I just hate this type of playcalling. I always have. Especially what we did with it. A funny looking play action that the vikes didn't fall for. You know why they didn't fall for it?..Because why the heck else would we be in gun if we weren't passing?..Jeez. Where's the full house backfield there?..Or something. Maybe a rollout and give Aaron an option. Or heck, pound the dang thing for a yard. No wonder the OL has no confidence. You're going spread on 3rd and 1 on your own side of the field.

---

It's like you took the word out of my mouth. I wrote the same thing in a different thread. I know why he did it though. He was trying to be cute.

GB has ran on 3rd and one a couple of times this year including last week on their first 3rd and one against Cleveland. They ran with I believe Brandon Jackson.

McCarthy knew Minnesota saw that on film and he thought he could fool them.

Not so much.

---

What the heck is Ahman even here for?..It seems like 3rd and short is made for him. He dang sure ain't made for KR.

---

Ugh. If it freaking works, we don't doubt the playcall. The fact is between both contests we ran the draw -- and in the first matchup we did so effectively. That means EXACTLY in a situation like 3rd and 1 that the draw is a distinct possibility. Minnesota didn't fall for it and Rodgers had nowhere to go about it. That doesn't mean it wasn't a good call.

---

Uh..And if I had one more number right on my lottery ticket, I'd be rich. What's your point?..I hate going spread on third and short in ALL situations. It's just plain trying too hard. Take the big back you brought back for THIS TYPE OF SITUATION...and run him twice. If you can't get a yard in those two plays..You lose. oh well.

---

I agree. If it doesn't work, it's not a good call. Vikings didn't fall for it. A good call or good coaching would have called something that they would have fallen for.

One play doesn't mean the coaches aren't good, it just means that the other coaches were better on that particular call, because, the play didn't work.

A lot of factors go into a play call, but percentages play a big role IMO.

I would be willing to say the percentage of getting a first down on 3rd and one is greater if you run the ball than if you play action out of shot gun....

Even play action out of a regular formation a full house set or i-formation.

That play was a very strange call. I get what he was doing, but sometimes you need to respect your opponents 'intelligence too. Not sure he did that. Against bad teams who are usually over aggressive and undisciplined, that play probably works, but against a very very good team, that play mostly doesn't.

---

With our run game and running back I would be a lot more comfortable passing it. Now a play-action that's not out of gun probably would have been more suitable. In all honesty though I would just QB sneak it. It's probably the highest percentage play in that situation. I remember seeing a coach do that a few weeks ago, I think it was Josh McDaniels. They were driving and had a 3rd and 1 in the 4th quarter I believe and instead of messing around he just had Orton line up and snap it instantly and go forward giving the defense no time to really prepare for it. I liked that call a lot.

Really? Our run game that didn't exist? We ran the ball something like 15 times. 5 of the carries were Aaron Scrambling.

Because we can't run it. We failed so badly running in the first half and did much better when we did run. I'm just saying the Vikings defensive line would probably have collapsed the line before Grant could get out of backfield. Aaron on a bootleg gives him a pass/run option or a QB sneak means we don't have to risk getting pulled down in the backfield.

I didn't even mind the shotgun call that bad, though. I mean, if you sent Green out on a swing route, you have the quick release and a first down against the pressure they brought. It's just that play action that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I mean, they have great LBs, but most of them are a little stiff in the hips. Except EJ maybe. But I'd like that match-up of Green and a LB one on one in the open field. Or even a slant.

Exactly. You just cant run the ball consistently against a team like that. They are bigger, stronger, more experienced, more confident. They know what they're doing. We've got guys who are run blocking when they should be pass blocking and vice versa(2nd Allen sack). It's just not gonna happen. Maybe we can get 3 yards if we're lucky. Best option is obviously to pass most of the time and try and sneak a run in there once in a while. Not many teams, especially not this Packer team can play Minny straight up and have ANY kind of success.

For example, you're a 180 pound guy, you are a little bit active, bench press 185 pounds or whatever and so do your 4 friends. Now, you're going up against some steroid filled monsters who weigh 230 pounds and bench press 400 pounds. All the technique and scheme in the world isn't going to allow you to have any success against them. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

---

I thought it was a better call than when they did the draw on 3rd and about 18 that went nowhere. I thought they stole that play from the Vikings when I saw it.

---

It is not that it was a bad play call. It was that most of the time, it is bad calls. We are in shotgun way to often, which has very limited run options. And Grant is not able to break big runs, so defenses are just flat out pass rushing. Every play, there is no respect for our run game (correctly so). The Dline goes at Rodgers, and if it does happen to be a run, then they are able to stop Grant with an arm.

---

Forget 3rd and 1. I just checked and according to my counting, we were in the Shotgun 46 times during the game. Out of somewhere around 65 total offensive plays when penalties are counted.

No balance in the offense.

---

The irony of this situation is that in college, Aaron Rodgers played in a pro-style system, while Alex Smith played in a spread offense. For that reason, if no other, Rodgers was arguably better prepared to succeed at the pro level. Yet apparently, Mike McCarthy is enamored of the spread offense, since it was Alex Smith he drafted to the 49ers, not Aaron Rodgers. Therefore, I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that the past few weeks, when I watch our offense, I feel like I'm watching a college spread offense, and it irks me. My college runs the spread offense exclusively, and I hate watching it from the sidelines. It strikes me as a lukewarm offense, a jack-of-all-trades-but-master-of-none offense. All finesse, technique, and trickery, no power or aggression. And it gets thrown around by nasty defenses like a cheap rag doll, or at least my college's does.

Aaron Rodgers was reared on a stiff diet of pro-style offense, and he excelled at it. Why not play to his strengths? Why treat him like an inexperienced college quarterback and expose him to the elements like we are?

Again, I put this squarely on Mike McCarthy. This is the NFL, man, not Division I-AA.

---

With our line we need Rodgers in shotgun so he doesn't get sacked every play.

How many run options are their in the shotgun? Very few. Sit in the shotgun that often and wonder why the defense is pinning its ears back. It is also easier for the defense to time the snap with the shotgun. Watch the center lift his head and time his snap.

---

As to Ahman, he is still getting into "NFL shape", we have been told.

OK, I'll buy that.


As to Aaron, I think in our present situation, the lopsided shotgun formation use is justified. He seems as comfortable as one can be with everything coming at him but the kitchen sink. (His poise is simply amazing--so many QB's develop "happy feet" when shitty protection is the norm early in their careers)

He can take off his damn-self. Some seem to be forgetting or discounting that.

I don't think anyone should underestimate that aspect in the context of all the hell we are going through/discussing ---oline and RB's-wise.

We don't have a power running game.

---