PackFanWithTwins
15 years ago
McCarthy does not stick with what is working. Against MN, we ran some quick plays, a couple screens and move the ball with ease on the first drive. Those plays disappeared the rest of the game. Only one of 4 games so far has Grant had 20 rushes. 16 against Chi getting 3.8 per, 14 vs Cin 3.3, 11 vs MN 4.6 per. None of those games had bad enough production to limit the carries that much.

The passing game needs help from the run. Just consistent use of it even if not gaining big yards will help Rodgers and the WRs.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
zombieslayer
15 years ago



In line with this reasoning, I miss seeing those short slant patterns. It seems that at least once a game the Pack used to break one of those for a big gainer. It seems this would be a good play to run frequently since our line can't seem to give Aaron Rodgers the protection for a 3-5 step drop. Also, given his obvious athleticism, I think Finley should be targeted much more often, perhaps 10-12 times per game (after he chips a rusher, that is).

"Kyle" wrote:



Agreed.

In life, you play to your strengths and cover your weaknesses. Same with football. More screens. More short slants. More passes to Finley and let him bruise some DBs. The short passes open up both the long passes and the running game. Or, it substitutes for the running game.

Now back on topic, this is EXACTLY what MM did in '07. Don't forget we were 7-1 without a running game that year. Notice how late in the game, Favre would complete a bomb? Well, exactly what I was saying - the short passing game opens up the long passing game. It also helps hide the fact that our OL sucks.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
warhawk
15 years ago
What your all touching on and what needs to happen is getting more production on first down.

I went through the play by play in the Vikes game and it clearly showed our struggles in this area.

Before the last couple of drives during the normal course of the game there were 16 first down plays. In twelve of those we were 2nd and eight or worse. On three we lost a fumble and Rodgers was sacked twice.

Only once did we make a first down on first down and the other three times we gained 9, 5, and 4 yards. In otherwords the defense won 12 of 16 first down plays.

Now there is no one way of turning that around. If the defense is set to take away the run or is set up to take away the short pass the best possible play has to be called according to how the defense is set up.

The short passing game in itself cannot be a catch all for what is ailing us. I remember two years ago when we were beating the snot out of the Bears in the first half with short passes and slants. They came out in the second half and took that away. Now that opened up other options that we couldn't capitalize on and we ended up losing the game.

Our offense needs to be more consistant and not rely on the big play. We will get our share of those but we can smother teams if we can sustain drives and that is going take better production on first down.
"The train is leaving the station."
evad04
15 years ago

McCarthy does not stick with what is working. Against MN, we ran some quick plays, a couple screens and move the ball with ease on the first drive. Those plays disappeared the rest of the game. Only one of 4 games so far has Grant had 20 rushes. 16 against Chi getting 3.8 per, 14 vs Cin 3.3, 11 vs MN 4.6 per. None of those games had bad enough production to limit the carries that much.

The passing game needs help from the run. Just consistent use of it even if not gaining big yards will help Rodgers and the WRs.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:


Let me say that I don't disagree with much that is in this post, but I'm not willing to budge on one particular issue: the run game against Minnie.

The 11 carries for 4.6 per carry are in themselves skewed numbers. Over half of those yards came on draw plays. They got about as much production as they could against Minnesota, and again, the gameplan we proceeded effective. Green Bay moved the ball pretty consistently, especially taking into account the sacks and especially at the beginning of the game (when, as pointed out, we left points off the board with turnovers).

I stand with the OP -- I like McCarthy's playcalling. I think it's kind of one of those jobs where you don't get the credit when things are going well.
William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

Our running game is non existant. He can't call runs until we show we can gain more then 2 yards on a run.

"Cheesey" wrote:


Give the rock to the RB more often. It's hard to get into a rhythm for a RB and OL when you're running a run play once a leap year.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
15 years ago

McCarthy does not stick with what is working. Against MN, we ran some quick plays, a couple screens and move the ball with ease on the first drive. Those plays disappeared the rest of the game. Only one of 4 games so far has Grant had 20 rushes. 16 against Chi getting 3.8 per, 14 vs Cin 3.3, 11 vs MN 4.6 per. None of those games had bad enough production to limit the carries that much.

The passing game needs help from the run. Just consistent use of it even if not gaining big yards will help Rodgers and the WRs.

"evad04" wrote:


Let me say that I don't disagree with much that is in this post, but I'm not willing to budge on one particular issue: the run game against Minnie.

The 11 carries for 4.6 per carry are in themselves skewed numbers. Over half of those yards came on draw plays. They got about as much production as they could against Minnesota, and again, the gameplan we proceeded effective. Green Bay moved the ball pretty consistently, especially taking into account the sacks and especially at the beginning of the game (when, as pointed out, we left points off the board with turnovers).

I stand with the OP -- I like McCarthy's playcalling. I think it's kind of one of those jobs where you don't get the credit when things are going well.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



The biggest thing I don't like is the way the plays are called. One time nothing but runs, another nothing but passes. He doesn't seem to get them mixed consistently. In the MN game, there was not 2 consecutive runs through the 1st 3 qtrs of the game. The only time there were two consecutive runs, is when we were inside our own 10 and it was to setup a punt.

As for the draws against MN, they are the best thing to run against a line that provides that much pressure. Draws and screens, we have been calling for them for a couple weeks. He finally ran them, but not enough.

With the way the offense moved on the first drive with the short passes and screens, to not come back to that plan later was wrong. I am one who definately does not like his playcalling combinations.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
evad04
15 years ago

McCarthy does not stick with what is working. Against MN, we ran some quick plays, a couple screens and move the ball with ease on the first drive. Those plays disappeared the rest of the game. Only one of 4 games so far has Grant had 20 rushes. 16 against Chi getting 3.8 per, 14 vs Cin 3.3, 11 vs MN 4.6 per. None of those games had bad enough production to limit the carries that much.

The passing game needs help from the run. Just consistent use of it even if not gaining big yards will help Rodgers and the WRs.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:


Let me say that I don't disagree with much that is in this post, but I'm not willing to budge on one particular issue: the run game against Minnie.

The 11 carries for 4.6 per carry are in themselves skewed numbers. Over half of those yards came on draw plays. They got about as much production as they could against Minnesota, and again, the gameplan we proceeded effective. Green Bay moved the ball pretty consistently, especially taking into account the sacks and especially at the beginning of the game (when, as pointed out, we left points off the board with turnovers).

I stand with the OP -- I like McCarthy's playcalling. I think it's kind of one of those jobs where you don't get the credit when things are going well.

"evad04" wrote:



The biggest thing I don't like is the way the plays are called. One time nothing but runs, another nothing but passes. He doesn't seem to get them mixed consistently. In the MN game, there was not 2 consecutive runs through the 1st 3 qtrs of the game. The only time there were two consecutive runs, is when we were inside our own 10 and it was to setup a punt.

As for the draws against MN, they are the best thing to run against a line that provides that much pressure. Draws and screens, we have been calling for them for a couple weeks. He finally ran them, but not enough.

With the way the offense moved on the first drive with the short passes and screens, to not come back to that plan later was wrong. I am one who definately does not like his playcalling combinations.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:


You are definately entitled to your own opinion. I'm just failing to see the link in the Minnesota game. We ran screens and draws, but not enough? It wasn't like our problem was moving the ball. We moved the ball pretty well throughout -- sacks notwithstanding.

If you want to argue that more screens/draws would cut down on the sacks, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But adding those plays in may not account for all the yards they accrued with the plays that were called. Does what I'm saying make sense?
William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."
PackFanWithTwins
15 years ago

You are definately entitled to your own opinion. I'm just failing to see the link in the Minnesota game. We ran screens and draws, but not enough? It wasn't like our problem was moving the ball. We moved the ball pretty well throughout -- sacks notwithstanding.

If you want to argue that more screens/draws would cut down on the sacks, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But adding those plays in may not account for all the yards they accrued with the plays that were called. Does what I'm saying make sense?

"evad04" wrote:



For me it is not a matter of moving the ball. It is a matter of getting our QB killed. Screens, draws, not to mention 3-4 yards slants, curls, crossing routes stop the pass rush. I will see a series where there is a combination that works, then never again and we will be back to 5 medium to long passes to 1 run or something.

We always hear about play scripting, the entire purpose of the script is to have a set of practiced plays, and not to have to decide what to run. Call the play, and see what the D throws to defend. Then see what works and what doesn't, then follow up with the plays that work later in the game. Also to set up other plays, slant and go and stuff. I don't see MM going back to what worked, or using the WCO short game to setup the long balls anymore. He did that with Favre and with Rodgers some last year. I haven't seen it this year.

This year, the majority of the time, I don't even see us using the WCO anymore. We are going against most of the fundamental rules it was designed by.

as you say, that is just the way I see things going.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
evad04
15 years ago

You are definately entitled to your own opinion. I'm just failing to see the link in the Minnesota game. We ran screens and draws, but not enough? It wasn't like our problem was moving the ball. We moved the ball pretty well throughout -- sacks notwithstanding.

If you want to argue that more screens/draws would cut down on the sacks, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But adding those plays in may not account for all the yards they accrued with the plays that were called. Does what I'm saying make sense?

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



For me it is not a matter of moving the ball. It is a matter of getting our QB killed. Screens, draws, not to mention 3-4 yards slants, curls, crossing routes stop the pass rush. I will see a series where there is a combination that works, then never again and we will be back to 5 medium to long passes to 1 run or something.

We always hear about play scripting, the entire purpose of the script is to have a set of practiced plays, and not to have to decide what to run. Call the play, and see what the D throws to defend. Then see what works and what doesn't, then follow up with the plays that work later in the game. Also to set up other plays, slant and go and stuff. I don't see Mike McCarthy going back to what worked, or using the WCO short game to setup the long balls anymore. He did that with Favre and with Rodgers some last year. I haven't seen it this year.

This year, the majority of the time, I don't even see us using the WCO anymore. We are going against most of the fundamental rules it was designed by.

as you say, that is just the way I see things going.

"evad04" wrote:


You raise some good points/observations. I think a more rigorous film-study would be in order. It's hard for me to make a determination about a play-call. The plays that ended in sacks -- how many of them were 5-step drop, downfield plays? Again going with the theme that MANY times the pressure came too quickly and with only four rushing, the quick passes aren't necessarily the better option. I can say that I know at least three of those sacks (I was watching with this in mind) were against some variation of a Cover 2 zone defense. This defense is designed to take away short/mid-range passing options. When a defense like that has the added bonus of excellent pressure with the front four, it can be a suffocatingly difficult defense to beat. For the record, many of the big plays we put up (late in the game against Minnesota) were more of the "downfield" variety.

I think you are right in that there needs to be more of a balance. And hey, just like many others on this board I'm a big fan of the slant pass! I do, however, think there's something to the way that McCarthy has been calling the games. You have to attack Cover 2 zone defenses up the deep middle -- look at some of the explosive plays from that game. Jordy Nelson's comes to mind.
William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."
porky88
15 years ago

Bottom line:

What are your problems with his playcalling? Specifics preferred.

Let's discuss.

"bt_impaler" wrote:



He's predictable. When he actually get a run play to work, he'll go back to the run for the next two plays. He never mixes things up or hasn't this year. He also throws on first-down way to often. That's one of the reasons why GB is in 3rd and long too much.

There is a difference between playcalling and managing a game or at least I think so. Going for it on fourth down, I agreed with except at the goaline. I do tend to like his aggressive nature. What I don't like is the plays he calls in the situations.

It gets very repetitive. I'd like to see a pass and run mix.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (1h) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (1h) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (1h) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (4h) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (4h) : Only 4
wpr (4h) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (6h) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (7h) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?
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 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
19-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.