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.

"evad04" wrote: