Not a knee jerk reaction

[JBlood]

Rogers is off, which means MM's offense won't work. We're not a power running team, as much as MM thinks we are. Our "big play defense" (Capers' specialty) only applies to those it gives up. Not much different from the last few years editions. This team will win against good teams only if Rogers gets out of his slump. But maybe MM discovered Cook as an offensive weapon (did they throw to him in the first half?), which will help.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But maybe MM discovered Cook as an offensive weapon (did they throw to him in the first half?), which will help.

Rodgers targeted Cook only once in the first half of yesterday's game.

 

[sschind]

Its worse than that, but not easily identified. There are clues in the game though.

How many mismanagement of the playclock situations have happened in the last 20 games?

Last week we did the almost unspeakable of calling a timeout after a timeout for christ sake. Adding insult, Im pretty sure when we did it, we no longer had any time outs.

We are making mental mistakes, we are overthinking our plays, and we are taking 1+1=2 type plays and trying to "fake, double fake, put in players that will make the D think 'they will never run the play they are lined up for' then reverse double jedi mind trick" plays. Or as most people call them "head scratcher".

I feel this whole team has been a head scratcher for a year.

Seeing MM with that "WTF, this isnt what I called" look on his face just ****** me off even more. Maybe if we got lower pad levels, all this nonsense would work.

People have come to expect the Packers to be this incredibly complex team and I think they are trying way to hard to live up to those expectations.

This team has no Identity. Every team is starting to play us the same and they are having success. Press our receivers and bottle aaron in. We have no structure its like a miracle for the O to get a first down now every pass is contested every run now is darn near with a TE in the back field instead of a FB. We are putting randall cobb at RB like why?? I think MM is so confused hes making this game of football way harder then it needs to be.

I agree. Again, lets try to fake em out rather than just beating them by playing football.

Disagree, MM will be gone before AR is. AR is a part of the problem, but he isnt the main part. AR may get moved one day, but it isnt time in the foreseeable future.

IMO plays fail more often than not because of execution. Sometimes its a great play by the defense that disrupts the execution but its the players who have to make the plays.

I will agree I've never liked using wide receivers as RBs. Also, I'm starting to worry more about what we were hearing last year about what the media was calling a growing rift between Rodgers and McCarthy. They both downplayed it, but it's looking like there could be some real legitimacy to it. But I'm just really thinking right now that buck is stopping with Aaron. More so because I really don't buy this stuff anymore about receivers not getting open because I saw plenty of plays out there that they were. Rodgers has just been making some terrible reads and holding onto the ball too long lately, a problem he seemed to have developed after that Denver game last year. He needs to snap out of this or this offense is going to be painful to watch all year.

But I thought Cobb and Montgomery out of the backfield was to be our secret weapon. No one was supposed to be able to stop it. In fact some advocated only needing 2 RBs because we could plug either of those two guys in and not miss a beat. They are WRs for a reason.

Why not? We clearly are not capable of winning a Super Bowl with him. He has looked average for a while and our current backups could play just as well as him with the current team. By trading him we could open up tons of cap space and draft a few players in the high rounds to improve other areas of need. I think McCarthy is also a big part of the problem and have been calling for him to be fired for the past 4 seasons.

There is no way any team could ever win a SB with Aaron Rodgers ... Oh wait ... never mind.

Because while I blame him for the plays inside the live action, I cant blame him for the route tree being taught, the players in the game, and the poor iso plays being called. He is certainly a large part of whats not clicking. I just do not thing its bc of skill decline or decision making. He is playing safe for sure,but thats inside of the bad plays being called to him in the huddle (IMO)

Like I said before. Execution, or lack of it, is what causes most plays to fail. Not the play itself. I'm guessing there may not be more than 2-3 plays a game that you could say "that was a bad play call" and that may be stretching it.

I agree with a lot of the fair criticism in this thread. The Packers seem to be living off the reputation they had back in the 2010-2014 era. We haven't been good on offense in a while now.

I'm just tired of seeing Rodgers try to build something out of nothing on almost EVERY play. How does he have a solid 1.5 seconds inside that pocket and not find the open guy???

Maybe he needs to check his EGO at the door and get back to what drove him to be the top QB in this league.

because its what is expected of us. We can't play smash mouth football because people don't expect us to and we can't disappoint the masses.

Simple. Because finding a QB even close him is damn near impossible. Find a new OC before you find a new QB. Just look around the league and see how long it takes teams to find a half way decent QB.

You guys seemed to do OK. At least for one game. Maybe we had something to do with that though. We seem to have a habit of making new QBs look like superstars.

 

[PackerFanLV]

Rogers is off, which means MM's offense won't work. We're not a power running team, as much as MM thinks we are. Our "big play defense" (Capers' specialty) only applies to those it gives up. Not much different from the last few years editions. This team will win against good teams only if Rogers gets out of his slump. But maybe MM discovered Cook as an offensive weapon (did they throw to him in the first half?), which will help.

Well MM really is confused because if he think we are a power running team you stick with the run and you don't put receivers and TEs in the back field.

 

[PackerDNA]

Holy **** people, it's the second game of the season! Please don't go out and cut your wrists!

Heard that a lot last season. So if this team is still staggering around in week 14, everything's still okay?

 

[PackerDNA]

they weren't as good as we made them look last night,





What's the over / under on how many times they have to beat us for it to possibly be that they're better and we're not all we were cracked up to be again?

 

[Pkrjones]

But I thought Cobb and Montgomery out of the backfield was to be our secret weapon. No one was supposed to be able to stop it. In fact some advocated only needing 2 RBs because we could plug either of those two guys in and not miss a beat. They are WRs for a reason.

When Cobb lined-up in the backfield & Abby & Monty were in the huddle I told the family "holy crap, there are 5 WR's in there"... and they proceeded to hand it off to Cobb . That formation puts a linebacker on one of our WR's (more than likely)... why run it?? MM being too "cute" instead of capitalizing on a mismatch.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When Cobb lined-up in the backfield & Abby & Monty were in the huddle I told the family "holy crap, there are 5 WR's in there"... and they proceeded to hand it off to Cobb . That formation puts a linebacker on one of our WR's (more than likely)... why run it?? MM being too "cute" instead of capitalizing on a mismatch.

I agree the Packers should pass the ball when lining up with five receivers on the field. I didn't realize that happening yesterday though.

FYI Montgomery didn't play a single snap on offense against the Vikings.

 

[Half Empty]

Holy **** people, it's the second game of the season! Please don't go out and cut your wrists!

Right, plenty of time for that in the playoffs.

 

[swhitset]

The fans that have been discussing trading Brady have been analyzing the situation from a business-minded standpoint. In other words, taking a proactive approach to improving a team while receiving a high ROI. The system New England has established allows for a serviceable quarterback to step in and manage a game that allows for more victories than losses so long as the quarterback is "average". The NFL is a business and every business needs to focus on long-term goals in order to become & remain successful; those whom primarily focus on short-term gains are destined to fail. Improving efficiency by cutting unnecessary assets is the name of the game especially if the cuts result in more improvements in additional areas down the line. (draft picks to shore up other areas of need so long as the initial cut does not result in drastic long-term inefficiency).

Right now, every team has a chance of winning the Super Bowl including the Browns. With that said, there are only a handful of teams who have a realistic chance of winning based upon their current roster and assuming their respective roster remains healthy throughout the season. History has shown that the Packers are not favorites to win the Super Bowl with their current culture...they honestly got lucky with Super Bowl 45. Do you want this team to continue down that trend of maybe getting lucky with Rodgers, or do you want to take a chance and have this team become perennial Super Bowl contenders without Rodgers?

The name of the game is process improvement. The one area that has remained constant throughout the Rodgers & McCarthy era is quarterback. A 10% success rate is abysmal. Something needs to change and it starts with the quarterback and head coach. Every sane business owner would agree with that so long as they are taking an analytical approach to the situation.

The problem I see with your entire premise is that you have defined a problem... and then you have decided that your opinion of the cause is fact. From there, you draw a conclusion as to the solution.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

The main problem is that the offense and the offensive play-calling is stale. MM is still relying on receivers beating one-on-one coverage. There's no motion or bunch formations to get players open. The play-calling never evolved and the Packers don't have the horses to beat teams one-on-one.

Cue to fifteen posters replying with the offense's statistics from 2014...

 

[Mondio]

Plenty of people winning their 1 on 1. And they either aren't looked at, they make a play and it's called back for penalty, or Rodgers has abandoned the play already. GB doesn't have bare cupboards in terms of offensive talent.

 

[PackAttack12]

This thread is going to look pretty silly around midseason.

Trade Rodgers? Please. The guy was running for his life most of last season. Dealt with a fat Eddie Lacy, receivers that couldn't get open, an offensive line like spaghetti noodles, two different play callers, and still got us to overtime with a chance to get to the NFC championship game without his three best receivers. Also a game in which he didn't get to touch the football in overtime. That would be two straight seasons by the way.

That being said, his "fall off" was 31 TD's to 8 INT's. I honestly believe those who advocate trading Rodgers just enjoy stirring up controversy and getting attention. Skip Bayless wannabes.

Not absolving Rodgers completely, but some of the comments in this thread really make me scratch my head. Yeah let's trade Rodgers. For who, Jay Cutler?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This thread is going to look pretty silly around midseason.

Trade Rodgers? Please. The guy was running for his life most of last season. Dealt with a fat Eddie Lacy, receivers that couldn't get open, an offensive line like spaghetti noodles, two different play callers, and still got us to overtime with a chance to get to the NFC championship game without his three best receivers. Also a game in which he didn't get to touch the football in overtime. That would be two straight seasons by the way.

That being said, his "fall off" was 31 TD's to 8 INT's. I honestly believe those who advocate trading Rodgers just enjoy stirring up controversy and getting attention. Skip Bayless wannabes.

Not absolving Rodgers completely, but some of the comments in this thread really make me scratch my head. Yeah let's trade Rodgers. For who, Jay Cutler?

There's absolutely no reason to even think about trading Rodgers. There's reason for concern about him struggling at the start of this season though. Especially as the entire receiving corps is seemingly fully healthy.

 

[OldSchool101]

IMO all this talk about trading Aaron and that he's "washed up" is an overreaction. We had consecutive years recently where we started the season super rocky at 1-2 and out of that arose a MVP QB and Championship game that we shoul have clearly put away. That loss in OT was not Aaron Rodgers fault. How have so any of us fans forgotten
R-E-L-A-X? Listen, I'm as disappointed as anyone at losing in MN but lets get real. Very few of us expected a blowout win by GB, I would say most reasonably said we'd win within 1 score or less. We had a bad day it happens and we played a good Defense in their brand new house and lost by 3 against a QB who was clearly hot in Sam Bradford. I have no doubt during the next couple of weeks we will begin to see a team that gels so be careful about throwing the Captain overboard just yet

 

[thisisnate]

Still stumped as to how I got 3 disagrees for saying it was crazy talk to suggest trading Rodgers. How can there even be 3 people in existence that think that's a good idea?

He had a very poor game. It happens. I'd have quit watching football long ago if I let one loss put me on tilt so hard.

 

[sschind]

IMO all this talk about trading Aaron and that he's "washed up" is an overreaction. We had consecutive years recently where we started the season super rocky at 1-2 and out of that arose a MVP QB and Championship game that we shoul have clearly put away. That loss in OT was not Aaron Rodgers fault. How have so any of us fans forgotten
R-E-L-A-X? Listen, I'm as disappointed as anyone at losing in MN but lets get real. Very few of us expected a blowout win by GB, I would say most reasonably said we'd win within 1 score or less. We had a bad day it happens and we played a good Defense in their brand new house and lost by 3 against a QB who was clearly hot in Sam Bradford. I have no doubt during the next couple of weeks we will begin to see a team that gels so be careful about throwing the Captain overboard just yet

I'm not sure what they have against you Captain but despite our occasional differences I'd vote to keep you around.

 

[sschind]

Still stumped as to how I got 3 disagrees for saying it was crazy talk to suggest trading Rodgers. How can there even be 3 people in existence that think that's a good idea?

He had a very poor game. It happens. I'd have quit watching football long ago if I let one loss put me on tilt so hard.

Here is the prevailing though for the "trade Rodgers" talk. He is losing it so we don't need him because we have two guys who are better so some team will give up the farm to get him so all those players we draft will become all pros's at positions of need and we will be invincible.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Heard that a lot last season. So if this team is still staggering around in week 14, everything's still okay?

How are you not with the Packers organization?

 

[AmishMafia]

Still stumped as to how I got 3 disagrees for saying it was crazy talk to suggest trading Rodgers. How can there even be 3 people in existence that think that's a good idea?

He had a very poor game. It happens. I'd have quit watching football long ago if I let one loss put me on tilt so hard.

There were people demanding MM be fired after his first preseason game as a HC for the Packers. There are posters here who never fail to post a slight on TT and would love to see him fired.

In short, there are plenty of posters who have a very skewed interpretation of the Packers. Their understanding extends to 'Did the Packers win? No? then there is something wrong and changes must be made.' I'm not surprised they have turned on AR, it only takes one to get the idea and others to pile on. If you have a room full of Downs' children - there will be a lot of hugging going on. (PS I have a cousin who is Downs - don't think me hating)

 

[adambr2]

FYI Montgomery didn't play a single snap on offense against the Vikings.

3rd round pick, finally healthy, and can't even get a snap in on a struggling offense, does not bode particularly well for his status as a WR prospect.

 

[adambr2]

Still stumped as to how I got 3 disagrees for saying it was crazy talk to suggest trading Rodgers. How can there even be 3 people in existence that think that's a good idea?

He had a very poor game. It happens. I'd have quit watching football long ago if I let one loss put me on tilt so hard.

The problem is since about Week 7 last year, his poor games have been more of the rule rather than the exeption.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

3rd round pick, finally healthy, and can't even get a snap in on a struggling offense, does not bode particularly well for his status as a WR prospect.

That's one possibility. The other being McCarthy being too stubborn to use different receiver combinations for whatever reason although the starters are struggling. There was no reason to keep seven receivers on the roster as long as the coaching staff is only using the same three on more than 80% of the snaps.

 

[easyk83]

That's one possibility. The other being McCarthy being too stubborn to use different receiver combinations for whatever reason although the starters are struggling. There was no reason to keep seven receivers on the roster as long as the coaching staff is only using the same three on more than 80% of the snaps.

They did start using some route combinations in the middle of last year but Rodgers didn't take to the adjustment at all.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They did start using some route combinations in the middle of last year but Rodgers didn't take to the adjustment at all.

The previous post you replied to was about using different receivers on more than a handful of snaps.