Be careful, Chilli. You're operating with the twin disadvantages of 1) Knowing a little bit about the game, and 2) Actually having watched the opponent.
Originally Posted by phaedrus:
Given the lack of receivers getting open, running more and passing less makes even more sense than usual.
That's been true in the past when teams have played two safeties deep because they feared a downfield passing game. From what the post-game reviews said, Denver was walking a safety into the box to put 8 guys near the line of scrimmage because they didn't fear the Packers downfield passing game.
Denver is very deep at CB and was comfortable doubling Cobb and leaving the other receivers in one on one matchups. The positives for the Packers going forward is that not many teams have Denver's depth at CB and Montgomery's eventual return should help them go 4 or 5 wide (since they don't trust Janis or Abby for that purpose). If you play up to stop the run, there's a lot of plays to be had if you can win the one on ones. When the WRs were Nelson, Jennings, Jones, and Cobb paired with Finley that was tough to stop. Adams hasn't adequately replaced what Jennings was 3-4 years ago yet, Nelson is out, and RichRod can be covered by an AJ Hawk type. This will be "solved" if and when Adams and Montgomery make teams pay for doing this. I don't hold out a lot of hope for RichRod.
In 2 games this season Lacy came close to 20 carries, 19 in wk 1 and 18 in wk 4.
Week 1: 7 carries in the 1st half, 12 in the 2nd half
Week 4: 9 in each half
Point is, if the offense is working, all of it, Lacy will get closer to 20 carries.
Sounds great that Sitton and the OL want Lacy to gt 20 carries, but it looks like they need to execute their job in run blocking and pass blocking so that the offense can get close to the 70 plays. All starts up front.
You're right. MM is sneaky smart.
If the Packers end up facing Denver again (I highly doubt it from the Denver end) that game will turn out dramatically different
I read somewhere that you need to run to win.
If by run you mean score, I agree.
Bob McGinn says it pretty spot-on in his game rating.
QUARTERBACKS (one-half)...point out of 5 total
Let's be honest. No matter how good the defense is, it should be impossible for a player as great as Aaron Rodgers to play 60 minutes and pass for 77 yards. The rules favoring passing, the head coach favoring passing and his 11 years of experience should preclude such a thing happening. The protection was more than adequate. You see whiff sacks all the time around the league, but there was almost none of that. Sometimes it just comes down to standing tall in the pocket and following through to make a great throw. If the lick comes, so be it. All this bouncing around must make receivers and blockers a little confused. Jones and Adams really aren't separating-type receivers. To win road games against teams with elite defenses makes it almost incumbent upon the quarterback to throw people open. Interceptions hurt passer rating but they don't automatically spell defeat. Sometimes they're better than a punt. Rodgers looked deep a lot but couldn't pull the trigger. There was enough room for someone with his extreme arm talent to make the spectacular play and thereby galvanize a stagnant offense. He's the face of the franchise for moments like this. Rodgers was responsible for the third sack holding the ball for 5 seconds when a check-down receiver was in clear view. He overthrew Cobb on what might have been a 77-yard TD. He made a poor throw to Richard Rodgers on a free play that could have been a 7-yard TD. Many times he has wiggled out of sacks by flicking the ball away on the way down. This time, it cost his team a lost fumble and a safety.
I prefer to take the glass half-full approach to the game. It's entirely possible that Pittsburgh Macho getting his ass kicked could end up as a positive by the end of the year. The upcoming game at Carolina should offer a very good clue.
Just a thought...
There has been talk of the Packers exclusively scheming the receivers to win isolated 1-1 matchups.
That is not entirely true. Against the Chiefs, how many times did the Packers go to Cobb in the red zone with a cluster of receivers in front of him?
Obviously, they saw a weakness with the KC scheme and schemed for it. So it's not like the Packers are unwilling to scheme an alternative to 1-1 receiver matchups.
put on your tinfoil hats... the GBP was told to take a dive in that game and they did.
on to Carolina.
Next Question....
Hey Mike, are the receivers having trouble.....
We're on to Carolina.
Is the Quarterback...
We're on to Carolina.
Listened to that Wilde clip in the Carolina thread that titm posted and, putting aside the inherent bias of two media dudes bitching about players, I came away with one impression.
When you think about all the (justifiable) **** that the Patriots have had to deal with media-wise over the years (Video-gate, Hernandez, Deflate-gate etc.), you have to grudgingly admire how they've slogged through all that ****.
Packers coming off like a bunch of thin-skinned pussies compared to Billy B.'s Death Star. Man up and play.
Originally Posted by phaedrus:
Just a thought...
There has been talk of the Packers exclusively scheming the receivers to win isolated 1-1 matchups.
That is not entirely true. Against the Chiefs, how many times did the Packers go to Cobb in the red zone with a cluster of receivers in front of him?
Obviously, they saw a weakness with the KC scheme and schemed for it. So it's not like the Packers are unwilling to scheme an alternative to 1-1 receiver matchups.
yes, but I guess the question is...why wouldn't they go to more of that in a game that they were not having any success with isolation routes? You would hope that there is a very good technical reason that is beyond our knowledge as to why they didn't.
I believe some posters here have Bill B blow up dolls.
Well, no Dom ones after seeing that our defense has given up 1,048 yards in the last two games.
I know Pro Football Focus is looked down upon by most everyone, but I still look to it for areas I know little about - like offensive line play. Here they have the Packers with the 20th ranked offensive line. We can blame Rodgers, the receivers, Lacy, McCarthy, etc. all we want, but I think any Packer fan would say this o-line is not playing as well as last year, as it's showing.
I'm at a loss as to why. AR having no one to throw to, or refusing to throw to, is making them block for longer than usual. Most were excited to see them add Solari to the staff but maybe he only looked good when he had 4 RD1's playing for him?
Originally Posted by DH13:
I'm at a loss as to why. AR having no one to throw to, or refusing to throw to, is making them block for longer than usual. Most were excited to see them add Solari to the staff but maybe he only looked good when he had 4 RD1's playing for him?
He's got a great pedigree. His KC OLs were top notch, as were his SF OLs. I'd rather have him coaching our guys up front than Campen...
CUPackFan,
LT dinged all season to date. RT was out for a significant amount of time with MCL. Lang had the concussion. I see reasoning behind our OL getting a poor score this season. Add to it the loss of some skill players to injury. Jordy out, Cobb dinged, Lacy dinged, Adams out for a long stretch. That can affect an OL too, with Rodgers having to hold the ball more, plays breaking down, etc.
Odd they picked the TD drive and the FG drive to highlight the piss-poor blocking effort from Rodgers.
McCarthy mentioned maybe they were asking too much from RR. After watching that I can see why, he was trying to block Ware on most of those plays.
Same clip as before on AR's "body language." This one shows AR going up to RR and saying something afterwards. So it looks like it was RR's inability to block Ware that caused AR to throw up his arms like that.
Among other things I suppose.
Wait, they are expecting Dick Rodgers to make a living blocking DeMarcus???? No wonder we sucked in Denver.
Originally Posted by CUPackFan:
I know Pro Football Focus is looked down upon by most everyone, but I still look to it for areas I know little about - like offensive line play. Here they have the Packers with the 20th ranked offensive line. We can blame Rodgers, the receivers, Lacy, McCarthy, etc. all we want, but I think any Packer fan would say this o-line is not playing as well as last year, as it's showing.
A couple games with Barclay and Bakh dealing with a knee. There has been some drop off but IMO they have been steady enough.
PFF provides some value with their play tracking (outside blitz, in/out blitz, 3-wide overloaded sets, etc...), but absolutely nothing with their player/positional rankings.
FLPACKER:
yes, but I guess the question is...why wouldn't they go to more of that in a game that they were not having any success with isolation routes? You would hope that there is a very good technical reason that is beyond our knowledge as to why they didn't.
FLPACKER, I couldn't agree more. It is perplexing (isolating to the Bronco game I mean).