LeRoy Butler analyzes the Vikings-Packers game· Page 2

IronMan
Veteran Member

15 years ago

Right now what we have is a line that gives our QB as much time vs a 4 man rush as other teams get against a blitz. It looks like Rodgers is holding the ball too long but he needs more time because the receivers are outnumbered.

Just about every time that Rodgers escapes the rush and buys more time he completes a pass to an open guy. That's because that is how long it takes for the receivers to get through all of that extra coverage.

"Stevetarded" wrote:

+1

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#12

So I'm an ex-RB and will admit right off that I'm not a passing game guru.

But I keep hearing "run the short slants" as if they're a given, and I;m wondering if it's that simple. When they're (the Vikes) getting strong pressure with a 4-man rush, the aren't there 7 guys out in coverage - and might several of them be hanging around where you'd want to hit those quick slants? As in they're not a given and they've not been there for Rodgers when he hits that 3rd step? I'm asking, so let's not get snippy.

What I seem to see a number of times: Rodgers gets to his quick drop, looks and something doesn't seem to be there, tries to go to his next reads and then is caught up in the rush - we all know how the rest of the story goes.

So what I'm asking is: If you've got a situation where the opposing D is able to rush 4 guys and keep everyone else out in coverage, could those defenses not be taking those quick slants away?

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:

Only having to rush 4 makes passing more difficult because of more coverage. That is true, but a defense is not able to sit on a slant and stop it. Slants are built with multiple windows for the pass. 1st is quick 3-4 yards, second is about 7. The other thing is if we have 3 WR on the field. Which is going to be running the slant, which is going to run a curl, which is going deep. If a defense was just sitting on a route. they are burnt.

We are not running the patterns even.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

warhawk
Senior Member

15 years ago

#13

So I'm an ex-RB and will admit right off that I'm not a passing game guru.

But I keep hearing "run the short slants" as if they're a given, and I;m wondering if it's that simple. When they're (the Vikes) getting strong pressure with a 4-man rush, the aren't there 7 guys out in coverage - and might several of them be hanging around where you'd want to hit those quick slants? As in they're not a given and they've not been there for Rodgers when he hits that 3rd step? I'm asking, so let's not get snippy.

What I seem to see a number of times: Rodgers gets to his quick drop, looks and something doesn't seem to be there, tries to go to his next reads and then is caught up in the rush - we all know how the rest of the story goes.

So what I'm asking is: If you've got a situation where the opposing D is able to rush 4 guys and keep everyone else out in coverage, could those defenses not be taking those quick slants away?

I've decided to hold my tongue on the whole "Rodgers holds the ball too long!" deal - put simply, I don't agree, and moreover that's a critique that depends on whether it works or not. Roethlesberger gets praised all the time for the same thing, but the words change to something like "keeps working to extend the play". I'd rather my QB keep giving that effort, even if it leads to a couple more sacks per year.

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:

That's exactly what was happening. When the defense rushes four it is absolutely necessary to be able to get the protection until the receivers find the seams.

Almost every time Rodgers was given the least amount of time there were guys open but the Vikings plan was to pressure Rodgers and take the short pass away. With that scheme the defense has three LB'rs and two CB's no more than five yards off the line. With four rushers the Oline has to provide enough time to allow the WR's to slip into the secondary and find openings.

The biggest factor in this game was the fact we often sent more than four but created less pressure than the four rushers the Vikes sent most of the afternoon. To say "well, Chilly ran this", yeah he did. When we send more than four there are holes out there five yards beyond the LOS for Farve to find that WERE NOT there for Rodgers because of the five defenders standing in those short zones.

There's much more going on out there than suggesting a shorter passing game is the fix and why can't McCarthy see it. This wasn't about Childress being this awesome tactician that outsmarted our guy. The guys on the field outperformed our guys. In FACT, had McCarthy tried forcing the short game against that scheme THAT'S when the other guy is smarter than your guy.

With the Cover 2 there's all kinds of gaping holes 10 and more yds downfield that two guys can't cover but when the QB doesn't have time to wait and get it down there it can't be exploited.

"The train is leaving the station."

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

15 years ago

#14

Why not do more bootlegs/rollouts?

longtimefan
Registered

15 years ago

#15

I been calling for those since the 1st viking game

Pack93z
Select Member

15 years ago

#16

Why not do more bootlegs/rollouts?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Bootlegs and rollouts put more pressure to one end of the line or the other, so which end is solid enough to provide that?

You can't roll Allen's way IMO, so that leaves Barbre on the hook, IMO, that is the weakest link on the field yet.. seven games in.

I will say it again.. we have a couple of problems on this team.. two are fatal flaws.

1. Pass Protection.. we wing it a great percent of the time.. it is killing us.

2. Penalties.. They absolute kill momentum and field position.

3. Lack of a running game and the desire to stay with the calls.. thus putting more pressure on the pass protection.

4. Special Teams.. we focused on it, we let go of a couple players that might have helped the core units to boost special teams. We are still struggling with it, and it is killing field position.

5. Lack of defensive pressure getting home.. our backers are just not all the effective blitzing yet.

That is my top five issues in ranks of importance.. we can list a ton more things that need work.. but those are the top five right this moment.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#17

So I'm an ex-RB and will admit right off that I'm not a passing game guru.

But I keep hearing "run the short slants" as if they're a given, and I;m wondering if it's that simple. When they're (the Vikes) getting strong pressure with a 4-man rush, the aren't there 7 guys out in coverage - and might several of them be hanging around where you'd want to hit those quick slants? As in they're not a given and they've not been there for Rodgers when he hits that 3rd step? I'm asking, so let's not get snippy.

What I seem to see a number of times: Rodgers gets to his quick drop, looks and something doesn't seem to be there, tries to go to his next reads and then is caught up in the rush - we all know how the rest of the story goes.

So what I'm asking is: If you've got a situation where the opposing D is able to rush 4 guys and keep everyone else out in coverage, could those defenses not be taking those quick slants away?

I've decided to hold my tongue on the whole "Rodgers holds the ball too long!" deal - put simply, I don't agree, and moreover that's a critique that depends on whether it works or not. Roethlesberger gets praised all the time for the same thing, but the words change to something like "keeps working to extend the play". I'd rather my QB keep giving that effort, even if it leads to a couple more sacks per year.

"warhawk" wrote:

That's exactly what was happening. When the defense rushes four it is absolutely necessary to be able to get the protection until the receivers find the seams.

Almost every time Rodgers was given the least amount of time there were guys open but the Vikings plan was to pressure Rodgers and take the short pass away. With that scheme the defense has three LB'rs and two CB's no more than five yards off the line. With four rushers the Oline has to provide enough time to allow the WR's to slip into the secondary and find openings.

The biggest factor in this game was the fact we often sent more than four but created less pressure than the four rushers the Vikes sent most of the afternoon. To say "well, Chilly ran this", yeah he did. When we send more than four there are holes out there five yards beyond the LOS for Farve to find that WERE NOT there for Rodgers because of the five defenders standing in those short zones.

There's much more going on out there than suggesting a shorter passing game is the fix and why can't McCarthy see it. This wasn't about Childress being this awesome tactician that outsmarted our guy. The guys on the field outperformed our guys. In FACT, had McCarthy tried forcing the short game against that scheme THAT'S when the other guy is smarter than your guy.

With the Cover 2 there's all kinds of gaping holes 10 and more yds downfield that two guys can't cover but when the QB doesn't have time to wait and get it down there it can't be exploited.

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:

You sort of said the problem without actually saying it.

McCarthy is letting the defense dictate his offense, when his offense should be dictating to the defense.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

warhawk
Senior Member

15 years ago

#18

So I'm an ex-RB and will admit right off that I'm not a passing game guru.

But I keep hearing "run the short slants" as if they're a given, and I;m wondering if it's that simple. When they're (the Vikes) getting strong pressure with a 4-man rush, the aren't there 7 guys out in coverage - and might several of them be hanging around where you'd want to hit those quick slants? As in they're not a given and they've not been there for Rodgers when he hits that 3rd step? I'm asking, so let's not get snippy.

What I seem to see a number of times: Rodgers gets to his quick drop, looks and something doesn't seem to be there, tries to go to his next reads and then is caught up in the rush - we all know how the rest of the story goes.

So what I'm asking is: If you've got a situation where the opposing D is able to rush 4 guys and keep everyone else out in coverage, could those defenses not be taking those quick slants away?

I've decided to hold my tongue on the whole "Rodgers holds the ball too long!" deal - put simply, I don't agree, and moreover that's a critique that depends on whether it works or not. Roethlesberger gets praised all the time for the same thing, but the words change to something like "keeps working to extend the play". I'd rather my QB keep giving that effort, even if it leads to a couple more sacks per year.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

That's exactly what was happening. When the defense rushes four it is absolutely necessary to be able to get the protection until the receivers find the seams.

Almost every time Rodgers was given the least amount of time there were guys open but the Vikings plan was to pressure Rodgers and take the short pass away. With that scheme the defense has three LB'rs and two CB's no more than five yards off the line. With four rushers the Oline has to provide enough time to allow the WR's to slip into the secondary and find openings.

The biggest factor in this game was the fact we often sent more than four but created less pressure than the four rushers the Vikes sent most of the afternoon. To say "well, Chilly ran this", yeah he did. When we send more than four there are holes out there five yards beyond the LOS for Farve to find that WERE NOT there for Rodgers because of the five defenders standing in those short zones.

There's much more going on out there than suggesting a shorter passing game is the fix and why can't McCarthy see it. This wasn't about Childress being this awesome tactician that outsmarted our guy. The guys on the field outperformed our guys. In FACT, had McCarthy tried forcing the short game against that scheme THAT'S when the other guy is smarter than your guy.

With the Cover 2 there's all kinds of gaping holes 10 and more yds downfield that two guys can't cover but when the QB doesn't have time to wait and get it down there it can't be exploited.

"warhawk" wrote:

You sort of said the problem without actually saying it.

McCarthy is letting the defense dictate his offense, when his offense should be dictating to the defense.

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:

McCarthy is calling the offense based on what defense is in front of him and he is calling it right. You take what the defense gives you. The problem is without protection the execution is not there. Specifically the 0line.

When the 0line did a little better in the second half McCarthy was dictating all over the place. It's pretty simple. Five guys ought to be able to hold four rushers off long enough to get your WR's the ball.

"The train is leaving the station."

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#19

McCarthy is calling the offense based on what defense is in front of him and he is calling it right. You take what the defense gives you. The problem is without protection the execution is not there. Specifically the 0line.

When the 0line did a little better in the second half McCarthy was dictating all over the place. It's pretty simple. Five guys ought to be able to hold four rushers off long enough to get your WR's the ball.

"warhawk" wrote:

IMO that is the wrong way to do things. We need to run our offense, and let the defense try to stop us. With MN pass rush, trying to beat the cover 2 deep played right into their hands.

We needed to force the short stuff, the slants, curls, drags what ever. 1, 3 step drops.

What we did in the game, is Let their defense dictate to our offense, and their offense dictate to our defense. That is how games are lost not won, and we did it twice, and lost twice.

We need to be aggressive. With Brett, we threw slants against cover 2, we dared the defense to stop us. We have lost that and need it back.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Wade
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#20

I really hate saying this. Seriously. This makes me sick to the stomach saying this. But I have to say it.

Childress' playcalling was better than Mike McCarthy's.

Yikes. The whole thought makes me sick.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

And even worse...Childress' playcalling itself wasn't that great. How many running plays did he call up the middle over Herrera/Loadholt -- even though Pickett and Kampman kept stuffing it over and over again for a yard gain, and even though Peterson did have several plays that worked on the Hutchinson side. I kept saying to myself (and occasionally in the chat), Brad keep calling run right, it's keeping us in the game.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Important Information: