Official Packers vs Vikings studs and duds Part 2

[PFanCan]

Rodgers: lots of poor throws. It's not the OL, they have sucked much of his career. The WRs are getting open but arent seen or passes are off. Hope he gets it back.

Agreed.

I put more blame on Rodgers than on the receivers this past game and in several recent games.

On one semi-deep throw to Jones along the sideline, the receiver was wide open for 15 yards down the sideline. Rodgers had time in the pocket, but did not throw his way until the corner had caught up and, then, the ball was underthrown and incomplete. Had Rodgers either thrown earlier or led Jones deeper, it would likely have been caught and (in the "thrown deeper" case) possibly scored.

On several other throws, they were also underthrown or not thrown on target. On one case, I saw that the corner had slipped and the receiver (Adams, IIRC) was wide open. Rodgers threw his way, but was way off target. Another example was with the toss into the end zone on the last long drive, he threw the ball 5 yards beyond the back line. Jones had zero chance, rather than give his receiver a chance to make a play.

He also perhaps has lost a step in speed while running out of the pocket. I have seen him get caught or tripped up far more than he used to. The younger rushing defensemen seem to be quicker relative to Rodgers these days. Might be just a fact of getting older.

But, with regards to throwing accuracy, Rodgers seems to not able to hit his target in stride as often as we had grown accustomed to. He is apparently human. Whether it's an age thing, him being more skittish, or just having a bad year (or the Olivia Munn thing), I don't know.

Hopefully, whatever mojo he had during his MVP seasons can be found once again.

 

[4Ever4Favre]

We were in the game only because of Minnesota's inept offense, which was outgained by more than 100 yds by a team with no offense for 3 quarters. A good QB would have had several more TDs on throws to open receivers that Bridgewater missed, and we would have witnessed another route. Our best defense is a weak opposing QB.

Minnesota will be beaten by a solid Seahawks team (I will be rooting for the Yikes as I can't stand The Cheerleader; and the Yikes never win when I want them to) and we have little chance against a hot QB in Washington. Then the "fixin" begins.... and it won't involve getting rid of our QB--the only offensive weapon we currently have. It appears we need new players or new coaches. Probably some of both on both sides of the ball.

They were in the game only because of our inept offense.

I also think we have just a bit more than "little chance" to win in WASH. The line is currently even. I think we win this one but traveling back to AZ is concerning.

 

[PFanCan]

And one more thing:

Why is it our Packers ALWAYS seem to be caught surprised by stupid special team crud? I mean, all Backman needed to do was "contain". It's a punt. Contain. Pop Warner league stuff. But, he did not contain. It lead to 3 points and set the tone for the game unfortunately.

Just once, I would like the Packers to squash another team's trick play attempt. Once. Is that asking too much?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Found the article and I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Farrar. Here's a quote from it,

"Yes, the line was a disaster; yes, the receivers are maddeningly inconsistent; and yes, Rodgers needs to play more consistently. But it’s very clear that Green Bay’s primary issue on offense is a series of route concepts that would have been out of date 40 years ago: a series of straight vertical routes with very few combination concepts to create easy openings and almost nothing up the middle to give Rodgers easy reads."

The guy admits everyone on the offense didn't execute and then blames the scheme instead. Maybe the routes are contributing, I'm not qualified to tell, but in no way were they the biggest issue vs Arizona.

He basically says Arizona's offense is better, therefore they have a better scheme. He completely ignores that their offensive line blocks well and the WRs beat one on one match ups consistently without fancy routes.

The Arizona game was a perfect example of Packers players getting beat all over the field, while Arizona won their matchups.

There isn't a coach in the NFL that has a playbook that makes up for the poor execution vs. Arizona.

Doug Farrar needs to spend some time with some NFL coaches if he thinks a coach can just scheme his way to success despite the execution on the field.

You read the article and completely ignored the guys main point. He pointed out that their were other factors to blame in the game but the point was that the Packers coaches are doing nothing to help the receivers get open, something that might help the line block since Rodgers would be able to get the ball out more quickly.

 

[Un4GivN]

Agreed.

I put more blame on Rodgers than on the receivers this past game and in several recent games.

On one semi-deep throw to Jones along the sideline, the receiver was wide open for 15 yards down the sideline. Rodgers had time in the pocket, but did not throw his way until the corner had caught up and, then, the ball was underthrown and incomplete. Had Rodgers either thrown earlier or led Jones deeper, it would likely have been caught and (in the "thrown deeper" case) possibly scored.

On several other throws, they were also underthrown or not thrown on target. On one case, I saw that the corner had slipped and the receiver (Adams, IIRC) was wide open. Rodgers threw his way, but was way off target. Another example was with the toss into the end zone on the last long drive, he threw the ball 5 yards beyond the back line. Jones had zero chance, rather than give his receiver a chance to make a play.

He also perhaps has lost a step in speed while running out of the pocket. I have seen him get caught or tripped up far more than he used to. The younger rushing defensemen seem to be quicker relative to Rodgers these days. Might be just a fact of getting older.

But, with regards to throwing accuracy, Rodgers seems to not able to hit his target in stride as often as we had grown accustomed to. He is apparently human. Whether it's an age thing, him being more skittish, or just having a bad year (or the Olivia Munn thing), I don't know.

Hopefully, whatever mojo he had during his MVP seasons can be found once again.

He was extremely off last night for his standards... Just thought I'd make that distinction since him last night was still better than bridgewater.

But I am not sure if it is the offensive line, or Aaron is too frustrated to play well or even turmoil with the coaching staff. But without nitpicking too badly he missed at least 3 third down wide open passes and instead threw it into traffic and typically not on the mark. Causing the drive to end. That interception, I have nothing for... Bad decision, bad aim? Not sure but it was clear which way JJ and the ball should have gone. Rodgers got that wrong. Kuhn was open that play as well.

Jordy was a big play guy for sure but there is no guarantee he will have that extra step still as well.

I think if I had a vote, I'd put half on the MM... And half on A-Rod, still not liking his attitude for the most part lately. The one press conference was nice last week. But his attitude during the game keeps taking a dive. I saw him swearing in warm-ups. Damn the game didn't even start yet. First pass that goes array or sack he takes he is just filled with frustration. Understandable so, but still not very helpful.

MM isn't inspiring this offense to play with fire. They come out so dull every week. It's sad. I don't know who is pumping them up on defense but maybe they need that person in the offensive huddle too.

I should add... I don't have a better solution at HC, so I am not sure I think firing is the cure all. But something definitely needs to change.

 

[Raptorman]

They were in the game only because of our inept offense.

I also think we have just a bit more than "little chance" to win in WASH. The line is currently even. I think we win this one but traveling back to AZ is concerning.

Ever occur to you that the inept offense is partly because of a good defense?

 

[Un4GivN]

Ever occur to you that the inept offense is partly because of a good defense?

Not really have you watched us play Chicago, Detriot, even the Raiders horrible secondary did well against us. If it wasn't for Carr's early mistakes that may have gone a different way.

Not that a Vikings aren't a decent defense, but you have to admit LG at Tackle, bad throws, bad penalties.. Once again the Packers beat themselves on offense.

If you told me before the game Teddy wouldn't pass for 100 yards... And AP wouldn't run 70. I'd take it.

And it will be much easier to see how good Minnesota's defense is next week against Seattle than against our offense.

 

[Mondio]

Ever occur to you that the inept offense is partly because of a good defense?

it did, and then I remember how our offense has looked against all other defenses from week 4 on and a lot of them weren't that good. Our offense isn't better with a guard playing tackle and a guy that has never started starting for the 1st time. Everything else looked as inept last night as it has against some of the worst defenses in the league.

So while I congratulate you on winning the division, it's not as if you beat a very good team last night. The offense is pathetic, has been pathetic, and is not showing signs of improvement.

 

[Carl]

You read the article and completely ignored the guys main point. He pointed out that their were other factors to blame in the game but the point was that the Packers coaches are doing nothing to help the receivers get open, something that might help the line block since Rodgers would be able to get the ball out more quickly.

His main point is that the problem is more scheme than players, which was not the case at all vs. Arizona. Players got whipped across the offense and Farrar thinks a coach can scheme to make that work.

He compares the routes to Arizona who runs more underneath routes along with vertical routes. Like I said before, maybe the routes contribute, but it's certainly not the main issue. Running more routes like Arizona certainly wouldn't fix the offense if executed the same way.

I really don't understand how a writer can call the line a disaster, the QB and receivers inconsistent and still think routes were the bigger issue.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

His main point is that the problem is more scheme than players, which was not the case at all vs. Arizona. Players got whipped across the offense and Farrar thinks a coach can scheme to make that work.

He compares the routes to Arizona who runs more underneath routes along with vertical routes. Like I said before, maybe the routes contribute, but it's certainly not the main issue. Running more routes like Arizona certainly wouldn't fix the offense if executed the same way.

I really don't understand how a writer can call the line a disaster, the QB and receivers inconsistent and still think routes were the bigger issue.

Because the routes have been a problem all year and because THAT'S something that coaching can change...coaching can't make oline players healthy.

 

[Carl]

Because the routes have been a problem all year and because THAT'S something that coaching can change...coaching can't make oline players healthy.

Like I said, maybe the routes are an issue, but not the biggest issue with the offense by any means like Farrar thinks.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Like I said, maybe the routes are an issue, but not the biggest issue with the offense by any means like Farrar thinks.

Maybe I'm not explaining this well enough. My issue is that McCarthy can't make guys healthier. What he CAN do is coach. Yet he's not doing anything to HELP the receivers. You appear to think that since there are other problems, it's ok to just ignore the lack of coaching on offense. I would look at it and instead say, "hey, the various other problems on offense are exposing a lack of coaching that might have always been there but was covered up by superlative play by great players on offense".

 

[PackerDNA]

I'm giving Sitton a stud for playing waaay out of position with a bad back and scrapping like hell.

 

[longtimefan]

Ever occur to you that the inept offense is partly because of a good defense?

Partial--yah, the strip fumble was the result of good def..

The miss to JJ in the end zone to tie, was not the result of good def, but Rodgers tendency to suck the last 11 games or so..

 

[scotscheese]

not sure if being as drunk as i was made the game seem better or worse than it was. it still sucked the hairy chaps

 

[TJV]

"Yes, the line was a disaster; yes, the receivers are maddeningly inconsistent; and yes, Rodgers needs to play more consistently. But it’s very clear that Green Bay’s primary issue on offense is a series of route concepts that would have been out of date 40 years ago: a series of straight vertical routes with very few combination concepts to create easy openings and almost nothing up the middle to give Rodgers easy reads."

I didn't read the article but if this quote is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it isn't) this is a huge exaggeration IMO. I too have criticized McCarthy and his staff for not responding to the problem of receivers not being able to get open this season but this has not been a chronic problem during McCarthy’s tenure in Green Bay; just the opposite is true. If you don’t believe that how do you explain the Packers’ offense finish 1st, 8th, 5th, 1st, and 10th in scoring offense over the previous five seasons? How do you explain the Packers finishing 8th, 6th, 9th, 3rd, and 5th in passing yards per game over that period? Rodgers’ improvising helped over those seasons but it certainly was not the main reason for those stats. During those seasons we saw receivers getting open on a regular basis.

One more thing, how remarkable must this author think the Packers 2011 offense was? According to him McCarthy, using “is a series of route concepts that would have been out of date 40 years ago”, saw his offense finish first in the league in scoring offense averaging 35 ppg and third in the league at about 308 passing yards/game.

 

[Carl]

I didn't read the article but if this quote is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it isn't) this is a huge exaggeration IMO. I too have criticized McCarthy and his staff for not responding to the problem of receivers not being able to get open this season but this has not been a chronic problem during McCarthy’s tenure in Green Bay; just the opposite is true. If you don’t believe that how do you explain the Packers’ offense finish 1st, 8th, 5th, 1st, and 10th in scoring offense over the previous five seasons? How do you explain the Packers finishing 8th, 6th, 9th, 3rd, and 5th in passing yards per game over that period? Rodgers’ improvising helped over those seasons but it certainly was not the main reason for those stats. During those seasons we saw receivers getting open on a regular basis.

One more thing, how remarkable must this author think the Packers 2011 offense was? According to him McCarthy, using “is a series of route concepts that would have been out of date 40 years ago”, saw his offense finish first in the league in scoring offense averaging 35 ppg and third in the league at about 308 passing yards/game.

The quote is an exact copy and paste from the article.

Of course it's a huge exaggeration. They were also first in offense last season using those same outdated routes.

 

[Packerlifer]

By winning last Sunday the Queens get to play Seattle in minus-3 degree weather today, plus wind chill. If they had lost they would have been back in Green Bay in at least plus-12.

And the Packers will be in Washington playing in 58 degree temperature instead.

 

[Packerlifer]

http://www.seahawks.com/video/2016/01/10/vikings-announcer-paul-allen-calls-blair-walshs-missed-field-goal


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/10/vikings-lose-lead-after-peterson-loses-ball/

 

[Packerlifer]

Listen in on them but be quiet and don't let them know we're here.

http://forums.purplepride.org/showthread.php?1113071-Vikes-tear-our-hearts-apart-again