NFL 2013 Season Week 10 Picks

Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

These are not our most current picks!
Our freshest batch of picks are the NFL 2018 Season Super Bowl Picks.

Jeremy's PicksMatt's PicksJon's PicksSarah's Picks
Redskins 27 @ Vikings 34
Final
Thu, 11/7/13 7:25pm
11 Picks - 73% 4 Picks - 27%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Redskins
Redskins
Bengals 17 @ Ravens 20
final overtime
Sun, 11/10/13 12:00pm
18 Picks - 95% 1 Pick - 5%
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bills 10 @ Steelers 23
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 12:00pm
10 Picks - 53% 9 Picks - 47%
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Jaguars 29 @ Titans 27
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 19 Picks - 100%
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Raiders 20 @ Giants 24
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 12:00pm
2 Picks - 11% 17 Picks - 89%
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Eagles 27 @ Packers 13
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 12:00pm
10 Picks - 53% 9 Picks - 47%
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Packers
Packers
Rams 38 @ Colts 8
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 12:00pm
1 Pick - 5% 18 Picks - 95%
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Lions 21 @ Bears 19
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 12:00pm
10 Picks - 53% 9 Picks - 47%
Lions
Lions
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Seahawks 33 @ Falcons 10
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 12:00pm
14 Picks - 74% 5 Picks - 26%
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Panthers 10 @ 49ers 9
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 3:05pm
3 Picks - 16% 16 Picks - 84%
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
Texans 24 @ Cardinals 27
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 3:25pm
6 Picks - 32% 13 Picks - 68%
Cardinals
Cardinals
Texans
Texans
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Broncos 28 @ Chargers 20
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 3:25pm
19 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Cowboys 17 @ Saints 49
Final
Sun, 11/10/13 7:30pm
1 Pick - 5% 18 Picks - 95%
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Dolphins 19 @ Buccaneers 22
Final
Mon, 11/11/13 7:40pm
14 Picks - 74% 5 Picks - 26%
Dolphins
Dolphins
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Dolphins
Dolphins
Dolphins
Dolphins
Week Record8 - 6
0.571
7 - 7
0.500
7 - 7
0.500
5 - 9
0.357
Worst Place
Season Record91 - 56
0.619
83 - 64
0.565
89 - 58
0.605
91 - 56
0.619
Scotttime Record1257 - 757
0.624
1211 - 803
0.601
1250 - 764
0.621
1275 - 739
0.633
No-Pack-Vike Record2517 - 1476
0.630
2447 - 1546
0.613
2530 - 1463
0.634
2492 - 1501
0.624
Lifetime Record1934 - 1147
0.628
1822 - 1259
0.591
1920 - 1161
0.623
1934 - 1147
0.628
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Redskins
Bengals
Steelers
Titans
Giants
Packers
Colts
Bears
Seahawks
49ers
Cardinals
Broncos
Saints
Dolphins

Week:6 - 8
0.429
Season:92 - 55
0.626
Lifetime:1277 - 731
0.636
2887.gif
Redskins
Bengals
Bills
Titans
Giants
Eagles
Colts
Lions
Seahawks
49ers
Cardinals
Broncos
Saints
Dolphins

Week:7 - 7
0.500
Season:102 - 45
0.694
Lifetime:1257 - 755
0.625
goodlooking.jpg
Vikings
Bengals
Steelers
Titans
Giants
Eagles
Colts
Lions
Falcons
49ers
Texans
Broncos
Saints
Dolphins

Week:7 - 7
0.500
Season:72 - 44
0.621
Lifetime:1040 - 698
0.598
image.jpeg
WAS @ MIN - No Pick
Bengals
Steelers
Titans
Giants
Packers
Colts
Lions
Seahawks
49ers
Cardinals
Broncos
Saints
Dolphins

Week:7 - 6
0.538
Season:82 - 62
0.569
Lifetime:524 - 335
0.610
pyzamOmgWtf.jpg
WAS @ MIN - No Pick
Ravens
Steelers
Titans
Giants
Packers
Colts
Bears
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Broncos
Saints
Dolphins

Week:6 - 7
0.462
Season:42 - 30
0.583
Lifetime:655 - 381
0.632
skull full.jpg
Redskins
Bengals
Bills
Titans
Raiders
Packers
Rams
Bears
Seahawks
49ers
Cardinals
Broncos
Saints
Dolphins

Week:5 - 9
0.357
Season:39 - 32
0.549
Lifetime:340 - 220
0.607
FB_IMG_1499398490950.jpg
Redskins
Bengals
Steelers
Titans
Giants
Eagles
Colts
Lions
Seahawks
49ers
Cardinals
Broncos
Saints
Dolphins

Week:8 - 6
0.571
Season:88 - 57
0.607
Lifetime:711 - 440
0.618
question_mark.gif
WAS @ MIN - No Pick
Bengals
Bills
Titans
Raiders
Packers
Colts
Lions
Seahawks
49ers
Cardinals
Broncos
Saints
Dolphins

Week:5 - 8
0.385
Season:63 - 34
0.649
Lifetime:595 - 353
0.628
question_mark.gif
Redskins
Bengals
Bills
Titans
Giants
Eagles
Colts
Lions
Seahawks
Panthers
Cardinals
Broncos
Saints
Buccaneers

Week:9 - 5
0.643
Season:94 - 50
0.653
Lifetime:727 - 366
0.665
Me at sams.jpg
Redskins
Bengals
Steelers
Titans
Giants
Packers
Colts
Bears
Falcons
Panthers
Texans
Broncos
Saints
Dolphins

Week:5 - 9
0.357
Season:86 - 61
0.585
Lifetime:526 - 325
0.618
hambone.jpg
Redskins
Bengals
Steelers
Titans
Giants
Packers
Colts
Lions
Seahawks
49ers
Cardinals
Broncos
Saints
Buccaneers

Week:8 - 6
0.571
Season:93 - 54
0.633
Lifetime:608 - 339
0.642
077.JPG
Redskins
Bengals
Bills
Titans
Giants
Eagles
Colts
Lions
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Broncos
Saints
Buccaneers

Week:7 - 7
0.500
Season:93 - 54
0.633
Lifetime:528 - 315
0.626
IMG003.jpg
Redskins
Bengals
Steelers
Titans
Giants
Eagles
Colts
Bears
Seahawks
Panthers
Texans
Broncos
Cowboys
Dolphins

Week:6 - 8
0.429
Season:83 - 64
0.565
Lifetime:516 - 285
0.644
ColorTouch.jpg
WAS @ MIN - No Pick
Bengals
Steelers
Titans
Giants
Packers
Colts
Bears
Seahawks
49ers
Texans
Broncos
Saints
Dolphins

Week:5 - 8
0.385
Season:81 - 59
0.579
Lifetime:387 - 239
0.618
2015-08-23 17.06.53.jpg
Redskins
Bengals
Bills
Titans
Giants
Eagles
Colts
Lions
Falcons
49ers
Texans
Broncos
Saints
Buccaneers

Week:6 - 8
0.429
Season:34 - 29
0.540
Lifetime:34 - 29
0.540
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Redskins 27 @ Vikings 34

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Mike Shanahan destroyed the RGIII that was so fun to watch.
jon.jpg
Jon
Historians will point to Thursday Night Football as the probable cause of the downfall of our civilization.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
$qbs = array("Ponder","Freeman","Cassel");
echo $qbs[array_rand($qbs)];

Eagles 27 @ Packers 13

sarah.jpg
Sarah
This is me being optimistic, picking the Packers to win against a team that just had their QB throw for 7 TDs. Meanwhile, our QB is a bit rusty and not Aaron Rodgers.
jon.jpg
Jon
This should be interesting, I guess.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Strange how dire things look when you suddenly find yourself dealing with the same problem most other teams have every-other-year or so. It's funny, because I was going to comment on the Bears game how it feels like the Packers have played the other team's best/uninjured QB in like 5 of their last 10 games, While meanwhile on a run where they've had 3 QB's start a game for them in like 20 years, and they've got Foles on the horizon for this week. Then Foles throws 7tds and Rodgers gets injured.

Cowboys 17 @ Saints 49

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Drew Brees owes me big time for his abysmal performance last week. Apparently the Saints are terrible when playing outdoors in the wind. Good to know. This week however, finds them in the super dome.
jon.jpg
Jon
Anyone notice that a Tony Romo comeback got about 1/10000 as much attention as any one of his "failures" has?
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
I dunno....derpa derpa Romo derpa Brees a derp derpa der.

Dolphins 19 @ Buccaneers 22

sarah.jpg
Sarah
When is bullying ever ok? And why are more Dolphins supporting Incognito? Bad mentality in the locker rooms of the NFL if even the couple of things that have leaked out are true.
jon.jpg
Jon
Woof.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
The Internal Clusterf*%k Bowl
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
11/05/2013 @ 07:41:59 AM
 Quote this comment
My Aaron….. ;(
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - So's your face
11/05/2013 @ 05:20:05 PM
 Quote this comment
It's not looking good. I hope Clay makes the defense do a 180 from Monday's night game because they looked terrible. Maybe stop the other team on 3rd down every once in awhile?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/06/2013 @ 08:05:58 AM
 Quote this comment
Frankly, I think they missed Clay worse on Monday than Rodgers. Don't get me wrong, having both is better, but if Matthews can return, they win games like that one. Hopefully Brad Jones and Nick Perry can return too. They were a little thin at linebacker on Monday, which was probably a huge part of the problem.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/06/2013 @ 08:14:40 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy has clearly let the delusions control his memory. The Bears game was the first time this season the Packers played against a team not playing their regular starting QB, and like I said (with mostly seriousness), the fact that Cutler was injured against a the Packers was a HUGE break for the Bears. Perhaps it's fair to say that RGIII wasn't 100%, but he's been less then 100% all year, so perhaps that's the new normal for him. But just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. The Packers will still finish with 11 wins inspite of their QB situation, mark my words.*


*and before you go question my delusions, my statement can't really be disputed. The uninjured/nonbest qb is just factually incorrect. The Vikings have played against as many backup QBs as the Packers have this year.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 11/06/2013 8:17:49 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/06/2013 @ 06:09:56 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm having trouble finding where I said "regular" or "starting" anywhere in there.

You're right though, I guess one of the 5 games (Ponder) I'd need to be referring to to fulfill my pulled out of thin air numbers is a bit of a stretch.

2012 Minn - Backup
Washington - RG3's second game back - Even if he's not 100% all year, safe to say getting him while he was still figuring out if he could run 10 steps without his leg separating into two peices was helpful.
vs Cleveland - Avoided Hoyer
@ Minnesota - Ponder thrown back into things following a concussion, mid shortened week, in middle of QB carousel clusterfuck
vs Chicago - Backup

And now:
vs Philadelphia - Backup

So, 5 out of last 10, debatable 6 out of last 11 now, have been catching the team at a good time at their most important position. 4/10, now maybe 5/11*, fall squarely into what I said, which again, was an off the cuff mostly-joke, without even looking.

The Vikings have faced 1 backup in their last 10, zero rehabbing, and the backup was a significant improvement over the starter, before getting hurt himself. And not that this is really the point, to the extent the point was every really "compared to the Vikings", but they've also lost the person who started the last game for them 3 times, including Ponder twice, in their last 10 games.

*Since it's possible Foles is the better option after all.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 11 times, last at 11/07/2013 9:45:09 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
11/06/2013 @ 06:27:34 PM
 Quote this comment
And, to address the other point, while I don't think it's looney toons to make a case that the Bears are better off without Cutler, especially against the Packers, who at least it seems he always saves two of his bigger stink bombs for every year, but I don't think that's the case.

I think McCown's performance, if he keeps it up, might cast doubt on if you want to invest $10 gillion in Cutler, but that's a very different question than "all things equal, McCown is better"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 11/06/2013 6:31:37 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/07/2013 @ 10:14:37 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:09:56 PM
vs Cleveland - Avoided Hoyer


emoticon I have no words for this one. He started 2 games, 1 against the Vikings. Anyone could look like Peyton Manning against the Vikings.

Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:09:56 PM
@ Minnesota - Ponder thrown back into things following a concussion, mid shortened week, in middle of QB carousel clusterfuck


You said "uninjured/non-best". Who on the Vikings roster is better than Christian Ponder (it's a trick question, they're all the worst, right?). And I'm pretty sure Ponder was fairly healthy. And since Ponder only technically lost his "he's the starter" status because of injury, once healthy he is now the number 1 on the depth chart, right?

McCown is the "best" QB the Bears have against the Packers. Are they better off without Cutler longterm? That's not what I said. McCown was a "significant improvement over the starter" that the Bears have put up against the Packers in quite some time.

So against the Eagles, if Foles threw 7 TD passes last week, and has a 127.4 passer rating in 5 games, doesn't that then make Foles their "best" quarterback? (he was 13 TD passes and 0 interceptions!) I mean, if Hoyer fits your criteria, then certainly Foles should count.

So I count only 1 QB that the Packers faced (RG3) that meets your criteria, and even that one is a stretch. Although I suppose starting with a conclusion makes it easy to make the supporting facts say whatever the heck you want them to. I stick to my original statement.

Note: Jeremy added the note about Foles possibly being the better option after I started typing this comment, so I never saw it until after I submitted this.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 11/07/2013 10:20:06 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/07/2013 @ 01:11:21 PM
 Quote this comment
First off Hoyer is better by virtue of being anyone but Weeden. Secondly, he was the talk of the league for 2 weeks. I never said he was Joe Montaña, but he was undeniably the better QB.

Thirdly, as I said, the Ponder one doesn't fit the exact wording I used when I pulled 2 numbers out of thin air, but surely you'd have to admit that was a pretty good week to draw the Vikings, even by their QB standards. Even if Ponder was their best chance, surely getting to play Ponder having not played in a few weeks because of his own injury getting thrust back into the starting job on a few days notice was a good time to draw them overall, yes?

I disagree about McCown, though I think we're the closest to splitting hairs there.

Fourthly, I both addressed that Foles might not fit the mold in the comment, which you seem to have seen later, but the whole point of making the comment in the first place was that maybe things indeed "broke the other way". Although Foles also has one abomination of a game in his run.

Fifth...ly, the comment is half about the Packer's own undeniably lucky streak of their own QB's lack of injuries. The fact that "so many other teams play backups all the time" is half the point.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 11/07/2013 1:25:44 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/07/2013 @ 01:23:26 PM
 Quote this comment
Sixthly, it was mainly just a comment to get your goat. emoticon Frankly I'm a little surprised it turned out to be mostly accurate to how it felt, carefully chosen wording or not.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
11/07/2013 @ 01:29:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Because we need to take this rare opportunity to poke fun at your qb for once

Edit: apparently Nutcan is not vine compatible.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 11/07/2013 1:30:59 pm
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
11/07/2013 @ 03:02:41 PM
 Quote this comment
That link didn't work.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 08:45:57 AM
 Quote this comment
This article made some headlines after Rodgers got hurt. It's written by, in my opinion, the best writer covering the Packers locally (and a nationally respected sports writer to boot). The article was written on Saturday, 2 days before the Monday night game. Among the interesting quotes from the article, this is probably the most erie (almost prophetic):
Having spent much of the week researching the long career of No. 2 quarterback Seneca Wallace and the brief career of practice-squad quarterback Scott Tolzien, the guess here is that even if the Packers were to lose Rodgers early Monday night against the Chicago Bears they'd find ways to finish 11-5.

In recent history, this writer wrote that the Tim Masthay's kickoffs were going to produce a long run back (the following week the Vikings returned a kickoff for 109 yards). He also recently made mention that since Mason Crosby is no longer doing kickoffs, that the surprise onside is likely no longer part of the Packers arsenal, since Crosby has had a lot of success in the past and Masthay had never attempted one. Then a couple weeks later, after the long kickoff return, Crosby is reinserted for kickoffs, and the next week the Packers attempt and recover a surprise onside. Going further back, this guy predicted half-way through the 2010 season that the Packers were a Super Bowl team. My point isn't necessarily to hype the prognostication abilities of Bob McGinn, but to point out that if this guy thinks the Packers can finish 11-5, he has the track record for me and all Packer fans to trust his judgement.

There's a larger point to all this, too. If you can find a good local writer or beat-guy (or gal), in my opinion they provide a much better view to your team than any national pundit. The national pundits never pay attention to how effective a kicker's hangtime will have on the return game. The National TV broadcaster rarely point out how well the right guard pulled off the line and set up a block for a running back. The local guys, at least those covering Green Bay, pay attention to the details, and make fans a lot smarter than the ESPN or Fox Sports guys do. So, in summary, support your local sports writer and impress your friends.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
11/08/2013 @ 10:58:26 AM
 Quote this comment
Some of that is a "cold reading" kind of effect though as well. (At least as far as predictions go.) a) Often times, if you actually think about it, the prediction isn't all that big. (Really returnable kickoffs might be an issue when playing the guy at the top of the return leaderboard, and guys who can't onside kick probably wont be asked to.) b) It's human nature in these situations to remember the hits and forget the misses. You throw enough stuff out there, you're bound to be right sometimes, and people will over remember all the times you were right and tend to gloss over the rest.

For example, last night I "called" the fake punt attempt by the Redskins, and got some mild kudos for it from the people beside me. The thing is though, I "call" the fake punt on like 80% of punts, so I'm bound to be right eventually.

I did however almost perfectly dictate the Browns' game plan hours before the game, but even that probably boils down to "We all always do that, we just remember when we're right."

The national media is really annoying in regards to the Twins. (The Vikings don't actually exist unless Adrian does something worth showing.) They all talk about small ball and playing the game the right way, and how we like to steal, sacrifice, and so on. It's as if their "what to say about the Twins" lexicon was written 5 years ago and can never be altered. (If it ever was even particularly true.) It's most aggravating when it comes to our "love" for stealing bases, because while the worst you could say about the other things is "we don't do it a whole lot more than other teams try it," but when it comes to stealing, we don't period. There are only 3 teams in the league that had fewer SB than the Twins. The Royals had 101 more than the Twins.

So, I agree with you, though the MN local media is filled with a lot of "who can out negative the others", even in the good times. It's still way better though, because at least they're covering reality.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 4 times, last at 11/08/2013 11:58:22 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
11/08/2013 @ 11:11:04 AM
 Quote this comment
As for the article, given that the Packers neglected the backup qb position for ages, and then this year jettisoned everyone on their preseason roster and picked up Wallace, it's hard to take anything he says seriously after "Yet, no organization would be better equipped to handle [an injury at QB] than Green Bay." Obviously the situation is changed now that Wallace has had some time in the system, but it would be hard to treat the backup QB position with a more cavalier attitude than the Packers traditionally have.

Even if his point is that "they deal with injuries well" and not so much that "The Packers were best prepared for this specifically" that's still pretty soaked in unabashed homerism.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 11/08/2013 12:02:07 pm
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
11/08/2013 @ 12:04:19 PM
 Quote this comment
The reason that I like McGinn is that he isn't a predictulator. He's more of a historian and an assessor. He rarely makes "predictions" the way that you see most writers or TV pundits do. He doesn't even give weekly score predictions. And even his "predictions" that i mentioned weren't really even predictions per sae. He was simply passing out observations that sort of aligned themselves to a foreshadow. In fact, I think his kickoff return prognosis was part of one of his "Rating the Packers" after either the Ravens or the Browns where he breaks down each position. He noted the average hangtime of his kickoffs and the nature of the ball's tragectory and made the comment to the effect of "unless he kicks every ball out of the endzone, one of these days one of those kickoffs is going to come back 109 yards". And then when it happened, the Packers changed kickoff duties (and Patterson was held at bay pretty much the rest of the day). So in other words, it wasn't just "I'll bet the Packers give up a big kickoff return" (which would be akin to "calling" a fake punt 80% of the time and being right and impressing your friends the 1 time you're right). It was more like "here's some data I've been collecting along with other trends, and it would seem that the Packers are just asking for a big kickoff return" (which is more akin to putting a shift on a big power hitter and being "right" when he lines out to the 2nd baseman who is standing in shallow right field). (and besides, how often do you get anyone doing analysis on the quality of the kickoff guy? that was my whole point in the first place. Talking about the success of the surprise onside or the quality of the kickoffs is something that no one spends time on, so if some takes the time to pay attention to that detail and then be pretty spot on with the analysis, it's pretty impressive--or low hanging fruit, but I don't think it's that simple.)

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:11:04 AM
As for the article, given that the Packers neglected the backup qb position for ages, and then this year jettisoned everyone on their preseason roster and picked up Wallace, it's hard to take anything he says seriously after "Yet, no organization would be better equipped to handle [a injury at QB] than Green Bay."


I would say that's why it's important to actually read what someone writes without going in with predetermined conclusions or assumptions. And I don't think it's just you. Packer fans have all seemed to have given up hope and that the season is a lost cause all of a sudden. First of all, the prognosis for the time being is perhaps 3-4 weeks for Rodgers. Their schedule over that time is against 3 teams with losing records that have combined for 8 wins this seasons. Beyond that, they only play 3 games the rest of the season against teams with winning records, and one of those teams is the Dallas Cowboys who only have a winning record by viture of playing in the NFC East. So their remaining schedule makes it very possible for the Packers to finish with 11 wins (which is what his assessment was anyway).

The other point is that the pieces around the QB position this year are probably the best the Packers have had in a while. 2011 was a fun year, but they were one-dimensional. They had no running game and no defense. This year, they not only have one of the top passing games in the league, they are 3rd in rushing yards, better than their 6th ranked passing offense! And even while the Bears have a pretty bad rush defense, the Packers gained the vast majority of their 199 rushing yards after Rodgers got hurt and the Bears switched from 5 to 6 in the box to 8 and 9 man boxes. On top of that, their defense actually exists. The Bears game was probably the worst example, in part because they were dealing with a ton of injuries to some very key positions, but other than that their run defense has been pretty staunch.

We all will have to wait and see what Wallace can do. The Bears game probably wasn't a good example of what we can expect. It's hard to call plays for a QB that you've never called plays for, but when you have to start doing it in the 1st quarter of a game where the gameplan is designed for your MVP quarterback, that adds a whole new challenge. McCarthy has had success designing gameplans for backup QBs in the past (by which I mean the 2 games Matt Flynn played were gameplans designed for him--different than a gameplan design for rodgers--and Flynn almost beat the Patriots on the road and set a Packers record for yards and touchdowns against the Lions). So that's still a big unknown to pretty much everyone (except maybe the Packers coaching staff--Wallace was drafted by Ted Thompson when he was GM at Seattle--drafted because they wanted Matt Hasselbecks backup to have a different type of skill-set)

Overall, I think for the first time in a long time, the Packers have the ability to score points without the benefit of a killer passing game, and also have ways to keep points off the board, which I think was the main point of his article:

this team can run the ball and stop the run, maybe the best friends a backup quarterback can have.

And on top of all this, other than Rodgers, the Packers are starting to get healthy again.

So here's my summary. The writer of this article, Bob McGinn is very selective with his "what's going to happen" type of "predictions" When he does, he has a pretty good track record of being on target. So when a guy like that says that the Packers can finish the season with 11 wins without Rodgers under center, Packer fans should calm down and carry on.


*and a side note: there is no homerism in an article about what happens if the most hallowed player on your roster gets hurt. Homers don't right that kind of article. Homers don't get hate mail from their own fanbase. (Also, homers don't write articles about Charles Woodson the weak link on defense 2 years removed from his defensive player of the year award when everyone else was still hailing him as the heart and soul of the defense) Had he written this after Rodgers got hurt, I might think that there was a good deal of homerism (or had it come from any other writer). The fact that he offered this up before hand makes me think that he had done his homework on this one.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 4 times, last at 11/08/2013 12:16:37 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 12:21:30 PM
 Quote this comment
There was no homerism in the article?

Here's my summary of the article before I couldn't take his "analysis" anymore:

Yet, no organization would be better equipped to handle it than Green Bay. The Packers are the best, and there the best because they're the best. They do everything the most bestest. They can't be wrong, because by definition anything they do is the best. Best Best Superbowl best. Running game best best, we're the bestest.

Ted Thompson and co are the best at finding guys, because finding guys is totally not a craps shoot that involves tons of luck. Best best besty best.


emoticon

I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong. In a way it's not even that "bold" a statement. As you said, if Rodgers is out 4 weeks the best they could have done with him is 4-0 and the worst they can do without him is 0-4. If you figure maybe the Lions or Eagles could have picked one up on them either way that's 3-1, and you have to figure Wallace is good for at least one win in there somewhere even if they're bad bad, so that's 1-3 vs 3-1. Obviously that's survivable. However, you really saw no homerism in that article?

Come on man.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 11/08/2013 12:22:12 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
11/08/2013 @ 12:22:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, is that link still not working for you? Seems ok for me.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
11/08/2013 @ 12:33:41 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:21:30 PM
However, you really saw no homerism in that article?


Had it come from the Green Bay Press Gazette or Packers.com I would have. It would be like if a Republican suddenly started talking about climate change being something we need to address, that would get my attention. McGinn isn't a homer (I don't read the GBPG or Packers.com because it seems like the writers are trying to pander too much.) He has at least one colleague who works for the same paper who aften is a bit of a homer. (Basically, I wouldn't quote McGinn so much if I thought he was one; although it might be fair to say that I have become a homer for Bob McGinn, but that's a different story). So when McGinn writes an article like this, I take it a little or a lot more seriously than if someone else was writing from it. The source does matter sometimes when it comes to the credibility of the message.

Thompson does have a propensity to pick guys up off the street. Maybe it's a "throw mud at a wall and something will stick" thing, but his mud seems to stick quite a bit. A number of independent, object draft analyses that span mutliple years seem to suggest that Thompson knows what he's doing (using measures like # of guys still on NFL rosters compared to other guys). so There.

And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the lack of boldness in the underlying statement. Sometimes stating the obvious is worth addressing, particularly when the "worst case scenario" described (Rodgers getting hurt) actually happens. If nothing else, Packer fans should read this and calm the #$%@ down.

And the link doesn't work, but it at work, so that might be why.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
11/08/2013 @ 12:35:22 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:22:32 PM
Also, is that link still not working for you? Seems ok for me.


works in the iphone. And I think it's pretty funny. Does that take the zing off the intended ribbing of the video?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 11/08/2013 12:37:39 pm
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
11/08/2013 @ 12:49:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Where exactly did you stop reading before you couldn't take any more of this supposed homerism? I'm into the "impressive track record" section and I haven't come across an unsupported or outlandish opinion yet (and the fact that most of it isn't even opinion anyway).

The last sentence of the opening section is this: We're seven games into the season and already two of the top three on that list, four of the top six and six of the top nine have missed games due to injury. (he's refering to his rankings of Packer plays in order of their importance to the team) And his point was basically that they were 5-2 with a really good running game and rush defense. I'm not going to lie, I haven't seen much for homerism yet.

I wouldn't blame you for not seeing it the way I do. I'd probably be more likely to read a Vikings writer and see something different than you.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
11/08/2013 @ 12:50:27 PM
 Quote this comment
But that's circular logic, to the extent it even adresses the point. He must know what he's doing because so many guys stick, and the fact that so many guys stick proves he know what he's doing. If the draft process were based on rolls of dice, some team would likely still have more guys that stick than others. (Which is kind of a faulty measuring tool anyway, because it assumes everyone who is cut was a "miss", when it might be they were replaced with someone better, or the team doesn't have room for them because they already had better guys. Are you a better GM if your team has lots of room to hang on to your 5-7th round picks year in year out? I'd think not. Not to say that is what is happening with the Packers, I have no idea, but it's a flawed metric, IMO.)

As for the article: Again, he might not be wrong, because there's only so "wrong" he can go, but biggest flaw in his reasoning is this: You can't project anything anymore. Not much that happened up until this point can be banked on. Your running game might only be effective on a week to week basis because most teams are playing Rodgers. Even the Bears took way too long to commit to the idea of "Play the run, and if Wallace and Boykin beat you, so be it." Maybe your defense is only league average because your offense keeps them off the field an extra drive or 2 a game. And so on and so forth.

You also can't use the fact that the Packers have overcome other injuries as any kind of a guide. For every Matthews they have 4 that we only know who the guy is because they were the last last guy up. It seems like it might be pretty flawed rational to go "look how many pass catchers we can cycle through without missing a beat, we can overcome Rodgers too." and overlook the fact that maybe it's because the Packers aren't particularly good at "plugging anyone in anywhere", but maybe Rodgers, and the system designed for him, just makes any jackass look pretty good.

So he might end up more-or-less not wrong, but not exactly "right" either.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 4 times, last at 11/08/2013 1:13:46 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 12:56:38 PM
 Quote this comment
Maybe your work blocks Vine.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
11/08/2013 @ 01:18:33 PM
 Quote this comment
I recall that the very first play with the Wallace under center, the Bears switched to an 8 man box. and it was like that most of the night. Failing to adjust and being bad at defending the run are two different things. I think they adjusted fairly quickly.

I don't agree that GMs are all just playing roulette (and I know we've had this debate before). There is a reason some teams are more successful than others. We can agree to disagree on the logic there, but Thompson built a Super Bowl team in Seattle, and then came to Green Bay with his advertised "5 year plan" and sent the Packers to the Super Bowl in his 5th year. Getting Rodgers was certainly a key part of that, but again, drafting Rodgers when Favre was still on the roster and playing well has to be a credit to some degree (and I acknowledge the fortune of Rodgers falling as far as he did, but Thompson still deserves credit for it, in my opinion). And regarding the way that GMs get measure, they have to be measured someway, and the ways that those that do that sort of thing usually have Thompson and the Packers front office as one of the better front offices in the league. Success on the field might breed an environment that makes the stability of the coaching staff and front office possible, but the success on the field also may depend on the stability of the front office and the coaching staff. It's unlikely that you have one without the other. Would you accept this statement better: There is a strong likelihood that Thompson knows what he's doing? (rather than "he MUST know what he's doing, or "he MUST be doing something right?") (And a lot of the assessments I've seen about GMs and guys still on a roster try to take into consderation your issue of "cutting a guy because someone was better". They count whether a guy drafted is still in the NFL X years later. Probably not a perfect rating system, but it's probably as good as any other way to measure the success of the guy that does the selecting of the guy in the first place)

You have a good point about the running game. Clearly a good passing game can produce a good running game. However, the Packers have had one of the best passing games in the league the last 3 years and it took them until this year to have a good running game. It seems that a big part of McGinn's assessment has to do with having a strong offensive and defensive line. So while predictions are never actually "right" (hindsight), given certain factors his assessment seems quite plausible.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:50:27 PM
It seems like it might be pretty flawed rational to go "look how many pass catchers we can cycle through without missing a beat, we can overcome Rodgers too." and overlook the fact that maybe it's because the Packers aren't particularly good at "plugging anyone in anywhere", but maybe Rodgers, and the system designed for him, just makes any jackass look pretty good.


This I actually agree with. One thing I was sort of curious about was seeing how Rodgers would do with a less than stellar class of wide receivers (with all the injuries they've had). One of the things I thought set Favre apart from most QBs (most, not all, so calm downemoticon) was his ability to squeeze diamonds out of the dirtiest of coal (if even just temporarily). Remember Don Beebe? He was the packers number 1 receiver for a brief period of time in 1996 because of injuries. He barely made it out of training camp. Javon Walker? Terry Mickens? Brett Favre made Antonio Freeman the highest paid receiver in the NFL for crying out loud! He could deal with any number of setbacks at WR and still make defenses look silly. And no Green Bay receiver ever left Green Bay to have success anywhere (ever; and apparently Greg Jennings is carrying that banner as well) Rodgers has never needed to do that, yet. He has had a really good group of receivers from the very beginning. We were about to find out if he had that ability as well. We might still find out, but it will have to wait until he returns. We might also find out whether or not the receivers and Thompson's ability to find diamond receivers in the rough.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 01:41:13 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:18:33 PM
Rodgers has never needed to do that, yet. He has had a really good group of receivers from the very beginning.


Has he? Isn't the point we just agreed on that we don't know that's true?

As for GM's my take is this: There are no secrets anymore. If there was anything, any indicator, any metric, any anything that someone might use to find the good players, everyone would find it and use it. Every so often someone might get a jump on someone with some big idea (See: Moneyball), but the cat will be out of the bag soon enough. There's zillions of things analyzing the data, and millions at stake. If nothing else everyone would have figured out the commonality in Ted Thompson's picks. When it comes to finding players the only thing not nullified by everyone else is luck.

We could debate how much credit they deserve for pulling the trigger on a guy that could have been the number one pick because they were the first team that even had a conceivable need at QB in the next 3-4 years to come along. They had more immediate needs I'm sure, but I don't know what they are and what the board looked like for those positions at the time. Many would also argue 3-4 years is the perfect time to sit and learn making it actually an ideal time to pick one.

However, whatever credit you give them for that, that one move makes a ton of others look pretty good. Are they winning because Ted is particularly good, or is Ted considered particularly good because they're wining? Lots of people wanted McCarthy fired, or at least considered him a middling buffoonish type coach, until they won a Superbowl, and now he's often considered among the top few coaches. There's no reason to think that same circular silliness isn't being applied to the GM.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 11/08/2013 1:45:38 pm
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
11/08/2013 @ 02:04:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:41:13 PM
Lots of people wanted McCarthy fired, or at least considered him a middling buffoonish type coach, until they won a Superbowl,


Correction: lots of idiots and know-nothings wanted McCarthy AND Ted Thompson fired--anyone that wanted either of them fired probably weren't the type of people you could have an intelligent conversation about the Packers with anyway (too harsh?). People were calling for Thompson to be fired during Rodgers' first year as a starter, and now those same people are calling for him to be fired because Rodgers got hurt. People were calling for McCarthy to be fired the very year he won the Super Bowl, for crying out loud (that might be your whole point, but my point is that I think now as I did then that those people were just plain wrong, and basing everything on the "what have you done for me lately" mentality, or just plain in the moment emotion) So yes, there is some degree of success on the field making front offices and coaching staffs look good. But, and I'm not sure where the disconnect is with this, you can't have success on the field without good front offices and coaching staffs. Is that circular logic? I don't think. The two are essentially dependent on the other.

So They are winning because Ted is a pretty good GM. And in turn they keep winning because he's pretty good. Even if it follows your exact wording, those statements can both be true. They aren't mutually exclusive. They can stand as independent statements on their own merit.

I guess we could end the debate here. We apparently have a very different views regarding the role of the GM.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 11/08/2013 2:05:35 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
11/08/2013 @ 02:06:06 PM
 Quote this comment
To clarify, I don't think all GM's are the same, the best GM is as good as any jackpine off the street, and so on. I do however think that in that one aspect (finding players) that it's pretty much just all luck. Some guys can be better at the draft, some guys can have different mentalities as to when, if ever, to take a chance on a boom/bust type deal, but when it comes normal picks I don't think there's any real "I'm taking this guy over this guy because I have good player detecting super powers".
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 02:16:55 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:04:44 PM
you can't have success on the field without good front offices and coaching staffs.


Sure you can. Even if you actually meant "can't have success on the field with bad front offices and coaching staffs" I'd probably disagree. It's hard to tell, because we define good and bad staffs BY the success, but I see no reason to think a good team couldn't overcome a bad coach, and/or be the happenstance result of a crummy GM. It's not like there's no type of consensus on who is a better player than someone else.

Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:04:44 PM
So They are winning because Ted is a pretty good GM. And in turn they keep winning because he's pretty good. Even if it follows your exact wording, those statements can both be true. They aren't mutually exclusive. They can stand as independent statements on their own merit.


Sure. However, "They're winning so Ted must be a pretty good GM" is not necessarily true.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 11/08/2013 2:20:41 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 02:25:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Put it this way, as maybe this would help determine if we are indeed just at an impasse as to how important we think the people not on the field are.

Would you rather have Aaron Rodgers and a terrible coach*, or Blaine Gabbert and the accumulated geniuses of every head coach to ever coach in one mind?

I'll take Rodgers. Hell, I'd probably take Rivers/Romo and the terrible coach*.

*Assuming of course we mean bad but theoretically capable/trying coach, and not "only has punts, kneel downs in the playbook" active sabotage type stuff.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 11/08/2013 2:31:35 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 02:38:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:41:13 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:18:33 PM
Rodgers has never needed to do that, yet. He has had a really good group of receivers from the very beginning.

Has he? Isn't the point we just agreed on that we don't know that's true?


I think the group of Receivers Rodgers inherited was a bit of an exception. Even Favre, at the end of his career called the group of Recievers (at the time it consisted of James Jones, Greg Jennings, and Donald Driver), called that group of receivers the most talented group he's ever played with.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:06:06 PM
To clarify, I don't think all GM's are the same, the best GM is as good as any jackpine off the street, and so on. I do however think that in that one aspect (finding players) that it's pretty much just all luck. Some guys can be better at the draft, some guys can have different mentalities as to when, if ever, to take a chance on a boom/bust type deal, but when it comes normal picks I don't think there's any real "I'm taking this guy over this guy because I have good player detecting super powers".


But this is exactly where we seem to disagree. Some guys end up having a track record of ending up with better players out of the draft than others. For the sake of argument, I'll concede that perhaps the cause of that is unknown. But that doesn't change the fact that some guys regularly end up with better teams and players from the draft or undrafted free agents or where ever than other guys. So to that end, I guess I don't care who gets the credit. The team currenly run by Ted Thompson has a strong history in recent years of ending up with players playing at high levels that came from nowhere (on both offense and defense). You can attribute that to luck. I'll attribute it to something different. I've read enough independent draft analyses to know that there is something to the idea that some GMs (whether the Packers GM or others) are consistently better at drafting and talent recognition than others.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:41:13 PM
We could debate how much credit they deserve for pulling the trigger on a guy that could have been the number one pick because they were the first team that even had a conceivable need at QB in the next 3-4 years to come along. They had more immediate needs I'm sure, but I don't know what they are and what the board looked like for those positions at the time. Many would also argue 3-4 years is the perfect time to sit and learn making it actually an ideal time to pick one.


Do you try to slip in a goat-provoking comment in every thread possible?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
11/08/2013 @ 02:49:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:25:40 PM
Put it this way, as maybe this would help determine if we are indeed just at an impasse as to how important we think the people not on the field are.

Would you rather have Aaron Rodgers and a terrible coach*, or Blaine Gabbert and the accumulated geniuses of every head coach to ever coach in one mind?

I'll take Rodgers. Hell, I'd probably take Rivers/Romo and the terrible coach*.

*Assuming of course we mean bad but theoretically capable/trying coach, and not "only has punts, kneel downs in the playbook" active sabotage type stuff.


You'll take Rodgers now? Or Rodgers pre-draft? And are choosing between Gabbert now or as a rookie? Maybe Rodgers is really that good. Or maybe he has a good set of coaches that create great schemes and systems for him to succeed. Or maybe it's both. My guess is that there is a lot more wrong with Jacksonville than Gabbert. In fact, Gabbert possibly is a result of the crappy management that is left the Jaguars the laughing stock of the entire state of Florida.

Besides, Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. So a bad QB (he proclaims himself as a bad QB) can win a Super Bowl given the right pieces around him. I'd probably take Rodgers over Gabbert (I'm not sure if I'm supposed to know what I currently know). So a good QB can make a bad team good. But a good GM and a good coach can make a team good in spite of the QB (the Broncos won a playoff game with Tim Tebow as their QB in what might be the most ingenius run of coaching in a long time).

Furthermore, Brett Favre would have been a lot more gunslingery without Mike Holmgren reeling him in hard core. In fact, Favre's worst years were under Mike Sherman who made basically no effort to correct his wild quarterback. So I think coaching can play an enormous role in this.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 02:50:39 PM
 Quote this comment
I thought that was a pretty benign comment actually.

Toss up number one pick, check.
Rare year where pretty much everyone else at least thought they were set at qb, check.
Packers had need for qb on the horizon, and were the first team that could justify the slot with the need (once he started falling), check.

It's often cited that the Packers didn't need Rodgers that year, and thus it took some bit of special foresight to pass on an immediate need, but it's rarely if ever addressed what those needs were, how important they were, and most importantly, if those needs could have been reasonably filled at that slot.

If they were in desperate need of a WR and a guy that should have been drafted 6 slots ago was still available at WR, then that speaks to a bit more of "a call" on the part of the Packers. If, however, their needs didn't align with what was there without reaching for a mid-next-round player, then that makes going BPA even more obvious.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 11/08/2013 2:51:55 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 02:55:22 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:16:55 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:04:44 PM
you can't have success on the field without good front offices and coaching staffs.


Sure you can. Even if you actually meant "can't have success on the field with bad front offices and coaching staffs" I'd probably disagree. It's hard to tell, because we define good and bad staffs BY the success, but I see no reason to think a good team couldn't overcome a bad coach, and/or be the happenstance result of a crummy GM. It's not like there's no type of consensus on who is a better player than someone else.


I'm assuming long term success. The likelihood of longterm success on the field without good (non-bad) FOs and coaches is pretty low. And if you don't judge good/bad by the results, what do we judge it by? A baseball player is good or bad based on his history of getting on base. I is judged as "good" by success or "bad" by failure. Why is this different with GMs/Coaches?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 11/08/2013 2:57:47 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
11/08/2013 @ 03:08:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Because it's not that easy with GMs. Everyone agrees for the most part (plus or minus a few spots for each guy) how the players rank. GM's aren't drafting 7th round talent in the first round and winning the lottery, they drafting guys that were expected to go around their slots at their slots, same as everyone else. Of course drafting 7th rounders in the first would be a horrible draft, but that's neither here nor there in this context. Either way, you're GOING to hit, you're bound to, and if you hit big in a couple right places, it will make other pieces look like hits.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
11/08/2013 @ 03:10:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:49:51 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:25:40 PM
Put it this way, as maybe this would help determine if we are indeed just at an impasse as to how important we think the people not on the field are.

Would you rather have Aaron Rodgers and a terrible coach*, or Blaine Gabbert and the accumulated geniuses of every head coach to ever coach in one mind?

I'll take Rodgers. Hell, I'd probably take Rivers/Romo and the terrible coach*.

*Assuming of course we mean bad but theoretically capable/trying coach, and not "only has punts, kneel downs in the playbook" active sabotage type stuff.


You'll take Rodgers now? Or Rodgers pre-draft? And are choosing between Gabbert now or as a rookie? Maybe Rodgers is really that good. Or maybe he has a good set of coaches that create great schemes and systems for him to succeed. Or maybe it's both. My guess is that there is a lot more wrong with Jacksonville than Gabbert. In fact, Gabbert possibly is a result of the crappy management that is left the Jaguars the laughing stock of the entire state of Florida.

Besides, Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. So a bad QB (he proclaims himself as a bad QB) can win a Super Bowl given the right pieces around him. I'd probably take Rodgers over Gabbert (I'm not sure if I'm supposed to know what I currently know). So a good QB can make a bad team good. But a good GM and a good coach can make a team good in spite of the QB (the Broncos won a playoff game with Tim Tebow as their QB in what might be the most ingenius run of coaching in a long time).

Furthermore, Brett Favre would have been a lot more gunslingery without Mike Holmgren reeling him in hard core. In fact, Favre's worst years were under Mike Sherman who made basically no effort to correct his wild quarterback. So I think coaching can play an enormous role in this.


I meant knowing what we know, but fine, throw names out.

Would you rather have best-QB/worst-coach or best-coach/worst-QB?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 11/08/2013 3:11:45 pm
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
11/08/2013 @ 03:13:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:10:34 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:49:51 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:25:40 PM
Put it this way, as maybe this would help determine if we are indeed just at an impasse as to how important we think the people not on the field are.

Would you rather have Aaron Rodgers and a terrible coach*, or Blaine Gabbert and the accumulated geniuses of every head coach to ever coach in one mind?

I'll take Rodgers. Hell, I'd probably take Rivers/Romo and the terrible coach*.

*Assuming of course we mean bad but theoretically capable/trying coach, and not "only has punts, kneel downs in the playbook" active sabotage type stuff.


You'll take Rodgers now? Or Rodgers pre-draft? And are choosing between Gabbert now or as a rookie? Maybe Rodgers is really that good. Or maybe he has a good set of coaches that create great schemes and systems for him to succeed. Or maybe it's both. My guess is that there is a lot more wrong with Jacksonville than Gabbert. In fact, Gabbert possibly is a result of the crappy management that is left the Jaguars the laughing stock of the entire state of Florida.

Besides, Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. So a bad QB (he proclaims himself as a bad QB) can win a Super Bowl given the right pieces around him. I'd probably take Rodgers over Gabbert (I'm not sure if I'm supposed to know what I currently know). So a good QB can make a bad team good. But a good GM and a good coach can make a team good in spite of the QB (the Broncos won a playoff game with Tim Tebow as their QB in what might be the most ingenius run of coaching in a long time).

Furthermore, Brett Favre would have been a lot more gunslingery without Mike Holmgren reeling him in hard core. In fact, Favre's worst years were under Mike Sherman who made basically no effort to correct his wild quarterback. So I think coaching can play an enormous role in this.


I meant knowing what we know, but fine, throw names out.

Would you rather have best-QB/worst-coach or best-coach/worst-QB?


I'll pull a Dwight Schrutte: False, a top tier coach/GM doesn't draft a bottom tier QB.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
11/08/2013 @ 03:18:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:13:31 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:10:34 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:49:51 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:25:40 PM
Put it this way, as maybe this would help determine if we are indeed just at an impasse as to how important we think the people not on the field are.

Would you rather have Aaron Rodgers and a terrible coach*, or Blaine Gabbert and the accumulated geniuses of every head coach to ever coach in one mind?

I'll take Rodgers. Hell, I'd probably take Rivers/Romo and the terrible coach*.

*Assuming of course we mean bad but theoretically capable/trying coach, and not "only has punts, kneel downs in the playbook" active sabotage type stuff.


You'll take Rodgers now? Or Rodgers pre-draft? And are choosing between Gabbert now or as a rookie? Maybe Rodgers is really that good. Or maybe he has a good set of coaches that create great schemes and systems for him to succeed. Or maybe it's both. My guess is that there is a lot more wrong with Jacksonville than Gabbert. In fact, Gabbert possibly is a result of the crappy management that is left the Jaguars the laughing stock of the entire state of Florida.

Besides, Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. So a bad QB (he proclaims himself as a bad QB) can win a Super Bowl given the right pieces around him. I'd probably take Rodgers over Gabbert (I'm not sure if I'm supposed to know what I currently know). So a good QB can make a bad team good. But a good GM and a good coach can make a team good in spite of the QB (the Broncos won a playoff game with Tim Tebow as their QB in what might be the most ingenius run of coaching in a long time).

Furthermore, Brett Favre would have been a lot more gunslingery without Mike Holmgren reeling him in hard core. In fact, Favre's worst years were under Mike Sherman who made basically no effort to correct his wild quarterback. So I think coaching can play an enormous role in this.


I meant knowing what we know, but fine, throw names out.

Would you rather have best-QB/worst-coach or best-coach/worst-QB?


I'll pull a Dwight Schrutte: False, a top tier coach/GM doesn't draft a bottom tier QB.


Because they have a crystal ball? Do you think the myriad of teams that spend a decade looking for a QB all just really really suck at it?

Anyway, I'll take the twice dodged question as a concession that you agree "you can't have success on the field without good front offices and coaching staffs" and even the more strongly worded "you can't have success on the field with bad front offices and coaching staffs" aren't necessarily true.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
11/08/2013 @ 03:30:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:18:36 PM
Anyway, I'll take the twice dodged question as a concession that you agree "you can't have success on the field without good front offices and coaching staffs" and even the more strongly worded "you can't have success on the field with bad front offices and coaching staffs" aren't necessarily true.


When did I dodge the question? What question didn't I answer? I believe those are true in general. A few anecdotal exceptions, if they exist, don't disprove anything.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 11/08/2013 3:31:42 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 03:37:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:30:07 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:18:36 PM
Anyway, I'll take the twice dodged question as a concession that you agree "you can't have success on the field without good front offices and coaching staffs" and even the more strongly worded "you can't have success on the field with bad front offices and coaching staffs" aren't necessarily true.


When did I dodge the question? What question didn't I answer? I believe those are true in general. A few anecdotal exceptions, if they exist, don't disprove anything.


Would you rather have best-QB/worst-coach or best-coach/worst-QB?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
11/08/2013 @ 03:37:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Oh, I must of erased what I had written. It's a loaded question. Why one without the other? And I do believe my response is valid. Does a good GM take Blain Gabbert? Even if he does, is taking Blaine Gabbert indicative of a bad GM. Like I said. Blaine Gabbert is probably just a symptom of a badly run team.

Besides, if I say I'll take Gabbert, you wouldn't believe me, and if I say "Rodgers" you'll say "a-HA!" Also, I thought it was rhetorical, and the rewording was just clarifying of the rhetoricalness.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 11/08/2013 3:39:12 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
11/08/2013 @ 03:42:38 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:37:07 PM
Why one without the other?


Because that's the question.

Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:37:07 PM
and if I say "Rodgers" you'll say "a-HA!"


Well that what happens if two incongruous posts are made.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
11/08/2013 @ 03:50:36 PM
 Quote this comment
What kind of defense does this team I'm taking have? What other players on offense does it have? Dome or Grass home field? Is the roster mostly verteran players or younger guys? Or am I starting out with 32 empty rosters and every player in the league up for grabs in some sort of draft and I ahve the options of Gabbert and a good coaching staff/front office or Rodgers with a bad staff?

edit: If I take Gabbert, can I still draft Johnny Manziel or Teddy Bridgewater in next year's draft?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 11/08/2013 3:54:40 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
11/08/2013 @ 03:56:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Could Rodgers win with a bad staff?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2013 @ 04:52:01 PM
 Quote this comment
That's a very good question. In the regular season, probably. A Super Bowl? I would have my doubts, but we'll probably never know.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 1 bajillion posts
11/09/2013 @ 09:39:09 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah:
"Mike Shanahan destroyed the RGIII that was so fun to watch."

I feel like this needs explanation. I thought it was the injury that did that. Are you blaming Shanahan for the ACL injury?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
11/09/2013 @ 09:44:42 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:56:32 PM
Could Rodgers win with a bad staff?


Aaron's staff is known for changing. Wait, that was someone else.

(Should've drawn a staff.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
11/09/2013 @ 11:14:09 PM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - Today @ 09:39:09 PM
Sarah:
"Mike Shanahan destroyed the RGIII that was so fun to watch."

I feel like this needs explanation. I thought it was the injury that did that. Are you blaming Shanahan for the ACL injury?

Yes. Everyone watching that game saw the injuries coming and Shanahan didn't pull him. Was in that fateful game way too long. A shame. #dramatic
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/09/2013 @ 11:18:51 PM
 Quote this comment
I have heard that from other Redskins fans too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
11/09/2013 @ 11:31:20 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:18:51 PM
I have heard that from other Redskins fans too.

2 things wrong with this post. You didn't say Washington and since when have I been a DC fan? Look at my avatar, you'll notice it no longer says Jets and it has never said Washington.emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/10/2013 @ 06:31:11 AM
 Quote this comment
I never implied that. I've heard it from others, DC fans, too. There. That should be better.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - So's your face
11/10/2013 @ 10:46:19 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:31:11 AM
I never implied that. I've heard it from others, DC fans, too. There. That should be better.

It is quite acceptable now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
11/10/2013 @ 03:18:58 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, at least I didn't have to watch Wallace for 3 hours.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
11/10/2013 @ 03:50:45 PM
 Quote this comment
According to Sarah, who got it from somewhere, Tolzien is already named the starter for next week.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - How do you use these things?
11/10/2013 @ 04:02:57 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:50:45 PM
According to Sarah, who got it from somewhere, Tolzien is already named the starter for next week.

It's called the internet, look it up some time.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
11/10/2013 @ 04:05:38 PM
 Quote this comment
Came directly from McCarthy's mouth.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
11/10/2013 @ 04:09:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 04:02:57 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:50:45 PM
According to Sarah, who got it from somewhere, Tolzien is already named the starter for next week.

It's called the internet, look it up some time.


Well I didn't think you got the info from Hooch.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
11/11/2013 @ 08:41:32 AM
 Quote this comment
Let the Seneca Wallace era begin. Let the Scott Tolzien era begin. Let the Matt Flynn era resume?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 11/11/2013 9:51:53 am
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
11/11/2013 @ 12:52:40 PM
 Quote this comment
I might be able to take this a few degrees further*, but if Tolzien does indeed start next week, and if my short amount of research has lead me correct, this will be the first time EVER that two former UW Badger quarterbacks have started in the NFL in the same week (with Russell Wilson being the other). Let the time stamp show that I'm the first one to state this if that theme gets some play this week. I will do a bit more research before I make this official, like putting it on facebook or twitter.

*I would guess that it is one of only a few times, if not the only time, that two Badger QBs have even played at all in the same week.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 11/11/2013 12:55:43 pm
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 12:53:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Tolzien is QB until he gets hurt or Rodgers comes back.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 12:55:21 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 12:53:51 PM
Tolzien is QB until he gets hurt or Rodgers comes back.


don't say that too loud. He has to get through a week of practice unscathed.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 12:59:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:55:21 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 12:53:51 PM
Tolzien is QB until he gets hurt or Rodgers comes back.


don't say that too loud. He has to get through a week of practice unscathed.


It was typed pretty quietly on my end, do you have your Nutcan hooked up to a Speak & Spell or something?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 01:09:23 PM
 Quote this comment
It's crazy the amount of the time that a backup finally "gets his shot" again, only to be instantly hurt himself.

Let me take this chance to chew out a spoiled subsection of Packer Fans: Everyone who thinks Tolzien "sucked" on Sunday, and that the Packers have to go get Flynn, or anyone else. You have been far too spoiled at the QB position for far too long. Yes, he threw an INT in the endzone, but you know who else does that? Almost every other QB not named Rodgers about every 3 weeks. His other INT was batted up (which is still his fault to some extent, and he had way more than his share batted up mercifully find grass).

Still, the bottom line is I don't know how much more admirably you could ever have hoped for a guy that was on a practice squad 15 minutes before he was thrown out onto the field could have performed. Maybe you guys win if Rodgers was out there, but that doesn't mean Tolzien lost it either.

Edit: I mean, don't get me wrong, if Flynn is an upgrade he's an upgrade, and you guys can't go into the next few games with Kuhn as the backup QB. I just think the "OMFG we HAVE to replace this suckwad ASAP" attitude is wholly misplaced and makes me think I watched a different QB out there than many Packer fans. Then again, maybe I've had my QB bar far too lowered.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 11/11/2013 1:14:05 pm
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
11/11/2013 @ 01:10:13 PM
 Quote this comment
Maybe use a lighter shade of text.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 01:16:01 PM
 Quote this comment
Tolzien played about as well as you could expect any backup to play who hasn't taken more than 2 weeks worth of reps with anyone on the roster and probably taken a grand total of 4 reps max with the first team guys. I agree with everything Jeremy said. I think it's very reasonable to look at how the offense moved the ball and think that Rodgers could have put 40 points on the board. But you're 100% right about Tolzien. He's not the one who quit in the 4th quarter. Basically, anyone that thinks that Tolzien sucked is probably an idiot. That being said, if Wallace's injury is what they think it could be, they might have to get Flynn or someone else anyway (as Tolzien's backup)

note: (I hope you aren't including me in this subsection. I know it exists--membership is pretty similar to that of the regular "Fire Ted" subsection--but I've always been just as frustrated as anyone about that group of fans)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 11/11/2013 1:34:29 pm
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
11/11/2013 @ 01:25:37 PM
 Quote this comment
The other thing, though, about Jeremy's comment, is that Packer fans certainly have indeed come to expect a certain level of play from the quarterback position. It's hard to blame someone from reacting a certain way. So it is very conceivable that some Packer were seeing something different than what someone like Jeremy might have been seeing. One is seeing someone who isn't Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers and thinking "this guy sucks", and Jeremy might be seeing some guy who could fit in with the Vikings QB carousel and thinking "why can't we have THIS guy". Both takes are probably off the mark to a degree, but they certainly aren't without explanation. It's about perspective.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 11/11/2013 1:27:56 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 03:43:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, let's not go crazy. He put up some numbers, but you're going to do that against a defense that is never not on the field, until the very end. A defense which, though it may be an ok defense that looks like one of the worse by being on the field 57 minutes a game, probably isn't a good one.

I just don't know how you look at his performance as a whole and say he played "bad", and even to the extent that you can, how it's a little unreasonable to expect him not to be.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 11/11/2013 3:43:47 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
11/11/2013 @ 03:53:38 PM
 Quote this comment
He had a QBR of 26.4, which, though it might refute my feeling that he played pretty well, probably needs a bit of context. a) you can't expect him to be fantastic. If 50 is an average NFL QB it probably isn't reasonable to expect that. So, to a certain extent, he's "allowed" to suck. b) All that might mean is that they didn't feel like he was "vital" to what Green Bay did do, which is probably fair enough. They ran the ball and made safe throws.

Still Tolzien can only make the plays he's asked to make, and it's not exactly like he left a ton of them hanging out there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 11/11/2013 3:57:29 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
11/11/2013 @ 04:31:40 PM
 Quote this comment
He made a couple big mistakes, mainly the turnovers, and also missed badly on wide open guys a couple times. But he looked a lot better than Seneca and I think he at least gives them a chance to get some wins. He seems to have the raw tools at least, whether his decision making and consistency and timing with the receivers can get better in 7 days who knows. I highly doubt there's anyone available who gives them a better chance of winning in the next 4 games.

As usual the biggest problem was a lack of pass rush.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - So's your face
11/11/2013 @ 05:26:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:09:23 PM


Let me take this chance to chew out a spoiled subsection of Packer Fans: Everyone who thinks Tolzien "sucked" on Sunday, and that the Packers have to go get Flynn, or anyone else. You have been far too spoiled at the QB position for far too long. Yes, he threw an INT in the endzone, but you know who else does that? Almost every other QB not named Rodgers about every 3 weeks. His other INT was batted up (which is still his fault to some extent, and he had way more than his share batted up mercifully find grass).

This was directed at me. You need a great QB to win games, divisions, Super Bowls, etc. and I was disappointed in how Tolzien played. I guess I was expecting too much to not have him throw an interception in the end zone but that was a huge critical mistake. Not that losing the game was on his shoulders, our defense forgot to show up.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 05:50:12 PM
 Quote this comment
You weren't exactly alone. I saw it all day during the game, and since.

You might need a great QB for those things, but that's not really the point here. It's not like Rodgers was benched for Tolzien. The point is it's unfair to him to expect a guy who was, just a couple days ago, as close to not on a roster as possible while still being on one, to be anything but fairly terrible. (Bouncing around from practice squad to practice squad is about as "hanging on for dear life" as possible.) The fact that he not only wasn't "understandably terrible" and was rather mildly effective should be considered pretty serendipitous.

If Tolzien was a "great quarterback" (or even a good one) he wouldn't be an option, because he'd be starting somewhere else.

Said another way, you can't measure him against Aaron Rodgers, you can only measure him against what would have been reasonable expectations for him in that situation. Even on the int in the endzone, that was a 91 yard drive up until that point. That's a pretty long drive which probably in and of itself would exceed expectations.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 11/11/2013 6:02:15 pm
sarah.jpgSarah - So's your face
11/11/2013 @ 06:32:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Packers are signing Matt Flynn... I don't think he's the answer either.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 06:35:26 PM
 Quote this comment
There is no "the answer".
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 06:36:02 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't think he's even healthy
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 06:36:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:35:26 PM
There is no "the answer".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Iverson
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 06:43:03 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 06:36:02 PM
I don't think he's even healthy

He's not. This is stupid. I demand a do-over of the season!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 07:07:52 PM
 Quote this comment
So let's analyze a few plays. Right at the end of the first half, the Packers had 3rd and goal at the Philly 8 yard line with only about 10 seconds left. James Jones catches a ball (on a play where he was likely being interfered with). He caught it, but his second foot was about a toe's width out of bounds. Jones is a good receiver, but honestly, I've seen more sideline misses by him where it looks like a little tad more effort and he keeps both feet in bounds. That is a play Jones is very capable of making. If he does, it's 7-7 at half time.

2nd play was the 4th town pass to Jordy Nelson in the endzone. That would have been a pretty amazing catch, and could have very easily been called a touchdown initially which would have initiated a review. Now, I think if it's called a touchdown initially, it would have been a little hard to overturn. It may have hit the ground, but the replay wasn't conclusive. The fact that it was called incomplete on the field though made it nearly impossible to overturn it that way either. Maybe it wasn't a touchdown, maybe it was. The point is they were mere centimeters away from scoring on that play.

I agree that with Rodgers they win that game going away, even if the defense catches malaria at the start of the 4th qtr. But the fact is, Tolzien was probably a combined 1.3 inches away from having 3 TDs vs 1 TD. So I'm all for getting mad that the Packers lost. But being upset with Tolzien is sort of misplaced.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 07:08:22 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 06:32:50 PM
Packers are signing Matt Flynn... I don't think he's the answer either.
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:35:26 PM
There is no "the answer".


I think he's "The Backup"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/11/2013 @ 07:12:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:08:22 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 06:32:50 PM
Packers are signing Matt Flynn... I don't think he's the answer either.
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:35:26 PM
There is no "the answer".


I think he's "The Backup"


Although, the "answer" might be something along the lines of Ryan Braun's secret stuff.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
11/12/2013 @ 10:09:13 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:07:52 PM
So let's analyze a few plays. Right at the end of the first half, the Packers had 3rd and goal at the Philly 8 yard line with only about 10 seconds left. James Jones catches a ball (on a play where he was likely being interfered with). He caught it, but his second foot was about a toe's width out of bounds. Jones is a good receiver, but honestly, I've seen more sideline misses by him where it looks like a little tad more effort and he keeps both feet in bounds. That is a play Jones is very capable of making. If he does, it's 7-7 at half time.

2nd play was the 4th town pass to Jordy Nelson in the endzone. That would have been a pretty amazing catch, and could have very easily been called a touchdown initially which would have initiated a review. Now, I think if it's called a touchdown initially, it would have been a little hard to overturn. It may have hit the ground, but the replay wasn't conclusive. The fact that it was called incomplete on the field though made it nearly impossible to overturn it that way either. Maybe it wasn't a touchdown, maybe it was. The point is they were mere centimeters away from scoring on that play.

I agree that with Rodgers they win that game going away, even if the defense catches malaria at the start of the 4th qtr. But the fact is, Tolzien was probably a combined 1.3 inches away from having 3 TDs vs 1 TD. So I'm all for getting mad that the Packers lost. But being upset with Tolzien is sort of misplaced.


Two things)

1) I think the Nelson thing was pretty conclusive.

2) The conclusive rule didn't help on the seemingly non fumble that was called not a fumble.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/12/2013 @ 10:43:15 AM
 Quote this comment
Either way, on the Nelson play, if it was called a touchdown it probably would have stayed a touchdown (the fumble call notwithstanding). I'm not saying the refs blew it, but the replay I don't think showed conclusively that the ball indeed hit the ground (his hand was under it the entire time, or so it seemed), but rather that it didn't disprove the call on the field. (I'm not arguing the call, just saying it arguably could have gone either way). That being said, my main point is that on that play the Packers were mere microns away from a touchdown, and coupled with Jones' non-catch, both plays were poor plays* by the receivers. McGinn rated Nelson's play a drop, and called Jones' play "poor sideline awareness". In other words, according to one analyst, the QB did exactly what he needed to do in those situations, and the incompletions were on the receivers.

Furthermore, and this is for the naysayers out there: McGinn's first 2 sentences of his rating of the QB position are as follows:
Using the NFL standard, Tolzien was 3 footballs (out of 5). Based on expectations, he deserved 5.

Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/rating-the-packers-vs-the-eagles-b99139894z1-231526131.html#ixzz2kRzoIl6D
Follow us: @NewsHub on Twitter


*my initial comment said it would have been an amazing play by Nelson. After re-watching the replay, it looked like it could have/should have been a fairly routine catch.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 11/12/2013 10:45:51 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/12/2013 @ 11:31:05 AM
 Quote this comment
I don't think it would have stood either way, but it's not impossible they determine it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn either. (It is the Packers after all. emoticon)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
11/12/2013 @ 12:50:17 PM
 Quote this comment
I thought it was more of a catch than the fumble was a fumble. Also there was a really weak roughing the passer called against the Packers, but that was after two facemasks penalties during tackling McCoy weren't called. So not the best officiated game, but it did seem to even out.

In terms of expectations, I thought it was kind of amazing that they were even running those back shoulder timing routes, much less completing some of them. The week before when Rodgers went out the play calling turned super conservative, but I didn't feel that way with Tolzien which is why I have a little hope yet for the season. And because he showed he was capable at making the plays, if also inconsistent.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 1000000 posts (and counting!)
11/13/2013 @ 01:06:36 AM
 Quote this comment


Good reference. No fair though; I've been waiting years for someone to say There is no "Chocolate Thunder."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darryl_Dawkins
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this 2 times, last at 11/13/2013 1:11:28 am
jon.jpgJon - many posts
11/13/2013 @ 01:10:15 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 11/11/2013 @ 07:07:52 PM
So let's analyze a few plays. Right at the end of the first half, the Packers had 3rd and goal at the Philly 8 yard line with only about 10 seconds left. James Jones catches a ball (on a play where he was likely being interfered with). He caught it, but his second foot was about a toe's width out of bounds. Jones is a good receiver, but honestly, I've seen more sideline misses by him where it looks like a little tad more effort and he keeps both feet in bounds. That is a play Jones is very capable of making. If he does, it's 7-7 at half time.

2nd play was the 4th town pass to Jordy Nelson in the endzone. That would have been a pretty amazing catch, and could have very easily been called a touchdown initially which would have initiated a review. Now, I think if it's called a touchdown initially, it would have been a little hard to overturn. It may have hit the ground, but the replay wasn't conclusive. The fact that it was called incomplete on the field though made it nearly impossible to overturn it that way either. Maybe it wasn't a touchdown, maybe it was. The point is they were mere centimeters away from scoring on that play.

I agree that with Rodgers they win that game going away, even if the defense catches malaria at the start of the 4th qtr. But the fact is, Tolzien was probably a combined 1.3 inches away from having 3 TDs vs 1 TD. So I'm all for getting mad that the Packers lost. But being upset with Tolzien is sort of misplaced.


Also if they would have scored a touchdown on every play, they would have won by at least 17.

OK, I'm being a dork now. Pay no attention.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.