Analysis: Packers Allow 21 Points In 13 Minutes

by Brandon on Nov 10, 2009 9:01 AM CST in Analysis Comment 45 comments

From Tom Pelissero's always excellent film review:

If the Packers fail to make the playoffs, they may well look back at the final 13 minutes against the Bucs as their defining moments— a stretch that encapsulated everything that’s wrong at the season’s midway point...

Coverage breakdowns on special teams. Technique errors, nosy play and lack of pressure on defense. Protection problems, receivers who can’t get open, penalties, dropped passes and a quarterback with a time clock prone to going haywire.

Make no mistake, the Packers did a lot of things right in the season’s first half. But everything they did wrong showed up again in those final 13 minutes, and it’s a whole lot to fix with eight games to go.

A lot has to go wrong for a 21 point swing in a span of 13 minutes. I can't think of a single good play during that stretch. The only ones that come to mind are QB Aaron Rodgers's scramble for a 1st down and LB A.J. Hawk's INT, but of course those were both called back by penalties.

0 recs | Comment 45 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

conditioning?

i thought our new strength coach was supposed to be some guru and made everyone into monsters over the summer.

how come we can’t get any pressure on QB (strength and speed) and we fell flat in the 4th quarter (conditioning).

I said it last week, if we lose to Bucs we are done.

I really think one MAJOR fix that would have immediate effect is if MM released play-calling duties to someone else. I don’t think head coaches should be coordinators as well. When pressure builds in a game MM turns into a predictable moron.

by Acme on Nov 10, 2009 10:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

If we’re not going to fire McCarthy then the least we could do is take the play-calling responsibilities from him. He called an extremely poor game this past Sunday, and really has yet to call one that hasn’t been poor.

Obviously all these new coaches who were supposed to make a difference for us haven’t. I also remember hearing about how our new conditioning coach had the guys at a high level and blah, blah, blah. We still aren’t in shape, we still have no discipline, and we still have a horrible special teams unit.

by packallday555 on Nov 10, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Butler agrees

just read on JSonline.com

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/69595447.html

Butler says the same thing, turn over play calling to Philbin. Let MM be a coach.
I do think he can/is a good head coach, but he is average play caller and then his ability to coach goes down as coordinator.

by Acme on Nov 10, 2009 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That was a confusing read

Does anyone understand what he’s saying here?:

You have to accept that they’ve got a general manager – this is his first time being a general manager – and a head coach – this is his first time being a head coach – who are going to need time for them to figure out what combination they want out there.

“First time?” TT has been there 5 years, and MM four. All I can figure he means is that they’ve never been GM or HC prior to coming to Packers. But saying that they “need tiime to figure things out” because of this seems really odd. When Mike Shanahan was fired by Denver this January, I guess he was still a “first time head coach” too, since he hadn’t been a HC before becoming one for Broncos in early 90s?!?

What am I missing here?

by puddnhead on Nov 10, 2009 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Shanahan was a HC with the Raiders before going to the Broncos. I agree though that it was a confusing type of sentence. Not exactly sure what he’s trying to get across there. But the rest of the piece is very cogent, imo. He points out that there just isn’t an easy fix for the O-line that we have currently assembled. My favorite line of that is

There’s not a combination out there that isn’t going to give up sacks. The only thing you can do is let Tauscher start and Clifton start. If they’re healthy, let them play, if they’re not healthy, let them play.

His suggestion of turning over the play-calling duties (as referenced above) makes perfect sense to me. Give up some duties so you can concentrate on helping the team as a whole.

And his last question about the player on each side that needs to step it up the second half of the season is pretty good too.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Nov 10, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

play calling

Just curious but does Philbin have ANY experience calling plays?! Not that I’m aware of.. Though I could be wrong.

If I am taking the play calling away, I am giving it to someone who has experience doing it! Otherwise it just a case of making a change for the sake of making a change, with no real direction to it! Kinda pointless IMO…

I have been in McCarthys corner, and am not prone to making rash decisions or changes, but at this point it seems obvious that McCarthy lacks what it takes to correct the problems that have been persistent for the past year! Time for a coaching change, unfortunately.

by Strohman on Nov 10, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand but

the theoretical move is for multiple purposes. The first thing it would do would be to give someone else a chance calling the plays to see if that is what the issue is. A fresh perspective can be useful here. The second thing it would do is remove something from McCarthy’s plate during the game and allow him to focus on motivating players, making adjustments along with his coordinators, and managing the team as a whole. See if that helps his overall performance as a Head Coach.

I understand the concern about handling playcalling duties to someone who hasn’t called plays before but I don’t think that automatically makes it pointless and lacking in direction. If the guy calling the plays is not doing the job and needs to focus on his actual duties then THAT is the point.

I also have been in McCarthy’s corner previously, but I think that this move would be one that has the potential to help McCarthy. Maybe taking something off of his plate would give him the chance to correct the problems that have been persistent for the past year.

I am not beating the drum here demanding that McCarthy relinquish his playcalling duties, or even saying it would certainly make a difference, but it is a thought worth exploring, imo.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Nov 10, 2009 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Larry

Johnson, should Green Bay pick him up?

by Drew C on Nov 10, 2009 1:35 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

LJ

NO!!! SInce he had that 400 carry season he is washed up!!! A. Greene is too, but I say keep Ahman for the year. Better option all the way around than Johnson IMO!

by Strohman on Nov 10, 2009 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be

For picking him up for a 1 year deal… He’d bring some experience and better protection for Rodgers… If he doesn’t pan out, then he doesn’t pan out. We need to find an answer for the running game.
My biggest deal is McCarthy gets pass happy even when the run is working…
I think LJ would be interesting.

by Drew C on Nov 10, 2009 1:50 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

I just

don’t see the point. We’re not going to win the thing this year so we might as well concentrate on giving the longer-term prospects some game time.

by rudi on Nov 10, 2009 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the thing is

we don’t have any decent longer-term prospects on the roster. Anyone out there in the ether is not a longer-term prospect. If we want to improve at RB, it’s gonna be by bringing in a stopgap (which we did with Green), or by the draft/FA/trade route during the offseason.

You never know, LJ could be intriguing as a stopgap this season (and maybe next year as an experienced backup change-of-pace guy), but I’m of the opinion that he’s got little left in the tank this year, and would likely be more of a distraction than a help given the problems along the offensive line.

by swilldog on Nov 10, 2009 9:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think if we can get him for really cheap, it would be an alright risk

and maybe it could pan out like Benson and the Bengals. Granted, that’s a little bit different as Benson is younger with nowhere near the wear and tear of Johnson.

by Charlie Kelly on Nov 12, 2009 9:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think LJ would be a poison

The Packers have enough problems to deal with that they don’t need a PR distraction either. Like it or not, Grant is probably a better option than LJ.

by Danwood on Nov 10, 2009 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Grant and LJ...

are very different runners. Grant is finesse he runs around the edges and tries to find a hole. LJ, while seemingly at the end of his career, is a pound the rock type of back. I think he’d be a nice complement to Grant.

While things look pretty bleak for this year, we are FAR from done. If the team could start playing at a higher level, they could still sneak out a 5 or 6 seed. I don’t think its likely but its still possible. This loss makes it seem much harder though. Anyway, I think LJ could provide a change of pace and honestly a PR distraction? I think that is EXACTLY what we need! haha Take the heat off of Rodgers and the line for a bit!!!

by TrevorR on Nov 10, 2009 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Green is the same kinda RB as LJ. THere is NO point in having both of them! Green is a far better pass reciever and pass blocker than LJ right now. Green at least knows the system and the adjustments. Plus Ahman is returning kicks until Nelson is ready again!

THe question is who brings more to the table for the TEAM, AG or LJ? Seems obvious that Ahman Green brings more to the table than LJ!!! You have to take everything into account…

by Strohman on Nov 10, 2009 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think I agree...

I don’t see Ahman Green as a returner. Sure he did it this last game but you really want a 30 something back who was out of the league for 1.5 years and who has a rough history with fumbling returning kicks? That scares the heck out of me and he looked EXTREMELY pedestrian. I didn’t see anything to make me excited about him getting kicks.

Regarding running I have a hard time thinking that Green is going to be more effective. LJ hasn’t looked great this year but the KC line is one of the few that is worse than our teams (at least for run blocking). I think LJ still has something in the tank and he’ll be VERY motivated to prove himself. Honestly if its a one year deal what is there to lose? He could bring a spark to this team that is starting to look lost offensively. Green is a little better of a receiver historically but LJ has had a few nice seasons of receiving too.

Remember we almost traded for him in 2007, so we know TT liked him at one point…

by TrevorR on Nov 10, 2009 10:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Green

Please READ… I said Green is the kick returner until Nelson returns, which will be next week at the latest, from what I have read! Green IS a better reciever, not to mention pass blocker.

Exactly what have you seen to make you think LJ has anything left in the tank, that Green doesn’t have? I saw Green bust a 35 yd run… Doubt LJ has anything comparable.

The talk of LJ ever being in GB, was just that… TALK, mostly by fans and some media. I don’t remember ever hearing any in the organization talking about it. I wouldn’t even have considered it a rumor!!! There was never any basis for other than wishful thinking. And not very sound thinking at that…

by Strohman on Nov 10, 2009 10:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Proof?

http://gnb.scout.com/2/638963.html

A source outside of the Chiefs organization informed Scout.com’s Warpaint Illustrated this morning that the Packers have offered their first overall pick (16th overall) and fourth round pick (112th overall) in this weekend’s NFL draft for Johnson, who is scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent after the 2007 season.

Didn’t take too long to find dozens of articles giving that “rumor” some substance. There WAS legitimate interest. There WAS an offer on the table.

Regarding your READ comment. I did read and my point was that I think Green is a lousy returner and any of a dozen players could do what he did. We could replace him very easily with any number of players who could run to the 20 yard line and go down.

Sure he broke a run, yippee. I don’t hang my hat on Green being much of anything. No one wanted him for a year and a half…and there are some sorry RB situations out there. I am in the group that thinks LJ still has something left in the tank. Someone is going to pick him up…Patriots could be the team, makes too much sense. He could easily make an impact on a team that has a decent run blocking line. You can disagree but you don’t have to be an ass about it.

by TrevorR on Nov 11, 2009 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

LJ trade

A “source” OUTSIDE the chiefs!!! And NO “source” inside the Packers either… Seems to me that there is ALOT of heresay in the story, with no real documentation. So it was a “rumor”… Does NOT show an offer on the table. Might as well be speculating as far as I’m concerned.

When you get a source inside the chiefs or Packers let me know! Till then I am NOT impressed.

I was disagreeing strongly, if you think I was an Ass, thats YOUR impression… and your poor feelings got hurt. Cry me a river!

by Strohman on Nov 11, 2009 11:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

oh please…its ALWAYS a rumor until it happens. Like I care if YOU are impressed. You can ignore things all you want, but the interest was there whether it impresses you or not. Get over yourself.

by TrevorR on Nov 12, 2009 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

haha and my feeling getting hurt? by some douchey guy on a packer chat board…trust me I have WAY more going on in my life to be worried about than you. Don’t flatter yourself too much.

by TrevorR on Nov 12, 2009 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Apparently your feeling ARE hurt… Go back and read my first posts… There was nothing that suggested I was attacking you! NOTHING!!! I disagreed w/ you about LJ. Big Deal.

You Seem to be the one that needs to get over yourself… As in get a life, grow a skin so you don’t think someone is attacking you, when they aren’t!

Who brought out the attack, and used name callling? YOU!!!

by Strohman on Nov 13, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I could point out a few spots very quickly but I’d rather just see this string die, so I am letting it go…please do the same.

by TrevorR on Nov 13, 2009 9:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree no LJ

This season is wash. I think we should aquire Steven Jackson next season, he’s 3rd in rushing in the NFL on a crappy team. Definately draft O-line and add a few veterine players, it’s not like we don’t have the cap room. Besides next season is a non cap year.Take away MM’s play calling duties it’s like a broken record we were passing when we should be running and running when we should be passing. Supposidly MM has a 300 play book but I see the same plays all the time we are so predictable. Taucher and Cliffton are good to have for there experience maybe some of it will rub off on the rookies. It seemed when Taucher came out the o-line fell apart, all 5 of the sacks came in the 2nd half. Most in crucial downs when we were in scoring positions against a team that only had 11 coming in to the game. The 3-4 needs some time to get used to but we are doing better against the run than last year. The Vikes exposed our weaknesses in the Special Teams and pretty much drew the blueprint for beating us on the returns. Most of our problems can be fixed .But some have to wait until the off season.

by cheddarhead on Nov 10, 2009 5:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Now THAT is something I would LOOOVE. I would give up ANYTHING to get Jackson. He’s a BEAST, I think he’s better than AP and could instantly change how teams defend us. Do I see it happening, probably not, but I would give TT instant cred if he pulled it off!

by TrevorR on Nov 10, 2009 10:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No

We don’t need character problem guys in our little fish bowl.

by ktenreb on Nov 10, 2009 1:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Steven Jackson and grant would be a good 1-2 punch

by cheddarhead on Nov 10, 2009 5:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

HUH? If we get Steven Jackson, Grant is GONE. Why would you want to take the ball out of the hands of someone that can do it all? We send off Grant for a 3rd rounder or something and use that to draft a lineman.

by TrevorR on Nov 10, 2009 10:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Somebody has to spell him and Grant is under contract. I don’t think we’ll get that high of a pick the way he is playing. Brendon Jackson has done nothing.

by cheddarhead on Nov 12, 2009 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think...

it needs to at least be considered. Someone is going to do it. I don’t think there is a chance TT will do it but they should at least think about it. My analysis is below.

by TrevorR on Nov 10, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dallas

How many sacks do you think Dallas will get next week?
My guess…. 8 1/2…. Ware getting 4

by Drew C on Nov 10, 2009 4:07 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

Im rooting for 107

break the record!

id rather have a 24 year old (human years) dog that has advanced parkinson’s batting for our team than vlad.

-BoeJouma

by blackoutsox on Nov 10, 2009 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take the under for $100

by DIRE WOLF on Nov 10, 2009 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Team's can't get a half sack

by Danwood on Nov 10, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Giants did

When Strahan gave Favre narcolepsy.

by jabuddha on Nov 10, 2009 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

?????

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2002010606/2001/REG17/packers@giants#tab:analyze/analyze-channels:cat-post-boxscore

Giants had total of 1 sack

Individuals can get a half sack. Teams cannot.

by Danwood on Nov 10, 2009 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

One more time, Chick Corea

Game Log

by Danwood on Nov 10, 2009 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought that also, but I'm on your site and didn't want to be a smarta$$

by DIRE WOLF on Nov 10, 2009 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

how about a series?

This is from memory, so correct me if I’m wrong. This occurred once GB was down 3.

1st & 10 – Sack
2nd & 16 – Pass Completion to pick up 9-10 yards.
3rd & 6 – Completion to Pick up the First Down. – Holding
3rd & 16 – Interception Returned for a TD.

rmlumley.com

by shaftr on Nov 10, 2009 4:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I might be numb by half time. Poor Rodgers might be in the hospital

by cheddarhead on Nov 10, 2009 5:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Close

I think it was….
1st & 10- Jones drops a VERY catchable ball which would have been a 6-7 yard gain.
2nd & 10- Rodgers is sacked, as Colledge is thrown to ground.
3rd & 16- 9-10 yard pass completed.
4th & 10- Interception for TD.

I think you mixed the drive where Rodgers ran for that 1st down and had it called back because of Colledge’s holding with our last drive of the game.

by packallday555 on Nov 11, 2009 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs