Well..
by packallday555 on Oct 5, 2009 11:48 PM CDT
30 comments
I'm disappointed at our play but I also am kind of ok with everything. We have a lot to improve on and that's clear, but it was positive that we were able to stop the best running back in the league. Raji played much more tonight and looked very good. Matthews continues to look like he is going to become something special as well. The run defense looked great, but the pass defense did not. First and foremost Favre had way too much time. On one play he had 7.5 seconds!! That is ridiculous. I was hoping for more pressure but it never came. It's also clear we need to get Kampman with his hand in the dirt rushing the passer more. The guy is a pass rusher, having him drop back 20 yards in coverage just doesn't play to his strengths. Martin looks like he has some potential but it's clear he still isn't very comfortable out there. Getting Bigby back will be huge for us. Caper's will bring more blitzes, which is what we need and there won't be as many lapses in coverage.
Another thing that really killed us was turnovers. Having the ball in their territory 3 times, and not coming up with any points is unacceptable. The blame for the fumble is on Rodgers. Of course it didn't help that Colledge completely wiffed on Allen, but Rodgers has to make sure he holds on to that ball. The interception is also on Rodgers though the play was a terrible play call. You run a comeback or out route on the far side of the field so the wide receiver has space to work with, not to the short side of the field. And the third drive with no points is all on MM and Grant. On that screen pass all Grant had to do was cut it up at the 5 yard line and he walks into the endzone. Instead he goes outside, and then cuts it back to late.
And now it's time to look at MM. On first down he calls a nice play actually. A draw to Grant which gets 3 yards and would probably have been a TD if Grant had any lower body strength. On 2nd down we hand it off to Kuhn, which again I have no problem with. He only had one guy to beat and couldn't do so. So the ball is now at the half yard line on 3rd and goal. Now I'm no rocket scientist but isn't the obvious call a QB sneak? You don't want to hand it off because that gives the Williams' time to bust through the line, and I would think passing would be out of the question also. But lone behold, MM calls a PA, and we end up losing half a yard. So we then go 5 WR, and Rodgers throw one right to Lee's gut and he drops it. That changed the game right there. Had we kicked a FG or scored a TD like we should have, it's a whole different ball game.
I actually did like MM's play-calling throughout the majority of the game. We ran some nice screen passes (which we NEVER ever do), and we started off passing short to open the deep routes up, and to try and hide our oline problems. Looking at this game, I actually feel pretty confident about our next matchup. If we score on one of those 3 squandered opportunities in their territory who knows what could have happened. For the most part our offense moved the ball at will against their defense. Rodgers went for 384 yards, despite having Allen breathing down his back all game. I really kind of feel bad for the guy. Sure, he holds the ball too long sometimes, but keep in mind tonight was only his 20th start. He really looks like a veteran out there, and if we can manage to put an o-line around him, it could be scary to see what he could do.
On a side note, there are some players who I noticed tonight. The first, was Antoine Winfield. I have to say I have never thought he was too good in coverage but he proved me wrong tonight. The guy is an all-around player. The second was T.J. Lang. He looked much better then Colledge tonight and was seeing his first NFL action going against arguably the best defensive end in football. The third, was B.J. Raji. He played a lot more tonight and looked really good. He was getting good penetration pretty much every time I watched him, and was doing it against Hutchinson who is probably the best Guard in the league. The fourth, was Ryan Grant. It's clear he needs to go. The guy just has no vision. Our oline actually opened up some holes for him, but he never seemed to see any of them. In our zone blocking scheme we need a guy who is quicker, and can make fast upfield cuts. Grant cannot do that. The fifth, was none other then Brett Favre. As much as it pains me to say it, the guy still has it. I think things could have been different had he had any pressure on him throughout the game but he didn't. As much I go against Favre, and say I dislike him and all that, there is still a part of me that has some respect for him.
That's my analysis of the game I guess. Sorry it was so long, and if you read through the whole thing then I'm pretty impressed haha. Would love some feedback on some things you guys thought were big throughout the game.
0 recs |
30 comments
Email
Print
Comments
What might have been
I might have been an entirely different picture had (1) the officials not called that phantom interference penalty against Woodson when he intercepted Favre in the EZ…GB takes over and Minn doesn’t score, and (2) Lee doesn’t drop a TD pass in the EZ.
That said, I’m ready to see Hawk or Raji at left tackle rather than see AR get killed every game. I don’t know how many plays the offense ran, but you can’t let your QB get sacked one play out of every 6 or 8 and expect any other outcome.
by Tewks on Oct 6, 2009 8:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
There was also an offsides call – so there was no interception any way you look at it.
We are the vikings.......resistance is futile.
by Hoss-Drone on Oct 9, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hate to point this out Tewks
But you were also offside on that same play so the interference, phantom or not, didn’t matter.
by PurpleJesus on Oct 6, 2009 9:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well..it was a close game.
The stat lines are very close, actually favor the Pack slightly. The comments in the recap cover the problems the Packers had. You can’t fix everything, but I thinking getting better in two areas will make the biggest difference.
First and most obviously in pass protection. This cannot be solved with just one answer. There is clearly a lack of talent on the offensive line. The coaches must try to get the most out of what is there. The play calling did somethings to try to slow down the pass rush – some nice screen plays and at least one draw.
Also, leaving a Rb in a little more often to help the left side. Quarterbacks often don’t like that as it takes away a check down option. Are there plays that can do both, extra protection w/o losing checkdowns? I don’t know that answers, it seems there should be ways of doing that. I don’t think this is a heavily used option, maybe an addition to the screen/draw plays to combat the rush.
Rodgers has to adjust and get rid of the ball. Again, play calling can help this, but he has to be quicker to get rid of the ball. Quick slants and TE’s over the middle seem to be effective in helping the QB get the ball out more quickly. At times, A-rod just hangs on to it way too long.
The second problem is the Packers own lack of pass rush. The run defense was surprisingly good. Is that due to guys adjusting to the 3-4? More Raji? I don’t know, that really needs to continue. As said above, Bigby being might help with Capers getting back to some more creativity to get to the QB. I don’t have any great ideas here, but the secondary was hung out to dry by not getting any pressure.
There are other problems (run game, penalties). I think these getting better in these two areas is the most important. This would trickle down and help some of the other problems, I think. Next up is the bye week, Lions at home, and Browns in OH before the Vikes come to Lambeau. The schedule gets really tought from there. Now is the time to get this figured out.
Go Pack Go!!!
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Oct 6, 2009 10:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Just to comment on a few things
“At times, A-rod just hangs on to it way too long.”\
Yes he does but keep in mind a lot of the times we’re leaving the guys who be the check downs back to block.
“Next up is the bye week, Lions at home, and Browns in OH before the Vikes come to Lambeau. The schedule gets really tought from there. Now is the time to get this figured out.”
Right. Though we can’t overlook the Lions they have improved with each week.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a little unsure about the extra protection issue.
I didn’t watch for it every down, but on several passing sits I did. I assumed I would see the back and or the tight end staying put. I saw them release the times I was watching. I have seen other comments that said they were left in frequently. I guess I’d like to see how many times a rb or te was held in, compared to previous games.
I agree that leaving them in is a problem in that it eliminates the check down. I think Rodgers would be aware of this and know to dump the ball. Also, against that line with our own o—line issues, the game planning and prep should have adjusted to having less time in the pocket. He shouldn’t have expected to be able to go through a progression of 3-4 options.
Also, along with the draws and screens, I don’t remember seeing the 3-5 step drops for the quick slants, circle routes, outs, etc. The quick slants were a staple and were a high percentage pass, we made a lot of 3 and medium distance conversions with those, or ran them on first down to get a second and short. Where have those been? Last, with Rodger’s mobility, why not some roll outs away from from Allen, to get some time to go downfield (and get Jennings involved)?
I’m not trying to place too much on Rodgers, in fact he was a huge reason that game was close. Over 380 yards under that constant pressure? Many kudos for that. I do think those questions above are valid knowing what the o-line was going to face (more for the coaching game prep).
You are right about the Lions. They will win more games this year. Cannot look past them, but they won’t have the crazy good pass rush (none of those teams will). That is the time to get our problems figured out for the rest of the season I think is what I meant to say.
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Oct 7, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I didn’t watch for it every down, but on several passing sits I did. I assumed I would see the back and or the tight end staying put. I saw them release the times I was watching. I have seen other comments that said they were left in frequently. I guess I’d like to see how many times a rb or te was held in, compared to previous games.”
From what I saw we left guys back a lot more, especially Grant. He helped chip on Allen some of the time and Lee stayed back a bit to help Barbre out.
We just really need to figure out our protection schemes. I agree Rodgers shouldn’t have to go through 3-4 progressions. But the thing is, one of his strengths is going through those progressions and finding the open guy. He is a smart QB, and an accurate one as well. If we could just give the guy 4-5 seconds consistently our offense would shred defenses up.
Hell, we couldn’t give him any time last Monday night and he still threw for 384 yards. Now I’ve heard people try and argue that, that the only reason he threw for 384 in was cause they played basically a prevent defense the whole quarter but that’s bull. The prevent defense is supposed to prevent the long plays from happening and we scored on a 60 yard TD.
“Also, along with the draws and screens, I don’t remember seeing the 3-5 step drops for the quick slants, circle routes, outs, etc. The quick slants were a staple and were a high percentage pass, we made a lot of 3 and medium distance conversions with those, or ran them on first down to get a second and short. Where have those been? Last, with Rodger’s mobility, why not some roll outs away from from Allen, to get some time to go downfield (and get Jennings involved)?”
We actually did a lot the 3-5 step drops with Rodgers. I think that was the reason we had so much success on offense against the Vikes. We started off with the short passes which then opened up the long passes, and MM has done the exact opposite our previous 3 games, which is why I personally think we have struggled. Totally agree on your point about Rodgers mobility. That’s one of his strengths and he throws a damn good ball on the run. As far as Jennings goes, it’s crucial we get him involved. I really don’t why he has struggled thus far but my guess would be it’s because he is running deeper routes more of the time, and with our poor protection Rodgers doesn’t have enough time to find him. Obviously he doesn’t go deep every play, but that’s really the only reason I could think of as to why he has struggled.
by packallday555 on Oct 7, 2009 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for your replies, good stuff.
It will be interesting to watch the upcoming games to see how the pass protection and passing scheme is handled. I look forward to more discussion then.
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Oct 8, 2009 7:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thegame wasn't as close as the score.
Stats tend to lie if you want them to. At one point the Vikings were up 4 offensive TDs to one. After their first TD the Packers weren’t able to put an entire drive together until they were down 16. Matthews made a great play to strip AD, but that’s not a play the Packers can expect every game. without that play the Pack would have been down 23. Much of the yardage the Pack gained after that was garbage time stuff. The Vikings on the other hand pretty much shut down their own passing game in the 4th quarter. Had they needed to pass there was nothing to indicate they wouldn’t have been successful. Brett easily could have had another 50 – 80 yards and a TD.
by Belarus on Oct 9, 2009 7:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
" After their first TD the Packers weren’t able to put an entire drive together until they were down 16."
They actually drove on the Vikes very well pretty much the whole game. They had the ball in Vikes territory 3 times in the 1st half, and 3 times in the 2nd half. The problem was they only got points out of 3 of those drives. If we score even a FG on one of those 3 drives, it’s a different game. Hell, if Lee just catches the ball that hit him right in the stomach it’s a whole different game.
by packallday555 on Oct 9, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why I said an "entire" drive
The Packers couldn’t turn drives into points.
I saw the Lee drop differently. First, Rodgers threw the ball low when he really didn’t need to. Lee was standing alone for quite a while, and Rodgers didn’t locate him very quickly. Then when he did he could have thrown the ball to Lee’s outside shoulder away from Greenway. There was room to right shoulder and behind him to throw a nice soft pass where a TE could catch it easily. Instead it was low and hard. Greenway almost blocked the pass. It wasn’t an impossible catch, but it wasn’t as easy as it could have been either.
But the more important point is that you are right. Just one more FG would have made the game different. The game announcers were second guessing MM just before the Lee drop. You shouldn’t blame Rodgers or Lee for that redzone failure. MM should have had Crosby kick a FG.
by Belarus on Oct 9, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can criticize McCarthy for his choice to go for it
But that doesn’t change the fact that the play he called would have been a success if not for Lee dropping a catchable ball.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll criticize MM for the play before that also
First and goal from the 5, and Grant takes it to the 1 yard line. 2nd and goal, and Koon takes it to the 1/2 yard line. 3rd and goal from 18 inches, and it’s a flat pass to Finley? Are you kidding me? Rodgers had Edwards in his face immediately. Leber was all over Finley whose momentum was going more towards the sideline than the goal line. Horrible play call. Just awful.
by Belarus on Oct 9, 2009 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I won't argue with you on those, those were terrible calls
but the call on 4th was fine. Of course we wouldn’t have been in that position if there wasn’t such awful playcalling before.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 10, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hitting him in the stomach isn't an easy catch?
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Oct 9, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Watch the replay again
Rodgers took forever to see Lee standing alone. Once he did see him it took him too long to deliver the ball. And then he threw it at Lee’s left knee, not into his bread basket. Lee stumbled backwards tryying to catch it, while trying to deal with Greenway diving across his field of vision. Had Rodgers located the ball towards his right shoulder or stomach it was a TD.
It was almost like MM was trying to get Rodgers a TD pass to keep pace with what Favre had already accomplished. The play calling was atrocious. The point is had the Packers cut it to 17 – 28 late in the third quarter, they would have had momentum. The crowd would also have been quieted, at least for a while. Instead, the Vikings drive the ball out to the 40, eat up 4+ minutes, and the crowd’s back in it. If it already wasn’t, the game may well have been lost in that sequence.
by Belarus on Oct 9, 2009 6:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Had Rodgers located the ball towards his right shoulder or stomach it was a TD.”
Maybe you should watch the replay again. Had he not stuck his hands out to try and catch the pass it would have hit him right in the stomach or upper pelvis area. And keep in mind it wasn’t like Rodgers was standing back there with no pressure.
Here is the link. Go to 3:35 mark.
The ball is actually thrown to the left just the right amound so that Greenway couldn’t tip it. You’ll see him extend his arm but he is probably a good foot from being able to actually tip it or bat the ball down.
by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never mind. Here is the link.
Go to the 1:05 mark and you will see Rodgers had room to throw it towards Lee’s right shoulder… and lead him away from pressure. At the 1:10 mark and you will see the view from the back of the endzone where it is more apparent that the thow was nose down and at his knees.
I don’t blame Rodgers or Lee. This kind of rushed play often happens on 4th and goal. You and I agree actually packallday555. The FG would have been the smart play at that point of the game.
by Belarus on Oct 10, 2009 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha oops
I went on youtube and found one and then forgot to post it, sorry about that.
Ya I mean Rodgers could have thrown the ball better, but it was off his back foot and it was his 3rd or 4th read tops. The ball catchable, and at that point in the game, Lee has to make that catch.
But yes, ultimately I think we should have kicked a FG.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2009 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No no no
You can’t blame Rodgers in any way for that. The reason he didn’t find him right away was because he was the 3rd or 4th read. Rodgers threw the ball lower (which actually makes it easier to catch, as you can use your body to hold the ball in when your falling to the ground.) and it hit right off of Lee’s hands. Maybe if Greenway had almost tipped it on the way in I could understand how it would be a very hard catch but he didn’t. By the time Greenway stuck his hand out to try and swat the ball it was already past him.
Right. I mean I guess I didn’t have a huge problem with him going for it but I would have just liked to see him kick the FG. That would have made it 17-28, and when we scored our next TD, it would have been 24-28. The would have been so much different, but there is nothing we can do about that now.
by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One stat that should be disconcerning for Vikings fans
is how much yardage Rodgers put up despite being hurried or sacked almost the entire game.
by Charlie Kelly on Oct 9, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is
disconcerting. The Vikings appear to have trouble covering TEs. The Pack TEs had 10 catches for 156 yards on Monday. The 49ers Vernon Davis caught another 7 balls for 96 yards the week before. Our safeties don’t match up well with big athletic TEs. And most LBs including ours have trouble with speedy TEs.
by Belarus on Oct 9, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As much I go against Favre, and say I dislike him and all that, there is still a part of me that has some respect for him
I definitely have major respect for his actions on the field. Always have and always will. It’s his actions off the field I have no respect for.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Oct 6, 2009 2:21 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Wow I'm surprised you've turned on on Grant so completely
After only three weeks ago (at start of season) you went up-down-left-right all over me for saying the same things to you over at DN. It sounds like you’ve come to see my point after all ;)
Now do you also see my point I mad a week ago about how those Packer O Linemen are too small? Vikings D players (allen in particular) were throwing them aside like they were rag dolls. Clifton’s your only big guy (and maybe Tauscher if he can come back).
by puddnhead on Oct 6, 2009 8:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
“After only three weeks ago (at start of season) you went up-down-left-right all over me for saying the same things to you over at DN. It sounds like you’ve come to see my point after all ;)”
It’s just so clear. The guy has no vision. In 07’ he had a ton of great cutback runs and was hoping the reason we didn’t see many of those in 08’ were cause of his offseason and injury troubles. If he cuts it upfield at the 5 yard line it’s an easy TD and we don’t even have to challenge one of the best goaline defenses in the league.
I have always agreed with you on our oline being to small. Though I did like how Lang looked against Allen. He actually challenged him a few times and actually overpowered him a couiple times. I just saw that were set to bring Tauscher back, which is a HUGE relief.
by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2009 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well they're not the cowboys
linemen but they are not too small.
And no they weren’t. If the Packers didn’t have to abandon the run game because of the mounting score, all indications point to the Packers basically having their will with the Vikings in the run game
by PackaCracka on Oct 11, 2009 11:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
