zombieslayer
14 years ago
Heh. Could you imagine using "the ILB swatted at it" as an excuse?

Coach - Why didn't you catch that ball?

Player - The ILB swatted at it.

Coach - (too obscene to print)
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
nerdmann
14 years ago

Heh. Could you imagine using "the ILB swatted at it" as an excuse?

Coach - Why didn't you catch that ball?

Player - The ILB swatted at it.

Coach - (too obscene to print)

"zombieslayer" wrote:





Not saying none of these should be caught. They all should be caught. HOWEVER, if you want to increase the probablity of completing a pass, it stands to reason that higher percentage plays would be more likely to be successful.
“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.”
mi_keys
14 years ago

This is one where Jones is just breaking away. I wouldn't say this is a low percentage play, it's mid-range. But I agree, being that Jones is almost always along the sidelines, the ball has to travel that much farther.



So now 10 yards is too far to throw the ball AND the sideline is too far to throw. You're leaving a very small window of the field to work with. I guess everyone should line up in the slot and run a 5 yard slant. Is that a high enough percentage play?
Born and bred a cheesehead
Greg C.
14 years ago
I still say that scoring 24 points against the best defense in the league, which had given up an average of 15 per game during the season, is a very nice day's work for an offense.

Pack93z and macbob have mentioned the three turnovers by our defense as a reason that we should've won by more. That kind of misses the point, because this discussion is about offensive production, not margin of victory. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion about why our defense gave up 25 points in spite of the fact that it forced three turnovers. But that's not going to happen, because everybody loves our defense. And we ought to. Our defense got the job done--as did our offense.

Anyway, when I put the emphasis on the 24 points scored by our offense, I am throwing out one of the turnovers, which was a pick six. That one had nothing to do with the offense's performance. The other two turnovers both happened near midfield. The Packers got good field position off those turnovers, but there was still a lot of work to do. And yes, they got the job done.

I'm not on board with Zombie's "in your face!" tone throughout this thread, but I do think that basically he is right. The pass-happy attack worked. And I don't think it matters that Rodgers had run-pass options on a lot of plays. A pass is a pass. McCarthy would not have allowed those options for Rodgers if he thought the Packers absolutely needed to run the ball more.

I am fully in agreement with Pack93z, macbob, and others that an improved running game would be a big help for this team. I would like to see that next season. But the Packers are further proof that you can, in fact, win a championship with a very pass-oriented attack. The Patriots and Colts have done it too.

McCarthy did what was best with the players he had to work with: phenomenal QB, excellent receiving corps, so-so pass blocking O-line, pretty good RB, and lousy run-blocking O-line. I'm sure the Steelers are still having nightmares about what Rodgers, Nelson, Jennings, et al. did to them, and I'm guessing they would've been more than happy if the Packers had run the ball more than they did. With all due respect to James Starks, I don't think they were scared of him.

Late in the season, McCarthy was smart to do what Pack93z was suggesting and put more emphasis on the running game, but the running game had probably taken them about as far as it was going to take them. Against the #1 run defense in the league and a shaky secondary, I think McCarthy's play-calling mix was just about perfect, and Starks' 4.7 yards per carry is evidence of that. That's a very good average against that defense. Had they run the ball more, I think the average was more likely to go down than up.
blank
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

Perhaps there needs to be a discussion about why our defense gave up 25 points in spite of the fact that it forced three turnovers. But that's not going to happen, because everybody loves our defense. And we ought to.

"Greg C." wrote:



I think the discussion is not going to happen, or at least not be very prolific, because the causation is fairly obvious. Until Woodson, Shields, and Collins went down, the defense created two turnovers and held the Steelers to 3 points. It was only after they left the game that the Steelers were able to mount a comeback.
UserPostedImage
Greg C.
14 years ago

Perhaps there needs to be a discussion about why our defense gave up 25 points in spite of the fact that it forced three turnovers. But that's not going to happen, because everybody loves our defense. And we ought to.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



I think the discussion is not going to happen, or at least not be very prolific, because the causation is fairly obvious. Until Woodson, Shields, and Collins went down, the defense created two turnovers and held the Steelers to 3 points. It was only after they left the game that the Steelers were able to mount a comeback.

"Greg C." wrote:



Oh yes, of course. I was writing fast and focusing on the offense and totally overlooked the obvious. Good catch. I hope that's the only bad part of my post.
blank
evad04
14 years ago


Late in the season, McCarthy was smart to do what Pack93z was suggesting and put more emphasis on the running game, but the running game had probably taken them about as far as it was going to take them. Against the #1 run defense in the league and a shaky secondary, I think McCarthy's play-calling mix was just about perfect, and Starks' 4.7 yards per carry is evidence of that. That's a very good average against that defense. Had they run the ball more, I think the average was more likely to go down than up.

"Greg C." wrote:


I agree with your post. The problem is, there's often a huge difference between reality and perception. Take this example from a Tony Walter Green Bay Press-Gazette article:

The flight from Dallas to Minneapolis was filled with Packers fans, and one of them was sitting next to me, decked out in all the green and gold imaginable. Naturally, I asked him how he enjoyed the game. He had two major points to make.

The first was McCarthy's play-calling left a lot to be desired. The second was the Packers special teams were far from effective and needed to be fixed. I was surprised he wasn't critical of the way Aaron Rodgers was holding the Lombardi Trophy after the game, and relieved I wasn't sitting next to the man after a 6-10 Packers season.



This die-hard on the plane, we have more than a few of him in Packer nation. By comparison, so-called "expert" analysis in the wake of the big game cites playcalling as a strength in the game. It's a distinctly "fan" thing to always take a combative position against the head coach.
William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."
nerdmann
14 years ago
I don't see why everyone's wetting their pants over the issue.
“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.”
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

It's a distinctly "fan" thing to always take a combative position against the head coach.

"evad04" wrote:



That might be a bit of an exaggeration. Fans were almost uniformly approving of McCarthy's game plan after the Patriots game, and the Packers lost!
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
14 years ago

It's a distinctly "fan" thing to always take a combative position against the head coach.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



That might be a bit of an exaggeration. Fans were almost uniformly approving of McCarthy's game plan after the Patriots game, and the Packers lost!

"evad04" wrote:



Packers win with a great defensive stand. Rourke says, "I don't trust Dom Capers, he needs to go".


I don't think it's much of an exaggeration if we through in coaches, rather than just the head coach. 😉
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (11h) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (11h) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (11h) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (12h) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (12h) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (13h) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (13h) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (14h) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (14h) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (15h) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (15h) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (18h) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (18h) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (18h) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
Zero2Cool (18h) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
dfosterf (18h) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
Zero2Cool (18h) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
Zero2Cool (19h) : Other times, it's turtle ass
Zero2Cool (19h) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
beast (20h) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
beast (20h) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
beast (20h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
beast (20h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
Zero2Cool (20h) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
wpr (20h) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
Zero2Cool (21h) : SSL might be settled now.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues
wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.
dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : I had to manually move three posts.
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : But when I go it, Martha's is the last reply
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Still a little screwy; it shows on the main forum that you were the last person to reply to the Jenkins trade thread
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Host issues, been crazy day
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Connect 4?
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Connecting to new database
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : What the hell
beast (22-Jul) : Packershome going to the Whiteout unis again
Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops
Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with
Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery
Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷
dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings
Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more
Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!
dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old
dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
2h / Around The NFL / beast

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

6h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.