Stevetarded
15 years ago

The problem with our offense when it comes to settling for 3 is the red zone rushing. We couldn't punch the ball in the endzone nomatter who was carrying it. I would like to see some statistics of how many 0 or negative yard runs we had in the red zone this year because it was bad. To win those 7 games by scoring TD's Rodgers would have basically had to end the season with around 35 passing TD's, I think that is quite a bit to ask.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



A few months ago, someone posted Aaron Rodgers 's red zone stats and they were off the charts. Taking a look at those stats, I was thinking "why the **** are we not putting the ball in Aaron's hands when we're in the RZ?"

So if the run isn't working in the RZ, screw it. Throw it in. Aaron doesn't turn the ball over. We have the receiving corps to do it. Donald Driver is The Man at 4 yard receptions. Let's utilize our strengths.

I don't think Mike McCarthy was aggressive in the RZ enough in '08.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



I would prefer they use the offseason to improve our problems than just hope to work around them next year. Which would mean making it so we can hopefully run the ball in the RZ next season instead of just calling more pass plays.
blank
warhawk
15 years ago

One of the reasons is that he still has yet to feel the rush. Granted, half of this is the offensive line's fault, but Rodgers hasn't really "made" plays. It's the receivers doing the work.

"MassPackersFan" wrote:



Eh I'd have to disagree. There were a pretty large number of times where Rodgers scrambled and made something happen when nothing was there - Far more often than I expected out of a first year starter. Do we forget the jump pass or the magic behind the back TD pass so quickly?

On offense, I'm fine with most everything. I'd like to see Brandon Jackson get more carries. I would like to see us try to transition towards the post-Clifton era (as much as that will suck). Give me a balanced offense with a healthy dose of play-action and I'm happy.

"blueleopard" wrote:



I also recall several beautifully thrown long balls that could not have been set in the hands of the receivers any better. There is no way you throw for that many yards and it's all on the receivers. For every great catch I saw a great throw. I couldn't take away anything from either side.
"The train is leaving the station."
zombieslayer
15 years ago



I also recall several beautifully thrown long balls that could not have been set in the hands of the receivers any better. There is no way you throw for that many yards and it's all on the receivers. For every great catch I saw a great throw. I couldn't take away anything from either side.

"warhawk" wrote:



Being anal, I think they could have been slightly better.

Rodgers hit the WR in his hands but didn't lead him, so as soon as the catch was made, the WR was tackled. Favre in '07 was able to hit the WR in stride so after the catch was made, he was at full speed and could turn the 50 yard completion to a 72 yard TD.

(now, not at all implying I'd rather have Favre as our QB. I'd take '09 Rodgers over '09 Favre. I'm just saying those throws COULD be better).
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
15 years ago
Sometimes. There were at least two bombs to Jennings last year that were WELL underthrown, that he still took to the house (Oakland and ermm... that other one where the D blitzed and Jennings was wide open).

The Denver and KC games truly overshadow those instances though.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
15 years ago
When this offense can consistently pick up a 3 and 2 running the ball on a good defense, then it has arrived. Until we can pick up the first down on those tough situations, we continue to be a work in progress.

That said we are still a very good offense, but we lack the testicles to smash mouth when called upon. I appreciate the quaterback sneaks we now do, but I cringe evertime it's third and short and I see the handoff.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
15 years ago

Let me clarify. I think we're fine with the offensive players we've got (with the possible exception, as zombieslayer said, of our O-Line).

I was talking about coaching. If we'd had a more aggressive OC, one that went for the throat instead of protecting a lead, I think we would have won a lot more games.

Do we, in your opinion, need a real offensive coordinator?

"Since69" wrote:


I agree......way too conservative on play calling. I think it was Zombie that was saying that all along, and i didn't agree at first, but as the season wore on he had me convinced he was right.
You have to play to WIN, not to not lose. Keep doing what got you the lead so that the other team can't get back in the game.
Get an OC that puts his foot on the opponent's throat once we have them down.
You will win more games with that attack then to sit back on your 3 point lead.
UserPostedImage
Rios39
15 years ago



I also recall several beautifully thrown long balls that could not have been set in the hands of the receivers any better. There is no way you throw for that many yards and it's all on the receivers. For every great catch I saw a great throw. I couldn't take away anything from either side.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Being anal, I think they could have been slightly better.

Rodgers hit the WR in his hands but didn't lead him, so as soon as the catch was made, the WR was tackled. Favre in '07 was able to hit the WR in stride so after the catch was made, he was at full speed and could turn the 50 yard completion to a 72 yard TD.

(now, not at all implying I'd rather have Favre as our QB. I'd take '09 Rodgers over '09 Favre. I'm just saying those throws COULD be better).

"warhawk" wrote:



Rodgers throws the ball more like Brady. He'll try to find one on one coverage and then throw the deep balls. A lot of time Favre has the play set in his hand like the OT game in Denver, the ball was in the air right off the hut. There was a few throws like that from Rodgers. But mostly you could see him look left, look right, look under then see one on one deep and throw it up.

There's pros and cons to both, The Pros for the Rodgers side of it is that he's scanning through his progressions well and doesn't have his mind made up off snap no matter what the coverage. The Cons is what we are discussing. The Pros to what Favre did last year was that if the coverage was off then it's easy TD. But then when he did it other games you see the negative like the Cowboys game, that's a product of making your mind up before the snap.
blank
Rios39
15 years ago
The guy that said Rodgers needed to deliver more. Well it was mentioned he'd need to throw 7 more TD = 35 TD year. Plus he ran for 4 TD so that would be expecting your QB to account for 39-40 TD in order to win games. Uh UH. If Rodgers accounts for 40 TD and we have a top 10 defense, well we'd likely be playing football right now.
blank
zombieslayer
15 years ago


I agree......way too conservative on play calling. I think it was Zombie that was saying that all along, and i didn't agree at first, but as the season wore on he had me convinced he was right.
You have to play to WIN, not to not lose. Keep doing what got you the lead so that the other team can't get back in the game.
Get an OC that puts his foot on the opponent's throat once we have them down.
You will win more games with that attack then to sit back on your 3 point lead.

"Cheesey" wrote:



+1.

You got 3 points there that I really like:
1) ALWAYS play to win, not play to not lose,
2) Put your foot down your opponent's throat once you have them down,
3) You will win more games with that attack then to sit back on your 3 point lead.

All 3 assumptions are 100% correct. When he's down, kick him again. Then kick him again. Then kick him again. Keep kicking him until the referee says there's no time on the clock.

Remember that game when Favre threw 6 TDs? Now, this is NOT anything Favre vs Rodgers, but it's everything Jets vs Packers playcalling. Favre threw 2 TDs on 4th down. Yes. They had the game wrapped up but stilll went for it on 4th down.

I like that. For the record, Mike McCarthy was doing that in '07. He seemed to stop doing it in '08. We get into the Red Zone, with a near perfect QB (Aaron's red zone stats are incredible), and Mike McCarthy calls run play after run play. Urgh!
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
buckeyepackfan
15 years ago
I have been sayin it all year and getting bashed for it"I'm a hater"
Mike McCarthy plays not to lose the game instead of playing "to win the game!!!".

What do I know, I'm just a "Hater". :icon_smile: :icon_smile: :icon_smile: :icon_smile:
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (34m) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (35m) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (1h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (1h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (1h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (1h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (1h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (1h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (1h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (1h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (1h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (1h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (1h) : 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 (1h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (1h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (1h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (1h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (2h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (2h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (2h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (2h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (2h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (2h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (2h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (2h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (2h) : Packers will get in
beast (2h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (2h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (2h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (4h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (5h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (5h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (6h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (15h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (15h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (15h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (19h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (19h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (19h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
buckeyepackfan (19h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks
Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak
beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other
beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)
Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.
beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs
packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.
beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating
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 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
14m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

40m / Random Babble / Martha Careful

53m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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