WhiskeySam
14 years ago


He didn't say he thinks it's good to get sacked he said there are certain times where getting sacked is a minimal cost. Getting sacked on 3rd down is indeed a minimal cost. His first move on 3rd downs if the protection breaks is to scramble and buy time for guys to get open for the first down. If he throws it away in that situation it's 4th down, if he takes a sack while trying to extend the play it's 4th down = minimal cost.

Now go ahead and find some more of his quotes to take out of context and complain about.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Taking a sack is not minimal cost. You have to very narrowly define the circumstances as taking a sack on third down when no other option that would have gained positive yards was available, throwing the ball away wasn't possible, and he gets back to the line of scrimmage on the play for it to be minimal cost. 193 yards lost, two fumbles, and him missing practice all week from getting slammed around on the turf is not minimal cost.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Stevetarded
14 years ago


He didn't say he thinks it's good to get sacked he said there are certain times where getting sacked is a minimal cost. Getting sacked on 3rd down is indeed a minimal cost. His first move on 3rd downs if the protection breaks is to scramble and buy time for guys to get open for the first down. If he throws it away in that situation it's 4th down, if he takes a sack while trying to extend the play it's 4th down = minimal cost.

Now go ahead and find some more of his quotes to take out of context and complain about.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Taking a sack is not minimal cost. You have to very narrowly define the circumstances as taking a sack on third down when no other option that would have gained positive yards was available, throwing the ball away wasn't possible, and he gets back to the line of scrimmage on the play for it to be minimal cost. 193 yards lost, two fumbles, and him missing practice all week from getting slammed around on the turf is not minimal cost.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Can you ever take a quote from somebody in context or is this just an issue you have? I never said "Taking a sack is a minimal cost" Jesus Christ you are irritating.
blank
WhiskeySam
14 years ago

Yep, you missed the point of his asking completely. You're taking a few words out of a whole thought and stretching it, big time.

I'm out of that discussion. You're too off key for me to continue this one with.

I'm sure because of that though I'm wearing green and gold goggles and think Rodgers is supreme, right?

:) (thats right, im smiling at you!)

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Then why did Rodgers ask about the QB rating? You can't pick and choose from the comments he made. It's obvious he thinks QB rating has some bearing on whether high sack totals are negative. I didn't mean to make it sound like you were wearing the Green and Gold glasses specifically because you're typically balanced. However, there are more than a few posters who do come off that way at the slightest hint of criticism of Rodgers' decision-making. You can give him a great line, and he'd still be holding the ball too long. Look at Roethlisberger. He gets away with it because of his size.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Stevetarded
14 years ago

Yep, you missed the point of his asking completely. You're taking a few words out of a whole thought and stretching it, big time.

I'm out of that discussion. You're too off key for me to continue this one with.

I'm sure because of that though I'm wearing green and gold goggles and think Rodgers is supreme, right?

:) (thats right, im smiling at you!)

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Then why did Rodgers ask about the QB rating? You can't pick and choose from the comments he made. It's obvious he thinks QB rating has some bearing on whether high sack totals are negative. I didn't mean to make it sound like you were wearing the Green and Gold glasses specifically because you're typically balanced. However, there are more than a few posters who do come off that way at the slightest hint of criticism of Rodgers' decision-making. You can give him a great line, and he'd still be holding the ball too long. Look at Roethlisberger. He gets away with it because of his size.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



If you are referring to me I have no issue with you criticizing Rodgers at all. I only have an issue with you taking his quotes completely out of context to try and make your argument stronger. If you have something to say do it fairly without "cheating".
blank
WhiskeySam
14 years ago


He didn't say he thinks it's good to get sacked he said there are certain times where getting sacked is a minimal cost. Getting sacked on 3rd down is indeed a minimal cost. His first move on 3rd downs if the protection breaks is to scramble and buy time for guys to get open for the first down. If he throws it away in that situation it's 4th down, if he takes a sack while trying to extend the play it's 4th down = minimal cost.

Now go ahead and find some more of his quotes to take out of context and complain about.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Taking a sack is not minimal cost. You have to very narrowly define the circumstances as taking a sack on third down when no other option that would have gained positive yards was available, throwing the ball away wasn't possible, and he gets back to the line of scrimmage on the play for it to be minimal cost. 193 yards lost, two fumbles, and him missing practice all week from getting slammed around on the turf is not minimal cost.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Can you ever take a quote from somebody in context or is this just an issue you have? I never said "Taking a sack is a minimal cost" Jesus Christ you are irritating.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Yes, I am irritating because I'm not going toe the company line and blow sunshine up Rodgers' butt. Considering the original quote itself had to qualify the circumstances that made a sack okay, I think it's you who isn't taking it in context. The question everyone should be asking is, if Rodgers says they don't want to be taking sacks then why is he taking so many? Why aren't they calling better plays? Why aren't they moving the pocket? Why isn't he doing little things like throwing the ball away when he can? We're seven games into the season, and they have yet to show any indication that they get it and are trying to adjust. That says to me they don't think it's a problem, or they are incapable of adjusting. Neither of those instills confidence.
Nemo me impune lacessit
IronMan
14 years ago


He didn't say he thinks it's good to get sacked he said there are certain times where getting sacked is a minimal cost. Getting sacked on 3rd down is indeed a minimal cost. His first move on 3rd downs if the protection breaks is to scramble and buy time for guys to get open for the first down. If he throws it away in that situation it's 4th down, if he takes a sack while trying to extend the play it's 4th down = minimal cost.

Now go ahead and find some more of his quotes to take out of context and complain about.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Taking a sack is not minimal cost. You have to very narrowly define the circumstances as taking a sack on third down when no other option that would have gained positive yards was available, throwing the ball away wasn't possible, and he gets back to the line of scrimmage on the play for it to be minimal cost. 193 yards lost, two fumbles, and him missing practice all week from getting slammed around on the turf is not minimal cost.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Can you ever take a quote from somebody in context or is this just an issue you have? I never said "Taking a sack is a minimal cost" Jesus Christ you are irritating.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Yes, I am irritating because I'm not going toe the company line and blow sunshine up Rodgers' butt. Considering the original quote itself had to qualify the circumstances that made a sack okay, I think it's you who isn't taking it in context. The question everyone should be asking is, if Rodgers says they don't want to be taking sacks then why is he taking so many? Why aren't they calling better plays? Why aren't they moving the pocket? Why isn't he doing little things like throwing the ball away when he can? We're seven games into the season, and they have yet to show any indication that they get it and are trying to adjust. That says to me they don't think it's a problem, or they are incapable of adjusting. Neither of those instills confidence.

"Stevetarded" wrote:


Another +1. You are on a roll today. You should post more often.

Part of the problem is we have a coach that doesn't know what he's doing.
WhiskeySam
14 years ago

Another +1. You are on a roll today. You should post more often.

Part of the problem is we have a coach that doesn't know what he's doing.

"IronMan" wrote:



Thanks, I stopped posting last year when things got toxic between the pro and anti Favre crowds. It's cleared up this year, and I do think there are good, insightful discussions here.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Zero2Cool
14 years ago

The question everyone should be asking is, if Rodgers says they don't want to be taking sacks then why is he taking so many?
Why aren't they calling better plays?
Why aren't they moving the pocket?
Why isn't he doing little things like throwing the ball away when he can?
We're seven games into the season, and they have yet to show any indication that they get it and are trying to adjust. That says to me they don't think it's a problem, or they are incapable of adjusting. Neither of those instills confidence.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:


Why? No running game. Grant runs with his head down. Pussy. lol

Calling better plays sure would help. I'd like to see us go back to a quick three step offense on the majority of plays if we haven't already. I don't get the luxury of seeing the whole field on replays.

Rodgers does need to learn to go through his progressions and either run or throw it away, in my opinion that's his weakest attribute.

I think they are CAPABLE of adjusting, but refuse to. I think Mike McCarthy is too stubborn to adjust. This team is FULL of confidence, paper confidence, if you ask me. I don't want to hear my 4 - 3 team have nearly every player say in their interviews they have confidence. Fuck confidence, give me grit, heart, your all, and give me wins!
UserPostedImage
WhiskeySam
14 years ago

The question everyone should be asking is, if Rodgers says they don't want to be taking sacks then why is he taking so many?
Why aren't they calling better plays?
Why aren't they moving the pocket?
Why isn't he doing little things like throwing the ball away when he can?
We're seven games into the season, and they have yet to show any indication that they get it and are trying to adjust. That says to me they don't think it's a problem, or they are incapable of adjusting. Neither of those instills confidence.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:


Why? No running game. Grant runs with his head down. Pussy. lol

Calling better plays sure would help. I'd like to see us go back to a quick three step offense on the majority of plays if we haven't already. I don't get the luxury of seeing the whole field on replays.

Rodgers does need to learn to go through his progressions and either run or throw it away, in my opinion that's his weakest attribute.

I think they are CAPABLE of adjusting, but refuse to. I think Mike McCarthy is too stubborn to adjust. This team is FULL of confidence, paper confidence, if you ask me. I don't want to hear my 4 - 3 team have nearly every player say in their interviews they have confidence. Fuck confidence, give me grit, heart, your all, and give me wins!

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



I agree with this. I think McCarthy's undoing is going to be his refusal to change. The QB decision we have with a bad line is: experienced, immobile player who can get the ball out quicker to the right read (think late career Marino), or mobile, young player who can move to buy time (think Romo replacing Bledsoe). We took the latter option, but the time he's buying is not being used productively. If you're going to roll out and still take the sack, what does it matter?

If I come across as sounding like Rodgers is the primary problem, then that's my mistake. #1 the offensive line sucks. #2 the running backs scare no one. #3 the defense looks great against bad teams, but not too hot against good ones. I'd have Rodgers holding the ball below those and behind the special teams. I'm just trying to point out that some of Rodgers' decisions have hurt the team, and it needs to be corrected. That it doesn't change week after week really chaps my hide since I've seen other teams make adjustments to hide bad protection with less talent than we have. I have no confidence in the running game improving this year because that's a personnel problem, but the passing game could be better executed.
Nemo me impune lacessit
porky88
14 years ago
This entire regime is the most stubborn regime I've ever seen. From Murphy to Thompson to McCarthy to some of the position coaches like Winston Moss.

Rodgers is always going to be sacked a lot because he's always going to keep the play alive as long as possible. Eventually, he'll learn to throw the ball away on certain situations, but Rodgers' philosophy is simple....

1. Keep the play alive as long as possible.

2. A sack is better than an INT.

3. We can always get the yards back on the next play.

He'll improve to a point where it's acceptable, but I never expect to see Rodgers sacked less than 25-30 times in a season. He needs to learn to avoid hits though when he rolls out. He's taken some shots already this season that he shouldn't take.

Now with that said, I've seen the offensive lineman get beat in one and one matchups far more than I've seen Rodgers take an unnecessary sack. The offensive line is a huge problem. It's effecting the passing game and let's not forget the running game too.
Fan Shout
beast (14m) : OT Dillard has been absolutely horrible... like OG Newman levels
dfosterf (50m) : Suit him up and have him stand in front of the big board as a draft day cautionary tale.
Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers sign T Andre Dillard.
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Adds most of the information this time of year comes from agents.
Mucky Tundra (16h) : @RealAlexBarth Bill Belichick says accurate draft information doesn't leak from teams until about 12 hours before the draft. Adds most of th
Mucky Tundra (16h) : I am very happy that for moment, Jordan Love seems like a normal human being
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : Belichick * whatever
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : "There's a lot of depth at Offensive Tackle and Wide Receiver." Bill Bellichick
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : Thanks! I can't believe it's over haha
Martha Careful (16-Apr) : Congratulations
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Boom. Student Loan. $0.00. Only took about 20 years.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : Packers DT Kenny Clark: New defensive coordinator Jeff Hafley will 'allow us to be way more disruptive'
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : Saints have agreed to terms on a contract with former Packers wide receiver Equanimeous St. Brown.
beast (12-Apr) : No, but of it's for legislation, then half of the country will find it evil, not good, whatever it says....
Mucky Tundra (12-Apr) : Draft is still 2 weeks away. UGH
dhazer (11-Apr) : Does anyone know of a good AI generator to create letters of Support for legislation?
Zero2Cool (11-Apr) : Gordon "Red" Batty retires as equipment manager
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Sounds like that's pretty certain now.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Packers "at" Eagles in Brazil. Week One
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Va' Fazer As Malas Va' !
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy tipping us off?
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : “We’re either the first- or second-most popular team in Brazil.”
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Christian Watson got married. Wife better be careful with those hamstrings!! 😂😂
dfosterf (9-Apr) : Those poor bastards
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Falcons have signed former Packers CB Kevin King, who has been out of football since 2021.
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Collectively, we need to spend more time in what we have, when analyzing ostendible needs and historical proclivities
dfosterf (8-Apr) : I say he is better than so many of these draft picks
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Question of the week for me: Has anyone besides me done any deep dive into the potential of Alex McGough, our 3rd string qb?
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Or in Tunsil's case, something gets released day of draft or day before lol
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Seems every year someone does something pre-draft.
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Falling down drunk. The draft board
dfosterf (8-Apr) : Allright! Potential character guy/f#×k up pickup in D'Vondre Sweat!
Zero2Cool (7-Apr) : Go Badgers!!!
Martha Careful (6-Apr) : Go Boilermakers!!!
Martha Careful (5-Apr) : Diggs has not stepped up in the playoffs and has a high cost
beast (5-Apr) : Probably not going to let Diggs walk away unless he's horrible... but according to reports he also might not be as good as he used to be.
beast (5-Apr) : The 25th pick in the draft has been an offensive player since 2017, 2 TE, 2 WR, 1 RB, 1 OC
Mucky Tundra (5-Apr) : Odd, why give up a 2025 2nd Rounder for him if you're just gonna let him walk?
Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : Texans to let Diggs be free agent in '25
buckeyepackfan (4-Apr) : 49r's aign RB Patrick Taylor.
Martha Careful (4-Apr) : Reversion to the mean would indicate we will keep it
Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : It's also been utilized in a trade in 14 of the past 20 years
Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : The 25th pick in the draft hasn't been made by it's original holder since 2016.
Mucky Tundra (4-Apr) : Gotta imagine that Green Bay vs Houston will be a primetime game this upcoming season
Zero2Cool (3-Apr) : No. Kill QB. No worries. 😁
Mucky Tundra (3-Apr) : Diggs, Collins, Dell and Schultz is gonna be tough to cover
Zero2Cool (3-Apr) : Stefon Diggs' trade will not be processed as a post-June 1 designation, so that is just over $31 million in dead cap this year.
Zero2Cool (3-Apr) : Bills trading WR Stefon Diggs to the Texans in exchange for a 2025 2nd-round pick. (via @rapsheet)
beast (3-Apr) : Using Patterson as RB and RB/WR tweener... so I think they also signed Patterson as a 3rd down RB, not just a kick returner as articles are
beast (3-Apr) : I think PFT missed the real Steelers/Patterson connection, Steelers new OC Arthur Smith has been Patterson's head coach the last 3 years
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
1h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

14h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Apr / Random Babble / Martha Careful

15-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

12-Apr / Random Babble / Nonstopdrivel

12-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

11-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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