- I think you have to look at Shawn Slocum, who ran the special teams this season. The Seahawks won the game because they scored on a fake field goal and because they recovered an onside kick. Neither play should have been successful. Tim Masthay also had a very poor punt late in the game. You can't have that. Between all the blocked kicks and other misadventures throughout the year, I think Slocum should be on notice. And that's the best case scenario.
- The Packers are still a run stuffer or two away on defense. Marshawn Lynch eventually wore the defense down. It shouldn't have happened.
- I know that you want to run the ball when you have a 12-point lead and the ball, but you have to move the chains. The best way the Packers know to move the chains is to pass the ball.
- The good news is that the next time the Packers play the Seahawks, the game will be in Green Bay. A look at the 2015 opponents shows the following:
Come to Lambeau, Russell
It hurts, yes. Now it's time for the Packers to turn pain into resolve.
6 comments:
I've seen an awful lot of Mike McCarthy bashing the past 18 hours or so. It's mostly in reference to the Packers settling for 2 chip shot FGs in the first quarter as opposed to going for TDs. Sure, in hindsight it may have behooved them to go for touchdowns. But since GB was up 19-7 with 5 minutes left *and* possession of the ball, the 1st quarter decisions should've been rendered moot.
I'm not saying McCarthy is above criticism, but it seems to me that he is well down the list of culprits.
Your thoughts, D?
But since GB was up 19-7 with 5 minutes left *and* possession of the ball, the 1st quarter decisions should've been rendered moot.
I'm not saying McCarthy is above criticism, but it seems to me that he is well down the list of culprits.
Everyone is going to get criticized when a collapse happens. If there were a better option out there, I'd consider jumping on the bandwagon, but the guy was 12-4 this year.
I agree that the last 5 minutes were the issue. I think they need to make some changes on the periphery, but in general this team should continue to contend for the next few years, barring something catastrophic happening to Aaron Rodgers.
Packers lost because Seahawks were desperate and ran some desperation gadget plays... that worked!
and that fake FG was just too sweet in its execution.
if Packers fans are looking for blame, then they have been spoiled by 20yrs of good results.
besides... they shouldnt have even been in this game because they didnt earn it against the Cowboys.
if Packers fans are looking for blame, then they have been spoiled by 20yrs of good results.
besides... they shouldnt have even been in this game because they didnt earn it against the Cowboys.
From Peter King's MMQB column in Sports Illustrated:
7. I think, not to pick at a week-old scab, but the one thing lost in the justifiable criticism of the Dez Bryant catch reversal is this: Say the catch was ruled good. Say Dallas had first-and-goal from the Green Bay one, and say Dallas scored within a play or two to make it 27-26, Dallas. The Cowboys would have gone for two. And so with somewhere around four minutes left, Green Bay would have gotten the ball back, down either one or three, with one timeout left. Here were the Packers’ previous three possessions: six plays, 47 yards, field goal; seven plays, 95 yards, touchdown; eight plays, 80 yards, touchdown. So if you want to say the Bryant reversal jobbed the Cowboys out of a chance to win, that’s fine. But please do not say the Bryant reversal cost the Cowboys the win. That didn’t happen.
Because we all know how predictable the last five minutes can be, right?
Because we all know how predictable the last five minutes can be, right?
That actually supports my point. Anything could have happened. The Packers could have earned a victory a dozen different ways, or lost it in a dozen different ways. The problem I've had all along is the notion that the Packers didn't deserve to win against the Cowboys. They had to earn the lead they held. The Cowboys got a bad break based on a bad rule. The same thing is true about the Cowboys the week before. If DeMarco Murray didn't fumble on the play where Peppers stripped him, they'd have scored another touchdown. If they had picked up Cobb's fumble on a kickoff, they'd likely have scored as well. They didn't do either thing. And, as we've explained repeatedly, the Cowboys didn't stop the Packers when they ran out the clock in their game. The idea that the Packers didn't deserve to win is ludicrous.
I have people on my FB feed complaining about the Packers not getting a chance to get the ball in the overtime against the Seabags. I think that's a bad rule, too, but it's the rule and we have to live with it. The reason the Packers lost in Seattle was that they didn't make a play at several critical moments; the game never should have gone to overtime and it's the fault of the Packers that it did.
For that matter, if the rules had been different way back in 1998, the Packers would have beaten the 49ers in the playoff game. On the winning drive for the 49ers, Jerry Rice fumbled, but the play was whistled dead and there was no replay available then. Had the play happened a year later, the call would have been reversed, but the play happened in 1998, so the Packers were SOL. Hell, there are people in Baltimore who still swear that the Packers won a playoff game in 1965 because a field goal was called good that was no good. None of those calls have been reversed.
Post a Comment