WhiskeySam
15 years ago


He didn't say he thinks it's good to get sacked he said there are certain times where getting sacked is a minimal cost. Getting sacked on 3rd down is indeed a minimal cost. His first move on 3rd downs if the protection breaks is to scramble and buy time for guys to get open for the first down. If he throws it away in that situation it's 4th down, if he takes a sack while trying to extend the play it's 4th down = minimal cost.

Now go ahead and find some more of his quotes to take out of context and complain about.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Taking a sack is not minimal cost. You have to very narrowly define the circumstances as taking a sack on third down when no other option that would have gained positive yards was available, throwing the ball away wasn't possible, and he gets back to the line of scrimmage on the play for it to be minimal cost. 193 yards lost, two fumbles, and him missing practice all week from getting slammed around on the turf is not minimal cost.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Stevetarded
15 years ago


He didn't say he thinks it's good to get sacked he said there are certain times where getting sacked is a minimal cost. Getting sacked on 3rd down is indeed a minimal cost. His first move on 3rd downs if the protection breaks is to scramble and buy time for guys to get open for the first down. If he throws it away in that situation it's 4th down, if he takes a sack while trying to extend the play it's 4th down = minimal cost.

Now go ahead and find some more of his quotes to take out of context and complain about.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Taking a sack is not minimal cost. You have to very narrowly define the circumstances as taking a sack on third down when no other option that would have gained positive yards was available, throwing the ball away wasn't possible, and he gets back to the line of scrimmage on the play for it to be minimal cost. 193 yards lost, two fumbles, and him missing practice all week from getting slammed around on the turf is not minimal cost.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Can you ever take a quote from somebody in context or is this just an issue you have? I never said "Taking a sack is a minimal cost" Jesus Christ you are irritating.
blank
WhiskeySam
15 years ago

Yep, you missed the point of his asking completely. You're taking a few words out of a whole thought and stretching it, big time.

I'm out of that discussion. You're too off key for me to continue this one with.

I'm sure because of that though I'm wearing green and gold goggles and think Rodgers is supreme, right?

:) (thats right, im smiling at you!)

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Then why did Rodgers ask about the QB rating? You can't pick and choose from the comments he made. It's obvious he thinks QB rating has some bearing on whether high sack totals are negative. I didn't mean to make it sound like you were wearing the Green and Gold glasses specifically because you're typically balanced. However, there are more than a few posters who do come off that way at the slightest hint of criticism of Rodgers' decision-making. You can give him a great line, and he'd still be holding the ball too long. Look at Roethlisberger. He gets away with it because of his size.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Stevetarded
15 years ago

Yep, you missed the point of his asking completely. You're taking a few words out of a whole thought and stretching it, big time.

I'm out of that discussion. You're too off key for me to continue this one with.

I'm sure because of that though I'm wearing green and gold goggles and think Rodgers is supreme, right?

:) (thats right, im smiling at you!)

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Then why did Rodgers ask about the QB rating? You can't pick and choose from the comments he made. It's obvious he thinks QB rating has some bearing on whether high sack totals are negative. I didn't mean to make it sound like you were wearing the Green and Gold glasses specifically because you're typically balanced. However, there are more than a few posters who do come off that way at the slightest hint of criticism of Rodgers' decision-making. You can give him a great line, and he'd still be holding the ball too long. Look at Roethlisberger. He gets away with it because of his size.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



If you are referring to me I have no issue with you criticizing Rodgers at all. I only have an issue with you taking his quotes completely out of context to try and make your argument stronger. If you have something to say do it fairly without "cheating".
blank
WhiskeySam
15 years ago


He didn't say he thinks it's good to get sacked he said there are certain times where getting sacked is a minimal cost. Getting sacked on 3rd down is indeed a minimal cost. His first move on 3rd downs if the protection breaks is to scramble and buy time for guys to get open for the first down. If he throws it away in that situation it's 4th down, if he takes a sack while trying to extend the play it's 4th down = minimal cost.

Now go ahead and find some more of his quotes to take out of context and complain about.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Taking a sack is not minimal cost. You have to very narrowly define the circumstances as taking a sack on third down when no other option that would have gained positive yards was available, throwing the ball away wasn't possible, and he gets back to the line of scrimmage on the play for it to be minimal cost. 193 yards lost, two fumbles, and him missing practice all week from getting slammed around on the turf is not minimal cost.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Can you ever take a quote from somebody in context or is this just an issue you have? I never said "Taking a sack is a minimal cost" Jesus Christ you are irritating.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Yes, I am irritating because I'm not going toe the company line and blow sunshine up Rodgers' butt. Considering the original quote itself had to qualify the circumstances that made a sack okay, I think it's you who isn't taking it in context. The question everyone should be asking is, if Rodgers says they don't want to be taking sacks then why is he taking so many? Why aren't they calling better plays? Why aren't they moving the pocket? Why isn't he doing little things like throwing the ball away when he can? We're seven games into the season, and they have yet to show any indication that they get it and are trying to adjust. That says to me they don't think it's a problem, or they are incapable of adjusting. Neither of those instills confidence.
Nemo me impune lacessit
IronMan
15 years ago


He didn't say he thinks it's good to get sacked he said there are certain times where getting sacked is a minimal cost. Getting sacked on 3rd down is indeed a minimal cost. His first move on 3rd downs if the protection breaks is to scramble and buy time for guys to get open for the first down. If he throws it away in that situation it's 4th down, if he takes a sack while trying to extend the play it's 4th down = minimal cost.

Now go ahead and find some more of his quotes to take out of context and complain about.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Taking a sack is not minimal cost. You have to very narrowly define the circumstances as taking a sack on third down when no other option that would have gained positive yards was available, throwing the ball away wasn't possible, and he gets back to the line of scrimmage on the play for it to be minimal cost. 193 yards lost, two fumbles, and him missing practice all week from getting slammed around on the turf is not minimal cost.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Can you ever take a quote from somebody in context or is this just an issue you have? I never said "Taking a sack is a minimal cost" Jesus Christ you are irritating.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Yes, I am irritating because I'm not going toe the company line and blow sunshine up Rodgers' butt. Considering the original quote itself had to qualify the circumstances that made a sack okay, I think it's you who isn't taking it in context. The question everyone should be asking is, if Rodgers says they don't want to be taking sacks then why is he taking so many? Why aren't they calling better plays? Why aren't they moving the pocket? Why isn't he doing little things like throwing the ball away when he can? We're seven games into the season, and they have yet to show any indication that they get it and are trying to adjust. That says to me they don't think it's a problem, or they are incapable of adjusting. Neither of those instills confidence.

"Stevetarded" wrote:


Another +1. You are on a roll today. You should post more often.

Part of the problem is we have a coach that doesn't know what he's doing.
WhiskeySam
15 years ago

Another +1. You are on a roll today. You should post more often.

Part of the problem is we have a coach that doesn't know what he's doing.

"IronMan" wrote:



Thanks, I stopped posting last year when things got toxic between the pro and anti Favre crowds. It's cleared up this year, and I do think there are good, insightful discussions here.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

The question everyone should be asking is, if Rodgers says they don't want to be taking sacks then why is he taking so many?
Why aren't they calling better plays?
Why aren't they moving the pocket?
Why isn't he doing little things like throwing the ball away when he can?
We're seven games into the season, and they have yet to show any indication that they get it and are trying to adjust. That says to me they don't think it's a problem, or they are incapable of adjusting. Neither of those instills confidence.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:


Why? No running game. Grant runs with his head down. Pussy. lol

Calling better plays sure would help. I'd like to see us go back to a quick three step offense on the majority of plays if we haven't already. I don't get the luxury of seeing the whole field on replays.

Rodgers does need to learn to go through his progressions and either run or throw it away, in my opinion that's his weakest attribute.

I think they are CAPABLE of adjusting, but refuse to. I think Mike McCarthy is too stubborn to adjust. This team is FULL of confidence, paper confidence, if you ask me. I don't want to hear my 4 - 3 team have nearly every player say in their interviews they have confidence. Fuck confidence, give me grit, heart, your all, and give me wins!
UserPostedImage
WhiskeySam
15 years ago

The question everyone should be asking is, if Rodgers says they don't want to be taking sacks then why is he taking so many?
Why aren't they calling better plays?
Why aren't they moving the pocket?
Why isn't he doing little things like throwing the ball away when he can?
We're seven games into the season, and they have yet to show any indication that they get it and are trying to adjust. That says to me they don't think it's a problem, or they are incapable of adjusting. Neither of those instills confidence.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:


Why? No running game. Grant runs with his head down. Pussy. lol

Calling better plays sure would help. I'd like to see us go back to a quick three step offense on the majority of plays if we haven't already. I don't get the luxury of seeing the whole field on replays.

Rodgers does need to learn to go through his progressions and either run or throw it away, in my opinion that's his weakest attribute.

I think they are CAPABLE of adjusting, but refuse to. I think Mike McCarthy is too stubborn to adjust. This team is FULL of confidence, paper confidence, if you ask me. I don't want to hear my 4 - 3 team have nearly every player say in their interviews they have confidence. Fuck confidence, give me grit, heart, your all, and give me wins!

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



I agree with this. I think McCarthy's undoing is going to be his refusal to change. The QB decision we have with a bad line is: experienced, immobile player who can get the ball out quicker to the right read (think late career Marino), or mobile, young player who can move to buy time (think Romo replacing Bledsoe). We took the latter option, but the time he's buying is not being used productively. If you're going to roll out and still take the sack, what does it matter?

If I come across as sounding like Rodgers is the primary problem, then that's my mistake. #1 the offensive line sucks. #2 the running backs scare no one. #3 the defense looks great against bad teams, but not too hot against good ones. I'd have Rodgers holding the ball below those and behind the special teams. I'm just trying to point out that some of Rodgers' decisions have hurt the team, and it needs to be corrected. That it doesn't change week after week really chaps my hide since I've seen other teams make adjustments to hide bad protection with less talent than we have. I have no confidence in the running game improving this year because that's a personnel problem, but the passing game could be better executed.
Nemo me impune lacessit
porky88
15 years ago
This entire regime is the most stubborn regime I've ever seen. From Murphy to Thompson to McCarthy to some of the position coaches like Winston Moss.

Rodgers is always going to be sacked a lot because he's always going to keep the play alive as long as possible. Eventually, he'll learn to throw the ball away on certain situations, but Rodgers' philosophy is simple....

1. Keep the play alive as long as possible.

2. A sack is better than an INT.

3. We can always get the yards back on the next play.

He'll improve to a point where it's acceptable, but I never expect to see Rodgers sacked less than 25-30 times in a season. He needs to learn to avoid hits though when he rolls out. He's taken some shots already this season that he shouldn't take.

Now with that said, I've seen the offensive lineman get beat in one and one matchups far more than I've seen Rodgers take an unnecessary sack. The offensive line is a huge problem. It's effecting the passing game and let's not forget the running game too.
http://www.row12.com/ 
UserPostedImage
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Martha Careful (18h) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
    Martha Careful (18h) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
    Mucky Tundra (22h) : Rude!
    beast (23h) : Martha? 😋
    Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
    dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
    beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
    Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
    Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
    beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
    beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
    wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
    wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
    wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
    beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
    beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
    beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
    beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
    beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
    wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
    wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
    wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
    beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
    beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
    beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    30 - 17
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    31 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    30 - 13
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    34 - 0
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    25 - 27
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    22 - 24
    Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
    Eagles
    10 - 22
    Recent Topics
    9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    18h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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