Rank: Veteran Member
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA
Applause Given: 3,286
Applause Received: 913
|
PackFanWithTwins said:  I can blame Rodgers. He is suppose to have such a great grasp of the offense. If he does, he should be seeing that the line is having difficulty and getting with McCarthy and saying, we need to do something to help these guys. But all I see are the same type plays over and over. 10 yard routes, or simple stops. We should be running screens, instant slants, drags underneath the LBers.
The entire offense seems to be, go deep. And if the throw isn't there, scramble and try to play ground it and get open. We use to run a slant from any WR position and defenses had to gamble if they could guess who was running it on a particular play. Of course Rodgers deserves some blame. But most of the things you suggested weren't working either. Most the screen plays were terrible. "Instant" slants were largely neutralized by the receivers inability to get off the press. In fact, a strong press at the line can destroy almost any play call when Rodgers has no time to throw. I still think a better run game is the best option, considering how bad the Packers seem to be at screens. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, either. It's just not as simple as instantly getting the ball out or Rodgers hands when the receivers are being jammed at the line and have no chance to catch the ball. They either have to back the defense off some or pass protect better.
|
 Post received 1 applause.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Member
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Lima, Ohio
Applause Given: 730
Applause Received: 759
|
Pack93z said: I put a lot of the offensive struggles on the panic of Mike McCarthy jumping to the spread formations and basically allowed the defense to pin their ears back on a line that struggles with speed. Stay with formations that at least threaten the run.. you have to get that defense to at least pause... didn't happen. We have to get mut tore physical at the point of attack running the ball... but we have known that since.. what 2005/2006. We cannot be a one dimensional team to beat this type of defensive team.. one built on speed.
But the defense, that looked like a game out of last season. Sloppy tackling, spotty coverage, just getting popped in the nose snap after snap.
Couple that with 2 turnovers early that gave the Giants field position..
It all spelled a ass kicking.. hopefully one that benefits them moving forward.
I think if the Packers were ever going to shit can Campen.. this game should be a final nail. Got to agree. IMHO this game turned when Mike let Crosby try the 55yd FG. Instant flip of field position. Short field Giants score. Turnover..short field Giants score Turnover.... you all know the rest. With the way the rest of the games turned out this weekend, Packers are no worse off. They still control their own destiny, at least they won't be cruising into the playoffs this year thinking all they have to do is show up to win. I'm not even gonna break this game down, no reason, total fail everywhere tonight. Throw the tape away and move on, get ready for divisional games!!! |
I went to the zoo today. They had 1 dog. It was a Shitzu!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Member
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 23
Applause Received: 881
|
doddpower said: Of course Rodgers deserves some blame. But most of the things you suggested weren't working either. Most the screen plays were terrible. "Instant" slants were largely neutralized by the receivers inability to get off the press. In fact, a strong press at the line can destroy almost any play call when Rodgers has no time to throw. I still think a better run game is the best option, considering how bad the Packers seem to be at screens. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, either.
It's just not as simple as instantly getting the ball out or Rodgers hands when the receivers are being jammed at the line and have no chance to catch the ball. They either have to back the defense off some or pass protect better.
They were jamming about 3 yards off the LOS, the problem is, that on most of those plays, we were not running short routes, or slants or drags. One time they showed, was Cobb on a slant, and it gained 4-5 yards. Which I will take 10 of 10 times. One problem is the shotgun. Quick slants go off 1 step drops. by the time the ball gets to Rodgers in the shotgun, it is to late. Which is the biggest reason we don't run them. There are other ways to counter being jammed. Line the WR off the LOS, so they have a couple yards extra cushion. Motion them. The problem is not being jammed. It is that defenses play us tight off the line and have help sitting 10-15 yards where most of the routes go. |
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!  |
Post received 2 applause.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Member
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA
Applause Given: 3,286
Applause Received: 913
|
PackFanWithTwins said: They were jamming about 3 yards off the LOS, the problem is, that on most of those plays, we were not running short routes, or slants or drags. One time they showed, was Cobb on a slant, and it gained 4-5 yards. Which I will take 10 of 10 times.
One problem is the shotgun. Quick slants go off 1 step drops. by the time the ball gets to Rodgers in the shotgun, it is to late. Which is the biggest reason we don't run them. There are other ways to counter being jammed. Line the WR off the LOS, so they have a couple yards extra cushion. Motion them. The problem is not being jammed. It is that defenses play us tight off the line and have help sitting 10-15 yards where most of the routes go. I think a big part of the problem in this game is the receivers being pressed. Of course there are ways to counter that, but they didn't happen this game and often don't. This has been the same recipe to beat up on the Packers for awhile now: get physical with the WRs on the line of scrimmage, pressure with 4 down linemen, and keep the safeties deep. Doing so mostly takes away the deep balls and pressing at the line mostly takes away the quick pass. Even if bunch formations or motion is used, that's only likely to free up one WR from the press on the line of scrimmage, and line backers or even tall defensive linemen batting the passes are tough to counter. Even if we completed more short passes, it wasn't going to get the Packers back in the game, and it's easy to lose patience in that situation, understandably. McCarthy has been trying to get the screen game going, it's just not working. Quicker passes would help, but if the offensive line doesn't hold up better, they're not going to be very effective in the long run unless the Packers WRs get more physical. A combination of a much better running game, the threat of a screen game, and most importantly, better pass protection cumulatively would help, but most of those things are not likely to happen this season against great defenses. If the pass protection will hold up just a little longer, there are likely to be some open areas in the defenses to hit as the wide receivers fight through the press battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Premier Member
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,387
Applause Received: 3,736
|
The Packers, like everyone, have a plan until punched in the face. They got punched in the face and didn't know what else to do. The Giants just seem like men compared to the Packers boys. |
|
Post received 1 applause.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Registered
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 724
|
doddpower said: Of course Rodgers deserves some blame. But most of the things you suggested weren't working either. Most the screen plays were terrible. "Instant" slants were largely neutralized by the receivers inability to get off the press. In fact, a strong press at the line can destroy almost any play call when Rodgers has no time to throw. I still think a better run game is the best option, considering how bad the Packers seem to be at screens. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, either.
It's just not as simple as instantly getting the ball out or Rodgers hands when the receivers are being jammed at the line and have no chance to catch the ball. They either have to back the defense off some or pass protect better.
That should have been the script in both of our losses where we were completely crushed, SF and NYG, along with the first half against SEA. We were their bitches, because we did not force a sound rushing attack to wear down their extremely potent DLs. McCarthy has to figure this out, and get his offense running a power running attack. He has to know it is the only way to control a premiere pass rush, and take the heat off his QB. Without that, we don't score, and our D wears down from all the 3 and outs. A steady dose of BOTH Green and Starks would have made this a different game, and would have given us a chance to win. Our OL and our play calling simply were not up to the task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Registered
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 724
|
Zero2Cool said: The Packers, like everyone, have a plan until punched in the face. They got punched in the face and didn't know what else to do. The Giants just seem like men compared to the Packers boys. I could not agree more. Zero adjustment. How can a head coach not anticipate a resurgence by the Giants DL after the bye? How do you call those dogs off? Always, always, by running the football. It opens everything else up. We were not up to that challenge, apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Member
Joined: 5/7/2009(UTC)
Location: Pennsylvania
Applause Given: 731
Applause Received: 723
|
play2win said: That should have been the script in both of our losses where we were completely crushed, SF and NYG, along with the first half against SEA. We were their bitches, because we did not force a sound rushing attack to wear down their extremely potent DLs.
McCarthy has to figure this out, and get his offense running a power running attack. He has to know it is the only way to control a premiere pass rush, and take the heat off his QB. Without that, we don't score, and our D wears down from all the 3 and outs.
A steady dose of BOTH Green and Starks would have made this a different game, and would have given us a chance to win. Our OL and our play calling simply were not up to the task. I disagree - the first two plays out of the gates were runs if I'm not mistaken, and the Packers were still honoring the running game even down 28 points. The issue is Rodgers was on the run and being hit within 2 seconds, yet so little of the playcalling was devoted to quick developing routes - slants, screens, etc. I thought the 30 yd pass to Kuhn was great - release FBs and TEs out of protection for quick passes and gains, but I can count on my hand how many times this was attempted last night. This ultimately boils down to our OL getting completely manhandled, but so few adjustments were made to counter this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 8/14/2008(UTC)
Location: UK
Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 65
|
Optimism mode on in full.
Let's put this down to just being one of those games.
3 division games on the bounce coming up and we can win them and guarantee the playoffs.
Then it's the Titans at home so that would be at least 11 wins and chance of a division title.
Let's not get too downhearted.
|
Formed Merseyside Nighthawks. British Champions 1992. Packer fan for 32 years  I feel very wrong now!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Registered
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 724
|
musccy said: I disagree - the first two plays out of the gates were runs if I'm not mistaken, and the Packers were still honoring the running game even down 28 points.
The issue is Rodgers was on the run and being hit within 2 seconds, yet so little of the playcalling was devoted to quick developing routes - slants, screens, etc. I thought the 30 yd pass to Kuhn was great - release FBs and TEs out of protection for quick passes and gains, but I can count on my hand how many times this was attempted last night.
This ultimately boils down to our OL getting completely manhandled, but so few adjustments were made to counter this.
We disagree greatly here. 22 carries for 82 yds is not what I consider an overt dedication to running the football. Lets be real here too, Starks got 8 of those carries, AFTER the damage was already done. You want to keep Aaron on his feet with time to throw? Have your OL ready to pound the frickin ball at the Giants front 7, mercilessly. Have both of your backs ready to run in rotation. Neither happened last night. This is the 3rd time we put up a FAIL against a top tier defensive front. All 3 times we lost because we did not do this: perform a power rushing assault. We can do it, but we choose not to. Our OL is not prepared to run it, and our play callers fail to call it. It is the recipe for success against a formidable pass rush. Why keep doing something over and over again when it doesn't work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.