Playing scared would insinuate Rodgers didn't even look at Sherman's side of the field. I'm sure he looked that direction. If the receiver (mostly Boykin) wasn't open, why the hell would he throw it to him? Just to say he did? That makes no sense. I don't want my favorite team to challenge players, I want them to do whatever it takes to move the ball and score. If that means exploiting more favorable match ups, than so be it.
I haven't seen the All-22 film, but I would guess that a receiver wasn't open against Sherman more than a few times the entire game. Rodgers might have missed them during those few times, but that could have just been a mistake. Aaron Rodgers makes mistakes. He's not a god. He's an elite quarterback, but he could be better, especially in certain situations. But making mistakes and not playing as good as he should or could have is not the same thing as "playing scared." That's a talking point. Rhetoric.
For one to be able to say the Packers or Rodgers were playing scared, they would have to intimately understand the game plan, the plays called, and carefully evaluate the film from the All-22 angle. My guess very few posters here have done that yet.
Originally Posted by: DoddPower
I get where you are going and trying to put a qualifier for any fan's assessment of the game.("very few fans have done it...watch film")
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that assessments have no merit because we aren't coaches in the game.
IF that were true, then we shouldn't talk at all. We have no right, with your logic.
In your own words, you said the packers were looking for a "favorable match up". From watching the game, the "favorable match up" was to have Jordy against Maxwell. Jordy did not line up against Sherman almost the entire game. In fact, Cobb was rarely lined up against Sherman either.
I don't think anyone is saying to throw to a cornerback's direction and challenge him just to say they did so. That doesn't make sense and was already a forgone conclusion. And no one is implying that Aaron didn't "look in that direction." No one implied that Aaron was superhuman and perfect either.
(Aaron not being perfect, Aaron not looking over there, and Aaron throwing there just to say so are just silly points. Honestly.)
The POINT, was that Nelson was RARELY EVER rotated over to that side(I don't recall him ever being there, actually). So how would you know that Nelson couldn't have been open against Sherman? We never really saw it.
What is suspect is that McCarthy said that they did not "intentionally" avoid Sherman, and they were trying to rotate Jordy around for the best match up. Like I said in a previous post, "rotate" typically means switching a receiver from one side to another. Jordy wasn't rotated if at all, and stayed specifically on the left side to match up with Maxwell. That's NOT a rotation.
"Favorable match up" is a PR statement. What does that really mean?
There was no favorable match up on the right side(with Sherman) because the receiver wasn't open(Boykin).
Then why were Cobb/Nelson not sent over there more(to the right side) to create a different match up?
Were they also NOT a favorable match up on that side? You put your no.3 receiver against their no.1 corner, but never rotate your 2 or 1 against him? That would imply that our 1, and 2 can't get open on Sherman either.
But how do we know unless they try? They didn't. That's playing scared.
You said Aaron "makes mistakes." Are you saying that him not throwing to one half of the field(which happened to be Sherman's side) was a mistake(for the entire game) or was it just to exploit a favorable matchup? It can't be both.
It was either a mistake, or by design. Which one was it?
Please explain the last time you saw the Packers throw to just one half of the field.
Using half the field is not doing "whatever it takes" to move the football. There were a lot of things not done, or tried, which by definition is not "whatever it takes."
Throwing to only one half of the field implies having a specific (limited) game plan and not straying from it. This is also not "whatever it takes"
Last point.
Jerry Rice was never "rotated" away from Deion Sanders for a "favorable" match up. Jerry Rice demanded the ball against Sanders and Steve Young challenged him.
Michael Irvin was never "rotated" away from Deion Sanders for a "favorable" match up. Michael Irvin demanded the the ball against the best corner and Troy Aikman challenged him.
Neither of those great qbs, just threw to that side, just to say they did.
Mediocre teams DID rotate away from Sanders because they didn't have the talent/players to favor a match up.
They would throw to half the field.