competent, well-coached team would win by more than 2 scores in its sleep and couldnt put the focus on the bang job they received from the zebras

Yeah, the refs were terrible today, but this team folds like a cheap tent at the first sign of adversity. They've taken on the personality of their softer than Charmin head coach.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Policy doesn't care as long as the team is profitable as a business entity. 

[Yaz]

Just an observation.  Correct me if I am wrong but I did not see any commercials for gambling during the game.  So that was a good thing.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

It's a long season and we're in 2nd place in the division. On to the Jets!

[yourout]

28 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I can't believe I'm defending MLF even slightly but I thought that choice was fine. Run a 5-wide quick slant to get 2 yards. Not a QB sneak. That's a jugular decision so I will not hate him when I normally hate what a turtling goon he is. 

But I disagree - 3rd and 11 was the turn. That was the point everything crumbled.

+1....didnt hate the decision but hated the call for that distance.

[HarryDoyle]

13 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I’ll save you the trouble of going back and watching the postgame interview and give you the most notable quotes:

”We didn’t answer”

”It’s all of us”

”We gotta play cleaner”

”We’re going to be aggressive”

”I don’t even know about analytics”

”That doesn’t even factor in”

 

See previously posted MLF bingo card.

[JosephC]

4 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

Yeah, the refs were terrible today, but this team folds like a cheap tent at the first sign of adversity. They've taken on the personality of their softer than Charmin head coach.

Just curious, do they have the youngest team in the NFL?

[OldHeidelberg]

17 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I But this one seems very revisionist. 

 

Just for the record, I almost always disagree with going for it on 4th and short at like the 20 if the 3 points are meaningful, it's just not the same as goal line and I think coaches treat it the same too often. I was angry when he made the call before the failure and I was mad when it appeared he might do it in first half. It wasn't revisionist and feel free to call me out if you ever see me complaining about not being aggressive in a similar situation. 

[HarryDoyle]

Just now, JosephC said:

Just curious, do they have the youngest team in the NFL?

I don't know, but they seem to wear that as a badge of honor. At some point you have to let them grow up.

[yourout]

8 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Policy doesn't care as long as the team is profitable as a business entity. 

Bean counters tend to make lousy football decisions.

[adambr2]

The Packers have been outscored 90-15 after the 3rd quarter in their last 6 games. 

[yourout]

4 minutes ago, JosephC said:

Just curious, do they have the youngest team in the NFL?

Most injured.......backup QB stubbed his toe.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 minute ago, OldHeidelberg said:

Just for the record, I almost always disagree with going for it on 4th and short at like the 20 if the 3 points are meaningful, it's just not the same as goal line and I think coaches treat it the same too often. I was angry when he made the call before the failure and I was mad when it appeared he might do it in first have. It wasn't revisionist and feel free to call me out if you ever see me complaining about not being aggressive in a similar situation. 

I am more referring to the decision being widely panned, when in reality it is a very common decision in today's game, correct or not. I believe that certain people would always favor a more conservative approach. But a lot of those criticizing it are the same ones who say Matt has no cojones, turtles, etc. That's me. So I can't turn around and say I hate the decision. I understand what he was trying to achieve - it essentially ends the game if they get 6 on that drive. He was going for the 2 possession lead, it was understandable and defensible, even if you disagree. 

[adambr2]

Also, they have lost 9 games in a row without Parsons dating back to the 3 they lost before they acquired him. 

[HarryDoyle]

1 minute ago, yourout said:

Bean counters tend to make lousy football decisions.

It's inconceivable to me that someone that came from the loins of someone who oversaw the operations of one of the greatest dynasties in NFL history could be this incompetent.

[Fear The Chorizo]

12 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Policy doesn't care as long as the team is profitable as a business entity. 

Well, they weren't last year....so they suck at that, too

[OldHeidelberg]

7 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I am more referring to the decision being widely panned, when in reality it is a very common decision in today's game, correct or not. I believe that certain people would always favor a more conservative approach. But a lot of those criticizing it are the same ones who say Matt has no cojones, turtles, etc. That's me. So I can't turn around and say I hate the decision. I understand what he was trying to achieve - it essentially ends the game if they get 6 on that drive. He was going for the 2 possession lead, it was understandable and defensible, even if you disagree. 

At the moment of the made FG I felt pretty good about the 8 points holding up, even if it meant we needed one more FG. But I should of known better...🙂