Packers Offense Recap: Rodgers Rolls Over The Falcons

by Brandon on Jan 17, 2011 2:00 PM CST in Green Bay Packers Analysis

As great as the Green Bay Packers defense played on Saturday, QB Aaron Rodgers played so well that the Falcons offense would have been hard pressed to keep up on offense even if the Packers defense had an off-game. But before I write more glowing praise about Rodgers, let's get the bad news out of the way. First, the Packers couldn't run the ball, and second the offense was too conservative down the stretch. And here's why neither was as bad as it seemed.

RB James Starks had a huge game against the Eagles in the Wild Card playoff game, but was held to a 2.6 ypc last Saturday. One APC post gave the rushing attack a C-grade, but that's far too generous. The good news is that this was still a huge improvement over their meeting back in November. Whether it was their defensive line, or their commitment to stopping the run (at the expense of their pass defense), the Packers have been at their worst when trying to run block the Falcons.

The second complaint about a conservative offense down the stretch was from me. Against the Eagles, I thought the Packers spent far too much time trying to run out the clock, and were far too conservative. While they again ran out the clock in the fourth quarter against the Falcons, this time they actually threw a little bit more, and they had a much bigger lead. Neither complaint is a major one, but both are something to work on.

Here's how the offense did over the four quarters:

Quarter	Total Offensive Plays	Total Yards	Points Scored	TOP
First	11	80	0	6:06
Second	22	188	28	10:18
Third	20	130	14	11:20
Fourth	16	44	6	10:35

More after the jump, and more on this game from The Falcoholic.

Four Quarters

The offense had it's least productive quarter when the Falcons received the opening kickoff, and forced a turnover on the third offensive play of the game (WR Greg Jennings when he was caught from behind on his 30 yard reception). The result was that the Falcons offense had the ball for most of the first quarter. The good news was that the Packers had it for the final five minutes, and had some early success running with Starks and RB Brandon Jackson which moved them into Falcons territory to end the quarter.

Rodgers opened the second quarter with five completions, including a touchdown pass to WR Jordy Nelson. After a touchdown return by KR Eric Weems is followed by a muffed kickoff by Starks, Rodgers leads the offense down the field for 92 yards and another touchdown. Two big pass plays, one to WR Donald Driver and another to WR James Jones (no drops!), moved them down the field, and two penalties on Falcons CB Christopher Owens set up the 1 yard touchdown run by FB John Kuhn. The third touchdown of the quarter had three long receptions of exactly 20 yards each to three different receivers, ending with the touchdown pass to Jones over CB Brent Grimes.

The third quarter starts off with another long touchdown drive by the Packers. No big plays, but two big 3rd down passes (one to Jones, another to Nelson) that kept the drive alive, and led to a touchdown run by Rodgers. After a shanked punt gives the Packers their best field position of the game (starting at mid-field, no other drive had started better than their own 20 yard line), Rodgers finds Driver for another 20+ yard reception before he threw a touchdown pass to Kuhn on a pass out in the right flat. For the game, Kuhn touched the ball four times and scored two touchdowns. Unfortunately, he suffered a stinger on the touchdown reception and was out for the rest of the game.

The fourth quarter was all about conservative play calling and great field position. The Falcons failed on an onside kick (due to a penalty), and two fumbles by their offense, gave the Packers the ball in Falcons territory for all but the final play of the fourth quarter. It lead to three field goal attempts, but only two made as a 50 yard attempt bounced off the left upright. The Packers did manage to throw for one first down, so it wasn't all about running out the clock (which at least I was glad to see).

Individual Analysis

QB Aaron Rodgers. 31 for 36, 366 yards, 3 TDs (plus 1 rushing TD), and no turnovers. Epic.

WR Greg Jennings. While he led them in receiving yards, he also had that early fumble which set up the Falcons first touchdown drive. Something to work on this week.

WRs Donald Driver, Jordy Nelson, and James Jones. Rodgers attempted 18 passes to those 3 receivers, and they caught all 18. In a season when drops have been a minor problem, this was a huge game for them. All three totaled 75 or more yards, and Nelson and Jones each had a touchdown reception.

FB John Kuhn. It's the dirty work, but he's been a short yardage demon in a season when the Packers did have some problems in short yardage situations. Hopefully his stinger is not too serious.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Where will the Bears attack our Defense?

I’m moving on to the Bears relatively quickly here. I’m wondering how the Bears will attack our defense. Every defense has a flaw, and that applies to ours as well. I recall after the Philly game where analysists pointed out that the middle of the field is always most vulnerable to our defense. During the Atlanta game the analysists again pointed it out, but Matt Ryan for one reason or another didn’t attack us there often. One would think Mike Martz would attack it this weekend. Considering TE Greg Olsen is coming off a huge game against Seattle, will we have issues covering him again?

Why has Dom Capers left the middle of the field vulnerable? Will Capers be able to make in game adjustments if the Bears are attacking it? What other flaws have you seen that we need to keep our eyes on? Please note this is not intended to spark any negativitiy, instead, it’s to cover our back because our defense can be beat.

Lastly, is it me or did James Starks really have to work extra hard just to get 2.6 ypc? Atlanta really focused on stopping the run, and you could clearly see it. The result: Rodgers was able to have so much success through the air. I didn’t think Starks had a good game by any means, largely because that OL blocking was horrendous, but he did just enough to keep the defense honest and keep Rodgers in sync.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

REVENGE 4 DEANNA !!!
Brent Favre is the cheater!!!!!

by Jabooty on Jan 17, 2011 2:50 PM CST reply actions

I think you hit the nail on the head w/ the Starks analysis

It’s not so much a revamped/renewed running game that James Starks brings to the table… its the THREAT of one that he brings. It was obvious in Atlanta, that the presence of Starks made the defense have to respect our run game and it did indeed open up the passing game which is our bread and butter

Fire Slocum

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Jan 17, 2011 3:01 PM CST up reply actions

Wasn't I the one that said that? ;-)

I agree that he doesn’t bring an automatic 4 ypc, 100 ypg rushing attack. But even though he didn’t do a whole lot overall, he made some really nice runs in the game. He is just so much more dynamic than anything we’ve had there this year. Teams do have to concentrate on him if they want to stop the run, which opens up the entire field for Aaron and the WR corps.

Go Suns, Packers, Jays, and Huskers!

And go Shawn Watson and Barney Cotton! Seriously, leave Lincoln. Now.

by Omaha Sun on Jan 18, 2011 10:47 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, I don't get the "C- is too generous for Starks" bit

This was perhaps the first time since the early weeks that a defense actually felt they had to gameplan for a Packers RB. And it showed. Starks took their attention off the passing game for just a little bit, and seemed to open up the play action game as well.

And that 2.6 YPC wasn’t Brandon Jackson dancing behind the line of scrimmage then getting stopped for no gain. This was Starks seemingly getting stopped behind the line of scrimmage then moving the pile for a couple yards. Something no Packers RB has done all year long.

by Packers3485 on Jan 17, 2011 3:07 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

exactly

Just mentioned this to a friend. He got hit behind the line, but still powered forward for a few yards. Was pretty impressive.

Chicago has a great d-line and are very good against that run, but I remember at least two runs from Starks of at least 10 yds that were called back because of Bulaga when we played Chicago last game of the year. He just fought through some tacklers and turned up field.

With 15+ runs it will help keep them honest. Again, may not turn into 100+ yds, but the Bears will have to show a little respect, unlike when BJax is in the game. I like him as a 3rd down back, but falls down if you look at him the wrong way.

Tough game coming up.

Don’t believe the hype Packers, just play your game!

by Acme on Jan 17, 2011 3:53 PM CST up reply actions

I think Starks deserved better, but.....

the Falcons were constantly dropping 7 or 8 into coverage, which to me means that they didn’t respect or even game plan much for the run. Our backfield was excellent at picking up blitzes therefore the backs themselves deserved better grades. The “run game” and run blocking was pitiful though, I have to agree with Brandon on that.

"Flopped out my old fella."
-- New Zealand lawn bowler David File, on exposing himself to teammates because they were playing poorly

by Prince Fielder is Skinny on Jan 17, 2011 7:46 PM CST up reply actions

Run blocking

Was definitely poor… Has been pretty much all year. But Starks is the main reason this game was so much different than the previous Atl game! Atlanta absolutely had to game plan and play run 1st… Otherwise Starks would have been able to do more. Rodgers in this game had 234 passing yds in the 1st half! What did he have in the 1st half of the earlier matchup? Packers recievers were ALOT more open this time around due to Starks having to be accounted for! Not too mention that the play action had to be taken literally and not ignored like the 1st game… Alot of that is due to STarks running. No he didn’t put up big numbers, but he made them honor him and that opened up alot of room for Rodgers and the passing game!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Jan 17, 2011 8:02 PM CST up reply actions

Stroh, I like him, I know you love him,

but dropping 7 or 8 guys isn’t really “respecting” or “honoring” the run game.

"Flopped out my old fella."
-- New Zealand lawn bowler David File, on exposing himself to teammates because they were playing poorly

by Prince Fielder is Skinny on Jan 17, 2011 8:39 PM CST up reply actions

You don't have to have 8 guys in the box to respect the run game

It’s all about the defenders mental awareness. That’s where the playaction comes in. If you know they can’t run it, you simply assume every play is a pass unless the RB has the ball. If you know they can run it, then you are on your heels….especially the DE. It buys time for the QB and gives the WR’s an advantage to get open as well.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

REVENGE 4 DEANNA !!!
Brent Favre is the cheater!!!!!

by Jabooty on Jan 17, 2011 9:28 PM CST up reply actions

If they were dropping 7 or 8 like the first game, Rodgers wouldn't have had such a HUGE game Sunday!

They had to be aware of Starks and in doing that it created the extra room that Rodgers and the WR didn’t have the first game!! Starks was the only real difference between the teams since they met in wk 12! Thats why Rodgers and the WR had such huge days this time around! Otherwise there is no reason it shouldn’t have been a very similar game!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Jan 17, 2011 9:41 PM CST up reply actions

Well, the way Rodgers played, it didn’t really matter what the Falcons did on defense. Seemed like their original plan was to blitz, but after Rodgers burned that a 4 or 5 times, they got away from that pretty quick.

But yeah, there’s no doubt that Starks is helping Rodgers out. Teams know he can rip them, and that’s ultimately all that really matters

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Jan 17, 2011 9:53 PM CST up reply actions

Also another little nugget,

Moobs loves him some passing, he could give a shit less about running the ball, it’s almost like he does it just to show the fans that we have a few running backs. Nothing more. Much like Andy Reid, has options at RB, refuses to use them. Does anyone beleive that James Starks is really a RB that demands tons of attention in the film room? Opposing coaches have much greater things to worry about when game planning against the Packers. When teams focus on beating the Packers, they focus on stopping Aaron Rodgers, not our run game. No different than game planning for the Eagles, Colts, or the Patriots.

"Flopped out my old fella."
-- New Zealand lawn bowler David File, on exposing himself to teammates because they were playing poorly

by Prince Fielder is Skinny on Jan 17, 2011 8:46 PM CST up reply actions

The difference

I felt the difference was a Packer defense that came to play as they have the previous 5 or 6 weeks and a Aaron Rogers who played lights out. I don’t think it was because they were respecting the run, Rogers put the ball exactly where it had to be each and everytime whether he was scrambling, back pedaling, or standing in the pocket.

by the yooper on Jan 17, 2011 9:53 PM CST up reply actions

I don’t think anyone is saying that he had a great game……Ok, maybe Stroh is arguing that :)

I’m just saying, that those runs where he was only getting 0 to 3 yards, would have been -3 to 0 yards with someone like B-Jax back there. He has that “always push/fall forward” quality that we have sorely been lacking all year long, with only very few exceptions.

by Packers3485 on Jan 17, 2011 9:18 PM CST up reply actions

Valid points,

but we are pretty much saying our run game went from very bad to poor. I’m a big fan of him, I hope he pans out. It would be great for him to somehow break out this weekend in Chicago, because if he does, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell we lose the game.

"Flopped out my old fella."
-- New Zealand lawn bowler David File, on exposing himself to teammates because they were playing poorly

by Prince Fielder is Skinny on Jan 17, 2011 9:23 PM CST up reply actions

but we are pretty much saying our run game went from very bad to poor.

Agreed. Just that, going from Schofield’s previous grading, the C- definitely isn’t generous. He gave a D for our last game against the Bears, and a D+ for the Lions debacle. I’d say that the running game on Saturday was definitely at least a little better than those.

Now, if we’re going under the assumption that the rushing “attack” in almost all of our previous games should be graded as an F (a valid assumption), then I could agree that a C- is generous. In that case, a D might be warranted.

by Packers3485 on Jan 17, 2011 9:49 PM CST up reply actions

Never said Starks had a great game!

But he did good considering that Atl had to honor the run and our OL couldn’t run block to save their lives!! Starks did just enough to keep them honest and that opened up the passing and playaction games! Thats what I’ve been trying to say all along!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Jan 17, 2011 9:51 PM CST up reply actions

I don't have a problem with the playcalling in the 4th

The Packers had the ball for 10:35 in the final quarter.

by Zundar on Jan 17, 2011 3:32 PM CST reply actions

+1

Can’t ask for much more that that.

"Flopped out my old fella."
-- New Zealand lawn bowler David File, on exposing himself to teammates because they were playing poorly

by Prince Fielder is Skinny on Jan 17, 2011 7:47 PM CST up reply actions

Yes, I agree this was a HUGE improvement over the Eagles game.

by Wiedmann on Jan 18, 2011 2:55 AM CST up reply actions

28 points in the 2nd quarter.

But one of those was a defensive score. I think if we are looking at the offense only, we need to correct that to say that the offense was responsible for 21 points in that quarter.

...in accordance with the prophecy.

by Twins4Life on Jan 17, 2011 3:42 PM CST reply actions

Over the past 5 years

5 of the 10 representatives in the NFC Championship Game will have come from the NFC North. That is half, and much better than the NFC East (2), NFC South (2) and NFC West (1).

How about a little love for the NFC North from the national media now??

"Coach Gundy, why was Oklahoma able to march right down the field against you?" --Erin Andrews

by dishingoutdimes on Jan 17, 2011 10:08 PM CST reply actions