Five most disappointing 08 seasons..· Page 3

Rockmolder
Honored Member

15 years ago

Too conservative? That's odd because I can recall quite a few games where the coach is blasted for going deep on 1st and 10.

It's amazing people want it both ways when things don't get executed.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I always find this amazing aswell.

I'm watching the game, looking at the chat, and someone start yelling when they call a screen play on 3 and 9. I can understand that, these plays don't og anywhere 9 out of 10 times... especially not if you use them 4 times a game.

Bit later in the game, we're on 3rd and 10, Rodgers throws it deep, he overthrows his receiver, and the same person start yelling.

I'm always wondering excactly what they want... Call a pass play and let all the receivers run hooks and outs after 10 yards?

The most dissapointing is obviously all the close losses. Especially the Tennesse one, because that really got your hopes up, nearly winning against an undefeated team, only to fall even deeper later in the season.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

15 years ago

#22

Unless the opposing team has shut down our offense completely and we're in desperate need of any kind of spark, I rarely like deep, downfield passes (unless, of course, the receiver is WIDE open). It's high-risk, high-reward, but the risk always seems higher than the reward. Let's face it: most interceptions occur on the deep bombs. Unless and until the medium passing game gets shut down, I don't see the reason to unnecessarily risk giving the ball back to the other team.

When I bitch about conservative playcalling, it's the choice of runs in obvious medium-distance passing situations that I'm protesting. I can with complete consistency complain about bad choices of runs and deep passes.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

15 years ago

#23

I agree, but we pretty often go to Jordy on a curl route or Jennings/Driver on a route over the middle. After a while they get predictable though. Maybe McCarthy somehow hopes to get the 10 yards with a quick screen play, but that usually doesn't work with alot of defenders on the 1st down line.

I do pretty often see Jennings running free though, seems lke they sneak their defenders up when Jordy has catched some balls on underneath routes etc. and either Jennings or Driver are one on one and gain some seperation... the only problem is that Rodgers as of late seems to under or overthrows these balls (Ofcourse, an incompletion like that is easier to remember than a completion), otherwise, they seem like pretty good calls.

buckeyepackfan
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#24

I have been saying it since before the regular season started.
Aaron Rodgers will not be a successful( as far as wins-losses)qb for Green Bay with the current management and coaching staff that is in place.

They were so worried about AR's stats, with the comparison to Brett Favre, that they forgot The Packers needed to win the close games.

It has been posted almost every losing week, "you can't blame Aaron Rodgers for this loss, look at his stats, he played a great game."

I am not blaming Aaron Rodgers for anything, I tend not to "put the blame" on any one player, in the end IT IS THE COACHING STAFF who have to take responsibility.

Way to conservative in their play calling, how many times this year have The Packers either got an early lead or came back from a deficit, only to start playing"not to lose" ball, leading to another defeat?

Some of you tend to focus on the last 2-5 minutes of a ball game, when it seems The Packers could never either put the ball into the endzone and settled for a FG, or couldn't stop the other team from scoring.

Go back and look at most of those close games and you will see where The Packers were in close games at the end because they would not let the offense continue, early in the game,what they did best which was move the ball through the air.

This is a 60 minute game, games are not won and loss on the last drives, they are just finished off.

I would have much rather seen Aaron Rodgers with 30-35 tds even if it meant he had 18-20 interceptions, I am betting The Packers would have more than 5 wins at this point.
Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy next year don't try and protect your QB's stats, let him show what he can do for a full 60 minutes, I bet the W-L record will be a lot better.

I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!

DGB454
Registered

15 years ago

#25

I have been saying it since before the regular season started.

Aaron Rodgers will not be a successful( as far as wins-losses)qb for Green Bay with the current management and coaching staff that is in place.

They were so worried about Aaron Rodgers's stats, with the comparison to Brett Favre, that they forgot The Packers needed to win the close games.

It has been posted almost every losing week, "you can't blame Aaron Rodgers for this loss, look at his stats, he played a great game."

I am not blaming Aaron Rodgers for anything, I tend not to "put the blame" on any one player, in the end IT IS THE COACHING STAFF who have to take responsibility.

Way to conservative in their play calling, how many times this year have The Packers either got an early lead or came back from a deficit, only to start playing"not to lose" ball, leading to another defeat?

Some of you tend to focus on the last 2-5 minutes of a ball game, when it seems The Packers could never either put the ball into the endzone and settled for a FG, or couldn't stop the other team from scoring.

Go back and look at most of those close games and you will see where The Packers were in close games at the end because they would not let the offense continue, early in the game,what they did best which was move the ball through the air.

This is a 60 minute game, games are not won and loss on the last drives, they are just finished off.

I would have much rather seen Aaron Rodgers with 30-35 tds even if it meant he had 18-20 interceptions, I am betting The Packers would have more than 5 wins at this point.

Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy next year don't try and protect your QB's stats, let him show what he can do for a full 60 minutes, I bet the W-L record will be a lot better.

"buckeyepackfan" wrote:

It seemed like that to me in a lot of games. There were some we went all out to win (Bears and Colts) but way too many we just played not to loose. Let Aaron Rodgers and the rest of the O play up to their potential the full 60 minutes.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

15 years ago

#26

I have been saying it since before the regular season started.

Aaron Rodgers will not be a successful( as far as wins-losses)qb for Green Bay with the current management and coaching staff that is in place.

They were so worried about Aaron Rodgers's stats, with the comparison to Brett Favre, that they forgot The Packers needed to win the close games.

It has been posted almost every losing week, "you can't blame Aaron Rodgers for this loss, look at his stats, he played a great game."

I am not blaming Aaron Rodgers for anything, I tend not to "put the blame" on any one player, in the end IT IS THE COACHING STAFF who have to take responsibility.

Way to conservative in their play calling, how many times this year have The Packers either got an early lead or came back from a deficit, only to start playing"not to lose" ball, leading to another defeat?

Some of you tend to focus on the last 2-5 minutes of a ball game, when it seems The Packers could never either put the ball into the endzone and settled for a FG, or couldn't stop the other team from scoring.

Go back and look at most of those close games and you will see where The Packers were in close games at the end because they would not let the offense continue, early in the game,what they did best which was move the ball through the air.

This is a 60 minute game, games are not won and loss on the last drives, they are just finished off.

I would have much rather seen Aaron Rodgers with 30-35 tds even if it meant he had 18-20 interceptions, I am betting The Packers would have more than 5 wins at this point.

Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy next year don't try and protect your QB's stats, let him show what he can do for a full 60 minutes, I bet the W-L record will be a lot better.

"buckeyepackfan" wrote:

ROFL so now the staff is padding Rodgers stats to safe face even in losses?

So how is your theory that we never landed on the moon going for ya? :physassult: :physassult: :physassult: :physassult: :physassult: :physassult: :wickedfart: :wickedfart: :wickedfart:

DGB454
Registered

15 years ago

#27

For me I'm not saying the coaches worried about Rodgers stats as much as they played way too consevitively. Once you are up keep playing to win and destroy the other team.

longtimefan
Registered

15 years ago

#28

I have been saying it since before the regular season started.

Aaron Rodgers will not be a successful( as far as wins-losses)qb for Green Bay with the current management and coaching staff that is in place.

They were so worried about Aaron Rodgers's stats, with the comparison to Brett Favre, that they forgot The Packers needed to win the close games.

It has been posted almost every losing week, "you can't blame Aaron Rodgers for this loss, look at his stats, he played a great game."

I am not blaming Aaron Rodgers for anything, I tend not to "put the blame" on any one player, in the end IT IS THE COACHING STAFF who have to take responsibility.

Way to conservative in their play calling, how many times this year have The Packers either got an early lead or came back from a deficit, only to start playing"not to lose" ball, leading to another defeat?

Some of you tend to focus on the last 2-5 minutes of a ball game, when it seems The Packers could never either put the ball into the endzone and settled for a FG, or couldn't stop the other team from scoring.

Go back and look at most of those close games and you will see where The Packers were in close games at the end because they would not let the offense continue, early in the game,what they did best which was move the ball through the air.

This is a 60 minute game, games are not won and loss on the last drives, they are just finished off.

I would have much rather seen Aaron Rodgers with 30-35 tds even if it meant he had 18-20 interceptions, I am betting The Packers would have more than 5 wins at this point.

Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy next year don't try and protect your QB's stats, let him show what he can do for a full 60 minutes, I bet the W-L record will be a lot better.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

"buckeyepackfan" wrote:

I agree Z...

You would think to pad his stats they would want to score lot of points as well..

That in turn would led to more wins

I am going to say with 100% certainty that there was no plan to pad his stats which in turn led them to losing games

::roll:

longtimefan
Registered

15 years ago

#29

Great article, really put the season in sum very well. Can't wait to hear what hazer has to say about that article saying that Rodgers has played well...

"dhazer" wrote:

Ok you want to know what i will say is that its just another person with the Rodger goggles on he is a decent qb but yet i like how they say its not any of his fault. I have seen alot of posters doing the same exact thing its always some other part of the teams fault. But yet when you compare rodgers to another qb its always because that qb has a running game or they have a great defense. But like some say it takes 53 guys to win a game and it takes 53 guys to lose a game.

See i didnt even cut Rodgers down.

"go.pack.go." wrote:

Of course he gets part of the blame, as does the D and S/T

That is what we have been saying all along..

Trouble is you focus just on his last 2 minutes and blame him...

there was 58 other minutes the D could have done something, as well as S/T..

And yes Aaron Rodgers could have got more points in that time frame as well..

But just as your famous stat of q/b rating of 45 in last 5 minutes, you forget he is one of the best in the red zone.

So if it wasnt for that, the team might not even be in the spots to win the games at the end..

flep
Member

15 years ago

#30

A good team finds ways to win close games

A poor team finds ways to lose close games.

That's where we are at, at the moment.

We win 4 of those games we lost by 4 or less (especially the one at Minny) and we would have been in the playoffs allready.

Formed Merseyside Nighthawks. British Champions 1992. Packer fan for 32 years

I feel very wrong now!!!!!!!!!

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

Mucky Tundra (2m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (31m) : 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 (43m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (1h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (4h) : 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 (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (4h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (4h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (5h) : Packers will get in

beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

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

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS