Analysis: Green Bay Offense is an Innovation· Page 2

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

13 years ago

And I would like to see them win another super bowl. If they do it with a +41 QB differential again, I am happy. Who cares how they do it.

Just win.

It isn't like they called all those pass plays. Mike McCarthy said in a post game interview that he called the majority of the plays as pass/run option. The reads were pass. So they threw it.

Blame Pitsburgh for the lack of running plays. They were lined up susceptible to the pass and were exploited.

That is what Mike McCarthy meant when he said he put the game on AR's shoulders. The decisions were all Rodgers'. Not that he was going to throw a lot.

Mike said he wanted to run it more because Starks was doing so well. But that's what the reads were.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#12

Mike said he wanted to run it more because Starks was doing so well. But that's what the reads were.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

I'm surely mistaken on this thinking, although, I do not recall McCarthy speaking positive about a RB as he has with James Starks.

zombieslayer
Registered

13 years ago

#13

I think it's a stretch to say the Steelers' defense held the Packers' offense to 24 points. It's far more accurate to say the Packers' receivers held the Packers' offense to 24 points.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

This.

The article did note that though.

In fact, but for the 4 or so drops by Packer receivers during the game, Green Bay would have even won the game by a much more significant margin; say more like 21 points. And you know that its true.

That game should have been a blow out. Hopefully next SB, our receivers catch the damn ball.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

djcubez
Senior Member

13 years ago

#14

The Packers were never really beaten this year. They lost some games, but nobody beat them.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

This. Every game we lost I felt like our team shot themselves in the foot.

get_louder_at_lambeau
Registered

13 years ago

#15

Bottom line is this: which defense in the league right now can stop that Green Bay passing attack?

Answer: None. This offense will require that a whole new type of defense be created that can cover 4 or 5 good receivers and give a strong pass rush. That defense will need real cover corners and safeties; and lots of them. Think Miami can stop the full Green Bay attack? Well, the team that can at least slow that offense will be in the Super Bowl next year (provided the CBA gets worked-out and we get to enjoy a season). And you can pretty much take that to the bank.

You know what defense would be interesting to see up against the Packers offense? The Packers, with Capers' big nickel. Tramon, Shields, Woodson, Collins, and whoever starts at SS (Burnett?) vs. our passing attack would be interesting to watch. I'm not sure who I'd give the edge to.

http://packersnews.net

nerdmann
Premier Member

13 years ago

#16

I thought the Packers had something like 5 yards a carry when they ran? How is that stopping the run?

"Kingkoopa" wrote:

I love the Packer offense, but I don't think it's unstoppable, as this guy claims. The Bears held the Packer offense to 14 points in the playoffs.

"Greg C." wrote:

It's certainly true that the Packers offense isn't unstoppable, but when the Packers are playing well they are extremely potent against almost every team except the Bears. I don't get it. The Bears are the one team that seems to be able to slow down Green Bay's offense consistently. I really hope Mike McCarthy and the offensive coaching staff takes a long look at this during the off season to try and counter what Lovie seems to do to us.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

When we play the Bares, it's never on turf.
And this article is dead on. The only thing that can stop this offense is the DROPS. Of which there were plenty. But you all know my take on that.
Another thing this dude doesn't mention is our TEs. We're gonna have two who can get deep and score next year. Two starting calibur RBs as well.
One more thing: This article doesn't mention the loss of Woody and the injury to Shields. These two injuries kept the Steelers in the game.

“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.”

Greg C.
Registered

13 years ago

#17

Mike said he wanted to run it more because Starks was doing so well. But that's what the reads were.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I'm surely mistaken on this thinking, although, I do not recall McCarthy speaking positive about a RB as he has with James Starks.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

The only other good RB we've had is Ryan Grant. Has McCarthy been less enthusiastic about Ryan Grant than he has been about Starks? I can't say I remember.

blank

British
Registered

13 years ago

#18

I think it just highlights the need to keep ourselves stocked at WR. All season Rodgers was known for hitting multiple receivers in each game, rarely did he go back to the same guy all the time.

If Jones walks in FA WR becomes an important position to target in the draft. Driver is great but he's not getting any younger, he picked up injuries this year and his numbers were noticeably down.

Now is the time to draft his replacement and that is even without losing Jones. Swain appears to be on the bubble but if Jones does go he might stick again as the #5 guy.

I'm looking forward to getting Finley back but imo it would be poor management to limit the full potential of Rodgers impact by not giving him as many weapons as possible to expose opponents' defences.

nerdmann
Premier Member

13 years ago

#19

"British" wrote:

We'll have Finley and Quarless too, but I agree. Ted Thompson will grab a WR in round 2, hopefully one that can also return punts.

“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
Preferred Member

13 years ago

#20

I have issues with the author of that article. As was pointed out he ignores the fact that it was Mike and Aaron who chose not to run the ball. They have pass/run plays called and when it looked good Aaron threw the ball.

Aaron completed over 61% of his passes and yet this guy makes it sound like GB was only completing between 33 and 50% which would be about 41%.

usually just connecting on one pass out of 2-3 attempts that not only kept them alive but gave them their win. They produced most of their yardage on big-yardage plays

phin wrote:

He praises them as being unstoppable in the 4-5 man sets and then says how they sorta got lucky by getting alot of yards on 3rd down.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (36m) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?

Martha Careful (22h) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me

Martha Careful (22h) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not

Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!

beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋

Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.

dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.

beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC

Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no

Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.

beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?

beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you

wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.

wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.

wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.

Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down

Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious

beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere

beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.

beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.

beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...

beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered

wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.

wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.

wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet

beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury

beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State

beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24

Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM

Eagles

10 - 22