Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
2 Pages12>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
MintBaconDrivel  
#1 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 5:00:24 AM(UTC)
JerseyAl said:
In the shadow of the last two postseason losses, I’ve seen a number of Green Bay Packers fans itching for Ted Thompson to make some big roster moves. Their basic premise is that star quarterback Aaron Rodgers doesn’t have much time left to get to another Super Bowl. It’s either now or never if the team wants to make another serious run at it.
nerdmann  
#2 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:19:34 AM(UTC)
Packers_RSS said: Go to Quoted Post


There is some urgency, but when a QB pisses a season away statwhoring, I tend not to feel so bad for him.

Favre for instance pissed away more than one Conference Championship.
play2win  
#3 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:34:03 AM(UTC)
nerdmann, your stat whoring premise is not something readily embraced. But, you may have a point.

For years I was pissed at Mike Sherman for not running the ball more. Really pissed. It wasn't until after he was gone that I realized it may have been Favre checking out of run plays to pass instead. That seems more plausible.

Now, is Rodgers falling into the same trap, wanting to throw, checking out of designated run plays for the pass option? It is possible. I just feel the Head Coach has got to have a firm handle on that, and it is McCarthy's task to insure we have a more balanced run/pass attack. At least, I would hope he would see that. This is a huge problem in Green Bay IMO. I feel our offense should establish more of a run oriented approach. Take some of the heat off of Rodgers, and dictate more to a defense, rather than the other way around. We get pass happy and we get predictable. We haven't been running enough to establish the run as a dominant part of our offense. We just haven't, and it shows.

That should come to an end. I hope Mike McCarthy changes that for us in Green Bay, and that Ted lands a punishing back and maybe some better talent on the OL to help make it a reality.

As for raw stat whoring, I would think Rodgers has more character in those situations than Favre. Favre seemed to be all about Favre. Rodgers doesn't seem that way.
Porforis  
#4 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:53:53 AM(UTC)
I'd post our run-pass stats for the 14th time but people just ignore anything that flies in the face of what they've convinced is true so meh.
nerdmann  
#5 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:25:28 AM(UTC)
Porforis said: Go to Quoted Post
I'd post our run-pass stats for the 14th time but people just ignore anything that flies in the face of what they've convinced is true so meh.


Is there a stat for holding onto the ball 8+ seconds even when there's guys open underneath?
Porforis  
#6 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:39:10 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Is there a stat for holding onto the ball 8+ seconds even when there's guys open underneath?


No, but they're working on it. They're going to start tracking it once they start tracking pointless interceptions thrown into triple coverage when there's people open underneath or the ball can be thrown away. Also, people aren't just sitting there underneath as much as you'd like to think.

http://packershome.com/y...coverage.aspx#post225271

Saw that crap for the better part of the season - WRs get disrupted at the point of attack, Rodgers needs to go to his 3rd or 4th read if he's lucky or more likely, has to scramble around to avoid the sack after 2 seconds.

Summary: Rodgers isn't perfect, he oftentimes tries to make things happen when he should just throw the ball away and sometimes he ignores the shallow routes. But considering how much constant bitching I heard all season long about all of our routes being 10 yards deep or deeper, not sure how that meshes with your idea that this was a regular occurrence where he was just standing there in the pocket waiting for someone to get open 40 yards downfield. 2011 and to a lesser extent 2010? Sure, we forced it downfield way too much. 2012? We took a MUCH more balanced approach between running and passing - where we failed earlier on in the season is with a lack of quickly developing routes or quick outs for Rodgers.
play2win  
#7 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:11:14 AM(UTC)
Porforis said: Go to Quoted Post
No, but they're working on it. They're going to start tracking it once they start tracking pointless interceptions thrown into triple coverage when there's people open underneath or the ball can be thrown away. Also, people aren't just sitting there underneath as much as you'd like to think.

http://packershome.com/y...coverage.aspx#post225271

Saw that crap for the better part of the season - WRs get disrupted at the point of attack, Rodgers needs to go to his 3rd or 4th read if he's lucky or more likely, has to scramble around to avoid the sack after 2 seconds.

Summary: Rodgers isn't perfect, he oftentimes tries to make things happen when he should just throw the ball away and sometimes he ignores the shallow routes. But considering how much constant bitching I heard all season long about all of our routes being 10 yards deep or deeper, not sure how that meshes with your idea that this was a regular occurrence where he was just standing there in the pocket waiting for someone to get open 40 yards downfield. 2011 and to a lesser extent 2010? Sure, we forced it downfield way too much. 2012? We took a MUCH more balanced approach between running and passing - where we failed earlier on in the season is with a lack of quickly developing routes or quick outs for Rodgers.


You are definitely right Porforis. We ran quite a bit more than in 2011. From an attempts standpoint we ranked #16 in 2012 with 433 v. #27 in 2011 with 395. We were only #20 in yds at 1702 in 2012 v. #27 in 2011 with 1503 yds.

We had a lot of stuff going on offensively to deal with. Tons of injuries on OL, WR and at RB. Plus, teams had figured us out, knew how to defend us, forcing adjustments. All in all, our offense did fairly well considering, dropping to #13 in Total Offense in 2013 compared to #3 in 2011. FYI, in 2010 we were #9 overall (#24 rushing/#9 passing).

Our OL play needs to be better, and our RB play needs to improve. Play calling a more run heavy attack would be helpful. So would keeping our WRs, and everybody else healthy.
GBkrzygrl  
#8 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:20:40 AM(UTC)
play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
nerdmann, your stat whoring premise is not something readily embraced. But, you may have a point.

Now, is Rodgers falling into the same trap, wanting to throw, checking out of designated run plays for the pass option? It is possible. I just feel the Head Coach has got to have a firm handle on that, and it is McCarthy's task to insure we have a more balanced run/pass attack. At least, I would hope he would see that. This is a huge problem in Green Bay IMO. I feel our offense should establish more of a run oriented approach. Take some of the heat off of Rodgers, and dictate more to a defense, rather than the other way around. We get pass happy and we get predictable. We haven't been running enough to establish the run as a dominant part of our offense. We just haven't, and it shows.

That should come to an end. I hope Mike McCarthy changes that for us in Green Bay, and that Ted lands a punishing back and maybe some better talent on the OL to help make it a reality.

As for raw stat whoring, I would think Rodgers has more character in those situations than Favre. Favre seemed to be all about Favre. Rodgers doesn't seem that way.


I am beginning to wonder the same thing, especially this year. So far I like what I have read about Aaron. He appears to be as down to earth as anyone making millions of $ can be. But I got very frustrated this season with all the sacks he took. I know some of it was on the OL, but there were so many times I was yelling at the tv, "throw it away". To be honest, I don't think we have had a RB that we could rely on and with all the injuries to the RB's this year, maybe Aaron didn't trust them.... I don't know.

I think I will actually break down and Crying if Ted Thompson chooses a RB with an injury history again. If Aaron trusts the running game and they can get a balanced attack, maybe we can make back to the SB. Course we also need help on the defensive side of the ball. *sigh*
nerdmann  
#9 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:25:03 AM(UTC)
GBkrzygrl said: Go to Quoted Post
I am beginning to wonder the same thing, especially this year. So far I like what I have read about Aaron. He appears to be as down to earth as anyone making millions of $ can be. But I got very frustrated this season with all the sacks he took. I know some of it was on the OL, but there were so many times I was yelling at the tv, "throw it away". To be honest, I don't think we have had a RB that we could rely on and with all the injuries to the RB's this year, maybe Aaron didn't trust them.... I don't know.

I think I will actually break down and Crying if Ted Thompson chooses a RB with an injury history again. If Aaron trusts the running game and they can get a balanced attack, maybe we can make back to the SB. Course we also need help on the defensive side of the ball. *sigh*


Aaron isn't megalomaniacal like Brent, but he's got that thing where he clings to his bitterness over every little sleight he's ever experienced.

Get over it dude. Adhere to fundamentals. The stats will come.
nerdmann  
#10 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:26:02 AM(UTC)
play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
You are definitely right Porforis. We ran quite a bit more than in 2011. From an attempts standpoint we ranked #16 in 2012 with 433 v. #27 in 2011 with 395. We were only #20 in yds at 1702 in 2012 v. #27 in 2011 with 1503 yds.

We had a lot of stuff going on offensively to deal with. Tons of injuries on OL, WR and at RB. Plus, teams had figured us out, knew how to defend us, forcing adjustments. All in all, our offense did fairly well considering, dropping to #13 in Total Offense in 2013 compared to #3 in 2011. FYI, in 2010 we were #9 overall (#24 rushing/#9 passing).

Our OL play needs to be better, and our RB play needs to improve. Play calling a more run heavy attack would be helpful. So would keeping our WRs, and everybody else healthy.


Teams know all they have to do is shut down the deep routes. Aaron will not consistently take the short yardage underneath.
Mucky Tundra  
#11 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:54:59 AM(UTC)
A steadier RB situation would help with short passing and maybe if the conga line of TEs we have gets put to use. I feel like Rodgers would audible from passing to running plays (well, at least when we have a RB in) and go to check downs if there was any consistency at RB. Once Harris showed he could catch the ball Rodgers was more than willing to go to him. Whipping Green into a 3rd down back over the offseason should be a priority.
play2win  
#12 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:24:21 PM(UTC)
I'm just thinking of what it would be like running out of 2 TE sets, ones where both TEs are good blockers! Thank God Quarless is coming back.
Porforis  
#13 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:25:16 PM(UTC)
Off-topic - Nice to see new posters in this topic. Thanks for stopping by and I hope to keep seeing you!
PackFanWithTwins  
#14 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 1:38:05 PM(UTC)
I don't think, the premise is that Rodgers doesn't have time. It is more, will the team be able to afford to put a winning team around him once he and others get paid. If rumors are true and Rodgers gets extended soon, and sets the new bar. His salary impact to the cap will likely double or more. That could be 10, 12 or 15 million less to pay players around him. Add Matthews and Raji and that jumps even more.

I hope Rodgers is really as smart as he seems to sound, and realizes he is better off, if he takes less, so the team can pay to keep better players around him. I would rather have a line that is worth 20million a year blocking than one worth 10.
Gaycandybacon  
#15 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 2:01:30 PM(UTC)
The Green Bay Packers will be in the running for the Superbowl for the next 10 years as long as Rodgers is the QB. That's all I have to say.
Porforis  
#16 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 2:31:53 PM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon said: Go to Quoted Post
The Green Bay Packers will be in the running for the Superbowl for the next 10 years as long as Rodgers is the QB. That's all I have to say.


*As long as Rodgers is the quarterback and has more than 2.5 seconds on average to get the ball out before needing to scramble
Rockmolder  
#17 Posted : Thursday, March 7, 2013 2:41:44 PM(UTC)
Yes.

And we should take a long hard look at Bulaga, as well, because I'm pretty sure that he only has a year or ten left.
Yerko  
#18 Posted : Friday, March 8, 2013 8:19:55 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins said: Go to Quoted Post
I don't think, the premise is that Rodgers doesn't have time. It is more, will the team be able to afford to put a winning team around him once he and others get paid. If rumors are true and Rodgers gets extended soon, and sets the new bar. His salary impact to the cap will likely double or more. That could be 10, 12 or 15 million less to pay players around him. Add Matthews and Raji and that jumps even more.

I hope Rodgers is really as smart as he seems to sound, and realizes he is better off, if he takes less, so the team can pay to keep better players around him. I would rather have a line that is worth 20million a year blocking than one worth 10.



I do believe Rodgers is on record (might have been during the Wilde show) of saying that when it comes time to extension he was not going to be asking for a ridiculous amount because he wanted the team around him to be good as well. It was something along those lines and if I wasn't busy at work, I'd take time to find it.

It was a good thing to hear....it will be an even better thing if it came true. Flacco's new contract does not help at all though.
nerdmann  
#19 Posted : Friday, March 8, 2013 10:34:50 AM(UTC)
Porforis said: Go to Quoted Post
*As long as Rodgers is the quarterback and has more than 2.5 seconds on average to get the ball out before needing to scramble


If he insists on passing up open guys to hold the ball 8+ seconds, he should be sat down until such time as he is willing to adhere to fundamentals.
Porforis  
#20 Posted : Friday, March 8, 2013 11:15:03 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
If he insists on passing up open guys to hold the ball 8+ seconds, he should be sat down until such time as he is willing to adhere to fundamentals.


Sometimes I wonder if Aaron Rodgers ran over your dog or something. You do seem to exaggerate things quite a bit - Here's a nice read that's got a pretty good breakdown:

http://bleacherreport.co...y-packers-allowed-on-mnf

I would like to see either some clarification on your comments or some sort of evidence backing up your claim that Rodgers semi-regularly has the ball for around or more than 8 seconds with people open that he's choosing not to throw to. You repeat that stat often enough that I'm not sure whether you're exaggerating simply for dramatic effect or not.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (13h) : Mike Mayock says this is one of the best defensive drafts he's ever seen, especially at DE, CB & S.
Smokey (15h) : Yellow as the background color for such blocks as Lambeau Field & Lombardi Ave & Recent Topics & Fan Shout .
Zero2Cool (16h) : and thanks FP88 ... glad you enjoy it. :-)
Zero2Cool (16h) : Finally, got my avatar back! Weird!
Zero2Cool (18h) : FP88, :-) its okay. Smokey, yellow where?
FLORIDA PACKER88 (19h) : Didnt realize how much I needed this site in my life until it wasn't available haha! Looks great Zero!
Zero2Cool (26-Feb) : Click the Clear link to force new files to load for style.
Smokey (26-Feb) : A little yellow for contrast maybe ?
Zero2Cool (26-Feb) : Thanks. Took about 16-20 hours.
wpr (26-Feb) : looks great.
Zero2Cool (25-Feb) : avatars aren't displaying
Zero2Cool (25-Feb) : plain look
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

26-Feb / Announcements / dhazer

22-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / shield4life

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Feb / Community Welcome! / wpr

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

Headlines