Game over...

1 view
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.