Worst game in three seasons...

_HD_ wrote:I sure as shit hope that the Shrekker takes no pride in that serial encompassing POS that he was responsible for putting on display today. Playing down to the competition One-Oh-fucking-one...

Thanks Mike for the complete utter waste of three hours of my time on a Sunday afternoon... This team will just be more of what made last season the disappointment it was unless things change radically... That Packer team, injuries and all, at its potential--should have blown that opponent away 45-13. As off as Gabbert was and he throws for 300+?! As off as the Shrekker/team was--and in those circumstances and he even finds it suitable to attempt a cutesy cocksocker play like that?!! God almighty--how that fucker won a superbowl is a case study in off the grid circumstances aligning my friends... He's only an underdog performer--David--who can never become Goliath when a true champion puts a head-smack beatdown on little pricks like the Jagoffs brazen enough to even show their face in your house... Even a half-way decent team like the Viqueens would have won that game today 31-17...

Big picture--they honestly would have been better off losing that fucking game... If I was TT--the Shrekker would leave my office looking like the lead vixon role in a just completed anal-porn double-feature after that performance. Take away Clay Matthews--and that's a team today void of heart, my friends... There is no bigger castigation.

_HD_ wrote:I sure as shit hope that the Shrekker takes no pride in that serial encompassing POS that he was responsible for putting on display today. Playing down to the competition One-Oh-fucking-one...

Thanks Mike for the complete utter waste of three hours of my time on a Sunday afternoon... This team will just be more of what made last season the disappointment it was unless things change radically... That Packer team, injuries and all, at its potential--should have blown that opponent away 45-13. As off as Gabbert was and he throws for 300+?! As off as the Shrekker/team was--and in those circumstances and he even finds it suitable to attempt a cutesy cocksocker play like that?!! God almighty--how that fucker won a superbowl is a case study in off the grid circumstances aligning my friends... He's only an underdog performer--David--who can never become Goliath when a true champion puts a head-smack beatdown on little pricks like the Jagoffs brazen enough to even show their face in your house... Even a half-way decent team like the Viqueens would have won that game today 31-17...

Big picture--they honestly would have been better off losing that fucking game... If I was TT--the Shrekker would leave my office looking like the lead vixon role in a just completed anal-porn double-feature after that performance. Take away Clay Matthews--and that's a team today void of heart, my friends... There is no bigger castigation.

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:I sure as shit hope that the Shrekker takes no pride in that serial encompassing POS that he was responsible for putting on display today. Playing down to the competition One-Oh-fucking-one...

Thanks Mike for the complete utter waste of three hours of my time on a Sunday afternoon... This team will just be more of what made last season the disappointment it was unless things change radically... That Packer team, injuries and all, at its potential--should have blown that opponent away 45-13. As off as Gabbert was and he throws for 300+?! As off as the Shrekker/team was--and in those circumstances and he even finds it suitable to attempt a cutesy cocksocker play like that?!! God almighty--how that fucker won a superbowl is a case study in off the grid circumstances aligning my friends... He's only an underdog performer--David--who can never become Goliath when a true champion puts a head-smack beatdown on little pricks like the Jagoffs brazen enough to even show their face in your house... Even a half-way decent team like the Viqueens would have won that game today 31-17...

Big picture--they honestly would have been better off losing that fucking game... If I was TT--the Shrekker would leave my office looking like the lead vixon role in a just completed anal-porn double-feature after that performance. Take away Clay Matthews--and that's a team today void of heart, my friends... There is no bigger castigation.

No question it was a stinker of a game... and one in which MM must take a large share of the blame... but if you're starting to beat the drum to fire McCarthy, I'm not joining the parade.

Most things were noticeably out of whack on both offense and defense. Rodgers was not himself and our D reverted back to a familiar pattern of stuffing two running plays and then giving up the big third down pass. Some of this I believe was a function of having so many starters out for this game, and some of it may be the team letting down against an injured heavy underdog AFC team. I'd like the Pack to save some of its emotion for the key divisional games coming up in the second half of the season anyway.

There's a little bit of overreaction and panic in your message, HD. I get your points, but I would say take a chill pill. This was one bad game following two good ones, and I wouldn't make too big a deal about it. We'll have a chance to regroup after the bye week.

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:I sure as shit hope that the Shrekker takes no pride in that serial encompassing POS that he was responsible for putting on display today. Playing down to the competition One-Oh-fucking-one...

Thanks Mike for the complete utter waste of three hours of my time on a Sunday afternoon... This team will just be more of what made last season the disappointment it was unless things change radically... That Packer team, injuries and all, at its potential--should have blown that opponent away 45-13. As off as Gabbert was and he throws for 300+?! As off as the Shrekker/team was--and in those circumstances and he even finds it suitable to attempt a cutesy cocksocker play like that?!! God almighty--how that fucker won a superbowl is a case study in off the grid circumstances aligning my friends... He's only an underdog performer--David--who can never become Goliath when a true champion puts a head-smack beatdown on little pricks like the Jagoffs brazen enough to even show their face in your house... Even a half-way decent team like the Viqueens would have won that game today 31-17...

Big picture--they honestly would have been better off losing that fucking game... If I was TT--the Shrekker would leave my office looking like the lead vixon role in a just completed anal-porn double-feature after that performance. Take away Clay Matthews--and that's a team today void of heart, my friends... There is no bigger castigation.

No question it was a stinker of a game... and one in which MM must take a large share of the blame... but if you're starting to beat the drum to fire McCarthy, I'm not joining the parade.

LOL. Is that really what you pulled from that? Have a bowl of Captain Crunch, Duck... Your blood sugar, or something, is obviously low. Make sure it has plenty of crunchberries...

Most things were noticeably out of whack on both offense and defense. Rodgers was not himself and our D reverted back to a familiar pattern of stuffing two running plays and then giving up the big third down pass. Some of this I believe was a function of having so many starters out for this game, and some of it may be the team letting down against an injured heavy underdog AFC team. I'd like the Pack to save some of its emotion for the key divisional games coming up in the second half of the season anyway.

Seriously Duck--that paragraph deserves a shovel...

There's a little bit of overreaction and panic in your message, HD. I get your points, but I would say take a chill pill. This was one bad game following two good ones, and I wouldn't make too big a deal about it. We'll have a chance to regroup after the bye week.

duck wrote:Focus on what I did say, my friend...


OK, how about "Take away Clay Matthews--and that's a team today void of heart, my friends..."? You didn't notice House, Driver, Jones, Rodgers and others laying it out there on the field? It wasn't our finest performance by any means but I didn't see a quitter mentality or a lack of effort. I mean, I get your point, but do you have to do it with such sweeping generalities? We had enough of that with Beer.

Again, I just think you're overreacting. It was a crappy win that felt more like a loss. I'm with you in criticizing certain aspects of the coaching and performance but I just think you, like most fans, went a little bit overboard.

That's okay... that's what these forums are for. But if the Packers take care of business, as I predict they will, we will roll into New York 7-3 and squarely in the playoff picture.

And that's when the REAL season will begin...

The *heart* comment is related to the collective inadequacy this team demonstrates at different times. Their collective psyche is consistently not anywhere it needs to be to be considered a legitimate championship-caliber team. Championship teams dominate lesser opponents. As MB obviously gets--that isn't something you allow for dialing down or dialing up. Kicking ass isn't a commodity that you save up for *when you really need it* You get more by fucking using more...and the collective psyche of this team comes directly from it's head coach. The man, probably in every aspect of his life, has periodic letdown written all over him. Guess when the package of fresh Ho-ho's on the counter is most at risk in the Shek household? That's right--just after he feels best about his recent diet/workout dedication... The pattern is clear. That team yesterday was just plain not properly prepared by their head coach to play that game. That's patently obvious through how systemic the failings were... The collective emotional intensity of that team was about consistent with a fucking bakeoff at the church bazaar...

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:Focus on what I did say, my friend...


OK, how about "Take away Clay Matthews--and that's a team today void of heart, my friends..."? You didn't notice House, Driver, Jones, Rodgers and others laying it out there on the field? It wasn't our finest performance by any means but I didn't see a quitter mentality or a lack of effort. I mean, I get your point, but do you have to do it with such sweeping generalities? We had enough of that with Beer.

Again, I just think you're overreacting. It was a crappy win that felt more like a loss. I'm with you in criticizing certain aspects of the coaching and performance but I just think you, like most fans, went a little bit overboard.

That's okay... that's what these forums are for. But if the Packers take care of business, as I predict they will, we will roll into New York 7-3 and squarely in the playoff picture.

And that's when the REAL season will begin...

Yes Duck--I'll give you the Clay Matthews comment as an exaggeration... However, you continue to miss my point. I'm not suggesting that the Pack won't *roll into New York 7-3--squarely in the playoff picture* What I am suggesting is, on a deeper level, the psychology of this team must change, or when it really counts--it won't fucking matter...

The *heart* comment is related to the collective inadequacy this team demonstrates at different times. Their collective psyche is consistently not anywhere it needs to be to be considered a legitimate championship-caliber team. Championship teams dominate lesser opponents. As MB obviously gets--that isn't something you allow for dialing down or dialing up. Kicking ass isn't a commodity that you save up for *when you really need it* You get more by fucking using more...and the collective psyche of this team comes directly from it's head coach. The man, probably in every aspect of his life, has periodic letdown written all over him. Guess when the package of fresh Ho-ho's on the counter is most at risk in the Shek household? That's right--just after he feels best about his recent diet/workout dedication... The pattern is clear. That team yesterday was just plain not properly prepared by their head coach to play that game. That's patently obvious through how systemic the failings were... The collective emotional intensity of that team was about consistent with a fucking bakeoff at the church bazaar...

So--you, like JnC last season, can trumpet this or that pointing to the team reaching the next level...and that's just dandy... But to me--that's just more of what Thor is chastized over... The big prize is the ONLY prize and you can find reason to shuck your cob and cream your corn all day long over lesser conquest...but there is no doubt--this is a team that has LOTS of work to do if they expect any reasonable chance at a substantial run through the playoffs...and I'm talking leadership--not X's and O's...

JnC4GB wrote:Wow, over-react much, fellas?

Game sucked. It was ugly, boring and disappointing. And despite all the injuries, I too expected GB to play far better than they did.

I can't place blame on McCarthy for the drops. Good plays were called; men were open. They just didn't make the catches -some of which ANYONE could have made. I think we've all reached agreement that Finley is a hopelessly inconsistent and immature player. A guy who can be counted on to let you down. But Crabtree, Williams, Starks, and Green also all had ugly drops. If those plays don't turn to shit, there would've have been a lot more lipstick on this pig of a game.

Predetermine that the Shrekker isn't responsible all you'd like--but as is often the case with your conclusions--the truth speaks differently, little buckaroo...

_HD_ wrote:

I can't place blame on McCarthy for the drops. Good plays were called; men were open. They just didn't make the catches -some of which ANYONE could have made. I think we've all reached agreement that Finley is a hopelessly inconsistent and immature player. A guy who can be counted on to let you down. But Crabtree, Williams, Starks, and Green also all had ugly drops. If those plays don't turn to shit, there would've have been a lot more lipstick on this pig of a game.

You show a lack of understanding of group dynamics, my friend... If only a limited number of player's play was lacking...then you could make the case that these were isolated instances and not a product of a collective letdown...but as you give evidence to, a collective letdown is precisely what occured...

So who can be blamed for a collective letdown within the dynamics of a group where there is a shared, collective goal? Of course--the leader of that group--that's who... As you also correctly point out--ANYONE could have made many of those catches. They weren't requiring of some sort of superhuman physical output. They therefore were manifestations of mental lapses--collectively...

Predetermine that the Shrekker isn't responsible all you'd like--but as is often the case with your conclusions--the truth speaks differently, little buckaroo...

duck wrote:

So, while I acknowledge the validity of your point, I just attach less significance to it. The Packers have had, and likely will have some more, emotional yo-yoing during the regular season. They are not going to kick butt every week. I'm okay with that.

As long as they make the playoffs, I'm a happy camper. And hopefully then, MM will have learned from some of his mistakes and the hunger within each of the players (a factor we haven't discussed yet) will propel us to a much more fruitful playoff run.

MB20 wrote:

duck wrote:

So, while I acknowledge the validity of your point, I just attach less significance to it. The Packers have had, and likely will have some more, emotional yo-yoing during the regular season. They are not going to kick butt every week. I'm okay with that.

As long as they make the playoffs, I'm a happy camper. And hopefully then, MM will have learned from some of his mistakes and the hunger within each of the players (a factor we haven't discussed yet) will propel us to a much more fruitful playoff run.

First, for this team to not make the playoffs would be a tragic underachievement that would be a real indictment of MM's work in 2012. There is no fucking excuse for this team to be sitting home watching the tournament. They have shortcomings, but there is enough talent to easily put them in the NFC's top 6.

Second, it's not a RESULTS issue- it's a MINDSET issue. No one waltzes through a season with 19 straight blowout wins. The Packers were as flat as a pancake yesterday. They played with no energy, no creativity, no spark- just the bare minimum to get by against one of the league's bottom feeders. Why did they play that way? Because they could get away with it. Where did they get the idea they could get away with it? From the lead dog himself. This team has taken games off against inferior teams for the last 4 years now, and to me, it's on MM, and that's what truly separates him from the "A" coaches.

It kind of seems to me like, I dunno, "We play when we want to play." There is no denying that they take huge chunks of games and sometimes entire games off. Why is that not acceptable from Randy Moss, but when it's our Green Bay Packers doing it, it's "just the ebb and flow of the season"?

Thor11 wrote:]So--you, like JnC last season, can trumpet this or that pointing to the team reaching the next level...and that's just dandy... But to me--that's just more of what Thor is chastized over... The big prize is the ONLY prize and you can find reason to shuck your cob and cream your corn all day long over lesser conquest...but there is no doubt--this is a team that has LOTS of work to do if they expect any reasonable chance at a substantial run through the playoffs...and I'm talking leadership--not X's and O's...

JnC4GB wrote:I'm sorry, but there were just too many guys missing to have expected a blow out. Plus, the Packers O hasn't been the same squad as last season. The only time they really looked like they are "supposed to" was the Texans game. And that was because Jordy Nelson finally had a big game. Soon as they declared Jordy as "out" that 15 point spread over Jacksonville became frikkin' ridiculous. Anybody who still took the Packers minus 15 points was a dummy.

This game had an ugly "grind it out" look to it before kick off and that exactly what it turned out to be.
The best part is that we usually lose these stinkers, (like the fairly recent Dolphin game at Lambeau) but this time we got the W.

I also thought the Defense played fairly well -especially against the run.
Offense: C-
Defense: C+
Special Teams: B-
Overall: C

Best thing to do with a forgettable game?
Forget it.
And be grateful we get another beatable team while our roster is still in disarray.
Set expectations accordingly.

Thor11 wrote:Duckcover>

Actually Thor, I thought there was a strong likelihood Favre would play lights out and beat the Packers in '09. It came as no big surprise.


That would make you one of the very few then Sir....fact! I remember the the scene very well and all the surly comments made. It was what it was.....



Thor

Thor11 wrote:]So--you, like JnC last season, can trumpet this or that pointing to the team reaching the next level...and that's just dandy... But to me--that's just more of what Thor is chastized over... The big prize is the ONLY prize and you can find reason to shuck your cob and cream your corn all day long over lesser conquest...but there is no doubt--this is a team that has LOTS of work to do if they expect any reasonable chance at a substantial run through the playoffs...and I'm talking leadership--not X's and O's...

LOL! Wow! Can this be true? Goodness Thor--you mean my favorite one has sprouted some shorties and is ready to clean all the feminine hygiene products from the medicine cab and leave the little bitch nest? I didn't catch a whiff of pussy in the whole damn thing. This post was a legit step forward for you, my friend... Keep up the good work, eh?

duck wrote:

MB20 wrote:

duck wrote:

So, while I acknowledge the validity of your point, I just attach less significance to it. The Packers have had, and likely will have some more, emotional yo-yoing during the regular season. They are not going to kick butt every week. I'm okay with that.

As long as they make the playoffs, I'm a happy camper. And hopefully then, MM will have learned from some of his mistakes and the hunger within each of the players (a factor we haven't discussed yet) will propel us to a much more fruitful playoff run.

First, for this team to not make the playoffs would be a tragic underachievement that would be a real indictment of MM's work in 2012. There is no fucking excuse for this team to be sitting home watching the tournament. They have shortcomings, but there is enough talent to easily put them in the NFC's top 6.

Second, it's not a RESULTS issue- it's a MINDSET issue. No one waltzes through a season with 19 straight blowout wins. The Packers were as flat as a pancake yesterday. They played with no energy, no creativity, no spark- just the bare minimum to get by against one of the league's bottom feeders. Why did they play that way? Because they could get away with it. Where did they get the idea they could get away with it? From the lead dog himself. This team has taken games off against inferior teams for the last 4 years now, and to me, it's on MM, and that's what truly separates him from the "A" coaches.

It kind of seems to me like, I dunno, "We play when we want to play." There is no denying that they take huge chunks of games and sometimes entire games off. Why is that not acceptable from Randy Moss, but when it's our Green Bay Packers doing it, it's "just the ebb and flow of the season"?

Well MB, this is a very compelling argument and I love the in-your-face Moss comparison. However, I think it misses the mark for two reasons.

First, I don't think the Packers were just mailing it in yesterday. I think more than anything else they were out-of-synch from having so many starters missing. I saw no lack of effort from many key players, including Matthews, Jones, Driver, House, Moses, Burnett, and Jones. Granted Rodgers looked odd, and I was actually afraid he was concussed, but I don't think he was tanking it. He was the only guy who stood out for me as being noticeably different. Elsewhere I saw lots of problems with execution, not effort. Now, granted McCarthy is ultimately responsible, but while the game certainly wasn't (or shouldn't have been) played with playoff intensity, I don't think they played with "no energy, no creativity, no spark", as you put it. Certainly the special teams showed us plenty of creativity, even if we didn't like all of it.

Secondly, I think you're holding McCarthy's teams up to unreasonable standards. Not all players loaf as notoriously as Randy Moss, but certainly all teams get ambushed by weaker opponents from time to time. This season, the Niner loss to the Vikings and the Patriot loss to the Seahawks come to mind. Heck, even the Bears were lucky to get by Carolina yesterday. We also have to keep in mind that McCarthy coached Packer teams that won 19 consecutive games straddling the 2010 and 2011 seasons. If that's not the kind of mental focus you're looking for, I don't know what it.

Plus, we don't like to admit it but there are several emotional gears that all football teams play with. The top gear of course is reserved for playoff games and other elimination games. An inter-conference game against a weaker opponent, I'm afraid, merits one of the low gears. All teams pace themselves similarly; it's just a reality. The good teams just know how to win when they aren't having their best day -- due to injuries, ref calls, or whatever. We didn't do that against Seattle or Indianapolis but we succeeded against the Jags.

I found this piece on the Packer website to be interesting and I like McCarthy's quote about the game: “Let’s quit walking around like we lost the damn game. We’re 5-3 whether you like it or not, and we’re going to get better. That’s where we’re going.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

JnC4GB wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

I can't place blame on McCarthy for the drops. Good plays were called; men were open. They just didn't make the catches -some of which ANYONE could have made. I think we've all reached agreement that Finley is a hopelessly inconsistent and immature player. A guy who can be counted on to let you down. But Crabtree, Williams, Starks, and Green also all had ugly drops. If those plays don't turn to shit, there would've have been a lot more lipstick on this pig of a game.

You show a lack of understanding of group dynamics, my friend... If only a limited number of player's play was lacking...then you could make the case that these were isolated instances and not a product of a collective letdown...but as you give evidence to, a collective letdown is precisely what occured...

So who can be blamed for a collective letdown within the dynamics of a group where there is a shared, collective goal? Of course--the leader of that group--that's who... As you also correctly point out--ANYONE could have made many of those catches. They weren't requiring of some sort of superhuman physical output. They therefore were manifestations of mental lapses--collectively...

Predetermine that the Shrekker isn't responsible all you'd like--but as is often the case with your conclusions--the truth speaks differently, little buckaroo...

It was McCarthy's fault for those 5 dropped passes --NOT the individuals themselves, eh?

So hotshot, does this mean I get to blame you when Ringo is incoherent, Milani touts Sherman, Duck bitches about Beer & Moss, and MB loses his shit?

OK, fine. That works for me.