Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Online texaspackerbacker  
#26 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:30:36 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 482
Applause Received: 292

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
Another issue is that the offensive philosophy does nothing to help this OL.

First of all, let's see some screens. No, not swinging it out to the WR when the CB is playing off. I'm talking about getting Franklin in space with some blockers out front. Slow that DL down. Make them think twice about going straight at the passer. This will also cause them to pursue sideline to sideline, wearing them down as the game goes on.

Second of all, let's get some time of possession. Keep that defense on the field. They'll get tired, like our guys did against the Niners.

Thirdly, let's stop having our QB hang onto the ball for 8 seconds waiting for something deep.

So yeah, there are issues. Especially with Campen, imo. But come on man. We know we have a weak spot on our team, why make it more glaring? Why not help those guys out a little? Help the defense out too, by keeping them fresh. Two birds with one stone.


To a very limited extent, I agree with you, but for the most part, what you are talking about is IMO too much of a departure from what got us the offensive success we have. Screens and maybe draws, yes, but reining in Aaron Rodgers from allegedly taking too much time to get rid of the ball? I don't think so. I WANT him to throw it down the field - avoid this WCO bullshit. As for time of possession, I'd rather score quick. The crap of running on first and sometimes even second down last game and at times in the past - obviously aimed at placating the run first/time of possession crowd not only cost the Packers series and maybe the game; It did not even achieve the desired result of longer possessions, as 3 and out takes less time than pass pass pass down the field. Game clock time of possession is not the same as real time your D is resting on the bench.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 9/12/2013(UTC)
Offline nerdmann  
#27 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:21:55 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
To a very limited extent, I agree with you, but for the most part, what you are talking about is IMO too much of a departure from what got us the offensive success we have. Screens and maybe draws, yes, but reining in Aaron Rodgers from allegedly taking too much time to get rid of the ball? I don't think so. I WANT him to throw it down the field - avoid this WCO bullsh!t. As for time of possession, I'd rather score quick. The crap of running on first and sometimes even second down last game and at times in the past - obviously aimed at placating the run first/time of possession crowd not only cost the Packers series and maybe the game; It did not even achieve the desired result of longer possessions, as 3 and out takes less time than pass pass pass down the field. Game clock time of possession is not the same as real time your D is resting on the bench.



Game clock also gives Kaepernick THAT MANY more plays.

If the time was even, Kaepernick gets 1/3 fewer plays. 1/3 fewer yards is 264 yards. That's not a bad defensive day. We win if that's all he gets, imo.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline porky88  
#28 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:24:29 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 195
Applause Received: 409

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan Go to Quoted Post
My Bold Prediction for the week.

Eddy Lacy will run for 150yds and 3 td's Sunday!!!

Redskins are not The 49r's, in fact they are pretty beat up already on the defensive side.

BOOK IT!!!!!!

Those of you who have him in FFL better not sit his ass!!!

I wouldn't go that far, but I think Lacy has a really good chance to go for 100-plus rushing yards. The Redskins are not a good defense, even when healthy. They can't stop the run. They can't stop the pass. There's no reason why Green Bay shouldn't pounce early and use Lacy to wear them down in the fourth quarter.
Offline DarkaneRules  
#29 Posted : Wednesday, September 11, 2013 9:12:51 PM(UTC)
DarkaneRules

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/15/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 211
Applause Received: 357

This is going to be hard to be patient with but it will have to be endured. This season is transitional in every phase of the game. I hope by the end of it we are playoff bound and then can put the growth to good use. Right now, both sides of the ball are a work in process. The league is changing. We are a bit behind but not as far behind as most other teams. It might suck that the NFC is now tougher but at the same time, it is pretty awesome to know that we are in the top echelon of teams in the league. Now that we got week 1 out of the way, let's focus on winning our division!
Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance
Offline Wade  
#30 Posted : Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:09:17 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 684
Applause Received: 717

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
First off, Mike was asking for "smaller, quicker" linemen those first 5 years. Since then, Ted's batting average has increased considerably.

I mean really. We're starting our 3rd and 4th T's. How many teams could do that without having to make a desperate trade? Not only that, but we have a 5th guy who can swing to either side and be effective. Plus there's also Lang who's proven he can get it done at T if necessary.

sh!t dude, wtf more do you want? Five pro bowlers at the position?


Nah, only three.

I want a dominant line. The best quarterback in the league deserves a dominant line. The most important team in the league deserves a dominant line. The best sports fans in the known universe deserve a dominant line.

Even if Bulaga were completely healthy, even if the Packers had zero injuries on the OL all year, this OL corps would not be dominant. Yah, we're starting T's #3 and #4. Why are you so convinced that said #1 and #2 are good enough if they are healthy.

IMO, and I said this back in February or whenever GB decided on the switch of Bulaga and Sitton to the other side, even had there been no injuries, the team was going to be entering training camp with substantial questions at four of the five OL positions (arguably 5, but I was and am willing to assume that Sitton would still be a stud despite the switch). That should not be the case entering year nine.

And, no, Thompson does not get a pass from me for those first years because Mike McCarthy wanted small/quick OL. Two reasons: i. GM hires coach, not coach dictates to GM. 2. He didn't get good small/quick OL either. Guy McIntyre was small but a very good OG, even when he played for us; a young Guy McIntyre could be a great OL today. Same for Gale Gillingham. And that's just guys whose names start with G.

When Mike McCarthy wanted the small guys, he didn't provide good enough ones. After Mike McCarthy changed his mind, he still hasn't provided enough good ones.

If you are content with "servicable" or "good enough" on the OL, you need to be aiming higher. I give Ted Thompson an A for effort at creating the proper line. But performance provides the grade.

Strive to be good enough, and you end up third rate. Strive to D O M I N A T E!
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
thanks Post received 2 applause.
yooperfan on 9/12/2013(UTC), wpr on 9/12/2013(UTC)
Offline nerdmann  
#31 Posted : Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:16:05 AM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
Nah, only three.

I want a dominant line. The best quarterback in the league deserves a dominant line. The most important team in the league deserves a dominant line. The best sports fans in the known universe deserve a dominant line.

Even if Bulaga were completely healthy, even if the Packers had zero injuries on the OL all year, this OL corps would not be dominant. Yah, we're starting T's #3 and #4. Why are you so convinced that said #1 and #2 are good enough if they are healthy.

IMO, and I said this back in February or whenever GB decided on the switch of Bulaga and Sitton to the other side, even had there been no injuries, the team was going to be entering training camp with substantial questions at four of the five OL positions (arguably 5, but I was and am willing to assume that Sitton would still be a stud despite the switch). That should not be the case entering year nine.

And, no, Thompson does not get a pass from me for those first years because Mike McCarthy wanted small/quick OL. Two reasons: i. GM hires coach, not coach dictates to GM. 2. He didn't get good small/quick OL either. Guy McIntyre was small but a very good OG, even when he played for us; a young Guy McIntyre could be a great OL today. Same for Gale Gillingham. And that's just guys whose names start with G.

When Mike McCarthy wanted the small guys, he didn't provide good enough ones. After Mike McCarthy changed his mind, he still hasn't provided enough good ones.

If you are content with "servicable" or "good enough" on the OL, you need to be aiming higher. I give Ted Thompson an A for effort at creating the proper line. But performance provides the grade.

Strive to be good enough, and you end up third rate. Strive to D O M I N A T E!


Having to start our #s 3 and 4 guys isn't ideal. But the fact that we are able to do so and get by with it, while having depth to spare is a tribute to Ted's work. Not many teams could do that.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline Wade  
#32 Posted : Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:50:44 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 684
Applause Received: 717

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
You always hear announcers and analysts talking about how you need to get a RB lathered up, that they get better as the game goes on. That is actually incorrect.

The reason backs and running games get better as the game goes on is because the offensive line wears down the defensive front so there are bigger holes. What needs to get lathered up is the Oline, the more they run block, the better they become because defensive lineman tire more when being pushed back, rather than them pushing forward.

We never give our oline a chance to get going.


This is a good point. Though to be fair to McCarthy, he did stay with the run throughout the game agains SF. Even when behind in the fourth quarter.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline Wade  
#33 Posted : Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:54:36 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 684
Applause Received: 717

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
Having to start our #s 3 and 4 guys isn't ideal. But the fact that we are able to do so and get by with it, while having depth to spare is a tribute to Ted's work. Not many teams could do that.


Ok. It is true. He's good at getting adequate backups.

That sort of tends to be the case, though, whenever you aren't getting enough starter-quality players. A team that has 3-4 backup quality starters has 3-4 more backups.



And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
thanks Post received 2 applause.
yooperfan on 9/12/2013(UTC), wpr on 9/12/2013(UTC)
Offline nerdmann  
#34 Posted : Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:39:25 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
Ok. It is true. He's good at getting adequate backups.

That sort of tends to be the case, though, whenever you aren't getting enough starter-quality players. A team that has 3-4 backup quality starters has 3-4 more backups.





Bulaga is a pro bowl calibur OL when healthy. So is Sitton. Two out of five.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Online texaspackerbacker  
#35 Posted : Thursday, September 12, 2013 5:16:31 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 482
Applause Received: 292

Things in this thread seem to be headed in the WRONG direction. Thankfully, I doubt whether Mike McCarthy is reading this thread for advice on offensive strategies.

Once and for all, we do NOT need to run first to set up the pass. Somebody said hit 'em hard early - presumably with the passing game, and then let Lacy eat up the clock in the fourth quarter. Yeah, that sounds like a plan - provided we have a big enough lead so throwing away possessions by that running doesn't cost us the game. Just don't employ a strategy like that - as we did way too many times and wasted way too many possessions while the issue was still in doubt in the Niner game.

This Packer team has had the best offense in the league, lack of a quality RB and lack of a decent O Line notwithstanding, ever since Aaron Rodgers took over. We now seemingly have a quality RB. Let's make some progress toward getting a decent O Line, and let's continue(?) improving the defense, BUT WHILE WE ARE DOING SO, LET'S NOT GET AWAY FROM WHAT GOT US WHERE WE ARE - an overwhelmingly successful pass first offense.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
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

Tweeter

Recent Topics
15m / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Laser Gunns

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / rabidgopher04

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

25-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Rios39

25-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr