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 mm 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
    dfosterf (18-Aug) : We do have good depth at running back imo. Still so frustrating. Bitching about it is a futile excercise, which I plan to do anyway.
    Mucky Tundra (17-Aug) : Whoops, I thought Zero was saying it was a surprise the Brewers lost and not Lloyd being hurt
    Mucky Tundra (17-Aug) : Not a surprise; inevitable
    Zero2Cool (17-Aug) : Brewers streak ends at 14
    Zero2Cool (17-Aug) : SURPRISE
    Mucky Tundra (17-Aug) : @mattschneidman Matt LaFleur on MarShawn Lloyd: “He’s gonna miss some time.”
    Mucky Tundra (16-Aug) : CLIFFORD WITH THE TD WITH UNDER 2 TO GO!!!!!
    Zero2Cool (16-Aug) : 90 MINUTES UNTIL FAKE KICKOFF!!
    Martha Careful (16-Aug) : I think Ruven is a bot, but regardless should be stricken from the site.
    Zero2Cool (14-Aug) : Packers RB Josh Jacobs ranked No. 33 in NFL 'Top 100'
    dfosterf (13-Aug) : The LVN Musgrave collision- Andy Herman said Musgrave seemed to be the one most impacted injury-wise
    dfosterf (13-Aug) : a lower back injury
    dfosterf (13-Aug) : Doubs says he's "fine" after injury scare. Some reported it as z
    Mucky Tundra (13-Aug) : With LVN that is; need to see what happens in the next practice
    Mucky Tundra (13-Aug) : beast, reading about what happened, it sounded like one of those "two guys collide and are moving slow afterwards" type of deals
    beast (12-Aug) : I believe Musgrave has been injured every single season since at least a Sophomore in highschool
    packerfanoutwest (12-Aug) : Matt LaFleur: “Highly unlikely” Jordan Love plays more this preseason
    dfosterf (12-Aug) : Doubs, Savion Williams, LVN, Musgrave all banged up to one degree or another, missing one here I forget
    Zero2Cool (12-Aug) : RB Tyrion Davis-Price is signing with the Green Bay Packers.
    Zero2Cool (12-Aug) : zero help, dominated. preseason
    beast (12-Aug) : QB Jordan Love has surgery
    beast (12-Aug) : Martha said Morgan had a lot of help, I didn't watch the OL so I can't say.
    Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers LT Jordan Morgan did not allow a single pressure across 23 pass-blocking snaps vs. Jets last night, per PFF
    Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : With buckeye and the reasonable couple, we're currently sitting at 10
    buckeyepackfan (10-Aug) : Just posted to re-up on our FFL.
    Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : If healthy after, then thats all I care. Well, no drops would be nice
    wpr (10-Aug) : I made it through the 1st Q.
    dfosterf (10-Aug) : Just gotta figure out how.
    dfosterf (10-Aug) : Could have been a worse start, so there is that.
    beast (10-Aug) : Yeah, someone tell the Packers football season has started, seems like they weren't ready for it
    Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : Sooooooo many penalties
    Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : It may only be preseason, but this game is a trip to the dentist
    Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers do bad -- FREAK OUT!!!!!!
    Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers do good -- eh only preseason
    dfosterf (10-Aug) : Well that half was fun
    Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Great, zayne is down
    Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : 13 minutes away from kickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkoffff
    Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : Had Celebration of Life for my uncle up north. wicked rain hope it dont come south
    Mucky Tundra (9-Aug) : THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE PLAYING FOOTBALL TONIGHT!!!!!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!!
    Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : Woo-hoo
    TheKanataThrilla (9-Aug) : NFL Network is broadcasting the game tonight, but not in Canada. Not sure why as no local television is showing the game.
    beast (8-Aug) : But the Return from IR designations had to be applied by the 53 man cutdown.
    beast (8-Aug) : It's a new rule, so it's not clear, but my understanding was that they could be IR'd at any time
    Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : *had to be IRed at 53
    Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : beast, I thought the designate return from IR players had to be IR at cutdowns to 53, not before
    beast (8-Aug) : It's a brand new rule, either last season or this season, prior, all pre-season IRs were done for the season
    beast (8-Aug) : But the Packers would have to use one for their return from IR spots on him, when they cut down to 53.
    beast (8-Aug) : I think the NFL recently changed the IR rules, so maybe the season might not be over for OL Glover.
    Zero2Cool (8-Aug) : Packers star Howton, first NFLPA prez, dies at 95 😔
    dfosterf (8-Aug) : Apparently it is too complicated for several to follow your simple instructions, but I digress
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    20-Aug / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

    19-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    18-Aug / Around The NFL / isaiah

    18-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    17-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    17-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    16-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / beast

    15-Aug / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    13-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12-Aug / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

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