I must have missed it. WHen did Jenkins complain?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

OMFG!

OMFG!

OMFG!

JEsus F'in CHRIST!

Zero -- if you have the power, please find a film tape of last night's game with a camera angle that shows the entire fiield.

Then we can have a little Cover 2 defense lesson.

Listen here boys, and listen closely: this game is too complex for simple statements like he needs to get rid of the ball quicker or that we need to emphasize the short passing game. In the first half, the Vikes almost exclusively rushed four guys, and behind that ran a Tampa 2 like zone shell. That means there were 4 rushers, and 7 in coverage. A few of the sacks against Rodgers in the first half were instances where there were at least 2 or 3 of those passing options in intermediate-short passing routes (hitches, curls, flats, comeback routes, etc.). Rodgers would go through his progression. Nothing would be there. Result -- sack, or incompletion.

The idea that we were just looking "downfield" and that McCarthy coached a piss poor first half is I PROMISE ON MY FUCKING MOTHER'S LIFE a simple, easy, quick way out of the situation that isn't indicative of the truth: it's a fucking cop out, guys.

What changed, is that in the second half, it started to work. We were able to hit up the cover 2 in the seems. We were able to spread the ball around. McCarthy talks about "rhythm" in the offense. Don't be so quick to brush that aside. In the first half we had no rhythm. Simply, we couldn't string together many successful plays in a row. It was a combination of the play being called, Minnesota reacting damn near perfect (getting pressure with four, locking up the receiving targets with EXCELLENT underneath coverage), and Green Bay failing to execute. If ANYTHING we should have tried to get the ball downfield in the seams of Cover 2 MORE in the first half. This idea that McCarthy was stubborn and trying to force it downfield in the first half (and thus why our offense was anemic) is completely fallacious. Barring one stupid Rodgers bomb off play action (the one into double coverage) we actually seemed to try pretty hard to develop the quick passing game. It wasn't there in the first half. Not everything is an issue of playcalling! Sometimes defenses simply "click" and good things happen for them. Are we forgetting this is the game of football we are watching?

In the second half things worked, but it isn't as simple as saying "why weren't we doing that in the first half! wahhh... fire McCarthy." That is such an eerily simplistic analysis of a game that, let's be honest, to play or coach at this level requires a substantial knowledge that we the superfans don't know. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand it -- hell, I think we should. But I can promise you, things like "we need the quick passing game" fail on all accounts -- like the account of reality. The short stuff is hard to find against a Cover 2 defense -- particularly when it is a good defense. But that didn't stop us from trying to get the quick passing game going. I promise you, go back and watch the game.

/rant

I need a fucking drink. And it's 11 am.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I think they are both frustrated, that against MN, they were asked to not rush as hard, while watching for Peterson. I would have to watch the game again, but I think they do less creative stunts and things because they want to control the lanes to stop the run.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

You need to calm down. Immediately.

Penalties that we have every week, that are said to be cleaned up. Coaching failure.

What short passing game includes 5 and 7 step drops? What I'm saying is we need more 3 step drop passing plays. AKA, a short quick passing game. Does that mean I think I'm a head coach? offensive coordinator? No. It means that I think we should use that as we've done in the past with great success.

Mike McCarthy says Aaron Rodgers is very coach able. Yet, there were a few times he had a dumpoff and held the ball too long and took a sack instead of passing it short or running for it. (I think he didn't run much because of his foot issue from the last two weeks).

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

If you want to raise the level of debate, don't put words in my (or others) mouth. It's only going to degrade the level of discussion. I'd love to respond, but you haven't given me anything to respond with other than misunderstanding what I said. even though I put it down plain as day. At least, I thought I did.

You're saying things that have no ground. You're over reacting upon others alleged over reacting. I never said because of this one play. I said there were several times I seen this ... etc. I've never said because of this ONE PLAY we need to FIRE THE COACH.

That type of comment makes me not even want to read what you said anymore.

You're obviously looking for a fight. I'm not biting. If you want to DEBATE, I'm down for that. When you can calm down and be rational, we can debate. Until, read what I said and understand where I'm coming from WITHOUT putting words in my mouth.

"Zero2Cool" wrote: