Whatever you want to label him, He was the Jedi Master yesterday against the Texans...
Mark Twain once said "History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme" or something like that.
So, flash back to Monday Night against the Patriots, week 7 I believe it was. Waaaaay back in 1998. Coming off our championship 1996-7 team, the Packers were struggling. They were dead last in football stopping the run. Raymont Harris (remember him?) ran for 100 yards each time for the Bears against us all ready in that season.
So we were really struggling. What's worse, we were playing that Monday Night against the NFL's leading rusher (Curtis Martin). Not to mention that Drew Bledsoe was either first or second in the league in +20 yard pass plays up to that point as well.
We were reeling and prepared for the worst....
Yet we went in there and dominated, winning by two touchdowns and making a statement to the rest of the league.
And that victory started the momentum toward our inevitable return to the Super Bowl...
Back to the present. This certainly *feels* like a statement game and very much in the style of previous Packer teams. I hate to delve into the realm of psychology, but this team just plain and simply does better when it faces adversity (like the rash of injuries early in 2010 and our backs-against-the-wall/must-win-every-game situation at the end of the 2010 and on through the playoffs).
Woodson even said prior to the game the Packers were coming out "flat" in previous games...
So it seems that when our backs are against the walls (and we are on the road), the team gets serious and focused and just plays better.
Final thought: Collinsworth nailed it. I am baffled that Wade Phillips would play press coverage against our big physical receivers. I feel our receivers are not that great at finding the open spaces in zones. They much rather duke it out one-on-one in press coverage. Teams have been disguising and using various zone/cover defenses (covers 1,2 and 3). Taking away the deep ball has been a huge factor in neutering the Pack attack. Finally, methinks Rodgers has a slight blind spot when it comes to the cover 2 linebacker dropping back into coverage. Two interceptions by Urlacher last two years, INT by San Fran linebacker, and an INT returned for a TD by the MLB of Tampa (2009).
Doubt we'll see that press coverage again...
Lots more to discuss...till next time...
Dynasty.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
How "Trickle Down Economics" Explains Packers' Failure...
When watching the Presidential debate, I noticed that the debate broke down to two themes: It was "trickle down economics" (Romney) vs "Trickle down government" (Obama).
I would like to inject the "trickle down" theory into the debate of what ails the Packers, especially the why the Packers surprisingly went down on Sunday against the Colts. (I was going to call them the "young colts" but since a "colt" is by definition young, then, well you get the jist...)
Two people: Greg Jennings and BJ Raji.
First Jennings. The Packers offense (I don't care how good they looked against the Saints, b/c Saints are just pathetic) has not looked comfortable all year. And it's simply this, Jennings has been either hurt or out most of the games. Without Jennings, you have the "trickle down" effect of having the best corner on Jordy, 2nd best on Jones, Nickle on Cobb, etc. With Jennings in the game, it's the DIME on Cobb (Cobb is a rising star on pace for 70 catches), and James Jones on a nickel back (clear mismatch). I really think it's that simple folks. Take away Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Dez Bryant, etc, from their respective offenses and you would have a simliar offensive slow down.
BJ Raji. Without his push in the middle and clogging things up, you had a weakend pass rush, which meant Capers had to blitz more, which meant less help in the secondary, which meant more completions etc.
By the way, can someone correct me on this one? Jermichael Finley leads the league with most drops over the last 20 games (I believe it's either 17 or 18). I really think he has a problem with "hearing the footsteps". It seems to me he is scared of taking the big hit. Anyone share that view?
In light of that. I think I have found a solution for not hearing the foot steps. Ear muffs. Let's start a collection for getting him earmuffs. I am wondering which of these ear muffs would look best on Jermichael?
I would like to inject the "trickle down" theory into the debate of what ails the Packers, especially the why the Packers surprisingly went down on Sunday against the Colts. (I was going to call them the "young colts" but since a "colt" is by definition young, then, well you get the jist...)
Two people: Greg Jennings and BJ Raji.
First Jennings. The Packers offense (I don't care how good they looked against the Saints, b/c Saints are just pathetic) has not looked comfortable all year. And it's simply this, Jennings has been either hurt or out most of the games. Without Jennings, you have the "trickle down" effect of having the best corner on Jordy, 2nd best on Jones, Nickle on Cobb, etc. With Jennings in the game, it's the DIME on Cobb (Cobb is a rising star on pace for 70 catches), and James Jones on a nickel back (clear mismatch). I really think it's that simple folks. Take away Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Dez Bryant, etc, from their respective offenses and you would have a simliar offensive slow down.
BJ Raji. Without his push in the middle and clogging things up, you had a weakend pass rush, which meant Capers had to blitz more, which meant less help in the secondary, which meant more completions etc.
By the way, can someone correct me on this one? Jermichael Finley leads the league with most drops over the last 20 games (I believe it's either 17 or 18). I really think he has a problem with "hearing the footsteps". It seems to me he is scared of taking the big hit. Anyone share that view?
In light of that. I think I have found a solution for not hearing the foot steps. Ear muffs. Let's start a collection for getting him earmuffs. I am wondering which of these ear muffs would look best on Jermichael?
Sunday, October 7, 2012
New Low For Acme and SBNation
I've been *uber* busy the past week so I haven't been able to comment on all things SBNation (which means I had better digestion all week).
So I decided to go to the Packer SBnation site (glutton for punishment, I know) and after an interminable wait for the page to load, I go to the first story and find out that STROHMAN has been banned.
For the uninitiated, Strohman was BY FAR the best commenter in the history of AcmePackingCompany. He was irreverent, incisive and never tailored/sugar-coated his message for anyone. That's the epitome of a great football fan: Brash, opinionated, but tempered with logic and reason.
And he was banned for voicing his disgust with the new SBNation format.
I'm telling you, the morons running Acme (and since they approved by SBNation, they are moronic as well) are taking away the *character* and *passion* out of these blogs. It's become watered down into something so bland and colorless -- I call it the "tofu-ization" of the blog.
And people are going to stop caring pretty soon.
Even I'm starting to realize my fight to elucidate the calamitous changes at Acme feels like "tilting at windmills"
So I decided to go to the Packer SBnation site (glutton for punishment, I know) and after an interminable wait for the page to load, I go to the first story and find out that STROHMAN has been banned.
For the uninitiated, Strohman was BY FAR the best commenter in the history of AcmePackingCompany. He was irreverent, incisive and never tailored/sugar-coated his message for anyone. That's the epitome of a great football fan: Brash, opinionated, but tempered with logic and reason.
And he was banned for voicing his disgust with the new SBNation format.
I'm telling you, the morons running Acme (and since they approved by SBNation, they are moronic as well) are taking away the *character* and *passion* out of these blogs. It's become watered down into something so bland and colorless -- I call it the "tofu-ization" of the blog.
And people are going to stop caring pretty soon.
Even I'm starting to realize my fight to elucidate the calamitous changes at Acme feels like "tilting at windmills"
Friday, September 28, 2012
The Castration of Packer Fans at Acme Continues..
One of my main criticisms of Acme Packing Company is the "Corporatization" of the site and all that that entails for the organic, bold, in-your-face (and at times ribald) discourse between Packer fans themselves and with fans of other teams. The goal of SB Nation (being administered by the toadies who now run Acme now and other team blogs) is to create an antiseptic, politically correct blog that comes to resemble a cookie cutter ideal of something that is safe to advertise on (I suppose).
So out goes any sort of "edgy" spontaneity. Thus, witness the spontaenous (and righteous) anger expressed by Packer fans in the aftermath of the Seahawks debacle. A user by the name Packer3485 attempted to counter the inordinate amount of trolls bombarding the Acme site. One particular troll, the supercilious, unctuous and unfunny blogger over at Daily Norseman, Ted Glover, trolled packer fans with his crocodile tires...
Packer3285 responded understably by telling him to "go to hell" (we'll never get the full comment or context because it was deleted by Kevin McCauley Culkin (the man child head of Acme).
Packer3485 rightly responded:
Notice the 4 recs? McCauley-Culkin, ever so sensitive at losing "the masses", responded in douchenozzle fashion saying "oh we can't insult anyone on this site". Notice what a stupid, arbitrary amorphous standard that is? What is the separation between a reasonable description of reality and calling out BS, versus "insulting" someone? Who draws that line? Weren't we all insulting the replacement referees? Didn't we all call them out and insult them? Why are some insults OK and others not?
Apparently, we should all be OK with letting man-child McCauley Culkin figure that out (in his arbitrary way)
So out goes any sort of "edgy" spontaneity. Thus, witness the spontaenous (and righteous) anger expressed by Packer fans in the aftermath of the Seahawks debacle. A user by the name Packer3485 attempted to counter the inordinate amount of trolls bombarding the Acme site. One particular troll, the supercilious, unctuous and unfunny blogger over at Daily Norseman, Ted Glover, trolled packer fans with his crocodile tires...
Packer3285 responded understably by telling him to "go to hell" (we'll never get the full comment or context because it was deleted by Kevin McCauley Culkin (the man child head of Acme).
Packer3485 rightly responded:
Apparently we're not allowed to insult Ted Glover on this site.
I didn’t know Chris Gates took over APC. Fantastic.
Notice the 4 recs? McCauley-Culkin, ever so sensitive at losing "the masses", responded in douchenozzle fashion saying "oh we can't insult anyone on this site". Notice what a stupid, arbitrary amorphous standard that is? What is the separation between a reasonable description of reality and calling out BS, versus "insulting" someone? Who draws that line? Weren't we all insulting the replacement referees? Didn't we all call them out and insult them? Why are some insults OK and others not?
Apparently, we should all be OK with letting man-child McCauley Culkin figure that out (in his arbitrary way)
I’m curious. How can we phrase what Ted was doing without it being an “insult.” If we say he’s “two-faced” ….that’s an attack. If I say he’s being “dishonest”….that’s certainly insulting to him. No one wants to be told they’re a liar!
We’re essentially at the point where people are allowed to come over and be dicks here, but we aren’t actually allowed to SAY that they’re being dicks.
Packer3485, let me help you understand what happened here. The reason man-child deleted your comments wasn't because they were "insulting" -- it was because THEY WERE DIRECTED AT SOMEONE YOU DARE NOT INSULT. Man child has a stronger allegiance with Ted, who in the hiearachy of things is higher up than you or any other regular commentator will ever be. He defended a Viqueen Concern Troll because of his STATUS. They are both part of the same stupid hiearchy that is ruining SBNation.
You are just a regular Packer fan expressing your passions in an authentic way -- something that makes a blog fun and interesting. Not a priority in the Brave New World of politically-correct, corporate sensitive blogging.
Easy Peasy.
Dynasty...
Monday, September 24, 2012
Oh give it a rest...
For those new to this blog, click here for why I was banned from Acme Packing Company, SB Nation's Packers blog.
And as I suspected, Acme is throwing a tantrum after tonight's game.
Look, it was a bad call. But you know what? Bad calls are part of the game -- a bigger part nowadays because of the referee lockout fiasco. And don't forget the following:
1) We got plenty of breaks from the refs as well against Seattle. Don't act as if the bad calls were all one-sided.
2) MD Jennings should have punched/batted the ball away down into the turf. Period. As Gary Eller said on 1250 am postgame Green Bay "everyone is coached to do that from when they were a kid" (paraphrase)
But I've moved on. Time to focus on New Orleans and time focus on these realities:
1) We are now 3-4 over the last 7 games. And in reality, we are really 1-4 since two of those wins were meaningless (Chicago minus Cutler, Detroit game was last of the season and we started Flynn, totally meaningless)
2) Our offense looked invincible last year mostly because we did NOT PLAY A SINGLE DEFENSE RANKED IN THE TOP 10. The top defense we played, KC, was ranked 11th...held us to 7 points through 58 minutes until we scored a meaningless TD at then end when they went into prevent.
3) Our Offensive Line gave up 8 sacks in ONE HALF. That's atroicious. It means we can't do seven step drops and let our dangerous receivers have time to get open deep. That's why we were relegated to quick hitters in the 2nd half, to negate the rush.
And I could go on.
We haven't solidified the LB position opposite Clay, the Safety positions (though MacMillan is improving) are still a concern.
And did I mention our offense is just plain sputtering?
All these are more important than one bad fluke call -- but don't expect the Acme Packing Company brass to let off on this. Maybe they'll prove me wrong...but I doubt it.
Dynasty.
And as I suspected, Acme is throwing a tantrum after tonight's game.
Look, it was a bad call. But you know what? Bad calls are part of the game -- a bigger part nowadays because of the referee lockout fiasco. And don't forget the following:
1) We got plenty of breaks from the refs as well against Seattle. Don't act as if the bad calls were all one-sided.
2) MD Jennings should have punched/batted the ball away down into the turf. Period. As Gary Eller said on 1250 am postgame Green Bay "everyone is coached to do that from when they were a kid" (paraphrase)
But I've moved on. Time to focus on New Orleans and time focus on these realities:
1) We are now 3-4 over the last 7 games. And in reality, we are really 1-4 since two of those wins were meaningless (Chicago minus Cutler, Detroit game was last of the season and we started Flynn, totally meaningless)
2) Our offense looked invincible last year mostly because we did NOT PLAY A SINGLE DEFENSE RANKED IN THE TOP 10. The top defense we played, KC, was ranked 11th...held us to 7 points through 58 minutes until we scored a meaningless TD at then end when they went into prevent.
3) Our Offensive Line gave up 8 sacks in ONE HALF. That's atroicious. It means we can't do seven step drops and let our dangerous receivers have time to get open deep. That's why we were relegated to quick hitters in the 2nd half, to negate the rush.
And I could go on.
We haven't solidified the LB position opposite Clay, the Safety positions (though MacMillan is improving) are still a concern.
And did I mention our offense is just plain sputtering?
All these are more important than one bad fluke call -- but don't expect the Acme Packing Company brass to let off on this. Maybe they'll prove me wrong...but I doubt it.
Dynasty.
Two back-to-back dumb article titles on Acme
If you are new to my blog, please view this . That'll give an idea of the who, what, where and why of this blog. And thanks for coming on board!
Today is game day (or should I say game night) as the Pack take on Seattle in a matter of moments. As I covered earlier , Acme blog has done a crappy job of covering this game from an objective standpoint (par for the course for them).
Even more laughably, in an attempt at "serious" analysis, today's Acme contained the two blog entries with the following titles: "Packers need to establish a running game" and "Packers need to start fast". Wow, what deep thoughts! As for the "the Pack need to start fast"...Well, duh...what's the alternative? Starting slow? Does any team want to start slow? As one commenter there accurately put it:
That the plan is always to start fast. I mean, its not like the team gets together and says,“Ok guys, what we’re going to do is stall on the first couple of drives and let the other team get a lead, and then we’re really going to turn it on.” Not trying ti be a smart alec, but I think that the Packers goal is to score every time they have the ball.
Exactamundo!
And as for "we need to establish the running game" to win. Let's recall that last year we went 15-1 while averaging about 60 yards per game. And many of those yards were disproportionately in the 4th quarter, when we were icing our win. Objectively, it's WAAAAY more significant for us to "establish the pass" (!) in order to set up the run (!). But the "cool kids" in Acme prefer to repeat the hackneyed slogan which has been around for decades and appeal to popular prejudices, but proven irrelevant over the past 4 seasons, if one cares to look at the stats.
Typical hackneyed "lazy" thinking...
Anyways, it's kickoff...go Pack go and I hope we can win this tough game!
Dynasty.
Today is game day (or should I say game night) as the Pack take on Seattle in a matter of moments. As I covered earlier , Acme blog has done a crappy job of covering this game from an objective standpoint (par for the course for them).
Even more laughably, in an attempt at "serious" analysis, today's Acme contained the two blog entries with the following titles: "Packers need to establish a running game" and "Packers need to start fast". Wow, what deep thoughts! As for the "the Pack need to start fast"...Well, duh...what's the alternative? Starting slow? Does any team want to start slow? As one commenter there accurately put it:
That the plan is always to start fast. I mean, its not like the team gets together and says,“Ok guys, what we’re going to do is stall on the first couple of drives and let the other team get a lead, and then we’re really going to turn it on.” Not trying ti be a smart alec, but I think that the Packers goal is to score every time they have the ball.
Exactamundo!
And as for "we need to establish the running game" to win. Let's recall that last year we went 15-1 while averaging about 60 yards per game. And many of those yards were disproportionately in the 4th quarter, when we were icing our win. Objectively, it's WAAAAY more significant for us to "establish the pass" (!) in order to set up the run (!). But the "cool kids" in Acme prefer to repeat the hackneyed slogan which has been around for decades and appeal to popular prejudices, but proven irrelevant over the past 4 seasons, if one cares to look at the stats.
Typical hackneyed "lazy" thinking...
Anyways, it's kickoff...go Pack go and I hope we can win this tough game!
Dynasty.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
For Those New to My Blog...
Welcome! I am hoping this website will appeal not just to Packer fans, but those who have been rail-roaded by the increasing "politically correct" fascism that is dooming SBNation, as it hastens to join the middle of the road, yellow-stripe-down-the-middle, politically correct "corporatocracy" that is limiting so much speech nowadays. (In other words, they want to sell out to corporate America).
So instead of the raw, in-your-face fandom that makes blogging so much fun and unpredictable, it's become as predictable, contrived and just outright lame as the lamestream media in general.
Briefly, here is why I was dispatched from Acme Packing Company, after 9,000 comments and four years of painstakingly following the team (including when the team went 6-10 in 2008 and I was like one of only 4 people during the game day live threads):
1) Referring to the NFL draft as a "slave auction" in the context of players being forced to play for a team against their possible wil, instead of the free market that most of us enjoy when seeking employment
2) Referring to the Vikings as the "Queens" -- (this is something that every packer baby mouths right after "Mom" "Dad" "Go Pack Go"; "queens" usually follows although sometimes it's "Bears still suck").
3) In the aftermath of Seau's suicide, I engaged in a little gallow's humor. Context: When it comes to death, some of us face this difficult life moment with humor, often of the wry, semi-twisted sort. I joked that he killed himself b/c he never won a Super Bowl. And I blamed the Giants for ruining his best chance. (Waaah)
4) I labeled my critics on APC "soft like women" and was banned for being a sexist. This coming from a site that calls Ponder "Christina" and feminizes other teams' players.
Yep, for all those innocuous observations, I got warned and then finally banned!
So in short, that's basically my story -- but it doesn't end there. After I got banned, countless new members have faced "the people's razor" (For you Francophobes, that was the nickname given to the Guillotine during the French Revolution), dropped by Kevin McCauley (The Robespierre of Acme Packing Company) and the rest of the Jacobins (Kevin, Devin, and a retard editor named O'Brien Schofield).
If you have faced similar treatment or just hate the general PC drift of SBNation then....WELCOME! And by all means, chime in and voice your grievances.
Dynasty.
So instead of the raw, in-your-face fandom that makes blogging so much fun and unpredictable, it's become as predictable, contrived and just outright lame as the lamestream media in general.
Briefly, here is why I was dispatched from Acme Packing Company, after 9,000 comments and four years of painstakingly following the team (including when the team went 6-10 in 2008 and I was like one of only 4 people during the game day live threads):
1) Referring to the NFL draft as a "slave auction" in the context of players being forced to play for a team against their possible wil, instead of the free market that most of us enjoy when seeking employment
2) Referring to the Vikings as the "Queens" -- (this is something that every packer baby mouths right after "Mom" "Dad" "Go Pack Go"; "queens" usually follows although sometimes it's "Bears still suck").
3) In the aftermath of Seau's suicide, I engaged in a little gallow's humor. Context: When it comes to death, some of us face this difficult life moment with humor, often of the wry, semi-twisted sort. I joked that he killed himself b/c he never won a Super Bowl. And I blamed the Giants for ruining his best chance. (Waaah)
4) I labeled my critics on APC "soft like women" and was banned for being a sexist. This coming from a site that calls Ponder "Christina" and feminizes other teams' players.
Yep, for all those innocuous observations, I got warned and then finally banned!
So in short, that's basically my story -- but it doesn't end there. After I got banned, countless new members have faced "the people's razor" (For you Francophobes, that was the nickname given to the Guillotine during the French Revolution), dropped by Kevin McCauley (The Robespierre of Acme Packing Company) and the rest of the Jacobins (Kevin, Devin, and a retard editor named O'Brien Schofield).
If you have faced similar treatment or just hate the general PC drift of SBNation then....WELCOME! And by all means, chime in and voice your grievances.
Dynasty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)