zombieslayer
16 years ago
Well, now that Aaron's red zone stats have come up, I want to see stats on run/pass % in the red zone.

My guess is we're too dang conservative in the red zone. Aaron has proven he does not turn the ball over. We have one of the best WR sets in the whole freaking league. Let's PASS in the red zone more. Put the ball in Aaron's hands. I trust him. Why doesn't MM? Mike McCarthy 's conservatism is really pissing me off.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
dhazer
16 years ago

Great article, really put the season in sum very well. Can't wait to hear what hazer has to say about that article saying that Rodgers has played well...

"go.pack.go." wrote:



Ok you want to know what i will say is that its just another person with the Rodger goggles on he is a decent qb but yet i like how they say its not any of his fault. I have seen alot of posters doing the same exact thing its always some other part of the teams fault. But yet when you compare rodgers to another qb its always because that qb has a running game or they have a great defense. But like some say it takes 53 guys to win a game and it takes 53 guys to lose a game.


See i didnt even cut Rodgers down.
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
go.pack.go.
16 years ago

Great article, really put the season in sum very well. Can't wait to hear what hazer has to say about that article saying that Rodgers has played well...

"dhazer" wrote:



Ok you want to know what i will say is that its just another person with the Rodger goggles on he is a decent qb but yet i like how they say its not any of his fault. I have seen alot of posters doing the same exact thing its always some other part of the teams fault. But yet when you compare rodgers to another qb its always because that qb has a running game or they have a great defense. But like some say it takes 53 guys to win a game and it takes 53 guys to lose a game.


See i didnt even cut Rodgers down.

"go.pack.go." wrote:



Okay, I've discovered you're not as bad as Fred! Haha, +1.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
16 years ago

Holy smokes! Is Rodgers really that good in the red zone?

Knowing that - it should be our imperative to PASS the ball in the red zone more.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



wpr and I have been saying this for weeks. It makes zero sense to hunker down and run inside the 20 when you have the most accurate, least mistake-prone red-zone quarterback in the league. But we're told that no sane coach would put the ball in the hands of a quarterback like that. I call bullshit, and even if that's true, I think it's unfortunate that NFL coaches have become so tentative. I guess they're more worried about finding ways to absolve themselves of responsibility for close losses than actually winning the games. Say what you want about Gregg Easterbrook, but that happens to be his opinion too.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
16 years ago

Because when we're 1 yard out, we shouldn't HAVE to pass. We should be able to pound it in.

"go.pack.go." wrote:



So freaking what? Where is the logic on standing stubbornly on some outmoded football philosophy -- "we shouldn't HAVE to pass" -- rather than playing to your strengths and doing what works? Rodgers has tossed 17 touchdowns (68% of his passing TDs) inside the red zone. Obviously that is what works for us. Plus he's run for another 4 TDs, for a total of 21 red-zone TDs -- or 60% of the total TDs scored by the Packers this season.

We've only scored 10 TDs on the ground this year, of which Rodgers himself has punched in 4. I don't understand why McCarthy insists on trying to do something that contributes such a small percentage of our total scoring.
UserPostedImage
TheEngineer
16 years ago

Because when we're 1 yard out, we shouldn't HAVE to pass. We should be able to pound it in.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



So freaking what? Where is the logic on standing stubbornly on some outmoded football philosophy -- "we shouldn't HAVE to pass" -- rather than playing to your strengths and doing what works? Rodgers has tossed 17 touchdowns (68% of his passing TDs) inside the red zone. Obviously that is what works for us. Plus he's run for another 4 TDs, for a total of 21 red-zone TDs -- or 60% of the total TDs scored by the Packers this season.

We've only scored 10 TDs on the ground this year, of which Rodgers himself has punched in 4. I don't understand why McCarthy insists on trying to do something that contributes such a small percentage of our total scoring.

"go.pack.go." wrote:



If you ask me, some of our troubles with short yardage run conversions is the fact that a lot of the time we're giving it to the fullback. I'd much rather give it to a RB or to Rodgers to throw.

Yes, Rodgers has been very, very good in the Redzone. But the Redzone doesn't end 1 yard out. Rodgers has up to around 20 yards to play with. When you get compressed down at the goalline, the window for throws just becomes that much tighter. This is why teams generally run, I would imagine.

What does annoy me are runs on 3rd down and 6 and settling for a field goal. Might as well just kick it on 3rd down.
blank
djcubez
16 years ago

Holy smokes! Is Rodgers really that good in the red zone?

Knowing that - it should be our imperative to PASS the ball in the red zone more.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



wpr and I have been saying this for weeks. It makes zero sense to hunker down and run inside the 20 when you have the most accurate, least mistake-prone red-zone quarterback in the league. But we're told that no sane coach would put the ball in the hands of a quarterback like that. I call bullshit, and even if that's true, I think it's unfortunate that NFL coaches have become so tentative. I guess they're more worried about finding ways to absolve themselves of responsibility for close losses than actually winning the games. Say what you want about Gregg Easterbrook, but that happens to be his opinion too.

"zombieslayer" wrote:


Exactly the reason I like coaches like Singletary. He is not afraid to put his balls on the line as a coach, he'll do whatever it takes to get his team ready, fired up and win. He'll even bench a first-round draft pick. I'm not saying he's amazing as a coach, but his demeanor goes a long way in winning games.
15 years ago
We didn't handle adversity too well this year, but this article is dead on. Lady Luck was laughing at us all season (I call it the Madden Curse, but you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to). And yes, the Bears game was a perfect microcosm of the year. I was saying that on the phone to other Packers fans all night. I don't think there is a single person in this forum who would've bet that Crosby kick was not going to be blocked or bang off an upright or something, nor would we have bet the Bears FG in OT would miss. It's just a real bad break season.

Why couldn't they have just photoshopped a Jets jersey onto Favre?? :lol:
UserPostedImage
gopackgo212
15 years ago
Ah, I totally agree with everything said here. We are way too conservative.

I believe the Carolina game was a perfect example of this. Tied 28-28 late in the 4th, we had 1st and goal from the 1. Terrible playcalling and we didn't get in. But we made the worst decision when we kicked the field goal instead of going for it. Normally I may not say this, but in this case I knew it was just plain suicide with our brilliant special teams coverage and unstoppable defense vs. the Panthers offense that was rocking us all day. At least go for it, if you don't make it than Carolina gets the ball 99 yards out, and the game is still tied. Instead, I was sure Carolina would just waltz downfield and tie the game with a field goal even with only 2 minutes left.

But it turned out I was wrong, they scored a touchdown instead. (In what, like 3 plays?)
Zero2Cool
15 years ago
Too conservative? That's odd because I can recall quite a few games where the coach is blasted for going deep on 1st and 10.

It's amazing people want it both ways when things don't get executed.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
beast (1m) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (11m) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (22m) : 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 (32m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (52m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (1h) : 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 (1h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (4h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (5h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (5h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (5h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (5h) : Packers will get in
beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (19h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
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
22m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

49m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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