musccy
10 years ago

Put the Packers out at the 50 and Cobb in the backfield, split the receivers out wide and run them deep, GREAT! Spread the defense out and he will have a chance to makes some moves. Pack everyone into 8 yards area and he has no room. Poor call. Cobb is strong he he is not as strong as Lacy.

As far as him gaining yards 1 yard is nothing to celebrate. The point of the play is to score. They needed 9 yards not 1.

Getting back to the question of is GB a tough team or not. This play is indicative that they are not. A tough team hammers the ball up the middle for 4-5 yards. Then hammers it up the middle for another 4 yards. If they didn't score they hammer it in on 3rd down. This cutsie trick play shows that Mike didn't think his O line could impose their will on the defense when they had to.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



If you define cutsie trick plays by a handoff to a non tailback, then they ran ONE all game, which happened to be on first down. The last TD drive the Packers had, if I'm not mistaken, they ran Lacy left for about 3 then Kuhn up the gut for the last 2 yards and a score. Did Mike not trust his offensive line then? How about the rest of the game when M.M. (excluding Aaron Rodgers runs) ran 29 times to 26 passes?

The formation spreads out a stout defense in the red zone and gives the ball to arguably the team's shiftiest and quickest playmaker. Did we expect Lacy to gain 9 if he was given the ball from there? Mike mixed it up, heaven forbid.

The 49ers ran a reverse that went for negative 5 or so yards, and I believe out of FG range in the 1st half. That was one play...should we make the same sweeping generalizations about Greg Roman that we are about Mike McCarthy?
porky88
10 years ago

Using this logic, the Packers shouldn't have even bothered playing offense yesterday. I'm willing to bet the 49ers had seen some of the other Packers plays to this point, including runs to Lacy and Starks.

Cobb has proven to be a dynamic shifty player who you want to get the ball to...people bitch about Mike's predictability, so he runs out of an empty backfield 5 wr set and still gets blasted This is ONE running play, on I believe 1st down, that STILL GAINED YARDS, yet people are acting like he steered the titanic into the iceburg.

Originally Posted by: musccy 


I am critiquing one play. I’m not asking for Mike McCarthy’s head on a spike.

It's a play designed to catch the defense napping. You can't compare it to a standard play because that's not what it is. Without the surprise, the probability of success goes way down. That's difficult to do when you've already shown this team the exact same play before. The moment they motioned Cobb into the backfield, the 49ers knew where the ball was going. There was no disguise.

I’m all for getting Randall Cobb the ball, so that‘s not my gripe. My issue is that it didn’t make sense given the situation. Lacy and Starks were wearing down San Francisco’s defense. The 49ers weren’t finishing tackles, yet neither received a carry once Green Bay got inside the 10-yard line.

Plus, they ran it against San Francisco before and a good coaching staff should anticipate adjustments from their counterparts. For example, San Francisco ran the zone-read against Green Bay in 2012. They knew the Packers would adjust and be ready for it in 2013, so they came out throwing.
Pack93z
10 years ago
What hurts me.. not being able to suit up and help this team. LOL.

Seriously.. the lack of physicality from the defense the last couple of season. We have few players on it that bring that element to the fold weekly. This season on the offensive side we have found it with a running game that can pound it at even the most physical of defenses.. and hat starts with Sitton and Lang up front and a bruiser that refuses to go down on impact in Lacy. But on defense.. we lack a guy to instill a bit of hurt on the offense consistently.. Daniels flashes it up front.. Perry and Neal look the part at times.. Richardson has the traits in the backend.. but weekly.. it isn't there.

Look at old man Justin Smith on the Niners.. that is the angry factor we miss weekly. And when we think we might find a guy with it.. he generally goes down and is on the sidelines.

Oh and Clay.. he hasn't been that guy for a couple of seasons now..
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago
I don't know if it hurts me so much as it pisses me off - Mccarthy's playcalling in general - the Cobb run being just a very small part of it.

This whole line of bullshit in this forum pushing run first actually seems to be taken seriously by McCarthy - who used to be a great PASS FIRST playcaller. I don't care how great a runner Lacy is, it is stupid to start virtually every series, every new set of downs with a run - or worse, two runs. Even that first TD drive where we scored, Lacy would run for 3 or 4, wasting downs, and putting added pressure on Rodgers for completions. People whine about time of possession; Fuck T.O.P.; Throw it down the field. The unfortunate tendency to let Kaepernick run wild or otherwise move it down the field on us wouldn't mean nearly as much if Rodgers were unleashed, and simply did what we have been doing for 3 or 4 years - until McCarthy seemingly bought into the idiocy being spewed this season of run first. I like our chances of beating teams a helluva lot better if we score in the 40s than if we score in the 20s. Rodgers has been able to put up numbers like that even with shitty O-Line blocking. On the other hand, running on early downs ain't gonna bring success with the quality of O-Line we have, not even with Lacy.

I will now sit back and read what a bunch of damn fools write about the wonderfulness of wasting those downs with 1 to 4 yard runs.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
musccy
10 years ago

I am critiquing one play. I’m not asking for Mike McCarthy’s head on a spike.

It's a play designed to catch the defense napping. You can't compare it to a standard play because that's not what it is. Without the surprise, the probability of success goes way down. That's difficult to do when you've already shown this team the exact same play before. The moment they motioned Cobb into the backfield, the 49ers knew where the ball was going. There was no disguise.

I’m all for getting Randall Cobb the ball, so that‘s not my gripe. My issue is that it didn’t make sense given the situation. Lacy and Starks were wearing down San Francisco’s defense. The 49ers weren’t finishing tackles, yet neither received a carry once Green Bay got inside the 10-yard line.

Plus, they ran it against San Francisco before and a good coaching staff should anticipate adjustments from their counterparts. For example, San Francisco ran the zone-read against Green Bay in 2012. They knew the Packers would adjust and be ready for it in 2013, so they came out throwing.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



If Lacy was in the backfield, it could have gone to him too. To me this is like people who complain something is predictable just because you ran or passed. It's much more than that, though, your pre-snap formation, how you move the defense with motion, which side you go to, how you pull, if you play action - all of this goes into a play as well. Yes, it may have been obvious it was going to Cobb, but the option to play action is there, and they didn't line up like that out of the huddle so the 49ers had much less time to adjust. I could keep going but we're arguing over one play that still gained yards.





Pack93z
10 years ago
The run game is not about the 4 yards gained.. it is about the related items that come along with running the ball. Wearing down an opposing defense, play action, time of possession and in our case protecting our defense.

We had taken control of their defense late in that game by running the ball, passing and then being able to run or pass in converting 3rd downs.

No one is saying run first.. at least I haven't seen one. It is all about balance and being able to do whatever the game situation calls for. It put us, a weaker overall roster, in a position to win that game. It worked for the most part.. personally, a power run in place of the Cobb play, we are probably talking about the Niners trying to score a TD.

Oh.. and it Hyde holds onto the pick.. we probably run out the clock with the run game as we had the Niners defense tired.

My opinion anyway. Offense is not independent of a defense generally on a football team.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
steveishere
10 years ago
I'm not buying putting it mostly or all on the offense. The defense played better than we were expecting them to but they still gave up almost 400 yards and 23 points to a team with a QB that's been pretty average all year and in defensively favorable conditions. They weren't as good as they needed to be, especially failing to step up with the game on the line. The offense wasn't good enough either but they were also playing against an elite defensive unit in shit weather. It was a team loss all around and overall a pretty well played game against a good team. No need to try and blame a side, GB came to play yesterday but weren't good enough to win that's just football.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
10 years ago

If you define cutsie trick plays by a handoff to a non tailback, then they ran ONE all game, which happened to be on first down. The last TD drive the Packers had, if I'm not mistaken, they ran Lacy left for about 3 then Kuhn up the gut for the last 2 yards and a score. Did Mike not trust his offensive line then? How about the rest of the game when M.M. (excluding Aaron Rodgers runs) ran 29 times to 26 passes?

The formation spreads out a stout defense in the red zone and gives the ball to arguably the team's shiftiest and quickest playmaker. Did we expect Lacy to gain 9 if he was given the ball from there? Mike mixed it up, heaven forbid.

The 49ers ran a reverse that went for negative 5 or so yards, and I believe out of FG range in the 1st half. That was one play...should we make the same sweeping generalizations about Greg Roman that we are about Mike McCarthy?

Originally Posted by: musccy 



Geez musccy you are so defensive. You act like I called your daughter ugly or something. As you said this is one play. I am not complaining about the whole game on this play. But it was indicative.

See Porky for a great comment. He does it better than I.

Here is my version:

1. Yes I can count. I know how many times they ran the ball both with a wide out and with running backs. 1 play or 100 plays it is still meant to be a trick play of sorts. If not you would see NFL teams line up a WR in the backfield and hand him the ball 20-25% of the time. After all many of them are faster and shiftier than RBs. They don't because it is as porky says meant to be a trick play. As for "SF did it so we can too" mentality- see my post. Inside the 10 is a horrible place to utilize Cobb's shiftiness. Why is it so hard to score inside the red zone? There is so little territory to defend. All that stood between Cobb and the goal line was 9 yards (Plus the backfield yardage of course) Defenders can get to him in a hurry not because they are faster but because they can take the angle and because Cobb has to run wide. That takes a very long time in the NFL world even for the fastest man on the Packers. Longer on the field yesterday. Bowman made the tackle but if he didn't there were several others who could have. SF ran their play out near "mid field". By that I mean between the 35 yard lines. There was a lot more room. They were not trying to get a td per se. They just wanted 10-15 yards. If they got more they would consider it a bonus.

2. Cobb 5-10 192. Lacy 5-11 230. Starks 6-2 218. Which player has a better chance of going against a LB and driving forward? Better yet, which player has the least chance? Cobb. Down inside the 10 you do not want the defense spread out if you are running wide. At Cobb's size and speed the play is designed to compete and defeat DBs not LBers. A WR chips a CB and allows Cobb to get past him and then it is a foot race.

If GB had lined up with double TE and Kuhn in the backfield with Lacy the OLB would be pulled inside the hashmarks. Without that he is setting up wider. There wasn't solid blockers in front of Cobb that were going to drive the defenders back and give Cobb the outside edge. I do not mind using the play. Just not there.

As I said in the other post. Tough is hammering the ball up the middle for 4-5 yards and doing it again for another 4. As such I didn't expect Lacy to run up the middle for 9 yards.

3. Yes they ran the play on first down but it set the whole series up for failure. If they got 4 yards on first down the defense would have to cover the run up the middle again. That leaves the Packers with options of passing or throwing. By gaining only 1 yard they could no longer run the ball. There are no deep routes. It is all quick passes. the defense lines up and defends the goal line. DL doesn't look for the run or is fooled by play action passes. They just pound the line and chase after Aaron. The first failed play set the tone for 2 more failed plays.

4. As far as plays in the red zone, you don't call the same type of play at the 20 as you do at the 9. Both are in the red zone but the objects are a little different. You can still get a first down when you are at the 20. The defense has more ground to cover when you are at the 20. Inside the 10 it is a pretty small set of plays.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
10 years ago

I could keep going but we're arguing over one play that still gained a yard.





Originally Posted by: musccy 





The run game is not about the 1 yard gained..

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



FIFY.


1-9-SF 9 (6:12) (Shotgun) 18-R.Cobb left end to SF 8 for 1 yard (53-N.Bowman).


UserPostedImage
IronMan
10 years ago
Why is it that when we lose, we have to blame either the offense or defense?

"Its the offense's fault." "No, we lost because of the defense!"

Its not that simple. There are several things in all three phases of the game we could have done better.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (3h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (17h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (23h) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
29m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.