Game 10: Panthers @ Packers - Sunday, November 10th, 3:25PM

[adambr2]

Probably a time saver to get multiple shots.

 

Seems pretty silly then to follow it with two 5 yard sideline routes.

[pacopete4]

Dallas is better at blowing opportunities than Minnesota.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Oh well. I'm ok with the Packers having someone in the rear view mirror all year as long as they win it in the end.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Womp womp.

 

Vikings needed that win to keep pace with the Packers. Lose this one, and the Packers road to the North crown is MUCH easier. Packers still hold the upper hand, but have to keep the foot on the gas.

[adambr2]

Womp womp.

 

Vikings needed that win to keep pace with the Packers. Lose this one, and the Packers road to the North crown is MUCH easier. Packers still hold the upper hand, but have to keep the foot on the gas.

 

It's tough to see the division not coming down to December 23rd. Although we are still in a good tiebreaker position and can clinch the tiebreaker by beating the Bears and Lions regardless of the Minnesota result.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The Packers are sitting pretty good. They could even lose to the Giants or Redskins, finish 3-3 with a loss the Vikings and 49ers and Minnesota would have to go 5-1. Their loss to the Bears looms large.

[adambr2]

A Viking loss would have been nice but they really shouldn't have even lost to the Chiefs. Glad they dropped that one.

[adambr2]

Cowboys have one single win outside of the terrible NFC East this season.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Cowboys have one single win outside of the terrible NFC East this season.

 

It's going to be funny when the NFC East champ goes 8-8. Still gonna get more hype than the rest of the conference.

[areacodes]

I think it exists to prevent throwing guys into the end zone, jumping on their back, goofy circus type plays and what not. But they typically won't call it for shoving someone at the 1 yard line type stuff.

 

But it wasn’t a shove. While it wasn’t as blatant as the one against Denver, it should have been a penalty based on the rules. I wouldn’t have been happy if he had scored there and it was overturned.

 

Also, where is the national outrage about the non calls on the last drive for intentional grounding? First one wasn’t within 10 yards of a WR and second one hit the down marker out of bounds so it wasn’t close to making it past the line of scrimmage.

[MrTPlush]

One week at a time. I don’t care about the upper hand we have for tiebreakers, our schedule is no cupcake and there are a ton of games to go. The 49ers game is really really tough while the Vikings play the Broncos. If you realistically assume those games don’t go our way we are simply tied with a tiebreaker advantage with 5 games to go.

 

I think we need a 2-1 showing over the next 3 games at least. That puts you at least in a tie advantage...likely a one game lead with the tie advantage. If we go 1-2 it could get real dicey fast. Packers definitely in the drivers seat with the bad Giants/Redskins coming up. As the Chargers game showed though (and a bunch of other times throughout games) we can look terrible real quick.

[adambr2]

I think it exists to prevent throwing guys into the end zone, jumping on their back, goofy circus type plays and what not. But they typically won't call it for shoving someone at the 1 yard line type stuff.

 

But it wasn’t a shove. While it wasn’t as blatant as the one against Denver, it should have been a penalty based on the rules. I wouldn’t have been happy if he had scored there and it was overturned.

 

Also, where is the national outrage about the non calls on the last drive for intentional grounding? First one wasn’t within 10 yards of a WR and second one hit the down marker out of bounds so it wasn’t close to making it past the line of scrimmage.

 

We won so no one really cares. Also Booger McFarland thankfully wasn't present to stir the pot.

 

Most commentators are professional enough to review a play, simply point out that they agree/disagree with a call and why they agree or disagree with it, and move on. Booger McFarland is not.

[adambr2]

One week at a time. I don’t care about the upper hand we have for tiebreakers, our schedule is no cupcake and there are a ton of games to go. The 49ers game is really really tough while the Vikings play the Broncos. If you realistically assume those games don’t go our way we are simply tied with a tiebreaker advantage with 5 games to go.

 

I think we need a 2-1 showing over the next 3 games at least. That puts you at least in a tie advantage...likely a one game lead with the tie advantage. If we go 1-2 it could get real dicey fast. Packers definitely in the drivers seat with the bad Giants/Redskins coming up. As the Chargers game showed though (and a bunch of other times throughout games) we can look terrible real quick.

 

The Giants' game scares me for some reason. I can easily see Daniel Jones having a career day and Saquon could easily go for 150. I don't know how they're 2-9 but I'm certainly more wary of them than the Redskins.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Those weren't grounding. They'll never call grounding if it appears an honest attempt was made to throw the ball to a WR and the hit/restriction on the QB forces the ball well short. I thought it was really clear on both who he was going for. Rodgers gets the benefit of those calls really often.

[MrTPlush]

Both were indeed intentional grounding in my opinion. Obviously hitting the yard marker is pretty straight forward, clearly didn’t make it far enough. But thus it was close so whatever...happens all the time. I though the shovel pass should have been called. The guy he was doing it towards was 15-20-25 yards down the field. Everyone knows such a pass is a 5 yard max kind of pass...to give him credit for throwing to the receiver at 3+ the distance seemed wrong.

 

Again, I agree they rarely call them unless just blatant, but the second one I felt warranted a flag. It simply was not a true attempt to throw to a receiver or anywhere in his vicinity.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I feel like IG is called 5 times a year. I'm just so used it to not being called that I don't care.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The Giants game scared me when they were 2-4 or whatever but that team is bad. It's still one they can lose but the Packers have as big of a 1-game lead as you can have. I really can't see them losing to Detroit or Chicago which really forces Minnesota to pick up two, which as I said earlier forces a 5-1 finish and the Packers going 3-3. It can happen, but if the Packers win a game they shouldn't, like SF, it's all but over. If they beat the Vikings again they would probably clinch before the final game.

[JohnBriggs12]

Haven't read through the entire thread but somebody needs to show Lafluer the tape of the 2003 Eagles playoff game. He pulled a classic "Mike Sherman" and just barely escaped. When you have 4th and 3 on the opponents side of the field, and a first down basically ends the game and you have a Hall of Fame quarterback, you don't take the ball out of his hands and put the game on a shaky tired defense on a slippery field.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I would have punted up by 8. That's what I was talking about earlier with it being hard to measure what the other team does re: the 2-pt conversion. If I'm up 7 I feel more inclined to end the game. But the cushion of knowing I CAN'T lose in regulation makes it more tempting to try to pin them at the 10. I don't think it's a bad move expecting your defense to stop a TD and 2-PT in a blizzard.

[JohnBriggs12]

I would have punted up by 8. That's what I was talking about earlier with it being hard to measure what the other team does re: the 2-pt conversion. If I'm up 7 I feel more inclined to end the game. But the cushion of knowing I CAN'T lose in regulation makes it more tempting to try to pin them at the 10. I don't think it's a bad move expecting your defense to stop a TD and 2-PT in a blizzard.

 

Had the Panthers scored (and they missed by inches maybe), odds were very good they would get the 2 pointer, then win the toss and march right down the field in OT and score a winning TD without Rodgers ever seeing the field again. By punting the game was taken out of your Hall of Famer's hands and put entirely on the defense and the toss of a coin. That's exactly what happened in that Eagles game in 2003 and was the beginning of the end of Mike Sherman's tenure. How long did it take Carolina to get the ball back to where the Packers had it? 2 plays? This Packer defense has shown it's very vulnerable.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

You make quite a leap in that post. Odds are "very good" that they score, get the 2, win the toss, score a TD and end the game? No they aren't. I'm pretty sure the odds would still favor the Packers even if the Panthers score a touchdown.

 

The Packers offense isn't that great either. Both units are pretty middling, probably on the higher ranking end of the 11-20 region, so even more impressive they've managed 8-2.

 

The Packers also got absolutely throttled at the 1-yard-line. I'm not sure why risking 4th and 3 to give that vulnerable defense a short field is such a clearly better idea especially considering that Carolina ran out of time.

[homer]

I would have been totally ok going for it on 4th down as I was before the half. I was also ok punting in that situation given what OSS described above.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I would have punted up by 8. That's what I was talking about earlier with it being hard to measure what the other team does re: the 2-pt conversion. If I'm up 7 I feel more inclined to end the game. But the cushion of knowing I CAN'T lose in regulation makes it more tempting to try to pin them at the 10. I don't think it's a bad move expecting your defense to stop a TD and 2-PT in a blizzard.

 

Had the Panthers scored (and they missed by inches maybe), odds were very good they would get the 2 pointer, then win the toss and march right down the field in OT and score a winning TD without Rodgers ever seeing the field again. By punting the game was taken out of your Hall of Famer's hands and put entirely on the defense and the toss of a coin. That's exactly what happened in that Eagles game in 2003 and was the beginning of the end of Mike Sherman's tenure. How long did it take Carolina to get the ball back to where the Packers had it? 2 plays? This Packer defense has shown it's very vulnerable.

 

Very good odds?

 

L

O

L

 

I've seen plenty of false narratives on the Packers floating around, but this one is right up there with the most outlandish of them. So scoring on 4th down with 4 seconds left, getting the 2-pointer that they missed earlier, then winning the toss and marching down and scoring a TD in OT was good odds? On what planet? I mean, the Packers winning the toss in OT is already 50/50.

[JohnBriggs12]

Did you watch the game? Carolina had receivers running free all day. The slippery field aided the offense. With McCaffrey, there's no more dangerous team from the 2 yard line then Carolina. Earlier he basically walked in from the 5 yard line. Packers stopped him though that's disputable on the last play that just as easily could have been called a touchdown and the Packers were extremely lucky the Panthers didn't run him on earlier downs.

 

Just because it turned out okay, doesn't make the decision to punt there the right one. Carolina had the ball back out to their own 40 in no time. That's were they would have gotten the ball if Packers failed on 4th down.

 

My point is, you end the game when the opportunity arises when you have a QB of Rodgers ability running the show. He should be able to complete a 3 yard pass when he has too and you take away all doubt. Carolina came a lot closer to winning that game than they should have.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think we all watched the game so you can save the condescending comments. He should have been able to score at the end of the first half too and he didn't. That Rodgers is going to Canton is of no significance to their offense today and their offense today is not all that amazing.

 

What's funny about this to me is that the argument you're making is the same one that could be used to punt. Force them to use very little time to go the length of the field, which they had to do and ran out of time. Their entire drive is a lot more relaxed if it starts at the 40 with an extra 10 seconds.

 

To be clear, I would have been OK with going for it, but the 8-pt lead really puts me over the edge on punting. 8 points and 90 yards is something I'm OK with. You're acting like this was some god awful decision and it wasn't.

 

Funny enough it also wasn't bad when Sherman did it. That they forced Philly into 4th and 26 should have ended that game. Memory is fuzzy but weren't the Packers up 3? That's a far cry from 8.