This is the first week I've written up this piece this year but I'm hoping to do it for at least the next five games. I'll be highlighting a key play that shifts the momentum of the game, spew out a few stats that I think represent the game well and then give a closing statement. Let me know what you think and how I could improve it. This week I'll start with a short piece.

Key Factor: If we score on the drive where Rodgers' fumbled we're looking at an entirely different game.

6. The number of meaningful possessions we had all game. Our other two were right before the half ended (:20 seconds?) and right before the game ended (:08 seconds).

2. The number of punts we had compared to Atlanta's 4.

4-11. Third down conversions. Not good at all but almost equivalent to Atlanta (4-12). If I recall most of our third downs were third-and-short if not third-and-1.

7.1. Our average gain per play. Obviously boosted by a few long plays but compared to Atlanta's 5.2 it's pretty good.

Basically I feel that we should have had this game won. We went into a hostile environment and with only six good possessions marched down the field on four of them, only to have one slip out of our hands. If we hadn't left points on the field this game would've been entirely different, which is why the Rodgers fumble is my key factor or play of the game.

The one interesting point I've heard after this game is that the Packers don't have a run game and desperately need one if they want to be considered a contender. I sincerely disagree with this statement. We went and played Atlanta ("Best Team in the NFC") in their stadium (where they are 19-1 in the last 3 years) and proceeded to march down the field 4 out of 6 times with nothing but a prolific passing attack. Rodgers dropped back 40+ times and was only sacked once. Our passing game averaged 9.5 yards per pass play. That's nearly a first down every play. The only plays that held our drives back were the run plays. The plays in which we ran ended up losing us yards. The Falcons never respected our play-action or our run game but it didn't matter. We were able to drive down the field anyway. The third-and-shorts we didn't convert were the ones we ran on or where Rodgers threw a deep ball.

EDIT: I went through the play-by-play just to show what we did on our third and shorts.

3rd-3, GB18 8:04 A. Rodgers rushed up the middle for 2 yard gain Punt
3rd-1, ATL4 0:51 D. Nance rushed to the left for no gain FG
3rd-4, ATL33 11:58 A. Rodgers passed to J. Jones to the right for 9 yard gain First Down
3rd-1, ATL1 7:32 A. Rodgers rushed to the left for no gain. A. Rodgers fumbled. M. Peterson recovered fumble Turnover
3rd-2, GB28 8:38 A. Rodgers passed to G. Jennings to the right for 34 yard gain. G. Jennings fumbled. K. Hall recovered fumble First Down
3rd-1, ATL29 7:37 A. Rodgers passed to J. Nelson to the left for 28 yard gain First Down
3rd-1, GB38 11:18 B. Jackson rushed to the right for 12 yard gain First Down
3rd-1, ATL41 9:20 A. Rodgers incomplete pass to the right Fourth (went for it)
3rd-1, ATL21 2:11 A. Rodgers incomplete pass to the left Fourth (went for it)

I would like to concede my point a bit by saying yes, if we had a running game that consistently picked up 3rd-and-1 it would have been huge in this game. But our passing is good enough and with Rodgers mobility 3rd-and-short should be a breeze. Probably one of my biggest beefs with Rodgers and Mike McCarthy is taking shots deep on third-and-short. I liked that Jordy caught a 28 yarder on 3rd-and-1 but at that juncture 27 of those yards were almost completely unnecessary.

Good post. +1

But...
1. 4-9 on third and short is not that amazing.
2. 1-4 on running plays on third and short. That is not good. A team that can't get a couple yards more than once out of four tries....that is not a good enough running game IMO.

---

Great post. Please continue this. It is clear that when we run on 3rd down, bad things happen. Surely, the Packers have noted this. I just don't understand why they don't do something about it.

---

I didn't take any offense but I'm pretty sure I never said that we were amazing on 3rd-and-short. In fact I think it was the opposite--we played poorly on 3rd-and-short. Obviously we would look good with a short running game. The point I'm trying to make is that we don't have one and we shouldn't pretend that we do because it gets us in trouble. Our strength is in our passing game. In clutch situations we should not look for a run game that's never existed but should be passing the ball.

There were also two 3rd and shorts that we passed on that I feel don't represent the "passing on 3rd-and-short" stat effectively. One was when the ball was snapped and Rodgers was not expecting it. He floated one out to B-Jack and he missed it. Basically a botched play nothing could be done. The other was on the pass that Rodgers threw to Driver that ended incomplete. If Rodgers could have delivered a little bit better of a pass that was a first down.

I'd also like to note that Mike McCarthy seems to be getting a lot of beef from some journalists for running two QB sneaks in a row. The first QB sneak was not a sneak by design but the same audible Rodgers made in the Miami game. I didn't like the next QB sneak call but I don't think Mike McCarthy should be getting as much blame as he is.

Gentlemen, Let me simplify it further.

Turnover ratio.

Atlanta +1, Green Bay -1

---

People always criticize QB sneaks when they don't work. But usually they do. With our O-line, it's a better short yardage play than a handoff, because our linemen don't seem to be very good at holding their blocks.

---

There is also a counter points there.. as a sneak doesn't give your lineman any time to push or establish the block.. it is wham bam.. it becomes a quick scrum.

Also.. a back dropped a couple yards can visually see a cease if the Oline can establish it.. a QB doesn't have that luxury.

And the last point.. the edges are the weakness on a goal line defense.. with a QB sneak, you take the edge pressure off the defense.

To be clear, I am not saying that they were bad play calls, but more so that there are disadvantages to QB sneaks, especially multiple ones in the same game.

---

Those are very good points. Thanks. I just think that the QB sneak has been a pretty good play for the Packers since Rodgers took over, and considering how the Atlanta defenders were getting into the backfield on handoffs all day, the QB sneak made perfect sense to me.

I suppose two in a row is unusual, but I don't see it as that much different than calling two handoffs in a row, or two passes in a row in that situation. And as others have pointed out, the first QB sneak was improvised anyway. It was a damn fine goal line stand and forced turnover by the Falcons. Our defense nearly had a goal line stand later in the game.

---

I was playing in an annual tackle football game on Saturday dubbed "The Turkey Bowl" and we had the ball right on the first down marker on fourth down. We had four big guys that made up our line (we were playing 9v9) and I took the biggest guy (who plays rugby) told him to line up right behind me (I played center on the play) and sneak it. We had at least 1,000 lbs of man (4 big guys) in a small area ready to pull of the sneak. The funny thing is once I snapped it and we all made contact there was really no where for him to go. He pushed up behind me for a second or two and then bounced out left and easily got the yards before he fumbled it. It was eerily reminiscent of both Rodgers fumble and Michael Turner's fourth and goal touchdown.

I know the comparison of a pick-up game consisting of average joes and an NFL game is crude but after running the play I can understand the difficulty. It literally becomes a game of who wants it more.