Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Game over...

5 views
Skip to first unread message

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 6:54:20 PM10/7/01
to
I hope this puts to rest all the invincible... we are great talk in
this newsgroup... then again a dose of reality has a way of doing
that. Give Tampa it's due, that's a great defense and they exposed our
team for what it is.... capable of beating up on the JV but not nearly
as good as we looked and as everyone here thought we were.....

NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 6:58:52 PM10/7/01
to
>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

IT IS NOT OVER YET!!!!!!!

Cripes, people are bemoaning the game like it's over when there are more than 4
minutes left and we have the ball...

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:00:41 PM10/7/01
to
On 07 Oct 2001 22:58:52 GMT, webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan)
wrote:

Umm.... they haven't been able to do anything for 58 minutes... what
makes you think they can suddenly start executing good now?

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:11:45 PM10/7/01
to
On 07 Oct 2001 22:58:52 GMT, webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan)
wrote:

>>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

As I said, game over.

Milt

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:13:44 PM10/7/01
to

"NYC Pack Fan" <webe...@aol.comspamfree> wrote in message
news:20011007185852...@mb-mu.aol.com...

Actually, it is over... and was over when Favre threw that stupid bomb pass
and it was intercepted and the Packer offense seemed incapable of moving the
ball against a defense that shouldn't have been that difficult.

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:14:27 PM10/7/01
to

Damn, you are an idiot aren't you? If you are going to be a troll, try
not to be so transparent.

NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:14:47 PM10/7/01
to
>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

>Umm.... they haven't been able to do anything for 58 minutes... what
>makes you think they can suddenly start executing good now?

Mike, you know something... you call yourself a real fan, but you are ready to
throw in the towel at the first sign of adversity.

The Bucs ended up with the win but the Pack had the ball on the Bucs 8 with
four chances to get the TD with 35 seconds left on the clock. Yet you are
whining about the game being over 4 minutes earlier. Heck, you whine all
throughout each and every game.

Stop whining and enjoy the fact that the Pack are in the hunt for a division
title and a playoff spot. The game was a war and was what football is supposed
to be all about...

Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:19:44 PM10/7/01
to
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:mjn1st05mb381qbba...@4ax.com...

Mike, the game is now officially over but the Packers were inside their 15
with a full set of downs and about 35 seconds left. As bad as they were,
they were thisclose to winning it at the end. Your chicken little attitude
can be amusing, but in too heavy a dose it's downright annoying. Familiar
with Gsteffi? She's another one who makes about 300 predictions a year and
won't ever let you forget about the 1 or 2 that turned out correct. Don't
become Gstiff's replacement.


Milt

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:23:04 PM10/7/01
to
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:odo1stc2rtjlr58c3...@4ax.com...

> Damn, you are an idiot aren't you? If you are going to be a troll, try
> not to be so transparent.

I'm not a troll, you seem to be the idiot here. I've been a Packer fan for
years but damn today was just disgusting. I would agree with you if it
seemed like Tampa actually seemed to be doing good, but hell, Tampa got some
lucky breaks and fortunatly they didn't turn them all into scores. But
really, could you tell me what the hell was the sense of throwing a huge
bomb pass with 6 and a half min. left in the game?


NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:24:24 PM10/7/01
to
>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

>>Cripes, people are bemoaning the game like it's over when there are more
>than 4
>>minutes left and we have the ball...
>
>As I said, game over.

That is just the point... IT WAS NOT OVER and the Pack were on the doorstep of
getting the winning TD.

You say alot about yourself and your own mettle when you are ready to throw
your hands up and surrender with a three-time MVP QB leading a drive into the
opponent's red zone for a go ahead TD with time enough on the clock...

If you whine like a baby the whole game, I somehow doubt that you can be having
much fun. If watching the game depresses you so, then do not watch.

To the Buccaneers: you guys played a good game today. The matchup was
everything that it was hyped to be. Just wait until you come to Lambeau,
though...

Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:26:44 PM10/7/01
to
"NYC Pack Fan" <webe...@aol.comspamfree> wrote in message
news:20011007192424...@mb-mu.aol.com...
> >From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

> >As I said, game over.

> You say alot about yourself and your own mettle when you are ready to


throw
> your hands up and surrender with a three-time MVP QB leading a drive into
the
> opponent's red zone for a go ahead TD with time enough on the clock...
>
> If you whine like a baby the whole game, I somehow doubt that you can be
having
> much fun. If watching the game depresses you so, then do not watch.

I thought mike said he DIDN'T get the game. Take that for what it's worth.


chris

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:24:32 PM10/7/01
to
milt dont even bother with this dink ..He is a Panthers fan he is still
pissy about the Panther Losing to the Green and Gold

Mikey if the Packers are a JV team? What does that make the Panthers? A
Junior High team?
"Milt" <mle...@home.com> wrote in message
news:st5w7.40336$My2.20...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...

NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:27:34 PM10/7/01
to
>From: "Milt" mle...@home.com

>But
>really, could you tell me what the hell was the sense of throwing a huge
>bomb pass with 6 and a half min. left in the game?

If you'd like to question the play calling on that play, raise that issue.
However, calling the game "over" while it is anything but over is childish
whining.

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:28:36 PM10/7/01
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 23:19:44 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
wrote:

Perhaps you can point out where I was wrong? Yup, we had the ball with
35 seconds and 4 shots at the goal line inside the 15 and came away
empty. There were a few questionable play calls and flat out poor
execution on our part. To give up a 39 yard TD run to Allstott is a
freakin' crime....

BTW, the sky isn't falling. My point was (and is) is that people in
this newsgroup had GB already in the SB based on kicking around 3
patsies..... first game against a real team and we lose and barely
score 10 points. If we play the same caliber of game next week it
won't be anywhere near this close.

It isn't that we lost, it's how we lost. I didn't expect the Packers
to be 16-0.

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:32:44 PM10/7/01
to
Um, who are you and why are you calling me a Panther fan. I'd bet I've
forgotten more about the Packers than you are likely to ever know. And
work on your reading comprehension.... where (anywhere and at anytime)
have I ever referred to the Packers as a JV team.

Don't play on usenet if you can't comprehend what you read.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 23:24:32 GMT, "chris" <chri...@ameritech.net>
wrote:

Milt

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:36:39 PM10/7/01
to

"chris" <chri...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:Qu5w7.954$Rw2.5...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...

> milt dont even bother with this dink ..He is a Panthers fan he is still
> pissy about the Panther Losing to the Green and Gold
>
> Mikey if the Packers are a JV team? What does that make the Panthers? A
> Junior High team?

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll make note of that for future posts. As for the
Panthers, didn't the Pack completly beat them?


Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:40:49 PM10/7/01
to
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:m1p1sts29gvk6qr5j...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 23:19:44 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
> wrote:
> >Mike, the game is now officially over but the Packers were inside their
15
> >with a full set of downs and about 35 seconds left. As bad as they were,
> >they were thisclose to winning it at the end. Your chicken little
attitude
> >can be amusing, but in too heavy a dose it's downright annoying.
Familiar
> >with Gsteffi? She's another one who makes about 300 predictions a year
and
> >won't ever let you forget about the 1 or 2 that turned out correct.
Don't
> >become Gstiff's replacement.
>
> Perhaps you can point out where I was wrong?

LOL. Mike, you're careful to word your "predictions" in such a way so that
you almost can never BE wrong. Make no mistake about it, though, you were
pissing and moaning at halftime of both the Washington AND Carolina games.
If this newsgroup "had GB in the SB already" (your words, not mine), then
you had those chalked up as losses. You're a negative nellie. I don't
recall anyone saying that GB had a Super Bowl wrapped up, but in your
delusional world, to not prattle on like an old woman when your team is NOT
up by 30 at halftime somehow makes it so.

Sorry, Mike, it works both ways.

> Yup, we had the ball with
> 35 seconds and 4 shots at the goal line inside the 15 and came away
> empty.

Mike, did you WATCH the game? Answer, please.

> There were a few questionable play calls and flat out poor
> execution on our part. To give up a 39 yard TD run to Allstott is a
> freakin' crime....

The timing is poor, that's for certain. But that was the only real crime
the defense committed all day. As anemic as the Bucs' offense can be, would
you have been upset if you knew going in that the defense would allow a
grand total of 7 points?

If blame is to be assigned, then it's pretty obvious where it falls this
time...and it ain't the defense.

Of course, if I didn't actually see the game, that might be lost on me.

> BTW, the sky isn't falling. My point was (and is) is that people in
> this newsgroup had GB already in the SB based on kicking around 3
> patsies...

Bullshit. Are you nAkEd DaVe's twin?

>.. first game against a real team and we lose and barely
> score 10 points. If we play the same caliber of game next week it
> won't be anywhere near this close.

If we play really great we will probably win. If we play poorly, like we
did today, we'll lose. Call me Nostradamus.

> It isn't that we lost, it's how we lost. I didn't expect the Packers
> to be 16-0.

Did you *expect* a win in Tampa before the season, or before today?


NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:44:21 PM10/7/01
to
>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

>Perhaps you can point out where I was wrong?

You were wrong to declare the game "over" with over 4 minutes remaining in a
close game.

>Yup, we had the ball with
>35 seconds and 4 shots at the goal line inside the 15 and came away
>empty.

Which means that the game was not really over when you claimed that it was. The
result was still in complete doubt.

>There were a few questionable play calls and flat out poor
>execution on our part. To give up a 39 yard TD run to Allstott is a
>freakin' crime....

The game was a war. The Alstott run was extremely well blocked and could have
been overcome.

Keep in mind that all the Bucs have done is "hold serve" by winning at home.

>BTW, the sky isn't falling. My point was (and is) is that people in
>this newsgroup had GB already in the SB based on kicking around 3
>patsies.....

Who? Some people were somewhat elated (understandably so) after the Pack got
off to such a fast start. I do not recall many acting as if the Pack were Super
Bowl shoe-ins. In fact, I read much more about looking forward to playing Tampa
to see how legit our 2001 Packers were as contenders.

>first game against a real team and we lose and barely
>score 10 points.

Against one of the best defenses in the NFL...

>If we play the same caliber of game next week it
>won't be anywhere near this close.

The Ravens have so much more offensively than TB?

>It isn't that we lost, it's how we lost. I didn't expect the Packers
>to be 16-0.

We played a very tough game and came up *just* short of gaining a *huge* road
win. I do not believe that losses can be "moral victories," but the Pack are
legitimate.

Next week should be a very good game.

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:53:27 PM10/7/01
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 23:40:49 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
wrote:


>


>LOL. Mike, you're careful to word your "predictions" in such a way so that
>you almost can never BE wrong. Make no mistake about it, though, you were
>pissing and moaning at halftime of both the Washington AND Carolina games.
>If this newsgroup "had GB in the SB already" (your words, not mine), then
>you had those chalked up as losses. You're a negative nellie. I don't
>recall anyone saying that GB had a Super Bowl wrapped up, but in your
>delusional world, to not prattle on like an old woman when your team is NOT
>up by 30 at halftime somehow makes it so.
>
>Sorry, Mike, it works both ways.
>

People here in this newsgroup were pretty ballsy after that fast
start. Witness the one post this morning wondering by how much we were
gonna beat up the Bucs by. Confidence is one thing but.... both ways
or not, this team failed it's first real test.

>> Yup, we had the ball with
>> 35 seconds and 4 shots at the goal line inside the 15 and came away
>> empty.
>
>Mike, did you WATCH the game? Answer, please.
>

No. I live in Northern California (have pity on me) so I had to listen
over the net. The stinking raider game was televised instead.

>> There were a few questionable play calls and flat out poor
>> execution on our part. To give up a 39 yard TD run to Allstott is a
>> freakin' crime....
>
>The timing is poor, that's for certain. But that was the only real crime
>the defense committed all day. As anemic as the Bucs' offense can be, would
>you have been upset if you knew going in that the defense would allow a
>grand total of 7 points?
>
>If blame is to be assigned, then it's pretty obvious where it falls this
>time...and it ain't the defense.
>
>Of course, if I didn't actually see the game, that might be lost on me.
>

Possibly, OTOH, the defense let Tampa control the clock and the tempo
of the game. Twiced we pinned them inside their own 5 yard line and
twice we let them out and ruined our chances at good field position
(well, we got it back once).

>> BTW, the sky isn't falling. My point was (and is) is that people in
>> this newsgroup had GB already in the SB based on kicking around 3
>> patsies...
>
>Bullshit. Are you nAkEd DaVe's twin?
>

Nope but see my first response above... people could see no wrong with
this team. My point remains as it did before, during both the
Washington and Carolina wins we showed some bad tendencies. The
competition was bad enough and we were good enough to overcome them
and win big. Today, the competition was much better and we didn't
overcome... we lost.

>>.. first game against a real team and we lose and barely
>> score 10 points. If we play the same caliber of game next week it
>> won't be anywhere near this close.
>
>If we play really great we will probably win. If we play poorly, like we
>did today, we'll lose. Call me Nostradamus.

Haven't read that quatraine. Point is, we played poorly in large
stretches in the last two games but that was forgotten rather quickly
because we won. What is currently unknown is if our great play is
really that great? You tell me Dustan, what is the real Packers? At
this point, for all we know, the same effort and level of play went
into this game as went into the first three and we simply don't have
enough to beat a good team. Again, kicking the crap out of three
patsies left us untested and we failed in our first real test of the
season.

>
>> It isn't that we lost, it's how we lost. I didn't expect the Packers
>> to be 16-0.
>
>Did you *expect* a win in Tampa before the season, or before today?
>

Actually, I didn't expect a win before the season but I did before
today. The most annoying part of all this is that we had every
opportunity to win and didn't.

chris

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 7:58:24 PM10/7/01
to
capable of beating up on the JV but not nearly
as good as we looked and as everyone here thought we were.....
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:bep1st4kdgba4i25b...@4ax.com...

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 8:03:29 PM10/7/01
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 23:58:24 GMT, "chris" <chri...@ameritech.net>
wrote:

>capable of beating up on the JV but not nearly
>as good as we looked and as everyone here thought we were.....

Very good, okay so you have recall. Now please explain how that
statement says that GB is the JV? Oh yes and please explain how I'm a
Panthers fan?

At least get something accurate in your post.

Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 8:13:22 PM10/7/01
to
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:o2q1stgk9n1btehhg...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 23:40:49 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >LOL. Mike, you're careful to word your "predictions" in such a way so
that
> >you almost can never BE wrong. Make no mistake about it, though, you
were
> >pissing and moaning at halftime of both the Washington AND Carolina
games.
> >If this newsgroup "had GB in the SB already" (your words, not mine), then
> >you had those chalked up as losses. You're a negative nellie. I don't
> >recall anyone saying that GB had a Super Bowl wrapped up, but in your
> >delusional world, to not prattle on like an old woman when your team is
NOT
> >up by 30 at halftime somehow makes it so.
> >
> >Sorry, Mike, it works both ways.
> >
> People here in this newsgroup were pretty ballsy after that fast
> start.

So, who had them in the Super Bowl? If you have a problem with people being
"ballsy", now might be a good time to leave. It gets worse. Namely, you'll
run into characters who don't even GET the game on TV declare it "over" with
5:00 minutes left and a 4-point lead by the opposition. Yeah, no shit.
They're out there.

> Witness the one post this morning wondering by how much we were
> gonna beat up the Bucs by. Confidence is one thing but.... both ways
> or not, this team failed it's first real test.

Sez you. We were 9-7 last year and missed the playoffs (mainly due to a
piss-poor start), so I don't exactly consider a 3-0 start chopped liver.
Which comparable opponents did we annihilate last year, Mike? It puts you
in a great position to eventually make the playoffs. If Green Bay beats
Tampa at home, what does that mean?

> >Mike, did you WATCH the game? Answer, please.
>
> No. I live in Northern California (have pity on me) so I had to listen
> over the net.

Well, there ya go. That answers a hell of a lot, actually. Sorry you can't
see the game, though. Maybe an alias chance of "RealAudio Swami" is in
order? ;)

> >If blame is to be assigned, then it's pretty obvious where it falls this
> >time...and it ain't the defense.
> >
> >Of course, if I didn't actually see the game, that might be lost on me.
>
> Possibly, OTOH, the defense let Tampa control the clock and the tempo
> of the game. Twiced we pinned them inside their own 5 yard line and
> twice we let them out and ruined our chances at good field position
> (well, we got it back once).

Again, I'm sorry you couldn't see the game. It's pretty hard to stop a team
from making good T.O.P. when they do nothing, essentially, but run up the
middle and throw 5-yard outs. Of course, it's pretty hard to SCORE a lot if
your offense does nothing but that, and that's exactly what Tampa had
trouble with all game long. They scored a total of 7 points, Mike. I'd
like to see great field position, too, but the Packers had a great shot at a
TD or, at the very least, a FG in the first half. The resulting INT for a
TD was enough swing to turn this particular game. One play, Mike. And it
had nothing to do with our defense.

As bad as that was, we had another great shot at the end. 8 yards from
paydirt with 3 shots at it...down 4. A false start, a sack, and a couple of
incompletions later, we lose. Again, GB's defense has nothing to do with
that.

> >> BTW, the sky isn't falling. My point was (and is) is that people in
> >> this newsgroup had GB already in the SB based on kicking around 3
> >> patsies...
> >
> >Bullshit. Are you nAkEd DaVe's twin?
>
> Nope but see my first response above... people could see no wrong with
> this team.

And again I call "bullshit". You're just a chicken little who prattles on
when the team is not up by 3 touchdowns by halftime, against opponents you
deem "patsies". Not many people agree with it, but that hardly means they
"see no wrong". In fact, I can remember quite a few people talking about
how bad they looked in the 1st halves of both the Wash. and Car. games.
Thing about it is, no one wanted to throw in the towel because most people
realize that there's another 30 minutes to be played. Sorry, not buying
your interpetration here.

> >Did you *expect* a win in Tampa before the season, or before today?
>
> Actually, I didn't expect a win before the season but I did before
> today.

INTERESTING. So what changed in the meantime? What gave you confidence
that the Packers could win this game "before today, but not the season",
considering that we've beaten nothing but patsies in the interim?

Take your foot out of your mouth any time, Mike.

> The most annoying part of all this is that we had every
> opportunity to win and didn't.

Didn't you declare the game OVER with 4+ minutes left? LOL.


mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 8:27:08 PM10/7/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:13:22 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
wrote:
>> >

>> People here in this newsgroup were pretty ballsy after that fast
>> start.
>
>So, who had them in the Super Bowl? If you have a problem with people being
>"ballsy", now might be a good time to leave. It gets worse. Namely, you'll
>run into characters who don't even GET the game on TV declare it "over" with
>5:00 minutes left and a 4-point lead by the opposition. Yeah, no shit.
>They're out there.
>

I can hardly believe that anyone would be that way. Of course, it's
been said once or twice that I tend to be a bit blunt and
opinionated... but they are wrong.

>
>Sez you. We were 9-7 last year and missed the playoffs (mainly due to a
>piss-poor start), so I don't exactly consider a 3-0 start chopped liver.
>Which comparable opponents did we annihilate last year, Mike? It puts you
>in a great position to eventually make the playoffs. If Green Bay beats
>Tampa at home, what does that mean?
>

It means that we can beat the good teams. Thus far we do not know
that. We beat 3 bad teams and lost to 1 good team.

>> >Mike, did you WATCH the game? Answer, please.
>>
>> No. I live in Northern California (have pity on me) so I had to listen
>> over the net.
>
>Well, there ya go. That answers a hell of a lot, actually. Sorry you can't
>see the game, though. Maybe an alias chance of "RealAudio Swami" is in
>order? ;)
>

I have to make do with the audio only.

>> >If blame is to be assigned, then it's pretty obvious where it falls this
>> >time...and it ain't the defense.
>> >
>> >Of course, if I didn't actually see the game, that might be lost on me.
>>
>> Possibly, OTOH, the defense let Tampa control the clock and the tempo
>> of the game. Twiced we pinned them inside their own 5 yard line and
>> twice we let them out and ruined our chances at good field position
>> (well, we got it back once).
>
>Again, I'm sorry you couldn't see the game. It's pretty hard to stop a team
>from making good T.O.P. when they do nothing, essentially, but run up the
>middle and throw 5-yard outs.

I didn't see the game so I don't know how we played but, seems to me
that you have to attack an offense like that rather than play well
passively. If a team likes to make big plays and throw deep then you
can play passively and deny them the big play and win. If a team likes
to control the ball as Tampa does then I think you have to get after
them if you are going to stand a chance of taking control of the game
away from them.

> Of course, it's pretty hard to SCORE a lot if
>your offense does nothing but that, and that's exactly what Tampa had
>trouble with all game long. They scored a total of 7 points, Mike. I'd
>like to see great field position, too, but the Packers had a great shot at a
>TD or, at the very least, a FG in the first half. The resulting INT for a
>TD was enough swing to turn this particular game. One play, Mike. And it
>had nothing to do with our defense.
>
>As bad as that was, we had another great shot at the end. 8 yards from
>paydirt with 3 shots at it...down 4. A false start, a sack, and a couple of
>incompletions later, we lose. Again, GB's defense has nothing to do with
>that.
>

I guess that's where it gets annoying in that we had 2 excellent
opportunities to take the game and failed on both. I'm annoyed that we
ran a reverse while in FG range (a play that should never be run
regardless against a defense as fast as Tampas) and blew a chance at
3. Then we couldv'e kicked a FG at the end instead of being forced to
score a TD.


>> Nope but see my first response above... people could see no wrong with
>> this team.
>
>And again I call "bullshit". You're just a chicken little who prattles on
>when the team is not up by 3 touchdowns by halftime, against opponents you
>deem "patsies". Not many people agree with it, but that hardly means they
>"see no wrong". In fact, I can remember quite a few people talking about
>how bad they looked in the 1st halves of both the Wash. and Car. games.
>Thing about it is, no one wanted to throw in the towel because most people
>realize that there's another 30 minutes to be played. Sorry, not buying
>your interpetration here.
>

Not at all, I remember all the excuses "they were feeling them out in
the first half" or "they were playing conservative" etc. Bottom line,
they played poorly in the first half of those games but they had
enough to win going away.

>> >Did you *expect* a win in Tampa before the season, or before today?
>>
>> Actually, I didn't expect a win before the season but I did before
>> today.
>
>INTERESTING. So what changed in the meantime? What gave you confidence
>that the Packers could win this game "before today, but not the season",
>considering that we've beaten nothing but patsies in the interim?
>
>Take your foot out of your mouth any time, Mike.
>

That Tampa had been playing rather pedestrian ball and, while we
weren't invincible, we had more weapons this season then last.

>> The most annoying part of all this is that we had every
>> opportunity to win and didn't.
>
>Didn't you declare the game OVER with 4+ minutes left? LOL.
>

Yup, based on the 56 minutes of play where the offense failed to get
it done, I did not see any reason to believe they would perform any
differently in the final 4.

Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 8:45:49 PM10/7/01
to
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:d2s1st4vhinsvtdr5...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:13:22 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
> wrote:
> >Sez you. We were 9-7 last year and missed the playoffs (mainly due to a
> >piss-poor start), so I don't exactly consider a 3-0 start chopped liver.
> >Which comparable opponents did we annihilate last year, Mike? It puts
you
> >in a great position to eventually make the playoffs. If Green Bay beats
> >Tampa at home, what does that mean?
>
> It means that we can beat the good teams. Thus far we do not know
> that. We beat 3 bad teams and lost to 1 good team.

Well, fair enough. Correct me if I'm wrong, though: this *is* professional
sports and we don't "know" a hell of a lot about what will happen from
week-to-week, right?

While I was watching the game, for instance, I did not KNOW that the Packers
would lose when they were down 4 with 4:30 left and had the ball. You,
however, did...and didn't even have the benefit of the game on TV. I can't
compete with that. ;)

> >Well, there ya go. That answers a hell of a lot, actually. Sorry you
can't
> >see the game, though. Maybe an alias chance of "RealAudio Swami" is in
> >order? ;)
>
> I have to make do with the audio only.

No doubt. My point, however, is that you miss a hell of a lot when you
can't actually see what's going on. I don't see too many viewers putting
blame on the defense today, even though I'm sure they all had the Pack in
the Super Bowl. he he

> >Again, I'm sorry you couldn't see the game. It's pretty hard to stop a
team
> >from making good T.O.P. when they do nothing, essentially, but run up the
> >middle and throw 5-yard outs.
>
> I didn't see the game so I don't know how we played but, seems to me
> that you have to attack an offense like that rather than play well
> passively.

I would have preferred seeing them go man-to-man very early (I suspected
this was all their O had). However, no arguing with results: 7 points
allowed by the defense. That's more than acceptable, no matter how you
slice it.

You're almost better off not having seen the game. If you did, there's no
way you would have even mentioned the defense. You'd be too busy harping on
a couple insane play calls, like the rest of us. You WILL be assimilated.

> >As bad as that was, we had another great shot at the end. 8 yards from
> >paydirt with 3 shots at it...down 4. A false start, a sack, and a couple
of
> >incompletions later, we lose. Again, GB's defense has nothing to do with
> >that.
>
> I guess that's where it gets annoying in that we had 2 excellent
> opportunities to take the game and failed on both. I'm annoyed that we
> ran a reverse while in FG range (a play that should never be run
> regardless against a defense as fast as Tampas) and blew a chance at
> 3. Then we couldv'e kicked a FG at the end instead of being forced to
> score a TD.

Well, there ya go. With that in mind, this "failed test" doesn't look quite
as heartbreaking as at first glance, does it? I mean, it's one thing if the
screwups have to do with lack of talent, but these are all extremely
fixable. Right?

> >INTERESTING. So what changed in the meantime? What gave you confidence
> >that the Packers could win this game "before today, but not the season",
> >considering that we've beaten nothing but patsies in the interim?
> >
> >Take your foot out of your mouth any time, Mike.
>
> That Tampa had been playing rather pedestrian ball and, while we
> weren't invincible, we had more weapons this season then last.

Even though the "weapons" were basically the same guys as last year, only
playing against JV teams? ;)

> >> The most annoying part of all this is that we had every
> >> opportunity to win and didn't.
> >
> >Didn't you declare the game OVER with 4+ minutes left? LOL.
>
> Yup, based on the 56 minutes of play where the offense failed to get
> it done, I did not see any reason to believe they would perform any
> differently in the final 4.

Well, welcome to pro sports. ;) If things were that predictable whoever
scored first would win 100% of the time.


mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 9:01:36 PM10/7/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:45:49 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
wrote:

>"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
>news:d2s1st4vhinsvtdr5...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:13:22 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Sez you. We were 9-7 last year and missed the playoffs (mainly due to a
>> >piss-poor start), so I don't exactly consider a 3-0 start chopped liver.
>> >Which comparable opponents did we annihilate last year, Mike? It puts
>you
>> >in a great position to eventually make the playoffs. If Green Bay beats
>> >Tampa at home, what does that mean?
>>
>> It means that we can beat the good teams. Thus far we do not know
>> that. We beat 3 bad teams and lost to 1 good team.
>
>Well, fair enough. Correct me if I'm wrong, though: this *is* professional
>sports and we don't "know" a hell of a lot about what will happen from
>week-to-week, right?
>
>While I was watching the game, for instance, I did not KNOW that the Packers
>would lose when they were down 4 with 4:30 left and had the ball. You,
>however, did...and didn't even have the benefit of the game on TV. I can't
>compete with that. ;)
>

A bit of a straw man there. I don't *KNOW* that a "w" will appear on
the screen if I hit the "w" key until I do so and it appears. OTOH, I
can reasonably assume it will since that's what has happened in the
past. Green Bay's offense was unable to perform against the Tampa
defense for 56 minutes, it is therefore logical to assume they would
not be able to do so in the final 4 minutes. I suppose there is a
slight possibility that not seeing the game could introduce a flaw or
two in my logic.....

>> >Well, there ya go. That answers a hell of a lot, actually. Sorry you
>can't
>> >see the game, though. Maybe an alias chance of "RealAudio Swami" is in
>> >order? ;)
>>
>> I have to make do with the audio only.
>
>No doubt. My point, however, is that you miss a hell of a lot when you
>can't actually see what's going on. I don't see too many viewers putting
>blame on the defense today, even though I'm sure they all had the Pack in
>the Super Bowl. he he
>

I just would not expect a 39 yard TD run from Allstot. Dunn yes,
Stephen Davis yes, but Allstot??

>> >Again, I'm sorry you couldn't see the game. It's pretty hard to stop a
>team
>> >from making good T.O.P. when they do nothing, essentially, but run up the
>> >middle and throw 5-yard outs.
>>
>> I didn't see the game so I don't know how we played but, seems to me
>> that you have to attack an offense like that rather than play well
>> passively.
>
>I would have preferred seeing them go man-to-man very early (I suspected
>this was all their O had). However, no arguing with results: 7 points
>allowed by the defense. That's more than acceptable, no matter how you
>slice it.
>
>You're almost better off not having seen the game. If you did, there's no
>way you would have even mentioned the defense. You'd be too busy harping on
>a couple insane play calls, like the rest of us. You WILL be assimilated.
>

Maybe, I'm hoping the game next week will be televised.

>> >As bad as that was, we had another great shot at the end. 8 yards from
>> >paydirt with 3 shots at it...down 4. A false start, a sack, and a couple
>of
>> >incompletions later, we lose. Again, GB's defense has nothing to do with
>> >that.
>>
>> I guess that's where it gets annoying in that we had 2 excellent
>> opportunities to take the game and failed on both. I'm annoyed that we
>> ran a reverse while in FG range (a play that should never be run
>> regardless against a defense as fast as Tampas) and blew a chance at
>> 3. Then we couldv'e kicked a FG at the end instead of being forced to
>> score a TD.
>
>Well, there ya go. With that in mind, this "failed test" doesn't look quite
>as heartbreaking as at first glance, does it? I mean, it's one thing if the
>screwups have to do with lack of talent, but these are all extremely
>fixable. Right?
>

I hope so but this habit of starting out sloppy and slow is a bad
thing that should've been fixed before now. I can only hope that
emotions got the better of the team today and that now, with the first
loss out of the way, the team can settle down now.

>> >INTERESTING. So what changed in the meantime? What gave you confidence
>> >that the Packers could win this game "before today, but not the season",
>> >considering that we've beaten nothing but patsies in the interim?
>> >
>> >Take your foot out of your mouth any time, Mike.
>>
>> That Tampa had been playing rather pedestrian ball and, while we
>> weren't invincible, we had more weapons this season then last.
>
>Even though the "weapons" were basically the same guys as last year, only
>playing against JV teams? ;)
>

Nope, that they had a year in the system and we were healthy.

>> >> The most annoying part of all this is that we had every
>> >> opportunity to win and didn't.
>> >
>> >Didn't you declare the game OVER with 4+ minutes left? LOL.
>>
>> Yup, based on the 56 minutes of play where the offense failed to get
>> it done, I did not see any reason to believe they would perform any
>> differently in the final 4.
>
>Well, welcome to pro sports. ;) If things were that predictable whoever
>scored first would win 100% of the time.
>

No, whoever consistently does something (good or bad) for 56 minutes
will likely continue to do so for the remaining 4 minutes.

JK

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 10:39:53 PM10/7/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

>I hope this puts to rest all the invincible... we are great talk in
>this newsgroup... then again a dose of reality has a way of doing
>that.

Now now, be fair. I don't believe anyone at all was calling us
invincible. In fact, most probably figured this one for a loss
anyway.


> Give Tampa it's due, that's a great defense and they exposed our
>team for what it is.... capable of beating up on the JV but not nearly
>as good as we looked and as everyone here thought we were.....

And in no way as bad as I know you think we are.

JK

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 10:42:19 PM10/7/01
to
webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan) said:

>>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com
>
>>Umm.... they haven't been able to do anything for 58 minutes... what
>>makes you think they can suddenly start executing good now?
>
>Mike, you know something... you call yourself a real fan, but you are ready to
>throw in the towel at the first sign of adversity.

Yeah tell me about it! When the Packers are good, mikey says it isn't
an accurate reflection of the team. When they have a bad game (STILL
with a chance to win, BTW), suddenly to mikey it's the defining moment
of the season.

>The Bucs ended up with the win but the Pack had the ball on the Bucs 8 with
>four chances to get the TD with 35 seconds left on the clock. Yet you are
>whining about the game being over 4 minutes earlier. Heck, you whine all
>throughout each and every game.
>
>Stop whining and enjoy the fact that the Pack are in the hunt for a division
>title and a playoff spot.

That's the thing. It's as if he doesn't want them to win. Hmm....

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 10:48:06 PM10/7/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 02:39:53 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:

Well, that is where you are quite wrong. I have no idea how good or
bad we are. Thus far we've badly beaten 3 bad teams and lost to one
pretty good team. When the bye week rolls around I think we'll have a
pretty clear idea of where this team is.

JK

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 10:49:25 PM10/7/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

Who? Who said that? Or are you assuming that because most of us
think the Packers STILL have an excellent chance to win the division
that we automatically think that? Keep this in mind: Tampa Bay does
NOT have our number in any way until they can win BOTH games, and they
won't win here in 3 weeks. Until then it's a safe assumption that the
two teams are pretty evenly match, as was evident by the fact that we
were in it to the end.

But hey, if you're ready to throw in the towel, be our guest. Just
don't expect Packer fans to throw theirs in too. 3-1 is a pretty good
place to be. But you go ahead. Keep yourself busy with NASCAR or
something and in a few weeks the NBA will be in full swing. After
all, if you've thrown in the towel, there's no reason for you to even
watch the games. OTOH, if you HAVEN'T thrown in the towel, quit
criticizing the rest of us who haven't either just because we don't
agree with your doom and gloom view!

JK

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 10:52:54 PM10/7/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

>On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 23:40:49 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>LOL. Mike, you're careful to word your "predictions" in such a way so that
>>you almost can never BE wrong. Make no mistake about it, though, you were
>>pissing and moaning at halftime of both the Washington AND Carolina games.
>>If this newsgroup "had GB in the SB already" (your words, not mine), then
>>you had those chalked up as losses. You're a negative nellie. I don't
>>recall anyone saying that GB had a Super Bowl wrapped up, but in your
>>delusional world, to not prattle on like an old woman when your team is NOT
>>up by 30 at halftime somehow makes it so.
>>
>>Sorry, Mike, it works both ways.
>>
>People here in this newsgroup were pretty ballsy after that fast
>start. Witness the one post this morning wondering by how much we were
>gonna beat up the Bucs by. Confidence is one thing but.... both ways
>or not, this team failed it's first real test.

No, it didn't and here's why: at the beginning of the season nobody
EXPECTED a win at TB. And even so, they almost pulled it out at the
end anyway.

>>> Yup, we had the ball with
>>> 35 seconds and 4 shots at the goal line inside the 15 and came away
>>> empty.
>>
>>Mike, did you WATCH the game? Answer, please.
>>
>
>No. I live in Northern California (have pity on me) so I had to listen
>over the net. The stinking raider game was televised instead.

That explains a shitload...

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 10:57:49 PM10/7/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 02:42:19 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:

>webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan) said:
>
>>>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com
>>
>>>Umm.... they haven't been able to do anything for 58 minutes... what
>>>makes you think they can suddenly start executing good now?
>>
>>Mike, you know something... you call yourself a real fan, but you are ready to
>>throw in the towel at the first sign of adversity.
>
>Yeah tell me about it! When the Packers are good, mikey says it isn't
>an accurate reflection of the team. When they have a bad game (STILL
>with a chance to win, BTW), suddenly to mikey it's the defining moment
>of the season.
>

It's far too early for a defining moment of anything. The only thing
defined as of right now is we can beat bad teams but we have no idea
if we can beat good ones. Actually, I *can* feel somewhat vindicated.
During the Washington and the Carolina game I said that if GB started
slowly and played sloppily in the first half as they did in those
games against a good team it would come back and bite them in the ass
and got pretty well lambasted for saying it. Lo and behold, they did
and it did. And herein we have the downside to beating up on bad
teams... you develop bad habits. We played sloppy first halves in two
games but, because the other team was so bad and we were ok, we won
anyway. Play the same way against a playoff team and we go home with a
loss. Now, what is untrue in any of that?

>>The Bucs ended up with the win but the Pack had the ball on the Bucs 8 with
>>four chances to get the TD with 35 seconds left on the clock. Yet you are
>>whining about the game being over 4 minutes earlier. Heck, you whine all
>>throughout each and every game.
>>
>>Stop whining and enjoy the fact that the Pack are in the hunt for a division
>>title and a playoff spot.
>
>That's the thing. It's as if he doesn't want them to win. Hmm....
>

Four games into the season we aren't in the hunt for anything at the
moment. You can say what you will but nothing has changed, when this
team was beating up the bums I saw problems and bad habits. Now that
we played a good team, those problems and bad habits kept us from
winning. Now we get to see if they can adjust and play better. Sherman
kept the team together last season through all the injuries and they
got better. They are going to have to turn it up if they expect to win
the division.

JK

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 10:58:55 PM10/7/01
to
"Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com> said:

I'll answer that. If Favre had thrown a TD on that last play, people
(columnists, fans, analysts) would have been saying how the Packers
ARE for real and maybe they CAN go deep in the playoffs. So, that
being said, does ONE play at the end of the game... one incomplete
pass erase that completely and mean that the team is not for real and
will be lucky to get a wildcard? Certainly NOT. The mere fact that
they were in that position AT TB means more that an incomplete pass.

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 11:06:02 PM10/7/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 02:49:25 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:

>>Perhaps you can point out where I was wrong? Yup, we had the ball with


>>35 seconds and 4 shots at the goal line inside the 15 and came away
>>empty. There were a few questionable play calls and flat out poor
>>execution on our part. To give up a 39 yard TD run to Allstott is a
>>freakin' crime....
>>
>>BTW, the sky isn't falling. My point was (and is) is that people in
>>this newsgroup had GB already in the SB based on kicking around 3
>>patsies.....
>
>Who? Who said that? Or are you assuming that because most of us
>think the Packers STILL have an excellent chance to win the division
>that we automatically think that? Keep this in mind: Tampa Bay does
>NOT have our number in any way until they can win BOTH games, and they
>won't win here in 3 weeks. Until then it's a safe assumption that the
>two teams are pretty evenly match, as was evident by the fact that we
>were in it to the end.
>
>But hey, if you're ready to throw in the towel, be our guest. Just
>don't expect Packer fans to throw theirs in too. 3-1 is a pretty good
>place to be. But you go ahead. Keep yourself busy with NASCAR or
>something and in a few weeks the NBA will be in full swing. After
>all, if you've thrown in the towel, there's no reason for you to even
>watch the games. OTOH, if you HAVEN'T thrown in the towel, quit
>criticizing the rest of us who haven't either just because we don't
>agree with your doom and gloom view!
>

I love this. Unless one just turns a blind eye to anything negative
and talks up the Packers they are throwing in the towel?? I've played
football and coached football and I can tell you, you coach that way
and you may as well throw in the towel cause you'll never win.

Point is (and I defy you to prove it false) the Packers have shown
some glaring weaknesses in the past 3 weeks. Against lesser teams they
have shown that they can overcome those weaknesses, thus far they
failed to do so against the one good team they've played. Far more
important though is the fact that they've shown the same shortcoming
for three consecutive weeks. That is troublesome.

FWIW, I will say again this week what I said last week and the week
before (and it was correct). If they come out again next week and
start slow and sloppy as they did in week 2, week 3, and now week4
then Baltimore will hand us our heads... plain and simple.

The question now is whether or not the coaching staff can find a way
to address this.

JK

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 11:17:17 PM10/7/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

>On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:13:22 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
>wrote:
>>> >
>>> People here in this newsgroup were pretty ballsy after that fast
>>> start.
>>
>>So, who had them in the Super Bowl? If you have a problem with people being
>>"ballsy", now might be a good time to leave. It gets worse. Namely, you'll
>>run into characters who don't even GET the game on TV declare it "over" with
>>5:00 minutes left and a 4-point lead by the opposition. Yeah, no shit.
>>They're out there.
>>
>
>I can hardly believe that anyone would be that way. Of course, it's
>been said once or twice that I tend to be a bit blunt and
>opinionated... but they are wrong.
>
>>
>>Sez you. We were 9-7 last year and missed the playoffs (mainly due to a
>>piss-poor start), so I don't exactly consider a 3-0 start chopped liver.
>>Which comparable opponents did we annihilate last year, Mike? It puts you
>>in a great position to eventually make the playoffs. If Green Bay beats
>>Tampa at home, what does that mean?
>>
>
>It means that we can beat the good teams. Thus far we do not know
>that. We beat 3 bad teams and lost to 1 good team.

If we had been blown out by TB, that would be one thing, but we
weren't. Are you saying that because that single play at the end of
the game was an incomplete pass that we can't beat the good teams, but
if it had been a TD, then we could, all based on a single play? Heck,
you might as well flip a coin. The TB game at TB was a "barometer
game". Yeah, the scoreboard says that TB won. But the scoreboard
isn't the barometer. In almost every other aspect of the game, the
actually execution of the game, we either outplayed them, or equaled
them.

We had more first downs. We had a better 3rd down efficiency. We had
more yards on offense. We had a higher yardage per play (including
that long run). We had 4 more sacks than they did, and all of this
despite them having more TOP. The only category they beat us in was
turnovers, which decided the game. No, even though we didn't play
that well offensively, and the scoreboard had more points next to TB's
name, the barometer STILL shows that GB is a pretty good team. The
scoreboard doesn't always tell the tale.

>>> >Mike, did you WATCH the game? Answer, please.
>>>
>>> No. I live in Northern California (have pity on me) so I had to listen
>>> over the net.
>>
>>Well, there ya go. That answers a hell of a lot, actually. Sorry you can't
>>see the game, though. Maybe an alias chance of "RealAudio Swami" is in
>>order? ;)
>>
>
>I have to make do with the audio only.

I understand and don't fault you for that. It's the same for me and
Celtics games ;)

>>> >If blame is to be assigned, then it's pretty obvious where it falls this
>>> >time...and it ain't the defense.
>>> >
>>> >Of course, if I didn't actually see the game, that might be lost on me.
>>>
>>> Possibly, OTOH, the defense let Tampa control the clock and the tempo
>>> of the game. Twiced we pinned them inside their own 5 yard line and
>>> twice we let them out and ruined our chances at good field position
>>> (well, we got it back once).
>>
>>Again, I'm sorry you couldn't see the game. It's pretty hard to stop a team
>>from making good T.O.P. when they do nothing, essentially, but run up the
>>middle and throw 5-yard outs.
>
>I didn't see the game so I don't know how we played but, seems to me
>that you have to attack an offense like that rather than play well
>passively. If a team likes to make big plays and throw deep then you
>can play passively and deny them the big play and win. If a team likes
>to control the ball as Tampa does then I think you have to get after
>them if you are going to stand a chance of taking control of the game
>away from them.

We did have 5 sacks (3 the the NFL's new "Freak") and were in
Johnson's face a LOT. He just played a very good game. Sometimes it
happens. We clearly outplayed them in the pressure department.

>> Of course, it's pretty hard to SCORE a lot if
>>your offense does nothing but that, and that's exactly what Tampa had
>>trouble with all game long. They scored a total of 7 points, Mike. I'd
>>like to see great field position, too, but the Packers had a great shot at a
>>TD or, at the very least, a FG in the first half. The resulting INT for a
>>TD was enough swing to turn this particular game. One play, Mike. And it
>>had nothing to do with our defense.
>>
>>As bad as that was, we had another great shot at the end. 8 yards from
>>paydirt with 3 shots at it...down 4. A false start, a sack, and a couple of
>>incompletions later, we lose. Again, GB's defense has nothing to do with
>>that.
>>
>
>I guess that's where it gets annoying in that we had 2 excellent
>opportunities to take the game and failed on both. I'm annoyed that we
>ran a reverse while in FG range (a play that should never be run
>regardless against a defense as fast as Tampas) and blew a chance at
>3. Then we couldv'e kicked a FG at the end instead of being forced to
>score a TD.

You're right. It was a bad play to call, but it doesn't mean they're
a bad team. I don't think you can fault ANY team, even the best, for
a failed reverse. Reverses are only successful about 25% of the time
anyway, and if it were up to me, I'd drive down to 1265 myself and rip
that play right out of the book. Call it a lesson learned.

>>> Nope but see my first response above... people could see no wrong with
>>> this team.
>>
>>And again I call "bullshit". You're just a chicken little who prattles on
>>when the team is not up by 3 touchdowns by halftime, against opponents you
>>deem "patsies". Not many people agree with it, but that hardly means they
>>"see no wrong". In fact, I can remember quite a few people talking about
>>how bad they looked in the 1st halves of both the Wash. and Car. games.
>>Thing about it is, no one wanted to throw in the towel because most people
>>realize that there's another 30 minutes to be played. Sorry, not buying
>>your interpetration here.
>>
>
>Not at all, I remember all the excuses "they were feeling them out in
>the first half" or "they were playing conservative" etc. Bottom line,
>they played poorly in the first half of those games but they had
>enough to win going away.

If you're talking about Detroit and Washington, there was not one
minute of those games where we played "poorly". A few less than
impressive drives... sure, but not poor.

JK

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 11:20:14 PM10/7/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

That simply isn't true. 322 yards AT TB isn't bad, especially when
you factor in 3 turnovers.

JK

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 11:23:00 PM10/7/01
to
"Milt" <mle...@home.com> said:

>"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message

>news:odo1stc2rtjlr58c3...@4ax.com...
>> Damn, you are an idiot aren't you? If you are going to be a troll, try
>> not to be so transparent.
>
>I'm not a troll, you seem to be the idiot here. I've been a Packer fan for
>years but damn today was just disgusting. I would agree with you if it
>seemed like Tampa actually seemed to be doing good, but hell, Tampa got some
>lucky breaks and fortunatly they didn't turn them all into scores. But
>really, could you tell me what the hell was the sense of throwing a huge
>bomb pass with 6 and a half min. left in the game?

He threw it because he had an open man. The pass just sailed on him.
It WAS very windy and the pass probably shouldn't have been thrown,
but when you're playing it's easy to forget about the wind when your
guy is streaking down the field with a nice open window.

mike

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 11:28:30 PM10/7/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 03:20:14 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:

>>A bit of a straw man there. I don't *KNOW* that a "w" will appear on
>>the screen if I hit the "w" key until I do so and it appears. OTOH, I
>>can reasonably assume it will since that's what has happened in the
>>past. Green Bay's offense was unable to perform against the Tampa
>>defense for 56 minutes,
>
>That simply isn't true. 322 yards AT TB isn't bad, especially when
>you factor in 3 turnovers.
>

It is if you can't find the endzone. To answer your other post too, if
Favre had completed a pass to end the game with a TD and a win it
wouldn't change the fact that they had, for the balance of the game,
played poorly. I'd be happy that they won but concerned that they had
misfired on so many levels.

I'm concerned by the way that they played too, win or lose, because
the next team on their schedule has an even better defense along with
a better offense.

JK

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 11:59:04 PM10/7/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

Actually, I think we'll know in one week.

mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:05:26 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 03:59:04 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:

Not sure about that. If I take the very best approach to todays
game.... we battled Tampa tooth and nail and it went right down to
the wire and we failed to win on the last play of the game.... then
what happens next week when we face a better offense and a much better
defense?

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:05:44 AM10/8/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

It certainly seems so when you dismiss anything positive and accutuate
anything negative.

> I've played
>football and coached football and I can tell you, you coach that way
>and you may as well throw in the towel cause you'll never win.
>
>Point is (and I defy you to prove it false) the Packers have shown
>some glaring weaknesses in the past 3 weeks.

I was at the Redskins game and saw NO glaring weakness in that game
(and likewise, I defy you to prove that there was). The only glaring
weakness I even saw against Carolina was getting off to a slow start.

>Against lesser teams they
>have shown that they can overcome those weaknesses,

How about being a little less vague and get specific on those
weaknesses we exhibited against Detroit, Washington, and Carolina?

>thus far they
>failed to do so against the one good team they've played. Far more
>important though is the fact that they've shown the same shortcoming
>for three consecutive weeks. That is troublesome.

Like I said. I saw no shortcomings agains the Redskins. We
THOROUGHLY dominated them in every facet of the game. If you're not
happy with that game, get specific.

>FWIW, I will say again this week what I said last week and the week
>before (and it was correct). If they come out again next week and
>start slow and sloppy as they did in week 2, week 3, and now week4
>then Baltimore will hand us our heads... plain and simple.

We weren't slow and sloppy against Washington. I don't know where
you're getting this.

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:06:49 AM10/8/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

>On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 03:20:14 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
>wrote:
>
>>>A bit of a straw man there. I don't *KNOW* that a "w" will appear on
>>>the screen if I hit the "w" key until I do so and it appears. OTOH, I
>>>can reasonably assume it will since that's what has happened in the
>>>past. Green Bay's offense was unable to perform against the Tampa
>>>defense for 56 minutes,
>>
>>That simply isn't true. 322 yards AT TB isn't bad, especially when
>>you factor in 3 turnovers.
>>
>
>It is if you can't find the endzone. To answer your other post too, if
>Favre had completed a pass to end the game with a TD and a win it
>wouldn't change the fact that they had, for the balance of the game,
>played poorly. I'd be happy that they won but concerned that they had
>misfired on so many levels.

What about all the levels on which the Bucs misfired? Do you ignore
those and declare the Bucs a better team?

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:08:39 AM10/8/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

>On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 02:42:19 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
>wrote:
>
>>webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan) said:
>>
>>>>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com
>>>
>>>>Umm.... they haven't been able to do anything for 58 minutes... what
>>>>makes you think they can suddenly start executing good now?
>>>
>>>Mike, you know something... you call yourself a real fan, but you are ready to
>>>throw in the towel at the first sign of adversity.
>>
>>Yeah tell me about it! When the Packers are good, mikey says it isn't
>>an accurate reflection of the team. When they have a bad game (STILL
>>with a chance to win, BTW), suddenly to mikey it's the defining moment
>>of the season.
>>
>
>It's far too early for a defining moment of anything. The only thing
>defined as of right now is we can beat bad teams but we have no idea
>if we can beat good ones. Actually, I *can* feel somewhat vindicated.
>During the Washington and the Carolina game I said that if GB started
>slowly and played sloppily in the first half as they did in those
>games against a good team it would come back and bite them in the ass
>and got pretty well lambasted for saying it. Lo and behold, they did
>and it did. And herein we have the downside to beating up on bad
>teams... you develop bad habits. We played sloppy first halves in two

And like I've said before. I didn't see any sloppy half against the
Redskins.

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:11:52 AM10/8/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

I don't think you realize how much Favre feeds off the home crowd.
He's shown it time and time again. The Ravens are set for a suprise.
As far as their defense, they might be a little better than TB, but
not by much.

mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:17:10 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 04:06:49 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:

>mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 03:20:14 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>A bit of a straw man there. I don't *KNOW* that a "w" will appear on
>>>>the screen if I hit the "w" key until I do so and it appears. OTOH, I
>>>>can reasonably assume it will since that's what has happened in the
>>>>past. Green Bay's offense was unable to perform against the Tampa
>>>>defense for 56 minutes,
>>>
>>>That simply isn't true. 322 yards AT TB isn't bad, especially when
>>>you factor in 3 turnovers.
>>>
>>
>>It is if you can't find the endzone. To answer your other post too, if
>>Favre had completed a pass to end the game with a TD and a win it
>>wouldn't change the fact that they had, for the balance of the game,
>>played poorly. I'd be happy that they won but concerned that they had
>>misfired on so many levels.
>
>What about all the levels on which the Bucs misfired? Do you ignore
>those and declare the Bucs a better team?
>

No actually, it makes our performance even worse. The Tampa offense
played about as conservative as they could and our offense still
barely outscored them and gave up 7 points to boot. Schroeder needs a
dressing down too, he played pretty good but that penalty was
unforgivable and it's not the first time he's done something like
that.

mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:21:33 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 04:05:44 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:

>
>>
>>I love this. Unless one just turns a blind eye to anything negative
>>and talks up the Packers they are throwing in the towel??
>
>It certainly seems so when you dismiss anything positive and accutuate
>anything negative.
>

There were no positives today aside from the overall defense and,
specifically, KGB.

>> I've played
>>football and coached football and I can tell you, you coach that way
>>and you may as well throw in the towel cause you'll never win.
>>
>>Point is (and I defy you to prove it false) the Packers have shown
>>some glaring weaknesses in the past 3 weeks.
>
>I was at the Redskins game and saw NO glaring weakness in that game
>(and likewise, I defy you to prove that there was). The only glaring
>weakness I even saw against Carolina was getting off to a slow start.
>

I don't have the game on tape but I do recall that they came up empty
on too many drives in the first half even though it was pretty evident
by then that Washington was way overmatched. At the half it was 10-0
and a TD would've brought them back in the game. We had more than
enough to beat them but you want to make sure you don't waste redzone
opportunities.

>>Against lesser teams they
>>have shown that they can overcome those weaknesses,
>
>How about being a little less vague and get specific on those
>weaknesses we exhibited against Detroit, Washington, and Carolina?
>

None against Detroit, I never mentioned that game. Against Washington
see above. Against Carolina it was the picks and the fact that we had
to come from behind to beat an inferior team. Again we had wasted
drives in that game too. I realize no team will be 100% in the redzone
but you shouldn't blow too many against light competition.

SpooRL

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:28:51 AM10/8/01
to
From: mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com>

>then what happens next week when we face a better offense and a much better
defense?

...but at home.

Spoo

NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:34:55 AM10/8/01
to
>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

>I love this. Unless one just turns a blind eye to anything negative
>and talks up the Packers they are throwing in the towel??

That is a leap in logic that I did not see JK making. What I, and I think
others, are taking issue with is people closing the book on the game with more
than 4 minutes left in a 4 point game. THAT ACTION is throwing in the towel.

>I've played
>football and coached football and I can tell you, you coach that way
>and you may as well throw in the towel cause you'll never win.

So, instead you put in the backups down by 4 with the ball in your possession
with 4 minutes left to play because your team's offense "hadn't done anything
in the first 56 minutes?"

>Point is (and I defy you to prove it false) the Packers have shown
>some glaring weaknesses in the past 3 weeks.

Why would anyone want to prove that the Pack have no weaknesses? Heck, the last
two SuperBowl champions had serious flaws.

>Against lesser teams they
>have shown that they can overcome those weaknesses, thus far they
>failed to do so against the one good team they've played. Far more
>important though is the fact that they've shown the same shortcoming
>for three consecutive weeks. That is troublesome.

And specifically what weakness would that be, coach?

>FWIW, I will say again this week what I said last week and the week
>before (and it was correct). If they come out again next week and
>start slow and sloppy as they did in week 2, week 3, and now week4
>then Baltimore will hand us our heads... plain and simple.

I would love to hear how 7-7 at halftime is a "slow start."

>The question now is whether or not the coaching staff can find a way
>to address this.

Assuming that your assertion that the Pack has "started slow" has some merit,
how do you expect a coach to "address" starting slow? Having the team scrimage
for a quarter on Sunday mornings to trick the players into thinking that the
first quarter is the second?

Coaching staffs can coach *aspects* of a team's play. How do you expect the
coaches to make the players get off to faster starts?

Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:41:13 AM10/8/01
to
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:1e92st00st0ks76ot...@4ax.com...

HEY!

You're the psychic here. Tell us. ;)


NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:48:09 AM10/8/01
to
>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

<snip>

>I *can* feel somewhat vindicated.
>During the Washington and the Carolina game I said that if GB started
>slowly and played sloppily in the first half as they did in those
>games against a good team it would come back and bite them in the ass
>and got pretty well lambasted for saying it. Lo and behold, they did
>and it did. And herein we have the downside to beating up on bad
>teams... you develop bad habits. We played sloppy first halves in two
>games but, because the other team was so bad and we were ok, we won
>anyway. Play the same way against a playoff team and we go home with a
>loss. Now, what is untrue in any of that?

Almost everything, unless you are trying to be hypothetical.

The score was 7-7 at halftime. The Packers were outscored in the second half,
not the first. The Packers offset their two TO's. One was offset with good D
and the other with the long TD to Scroeder.

Thus, your story about the sloppy first half is pure fiction.

Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:50:26 AM10/8/01
to
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:av92stgcli8vnpetc...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 04:06:49 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
> wrote:
> >What about all the levels on which the Bucs misfired? Do you ignore
> >those and declare the Bucs a better team?
>
> No actually, it makes our performance even worse. The Tampa offense
> played about as conservative as they could

Wrong. That's about as wild n' crazy as they get. Ask any Buc fan.

> and our offense still
> barely outscored them and gave up 7 points to boot. Schroeder needs a
> dressing down too, he played pretty good but that penalty was
> unforgivable and it's not the first time he's done something like
> that.

Let's see if anyone else saw this the way I did. I'm going off memory, but
will resort to tape if I've got this all wrong.

1) The play is over, Schroeder has his back turned to the defense and is
about to head back toward the huddle. With me so far?
2) #94 (?) of the Bucs comes running up behind Bill and clocks him. About
as blatant a cheap-shot as I've seen.
3) Bill gets up, collects himself, and goes over to the guy and shoves him
back.
4) Mr. Referee is right in FRONT of this exchange the *entire* time, and
actually waits for Schroeder to retailiate and THEN throws the flag.

Am I nuts, or did this not happen?

I'm not saying Schroeder should retaliate, but what the hell is up with
that? You can't possibly tell me the ref missed the initial shove. No way
in hell.


mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:54:32 AM10/8/01
to
On 08 Oct 2001 04:34:55 GMT, webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan)
wrote:

>>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

>
>>I love this. Unless one just turns a blind eye to anything negative
>>and talks up the Packers they are throwing in the towel??
>
>That is a leap in logic that I did not see JK making. What I, and I think
>others, are taking issue with is people closing the book on the game with more
>than 4 minutes left in a 4 point game. THAT ACTION is throwing in the towel.
>

No, he asserted that I had thrown in the towel on the season (at least
that's the way I read it). I wasn't throwing in the towel as I have
no effect on the outcome of the game. I was simply accepting the fact
that we had failed all day against their defense, there were no facts
anywhere to support that we would do anything different on the final
drive.

>>I've played
>>football and coached football and I can tell you, you coach that way
>>and you may as well throw in the towel cause you'll never win.
>
>So, instead you put in the backups down by 4 with the ball in your possession
>with 4 minutes left to play because your team's offense "hadn't done anything
>in the first 56 minutes?"
>

Again no and it wasn't about the last 4 minutes of the game. My point
is that if you win and say great and don't address what you did wrong
in that big win then you don't get better. You don't get better in the
NFL and you will lose.

>>Point is (and I defy you to prove it false) the Packers have shown
>>some glaring weaknesses in the past 3 weeks.
>
>Why would anyone want to prove that the Pack have no weaknesses? Heck, the last
>two SuperBowl champions had serious flaws.
>

Yes, and no one likes to mention them - of course I see why. I mention
them and everyone acts as if I've run a knife into the heart of GB. No
one here can handle discussing this teams weaknesses. Head in the sand
serves no one... except the competition.

>>Against lesser teams they
>>have shown that they can overcome those weaknesses, thus far they
>>failed to do so against the one good team they've played. Far more
>>important though is the fact that they've shown the same shortcoming
>>for three consecutive weeks. That is troublesome.
>
>And specifically what weakness would that be, coach?
>

The slow starts and sloppy play. If your team is decent you can win
when you do that against lesser teams. Against better teams that will
prevent you from winning.

>>FWIW, I will say again this week what I said last week and the week
>>before (and it was correct). If they come out again next week and
>>start slow and sloppy as they did in week 2, week 3, and now week4
>>then Baltimore will hand us our heads... plain and simple.
>
>I would love to hear how 7-7 at halftime is a "slow start."
>

So, a pick on the first pass of the game, a pick returned 98 yards for
a TD and 4 drives with zero points is a fast start?? Although I guess
it could be considering the second half was 1 pick and 4 drives with
zero points. Sorry but our offense was awful today... period.

>>The question now is whether or not the coaching staff can find a way
>>to address this.
>
>Assuming that your assertion that the Pack has "started slow" has some merit,
>how do you expect a coach to "address" starting slow? Having the team scrimage
>for a quarter on Sunday mornings to trick the players into thinking that the
>first quarter is the second?
>
>Coaching staffs can coach *aspects* of a team's play. How do you expect the
>coaches to make the players get off to faster starts?

Yes, they certainly can. Last week we gave up too many turnovers...
this week we gave up too many turnovers. Last week we waisted redzone
opportunies early... this week we waisted redzone opportunities early
and late. It only takes one lapse in concentration or judgement...
like running a damn reverse while you are in FG range against a very
fast defense. Or shoving a player in retaliation... or a false start
in a goal to go situation... or failing to wrap up on a tackle at the
line of scrimmage.

An NFL coach once stated that the difference between good NFL teams
and bad ones is about a half dozen plays. The good teams will make
those plays and the bad ones won't. Today we didn't and they did. When
they needed a stop they made it, when they had to score they did...
and we didn't. Can this be corrected? Yes. Will it, we'll know more
next weekend.

mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:56:25 AM10/8/01
to
On 08 Oct 2001 04:48:09 GMT, webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan)
wrote:

>>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com


Okay coach. It's interesting that you find 2 picks (one returned 98
yards for a gift TD) and 4 drives that failed to score a sloppy first
half. I'd sure as hell hate to see what you would call a bad half....

NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:58:24 AM10/8/01
to
>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

>On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 03:20:14 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
>wrote:
>
>>>A bit of a straw man there. I don't *KNOW* that a "w" will appear on
>>>the screen if I hit the "w" key until I do so and it appears. OTOH, I
>>>can reasonably assume it will since that's what has happened in the
>>>past. Green Bay's offense was unable to perform against the Tampa
>>>defense for 56 minutes,
>>
>>That simply isn't true. 322 yards AT TB isn't bad, especially when
>>you factor in 3 turnovers.
>>
>
>It is if you can't find the endzone. To answer your other post too, if
>Favre had completed a pass to end the game with a TD and a win it
>wouldn't change the fact that they had, for the balance of the game,
>played poorly. I'd be happy that they won but concerned that they had
>misfired on so many levels.

The Packers misfired on so many levels in the Ice Bowl, as well. Does that mean
that you would have been writing posts (had the net existed!) about "playing
poorly" in allowing the Cowboy to take the lead in the early second half? Would
you have been whining about how the Pack had better "solve" the slow second
half start problem the next game against the AFL champion?

>I'm concerned by the way that they played too, win or lose, because
>the next team on their schedule has an even better defense along with
>a better offense.

The statement about Baltimore having a better defense than Tampa could be
correct. A better offense, though? Somehow, Terry Allen and Elvis Grbac do not
scare me much...

Keep in mind also that Tennessee and Baltimore are rivals who deeply dislike
one another. Baltimore must have been stoked this week to bury their rivals. I
somehow doubt that they'll have the same intensity next week playing the Pack,
a team they couldn't care less about...

mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:00:33 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 04:50:26 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
wrote:

>"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message


>news:av92stgcli8vnpetc...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 04:06:49 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
>> wrote:
>> >What about all the levels on which the Bucs misfired? Do you ignore
>> >those and declare the Bucs a better team?
>>
>> No actually, it makes our performance even worse. The Tampa offense
>> played about as conservative as they could
>
>Wrong. That's about as wild n' crazy as they get. Ask any Buc fan.
>

If that's the case then Tampa Bay will NOT be in the Super Bowl,
whether they take the division or not.

>> and our offense still
>> barely outscored them and gave up 7 points to boot. Schroeder needs a
>> dressing down too, he played pretty good but that penalty was
>> unforgivable and it's not the first time he's done something like
>> that.
>
>Let's see if anyone else saw this the way I did. I'm going off memory, but
>will resort to tape if I've got this all wrong.
>
>1) The play is over, Schroeder has his back turned to the defense and is
>about to head back toward the huddle. With me so far?
>2) #94 (?) of the Bucs comes running up behind Bill and clocks him. About
>as blatant a cheap-shot as I've seen.
>3) Bill gets up, collects himself, and goes over to the guy and shoves him
>back.
>4) Mr. Referee is right in FRONT of this exchange the *entire* time, and
>actually waits for Schroeder to retailiate and THEN throws the flag.
>
>Am I nuts, or did this not happen?
>
>I'm not saying Schroeder should retaliate, but what the hell is up with
>that? You can't possibly tell me the ref missed the initial shove. No way
>in hell.
>

I didn't see that (obviously) but, regardless, the old rule is that
the second person (or the one that retaliates) that generally gets
caught and, more to the point, if they didn't throw a flag did Bill
think it was a free for all? I understand the heat of the moment but
he simply should've gone to the ref - anyway you look at it it killed
a crucial drive.

Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:05:09 AM10/8/01
to
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:jfb2st8u9ofltmdrc...@4ax.com...

> On 08 Oct 2001 04:34:55 GMT, webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan)
> wrote:

(snip)

> No, he asserted that I had thrown in the towel on the season (at least
> that's the way I read it). I wasn't throwing in the towel as I have
> no effect on the outcome of the game.

Okay, makes sense.

> Yes, and no one likes to mention them - of course I see why. I mention
> them and everyone acts as if I've run a knife into the heart of GB. No
> one here can handle discussing this teams weaknesses. Head in the sand
> serves no one... except the competition.

Alrighty then.

You acknowledge that a fan "throwing in the towel" has no effect on the
outcome of the game, but here you claim that fellow posters with their "head
in the sand" serves no one but the competition. Wanna run that by me again,
Mike? After several years of posting here, the only thing I'm sure of is
that no matter how negative, positive, or idiotic (in the case of bEeCh NuT)
the post, there's no correlation whatsoever in how the team actually
performs. Thank God for that, too.


mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:06:09 AM10/8/01
to
On 08 Oct 2001 04:58:24 GMT, webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan)
wrote:

>>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

>
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 03:20:14 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>A bit of a straw man there. I don't *KNOW* that a "w" will appear on
>>>>the screen if I hit the "w" key until I do so and it appears. OTOH, I
>>>>can reasonably assume it will since that's what has happened in the
>>>>past. Green Bay's offense was unable to perform against the Tampa
>>>>defense for 56 minutes,
>>>
>>>That simply isn't true. 322 yards AT TB isn't bad, especially when
>>>you factor in 3 turnovers.
>>>
>>
>>It is if you can't find the endzone. To answer your other post too, if
>>Favre had completed a pass to end the game with a TD and a win it
>>wouldn't change the fact that they had, for the balance of the game,
>>played poorly. I'd be happy that they won but concerned that they had
>>misfired on so many levels.
>
>The Packers misfired on so many levels in the Ice Bowl, as well. Does that mean
>that you would have been writing posts (had the net existed!) about "playing
>poorly" in allowing the Cowboy to take the lead in the early second half? Would
>you have been whining about how the Pack had better "solve" the slow second
>half start problem the next game against the AFL champion?
>

Not a good comparison. The Cowboys were a very balanced and all world
team at that time, this was a Championship game and the weather
conditions were awful. For those three reasons it was not conducive to
a fast start like the previous year when the weather was better and
the final score was 34-27.

>>I'm concerned by the way that they played too, win or lose, because
>>the next team on their schedule has an even better defense along with
>>a better offense.
>
>The statement about Baltimore having a better defense than Tampa could be
>correct. A better offense, though? Somehow, Terry Allen and Elvis Grbac do not
>scare me much...
>

Elvis has an arm and has shown that he can do it. More to the point,
they play a more balanced game than Tampa.

>Keep in mind also that Tennessee and Baltimore are rivals who deeply dislike
>one another. Baltimore must have been stoked this week to bury their rivals. I
>somehow doubt that they'll have the same intensity next week playing the Pack,
>a team they couldn't care less about...

That may be a factor in our favor. I heard that Tennessee had said
some less than flattering things about Baltimore this week leading up
to the game.

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:06:56 AM10/8/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

>On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 04:06:49 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
>wrote:
>
>>mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 03:20:14 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>A bit of a straw man there. I don't *KNOW* that a "w" will appear on
>>>>>the screen if I hit the "w" key until I do so and it appears. OTOH, I
>>>>>can reasonably assume it will since that's what has happened in the
>>>>>past. Green Bay's offense was unable to perform against the Tampa
>>>>>defense for 56 minutes,
>>>>
>>>>That simply isn't true. 322 yards AT TB isn't bad, especially when
>>>>you factor in 3 turnovers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It is if you can't find the endzone. To answer your other post too, if
>>>Favre had completed a pass to end the game with a TD and a win it
>>>wouldn't change the fact that they had, for the balance of the game,
>>>played poorly. I'd be happy that they won but concerned that they had
>>>misfired on so many levels.
>>
>>What about all the levels on which the Bucs misfired? Do you ignore
>>those and declare the Bucs a better team?
>>
>
>No actually, it makes our performance even worse.

So our mistakes make us bad, and Tampa's mistakes make us bad too. I
see. Wouldn't OUR mistakes make THEIR performance even worse too, by
the exact same logic? Of course it would. Shit balances out, and
when you weight the performance of both teams, you can't conclusively
say whether one is actually better than the other.... yet.

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:09:01 AM10/8/01
to
"Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com> said:

Actually, Dustan, the official threw the flag as soon as Billy was
pushed. There were two seperate flags. If you go back to the tape, I
believe it will confirm this.

>I'm not saying Schroeder should retaliate, but what the hell is up with
>that? You can't possibly tell me the ref missed the initial shove. No way
>in hell.

They didn't. They threw the flag on it immediately.

mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:10:19 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 05:05:09 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
wrote:

>"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message

Yeah, I saw that after I posted. What I meant was that if the coaching
staff chose not to dwell on what the Packers didn't do well when they
were winning then they were doomed to repeat them which served only
their opponents. Two different thoughts I failed to separate.

mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:11:17 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 05:06:56 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:

Okay, I'll grant you that except that they won and we didn't... which
still smarts.

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:13:01 AM10/8/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

>On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 04:05:44 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>I love this. Unless one just turns a blind eye to anything negative
>>>and talks up the Packers they are throwing in the towel??
>>
>>It certainly seems so when you dismiss anything positive and accutuate
>>anything negative.
>>
>
>There were no positives today aside from the overall defense and,
>specifically, KGB.
>
>>> I've played
>>>football and coached football and I can tell you, you coach that way
>>>and you may as well throw in the towel cause you'll never win.
>>>
>>>Point is (and I defy you to prove it false) the Packers have shown
>>>some glaring weaknesses in the past 3 weeks.
>>
>>I was at the Redskins game and saw NO glaring weakness in that game
>>(and likewise, I defy you to prove that there was). The only glaring
>>weakness I even saw against Carolina was getting off to a slow start.
>>
>
>I don't have the game on tape but I do recall that they came up empty
>on too many drives in the first half even though it was pretty evident
>by then that Washington was way overmatched. At the half it was 10-0
>and a TD would've brought them back in the game. We had more than
>enough to beat them but you want to make sure you don't waste redzone
>opportunities.

I don't call that a weakness. That's just the flow of the game, pal.
You're NEVER going to play a perfect game. Not even the '72 Dolphins
played a perfect game where they scored on every drive.

>>>Against lesser teams they
>>>have shown that they can overcome those weaknesses,
>>
>>How about being a little less vague and get specific on those
>>weaknesses we exhibited against Detroit, Washington, and Carolina?
>>
>
>None against Detroit, I never mentioned that game. Against Washington
>see above.

Actually, they played BETTER against Washington than they did against
Detroit. Did you see the Detroit game?

mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:14:30 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 05:13:01 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:

>
>
>Actually, they played BETTER against Washington than they did against
>Detroit. Did you see the Detroit game?
>

Unfortunately, the only game I've seen this year is the Washington
game. No other game has been shown here.

Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:14:40 AM10/8/01
to
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:bic2st0bcv7b51ehc...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 04:50:26 GMT, "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com>
> wrote:
> >Wrong. That's about as wild n' crazy as they get. Ask any Buc fan.
>
> If that's the case then Tampa Bay will NOT be in the Super Bowl,
> whether they take the division or not.

Well, it's not our concern, really, but many of them (Buc fans) do feel that
way. Extremely conservative offensive schemes have been the bane of Bucs
fans seemingly forever.

> >I'm not saying Schroeder should retaliate, but what the hell is up with
> >that? You can't possibly tell me the ref missed the initial shove. No
way
> >in hell.
>
> I didn't see that (obviously) but, regardless, the old rule is that
> the second person (or the one that retaliates) that generally gets
> caught and

Yeah, but my real point was that the ref was literally IN FRONT of this from
the second the Buc shoved Schroeder in the first place. It wasn't a matter
of "catching" the retaliatory action, IMO, it was that the ref actually
waited for the retaliation before he pulled out his flag. I thought it was
crap, myself.

Schroeder may have retaliated regardless, but the flag should have hit the
turf the moment after Schroeder did.


Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:17:27 AM10/8/01
to
"JK" <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX> wrote in message
news:r4d2sts8n8lj1ihpp...@4ax.com...

> "Dustan Setner" <dse...@new.rr.com> said:
> >4) Mr. Referee is right in FRONT of this exchange the *entire* time, and
> >actually waits for Schroeder to retailiate and THEN throws the flag.
> >
> >Am I nuts, or did this not happen?
>
> Actually, Dustan, the official threw the flag as soon as Billy was
> pushed.

Really? Then I missed that. In that case, it's 100% on Bill.

> There were two seperate flags. If you go back to the tape, I
> believe it will confirm this.

I'll have to check that out.


JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:19:33 AM10/8/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

>On 08 Oct 2001 04:34:55 GMT, webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan)
>wrote:
>
>>>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com
>>
>>>I love this. Unless one just turns a blind eye to anything negative
>>>and talks up the Packers they are throwing in the towel??
>>
>>That is a leap in logic that I did not see JK making. What I, and I think
>>others, are taking issue with is people closing the book on the game with more
>>than 4 minutes left in a 4 point game. THAT ACTION is throwing in the towel.
>>
>
>No, he asserted that I had thrown in the towel on the season (at least
>that's the way I read it). I wasn't throwing in the towel as I have
>no effect on the outcome of the game. I was simply accepting the fact
>that we had failed all day against their defense,

And in that statement, you are categorically wrong. Gee, I seem to
remember burning a pretty good defense for a 60 yard TD. I also seem
to remember moving the ball pretty consistently for large portions of
the game. Yeah, there were 3 INTs that killed those drives, but they
were effective drives nevertheless, and the fact that we averaged 5.6
yards/play and had a very nice 3rd down conversion rate, can't be
ignored. It's one thing to say we didn't capitalize on the
scoreboard, but something else altogether to say we failed all day
against their defense.

mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:22:51 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 05:19:33 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:


>>No, he asserted that I had thrown in the towel on the season (at least
>>that's the way I read it). I wasn't throwing in the towel as I have
>>no effect on the outcome of the game. I was simply accepting the fact
>>that we had failed all day against their defense,
>
>And in that statement, you are categorically wrong. Gee, I seem to
>remember burning a pretty good defense for a 60 yard TD. I also seem
>to remember moving the ball pretty consistently for large portions of
>the game. Yeah, there were 3 INTs that killed those drives, but they
>were effective drives nevertheless, and the fact that we averaged 5.6
>yards/play and had a very nice 3rd down conversion rate, can't be
>ignored. It's one thing to say we didn't capitalize on the
>scoreboard, but something else altogether to say we failed all day
>against their defense.
>


But that's the point isn't it? Points, not statistics, win games and
we failed to capitalize on our drives. I'd rather be outgained every
week as long as we score more points. That like the defenses that give
up a ton of yards but don't allow TDs... forcing FGs. Failure to
convert in the redzone will kill you every time.

Dustan Setner

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:22:54 AM10/8/01
to
"mike" <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> wrote in message
news:had2stosj8aj5dl80...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 05:06:56 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
> wrote:
> >So our mistakes make us bad, and Tampa's mistakes make us bad too. I
> >see. Wouldn't OUR mistakes make THEIR performance even worse too, by
> >the exact same logic? Of course it would. Shit balances out, and
> >when you weight the performance of both teams, you can't conclusively
> >say whether one is actually better than the other.... yet.
>
> Okay, I'll grant you that except that they won and we didn't... which
> still smarts.

Just try some Vitamin B(eer).


NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:29:13 AM10/8/01
to
>From: "Dustan Setner" dse...@new.rr.com

>1) The play is over, Schroeder has his back turned to the defense and is
>about to head back toward the huddle. With me so far?
>2) #94 (?) of the Bucs comes running up behind Bill and clocks him. About
>as blatant a cheap-shot as I've seen.
>3) Bill gets up, collects himself, and goes over to the guy and shoves him
>back.

Based on my recollection, you are correct up to this point...

>4) Mr. Referee is right in FRONT of this exchange the *entire* time, and
>actually waits for Schroeder to retailiate and THEN throws the flag.
>
>Am I nuts, or did this not happen?

Actually, watching on TV provided no indication of when the flags flew. I saw
no flags, just heard Madden and Summerall talking about how flags were all
over. However, since some of the refs threw their hats (indicating a second
penalty signal), I think that the TB player had been flagged before Schroeder
retaliated...

>I'm not saying Schroeder should retaliate, but what the hell is up with
>that? You can't possibly tell me the ref missed the initial shove. No way
>in hell.

Actually, Madden and Summerall pointed out that the NFL had instituted rules
some time ago that were meant to punish the instigator in such circumstances. I
think that the refs would have been within the rules to have marched off 15
against TB for instigation instead of calling the play "off setting".

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:38:51 AM10/8/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

But the point is that we know we have the offensive firepower to move
the ball against the best defenses. We failed to score because of
correctable mistakes. That's different than being shut down and going
3 and out all game.

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:42:31 AM10/8/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

And I'll certainly grant you that :-(

mike

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:43:58 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 05:38:51 GMT, JK <bigge...@gbpackers.comXXXXX>
wrote:


Except that Tampa employs a bend but don't break philosophy. They were
willing to give up the short plays and shut down our wideouts which
they did quite effectively save one play. I'm now more interested to
see how we do next week against what I consider to be probably the
best overall defense in the NFL right now.

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:58:41 AM10/8/01
to
mike <mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> said:

You're not the only one.

NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 2:07:33 AM10/8/01
to
>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

<snipped because I can accept your comments or someone else has addressed them>

>>And specifically what weakness would that be, coach?
>>
>
>The slow starts and sloppy play. If your team is decent you can win
>when you do that against lesser teams. Against better teams that will
>prevent you from winning.

Going into this week, the Pack were tied with Cleveland for third in the NFL in
TO differential at +5. Going into this week, the Packers were third best in the
NFL for fewest penalty yards, giving away only 95 yds in three games. TB was
second with 86... but had only played 2 games. So, the Pack was SECOND BEST in
the NFL in fewest penalty yards per game going into this week.

As to the "slow starts," here are the halftime scores so far this year:
Week 1-- GB 21 Det 6
Week 2-- GB 10 Wash 0
Week 3-- Car 7 GB 6
Week 4-- GB 7 TB 7

This is the NFL. Those are hardly "slow starts" unless one is comparing them to
the Pack's second half performances when the Pack shone until this week.

I am certainly not saying that the Packers have no room for improvement,
especially after losing this week to a key divisional foe. I imagine that the
Pack will be working hard on maximizing team execution for the Baltimore game
next week.

However, you are making the Packers sound like they have played sloppy, when
they have truly not executed poorly. You are holding them to a zero mistake
standard-- which is simply unrealistic, IMHO.

This week was worse than the prior three, but you must give the TB defense some
credit for forcing some of the mistakes today. For example, the false start
late in the game could easily have been a product of the tough TB defensive
line. The TB defense made some good plays to help the Pack into those TO's
today. Favre was sacked little, but pressured alot today.

On the issue of clock management, the Pack do definitely need to improve on
this aspect of their game. Today's late game clock management left something to
be desired.

The receivers could use some work on ensuring that everything catchable is
caught. The line can work on protection schemes.

However, today the Pack lost a close game to a tough team on the road. That's
hardly like getting blown out by a weak team at home!

Just keep in mind that the Pack were also 3-1 at this point of the season in
'96. The '96 Pack blew out their first three opponents prior to losing week 4
to a key divisional rival... in Minnesota. I draw the parallel not to imply
that the Pack are Bowl bound, but to show that the positives far outweigh the
negatives at this stage of the season.

Go PACK!!!

NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 2:27:00 AM10/8/01
to
>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

>Okay coach.

You are the one who claimed to be a coach...

>It's interesting that you find 2 picks (one returned 98
>yards for a gift TD) and 4 drives that failed to score a sloppy first
>half. I'd sure as hell hate to see what you would call a bad half....

So, the quality of a half is decided by only what happened during the half that
was negative? What about the long TD to Schroeder? What about the fact that the
Pack defense allowed the Bucs only 106 total yards in the first half? What
about getting two sacks while allowing none? What about the fact that the Bucs
were allowed no offensive points in five first half possessions?

My point is *not* to say that the Packers had a good first half. My point is
that the first half was not a bad half. The good negated the bad and the bad
negated the good.

This is the NFL. Opponents rarely roll over to play dead, especially when our
team is on the road. The first half was neither slow, nor fast... hence the
tied 7-7 score.

NYC Pack Fan

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 2:30:26 AM10/8/01
to
>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com

>Elvis has an arm and has shown that he can do it. More to the point,
>they play a more balanced game than Tampa.

Their receivers are mediocre and they have a poor running game with Jamal Lewis
out. Terry Allen is well below average as a starting back at this stage of his
career.

Hardly balanced, IMO.

However, their defense can make up for many offensive sins. Should be a good
game next week.

JK

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 2:32:56 AM10/8/01
to
webe...@aol.comspamfree (NYC Pack Fan) said:

>>From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com
>
>>Elvis has an arm and has shown that he can do it. More to the point,
>>they play a more balanced game than Tampa.
>
>Their receivers are mediocre and they have a poor running game with Jamal Lewis
>out. Terry Allen is well below average as a starting back at this stage of his
>career.

Actually, Allen had a pretty good game today, but I wouldn't expect
him to do it in back-to-back games, which is good if it holds true.

Brian Curley

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 11:08:13 AM10/8/01
to
In article <Ik5w7.40320$My2.20...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>,
mle...@home.com says...
>
> "NYC Pack Fan" <webe...@aol.comspamfree> wrote in message
> news:20011007185852...@mb-mu.aol.com...
> > >From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com
> >
> > >I hope this puts to rest all the invincible... we are great talk in
> > >this newsgroup... then again a dose of reality has a way of doing
> > >that. Give Tampa it's due, that's a great defense and they exposed our
> > >team for what it is.... capable of beating up on the JV but not nearly
> > >as good as we looked and as everyone here thought we were.....
> >
> > IT IS NOT OVER YET!!!!!!!
> >
> > Cripes, people are bemoaning the game like it's over when there are more
> than 4
> > minutes left and we have the ball...
>
> Actually, it is over... and was over when Favre threw that stupid bomb pass
> and it was intercepted and the Packer offense seemed incapable of moving the
> ball against a defense that shouldn't have been that difficult.

OK... the rest of the football world is wrong and you're right. The
Bucs defense is a bunch of patsies. You da' man. I'll be lookin' for
you on the sidelines come next Sunday.

<plonk>

--
Brian Curley
Notorious BKC

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that
they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what
they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." -
Robert Kennedy

"It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would
sanction the subversion of one of those liberties - the freedom of
association - which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile." - Earl
Warren, United States v. Robel

www.bushwatch.com
Keeping an eye on the Empty Hat

Free the West Memphis Three
www.wm3.org

Brian Curley

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 11:06:42 AM10/8/01
to
In article <o5n1stonm734a64vj...@4ax.com>,
mi...@nospam.pencetera.com says...

> I hope this puts to rest all the invincible...

No one ever said the Packers were invincible.

> we are great talk in this newsgroup...

Hmmm... you're the only one who seems to think that losing to Tampa at
home is reason to believe the Packers *aren't* a very good team.

> then again a dose of reality has a way of doing
> that. Give Tampa it's due, that's a great defense and they exposed our
> team for what it is....

Yeah... a pretty good football team who lost a close game to a pretty
good football team.

> capable of beating up on the JV but not nearly
> as good as we looked and as everyone here thought we were.....

Feel free to stop watching and posting here then. After all, who'd want
to watch such a sorry team as you seem to think the Packers are?

Brian Curley

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 11:18:34 AM10/8/01
to
In article <20011007192424...@mb-mu.aol.com>, weber924
@aol.comspamfree says...
> >From: mike mi...@nospam.pencetera.com
> >As I said, game over.
>
> That is just the point... IT WAS NOT OVER and the Pack were on the doorstep of
> getting the winning TD.
>
> You say alot about yourself and your own mettle when you are ready to throw
> your hands up and surrender with a three-time MVP QB leading a drive into the
> opponent's red zone for a go ahead TD with time enough on the clock...

It says a lot about him that he can't understand that he just got to
watch 2 NFC heavyweights slug it out for 12 rounds and one of them win
by narrow decision. It was a great game, if you like defensive
football. The Bucs defense was very good. But if you ask me, the
Packers defense was better. Of course, it could look that way because
the Bucs offense is that much *worse* than the Packers offense too.

Mark Rudolph

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 11:38:51 AM10/8/01
to
We'll win the Central.

mike wrote:

> I hope this puts to rest all the invincible... we are great talk in
> this newsgroup... then again a dose of reality has a way of doing


> that. Give Tampa it's due, that's a great defense and they exposed our

> team for what it is.... capable of beating up on the JV but not nearly

Brian Curley

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 11:22:25 AM10/8/01
to
In article <20011007194421...@mb-mu.aol.com>, weber924
@aol.comspamfree says...

> Who? Some people were somewhat elated (understandably so) after the Pack got
> off to such a fast start. I do not recall many acting as if the Pack were Super
> Bowl shoe-ins. In fact, I read much more about looking forward to playing Tampa
> to see how legit our 2001 Packers were as contenders.

And if you read most football journalists this morning, the Packers
performace against the Bucs defense, on the road, in blistering heat,
says the Packers could very well be for real.

Brian Curley

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 11:33:35 AM10/8/01
to
In article <20011008003455...@mb-mu.aol.com>, weber924
@aol.comspamfree says...

> That is a leap in logic that I did not see JK making. What I, and I think
> others, are taking issue with is people closing the book on the game with more
> than 4 minutes left in a 4 point game. THAT ACTION is throwing in the towel.

The problem I have with this "mike" luser is that from opening kick-off,
through his "Game over..." nonsense he sat there and posted negative
comments on an almost series-by-series basis. And then concocts
hyperbole about "people" having Green Bay "in the Super Bowl", but being
unable to cite even a single post where anyone did so.

Brian Curley

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 11:40:37 AM10/8/01
to
In article <mgaw7.2199$3s2.2...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>, dse...@new.rr.com
says...

> Let's see if anyone else saw this the way I did. I'm going off memory, but
> will resort to tape if I've got this all wrong.
>
> 1) The play is over, Schroeder has his back turned to the defense and is
> about to head back toward the huddle. With me so far?

I'll quibble here... the play wasn't over. I've got the game on tape,
and I can send you a copy if you wish, but the Freeman (the ball
carrier) was going down but wasn't on the ground yet, when Schroeder got
blasted from behind.

> 2) #94 (?) of the Bucs comes running up behind Bill and clocks him. About
> as blatant a cheap-shot as I've seen.

Yeah... pretty cowardly. Pull that sh*t on a 300+ lb. OL and see if you
walk off the field.

> 3) Bill gets up, collects himself, and goes over to the guy and shoves him
> back.

Well... collecting himself would have, for me, been getting up and
clapping as the Bucs were penalized 15 yards and the Packers got a new
set of downs.

> 4) Mr. Referee is right in FRONT of this exchange the *entire* time, and
> actually waits for Schroeder to retailiate and THEN throws the flag.
>
> Am I nuts, or did this not happen?

I think I saw a flag as soon as Schroder got hit, then a *second* flag
when he retaliated.



> I'm not saying Schroeder should retaliate, but what the hell is up with
> that? You can't possibly tell me the ref missed the initial shove. No way
> in hell.

No... I just think they were afraid of "affecting the outcome of the
game" by giving Green Bay a new set of downs. It was a case of an
official being too timid.

Brian Curley

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 11:45:47 AM10/8/01
to
In article <4Daw7.2203$3s2.2...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>, dse...@new.rr.com
says...

> Yeah, but my real point was that the ref was literally IN FRONT of this from
> the second the Buc shoved Schroeder in the first place. It wasn't a matter
> of "catching" the retaliatory action, IMO, it was that the ref actually
> waited for the retaliation before he pulled out his flag. I thought it was
> crap, myself.

I agree, but for a completely different reason.



> Schroeder may have retaliated regardless, but the flag should have hit the
> turf the moment after Schroeder did.

The problem was with the way the call was carried out. The hit on
Schroeder was before the whistle (unless the whistle blew before Freeman
was on the ground), and Schroeder's retaliation was after. The official
said both were after the play, which isn't true. One was during the
play, the retaliation was after. It should have been two penalties,
both enforced, resulting in no movement of the ball, and Green Bay
retaining possession, 1st and 25.

Or as Madden rightly pointed out, the Bucs should have been penalized 15
yards for instigating the scuffle.

Regardless, Billy should be slapped for hurting his team in a close
game.

mike

unread,
Oct 9, 2001, 9:55:54 PM10/9/01
to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:06:42 -0500, Brian Curley (Master of Time &
Space) <bkcu...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:

>In article <o5n1stonm734a64vj...@4ax.com>,
>mi...@nospam.pencetera.com says...
>> I hope this puts to rest all the invincible...
>
>No one ever said the Packers were invincible.
>

People here were certainly talking up the Packers like they were the
#1 team in the NFL after the 1st three games.

>> we are great talk in this newsgroup...
>
>Hmmm... you're the only one who seems to think that losing to Tampa at
>home is reason to believe the Packers *aren't* a very good team.
>

In my book, untested does not equal "aren't a very good team". Feel
free to fabricate what you wish though.

>> then again a dose of reality has a way of doing
>> that. Give Tampa it's due, that's a great defense and they exposed our
>> team for what it is....
>
>Yeah... a pretty good football team who lost a close game to a pretty
>good football team.
>

They are, thus far, better than average. Next week will tell more
about the capability and character of this team.

>> capable of beating up on the JV but not nearly
>> as good as we looked and as everyone here thought we were.....
>
>Feel free to stop watching and posting here then. After all, who'd want
>to watch such a sorry team as you seem to think the Packers are?
>

Sorry you are so thin skinned and myopic that you can't handle
anything negative about the Packers. If you have such a problem with
any opinion that is not a 100% match with your own then you really
shouldn't be playing on the internet.

><plonk>

mike

unread,
Oct 9, 2001, 10:04:01 PM10/9/01
to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:33:35 -0500, Brian Curley (Master of Time &
Space) <bkcu...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:

>In article <20011008003455...@mb-mu.aol.com>, weber924
>@aol.comspamfree says...
>
>> That is a leap in logic that I did not see JK making. What I, and I think
>> others, are taking issue with is people closing the book on the game with more
>> than 4 minutes left in a 4 point game. THAT ACTION is throwing in the towel.
>
>The problem I have with this "mike" luser is that from opening kick-off,
>through his "Game over..." nonsense he sat there and posted negative
>comments on an almost series-by-series basis. And then concocts
>hyperbole about "people" having Green Bay "in the Super Bowl", but being
>unable to cite even a single post where anyone did so.

I have no idea what a "luser" is (is that liberal speak for loser?)
but, if my posts bother you so much then don't read them, no one is
forcing you to read them and certainly no one is forcing you to
regurgitate after them.

One of these days you *might* learn that a discussion isn't a bunch of
people all slapping each other on the back because they all have the
identical opinion and it matches yours.

BTW, show me the post that coincided with the opening kickoff... or is
that just a bit of exaggeration... much like someone else might use in
a post?? This may come as a bit of a suprise egghead... but there are
those out here in the real world that can do things like that too....

Footejf

unread,
Oct 10, 2001, 12:24:34 AM10/10/01
to
>mi...@nospam.pencetera.com> writes:
>> <bkcu...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>>mi...@nospam.pencetera.com says...

>>> I hope this puts to rest all the invincible...
>>
>>No one ever said the Packers were invincible.
>
>People here were certainly talking up the Packers like they were the
>#1 team in the NFL after the 1st three games.

"Some" People, not "People". Quit generalizing and you might make some sense.

Jeez. Get a grip, would ya'?

- Foote; Ornery Cuss

mike

unread,
Oct 10, 2001, 2:56:08 AM10/10/01
to

Well Mr. Ornery (or is it Mr. Cuss). I equate People with some People
but, if you wish, some People were talking them up like they were the
best team in the NFL. That being said, I was all happy to let this end
till Brian had to open up his big keyboard and start it all again.

I made my point and I'm done.

In the FWIW department, I don't think there are more than 4 teams in
the NFL that are capable of consistently beating the Packers but a
team is measured by what it can do when it counts. I had hoped that
the Packers would take the opportunity to beat Tampa and take a very
firm control of the Central, although they will likely still win it.

I've seen at least a few sportswriters that felt GB was superior to
Tampa even though they lost. I think next week will be a defining
moment for GB this season. Two consecutive losses is a bad thing,
especially if one is at home. I hope they find a way to beat
Baltimore.

>- Foote; Ornery Cuss

0 new messages