Everyone blames the D where is the blame for the O

[rodell330]

Sustained drives woulda helped the defense true. Defense getting off the field woulda helped them out to. Until the defense can stop ppl the Packers will win alot of games and then lose in the playoffs...but hey, at least they will win the North. (Eye. Roll)

 

[longtimefan]

Sustained drives woulda helped the defense true.

That is all I wanted

Why do we need to add to the question or statement?


The rest of your post is being discussed in the fire dom thread

I want THIS thread to center on why the offense failed and not why the D made them fail

 

[rodell330]

That is all I wanted

Why do we need to add to the question or statement?


The rest of your post is being discussed in the fire dom thread

I want THIS thread to center on why the offense failed and not why the D made them fail

Fine ill bite. Well MM calls passing plays on third and short? He does that to often and when you dont convert well you punt. We did that often smh. Also we had success running tthe ball then MM paniced, then he went away from the run for a minute. I saw +obb get two nice runs but why does MM wait to utilize Cobbs unique running skills until the third quarter? The short passing game was working but we went away from it and started trying to hit a homerun everyother play. Packers are not really a take what the defense gives you offense. The quiick strike apprroach is what they like.

 

[13 Times Champs]

The offense didn't play as bad as the defense. That's my point.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

The offense didn't play as bad as the defense. That's my point.

It was really something to watch San Fran shut out Atlanta in the second half and Baltimore stifle one of the best offenses in the league.

 

[longtimefan]

Fine ill bite. Well MM calls passing plays on third and short? He does that to often and when you dont convert well you punt. We did that often smh. Also we had success running tthe ball then MM paniced, then he went away from the run for a minute. I saw +obb get two nice runs but why does MM wait to utilize Cobbs unique running skills until the third quarter? The short passing game was working but we went away from it and started trying to hit a homerun everyother play. Packers are not really a take what the defense gives you offense. The quiick strike apprroach is what they like.

http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=71&c=1191&f=976201 1-15-2013 podcast



Rodgers goes over some of the reasoning...

I think then you will be surprised to know that maybe Rodgers is to blame, more so than MM

Then maybe you will know why I think Rodgers should take some blame..NOT ALL BLAME BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS THE DEFENSES FAULT

 

[13 Times Champs]

It was really something to watch San Fran shut out Atlanta in the second half and Baltimore stifle one of the best offenses in the league.

Watching both defenses made me think how far we have to go to be that effective. Sigh!

 

[13 Times Champs]

Fine ill bite. Well MM calls passing plays on third and short? He does that to often and when you dont convert well you punt. We did that often smh. Also we had success running tthe ball then MM paniced, then he went away from the run for a minute. I saw +obb get two nice runs but why does MM wait to utilize Cobbs unique running skills until the third quarter? The short passing game was working but we went away from it and started trying to hit a homerun everyother play. Packers are not really a take what the defense gives you offense. The quiick strike apprroach is what they like.

That has happened not only in the SF game but during the season. I think the offense played greedy way too often. Instead of taking what the defense will give you Rodgers wound up throwing the home run ball. And yes some of those third and short calls baffled me.

 

[Forderick]

We were 5th in scoring offense this year, 27.1 per game
2010 10th with 24.2 per game

so that sort of blows your theory out of the water

I am not talking about scoring points, I said look at the final 4 teams left in the playoffs, they all run the ball as much or more than they pass. It has nothing to do with ranking of scoring offence.

The packers on some occasions flat out refused to run the ball. And was a big contributing factor into the loss against the Niners. I don't see how this is hard to grasp. The NFL goes in cycles and the packers failed to adapt. Stuck in their passing only option when the team that are winning in the playoffs have balance.

Teams have adapted to the passing game, and in order to counter this you need to run the ball.

 

[Kitten]

I never have blamed the D this year. The O-Line takes the brunt of my blame this year. The weak O-Line caused problems on every level of our offense. I think that is something that absolutely needs to be addressed during the offseason. We are very fortunate to not have any injuries to Rodgers. We can't take those chances next year.

 

[longtimefan]

I am not talking about scoring points, I said look at the final 4 teams left in the playoffs, they all run the ball as much or more than they pass. It has nothing to do with ranking of scoring offence.

The packers on some occasions flat out refused to run the ball. And was a big contributing factor into the loss against the Niners. I don't see how this is hard to grasp. The NFL goes in cycles and the packers failed to adapt. Stuck in their passing only option when the team that are winning in the playoffs have balance.

Teams have adapted to the passing game, and in order to counter this you need to run the ball.

Now scoring points doesnt matter in the NFL?

If you actually look at the last 4 teams standing, they all run the ball. and stick with it for the most part.
The patriots offence stays relevant because they change. Teams have gotten smaller and faster on defence and the teams that actually run the ball and stick with it are having more success this year.

Your offence has to change to take advantage of the changes in the defences. The packers are stuck in 2010 when the passing game was the big thing and now defences have adapted to counter this.

The nfl goes in cycles every so often. the packers failed to adapt.​

you need to be more specific next time, my point was as long as scoring points, I dont care where it comes from

 

[Forderick]

Yes that is what i said scoring points doesn't matter.

Well they couldn't score enough to beat the niners, because their offence was stuck using only their passing game. so it makes it that much easier for teams to stop them. It doesn't matter what era or cycle the game is in, you have to run the ball.

 

[longtimefan]

Yes that is what i said scoring points doesn't matter.

Well they couldn't score enough to beat the niners, because their offence was stuck using only their passing game. so it makes it that much easier for teams to stop them. It doesn't matter what era or cycle the game is in, you have to run the ball.

one more time

The packers are stuck in 2010 when the passing game was the big thing and now defences have adapted to counter this.

To me your saying they dont score as much..Which by the figures I posted, show they score more than 2010

If your saying they have to run more, I do agree

But they are scoring more than they did in 2010...So FOR ME if they are scoring more I am okay with it..

 

[Forderick]

I don't see how me saying that the packers are stuck using what worked for them in 2010 to win the super bowl and are failing to adapt in games when that isn't working anymore has anything to do with the ranking of their scoring offence. It didn't work against the niners, and the running game was doing quite well, so they abandoned the run. this is why the offence failed.

The ranking doesn't mean anything when you are in a playoff game and fail to adjust and lose the game. Stats don't tell the whole story with this offence. A better scoring regular season offence doesn't mean jack come playoff time.

Look at the Niners how they pretty much shut out the falcons 2nd half. the ravens did the same against the best offence in football. did their rankings have anything to do with those games? not a single thing. Your ranking are thrown out the window come playoff time, regular season records don't matter once you make it in, the point is to win the game and the packers failed to do, with a supposed better offence than when they did win in 2010.

I feel they are stuck using (in the playoffs) what won the super bowl in 2010 , and not what got them there in their playoff wins against the eagles, falcons, and bears.

back to the main topic, the offence failed because of poor play calling, rodgers looking for the big play instead of the play to move the chains, and the lack of running the ball. I hate to say it but rodgers to me has regressed a bit this year. He holds onto the ball too long, looks for the big play too often , but he is still a great Qb but needs some work and perhaps that will come with a more balanced attack on offence.

 

[longtimefan]

I don't see how me saying that the packers are stuck using what worked for them in 2010 to win the super bowl and are failing to adapt in games when that isn't working anymore has anything to do with the ranking of their scoring offence. It didn't work against the niners, and the running game was doing quite well, so they abandoned the run. this is why the offence failed.

The ranking doesn't mean anything when you are in a playoff game and fail to adjust and lose the game. Stats don't tell the whole story with this offence. A better scoring regular season offence doesn't mean jack come playoff time.

Look at the Niners how they pretty much shut out the falcons 2nd half. the ravens did the same against the best offence in football. did their rankings have anything to do with those games? not a single thing. Your ranking are thrown out the window come playoff time, regular season records don't matter once you make it in, the point is to win the game and the packers failed to do, with a supposed better offence than when they did win in 2010.

I feel they are stuck using (in the playoffs) what won the super bowl in 2010 , and not what got them there in their playoff wins against the eagles, falcons, and bears.

you stated 2010--didn't say playoffs in your 1st post..So it is confusing

We ALL know they need to run..Thats a given

 

[adambr2]

You can't just "throw out" the last TD of the game just because it was garbage time. It's still points on the board. If it had made it 38-31 at the time instead of 45-31, the game would've been an onside kick away from being within reach.

Naturally, less time on the field for the defense would have been helpful, but a lot of that was their own fault for not being able to get off the field on 3rd down.

The 49ers had 38 minutes of time of possession. 8 of those minutes came on one drive in the 4th quarter after MM foolishly decided to punt on 4th and 4 midfield trailing by 14. It wouldn't look nearly as lopsided if they convert and keep driving there.

We had 352 yards and 31 points (24 by the offense) against one of the elite defenses in the league. The offensive line played exceptionally well. It's hard for me to make a case that the offense didn't do enough.

 

[Forderick]

You can't just "throw out" the last TD of the game just because it was garbage time. It's still points on the board. If it had made it 38-31 at the time instead of 45-31, the game would've been an onside kick away from being within reach.

But it wasn't 38-31 it was 45-24 and they took too long to get that next 7 to bring it within 2 scored. So yes it was garbage time because they wasted too much of it. In the 2nd half they needed to run the ball and didn't do so. that is a big reason why they lost.

thats a lot of ifs in your sentence there, and maybe if the packers could show up and play physical football maybe they could have competed in this game.

the packers were not going to win this game, and it really showed in the 2nd half. Some changes need to be made on both sides of the ball.

 

[longtimefan]

You can't just "throw out" the last TD of the game just because it was garbage time. It's still points on the board. If it had made it 38-31 at the time instead of 45-31, the game would've been an onside kick away from being within reach.

Naturally, less time on the field for the defense would have been helpful, but a lot of that was their own fault for not being able to get off the field on 3rd down.

The 49ers had 38 minutes of time of possession. 8 of those minutes came on one drive in the 4th quarter after MM foolishly decided to punt on 4th and 4 midfield trailing by 14. It wouldn't look nearly as lopsided if they convert and keep driving there.

We had 352 yards and 31 points (24 by the offense) against one of the elite defenses in the league. The offensive line played exceptionally well. It's hard for me to make a case that the offense didn't do enough.

if it was 38-31 then that is a diff story but it wasnt..

It was garbage time..2 mins to go and down 45-24...they were 3 tds away with 2 to go

 

[adambr2]

if it was 38-31 then that is a diff story but it wasnt..

It was garbage time..2 mins to go and down 45-24...they were 3 tds away with 2 to go

No it wasn't...but you can't just "not count" the TD because of that. It's still a TD that the offense scored. The last 2 minutes of the game is still part of the game.

 

[adambr2]

But it wasn't 38-31 it was 45-24 and they took too long to get that next 7 to bring it within 2 scored. So yes it was garbage time because they wasted too much of it. In the 2nd half they needed to run the ball and didn't do so. that is a big reason why they lost.

They lost because they allowed the other team to score 45 points. That will generally get you a loss no matter what your offense does.

 

[longtimefan]

No it wasn't...but you can't just "not count" the TD because of that. It's still a TD that the offense scored. The last 2 minutes of the game is still part of the game.

Yes it is counted no one is saying it can't be??

However, in 59 mins-- (I have said 58 mins, more than once, go check,) 59 mins the offense scored.......17 points to Friscos 45..

Understand my point now? Our offense really suffered in 2nd half..They got one FG in 29 minutes...


You claim

If it had made it 38-31 at the time instead of 45-31, the game would've been an onside kick away from being within reach

That is just pure speculation and "what ifs"

We could say what if Rodgers tossed TD to Jordy and not Td..Just wishful thinking for us fans..

 

[longtimefan]

They lost because they allowed the other team to score 45 points. That will generally get you a loss no matter what your offense does.

This is true...

But I think if the offense could have had drives lasting longer then 5 mins ( that was one time, rest were around 3 mins) would have really helped the defense some...

Or do THEIR part and score some points other than 3 points in 28 mins...

Yes def is to blame a ton, but do n0t dismiss on how ineffective the off was

 

[adambr2]

I'll admit that longer, sustained drives would have been helpful to the stamina of the D. The points by themselves I feel should have been enough to win.

 

[rodell330]

I think we throw the ball on first down more then any other team in the NFL. The west coast offense is meant to use the short passing game as sort of a running game but rarely did you see our backs catch alot of passes. I think The playoff game against the queens was the first time i ever saw one of our backs really featured in the passing game. Then again Rodgers was taking what was given to him and Harris had a good game catching the ball. Having a back catch 40 balls and beinga true West coast style of Rb would be great.

 

[Forderick]

No it wasn't...but you can't just "not count" the TD because of that. It's still a TD that the offense scored. The last 2 minutes of the game is still part of the game.

do they get anywhere near a win by scoring those 7 points, the niners could give up 14 points and still win. so those 7 don't matter at all when you are down by 3 scores with basically no time left.