ESPN: Packers carry on despite injury woes

[humanrefutation]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5923437

Really well done, IMO.

[rilamann]

Two things to consider though.

1.most of the guys who have replaced the injured guys have been upgrades like Bishop and Pepprah.

2.The Buffalo Bills might ''carry on'' if they had our cupcake schedule.

Not shocked it was written by a woman,sorry I know it's a feel good piece but let take our homer hats off for a second and be real here and put things into proper context.


Sure Finley and Grant have been big losses,I underrated Grant a bit.I still don't think he's that good but he's a lot better than we have,maybe Starks can be solid though.

But at the end of the day with an incompetent coach like MM would it really matter if Finley & Grant had been healthy? I think not.

They were both healthy when we went 0-1 in the playoffs last year right?

About our schedule,this was one of those years that going into the season our schedule looked tough but after it has played itself out it was actually incredibly easy thus far.

It's really nauseating we are only 8-5 with how easy our schedule has been up this point.

The Eagles game was kind of tough but if we played them now or had Vick played the entire game we lose.

The Jets win was solid but other than that game we've beaten a bunch of bad teams.

Bills
Lions
Vikings twice
Cowboys in quit mode
49ers

puke

then we lost to
Bears
Redskins
Lions

Puke

The sad thing is this team has has a very good QB and the talent to be a lot better than it is,but this team will always disappoint and never live up to expectations as long as MM is on the sidelines.

Don't get me wrong I love the Packers but I'm just being objective and real here,if I'm wrong the Packers will prove it in the next 3 games.

[Bucksfans1and2]

Two things to consider though.

1.most of the guys who have replaced the injured guys have been upgrades like Bishop and Pepprah.

2.The Buffalo Bills might ''carry on'' if they had our cupcake schedule.

Not shocked it was written by a woman,sorry I know it's a feel good piece but let take our homer hats off for a second and be real here and put things into proper context.


Sure Finley and Grant have been big losses,I underrated Grant a bit.I still don't think he's that good but he's a lot better than we have,maybe Starks can be solid though.

But at the end of the day with an incompetent coach like MM would it really matter if Finley & Grant had been healthy? I think not.

They were both healthy when we went 0-1 in the playoffs last year right?

About our schedule,this was one of those years that going into the season our schedule looked tough but after it has played itself out it was actually incredibly easy thus far.

It's really nauseating we are only 8-5 with how easy our schedule has been up this point.

The Eagles game was kind of tough but if we played them now or had Vick played the entire game we lose.

The Jets win was solid but other than that game we've beaten a bunch of bad teams.

Bills
Lions
Vikings twice
Cowboys in quit mode
49ers

puke

then we lost to
Bears
Redskins
Lions

Puke

The sad thing is this team has has a very good QB and the talent to be a lot better than it is,but this team will always disappoint and never live up to expectations as long as MM is on the sidelines.

Don't get me wrong I love the Packers but I'm just being objective and real here,if I'm wrong the Packers will prove it in the next 3 games.

Dude come on, if you take away the two best wins of course our record is going to look bad. Of the teams we compete against for the Wild Card we have the strongest Strength of Victory. If you disqualify the Eagles game because of injury than disqualify the Redskins game because Matthews was out the 4th quarter.

You're being really negative about this team and I know we just lost to the Lions but jeez man take a deep breath. I hate MM just as much as you do but you have to look at things objectively.

[Marley2Hendrix]

But at the end of the day with an incompetent coach like MM would it really matter if Finley & Grant had been healthy? I think not.

At this point I stopped reading. It was an enjoyable read [edited for clarity - the article, not the quoted post]. BTW, the underrated story of the year is how these injuries have depleted/severely handicapped an already weak special teams unit.

[rilamann]

Two things to consider though.

1.most of the guys who have replaced the injured guys have been upgrades like Bishop and Pepprah.

2.The Buffalo Bills might ''carry on'' if they had our cupcake schedule.

Not shocked it was written by a woman,sorry I know it's a feel good piece but let take our homer hats off for a second and be real here and put things into proper context.


Sure Finley and Grant have been big losses,I underrated Grant a bit.I still don't think he's that good but he's a lot better than we have,maybe Starks can be solid though.

But at the end of the day with an incompetent coach like MM would it really matter if Finley & Grant had been healthy? I think not.

They were both healthy when we went 0-1 in the playoffs last year right?

About our schedule,this was one of those years that going into the season our schedule looked tough but after it has played itself out it was actually incredibly easy thus far.

It's really nauseating we are only 8-5 with how easy our schedule has been up this point.

The Eagles game was kind of tough but if we played them now or had Vick played the entire game we lose.

The Jets win was solid but other than that game we've beaten a bunch of bad teams.

Bills
Lions
Vikings twice
Cowboys in quit mode
49ers

puke

then we lost to
Bears
Redskins
Lions

Puke

The sad thing is this team has has a very good QB and the talent to be a lot better than it is,but this team will always disappoint and never live up to expectations as long as MM is on the sidelines.

Don't get me wrong I love the Packers but I'm just being objective and real here,if I'm wrong the Packers will prove it in the next 3 games.

Dude come on, if you take away the two best wins of course our record is going to look bad. Of the teams we compete against for the Wild Card we have the strongest Strength of Victory. If you disqualify the Eagles game because of injury than disqualify the Redskins game because Matthews was out the 4th quarter.

You're being really negative about this team and I know we just lost to the Lions but jeez man take a deep breath. I hate MM just as much as you do but you have to look at things objectively.

I am being objective and being honest.



The guys who have gotten hurt this year other than Finley and Grant haven't been impact guys.

Most guys injured have been depth guys and the guys who have come in and replaced them have been upgrades.

That's a fact.

We've had an incredibly easy schedule,another fact.

We've also lost to some bad teams like the Redskins,Dolphins & Lions,yet another fact.

I'm not gonna sit here like some ignorant homer and act like we are having a great year because guys like Spencer Havner and Brady Poppinga got hurt and we beat a few cup cake teams.

Sorry.

[Wilford Brimley]

You all realize we have lost 5 games by 16 points, right?

Thats around 3.2 points per game.

You're telling me Grant and/or Finley couldn't help pick up that extra 1st down that could extend a drive in the 3rd quarter to extend a drive and lead to points?

Or a failed redzone trip in the 1st quarter couldn't have succeeded with a jump ball to Finley in the endzone?

They always say its a game of inches, this year I believe it more than ever.

[rilamann]

You all realize we have lost 5 games by 16 points, right?

Thats around 3.2 points per game.

You're telling me Grant and/or Finley couldn't help pick up that extra 1st down that could extend a drive in the 3rd quarter to extend a drive and lead to points?

Or a failed redzone trip in the 1st quarter couldn't have succeeded with a jump ball to Finley in the endzone?

They always say its a game of inches, this year I believe it more than ever.

A lot of bad and mediocre teams over the years can talk about games they ''almost'' won.

Hell in 2008 the Packers went 6-10 and we all talked about how they had either had the lead or were tied with with 5 minutes to go in 12 games of those games.

Would Grant and Finley have made a difference? maybe,but this team's M.O. the past 3 seasons has been losing close games and losing to teams they should beat.

If Finley was in the games maybe he picks up a big first down in one of those close games but then Crosby would probably miss the game winning kick anyway.Maybe if Grant is there he rips off a big run but it probably gets nullified 2 plays later with a holding penalty by one of the linemen.


Good teams don't consistently lose close games and good teams don't consistency beat themselves,the Packers consistently do both of those things and have done so now the past 3 seasons.

Maybe the Packers just aren't that good.

[trwi7]

Dude, rilamann, every team has cupcake games. Look at the NFC South, they get Carolina twice. New Orleans has already played Carolina twice and Cincinnati. The Bears have gotten the Lions twice, Carolina, Dallas and Buffalo.

Here are the strength of victories of all NFC teams with at least 8 wins.

Eagles - 57-60, .487
Falcons - 66-77, .462
Packers - 43-61, .413
Giants - 46-71, .393
Saints - 48-82, .369
Bears - 43-74, .368
Buccaneers - 29-75, .279

Every good NFL team beats at least a few bad teams every year. The Packers have the 3rd best strength of victory of the 7 teams in the NFC that have at least 8 wins so the easy schedule argument is bull ****.

[Bucksfans1and2]

Dude, rilamann, every team has cupcake games. Look at the NFC South, they get Carolina twice. New Orleans has already played Carolina twice and Cincinnati. The Bears have gotten the Lions twice, Carolina, Dallas and Buffalo.

Here are the strength of victories of all NFC teams with at least 8 wins.

Eagles - 57-60, .487
Falcons - 66-77, .462
Packers - 43-61, .413
Giants - 46-71, .393
Saints - 48-82, .369
Bears - 43-74, .368
Buccaneers - 29-75, .279

Every good NFL team beats at least a few bad teams every year. The Packers have the 3rd best strength of victory of the 7 teams in the NFC that have at least 8 wins so the easy schedule argument is bull ****.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToWcEqQhnIU[/youtube]

[rilamann]

Dude, rilamann, every team has cupcake games. Look at the NFC South, they get Carolina twice. New Orleans has already played Carolina twice and Cincinnati. The Bears have gotten the Lions twice, Carolina, Dallas and Buffalo.

Here are the strength of victories of all NFC teams with at least 8 wins.

Eagles - 57-60, .487
Falcons - 66-77, .462
Packers - 43-61, .413
Giants - 46-71, .393
Saints - 48-82, .369
Bears - 43-74, .368
Buccaneers - 29-75, .279

Every good NFL team beats at least a few bad teams every year. The Packers have the 3rd best strength of victory of the 7 teams in the NFC that have at least 8 wins so the easy schedule argument is bull ****.

Sure all teams have some easy games and it's not like they can help who they play on their schedules,I don't think teams should apologize for having an easy schedule.

Most of our wins have come against bad teams but the thing is we can't even take advantage of having an easy schedule by continuing to beat ourselves in losing to teams like the Redskins,Lions & Dolphins.

My thing with the easy schedule is,lets not let it fool us and let's not pat the Packers on the back (like this piece suggests) for beating bad teams,3 of which were teams actually trying to get their coaches fired.

The schedule thing really isn't my main issue though.


I'm getting sick of this team underachieving and always beating themselves and then having the excuse of ''well we ALMOST won like 5 more games''.


We have the talent to be winning win those games but we're not winning those games.

If I thought we simply had a bad team lacking talent I wouldn't be so critical,some have asked why I'm critical of the Packers but not so much with the Bucks,that's your reason.

If the Bucks had the talent and superstars to win 60 games but kept winning like 48 games every year I'd be just as critical with the Bucks.

But I don't want to see our talent go waste and see a QB like Rodgers have his career be squandered because MM wants to do things like air it out on 3rd & 1 five times a game.

And my biggest issue is that it's not like this is the first year this is happening,every season since 2008 we lose close games to bad teams because we beat ourselves.

Bad play calling,penalties,terrible special teams ect.

It's a 3 year trend now and it's not going to change until we get a real head coach and a decent special teams coach.

[El Duderino]

You all realize we have lost 5 games by 16 points, right?

Thats around 3.2 points per game.

You're telling me Grant and/or Finley couldn't help pick up that extra 1st down that could extend a drive in the 3rd quarter to extend a drive and lead to points?

Or a failed redzone trip in the 1st quarter couldn't have succeeded with a jump ball to Finley in the endzone?

They always say its a game of inches, this year I believe it more than ever.

A lot of bad and mediocre teams over the years can talk about games they ''almost'' won.

Hell in 2008 the Packers went 6-10 and we all talked about how they had either had the lead or were tied with with 5 minutes to go in 12 games of those games.

Would Grant and Finley have made a difference? maybe,but this team's M.O. the past 3 seasons has been losing close games and losing to teams they should beat.

If Finley was in the games maybe he picks up a big first down in one of those close games but then Crosby would probably miss the game winning kick anyway.Maybe if Grant is there he rips off a big run but it probably gets nullified 2 plays later with a holding penalty by one of the linemen.


Good teams don't consistently lose close games and good teams don't consistency beat themselves,the Packers consistently do both of those things and have done so now the past 3 seasons.

Maybe the Packers just aren't that good.

I agree that in some cases, people have overstated our injury problems when using raw numbers to total all the injuries because a sizable amount of those injured guys were either mediocre starters or mediocre backups.

That said, the number of injuries are ridiculous. Not having Jenkins last week and Zombo leaving early did hurt the run defense at the very least. Jenkins has been dealing with various injuries all year. Neal being out is an underrated injury. Against Washington, we lost Finley, Pickett, Neal, and Matthews all in the same game. Matthews not playing vs Miami hurt because we had no other pass rusher on the field and the defense in turn struggled.

Finley is arguably the most dangerous TE in the game, look how much Indy and Manning miss Dallas Clark. Grant isn't a top 5 back in the NFL, but between the Packers having a non-physical and poor run blocking line along with maybe the worst group of running backs in the league right now with Grant out, the lack of any consistent ground game at all has hurt the offense in multiple aspects.

Injuries certainly aren't the only reason Green Bay is sitting here 8-5 and more likely than not to miss the playoffs. The lack of a more physical OL, the weakness at OLB next to Matthews, Crosby failing yet again to hit clutch FG's, Rodgers playing poorly early in the season, and special teams woes at times during the year have all contributed to losses. Without so many injuries though, i have no doubt that we'd have a record better than 8-5. Whether we'd be 9-4 or 10-3 i can't know that, but every coach and team in the NFL would have struggled more if hit by injuries as the Packers have. You can only plug so many holes with backups before the boat springs a leak.

[rilamann]

Dude you can't really complain about the defense,not this season.

Capers has been solid and the D has played damn good,hell even without Jenkins we only gave up 7 points Sunday,the defense has been great.

Most of our injuries have been on defense and the guys who have come in for the injured have been upgrades,that's why I'm not playing the injury card as to why we probably won't make the playoffs.

We might be 5-8 if the defense wasn't playing their hearts out.

It's the offense and special teams that have killed us and offensively it has a lot to do with the play calling and penalties.

Sure Finley & Grant are impact players and not having them does hurt but the play calling has been atrocious,we still have had Rodgers and all of our receivers minus Finley all season.

3 points vs the Lions? come on there is no excuse for that.

[El Duderino]

Dude, rilamann, every team has cupcake games. Look at the NFC South, they get Carolina twice. New Orleans has already played Carolina twice and Cincinnati. The Bears have gotten the Lions twice, Carolina, Dallas and Buffalo.

Here are the strength of victories of all NFC teams with at least 8 wins.

Eagles - 57-60, .487
Falcons - 66-77, .462
Packers - 43-61, .413
Giants - 46-71, .393
Saints - 48-82, .369
Bears - 43-74, .368
Buccaneers - 29-75, .279

Every good NFL team beats at least a few bad teams every year. The Packers have the 3rd best strength of victory of the 7 teams in the NFC that have at least 8 wins so the easy schedule argument is bull ****.

Sure all teams have some easy games and it's not like they can help who they play on their schedules,I don't think teams should apologize for having an easy schedule.

Most of our wins have come against bad teams but the thing is we can't even take advantage of having an easy schedule by continuing to beat ourselves in losing to teams like the Redskins,Lions & Dolphins.

My thing with the easy schedule is,lets not let it fool us and let's not pat the Packers on the back (like this piece suggests) for beating bad teams,3 of which were teams actually trying to get their coaches fired.

The schedule thing really isn't my main issue though.


I'm getting sick of this team underachieving and always beating themselves and then having the excuse of ''well we ALMOST won like 5 more games''.


We have the talent to be winning win those games but we're not winning those games.

If I thought we simply had a bad team lacking talent I wouldn't be so critical,some have asked why I'm critical of the Packers but not so much with the Bucks,that's your reason.

If the Bucks had the talent and superstars to win 60 games but kept winning like 48 games every year I'd be just as critical with the Bucks.

But I don't want to see our talent go waste and see a QB like Rodgers have his career be squandered because MM wants to do things like air it out on 3rd & 1 five times a game.

And my biggest issue is that it's not like this is the first year this is happening,every season since 2008 we lose close games to bad teams because we beat ourselves.

Bad play calling,penalties,terrible special teams ect.

It's a 3 year trend now and it's not going to change until we get a real head coach and a decent special teams coach.

With all of our injuries, you way overstate how talented the Packers overall roster is except for the brilliance of a couple main players, especially Rodgers.

OL-- Pretty good pass blocking unit, but very below average run blocking unit

RB-- With Grant hurt in the first game, how many teams in the league have had a worse stable of talent at RB? Maybe one or two without looking or possibly none.

TE-- Quarless once in awhile flashes the talent, but more often he's made some big mistakes and has looked every bit like the rookie he is. Lee is done. As a group, our tight ends minus Finley is a below average to very below average unit.

More often than not this year, our offense has deserved more blame than the defense for losses. The Miami loss was more on the defense IMO and vs Atlanta the defense wasn't very good, but the Rodgers fumble at the goal line and the inability of the line to run block at all in short yardage situations deserved the most blame.

For most of the year, our offense has had to be carried by Rodgers and the wide receivers playing well because the line isn't physical as run blockers, our running backs suck, and Finley was our only reliable TE. Minus Finley and Grant, our offense certainly has it's share of talent, but it's hardly the hugely talented unit the media makes it out to be. If Rodgers is having an off day, the line can't pass block well, and/or the receivers struggle with drops, the offense will struggle because we can't run block, have bad backs, and Rodgers/Jennings are the only playmakers left on offense.

[Wilford Brimley]

I think if we had Finley and Grant this year we'd be 11-2, with losses to Chicago and Atlanta. Possible 10-3 with a loss to WAS, too, because Rodgers' was concussed.

[rilamann]

With all of our injuries, you way overstate how talented the Packers overall roster is except for the brilliance of a couple main players, especially Rodgers.

You have to put the games into context in how they were played out though Dude.

If the Packers had played hard and clean but were simply outmatched and beaten by the better team I'd be with you 100%. and I wouldn't be as critical.

For example someone might take the Bears game and say,hey the Bears are 9-4,a good team no shame in losing to them 20-17 at Soldier Field.

And I would agree with that had we played a good hard clean game and simply got beaten by the better team.

But that obviously wasn't the case,18 penalties,bad offensive play calling,Jones fumble late in the 4th when we were driving for the win ect.

So while losing 20-17 to the Bears in Chicago might not seem that bad on the surface if you actually look at the game in context of how it was played out that was a bad loss.

A game we should have won and a game in which we beat ourselves.


Same with the Redskins game,on the surface someone might say losing in OT at Washington isn't so bad,maybe Mcnabb played a great or their defense really stepped up that day.

But that wasn't the case either,the Redskins tried handing us that game on a silver platter the first 3 qtrs but we didn't take advantage with penalties and bad play calling.Then when Redskins stepped up in the 4th we choked.

A game we should have won and a game in which beat ourselves.

The Atlanta game,Atlanta is a hell of a team but we should have won the game if don't beat ourselves.

The Lions game,3 pts total vs the Lions?

See the trend? and this has been going on for 3 years now.

I can understand laying an egg or just having a bad game from time to time obviously but when this is a chronic issue and starts costing you playoff berths it's time to say enough is enough with the excuses.

[El Duderino]

Dude you can't really complain about the defense,not this season.

Capers has been solid and the D has played damn good,hell even without Jenkins we only gave up 7 points Sunday,the defense has been great.

Most of our injuries have been on defense and the guys who have come in for the injured have been upgrades,that's why I'm not playing the injury card as to why we probably won't make the playoffs.

We might be 5-8 if the defense wasn't playing their hearts out.

It's the offense and special teams that have killed us and offensively it has a lot to do with the play calling and penalties.

Sure Finley & Grant are impact players and not having them does hurt but the play calling has been atrocious,we still have had Rodgers and all of our receivers minus Finley all season.

3 points vs the Lions? come on there is no excuse for that.

Well rilamann, i'm not one of those fans on nearly every football forum who blames the play calling whenever an offense struggles and then credits the players when an offense is productive. The importance put on play calling by so many fans i find silly. Execution and talent are what wins games, not play calling.

Hell, look at how many coordinators were made to look brilliant while calling plays for NE, then they leave for other jobs and the units those guys oversee suddenly struggle once Brady and the Pats talent isn't at their disposal. So the fans of the new team the coach is now running all rip on his play calling as the unit struggles, but in NE he was a brilliant play caller.

As for the only 3 points vs the Lions. Was it McCarthy's play calls that told Jennings to drop a 75 yard TD right in his hands or that told Quarless to fumble after a first down catch at the Lions 30 yard line?

That's 10 points at the very least. Did McCarthy's play call tell Flynn to throw an atrocious INT on first or second down at the Lions 7 yard line?

Those three plays alone at worst cost us 13 points, maybe more. Was it McCarthy's play calling fault that on 3rd and one at the 50 yard line Flynn went the wrong way on a hand off forcing a punt?

In that game thread fans were yelling to throw screens and McCarthy ended up calling multiple screens, yet the players bungled most of them except the one to Nance. So i guess if a screen works, it's a smart play call and dumb when they fail to pickup a first down.

I also suppose you blame McCarthy's play calling for the fact that the finesse OL got it's asss whipped all game so that MM couldn't call run plays and on most pass plays he called,the pocket would collapse because the DL was manhandling our OL.

When players execute, a play call looks good. When players fail to execute and/or a roster has talent issues, play callers look dumb. That's why McCarthy coordinated a bad offense in San Fran and has coordinated some very high ranked offenses here when the talent was good.

[Kerb Hohl]

Rilamann...

You realize the Patriots lost to the **** Browns.

The Jets were taken to OT by the Browns and Lions.

The Bears lost to the Lions (yes they did) and looked like the worst offense in NFL history against the Giants.

This is the **** NFL. Look around the league. I would argue the Packers and Bears have been on par QB-injury wise...obviously we've had more major players go down via injury. I think all things being equal, maybe we had ended up being the better team in the end.

That said, this is the story of the NFL. The Bears were able to catch a few breaks with playing a fairly weak offensive game vs. Miami @ Miami but Thigpen was playing QB. When their QB was out, one of the games they had already chalked up as a loss, and the other they were playing the worst team in the NFL by a massive margin. When we lost Rodgers, we had come off a bad half and the Lions only had to outplay Matt Flynn for a half. I think the Packers with Matt Flynn would beat Carolina in the state they were in when the Bears played them by 20+ points. They were that bad.

The breaks define things in the NFL if you aren't one of those top 3-4 teams. We might have been in that 3-4 team list if it weren't for injury. Hell, Atlanta has gotten a TON of breaks in games they've played like trash and won. That's how it goes.

[rilamann]

Well it's got to be one of two things then Dude,either MM is a bad coach or this team even when healthy isn't nearly as good as many think it is.

I think we have some damn good players and a damn good QB,but we keep losing games we should win,we keep losing games that we win statistically.We keep beating ourselves.

Why?

The biggest thing you can point to as to why when you break each game down is penalties and bad play calling.

Penalties and bad play calling.

Penalties and bad play calling.

The team not being ready to play.

Like a broken record.

How much of that is on the coach or the players is a matter of opinion I guess.

I know what my opinion is.

[rilamann]

Rilamann...

You realize the Patriots lost to the **** Browns.

The Jets were taken to OT by the Browns and Lions.

The Bears lost to the Lions (yes they did) and looked like the worst offense in NFL history against the Giants.

Like I said every team lays an egg or has a bad game from time to time,Browns beating the Pats being a great example of that.

The thing with the Packers though is it's a chronic issue for them.

We lose to bad teams and or teams we should beat MULTIPLE TIMES EVERY **** YEAR.

Maybe my expectations are just too high and maybe I should except that we are one of those 9-7/10-6 type teams that will win a playoff game once every 4 or 5 years.

[El Duderino]

With all of our injuries, you way overstate how talented the Packers overall roster is except for the brilliance of a couple main players, especially Rodgers.

You have to put the games into context in how they were played out though Dude.

If the Packers had played hard and clean but were simply outmatched and beaten by the better team I'd be with you 100%. and I wouldn't be as critical.

For example someone might take the Bears game and say,hey the Bears are 9-4,a good team no shame in losing to them 20-17 at Soldier Field.

And I would agree with that had we played a good hard clean game and simply got beaten by the better team.

But that obviously wasn't the case,18 penalties,bad offensive play calling,Jones fumble late in the 4th when we were driving for the win ect.

So while losing 20-17 to the Bears in Chicago might not seem that bad on the surface if you actually look at the game in context of how it was played out that was a bad loss.

A game we should have won and a game in which we beat ourselves.


Same with the Redskins game,on the surface someone might say losing in OT at Washington isn't so bad,maybe Mcnabb played a great or their defense really stepped up that day.

But that wasn't the case either,the Redskins tried handing us that game on a silver platter the first 3 qtrs but we didn't take advantage with penalties and bad play calling.Then when Redskins stepped up in the 4th we choked.

A game we should have won and a game in which beat ourselves.

The Atlanta game,Atlanta is a hell of a team but we should have won the game if don't beat ourselves.

The Lions game,3 pts total vs the Lions?

See the trend? and this has been going on for 3 years now.

I can understand laying an egg or just having a bad game from time to time obviously but when this is a chronic issue and starts costing you playoff berths it's time to say enough is enough with the excuses.

A lot of those penalties vs the Bears were on our defense which kept the Bears drives alive. It isn't McCarthy coaching the defense. As for the Jones fumble, how is that anyone's fault besides Jones? The guy flashes real talent at times, but Jones has had a habit of brainfarting since he was drafted.

In the Redskins game, Rodgers played like crap through a lot of it by being inaccurate, the OL was allowing lots of pressure, the defense fell apart after Matthews left the game, and Crosby yet again choked when given the chance to win a game for us. My only beef with McCarthy was that was a rare game where the run game was working and should have been used more, but they were typically bad at getting a push on 3rd and short.

As for the Falcons game, how was that McCarthy's fault? The OL yet again got it's butt kicked in the run game which forced McCarthy to pass all the time. MM called a great game there. If Rodgers doesn't fumble at the goal line and the OL had any ability to push Atlanta backwards in the run game, we win.

As for the Lions game, i said already why we only scored three points. Players, not MM in three instances took at minimum 13 points off the board by their blunders and the OL allowed themselves to get absolutely dominated by Detroit's front four. Anytime a OL gets whipped like that, it ruins a game plan on any level of football.

McCarthy has his faults, but i find all the blame you put on him to be silly, especially with play calling. My biggest beef with him is special teams coaches he's hired, but some of our special teams problems are also Thompson's fault.