 the year) helped keep the team in the game and Mason Crosby tied the game late in the fourth quarter to send the game to OT.
The Packers won the coin toss prior to overtime and ran Jamaal Williams heavily on the first drive of the extra period. Hundley also picked up a pair of first downs with his legs before Williams converted a third-and-one with a 12-yard reception, putting the Packers at the Bucs’ 20-yard line with a first-and-ten.
On this play, the Packers are in 22 personnel, one of the rare times they lined up with that grouping all year. Jordy Nelson is wide to the left, there are two tight ends on the right side of the line, and the backs are in an I formation with Aaron Ripkowski at fullback and Aaron Jones as the tailback.
At the snap, Hundley turns left and hands off to Jones, running to the right behind Lane Taylor, who is pulling from left guard. Justin McCray pushes his man downfield a bit but Richard Rodgers, who lined up as the inside tight end, gets shoved inside by his defender. He is able to at least keep him from penetrating into the backfield, but Jones, seemingly intending to run through the gap McCray and Taylor are opening up, runs right into Rodgers’ back.
It’s at this point that Jones’ vision and agility take over, showing why he has the potential to be such an explosive running back.
David Bakhtiari got an early block on right defensive end Will Clarke (94), who reads the play and appears to follow the Packers’ blockers up the field and towards the right side of the line. He doesn’t see Jones cut back left until it’s too late; Jones out-sprints Clarke to the edge, bends around the corner quickly, and follows Nelson’s down-field block on cornerback Brent Grimes. Jones takes off for the end zone from the two-yard line, leaping between Grimes and safety Keith Tandy to cross the goal line and give the Packers an overtime victory.
This play by definition won the game for the Packers; they scored a touchdown in overtime, which is all you need for a victory, even with the new OT rules. It also kept the Packers’ slim playoff hopes alive for another week.
This play was one of just two snaps Jones took on the day and it was his only touch of the football. It also was at least partially responsible for Packers fans calling for him to see more action over the final month of the season. He only got ten more carries the rest of the way, but he did have a pair of 20-yard carries in the span of three plays against the Panthers two weeks later. This is one of the most obvious examples of Jones making something out of nothing, something his other backfield counterparts couldn’t do with regularity, and should be a reason that Jones should earn a somewhat larger share of the running back responsibilities moving forward into 2018.SCR Altach meets Austria Vienna in a match of a Regular Season - 3 round in Austria Bundesliga on 07.08 Sunday at 17:00 CET. Betnotbad.com predicts Winner : SCR Altach and n/a goals. We expect less than 3.5 for SCR Altach team to score and less than 1.5 for Austria Vienna. SCR Altach chances to win are 35%. Austria Vienna chances to win are 30%. Draw probability is 35%.
SCR Altach scored 3 against 4 in 2 last matches whereas Austria Vienna scored 1 against 4 in its 2 last games. SCR Altach scored 1.5 against 2.0 in 2 last matches whereas Austria Vienna scored 0.5 against 2.0 in its 2 last games.
Teams SCR Altach and Austria Vienna have played 30 matches so far. SCR Altach won 11 matches in total while Austria Vienna won 13 matches. 6 matches ended in a draw. Both teams scored 2.73 goals per Match and 82 in total.
SCR Altach scored 40 in total and 1.33 on average. In 14 matches pleayed at home SCR Altach won 7. SCR Altach won 4 matches out of 16 played away.
Austria Vienna scored 42 in total and 1.40 on average. In 16 matches pleayed at home Austria Vienna won 10. Austria Vienna won 3 matches out of 14 played away.
We have made these tips and predictions for SCR Altach vs Austria Vienna with the best aims, but no profits are guaranteed. Please always bet mindfully, only with money that you can afford to lose. Best of luck with your bets!Mammal (sensu Kielan-Jaworowska et al. 2004) or mammaliaform (sensu Luo 2007) remains (mainly teeth) are known from numerous sites within Upper Triassic rocks, mainly in Western Europe, but also in Greenland and India. Collectively, these sites span the Norian through the end of the Rhaetian (see Clemens 1980, 1986; Datta and Das 1996; Kielan-Jaworowska et al. 2004; Datta 2005; Kemp 2005; Luo 2007). The latest Triassic mammaliaform faunas come from very different environments (e.g., lacustrine, deltaic, marginal-marine) and generally differ in composition and are usually dominated by, or solely contain, the remains of morganucodontids. Most of the Norian sites are dominated by remains of Haramiyida.
The most fossiliferous are Upper Triassic sites from continental Europe (Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxemburg), but very important discoveries come from the Upper Triassic-Lower Jurassic fissure deposits of England and Wales, the lower part of the Tiki Formation in India, and Upper Triassic rocks of Jameson Land (Greenland) (see Kielan-Jaworowska et al. 2004; Datta 2005).
According to the fossil record from the Late Triassic and Early—Mid Jurassic, the diagnostic osteological features that have traditionally been associated with modern mammals did not evolve together at the same time (Luo 1994, 2007, 2011; Sidor and Hopson 1998; Kielan-Jaworowska et al. 2004; Rowe et al. 2011). A few features traditionally regarded as “mammalian” first appeared in the Late Triassic among their proximal relatives amidst the Mammaliaformes and Mammaliamorpha, while other derived characters appeared for the first time only among Jurassic mammals. It is also clear that some mammalian features have precursor conditions among derived cynodonts. Hence, the affinities of incomplete fossils are often difficult to assess. This applies especially to the teeth, which are very similar in morphology in basal mammaliamorphs (e.g., Brasilodon, Brasilitherium) and mammaliaforms (e.g., Sinoconodon, Morganucodon, Hadrocodium), and which presumably also are similar in the ancestor of Mammalia (Luo et al. 2001; Bonaparte et al. 2005; Luo 2007). However, basal mammaliamorphs teeth have less divided roots and undifferntiated postcanines.
Here we describe an isolated right lower molariform tooth of a probable early representative of mammaliaform, most likely morganucodontid (basal mammaliaforms), which comes from the Upper Triassic (Keuper) deposits of Poland. The specimen came from the lower part of the so-called grey unit, which is rich in plant and vertebrate remains and is exposed in a few places in the Lipie Śląskie clay-pit at Lisowice, Silesia, southern Poland (Fig. 1). The tooth was collected from this site in 2009 as part of a rock sample collected for the analysis of small fish fossils. Although isolated, this specimen deserves a short description in the literature, because it is consistent with morphology of mammaliaforms known from the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic elsewhere.
In the following description we adopt the terminology proposed by Crompton and Jenkins (1968) and used by other authors (e.g., Kielan-Jaworowska et al. 2004; Clemens 2011).
Institutional abbreviations. —PIMUZ, Paläontologisches Institut und Museum der Universität Zürich, Switzerland; SMNS, Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Stuttgart, Germany; ZPAL, Institute of Paleobiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
The strata exposed in the Lipie Śląskie clay-pit at Lisowice correspond to the uppermost part of the Middle and lower part of the Upper Keuper deposits of the Germanic Basin (Aigner and Bachman 1992; Szulc et al. 2006; Franz et al. 2007a, b; Franz 2008; Dzik et al. 2008a, b). The lithostratigraphic unit represented at the Lipie Śląskie clay-pit has traditionally been referred in the geological literature to the Norian (see Szulc et al. 2006) or to the Rhaetian “sensu polonico” (Haisig et al. 1983; Franz et al. 2007a, b; Franz 2008).
The vertebrate macrofossil assemblage from the Lipie Śląskie clay-pit consists mainly of terrestrial rather than amphibious or aquatic tetrapods (Dzik et al. 2008a, b; Niedźwiedzki et al. 2011, 2012). Remains of a huge dicynodont are the most abundant finds and are followed by remains