Atlanta Post Game

[neiLz]

Not too concerned about losing this game, though you'd like to win being right there: either keeping Atlanta out of the end zone or kicking a FG to win it.

Rest of the schedule goes:
IND
@TEN
@WSH
@PHI
HOU
SEA
@CHI
MIN
@DET

At 4-3 now, and should be favored to win at least 6 of the rest. The 3 in question would be @PHI and home vs SEA and MIN. 11-5 gets us in.

Agree. The NFC is up for grabs. I think the packers go 3-1 at home the rest of the way. Win vs TEN, CHI, DET. That is 10 W's there. Toss up at WA, PHI. Toughest games are at home in SEA and MIN and SEA doesn't look too good.

The ATL game brought confidence back in Rodgers. He made some great plays and was on target most of the game. I think the defense gets healthy.

10/11 wins is what I see. Wouldn't mind going to ATL for a playoff game either.

[thomchatt3rton]

I actually felt more positive about this team after this loss than I have after any of their wins this season. The offense actually looked dynamic at times. Rodgers had some Godgers moments. The defense shut down Julio.

Yes, we lost, and that sucks. But if you're down your top three corners and the best player on your defense, it's not surprising that Ryan was going to find some space in coverage.

I feel better about this team going forward. I don't feel great, but I feel better.

You couldnt have summed up the way I feel any better than that.

Imagine if we were ATL fans- a team thats struggling comes to your building, absolutely decimated by multiple injuries to key positions and you just barely beat them. Not real comforting, projecting forward.

[M-C-G]

Going into the game the best chance the Packers had of winning was to rely on the O to outscore ATL. So why not allow ATL to score with enough time left on the clock and two timeouts (and possible 2 minute warning) for thePackers to kick a winning FG? Unconventional yes, but it was the best chance the Packers had.

Yes, it is quite unconventional to be up in a situation where the other team needs to score a TD to tie and hit an extra point (equivalent to 33 yard field goal) to take the lead and wanting to give them that for free. There is a lot that can happen there.

[jazzfanWA]

Going into the game the best chance the Packers had of winning was to rely on the O to outscore ATL. So why not allow ATL to score with enough time left on the clock and two timeouts (and possible 2 minute warning) for thePackers to kick a winning FG? Unconventional yes, but it was the best chance the Packers had.

Yes, it is quite unconventional to be up in a situation where the other team needs to score a TD to tie and hit an extra point (equivalent to 33 yard field goal) to take the lead and wanting to give them that for free. There is a lot that can happen there.

I understand your logic. All I am saying is that if I knew going into the game that the Packer offense was going to be clicking the way it did and on the last drive they just needed a FG to win with 2 timeouts, the 2 minute warning and using all 4 downs to get in Crosby's range....I like those odds. A heck of a lot more than the Packers stopping the Falcons on a game winning, clock eating drive.

[El Duderino]

Ill tip my cap for putting up a good fight undermanned on the road against a good team but a loss is a loss and they cant have too many more of those.

Its crazy how many of these games play out the same way on d in the final drive... gunter had that pick and once he dropped it you just knew they were gonna score. I think they should have sold out blitzed every damn play on that final falcons drive because they either needed a big play or for the falcons to score quick.

I remember after the Arizona loss last year in the playoffs their coach Arians got flak for blitzing on the last drive by us and the Hail Mary pass. His response was that by his nature, he told the defensive coordinator to blitz because he'd rather his defense late in games force the offense to adjust to pressure vs letting the offense dictate things against a soft zone and if the blitz gets burned, so be it.

[BUCKnation]

I actually felt more positive about this team after this loss than I have after any of their wins this season. The offense actually looked dynamic at times. Rodgers had some Godgers moments. The defense shut down Julio.

Yes, we lost, and that sucks. But if you're down your top three corners and the best player on your defense, it's not surprising that Ryan was going to find some space in coverage.

I feel better about this team going forward. I don't feel great, but I feel better.

Agreed, Matt Ryan, as much crap as I normally give him, just made plays, especially on that last throw and their first TD.

[BUCKnation]

Ill tip my cap for putting up a good fight undermanned on the road against a good team but a loss is a loss and they cant have too many more of those.

Its crazy how many of these games play out the same way on d in the final drive... gunter had that pick and once he dropped it you just knew they were gonna score. I think they should have sold out blitzed every damn play on that final falcons drive because they either needed a big play or for the falcons to score quick.

I remember after the Arizona loss last year in the playoffs their coach Arians got flak for blitzing on the last drive by us and the Hail Mary pass. His response was that by his nature, he told the defensive coordinator to blitz because he'd rather his defense late in games force the offense to adjust to pressure vs letting the offense dictate things against a soft zone and if the blitz gets burned, so be it.

Yeah Rodgers just made a play probably only he could make, but I agree with that logic and it was pretty apparent this weekend around football. Clemson blitz FSU nearly every play at the end of their game once FSU got past midfield and they were able to kill the game off. Eagles did the same thing at the end of regulation and it worked brilliantly twice.

[thomchatt3rton]

Arians' aggressive philosophy is directly responsible for his team having to go to OT vs the Pack last year.
But they ultimately won- does that justify his philosophy? I dont think so but I could be wrong.

His aggressiveness has its risks, just like any other philosophy. Look no further than last week vs SEA for evidence of how it can fail.

[El Duderino]

Arians' aggressive philosophy is directly responsible for his team having to go to OT vs the Pack last year.
But they ultimately won- does that justify his philosophy? I dont think so but I could be wrong.

His aggressiveness has its risks, just like any other philosophy. Look no further than last week vs SEA for evidence of how it can fail.

I never said otherwise. Clearly choosing to blitz can blow up in a team's face.

FWIW, I wasn't implying that i want Capers to blitz all of the time. I just don't like playing passive a whole drive as a team keeps picking up one first down after another and a needed TD or FG seems very likely. Even more so when a team like Atlanta had entered four down mode given the time left, making it hard in soft zones to prevent first downs.

[thomchatt3rton]

Arians' aggressive philosophy is directly responsible for his team having to go to OT vs the Pack last year.
But they ultimately won- does that justify his philosophy? I dont think so but I could be wrong.

His aggressiveness has its risks, just like any other philosophy. Look no further than last week vs SEA for evidence of how it can fail.

I never said otherwise. Clearly choosing to blitz can blow up in a team's face.

FWIW, I wasn't implying that i want Capers to blitz all of the time. I just don't like playing passive a whole drive as a team keeps picking up one first down after another and a needed TD or FG seems very likely. Even more so when a team like Atlanta had entered four down mode given the time left, making it hard in soft zones to prevent first downs.

I was in a mall waiting for an apple store dude to tell my gf her mac is f*cked so i apologize for distractedly posting incomplete thoughts.

I dont disagree w you. I was kind of thinking out loud about coaches who have overarching philosophies (like arians always erring on the side of aggression) and whether theres any inherent value to having such a philosophy.

Ive often been frustrated by our D suddenly abandoning a game plan that had been working all day just bcuz its late and we re protecting a close lead.

Whether this is done out of sheer conservatism or if there are other good reasons to do it is a good question. Its possible that d-line fatigue is a factor. For GB on Sunday, injuries were def a factor.

[rilamann]

And it keeps happening the same way in the same situations with totally different rosters,it's the weirdest **** I have ever seen.

Teams with good defenses tend to advance in the playoffs unless their offense plays like crap.

Those San Fran teams we lost to had better and more reliable defenses. The first lost to Arizona was a shootout, but we scored over 40 points. If our defense doesn't get shredded by Warner, we win easily. Clearly we gagged away that Seattle game, but their defense kept the game from being over by halftime. Eli pretty much had his way with our defense in the playoff loss involving Rodgers.

Certainly Aaron hasn't played up to his standards in some of those losses and there were a variety of other factors in each loss, but if the Packers under Ted and Capers had better defenses in general during Rodgers time at QB, we wouldn't be sitting here with just one Super Bowl appearance. When games are tight late in the playoffs, a defense simply has to get stops more often than this team has been able to.

Look at this Falcons team. Loaded with weapons on offense, but with their defense, i don't see then making it out of the NFC.

It's somewhat similar to baseball. Sure offense also matters, but more often than not it's the teams who pitch and play defense better who advance in the playoffs.

I understand all of this and yes,I know that we haven't exactly had great defenses since 2008.I get that but that's not what I am talking about.

I'm curious why our defense always seems to choke or fall apart at the end of games when it's their game to win,even in games they had been playing well in.Especially against good teams.

Despite roster turnover it's been the Packer's M.O. on defense since 2008.

The Seattle game is the most prime example of what I am talking about......Look great,get 4 turnovers and hold the opposing offense to 0 points for 57:00 minutes.Then when you need 1 more stop to win the game you give up 15pts in the space of 40 seconds.

That's the Packers defense in close games since 2008 in a nutshell.Well maybe not the looking great for 57:00 minutes part,but the falling apart in crunch time part.

[Jollay]

Can we at least acknowledge Ty Montgomery and Randall Cobb will continue to get hurt if we use them at RB extensively? I mean, not coincidence Montgomery was out...hard hit to the kidneys.

Dude, 2010 was a different ballgame. Rodgers/Nelson was ascending. Matthews was way better, Woodson/Collins...Starks five years ago was better than our RBS now...the list goes on.

We ain't getting Caleb Hannie in the championship game either.

I would also argue the injuries in a way helped our offense this year. No injuries, we may not even be using Davis, Montgomery, Janis etc. You saw how bad our offense was healthy...at least the injuries helped create some urgency/creativity.

Our RBs were god awful until Starks came out of seemingly nowhere against Philly in the playoffs. Brandon Jackson and John Kuhn combined for 274 carries.

Jordy had 582 and 2 TD's that year and started 4 games all season. Jennings was the guy and Driver/Jones/Nelson shared the rest. That offense wasn't super potent as we'd later come to expect, ranking 10th in points scored.

Listen, 2010 was an outlier, we got lucky. It's not something you can use as a model no matter how much we'd all like to because we won the Superbowl and it's a fond memory. With that being said, that team was not some juggernaut. We got incredibly hot late. The difference is that in the second half of the season, we had guys coming into their own and starting to make plays on defense. That needs to happen here as well.

True on all fronts. And I admit I didn't see 2010 coming either.

But I mean, no young guys on this team are going to make a dominant improvement-type leap like we saw that year, IMO. Jake Ryan is really the only young player I've been impressed with (and our ILBs are still below average) who is making a leap, but he's not an impact guy. I mean, maybe Montgomery/Davis on offense and Randall/Rollins on defense but not looking probable.

[rilamann]

I was in a mall waiting for an apple store dude to tell my gf her mac is f*cked .

Hell yeah,if I found out my GF had a mac I'd beat his ass.

[thomchatt3rton]

I was in a mall waiting for an apple store dude to tell my gf her mac is f*cked .

Hell yeah,if I found out my GF had a mac I'd beat his ass.

I'm not 100% sure I get it... But you were right to make a joke out of that sentence, that's for damn sure.

[El Duderino]

I understand all of this and yes,I know that we haven't exactly had great defenses since 2008.I get that but that's not what I am talking about.

I'm curious why our defense always seems to choke or fall apart at the end of games when it's their game to win,even in games they had been playing well in.Especially against good teams.

Despite roster turnover it's been the Packer's M.O. on defense since 2008.

The Seattle game is the most prime example of what I am talking about......Look great,get 4 turnovers and hold the opposing offense to 0 points for 57:00 minutes.Then when you need 1 more stop to win the game you give up 15pts in the space of 40 seconds.

That's the Packers defense in close games since 2008 in a nutshell.Well maybe not the looking great for 57:00 minutes part,but the falling apart in crunch time part.

I feel the same frustration, but that said, i do think fans of a certain team can feel like their team does this so much more than others because those defeats sting so much and we are so invested. We forget the game saving stops far more than remembering the bitter sting of the painful failure. Players say the same thing.

I watch tons of football, college and pro. Every weekend there are many teams who just can't get that key stop late. Sometimes neither team does and i just comes down to who has the ball last. Sunday night was a prime example. The Eagles defense was playing great all game, but then gave up an 85 yard drive late to let Dallas tie the game and then allowed an opening TD drive in OT. Had to drIve Eagles fans crazy.

It's the playoff ones that only stick with me. The late defensive stops or failures in the regular season are mainly a blur to me.

We got the late stop in the Super Bowl, but Seattle and Arizona the last two years stick out. I forget how much time was left when San Fran got their game winning points in Green Bay. All i remember for some reason is Kaepernick being chased by one of our backup linebackers for a killer first down. I think it was Mulumba looking like he was running in shoes made of cement.

It very well could have happened to our defenses much more than the typical NFL team, but i just can't retain memory of most stops vs failures late in regular season games. I even forget many playoff games which didn't come down to a last minute drive or OT.

[Kerb Hohl]

Was at the game. Just want to note that there were 50% or more Packer fans in the stadium and I could not hear myself think when we had the ball. Holy pumped in crowd noise.

[Marley2Hendrix]

Was at the game. Just want to note that there were 50% or more Packer fans in the stadium and I could not hear myself think when we had the ball. Holy pumped in crowd noise.

Cool to hear, when watching from home, the Packer fans in the crowd were absolutely recognizable. Heck, I think if you pressed me before you made your post, I would have guessed a 50/50 split, with the GB crowd being more raucous.

[raysbookclub]

Was at the game. Just want to note that there were 50% or more Packer fans in the stadium and I could not hear myself think when we had the ball. Holy pumped in crowd noise.

Didn't the Falcons get penalized for pumped in crowd noise last year?