Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Postgame: W 23-14, 8-4, Crosby > Walsh
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Uncle Buck


Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 15012
Location: Viking Country
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
A couple friends of mine who are Vikings fans are trying to tell me Peterson could have carried that game himself if given more carries. I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. Yes he had a huge overall day, and yes every run counts, but there is a reason he only got 21 carries. The Vikings were unable to sustain drives with Peterson. Carry by carry, the Packers overall did decent, other than 3 big plays

1 Behind LG, 2 yds
2 Middle, 3 yds
3 Middle, 3 yds
4 Behind RG, 5 yds
5 Behind RG, 8 yds
6 Behind RG, 3 yds
7 Right End, 3 yds
8 Behind RG, 2 yds
9 Behind RT 9 yds
10 Left End, 4 yds
11 Middle, 2 yds
12 Behind RT 0 yds
13 Right End 82 yds, TD
14 Left End, 48 yds
15 Middle 4 yds
16 Behind LT, -1 yds
17 Behind RG, 6 yds
18 Left End, 3 yds
19 Behind RT, 0 yds
20 Left End, 1 yd
[b]21 Behind LT, 23 yds

Give Peterson credit (and sloppy tackling blame) for those big runs but that 21 carries for 210 yards is deceptive. 153 of that came on 3 carries. On the other 18, Peterson was held to 57 yards, or 3.17 YPC. That meant that the Vikings were repeatedly in 3rd and long enough to make you need to pass fairly consistently. Ponder couldn't convert, so the drive stalls and Peterson gets no more carries. They TRIED to feed him and pound away and yes he broke loose and did some damage, but he couldn't sustain drives himself. Something like 12 of Ponder's pass attempts were late in the 4th down by 2 scores, and I think only 1 of Peterson's runs. That means in the first 3 quarters, the Vikings had 20 runs to 13 pass attempts.

Big play offense is poor % and it really doesn't work in the running game. There were too many carries of 2 yds or less (7, 1/3 of his total) and that just means it's unsustainable as a run first offense.


Normally I would agree with you to a great extent, but in this game I would tend to disagree for the following reason.

AD had almost 200 yards after that 48 yard run just after halftime. What really changed the game was when Ponder threw that pick in the endzone a couple plays later. We were playing from the 8 yard line at the time. If Ponder doesn't make that boneheaded play, and we score a touchdown instead, it would have completely changed the momentum of the game. We would have been up by 11 points, with all the momentum. At that point we would just be looking to sustain long drives to chew up the clock and maintain our lead.

Instead, Ponder turns the ball over, kills all the momentum, and the Packers march down and score on us. That was a total game changer. As things happened, you are probably correct in your assessment. If it went the other way, I do think AD could have kept steamrolling the Packer defense, and he could very well have broken off a couple more longer runs and gone over 300 yards.

Just my opinion though. We will never know what would have happened "if Ponder hadn't done this or that..."

Either way it was good game by the Pack and they deserve credit for doing what it took to win. We'll just have to see if we can get some revenge at the dome in a couple weeks.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3300
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Uncle Buck wrote:
spilltray wrote:
A couple friends of mine who are Vikings fans are trying to tell me Peterson could have carried that game himself if given more carries. I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. Yes he had a huge overall day, and yes every run counts, but there is a reason he only got 21 carries. The Vikings were unable to sustain drives with Peterson. Carry by carry, the Packers overall did decent, other than 3 big plays
*SNIP*

Give Peterson credit (and sloppy tackling blame) for those big runs but that 21 carries for 210 yards is deceptive. 153 of that came on 3 carries. On the other 18, Peterson was held to 57 yards, or 3.17 YPC. That meant that the Vikings were repeatedly in 3rd and long enough to make you need to pass fairly consistently. Ponder couldn't convert, so the drive stalls and Peterson gets no more carries. They TRIED to feed him and pound away and yes he broke loose and did some damage, but he couldn't sustain drives himself. Something like 12 of Ponder's pass attempts were late in the 4th down by 2 scores, and I think only 1 of Peterson's runs. That means in the first 3 quarters, the Vikings had 20 runs to 13 pass attempts.

Big play offense is poor % and it really doesn't work in the running game. There were too many carries of 2 yds or less (7, 1/3 of his total) and that just means it's unsustainable as a run first offense. [/b]


Normally I would agree with you to a great extent, but in this game I would tend to disagree for the following reason.

AD had almost 200 yards after that 48 yard run just after halftime. What really changed the game was when Ponder threw that pick in the endzone a couple plays later. We were playing from the 8 yard line at the time. If Ponder doesn't make that boneheaded play, and we score a touchdown instead, it would have completely changed the momentum of the game. We would have been up by 11 points, with all the momentum. At that point we would just be looking to sustain long drives to chew up the clock and maintain our lead.

Instead, Ponder turns the ball over, kills all the momentum, and the Packers march down and score on us. That was a total game changer. As things happened, you are probably correct in your assessment. If it went the other way, I do think AD could have kept steamrolling the Packer defense, and he could very well have broken off a couple more longer runs and gone over 300 yards.


I think you're both right.

If the Vikings just hand the ball to Peterson 3 times in those red zone situations, then they at least kick field goals and the game may go differently.

However, I do think that the Vikings didn't exactly do a great job sustaining drives just handing the ball to Peterson.

Going drive by drive for the Vikings:

Drive 1:
Peterson runs for 2 on 1st and 10, Peterson runs for 3 on 2nd and 8. Brings up 3rd and 5 (passing down), incomplete pass, punt.

Drive 2:
Peterson runs for 3, 5, then 8 on 3rd and 2. 3 yards on 1st and 10, then Ponder completes three straight passes, Peterson runs for 3 on 1st and 10, Ponder runs for 6, Peterson gets 2 on 3rd and 1, Peterson gets 9 on 1st and 10, Ponder throws pass for first down, fumble resulting in loss of 5, Ponder throws TD. This is the Vikings best drive, and has a good balance of run and pass.

Drive 3
Peterson 4 yards on 1st and 10, 2 yards on 2nd and 6, incomplete pass on 3rd and 4, punt.

Drive 4
Peterson no gain on 2nd and 1, breaks 82 yard run on 3rd and 1.

Drive 5
Gerhart run for 2, Ponder run for 3, incomplete pass on 3rd and 5 , punt.

Drive 6
Peterson breaks 48 yard run on 1st and 10, Peterson runs for 4 on 1st and 10, interception.

Drive 7
Incomplete pass, Peterson runs for -1, incomplete pass, punt.

Drive 8
Peterson 6 yards on 1st and 10, 3 yards on 2nd and 4, and no gain on 3rd and 1. Punt.

Drive 9
Peterson 1 yard on 1st and 10, offsides penalty, incomplete pass, Ponder runs for 11. On 1st and 10, Peterson runs for 23, Unnecessary roughness, interception.

Drive 10
Vikings call no running plays due to time and 2-score deficit.

Drive 11
Vikings call no running plays.

It was a great performance, but it was largely a great performance because of a few big runs Peterson broke. It wasn't a sort of grinding "run, run, set up third and short, run for 1st down" performance.

Prior to the last two drives when the Vikings were on full on pass-mode Minnesota faced 3rd and 5, 3rd and 2, 3rd and 1, 3rd and 4, 3rd and 1, 3rd and 5, 3rd and 11, 3rd and 1, and 3rd and 4. 3rd and 4+ simply aren't running downs even with Adrian Peterson (born out by the fact that his median run on Sunday was for 3 yards.) Peterson was held to 2 or fewer yards on a full third of his runs, so you're not necessarily terribly confident in running on 3rd and 3 either (though Peterson did convert on 3 of the 4 3rd and 2 or less plays.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10385
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's exactly the point. Peterson by himself wasn't able to sustain drives. He got a few excellent huge plays, but I'm not sold on Ponder, or any of the Vikings passing attack, outside of maybe Rudolph as capable of fixing that. I'm not saying Peterson didn't have a great game, but that was in very large part to 3 huge runs. As good as that bulk yardage number looks, you need a good chunk more out of Ponder to sustain drives, or more out of Peterson on a consistent down to down basis.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
BobSacamano


Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 13255
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remember the Packer- Vikings GDT when Favre played for them?
_________________


KingTarvaris7 wrote:
last year's vikings were far better than the packers team that just won
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31117
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BobSacamano wrote:
Remember the Packer- Vikings GDT when Favre played for them?
who? This like a late 80s running back or something?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pack4life7


Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 3230
Location: Illinois
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BobSacamano wrote:
Remember the Packer- Vikings GDT when Favre played for them?


Yea. It was literally all out war. Good times Very Happy
_________________
Ted brought us Clay

Waldo wrote:

Enter Waldo


Same Old Jay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Sandybaby716


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 3645
Location: Rhode Island
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
That's exactly the point. Peterson by himself wasn't able to sustain drives. He got a few excellent huge plays, but I'm not sold on Ponder, or any of the Vikings passing attack, outside of maybe Rudolph as capable of fixing that. I'm not saying Peterson didn't have a great game, but that was in very large part to 3 huge runs. As good as that bulk yardage number looks, you need a good chunk more out of Ponder to sustain drives, or more out of Peterson on a consistent down to down basis.


Even the 3.17 he had besides his three biggest runs is impressive. Look at any running back and take away his three biggest runs of an afternoon, next to no one would average 4 ypc (unless they had a ton of big runs). Considering the fact that we knew he was their best and basically only option on offense and he still did that well shows even greater ineptitude by Ponder.

3.17 is just under the distance you need to get a first down if you ran it all three downs. You need to get SOMETHING from the passing attack. Ponder didnt' have a completion to a WR until there were like 2 minutes left or something. Fact is, Peterson did his part. Ponder failed as he has all season.

I wouldn't be shocked to see Joe Webb be the starter next season.
_________________
wgbeethree wrote:
In all fairness it is kind of rude to just lay injured at their feet while the Lions defensive players are trying to hold a completely unrelated dance party.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10385
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sandybaby716 wrote:
spilltray wrote:
That's exactly the point. Peterson by himself wasn't able to sustain drives. He got a few excellent huge plays, but I'm not sold on Ponder, or any of the Vikings passing attack, outside of maybe Rudolph as capable of fixing that. I'm not saying Peterson didn't have a great game, but that was in very large part to 3 huge runs. As good as that bulk yardage number looks, you need a good chunk more out of Ponder to sustain drives, or more out of Peterson on a consistent down to down basis.


Even the 3.17 he had besides his three biggest runs is impressive. Look at any running back and take away his three biggest runs of an afternoon, next to no one would average 4 ypc (unless they had a ton of big runs). Considering the fact that we knew he was their best and basically only option on offense and he still did that well shows even greater ineptitude by Ponder.

3.17 is just under the distance you need to get a first down if you ran it all three downs. You need to get SOMETHING from the passing attack. Ponder didnt' have a completion to a WR until there were like 2 minutes left or something. Fact is, Peterson did his part. Ponder failed as he has all season.

I wouldn't be shocked to see Joe Webb be the starter next season.


I'm not saying it wasn't a good day and they don't need to get more out of the passing game. My point is that they were unable to grind out drives with what they were getting from Peterson, so assuming that if they hadn't tossed that INT and gotten a FG, that they could have just kept pounding out Peterson is a stretch. He had big plays on 3/21 carries and other than that had already shown they weren't capable of sustaining drives with just him.

The attitude of "If Ponder hadn't thrown that INT, they could have just kept grinding away and Peterson would surely have had a 300 yard game and the Vikings win." is just plain wrong. There is no statistical likelihood to assume that Peterson would either have been able to sustain drives or break another huge play.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 14259
Location: UW Oshkosh
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
Sandybaby716 wrote:
spilltray wrote:
That's exactly the point. Peterson by himself wasn't able to sustain drives. He got a few excellent huge plays, but I'm not sold on Ponder, or any of the Vikings passing attack, outside of maybe Rudolph as capable of fixing that. I'm not saying Peterson didn't have a great game, but that was in very large part to 3 huge runs. As good as that bulk yardage number looks, you need a good chunk more out of Ponder to sustain drives, or more out of Peterson on a consistent down to down basis.


Even the 3.17 he had besides his three biggest runs is impressive. Look at any running back and take away his three biggest runs of an afternoon, next to no one would average 4 ypc (unless they had a ton of big runs). Considering the fact that we knew he was their best and basically only option on offense and he still did that well shows even greater ineptitude by Ponder.

3.17 is just under the distance you need to get a first down if you ran it all three downs. You need to get SOMETHING from the passing attack. Ponder didnt' have a completion to a WR until there were like 2 minutes left or something. Fact is, Peterson did his part. Ponder failed as he has all season.

I wouldn't be shocked to see Joe Webb be the starter next season.


I'm not saying it wasn't a good day and they don't need to get more out of the passing game. My point is that they were unable to grind out drives with what they were getting from Peterson, so assuming that if they hadn't tossed that INT and gotten a FG, that they could have just kept pounding out Peterson is a stretch. He had big plays on 3/21 carries and other than that had already shown they weren't capable of sustaining drives with just him.

The attitude of "If Ponder hadn't thrown that INT, they could have just kept grinding away and Peterson would surely have had a 300 yard game and the Vikings win." is just plain wrong. There is no statistical likelihood to assume that Peterson would either have been able to sustain drives or break another huge play.


Except both Ponder's INTs came in the red zone, not saying your wrong but those INTs were huge and without them AP might have done enough alone to beat us.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3300
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Packerraymond wrote:
Except both Ponder's INTs came in the red zone, not saying your wrong but those INTs were huge and without them AP might have done enough alone to beat us.


But the Vikings need to be able to convert on 3rd and 4 or 3rd and 5 regularly, since running Peterson twice on first and second down doesn't necessarily result in 3rd and short. That's on the quarterback.

Were Ponder to have not thrown those picks, then the Vikings may score touchdowns, but they may attempt field goals, and Walsh may have missed one or both field goals. Were the deficit different than what it was, the Packers probably would have called different plays and would have played at a different tempo. So who could say what would happen.

But I'm confident in the fact that until Ponder can be counted on to convert a reasonable percentage of 3rd and 4 to 3rd and 10 type plays, that offense isn't going to be very effective.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10385
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
Except both Ponder's INTs came in the red zone, not saying your wrong but those INTs were huge and without them AP might have done enough alone to beat us.


But the Vikings need to be able to convert on 3rd and 4 or 3rd and 5 regularly, since running Peterson twice on first and second down doesn't necessarily result in 3rd and short. That's on the quarterback.

Were Ponder to have not thrown those picks, then the Vikings may score touchdowns, but they may attempt field goals, and Walsh may have missed one or both field goals. Were the deficit different than what it was, the Packers probably would have called different plays and would have played at a different tempo. So who could say what would happen.

But I'm confident in the fact that until Ponder can be counted on to convert a reasonable percentage of 3rd and 4 to 3rd and 10 type plays, that offense isn't going to be very effective.


Exactly. The INTs are the result of the poor passing game. It's part of not getting enough out of that facet of the offense. It still boils back to the fact that with that passing game as bad as it was, Peterson wasn't going to be enough to beat the Packers because he is booming or busting. I'd be much more scared if he was able to consistently get 4-6 ypc rather than what actually happened.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
KManX89


Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Posts: 1766
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SteelKing728 wrote:
WIsportsfan wrote:
I just find it funny to come in here whining about the refs, when they missed lots of calls, yet your team still couldn't win.


Oh geez, I wasn't saying the refs are the reason Minnesota lost. Minnesota lost simply because they beat themselves. Christian Ponder looked like a highschool QB out there. He's awful.

But over the course of the season minus one bad call against the Seahawks, I feel like the Packers are the beneficiaries of many calls by the refs.

Jared Allen should have had an INT this game, and potentially making this a much different game (again with ponder though, I doubt he would've been able to complete any pass in the playbook , thus making this game any different. He plays so scared and unpoised out there its just laughable)

Whatever. I've seen enough of the packers to know what kind of team that is. Take that for what its worth.

See ya in week 17. I doubt the outcome will be any different though. lol


Actually, more like 6 absolutely terrible calls favoring Seattle:

1. The BS personal foul call on D.J. Smith at the end of the 2nd quarter when Pat McQuistan blatantly shoved him to the ground after the whistle and no flag was thrown, yet they called a PF on D.J. Smith for retaliating. Seattle would score a TD on this drive after picking up 15 yards and a 1st down, when at best, it should've been offsetting penalties on both Smith and McQuistan.
2. The other PF call when Brandon Browner not only gets away with a blatant shove on Greg Jennings as he was running his route (and of course, no call for a hit on a defensless receiver whatsoever Rolling Eyes), but then actually picked up him and bodyslammed him, yet somehow Jennings gets called for a PF. Again, WTF?
3. The phantom roughing the passer call on Erik Walden, took away what would've been a game-ending interception (we would've gotten the ball at the SEA 18 yard line and, at the very least kicked a FG, and so the blown Toucherception call at the end of the game, which I'll get to in just a sec, would've ended up not mattering).
4. The phantom defensive pass interference on Sam Shields, which was really offensive pass interference on Rice. Gave them a short enough field for the last 2 phantom calls below to come into play:
5. The no-call on the blatant push-off by Golden Tate in the end zone on the Fail Mary "touchdown". And of course, the Coup de Gracie...
6. The NFL's first ever game-winning interception call. Jennings has the ball tucked into his chest with both hands, Tate merely gets his fingertips on it (and his right hand on Jennings' wrist), yet somehow, that gets ruled a "simultaneous catch" and a touchdown; Rolling Eyes seriously, enough said there.

So basically, both of Seattle's only TD's were ref-assisted, and if you eliminate all points scored off sketchy calls in this game (both ways even), Seattle really scores exactly 0 points. All game.

And let's not forget the BS calls during the Saints game the very next week (the Jimmy Graham reception that clearly hit the ground, was challenged yet inexplicably upheld on review, Colston's no-call push off on their 1st TD pass [much like Golden Tate's], and the fumble on the Sproles PR that was blown dead), and the 2 phantom DPI calls during the Colts game, which spotted them 10 points (in no way does it compare to the Seattle debacle, though, we would've still won the Indy game if only Crosby would've remembered how to kick field goals on those 2 shanks).

Hell, even this game, we were called for 2 phantom holding calls, which stalled drives and even took away a TD, thus taking 4 points off the board.

As for the play in question (the Jared Allen pick negated by an offsetting RTP call), well, it wasn't a helmet-to-helmet hit on Rodgers, but he did hit from behind with his helmet (into his spine/shoulder area), and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal to hit from anywhere with your helmet, doesn't matter which part of the body, or the type of player, or what portion of the field, or with what part of your helmet. Hence the flag.

So it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be with us getting calls this year.


Last edited by KManX89 on Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7963
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KManX89 wrote:
SteelKing728 wrote:
WIsportsfan wrote:
I just find it funny to come in here whining about the refs, when they missed lots of calls, yet your team still couldn't win.


Oh geez, I wasn't saying the refs are the reason Minnesota lost. Minnesota lost simply because they beat themselves. Christian Ponder looked like a highschool QB out there. He's awful.

But over the course of the season minus one bad call against the Seahawks, I feel like the Packers are the beneficiaries of many calls by the refs.

Jared Allen should have had an INT this game, and potentially making this a much different game (again with ponder though, I doubt he would've been able to complete any pass in the playbook , thus making this game any different. He plays so scared and unpoised out there its just laughable)

Whatever. I've seen enough of the packers to know what kind of team that is. Take that for what its worth.

See ya in week 17. I doubt the outcome will be any different though. lol


Actually, more like 6 absolutely terrible calls favoring Seattle:

1. The BS personal foul call on D.J. Smith at the end of the 2nd quarter when Pat McQuistan blatantly shoved him to the ground after the whistle and no flag was thrown, yet they called a PF on D.J. Smith for retaliating. Seattle would score a TD on this drive after picking up 15 yards and a 1st down, when at best, it should've been offsetting penalties on both Smith and McQuistan.
2. The other PF call when Brandon Browner not only gets away with a blatant shove on Greg Jennings as he was running his route (and of course, no call for a hit on a defensless receiver whatsoever Rolling Eyes), but then actually picked up him and bodyslammed him, yet somehow Jennings gets called for a PF. Again, WTF?
3. The phantom roughing the passer call on Erik Walden, took away what would've been a game-ending interception (we would've gotten the ball at the SEA 18 yard line and, at the very least kicked a FG, and so the blown Toucherception call at the end of the game, which I'll get to in just a sec, would've ended up not mattering).
4. The phantom defensive pass interference on Sam Shields, which was really offensive pass interference on Rice. Gave them a short enough field for the last 2 phantom calls below to come into play:
5. The no-call on the blatant push-off by Golden Tate in the end zone on the Fail Mary "touchdown". And of course, the Coup de Gracie...
6. The NFL's first ever game-winning interception call. Jennings has the ball tucked into his chest with both hands, Tate merely gets his fingertips on it (and his right hand on Jennings' wrist), yet somehow, that gets ruled a "simultaneous catch" and a touchdown; Rolling Eyes seriously, enough said there.

So basically, both of Seattle's only TD's were ref-assisted, and if you eliminate all points scored off sketchy calls in this game (both ways even), Seattle really scores exactly 0 points. All game.

And let's not forget the BS calls during the Saints game the very next week (the Jimmy Graham reception that clearly hit the ground, was challenged yet inexplicably upheld on review, Colston's no-call push off on their 1st TD pass [much like Golden Tate's], and the fumble on the Sproles PR that was blown dead), and the 2 phantom DPI calls during the Colts game, which spotted them 10 points (in no way does it compare to the Seattle debacle, though, we would've still won the Indy game if only Crosby would've remembered how to kick field goals on those 2 shanks).

Hell, even this game, we were called for 2 phantom holding calls, which stalled drives and even took away a TD, thus taking 4 points off the board.

As for the play in question (the Jared Allen pick negated by an offsetting TRP call), well, it wasn't a helmet-to-helmet hit on Rodgers, but he did hit from behind with his helmet (into his spine/shoulder area), and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal to hit from anywhere with your helmet, doesn't matter which part of the body, or the type of player, or what portion of the field, or with what part of your helmet. Hence the flag.

So it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be with us getting calls this year.
Don't forget the horrible calls in the Saints game, the blatant OPI on Brees first TD to Colston. The Jimmy Graham CLEAR drop on a 3rd down that stood despite the challange and how obvious it was. The somehow missed fumble on the Sproles return that almost cost us the game. Then in the Colts game, they gave the Colts a first down on a phantom PI call on Sam Shields when, it should have been OPI when Sam got shoved in the back that lead to the game winning drive for the Colts. The personal foul on Nick Perry when he forced the fumble on Andrew Luck, even though Elvis Dumerville did the same thing to Tom Brady and it wasn't flagged. I honestly can not think of a call where it lead to something major and it was the completely obvious wrong call, where I said "Trollolololol wez got away with one there!"
_________________



Duff Man wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
Josh Sitton, Mike Daniels

Average at best
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KManX89


Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Posts: 1766
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
KManX89 wrote:
SteelKing728 wrote:
WIsportsfan wrote:
I just find it funny to come in here whining about the refs, when they missed lots of calls, yet your team still couldn't win.


Oh geez, I wasn't saying the refs are the reason Minnesota lost. Minnesota lost simply because they beat themselves. Christian Ponder looked like a highschool QB out there. He's awful.

But over the course of the season minus one bad call against the Seahawks, I feel like the Packers are the beneficiaries of many calls by the refs.

Jared Allen should have had an INT this game, and potentially making this a much different game (again with ponder though, I doubt he would've been able to complete any pass in the playbook , thus making this game any different. He plays so scared and unpoised out there its just laughable)

Whatever. I've seen enough of the packers to know what kind of team that is. Take that for what its worth.

See ya in week 17. I doubt the outcome will be any different though. lol


Actually, more like 6 absolutely terrible calls favoring Seattle:

1. The BS personal foul call on D.J. Smith at the end of the 2nd quarter when Pat McQuistan blatantly shoved him to the ground after the whistle and no flag was thrown, yet they called a PF on D.J. Smith for retaliating. Seattle would score a TD on this drive after picking up 15 yards and a 1st down, when at best, it should've been offsetting penalties on both Smith and McQuistan.
2. The other PF call when Brandon Browner not only gets away with a blatant shove on Greg Jennings as he was running his route (and of course, no call for a hit on a defensless receiver whatsoever Rolling Eyes), but then actually picked up him and bodyslammed him, yet somehow Jennings gets called for a PF. Again, WTF?
3. The phantom roughing the passer call on Erik Walden, took away what would've been a game-ending interception (we would've gotten the ball at the SEA 18 yard line and, at the very least kicked a FG, and so the blown Toucherception call at the end of the game, which I'll get to in just a sec, would've ended up not mattering).
4. The phantom defensive pass interference on Sam Shields, which was really offensive pass interference on Rice. Gave them a short enough field for the last 2 phantom calls below to come into play:
5. The no-call on the blatant push-off by Golden Tate in the end zone on the Fail Mary "touchdown". And of course, the Coup de Gracie...
6. The NFL's first ever game-winning interception call. Jennings has the ball tucked into his chest with both hands, Tate merely gets his fingertips on it (and his right hand on Jennings' wrist), yet somehow, that gets ruled a "simultaneous catch" and a touchdown; Rolling Eyes seriously, enough said there.

So basically, both of Seattle's only TD's were ref-assisted, and if you eliminate all points scored off sketchy calls in this game (both ways even), Seattle really scores exactly 0 points. All game.

And let's not forget the BS calls during the Saints game the very next week (the Jimmy Graham reception that clearly hit the ground, was challenged yet inexplicably upheld on review, Colston's no-call push off on their 1st TD pass [much like Golden Tate's], and the fumble on the Sproles PR that was blown dead), and the 2 phantom DPI calls during the Colts game, which spotted them 10 points (in no way does it compare to the Seattle debacle, though, we would've still won the Indy game if only Crosby would've remembered how to kick field goals on those 2 shanks).

Hell, even this game, we were called for 2 phantom holding calls, which stalled drives and even took away a TD, thus taking 4 points off the board.

As for the play in question (the Jared Allen pick negated by an offsetting TRP call), well, it wasn't a helmet-to-helmet hit on Rodgers, but he did hit from behind with his helmet (into his spine/shoulder area), and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal to hit from anywhere with your helmet, doesn't matter which part of the body, or the type of player, or what portion of the field, or with what part of your helmet. Hence the flag.

So it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be with us getting calls this year.
Don't forget the horrible calls in the Saints game, the blatant OPI on Brees first TD to Colston. The Jimmy Graham CLEAR drop on a 3rd down that stood despite the challange and how obvious it was. The somehow missed fumble on the Sproles return that almost cost us the game. Then in the Colts game, they gave the Colts a first down on a phantom PI call on Sam Shields when, it should have been OPI when Sam got shoved in the back that lead to the game winning drive for the Colts. The personal foul on Nick Perry when he forced the fumble on Andrew Luck, even though Elvis Dumerville did the same thing to Tom Brady and it wasn't flagged. I honestly can not think of a call where it lead to something major and it was the completely obvious wrong call, where I said "Trollolololol wez got away with one there!"


Read the part of my post 2 lines down and you'll see that I addressed each of those calls in the other aforementioned games as well (New Orleans and Indy, respectively). Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Page 8 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group