14 years ago
"Mike had to remind us twice in the locker room that we did get a win," Kuhn said.

I agree with Twinkiegorilla.

bozz_2006 wrote:


millertime
14 years ago
Rodgers had ONE BAD THROW!!! The only other bad decision I saw was when he threw it deep on 3rd down towards the sidelines. He was on the run and could have easily gotten the first with his legs. He got greedy and it cost us a first down and a punt.

IMO, Jennings needs to make these big plays if he wants to be a top 5 WR in this league:

1. Dropped deep ball last week that could have sealed the game for us.
2. Catching or breaking up the INT today. Alphonso Smith??? Greg Jennings HAS to win that match up.
3. Keeping his feet in bounds for the TD today. It was a REALLY tough catch, but if he makes that, Aaron doesn't have to throw the following INT.

But, alas, a sloppy win is better than a noble loss (see Arizona last year).

Go PACK!
Greg C.
14 years ago
I agree with you, millertime, that Jennings has been a little off his game this year. Maybe it's because Finley is getting so many balls thrown to him, so Jennings hasn't gotten into a rhythm. On the other hand, he seemed to do fine in the second half of last season, when Finley became a big part of the offense.
blank
K_Buz
14 years ago
I am confused about what to think of the Packers after this game.

The defense couldn't get off the field, but we had 4 turnovers.

Their TEs KILLED us on the underneath passes.

Rodgers looked off, but with only 22 mins in TOP, I'm not sure how much sync he could be in.

Jennings has been almost non existent this year. Averaging 3 catches/game and less than 40 yds/game.

I don't remember one slant vs the Lions. That used to be our bread and butter on 3rd and mid.

Woodson is a beast. Without him, we would have lost. He almost single-handedly stopped the lions in the 4th quarter.

Overall, I would have to rate today's game at a C-. It would have been a D/D+, but hey, a win is a win. But there wasn't one aspect of today's game I would like to see on a weekly basis.
Greg C.
14 years ago
That's pretty much where I'm at, K_Buz, although I think Rodgers played very well except for that first interception, which was obviously a poor throw.

You bring up a good point about the lack of a short passing game. The Lions were the team that used short passes as a basis for their offense today, and they were very effective. I don't remember any slants from the Packers, and certainly not any screens.

These past two games the offense has scored a TD on its first possession and then faltered. It's almost like they get overconfident.
blank
olds70supreme
14 years ago
I also noticed that the defense seemed tired, but not even just at the end of the game. It seemed that earlier on the D was looking gassed. I wish that the run game and short passing game would be more involved to help these guys get off the field and stay there. Of course nobody's going to complain when you get a three play scoring drive for a TD because you have to put points on the board to win. On the other hand, it seems that when you are thin on linemen and the linebackers have been chasing RB's and TE's across the field on crossing routes all day that it might change your offensive play calling.

Also, on kind of a related note, what has happened to the checkdowns to the RB? I understand that the Packer offense is designed to pass, but a 3-4 yard dump off to the RB can almost be or is as effective as a run.

I think a lot of it comes down to the comfort level that many fans have with the style of playcalling and offense that is being run. In the end, however, the W/L column is all that matters. An ugly win is still a win. Hopefully enough will come out of these close and lost games to make the team more effective.
blank
Dexter_Sinister
14 years ago
I don't watch the Packers play for the win. I watch the Packers because I love football. It is always so much better when they win. But I will sit in the stands on a 34 deg and rainy day until the last snap in a blow out loss. Even if it was the last game of an 0-16 season. Because watching the Packers lose is better than not having the Packers.

Would you rather be a Viking fan with the real possibility of a team that last year missed the Superbowl by one play and facing the real possibility of the team moving to LA because they can't fill the stands in MN?

Come on people, suck it up. Are we or are we not better than Vikings fans?
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
evad04
14 years ago

This was a very unimpressive win, so this will be mostly negatives:

1. The playcalling on third and short can get awfully weird.

Exhibit A: On third and one, they handed off to John Kuhn running parallel to the line of scrimmage. No gain. Kuhn is a straight ahead runner--a fullback. Why did they call this play for him?

Exhibit B: On third and one or two, Rodgers ran a bootleg and heaved the ball 20 yards downfield to a receiver who wasn't open. Incomplete. This one may be more on Rodgers than McCarthy. If that's a short pass to Finley, I have no problem with it, but if he's not open you don't throw it downfield to a receiver who's not open. Probably you have to try and run for the first down.

Exhibit C: Rodgers threw downfield to Jennings on third and short and the ball was intercepted. Again, the receiver wasn't even open and he just heaved it down there. I don't get it.

"Greg C." wrote:


Exhibit A: Is it your honest belief that the play as called was designed for Kuhn to run horizontally? Was the thought "we need to call that horizontal run play, that'll really screw with their psyches to see us not try to convert!" Kuhn tried to make the best of it but either failed to make a cut or took what they gave him.

Exhibit B: The bootleg almost definitely had the underneath TEs as the primary receivers, evidenced by Rodgers double clutching the ball. Finley was tied up at the LOS, he couldn't get away. Football basics: there are primary receivers before the snap, then there are your secondary options. When the primary receivers aren't open, the quarterback will try to get it to one of the other guys. Sorry if I'm insulting you, but c'mon, look at the play in context. It is fallacious logic to assume that because the result was a 20-yard heave downfield that it was the intention of the play.

Exhibit C: I don't know why Rodgers threw this one. Driver was making his break on an out route and seemed to have good position on the receiver. I think Rodgers dearly wanted that one back. Oh, and to continue my dickish sarcasm, Driver was also one of the receivers in the called play. You know, when they call plays I'm pretty sure multiple receivers are on routes. Sometimes they don't get open, sometimes the QB makes the wrong read or a bad throw.

You can't just interpret the result of the play as indicative of bad play calling.

"evad04" wrote:



Yep, it looked like the run by Kuhn was off tackle. Not horizontal, of course, but not even close to being straight ahead. That was a poor use of Kuhn's talents.

As for the other plays, my criticism is that on the second one (exhibit 😎, apparently Finley was the only receiver who ran a short route. So when he was covered, Rodgers was forced to throw the ball 15- 20 yards downfield. Not a high percentage play on third and short. I think this offense is becoming too dependent on Finley. And on the third play (exhibit C) I'm sticking to what I wrote earlier, which is that the degree of difficulty was way higher than it needed to be in that situation.

The bottom line is that when you make three unconventional play calls in the same situation and every single one of them fails utterly (against a bad defense, even), the play calling is open to criticism. If they continue to do this and it succeeds more often than it fails, then I will change my opinion accordingly.

"Greg C." wrote:


Okay, not all of Kuhn's runs are simple dive handoffs. He took what appeared to be a C-gap/outside pitch earlier. His best run to seal the game was a stretch play that he cut back to the inside -- it would seem his skill set is more varied than you give him credit for. Sometimes guys don't make plays.

And, again, on point C I think you're wrong. You're not questioning the throw here as much as you are the playcall. I just posted that Driver was indeed open on an underneath out-route. Do you expect a 3rd and short play to feature ONLY underneath short routes? Hey guys, we need 2 yards. Let's make sure no one is running beyond 5 yards deep! I don't know how to make this any clearer: the problem wasn't in the play selection it was in the execution.

So if you're script reads "three unconventional" playcalls you are guilty of editorializing/missing context.
William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."
Greg C.
14 years ago

This was a very unimpressive win, so this will be mostly negatives:

1. The playcalling on third and short can get awfully weird.

Exhibit A: On third and one, they handed off to John Kuhn running parallel to the line of scrimmage. No gain. Kuhn is a straight ahead runner--a fullback. Why did they call this play for him?

Exhibit B: On third and one or two, Rodgers ran a bootleg and heaved the ball 20 yards downfield to a receiver who wasn't open. Incomplete. This one may be more on Rodgers than McCarthy. If that's a short pass to Finley, I have no problem with it, but if he's not open you don't throw it downfield to a receiver who's not open. Probably you have to try and run for the first down.

Exhibit C: Rodgers threw downfield to Jennings on third and short and the ball was intercepted. Again, the receiver wasn't even open and he just heaved it down there. I don't get it.

"evad04" wrote:


Exhibit A: Is it your honest belief that the play as called was designed for Kuhn to run horizontally? Was the thought "we need to call that horizontal run play, that'll really screw with their psyches to see us not try to convert!" Kuhn tried to make the best of it but either failed to make a cut or took what they gave him.

Exhibit B: The bootleg almost definitely had the underneath TEs as the primary receivers, evidenced by Rodgers double clutching the ball. Finley was tied up at the LOS, he couldn't get away. Football basics: there are primary receivers before the snap, then there are your secondary options. When the primary receivers aren't open, the quarterback will try to get it to one of the other guys. Sorry if I'm insulting you, but c'mon, look at the play in context. It is fallacious logic to assume that because the result was a 20-yard heave downfield that it was the intention of the play.

Exhibit C: I don't know why Rodgers threw this one. Driver was making his break on an out route and seemed to have good position on the receiver. I think Rodgers dearly wanted that one back. Oh, and to continue my dickish sarcasm, Driver was also one of the receivers in the called play. You know, when they call plays I'm pretty sure multiple receivers are on routes. Sometimes they don't get open, sometimes the QB makes the wrong read or a bad throw.

You can't just interpret the result of the play as indicative of bad play calling.

"Greg C." wrote:



Yep, it looked like the run by Kuhn was off tackle. Not horizontal, of course, but not even close to being straight ahead. That was a poor use of Kuhn's talents.

As for the other plays, my criticism is that on the second one (exhibit 😎, apparently Finley was the only receiver who ran a short route. So when he was covered, Rodgers was forced to throw the ball 15- 20 yards downfield. Not a high percentage play on third and short. I think this offense is becoming too dependent on Finley. And on the third play (exhibit C) I'm sticking to what I wrote earlier, which is that the degree of difficulty was way higher than it needed to be in that situation.

The bottom line is that when you make three unconventional play calls in the same situation and every single one of them fails utterly (against a bad defense, even), the play calling is open to criticism. If they continue to do this and it succeeds more often than it fails, then I will change my opinion accordingly.

"evad04" wrote:


Okay, not all of Kuhn's runs are simple dive handoffs. He took what appeared to be a C-gap/outside pitch earlier. His best run to seal the game was a stretch play that he cut back to the inside -- it would seem his skill set is more varied than you give him credit for. Sometimes guys don't make plays.

And, again, on point C I think you're wrong. You're not questioning the throw here as much as you are the playcall. I just posted that Driver was indeed open on an underneath out-route. Do you expect a 3rd and short play to feature ONLY underneath short routes? Hey guys, we need 2 yards. Let's make sure no one is running beyond 5 yards deep! I don't know how to make this any clearer: the problem wasn't in the play selection it was in the execution.

So if you're script reads "three unconventional" playcalls you are guilty of editorializing/missing context.

"Greg C." wrote:



How about a slant? How about having the RB or FB get into the flat where he's available for a checkdown? How about having more than one receiver running a short route? Of course they don't all have to be running routes within five yards of the line of scrimmage, but I'm going to go out on a limb to say that option B should be less than 15-20 yards downfield. I like McCarthy's playcalling for the most part, but I think he's making things too difficult for Rodgers and the receivers.

I will have to watch the Kuhn play again because you are seeing it very differently than I did.

Normally I like your level-headed posts, but I'm beginning to wonder if you would ever criticize Mike McCarthy for anything.
blank
CDNRodgersfan
14 years ago
To offer a few positives, I thought Woodson looked like the reigning DPOY. Looks like he hasn't lost a step. Watching Calvin Johnson have his way made me miss Al Harris for the first time as he specialized in dealing with big WR
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : Even with the context it's ... what?
Mucky Tundra (20-Nov) : Matt LaFleur without context: “I don’t wanna pat you on the butt and you poop in my hand.”
beast (20-Nov) : We brought in a former Packers OL coach to help evaluate OL as a scout
beast (20-Nov) : Jets have been pretty good at picking DL
Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : He landed good players thanks to high draft slot. He isn't good.
Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : He can shove his knowledge up his ass. He knows nothing.
beast (20-Nov) : More knowledge, just like bring in the Jets head coach
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : What? Why? Huh?
beast (19-Nov) : I wonder if the Packers might to try to bring Douglas in through Milt Hendrickson/Ravens connections
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : The Jets fired Joe Douglas, per sources
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : Jets are a mess......
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Pretty sure Jets fired their scouting staff and just pluck former Packers.
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Jets sign Anders Carlson to their 53.
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : When you cycle the weeks, the total over remains for season. But you get your W/L for that selected week. Confusing.
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the total and percentage are the same as the previous weeks
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the total and percentage are the same as the previous weeks
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the totals are accurate..nrvrtmind
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : I don't follow what you are saying. The totals are not the same as last week.
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : ok so then wht are the totals the same as last week?
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : NFL Pick'em is auto updated when NFL Scores tab is clicked
Martha Careful (19-Nov) : The offense was OK. Let's not forget the Bear defense is very very good.
packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : Who updates the leaderboard on NFLPickem?
beast (19-Nov) : Has the Packers offense been worse since the former Jets coach joined the Packers?
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Offense gets his ass in gear, this could be good.
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Backup QB helped with three wins. Special Teams contributed to three wins.
bboystyle (18-Nov) : Lions played outside thats why. They scored 16 and 17 in the only 2 outside games this year
Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : The rest of the NFL is catching up to Packers ... kicking is an issue throughout league
packerfanoutwest (18-Nov) : Packers DL Kenny Clark: We knew 'we were going to block' Bears' game-winning field goal attempt
Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : Lions seem to be throttling everyone, but only (only) got 24 lol maybe the rain is why
Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : Packers vs Lions game doesn't seem so bad.
beast (18-Nov) : Dennis Green "They are what we thought they were, and we let them off the hook!"
Martha Careful (17-Nov) : comment of the day Z2Cool "Bears better than we want to admit. Packers worse than we think. It's facts."
Mucky Tundra (17-Nov) : my worst case scenario: Bears fix their oline and get a coach like Johnson from the Lions and his scheme
Zero2Cool (17-Nov) : Bears get OL fixed amd we might have a problem
buckeyepackfan (17-Nov) : Pretty sure they already have scouting reports on guys who aren't even starting for their college team. The future is now for me.
buckeyepackfan (17-Nov) : I tend to let Gute and Co. Worry about the future.
beast (17-Nov) : That's great news and Packers need to keep upgrading their OL, DL and DBs this off-season, so missing one guy doesn't kill them
beast (17-Nov) : That's great news and Packers need to keep upgrading their OL, DL and DBs this off-season, so missing one guy doesn't kill them
buckeyepackfan (17-Nov) : Jaire and Evans Williams are both ACTIVE! Good news.
Martha Careful (17-Nov) : The badgers really need to change the whole offensive scheme. No draws no screens plus the quarterback is marginal
Cheesey (17-Nov) : If the Badgers had a decent QB, they would have won. The guy can't hit a wide open receiver
Martha Careful (17-Nov) : chop block
Martha Careful (17-Nov) : there was a very questionable job Block call that upon viewing replay was very borderline
beast (17-Nov) : How so? (I didn't watch)
Zero2Cool (17-Nov) : Badgers got hosed vs Oregon
packerfanoutwest (16-Nov) : damn,he hasn't played since week 2
Mucky Tundra (15-Nov) : poor guy can't catch a break
wpr (15-Nov) : wow. That three different things for the kid.
Zero2Cool (15-Nov) : MarShawn Lloyd has appendicitis according to Matt LaFleur.
Zero2Cool (14-Nov) : He probably plays DB.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

19-Nov / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.