How about a goddamn flea flicker, if that's what it takes?

With 11 in the box, they're gonna converge on Lacy.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

I'm not a big fan of trick plays but I'm also not a fan of ultra vanilla offenses.
Can anyone remember the last time we did a flea-flicker?
Or the last time we run the option pass? Hell I think it was Tony Fisher!

Originally Posted by: luigis 

Iirc, both Ahman Green and Bubba Franks were left handed, so it would come as a surprise with those guys.

(Isn't Cobb left handed? I know he's played QB before.)

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

+1 I like how you put it, if the defense keeps a guy near a WR Rodgers wont throw it there. Considering we have JJ and Cobb this is mind boggling, it's like saying you prefer to lose and have 0 INTs rather than try to win and be picked a couple of times.

Originally Posted by: luigis 

I'm not sure how being left or right handed changes things.... but yes, Cobb played QB and he is left-handed.
James Starks also played QB and I've seen Rodgers getting curiously open to the left after handing off to Starks, I suspect that is a trick play being prepared.

Originally Posted by: luigis 

I don't agree with this logic at all. You must have been a huge Brett Favre fan. There's no reason to just sling passes to guys that are completely covered. Would it really make you feel better if Aaron Rodgers threw 3-4 interceptions that somehow resulted in 10+ points (pick sixes, etc?) I'm all about the Packers giving their receivers a chance, but I think they have done that all season. The receivers haven't been wide open many times at all. Rodgers has squeezed the ball into very tight coverage. He has always done that. The Packers receivers haven't created much separation for years now other than the occasional broken play or great move by Jordy Nelson.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't need to just throw the ball to guys consistently if they are totally covered. He needs to make his reads and look for the best option. That takes time, and the offensive line was horrible against the Broncos. Any quarterback is going to get flustered after taking a few big hits, and Rodgers took many. The Packers have to do a better job of pass protection and scheming guys open. Aaron Rodgers hasn't been good enough, but neither has anyone else on the offensive side of the ball.

Is there anyone doubting that Jordy Nelson is a #1 WR now? The Packers miss him badly. None of the other Packers are anywhere close to his level. Cobb is a good #2, but he is not a #1 WR.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

There is a difference between covered, open and WIDE open. Denver had some Wide open receivers but we had open receivers by NFL standards. There were many occasions during the game where guys were open enough.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

Care to point out some of those occasions? Again, I go back to the point that Aaron Rodgers was rattled by the constant pressure and hits he took. That's going to happen to any quarterback. It's the secret to dismantling an elite QB. The same is true for Tom Brady. That's why protection of the QB is paramount. Once a QB takes some big hits and is rattled, the mistakes snowball. I don't think any QB would have played well for the Packers last night. Give Aaron Rodgers some proper protection and he'll make some things happen.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

If Rodgers needs better receivers and line than we have currently to not look like Jimmy Clausen (like he did last night) then he's not that good. There's no excuse for how bad he was and a lot of the hits he took were a product of him holding the ball and running around. For the record I like that Rodgers extends plays and makes things happen but there's a difference between that and how he's played lately. The last couple weeks he's treating every single play like backyard football. The worst part is late in the game down by multiple scores he was still being conservative with the ball when it wouldn't hurt anyone to take some risky passes. He kept holding the ball instead of giving his receivers a chance which essentially was conceding the game. Also the amount of passes hes throwing in the dirt or way over a receivers head or out of bounds is disturbing. He's been rattled since the STL game and has played super conservatively. It's not just a choice between Rodgers of the last 2 weeks or Brett Favre vs the rams in the playoffs. Rodgers could stand to have some confidence in his WRs and at least give them a chance more often and that wont automatically mean 4-5 INT games everywhere.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

If Rodgers needs better receivers and line than we have currently to not look like Jimmy Clausen (like he did last night) then he's not that good. There's no excuse for how bad he was and a lot of the hits he took were a product of him holding the ball and running around. For the record I like that Rodgers extends plays and makes things happen but there's a difference between that and how he's played lately. The last couple weeks he's treating every single play like backyard football. The worst part is late in the game down by multiple scores he was still being conservative with the ball when it wouldn't hurt anyone to take some risky passes. He kept holding the ball instead of giving his receivers a chance which essentially was conceding the game. Also the amount of passes hes throwing in the dirt or way over a receivers head or out of bounds is disturbing. He's been rattled since the STL game and has played super conservatively. It's not just a choice between Rodgers of the last 2 weeks or Brett Favre vs the rams in the playoffs. Rodgers could stand to have some confidence in his WRs and at least give them a chance more often and that wont automatically mean 4-5 INT games everywhere.

Originally Posted by: steveishere