Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Packers: 21 Bears: 14

By Category

Packers: 21 Bears: 14

Ryan Grant, Dom Capers, Tramon Williams

The Bad

The Bad

Aaron Rodgers, Mike McCarthy, Jermichael Finley

The Bad

The Bad

Mason Crosby

BrokenTV

BrokenTV

  • Like Like
  • 1 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (35) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

NickGBP's picture

What does MM get a "Bad" for today? His players not executing?

Andrew In Atlanta's picture

So what are the chances we play in AZ back to back weeks? Right now it looks pretty good. I'm sure that has happened to a team before but it has to be rare. I can't remember it happeneing before

bomdad's picture

Andrew, the Packers and Lions played on consecutive weekends in the early 90s. Two wins in a row for the Packers, and two very underwhelming performances by Barry Sanders who was neutralized by the cold and rough turf.

CSS's picture

Rodgers consistency will come back around, but it's interesting that a guy completing 67% of his passes for an almost 90 QB rating in a divisional game on the road in December gets the 'bad'. Really doesn't help said consistancy when Jennings can't hold on to the prettiest deep end-zone pass I've seen and Finley kills a scoring drive with a fumble after a 20 yd strike by Rodgers.

Your expectations are brutal. Again, Chicago, on the road in December.

packeraaron's picture

Nick - lots of 'Bad' to go around, but McCarthy wins out for two reasons. One, his refusal to try anything new in the red zone. He continually goes shotgun spread and keeps ending up kicking FGs.
-
Secondly, he was completely unable to adjust to what the Bears were doing pressure wise from the 2nd qt on. I'll be writing about it later (today, hopefully)

Andrew In Atlanta's picture

Ah yes bomdad. Forgot about that. Thanks!

packeraaron's picture

CSS - the play where Rodgers threw it, caught it, and tried to throw it again was not only 'bad', it was monstrously horrible.

Andrew In Atlanta's picture

The good, bad, ugly and monstrously horrible. LOL

CSS's picture

Tauscher deserves to be on the bad more than Rodgers. Tauscher allowed much of the outside pressure forcing Rodgers to move the pocket. Rodgers kept drives alive with his legs.

One play shouldn't get him on the bad list. Again, I think your expectations are brutal. I agree that play was ugly.

packeraaron's picture

CSS - or how about the play where he set the protection and then Briggs came screaming around the corner? That's on him.
-
Look, there's nothing wrong with wanting your best players to play their best. That's how teams win championships. Tausch is what he is. An old vet getting by on what he's got left. Rodgers' best football is yet to come. When he plays poorly, I care.

bomdad's picture

Interesting that not only GB/AZ could be a rematch, but also PHI/DAL could face each other on consecutive weeks in the wildcard round.

greenbaypackerbob's picture

Aaron, I agree w/ the categories and evaluations. I know you stepped on some 'sacred cows' for a few but I like your explanation -- you state,
*
"Look, there’s nothing wrong with wanting your best players to play their best. That’s how teams win championships."
*** That also applies to coaches, etc., (see my comments in previous post!)
*

Dilligaff's picture

MM has no Poker face. His play calling is so predictable. The man I bet has no rhythm or even can dance. I would put A-rod into the good for being able to perform good enough for a win despite MM. MM has no feel for the game, he is a computer geek acting as head coach.

foundinidaho's picture

Tramon on the good list. Corey's head is exploding from joy!

Packnic's picture

unbelievable. 5 game win streak, 4-2 in the NFC North, guaranteed over .500, one game from everything but locking up a playoff spot and guys like Dilligaff still want a new Head Coach.

I keep forgetting the Bear's weren't out there trying to win the game too. Look, it's not that MM is perfect and deserves no blame or even that he doesn't deserve to be in the "Bad" every once in a while. But we are winning. You don't win every game by 40... especially cold weather, defensive rivalry games in the heart of December. Say what you want about MM's rhythm and his ability to dance... all i know is he danced out of Soldier Field Sunday with a broom in his hand.

I also love someone posting anonymous comments on a fan blog calling someone else a computer geek.

alfredomartinez's picture

lets be clear, i can claim to be ultimate AROD groupie, and can at times ditch the ugly truth every now and then. i feel rodgers throws the prettiest ball in the league, and asides that i just love the effing guy, but yesterday he looked like shit...one poster replied that he completed 67 percent of his passes or so with a 90 QB rating...yeah thats good but i expect a better performance, not in stats, but in body of work from someone who i know can get it done...either way GOPACK!!

PackersRS's picture

I disagree with McCarthy being in the Bad. I see the RZ problems, but how about the penalty improvements? I would put (yes, again) Jarrett Bush in the bad. He just can't cover anyone. But then again, I believe, unless proven otherwise, Bush is permanently on the Bad...

CSS's picture

alfredmartinez - yes, hold Rodgers to a high standard if you think he's already in that 'elite' category, I have no problem with that. However, he continues to extend plays with individual effort (moving out of the pocket, scrambling, etc.) and it doesn't help momentum when Jennings drops a beautiful ball in the end zone and Finley kills a drive with a big fumble.

Fine, hold him to a high standard but it FEELS as though a lot of fans expect Rodgers to perform at 'Favre MVP' level now. He did enough to win, on the road against a divisional opponent in December.

Bush was asked to cover one-on-one against one of the best tight ends in the league and did an excellent job overall. People really have a heart-on for Bush and it's undeserved sometimes.

alfredomartinez's picture

CSS i dont think hes reached the elite level just quite, and no way in hell i can compare him to JUDAS, thats just damn sacriligious...that being said, the kid just needs to relax, sure he beat the bears, in december, and there are times when good qb's will only do whats enough to win...and i take your point in perspective (except the favre comparison how dare you haha) because at the end of the day, a win is a win!

Packnic's picture

I'm with CSS about Bush. obviously his coverage can be lacking at times and it often gives up a big play. Thats life as the third or 4th corner in the NFL. I thought he actually played well in his run support. And a decent special teams day as well. Even got close on a couple blitzes. Not Tramon or Woodson close, but hes not those guys so what are you gonna do.

PackersRS's picture

"Not Tramon or Woodson close, but hes not those guys so what are you gonna do."
For sure NOT pay him $1M to do what he's been doing.

There's no way you can convince me Chris McCalister wouldn't be doing a better job than him. And if you're going to pay $1M to him, and extend Chillar's contract, you damn sure can pay $2M, $2.5M to him. Which I don't believe would be his price, much cheaper.

greenbaypackerbob's picture

I though Aaron might take some heat for pointing out issues with key individuals after a win. I'm glad we are not willing to lower our standards for any player because we are in line for a 'wildcard' spot. What has happen to the standard of winning Division Titles and dominating our opponents? (its only been since 07 that we were a Divisional 13-3 dominating team in the NCF championship - why not now? Can't we ask that question?).
*
I will be happy when we are back to that caliber and will not ignore woes because we are limping into a wild card spot along with some game defining issues - I really hate relying on such and such a team loosing to help secure our place in a possible playoff birth.
*
We may all tip our hat to MM if he can lead the team to a Division Title but expecting to be better than where we were 2 years ago is not unreasonable. Choices and changes should be for the better. Think goodness the Bears and Lions (along with several other NFC teams) are stinking it up this year --- * BUT they will not be the ones we will be facing if in the playoffs. *
*
Ignore the issues and you set yourself up for a major let down.
*

packeraaron's picture

greenbaypackerbob - You're right that issues should be pointed out but you are dead wrong if you think this team is 'limping' into the playoffs. They are behind only the Saints, Colts and Chargers for the longest winning streak in the NFL. Yes, they play close games. You know who else does? The 'perfect' Saints and Colts. Hell, the Saints SHOULD have been beat by the Redskins.
-
Yes, this team has issues. So does every other team. No one in the NFC will want to play the Pack in the playoffs, I can tell you that.

Keith's picture

Brightside: Your QB and head coach were considered to have had "bad" games and we still won. Good teams win ugly.

-----

Doesn't mean we can't critique the heck out of Aaron and McCarthy, but just keep the perspective that a bad game for Rodgers would be a career game for Jamarcus Russell. Just goes to show you how good the kid is/will be.

bucky's picture

I think I'd swap Tauscher onto the bad for Rodgers. ARod wasn't at his best yesterday, but he was more than passable (pun intended). If Jennings hangs on to that disputed pass in the end zone, we're not even having this discussion. Tauscher blew. Yes, he has played better than I expected since joining the team (certainly better than Barbre- but that's not much of a yardstick), but he was a net negative yesterday. Hell, even Colledge played better than Tauscher. As did Jarret Bush.

greenbaypackerbob's picture

Aaron - 'limping' means beating teams but not able to put them away before continuing issues emerge that better teams than the Bears, Lions, Ravens or 49ers may be able to exploit to a win... (if you feel they don't exist to that degree then we disagree)...
*
My other fear is that our losses have been to teams who are divisional leaders (Bengals, Vikes). That asks the question, 'are we as good as the Saints, Chargers, Colts, Cardinals, Pats, Eagles (other divisional leaders)'? We need to beat one to know for sure. Should we be? Yes. But based on the many issues we discuss on this blog I do not look forward to playing any of these teams. Perhaps the current winning streak invokes certainty for many, but I'm not there yet.
*
ps. As for the Saints and Redskins comparison... every dog has it's day (heck, we lost to Tampa, but I would not use that to make my point) :>)
*
Merry Christmas!
*

packeraaron's picture

I hear you Bob, but the Packers can only play the teams that are on their schedule. They were a much different team when they faced the Bengals and Vikings. I would like their chances against any of the Division Leaders, save for the Saints in N.O. - that would be a bloodbath.

greenbaypackerbob's picture

Aaron- On that we can agree!
*
Looks like AZ could be their first test ... (they gave the Vikes something to think about and the Vikes have been pretty consistent). Fortunately, Steelers have 'melted' down, so for now the streak should continue...otherwise that game may have been a good test drive.
*
Good news is that the guessing is almost over and all comments will soon be based on what did happen versus what might happen!
*

Ruppert's picture

Just for fun, you should have put Lovie Smith in the "ugly" for that bizarre timeout/lost challenge fiasco.
-----------
I tend to side with the bunch that suggests taking A rod out of the "bad" category. I would probably leave him off all the lists. December victories in Chicago do not grow on trees. He wasn't as sharp as he should have been, but I'm pleased with his effort overall.

PACKERS.'s picture

Agree with all the good/bad/uglies, but where's Woodson? True, he only had an interception, but that guy gives more effort on every play than any other player on the team. He tries to get in on every tackle or stop.

Greenbaypackerbob: By the time we get to Arizona, they'll be resting their starters for the playoffs. What we have to worry about is trap games like Pittsburgh.

ctSharpeCheddar's picture

Andrew the Jets played the Raiders back to back a few years ago.Last game they had to fly to the west coast then back again in a wild card game.I think Herm Edwards was the coach then.The thing was should the Jets stay out there(on the west coast) They flew back inbetween games.

Oppy's picture

CSS, I agree with you about Bush; I was actually talking about it during the live blog last night.. Bush didn't give up any TD's last night (Williams and Woodson did). In fact, I don't recall him giving up an unacceptable amount of yardage last night either ( I believe the biggest pass he gave up was 19 yards, less than Woodson's or William's biggest- 22 yards and 28 yards, respectively).. It's not like he personally allowed a bears WR or TE to go for 100 yards. In fact, the Bears had 209 yards passing , that's a respectable amount to hold a team to(the bears average 219/game and 209 yards is less than the average per game of 19 other teams). To be fair, the Packers did give up more than their average passing yards/game- they average 187 pass yards/game, so they gave up an extra 22 yards last night.
.
There's a number of valid complaints packers fans have about a number of players, coaches, and front office personnel. But all too often, many of us go after guys based on their reputation instead of based on their performance. Bush has had a number of games where he was awful playing on defense, that's for sure. Last night was not one of those nights.

PackersThad's picture

Aaron,

Are you going to discuss the possibility of the Packers playing back to back games in Arizona? What do you think they should do? If they end up needing to play Arizona in the Divisional Round, should they stay in Arizona for the week, or would they fly out, and then fly back. If it's the latter, what effect would that have on the players (fatigue) wise?

joelkleinium's picture

Why is Jermichael Finley in the bad category? I believe he caught 5 passes for 70 yards. What is so bad about that?

mopak65's picture

Keith - love your post! Yes, there are several QBs who would love to have a day that AR had, mmm..... Cassell, Fitzgerald, Russell, Ryan, Flacco, Sanchez... might I even say Brady?! Bottom line: Packers have a great QB and in time will be standing in the Packer hall of fame along side Starr.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Tickets

Quote

"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."