I like that Rodgers and McCarthy are on the same page. Even more, if they are not on the same page, I like that McCarthy won't air his dirty laundry like many coach-QB couples will. It is essential that the two of them stay on the same page. The fact that McCarthy is allowing Aaron to make decisions that will effect the gameplay one way or another is huge. It give Rodgers a sense of ownership, which makes it all that more important to him.
Its kind of like if a person works to buy a vehicle, they will value it and care for it much more, as opposed to the individual who gets a car just handed to them. Rodgers takes an immense amount of pride in the offense, and it shows.
Once we get some defensive players healthy, we can keep our offense on the field more than 22 minutes (that was ridiculous) and our offense will sync up.
"peteralan71" wrote:
+1 Good point about Rodgers' stake in the offense. Making a statement like he did, even if out of frustration, indicates that there is an ownership of the offense.
As far as running the ball against Detroit, there are a number of things to consider. First, it isn't a bad idea to attack Detroit on the ground. Green Bay may have only added 80 yards in their efforts, but Detroit seemed, at least statistically, ripe for the picking. Detroit currently ranks 25th in defensive rushing yards -- after giving up only 80 against Green Bay. Detroit had one of the worst rushing defenses through the first few games of the season. From a gameplan standpoint, and particularly considering Green Bay needed to evaluate what they had, it made sense to run against Detroit.
Let's keep this going a minute. The game against Chicago -- an overall poor rushing performance -- isn't the best indicator: so far this year Chicago has shut down the run, Giants notwithstanding. Detroit presented that opportunity. In the first half, it seemed to be paying off. On the opening drive, the run game was instrumental in moving the ball as well as setting up the touchdown. On the score, Detroit had brought an eighth man down into the box -- an act that most commonly coincides with a defense's intent to stop the run game.
Now, in the second half things fell apart. First drive went three-and-out. Next two drives ended in interceptions. The final drive -- the team's most obvious and intentional employ of the running game -- turned out to be the most successful (and crucial to the win).
The issue of balance, I think, can't be adequately evaluated. There just weren't enough run plays. But I think there were some positives.
William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."