14 years ago
"Mike had to remind us twice in the locker room that we did get a win," Kuhn said.

I agree with Twinkiegorilla.

bozz_2006 wrote:


millertime
14 years ago
Rodgers had ONE BAD THROW!!! The only other bad decision I saw was when he threw it deep on 3rd down towards the sidelines. He was on the run and could have easily gotten the first with his legs. He got greedy and it cost us a first down and a punt.

IMO, Jennings needs to make these big plays if he wants to be a top 5 WR in this league:

1. Dropped deep ball last week that could have sealed the game for us.
2. Catching or breaking up the INT today. Alphonso Smith??? Greg Jennings HAS to win that match up.
3. Keeping his feet in bounds for the TD today. It was a REALLY tough catch, but if he makes that, Aaron doesn't have to throw the following INT.

But, alas, a sloppy win is better than a noble loss (see Arizona last year).

Go PACK!
Greg C.
14 years ago
I agree with you, millertime, that Jennings has been a little off his game this year. Maybe it's because Finley is getting so many balls thrown to him, so Jennings hasn't gotten into a rhythm. On the other hand, he seemed to do fine in the second half of last season, when Finley became a big part of the offense.
blank
K_Buz
14 years ago
I am confused about what to think of the Packers after this game.

The defense couldn't get off the field, but we had 4 turnovers.

Their TEs KILLED us on the underneath passes.

Rodgers looked off, but with only 22 mins in TOP, I'm not sure how much sync he could be in.

Jennings has been almost non existent this year. Averaging 3 catches/game and less than 40 yds/game.

I don't remember one slant vs the Lions. That used to be our bread and butter on 3rd and mid.

Woodson is a beast. Without him, we would have lost. He almost single-handedly stopped the lions in the 4th quarter.

Overall, I would have to rate today's game at a C-. It would have been a D/D+, but hey, a win is a win. But there wasn't one aspect of today's game I would like to see on a weekly basis.
Greg C.
14 years ago
That's pretty much where I'm at, K_Buz, although I think Rodgers played very well except for that first interception, which was obviously a poor throw.

You bring up a good point about the lack of a short passing game. The Lions were the team that used short passes as a basis for their offense today, and they were very effective. I don't remember any slants from the Packers, and certainly not any screens.

These past two games the offense has scored a TD on its first possession and then faltered. It's almost like they get overconfident.
blank
olds70supreme
14 years ago
I also noticed that the defense seemed tired, but not even just at the end of the game. It seemed that earlier on the D was looking gassed. I wish that the run game and short passing game would be more involved to help these guys get off the field and stay there. Of course nobody's going to complain when you get a three play scoring drive for a TD because you have to put points on the board to win. On the other hand, it seems that when you are thin on linemen and the linebackers have been chasing RB's and TE's across the field on crossing routes all day that it might change your offensive play calling.

Also, on kind of a related note, what has happened to the checkdowns to the RB? I understand that the Packer offense is designed to pass, but a 3-4 yard dump off to the RB can almost be or is as effective as a run.

I think a lot of it comes down to the comfort level that many fans have with the style of playcalling and offense that is being run. In the end, however, the W/L column is all that matters. An ugly win is still a win. Hopefully enough will come out of these close and lost games to make the team more effective.
blank
Dexter_Sinister
14 years ago
I don't watch the Packers play for the win. I watch the Packers because I love football. It is always so much better when they win. But I will sit in the stands on a 34 deg and rainy day until the last snap in a blow out loss. Even if it was the last game of an 0-16 season. Because watching the Packers lose is better than not having the Packers.

Would you rather be a Viking fan with the real possibility of a team that last year missed the Superbowl by one play and facing the real possibility of the team moving to LA because they can't fill the stands in MN?

Come on people, suck it up. Are we or are we not better than Vikings fans?
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
evad04
14 years ago

This was a very unimpressive win, so this will be mostly negatives:

1. The playcalling on third and short can get awfully weird.

Exhibit A: On third and one, they handed off to John Kuhn running parallel to the line of scrimmage. No gain. Kuhn is a straight ahead runner--a fullback. Why did they call this play for him?

Exhibit B: On third and one or two, Rodgers ran a bootleg and heaved the ball 20 yards downfield to a receiver who wasn't open. Incomplete. This one may be more on Rodgers than McCarthy. If that's a short pass to Finley, I have no problem with it, but if he's not open you don't throw it downfield to a receiver who's not open. Probably you have to try and run for the first down.

Exhibit C: Rodgers threw downfield to Jennings on third and short and the ball was intercepted. Again, the receiver wasn't even open and he just heaved it down there. I don't get it.

"Greg C." wrote:


Exhibit A: Is it your honest belief that the play as called was designed for Kuhn to run horizontally? Was the thought "we need to call that horizontal run play, that'll really screw with their psyches to see us not try to convert!" Kuhn tried to make the best of it but either failed to make a cut or took what they gave him.

Exhibit B: The bootleg almost definitely had the underneath TEs as the primary receivers, evidenced by Rodgers double clutching the ball. Finley was tied up at the LOS, he couldn't get away. Football basics: there are primary receivers before the snap, then there are your secondary options. When the primary receivers aren't open, the quarterback will try to get it to one of the other guys. Sorry if I'm insulting you, but c'mon, look at the play in context. It is fallacious logic to assume that because the result was a 20-yard heave downfield that it was the intention of the play.

Exhibit C: I don't know why Rodgers threw this one. Driver was making his break on an out route and seemed to have good position on the receiver. I think Rodgers dearly wanted that one back. Oh, and to continue my dickish sarcasm, Driver was also one of the receivers in the called play. You know, when they call plays I'm pretty sure multiple receivers are on routes. Sometimes they don't get open, sometimes the QB makes the wrong read or a bad throw.

You can't just interpret the result of the play as indicative of bad play calling.

"evad04" wrote:



Yep, it looked like the run by Kuhn was off tackle. Not horizontal, of course, but not even close to being straight ahead. That was a poor use of Kuhn's talents.

As for the other plays, my criticism is that on the second one (exhibit 😎, apparently Finley was the only receiver who ran a short route. So when he was covered, Rodgers was forced to throw the ball 15- 20 yards downfield. Not a high percentage play on third and short. I think this offense is becoming too dependent on Finley. And on the third play (exhibit C) I'm sticking to what I wrote earlier, which is that the degree of difficulty was way higher than it needed to be in that situation.

The bottom line is that when you make three unconventional play calls in the same situation and every single one of them fails utterly (against a bad defense, even), the play calling is open to criticism. If they continue to do this and it succeeds more often than it fails, then I will change my opinion accordingly.

"Greg C." wrote:


Okay, not all of Kuhn's runs are simple dive handoffs. He took what appeared to be a C-gap/outside pitch earlier. His best run to seal the game was a stretch play that he cut back to the inside -- it would seem his skill set is more varied than you give him credit for. Sometimes guys don't make plays.

And, again, on point C I think you're wrong. You're not questioning the throw here as much as you are the playcall. I just posted that Driver was indeed open on an underneath out-route. Do you expect a 3rd and short play to feature ONLY underneath short routes? Hey guys, we need 2 yards. Let's make sure no one is running beyond 5 yards deep! I don't know how to make this any clearer: the problem wasn't in the play selection it was in the execution.

So if you're script reads "three unconventional" playcalls you are guilty of editorializing/missing context.
William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."
Greg C.
14 years ago

This was a very unimpressive win, so this will be mostly negatives:

1. The playcalling on third and short can get awfully weird.

Exhibit A: On third and one, they handed off to John Kuhn running parallel to the line of scrimmage. No gain. Kuhn is a straight ahead runner--a fullback. Why did they call this play for him?

Exhibit B: On third and one or two, Rodgers ran a bootleg and heaved the ball 20 yards downfield to a receiver who wasn't open. Incomplete. This one may be more on Rodgers than McCarthy. If that's a short pass to Finley, I have no problem with it, but if he's not open you don't throw it downfield to a receiver who's not open. Probably you have to try and run for the first down.

Exhibit C: Rodgers threw downfield to Jennings on third and short and the ball was intercepted. Again, the receiver wasn't even open and he just heaved it down there. I don't get it.

"evad04" wrote:


Exhibit A: Is it your honest belief that the play as called was designed for Kuhn to run horizontally? Was the thought "we need to call that horizontal run play, that'll really screw with their psyches to see us not try to convert!" Kuhn tried to make the best of it but either failed to make a cut or took what they gave him.

Exhibit B: The bootleg almost definitely had the underneath TEs as the primary receivers, evidenced by Rodgers double clutching the ball. Finley was tied up at the LOS, he couldn't get away. Football basics: there are primary receivers before the snap, then there are your secondary options. When the primary receivers aren't open, the quarterback will try to get it to one of the other guys. Sorry if I'm insulting you, but c'mon, look at the play in context. It is fallacious logic to assume that because the result was a 20-yard heave downfield that it was the intention of the play.

Exhibit C: I don't know why Rodgers threw this one. Driver was making his break on an out route and seemed to have good position on the receiver. I think Rodgers dearly wanted that one back. Oh, and to continue my dickish sarcasm, Driver was also one of the receivers in the called play. You know, when they call plays I'm pretty sure multiple receivers are on routes. Sometimes they don't get open, sometimes the QB makes the wrong read or a bad throw.

You can't just interpret the result of the play as indicative of bad play calling.

"Greg C." wrote:



Yep, it looked like the run by Kuhn was off tackle. Not horizontal, of course, but not even close to being straight ahead. That was a poor use of Kuhn's talents.

As for the other plays, my criticism is that on the second one (exhibit 😎, apparently Finley was the only receiver who ran a short route. So when he was covered, Rodgers was forced to throw the ball 15- 20 yards downfield. Not a high percentage play on third and short. I think this offense is becoming too dependent on Finley. And on the third play (exhibit C) I'm sticking to what I wrote earlier, which is that the degree of difficulty was way higher than it needed to be in that situation.

The bottom line is that when you make three unconventional play calls in the same situation and every single one of them fails utterly (against a bad defense, even), the play calling is open to criticism. If they continue to do this and it succeeds more often than it fails, then I will change my opinion accordingly.

"evad04" wrote:


Okay, not all of Kuhn's runs are simple dive handoffs. He took what appeared to be a C-gap/outside pitch earlier. His best run to seal the game was a stretch play that he cut back to the inside -- it would seem his skill set is more varied than you give him credit for. Sometimes guys don't make plays.

And, again, on point C I think you're wrong. You're not questioning the throw here as much as you are the playcall. I just posted that Driver was indeed open on an underneath out-route. Do you expect a 3rd and short play to feature ONLY underneath short routes? Hey guys, we need 2 yards. Let's make sure no one is running beyond 5 yards deep! I don't know how to make this any clearer: the problem wasn't in the play selection it was in the execution.

So if you're script reads "three unconventional" playcalls you are guilty of editorializing/missing context.

"Greg C." wrote:



How about a slant? How about having the RB or FB get into the flat where he's available for a checkdown? How about having more than one receiver running a short route? Of course they don't all have to be running routes within five yards of the line of scrimmage, but I'm going to go out on a limb to say that option B should be less than 15-20 yards downfield. I like McCarthy's playcalling for the most part, but I think he's making things too difficult for Rodgers and the receivers.

I will have to watch the Kuhn play again because you are seeing it very differently than I did.

Normally I like your level-headed posts, but I'm beginning to wonder if you would ever criticize Mike McCarthy for anything.
blank
CDNRodgersfan
14 years ago
To offer a few positives, I thought Woodson looked like the reigning DPOY. Looks like he hasn't lost a step. Watching Calvin Johnson have his way made me miss Al Harris for the first time as he specialized in dealing with big WR
Fan Shout
beast (13h) : I believe it's technically against the CBA rules, but Jerry just calls it a simple unofficial chat... and somehow gets away with it.
beast (13h) : Jerry Jones is infamous for ̶n̶e̶g̶o̶t̶i̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ chatting with players one on one... and going around the agent.
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Oo just saw a blurb saying that Dallas negotiated directly with Parsons and not through his agent
Mucky Tundra (20h) : I assumed that both guys will get paid, just a matter of when or how we get there
Zero2Cool (21h) : McLaurin nor Micah going anywhere. They will get money
Mucky Tundra (22h) : the Synder years or do they take care of one of their own?
Mucky Tundra (22h) : Do the Commanders risk losing a top WR with an emerging QB just because he's turning 30 and potentially risk damaging the rebuild from
Mucky Tundra (22h) : Turns 30 this September, plays at a high level and Washington has some cap space I believe
Mucky Tundra (22h) : More interesting is Washington with Terry McLaurin
Mucky Tundra (22h) : I would imagine Dallas will resolve this issue with a truckload of money
Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : Micah pulling a Myles with trade request
beast (1-Aug) : Packers should make some cheese forks
Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : GRAB THE PITCHFORKS~
Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : CUT HIM
Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : Socieltal collapse imminent
Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : The West has fallen
Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : After starting off camp with 25 straight made field goals, Brandon McManus has missed one
Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : But it should be stable
Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : It's probably gonna be slower.
Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : We're gonna just full go on to the new host.
Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : What crap. Site issues galore
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : if PH dies, there is packerpeople com available
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : database is on new host, eventually website will follow
Mucky Tundra (30-Jul) : Zero, regarding Ewers, you are correct.
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Sadly, this might be our life for awhile. I could put it on another host, but seems it was slower, although more stable
beast (30-Jul) : How long will it be down?
beast (30-Jul) : RIP site 😭
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site will die, I have to restart it.
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Quinn stinks. Lot of underthrows. (my guess)
beast (30-Jul) : How did Quinn Ewers effect where Golden was drafted?
dfosterf (30-Jul) : All I've experienced was late at night or early morning. I just figured you were doing something in the background
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site sure seems to be down more than up
dfosterf (29-Jul) : 50 cent hookers? I'm moving to Green Bay. I thought it was just real estate that was more affordable there. 😂
Zero2Cool (29-Jul) : Sure seems site going down more than 50¢ hooker
Mucky Tundra (27-Jul) : Golden with two TDs in red zone drills today
Mucky Tundra (27-Jul) : @JacobMorley Shoutout to Quinn Ewers for allowing Matthew Golden to be available when Green Bay picked.
Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : The menu you expanded to log in, it's the first icon under "PackersHome" .. maybe i should add text to it
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Feelin' pfowish can't find the sun. No big deal, will drag a laptop out when the time comes
Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : if you're on mobile, open the menu and its the "sun" icon
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Can't find the toggle, lol
dfosterf (27-Jul) : I can find that the Microsoft lady rep for Titletown Tech is the philanthropy boss for the entire Microsoft corporation, but. .
Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : There's a toggle for light/dark theme. Super easy.
dfosterf (27-Jul) : The white background beta was hard to read, especially the quotes
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Hopefully the color scheme remains the same
dfosterf (27-Jul) : *Friday*
dfosterf (27-Jul) : 100 million would be 539 million as of Fridsy
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Heck, they could have taken a hundred milliion and invested in DAVE inc. last year (semi random, humor, but real)
dfosterf (27-Jul) : Beer brat and ticket is where the money comes from
dfosterf (27-Jul) : The 40th is Titletown Tech itself. This is a pet project of both Ed Policy and Mark Murphy
Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : New site coming along nicely. The editor is better than what we have here. Oh yeah!
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
34m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

59m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

1-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

31-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

28-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

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