Green Bay Packers: Five Running Backs Who Can Replace Ryan Grant

erie-vike fan wrote:

C,mon man, you dont' gain 392 yds. in three games in the NFL with bad run blocking.....

with AD you do

Jeremy wrote:

<quoted text>Yes they do, Cutler has the same problem but.....Chicago still has a running game they can rely on, GB management thinks their fine without one.

How about with out their starting QB?

normallylikeyellow wrote:

We have to be willing to run the ball to evaluate anyone. The run worked the 1 or 2 times against Washington in the 4th quarter, but we didn't stick with it -- and ended up losing. We also didn't challenge what looked a TD for us, didn't take a free 3 points to go up 10-0. I can understand the no challenge -- I'm sure the Redskins weren't replaying that on the scoreboard, but after gaining zero yards in 3 downs, I would have taken the points on the road. Cost us the game, turned out. At home, maybe you go for it.

The Packers did go up 10-0. On the possession immediately following the failure at the one. You can't say it cost the Packers the game, because if they kick the field goal on 4th down that changes the next possession that led to 3 points. There is a good argument that the failure to score a TD is what cost the Packers the game. That argument would support McCarthy's decision to go for it on 4th down, as does the field goal on the following possession.

McCarthy may have merely delayed the scoring of the field goal and, in 20-20 hindsight, gave the Packers their best chance to win. That being said, I don't ever like what he did, at home or on the road. Too many things can go wrong. I would have taken the 3 points on 4th down at the one and assured the Packers a 2 score lead. I just don't believe that NOT doing that was the reason the Packers lost.

The reason they lost was scoring a measly 13 points. They held the Redskins to 13 in regulation. If you told me before the game the Packers would hold them to 13, I would have bet anything the Packers would win. Only one TD? Come on. The offense is supposed to be the strength of this team.

Sure I can. It would have been 13-0. And we would have won by three -- no overtime. Yeah, a lot things went wrong. We would have won with a measly 16 points.

normallylikeyellow wrote:

Sure I can. It would have been 13-0. And we would have won by three -- no overtime. Yeah, a lot things went wrong. We would have won with a measly 16 points.

The Packers would have kicked off after the 10-0 lead if the field goal had been attempted on the one yard line. After the Redskins return and the Redskin possession nobody can say what the score may have been, or where the Packers may have had the ball or whether another first half field goal would have been scored.

One of the reasons that McCarthy may have went for it on 4th down is because he knew that the Redskins would be pinned deep and that the Packers would get the ball back in reasonable field position that would lead to a field goal anyway. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED!

Again, I don't personally agree with taking that kind of chance, but it seems that it worked out in this particular situation. You are ASSUMING that the game would not have gone into overtime. That is pure speculation.

It did work out i guess.Like i said,i liked going for it,like you said GBP if you miss the Redskins would be pinned and they were,and i was thinking safety and one should have been called.
Time to prepare for Miami.
Hopefully the Jets owner chews Rex Ryan out for the worst clock management ive seen in YEARS! they had the game won and they gave it to Minn on a silver platter just about.Minn all but won the damn game.

I think the fourth down call was the right one. We need to go for the jugular, and my main complaint with McCarthy is that he constantly plays it safe with the lead. It didn't work out this time, but it was the right call nonetheless. We need to get better at slapping big deficits on teams in the first half when we get the chance.

Now I don't necessarily like the actual play call, a fade to the third-string tight end, but that's another issue.

packerhacker wrote:

<quoted text> How about with out their starting QB?

Well if they were facing Carolina I would feel better about it. The Defense will have to step it up just like the Bears did against Carolina and create some turnovers if GB wants to beat Miami. Rodgers is still being evaluated though, he's not ruled out, but I wouldn't take any chances with the franchise QB.

Silverstein of the Journal-Sentinal today: "It's becoming a consistent theme this season for the Green Bay Packers.

Either they aren't running the ball well enough for coach Mike McCarthy to keep calling running plays or they're running it well enough but McCarthy refuses to keep calling them."

He used to give Grant 3 quarters to get rolling before expecting any consistent production, and he gives these guys 5 carries then bails.

Maybe our backs can't cut it, but nobody will ever know until they get enough carries to prove it. Sunday was a good opportunity wasted.

GBPfan wrote:

<quoted text>
The Packers would have kicked off after the 10-0 lead if the field goal had been attempted on the one yard line. After the Redskins return and the Redskin possession nobody can say what the score may have been, or where the Packers may have had the ball or whether another first half field goal would have been scored.
One of the reasons that McCarthy may have went for it on 4th down is because he knew that the Redskins would be pinned deep and that the Packers would get the ball back in reasonable field position that would lead to a field goal anyway. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED!
Again, I don't personally agree with taking that kind of chance, but it seems that it worked out in this particular situation. You are ASSUMING that the game would not have gone into overtime. That is pure speculation.

If "nobody can say what the score may have been," how can you ASSUME we wouldn't have kicked off, forced a punt and scored a field goal? Speculation is opinion by definition, so no offense taken by accusation(?). I can't assume Mason Crosby's going to miss two field goals, either. The fact is we passed up three points and, it turns out, we needed them.

I agree both ways,i mean who to say we wouldnt have had a bad snap or a botched hold or a blocked FG if we went for 3?
We went for the TD and could have scored the TD,got a PI call in the endzone, or it could have been INT and run back for a Wash. TD,it ended up in complete of course as we know now.

normallylikeyellow wrote:

<quoted text> If "nobody can say what the score may have been," how can you ASSUME we wouldn't have kicked off, forced a punt and scored a field goal? Speculation is opinion by definition, so no offense taken by accusation(?). I can't assume Mason Crosby's going to miss two field goals, either. The fact is we passed up three points and, it turns out, we needed them.

We didn't pass up 3 points for all you or I know. McCarthy's decision may very well have been based, in part, on the probability that the 3 points would merely be delayed. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. If you really want to debate it, ask eric. He seems to understand AND he agreed with the decision to go for it. I'm tired of defending a decision I wouldn't have made. I'm reasonable enough to understand that McCarthy's decision was a legitimate option that didn't cost the game, THIS TIME! But I'm done trying to explain it.

normallylikeyellow wrote:

<quoted text> If "nobody can say what the score may have been," how can you ASSUME we wouldn't have kicked off, forced a punt and scored a field goal? Speculation is opinion by definition, so no offense taken by accusation(?). I can't assume Mason Crosby's going to miss two field goals, either. The fact is we passed up three points and, it turns out, we needed them.

I've changed my mind. McCarthy cost the Packers this and many more games. I hope everybody remembers who hired McCarthy. I hope everybody also stops to ask themselves: Do I want the same person that hired McCarthy to hire his replacement?

I have no idea what I was thinking before. We must have a gas leak in the house. The fumes ...

There's a gas leak in the house. And in Ted's house too.