Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):
So why did the Packers lose? Because they committed turnovers that they normally don't? Would that not be considered "off" in the Land of E? Hell, I'll make it easy.
1. Was the offense lesser than normal by whatever standard you'd like to apply?
2. Was the defense it's usually bad-self?
Assuming (1) yes and (2) yes, would it be unfair to say the Packers lost because the offense was not up to par? If so, what the **** is your point again?
The defense was it's normal self. Poor. Yet the Packers were 15-1 and overcame it on a regular basis. So... what might have been different in the playoff game that allowed them to be so badly beaten?
Yes, Mike. Turnovers. I blame the turnovers far more than the passing game's deficiencies for the loss at Lambeau. The receivers dropped 6 passes, which hurt, no doubt. Rodgers missed 2 key passes, no doubt. The Packers passing game certainly was not its usual #2 or 3 in the NFL self. But they were good enough to win. If the turnovers were not there.
And yes. Turning the ball over is considered off in the Land of E. But the passing game wasn't off enough on it's own to lose the game. Without Grant & Kuhn fumbling away the ball and handing the Giants points, and Rodgers getting sacked and fumbling (which Rodgers could have possibly avoided if he stepped up in the pocket, to be fair), the Packers were right in this game, if not outright leading the game.