HawkShack.com

I just looked at Sundays weather at Breen Bay and its calling for 3 -5 inches of snow with a high of 32.

Is this an equalizer or does it favor one or other team? Personally I think it Favors the Hawks as it may neutralize Green bays receivers and force them to be one dimensional. I like our chances against their run game.

Thoughts?

It's hard to say which team, if any, will have an advantage. As a rule, bad weather usually favors the team with a good defense and good running game as it tends to take passing out of the equation.

But who knows how it's going to break. I've heard quarterbacks and receivers say that they have an advantage in games with poor footing because they know where they're going and the defender doesn't. My thoughts about Rawls running the ball is that a slippery field is going to hurt his performance because he thrives on such sharp, jackrabbit like cuts that he might not be able to do Sunday.

As a bettor, I hate games like this. It makes things very unpredictable, at least as far as the favorite going into a game like this having a clear advantage, unless I saw one team getting a huge point spread.

Our last snow game in green bay was Holmies last playoff game. Seattle's 14-0 lead disappeared as soon as the snow started falling,Frankly I hate snow games.
Snow games neutralize a superior quick defense so advantage Pack on that issue.

On paper it doesn't look too bad. GB has had a middling defense and a very weak run game all year although our old buddy CMike will be padded up. Their O line is also mediocre.
Seattle is at least as good as GB at the wideout spot, probably better. And their QB is nursing a hamstring.

Its always advantage offense on a slick field and I think ours is better.Most run plays will have to be straight ahead at the line of scrimmage which will test the interior line.
But I remember slim shady tearing it up in 6 inches of snow a couple of years ago.And he jukes more than Rawls but with excellent balance.
CMike cant stand up on dry turf.
Green Bay barely held off the Texans with Ostweiller at QB and Clowney out at home in the snow last week.

If the Hawks don't lose the greasy pigskin a bunch its Hawks 24-Pack 17.

Snow is supposed to favor Offenses, but maybe we got some practices in during the cold weather at least and perhaps one in the snow before leaving for GB.
Footwear in these types of games is always the key for Defenses. If we are skating and GB is cutting, it's game over.

It's not the snow so much as it is the desperate spot the Packers are in right now, fighting just to stay alive for a possible playoff birth. That's the part of this game that makes it the most interesting.

What was the Minny game in the postseason last year - between 0-10 degrees? Plus, there was a little breeze on top of that.
GB and 32 degrees, no problem:)

We have the better defense, and we will run all over them with Rawls.

Seahawks, 27-20

Zorn76 wrote:It's not the snow so much as it is the desperate spot the Packers are in right now, fighting just to stay alive for a possible playoff birth. That's the part of this game that makes it the most interesting.

What was the Minny game in the postseason last year - between 0-10 degrees? Plus, there was a little breeze on top of that.
GB and 32 degrees, no problem:)

We have the better defense, and we will run all over them with Rawls.

Seahawks, 27-20

Keep in mind that had it not been for a missed chip shot FG we would have lost that Minny game, so noting it isn't at all comforting.

What concerns me the most isn't the temperature so much as precipitation. I worry about the footing having an impact, especially the way Rawls is so dependent on those jump cuts that he's so good at.

Their running game is putrid. Both teams will throw the ball, which favors an offense. They know what the route is, so defensive players have to play reactionary football, and slick grass will hinder. But, the game they won last year, they had around 125 yds rushing. The championship game they almost won, around 115 yds rushing. I don't see that happening, so I don't see them winning.

Bold prediction:. Steven Terrell is going to have a good game. He almost had a pick in the bucs game and last week. I think he will get one this week. I watched the TD from last week over again. It wasn't Terrell's man. They were in two high safety, and Wagner and Chancellor were the guys. And much like et, he Terrell crossed the whole field and was centimeters away from breaking it up. As I stated before, I have a gut feeling we are going to see our next star in the making. Much like Maxwell and shead broke out. Again, there is no one like Earl, but that doesn't mean they can't be great as well. A lot of what earl does are fringe benefits. Not necessarily a must to be good. That is what makes him the best fs in the history of the game, in my most honest opinion.

There is nothing scientific about my thoughts on this, purely gut feeling. But, I have had several gut feelings recently, and haven't been wrong yet. My friends have even figured this out, and are super stoked, lol.

RiverDog wrote: I worry about the footing having an impact, especially the way Rawls is so dependent on those jump cuts that he's so good at.

You noticed those too. There was one run he had to the right side where he did the j cut, then had a wide base, and exploded up field. If he had dreads and wore 24, I would have been convinced it was beast mode. Mirror image. I love this, it shows me he was paying attention to beast, learning from him. A great quality from a young back. I think we have something special with this kid.

Edit:. I'm not too concerned with injuries. I know he has a brutal running style, but both were freak broken bones. Hopefully bad luck. I have to see multiple soft tissue injuries before I say they are injury prone. If he stays healthy, he will be a top 5 or 7 back in the league year to year. Go Hawks

Jjones84 wrote:You noticed those too. There was one run he had to the right side where he did the j cut, then had a wide base, and exploded up field. If he had dreads and wore 24, I would have been convinced it was beast mode. Mirror image. I love this, it shows me he was paying attention to beast, learning from him. A great quality from a young back. I think we have something special with this kid.

Yep, I sure did notice that. His cuts at the LOS were phenomenal. He wasn't doing that until last week, or at least not so much that it could be noticed. I'm not sure how much of that he picked up from Beast, though, as it's not something you can learn, it's more instinctual.

No one will ever replace Beast at his peak, but this guy Rawls is the next best thing and I'm ecstatic that we have him and that he's back to full strength. He obviously doesn't have the hitting power that Beast had but I do think that he comes out of his cuts just a tad quicker.

"Supercuts" is what the team calls Rawls. Doug was on the Rich Eisen show yesterday (or maybe the day before) and gave us that little jewel.

c_hawkbob wrote:"Supercuts" is what the team calls Rawls. Doug was on the Rich Eisen show yesterday (or maybe the day before) and gave us that little jewel.

Doug Baldwin?

c_hawkbob wrote:"Supercuts" is what the team calls Rawls. Doug was on the Rich Eisen show yesterday (or maybe the day before) and gave us that little jewel.

RiverDog wrote:Doug Baldwin?

Yes.

"Super Cuts !!!"

I love it!

Go Hawks!!

Could be a big rushing day for RW.

Could be a very messy game.

Issuing Office: Green Bay
Source: National.Weather.Service
3:56am CST, Sat Dec 10
... WINTER STORM WATCH REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM THIS EVENING THROUGH SUNDAY EVENING... * TIMING... LATE THIS EVENING THROUGH SUNDAY EVENING. THE HEAVIEST SNOW SHOULD FALL SUNDAY. * SNOW ACCUMULATIONS... AROUND 6 INCHES...

Yikes!!!

I say it around this time every year, but I can't stand NFL games getting dumbed down by crappy conditions. Traditionalist yelling "That's football for ya!" can bite me.

I don't have as much of a problem if the field (footing) remains at NFL standards, but IMO we pay these guys too much money, and bet too much, and pay too much to watch, to have games played on random surfaces or in extreme(ish) conditions.

Russell sure seems excited for the snow, lol. At least it won't be too cold.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... ur-of-snow

When the ball gets wet it gets heavy and in the cold, it also freezes so it's like throwing and catching a rock, not to mention your hands going numb.
They used to have some type of dryer on the field that the balls went into when not being used.
Do they still have that?

burrrton wrote:I say it around this time every year, but I can't stand NFL games getting dumbed down by crappy conditions. Traditionalist yelling "That's football for ya!" can bite me.

I don't have as much of a problem if the field (footing) remains at NFL standards, but IMO we pay these guys too much money, and bet too much, and pay too much to watch, to have games played on random surfaces or in extreme(ish) conditions.

If it wasn't for Ed Sabol coining the phrase "the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field", we'd be watching the game being played on Field Turf.

At least the field is heated.

burrrton wrote:I say it around this time every year, but I can't stand NFL games getting dumbed down by crappy conditions. Traditionalist yelling "That's football for ya!" can bite me.

I don't have as much of a problem if the field (footing) remains at NFL standards, but IMO we pay these guys too much money, and bet too much, and pay too much to watch, to have games played on random surfaces or in extreme(ish) conditions.

Maybe you should watch another sport then. They have a finite amount of games, in a finite amount of stadiums, and a finite amount of dates available. Maybe Baseball, Tennis or golf is more your kind of sport. There they can cancel, delay or change dates, football not so much.

burrrton wrote:I say it around this time every year, but I can't stand NFL games getting dumbed down by crappy conditions. Traditionalist yelling "That's football for ya!" can bite me.

I don't have as much of a problem if the field (footing) remains at NFL standards, but IMO we pay these guys too much money, and bet too much, and pay too much to watch, to have games played on random surfaces or in extreme(ish) conditions.

What exactly are you proposing? Would you rather them cancel the game if it isn't 75 and sunny? It is a sport played outdoors a lot of times and is played into February. I agree, maybe this isn't the sport for you.

I wouldn't stop with 'field conditions' -- the game we played a couple of years ago in San Diego with it's 90 degrees and 90% humidity has to go. Every game must be within 40 - 65 degrees and under 50% humidity. And no rain! I shouldn't have to pay to sit in a stadium and get wet. And I take issue with the Dallas Cowboys billion $$$ stadium. The damn thing faces the wrong direction and the Sun is an issue for games. Move the damn stadium I say. Damn those NFL people.

Maybe you should watch another sport then. They have a finite amount of games, in a finite amount of stadiums, and a finite amount of dates available.

Thanks, chief- they also have an infinite amount of money. Standardize the damn game- it isn't rocket science, and it isn't craps.

What exactly are you proposing?

Not sure "exactly" what I'm proposing, but I don't think it's that confusing: the NFL prescribes a particular set of parameters for the field on which it's played- if "ice" isn't one of the possible surfaces, why do we tolerate "nearly ice because it snowed 6" this morning and the field is frozen" beyond reflecting on the glamour of 1969 NFL films footage?

Honestly- defend playing in any condition the weather throws at us without using nostalgia or "that's how we've always done it" and I'll listen.

The NHL doesn't play on "natural" ice rinks that are sometimes thawed ("Isn't it fun watching them try to get to the puck with skates on grass?!")- why do we tolerate the reverse situation?

The damn thing faces the wrong direction and the Sun is an issue for games. Move the damn stadium I say. Damn those NFL people.

That actually *is* an issue- why would you roll your eyes at it? It's not just "the sun was in my eyes"- if you ever lived where I live, at the wrong time of year, driving down one of our main thoroughfares, you honestly have to drive watching the lines on the road- you can't look forward (for RD: drive past the flash cube going W on Clearwater at certain times of year when the sun's setting- people have literally been killed riding bikes because of the sun).

I think it's neat and all that Jerry World lets the sun shine in, but when it's blocked until it's so low that it's a nuisance, it's a design flaw, not a feature, and yes, I'd argue it should be removed as a parameter.

[edit]

I'm not asking for them to play in hermetically sealed containers- I'm asking for a grass/turf field without strobes or spotlights flashing in one or the other team's eyes. No ice rinks, no swimming pools, no Japanese seizure-causing backgrounds for teams facing the wrong direction for a quarter.

That's really not unreasonable for a game for which I fork over thousands of dollars a year to watch.

I don't think the NFL is going to change the 'traditions' of teams playing in any conditions (except Hurricanes and Lighting) as irregardless of the conditions, both teams have to play in it. I understand that you can't 'practice' 20 degrees and wind, but I consider weather less of a "NFL" league issue than the issues with scheduling West Coast teams traveling across the country after a Monday Night game to play on the East Coast against a team coming off it's bye week. Any computer program that develops schedules, can be programmed to prevent unfair scheduling. That's a preventable NFL issue.

That to me is a far worse and unfair to fans and the teams then playing in bad weather, which is unpredictable. (Are you really advocating that all bad weather teams must build domed stadiums or they will lose their team?)

By the way, I know we lost to Carolina in last year's playoff game that had it's field in deplorable playing conditions that were worse than the Minnesota game the week before. If that game had been played in a dome, it wouldn't of been 31-3 or whatever it was at 1/2 time.

I wouldn't stop with 'field conditions' -- the game we played a couple of years ago in San Diego with it's 90 degrees and 90% humidity has to go. Every game must be within 40 - 65 degrees and under 50% humidity. And no rain! I shouldn't have to pay to sit in a stadium and get wet. And I take issue with the Dallas Cowboys billion $$$ stadium. The damn thing faces the wrong direction and the Sun is an issue for games. Move the damn stadium I say. Damn those NFL people.

Its not the snow its Lambeau field we haven't won there since 1999, and we all remember Hass's call. I put this on the calendar as a loss, course I had the Pats as a loss.

I don't think the NFL is going to change the 'traditions' of teams playing in any conditions (except Hurricanes and Lighting) as irregardless of the conditions, both teams have to play in it.

I'm not saying I think general field conditions are unfair necessarily- I just feel poor conditions are less enjoyable because IMO it randomizes the outcome to a certain degree.

Eh, I know it's not a popular opinion. I just think we should mitigate whatever factors we can when so much rides on the outcome of these games.

jshawaii22 wrote:I wouldn't stop with 'field conditions' -- the game we played a couple of years ago in San Diego with it's 90 degrees and 90% humidity has to go. Every game must be within 40 - 65 degrees and under 50% humidity. And no rain! I shouldn't have to pay to sit in a stadium and get wet. And I take issue with the Dallas Cowboys billion $$$ stadium. The damn thing faces the wrong direction and the Sun is an issue for games. Move the damn stadium I say. Damn those NFL people.

Excessive heat and humidity should be treated like lightning storms. JS understated the conditions in San Diego a few years ago as the temperature was over 110 degrees. They should have delayed the start of that game until after sunset. Some of those games can be avoided via scheduling. Prior to building their domed stadium in Glendale, they used to manipulate the Cards schedule so that they wouldn't play an afternoon home game until October. They could do the same thing with San Diego, LA, and the Florida teams. I guess it's going to require that someone die of heat stroke under those conditions before they do something.

But as far as the northern tier teams w/o domes, there's not much they can do to avoid the winter weather. I do think that they should prohibit natural grass to be used as a playing surface above a certain parallel unless the team can prove that they can maintain their playing surface to a certain standard at or above a certain percentage of their home games. I remember watching a game, Miami vs. Pittsburgh, where the field conditions were so bad that a punted ball would splat like an egg when it hit the ground.

Thanks, chief- they also have an infinite amount of money. Standardize the damn game- it isn't rocket science, and it isn't craps.

burrrton
Legacy

Posts: 2449
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Your welcome. Glad I could clear that up for you. You seemed to be confused. Based on this post, you seem to still be.

The NFL isn't God, it can't standardize weather.

HumanCockroach wrote:The NFL isn't God, it can't standardize weather.

Oh FFS, HC. I didn't ask them to standardize the weather- I said "the game", and not only can they (to a large degree), they *have* (to a large degree, with heated fields, fieldturf, stadiums with rooves, and so on).

Edit:

Also, I realize it's not realistic to expect that Lambeau will get a retractable roof anytime soon if ever. I'm just saying I don't share this romanticism about sh*tty weather games.

I think it's absolutely hilarious that you're claiming that. The NFL and football is one of the MOST standardized sports betting played. In Baseball, there is ZERO standard for stadium dimensions ZERO standard for home stadium advantages, in golf there is ZERO standards for pretty much ANYTHING other than the size of the cup, basketball is closest, but far from uniform, the court ( like a football field is standardized in shape) however the temp of arena, hell the playing surface itself can be anything from wood, to the typical gymnasium flooring, some have been caught adjusting the height of the hoops slightly to gain advantages

Football is one of the MOST regulated or standardized sports being played.

It is what it is. Players have always played in all conditions, because you cannot mitigate out those conditions, it's part of the game, as you yourself admitted, you don't know how it can be done. You want to know why? because it CAN'T be done.

*sigh* Bye again, HC.

*sigh* well.... Bye.

Its not the snow its Lambeau field we haven't won there since 1999, and we all remember Hass's call. I put this on the calendar as a loss, course I had the Pats as a loss.

I told you so I told you so, nanner, nanner, nanner. Seriously, we win out, we are fine.

I have no Idea why Wilson keeps rooting for bad weather. I love the guy but hes played some of his worst football of his pro career when the weather gets cold or wet.
In 2013 on the way to the Super bowl I sat at Clink in the rain and watched Wilson look a whole lot like yesterday vs AZ and waste a 5 turnover performance by the LOB.
I think we remember the Minnesota game where we were saved by Blair Walsh after 60 minutes of mostly ineptitude from Russ. On a good field and nice day we rolled them like a cheap joint in their house only weeks earlier.
I know he recovered to play well late in the 2014 NFC title game but that was another blustery day where he played mostly horrible and had no chance of winning without multiple heroics from the ST unit.

As a fan I hate bad weather as a variable and Russ needs to check his stats before rooting for it....

Hawktawk wrote:I have no Idea why Wilson keeps rooting for bad weather. I love the guy but hes played some of his worst football of his pro career when the weather gets cold or wet.
In 2013 on the way to the Super bowl I sat at Clink in the rain and watched Wilson look a whole lot like yesterday vs AZ and waste a 5 turnover performance by the LOB.
I think we remember the Minnesota game where we were saved by Blair Walsh after 60 minutes of mostly ineptitude from Russ. On a good field and nice day we rolled them like a cheap joint in their house only weeks earlier.
I know he recovered to play well late in the 2014 NFC title game but that was another blustery day where he played mostly horrible and had no chance of winning without multiple heroics from the ST unit.

As a fan I hate bad weather as a variable and Russ needs to check his stats before rooting for it....

Agreed. There was also a playoff game in our Lombardi season vs. the Saints that featured high winds where we played poorly. I can't remember Russell's stats, but we let an inferior team hang with us in our house until the final minutes. It might not all be on Russell, but no one can claim that we're a great bad weather team. I don't like it because it introduces a random element to the equation.

I remember. It was the home opening playoff game and we had destroyed them on MNF that season. Russ was awful until an incredible pitch and over the shoulder sideline catch to Baldwin on 3rd and long very late to provide some breathing room. Id have to look it up but the number 140 yards passing sticks out. so not too good, no.