Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Not Saying This Isn't a Bad Loss, But.....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 587145"><p>Finley, like Graham before him, tried to get himself classified as a WR for franchise tag purposes as a negotiating ploy. There was some merit to his claim given he ran about half his snaps from slot or wide out. Like you say, he'd run a lot of intermediate-to-deep seam routes out of the slot to either draw safety coverage away from the WRs or provide an attractive target if teams tried to cover him with a LB or nickel back.</p><p></p><p>That does not speak to possession routes.</p><p></p><p>Cobb out of the slot serves the same purpose as Finley but in a different way. Instead of having a jump ball seam TE, he runs a lot of crossing routes in the intermediate zones. As I posted in another thread, Cobb was the league leader in first downs per target going into week 15, by a wide margin, among the top 30 leaders in yards receiving.</p><p></p><p>The formulation is the same...opponents can't double two WR and a slot. Against New England, Adams was left one-on-one and the match up was exploited. Buffalo was mixing it up. Cobb had a lot of opportunities; we saw Nelson wide open in single coverage on the dropped pass, Adams had single coverage opportunities but was not connecting with Rodgers on the route.</p><p></p><p>To me the problem in the Buffalo game (besides the drops and misfires), and the fact that Buffalo has an awfully good defense, was that the Packers did not run the ball enough.</p><p></p><p>Buffalo came out playing what they played against Denver...nickel, 6 in the box even on run downs, occasionally bringing down a DB over the TE. The Packers had early success running Lacy, but went away from it.</p><p></p><p>The issues in this game were pass game execution and philosophy (run to set up the pass; short pass to set up the deep pass; don't turn the ball over).</p><p></p><p>While having a big, semi-fast TE with hops would be a nice weapon to have again, there are different advantages to having a WR in his place in the typical 3-wide set.</p><p></p><p>In the end, this is a big play offense. As much as I'd like to see a switch to control-the-ball mode in mid-game when the situation dictates, it's unrealistic to expect a 40-45 run/20-25 pass mix the way Denver has been going in recent weeks. The Packers just don't have the kind of defense to be relied upon in close, low-scoring games. That said, Lacy + Starks running the ball only 19 times looks a bit stubborn under the circumstances.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 587145"] Finley, like Graham before him, tried to get himself classified as a WR for franchise tag purposes as a negotiating ploy. There was some merit to his claim given he ran about half his snaps from slot or wide out. Like you say, he'd run a lot of intermediate-to-deep seam routes out of the slot to either draw safety coverage away from the WRs or provide an attractive target if teams tried to cover him with a LB or nickel back. That does not speak to possession routes. Cobb out of the slot serves the same purpose as Finley but in a different way. Instead of having a jump ball seam TE, he runs a lot of crossing routes in the intermediate zones. As I posted in another thread, Cobb was the league leader in first downs per target going into week 15, by a wide margin, among the top 30 leaders in yards receiving. The formulation is the same...opponents can't double two WR and a slot. Against New England, Adams was left one-on-one and the match up was exploited. Buffalo was mixing it up. Cobb had a lot of opportunities; we saw Nelson wide open in single coverage on the dropped pass, Adams had single coverage opportunities but was not connecting with Rodgers on the route. To me the problem in the Buffalo game (besides the drops and misfires), and the fact that Buffalo has an awfully good defense, was that the Packers did not run the ball enough. Buffalo came out playing what they played against Denver...nickel, 6 in the box even on run downs, occasionally bringing down a DB over the TE. The Packers had early success running Lacy, but went away from it. The issues in this game were pass game execution and philosophy (run to set up the pass; short pass to set up the deep pass; don't turn the ball over). While having a big, semi-fast TE with hops would be a nice weapon to have again, there are different advantages to having a WR in his place in the typical 3-wide set. In the end, this is a big play offense. As much as I'd like to see a switch to control-the-ball mode in mid-game when the situation dictates, it's unrealistic to expect a 40-45 run/20-25 pass mix the way Denver has been going in recent weeks. The Packers just don't have the kind of defense to be relied upon in close, low-scoring games. That said, Lacy + Starks running the ball only 19 times looks a bit stubborn under the circumstances. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Calebs Revenge
Latest posts
Breaking Down the NFC North, 2024
Latest: Calebs Revenge
5 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 4, pick 111: Evan Williams, S, Oregon
Latest: Krabs
52 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Jordan Love Era Begins
Latest: Krabs
54 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
I had This Nightmare
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 12:59 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
T
Interesting Facebook Page
Latest: TEXPAC2
Today at 12:10 PM
Forum Feedback & Suggestions
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Not Saying This Isn't a Bad Loss, But.....
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top