From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: Green Bay 17, Pitt 3
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date: 28 SEP 92 09:00:33    

In article <1992Sep27.234053.3034@cis.ohio-state.edu>, martens@python.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) writes...

>A much prettier win than last week's squeaker over the Bengals.
>Green Bay was helped considerably by the Steeler receivers, who
>stank.  O'Donnell didn't look as good as his press, but the
>dropped balls certainly didn't help his numbers (he wasn't as bad
>as his box score may indicate).

          Attempts     Completions    Yards     TDs    Ints
Favre:      19            14           210       2       0
O'Donnell   41            16           224       0       0

Yeah, 16 of 41 is pretty bad.  I'd say there was about 8 drops.  You 
gotta figure on 3-4 drops when you throw 41 passes so maybe 5 extra.  
That would have made O'Donnell 21-41 which isn't exactly stellar but 
it's not too bad.  O'Donnell threw a lot of 'wounded ducks'.  He was 
lucky to have 0 ints.

>Green Bay offense:  the line held up much better than against
>Cincy; I was pleased.  Workman looked good, catching a few passes
>and running for (these are guesses) about 90 yards on something
>over 25 carries; less than 4 yards per carry, but there weren't
>always holes, and when there was a hole he seemed to find it.

            Attempts    Yards
Workman:      26         85
Favre:         4         12
Bennett        2          5
McGee          4          4
Sydney         1          3
Sharpe         1        -10
Packers tot   38         99

38 for 99 isn't too good.  Sharpe's 10 yd loss on a reverse didn't 
help any but really the problem was that the Pack ran into the 
interior of the line a lot in the 2nd half to try to run out the clock 
and didn't get much.

>Workman also made a few nice cutbacks, and could've had a long
>gainer but slipped on the turf (there were lots of people slipping
>around all afternoon).  

It's been *very* wet here all week.  You can't leave the field covered 
all the time so really, nothing could be done.

>On the first series there were a couple
>dropped passes (West dropped one of them), but overall the
>receivers looked ok.  Sharpe had a good day, Brooks caught a TD
>pass, and Kitrick Taylor looked dangerous after one (his only?)
>catch; I'd like to see Brooks or Taylor start instead of Beach.

I think Brooks did start.  Of course, the Packers 1st play from 
scrimmage was a reverse to Sharpe that lost 10 so they may have had 
Brooks in to block.  He's bigger than Taylor or Beach.  Brooks' TD 
catch meant that all Packer WRs have caught at least one TD this year.

Sharpe set a Packer record for most consecutive games with a 
reception.  

>Favre looked pretty good most of the game.  He had a couple
>beautiful touchdown passes:  a long one to Sharpe, and a
>touch/timing pattern to Brooks.  I think Favre is going to be ok.

The really impressive thing about Favre's stats is 14-19 and no INTs.  
Favre didn't put the ball up for grabs all day.  You don't expect that 
from a QB making his 1st start.  It was *very* important against the 
Steelers especially.

Holgren on Favre's tendency to pump-fake: "He likes to do that stuff 
because then everybody can say he's flamboyant, you know."  Woodson 
who was victimized on each of Favre's TD passes says he never say the 
fakes.

After the Packers recovered Woodson's muff I was yelling at the TV "Go 
right at Woodson!" and they did of course.  I wonder if a coach can do 
anything about that.  You had to guess Woodson would still be thinking 
about the muff but you can't ask a 3 time Pro-Bowl CB to sit out a 
critical play like that, can you?

>Campen was hurt in the second half.  Any reports on his status for
>next week?

Holmgren says it's a knee ligament strain.  They'll know more today.  
From Holmgren's tone I think it's not too serious.

>Green Bay defense:  The secondary stripped "almost caught" balls
>from the Steeler receivers several times, and overall looked ok.
>The run defense looked pretty good for most of the game.  Foster
>got a long run, and got pretty good yardage a number of times, but
>overall the Steelers really weren't running that well.  Noble
>seemed to be back in form.  When Brock went out with a (minor?)
>injury, Tuaolo played end.  Jurkovic was NT most of the game, with
>Brown and Brock at the ends.  Noonan also played quite a bit.

Defense gave up 353 yards in total offense to the Steelers.  The lack 
of a pass rush is gonna jump up and bite them again soon.  (Remember 
the TB game.)

>Green Bay special teams:  Jacke hooked a short field goal from an
>ok hold.  Buckley looked pretty dangerous as a returner; one 20ish
>yard return was called back due to a questionable clipping call on
>Sydney.  Brooks didn't screw up a kick return this week.

The fans cheered when Brooks let a kick go out of bounds.  :-)

>Buckley report:  I have a good feeling about Terrell.  He looks
>good as a punt returner (though Holmgren puts Brooks and Taylor in
>as his "safe" returners), and the only time today that I noticed
>his man make a catch was when the guy (Stone?  I wasn't taking
>notes--sorry) cut short and Buckley was giving him a cushion.  I
>think he only played in the 3rd quarter, maybe some in the second.
>He made a nice TD-saving tackle (Clark should've made the tackle
>but missed) at one point, fighting off a blocker to get to Foster(?).

According to the paper, Buckley played only 1 series in each half.  
Holmgren was asked about this and his answer was something like "Well, 
we'll try to get him in more next week."

>Mandarich update:  "Sport Illustrated" did a hatchet job on

Mandarich isn't a bust exactly.  Everyone involved admits he's been a 
disappointment.  I'd like to know how long doctors think he's had that 
thyroid problem.  I'm no doctor but the people I've known with a 
hypoactive thyroid (meaning it's working less than normal) are really 
affected by it.  It causes an entire personality change.  One woman I 
know even earned the label of lazy as a result of the problem just as 
Mandarich has.  She says it just makes you sluggish and unambitious - 
like living in pea-soup.  The medication makes a big difference 
though.

John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro