Packers Aren’t Very Good· Page 2

evad04
Member

10 years ago

I see posters running around pointing that the sky is falling. Looking in every wrong direction for the wrong answers. The right answer was plain to those that watched the Detroit game. Our O and D-lines were taken to school. ALL, I repeat ALL other positions begin and end with the line play. On Offense the running attack hinges upon the O-line play as does the passing game. On defence, stopping the run begins with the D-line as does the pass rush. Yes, there are plays pointed out where there was a sack or a great catch was made, but they are great individual efforts, not part of the problem. Too much focus is placed on the "star" positions, I say examine the foundation before you buy the house.

Originally Posted by: Smokey

Well, we disagree about the defensive line. That was not really an area of weakness today. D-line play wasn't spectacular, but the defense only seemed to run into problems in the second half when it was on the field forever.

The offensive line, by comparison, was hot garbage. Completely uninspiring, especially in the run game.

William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#12

Originally Posted by: evad04

"Completely uninspiring"? How dare you. [grin1]

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

DarkaneRules
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#13

Everyone can take a piece of the blame. That is the beauty and ugliness of the team sport that is football. It is up to each individual on this team and staff to figure this out. I am happy that I saw a defense that is noticeably improving and troubled that I see an offense that is spinning its wheels in mud. Next week is a must win for this team to get back on track.

Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance

Smokey
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#14

If you put lipstick on a pig, you just have a pig wearing lipstick and not a beauty queen. Fix the O/D-lines and you fix much of the Packers core problems.

DoddPower
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#15

If you put lipstick on a pig, you just have a pig wearing lipstick and not a beauty queen. Fix the O/D-lines and you fix much of the Packers core problems.

Originally Posted by: Smokey

I've always thought this too. Not that I know what I'm talking about since I'm not a general manager. But if I was, I would try my best to build my team around the trenches. Offensive and defensive lines/linebackers are absolutely critical. If a team has consistent good play out of those units, they are going to be good. The Bengals come to mind, even with a very average quarterback. That's where it all starts. Without a good offensive line, even a quarterback like Aaron Rodgers can be made very pedestrian. The running game, too, even with a very good running back.

I realize it's easier said than done, but that's probably my biggest beef with Ted Thompson et al. They haven't been able to assemble very good trenches. Other than maybe quarterback, that would be priority number one for me.

all_about_da_packers
Senior Member

10 years ago

#16

If you put lipstick on a pig, you just have a pig wearing lipstick and not a beauty queen. Fix the O/D-lines and you fix much of the Packers core problems.

Originally Posted by: Smokey

So, how do you explain the fact that Jordy Nelson has the same receiving yards by himself (351) as all the WRs, TEs, and RBs COMBINED (also at 351 yards; stats from Packers.com Stats section)? Or the fact that Aaron Rodgers is targeting Jordy about 1/3 of the time on his passes? Or the fact that Jordy is on pace to break his own record for being targeted in a season (93 times) by just game 6 of this season? (both latter stats from Profootball Focus) When was the last time you saw Rodgers -- who self-professes to getting the ball to whomever is open -- fixing on just one target so much?

Fixing the o-line would certainly give Rodgers more time to throw / more room for our RBs. It would not address the problem, though, that we seem to not have anyone capable of making a play behind Jordy (this included Aaron). Also, we've seen in the past A-Rod function well in a system where he has about 2-3 seconds to get rid of the ball (Marshall Newhouse as starting LT, anyone?). It's not like Rodgers has not been successful with a sub-par line before. The norm for Rodgers has been sub-par O-lines during his career; he can function well regardless.

However, even with below average O-lines Rodgers has always had elite level playmaking talent around him while also being on the very top of his game. I'm suggesting the core problem right now is beyond bad o-line to the fact that Rodgers has next to no elite playmaking talent with him, and that Rodgers himself is uncharacteristically in a funk that he can't seem to get out of. Maybe the two (lack of playmakers and Rodgers' funk) are related? I just don't think the fix-all for this offense is better line play/talent though; it seems like something else is a problem.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#17

However, even with below average O-lines Rodgers has always had elite level playmaking talent around him while also being on the very top of his game. I'm suggesting the core problem right now is beyond bad o-line to the fact that Rodgers has next to no elite playmaking talent with him, and that Rodgers himself is uncharacteristically in a funk that he can't seem to get out of. Maybe the two (lack of playmakers and Rodgers' funk) are related? I just don't think the fix-all for this offense is better line play/talent though; it seems like something else is a problem.

Originally Posted by: all_about_da_packers

Boykin, Lacy, Cobb, and at times Starks and to a lesser extent Quarless have all "proven" to be more than competent options for ARod, in most instances they have shown this within the last 12 months, so I don't agree with the idea that there isn't playmaking talent around him, maybe not elite, but it's not inhibiting success either.

The bigger problem (of many) is his fixation on Nelson. I commented after the Seattle game when ARod threw about 50 yards across his body to Nelson double covered in the middle of the field, while Cobb was 15 yards in front of his face on the right sideline 8 yards behind the corner with no safety help. One of many examples of some tunnel vision he's displayed.

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#18

Notice what he says about Rodgers interest. I'm not the only guy saying it.
2.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Whether it’s a lack of weapons, the playcalling or girlfriend Olivia Munn (only kidding… I think), quarterback Aaron Rodgers has looked very ordinary through 3 games. His numbers are OK, but his accuracy is off, he’s showing up teammates and he appears downright deflated at times No. 12 is being paid a fortune to make others better. He hasn’t been able to do that so far

This is his quote. Where does he say he lost motivation due to his SB MVP, raise, new superstar girlfriend, or Hans and Franz commercials?

Deflated - cause (someone) to suddenly lose confidence or feel less important.
Unmotivated - not having interest in or enthusiasm for something, especially work or study.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

10 years ago

#19

Originally Posted by: musccy

I wonder if this is on Rodgers or on the coaching staff. It reminds me of when they tried to make Finley the vocal point of the offense... Resulting in Rodgers forcing nearly everything his way.

That stopped when Finley got hurt and they were forced to spread it around.

I'm hoping it doesn't have to come to that.

Smokey
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#20

I'm sure that A.Rodgers is not happy with his play, yet he knows as we all should, that if the O-line is not doing it's job then he can't do his. We also know that a QB never blames his O-line for poor play. Many don't like to face the truth of reality, but the sooner you do , the quicker a solution can be implemented. Some will run and point and say the sky is falling, they find blame in the wrong place most often.

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

beast (6h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (11h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (12h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (23h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (23h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (23h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (23h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (23h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

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

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : 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

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

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS