National Football Post Diner News

Vrabel's a keeper, I don't like them but you don't throw someone who is that smart away.

Teams that run from two backs usually do well against the Pats. They are less likely to blitz then. If one back is all they see, and he is not offset, they blitz every gap that forms.

Teams that address the Pats tactic with pop passes and other such quicks can give them so much trouble.

The thing was, if Cowher was still a Steelers coach, and he sees Willie Parker go ten yards untouched on his first carry out of the I formation, he'll do that until it gets stopped.

Arians wanted to see everything else, was going to the one back stuff, the Pats blitzes were waiting for it. Ben's no huddle stuff is a bit more predictable as well. It wasn't when he first did it, it was clear the Pats had film on his no huddle of recent.

Steelers tackles leading out some runs looked nice. Washington was going lights out except for a drop that would have been six, at a time when the team was already poised for controlling the game. Credit Tomlin for staying on their throat, he didn't let up. If you're going to be different from Bill's style, then stay with the plan.

Now, Parker runs a bit upright for my liking, Tomlin is trying to save him for the playoff run. Mewelde looks nice in spots of a game, but he has to get warmed up a few plays, and he gets warm and cold in games. That was fun to watch him make efforts to become more assertive in running style.

What we see is a Steelers team that has players making signature plays and styles part of the plan, everyone is a bit more comfortable in their role. To me, they're best when Heath Miller can make plays for them. When the team commits to only running or only passing, certain players take on great roles, but Miller remains important in either facet of play.

Sean - bottom line for me is that in that situation, going for it offers the most opportunities to win all the way around. Your offense gets the opportunity, your defense gets the opportunity by a safety, and your special teams gets the opportunity as there was still enough time to force a stop and a punt to get a short field with a minute or so on the clock. Incredibly bad call on that one.

I can see what you're saying too, Peter. My thought on that is, even if you get stopped at the 1, Carolina is probably going to be conservative and run the ball from their end zone. And if they let Carolina move 65-70 yards for a winning FG, then I'm going to blame the D for failing in that situation, not McCarthy going for the touchdown. I agree, a lot of coaches would have taken the points, but I like a coach who "plays to win" in that situation. I felt the same way when Mike Sherman punted on 4th and inches late in the 2003 playoff game at Philly. You go for it and win the game right there. Instead, he made the safe call and the Packers wound up losing.

Here's one thing Packers fans can agree on: Darren Sharper never could tackle anyone.

Peter - I cannot agree that kicking the FG was the right move. When you look at all the information available, they should have gone for it on 4th down. First, the kick coverage unit had already given up two big returns. It is not realistic to think the coverage unit would not give up another sizeable return. Second, if you are saying it is not realistic for the Panthers to go 45 yards to attempt a FG, why is it realistic that the Panthers would go 65-70 yards, starting from their 1-yard line, to attempt a FG? Third, the Panthers only had one timeout left. What was likely to happen if the Packers did not score on fourth down is for the Panthers to try and force overtime. They had one timeout, the Packers had two, and the ball on their own 1-yard line. Their first down call is almost certainly a run. From that point, they would not risk throwing incomplete passes, stopping the clock, and then punting from deep in their territory, giving the Packers the ball back with two timeouts and good field position. I think the Panthers would have simply run it and tried to force the Packers to use their two timeouts. Overtime would have resulted and then who knows what the outcome would have been. However, by thinking he was taking the safest option, McCarthy chose the riskiest one and lost.

Peter - your assumption is that everything would go wrong but there are logical flaws as well. For example, there's no reason to believe that Carolina would've struggled to gain 45 yards to get into field goal range - operating from the 25, their entire playbook would've been available to them and they had already achieved drives of that length in the game.

Having to go 70 yards, starting from the one is an entirely different level of difficult but it also offers opportunities for a safety (we did have a number of tackles for loss and any line penalty would've been killer, not to mention the crowd noise that would've ensued under those circumstances).

Rodgers was playing well at that point and we'd already completed a short TD fade to the TE and converted a 2-pt so there is ample reason to believe a pass at this point could've worked. Conversely, with Crosby kicking into the wind and our special teams having already given up multiple big returns, there was no reason to believe we would be able to force Carolina into a long field to tie.

If you expect your defense to be able to seal the deal, going for it would result in either the largest potential point spread to defend against or the longest potential field to defend against. Either is the best case scenario for the defense.

You're correct that "Nobody" calls the play to punch it in at that point. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a stupid play call. Going for it gives you four potential paths to a win - taking the field goal gives you at most, two, both of which are predicated on defensive stops.

Mr. Murder,
Vrabel may be smart but he's slow and he can't rush the passer like he used to...I don't know if he's hurt or just lost it...

DL - definitely no arguement there, although he did still pull off a key pick in that game.

Sorry guys, still don't agree on trying to score a TD. The Panthers didn't do anything in the 2nd half on offense. Aside from the one long run they had, they just got an average of 3 yards a run. they would've never tried to run the ball at their 1. also at their 25, they wouldn't have tried to run the ball, or just have quick, short passes into the middle of the field. Clock was against them. Giving them the ball back at their 1, you'd have put the game tied into their hands or a lucky coin toss. But I respect your points. After watching the last 2 games, a few things are painfully obvious, though. this team has a low talent level. Special teams are atrocious (that's where talent shows up). No pass rush. Below average linebackers. Overrated secondary. Poor running game (why has Brandon Jackson not gotten more carries this year???). Below average OL. Average QB, but I would expect that from a first year starter, he could get much better in the years to come, but for now he is average. Only 2 positions that are above average in the NFL are WR and Kicker. Punter is one of the worst in the NFL. There are too many holes to fill. I have long been a Thompson supporter, but I am beginning to wonder whether the goal is to have the youngest team in the NFL every year and stockpile 10-15 picks every draft, or whether it is to win games?

Mike's going off the "better to cut a year too early than a year too late..."

The same thing happened where he worked from 2002-2003.

I agree with your assessment of the team's talent level Peter, although I think our secondary is pretty good; age is a concern with Harris and Woodson. It all starts up front in the trenches on offense and defense, and there's no question Thompson needs to seriously upgrade those areas. At the same time, young guys with starting ability, like Allen Barbre and Justin Harrell, need to step up their games as well.

DL: I thought the same thing about Sharper, although he did get better. He was terrible as a young player.

One thing to keep in mind about the Packers problems this year is that they have been unlucky with injuries. Barnett, Jenkins, Bigby, Collins, Harris, Hawk, Clifton, Grant, Wells all have been gone for most or part of the year. Notice especially that the weaknesses everyone is writing about are exactly the places where they have been hit hardest by injury. I'm not making excuses but it is something to consider.

The punter thing really made no sense at the start of the season and makes no sense now. One thing I like about Thomson and McCarthy (in contrast to the previous regime) is that they will cut players who can't do the job. Why Frost is still around is beyond me.

Stoch