IronMan
15 years ago

Right now what we have is a line that gives our QB as much time vs a 4 man rush as other teams get against a blitz. It looks like Rodgers is holding the ball too long but he needs more time because the receivers are outnumbered.

Just about every time that Rodgers escapes the rush and buys more time he completes a pass to an open guy. That's because that is how long it takes for the receivers to get through all of that extra coverage.

"Stevetarded" wrote:


+1
PackFanWithTwins
15 years ago

So I'm an ex-RB and will admit right off that I'm not a passing game guru.

But I keep hearing "run the short slants" as if they're a given, and I;m wondering if it's that simple. When they're (the Vikes) getting strong pressure with a 4-man rush, the aren't there 7 guys out in coverage - and might several of them be hanging around where you'd want to hit those quick slants? As in they're not a given and they've not been there for Rodgers when he hits that 3rd step? I'm asking, so let's not get snippy.

What I seem to see a number of times: Rodgers gets to his quick drop, looks and something doesn't seem to be there, tries to go to his next reads and then is caught up in the rush - we all know how the rest of the story goes.

So what I'm asking is: If you've got a situation where the opposing D is able to rush 4 guys and keep everyone else out in coverage, could those defenses not be taking those quick slants away?

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:



Only having to rush 4 makes passing more difficult because of more coverage. That is true, but a defense is not able to sit on a slant and stop it. Slants are built with multiple windows for the pass. 1st is quick 3-4 yards, second is about 7. The other thing is if we have 3 WR on the field. Which is going to be running the slant, which is going to run a curl, which is going deep. If a defense was just sitting on a route. they are burnt.

We are not running the patterns even.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
warhawk
15 years ago

So I'm an ex-RB and will admit right off that I'm not a passing game guru.

But I keep hearing "run the short slants" as if they're a given, and I;m wondering if it's that simple. When they're (the Vikes) getting strong pressure with a 4-man rush, the aren't there 7 guys out in coverage - and might several of them be hanging around where you'd want to hit those quick slants? As in they're not a given and they've not been there for Rodgers when he hits that 3rd step? I'm asking, so let's not get snippy.

What I seem to see a number of times: Rodgers gets to his quick drop, looks and something doesn't seem to be there, tries to go to his next reads and then is caught up in the rush - we all know how the rest of the story goes.

So what I'm asking is: If you've got a situation where the opposing D is able to rush 4 guys and keep everyone else out in coverage, could those defenses not be taking those quick slants away?

I've decided to hold my tongue on the whole "Rodgers holds the ball too long!" deal - put simply, I don't agree, and moreover that's a critique that depends on whether it works or not. Roethlesberger gets praised all the time for the same thing, but the words change to something like "keeps working to extend the play". I'd rather my QB keep giving that effort, even if it leads to a couple more sacks per year.

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:



That's exactly what was happening. When the defense rushes four it is absolutely necessary to be able to get the protection until the receivers find the seams.

Almost every time Rodgers was given the least amount of time there were guys open but the Vikings plan was to pressure Rodgers and take the short pass away. With that scheme the defense has three LB'rs and two CB's no more than five yards off the line. With four rushers the Oline has to provide enough time to allow the WR's to slip into the secondary and find openings.

The biggest factor in this game was the fact we often sent more than four but created less pressure than the four rushers the Vikes sent most of the afternoon. To say "well, Chilly ran this", yeah he did. When we send more than four there are holes out there five yards beyond the LOS for Farve to find that WERE NOT there for Rodgers because of the five defenders standing in those short zones.

There's much more going on out there than suggesting a shorter passing game is the fix and why can't McCarthy see it. This wasn't about Childress being this awesome tactician that outsmarted our guy. The guys on the field outperformed our guys. In FACT, had McCarthy tried forcing the short game against that scheme THAT'S when the other guy is smarter than your guy.

With the Cover 2 there's all kinds of gaping holes 10 and more yds downfield that two guys can't cover but when the QB doesn't have time to wait and get it down there it can't be exploited.
"The train is leaving the station."
Zero2Cool
15 years ago
Why not do more bootlegs/rollouts?
UserPostedImage
longtimefan
15 years ago
I been calling for those since the 1st viking game
Pack93z
15 years ago

Why not do more bootlegs/rollouts?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Bootlegs and rollouts put more pressure to one end of the line or the other, so which end is solid enough to provide that?

You can't roll Allen's way IMO, so that leaves Barbre on the hook, IMO, that is the weakest link on the field yet.. seven games in.

I will say it again.. we have a couple of problems on this team.. two are fatal flaws.

1. Pass Protection.. we wing it a great percent of the time.. it is killing us.

2. Penalties.. They absolute kill momentum and field position.

3. Lack of a running game and the desire to stay with the calls.. thus putting more pressure on the pass protection.

4. Special Teams.. we focused on it, we let go of a couple players that might have helped the core units to boost special teams. We are still struggling with it, and it is killing field position.

5. Lack of defensive pressure getting home.. our backers are just not all the effective blitzing yet.

That is my top five issues in ranks of importance.. we can list a ton more things that need work.. but those are the top five right this moment.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
PackFanWithTwins
15 years ago

So I'm an ex-RB and will admit right off that I'm not a passing game guru.

But I keep hearing "run the short slants" as if they're a given, and I;m wondering if it's that simple. When they're (the Vikes) getting strong pressure with a 4-man rush, the aren't there 7 guys out in coverage - and might several of them be hanging around where you'd want to hit those quick slants? As in they're not a given and they've not been there for Rodgers when he hits that 3rd step? I'm asking, so let's not get snippy.

What I seem to see a number of times: Rodgers gets to his quick drop, looks and something doesn't seem to be there, tries to go to his next reads and then is caught up in the rush - we all know how the rest of the story goes.

So what I'm asking is: If you've got a situation where the opposing D is able to rush 4 guys and keep everyone else out in coverage, could those defenses not be taking those quick slants away?

I've decided to hold my tongue on the whole "Rodgers holds the ball too long!" deal - put simply, I don't agree, and moreover that's a critique that depends on whether it works or not. Roethlesberger gets praised all the time for the same thing, but the words change to something like "keeps working to extend the play". I'd rather my QB keep giving that effort, even if it leads to a couple more sacks per year.

"warhawk" wrote:



That's exactly what was happening. When the defense rushes four it is absolutely necessary to be able to get the protection until the receivers find the seams.

Almost every time Rodgers was given the least amount of time there were guys open but the Vikings plan was to pressure Rodgers and take the short pass away. With that scheme the defense has three LB'rs and two CB's no more than five yards off the line. With four rushers the Oline has to provide enough time to allow the WR's to slip into the secondary and find openings.

The biggest factor in this game was the fact we often sent more than four but created less pressure than the four rushers the Vikes sent most of the afternoon. To say "well, Chilly ran this", yeah he did. When we send more than four there are holes out there five yards beyond the LOS for Farve to find that WERE NOT there for Rodgers because of the five defenders standing in those short zones.

There's much more going on out there than suggesting a shorter passing game is the fix and why can't McCarthy see it. This wasn't about Childress being this awesome tactician that outsmarted our guy. The guys on the field outperformed our guys. In FACT, had McCarthy tried forcing the short game against that scheme THAT'S when the other guy is smarter than your guy.

With the Cover 2 there's all kinds of gaping holes 10 and more yds downfield that two guys can't cover but when the QB doesn't have time to wait and get it down there it can't be exploited.

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:



You sort of said the problem without actually saying it.

McCarthy is letting the defense dictate his offense, when his offense should be dictating to the defense.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
warhawk
15 years ago

So I'm an ex-RB and will admit right off that I'm not a passing game guru.

But I keep hearing "run the short slants" as if they're a given, and I;m wondering if it's that simple. When they're (the Vikes) getting strong pressure with a 4-man rush, the aren't there 7 guys out in coverage - and might several of them be hanging around where you'd want to hit those quick slants? As in they're not a given and they've not been there for Rodgers when he hits that 3rd step? I'm asking, so let's not get snippy.

What I seem to see a number of times: Rodgers gets to his quick drop, looks and something doesn't seem to be there, tries to go to his next reads and then is caught up in the rush - we all know how the rest of the story goes.

So what I'm asking is: If you've got a situation where the opposing D is able to rush 4 guys and keep everyone else out in coverage, could those defenses not be taking those quick slants away?

I've decided to hold my tongue on the whole "Rodgers holds the ball too long!" deal - put simply, I don't agree, and moreover that's a critique that depends on whether it works or not. Roethlesberger gets praised all the time for the same thing, but the words change to something like "keeps working to extend the play". I'd rather my QB keep giving that effort, even if it leads to a couple more sacks per year.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



That's exactly what was happening. When the defense rushes four it is absolutely necessary to be able to get the protection until the receivers find the seams.

Almost every time Rodgers was given the least amount of time there were guys open but the Vikings plan was to pressure Rodgers and take the short pass away. With that scheme the defense has three LB'rs and two CB's no more than five yards off the line. With four rushers the Oline has to provide enough time to allow the WR's to slip into the secondary and find openings.

The biggest factor in this game was the fact we often sent more than four but created less pressure than the four rushers the Vikes sent most of the afternoon. To say "well, Chilly ran this", yeah he did. When we send more than four there are holes out there five yards beyond the LOS for Farve to find that WERE NOT there for Rodgers because of the five defenders standing in those short zones.

There's much more going on out there than suggesting a shorter passing game is the fix and why can't McCarthy see it. This wasn't about Childress being this awesome tactician that outsmarted our guy. The guys on the field outperformed our guys. In FACT, had McCarthy tried forcing the short game against that scheme THAT'S when the other guy is smarter than your guy.

With the Cover 2 there's all kinds of gaping holes 10 and more yds downfield that two guys can't cover but when the QB doesn't have time to wait and get it down there it can't be exploited.

"warhawk" wrote:



You sort of said the problem without actually saying it.

McCarthy is letting the defense dictate his offense, when his offense should be dictating to the defense.

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:



McCarthy is calling the offense based on what defense is in front of him and he is calling it right. You take what the defense gives you. The problem is without protection the execution is not there. Specifically the 0line.

When the 0line did a little better in the second half McCarthy was dictating all over the place. It's pretty simple. Five guys ought to be able to hold four rushers off long enough to get your WR's the ball.
"The train is leaving the station."
PackFanWithTwins
15 years ago

McCarthy is calling the offense based on what defense is in front of him and he is calling it right. You take what the defense gives you. The problem is without protection the execution is not there. Specifically the 0line.

When the 0line did a little better in the second half McCarthy was dictating all over the place. It's pretty simple. Five guys ought to be able to hold four rushers off long enough to get your WR's the ball.

"warhawk" wrote:



IMO that is the wrong way to do things. We need to run our offense, and let the defense try to stop us. With MN pass rush, trying to beat the cover 2 deep played right into their hands.

We needed to force the short stuff, the slants, curls, drags what ever. 1, 3 step drops.

What we did in the game, is Let their defense dictate to our offense, and their offense dictate to our defense. That is how games are lost not won, and we did it twice, and lost twice.

We need to be aggressive. With Brett, we threw slants against cover 2, we dared the defense to stop us. We have lost that and need it back.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
15 years ago



I really hate saying this. Seriously. This makes me sick to the stomach saying this. But I have to say it.

Childress' playcalling was better than Mike McCarthy's.

Yikes. The whole thought makes me sick.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



And even worse...Childress' playcalling itself wasn't that great. How many running plays did he call up the middle over Herrera/Loadholt -- even though Pickett and Kampman kept stuffing it over and over again for a yard gain, and even though Peterson did have several plays that worked on the Hutchinson side. I kept saying to myself (and occasionally in the chat), Brad keep calling run right, it's keeping us in the game.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (10m) : That is fair by me.
buckeyepackfan (11m) : Kenny Clark is the player, 2 1st rnd picks
Zero2Cool (17m) : umm... what?
wpr (29m) : I am stunned
Mucky Tundra (32m) : RICKEY SCOOPS WAS RIGHT AGAIN!!!
Mucky Tundra (32m) : ITS HAPPENING
buckeyepackfan (33m) : DEAL IS DONE
buckeyepackfan (35m) : MICAH IS COMING TO GREEN BAY!!!!!!!!!
wpr (7h) : Me do-ed it gooderly,
Zero2Cool (21h) : Bahah, I was like WTF why isn't anyone posting on PP.com ... oops no one has permissions
dfosterf (23h) : tell her I reckon
dfosterf (23h) : Micah Robinson cut. Probable PS player tomorrow. Has to call mom back and t
Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : New site so much better. Might make switch and deal with it.
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Mecole Hardman to our practice squad
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Nick Nieman from Texans our 5th linebacker. Special teams signing
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : Looks like we signed Clayton Tune as QB3
wpr (27-Aug) : TKT people lose their minds over QB3. Point is almost none of them are ready that's why they are on the PS and other teams don't take them.
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : Unfortunately he doesn't seem ready to be an emergency QB.
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : As a Canadian and a follower of Canadian University football. I am rooting for him
dfosterf (27-Aug) : I bet a lot of us will follow the Taylor Elgersma journey with interest. Personally, got a Kurt Warner vibe goin' on. I like him
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : Not sure if either will be claimed though.
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : Tune or Hooker would make sense
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Clayton Tune cut by the Cards? Don't know if that's the guy, we shall see
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : Per Bill Huber, the Packers will not be bringing back Taylor Elgersma or Sean Clifford on the practice squad, so a new third quarterback
Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : Schefter must have deleted his tweet
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Hopefully Jerry reaches under the seat cushions and ashtrays of his jet and scrapes up the 45 million apr and spares us further nonsense
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Have to admit the PO'd Cowboy fan videos would be fun to watch. Problem with draft picks is half their fanbase barely knows what that is
beast (27-Aug) : I think Cowboys fans are ready to get their pitch forks and burning sticks if Jerry were to trade Micah
dfosterf (27-Aug) : If Jerry traded Micah to GB, here in northern Va. they would have to quick build yet another data center to handle the internet hate traffic
Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : its signing and trades that you don't hear about, other then announced
Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : If you hear rumors about Packers sign or trade, won't happen. Not how they work
dfosterf (27-Aug) : 19 players in a contract year. Jones called loss to us worst loss in Cowboy history. Forget Parsons trade. Not happenin' Cap'n
packerfanoutwest (27-Aug) : The Packers, meanwhile, are the youngest team in the league for the third consecutive year.
dfosterf (27-Aug) : That it was darkest before the dawn in Bengals and Commanders before they got deals done
Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : what is Schefter saying?
dfosterf (27-Aug) : He was getting Dorito infusion therapy
dfosterf (27-Aug) : He's outta shape. Why, just the other day I saw him splayed out on the trainers table
Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : Parsons has followed Rasheed Walker on Twitter. Quite the choice
Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : Kuhn is a former player who works for the team, if somethings going down, he would be close to it
Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : @kuhnj30 Micah Freaking Parsons
Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : A LOT of buzz on the Bird App regarding Parsons; even Schefter is saying it's serious
dfosterf (26-Aug) : *Orzech*
dfosterf (26-Aug) : Orzich long snapper 3 yr extension
Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : Packers signed someone for three year deal
Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : lol i know it's insane ... sign up for the waiver wire then you'll know
wpr (26-Aug) : YES!!!!!!
Mucky Tundra (26-Aug) : WE WANT THE LIST! WE WANT THE LIST!
Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : @JJLahey · 2m Holy crap, Packers, where the heck is the list?
Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : haha folks on Tweeter every year this time ... 'where is list Packers!!" hahaha
wpr (26-Aug) : He played pretty good.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
1m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

21h / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

21h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

27-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

26-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

25-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

24-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Aug / Around The NFL / beast

23-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

22-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.