He's taken some chances already this year. I can think of two off the top of my head.
Both of Drivers one handed grabs were while he was heavily covered. Oh, last week, the TD to Jennings, he had a dude hanging on Jennings when he threw him the ball.
Rodgers is still taking chances. He's taking smart chances, not stupid "fling it up and hope your guy comes down with it" chances.
"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:
+1 - he's definitely winging it out there, just not committing the godawful boneheaded mistakes.
I spent some time (funny how you have more time to watch film when you can't play an instrument for 2+ months - stupid hand surgery) looking at highlights from Sunday's games, and I'm convinced that the short, quick throws were dialed up but covered - under those circumstances, the lack of INTs is just stunning.
We're a damn lucky fanbase to get this kid right after Favre.
"evad04" wrote:
Just to clarify, are you saying for the game the short passes were dialed up but covered? Basically I'm wondering if you're making any qualification as to when in the game the short, quick throws were called. Some hold the opinion that poor play calling was essentially the result of not calling these types of plays. I know this isn't what you were talking about -- in any case it presented an opportunity for me to beg the question, especially in lieu of your film study.
"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:
To preface: I'm no film study guru, so I could be dead wrong. I also wasn't checking different angles or anything, just going off of the times I could get a look at his face and relying on the broadcast footage. This is just one average fan's assessment, nothing more.
What I saw several times was that he'd get to his plant, look, his facial expression would look (to me) like his read (which, again to me, looked like it was a short, quick throw) was covered, then he'd try to get through his progressions and then the D was on him. Mind you, this all occurred in <3 seconds or so.
Combining this with a lot of very good discussion here in the thread about calling more short slants, I've come to the conclusion that the Vikings were taking those away, and basically gambling that their rush would get to him before the intermediate-to-deep routes could develop. That's a good D, so I don't think it's too far-fetched.
The play-calling could still have been suspect - for instance, I'm one of those people who thinks you need to call runs whether or not they're getting home, just to prevent a D teeing off on the pass plays. If you ask me, McCarthy's biggest flaw (though he's not alone in this) is that he abandons the run too quickly.
At any rate, I do think short slants were a definite part of the offensive strategy - and I do think the Vikings effectively took that option away - and as I said previously, the quick slant is a risky-as-hell play on which to force a pass. Those INTs turn to defensive scores really easily.
"Zero2Cool" wrote: