Green Bay won, but i felt we were the better team

[1960Pats]

I obviously agree with those who point to the lower number of runs as an issue sometimes, but I didn't see that as much on Sunday, considering that they were down pretty early 13-0.

Had that not occurred (or the Jordy Nelson TD catch going into the half when we stormed back to make it a 16-14 deficit), then we'd likely have seen more running plays. McDaniels spoke on this during his conference call with the media yesterday.

The reality is that we were in a fine position to win had Gronkowski come down with that touchdown catch with 3 minutes to go, and were able to come back on 2 different occasions by way of the passing game.

I thought the GB game was the poster child for the way the Pats abandon the run, both early and late in games. But, if I was going to be forced to see my team pass the ball too much, it doesn't hurt to have the Pats as that team.

I thought the pass to Gronk was badly under thrown. Had it been even a decent pass Gronk probably gets the TD.

When the Pats run less they lose more. No matter what the cause, that pretty much sums it up for me.

We're on to San Diego

 

[1960Pats]

Which team is "better" is irrelevant. That is why the games are played. Be that as it may, I feel the Patriots are good enough to go anywhere and beat any of the other 31 teams if they play up to their potential in all three phases. I can't ask for anything more as a fan.

The Packers where the better team Sunday, for sure, but I would love to see them again at the end of the road in Arizona.

I want nothing to do with Aaron Rodgers again. I'd rather see us play in the SB against a 6-10 team from the NFCS.

 

[woolster22]

One simple fact. The more the Pats run the more they win.

Yet, we keep seeing losses like this where they totally abandon the running game and lose. The worst part is that this time they were pretty successful but still ignored it.

After years of seeing the Pats go pass-happy and lose against teams that suck against the run, I've become tired of cyberspeaking up about it here. So tired.

I completely agree. 17 rushes for 85 yards. Vereen 3 for 6. Blount 10 for 58...smh

 

[doesntmatter1]

They did try a bubble screen. Vereen dropped it (again).

I was referring to throwing a bubble screen to Amendola. My entire argument was how we don't have a wide receiver(not tight end etc) after Lafell and Edelman at the moment. And how we don't use Amendola at all. If he was the highest paid receiver on my team he would at least work a little for it. Amendola should at least get one reverse a game or something.

p.s. the ball Vereen dropped is the one Peppers had tipped.

 

[Kontradiction]

Almost 500 yards of total offense yielded, one punt forced the entire game, an offense that was too cute for it's own good, and a loss. Not sure how anybody felt we were the better team this past Sunday. That could change if the two teams meet again, but that wasn't the case at Lambeau.

 

[Patjew]

Almost 500 yards of total offense yielded, one punt forced the entire game, an offense that was too cute for it's own good, and a loss. Not sure how anybody felt we were the better team this past Sunday. That could change if the two teams meet again, but that wasn't the case at Lambeau.

I guess because despite that dominance by GB, the Pats still barely lost. My feeling is if the Pats play a decent game, they beat GB more times than not.

That all being said, it felt like the Pats were down 30 points all game. It was weird.

 

[pork3]

Almost 500 yards of total offense yielded, one punt forced the entire game, an offense that was too cute for it's own good, and a loss. Not sure how anybody felt we were the better team this past Sunday. That could change if the two teams meet again, but that wasn't the case at Lambeau.

Preach it brother, preach it.
I want no part of Green Bay if we ever reach the superbowl.

-Jamman

 

[Kontradiction]

I guess because despite that dominance by GB, the Pats still barely lost. My feeling is if the Pats play a decent game, they beat GB more times than not.

That all being said, it felt like the Pats were down 30 points all game. It was weird.

Pats basically just chose to die by a thousand papercuts. That's why they were that close but it felt like they were down 30. Again, that could change if the teams meet again. Chandler would hopefully be playing so Rodgers wouldn't have 11 seconds in the pocket again like he did in (I believe) the Packers' last red zone possession.

As an aside, they tell me my great great grandfather died of a thousand papercuts in the War of 1812.

 

[Patjew]

I heard your great great grandfather was kind of a prick, so NBD.

 

[Ivan]

We will win a rematch on neutral field. Not worried about GB.

Any time Aaron Rodgers is the opposing QB there is great cause for concern.

 

[FourierSeries]

Any time Aaron Rodgers is the opposing QB there is great cause for concern.

His 5-4 playoff record says otherwise.

 

[libra957]

Two words, mobile quarterback.

That said, McD must have been concussed, bolden over gray? How many carries for vereen? He did the right thing against Indy, but I'm starting to think that was BB firmly planting a shoe in a dark place. Why not hammer the rock with Blount and gray against the 30th ranked run d? Pass all day and Tim Wright watches most of the game from the sidelines. Dobson goes down and Tyms was where? The offensive game plan was a throwback to KC.

It's almost as if BB was steering the ship, got through the majority of iceburgs, and turned the wheel over to McDaniels. What did McDaniels do? Well, that genius fool turned the wheel half a spin towards the run game, unfortunately he threw the prop (personnel decisions) half a click in reverse, effectively b-lining straight into the GB iceberg.

There is no reason the offense should have looked as mediocre as they did. Bolden?! There's a reason that juiced up hack only sees the field on ST's. FFS guy.

According to ESPN, bolden and vereen ran three times each. That doesn't sound bad until you consider we only ran seventeen times. Was it be or was every vereen run a damn foolish play call? I'd hazard a guess that each vereen rush coincided with a drive ending in a punt. But what do I know. Hell, if bolden broke a rush for 12 yards, would blount have taken it the distance? Who is more explosive? Hell, grays four yard carry seemed to be a solid, move some bodies and hit the collapsed hole, chicken salad out of chicken **** variety. But obviously mcdouche had to air it out, and make sure "his guys" (amendola, figures autocorrect wanted mendoza, and hooman) were in for the failed crunch time. Plus he threw out a clearly hobbled Edes on third and fourth down. Plenty of time to take it to their horrible run defense Josh, but keep up the passing game with a hurt Edes, LaFell coming if a shoulder injury, and okay right into a dline that has been teeing off on the pass all game.

Hell, the run game just wasn't cutting it. We only rushed for 85 yards on seventeen carries, and that includes Vereen's 3 for six. SMFH

I also think that after the first quarter we sort of panicked, maybe that's why we got away from it. When you look at how the 49ers or the Seahawks play the Packers there is always a strong emphasis on running the ball and Rodgers despite all his greatness has been kept under control,but we're built differently on D.So the question becomes, are we even a good matchup?We seem to love man to man coverage the problem is not everyone in our secondary is equipped to it, there were a few plays where their receivers got behind our secondary and i didn't like that.Dream scenario is to hold Rodgers under 200, it has been done before several times by other teams.

 

[Ivan]

His 5-4 playoff record says otherwise.

If you think Green Bays failures are on Rodgers you haven't been paying attention.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I thought the GB game was the poster child for the way the Pats abandon the run, both early and late in games. But, if I was going to be forced to see my team pass the ball too much, it doesn't hurt to have the Pats as that team.

I thought the pass to Gronk was badly under thrown. Had it been even a decent pass Gronk probably gets the TD.

When the Pats run less they lose more. No matter what the cause, that pretty much sums it up for me.

We're on to San Diego

In all honesty they were not generating much in the 1st quarter off the run. They tried to establish it but ended up in 4 and short situations.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

with the huge rating, they should match up both teams every year... or until Brady retires.

 

[Mack Herron]

In all honesty they were not generating much in the 1st quarter off the run. They tried to establish it but ended up in 4 and short situations.

They only ran the ball 4 times in the first quarter, including a Vereen run up the middle. If you are saying that 3 Blount runs is sufficient "to establish" the run and to judge its productivity, then I would suggest this impatience with the run is part of the problem some of us are concerned about. As we know all too well, the best way to beat the Pats is to pressure Brady. De-emphasizing the run plays right into this weakness as defenses can pass "Go" and head right for the QB. Few OLs will hold up in that scenario, especially against better teams, and ours is not one of them.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

In a way, it's good that they got this loss out of the way. Now they just need to go on another 7-game winning streak.