You know what one of the best parts of winning this SB was?· Page 5

mi_keys
Senior Member

13 years ago

Roethlisberger contributed an additional 31 yards, but those were all on protection breakdowns, not designed rushes.

I think this is a nonissue.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

It isn't an issue as far as the rushing game goes. In production that goes with the passing game. Earlier in the year we always discounted Rodgers rushing yards when we talked about how pathetic our run game was so it shouldn't be thrown in for the Steelers if you want to be consistent

MacBob,

You wanted to dismiss the drops because drops happen when you throw a lot. Yeah, they do but almost never with that frequency and with that much at stake. Most of them were wide open. They were not "bang bang plays" as you put it. They were routine catches for NFL receivers. A number of them were balls you'd expect a good high school receiver to catch. Two of them could have given us 3rd down conversions with 60+ yards each and at least one touchdown if not two (whether or not you think Jordy could have stayed on his feet for that first one, worst case if he catches it we have first and goal from the 😎. It should have been a blowout.

Also, you keep bringing up that they didn't score on special teams so that couldn't possibly be a factor. Aside from missing that field goal their special teams did outplay ours. They consistently had better field position from kickoffs. Two turnovers and the missed field goal gave us the ball at our 43, 45, and 47. Other than that we never started with it past our 25 and our average starting spot was the 20 in those other drives. Their average starting spot was the 29. Even with the turnovers and missed field goal their average starting position was a yard and a half better than ours. That's pretty telling for how much better their return game was.

Born and bred a cheesehead

nerdmann
Premier Member

13 years ago

#42

It certainly was nice to see that we don't have to have a balanced attack to win the game. That's not to say that Starks didn't have a good game. He averaged just under 5 a carry, which is pretty damned good, but like people were saying before, the attempts are just as important as yardage. Rodgers showed that even when the toughest D in the league cuts loose and decides to go for the QB every play, he can still make big plays. If there hadn't been any drops..... this could have gone down as one of the top QB performances in SB history. Could have had 5 TD's. Incredible.

"peteralan71" wrote:

The reason there were so many drops IMO is that there were so many low percentage passes down the field. Run a high percentage offense and it IS a blowout. Holmgren already proved you "don't need" a running game. He counted screens and dumpoffs to the RBs as running plays.
We can get plenty of big plays throwing short, high percentage passes. Our WRs are elite at YAC. That's what it's all about. Keep James Jones and use him appropriately.
And this year, draft DD's replacement, whether he's done yet or not. Someone who can RETURN PUNTS. Or at least groom Swain for the punt returning job.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

longtimefan
Registered

13 years ago

#43

Aaron Rodgers had a TERRIFIC game, and we would have lost without those turnovers. The passing game by itself was not enough to win.

"macbob" wrote:

How do you know that we dont score if there were no turnovers?

Ben doesnt toss that pick 6..But say they punt and we get ball at their 45, and we score a td on that drive?

Fact is we dont know so dont act like you know..

We won the game..That is all I effing care about

longtimefan
Registered

13 years ago

#44

Starks 11 carries 52 yards

As I said all year long we dont stick to the run game enough..

nerdmann
Premier Member

13 years ago

#45

Starks 11 carries 52 yards

As I said all year long we dont stick to the run game enough..

"longtimefan" wrote:

In fairness, the Steelers were if not the best, then among the best run defenses in the league. And their CBs were questionable.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

longtimefan
Registered

13 years ago

#46

Starks 11 carries 52 yards

As I said all year long we dont stick to the run game enough..

"nerdmann" wrote:

In fairness, the Steelers were if not the best, then among the best run defenses in the league. And their CBs were questionable.

"longtimefan" wrote:

Yup 2.8 per carry

evad04
Member

13 years ago

#47

"nerdmann" wrote:

The reason there were so many drops IMO is that there were so many low percentage passes down the field. Run a high percentage offense and it IS a blowout. Holmgren already proved you "don't need" a running game. He counted screens and dumpoffs to the RBs as running plays.
We can get plenty of big plays throwing short, high percentage passes. Our WRs are elite at YAC. That's what it's all about. Keep James Jones and use him appropriately.
And this year, draft Donald Driver's replacement, whether he's done yet or not. Someone who can RETURN PUNTS. Or at least groom Swain for the punt returning job.

"peteralan71" wrote:

Another facepalm moment from a nerdmann post. Did you watch the game? A few of the notable drops were in the 10-12 yard category. Jones dropped a 11-yard slant. You wouldn't call that a "low percentage" pass. Jordy dropped about a 12-yard in route. Again, not a low percentage pass. Nelson dropped another pass over the middle that was relatively short. And the clincher on virtually all of the drops? They were perfectly thrown.

There goes your theory.

William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."

nerdmann
Premier Member

13 years ago

#48

"evad04" wrote:

The reason there were so many drops IMO is that there were so many low percentage passes down the field. Run a high percentage offense and it IS a blowout. Holmgren already proved you "don't need" a running game. He counted screens and dumpoffs to the RBs as running plays.
We can get plenty of big plays throwing short, high percentage passes. Our WRs are elite at YAC. That's what it's all about. Keep James Jones and use him appropriately.
And this year, draft Donald Driver's replacement, whether he's done yet or not. Someone who can RETURN PUNTS. Or at least groom Swain for the punt returning job.

"nerdmann" wrote:

"peteralan71" wrote:

12 yards downfield is not short yardage. Get your guys in the zone with some efficient, high percentage passing. I was actually astonished when Joe Buck and these columnists actually used the words "low percentage" on some of these drops.
Doesn't matter if it hits the guy in the hands. On a couple of the ones Jordi dropped there were guys getting their hands up and almost slapping the ball down, which can also serve to obstruct vision of the ball.
Seems like the main short yardage throws the Packers throw are those stupid WRs screens.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

wpr
Preferred Member

13 years ago

#49

Maybe it really is the 3 dropped TDs instead of the running game. Rodgers should have been 36 of 39 for over 400 yards and 6TDs but Nelson dropped 4, Jennings, Jones and Swain all dropped one. One was in the end zone when Nelson was behind the D. One was on the side line when Jones was behind the D. Another was in the same area with Nelson behind the D. Not one of them was covered well. The defenders may have broken up Swains catch. But the other ones were hit in the hands when they were open and flat out dropped the ball. The ones in tight windows were caught by Jennings.

You dismissed the argument out of hand and denied that those were easily catchable balls that went through the WRs hands. Without that, your argument falls apart. Which is why the preemptive dismissal.

Didn't Mendenhall only have 11 more yards on a 3 more attempts than Starks? 4.7 yards per carry isn't credible?

Maybe the LB say that Starks didn't have the ball and didn't need to bite on the Fake, he had an unobstructed view.

We would have won by 23 if we caught the passes is exactly as valid an argument as we would have lost without the turnovers.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

It is not fair to say 6 TD's. Jennings caught the TD in the right corner of the end zone on the same drive that Nelson dropped one. The came back to Jordy the very next play and he took it to the 3.
Other times GB played field position battles with Pitt and even though they may not have scored on the drive of the dropped pass, they kept Pitt penned back in their own end of the field.

Packers_Finland
Registered

13 years ago

#50

How the hell am I still reading nerdmann's bitchy posts? WE WON THE FREAKIN SUPER BOWL FOR CHRIST SAKES! But no, it isn't enough. You need to win the Super Bowl with high percentage passes.

This is a placeholder

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (10m) : Eagles sure get a lot of fumbles on kickoffs

Mucky Tundra (15m) : This game looks too big for Washington

packerfanoutwest (3h) : that being said, The Ravens are the Browns

packerfanoutwest (3h) : Browns, Dolphins have longest AFC Championship droughts

packerfanoutwest (3h) : As of today, Cowboys have longest NFC Championship drought,

beast (14h) : Someone pointed out, with Raiders hiring Carroll, the division games between Carroll and Jim Harbaugh are back on (who can whine more games)

beast (19h) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab

Zero2Cool (22h) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?

Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me

Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not

Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!

beast (24-Jan) : 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!

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