2010-2011 NFC North Division

[MUBurrow]

yeah after watching last nights game, the biggest thing that caught my attention is that the WR corps needs to get sorted out. not enough targets, not near enough completion.  i think some of that can be attributed to Favre's timing, some to the injury chaos at WR, some to the Saints underrated pass defense.

I think Jay Bee is right about needing to involve Camarillo more, but hes only been on the team for a couple weeks.  i think that as Favre gets frustrated with Berrian & Harvin (really they are very similar players and neither is a consistent wideout option) he will get into a groove with Camarillo. Guy runs good routs and has hands of glue.  He isnt flashy and wont beat anyone deep, but as Favre showed with Shiancoe, at this point i think he just wants someone to catch the ball for 8 yds a pop.

[MerrittsMustache]

I bet Minnesota +5.5 and came out victorious.  The Back2Back Vikings are a force - let's get that secondary healthier, figure out what receiver(s) want to step up in Rice's absence, and do what we do - win the NFC North and flame out in the playoffs.

I finished your sentence for you.

[Benny B]

Personally, I didn't think the Saints looked all that great last night.  Maybe Brees was the QB who had more rust on him, or maybe the Vikings secondary played extremely well.  Personally, I thought both defenses looked mediocre and it was the lack of AP and the uncharacteristic "less-than-two-TD-performance" by Brees that defined the game last night.  Either way, both teams looked like they weren't quite ready for the season.

The one bright spot for NO is that the offensive line effectively protected the QB for the first 45 minutes and cleared a path for the running game in the last 15 -- against what is believed to be one of the better defenses in the NFL.

New Orleans didn't deserve to win, but took advantage of a team that played like it was still the pre-season.  At this point, I wouldn't judge either team based on this performance nor would I anoint the Packers as the team to beat in the NFC North, but the Vikings clearly have more work to do than the Saints, and that certainly plays to GB's advantage for the next 53 hours.

[LON]

I'm fine.  We're fine - for now.  Very tough schedule, would have been nice to steal that one.

Would like to see a little more of the Cornholio receiver guy from Miami... where is Berrian?  Will he ever reveal himself, or has he in fact done so already?  

I know lots of Green Bey fans were skeeting when Favre was picked (interference on VS during the play went uncalled, btw)... that was vintage Favre. But, then the TD pass later in the half was also.  I'm OK with it.

I bet Minnesota +5.5 and came out victorious.  The Back2Back Vikings are a force - let's get that secondary healthier, figure out what receiver(s) want to step up in Rice's absence, and do what we do - win the NFC North.  

That was a great catch by Shiancoe...and if you saw the play again, Vilma bit on the underneath route (that was already double covered) to let Shiancoe get over the top of him and Favre put it in the only place that the Safety couldn't get to...great pass, but a mistake by Vilma.

I also think Vilma got away with illegal contact, it was a bad no call. (In the game's context, they called the push-off earlier, gotta keep it consistent).

EDIT - another thought on the Vilma no-call

[GGGG]

Personally, I didn't think the Saints looked all that great last night. 

I think a lot of offenses aren't going to look real good the first part of the season.  The Packer's offense didn't last year, and they may not on Sunday.  They don't play a lot during pre-season, especially against a defense that schemes against them.

[martyconlonontherun]

What matters is that the Vikings got the L (if you are a Pack fan). Both teams looked rusty and neither were up to par. It was basically a coin flip last night and it went the Saints way.

[NavinRJohnson]

What matters is that the Vikings got the L (if you are a Pack fan). Both teams looked rusty and neither were up to par. It was basically a coin flip last night and it went the Saints way.

I agree, but I'm actually torn on that. I could certainly be wrong, but I honestly don't expect the Vikings to be much of a factor. I am clearly putting the cart well before the horse, but I think the Saints are bigger threat, because its never too early to start thinking about home field advantage. The more games they lose, the better.

[cheebs09]

I agree, but I'm actually torn on that. I could certainly be wrong, but I honestly don't expect the Vikings to be much of a factor. I am clearly putting the cart well before the horse, but I think the Saints are bigger threat, because its never too early to start thinking about home field advantage. The more games they lose, the better.

True on the home-field part, but I could see a few early losses causing the Vikings to spiral out of control. They didn't start well last year, but had the Browns and Lions early. They weren't under any real pressure since they were winning. It allowed Favre to get comfortable and could hand it off to AP. I don't know if they really started clicking until the Favre game-winning TD pass against the 49ers. Then we saw once they got rolling they were very good.

Maybe my view is skewed being a Packer fan, but I think if they lose a few early, the pressure will really be on and then the old Favre may come back. At the start of last season, he just didn't have to lose the games. He would dump it off if no one is open and make the safe plays, and they had a lot of success doing that. So he saw that it was successful and did that for the full year (only 7 Ints). However, if that doesn't work early on, then he may take it upon himself and try to win games and things could get ugly. However, if they would have beaten the Saints, I could see them getting rolling early and put together a great year. They may still have a great year and win the division, but I just think a few early losses to the Vikings help us more than the Saints.

[tower912]

Any rule that says that wasn't a game winning catch is flawed.

[MerrittsMustache]

Any rule that says that wasn't a game winning catch is flawed.

Flawed as it may be, at least the officials got the call right based on the rule...as opposed to the botched replay reversal of the Don Majkowski play against the Bears.

[tower912]

I understand it was the right call by the rule.   A running back diving, hitting the pylon with a ball that falls out of his hand = touchdown.    Two feet, a knee, a hand and losing the ball as you push off the ground = incomplete.    Correct call as the rule is written.    Flawed rule. 

[wadesworld]

Flawed as it may be, at least the officials got the call right based on the rule...as opposed to the botched replay reversal of the Don Majkowski play against the Bears.

So here is the Lions play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s_EPK9MtJE

Here is Mike Williams in Seattle's game reaching to score a touchdown: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a78418

If Calvin Johnson's catch was indeed not a catch and therefore incomplete, how is Mike Williams reaching for the goal line and the ball popping out as it hits the ground not a fumble? In fact, Calvin Johnson was more down than Mike Williams was. Calvin gets 2 feet down, his butt hits the ground, his knee hits the ground, his left hand hits the ground, and THEN the ball finally pops out as it hits the ground. How is that not a complete pass?

Either way, none of the NFC North Division teams looked all that great in week 1.  The Packers had a bad first half offensively, then looked great to start the 2nd half and looked like they were just going to blow the Eagles out, and then Vick went off.  What is encouraging is that Rodgers is probably not going to have many worse games than that (not only did he throw 2 interceptions and take 3 sacks, but he missed on throws multiple times worse than I've ever seen him miss before) and we still came away with a win in Philly.  Granted that Kolb sucks, but winning in Philly is never easy.

The Bears and Lions both looked awful.  It was just a matter of which team would look less atrocious that would win, and even then a bad rule changed the result.  Even my Bears fan roommate thinks the rule is terrible.

The Vikings did not look good at all, but Adrian Peterson looked like a man possessed at times, which could be scary.  They were also playing at the defending Super Bowl Champion's home/season opener so that's not all that easy.  Granted they didn't look good either, but I think the Vikings are a playoff team and will look really good in some games and maybe bad if Favre looks old in other games.

Also, I enjoy the fact that after a loss all Sciancoe can talk about is the Packers haven't won anything.  They weren't even playing the Packers, where'd that come from?  Also, this quote from him is somewhat (or entirely) ironic, "Everybody’s jumping on their jock, like they’ve actually gone to the Super Bowl, and won it."  So Shiancoe has won a couple then, right?  HAHA.  JayBee, is that you speaking or what?  Sounds like it.

Last comment: Clay Matthews is a man among boys.

[GGGG]

The Packers beat a decent team...on the road...with the quarterback playing like crap...to start the season...

I'm satisfied with that.

[GOMU1104]

The Packers beat a decent team...on the road...with the quarterback playing like crap...to start the season...

I'm satisfied with that.

Yep, works for me.

Buffalo next week. They are atrocious. Let Brandon Jackson carry the load at RB so he's ready for Week 3 @ Chicago.

[copious1218]

If Calvin Johnson's catch was indeed not a catch and therefore incomplete, how is Mike Williams reaching for the goal line and the ball popping out as it hits the ground not a fumble?

NOTE: IMHO, The rule was enforced correctly, but the rule itself may need some tinkering.  Also, I'm a JETS fan so I have no bias on the call.

Having provided that disclaimer, let me try to answer your question. 

Here is the rule in question:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

In the Williams scenario, he already had possession of the ball, therefore, once it crosses the goal line, it is a TD regardless of what happens to the ball after crossing the plane.  In the Johnson scenario, he technically never possessed the ball because while going to the ground in the act of catching the pass he didn't hold the ball all the way through the play.

[MerrittsMustache]

So here is the Lions play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s_EPK9MtJE

Here is Mike Williams in Seattle's game reaching to score a touchdown: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a78418

If Calvin Johnson's catch was indeed not a catch and therefore incomplete, how is Mike Williams reaching for the goal line and the ball popping out as it hits the ground not a fumble? In fact, Calvin Johnson was more down than Mike Williams was. Calvin gets 2 feet down, his butt hits the ground, his knee hits the ground, his left hand hits the ground, and THEN the ball finally pops out as it hits the ground. How is that not a complete pass?

The ground cannot cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion. Also, Williams had already made the catch so he was, at that point, a "runner" and no longer a "receiver." Once a runner breaks the plane of the goal line with the ball, it's a TD. Period. However, it's not a TD/completion for a receiver until he completes the process of making the catch.

With that being said, even as a Bears fan, it's impossible to watch that play and not think it's a TD. Like others have said, both his feet, his knee, his butt and his arm all hit the ground before the ball came out. That's possession if you ask me...but not if you ask the NFL rule book. Good call. Bad rule.

[MUEng92]

In my eyes, Johnson unnecessarily took his 2nd hand off the ball (read...hot dog).  So, while I was mad that the Bears were able to get a cheap win, I always enjoy a hot dog being done in by himself.

[GGGG]

In my eyes, Johnson unnecessarily took his 2nd hand off the ball (read...hot dog).  So, while I was mad that the Bears were able to get a cheap win, I always enjoy a hot dog being done in by himself.

Oh brother...

[LON]

In my eyes, Johnson unnecessarily took his 2nd hand off the ball (read...hot dog).  So, while I was mad that the Bears were able to get a cheap win, I always enjoy a hot dog being done in by himself.

Weak weak weak.

Hot dogging is what DeSean Jackson did last year (possibly two years ago) when he dropped the ball before going into the endzone.

Megatron switched to one hand because A.  he has massive hands and could use the other arm to brace for the fall to the ground and B. he was probably trying to ensure that the ball didn't hit out of bounds when he came down.

[GGGG]

Weak weak weak.

Hot dogging is what DeSean Jackson did last year (possibly two years ago) when he dropped the ball before going into the endzone.

Megatron switched to one hand because A.  he has massive hands and could use the other arm to brace for the fall to the ground and B. he was probably trying to ensure that the ball didn't hit out of bounds when he came down.

I also think he was trying to balance himself to make sure he got two feet in.  IMO, he was not hot dogging it one bit.

[MerrittsMustache]

I also think he was trying to balance himself to make sure he got two feet in.  IMO, he was not hot dogging it one bit.

Not to mention that he was genuinely amped up because he just caught what he believed to be the game-winning TD.

[LON]

Ryan Grant out for the year

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/14/ryan-grant-out-for-the-year/

Ryan Grant out for the year
Posted by Mike Florio on September 14, 2010 1:36 PM ET
And here's why those Super Bowl predictions often end up being meaningless.

Packers running back Ryan Grant's "significant ankle injury" from Sunday was sufficiently significant to end his season.

Jay Glazer of FOX reports that Grant will be placed on injured reserve with severe ankle and leg injuries.

Emerging as the starter in 2007 after a string of injuries, Grant rushed for 1,203 yards in 2008 and 1,253 in 2009.

In-house options to replace Grant are Brandon Jackson and John Kuhn.  James Johnson is on the practice squad.

Available veterans include Willie Parker and . . . and . . . Shaun Alexander?

________________________

I wouldn't mind giving Willie Parker a look, but he's smoking crack if he thinks Shaun Alexander is a good fit.

This is still a pass-happy offense.

[MerrittsMustache]

Ryan Grant out for the year

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/14/ryan-grant-out-for-the-year/

Ryan Grant out for the year
Posted by Mike Florio on September 14, 2010 1:36 PM ET
And here's why those Super Bowl predictions often end up being meaningless.

Packers running back Ryan Grant's "significant ankle injury" from Sunday was sufficiently significant to end his season.

Jay Glazer of FOX reports that Grant will be placed on injured reserve with severe ankle and leg injuries.

Emerging as the starter in 2007 after a string of injuries, Grant rushed for 1,203 yards in 2008 and 1,253 in 2009.

In-house options to replace Grant are Brandon Jackson and John Kuhn.  James Johnson is on the practice squad.

Available veterans include Willie Parker and . . . and . . . Shaun Alexander?

________________________

I wouldn't mind giving Willie Parker a look, but he's smoking crack if he thinks Shaun Alexander is a good fit.

This is still a pass-happy offense.

Jackson will probably fill-in and run for 1,200 yards and 10 TDs...and that's why I hate the Packers.

When a starter gets hurt for my beloved Bears, the fill-in is generally brutal...and that's why I hate the Bears.

[tower912]

Just read in SI a story about the UFL.   Looks like Maurice Clarett is available.

[GGGG]

I'm not terribly worried about missing Grant.  I think with the type of running they emphasize...one cut, hit the hole, run downhill...you can find all sorts of backs that fit that well.