Game Notes: Oh (no), Canada!

-- It was kind of a joke that a professional football game was played under the conditions that the field in Winnipeg presented Thursday night. Except there was no punch line.

You could say the punch line was the plethora of players losing their footing at various points of the game. Or maybe the shrinkage of the field from 100 yards to 80 yards and instead of the red zone beginning at the 20-yard line, it was at the 30.

But there was nothing funny about the complete negligence and lack of preparation that caused these things. The area in which the goal posts were removed in the end zone for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers left sections of the field soft and unsafe. But you can't cancel the game as a result of that and rob young players the opportunity of showing out for roster spots.

You can, however, pull 33 of your own players -- including Aaron Rodgers -- and not expose them to such horrid conditions. That's precisely what the Green Bay Packers did in the 22-21 loss to the Oakland Raiders in Canada.

 

Trevor Davis shines!

Since suffering a stinger during the joint practices with the Houston Texans earlier this month, Trevor Davis has been out of commission. He hasn't practiced -- until recently -- and he hasn't played in any of the preseason contests. He made his debut Thursday night in Canda, and he picked right back up where he left off pre-injury. Davis accounted for seven total touches for 113 yards and a touchdown on both offense and special teams. He was featured in a variety of different roles, one of which included an end-around run in which he picked up 17 yards and showcased his explosive ability to turn the corner in the running game. 

Davis had a spectacular camp up until his injury, but he has mostly been a special teams component for much of his three seasons in the league. With Matt LaFleur running the Packers' offense, he'd be able to weaponize a threat like Davis, and that was shown against the Raiders. Davis may have secured his roster spot in a crowded receiver room, especially after showing that he can have a role in the offense. Davis' touchdown grab was a 13-yard from Tim Boyle that he plucked out of the air over Raiders cornerback Nick Nelson. 

The weakest link gets weaker

The Packers were already deailng with injuries to their already-thin middle linebacker position. After Oren Burks suffered what was initially diagnosed as a torn pectoral that will keep him sidelined for an extended period of time, undrafted free agent Curtis Bolton seemed like the next-man-up to take the role next to Blake Martinez in the Packers base defense. However, Bolton left the game Thursday night and reappeared on the sideline sporting a knee brace and crutches.

Defensive coordinator Mike Pettine will likely roll out a variety of different nickel package looks with a safety playing in the box alongside Martinez, whether that's Raven Greene or Josh Jones -- depending on whether or not he gets over his lengthy illness or even makes the roster -- remains to be seen. But that would significantly handicap Pettine in terms of stripping him of the element of surprise. Instead, the Packers' defense would seem one-dimensional with so many hybrid nickel looks. General manager Brian Gutekunst may pay extra close attention to the waiver wire and final cut-downs these next two weeks for some late-summer additions to his defense.

Tim Boyle moves ahead

Or does he? Look, DeShone Kizer has two exhibition games under his belt that he's remained stagnant in his stranglehold of the Packers' backup quarterback job, but Tim Boyle looked really good in Canada. He hit 16 of his 25 pass attempts for 191 yards and a pair of touchdowns, finishing with a passer rating above 113. At one point, he hit seven consecutive throws and began to get into a rhythm before that streak was broken on a deep ball to Equanimeous St. Brown, who dropped a perfectly-placed throw.

Kizer, meanwhile, played behind the third-team offensive line and was sacked three times. He looked uncomfortable -- rightfully so -- and threw an interception in the midst of going 4-for-7, amounting to 24 yards. Kizer had the entire second half whereas Boyle got the start and played the first two quarters with the second-team offense. In past weeks, it's been Boyle getting reps late in games and being forced to play behind the reserve offensive line, but now it was Kizer's turn and he couldn't get the ball moving. Where does this leave the race for the backup job?

 

__________________________

Zachary Jacobson is a staff writer/reporter for Cheesehead TV. He's the voice of The Leap on iTunes and can be heard on The Scoop KLGR 1490 AM every Saturday morning. He's also a contributor on the Pack-A-Day Podcast. He can be found on Twitter via @ZachAJacobson or contacted through email at [email protected].

2 points

Comments (48)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Duke Divine's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:15 am

Hope Boyle is QB2. ILB is dangerously thin. Any word on Burks timeline? Summers time!

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:28 am

Summers isn’t a cover backer type. It’s time to draft in or change plans. Given Greene’s size and Jones’ lackluster camp at best, moving them from hybrid safety isn’t a long term option in my view.

We need to find a cover ILB or adjust the system if neither Burks or Bolton will be fit for week one.

+ REPLY
0 points
2
2
stockholder's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:37 pm

They said the same thing about Martinez. Pettine isn't going to move anybody. They will get somebody. You can't hide talent.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Alberta Packer's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:20 am

On Kizer - Raiders QB "Peterman" also played with 3rd stringers and was much better than Kizer. The reality is when has Kizer ever looked "comfortable" - in any game or with any unit? Certainly the apologists for Kizer must be running out of excuses for his chronically poor performances. If an old, semi-inflated football is offered in return for Kizer - this must be accepted - happily.

+ REPLY
6 points
9
3
Coldworld's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:45 am

Boyle stunk for a quarter. He wasn’t just bad he was awful. Then he was good. Boyle is alarmingly inconsistent despite excellent protection. In contrast Kizer played behind a line that got him sacked 3 tiles in one very short drive and then they ran the ball pretty much exclusively the rest of the way until the last minute or so.

Superficially, qtr 2 looks good for Boyle and Kizer’s stats look bad. Realistically what I see is that Kizer had no chance and Boyle, had he been taken out after a quarter might not have made it to game 4.

I learnt nothing about Kizer last night. Boyle showed again he has promise but is not there yet. Pointless exercise that got us nowhere. What the Raiders QB did in the second half is useless as a comparative since he had at least some protection.

All we achieved positively last night was to prove Davis and Shepherd are both worthy of a spot and allow Sullivan and Sheldon to show something again while Summers’ tackling took a step forward. Scott had a good night.

Negatively, we lost maybe 4 or 5 players to injuries that may prevent them playing for significant time (maybe a season for ESB and perhaps Bolton at least) and completely denied the team of a plausible cover linebacker.

If Rodgers does not play next week I hope that we play Wilkins and pretty much those not expected to make the roster.

+ REPLY
-3 points
4
7
mnklitzke's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:28 pm

But Boyle has out performed or at least equal to Kizer all preseason behind that same OL that Kizer really stunk behind. Case in point neither are great but I think Boyle has better chance of things clicking for him over Kizer. Kizer is never comfortable. Misses routine throws. Boyle isn't perfect but he puts the ball in better spots for WR to get it and then they fail to catch it... Boyle should be the backup. Pray to God he isn't needed.

+ REPLY
4 points
4
0
Alberta Packer's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:37 pm

Yes, while Boyle showed that he potentially 'can' - Kizer confirmed that he definitely 'can't.' Kizer has been a 'miss' for Gutie - which hopefully he will acknowledge sooner than later.

+ REPLY
5 points
6
1
Hawg Hanner's picture

August 23, 2019 at 01:05 pm

I agree the Kizer experiment appears a failure but compared to the incredible string of misses we saw with Ted Thompson I would say Gutekunst's batting average looks very good in comparison. Kizer would be a rookie now if he had stayed in school. With the intensity of starting for a year and two additional training camps he hasn't grown at all. Toughest position to fill in pro sports. I'll take Boyle for a year.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
tincada's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:50 pm

I would hold out for a fully inflated one or Schutt Air Advantage helmet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

August 23, 2019 at 07:19 pm

"The reality is when has Kizer ever looked "comfortable" - in any game or with any unit?"

Exactly the point and the deciding factor in any final analysis.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
ShooterMcGee's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:21 am

EQ getting hurt was unfortunate, however we are deep at wr and that just may give Shepard a spot on the 53. ILB was our weakest position and has become weaker. Time to trade Josh Jones and his mystery illness for somebody's back-up ILB. Cleveland seems like an obvious team since they drafted Takitaki in the 3rd and Mack Wilson in the 5th. They seemingly like both so send us Joe Schobert. I have been saying all along that 3 QBs make the team and Boyles performance solidifies my stance. it makes no sense to keep him on the 53 last year and cut ties this year with his development. Hopefully we will never have to find out who the #2 is this season.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Swisch's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:25 am

Other than the problems with the end zones, what exactly was wrong with the field?
***
I appreciate the comments last night about whether or not Aaron Rodgers should have played -- even though they were overwhelmingly in disagreement with me.
I wasn't trolling, or trying to be needlessly provocative, in sincerely questioning whether Rodgers should be out there for a couple of series -- as were Brady and Manning last night for their teams.
I think you have to take some small risks with Rodgers; also, it seems risky for Rodgers to start the season against the Bears without any preseason snaps to get in rhythm with his receivers and pass protectors.
Brett Favre was tough, undoubtedly, but he also seemed to turn into a prima donna in a way that may have cost the Packers a couple of Super Bowls.
I could be way wrong about Rodgers, but if he's becoming a prima donna who slyly questions coaching decisions in public, and feels entitled to largely do his own thing as quarterback of the Packers -- well, the stats may continue to be great, but the team results will suffer in ways that are potentially agonizing to us as fans.
So, again, I'm totally sincere in raising questions and concerns about Rodgers; I hope these questions and concerns turn out to be little or nothing; and I'm glad to get other views from fans here at Cheesehead TV that are passionate but respectful.
Go Packers! (from a diehard fan since '71) ;-)

+ REPLY
-2 points
6
8
ShooterMcGee's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:42 am

Last year Rodgers played on a broken leg. I still question his decision to play in the last 2 games of the season which were completely meaningless, except for draft position. On 1 leg he pulled out a week 16 win against the Jets, which if we had lost would have given us the # 8 pick in the draft. However he insisted on playing because he said thats what a leader does. He was also quoted as saying that it was important for the younger players to know what its like to win on the road. In week 17 he started against Detroit and was concussed. Another "meaningless" game in which he was injured. Labeling him a Prima Donna or saying he isn't tough enough is so inacurate. I am of the opinion he shouldn't have played at all last season with his injury. He certainly wasn't himself, still he threw 28 touchdowns with only 2 interceptions. That may have been 1 of his best seasons ever considering his injury.

+ REPLY
11 points
12
1
Coldworld's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:49 am

I think Rodgers was absolutely right to make sly comments about the playing surface last night. That game should never have been permitted.

Never mind the farcical patch, why expose a franchise to the rest of a surface on which players slipped and locked their cleats seemingly at random. If it’s nit the surface then it it the team evaluation of it and equipment selection. I don’t know how the NFL justified that, but I also don’t know how the Packers failed to be aware well in advance.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
tincada's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:53 pm

"a broken leg." I've never heard that one before.

+ REPLY
-2 points
1
3
ShooterMcGee's picture

August 23, 2019 at 01:49 pm

He had a tibial plateau fracture and a sprained MCL. I am not a doctor so broken leg may not be accurate, and sounds like an exaggeration I do admit. However, having some sort of fracture was not good as evidenced by his lack of mobility last year.

+ REPLY
2 points
3
1
Branden Burke's picture

August 23, 2019 at 04:09 pm

You do realize that a fracture is a broken bone right?

Google "compound fracture" if you don't believe me.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Leatherhead's picture

August 24, 2019 at 11:26 pm

Why wasn't this injury diagnosed correctly by the medical staff during the season?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
saltandpeppers's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:51 am

I agree with your sentiment on the field. The end zones were bad because of the goalpost. The rest of field seemed fine; a couple trips, but we see that every week ("the turf monster got him!"). People are completely blowing it out of proportion and piling on. Kind of scary how detached the narrative is from the truth.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
MarkinMadison's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:26 pm

Ehh, what I saw was guys coming up with problems at the knee and below where there was no obvious contact to that body part. Maybe a bunch of guys wore the wrong cleats. But if it was all about the end zones the end zones were adjusted. Both coaches still pulled big chunks of their rosters.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Spock's picture

August 24, 2019 at 09:56 am

s & p, Sorry to disagree with what you saw; what I saw was a whole lot of players seeming to randomly catch their toes in the turf. Re-watch the T. Davis return where he nearly hit the turf -TWICE- and still managed to get something like 16 yards or the pass to one of our wr's who went completely down before the ball got there on a long pass. The Raiders' guys were slipping down often, too. Reminded me of many a game at Soldier Field (always bad because it's maintained by the city of Chicago, not the team). I kept rewinding those plays and showing them to my wife while muttering how glad I was our main starters weren't playing. The narrative of how bad the field wasn't "scary" -it's the simple truth, IMHO.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Branden Burke's picture

August 23, 2019 at 08:26 pm

The biggest difference between Favre and Rodgers practice habits is Favre's habit of not wanting to practice. He only wanted to play in the games. They litterally joke because farve didn't know what a nickel defense was for like his first 6 years in the NFL. I know we like to remember stuff in rose colored glasses, but he would litterally miss all of the camps and do this retirement dance every year just to not practice.

Rodgers is the opposite of that. He puts the work in. He adheres to a mostly vegan diet for his health and longevity. He rarely misses a practice. He tells us he is going to play into his 40's if his body doesn't fall apart. Never said a negative thing about the grind of practice.

As fans, all we really see is the preseason. But at most rodgers would have played like 3 quarters of a vanilla scheme across 4 preseason games. Do you really think that would make or break the season? The 45 minutes of preseason action vs the 50ish hours of working with his teammates in team drills, let alone all the time working out, going over schemes, and watching film together?

+ REPLY
9 points
10
1
Swisch's picture

August 23, 2019 at 04:53 pm

I truly appreciate the comments.
I'm a big fan of Rodgers, and am always wanting the best for him.
It's hard to know what's going on with any players on the Packers -- ask two different teammates what they think about Rodgers, for example, and there may be two much different answers.
The bottom line is that I'm on the side of Rodgers. I tried to express myself in a questioning way that allowed for me to be wrong -- and I'm glad if I am wrong.
In a way, I'm trying to somehow caution Rodgers to be coachable even when he has good reasons to disagree. Things will work out much better in the long run.
Although Rodgers does seem highly intelligent, and his record of greatness does seem to warrant him having some significant say in the offense -- it does seem to me that he still needs to be careful to readily obey the coaches with perhaps rare exceptions.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
GBPDAN1's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:25 am

It was smart not to play starters on that field . Except Lafleur did play one starter, Bolton. I realize that Bolton is a rookie and more reps will give him experience, but , I have questions about why rest all your starters except for the one starter at the thinnest position on the team? Seems to me Bolton was a very valuable starter considering the ability he has shown to play the position and the lack of quality depth behind him.

Well, obviously, that plan backfired. I'm praying that Bolton can play against the Bears

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Doug Niemczynski's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:31 am

Any return time lines for these that got hurt??
Same ol Packers.

Curtis Bolton
Oren Burks
Rashan ' no show' Gary
EQS

Anyone Else?

+ REPLY
-9 points
0
9
sam1's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:36 am

Does Canada have some squabble with Trump TOO?

+ REPLY
-1 points
2
3
tincada's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:55 pm

Who doesn't?

+ REPLY
1 points
4
3
cheesehead1's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:34 pm

Agree with Swisch about the field. It looked ok other than the end zone issue. Aren’t fans and the NFL being hypocritical when the Raiders have been playing home games on their (baseball/football) field for years. Doesn’t look good for EQ, hope we get better news on Gary and Bolton.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
ILPackerBacker's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:54 am

I wonder how cam fans are feeling about pre season snaps now?

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
Alberta Packer's picture

August 23, 2019 at 11:59 am

I think that as a Canadian living in Calgary, Alberta (not Winnipeg, Alberta) - a wider perspective and greater context is required on this whole fiasco - which it certainly was. First, this was not a CFL sanctioned event. A slick-haired, shiny-suited, carpetbagger from Toronto - "the Promoter" - merely rented the stadium and organized this event. Then he released the seat prices which generally ran from $1000 - $200 per seat. Well the good people of Winnipeg sensed a greed 'n gouge scam and simply didn't buy-in. It was so bad that the Promoter "John Graham" (do not buy a rolex from this man) had to lower the prices, which then generated upset among the few original ticket buyers (and probably law suits to follow).

As for the field, the only portion of concern was where the goal posts had to be removed, in the end zones - which left a few square yards of unstable ground. From what I understand the rest of the field was OK.

Now for the finger-pointing:
1. The NFL - for not properly vetting the Promoter and his plan.
2. The Promoter "John Graham" - whose current whereabouts are unknown.
3. The CFL for not insisting to audit and event of this type - held in their own backyard.

There, I believe that I have fulfilled my patriotic duty and can return to the more pressing issue of campaigning for Tim Boyle as the unquestioned #2 QB (while jettison Kizer, once and for all).

+ REPLY
9 points
9
0
tincada's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:57 pm

I would add 5. The NFL for not scouting the field well in advance themselves. As RR said, trust but verify.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Alberta Packer's picture

August 23, 2019 at 01:09 pm

Yes, had the NFL and Promoter focused on field readiness rather than their income ledger - the problem was easily resolved if the grounds crew was given a few days notice.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jannes bjornson's picture

August 23, 2019 at 05:18 pm

Graham is either hiding out in Thailand or trying to swap dollars for trinkets in the Caymans. A total scam from top to bottom and what was Godell's cut?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
JohnnyLogan's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:18 pm

Interesting that Bolton and Gary were playing while starters were benched. Wasn't Bolton already a starter? Seems Gary played because they were hoping to see some improvement, some sign of life in what appears to be a comatose player. I don't care what Gute or Pettine or MLF say, they are worried that they blew a huge opportunity to add a significant player to the roster in taking a project at #12. So far it looks like a huge fail. Watching Gary move around the field, stiff, no bend, no twitch, even slow, I don't think learning the position will make up for the lack of good football instincts. For those who say wait three years to judge, the #12 pick is expected to be a starter or at least a major contributor. Do any of the Gary defenders really believe he's going to help the team this year?

+ REPLY
-5 points
1
6
MarkinMadison's picture

August 23, 2019 at 12:38 pm

That's a whole lot of negative when we are talking about a guy who is switching positions as he comes up from the college ranks. If you don't want to wait three years, at least wait three (real) games. Or even 3 quarters of a real game. Hell, Aaron Rodgers looked like a mistake in 2005 and 2006, and he turned out to be serviceable.

+ REPLY
5 points
6
1
JohnnyLogan's picture

August 23, 2019 at 01:21 pm

I'll talk to you in three games... and then you'll say wait for three more. Same game we played with Nick Perry, for years. Gary has played a lot of snaps against guys who won't be in the NFL and has done squat. In college, the reason given for his lack of performance was that he was always double-teamed. Now the excuse is he's learning a new position. I'm hoping like everyone else that he turns out to be an All-Pro, all I'm questioning is why take a project and one you have to teach a new position, at #12? There were so many really good players with less risk who were taken after him. The only reason to take him over those less risky players was if you think he's a transcendent player, a Khalil Mack. There was nothing in his history to think that. Run fast for a DE or OLB isn't enough reason. I think it was a major mistake that will hurt the Packers, while I hope I'm completely wrong.

+ REPLY
-3 points
0
3
Branden Burke's picture

August 23, 2019 at 03:56 pm

You take a project at #12 because if the guy wasn't a project and had the physical talent Gary has, you wouldnt get the chance to draft him at all.

Early 1st round is all about potential. He has the potential to be Aaron Donald. But right now he plays closer to Norm McDonald. If the gamble pays off, you could end up with the next JJ watt. And if it doesn't, your out a first round pick. Personally I hate the pick. Not because I think it's a bad pick. But because now I'm going to have to read the same things spewed out about Gary for the next 7 years if the guy doesn't become a probowler. Did you know his production wasn't very good in college? Wasted pick. Ted 2.0....

I don't see that getting old anytime soon

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
JohnnyLogan's picture

August 23, 2019 at 04:55 pm

Maybe it'll get old after he makes his first tackle. Of course the 1st round is about potential. Every round is. And of course you can bust on an early first-round player, but generally, they are the easiest to spot. Guys who had tremendous production in college and show skills compatible with NFL stardom. Gary didn't show either in college. His production was average and his skills weren't there, neither in pass rush or at OLB. So the basis had to have been runs fast for a big guy. That's the Tarzan/Jane trap some GM's fall into. Of course it's early, and of course, whiners like me come out of the woodwork, but my comments are based on more than three preseason games, they're based on his college production and what I see when I watch him play, which is that he can't bend around a blocker, isn't that strong at point of attack, and at OLB is way too stiff. Praying I'm wrong.

+ REPLY
-3 points
0
3
wildbill's picture

August 23, 2019 at 07:16 pm

Mack didn’t get his first sack until about his 10th game and ended up with 4 sacks for the year, what a bust.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Tundraboy's picture

August 23, 2019 at 07:39 pm

"if you don't want to wait three years, at least wait three (real) games. Or even 3 quarters of a real game. Hell, Aaron Rodgers looked like a mistake in 2005 and 2006, and he turned out to be serviceable."

I love this.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
ThxJackVainisi's picture

August 23, 2019 at 02:37 pm

Look for Gary to be used as an interior pass rusher on passing downs, not standing up at OLB. His combination of strength and speed should give OGs problems. When Clark, Za'Darius, and Adams are rushing too, they should be able to get pressure rushing four. So yes I expect him to help this season, just not at OLB.

+ REPLY
5 points
5
0
jannes bjornson's picture

August 23, 2019 at 05:22 pm

He can also set the edge as a 4-3 DE. He is versatile. If some of these Fans try to recollect Matthews first season onboard they will have a better perspective. Too much fantasy and not enough reality in this blog world.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Leatherhead's picture

August 24, 2019 at 11:35 pm

I actually see him as a run defender. Put him at DE in the base, same side as Z Smith. Martinez and Lancaster to the inside.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

August 24, 2019 at 11:35 pm

I actually see him as a run defender. Put him at DE in the base, same side as Z Smith. Martinez and Lancaster to the inside.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jhalwas611.com's picture

August 23, 2019 at 01:03 pm

How would it be to spend time and money, as a fan, to travel to the game, invest in food, lodging, full price game tickets only to find that the entire starting teams would not participate. The NFL has it's priorities I guess.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Branden Burke's picture

August 23, 2019 at 04:05 pm

Well, I went to one of those games this year that the starters didn't play and I had a blast. It was a great trip. had good food, drank lots of shots, met some awesome people, and hit up the casino. It was actually pretty nice going to a game to have as much fun as possible and not care less about who won.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Hematite's picture

August 23, 2019 at 01:10 pm

I'll take Boyle over Kizer 24/7.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
greengold's picture

August 24, 2019 at 12:50 pm

I'm disappointed in the lack of PATIENCE exhibited by some fans here. Give Rashan Gary a chance to show why they took him. He's in a new position at OLB, and flexing in some on the DL. The NFL has an entirely different talent level that he is now going against. Add to that, Pettine may not be wanting to show much in terms of scheme.

Give the guy a break. Wait and see what he does when the regular season starts.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment 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.