After watching the Lions game on tape, I'd like to follow up on my complaints about the playcalling in three third and short situations. My postgame thread was merged into the official game thread, which I don't think is available anymore, so I'll just start a new one.

For starters, I'll say that I rarely complain about play calling, so this is not something I take lightly. My concern in this game was that I thought the Packers ran unnecessarily difficult plays in three third and short situations, all of which were unsuccessful. I got into a debate with Evad04 about this. He argued that the playcalling was okay, and that the problem was execution.

Here's another look at the plays and what I think of them after watching the game on tape.

1. The handoff to Kuhn who was running nearly parallel to the line of scrimmage. I still think this was a crap play. Rodgers was in the shotgun and handed the ball off in front of his body. This might be a good play for a scatback or a Marshall Faulk type, but not John Kuhn. He can make a slight cut without losing his momentum, but expecting him to make nearly a 90 degree cut and pick up a first down is a bit much.

2. Rodgers rolling out to his right in the first half and throwing incomplete to Jennings about 15 yards downfield. Finley was the primary receiver here, and he was covered, and the Lions had defenders in place to prevent Rodgers from scrambling. So I have to give the Lions credit here for defending a play that has worked well for the Packers this season.

3. Rodgers rolling to his right in the third quarter and throwing an interception on a pass intended for Jennings about 15 yards downfield. Evad was correct in pointing out that Donald Driver was open underneath, and that's where Rodgers should've thrown the ball.

So to sum up, I would say that two out of the three calls were not necessarily bad calls, and I give evad credit for pointing this out.

My larger concern, now that I think about it, is that possibly McCarthy does not have confidence in the O-line to hold their blocks long enough for Rodgers to drop back and go through his reads on third and short, so instead he is having Rodgers roll out, which limits his options. So maybe this is not so much a play calling problem as an offensive line problem. We'll see how it pans out as the season progresses.

---

McCarthy has confidence in all his players I have no doubt about that.Look this game was bad for the offense in the 2nd half we barley got any time on the field.Most or some of those plays you mentioned was in the 2nd half the offense never got into a groove.Idk if Mike McCarthy was in a gameplan or not the 2nd half every coach can call bad plays I think that could be the case.But I would not put it into the categorie of him not having confidence in the line when he stated before again and again that he has faith in the players we got.

---

I personally don't like it when I see Rodges rolling out. For one reason it doesn't ever work very well. I think when you cut the field in half it limits Rodgers too much and gives the defense less field and fewer WR's to worry about.

Aside from that I consider this last game as "unusual" as McCarthy put it and the offense never really got going. I think the Pack and Rodgers are traditionally at the top of 3rd down conversions and Rodgers completion rate on 3rd down is off the charts.

I am not really going to worry about one game that much when over the last couple of years we get better results out of third down than almost all the other teams.

I say just go with the play action pass on 3rd and short. That controls the rush because the D has to protect against the run and there are so many different things the O can do from there.

---

Well said I agree with you here. +1

---

I don't know what that statistics are but I have felt that Rodgers has completed a number of passes to the left while rolling out right. JMO

---

Good points all.

But I wonder if part of the reason he rolls out as often as he does is either the play caller doesn't trust the OL enough, he has to because the OL hasn't done its job well enough, or a combination of both.

A few years ago, in my prePH days, before Voldemort v. Fleischer temporarily consumed the universe, I used to argue on another board that the reason the team seemed to good at not giving up sacks wasn't that the OL was good, but that Favre was doing a lot "outside the pocket". And Favre had nothing mobility-wise compared to Rodgers.

I'd rather have Rodgers rolling out less, for exactly the reasons you give. But I wonder whether there is actually an alternative now.

---

Bam!

You just answered your own question. Thus is why we did #2 and #3. Kind of like castling in chess.

---

I think he has been succesful in general when rolling to the right period. But alot of the succes is when he hits finley on a crossing pattern, and i think our opponents should start figuring that play out soon.

---

Yep. The Lions figured it out on play #2. The coaches need to add another wrinkle to keep defenses honest so that play can remain successful.

---

I'll add to that, not necessarily on the 3rd down play calling, but any down, and more so on the pre snap set. I HATE the empty back field. I mean, Fing give it away why don't you. We need to do more movement that screws the defense, not that gives out intentions away.

the only way I like the empty back field is if our receivers are clearing the field for Rodgers to run (which works well with a few deep routes). Otherwise, leave an RB in.

We need to employ good blocking receivers in motion around the LOS for run plays AND we need to design some plays that totally look like Run only to have Finley and Jennings spreading the field. Give me a 2 TE package, with both Finley and Quarless chip blocking and running routes... I'd like to see that.

---