mi_keys
13 years ago

Roethlisberger contributed an additional 31 yards, but those were all on protection breakdowns, not designed rushes.

I think this is a nonissue.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



It isn't an issue as far as the rushing game goes. In production that goes with the passing game. Earlier in the year we always discounted Rodgers rushing yards when we talked about how pathetic our run game was so it shouldn't be thrown in for the Steelers if you want to be consistent

MacBob,

You wanted to dismiss the drops because drops happen when you throw a lot. Yeah, they do but almost never with that frequency and with that much at stake. Most of them were wide open. They were not "bang bang plays" as you put it. They were routine catches for NFL receivers. A number of them were balls you'd expect a good high school receiver to catch. Two of them could have given us 3rd down conversions with 60+ yards each and at least one touchdown if not two (whether or not you think Jordy could have stayed on his feet for that first one, worst case if he catches it we have first and goal from the 😎. It should have been a blowout.

Also, you keep bringing up that they didn't score on special teams so that couldn't possibly be a factor. Aside from missing that field goal their special teams did outplay ours. They consistently had better field position from kickoffs. Two turnovers and the missed field goal gave us the ball at our 43, 45, and 47. Other than that we never started with it past our 25 and our average starting spot was the 20 in those other drives. Their average starting spot was the 29. Even with the turnovers and missed field goal their average starting position was a yard and a half better than ours. That's pretty telling for how much better their return game was.
Born and bred a cheesehead
nerdmann
13 years ago

It certainly was nice to see that we don't have to have a balanced attack to win the game. That's not to say that Starks didn't have a good game. He averaged just under 5 a carry, which is pretty damned good, but like people were saying before, the attempts are just as important as yardage. Rodgers showed that even when the toughest D in the league cuts loose and decides to go for the QB every play, he can still make big plays. If there hadn't been any drops..... this could have gone down as one of the top QB performances in SB history. Could have had 5 TD's. Incredible.

"peteralan71" wrote:





The reason there were so many drops IMO is that there were so many low percentage passes down the field. Run a high percentage offense and it IS a blowout. Holmgren already proved you "don't need" a running game. He counted screens and dumpoffs to the RBs as running plays.
We can get plenty of big plays throwing short, high percentage passes. Our WRs are elite at YAC. That's what it's all about. Keep James Jones and use him appropriately.
And this year, draft DD's replacement, whether he's done yet or not. Someone who can RETURN PUNTS. Or at least groom Swain for the punt returning job.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
longtimefan
13 years ago


Aaron Rodgers had a TERRIFIC game, and we would have lost without those turnovers. The passing game by itself was not enough to win.

"macbob" wrote:



How do you know that we dont score if there were no turnovers?

Ben doesnt toss that pick 6..But say they punt and we get ball at their 45, and we score a td on that drive?

Fact is we dont know so dont act like you know..

We won the game..That is all I effing care about
longtimefan
13 years ago
Starks 11 carries 52 yards

As I said all year long we dont stick to the run game enough..
nerdmann
13 years ago

Starks 11 carries 52 yards

As I said all year long we dont stick to the run game enough..

"longtimefan" wrote:





In fairness, the Steelers were if not the best, then among the best run defenses in the league. And their CBs were questionable.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
longtimefan
13 years ago

Starks 11 carries 52 yards

As I said all year long we dont stick to the run game enough..

"nerdmann" wrote:





In fairness, the Steelers were if not the best, then among the best run defenses in the league. And their CBs were questionable.

"longtimefan" wrote:



Yup 2.8 per carry
evad04
13 years ago

It certainly was nice to see that we don't have to have a balanced attack to win the game. That's not to say that Starks didn't have a good game. He averaged just under 5 a carry, which is pretty damned good, but like people were saying before, the attempts are just as important as yardage. Rodgers showed that even when the toughest D in the league cuts loose and decides to go for the QB every play, he can still make big plays. If there hadn't been any drops..... this could have gone down as one of the top QB performances in SB history. Could have had 5 TD's. Incredible.

"nerdmann" wrote:





The reason there were so many drops IMO is that there were so many low percentage passes down the field. Run a high percentage offense and it IS a blowout. Holmgren already proved you "don't need" a running game. He counted screens and dumpoffs to the RBs as running plays.
We can get plenty of big plays throwing short, high percentage passes. Our WRs are elite at YAC. That's what it's all about. Keep James Jones and use him appropriately.
And this year, draft Donald Driver's replacement, whether he's done yet or not. Someone who can RETURN PUNTS. Or at least groom Swain for the punt returning job.

"peteralan71" wrote:


Another facepalm moment from a nerdmann post. Did you watch the game? A few of the notable drops were in the 10-12 yard category. Jones dropped a 11-yard slant. You wouldn't call that a "low percentage" pass. Jordy dropped about a 12-yard in route. Again, not a low percentage pass. Nelson dropped another pass over the middle that was relatively short. And the clincher on virtually all of the drops? They were perfectly thrown.

There goes your theory.
William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."
nerdmann
13 years ago

It certainly was nice to see that we don't have to have a balanced attack to win the game. That's not to say that Starks didn't have a good game. He averaged just under 5 a carry, which is pretty damned good, but like people were saying before, the attempts are just as important as yardage. Rodgers showed that even when the toughest D in the league cuts loose and decides to go for the QB every play, he can still make big plays. If there hadn't been any drops..... this could have gone down as one of the top QB performances in SB history. Could have had 5 TD's. Incredible.

"evad04" wrote:





The reason there were so many drops IMO is that there were so many low percentage passes down the field. Run a high percentage offense and it IS a blowout. Holmgren already proved you "don't need" a running game. He counted screens and dumpoffs to the RBs as running plays.
We can get plenty of big plays throwing short, high percentage passes. Our WRs are elite at YAC. That's what it's all about. Keep James Jones and use him appropriately.
And this year, draft Donald Driver's replacement, whether he's done yet or not. Someone who can RETURN PUNTS. Or at least groom Swain for the punt returning job.

"nerdmann" wrote:


Another facepalm moment from a nerdmann post. Did you watch the game? A few of the notable drops were in the 10-12 yard category. Jones dropped a 11-yard slant. You wouldn't call that a "low percentage" pass. Jordy dropped about a 12-yard in route. Again, not a low percentage pass. Nelson dropped another pass over the middle that was relatively short. And the clincher on virtually all of the drops? They were perfectly thrown.

There goes your theory.

"peteralan71" wrote:





12 yards downfield is not short yardage. Get your guys in the zone with some efficient, high percentage passing. I was actually astonished when Joe Buck and these columnists actually used the words "low percentage" on some of these drops.
Doesn't matter if it hits the guy in the hands. On a couple of the ones Jordi dropped there were guys getting their hands up and almost slapping the ball down, which can also serve to obstruct vision of the ball.
Seems like the main short yardage throws the Packers throw are those stupid WRs screens.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
13 years ago


Maybe it really is the 3 dropped TDs instead of the running game. Rodgers should have been 36 of 39 for over 400 yards and 6TDs but Nelson dropped 4, Jennings, Jones and Swain all dropped one. One was in the end zone when Nelson was behind the D. One was on the side line when Jones was behind the D. Another was in the same area with Nelson behind the D. Not one of them was covered well. The defenders may have broken up Swains catch. But the other ones were hit in the hands when they were open and flat out dropped the ball. The ones in tight windows were caught by Jennings.

You dismissed the argument out of hand and denied that those were easily catchable balls that went through the WRs hands. Without that, your argument falls apart. Which is why the preemptive dismissal.

Didn't Mendenhall only have 11 more yards on a 3 more attempts than Starks? 4.7 yards per carry isn't credible?

Maybe the LB say that Starks didn't have the ball and didn't need to bite on the Fake, he had an unobstructed view.

We would have won by 23 if we caught the passes is exactly as valid an argument as we would have lost without the turnovers.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



It is not fair to say 6 TD's. Jennings caught the TD in the right corner of the end zone on the same drive that Nelson dropped one. The came back to Jordy the very next play and he took it to the 3.
Other times GB played field position battles with Pitt and even though they may not have scored on the drive of the dropped pass, they kept Pitt penned back in their own end of the field.
UserPostedImage
Packers_Finland
13 years ago
How the hell am I still reading nerdmann's bitchy posts? WE WON THE FREAKIN SUPER BOWL FOR CHRIST SAKES! But no, it isn't enough. You need to win the Super Bowl with high percentage passes.
This is a placeholder
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (5m) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (8m) : Packers will get in
beast (9m) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (14m) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (15m) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (1h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (3h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (3h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (3h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (3h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (12h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (13h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (13h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
buckeyepackfan (16h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks
Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak
beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other
beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)
Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.
beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs
packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.
beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating
Zero2Cool (20-Dec) : There is a rule that if your name starts with 'b' you lose 15 points. Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them!
wpr (20-Dec) : and then there is Beast. Running away with it all.
beast (20-Dec) : As of tonight, 3 way tie for 2nd in Pick'em, that battle is interesting!
beast (20-Dec) : Lions vs Vikings could be the main last game as it could determine division winners or #1 vs #2 seed
Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Or if KC needs to win for the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Right now it looks like the only prime worthy games are Det-Minny and KC-Denver (if Denver can clinch a wild card spot)
Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : The entirety of week 18 being listed as flex is weird
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Matt LaFleur today says unequivocally "Ted Thompson had nothing to do with the drafting of Jordan Love."
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Apparently, the editing is what pieces comments together. That Ted thing ... fake news.
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : LaFleur "opportunity that Ted Thompson thought was too good to pass up"
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Jordan Love pick was Ted Thompson's idea.
Mucky Tundra (19-Dec) : Kyle Shanahan on signing De'Vondre Campbell as a FA last offseason: “We obviously made a mistake.”
packerfanoutwest (19-Dec) : Alexander’s last season with GB
Martha Careful (18-Dec) : if I were a professional athlete, I would probably look to see who the agent is for Kirk Cousins and then use him
beast (18-Dec) : $100 million fully guaranteed Kirk Cousins gets benched for rookie
Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : a lower case b
Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : The real lie is how beast capitalized his name in his message while it's normally spelled with
packerfanoutwest (18-Dec) : haha that's a lie
beast (17-Dec) : Despite what lies other might tell, Beast didn't hate the Winter Warnings, it felt refreshing to Beast for some reason.
Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : whiteout uniforms in general are pretty lame and weak. NFL greed at it's worst
Martha Careful (17-Dec) : The Viking uniforms, the whiteout uniforms specifically absolutely suck
beast (17-Dec) : Thanks Zero2Cool, looks a lot better now
beast (17-Dec) : Seems like someone has a crush on me, can't stop talking about me
Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : Should be gooder now. The forum default theme went to goofy land.
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 / Zero2Cool

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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