There are much bigger concerns than Quarless.
Hey, here's a plus: Everyone at work let me the F alone today, even the Denver fans. Looks like I got them trained. 
It always sucks when our team gets their asses handed to them, no matter pre-, regular, or post-season. There is much wailing, gnashing of teeth, and searching for a scapegoat where blame can be placed. The gods must be appeased, and sacrifice is required.
The worst thing, I think, is the doubt and uncertainty it creates for the future. While it's not time to commit hari kari yet, one has to wonder which Packer team is going to show up week to week. If it's the 'bad' team from last night, they likely couldn't beat the Bears or Lions. If it's the team that played vs the 49ers or the Rams, they could dominate anybody.
Since a loss like this can't be placed on a single play or player, we look at coaches and associated schemes and/or game plans. Perhaps even preparation and motivation.
In the end, it's really just an exercise in venting frustrations. Nobody, player or coach, is going to get fired, schemes won't be scrapped, and, most importantly (IMHO), there's not a "white knight" that's going to come to our rescue via trade or FA. It's up to individual players and the team as a whole to cure what ails 'em.
The most disturbing thing (again, JMHO) is how other teams can find our weak spots on film AND successfully exploit them time and time again, but (apparently) our coaches are blind to it.
Just this year, IIRC, we saw Barrington (then Palmer) get targeted, SD targeted Hyde, and Denver targeted Hayward. Since it's not just one position or player, I would think there is a "flaw" in the defensive scheme. Now, I don't know if it's players not talented enough (too slow, too dumb) to execute it, if it's just a poor design, or coaches not being able to recognize/cover our warts, but even Stevie Wonder can see there's a problem. It's existed for years.
I can't say what the fix or fixes could/should be, but I can say the coaches have to try something. Otherwise, it's just an exercise of futility, if not insanity.
Of course, it's next to impossible to criticize ARod, but the points made about him not throwing a pass to this guy or that because "he doesn't trust him" are valid. I agree it makes perfect sense in a close, tight game, protecting a lead, and similar circumstances, but when we are down by as many as 17 points, what possible difference can "trust" make? Gun that mutha in there!
The good?
We're NOT the Minnesota Vikings.
Everyone loves the lack of interceptions but there's a definite downside to AR's aversion to risk. I'd love to see him take a few more chances but he is who he is and expecting him to play the position differently at this point probably isn't realistic. He referenced schematic changes in his post-game interview and that's something they definitely need to look at, in spite of MM's apparent view that's it's largely an execution issue.
Originally Posted by mabuhay:
R E L A X
I'm guessing that sad sack team shouldn't be using this as a mantra because they were in a ****ing coma they were so R E L A X E D.
Originally Posted by Trophies:
I swear. Members of this board could have easily called a better game on O. What does that say?
It says that you think too highly of yourself & the other good folks here @ X4.
Boot failure.
Originally Posted by FinnLander:
Originally Posted by Trophies:
I swear. Members of this board could have easily called a better game on O. What does that say?
It says that you think too highly of yourself & the other good folks here @ X4.
Not really. The point is when facing a veteran QB who is successful at getting the ball out, coupled with an opposing D that is lights out in pass rush, you run the rock! All day.
Running under those circumstances allows for some good things to happen for your team on both sides of the ball.
1. You can chew up clock while keeping your D fresh.
2. Your OL can tee off on the opposing DL in run blocking, wearing them out.
3. You can open up your passing game when they bring an extra S in to cover the run.
4. You keep that experienced opposing QB who had proven time and time again his ability to move the chains on the sidelines.
5. Running the ball protects your QB from relentless pressure and unnecessary hits.
Run the ****ing rock. Pretty simple stuff. Our RBs had just 11 carries 1st half, 8 in the 2nd half. That won't cut it. 2 weeks in a row we quit on the run against veteran QBs, one we barely squeaked out a win, the other we were embarrassed.
Originally Posted by Timmy!:
It always sucks when our team gets their asses handed to them, no matter pre-, regular, or post-season. There is much wailing, gnashing of teeth, and searching for a scapegoat where blame can be placed. The gods must be appeased, and sacrifice is required.
The worst thing, I think, is the doubt and uncertainty it creates for the future. While it's not time to commit hari kari yet, one has to wonder which Packer team is going to show up week to week. If it's the 'bad' team from last night, they likely couldn't beat the Bears or Lions. If it's the team that played vs the 49ers or the Rams, they could dominate anybody.
Since a loss like this can't be placed on a single play or player, we look at coaches and associated schemes and/or game plans. Perhaps even preparation and motivation.
In the end, it's really just an exercise in venting frustrations. Nobody, player or coach, is going to get fired, schemes won't be scrapped, and, most importantly (IMHO), there's not a "white knight" that's going to come to our rescue via trade or FA. It's up to individual players and the team as a whole to cure what ails 'em.
The most disturbing thing (again, JMHO) is how other teams can find our weak spots on film AND successfully exploit them time and time again, but (apparently) our coaches are blind to it.
Just this year, IIRC, we saw Barrington (then Palmer) get targeted, SD targeted Hyde, and Denver targeted Hayward. Since it's not just one position or player, I would think there is a "flaw" in the defensive scheme. Now, I don't know if it's players not talented enough (too slow, too dumb) to execute it, if it's just a poor design, or coaches not being able to recognize/cover our warts, but even Stevie Wonder can see there's a problem. It's existed for years.
I can't say what the fix or fixes could/should be, but I can say the coaches have to try something. Otherwise, it's just an exercise of futility, if not insanity.
Of course, it's next to impossible to criticize ARod, but the points made about him not throwing a pass to this guy or that because "he doesn't trust him" are valid. I agree it makes perfect sense in a close, tight game, protecting a lead, and similar circumstances, but when we are down by as many as 17 points, what possible difference can "trust" make? Gun that mutha in there!
The good?
We're NOT the Minnesota Vikings.
Great post Timmy!
Just curious, not ripping Trophies or anyone else who has ever said this.
The offense staying on the field for loooonnngg drives tires out the opposing D, why doesn't the offense get tired?
Originally Posted by michiganjoe:
Everyone loves the lack of interceptions but there's a definite downside to AR's aversion to risk. I'd love to see him take a few more chances but he is who he is and expecting him to play the position differently at this point probably isn't realistic. He referenced schematic changes in his post-game interview and that's something they definitely need to look at, in spite of MM's apparent view that's it's largely an execution issue.
He's clearly obsessed with not throwing interceptions. That's great on 1st and 10 in your own territory or when you're in FG range. If it's 3rd and 15 and your out of FG range I'd rather see an interception 30 yards down the field where you give your guy a chance to make a play than a checkdown or a throwaway to bring on the punt team.
I guess I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why Rodgers not throwing INTs or even risking INTs is a complaint?
Agree G. Digg. INT's are a huge emotional swing, something not listed in the box score.
Besides, with Crosby's leg we aren't out of FG range often.
Originally Posted by Pikes Peak:
Just curious, not ripping Trophies or anyone else who has ever said this.
The offense staying on the field for loooonnngg drives tires out the opposing D, why doesn't the offense get tired?
...same principal that applies to basketball. Much more physically demanding to fight through a screen than to set one (blocking), and really defensive line if the only position where players rotate because of fatigue. As for DBs & LBers, you see RBs & WRs come on & off field all the time, but not so much for many LBers (CM) & DBs (Shields, Burnett, Dix, Randall).
Originally Posted by Trophies:
Run the ****ing rock. Pretty simple stuff. Our RBs had just 11 carries 1st half, 8 in the 2nd half. That won't cut it. 2 weeks in a row we quit on the run against veteran QBs, one we barely squeaked out a win, the other we were embarrassed.
Bull****.
1st half
12 runs (10 for the RBs) ( 1 ea for Cobb and AR)
12 passes
2nd half
9 runs (8 for the RBs) (1 for AR)
10 passes
That's pretty ****ing balanced in a passing league with the best QB ever.
Execution. The OL **** the bed which limited the running and passing games which equated to 43 total plays (not counting punts and the FG). That's not going to cut it.
Originally Posted by Hungry5:
The OL **** the bed
That's what bothers me most, Hungry. Lots of ugly in that game, but the O-Line had an epic fail. They got manhandled. Rodgers got hit hard, was running for his life, and Denver easily clogged the running gaps. FAIL
The OL actually held their water fairly well against that pass rush. AR did have time. His mental clock accelerated as the game went on.
Denver D is a pure bitch against the run. It's no accident they've allowed an average of 3.7 yards per carry all year.
Originally Posted by MichiganPacker:
Originally Posted by michiganjoe:
Everyone loves the lack of interceptions but there's a definite downside to AR's aversion to risk. I'd love to see him take a few more chances but he is who he is and expecting him to play the position differently at this point probably isn't realistic. He referenced schematic changes in his post-game interview and that's something they definitely need to look at, in spite of MM's apparent view that's it's largely an execution issue.
He's clearly obsessed with not throwing interceptions. That's great on 1st and 10 in your own territory or when you're in FG range. If it's 3rd and 15 and your out of FG range I'd rather see an interception 30 yards down the field where you give your guy a chance to make a play than a checkdown or a throwaway to bring on the punt team.
I'd rather see the punt team trying to tackle the guy returning the ball then the offensive team on an interception. In addition, chucking the ball downfield to see what happens works great in sandlot football, but not so much in the NFL (and especially when your guys are getting separation to start with)
Don't get into 3rd and long is the way to go.
Originally Posted by Grave Digger:
I guess I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why Rodgers not throwing INTs or even risking INTs is a complaint?
It's a matter of balancing risk and reward. More risk carries the chance of picks but it also has the potential for making plays. Demovsky has a good piece on it today.
Originally Posted by Hungry5:
Originally Posted by Trophies:
Run the ****ing rock. Pretty simple stuff. Our RBs had just 11 carries 1st half, 8 in the 2nd half. That won't cut it. 2 weeks in a row we quit on the run against veteran QBs, one we barely squeaked out a win, the other we were embarrassed.
Bull****.
1st half
12 runs (10 for the RBs) ( 1 ea for Cobb and AR)
12 passes
2nd half
9 runs (8 for the RBs) (1 for AR)
10 passes
That's pretty ****ing balanced in a passing league with the best QB ever.
Execution. The OL **** the bed which limited the running and passing games which equated to 43 total plays (not counting punts and the FG). That's not going to cut it.
Its not bull****. You just don't like it, apparently. WTF, Hungry5? I'm not talking about a balanced attack... Never said anything on the subject of a balanced attack. I maintain they should have had double the run totals. At least that.
Run more. Win more.
Both of our lines **** the bed...
So, they ran it 18 times with the RBs and only had 43 plays... so you want a 36 run - 7 pass distribution?
Can't run much when you're down by 17.
Yes. I believe something closer to those percentages would have worked better. Whatever. My point is we should go run heavy. And, if DickRod is unable to block, bring in another OL to get the job done. Run it until they stop it.
Why not?
Originally Posted by Grave Digger:
Can't run much when you're down by 17.
I don't buy that at all. Not only that, but getting pass happy is what got us down by 17...
Down 7-0 in the 1st Q. Rodgers goes: pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, punt. That was our 2nd drive.
On a 12 play drive to get our first score, 7 of those 12 were runs.
Our next scoring drive was, again, 12 plays. 5 runs, FG. 17-10.
Next drive: pass, pass, pass, pass, run, pass, pass, punt...
Rest of the game was all pass. Never scored again.
McCarthy et al would get crucified here and in the sports media if they took the ball out of the hands of the best player in the NFL to the tune of 60%-70% of their offensive snaps.
you've been watching the GBP for the past 10 years right?
pounding the rock is not who they is. you might want it that way, I might want more of it, but that ain't what they've been doing.
I think the D giving up 17 is what got us down by 17.
Originally Posted by Hungry5:
McCarthy et al would get crucified here and in the sports media if they took the ball out of the hands of the best player in the NFL to the tune of 60%-70% of their offensive snaps.
I don't care. I'm sick to death of hearing this crap. Run the damn ball. Win.
Originally Posted by Tdog:
you've been watching the GBP for the past 10 years right?
pounding the rock is not who they is. you might want it that way, I might want more of it, but that ain't what they've been doing.
...and, maybe they should.
Originally Posted by Grave Digger:
I think the D giving up 17 is what got us down by 17.
Yeah, the DL taking a two week long bye didn't help matters.
3 week. They haven't played since Oct. 18th. I'm hopeful they show up next Sunday or it will be a month
Run more. Win more.
3 key opportunities the offense missed before the game got out of hand from the playlist:
1st quarter Den 7-0
(2:05) 3-5-GB 35 (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete deep middle to 18-R.Cobb.
2nd quarter Den 14-0
(13:28) 2-2-GB 28 27-E.Lacy up the middle to GB 28 for no gain
(12:43) 3-2-GB 28 27-E.Lacy right tackle to GB 29 for 1 yard.
3rd quarter Den 17-7
(10:01) 3-4-DEN 33 (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete deep right to 18-R.Cobb. PENALTY on GB-75-B.Bulaga, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at DEN 33 - No Play.
This is just one of those games where I tip my hat to the Broncos for playing at a level above the Packers. Reminded me of when the Ravens came to Lambeau after their Superbowl win and we beat them from pillar to post.
Outside Zone by the Broncos. Who is responsible for the strong side D gap? Nate Palmer has to get there. #Packers pic.twitter.com/61cYHmvhBK
â Robert Olson (@RobertOlson92) November 3, 2015
Horrendous by Palmer
No one was stopping the outside runs early. We closed that off and Denver went to between the tackles and still gained decent yardage. And when they weren't gaining on the ground, their crossing patterns made it look like it was a 7-on-7 passing practice.
Dom & Co should have learned from the SD game, but apparently they never thought Denver would play copycat. If we see the same thing this weekend -- and it's possible with another strong TE and RB, to say nothing of Newton's running -- then MM needs to do something about Dom.
Dom can come up with the greatest scheme ever but if guys go out there and show like Casey Hayward (played skeered and soft) or Nate Palmer (played dum) did it won't matter much.
Very disappointed in how Whitt prepared and deployed the corners last week, too.
I'd seriously consider rolling out Gunter to track Greg Olsen in some kind of big nickel formation. Can't let players like him get free releases into the secondary all the time.
Originally Posted by MichiganPacker:
He's clearly obsessed with not throwing interceptions. That's great on 1st and 10 in your own territory or when you're in FG range. If it's 3rd and 15 and your out of FG range I'd rather see an interception 30 yards down the field where you give your guy a chance to make a play than a checkdown or a throwaway to bring on the punt team.
I disagree. I do think he holds the ball too long at times looking for a bigger play.
Seems Rodgers only likes Cobb now.