Their line is better than ours minus our LT and LG, absolutely. Then factor in the crowd noise when our O-line was out there, and what that did to the snap count (simplified it) as well as their timing at the snap plus communication pre-snap, and they blow us out of the water.

---

First, look at the numbers that MN line has put up, going into the Monday Night game they had given up 9 sacks to our 11.. that speaks volumes to two aspects, one they have questions on the line and two we didn't attack the line for pressure.. we played gap responsibility almost purely the entire game.

Couple of reasons we didn't dial up the blitz as much as we probably would have liked.. Minnesota did a solid job of keeping themselves out of pure passing situations for a good share of the night. Why is that important, because the game plan from the Packers was to limit Peterson and make that Vikings rely on the pass. We choose our poison of the pass instead of the nonstop bleeding Peterson has hammered people with in the second halves of games.

By making the Vikings one dimensional and looking at the footage of the Vikings previous games, they probably felt they would get a couple of the drops and lapses that Viking passing game had shown, additionally they probably felt that Jenkins and Jolly could put a little more pressure on Favre than we did. We didn't..

We made Favre throw the deep to intermediate balls, something that he hadn't done for much the of first three game, excluding the last second heave in the Niners game. We might have felt that there is something to the fact that the Vikings really hadn't went vertical yet.. maybe setting the Packers up in a sense.

So we can break down all the film or stills we want on Rodgers or we can complain that we schemed to make sure Peterson didn't beat us all we want.

The simple pure reality is we got beat along the lines on both sides of the ball.. and it really isn't a ploy, you win football games along the line of scrimmage more so than any other aspect of the game.

Get dominated up front like we did, your chances of winning that type of contest is slim to none. BTW.. the Vikings oline didn't dominate in the running game, just had the numbers in the pass protections.


A side note, the Vikings put the league on notice as well.. you can't just take away one aspect of the offense.. as a defense, you are going to have to play balanced defensive ball.. we didn't.. we lost.

---

+1 Ironman - great analysis

I agree with this. That's why I say forget all the stuff about what Rodgers can do better or scheme changes. BLOCK THE DANG GUY across from you. If they block for the guy you won't have to count how many seconds he holds onto the football.

I am not quite as worried about the defensive rush because when they actually went after it they have been affective whereas the 0 line has gone four consecutive games performing poorly. I am not convinced this D isn't capable of rushing the passer (like I was last year) but Capers just would not cut them loose Monday. There's only a very few teams with the ability to rush four effectively and that's not what Capers was brought in here to do anyhow.

All I can say is hopefully Clifton and maybe Tauscher can come up big one last time. For me, the seasons riding on the balance of how those two positions perform from here on in.

---

I think many of you are misunderstanding this article. He isn't saying that he studied individual pictures. He said that he was studying the FLIM! Of course still frames don't give the full picture. That's why he used film. He is just providing the photos to give you an idea of what he is talking about, that's all.

Not sure how anyone got the idea that he was basing his article off of still frames.

I'm just saying!

Heyooooooh! Bingo!

But he is using the still to try and say Rodgers missed a simple dump to Grant to avoid the sack and fumble. When in reality, it wasn't a simple dump. Click that still one more frame and it would show Rodgers scrambling. The Safety was conveniently using a still that doesn't show the LBer that is shadowing Lee. In position to make a break on the ball if Rodgers tries to flip it over Wells and Williams.

---

I see where you're going, but I think you're misunderstanding my point. He's using the still frames to help prove his findings and I'm saying the still frame for each does not prove anything and he appears to be using said still frame's as proof.

My point, since I haven't said it enough yet (or clear enough? I suck at thsi sometimes) is the frames shown do not tell the whole story as he implies. He see's a guy open and says shoudl have thrown it to him. I say, that's not accurate because there's more to tell in this than what one frame delivers.

He's saying here check this frame and here's my point based on that frame. At least that's what I got from reading it. We can't tell if there's a passing lane there or not or if he's going through his progressions, etc. There's so much more to it than just the still frame shown and it appears that's where his perception is coming off of.


Regardless, this is my fault here. I don't want this turning to it what it has any further. The man did a good job of going over the film and took pictures to HELP prove what he saw. I'm very thankful for that (even though my posts most likely give a different view) of the time and effort put in.

I simply would like to see the entire play before trying to pinpoint certain things.

---

You can not compare the Packers offense to the Vikings offense. The majority of the Vikings passes are little dump offs that let their speed play out in space, while the majority of the Packers O is the medium to deep pass. Its easy to say Favre made the right read, but how do we know that wasnt his only read?

---

They did have a number of screens set up through the game.

---