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 or

    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!
    Dismiss Notice

I Am Happy, But I Have A Concern. Is It Validated?!

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Chicocheese, Sep 25, 2011.

  1. Chicocheese

    Chicocheese Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    628
    Ratings:
    +214
    We are throwing the ball like beast and it is working out great! However, do you feel we might be getting a bit predictable?

    Even if we are predictable, do you think we can be stopped?

    We have a ton of receiving threats: Finely, Jennings, Driver, Nelson, Jones....but can they be figured out? Is it safe to say that perhaps opposing defenses will know we are looking for Finely too much?

    Just a few concerns I have...I want to see us repeat, and three-peat. I don't want to get cocky though.
     
  2. Wildcatk23

    Wildcatk23 Repeat?

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    60
    Ratings:
    +24
    Were not looking for finley to much. Thats why were so good in the air. We have way to many weapons for one QB.

    Jennings, Driver, Nelson, Finley and my New Favorite Cobb.

    And Starks and Grant make a great ground threat. We just have to many weapons for one team to key in on 1 or 2 guys.
     
  3. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,576
    Ratings:
    +652
    Rodgers was going to Jennings early because they were vulnerable in their coverage of him. He went to Finley after they shifted their focus to Jennings, because they weren't giving Finley the attention he commands. Rodgers was exploiting their weaknesses, not focusing too much on Finley. He learned about how well that worked out last season. Sorry to be short, but this discussion is a complete nonstarter.
     
  4. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    Finley works against some teams better than others. We talked about all week how he exposes the bears D.

    I am not concerned with the offense, its the passing defense thats the issue.
     
  5. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,112
    Ratings:
    +1,442
    With the sheer quantity of weapons on this offense even if we were to become predictable, it still wouldn't do the other team much good. We are going to establish patterns, but unless their D is telepathic, they won't know who we are going to.
     
  6. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    The only problem with our offense today was Starks and MM. This was a poor outing for both.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Pat4DaPack

    Pat4DaPack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,295
    Ratings:
    +180
    As predictable as it may be, I just dont think know teams know how to stop it. If I was a d coordinator about to play the Pack, id prolly call in sick that week lol.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. GreenBayGal

    GreenBayGal Cheese Goddess

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,374
    Ratings:
    +1,123
    Agreed. Not sure what happened to Starks today. May their D had his number but Grant sure had better numbers. And what's up with the running calls when its 3rd and 15?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Pat4DaPack

    Pat4DaPack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,295
    Ratings:
    +180
    I was wondering the same thing. They probably did that and the screen passes for better field position on a punt but this team is more then capable of converting a 3rd and 15.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,112
    Ratings:
    +1,442
    Interesting. Maybe it wasn't so much Starks all the time as it was poor play calling. Sadly it seems more of a combination of both. I love MM but I wish he wouldn't beat a dead horse with the running plays especially when it became blatantly obvious it wasn't working.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +445
    I'm just quoting your post because it was the most recent Kitten. I hate it when MM takes his foot off the gas but it's not a surprise to me that he'd use the run in 3rd and long situations. He has some pretty incredible backs and the idea in a game is to keep the "D" guessing.
    I have no idea why you think the running game wasn't working. It worked perfectly. Starks did seem nervous back there and for the first time since we've seen him he's been uncharacteristic by dancing too much. But it didn't matter because Grant was just awesome, he waited for his opportunities and he hit them hard and fast when they were there. His decisions on the whole were the reason he's been so successful.
    If someone thinks MM was a disappointment I'd sure love to know why. I think he called a great game. I'd prefer to keep the foot on the gas, especially when you have Rodgers as your QB but it was an otherwise great game with great calls. I think Rodgers and MM have the wick lit on how to uncover the Bears' cover 2.
    If I had any question at all about this game it was that MM didn't use the play action. I would choose to think he's setting up tape to unveil it in the right situation.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,112
    Ratings:
    +1,442
    No problem, DD. The only issue I have with MM today was with the running calls. 3rd and 15, why the hell would you run the dang ball? You'd be lucky to have a conversion with a pass but with a running play it's almost certain to fail. I love MM but I wish he would of eased up on the running plays, especially Starks, which really wasn't working. I was yelling, PASS, PASS, and they kept on running it into nowhere. It frustrated me is all because I thought we could of done even better offensively today. That's my only criticism. Other than that, he called a great game.
     
  13. gatorpack

    gatorpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    715
    Ratings:
    +171
    I know what your saying kitten. It pissed me off, not really that we ran the ball to much but when we were calling the run plays. Run of first down and then run on second down then we have a 3rd and 9 or 8. It just happened to many times in this game. Run on first thats ok just to many times it was run run pass. Rodgers was throwing all over them no need to put yourself in 3rd and long being stubborn. Also where is the damn play action? We go through all the hard work going run run and then we never even bait them in!!! Oh well we won so its all good!
     
  14. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +445
    I know, I get it Kitten. But it's the way he calls the game. I get frustrated at times but I kinda get the method to his madness. In the case you mention it wasn't a given they'd convert on the pass. The defense was certainly looking for it and were keyed to defend the pass. We'd be talking about what a genious MM was if it had converted. Finally Kitten, it puts that play on tape and in the record of how the Packers respond to a given situation. With teams using tape and stats to the degree they do, it might have to be considered a "fake" to opponents down the road.
    It's a long season and I'm not certain what I think is correct. But until I see evidence to suggest I"m all wet I'm giving MM a pass considering his long-term play calling. You know, they did have the game managed from the get=go.
     
  15. Mr. StyleZ

    Mr. StyleZ Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Ratings:
    +376
    MM being a pussy playcaller again. What's new?
     
  16. GreenBayGal

    GreenBayGal Cheese Goddess

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,374
    Ratings:
    +1,123
    In a lot of the running situations, if the Chi D was left to guessing, they got it right. And by the look on MM's face, he didn't always seem pleased with the results of the play. I agree that Starks may have been dancing a bit but that's probably because he had nowhere to go. Blame it on the O-line, the play call, or their D...it wasn't working.
    I wouldn't say I'm "dissapointed" in MM, just not sure I understand some of his logic. But then again, he's the head coach of a world championship team and alas, I am not.
     
  17. greenandgold

    greenandgold I'm Dirty Hairy Callahan

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,776
    Ratings:
    +473
    You think that opposing teams aren't already trying to game plan for Finley? There's only so many things you can do without totally weakening yourself somewhere else. I'm sure the Bears thought they had a good plan for Finley. It's just that Finley really is that good. As to being predictable, at the end MM was running when I would have passed, and passing when I would have run. But he is the one wearing that ring on his finger, I sure the heck am not. Plus we still won.
     
  18. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,112
    Ratings:
    +1,442
    I'm feeling much better about it now, thanks! That's just the armchair/ sofa coach in me trying to call plays for MM. You made some good points with the tape, I didn't think about it like that, I just kind of reacted to the situation without fully comprehending it. I'll put MM back on mypurr list. :)
     
  19. GeeDogWarrior

    GeeDogWarrior 0 - 0

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Messages:
    386
    Ratings:
    +139
    Our Offense is on some Eienstien type science compared to a couple teams' offenses in the nfl (vikings/falcons/jets).
    Our Offense could be more perfect and a little better, but it's football. Not everything is going to work out perfect, it's just gotta get the job done and that's converting a ton of 3rd downs and getting points without penalties/or turnovers. blah.

    Just be thankful that 80% of our plays aren't Greg Jennings going forward, stop, turn around, stand there.
     
  20. billysofly

    billysofly Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Messages:
    73
    Ratings:
    +1
    hopefully mid season our pass D would be great
     
  21. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Why would you run the ball on 3rd and 15? (1)Because you want to run the clock, (2)because you don't want to expose your franchise QB to an all out pass rush and (3)because you are hoping to catch the D in that all out blitz.

    IMO fans should be very careful when criticizing play calling because we as fans can't know all that goes into it. Intricate details are at play each play as the play callers on each side of the ball try to outmaneuver each other. Similar plays can be run out of multiple formations and tendencies and countering one's tendencies are often at play. I've heard some fans call play callers predictable because they can guess run vs. pass a lot, as if all runs and passes were the same. Also unlike Cutler, Rodgers can audible at the LOS from run to pass or vis versa. If a defense is overplaying pass, the Packers have to be able to run the ball successfully. Who here can say how often Rodgers switched from pass to run at the LOS?

    jsonline details the play by play for all Packers games. I counted 18 running plays on first down. Here are the results of those first down runs: +13; +3; +2; +9; +9; +5; -1; +13; -1; +14; +11; +10; +0; +0; -5 & fumble; +4; +0; +0. That's 18 running plays on first down. (The last one occurred with 2:15 left in the game.) Those complaining about running the ball to be consistent have to complain about the 7 first down rushes for 9 or more yards, right? If you count runs for 4 or more yards as positive plays, one-half of the plays qualify. And the average for these runs? About 4.7 yards per rush. That's a successful game running the ball on first down IMO.

    IMO the Packers have to run the ball enough so defenses have to respect their ability to do so. And I'll guarantee the Packers OL agree with that. I'm happy McCarthy had his RBs run the ball 28 times for an average of 3.46 yards as opposed to his counterpart's RB running 9 times for an average of 0.2 yards per attempt. The only play call in that game I criticized I did so before the play: Before Masthay's last punt I said, "Punt it out of bounds!" Still can't figure why they didn't have him do that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +445
    What would you say your results should be when guessing? 50/50? I think you're about right on that. What kind of look were you seeing on MM's face? Do you mean he wasn't smiling when they didn't get a first down? I must not be watching the game earnestly enough, I don't remember alot of cues from his face. In fact, I don't pay much attention to the coaches face during the broadcast, I might be missing something.
    But lets keep in mind that passes in obvious passing downs are risky plays, alot of things can go wrong, the pass can be tipped and intercepted, the QB can get creamed on an all out blitz and the pass can fall incomplete which nets you absolutely 0 yards.
    Last, doing unorthodox things in the game may not even help in that game, but it will make other teams who are looking at tape of your previous games wonder. I'd rather see MM keep drilling it down their throats like you, but I can see where he might want to play it this way.
    And yes, it's not all on James Starks. Anybody who has read my posts for awhile here can tell you that I'm really, really high on Starks' future and have been long before the playoffs last year. You're absolutely right, he didn't have alot of room, but when he did he was indecisive, I know you saw it like I did. I think it was just one of those things, Grant had the holes this game. I'm not worried one bit about Starks' long term look.
     

Share This Page