NFC Divisonal Playoffs: Seahawks @ Packers Sunday, Jan 12th, 5:40PM

[nodakfan17]

Aaron Rodgers now has 10 postseason wins and is tied for 10th all-time on the postseason win list. There are no scrubs on that list.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Rodgers may have played his finest game of the season tonight. Took what the defense gave him, and made some incredible throws. Didn't try to wing it 40 yards every 3rd down.

 

Seattle defense played pretty tough tonight. I give them credit. Rodgers and the Packers were just a little bit better.

 

 

That over the top throw to JImmy Graham to gain 27 and the last throw to Adams on the big gainer were vintage Rodgers. He made a few "not great" throws but he didn't have any bad throws tonight.

[brewcrewdue80]

Hey the site is working.

Pettine really had a slow time noticing for 3 drives in a row rushing 4 and having somebody better than Martinez spy Wilson. Was as easy as step back and roll out right gain 7+yards. Rinse repeat. Finally After the TD, blitzes Alexander who immediately sacks Wilson on 2pt try.

Next Seattle drive same 4man rush not getting there. Finally a 6man rush and sack to seal that potential GW drive.

Offensively. 1st drive of 2nd half was a thing of beauty. Then? I dunno. Defense was clearly gassing, I think some has to go on Rodgers. Didnt quick throw an open WR. Almost gave it up again to Seattle. On to the next round. Hopefully Bulaga returning shores up some of the OLines issues today.

[MrTPlush]

I’m not a huge Martinez hater, but he had a real defining moment if we ended up losing. I believe their first TD drive the Seahawks were faced with a 3 and 6 from their own side. Martinez looked to be a Wilson spy just camping out in the middle not rushing. After a long time of nothing happening on the play Martinez bailed out from his spot over the center and tried rushing around the side. I’m not sure what he saw because he instantly got blocked and Wilson then ran up the middle for what was like 30 yards.

 

If his job was truly to spy Wilson (seemed that way) that was quite the boneheaded play.

[adambr2]

Yeah Martinez blew it on that 3rd and 6 that led to Seattle's first touchdown. It's one thing to get beat in the open field by Russell Wilson, it's another thing to get beat because you didn't do the job that you were supposed to do on that play. Trust your teammates and the play and do your damn job. Don't try to be a hero.

[Fear The Chorizo]

That was my biggest gripe with the defense once Seattle started rolling in the second half - they've got to blitz more in spots to at least give Wilson something different to look at. GB's offense did them very few favors in the 2nd half after they put up 28 until that final drive, and the defensive line was gassed. Expecting their typical 4 man rush to both get pressure on Wilson and actually tackle him when they are that tired isn't a great strategy. Seattle's only chance was to let Wilson run around and either buy tons of time for coverage to break down, or have man coverage get 25 yards downfield so he can scramble for 10-20 yard chunks at will - blitzing every once in a while at least forces the issue a bit and gets the ball out of Wilson's hands quicker.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think the strategy was, they had a big lead, so play the coverages and maybe increase the odds you catch an errant ball. If you blitz, you're kind of helping Wilson play catch-up quickly. I'd really prefer being more aggressive, but...in the end, the defense had to get a stop to preserve a win. They've done that literally every time they were asked to do so this season at the end of a game like that.

[adambr2]

It definitely wasn't Pettine's finest game last night. He didn't adjust when Wilson started to take over the game or do anything different to make Wilson uncomfortable. It has become clear that they're content to play differently on defense with double digit leads, sacrificing yardage and even points to kill clock and avoid a home run play, which is agonizing to watch as a fan and I'm shocked it hasn't come back to bite them.

 

Also not sure how many people noticed but LaFleur employed the Bill Bellichick/Mike Vrabel clock killing loophole on our last punt. False start occurred before the punt presumably on purpose at 5:30 and so they were able to run another 30 seconds off the game clock before punting. Had they not done that they would not have been able to kill the clock all the way after the final Graham first down.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think the strategy was, they had a big lead, so play the coverages and maybe increase the odds you catch an errant ball. If you blitz, you're kind of helping Wilson play catch-up quickly. I'd really prefer being more aggressive, but...in the end, the defense had to get a stop to preserve a win. They've done that literally every time they were asked to do so this season at the end of a game like that.

 

I get that, but when the two times the Packers blitzed late in the game led to two sacks that either ended a 2 point attempt or ended a drive, you have to wonder if sprinkling in more variety in terms of where the pass rush is coming from would have made life more difficult for Wilson during most of the 2nd half. Blitzing against that line didn't leave any scramble lanes open to Wilson, so he couldn't dance around and wait for the initial coverage to break down - even if he wouldn't have gotten sacked he would have had to get the ball out fast. I love Wilson as a player and QB, but I think his one weakness is a limited ability to read coverages from the pocket (primarily due to his height) - he makes his biggest plays in the passing game either from set plays to a primary receiver going deep from the pocket, or after he breaks contain and finds a guy running wide open in the scramble drill. Blitzing speeds up his internal clock on when he needs to break the pocket, and if the rushing lanes don't leave a huge gap he's got nowhere to go and his eyes don't go to the receivers downfield.

 

Not blitzing most of that game made the Packers' D too predictable, predictably with Wilson knowing every time he dropped back he was going to have the ability to extend the play against a tired D line and either wait for a receiver to break open or run for big yardage himself.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

He drew up a nice blitz on the 2-pt that was really a critical stop. It was frustrating though because they should have been doing that more in the 2nd half. He runs around like crazy so you send a corner at him that he can't outrun. Russ didn't even see him though, probably due to the fact he'd spent a half without any look like that. It would have been a great call 5 plays earlier to jar the ball loose.

 

After the fact we can say it didn't matter but the offense goes at the last drive completely differently if they only need 3. And they did get a stop at the end.

 

Best part of that game though was something that Packers haven't done all year, convert 3rd downs. Jones didn't have a great game getting just 3 YPC. They were 9-14 and felt like Rodgers made a lot happen.

[PeaveyFury]

I realize MLF is a first year head coach, but it's not like he's new to the NFL. Some of his decisions in this game are absolutely stunningly bad.

 

Why run so much time off on the punt? Your defense has been bad all 2nd half. PLAN on the possibility that you may need to score again. If you don't have to, great! But plan on possibly needing to.

 

2nd and 8, your whole plan was .... drawing them off sides, and then when that didn't work, burning a time out? It's like McCarthy School of Clock Management. It may not hurt them in the end, but come on. "Draw them offsides" is not a play on 2nd and 8 when saving time outs should be at a premium.

 

A point worth noting on the 2nd and 8 from the stadium, Rodgers kept pointing at his helmet on this play, as it appears he couldn’t hear the play. Rather than calling TO right away, it appeared that he choose to try to draw them off, knowing they needed to take the TO anyway.

[KeithStone53151]

I would say the most underrated part of that game for me was the job our secondary did. How many times did Wilson have like 6-8 seconds before he even got pressure...and still ended up getting sacked? I found it just so impressive that with all that time, we maintained good coverage on everyone a majority of the time. He did complete some passes, especially 2nd half...but man it was basically a 7 on 7 drill most of the time. Very few sacks were earned by the pass rush...most were coverage sacks.

 

Regarding the ref controveries...the fumble in the 1st quarter seemed insane to me, and it seems most on here shared that opinion. The Graham spot, to me he looked like he was probably like 3 inches short...but given the call on the field there's just no way you can overturn that with the evidence provided. One other factor, the yellow line on tv was off by almost half a yard...so it certainly looked worse than it was

 

On to San Francisco...hopefully we can find something in the game tape from last time to help us make a contest out of this one.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Not only was the yellow TV line off, the "O Guy," the guy on the opposite side of the field from the chain gang, that makes it look like a closer call, was ALSO off where the first down should have been. I've watched that play 20 times now and the controversy over it seems extremely forced. It was just not that bad of a call, and I'm not remotely convinced he didn't get the first down. Graham falls on top of the defender's leg as well, he's not immediately down.

 

The idea that a spot that leads to 4th and an inch was more impactful than a blown fumble is ridiculous.

[KeithStone53151]

Not only was the yellow TV line off, the "O Guy," the guy on the opposite side of the field from the chain gang, that makes it look like a closer call, was ALSO off where the first down should have been. I've watched that play 20 times now and the controversy over it seems extremely forced. It was just not that bad of a call, and I'm not remotely convinced he didn't get the first down. Graham falls on top of the defender's leg as well, he's not immediately down.

 

The idea that a spot that leads to 4th and an inch was more impactful than a blown fumble is ridiculous.

 

Right exactly. First part down for Graham was his elbow. Which like you said, maybe it's 4th and an inch. I think if there was no call on the field for whatever reason and it went to video to make a determination, it might end up being 4th and an inch. But that's not how it works. That fumble is a virtually guaranteed 3 or 7 points, and we may have simply put this team away early. It's that much less wear on our defense, that much more wear on their defense. Plus being incredibly demoralizing.

 

There were probably 10 worse calls in the game than this one, maybe more. And at least 8 probably went against the Packers including the clear worst call of the game.

[homer]

I think the strategy was, they had a big lead, so play the coverages and maybe increase the odds you catch an errant ball. If you blitz, you're kind of helping Wilson play catch-up quickly. I'd really prefer being more aggressive, but...in the end, the defense had to get a stop to preserve a win. They've done that literally every time they were asked to do so this season at the end of a game like that.

 

And I think there's something to be said to forcing the other team to sustain long drives and not giving up the big play. Eventually they'll run out of luck....and they did.

[RobDeer 45]

Man that was an intense game. I can say that was a lot of fun to watch because we won. When the Seahawks got it back with 5 minutes or so, I was starting to feel really negative, like we were about to lose. Then I thought, you know what, this team has been winning all year in these close games, so I'm going to trust they can get it done tonight! I really hope we show up and play well next week.

[stalton]

Not finding a clear recovery aside, I was curious why we didnt win the challenge for recognizing that the player fumbled but I came across this rule:

 

When an on-field ruling is down by contact, and the runner clearly fumbled the ball, the ball will be awarded at the spot of recovery to the team that recovers the ball in the immediate continuing action. If there is no clear recovery, the ruling on the field stands.

 

Call on field stands = no winning the challenge

[OldSchoolSnapper]

It's the same for spot challenges. If they move the spot and the result of the play doesn't change you still lose the timeout.

[thebruce44]

Yeah Martinez blew it on that 3rd and 6 that led to Seattle's first touchdown. It's one thing to get beat in the open field by Russell Wilson, it's another thing to get beat because you didn't do the job that you were supposed to do on that play. Trust your teammates and the play and do your damn job. Don't try to be a hero.

 

For all we know, he was supposed to blitz after a certain amount of time. But regardless, that one was frustrating to watch.

[stoutdude04]

Not finding a clear recovery aside, I was curious why we didnt win the challenge for recognizing that the player fumbled but I came across this rule:

 

When an on-field ruling is down by contact, and the runner clearly fumbled the ball, the ball will be awarded at the spot of recovery to the team that recovers the ball in the immediate continuing action. If there is no clear recovery, the ruling on the field stands.

 

Call on field stands = no winning the challenge

 

I wondered that as well. Thanks for the info on that. I wonder if that is something that should be changed. Oh well. Im a Niner fan, but the week is so much better when the Packers win, so I was pulling for them last night. Plus, I like the matchup better than Seattle again.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

It really shouldn't be changed. The coaches should have some reluctance to challenge spots or they'll be doing it all the time. You could technically move the ball an inch on every play if you really wanted to. I mean there's no way the ref is getting it that accurate just on the eye test.

[thebruce44]

It really shouldn't be changed. The coaches should have some reluctance to challenge spots or they'll be doing it all the time. You could technically move the ball an inch on every play if you really wanted to. I mean there's no way the ref is getting it that accurate just on the eye test.

 

Isn't there a maximum number of challenges allowed even if you win them all? So they would by definition be unable to do it all the time.

 

I think if anything is overturned on the play, it should be treated as a win and the challenger should not be fined. In this instance, the refs made multiple mistakes on a single play. To lose a TO because you challenged the wrong mistake, or the second mistake could not be challenged because the first mistake makes the second one not applicable strikes me as stubborn and irrational.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't think you can get more than 3. The problem with that is that you can find something wrong on most plays if you look hard enough. So I lose my complete pass challenge, but hang on, on the other side of the field, there was DPI! I don't like the slope you start sliding down if I'm allowed to point out 4 problems on a challenge.

 

Really though, if we're going to stick with replay, there's no reason rule anyone down on potential fumbles, ever. Make a judgement call on the fumble first, because ruling down by contact if it's NOT a fumble is a lot easier to get right upon review, than deciding who would have picked it up in an alternate reality.

[MrTPlush]

Really though, if we're going to stick with replay, there's no reason rule anyone down on potential fumbles, ever. Make a judgement call on the fumble first, because ruling down by contact if it's NOT a fumble is a lot easier to get right upon review, than deciding who would have picked it up in an alternate reality.

 

They started doing that this year...letting guys pick it up, run for the TD, and then overturn it. There was some play last year they messed up and it started making them change, because as you said, it is easier to just let it play out.

 

Interesting yesterday they just had to go against that and call him down.

[OldHeidelberg]

Really though, if we're going to stick with replay, there's no reason rule anyone down on potential fumbles, ever. Make a judgement call on the fumble first, because ruling down by contact if it's NOT a fumble is a lot easier to get right upon review, than deciding who would have picked it up in an alternate reality.

 

They started doing that this year...letting guys pick it up, run for the TD, and then overturn it. There was some play last year they messed up and it started making them change, because as you said, it is easier to just let it play out.

 

Interesting yesterday they just had to go against that and call him down.

 

 

They say this on TV all the time but then always harp on how if it's close you stay with the call on the field. If they were letting it play out, huddling and then making the call on the field I guess it's OK but you can't let a maybe fumble be returned for a TD when you think he was down and count on replay to sort it out. It gets messier every year.