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/ 
reggie
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (2h) : He hasn't been too bad when healthy but I don't feel like I ever heard much about when he is
    Zero2Cool (3h) : Felt like he was more interested in his body, than football. He flashed more than I expected
    Zero2Cool (3h) : When he was coming out, I thought he'd be flash in pan.
    Mucky Tundra (5h) : Joey seems so forgettable compared to his brother for some reason
    Zero2Cool (5h) : NFL informed teams today that the 2025 salary cap will be roughly $277.5M-$281.5M
    Zero2Cool (9h) : Los Angeles Chargers are likely to release DE Joey Bosa this off-season as a cap casualty, per league source.
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : If the exploit is not fixed, we'll see tons of "50 top free agents, 50 perfect NFL team fits: We picked where each should sign in March" lo
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Issue should be solved, database cleaned and held strong working / meeting. Boom!
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : It should be halted now.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : usually spambots are trying to get traffic to shady websites filled with spyware; the two links being spammed were to the Packers website
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : you know when you put it that way combined with the links it was spamming (to the official Packers website)
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yep. You can do that with holding down ENTER on a command in Console of browser
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : even with the rapid fire posts?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I'm not certain it's a bot.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I've got to go to work soon which is a pity because I'm enthralled by this battle between the bot and Zero
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, I see what that did. Kind of funny.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : now it's a link to Wes Hodkiezwicz mailbag
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Now they're back with another topic
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : oh lol
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I have a script that purges them now.
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : 118 Topics with Message.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : what's 118 (besides a number)?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : They got 118 slapped in there.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : that's why it confused the hell out of me
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, but this is taking a headline and slapping it into the Packers Talk
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Wasnt there a time guests could post in the help forum?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : lol good question, kind of impressed!
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : So how is a guest posting?
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Tell them its an emergency
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Working. Meetings.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Lots of fun; the spam goes back 4 or 5 pages by this point
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought you'd look for yourself and put 2 and 2 together lol. I overestimated ya ;)
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought Guests couldnt post?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : And gosh that's gonna be fun to clean up! hahaa
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Oh. Why not just say that then? Geez.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : check the main forum, seems a spam bot is running amok
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : What?
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Is the Packers online game "Packers Predict" now available for 2024? I can't tell
    Zero2Cool (17-Feb) : Bengals planning to Franchise Tag Tamaurice Higgins
    Zero2Cool (14-Feb) : Packers are hiring Luke Getsy as senior offensive assistant.
    Martha Careful (12-Feb) : I would love to have them both, esp. Crosby, but either might be too expensive.
    Zero2Cool (12-Feb) : Keisean Nixon is trying to get Maxx Crosby and Davante Adams lol
    Mucky Tundra (11-Feb) : Yeah where did it go?
    packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : or did you resctrict access to that topic?
    packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : why did you remove the Playoff topic?
    Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Tua’s old DC won a Super Bowl Year 1 with Tua’s former backup
    Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : *winning MVP
    Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : Funny observation I've heard: Carson Wentz was on the sideline for both Eagles Super Bowl wins w/guys supposed to be his back up winning
    Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : NFL thought it would get more attention week preceding Super Bowl.
    Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Yes, the Pro Bowl. It was played Sunday before Super Bowl from 2010-2022
    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
    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    16-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

    16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    15-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

    15-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    14-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

    14-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    13-Feb / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

    10-Feb / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

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