Too lame offensive line? Not enough fullbacks? Unfairly on AAron Rogers?
Add Reaction
ðŊâĪïļððððĪððđððâïļððŧððŋðĒðĪŠðĪĢâ
ððĪ·ðĨðððĪŊOriginal Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Charles Martin's bungie dive awaits you.
Would you rather talk about 4th and 26 again, Fandame?
Ah, this one stings almost more because it's stoopid Brady. The whole offense was just off. I think they should have stuck with the up-tempo that was giving TB a hard time. And, yes, MLF started to panic and chase points. I guess Oshbaul bringing up the subject so late just got to me... I'd rather go on to rag on new things now. 
Ah, this one stings almost more because it's stoopid Brady.
I hate to say it, Fandame, but you're beginning to sound like Goldie. 
Packers became one-dimensional in the second half by choice.
But the bigger question is whose choice?
TB is so tough vs. the run because they can keep their two ILBers inside the tackles and they can still get to the outside. Looking at the formations for the majority of the game TB had one more defender than we had blocker to be able to run between the tackles. About the only success we had was running outside when we were able to cut off one of those ILBers, but as we saw in the first game is difficult to do with any consistency. Add to that everyone of our o-lineman, other than Linsley losing their one-on-ones the majority of snaps, it isn't difficult to see why we "gave up on the run". When we would bring another blocker in tight (Mercedes) they would just put a guy head up on him to again have a one man advantage. I wonder what TB would have done if we had shown the traditional FB set with a tailback in the I formation with 3 wideouts? Now for them to keep their one man advantage they would have to bring a safety down into the box and go with a one high safety look, which historically Rodgers has torched.