NFC Championship: Buccaneers @ Packers - Sunday, Jan 24th, 2:05 PM

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Yeah. If the Packers had one shot to score to turn that game it would be one thing. They had three. They got a field goal.

 

And that's only relevant because they are climbing out of an 18-point hole again.

 

This one stings to me because I'm still not convinced Tampa is a better team. But it doesn't matter, they did what they had to do to win and GB didn't. Tampa deserves all the credit for those 3 stops. But that deficit was almost entirely ridiculous GB missteps.

 

I don't think the game came down to the refs. It sucks there were a few goofy calls or no calls but if you're blaming the refs you probably didn't deserve to win (sure there are probably few egregious cases. See Mary, Fail)

[bjkrautk]

The only way I would have felt okay with the FG at the end of the game is if it had been paired with an onside kick. The Packers had uncharacteristically struggled in the red zone yesterday, thanks in part to Adams' drop when they settled for the first FG (coincidentally, they largely abandoned the run inside the 10 yard line, but I digress). It's a matter of picking your long-shot opportunity: scoring a TD+2PC, taking 3 and trying to get the ball back to drive for the win, or what GB ultimately did.

 

The end of the first half and start of the 3rd quarter really sunk the team. Either one by itself would have been manageable, but getting burned twice put the game too far out of reach, including forcing the failed 2PC that complicated that 4th and goal call.

[DHonks]

Pettine NOT using the prevent at the end of the half was almost like him saying, “okay, they know I’m gonna throw the prevent out there. So let’s call a time out and then confuse them with something different! They won’t expect that. It’s gonna work!”

 

Ugh.

 

 

Either that or the fix was in and this was just a part of it...

 

According to everything I've read, he did. King just went rogue and got burned.

 

Do you have a link?

 

Well, the post-game pressers showed that the initial reactions were wrong. You were correct. No logic can explain what the Packers were doing in man.

[DHonks]

The only way I would have felt okay with the FG at the end of the game is if it had been paired with an onside kick. The Packers had uncharacteristically struggled in the red zone yesterday, thanks in part to Adams' drop when they settled for the first FG (coincidentally, they largely abandoned the run inside the 10 yard line, but I digress). It's a matter of picking your long-shot opportunity: scoring a TD+2PC, taking 3 and trying to get the ball back to drive for the win, or what GB ultimately did.

 

The end of the first half and start of the 3rd quarter really sunk the team. Either one by itself would have been manageable, but getting burned twice put the game too far out of reach, including forcing the failed 2PC that complicated that 4th and goal call.

 

I know that things would have played out differently had something happened earlier in the game, but let’s look at the points:

-Packers allowed a gift TD in 3q and 4 extra points and the end of the half (assuming kicker would have made long FG). So we handed them 10 free points.

Add in the terrible coverage on the first TD....did King think Brady couldn’t throw the ball that far?? That shouldn’t have been a TD

-we missed a 2pt conversion, and had two fruitless trips to the red zone. That’s 10 points off the board

-that totals at least a 20-point swing

 

If Rodgers had run that ball down to about the 3, then it’s an easier decision to go for it on 4th down. Not sure why seemingly every red zone play was into the end zone. Why not throw short of the goal line and let a skill position player try to get in?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Both drives that ended in FGs deserve harsh criticism. Running down their throat and then just stop for no reason.

[owbc]

The FG decision on the last drive doesn't even make my top 10 list of reasons we lost.

[CheezWizHed]

I don't think the game came down to the refs. It sucks there were a few goofy calls or no calls but if you're blaming the refs you probably didn't deserve to win (sure there are probably few egregious cases. See Mary, Fail)

 

Generally, I'd agree with this, but I think in the realm of "let them play", TB (i.e. the better defense) is going to gain an advantage. There were a lot of missed calls and a LOT of plays - both ways. I remember a couple plays where they are reviewing a potential (or actual) DPI and you can see hands to the face or a massive hold going on by the OL/DL. Just really ugly overall. The missed hold on Rodger's pick looms pretty large too (though I admit it was small).

 

The fact that we couldn't take advantage of two backup safeties was pretty annoying.

[adambr2]

I would have went for 4th and 8 and definitely disagreed with it. But there were so many things that still needed to cut our way if we made the other decision.

 

- Convert 4th and 8

- Convert the 2

- Keep Brady from getting back in FG range

- Win in OT

 

The real problem was the numerous things we did to put ourselves in a position to be down by 8 right there.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The FG decision on the last drive doesn't even make my top 10 list of reasons we lost.

 

Odds are they'd lose anyway. It's top 10, but more like 7 or 8 on that list.

[homer]

I would have went for 4th and 8 and definitely disagreed with it. But there were so many things that still needed to cut our way if we made the other decision.

 

- Convert 4th and 8

- Convert the 2

- Keep Brady from getting back in FG range

- Win in OT

 

The real problem was the numerous things we did to put ourselves in a position to be down by 8 right there.

 

Yeah if you want to pin it on one play it was the TD right before half. Something totally preventable had they just been in a reasonable defense. Sure TB might have checked down and gotten them a field goal but the odds of that with zero timeouts were slim.

[PinaMadness]

It turns out Tramon did not play a down of football yesterday so he will not be the first player to play for two teams in the same postseason. So my question is...why even bother signing him then? In case of an injury?

[brewcrewdue80]

And on King, I have no interest in King being back in 2021. Not for a 8M a year on a multi year deal, and not for a 1 year 3M prove it deal. No interest. King sucks. He has sporadic flashes of good play and even good games that hide this fact, but overall, he sucks. What Pettine sees in King over Jackson I am really not sure but considering how bad Pettine is at most of his job it would not surprise me that he's a lousy talent evaluator as well.

 

I guess I'd take King back on a 1/$3m deal to be the nickel corner, but I don't think he's a legit #2/boundary guy (but someone may stupidly pay him like one). Considering the fact that he's good to miss 2-5 games a year with injuries and their limited off season resources, the correct call is likely to let him go.

 

As for Jackson, obviously it's a huge off season for him. New DC, potentially new DC opinions, and a clear opportunity to step up into the hole likely vacated by King. If he can't play his way into at least the Sullivan/3rd CB role, he's likely a camp casualty, IMO.

 

I'm fully prepared for King to sign a cheap deal someplace like Pittsburgh, Seattle, or New England, then proceed to play like a stud next year, ala Casey Hayward. He has every physical tool you'd want in a corner, but for whatever reason, hasn't been able to put together the consistency needed at the position. He's probably a guy who at this point needs a change of scenery.

 

Also, be prepared for the Packers to target CB early in the 2021 draft.

 

Nope no way. King is bad. Hayward had heart and willingness to tackle. King will tackle WRs but a TE or RB its Alligator arms and throwing his body at the guy hoping it's enough to throw guy offbalance to the ground. It's like he has only 80% focus and takes plays off because in his mind he shouldn't have that play come his way.

 

On the TD before half, Im sitting there thinking they're going to throw a quick 6-12 yard out and kick a FG. King just let's his guy run free by him because no way does Brady have the arm to chuck it straight before the endzone. Its like an Ah S* moment as guy passed him they really going to do that? Hes always going to remain bad.

[MrTPlush]

So did we ever figure out what Pettine was doing right before the half? Did he decide to gamble and play man to take out the quick out opportunity (hoping to stop any field goal opportunity)? Does the press not get to talk to the DC after a game?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Nope no way. King is bad. Hayward had heart and willingness to tackle. King will tackle WRs but a TE or RB its Alligator arms and throwing his body at the guy hoping it's enough to throw guy offbalance to the ground. It's like he has only 80% focus and takes plays off because in his mind he shouldn't have that play come his way.

 

On the TD before half, Im sitting there thinking they're going to throw a quick 6-12 yard out and kick a FG. King just let's his guy run free by him because no way does Brady have the arm to chuck it straight before the endzone. Its like an Ah S* moment as guy passed him they really going to do that? Hes always going to remain bad.

 

Hayward was also oft-injured, and I certainly don't remember too many fans being all that upset when he signed with the Chargers.

 

King will likely get a few contract offers this offseason, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he ends up playing well in a system that utilizes his talent better. I don't believe that Pettine's defense is suited to his skillset. He's best as a press bump-and-run corner, and gets confused on assignments as a zone corner. I agree that he also has focus issues.

 

He's a guy that gets ridiculed for the bad tape he's put out there at times, but he also has quite a bit of good tape in his career.

[TURBO]

 

This one stings to me because I'm still not convinced Tampa is a better team

 

Tampa beat the Packers twice.

 

1st game was a total blow-out, 38-10. Packers lost.

 

2nd game was for a chance to go to the Super Bowl, the biggest game on the planet. Tampa had to go to Lambeau, weather, yada, yada, yada. Packers lost.

 

Nothing you can say will convince me that Tampa is not a better team based on those two things alone.

 

Packers played Tampa twice, and lost twice.

 

Tampa is the better team.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

This one stings to me because I'm still not convinced Tampa is a better team

 

Tampa beat the Packers twice.

 

1st game was a total blow-out, 38-10. Packers lost.

 

2nd game was for a chance to go to the Super Bowl, the biggest game on the planet. Tampa had to go to Lambeau, weather, yada, yada, yada. Packers lost.

 

Nothing you can say will convince me that Tampa is not a better team based on those two things alone.

 

Packers played Tampa twice, and lost twice.

 

Tampa is the better team.

 

Didn't you say just a few days ago that the Week 6 matchup didn't really matter in regards to yesterday's game?

 

Bucs were the better team yesterday. But nothing you can say will convince me that if those same teams played 10 times, the Packers wouldn't win 8 of them.

 

But congrats to the Bucs. Typically the "hired gun mercenary" approach doesn't work in the NFL, but in the Bucs' case, it has.

[CheezWizHed]

Differences between the top teams are pretty small, but we clearly choked in both games. Tampa beat us twice and seems to have our number. If they played 10 times, we'd have to win 8 straight to win 8 out of 10. I'm thinking a 50/50 split is more likely.

 

But for now, there is no evidence to refute it... Tampa is the better team this year.

[jerichoholicninja]

I don't think the game came down to the refs. It sucks there were a few goofy calls or no calls but if you're blaming the refs you probably didn't deserve to win (sure there are probably few egregious cases. See Mary, Fail)

 

I'm not blaming the refs at all or even in this game specifically, you just see it so often at the end of games where the winning defense is making a stop on 3rd or 4th down and all of a sudden DPI is called on a ticky tack play and the game is essentially flipped in the favor of the offense. The penalty for penalties puts way too much influence of the result of the game in the hands of the refs especially for how inconsistent they are in flagging certain things like holding and PI.

[TURBO]

 

This one stings to me because I'm still not convinced Tampa is a better team

 

Tampa beat the Packers twice.

 

1st game was a total blow-out, 38-10. Packers lost.

 

2nd game was for a chance to go to the Super Bowl, the biggest game on the planet. Tampa had to go to Lambeau, weather, yada, yada, yada. Packers lost.

 

Nothing you can say will convince me that Tampa is not a better team based on those two things alone.

 

Packers played Tampa twice, and lost twice.

 

Tampa is the better team.

 

Didn't you say just a few days ago that the Week 6 matchup didn't really matter in regards to yesterday's game?

 

Bucs were the better team yesterday. But nothing you can say will convince me that if those same teams played 10 times, the Packers wouldn't win 8 of them.

 

But congrats to the Bucs. Typically the "hired gun mercenary" approach doesn't work in the NFL, but in the Bucs' case, it has.

 

I sure did, but that was before the championship game. Before that game was played, you just couldn't put it all on the previous game. In the grand scheme of things, after 2 games have been played, it surely does matter... Play a team 2 times in the NFL, lose them both, the winning team is the better team. End of story. You can justify this all you want. The Packers had 2 tries to beat them, they failed both times. Tampa is the better team, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

So you think if the Bucs played the Packers 8 more times, they would win all 8, even after losing the last two? lol Ok man, that is quite a hill to die on, but have at it...

[homer]

New Orleans beat Tampa twice.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

This one stings to me because I'm still not convinced Tampa is a better team

 

Tampa beat the Packers twice.

 

1st game was a total blow-out, 38-10. Packers lost.

 

2nd game was for a chance to go to the Super Bowl, the biggest game on the planet. Tampa had to go to Lambeau, weather, yada, yada, yada. Packers lost.

 

Nothing you can say will convince me that Tampa is not a better team based on those two things alone.

 

Packers played Tampa twice, and lost twice.

 

Tampa is the better team.

 

And both games were full anomalies. Rodgers, who has thrown less than a handful of pick sixes, threw 2 in one game.

 

In the first game, the Packers thoroughly dominated the first quarter. In the second game, they won the 2nd half 16-10, with 7 of Tampa's points coming on an 8-yard drive. They scored 7 more on a Green Bay classic loft pass with 1 second left in the half.

 

This is what the Packers do. This is the same team that picked off a QB in this game 5 times and lost.

 

If you showed me Brady's line yesterday before the game, I'd guess the Packers won by 14.

 

Tampa may very well win the Super Bowl, but they were not head and shoulders above the Packers. This team is just incapable of closing the deal.

 

I give Tampa lots of credit because the stops are stops. They had to make em and they did and their speed and 2nd level is insane. But Tampa isn't some team that GB can't play with, like SF was last year. I'd like their chances to beat Tampa any given day. Last year, they couldn't have beat SF in 100 tries.

 

And by the way, that Bucs team you quit watching but decided to watch again this season (lol) lost to New Orleans twice.

[adambr2]

I would have went for 4th and 8 and definitely disagreed with it. But there were so many things that still needed to cut our way if we made the other decision.

 

- Convert 4th and 8

- Convert the 2

- Keep Brady from getting back in FG range

- Win in OT

 

The real problem was the numerous things we did to put ourselves in a position to be down by 8 right there.

 

Yeah if you want to pin it on one play it was the TD right before half. Something totally preventable had they just been in a reasonable defense. Sure TB might have checked down and gotten them a field goal but the odds of that with zero timeouts were slim.

 

Yeah, there's no question that was the play of the game. They had two areas of the field that they needed to cover. The end zone (primary) and the sidelines (secondary). I understand you don't want to give them a chance for the FG but you literally have everything from boundary to boundary to push the play to. Any completion in the field of play ends the half.

 

I could have at least lived with Cover 2, split the field in half deep and if someone gets beat you're going to have help over the top. But really you should probably be in Cover 3 and make sure anything deep is not going to have any opportunity for a one on one.

 

Cover 1 is inexplicable. Your safety is lined up in literally the one part of the field that doesn't need to be covered. Anything deep and your safety is not going to be in position to make a play unless they read it perfectly. I wouldn't have trusted the prime of Ronnie Lott in Cover 1 for that play much less Will Redmond.

 

Mike Pettine called a play that is designed to protect the middle of the field on literally the one play of the game that the middle of the field did not need to be covered at all.

[PeaveyFury]

Cover 1 is inexplicable. ....Mike Pettine called a play that is designed to protect the middle of the field on literally the one play of the game that the middle of the field did not need to be covered at all.

 

Yep. Someone said it earlier, not sure if here or elsewhere, but he called a defense that looked like he thought TB had another timeout. Which, obviously, they didn't. I'm usually not a fan of Donatell-like firings based on one play, but that play coupled with an uninspiring body of work probably equals a new DC next year....

[TURBO]

New Orleans beat Tampa twice.

 

Yup, but were unable to do so when it counted most.

 

not sure what your statement has to do with anything though. Not the same situation by any means.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

New Orleans beat Tampa twice.

 

Yup, but were unable to do so when it counted most.

 

not sure what your statement has to do with anything though. Not the same situation by any means.

 

You said when you beat a team twice you are better, period, end of story.

 

And you're not sure what that has to do with it? Sometimes I really think you don't believe 50% of the stuff you say.

 

FWIW, I don't think NO was ever better than Tampa. I'm not sure how they lost to them at all.