This philosophy makes me crazy. I much prefer a ball-control type offense--not necessarily running the ball, but moving the chains; eating up clock; getting the other team's offense out-of-synch by sitting on the bench for an extended period; giving your defense some rest.

With the 'big play' philosophy if you don't make the big play, then the other team gets the ball right back with plenty of time on the clock and your defense gets gassed.

I miss Mike Sherman's offense. He stunk as a GM, but I liked him as a coach. Better than I'm liking McCarthy as a coach.

Originally Posted by: macbob 

I think you are overstating the harm done by hitting big plays. The basis of the offense is still to get first downs and move the ball because that's what sets up being able to hit some big plays. Saying we need to be better at hitting those big plays isn't a bad thing at all because big plays kill the other team. It's a lot easier to get down field only needing 2 or 3 first downs than it is needing 6 or 7.

People seem to like thinking that GBs offense has traditionally been bad for the defense but that never made sense to me. We've been one of the best at converting 3rd downs and getting first downs in general, we don't turn the ball over EVER, we don't go 3 and out very often, we don't punt very often, we get TDs instead of FGs when we are in the RZ, and we typically leave the defense in good field position to start their drives. If the defense has struggles getting off the field and gassing it seems weak to me to blame the offense for it.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

lol how many times did Aaron Rodgers lead the team in those 10 yard runs?

Originally Posted by: steveishere