Game 13: Pack at Lions - 12/12/10 - Noon

[crkone]

So playcalling was worse than a top 5 QB going down?

We went scoreless in the first half, with a top 5 QB, against a 2-10 team.

That was the first half though.

[hdroffffff]

So playcalling was worse than a top 5 QB going down?

Yeah well we had complete control over the playcalling... Rodgers going down, not so much. Makes more sense to be pissed at something that we could have changed if we didn't have a (Please Use More Appropriate Word) headcoach.

[Turk Nowitzki]

Where do you go from here?

Bucks board?

Good idea.

[crkone]

I guess I was just expecting the game to be over once Rodgers went down and that interception in the endzone sealed it.

[Buck You]

[bucks59]

Now you can rip apart McCarthy for that play call. And Ted Thompson for not supplying a running game that can convert 2nd and 1-2 to even.

We are that big of fourth quarter losers to get the Lions over their fourth quarter complex.

We were 7 for 7 running the ball last week on short yardage situations. McCarthy inexplicably forgot he was allowed to line up and run today.

You're isolating a small sample statistic that conforms to your original opinion, which was that TT didn't need to address the running back position. Look at today's offensive environment, you don't need a running game you said. Well, outside of last week, we haven't run the ball worth crap in short yardage situations and it has indeed cost us many times in close games especially. McCarthy has indeed been a problem, but TT's lack of killer instinct which you've defensed numerous times is indeed a grander scale issue.

I personally don't think Lynch (or anyone else TT could have reasonably acquired) would have converted that short yardage situation. The offensive line had been awful all game/year and Lynch really has shown nothing in Seattle. The bigger issue was the play call on that play, not the lack of execution by the running back.

[Bernman]

1. You don't know what Lynch would have done because he's not in our offense.

2. That's probably a false dilemma that it was Lynch or bust because that's the name you've heard. Only the GM knows what deals were available. But lack of information doesn't absolve TT from criticism when he had already showed the tendency not to make the win now deals on the doorstep of a championship in '07, in FA, trades, anything. This is an M.O. he himself has established. So why would we assume any different that he balked at deals to make the team better at the expense of a little long-term?

It has its benefits and drawbacks having a GM who also has 1 and 3/4 eyes on the future. You're going to achieve pretty good consistency but never get over the top. If that's satisfies you that's fine. But don't dissuade others from wanting to go for it to reasonable extent when you can smell a championship.

[bucks59]

1. You don't know what Lynch would have done because he's not in our offense.

That is a terrible argument and literally applies to any player move that TT or any GM could ever make. "Well, even though this player bad with another team, TT should have acquired him because he could be good here." Given that he has barely produced in Seattle seems to indicate he would be unlikely to produce here. You can't make a trade or assess a non trade on the logic of, "well, if he's here, he could maybe help us." There were a lot of arguments before the trade was made that Lynch was not a good player and those arguments exist now. I have seen absolutely nothing to change my view on that.

2. That's probably a false dilemma that it was Lynch or bust because that's the name you've heard. Only the GM knows what deals were available. But lack of information doesn't absolve TT from criticism when he had already showed the tendency not to make the win now deals on the doorstep of a championship in '07, in FA, trades, anything. This is an M.O. he himself has established. So why would we assume any different that he balked at deals to make the team better at the expense of a little long-term?

Didn't he trade for Grant during the season to fill a void at running back?

Neither of us know who was or wasn't available. What we do know is that there are other teams in the NFL that needed a running back the only ones trades were Lynch and Morony. I am not going to get on TT for not making a trade for one of those players. It is possible that TT could have acquired a different player, but who is to say its a reasonable trade? To blame TT for THIS loss doesn't make sense to me, especially given some of the circumstances resolving this game.

It has its benefits and drawbacks having a GM who also has 1 and 3/4 eyes on the future. You're going to achieve pretty good consistency but never get over the top. If that's satisfies you that's fine. But don't dissuade others from wanting to go for it to reasonable extent when you can smell a championship.

I want a title as much as the next guy, but I am not going to criticize him for not making moves that I don't think existed or were helpful. TT's track record in the draft is great and its much more likely that whatever player he drafts next year in the third round to acquire unnamed player X (who may or may not exist or be good) is going to be better than the acquired player.

I also just think the bigger factor in this game was the inability of the offensive line to do anything productive. I seriously doubt that any running back that TT could have acquired for a third/second round pick could have converted that short yardage play.

[trwi7]

Didn't he trade for Grant during the season to fill a void at running back?

A week before the season.