When Is The Packers Offense Not The Packers Offense Anymore?
by Brandon on Nov 4, 2010 4:00 PM CDT
in Green Bay Packers Analysis
Email
PrintI've been reading articles all season, two recent examples this week are here and a video discussion here, wondering what's wrong with the Green Bay Packers offense and what needs to be done to fix it. The answer seems obvious: wait until next season when everyone is healthy.
To their credit, QB Aaron Rodgers and Mike McCarthy aren't using the injuries as an excuse. They keep trying to do more with the current roster. There's always room for improvement and they can work on finding ways to do more with guys like WR Jordy Nelson and WR James Jones. But not TE Andrew Quarless since now he's hurting too.
But in the end, they've just lost too many players and they really aren't themselves anymore. Football Outsiders ranked RB Ryan Grant has the 2nd best rushing back in 2009, while RB Brandon Jackson is near the bottom this season. Jackson remains one of the top receiving backs and is good at picking up the blitz, but FB John Kuhn is merely adequate and far from replacing Grant's production. TE Jermichael Finley is still the 2nd most productive TE in 2010 according to Football Outsiders despite playing in only 4 of 8 games this season (he was hurt very early in the Redskins game). They haven't come close to replacing either of them, nor do I think it's possible to do so during the season.
The loss of WR Donald Driver might be the last straw. The offense always needs two great receivers, and they could afford to lose Finley or Driver, but not both. Driver was on the field for a little while against the Jets last week, but he was never a factor. The only receiver making any plays was WR Greg Jennings. WR James Jones has his moments, but remains inconsistent (zero catches against the Jets). The offense didn't show any signs of life until late in the game when WR Jordy Nelson (another inconsistent guy) caught a few passes.
Injuries have been able to do what NFL defenses haven't done over the past three seasons: turn Rodgers into an average QB. While they have to wait until next season to truly return, there are a couple things they can still do now. Keep Jennings involved as the focal point because he's the last star receiver standing. Jackson is a good receiver out of the backfield and he should be more involved in the passing game. Keep feeding the ball to Nelson and Jones to see which one has the hot hand this week. Is there anyone else on the roster you'd like to see get more playing time?
141 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not to worry Packer fans.
Dallas D will make you passing game look great and the running game will look all world.
Lock n Load
Meh. Idk.
Dallas can be dangerous, IF they put it together. I am sure you guys down there have seen it all, but I just don’t know.
Put it this way. From what I’ve seen from Dallas, in games that don’t really matter, they’ve mailed it in. Jacksonville would be a good example. But games where there is some pride at stake, they’ve played pretty good. Giants here, even though you guys lost Romo (I am a Romo fan). Though at times the Giants seemed to have their foot on your guys throats, but your team didn’t give up.
Now this week, I don’t know which team is going to show up. I am hoping the one that played against Jacksonville. Then I could see it. Your D has some talent, but who knows. This year especially, no one should take any team lightly.
by Bush League All Star on Nov 4, 2010 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Meh.
It’s no good guessing or even wishing. This all has only made Packer wins this season even more special and hopefully, next season is better.
"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi
*Next* Season? What's the matter with this one?
hopefully, next season is better.
Reality check: the packers are 5-3. The just got a road win over one of the best (allegedly) teams in the NFL. They’ve got the inside track to win the NFC North. The bye week is coming up, giving them a chance to get healthy and make a final push for the playoffs.
But, I guess, other than that, there’s nothing to get excited about.
D∈T
by DaveInTucson on Nov 5, 2010 12:40 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sounds exactly like some Wisconsin "fans" after the MSU game this year.
Oh no, don't tell me Matt Barkley ALSO doesn't tie his shoes...
Wisconsin, throwing the Big Ten into chaos since the beginning of time...
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Nov 5, 2010 9:26 PM CDT up reply actions
One word, JORDY!
Jordy Nelson has looked good when they have thrown to him. He has sure hands and size that makes him a good target for A.R. to throw to. Maybe James Jones will have a better game now that he got the reps in practice instead of D.D. I think Donald will be ok after sitting this week and the bye week. We do miss Finley, that much is a given, anyone know what Bubba Franks is doing these days? Oh, wait, he can’t catch and run, dammit! Maybe it’s because Quarless wasn’t getting reps either. And for the love of god, would Edgar please work with Brandon about his vision?!?! I wasn’t sold on Grant, he never came on strong until the last part of the season(like this week!) but he had vision, he would be running “here” but he would see a hole open up 2 yards to the left or right of “here” and hit that hole! Brandon, is running “here” and he keeps running “here”, no matter what is “here” when he gets there. Brandon is strong, but he needs better vision. I also think that Ahman Green would have been a better choice to get than Nance as much as he’s been used. I hope the Packers stomp the Cryboys and get some momentum going into the bye. I don’t think our injuries on offense are as bad as our defense, the Packers will continue to improve and be the class of the NFC North, and all will FEEL THE POWER OF THE TUNDRA!!
IMO
They just need to get back to the basics of their offense… maybe run an offensive scheme from the pre-season, instead of still trying to run a fancy offense that current key players in the “O” have very little experience in.
But that is just my opinion amongst millions on the web LOL
+1
I like basics! Run more of a west coast system really. Enough with all the deep routes up the seams and along the sidelines. Seems like the most consistent thing we’ve done is sent guys deep along the sideline, with the option of Rodgers throwing it deep or throwing it back shoulder. Thing is, it’s not working to well. We all know about the miscommunications on the back shoulder throws, and then when Rodgers does throw a nice deep ball, someone lets it bounce right off of their finger tips. Just run the slants, and quick timing stuff. Continue to move Jennings around to get him favorable match-ups, and allow the attention he receives to open things up for Jones and Nelson.
It’d be great if we got back to throwing screens and little dump passes out of the back field to Jackson too. Seems like we only go to those things when we’re REALLY worried about the opposing teams pass rush (Chicago w/ Peppers and Minnesota w/ Allen). I wish those two things would be more of consistent thing week to week in the offense. They both have seemed to work wonderfully, maximize Jackson’s abilities, and give us the threat of a run game.
by packallday555 on Nov 4, 2010 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions
I like the gameplans
I think it’s good to expect the players to be able to execute a complicated offense. Hopefully they can handle it by the season’s end. If not, we’ll need it during the post-season against the top defenses. I’d like to see more screens though. The Minnesota game was the only time I remember us using effective screens in a long time. I remember a lot of failed screens last year, and maybe that’s why we’ve been shying away from it. But if it’s working, especially without Ryan Grant’s rock hands, I think it should be used more.
The problem is that the execution overall is lacking, and I don’t know what everyone else has been watching, but I’ve seen as many if not more drops on slants and quick outs than on deep passes. Last week, if Jones doesn’t have butterfingers or Nelson doesn’t get mugged (the only deep passes I remember from that game) the game could’ve been blown open.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about the game plans. I really don’t think we’ve had very many good ones, aside from our games against Chicago and Minnesota (mostly in the 1st half). I agree the complex plays are nice to have in your arsenal but how many times are they going to have to fail before enough is enough? The only time we seemed to have success against the Jets was off of slant routes, or quick timing routes. I’d just like to see us go back to that more. It’s what the offense was predicated on in 2007, and why we were so effective late last season. Get the ball to our guys in space so they can do something after the catch. I remember the days where an announcer/analyst couldn’t go a game without mentioning how good our guys were after the catch. We haven’t lost anybody since those days, and in fact most of the guys have actually gotten much better.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 12:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Just curious...
How is it you think you know how complex the game plans are?! Since when have the been releasing that information to the public? Are you involved in the game plans?
Don’t act like you know something you don’t!!!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
I think you mean...
.. Maybe by watching the games!!!!
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes!!! It’s always big play after big play, which I suppose I view as complex.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Game plans
To you guys game plans are to run more vs this team and pass more vs that team! I’m saying its all ALOT more complicated than that and you don’t have the first clue what the game plan is based on what your watching!
Nor do you have the first clue how to build a game plan! I freely admit I don’t! But don’t try to sit there and tell me you do either!!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Build a gameplan, in the NFL? No, I couldn’t. But it’s not hard to watch what plays we’re running, and then to see what’s working and what’s not. What I’ve seen when doing so is that ALL the deep stuff just isn’t cutting it.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
So the game plan is only what you see on TV.
That doesn’t take into account which player is open on each play, it doesn’t take into account what the rest of the players are doing! Maybe the guy getting the ball thrown to him isn’t even the primary reciever.
Your guessing the game plan is what you see as the final result of an accumulation of plays as you percieve them! That is not even close to being true!
At least I aint dumb enough to believe that just the final result is what the plan was! You seem to actually believe it is!!!
I’m also saying that the decisions made by every player on every play changes what you think the gameplan is… The gameplan is FAR more than just what you think you see it as!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
No, I’m guessing that when I see us leave 8 to block, and send the other two guys deep (which I can see on TV), that the play is designed to go deep. And like I said above, I’ve seen this multiple times.
No where did I say the gameplan wasn’t “more” then I think it is dude! And I also didn’t say one player can change what ultimately happens on any given play. You’re not exactly filling me in on anything I don’t know. I played football, and other sports, and am well aware that guys don’t always do what their supposed to do.
by packallday555 on Nov 7, 2010 11:06 AM CST up reply actions
Who said anything about us building a gameplan!?!?!?!? Where did I say anything about that?!?!!?!?! Quit putting words into our mouths!!!!!!
He just can’t stand that we’re criticizing McCarthy. Or, at least that’s how it seems to me. It honestly seems like Stroh agrees with every single move McCarthy, or Thompson for that matter make. And I get that their professionals at what they do, and that “they know best” and all that but it’s like it’s never occurred to him that either could make a bad decision here and there.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions
You could not be further from the truth!!!
What I’m saying is that you see the Packers throw deep a few times a game and ASSume that the game plan is to go deep!!! I’m saying that guessing you think you know the game plan by the final result of some plays is ignorant! For all you know the 3 times they threw deep were the only 3 times that the D wasn’t in cover 2, so Rodgers may have audibled to it to take a shot!
You don’t know and can’t judge the game plan based on some collection of plays!!! The game plans are far more complex, based on defensive tendencies, offensive abilities, personnel, schemes… A myriad of complex variables of which you know very little!!!
Name one sentence in this thread were I defended McCarthy!!! You can’t cuz I didn’t!!!
I’m saying you don’t know game plans and your ASSuming I’m defending McCarthy when he wasn’t even the topic and I never mentioned him!!!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Stroh let’s be serious, you always defend McCarthy. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen you say something to the extent of, “Well, he’s knows best since he’s the head coach.” And while I don’t disagree, I think he makes mistakes and is nothing more than an average play caller.
Two or three times? Lol, that’s putting words into my mouth! I’ve seen Rodgers trying to go deep more than 2 or 3 times a game, and I’ve seen plays where we have all three receivers going deep multiple times! One up the seam, and the other two up the sideline. From there, Rodgers has the option to throw it deep to any of them, and also has the option to throw back shoulder to the guys along the sideline. I’ve seen it many, many times this season and it’s just not working!
I don’t doubt that the schemes are very, very complicated. I also don’t doubt that a lot of his schemes are geared toward going down field more often than not. Of course I don’t know for sure, and I’m not saying that I absolutely positively do. I’m saying that I THINK that, that’s what we’re doing judging off of what I’m saying.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions
No…you can’t argue with him. Stroh knows exactly what you’ve seen and what you are thinking even before you do. He also knows more, thinks more, and does more. Did I get it all Stroh?
I watch games too
I see everything you do. But I don’t make stupid assumptions about knowing what the hell the game plan is based on watching the game! To many variable that you nor I know nothing about! Does that cover it trev?!!!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
If you're going to play that card
Anyone on this site who isn’t a current of former professional football coach should just stop commenting.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
by GoGregGo on Nov 5, 2010 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Also,
I really like how you (Stroh) in this EXACT same comment section talk about how “50% of the offense revolved around Finley,” but I guess that isn’t a “stupid assumption,” huh?
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
by GoGregGo on Nov 5, 2010 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
diference is...
I CLEARLY stated In My Opinion!!! So its my opinion and you can have yours…
I didn’t say I know anything. I stated only My Opinion!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Because if the person above had said "IMO" in his post
You wouldn’t have responded the exact same way? Give me a break.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
NO
I wouldln’t have!!! I would then have stated my opinion and back my opinion up! They flat stated the game plan was this… Like they knew! And I called em on it… What about them? They could have come out and said it was their opinion at any point but they didn’t!!!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Just like you backed up your opinion on Finley's role in the offense?
Oh, wait, you didn’t back that up at all.
And if you tell me you backed up the statement that 50% of the offense revolved around Finley by saying MM spent the last 2 of 6 years working with Tony Gonzalez, that’s preposterous.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Backed it up
By saying McCarthy saw how Gonzalez was used, so he knew how to build an offense around a TE… Could also add that McCarthy was himself a TE, so he should know how to use a TE effectively…
But I guess you don’t count the fact that I said McCarthy knows how to use a TE like Gonzalez!!!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
commenting
IS one thing… To say you know what the game plan is altogether different!!! They are stupid enough to think they know game plan? Seriously idiotic!!!
I don’t know and don’t pretend to know! If they wanna speculate fine, but they actually thought they knew… And I callled em on it!!! Pure and simple!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Again with this? Who said they KNOW the gameplan!? Like I said above to you, everything I said was based off of what I saw. Never ever did I say this is the game plan, no ifs, ands, or buts like you’re trying to make it out to be.
In fact you stating that 50% of the offense is based around Finley is 100 times worse then any of my assumptions. Do you have regular talks with McCarthy and Philbin or what? Wouldn’t this statement, by your logic, infer that you claim to know the complexity off the offense? Seriously idiotic/
This is where you piss people off. When people don’t agree with you, you basically just decide to tell them how dumb or stupid they are for thinking whatever they do. You’re clearly knowledgable about the game of football. I’ll admit you’re usually pretty accurate in what you say but at other times, it’s obvious you’re just beating your chest and trying to show your dominance to people (like right now). The fact is, nobody REALLY knows what’s going on with the offense. So don"t sit here and say I’m dumb based off of my OPINION on what’s going on, especially since your’s infers that you have some inside knowledge or something much more then mine does.
by packallday555 on Nov 6, 2010 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Where did you state it as your opinion?
I never once saw anyone say it was an opinion! You stated it as fact, like you know… And I called you on it! But you don’t like that I didn’t lay down and just agree w/ you!!! The fact is You Don’t Know!!! That was my point all along!!!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
If you think he was stating stuff as absolutes
I suggest you go back and read PAD’s original post again. You came out guns blazing about him saying it wasn’t a complex gameplan, when he said that he felt we didn’t have good game plans and that we had few complex plays, so you were not comparing apples-to-apples.
And since your point is that PAD doesn’t know, and you don’t know either, why on earth are you being so close-minded about the whole thing. You’ve been defending gameplans this whole thread and yet claim that you don’t know any better than PAD what that is.
PAD expressed an opinion (just because he didn’t say “IMO” doesn’t mean it wasn’t an opinion) and you tore his head off because you have some preconceived notion that on the internet one has to state that something is an opinion or else it should be treated as fact.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
IMO!!!!!!
i just became a little stupider reading all this non-sense.
PAD expressed an opinion (just because he didn’t say "IMO" doesn’t mean it wasn’t an opinion) and you tore his head off because you have some preconceived notion that on the internet one has to state that something is an opinion or else it should be treated as fact.
Exactly. That’s what we all do here isn’t it? As far as I know, no one is part of the Packers staff, or is close to any of the guys on the staff (aside from yooper being neighbors with some of the guys).
by packallday555 on Nov 7, 2010 11:03 AM CST up reply actions
Just for fun Stroh, I went back and looked at my post to see if I stated anything as an absolute.
Here’s what I said in response to Mr. Saturn:
I really don’t think we’ve had very many good ones, aside from our games against Chicago and Minnesota (mostly in the 1st half). I agree the complex plays are nice to have in your arsenal but how many times are they going to have to fail before enough is enough? The only time we seemed to have success against the Jets was off of slant routes, or quick timing routes. I’d just like to see us go back to that more. It’s what the offense was predicated on in 2007, and why we were so effective late last season. Get the ball to our guys in space so they can do something after the catch.
Did you see any absolutes? I actually started off saying, “I really don’t think..”. That would imply that I’m stating what I think wouldn’t it?
Anyways, you responded with this:
How is it you think you know how complex the game plans are?! Since when have the been releasing that information to the public? Are you involved in the game plans?
Don’t act like you know something you don’t!!!
Your first sentence doesn’t even really make sense. No where did I say I knew the complexity of the offense. I used the word complex once, and used it in response to Mr. Saturn saying that the back shoulder throws were a complex play.
It’s actually is if you didn’t even really read my post. I think this whole little spat we got into was started because you didn’t/don’t like me criticizing McCarthy and his “innovative” offense. IMO!!!
by packallday555 on Nov 7, 2010 11:16 AM CST up reply actions
Quit being a frickin dumbass with the ASSuming bullcrap. That is the kind of stupid crap that makes people dislike you.
Demitri Nance.
Can he play? Beats the hell out of me. But why not find out? If he’s an upgrade on the ground from Jackson and Kuhn that would go a long way towards fixing what’s wrong. Injuries suck. But when they needed to make a move at RB after Grant got hurt they picked Nance over Torain, a trade for Lynch, and a handful of other players. If he’s not worth giving a chance, then why did they bother? Injuries aside, this defense can be good enough to go deep into the playoffs. it would be a shame if Thompson’s conservatism kept the offense bad enough to prevent this team from achieving the things that are possible even now.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 4, 2010 7:13 PM CDT reply actions
And Jackson still sucks.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 4, 2010 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions
I’m with you on finding out if Nance can play, but disagree with the rest of it. Especially the hand-wringing about Thompson. His “conservativism” is why we’re still in basically decent shape. Think of all the guys who have stepped up to fill injuries or take on a bigger role once starters go down. They’re all Thompson draft picks or pick-ups. Bishop, Quarless (and now Crabtree), Jones & Nelson, Shields, Bulaga, he pulled Greene out of thin air, etc. etc. etc. I mean, for crying out loud, how anybody can see Thompson as anything other than Nostradamus for keeping 4 good TEs… I don’t get how anybody’s still criticizing him.
Anyway…
I think the biggest injury loss we’ve had is Grant. Jackson’s fine, but we’re seeing now what Grant brought to the table. He was a constant threat to go the distance. …which brings me back to Nance. Remember how Grant exploded onto the scene in ‘07 after the bye week? Hopefully, maybe, it’d be awesome if… They’re keeping Nance up their sleeve in a similar way. It’d be great to have an ‘07 redux, only this time we don’t get Favre’d in the championship game! Go Pack!
by Curly Lambeau on Nov 4, 2010 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah.
I get a lot of that. Every time I or someone else mentions that Thompson can’t pull the trigger when he needs to people leap up to talk about how deep the roster is because of him.
Problem is that those aren’t contradictory facts. They’re both true simultaneously. My problem with Thompson isn’t that I think he drafts poorly or that he doesn’t know how to build a roster. It’s that he has no sense of the moment. Opportunities to compete for titles are rare no matter how good your GM is. This team has or had that opportunity and the offense is floundering because Thompson chose not to make a dramatic move at RB when Grant went down and because Thompson left the position too thin behind Grant. The move he made was Nance. Other options are now producing on other teams at levels superior to Jackson, and Nance can’t seem to get on the field. Put him out there and lets find out. We already know that Jackson isn’t good enough in the role he’s playing but can be very effective as a 3rd down back.
Jackson’s not fine. When he’s at his best on the ground he’s barely even adequate. Out of the backfield he’s above average, but they need someone they can hand the ball of to and neither Jackson nor Kuhn are good enough. If Nance isn’t either, then Thompson blew it.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 4, 2010 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions
The offense is not floundering because of TT
It is floundering because of:
1. Rodgers not looking like Rodgers of the last 2 years
2. Suspect play calling
Jackson has shown promise the last 2-3 games. No, he’s not putting up CJ/AP stats, but this team has never demanded that, nor has he ever promised that.
I’d like to know what backup options on other teams are producing at levels superior to Jackson. We have not been a run first team for several years now. And even with that said Jackson is #18 in total rushing yards; squarely middle of the pack. His yards/attempt are not up there however that falls more back on #2.
This team is simply not made of money. It does not and cannot operate like any other team in the NFL. And even if they could, trading for a big name/money player doesn’t mean your team is instantly improved. Lynch has done nothing Jackson couldn’t do. 89 yards on 24 rushes? Jackson can get us that, if his number were ever called 24 times a game.
There’s no sense in pulling a trigger that you don’t have to. The man paid to manage this team, know the talent and what’s available, believes that we don’t have to pull the trigger. I’m as big of a pessimist as they come on this board and this team should be playing a lot better than they are. But to say that this team is no longer in the running for a championship is foolhardy at best and absolutely defeatist at worst.
As for Nance, at this point I believe he’s a worst case, break glass in case of emergency kind of deal. As long as this team is only going to run 15-20 times a game there isn’t much of a role for him.
I agree with point one, but how can we properly evaluate point two if Rodgers isn’t himself. I think the playcalling is good.
As for the whole championship thing, I agree. Make the moves when you can make them. Just because we have a good team this year doesn’t make it “the year.” A good GM resists the temptation to go all in just because his team is near the top of the conference. We have a really large window thanks to Thompson, and I don’t think this is the year to go all in. We have a young quarterback who’s clearly going through growing pains and a huge laundry list of injuries. Go with what you have and hope to make it as far as possible. Go all in when necessary, but not every year that you have a good team. Otherwise we’d just be the Vikings.
Playcalling should be to your strengths today, not strengths yesterday
All season long the long pass on 3rd and short has not worked. At some point you have to stop calling it, it’s not working. Slants, naked bootlegs, screens, quick outs, there are TONS of options.
If Rodgers isn’t connecting on it, quit calling it until he does. On 3rd down you should be going to your BEST play to keep a drive going. A 30-40 yard pass is not our best play this season. And if Rodgers is optioning out of the short pass at the line, you kick his butt when he does.
playcalling
I mentioned this on another thread… THe vast majority of plays in the playbook have deep routes in them. It stretches the field vertically! Its way to easy to just say the playcalling for deep passes is the problem! If you need to blame someone for throwing deep, you should be blaming Rodgers! Its his job to pick out the reciever who is the most open or has the best matchup, isn’t it!!! SHouldn’t Rodgers be picking out the reciever who is open? Isn’t that his job? If you have a “need” to blame thats where you need to start.
BTW – Rodgers is graded on the choices he makes and if he throws to the correct player based on coverage and whos open!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Yes, it is
And I do remember reading what you wrote. If the only guy getting open on 3rd down plays is the guy running deep, then we need to adapt to that. That goes along to my “If Rodgers is optioning out of a short pass” statement. He needs to know that a long pass is a low percentage play, especially with the conditions (windy last week) and players he has.
If every long 3rd down pass is because that’s the only guy that’s open, then we need some better 3rd down plays, because we’re not connecting on the long pass enough to make teams respect it.
and the new plays will have someone going deep too!
That still leaves about 4 recievers in the short to medium range… Why isn’t Rodgers throwing to them? Like I said, if you need to place blame, you gotta start w/ Rodgers! Something you don’t seem willing to do!
I’m saying its not the playcalling, I’m saying its Rodgers who has to throw to the short to medium guys. Your saying junk the play book and make new plays! Cuz you aren’t willing to place blame on Rodgers!
Honestly, I don’t know the answer and neither do you, but it sure as hell aint junking the playbook!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Me? Not blame Rodgers?
Maybe I haven’t directly in this thread but I certainly have called him out in other threads. There is blame to go around and Rodgers is by no means an innocent bystander in all of this.
We all have blamed Rodgers, especially Danwood lol! We all realize it’s partially his fault but like I said below, McCarthy HAS to take some blame as well because he obviously wants the big play too. Otherwise we wouldn’t see Rodgers going deep multiple times a game, only to fail most. Don’t you think McCarthy would have got him in line if he didn’t like the way he was playing?
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes but on occasion, I’ve seen us max protect block on 3rd and short, while sending our only two guys running routes deep. It’s happen multiple times too. What Danwood is saying is exactly what I’ve seen, and apparently a lot of other people too judging from some of the comments.
We’ve also all blamed Rodgers to a degree too. MOST of the time there are short routes for him to throw too but he never seems to hit them. He always seems to want to make the big play. And the fact that is this has been a recurring theme OVER and OVER again this season tells me that, that MUST be McCarthy’s frame of mind too.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Very true…BUT on third downs and plays where we need short yardage maybe its time for the coach to put in plays that don’t allow the QB to do that then. If this is an issue for Rodgers, then the coach needs to account for that in his gameplan.
+1
Whatever way you cut it, both have some fault in it.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions
"Otherwise we'd just be the Vikings."
False choice. The options aren’t draft and develop OR give up on everything you believe in to land two problematic players after their prime. There’s a middle ground too.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 7:17 AM CDT up reply actions
I actually think the Vikings usually make good choices with the players they choose to pursue / trade for. Picking up Sharper when the Packers couldn’t afford him, picking Chad Greenway over ten spots lower than AJ Hawk, picking up Favre last year for a short-term deal, drafting AP, Rice, Harvin. They’re actually really good at evaluating talent. It’s just that their all-in techique leaves them in some precarious positions.
Take Jared Allen for example. It was a good trade for the first couple of years, but now that he sucks, what can they do? He gets paid way too much money to just plug in someone else. That’s the risk of continuously making the playoff push by getting the best player available. Even if it works out, it can mess up the future. The Vikings have been teetering with their max-out payroll for a while now. If you ask me, that’s the best way to be consistently good but not win a championship. That’s what I mean by being like the Vikings.
Money Schmoney.
That’s a red herring. This team has more resources than many team and I think if you suggested to Thompson that he was reluctant to trade for Lynch because of cash concerns he’d start laughing.
And i didn’t say they weren’t in the running for a championship. I said their chances are limited by their ineffective ground game and that a significant part of why their ground game is limited is because Jackson’s a below average starting RB. If Nance is only a worst case scenario then he was a bad acquisition because there was better than that available. My problem with Thompson is that he lacks the sense of when to think of right now instead of 3 years from now, and this isn’t the only example. His formula, if he does it right, keeps you competitive year after year, but it never puts you over the top.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 7:15 AM CDT up reply actions
But that formula HAS proven to put you over the top
In fact, more teams in the last 10 years have won the SB based on home grown talent and NOT trading for big name FAs.
Ravens
Patriots x 3
Steelers x 2
Pittsburgh
That’s 7 of 10 that I know off the top of my head. The Saints had a few FAs but even then a lot of their team was built from within and the big FAs they had (Brees, Sharper) were castaways from their former teams.
But at the end of the day, only 1 team ever wins a SB in a given year. So I’m sure you’ll come up with examples of teams who build from within and don’t win the SB and I can come up with teams who splash on FAs and fail to make the playoffs. If your only criteria is winning the SB then just about every team is a failure year in and out, even when that failure occurs by a bad bounce, missed call, or some other subtle instance of bad luck. The being put over the top is as much a product of luck and gambling as it is the composition of your team.
I've had this argument before.
I’m not asking them to build a team of free agents, or even sign any big name free agents. I’m asking him to be willing to fill the gaps from outside (like he FINALLY did at DT last week, with great success). He’s not willing to do that very often. And if you actually go through all those rosters for the Pats, the Ravens etc., you do see free agent and trade acquisitions playing huge roles, particularly on the Pats. The Saints and the Pats in particular showed a willingness to make a move when they need to to shore up a position and avoid losing a season due to a deficiency at one spot. Thompson doesn’t. Is he a bad GM? Not at all. But being there are negative aspects to being THAT committed to a single approach to build a football team. Particularly when a number of his moves the other way a few years have proved successful.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions
I never said the Pats and Ravens didn't do trades
But the trades they made were for small name castoffs and other unwanted talent – for example, Danny Woodhead. Those players take at least the same amount of effort as drafting a guy; they are “Some Assembly Required” trades. The last big name they traded for was Moss. Guess that was a failure because they didn’t win the superbowl…
(Yes, I know they just picked up Deon Branch. Jury is still out on how that works out.)
I don't disagree with that....
… though I think the Pats early on in their run had more than just small name guys that came from outside the organization. Thompson rarely does even that. I’d take another no name castoff guy at RB right about now. Why not? If they don’t start doing real damage on the ground soon the odds of them advancing beyond the first round of the playoffs become increasingly slim.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions
pats
rodney harrison, junior saeu, adaliaus thomas, correy dillion just to name a few of the no name pick-ups and surprisingly there’s many more.
I’m asking him to be willing to fill the gaps from outside (like he FINALLY did at DT last week, with great success). He’s not willing to do that very often.
I couldn’t agree more with this. There’s going to be holes on ANY team, no matter how good you draft (which Thompson has done a great job of). No shame in recognizing that, and grabbing a guy or two to try and fill those holes.
The Patriots, Ravens, Saints, and all do this.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions
not the patriots
free agents from 2001-2004 (names you should recognize)
mike vrable, david patten, larry izzo, roman phifer, antoine smith, mike crompton, larry centers, roosevelt colvin, tyrone poole———these are just the bigger names.
2005 to present
chad brown, tim dwight, chad scott, jabar gaffney, tebucky jones, kyle brady, sammy morris, donte stallworth, fernando bryant, tank williams, victor hobson, fred taylor, tully banta cain, leigh boden, shawn springs, algae crumpler, gerrard warren.
there are many more that aren’t worth mentioning, so as you can see that new england doesn’t solely believe on building through the draft. exhibit A.
Many of those players
Were either pushed out of their former teams due to depth or were on the tail end of their career and could be had cheaply.
And I never said that they built solely through the draft. Signing little names and building them up takes substantial coaching, much like a draftee. The Packers have not been built solely on draftees, but I’ll assume those names “aren’t worth mentioning” either.
lol
Were either pushed out of their former teams due to depth or were on the tail end of their career and could be had cheaply.
if you can find quality veterens like that for cheap than that should be right up thompsons alley.
That's the thing though....
… those are exactly the kinds of guys Thompson never goes after. And they can help at times.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions
But...
Meditate on that list of names I gave (which is incomplete and doesn’t fully represent how this team has pulled together through adversity). Things have gone about as badly as they could’ve so far this year injury-wise, and we’re still sitting with a good record and good team morale. And every spot is filled so that we can play our full game.
And I’m not going to rehearse everything TT has done to replenish a roster that was old and thin into one that’s young and deep with quality talent, but I will say that Ron Wolf rebuilt the team slowly too, letting the core come together while banging their heads against the wall in the playoffs for a few years before he started making “hasty” moves to make a SB push. TT’s not done yet.
I think we need to see what Nance does, too. If he comes through Grant-style, then we can make some noise. If not, then we’ll wait till next year. Either way, though, TT is smelling like a rose as far as I’m concerned. He’s well on his way to building an actual team, as opposed to a fantasy team like MN or Washington. It’s chess, not checkers.
by Curly Lambeau on Nov 5, 2010 1:50 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
I agree on Wolf...
… but Wolf knew how to pull the trigger and take chances when he got close. I haven’t seen anything out of Thompson to suggest he does. And I’ll keep ripping him for it until he does. We were in the NFC championship game 3 years ago and the playoffs last year. People talk about Rodgers still growing and learning but I think he regressed this year because there’s no balance to the offense. McCarthy’s got his faults, but it’s hard to blame him for not sticking with the ground game when it’s as bad as this one is.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 7:20 AM CDT up reply actions
The ground game has not been bad because of the players
Again, McCarthy does not play to the strength of his players. Why are we running Kuhn up the gut on two straight 4th and 1s in the Vikings game?
Jackson has shown in the last few weeks that he can be an average back. That’s all this team ever demanded of Grant.
I just disagree with almost all of that.
I don’t think Jackson’s close to average. McCarthy’s found ways to make him look that way on the ground, though he’s been frustratingly reluctant to use him out of the backfield until very recently.
Why are they running Kuhn up the gut on two straight 4th and 1’s in the Vikings game? Because Kuhn is big and shown an ability to run through tackles and any NFL o-line should be able to get enough push for a yard. Anyway, Kuhn made the one that they were called short on. The refs just blew the whistle too early.
I’m not a huge fan of McCarthy’s either, but Grant was far more than an average back in my opinion (see the Football Outsiders rankings). Jackson’s a guy defensive coordinators can forget about and still stop more often than not. You didn’t see this much cover two and 7 man boxes when Grant was healthy. The fact that you do now tells me all I need to know about Jackson, and Thompson’s decision to stick with him all year.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 9:16 AM CDT up reply actions
Bingo
McCarthy’s found ways to make him look that way on the ground, though he’s been frustratingly reluctant to use him out of the backfield until very recently.
That is what the coach is paid to do! Do you think that every NFL player is an AP or CJ? There are some truly gifted players no doubt, but for every gifted player there are at least 3 or 4 that are average. The great coaches find ways of taking otherwise average players and exploiting their strong points to mask their weakness. Shanahan made a living in Denver doing this with RBs. BB does the same at every position in NE.
I agree with this. We could definitely be getting more out of our running game then we are but does that shouldn’t really surprise anybody. It’s McCarthy. He’s always been ridiculously pass happy.
I think the biggest problem in the running game is the formations we often run out of. I think we’d have more success running out of 3 receivers sets as opposed to coming out in I-Formation, with one or two tight ends. The reality is, we’re not going to run on people out of those formations. It’s somewhat obvious it’s coming and any time that’s the case, it’s probably not going to work because our line isn’t that good.
The way he used the run against the Vikings was perfect really. Come out passing, and then run a draw play here and there. Come out in the I-Form but do so in a 3 receiver set and then run. He did those things against the Vikings and it worked to perfection really.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions
I dont' disagree with that...
… but McCarthy isn’t BB. I’m glad he’s trying to find ways to make Jackson effective. I don’t think he’s good enough at it to mask the fact that Jackson is probably (and in my opinion, easily) the worst RB in the league getting more than half of the rushes on his team.
Just my opinion…
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh, c’mon, he’s not that bad. He’s getting like 4.5 yards per carry or something like that. He doesn’t (yet) have Grant’s explosion once he gets to the 2nd level, but he’s not nearly as bad as you’re saying. That’s crazy talk.
by Curly Lambeau on Nov 5, 2010 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Cover 2
Is coming alot more from the loss of Finley that it is the loss of Grant! Without Finley teams can afford to play cover 2 and get away w/ it… When Finley was playing, he prevented teams from playing cover 2. The classic cover 2 beater is the TE who is athletic enough to split the safeties down the middle.
I do agree that with Jackson playing teams don’t have to put 8 in the box, though I don’t think they did that much w/ Grant playing either!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
by Strohman on Nov 5, 2010 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
Finley is easily our biggest loss on the season. Between him and Matthews, we would be 6-1 right now if neither had ever been injured, there is zero doubt in my mind.
by Puddleglumed on Nov 5, 2010 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions
I disagree with that.
The parade of cover two started before Finley went down. Finley was a huge loss because a dynamic, fast TE is the best way to break the cover two. It gets a lot harder to play cover two all day, even with a dynamic TE, if your opponent can run the ball down your throat or when the RB is good enough to make an average run blocking O-line good enough. Grant was that guy and he periodically drew 8 man fronts. Jackson isn’t and our opponents are playing 7 man fronts all day.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions
agree 100%
grant was the biggest loss of the season.
the old adage goes—-" you don’t realize what your missing until it’s gone"
That's true
I’m surprised at how much Grant’s loss really caused. We really had a nice mix with Grant and Jackson. Grant could do the 20-25 carries thing and get a good feel for the game like an old school running back and Jackson could do the third down bit that he does so well.
True shame…..
Oh well, that means that we muddle through this year. Work with quick slants and screens to loosen up a D. Hope Nance shows something. Go back the drawing board in the offeseason where we don’t do three FB’s and two HB’s. That was an experiment that just didn’t work out.
by PackApologist on Nov 5, 2010 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions
I disagree
4 hours 5 minutes? Is that all? Buehrle coulda pitched three CGs and the bottom of the 14th in Houston by then. FTMFYITA! - RWShow
Sounded like Nance was “in line” to receive more carries this past Sunday but then sprained his ankle on Friday. Of course, that “in line” quote was from McCarthy, and he had said the same thing prior to the Vikings game, and Nance was only out there for a total of two plays!
Like you, I’d LOVE to see more of Nance. Jackson is a good third down back but not much more. He doesn’t run well in between the tackles (or anywhere really) and Kuhn is just too slow. Grabbing Nance over Torain is puzzling because Torain is the PERFECT zone blocking system back. He’s big and strong, and is a good one cut runner.
But at the same time, Nance received quite a bit of hype in the preseason, and was highly touted coming out of high school. I believe he had a good year or two with Arizona St., and then had a one down year. So obviously there were times where he was very productive, and showing a good deal of talent. I’d love to see if he could show that talent with us but with Mike “I’m loyal too a fault” McCarthy calling the shots, I’m not sure we’re ever going to see what Nance may or may not be able to do. I see him just sticking with Jackson and Kuhn the rest of the way because that’s just how he is.
by packallday555 on Nov 4, 2010 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Torain would have been a great pickup but clearly they liked what they had in Jackson or something bigger would have been done. Clearly the style of runnign or ZBS hasn’t clicked as well as they would have liked or we probably would have seen more of him.
Nance
Has played in a zbs all his life! At least in college at ASU and Atlanta uses it too… So I don’t see that as a reason he hasn’t been involved yet! Still think its cuz he didn’t know the plays early. We’ll see after the bye wk, I expect him to start getting more involved!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
I sure hope we seem him more involved. I think he could end up being a better fit then both Jackson and Kuhn in the running game.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions
what happened to starks?
sarcasm—-of course. i would like to see nance get a chance. look what happened with bishop.
Lol. I’m going to be really disappointed if he goes on IR or is released, which is seeming like a legitimate possibility.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
yeah
i was really counting on a rb that hasn’t played a down in the last 2 years to save the rb situation. call me a dellusional optomist on that one (sarcasm).
i would say
if he sticks for a couple years, he may turn out. but to believe that he was going to come in and be productive would be a “pipe dream” so to speak.
Thank You Brandon!!!
Its about time someone understands how important Finley is/was to this offense!!! Packers spent the better part of the past year and a half trying to find ways to use his specific talents and how to best use the rest of the recievers along w/ him! There is just no way to underestimate his impact on the offense overall… He was easily the biggest asset the team had among the recievers and the majority of the other recievers routes were based on what he did… IMO, about 50% of the offense was based on how to use him and his talents and how to use the attention he got to best advantage for the other recievers!
Losing a semblance of a running game certainly doesn’t help either and Grant seemingly was a bigger player in our offense than we may have realized.
Totally agree w/ you that the Packers offense won’t look the same again until next year… I’ve tried to emphasize this point in the past, but nobody wanted to hear it… Hopefully, now they will… Its just not that easy to take the best weapon out of an offense designed largely around his talents and expect similar results!!!
Neither McCarthy or Rodgers will ever use it as an excuse, but it is simply undeniable!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
50 percent?
68 percent of this comment believes that this inherently false
4 hours 5 minutes? Is that all? Buehrle coulda pitched three CGs and the bottom of the 14th in Houston by then. FTMFYITA! - RWShow
I don't recall anyone saying the Finley wasn't important to the offense
Of course he is. There aren’t many NFL players with his skill set. That being said, the Packers managed to move the ball through the air before Finley. We have enough good WR (and at least serviceable TEs) to still be a great passing team.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Heres the thing you have to realize.
McCarthy came into the NFL in KC… While he was there, they had this certain TE named Tony Gonzalez! A HOF TE whom KC built their entire offense around when he was in his prime! Seriously is it any wonder that McCarthy would use a TE w/ a very similar skill set as Gonzalez to build his offense around?! I highly doubt it… McCarthy saw first hand how a TE like that can dominate the offense he’s in and the defense they are facing!
Take a look at Finley and Gonzo. Both are 6’5 and 245-250, very athletic and very fast for their size. They are almost exactly the same player as far as talents and skills! Is it any wonder that McCarthy has always had such a preference for TE that are more reciever than an All around TE? McCarthy grew into being a coach while Gonzalez was dominating the game!
Now think back to the KC offense when Gonzalz was in it… And think about taking Gonzalez out of that offense… How do you think that offense would operate minus Gonzalez? It would be very sporatic, at best! Probably, not much different than our is right now! We may have a better reciever corp behind Finley than what was behind Gonzo, but both offenses were built to specifically (in my opinion) to utilize their skills!
Its just not that easy to remove that big of a piece of the offense and expect them to continue to be productive, much less to adapt to it seemlessly, like most seem to think it should! Wonder why the Packers offense is struggling? No reason too… Its Finley!!!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
KC
KC liked to run the ball a lot back then too. McCarthy sure didn’t carry over that aspect to his offense :)
Um...
MM was an offensive quality control coach from 93-94 and a quarterbacks coach from 95-98. Gonzo was a rookie in 97. MM wasn’t in KC while Gonzo was in his prime.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Ummm…he was a QB coach then, not an OC. Lets not try to make it sound like he was developing some great schemes with Gonzalez . He was there to coach QBs and that was it. ON top of that. Gonzalez was drafted in 1997, McCarthy left in 1998 so they overlapped for 2 seasons and Gonzalez was NOT a dominant TE while he was there. His final season in KC, 1998, Gonzalez had 59 receptions for about 600 yds…a good year but he wasn’t dominating the league.
Schemes
Didn’t say he developed the schemes, just that he was heavily influenced by the use of Gonzalez.
Looked at McCarthys bio on Packers.com. He was there in 93 and the next thing it said was 2000 w/ Saints I believe. Where was he from 98 – 00?
You've been Stroh'd!!!
He was QB coach for GB in 99
so 98 KC QB coach, 99 GB QB coach, 00 Saints OC. And I think it’s ridiculous to say he was “heavily influenced” by a TE in his first two years in the league. He wasn’t more influenced by the previous 4 years he was a coach in KC?
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
While I don’t disagree with this, I think it was a mistake to build the entire offense around him. I think it’s hurt the rest of the guys on the offense. Even when Finley was healthy, our offense was still sputtering. He drew two, sometimes three guys up the seam and yet Rodgers would still try to force it in there. At times it was like he was looking for nobody but Finley, which I’m sure was McCarthy’s attitude as well.
I saw a quote early on in the season, and I hated it. It went something like, “JerMichael is one of those guys that you can throw open.” Meaning even when he’s not open, you can throw the ball to him and he’ll catch it. Don’t get me wrong though. I don’t hate the fact that Finley can still catch a ball despite being double or triple teamed. I hate the fact that Rodgers still seemed to be throwing/forcing it too him when he in fact was being double/triple teamed. If he’s receiving attention from three, or even two guys that means somebody else is in single coverage. Probably more than one guy too. So go and look for them! Take the simple, underneath throw if it’s there. Rodgers hasn’t consistently done it this season, with or without Finley, and it’s hurt us.
Having an entire offense built around Finley hurt Jennings too. I think it’s interesting that when Finley appeared to be the focus, Jennings was rather quiet. After Finley went down, and Jennings started to become the focus he has started to produce. I guess what I’m ultimately trying to get at, is that both of them are supremely talented, and both can produce if their the focus. What I think McCarthy has struggled to do, is build an offense around BOTH of them as opposed to just one or the other.
by packallday555 on Nov 4, 2010 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Bet you weren’t complaining end of last year when Finley was the dominant figure in the offense! And BTW, Jennings did extremely well at the same time!!! Having Finley as the offenses equivalent of Gonzo, gave Jennings alot of open spaces w/ which to work! And he used them to his advantage! Both Finley and Jennings were putting up monster numbers at the time. For whatever reason, that didn’t translate early this season, like it had last year. But this years offense was undoubtedly built around the model created the final 6-8 gmaes last year when both Finley and Jennings dominated!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Actually, I remember Jennings have pretty similar stats our last 8 games in comparison to our first 8 games. I just think either too much of it was focused on Finley (play calling wise) or Rodgers was just too dialed in to Finley.
BTW- I wasn’t complaining last year because in the last half of the season we reverted back to what we do best. Dink and dunk all game, and when the defense cheats a bit THEN go deep. Not the other way around. We also used Finley in many different roles last season, which I didn’t really see this season. I remember lining him up, and absolutely dominating when running a slant route. He’s so fast and so big. He’d basically just block the guy out with his body and make the catch. I also remember lining him up out wide in the red zone and throwing him some lobs, which worked great.
I don’t remember seeing any of that this season really. I think part of the reason for that may be that he’s kind of settling into his “true” tight end role more. He’s improved as a blocker, and has become the every down tight end, which wasn’t the case until late last season. Still though, I would have loved to have seen us move him around more. I understand what a threat he is up the seam but when the coach and quarterback both seemed almost obsessed with getting him the ball no matter the circumstance, it’s going to end up hurting the offense.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 12:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Jennings
Had similar numbers as far as receptions, but his yardage increased significantly in the last half of the season! By more than 20% in fact… And that doesn’t include the playoff game where he had 8 -130 and 1 TD… Add that game and the difference is dramatic! That increased yardage had alot to do w/ Finleys presence on the field drawing attention and giving Jennings more space to work with!
The lob passes in the end zone for Finley wasn’t noticable cuz our offense in general wasn’t reaching the red zone much except against Buffalo maybe. And Finley was injured shortly after that… If Finley was so productive on slants as you suggest, Why would the Packers knowingly take those routes out? That makes no sense whatsoever!!!
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Actually, we’d been in the redzone quite a bit early on w/ Finley. And we struggled to finish off drives, which has been a problem we’ve had since 2008 really.
I’m not suggesting that we didn’t ever run him on slant routes anymore. I’m suggesting that we didn’t move him around enough like we did last season. Either you missed my point or I didn’t do a good enough job explaining it. I was just listing the slant and lob passes as support to my argument that we should move him around more. We did it a TON last season late, and it seemed to work out great.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think so.
I don’t think we were in the red zone much at all… I think we’ve been having too many problems on 3rd downs all season to get into the red zone! We haven’t been sustaining enough drives to have enough red zone attempts to say!
I remember the Packers moving Finley around quite a bit. He played out wide, he played slot, he lined up in the backfield a couple times, and he lined up in traditional TE spot… And they used motion w/ him too… Thats alot of moving him around.
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Maybe but even when we were in the red zone earlier this season, we were still struggling to finish drives off. It’s been a problem for a while now really.
I don’t ever remember him lining up out wide. We lined him up behind the OG a few times in the back field, and aside from that used him in the traditional spot. And like I said above, I’m sure a lot of that has to do with the fact that his blocking has improved. I think part of the reason we probably lined him up out wide last season was because his blocking was a bit suspect.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
hmm…pretty sure everyone in here knows how important Finley is to the offense. The good coaches can lose a weapon like him though and make adjustments. Look at the Patriots, they lost Moss and he’s completely changed their style of offense to match what is there now. Check out Indy…they lose Clark and its like nothing happened (they’ve had major WRs/TEs missing all year). With Finley going down, he has to have the team prepared to change their style to fit the weapons that are there.
I guess the key with both those teams is the QB…Brady and Manning are both elite QBs and Rodgers is still working his way there. Maybe its just the experience of the QB that makes the difference.
ON top of that…who bases 50% (as you say) of their offense around the talents of one player…especially one that hasn’t made it through a season yet? That was probably a mistake then, which might be just what we are learning now. But even before he went down, the offense still looked like it was in a funk this season.
Patriots were hardly using Moss at all this year!!!
He was more or less a decoy in their offense this season! How many good games has Moss had? The patriots knew they weren’t going to have Moss after this year and made a clear transition to other players and away from Moss. They clearly made the change in their offense from a Mosscentric offense to one similar to when they won the SB’s in the offseason! That was clear in wk 1, when Welker had 2 TD’s and other players were more involved in the offense than Moss was too.
You've been Stroh'd!!!
Like Darrell L said, the Pack just need to go back to the basics of the west coast offense. The deep aren’t working n every time I see them convert 3rd downs is because of a short slant or screen pass. Especially when our running game is struggling thats even more reason to use the passing game like extended run plays by throwing short passes. Throw enough short passes n eventually the defense will start to come up, then you go deep n burn them for the TD. Our offense used to be the kings of this, why are we abandoning it now that we need it the most.
I agree with getting back to basics
they just need to go play and stop trying to be perfect. use jackson in the passing game and screen game. i like those TE screens too. rodgers, jackson, jennings, jones, nelson, lee. those are still pretty decent names out there. Seems like DD will eventually be back. I think the offense could still be great, but it does seem like this season will go as far as the D carries it.
... "use Jackson in the passing game and screen game..."
i completely agree with that. It’s the only part of his game that’s above average, and those plays can crack the cover two and diminish the impact of a poor ground attack.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 5, 2010 7:22 AM CDT up reply actions
His blitz pickup
is also above average!
TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!
Oops
Meant that as a reply to
It’s the only part of his game that’s above average…by TSSC.
TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!
A Page From Peyton
Nobody cares if the Packers have been unfairly hit by by injuries. You know, part of the NFL, yada yada. But it is the truth. Someone goes down, someone else steps up. That’s what hasn’t happened. No one, including Rodgers, has stepped up. Jones and Driver have had dropsies. Quarless demonstrates every game that he just isn’t an NFL player, plus dogs it on special teams. Play Crabtree, please. Put Jackson in the passing game. You have to play your “offense” before you declare it doesn’t work. When the Colts lose a key player, and they’ve lost several, they don’t miss a beat, and they don’t toss the playbook.
Actually people do care…I hear it mentioned by every commentator when talking about the team. SOME injuries are expected but 10 players on IR (including 5 starters) along with the other various injuries is more than just the expected amounts. It makes our record and recent success very impressive though.
Trevor, the injuries won’t even garner an asterisk if the Packers fail to make the playoffs. Who’s stepped up?
Crabtree, Bishop, Peprah, Shields, Wilson, Green (though he’ll need to do it for more then one week), and Hawk, who I can’t believe has actually stepped up.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Oops! Yes, Buluga has stepped his play up.
I’d say Quarless is a fringe guy in this category. He’s made some plays but he’s also had some drops and penalties too. Hard to blame him for the holding. It generally takes tight ends a while to get used to the speed and strength of the game but the drops aren’t ever ok.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, put it this way: Quarless was stepping up and then he got injured too, which forced more guys to step up, which they have. It’s deep team with heart and cohesion. …which is exactly what you’re looking for when you build through the draft.
by Curly Lambeau on Nov 5, 2010 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Who’s stepped up? Are you serious?
PAD555 covered it pretty well so I’ll just let his words do the talking.
Yeah, hard to come up with guys on offense aside from Buluga and Crabtree.
by packallday555 on Nov 5, 2010 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions
stepping up?
what is the criteria of stepping up? some think by just stepping on the field quantifies.
imo——the players that have stepped up are bishop, peprah, matthews, williams and raji. these players are playing better than thought or are playing at a higher level than last years performance. and i also think that collins is playing solidly as he did last year.
other than sitton and possibly wells, the whole offense has regressed either by lack of execution of plays or lack of talent. i could throw bulaga in their, but in my opinion, not a big enough sample size to make a judgement, but so far the rookie seems to be holding his own.
One can and should make a huge list of guys who have “stepped up” on defense. However, when discussing the offense it’s a different matter. Of course, Bulaga, but c’mon, that should be a given. Rodgers, Driver, Jones, Quarless, have not stepped up the game. I’m starting to get concerned about AR. He has definately deteriorated back there. Against the Jets he threw the ball away like 7 times. On replay, guys were open all over the place. Somethings going on in his head which is not good.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
