Skip to main content

When he said that the Packers are predictable. They are. On both sides of the ball. There was a time when it didn't matter on the offensive side. That's no longer the case. The Packers are just as mediocre there as they have been on defense. The Lions, yes, the Detroit Lions lined up and did something defensively that MM had suggested few teams outside of the Bronco's could do. You press the WR's, who have all the speed and agility I possess after a 3 pc. all white and jumbo drink, you make a frustrated Rodgers hold the ball. There's been more than adequate time to throw in a few of the games. Nobody gets open. Rodgers has started relying on rolling out of the pocket way too often just to get an open receiver. Lots of holding penalties  on the OL as a result because the blocking angles change. Minimal gains when he runs because the vertically challenged receivers aren't making db's and linebackers vacate the area. They just play the receiver one on one until it's long yardage. And the running game is non-existent in large part because they won't really commit to it.

 

Somebody said that the Packers defense played well Sunday. Somebody else claimed they've improved this season. I can't agree on either of those points. They played better than the offense against a Lions team that had shown no running game. Until the offense finally scored that is. Watching Hayward chasing Matt Stafford on that back breaking 3rd and 9 and not being able to catch him before the diving tackle attempt was particularly distressing.

Last edited by Va. Packer
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

No. Team. Speed. As we saw on Sunday, a bunch of 10 yard hooks. Safety's can cheat the LOS because who's going to run past the DBs, James Jones? Amazing how losing one guy that can stretch the field affects the other receivers. It would also help if they had some speed in the backfield. Nada. Maybe they should bring the fullback back and try to pound the ball. Maybe two TE's. I caught as many passes as Jones did last week and that was on 63 pass attempts. Basically playing 10 on 11.

Originally Posted by Va. Packer:

And the running game is non-existent in large part because they won't really commit to it.

 

 

I believe when we were 6-0 we were rushing somewhere around 30 attempts per game. On our 3 game slide, I believe we rushed 15-18 times per game.

 

Run and win. Really simple. Even when it doesn't work, keep running the rock.

Originally Posted by Hungry5:

VS DET they came out throwing and drove down for the FG, then they went on 9 drives with 9 punts 

I knew GB was in for a long day when after matriculating the ball down the field with short passes on that first drive Rodgers got impatient on 3rd down and threw that long ball to Davante, who ain't now and who'll never be Randy Moss. Should've just kept doing the short stuff.

Originally Posted by cuqui:
Originally Posted by Hungry5:

VS DET they came out throwing and drove down for the FG, then they went on 9 drives with 9 punts 

I knew GB was in for a long day when after matriculating the ball down the field with short passes on that first drive Rodgers got impatient on 3rd down and threw that long ball to Davante, who ain't now and who'll never be Randy Moss. Should've just kept doing the short stuff.

Hank Stram...is that you?  Please send Otis Taylor and Ed Podolak. 

 

Agreed cuqui, but as always I wonder when that is all AR's decision or the overall play call/scheme that dictates the throw? Certainly he reads what the D gives them and should be going with the best match-up. I don't have the all-22 to look at but are the other routes on that play also long developing and/or deeper? Cobb is quick but not fast, and is not the kind of guy who is going to win the physical battles a the LOS, so if he is running the underneath on a play like that he likely isn't open. Also, Jones seems to have lost whatever he had to start the season.

 

How bad is it that many fans are putting their Packers playoff hopes on guys like Quarless and Montgomery to kick-start the offense?

 

 

Everything is the problem right now.  Jordy being out has affected the deep pass; the other WRs are playing like crap, especially Cobb; the RBs have taken a huge step back this year; the TEs, although never great, are playing at a below average level; the offensive line, a strength of this team last year, is now a huge weakness; the playcalling, while never imaginative, is becoming way too predictable; and yes, QB play is worse than we're used to.  Literally everything needs to improve on offense.  We can debate the order of the issues but fact is, they all need to get fixed if this team wants to win a championship.  

Started following this guy on twitter last week. Good stuff. Like this.

 

Last edited by ilcuqui
Originally Posted by Hungry5:

Run and win, it's not that simple.

 

VS DET they came out throwing and drove down for the FG, then they went on 9 drives with 9 punts were the run game flat out sucked. They made the comeback by throwing. Similarly in the game @CAR.

 

 

 

The problem is that the lack of a run game is linked to the inability to stretch the field deep. If the defense walks a safety into the box you have to be able to beat that with the pass. The fact that Richard Rodgers can't beat anyone down the seam means the safeties can play a couple of steps closer which makes it tougher to run. The lack of a credible deep threat means the safeties and CBs can move even closer to LOS as they feel that even if they get beat they'll be able to recover.

 

Right now, this offense is a bunch of possession/slot receivers who struggle getting off the LOS and, other than Cobb, don't change direction on patterns that well. These receivers are very different from the ones that the offense was built around - Jennings, Driver, Nelson - who were guys who could change direction quickly and get open on slants and out patterns. If you have one of two of those types (or a threat at TE) then slower possession-type guys like Jones, Adams, etc. fill a nice role. When all you have is guys like Jones and Adams (other than Cobb), you'll get problems.

Originally Posted by cuqui:

Sure did, DH.

 

Interesting how in the GIF you have what the effect of having a TE who can stretch the defense has on all the routes. Perillo caught a beautiful throw that was fit into a small window because he forced the LB to take a deeper drop. Check out Adams on this play, He's wide open for a minimum 5 yard gain and can score if he makes one guy miss. All because the LB has taken a deep drop.

For those wondering what Josh exactly said:

 

Green Bay Packers offensive lineman Josh Sitton gave a blunt assessment of what is ailing what is usually a potent Packers offensive attack.

 

A guest on Gannett's weekly Packers show, Clubhouse Live, hosted by fellow offensive lineman David Bakhtiari, Sitton responded to a question about the offense by saying: 

I think that our offense has become too predictable. Teams know exactly what we're going to do every week. We need to show them some different things. We're not intimidating the defense right now. We're not making them think, so they can just play really fast. And obviously, we've just got to execute better. We're way too talented to not be playing at a high level right now. We need to execute what we do, and then do it better.

Pretty telling answer from the veteran offensive lineman there, especially when you consider that only an hour or so earlier, his head coach was saying this:

"I think we've got to trust the plan, and I think our players need to trust the plan."

 

The problem is that the lack of a run game is linked to the inability to stretch the field deep. If the defense walks a safety into the box you have to be able to beat that with the pass. The fact that Richard Rodgers can't beat anyone down the seam means the safeties can play a couple of steps closer which makes it tougher to run. The lack of a credible deep threat means the safeties and CBs can move even closer to LOS as they feel that even if they get beat they'll be able to recover.

 

Right now, this offense is a bunch of possession/slot receivers who struggle getting off the LOS and, other than Cobb, don't change direction on patterns that well. These receivers are very different from the ones that the offense was built around - Jennings, Driver, Nelson - who were guys who could change direction quickly and get open on slants and out patterns. If you have one of two of those types (or a threat at TE) then slower possession-type guys like Jones, Adams, etc. fill a nice role. When all you have is guys like Jones and Adams (other than Cobb), you'll get problems.


Great insight. Lacy feasted off defenses that only had 6 in the box because they were selling out to limit our big plays in the passing game. Like your observations on the type of receivers that the passing game was built on, our oline was made with pass protection in mind. We've never run effectively vs. a defense that is playing "run".

Continuation of that same article. Hmm..why does this sound familiar?:

 

Look, it's no mystery that the Packers are in an offensive funk and they need to do anything and everything to get themselves out of it. And both these quotes are pretty much standard fare for an offensive lineman who just got done pass protecting over 60 times in a single game and a head coach who has supreme confidence in his abilities to steer his team's ship out of treacherous waters. 

 

However, it also speaks to a very real possibility that Sitton, and possibly one or more of his teammates, are not only getting frustrated with the offense they are being asked to run but they might, just might, be starting to tune McCarthy out. 

 

Far fetched? Maybe. But McCarthy has been in his current position a long time. And it's only natural to think that, after so many years and so many times hearing the "We need to get back to fundamentals" message that players are starting to grow weary of being told what they need to do when they see a coaching staff doing precious little to alter its own approach after the team's first three game losing streak with Aaron Rodgers as a full time starter. 

 

Things have gotten very comfortable around 1265 Lombardi. Maybe too comfortable. And maybe this loss to the Lions is a huge turning point.

The only question is if the turn is up or down.

Good read Packerboi as it really brings home, at least to me, is the finger pointing that's going on - Coaching vs Execution. I think both have sucked.  But my thinking is leaning more towards coaching, where they are so- F'in- predictable, as the bigger contributor to this funk the Packers are in.  And now Aaron is acting like he has PTSD, because defenses are getting to him. What really is comical is how arrogant MM is.  The coaching has to evolve and I ain't seeing that - just same old, same old.  

 

 

Last edited by Esox
Originally Posted by Hungry5:

       

I'd agree if the running game was working the past 4+ games. This offense throws to set up the run, even with Feast Mode. 


       


I know what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree. I think in CAR Starks was busting at an 8 yds per carry clip, and they quit.

If you look back at our stats through the first 6 games, I bet we were over 25 carries in every game. It is tough to say if the pass sets up the run, or the run sets up the pass, but my money is on the later. Our wins may in fact point to that.

All I know is we have looked the opposite of our first 5 games. I believe McCarthy has to maintain an aire of confidence in his system and his players. We should be OK. Nothing to go on based on what they've shown of late, but faith.

Funny, I recall my wife and I looking at each other in shock, saying "we're done," after losing to DET in the 2010 season. Snuck in the back door, got hot, and won it all. If we are going to peak, I'd rather it be the end of the season and throughout the playoffs.
 
Originally Posted by Trophies:
I know what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree. I think in CAR Starks was busting at an 8 yds per carry clip, and they quit.

VS CAR

Starks was 6 for 29 w/ a long of 15 in the 1st half. Take away the long of 15 for Starks and he was 5 for 14, just under 3ypc. Don't see the 8 per...

Lacy was 4 for 3 w/ a long of 3 in the 1st half

 

At the half they were down 27-7... so they had to pass to come back.

 

 

Originally Posted by Trophies:
If you look back at our stats through the first 6 games, I bet we were over 25 carries in every game. It is tough to say if the pass sets up the run, or the run sets up the pass, but my money is on the later. Our wins may in fact point to that. 

 

Yes, over 25 /game average. But when look at the runs by half they ran slightly more in the 2nd half, when they had the lead... built by passing. But in reality they were fairly balanced 1st/vs/2nd half, due to production.

Opp - 1st / 2nd  --  ttl yards

CHI - 10 / 20  --  133  

SEA - 14 / 15  --  127

KAN - 19 / 13  --  123

SFO - 15 / 18  --  162

STL - 15 / 12  --  86

SDG - 8 / 9  --  133

 

DEN - 12 / 9  --  90

CAR - 12 / 7  --  71

DET - 12 / 6  --  47

 

They gave up on the run in these last 3 games due to production, or the lack thereof would be more accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last edited by H5

I can't buy into the 'we can't run the ball because of the box being stacked' nor the 'passing game sucks because our WRs can't get seperation' theories.

There are 15 other teams better at rushing the ball than we are. Does anybody really believe that NFL defenses are scared of the Eagles, Jets, or the Cowboys passing game prowess and won't stack the box against them?

There are 21 other teams better at passing, including the likes of Jacksonville, Cleveland, and Baltimore. Again, does anybody really believe they have better QBs and WRs? Ditto for their powerhouse rushing attacks that force opposing defenses to stack the box that opens up their passing game?

 

 

I think the Packer D improved in that they didn't allow 500 yards of offense by the Lions. That's a huge improvement from the previous three weeks.  Originally Posted by Va. Packer:

When he said that the Packers are predictable. They are. On both sides of the ball. There was a time when it didn't matter on the offensive side. That's no longer the case. The Packers are just as mediocre there as they have been on defense. The Lions, yes, the Detroit Lions lined up and did something defensively that MM had suggested few teams outside of the Bronco's could do. You press the WR's, who have all the speed and agility I possess after a 3 pc. all white and jumbo drink, you make a frustrated Rodgers hold the ball. There's been more than adequate time to throw in a few of the games. Nobody gets open. Rodgers has started relying on rolling out of the pocket way too often just to get an open receiver. Lots of holding penalties  on the OL as a result because the blocking angles change. Minimal gains when he runs because the vertically challenged receivers aren't making db's and linebackers vacate the area. They just play the receiver one on one until it's long yardage. And the running game is non-existent in large part because they won't really commit to it.

 

Somebody said that the Packers defense played well Sunday. Somebody else claimed they've improved this season. I can't agree on either of those points. They played better than the offense against a Lions team that had shown no running game. Until the offense finally scored that is. Watching Hayward chasing Matt Stafford on that back breaking 3rd and 9 and not being able to catch him before the diving tackle attempt was particularly distressing.

 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×