uffda udfa
9 years ago

Uffda, I wasn't comparing Sherman to Deion in terms of overall talent. But much like Deion, Sherman talks a lot but he backs it all up on the field. And my memory might be fuzzy but I remember Deion being a complete wuss when it came to tackling, certainly something you can't say about Sherman.

Originally Posted by: Mucky Tundra 



I understood. I shouldn't have quoted you... I just picked one and responded. My bad, there.

Deion didn't tackle...he didn't need to most of the time as there was no action his way.

Richard Sherman is very good but he's not in the same class of CB's throughout time who were shutdown guys. To not test him is a reflection of fear and the lack of inherent skill in the guy running at him all game. (Boykin) A 3rd WR isn't usually a match for a guy like Sherman, especially when they have no speed to speak of which is the one thing Sherman doesn't have.

This redzone offense is going to be ugly this year. Mason Crosby FF owners should be thrilled if Mason can make his opportunities.

Tell me who our redzone guy is? We don't have one. Period. Finley is gone. We have no legit NFL TE. Lacy better be of sound mind so we can just try to ride him into the endzone.

I'm encouraged the voices against Ted Thompson and what is really going on in Green Bay are starting to get a little louder. A loss vs. the Jets and maybe there'll be some true illumination as to what is going down at 1265.

UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


buckeyepackfan
9 years ago

I understood. I shouldn't have quoted you... I just picked one and responded. My bad, there.

Deion didn't tackle...he didn't need to most of the time as there was no action his way.

Richard Sherman is very good but he's not in the same class of CB's throughout time who were shutdown guys. To not test him is a reflection of fear and the lack of inherent skill in the guy running at him all game. (Boykin) A 3rd WR isn't usually a match for a guy like Sherman, especially when they have no speed to speak of which is the one thing Sherman doesn't have.

This redzone offense is going to be ugly this year. Mason Crosby FF owners should be thrilled if Mason can make his opportunities.

Tell me who our redzone guy is? We don't have one. Period. Finley is gone. We have no legit NFL TE. Lacy better be of sound mind so we can just try to ride him into the endzone.

I'm encouraged the voices against Ted Thompson and what is really going on in Green Bay are starting to get a little louder. A loss vs. the Jets and maybe there'll be some true illumination as to what is going down at 1265.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



OH MY GOD, you will be in such heavan if The Jets beat The Packers!!!

Go ahead, put all your money on The Jets!!!!!!

Take the points.

For being such a DIEHARD Packer fan, sure is curious that you find pleasure in them losing, and that you just keep hoping they continue to lose.

What a frickin' joke.
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
dhazer
9 years ago

You never saw Brett Favre throw only to the side that Deion was not on. Troy Aikman, Steve Young, all never did that. They challenged him.

Aaron played scared.

Originally Posted by: Cal2GreenBay 



Cal I agree with the playing scared part and I think it really showed up when he refused to run for 1st downs on scrambles. I sure hope things change or it could be a long season.
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
uffda udfa
9 years ago

OH MY GOD, you will be in such heavan if The Jets beat The Packers!!!

Go ahead, put all your money on The Jets!!!!!!

Take the points.

For being such a DIEHARD Packer fan, sure is curious that you find pleasure in them losing, and that you just keep hoping they continue to lose.

What a frickin' joke.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan 



Do I really sound happy they got embarrassed on national tv? Have I written that I want them to lose? I said given the current state of this team, I would prefer it to finish in such a way that the problems have to be addressed. IE: Coaches fired, GM gone, etc... You live in this fantasy world where it's really not that bad. You're winning divisional titles and happy. This is the team you have to measure up with to get another ring. Do you honestly think we measure up with them or will over the next several years? I sure don't.

Question my passion for the Packers if it makes you feel better. I'll continue questioning your objectivity but never your fandom.


UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


DoddPower
9 years ago
Playing scared would insinuate Rodgers didn't even look at Sherman's side of the field. I'm sure he looked that direction. If the receiver (mostly Boykin) wasn't open, why the hell would he throw it to him? Just to say he did? That makes no sense. I don't want my favorite team to challenge players, I want them to do whatever it takes to move the ball and score. If that means exploiting more favorable match ups, than so be it.

I haven't seen the All-22 film, but I would guess that a receiver wasn't open against Sherman more than a few times the entire game. Rodgers might have missed them during those few times, but that could have just been a mistake. Aaron Rodgers makes mistakes. He's not a god. He's an elite quarterback, but he could be better, especially in certain situations. But making mistakes and not playing as good as he should or could have is not the same thing as "playing scared." That's a talking point. Rhetoric.

For one to be able to say the Packers or Rodgers were playing scared, they would have to intimately understand the game plan, the plays called, and carefully evaluate the film from the All-22 angle. My guess very few posters here have done that yet.
Cal2GreenBay
9 years ago

Playing scared would insinuate Rodgers didn't even look at Sherman's side of the field. I'm sure he looked that direction. If the receiver (mostly Boykin) wasn't open, why the hell would he throw it to him? Just to say he did? That makes no sense. I don't want my favorite team to challenge players, I want them to do whatever it takes to move the ball and score. If that means exploiting more favorable match ups, than so be it.

I haven't seen the All-22 film, but I would guess that a receiver wasn't open against Sherman more than a few times the entire game. Rodgers might have missed them during those few times, but that could have just been a mistake. Aaron Rodgers makes mistakes. He's not a god. He's an elite quarterback, but he could be better, especially in certain situations. But making mistakes and not playing as good as he should or could have is not the same thing as "playing scared." That's a talking point. Rhetoric.

For one to be able to say the Packers or Rodgers were playing scared, they would have to intimately understand the game plan, the plays called, and carefully evaluate the film from the All-22 angle. My guess very few posters here have done that yet.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 



I get where you are going and trying to put a qualifier for any fan's assessment of the game.("very few fans have done it...watch film")

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that assessments have no merit because we aren't coaches in the game.
IF that were true, then we shouldn't talk at all. We have no right, with your logic.

In your own words, you said the packers were looking for a "favorable match up". From watching the game, the "favorable match up" was to have Jordy against Maxwell. Jordy did not line up against Sherman almost the entire game. In fact, Cobb was rarely lined up against Sherman either.

I don't think anyone is saying to throw to a cornerback's direction and challenge him just to say they did so. That doesn't make sense and was already a forgone conclusion. And no one is implying that Aaron didn't "look in that direction." No one implied that Aaron was superhuman and perfect either.
(Aaron not being perfect, Aaron not looking over there, and Aaron throwing there just to say so are just silly points. Honestly.)

The POINT, was that Nelson was RARELY EVER rotated over to that side(I don't recall him ever being there, actually). So how would you know that Nelson couldn't have been open against Sherman? We never really saw it.

What is suspect is that McCarthy said that they did not "intentionally" avoid Sherman, and they were trying to rotate Jordy around for the best match up. Like I said in a previous post, "rotate" typically means switching a receiver from one side to another. Jordy wasn't rotated if at all, and stayed specifically on the left side to match up with Maxwell. That's NOT a rotation.

"Favorable match up" is a PR statement. What does that really mean?
There was no favorable match up on the right side(with Sherman) because the receiver wasn't open(Boykin).
Then why were Cobb/Nelson not sent over there more(to the right side) to create a different match up?
Were they also NOT a favorable match up on that side? You put your no.3 receiver against their no.1 corner, but never rotate your 2 or 1 against him? That would imply that our 1, and 2 can't get open on Sherman either.
But how do we know unless they try? They didn't. That's playing scared.

You said Aaron "makes mistakes." Are you saying that him not throwing to one half of the field(which happened to be Sherman's side) was a mistake(for the entire game) or was it just to exploit a favorable matchup? It can't be both.

It was either a mistake, or by design. Which one was it?

Please explain the last time you saw the Packers throw to just one half of the field.

Using half the field is not doing "whatever it takes" to move the football. There were a lot of things not done, or tried, which by definition is not "whatever it takes."
Throwing to only one half of the field implies having a specific (limited) game plan and not straying from it. This is also not "whatever it takes"


Last point.

Jerry Rice was never "rotated" away from Deion Sanders for a "favorable" match up. Jerry Rice demanded the ball against Sanders and Steve Young challenged him.

Michael Irvin was never "rotated" away from Deion Sanders for a "favorable" match up. Michael Irvin demanded the the ball against the best corner and Troy Aikman challenged him.

Neither of those great qbs, just threw to that side, just to say they did.

Mediocre teams DID rotate away from Sanders because they didn't have the talent/players to favor a match up.
They would throw to half the field.
blank
DoddPower
9 years ago

I get where you are going and trying to put a qualifier for any fan's assessment of the game.("very few fans have done it...watch film")

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that assessments have no merit because we aren't coaches in the game.
IF that were true, then we shouldn't talk at all. We have no right, with your logic.

In your own words, you said the packers were looking for a "favorable match up". From watching the game, the "favorable match up" was to have Jordy against Maxwell. Jordy did not line up against Sherman almost the entire game. In fact, Cobb was rarely lined up against Sherman either.

I don't think anyone is saying to throw to a cornerback's direction and challenge him just to say they did so. That doesn't make sense and was already a forgone conclusion. And no one is implying that Aaron didn't "look in that direction." No one implied that Aaron was superhuman and perfect either.
(Aaron not being perfect, Aaron not looking over there, and Aaron throwing there just to say so are just silly points. Honestly.)

The POINT, was that Nelson was RARELY EVER rotated over to that side(I don't recall him ever being there, actually). So how would you know that Nelson couldn't have been open against Sherman? We never really saw it.

What is suspect is that McCarthy said that they did not "intentionally" avoid Sherman, and they were trying to rotate Jordy around for the best match up. Like I said in a previous post, "rotate" typically means switching a receiver from one side to another. Jordy wasn't rotated if at all, and stayed specifically on the left side to match up with Maxwell. That's NOT a rotation.

"Favorable match up" is a PR statement. What does that really mean?
There was no favorable match up on the right side(with Sherman) because the receiver wasn't open(Boykin).
Then why were Cobb/Nelson not sent over there more(to the right side) to create a different match up?
Were they also NOT a favorable match up on that side? You put your no.3 receiver against their no.1 corner, but never rotate your 2 or 1 against him? That would imply that our 1, and 2 can't get open on Sherman either.
But how do we know unless they try? They didn't. That's playing scared.

You said Aaron "makes mistakes." Are you saying that him not throwing to one half of the field(which happened to be Sherman's side) was a mistake(for the entire game) or was it just to exploit a favorable matchup? It can't be both.

It was either a mistake, or by design. Which one was it?

Please explain the last time you saw the Packers throw to just one half of the field.

Using half the field is not doing "whatever it takes" to move the football. There were a lot of things not done, or tried, which by definition is not "whatever it takes."
Throwing to only one half of the field implies having a specific (limited) game plan and not straying from it. This is also not "whatever it takes"


Last point.

Jerry Rice was never "rotated" away from Deion Sanders for a "favorable" match up. Jerry Rice demanded the ball against Sanders and Steve Young challenged him.

Michael Irvin was never "rotated" away from Deion Sanders for a "favorable" match up. Michael Irvin demanded the the ball against the best corner and Troy Aikman challenged him.

Neither of those great qbs, just threw to that side, just to say they did.

Mediocre teams DID rotate away from Sanders because they didn't have the talent/players to favor a match up.
They would throw to half the field.

Originally Posted by: Cal2GreenBay 



You are entitled to you opinion. I personally think that having Nelson and Cobb on the number 2 and 3 corner backs (and at some point in the game, the number 4 corner back due to injury) is putting the players in the best possible situation to succeed. In theory, Nelson and Cobb should be able to win those battles the majority of the time. Sure, Jordy could have been put on Sherman's side more. But football is about exposing teams weaknesses. If I know I can get my number one wide receiver on a number 2 or 3 corner back, why the heck would I not want to play those odds each time? If I recall correctly, Jordy was on Sherman's side a few times. I haven't watched him on those plays closely, but perhaps they didn't like the results the few times he was over there.

I want my best players in the best possible match up. It's that simple to me. If a team is willing to cover my number one wide receiver with their safety all game, I'm going to keep letting them because I would expect my number one wide receiver to win that match up most of the time. We just disagree, I guess. You can call it whatever you want. "Scared" "scheme" "favorable match ups." That's semantics and I could care less about labels. But I agree with the general strategy, but they could have mixed it up more and been more creative.

Otherwise, Nelson and Cobb are not Jerry Rice or Michael Irvin, so I don't really get your point there. Jerry Rice is the best player to ever play in the NFL. Nelson and Cobb are good, but they obviously aren't to that level. I honestly feel like the Packers wide receivers often struggle to get separation, forcing Aaron to squeeze balls in tight windows.

And I never said anyone's opinion does not have merit. But I did say it's impossible to TRULY understand the dynamics of the game without knowing the details. We can guess based upon our limited view and information, but that doesn't make it correct or true. It's just observations and assumptions. I personally think it was a combination of game plan and mistakes. Yes, it can be both. I'm not sure why you don't think it can't be. The game plan might have been to exploit lesser corner backs, but McCarthy and or Rodgers probably made mistakes in play calling and audibles, progression decisions, missed throws, etc. There wasn't one single thing that went wrong in this game. It was a full team loss, as most are. There was mistakes in game planning, coaching, execution, personnel, and decision making.
Cal2GreenBay
9 years ago

Playing scared would insinuate Rodgers didn't even look at Sherman's side of the field. I'm sure he looked that direction. If the receiver (mostly Boykin) wasn't open, why the hell would he throw it to him? Just to say he did? That makes no sense. I don't want my favorite team to challenge players, I want them to do whatever it takes to move the ball and score. If that means exploiting more favorable match ups, than so be it.

I haven't seen the All-22 film, but I would guess that a receiver wasn't open against Sherman more than a few times the entire game. Rodgers might have missed them during those few times, but that could have just been a mistake. Aaron Rodgers makes mistakes. He's not a god. He's an elite quarterback, but he could be better, especially in certain situations. But making mistakes and not playing as good as he should or could have is not the same thing as "playing scared." That's a talking point. Rhetoric.

For one to be able to say the Packers or Rodgers were playing scared, they would have to intimately understand the game plan, the plays called, and carefully evaluate the film from the All-22 angle. My guess very few posters here have done that yet.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 


blank
Cal2GreenBay
9 years ago
Well said Doddpower. We just have diff perspectives.
blank
steveishere
9 years ago

Originally Posted by: Cal2GreenBay 



Rodgers throws to guys who aren't wide open all the time because they are throws he can make because he's the best QB in the NFL. I rewatched a lot of the offensive plays and focused on Boykin and to me it looked like Rodgers really wasn't even looking at him. There were plenty of plays where he could have hit him on a quick slant or back shoulder. One thing about Boykin is Sherman could hardly get his hands on him at the line because Boykin is so hard to press. Boykin never got huge separation on Sherman but Nelson and Cobb were hardly wide open on a lot of the throws he made to them. Also, if they weren't avoiding Sherman I see no reason why Nelson only played like 3 or 4 snaps on that side. If you aren't avoiding someone then you shouldn't be afraid to put your best player on him and see if you can beat him.

I really can't buy that they weren't avoiding Sherman. I understand the plan McCarthy was going for but this gameplan was just trying to be cute instead of putting y our offense out there and trying to beat the other team. Sherman isn't some black hole who is impossible to win against.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (13h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (13h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (14h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (16h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (17h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (20h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (21h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
8h / Around The NFL / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.