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
beast (53m) : Yeah, and I enjoyed your comments and just attempted to add to it. Sorry if I did it incorrectly.
wpr (2h) : Beast I never said Henderson was the salt of the earth. Nor even that he was correct. Just quoting the guy.
Zero2Cool (4h) : What did you do??
Zero2Cool (4h) : Whoa
beast (4h) : OMG the website is now all white, even some white on white text
beast (5h) : Henderson, who admits to taking cocaine during the Super Bowl against the Steelers, might dislike Bradshaw as he lost two Superbowls to him
wpr (28-May) : Hollywood Henderson said Bradshaw “is so dumb, he couldn't spell 'cat' if you spotted him the C and an A.”
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : Cooper stock=BUY BUY BUY
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : Also notes he’s playing with more confidence.
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : @AndyHermanNFL MLF says there was a time last year where Cooper was at 220 pounds. Now he’s at 240 and still flying around.
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : And don't even get me started on Frank Caliendos "impersonations"
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : I got tired of them being circle jerks with them overlaughing at each others jokes.
Zero2Cool (28-May) : It used to be must watch TV for me. now it's "meh" maybe to hear injury update
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : I haven't watched the pregame shows in years and I don't feel like I've missed a thing
Zero2Cool (28-May) : Love says knee affected him all season, groin injury didn't help matters.
Zero2Cool (28-May) : I used to enjoy him on FOX Pregame. Now it's like a frat party of former Patriots.
Zero2Cool (28-May) : LaFleur on Watson: “Christian is doing outstanding. I would say he’s ahead of schedule.”
Martha Careful (28-May) : Bradshaw is a dumb ass cracker. I am so tired of his "aw shucks" diatribe. He should shrivel up and go away.
buckeyepackfan (28-May) : He wad all butt hurt because Aaron duped the media saying he was immunized.
buckeyepackfan (28-May) : Bradshaw needs to retire. He's been ripping on Rodgers ever since the covid crap. He was all hury
Zero2Cool (28-May) : Terry Bradshaw doesn't want Rodgers in Pittsburgh lol wow
Zero2Cool (27-May) : one day contract, which he also feels is pointless, but if Packers came to him, he would
packerfanoutwest (27-May) : Aaron Rodgers talks possibility of retiring with Packers, just another rumor
dfosterf (27-May) : Go watch 2001
Zero2Cool (26-May) : 1984
dfosterf (26-May) : That movie sent a chill through many. 1968.
dfosterf (26-May) : "Open the pod bay doors, HAL"
buckeyepackfan (25-May) : Haven't we all seen thus movie? It doesn't end well!! Lol
Zero2Cool (25-May) : lol Anthropic’s new AI model turns to blackmail when engineers try to take it offline
dfosterf (25-May) : Claude Opus 4
dfosterf (25-May) : AI system resorts to blackmail when its developers threaten to take it offline
beast (22-May) : Colts Owner Jim Irsay has passed away
Zero2Cool (21-May) : Well, emailing should work now. After not working for almost a year. Oops.
Zero2Cool (21-May) : Brotherly Shove did not get enough votes.
Zero2Cool (20-May) : lol our email hasn't worked in months. 7 pages of unverified users
Zero2Cool (20-May) : MySpace Screaming Lord Byron ... Brett Favre.
Zero2Cool (19-May) : Packers have signed first-round pick Matthew Golden, leaving second-round tackle Anthony Belton as their only unsigned draft pick
beast (19-May) : Supposedly he has to take his image, and name off of it... but otherwise could keep selling wine if he wanted to.
Zero2Cool (19-May) : he giving up his win business?
beast (19-May) : Speaking of Woodson, sounds like he'll be a minority owner (0.1%) of the Browns
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Zero, regarding Woodson, that'd why I find the timing with Williams peculiar
dfosterf (15-May) : Ryan Hall y'all does a great job of tracking thesr
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Fear not!! I planned to do 33mi bike ride tomorrow morning, so ... yeah
Zero2Cool (15-May) : We got some dark clouds and nasty winds right bout now.
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Madison they had hail 4pm.
dfosterf (15-May) : Sure looks like these tornadoes are headed towards Green Bay
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Woodson of Charles fame was reluctant and then loved it. that didn't really come out until post career
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : IE "We bought into the Bears and they let us down, we have no choice to seek alternatives"
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Or that Williams and his family are preparing an exit ramp if they don't like how things are going in a few years
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Either Williams thought it would make him look good (reluctant but then embraces the city and franchise)
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
9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

27-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-May / Random Babble / Martha Careful

24-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

21-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

21-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

20-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

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