Over confident?

[eagle13]

Congrats to Giants.

It seemed like Pack was over-confident - looking past Giants - like they felt just had to show up and not fight. That is supported by JS & GBPG articles quoting players - Brett - who said - I never thot it would come to this - that we'd put the game away eary.

You've got to play te game. How can you expect to win early if your taking your opponent seriously?

How can you expect to win early in cold temps with wind when you stunk it up with Bears a couple games earlier?

Plus Brett talked about everyone had the feeling of destiny to win. I can understand a rookie making these mental mistakes but vets like Brett?

[ReasonablySober]

I know I was overconfident. I didn't think this would even be much of a game. But then again, I'm not out there playing.

[paulpressey25]

I knew this game would be a mess.....and Bob McGinn wrote a great article yesterday where he foreshadowed this whole thing.

Ron Wolf built a cold weather team. Fritz Shurmur built a cold-weather defense. Mike Sherman carried that over, creating a smash mouth running game offense that could not only carry Brett Favre but work in cold weather. Sherm's only problem was he was such a bad GM he couldn't draft good players for his defense and special teams.

We've built a high-speed team. So now we win in domes. We win on turf. We win where we couldn't in the past. But we can't play a game in conditions like yesterday. Add in Favre's age taking a major toll on him in cold weather and you end up with what we did.

The Giants do have a cold weather team.

[Comet]

I sure as hell under-estimated the Giants. Everybody did except Terry Bradshaw.

PP makes good points about the weather and the way our team is built, but another issue is that this was only McCarthy's second playoff game. He's still pretty inexperienced. And he fell in love with screens and slants, which cost us greatly.

*sigh*

We'll get through this......eventually.......

[Kerb Hohl]

I was the one of the people bashing the Giants in about week 15. Hard.

That said, I was in the minority and not confident coming into this game. I know the fans' perspectives usually have almost nothing to do with the game but I was sick of hearing stuff about how we pretty much had this one in the bag.

It's the NFL playoffs and anything can happen. Add to that rough conditions that take over the game and this type of thing becomes more possible. Make it a defensive game for a team that has been pretty hot defensively in the conditions and it basically comes down to who makes the plays late. That's where I thought we had an advantage over Eli, although not much of one because of his recent play but for the most part that was proven wrong as well.

[ReasonablySober]

Ironically, I actually think exactly the opposite, pp.

I think this team is absolutely built for the cold weather. I just think yesterday we saw them go completely away from what we saw work throughout the year.

I said this in the game thread: how often did the Packers run a successful screen this season. Not just your typical screen to the back, but inside screens and bubble screens. They NEVER worked and consequently we rarely ran more than one each game.

I think that McCarthy anticipated catching and throwing the ball was going to be a lot tougher than it actually was, so he worked on those simple screens to move the ball. He abandoned the drag routes, possibly because of the pass rushing ability of the Giants front four. That I can almost understand. What I didn't understand is why we didn't see the quick slants or digs. That was the bread and butter all season! Why did they ignore the quick 6 yard passes that worked so well all season. The ones that kept the linebackers on their heels and set up the run so well?

Those are routes you can run in the cold weather. Eli and the Giants threw quite a few yesterday.

What we might not have is the QB to run that type of offense, though, when it gets cold. I don't know what it was, but Favre wanted nothing to do with the field yesterday. Maybe the idea of the quick strike down the field was in his head because he couldn't take a long, methodical drive. I would like to believe that's a stretch, but after watching him throwing into triple coverage multiple times or trying to make a pass downfield when nothing was there, how can I draw any other conclusion?

[LUKE23]

Ironically, I actually think exactly the opposite, pp.

I think this team is absolutely built for the cold weather. I just think yesterday we saw them go completely away from what we saw work throughout the year.

I said this in the game thread: how often did the Packers run a successful screen this season. Not just your typical screen to the back, but inside screens and bubble screens. They NEVER worked and consequently we rarely ran more than one each game.

I think that McCarthy anticipated catching and throwing the ball was going to be a lot tougher than it actually was, so he worked on those simple screens to move the ball. He abandoned the drag routes, possibly because of the pass rushing ability of the Giants front four. That I can almost understand. What I didn't understand is why we didn't see the quick slants or digs. That was the bread and butter all season! Why did they ignore the quick 6 yard passes that worked so well all season. The ones that kept the linebackers on their heels and set up the run so well?

Those are routes you can run in the cold weather. Eli and the Giants threw quite a few yesterday.

What we might not have is the QB to run that type of offense, though, when it gets cold. I don't know what it was, but Favre wanted nothing to do with the field yesterday. Maybe the idea of the quick strike down the field was in his head because he couldn't take a long, methodical drive. I would like to believe that's a stretch, but after watching him throwing into triple coverage multiple times or trying to make a pass downfield when nothing was there, how can I draw any other conclusion?

Good grief. The throw to Driver was there, it's not like he wasn't open. It was just a bad throw. The biggest issue yesterday was that for whatever reason MM abandoned the short passing game that has worked all year. We were running a bunch of plays parallel to the line of scrimmage, and screens that haven't worked all year.

I have no idea why we abandoned what we usually do. Favre made some bad throws, but to say he "didn't want to be out there" is just really a reach and not correct.

I'm in no hurry for the Rodgers era. Maybe some of you are. Just a warning: be careful what you wish for.

[paulpressey25]

We don't have a team built for the cold. Grant needs turf and excellent footing to make those cuts....and the line is designed to open one hole and rely on a back to make the cut into the hole.

The 1996 team had a massive o-line where all five guys pushed forward and a mudder like Edgar Bennett went into it.

The 1996 team didn't rely on 4 and 5 WR sets....they had a traditional backfield with a big lead blocker like William Henderson in there for most downs blocking for the RB and blocking for Favre....and being a release valve on short screens for Favre....again we don't have that. You can't run the screens you need in cold weather if you don't have the personnel to run those. Grant isn't a screen back.....Brandon Jackson can run the screen but he's too slow....we have no traditional FB like we did with Henderson to receive screens either.

How did the Giants stop us? ESPN scouts inc. has a good summary:

".... Defensively, Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo held back on his tendency to bring the blitz and relied on his base four-man rush, which allowed the linebackers to settle into the mid-range zone. This limited Brett Favre's ability to hit his receivers on the short crossing patterns that allow them to advance the ball after the catch...."

That said a better defense could have won this game for us.

[ReasonablySober]

We don't have a team built for the cold. Grant needs turf and excellent footing to make those cuts....and the line is designed to open one hole and rely on a back to make the cut into the hole.

The 1996 team had a massive o-line where all five guys pushed forward and a mudder like Edgar Bennett went into it.

The 1996 team didn't rely on 4 and 5 WR sets....they had a traditional backfield with a big lead blocker like William Henderson in there for most downs blocking for the RB and blocking for Favre....and being a release valve on short screens for Favre....again we don't have that. You can't run the screens you need in cold weather if you don't have the personnel to run those. Grant isn't a screen back.....Brandon Jackson can run the screen but he's too slow....we have no traditional FB like we did with Henderson to receive screens either.

How did the Giants stop us? ESPN scouts inc. has a good summary:

".... Defensively, Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo held back on his tendency to bring the blitz and relied on his base four-man rush, which allowed the linebackers to settle into the mid-range zone. This limited Brett Favre's ability to hit his receivers on the short crossing patterns that allow them to advance the ball after the catch...."

That said a better defense could have won this game for us.

Huh? His 201 yards in the snow last week say otherwise.

[paulpressey25]

-= Huh? His 201 yards in the snow last week say otherwise.

Last week was a much different climate...a much warmer game against a team that was much weaker defensively. Big difference in playing in 32 degrees and calm versus -2 and windy. He got big gains last week on one hole. It wasn't a result of all five Packers pushing the Hawks line down the field 3-5 yards at a time like we did the prior decade.

When you play the big boys in the title games you go up against teams with outstanding D-lines. Those teams will shut down those holes, especially in bone chilling weather were it is harder to get a speed passing game going.

All you have to do is go back the 1994 playoff game at Lambeau against the Lions in 5 degree weather where we held Barry Sanders to -2 yards or whatever that was. That Lions team wasn't set up for a pounding running game with a traditional set either.

Take a look at McGinn's column mid-season on our struggles on short-yardage. It was excellent and pointed out the shift in our running game philosopy. It came back to bite us in the ass yesterday.

[ReasonablySober]

You're talking about completely different schemes. We don't have massive road graders like we did in the 90s or early 2000s. We don't run block like the Steelers, where they simply physically maul you. Think the late 90s Broncos and the way they play. Techincally sound, quick, dirty. That's what this line will hope to accomplish.

I read McGinn's column. How did what he wrote have anything to do with what we saw yesterday in terms of short yardage issues.

We had a 3rd and 5, and a 3rd and 3. Those was as close to 3rd and short as Green Bay got all game. Unreal.

[paulpressey25]

I read McGinn's column. How did what he wrote have anything to do with what we saw yesterday in terms of short yardage issues. .

McGinn's point on the short yardage was the fact the team no longer has massive road graders nor a road grader RB. And because of that it manifests itself in having an impotent goal line and short-down package which we saw all season.

I don't know about you, but yesterday I did see a team with road graders and a massive road grader running back. And that team went on long ball control drives down the field and won the game. The score was only close because of a lucky bomb play to Driver and missed Giant FG's.

Now if you want to argue that it is just fine to build a zone blocking scheme team with smaller lineman and a RB who hits the hole fast like a Michael Bennett type, that's great. You can succeed in the NFL with a team like that. You just won't win many games at Lambeau field in tough weather conditions against good opponents.

The facts that can't be ignored here are that the prior super bowl teams didn't function well on turf and this one does. Conversely this team got dominated in two extreme cold weather games in the past month (Chicago and the Giants)

This was a similar game to the 1982 AFC championship game where the Chargers had an amazing offense but had to play in -9 in Cincy. Cincy had a massive Forest Gregg line and a giant RB in Pete Johnson. The Chargers had finesse players and didn't have a dominant D. And the Chargers got booted.

[ReasonablySober]

You just won't win many games at Lambeau field in tough weather conditions against good opponents.

And what is your basis for comparison? It's not as if we've got years of watching the ZBS in Green Bay on film.

I don't understand how you can throw out the conditions versus the Seahwks (30 degrees but with driving snow, terrible field) but accept those against the Bears and Giants.

For the record, we're also not likely to see a gail like we did at Soldier Field in Lambeau any time soon.

Seems to me it was just really, very cold. The footing wasn't bad. It was just cold. How does that effect the gound game, if at all?

[Cliff Levingston]

Cliff Levingston thought the Giants were being disrespected all week leading up to the game.

- "It's gonna be cold on the frozen tundra, just how the Packers like it." ...not really realizing that the Giants are a cold weather team as well.
- The Giants have a fast defense with a line that can pressure the passer without having to bring constant blitzes; something that really annoys Favre.

Perhaps most of all, the Giants were 9-0 on the road leading up to that game.

Cliff Levingston still thought the Packers would win but thought it would be a close game nonetheless. The Giants are just a little more evidence that playoff seeding/home field advantage doesn't mean quite as much as one might think, so long as you're playing your best football.

[eagle13]

[quote="DrugBust"][/quote]

Gotta go with Press on this. + some.
Seattle was snow

Chicago and giants were not only colder

But WIND was also BAD in Chicago and giants games - Seattle was snow but milder and calm. wind was not strong or gusty.

The Wind + Cold makes for wind chill which all you guys know about.

Chicago and giants had wind chills far worse than Seattle which ad almost none.

The WIND screws the passing - the cold screws Brett.

[El Duderino]

-= original quote snipped =-



McGinn's point on the short yardage was the fact the team no longer has massive road graders nor a road grader RB. And because of that it manifests itself in having an impotent goal line and short-down package which we saw all season.

I don't know about you, but yesterday I did see a team with road graders and a massive road grader running back. And that team went on long ball control drives down the field and won the game. The score was only close because of a lucky bomb play to Driver and missed Giant FG's.

Now if you want to argue that it is just fine to build a zone blocking scheme team with smaller lineman and a RB who hits the hole fast like a Michael Bennett type, that's great. You can succeed in the NFL with a team like that. You just won't win many games at Lambeau field in tough weather conditions against good opponents.

The facts that can't be ignored here are that the prior super bowl teams didn't function well on turf and this one does. Conversely this team got dominated in two extreme cold weather games in the past month (Chicago and the Giants)

This was a similar game to the 1982 AFC championship game where the Chargers had an amazing offense but had to play in -9 in Cincy. Cincy had a massive Forest Gregg line and a giant RB in Pete Johnson. The Chargers had finesse players and didn't have a dominant D. And the Chargers got booted.

Yep

Many are just blaming our offense for the massive time of possession difference, but the Giants offense had all kinds of 6-12 play drives that were aided by their ability to get those 3-7 yard runs.

Now we'll never know if our running game would have improved during the game if McCarthy hadn't decided to abandon it from the start. That's the thing about running the ball, some games you get stopped early, but if you stick with it, better results come later. In the second half the Giants running game was a factor in controlling the ball and winning, they never gave up on it.

Yea the Giants were stuffing our runs, but there were quite a few times i screamed at the TV after another failed pass play, run the damn ball McCarthy.

[El Duderino]

I sure wasn't over confident. The minute i heard the weather forecast around Tuesday or so, i started to feel very leery of the Giants game.

I watched Favre struggle some in the cold last year and look like he was in hell vs the Bears, the last thing i wanted to see was a absolutely frigid weather. Once i saw -25 wind chill forecasts, i got more and more nervous about the game each day as it got closer to being played.

In fact during the game i told my buddy who was ultra confident, see this is why i was so leery. He kept saying don't worry about it, we'll win.

[Jollay]

Ironically, I actually think exactly the opposite, pp.

I think this team is absolutely built for the cold weather. I just think yesterday we saw them go completely away from what we saw work throughout the year.

Completely agree. Actually this team is more built for cold weather than the previous teams under Sherman, who made it a top priority to draft speed "potential" guys.

We are deep on the defensive line, and brought in a run stuffer like Pickett who is actually durable and has stamina. AJ Hawk is a prototypical cold weather linebacker. We brought in another physical, good sized corner in Charles Woodson.

The line is undersized, but it my understanding that is better for zone blocking schemes, and plus TT inherited alot of this line.

Previously we have tried to draft speed to either counter Randy Moss or compete in domes. TT has been doing the opposite, and a like it, starting with defensive line depth.