another torturous win

by Nels Winkler on Nov 6, 2011 9:45 PM CST

although I never had a fingernail biting moment during the game, we gave up too many points. My observations...

#1. Our offensive line must give Rodgers better protection. They're doing an allright job, but if we have a RB in to help in blocking, 4 rushers should not be allowed to get close to him more often than not. I've grown very tired of seeing defensive linemen do some stupid dance when they sack our guy despite the fact that they're down by 21 points.

#2. We need to run the ball a little more at the onset of the game. We need to show opposing teams that we're not afraid to run the ball. Starks started the game strong, with 25 early yards. Give him and Grant an opportunity to make opposing safeties feel as though they have to cover the run, then play-action will be more effective and we will continue to kill opponents.

#3. If the blitz is not working on a consisten basis during any particular drive, give up on it until you can talk to your team on the sideline to adjust your strategies. Far too often, I've seen our guys just run right into the line with seemingly no chance whatsoever of getting to the QB.

#4. If we are going up against a dominant TE (i.e. Gates, Graham, similar mold), have our 4th pass rusher (i.e. Clay Matthews) line up over the TE, and smash him at the line. From that point, the rusher can go after the QB. After that point, have another LB/S punch him again before he gets 5 yards, and cover him tight man. This will take the TE out of the equation on passing plays becuase their timing will be way out of wack.

#5. We have to have better communication in the secondary. We are seriously missing Nick Collins back there. So many big plays today would have been adverted if Nick had not gotten hurt. We've got to have someone quickly get used to being in his spot.

If we are able to fix these problems, I can't see why we can't win the next 11 games this season.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

pass protection

I think our o-line has exceeded expectations this year given the injury to Clifton. Most if not all of the sacks today were A-Rods fault. I think you are reaching with your first observation.

by tmoneyttime1 on Nov 6, 2011 9:49 PM CST reply actions

First poster is right on pass protection...

Rodgers holds on to the ball an awful long time. I’m one of the guys that doesn’t mind really…he in on pace for 5,000 yards 48 TDs and 6 ints. So that “problem” is hardly holding us back.

“Running the ball better” is an ongoing stupid joke. It takes the ball out of Rodgers’ hands. Take a look at the chargers game, when the Chargers became one dimensional in the 2nd half (ZOMG ONE DIMENSIONAL, what do we do????) they had their best drives of the game, practically unstoppable.

The rest of your post is just dumb. You don’t stop guys like Antonio Gates, you don’t stop the Adrian Petersons…everything you’ve suggested was tried during the game and it didn’t work b/c Gates is a HOF’er.

We’ve run 14 in a row all ready. I think they already know what it takes to win the next 11.

by PackFaninFL on Nov 6, 2011 10:35 PM CST reply actions

I agree with all of your points besides the one on Gates.

While I understand Dom wants to be complex in his schemes… I would kind of like to have Wood shadow those play making TE’s (like Graham and Gates). Bishop simply can’t cover them the majority of the game.

Also on an unrelated note… how do we constantly lose track of opponents big time receivers? Jackson and Gates were wide open on far too many plays. Nothing to freak out about… but it just seems odd when guys like Roddy White and Vincent Jackson are running free.

SUPER BOWL CHAMPS

by Chief Oshkosh on Nov 6, 2011 11:01 PM CST up reply actions

I'd agree on doubling Gates or putting C-Wood on him

However, having Clay pop him at the line is just stupid. When GB is struggling so much with pass rush as it is, why would you slow down your best pass rusher. Overall, the fanpost seems to be reaching…

I think the reason for the WRs running free is a lack of communication between the CB and S. Two touchdowns appeared to be due to the fact that Williams tried to jump the underneath route, leaving the deep route open. I’m not sure if that’s Williams getting too aggressive or the safety over the top missing an assignment. Either way, it needs to be fixed.

"I'm here to talk about the economy today -- about the need to get four quarters of strong, consistent performance. That wasn't another Jay Cutler joke, I swear. It could be, but it's not."

by Kuhl on Nov 7, 2011 9:29 AM CST up reply actions

Not a lack of communication...

Actually its not miscommunication or lack of it thats the problem.

Its more about blown coverages. The communication was fine, but on some plays certain players didn’t play their responsibilities as defined in the D. The Packers are communicating fine, but there are repeated breakdowns in personal responsibilities. That actually gives more hope for a fix, than if it was a miscommunication.

From PackerNews.com… "On all three plays, cornerback Tramon Williams was the closest man in coverage, but on all three he was supposed to get help from the safeties. For instance, the 38-yard post pattern in the first quarter came on a third-and-one play where safety Charlie Peprah bit hard on a run fake."

And Tramon… “We just have to play our jobs,” Williams said. “If all the communication is right, then during the play if you don’t do your assignment communication doesn’t matter”.

This indicates that the problems are easier to fix than if they were miscommunications.

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20111106/PKR01/111106067/Notebook-We-need-turn-Matthews-loose-Woodson-says?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Nov 7, 2011 10:20 AM CST up reply actions

There was one on Burnett too.

On one of the Vincent Jackson TD’s, it appeared initially that Tramon had Burnett for over-the-top coverage. Burnett bit on the out instead of taking the flag route or whatever Jackson was running. Tramon did what he was supposed to and go for the out, but realized “awww crap Morgan bit on that. Gotta try to recover.” So it looked like Tramon got burnt, but it was Burnett.

That dog just won't hunt.

by Bush League All Star on Nov 7, 2011 11:35 AM CST up reply actions

It does look like there should be safety help

I’d probably put some of it on Tramon though as well. On the two TDs I’m thinking of (deep pass to wide open Vincent Jackson and goal line pass with a TE/FB/RB[?] in front of him) Tramon appeared to jump the short route after the ball was in the air. It almost looked like he was having trouble gauging the flight of the ball.

"I'm here to talk about the economy today -- about the need to get four quarters of strong, consistent performance. That wasn't another Jay Cutler joke, I swear. It could be, but it's not."

by Kuhl on Nov 8, 2011 10:41 AM CST up reply actions

"Running the ball better" is an ongoing stupid joke. It takes the ball out of Rodgers’ hands. Take a look at the chargers game, when the Chargers became one dimensional in the 2nd half (ZOMG ONE DIMENSIONAL, what do we do????) they had their best drives of the game, practically unstoppable.

And this is an argument against us running the ball? I’m not getting it. Aside from your misguided hatred of the running game, it is important. It closed out the Minnesota game. More importantly, to use your example, because Rivers and the Charger passing game went right down the field, a good running game keeps them off the field. Just like a good opponent running game can keep Rodgers off the field.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Nov 6, 2011 11:11 PM CST up reply actions

I don't get it either

McCarthy seems to think he can just break out the running game when he needs it late in the game. I am a firm believer in letting the RBs get into a rhythm early in the game and they will often be more effective when needed late in the game.

by Ben T on Nov 7, 2011 9:22 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah, I’d like to see a little more of it in the future. We are going to need that balance at some point…helps to keep our D a little more fresh too.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Nov 7, 2011 12:30 PM CST up reply actions

I just don’t get it because Starks was tearing them up, especially early on. I mean, we still went and scored on most of the drives so it might be nitpicking, but it would be nice to mix some more runs in there to run more clock. Why not if we’re getting positive yards ya know?

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Nov 7, 2011 5:32 PM CST up reply actions

I think so too...

if for no other reason than to give the opponent less opportunites. I mean, we can score at will anyway, so why give the opponent chances to keep up?

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Nov 7, 2011 7:20 PM CST up reply actions

it's not about that.

it’s about getting one of the safeties inside the box, and making then think run first. if they refuse to do that, we should be able to run on them all day.

by Nels Winkler on Nov 7, 2011 9:33 PM CST up reply actions

Do you really need to call the post dumb?

Ease up, dude.

by Ben T on Nov 7, 2011 9:23 AM CST up reply actions

Jamming the TE works well in HS and college ball,

but NFL TEs are usually the biggest non-linemen athletes on the field. If you figure that the average size of an NFL TE is 6’3" and 250lbs, they’re going to have a huge physical advantage against anyone who’s not a D-lineman in terms of getting off the ball. Even Charles Woodson would have difficulty chucking Gates at the line, and the LBs (Hawk, Bishop, etc.) are way too slow – they’d be left in the dust after two steps.

That’s part of the reason Finley works so well on this offense: he’s too big to cover straight up, too strong to jam at the line, and too fast for the few defensive players that could match up with him physically. But like you said, Finley is but one of several skilled TEs out there (Gates, Graham, Witten are a few), and we’ve seen that the only way to truly cover him is with a fast LB underneath and safety help over the top.

http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.

by Mitchell Maurer on Nov 7, 2011 8:49 AM CST reply actions

Yeah the only way you are jamming a TE is with a LB…and if you miss or the jam is a poor one, you are going to be in BIG trouble down the field.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Nov 7, 2011 12:32 PM CST up reply actions

Remember the shot Bishop took on the TE going to the flat?

LOL just blew him up!

That dog just won't hunt.

by Bush League All Star on Nov 7, 2011 12:38 PM CST up reply actions

Such a sweet play!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Nov 7, 2011 2:36 PM CST up reply actions

Really?

It gave Kansas City the advantage in the passing game against those same Chargers last week. They had two linebackers or a lb/safety combo bracketing gates on the line. he couldn’t help but get jammed becuase to his left and to his right were guys smashing him in the chest. He may have had 2 receptions all game. I’m not saying that was the end all of our problems, but it would certainly help if we smashed his face in a bit.

by Nels Winkler on Nov 7, 2011 1:57 PM CST up reply actions

They also had a better pass rush than we’ve had so far…

by the way, Gates finished with 4 catches for 73 yards. So they doubled him up all game and he still got three qtrs of the way to 100 yards.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Nov 7, 2011 2:39 PM CST up reply actions

at least two of those catches were against zone/single coverage.

the plays i saw him doubuled were plays i saw him fighting just to get off the line. can’t catch a pass like that.

by Nels Winkler on Nov 7, 2011 9:35 PM CST up reply actions

So your plan is to double cover their TE on every play?

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Nov 7, 2011 11:11 PM CST up reply actions

Against Gates, probably not a horrible idea.

If there’s a LB covering him, I would want help on him. CB/S I could see leaving him in single, but you’ll probably get burned a time or two with that.

13.

Grossman: Sup, you insulin needing bitch! The sex cannon has arrived! Now get the hell out of my locker room, you chinless mother fucker!

by Wiedmann on Nov 8, 2011 1:21 AM CST up reply actions

correct. you're telling me that having bush / bishop combo on gates wouldn't limit him to only 1-2 catches?

Have bishop slam him at the line, then play him tight man, with bush in a zone cloud behind him, free to engage others if he sees bishop covering the play well.

by Nels Winkler on Nov 8, 2011 1:14 PM CST up reply actions

only when playing elite TEs

Gates, Jimmy Graham, guys like these are the greatest threat on the team. I’d make the WR’s on those teams try to beat us. I would also have Shields and Williams playing a little tighter, trying not to intercept the ball, instead focusing on solid covering

by Nels Winkler on Nov 8, 2011 1:02 PM CST up reply actions

So what happens with Darren Sproles and Colston then? Same goes for Mathews and V Jackson. I could see some zone safety help over the top but to actually double team him all game I think really opens us up to them abusing us with other quality players. Both these teams have great QBs and lots of weapons. Its not like Gates is the guy that killed us in this last game, it was Vincent Jackson.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Nov 8, 2011 3:08 PM CST up reply actions

Mathews wasn't in the game; Tramon in man wouldn't be the worst thing on Jackson/Colston

Sproles is a tough match-up, really, the only guy who could cover him properly would be Shields, but if he doesn’t leave the backfield, you’re essentially wasting one of your best cover guys on a team with lots of weapons.

13.

Grossman: Sup, you insulin needing bitch! The sex cannon has arrived! Now get the hell out of my locker room, you chinless mother fucker!

by Wiedmann on Nov 8, 2011 4:04 PM CST up reply actions