1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up/a> or Log In

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Take full advantage of our O weapons

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by PackerTraxx, Aug 19, 2005.

  1. PackerTraxx
    Offline

    PackerTraxx Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,028
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    There was an article in the paper yesterday that showed Brett threw most of his int's when the Packers were behind and the highest number when they were behind be 10 or more points.

    We have one of the best QBs in history.

    We have one of the best recieving corps in the league.

    We have one of the best RBs in the league.

    What I am getting at is this. I believe we should be passing to set up our running more often. When teams are stacked to stop the run and are vunerable to certain passes, I believe we should hurt them where they are vunerable with passes, rather than "bang our heads against a brick wall" and continue to force the run. This is something that seems to be a problem with Rossley, if he can get the running game going he is fine, if not we were in trouble. It also saves wear and tear on the running backs because they're not pounding into stacked defenses constantly.

    I am not the best writer, but I hope you get my point. I believe we should not be putting uneccessary high pressure on our running game by insisting to establish the run and then doing the same thing to the passing game by expecting it to bail us out on 3rd and long. In short we need to read defenses better, take what they give you and be more creative.
  2. digsthepack
    Offline

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    The biggest problem, in my view, is that we give away the first quarter to run the 15 - 20 scripted plays to "get a feel" for how the opponent will respond to certain plays/formations. I mean, isn't that what a week of film work is for?

    While the opponent is looking to cut our throat in the first quarter, we are feeling them out.

    Look at first quarter scoring for the last several years for ample evidence of this concern.
  3. Chamuko
    Offline

    Chamuko Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,067
    Location:
    Guadalajara, Mexico
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    It seems that you have a point Diggs...... :evil:
  4. sixone220
    Offline

    sixone220 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    688
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    ya i think you hit the nail on the head. i don't know how many times that i have been disgusted with a draw on 3rd and 8 because that was the scripted play. :roll:
  5. PackerTraxx
    Offline

    PackerTraxx Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,028
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    It might not be so bad if they didn't use the same script every week. Just kidding - sort of. :-? :wink: :mrgreen:
  6. agopackgo4
    Offline

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Location:
    Wausau WI
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I do not agree that we have even have one of the top 30 running backs. Green will be half way decent if the guy would stop fumbleing! It has bugged the crap out of me the last few years, I am sick and tired of Green fumbleing. Why did it not surprise me when he fumbled in the preseason game??!? Hey and if he ever in his life fixes that problem lets see if he can stay healthy for a whole year now that he is getting older. To me I would rather have Davenport or Fisher in there, just switching if one guy cant carry the load.
  7. calicheesehead
    Offline

    calicheesehead Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    91214
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Davenport and Fish fumble as well. I think Green will be fin getting rid of those forearm pads. He's a sweat machine and that material does not seem to bode well for Ahman. The run has been setting up our pass plays for the last couple of years. The personnel and formation speak volumes on the predictability of our plays. Favre get into the INT problem when he starts throwing the 40+yard punts! He seems to feel the weight of the world once we're behind and/or a bunch of 3 and outs. The surprise deep bomb isn't a surprise when its used every other series. I truly believe with the quality of receivers we could do a lot better with more of a true west coast offense dinking and dunking with outs and slants to get yards than always getting into a third and long. We definitely need to mix it up more, i.e. when MS was calling plays.
  8. agopackgo4
    Offline

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Location:
    Wausau WI
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Yes but as I remember Green fumbled a few years ago without those pads did he not?????????? Then he got the pads and he didn't fumble the rest of the year. I'm sick of the same crap from Green. He was fumbleing without the pads before what makes you think that he will not do the same now??????????????????????? Of course he will. Because the guy cant hang onto the football. I am sick and tired of Green. And as for Davenport and Fisher fumbleing, they DO NOT do it as much as Green, but hey the last time I looked at Barry Sanders numbers guess what I noticed that he had fumbled in his life, so just because they fumble too doesnt mean anything. So my point is that the best of them fumble. But the difference is that Green fumbles all the time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and it doesnt stop.
  9. arrowgargantuan
    Offline

    arrowgargantuan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,645
    Location:
    San Jose, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0
    excellent use of punctuation!!!!!!!!!

    seriously though, Green is easily a top ten runningback. throw in the fact that this is a contract year for him, i say he'll end up in the top 6 or 7 barring any injuries. also, i wouldn't bring up Green's health and then say you want Davenport starting with Fisher in the same sentence. Davenport can't start in the NFL for that very reason. imagine if he had to carry the ball 25-30 times a game. he'd be out by week 3...but he makes a tremendous back up.

    yes Green fumbles too much, despite that he still would be a premier player on any team. you have to take the good with the bad with Mr. Green. if he wasn't here our running game would be a disaster by mid-season.



    imo.
  10. calicheesehead
    Offline

    calicheesehead Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    91214
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    He does fumble no doubt but it seems to come early and in bunches and then he goes through some solid periods. But if he didn't break those every so often to the house you're sure as hell glad he's on your team. Plus you can't count out his receiving skills. He would be harder to replace than you think. His blocking, his all around skills are solid.
  11. PackerTraxx
    Offline

    PackerTraxx Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,028
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Green's fumbles are frustrating. However, I believe that his statistics and the consenus around the entire league, including owners, coaches, players, the media and fans would agree he is one of the top backs in the league.

    Anyway, my point is we should be faking into the line on first and goal from 2 and let Brett throw an easy TD or put that in the defenses mind once in a while. A pass on 3rd and 1. A little pass on 1st down to pick up 4-6 yds so we're in control on 2nd down. Things like this to put the D back on their heels a little bit so the backs can run in space more and they can't tee off on Brett.
  12. eastcoastpacker
    Offline

    eastcoastpacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    484
    Location:
    pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    Green is one of the better runners in the NFL. Not the top 3 or 4 maybe,but he is one of the best.Last year,he didn't run as much asin years earlier.Look at what he did the year before! He had close to 2000 years if my memory serves me right. Hasn't he cut down on the fumbles? :cane: :kickcan:
  13. agopackgo4
    Offline

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Location:
    Wausau WI
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Oh yes he has cut down on the fumbles...Only to be second behind Ricky Williams, for the most fumbles the last 10 years or whatever it is. And I also have a question? Sense when do we need a great running game to win a superbowl? I suppose you will tell me that Bennet had a great running game for us in 96-97 when we won. And also the first year that the Pats won the superbowl a few years ago....Lets see now who did they have for running back?............Oh yeah, Kevin Faulk. Now dont tell me that he is somthing special because he isn't. My point is, is Faulk better than Fisher AND Davenport. You see there is also a reason that I put Davenport AND Fisher in my original post. I know that Davenport will get hurt. But hey guess what then you bring in Fisher, By the way Green is useally out by week three or four anyway.
  14. agopackgo4
    Offline

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Location:
    Wausau WI
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Also.........Travis Williams was a good runner. Possibily one of the fastest players in the league. He had a world of talent but he fumbled. Lombardi made him walk around with a football where ever he went even in the shower. If Lombardi saw Williams he better have had a football in his hands. Vince had no tolarance for fumbleing. Nor did Holmgrin. Which is why he gave up on Green.
  15. arrowgargantuan
    Offline

    arrowgargantuan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,645
    Location:
    San Jose, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0
    the Faulk point would make sense if we had a defense that could bail us out...but we don't. so toss that out the window. besides that, they realized that was an issue when they snagged Corey Dillon and he was an integral part in their 3rd superbowl.

    also..Green started 15 games last year. so hes not "usually out by week 3 or 4." you might be confusing him with Najeh...and after he goes down you want to put the running game on Fisher's back? awful idea. point is..if Green goes, he has to be replaced. period. we don't have a RB on the squad capable, and durable enough without him.

    7 fumbles last year..not that crazy. both Dillon and James had 5 a piece.
  16. P@ck66
    Offline

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -1
    This is what i've been talking about the past 6 years...

    this is why i hate those dopes Sherman/Rosseley....

    their idea of a game plan is no plan at all...
  17. agopackgo4
    Offline

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Location:
    Wausau WI
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Im sorry but I have a question. Why did you just pass over and not adress what I said about the 96-97 packers? It shows that you do not need a great running game. Hey I will not deny when Green holds onto the football, he is great. But the Bad isnt worth the good with Green. If It was up to me sense everyone thinks that Green is so good, why do we not trade him and get someone on defense and get just a average running back? I think that there was a reason that Seattle gave up on Green. If it was up to me Green would never see the field in a packer uniform again. Dont get me wrong I am not trying to be mean or anything to you or anyone else including Green. But we just have a difference in opinions. We can disagree that is fine. I just do not think that Green is a top notch running back. And I would rather have someone else I dont care who but someone else in there other than green.
  18. agopackgo4
    Offline

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Location:
    Wausau WI
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    What have you been talking about? That you like Green or you dont like him?
  19. arrowgargantuan
    Offline

    arrowgargantuan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,645
    Location:
    San Jose, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0
    ya know, i was going to address that, but i figured i made my point with the New England comment. we had a defense that could bail us out. comparing this team with the superbowl team is pointless...two entirely different teams.

    as far as your comment about trading Green for defensive player...Green would still need to be replaced! Najeh and Tony can't fill that void.

    its all good though...agree to disagree.

    but im right :wink:
  20. agopackgo4
    Offline

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Location:
    Wausau WI
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    :) ok........but anyway I think that an average running back could do the job. Why not draft a running back? If not I would like to take somone like a Warrick Dunn. Just somone not the best but just someone who can get the job done and do it right. But yes I will agree to disagree. If you think you are right that is fine. We have our own opinions. :) But we can agree after tonights game that Green isn't the biggest problem on the team :lol:
  21. PackerTraxx
    Offline

    PackerTraxx Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,028
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Last nights game was a good example of what I am talking about. Specificly, the first series with Favre and the first series with Rodgers. They opened the game up more and didn't allow Buff to stack the line of scrimmage against the run. Even though Driver dropped the one, it kept Buff back on their heels concerned with the pass. This in turn helped open running lanes.

Share This Page