MintBaconDrivel
11 years ago

We’ve all seen the numbers. Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers was sacked a total of 51 times in 2012 – more than any other NFL quarterback – and 55 times if you count the playoffs. It eclipsed his previous record of 50 sacks in 2009 and brings his five-year total as a starter to [...]

JerseyAl  wrote:


Laser Gunns
11 years ago
🇦🇷 and 🇲🇲

Aaron Rodgers average time in pocket was 2.82 sec. which ranked him 35th in the league. (QBs with at least 2 starts)

Not the OLs fault he can't get rid of the ball.

MintBaconDrivel
Dec, 11, 2012 - FOREVER!
Porforis
11 years ago

🇦🇷 and 🇲🇲

Aaron Rodgers average time in pocket was 2.82 sec. which ranked him 35th in the league. (QBs with at least 2 starts)

Not the OLs fault he can't get rid of the ball.

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar 



It is the OL's fault that he's got pressure in his face within a second multiple times per game and needs to scramble since intentionally grounding really isn't an option in the pocket. Or just leave the pocket running for his life and just throw it away in under 2.5 seconds (better run fast!) because he's afraid people will criticize him for holding on to it for so long.

🐴

Amazing how people will bitch and complain constantly about one of if not the most prolific offense in the history of the game.
Zero2Cool
11 years ago
It's the receivers fault. If they'd get open quicker and run better routes, the quarterback wouldn't have to hold the ball longer than 3 seconds in the pocket.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
11 years ago
It's the Republican's fault, it they'd pay more taxes we could buy some - oh wait, wrong forum. I agree with Porforis. Prolific offense and we whine and cry cause we don't run the ball enough and our quarterback gets sacked too much.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
11 years ago

It's the Republican's fault, it they'd pay more taxes we could buy some - oh wait, wrong forum. I agree with Porforis. Prolific offense and we whine and cry cause we don't run the ball enough and our quarterback gets sacked too much.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Agreeing with DakotaT? We must be talking about football!

I really don't have a problem pointing out specific areas/people that need improvement. The problem is when you're bringing up "the run game" (Is it the RBs, scheme, line, playcalls, timing, or all of the above?) or "Holding onto the ball for too long" that is far too complex of an issue to chalk up to one or two individual problems. Part of it is Rodgers. A large part of it is the O line. A large part of it is people not getting open earlier. And stats of how long he holds onto the ball doesn't examine how often he's making completions versus taking a sack, WHEN he's taking most of the sacks (is 3rd and long in punting range the end of the world to take a sack on if you've got a 50-50 shot of getting a first down if you find someone open?). Only when you clearly break down all of these factors without turning it into a "what-if" party can you really tell who is at fault, and if Rodgers holding onto it sometimes is really a bad thing considering all the times he DOES escape pressure and turns it into a run for a first down or a completion.
DakotaT
11 years ago
I just want a respectable running game so that defenders can't just pin their ears back and bring it. Taking the ball out of Rodgers' hands is ludicrous. Now if he were a turnover machine like Favre was, I would be all for more running. The reason that defense caught up to our passing game is because they didn't have to respect our run.

Our pass blocking has suffered because Wells was better than Saturday/EDS , Clifton was better than Newhouse, Lang was playing with one arm, and Bulaga got injured. All of these problems we had last will be eradicated. It is good to be a Packer fan.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
11 years ago

I just want a respectable running game so

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



I just want #14 ...


UserPostedImage
Porforis
11 years ago

I just want #14 ...

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



If we would have averaged an extra 10 yards per game last year, you'd have been satisfied?
Zero2Cool
11 years ago

If we would have averaged an extra 10 yards per game last year, you'd have been satisfied?

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



If you don't know what #14 means, turn in your Packers gear, now.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (4m) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (1h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (11h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (11h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (11h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (12h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (12h) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (15h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (15h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (15h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (18h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (18h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (18h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (18h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (18h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (18h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (18h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (18h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (19h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (20h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (20h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (20h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (20h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (20h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (20h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (21h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (21h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (22h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (22h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (22h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (22h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (22h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (22h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
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 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

7h / GameDay Threads / Mucky Tundra

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

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

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