Atlanta Post Game

[skibrett15]

Jamaal WIlliams may have a future at fullback.

Jimmy Graham is clearly too hurt to be effective.  Bunch of balls hit his hands and he can't squeeze it.  Jimmy is a hands catcher and he doesn't have a working thumb.  This is just dumb to keep him out there.

which OL got hurt?

Rodgers was a lot more good than bad, but still held the ball in a lot of situations , even those where there were obvious options.  Once or twice he tried to escape late which led to drive enders, and once or thrice he did escape leading to drive extenders.  His ball placement was exceptional on the cobb TD, and awful on the davante TD.  It looked to be a pretty windy day based on the kicking game, and Rodgers handled that pretty well considering.

 

Average kicker.

[ThatJerkDave]

33 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

 

which OL got hurt?

McCray, but he came back.  And unless it was just me being sleepy, it looked like he played better when he came back.  

[snackattack]

I applauded philbins challenges even though both went the other way

offense did seem to be getting up to the LOS mich faster than normal. No pointless burning of timeouts like we have seen many times this year. Offense seemed to click in general

defense was good but the weather probably helped them a bit. Jaire wasnt as bad as julios numbers indicate. Just a hair off on several catches

im digging the idea of a two back offense if anyone has the guts to explore it. Would help a little with our young receivers still learning the game i think (more playing time but features less)

kenny clark is the juggernaut

[Leader]

52 minutes ago, snackattack said:

I applauded philbins challenges even though both went the other way

I agree.

I only saw replay of....what I believe to be the second one.
It was the called reception (by Julio?) along the sideline - and it appeared clear - and the NFLNetwork folks said as much - that the WRs foot came down out of bounds. What was the chatter by the TV announcers about that "failure" to reverse that call? Is looked pretty clear cut to me.

[MacReady]

The second Julio catch might have been good and would not have been changed regardless of the call on the field, but how the NFL can justify calling that first Julio a catch is a crime against Jaire's rookie season and was completely inexcusable in every single way. 

[Leader]

5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

The second Julio catch might have been good and would not have been changed regardless of the call on the field, but how the NFL can justify calling that first Julio a catch is a crime against Jaire's rookie season and was completely inexcusable in every single way. 

Well - I cant tell which came first as I was only seeing replays - in what order, dont know.
Only there was one where whomever the WR was - his foot/feet clearly came down out of bounds - GB challenged it wasnt a reception - and they lost the challenge.

[packfanfb]

12 minutes ago, Leader said:

I agree.

I only saw replay of....what I believe to be the second one.
It was the called reception (by Julio?) along the sideline - and it appeared clear - and the NFLNetwork folks said as much - that the WRs foot came down out of bounds. What was the chatter by the TV announcers about that "failure" to reverse that call? Is looked pretty clear cut to me.

First "catch" [Julio on the ground] was laughable and no person in their right mind could have reviewed that and upheld it. Easy no catch. 

Second "catch" [Julio extended] I actually think he caught it, but at very least it was bang-bang and I knew instantly when we challenged, it was going to "stand." 

[Leader]

Just now, packfanfb said:

First "catch" was laughable and no person in their right mind could have reviewed that and upheld it. Easy no catch. 

Second "catch" I actually think he caught it, but at very least it was bang-bang and I knew instantly when we challenged, it was going to "stand." 

Which of these two was the one where the guys feet came down out of bounds?

[packfanfb]

Just now, Leader said:

Which of these two was the one where the guys feet came down out of bounds?

See my edit.

[MacReady]

Just now, Leader said:

Well - I cant tell which came first as I was only seeing replays - in what order, dont know.
Only there was one where whomever the WR was - his foot/feet clearly came down out of bounds - GB challenged it wasnt a reception - and they lost the challenge.

On the play you're referring to, all the foot that landed out of bounds had to do was graze a blade of grass before it touched the white.  It was inconclusive whether or not a lower part of the shoe touched in before the white, so it stood, even though everything about it looked like it went out first.  It was fine to uphold that one.

The first one when the ball was bobbled at every single moment and landed outside of Julio's hands when he didn't even make a football move OR get three steps down... That was an abomination of officiating that should be used in teaching moments to show refs how to not be idiots and tell that if a ball is bobbled and lands out of the receiver's hands after being bobbled the entire way down, it shouldn't be a got damn catch. 

[Leader]

 

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

On the play you're referring to, all the foot that landed out of bounds had to do was graze a blade of grass before it touched the white.  It was inconclusive whether or not a lower part of the shoe touched in before the white, so it stood, even though everything about it looked like it went out first.  It was fine to uphold that one.

The first one when the ball was bobbled at every single moment and landed outside of Julio's hands when he didn't even make a football move OR get three steps down... That was an abomination of officiating that should be used in teaching moments to show refs how to not be idiots and tell that if a ball is bobbled and lands out of the receiver's hands after being bobbled the entire way down, it shouldn't be a got damn catch. 

Okay. There. This clarifies it for me.
So the one I saw....his foot might actually have touched green. Didnt look like it - but oh well.
I never saw the second - bobbled/no possession/dropped one.

[packfanfb]

Just now, Leader said:

 

Okay. There. This clarifies it for me.
So the one I saw....his foot might actually have touched green. Didnt look like it - but oh well.
I never saw the second - bobbled/no possession/dropped one.

Basically like the 2nd or 3rd play of the game. Again, it was laughable. Laughable that it was called a catch on the field and 100x more laughable that it stood. 

[Sasquatch]

I watched the game from a bar that has the DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket, and the crowd was mostly Packet fans with some Falcons fans sprinkled in.  I was sitting next to a crusty old Falcons fan on my right, and a crusty old Packer fan on my left.  After the first Julio 'dropped' pass was held up after official review, the crusty old Falcon fan leans over to me and says "that right there proves my belief that without a doubt, the NFL is a racket!"  He went on to explain his reasons for feeling this way in great detail, and I was trying to tune him out because I was just too steaming mad at the officials to care. 

Next year, I'm just going to suck it up and buy the damn Sunday Ticket, LOL.  That said, the old man is probably right.  How someone can objectively rule that a catch - while sitting in a comfortable office somewhere in NY with multiple camera angles at his disposal - is well beyond inexplicable. 

[vegas492]

Full disclosure....I mised the first Atlanta drive...except for the TD.

And....I fell asleep at the beginning of the 4'th quarter.  Long weekend.

This is what I saw...Atlanta is terrible.  They quit and they quit early.  My brother in law is a Falcon fan...he said their OC, Sarkesian (sp), is terrible.   I thought Vic Beasley was going to be the next big thing.  Now?  I'm not sure.  

Looked like typical GB football this year.  First drive was good.  Rhythm passes, Rodgers looked better.  Then it become much of the same, only with a little more success against a team that mailed it in.

I watched a few things...Clay.  Clay still moves fast when he wants to.  He just doesn't hand fight like he used to.  

Spriggs.  I thought he was average.  Better base to him.  Good back.  Feet were slower than I anticipated and he had no nasty in his game.  To be fair, he played right tackle as I'd expect a right tackle to play.  I don't think he turned any corner, but I think a case could be made to sit Bulaga for the rest of the year and tell Spriggs that RT is his to win now.  See if he gets better and plays with more confidence.

Martinez.  I thought he played another really good game.  Same goes for Clark.  Despite being doubled a lot, the kid holds his ground.  He's not an elite pass rusher.  He is an elite anchor with great movement in the run game, though, and the rush keeps improving.

Is Breeland worth 3 for $24M from GB?  That was his voided contract.  Based on that game, you bet.  He looked healthy and quick.  But...the injury thing scares me with him.

Lucas Patrick.  God I like that kid.  He's got nasty in him.  I'd love the team to give him the Lane Taylor treatment.  Nice backup deal for a few years and see if he can win a starting spot.

I'm sure there is more, but....it was clear to me that Atlanta wasn't into the game at all.  

[Fl0nkerton]

If you take away Julio's non-catches (which is the best timeline) he goes for 6 rec / 59 yards / 2 TDs