Post Game: Dolphins

[Simulack]

I'm agreeing with xtitan today. We were lucky to be in this game with the way the defense played. That fact made me think we'd pull it out though, as it seems we win the ones we shouldn"t (detroit) lose the ones we should win (chi, redskins).

Let's kick some viking a$$ next week.

Not seeing why the defense was that bad. They played as well as can be expected given the injuries and fact that they were on the field a ton: time of possession was 38 minutes for the 'Phins and 28 for the Packers. Sure, the lack of any pass rush is alarming (although predictable) but the fact remains they gave us a chance to win by stopping initially in OT.

Regarding the time of possession, this is a big reason we need to run more. The defense is often on the field for too long. I remember the Lions also dominated the time of possession against us in a game we were winning - we didn't eat clock whatsoever.

The strength of this team is supposed to be our offense. Jesus, there was talk of this team rivaling the 99-01 Rams' passing attack. We had the ball at home with a chance to win the game and went 3 and out.

The offense is the problem as it was what was supposed to win us games.

[trwi7]

I just don't care anymore. This team isn't going to win anything this year so I can't get down on losses.

It's all just meh to me.

[Wilford Brimley]

I just don't care anymore. This team isn't going to win anything this year so I can't get down on losses.

It's all just meh to me.

[smooth 'lil balla]

I'm agreeing with xtitan today. We were lucky to be in this game with the way the defense played. That fact made me think we'd pull it out though, as it seems we win the ones we shouldn"t (detroit) lose the ones we should win (chi, redskins).

Let's kick some viking a$$ next week.

Not seeing why the defense was that bad. They played as well as can be expected given the injuries and fact that they were on the field a ton: time of possession was 38 minutes for the 'Phins and 28 for the Packers, they played reasonable well. Sure, the lack of any pass rush is alarming (although predictable) but the fact remains they gave us a chance to win by stopping initially in OT.

Regarding the time of possession, this is a big reason we need to run more. The defense is often on the field for too long. I remember the Lions also dominated the time of possession against us in a game we were winning - we didn't eat clock whatsoever.

The strength of this team is supposed to be our offense. Jesus, there was talk of this team rivaling the 99-01 Rams' passing attack. We had the ball at home with a chance to win the game and went 3 and out.

The offense is the problem as it was what was supposed to win us games.

well we only had the ball once in the 3rd quarter. That's a problem. I'm not blaming the loss on the defense, but they were bad. Granted, they are practically playing with their 3rd unit so it was darn good considering, but still darn bad overall.

[paulpressey25]

Not seeing why the defense was that bad.

The offense is the problem as it was what was supposed to win us games.

Does anyone have any stats on points off turnovers and how the Packers have done in games they have won the last few seasons?

My own perception is that this team as a whole has lived and died off Woodson, Clay and Collins making big plays on TO's the past few seasons. By most accounts the defense did well the last two weeks and didn't give up a ton of points. The problem is that I think our team also depends on those big plays.

[El Duderino]

This is exactly like the 2008 season except the offense is to blame over the d.

Yeah it's crazy.

Give us the 2008 offense and this year's defense and we might actually have a playoff team.

Going into the game i knew we'd have zero pass rush without Matthews, our OLB unit besides Clay has to be the worst in the NFL. So i figured if the defense could hold Miami to around 20 points, we had a solid chance to win.

Well, the defense didn't exactly look good, but they only gave up 20 points. Yet again though, the offense wasn't impressive when the team badly needed a 27-35 point day. Injuries weren't an excuse either for the offense, there are plenty enough weapons left and a lot of teams have at least one injured offensive lineman. Our offensive line got owned in pass protection today, especially Bulaga. Rodgers was solid, but not playing as well as last year. Yet another 2nd and short around the opposing team's 30 turns into 3rd and long after a sack. We had the jumbo backfield in, looked like Aaron audibled to a pass, just run the friggin ball there.

I agree with others that way to many shotgun with an empty backfield sets these last few games, especially with the line struggling.

For all the injuries on defense, i blame the offense and special teams to a degree for all three losses.

[Flames24Rulz]

I just don't care anymore. This team isn't going to win anything this year so I can't get down on losses.

It's all just meh to me.

I was really pissed after the Bears game, a little peeved after the Redskins game, and got over today's game in about 30 minutes.

It's an incredibly disappointing season but I realize that this team probably isn't going to do a whole lot.

[Flames24Rulz]

And no kidding about that stat. 1-11 in our last 12 games decided by 4 points or less.

Wow.

If that's not on MM, I don't know what is. That's probably his most troubling statistic to date.

[zmanishere11]

Was anyone else screaming at the TV to go for 2 at the end of the game???

The way I look at it:

Going for 2 gives you a better than 50/50 shot at winning the game. I say better because A-Rod is so money in the red-zone.

Playing for OT with this team right now gives you maybe a 20% chance of winning. Forgetting about who wins the toss, you have Crosby who hasn't hit a big kick in ages, a defense playing with 2nd/3rd stringers who have been on the field for 38 minutes (or 2.5 quarters) and haven't even touched Henne, and an offense that has struggled to protect Rodgers and move the ball.

Playing for OT = Playing to lose, but not get crap for it

Going for 2 = Playing to win, but getting "yelled at / fired" if you don't get it

I want a coach that plays to win, not one who plays to not get fired (I realize the double negative, but I'm hammered so it works).

[smooth 'lil balla]

I just don't care anymore. This team isn't going to win anything this year so I can't get down on losses.

It's all just meh to me.

I was really pissed after the Bears game, a little peeved after the Redskins game, and got over today's game in about 30 minutes.

It's an incredibly disappointing season but I realize that this team probably isn't going to do a whole lot.

AGREE. The only good thing about today's loss is that i'm not consumed with it like i was the previous two.

[El Duderino]

I don't know what people that think the above are watching, but DB already mentioned it. We're hanging in games with bench players. Don't you think the fact that we're losing all these close games has more to do with coaching than personnel? If it was personnel AND we had major injuries, we'd be getting waxed. If anything, the last few games have shown how well TT has drafted.

The problem IS NOT TT. It's MM and so far this year, Rodgers as well. I don't know how anyone can complain at all about the D this year. It's the offense and that is on MM.

Yes, TT has done a good job, but I think it was a mistake not trading for Lynch. And yes, I agree, it's been MM, not TT, as the problem. Discipline problems: Penalties, dropped passes, sacks. ST, oh my goodness. How bad would they be if we didn't have 10 LBs and 3 FBs and 4 TEs? Yes, TT should not have cut Ryan, but wasn't that a coach's request (maybe the ST coach)?

People keep bringing up Lynch and it hurting the running game by not having him, but Jackson/Kuhn haven't been terrible together, McCarthy simply won't run the ball much and i doubt that would change a lot even if we had Lynch.

The biggest weakness on this team talent wise isn't RB, it's the OLB unit and linebacker unit overall. The LB core is Clay Matthews and a bunch of mediocre at best starters and backups. Without Matthews in the game we are running a 3-4 defense with zero other linebackers who can create any pressure at all. Inside, Bishop has played well the last two weeks, but Hawk can't make plays if his life depended on it.

As important as Rodgers is to the offense, Matthews is nearly as important to the defense. If an opposing offense blocks Jenkins with Clay out, our pass rush is worse than feeble. It's wonderful that Matthews is so incredibly skilled, but you can't have a pass rush that relies almost entirely on one player because as we saw in the 2nd half vs Washington and today vs Miami, our pass rush completely vanishes when he isn't in the game.

[Simulack]

And no kidding about that stat. 1-11 in our last 12 games decided by 4 points or less.

Wow.

If that's not on MM, I don't know what is. That's probably his most troubling statistic to date.

Very interesting stat. I actually said to a friend today: I wonder what our record is the last few seasons in games decided by 3-4 points? I knew it was that bad but 1-11 is insane.

On an unrelated note, I wonder at what point it starts to become statistically smart to start going for it more often on 4th down given the ineptitude of our punter/special teams? Going into today, Masthay had a net of 33 which puts him at 30th in the NFl. The rationale behind punting instead of going for it is obviously the potential difference in field position. Given that we are seeing much less of a gain field position-wise than other teams, logic seems to dictate that we ought to go for it more often than better punting/punt coverage teams.

[smooth 'lil balla]

Was anyone else screaming at the TV to go for 2 at the end of the game???

The way I look at it:

Going for 2 gives you a better than 50/50 shot at winning the game. I say better because A-Rod is so money in the red-zone.

Playing for OT with this team right now gives you maybe a 20% chance of winning. Forgetting about who wins the toss, you have Crosby who hasn't hit a big kick in ages, a defense playing with 2nd/3rd stringers who have been on the field for 38 minutes (or 2.5 quarters) and haven't even touched Henne, and an offense that has struggled to protect Rodgers and move the ball.

Playing for OT = Playing to lose, but not get crap for it

Going for 2 = Playing to win, but getting "yelled at / fired" if you don't get it

I want a coach that plays to win, not one who plays to not get fired (I realize the double negative, but I'm hammered so it works).

In hindsight i wish we went for 2, but considering it took us 3 downs to get in from the 1 and a few weeks ago the dolphins beat the vikings by stopping them several times on the goal line, i don't think that would have been the best of calls.

[El Duderino]

MM finishes strong however, so the season is still young (knock on wood).

I agree. These seasons are a roller-coaster. We are a couple Clay Matthews sacks of Favre at getting momentum back.

Jason Wilde though had a troubling stat he mentioned on Homer tonight. Something along the lines of the Packers being 1-11 in their last 12 games decided by 4 or less points. They were debating who you assign the blame for there.

To me the break down always appear to be a mental mistake that stops a drive, a bad penalty, a blown assignment...the other thing that seems to hurt this team is poor clock management and the lack of importance on keeping your timeouts....whether it be poor challenges or late in getting to the line. Throw in a kicker with a tiny nut sack and you have a recipe for failure...

Yea, Crosby has had 3 or 4 chances to win a game and missed every one of them. Granted, none were short kicks except the one the Bears blocked, but it doesn't change the fact that he keeps failing to come through.

I generally don't care much about punters, but i wonder if they've contributed to a close loss or two. Since the absolutely boneheaded decision to cut Ryan, it seems like the vast majority of times that we've needed a big punt late in a close game, we get a low line drive 33-35 yarder that gives the opposing team good field position.

Mix in an untimely few gaffs late by Colledge over the years, a number of crucial holding calls on either offense or defense, and any other variety of blunders by whoever,the Packers have been terrible the last few years late in close games.

[xTitan]

Was anyone else screaming at the TV to go for 2 at the end of the game???

The way I look at it:

Going for 2 gives you a better than 50/50 shot at winning the game. I say better because A-Rod is so money in the red-zone.

Playing for OT with this team right now gives you maybe a 20% chance of winning. Forgetting about who wins the toss, you have Crosby who hasn't hit a big kick in ages, a defense playing with 2nd/3rd stringers who have been on the field for 38 minutes (or 2.5 quarters) and haven't even touched Henne, and an offense that has struggled to protect Rodgers and move the ball.

Playing for OT = Playing to lose, but not get crap for it

Going for 2 = Playing to win, but getting "yelled at / fired" if you don't get it

I want a coach that plays to win, not one who plays to not get fired (I realize the double negative, but I'm hammered so it works).

I was with some people and said I would go for 2, the other 2 people disagreed, unfotunately it played out like I thought....with terrible special teams, a defense that can't get off the field, and an o-line that was absolutely owned....I just didn't think they would have as good as a chance as they had going for 2.

[El Duderino]

And no kidding about that stat. 1-11 in our last 12 games decided by 4 points or less.

Wow.

If that's not on MM, I don't know what is. That's probably his most troubling statistic to date.

Very interesting stat. I actually said to a friend today: I wonder what our record is the last few seasons in games decided by 3-4 points? I knew it was that bad but 1-11 is insane.

On an unrelated note, I wonder at what point it starts to become statistically smart to start going for it more often on 4th down given the ineptitude of our punter/special teams? Going into today, Masthay had a net of 33 which puts him at 30th in the NFl. The rationale behind punting instead of going for it is obviously the potential difference in field position. Given that we are seeing much less of a gain field position-wise than other teams, logic seems to dictate that we ought to go for it more often than better punting/punt coverage teams.

I can understand your thinking if say we are on the 40 yard line of the opposing team, but most of the time that Masthay seems to put out a Kapinos like 30-35 yard low line drive shank is when we are backed up on our side of the field and you just have to punt. At some point Ted simply has to acquire a punter that can actually do his job and punt well in games that count.

After the Kapinos train wreck, i had hoped that Masthay would be a significant improvement, but overall he's been terrible, especially when the team has really needed a big punt. It's crazy how long it's taken to find just a competent punter since foolishly waiving Ryan. Every year we hear that the special teams will improve and instead they keep killing the team in close games to the point that i expect disaster as the clock ticks down.

[xTitan]

I think the awful special teams might be the biggest contributor, TT's failure to find a quality kick returner, horrible punting, rotten coverage.....it just seems the Packers always start around the 20 while opponents are closer to the 40, that is so huge....TT simply refuses to draft a return specialist and that is a killer.

[Wilford Brimley]

1-11 in the last 12 games decided by 4 points or less, huh?

Which was the 1 win?

[El Duderino]

Was anyone else screaming at the TV to go for 2 at the end of the game???

The way I look at it:

Going for 2 gives you a better than 50/50 shot at winning the game. I say better because A-Rod is so money in the red-zone.

Playing for OT with this team right now gives you maybe a 20% chance of winning. Forgetting about who wins the toss, you have Crosby who hasn't hit a big kick in ages, a defense playing with 2nd/3rd stringers who have been on the field for 38 minutes (or 2.5 quarters) and haven't even touched Henne, and an offense that has struggled to protect Rodgers and move the ball.

Playing for OT = Playing to lose, but not get crap for it

Going for 2 = Playing to win, but getting "yelled at / fired" if you don't get it

I want a coach that plays to win, not one who plays to not get fired (I realize the double negative, but I'm hammered so it works).

It's easy to say that sitting at a computer. If a coach goes for two there and fails, he'd get savaged by fans and the media along with basically telling his defense, i have absolutely no confidence in you.

Your logic makes solid sense to me, but good luck finding any NFL head coach that wouldn't kick the extra point there. You might see a random college coach go for two in that situation maybe one out of 50 times, say a big underdog playing a much superior team. Not in the NFL though, even very secure in their jobs head coaches will kick the ball an go into OT.

[BigSmooth_31]

well... thank god I decided to take the train to chicago and hang out downtown for the day. Followed on the phone but didnt really care that much.